I'm not talking about the 1990s, I'm talking about the 1930s and 40s. We did not see massive pro-independence protests in India in the 90s, did we?
as mentioned, it's the 40s. The entire post prior to this was about how it would be fundamentally impossible for Korea to keep its urge to become independent suppressed for long, while it's allowed to express them.
people do not thankful because their rights are retained; the thought process is never "oh our glorious leaders are wonderful! they are supporting our continued rights!"; it rather means that demonstrations and riots will not cease but continue and also increase, in response to any decrease in their rights or any anti-Korean abuse by the Japanese. More resources just means more stuff to fight the Japanese against.
Its important to assume that any kind of civil disobedience will only start in the 60's. Perhaps early 70's, perhaps late 50's. That time-frame.
OTL, even with harsh treatment from the war, there was little organized resistance through the 30's and 40's. I'm assuming that this lack of resistance would reoccur ATL. People wanting self-determination is one thing. Having groups actually leading is another. In Korea, after 1920 there was never any concerted effort to bring sweeping changes, apart from the communists hiding in China. Basically, they will have the right to protest, but it won't be a huge national scale thing until their organizations form and take serious action by the 60's.
The main tipping point of when the Koreans make their choice comes in the late 90's. By then, those hundred years have passed. Which brings us to...
The process of cultural amalgamation is different from division. The Pakistan-India division is so obviously different from the supposed "Korea-Japan integration". And your idea of "post-industrial cultural moulding" seems interesting - does that mean if I slapped the UK and the Netherlands together one day, they'll find themselves culturally identical and become a single identity?
It seem I've been misunderstood. I'm not saying Koreans forget how to speak Korean. What I mean is that they will consider both Korea and the larger Empire to be their country. They don't forget about their distinct homeland, they just see it as an important piece of a larger entity. Like France in the EU. France is it's own place with its own history, but it also has come to share its history with other places in Europe under the experience as a single political entity.
None of my examples seem to work very well, I'm just trying to show similar cases that may help the reader to understand my way of thinking better.
It is harder to let loose of something you were already given than to never have something. If Koreans tasted democracy, by no means would they simply let it go because of a war effort for their "master country".
In hindsight, if you are talking about OTL, I'm guessing that you are implying that Korea and the Koreans will retain its democratic rights; then, this furthers the previous assertions of enhanced Korean urge for independence.
Yes I am talking about OTL. In the 20's, after the 1919 event, the colonial administration decided that in order to reduce unrest and prevent future rebellious sentiment, Koreans should be given more equal rights. These were very small concessions, and happened very slowly, but the idea was there - to extend rights to Koreans to make them feel more included and less oppressed - thus less likely to resist.
However, since there were a bunch of huge wars going on, the colonial administration switched to "extract as much as you can, whatever the cost", which reversed the progress of the previous decade. Even when this happened. The Koreans did not resist and had no real organized movement.
Basically, without the war, the situation becomes much more stable, most Koreans don't see a need for an active independence group, thus the lag until the 50's and 60's before people get organized.
are you suggesting that Korea would be better off as serfs toward the Japanese? Your general comment in that paragraph is logically inconsistent, and would require some rephrasing - because of more liberties toward the people, the government became more brutal? where on earth do you spin that kind of logic?
You misunderstand. What I meant was that it was possible for the Japanese to treat colonial areas fairly well, as they did in Formosa. Thus that without the war they could have realistically elected to let their colonies have greater liberties in their self-government.
But then I take a stab at myself and write in a tone of dark humor that as far as the OTL Japan goes, a colony being "better off than the rest" still isn't very good if the rest were treated so horribly.
The whole war thing makes people do crazy things.
as mentioned, atl racism would probably around western countries-level. with all the idea of eugenics flourishing, casual racism and segregation would be a major issue that exacerbates the willingness of Koreans to become independent - as much as OTL India.
on what democracy does, look at statements above. Less racism does not mean compromise when there is going to be inherent, incessant, causal racism by default. And such racism, even without militarism, is going to give only one issue between Japan and Korea: give independence peacefully, or it will be taken forcefully.
Nothing I write is black and white. There is a lot of middle ground to be had. Less racism and more compromise mean just that. Not that society magically becomes colorblind and that everyone cooperated on everything forever. Just less bad, more good.
Racism is a touchy subject because it is still an important force today. But time and consciousness work to reduce it.
It won't be gone, but it allow more chances for people to make better choices.
When Lt. Col. Nakamura faces those crowds of protesting students, he doesn't see a pack of mongrel gooks. He sees kids not much different in age and spirit from his own son back at home.
When you don't dehumanize and make others be so separate, it is natural that the groups will be more likely to empathize and be more willing to understand each other.
perhaps I'm just too much of an optimist. If there is a chance for reconciliation, I am of the opinion that most would take it. The vast majority of the populations in question are normal human beings who value things like partnership and trust, not calculated political moves. It may not make sense for Koreans to abandon the idea of having their own color on the map, but the heart doesn't need to follow rigid logic, does it?
Also on the side of realism, the economy is something that's very important that we've both erroneously left out of our discussion.
By the 60's/70's the economy is booming. Economically stable (read 'fat and happy') people are less keen towards radical political changes, especially if it requires them to oppose the system that is housing their success. 50's America was an economic high point. It was also the high point for conservatives and conformity. If poverty and instability makes people take to the streets with their fists in the air, then stability and affluence make them stay home and sip their tea instead.
