Speaking of terrorism, Matt has a pretty interesting post about the 1908 assassination of D.W. Stephens, a pro-Japanese American adviser to the Korean government, in San Francisco by two Korean nationalists.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
55 Comments
Matt’s article is very interesting indeed.
This focus upon killing by early “freedom fighters” is one reason I feel that Ahn Chang Ho has been neglected at the expense of these “fighters” who killed, leaving no real legacy behind. Ahn sought to build for Korea’s future and was more enlightened and prescient in his thought and actions than the guys that merely tossed bombs.
“Dosan” should be on a 100,000 Won bill instead of Kim Gu — most definitely.
In one of the links in Matt’s article, there was the picture HERE, showing two heads hanging from a tripod. Next to the picture was the following caption:
I do not know if it was the Japanese or Koreans who executed Chon, but publicly hanging severed heads on a tripod was a Korean tradition. Koreans also cut off the head of Kim Ok-kyun and also publicly displayed his head on a tripod. In other words, the severed heads look like Korean work, not Japanese.
Also, removing foreigners from Korea was only one of the demands of the Tonghak leaders. They also wanted an end to slavery and social hierarchy, which, strangely enough, the Japanese gave them, not Koreans.
“I do not know if it was the Japanese or Koreans who executed Chon, but publicly hanging severed heads on a tripod was a Korean tradition.”
This was a Korean tradition at the time. Japan was not exempt from this sort of action, though. The following excerpt comes from “Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power,” by Alexis Dudden.
“…[Gustave] Boissonade issued his most critical mandate to the Japanese government: if the Meiji regime did not immediately abolish the practice of torturing prisoners in Japan, the ‘Western Powers’ would not begin to abolish their prividges of extraterritoriality in Japan. Young legal scholars embraced Boissonade’s formula, determining that Japan needed to eradicate its practice of torture-on-display to be considered a fully ‘independent’ nation. Boissonade could not have been more axiomatic in his explanation. On 15 April 1875, he wrote a blunt letter to Minister of Justice Oki Takato: ‘Mortifying scenes occur every day [in the prison] without any attempt to conceal them. This takes place next to a school of law, opposite the offices of the Ministry of Justice–as if these acts were not contrary to law and justice itself…’”
Japan hired Boissonade, a French legal scholar, to help reshape Japan’s image to western nations. Japan wanted the west to accept Japan as an independent nation–there were only three types of nations, independent, semi-independent, and colony. It, therefore, had to change its society–which included doing away with torture and displaying the bodies of criminals–so that the west would accept Japan as an equal. Japan also took steps to ensure that the west would not accept Korea as an independent nation so that its colonialization would flow smoothly and without interference.
Not surprisingly, when Japan rewrote its laws, it left loopholes so that Korea and other colonies were not covered by the same legal protections. This allowed Japan to continue its practice of public torture after it seized control of the Peninsula.
Hakseang,
I just finished reading about Jeon Bong-jun, and, as I suspected, it was the Koreans, not the Japanese, who cut off his head and put it on a tripod.
As for the public torture you referred to, there may have been public torture in Japan in 1875, but when the Japanese gained influence in Korea, they outlawed or put restrictions on, at least, some of Korea’s torture methods. For example, I remember reading the Japanese put a limit on the size of the paddle that Korean authorities could use to publically spank a criminal. Maybe those “loopholes” that Mr. Dudden talked about were not loopholes, but were Japan’s attempt to respect, at least, some of Korea’s traditional punishment methods.
Can you give me any examples of the public torture methods that the Japanese used in Korea?
gbevers wrote:
“I do not know if it was the Japanese or Koreans who executed Chon, but publicly hanging severed heads on a tripod was a Korean tradition. Koreans also cut off the head of Kim Ok-kyun and also publicly displayed his head on a tripod. In other words, the severed heads look like Korean work, not Japanese.”
Uh….your evidence that Chon was executed by Koreans rather than the Japanese is that his head was cut off and publicly displayed? That’s your evidence to come up with your preposterous conclusion??? Japanese never cut people’s heads?? Get real, bevers. On the other hand, I have long come to expect that you will view Korea’s history in any way that makes Koreans look the worst and the Japanese the best.
“I just finished reading about Jeon Bong-jun, and, as I suspected, it was the Koreans, not the Japanese, who cut off his head and put it on a tripod.”
Hm….sources I’ve found on the web say it was the Japanese who committed this crime. What book did you use?
Here you go, gbevers:
http://www.koreanamericanherit.....-8/006.htm
Robert,
I think this guy “Matt” is being pretty irresponsible with what he wrote about the Korean freedom fighters. Furthermore, he a made a stupid comparison between one Korean freedom fighter, Yun Bong-gil, and the recent Virginia Tech killer. So what next….I should say that General William T. Sherman was a terrorist in the Civil War or that Woodrow Wilson was a terrorist (as he supported the KKK and its violent acts against African-Americans) and compare him to Timothy McVeigh, a modern-day terrorist??? This guy, Matt, sounds pretty stupid.
JK,
“Preposterous conclusion,” JK? Have you ever bothered to pick up a Korean history book?
Look at comment #2 above. Your Internet source was the problem source that I first pointed out.
The book I used for my source was “연표와 사진으로 보는 한국사.” Here is what it said on page 220:
It says that the Japanese transferred 전봉준 to the Joseon government, who tried and hanged him. By the way, Jeon was a murderer and a rebel who was executed after being tried and found guilty. That is not called a crime; it is called justice.
