 Hello and welcome. Good evening. It's nice to see so many of you here. My name is Fabio Gi. I'm the chair of the Japan Research Center here at SOAS and I'll be chairing the talk tonight. Our speaker today is Mitia Kato, professor of economic history at Osaka Sangyo University. He obtained a BA and later an MA in Economics from Keio University in Japan. And his PhD thesis in economic history from the University of Birmingham brought a title, unemployment and public policy in interwar Japan. His main research focus is on the Japanese colonial bureaucrats perception of the British Empire. And he has published widely and comparatively on colonial governance with articles and book chapters about Japanese colonial mid-level bureaucrats perceptions of Ireland and India and the knowledge exchange that underpinned colonial projects. He's currently a visiting scholar at the Japan Research Center here at SOAS and indeed a regular participant at the JSC seminars. So we'll follow a traditional academic format. We'll have to talk about one hour first. You will then have ample opportunity to ask questions. I also welcome the people who join us online. You can already start to feed your questions into the queue and they function as the talk goes on. So the talk tonight bears the title Japanese colonial bureaucrats perception of colonial rule. What did they learn from the British Empire? We will after the talk, retire to the senior common room here in a new attempt to wine and dine you and bring in some cheer and merriment after the talk. So please stay here afterwards and we'll assign you somebody who can take you up through the new and improved security measures that make movement into building somewhat difficult. Now please join me in welcoming Professor Kato to the JSC. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for introducing me. Now, but first I thank JSC and especially Fabio Gigi sensei for your kindness to give me the opportunity, precious opportunity to the presentation in front of all of you. And I'll do my best. Thank you. And my presentation is about 50 to 60 minutes. So please be patient for a while and look at the PowerPoint there. And then let me start my presentation. First introduction. This presentation analyzes the carrier and activities of colonial bureaucrats who worked in pre-war Japanese colonies and spheres of influence to clarify their perceptions of colonial rule and use this as a clue to unravel what the Japanese colonial governance thought. As a result of Japan's victory in the Sino-Japanese war that broke out in 1894, Japan took possession of Taiwan and became an imperialist country with the colony. Japan was incorporated into international strategy through the Anglo-Japanese alliance, concluded in 1902, won the Russo-Japanese war that broke out in 1904 and inherited the interest of the Guantanese territories that Russia had leased from the Qing dynasty and expanded its influence to Northeastern China. In 1910, Japan annexed Korea and further expanded its own role. In World War I, which broke out in 1914, Japan participated in the war based on the Anglo-Japanese alliance and became the victorious country and increased its international influence. In these colonies and spheres of influence, the government general of Taiwan was established in Taiwan. The government general of Korea was established in Korea and the government general, Guantanese territories, was established in Guantanese territories to carry out the governance and the colonial bureaucrats oversaw it. In recent years, there has been an increase in research from a variety of perspectives, including the careers and activities of colonial bureaucrats and the roles they played because they most realistically embodied the reality of the Japanese Empire's colonial rule. In this paper, I will discuss three such colonial bureaucrats, including Ushinosuke Ouchi, 1865 to 1934, who worked in the government general of Taiwan and the government general of Guantanese territories and Gentaro Yoshimura, 1875 to 1945, who was appointed to the colonial view after working in the government general, Guantanese territories and Urazo Tokinaga, 1884 to 1929, who served in the government general of Korea. This is the Japanese Empire, it was very local but at the time very powerful and this is the British Empire, the worldwide empire as you see. And these are the colonial bureaucrats I talk about today. The Ushinosuke Ouchi there, this most left one, the center one is Gentaro Yoshimura and Urazo Tokinaga, the right one. And these colonial bureaucrats were not only people with concrete authority in the colonial areas, but also intellectuals who applied the governance techniques and ideas they had acquired from their experiences living overseas in colonial governance. By examining their careers, activities and writings, we will clarify the colonial bureaucrats perceptions of colonial rule and the reality of the Japanese Empire's colonial governance during the area in which they lived. At first I'll talk about Ushinosuke Ouchi, perceptions of governance of colonists and swears of influence as seen in the career and activities of Ushinosuke Ouchi. Ushinosuke Ouchi was born on April 28th, 1865 and in Fukushima Prefecture. In September 1888, he graduated from the German Studies Society School in November of the same year. He passed the first higher civil servant examination. He took first place after serving as a judge at the Ministry of Justice and an audit at the Board of Audit. He became a counselor in the Legislative Bureau in March 1899. On September 7th, 1901, he was ordered to go on a business trip to Taiwan at the request of Shinpei Goto, Secretary of Civil Affairs in the Government General Taiwan. This business trip was a turning point for him and in February 1902, he was appointed to the colony of Taiwan as counselor in the Government General of Taiwan. In April of the same year, he was ordered to work as a counselor, but in April 1906, he took a leave, oh, sorry. In April of the same year, 1902, he was ordered to accompany Shinpei Goto on his tour of Europe and America and stayed in Germany until September 1903. After returning from Germany, he continued to work as a counselor, but in April 1906, he took a leave of absent due to illness. However, in February 1908, he was reinstated as a counselor in the Government General of Guantanese Territories, working in the new sphere of influence of the Japanese Empire. He progressed smoothly through the ranks and in May, 1909, he became Director General for alling affairs of the Government General of Guantanese Territories, a position that is second only to the security of civil affairs. In May, in 1911, he was relieved of his post as Director General for alling affairs and in August, 1913, he was appointed as Director of the Civil Affairs Bureau of Darien of the Government General of Guantanese Territories. After that, he remained in Darien for a long time as the head of the Civil Administration. But in December, 1918, a due to illness, he retired in the autumn of 1932. He toured Manchukuo and continued to show