Korean Job Discussion Forums

[earthquakez]

Vagabundo hit the nail on the head in his posts. As for supposedly the
American Govt being responsible for Korea's education system - you've got to be joking.

America was in Japan too after WW2 yet the more things changed, the more they stayed the same in vital matters.

The Emperor stayed on, organised crime Yakuza still ran a lot of the economy, the zaibatsu who were instrumental in urging war changed their names to become keiritsu with the same warmongers influencing their decisions, the same Japanese whose grandparents had countless people murdered or enslaved to work in the mines their families owned were still around in politics and in fact ex Prime Minister Aso's family had Korean and Allied prisoners of war enslaved in their mines, the education system stayed basically the same East Asian way with emphasis on rote learning and memory oriented tests, university entrance was not democratised but left to stay in the same situation where school learning did not equip students for the entrance exams and that was why students had to go to juku (cram school). Etc.

The American influence on Korea was and is obvious but again Korean ruling elites such as the chaebols still exerted big influence. Education was still following the Japanese model that had been instituted after the annexation of Korea and the fact that it wasn't changed much except that now the history revisionism, propaganda and ultranationalism was about the 'Great Han Race' instead of that of Japan says much about Korean educational preferences.

The rote learning, reliance on examinations, university entrance exams not really reflecting what is learnt in high school so hagwons are needed does not show American/western influence - and it was not just from the Japanese but also from the Confucianism of the ruling elites throughout most of the Joseon Dynasty.

I think the OP is Korean and I don't think they're a gypo who has taught in the school system. I don't question their right to come here and contribute, I just hope they're not going to troll.

[NohopeSeriously]

[earthquakez]

No, Korea's education system is an unholy mixed mess of Confucianism from centuries past, Japanese colonialism, Korean nationalism, and some western influence but basically reflecting its East Asian characteristics.

As for rote learning, just about every country on earth with a national education system had this and examinations as a significant part of their school systems up to the 60s. I'm interested in educational history in my home country which was formerly 'Great Britain' but even back in those periods there were more diverse assessment means as well, namely from the 50s onwards.

I know that's the case in some European countries too.

You're overlooking a basic fact - Koreans have things the way they are because they want things the way they are because they see it as vital because they are Koreans.

I have to confess to little sympathy for Koreans caught up in their restrictive lives, social placings and jobs because it's clear that this is accepted by the majority as just part of being Korean. That's the price they pay for keeping the mindset going.

[NohopeSeriously]

Western education systems used to emphasize rote-memorizations decades ago. I don't see anything wrong with this fact.

There's no need to be offensive. As long as we agree that the South Korean education sucks, I don't see any problem.

[Vagabundo]

NoHope

I think earthquakez is correct in that if you were to do a side by side comparison and checklist of the Japanese school system, the Korean system and the American system, you'd find that the Korean and Japanese are far far more alike than than either vs American.

Isn't the most basic thing, such as the start of the school year (March).. wasn't that instituted by the Japanese during their colonial rule and the Koreans have kept it?

One of the most hushed up truths about that Japanese colonial rule is that in many ways they dragged Korea out of the 10th century into the 20th.

[NohopeSeriously]

[happiness]

[legrande]

[earthquakez]

Yes and no. You make points that show your knowledge of the history of the two countries.

However, the blaming of 'Uncle Sam' doesn't quite take into account the realities of the kinds of cultural realities a country like the US faced when occupying countries like Japan and Korea. For a start there was simply not the history of any kind of semi democratic let alone democratic structures to start anew. None. Same with Korea.

There were only real attempts to do so in late 19th century but it was alien to the way those societies ran because any changes were always made reactively and to preserve the status quo in one way or another. There was a brief blossoming of western inspired literary, political, and social movements in Japan but that was quickly repressed when the military and their associations gained the upper hand.

Korea was influenced by new ideas to some extent but it was a case of too much too late - their society was simply not equipped to handle such forces in a short time and much as they blame their annexation on 'traitors' as well as everybody else, their downfall basically was their refusal to engage with the world for centuries.

Try implementing a whole new education system along with a new judicial system, economic system, political system, social system. It was impossible. You can't blame western powers like the US because East Asian countries like Korea were in terminal decline because they had cut themselves off from the world for centuries and were forced to face reality when their fellow East Asian Japanese showed what happens when you do participate in the world (although their focus was military and technological).

Korean society, regardless of the changes that came about through the influence of other countries and other ideas in the 19th and 20th century, was and is set up to do things in ways that reject education systems like that of the US or other western countries.

There were just too many entrenched old powers, institutions, and a cultural mindset that hadn't changed in centuries within them. Japan was similar when it came to reforming the society as again, while it had opened up for specific purposes, it still remained in the hands of sinmilar old powers, institutions and their cultural mindset.

Try getting rid of the Yakuza - entrenched for centuries, it will never be tackled the way the US made all those laws including relatively recently in the 70s and 80s to break many Mafia structures of influence. Of course they dealt with the Yakuza because it had control of vital areas of both the mainstream and underground economy. That's not the fault of non Japanese.

Education also would have been impossible to reform without Japan being an American colony for real for generations. The Japanese elites and others who hold the real power wouldn't want a system that didn't keep them privileged and having access to the civil service. That is basically what the education systems of East Asian countries like Korea and Japan did - prepared the privileged to keep those privileges by gearing the education system (especially university entrance exams) to them and their kind.

[legrande]

Basically we both are up on the history of US involvement in Japan and Korea. Where we differ is your view that the US was justified in doing things their way. I don't question that there were those involved in the decision-making process who had genuinely good intentions. I'm just saying that I take issue with all the other people behind them who use the "we're here to liberate y'all" in one hand to get into a country, and once they're in, use the other hand to dictate policies to suit their other geo-political and economic agendas as well as jusitfy getting rid of any perceived opposition. Essentially, the old "two hands employing the necessary actions to give the image of democracy in order to get what you want later" manipulative approach.

