The Abacus and the Sword: The Japanese Penetration of Korea, 1895-1910 (Twentieth Century Japan: The Emergence of a World Power) (Volume 4)

One of the many aspects of East Asian relations insufficiently appreciated in Western nations is the troubled history of Japan and its neighbors, specifically Korea. Peter Duus' The Abacus and the Sword: The Japanese Penetration of Korea, 1893-1910 is a an economic analysis of the relationship between Japan and Choson Korea before the Japanese Occupation. A very demanding book by a reputable Japan scholar, Abacus and the Sword requires a beginner's acquaintance with Japanese and Korean history, and a knowledge of international relations in the nineteenth century is also helpfulFor those living outside of Korea, the reasons for Meiji Japan's occupation of Korea may seem unimportant, but, in all the countries of Northeast Asia, Japanese responsibility for many actions committed in the 20th Century are highly controversial and relevant. Debates concerning North Korean policy, Japanese militarization, Japanese war guilt, comfort women, Japan's economic recession and endemic corruption are all subjects affected by the histories of Japan and Korea. But this book also contributes to the discussion concerning colonialism and imperialism.Why did an isolationist victim of Western imperialism become a conqueror itself? Instead of championing the rights of weaker nations, Japan determined to imitate it's American transgressors and build an empire of it's own, to compete with the West. This is Duus' starting point, which he painstakingly traces in its political and economic history. Duus argues, that industrialization was the condition for Japanese imperialism, not the reason. Furthermore, British, French, and American government support for empire-building affected how the Japanese government policies worked.Although he admits so himself, I would prefer if Duus had used more Korean sources, especially when discussing the Korean resistance armies (uibyong-gun), but he uncovers the Japanese players and popular Japanese attitudes without bias. The other side of the equation is important, though, namely how Korea fell so easily to foreign domination. Duus also discusses the other international players, Russia and China. And the last chapter on Japanese cultural domination invaluably narrates how Japan obliterated a nascent Korean identity. Still, the Japanese accounts of Korean conditions are insightful, since Korean accounts are sparse and suspect.Given the politicized nature of the two countries' relationship, the reader must be skeptical of any history. Undisputed data is sparse and analysis, particularly on the Korean sides, has progressed little from conspiracy theories. Any amount of sober analysis is welcome, and Duus delivers.

I wrote a thesis in college about the Japanese seizure of Korea, and my main argument was that there was no nefarious plot to take over Korea; rather, the annexation was the result of conflicting elements within the Japanese government. (The annexation was, of course, a victory for the reactionary elements.)This book illustrates that there WERE elements within the Japanese government who wanted to help Korea reform. They certainly had ulterior (read: self-centered) motives in doing so, namely economic/financial gain. But there was, at least according to this book, a noted absence of imperialistic/expansionist attitudes by Meiji Japan towards Yi Choson Korea, at least for a time.It is a challenging examination of that time from the Japanese point of view, and it certainly merits a reading from the serious historian.

A pretty good introduction to the subject, faming the Korea's loss of independence within the general context of Japanese imperialism. Part 2 of the book may appear somewhat detached from the political narrative of the Part 1 but nevertheless is helpful in illustrating the events on a micro level

This is a scholarly work and not "popular history." I say the book is important because this is really not a covered subject. Aside from being a bit boring and confusing for people not an expert in Japanese political hisotry during Meiji, I found it disturbing that the author cited only Japanese and English sources. And the majority of English sources are old (1960s). In the intro, the author freely admits he neither speaks or reads Korean (!)So, this is a one sided version of history (from the imperialist side). We will have to wait for some of the very good Korean accounts to be written or translated into English. In the meantime, try Bruce Cumming's work on Korean modern history.