The Korean American Heritage Foundation Web site is distorting the facts, which, for some strange reason, does not surprise me.
JK. I wouldn’t base my points on whatever is written next to a picture at that site.
Just look at how they interpreted the following picture.
http://www.koreanamericanherit.....-8/007.htm
…how can they be so sure the two Japanese aren’t laughing because one of them farted?
gbevers, I’ll look for the book. Hopefully the author has more credibility than America’s Bruce Cumings (the guy who once claimed that the US and South Korea started the Korean War by invading North Korea).
And a rebel against Chosun’s repressive policies against farmers…and the Japanese expansion. Hm….and you call his death justice. Interesting.
‘I think this guy “Matt” is being pretty irresponsible with what he wrote about the Korean freedom fighters. Furthermore, he a made a stupid comparison between one Korean freedom fighter, Yun Bong-gil, and the recent Virginia Tech killer.’ jk
i have a high degree of respect for this ‘matt’. the guy does his homework. his rebuttal to occentalism’s piece justifying the japanese occupation is simply a classic for the korea blogsphere. however, his comparing korean freedom fighters to the vt killer was just ridiculous. and racist too.
I took Gerry’s comments on beheading to read that all East Asian nations decapitated criminals. It was part of their system of “justice”. Whatever the righteousness of Chong’s cause, he was a rebel in the eyes of the Choseon dynasty. As for internet sources: garbage in, garbage out, and any hyphenated-American site is suspect. You can find Irish-American sites decrying the British, Puertorrican-American sites decrying U.S. colonialism, et cetera ad nauseum. It’s like trying to find a fair appraisal of the Clinton administration (which had some solid accomplishments) on a Republican-American website.
Gerry, beheading the heads of rebels is not just a Korean tradition.
You’re nuts, man.
I took Gerry’s writing to read that beheading necks was a uniquely Korean tradition.
You have a lot of han.
A lot.
In general, China, and Korea I can vouch for, that rebels had their heads cut off and shown in the most visible areas to scare other people from rebeling.
Gerry, you imply the Japanese don’t know how to torture and they adopted Korean torture methods, which are harsher in your mind.
Fuck.
Mindfuck.
It’s not even worth talking about.
Well, I guess it is.
I think the Japanese brought the idea of confining a person in a box for days and days.
I think the Japanese introduced electrical shock as a measure of torture to Korea.
I think the Japanese introduced rape with a woman tied to a western chair to Korea.
The last three, I basically pulled out of my ass, but fuck, to say that the Japanese don’t know how to torture and somehow got it from Koreans ?!!
I think for sure that rabbit jumping and going rounds and rounds around the track is a Japanese thing.
You know, squatting, holding your ears and jumping up and down and going 400 meters, 800 meters,…try it. I’ve only been forced to do this in Korea. In school. Never in America.
by the way, the Chinese are fuckers, too.
Look at all the death sentences and suicides taking place in China over tainted food and products.
This has been going on at least 8 years prior for Korea.
No Chinese deaths or suicides then.
Now that the victim is America, they take their lives, the govt cuts necks, etc.
It’s a clear insult.
Fuck them.
shakuhachi matt of occidentalism is the modern day DW Stephens.
Both are despicable.
Gary,
I’ll quote from the same book, since it has the answer and I don’t currently have time to dig up another source.
[section on Japan reforming the Korean justice system in the years before annexation] “Notably, however, Kuratomi’s [criminal-code reformer Kuratomi Yuzaburo] report also stressed that several differences would have to be maintained between codes that applied to Japanese and those that applied to Koreans. In particular, Kuratomi explained that the law would sustain the practice of flogging Korean prisoners, a decision that had very obvious benefits for the colonizers. Kuratomi assured readers that there was nothing alarming in this discrepancy and announced that the general structural apparatus of teh new Korean judicial system meshed seamlessly with Japan’s. At the time, of course, it was not at all unusual for colonizing regimes to make useful exemptions in their colonies–such as sutaining the practice of torture–to empower their dominance. Historian Yoshimi Yoshiaki calls these exemptions ‘giant loopholes.’ Yoshimi has himself most famously examined the ‘giant loopholes’ that allowed Japan to exempt their colonial populations from the international laws prohibiting the trafficking of women and children. Like flogging, enslaving Koreans as so-called comfort women, for example, was legally provided for in international terms according to Japan’s standard civilized procedure.” [graph showing Korean judiciary in 1908, pointing out that 2/3 of the judges and 70% of the prosecutors were Japanese.]
“…Although Japanese censorship laws severely restricted information, Edward Baker has demonstrated that torturing Korean prisoners in Japanese-run jails not only remained a practice throughout the colonial period, but became, as he archly phrased it, a ‘policy objective.’
“According to Baker, ‘Flogging was an extremely cruel form of punishment. Victims suffered as many as 90 strokes on the buttocks with a bamboo rod while tied in a prone position…In a number of cases, dealth resulted. The total number of people flogged between 1913 and 1920 has been estimated to be as high as 600,000.”
The section goes on explaining that Japanese jailers typically had Koreans administer the floggings to maintain the claim that flogging was a Korean tradition.
Haksaeng wrote:
First, Koreans did not use “bamboo rods” to flog criminals. Second, “Janghyeong,” which was the punishment that would have allowed 90 strokes, was abolished in 1905. And even the lighter form of flogging was abolished by 1920.
