Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Anti-American Sentiment Continues and Grows

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Anti-American Sentiment Continues and Grows
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:51 am Post subject:

Butterfly wrote:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

I did say "if" Butterfly.

I know you did Gwangjuboy, I know you aren't a racist mate.

Gwangjuboy wrote:

(hypothetically speaking because I certainly don't believe this)

Well IF you, like me, and I think Korea Newfie don't believe that black people or any other ethnic group are more prone to anti social behavior, what point does this scenario serve? It would never happen. It's redundant.

It has however happened, with US army military personnel. The US Army setting certain areas off limits to their personnel, was not done in a vacuum! Why has nobody answered me this point, as well as others about English soccer fans?

Why are hypothetical situations casually brushed aside? There was a real point in their Butterfly, and I don't think it does your intelligence any justice to just consign my analogy to the dustbin. However, if you are not willing to deal with hypothetical situations then how about reality? In my hometown there were a series of huge fights involving Indians and Pakistanis(against each other and I am sure you know about the rivalry that exists between these groups as a fellow Brit) in nightclubs in my hometown. Would it have been okay to ban all Pakistanis and Inidans during that time because people were avoiding these nightclubs?

Butterfly

Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait

Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2004 5:11 pm Post subject:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

However, if you are not willing to deal with hypothetical situations then how about reality?

I'm all ears Wink

Gwangjuboy wrote:

In my hometown there were a series of huge fights involving Indians and Pakistanis(against each other and I am sure you know about the rivalry that exists between these groups as a fellow Brit) in nightclubs in my hometown. Would it have been okay to ban all Pakistanis and Inidans during that time because people were avoiding these nightclubs?

Ban members of the gangs, not Indians or Pakistanis across the board. Are you from Luton?

diver wrote:

Can I point to some examples of predominantly black groups that do exhibit anti-social behavior? Yup...Street gangs in LA for example.

Ban members of the gangs, not members of the race; I'm sure there are white, or Korean, or hispanic gangs who are equally anti-social in Los Angeles.

I have explained several times here why I believe GI's are more prone to anti-social behavior than other people, and have also conceded that if there was a way to separate those from within the military that are more likely to play up, by age or rank then that would be fair, but it would have to work.

And we are only talking about one district here, not every bar in Seoul or in Korea.

One thing I have only touched on briefly also is the special circumstances. And I'm expected to answer everyone else's points, but nobody is answering mine. It would be wrong for Portugese bar owners to ban English soccer fans across the board, forever. But it is fair that they ban them for the duration of the Euro 2004 tournament in my view. Circumstances; a solution to an immediate problem, Hongdae was made off limits after repeated problems, that is a FACT. Should things change, and US army builds a better reputation here, then the situation may get better and the ban may be lifted, but after the recent stabbing in Shinchon, I don't think it is very likely.

Also, one final point, is that the US army, or any army are charged with the responsibilty of the defense of a nation or a group of people. This is what they do. So, as you know, they are not subject to the same democratic rules as we civilians are. They are not permitted to criticize more senior ranking officers, including the President of the United States. They are trusted with secure information, that is not available to the general public. They are not citizens, they are military, so hence can be the target of terrorism, spying, nationalist violence and so forth. So whereas it is undemocratic to ban a race of people, it is fair to ban members of a profession when members of this profession have displayed behavior that is offensive to the local population thus tarnishing the reputation of both their regiments and their country, and are at times a very high security risk. For these reasons they need to be policed by an American force, and policing a new district, when the Yongsan area is already well policed, is only going to cost the American tax-payer, and why should that be, when the US army already have an area in which to seek entertainment?

Hongdae is off-limits to US military personnel, refusal to serve military personnel there, is only an enforcement of a ban that was set by the US military, not the bar owners. When GI's started going there, and there was no ban, all bars were pretty much open to GI's. Any trade is good trade? Not in this case they realized.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 1:59 am Post subject:

Butterfly wrote:

Ban members of the gangs, not Indians or Pakistanis across the board. Are you from Luton?

But how do you discriminate between Indians/Pakistanis who are gang members and those who are not? Is it any easier than differentiating between the GIs who cause trouble and the GIs who don't? Why can't the above question not apply to the GIs as well? Ban the trouble makers, and allow those into the bar who won't cause trouble. I think that's exactly what you are saying with respect to Indians and Pakistanis.

(I'm from the East Midlands by the way)

Korea Newfie

Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Location: Newfoundland and Labrador

Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 5:24 am Post subject:

Butterfly wrote:

Korea Newfie wrote:

He's saying "if" blacks were prone to undesirable behaviour

But they aren't. Do you think they are? No? Me too.

How do you type with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears?

Butterfly

Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:43 pm Post subject:

Korea Newfie wrote:

How do you type with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears?

