왜 <帝國主義下の朝鮮>은 없었는가? ― 야나이하라 타다오(矢內原忠雄)의 식민(정책)론과 대만・조선

문명기 고려대학교 역사연구소 2015 사총 Vol.85 No.-

There are a lot of studies concerning Colonialism Studies by Yanaihara Tadao, who is well known as a passionate supporter of liberal colonial policies during pre-war period, but there is little studies which focused on his scarcity about studying colonial Korea. He was interested in almost all Japanese colonies including Taiwan, Manchuria and the South Sea Islands, but he did not express as much interest to Korea as to the other colonies, and this is very exceptional considering his academic career. Why did not he write a book like Korea Under Imperialism? This article tries to answer this question. The process of answering this question will help us better understand the characteristics of his colony studies, and further understand the difference between Taiwan and Korea as Japanese colonies. External pressure, which previous studies pointed out as a cause of Yanaihara’s lack of Korea studies, can be equally applied to the case of Taiwan studies. Therefore we have to deal with this question from the other perspective, for example, from within his colonial studies. At this point, we have to pay attention to his general theory on colonies. He envisioned so called “substantial colonization” accompanying capitalization(=civilization), political principle of colonial autonomy, and “harmonious empire” in which necessities of each social group is well coordinated. He practiced Taiwan studies according to this general theory, and concluded that Taiwan has reached most highly capitalized society among Japanese colonies, and demanded so called “civilized colonial politics”, that is Taiwanese colonial assembly. In contrast, he lacked systematic analysis on Korean economy like Taiwan, and underestimated capital accumulation and finance development, but still insisted establishment of Korean colonial assembly. In other words, establishment of colonial assembly was the result of capitalization in Taiwan’s case, whereas establishment of colonial assembly was prerequisite of capitalization in Korea’s case. To sum up, Yanaihara thought that in Taiwan, the substance of “substantial colonization” accompanying capitalization existed in tangible form, but in Korea a sufficient condition through which Japanese government of Korea could be justified was not prepared yet. I think this led to Yanaihara’s silence on the economy of colonial Korea. 1945년 이전 일본의 대표적인 자유주의적 식민정책학자로 널리 알려진 야나이하라 타다오(矢內原忠雄, 1893-1961)의 식민(정책)론에 대한 연구는 이미 적지 않지만, 개별 식민지에 대한 연구라는 관점에서 볼 때 대만・만주・남양군도 및 인도 등에 비해 식민지 조선에 대한 야나이하라의 학술연구가 상대적으로 훨씬 적었다는 점은, 야나이하라의 조선에 대한 현실적・종교적 관심에 비추어 다소 의외이다. 왜 야나이하라는 『帝國主義下の朝鮮』 같은 저서를 남기지 않았던 것일까. 본고는 야나이하라의 연구와 활동 이력을 따라가다 보면 자연스럽게 드는 이 의문에 답해보는 것을 일차적인 목적으로 한다. 이 의문에 대한 해답을 추구하는 과정에서 야나이하라가 수행한 식민(정책) 연구의 중요한 특질이 보다 선명히 드러날 수 있고, 한 발 더 나아가서는 (특히) 대만과 조선의 식민지로서의 ‘차이’와 그 의미를 보다 분명히 드러내주는 데 기여할 수도 있다. 기존 연구에서 지적한 식민지 조선 연구에 있어서의 외압은, 단지 조선 연구에 있어서만이 아니라 대만 연구에 있어서도 동일하게 작동하고 있었다. 따라서 야나이하라에게 조선 연구가 상대적으로 결여되었던 점은 연구 외적 문제가 아닌, 연구 내적 문제에 대한 접근을 통해서 해결해야 한다. 이 때 주목되는 것이 야나이하라의 식민지에 대한 일반이론이다. 야나이하라는, 문명화 작용을 동반하는 실질적 식민, 자치주의, 그리고 양자의 결합을 전제로 한 “각 사회군의 필요가 조화된 제국”을 상정하고 있었다. 이러한 일반이론에 입각하여 전개한 대만 연구의 결과, 야나이하라는 ‘제국주의하의 대만’에 대해 “일본 식민지 중 가장 고도의 자본주의화를 달성”한 것으로 보았고, 이러한 자본주의화(=문명화)에 상응하는 ‘문명적 식민 통치’, 즉 식민지의회의 설립을 요구했다. 반면 조선에 대해서는 대만에 비해 체계적인 경제 분석이 없었고, 조선의 자본축적과 재정 발달 역시 낮게 평가하고 있었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 대만과 마찬가지로 식민지의회의 설립을 요구한 점은 동일했다. 다시 말해서, 대만의 경우 식민지의회의 설립은 자본주의화 달성의 ‘결과’였던 데 반해, 조선의 경우 식민지의회의 설립은 (아직 도래하지 않은) 자본주의화 달성을 위한 ‘방안’으로 제시되었다. 달리 말하면, 야나이하라는 대만의 경우 자본주의화(=문명화)를 동반하는 ‘실질적 식민’의 실체가 가시적으로 존재한다고 인식한 반면, 조선의 경우에는 일본의 식민 통치가 정당화될 만한 충분조건이 마련되지 못한 것으로 인식하고 있었다. 바로 이 점 때문에 식민지 조선 경제에 대하여 ‘침묵’했던 것은 아닐까.

