|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chomsky
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 12:13 am Post subject: Re: Definition... |
 |
|
| Austin wrote: |
It comes down to symantecs...
What is your definition of "liberate" and "occupy?" The last time I checked the U.S. was maintaining military bases here.
Do you believe we reamain to help the South Korean people? If so, do you also believe that the U.S. entered Iraq for the good of the people of Iraq, Kuwait to help the people of Kuwait, Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua, etc.?
Would you care to explain why a country that "claims" to support and defend "democracy" did not help the Korean people during the Kwangju uprising, when there was a massive democratic movement in Korea to overthrow the U.S. backed dictator?
Obviously, stability is more important than "liberty" when the U.S. is trying to realize "profits" from its investments. As a result, thousands of Korean people were murdered by the U.S. backed military dictator in 1980.
The following is from the newly declassified U.S. government documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (though not all of the information was made available):
| Quote: |
| "In none of our discussions will we in any way suggest that the USG (U.S. government) opposes ROKG (Republic of Korea government) contingency plans to maintain law and order, if absolutely necessary, by reinforcing the police with the army." |
| Quote: |
| On May 22, 1980, in the midst of the Kwangju Uprising, the U.S. Administration approved further use of force to retake the city and agreed to provide short-term support to Mr. Chun if he agreed to long- term political change. |
Would you care to know what those "long-term" political changes were?
If the U.S. merely settled in Korea to help Koreans maintain their "liberty," why do they refuse on national security grounds to release the then senior military commander General Wickham's communications with his Korean counterparts or the US government relating to the massacre.
BTW, Bobster, I never claimed Korea was a "colony" of the U.S., merely that they replaced Japan with their own neocolonial geopolitical imperative.
Some claim Korea is better off today, but others might point to the fact that there are now more than 46 million consumers/workers to serve the U.S. regime. |
I think you miss my point. as I said, I don't contest these commomly known facts we all learned in asian studies 101. seeing as we're talking about the aftermath of the korean war and liberation i'm curious about which korean version of liberation or 'ocupation' YOU would you prefer to live under; corrupt SK chaebols and their yankee protector, or dear leader? for me the choice of the lesser "evil" (dubya, eeee-vil as he is himself, got his right at least) is a no-brainer.
I think you need to wake up from dreamland and realize there's a HUGE difference between being left-wing and being a sucker. (tip: don't try to equate kim jung-il with socialism, because he's about close to a true socialist as was hitler). caio! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chomsky
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 12:23 am Post subject: Re: Definition... |
|
|
| Austin wrote: |
It comes down to symantecs...
What is your definition of "liberate" and "occupy?" The last time I checked ... |
oh hi again, uh...of course i may be wrong but the last time i checked ""semantics" was the 'study of the development and changes of meanings of words' etc. and "Symantec" was a computer software company, yes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corvid
Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The newspaper also said one of the questions, for example, includes the statement: "President Bush has officially cited several reasons for striking Iraq, but they have not been convincing enough for people around the world." |
That's from the Korean Herald article.
Anti-Americanism? or just the simple obvious truth. Jeez, my government is embarrassing. I can think of about 34,000 things the US would be better of doing than getting its panties in a knot over anything a leftist teachers union writes. Never mind that , what? 30% of Americans think that all the reasons for opposing the war in that silly multiple choice test are valid.
And another thing... Because the US text book market is dominated by only a couple of companies, there is a lack of range of perspectives, plus organized groups of (usually) Republican groups fight the inclusion of facts like genocidal treatment of the Native Americans, and that maybe dropping atomic bombs on Japan was a bad thing, maybe not. Maybe we could get those Embassy staffers to survey the lack of quality in American textbooks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ....the U.S. did not liberate Korea from the Japanese! |
You don't have to physically eject an occupying force to liberate a country.
Had we not knocked the snot out of the Japs with two atomic bombs, I'm sure the Soviets would have liberated Korea in a form more to your liking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThreeDogNight
Joined: 30 May 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:12 pm Post subject: Re: Ignorance abounds... |
|
|
| Austin wrote: |
Thank you all for the late night entertainment when I have trouble sleeping!
Contrary to the popular myth, the U.S. did not liberate Korea from the Japanese!
Following the defeat of Japan, the U.S. took over Korea under the aegis of USMG. In 1946, the military government established the South Korean Interim Legislative Assembly to formulate and draft laws to be used as "the basis for political, economic, and social reforms"....in accordance with US geopolitical imperatives. The cornerstone of which was land reform. The U.S. made certain that no household had more than three hectares of land, which was extremely ineffecient, thereby insuring that Korea would have to depend upon on agricultural imports and aid from the U.S.
No doubt, the U.S. justified the measures they took with Korean land reform to destroy the landlord class, since they were interferring with the United State's "plan" in Asia (as the U.S. tried to do the same in Japan and Taiwan). By redistributing the wealth, the U.S. was able to reconstruct and control the power in Korea by insuring that Koreans would not be able to meet domestic food demand, let alone generate a surplus.
