Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Anti-Korean Sentiment Emerges From American Intellectuals

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-Korean Sentiment Emerges From American Intellectuals
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:39 pm Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

And if the Koreans really believed their maudlin professions of warm regard for the North, they'd hold a referendum, get the troops out, sign a peace treaty with KJI, and start a thousand years of peace love dove on the peninsula. Easy as pie. But of course they don't do that, because at the back of their collective minds they know what the score is.

Long and the short of it: Koreans know they need the USFK, but like to act as if they don't because having foreign troops marching around hurts their sense of national pride. Americans know it's in their interest for the troops to be here, but don't like to see those troops subjected to abuse from the locals. Looks bad on the TV news back home. So, when things get a bit testy(as with the MacArthur statue), they threaten to pack up and leave, in the hopes that the Korean "elders" will get the yahoos to calm down for a bit.

That's about the best thing I have seen you write on here.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:05 pm Post subject:

Quote:

On the other hand wrote:
And if the Koreans really believed their maudlin professions of warm regard for the North, they'd hold a referendum, get the troops out, sign a peace treaty with KJI, and start a thousand years of peace love dove on the peninsula. Easy as pie. But of course they don't do that, because at the back of their collective minds they know what the score is.

Long and the short of it: Koreans know they need the USFK, but like to act as if they don't because having foreign troops marching around hurts their sense of national pride. Americans know it's in their interest for the troops to be here, but don't like to see those troops subjected to abuse from the locals. Looks bad on the TV news back home. So, when things get a bit testy(as with the MacArthur statue), they threaten to pack up and leave, in the hopes that the Korean "elders" will get the yahoos to calm down for a bit.

That's about the best thing I have seen you write on here.

But eveything else I've written is a close second, right? Wink

(Thanks!!)

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: Implying

Privateer wrote:

and it's not like they didn't earn their own economic success for themselves anyway.

The Americans were pumping ovr 200 - 400 million dollars in annual aid to South Korea for two decades. Ajust that figure for inflation and you can appreciate what sort of a contribution that is. If you factor in the huge cost of America's military presence which made Korea a million times more attractive to foreign investors, and the unfettered access to the American market the Korean chebols enjoyed one could strongly argue that the miracle of the han was not a solo effort at all.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: Implying

The Bobster wrote:

I'm not sure what part of what I said is objectionable. Is it the notion that a lot of us Americans are unclear on the concept when we believe that SK needs to be ever-grateful for the fact that something over 2 million Koreans died in a conflict between ideologies formulated by Dead European European White Guys, namely Adam Smith and Karl Marx?

Koreans had been unable to govern themselves for centuries. At the turn of the last century this country was the equivalent of a modern day Sierra Leone; the quintessential failed state. The Japanese turned Korea around, and then the Americans took the baton. Adam Smith's ideology helped to elevate Korea to its highest position in its five thousand year history in just 50 years. Irrespective of where Smith came from, his ideology was a god send to these people. When you refer to "two dead European white guys" you come across as a radical left wing Korean conspiracy theorist who wants to role back the years to the dizzy heights of the yangban days.

Quote:

Is it objectionable to point out that the "Korean War" was not really about Korea at all, but was a conflict between superpowers far away from here who found it convenient to wage their battles here rather than on their own home soil?

That's quite an odd statement considering that the US withdrew all of its troops from Korea after they oversaw the surrender of the Imperial Japanese forces.

Quote:

and when democracy came here, it was Koreans who built it, with not a whole lot of help from The Land of the Free

200-400 million dollars worth of annual aid for two decades, a huge military presence paid for by the American government, unfettered access to the American consumer, and a firm commitment to the defence of the ROK which provided fertile economic ground for foreign investors who otherwise would never have touched Korea with a twenty foot barge pole. Is economic stability not an aid to democracy?

Quote:

we promised freedom and democracy, and SK endured a sometimes brutal military dictatorship for right around 3 decades after the cease-fire,

You are intelligent enough to know that the argument is not as simple as that. The threat from North Korea made unbridled democracy a dangerous prospect at certain times. Kim Il Sung never gave up his hope that he could reunify the entire country on his terms. He often refered to free elections in the south as a way to achieve that goal.

Hater Depot

Joined: 29 Mar 2005

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: Implying

Gwangjuboy wrote:

Quote:

we promised freedom and democracy, and SK endured a sometimes brutal military dictatorship for right around 3 decades after the cease-fire,

I would only add to this that I wonder what we were supposed to do when Park Chung-hee and, later, Chun Doo-hwan seized power. Overthrow them? We treaded carefully at those times so that the North wouldn't feel it could take advantage of the chaos to spring a suprise attack.