일제하 대만 경찰력의 재검토 ― 번지 경찰력과 평지 경찰력의 통합적 이해 ―

문명기 동양사학회 2022 東洋史學硏究 Vol.159 No.-

I would like to put some new findings together according to what we had analyzed in this article. First, parapolice manpower system, originated from colonial Taiwan’s dualistic ruling system, was operated on a large scale, which which explains we cannot ignore the importance of parapolice manpower. But they were not equivalent to regular police officer in terms of rank, wage and duty, so if we want to measure the total police force of colonial Taiwan, we have to convert parapolice manpower into regular police manpower. I concluded that two parapolice manpower is approximately equal to one regular police manpower. Second, I reexaminated the scale of police manpower on the basis of the conversion above, and found that police manpower allocated on aborigine land accounted for 25% to 39% of the total police manpower, which explains that Government-General of Taiwan invested enormous human and material resources in order to govern securely aborigine land. But the relations between police manpower on aborigine land(= special administration area) and police manpower on general administration area was not the kind of zero sum. The police manpower on both areas increased simultaneously, and it implies that we cannot fully explain the superiority of colonial Taiwan’s police manpower compared with other regions within Japanese empire was derived from Taiwan’s regional characteristics like presence of aborigine land and aborigines. Anyway, the total police manpower of colonial Taiwan was far stronger than ant other parts of Japanese empire. It is confirmed in terms of population per police manpower and area per police station, especially compared with colonial Korea, the superiority of colonial Taiwan’s police manpower is striking. On the other hand, ethnic composition of police manpower in colonial Taiwan was no different from that of colonial Korea, not like previous researches have emphasized. Taiwanese police manpower ranged from 30 % to 46% of total police manpower of colonial Taiwan, and Korean police manpower ranged from 37 % to 44% of total police manpower of colonial Korea, which implies we rather see similarity than difference in terms of ethnic composition of police manpower. In the case of colonial Taiwan, the possible tension between police manpower demand and financial pressure was able to be resolved by applying ethnically hierarchic structure(Japanese–Taiwanese-Aboriginal) to police manpower allocation.

