The Korean Ethno-state: Lynchpin of East Asia?
Getting Over It! Why Korea Needs to Stop Bashing Japan
Sonfa Oh
Tachibana Publishing, 2015
(Reviewed by Hama Tadashi)
Yet another interethnic conflict has spilled over into the United States. This time,
the parties are allies of America, Korea and Japan. While Americans had no hand instarting this conflict, or possibly any understanding of the fundamental issues, Americans
have nonetheless sided with Korea. With American support, expressions of Koreannationalism have sprung up across the US. For example, in 2007, Korean activists andtheir allies pressed the House of Representatives to issue a resolution compelling theGovernment of Japan to apologize for the “enslavement” of tens of thousands of Korean
women as “comfort women” during World War II.1 Statues to these “comfort women”
have been placed in public areas throughout America well as in front of the Japanese
Embassy in Seoul by Korean activists. These events are merely the ones that are readily
accessible to the English-language media. Unfortunately, more strident expressions of
Korean nationalism in Korea, by the Korean leadership no less, have escaped theattention of the Western mass media. Thus, the true state of Korea-Japan relations andthe extent of Korean anti-Japan hostility are virtually unknown in the English-speaking
world. Perhaps the Western media, with its singular perspective of East Asian history, iscontent to side with Korea as the “victim” and demonize Japan as the “aggressor”.
In an effort to inform the English speaking world, Tachibana Publishing has
translated Professor Sonfa Oh’s latest book. Professor Oh is a social-politicalcommentator and professor of international relations at Takushoku University in Tokyo.
She has written numerous books concerning Korea-Japan relations and the present bookis her first to be published in English. Her book frankly defines Korean-Japaneserelations and identifies the source of Korean anti-Japan hostility. Given current South
Korean thinking, one wonders how Korea-Japan and Korea-US relations will pan out inthe future. Professor Oh also points out that socio-economic conditions have deteriorated
in Korea, wherein violent crimes have skyrocketed and official corruption has frequently
1

The resolution demanding Japan apologize over the “comfort women” issue, House Resolution 121, wasapproved by the House by a voice vote, under suspension of rules, which is usually reserved for “noncontroversial” measures. During the resolution’s markup in the House International Relations Committee,
Representative Donald Manzullo asked his fellow committee members “What purpose is served by thisbody becoming involved in that dispute [between Korean and Japan over a “comfort women” issue]? Why
are members of the House of Representatives going to be impaneled as a jury to determine whether or not
the ostensible apologies offered by the Japanese are in fact acceptable to the Koreans?...This is not theUnited Nations…” (Chairman Tom Lantos’ reply, in effect, was that the Congress is the United Nations.)
Representative Thomas Tancredo wondered “How many times [do] we expect the government [of Japan]
today to apologize for the sins of an Imperial government of the past.” Representative Ron Paul questioned
the value of the “perpetual need to apologize” and stated that what bothered him was “Where do we, as a
Congress, have the jurisdiction to instruct others? …When we demand others to do our bidding, that we are
overstepping our bounds.”

