International Journal of Korean History (Vol.17 No.2, Aug.2012) 29 Zainichi Chōsenjin and the Independence Movement in Everyday Life Choi Jinseok (Ch’oe Chinsŏk)* Introduction “Zainichi (在日, Migrants from Korea),” “Kankokujin (韓国人),” Chōsenjin (朝鮮人),” “Korean,” I have long been concerned about how I should refer to myself within Japanese society. Should I introduce myself as a Zainichi, Kankokujin, Chōsenjin, or Korean? The task of introducing myself may appear to be a simple one. However, it is in fact a complex matter whose roots can be traced back some 100 years. After much hesita- tion, I have decided to introduce myself as “Chōsenjin.” This is because I have decided to be one with my history The term “Chōsenjin” is one that is very difficult to translate into Ko- rean. While Chōsenjin can be conveyed as Chosŏnin, or people of Chosŏn, the translation of the echoes associated with “Chōsenjin” is a much more complex task. The term “Chōsenjin” is still accompanied by negative vestiges in Japan. Chōsenjin is a racially discriminative word that was created by Japanese and internalized by the people of Chosŏn. Neverthe- less, the vestiges associated with “Chōsenjin” are not always negative. For me to introduce myself to others as Chōsenjin evokes a profound emotion akin to love and hatred. As such, “Chōsenjin” is a term that connotes contradictory notions. * Associate Professor, Hiroshima University. 30 Zainichi Chōsenjin and the Independence Movement in Everyday Life The difficulty translating “Chōsenjin” emanates from the existence of a line dividing our people. This line dividing us did not originally exist, nor was it desired. It was the result of the Japanese colonialism that prevailed prior to World War II. This line was however further strengthened by the anti-communist ideology produced by the Cold War structure that emerged in East Asia after the war. The problem lies in the fact that this colonialism and Cold War structure have yet to be brought to an effective end. The Japanese colonialism that stood as the root of all evil was not only preserved along with the empirical system after the war, but continues to this day. The main reason for this outcome has been the fact that Japan’s responsibility for the war and colonial rule were swept under the rug by the United States during the process of establishing the Cold War struc- ture in East Asia. Furthermore, Korea’s military dictatorship signaled its support for the continuation of Japanese colonialism when it concluded the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea, in 1965. This colonialism born out of the collaboration of the United States, Ko- rea, and Japan continued to pervade not only within Japanese society but Korean as well. It is a well-known fact that the American Military Gov- ernment hurriedly established its ruling structure in South Korea right after liberation in 1945, and that as part of this process, they reemployed soldiers, police, and bureaucrats that had served Japan during the colonial period. Korean society has embraced the vestiges of Japanese colonialism, while failing to fundamentally clear up past history. To live as a “Chōsenjin” within a Japanese society where colonialism continues to reign supreme means regaining the “Chōsen” [Joseon] that we were deprived of and continue to be deprived of. Put differently, this term is one that should be associated with an independence movement. Chosŏn’s independence movement cannot fully belong to the past as long as colonialism continues. This independence movement encompasses a history that has been part of the everyday life of Koreans in Japan for 100 years. While the vestiges of Japanese colonialism have been identified as Choi Jinseok 31 both a negative and positive existence method within Korean society, Chosŏn’s independence movement can also be regarded by the Korean people as an incomplete project. The shadow of Japanese imperialism continues to hold sway over both sides of the dividing line. In other words, we still find ourselves prisoner of the negative echoes inherent in the term “Chosenjin.” To hear the echoes of “Chosenjin” in a manner that goes beyond the division and accept and overcome this negative echo should be viewed as the process that we Koreans must go through in order to overcome the seemingly endless and on-going colonialism. “Kankoku (韓国)” and “Chōsenjin (朝鮮人)”; The politics surrounding appellation In the summer of 2010, which marked the 100th anniversary of the Jap- anese annexation of Korea, the theme “100th anniversary of the Annexa- tion of Korea” was widely discussed in Japan; however, one thing was omitted: the existence of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), or North Korea. Former Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s expression of "deep remorse" and "heartfelt apology" for Japan's past colonial rule over Korea released on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the an- nexation