In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

N O T E O N R O M A N I Z A T I O N A N D N A M I N G Personal names of those who reside or have resided primarily in China, Japan, or Korea are written with the surname preceding the given name, while the reverse order is followed for all others. In romanizing Korean and Japanese, I follow the McCune-Reischauer and modified Hepburn system (as used in Kenky[sha’s dictionaries ),respectively.Exceptionshavebeenmadeforpropernounsforwhichthere are standard renderings in English (for example, Tokyo, Seoul, Pak Chung Hee), as well as when individuals have indicated that they prefer other romanizations. I have tried to exercise sensitivity toward the politics of naming and transliteration , but have not avoided the terms or practices in common usage in the places and during the periods studied. With regard to the Japanese American camps, many activists and scholars have long emphasized that the term “relocation center” as applied to the ten main sites is a euphemism that obscures the coercion and violence of evacuation and internment. I agree with this criticism. However, since one of the arguments of this book is that from the government’s point of view the camps were supposed to embody the values of liberalism, I rarely use the term “concentration camp” to refer to them. Also, although I believe that the Nazi concentration camps and the U.S. camps for Japanese Americans emerged out of a shared modern political rationality, they should not be conflated, because, as I will argue, the former led directly to extermination of the confined and the latter to assimilation of the segregated into white America, at least in principle and despite targeted expressions or threats of violence. In most cases I therefore employ either the official terms xix designating specific types of camps—thus, “assembly center or camp,” “relocation center or camp,” “segregation center,” and so on—or the more generic term “internmentcamp”torefertothevarioustypesof wartimecampsthatconfinedJapanese Americans. The reader should not assume that I in any way condone the official namings. How one names Koreans and Korean places is an extremely sensitive political issue. Not only did the Japanese colonial government attempt to force all Koreans to adopt “Japanized” names, but the Japanese government continued to pressure resident Koreans to do the same after the war. However, consistent with my decision to critically examine the most common naming practices of the relevant periods and places rather than substitute anachronistic terms that seem preferable today, I use the contemporary appellations in the following ways. (1) I privilege the Koreanreadingsof Koreannameswheneverpossible.(2)Whenthenamesarevoiced in films, I have given them as heard, whether in Korean or Japanese. In late colonial films Koreans were commonly called by the Japanized voicings of the kanji characters making up the Korean names. When this is the case, I have rendered this pronunciation but also included the Korean version in parentheses, at least on its first appearance, if possible. (3) When Korean names exist only in written texts, I have generally privileged the Korean pronunciation even though it is quite possible that Japanese readers may have voiced the kanji in Japanese. (4) In some cases—Korean assimilationist writers, for example—it is quite likely that authors referred to themselves by the Japanized reading of their names. When I know or have conjectured that this would be the case, I have followed their practice, because such a transliteration best captures the subject position that they were trying to constitute for themselves as Japanese from Korea. Thus, for example, I most commonly refer to the Korean writer Chang HyQk-chu as ChO Kakuch[ when he writes as a Japanese author. In addition, when Korean authors identified themselves with their adopted Japanese names and used them regularly in their writings, I have not altered the name. xx · romanization and naming ...

Share