Gim Byung Hun's Time Travel (1)
Began a series of "Time Travel" articles to deepen our understanding of the comfort women issue through the history of women's suffering that occurred in Korea. Through the series, we will look at the lives of the lower
(continued)
class women who were called prostitutes and comfort women at the time, and how they became comfort women for the Japanese military.
Another incident occurred
The arrangers dragged the women out of the inn and the police were called.
The situation worsened and a lawsuit was on the verge. The parents of the women showed the contract in writing to the newspaper branch office to prove the contents of the contract
(continued)
in person and became indignant, saying that the threatened crime was absolutely unacceptable.
Following the filing of a complaint with the police against one of them for assault, attaching a medical certificate for a total recovery of 10 days, the woman's brothers
(continued)
presented the contract signed at the time as evidence that they would surely expose the crimes of Master Joil Jung for forcing her into prostitution by deceiving her to the age even though she had signed an advance payment contract that made prostitution impossible.
invaluable fack for realizing the social conditions in Korea at the time #Gordon of the Institute of Japanese Studies, #Eckert of that of Korean Studies at #Harvard argue that #Razmeyer paper is't an academic paper bes. it presents a contract as a rebuttal apjjf.org/2021/5/Gordon-…
#Harvard's #Gordon and #Eckert must have a completely different view of Korea at the time in their minds than the facts.
Their rebuttal itself (no #contract) proves the fallacy of their historical understanding.
Photo of schoolgirls on a field trip to the outskirts of Pyongyang
Professor Rathmeyer's paper has 68 citations, all of which indirectly or directly suggest the existence of a contract.
Don't be drawn into their straw man arguments. If only these two points of criticism are in contention, the entire paper will be lost,
(continued)
but let me make a few counter-arguments
The two main points are 1) There is no written contract. 2) The term "comfort women" was not in use at the time--> fraud
The term "慰安婦" was not common in Korea at the time, "慰安" = to care for or to love, so Koreans signed up for contracts without recognize that the term mean a prostitute.
Many former comfort women, many of them former comfort women, testified that they were scammed into employ
But newspapers in Korea in 1944, the year before the end of the war, said they were looking for comfort women"[慰安婦]".
The other is the pictures of the comfort women who were forcibly taken from their homes, which until recently appeared in Korean textbooks.
The girls are holding bags with the words "慰問袋" on it, and the textbook says this is evidence of comfort women.
(continued)
in despite of that there are canned goods in front of the girls.
The next photo of the Japanese also show "慰問袋".
It means the same as above.
These contain letters and photos to encourage the soldiers.
"comforting" and "consoling" were euphemisms for prostitution in Korea at the time, since the pictures were even published in Korean textbooks.
BTW, pay attention to the hairstyle of the girls in the comfort women statue and textbook.
Back then, long hair tied up was the norm,
(continued)
not hairstyles like the comfort women statue.
The model was a converted girl who was run over and killed by US soldiers.
Here's pictures of what you just saw. kaikai.ch/board/13929/ kaikai.ch/board/7835/
If you have time, take a peek at this site to get a better idea of what Korea was like back then.
I highly recommend it.
The Korean Peninsula during the Japanese Empire kaikai.ch/board/4931/
Let's go back to the story.
{The term "IANFU" was not common in Korea at the time, as "IAN" meant to care for or love. Koreans might have signed up without understanding that the term was for prostitutes}.
But Lee Yong Soo can speak Japanese fluently!
She must have learned Japanese in school.
BTW
Historians should be careful in translating terms.
Korea was a "colony" of Japan. to be precise, "amalgamated".
Western image of "colony" looks like pictures.
The meaning of "the colony" is different from Japan's "colony" in Korea
The picture shows the Belgian colony Congo, why are there people without arms?
Today's Koreans don't know their own history 1) Koreans at the time were legally Japanese. 2) 100% of the village mayors, 80% of the provincial assembly members, and 60% of the police were Korean-Japanese (ethnically Korean).
This photo shows a panel used by Senator Nakayama during a debate in the Japanese Diet, and an article in the Chosun Asahi News{朝鮮朝日} that reported that 80%{八○%} of the winners of the 1933 election were Koreans.
3) The ratio of the Japanese population on the Korean Peninsula was between 1.5% and 3.0%.
Due to language barriers, the village offices and police, who were in direct contact with the residents, were staffed by Korean-Japanese.
Koreans receiving cholera vaccination.
4) In 1943, there were more than 300,000 applicants for the special volunteer army in Korea, nearly 50 times more than the 6,300 recruited.
(Incidentally, the total number of Japan's Self-Defense Forces is 240,000 today.
Photo: Japanese Korean soldiers marching into battle
I highly recommend it again. you have a better understanding of Korea at that time.
When you enter the site, select your language from the pull-down menu in the upper right corner of the screen.