If flogging “had very obvious benefits for the colonizers,” why did the colonizers abolish it?
Haksaeng wrote:
Haksaeng,
For some reason, the last part of my comment above was cut off.
I just wanted to add that flogging was a well established Korean tradtion, so the comment that “Japanese jailers typically had Koreans administer the floggings to maintain the claim that flogging was a Korean tradition,” is a silly, subjective, unsubstantiated accusation on the part of your author.
From what you have quoted me from the book, I think the author has a very obvious hidden agenda.
What was the old legal penalty for making every single sentence in a lengthy diatribe into a paragraph?
#1 Gbevers wrote:
” do not know if it was the Japanese or Koreans who executed Chon, but publicly hanging severed heads on a tripod was a Korean tradition. Koreans also cut off the head of Kim Ok-kyun and also publicly displayed his head on a tripod. In other words, the severed heads look like Korean work, not Japanese.”
First of all, since the Japanese were running things, aren’t any public executions automatically Japanese ‘work’, whether or not a Korean quisling wielded the sword or set up the head display after? They were the authorities and they had power to carry out or halt executions. That makes them responsible.
Secondly, and this is not related to the above quote but to other comments, anyone who thinks beheadings and displays of such did not happen in Imperial Japan is just wrong. I mean, one of the invariable charges against prison camp guards and wardens in post-war Tokyo war crimes trials was the public beheading of American, British, and Aussie prisoners. And wasn’t there a post on this blog a few months back regarding the Nanjing Massacre which linked to historical photo archives of piles of Chinese heads?
Who cares if it is on a tripod or in piles or buried? The brutality is the same.
‘Who cares if it is on a tripod or in piles or buried? The brutality is the same.’ hugh
well, gerry cares. and he doesn’t see the brutality as the same. we all know why.
Re: Gbevers comments in #4
“Maybe those “loopholes” that Mr. Dudden talked about were not loopholes, but were Japan’s attempt to respect, at least, some of Korea’s traditional punishment methods.”
Surely however you interpret the colonial period, there can be no question that respecting and or preserving Korean traditional culture was ever a goal of the Japanese. Eradication, yes, respecting . . .hm, not so very much.
GBevers: “First, Koreans did not use “bamboo rods” to flog criminals. Second, “Janghyeong,” which was the punishment that would have allowed 90 strokes, was abolished in 1905. And even the lighter form of flogging was abolished by 1920.”
What I quoted from Dudden’s book does not conflict with what you state here, except the type of wood used. I am not in a position to say what type of wood the Japanese used, though. Baker’s research would seem to indicate that the Japanese used bamboo, despite what was used previously by the Koreans. Also, the numbers of those whipped were bounded to 1920 because it was abolished in 1920. Floggings were abolished in 1920 largely due to the 1 March movement and international criticism of Japanese rule over the way Japan suppressed the uprising. Even Tokyo attempted to distance itself from the governor generals.
Flogging was a well-established punishment, no one is disputing that. Dudden just points out that the Japanese were careful not to administer the beatings themselves so that they can maintain the illusion that this was a continuation of tradition and publicly appear to distance themselves from it. This ignores, of course, the fact that the Japanese controlled the Korean legal establishment and that it was the Japanese jailers ordering the floggings.
If there is so much evidence of Japanese atrocities during Korea’s colonial period, why don’t people present that evidence instead of making up stuff? I do not care if people talk about Japanese atrocities as long as they do not lie about them or distort the facts.
All I am doing is pointing out the lies, distortions, and exaggerations that certain people are using in their attempt to demonize the Japanese. Why would anyone be against learning the truth, unless they are afraid of such lies being exposed? I don’t know all the facts, but if I see something I know to be wrong, I will point it out.
People like JK, WJK, Hugh, Pawikirogi, and Fibbash seem to like to make accusations and snide remarks without providing any evidence to support them. Why can’t these guys be more like Hakseang, who, at least, is supporting his views with quotes from books?
Maybe I am just expecting too much. Afterall, this is just a blog, where people can write any kind of crap they want under the safety of anonymity. Who really cares if there is any truth to it, right?
bevers, you’re outrageous enough to claim that a certain country was way better off colonized. And, you defend the only World War II perpetrator who lost and is unapologetic about it.
I suggest you hang a Japanese flag outside your veranda today, if you didn’t do so already.
Stand up, stand up.
Stand up for your mind.
Let me see if I got this right, gbevers.
You wrote:
“I do not know if it was the Japanese or Koreans who executed Chon, but publicly hanging severed heads on a tripod was a Korean tradition. Koreans also cut off the head of Kim Ok-kyun and also publicly displayed his head on a tripod. In other words, the severed heads look like Korean work, not Japanese.”
So, based on your logic, gbevers, because the head was cut off and displayed on a tripod, you say that based on this “evidence” that this was the work of Koreans…..because Japanese never cut off their heads of their prisoners (a fact which in and of itself is wrong when one studies Japanese history). Yeah….riiiiiight. After all, Hugh pointed out to you, gbevers:
“…and this is not related to the above quote but to other comments, anyone who thinks beheadings and displays of such did not happen in Imperial Japan is just wrong. I mean, one of the invariable charges against prison camp guards and wardens in post-war Tokyo war crimes trials was the public beheading of American, British, and Aussie prisoners. And wasn’t there a post on this blog a few months back regarding the Nanjing Massacre which linked to historical photo archives of piles of Chinese heads?”