일제의 국책 다큐멘터리 <남진 타이완南進臺灣> 속에 나타난 타이완 재현과 식민의식

신동순 한국중문학회 2019 中國文學硏究 Vol.0 No.77

이 논문은 타이완 식민지 시기 일제 총독부가 제작한 국책 다큐멘터리 <남진 타이완>을 분석하고자 한다. 일제 식민주의자들이 어떻게 타이완에서의 40년 넘는 식민역사를 기록하고 있는지, 우리는 “지금, 여기”에서 <남진 타이완>의 재현 의식과 방식을 읽어보고자 한다. 타이완 일제 총독부가 제작한 다큐멘터리에서 우리는 일제 남진 정책과 정책선전 그 이면에 담고 있는 식민의식을 본다. 일본은 제국의 식민지 확장을 위해 식민지에 새로운 보편적 가치(예를 들면 개화와 문명, 근대화, 남진 정책)를 주입했고, 이를 바탕으로 식민지 대만에서 벌어진 식민지 전쟁의 정당성과 합리성을 확보하려고 했다. 일본 제국주의는 타이완의 식민지 의식을 부단히 재편하는 동시에 일본 신민으로서 식민지 타이완을 선전하였다. 일본 제국주의의 식민의식은 문명 전파와 근대화 발전, 아시아 공영이라는 논리로 감추어지고 조작되었다. <남진 타이완>은 타이완 전체를 위에서 조감하는 방식으로 그들의 식민 상상과 욕망을 재현하고 있다. 하지만 일제가 배치하는 영상 속 타이완과 타이완인, 원주민들의 전시 속에서 식민담론은 분열증을 보여준다. 일제의 식민교육(식민의 의식화)에 대한 타이완인(원주민)의 모방과 그 미끄러짐 속에서 분열증은 담론의 해체를 의미한다. The paper analyzes <Southward Expansion to Taiwan>, a documentary produced by the Japanese Governor-General during Taiwan’s colonial rule. How Japanese colonialists record Taiwan’s more than 40 years of colonial history. “Now, here,” we’d like to read what kind of reenactment was being made in the video. In this video, which emphasizes that it was produced by Taiwan’s Governor-General as a state-run documentary, we can now find colonialism and ideology. Japan injected new universal values (e.g. enlightenment and civilization, modernization) into the colonies for the colonial expansion of the empire, and on the basis of this, it sought to gain the legitimacy and rationality of the colonial wars waged in colonial Taiwan. Japanese imperialism constantly reshuffled Taiwan’s colonial consciousness while promoting colonial Taiwan as a new Japanese citizen. Imperialism’s insidious colonial consciousness was replaced by civilization and modernization, concealed and manipulated. The paper believes that <Southward Expansion to Taiwan> is recreating Taiwan, which they imagine or desire, in a way that takes a bird’s-eye view of the entire island from above. However, in the display of Taiwan, the Taiwanese and the indigenous peoples in the video deployed by the Japanese colonialists, colonialism shows signs of division. The division of colonial discourse is illustrated by the imitation of the Taiwanese (native inhabitants) of Japanese colonial consciousness and its slide.

일제하 조선 지방 세출의 구조와 추이, 1910~1936 - 대만과의 비교를 겸하여 -

문명기(Moon, Myungki) 중국근현대사학회 2021 중국근현대사연구 Vol.91 No.-

This paper tries to explore the structure and trends of local governments’ annual expenditures in colonial Korea with special focus on comparison with colonial Taiwan. Before I wrote this paper, I had performed serial studies on local revenues and expenditures in colonial Taiwan and Korea. My primary concern on this comparative studies was: is it possible to fully understand the characteristics of colonial public finance only dealing with public finances of the two Governments-General? Is there some possibility, if any, of viewing differently the financial phenomena in colonial period, by additionally observing local local governments’ annual expenditures? In chapter1, I presented categories related to local expenditures written in Handbook of Korea’s Local Public Finance(朝鮮地方財政要覽) and readjusted those categories in order to fulfill comparative analyses. In chapter2, I integrated the amounts of local expenditures scattered in individual categories and presented total amounts of annual expenditures of each fiscal year. And in chapter3, I explored the relationship between annual expenditures of local authorities and those of Government-General. As a result, I found that the financial strategy of the two central governments (=Governments-General) was very similar, in that they were quite positive in utilizing local governments’ revenue in order to realize its policies taking a detour to avoid interference from central government or national diet in Tokyo. But the government-general of Korea was more aggressive than government-general of Taiwan. The sum of local expenditures accounted for 41% of government-general’s expenditures in Korea, whereas the sum of local expenditures accounted for 24% of government-general’s expenditures in Taiwan(Table3-3). Colonial Korea has shown relatively more dependence on local expenditures, total expenditure per capita of colonial Korea has been only half that of colonial Taiwan for almost entire time span we have observed. This also suggests that government expenses per capita in colonial Korea was just half in colonial Taiwan. The fact that total expenditure per capita of colonial Korea was 11.29￥, whereas that of colonial Taiwan was 22.60￥, might be exactly reflected in recent studies on East Asian colonial economic history which suggest that real GDP per capita of colonial Taiwan consistently doubled that of colonial Korea.

