Boy, this question could open a hornet’s nest:
Now I have neither the desire nor the historical knowledge to get involved in any of these arguments, but I asked a good Japanese friend of mine what he thinks about it all. He said, “The South Koreans harbor such a strong grudge against Japan over things that happened so long ago, so I wonder why they don’t they feel an equal level of appreciation and gratitude for the U.S., which stepped in and saved them twice within a period of about 10 years?”
Well, many do — I’m sure I need not point out this again. Apparently, some of the right-wing groups were carrying U.S. flags during the March 1 Independence Movement holiday as well, something that really doesn’t make sense to me (Liberation Day is another matter). There is a difference, however, between “gratitude” and “a desire for a permanent ground troop presence in your country.”
42 Comments
Note also how perverse is the attitude of the weak toward their saviors. They feel generosity as oppression; they want to retaliate. They say to their saviors: “May the day come when you shall be weak and we will save America.”
You do not win the weak by sharing your wealth with them; it will but infect them with greed and resentment. You can win the weak only by sharing your pride, hope, or hatred with them.
Optimusprime the word savior is a tad too strong.
I am fully aware that, whatever the intent was, as a result of US action (and many other countries) Korea was able to escape from the grasps of Japan. Also thanks to US and others, S.K. was able to escape communism. Add to that the US support of S.K. has been much help for S.K. being able to come into such strong position in the world stage today. For all these, yese, Korea should be grateful to the US and consider it its ally (to reasonable bounds).
Yet, you should also realise the word “national interest.” All US actions in NE Pacific region has been for its own benefit. Though it may have benefited Korea, this also means that Korea could as easily have been sidelined when it did not meet US interest. (Now it is much more delicate to sideline Korea because of the long period they were “allys” but realistically in the world stage, how often do you have seen nations change friendship when it did not meet their interest?)
What Koreans are angry about is becoming the victims of “king making”, “games” the US foreign policy makers have done under the name of national interest.
Example:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T....._agreement
Ever heard of the secret pact between Japan and the US where US “allowed” Japan to colonize Korea?
2. As jh posted on Mormot’s “Why I have difficulty calling Japanese to account: Exhibit A”
Roosevelt actually gave Japan the choice of giving up all territories acquired excpet Korea
3. The Korean War for the love of Korea? Not. It was the IN thing to do (as with Vietnam) to fight against communism and the US idea on balance of world power.
4. Various other cases where US “meddled” directly and indirectly to S.K. domestic issues going against its soveriegnty when US saw it as not compatible to its own interest. (Thankfully it has become the excpetion these days)
Koreans are grateful for the veterans from all countries (especially the US) that fought in Korea at great personal costs. But I doubt Koreans are so naive they will carry their gratitude as far as considering the US their “saviors.” Korea is an ally of US because it is beneficial to its national interest and it will do its best to act as a good ally. But this will not mean Korea will support US when it goes against its interest. Same for the US. US has deservedly earned (though some radical Koreans deny it) good will in Korea through the result of its actions here but business is business.
I think a questions is, once an honest, sincere and public expression of apology/gratitude by the appropriate level of government has been made, do they need to keep making that expression? I think, for the most part, no. The Koreans have expressed gratitude, even if they are Koreans of another generation. So I do not think they need to keep thanking the US constantly, but neither shoud the good (bad) be hidden. They also feel the Japanese have not expressed an apology that is either sincere, or open enough or at the appropriate high level of government. Once that happens, I assume they will stop pressing. Maybe not, though.
Juan. I have read about the Taft act before but I have never heard of Roosevelt giving Japan the option of giving up all its colonies except Korea. Do you happen to have a link? I would be grateful if you could provide one.
