● A 10-year-
● A 10-year-
old Japanese girl, Osaki, appears in a thesis by Ramsayer Harvard Law School professor who defined Ramsey comfort women victims as voluntary prostitutes who
even used the tragedy of a 10-year-old girl as a “prostitution contract”
She was abandoned by her parents as a child and lived a tragic life as a comfort woman dealing with soldiers stationed abroad.
In the 1970s, Japanese director Kei Kumai made a film about the tragic life of a girl's comfort woman and received many international film awards, the same person as the main character in the film.
The original documentary was published in a book by a female scholar named Tomoko Yamazaki covering Osaki's oral dictation, and Professor Ramzier thoroughly adapted this case to his own logic, similar to the case of Ok-ju Moon introduced in the last World Report.
Professor Ramsey's thesis refers to the case of Osaki, a girl's comfort woman, under the subtitle of Prostitution in Japan and Korea before the Pacific War.
In fact, she describes a girl who is too young as a'contract prostitute', so it was true that it was uncomfortable from the beginning.
Professor Ramsey presupposed that "Osaki was not under pressure from his parents, nor was he a sex slave."
When I received an offer from a prostitute recruitment plan that would give me 300 yen if I went abroad to work, I wrote, "I was 10 years old, but I knew what was going on."
However, without much ground, the recruitment book described it as a good person, saying, "I didn't try to trick her."
He explained that going to Malaysia was better than having Osaki as an abandoned child at home.
It is described that Osaki actually started working as a prostitute for his family when he was 13 years old.
● US economists "Can you agree that a 10-year-old child becomes a sex worker?"
This is the case of Osaki that appears at the forefront of the series of economists angry with Ramsay's thesis.
Contrary to Ramsay's unfounded explanation, "the pimp tricked Osaki. Even if he didn't literally cheat, this thesis argues that a 10-year-old can agree to become a sex worker."
Game theory was applied to explain the women who endured this barbaric situation, and Ramsey's thesis angered that it left a stigma not only for academic journals but also for economics practitioners.
The story of Osaki is mentioned in detail in the fact-check report of five Japanese history professors, including Northwestern University professor Amy Stanley, mentioned in the last World Report.
When scholars looked through Tomoko Yamazaki's books, they confirmed that it was exactly the opposite of Ramsay's explanation.
Osaki said he knew what a prostitute was, but no one explained it.
And even though I had some idea of what a prostitute was, no one explained it and we didn't ask.We didn't really know. anything.You liar!… After our first night, she remembered, we were terrified).
Ramsey concluded that the pimp had no intention of cheating, but even this was the exact opposite of Osaki's actual statement.
The recruitment plan told me that if you go abroad, you can eat white rice every day, wear a kimono, and live like a festival ("If you go abroad, every day is like a festival, you can wear nice kimono, and every day you can eat as much white rice as you want").
It was not known for what reason Ramsey believed Osaki had agreed to the contract.
It could only be said that they agreed that they agreed to become a prostitute with the original statement that they knew what a prostitute was.
Economists have expressed their greatest resentment over attempting to take out prostitution contracts without evidence and wrap them up in economics.
Economists presupposed that in order to explain the truth behind an issue, the background of the argument must be designed very carefully.
However, in Professor Ramsey's thesis, he pointed out that there was no relevant fact except that licensed pimps were in Japan.
Based on this, he criticized for forcibly expanding and applying the logic that it is the same for comfort stations without any proper explanation.
Economists also pointed out that the term'contract' itself has been abused in human history to cover up relations of coercion and exploitation.
Professor Ramsey wrote that women, including girls, "accepted" to a prostitution contract without much explanation, but since 1896, Japan has stipulated that civil law prohibits people under the age of 20 from signing contracts on their own will.
Scholars disapproved of the validity of the contracts signed by the Japanese government for children, but they have refuted what this is about forgetting ghosts.
● Ramsay's'funnel thesis'…
The real goal was "there was no coercion by Japanese imperialism."