So, do you admit you’re wrong about beheadings not being a Japanese practice, gbever? Hmm…I doubt you’ll bend on this one.
Then….
Haksaeng then quoted a Korean history book (written by a Westerner at that, since gbevers likes Korean history books likes books by Westerners like the “credible” Bruce Cumings) to show that the Japanese did indeed either administer harsh punishments to the Koreans….or either forced Koreans to administer it themselves. And didn’t you notice this quote, addressed to you, gbevers:
“Yoshimi has himself most famously examined the ‘giant loopholes’ that allowed Japan to exempt their colonial populations from the international laws prohibiting the trafficking of women and children. Like flogging, enslaving Koreans as so-called comfort women, for example, was legally provided for in international terms according to Japan’s standard civilized procedure.”
When you tried to push the blame and responsibility on Koreans for the beheadings of Korean “criminals”, Hugh also quoted to you:
“First of all, since the Japanese were running things, aren’t any public executions automatically Japanese ‘work’, whether or not a Korean quisling wielded the sword or set up the head display after? They were the authorities and they had power to carry out or halt executions. That makes them responsible.”
Now, let’s be very calm and objective, gbevers. Read over this whole comment I writing carefully now. The quotes from others were very legitimate. However, you wrote back to them and to me:
“All I am doing is pointing out the lies, distortions, and exaggerations that certain people are using in their attempt to demonize the Japanese.”
This coming from a man, you gbevers, who somehow concludes (and no one understands how) that because a prisoner in Korea had his head cut off that this was somehow the work of Koreans and NOT the Japanese since some Koreans cut off their heads of their enemies whereas you claim the Japanese did not cut off enemies’ heads, which in and of itself is wrong as the Japanese did indeed often cut off the heads of their enemies and even prisoners (see Hugh’s quote about Japanese cutting off American heads in WWII).
Now……gbevers answer this if you can:
If the above quotes from Hugh and Haksaeng and others are totally sound and logical as to why your conclusions are wrong….how do you then say that “People like JK, WJK, Hugh, Pawikirogi, and Fibbash seem to like to make accusations and snide remarks without providing any evidence to support them.” Where is YOUR evidence for your ridiculous conclusions? And moreover, how do you make the comment that “All I am doing is pointing out the lies, distortions, and exaggerations that certain people are using in their attempt to demonize the Japanese”???
Do you REALLY want to bring out the truth? or are you merely trying to demonize the Koreans and present the Japanese and the Japanese occupation in the most positive of lights since it is the Koreans (whom you seem to spend your life taking digs at by questioning their history like the fact that they were abused by, and suffered under, the Japanese unjustly)? I’ve known this answer since 1999, but I want to hear this straight from you, gbevers.
BTW, gbevers, what was wrong with Hugh’s comment in #21? You referenced him when you wrote, “People like JK, WJK, Hugh, Pawikirogi, and Fibbash seem to like to make accusations and snide remarks without providing any evidence to support them.”
Please read over what he wrote again, gbevers, before you make any more unfounded accusations.
I’m really not interested in demonizing the Japanese, GB. And I think my posting record here shows me having clearly no hesitation blasting Korean nonsense (fairly, unfairly, drunkenly - done it all!)
I posted my comment because my BS detector went off on reading your opinion that a public execution and then display of heads in the center of Seoul in not-yet-officially-colonized-but-certainly-under-effective-Japanese-military control 1894 Korea might be the ‘work’ of Koreans, not Japanese. Yes, in a literal way, if that’s what you meant, but you certainly can’t mean it in any other way. (And yes, that was the longest adjective ever seen on this Marmot’s hole.)
I haven’t the slightest doubt Koreans did behead condemned prisoners, as did virtually every country at one time or another, or that they had some unique way of displaying the heads, in a tripod as you say. But who cares? I imagine the Japanese beheading a prisoner, and then barking at the Korean staff to display it outside, which they did in the way they had before. It’s still a Japanese execution. I don’t really see what ‘proof’ I am expected to give, it being a little chain of logic I did there.
Japanese beheading proof:
The Wall St. Journal!
http://online.wsj.com/public/a.....50507.html
Money shot: “Prisoners of the Japanese, however, faced grueling treatment across the board. Forced labor, meager rations and poor medical care were the rule, along with occasional beheadings by samurai sword and even incidents of cannibalism.”
Photos!
http://www.ww2pacific.com/atrocity.html
Scroll down a little to see a pic of one of the Doolittle raid allied airmen about to die.
And if you want more….here are the results from yahoo search on a key phrase:
“1 - 10 of about 79,100 for ‘japanese beheading prisoners’ - 0.22 sec.”
79,100 references! That enough ‘facts’ for you?
Take a minute and read that second link I gave above (the Photos! one). Anyone with a “Japan is a waygooks best friend, how we wish Koreans could be like our stalwart allies the Japanese” bent of mind might read that litany of horror and curb their enthusiasm a little. It’s pretty appalling stuff.
And we firebombed their cities. We’re all “bloody ignorant apes”, as Beckett said of the human race, maybe.
Haksaeng,
The conflict was not only the type of wood used, but also the number of strokes used. As I said, the heavy punishment that would allow 90 strokes was abolished in 1905.