No surprise really, as the U.S. has attempted to do the same thing to several other countries throughout their short history and has been successful for the most part. However, let us at least get the following straight: they did not liberate Korea, but merely replaced the Japanese with the U.S. neocolonial system.
If Korea is to begin telling the truth about the U.S., I fully support them. It has been a long time coming! |
At first I want to bash, but then second-chance it.
Liberation is a nebulous word to compare to a war. In light of this war, I'm sure that the US was afraid of the onslaught of communism, not just its own "monetary coffer." I really can't stand it when people associate the sacrifices of a life with 'Uncle Sam,' particularly after the fallacy of your argument debunks the fact that America was long before 'out of the picture' before this war took place?
So the argument rests on self-defense.
And it is enlightening to me what you said about 'land distribution', but doesn't that mean we imparted a democratic sense to stave off the hunger of political greed that promulgates such "farm-based-feudal societies" like we ourselves fell servants too? Eqaulity was never an "issue?" The fact that a farmer's son could never get an education without a few more sacks of rice? The fact that communism might've slipped into Japan and created "another" demoguoery(can't spell this)?
I'm sure that America "at that time" was hungry for more food/economical export countries to sell corn to, or soybeans, or even rice, particularly after being about fifty percent agragarian?
Meaning "our economy" was not pivoted on "exports," nor "poor, starving Koreans," which, by the way, we could only give candy and chocolate to?
I want to know your factual resources. I want to know the text book. I want to know the author. I want to know if you have ever been to the UN cemetary and asked a 1950's dead man the question of "What is America's foreign policy," now that Korea is no longer that Confucian confoundery?
Man, I want to know, I want to know, I want to know, I want to know, "Why is Korea so protectionist these days?" McDonalds? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThreeDogNight
Joined: 30 May 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But let me see if this is true or not.
I did not like the test "I had" to give to my students to choose where someone was from:
A lovely Korean girl, a handsome Brittain, a sharp-nosed Russian.
Then, an ugly and dog-faced American.
There's something behind this, and the government of Korea knows it quite well. If you all keep in tune there's now an investigation(God forbid,)underway to determine "this source" of anti-Americanism, or the topic at hand. One theory is the belief that many " pro-North Korean educators" are actually "propagandizing" this anti-Americanism via whatever viable resources they can find, particularly the Koreans' minds!
America? Maybe she's not all she's cut out to be, but history may or not be re-written without the facts.
One fact is certain: someone is trying to re-write it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThreeDogNight
Joined: 30 May 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 12:04 am Post subject: Re: More than one side to the story... |
|
|
| Austin wrote: |
Amazing how some many on this site criticize Koreans for being ignorant, yet those same people believe the propaganda that was spoon feed to them by their own countries.
I am a U.S. citizen, but that does not preclude me from being able to see the truth.
If you want to know about the role of the USMG, the orgins of the Chaebols, the financing of Korea, the five-year economic plans, the puppet-dictators, etc. the information can be obtained. The only thing that is stopping you is yourself!
Neocolonialism does not require the "label" of the occupying force. It is much more subtle then the colonialism of old. Take a look at who has been gradually taking control of the banks in Korea. Look at the brands, chains, and corporations that are extending their reach throughout Korea.
Free market? Capitalism? Not a chance!
Do you know the story behind Daewoo?
Turn the light on before you respond and understand that the U.S. does not do things for altruistic reasons. The U.S. needs new, emerging markets, as it is the nature of our economic system. If we can not expand, or economy will stall. Korea was a part of that scenario.
Again, how can you claim we liberated Korea? We divided Korea for our own interests! Have not any of you heard of North and South Korea? Our interest was not based on what was best for the Korean people. One look at some of the actions that were taken by the USMG can dispel that myth in a second.
Enjoy your weekend! |
You mean "the truth" as you know it, or the one we see?
There's no "altruism" like giving one's life. But I won't use this for a basis of an argument.
You talk about "Neo-colonialism" like it's a catch phrase to seep into our minds. I've often heard of Koreans calling Korea "a colony," of the US.
Define this word for me(neo-colonialism)? I don't like semantics, and I'm not into particulars, but I want to know if whether or not 'Neo-colonialism' was actually something America began anew, seeing the definition of the word "means to settle and live. Again?"And "Neo?" What's "Neo" about colonialism, particularly in regard to America? Think she's hopping around starting wars in order to spread her own kind and kingdom?
Sure we divided Korea, as that fact now stands. Purposefully? Spitefully? Despotically? Knowing that we wanted a "trading partner," like we and others did the rest of Asia, which is a fact of Economics 101?
I want you to turn the light on and see that "altruistic" doesn't mean I have to make your bed "and sleep together" at the same time.
You're in breach of what the whole human race often depicts: "Self-preservation."