As well, if we had overthrown them, or tried to use strong diplomacy to force them from office (taking a big risk in the process), we would now be catching blame for having so heavy-handedly interfered in Korean affairs.

I wouldn't for one second approve of the police state that South Koreans had to endure. And I think forcing it to transition to democracy should be considered their proudest accomplishment. But to say that we worked to keep South Korea under the thumb of dictators and to ensure there would be no reunification, one has to take the most negative possible interpretation of our motives, ignore important facts, and make unjustified assumptions about our options.

Privateer

Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: Implying

Gwangjuboy wrote:

Privateer wrote:

and it's not like they didn't earn their own economic success for themselves anyway.

Ok I should have worded it more carefully. Without America the Korean economy would never have taken off, but that's not to take away from the contributions of the Koreans themselves. They had money handed to them but that doesn't equate to having a successful economy handed to them.

They've succeeded in making themselves so large and integral to the workings of the world economy they had to be bailed out by the IMF. Perhaps the Chaebol owners back then hadn't got over psychologically speaking the days of dependence on inexhaustible grants and loans.

Hollywoodaction

Joined: 02 Jul 2004

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:52 am Post subject:

Just to play the devil's advocate...Would you say that the SK government and media's attempts manipulating the public with nationalistic ideology are aimed at minimizing the damage caused by the withdrawal of the US troups from the peninsula and to hide the fact this is occuring as a result of the American public's displeasure with Koreans?

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:50 pm Post subject: Re: Implying

Gwangjuboy wrote:

Koreans had been unable to govern themselves for centuries.

This is seriously incorrect. You are completely misreading the meaning of "tributary." The Koreans repelled and or expelled numerous Japanese invasions. The tributary relationship with China was dictated by China's massive size and power, Confucianism (yes, on the nation-state level) and the juxtaposition between China and Japan. There was nothing unseemly about this in the time it existed and China very, very rarely was actually involved in the peninsula. Even then, often by invitation.

Quote:

At the turn of the last century this country was the equivalent of a modern day Sierra Leone; the quintessential failed state. The Japanese turned Korea around, and then the Americans took the baton.

Again, bull. Korea made a decision - the wisdom of which you are free to critique - to take an insular path. Korea, however, had not failed. It was simply not modern. Not anywhere near the same thing. Those of us that are less enamored of "modern" life could easily argue the simplicity of the Korean culture at the time is something the world has lost, as opposed to left behind.

Quote:

Adam Smith's ideology helped to elevate Korea to its highest position in its five thousand year history in just 50 years. Irrespective of where Smith came from, his ideology was a god send to these people.

Sure. Being divided, losing your language and culture to a foreign power... oh for chrissakes....

Quote:

That's quite an odd statement considering that the US withdrew all of its troops from Korea after they oversaw the surrender of the Imperial Japanese forces.

Not odd at all. The US would never have been in Korea after WWII if it were not for the Cold War. I give you Taft-Katsura as irrefutable proof of this. The US *returned* out of fear of Communism. It had little or nothing to do with Korea or Koreans.

Quote:

and when democracy came here, it was Koreans who built it, with not a whole lot of help from The Land of the Free

This is a fair observation.

Quote:

we promised freedom and democracy, and SK endured a sometimes brutal military dictatorship for right around 3 decades after the cease-fire,

You are intelligent enough to know that the argument is not as simple as that. The threat from North Korea made unbridled democracy a dangerous prospect at certain times.

Your first comment is contradicted by the second, for the second is simplistic and untenable. Unbridled democracy endangers democracy? Shocked

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:52 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Just to play the devil's advocate...Would you say that the SK government and media's attempts manipulating the public with nationalistic ideology are aimed at minimizing the damage caused by the withdrawal of the US troups from the peninsula and to hide the fact this is occuring as a result of the American public's displeasure with Koreans?

No, I don't think that is what is going on at all. It seems to me that it's just 'us' vs. 'them', with the 'them' more or less rotating between the Japanese, Americans and Chinese. I don't think any of the Koreans, whether they are in the political parties, the media or just one of the public need any manipulating to be nationalistic. (I don't think anyone in any of the other countries does either.) The only manipulation that I see is the pro-North propaganda.