植民地 時期 朝鮮 社會의 外地 認識 -臺灣과 南洋群島 新聞記事 論調 分析-

정혜경 한일민족문제학회 2012 한일민족문제연구 Vol.22 No.-

The purpose of this study is to disclose Colonial Korea’s recognition of Taiwan, which was the 1st overseas colony of Japanese Empire and Nanyoguntou(South Sea Islands), which was the japanese mandated territories. Especially, this paper focuses on the Colonial Korea’s different recognition of this two territories, which have some similarities in location, products, and population composition(high ratio of native residents). To understand the ruling policy of Japanese Empire this comparative study is very important because Taiwan had been under the japanese control 20 years earlier than Nanyoguntou. To study the recognition of Taiwan and Nanyoguntou, Two different kinds of newspaper articles are used. One is Meailsinbo, typical paper of the Japanese Govoernment-General of Korea, the other is Dong-A Ilbo, popular newspaper which has many korean readers. We can find out political intentions of Japanese Govoernment-General in the former, and we can check the koreans’ feed-back on political propaganda in the latter. According to this study, we can make out characteristic tone-change of this two newspapers with the passing of time. In the 1910’s, Meailsinbo described Nanyoguntou as “islands of barbarous inhabitants”, but Taiwan as “good model of colonial korea”, “island producing good results of colonial policy”, “colony developed in proportion to ruling period”. In the 1920’s, Nanyoguntou was considered as islands to which korea’s fruits and products should be exported. In case of Taiwan, Meailsinbo made an emphasis on good results of colonial management, and reported anti-japanese movement of taiwanese navtives in a distorted tone. Dong-A Ilbo made an endeavor to reflect reader’s interest in Taiwan. In the 1930’s, Meailsinbo reported Taiwan in the economic aspect, and emphasize regional tie among the colonies - Taiwan, Korea, Kantoshu(Liaotung). Biased tone of report on Taiwanese natives was not changed. On the other hand, Dong-A Ilbo made an active report on anti-japanese movements of taiwanese, and korean anti-japanese movement leaders related in taiwanese. But the two newspapers described Nanyoguntou as odd, curious, and exotic islands. Dong-A Ilbo made a report on japanese mandate-maintenance problem, which was global issue after 1933. After April of 1938, Nanyoguntou was considered islands to which koreans were forced to be sent. Japanese Govoernment-General made use of “Utopian image” of Nanyoguntou for the purpose of mass mobilization of koreans, who was to be sent to build military infrastructure like runaways and roads. In the case of Taiwan, while Meailsinbo made enthusiastic reports on “the loyal taiwanese brotherhood” who accepted military conscription submissively, Dong-A Ilbo just made some economic articles. この論文は、日本帝国の外地の中で一番早い内に植民地になった台湾に関する新聞記事を分析し、南洋群島とは何が違うのかを考察した。台湾は植民地で、南洋群島は委任統治地域であったが、両地域で生産した物資や原住民が多数を占めていた点においては違いがない。そして台湾は南洋群島にくらべ、統治期間が20年ぐらい長かった点から見ると、両地域の比較研究は支配政策史を検討するに於てそれなりの意味があると思われる。この論文では、朝鮮総督の機関紙である「毎日新報」と民間紙である「東亜日報」の記事を分析した。分析方法は、「毎日新報」を中心として、「東亜日報」の内容をクロスチェックしようとした。なぜかといえば、この論文は総督府の政策意図にたいする読者の反応に焦点を合わそうとしたからである。1939年まで、南洋群島は極めて少数の朝鮮人が居住したのみで、朝鮮社会の関心はひくい地域であったが、これは「毎日新報」であろうが「東亜日報」であろうかわりはなかった。其の一方、台湾に関する朝鮮言論の関心は高かった。時期別に両地域に関する報道内容を整理すれば次のようである。第一に、1910年代において南洋群島に関する「毎日新報」の論調は、「未開な原住民が住んでいる所」であった。其の一方、台湾は「朝鮮の模範になる所」、或は「朝鮮にくらべ資源が遥かに豊富ではないが」統治の成果が高い所であった。また、台湾において居留日本人の数は朝鮮より少ないが、「統治期間に比例して発展した所」として強調した。これが南洋群島との一番違った点である。第二に、1920年代において南洋群島に関する認識は朝鮮の果物や物産の輸出先であった。こういう点では両新聞の論調はかわらなかった。同じ時期において台湾に関する「毎日新報」の記事は、植民統治の成果をつよく見せようとした意図が見られる。以前とかわった点は歪んだ形であるが台湾原住民の抵抗や抗日運動について報道したことである。これに比べ、「東亜日報」は台湾に関する読者の関心を積極的に反映しようとした。第三に、1930年代に入ってから台湾に関する「毎日新報」の論調は、経済的な関心が高まったが、特に台湾·関東州·朝鮮などと日本帝国との連関性を強調する傾向がみられる。しかも原住民に対する片寄った論調にはかわりがなかった。其の一方、「東亜日報」の経済関連記事は、数的には減ったが対象は田変化した。また、台湾の抗日運動や台湾抗日運動家の動向、そして台湾を経由した朝鮮独立運動家たちの動きに関心をよせた。しかし、南洋群島に関する内容は両新聞のいずれも依然として、好奇心の対象であり風変わりの所として報道された。ただ、「東亜日報」は1930年代まで日本政府の最大関心事であった委任統治権の維持過程について詳細に報道した。第四に、日帝末期(1938.4)以降、朝鮮言論に映された南洋群島は朝鮮人の動員地であった。飛行場や動労建設の為の労働力動員を急に求めた日本は、今まで流布した「理想型」のイメージを朝鮮人動員に積極的に活用した。台湾の場合は、「東亜日報」は経済問題に焦点を合わしたが、「毎日新報」は「皇恩に報答する台湾同胞」を見せ付けてもっぱら志願兵や徴兵制度を宣伝しようとした。

