I guess many of us saw this coming. Gerry Bevers at Occidentalism has been fired:
For those who are interested, I was informed by E-mail on December 23rd that my university, where I have worked for the past six years, would not be rehiring me as an English instructor.
The email notice that Gerry received stated that his views on Dokdo were the cause of his contract not being renewed. He had made posts critical of Korea’s claim. Once school officials found out, I guess it was inevitable.
(My baby has just woken up, so posting must stop. Hopefully, someone else will have more on this later.)
Good luck with your next gig Gerry.
{ 511 comments }
The archpriest of the I-despise-Korea-cult has lost his job. Don’t shit at the place, where you eat!
Remember, it’s a non-continuation of an employment contract! Admittedly because of his views and stance towards issues like Dokdo, Korean collaboration, his favorable views on Japanese imperalism and his general derogatory stance towards Koreans.
I can imagine the outcry of his cult-followers and the AngryWhiteAngloAmericanyExpat-crowd about censorship and neglect of academic liberty or freedom of speech in Korea.
Geez, Gerry, you’ll find another better job… maybe somewhere on Nipponisland. Good luck!
Yes, of course, that must be it, just as all those American historians who do research on topics like American colonialism, slavery, Jim Crow, massacres of Native Americans, etc. are all just a bunch of USA-haters. Only people who hate a country would ever dare to look at its national myths with a critical eye …
If you could be any more of a typical myopic, ultranationalistic, hate-filled, curdle-brained little Korean bigot, it would be a miracle.
Is this your German name, Timmy?
Your last paragraph tells me everything about your general mindset towards Koreans.
1. Gerry is no professional historian
2. Your analogy about American historians doing research on unfavorable parts of American history doesn’t fit: Gerry = American driveling about Korean issues
3. Gerry doesn’t stop of being only critical, he has an anti-Korean agenda and is on a personal crusade
If you could be any more of a typical myopic, ultranationalistic, hate-filled, curdle-brained little Anglo-Saxon bigot, it would be a miracle.
Wish you a happy new year, Hans Castorp, you blind prick.
Sugar Shin writes:
Employment is my main area of advice, usually to employers. You’re wrong.
After a certain point a fixed-term employment contract, having been “successively renewed” a number of times, by operation of law becomes a permanent employment relationship — and cannot be “non-renewed” at the employer’s choice. Serious employee misconduct shall be required. Whether or not having and publicly expressing a contrary opinion on Dokdo counts as serious misconduct is open for debate.
Usually an employer is at serious risk of a deemed permanent relationship at any time after the fixed-term contract has been renewed twice. There could be a nuance in that university faculty jobs are different from commerce; since I normally work with businesses I’ve not previously encountered university-related issues. However, Gerry’s been there six years, never on a tenure-track “real faculty” progression but always as a hired hand. That fact would appear to give him a pretty good case to claim regular-employee status based on successive renewals. In that case, the relationship could only be terminated if the court or labor tribunal determined that Gerry’s “Korea-Hating” Dokdo research, because it dares to state facts and opinions contrary to official mythology, constitutes serious misconduct. Even so, the employer is generally required to follow internal disciplinary process — offering the employee procedural and substantive due process.
But what we do know for sure is that Gerry will have a very hard time finding a private lawyer to take his case pro bono publico. No lawyer or law firm wants to be branded as “Korea Hater” and endure the inevitable protests, especially not for no fee, or a knockdown fee, or anything less than a really big fee (if willing to take the case at all). That leaves him the unenviable position of asking the state — in the form of a wrongful-termination complaint to the local office of the National Labor Relations Commission — to use its police power to bully the university to follow the law. Good luck with that.
I’m back but I don’t have much time (midnight service at my wife’s church).
So if I split the difference between Hans Castorp and Sugar Shin, my daughter would be a typical little ultranationalistic, hate-filled, curdle-brained myopic angry white Anglo Korean-Americany expat bigot.
“I think there is little doubt that the school made this decision because of the Dokdo problem. It also hurts me to have to relay this news.”
I’m impressed with the official’s honesty.
Mr. Bevers’ email to Marmot doesn’t say the school fired Mr. Bevers, but simly that the school did not renew his contract. I’m not a lawyer knowledgeable in Korean law and maybe I’m mistaking here, but if you take them to court, wouldn’t the school just say, “we did not renew his contract because we decided his performance was unsatisfactory and it had nothing to do with Tokdo”? As a lawyer, how do you prove that the school unfairly treated the man, and that they broke the law? This is about free speech. It seems to me, if they broke the law, this would be one of the better cases for you to get involved, Mr. Carr, wouldn’t it?
CM – I think the post answer your point.
“The email notice that Gerry received stated that his views on Dokdo were the cause of his contract not being renewed. He had made posts critical of Korea’s claim. Once school officials found out, I guess it was inevitable.
“So if I split the difference between Hans Castorp and Sugar Shin, my daughter would be a typical little ultranationalistic, hate-filled, curdle-brained myopic angry white Anglo Korean-Americany expat bigot.”
Has she been doing anti-dodko and anti-native american postings on her blog then?
Right before Christmas too, that’s got to hurt.
Korean official? Crocodile tears, grasshopper.
It says “I think”. This is not an official letter from the school saying they are firing Mr. Bevers because of his stance on Dokdo. This alone, I doubt, will hold up in the court because it’s just one man’s opinion. Even if Dokdo had everything to do with it (and it probably is), doesn’t the school have every right to not renew his contract? They don’t need to give a reason why they’re not renewing. On the other hand, this would be a totally different story if they fired him before the contract was up. Further related note, I would never use my real name on the internet, especially when you’re posting controversial political issues (this is particularly true in South Korea). You never know what could happen when your personal information is at the hands of the public.
At any rate, I feel bad for him, and wish him every luck.
Well, I’m no lawyer, but I am a former university lecturer with knowledge of hiring regulations since I used to be on the hiring committee. Our university implemented annual reviews after it decided it wanted to get rid of one instructor. Perhaps owing to the law cited by Brendon, they wanted documentation of unsatisfactory performance, including student evaluations and a summative performance evaluation written up by the committee with no discussion or input by the teacher. They never told us directly that they wanted to sack a teacher, but we figured out why they were instituting this evalution process when they balked at the nomination of this teacher, whose contract was not renewed the following year.
Korean universities use job titles to separate foreigners from Korean nationals so that they can pass regulations exclusive to or excluding their foreign staff. As an example, my former employer decided it wanted to get rid of aging foreign teachers at its language institute, so it passed a regulation mandating retirement at 55. This regulation applied only “waegukin ohak kangsa,” not the Koreans teaching Korean as a second language at the institute.
I realized as a foreign national, I could never enjoy in Korea the long-term job security that teachers expect, and for us green card-less, Korean spouse-less foreign nationals in Korea, losing our jobs means losing our homes.
There’s life after Korea, Gerry. I’m not making light of your situation, but rather speaking from experience.
There seems to be a troubling trend in Korea. Foreigners who make fun of Korea (the Pusan 9) or argue against Korean views (Gerry) will not be tolerated. I guess next time anybody is on TV, and are asked what they think of Korea, they better say “Korea is the best” with a big thumbs up or else. Very troubling.
Assuming, as seems likely, that his political opinions and postings were the reason why Mr. Bevers was let go, may I ask an obvious question?
What do his political beliefs have to do with his job?
He has been teaching English. I have not seen it suggested anywhere that he used his classroom for political harangues or advertised his university affiliation to enhance his stature as a commentator.
Therefore, the answer to my question would seem to be, “Nothing.”
Perhaps it’s worse than that. The fact that outside of his job he has been a prolific controversialist and has gained a following shows that he knows how to use the English language and is able to engage in dialogue with people of different viewpoints on a variety of subjects. This sounds like a positive qualification for his job.
If this incident is typical (or as some of you suggested, inevitable) in the context of Korean society, does it not point to a wasteful and counterproductive tendency in that society?
Just wonderin’.
Obviously, the reason you’re wonderin’ must be because you’re an “AngryWhiteAngloAmericanyExpat”: no one else could ever possibly argue that Korea is anything less than God’s Own Country, paradise manifested on earth. Korea is perfect, and if you don’t agree you’re just a racist hater!
Welcome to Korea. It doesn’t make much sense (or seem very fair) to deny job security to foreigners. Especially where there seems to be a general bitchfest over how ‘unqualified’ all the foreign English teachers are, where the qualified ones often automatically get their contracts terminated after 2-3 years, have no chance for promotion, etc… Just another indication that the system in SK is deeply flawed.
Of course, debunking national myths in a country where nationalism is the primary flavor of religious thought isn’t likely to get one much sympathy from the locals. I suppose it’s sad to get fired for expressing such views, but it certainly isn’t surprising.
Why is everyone so shocked?
In the US, they have been going after all sorts of educators that may be critical of the current administration and labeled “Anti-American”
Just watch Bill O’Reilly for a while to find out who is the next target for character assassination
Then when the Koreans do its bad.
What do you propose we call educators that teach 9/11 conspiracy theories, raise money for Hamas, and preach the destruction of Israel in the classroom? These are typical educators O’reilly rightfully points out for criticism.
Could you provide some examples of Bush critics in academia whose views cost them their jobs? Don’t bother citing the case of the Florida professor who lost his job after Fox broadcast images of him chanting “Death to Israel” on a trip to Syria. Wishing for the destruction of a nation hardly equates with an anti-war stance or challenging Korea’s claim to a couple of rocks. US university faculty appointments can be politicized, and when they are, there is criticism. In case you haven’t noticed, this is a Korea-centric blog, hence, the interest in Gerry’s case.
http://law4u.net/tech/board.php?board=trivia&command=body&no=24
Read it, and surf through the post.
There are numerous examples besides those.
I’ll scribble one example more: an American student in USA was kicked out from his school after writing trivial episode of his school day at his blog.
After reading those, still grumble continuously why it is so, so peculiar in Korea.
http://www.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=350052
This ex-professor was not re-hired by the university authorities mainly because he criticized the senior professors of his college department as pro-Japan in his paper.
Litigations have been for 7 or more years.
When I showed this to my (Korea born and raised) wife, she said, “Of course, he should be fired.” At first, I thought maybe she was joking, but she was dead serious. I’ll summarize her view as “foreigners must know their place and act accordingly.”
This woman has lived in California for approximately 10 years, and overall has received pretty fair treatment from most Californians. She has been given or allowed to take plenty of opportunities, including a desirable job where she beat out eight other candidates in a three-round interview process.
In her defense, maybe she also thinks that when in Korea, Koreans must also know their place and act accordingly. I don’t know. I’m fishing for a way to understand this viewpoint. Unfortunately, successful lifetime indoctrination is as likely an explanation as any other I can come up with.
For the record, Dokdo is indeed our land.
Part of this event & topic is the “how foreigners are treated in Korea” question. That’s a worthy discussion, but never having been in Korea I have nothing to contribute to it. I am focusing on the choice how to organize economic activity. One way is meritocracy, the “best person to do the job” criterion. Something else seems to have operated in this instance, but I’m not sure what it is.
Have nationalistic causes become a shibboleth, a litmus test for any kind of participation in Korean society? This would not be unprecedented in human history, but it seems inconsistent with rapid economic growth in the modern global economy, etc., etc.
Or is it just that in the absence of legal safeguards, people are free to take out their resentments on others (especially non-citizens) in unrelated areas of their lives? If that’s it, can one ask whether the university administrators fulfilled their responsibilities by choosing to hurt a political gadfly rather than retain a productive employee? [I'm assuming, let it be repeated, that he did not politicize his classroom.]
There is one outcome which would make this incident seem much less significant and less troubling than it does now. That would be if another Korean university immediately recognized an opportunity and hired Mr. Bevers. What are the chances of that?
Where did anyone say this? I cannot find any such comment on this thread.
You forgot to mention that the courts have awarded him six and half years worth of backpay equal to more than 300 million won. Wonder how Gerry’s case will fare if he decides to contest.
Go ahead and sue them, Prof. Bevers. I encourage you to do so. Interesting that this site offers actual legal device versus that other occidentalism.org site only bashes Koreans from the lips of Japanese people and other people allied with their mindset.
But, I think they might have read about your King Se Jong used Comfort Women argument as well.
I think you should be angry at Matt of occidentalism.org as well, for involving you in this stuff with your real name on the line. While Matt himself suffers no harm in real life.
Calling all Korean speakers,
In the linked story about the fired art professor, there is a section entitled, “천막강의 돕던 학생 괘씸죄 걸려 졸업 못할 위기…주시하고 있다” What exactly is he talking about? What is a 천막강의 and 괘씸죄?
I actually hope you win the lawsuit. That would be necessary progress.
Kang Jeong-ku, the Korean professor who said General McArthur’s statue should be brought down because the General was a dangerous war monger, was not only fired, he was arrested. I don’t think there was any charges of racism then.
천막강의
Tent lecture. Seems like the fired prof continued his lecturing duties, without being paid, on school grounds, using a tent and some chairs or some tarp on the ground. Basically as a form of protest that this person has something significant and educational to give to SNU. Kind of like those university protesters who take over school grounds and lecture to people about some political cause, except this person was talking about an academic subject.
괘씸죄
The sin of offending his superiors. Basically, the student offended the tenured profs by defending and helping the young prof who accused the tenured, distinguished, emeritus status profs as having been Pro-Japanese. That was inevitable to be true anyway, chronologically. Seoul National University started as Kyong Sung to begin with.
My 2 cents. Don’t do anything to piss off your boss if you like your job. Be politically correct.
I don’t think this is peculiar to Korea. This is about being politically correct. Relate it to American issues of being politically correct. Then, you’ll understand.
Nobody’s crying racism, cm. Any Korean prof espousing the same views as Gerry would probably be canned, although this is a purely hypothetical conjecture. It was his views, not his nationality, that got him in trouble. Googling 천막강의 yielded links to several cases of terminated professors protesting their firings as politically motivated.
BTW, I figured out that 천막강의 means some kind of sit-in by a dissenting/fired prof, but what is 괘씸죄? wjk? cm? anybody?
Anyone surprised or outraged by this development (including senor Beav), knows nothing about Korea or Koreans.
Nothing.
Thank you, wjk. Seems we’re posting at the same time.
Actually Sonagi, I was kinda replying to
kpmsprtd and Gray Hat (#23, #24).
Unfortunately, you are correct. It was his views, not his race that got him in trouble. In that regard, Mr.Bevers is getting to be treated exactly like a Korean – punished for unpolitically correct views. But I’m sure charges of racism will creep up neverthless.
And I have to agree with this
I think a lot of us knew, a little way back, what was going to happen to Mr.Bevers after he ran into problems with the school faculty. And I think it surely must have been a calculated risk on his part for whatever reason. After all, is Dokto/Takeshima that important to risk your career for?
I don’t think anyone is surprised by Gerry’s firing, and I don’t think Gerry has ever explained why he took such a risk of posting such controversial views online under his real name.
What is the name of the school? Please somebody tell me the name.
The school is Gachon University of Medicine and Science. They put up an advertisement for new teachers (plural) on Dave’s ESL Cafe.
Has anybody here written to the school in defense of Gerry Bevers? Enough people writing polite and thoughtful letters in his defense might help his case. Online I found two addresses related to hiring or his department, jwhan@gachon.ac.kr and kimdh@gachon.ac.kr. Maybe there should also be a boycott of the positions they are hiring for, but I don’t know how to do that.
Here’s a question for Gerry Bevers. Did you ever use the Gachon University computers for your Dokdo essays or comments or your other blogging? I’m no lawyer, but I think they might use that as an excuse to not renew your contract.
If my son’s kindergarten is any indication, where students are encouraged to produce Dokdo-themed artwork – complete with deformed looking Japanese pirates being slaughtered on their ships and Japan engulfed in flames – none of this should come as a surprise.
My guess is that Gerry is aware (and has been aware for years) as to how people might/would react to opinions that go against the official Dokdo line. It is neither accurate nor fair, but Koreans tend to look at such views in the same light as most of us would regard holocaust revisionism.
Nobody seems to have touched on it, but getting fired by email after six years of employment is a classy touch don’t you think? I guess that happens outside of Korea too, but it is an extra little “Fuck You” for the road.
Sonagi, at the risk of duplicating wjk’s excellent description, I’d add that ‘괘씸’ is perhaps something like ‘outrage at a perceived offense’, or ‘justifiable outrage’. However, it’s a subjective conclusion, I believe. So, ‘괘씸죄’ is not something that you’d usually hear. Perhaps Brendon might know if that’s an actual legal term, but it’s a bit unusual in regular discourse.
Essentially, the student expressed outrage over the situation, that outrage was directed toward the senior faculty (and was a contuation of the prof’s arguement), and the student is now at risk.
They don’t really need to give a reason for not renewing Gerry’s contract. If there is a perceived need to provide a reason for firing a teacher, they can always use student evaluations or complaints (neither of which a teacher will likely be able to scrutinize for him or herself!) Like most of the foreign teachers on one or two-year contracts, we’re little more than temps, regardless of whether one’s title is 강사, 교수, or whatever. I’ve been here since ’96, like it for the most part, and have been pretty lucky with work. However, even with a good job, wife and family, F2 visa, etc. I never allow myself to get too cosy here.
globalvillageidiot, you got me worried. My son will begin attending kindergarden soon. I would certainly hate seeing him exposed to such xenophobia and propaganda, even more so that he obviously looks different from the other kids. What did you do to remedy the problem?
SomeguyinKorea, aside from the nationalism it isn’t a bad school. (I forgot to mention the class picnic to Unification Observatory! No joke.) However, for a number of reasons, he’s moving to a different kindergarten in a couple of months. (Though it wasn’t a major factor in the decision, it is my understanding that this one doesn’t really try to involve the kids in things political.) The real remedy, aside from trying to promote some more accepting values at home, will be moving to Canada for elementary school in a few years. Problem solved. (I’m pretty sure that the kids back home still draw lots of violent pictures – terrorists of Middle Eastern persuasion being a likely subject – but not as part of the curriculum!)
As for day-to-day stuff, he seems happy at school and accepted by other kids as one of them. Kind of a celebrity student, as opposed to being an outcast. He has referred to himself as “미국 사람” a couple of times – which he can only have picked up at school – but that has passed; now, he seems very comfortable with the concept of being both Korean and Canadian (though it is a concept beyond the grasp of a lot of Korean, regardless of age). My guess is that elementary school might be when things could get nastier, hence the exit strategy. Just keep your eyes and ears open with your son once school starts.
Brendon,
I realize your law firm is unable to take on my case due to the sensitivity of the issue, but do you think you could point out the specific sections in the Labor Law that the school may be violating by not rehiring me? That way I could quote them to the officials who may try to claim I have no case. One of the things I am particularly interesting in knowing is what particular section of the law can I quote “to claim regular-employee status based on successive renewals”?
I plan on submitting a “wrongful-termination complaint to the National Labor Relations Commission,” as you suggested above. Even if my chances of being rehired are slim, especially without legal counsel, I want to test the system to see how it works with non-Koreans and with an issue as sensitive as “Dokdo.”
Also, since I have been notified by the people at Immigration that I must leave Korea by the end of January, I assume I will be able to come back and present my case under at tourist visa, or possibly a student visa?
For those who might be interested, I do not talk about “Dokdo” in my classroom or about any other political issues, and have not been accused of doing so. Also, I have received good evaluations from my students and fellow Korean professors. Here is one paragraph from the recommendation letter written by my department head. By the way, I supplied no imput, whatsoever, for the letter:
I knew “Dokdo” was a sensitive issue in Korea, but I did not realize that my posting about its history on the Internet would lead to my losing my job, especially a job at a university that I have worked at for the past six years.
Why all this talk about laws and lawyers. Forget it it dude, do you really think any judge is going to award any money to someone who hasn’t toed the Dokdo line. Think out side the box! This is Korea I can guarantee you with 100% certainty that your employer is involved in some sort of tax, pension, accounting fraud, scam, dishonesty. The solution is easy BLACKMAIL the bastards. Go to the tax office and find out exactly how much tax you have paid, compared to what your university says it has paid. There WILL be a discrepancy, get your colleagues to do the same. Government officials don’t care about you, they don’t even care about their own citizens. What they do care about (like all governments) is their tax revenue! Blackmail-Got it!
Gerry Bevers asks:
The root of all job security in Korea is this: “Without just cause, an employer shall not dismiss, lay off, suspend, transfer, reduce the wages, or take other punitive measures against an employee” (Labor Standards Act, Art. 30, para. 1).
The rest of the relevant law is not statutory — it comes from Korean court precedents interpreting what is “just cause”. And that means there’s no one thing you’ll be able to point to and say “See here? You’re wrong!” As today is a holiday I don’t have my collection of cases handy. Perhaps later in the week. Definitely we can get you the case on successive renewals — that’s a key issue for many, many of the foreign companies which we counsel.
Just be aware that from the time the school terminates you, you have 90 days to file an administrative claim with the district labor office, which ends in tribunal process. After that 90-day window closes you only have recourse to the court.
But here are the legal issues:
(1) Is Gachon University, or any other educational institution, an “employer” for purposes of the LSA?
(2) As a contracted instructor, is Gerry Bevers an “employee” for purposes of the LSA?
(3) Is non-renewal of the fixed-term employment contract after six years of continuous employment tantamount to “dismissal” for purposes of the LSA? (The corollary question is, has Gerry Bevers’ employment converted by operation of law to a permanent-employment situation despite the formal appearance of term employment which can be non-renewed at the option of the employer without just cause?)
(4) If so, does a regular employee having abhorrent political opinions (i.e. denying the “uri ddang-itude” of Dokto) constitute “just cause” sufficient for termination? This is the weak point in your case — because just cause is not clearly defined, a judge just needs to attenuate this definition to make it unique to you, then split it down some issue of disturbance to the rest of the university.
(5) If just cause is found to exist, has the employer carried out the termination in accordance with procedural fairness? Has the employer followed applicable administrative and contractually-based processes (internal disciplinary-committee hearing, 30 days’ notice of termination or extra pay in lieu of termination, etc.) necessary for the employee to have been given a fair shake?
You should hunt around for a young English-speaking lawyer who wants some notoriety and would like to take the role of social change agent. Your own Korean language skills mean you don’t absolutely need the English speaker, but we guess that an English speaker is more likely to want to take that role.
Our associate actually was interested in the case. She says the key to victory is to make the case not about the foreign asshole and his abhorrent and provocative Dokdo speech, but about the rights of all Koreans to say and think what they want without getting fired. It’s about freedom of political association, and choice of God, and the right to be a Communist if you want to. But our partner says “No way! No matter the issues, we get screwed. ‘Voice of People’ will be over here with a bullhorn to brand us ‘Enemy of People’ and they stay until all the clients leave.”
Also don’t forget to petition any sister schools (foreign) to tell them what is happening. There is nothing like shame from abroad to punish them.
What are the sister schools?
By the way G. Bevers. send me an e-mail to jollyrocsta@hotmail.com
I can help you find a new job.
globalvillageidiot,
The daycare we’ve picked for him is probably the best one in our town, so hopefully everything will be all right. In any case, he is well adapted to daycare. In fact, the other kids sort of look up to him. He is a sort of celebrity kid, too. Registration at the daycare centre has double since he’s started going (they had to hire 2 new teachers). And just as your son, he understands that he is both Korean and Canadian.
I meant to say we picked a good kindergarden for him. He’s in daycare now.
Do you really want to spend a $1,000+ on a ticket to contest a case that you and everyone else on this thread think you will lose? The money would be better spent as rental deposit for your new digs stateside. Take your final paycheck, your six years of severance, and say goodbye with a smile and a handshake.
Gerry Bevers writes:
Persons attending to administrative or judicial processes (offering testimony, consulting with attorneys, etc.) may enter Korea in visa status C-3 (Short-Term Visitor), which allows them to remain up to 90 days at a time.
If you need to stay longer than 90 days, you will want to have filed your complaint prior to departing Korea. Then, at the Korean Embassy or Consulate overseas, apply for a G-1 visa (a special visa for people attending to certain matters including receipt of medical care, or participation in legal process, and which is good for up to two years), offering proof of filing and some letter from the labor inspector attesting to the fact your presence is required.
I’m not sure if G-1 visas may be issued to persons who have administrative matters pending, or if a civil suit is required. You should confirm that yourself through the Ministry of Justice (whose webpage, I note, has a lot of stuff about Dokdo on it). If civil litigation is a prerequisite, be aware that litigants are not required to use a lawyer (they may represent themselves as pro se litigants) to have access to the court.
Sonagi writes:
I tend to agree with Sonagi. Find a lawyer or nomusa (labor advocate), get him to huff and puff a little, and bully a little more money out of the university in exchange for not filing a claim. Six months’ extra pay should be achievable without too much difficulty.
Otherwise, litigation could take three to five years, with appeals. On a C-3 or G-1 visa, you’re not able to work to earn a living except with permission of Ministry of Justice (they of the webpage full of Dokdo justifications), and it may be expected that if you were in high-profile “anti-Korean” litigation, there would be someone detailed to the mission of making sure that Gerry Bevers, Korea Hater™ did not earn a living illegally during that time.
Frankly, I am not surprised. I am surprised that somebody is surprised, since most people here have spent in Korea a number of years, often speak Korean, married to a Korean and sometimes are Koreans themselves. Frankly, when I read about Gerry Bevers being merely called to his university president a couple of months ago (?), I was surprised how liberal and free-minded the school is and how much things have changes over the last decade. Ten years ago a mere discovery of such activity would lead to an immediate dismiss of the wrongdoer.
Korea is a seriously nationalist country. It might be unpleasant and annoying, but this is a part of package. In every country, US/Australia/Russia/India/Singapore there are features one likes and features one does not. We make decision about whether we like place or not, based on balance, not on complete absence of things we do not like. Nobody is perfect. Will any of us go to a seriously fundamentalist Muslim country and then spend some efforts proving that certain chapters of the Holy Koran are, well, not perfect, and would not stand a serious scrutiny? And if such a person is fired from a teaching job and perhaps kicked out of the country, should anybody be surprised? This is not “democratic”, of course, but now, in 2007, democracy is not a universally accepted value, whichever people in the White House want to believe.
Frankly, and not as an offence to the overwhelmingly American crowd here: it sometimes strange to see that you people behave as if American or Western values apply everywhere and are accepted everywhere. They are not! If you go to Saudi Arabia, you do not wear mini-skirts and preach Bible in public (do it in your home)! If you come to Korea, you do not attack the sacral cows, and the Dokdo issue is one of the most sacral cows now. Dokdo was the worst possible choice, I can think of only few issues where an expression of doubt by a foreigner would produce similar outbursts.
In Korea you do not criticize nationalist assumptions, at least, you do not do it too actively. This is not the States where academic writing about slaughter of the Amerindians or the US military interventions/aggressions in Latin America is not merely safe but will improve your career opportunity in academia. Again: in Saudi Arabia you do not criticize Koran, in Korea you do not question the nationalist superiority complex, in the States you do not cast doubts at women’s perfect equality and do not make whichever would pass for a “racist statement”. At least, you do not do it in public, and if you do, you know that retribution might be swift. Do you remember what happenned to Professor Lawrence Summers? And he was not a hakwon teacher…
THE SECOND PART, so to say. About the situation. Well, advices to use the legal channels might sound good, and I wish Bredon Carr and his colleagues all the best. However from my own experience I am very skeptical about outcome. Even if a case is won, there will be too many ways to make life miserable, and these ways will be used, be sure. Serious people in Korea seldom solve their issues at the court, and people here know how to get around a court decision they do not like. Again, there might be righteous outrage about it, but this is how things are done here. Period. And you/we are here. Period.
Gerry Bevers’s situation is made worse by two things. First, foreigners are expandable. Even if they happen to have special skills (not a common situation), foreigners are not protected by the networks of chi-yol, hak-yol, hyol-yol. Second, the major task of a Korean university administrator is to avoid scandals and embarrassment. Everything should move smoothly Once again, I am not judgmental, I have worked in Russia and in English-speaking West long enough to make equally unfavorable comments about situation there! People in the university might be even sort of sympathetic, but since there is a great potential for a scandal now, and since Gerry is a foreigner without a clan and an alumni association sanding behind his back, the solution is obvious.
As a matter of fact, three years ago a reputable university suddenly broke a contract with me. Yes, they signed a contract, I paid a lot of money to prepare for my move to Korea, but in the last moment when I had tickets, paid for storage etc. they notified that they could not accept me, citing an invention they wrongly believed I could not check. It took me few phone calls to learn that they were lying, and more time to learn that the real reason was an act of one very nasty and influential person who happens to dislike me (mutually, I am proud to say). So, what did I do? Did I sue them for breaking the signed contract? No. Did I try to revenge? No. I sighed, said a few Russian obscenities, wrote off some five thousand dollars spent on the preparations, and began to look for other opportunities. Last year I went to the said university for a presentation and had a nice dinner with some of those people and even their president (well, the guy who was most actively involved with the intrigue, did not come). Why? Because a legal case, even if it is won, is not something which helps your reputation here. Well, to the Westerners it might sound unfair? To me, too. But, first, it works (see South Korean GNP), second, it is how things are being done here. Like it or not.
Of course, Gerry might try. This was just my humble opinion.
Professor Lankov said:
Who are “you people”? Only Gerry has expressed surprise at his firing, and very few commenters have expressed indignation. The prevailing attitude on this and related threads is “you should have known better.”
Sonagi writes:
Probably Prof. Lankov is responding not only to Gerry Bevers’ interest in free speech, but also to the bleatings of the “Pusan Nine” and their defenders, as well as those folks who worry about the Itaewon police beating the stuffing out of errant soldiers.
I learned a new culturally loaded word on this thread, definition courtesy of cm:
I found 괘씸 but could not find 괘씸죄 in any dictionary, yet googling unearthed this compound word in the context of media stories of academic and political disputes.
Thanks, Brendon.
Getting six months extra pay in exchange from not filing a claim sounds good, but do you really think I can find a lawyer or advocate who will be willing to huff and puff enough to convince my school to do that? Anyway, if I am forced to go to court and do have to represent myself, what do court costs usually run in Korea?
Sonagi wrote:
I do not mind spending a $1,000+ to point out something I consider unjust, especially if it involves me and I consider the process a learning experience. Besides, there are a couple of other matters I need to clear up before leaving Korea, including doing a little more research on “Dokdo.”
As for my severance pay, I will not being getting six years of it. The school says they will only pay me for two years. Though I worked under the National Pension Plan for the first four years, the school says that they are not required to pay me severance pay for the first two years since those contracts were for only eleven months. In other words, my contract period was from March 1 to the end of January.
I cannot remember how it was worked out after the first 11-month contract, but when my school went to Immigration to renew my second 11-month contract with a new 12-month contract, the people at Immigration told them that the contract would have to start from the end of my old contract (the end of January), not a month later, at least as far as my residence card was concerned. So my residence card was renewed for one year from the end of January to the end of January the following year, even though my contract said my employment period would be from March 1 to the end of February the following year. The school handled the transition from the 11-month to the 12-month contract by just no paying me for the month of February, even though Immigration considered me officially employed with them. Since then my residence card has expired at the end of January, even though my contract goes until the end of February. That is one of the reasons I have to leave and come back to Korea. I have to come back to get my last month’s pay. Another reason is that I have to come back to get my apartment deposit.
The school is screwing you on the severance pay. The use of “11-month” contracts to avoid accumulation of severance liability is clearly unlawful — another issue to take up with the district labor office. Those four “11-month” contracts entitle you to four months’ worth of severance, for a total of six. That’s your minimum entitlement. You should be able to get that additional money through the intervention of the labor inspector. More than that, as a compromise to induce you to give up a possible claim (or to withdraw your already-filed claim) and you’ll need professional help.
They are lying, and this trick is usual here. As a matter of fact, in most cases of retirement I am aware of, the employees did their best not to pay severance pay in full, or perhaps not to pay it at all. Last year I spent some time helping two people get their SP money. In both cases, it required some time and persistence, but they both got what they were entitled to. It seems that law in this case is on your side. Unlike the dismissal case, this one worth efforts, and chances are high. Make a bit of noise. Brendon will be far more knowledgable, but in “my” last year cases few trips to the Labour inspection office made wonders, they paid for eight years instead of three or four they wanted first. Firing a “Korea-hating-anti-Dokdo-uri-ttangist” is one matter, and not paying him is another.
I had a run-in with an employer once regarding severance pay. I found the labor office to be extremely helpful about getting the money I deserved. One phone call and my employer was scrambling to get me my money asap and make sure all was well. This is one issue I find the Korean government has been consistently aggressive about, even with foreigners.
Brendon,
I was only under the National Pension Plan for my first four years with the school, and then the school switched me over to a private pension plan for the last two years, so I think I am entitled to severance pay for only the first four years. I should be able to get back my payments into the private pension plan, but I do not think they are required to pay severance pay for the last two years.
National Pension = Social Security. It’s not a “pension” as one would ordinarily think of it. Severance pay is a separate issue, and the employer’s obligation alone. There aren’t any of “your contributions” to recover. Don’t ask about it here on this blog — go to the district labor office and ask the inspector whether you’re getting all the law entitles you to receive.
It’s an open and shut case, a waygook shot his mouth off about something he knows very little about, or even worse yet pretends to be a self-proclaimed expert on the issue. You do something stupid that results in you losing your job, and we’re suppose to feel sorry for you? No law firm in Korea is going to touch this case.
Use your head, and keep your mouth shut in Korea, or just leave the country if you want to criticize its governmental policies. You might be able to keep your job that way at least in the future. Koreans could give a frog’s fat ass about what a waygook has to say about anything. Honestly, I’m a bit surprised a bunch of Koreans haven’t shown up yet to give you a bit of “physical education” on how things are here in the good old ROK.
–Remort
Comparing the don’ts of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) to Korea’s seems a bit rich. KSA makes no claim to be a liberal democracry, free speech isn’t a right, and there’s nothing guaranteeing religious freedom. Heck, converting is a death sentence–stoning, ain’t it? KSA is straight up about what type of society it is and what isn’t permissible. Fair enough.
I wish Korea could be as honest as the KSA. (And yes, it is certainly far more liberal and liveable than the KSA.) Does it want to be viewed as an equal to western liberal democracies? It certainly goes through the motions and pays lip service to it. Why the pretense?
I also wasn’t surprised; it’s a shame I wasn’t. Mr. Bevers is just one of many who have been consumed by the netizen mob. Most have been Koreans, and all for the silliest of “infractions”. The goose steppers dictate the joun gibun.
Mr. Bevers, I hope you receive an agreeable payout from your employer. Good luck to you.
Re: Remort and others who say foreigners cannot criticize Korea.
Yet people like Anna Fifield, Michael Breen and others criticize Korea with plenty of vigor, volume and frequency, and they continue to live and work in Korea and do quite well.
Ugh. That previous post of mine came across a lot more snippy than I intended. I just was trying to point out that, for all the looniness of VANK and the like, there is a lot more going on here than some would cartoonishly like to describe. There are plenty of people make full-throated criticisms of Korean society.
And as Andrei pointed out, all countries (even liberal democracies) have their hot-button issues. The president of Harvard got lambasted for merely suggesting looking into whether biological differences between men and women led to their relative successes in science. If you press those hot buttons, you cannot be surprised when you get a reaction.
A good option for Gerry could have been to write an academic paper on the issue and getting it published in an academic journal or book. A better option would have been to bash Japan over their imperialistic claim to the property. The best option would have been to say nothing.
In any event, start firing off your resume Gerry, and get ready for a visa run to Japan. Claim political refugee status upon re-entry, perhaps President Roh will be out of office by then.
–Remort
Lambasted yes, fired no. To equate Mr. Summers’s case to Mr. Bevers’s seems to miss the mark. I reckon Mr. Bevers would have been keen to debate this topic with any scholars. And yes, all societies have their hot button issues. How they are handled is what seperates those who walk the walk from those that don’t.
Remort,
I am not looking for pity, but I admit that I was fishing for a little free legal advice, which Brendon, and a couple of others, have very generously given.
Also, I have never claimed or pretended to be an expert on Dokdo. I am just someone who noticed problems with Korea’s claims on the islets, and decided to do some research to get the other side of the story. For those who are interested, it was Kim Wan-seop’s book, “In Defense of New Pro-Japanese” (“친일파를 위한 변명”), that started me to question Korea’s claims on “Dokdo.” Though Mr. Kim does not go into much detail in his book, he also believes that Korea is illegally occupying the islets. By the way, I do not recommend the book because I do not think it is very well written.
I have been living in Korea off and on for the past thirty years, and I honestly did not think my postings on “Dokdo” would get me in trouble. I was quite surprised to find that even Korean college professors throw reason out the window when it comes to “Dokdo.” That is the biggest disappointment I have experienced in my thirty years in Korea. It is so disappointing, in fact, that I think I can now leave Korea behind without any regrets. I loved Korea when I first came here in 1977; I cannot say that now.
As for your surprise that “a bunch of Koreans haven’t shown up yet to give [me] a bit of ‘physical education,’” I think that just shows your ignorance of Korean society. Even though news of my views on “Dokdo” have spread among some of my students, none of them have shown any kind of hostility toward me and are still quite friendly. The professors, on the otherhand, seem to be afraid to make eye contact, possibly for fear of being labeled a “Gerry Bevers” sympathizer. In fact, one of the professors explained that she was untenured, and that that was the reason she could not openly express her support for me.
As for your opinions of me, Remort, I do not give a crap. I wrote the above for the benefit of others, not for you.
you lost your job because you were so brazen in the things you wrote about korea, gerry. any korean reading the things you wrote would quickly conclude that you were a bigot. your whole purpose in life, gerry, is to dehumanize and belittle koreans. that’s why you wrote about dokto. you don’t give a fuck about two little rocks in the east sea, what you care about is using the issue as a way to belittle koreans and the way they feel. that’s why you’ve written gobs on the subject while at the same time telling us that the issue is really trivial.
perhaps it’s time for you to move to japan where you can continue your research.
beverisms:
1. koreans deserved to be colonized by the japanese.
2. sure the japanese killed a lot of koreans after the earthquake, but look how the japanese police tried to protect koreans!
3. dokto is japan’s.
4. the japanese government did not assasinate queen min.
5. japan modernized korea because the koreans wouldn’t do it themsleves.
6. korea was an ally of wartime japan.
7. korea needs to shut about yasakuni since its an internal affair.
