Japanified colonial subjects were barred from the Japanese metropole

Evidence

It remains only to add that, as the empire expanded after 1900, Japanification à la Macaulay was selfconsciously pursued as state policy. In the interwar years Koreans, Taiwanese and Manchurians, and, after the outbreak of the Pacific War, Burmese, Indonesians and Filipinos, were subjected to policies for which the European model was an established working practice. And just as in the British Empire, Japanified Koreans, Taiwanese or Burmese had their passages to the metropole absolutely barred. They might speak and read Japanese perfectly, but they would never preside over prefectures in Honsh, or even be posted outside their zones of origin. — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, 379

Categorization

• XREF: Extends the ‘imagined community’ and official nationalism toolkit from earlier chapters into the Japanese imperial case, parallel to Macaulay’s Anglicizing policy in India discussed earlier in the book. — connects to: Anglicized colonial elites were barred from the English nation itself — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on…, 368; Imperial language instruction did not guarantee colonized people entry into the imperial nation; Japanese colonial rule used incentives in Taiwan but coercion in Korea (+1 more)
• QUESTION: How does this metropole-barring pattern on the part of Japan compare to France’s full assimilationism toward its colonial subjects? A comparative follow-up worth chasing.

Broader Connections

• Imperial language instruction did not guarantee colonized people entry into the imperial nation #corroborates (0.95)
• Japanese colonial rule used incentives in Taiwan but coercion in Korea #qualifies (0.72)