Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.961217135942.21216A-100000@is6.NYU.EDU> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 14:03:56 -0500 From: Leonard G Valenzuela <mailto:lgv200@IS6.NYU.EDU> Subject: Re: Colonialism To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was justifying Japanese aggression in Korea or Taiwan. I was merely responding to the assertion that no colonized power has ever gone on to become an non- major industrial nation. Since I do not know the history of Korea well, I believe you are correct. The location of Japanese industrial development in Korea may have been in the North.I was not trying to justifying colonialism.
Len Valenzuela
On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, Jong-Kook Han wrote:
> Japan brutally colonized both Korea and Taiwan, and by no means they have
> benefited. Japan forced Koreans to be second class citizens and attempted to
> destroy their culture. When Japan left Korea after loosing the WWII, they
> left behind oppressed and beaten people. It was US policy since the Korean
> War that assisted Korea to achieve economic stability and power. I can not
> agree on anyone who believes Korea or other countries that were colonized by
> Japan have benefited from Japanese occupation.
>
> Jong-Kook Han
> RPCV Kenya 91-93
>
> ----------
> From: Technology Transfer in International Development on behalf of Leonard G
> Valenzuela
> Sent: Friday, December 13, 1996 12:57 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L
> Subject: Re: Colonialism
>
> Is that true? Korea and Taiwan were essentially colonies of Japan in the
> first part of this century. The nature of their colonial process,
> however, was one of industrialization rather than of simple removal of
> primary materials. Couldn't you say in some way that they "benefited"
> from their colonial experience?
>
> Len Valenzuela
> NYU
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, David Johnson wrote:
>
> > "There has never, in history, been a former colony which has
> > risen from the third world to take its place among the developed nations
> > in the first world".
> > A very carefully worded statement. Do you agree? Why do you think
> > this is? Has it just been too recent or is there something about the
> > colonial experience which so shatters a nation that it can't recover?
> > Note that by stating "risen from the third world" excludes the US
> > and Australia, Canada etc. You can maybe argue about Singapore but that
> > is really a nation state. The point of the exercise is not to find
> > possible exceptions but to ponder the reasons, if any, for the vast
> > majority. Dave Johnson
> >
>