1

made headline news; combined with anti-Japan rhetoric, this mixture cannot bode wellfor the future of South Korea.
Professor Oh was born in Korea and emigrated to Japan for a college education.
Thus, as she states, she is fully acquainted with the Korean public educational system that
inculcated her generation with anti-Japan hostility enmeshed in Korean nationalism. The
effect of this long-standing anti-Japan sentiment taught in Korean schools has filled
students with “psychological hate”. Things have not changed, she states, since her
childhood in Korea. A typical example of this “hate” expressed by Korean school
children is not mentioned in the book but readily available to readers. A Japanese
television program showed anti-Japan drawings made by Korean school children from
Gyeyang Middle School that were posted at Gyulhyeon Station.2 One can characterize
the drawings simply as crude expressions of racism. In contrast, Japanese officials haveexpressed their lack of tolerance for anti-Korean “hate speech”.3
To those unfamiliar with Korea-Japan relations, the magnitude of Korean antiJapan hostility is quite startling. Professor Oh illustrates this by citing recent actions of
the current South Korean President, Guen-hye Park. Right after her election, President
Park “launched into her foreign policy of slighting Japan and attaching greater
importance to [Communist] China.” At every opportunity, she has “repeated her antiJapan rhetoric,” including during an address to the US Congress, all the while with thefull support of the Korean media and Korean people. President Park has also refused
Japan’s request for extradition of a fugitive arsonist, declined returning artifacts that werestolen from a Japanese temple, ignored Japan’s invitation to memorial services for thevictims of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and demanded that Japanese companies
pay compensation to war-time Korean “slave laborers”. Previous presidents, as well as
President Park, have constantly chided Japan on her “wrong perception” of history andhave apparently made rejecting out-of-hand any sincere apologies from Japan concerning
the annexation and war-time eras official policy. President Park’s predecessor, Lee
Myung-bak “sneered” that Korea has “conquered Japan,” based on widespread Japanese
enthusiasm for Korean popular culture (“[The Japanese] are drooling as they look atus.”)4 and further boasted that should there be any rebuilding of North Korea in the future,“I will make Japan will pay for the entire project.” Furthermore, he also demanded that2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBEXPjDLmRk;
http://www.geocities.jp/bxninjin2004/data_room/05/cache/01/indexphp.htm;
http://www.geocities.jp/bxninjin2004/data_room/05/cache/02/index.php.htm.
3“Japanese right-winger blasts anti-Korean rallies,” July 10, 2013;
http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2013/07/10/japanese-right-winger-blasts-anti-korean-rallies/“Tokyo rally against anti-Korean hate,” September 23, 2013;
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/2000-rally-against-hate-speech-in-tokyos-shinjuku;“’Hate speech debate’ turns ugly between Osaka mayor, anti-Korean leader,” October 14, 2014;
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201410210052
4

At the same time, importation of Japanese popular culture into Korea was prohibited until 1998, when
Japanese comic books were allowed. Japanese movies and physical copies of music were not entirely
allowed into Korea until 2004. The bans were designed to “protect Korean culture.”

2the Emperor of Japan come to Korea and apologize, on his knees, for Japan’s actions in
Korea during the annexation era.
Readers might dismiss President Park’s and her predecessors’ rhetoric as nothing
more than political posturing contrived to drum up domestic support when their poll
numbers are declining. However, Professor Oh points out that Korean anti-Japan hostility
goes well beyond politics, that it is based on a Korean perception of history, as taught inpublic schools ever since the founding of the Republic of Korea, and a strong Koreansense of “blood unity” expressed as xenophobia. Clearly, this hostility is deeply rooted
into the Korean psyche and not merely a fad or a fluke of the current times.
Korea constantly protests Japanese views of the annexation of Korea in 1910; one
would believe that the source of Korean hostility towards Japan is the annexation.
However, Professor Oh points out that even without the annexation, Korean anti-Japanhostility would be no less virulent. Ancient Korean documents have in fact “written
condescendingly” of Japan as a “nation of uneducated people” and “barbarians”. She
suggests that since Korea was a Chinese suzerain for hundreds of years, Sino-centric
thinking, China at the “center of world order” and peripheral nations are composed ofnothing more than uncultured barbarians, thoroughly permeated the thinking of the
Korean elite and transmitted to the rest of Korea.5 Thus, the Chinese view, that theJapanese are “barbarians who are aggressive by nature” has dominated Korea up until
today. What really infuriates nationalist Koreans, then, is not just that they lost theirsovereignty during the annexation, but that they lost it to an “inferior race”. With further
consideration based on the Sino-centric view, one understands why Korea has in the past
looked up to China as a “teacher” and “guardian” and why the current Korean leadershiphas “cozied up to” China and avoids Japan. Given this historical view point, there is
likely to be further interaction between South Korea and China in the future, which may
not be in the best interests of the US. The consequences of giving more moral support toKorea over Japan in the current conflict between the two countries on future relations
with other Asian countries has yet to be clarified.
From the Western perspective, one would assume that Sino-centric thinking and
its attendant racist perceptions would have been quashed over time with a modern, liberal
education. However, as mentioned earlier, a source of Korean anti-Japan ideology is infact the Korean educational system itself—Professor Oh states that “Koreans are alltaught one view of history”. How a nation conducts its historical educational may not beinteresting in and of itself, but Korea’s system certainly recalls Orwell—those “whocontrol the past control the future, and those who control the present control the past.”
While Professor Oh lists a number of distortions and outright fabrications of history,
three main categories will describe to the uninitiated Westerners the extent to which
Koreans have distorted their own history.
Lack of Korean sacrifice in their independence.

5

A contemporary history of Korea, up to the time of the annexation, can be found in G. T. Ladd, In Korea
with Marquis Ito, London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1908.

3

The preamble to the South Korean constitution states that the “provisional”
Republic of Korea was “born of the March First Independence Movement of 1919”. As
Professor Oh points out, the anti-Japanese provisional government was established in
China, outside of Korea, and run by “intellectuals who lived abroad for a long time”. (Apro-Soviet group of Korean exiles formed in Siberia, which later merged with the groupin China.) No country at the time, either Allied or Axis, recognized the Korean
provisional government. The establishment of the Republic of Korea was a by-product of
the Allied victory over Japan and the emerging Cold War between the US and the Soviet
Union. Even Syng-man Rhee, the first president of South Korea and inaugurator of antiJapan hostility in public education, acknowledged that Koreans did not liberatethemselves from Japan. The exiles moved into South Korea when it was safe to do so andwith US backing, consolidated power, ruthlessly eliminating rivals who were either
communist or who worked with the Japanese during the annexation era. The purging of
Koreans who worked with the Japanese left almost no one with bureaucratic or governing
experience to run the new Republic.
By contrast, the “fabricated history,” as Professor Oh calls it, states that theRepublic of Korea was the result of Korean “independence movements” “liberating” thenation from “Japanese imperialism”. Thus, children are taught that the Republic ofKorea was founded on the sacrifice of Koreans. Tied into this false history is the need tocharacterize the annexation as a period of oppression and to deny any suggestion that
Korea actually achieved significant socio-economic progress during the annexation.
Professor Oh could have also pointed out that Korea gives accolades to assassins
such as An Jung-guen, who assassinated Hirobumi Ito, the first Resident-General of
Korea, in 1909. This attempt in enhancing the legitimacy of the Republic of Korea byhonoring terrorists likely reflects the dearth of true Korean sacrifice.
History of dictatorship.
Professor Oh suggests that South Korea today is democracy on paper and points
out that that Korea never developed a Western-style liberal democracy. Before theJapanese annexation, Korea was ruled with an “iron fist” during the Joseon Dynasty forseveral hundred years. Information was tightly controlled. A “nationwide system of
secret informants” was utilized to report anyone to the government whose views ran
counter to the state. The government violently suppressed the frequent bouts of riotingthat sprang up throughout Korea during the Joseon Dynasty, which included killing therelatives of those involved and those suspected of even vaguely supporting the rioters.
Torture of suspects and defilement of corpses were standard practices in suppressing
dissent. A similar informant system was present during Professor Oh’s childhood in
Korea as well—citizens were required to report pro-Japan as well as pro-North Korean
sympathizers. As for free speech in Korea, Professor Oh relates her deportation from
Korea and her vilification in the Korean media after her non-hostile appraisal of theJapanese annexation period and criticisms of the South Korean government.
One other practice carried over from the old days was violent suppression ofdissent by the government. From establishment of the Republic of Korea in 1948 until the4mid 1980s, the “republic” of Korea was in fact a series of military dictatorships. The
military and police were frequently used to thoroughly suppress numerous
antigovernment riots, some of which were instigated by North Korean agents, which
resulted in hundreds if not thousands of casualties. What is usually missed, Professor Oh
points out, is that South Korea was vulnerable to internal subversion instigated by North
Korean agents and North Korea military aggression and that domestic corruption was
widespread. Widespread corruption was eliminated and South Korean maintained her
territorial integrity during the rule of President Park Chung-hee. During the era ofmilitary dictatorships, South Korea experienced a dramatic upturn in economic growth,
as exemplified by the “Han-gang (River) miracle,” in which the size of the middle classexpanded and the income distribution between rich and poor shrank.
“Coming to terms with history.”
The military dictatorship era then should be viewed within its proper context, offighting North Korean aggression while raising the people’s standard of living. With theestablishment of civilian government in the 1990s, there has been a critical “reevaluation” of the military dictatorship era, or “coming to terms with history,” asProfessor Oh calls the phenomenon. This involved investigation of numerous humanrights violations and “compensating” and “restoring” the honor of the people who were
“unjustly accused of crimes.” The South Korean government went beyond investigating
human rights violations. North Korean guerrillas sent to destabilize South Korea, triedand convicted in South Korean court, were “rehabilitated” and honors were bestowed
upon them. South Korean antigovernment terrorists were accorded similar treatment.
One example that Professor Oh gives of completely falsifying history is the terrorist
bombing of KAL 858 in 1987. A “reinvestigation” found that it was the fault of the South
Korean dictatorship that resulted in the deaths of 115 people, rather than the North
Korean agents, who planted the bomb on orders from Pyongyang.
With the beginning of liberal democracy in Korea, politicians openly express antiJapanese and pro-North Korea sentiments. This is in contrast to the military dictatorship
era—while an anti-Japan agenda was taught in schools, there were no open expressionsof anti-Japanese sentiment by the government. In fact, the presidents at the time spoke
positively of the Japanese annexation period, acknowledging the contributions of Japan to
the modernization of Korea, and as to the loss of their sovereignty, the Korean people
have no one to blame but themselves.
The advent of civilian rule saw a rise in unrestrained anti-Japan hostility. As atool to promote national unity and patriotism, “anti-Japan nationalism” was used for thispurpose and falsification and fabrication of history were “essential elements in theexecution of this policy”. One way to promote this agenda was to identify and punish
Koreans who worked with the Japanese during the annexation period as “traitors”. Theirproperty was seized and their names made public, all under color of law. To further
promote anti-Japan nationalism, a completely false history of the Japanese annexation
period was taught to Korean school children, which continues to this day. Professor Oh
notes that when she was a child and reported to her parents the “nefarious deeds” of theJapanese she learned in school, her parents and their contemporaries responded that the5