In my opinion, the Uri Party/Democratic Labor Party members are quite happy to see anti-Korean sentiment growing in the US. It serves their purpose of distancing SK from the US alliance. I think the GNP is worried about it though. I doubt more than a small minority of regular people are aware of it. My guess is that if they do become aware of it, they'd be surprised and ask 'Why?', having forgotten what they have said and done. And then respond with more of the same.

Hollywoodaction

Joined: 02 Jul 2004

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:25 pm Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Quote:

Yes, I've thought of that, too. My guess is that a little of both is happening.

bitter_hag

Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: Implying

Privateer wrote:

Malaysia was also going to be bailed out by the IMF during the Asian financial crisis, but chose not to because they didn't want to accept the IMF's terms. Korea asked for the money and accepted the terms, it's not just about being "large and integral to the workings of the world economy." That's not exclusive to Korea, this whole region (East Asia, so I'm including both NE Asia and SE Asia) falls under that description. Yes, of course, being "large and intergral" is very important, but it's not the only reason a country gets IMF assistance. Korea chose to accept the loan and, to their credit, they paid it off in record time. More to their credit is they're seriously trying to implement changes in their economy so that they don't face another huge disaster like the Asian financial crisis again. That, to me, is proof of how important they are now, but getting IMF assistance isn't.

However, realize that Japan is still the economic big dog on the block in NE Asia and will continue to be so for a long time. If you consider that when you combine the GDPs of the US and Japan that number is 40% of the global GDP and nearly half of the world's savings, Korea is a big player, but the reigns still rest with the US and Japan in this region. Of course, China and Korea will be able to have much more power as their respective economies continue to grow.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:42 pm Post subject:

I recall promising this poster a more extensive response, and even though it was quite a while ago, better late ...

Hater Depot wrote:

I think there is every reason to think Kim Il-sung would have stayed in power as president of a united Korea. People are the same everywhere; the regimes in the South had their own torture camps and secret polices.

I would argue that there is every reason also to believe that the contrary might have happened, that Kim Sr would have had to share power with other leaders in the southern part of the peninsula, that at the very least the influence of the more populous south, which has historically dominated the country as a whole, would have produced a mellowing effect upon the juche ideology - and I think we could also argue that handing over the power dynastically within the family also might not have happened the way it did.

It's all theory, of course, but I think it just might be a little simplistic to assume that a unified Korea under Kim Il-sung would have resulted in exactly and only a larger version of what transpired in the North. Add new factors to equations, especially in complex areas such as relations between nations, and you will seldom get back the same results ...

Quote:

As for what we've done to support reunification. Frankly I think that South Korea's economic miracle couldn't have happened without the protective umbrella of US power. Not only did it ensure the war stayed cold (serious provocation from the North notwithstanding), but it saved Korea a lot of money on defense that it was able to invest elsewhere, and kept its international credit rating from sinking into the toilet.

I think the Armistice was acheived around 1953, and it was right about 35 years later that the economic miracle was in full effect and democracy more than just a wish. I'm still looking for someone to explain why it took so long if it was really and truly due to the US assistance.

The umbrella theory is compelling enoughon the surface, but it lacks specifics and lacks explaining power for the above. Some have argued, as well, for what it's worth, that the presence of American military power here was, rather than a boon, mostly necessary precisely because of the US ...

Quote:

To a lesser degree, but still an important one, was trade with the US. A Korea united under the Kims would have had no trade with the US; and it's not hard to conclude that NK's trade with Communist nations didn't do it much good.

Actually, for the early decades after the Police action, I believe it's true that most people in the North were doing a lot better than those in the South, and yes, it was due to trade, economic assistance and training programs of various kinds that came from Russia.

Quote:

Reunification is a matter between North and South. I wish for it mightily. But what are we supposed to do? (...) And frankly I'm not naive enough to think if we did start making some other pro-unification initiatives, we wouldn't then be slammed for intervening in Korean affairs.

This is actually a pretty fair view, not far from my own. Since we began this discussion I've talked to some of my Korean friends about the kinds of issues raised here. What many of them have told me is that they are quite happy that the US has been uninterested in involving itself in the reunification process. Since we and Russia are pretty much responsible for the partition in the first place, it is all fine and dandy that we stay out of it, best for all concerned because the interests of the US and those of the Korean do not always intersect harmoniously.

Most of the ideas floating around about reunification talk about a gradual process taking decades starting first with the simple steps of increased communication, cultural exchange and gradual economic enmeshment - some have even hinted at, to me, rather wierd ideas like "one state - two systems."

