The Hanguk Ilbo is reporting that the "Hate the Korean Wave" is spreading throughout Japanese cyberspace, with alternative media like comic books and the Internet nudging aside the mainstream press as the main purveyors of anti-Korean sentiment in Japan.
Among the recurring themes found in anti-Korean circles:
- Korea is a nation with illusions of grandeur, proclaiming that the Japanese royal family is of Korean abstraction and that the martial art of kendo is originally from Korea;
- Korea occupied the "Japanese" island of Takeshima (i.e., Dokdo) by force, and that Korea is a "shoddy nation" that stole Japan’s chance to host the 2002 World Cup alone through money;
- Korea is an ungrateful nation that refuses to acknowledge the gifts bestowed upon it by the Japanese, who modernized Korea after annexing it in 1910;
- Korea is a nation that manufactures history, demanding compensation for "comfort women" who never existed and exaggerated losses resulting from forced mobilizations during the Pacific War;
- Despite outwardly expressing hatred for Japan, Koreans rip off Japanese culture.
What’s particularly noteworthy, said the Hanguk Ilbo, was that these netizens were directing their anger at Japanese politicians and mainstream media, whom they accuse of taking a consistently soft line on Korea out of excessive concern for friendly Korea-Japan ties.
Korea experts are expressing concern about this trend, although some believe the growth of anti-Korean sentiment on the Internet is natural. The latter note that in Japan, where public criticism is generally avoided, it would be natural for anti-Koreans to sound off on the Internet, where they can do so anonymously.
The problem is that the anti-Korean Wave aims to bring about policy changes in Tokyo, and is repeating itself over and over again in a systemic fashion. The online activities are led by so-called "Internet rightists," who are enjoying growing support, and this was linked to the increasingly rightward political orientation of Japan’s younger generation.
With anti-Japanese sentiment becoming increasingly clear in Korean cyberspace, there is growing concern about tensions between the two nations’ young people and the future of bilateral ties.
Tokyo Institute of Technology media department professor Lee Gwang-ho warned that because online Korean anti-Japanese sentiment was also fairly extreme, what was needed was not hot-headedness, but rather an attitude of understanding where both sides coolly watched and analyzed one another.
Sphere: Related Content
30 Comments
I’m encouraged by the level-headed tone that the Hanguk Ilbo is taking on this matter. A cyber-war is no more appropriate than Roh Moohyun’s pronouncement of a “diplomatic war.”
Wow, people using the internet to unleash all of those extremist thoughts that were better left buried in their dark, dark souls?
Hooda thunk it?
WC 2002 was definitely the wake-up call to many young Japanese. I, for one, saw the false claiming of the East Sea in the European Soccer chat, and became aware of what Koreans view Japan and Japanese. I think Kenkanryu is the defense mechanism against Koreas ultra-nationalistic/ethno-centric movements. There is no doubt that Koreans agitated the growth of rightist (conservatism) movement in Japan.
Just as Kimchi war, Korea has a tendency to chalk its own neck
“Korea has a tendency to chalk its own neck…” You mean choke it’s own chicken? What a joke — Japan’s “defense mechanism against Koreas ultra-nationalistic/ethno-centric movements” — the bigots on both sides go around in circles like dogs smelling each other’s asses. You are made for each other.
You are made for each other>>> It’s true. We cannot separated two neighboring countries. That’s why facts need to be straight, don’t you think?
I think you all need sedatives. What does “chalk its own neck” mean anyway?
Sedatives…are for Koreans, I suppose. I don’t see any angers or hatred in Japanese part. “Hating the Korean Wave” is a very mistranslation for Ken-kan-ryu. It should be more like “Style of Disliking Korea”, and it certainly sounds softer than Han-kan (anti-Korea) or hating -Korea. It is true that the book is targeted to those who have no knowledge other than Korean dramas, but the origin of the word “Ken-kan” has nothing to do with Korean Wave itself.
I believe that Koreans should calm down and logically defend their words and actions before they denounce the book as rightist movement. The facts need to be set straight.
chalk=choke. you know…it’s a typical ESL thing.