an interest in the spheres of influence of the Japanese Empire. During his stay, he became ill, returned to Japan and passed away on May 24th, 1934 at the age of 69. What is noteworthy about all which is important activities is that he conducted field research on German's colonial policy towards Poland and gained a lot of knowledge. In doing so, he received the support of Georg Mihailis, who was his mentor from his time at the German Studies School in Tokyo and who was also a German bureaucrat at the time and later became Prime Minister of Germany. Mihailis praised Ouchi's excellence as he studied diligently at German government offices in Brasslau, Westphalia, and Silesia. During his stay in Germany, Ouchi also formed close friendships with Polish nationalist activists who aspire to independence from Russia. Ouchi's dispersed activities can be seen. In this way, Ouchi acquired knowledge about colonial governance while serving as a counselor in the government general of Taiwan. And even after transferring to the government general wanton-leased territories, he utilized his practical experience to contribute to administrative management. He also contributed to the formation of foreign policy for colonies and spheres of influence, including providing advice on the policymaking of Shinpei Goto, Tokuzo Komai, who later served as Secretary General of the State Council of Manchukuo, highly praised Ouchi's governance concept and recalled that it had a great influence on the way Manchukuo was governed. Then let's look specifically at Ouchi's understanding of colonial rule. In an article titled, Political Situation in Poland, published in the Taiwan Daily News on 19 September, 1903, he stated as follows. Then I refer to the red part. German's rule of Poland did not work easily. Given these circumstances, German's rules of Poland cannot be said to have been a success. But if you look at the various policies in detail, there are many things to learn from Germany. As you see, Ouchi is referring to German colonial rule comparing the colonial governance policies of Germany, Russia, and Australia. And comparing with Russia's coercive rule and Austria's restful policy, he found that German's gradual assimilationism was relatively successful as it realized that rapid assimilation was impossible. Furthermore, the following article published in the Taiwan Daily News during his time as the government general counten leads to territories, it shows his active stance in trying to enlighten indigenous people, that Japanese empires rule over Taiwan, not only set an example for other seeded and occupied territories, but also led other countries to study its methods, making it a great highlight in Japanese colonial history. And then he said, in the past there were many cases in which colonial countries showed no respect for the customs and manners of the native people and instead tried to directly assimilate them into the civilization of their home country, resulting in irreversible failures. Then he continues, the Japanese empire investigated and respected the old customs of the indigenous people, adopted the policy of not forcing the civilization of the Japanese people on those who had newly come under Japanese influence and contributed to the development of the colon. And that, that I read now. And I think it is important last month for colonial policy to open the way for the islanders to be appointed as government officials to enlighten them. So he stressed the importance of the enlightenment of the indigenous people. And he concludes, it is a good policy to appoint excellent people among the local people as local government officials and to build close and friendly relationships with local people. Through this, people would be made aware of the liberal principle of the Japanese empire. Also, all the natives would voluntarily become subjects of the Japanese empire. That is a perception. Oji considered the governance of Taiwan in which he was involved to be a successful example and argued that it should be extended to other spheres of influence, such as Karafuto or Korea and quantum-based territories. At the same time, he also emphasized the need to promote assimilation policies by considering local customs. His argument that special circumstances of a local colony it should be considered rather than a simple extension of the domestic law also suggests that a certain degree of discretion should be granted to those in charge of colonial administration. He suggested employing indigenous people as local government officials to enlighten them. These ideas seem to be shared gradually among the colonies and spheres of influence with the transfer of Oji from Taiwan to the government general of quantum-based territories. And let me move to the second person, Gentaro Yoshimura. Perceptions of governance of colonies and spheres of influence are seen in the career and activities of Gentaro Yoshimura. Gentaro Yoshimura was born in Tokyo, prefecture, on November 20th, 1875, about 10 years after Dan Ushinotsuke Ochi, the first bureaucrat we just saw. He graduated from the Tokyo Imperial University on July 10th, 1899, with good grades and placed fourth out of 79 students. On 16th, July of the same year, he joined, oh, sorry. He graduated from the Tokyo Imperial University on July 10th, 1899. On 16th, July of the same year, he joined the Ministry of Home Affairs and was assigned to the Taiwan division. Gentaro Yoshimura is the man whose bureaucratic life began in the colonial department. In November of the same year, he passed a higher civil service examination with seventh place out of 31 successful candidates. After working in several prefectures in Japan, he was appointed as counselor in the legislative bureau in March of 1902. That section, Ochi also, the first bureaucrat also belonged, but Yoshimura as well, belonged to that section. It is said that the section is very elite groups of the bureaucratic world. As counselor in the legislative bureau, Yoshimura traveled to Taiwan in April, 1905 to British Hong Kong in July of the same year to Korea and Manchuria in June, 1907 and to Vlad Vostok in Russia in August of the same year. He was ordered to go on business trips and became familiar with the circumstances of important regions in Japanese colonies and spheres of influence. All of Yoshimura's overseas business trips as a bureaucrat of the legislative bureau was at the request of the governing bodies of colonies and spheres of influence. It is a thought that the purpose was to share legal information between inland and outland. In July, 1908, Yoshimura who had deepened his knowledge of Japan's colonies and spheres of influence as a counselor in the legislative bureau, it was appointed as counselor in the government general, Mountain Leeds to Territories. In February, 1909, shortly after taking up his post, he was dispatched to European countries, including Britain, the United States and also Africa for over a year and a half to research on colonial governance. On May 9th, 1910, while on the business trip, he was appointed director of the Darien Civil Affairs