The study examines the views on East Asia held by Tokutomi Soho (1863~1957), an influential journalist and historian in modern Japan. This study focuses on his views of East Asian countries like China and Korea especially from the Sino-Japanese War (1894~1895) to the annexation of Korea (1910), when he shifted to nationalistic and imperialist logics.
Tokutomi’s views on East Asia were related to the Datsuaron (Advocacy of Escape from Asia) He argued that Japan equipped with Western civilization could be separated from its East Asian neighbors like China and Korea, which were still barbaric and lacked the ability to transform themselves into civilized countries. Then, China and Korea were seen not so much a part of alliance with Japan in resistance against the inroad of Western powers as an object of Japanese expansionism. As an influential journalist, Tokutomi played a leading role in promoting these imperialist views.
Such Tokutomi’s views remained unchanged even after his firsthand contacts with China and Korea. He travelled China for a long time in 1906 (right after the Russo-Japanese War) and again in 1917 (right after the World War I). Although, he subscribed to the policy of friendly relation with China, rescinding the idea of dividing China, he repeated his unchanging views on China that the Chinese lacked modern consciousness of nation, and that they were imbued with debilitating literary values and private personal interests, which hindered them from reforming their country and society.
With regard to Korea, he maintained that Koreans were so corrupt and lazy that they were unable to achieve civilization on their own, thus justifying its annexation by Japan. In justifying Japan’s aggression against Korea by its role of civilizing mission, lied his deep sense of disdain and discrimination against Korea, which remained uncivilized to his eyes.
The views of Tokutomi were also shared by contemporary Japanese leaders and intellectuals. He tried to be an initiator in proposing a variety of imperialist foreign policy suited to changing circumstances. His views on East Asia were in line with the course of Japanese imperialism, maintaining consistency in rationalizing and theorizing the expansionism of Japanese empire.