Korean Job Discussion Forums

[igotthisguitar]

Two Koreas' Top Brass Resort to Racist Mudslinging

Inter-Korean Military Talks Stall Over Maritime Border
No Progress on First Day of Inter-Korean Top Brass Meet
Talks Between Generals From Both Koreas Flop

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200605/200605170016.html

The second day of talks between North and South Korean generals on Wednesday got off on the wrong foot when delegates stooped to mudslinging over the racial purity of Korea. The debate erupted in small talk between the two delegation leaders ahead of discussions that failed to agree on the re-alignment of the maritime border.

The North's delegation leader Maj. Gen. Kim Yong-chul started off an unfortunate thread by quipping, "Since the climate in the South is warmer, the farmers must be hard at work." His South Korean counterpart Maj. Gen. Han Min-gu of the South replied, "The population of the farming communities is actually falling, and many bachelors from such areas marry women from Mongolia, Vietnam and the Philippines."

Kim reportedly grimaced and snapped, �Our nation has always considered its pure lineage to be of great importance -- I am concerned that our singularity will disappear.�

Instead of contradicting him, the South Korean delegation said such dilution of the bloodline was �but a drop of ink in the Han River,� adding this would cause no problems �if we all live together." But this failed to mollify the North Korean. "Since time immemorial, our nation has been a land of abundant beauty. Not even one drop of ink must be allowed to fall into the Han River,� Kim thundered.

"Our history shows that we were able to maintain the purity of the Korean race even while living together with the Jurchen and the Manchurians of the region," Han countered. "That may be true,� Kim pressed on, �but from Old Chosun� -- the earliest Korean kingdom that ended in 108 BC and spanned from western Manchuria through the northwestern regions of the Korean Peninsula and according to legend started in 2333 BC? �through the Middle Ages and the modern era, it is undeniable that we existed as one unified race."

([email protected] )

[Moldy Rutabaga]

Charming. How to win the respect and friendship of the international community.

Ken:>

[patchy]

Migration is a relatively new concept for many countries. It is only really countries that are colonies like Canada, Australia and the US (a former colony) that have accepted migrants in large numbers for many years. Probably because they wanted to populate these countries with people from the Old World (after they killed off the aborigines), and then later with people from other places. These countries encouraged migration because they felt it served their interests. Settled countries traditionally are not open to migrants.

I think Koreans don't have to accept migrants if they don't want to. I think no country should have to accept migrants if they don't wish to. If other countries want to accept migrants, that's their concern, and if people want to migrate to those countries and are approved for migration, then that's their business.

These countries that accept migrants should not have a holier-than-thou attitude to nations that don't accept migrants.

Koreans fought hard for their country to be theirs (North Koreans fought the Japanese and later the Americans; South Korea got rid of the US's control to a certain extent by overthrowing the dictatorship and beoming democratic) so it's their right to keep out other people.

People might say that that's hypocritical because many South Koreans migrate to other countries but that's the business of the country to which they're migrating. The country concerned can accept or reject them. Nobody forces a country to accept Koreans, or people of any other nationality if that country doesn't want to accept them. The USA has an immigration lottery every now and then and quite a few countries have been excluded from the list of countries whose people are eligible to apply; Korea is one of those excluded.

Other countries have the right to say no to Koreans, or no to people of any nationality migrating there. And many countries did. Migration wasn't a big thing in Europe or Australia for Asians until the 70s. Australia only started to accept European migrants after WWII. It had a White Australia Policy until the late 60s. Now, the PM wants to increase Indian migration to Australia, but only those who are highly educated in certain fields. In general Indians are attractive migrants to English-sepaking countries who want migrants because they speak English. The PM feels he gets something out of these people migrating to Australia otherwise he wouldn't encourage it. IOW, Australia accepts migrants, and only certain migrants, if they feel it is beneficial to the country. Otherwise they wouldn't. Pure self-interest.

Migration policy also is influenced by the economic system of a country. Capitalist countries try to constantly increase their population because population growth equals economic growth. Even small overcrowded countries like Japan. That is the nature of capitalism and that is why capitalist economists are obsessed with economic growth.

But the matter is entirely up to the individual country.

The two Koreas may not like the idea of foreigners living as citizens in their country because historically Korea was a frequently invaded country, and the presence of foreigners equaled bad news back in those days. This includes the Japanese and the Americans during their respective occupations. Plus, Koreans tried to preserve their homogeneity as a race to preserve their identity as a people in times of invasion. It was a mechanism that helped keep them as one people, much like Jews marry other Jews (or try to as much as possible) to preserve their identity.

Historically the Jewish are a people of migrants but now that Israel has been created, it only accepts people of the Jewish faith. IOW, some nations are highly selective of whom they allow in; others are less discriminating.

This is what the North Korean general meant about the Jurchens and Manchus. These people invaded and occupied Korea in the past several times but Korea was able to maintain its identity despite this. The North Koreans rightly see the Americans as colonizers of Korea, and therefore their presence in Korea is anathema to them.

And let's face it, if the Americans had not come and occupied Korea, there would have been much less mixing of Koreans with Americans. Much less of an American influence.

And Korea has had a rotten history in the last 100 years: mainly due to people invading them. And the invaders tried to impose a foreign culture on them and subvert the whole country to their interests. Eg. The Japanese turned Korea into a factory to churn out goods and other things they needed for the war effort; they used Koreans for cheap labor etc; the Americans wanted to occupy Korea so they could use it as a base to contain the communists: the Korean War was the result.

The DPRK wants these foreign elements (including the Japanese collaborators) out so that their influence on the country is less and that only the people who have Korea's interests at heart remain in the country. These foreign elements were a threat to Koreans because they subverted Korea's national interests for foreign interests and ultimately betrayed the country.
See my post in this thread:
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=56800&start=180
It is a matter of political survival and survival as a sovereign nation, and a matter of significance for the two Koreas because their sovereignty has been under threat constantly for millennia.

But even if this hadn't been the case and Korea had never been invaded in the past, the two Koreas still have the right to not accept migrants.

[Satori]

That's a valiant effort to defend outright eugenics based racism. But it failed because the issue is not immigration but intermarriage, that is what is meant by "not a single drop of ink must fall into the han river". Pure racial superiority of the most backwards kind.

[On the other hand]

[On the other hand]

Cross-posted with Satori.

[Real Reality]

This topic (and article) has been posted.

Racial Purity. Korean Against Korean
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=57364&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

[patchy]

Well, if people didn't migrate to Korea very much because it didn't have an open-door policy toward migration, then there would be less marrying of Koreans with other races in Korea, so migration is significant.

The main people who preach against eugenics-based racism have a eugenics-based racist policy themselves. Jews have their own discriminatory policy in Israel. Only Jews can migrate to Israel. Jews often marry other Jews and their religion/culture encourages this. Chinese temporary workers have to sign a form saying that they will not have relations with Jewish women before they're allowed to work there. Even Jews, the 'persecuted race', who claim to be the biggest victims of eugenics-based racism, recognize the need to preserve the conformity of race or ethnicity of the people living in their country. They have even walled themselves off from the Palestinians, who are a similar race to theirs. Anyway, the whole world doesn't revolve around what happened to the European Jews in WWII, Satori. Korea's history is miles apart from this. This could have happened on another planet as far as Korea is concerned. The whole story of what happened to the Jewish people during that era is not that straightforward either. http://www.rense.com/general71/zzon.htm

I think it's all about the truism that a person cannot serve two masters at the same time.

And yes, race does influence one's politics, one's political allegiance.

Every country should have the right to preser