Representing the Invisible: The American Perceptions of Colonial Korea (1910−1945) Jimin Kim Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Science COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2011 © 2011 Jimin Kim All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT Representing the Invisible: The American Perceptions of Colonial Korea (1910−1945) Jimin Kim This study argues that American views of Korea during the period of Japanese colonial rule (1910–1945) shaped U.S. policy toward Korea in the colonial period and after, setting the stage for direct U.S. involvement in Korea‘s post-liberation years after 1945. Korean nationalists perceived the U.S. as a special ally and a model country, and expected it to play a positive role in resolving Korea‘s colonial status. In fact, American views of Korea in the early twentieth century were mixed, and depended greatly on the respective observers‘ relationship to Korea—whether as missionary, as scholar, or as diplomat. At the same time, Japan played a crucial role in mediating American views, reflecting the Asia colonizer‘s interest in winning international approval for its imperialist project. When Korean-American diplomatic relations began in the late nineteenth century, Americans observers typically regarded Korea as an uncivilized but distinct Asian country. This perception of backwardness persisted into the early twentieth century, even as Korea lost its status as a nation-state with the Japanese annexation of 1910. Awareness of Japanese subjugation of Korea would expand significantly in the period 1919-1922, as journalists and missionaries conveyed news of the March First Movement to the American public and Korean nationalists countered Japanese government efforts to influence international opinion. Nationalist efforts to influence U.S. policymaking in the 1920s and 1930s were persistent but never fully successful, in part because of Korean factional rivalries, changing Japanese strategies of colonial control, and American diplomats‘ desire to protect U.S. colonial interests in the Philippines. Although Korean nationalists failed to accomplish their ultimate goal of participating directly in the U.S. government‘s wartime discussions on Korea in the early 1940s, they nevertheless succeeded in making the American public aware that Korea was a cultural and racial entity distinct from Japan. This awareness would lay a foundation for American direct intervention in Korean political, social, and military problems after 1945. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter One Initial Encounters: American Views of Korea in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries 15 Emerging Western Views of Korea (1) Western Travelers‘ Eyes (2) Positioning Korea in the World Japan Speaking Out to the World American Ways of Seeing Korea (1) The Beginning of Diplomatic Relations (2) Expert Commentators − Calling for Change (3) An Optimistic View − Homer Hulbert The Korean Enlightenment Movement: A View of the Self American Reactions to the Korean Annexation (1910) Chapter Two The Military-Rule Period (1910-1919) and the March First Movement (1919) 88 Prologue to the March First Movement (1) The 1911 Conspiracy Case: Persecution of Christianity? (2) The Korean Presence in the United States - The Formation of a Korean Community - The Hemet Accident (1913): Koreans Protecting Themselves (3) The United States Reconsiders the Annexation of Korea (1915-1916) American Reactions to the March First Movement (1919) (1) American Missionaries and Christian groups (2) Official Attitudes and the U.S.-Japanese relationship The Aftermath of the March First Movement − American Reevaluation of Japanese Rule in Korea i Japan Defends Its Position Chapter Three Korean Nationalist Voices and American Ears 147 The Official U.S. Position (1) Officials in Charge (2) An Ambivalent View Raising Voices in the Public Sphere (1) Korean Nationalist Leaders (2) Korean Voice at Post−First World War Conferences (3) The Right to Represent Oneself (4) Arguments of Korean Leaders American Responses (1) The League of the Friends of Korea (2) The Korean Issue in the U.S. Congress Chapter Four American Ambivalence, 1924-1936 222 Changes in Colonial Rule and Divisions in the Korean Nationalist Movement (1) Cultural Rule and the Korean Nationalist Movement of the 1920s (2) Assimilation Policies of the 1930s American Journalistic and Scholarly Views (1) A Romantic Colony: Affirmation of Korea as a Colony (2) The Emergence of Technocratic Ideas - On Economy and Agriculture - On Political and Ideological Issues - On Religion and Missionary Work Official U.S. Perspectives (1) Race and the Japanese Empire (2) Koreans‘ Politics (3) Was Japan‘s Rule a Success? Chapter Five Impact of the Pacific War, 1937-1945 287 Nationalist Interactions with the U.S. Government (1) A Useful Korea ii (2) The Exemption of Koreans from the Category of ―Enemy Aliens‖ (3) Non-Recognition of the KPG Plans for Post-colonial Korea (1) The Idea of Trusteeship (2) The Joint Occupation of Korea Langdon‘s Report (1945) Conclusion 348 Bibliography 358 iii 1 INTRODUCTION Both the