I try to be as polite and courteous as I can in debates on this board but I am not willing to build an argument based on a premise that black people are more prone to anti social behavior than others because I'm not comfortable with that racist foundation to an argument. If you want to push the hypothesis and 'if' further, and create a scenario where there is a community of green people resident in a country, who are inclined towards this kind of behavior, then I'll take it on, seriously. WHEN somebody answers the bloody questions that I have asked repeatedly:

Why did the US ARMY set Hongdae off-limits to their personnel?

What do Portugese bar owners do with regard to England soccer fans (most of whom are supposedly good-natured) during the Euro 2004 tournament?

Gwangjuboy wrote:

Presumably, the clubs would have sense enough to hire some security staff from those communities, who know the community well and are aware of the instigators of these fights. I don't see how Korean bar owners can do this.

Also, on the moral issue, there is a difference between race and occupation, inasmuch as that GI's can leave the military, come back to Korea and teach or whatever, and be free to go where they want. However, putting a ban on race, has a vast and wide social consequences and would open up an opportinity for nationlalists and KKK type organizations to take our societies back to the dark ages. So, even though banning Pakistani and Indian people MIGHT even be appropriate in some circumstances, we can't allow it because of the social divisions and wider human consequences it would have. Putting a ban on the military does not, it achieves it's only purpose and does not have any further social consequences.

Sounds like a false anecdote, but it isn't, really, I had dinner with some Korean friends on Saturday, one of whom hadn't realized Hongdae was off-limits to US army, she hasn't been back there on a weekend in two years.

Hongdae is one of the most popular entertainment areas in Seoul.

dogbert

Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:38 pm Post subject:

Butterfly wrote:

Korea Newfie wrote:

How do you type with your eyes closed and your hands over your ears?

The U.S. Department of Justice states:

"Blacks were over 7 times more likely than whites to commit homicide in 2000".

Homicide Trends in the U.S.

Yet you would ban members of the U.S. military for less.

Butterfly

Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:56 pm Post subject:

See my point about wider social consequences.

diver

Joined: 16 Jun 2003

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 6:34 pm Post subject:

Butterfly wrote:

I applaud your squeemishness with racism. Really. An argument based on the fact that black people are more prone to anti-social behavior than others should make one uncomfortable. It might even be racist.

That, however, is not the argument here. The analogy is that treating all black people one way, for the actions of a few (street gangs, for example) is discriminatory. I think we all agree on this.

Your example of green people is not really necessary, but if it makes you feel more comfortable, we could make the same analogy using 'green people' and it would be the same. If some green people were prone to anti-social behavior, and we punished all green people for such behavior, that would be discriminatory against green people.

Where we disagree is on whether RACIAL discrimination trumps all other forms of discrimination. I also don't see a consensus forming on this issue in the near (or distant) future.

Butterfly wrote:

If you want to push the hypothesis and 'if' further, and create a scenario where there is a community of green people resident in a country, who are inclined towards this kind of behavior, then I'll take it on, seriously. WHEN somebody answers the bloody questions that I have asked repeatedly:

Why did the US ARMY set Hongdae off-limits to their personnel?

What do Portugese bar owners do with regard to England soccer fans (most of whom are supposedly good-natured) during the Euro 2004 tournament?

I will try to answer your questions. I can only do so with hypotheses, because I do not make policy decisions for the USFK, or the Portugese Bar Owner's Association.

1. "Why did the USFK set Hongdae off-limits to their personnel?"

- Well, to avoid ANY possibility of trouble. It is not worth it to them. If a group short-haired English teacher cause trouble in Hongdae, the US will not be blamed for it. They weren't there.
- The Koreans have set ample precedent for blaming EVERYTHING on GIs.
- Perhaps they have read some of the posts on this board, and are afraid that some drunken English teacher will start something with a GI. The military will be blamed.
- The precedent set in Busan where student groups provoke fights with GIs in order to capture them on videotape. The tapes are then edited and aired on the internet or sent to news stations to make GIs look bad.
- Absolutely unfair treatment in Korean courts (again, with precedent) for GIs if they are guilty of trouble. Off-duty incidents are in the jurisdiction of the KNP, not the USFK. Harsher than average sentences meted out for the New Year's Eve incident of 1994/5 and the recent formaldahyde dumping case are but two examples. The calling for the heads of Nino and Walker for a traffic accident while continuing to ignore Koreans doing the same thing.
- And finally, I admit, that some GIs cause trouble in Hongdae. However, you cannot point to the USFK decision to ban GIs from Hongdae as an admission that they are all prone to anti-social behavior. I could say that the USFK have done it to prevent an (admittedly) guilty GI from getting the shaft in a Korean court.