Sorry non korean I do not have a link at the moment. JH posted it on one of the post he did on Marmot’s hole. Hopefully he reads your post and mine and will give us a link or a book
(But I do remember reading about it, though I don’t remember where 
Juan:
I’d like to see that link, too. Conrad Black’s biography of Roosevelt mentions two of Roosevelt’s plans for East Asia never implemented that undermine your argument. First, Roosevelt wanted a trustee system for Korea and Indo-China. Second, Roosevelt wanted China to counter Russia. Positing that a Japanese-controlled Korea would antagonize China and make a trustee system impossible, I don’t see Roosevelt doing what you allege.
I’d also like to congratulate you on your discovery of national interest in foreign policy, which is something Seoul wants for itself, but never seems to accept in others. However, I would argue, that, since not all that Seoul wants for itself is good for others, its at least possible that what the US wants might be better for it. I’m not advocating imperialism, but I still would question Seoul’s motivations for its actions, just as I would question Washington’s or Tokyo’s. The fact is, as Cha argues, there is a triangular relationship between Seoul, Tokyo, and Washington, which has gone through more permutations of policies since 1945 than just the current impasse over Dokdo/Tsushima. I would even say, that Seoul and Tokyo are hardly in uncharted waters now. The alliance is till holding, and Cha would characterize your entire post as an artifact of one particularly limited perspective on that complex relationship, “historical animosity”.
COntra Juan:
Hello Infidel thanks for the reply. I will check through my old class material in “International Relations” to confirm it. I may have overshot in remembering the trustee system you mentioned or maybe not. Tedious work skimming through old textbooks and syllabuses
Also I’ve never said Seoul was right or wrong. I have taken no stance on the postion of Seoul or Tokyo or Washington. The reason I made the post was because optimusprime, in rather strong words, implied that Koreans were ungrateful to their “saviors.” I just wanted to remind him/her that national interest was at play (and as your sarcasm pointed out which most of us already know).
Also I agree that the relationships were very complex and that my post is limited in its perspective. But as I a said I was merely trying to make a point. If I would try to show all the complexity 1. It would not be within my ability 2. It would take a whole textbook and much more.
Thanks for the input.
Juan,
Good points. Nations, as we are fond of saying, don’t have friends, thay have interests. I do believe that your reading of Roosevelt’s agreement with the Japanese as “allowing” them to colonize Korea is overstated. At the time, the U.S. was engaged in a guerrilla war in the Philippines, and certainly lacked the naval and land power to eject Japan from Korea. It was more in the spirit of: “We reccognize your sphere of influence in Korea, we ask that you recognize ours in the Philippines.” The U.S. Naval War College started wargaming a Pacific War against Japan as early as the 1920s, because they recognized the threat posed by the untra-militarists in Japan, who were then still manipulating their way into power (consolidated after the attempted coup of 1936). The Pacific War, by the way, was essentially an American naval effort, and for the first years of WWII, complemented by Australian ground forces. But, as the number of U.S. Army and Marine divisions in the Pacific increased, Americans eventually became the majority of ground forces as well.
Juan says ‘Koreans are grateful for the veterans from all countries (especially the US) that fought in Korea at great personal costs. But I doubt Koreans are so naive they will carry their gratitude as far as considering the US their ?橫saviors.??’
Tangent said “I think, for the most part, no. The Koreans have expressed gratitude, even if they are Koreans of another generation. So I do not think they need to keep thanking the US constantly, but neither shoud the good (bad) be hidden.”
So one could say that the older generation of Koreans, having been saved by the older generation of American, are appropriately grateful. But the younger Koreans, having not gone through the experience of being rescued have no such feelings, and the younger generation of Americans, not having personally saved Koreans, receive no gratitude.
As for Japan, as I said on the original discussion at Japundit, I think this is less about Korea still needing the closure of a formal apology than they are frustrated at their own lacking the necessary diplomatic power to secure one.
my info about FDR’s proposal to Japan was in Robert Pape’s “Why Japan Surrendered” article (really good read):
International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Autumn 1993) pp. 154-201
another great book about the history of Korean trusteeship proposals (among other things) is In Kwang Hwang’s “The United States and Neutral Reunited Korea” (can’t underline), unfortunately i dont have reference info for this one, it was published in 1990 i believe.