You obviously see what you want to see, bishamon (interesting that you named yourself after the Japanese god of war). I don’t give a shit about the Japanese books, I’m not Korean, not even Asian, and on both sides, Japanese and Korean, there are plenty of “ultra-nationalistic/ethno-centric movements” and all that indicates to me is insecurity about one’s identity (I’m not directing this comment at you). People consumed with petty arguments over who is “superior” or blameless or whatever remind me of playground fights in junior high school. Of all the posts the Marmot makes, the Korea/Japan ones bring out the most predictable and tedious comments.
word
I think you’re forgetting the America/ Canada ones as well.
Korea’s Bill Clinton,
That idiot Roh Moohyun is partly to blame for all this. Most of the troubles these days in Korea seems to stem from those insidious left-wing trouble makers. They have no idea the amount of backlash their silly little country is going to face in the near future with all these childish crap nationalistic nonsense.
It’s odd that much of this nonsense seems to be coming from the left. These people don’t understand what freedom means, nor, how all these non-sense is going to impact their puny little country in the near future: Learn to curve you enthusiasm.
If you must know, I’m Korean-American, and, even I’m getting sick of all these nonsense.
It’s sickening when a country that I use to be proud of is turning this petty.
Not that I want to start a fight or anything, but given the fact that Korea is (rightly or wrongly) always saying less than charatable things about Japan, WHAT DID YOU F&^&*^ING EXPECT TO HAPPEN.
If another country were to rake up your country’s past crimes every day, wouldn’t you subscribe to this kind of mentality after a while?
Whatever Japan’s past crimes against Korea (I gave up counting a long time ago, there are just so many of them), you can’t keep expressing negative sentiment like that without some kind of backlash.
South Korea is responsible for 99 percent of the friction between her and Japan. Over the past three or four years, South Korea seems to have been intentionally trying to provoke some kind of conflict with Japan, possibly as part of some grand scheme to transfer South Korean hostility for North Korea to Japan. Whatever the reason, South Korea is playing with fire and destroying years and years of goodwill built up between the two countries while also showing the rest of the world just how immature Korean diplomacy really is.
South Korea is acting more and more like North Korea everyday. Some may think it ridiculous, but I think South Korea may be lighting the fuse for the next war in Northeast Asia.
I LOVED Japan in the past, but my love for Japan has turned to my hate for Japan and it becomes stronger each day, as the Japanese government becomes more and more right wing and imperialistic.
Bam Bam,
I don’t believe a bit you are Korean, do you Blame Roh for Japanese claiming Dokto also?
Gerry Bevers,
“South Korea is responsible for 99 percent of the friction between her and Japan. Over the past three or four years, South Korea seems to have been intentionally trying to provoke some kind of conflict with Japan”
Yes the Japanese PM’s shrine visits were all Korean’s faults.
You know what? I don’t give a f*ck what they are doing on the other side… The yakusuni shrine visit (they must have some kind of orgasm when they go there, some kind of fetiche, you kno), the controversial books and mangas, etc. Let them continue to do these things and destroy themselves because we don’t give a sh*t about it.
Dear Mr./Mrs/Ms. Say-no-to-Koizumi,
Japan has been claiming Dokdo/Takeshima since 1905, and has stonger legitiment claim to the islets than Korea. Why is Roh suddenly making an issue of it?
As for Koizumi’s visits to the shrine, that is his business, not Roh’s or Korea’s. Besides, Koizumi has explained his visits several times. He goes there to honor all of Japan’s war dead and pray for no more war, not to honor war criminals.
Japan does not take issue with Korea’s honoring Ahn Jung-gun, a convicted terrorist who assasinated one of Japan’s greatest statemen, so why should Koreans complain about a shrine that enshires a few war criminals, who Koreans supported during the war, among millions of Japanese war dead.
Gerry Bevers
gbevers@hotmail.com
Katz,
Who is “we”? You cannot be taking about Koreans since many do give a sh*t, judging from the way they are always complain about it.
Gerry,
You can call Ahn an assassin, but not a terrorist. He killed a government official. He did not deliberately murder civilians in order to create widespread fear. I really hate the misuse of the words “terrorism” and “terrorist.”
Sonagi,
What is your definition of a “terrorist”?