󰡔每日申報󰡕(1910-1945) 기사를 통해 본식민지 조선의 臺灣 인식

손준식(Son, Jun-sik),이승찬(Lee, Sung-chan) 한국외국어대학교 역사문화연구소 2017 역사문화연구 Vol.63 No.-

The purpose of this study is to understand Joseon’s recognition of Taiwan during the Japanese colonial period, through an analysis of the articles in Maeilshinbo (1910-1945). Maeilshinbo was the only Korean daily newspaper published without interruption during the colonial period. The analysis of Maeilshinbo reveals the following results. In the 1930s, during which ‘Rice Self-management Law(米穀 自治管理法)’, ‘the Taiwan Rice Shipment Administration Order(臺灣米 穀移出管理案)’ had been considered and enacted, there were many articles published: the Great earthquake(1935), colonial management salary reduction(1931), government general personal transfers (1936), the Taiwan inspection team(1939), and the WuShi(霧社) incident(1930). Political and economic topics account for 80% of the total articles. The publication also consisted of many simple reports and very few editorial and commentary articles. In the political field, of most articles reported on colonial power, domination and administration, only a few of them were devoted to nationalist movements, while more of them were related to the economic field. In the social field, there are many weather related articles such as earthquakes and typhoons, as well as articles related to travel, performances and exhibitions in the cultural field. On the other hand, it was introduced that Taiwan was a far south island with no relation with Joseon, and became a paradise through the colonial rule of Japan, despite the actual heat, epidemic, and den of wild tribesmen. In addition, though Taiwan was a competitor of Joseon, it was also recognized as a partner capable of cooperating with trade, industry, and colonial administration. It seems to have often been the subject of comparison and reference as a model of colonial Joseon. As a result, the articles related to Taiwan mainly focused on two areas: the political and economic fields, as well as the achievements of the colonial rule and system over both the social and cultural field, and the national resistance movement needed to understand and recognize Taiwan. The articles also show the characteristics of Maeilshinbo, such as its position as the official newspaper of Japanese government-general of Joseon. However, it shares similarities regarding a sense of superiority to Taiwan, regardless of the Japanese government-general or Joseon intellectuals. 본 연구는 󰡔매일신보󰡕(1910-1945)의 관련 기사 분석을 통해 일제 식민지시기 조선의 대만인식을 이해하는데 그 목적이 있다. 󰡔매일신보󰡕는 일제 통치기간 중단된 일 없이 발간된 유일한 한국어 일간신문이었다. 대만 관련 󰡔매일신보󰡕 기사 분석 결과, 연도별로는 ‘米穀自治管理法’과 ‘臺灣米穀移出管理案’이 논의되고 시행되었던 1930년대 중에서 大地震(1935), 식민지 官吏 減俸문제(1931), 총독부 인사이동(1936), 대만시찰단(1939), 霧社사건(1930) 등이 있었던 해의 기사가 많았다. 주제별로는 정치와 경제 관련 기사가 전체의 80%를 차지하고 있으며 성격별로는 단순 보도기사가 대부분이고 논설이나 해설 기사가 매우 적음을 알 수 있다. 다음 정치 분야에서는 식민지 권력과 지배 및 행정에 관한 보도에 편중되고 민족운동 관련 기사가 매우 적으며, 경제 분야에서는 정책 기사가 다른 항목보다 많다는 특징이 있다. 사회 분야는 지진과 태풍 등 기상 관련 기사가 많으며, 문화 분야에서는 여행과 공연/전시 관련 기사가 많았다. 한편 대만은 조선과 별 인연이 없는 머나 먼 남쪽 섬나라로 더위와 전염병이 창궐하고 사람 목을 따는 生蕃의 소굴이었으나 일본의 식민통치를 통해 天惠의 樂土로 변했다고 소개되었다. 또 대만은 朝鮮米의 경쟁 상대이기도 하지만 무역과 산업, 식민행정 상 서로 협력할 수 있는 파트너로 인식되었고, 식민지 조선의 모델로 자주 비교와 참고의 대상이 되었던 것 같다.결국 대만 관련 기사가 대만을 이해하고 인식하는데 필요한 사회 문화 분야에 비해 정치 경제 분야에 집중되고 식민지 지배에 저항하는 민족운동에 비해 식민 통치와 체제에 관련된 단순 보도와 일본 식민통치의 치적을 강조하는 내용이 많았다는 점은 총독부 기관지였던 󰡔매일신보󰡕의 특징을 보여준다고 생각한다. 다만 총독부 관리나 조선 지식인을 막론하고 대만에 대해 모종의 優越感을 갖고 있다는 점에서 다른 民族紙와의 유사함을 발견할 수 있었다.