8. korea welcomed japanese domination.
9. koreans are co-equals with regards to japan’s second failed attempt to dominate asia.
10. likes to refer to queen min as ‘your dead queen’.
and you wonder why you got fired, gerry?
I don’t agree with Gerry getting fired about something like this, but Lankov is right: Dokdo is a sacred topic in Korea, as silly as it may seem to a lot of us. (I don’t think his analogy about questioning the Koran in a fundementalist Muslim country is too far off the mark, though the punishment involved there might be a little bit more unpleasant than not getting one’s contract renewed.)
My guess is that there were probably people in the university very eager to fire Gerry immediately upon learning of his Dokdo-related activities, but it would have been logistically difficult – not to mention potentially messy for his department, other deparments in the school, etc – to have done it mid-contract.
Gerry Bevers, I wish you well. May you have a much better future.
Pawikirogi,
Why don’t you link to the “beverisms” you mentioned above? I would like to be reminded of when and where I said those things. Yes, when it comes to Japan, I think Korean history books are filled with half-truths, especially when they talk about Korea’s colonial period. As for “Dokdo,” Korean historical claims are so full of holes that it is ridiculous. By keeping quiet on Dokdo or by writing books that are full of nothing but half-truths, Korea’s Dokdo historians risk damaging the reputation of all Korean historians. I can almost guarantee that Dokdo will end up being a big embarrassment for Korea.
“Frankly, and not as an offence to the overwhelmingly American crowd here: it sometimes strange to see that you people behave as if American or Western values apply everywhere and are accepted everywhere. They are not! If you go to Saudi Arabia, you do not wear mini-skirts and preach Bible in public (do it in your home)! If you come to Korea, you do not attack the sacral cows, and the Dokdo issue is one of the most sacral cows now. Dokdo was the worst possible choice, I can think of only few issues where an expression of doubt by a foreigner would produce similar outbursts.”
Lankov, point on that one taken and understood but there is one fundamental difference between Korea and Saudi Arabia. As far as I know Saudi Arabia is not demanding respect and acknowledgment from the international community as a “hub”, as “dynamic”, or as a “free, vibrant democracy”. It is Korea itself that is setting for itself the high standards that it consistently fails to meet. If Koreans are content to have their country be thought of at the level of Saudi Arabia, then fine. People can lower their expectations of Korea accordingly.
Perhaps the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs could formally announce to foreigners thinking about working in Korea that questioning the assumptions about Korean nationalism is forbidden. Then Korea will only get the type of foreigners that meet Koreans expectations, and the newspapers and TV programs can get back to whining about foreigners fucking Korean girls.
I said it before and I’ll said it again. BLACKMAIL!. I know nothing about Gerry’s former employer, however in my earlier post I predicted that just like all Korean organizations, they no doubt are doing something illegal. Surprise! surprise! turns out they are trying to scam Gerry on his severance money. I can guarantee there is a lot more scamming they are engaged in. Do some digging. Blackmail the bastards and just get as much money as possible. Don’t get mad, don’t cry. GET EVEN! Are they doing illegal classes? Under the counter cash payments? Deducting too much tax and pocketing the difference? Lodging tax returns and keeping the employees refund? Call me a cynic, call me anti Korean. I’m just being realistic.
One other point of F.L.A. (Free Legal Advice): Claims for unpaid wages (including severance pay) are time-barred after three (3) years from the time the obligation is due. Severance pay is a carry-over that normally comes due upon separation from employment — the LSA says it must be paid within 14 days of separation, regardless of reason (which means even million-dollar embezzlers get to enforce their severance entitlement).
Your severance pay for those four “11-month” contracts should come due on the date you leave permanent employment — don’t let anyone try to say the time bar applies to that pay!
Lankov said:
Well, Andrei, the problem with your argument is that Korea has an open pipeline to Washington through which it pumps a lot of sludge about being an open democracy and “blood ally,” hence justifying the placement of 29,500 warm American bodies on the line to preserve
Kim Jong Il’s collection of palacesits special claim to perpetual U.S. dependency. Or, at least, that’s what I could have sworn I heard the Korean Ambassador say at a cocktail party recently, commemorating some milestone anniversary for this great alliance of ours.Man, do I ever feel raped reading this now.
I don’t accept your Saudi analogy as completely valid here, but let’s extend it to its logical conclusion. When we eventually got wise about the Saudis being (1) authoritarian assholes who were (2) paying off people who wanted us dead, we readjusted our alliances accordingly and dramatically reduced our military presence in that uniquely godforsaken place. That makes this more than just an issue of dictating Korea’s form of government, but rather a question of whether we will weld this sludge valve shut and coldly question the unity of our interests. Having U.S. ground forces in South Korea actually impedes our freedom of action against North Korea, should matters turn unexpectedly much worse. If we’re looking for dictatorships to hold our noses and support, I see a stronger argument for cooperating with the Ethiopian dictatorship today than for subsidizing the inter-Korean experiment with national suicide.
But I digress.
It’s disturbing to see so many blame Mr. Bevers for believing Korea’s claim that it is a free and open society and not knowing better than to have and express his views, even on his own time. I don’t suppose his employment contract or previous warnings by supervisors were any help, either. At least Saudi Arabia does not make such a claim.
Yet I’m frequently thankful that Andrei Lankov, to name the best available example, speaks out against many of South Korea’s sacred cows, perhaps with considerable courage. I specifically commend your most recent contribution to this report by the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, where you dispensed with the “Korea is one” myth vis-a-vis the non-acceptance of North Korean refugees there.
We should value your right to speak, that of Mr. Bevers, and even that of Kang Jeong-Koo, who serves the public debate by showing us how goofy people really can be and inviting someone to scrape away the bong resin he coughs out. If it can be shown that Kang, you, or Bevers taught demonstrable falsehoods, that’s different, but no one has even connected Mr. Bevers’s private views to his employment.
Simply put, this is petty despotism. The defense of it is hard to compehend, especially when it mostly comes from opinionated Canadians and Americans on Internet threads. If there is to be a generalized licensing of censorship, I wonder who will nominate himself to be an exception.
My own advice to Mr. Bevers is to carry a sharp stick or an iron pipe next time, since such objects appear to cloak one in immunity in Korea today.
Whether Korea is misrepresenting itself as a free society depends on whether this is the action of a few cowardly academic administrators or that of Korea as a whole (there are enough examples of the latter). That depends on whether the law will protect free speech. The consensus is that it will not, but I would love to see the issue tested.
On the other hand, this will probably only be done at great cost to Mr. Bevers, and so I can only wish him well and hope that next time, he’ll choose a more mature, rational, and self-confident place to have an opinion.
“It’s disturbing to see so many blame Mr. Bevers for believing Korea’s claim that it is a free and open society and not knowing better than to have and express his views, even on his own time.”
I think most posters here agree that the situation Gerry is in is not fair, but by his own accounts he first came here in 1977 and most people have developed a healthy cynacism about korea’s free and open society in less than a year. Having been involved with koreans for many years overseas, I’d developed it before I even came here. So yes, Gerry should proabably have known better.
Not all of them. I know of at least one big Uni who gives exactly the same titles and pay to the foreigners – but it didn’t prevent them to
fire themnon-renew their contract because they wanted to renew the pool, lower their overhead [difference between 1st year 전임강사's pay and 조교수's pay can be as much as 1:3], or just get rid of the person.Universities – not unlike companies – tend to disregard the Labour Laws, with the difference that their foreign employees have even less clue about what they are entitled to than their corporate colleagues, and that the locals are usually better treated than the Koreans in the corporate world. Examples that come to mind include vacation – not really an issue in the Uni world, of course, but certainly in the corporate world – and severance pay [퇴직금, one month per year worked].
I know of a very famous Korean Uni who had their foreign staff not only sign their employment contracts with blanks in them – notably, the salary was left blank until after the signature; guess what happened… – but had them sign a separate document that forced the foreigners to waive the severance pay. One French teacher sued – and won – his employer when he left. But he had been a long time in Korea, so he probably had people advising him, and quite a bit of money at stake.
But note that the National Pension Fund and the severance pay scheme have nothing to do together. 국민연금 is money you contribute every month, and which can be reclaimed A/ when you’re 60 or so, or B/ when you leave the country and if your home country provides a similar scheme. ie, if your country’s laws provide for a similar lump-sum system, you can get your monies back. If your country, like mine, provides a monthly payment until you die, then you don’t qualify, and you can’t get your money back. This is handled by the National Pension Administration, whatever their real name is.
Severance pay, on the other hand, is an obligation to the employer – ie not your money taken out of your gross salary – to pay a 13th month per year worked. And this is managed by them. Not the same scheme at all. And these schemes are not mutually exclusive: on the contrary they are both compulsory…
Don’t forget severance is based on the average of your last 3 months of pay. So any OT or special classes during the break that pay extra count in that 3 months.
The school is making a mistake. Small schools in the country need to grow and need to have ‘sister school relations”. Hit them were they are soft, hit them internationaly. Send a letter stating your problems to a school in the USA or elsewhere that the adminerstration has friends with. That I tell you will shut them up.
Honestly send an email jollyrocsta@hotmail.com and I will set you up with another job.
I don’t mean to insult her, but seriously, taking such an attitude like that (“foreigners must know their place”) is so not cool. She is not a plantation owner and foreigners are not “uppity N*****s who need to know their place”.
I find such an attitude extremely disturbing.
How did you ultimately react to such a statement (knowing its your wife, I realize you cant just go O’Reilly all over her).
My wife is pretty easygoing about most issues, including a number regarding Japan, but starting up a ‘devil’s advocate’ or ‘let’s compare both sides’ type of Dokdo conversation with her is a perfect strategy for imposing a couple of weeks of involuntary celibacy upon myself. I wish I wasn’t speaking from experience, but… As many have noted, this really is a topic that is best negotiated with extreme care, if not avoided completely.
Again, nobody deserves to get canned over voicing opinions unrelated to work – I hope Gerry gets everything his school owes him.
That raises an interesting question. My school began a Continuing Education program at the beginning of November that runs until January 24. Since November, I have been teaching eight extra hours a week at 30,000 won an hour, which comes to about 960,000 won a month. If severance pay is calculated on the last three months of my contract, which would be December, January, and February, that would give me approximately 1.7 million won extra for that three month period. However, since the school should pay severance only on my first four years and not my last two, I wonder if my severance is determined by calculating the last three months of my forth year or the last three months of my final year? It would be nice if it were the latter.
Mr. Shim,
Thank you for offerring to set me up with another job, but I do not think I should take another job right now if I intend to fight for contract renewal. It might disqualify me.
I wish you and everyone else at The Marmot’s Hole a happy new year.
Dear Gerry, this is exactly the case I dealt with, helping my friend last year. It was 100% his situation, additonal classes taught. Initially his employer even refused to talk (we still had to squeeze some money from the school), and I was skeptical, but my friend was persistent. We made two trips to the Labour Inspection Office, he threatened to bring issue to the court, and his school did pay additional sum based on the new calculation which included the extra teaching on vacations. Good luck, and sorry if I offend you by my remarks (I indeed think the Dokdo is too sensitive if overblown, so it should be untouchable unless you are seriously protected and have very strong feelings about the issue).
Gerry,
Heed the excellent advice you’ve been given and fight for your rightful severance pay. Brendon and Lankov are correct, and from my own friends’ experiences, the law will side with you.
Lankov and others,
Gerry’s challenge to Korea’s Dokdo claims have been likened to Holocaust revisionism and sexual equality in the sciences. Dokdo: two rocks and some mineral and fishing rights. The Holocaust: twelve million murdered. Harvard president Summers: both remarks and resignation were controversial; he had his defenders. We all know Dokdo is a sacred cow and every nation has its sacred cows, but how is it that a seemingly minor territorial dispute can be compared to genocide? Is it merely that the dispute is with Japan? I lived in Korea nearly ten years, and I still look at Koreans’ singular attitude towards Dokdo and think, “WTF?”
Sonagi, surely you know better then this? That is since I had the impression you are quite knowledgeable about Korean culture.
To Koreans, Dokto is not just about few rocks and things. It’s the entire legitimacy of Japan’s rule over Korea, which is the root of everything. That is the real sacred cow in Korea, not Dokdo.
The sensitive nature of this subject comes from the Korean national consciousness which basically summarizes to: “We let those Japs take our country but that’s never going to happen again.”
And as it just happens, Gerry is one of the biggest proponents out there in the internet world who has advocated for years, that Korea’s colonization by Japan was legitimate and legal.
As you know, most Koreans would have only one thing to say about this. I’m sure, that had more to do with him getting in trouble then anything else.
The best thing to not damage your relationship with Koreans, is just not discuss subjects on Japan or colonization period. That’s the safest way to stay in neutral position, and not get into trouble at work.
Look at the bright side for Gerry. Now he can devote 100% his time on Dokto/Japan/Korea/Colonization period, outside from Korea.
That is an interesting and accurate way to express Koreans’ feelings. It’s not only that Koreans “let” Japan take over, but that they did not liberate themselves, either.
From GiKorea.net
“What do you propose we call educators that teach 9/11 conspiracy theories, raise money for Hamas, and preach the destruction of Israel in the classroom? These are typical educators O’reilly rightfully points out for criticism.”
I would expect this response from you. You are only thinking about The South Florida Professor and the nutcase who thinks he is an indian, but he has gone after others. O’Reilly goes on huge tirade about teachers and the school system because they disagree with him and many are not 9/11 conspiracy theorists or Hamas funding.
#1 He is a conservative and is against the public school system and find any minute excuse
example
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605050009
Bill O’Reilly falsely claimed that public-school teachers in New York City “are instructed not to say a word” about students “going, ‘F-you, you mother-F’er,’ in school.” In fact, according to the New York City schools’ discipline code, “[u]sing profane, obscene, vulgar, lewd or abusive language or gestures” is a “Level 2 infraction” that is considered “disorderly disruptive behavior” and is punishable by a range of disciplinary actions.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130006
O’Reilly falsely claimed a Texas school district banned red and green clothing, called move “fascism”
#2 He is a conservative and is looking to root out any non-conservative speak in the school system
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603170001
O’Reilly attacked liberal Gabler — but not conservative Thomas — for defending Colorado teacher
He is not alone. David Horowitz is on the attack of “liberal” teachers.
He claims it’s because these teachers try to indoctrinate in the classroom, but he is pretty much on a witch hunt.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604180011
Then of course you have your typical conservative idiots who fire teachers to bring kids to a museum and not sees a stupid nude
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_stage_theat/2006/10/art_teacher_fir.html
It happens in the US, you wouldn’t be surprised it happens in Korea.
From GiKorea.net
“What do you propose we call educators that teach 9/11 conspiracy theories, raise money for Hamas, and preach the destruction of Israel in the classroom? These are typical educators O’reilly rightfully points out for criticism.”
I would expect this response from you. You are only thinking about The South Florida Professor and the nutcase who thinks he is an indian, but he has gone after others. O’Reilly goes on huge tirade about teachers and the school system because they disagree with him and many are not 9/11 conspiracy theorists or Hamas funding.
#1 He is a conservative and is against the public school system and find any minute excuse
example
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605050009
Bill O’Reilly falsely claimed that public-school teachers in New York City “are instructed not to say a word” about students “going, ‘F-you, you mother-F’er,’ in school.” In fact, according to the New York City schools’ discipline code, “[u]sing profane, obscene, vulgar, lewd or abusive language or gestures” is a “Level 2 infraction” that is considered “disorderly disruptive behavior” and is punishable by a range of disciplinary actions.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512130006
O’Reilly falsely claimed a Texas school district banned red and green clothing, called move “fascism”
#2 He is a conservative and is looking to root out any non-conservative speak in the school system
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603170001
O’Reilly attacked liberal Gabler — but not conservative Thomas — for defending Colorado teacher
He is not alone. David Horowitz is on the attack of “liberal” teachers.
He claims it’s because these teachers try to indoctrinate in the classroom, but he is pretty much on a witch hunt.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604180011
Then of course you have your typical conservative idiots who fire teachers that bring kids to a museum and just happens tp see a stupid nude
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_stage_theat/2006/10/art_teacher_fir.html
It happens in the US, you wouldn’t be surprised it happens in Korea.
Silencing of the lambs.
FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH! KOREA IS A DRACONIAN STATE! NO FREE SPEECH!’ whined the nasty expat as he said just about whatever he wanted while in korea.
no free speech issue. the korean government did not fire gerry, but leave it to the nasty expat to equate gerry’s employer with the entire korean people. can we say ‘bigot’?
how to live:
you know, the thais take their king very seriously. i think it’s a bit ridiclous but you know what? doesn’t matter what i think. i just don’t say anything that could be interpreted as critical to their king. i do it to be respectful. i wonder if someone like bevers or lady b sonagi could do the same.
what the hell am i talking about? i’m talking to a bunch of drunk, nasty expats!
The consensus here seems to be that this is what Korea is like (though shakuhachi and joshua make the excellent point that Korea claims to be different).
I’d like to ask: what consequences will flow from Korea’s being like this? In addition to the external effect of reappraisal by allies, which I believe joshua referred to, won’t these actions bring on an intrinsic and inescapable retribution?
Prof. Lankov says
In the event that intemperate nationalism (which dissenting voices, if protected, might have held in check) some day leads Korea into a needless war with Japan, one can anticipate an adverse impact on Korea’s GNP. For me, the problem with the suppression of debate is precisely that it doesn’t work. It offers efficiency at the beginning, and ensures tragedy at the end.
Has J. S. Mill’s On Liberty ever been translated into Korean?
You know, you can make your points without being so nasty and insulting. It’s more effective that way. Otherwise people will just tune you out and dismiss you as a loon. And that’s too bad if you have something worthwile to contribute. Despite it all, I think you too would agree that Korea as a society, need to be more aware and tolerant of viewpoints that may not be welcomed or popular.
Above, I was referring to pawikirogi.
I don’t think so. The way it was set by the accountants in the books of the two companies I managed was, 1/12th of the salary paid that month to employee X was accrued in the balance sheet – ie set aside for later payment when the employee left. Thus, the severance pay for each year was a true one-twelfth of the yearly income of that year.
That would be your decision, but check with the lawyers – I am pretty sure getting a new job would not absolve your former employer of their wrongdoings. It would disqualify you to get your job back, but I am pretty sure this is not an option any longer… And you’d get a visa to stay in Korea.
CM wrote:
Who’s “you”?
Sonagi, I may have likened the negative reaction that some Koreans might have to Gerry’s flavor of scholarship to how most in the west might view and react to holocaust revisionism, but in no way did I intend to liken the actual issue of two uninhabited islands/rocks to millions of dead. However, I have no doubt as to which issue is given more attention in Korean schools…
@#90
I found holes in everyone of the stories you linked to, but they are all weak examples anyway of trying to liken America to being similar to Korea.
None the teachers you linked to lost their jobs. Really the only teacher that lost his job due to criticism from O’reilly was the South Florida professor Dr. Al-arian who was preaching death to Israel and raising money for Hamas.
Some how I don’t equate Mr. Bevers writings over Dokdo to being equal to raising money for terrorists and wishing for the extermination of entire people.
I did not misunderstand you, global but appreciate the clarification.
Darth Babaganoosh wrote in #82 regarding my #23:
” don’t mean to insult her, but seriously, taking such an attitude like that (”foreigners must know their place”) is so not cool. She is not a plantation owner and foreigners are not “uppity N*****s who need to know their place”.
I find such an attitude extremely disturbing.”
I also found it disturbing and deeply disappointing. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that overall fair treatment in California for 10 years would have had a greater effect on her attitudes regarding “foreigners.” That may have been wishful thinking on my part.
I doubt her attitude had anything to do with him being a foreigner, but rather that he deserved what he got for being a heretic. As pointed out before, there have been a few Korean intellectuals deemed heretics who have been treated far worse then Gerry, including ostracization, ridicule, employment terminations, and even some jail times (in the case of National Security Law violations).
Sonagi, by “you”, I was referring to Pawi.
RE: comment 92;
You toss out the term “bigot,” but then refer to those who are angry as “a bunch of drunk nasty expats.” Any cognitive dissonance?
Clearly what happened to Bevers just reinforces what we all know; the South Korea claims to embody democratic ideals, but in reality rejects the most basic component of such democracies; free speech.
The many examples of the government not enforcing its own laws in when it comes to foreigners, i.e. blatant hypocrisy and another example of the lack of civil society and democracy in South Korea, is indeed legitimate reason to critical of the Korean government.
I completely reject Lankov’s approach; it’s basically giving up and grabbing your ankles. Make noise, burn bridges, but don’t complacently take it in the ass like that.
Having said all that, given Bevers experience in Korea, I don’t know what else he ever expected. The outcome seemed pretty obvious.
Free speech does not enjoy the same Constitutional protection everywhere in the ‘free world.’ Britain does not have a First Amendment; its scope of freedom of speech and expression, as interpreted by the courts, is narrower than ours in the US, and the threat of a libel lawsuit has prevented McDonalds opponents, for example, from expressing certain ideas in Britain. Just google “Britain” and “freedom of speech,” and you’ll see that one of the West’s earliest democracies continues to struggle to define and defend this “most basic component” of democracies.
And furthermore, it wasn’t the Korean government that decided not to re-hire him, it was a university making its own decision.
I don’t think anyone said the Korean govt had anything directly to do with Bevers losing his job. If you disagree, please point to the specific comment that you think does say that, as well as the exact text within that comment. Thanks.
I was referring to this.
Sorry to hear Mr. Bevers has lost his job–you’d think that since Dokdo is such a trivial issue the Korean establishment would welcome even negative attention from a foreigner to it because it indirectly reinforces Korea’s claim, guess some people are too thin-skinned.
Re: Calculation of severance pay (see #81 by iwshim and #96 by dda):
Calculation of severance entitlement is a fiendishly difficult affair; there is a 90-page government guide to calculating what employees are owed. It’s very complex because the Korean salary hobong system is full of “allowances” which may or may not be included.
In a nutshell, iwshim is correct in that the basic severance entitlement is one month’s “average wage” per year of continuous service, where monthly average wage is defined based on the last 90 days immediately prior to termination. But, where the “average wage” would be higher if calculated on the basis of the last 12 months’ pay, then the 12-month period shall be used. This is intended to protect employees whose bonuses had been received in the period before the last 90 days.
Because of the possibility that the 12-month alternate calculation period could be used, it is prudent advice for employers to provision for severance entitlement on a monthly basis. So dda’s accountants did the right thing — however, he drew the wrong conclusion from it. Employers should be very careful to re-calculate the severance entitlement at the time of separation, and “top up” the payment if the accrued entitlement is less than what is owed on a “last 90″ basis.
CM, where is the reference to, “the Korean government” that you were bitching about? I just don’t see it… b/ce it’s not there.
Also, if context is important to you, see the next sentence after the one you quote that refers to “civil society.”
Thanks, again.
An excellent point. In other words, South Korea is weaving itself into a cocoon where only procrustean groupthink will be permitted on a growing list of off-limits subjects, mostly concerning national disputes with the neighbors, and mostly enforced vicariously through non-state actors. I don’t deny that plenty of this goes on in the United States, too, although most of our political orthodoxies are constructed in the name of tolerance, and the courts are mercifully balanced in their correction of excesses.
We saw how South Korea’s government and various self-appointed thugs censored open debate about North Korea, and as a result, South Korea lives in a strikingly dangerous alternative reality about the North that no other nation shares. That cocooning has effectively marginalized South Korea in multilateral diplomacy, and has contributed to the unfolding failure of that diplomacy to keep the Korean peninsula peaceful and nuclear-free.
Korea is now doing the same to its relations with Japan … over two barren piles of guano that Korea has occupied for decades, and which hardly anyone in Japan cares about.
Then we have the asinine movement to replace the descriptive term “Sea of Japan” — which denotes a sea surrounded on two sides by Japan — with “East Sea,” which makes no geographical sense for anyone who lives east of longitude 138 E (or, more succinctly, for anyone outside Korea).
One supposes that open debate about Koguryo will close next.
Koreans thus force not only other Koreans, but every citizen of every nation, into a series of binary choices between Korea’s alternative reality and those that prevail among its more populous and powerful neighbors. Korea is not unique in doing this (Turkey gets special props for its denial of Kurdish nationhood or the Armenian holocaust), but Korea is nearly unique in its combination of intellectual hostility and blind presupposition that we’ll all take its side.
Imposing groupthink worked for a while in North Korea, but aside from a few dozen unmedicated schizophrenics in juche study groups, it hasn’t persuaded many others. Indeed, if you visualize a society that demands unanimity, it’s strikingly compatible with equally silly ideas of Korea’s racial purity (“we must all look and think alike”). If that succeeds in a modern, industrialized, and supposedly open society, it’s very bad news for anyone hoping to change North Korea by exposing its people to new ideas, through permissive means or otherwise.
One can only hope that North Korean groupthink will break down faster that South Korea can impose its own version.
RE: calculation of severance pay
The university probably has regulations in place and those regulations should apply. The college faculty lounge of my former employer held a copy of university regulations bound up in a huge book. The regulations were very clear about contractual conditions for different titles – professor, full-time instructor, full-time equivalent instructor, part-time instructor, etc. If you’re not physically banned from campus, you might pay a visit and find out for yourself what you’re entitled to.
Wow, I do believe that this is my first 100+ comment post at the Hole. Not bad from something I spent 4 minutes on.
In the meantime, my post on the Uri break-up (which I spent about an hour on) has 13 comments with probably a similar proportion of readers.
(Andy makes a mental note to adjust blogging style.)
I prefer to assume that the more labor-intensive post was so complete and well written that no one could add anything to or take away from it. That kind of self-delusion make many aspects of life much easier to deal with.
This post would have gotten 100+ comments even if Shelton had written it.
Gerry, do you know if any of your co-workers had actually read your writings on Takeshima?
Here Here.
I would say rather that it is strengthening the cocoon in which it always has existed, especially repairing the bits that had become a bit threadbare as a result of the the way in which the Financial Crisis forced the country to make some of the KSY administration’s globalization hype real.
One could postulate that this is just an unexceptional pendulum swing after the IMPF shock, but (i)it’s gone on too long to be just that; (ii) there’s no genuinely internationalist/free market grouping or leadership in Korea with the vision, skill or the courage to take on the racist-nationalist underpinning of Korean mercantilism.
This is unbelievable to all except those who know Korea. And, please, let’s not compare this to the professor in South Florida who preached hatred while funding terrorism. Please.
Haisan (#115),
Thanks…. I think.
gbevers wrote (#70):
I would guess that this could not be said of many long-term expats in Korea. While one might imagine some FOB failing to realize the extreme sensitivity Koreans generally have to this issue, it is hard to contemplate the same being true for someone who has spent their days interacting with Koreans in the work environment.
To be frank, I have trouble believing this, but I will take Mr. Bevers at his word. That said, he was then demonstrating an amazing blind-side. In particular, one imagines that, after the emotion-laced posts made at occidentalism.org in disagreement with his threads, he would have begun to discuss this issue with Koreans whom he came in contact with. It hardly seems likely that he would have failed to learn what Koreans generally thought about this issue, to say nothing of how they felt.
Lesson: folks get upset when you piss on their totems, so you better have a damn-good reason for doing so.
Bevers comment #44
Have you gotten a copy of the labor laws? Kyobo Bookstore used to have English translations. It was not in the foreign/English section but the one on Korean society, history, and so on. When I asked a Korean worker about it in English, she took me right to it as if she had been asked that question countless times before.
Next, it is absolutely fabulous to have Mr. Carr making comments on issues like this. There are some things even being a long time expat in Korea can’t clear up or teach you – like this technical stuff – that does help out people and help understand as well.
And there are more avenues to handling problems in Korean society than what most expats know, because most of us are in country only a year or two. Sometimes, the Labor Board can work in the favor of even the lowly hakwon worker. Frequently, I believe, just getting a call from the labor board is enough to get the greedy bastards to pay the end of contract money and what not.
The problem is that it takes a lot of effort (and language skill) to find out how to join in the process of the system. Maybe the internet has changed this. I’ve been out of the hakwon business since 2000 and haven’t had to surf for legal options since then…
Like in most places in the world, there are crooks who rely on the foreigner not being able to find out about how things actually work….
Comments #105 & #106
Yes, freedom of speech as legally termed in the US is not the same as in the UK nor are American values going to be grafted completely onto Korea – but as Brendon and some others have shown, what Gerry’s university is doing to him does actually violate Korean labor law, and in at least some areas, he has a good chance of getting what the law says is due him.
I thought Mr. Carr’s comment #4 was straight forward and authoritative since he is a lawyer in Korea and was pretty specific in that comment and in others about where Gerry stands per Korea’s own laws…..
But, I guess we can wipe all that away with the “it’s all relative” stuff that is drummed into us in Western higher education…
Comment #53
As with another comment noted below, how did “suprised” get in?
Mr. Lankov’s point is worth considering, but I don’t think people are expressing “suprise” but bitching about the events. And if someone going to a Muslim country and started saying bad things about the Koran and got his head chopped off, I would hope people would not kind of defend the act by telling those complaining about it that the guy should have expected it. (Which makes me think of that Korean who got killed in Iraq). Yes, we might conclude it would be stupid to go to a Muslim country and do such things. Yes, we might conclude the outcome was predictable. No, it doesn’t mean we should just accept that it is one of those quirks every nation has. The US has quirks, like high drug usage and high violent crime, and bitching about them is fine.
Comment #18 & #89
“Gone after.” How many profs has O’Rielly gotten fired for their thoughts?
Yeah. Same-Same…
I would think raising money for Hamas and groups that put together suicide bombings would be a good enough reason to break tenure.
And it frequently amazes me when people defend the right of free speech by telling other people they must shut up. You can’t react to the speech of another?
You can stone O’Rielly all you want. You can bring in Horowitz.
But, they are exercising the same free speech you want those professors to have, which those professors those guys complain about DO HAVE.
There are a few websites out there that are places for students and sort-of-researchers to post examples of professors in American universities acting like mini-gods – which with tenure, they pretty much are.
What is scary isn’t that O’Reilly exercises his freedom of speech by pointing out some of this. (And I think it is pretty obvious there are a lot of voices in the public domain that continually rip O’Reilly a new one for what he says). What is scary is that much of what those websites about despotic profs is that many of the examples talked about are how conservative students have been emasculated by profs for voicing opinions in class.
(The book Bias and the other one by the same journalist has a few examples of this from America’s top journalism schools.)
(Also, the Horowitz reference reminded me of this gem – he had taken out a ad that ran for two pages in the school newspaper, I believe at Harvard but at least one of the elite schools, and this led to a couple of liberal student body organizations —– going around early in the morning when the papers were delivered to the stands and confiscating them so nobody could read it….wonderful….)
Comment #21 — Kudo to response at comment #25.
Comment #29 — A Korean arrested by Koreans – and gee wilkers – nobody charged racism….
And, he was arrested for breaking a law that is on the books. I don’t agree with South Korea’s National Security Law, but it is a law that they do enforce from time to time. Being let go from a university after being arrested for a crime is a different matter than being fired simply for stating your opinion on an issue – even if what got the prof arrested was stating an opinion.
Bevers comment#58
Ah, the memories of being screwed regularly in the ESL industry… 11 month contracts……..old times….yeah…..old times…..
Remort #64 —
Here is a challenge, Remort. Go get Gerry’s posts on Tokdo. And refute them…
Show us how good you are…
You know…..after reading Remort’s poo and then comments like #71 – I realized – they make me feel better about myself……..
I would add that I am suprised Gerry was suprised this happened (though I think Gerry is the only person so far in the thread has said he was suprised).
Gerry has been around with Koreans a lot as well as in country for a long time, and even more has mastered the langauge. Given his position in the society and that experience, I am suprised he didn’t know instinctively his postings could/would eventually get him in hot water at work and most likely let go.
This is not an excuse for what happened. It should be fought and ridiculed, but I doubt most expats who have been in Korea for over a year or two would have been suprised.
But, the person who brought up Breen and Lankov (Joshua, I think) brings up an interesting point and is why I said “given [Gerry's] position”:
What would happen to Breen if he wrote out the kind of stuff Gerry wrote about Tokdo? It’s kind of intersting to consider…
I’m thinking about Breen’s writing style inparticular. My initial thought is that Breen’s witty style of writing would protect him as well as his status in Korean society.
I would even say there is a chance that if Gerry had been a blatant, typical “Korea-basher” writing a bunch of vile-worded posts about Dokdo, he might have never reached the point he has…
that such posts would have generated less attention from Korea’s nationalistic net searchers.
I mean, I have a feeling it was the methodical way Gerry went about his research, and his language ability, that led him to write extensive, detailed, historically referenced posts that caused a good bit of the ire.
It wasn’t simply mouthing off about Dokdo — it was putting out information that couldn’t simply be wiped away as ignorant clap-trap of a know-nothing foreigner that caused so much attention.
But, also in the case of Breen or Lankov and some others who have achieved a certain status, the fact that doing them in for pissing on a sacred cow could/would end up becoming news articles in things like the New York Times would save their skin. Korea would rather grin and “endure” even such stuff on Dokdo to avoid looking bad in the international press.
Brendon, BTW; I know that this is Korea and not the U.S.; that dismissing an employee is very difficult here; and that Korea does not practice “at will employment,” but people ought to know that you in fact cannot say and think what you want in the United States without getting fired either.
People in the United States are routinely fired for what they say on their blogs (here and here.
People can be fired for smoking in their own homes and on their own time. Given that this happens in the homeland of free speech, it’s hard for me to see how an American could see not getting a contract renewed as a genuine free speech issue; he’s not being thrown in jail or being subject to prior restraint. He really just should have known better.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation recommends that you blog anonymously and it’s good advice to follow anywhere you are.
As everyone already knows, the level of sensitivity for Koreans regarding Dokdo is very high, comparable to the analogies mentioned above, regardless of whether one country proclaims to be free and democratic or not. It’s unfortunate what has happened, and I hope Mr. Bevers is able to collect whatever he is owed. But for the life of me, I have no idea why Mr. Bevers is surprised at what has happened. When I came across the site several months ago, I thought the writer was in Japan. When I found out he was teaching at a Korean university, I shook my head and wondered when he was going to get canned, and was surprised that he wasn’t immediately. Surely, people must have told you that posting about Dokdo that goes against what’s engraved into the minds of Koreans is purely idiotic, unless, you were ready to move back to the states and/or publish a book about it. When I mentioned this to some Koreans, they all agreed that he should not have been fired for posting what he posted, but should be fired for his stupidity of posting that IN Korea, because well, even Koreans realize they are not always the most rational of people and that they wear their emotions on their sleeve. And as I know some lawyers, they all said they wouldn’t want to represent a guy purely for his stupidity. I understand Mr. Bevers is going through a hard time right now, and I don’t want to make it any worse, but whether you’ve been here 30 years or 6 months, you know there are some issues you don’t touch, and he should’ve known better. Again, it’s unfortunate and I wish the university, and the society in general, can be more open-minded. But that won’t happen overnight. Should have watched more AFN commercials about being respectful to the host country. Well, good luck.
Sorry the smoking link was supposed to go here and the EFF link is supposed to go here
jyce, you’re right: In the United States (except for the People’s Republic of California) “I don’t like the look on your face” is reason enough to terminate someone. But here is Korea, and I’ve counselled enough heartbroken Western clients about the difficulty — which is not to say “impossibility” if the employer is actively managing the problem — of terminating some useless (or malign) turd employee under Korean concepts of “just cause” to know that in Gerry Bevers’ case, the university seems to be overstepping the bounds of what they are permitted to do under Korean law. My guess is they feel caught between a rock and a hard place: Gerry Bevers has transgressed with a thought crime and therefore must go, but he’s a very nice guy and they will miss him terribly, plus the law really doesn’t support the university in what must be done. That position of being trapped is what usually prompts payoffs from Western clients — but in those cases the employer is very much concerned about compliance with law, and the employee very belligerent about demanding all that is required (and then some) by law. In this case, the Korean university has a law-avoidance mentality, and until now Gerry seems to have been taking his advice from (i) the university, or (ii) an imaginary voice, each telling him to “be nice”. Hopefully he’ll get to a labor office soon and at the very least get the severance entitlement he is owed.
I’m not saying the labor office is always right — they’re frequently shockingly and aggressively wrong — but their tendency is always to err on the side of the employee.
Really tough luck Gerry. Wish you well.
‘you can’t compare the situation. gerry wrote about a small matter called dokto, the prof in florida called for the destruction of isreal. the two are not the same.’
well, yes, they are since both express political views. what many of you are really saying is that the prof had no right to say what he said because he said it about one of america’s sacred cows. if he had said ‘death to saudi arabia’ do you think he would have lost his job? but for argument’s sake, let’s say he did lose his job because he said ‘death to saudia arabia’, i’ll just bet we’d see the angry expat brigade go into an anti-liberal tirade. your implication with all of this is that america may have it’s sacred cows but korea cannot.
and this ain’t about free speech since bevers can continue to write about the rocks if he chooses to do so. this is about bevers expousing hatred and promoting ridicule of the korean people. what happened to him was long overdue.
btw, dokto is simply the focal point of korea’s determination never to allow japan to ever dictate terms to korea again. understand that.
‘blah, blah, i’m sooooooooooo arrogant.’ richardson
i used the word ‘bigot’ in the racial sense. nasty expats have no race. have you not seen ‘soldout’ scream at the top of his lungs he ain’t no white guy? did you miss jdog is a black? btw, i loved the responses you got at the atimes. that guy jacob really made a fool out of you, richardson. it was fantastic. i loved his line: it seems richardson knows what’s best for korea and that’s that. lastly, richie, i responded to you so i could write about that.
re: cm to pawi:
i’ll give you some time.
GOOBER GOT FIRED by Pawi Kirogi
(goober (g) approaches friend named stan (s))
g: stan, i got fired today! the damn niggers fired me!
s: well, goober, what on earth for? and don’t call the people who gave you a job niggers.
g: well, they fired me even though i’m really nice to them. i’m always kind. i even call them mame and sir. they just fired me for expressing my opinion.
s: what do you mean?
g: well, i kind of write for this guy who runs a hate site called occidentaloon.org. i wrote a series basically saying that slavery was beneficial for the niggers in america. i also maintained sections called ‘negro sex’ and ‘wacky whippings from the massa’. i also rip to shreads all they find sacred. they found out about it and they fired me. i have the right to free speech and they have no right to fire me. it’s wrong. i’ll sue. i’ll sue, i tell ya.
s: uh, if the people who employ you are black, maybe it’s not a good idea to ridicule them. it seems you brought this on yourself. why don’t you move to idaho?