According to my dictionary, a terrorist is “one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism,” and “terrorism” is defined as follows:
“The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”
Ahn Jung-kun’s act of terrorism was assassination, so wasn’t he both an assassin and a terrorist?
G Bevers wrote:
Japan has been claiming Dokdo/Takeshima since 1905, and has stonger legitiment claim to the islets than Korea. Why is Roh suddenly making an issue of it?
Are you suggesting that no Korean head-of-state made an issue of Tokto/Takeshima before Roh Moohyun? It comes up as an issue whenever it bubbles to the surface in Japanese officialdom or among Japanese officials. As I stated before, “Nevertheless — and this is what blogdom needs to realize — Seoul must react somehow. Doing nothing and saying nothing has a tendency to lend legitimacy to such claims. But that something certainly should be measured and in proportion to the threat laid before it.”
And that’s the way it has to be, just as Japan has to make noise about its claims whenever Korea does something like choose to turn all of Ull?ng-gun County into a provincial or national park, or when the Russians decide to build a church in what Japan calls its “Northern Territories.” As I said, Roh’s own foolish rhetoric encouraged this getting out of hand, but he is by no means the first to make an issue out of it.
As for Koizumi’s visits to the shrine, that is his business, not Roh’s or Korea’s.
If a high-ranking Japanese official visits a shrine that has chosen to honor the brutal “Tiger of Korea” and others who waged war in East Asia, it is Korea’s business to raise objections. How much and in what way they do it may be a matter of debate, of course, but they have every reasonable right to raise some objection. Frankly, as an American citizen, I’m a little disappointed that American officialdom is not willing to raise some objection to claims made at Yasukuni’s museum that the U.S.’s war with Japan was America’s fault.
Besides, Koizumi has explained his visits several times. He goes there to honor all of Japan’s war dead and pray for no more war, not to honor war criminals.
This argument is rejected by a large segment of the Japanese population, who also find this explanation inadequate. The Japanese prime minister is pandering to the far-right while pretending he’s not.
Japan does not take issue with Korea’s honoring Ahn Jung-gun, a convicted terrorist who assasinated one of Japan’s greatest statemen,
He was assassinated not because he was a great Japanese statesman but because of his role in putting Korea firmly under Japan’s thumb.
And perhaps the Japanese should point out that, to some degree, the nearly exclusive vituperation of Japan’s great statesman It? (who did a lot for Japan, his role in Korea notwithstanding) and Korea’s Prime Minister Yi Wanyong should be refocused onto Katsura or Terauchi.
so why should Koreans complain about a shrine that enshires a few war criminals, who Koreans supported during the war, among millions of Japanese war dead.
Because “a few war criminals” are responsible for a reign of death and terror perpetrated against millions more? [I don't have time right now to skewer your claim that Korea was Japan's greatest ally.]
The decision to enshrine them there in the late 1970s was a conscious political decision by Japan’s right-wing, a way of stating indirectly that they rejected the “victor’s justice” that said Japan’s imperial leaders were responsible for untold death and destruction. They did not die in war, but by calling them war dead, it is a statement that they were undeserving victims of the justice they received.
That ended the apolitical status of Yasukuni.
Sonagi wrote:
You can call Ahn an assassin, but not a terrorist. He killed a government official. He did not deliberately murder civilians in order to create widespread fear. I really hate the misuse of the words “terrorism” and “terrorist.”
I know a few Korean priests who would feel just fine calling Ahn a terrorist. Ahn, I have read somewhere, was refused last rites due to his actions.
And his actions were foolish to begin with. Based on other incidents prior to that, he should have expected a strong retaliation against Koreans because of this. The argument has been made that militarists used the assassination (some have even suggested conspiracies that the militarists knowingly encouraged or allowed the assassination of this thorn in their side) of the relatively moderate It? as a pretext for full, unimpeded annexation of Korea, something which It? had opposed (though he supposedly accepted it later as inevitable due to militarists’ designs on Korea).
At any rate, the retired Resident-General and former Japanese Prime Minister It? was little more than a symbol. It would be like Iraqis trying to assasinate George H.W. Bush NOW for his role in the 1991 Gulf War. If killing a symbol of Japanese rule was meant to galvanize the Korean people, I wouldn’t call it terrorism (though I would still call it misguided). But if the killing was meant to strike fear in the hearts of the Japanese people, I think ‘terrorism’ might be appropriate.