Bureau. But Yoshimura would play a more important role in local governance as a colonial bureaucrat. On May 29, 1911, Yoshimura was appointed to director general for foreign affairs of the government general of Quantum Leeds to Territories and was to play an even more important role. As director general for foreign affairs, Yoshimura energetically carried out diplomatic negotiations with China and Russia. Yoshimura's life as a colonial bureaucrat seemed to be going smoothly, but on October 5th, 1914, he took a leave of absence due to illness. Yoshimura's medical condition did not improve and he retired from the service on November 2nd, 1916. He was 40 years old. After his retirement, Yoshimura was missed for his rich experience in colonial administration and wealth of knowledge. And in July, 1917, he was commissioned by the colonial bureau to engage in research on the colonial policies of the Western countries, mainly the British colonies. He produced many useful reports. Yoshimura also contributed to magazines such as Revue Diplomatique and for many years conducted colonial research on a contract basis and many various recommendations regarding colonial administration. Yoshimura passed away on 21st, August, just after his wife's death on 10th, August, 1945. He was at the age of 69. Yoshimura was an extremely talented bureaucrat. In fact, on May 12th, 1910, the Mainichi Daily News which reported that he was appointed as the head of the Italian Civil Affairs Bureau, wrote that he was the brightest student among his classmates, had a clear mind and was an extremely well-educated person. Yoshimura left behind numerous reports and essays on the entire British Empire, the largest colonial empire at the time. Then let's examine the contents of his main writings. His first essay was on Asianism which was published in Asian Revue by the Black Dragon Society in July, 1970. 17, just before he was appointed as the commissioned officer of the colonial bureau, this article was based on the Asianism that was being widely promoted in Japan at the time and argued that Japan should take a leading role in the international community emphasizing sign of Japanese relationship to compete with Western countries. It is as follows. The first red one, Asianism was proposed to make Western countries reflect and it aims to enable the people of Asia to achieve legitimate and free development, thereby contributing to world culture. And Japan and China are the same race and use the same script, Dobun Doshu and the nature of our civilization are also the same. That is his perception on Asia. In addition, he contributed an article entitled War and British Government Organization to the same magazine, Asian Revue. He argued about the Lloyd George's war cabinet in the United Kingdom during World War I. He pointed out that it was anomalous from the viewpoint of the party cabinet system and that the government was run by the very small number of ministers. He concluded that not only Britain itself but the entire British Empire was at the major turning point. His first report as commissioned by the colonial bureau was Problem of Unity of the British Empire, published in July, 1918. At the beginning of this report, Yoshimura drew attention to the flower script on the statue of the Earl of Beacon's Field in Parliament Square, which he once saw showing that the motto that used to be empire and freedom was now empire and unity. That is his saying. I was once in London and on the occasion of Earl of Beacon's Field's Jubilee in spring, I saw his statue in front of the Parliament decorated with primrose flowers. Normally, there is a flower script that says empire and liberty, but today it says empire and unity, which made me feel the change of the times. And he varied the situation of the British Empire. In so-called dominions, the scope of autonomy is extremely wide and they have come to occupy a status that is almost independent of their home country. And he also continues. I believe that the reason why the British overseas territories volunteered to fight for their homeland during the war and made great sacrifice was due, of course, to their hostility towards Germany, irony, but also to their royal love for their homeland. It can be said that, however, it is hard not to believe that an important factor behind this was the belief that the benefits of the free system could not be truly enjoyed without Britain. And he concluded, liberty is never at odds with unity. It was the foundation of liberty, the unity can be fully effective. The current tendency of the British Empire to value unity is largely due to the international situation, but this would not happen unless it ruled on the colonial policy that embodies the true values of liberty and unity. In the report, Yoshimura discussed the status of the self-governing territories that made up the British Empire, considering them as an ideal type of empire, and defectiveness of various policies implemented to maintain unity of self-governing territories with a high degree of autonomy. He verified this and at the same time pointed out its limitations due to changes in the times. An interesting point in problem of unity of the British Empire, his report, is that it pointed out that to maintain the unity of the British Empire, it was important to stabilize governance in the directly ruled colonies such as Ireland and India. There is a difference between self-governing colonies such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, which were formed by immigrants from Britain and were given a high degree of autonomy and directly ruled colonies such as Ireland and India, where inter-ethnic governance was a central issue. Yoshimura's report had been researched and focused on inter-ethnic governance policies and it reflected the inter-ethnic governance programs that the Japanese Empire was also facing. His representative report, Irish programs was written in August, 1918. The Easter Rising that occurred in Dublin during World War I, when self-governing colonies cooperated with Great Britain that caused a great shock internationally. But Yoshimura argued that there was a deep-rooted anti-British sentiment in Ireland in this background. And he said, oh, this is the statue of Beaconsfield, the historical one and the right one I took recently. And about Ireland, he said, it is hard not to believe, sorry. It must be said that the greatest weakness of Irish governance lies in mistrust. That is his perceptions on Irish programs. And continues, governance is ultimately based on the relationship of trust between the ruler and the ruled. And unless the ruler believes in the ruled and the ruled does not believe in the ruler, the purpose of governance cannot be achieved. Although there are various forms, the important point of governance is the fiduciary relationship between the home country and the current. Britain had no sympathy or understanding for Ireland. Britain implemented a stop-gap policy and did not foster trust between Britain and Ireland. As a result, the difficulties of governing Ireland were never resolved. But that is the main perception on Irish programs. This report had a huge influence on Urazotokinaga, the third of the report of the same name, which will be discussed later. And the information contained in the report was referenced and shared among colonial bureaucrats later. Yoshimura also wrote several reports on India, a colony under the direct control of the British Empire, which had become significantly more important within the British Empire since World War I. What kind of governance policy should be implemented in India, which was longing for a legislative assembly and a responsible government was an urgent issue for the British Empire? Furthermore, Yoshimura compiled a report titled Indian National Movement, which was printed in March, 1921, detailing the historical development of the intensified Indian National Movement and attempting to examine the essential nature of the national movement. In March, 1921, two important reports were written. They were on the Union of England and Scotland and Irish revolutionists and Bolsheviks. The former tried to provide crews to solve the Irish problem by exploring the factors behind the success of Scotland, which is a different ethnic group that was successfully integrated with England in comparison to the confusing Irish problem. La Lata also argued that the Irish independence movement had been transformed by the rise of Sinn Féin making it difficult to resolve the Irish problem. Yoshimura's writing on Ireland and India revealed his perspective on how to stabilize governance in colonial Korea, where ethnic movements were flourishing. For Yoshimura as a colonial bureaucrat, the radicalization of the national movement and the accompanying destabilization of the local situation were the last things that he wanted to avoid. Further, in September, 1921, Yoshimura summarized the historical development and problems of British governance policy regarding Egypt, which was a de facto colony as a protectorate of Britain in Egyptian problems. In this report, Yoshimura argued that the problem with Britain's governance policy toward Egypt was that it was a policy based on paternalism rather than autonomy and that the British attitude that self-government was not possible or non-Europeans was a fundamental error. He criticized that these policies were also seen in the British rule of India, Ireland, and South Africa. In May, 1923, Yoshimura published a report entitled on Union of South Africa in which he argued that the situation in South Africa was very similar to Ireland's within the British Empire. Yoshimura likened the Boas in South Africa to the Sinn Fein in Ireland, but he compared them to South Africa, which was given autonomy six years after the Boa War and Ireland, which was ruled by Britain for over 700 years and was finally given autonomy in 1922. But he concluded that the distance from the home country was a major cause of the difference. In October 1924, he compiled the Irish border problem which discussed the issue of separation between North and South Ireland and stated that the Irish problem would not be completely resolved unless the above mentioned the issue of separation between North and South Ireland was resolved. Again, Taro Yoshimura's report and essays were written mainly on the colonies of the British Empire. Among these, he was particularly passionate about the issue of the governance of different ethnic groups in Ireland and India. He reiterated the importance of inter-ethnic governance in maintaining the integrity of the British Empire as a whole. All Yoshimura's critical analysis of the British Empire was aimed at finding ways to resolve the problems the Japan faced in governing its colonies and spheres of influence in Taiwan and Korea, as well as in Guantanese territories. In an essay published after the March 1st Independence Movement, Yoshimura took a stand against the argument that Korean representatives should be sent to the Imperial Diet of Japan, saying that it would not be good for either colonial Korea or Japan. And he says that, but it is clear that sending Korean representatives to the Imperial Diet was not the only means of making Koreans aware of their status as imperial subjects. And what Koreans should strive for today is not something so rigorous as trying to achieve a false egalitarianism between Japan and Korea at all costs without considering the differences in national circumstances and civility. I believe that what is important for Koreans today is to receive solid political training in local government, such as towns and villages. Yoshimura, who opposed the proposal to send Korean representatives to the Imperial Diet, believed that it would be beneficial to receive solid political training as a government official in local administration, but taking it into consideration the difference in political situation and civil standards between the country and Japan. At this point about the importance of enlightenment in colonies and spheres of influence is a recognition shared by Oji Ushinusuke, the first bureaucrat. However, it was an inherently difficult attempt to pursue the legitimacy of colonial rule by the Japanese Empire while taking the position of criticizing the colonial rule by the British Empire. And next I move to the third bureaucrat, Urazo Tokinaga. Perceptions of governance of colonies and spheres of influence seen in the career and activities, Urazo Tokinaga. Urazo Tokinaga was born in April, 1884 in Hiroshima Prefecture. He graduated from Tokyo Imperial University in July, 1909, passed the Higher Civil Service Examination in November of the same year, ranking 70s out of 130 successful candidates and began working in Korea the following year in May, 1910. Tokinaga engaged in administrative work in various regions of Korea and November, 1916, was appointed director of the General Affairs Bureau of the Government General of Korea. The following year in October, 1917, he was appointed Chief of the Internal Affairs Department and in October, 1918, he was appointed Chief of the Security Division of the Inspector General Police, a position in which he was involved as a civilian bureaucrat in maintaining public order in the colony, which was then under the control of the military police. This appointment was based on the strong wishes of Isaburo Yamagata, Inspector General of Political Affairs of Korea, who wanted to strengthen the role of civil servants in maintaining public order and Tokinaga responded well to this request. In July, 1919, he concurrently held the post of Chief of the High Police Division of the Inspector General Police Affairs Department and was given sole responsibility for police work as a civilian officer. On September 25th, 1919, Tokinaga was appointed as counselor in the Government General of Korea and his skills as an executive were expected to continue. In November of the same year, he was ordered to go on a business trip to Europe and the United States to investigate the current state of anti-Japanese public opinion in the United States, which had seen increased by the international rise of national self-determination, advocated by the U.S. President, Udo Wilson and to grasp the current state of the Korean independence movement in the United States. On the 25th of November, 1919, he left Yokohama by ship for America. Arriving in San Francisco, via Hawaii, he visited Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Washington. Then moved to Canada, arrived in London at the end of August, 1920. And after touring Scotland, Ireland and other European countries, January, 1921, he departed from London on the 25th of April, returning to Japan in March of the same year. Tokinaga routed the United States, toured the United States and submitted the report from Washington titled, Report on the Investigation of the Korean Independence Movement in the United States. It was later compiled and used by the police bureau in Korea as an internal report in September, 1921. Upon arriving in England in August, 1920, Tokinaga was ordered by the governor-general of Korea, Makato Saito, to investigate Ireland and visited Belfast, where he conducted the field survey of Ireland, where the movement for independence from Britain was intensifying at the time. Tokinaga compiled the report, Irish Problems, by referring to that investigations and the report of the same name by Gentaro Yoshimura, the second bureau. Thereafter, Tokinaga was expected to make use of the experience he had gained as a bureaucrat in Korea and the mainland. And in October, 1922, he was appointed director of the Home Affairs Bureau of Oita Prefecture. In September, 1925, he was appointed as governor of Miyazaki Prefecture. And in September, 1926, he became governor of Saga Prefecture, but took a leave of absent due to illness and passed away on February 7, 1929, without returning to work. He passed away at the age of 44. Looking at Tokinaga's career, it appears that he was primarily engaged in establishing police administrative system in the colony and related work. In colonial Korea, where he was assigned, how to moderately suppress the national independence movement was a critical issue. His time in Korea coincided with the period of change in Japan's colonial governance policy from a coercive policy to a moderate one. As a civil official, he worked hard to promote the transition from a system led by military force to a civilian police system. The knowledge and experience he had gained through research had shown that the coercive governing attitude would have the opposite effect. Japan's colonial rule faced an important turning point in Korea, and Japan was facing international criticism for its colonial rule. The problem faced by Japan as a newly emerging colonial empire were also the problems faced by Britain. In particular, Ireland, which had a similar geographical location to Korea, experienced an intensification of its independence movement during Tokinaga's tenure. The independence movement in Ireland, which violently shook the British colonial rule, also brought a great sense of crisis to the Japanese colonial rule and the colonial government general order Tokinaga to research Ireland and the United States and throw to establish a governing policy in colonial Korea. Tokinaga's understanding of colonial rule can be learned from Irish programs and the Korea, which is the record of a lecture he gave at the police training school in Seoul. He's here, he says. The century-long history of genocide and treachery that occurred under British rule in Ireland did not occur in the 10 years or so after the annexation of Korea. The imperial government of Japan is making sincere efforts to promote peace and happiness of Korea. The purpose of the annexation is to promote coexistence and mutual prosperity between Japan and Korea through politics of universal brotherhood, Ishii Dojin. And that's exactly what is happening. And continues, if Japan tried to rule Korea by a policy similar to British policy towards Ireland, the same result would occur. However, what Japan is doing is not like that. It is fair and just. That is his perception. And he continues about the United States. Tokinaga also published a report over his trip to Europe and the United States in which he wrote the fact that United States with more than 100 million ethnic groups has built a great unified nation over the past 200 years gives us an optimistic outlook on the future of the unification of Japan and Korea. And there is no reason why the two peoples who are so close to each other cannot reconcile based on the necessity of coexistence and mutual assistance. On the contrary, it must be thought that reconciliation and assimilation will be much easier. That is our perception. Compared to Ushinose Ouchi's earlier statements about the difficulties of assimilation policy, we can see that he had an extremely optimistic perception of assimilation policy. Tokinaga believed that the colonial policy of the Japanese Empire contrasted with the oppressive policy of the British Empire and that he believed that the spirit of reconciliation and assimilation, which was the basis of the colonial policy of the Japanese Empire was legitimate and could be expected to produce positive results. To Tokinaga, the assimilation and ethnic fusion of Japan and Korea were the basis of the coexistence and co-prosperity and the gospel of eternal peace in the East. And seemed to be unrelated to the disasters of ethnic strife that were occurring in the Western countries. Therefore, to him, the independence movement in Korea was a misguided uproar, seen as nothing more than a temporary global trend. From his recognition of colonial rule, we can say he believed that colonial rule was no different from domestic rule in Japan. As Japan's international status improves, there appears to be a lack of tension in Japan's sense of colonial rule. And next exception, what did colonial bureaucrats learn from the British Empire? In considering the role of colonial bureaucrats in Japan's pre-war colonies and swears of influence, we looked at the careers and activities of three bureaucrats who worked in the three major colonial organizations. The government general of Taiwan, the government general of Korea, and the government general of quantum least territories. All these bureaucrats were unique individuals, but the roles they played were defined by the broader framework of the Japanese Empire's colonial policy. The three bureaucrats mentioned in this presentation are about 10 years apart in age. Therefore, there was a similar gap in the timing of their activities. And during that time, the perception of the Japanese Empire's colonial rule also changed. Of the three, Ushinosuke Ouchi, the first one, was the first to enter the bureaucrats world. He received a German style education as a graduate of the German Studies Society School. The reference targets for Japan's colonial rule before the war were mainly German and Britain. And he played an active role as a colonial bureaucrat who was familiar with German colonial policy. The Shinpei Goto, who selected him as a right-hand man, wrote down a conversation with former governor-general of Taiwan, Taro Katsura, about Western countries as a reference objects before Japan in his translation of the book by Charles Pressworth Lucas, a high-ranking British colonial official. In the preface to a historical geography of the British colonies, he writes, The left one is the original one by Lucas, and the right one is the translation by the government general of Taiwan. And in the preface, the officials were inexperienced and had no insights. This is the Shinpei Goto, who evaluates the situation of Japanese bureaucrats. In the present situation, it was an urgent task to enlighten our bureaucrats. And I think that Conrad's colonization theory in the Dictionary of National Studies of German is concise and convenient to know the outline, and in a book entitled A Historical Geography of British Colonies by the British Lucas. We can find numerous traces of the settlement of the colonies of immigrants, and the British Empire dominates the world of colonization. The preface describes the recognition of which countries should be referred to to determine the state of colonial governance. These were German represented by Johannes Conrad, who had the lineage of national studies, Stutt Leal, and Britain represented by Lucas. It has been pointed out that the British Empire provides the practical knowledge that Japanese bureaucrats need to learn and is useful for colonial bureaucrats in actual work. Lucas's historical geography of the British colonies was widely referenced among bureaucrats, and the colonial bureaucrats discussed in this study were also surely under its influence. In addition, the work of H.E. Edgerton, who had the similar lineage to Lucas and was a former British colonial bureaucrat who later took imperial history as a professor at Oxford University, was translated by Dutaro Nagai, who studied at Oxford under Edgerton's supervision and was recommended by many influential people. It is as follows. Leftman is the Edgerton's book and right one is the translation. And the first one is Shigenov Okuma, the former foreign minister. The reason why Britain achieved unparalleled success in colonial history with its solid liberalism was that its policies were well-studied to the times. At the time, when all the world's great powers are yearning for peace, colonization from the 20th century onwards will undoubtedly proceed based on the principles of liberty and peace. And second one is by Shinpei Goto. When I looked through this book, I found that it was generally in the same category as Mr. Lucas's historical geography of British colonies and that it contained many lessons as a resource for those involved in colonial administration. This book, which has already received a high acclaim, is useful and extremely valuable as material on the colonial issue of Japan, which has just begun its colonial rule. And third one is by the translator. Learning about the history of how the British people, starting from a remote island in the North Sea, succeeded in building a vast empire on both sides of the earth, on which the sun never sets. It's an important matter that the Japanese who are facing the need for colonial expansion should study. And furthermore, the work by Lord Cromer, former consul general of Egypt, who oversaw governing Egypt was translated, highly acclaimed and used as a reference for Japan's colonial governance of Korea as follows. The left one is the original book and the right one is the translation. And it is said, Lord Cromer's colonial policy did not adhere to the principles of the two political parties in his home country, but instead aimed to provide good government for the Egyptian people, establishing and maintaining a system suitable for Egyptian people. And the Lord Cromer rejected the liberal parties attempt to implement a constitutional government in Egypt, calling it a utopian policy. His policy was to rule Egypt until the Egyptians achieved self-government and independence. And that is seen as the Anglo-Saxon gradualism. And I thought that there was much that Lord Cromer's management in Egypt would provide as a reference for Japan's policies in Korea. And his work is filled with great historical lessons in two volumes. Although Korea's position has changed completely, there is no doubt that the Japanese people will gain many insights from reading this book. This is about the Cromer's book. And it is also said that the work of Lord Lloyd former High Commissioner in Egypt, which discussed the administration of Egypt after Lord Cromer was also heavily referenced by colonial officials. The journalist at that time interviewed a colonial bureaucrat and wrote as follows. The first of these concerned talk I had with Tani Masayuki, the counselor to the Japanese embassy in Shinkun, is Shinkun in today's Changchun. Capital of Manchukuo. No, I had known well when he was in Tokyo and who was later to become foreign minister. Referring to Lord Lloyd's Egypt since Cromer as a Bible, he spoke enthusiastically of it as a guide for himself and other Japanese officials engaged in drawing up policy plans for Manchukuo by noting where British policy and administration in Egypt had success and where it had failed. It was hoped to avoid the British mistakes and apply to Manchukuo, those measures which had brought success. And furthermore, another lessons derived from Lord Cromer's book. He said, was that emphasis on higher education tended to create a half baked students and disgruntled intellectuals. What was required for a backward agrarian people was the sound practical education to assist in raising the standard of agriculture and the generous physical and moral development of the people. And lastly, the British policy in Iraq was being studied closely with the view to putting Manchukuo family in its feet. Then it was a twinkle in his eyes, he added, but we do not propose to urge Manchukuo to enter the League of Nations. That's the Japanese bureaucrats' perception of indigenous people. Lastly, I would like to summarize the conclusions of today's presentation. First, there was a common understanding among Japanese colonial bureaucrats that the ideal way to govern a colony was to conduct it moderately while taking into consideration the unique customs and cultures of the colonies. And second, in terms of colonial rule, the prevailing trend was to refer to the colonial governance policies of the British Empire and apply them to the actual governance of colonies and spheres of influence. In doing so, Japan sought to adopt Britain's successes and avoid its failure. Third, the Japanese colonial bureaucrats' perception of governance changed over time as Japan's international position changed. The Japanese colonial bureaucrats' understanding of governance gradually shifted from the way of referring to the German Empire, which centered on the acquisition of knowledge as seen in Ushinosuke Ouchi, the first bureaucrat, to the British Empire, which gradually became an important country for reference. However, Japan became more critical of Britain as time passed based on the Aegeanism claimed by Yoshimura, the second bureaucrat. After passing through a critical reference by Yoshimura, that includes skepticism towards the British Empire and the relative affirmation of the Japanese imperialism, the Tokinaga, the third bureaucrat, led to a negative reference to Western policies, including British colonial policy and complete affirmation of the Japanese Empire's colonial policy. These changes in the colonial bureaucrats' perception of governance coincided with the rising status of the Japanese Empire in the international community, which after World War I came to claim itself to be a first class country. Initially, it was recognized that the targets of the Japanese Empire's colonial policy were other people with different ways of thinking and customs and that it was necessary to handle such governance with caution. However, this cognition gradually weakened and the situation came to be such that only the logic of Japan's domestic governance took priority in the Japanese Empire. This change in the perception of rule is embodied in the three bureaucrats I talked about today. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you. Thank you very much for a very in-depth and very detailed talk. Let me just un-share this screen here. So, it was like a tour of colonial discourse starting from 1900 to the 1920s. And I was wondering, because of the three people that you mentioned, Oichi passed away in 32, Yoshimura was the only one to live, to experience the war and the implications of Japanese colonialism and Japanese Empire. Tokinaga also passed away quite early. So, I wondered whether there was later on in Yoshimura's life, whether there was a reflection on what had happened and whether there was any kind of information available. So, that would be one question. And the second question is, I was very struck by the fact that of all the three colonial officers, only Tokinaga had direct experience of the colonial situation. Both of Oichi and Yoshimura experienced Europe, they experienced Britain. They sort of imbibed the policy and the discourse of empire, liberty, union, and so on and so forth in the capital of empire. But were they not familiar with conditions actually out there? Because it seems that Tokinaga has a very different approach precisely because he was familiar with Ireland and he saw what the issues were on the ground. So, do you think there's a big difference or the difference comes from that, the fact that one of them had been exposed to what colonial rule means on the ground while the other two had more sort of an appreciation of the ideology that comes with it? I don't know. Sorry, I took a question, here you are. Question, the Oichi and Yoshimura live long. Yes. And after that, sorry. Do we have any documents of his later life where he maybe changed his evaluation of colonial policy because he's the only one who experienced the war, who experienced perhaps the fall of empire at the end or at least lived through a time where this became increasingly possible? The second one is there. The second one is more about the direct experience of the colonial situation because Tokinaga was in Ireland, as you said, while both Yoshimura and Oichi had never, had they ever been to India, for example, or to other parts of the British empire where they saw how the rule works on the ground, so to speak. Sorry, very complicated to hear. First one, Yoshimura, not Yoshimura. Yeah, Yoshimura is probably the only person who saw what happened to the British empire before the World War II. The materials of later, Yoshimura died in 1945, so before, just before the end of the World War II, so the three bureaucrats all were dead before the war. But in general, I mean, about Yoshimura regarding Yoshimura, Yoshimura adored the British empire anyway, but he also saw the limitation of the empire. Now, what is that Yoshimura think, the domination of the British empire? The dominions are okay, that's the idea he's thinking. But when British people, the British government tried to govern the other ethnic groups, they failed, they Yoshimura evaluated. And of course, Japanese should avoid that way. But I'm quite sure that looking at the materials I can collect and show to you today shows the, Yoshimura pointed out the British failure, but he also in mind evaluated the Japanese empire also failed as well. And the idealistic situation never come for him, I believe. And the second one, that's very difficult, but I think three of the bureaucrats experienced the same. I mean, Yoshimura, Yoshimura, Yoshimura, Yoshimura, Yoshimura, Yoshimura, Yoshimura, Yoshimura, Yoshimura, Yoshimura, Yoshimura, Yoshimura, experienced the same, I mean, experience when they dispatched to abroad. And failed, basically the same thing. The best way to rule the people is that I show respect to the people there. And I think that principle of, they, I'm sure, so can I say. I wanted to show the transition from the Japanese colonial bureaucrats perception. First, very naive and very eager to learn from the West, like a student first. And second, Yoshimura, I mean, in Germany learned about the German rule about Poland and he was very talented and learned a lot. And second, Yoshimura learned a lot and he's also the talented bureaucrat. But he, as time passed, the Japan status went up in the international community and they became confident in some way. And, but about Yoshimura, they still wanted to learn the ideal situation, ideal policies from the West. That was from Germany to become Britain. But he found the limitation as well. But very, I mean, still not so confident but still, I mean, learn and take this, don't take this and things like that. The last one, the Tokinaga, that's completely different. They became somewhat very confident after the World War I. And at that time already, Anglo-Japanese alliance has gone. So the bureaucrats became not to care the British government's policy. I mean, not so good, they began to think and they created the Aegeanism and it's a very broad concept. And I personally think that Aegeanism is the, not original one, but things learned by Western countries and named it Aegeanism. That's my idea. But as I was different and misunderstanding the value of the importance to learn from Western country and this led to the tragedy of Japanese empire. I'm not sure. Thank you. Thank you for your response. Yes, questions. Let's start with the big center. Thank you so much for very detailed and exciting stories about those bureaucrats. Thank you. I have a couple of questions but I'm gonna ask one. So these are the perceptions, right? Yeah. So to what extent these perceptions actually influence the colonial policies? How did it directly influence colonial policies? Because the perceptions and actual policies are not necessarily the same. Yeah, you're right. Very essential questions. And actually the perception, perception is perception and the actual policy is actual policy. And that's very difficult. But I checked several reports being used for the policymaking and in that the policy makers sometimes refer to the reports made by them. For example, Yoshimura often referred to his report and this is very good for making the