THE END
Hey Gerry,
I’m sorry that you lost your job, it’s an unfortunate consequence of shooting your mouth off as a foreigner here in Korea. I’ve been here in Korea for 20 years off and on, and one very simply lesson was learned quite quickly — keep your mouth shut in Korea.
If you really feel like you’ve been wronged, get even by moving to Japan. The Japanese would love for you to stage some demonstrations of Korea-bashing. You might even get elected as a government official there with those sort of actions, with their push toward strong nationalism under Abe’s adminstration. Trying to get compensation here in Korea for a failure to voluntarily renew someone’s contract is going to lead you down a one-way street full of 1 ton trucks, with you on a bicycle without a helmet my friend. The support you do get from the student body or faculty members, well, you can wipe your ass with that dude, that support and about W5,000 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Read this quote from above again, and pay attention this time,“foreigners must know their place and act accordingly.” You’re (were, not “are”) a lowly English lecturer — you should have just showed up to work, did your job, and kept your mouth shut. If they wanted your political opinion on something, I’m sure they would have asked for it… Gee Gerry, we have a real problem with Japan involving this ongoing land dispute situation, think you could negotiate this problem as the acting unofficial U.S. ambassador since you apparently speak English so well? Get real, and start packing your stuff up man. Maybe you could give both sides a “private lesson”.
–Remort
Thanks for the clarification Brendon – this is something that had been labeled as “복잡하다” by the accountants, and I left it to them. I am sure the accountants checked the “last 90″ average too, and we trusted them to do the right thing. One other complication was that some employees had asked for an intermediary pay-out of their severance pay – something they are apparently allowed to do, and I guess this influenced the calculations too…
“I’m sorry that you lost your job, it’s an unfortunate consequence of shooting your mouth off as a foreigner here in Korea. I’ve been here in Korea for 20 years off and on, and one very simply lesson was learned quite quickly — keep your mouth shut in Korea.”
Fine words of a real house nigger, Remort. Is the salary Koreans pay an English teacher worth their conscience? It is remarkable that Uncle Tom attitudes seem so prevalent among foreigners in Korea. Also remarkable that Uncle Toms in Korea can be purchased so cheaply.
Later on, Gerry might even consider writing a book about his experiences and releasing a PDF version — in Korean.
Whether for truth or beauty’s sake, looking into the mirror is never a pleasant experience, unless one is ignorant of what they find.
Yo pawi, I be reppin’ real cracka playaz, fo’ shizzle.
Peace out.
If Mr.Bevers had done the same kind of thing in USA as regardless of a foreigner or a native,
he might have been jailed with treason or something.
If I had been the boss of Mr.Bevers, I would have kicked him off on the spot with lawful excuse. Gachon medical school was unbelievably generous. I doubt if Mr. Bevers had some promise from a certain Japanese organization. Mr.Bevers must swear he does not have any connection with Japanese organization at this heated thread to continue this thread, not to make the comments here in vain.
Anyway, enjoy these articles,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-kaus/prosecutors-flout-califor_b_25432.html
http://www.bubbaworld.com/thejudge.html
Here are some guys who pretend to be pro-Japan.
No, They are watching here for just an opportunity to intrude in the thread, make the quarel heated , and make bad blood betweeen Korea and Japan.
They may seem to enjoy it.
OK. If I am correct, enjoy the following rather than that. ^^
http://lezhin.egloos.com/27328
http://lezhin.egloos.com/27669
If not, oh, gosh! What I should do.
Although he faces competition from the upstart uhoooooo, I’d like to asure pawi that I support his retaining his title as the blogosphere’s “Stuck on Stupid” posterboy for 2007. Pawi wrested that title away last year from a guy named nulji, who captured the cup from Shin Jong Il back in about 2004.
Remort is just being sarcastic toward Korea.
Whether Remort was being sarcastic or not, there truly are an astonishing number of “cigar store white men” in Korea, nearly all of whom have been effectively neutered when it comes to formulating and expressing honest opinions about any subject that is remotely sensitive for Koreans.
Brendon,
What happens if a foreigner who is a ‘permanent’ English teacher at a Korean university gains Korean citizenship?
usinkorea wrote:
Yes, I agree. My point was not that Gerry’s firing was legal or justified but that freedom of speech is not secure in many democracies.
Said Shakuhachi from the anonymous comfort of Australia:
I’d like to make one more comment that depends on two premises.
1) It’s my understanding that Dokdo/Takeshima is purely a territorial dispute; that is, the Japanese claim is not accompanied by any threats against the lives, habitations, or commerce of Koreans. Is this correct?
2) If you are a small country in a territorial dispute, it behooves you to persuade as many third parties as possible of the justice of your position.
Now in general, when you don’t have the time or background to judge the merits of a case, are you influenced by the demeanor and behavior of the claimants? I am. For example, if one party in a dispute screams insults, and shouts down those who have a contrary opinion (even taking steps to injure them unjustly), I am likely to think that that party is in the wrong and — at least subconsciously — knows he is in the wrong.
I might sometimes be mistaken, of course, but that is how I would tend to think. Is this not reasonable?
The conclusion is obvious, but I’ll spell it out. I don’t care who owns the rocks. In this, surely, I am like most people outside Korea and Japan. But the Koreans’ extreme sensitivity and active suppression of discussion have persuaded me that the Japanese probably have the better claim.
Refer to point 2).
“uhoooooo” stay away from mirrors because I do not think even your ignorance would protect you from what you would see.
“Said Shakuhachi from the anonymous comfort of Australia:”
What is your point? With google, the fact that my real name has been published, my location made clear on my blog, you could say that I am far less anonymous than Sonagi. Sniping at people for the thinnest veil of anonymity when you are absolutely, completely anonymous… ahh, ok.
Brendon, foreigners complain that everything is rigged against the foreigner, for the Koreans, and that there is no way in hell you’re going to get any kind of justice because if you’re a foreigner, you’re guilty, while if you’re Korean, you’re innocent. But you’re telling us something different for the labor office. I’m getting more confused as to what is the real situation for the justice for foreigners in criminal and/or civil matters?
I would also like to add that I have told Gerry many times that I admired his courage in using his real name to post about Korea/US/Japan issues. He is a bigger man than me, that is for sure. I just do not want the casual hassles of people getting angry because they cannot handle political dissent. However, I am not totally anonymous. I have met readers in Sydney, including Korean-Australians.
On Asia-Watch I read Koreans were angry because Gerry and occidentalism were giving out personal information from other bloggers….
Here’s the Korean thread on Naver. Can anyone out there read what the Koreans are talking about?I can read Gerry’s name, that’s all…….
http://cafe.naver.com/CommentView.nhn?clubid=10719419&menuid=111&articleid=9242&replyyn=Y
I know of two cases – there are prolly more – of foreigners who were denied severance pay by their employer [interestingly enough on the same "reason" that they were send by foreign headquarters to Seoul to work for a limited period – limited as in one year or more] and they both won. The first case implied two US citizens from Hawai’i, I think, and they had to go to court – which I think was more expensive than the severance pay they got back but whatever. The second a French expat [as in "living on a lofty, all expenses paid by HQ," expatriate package] who settled out of court, after a friendly phone call from the accountants. He had spent something like 7 years in Korea, so his severance pay check was worth the battle…
I don’t know about court procedures and fairness of treatment. But *before* court, the law and its application is clearly in favour of employees. But with a very strong social pressure not to make waves – at least in the 20th century – few people working for SMEs get what the law says they deserve: holidays, severance pay, etc. I have seen countless examples of Korean SMEs who would make their own rules as to what employees were allowed to get – and when I explained to them what the law really said, they’d just shrug and say “It’s different in our company”. Like decisions made by a company owner supersede the law.
On the other hand, I have seen directly, and heard of from colleagues, Korean employees making the greediest and most absurd demand, saying “It’s the Korean Law™”. Which is why we had a lawyer, and I had a copy of 노동법 on my desk. Not only a good reference in case of a dispute, but the damn thing’s so heavy and compact that it makes a nice missile. Throwing the book at someone taking a whole new meaning!
But interestingly enough, most demands were cash related. They usually were not interested in getting more holidays [except a coupla lazy-ass salesmen] and in some cases were disappointed I had given them all holidays they were entitled to: they were hoping to get compensated monetarily for vacations not taken…
Like I said, I enjoy reading pawikirogi, because it makes me feel so much better about myself…
And drivel like this:
Hey, Remort, he didn’t come to work running his mouth forcing the students and university to listen to his political opinion – dipshit. He wrote about it on his own free time on the internet…
And somehow I highly doubt Remort’s 20 years in Korea has been spent with him keeping his mouth shut.
These two are another classic example of rooting for your team no matter what…
cm #144
Brendan has a ton more experience and knowledge of the matter as a professional working in that area, but from my experience, there is a difference between the criminal and civil justice system especially on labor issues where Korea has strong unions.
The labor board has been known to stick up for foriegners. Perhaps one reason is that it often takes little effort. One or two phone calls and scare a boss straight.
Even with the criminal side, the problem seems to be more with the investigation side than the courts. The police have been known to not want to touch cases where the foreigner is the victim. Other than that, the conviction rate for GIs has been 100% as far as I know, but that number should be high anyway, and when it came to sentencing – despite what the common myth in Korean society says – the GIs were given sentences I’ve read about being given to Koreans who commit similar crimes against other Koreans.
Next, for me, this really isn’t so much a “free speech” issue per se. It is just something that shouldn’t happen, and it is bad for Korea. Koreans fret an aweful lot about how they are perceived in the world:
The South Korean nationalism is an odd bird. The society is incredibly nationalistic, but it comes with a huge heaping amount of an inferiority complex. As others have pointed out in this thread, Korean society desperately want outsiders to view it as a sophisticated, wealthy, top tier nation, but the way they go about it too frequently shows that they really don’t believe that themselves – even though they should.
Korea has accomplished a lot. It has accomplished a lot that other nations (who came out of colonialism in much better shape than Korea witnessed after the Korean War) have failed considerably at.
But rather than resting with its achievements confident it can withstand outside scrutiny, South Korean society opts for things like VANK, sueing Jay Leno for dog eating jokes, and flipping out when Meg Ryan says some offhand comment “defaming” a commercial she did for a Korean company — and letting Gerry for an internet posting.
Dusty:
From what commenters on Asia-Watch were saying, it seems they were angry that a commenter on Occidentalism (not one of the writers there) had posted the whois information for http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/ , an English language site that claims to offer scholarly information that supports the Korean claim to the islets. The site offered absolutely no information about who was writing it, so someone simply ran a search for the publically posted whois information on the domain and posted the results. The e-mail address in the whois information matched the e-mail address of the person who posted the link in the comments, claiming that “an expat”[actually himself] had started the site.
At the time I didn’t really see it as a major violation of privacy or anything, since many domain registry services allow users to make their registry information private, but I guess whoever ran that site wasn’t aware that such information was available to the general public? To my knowledge, nobody actually did anything malicious with the information posted there (which is publically available via whois lookup anyway). Regardless, I don’t see how how the posting of that whois information in a comment somehow justifies the actions of angry netizens who contacted Gerry’s employers and got him fired…
The comments on this post have turned me into a curious cat. I was under the impression that universities were well within their rights not to renew contracts for any reason. For example, many universities in Seoul have been moving to a limited number of contract renewals for “full time lecturers.” At many universities, the number of renewals is set at 2 or 3, while at my own university, it has just been set at six (if I remember correctly). Are all these universities violating the law with this new tendency? Also, are all universities required to pay severance pay? I know of several universities that specified in their hiring ads for full time lecturers that severance pay would not be paid.
Gerry -
Sorry to hear about the job…..I think that it is a shame that you can not exercise your intellectual freedom. While I do not agree with your views on Dokdo, I always thought that you at least offered some food for thought instead of blind acceptance or pure hate-mongering. I think that one or two of the posters were indeed correct – your writing wasn’t something that could easily be dismissed as a “stupid foreigner” just spouting off and not knowing what he was saying.
As for Prof. Lankov and some of the others – I think it is a shame when academia is forced to hide for fear of being singled out for revenge – it sounds very facist.
However, (and I hate saying this) I do find some truth in what Pawi and others said – that there are some sacred cows that must be considered – sacred. Pawi’s comments about the Thai King – that was one of the things that impressed me the most about Thailand was the people’s devotion to their King. I remember that someone told me if you drop a coin make sure you don’t step on it because the King’s image is on it – exaggeration – I don’t know, but I sure in the hell wasn’t going to take a chance.
It is a shame that we are also encouraged to not blog or post with our real names which allows complete idiots to use the blogs for their own childishness – if you feel strongly enough about something to write about it – it should be done in your own name.
Good luck Gerry
Freedom of speech actually is guaranteed by South Korea’s constitution (Article 21) – except specifically for citizens only. I still insist that any nation that claims to be some sort of bastion of democracy, yet in reality does not have free speech, is hypocritical.
For Pawi; a better example would be those who argue for Hawaiian sovereignty – if anyone got fired for that, they’d sue. . . and win (given they do it on their own time and not at work, of course). Some do of course get fired for what they say as free speech, the difference being if the employer admitted that (as the Korean university in question did), they’d have a suit they’d likely win. Giving money to a terrorist organization, on the other hand, isn’t protected anyway you look at it, and the guy is lucky he’s not in prison.
James, I dunno, it looks like Mr Bevers was getting a little personal on some of his posts. Look at the one post on the Naver thread Why did the people at occidentalism feel an urgent need to post the bloggers phone number and address in Korea??
That’s frickin, creepy.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=409#comment-9069
Mr Bevers was starting to sound like Mussolini from the balcony on this post.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=363
That’s what I have been saying all along. They have every right to ‘not renew’ even if they think you’re ugly. It certainly would be illegal if they fired you for being ugly right in the middle of the contract. But that’s not the case here. There is no broken contract here, except for some issues on the severence payment. I still don’t understand when Brendon says that what the school did is illegal. What did they do that was illegal? Yes, morally what they did was bad and they shouldn’t have done it, but what was illegal about it?
Nah, what’s frickin’ creepy is the correspondence between “Mr. Steve Barber”, who exists only as a sock of Mr. Cho, and a Mr. Cho, who may be the same Mr. Cho that owns dokto-takeshima.com.
And “…sound like Mussolini…’? Could you specify which sentence(s) leads you to this impression?
Dusty, it was a commenter that posted the publicly available information of dokdo-takeshima.com, not Gerry or any other writer at Occidentalism. Furthermore, this publicly available information was made publicly available by the administrator of that site. People that create websites can choose to make information about them publicly available, or choose to keep it hidden. In fact, this information is still publicly available. You cannot blame any commenter or anyone on Occidentalism for posting information that is freely available to anyone to look up.
Hmmm… Gerry reports about a naver cafe called “Kill Jap” and you say he sounds like Mussolini. By your own admission, you cannot understand the Korean contents of the “Kill Jap Cafe”, so maybe you should think twice before being so opinionated.
Under Korean law, once you have worked somewhere for a couple of years or so, there is an implied contract of de facto permanent employment that is subject to termination only if you commit some egregious act of malfesance (embezzlement) or violate an (otherwise legal)condition of employment that is spelled out clearly in writing and made known to you (usually in the form of employee regulations or some such)(e.g., working hours, amount of leave, etc.)(in which case, as Brendon has pointed out, you still are entitled to your severance benefit. It makes no difference if your contract says it’s for only one year, or that the employer specifically disclaims any obligation to continue your employment beyond some specified time; if in fact the employer doesn’t terminate after the first or second year, you’ve got a featherbed, no matter what the contract says (or doesn’t say). [This is among the aspects of Korean labor law that foreign investors have been complaining about for years]. That’s why Gerry’s dismissal is illegal.
Seouldout, it’s no secret Mr Bevers’ days were numbered.
Mussolini on the balcony?? Sorry you’re right, it was more like Hitler wacked out on speed.
http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=2719#comment-34042
Ah, I get it. Dusty = Steve Barber. Correct?
dusty
It was quite easy to get that information.
You just google “whois”
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?whoistoken=0
Enter
dokdo-takeshima.com
You’ll get
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?whoistoken=0
Besides, it was not Gerry who posted the comment.
And do you think
Gerry sounds like Mussolini? You might want to check who was writing to Killzap.cafe”, According to the post, it was Steve Barbar who was writing to one member of Kill Jap.
Do you still think Gerry sounds like Mussolini? Or did you misspell it? Did you wanted to say Steve Barber sounded like Mussolini?
Thanks, Sperwer, for the heads up.
@Shakuhachi 143:
My point is not that you are wrong to blog anonymously (a wise safety precaution, in fact), but that it’s rich to snipe at others for not standing up to the Man while you publish your controversial blog under a sock.
Cm, look at what he wrote in comment #4:
That is pretty clear and straight forward, and he is a practicing lawyer in Korea. I’m going to have to take his word for it until someone with similar creditials lays out a case that the law does not in fact say what he says it says.
And if the law says what he says, it doesn’t matter what the university (or any company) writes in the contract and has employees sign: the law cannot be avoided that way. The section that goes against the law is null and void. I know that from reading the Korean labor law myself.
comment #155
I was thinking about asking if he actually knew who Mussolini was and if so, how could make such a connection based on that post by Gerry…
As for the other link, it was in the comments section, and holding Gerry and everybody at Occidentalism accountable for that is like lumping all of us at Marmot’s Hole with pawikirogi or baduk (to bracket the range of thought).
However,
I had been running my site for a few years before I discovered from someone emailing me the information that all that private information, including my home address, was freely available…
Next, I wish I had read comment 158 before I started typing this. It was clearly a waste of time on that end…
This sounds like a freakin nightmare.
http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2007/01/03/200701030018.asp
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200603/kt2006031716054754060.htm
It never ceases to amaze me how stories like these (Mr. Bevers more or less being “fired”) never seem to make the mainstream press within Korea.
Why is that?
I for one, care deeply about this country… and therefore… point out any and all flaws I see….
Seems to me that Mr. Bevers should be given an award for taking the time to exert effort beyond the call of his expected duties… which hopefully should set an example to his students; ie that one’s intellect/energy/time should not solely be spent in the pursuit of money.
So sad that a Korean University should succumb to group thought and silence one who bothers to seek the “truth”… as messy as that may be.
Even more sad… is that this is not in the least bit sad…
It never ceases to amaze me how stories like these (Mr. Bevers more or less being “fired”) never seem to make the mainstream press within Korea.
Why is that?
I for one, care deeply about this country….and therefore….point out any and all flaws I see….
Seems to me that Mr. Bevers should be given an award for taking the time to exert effort beyond the call of his expected duties….which hopefully should set an example to his students; ie that one’s intellect/energy/time should not solely be spent in the pursuit of money.
So sad that a Korean University, should succumb to groupthought and silence one who bothers to seek the “truth”……as messy as that may be
even more sad….is that this is not in the least bit surprising…
Have a nice flight and a safe trip you big-mouthed liberal. In future stays in Korea don’t: 1) molest Koreans, 2) saying anything negative about Koreans or their culture, and 3) scribble down your silly liberal thoughts publicly for others to see.
–Remort
Regarding contract renewal, Sperwer wrote:
Yet, if there were also a longstanding practice by the institution of non-renewal after a set number of years (as in this situation, two or three), and if this practice were explicitly stated to applicants both in advertisement of the vacancy and at the time of hire, would this still be true?
In its most essential form, yes. Although something could be said about ‘commerce’, since along with Dokdo/Takeshima (the rocks) comes the territorial waters around the rocks, which have fishing grounds and potentially some natural gas deposits. But really, considering the enormous resources South Korea continues to dedicate towards keeping the rocks in Korean hands, the economic/commercial justification for Korea holding onto its rocks seems pretty weak.
Well… Yes and no. Ideally, I’m sure that South Korea would like it if the Japanese claim just ‘went away’ because of international pressure or whatever (although I’m equally sure that some of those in power who exploit the issue to their advantage don’t feel the same way). And to do this, South Korea would need some pretty substantial international pressure on their side.
On the other hand though, what does SK really have to gain from having their claim recognized internationally? At present, South Korea actually occupies the rocks, and Japan is unwilling to press the matter militarily, meaning that for the foreseeable future, the rocks will remain firmly in the hands of the ROK military.
So really, all the caterwauling by South Korea over the issue serves only a limited number of purposes:
First, it helps to ensure that SK doesn’t come under a whole lot of international pressure concerning its rocks. As long as relations between the countries on either side of the Sea Which Must Not Be Named stay fairly non-confrontational over the issue, the international community is unlikely to get involved, and South Korea’s justifications add a veneer of legitimacy to its occupation of the rocks (rightly or not – I leave the actual legitimacy of the claims to those with more time than myself).
Secondly, South Korea’s position is good internal publicity… No matter how much the government happens to be fucking things up, as long as they still have their rocks, things aren’t going too badly for them.
Thirdly, having a credible back-story seems to be a prudent hedge for South Korea should Japan ever be able to force the issue and expose the rocks to international pressure and scrutiny. While this seems unlikely in the extreme (South Korea is under no obligation to accept ICJ jurisdiction in the matter, for example), it is at least a distant possibility for the future.
So really, no… South Korea doesn’t have much to gain from convincing the international community that its claims on the rocks are stronger than Japan’s. But even still, one has to realize that most of the strongest, most vitriolic rhetoric being spouted over the rocks isn’t coming from the South Korean government itself, but from ‘interested third party’ organizations like V**K and the Korean press, not to mention the mindless netijen hordes. So even should SK be backed into a corner on this, the government can claim that all of the whining, the screaming, the cyberterror and the firebomb threats were from private citizens, not the ROK government.
Sky, apparently someone at “dokdo-takeshima.com” has something to hide — the Networksolutions record you linked to says there “is no record available at this time”.
By the way, does anyone know of a “Jaeman Cho”? Is this the same infamous “Mr. Cho” who owns “dokdo-takeshima.com”?
cm writes:
Sure does, but from my perspective — in respect of the first linked story — it looks like Chris Gelken and the Korea Herald have a defamation lawsuit and criminal complaint coming to them. Does that newspaper have any editorial process at all? Sure hope Gelken is ready to go home to Canada — he’s at great risk to get sued, criminally fined, and deported at the end of this.
As for the second link, to Chris Brockie’s Korea Times piece, that one was already covered here at the Marmot’s Hole, by me, back in March. To sum up the advice there: Don’t come to Korea to teach English!
Sperwer points out correctly why the Korean university should be pressed. Featherbedding is a massive point of contention for any American doing business in Korea wherein there is a team of Koreans. This is a big cultural difference that runs through unions, governmental agencies, academic institutions, etc. and is a big reason a lot of Koreans do not want to open services markets further to the outside world. God forbid that competitiveness might actually be imposed.
Remember that the US labor system is heavily bsed on “at-will employment.” This means hiring at-will and firing at-will. There are only a few states that actually have their own “just cause” exceptions.
Korea, as Sperwer correctly points out, is based on de facto permanent employment wherein “just cause” is necessary to prove in order to terminate employment.
“Sky, apparently someone at “dokdo-takeshima.com” has something to hide — the Networksolutions record you linked to says there “is no record available at this time”.”
It is still available as of now.
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp
Enter
dokdo-takeshima.com
You’ll get the imformation.
Brendon would know, but based on what he has said so far and from when I read the labor laws back in 2000, an employer cannot bypass the law in a contract. It doesn’t matter if the employee agreed to the terms, if those terms violate the labor law, those terms are null and void.
Don’t get me started…..
On the Herald piece, I didn’t read it, because I can’t stand the herald website. It takes a year to load and the whole time you have to watch those useless “dynamic” ads….
What was the story about?
For clarity’s sake, I’ll state here that I do not endorse the apparent action by netizens to promote Mr. Bevers non-renewal of contract. I also feel, however, that Mr. Bevers should not have been surprised that his views were strongly opposed by the majority of Koreans, and that their reaction to his blogging could be, in some cases, extremely emotional.
In #44 above, he states that he knew this topic was sensitive among Koreans, but did not realize the extent to which that sensitivity might affect him professionally. Again, while I do not support the apparant actions which led to his university’s decision not to renew, I also believe that he was naive with regard to this. While I do not think that this naivety alone was sufficient justification for what befell him, it seems to have contributed to an exacerbation of ill will toward him all the same. After thirty years of life and work in this country, he might have been expected to have gained the intuition that such might occur. That he did not seems to have allowed him to continue a risky pursuit.
I do not believe that Mr. Bevers was attempting through his blogging efforts to expand the rights of non-Koreans in Korea with respect to free speech. Rather, as he claims, his interests were personal, and directed toward an expansion of information with regard to soverignty claims on Dokto.
While he may think what he wants, he ought to have recognized that his blogging efforts could have led to dire consequence. Whether or not that is fair is a separate issue; reality and fairness are not always close kin.
It was about a disgruntled teacher’s trials and tribulations with a hagwon owner; the “story” read like a post at Dave’s ESL Cafe.
Anglo-American contract law generally proceeds from the principle that competent parties are entitled to agree to whatever they want in a contract and the state will make available the resources (courts) to enforce the bargain made by the parties, so long as it doesn’t offend public policy. Interference with freedom of contract on the basis of public policy has increased dramatically as time has gone by, but state intermeddling in private contracts in the West is as nothing compared to here. That’s because of the famous Rule by Law principle (as opposed to the consent of the governed). Legitimacy here is NOT seen to proceed from the agreement of individuals but from the imposition of a rule by an authority – one that is sanctioned by the mandate of heaven, to barrel of a gun or the imagined collective will of
Das Volkthe ethnically-pure minjok. In other words, state interference and ordering of private affairs is the norm. In the area of labor relations with which we are concerned, therefore, it makes not one whit of difference how the parties or one of them – it’s usually the employer in Korea – attempt to circumvent the law. They can’t. The State in Korea is Big Daddy; paternalism reigns; and you cannot opt out from its not-so-tender embrace. [Now whether, especially as a barbarian, you can get the state to effectively protect the rights that is ostensibly has provided is another matter entirely.]Nathan: Also, are all universities required to pay severance pay? I know of several universities that specified in their hiring ads for full time lecturers that severance pay would not be paid.
Since no one is answering Nathan’s query, I’ll try myself.
As I understand it, the private pension or 사학연금 is seen, apparently in full accordance with the law, as obviating the need for severance pay at private universities. Neither tenured professors nor administration staff at private universities like Yonsei or Korea U receive severance pay. I assume that this is why the universities referred to by Nathan make clear up front that teachers will not receive it.
When denied severance pay, therefore, one should find out first whether one was on the national pension plan (as most English teachers at universities apparently are) or the private university one. Obviously one should not take the university’s word for it, but check by calling the national sahakyeon’geum bureau (which is very friendly) and confirming that the money has been paid in. My understanding is that this can be paid out in a lump sum, but is better left in, because it rises significantly with each following year of employment.
If I’m wrong on all this, I hope Brendon will correct me!
If a university participates in a “private pension” (let’s be careful to distinguish this from National Pension Plan, which is a Social Security-type system), the university will be contributing cash to the employee’s personal account with that private pension. To the extent that this money equals or exceeds what the employee is entitled to receive under calculation of statutory severance pay, the university shall be entitled to forego separate payment of severance — for it’s already been paid, into that pension account! But if there is a shortage, the employer is liable to make up the difference.
This same system is available to private employers too, new in 2006, but the move to “corporate pension” is going to take place slowly because the employees’ “collective approval” is required for any change to existing severance-pay systems. Corporate pensions are supposed to take the form of (i) change to a defined-contribution system, (ii) change to a defined-benefit system (of the type that’s strangling General Motors now), or (iii) continuation of statutory severance pay as-is.
If you think Mr. Bevers is getting screwed here is my story. And this account is EXACTLY the truth!
I too have taught at a university for six years as an English professor. DanKook University here in Seoul to be exact. For six years I encountered no problems. I was never late for class even one time and I believe I missed only one day for illness in six years. My student evals were above average and was considered a leader in the English department. I recommended 5 teachers for hire and they were indeed hired. In short, my director considered me a very good employee.
What happened? After 5 and 1/2 years my director was replaced. No problem. My new director seemed very nice and indeed at our initial meeting he praised me for being an excellent professor and asked for my help (I’m older) in getting the department running smoothly under his leadership. No problem. We were all given our schedules for the spring semester and asked to indicate that we would sign new contracts as soon as possible.
In late December a professor decided to quit at the end of the term. This is a professor that was not well liked or respected by many others on the staff and we were indeed happy to see him leave. Well, it seems he wrote a letter less than complimentary about me that went up the chain of command to the president. Now I am called in for another meeting with my new director and asked “Do you have a drinking problem?’ What the hell?!!! I have always chosen to teach the 8:30 classes and arrive at school by 7:30 am. No, there is no drinking problem. He said they investigated and found nothing to it. He did indicate that there was a letter about me. I asked what else was on it and he would not say. Said “it’s secret” and I should not tell anyone about it.
I figured this was the end of it but it was not. Another meeting held with director and now he shows me the student eval from spring last year. This number out of 5 was just slightly below uni average. First time and he had told me at our initial meeting that that was perfectly fine because it can happen. (I had music and art students that semester!) As a side note, my previous director had told me and others that the student evals were not very important anymore because we had established ourselves as fine professors and that a lower eval here and there was of no importance. We were, in fact, told we could teach at Dankook until we wanted to retire.
Here is the e-mail I received on Dec 18th.:
Dear Sir:
How are you? This is a tough to write. I am very sorry to say that the President of DKU turned down your contract revewal this morning. I feel particularly bad about this news since I am so deeply and directly aware of what you have done to encourage the students at Dankook. Again I deeply appreciate your effors. Thanks.
Sincerely yours,
Head, Department of Liberal English
Nice Christmas present after six years, huh? Of course I called him and asked for a meeting which he really did not want to have but finally agreed to. At the meeting were him and his boss (Dean of Dept.) and myself. I asked for the reason I was not being renewed and was told that since it is a one-year contract they do not have to do so. And the department was changing and the hiring committee felt I was no longer desireable. My credentials and experience top the rest of the remainging staff. Clearly, I was not renewed because of a letter written by a unhappy, unpopular departing employee. But, I could get no specific reason other that they did admit a letter existed. When I asked to see it I was told no.
Let me also note, that after 4 years at DKU our director said the school had made a mistake and that we all should have only been allowed to work for 3 years. He went to bat for us and got the rule changed to exempt foreigners from this policy. He then said we could teach there as long as we wished up til 70 years of age. I just turned 60 last week and really had planned to work at DKU until age 65 as my health is good and I really enjoy teaching. (I was a high school history teacher in the States and have been in Korea for 10 years and have a Korean wife).
Besides, having to find other employment, I am very upset and disappointed in the lack of respect I have been given for six very dilligent years at DKU. I did everything for them that they asked and even more.
As I said, everything related here is the absolute truth. What do you think and what can I do?
After six years at DKU same thing happened to me as to Mr. Bevers. No reason given. Just an e-mail saying I was not being renewed. No controversy at all. Was told just 2 months prior what a great job I was doing and how valuable I was to DKU and would I please come back.
One departing professor wrote a letter critical of me (lies) and that was that. No chance to defend myself at all. I asked to see the letter but was told “it’s secret”. My conduct and professionalism was above reproach for six years. I was given no respect at all. This really sucks. I had been told I could teach there until I was 70 years old if I wanted. Just turned 60 and had planned on 5 more years.
Should I be frank? Nothing. The job insecurity for foreigners is just a part of package. Somebody wrote above that if I (or Mr.Breen) get fired, an article in the NYT will make a difference. Indeed, there might be such an article, but it will not make the slightest difference. Mr.Breen, being essentially self-employed, is in somewhat better position: it’s far more difficult to stage concerted efforts against his company than just send an e-mail telling this naughty foreigner that he/she should start packing. Only Anna Fifield (also mentioned) is quite secure, since she is a real ex-pat with her paychecks coming from their London (?) HQ.
The Koreans are more protected than foreigners, not so much by law, but by the social networks. I would not necessarily envy them, however, since they have a price to pay: a lot of obligations, sometimes unpleasant and often very time-consuming. And, in general, the pressure to conform for my Korean colleagues is higher. As a foreign scholar, even residing in Korea, one can still say a lot of things which would put a Korean academic into a seriously hot water.
At any rate, if a foreigner appears to be troublesome or whatever, if his/her presence might somehow damages the school interests or interests of some influential persons at any real or imagined way, it makes perfect sense to fire the poor bastard. Quite often schools simply fire (well, “not-renew”) all foreign teachers, including very good ones, who have worked for them for more than a certain number of years. It’s how things are done here. One might dislike it, but there should be no illusions. If one does something which might lead to a trouble, this should be done with wide opened eyes. At least, when I do something which might potentially lead to problems, I do not imagine that it is a trivial matter. It is not incidental that, so far, my humble self is the only non-kyopo person who voluntarily resigned from a tenured job at a major Western university to move here. You would expect that foreign scholars of Korea, at least those who really like Korea and are serious about it would be happy to live here for long periods, but this is not the case. There are few reasons, and job security (well, lack thereof) might be the most important one.
Going to Seoulman_8 situation. Well, over half of my foreign acquaintances can tell very similar stories. You might fight a bit, it sometimes helps, but be ready to move elsewhere. Try to smile, get your severance pay (through Labour Inspection if necessary), and start looking for another job, though at 60 this might be difficult. Talk to your former students, they are often helpful, especially if you indeed were a popular teacher.
Seoulman_8, sorry to hear of your situation–something similar happened to me in Korea a few years ago. Right after I was promoted to a low-level management position (the only non-Korean to be promoted from within to that level in this company as far as I know), the division manager had me demoted to my old spot and told management to fire me because “there are too many foreigners in the department” (so a coworker told me he said). I left a couple weeks later for a far better job. I can’t add anything much to what Mr. Lankov said, and I’ll just bite my lip rather than express an opinion on Korean xenophobia right now.
To “seoulman_8″
Actually, you should not loose time. From my experience, January is the best time for job search, since many schools have to deal with sudden resignations of teachers, and/or learn that some teachers they expected to come are not coming. So, be active!
There is a part of me that feels bad, and the other part is asking, “What do you expect?”
First you sign a contract for employment during a certain period. This contract I assume was entered into freely and you knew what you were getting into. Please take a close look to your left and then your right, now look at the window….what do you see?….Korea!!! Please remember where you are, this is not New York, this is not Montreal, this is Korea…..put your ideas of right and wrong back in the box, it is the Korean system that we are employed and live under, whether we like it or not! The North American concept of free speech is great, provided that is where one is.
Speaking ill of the people (and thier culture, which Koreans identify with) is not a good way to endure yourself to them. Piss on the breakfast table and you will not get invited back for a second meal.
We are in Korea and must do things by the Korean rules (yes, which have different standards for non-Koreans). We pick a date and all go on strike. That is right, a strike! We all shave our heads and meet up at Yoido park and hold an old-fashion protest. No English classes for anyone in Korea until this unjust act is corrected! Are you will me?
Scarcasm off now: Hey man you screwed up and gave your boss a reason not to renew you! Accept it and move on. For the rest of us, I hope we have learned a lesson here….if you treat the people that employee you like this be ready to accept the results. I know this sounds mean and cruel, but it is the truth. Mark your schedule to recheck this post a year from now. The university does not hire back, at best a token sum of money is paid to keep the man quite, and the rest of will be saying, “Hey remember what happened last year?, man that guy such screwed himself.”
Seoulman,
Sorry to hear about your situation. Actually, I suspect that your age was more of a problem than the letter. The other American with whom I work will be turning sixty this year, and my department head told me that he was not being rehired because of his age, though she also added a couple of other issues.
I have been part of a hiring committee before in Korea, and resumes of applicants in their fifties were not even going to be considered until I pointed out that their resumes showed them to be more qualified than most of the others. In fact, I convinced the school to hire three foreign instructors in their fifties, and they did a fine job, though one or two of them were a little cranky sometimes. Even at fifty-one, I get cranky sometimes.
I am afraid it will be hard for you to find another university job at sixty. Even at fifty-one, I think my age, not to mention Dokdo, will make it difficult for me, too.
Good luck.
Gerry is another example of a foreigner shooting his liberal mouth off, which ultimately makes it harder for the rest of us decent, and hardworking foreigners in Korea. At first, I felt a bit sorry for the guy. However, he just wants sympathy from everyone. The worst part of it all is his bitching and moaning about being fired for just cause. Good riddance.
–Remort
I am curious what Koreans would say or do if a respected historian like Dr. Lankov were to come out and say that the historical evidence favors Japan’s claim on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).
Any opinions on Dokdo, Dr. Lankov?
“Even at fifty-one, I get cranky sometimes.”
Don’t expect the students to care that it’s only sometimes. Since you’re a foreigner, you’ll suffer on your evaluation.
Gerry, is that stuff you wrote on Dokdo original or is it an English translation of the Japanese view?
If I were Lankov, I would just ignore the question.
Gerry seems to want to bring down Lankov with him.
Remort,
I am just warming up. I have not even begun to shoot my mouth off.
One sentence that has popped up several times in this thread is, “He should have known better.” I assume that means that I should have known better than to disagree with Koreans about their history, especially since I am working in Korea? Well, if that is the case, then I think that reflects badly on Korean society and will cause many nonKoreans to be suspicious of Korean historians. Do Koreans really want that?
I know now that Koreans are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them on Dokdo. I hope non-Koreans who believe Korea’s claims on Dokdo take the time to consider what Korea’s intolerance means.
‘If you posting Dokdo is not part of Korea on Korean internet sites and you are residing in Korea you gotta be the biggest goofball of them all. Gerry. Some hacker is gonna find you address and they’ll be a line of Equus with tinted windows outside your door.’ frogmouth from thread ‘tora, tora, tora’
frogmouth’s prediction has come to pass, gerry. your hatred for korea is starting to cost you. you better wake up.
Interesting comment, Remort. It says a lot about your mentality. Do you enjoy it? I mean seriously, what does Korean cock taste like? It is you that makes it harder for foreigners in Korea, because you are willing to play the foreign monkey. When Koreans say Korea attracts “low grade foreigners”, there are times when they are right.
I will not, even if I understand that there might be an element of provocation.