I am curious to know how and who estimated that 600,000 people were flogged from 1913 to 1920. Surely there was a footnote to go with that number?
You also said that the floggings were abolished in 1920 largely due to the March 1 movement. Was that also in the book, and if so, was it footnoted? It sounds to me like someone’s opinion. And did the book quote any of the “international criticism” of the way Japan dealt with the March 1 Movement you mentioned?
Again, you said Dudden pointed out “that the Japanese were careful not to administer the beatings themselves so that they can maintain the illusion that this was a continuation of tradition and publicly appear to distance themselves from it.” Did the Japanese admit that or is that simply Ms. Dudden’s opinion? I doubt that was footnoted, either.
JK,
Stop your straw-man arguments, JK. I did not deny Japanese cut off heads; I said they did not cut off the heads in that picture. I do not know much about Japanese history, and I doubt you do either, so stop pretending you do.
Both Koreans and Chinese were big head-choppers, yet it seems that all the grainy, strange-looking pictures of severed heads on the Internet are attributed to Japanese. Don’t you find that strange?
Regardless of the influence Japan may have had in Korea in 1895, the Korean rebel was handed over to the Joseon goverment, who tried him, hanged him, and then hung his head out to dry. It was not as if that was something new for the Koreans since they also hung up Kim Ok-gyun’s head just the year before, and Kim Ok-gyun was a friend of Japan. That was after they had also severed his arms and legs from his body. By the way, drawing and quartering was also practiced in England and was not abolished until 1870. See HERE
As for Hugh, he said that Japan had the power to carry out or halt executions in 1895, which he said makes them responsible, but he did not give any evidence to support his claim? As I have already shown you, even Korean history books say that the Korean rebel was handed over to the Joseon government, who was the authority that tried him, hanged him, and hung out his head to dry. That was the standard way for dealing with traitors at the time, and the Joseon government did not need any prompting from Japan.
Now let me ask you a question, JK. Why does that Korean-American Web site lie about the picture?
gerry, your need for revenge consumes your entire life. you’re even willing to lose your job over it.
argue or debate with you at length? i’m not interested. i feel sorry for you. and that’s the truth.
GBevers: “The conflict was not only the type of wood used, but also the number of strokes used. As I said, the heavy punishment that would allow 90 strokes was abolished in 1905.”
I’m not sure what your point is. The Japanese controled the courts in 1905, and as you state, up to 90 strokes were administered. That does not contradict Dudden. What Dudden offered in addition was a count for the number of people who were flogged between 1913 and 1920. This number is not inclusive of those flogged by the Japanese courts before 1913.
GBevers: “I am curious to know how and who estimated that 600,000 people were flogged from 1913 to 1920. Surely there was a footnote to go with that number? ”
Yes, that number was footnoted and included official Japanese counts. For example, in 1912 and 1913, the Japanese records indicate that 38,397 Koreans were flogged out of the 83,128 Koreans subjected to summary judgment procedings.
I’m not exactly sure where you are going with this line of questioning. Professor Dudden also footnoted other claims she made in the book, which is what you would expect from a professional historian. Feel free to go through her book. I certainly cannot do her research justice in just a few paragraph excerpts from her book. Looking through her footnotes and her bibliography, she drew heavily from primary Japanese sources.
Do you have sources that contradict her findings? This process could be sped up quite a bit if you can present your information that refutes Professor Dudden’s book.
I should probably add, just in case there is some question, Professor Dudden specializes in modern Japanese and Korean history. Her bio says she is fluent in Japanese and proficient in Korean and French. She studied at Rikkyo and Keio Universities in Tokyo, Yonsei University, Columbia University, and University of Chicago.
Gerry, the Japanese were the undisputed champions of head-chopping in Asia.
Head chopping was a privilege given to Samurais if they were offended and they often committed mass decapitations of captured prisoners. At the end of a war, the heads would be counted and taken to the overlord as trophies and proof of the samurai’s kill.
Gerry, you can read Korean. Check out Hanmaumy’s article about the race to cut down a hundred.
During the Nanjng Massacre, two Japanese lieutenants had a contest to see who could cut down a hundred Chinese. They were portrayed in the Japanese media as samurai warriors when in fact they were conducting mass executions (beheadings).
http://dokdo.naezip.net/nanking/nanking09.htm
Here is an English page about the “Race to Cut Down 100″ It’s pretty shocking that the Japanese media portrayed this as a sport.
http://rene.malenfant.googlepa.....irikyousou
Japanese Imperialism during this era created a resurgence of this “code of Bushido” beheadings were a part of this tradition.
I have Alexis Dudden’s book as well, she cites the statistics regarding flogging from page 32 of a book called “The Role of Legal Reforms in the Japanese Annexation” written by Edward J Baker.
Haksaeng,
No, I did not state that up to 90 strokes were administered in 1905. You said that. I said that 90 strokes were not longer being given in 1905, and that does, indeed, contradict what Dudden said. And I think you know exactly what my point it. She was wrong about the strokes and she was wrong about the wood.
If there were official Japanese records saying that 600,000 were flogged between 1913 and 1920, then why was it described as an “estimate”? And if Japanese records show that 38,397 were flogged in 1912 and 1913, then why wasn’t 1912 included in the range? Did she try to extrapolate based on the 1912 and 1913 figure? If she did, then the numbers would not add up to 600,000 for 1913 to 1920, unless the 2-year figure you gave as an example, just happened to be the lowest figure in the range, which I kind of doubt.