2. What do Portugese bar owners do with English football fans?
- This one is easy. You let them in. When they cause trouble, you beat the crap out of the ones causing trouble, and toss them out. Leave the good ones alone. Security is an operational expense in a bar. If you want to cut corners on expenses, then you will pay a price.

Butterfly wrote:

Why can't Korean bar owners do this? Further, isn't it possible (even a little) that Potugese and/or Korean security staff may have a tendency to place the blame for instigation on the outsiders?

Butterfly wrote:

Also, on the moral issue, there is a difference between race and occupation, inasmuch as that GI's can leave the military, come back to Korea and teach or whatever, and be free to go where they want.

So, by becoming a teacher, a GI can go wherever they want. Do you really think that by leaving the military, this person will suddenly become less prone to anti-social behavior? The ones who cause trouble most likely did so before the military, did so in the military and will do so after they leave the military. I am sorry, but again, I do not accept as an a priori truth that the military (or any occupation outside of Mafia button-man) makes people anti-social.

Remember, that you can also leave a church. Can we ban members of a religion, but allow them into an establishment if they agree to leave their church?

Butterfly wrote:

However, putting a ban on race, has a vast and wide social consequences and would open up an opportinity for nationlalists and KKK type organizations to take our societies back to the dark ages. So, even though banning Pakistani and Indian people MIGHT even be appropriate in some circumstances, we can't allow it because of the social divisions and wider human consequences it would have. Putting a ban on the military does not, it achieves it's only purpose and does not have any further social consequences.

Putting a ban on the military does indeed achieve its only purpose because your only purpose is to punish a group of people based on the actions of a few.

It also has further social consequences. It opens the door for a very slippery slope. See the example of religion above.

Butterfly wrote:

Sounds like a false anecdote, but it isn't, really, I had dinner with some Korean friends on Saturday, one of whom hadn't realized Hongdae was off-limits to US army, she hasn't been back there on a weekend in two years.

And I can tell you similar anecdotes from people who refuse to go to Boracay Island, Philippines again because of the actions of a few 'certain people' there. I'll give you a hint...these 'certain people' are not GIS. Should all of these 'certain people' (maybe they are green, maybe not) be barred from Boracay?

lush72

Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: I am Penalty Kick!

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 7:13 pm Post subject:

TMKATM, Why does "Butterfly" have such a raging hard on for the boys in blue? Why?

Butterfly

Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 7:31 pm Post subject:

diver wrote:

I'm sorry I'm not ready to accept that this is a fact.

diver wrote:

Your example of green people is not really necessary, but if it makes you feel more comfortable, we could make the same analogy using 'green people' and it would be the same. If some green people were prone to anti-social behavior, and we punished all green people for such behavior, that would be discriminatory against green people.

Where we disagree is on whether RACIAL discrimination trumps all other forms of discrimination. I also don't see a consensus forming on this issue in the near (or distant) future.

Me too, they are exclusive to me, not to you, this is fundamentally where we differ.

diver wrote:

You are as guilty as I am here of anecdotal evidence, especially the case of university students provoking military personnel in Busan, who told you that? Perhaps the women repeatedly harrassed in Hongdae by groups of young GI's provoked them too? Let's not bring Nino and Walker into this, as far as I'm aware they weren't drinking in Hongdae. You're making this political, it's not, it's based on experience. I believe the USFK set the ban because they are sensibly careful to do what they can not to worsen the relationship with the Korean community. Have their good work tarnished by the actions of gangs of low ranking military personnel.

diver wrote:

This one is easy. You let them in. When they cause trouble, you beat the crap out of the ones causing trouble, and toss them out. Leave the good ones alone. Security is an operational expense in a bar. If you want to cut corners on expenses, then you will pay a price.

Or not open your bars to potential troublemakers. Have you seen the bars in Portugal? They aren't bars so much as small cafes selling bottled beers, snacks and coffees, we're not talking Ministry of Sound here. And to be honest, and sorry, I'm either not sure you really believe what you are saying or you've never run into English soccer yobs.

diver wrote:

Why can't Korean bar owners do this? Further, isn't it possible (even a little) that Potugese and/or Korean security staff may have a tendency to place the blame for instigation on the outsiders?

Why the hell should Korean bar owners have to do this? Just to be fair? When some of them have never needed security staff before, suddenly, and exclusively because of US military personnel, they should have to hire probably expensive and mafia related security staff, just to deal with the GI issue. That seems wholly unfair to me. Remember these bars never banned Army personnel before, it's just when they started going there en masse the trouble started.

That said, despite the ban, a US soldier stabbed a Korean citizen in the neck when he tried to stop him vandalising a taxi cab three weeks ago. Shame that.

diver wrote:

So, by becoming a teacher, a GI can go wherever they want. Do you really think that by leaving the military, this person will suddenly become less prone to anti-social behavior?