Just came across this New York Times piece about a Unified Olympic Team in 2008, and it makes a lot of the same points.

Quote:

Neither side talks of actual reunification of the peninsula in the near future. South Korea, fearful that sudden reunification would damage its economy and lower its hard-won standard of living, seeks to engage the North and shrink the economic gap between the sides before aiming at reunification decades from now.

The North is also believed to be against immediate reunification, because its leaders, like those of the former East Germany, would be likely to lose their positions to their richer cousins.

Most Koreans I know would love to see their country reunited, but very few (perhaps only some fringe and somewhat lunatic elements) want to see it happen immediately.

Fact is, if the Kim regime up North were to fall tomorrow without a shot being fired, it would likely be one of the worst imaginable scenarios for S Korea right now. Myself, I think they would cope and prevail, but I think most would agree that it would entail a far more honorous set of adjustment than Germany went through.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:15 am Post subject: Re:

EFLtrainer wrote:

At the turn of the century Korea was characterised by high rates of illiteracy, a system of mass slavery, an extremely harsh class system, the absence of any infrastructure, and abject poverty. These are the hallmarks of a failed state.

Quote:

Those of us that are less enamored of "modern" life could easily argue the simplicity of the Korean culture at the time is something the world has lost, as opposed to left behind

I am still trying to reconcile your contention that "this is something the world has lost" with what Korea was like at the turn of the century; mass slavery, illiteracy, a brutal regime, and hopelessness for the vast majority of its people. You have been watching too many Korean dramas.

Quote:

Sure. Being divided, losing your language and culture to a foreign power... oh for chrissakes....

When did Korea lose its language? Shocked

Quote:

Unbridled democracy endangers democracy?

I never said that and it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. I said that unbridled democracy would have endangered Korea's national security at certain times.

EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:57 am Post subject: Re:

Quote:

Gwangjuboy wrote:

EFLtrainer wrote:

you'd better define "failed" because what you ahve described is a Confucian, caste-based state. Was Korea starving? (And please don't ignore the Japanese invasions, etc.) Had the government ceased to exist? Was there no law and order? Please explain.

Quote:

Those of us that are less enamored of "modern" life could easily argue the simplicity of the Korean culture at the time is something the world has lost, as opposed to left behind

Keep trying. I referred specifically to the "simplicity." Or is everything black and white for you? And what is this slavery you talk of? Is it anything like the 30% of Americans who live in poverty/month-to-month while the wealth gap grows ever wider? Might want to consider relativity into your arguments.

Quote:

Sure. Being divided, losing your language and culture to a foreign power... oh for chrissakes....

When did Korea lose its language? Shocked

Have you no clue whatsoever? I actually have had at least one student who spoke Japanese better than Korea. Guess why?

Quote:

Unbridled democracy endangers democracy?

I never said that and it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. I said that unbridled democracy would have endangered Korea's national security at certain times.

Thanks for repeating yourself. This time please explain.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:43 pm Post subject: Re:

EFLtrainer wrote:

Shortly after the turn of the century Korea's government had ceased to exist. Massive peasant revolts, extensive famine, and abject poverty, made the collapse of monarchial government inevitable. Why do you think the Japanese were invited to Korea?

Quote:

And what is this slavery you talk of? Is it anything like the 30% of Americans who live in poverty/month-to-month while the wealth gap grows ever wider? Might want to consider relativity into your arguments.

That anology is shockingly inappropriate. Well over 50% of Koreans were slaves subject to attrocious treatment. They were deprived of an education, subject to summary execution for minor offences, and they were even barred from using polite forms of Korean because they were considered less than human.

Quote:

Have you no clue whatsoever? I actually have had at least one student who spoke Japanese better than Korea. Guess why?

Koreans often chose to learn Japanese for the same reasons they learn English today. Most Koreans were deperate to learn Japanese because it furthered their prospects. In fact, many of them wanted to learn Japanese so they could live and work in Japan. Only the diehard nationalists opposed it. Even then, Korean wasn't banned, and the use of Japanese was even initially discouraged by the Japanese authorities.

Quote:

Thanks for repeating yourself. This time please explain.

I repeated myself because you misquoted me. Don't throw the toys out of the pram just because you made a blunder. I have already refered to the fact that Kim Il Sung believed elections in the south would give him a better chance of unifying the country on his terms. This is especially true with regards to the early 1980s. North Korean agents were infultrating left wing groups at the time.

Display posts from previous:

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