And I am dpoing something which might put me at trouble, potentially, so I am short with time. Still, good question, independent of hideen agenda. As a matter of fact, I briefly wrote about it.
Seriously, I think that both sides’ “historic claims” are wrong. Until the 1800s, at least, nobody would consider rocks in the middle of an ocean worthy of any claims, so looking for “historical evidence” is futile and every side which does it is seriously bending the truth. The pre-modern goverments were interested only in property which could generate some income, and dead rocks could not. There was nobody who would pay taxes, and the naval technology of the era would not demand such bases. There was no concept of the “territorial waters” yet.
Imagine that at some point in, say, 24th century there will be an argument between Indonesia and Japan over some plains at Mars, and they will start looking whose text mentioned it first. This will be a good exercise to boast nationalist egos, if such egos esurvive next five centuries, but it will historically irrelevant, since now nobody would consider property rights over Mars before it will start making some economic/strategic sense. Hence, I strongly suspect that Mr.Bevers was correct in his critique, and Occidentalism postings were persuasive, but it is irrelvant. What is relevant is the current control. It has been firmly in Korean hands for half a century, so Dokdo is Korean. Period. And, for the records, if somebody thinks I am kowtowing, Kanto is Chinese. Period.
btw, can you let us know when you get to japan and start your own website, gerry? i didn’t know when i wrote the above post that you were being deported. would you like me to contact la raza* for you?
gerry, i’m so sorry you’re time is up in korea. and gerry, don’t think that your time is not up in korea. even if you get another job, it’s just a matter of time, gerry. just a matter of time. let me know if i can do anything to help. i’ll be here for you, gerry. on that you can depend on and never worry.
*la raza = a latino advocacy group here in the us.
My thanks to gbnhj for taking up my questions, and to Sperwer, BR Myers, and Brendon Carr for answering on those subjects in detail. Much appreciated!
I am not going to speak for Gerry, but I do not care which country actually ends up with sovereignty over Dokdo/Takeshima. I am more concerned that the “Dokdo problem” is being used to promote an agenda of what I am starting to think is just plain old racial hatred against Japan. That is why even if Korea retains permanent control of Dokdo/Takeshima, it is important for Korea’s historical claims to be delegitimized to ensure the issue cannot be used in the future.
Japan has ruled out military force to take the islands, even though they are capable of doing so. I think that more or less settles the issue of which country actually controls the islands, unless the Korean government suddenly develops a conscience.
At some point in the future Koreans are going realize that they wrongly occupy the islands, and that the position of aggressor and victim has been reversed. I think when that realization comes Korea will be able to settle its historical issues with Japan. At this point, disputing the Dokdo myth is important because it is essentially an issue that is fueling racial hatred.
Sometime (maybe even frequently) I read the blogs and comments in the expat K-blogsphere and end up scratching my head.
3 items have me doing that today.
1. A reference to a post Brendan did some months back about how ESL whiners should shut the f- up and enjoy their ass screwing because they were asking for it by coming to Korea in the first place.
2. This weeks go-around about how foreigners who get physical with the police in Korea should expect to get the crap beat out of them relentlessly, because they should have known better, and it doesn’t matter one iota that we see on Korean TV regularly that Koreans who are drunk off their asses, in a pack, and get physical with the cops don’t even get arrested much less have their heads kicked in. The police simply “endure” which is like watching something from another planet since I’m used to American society’s police.
3. And then this about Bevers —- You the foreigner piss on Korea over Dokto and you should have expected to get fired and you were – so don’t complain. Never mind what Brendan says Korean law says.
The broad idea seems to be that when you come to Korea as a foreigner, you should apply lipstick to the ass-cheeks and pucker up then smile when you get reemed. “You should have known better”….
Offhand, I wonder how many of the people who make such comments are in secure positions in Korea…..more secure than the average expat….people who have been in Korea for some time and have managed to get a position somewhere in a Korean or foreign owned comapny/organization and thus escape feeling any kind of connection to the poor slobs who deserve to get f—ed (because they are not Korean and thus shouldn’t expect to be treated the same way as custom and/or law state for Koreans)?????
Here is where I stand in this ballpark:
If an immigrant, even an illegal immigrant, comes to the United States and gets screwed by the employer, to me, that immigrant should have full access to the same laws and services as an American citizen, (and then if illegal, they should be sent back to their country of origin and fined).
The boy some years ago who vandalized some expensive imported cars in, where was it, Singapore whose father made such an international splash by calling on Washington to prevent the foreign court from caneing the boy should have done what the boy recommened – which was “Shut up.” I have no problem with that teen getting caned since it was the law.
And I feel the least Korea can do is apply its laws to even those misguided fools who happen to come to Korea to work who might be stupid enough to believe law is law.
If Korea’s National Assembly wants to pass a law stating that foreigners will be handled by a different, highly arbitrary system of custom and culture in which expats getting off the plane are advised to pull down their pants and walk backwards the whole time they are working in Korea — fine. Just let us know when that bill becomes law…
I guess the recent GI beat down that got a lot of comments is different. It doesn’t fit the paragraph above.
But to me, it falls in the same general area —– it is a violation of common custom —– that Koreans routinely get away with laying hands on the police. I find it pretty disappointing that such a high percentage of often long term expats in Korea believe that it is “only natural
right” that Korea can do as it wishes to the foreigners and they just have to smile and say thanks or at least shut up.I’m not asking or expecting Koreans to treat foreigners just like Koreans (except under the law). But I am suprised at the amount of abuse EXPATS seem to believe it is just hunkydory a foriegn should expect to get and just live with it.
Oddly enough, maybe my opinion of Korea is higher than some.
I wrote somewhere in the K-blogsphere yesterday that Korea’s nationalism is incredibly strong but also has an incredible amount of inferiority complex built in —– and it shouldn’t…
…that Korean society has made a remarkable achievement – a historical achievement. The vast majority of former colonial nations since the 1950s haven’t come close to achieving the economic as well as social success Korea worked so hard (and went through such growing pains) to build.
Many former colonies have been trapped in the cycles of despoticism, rule by oligarchy, lack of rule of law, debilitating corruption, and so on.
Korea broke out of those cycles, and what is even more impressive, it did so from a much weaker position than other former colonies if you consider the amount of devastion the Korean War brought.
I am more than happy to pat South Korea on the back and welcome them into their rightful place among world leaders in economics and democracy and other such “advanced” nation status.
But I also damn well expect them to act like they deserve it too….
And what has me shaking my head is to see so many foreigners saying to expect Korea to act like that is nonsense —- and that Korea is more than free to abuse foriegners because they are foreigners and shouldn’t have come to Korea if they weren’t expecting to be treated any way Korea wanted.
Dr. Lankov,
My question was not meant to provoke. I was genuinely curious.
Yes, Koreans have occupied “Dokdo” for the last fifty years, and that may strengthen their legal claim to the islets, but I was not really asking you about your legal opinion. Since you are a historian, not lawyer, I asked what you thought of the “historical evidence.”
Let me be more direct. Do you believe that Korean historical references to Usando (우산도) were references to references to present-day “Dokdo”?
If you prefer not to answer, I will understand; believe me, I will understand.
PS
On a seperate track —
is there a tip jar when can slide some change to Brendon — I kinda feel like he should get paid a little somethingsomething for the free legal counciling…..
Marmot,
What is the site’s record for most comments?
Are we getting close?
One can’t help but wonder why nulji stays up so late just to post such drivel.
Just like that, in #195, Mr. Lankov shows a major difference between himself and Mr. Bevers. Presentation. And tact. (Okay, two differences). Anyhow, Andrei made a statement contrary to the common opinion in Korea, but did so without being a jerk about it. Gerry, on the other hand, usually comes across much more like a troll.
Gerry is a non-tenured lecturer, ranting about a sensitive subject in a field that he was not trained in and not an expert in and in which he did not try to engage with the experts. If you were an untenured music lecturer at Bryn Mawr, and you loudly, frequently and publicly started praising the Iraq War, abortion bans and keeping women out of the workplace, what do you think would happen? It certainly would not help your job security.
I agree that it sucks that Gerry lost his job, and I did not want to pile on him at such a tough time (especially since the Marmot’s freak squad was already doing that). But let’s not overplay the victim card here or exaggerate how much his case refects the failings of Korean society. The government did not deny him a visa or deport him. A second-rate university decided they did not want the headache, so gave him the axe (albeit rudely and unfairly).
usinkorea writes:
Don’t worry about it — I’m advertising my availability for paid services by these informative comments and occasional posts, and from time to time I do in fact get a new, fee-paying client out of it. So everybody wins: “The public” (at least those with the time on their hands to wade through 200+ comments on the Marmot’s Hole) gets some F.L.A., and the professional-services guy gets a buck or two indirectly.
It makes my day every time someone says “We are calling you because of what you wrote on the Marmot’s Hole. You’re awesome!” I’m sure there are folks who disqualify me precisely for the same reasons — because of what I wrote on the Marmot’s Hole — but frankly, I’m glad those people don’t call me.
Well, Brendon, I’d much appreciate it if you answered my question. What would happen if a full time foreign English teacher at a Korean university gets Korean citizenship?
Gando is not a universal opinion among Koreans. Its profile is much lower than that of Dokdo, and many Koreans openly deride it. There is no major irredentist movement for Gando. I think Gerry writes in a manner appropriate to the situation, and you are way out of line calling him a troll, Haisan. If prof. Lankov were to write with “presentation and tact” that Korea does not have a historical claim to Dokdo, then much the same thing would happen to him.
Why doesn’t it reflect the failings of Korean society? Dokdo madness is definitely a failing.
How about you stop being such a jerk about it? Or is ethnic solidarity with Koreans that important to you?
Brendon should let us know of a charity in Korea he likes/supports. Donations could be made in his name by those wishing to thank him for his legal advice.
Employment law is not based on nationality; the same law applies to all persons regardless of whether they are Korean or not. (Yes, yes, I know that is an absurd statement, but it’s factually correct.) So, in response to Someguyinkorea’s question “What would happen if a full time foreign instructor at a Korean university got Korean citizenship?” the answer is, Not much.
So, how come foreign university teachers are not members of the university teachers’s union, if there is such a thing, and the different benefits?
So why doesn’t the Korean government just come out and say, “It’s ours because we took it by force and control it now”. They can’t find any solid historical evidence that prove Takeshima originally belonged to Korea. That’s why they have to invent absurd claim that Usando in old maps is actually Dokto.
And why are Koreans protesting against Japan while ignoring the fisheries agreement with Japan?
Ask the union. Probably because the union doesn’t want your smelly foreign ass at their meetings, demanding translations of everything and the opportunity to have input into their policies. (Korean unions generally don’t want to hear any lip from their Korean members, either.) And the different benefits, probably a combination of different market demand on the labor-supply side (i.e., foreign teachers want different benefits and the university needs to offer them different benefits in order to attract employees) and “just because they can get away with it”.
What can I say? There are lots and lots of parties not following the law. If you don’t like that, you have three choices: (i) Pay professional-service fees for a private lawyer to sue on your behalf, and try to compel compliance; (ii) Induce the state to take action on your behalf; or (iii) Drink up from the big steaming mug of STFU. The only parties in Korea seriously interested in good-faith compliance with the law are foreign companies. Koreans are raised with a law-avoidance ethic, which means they tend to ignore the law and do what “feels right” until forced to obey.
Gray Hat from United States
“Have nationalistic causes become a shibboleth, a litmus test for any kind of participation in Korean society? This would not be unprecedented in human history, but it seems inconsistent with rapid economic growth in the modern global economy, etc., etc.”
In Korea the term “culture” is often used as an explanation or excuse for inappropriate human behaviour. That is part of the culture.
Re: Comment #46 by me.
Earlier, I threatened to provide Gerry a citation to the leading case on successive renewals and conversion of term employment to permanent employment by operation of law. Here it is: Supreme Court Judgment 93 da 17843 (date of judgment Jan. 11, 1994) [in Korean:대법원1994.1.11. 선고 93다17843 판결 ]. When at the District Labor Office, ask how this case affects the “non-renewal” of the term employment agreement.
A Korean lecturer or untenured professor is in just as precarious a position. The difference is that the Korean constantly keeps this in mind, and therefore cultivates a personal relationship with the superior through gift-giving, prim courtesy visits to the office if female, raucous soju outings if male, “lining up” behind the superior in the latter’s university-political machinations, and so on. One of the reasons that superiors are so ready to dispense with a foreigner is not because they are racist, but because they sense no emotional bond and get no personal advantage from having a certain foreigner around. From Gerry’s university’s standpoint, his blogging activities may have indicated not only an unacceptable way of thinking, but – I think even more importantly – a lack of regard for the “face” of his superiors and for the reputation of the institution as a whole.
We foreigners over-estimate the significance of performance, experience, good work evaluations etc. In a patrimonial organization – and every Korean organization is a patrimonial one – performance is secondary to good personal relationships with superiors. It appears that both Gerry and Seoulman 8 are being treated unfairly, and in ways that show how far Korea still has to go. But we shouldn’t rush to blame the unfairness solely on racism or xenophobia.
Well that is what happened. What is your point? Time?
Are you not surprised that Bevers could have easily done of all this in anonymity but chose to expose himself?
As someone who works in China, I see quite a few parallels here to some Chinese phrases:
–’one must have a correct view of history’
–’one must remember that one is a guest in this country.’
much of the same was oft repeated in the (annoying) foreigner’s memoir about DPRK, ‘Comrades and Strangers.’ SK is keeping great company.
Gerry, I think Lankov believes that the older historical evidence just does not matter too much, since know one really cared back then.
Meyers has a point about ‘face’ for the superiors.
Mr. Bevers,
Here I am the chief bleater! Gerry, I am sorry to hear you fell on your sword. Your postings have been entertaining. Gerry I stated ad nauseam to the foolish Busan 9. “Do you really think you are free in Korea?” Put salve on your wounds and skulk out with your dignity. You can not fight City Hall. Like many have already said, WE TOLD YOU SO!
Hatch SZ:
Historical “evidence” of Korean ownership of Dokdo is a very important thing, since it is being currently being used by certain Koreans to fuel hatred of the Japanese. It might not matter to people who realize the obvious fact that the territory is unlikely to change hands, but the historical argument that Dokdo has always been a Korean land is a major part of the anti-Japanese nationalism that seems to surround the Dokdo issue. Simply stating that the historical evidence is unimportant seems like a cop-out…
Piss into a fan and you get it on your cloths! Why would a reasonable person try to upset the Koreans? They are emotionally retarded and can not handle this type of criticism. Like it was mentioned previously, he does not understand Koreans at all. Too bad.
I have been reading his blog. What a bunch of arrogant ideologues, the banal advice to seek sanctions through the free speech university circuit? A laughable joke! They even called Gerry a saint? This is rich!
BRMyers from Korea (South)
Posted January 3, 2007 at 9:09 pm | Permalink
From Gerry’s university’s standpoint, his blogging activities may have indicated not only an unacceptable way of thinking, but – I think even more importantly – a lack of regard for the “face” of his superiors and for the reputation of the institution as a whole.”
But that’s a guess as to who is blogging/commenting. Anyone can use the name Gerry Bevers in a blog or in comments.
It’s like someone sends in an opinion to a newspaper and says their name is Dave Whatever and then all universities fire people named Dave Whatever.
Shakuhachi says:
Hmm… Shakuhachi, I think I wrote just this in #195 (exact quotation: “I think that both sides’ “historic claims” are wrong.”). Neiher Korea nor Japan has historical claims on Dokdo, since prior to the 19th century the rocks could not be seen as anybody’s property. The Korean rights on the rock are not based on some historical argument.
Shakuhachi says:
Yes, the issue is often manipulated. It will be much better policy not to pay much attention to all claims made by Japanese agencies and locl authorities. The current overreaction creates wrong impressions that there is an issue, and the more noice is generated by Seoul, the more doubts will appear among the outsiders.
Shakuhachi says:
Yes.
Shakuhachi says:
No, as far as I understand. Can you point at any publication in a Korean mainstream media where you’ll find critique of these claims and demands to be more careful with such explosive issue? Again, such publications might exist, but I am not aware of them. Since you say that “many Koreans openly deride it”, I’d be very thankful if you point at some confirmation.
gbevers says:
Not being a specialist in the area, I cannot not be 100% sure, but based on what you wrote and on my own understanding of the situation in East Asia of the pre-modern period, I would doubt that Dokdo would be frequently mentioned by either side. So, the answer is: I do not know, but probably Usan-do is not Dokdo. But it is not relevant to the issue of ownership. Again: back in the 1700s, it was as remote and irrelavant as Mars is now.
BRMyers says:
Absolutely! This is why we should not to be too envious of our Korean colleagues. They are more protected by their networks, but they have to invest an awful amount of time into maintaining these networks, and also do some rather doubtful things.
I agree. My firm guess is that Haisan’s opinion of Gerry’s writing is based fundamentally on disagreeing with him on Dokto, and if Lankov had the same opinion in whatever style he writes with, Haisan would trash him too.
That’s just a guess, but I care so little about the Dokto issue that they only time I really ever read some of Gerry’s stuff on it was when I read people ranting and raving about him. I had read his other stuff over the years on topics that interest me, and I found it hard to picture him being a rabid Korea-hater in other posts, and since I have read some of the Dokto stuff, I know it doesn’t match Hainsan’s view on style. (And if a person takes the time and effort to research and type out a long, thoughtful post on an issue, and has people flying around the websphere doing ditry drive-bys, Gerry has more than the right to tell such people off).
This is one of those grievances some Korean profs have against the foreigners in the departments I can understand. It would piss me off a good bit if I had to pay $30,000 or so to get the job in the first place and then smaller installments here and there throught my career (until I reach a position in which I am expected to make the new people pay me) — while the foreigner gets hired and maybe even makes more than me based in signficant portion to his simply being a foreigner…
That dawned on me last night as I was nodding off after having typed my long comment:
How far away are the expats who kick people like Gerry and ESL losers while they are down from Prof Song Du-Yul?
The guy’s carear has been about excusing North Korea’s atrocities against its own people and provocations to its neighbors (and the international community in general) by saying that — we — as outsiders have no business criticizing Pyongyang and North Korea – that if we are going to speak about NK, we must use the internal logic of North Korea – that NK ONLY makes sense if you apply NK’s standards and definitions.
How close or far away does, “You are a guest in this country
so they can do with you as they want” or “Shut up. You should have expected it to happen” fall to these ideas above???Like I said, perhaps my seemingly minority opinion or level of thinking about Gerry’s case (my getting irked at the frequent “you got what you deserved and should have known better” comments) comes from, oddly enough, my having a higher opinion of Korean society than some.
Lankov,
I think the fact that you nullified BOTH nation’s claim, however honest and straight forward from your mind that opinion came, ends up making it a safe opinion – and thus nullifies the question Shakuhachi was asking.
There is a moneumental difference between saying (regardless of who has and will keep the rocks) that Korea’s historical claims are fake/wrong and Japan’s are correct — or saying — both nations have an equal amount of wrong in their claims.
Prof. Lankov, I was responding to to Haisan, who suggested that the delivery of the information really mattered. I countered that if you had reached the same conclusions (I use “if” to indicate a hypothetical situation) it would not matter to the netizens or Koreans, who do not grasp English nuances anyway. I was not commenting on your actual position.
I do not know of academic discourse about Gando. I was referring to Koreans that I have spoken to, that either think it is bunk, or used to be part of Korea but irrelevant now, or do not know about it at all. I did not sense that it was so much a sacred cow or even an issue of interest to normal Korean people. I did not feel that I was potentially picking a fight with a Korean by discussing it. It is different to the Dokdo issue in that respect.
Anyway, you yourself said it is better to avoid the sacred cows, and if you feel safe enough openly deriding the claims made by some Koreans about Gando, that is proof enough of my assertion – by your own standards.
Shakuhachi, aren’t you advocating that the rocks are Japan’s historically speaking? Mr.Lankov says otherwise, it was nobody’s. That’s a big fundalmental difference between your position and his.
The more I read about this issue, the more I believe, no-one has historical rights to the rocks. But speaking of modern days, I do believe it’s Korea’s simply because they have the rocks currently. On the other hand I do wish Koreans (and for that matter, Japanese rightists too) just shut up about it though.
Going back to the subject though, racism had little to do with what happened here.
I think this is right on nail. Everybody should read this again.
Shakuhachi I disagree with you. Hatred or more likely historical resentment against Japan, maybe. But racial hatred? No. Japanese visitors to Korea are treated very well and Japanese culture is widespread. Look beneath the rhetorics based on politics and history, and Japanese are looked upon highly and favorably. It’s always history and politics that fucks everything up between the two countries. More so then anything, I think it’s the other way around, it’s the Japanese who have racist feelings against the Koreans.
I had asked Dr Lankov the following question:
After I filtered out his “Please don’t fire me” preamble, this is the reply Dr. Lankov gave me:
I agree, except that I would leave out the “I do not know, but probably” part, which I guess means I lack the “tact” of Dr. Lankov.
If Usando was not “Dokdo,” then that means there were no Korean maps or documents before 1905 that showed or mentioned Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).
Even if neither Korea nor Japan considered Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima / Dokdo) worth owning during most of the Chosun Dynasty, that would not change the fact that Japan did consider them worth owning in 1905, which is when she officially incorporated them. In fact, when incorporating them, Japan said she had the right to do so because the islets were ownerless, as Dr. Lankov seems to have confirmed.
Dr. Lankow also wrote the following:
Try telling that to the Koreans.
Just once again, some people don’t seem to get that this doesn’t qualify as an issue of intellectual freedom or freedom of speech even by American standards, let alone Korean ones. The Electronic Frontier Foundation notes in its advice to bloggers “While your right to free speech is protected by the First Amendment, this protection does not shield you from the consequences of what you say. The First Amendment protects speech from being censored by the government; it does not regulate what private parties (such as most employers) do.” Some places may offer additional protection to employees from being fired for their political affiliation off duty, etc., but free speech doesn’t protect you in the workplace, and I don’t know if it does anywhere. This is the reason why tenure was supposedly introduced to university employment, to protect academic freedom, which is different from freedom of speech. If you want to argue that Bevers is being denied academic freedom you are correct, but Bevers is also not tenured.
Personally, as a mulishly old fashioned civil libertarian, I strongly disagree with the wide latitude granted to employers to randomly intrude into their employees personal lives and fire them for non work related reasons, including mandatory drug testing and spying on employee’s off duty blogs. I agree that it is wrong for Bevers to be fired for off duty activities that have nothing to do with work. However, most people (including the lawmakers and the courts) do not agree with me, even in the good ole’ USA; and over the top descriptions of this as intellectual persecution don’t hold water in Korea or back home. He may have been dismissed without just cause, the university may have broken the law in assorted respects, but this wouldn’t be a free speech issue even in a country that has protected free speech from the very beginning.
Brendon, you often tell English teachers to STFU when they get into trouble, I’m curious why you’re so reticent here? Isn’t it perfectly obvious that if bloggers back home can be fired for something as trivial as taking pictures of Macs in a truck on the Microsoft campus, that rights to free speech in relation to continuation of employment would be unlikely to enjoy better protection here (of all places)? How could he possibly have not known better, and isn’t a nice steaming hot cup of you know what in order?
On this thread, there is a lot of pragmatic advice and observations about the nature of the foreign employee-Korean employer relationship. It should be evident to any foreign national working for a Korean employer, teachers especially, that you do not have secure, permanent employment until retirement. Even Koreans do not really have lifetime employment. Middle-aged men are often forced out if they do not rise above a certain managerial level.
Korean law aside, there are time limitations of visas. Unless regulations have changed since I was there, an E2 visa is good for a maximum of 18 years. Had I remained in Korea, I would have exhausted my legal right to work as a teacher by the ripe old age of 45.
If you are presently working for a Korean employer, you should be thinking and planning your next career step. I am now a K-12 public school teacher. My only regret is that I didn’t make the switch from tertiary education sooner. I make more money and have better benefits and long-term job security. If I get bored and decide to pack my bags again, I can work just about anywhere in the world and earn an expatriate level salary. I can even return to Korea and earn more money and better perks than I did as a university language instructor, thanks to expats like Brendon, who pay handsome tuition to send their children to international schools.
Even if Gerry had never blogged about Dokdo, at some point, he would have been quietly terminated before he was ready to retire. Got a wife and kids? Speak Korean fluently? Doesn’t matter. If you’re not tenured, your job’s not permanent and it probably won’t be your last, so have an exit strategy and the money to finance it.
I don’t know about that conclusion.
Maybe you have to teach Korean elementary school kids a little while and get used to hearing some say from root memory, “I hate the Japanese” to get the picture.
Also, I’ve known white people in my home state of Georgia who will say things in general like “I hate N-s” or “black people” who nonetheless had close black friends in high school or at work.
Racism is illogical and its manifestations are ofter illogical too.
Gerry,
Lankov also said that he has not done extensive research on Dokdo and was giving an opinion primarily based on what you had written which he read.
His qualification in his answer was not just a dodge, it seems to me — not him trying to be politically correct Korea-wise. It is permissible to qualify a statement by saying, “I’m not an authority on the matter but if I have to give an answer based on what I know” — ect….
jyce’s question to Brendon…
Interesting… But my guess would be that being a lawyer who deals regularly with Korean law, it was natural and immediate for him to view it as breaking the law, and in this case, I guess, kicking Gerry in the nuts while he was down didn’t fit….
…Then again… Now that I think about it… Gerry is an ESL teacher… And back in the big go around about ESL losers in Korea… We were also talking about hagwon and other industry owners who were breaking the law… And the conclusion on Brendon’s side (which again I found myself in the minority) was that any “idiot” who comes to teach English in Korea
deservesshould expect to get reamed and so should keep their mouths shut about it – broken law or not…I guess I’ll have to ponder this a while longer…
On the point about “free speech” in the US and what employers can and can’t do, this is one of the lines of thought I say from time to time.
I’m not sure, however, that in every state in the US you could be fired from just about any job for stuff you posted on your blog.
Some jobs with contracts have clauses, perhaps, pertaining to the company’s image and what not that they could use to can somebody in Gerry’s position.
As a teacher in the US now, if I did something like, say, that item some months ago by the ESL
loserinstructor who blogged about how to seduce Korean women and about his conquests complete with photos of nude women supposedly in his home —- I could probably be fired in a good many states, but I don’t think in all.Georgia’s labor law is pretty fire friendly. Florida’s isn’t, from what little I’ve heard.
In the US, we also have the ACLU who would probably pick up the fight for you (the local chapters that is), and we have teacher unions who get dues to handle stuff like that.
I know my 3rd grade teacher made a sex video with her husband – who took it to work to show the guys – and the tape was copied and made the rounds of the county like Rob Lowe’s Atlanta sex tape hit, and this was back in the 1970s, and she was not fired.
However, in my once brief career as a police officer, I know we were not allowed to associate or campaign for anyone who was an elected public servant – whether for the president, the governor of the state, or local county commissioners.
All speech is not free.
We’ve seen enough sexual harassment lawsuits in the US to prove that in the last couple of decades…
But you didn’t finish the root memory. It usually, “I hate the Japanese because of Dokto”, or “I hate the Japanese because of Yasukuni”, or “I hate the Japanese because 100 years ago..”, etc.etc. but never “I hate the Japanese because they’re inferior, stupid, lazy and dumb – ala example of “Nigg*rs” in America. In fact, that’s how many Japanese traditionally view Koreans as.
I’m not saying it’s OK to hate the Japanese, but re-read what I said,
“Hatred or more likely historical resentment against Japan, maybe.”
Jyce, I’ll put your post here, http://www.law4u.net/tech/board.php?board=trivia, . OK?
I would have to re-phrase my last sentence,
“unhealthy and obsessive historical animosity towards Japan.”
I think that fits more into what I’m trying to say.
#236
cm, you are wrong here. I think it is your own wishful thinking – you are a relatively bright yuhaksang in Canada, and you don’t want to believe the truly and deeply disturbing turn legitimate Korean nationalism has made in the last decade.
From legitimate grievance into RodongShinmun style ‘kill the frogfoot dwarves’ caricature anti-Japanese racism.
These children and now teenagers don’t say because of Tokto, they have simply been indoctrinated in hate/early Hitlerian “we are the victims” self-justification for so long that pure hate is all they feel. Korea is rotting in it’s own victim complex -beware. This has turned out horribly in the past.
Usinkorea- great arguments. i was against you in some of the threads you mentioned, and felt some doubt after your arguments there, but I #199 was a such a devastating ‘dead-on post that I lost even those doubts. Great logical thinking. We rarely see this on the internet, but….you’ve changed my mind. Sometimes the glaring absence of comments on a post like this one highlights how tight it’s arguments are.
Thanks. Enjoy them while they last. Monday I start back on full days student-teaching in middle school with 3 hours of grad school classes at night and a 1 hour trip each way to campus. Soon, I won’t have time to even read the Korean press or glance much at the blogs…That’s why I’m catching up on my seasonal quota of comments in the K-blogsphere during Christmas Break…
cm,
I can see your point, but to me, my definition of racism loosely fits Korea’s hatred of Japan and the Japanese.
We could split hairs on this, and we’ve seen people do it in the K-blogsphere – with things like Japanese isn’t a race but a nationality because Asians are a race. Or like Bobby Fischer, the American chess champ and rabid Jew-hater says, he isn’t anti-semitic because Arabs are semites and he has no trouble with them…
The racist stereotype for Jews isn’t that they are stupid or lazy or dumb. For them, the line has been that they are intelligent and cunning and devious and money grubbing and so on.
I’d say the Korean version I’ve seen in the kids and others isn’t fundamentally different and non-racist – whether Koreans use history to build the case that the Japanese as a whole, as a society, throughout history, were nothing but bloodthirsty militaristic barbarions who are still a constant threat to Korea – doesn’t matter that much to me.
If you look in the eyes of the kids who blurt out “I hate the Japanese/Japan” – if it isn’t “racism” – then it is something just as bad.
However, on the flip side, Korean TV and other orgs have done things to publicize better relations between Japan&Korea.
It is hard for me to remember those things after watching how The Year of Japan-Korea Friendship went over – with Roh and crew deflecting pressure from NK by attacking Japan publically and frequently.
But, even if the hatred of Japan is deep and wide, Korean society is all one-track minded about it. Some, even some in positions of influence (like TV producers and executives) try to move things toward a better day.
Since my school has decided not to rehire me, I have decided to continue my postings on Dokdo. Here is a link to my latest post:
Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 7
By the way, you are right, USinKorea. My “preamble” comment in my post (Post 230) to Dr. Lankov was uncalled for. I guess I am just a little frustrated that non-Korean historians are not saying more about “Dokdo.”
I apologize, Dr. Lankov.
Gerry is not climbing up on the cross and declaring that his problem merits the dispatch of an American aircraft carrier battle group to waters off Korea, or hysterically demanding that the UN ought to get involved to combat the “slave traffic”. That’s the behavior which impels me to recommend the hot cup.
For the record, since usinkorea consistently misrepresents me on this issue: I do not believe, nor do I ever state, that all English teachers are losers. Due to realities of this market, they can’t afford legal services, but such fact alone does not make them losers. If one were to go back and critically read the posts and comments touching on the plight of English teachers getting mistreated in Korea, it is plainly evident that us “privileged expats” are not — well, maybe railwaycharm is — kicking men while they’re down. We (I) want them to avoid the heartache and not come here to teach.
I am not kicking Gerry while he is down. I wish him the best.
Mr. Carr
“privileged expats” are not — well, maybe railwaycharm is — kicking men while they’re down. We (I) want them to avoid the heartache and not come here to teach.
Us “privileged expats” can be sent out on a rail almost as easily. When it comes to Korea bashing, no one is immune. So like usinkorea you are taking license with my sentiments. Stupidity has no social class or rank. While I find the attitude that we waygooks have the right to free speech in Korea laughable, I have no ill feelings towards Gerry and I am sure he will land on his feet all the wiser. Sainthood may not be imminent.
personal aside to usinkorea:
Are you already certified or in the process? Do you plan on staying stateside? Which state, if I may ask?
I’m in Virginia’s pretty Shenandoah Valley and quite happy here – just asking out of curiosity. It sounds like you have made the same career move I did – from overseas ESL teacher to US public school teacher.
Mr. Bevers, since you’ve resumed posting about Dokto I’ll conclude that you’ll be leaving Korea once your finances are sorted out. Will you be returning to your homeland?
The great thing about Koreans is that when the emigrate they take their inattentiveness of the law with them. Thus you’ll see restaurants flouting fire codes, drivers of unlicensed taxis, noraebangs playing pirated music & illegally selling liquor, bars open past the regulated closing time & plenty of drunk drivers, PC bangs using pirated software, larger Korean grocery stores employing illegal immigrants, cash-driven businesses such as hair & nail salons under reporting income, and worshippers at Korean churches parked illegally. Koreatowns are dynamic hubs of shenanigans.
And you don’t need to rally a group of a netizens. Redress is just a phone call away.
Your mileage may vary.
You forgot cigarette smuggling and Korean brothels and massage parlors. You also forgot to mention all this comes with a puritanical world view that views “foreigners” as having loose morals.
“Due to realities of this market, they can’t afford legal services, but such fact alone does not make them losers.”
Yes, most teachers who come to Korea are straight out of university and have student loans to pay. It’s probably only the permanent residents like me who can afford legal services because its easy for us to hold several jobs, start up a business, and invest our earnings in realestate and the stock market.
Inter-racial dating is a sensitive issue for Koreans as well. What if one of you foreigners telling Gerry to shut up was fired for dating a Korean girl? I am sure all of you consider your right to f**k Korean girls to be absolute and that the school has no business interfering in your private activities.
“Thus you’ll see restaurants flouting fire codes”
Well, I know from a reliable source that they are sometimes unfairly targeted by health inspectors.
Someguyinkorea writes:
What can we do? Just because you don’t have any money doesn’t make our rent or staff salaries cost any less. It costs us money to stay in business. Real estate — and the impact of real estate costs on what we have to pay others — is the killer. A “cheap” 1200 sq. ft. tombstone apartment in an undesirable neighborhood full of hoi polloi, for example, sells for US$505,000 (for now), and good luck getting a mortgage, baby. You gotta pay cash.
Korean lawyers are in short supply — even with a mass influx of new, useless young lawyers there’s less than one practicing lawyer for every 5000 population here (compare to one lawyer for every 250 or so in the States, and one to 800-1000 in most Western countries) — and capable Korean lawyers even more so. Korea is dramatically underlawyered.
This means its own citizens do not have the same “access to justice” (i.e., “Will Sue for Food”) that you enjoy in the West. There isn’t much in the way of state-funded legal assistance, either. For example, Korean public defenders are required to serve 80 clients per month (four a day!) for their paltry stipend. Now, all persons who can read and write have the right to defend themselves in court and to advance civil claims as pro se litigants. But foreigners — particularly the rights-bleating English-teacher crew — can’t read and write Korean and demand that someone help them. Who will do it? I can’t, because I’m not a lawyer here with an independent right to appear in the court — I’m a lowly “foreign legal consultant”.
The Korean Bar Association did a survey of its members in 2004, and found that 2% self-reported they could work in the English language and with foreign clients. If we assume 10,000 practicing lawyers that means there are 200 nationwide who can help you.
And you want them to take money from their own pockets (in the form of the rent and staff salaries which come due inexorably every month) and give it to you? Get real. Grow up.
I can’t afford legal services either, and I provide them! That’s why I try like hell to avoid the need for legal services. For me that means not getting into (any more) fistfights, not baiting the nationalists, and not impregnating bargirls. Those are the risks greatest for me. For English teachers, whose most-common risks are getting screwed by the employer, it’s really easy: Don’t come here to teach English. You can’t trust a hagwon owner! And since that advice inevitably falls on deaf ears, I offer this supplemental bit:
Young adults alone in the world need to build a small cash cushion, or keep a credit line available, to be used in emergencies. To my way of thinking that’s at least four months’ gross wages, in cash, in the bank, or a balance-free credit card which can be drawn for the same amount, before you do anything else — which includes paying the student loans. You owe it to yourself to not be in desperate straits when the inevitable disaster — be it medical emergency, hagwon-owner perfidy, or a surprise pregnancy — strikes.
dda from France in #96
No, per Korean Labor Law, severance is the average of your last 3 months of employment (multiplied by the number of years you were employed). This 3-month average includes any and all overtime you may work during that period as well.
Severance is NOT one-twelfth of the yearly salary. It is NOT one month’s regular salary. A quick perusal of the Labor Standards Act will show you that the two companies you managed at were screwing their employees of their proper severance. I have successfully fought and received severance with the Labor Board’s help THREE times. All three times, they calculated the average of my last 3 months of employment (and I usually PACKED in the OT during those last 3 months), regardless of what the contract said.
To Sonagi and usinkorea: (Others please forgive this irrelevant posting.)
I would be eager to discuss the wisdom or folly of public school teaching as a career with both of you. I am very close to taking the plunge, but still hesitating despite the fact that I loathe my current job.
E-mail address is kpmsprtd@nospamzyahoo.com. (Take out the ‘nospamz’ of course.)
‘Since my school has decided not to rehire me, I have decided to continue my postings on Dokdo. Here is a link to my latest post:…’ gerry
you never learn, do you? your resuming your posts on dokto is an indication that you’re leaving korea, no?
hey gerry, you think koreans need to learn something about dokto but i wonder what it is you’ve learned. your need to piss off koreans is starting to cost you. do you realize that? you’re going be deported from korea, gerry. the international press is not going to side with you should you be thinking that you’re going to make this into some kind of civil rights circus. you know why, gerry? you see, the koreans have to tolerate your ramblings but they don’t have to give you a job. no job, no stay. bye.
wake up, gerry. wake up.
Gerry,
The fact of the matter is your employer probably had the legal basis to terminate your employment contract upon learning of your public writings. Did you thank them for letting you finish out your contracted period? Of course not. You’re lucky they are NOT suing you for damaging their reputation. And, it sounds like immigration is being awfully damn generous by give you 30 days to depart, rather than the ordinary 15 days. Yet, you want more, more, more, and to “get even” and have made no apologies to anyone that I’ve seen.
You’re looking for sympathy from anyone willing to give it apparently after doing everything in your power to end your own teaching career here in Korea. That’s at the very best simply pathetic, and particularly very immature. But, more than your cavalier attitude, you continue to be extremely pretentious by not having ever considered how your actions will reflect negatively on your place of employment. As I said earlier, if they had wanted your “expert” opinion, they would have asked you for it.