According to THIS PAPER, from 1913 to 1915, an average of 7,462 people were sentenced by the court to flogging in Korea, and another 23,258, on average, were flogged under summary judgments. That adds up to an average of 30,720 a year from 1912 to 1915. If that average was maintained for 8-year period from the 1913 to 1920 period, then the numbers would only add up to 245,760, which is less than half the number given by Dudden. Did Dudden give any numbers for floggings after 1915?
Yes, I am sure she footnoted other claims in her book, but did she footnote the claims that I asked you about? I am assuming she did not since you avoided answering the questions.
If you really want the process speeded up, you will have to stop being evasive.
I do not have her book and can only refute what I know. As I have already said, she was wrong about the wood, and she was wrong about the number of strokes, and I suspect that her 600,000 figure was also contrived.
By the way, the Japanese abolished flogging in Japan in 1882 and in Korea and Taiwan in 1921, but flogging continued to be used in England and the United States until 1948 and 1952, respectively. However, prison flogging continued in England until 1967. And caning, which was introduced by the British, is still used in Singapore.
Frogmouth,
What are the statistics on flogging that Ms. Dudden cites in her book? Does she give a year by year count or do we have to read Mr. Baker’s book to figure out how he came up with his “estimate”? As for your beheading contest, there is an article on that HERE.
“My Beheading Contest..?.”
The Race to Cut Down a Hundred is a historical fact published in Japanese newspapers. How shabby and cowardly it is for some Japanese to deny this when there is documented evidence they boasted about it and printed it in newspapers. What a big surprise a Tokyo court threw the case out !!
Katsuichi Honda’s book on Nanjing is arguably one of the most respected publications on the Nanjing Massacre. He gives some chilling accounts of Japanese beheadings in China.
Gerry, what’s your point with the numbers crunching anyway? The stats given by Dudden were quoted above. She cites author Baker for her stats. Also she says “According to official figures (Japanese printed)…”
Haksaeng is not being “evasive” at all. It sounds like you are being stubborn and holding an published, knowledgable author to a higher standard than the poorly scrawled page you dredged up. You should cite credible publications.
Frogmouth,
What are the stats, Frogmouth? Could you finish the quote?
I am just curious to know where that 600,000 figure came from because the numbers don’t add up, and neither you nor Haksaeng have given me an explanation of why they don’t.
As for the page I linked to, it was originally a PDF file, but I provided the html link for people who might not like pdf files. Anyway, here is the link to pdf version if you prefer it.
PDF file link
“According to THIS PAPER, from 1913 to 1915, an average of 7,462 people were sentenced by the court to flogging in Korea…”
So quotes are made out of a book by Dudden citing sources. You find a source (an online “paper” at that) that is more in alignment with your own beliefs, and you look at the facts in such a twisted way that you question the credibility of Dudden by saying it doesn’t match some figures of the online “paper” you are quoting. She used official Japanese government sources herself….but yet you question her work. Why? Because it means everything you always believed in is wrong, gbevers. Yes, bevers, over the years, you’ve been wrong.
And you will slam anyone who questions your own preconceived conclusions about the Japanese colonization of Korea. You always did since 1999….and you will continue to do so.
I’ll address more of your silly comments on this thread eventually, gbevers.
gbevers said:
“I did not deny Japanese cut off heads; I said they did not cut off the heads in that picture. ”
And you know this….how? Now this I have to hear. Let’s await gbevers’ response, ladies and gentlemen.
Funny quote by gbevers:
“I do not have her [Dudden's] book and can only refute what I know. As I have already said, she was wrong about the wood, and she was wrong about the number of strokes, and I suspect that her 600,000 figure was also contrived.”
So you don’t have her book yet you KNOW it’s wrong? Based on a very questionable source? that makes you KNOW that Dudden is wrong? Didn’t you used to (going back to 1999) use http://www.kimsoft.com and Bruce Cumings and any other sources of questionable credibility that painted Koreans in the worst light possible? On the other hand, if anyone used those SAME EXACT resources you used to show that the Japanese did bad things to Korea you dismissed it all as nonsense.
Keep blowing your own credibility, gbevers. By showing you are incredibly biased and not wanting to see the truth, you only help those who DO want to see the truth about Korea’s history under Japanese rule come to light.
“It was not as if that was something new for the Koreans since they also hung up Kim Ok-gyun’s head just the year before, and Kim Ok-gyun was a friend of Japan.”
What is your source that “the Koreans” (implying a very broad category) killed Kim Ok-gyun? And what do you mean “friend of Japan”???? Kim Ok-Gyun did what he could to learn how to modernize Korea. He thought a good model to use was nearby Japan….and he wanted Korea to modernize before Japan attempted a colonization. But friend??? Come on.
“That was after they had also severed his arms and legs from his body. By the way, drawing and quartering was also practiced in England and was not abolished until 1870. See HERE”
WHAT DOES drawing and quartering in England have anything to do with this discussion, bevers? Quit with the strawman arguments.
I’m at a loss for words, JK, so I think I will just wait for Frogmouth to finish the quote he started but chose not to finish.
Frogmouth, you were saying…?
Gerry, you should be at a loss for words because you are simply wrong again.
Here’s the page. If you doubt the stats and citation do your own homework.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/flogging.jpg
I don’t agree with JK’s style of writing but I believe in the gist of what he’s saying about you Gerry. Please tell us, what hidden agenda would Alexis Dudden have in her research? She seems credible to me, and I can see citations from other publications such as Peter Duus’ ‘Abacus and the Sword’ that would be considered anything BUT pro-Korean.
BTW the publication and stats Dudden states were from Edward Bakers “The Role of Legal Reforms in the Japanese Annexation and Rule of Korea” In Harvard Law School University Press.
This is so typical of the Japanese right-winger style of “debate” They glean over hundred year old documents or articles and then slyly try to worm out of the basid truths after finding numbers don’t add up spot on.
Shabby.
Frogmouth,
Thank you. It is just as I suspected. The quote you neglected to finish was as follows:
Notice that she only gave official numbers for that 2-year period (1912 and 1913), and the 600,000 figure was only a high estimate, calculated by some annonymous person using a suspect calculation method since the numbers do not add up.
Notice also that she did not quote Baker when giving the official numbers for 1912 and 1913, which suggests that Baker did not give any official numbers in his book. Also, Baker got the wood wrong, and he got the number of strokes wrong. Notice also that nothing was mentioned about flogging being abolished in Korea in 1921. Why not?
If you ask me, Dudden’s book is piss-poor history, done by someone who was either too lazy to check the facts or who had a hidden agenda. Thank you for posting that page, Frogmouth. Now I know that the book is not worth buying.
I’m sorry, Frogmouth. It seems she did quote Baker for the official figures for 1912 and 1913. Anyway, that suggests that Baker did not supply or have figures for the other years or that, if he did, the figures were not high enough to make an impression on Dudden.
Interesting discussion guys…though I’m surprised this is GB. I remember reading some posts of yours a while ago, and your writing style was a lot different, more relaxed. Also remembered you not getting into the politics between the two countries as you apparently weren’t too familiar with Japanese culture/history… picked up some new hobbies did we?
GBevers,
I remember when you were more balanced in your views and a lot less bitter. I guess I can’t really blame you, though, given what happened to you. Still, either you are refusing to read what has been posted, or you are not understanding what you are reading.
GBevers: “If you ask me, Dudden’s book is piss-poor history, done by someone who was either too lazy to check the facts or who had a hidden agenda.”
You haven’t even read the book. You have no clue as to what’s in it or how balanced it is. Your making the above statement really shows that you are only interested in hearing things that support your position and are not interested in anything that might change your firmly planted biases. You certainly haven’t presented anything here that challenges what she’s written.
GBevers: “Notice also that she did not quote Baker when giving the official numbers for 1912 and 1913, which suggests that Baker did not give any official numbers in his book.”
How do you know what Baker used to reach his numbers? Have you bothered to read Baker’s book? Your argument here is seriously flawed because if Dudden had concerns about Baker’s numbers, she wouldn’t have included them in the first place. If you have a problem with Baker’s numbers, then you should read his book and see how he reached his numbers. Then, you can present your primary source information (not the secondary sources that you have posted to date) and your methodology that shows that Baker’s numbers are flawed. You can’t argue a secondary source with another secondary source or with opinion.
The only thing your source said was that an average of 23,258 Koreans were flogged annually during a three-year period. What makes those three years special? Are they representative of the years before and after? Why didn’t your source use a larger sample in order to draw conclusions on averages? Isn’t it correct that the number of people flogged increased significantly during the crackdown on the 1 March Movement? Don’t you think that that may have boosted those numbers significantly, or are you trying to argue that the Japanese did not increase the numbers of people punished as a result of the Movement? Dig up the primary sources and do your own figuring to prove your point.
“Also, Baker got the wood wrong, and he got the number of strokes wrong.”
Did he? What wood did the Japanese use? You haven’t presented anything yet to challenge the use of bamboo by the Japanese. It doesn’t matter what the Koreans traditionally used, we aren’t talking about the Koreans here.
As far as the number of strokes, unless you are trying to say that 90 strokes was too light, then you are wrong here, too. What Dudden wrote was, “According to Baker, ‘Flogging was an extremely cruel form of punishment. Victims suffered as many as 90 strokes on the buttocks with a bamboo rod while tied in a prone position…In a number of cases, death resulted.” Taken point by point, are you challenging the statement that flogging was cruel; that the Japanese did not order as many as 90 strokes; or that death occasionally resulted? You are challenging the 90 strokes, but you yourself admitted that the Japanese ordered as many as 90 strokes up until 1905. If you go back and read the passage, you will see that the claim is not that the Japanese administered up to 90 strokes during the period 1913 to 1920, the statement just states that the Japanese administered up to 90 strokes. This statement also covers the fewer strokes that may have been administered after 1905.
Earlier, you stated, “You also said that the floggings were abolished in 1920 largely due to the March 1 movement. Was that also in the book, and if so, was it footnoted? It sounds to me like someone’s opinion.”
Yes, it is in the book, and if you had read your own source, you would have seen it there, too. According to the source that you provided, “In 1921, flogging was officially abolished in both Korea and Taiwan as part of the shift to ‘cultural rule’ (bunka seiji). This was a great achievement of the Korean people, who continued to resist Japanese colonial rule, culminating in the wake of the March 1st Movement.” So far, it is only your opinion that is ill informed on this point.
