Patrick Hattman, in his March 20 letter, "Basis for discriminatory legislation," raises some important questions about nationality settlements after World War II and "race" in Japan's postwar Constitution and Nationality Law.
The denationalization of Japanese with registers in the former territories of Taiwan and Chosen (Korea) cannot be reduced to discrimination. After the war ended in 1945, most moves by Japan to treat Taiwanese and Chosenese as "aliens" for the purpose of registration and fingerprinting were carried out under the direction of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers and inspired by U.S. laws and practices.
John Dower, author of "Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II" (whom Hattman cites), had a bit too much race on his brain, as did the American jurists who prepared SCAP's draft constitution. Contrary to what Dower claims, Japanese lawmakers, when Japanizing the English draft, did a fairly good job of fixing its most egregious faults, including its references to "national origin" and "aliens."
The 1950 Nationality Law closely followed the 1899 Nationality Law, a model of raceless law, unlike contemporary laws in the United States. The 1950 law did not make provisions for Japanese with registers in Taiwan or Chosen, since nationality changes related to territorial cession are treaty matters -- and there were not yet any treaties.
sk,3 Neither the Republic of China nor ROK (South Korea) objected to Japan's denationalization of Taiwanese and Chosenese in Japan in 1952 when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect. The treaty left nationality issues entirely to the concerned states.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.