Before returning from Japan, please grow up, and start being accountable for your own actions. More importantly, please THINK how your actions will reflect on others before sharing any of your liberal scribblings in the future.
Peace.
–Remort
Careful Remort, you may be accused of kicking him while he is down!
But Remort, why would what he does outside of work have anything to do with his employment as long as he is not committing a crime? We’re not talking about rapping some girl here, we’re talking about writing posts in a blog, not even national secrets. If anything, firing him is going to do more damage to the schools reputation then him continuing to write.
looks like nulji has been writing as remort. it’s a sad state that the only way to build consensus is through a split personality.
the blogosphere is most likely your only venue for discussion of this issue outside of an international conference, bevers.
any conversation about ddokdo in korea always ends up with people chanting ddokdo uriddang or wanting to fight. there is absolutely zero ability to discuss this topic reasonably here. unfortunately, the indoctrination, immaturity and ignorance of the general population does not allow for debate on this (or koguryo).
i do hope that you keep the blog going for the sake of those outside of korea who are interested in this issue and have the tools appropriate to debating the merits of korean and japanese claims. again, don’t expect koreans to be part of that. in reality, it may not be that necessary as this will most likely be resolved by a world court at some point in the future. at that time, the cold hard facts will trump nationalism-facts that your continued work will help bring to light.
“The Korean Bar Association did a survey of its members in 2004, and found that 2% self-reported they could work in the English language and with foreign clients. If we assume 10,000 practicing lawyers that means there are 200 nationwide who can help you.”
Every Korean lawyer, prosecutor, and judge that I know speaks English quite well (former hagwon students and one was my Korean teacher). I think they were being modest or cautious about their abilities.
Yeah, you have to pay the rent and the staff, which don’t come cheap…but I bet you don’t subsist on ramen.
Someguyinkorea writes:
Should we have to? I mean, I’ve done it before — in fact, I lived in a goat house for a spell as a kid — but since then I’ve mainly angled to avoid considering Cup-o-Noodles subsistence living a triumph.
Judges and prosecutors, in the Korean conception of things, are not lawyers. And they certainly don’t have clients. So it doesn’t matter how many of them speak English conversationally. What matters is how many practitioners can speak and read professional-level English.
By the way, many of the Korean lawyers — perhaps most — who speak English well are still not suited to service foreign clients. Ask the clients how happy they are with the service. Language ain’t all there is. Attitude is most important.
My partner formerly worked at a big US law firm as “foreign legal consultant”, just like I’m doing here, except for Korean clients investing in America. Earlier this year we interviewed some mid-level (fifth-year) lawyer as a prospective associate, and asked him about his expectations for us to pay for yuhak (overseas study at an LL.M. course, preferably followed by work somewhere). The kid disqualified himself immediately when he said “As I already speak English well, I have no need to go abroad.” After the meeting, my partner said we don’t need any arrogant fool who thinks like that. But there sure are a lot of ‘em. leefr‘s attitude expressed here is quite exceptional, and I hope he doesn’t get seduced over to the Smug Side™ once he gets into practice.
Darin:
Sugar Shin said this very early on. “The archpriest of the I-despise-Korea-cult has lost his job. Don’t shit at the place, where you eat!”
Gerry probably shouldn’t bring up this situation in his next job interview… “in my spare time I like to write anti-Korean pieces.”
–Remort
Ah I missed that one, thank you for pointing it out Remort. (Perhaps I should address this to Sugar Shin instead/as well.) But I don’t think disagreeing with the Dokdo argument should mean one is anti-Korean. If disagreeing with Dokdo is “anti-Korean”, that means there is nothing more to Korea(ns) then Dokdo, and without it they are nothing. That sounds more insulting to Korea(ns) then disagreeing with the Dokdo stance in the first place. I mean, Gerry does willingly live in Korea after all.
Sperwer 曰:
My dear Sir, you’ve apparently skipped classes on French Laws
That’s, of course, assuming France is part of “The West”…
But they still do – a lot, especially as fellow members of the pure-breed minjok are concerned. While the specific “Foreign Teachers” category of foreign workers [not counting DDD workers here of course] seems to get the brunt of mis-treatment from Korean employers, Korean employees outside large companies with unions do get shafted over and over by bosses who decide that their views superseed the Law™. And very few Koreans, comparatively, seek redress. Maybe the next generation, being lazier, greedier and over-pampered, won’t stand for that, but we’ll have to wait and see.
It should be noted, however, that Korean employees of foreign companies are quite quick to seek state enforcement of The Korean Law™ at the slightest hint of disagreement. This despite the fact that salaries and benefits at these foreign employers are invariably much more generous — it’s never enough, and they get no credit for it.
Foreign companies, whose operations in Korea are generally fairly small, are therefore quite dramatically disadvantaged in comparison to the usual beastly and lawless SME employers here. It’s true that employees generally lie down and take it from a Korean employer, but never from a foreign employer.
Indeed. I may have mentioned this before though. As a former general manager in Korea, I do remember having to face this – including exceptionally inventive and warped visions of The Korean Law™. But fortunately I never had more than 10 employees, and was quick to throw back at them the same “this is Korea” argument my employees used when it suited them. They had difficulties dealing with “you can’t have it both ways” [one day we're a foreign company who should give everything and their sister, and one day it's Korea, where it can't be done] but in the end we got along just fine – or they left.
” Yeah, you have to pay the rent and the staff, which don’t come cheap…but I bet you don’t subsist on ramen.
Should we have to? I mean, I’ve done it before — in fact, I lived in a goat house for a spell as a kid — but since then I’ve mainly angled to avoid considering Cup-o-Noodles subsistence living a triumph.
Every Korean lawyer, prosecutor, and judge that I know speaks English quite well (former hagwon students and one was my Korean teacher). I think they were being modest or cautious about their abilities.
Judges and prosecutors, in the Korean conception of things, are not lawyers. And they certainly don’t have clients. So it doesn’t matter how many of them speak English conversationally. What matters is how many practitioners can speak and read professional-level English.
By the way, many of the Korean lawyers — perhaps most — who speak English well are still not suited to service foreign clients. Ask the clients how happy they are with the service. Language ain’t all there is. Attitude is most important.”
Notice how you are agreeing with what I wrote?
You don’t subsist on ramen? I sure hope not since you can afford better. I was simply pointing out that you probably do quite well for yourself despite the overhead, that’s all.
And yes, just as I was saying, the are being cautious of their abilities–and rightly so. Being able to hold an informal conversation does not make one capable of communicating clearly and effectively in a professional context…but the way you presented, it seems as if they can’t speak any English at all.
typo…”…but the way you put it, you’d think that they can’t…”
dda:
So are you guys eating Freedom Fries yet?
)
Seriously, I did rather presumptuously elide the Anglo-American legal tradition with the “West”, thereby ignoring the European civil law tradition. The latter is, as you correctly remind us, much more weighted in favor of the State, particularly in France with its dirigiste tradition – all courtesy of the Napoleonic gloss on the Universal Rights of Man. The European civil law tradition is a bit of a half-way house between the [relatively] unfettered individual rights approach of Anglo-American law and the [theoretically and for the most part, practically] statist approach of the East.
And of course, the locals do spend a lot of time trying to evade the law – that’s what happens when the law is perceived as, and in fact is, an imposition on the people by their rulers rather than an expression of the popular will. My point was – and should have been more clearly labelled – as being pitched on the theoretic plane and meant only to describe the relevant theoretical differences between Korean law and Anglo-American.
Err… Brendon, not to be too picky about it, and I really do appreciate how much you do for the readers here with your articles and commments, but you did say “thought crime,” and you did refer to the right of all Koreans to say and think what they want without getting fired. That’s tantamount to granting tenure to every single employee, something that doesn’t exist anywhere, and certainly not in the Land of the Free. Bevers for his part, has been so obtuse as to willfully misinterpret “he should have known better” as “he dares to disagree with the official ideology,” when everybody really means it was dumb to publicly post inflammatory comments using his real name and expect no consequences. Double grande STFU with cinnamon on top.
It’s perfectly ordinary and commonplace for people to get fired for making inflammatory remarks in public. Talk show host Bill Maher got fired and had his show canceled because he made some politically unpopular comments about terrorism. America’s sweetheart Anne Coulter got fired because she made some inflammatory comments after September 11th. Their employers probably thought they were making a legitimate business decision to avoid losing advertisers, viewers, and subscribers (rather than enforcing some political orthodoxy), and Bevers’ employer is probably thinking the same way. You might think that they’re cowards, that they pander to public prejudices, or that they ought to stand by their people. Even I do, a little. But really, nobody’s acting like thought police until they haul him off to jail.
Given that stealing is not necessarily cause for termination under Korean law (check it out yourself), yes — it’s fair to say that every single employee has tenure. And that is why foreign investors hate the Korean Labor Standards Act, and why it’s so absurd that Gerry Bevers would be fired by the university.
What happens with American political-entertainment personalities Bill Maher and Ann Coulter in the United States is really quite irrelevant to this issue here, except perhaps from a “natural justice” perspective. Is it natural justice for Gerry Bevers, Korea Hater™ to get canned for being a Dokdo heretic? Maybe. Does such an action fit with the management-side lawyer’s usual understanding of Korean employers’ freedom of action with respect to their employees’ off-duty activities? No way.
Darin, your logic cheese has slid off it’s collective cracker. We are talking about Korea on this blog. Time for a station identification check!
I hesitate to get into this (briefly) again.
Because this is just a tangent off of this thread (Gerry being in the ESL sector and all) and too strong a tangent to dig into and highjack the thread.
And perhaps even more reason — this ESL loser issue will come up again in a few times in 2007, and 8, and 9 and 10, and 11….
But — also for the record –
my comments (both back at the original STFU post and since are not aimed at Brendan alone but immediately lump him in with a serious trend in the Korea expat community.
Perhaps it is unfair to lump Brendan in “completely” with the many others — but what I do lump him in with is a culture of bashing the ESL “losers” that is very much a reaility in the Korea expat world.
And given what I can remember of the tone and language of that piece back then, I don’t feel a need to apologize for lumping Brendan in with the trend. That post was a spot on echo of what you hear all over about the “ESL losers”.
And I believe most any ESL instructor going through the troubles many of them go through in Korea (like Gerry) —- if they were to read Brendan’s post back then just after having gone through what Gerry has gone through – they would feel like a boot is slamming against their balls while already in the prone position – whether Brendan meant to add to their misery or not.
Look. I’m not saying Brendan is a railwaycharm when it comes to the ESL people. I am saying that that previous post and the level of language in it was/is a part of —– a culture of high disdain for the “typical” ESL instructor that is shared widely in the expat community.
And I pointed out back then at that thread (and elsewhere sense) that -
the ESL losers themselves are one of the primary groups that bashes the hell out of ESL losers. (An “everybody is an asshole but me” phenomenon)
Songagi,
I am in the process of getting certified with an MA to teach in middle or high schools. I always had in mind teaching at college and have been in several programs (both in literature and history) or as an alternative track using my education in government or government-type work.
But, when I became too fed up with higher education, and when I realized I (and my wife) did not want to have to move around as much as an area specialists/foreign service worker does (which I read you mention somewhere this week) -
-my wife (Korean) and I decided to move back to my hometown (Georgia). We plan to settle down here finally after having moved around a lot the last 10 years. However, I can see us returning to Korea for some extended terms or for some summers in the future. And I can see us moving back to Hawaii some day too years and years from now. Or, we’ll remain in my hometown.
I forget who it was wanted to exchange emails about teaching as a profession here in the US — but since I’m just getting my feet wet in the schools as a student-teacher — I don’t have a lot to say about it yet….
PS
This is an indestinguishable line between “you should have expected it” and “you deserve it” – and as someone pointed out far above – I believe the vast majority of the time people mean both things when they write the “expect” line.
I think it is a natural human tendancy.
And I do feel the pull of it when I read some ESL hakwon worker complaining about being screwed. Or when hearing about some Christian missionary getting killed or attacked in a Muslim state. Or when hearing something like the Korean guy who got his head chopped off in Iraq.
But, I believe strongly this tendancy should be fought.
I don’t care if you are a white man from a middle class American background who throws caution to the wind despite all the dire messages about how shitty the Korean ESL industry is — or if you are a 3-D worker from Pakistan —- or an illegal immigrant working in a sweat shop in the US —-
whether placing yourself in a difficult position or not was a bright idea —
the people who do the screwing over are to be blamed and ridiculed – not the person being screwed.
Or, perhaps more correctly — we should make an extra effort to make sure while we are pointing out how the screwed person was an idiot for putting him/herself in that position, we give hopefully more expressed scorn for the people who actually did the screwing.
Because the blame ultimately falls most heavily on the individuals (or industry) abusing people than those who should not have put themselves in a position to be abused.
Gerry I’ve read your last Dokdo edition and there are serious problems with the information you’ve given.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=445
The first map you posted of Ulleungdo is from the Daehanjiji’s 1899 edition. This map appended old Ulleungdo maps dating to the mid-17th century and incorporated them onto the Daehanjiji map you’ve shown.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Ulleungdo-map-2.jpg
Compare with a real map of Ulleungdo.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/ulleungdo-map.jpg
All of these maps of Ulleungdo show five large neighbour islands of Ulleungdo on the South that simply do not exist. In fact, one of the predominant islands (Elephant Rock) is drawn about 2kms on Ulleungdo’s mainland instead of 1km away from Ulleungdo’s shore where it really is. We also know ancient cartographers didn’t accurately locate islands and sometimes located them closer to territories to indicate ownership. So we can’t be sure Usando wasn’t positioned closer to Ulleungdo as many maps did at the time. For exmaple look at Ulleungdo’s position on this old Japanese map.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/asia-map-usando1.jpg
And of course some Chosun maps show Usando on the other side of Ulleungdo.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/usando-west.jpg
What you didn’t mention was the text of the 1899 Daehanjiji document you cite states Usando is Southeast of Ulleungdo not Northeast as the maps shows.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/jiji-20.jpg
Mr Bevers you should also know the Daehanjiji is not really a Korean map. It is a Japanese map that appended some ancient maps made by Chosun along with Japanese lines of longitude. The Daehanjiji is a mosaic of both Korean and Japanese influences and thus carries with it the same inherent flaws from of both Korean and Japanese cartographers.
From the Chosun side we have the backward ancient map of Ulleungdo and from the Japanese side we have the classic incorrect Westerly positions of Seibolds error. This is obvious because Ulleungdo is located on the 130 degree line of longitude which is much far too West. This is two decades after Siebold’s mistakes had been rectified by other countries so we know the Daehanjiji map was incredibly inaccurate even by 19th Century standards. Given these errors we can’t use these maps as accurate representations of Ulleungdo or Usando’s location.
You also didn’t provide historical context to the second map. This map was drawn by French Father Charles Dallet in 1874 who was a missionary in Korea at the time. Obviously, Father Dallet was neither a cartographer nor a surveyor so where did he get the information for this chart? When he drew this map Father Dallet simply referenced different earlier Korean maps he could source at the time. In fact early missionaries in Korea complained they had to source incomplete Chosun charts and Chinese documents to make these maps. So what we have is essentially an old traced Korean map with lines of latitude and longitude drawn in giving the impression of accurate geographical positioning which of course is not the case.
Before we use old maps for reference we must consider its source and from where the information was gathered. We must first determine whether or not the chart was in itself an up to date territorial perception or simply a copy of an ancient predecessor. As we look back at historical maps we can see there were very few people who drew original maps and conducted geographical surveys so we must be careful when we draw conclusions on them.
The maps you post have great wow effect but when you scratch the surface and research their origins they really don’t prove much unless they can be supported by historical documents. That being said, the few clear historical Usando references out there don’t support your theory that Usando is Jukdo Islet but rather Japan’s Matsushima (Dokdo).
Such as here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-usando.html
Hope this helps.
Hey, frogmouth/dusty/Steve Barber, how many IDs do you have on this site, hey, buddy?
Soem people may already be fed up with headstrong, tenacious, nagging allegation by pro-Japanese.
Retorting is time-consuming and brain-twisting with no change of those pro-Japanese. All they want seem to be fault-finding.
I admire the endeavor of Frogmouth.
@ Gerry Bever.
Though I don’n like your work on Dokdo, here is some legal provisions for you. You can read the following. Right?
If your monthly average income is below 2,200,000 won, you can get free or with-actual-expense help from 대한법률구조공단.
http://blog.naver.com/tnym/80024312498
월평균 수입이 220만원 이하임을 증명하는 근로소득세 원천징수영수증, 보수지급명세서, 건강보험료 산정내역서, 국민연금 이력요약/가입증명서, 소득금액증명서 등의 서류와 여권사본, 외국인등록증 사본 등
근로자퇴직급여 보장법
4조 (퇴직급여제도의 설정) ①사용자는 퇴직하는 근로자에게 급여를 지급하기 위하여 퇴직급여제도중 하나 이상의 제도를 설정하여야 한다. 다만, 계속근로기간이 1년 미만인 근로자, 4주간을 평균하여 1주간의 소정근로시간이 15시간 미만인 근로자에 대하여는 그러하지 아니하다.
②제1항의 규정에 의한 퇴직급여제도를 설정함에 있어서 하나의 사업안에 차등을 두어서는 아니된다.
③사용자가 퇴직급여제도의 종류를 선택하거나 선택한 퇴직급여제도를 다른 종류의 퇴직급여제도로 변경하고자 하는 경우에는 당해 사업에 근로자의 과반수로 조직된 노동조합이 있는 경우에는 그 노동조합, 근로자의 과반수로 조직된 노동조합이 없는 경우에는 근로자의 과반수(이하 “근로자대표”라 한다)의 동의를 얻어야 한다.
④사용자가 제3항의 규정에 따라 선택되거나 변경된 퇴직급여제도의 내용을 변경하고자 하는 경우에는 근로자대표의 의견을 들어야 한다. 다만, 근로자에게 불이익하게 변경하고자 하는 경우에는 근로자대표의 동의를 얻어야 한다.
제8조 (퇴직금제도의 설정) ①퇴직금제도를 설정하고자 하는 사용자는 계속근로기간 1년에 대하여 30일분 이상의 평균임금을 퇴직금으로 퇴직하는 근로자에게 지급할 수 있는 제도를 설정하여야 한다.
②제1항의 규정에 불구하고 사용자는 근로자의 요구가 있는 경우에는 근로자가 퇴직하기 전에 당해 근로자가 계속 근로한 기간에 대한 퇴직금을 미리 정산하여 지급할 수 있다. 이 경우 미리 정산하여 지급한 후의 퇴직금 산정을 위한 계속근로기간은 정산시점부터 새로이 기산한다.
제9조 (퇴직금의 지급) 사용자는 근로자가 퇴직한 경우에는 그 지급사유가 발생한 날부터 14일 이내에 퇴직금을 지급하여야 한다. 다만, 특별한 사정이 있는 경우에는 당사자간의 합의에 의하여 지급기일을 연장할 수 있다.
사립학교법
第53條의2 (學校의 長이 아닌 敎員의 任免) ①各級學校의 敎員은 당해 學校法人 또는 私立學校經營者가 任免하되, 다음 各號의 1에 의하여야 한다.
1. 學校法人 및 法人인 私立學校經營者가 設置·經營하는 私立學校의 敎員의 任免은 당해 學校의 長의 提請으로 理事會의 議決을 거쳐야 한다.
2. 私人인 私立學校經營者가 設置·經營하는 私立學校의 敎員의 任免은 당해 學校의 長의 提請에 의하여 행하여야 한다.
②大學敎育機關의 敎員의 任免權은 당해 學校法人의 定款이 정하는 바에 의하여 總長·學長에게 委任할 수 있다.
③大學敎育機關의 敎員은 定款이 정하는 바에 따라 勤務期間·給與·勤務條件, 業績 및 成果約定등 契約條件을 정하여 任用할 수 있다. 이 경우 勤務期間에 관하여는 國·公立大學의 敎員에게 적용되는 관련規定을 準用한다.
④제3항의 규정에 의하여 임용된 교원의 임면권자는 당해 교원의 임용기간이 만료되는 때에는 임용기간 만료일 4월전까지 임용기간이 만료된다는 사실과 재임용 심의를 신청할 수 있음을 당해 교원에게 통지(문서에 의한 통지를 말한다. 이하 이 조에서 같다)하여야 한다.
⑤제4항의 규정에 의하여 통지를 받은 교원이 재임용을 받고자 하는 경우에는 통지를 받은 날부터 15일 이내에 재임용 심의를 임면권자에게 신청하여야 한다.
⑥제5항의 규정에 의한 재임용 심의를 신청받은 임면권자는 제53조의3의 규정에 의한 교원인사위원회의 재임용 심의를 거쳐 당해 교원에 대한 재임용 여부를 결정하고 그 사실을 임용기간 만료일 2월전까지 당해 교원에게 통지하여야 한다. 이 경우 당해 교원을 재임용하지 아니하기로 결정한 때에는 재임용하지 아니하겠다는 의사와 재임용 거부사유를 명시하여 통지하여야 한다.
⑦교원인사위원회가 제6항의 규정에 의하여 당해 교원에 대한 재임용 여부를 심의함에 있어서는 다음 각호의 사항에 관한 평가 등 객관적인 사유로서 학칙이 정하는 사유에 근거하여야 한다. 이 경우 심의과정에서 15일 이상의 기간을 정하여 당해 교원에게 지정된 기일에 교원인사위원회에 출석하여 의견을 진술하거나 서면에 의한 의견제출의 기회를 주어야 한다.
1. 학생교육에 관한 사항
2. 학문연구에 관한 사항
3. 학생지도에 관한 사항
⑧재임용이 거부된 교원이 재임용 거부처분에 대하여 불복하고자 하는 경우에는 그 처분이 있음을 안 날부터 30일 이내에 교원지위향상을위한특별법 제7조의 규정에 의한 교원소청심사위원회에 심사를 청구할 수 있다.
[전문개정 1981.2.28]
* shakuhachi is wearing a T-shirt labeld NYPD, NewYork Police Depratment. Why?
That is not a picture of me. It is a picture of another great commenter on this site. It is homage to him. I am a white foreigner, not a Korean. Did you think I was Korean because I was using hangul in the other thread?
I thought your nationality was Australian. You’re not in Korea anymore, so there’s no need to use their “not one of us” nomeclature.
typo correction: nomenclature
Which great commentator is it?
By the way, my avatar is a photo taken by my step-grandfather during the Korean War….
USinKorea, it is Bluejives
Sonagi, you are right. However, last time I describe myself as a “white Australian” it was misunderstood to mean that I am a 백호 주의자, which then caused VANK to call me a “white supremacist”. I think I will just call myself a “white foreigner”.
Is it REALLY? How did you get a picture of him?
How about Australian of European ancestry or European-Australian? I prefer to call myself a European-American, rather than white or Caucasian.
And that is the attitude essential for Rule of Law to take root — the law applies equally to the popular and the unpopular.
For the benefit of others who don’t have Gerry’s reading abilities, the statutes referenced by uhoooooo are the “Workers’ Severance Payment Guarantee Act”, which is not really relevant because it can be taken for granted (administrative rules for disbursements), and the “Private Schools Act” which covers the establishment and operation of universities like the one that canned Gerry Bevers.
I thought so, but when I clicked on his blog link here at Marmot’s it was dead.
railwaycharm:
Umm.. Yes? And I wasn’t talking about Korea as well???
My point being, what qualifies one as being ‘anti-Korean’? And no matter how you define it, it should have no effect on one’s ability to teach English as long as they don’t bring it into the classroom. Gerry writing outside of the classroom during his own free time shouldn’t be an issue as long as he is committing no crime. Unless of course their was some legislation passed recently that says disagreeing with the Dokdo claim is a thought crime, I think everyone can agree with that.
Hey, frogmouth/dusty/Steve Barber, how many IDs do you have on this site, hey, buddy?
/said, Shaka-jaji/shakuhachi/shadkt.
Why the hell does it matter when you yourself have multiple id’s, Matt of Occidentalism?
He likes to play detective and say Ah-hah !, finding someone uses multiple id’s.
In fact, he accuses anyone he doesn’t like as, first, saying, “Aren’t you actually so and so?”
What a malcontent. I hope he gets thoroughly exposed himself.
this guy is a meanspirited bigot. I used to debate bevers years ago in the korean herald forum. bevers would often say that korea was the “armpit of asia”. I don’t think bevers presents a balanced view of korea and obviously his bias influences his opinions. He was more honest about his feeling years ago and now he’s more sneaky about revealing how he really feels but I’m glad that people have finally found out what I knew back then, that bevers is a cretin and korea-basher who deserves to get the boot from korea.
I do not have multiple IDs, wjk. Would you care to point out the IDs that you think I have?
You tried that unsubstantiated accusation before and then shirked away when someone challenged you to provide a link.
I have read a lot of Gerry’s posts here and at
ihatekoreaandkoreans.comOccidentalism.org (:b @ Matt) and I don’t recall him ever insulting Koreans as a people. Vain efforts to prove Japanese over Korean claims to Dokdo do not equal Korea bashing.1. Look. I’m not saying Brendan is a railwaycharm when it comes to the ESL people. I am saying that that previous post and the level of language in it was/is a part of —– a culture of high disdain for the “typical” ESL instructor that is shared widely in the expat community.
usinkorea, you are using the old method of making others look worst than yourself so you look better. Your backpedaling is weak. I do not have an issue with English teachers as I already mentioned. I do have a problem with idiots who act like the Busan 9 or seem surprised by adverse results of their stupidity. Be a man and stand up for what you mean. If you have a personal problem with me, let’s have it. I would welcome your volley.
i don’t think it’s right to allow one poster on this form to use the photo of another poster on this form. i’d asked marmot to delete the avatar matt uses since bluejives still posts here and the use of his picture by an avid bigot may paint the wrong picture of bluejives himself.
it’s interesting that the guy who runs around accusing anyone he doesn’t like of being someone else he doesn’t like use a picture of another to mask his own identity. why don’t you use your own photo, matt?
marmot, would it be ok for me to use your photo as my avatar? would it be ok for me to write the things i write with your photo right besides my words thus giving the impression that the guy in the picture is the guy writing the post?
you shouldn’t allow matt to play his games on your forum.
It is used with permission.
i don’t believe you and it doesn’t matter. using a photo of another poster on this forum shouldn’t be allowed. if this kind of thing is ok, then, i’m going to start using brenden’s photo as my avatar; got the picture ready. just waiting to see marmot’s response.
And what has happened to Bluejives that he can resist the past few 200+ strings on some of his pet themes? I sure hope he’s still among the conscious and living in 2007.
(My avatar was inspired* by none other than pawi/nulji, harvested from google image back when his favorite debating gambit was to label all expats as trailer trash. In fact I think I googled “trailer trash”)
*Is it acceptable to use “inspire” and nulji in the same sentence?
If you can get Brendons permission, there should be no problem. The difference between you and me is that you would be using without permission, while I am using it with permission of the person in the photo.
It is none of your business, anyway, nulji.
Got bignose envy, do ya?
Awhile back, a troll using multiple IDs accused me of being a fat Canadian woman, so I yahoo image searched “fat woman” for an avatar, and oh, lordy. My safesearch is on, too. I actually thought about downloading one as my avatar but I just couldn’t do that to you guys.
I somehow doubt we will confuse the postings of nulji and brendan.
pawikirogi threatens darkly:
pawikirogi, I’d rather you didn’t use my photo as the face of your rantings. It would be polite if you didn’t; given your previously-exposed character, I expect that doesn’t matter to you since you seem to pride yourself on your lack of manners. Shakuhachi’s use of Bluejives’ photo is confusing enough as it is. Anyway, my gravatar photograph is of an exceptionally handsome blue-eyed, Black Irish man, and so I completely understand why you’d want to use it. Still, I’d really rather you didn’t, because you’re a stupendous asshole.
But Robert Koehler doesn’t have direct control over the use of avatar photos on the Marmot’s Hole, and neither do I. These are “Gravatars” or Globally-Recognized Avatars. There is an independent central registry at gravatar.com where — if you must — you can go and register my photo as your avatar. (At least, normally you can — it looks as if gravatar.com is “Under Construction” for Gravatar 2.0 and maybe you can’t register new Gravatars.) But then I’ll complain about it, and your Gravatar will be deleted.
Sorry, BrendOn!
See Brendon, that is your problem. You are just a big bad expat who is probably having sex with Korean girls. You will never understand Korean culture or history, bignose
OOOOOOOOh, 300.
Of course, we have long ago stopped talking about the issue at hand and started talking about each other. But 300 comments is still not bad at all.
On the other hand, the real coin of the realm is trackbacks and I only got one of those with this one.
Here is some Korean American kids criticising Gerry. To them, talking about Dokdo = racism.
I’m curious as to how and why Bluejives let shakuhachi use his photo???
And on where Bluejives might be these days, I haven’t been around much myself until Christmas break, so I don’t know how much or little he’s been commenting, but I did check the link to his blog listed here at Marmot’s and it is not working.
Who knows why? He is enigmatic. I asked, and he let me. It is on one of the other threads right here on Marmots.
hey nulji, feel free if you wanna use my avatar-i’m a uniter, not a divider.
it’s wrong for one poster here to use the image of another poster as his gravatar. there was no threat made to the marmot; i’m just trying to appeal to his sense of fairness which i know he has. in the end, he can do what he wants since this is his place.
matt should not be allowed to use bluejives’ image without showing concrete proof that bluejives gave his permission.
‘marmot has no direct control…’
bull, he can ask matt to stop or he can delete any post where matt’s uses bluejives’ image.
‘i don’t want you to use my image.’ breden
relax, brendon. i was just trying to make a point.
i will not use your image here or anywhere else.
‘you want to use my image because i am handsome.’ brenden
i don’t think you’re handsome.
He gave his consent on this site, and Robert saw it. How long do you want to keep fellating this dead horse?
“this guy is a meanspirited bigot. I used to debate bevers years ago in the korean herald forum. bevers would often say that korea was the “armpit of asia”. I don’t think bevers presents a balanced view of korea and obviously his bias influences his opinions. He was more honest about his feeling years ago and now he’s more sneaky about revealing how he really feels but I’m glad that people have finally found out what I knew back then, that bevers is a cretin and korea-basher who deserves to get the boot from korea.”
Bevers is one of those nasty liberals too! That ought to be enough to get him deported and caned.
–Remort
Sounds like some, note that I said some here, Korean-Americans are as hypocritical as a lot of Korean nationals. Look at the way they go on about white people, Ehnglish teachers etc… They can critisize white people and what not, but when white or other people do it to them, they’re racists. They should come to Korea and serve in the Korean army. I think it would do them some good. I guess because I’m half Indian I could tell them that if they don’t like what happens to them in North America they should just leave…but I wouldn’t.
Ha! Ha! I spelled English wrong, too funny!!!
Found this humorous and probably true comment “maybe he had a korean girlfriend who dumped him” on http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=102492. This would at least explain Bever’s anti-Korean sentiments. Poor guy…
–Remort
shaku-jaji/shadkt/shakuhachi/Matt,
You’re the dead horse.
You’re the one whose yearly activity includes accusing someone of using multiple id’s. And blogging about it, and congradulating yourself. I don’t know what that has anything to do with a given subject matter, but that’s your form of self gratification.
‘He gave his consent on this site, and Robert saw it. How long do you want to keep fellating this dead horse?’
where did he give his permission? and who are you to tell us what marmot saw? are you him?
perhaps bluejives is nowhere to be found because of your actions, matt. btw, how is what you’re doing any different than what korean netizens did to gerry?
you know i’m right here, robert.
Shaddap and get some sleep already.
I remember reading the exchange where Bluejives gave his permission – BJ asked like ‘and another thing, why is this shackyhachy guy using my picture’ and shacky answered it was for fun and was it a problem, and BJ answered like ‘no, I don’t care but it is weird’ and marmot opined he thought it was not a good idea but if bj had no complaints, then whatever.
320 – magnificent.
To beat this, we will have to post the story “Korean coroner determines English teacher, involved in inappropriate behavior with Korean women, died by fan death the night after his involvement in violent Pyeongtek anti-US rally in which drunken American soldiers beat the Unification Minister (who announced America was to blame for everything in Korean history) as well as all taxi drivers in a 2 km radius.”
That’s gotta be a 500 commenter for sure.
I just couldn’t figure out a way to insert a Korean celebrity scandal in there. That would make it a 550 ‘un.
in addition, you’re kind of responsible for what happenned to Gerry. But you and your Japanese friends make no mention of legal advice, tangible help, “I’m sorry”, or a collection plate.
I’d imagine you and your Japanese friends can more or less easily raise $1000 or so and help him move that way at least.
Instead, you suggest that a man more than 50 in age take up a 3rd language and work for the govt of Japan or some other Takeshima obsessed branch of private Japanese business.
Bevers never answered, but based on one of his Japanese youtube videos, I was assuming Bevers was just doing an English translation of a not so new idea. Meaning, it may not generate any income or position for him to publish(if that’s possible) his politically-incorrect hobby.
Looks like Matt of Occidentalism just made someone’s life harder and refuses to admit any responsibility.
regarding post 320, then Matt of Occidentalism is distorting the truth. Matt/shadkt/shakuhachi claimed that he was using bluejive’s photo in homage/honor of bluejives.
“Matt Said:
December 24, 2006 at 4:36 am
although, Matt. You had no problem doing that to someone, like say, Kushibo.
wjk, are you done with your ranting?
1. The difference between my username on the marmots hole and kushibo’s multiple usernames and blogs is that I make it clear that I am Matt from Occidentalism. I even refer to Occidentalism as “my blog” on the marmots hole, and if you click on my username it takes you to Occidentalism. Kushibo on the other hand had his other usernames and blogs and did not reveal to the people he was attacking that all the people that were attacking were the same person.
2. People at the marmots hole have all kinds of avatars that are not necessarily their own faces. Some people uses faces, some cartoon characters, and you use the symbol of the mets. I use the face of bluejives, who is another commenter at marmots as a kind of homage to him.”
Well, ‘for fun’ or ‘an homage’ ….close enough.
I think it’s a very funny homage, myself.
Frogmouth,
I do not want to turn this thread into a “Dokdo” debate thread since it is already over 300 posts. If you would like to debate the issues, I suggest you post your arguments on Occidentalism here or add a Comments section to your site, which does not allow people to respond to the half-truths you write. Nevertheless, I will write briefly on your comment here.
The map you posted here shows Usando (于山 – 우산) just off the east coast of Ulleungdo. Its location is approximately where present-day Jukdo is. The rule along edge of the map represents 10-ri segments. Since Usando is shown as being approximately one segment offshore of Ulleungdo, that means that the Usando on the map is approximately ten ri offshore, which is four kilometers. Present-day Jukdo is approximately 2.2 kilometers offshore. That shows that in regard to distance, the map was fairly accurate. You can see a similar style map here.
Your theory that Usando could still be “Dokdo” because “ancient cartographers didn’t accurately locate islands and sometimes located them closer to territories to indicate ownership” not only ignores the 10-ri rule on the map, but also ignores the fact that the Usando on the map is in the approximate location of present-day Jukdo. If the Usando on the map is “Dokdo,” then where is Jukdo? Why would the map include “Dokdo” instead of Jukdo, given that Jukdo is bigger than “Dokdo”? The area of “Dokdo” (both rocks combined) is only 160,200 sq. meters, but the area of Jukdo is 207,504 sq. meters.
I do not exactly know why the five islands appear on the south side of Ulleungdo instead of the north, but I have a theory. Here it is:
Up until sometime in the mid-1700s, most Korean maps showed Usando to the west of Ulleungdo rather than the east. When mapmakers later learned that Usando was to the east of Ulleungdo rather than the west, they may have assumed that previous maps were drawn upside down, making north as south and south as north. If you turn the linked map upside down, the islands suddenly line up on the north and Usando is again back on the west coast. Of course, as I said, this is only a theory of mine.
As for “Elephant Rock,” it does appear on the map. Is is labeled as “Hole Rock” (孔岩), which was another name for it. And for a reason I cannot explain it was often drawn “on” the north shore of Ulleungdo, rather than “off” the north shore. On the map you linked to, it is drawn farther inland than on other maps, but you can also see the rock on this 1750 map of Ulleungdo, which also shows Usando just off the east coast.
Though the 1899 “Daehanjiji” text says that Usando is off the southeast shore of Ulleundo rather than the northeast, it also says that the eastern boundary of Korea extends only to 130 degrees 35 minutes. That means that Usando could not have been “Dokdo” since “Dokdo is much farther east at 131 degrees 52 minutes. Also, the “Korea-government” map included in the book clearly shows Usando off the northeast shore in almost the exact location as present-day Jukdo. I will say more about the “Daehanjiji” later in a post on Occidentalism.
So the problem with the 1874 map is that Father Dallet “referenced different earlier Korean maps” to make it? What is the problem with that? If fact, doesn’t that, in fact, confirm that Koreans did not consider “Usando” to be “Dokdo,” but rather a neighboring island of Ulluengdo, most likely Jukdo?
Re Matt’s use of Bluejives’s photo.
See comment #36.
Last I heard from bluejives was when he promised to research the “most trashiest expat”.
Are you retarded or something? Didn’t you say you were attending a “five-finger” medical university in the US? I find that hard to believe.
I am going to spell it out for you one last time. I use the username ‘shakuhachi’ on this site, the marmots hole. I have been a user on this site for a few years now, before I started up my site. I started up my own site, and decided to use a shortening of my real name (Matthew), ‘Matt’. I made it clear to everyone on this site that shakuhachi is Matt from Occidentalism, and also included a link to my site in my username. If you click on my username, it goes straight to my site. I use only one ID on the marmots hole, which is shakuhachi, and one ID on my own site, which is Matt.
Some points in point form -
1. Shakuhachi is my username on the marmots hole.
2. Matt is my real name and my ID on my own site.
3. shadkt is a Japanese commenter on my site. He is not me.
4. shaku-jaji – never heard of him.
I do not use multiple IDs. Is that clear? If you have any doubt, ask the marmot to check it.
I keep reading Pawi’s comments in various threads and keep seeing him refer to people as bigots simply because they disagree with him. Pawi, do you know what bigot means. It means intolerant, opinionated and typically racist. Look back on your own posts if you want decent examples. I rarely see you provide argument. Most of the time you lapse into strings of misspelled invective.