Ramsay's claim that a Japanese girl only 10 years old had signed a prostitution contract and that the Korean girls became voluntary prostitutes all had one purpose.
Originally, prostitutes existed from the beginning of human history, and they voluntarily signed contracts to obtain maximum profits according to game theory, so coercion cannot exist in the first place.
Professor Ramsey outright revealed in his thesis that this was neither the Japanese imperial nor the Joseon's responsibility.
The bad guys even turned the arrow of accusation to the wrong place as'the recruitment of Korean prostitutes'.
(The Japanese recruitment plan for prostitutes presupposes that there was no intention of fraud, but the logic that the recruitment plan for prostitutes in Joseon was fraudulent, but I cannot find an explanation for why the Japanese recruitment plan is considered good).
It seems that all conclusions can be expressed as a typical funnel paper heading to'No Coercion'.
<Note, however, what this problem was not.
It was not that the government either the Korean or the Japanese government forced women into prostitution.
It was not that the Japanese army worked with fraudulent recruiters.
It was not even that recruiters focused on the army's comfort stations.
Instead, the problem involved domestic Korean recruiters who had been tricking young women into working at brothels for decades>
Economists also criticized this by subtitles separately.
Suddenly, without any reason or explanation, they gave a huge indulgence to Japanese imperialism.
In the colonial state of Joseon, in fact, the government has also disappeared, but as he tried to give indulgence to the Japanese imperialism, Professor Ramsey suddenly made an error in his thesis that restored the sovereignty of Joseon.
Scholars argued that game theory itself cannot indulge absurd claims, and insisted that interactions must be spontaneous to apply this theory.(According to Professor Michael Choi, UCLA, a game theory expert interviewed earlier, game theory understands the world. I have emphasized that it is just a way of saying that lies cannot be justified).
● Warning from economists that cannot be ignored…
What is the journal's response?
Economists who understand exactly why Ramsey, a professor at the law school, wrote so much about economics, are demanding that the thesis be retracted and the publication process be disclosed.
He warned that it is not a solution to come up with countermeasures at the level of raising objections only with the warning of'expressing concerns'.
Currently, 578 (after the afternoon of the 24th) are counting the number of scholars who signed the scholar's paper sheet.
Korean university professors also joined the signing, but the start itself was led by American university professors.
If you do something else and click, the number continues to grow, and the number of professors participating in the signature is expected to increase in the future.
In fact, they are also the most important clients and writers of the international legal and economic review, where Ramsay's papers will be published (many historians have not heard of the journal).
It seems unlikely that academic journals can take the voices of economists lightly.
How the journal withdraws Ramsey's thesis is one of the points of watching this event. The investigation is still on-going and handled independently by the editorial team. There will be many reviews, but the official announcement does not give the impression of leaning in either direction. Looking at the response sent last time, it is understood that once published, the withdrawal action can be taken. There are books, but there is a possibility that strange things will happen that journals don't admit. However, it is not without the possibility of neglecting this controversy at the level where the journal is posting objections. It depends on how elaborate Ramsay's objection is, but I wonder if there is a possibility that this issue may be watered as a matter of interpretation rather than a matter of fact. It doesn't cure the fatal flaws in Professor Ramsey's thesis that I haven't identified). However, there were many professors who said that if the journal were to take such a rough crushing measure, the journal would go through the process of withdrawing from the academic world. Economics professors, the largest shareholders, are clamoring, but it is unclear how the journal will endure.
A big shock seems inevitable even to the origin of the claims of domestic far-rights who remarkably resemble Ramsay's claims. The source of the documents they claim is bound to be suspicious, and the statements must be questioned whether or not they are twisted at will. This is bound to happen because the Harvard representative, who was armed with their captain, was seriously injured. Anyway, far-rights have not so far debated this issue in the realm of facts, but this incident clearly shows how angry international academics are at the impure attempts to overthrow the history of the exploitation of human rights by the victims of comfort women.