Zainichi Koreans, whose ancestral migration resulted from Japan’s colonization of the Korean Peninsula (1910–1945), are a culturally assimilated minority group now showing accelerated structural assimilation through naturalization and intermarriage with the Japanese majority. Nonetheless, since the mid-2000s, internet-mobilized right-wing activists have deployed hate campaigns against Zainichi Koreans or institutions they label as ‘anti-Japanese’. Conventional Zainichi Korean organizations, the pro-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Chongryon and the pro-Republic of Korea (ROK) Mindan, have never formally collaborated to respond. Drawing on fieldwork (2011–2016) and secondary sources, this article explores factors that maintain fragmented ethnic advocacy. Focusing on Zainichi organizational responses to three hate incidents in Kyoto and Tokyo, I examine four dimensions: (a) preceding inter-organizational relationship, (b) bureaucratic inertia, (c) discordant framing strategies, and (d) external socio-political conditions. Organizational stances differ not just by pledged allegiance to different Korean nation-states, but also by organizational response to Japanese policy-making and the legislature. While both organizations adopt framing strategies based on the universal norm of human rights, Chongryon emphasizes minority education rights and Mindan problematizes hate speech per se. I argue that the contrasting strategies reflect broader socio-political factors more than organizational characteristics. Heavy reliance on the Japanese majority as the target audience maintains a fragmented Zainichi Korean advocacy.

中文翻译：

---

应对当代日本的仇恨：阻碍有效民族倡导的碎片化因素

在日韩国人的祖先迁移是由于日本对朝鲜半岛的殖民化（1910-1945 年）而导致的，他们是一个文化同化的少数群体，现在通过归化和与大多数日本人通婚显示出加速的结构同化。尽管如此，自 2000 年代中期以来，互联网动员的右翼活动家已经对在日韩国人或他们称为“反日”的机构展开了仇恨运动。传统的在日韩国组织，即支持朝鲜民主主义人民共和国（DPRK）的 Chongryon 和支持大韩民国（ROK）的 Mindan，从未正式合作作出回应。本文利用实地调查（2011-2016 年）和二手资料，探讨了维持种族宣传支离破碎的因素。专注于在京都和东京发生的三起仇恨事件的在日组织反应，我考察了四个维度：(a) 组织间关系，(b) 官僚惰性，(c) 不一致的框架策略，以及 (d) 外部社会政治条件. 组织立场的不同不仅在于宣誓效忠不同的朝鲜民族国家，还在于对日本决策和立法机构的组织反应。虽然两个组织都采用基于普遍人权规范的框架策略，但 Chongryon 强调少数民族的教育权利，而棉兰则将仇恨言论本身问题化。我认为，对比策略更多地反映了更广泛的社会政治因素，而不是组织特征。