But ‘terrorism’ is a loaded word when ‘assassination’ is a perfectly suited word for what An Chungg?n did.
Japan has been claiming Dokdo/Takeshima since 1905
They also claimed ownership of Korea around that time as well.
Context.
The elephant in the room is that despite all the racism and xenophobia in many Asian nations, it was Japan that brutally invaded Korea, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, etc.
The Japanese rightists are especially scary because of this. They are not just being racist, etc. They are pressing for a return to the militarism of the Meiji.
By the way, as for the Korean roots of the Japanese imperial family, this has been confirmed by no less than His Majesty Akihito. :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/else.....27,00.html
Those sympathetic to the Japanese rightists should pay attention to the moderate words of Emperor Akihito, who, unlike his father, is a symbol of Japan’s humanity and culture.
Although Japan’s shift towards nationalism and militarism in recent years is disturbing, we must remember that there are still voices of reason and peace within Japan. The current imperial family, in particular, shows a pattern of enlightenment and wisdom, in stark contrast to the nationalistic pandering of Japan’s politicians.
G Travan, what is particularly scary about the right-wing in Japan is not so much that they won’t talk about the elephant in the room, but that they’ve convinced themselves and their followers that the elephant does not exist. The war with China was merely Japan defending its interests and war with Japan was the caused by a calculating United States that goaded Japan into attacking by choking it off.
Japan has long been a peaceful and responsible nation, but the people trying to expand its military and its military’s role in order to make Japan “a normal country,” are not the same as those responsible for its pacifism.
By way of analogy, Tokyo altering the pacifist status and Washington pushing to expand Japan’s military role on the basis of Japan not being a threat to anyone would be like getting rid of the lifeguard at the pool because no one has drowned in years. Maybe no one has drowned because the lifeguard has been there to prevent things from getting that far.
The status quo has worked to keep this once highly volatile region amazingly war-free. What compelling reason is there to change it?
Kushibo,
I hate it when people start a post by saying, “Are you suggesting that…?” Why do they need an excuse to comment? Why don’t they just say what they want to say instead of “suggesting” that a previous post prompted their comment?
Of course, I was not suggesting that “no Korean head-of-state [has] made an issue of Tokto/Takeshima.” I asked why Roh was making an issue of it because I cannot remember any other Korean president, except for maybe Rhee, who has declared “diplomatic war” because of it. I was wondering why Roh has been stoking the anti-Japanese flames in Korea. “Are you suggesting he hasn’t been?”
I wonder how many “unconvicted” war criminals are buried in Arlington National Cemetery? The Japanese were convicted as war criminals because they lost the war. How many Americans were convicted as war criminals in World War II? Surely there were also war crimes on the US side, as well? Should US presidents refuse to visit the United States Air Force Academy Cemetery because the (Tiger of Tokyo,) “Bombs Away Lamay” is buried there?
I look forward your skewering of the fact that Koreans fought on the side of Japan and that 23 Koreans were executed as war criminals, including General Hong Sa-ik, who was hanged as a Class A war criminal.
G Bevers wrote:
I hate it when people start a post by saying, “Are you suggesting that…?” Why do they need an excuse to comment?
Gerry, that was not a rhetorical device but a genuine question: when I asked “Are you suggesting that no Korean head-of-state made an issue of Tokto/Takeshima before Roh Moohyun?” I was in fact asking if you meant that Tokto/Takeshima was never made an issue prior to the Roh Moohyun administration.
Why don’t they just say what they want to say instead of “suggesting” that a previous post prompted their comment?
Your post did in fact prompt my comment.
What is so scary about the Japanese right? Are they threatening South-Korean style “diplomatic war”? Or is it North-Korean style “real war”?
I do not really follow what is going on in Japan. All I really know is what I read in the Korean media, and what I see in the Korean media is petty stuff about “Dokdo,” “shine visits,” and “history books.” Is there something I am missing?
Can someone please tell what the Japanese right is saying, and why it is more scary than what government officials are saying in North and South Korea?