About the Indians. Yeah, I know it's sad, and then again the fact that 'the White man,' like me is guilty of their demise does no justice to the fact we're here today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThreeDogNight
Joined: 30 May 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Interested wrote: |
| Hmmm. Reminds me of the anti-French sentiment going on in the U.S. I wonder if the French ever get pissed off about how little their role in liberating the Americans from British is mentioned? From what I've read (from American sources) the Americans have the French to thank for their independence...but they're not particularly grateful either these days. |
No we aren't, but really the French DID NOT LIBERATE US!
'The French/Indian War?' Who was that to oust? The English, yes, but when did that take place? 1753?
Then Napoleon gave away half of hitherto unkown America with 'The Lousianna Purchase.' Were, or are we, grateful?
We were never as grateful as seeing ourselves "free," from an otherwise "tyrannical monarchy" like that we faced in Brittain. We were never as grateful as seeing 'the Native Americans,' ousted from "the frontier," which is the basis of our love/hate relationship with France, seeing we only had thirteen colonies and nothing left to face but war and now this guilt that I know Huron Indians are awaiting to revenge.
Your right in my ignorance about France's help, though. I did not realize this nor was I taught it as a kid. But hey, we've got more French words in our English language than that damn stuff we call "garbage." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Corvid
Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ThreeDogNight wrote: |
but really the French DID NOT LIBERATE US!
Then Napoleon gave away half of hitherto unkown America with 'The Lousianna Purchase.' Were, or are we, grateful? |
No, what we're refering to (we, I think  ) is that the French entered into the Revolutionary war, and that made George III decided to *beep* it and give the colonies their independence. Then the French revolution and its aftermath is another discussion for us to disagree on semantics on half remembered facts. It did lead to Napolean and the Louisiana Purchase though, good point. I was lucky enough in high school to have a pretty damned good teacher who took several of us kids who were actually interested in learning and had us read original texts, like Ben Franklin's Autobiography. This leading to essays about what we thought it all meant (like Franklin's quest for perfection) So, if you wanted to teach about the Contras, you'd give the kids opinion from George Will and Ellen Goodman. That of course is in an ideal society. All I think is that the US has enough influence over Korea and the world to not care about teachers being leftist. That's like, well duh. Even the most right wing (nut?) people writing on this board had leftie teachers. Teachers go into a job that has low pay because they want to do something in life that's not centered on making money. They (we? I?) question the basic morality of people who do. Yes, it's a holier than thou attitude, but I can feel free to feel holier than thou for as long as Phil Knight can feel that working poor people in factories under his control for 70 or 80 hours a week is somehow good for anything. But back to the textbooks. I could understand this in Indonesia, where in some places there are fundamentalist religious schools pushing the America is Satan line. Wouldn't using resources there make more sense. So what if some Koreans grow up thinking that America has too much neo-colonial power. (BTW, neo-colonial isn't moving your people in. It's using it as a labor, raw material, and consumer spending satelite.)
One of the most interesting leasons I learned in school was when the teacher asked us our opinions on something and then had us do a formal debate on the opposite side of what we felt. Cool teacher. Probably even leftist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drakoi
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Location: The World
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Real Reality wrote: |
September 2, 1945 - Japanese sign the surrender agreement, U.S.S. Missouri surrender ceremony
The Japanese Surrender Documents of World War II
|
and the declaration of independance MADE all men equal...
for someone who's name has the word real in it twice...Or is that an adopted form of doublespeak you're using as a moniker?
Last edited by Drakoi on Sat Oct 04, 2003 9:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drakoi
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Location: The World
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
Korea is not a colony of the US. It makes me giggle that anyone could seriously suggest it. |
Go shopping some time and rethink that statement, or watch the television. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Drakoi wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
Korea is not a colony of the US. It makes me giggle that anyone could seriously suggest it. |
Go shopping some time and rethink that statement, or watch the television. |
Or just go shop for a TV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Drakoi:
| Quote: |
The Bobster wrote:
Korea is not a colony of the US. It makes me giggle that anyone could seriously suggest it.
Go shopping some time and rethink that statement, or watch the television. |
Drakoi:
If you consider the presence of American products in the stores and American movies on TV to be conclusive proof that Korea is a colony of the US, then I think you're using a different definition of "colony" than is generally accepted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drakoi
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Location: The World
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2003 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Drakoi:
| Quote: |
The Bobster wrote:
Korea is not a colony of the US. It makes me giggle that anyone could seriously suggest it.
Go shopping some time and rethink that statement, or watch the television. |
Drakoi:
If you consider the presence of American products in the stores and American movies on TV to be conclusive proof that Korea is a colony of the US, then I think you're using a different definition of "colony" than is generally accepted. |
No, I'm calling the idolization and adoption of all things American a form of ideological suzeranity (where's the freaking spellcheck?) akin to what koreans have done for the last 3000 years to the chinese, mongols, and japs. Similar to the North's adoption of stalinism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2003 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Drakoi wrote: |
| No, I'm calling the idolization and adoption of all things American a form of ideological suzeranity (where's the freaking spellcheck?) akin to what koreans have done for the last 3000 years to the chinese, mongols, and japs. Similar to the North's adoption of stalinism. |
I believe the idea you're getting at is usually referred to as Coca-colonialism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