policy, colonial policy. This is a very small fact I can find in the report. Maybe very weak to insist that they influenced a lot to the actual policies. But at the moment I need to collect as many as possible like that. And Tokina as well. And there are articles in the newspapers that there is a meeting about policymaking and the lecturers are Yoshimura or something like Ouchi. So they say something based on their experience and it's delivered to the colleagues, younger bureaucrats. And I believe there was some kind of influence and it should be reflected to the actual policies. But you are right. I need more research. Thank you. No, no, no. Good question. Thank you. My question is more about your perspective on the notion that the Japanese government apologised sufficiently for the last year to improve the Japanese Prime Minister. The way that the domestic public opinion that also coincided with surveys carried out in South Korea where by 24% believe Japan apologised for the Japan especially concerning the subject of the young or comfortable women who are still living in the state and suffering from the different models. Do you believe that if Japanese apologised any more favorably by the perception of the South Koreans that it would then alleviate and also improve the relations between the two countries? Yes, I think so. The two apologises more. It is essential. It is necessary to understand that that collected the facts and and you may be feel strange why the persons who are not think badly about the past. I think they didn't know and this for example Tokina, the last one he is very positive I mean optimistic that is problematic perception I think and some of the recent people I mean have the same kind of perception that is a perception and they really believe in that perception that's the problem. So I show the perception is like this how do you think how I think and criticize it properly that is a long way to go but I need to do for us Japanese and as you may think now the situation of Japanese situation is not good I mean they need to learn the past of Japanese behavior but as I showed in today's presentation the perception I mean weakened late in the past more Japanese feels sorry for the behavior in the past but nowadays it's weakened that's a problem so how can you do that's also my problem thank you right here and then yeah um comparison between the point that was about when the bureaucrats did investigate if they restrict their own questions to the rich bureaucrats or they went to see it from the ruled that people who were being ruled by Britain and I cannot compare also perception by me that speaking to many Japanese friends also seminars there is a perception that in Korea and Taiwan there was no movement for national liberation from the ambit with the two wars not the critical one compared to Egypt as you mentioned Lord the Cromer there was opposition to his reforms and also there was a 1919 revolt in Egypt and in Britain in other words there was a nucleus of a national movement to renegotiate the relationship with Britain not to say independence but I'd say to have a more favor to the locals in this case did you see it in the bureaucrats that you've seen they were aware of it or only how to rule the Japanese dominions in a successful way like Britain did ... ... for my time I couldn't catch it can you reformulate the question or make it a bit shorter baby sorry my ability to the Japanese rule learned from the bureaucrats history and others were successful in Korea and Taiwan because there was no perception or a breakage from national movements to get away from Japan the last point because there is a perception in Taiwan till now there is a favorable outlook to Japanese legacy there is no hostility as compared to Korea ... ... ... ... ... ... I'm researching on the bureaucrats ... we can find differences between each colonies and ... one reason there are different situations there and some very hostile to Japanese rule some part not so hostile and ... why is that? that's a problem as far as I learned that the place of colonies which was ... that was a country or something like that has a very high pride and ... very fiercely against the Japanese rule but for example Taiwan is a part of China and ... I mean it's very difficult to say but at the time ... not a country some kind of regions so it's considered to be weak for tests there but ... at the first when Japan began to rule Taiwan as you may say there was a fierce protest there so it's very difficult to evaluate the strongness of the ... protest in each areas so I need to check more and learn more thank you very much you pointed out very important things, thank you I think it's also safe to say that if you learn about the success of the Egyptian case from an autobiography by Lord Cromer himself that there will be very little about the shortcomings perhaps thank you thank you Professor Cromer a great talk so we're talking about the perceptions of the bureaucrats on the British colonial rule of philosophy but we have also mentioned the general role of Poland and also the United States and the British in Egypt but I'm very kind of I am wondering about whether they have any perceptions towards the French in general style the British one, the French were very interested in creating French citizens out of the indigenous colonies they wanted to create a French Algeria for example they expressed the local cultures I'm interested in knowing whether they do have any kinds of perceptions or kind of criticism yeah thank you very much for your question when Japanese try to learn from what country the problems you pointed out occurred and about French it is said when Japan tried to when Japan first got Taiwan as the colony first colony they had no method so they tried French way and it is said that failed because the French as you said assimilation is very strong rather than British case so it doesn't work Japanese colonial people thought and then the next where should we learn from then they chose the British way so the way of colonizing people different from each each countries British way, German way and French way and in about Japanese case, French case not so seen as important and then the German way or British way and first they were equal evaluate equally but as the German lost the war first one they abandoned the German way and chose British way so I mean there are different evaluation about different countries colonization policy that was very important thank you thank you if there are no further urgent questions I think we've reached the end of our talk thank you very much for a fantastic there will be the opportunity to ask further questions do join us in the senior common room if you don't know how to go there latch on to somebody who does know and do come back next week when our very own Dr. Monica Hinkle will speak about her curatorial work for the Dalic picture gallery where she's in the process of putting on an exhibition called Yoshida three generations of Japanese printmaking opening on the 19th of June later this year thank you very much for coming