In RE: Infidel
Roosevelt’s proposal to let Japan keep Korea (and only Korea) seems to be perfectly compatible with the other plans for EA (as you describe them) in that it wasn’t a sincere negotiation. He did not expect, nor did he desire that Japan accept this proposal, as I mentioned in my other post, many historians and political scientists believe (and there is significant evidence that shows this) that he was provoking Japan.
Also, re: his plans for china, etc. This seems unlikely to me as China was in a real mess at the time politically, socially and economically (raging civil war, Japanese occupation, incredibly de-centralized, no industrialization). The USSR, on the other hand, through Stalin’s 5-year plans, had become a formidable power even in pre-WWII Europe (among other great powers such as Great Britain, France, and post-1938 Germany). There was no way China could balance against the USSR without incredible (
(the rest of my post)
and i stress this word) resources, investment, and substantial time (even now it has a ways to go if it is to become a regional hegemon, some predict at least 20 years). Also, the US completely ignored China in the 30’s when it was invaded by Japan, although it had more than enough resouces and the ability to aid it–it was only in the late 1930’s (when the US started to seriously worry about Japan’s aggression) that it sent aid to China.
re: Cha’s article, opinion
Are you talking about his “Abandonment” article? I also thought that it was interesting to compare it to what’s going on these days–I would have actually predicted that ROK-Japan relations should have improved now that US committment seems weak, but I guess it can be argued both ways–US resolve could be seen as strong on DPRK issues…
and, one last thing, I thought Juan’s post was right along the lines of Cha’s Realist approach to international politics and not merely an “artifact of one particularly limited perspective on that complex relationship, ‘historical animosity’ ” as you put it.
slightly off topic, i’ve heard that Cha is to be appointed to Bush’s cabinet on the DPRK (or something along those lines)–anyone know more about that?
best, jh
the philippines/korea gig you are talking about was conspired between both governments the japs and americans to say hey stay out of each others business
simple
and yes korea is where it is today because of america
japan to
all the communist run countries after world wars or other conflicts ended up as crap holes
all the democratic capitalist run countries (largely propped up by the US)
became civilized world contributing nations
you can argue against it all you want but the facts speak for themselves
interest or no interest i dont think koreans would change a thing
Looks like Japundit got a new one ripped on the issue. Take a look at comments 9 and 10 on the story you linked to: http://japundit.com/archives/2005/03/11/285/
Good point Paul. The US was not a big player on the world stage at that time. America became the big power it is from WWII and it is hard for people these days to imagine America as an isolationalist mid level power (except in the Western Hemisphere). I don’t think the US could have done anything to stop Japan from colonizing Korea even if the US did care. The real power brokers of the time (Europe) to my knowledge recognized Japan’s sphere of influence in Korea as well. But it is always more fun to blame America.
Doesn’t sound like they (Japan) are sorry at all. Just the opposite. They are proud of their Samurai spirit of Pacific military “advances”. They are the only victims. 20,000+ Koreans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 10,000 Korean laborers/comfort women in Battle of Okinawa - they don’t count.
http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....10031.html
Sorry, it should read “20,000+ Korean dead in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 10,000 Korean laborers/comfort women dead in Battle of Okinawa - they don??t count.”
Wow good memory Pauh! Wish I had your memory for details.
For defending my post way up there:
The intention of the post was to point out to optimusprime that nations act for their interest, great or small their sphere of influence. Therefore expecting Korea to grovel with gratitude (my word not his/hers) is a bit extreme.
As lirelou pointed out the pact was about staying out of each other’s business. As non korean pointed out US was not a big player then and realistically US could care less about Korea. (I wonder how many Americans then even new Korea existed?) But all this further show that nations mostly (thankfully not always) act in their interest.
