Search

The wartime shōkokumin discourse of Japan rested on two competing premises, each catenated with a different part of the compound word: the "shō" that emphasized children's immaturity and vulnerability and the "kokumin" that activated them immediately as mobilizable citizens. This paper charts how the tensions innate in shōkokumin discourse became manifest both at home and in the colonial territories abroad, focusing especially on the exceptionally ambiguous category of settler children in Manchuria. By employing settler children's tsuzurikata essays from the late 1930s and early 1940s as a central source of examination, the current study fleshes out the particulars of their lives in Manchuria – the trials and tribulations, as well as the privileges and prestige. Neither metropolitan shōkokumin nor colonial kōmin, the settler children in Manchuria had the double duty of becoming Manchurian and Japanese, embracing their role as the gatekeepers of Japan's Manchuria. Ranging from language acquisition and assimilating into local customs to declaring Japanese ethnic membership, settler children's writings expose how they articulated their relationship to the naichi metropole, and emphasized their identities as Japanese kokumin. Whether these children ever gained legitimate status as imperial shōkokumin during the turmoil and exigencies of war remains an unresolved question; however, what is clear is that the shōkokumin discourse itself operated as an imperial pedagogy, binding settler children to their double duties while not necessarily guaranteeing their rights at war's end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on the Japanese living in Manchukuo in August 1945 has generally fostered the assumption that all Japanese there wanted to return to Japan as soon as possible. Yet, some made the conscious and voluntary decision to stay, at least for the short to medium term. Among those who chose to delay repatriation were a number of technicians employed by Mantetsu's (South Manchurian Railroad Company) Chūo Shikenjo. This paper looks at the political and personal realities faced by these technicians when making their decisions as whether to stay or leave in terms of the concepts of voluntary and involuntary repatriation. It shows that the circumstances faced, and consequently the decisions made by the technicians, differed over time. It argues that there were three main reasons behind any decision to stay: pragmatism, a sense of responsibility for Japan's activities during the war and a sense of loyalty. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]