Another thing. It doesn’t matter where I come from but if it helps you I’m an American who is very happy here. Every criticism of Korea has occured in the US numerous times. Name a crime or a dunder-headed move and we’ve committed it. Despite all this, it doesn’t nullify our observations.
If I were a convict and I made a point, the veracity of that point is not diminished because of my residence or anything about me. Saying it does is illogical.
Trying to dehumanize me now by calling me something other than a fellow human will not bolster your argument. You can put any picture you want on that and I will only fleetingly notice. The fact that you are hung-up on pictures is evidence enough for me, that in a battle of wits, you are unarmed.
The problem is this Gerry. You are holding one part of a map to be accurate and ignoring the glaring errors of the rest of it. Until you can explain the five phantom islands on the South and why Hole Rock is 2kms inland, how can you honestly expect us to believe the other island is Jukdo island? The map regardless of the scale is a copy of previous editions because it has the same flaws.
As I mentioned the 1899 Daehanjiji map shows Usando as Northeast but the attached text says Usando is to the South so the map can’t be said to be an accurate interpretation of island positions.
Here is the text of the Daehanjiji
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/jiji-20.jpg
You also blindly interpret Chosun maps to be accurate visual interpretations of the lands they represent which is very simplistic. We know Ulleungdo is 130kms from the shore of Korea but how far away does Ulleungdo look from Korea on these maps Gerry?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/usando-3.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Usando-4.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/usando-6.jpg
Ulleungdo was surveyed in 1794 before the Ulleungdo maps you posted were drawn. In the report only three islands were reported Jukdo, Bangpaedo and Ongdo.
Here is the report.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1794-Ulleungdo-Report1.jpg
Usando was not reported as a neighbour island by Leekyuwon either.
As I’ve posted there are historical documents both Korean and Japanese that clearly state Usando is what Japanese call Matsuhima (Dokdo) This is the kind of information from which we draw conclusions as to the identity of Usando.
Read here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1794-Ulleungdo-Report1.jpg
Instead of putting your own spin on ass backward maps and forcibly leading readers to believe your theories, you should reference clear documents and maps.
About the other map Gerry, my point is this. Many of the maps made by Europeans (ie Father Dallet) were copied from earlier maps made by Chosun cartographers that did not follow the prescribed formats of more developed Western nations. For this reason using the Daehanjiji etc for positional reference doesn’t work. One Japanese Takeshima advocate is even superimposing historical maps with GPS and Google Earth which I find hilarious.
The quote of Andy at Flying Yangban pretty much sums up the Dokdo issue debate. He said “There is no slam dunk from either side..”
But Japanese maps and documents show us the Japanese did not consider Dokdo part of Japan and even some that show Dokdo as Korean territory such as these maps.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japan-world-map-songdo.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seitailen-1835-songdo.jpg
Occidentalism……..?? I don’t think so.
Did Shakuhachi call bluejives’ boss and get him canned?
Personally, I think he got together with a dda and chopped bluejives up and put him in dda’s freezer.
….
The Matt version (of the same exact person which every regular and semi-regular in the K-blogsphere knows) did run off Kushibora.
But that was by Kushibora’s choice after apparently feeling humiliated by being outed – (the humiliation coming from the fact Kushibo had a conscience and understood the way in which s/he/it used multiple names (in the same threads even) was not good).
The problem is this Gerry. You are holding one part of a map to be accurate and ignoring the glaring errors of the rest of it. Until you can explain the five phantom islands on the South and why Hole Rock is 2kms inland, how can you honestly expect us to believe the other island is Jukdo island? The map regardless of the scale is a copy of previous editions because it has the same flaws.
As I mentioned the 1899 Daehanjiji map shows Usando as Northeast but the attached text says Usando is to the South so the map can’t be said to be an accurate interpretation of island positions.
Here is the text of the Daehanjiji
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/jiji-20.jpg
You also blindly interpret Chosun maps to be accurate visual interpretations of the lands they represent which is very simplistic. We know Ulleungdo is 130kms from the shore of Korea but how far away does Ulleungdo look from Korea on these maps Gerry?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/usando-3.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Usando-4.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/usando-6.jpg
Ulleungdo was surveyed in 1794 before the Ulleungdo maps you posted were drawn. In the report only three islands were reported Jukdo, Bangpaedo and Ongdo.
Here is the report.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1794-Ulleungdo-Report1.jpg
Usando was not reported as a neighbour island by Leekyuwon either.
As I’ve posted there are historical documents both Korean and Japanese that clearly state Usando is what Japanese call Matsuhima (Dokdo) This is the kind of information from which we draw conclusions as to the identity of Usando.
Read here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1794-Ulleungdo-Report1.jpg
Instead of putting your own spin on ass backward maps and forcibly leading readers to believe your theories, you should reference clear documents and maps.
About the other map Gerry, my point is this. Many of the maps made by Europeans (ie Father Dallet) were copied from earlier maps made by Chosun cartographers that did not follow the prescribed formats of more developed Western nations. For this reason using the Daehanjiji etc for positional reference doesn’t work. One Japanese Takeshima advocate is even superimposing historical maps with GPS and Google Earth which I find hilarious.
The quote of Andy at Flying Yangban pretty much sums up the Dokdo issue debate. He said “There is no slam dunk from either side..”
But Japanese maps and documents show us the Japanese did not consider Dokdo part of Japan and even some that show Dokdo as Korean territory such as these maps.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japan-world-map-songdo.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seitailen-1835-songdo.jpg
Occidentalism……..?? I don’t think so.
Sorry here is the link of Japanese and Korean historical documents that state Usando what Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo)
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-usando.html
RE: map debate between Gerry and Frogmouth
Please read (again) Dr. Lankov’s comments about historical claims to Dokdo.
This is the goofiest thread I have seen. Isn’t it about time to end it?
Iceberg, apparently you do not understand the cosmic importance of this debate; the Dokdo/Takeshima question is perhaps the most important ever posed by mankind. In the name of this quest, endless hours are spent studying ancient and inaccurate maps, writing in circles, and even throwing away jobs. Please do not try to lower the level of debate by publicly misunderestimating its critical nature. The very future of the universe may depend upon it.
Don’t be silly. The honor of that title obviously belongs to the debate over what people should call that certain body of water lying in the middle of Japan, Korea, and the Russian Far East.
Honestly though, far too much blood and ink have been spilled over this whole silly issue. And since this is threatening to turn into another silly battle of the maps, I’m sure this thread will cease to hold much interest for those (who have heard it all before) beyond the hard core of True Believers like Gerry and what’s-his-name (who I really do care enough about to scroll up a few posts to find out… I’m just.. erm… not right now.)
I thought the “Where’s
WaldoBluejives” question was at the center of the universe?Hugh wrote in Comment 321:
And in 322:
Well, hey, just change “women” to “female celebrity” in your scenario there, and we have the perfect storm of a K-blogging scandal! The “all taxi drivers in a 2-km radius,” was a nice touch too, by the way.
“I am going to spell it out for you one last time. I use only one ID on the marmots hole, which is shakuhachi, and one ID on my own site, which is Matt.
Some points in point form -
1. Shakuhachi is my username on the marmots hole.
2. Matt is my real name and my ID on my own site.
3. shadkt is a Japanese commenter on my site. He is not me.
4. shaku-jaji – never heard of him.
I do not use multiple IDs. Is that clear? If you have any doubt, ask the marmot to check it. ”
//said Matt/shakuhachi/shaku-jaji, owner of Occidentalism.
I think to say that I’m retarded, you must agree that Ponta is also retarded. If you won’t say so, then I don’t accept your accusation. Well, also, because I consider myself not retarded.
Anyway, #4 would be my own creation for you. I think you should switch to it. It’s a free world, you don’t have to.
There won’t be a one last time, as long as you pose a Far East Asian face, use a different name, and such. Newcomers or people who don’t visit as often will always not know who you are. I suggest a change to “Matt of Occidentalism”. Or just, Matt.
It’s very annoying that you’re very into exposing others, but you hide behind, “Matt”. I didn’t write because I wanted to go thru it again with you, but primarily to tell people that shakuhachi is Matt of Occidentalism, which you did also. Also, you had no problem typing out frogmouth’s possible name with your fingers. I see malice and intention to do harm in that.
Thanks for revealing a lot about yourself. I’m sure no one could have figured out that Matt may be short for Matthew. I guess you should protect yourself from local Koreans in the NSWales region.
so, Matt, are you doing anything tangible to help Gerry financially, or are you accepting any responsibility at all?
Afterall, he posted as Gerry Bevers, and you posted as Matt, and people won’t ever know how to punish you…
I don’t think taking up a 3rd language past age 50 is the best option, like your Japanese fans seem to think.
Very good. Now, if you could just get anyone share that conception you have of yourself, everything would be right in your world, wouldn’t it?
I announce – the thread has officially run out of gas.
Next topic, please…..
Andy, to make you feel better I left you a trackback
‘Iceberg, apparently you do not understand the cosmic importance of this debate; the Dokdo/Takeshima question is perhaps the most important ever posed by mankind. In the name of this quest, endless hours are spent studying ancient and inaccurate maps, writing in circles, and even throwing away jobs. Please do not try to lower the level of debate by publicly misunderestimating its critical nature. The very future of the universe may depend upon it.’ richardson
i’m no fan of richardson but lol! the best line? ‘..even throwing away jobs.’
wjk, you are descending into total nutball territory now. You think I am tricking people by a picture that I never said was me? How many times have I said on this site that I am a white guy? In your self parody cant you understand that when people include a link back to their site in their username, that it means that is their site?
Frogmouth is using two IDs on this thread. Frogmouth and Dusty. I did the right thing by exposing him.
wjk, that is just plain silly. Matt is always short for Matthew. The only one that doesn’t get it is you.
Yeah man. Koreans will be considered totally cool in NSW when they start beating up people that question Korean nationalist humbug and Dokdo orthodoxy.
I am not going to discuss anything concerning Gerry with you. You are hardly a well wisher.
isn’t that just too bad. I must make you hella mad to know there isn’t anything you or the netizens can do to “punish” me, huh?
wjk
I AM retarded.
Maybe I am a bit smarter than you in that I realise I am retarded.
I tipped it at MBC.
http://mbbs.imbc.com/cwb/cwb-bin/CrazyWWWBoard.asp?mode=read&num=157192&db=news_opinion&page=1&backdepth=1
Matt says “Korean nationalist humbug”
Replace Korean with any country in the world and you could write a blog about (even though I have no idea why one would want to spend their time doing so). I just wonder where this Matt got his motivation to do so, what a waste of time. If you really do want to make a change, and since you are well spoken in Korean, why not write your blog in Korean and target Koreans themselves living in Korea? This would perhaps bring about more change for the better. What good does a bunch of non-koreans bitching about Korea do to bring about any change? How futile this is. The fuit of a man’s deeds are the reflection of his character.
The only thing about Korea you have interests in, is pointing out the negative sides and “f_cking” the Korean girls (self admitted). Wow you sure are going to be a fine dad one day. I even showed your site to my Japanese friends and they agree that it’s an atrocious site not worth visiting and none of their friends are even interested in anything you have to say. Not to mention the kind of crowd that it draws and what kind of comments they leave (blatant racist remarks, un-moderated of course). What does this tell me about you and your website and the intentions? I just feel nothing but pity for you. Try actually making a positive change in this world. Do you wanna be remembered as a anti-Korean who never really made any difference to the “cause” that he was fighting for anyway?
As for GB, I have read his comments from other posts/blogs but could not avoid noticing the subtle undertone of hatred for Koreans and their culture (it doesn’t take a genius to work this one out). I am sorry, but just for this fact alone, not many people will take your posts seriously (apart from the pro-Japanese). Was this worth you losing your job for? Again, what a waste of time. It’s good time for self re-evaluation at this time in your life.
Sonagi, with all due respect to Mr Lankov by his own admission he is not an expert on the Dokdo issue. What scares me more is that he seems to be basing part of his beliefs on Mr Bever’s posts. However, what he says regarding Dokdo’s utility through the ages is a good argument against Japanese claims toward Dokdo and let me explain.
In the year 1696 Japan and Korea had a dispute regarding Ulleungdo. After Korea presented historical documents Japan conceded that in fact Ulleungdo was Korean territory, but the issue of Dokdo was never resolved…..Why?
It’s simple, the Japanese only visited Dokdo as a stop-over enroute to Ulleungdo there are no records that Japanese visited Dokdo as a sole destination and with the loss of their claim to Ulleungdo Japan’s use for Dokdo was lost. Why would Japanese voyage 5 days return to a couple of rocks with little/ or no fresh water and without safe mooring in the event of bad weather?
There are no maps or documents either Japanese or Korea regarding Dokdo in itself. All historical references about Dokdo are through Ulleungdo. In the eyes of both countries Dokdo belonged not to a country but rather to Ulleungdo.
I don’t think Koreans should be bashed for linking Japan’s claim to Dokdo with Japanese expansionism because Japan’s motivation for annexing Dokdo was the installation of military watchtowers and submarine telegraph wire during the Russo Japanese War.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-navy.html
It’s also clear that when Japan annexed Dokdo the Koreans contested through regional government, the Domestic Affairs Dept and two national newspapers at the time. However, by that time they were a protectorate and Korea’s Foreign Affairs Dept was dismantled.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Objections.html
Sonagi and cm you say the Koreans “let” the Japanese take over their country. Yes some Koreans were collaborators. But in reality it was our great-grandparents that “let” Japan “legally” take over Korea through treaties signed in 1905. It was the American government (Roosevelt) who wouldn’t give the Koreans the time of day when they asked for help.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-political.html
The issue of Dokdo and Japanese expansionism are inseparable.
Here is a link explaining Japan’s involvment in Korea from 1870~1905. It explains Japan’s motivations for the clandestine manner in which Dokdo was incorporated.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-historical-perspective.html
“Here is some Korean American kids criticising Gerry. To them, talking about Dokdo = racism.”
What kyopos think about the situation isn’t relevent to this thread is it?
I thought it was relevant since people from that site are posting on this thread.
BTW Brendon if Bevers has been here for 30 years and is married to a Korean citizen, why is he still on an E2 visa? Is this normal for spouses of Korean nationals?
I don’t know if Gerry Bevers is single or married. Similarly, I don’t really know whether he’s “been here for 30 years”. I’ve never met Gerry Bevers, although I’ve wanted to — he and I each share the history of service at the Naval Security Group Detachment/Activity at Pyongtaek.
As for whether it’s customary for foreigners, even if married to a Korean, to be on a relatively short term (one year) visa tied to employment, I’d have to say probably so. The F-2-1 visa is a relatively new innovation, I think just over five years old. Before that visa was authorized, male foreigners had no right to remain in Korea even if married to a Korean woman except if he could find a job (to the converse, foreign wives of Korean men were not subjected to such requirement).
Perhaps people are jumping the gun by assuming Bever’s employer refused to renew his contract on the basis of his ultra-liberal and idiotic opinions on the Dokdo issue. Much more likely, his dismissal was due to his poor English ability and asinine online behavior.
–Remort
@ Remort,
Maybe you’re right.
http://www.law4u.net/tech/board.php?board=winnie&command=body&no=7
It’s the evidence. Haha.
Gerry wrote he’s divorced. Poor Gerry.
He needs a family. I feel empathy with him, so I can’t blame him though I don’t like him. Korea may be a tough and rough country to even a Korean like me, which may be caused by the fact that she’s from the poor
with 0 won inheritance without siblings. How about Gerry?
How’ll it be if China and Chinese men? I wanna go to China. Oh, what a nonsense I wrote.
Wow, moving towards 400. If Gerry’s writings consisted solely of his pointing out problems with Korean historiography on dokdo then I would be the first to applaud him and recommend him as a researcher on the subject to any school in the states with which I might have some weight. He his a wonderful knack for research and the ability to construct coherent theoretical ideas.
Unfortunately, it’s not just Dokdo but any subject that deals with Japan that the Beaver goes to fantastic ends to defend the rising sun. It’s almost comes across like a psychotic aversion to hearing criticism of the chrysanthemum that draws Beaver towards any discussion on Japan. I’m still waiting for some measure of acknowledgement on his part of problems with the development of Japanese imperial culture to separate his version of historiography from the same motivational crap that late 19th, early 20th centurty historians AND current korean historians spit out. I’m sorry, but while Gerry can come across in his writing as far more eloquent and cultured he thus far has displayed too much similarity with poor king nulji in his blatant favoritism; the extremity is similar, only the sides of the extremes are different.
As a non-Korean/non-Japanese, I would say that all of his other statements involving Japanese issues makes it impossible for me to trust his research on Dokdo. Furthermore, I don’t really care about the pre-1905 history of Dokdo because, as Dr. Lankov said above, it really ought not to matter concerning current ownership. I think the only issue that could affect my view of Dokdo ownership would be the manner in which Korea took position of the rocks after WWII. Did they force Japanese citizens off of the island? If so, there’s a problem; if not, it’s Korea’s territory.
jyce, where did you read that Gerry Bevers is married to a Korean national? Did he mention that in this thread, or did it come from another source?
with all that said above, I was going to say that I think private university’s ( if that is in fact where he was employed) should have the right to determine how their faculty represent them to the public. They might have to pay a financial cost for that but I would rule on the side of the school when it comes to his continued employment, no matter how egregious the “reason” may seem. Better that the school decides than the state assumes that privilege.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say Mr. Bevers posts are idiotic but the manner in which he bases his arguments suggests he more of a bone to pick with Korean scholars than being in a sincere search for the truth of Dokdo as a whole. What I mean is the focus of his “research” is very narrow. The bulk of his studies consist of putting his spin on either ambiguous documents and/or interpreting ancient maps in a manner that lacks enough historical background for support.
Mr Chips, before you disregard the pre~1905 history of Korea. You should remember part of Japan’s present claim to Dokdo/Takeshima involves the bold stance that they acquired the island legally in 1905. The political circumstances in Korea have everything to do with whether or not Japan’s first claim was legal to begin with. The fact you wish to disregard this pivotal era makes it clear why Koreans are hesitant to take this issue to the ICJ.
Secondly we must question the relevance of 1905 international law in today’s world. When Japan finally declared Korea a colony of Japan in 1907 the international community concurred it was “legal”. This despite the fact the Koreans sent a delegation to the Hague begging for help but instead were ridiculed by the Western press. America traded gave Korea to Japan for American interests in the Philippines and England did the same for getting a free hand in India and Burma. The “knights” at the Hague made their decision that Korea would be erased as a nation by “legal” determination.
There is more at question here than the issue of Dokdo. What is on trial is the manner in which the world powers were carving up lands for themselves during the colonial era and how they felt justified in doing so. These land claims were based on international law and ambiguous terms such as terra nullius and effective control. Japan was claiming territory all over Asia at this time. They took over lands such as Hokkaido and Taiwan and many of these annexations were internationally recognized as “legal” at the time. This despite the fact thousands of indigenous peoples were forcibly assimilated or displaced, and nations stripped of their sovereignty.
Japan no longer had effective control over Dokdo when Korea took back what the felt was theirs. Japan was stripped of the island after WWII and these rocks are not habitable. The fate of Dokdo was awaiting the decision of the allies. In my opinion the Americans (ie Dean Rusk) were planning on giving the islands to Japan because the were posturing for the Cold War with communist Russia. Having control of Dokdo would give allied naval fleets greater territory/control of the East Sea (Sea of Japan).
After being sold down the river by Russia, America and the British in 1905 its no wonder the Koreans went on their own and claimed Dokdo. It’s obvious that the allies were not a search for the historical truth when they were giving out territories after WWII but rather preparing to maintain a military footprint in Northeast Asia to confront the growing communist threat.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say Mr. Bevers posts are idiotic but the manner in which he bases his arguments suggests he more of a bone to pick with Korean scholars than being in a sincere search for the truth of Dokdo as a whole. What I mean is the focus of his “research” is very narrow. The bulk of his studies consist of putting his spin on either ambiguous documents and/or interpreting ancient maps in a manner that lacks enough historical background for support.
Mr Chips, before you disregard the pre~1905 history of Korea. You should remember part of Japan’s present claim to Dokdo/Takeshima involves the bold stance that they acquired the island legally in 1905. The political circumstances in Korea have everything to do with whether or not Japan’s first claim was legal to begin with. The fact you wish to disregard this pivotal era makes it clear why Koreans are hesitant to take this issue to the ICJ.
Secondly we must question the relevance of 1905 international law in today’s world. When Japan finally declared Korea a colony of Japan in 1907 the international community concurred it was “legal”. This despite the fact the Koreans sent a delegation to the Hague begging for help but instead were ridiculed by the Western press. America traded gave Korea to Japan for American interests in the Philippines and England did the same for getting a free hand in India and Burma. The “knights” at the Hague made their decision that Korea would be erased as a nation by “legal” determination.
There is more at question here than the issue of Dokdo. What is on trial is the manner in which the world powers were carving up lands for themselves during the colonial era and how they felt justified in doing so. These land claims were based on international law and ambiguous terms such as terra nullius and effective control. Japan was claiming territory all over Asia at this time. They took over lands such as Hokkaido and Taiwan and many of these annexations were internationally recognized as “legal” at the time. This despite the fact thousands of indigenous peoples were forcibly assimilated or displaced, and nations stripped of their sovereignty.
Japan no longer had effective control over Dokdo when Korea took back what the felt was theirs. Japan was stripped of the island after WWII and these rocks are not habitable. The fate of Dokdo was awaiting the decision of the allies. In my opinion the Americans (ie Dean Rusk) were planning on giving the islands to Japan because the were posturing for the Cold War with communist Russia. Having control of Dokdo would give allied naval fleets greater territory/control of the East Sea (Sea of Japan).
After being sold down the river by Russia, America and the British in 1905 its no wonder the Koreans went on their own and claimed Dokdo. It’s obvious that the allies were not a search for the historical truth when they were doling out territories after WWII but rather preparing to maintain a military footprint in Asia to confront the growing communist threat.
I apologize for the double post admin. Please delete the first entry.
BTW sometimes after posting nothing appears….Any reason?
Frogmouth, I don’t want to give the impression that I disregard pre-1905 history, utterly. But, in this case I don’t really care about it and don’t think it is of practical relevance. Given the tenor of the research on Dokdo, I don’t trust Korean or Japanese historians alike on the subject. Period. I understand what the Japanese base their claim on and I think it is every bit as ludicrous as Korea’s claim. 1905 international law is irrelevant to the current ownership of Dokdo as is pre-1905 history. “Feeling” something into truth seems to be the current mode of historiography in Korea. Unfortunately, you can’t just will the history into relevance when it comes to current international law.
You said: “Japan no longer had effective control over Dokdo when Korea took back what the felt was theirs. Japan was stripped of the island after WWII and these rocks are not habitable.” If that is completely true, then that is all that matters to me, and I think, to current international law. If it’s not true and Japan indeed had citizens (not merely soldiers), living on the rocks and they were forcibly removed from there by Korea then I believe that would be the only relevant fact to the matter of legal ownership. Assuming that Korea or Japan would respect international law, of course; and if they didn’t, how long could they get away with it? That, I don’t know…
This line is always very slightly annoying. It is his time to waste, and if he finds it not to be so, it is not a waste.
And I am reponding to this, because it is the same kind of thing I get on the anti-US/USFK issue…
No. That would be a waste of time. I guess some people, perhaps those who haven’t lived in Korea, could find use in it, but it would be hopeless.
Also, Gerry got fired and then told to leave the country (though based on regular visa rules when you finish a job/visa period) for posting something controversial in a non-Korean language once it became known to certain Koreans.
(But, Matt and I both don’t live in Korea, so that point is mute in our cases.)
And I wonder how futile the effort is? It depends on what the purpose he has for the site. Yours is apparently changing Korea. His could be different.
He could be targeting the outside world to let them know about an issue that is basically only known to Korea and Japan. (The target of my own site was defined from the beinning as Americans unfamiliar with US-SK alliance & anti-US issues).
A quick google for “Dokdo, Korea, Japan, Map” found that Occidentalism has a link as the first selection on the 2nd page. (GI Korea has one on page 1)
(Oddly enough, if I remember how Google works correctly, angry Korean netizens hitting on Gerry’s posts will propel him forward in the Google and Yahoo search engines.)
Getting hits from a Google or Yahoo search by people who stumble acorss this issue and want to learn more might make this worthwhile to him.
Or, for that matter, hypothetically speaking, he might wack off with one hand while he types the posts with the other. Again —– it is his time to waste how he desires.
I eventually got to where I couldn’t understand why people on the internet (or in the K-blogsphere) coach others on how not to waste their time….
Nice sandwich – the blantanly racist Occidentalism and the subtly racists GB whose obvious hatred of Koreans as a race will nullify anything he writes.
Yeah…..sure…….yeah…
Can we have some links on this?
I start back on a too-full schedule Monday, and I don’t have time to sniff around.
As I noted before, the vast majority of stuff I’ve read from Gerry over the years has been tied to issues I was interested in – maining US-SK relations issues or Korean government ones perhaps.
I only went back and read the Dokdo stuff after hearing so many people say it was racist-ridden garbage, and I could not find the clues that led people to decide they were racists unless it was the fact that the person didn’t agree with the opinons themselves.
Pointing out that Korean society as a whole can get whipped into a frenzy over Dokdo is not making a racist statement.
I am willing to entertain the idea that Gerry is a covert racists against Koreans if somebody puts out a series of links where they find the racist material, but I am inclined to believe it is bullshit given what I have read by Gerry over the years —– and the fact that throwing the racist card around seems to be the norm anytime someone expresses themselves consistently about an aspect of Korean society they don’t like.
And here you are running into problems.
This is not my area by any means, but I’ve heard some interesting tid bits on it.
Lankov posted about about the nature of what was and wasn’t “legal” before our contemporary modern area. I also heard a British scholar on (historical) international law comment on presentations by Korean scholars to Japanese scholars on the legality of the 1910 annexation.
The Brit said that he didn’t really hear any of the presenters talk about “the law” as it was back at the time the actions took place. His position was that the law back then was set up by powerful nations based often on Darwinian principles that worked in their favor —– meaning – they created the laws to favor their actions.
He said he was not familiar with Japan’s actions against Korea, but he did know of Japan-Manchuria as part of the big powers’ effort to divide up China in that time period as well as UK relations in places like Egypt and India.
So, the problem of “legal” ownership prior to contemporary times is a can of worms in important ways and far from clear cut.
And all of this is good reason why Korean society should rest easy in the fact it has the rocks now.
Old maps, law (as defined at the times certain actions took place), and things like saying, “Japanese interest in Dokdo has always been about expansionism, and they are doing the same thing today!!” —– open up avenues to hurt Korea as much as help.
Few people outside of Asia are going to buy the idea that Japan is chomping at the bit to take over Asia militarily again.
Frogmouth wrote,
The problem is this Gerry. You are holding one part of a map to be accurate and ignoring the glaring errors of the rest of it. Until you can explain the five phantom islands on the South and why Hole Rock is 2kms inland, how can you honestly expect us to believe the other island is Jukdo island? The map regardless of the scale is a copy of previous editions because it has the same flaws.
Believe it or not, Frogmouth, I do not have all the answers, but I gave you my theory concerning the five islets. Here it is again in a little more detail:
The map you posted here shows Usando off Ulleungdo’s “east” shore. It also shows five islets to the south. Notice the shapes and grouping of the islets: 2-2-1.
Now imagine turning your map upside down, where north is south and south is north. What would that look like? Would it look anything like this map, which is an earlier map that shows Usando to the west of Ulleungdo?
Notice that the five islets better match up with the locations of the islets offshore of present-day Ulleungdo. Also, notice that the single “mystery” islet is in about the same location as present “Elephant Rock.”
As for the “Hole Rock” (孔岩) on the map, that may not be Elephant Rock, even though Elephant Rock has also gone by that name. It may be what Lee Gyu-won refered to as “Mun Seong” (門城 – 문성), which you can see on his 1882 map. Your map shows “Hole Rock” (孔岩 – 공암) farther inland, but this 1750 map shows it in about the same location as Lee Gyu-won’s “Munseong” (Castle Door).
Now that I have explained my theories, maybe you could give me your theory of why every single Korean map of Usando shows it as one island instead of two? Also, you still have not explained why Usando should be “Dokdo” on your map rather than “Jukdo,” given that Jukdo is larger than Dokdo and is located in approximately the same location as the Usando on the map? In other words, if Usando is “Dokdo,” where is “Jukdo”?
Another thing that you are ignoring is that Korean historical documents describe Usando as being a neighboring island of Ulleungdo that had trees and other plant life. Dokdo was essentially just two barren rocks.
What do you expect to prove with this map? Surely you know, Frogmouth, that there are different kinds of Korean maps. Your silly little example is not meant to be a detailed map, but the map of Ulleungdo with the 10-ri rule along the edge was meant to be a detailed map.
Frogmouth wrote:
Usando was another name for Ulleundo’s neighboring island of “Jukdo.” Not only is it located in approximately the same location as modern-day Jukdo on old Korean maps, but King Kojong also suggested that Usando was another name of Jukdo. Here is King Kojong’s conversation with Inspector Lee Gyu-won in 1882:
Notice that King Kojong said that another name for Songjukdo was “Usando.” Songjukdo was present-day Jukdo. The reason that Lee Gyu-won could not find Usando when he surveyed Ulleungdo in 1882 was that the people living on Ulleungdo at the time were referring to the island as Jukdo rather than Usando. At other times in history, Usando was probably the preferred name. The island residents said they had heard of Usando, but did not know where it was. I think the reason they did not know its location is that it was just another name for Jukdo.
Your 1835 Japanese map is interesting because it shows Matsuhima (松島 – Songdo) to the northeast of Ulleungdo (竹島 – Takeshima), which is approximately where present-day Jukdo is. In my quote above, both King Kojong and Lee Gyu-won said that “Jukdo” was also called “Songdo.”
If present-day Jukdo was also called Songdo, then it would explain why An Yong-bok got so angry at the Japanese when they said they lived on “Songdo” (Matsushima), which he believed to be Usando (Jukdo).
Koreans believe that when An Yong-bok said that “Songdo” was the the Korean island of Usando, he was saying that “Usando was Dokdo.” However, since Korean documents and maps show that Usando was almost certainly Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, what An Yong-bok seems to have actually been saying is that Usando (Jukdo) was also called “Songdo,” which is what King Kojong and Lee Gyu-won also said.
Frogmouth, if you are afraid to post of Occidentalism, then set up a Comment’s section on your Web site, so that we can continue our debate on Dokdo. Many of the people here at The Marmot’s Hole do not enjoy Dokdo history as much as we do.
My last post should have waited until I read the whole of frogmouth’s comment, sorry.
But, I wonder what you could mean by “historical truth”?
If old maps and law are out, what do we have left beyond physical occupation? I really don’t know.
And if physical occupation is the key element, then wouldn’t Japan’s taking them by force lead to the rocks being theirs?
In the complete annexation of Korea, we can found the argument on the fact Koreans are a people and were on the land for thousands of years. Can’t go that with Dokdo….
This is one reason why I never get too involved in issues like this – issues that seek to fight heatedly over “historical truth” —– because you have too much BS mixed in with the “facts.” (Like how the US (and UK) were the cause of Japan colonizing Korea — something every Korean is taught).
Frogmouth,
If you include too many links in your post, I think it needs approval from the people at The Marmot’s Hole before it will appear. When that happened to me before, I think essentially accused The Marmot of censuring me, but he very politely explained how the system worked.
By the way, I am currently waiting for one of my posts to be approved.
Have you seen the rocks in question?
Here is a photo
http://www.cifr.it/Liancourt+Rocks-Takeshima-Dokdo-South+Korea.jpg
We’re talking about Tom Hanks Castaway territory here….
I believe all of the blogging programs frequently used in the K-blogsphere allow the admin to filter posts that use links after a certain number of links are included in comment.
Each day, I go to the admin section of my blog and delete a few posts that have been set aside due to linkage issues, and 99% of the time, they are spam comments with 25 links or so…
UsinKorea,
Tom Hanks’ island had trees.
By the way, thanks for your comments above.
I have seen the rocks a’plenty. And, I have seen people living in far less hospitable places. The word used to describe the rocks is “uninhabitable.” But what is really meant is that they can’t support life. That doesn’t mean that habitation with support from without is impossible. A ROK police detachment is there now. Will they die because it’s “uninhabitable?” Of course not. Likewise, I am interested if Japanese fishermen were living on the island in post-WWII times. Japanese military DID occupy the island prior to the end of the war and must have done so with outside logistical support. It is conceivable that fishermen could do the same, no? I still want to know if the ROK encountered Japanese occupants or if they found a deserted rock when Rhee claimed it. If there were occupants, what happened to them…
Gerry Bevers wrote:
HEAR, HEAR!!! HEAR, HEAR!!!
Gerry, I don’t have all of the answers to the confusing maps you try to use as proof of the identity of Usando. That’s why I say they are not useful for either positional reference or for determination of Usando’s identity. They are just too inaccurate. You can see the whole series of them were successively copied through the ages becoming progressively more inaccurate in the process.
The 10ri rule map you posted is simply wrong. Ulleungdo is way too large and this is apparent when you look at the scale of the island relative to Korea. In other words when Kim Jeong-ho drew the map he most likely referenced age old records saying the area of the island was 100ri and made the foot fit the shoe from there.
This is why we have national maps of Korea with Ulleungdo being about triple the size it should be such as the Daehanjii.
I don’t need your translation of Leekyuwon’s conversation, I have the original document and translation here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-leekyuwon.html
Leekyuwon didn’t have a clue what Usando was, he thought it was Ulleungdo. He also thought Songjukdo was about 20~30 ri from Ulleungdo. Of course Songdo is the Japanese name for Dokdo and the Japanese distance is about 24ri. so it is possible his information may have been from Japanese sources as 30% of Ulleungdo’s residents were such. The king didn’t say Usando was Songjukdo.
It’s clear niether the King nor Leekyuwon had a clear picture of this region. If so why did they feel the need to survey Ulleungdo at all? You are putting a spin on what is not clear again Gerry.
If you want to know what Usando is just read clear documents that state what it is, here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-usando.html
Gerry,
Frogmouth seems keen to use up Robert’s bandwith preaching the Gospel of Dokdo. If you feel compelled to respond, please post on another blog and provide a link in case anyone else is actually interested.
Gerry.
Anyongbok quoted the distance of Usando (Jasando) as being about 50ri from Ulleungdo, this is much too far to be Jukdo Islet. If the Japanese were trespassing on Jukdo Islet only 2.2kms away he would have just went there right away instead of waiting until the next morning.
Also Anyongbok didn’t protest alone when he complained about Japanese trespassing on Ulleungdo he was with 10 other men and his story was recorded by both Japanese and Korean sources. In this Japanese document it was recorded that Anyongbok declared Ulleungdo and Usando/Songdo under Kangwando Province.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/anyeongbok-doc-7.jpg
If we look at maps from both Korea and Japan we can determine the following. Almost all historical Japanese national maps show no territory West of Oki Islands.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-2.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-3.html
99 percent of Korean maps at the very least include Ulleungdo Island, Dokdo’s most proximate land mass.
I used to post on Occidentalism but that place is a snake-pit and most people agree it’s a pretty slanted blog. The crew who post there simply cut and paste second-hand Japanese texts from questionable sources and then give inaccurate translations that can’t be verified as authentic.
The source their info from this website many of which were pilfered from my website without my consent.
http://zeroempty000.blogspot.com/2006/05/takeshimadokto-in-veiw-of.html
Also, when Matt allowed my personal profile to get and remain posted on his blog I thought that showed zero class. Pretty shameful.
MrChips wrote:
Well, considering that the US was using the rocks as a bombing range after WWII up until about 1952, my guess is that they were more or less uninhabited at that time. Of course, the ROK’s actions since taking possession of the rocks have been anything but peaceful, leading to the abductions of several (Japanese) fishermen who came too close to the rocks. Not to mention that the Korean guards on the rocks had the nasty habit of lobbing mortar shells at Japanese boats from time to time…
Frogmouth wrote:
Korea has scholars?
…does Korea know about this? (Just kidding… couldn’t resist)
No… South Korea is hesitant to take this issue to the ICJ because they would have absolutely nothing to gain from the move, other than bragging rights (if they won). And why should the fact that a commentator on a blog doesn’t think events prior to 1905 are particularly important make anyone hesitant about bringing the case before the ICJ? Is this particular commentator an ICJ judge?
And here’s the part of your post that annoys me… The idea that Korea was ‘sold down the river’ by anyone other than its own corrupt aristocracy. As if the international community had some sort of obligation to protect Korea (which by its own choice had almost completely disengaged from the sort of international relations that could have protected it — the ‘Hermit Kingdom’ period didn’t end too long prior to Japan’s occupation).
I bet if we can get started on the Taft-Katsura “treaty” and what “good offices” meant or should have meant to Roosevelt and/or the US government, I bet we can push this up to 450 comments…
Frogmouth
Just come to occidentalism or you create the comment section.
BTW
If you think occidentalism is the place that is a snake-pit and most people agree it’s a pretty slanted blog. Marmot is just as a snake pit and slanted.
I was surprised to see that the comments on this blog were filled with insulting terms about Japan.
Look at the comment
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-61616
You can not come to occidentalism because you can not use ad hominem attack out there. In that case, just set up the comment section on your blog.
Each person is talking about each’s story on each’s stance. I like this kind of spree.
Sorry for mine not relavent to this post.
http://blog.naver.com/sojo71.do
This person may be proud of Yale law school graduate.
Are you seeing the title “Yale JD” with most shoveled posts ?
I wonder what Yale law school taught to their students.
shakuhachi’s second nest to Occidentalism.com should be http://lezhin.egloos.com/photo not here.
The Korean boy, runner of http://lezhin.egloos.com/photo, will melt you down, yoiur hatred.
Ah, a cold, quiet Sunday morning in Seoul.
“Marmot is just as a snake pit and slanted.” LOL
C’mon, push this sucka to 400 comments! Blame America, post your favorite recipes!
Poor Bevers, the whole world must be against you. Just wait until the Korean immigration officials read your scribblings on this site and learn how anti-Korean you really are now.