대만과 조선에서 ‘식민지 화폐영역’의 형성

裵城浚(Bae Sung Joon) 동양사학회 2012 東洋史學硏究 Vol.121 No.-

The central bank in colony was founded in the process of uniting Japan’s colony into Yen currency area and establishing monetary system in colonial Taiwan and Korea. And the central bank note was made for applying money for development in colony and preventing inflation from spreading to Japan. It showed the process of formation and spread of monetary area in colony modeled Taiwan bank that government general in Taiwan established Taiwan bank(臺灣銀行) and formed its monetary area circulated Taiwan bank note in colonial Taiwan, and Daiitch bank(第一銀行) in Korea established Daiitch bank note and formed its monetary area. But the process of formation of monetary area in colony had difference as much as it had similarity. As the reorgnization of the monetary system in Taiwan made progress after colonization, the reorgnization of the monetary system in Korea started before colonization. The difference of these conditions made difference in the formation of monetary system. While the reorgnization of the monetary system in colonial Taiwan was the process of the consultation and adjustment between government general in colony and Japanese government, it was the process of conflict and antagonism surrounding the monetary sovereignty in Korea. Government general in Taiwan carried out establishing the central bank right after colonization of Taiwan. But it was the first establishment and it undergone trial and error related transition to the gold standard. On the other hand Korean government reacted against the erosion on the monetary sovereignty and Daiitch bank note was approved as lawful money(法貨) under the protectorate at last. As the monetary reform in Taiwan was carried out on the base of the subordination of the economic structure, the monetary reform in Korea push on the violent way in the course of Russo-Japanese war and succeeding erosion of sovereignty. The difference in the process of establishing monetary system resulted in the difference in the system of note issue. Taiwan bank and Daiitch bank in Korea was similar that they borrowed the elastic limit system(屈伸制限制度) designed on the model of Japan bank. The system of note issue in Taiwan bank had gold or silver as its specie reserve(正貨準備), but the system of note issue in Daiitch bank had Japan bank note as its specie reserve. Japanese government cut off the direct relation between Taiwan bank note and Japan bank note, but strengthened the supervisory on Taiwan bank. On the other hand Japanese government intensified the intervention of Japan bank, but government general in Korea took charge of the supervisory on Korea bank.

식민지대만에서의 일본전통예능 공연-1913년 이치무라 우자에몬의 가부키공연을 중심으로-

한경자 ( Han Kyoung-ja ) 한국일어일문학회 2017 日語日文學硏究 Vol.101 No.2

The aim of this research paper is to identify the aspects of the cultural mechanism of colonialism employed by the Empire of Japan to dominate its colonies by contemplating the actual background of and purpose for holding Kabuki performances in colonial Taiwan in 1913. During the pre-war period, it was rare for Kabuki theatre troupes to perform in othercountries. The so called `Okabuki`, a Kabuki performance where first-class Kabuki actors appeared, was unheard of, except for Ichikawa Sadanji`s performance in Russia in 1938. However, Ichimura Uzaemon`s Kabuki performances were held in colonial Taiwan, colonial Korea, and the Manchuria regions under the power of the Empire of Japan. The performances in colonial Korea and the Manchuria regions happened in 1935; however, in colonial Taiwan, they were held in 1913. While the Kabuki performances by Uzaemon in colonial Korea and Manchuria were meant to provide entertainment and comfort to the Japanese citizens in the colonial regions as well as to serve as part of the commercial strategies of entertainment companies, the nature of the Kabuki performances in colonial Taiwan was different. The intention of Takamatsu Toyojiro, the promoter of the performances, was to break cultural barriers and to further promote friendly relations between colonial Taiwan and the Empire of Japan by improving impressions of Japan in colonial Taiwan through performances by the noted, well-liked, and famous actor, Uzaemon. Foreign tours of traditional Japanese theatre troupes were used to facilitate the smooth functioning of the mechanism of colonialism for the domination of the Empire of Japan over its colonies.

시데하라(幣原坦)의 식민지조선․대만에서의 교육 활동

최혜주 한양대학교 동아시아문화연구소 2020 동아시아 문화연구 Vol.83 No.-

시데하라가 조선과 대만에서 식민교육의 기초를 만든 인물이라는 점에 주목하여 그의 교육 활동을 살펴보았다. 첫째, 시데하라는 조선과 대만의 교육을 서구 식민지와 비교하여 상대적으로 관찰한 뒤 조선과 대만이 서구보다도 식민지 교육이 순조롭게 되는 것에 자부심을 가졌다. 그것은 조선과 대만이 일본과 ‘같은 인종’이므로 인종, 사상, 풍속, 습관에서 차이가 없고 일본인이 식민지 주민들을 다루는 교육법도 무리하지 않아 동화교육의 효과가 있어 서구보다도 유리하다고 보았다. 둘째, 실제 교육에서는 조선과 대만 모두 일본인 위주의 교육을 시행하여 식민지 주민 교육보다 우선하였다는 점이다. 그렇기 때문에 시데하라는 조선에서 학정참여관으로 있을 때 근대적 교육의 학제 개편을 실시하면서 대학 설립이 불필요하다고 보았고, 초등교육과 실업교육을 중시했다. 대만에서는 대학설립을 준비하여 총장이 된 후 대만인보다는 일본인 위주로 식민통치에 필요한 인재를 육성하기 위한 식민지대학을 운영해 나갔다. 이것은 시데하라가 조선과 대만에서 종주국의 지위를 얻은 일본인에게 지도자다운 자질을 요구하면서, 조선인과 대만인에게는 피식민자의 지위에만 머물게 하려는 것을 의미했다. 셋째, 시데하라는 조선과 대만에서 문화 건설과 교육 발전이라는 명목으로 그 실천자가 되어 활동했다. 조선에서는 일본어 보급과 교과서 편찬을 통해 일본문화를 침투시키고 있었고, 대만에서는 대만이 일본문화 선전에 필요한 남양연구와 조사에 적합하다고 보았다. 또한 인문․자연과학 연구에서 막대한 가치를 갖는 지역이라는 인식아래 일본문화의 정수를 남방에 건설한다는 사명에서 활동했다. 넷째, 시데하라의 적지주의라는 것은 조선과 대만의 식민지 사정을 참작하여 식민통치에 활용하자는 것이었다. 조선과 대만의 식민통치에서 일제의 교육정책이 어떠한 공통점과 차이점을 갖는지는 대북제대의 설립을 경성제대의 설립과 비교한다면 적지주의적 교육정책의 모습이 한층 명확하게 드러날 것이다. Observations of the characteristics of educational activities focusing on Shidehara’s theory of assimilation education in colonial Korea and Taiwan show that first, Shidehara, who made relevant observations of Korean and Taiwanese education in relation to Western colonies, was confident that colonial education was being conducted more smoothly in Joseon and Taiwan than in the West. This was because he viewed the effects of assimilation education to be advantageous compared to that of the West as the people of Joseon and Taiwan are ‘the same race’ as the people of Japan, sharing the same ethnicity, thoughts, customs, and habits and as the educational methods of the Japanese in dealing with colonial residents were not forceful. Second, both Joseon and Taiwan conducted Japan-oriented education in their actual educational practices and this was prioritized over colonial resident education. Because of this, when Shidehara worked as an undergraduate adviser in Joseon, he viewed the establishment of universities to be unnecessary as school system reform was being conducted in modern education and he placed importance on elementary education and vocational education. After preparations were made for a university establishment in Taiwan and he became president, a colonial university was operated to cultivate people of talent needed for colonization. This signified that Shidehara demanded that the Japanese who gained suzerain state positions in Joseon and Taiwan possess leadership qualities while having the people of Joseon and Taiwan staying in positions of the colonized. Third, Shidehara acted as an executor in the name of culture construction and educational development in Joseon and Taiwan. He spread Japanese culture in Joseon through Japanese language distribution and textbook compilations and in Taiwan, he viewed Taiwan to be fitting for the research and examination of the South Sea needed for Japanese culture propagation. Also, he carried out the mission of building the essence of Japanese culture in Southern regions under the awareness that they have immense value in humanities and natural sciences research. Fourth, the localism of Shidehara states that the colonial situations of Joseon and Taiwan should be taken into consideration and utilized in colonial rule. Comparisons made between the establishment of Taihoku Imperial University and the establishment of Keijo Imperial University to observe common points and differences in the educational policies of the Japanese Empire with regard to the colonization of Joseon and Taiwan will more clearly display the localized educational policies of Shidehara.