The name of the game is national interest. As Paul said in his post “Korea’s fate has always been shaped by its geography” its location makes it difficult for it to effectively play the national interest game. You’ve got to admit Korea is in a difficult position with the US, Japan, Russia, and now awakening China expecting Korea to align with their agenda. Korea’s biggest ally is US but that does not mean Korea can ignore the other players out there. Its sad realizing you don’t have the clout and have to play a dangerous game between the players to survive.
That’s all really good and correct Juan, yeah Korea doesn’t have to grovel but what gets some peoples’ goat is the popular North Korean view floating around Korea - anti-Americanism - irrational hatred of America, excessive bending over backwards for North Korea. This is at a time when Korea needs America the most. I can never understand this stupidity side of South Korea. Talking about Japanese youth not being taught proper history, what about South Korea? Who drilled them with anti-US propaganda?
I dont get how this is a ‘Good Question’ at all. Sorry, but I must say some points made here are flagrantly wrong.
(1) History is not an issue of past. Its a current issue that matters right NOW. The distortion of history textbooks in Japan is an exemplary fact of that. The new textbooks, especially, describe Japanese invasion in Asia/Pacific as benefitiary and continue to encourage the already existing Japanese racism (whether subconsciously or consciously, most Japanese still seem to deem Koreans and Chinese as naturally dirty, inferior, and incompetant). The past plays also a big part in disputed areas in borders with Korea and Russia.
(2) “I wonder why they don??t they feel an equal level of appreciation and gratitude for the U.S., which stepped in and saved them twice within a period of about 10 years”
This is totally illogical and flagrantly wrong. Korea has since its independence and end of civil war, kept a close relationship with the USA both economically and militarily. When the United States asked for our help and cooperation, we sent troops in Vietnam and recently have contributed to the coalition in Iraq (larget troop after the US and Britain). What could you call that but alliance and friendship for what US has done in this region? True, there are anti-Bush feelings right now in Korea. But thankfulness does not mean that you cannot disagree with that person. It does NOT mean that civilians can express their feelings towards the Bush Administration. There goes the fallacious logic.
By the way, do Japanese think they could have achieved modernization without America and Perry’s forced opening of Edo Shogunate? Do they realize that democracy in Japan would have been unlikely without their defeat to the Americans? Koreans have for sure earned their democracy themselves. I think Japan should think about themselves before they speak of others. Of course, this is totally true to Koreans (and others) as well.
“Who drilled them with anti-US propaganda?”
These people:
http://www.antimigun.org
http://www.voiceofpeople.org
And far too, too many others…..
I have noticed, at a street level, there seem to be quite a few Koreans that hold to some pretty outrageous views of America’s role in Korea. One example was from an art dealer here in Seoul that had lived in Chicago for some years. He told me that he thought Korea had been turned into an “American colony” — believe it or not. I was shocked and told him that Americans would find the very idea of such repulsive.
I sadly must say I think that rational thought eludes *so* many Koreans. Many seem to be subject to this wild emotionalism that crops up in certain situations.
You mean like when 70% of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11?
Further historical note: It’s almost completely forgotten now, but from 1901 to 1921 Great Britain and Japan were military allies (formal treaty of alliance). Great Britain actively “supported” Japan during Russo-Japanese war (France was a formal ally of Russia (since 1893?), actively supported Russian empire).
Formation of Imperial Japanese Army during the “modern era” (post 1868) was based on Prussian model, however the Imperial Japanese Navy was based on the British one.
If anyone’s looking to “blame” a Western power for original Japanese annexation/colonization of Korea try Imperial Germany and Great Britain, far more influential with the Japanese Empire of the time v. the US.
You mean like when 70% of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11?
Way to slice and dice a poll there wooj, besides it being completely off topic.
It was actually 69% of Americans think it is likely that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack.
