Talk:Koreans in Japan: Difference between revisions

Differences

It's obvious that there's big difference between 'Zainichi Korean' and 'Korean Japanese'. The article 'Korean Japanese' should be firmly separated. The absent-minded redirection is thought to be just ridiculous. In that case, what's the purpose for 'Korean American'? According to this illogical process, the article 'Korean American' should be merged to just 'Korean'. No doubt about another stupid redirection!? Besides, Almost of Koreans living in Korea don't know the Japanese-pronunciated word 'Zainichi'! Japanese word has been just already standardized for even topics on Koreans? Totally not understandable. 'Zainichi Korean' must be renamed to 'Jaeil Korean'.

I intend to move this article to Zainichi Korean. The Zainichi article will instead describe the Japanese word zainichi as zainichi gaikokujin in general and of course link to Zainichi Korean. It is true that zainichi used alone in daily speech does tend to refer to zainichi koreans, but it is a slightly offensive term for Japan's Korean minority and as such, I don't think it is appropriate as the title of an encyclopedic article about them. Please post any objections to this here. -Himasaram 16:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hermeneus: Regarding "Zainichi Koreans were still Japanese at the time of the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal of 1946. 148 Korean-Japanese in the Imperial Japanese military were convicted of Class B and C war crimes, 23 of whom were sentenced to death. " What is the source of this? I checked Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and found the following "There were 28 defendants tried, mostly military and political leaders." Are the 28 defendants A class? If so, how many Japanese B and C class were convicted? I would update Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal accordingly --Hunfe 8 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

They were tried at local tribunals in Asia, not the Tokyo Tribunal. See [1] or look up "朝鮮人BC級戦犯" in Japanese google. Hermeneus (talk) July 9, 2005 00:06 (UTC)

Since I can't read japanese, I can't assess how relevant is the link you provided. Since Class B and C were not mentioned in Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, it looks like these criminals were not the main focus of the trials. Since Zainichi Korean is not about war crimes, I suggest eliminating this information. I would like to get your agreement before I make any changes. --Hunfe 01:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hermeneus, I am still waiting for a reply on eliminating information on war crimes due to irrelevancy. Please see my prior post --Hunfe 20:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What part of the current description are you talking about? I don't see any irrelevant info that needs be deleted. Like I said those zainichi Koreans were all legitimate war criminals as defined by the international law and had been punished accordingly at local war crime tribunals throughout Asia. Zainichi is an unfortunate product of the war (a product of the expansionist policy of the Imperial Japan in the early 20th century to be precise) and so their involvement in the war merits reference on this article, positive or negative or otherwise. Hermeneus (talk) 09:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Do the statistics for "Japanese-Korean" war criminals refer specifically to Zainichi Koreans (i.e. Koreans who were based in Japan) or to all Koreans in the Japanese military? If it is the former, it should be made clear. If it is the latter, then the information is irrelevant to the article and should either be deleted or the statistics modified so they refer to Zainichis only. Phonemonkey 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Pachinko and Yakuza

What the hell are the last comments at the end about pachinko and funding nuclear weapons? Thats utterly bizarre, ridiculous, and uncited. I am removing it. User:SiberioS

I don't know about way to spend the money, but about pachino businesses and illigal transferring are considered as true. --Ypacaraí 14:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Pachinko businesses have obvious ties to Yakuza organizations. Last time I checked, the idea of Yakuzas funding North Koreas nuclear ambitions is ridiculous, unless somehow the Yakuza, who are notorious about demanding racial purity at their top ranks, have all of a sudden voided their own policies. Is it true that many koreans fill the lower ranks and the grunt force of the yakuza? Yes. Does that mean that pachinko, an oft dubious enterprise, is running a complicated international money scheme to fund north kroean nuclear arms? No. Considering the tight scrutiny of any visit to North Korea, and the fact that no one I know is somehow making magical runs through the DMZ, it seems a little ludicrous that any money would be intentionally transferred for the express purpose of nuclear arms development.SiberioS 13:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I should clarify that I am saying for the express purpose. I have no doubt, obviously, that the country steals money or siphons things off remittances back home. But as to whether or not there is an actual pipeline of money, for the express intended purpose of funding nuclear ambitions, I have my doubts. If such a large flow of cash existd, it would seem that the North Korean army would be much better off than it is, considering reports of lack of fuel and maintenace in its Air Force, and the lack of supplies in general for its military. Moreover, the statement seems irrelevent in the context of the article. Does this make all zainichi koreans nculear weapons runners, by basis of sending money home, presuming of course that they are from the north? Picking on the koreans, in an industry of dubious legality and funding of other things (yakuza, triads, other forms of curroption etc), seems a bit going out of the way.SiberioS 13:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually there are many Koreans in the yakuza industry as well, for the same reason that many of them are engaged in the gambling industry: "The Korean yakuza are a powerful presence in Japan, despite the fact that Koreans suffer discrimination in Japanese society. Although Japanese-born people of Korean ancestry are a significant segment of the Japanese population, they are still considered resident aliens. But Koreans, who are often shunned in legitimate trades, are embraced by the Japanese yakuza precisely because they fit the group's "outsider" image. The man who paved the way for Koreans in Japanese organized crime was the Korean yakuza godfather Hisayuki Machii." [2] 218.222.11.215 13:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Joseon / Chosun / Chosen

These three are used interchangebly in the article and should be standardised, the question is which one to use. Or is this a trivial matter? Phonemonkey 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction needs work

"Many Zainichi today are 4th generation descendants and predominantly use Japanese as their primary language." This is a fluffy, meaningless statement. Certainly Zainichi culture has entered the 4th (and even 5th) generation but there has to be a better way of expressing this. More importantly, of course these people primarily use Japanese, in most instances their families have been in Japan since the 1920's and 1930's! Their GRANDPARENTS haven't lived in Korea since they were children, would you expect such people not to know or use Japanese, what do you think they all live underground in a cave enclave of Chosenjin or something? Other than JETS instructors and their ilk, who lives in Japan and doesn't primarily use Japanese anyway? Kind of insulting, do we point out that fourth generation Polish-Americans predominantly use English as their primary language? Isn't that a bit obvious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardk1 (talk • contribs)

Ethnic minorities could form a more autonomous and sizable community within the state and its members do not necessarily know the language of the dominant ethnic that rules the encompassing state. You don't need to know English language to live in the French-speaking Quebec province or Chinese language to live in Tibet. In contrast it's very difficult to live in Japan without knowing Japanese language. Korean language hardly constitutes an alternative to Japanese like French is in Quebec (/Canada). --222.3.76.75 13:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes . . . in a country of 120 million, 600,000 ethnic Koreans hardly constitute the sort of critical mass who do not have to learn the common language. Besides, unlike the Quebecois who are not only numerous but politically powerful and have all the legal rights of other Canadians, Zainichi Koreans traditionally could neither obtain citizenship or vote, and were legally second class citizens. Without political or legal power it's a bit tough to impose your will on the majority.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardk1 (talk • contribs)

The point is that there is nothing "meaningless" about the sentence "4th generation descendants and predominantly use Japanese as their primary language" because most readers of Wikipedia don't know that "600,000 ethnic Koreans hardly constitute the sort of critical mass who do not have to learn the common language" like yourself.

Also "traditionally" (prior to 1945) the Koreans were the subjects of the Empire of Japan and had both a right to vote and a right to hold office. Park Choon-Geum (박춘금, 朴春琴) was the first Korean to be elected into the House of Representatives in 1932, and re-elected in 1938. Several members of the Korean Royalty were appointed to the House of Peers (貴族院) including Park Young-Hyo (박영효, 朴泳孝) in 1932. 38 Koreans were elected into local assemblies in 1942. And please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). --222.3.78.211 21:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nationality

From the article: "The Allied occupation of Japan ended in April 28, 1952 with the San Francisco Peace Treaty, in which Japan formally abandoned her territorial claim to the Korean Peninsula, and as a result, Zainichi Koreans formally lost their Japanese nationality."

This is the often cited excuse given by Japanese politicians for why America is responsible for the current situation of the Zainichi in Japan. As always, foreigners are responsible for any of Japan's problems. Ho hum.

Its premise is that the Zainichi had Japanese nationality prior to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which I do not think is true. The main article even states that they were registered as Koreans on the Japanese national register. So the article is contradicting itself.

I don't want this king of polemic to be continually recited so that it eventually becomes 'fact', so I'm going to make a notation on the main article that the quote is suspect, and needs revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.144.237.243 (talk • contribs)

1. That they are "registered as Koreans" is after the war, not before when they were the subjects of the Empire of Japan. 2. What exactly is the "problem" here anyway? Are you suggesting that all those Koreans wanted to remain Japanese and didn't like getting Korean nationality back or what? [3] --222.3.79.196 06:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is simply the promulgation of the claim that the Zainichi 'lost' their Japanese nationality after the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, thereby laying down the blame for 60-80 years of xenophobic culture squarely at the feet of the US. I doubt that Koreans in Japan before and during the war were ever offered anything close to what you and I would call citizenship. Surely, if their descendants were alive today under a Japanese-led Asia, they would still face enormous ‘racial’ and cultural hardships. From the minute they set foot in the country they were destined to be second class citizens within the Japanese system. Claiming that the Treaty, signed 60 years ago, is to blame for the current inequalities, is expedient blame-shifting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.43.35.146 (talk • contribs)

That "problem" of "laying down the blame for 60-80 years of xenophobic culture squarely at the feet of the US" only exists in your head and don't belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that only states objective facts. It's not your personal blog to grumble about things that you don' like. If some statement in the article is incorrect or contradicts the historical facts, then correct it with objective sources. You don't insert personal commentaries like "I don't like this part" on Wikipedia. Read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not once, and please sign your post on talk page by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). --211.126.51.61 13:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The article makes an assertion that Zainichi loss of nationality is due to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. That claim makes the assumption that Zainichi had Japanese nationality before the treaty was signed. And given that its so expedient for the Japanese to claim so, I think a cited reference is needed. After all, the one who makes the claim should be able to back it up, right? Otherwise its open to debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.43.35.146 (talk • contribs)

That's simply a historical fact.

• United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (26 September 2000): "E. Korean residents in Japan 32. The majority of Korean residents, who constitute about one third of the foreign population in Japan, are Koreans (or their descendants) who came to reside in Japan for various reasons during the 36 years (1910-1945) of Japan's so-called rule over Korea and who continued to reside in Japan after having lost Japanese nationality, which they held during the time of Japan's rule, with the enforcement of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (28 April 1952).
• IHT/Asahi (December 3, 2003): "Korean residents of Japan who lost Japanese nationality under the San Francisco Peace Treaty were long excluded from compensation under the Japanese pension and war-victims relief laws."
• Migration News @ UC-Davis (Vol. 5 No. 2, April 1998): "Koreans were no longer Japanese citizens after the San Francisco peace treaty took effect in April 1952"
• Saitama University Review, Vol.31, No.1.: "In 1991, the Japanese government awarded special permanent residency to thos e who lost Japanese nationality in accordance with the Peace Treaty in 1952 and their descendants."

--211.126.51.61 14:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The above listed sources, none of which could be considered primary sources, merely state what the main article states, and as we all know, merely stating something does not make it true.

In any case, I’ve put the quotes from the main article in chronological order so that you can see the contradiction:

From the main article:

“Zainichi Koreans were still Japanese in 1945, ... . Japan's defeat in the war left the nationality status of Zainichi Koreans in an ambiguous position in terms of law.”

- This is confusing to me, although I am no expert on such matters, so I ask what mechanism of law changes citizens to non-citizens in this situation?

“Alien Registration Ordinance (外国人登録令) in May 2, 1947 classified all Korean-Japanese as foreign nationals.”

- That’s not so ambiguous anymore, is it? I would say that at this point they lost their citizenship, wouldn’t you agree? But I do wonder how they managed to figure out which of their ‘citizens’ were originally from Korea, now that they were so assimilated into the Japanese public. Unless of course there was a registry kept which allowed people to track who was a ‘real’ Japanese from others who were ‘pretend’ Japanese.

“The Allied occupation of Japan ended in April 28, 1952 with the San Francisco Peace Treaty, in which Japan formally abandoned her territorial claim to the Korean Peninsula, and as a result, Zainichi Koreans formally lost their Japanese nationality.” (emphasis added)

So, I repeat – I think its wrong to say that Korean zainichi lost their citizenship due to the San Francisco Peace Treaty because in fact they lost it much earlier, if they ever really had it in the first place.

222.144.237.243 05:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Japan lost sovereignty in 1945 and regained it in 1952. The existence of Japan (as well as Korea) as a nation during the occupation period was "ambiguous." Anyway the bottom line is that as far as you cannot provide any reliable sources to back up your personal opinion it doesn't merit reference on wikipedia, and you have provided none so far. --211.126.51.61 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Alien Registration Ordinance of 1947 is only a "provisional" classification made by the post-war provisional government of Japan as requested under the Potsdam declaration (ポツダム勅令第207号), and was replaced by the new Alien Registration Law of 1952 (外国人登録法) following San Francisco Peace Treaty when Japan regained sovereignty (and official capacity to assign nationality). Hermeneus (user/talk) 04:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? "This is the often cited excuse given by Japanese politicians for why America is responsible for the current situation of the Zainichi in Japan". Which politicians, and when? Sources? Phonemonkey 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)