–Remort
Frogmouth,
Below is the 1882 conversation between King Kojong and Lee Gyu-won in the original Chinese,a Korean translation, and my English translation:
Here is your analysis of the conversation, Frogmouth:
Here is my summary the conversation:
Here is my analysis of the conversation:
It apprears the Yeojiseungnam had mentioned both “Usando” and “Songjukdo,” which King Kojeong believed to be two separate islands rather than two names for one island. Lee Kyu-won believed there to be only one neighboring island named Songjukdo, which was sometimes also called “Songdo” and “Jukdo.” King Kojong seemed to agree that Songdo and Jukdo were other names for Songjukdo, but he seemed to continue to believe there was another island named Usando.
There are many problems with your analysis, Frogmouth. First, we do not know where Lee Gyu-won got his information, but he said that there were rosewood trees and pipestem bamboo on Songjukdo, which is something King Kojong did not appear to know. If there were rosewood trees and pipesteam bamboo on Songjukdo, then than would eliminate the possibility that Songjukdo could have been “Dokdo,” since “Dokdo” was just two barren rocks.
Second, both King Kojong and Lee Gyu-won said that other names for Songjukdo were “Songdo” and “Jukdo.” When Lee inspected the island, he learned that local residents there were using the name “Jukdo” to refer to present-day Jukdo, which is 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. Lee even drew a map that leaves little doubt that it was present-day Jukdo. Therefore, since both King Kojong and Lee Gyu-won said that Jukdo was another name for Songjukdo, your theory that Songjukdo was “Dokdo” lacks the support of the king of Korea and one of his top officials.
Third, Lee said that Songjukdo was 20 to 30 ri (相距爲三數十里) from Ulleungdo. I am not sure how to translate the Chinese, but if the Korean translation is correct, then 20 to 30 ri is 8 to 12 kilometers. The Korean measure of ri is 0.4 kilometers, and it is quite silly to suggest that Korean officials used the Japanese measure of a 4-kilometer ri, especially given the fact that both King Kojong and Lee Gyu-won said that Songjukdo and Jukdo were the same island. The document you referenced in your “analysis” was a Japanese document, not a Korean.
Frogmouth, I think the reason you do not have a Comments section on your Web site is that you do not want people pointing out all of the ridiculous flaws in your analysis. It does not take an Einstein to realize that much of the analysis on your site is
just a bunch of crapextremely biased.Why is all the focus on Korean ancient maps, when seemingly the official Japanese view right up to 1905 acquisition was that Dokdo was Korean, and was politically ignored by the japanese military command due to the strategic naval world power issues following the Sino-Russo war.
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp14.html
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page11.html
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html
This site is very interesting on the Dokdo issue, but not being a historian, I can’t vouch for its accuracy….
Because there are no map nor document that mentions Dokdo and if that is the case, Korea lose the ground to the claim of Dokdo.
Lovmo and Wedgie sites make it seem so. But the truth is that Japanese fishermen was allowed to
sail to Dokdo if its destination was Dokdo, not
Ulleungdo.
After Meiji period when the government changed from Shougun to the modern state, the some of government officials were confused about the island. However, as of 1883 the government judged so called Matsuhima was not dokdo but Ulleungdo and included Dokdo as Japanese territory in 1905.
If Korea can not show it has a historical ground, she cannot say Dokdo was the first place Japan invaded because Dokdo had never belonged to Korea.
Gerry’s posts show Korea was not cognizant of Dokdo before 1906 and his argument is convincing and hard to refute. That is why he was fired and that is why some of the comments are directed at Gerry using ad hominem attack; for, that is the only way for them to silence Gerry’s persuasive argument.
uhoooooo, if you want to post links to pornographic sites, you need to include a warning about the contents of the links. People could get in trouble for viewing such links at work.
By the way, uhoooooo, there is still no answer from you after I proved you wrong about your assertion that there was a trend of white English teachers having drug parties and raping Korean girls. Are you going to offer up an apology to the readers here, many of whom are white English teachers in Korea?
Gerry, you are wrong again, Dokdo is not a barren rocks it does have some vegetation including trees mentioned in historical documents. Scroll down.
http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/DokdoWedgie.htm
Gerry the distance of around 30ri only works with Japanese ri. 30% of Ulleungdo’s residents were Japanese in 1880. I’m just using what works.
Again you are trying to play connect the dots with what isn’t clear Gerry. If they knew what was going on they wouldn’t have felt the need to survey.
Gerry I’ve given you five historical references that all clearly state Usando is what Japanese call Matsuhima/Dokdo. Just find one clear document that states your ideas instead of making suppositions.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-usando.html
This also goes with your loose interpretation of the HwangSeongShinmun article from 1899 which clearly states that Usando and Jukdo are two different islands.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=367
Then you contradict yourself by saying now Usando is a different island. (Gwaneumdo)Not only that you go on to say that because they say “once there were seals that looked like cows without horns” you wrongly assume the report refers to Usando which is a self-serving assumption. The report was about Ulleungdo once again you a playing fast and loose with your translations.
Here this article clearly shows Usando is not Jukdo Islet.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Hwangseong-close.jpg
Zonath, I didn’t post the information regarding the issue of Koreas colonization for rhetoric. I posted it to give historical context for a couple of reasons.
When you look at the political situation around Korea in 1905 when Japan annexed Dokdo we can see it was a military acquisition during the Russo~Japanese War. Japan was indeed cognizant of Dokdo for a long time so why did they wait until the height of this war to take Dokdo? This is not a legal basis for claiming territory. Really if Japan had taken Dokdo 30 years prior it would be a legal land claim.
I’m not blubbering about how the world “ganged up” on Korea. I’m questioning all land claims/laws made by colonial nations during this era especially Japan’s because they are relevant. I don’t think in this age we should be applying 100 year old ambiguous international laws such as terra nullius and effective control on current territorial land claims such as Japan wants to do.
Arghaeri you have a good point about maps. That’s why I have compiled national maps of Japan that show Japan didn’t consider lands West of Oki Islands part of Japan
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-2.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-3.html
Ponta, you can’t split one point into two, my point is the ancient korean maps are irrelevant when more modern Japanese maps show Dokdo but do not show it as Japanese, and when the fishermans application was initially rejected by the Japanese Home Ministry due to their recognition that it was not Japanese territory. When the annexation was pushed through it was seemingly for political, military reasons, it was not notified to other powers (as were other annexations of “terra nullis” by Japan), and it was objected to by Korea but unable to be pursued further due to the defacto control of Korean affairs by Japan at the time. Alternately if possession is the determinant then there is no argument as Korea is now in possession.
I suppose I may have misinterpreted your comment about how the US, Russia, and Great Britain “sold Korea down the river”. I’m still not entirely clear what that comment was supposed to mean, though.
Then what’s the point of all the old maps and such? After all, if 100 year-old international laws shouldn’t apply, then the various maps and documents from that period mean absolutely nothing. But anyhow, I’m really not an interested party in this whole dispute, and don’t hold any special opinion as to any of the claims. I simply wanted to point out that you seemed to have been allocating blame for Korea’s occupation where it absolutely does not belong. But since you say you weren’t doing that, I probably won’t find much else interesting enough to comment on here.
Zonath, it is historical fact that Japan gave America the right to colonize the Philippines for Japan’s free hand in Korea. Here is the background and the original documents found in Japan after WWII.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-taft-katsura.html
It is also historical fact that in 1905 after the Russo~Japanese War Russia signed the Portsmouth Treaty with Japan acknowledging Japan’s right to establish a protectorate over Korea. We also know that Britain signed the Anglo-Japanese treaty of 1905 in which the British allowed Japan to colonize Korea in exchange for allowing the English to control India and Burma.
When the Koreans were coerced into signing the 1905 Japan-Korea Protectorate treaty the Japanese dismantled the foreign ministry and appointed a Pro-Japanese American mouthpiece named Durham White Stevens. When the Korean king sent some representatives to Washington declaring the treaty void, Roosevelt through them out on their ear.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-political.html
I’m simply posting historical fact. Are you saying Korea was responsible for the Japanese colonizing them? I don’t follow where you are going…..
Zonath, one point I didn’t make clear was the effect of the Triplie Intervention after the Sino-Japanese War. After Japan defeated China the West intervened to prevent the Japanese from encroaching too far into Manchuria. From that point on Japan was very afraid of provoking other western powers in the region. That is why Japan waited for foreign approval before taking over Korea. It is also why Japan incorporated Dokdo covertly as not to agitate other powers.
Here are the details.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-historical-perspective.html
Book, Gerry, when are we going to read the *book* . . . ?
I mean, after all of this, you must write a book.
If the people of a country are not responsible for the ruining of their own country, then I cannot imagine who is. Blaming the USA for the loss of Korea’s sovereignty misses the point. Koreans would not protect Korean sovereignty, so why should the US? US President Theodore Roosevelt gave a realistic picture of Korea when he said -
By the way frogmouth/dusty, the ideology that places the blame loss of Korean sovereignty on the USA is an ultra-nationalist you. You certainly are an eccentric non-Korean ultra-nationalist!
frogmouth, let me ask you this:
If Canada and Mexico (or even N.K. and S.K. for that matter) signed a treaty authorizing each other to colonize the U.S., and the U.S. let them, who would you say was ultimately responsible?
Shakahoochie or whatever.
I don’t put the blame of Korea’s colonization on America’s shoulders at all. I blame all of West including my ancestors. It was the international community that turned it’s back on Korea.
The New York Times commented after the meeting in the Hague and said “The Law of survival of the fittest prevails among states as well as plants and animals. Corea has been conspicuously unfit…”
In a Paris newspaper (Le Temps)declared that the “passivity of the Korean people rendered them incapable of all sustained exertion or methodical activity…”
It’s pretty clear that we (the West) had turned our back on Korea when they needed support. Journalists at the Hague declared Korea was a country that Japan should control.
It’s not something I feel ashamed about, just documented fact. Do you want me to quote my sources?
I took a look at http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-taft-katsura.html
I wasn’t aware that the US was an ally of Korea at the time. This “betrayal” seems far fetched.
The Taft-Katsura Agreement seems to be an understanding of the realities of the era rather than the horse trading the writer perceives.
Frogmouth,
The “Dokdo” islets are barren rocks, which is why Koreans have been taking soil to the islets and planting different shrubs and grasses on its slopes since 1989. The picture you linked to here is a picture of the largest of ten such trees that were planted and are still growing on the island. If you look at the second picture, you can see a 100-won coin set up against the base of the trunk to give an indication of its width. Notice that it is not very big, and remember that is the largest of ten such trees on the islets. Besides, where are the rosewood trees and pipestem bamboo that Lee Gyu-won mentioned grew on Songjukdo?
In reference to Songjukdo, you said the following:
You said “most likely Dokdo Island,” and you based that conclusion on the ridiculous claim Lee Gyu-won used the Japanese ri to describe the distance to Songjukdo, instead of the Korean ri. Not only do you ignore the fact that Koreans used the Korean ri of measure, not the Japanese, you also ignored all of the other evidence in the conversation that shows that Songjukdo was not “Dokdo.” First, you said that Songjukdo was “most likely Dokdo Island,” now you admit that you were “just using what works”?
Frogmouth wrote:
King Kojong sent Lee Gyu-won to inspect Ulleungdo in 1882. After his inspection, Lee reported finding two islands off the east coast of Ulleungdo. They were “Jukdo” and “Dohang.” Lee’s map shows that “Jukdo” was present-day Jukdo and “Dohang” was present-day Gwaneumdo. (Not even Korean historians dispute that that fact.) Lee also said that he climbed to the top of the highest peak on Ulleungdo and could not see any other islands. He said that the residents of Ulleungdo said they had heard Usando was a neighboring island, but they did not know where it was. I think that was because Usando was just another name for Jukdo. Aferall, Korean maps show very clearly that Usando was present-day Jukdo.
In 1899, the Korean newspaper, “Hwangseong Shinmun” (皇城新聞) run an article about Ulleungdo. Here is an excerpt:
I translated 于山島竹島(우산도죽도) as “Usando and Jukdo,” but it also could be translated as “Usando/Jukdo,” which would mean the one island had two names.
Actually, I believe that Usando and Jukdo were just two names for the same island, but in my translation I erred on the side of neutrality. The reason I think that Usando and Jukdo were just two names for the same island is that in the Daehanjiji, which was referenced in the article, there is this map. The map shows Usando in almost the exact location as present-day Jukdo. Since Jukdo is not mentioned on the map, I believe that the article meant to say “Usando/Jukdo” instead of “Usando and Jukdo.”
One thing is certain. Neither the Usando nor the Jukdo in the article was a reference to “Dokdo” because the article also said that sea lions(“water animals that looked like cows without horns”) lived on Ulleungdo “in the past.” “In the past” means that there were no longer sea lions on Ulleungdo in 1899, and that means that means that Usando and Jukdo, which were described as being a part of Ulleungdo, could not have been “Dokdo,” since sea lions were still living on Dokdo at the time and continued to live there until the 1950s.
@shakuhachi,
My standpoint is here,
http://www.law4u.net/tech/board.php?board=winnie&command=body&no=6&
You may have gotten a referral log.
Aren’t you furious if somebody says that you said it if you didn’t said it?
@ all or the runner of this site,
I was drunkened to the beauty of the girls at lezhin.
Yep, I did wrong.
I should have pre-cautioned lewdness to others.
I ask for the runner to caution lewdness at my previous comments.
Arghaeri
Thanks
On the contrary, it is crucial.
1
Suppose, for the sake of argument, all you said is true but Korea was never cognizant of Dokdo. Then,
whatever Japanese say about Dokdo before 1905 it was ownerless, because Korea was
not cognizant of Dokdo. Japanese internal cognition has no legal effect internationally.
And to include ownerless islet is valid. And if so, Japan win.
So it is essential Korea show she has a historical
ground or she had effective control over Dokdo before 1905.
2 As for the protest
And Korea didn’t protest the inclusion though she protested on other matters.
But suppose Korea’s protest was valid. Then in view of international law, that day of the protest is the critical date at which the dispute between the two parties becomes crystallized and after which no acts can be taken into account in determining sovereignty.
Japanese government had effective control over Dokdo during Edo period.
Korea had none.
In that case, Japan win.
So it is essential Korea show she has a historical
ground or she had effective control over Dokdo before 1905.
3 As for the notification.
(1)Suppose notification is necessary. Then Korean present occupation is invalid because she has never notified. Hence Korean occupation at present is illegal.
(2)But in truth, notification was not necessary. Here is professors whom Wedgie cited as a positive view on the notification (–notification-is-necessary view).
M.F. Lindley
William E. Hall
Both professor say it is not necessary.
Notice in passing, how Wedgie misquotes to mislead the readership.
So far I have discussed that even if what you assumed is correct, Japan will win unless Korea
show she has a historical ground.
But you assumption that Japan regarded Dokdo as
Korean territory definitely is wrong.
1)Dajoukan document in question is the internal document, it is not meant to cede the territory to the other nation. It has no legal effect.
2) It says Ulleungdo and another island belongs to Korea.
There are several possible interpretations.
Another island refers to
(a)Dokdo(b)Ulleungdo(c)Gwanundo/(d)jukudo
So Japanese official was confused;some official said it was jukudo, others said it was ulleugdo and so Japanese government investigated it by the ship and confirmed that another island is not Dokdo and further confirmed later it was ownerless and officially included Dokdo as Japanese territoy when Korea had no efffective control over Dokdo,when Korea was not cognizant of Dokdo,.
In view of international law, illegal occupation will be illegal for ever as far as Japanese government protest. Japanese goverment has been protesting.
Feel free to criticize.
But if other people feel it is inadequate to
discuss Dokdo issue , not Gerry’s issue here, please move to Occidentalism, there is a post Gerry recently put up.
Ponta, Korea has Dokdo and has managed the island now for longer Japan. If the Japanese wish to have their day in court they should put their money where their mouth is based on the ridiculous stance they have taken.
Here is the stance of the Japanese Foreign Ministry:
First they say that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were “bestowed” on the Oya and Murakawa families in the 17th Century. This is based on their incorrect interpretation of the term “hairyo” which means to bestow. However as some Japanese scholars point out is what these families were issued were voyages passage given to those travelling to foreign countries. During this era foreign travel was prohibited by the Shogunate so this privilage was given to them in exchange for some of the products they pillaged from Ulleungdo (NOT DOKDO)
We know this is true because ALL 17th Century national and prefecture maps of Japan fail to show either Ulleungdo or Dokdo. These voyages were clandestine and caused the dispute over Ulleungdo in 1693~96.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Japanese-records1.html
Second the Japanese say Dokdo is inherently part of Japan which is of course total rubbish as shown by the maps I posted above.
Third the Japanese government claims they legally “incorporated” Dokdo in 1905.
We know this is wrong because Korea contested the inclusion the moment they were notified and already considered Dokdo part of Uldo County prior to 1906.
Japan’s acquisition of Dokdo was for military purposes and was not part of a natural process used for normally acquiring land.
The Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of Dokdo was announced sub rosa and not public beyond local government. Local governments do not have any authority in the arena of international politics as are not the correct adminstrative government organ for declaring a nation’s territorial boundaries. While it is true there was an announcement in a local newspaper, it was on the second page and about the size of a postage stamp.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/sanin-1.jpg
It was not possible that Koreans (the most proximate country to Dokdo) could have been aware of this covert activity.
The Japanese position is self-contradictory. In 1905 to cover all the bases they claimed Dokdo was both terra nullius (no-man’s land) and inherently part of Japan. How can a territory be both ownerless and inherently Japanese? Later when documents came forward showing Korea was involved on Dokdo, the Japanese Foreign Ministry craftily dropped the “terra nullius” part of their land claim.
The records of the Japanese battleship Niitaka prove Koreans were cognizant and involved on fishing on Dokdo prior to Japan’s annexation of the island.
Japanese fishing records show that in 1903 those who had intimate knowledge of the region considered Dokdo as appended to Ulleungdo and part of Gangwando Korea. See this link.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-black-dragon.html
Ponta, you go to occidentalism and keep playing with yourself.
Gerry I’ve found big problems with you article regarding the 1877 Dajokan article. This document was made when Japan was mapping the nation during Meiji era and inquired whether or not to include Ulleungdo and “another island” as part of Shimane/Japan.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=373
Of course the identity of the other island was argued over however your theory that Japan did not exclude Dokdo from Shimane Prefecture dead wrong. When we view maps of Shimane Prefecture during the 19th Century made after the Japanese inquiry if Dokdo was part of Japan, it is clear Japan did not consider Dokdo part of Shimane/Japan. See this link. Dokdo is not on any Shimane Prefecture maps prior to 1905.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html
The Takeshima advocates put a lot of emphasis on the report of the Amagi but what the Japanese gathered there was simply a confirmation of what they had already believed. More importantly after the survey the Japanese didn’t claim Dokdo or show any interest in the island at all, until it showed military value in 1905.
Ponta you’ve missed the point entirely. The whole Japanese land claim for Dokdo is based on laws over 100 years old from the colonial era when Japan was stealing land from both indigenous peoples like the aborigines of Ainu Moshori and Southern Sakhalin.
The colonial era is over and with it died Japan’s illegal land grab called the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion. Move on…….
frogmouth,
I think you are doing fine in the debate. I am not saying I favor your position over Gerry’s or vis versa, because I don’t have enough interest in Dokdo to follow the links or pay close attention to either one of you on the issue, but you are engaging in the debate just fine.
However, with items like the one above, you are starting to run over yourself. You seem to state that Japan used international law that was defined by colonial powers to colonize Japan and say such laws are irrevelent today in analysing claims to Dokdo, then elsewhere (as in this quote) you seem to say Japan just took it militarily without using law to justify it.
Not at all USinkorea.
What I say is even if by the immoral standards of colonial law in 1905 the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was not legal.
Ponta always states that effective control is the end all in deciding whether a land claim is legal but even by the practice of colonial law effective control was pre-conditonal on it being.
1. Uncontested which Korea did. Ponta ridiculously asserts that Korea had the power to contest more after having her foreign ministry dismantled. Let get clear on something else. When the Koreans did contest they stated in this document they already sincerely considered Dokdo part of Uldo County. As this document was from one department to another we can be sure the Koreans were not just blowing hot air on this.
2. Part of a natural process. Military land acquisitions did not fall under this category.
3. A local government anouncement is not the correct administrative organ to make land claims. What I mean is Florida cannot claim Cuba on behalf of the USA. For example when Japan acquired Ogasawara(Bonin) Islands in 1876 they notified the British and American numerous times through Tokyo. It is clear why they didn’t tell other countries when the took Dokdo. They waited to clear up the issue of making Korea a protectorate by signing the treaties I mentioned earlier.
The colonial land laws were immoral but they did have some ground rules.
Gerry I didn’t say Leekyuwon used Japanese ri. I said his information was third hand at best and 30% of residents on Ulleungdo were Japanese so it is likely the distance was not in Korean ri as no islands exist 12kms from Ulleungdo.
Ponta, the issue of notification is debatable that is the stance of Professor of International Law Kim Myung Ki. There were other lawyers of the day in that article you failed to quote that stated notification was necessary. The Japanese Foreign Ministry simply states that notification is not necessary which is wrong. I didn’t know you were a lawyer Ponta……
Gerry states:
“One thing is certain. Neither the Usando nor the Jukdo in the article was a reference to “Dokdo” because the article also said that sea lions(“water animals that looked like cows without horns”) lived on Ulleungdo “in the past.” “In the past” means that there were no longer sea lions on Ulleungdo in 1899, and that means that means that Usando and Jukdo, which were described as being a part of Ulleungdo…..”
The article does not specify Usando at all Gerry, you are playing a shabby game of connect the dots. Are you trying to define Korean-Japanese history through seals? The clear thing from this post is that Usando is not Jukdo and that blows your theory away right there. Usando is always described as being “attached to Ulleungdo” even in Japanese documents that state Usando is Matsushima (more than 80kms away).
Ulleungdo and Dokdo are inseparable and Japanese maps prove that just by looking at them.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext2.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext1.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1877-docmap-2.jpg
There is not one historical map or document Japanese or Korean that references Dokdo without the mention of Ulleungdo. Dokdo is Ulleungdo’s sister island and Ulleungdo belongs to Korea.
I predict this thread will see 500 and more…
I haven’t see Zonath around enough to know his relationship to Korean society – if you have been in the country much – so I will add that every Korean believes what frogmouth is saying at Taft-Katsura is unquestionable historical fact.
It is easy swat it away, but impossible to erase from Korea’s collective consciousness.
frogmouth,
Japan was not is a position to give The Philippines to the US and the US did not give Korea to Japan.
By the Taft-Katsura conversation (it was a memorandum of a conversation though Koreans claim it was a de facto treaty), Japan was firmly entrenched in Korea after having fought two major wars in which it knocked out of influencing Korea both China and Russia. The US was also firmly in control of the Philippines.
How do you give someone something they already have?
You can summarize the Taft-Katsura conversation and US interests at the time (like Roosevelt talked about) as something like:
Katsura: Are you going to give us shit about Korea?
Taft: No. We have no interest in Korea and somebody needs to get that country’s act together. Are you going to give us shit about The Philippines?
Katsura: No.
Koreans can interpret this as “cutting deal” that “allowed” Japan to colonize Korea, but it holds about as much validity as Korea’s claim that the term “good offices” in the document that established the US-Korea relationship as a de facto military allaince document.
The US had virtually no interest in Korea in 1905 or prior to that. The idea the US should have been Korea’s protector is ridiculous. The US was also in no position to fight a war or wage economic war with Japan at the time.
Good gravey, frogmouth.
You have just knocked any ground you were gaining in the Dokdo debate down about a dozen notches.
Japan covertly took over Dokdo because it was afraid the great powers (like the US) would jump on them about it!!! I’m actually laughing out loud…
Japan kicked the shit out of China in a war to gain influence in Korea. Then it kicked the shit out of Russia – deemed a major European power at the time. Japan did not ask for permission to colonize Korea. It took it, and it took it before Taft and Katsura met.
Uhhhhhh…
That statement is mind-boggling. Of course you are!
Now for a completely useless side note —–
When did frogmouth start posting at Marmot’s? Is this the latest version of Kushibora? Same positions and same annoying style of slip-sliding around on those positions.
OK, I see where I made the mistake in my first reading. You were admitting you blame the US for Japan taking Korea because you were blaming everyone for it…
Did you ever stop to think maybe they didn’t because Dokdo is nothing but a couple of tiny lumps in the sea? So, I guess if the major powers had known Japan took over Dokdo, it was their moral obligation to go to war with Japan or do something else to stop it…
What a world…….
It’s interesting how Korea (and apparently a few others) like to have their cake and eat it too:
On the one hand, Russia and China fighting a war over Korea is just a sign of the constant outside interference in Korea’s affairs — while at the same time on the other hand – when the United States, Great Britain, France, and other strong nations at the time did not go to war to save Korea, they were violating their sacred obligation as members of the international community.
Neat….
usinkorea. With regard to colonizaiton in Korea. Any historian on Northeast Asian history will disagree with what you’ve said and the opinions I’ve posted are from historians far more qualified on the subject than you and I.
America was of three nations Japan signed treaties with in 1905. Russia Britain and the U.S. Yes they took Dokdo before but who knew?
I admit my information on my website are unabashedly plaguerized with references. The sources of my information are not Korean nor Japanese I made sure they were as unbiased as possible and you can see the book names at the bottom of my pages. The first book I used detailed Japan’s Penetration of Korea from 1895~1910.
Peter Duus is William H. Bonsall Professor of History at Stanford University. He is author of Feudalism in Japan, (2nd ed. 1993), editor of The Cambridge History of Japan Vol. 6 (1989), and coeditor of The Japanese Informal Empire in Japan, 1895-1937 (1991).
I chose his book for some of my information because he sourced his information from mostly Japanese documents. Koreans are critical about his book because he doesn’t harp on about the execution of the Korean Queen etc. But it gave great information about the business workings etc of the Japanese in Korea.
The other book I sourced was from Alexis Dudden’s “Japan’s Colonization of Korea Power and Discourse” Which details how Japan used international laws of the day to “legally” annex Korea.
So I don’t take the credit nor the blame for my information but it’s safe to say it comes from qualified writers.
I am aware of what some historicans (and certainly not “any” or “all”) have said on the issue. I am also aware that some newspapers at the time termed the Taft-Katsura memorandum a “treaty” – but that does not make it so.
If someone wants to argue the US (or anybody else) “should have” intervened to prevent Japan from taking Korea is one thing.
Saying the US had an “obligation” to prevent Japan from taking Korea is another. Saying the US was in a position to prevent Japan from taking Korea is another. Saying the US was in a position to give Korea to Japan is another.
The US was not in possession of Korea in 1905. Japan was.
Japan had been the main nation of influence in Korea since they knocked the Chinese out via war. By the time of the meeting with Taft or the signing of any actual treaties after that, Japan was defeating and then defeated Russia in a war for Korea in spectacular fashion.
I didn’t have the time to track your links, but I am guessing the treaties you are referring to which involved the US, UK, Russia, and Japan —– were the agreements that ended the Russo-Japanese War. Saying that those documents are points of fact in which the US (and the others) gave or allowed Japan to take Korea – makes about as much sense as saying any agreements with, say, France on reconstruction of Iraq means France gave Iraq to the US.
France was against the US going into Iraq. France does not like the fact that the US “took” Iraq. But, the reality of the day is that the US is in Iraq. Any kind of exchange France has with Iraq now is simply acceptance of the reality at hand.
It would be ludicrious to say France not doing more to prevent Iraq War II was “giving” Iraq to the US. It would be ludicrious to say that any connections made between France and Iraq (or between France and the US on Middle Eastern issues altogether) is France allowing the US to keep Iraq.
You (and some historians you mention) can’t take the version of US global power of past WWII and transplant it back to the US of the late 1800s and early 1900s.
You want me to believe the US had the military and economic leverage over Japan — it didn’t. Just as France was not in a strong position to prevent the US from going to war with Iraq.
You also want me to believe US had an obligation to work with the other major powers to push Japan out of Korea — it didn’t.
USinKorea, it is not Kushibo, but he is similar to Kushibo in that he has two IDs on this very thread. One is dusty, and the other is Frogmouth, as you know.
usinkorea don’t be offended but in reality America did in a sense sell Korea down the river and I’ll tell you why.
In 1883 America and Korea signed the “Treaty of Peace” and Article 1 stated.
“There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the President of the United States and the King of Chosen and the citizens and subject of their respective governments. If any other powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either government the other will exert their good offices on being informed of the case to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their friendly feelings.
When the Koreans declared the 1905 Protectorate Treaty void because they were coerced into signing it they sent a delegation to Washington and begged Roosevelt for help. But sadly ol’ Teddy would even give them the time of day….
It was not just the Taft-Katsura agreement that proved America allowed the colonization of Korea it could also be seen in documented statements by other US politicians of the day for example Horace Allen told the American head of state on the eve of the Russo~Japanese War……
“We will make a real mistake if we allow sentimental reasons to induce us to attempt to bolster up this Empire (Korea) in its independence. These people can not govern themselves. They must have an overlord as they have had for all time..
Let Japan have Korea outright if she can get it…I am no pro-Japanese enthusiast as you know but neither am I opposed to any civilized race taking over the management of these kindly Asiatics for the good of the people and the suppression of oppressive officials the establishment of order and the development of commerce….”
I never hinted that any power should/would go to war over Dokdo in 1905 but all through Japan’s involvement in Korea through the late 19th century and early 1900s the Japanese, especially Ito Hirobumi were always cautious not to appear heavy-handed in Korea.
I respect your opinion on history usinkorea. But most historians agree America traded the Philippines for Korea with Japan, while the British gave Japan a free hand in Korea for English interests in India and Burma.
So, if I have to choose whose version of history to trust between the gentleman I talked to on the internet or a Professor of history from Stanford whose written four books on Japanese-Korean history forgive me if I side with the Stanford grad.
Wonderful, but I’m still missing your point. How does any of this place the blame anywhere but on Japan and Korea for Korea’s occupation? In other words, what obligation did an country other than Korea have in protecting Korea’s sovereignty at the time? After all, as you are more than willing to point out, the international law at the time wasn’t exactly moral — so weaker countries had to protect themselves by allying and creating security agreements with stronger ones. The countries that didn’t quickly vanished. Some of those countries re-emerged after WWII, but many also didn’t.
So please, before making this all out to be America’s fault (or ‘the West’s’ fault), point to a strong, clearly-worded treaty which states that the US had an obligation at the time to protect Korea’s sovereignty. And then, even if you can do so, please do tell why the US should have expended the men and ammunition (or even political capital) to protect that sovereignty when the Korean government was giving no indication of a willingness or ability at the time to do so itself.
Absolutely. Korea willfully blinded itself to the stormclouds gathering on the horizon with its closed-door policy. Had Korea actually been engaging the rest of the world at the same time (or before) Japan was, they may have been able to modernize and create the kinds of international relationships which would have allowed them to stave off invasion. By closing its doors to the outside world and becoming the ‘Hermit Kingdom’, Korea was more or less acting with willful negligence, and deserves at least part of the blame for its own colonization (not to mention that the actions of Korea’s corrupt aristocracy and corrupt, ineffective monarchy on the cusp of the Japanese invasion more or less sealed Korea’s fate.) To use a metaphor, Korea was walking down the street with its hands over its ears and its head down at a time in which it was very dangerous to do so.
I lived in South Korea for six years, so I know exactly the kinds of ingrained beliefs I’m up against here. I suppose I’m just a glutton for punishment.
“[Korea was] sold down the river by Russia, America and the British in 1905″
“Korea was ’sold down the river’ by [...] its own corrupt aristocracy.”
I think you’re both right. Korea’s rulers made such bad decisions that it was easy for Japan to come in and eventually take over, but Japan would not have been able to do so, given the situation in East Asia at the time, without the assent of the other powers. The main power responsible for this would have been Britain, however, and not the US, as Britain’s alliance with Japan in 1902 made the Russo-Japanese war possible (because Japan then realized no one else could aid Russia without bringing Britain into the fray, leaving Japan to take on Russia in a one-on-one slugfest). With the war successfully won by Japan, and Japan in military control of Korea (which, given Korea’s location, was necessary to wage the war), everyone recognized it as a fait accompli. The US and Japan, as usinkorea described, shook hands and recognized each other’s conquests, while Britain did the same (which of course it was going to do, seeing as Japan had just acted as its proxy and checked its archrival Russia’s designs in the far east).
I do think that the distinction between “Korea’s artistocracy” and “Korea” being responsible for the loss of independence is a good one to make. The Independence Club tried to worm its way into the government and change policy, but were thwarted by the conservatives, while the Uibyeong attempted to attack Japanese troops, waging a guerrilla-style uprising which lasted for 3-4 years before annexation. Essentially, with the banning of the Independence Club, Korea lost its chance to have its own Meiji Restoration (as opposed to the Japanese-backed attempts in 1884 and 1894). By that I mean forward moving political change, and not placing the emperor in a greater position of power (which Kojong did when he declared the Korean Empire – unfortunately that change was all in form and not content). Ironically, if you were to compare the aims and outcome of the Uibyeong’s uprising, it might be more comparable to the post-Meiji Restoration revolts by disgruntled samurai, who were trying to return to the past, than the Meiji Restorationists, who were intent on moving ahead at Chollima speed.
Well, let’s make some time and try to push this thread to 600.
I looked at your page, and it is exactly flawed as I figured.
First of all, you need to go back and edit it. Taft and Katsura did not meet in 1904 but on July 29th 1905. And the timing of the meeting is vital:
By July of 1905, Japan had already crushed the Russian army in Manchuria and blew the impressive (or so thought of before this event) Russian navy out of the water. This was big news in Europe and the US, because Russia had been considered a major European power and Japan was a new comer. The other powers new Japan had developed much strength, but the manner in which they defeated Russia made them realize Japan was a force to be reconed with.
Which makes the idea that the US had the power to tell Japan what it could and couldn’t do ludicrious.
Next,
as I stated above, there is nothing in the quotes you put on the site, or that you have mentioned here, that justifies calling the memorandum a “treaty.”
In fact, you provide enough quotes from the memorandum to that help my case:
See the “no authority” phrase? Kind of hard to say these were treaty negociations, no? Especially when the document was termed a memorandum by the man who wrote it.
But, you could have kept going with this quote, because after the … it reads:
That was a quote from the 3rd point of the memorandum continuing from where you left off, but we also have the quote below from the 2nd point which you don’t quote:
Yes – you are not along in saying this memorandum was a “treaty” that “gave” Korea to Japan – but the actual wording of the document makes it absolutely clear it was not a treaty. It spells out directly that it is not a treaty.
If you want to call it an “agreement” – fine, but be specific on what the agreement was about. The agreement was that Roosevelt and the US had no interest in punishing Japan economically or militarily for taking Korea.
That is a far cry from “giving” Korea to Japan.
Roosevelt didn’t like Korea. He despised Korea’s weakness and admired Japan for the remarkable way it had reformed and strengthened itself. He thought Korea was causing problems in the Far East (two major wars fought over it). He did respect Japan. He didn’t have a problem with Japan having Korea.
None of this means he was shirking US responsibilities. The US had no obligation to kick Japan out of Korea. Whether it wanted to or didn’t is a mute point. (And in fact, the US militarially and economically was not powerful enough to go to war with Japan over Korea).
You can’t just slip-slide all over the place to make your case.
The wording here is bullshit compared to what the document actually said.
There is a world of difference between saying the US (via Taft) “acknowledged” Japan’s position in Korea —– vs —- Taft “gave” Korea to Japan.
You also need to rewrite how you describe the document as top-secret and how you discovered to it. You make it sound like you dug the document up and it had been kept under raps all this time.
If I remember correctly, the conversation and what was talked about was leaked to the press at the time (in 1905) and caused a stir with some who were opposed to colonialism or were favorable to Russia leaped on it calling it a “treaty” too.
At this time in American history, a good chunk of the nation was still following the old guidelines of US foreign policy as stated in the Monroe Doctrine — stay out of foreign intanglements. It was a major force in keeping the US out of WWI and later WWII (at first). A significant portion of the society was anti-colonial power, which caused them to not only criticize the European powers, but also to but heads with Roosevelt and people who wanted the US to grow into a power on par with the Europeans (which American power had not yet achieved).
The Korea Times has run the Gerry story.
Ten bucks says he pulls out “good offices” from the document in which the US and Korea first established relations.
Great Analysis, usinkorea. Do not expect frogmouth/dusty to change his site, though. He will be too busy agreeing with Korean student radicals about why the US (and Japan) is responsible for all Korea’s problems.
usinkorea writes “And I wonder how futile the effort is? It depends on what the purpose he has for the site. Yours is apparently changing Korea. His could be different.”
His blog is futile, if I was to presume that Matt was a decent person who wanted to actually bring about positive changes in the world and not stoke the flame of hatred towards Koreans. If he just wants to let the rest of the world know how deluded Koreans are about themselves, I would say the best place to start is by compelling Koreans themselves to start making a change, because Korea will not be changed by outsiders, just like any nation in this world will resist being told what to do by outsiders. The change will have to come about from within, and from actions by it’s own people.
I hope he isn’t under a false impression that Koreans aren’t already very critical of themselves, their culture and their government policies etc. Especially in the age of globalization where they can more plainly start to see the way other nations are doing things. I believe changes will occur and are occurring for the better and will be a slow going process over the next few generations. Matt obviously does not have the capacity to be able to empathise with the Koreans and how they have overcome many struggles in recent and history to come to the point at which they are and what might have made them this way. I actually think they have done extremely well considering their circumstances. If anything their relative success economically is partially owed to their dogged and patriotic nature
I wanted to verify for the last time that Matt’s blog isn’t a place where anti-Koreanism is bread, and visited his site and was encouraged initially with one of his latest postings on racial strife relating to young Lebanese immigrants in Australia here. I thought, no, there’s no way that such a posting could lead to any sort of anti-Korean discussion, at least not straight off the bat… I was sorely disappointed.
This is the sort of crowd that his blog has attracted whether he intended to or not (many will conclude that he did intend it). Perception is everything in this world, and his blog will be labeled as a Korean hate site by the majority of people who might happen to pass by. At the least, this is how he has tended his “garden” and he seems happy to keep it this way. At the worst, he might have a morbid agenda, and I really think that he should try and get gratification in his life via some other contructive and positive means. But that is just my humble opinion which can be ignored of course.