The main reason for the endurance of the apparently groundless belief, experts in public opinion say, is a deep and enduring distrust of Hussein that makes him a likely suspect in anything related to Middle East violence. “It’s very easy to picture Saddam as a demon,” said John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University and an expert on public opinion and war. “You get a general fuzz going around: People know they don’t like al Qaeda, they are horrified by September 11th, they know this guy is a bad guy, and it’s not hard to put those things together.”
Here.
Now returning to topic at hand…
You’re right. 70% of Americans thought Saddam was probably behind 9/11. Also, thanks for teaching me this new phrase “slice and dice” (although I gotta tell you I’m a bit amused at the way you quoted only that particular part of the article you linked to). Anyway, back to the topic at hand, as you put it…
LOL
As a person of Korean extraction viewing the situation from overseas, it’s nothing but frustration and fear to see ROK drifting away from the US sphere, and into China’s. This is at a time when Japan is strengthening their alliance with the US to counter China and North Korea. I guess I have nothing but envy for Japan. The alliance with the US has made South Korea prosperous, I just don’t understand why South Korea would even think about throwing this all away for national pride. It’s so sad at what is unfolding before my eyes. I only hope that Korea soon vote out these left wing radical sympathizers in the next election. I hope the conservatives regroup and reform and save what is left before it’s too late. OR hire another foreigner (another Hiddink) for the president. (cause I don’t think there’s any Korean leader who can rationally lead the country). At this point, my exasperation is beyond words.
I think the solution is to stop helping Koreans when they are in trouble. It is obvious that when we help them they start complaining about the help a few years down the track, saying that they are being oppressed or whatnot. The IMF bailout is a case in point.
Koreans are master ingrates.
Wow! Such contempt for Koreans. Most posts I see shakuhachi make are roliling with cynicism and contempt. Wonder what problems he had while he was in Korea? Is this another love-hate relationship story?
As per Kimbob’s thoughts, a recent BBC-sponsored poll showed that about 48% of those Koreans polled felt China’s influence was not benign. I’m very certain that those Koreans that have not figured out just what dangers China poses to Korea will finally figure it out — after it is too late.
Oddly enough, I just met and spoke to a Chinese national that is visiting Korea on research and they felt their government was leading them down the path of war but there was nothing she could do about it. They also mentioned that the PRC Governent is concerned with the economy, at the expense of all else, including their own culture and environment. The last part sounded almost Korean to me . . .
Good point Paul, the japan-england treaty of 1905 did give japan a free hand to do what it wanted in korea. What I want to know is where was Korea during this time. I guess nowadays people always say that Korea was tricked or too weak etc.. mostly just excuses.
The Korean pattern is to sit on its ass and when they get steamrolled they beg to get bailed out. And they do get bailed out. And the first thing they do after gettingbailed out is blame those who help Korea as the cause of the origional problem.
The IMF is an an obvous example.
Another funny point is brought up by Tallion. The myth that korea helped the usa during vietham. The truth is that the Koreans were Mercs. Yep, its true. The US gove paid them. They clothed them. They fed them. They trained them. Etc… It is true that the Koreans had their own chain of command. A point that, as one general noted, made them twice as ineffective and twice as costly in terms of resources.
Modery mythology has them painted as some kind of super force. But in reality they were just brutial killers. They murdered whole villages and committed war crimes. You think Mai Lei was bad. Korean troops had a few Mai Lei that went unreported. And like I said, before the Koreans left their bunkers they had to have 5X the air support as any American division.
Now take the Aussis. They were just as effective as the Koreans.. minus all the murder of civilians.
Should American thank Korea. Well, when the USA gave those boys a paycheck, I think that is thanks enough.