beginning and end of colonialism in Korea (1910-1945) happened within international settings. Because of the country‘s geopolitical position, Korea was a center where powerful neighbors‘ interests intersected until Japan proclaimed its sole dominant influence over the Korean peninsula at the turn of the twentieth century. When Korea was finally emancipated from Japanese colonialism in 1945, the two emerging powers of the Cold War period, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., decided on the division of Korea into two zones and each occupied one. From the outset of Korea‘s colonization and liberation to the post-liberation period, the U.S. has been deeply involved, whether intentionally or not, more than any other foreign power in modern Korean history. The present study examines how Americans have formed the discourse of Korea and shaped the specific perspective on Korea during the country‘s colonial period and therefore prepared the U.S. government‘s direct involvement in the division (1945), the establishment of the South Korean government (1948) and the Korean War (1950-53). Korea‘s name as a nation-state was erased from the world map upon the annexation in 1910, and replaced by the name ―Chosen,‖ a colony and a province of Japan. With the annexation, all Korea‘s international relationships seemed to be extinct. Nevertheless, because of the Korean people‘s persistent aspiration for independence, Japan‘s unique status as the only non-Western colonizer and Korea‘s historical and geographical position, the country continued to be a subject of international discourse. In 2 particular, because the Korean people perceived the U.S. both as a special ally and a model country and therefore expected the U.S. to play a special role in resolving Korea‘s problem, Americans, at both official and unofficial levels, attentively observed Korean problems related to colonial Korea, and were major participants in the discourse of Korea.1 That there were no diplomatic relations does not mean that no interaction between the two countries existed. Rather, the U.S. and Korea had several points of interaction during the Korean colonial period. From the American side, American missionaries and residents in Korea, Foreign Service officers in Korea and East Asia, officials of the State Department, and American intellectuals observing the Korean people‘s nationalistic cause represented various American views on Korea. From the side of the Koreans, Korean immigrants, and nationalist groups in the U.S. and other countries actively played roles as agents speaking for their lost and ―invisible‖ country. Previously, two time frames have dominated historical accounts about Korean- American relations of the modern period. First, studies of the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries focused on how Korea was ―opened‖ to the outside world and the United States in particular. In this period, Korea experienced internal and external turmoil. Internally, a sense of crisis was pervasive among the Korean people, who were generating various notions of progress and reforms for the country. Externally, while the West‘s new technologies and knowledge poured into the country and spurred ―a 1 By ―Korean problem,‖ I refer to the issue of colonial Korea, about which Korean nationalists and pro- Korean opinion makers intended to provoke discussion and the following resolution. Participants in discourse of ―Korean problem,‖ therefore, were Korean nationalists and attentive foreign observers of the country. 3 reconfiguration of state-society relations,‖2 Korea‘s neighboring powers—China, Japan, and Russia—were competing over their interests in the Korean peninsula. Rivalry among these powers finally resulted in two international wars surrounding Korea: the Sino- Japanese War (1894-1895) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). As a victor in both wars, Japan‘s interest in Korea was recognized by the international community through its alliance with Britain in 1902 and an unofficial agreement with the U.S. in 1905, by virtue of which it became the sole dominant power on the Korean peninsula. Japan finally annexed Korea in 1910. In the midst of this turmoil, the United States occupied a unique position which gave the country a relatively positive image of Koreans, since America‘s expansion in East Asia was seen as relatively more private and peaceful than that of the other imperialist powers.3 This rather favorable relationship derived from Washington‘s largely ignorant and indifferent attitude toward Korea, which Patterson referred to as ―friendly disinterest.‖4 The private activities of missionaries, businessmen, and individual diplomats were seen as benefiting Korea, providing the country with modern education, medication, and modern technology to build an electricity and rail infrastructure.5 Studies of this period usually end with the Taft-Katsura Agreement of 1905, in which the U.S. government secretly recognized Japan‘s sphere of influence in Korea, in exchange for 2 Andre Schmid, Korea Between Empires, 1895-1919 (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2002), 24.