GB, by associating himself with such a blog, has only met with the inevitable conclusion. I guess Dokdo was more important to him than to the many Koreans I personally know who honestly see this as a trivial issue and are too busy just living their hectic lives. The university has every right to avoid controversy/scandal even though it may have actually enjoyed GB’s services.
But, this presuposes, as a couple of us have been stating, that there was some power on hand that WOULD have fought Japan for Korea. There wasn’t. The two powers that were willing to fight a war over Korea were China and Russia, and Japan defeated them both.
In fact, I think you can reasonably argue that what actually happened in the real history demonstrates that no nation was interested in fighting for Korea.
If I remember correctly, the treaty ending the Russo-Japan War included Japan pulling out of Manchuria. And that touches on the European colonial power’s interest in China – whether China would remain whole or colonized in parts with the different European colonial powers uneasy about one of them gaining vitural control of the whole.
What I mean is — the treaty that ended the war with Japan acknolwedges both that Britain (and others) were interested in Manchruia/China but not Korea.
And the point too many people can’t seem to get through their heads is — the only way you can possibly argue that such a lack of interest constitutes “giving” Korea to Japan
—is that those other powers had an “obligation” to give a shit about what happened to Korea.
You can fault the powers for not caring enough about Korea, but you can’t blame them for what happened to it.
Again, you are assuming his purpose is to change Korea. There is no automatic connection between wanting the world to know the truth about Korea (as he sees it) and a desire to change Korea.
Next,
Shakuhachi,
The idea the US “gave” Korea to Japan is not just for the radicals. It is commonly believed in Korea, because that is what they are taught.
Howcome GB is contradicting himself?
in KT article “I love the culture. I love the language. I love the people”
in comment 70 above “I loved Korea when I first came here in 1977; I cannot say that now.”
Why did he fail to mention his true feelings in the KT article? Shouldn’t “love” be replaced with “loved”?
My comment at 421 had missed that he had already pulled out the old “good offices” line…
Anyway,
And what preceded that was:
The last few years of my mom’s mom’s life, she used to have those mini-strokes whose name I can’t spell. And before they got her medication right, she was a bit wacky. She kept asking what town she was in, and when we told her she was in the same house in the same town she had lived in for many decades, she just couldn’t get it through her head.
One time, I asked her to look out the window and then I asked her if the church across the street was the same church it has always been and I did the same for all the landmarks you could see from the window. In ever case, she acknowledged they were the same old places that had always been around her house, but, she was not able to comprehend that that meant she was still in the same town. She continued to believe we had relocated her somewhere. In short, it was a compelete, illogical brain block.
Kind of like this Taft-Katsura thing…
Saying and believing Korea would be better off under Japanese managment is NOT “allowing” Japan to take it over.
The United States did not consider “good offices” to mean an alliance. The US did not mean that it would go to war or wage economic war to protect Korea.
And if you wanted to stretch the wording and how the events took place, you could make an argument that, because the US believed Korea was better off being independant but with Japan in control of its foreign policy and economic development, the US was in fact trying to bring about an amicable arrangement:
Believe what you want, but I can read the quotes well enough on my own, and calling the T-K memorandum a “treaty” and saying the US “traded” Korea for The Philippines is clearly not what they say.
usinkorea wrote
Yes, I did state “if I was to presume that Matt was a decent person” in connection with that assumption. So, I guess we can agree that he doesn’t care for bringing about any change in Korea, and apparently the main accomplishments of his blog breeding/encouraging disdain for a nation (to put it nicely) he has hardly spent any time in (self-admitted and which obviously makes him an expert on the subject).
Thank God for people who keep him and those of his ilk in check and prove that he isn’t actually an expert on the subject
http://populargusts.blogspot.com/2006/03/badly-defended-apologist-views.html
http://populargusts.blogspot.com/2006/03/japans-historical-cultivation-of.html
http://populargusts.blogspot.com/2006/04/kenkanryu-in-realm-of-revisionists.html
http://populargusts.blogspot.com/2006/11/contribution-of-misattributed-photos.html
Change your underwear Bevers, you’re stinking up the place, and making the rest of us waygooks look bad. Better yet, get out and stay out of Korea you Jap-lover.
–Remort
frogmouth,
I have some doubts about how you word things. How about giving some quotes from the historians you mention as sources?
I do know some scholars have made the same argument as you, but I want to see if the ones you quote use the same kind of terminology as you – like “treaty” “gave” “allowed” and so on.
Usinkorea:
If Britain had not made the alliance with Japan, Britain itself might have been hostile to Japan moving towards Manchuria. It’s also possible a treaty of alliance between Russia and another European power (within Europe) might have been applicable to a war in east Asia and might have made the Japanese wary of another European power declaring war on it during a war with Russia. The Alliance with Britain ruled out these worries. Britain was only concerned with Korea as far as Russia’s involvement in Korea went, and by allying itself with Japan and using it, essentially, as a proxy, Britain could roll Russia back. I’d agree that Britain had little concern Korea itself.
Oh, severance pay.
Gosh!
http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/09/technology/hp_fiorina/
Do you know this case?
But, bla bla bla……….
pooh~~~
Cliff, http://www.holyelvis.com , says,
Primary sources:
According to the text, the US did not give Korea to Japan, but merely acknowledged Japan’s military conquest.
Taft-Katsura Agreement
1883 Jemulpo Treaty
As other commenters have noted, only the Koreans interpret “good offices” as a mutual defense agreement. BTW, I am aware of the political leanings of the website Kimsoft. It was, however, the only place where I could find the entire original text of the treaty, which speaks for itself.
Frogmouth
Thanks
In view of international law, Japanese protest is
valid.
page 22(the paper you provided)
And Gerry has shown Korea’s claim is based solely on its occupation.
Hence the permission is sufficient to establish
the title.
(1) Suppose for the sake of argument that Korea contested. Then that day is a the date at which the question of sovereignty is to be assessed. All matters arising after that date cannot be taken into account in deciding title to territory.
Gerry has shown Korea has no map no document that mentions Dokdo.
Japan has.
Simane inclusion was announce in newspaper and
notified to the local Korean government official. You know it.
Local government is sufficient enough to establish the effective control.
Frogmouth wrote
Do you have any evidence Korean government was aware of Dokdo?
Frogmouth wrote
Do you still have that on your site?
Read what your article says.
From 30 ri off the Ulleungdo,… there is owner-less/no one’s island….
It is important for the fishery….
So you are wrong in emphasizing Japanese purpose was for military purpose only. Nakai and Black dragon wanted Dokdo for economic purpose.
I want to but for some reason you are afraid to go to occidentalism.Because your argument was crashed completely out there?
Look at the map in 1896
The maps are made for various purposes
My map of Japan does not include my house on it, but it does not mean my house is not in the Japanese territory.
The tour map of Tokyo Disney land show Tokyo while in fact it is in Chiba prefecture.
And legally,
Frogmouth wrote
Indeed, give the illegal occupation back to Japan.
And notice, to say Japan invaded Korea by incorporating Dokdo, you have to show it had belonged to Korea, but that is exactly what you have failed to show.
By peaceful occupation it just means
If you claim it is contested, or it couldn’t be contested, go back to my earlier argument. Remember critical date?
If it is not contested, it is peaceful.
On the other hand Korean present occupation was not peaceful in that Japan contested, and Japanese fishermen was killed and wounded by Korean government officials near Dokdo.
But you misquoted, and cites professors who hold
a negative view as the ones who hold a positive view. You need to change your content on your site.
Sorry again, it does not establish the case.
The distance from Ulleungdo to Dokdo is 92km.
Frogmouth, all you need to do is to show Korea has clear evidence for the claim.
Keep in mind,
You only have to show the document that leave no doubt as the specific reference to Dokdo.
So far you have failed.
Article I.
There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between the President of the United States and the King of Chosen and the citizens and subjects of their respective Governments. If other Powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government, the other will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their friendly feelings.
Why is it everyone hauls this one up? I fully agree – only Korea thought it meant a mutual defense (mutual?) treaty – but clearly there was no indication of this – the Port Hamilton Occupation (Komundo) 1885-1887 should have been a good indication. The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, should have been another. The Chejudo Island Revolts in the late 1890s and then again in 1900/01 (sorry it is very early and I am still half asleep – can’t remember the dates), and of course, the Russo-Japanese war. As further proof – the assassination of Queen Min, the calls for American assistance and guards/escort for the palace/king/Emperor – all refused by the American government.
I think Horace N. Allen has a lot of the blame by trying to convince the Korean government that by giving more concessions to America that the American government would be more willing to protect Korea in order to protect our own investments – but not even one of the top gold mines in the world -Unsan – could bring the United States to help Korea. Roosevelt was not thrilled with Korea and as someone already mentioned – he felt that we had no business in trying to protect a country that could not protect itself. Of course you could argue that he went to school with the Japanese representative at the talks…. but I think someone also said earlier – United States really could not have prevented Japan from taking Korea – and it was mainly a you don’t mess in my back yard and I won’t mess in yours approach.
Why didn’t Korea actually stand up and fight for itself? Korea did nothing when the Japanese walked in, and did nothing for 40 years to get them out.
Bevers has referred to his mother in law as a historical source here on a few occasions, and has stated that he’s been here for 30 years. The F2-1 visa has been available to male spouses of Korean wives as you said for 5 years, which is surely more than enough time for him to have heard about it. It doesn’t make any sense as to why someone married to a Korean spouse, here over the very long term, and with no plans to leave, would still voluntarily encumber himself with the restrictions applying to single English teachers. He could easily have granted himself “tenure” with regard to residency, if not employment, and I’d actually assumed that was one of the reasons he felt safe in posting his opinions with his real name.
I understand the case of people who do not register their marriage in Korea in order to access the easier conditions for U.S. fiancé visas, but that’s predicated on plans to return to the United States in the near future. None of this applies to Bevers.
First, I’ll add that I don’t favor trains of thought like “Why didn’t Korea do anything to stop Japan when it took over” — nor do I favor talk about “collaborators.” I don’t doubt Korean society as a whole did not want to become a territory of Japan and wanted to keep their independance. The fact that they did not fight a ceaseless suicidal war with Japan does not deminish their desire in my mind.
The fact that some Koreans decided to function within the society controlled by Japan, like going to university, starting a business, working in a Japanese controlled firm and what not, does not mean they were “collaborators.”
All of this does not mean, to me, Korea “let” Japan colonize it and thus the colonizatoin was not wrong.
I’m also not particularly fond of Social Darwinism or the history of colonization.
But, asigning “blame” requires some thought.
This gets complicated, which is why we need to be more careful with our language, and I am far from being an expert in this area, but this discussion could be useful, because we still have issues like this out there today that people don’t bother putting enough thought into.
I didn’t quote the paragraph above to pick it apart but to introduce the topic.
There is a difference between saying a nation had an “interest” in something vs an “obligation.” Britain saw its interest in China and Manchuria but not Korea. That does not mean “gave” Korea to Japan. The fact Britain had interest in China also does not mean if Russia or France or Germany had taken over a large chunk of China and Britain had not fought against it — still doesn’t mean it “allowed” China to be taken over.
Interest in a region is not a de facto military alliance.
This should be clear just when looking at the two wars Japan fought over Korea.
How many historians and regular people today argue that Russia and China were doing a noble deed?
Japan was a new power and wanted to expand. This rubbed up against both the interests of China and Russia, and both those nations felt the interest strong enough to go to war with Japan over the Korea issue, and both got stomped.
Do Koreans of today pat China and Russia on the back and say, “Nice try. Thanks for the effort.”
Is that how Korean text books teach it? Is that how text books anywhere teach it? I don’t think so….
No. Korea is considered just the pawn in the game of power between nations.
Treaty agreements are easier to deal with. They spell out specific or loosely specific engagements between the two parties.
For example, I’d have to pull up the US-SK defense treaty to see how much wiggle room the US has, but if the US were to withdraw USFK and North Korea attacked, and the US didn’t engage in that war, it would be a problem because of the treaty. (My prediction is that if the US does pull USFK out, you will not see America fullfill it’s obligation by full engagement in the war but through the use of air and sea power – which some might argue fullfills the treaty and some might that it does not).
But, the example I thought of tonight that might be worth considering is Hitler’s moves with Germany before the invasion of Poland.
Here is part of a speech Chamberlain made on the Czechoslavakia issue:
Now, what do we chastise Chamberlain and the governments of Britain, France, and others for?
Do we criticize them as a point of fact for “giving” the Czech republic to Germany? …for “allowing” Germany to take it?
It seems to me what we ridicule Chamberlain and the others for is for not recognizing the threat Germany would present if it were not stopped —- for not recognizing the common interest they shared in stopping Hitler before he got strong enough to wage war on them.
There is a clear difference between the “giving” train of thought and “interests” train of thought.
One implies —- must rest on — the idea of an obligation to prevent the take over or the need for permission to take over.
The other rests on the perception of a “need” to do something.
When Koreans (and others) say the US “gave” Korea to Japan in “exchange” for The Philippines, they are saying that the US was in charge of Korea’s fate – that the US was in a position to prevent the annexation and that Japan needed American approval before it could take Korea over.
In no way does that match the reality of the time. Especially if you are pointing at the July meeting of Taft-Katsura in 1905 once Japan was firmly entrenched in Korea.
When Koreans (and others) say the US “allowed” Japan to colonize Korea, they imply the US had an obligation to stop it – that if the US didn’t “allow” Japan to do it, it would never have happened.
That just doesn’t fly. It doesn’t work on several differnt tracks, and trying to sell the “good offices” clause as a de facto alliance falls flat too.
But it is worth discussing since we haven’t figured out the puzzle yet in contemporary international events.
We created the UN nations in order to establish a common set of interests and protections from armed aggression.
How well has that worked out?
It doesn’t have to be about whose nationalism you agree with either…….I’m American and I’m not against Iraq War II, but how many nations are lining up in the UN to stop it? Since they are not, does that mean they are “allowing” the US (and others) to take Iraq? Is the UN or any grouping of its powerful nations “giving” Iraq to the US?
Does the collective world body (or any one nation or group of nations) have an “obligation” to force the US out of Iraq?
If those nations are not doing so, does that mean they are in effect participating in the US occupation of Iraq? Does that mean they are “giving” Iraq to America? they are “allowing” the US to take Iraq?
Did the world community “give” Afghanistan to the Soviet Union? Chad to Libya?
If the US does not lead the international community into “doing something” about what is happening in Darfur, does that mean the US/UN is “allowing” it to happen?
Was the slaughter in Rwanda the US/UN’s fault?
How about Iraq War I?
Do the kind of people outside of Korea who repeat the Korean line about the US “giving” Korea to Japan believe the US-led effort to remove Iraq from Kuwait was righteous? Or, at the time, were they bitching about the US starting another war?
Or, how about North Korea? Is South Korea “allowing” North Korea to brutalize its own people? Is South Korea to blame as along with Pyongyang for what is going on up North because it does not “do something” about it?
There are virtually no clear cut answers to most of these questions. But, it is clear that what guides the actions of nations is their own interests.
And we might not like what those interests are or how they motivate to do this or that or not do this or that, —
— but expanding that into blame as a root cause of the problem is seems to me to go a few steps too far.
For example, I have no problem feeling bad about South Korea’s Sunshine policy and criticizing it as a means to help Kim Jong Il stay in power, thus prolonging the misery of the North Korean people, but I would not “blame” South Korean society for what the North Korean government is doing to its citzens.
The Bevers saga hits the dailies:
“College English Teacher Claims Job Loss Over Dokdo Comments”
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200701/kt2007010720352211980.htm
Is it disdain for the nation of Korea or disdain for the society’s views of Japan and the Japanese?
nice. i would have commented on the article there, but the fine print on that fine paper’s site reads:
“he has hardly spent any time in (self-admitted and which obviously makes him an expert on the subject”
I must admit that I don’t like the underlying tone of many of Occidentilism and GB’s posts, and I’m certainly not putting them forward as experts, but I get really tired of the “you can’t be an expert if you haven’t…” brigade.
Certainly, first hand experience can improve expertise, it can also cloud expertise, but expertise is one of degrees. Different person have different limitations on their expertise, after all its easier to be an expert on such issues as these if you can fluently read japanese and/or korean but these are not insurmountable. Just as it aids in philosophy if you can read greek and german, but it does not mean that anyone not greek or german cannot be an expert in philosophy. Expertise is a measure of one persons knowledge or ability in comparison to another, it is not a measure of infallibility, after how many “expert” scientists of yesteryear would be considered expert in the light of subsequent progress in their fields in modern science.
“after how many” should read “after all how many”
Does someone have to be considered an expert on someone to be allowed to have freedom of speech? Then who decides who is an expert? I see a lot of people here saying that Gerry should not exercise his freedom of speech unless he is an recognised expert on Dokdo. However, are these same people experts on the subject of freedom of speech or political rights? If not, maybe they should take their own advice and shut up.
Frogmouth,
In comment #406, you say that the Japanese fishermen to Ulleungdo were given “voyages passage given to those travelling to foreign countries.” They were given both exclusive rights to fish in Ulleungdo and also written passports (往来手形 ourai-tegata）The latter was required by all travelling Japanese. The Tokugawa shogunate kept a strict watch over the comings and goings of people within Japan. That was their method for maintaining peace in Japan.
As for present-day Takeshima, even after Japan accepted the Korean claim to Ulleungdo and ceased to go there, the fishermen still went to Takeshima for the abalone and seagrass, and eventually sea lions. Proof that they went to Takeshima (Matsushima) is that the Japanese maps of Takeshima (Matsushima) keeps becoming more accurate through the ages, unlike maps in Korea which one has a difficult time being convinced that it even represents Dokto.
As for Ahn Yong-bon, his statement is so full of untruths it’s laughable. He broke the Korean law forbidding its people to go over to Ulleungdo, and he was trying to lie his way out of being executed. He claimed to have met lords of Tottori and Tsushima, and even claimed that the latter begged him not to tell the shogunate about having ceded Usan, since the shogunate would punish him by ordering the death of his son as punishment. Both lords were in Edo (Tokyo) at the time and could not possibly have met Ahn. Furthermore, the son of the Tsushima lord had passed away the year before, and so the lord would not beg Ahn to save his son’s life.
I think Gerry should change his username to Gerry “Dokdo Heretic” Bevers. It explains his position better than all the “anti Korean” humbug that has been bandied about.
I was shocked to learn this guy is in his 50′s! I thought he was in his 20′s
Fair point, my “expert on the subject” was just a passing comment and not the main point of my argument. I concur, that whether he is an expert or not, he has the right to freedom of speech, and freedom to make mistakes hold slanted viewpoints.
More to the point, if you haven’t read the posts on Gusts of Popular Feeling, exposing him for his lack of research skills (or just plain slantedness) and eagerness to jump to conclusions which fit his viewpoints, please do so. Then, tell me if you agree that at the least he has been misleading in the past, and could repeat it in the future (I hope he doesn’t). I have seen respectable blogs where majority of commenters argue in a dignified manner, his certainly isn’t one of those.
http://populargusts.blogspot.com/2006/11/contribution-of-misattributed-photos.html
GI Korea wrote:
GI Korea:
I really enjoy reading your blog, and I think it was, in the time during which you actually stayed in the ROK, one of the most interesting sources of information on recent developments there and about Asian-American issues, e.g. Daniel Hong’s “famous” (and plagiarised) article about interracial dating, as well).
But, frankly speaking, your vicious ad hominem attacks on Matt deeply disappoint me. I am far from agreeing with everything Matt says, on Occidentalism or elsewhere, and I have sometimes voiced my objections, but he is certainly right in pointing his finger at the rampant racism and xenophobia in Korea and among Koreans abroad. BTW he is also right in pointing out the dangers emanating from Islamic culture (if not from the religion itself), but this topic is, of course, neither here nor there in ROK-related discussion.
The question whether Matt used to live for a prolonged period in the ROK is irrelevant – he can speak, read and write the language fluently and therefore has access to a whole variety of sources which he can use as the basis of his posts. Moreover, Australia, like my own country Germany, has been overrun by Korean immigrants, as well as by Korean Yuhaksaengs, and it is well-nigh impossible in the primary cities of either country to leave one’s house without running into at least some of them. I am not saying this is positive or negative, I am merely stating the fact. They are there, and they are there to stay. We have to put up with them in some way. In order for this to work smoothly there must be an adaptation process on both sides.
I myself have been involved with Korean culture as from 1985 when I was 20, and since 1999 I have been happily married to a Korean national: Due to practical considerations we were resident in the ROK together from 1999 to 2004. However, both my Korean wife and I myself were, even before we actually got married, full well aware that the vast majority of Korean men, including the Yuhaksaeng and also most Gyopos, regard us as ennemies as we are an interracial couple and as my wife is relatively young and attractive. We both knew that going through with the marriage would actually lead us into a full frontal confrontation with Korean society, in the ROK as well as abroad. And so it happened. Never mind. We can live with it.
I have no idea whether Matt has any personal reasons for picking primarily on the negative aspects of Korean society. This may be so or not – I do not know and I do not care. There can be no doubt that there are ample of those and Matt’s description and the corresponding comments are substantially correct. This being so, it should not matter whether he may have an axe to gring with Korea and the Koreans on account of events relating to his personal past.
In my opinion gust of popular feeling also has posts that is debatable. But that is not the point.
If you wants to debate with Matt on the posts he wrote, then why don’t you comment on his blog.Is it dignified manner to speak against him on the comment section which is not related
to Matt?
Well Frogmouth=Toadface on this commnent section compared me with a dog on Matt’s blog because we disagreed on the issue of dokdo. He was certainly not talking in a dignified manner.But do you blame Matt for that?
The link you posted has nothing to do with Gerry Bevers, so get your targets correct.
I do not think you argue in a dignified manner either. Was it not you that attacked me by suggesting I was racist because some other person had committed a crime against a Korean in Sydney, someone you had assumed was a white person like me? Not that it matters in any event, but you tried to somehow link me to the crime just based on my but boohoo, it turned out that the criminal was non-white.
Am I disturbed that Kyopo like you seem to have radically different values, to the point of making a vigorous defense of beating women and showing contempt to the local people? Yes, I am. There is nothing that can be done about you since you have citizenship here, but it shows that Kyopo communities need to be monitored for parochial attitudes, like the ones expressed by you. Hell, the last time I picked up the Kyomin Chapchi in Sydney there was an article declaring the superiority of the Korean race because it claimed that Koreans have an average IQ of 105. They were careful to point out the superiority of these scores to those of local people.
만세! Huh, G1?
@ Fantasy,
You attribute a quote to “GI Korea,” however it was not him but someone going by “G1″ posting from Australia. Two different people.
eagles beat giants and advance!
Thanks a lot, Richardson,
you are, of course, right. Should have noticed it myself. G1 used to have a US flag besides his name in some of his previous posts, so I assumed he was identical with GI Korea (who no longer is posted in the ROK, as he said himself). I assumed his new assignment was in Australia.
Sorry about the confusion !
Regards
Fantasy
Matt,
The topic here is Gerry Bevers, who was assocaiated to your blog. I believe this had some weight in the University’s decision. You may not agree. So, your blog is related, and I have a right to criticize your blog. I have not used any offensive language and have not said anything insulting.
Thank you for bringing up that post again, I cannot empathise this enough. You just made yourself look stupid again by accusing me of something I did not do. This is your way of defending my criticism of your blog? Anyway let me show you where you are dead wrong.
G1
Shak
G1
Kushibo correctly pointed out
Look above at my first comment, can’t you read, I said “not Korean” – with this you automatically inferred “white” – where is this victim mentality coming from? But I was kind of expecting it since you inferred a lot of things in that debate
You also assumed that the girl who got bashed had a “white” boyfriend and that I would have a problem with this. My sister has an Irish/Egyptian boyfriend. And I found out later through members of that church, that the girl who got bashed actually had a Korean boyfriend. So aren’t you starting to regret now that you brought that one up again? I was actually waiting eagerly for you to do so. I knew you would pull through
Do you want more?
Some people at least understood what I was saying in that post
I was man enough to apologise in that post
I never got an apology for your
It is not too late now, I would gracefully accept your apology.
I guess at least the Marmot was kind enough to read my comments and respond rationally
The Marmot
Stop using your selective memory in an attempt to divert the attention from my criticism of your blog
sorry, should have been emphasise
Sorry Shak, I almost forgot about your Kyomin Chapji ramble, since it was totally left field. What, do you want some kind of reaction to this? Again, trying to divert attention? Why are you using these totally random methods of “rebuttal”? Aren’t you just weakening your position by restorting to these ad hominem tactics? See, this is why I cannot take you and your blog seriously.
You “belief” comes without any evidence. In fact, the netizens that complained to the university were only aware of Occidentalism because of Gerry’s posts. We already posted all about this on Occidentalism.
G1, what was your purpose of bringing it up at all? You were on a “white people are racist against Koreans” type rant right before you posted it, then you backpedaled.
No, I just agreed with Kushibo’s speculation that it could be one of many reasons, and I offered up an example of a Korean Australian girl forced to keep her relationship with a white Australian man a secret because of parental disapproval of miscegenation.
You got that because you insisted on dividing people by race. By putting up that article describing the rape of a Korean girl in Sydney, by someone you no doubt thought was a white guy because of his “white” name. What other motivation could you have to inject an article that is totally irrelevant to the subject?
Actually, I have no trouble accepting a 1.5 generation Kyopo at all, provided they are able to accept some basic values of the country. Respecting laws is one of them. Accepting local laws concerning the treatment of women, particularly regarding bashing of women, is important. You on the other hand complained that bashing women was part of Korean culture, and that bashings between Koreans should be taken under special consideration by the courts on account of “Korean culture”. Basically you are an advocate for two separate laws, one of Kyopo, one for everyone else.
So while I have no problem accepting a 1.5 generation Kyopo as an Australian, those 1.5 generation Kyopo like you that will not even cleave to basic Australian values I reject. Even considering diversity I cannot imagine the benefit to society of such ‘values’. All I can hope for is that the education system is up to the task of eliminating any racism/misogyny that you might teach your children.
I get plenty enough already. Trust me, a racist Kyopo is the least of my problems.
G1:
It is certainly not the case that Matt / Shakuhachi does not accept you as a fellow Australian. Sure you are an Australian, just as much as JK is an American (a fact which no one but he himself seems to be questioning). But can you not see that it is you and people of your mindset who constantly harden the racial divide ?
Matt dislikes certain aspects of Korean culture; so do I. But that does not make us racists – but you yourself are persistently teetering on the brink of racism, as far as I can judge from your comments. Do not discriminate against us, and we won’t discriminate against you !
sorry shak, what a laugh, i won’t even both responding to every false accusations in your last comment, you really are grasping at straws with further false accusations. Because I don’t really need to prove anything to you. I already proved your first false accusation wrong. The crowd can decide after reading that other topic if they wish. Many level headed people already responded positively and rationally to me in that other post. Your distoted opinion of me really only bolsters my belief about your misguided intentions. I just hope one day you will realise a more fuitful way to live your life.
sorry shak, what a laugh, i won’t even both responding to every false accusations in your last comment, you really are grasping at straws with further false accusations. Because I don’t really need to prove anything to you. I already proved your first false accusation wrong. The crowd can decide after reading that other topic if they wish. Many level headed people already responded positively and rationally to me in that other post. Your distoted opinion of me really only bolsters my belief about your misguided intentions. I just hope one day you will realise a more fruitful way to live your life.
Usinkorea. Never did I insinuate that the US should have intervened militarily with Japan and Bulgarsari is right on the money here in that colonization of Korea was aided by Korean collaborators and foreign nations refusal to help. The Japanese were entrenched in Korea but they didn’t make a final determination on establishing a “protectorate” until the after English were in agreement in August 1905
As far as you interpreting the Taft-Katsura agreement as anything less that permission to invade you are on your own on that one. I’ve quoted the sources that refute that above. As with my cited authors I find little difference between allies giving away a country and promising not to intervene if another decides to militarily occupy the country. What’s even worse is trading interests in the colonization of other nations like the West did.
I also don’t as far as some Korean do and interpret the Friendship Agreement as a mutual defense treaty but how do you interpret the term “exert good offices”? From what I understand Roosevelt didn’t even speak to the Koreans who visited Washington requesting assistance.
I think some of you are pretty hard on the Koreans…..for example. Just out of curiousity. What would/could have France done if Russia, England and America had all signed treaties or consented to Nazi Germany’s invasion of France?
BTW usinkorea thanks for the heads up on the date error.
Two cents the Japanese Takeshima are presenting evidence of the Murakawa and Oya family voyages to Ulleungdo as some kind of land bestowal or land claim. From what I understand the kind of permits issued “red stamp” were usually given to those visiting other lands meaning they considered Ulleungdo and Dokdo as foreign lands. First the issuance of these voyage passes are not deeds or titles of land ownership and many Japanese scholars agree on that. Second how do you equate illegal clandestine trespassing by private citizens of Japan as a basis on which to claim title to Dokdo. These maps are more proof of Japanese trespassing.
Second all government sanctioned prefecture and national maps of the 17th Century during these voyages do not include either Ulleungdo or Dokdo.
People often just say Anyongbok said this or that and there are some inconsistencies in the different versions of his story but there are a few things that clear. Anyeongbok clearly stated Usando was Matsushima (Dokdo) confirming the identity of island and that the dispute involved more than Ulleungdo. Second the distance recorded in Japanese transcripts found last year in Shimane are much too far to be a neighbour island of Ulleungdo. Remember the testimony given was not just by Anyeongbok there were I think 10 other men present with him.
Fantasy, please kindly show some evidence of where I was teetering on the brink of racism. I tried my best to stay quite civil in this thread. Why is it that only people who either have or aspire to having Korean spouses/girlfriends/one-night-stands come out so strongly with pre-conceptions which cannot be proved. I have already stated that I have a soon to be Irish/Egyptian brother in law, and many mixed couple friends. I have no problem with this. It is only from your own bad experiences (which I admit is not right but, hey that is the world. If I went out with a anglo-aussie, I think I will also experience my share of flack from some anglo-whites, and like you said you expected it, and I would expect the same) that you draw some kind of pre-conceived notions that all Koreans are out ot get you. Hey, I am fine with it. Good luck to you brother.
I was criticising the one aspect of Matt’s blog about how he has misattributed evidence to push hi cause, and that it is to some extent, a breeding ground for anti-Koreanism (evidenced as I pointed out already of a Lebanese in Australia post which turned into Korean bashing straight off the bat, that clearly is indication of an unhealthy blog no?) which I view as being unhealthy and does not really accomplish much because I am against anything that breeds hatred.
Sorry for rushed writing but I must goto sleep now.
Seriously, even to you Shak, if you want to marry a Korean girl that is fine with me as long as you treat her right and love her with all your strength. But if you admit freely that you just want to f_uck Korean chicks and expect Koreans to just leave you alone, then you are deluded.
G1:
I agree with you thus far that I do not like Matt’s references to his having casual sex with Korean women. I myself, as a matter of principle, am and always have been opposed to casual sexual adventures. I have never engaged in such behaviour, and will definitely never do so.
Having said this, I want to add the following:
1) Matt’s sexual references are age old (of 2001, as far as I remember), and these old stories have pretty little to do with the present content of his blog.
2) If a man obtains the consent of an adult woman who is in a mental state to validly give her consent, then there is no one (and I really mean ABSOLUTELY NO ONE, not her parents, not her siblings, and certainly not strangers who just happen to be of the same ethnicity) who have the right to call the couple’s decision into question, let alone to physically prevent them from doing what they both have agreed upon doing. Any attempts to disrespect their decision constitutes a violation of a basic human right and cannot be excused with reference to the vague notion of “Culture”. This is particularly so, as although Koreans are constantly pretending that their culture is sooo conservative, this claim stands in sharp contrast to the actual situation in the ROK. I consider myself to be ten times more conservative than the average Korean !
While I would not say that what these people come out with are with pre-conceptions which cannot be proved, I agree with you that it is mostly these people who take an interest in Korea which exceeds that of the average expatriate’s.
You know, I used to live in a good number of countries but, except for S’pore where I spent the better part of my teenage years, no other nation has made nearly as strong an impression on me as has Korea. See it as a compliment for the country, but be aware it is also this intimate connection which has made me so critical of the country and its culture.
Why should I bother to criticise a country like e.g. Guatemala ? Not worth cricising from my personal point of view (no offence to the Guatemalans intended). I assume everything’s alright over there. If it was not, I would not care, either. But with Korea it is, of course, different. Korea does matter, in my and in other people’s lives. That’s why we keep picking upon the country’s negative aspects.
Mr. “I’m too stupid to listen to the president of the university” Bevers:
Obviously you’re a big joke with your incoherent scribblings about a topic that you haven’t fully researched given your extremely narrow views and supplied misinformation, or simply too stupid to realize the cultural sensitivity surrounding this issue. You really ought to have listened to: 1) the university president that told you to STFU you stupid waygook; 2) your supposed “Korean wife”; and, 3) the countless others you tried to give you a heads up to appropriate behavior while abroad. A 51 year-old English lecturer? Poor guy… You’re an embarrassment to: the U.S. military, the ex-pat community here in Korea, your former employer, your friends, and your family.
I’ll say it one more time, hopefully you’ll listen, had anyone given a shit about your opinion of the Dokdo island dispute, they would have asked you for it directly.
The clock is ticking on your exit order you cry-baby liberal.
–Remort
Frogmouth wrote:
The US was not in possession of Korea, so Japan did not need permission from US to invade. Japan did seek and receive an assurance that the US would not interfere. There is a huge difference between “giving away” territory and promising not to intervene. One cannot “give away” what one does not possess.
If we seem “pretty hard on the Koreans,” it is not because they lost their independence to Japan, but because they place more blame for Japan’s takeover on overseas Western nations than their own internal weaknesses. Roosevelt certain did not use “good offices” when he refused to meet with the delegation representing Korea, but that hardly constitutes a “betrayal” or “selling down the river.” The US and Korea were not treaty-bound military allies, nor had they enjoyed longstanding diplomatic relations.
Remort wrote, directed at Gerry Bevers:
No, Sir, Gerry isn’t, whereas YOU are.
Frogmouth,
As far as I know, the Oya and Murakawa families considered Ulleungdo to be uninhabited land discovered accidentally by one of their men. Chosun at the time had been following an empty island policy to supress Korean pirates posing as Japanese (仮倭) and deprive them of their bases. The two families and the shogunate were unaware of this, and so you could say they took effective control of the empty Ulleungdo. They had been going about their business for 80 years since the Korean officials never even bothered to patrol the island. When Ahn, learning from Koreans who had gone to Ulleungdo the year before and hearing of their success, goes to Ulleungdo. (He claimed that he was acting under official orders to fish on Ulleungdo in his statement in Japan, but later in Chosum claimed that he had been shipwrecked and arrived at Ulleungo accidentally to downplay his offense.) The Murakawa’s upon arriving at Ulleungdo find signs of activity on the island and discover that their boats and gears had been used without their consent by the “tresspassing Koreans.” The Murakawas take Ahn and several others back to Japan as evidence to the shogunate that there are tresspassers on Takeshima (Ulleungdo). At first, Chosun was willing to cede Ulleungdo. But while Japan was pondering over the wordings of the treaty, the opposing faction takes control of things in Korea, and ultimately in 1698, Japan agrees to keep the island off-limits, like Korea. Since both Japan and Chosun were not willing to go to war over Ulleungdo, it seems no treaties were traded to explicitly state which country the island belonged to. (I think, like most Japanese, that Japan basically forfeited its claim on Ulleungdo at this point.)
In 1836, the Shogunate executes a fisehrman, Aizuya Yauemon, for “going to Takeshima while claiming to have gone to Matsushima.” This indicent is proof that the Shoguante did not consider Matsushima to be included in the off-limits agreement with Chosun or even considered it foreign territory, unlike Takeshima (Ulleungdo).
Ahn smuggles himself to Japan the second time to get Japan to cede what he believs to be Usan (Matsushima) to Chosun. However, Japan kick the troublemaker back to Korea, and he is promptly arrested in Korea. Then, he tries to talk himself out of the mess, and makes up the story that he got the Japanese to give up Usan/Matsushima. However, from the records in Japan and in Korea, it is clear that Ahn had no idea of what Matsushima was like, since he claimed that the island was far larger than Ulleungdo and lay between Ulleungdo and Tottori (which, if he had not lied about seeing it during his passage to Japan, must have been the Oki islands). However, Ahn’s lies stuck in Korea, and since then, Korean records claim that Usan is Matsushima (present Takeshima). But curiously, no Koreans came to Matsushima to enforce their claim.
As for the”red stamp” on the permits, that just represents that the orders/permission/grants/etc. came from the Shogun. Permits issued by the local lords have black stamps. While it is true that only the shogunate can issue travel permits to foreign countries for red-stamp ships (朱印船), all such ships had to set sail from Nagasaki, since it was the only port open to foreign countries. However, ships to Chosun were exempt from this law since the Tsushima han had historically dominated commerce with Chosun and required only the black stamp of the Tsushima lord, and all commerce with Chosun was carried on through Tsushima. The fact that the Murakami and Oya families did not have to set sail from Nagasaki or Tsushima indicates that fishing on Ulleungdo was not considered to be activities involving foreign countries, but rather that they were activities on “the red stamped land (朱印地),” which requires a red-stamp permission from the Shogun for access.
Since you seem to be knowledgeable about Dokto, can I ask you for information regarding when or in what document the name “Dokto” first appeared in Korea? I have asked at several sites, and have done some research, but could only find info that it was a name that started being used in the early 20th century. Also, can you give me some links to sites that have images or information on Korean documents that prove that Koreans stepped foot on Takeshima/Dokto before the 20th century? I am not talking about the types of records that say 80 people lived on Usan or some maps drawn to pre-modern scales, but something more specific that would clearly prove that Koreans knew precisely which island they were talking about.
The comparison with France is interesting. Former rivals Britain and France had fought together against Germany in WWI, and Britain joined in the fight to liberate France from the Nazis for much the same reason that Ming China sent troops to repel Japan’s attempted conquest of Korea in the 1500s. Chosun did not give the ragtag American army any help in its independence struggle against Britain, but France, motivated partly out of its then rivalry with Britain, provided vital assistance. Little wonder that the Britain and the US turned a blind eye to Japan’s conquest of Korea but came to France’s aid twice against Germany.
Yo, