First, part of the comment from the supporter:
"What you have here is one document about comfort women in one specific part of the Japanese empire at the time. It does not in any way represent the experiences of all of Japan's comfort women during WWII.
In fact, it says in this document that "[These 20 comfort women in Burma] lived in near-luxury in Burma in comparison to other places." Meaning that in other places in the Japanese empire, comfort women fared a lot worse. (This document also says that these Korean comfort women were recruited by means of deception and that they did not like their "work".)
In fact, three-quarters of comfort women died during the war. They died due to harsh conditions and (mis)treatment, rampant sexually transmitted diseases, and battlefield losses. Even the ones who survived were left infertile from STD's and traumatized for life.
Are you even aware of the Japanese govt's official position on the comfort women issue?
Until 1992, the Japanese govt had denied that Japanese military had any involvement with comfort women. But in Jan. 1992, a Japanese researcher named Yoshimi discovered documents implicating the Japanese military in setting up and running the comfort women system and published the documents in a major newspaper. The very next day, the Japanese govt admitted responsibility..."
Then, part of my response:
********
Thank you for your comment, and I’m sorry for the late
response. I appreciate much that you write in detail, but you seem to present
commonly-held misconception on the comfort women issue, which I’d like to point
out along with my comment. Since it will be long, I will just write partly, and
continue writing in my blog.
First, the Japanese Prisoner of War Information Report No.49
dated Oct 1, 1944, is the official document of the US Army written based on the
interrogation of 20 Korean comfort women who had been serving the Japanese Army
in Burma up until the day they were captured by the US Army. This is the valid,
first- or second-degree historical evidence to reveal the actual conditions of
the comfort women from that period. The credibility of such document is thus
significant.
You mention that “in other places in the Japanese empire,
comfort women fared a lot worse”, and “three-quarters of comfort women died
during the war. They died due to harsh conditions and mistreatment, rampant
sexually transmitted diseases…”, but what is your historical evidence to claim
these? Discussion of history must be based on analysis of valid evidence, and
not assumption or belief.
As you correctly point out, the Report says that many women
were recruited based on deception: “The inducement used by these agents was
plenty of money, an opportunity to pay off the family debts, easy work, and the
prospect of a new life in a new land, Singapore. On the basis of these false
representations many girls enlisted for overseas duty and were rewarded with an
advance of a few hundred yen” (p.1).
But note that they were “rewarded with an advance of a few
hundred yen”. This was a huge amount, considering that the monthly salary of a
first class solider was 10 yen, and the sergeant 30 yen. The Report says that
“the contract they signed bound them to Army regulations and to war for the
"house master " for a period of from six months to a year depending
on the family debt for which they were advanced” (p.1), and “girls who had paid
their debt could return home” (p.3). Again, the income these women received was
humongous (about 25-75 times that of a soldier), thus some of them did go home.
It looks to me that this was rather a fair business deal, not slavery.
The Report also mentions:
“The girls were allowed the prerogative of refusing a
customer. This was often done if the person were too drunk” (p.1);
“The health of these girls were good… They were well
trained in looking after both themselves and customers in the matter of
hygiene. A regular Japanese Army doctor visited the houses once a week and any
girl found diseased was given treatment, secluded, and eventually sent to a
hospital” (p.4);
“There were numerous instances of proposals of marriage
(from soldiers) and in certain cases marriages actually took place” (p.4).
Nowhere in the Report has it mentioned that women died due
to mistreatment, as you claim. Quite the opposite. The Report says that 800
comfort women were sent to Burma, and it’s sensible to assume that these women
operated under the same management and treatment. You mention that this is just
one document about comfort women in one specific part of the Japanese empire.
However, the Army operates in a highly disciplined manner, with the same rules
wherever it goes. Why would the Army pay humongous salary and take good care of
comfort women in Burma, and “abuse, mistreat and kill” comfort women in other
countries? It does not make sense.
In fact, the soldiers who violated the military rule and
forced Dutch women to become comfort women in Indonesia were severely punished
by the Japanese Army Headquarters once found, and the comfort station was
immediately closed. This clearly demonstrates that the Japanese Army did not
tolerate abduction / mistreatment of women.
You mention that, in 1992, professor Yoshimi “discovered
documents implicating the Japanese military in setting up and running the
comfort women system and published the documents in a major newspaper”.
Here, we need to make the point of argument clear: Yes, the
Japanese military established and managed the comfort women system, mainly to
prevent rapes in the local communities in the battle field. It was very
important for Japanese military to respect the local community and not to cause
anti-Japan sentiment because the goal of the war was to achieve peaceful and
prosperous Greater East Asia, getting rid of the Western colonial powers from
the region. That is why Japanese military recruited their own prostitutes,
brought them to the battlefield, and managed the comfort stations in a
disciplined manner.
In fact, the armies in other countries, such as the US,
France, Germany, Italy, etc, tacitly or openly managed comfort stations in the
battle field (http://note.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/detail/n203527). The tragedy
is where such system was not established, as in the case of Korean army in the
Vietnam war. The Korean soldiers abducted or raped a large number of Vietnamese
women, leaving behind 5,000 – 30,000 Lai Dai Han, mixed-blood children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n.
Thus, the point of argument is not whether the Japanese army
managed the comfort stations or not, but whether the Japanese army “forced”
women into prostitution or not, and the answer is NO.
In fact, the document that professor Yoshimi discovered in
1992 was the Japanese government’s order to ban and punish the crooked dealers
who engaged in human trafficking / abduction of women (such trafficking had
been traditionally a social problem in Korea and the police was clamping down
on them under the Japanese administration). However, Asahi, the infamous
anti-Japan pro-Korea newspaper, published a distorted article about it, widely
claiming “Japanese involvement in comfort women system” to make the comfort
women issue and amplify it. (This is how Asahi newspaper has been “making”
historical issues, misleading the public. Beware if you are reading it!).
In June this year, professor Yoshimi was invited as a
speaker at a symposium on comfort women organized by VAWWRAC. In the Q&A
session, many questions were raised for him. I will introduce a few below: (Source: Seiron, Oct 2013, by Otaka Miki)
Participant: “Is there anybody who witnessed the abduction
of these women by the Japanese army?”
Prof. Yoshimi: “If we understand abduction as taking by
force, there is a case of a village in China. There is also a case of a Dutch
woman abducted in Indonesia…” [Prof. Yoshimi never mentioned of Korean women.
Why doesn’t he if so many Koreans were abducted?]
Participant: “At that time, 80% of the police in Korea were
Koreans. How was abduction of Korean women possible?”
Prof. Yoshimi: “Er… If the recruiters were Koreans, their
responsibility must have been pursued…” [He is not answering the question]
Participant: “How much income were the comfort women
receiving?”
Prof. Yoshimi: “I don’t know. I think the soldiers were
paying money, but the brokers were managing it, and some of it would go to
comfort women, but some fees were subtracted….” [His answer is not clear, but
he admits that the ones who managed the comfort stations were not the Japanese
army but the brokers]
I will discuss Kono statement, etc, etc, in my blog next
time.
In fact, the Japanese government has been the major source
of creating the problem, because of their irresponsible statements without
knowing the historical facts. I will write more.
Again, thank you for commenting on my blog, and thank you
for reading.
***********
No comments:
Post a Comment