From what I’ve seen so far, you have not challenged any claim made in Professor Dudden’s book. You’ve certainly flung about your opinion and accusations, some of which were even refuted by your own sources.
Hakseang,
I do have a clue. Dudden talked about flogging in Korea, but failed to mention the fact that it was abolished in 1921. Do you call that balanced?
No, I do not know how Baker came up with his 600,000 figure, but it was described as follows:
Notice that it was described as being a high estimate, which suggests that Baker did not have the official numbers for all the years. Where did Baker get such a high estimate? Who did he reference?
Haksaeng wrote:
Where did you read that? I think you are just assuming, and that is probably what Baker did, too.
Haksaeng wrote:
How do you know that? She could have just been a lazy historian or had a hidden agenda. Afterall, she did not even bother to mention the fact that flogging was abolished in 1921.
Haksaeng wrote:
The Koreans did not use bamboo rods, so if the Japanese wanted to continue the Korean tradition, why would they switch wood? Nevertheless, I have seen something that might suggest that bamboo was used, but I will not know for sure until I receive a translation of the Japanese. I am wondering if bamboo might have been used in Taiwan, but not Korea?
Haksaeng wrote:
No, I am not saying that 90 strokes was too light. I am saying that 90 strokes was not administered after 1905. No, I did not say tht the Japanese ordered as many as 90 stokes until 1905 because Koreans were in charge until 1905. According to Korean law, a maximum of only fifty stokes of the switch could be administered, so I do not know where Baker came up with the 90 strokes. Maybe, he is talking about over a certain period of time? Or maybe he was talking about the abolished form of punishment called Janghyeong, which allowed as many as 100 stokes with a “paddle”?
Haksaeng wrote:
No, Dudden’s book does not mention that the flogging was abolished in 1921, and it is only opinion that Korean resistence brought about the abolistment of the flogging law. Afterall, the law was abolished in both Korea and Taiwan. And you conveniently left off the last part of the quote, which was as follows:
Why did Dudden fail to mention the fact that flogging was abolished in Korea in 1921? Was that just an oversight or was it done deliberately because she just afraid that it might distract from the image of Japan that she was trying to evoke?
Here is a LINK to more information on this issue.
Hunh hunh. You said “flogging”. Hunh hunh hunh.
Iceberg,
Actually, “switching” would be a better word, and my mom used to administer a similar punishment when we were kids. She preferred elm, which was quite effective.
I just find it funny that you guys are arguing about what kind of wood was used for flogging. And how many strokes.
Iceberg,
You have obviously never been switched.
GBevers,
In response to my point about the crackdown after the 1 March Movement, you wrote, “Where did you read that? I think you are just assuming, and that is probably what Baker did, too.”
Are you now claiming that there was no crackdown or are you arguing that the Japanese used forms of punishment other than flogging on those arrested and that there was no increase in floggings over and above the baseline number?
When I pointed out that Dudden would not have used Baker’s numbers in the first place if she thought they were suspect, you wrote, “How do you know that? She could have just been a lazy historian or had a hidden agenda. Afterall, she did not even bother to mention the fact that flogging was abolished in 1921.”
If you read the book, you would quickly realize she is not a lazy historian. You really seem to like running on about 1921. Her book is not about torture, it is about the methods Japan used to seize control of Korea. There is no need for her to go into a long diatribe over the history of Japanese tortures. She used the flogging example to show how Japan used different legal standards in the two locales, that Japan changed its legal procedings to eliminate foreign extraterritoriality so that it would become an “independent” nation, and that it did not extend those new rights to Korea. Bottom line, read the book before you condemn it.
Regarding the wood used, you wrote, “The Koreans did not use bamboo rods, so if the Japanese wanted to continue the Korean tradition, why would they switch wood? Nevertheless, I have seen something that might suggest that bamboo was used, but I will not know for sure until I receive a translation of the Japanese. I am wondering if bamboo might have been used in Taiwan, but not Korea?”
Your starting assumption is flawed, that Japan was continuing Korean tradition. Japan was not trying to continue Korean tradition, it was trying to seize and maintain power in Korea. Japan certainly wasn’t trying to export Korean tradition to Taiwan by flogging them. Nor did Japan think it was following Korean tradition when flogging was a part of its legal system. The Japanese used what it wanted, not what the Koreans wanted.
Regarding your comments on the number of strokes and the change in 1905 due to Korea’s loss of the courts in 1905, I just point out that Korea started losing its courts to Japan in 1876 with the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Sin and Yun. Granted, it was not a nationwide loss, but Article 5 of the treaty established Inch’on and Mokp’o as treaty ports. The treaty stated that Japanese law would prevail at these two treaty ports and at an area in Pusan.
When I pointed out that the source you presented also said that the end of flogging was tied to reforms enacted as a result of the 1 March movement, you completed the quote from your source. I didn’t think it was necessary to include the section that pointed out that Taiwan benefited from the Japanese reforms that came out of the 1 March Movement.
Well said, Haksaeng! And points that no one with any sense can refute (we hope).
2 Trackbacks
[...] however, Japan won the Russo-Japanese War, so out went the Western advisers (unless your name was Stephens) and in came the Japanese. As chief financial adviser to the Emperor, Brown was replaced by Baron [...]
[...] however, Japan won the Russo-Japanese War, so out went the Western advisers (unless your name was Stephens) and in came the Japanese. As chief financial adviser to the Emperor, Brown was replaced by Baron [...]