Yes actually, because to be here as an English teachers some would be at least four years older and more mature, having obtained a degree which hopefully would have made them a bit more worldly.

diver wrote:

The ones who cause trouble most likely did so before the military, did so in the military and will do so after they leave the military. I am sorry, but again, I do not accept as an a priori truth that the military (or any occupation outside of Mafia button-man) makes people anti-social.

Well I've made my points here, training (or lack of it, in cultural awareness), youth, lack of education, military culture...

diver wrote:

Remember, that you can also leave a church. Can we ban members of a religion, but allow them into an establishment if they agree to leave their church?

Why would we ban members of a religion? bothering other customers to join their church? Well, fair enough, I'd ban them. But if you've left the church then you aren't likely to do that any more are you?

diver wrote:

I don't believe that, if some members of a religion, for some strange reason (perhaps the above one) find themselves banned for a bar, I'm sure economics will dictate that they can easily find another one to drink in. But why anyone would ban members of a religion, I can't really think why..

diver wrote:

Flicking their hair and making 'V' signs for the camera maybe? Ban those green barstards...

And I apologize to all, that I've given a good few productive hours over to this debate, and with the last interjection of that Lush t i t, I'm going to bid you all a good week and get on with my work.

diver

Joined: 16 Jun 2003

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 8:00 pm Post subject:

Well fought Butterfly. If you make it to Jeju, PM me and I'll buy you a beer. Rest up...What shall we all tackle mext week? diver PS: You're still wrong you know

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:25 pm Post subject:

Butterfly wrote:

diver wrote:

Why can't Korean bar owners do this? Further, isn't it possible (even a little) that Potugese and/or Korean security staff may have a tendency to place the blame for instigation on the outsiders?

So suddenly nightclub managers in the UK are expected to put extra security personnel from a certain ethnic group on the doors just to be fair? They have to do this despite the Indians and Pakistanis bringing trouble to their nightclub, when before this the place didn't experience such violence. Are you suggesting that a couple of Indian and Pakistani guys can discriminate between the trouble making Indians and Pakistanis and those who don't casue trouble when on many occasions the trouble makers come from neighbouring cities? You claim to hold discrimination based on race close to your heart yet you advocate a policy which only punishes a large percentage of black and white people in Seoul. You have gone out of your way to suggest ways in which the English nightclub manager can avoid a blanket ban, but you seem to revel in the fact that Korean bar owners shouldn't have to bother attempting to discriminate between those not causing trouble, and those who do.

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:05 am Post subject:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

diver wrote:

Why can't Korean bar owners do this? Further, isn't it possible (even a little) that Potugese and/or Korean security staff may have a tendency to place the blame for instigation on the outsiders?

the english have been incurably naiive about race relations for a long time, and now the chickens have come home to roost in a big way. You'll just have to learn to live with it now.
If those lefty, ultra liberal self righteous politicians of the 70's had for example, supported the stable and secure gov't of rhodesia, they wouldn't have found themselves in the ridiculous scenario now of having to take in hordes of refugees from that terrorised and destroyed land. there are now more black Zimbabweans living in London than there ever were whites living in Rhodesia, a reverse colonisation.

So suddenly nightclub managers in the UK are expected to put extra security personnel from a certain ethnic group on the doors just to be fair? They have to do this despite the Indians and Pakistanis bringing trouble to their nightclub, when before this the place didn't experience such violence. Are you suggesting that a couple of Indian and Pakistani guys can discriminate between the trouble making Indians and Pakistanis and those who don't casue trouble when on many occasions the trouble makers come from neighbouring cities? You claim to hold discrimination based on race close to your heart yet you advocate a policy which only punishes a large percentage of black and white people in Seoul. You have gone out of your way to suggest ways in which the English nightclub manager can avoid a blanket ban, but you seem to revel in the fact that Korean bar owners shouldn't have to bother attempting to discriminate between those not causing trouble, and those who do.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:12 am Post subject:

rapier wrote:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

diver wrote:

Why can't Korean bar owners do this? Further, isn't it possible (even a little) that Potugese and/or Korean security staff may have a tendency to place the blame for instigation on the outsiders?

Rapier, I can't nake out who you are replying too! Please let me know. If it's me you are replying to then I will be happy to respond.

rapier

Joined: 16 Feb 2003

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:23 am Post subject:

err...ok. a bit of a fu** up there. I was responding to your general observations on race relations in the UK. It just seems funny to me that 20 years back all english people were tearing their hair out and beating their chests about the racial injustices of apartheid. Now, the same people are finding out what its like to have their towns overtaken by large concentrations of immigrants....

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 9 of 10

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe