Korean Colonial Period

“Lecturer Kim and Professor T” was first published in the Korean periodical Sindonga in 1935, followed by an update in a 1939 collection of Yu Chin-o's fiction. A little-known version of the story, however, was released in 1937 in the Japanese journal Bungaku annai, having been translated by Yu. By examining multiple versions of “Lecturer Kim,” this paper demonstrates how its narrative and publication history tell complementary stories about translation between 1930s colonial Korea and Japan. The Sindonga version of the story presents translation as visible by transliterating Japanese-language dialog in order to show how the process of translation acted as an everyday burden for Korean intellectuals. Meanwhile, a comparative reading of the Bungaku annai iteration of “Lecturer Kim” reveals that this translation served as the basis for a later revision of the story in Korean, a process that has been rendered invisible due to the way in which this text does not fit into the categories of Korean or Japanese literature defined on the basis of language and ethnicity respectively. This paper argues that self-translations such as “Lecturer Kim” call for a rethinking of these categories as a historical link between the two.

On the 70 th Anniversary of the end of WWII, Shinzo Abe, the conservative prime minister of Japan, offered yet another linguistically cautious apology over the issue of Japan's actions during its period of colonial dominance before and during the war. Instead of penning his own specifically phrased apology, he merely referenced apologies made by former Japanese political figures, reflecting that, "Japan has repeatedly expressed feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology for its actions during the war. Such positions articulated by previous cabinets will remain unshakable into the future (NYT Soble)." Not only did Abe not offer his own apology, he opined, "We must not let our children, grandchildren and even further generations to come, who have nothing to do with that war, be predestined to apologize." It is enough, he added, "to inherit the past, in all humbleness, and pass it on to the future." This observation is at the heart of Abe's true feelings on the issue, and likely why he refuses to compose his own apology. It is also representative of the way in which a prominent political figure such as Abe has dealt with the conflict of the "memory wars" through diplomatic agency. Rhetorical studies have shown that the nature of apology is semantic, yet there are cultural and audience-oriented considerations to acknowledge as well. In her study, Japanese Apologies for WWII, Yamazaki Jane writes about how internal the audience for these apologies is. In other words, when Japanese prime ministers or emperors have apologized for war crimes in the past, the audience in mind is, first and foremost, Japanese. While the international audience-especially that of the victim, in this case South Korea-is obviously taken into consideration, "Still, the nation-state, especially in modern democratic settings, must deal extensively with internal public opinion and the development of consensus. Self-reflection, one's identity as Japanese, national purpose, and goals for the future-all of these concerns are

Recent colonial compensation lawsuits reflect the metamorphosis of historical grievances in collective public memory into tort claims in private law. This article provides a synthetic view of the nexus of colonial law and
history in South Korea–Japan relations, focusing on cross-border litigation brought by former forced laborers and victims of sexual servitude known as “comfort women” during World War II. The concept of public policy (ordre public) in Korea, which has colonial origins, has long served law courts as the standard for deciding the validity of a juristic act. But of late heavy reliance on the general clauses of law in legal proceedings has risked turning history and law into handmaids of national spirit, muddling historical accountability and legal liability. Improvement of South Korea–Japan ties should start from a more accurate understanding of colonial laws and a rounded appreciation of their shared legal history.