금강산/위엔산/낙토의 표상, 동아시아 식민지 관설 전람회

문정희 한국미술연구소 2010 美術史論壇 Vol.- No.30

The improvement of a cultural development is the motive of opening colonial governments' exhibitions when the Japanese government's exhibition, which had been imitated the western style, was early planted into colonies. However, a differentiated system between Japan and her colonies in the establishment of Chosun Art Exhibition(1922), Taiwan Art Exhibition(1927), and Manzhoukou Art Exhibition(1936) is not largely out of the colonialism of cultural policies. Asian symbols, which the Japanese government's exhibition spread to Chosun, Taiwan, and a half-colonized China(National Art Exhibition, 1929), concealed complicated and multifaceted aspects as well as the position of ruling and subjugated class. So far, colonial governments' exhibition research for the Asian representation has got a fruitful outcome by studying a double structure, which means Orientalism and nationalism in the style of the local color. This study from these bases looked over the whole picture by expanding to include the east Asian areas. First, I focused on the host's position to open colonial governments' exhibitions in assimilationism. There is difference between the Japanese colonies in regions and eras. That is, colonization plans depended on situations which the mainland got faced with. For example, while the host of Chosun Art Exhibition was the education and management bureau of the Japanese Government General of Korea in Chosun Art Exhibition, Taiwan Education committee which later established in Daejeon was very related with resident Japanese artists' organized art activities. Unlike these cases, the Manchukuo-Japan Culture Association(滿日文化協會) of Manchukuo Art Exhibition put up the first Manchukuo, the host, according to appearance of a nation versus a nation. The colonial governments' exhibitions made by the host's intention revealed their systemization of the subjugated class's discrimination, asserting the assimilation. Also, the development and the ruling system of a colonial culture were already exposed by colonial expos, especially Chosun Industrial Exhibition(1915) held in Chosun and Taiwan in 1910s. These exhibitions, however, were associated with paintings in colonial governments' exhibitions. For example, there were the development of sketch trips to Mt. Geumgang(the Diamond Mountains) and the ostentation of local products in the commercial development in a colonial city, Taiwan. The best example of the Japanese colonial policy in the background of exhibitions and the governments' exhibitions is wall paintings in colonial government offices: <the legend of Mt. Geumgang>(1926) painted by Sanzo Wada(和田三造, 1883-1968), who was the core of authority and power, and <Taiwan gentleman>(1920) and <Kingly way(王道樂土)>(1935) painted by Saburosuke Okuda(岡田三助, 1869-1939). These works demonstrate the dominant system of governments' exhibition styles. At the same time, they show that the relationship between ruling and subjugated class, publishing colonial slogans, '內鮮一體' which means Japan and Chosun are the one body, and '皇國臣民' which means the people of the Japanese emperor. These wall paintings were respectively made for Chosun Governor-General buildings, Taiwan Governor-General buildings, and Manchukuo Affairs Office. The implicit meaning in subject matters of these paintings were matched to each nation's symbol; Chosun's symbol to Mt. Geumgang, Taiwan Shirine(臺灣神社) to Mt. Yuan, and Manmeng's dream, Utopia(滿蒙樂土) to Harmony of the Five Races. From these symbols, we can find out the Asian representation.