I’m not going to let “Dude”s slanders against Korea’s Vietnam Vets go unanswered. Those “mercs” lost 5000 men and tens of thousands wounded horribly - too many casualties for troops that cowered in bunkers all day long. And there are still thousands more incuding their children living in grinding poverty who are suffering because of the effects of Agent Orange. So you would rather have had US soldiers to take their place? Not saying the US should thank ROK at all. Yeah, that was the price of Park Chung Hee to send his soldiers - you feed them, supply them and equip them cause we don’t have the money to it all alone. Their combat effectiveness was first rate, not many people question that, other than you. How many US Mei Lais never got reported? Anyone can guess, nobody knows because EVERYBODY committed atrocities - it was a dirty war.
Criticisms of anti americanism in Korea should be directed at those who deserve them. These baby killers have been the closest supporters and friends of the US. And with that, let me conclude, please take that massive brick out of your ass.
i don’t want to slow this great discussion, but what does the expression “…take that massive brick out of your ass.” mean? i’ve never heard that before, and apart from being a negative remark i can’t figure out what it actually means. ( i am actually a native english speaker, but i have never heard that before.)
It should have read “take that massive brick that’s stuck up your ass” - take that chip off that shoulder.
This one made me angry and that’s how I expressed it without resorting to delete material. I had a few @@@!!@! words for the author in my head.
Kimbob, I will remove the “brick from my ass “as soon as you tell me what that means???? I guess its some kind of canadian gyopo insult.
Um.. after reading your comments, I am unclear about what we disagree about. Yes its a tragity that 5000 korean troops died. Was I supposed to include that fact? You forgot to include that they were underpaid. I guess you insulted them. So how did I slander them? (not that it matters but I think you meant libel, slander being spoken defamation, lible being written) No biggie. What did I say?
You said that 5000 is too many casulties for being in the buner all day. Hmmm good point, I guess if you continued reading my comments you would have noticed that I also said they did leave the bunker. Otherwise how would they commit the war crimes. The same ones that everyone comminted (your words). I guess we agree that Koreans committed war crimes then.
You agreed that the USA equipted, fed, clothed, trained, paid etc.. I guess we agree. To some of the other comments about baby killers, all I can say is ???? what???
Oh we did dissagree about their combat effectness. You belive the mythology, I dissagree. I guess if your only determination of effectness is the kill ratio then they were effective. However, nowadays most military people, including westmoreland, have concluded that the kill ratio was a flawed idea.
Read this Mr Kim, its in english, sorry I dont have somting in Hangul for you to read.
Major General Charles P. Brown said this:
“their requests for helicopters generally is absurdly high”
“relatively long periods planning regimental and division sized operations”
Lieutenant General Arthur S. Collins, Jr., who was Commanding General, I Field Force, Vietnam, from 15 February 1970 through 9 January 1971. General Collins stated that the Koreans made excessive demands for choppers and support and that they stood down for too long after an operation. He equated the total effort from the two Korean divisions to “what one can expect from one good US Brigade.”
Did other generals say differnet things. You bet. American generals can toe the party line with the best of them. I am sure you can look at korean blogs and find lots of stuff that will give you plenty to get wet over but it doenst change the fact of my origional claim. They were mercs, they committed war crimes, they were generally less effective then American troops.
Interesting thoughts Noolji, I suppose one would ask you the same thing consitering your clear hatred for “expats”.
I also find it interesting how far you and your brother kyopos will leap from what I said “they were paid” to what you wish I said “you spit on them” . Nope noolji, I dont spit on them. I am just pointing out that Korea didnt jump to help usa. Korea has never really “helped” the USA. Koreans, even Kyopos like you hate the USA and Americans.
And yes that goes for the 3000 koreans hiding in their bunker, and playing Starcraft, in Kurdish-Iraq. To Bushs credit, he didnt thank the Koreans. I guess Noolji thinks that “some Korean humiliated” Bush, or “took his woman”. You are a simple guy Noolji. But its kinda obvous that you are just reflecting your own situation.
“The result for the IMF and countries that helped Korea? Koreans somehow blame the IMF for what happened in the first place -”
In other words, Korea screws up, it’s those damn stupid Koreans’ fault. But when they prosper, it’s only because Westerners helped them.