“Japanese were very kind.”6 The gradual loss of the generation who actually lived during
the annexation period will further reinforce the government’s fabrication.
One of the fabrications of history that Professor Oh discusses is the so-called“comfort women”. She states that while there were Korean women who worked as
prostitutes during the war, they were not coerced by the Japanese military into doing so.
She points out that since the Japanese were a tiny minority in Korea, any attempt by them
to forcibly remove women from Korea would have resulted in mass anti-Japanese rioting
and massacres. Such riots did not occur, even though Koreans frequently responded to
oppression with violence. One point that Professor Oh did not discuss but it is worth
exploring within the context of the Korean government’s use of fabricated history is
exploring the series of events that led up to South Korea’s use of the “comfort women”
issue to impede relations with Japan. It appears that Japanese, not Korean, writers andmedia were the first to report on the “comfort women” during the late 1970s and 1980s.
Koreans picked up on the stories during the time of transition to civilian rule in the 1990s,
during a time of rising open anti-Japan hostility, and made them their own. Whether thisis a co-incidence or not requires further elaboration.
It is possible that, at some point, history lessons can be changed by the Korean
government to show a more positive image of Japan. However, such a change is unlikely
to occur and, moreover, it is also unlikely that such a change alone will entirely eradicate
anti-Japanese hostility. Professor Oh points out that the second key foundation of Koreananti-Japan hostility is racial antagonism. Korean society is “traditionally based on thecontinuation of the paternal lineage.” As an extension, the ‘nation-state” is “no more thanthe extended version of jongjok (paternal lineage), one big family based on paternallineage.” “Moral and ethical principles are the same,” from the “family, society, to thenation-state.” Thus, the sense is that anti-Japan hostility goes well beyond simply
schoolroom leaning and is likely rooted within the ethereal Korean sense of kinship.
Nations “reflect the kinship ideal at its maximal political and territorial
extension.” The nation could be thought of as an extended family, with its members
linked by common bonds of language, culture and genetic heritage.7 Korea then can be
described as a nation, more than, for example, a “country,” which is merely a politicalentity defined by geographical borders. To preserve the strong bonds of kinship, Korea
prohibited unions between Koreans and foreigners during the time Korea opened its
doors to foreigners in the late 19th century. Such unions were in fact punishable by death,as Koreans placed a premium on their racial purity or “blood unity”.
There is another possible consequence of the long-standing bonds of kinship in
Korea. Professor Oh points out that the South “envies” the North’s hereditarian
dictatorship, in which the “social and political order [is] under strong management.” Thissentiment not only reflects Korea’s authoritarian tradition, but suggests that such a form
6