G Bevers wrote:
Of course, I was not suggesting that “no Korean head-of-state [has] made an issue of Tokto/Takeshima.” I asked why Roh was making an issue of it because I cannot remember any other Korean president, except for maybe Rhee, who has declared “diplomatic war” because of it.
You asked, “Why is Roh suddenly making an issue of it?” If you had asked, why is he suddenly making such a serious issue about it, then your intent might have been clearer. The “suddenly” making an issue seemed to suggest that this was not an issue with others before him, which is what I was asking for clarification about.
I was wondering why Roh has been stoking the anti-Japanese flames in Korea. “Are you suggesting he hasn’t been?”
Several of the links I included to my own past posts would demonstrate that Roh has been irresponsible. Last March I use the word “shrill” and I called the Korean government’s reaction “undiplomatica” and said they were “over-reacting to this in an emotional way that, in the long run, may be counter to their interests.” I also complained that Ban Kimoon seems to have suggested that “destroying Korean-Japanese relations is in order.” Since I’m certain you followed that link I laid out right in front of you, there should be no question of where I stand on that.
I wonder how many “unconvicted” war criminals are buried in Arlington National Cemetery? The Japanese were convicted as war criminals because they lost the war.
Not all Japanese were convicted of war crimes. The war crimes tribunals were not indiscriminately convicting Japanese people. The Japanese defeat provided the opportunity to try these people, but their own war-mongering actions were what got them convicted. In fact, not all of them were sentenced to die, which is evidence that the tribunals were not as much about exacting revenge as Japan’s right-wing would have us believe.
How many Americans were convicted as war criminals in World War II?
I’m not sure how many, if any, Americans were convicted of criminal wartime activities, but during the Vietnam War, William Calley was convicted (arguably as a scapegoat) and sentenced to life in prison for ordering the murder of twenty-two civilians, so it’s not as if the US is entirely unwilling to try its own for actions that go beyond what is necessary in war, as these fourteen had done.
Furthermore, a number of the indictments were crimes against peace, which Japan, as the instigator of the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War, had done. Unless one believes what the Japanese right-wing states today, which is that the U.S. forced Japan into war.
Surely there were also war crimes on the US side, as well? Should US presidents refuse to visit the United States Air Force Academy Cemetery because the (Tiger of Tokyo,) “Bombs Away Lamay” is buried there?
Curtis LeMay himself said that had the U.S. lost, he likely would have been convicted of war crimes. But nobody in Germany or Japan was convicted of aerial bombing per se, just or waging war against another country. Again, Japan and Germany did this, the Allies did not.
Now, if there someone like William Calley or what’s-her-name England were to be buried in Arlington, I think it would be reasonable for people to be opposed to that interment.
I look forward your skewering of the fact that Koreans fought on the side of Japan and that 23 Koreans were executed as war criminals, including General Hong Sa-ik, who was hanged as a Class A war criminal.
No need to skewer that. It did happen, and I knew that long before I ever saw the name Gerry Bevers appear in phosophorus. I’ve written that into reports and other works. Ethnic Koreans were about 1% of the total of all imperial Japanese soldiers accused of war crimes.
But the existence of hundreds of such collaborators in a country of 25 million does not make a militarily occupied and tightly controlled Korea “Japan’s greatest ally,” as you have put it.
By the way, is General Hong Sa-ik enshrined at Yasukuni along with the ethnic Koreans who actually did die while in Japanese uniform? Or did they not include him, an executed war criminal like Tojo, in the late 1970s because inclusion would not have made the political point the right-wingers wanted to make?
I do not see a correlation between the two. Yes, some of the things that Roh has said about Japan are not articulated very well. Threats comming out of NK, I think it is clear to all, cause a certain amount of worry and are also somewhat discounted. No one here disputes that. That doesn’t, however, negate the fact that there are many issues with Japan of varying importance that the Koreans take issue with and to claim otherwise is just plain ignorant.
Roh was not the first Korean head of state to bring up the issue of Dokdo.
Not all Japanese were convicted of war crimes.
Not all those convicted of war crimes were sentenced to die.
There are many issues with Japan of varying importance that the Koreans take issue with…