Too simple isn’t it. I know this may sound stupid but if you’re going to take all of the credit for a country’s development, shouldn’t you take all of the blames when it f@cks up?
‘the korean soldiers were paid…’
and the american ones were’t? interesting that those who run around talking about korea needing to show some apreciation don’t show any to the 5000 koreans who died in vietnam on behalf of an american war.
hey dude, bet ya got humiliated by some korean guy, huh? did he take your woman?
spit on the 53,000 dead americans in vietnam! hey, they were paid!
One thing that is often omitted from the endless debate on this subject is that the Japanese LOST the war. It’s easy for any non-Japanese to rebut with something along the lines of, “but they started it, so they got what they deserved as agressors. The Chinese and the Koreans were innocent victims.” Maybe so, but the Japanese people suffered tremendous physical and psychological loss as a result of the war. And, as much as the victimization mentality of the Japanese annoys the hell out of me on occasion, it didn’t just materialize out of thin air for no reason.
Let’s say that war breaks out between North Korea and the United States (for agument’s sake, I ask everyone to leave the reality of this aside for the moment). If the North Korean governement was clearly the agressor, would the citizens of North Korea deserve whatever the US military dished out in terms of retaliation? And afterwards should we blame them for the war?
I realize the issue is much more complex because it also involves the Japanese government, (not to mention colonization, etc, etc… and I don’t mean to make light of this suffering) which does share some continuities with the pre-war government. And the demands for apologies are being made to the Japanese government. But all this clamoring for apologies and reparations is doing a great deal of damage in terms of relations between the citizens of Japan, Korea, and China. (Take the beleviability of polls as you will, but Sino-Japanese relations are at a 30 year low according to the Japanese cabinet office.) The actions of the governments aside, isn’t it a fair analysis to say that the citizens of all three of these countries suffered a great deal as a result of the war?
Furthermore, for better or for worse, the victimization mentality of the Japanese, when combined with continued demands for apologies and anti-Japanese sentiment as seen widely during the past year and a half in the region plays into the hands of the right-wingers in Tokyo. Kobayashi Yoshinori’s horrible graphic distortions of history don’t sell in the numbers they do for no good reason. (And while we’re on the subject, has anyone ever actually read the Japanese version of the “New History Textbook?”) Kobayashi’s comics speak to that young Japanese kid who can’t understand why his country is so bad.
This isn’t meant to be a defense or an apology for Japan. But I feel like the starting point for much of this type of discussion leaves out the perspective of ordinary Japanese people on the issue.
“Most posts I see shakuhachi make are roliling with cynicism and contempt. Wonder what problems he had while he was in Korea? ”
Im betting on my neck he is a nipponese. For shakuhachi: Im glad you participate in the discussion, I would just appreciate if you leave some clear support for your reasonings, especially you are going to stereorize Koreans as ‘master ingrates’. n1pp0n353 r4c15m….
“Should American thank Korea. Well, when the USA gave those boys a paycheck, I think that is thanks enough.”
Heh, did I ever say that America should thank Korea? Please read posts carefully before responding aggressively. My point was that Korea has shown gratitude and friendship to USA by complying to their wants: help us out in vietnam.
“Modery mythology has them painted as some kind of super force. But in reality they were just brutial killers. They murdered whole villages and committed war crimes.”
Careful what you speak dude. Americans sprayed poison over rainforests and villages to eradicate hiding Vietcongs there, hurting thousands of civillians. The impact, in fact, carried on to the next generation (deformed infants). And look at the Abu-Ghraib scandal in Iraq, which is happening right NOW rather than decades ago.
Thre is my other point: think of yourselve before you speak.
Tarion said: Im betting on my neck he is a nipponese. For shakuhachi: Im glad you participate in the discussion, I would just appreciate if you leave some clear support for your reasonings, especially you are going to stereorize Koreans as ??master ingrates??. n1pp0n353 r4c15m???.