흥미로운 글이 있어 짧게 나누어 보고자 합니다.
경제시사 주간지인 이코노미스트에 올라온 글인데요...
"역사 전쟁"이라는 주제를 가지고 이야기를 하고 있습니다.
저 글을 보는 순간,
저는 순간적으로 우리나라와 일본 사이에 있는 바다가 "동해"(East Sea) 로 되어있는지 "일본해"(Sea of Japan) 으로 표기되었는지 부터 확인했습니다.
그리고 또 우리나라의 극동이 "독도" 로 제대로 표기되었는지..아니면 "타케시마"로 되었는지...
저도.... 어쩔 수 없는 한국인 입니다 ㅡ
글에서도 이야기 하고 있지만... 이 문제로 이코노미스트 본사도 여러차례 서신을 받은 모양입니다.
우리나라에서 뿐만이 아니라 일본에서도, 중국에서도 [중국과 일본사이에서도 이와 같은 분쟁이 있다고 하네요. 처음 알았음] 수 차례 서신을 받는다니...
글을 쓰는 작가도 어지간히 난처할 거 같습니다.
그래도 확실히 해야할 건 확실히 해야죠!!!
우리나라 동편에 위치한 바다의 이름은 East Sea 가 맞고!
그 East Sea 에 있는 조그마한 섬 이름은 Dokdo 가 맞습니다!!
하지만... 제가 조금 울컥한건 지도에서가 아니라..
마지막 부분에서 나온 글인데요...
아래 하이라이트로 칠한, 바로 저 대목입니다.
위안부에 대한 글인데...
결론부터 말하자면, 일제침략 당시 일제를 위해 일했던 많은 한국 남성들이 한국 여성들을 위안부로 끌려가게끔 내몰았다는 겁니다. 저 대목을 읽는순간 어찌나 울화통이 터지던지... ...
정말이지 다시는 힘 없는 나라가 되어서는 안되야 겠다는 생각이 들었습니다.
세계 어느 나라 남자들이 자기 나라 여자들을 침략자들에게 넘겨주는 역사가 있었겠습니까?
수치 중에 수치가 아닐 수 없습니다.
최근 미디어에선 안중근 의사님을 다시금 재조명 하고 있습니다.
이토 히로부미를 저격했던 안중근 의사님.
의사님께서 만약 이런 남성들을 보셨더라면....
히로부미를 저격하려 했던 저격탄중 한 발은 이들을 향해 돌리셨을 지도 모르겠습니다.
Banyan
History wars
From The Economist print edition
A truce is unlikely to herald lasting peace between Japan and its neighbours
| |
 | |
JAPAN’S nearest neighbours have long been less ready than has the rest of Asia to forgive and forget the country’s aggressive past: a brutal colonisation of Korea in 1905-45 and a creeping occupation of China from 1931 leading to total war. Both projects were pursued ruthlessly and entailed civilian massacres, torture and slavery in factories, mines and military brothels.
So Yukio Hatoyama, Japan’s new prime minister, has pleased the neighbours by promising that rule by his Democratic Party of Japan would transform Japan’s relations with them. He made the pledge in both Seoul, where he met South Korea’s president, Lee Myung-bak, on October 8th, and then in Beijing at a three-way summit with China’s leaders. Unlike the weasel-worded Liberal Democratic Party, which long ran the country, Mr Hatoyama’s new government, he says, “has the courage to face up to history.”
Both Mr Lee and China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, were delighted. Dealing honestly with historical matters, they affirmed, would make it much easier to tackle contemporary challenges together—notably, getting North Korea to give up its nukes, and deepening economic co-operation. Mr Lee said Mr Hatoyama had opened the way for “future-oriented relations”. The talk now is of reviving old plans for an undersea tunnel linking South Korea and Japan. Emperor Akihito may visit South Korea, a first. Both South Korea and China have applauded Japan’s proposal for a jointly compiled history textbook.
If only it were so simple. For all the bonhomie now, past hopes for “future-oriented” relations have often been frustrated. One problem is disputed territory (see map). Japan contests Dokdo, a rocky outcrop controlled by South Korea, while China claims the Senkaku, held by Japan. In addition, Japan contests Russia’s control of four northern islands seized in August 1945. Over the years Chinese, Japanese, South Korean and Russian diplomats have all berated The Economist over our maps.
|
|
 |
Japan insists Dokdo should be called “Takeshima”. The South Koreans insist on the “East Sea” in place of the Sea of Japan. Over Dokdo/Takeshima, the websites of Japan’s and South Korea’s foreign ministries wage a virtual war, with pop-up cyber “history halls” and the like (in South Korea’s case, in nine languages). Yet both sides look merely ridiculous. Japan’s justification glides over the fact that its 1905 claim marked a first step in imperial annexation. South Korea argues that Dokdo has been “Korean” since 512, but uses the name for a country that did not exist until 1948. Competing for legitimacy with North Korea, the South also insists on the “East” rather than the “Chosun” Sea, since “Chosun”, a much more common reference in old Korean documents, is these days associated with the North. Empty specks of rock do duty as stand-ins for wider and even touchier historical issues.
Things would be better if Japan were now readier to call a slave’s spade a spade. It has apologised many times for its brutal past, but only in vague terms, expressing “remorse” for ill-defined damage. Most apologies, including the one that has since become a template, by the then prime minister, Tomiichi Murayama, at the 50th anniversary of the war’s end, appear to say sorry to the Japanese people first. Mr Hatoyama does not call for the imperial family to break the so-called chrysanthemum taboo by admitting guilt on behalf of the wartime emperor, Hirohito. Nor does he suggest that the Diet (parliament) pass a law expressing national contrition instead of merely making statements. So, on this, he does not look like a mould-breaker. But then the leaders of South Korea and China may not want him to be. Being able occasionally to beat Japan for its lack of remorse is not all bad.
But Alexis Dudden of the University of Connecticut points out* that as vague apologies proliferate, the human victims of imperialism, though winnowed by old age, are ever less ready to accept them. The many wartime “comfort women”, or sex-slaves for the army, of whom South Koreans made up the biggest number, for example, want individual apologies and redress from the state. Despite abundant and harrowing testimony, Japan admits only general responsibility. The foreign ministry refers not to the women, but to “the issue known as ‘wartime comfort women’”.
When America’s Congress called on Japan in 2007 to apologise for the comfort-women system, Ichiro Ozawa of the DPJ, now the party’s secretary-general, threatened a Diet resolution damning the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His demeaning of the comfort women was grotesque but symptomatic: even today, many Japanese believe the atomic horror washed away any guilt for devastation in other parts of Asia.
But then the South Korean government gets more worked up about Japanese claims on a guano-flecked rock more than it does about the comfort women. After all, many of the men sending women to the front were, well, Koreans, working for the colonial authorities. Later, from 1948, the instruments and executors of Japanese repression were hitched to the new South Korean state—under American military tutelage to boot. That is all too inconvenient to highlight today.
So official versions of history tend to veer away from the truth, not towards it. You only have to look at the Chinese history on display at the extravaganzas for last year’s Beijing Olympics or this month’s National Day celebrations. The first (traumatic) 30 years of the Communist Party’s 60-year rule were airbrushed out. History, as Simon Schama, a master of the craft, says, should be the instrument of self-criticism, not self-congratulation. Not just in dictatorial China, but also in democratic South Korea and Japan, history still has far to go if it is to serve that aim.
Actual article at:
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14660487
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기