Some Koreans resented foreign rule, many being from rural areas where Sino-centric thinking prevailed.
The everyday lives of most Koreans, however, were not directly impinged by the government and many
prospered. Kang, H. Under the Black Umbrella. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001.
7
Pearson, R. Introduction to Anthropology. NY, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974.

6

of social control was developed by the proto-Koreans during their evolution in Korea. It
is speculated that modern Korean authoritarianism developed as an adaptive behavior inan environment where persistent enforcement of in-group cooperation was necessary inorder to protect kin from hostile tribes found throughout northern and eastern Asia. Outgroup hostility restricted Korean mate selection, thereby keeping the gene pool free of
exogenous genes.
The concept of nation, a super-family with common agreed-to behavioral norms
and history, has more or less vanished in the 21st century, giving way to counties thatemphasis people sharing a common “culture” due to increased migration between
populations, which leads to increasing genetic diversity within once generally
homogenous populations. With rising genetic diversity, individual valuation of acommon language, culture and genetic heritage become increasingly irrelevant. Despite
the prevailing trends in North America and Europe, Korea has resisted large-scalemigration of non-Koreans. Should this lack of Korean interest in “multiculturalism” becondemned? One should keep this in mind if Korea, is in fact, as she claims, a liberal
democracy. Perhaps as a drastic solution to change Korean thinking regarding its racial
uniqueness, increased immigration, thereby increasing multiculturalism, would lead to
the weakening of kinship ties, and subsequent out-group hostility.
Professor Oh notes that there is nothing that Japan can do, or should do, to change
the nature of Korean anti-Japan hostility, as it is based on a socialization process that
focuses on Korean uniqueness. It is to Professor Oh’s credit that she does not even try tosuggest what the Japanese must do to fix Korean anti-Japan hostility—she points out that
Koreans will need to the heavy lifting themselves (“shed their own blood,” and perform“self reproach and self-reflection”). Thus, given the current Korean mindset, the yearlyritual apologies from Japan will have no impact—and should stop. In fact, based on thebook, it appears that nothing will appease Korea short of the destruction of the Japanesepeople. Japan should look to other countries for potentially mutual benefits.
Given South Korean thinking and historical behavior, readers should consider if
Korean reunification will occur without any preconditions. While there have been strong
words from Seoul concerning recent military actions taken by the North, the North’s
nuclear weapons plant is still functional. Perhaps this is all one can expect from thecurrent Seoul leadership as it thinking in terms of retaining kinship bonds rather teaching
the communist regime a lesson. Because Seoul (and Pyongyang) thinks in terms of“blood unity,” it is possible that reunification will occur for the sake of reuniting andprotecting kinfolk rather than for the sake of vague notions of “economic freedom” or“democratic values”. It is this reviewer’s observation that German reunification occurred
for the sake of political convenience rather than to recreate a nation of kinfolk. It is
possible that something quite different from German reunification could underlie Korean
reunification.
One wonders what America can do to enhance Korea-Japan relations. Readers of
this journal can envision what America’s response will be—nothing. There is no
expectation that America will demand that South Korean undergo “regime change” any7

time soon since South Korea has never been a threat nor is currently a threat to America.
Korea’s racist views will be overlooked in favor of maintaining the status quo. At thesame time, Japan will likely be at the receiving end of more US demands to change herways. The long-term effect of this on US-Japan relations is left for the reader to speculate.
The current book gives background information that is unavailable in the Western
media and offers detailed insight into modern Korean thinking. What is truly lacking intoday’s Western media is a range of diverse of opinions regarding complex international
issues, including opinions from the countries that are directly impacted by the particularissue. Westerners who truly wish to understand relations between Korean and Japan
would do well to explore the space that has been overlooked (or ignored) by the Western
media.

8