Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Korean Manchuria: The Racial Politics of Territorial Osmosis

Korean Manchuria: The Racial Politics of Territorial Osmosis The South Atlantic Quarterly :, Winter . Copyright ©  by Duke University Press. ties between the metropole and the colonies. The relationship of the colonizer and the colonized in the Japanese empire, therefore, escaped the simple binary opposition of the self and the Other, as evoked in European empires. Instead of otherness, sameness was the mode of rule in the Japanese empire. The difference in the mode of rule between European and Japanese empires is symptomatic of larger disparities in modes of colonization. Despite obvious overwhelming variations within European and Japanese empires, one primary distinction features that Japanese colonizers ruled other Asians in Asia, while European colonizers ruled different races on different continents. To be specific, geographic and racial contiguity characterized the Japanese mode of colonization, in which the colonization of a country was seen to lead to another colonization of a contiguous region, making a chain of steps that would disseminate Japan’s sovereignty across the borders in Asia. For instance, Japan considered the occupation of Korea to be a first step to the colonizing of Manchuria, China proper, India, and ultimately all the other parts of Asia. I term this cascading image of building empire by http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png South Atlantic Quarterly Duke University Press

Korean Manchuria: The Racial Politics of Territorial Osmosis

South Atlantic Quarterly , Volume 99 (1) – Jan 1, 2000

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/korean-manchuria-the-racial-politics-of-territorial-osmosis-iEJXovigTz
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2000 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0038-2876
eISSN
1527-8026
DOI
10.1215/00382876-99-1-193
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The South Atlantic Quarterly :, Winter . Copyright ©  by Duke University Press. ties between the metropole and the colonies. The relationship of the colonizer and the colonized in the Japanese empire, therefore, escaped the simple binary opposition of the self and the Other, as evoked in European empires. Instead of otherness, sameness was the mode of rule in the Japanese empire. The difference in the mode of rule between European and Japanese empires is symptomatic of larger disparities in modes of colonization. Despite obvious overwhelming variations within European and Japanese empires, one primary distinction features that Japanese colonizers ruled other Asians in Asia, while European colonizers ruled different races on different continents. To be specific, geographic and racial contiguity characterized the Japanese mode of colonization, in which the colonization of a country was seen to lead to another colonization of a contiguous region, making a chain of steps that would disseminate Japan’s sovereignty across the borders in Asia. For instance, Japan considered the occupation of Korea to be a first step to the colonizing of Manchuria, China proper, India, and ultimately all the other parts of Asia. I term this cascading image of building empire by

Journal

South Atlantic QuarterlyDuke University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.