Once they've got their US policies in place, then the big multinationals start coming in, and before you know it, the natives have basically no say in shaping their country to suit their needs, their culture starts to get eroded, young people don't give a crap for what their roots are about (beyond replicating popular attitudes and behaviors), and everyone ends up just viewing life as a fight for the money.

[happiness]

great discussion going on here. learning a ton of new persepctives...

[earthquakez]

I'm well aware of the history of leftist politics in its different forms in Korea from the 19th century onwards (that includes in the broadest sense such as the Dongjak movement etc, yes I probably misspelled it). I know all about Kim Gu, Kim Dae Jung, the Jeju biz, Gwangju etc.

What I have been saying is that I don't believe the issue of how Korea became partitioned is simply down to imperialistic/colonising western powers' negative influences and corporations running over democratic movements.

As a serious student of military history in many different centuries and countries, nothing will convince me that any occupying western power after WW2 could have ignored the structures and ruling interests already in place in Korea, mostly established by the Japanese colonists but also having been established successfully by the Japanese in part because of the big role Korean collaboration played in Japan's rule of the peninsula.

When you had so many governing structures already in place, what are you to do?

Completely dismantle the system in favour of leftist movements that ranged from those associated with the pro Soviet Kim Il Sung to the expert in death squads that was Kim Gu?

Yes, Kim Il Sung was a Korean patriot but he was also problematic because of his closeness to totalitarian leaders - remember it was not just Stalin but also Lenin who had murdered millions upon millions of people in the name of Communism Kim Gu ran death squads that not only encouraged assassinations of Japanese (including civilian women and children in Manchuria and other places) but also picked off Korean pro independence advocates who were murdered because they still ran businesses under Japanese rule even if those businesses included newspapers criticial of the Japanese. It's brave to remain in-country opposing an occupying regime just as it was brave to flee outside and organise armed resistance from another country.

Of course there were truly democratic leftists but there were bloody minded leftists as well who were motivated by the politics of revenge. It's obvious to me why America and the Allies were wary of prominent leftist groups and were doubtful of how you'd ever get them to establish a republic of Korea without widespread bloodshed and other recriminations.

There's also the fact that when the occupying Japanese were defeated there was a power vacuum that needed to be filled quickly and as the Japanese colonial structures were entrenched by the 1930s, it made sense to work within those structures and make use of those Koreans who had been involved in them.

In recent times the huge errors made post Iraqui invasion included getting rid of Sadaam Hussein's authorities just about everywhere, including those who knew how to administer govt effectively, control military elements, could have been invaluable in providing insight to the political and bureaucratic structures. The chaos in Iraq that rendered the country ungovernable was in part due to this.

Getting back to Korea, of course some Koreans who were in powerful positions post WW2 had been collaborators but you also had the Americans making use of conservative or right wing Korean independence advocates such as Syngman Rhee.

Maybe he had Kim Gu assassinated but then again, when you're Gu and you devoted much of your independence struggle to getting your followers to assassinate not only Japanese but other pro Independence Koreans, it should hardly have surprised anybody that Gu himself would be assassinated. For all Gu's talk about a 'beautiful' Korea I think there would have been mass reprisals for what in some cases was inevitable collaboration under a very harsh Japanese regime, or simply Koreans with political powerbases that weren't going to fall in line.

As for Kim Il Sung, I agree with the notion that regardless of the western powers' roles, he would still have had a somewhat repressive regime. He was another Korean leader who despite his hatred of the Japanese, managed to absorb some of their ultranationalistic agenda and was proclaiming Korean 'superiority' doctrines before partition of Korea. He and Kim Gu would have given power to the people according to their particular interpretations which I think there is little doubt would have involved vengeance and chaos.

Something along the lines of the activities of certain 'democratic' Korean leftist groups down south who had no qualms about massacring Korean women and children who happened to have fathers who fought for the conservative/right wing side or simply espoused those political views. Korea's military dictatorship was bad but had there been a Kim-Kim type one, possibly South Korea would have gone down a similar path to the tragic one of North Korea as a united Korea.

[legrande]

@Earthquakez

[earthquakez]

No, you're not reading my posts the way they are written. You're reading them the way you want to interpret them as supposedly being pro right wing Korean military.

All I'm pointing out is that both the MAJOR leftist leaders (no, I never criticised all the leftist groups or leaders, just the two prominent ones in Kim Il Sung and Kim Gu and their brand of 'democracy') had their own authoritarian agendas.

Based on Kim Il Sung's close ties with Stalinist totalitarianism and Kim Gu's bloody track record of eliminating not only Japanese but Koreans of courage who stayed in Korea expressing their pro Independence views under the nose of the Japanese masters, I think it's obvious why the Americans and other westerners didn't see these two and their movements as the future of Korea.

And again, you don't understand the lessons of power vacuums. You cannot dismantle all the previous structures and kick out those who know how to administer the country because that causes sheer chaos and ends up making a country ungovernable. Iraq is but one of many examples that can be cited,

The left and right were both equally bad in crucial respects, the difference is the right wanted to work with the Americans and western powers and the left wanted to work with the Soviets and the Chinese. The civil war which is what the Korean War essentially was showed up what lengths both sides went to, left and right. There are primary sources from the time that give some harrowing details of just how 'democratic' some of the leftists were especially down south, making a bloody lie of the fact they were in favour of the people.

Brutal reprisals and repression would also have marked a united Korea with Kim Il Sun and Kim Gu in control. The fact that a right wing military dictatorship gave way to a liberal democracy of sorts might have been impossible under Kim Il Sung and Kim Gu.

[earthquakez]