was addressed solely to Korea. It was made with only Korea- Japan relations in mind, and excluded North Korea-Japan relations. Furthermore, as made evident by Former Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s statement, during the press conference that followed the ceremony held at the Peace Memorial Park, in Hiroshima, on August 6, 2010, that “nuclear deterrence is necessary for Japan,” Japan does not regard North Korea as an other for which it should show deep remorse and a heartfelt apology. It goes without saying that North Korea represents one of those forces that should be a target of nuclear deterrence. Japan has intentionally aban- doned its responsibility for its colonial rule over North Korea in the name of the purported unity between the government and people created by the abduction issue. 32 Zainichi Chōsenjin and the Independence Movement in Everyday Life A view of the history of colonial rule that distinguishes Korea from North Korea and is conscious only of the Korean people inevitably leads to the perception of the Korea mentioned in the ‘annexation of Korea’ as referring solely to the Republic of Korea (Taehan Minguk). However, in actuality, Korea or Han΄guk was an abbreviation of Taehan Cheguk. This was the name given to the country that replaced the Chosŏn dynasty in 1897, an event that followed the Sino-Japanese War and the assassination of Queen Min. Taehan Cheguk became a protectorate of Japan after the Russo-Japanese War, and disappeared altogether following Japanese annexation in 1910. The territory of Taehan Cheguk extended throughout the entire Korean peninsula. These historical facts are commonly ac- cepted in Korea, but not in Japan. In keeping with Japan’s attempts to distort its responsibility for coloni- al rule, evident during the 100th anniversary of the Japanese Annexation of Korea, the actual annexation of Korea was distorted and decreased in meaning to refer to the annexation of Taehan Minguk rather than to the annexation of Taehan Cheguk. Thus, an even stronger dividing line was drawn between Korea and Japan on one side, and North Korea on the other. Japan has steadily played a part in the division of Chosŏn into North and South Korea since the onset of the Cold War era. This has been perceived as a post-colonial issue in Japan. Japanese co- lonialism has not been cleared up and continues to this day amid a (new) Cold War structure that is rooted in the complicity between Korea, the United States, and Japan. This is clearly exposed in the politics surround- ing the appellation used for Chōsen. There is an arbitrary perception that “Kankoku” is good while “Chōsen” is bad. The politics surrounding the appellations “Kankoku” and “Chōsen” are related to the historical percep- tion of the “100th anniversary of the annexation of Korea”. This may be regarded as a trivial issue. However, I have hesitated be- tween using “Chōsengo (朝鮮語)” or “Kankokugo (韓国語)” in Japanese society to refer to the term, “Korean language.” Although it would appear to be more historically appropriate to say Chōsengo, I found myself on occasion unconsciously saying “Kankokugo.” In some cases, I used the Choi Jinseok 33 term Kankokugo freely. Furthermore, there have been times when I have been hard-pressed to introduce myself as Chōsenjin rather than Kankoku- jin. There have also been cases where although I would like to introduce myself as Chōsenjin, I have chosen to be more diplomatic and say Kanko- kujin. In other instances, I have been introduced as Kankokujin by others. I feel like I am being forced to convert when I am faced with a situation where the use of the term Chōsenjin might be awkward, but also when I find the use of Kankokujin to be much easier. However, I also feel stressed when I introduce myself as Chōsenjin. Up until the 1980s, when goods with a “Made In Korea” tag began to flow into Japanese society, the use of either Kankokujin or Chōsenjin was accompanied by an awkward echo. However, I no longer feel any stress when I introduce myself as Kankokujin or when I am referred to as such. On the other hand, I still feel the chill of history whenever I am referred to as Chōsenjin. Put differently, the term Chōsenjin is one in which the vestiges of colonial violence are clearly embedded. The presence of an echo of contempt or disdain in conjunction with the use of the terms Chōsen and Chōsenjin can be regarded as a clear indication of the conti- nuance of colonial violence. September 17, 2002 The complex terms Chōsen and Chōsenjin have had various echoes as- sociated with them over time. As evidenced by the exclusion of Chōsen schools from the “Act on free tuition fee at public high schools and high school enrollment support fund,” enacted in April 2010 by the Liberal Democratic Party, the meaning of Chōsen and Chōsenjin has been politi- cally distorted, so that Chōsenjin in Japan equals North Korean, and Chōsenseki (Chōsen nationality) equals North Korean nationality.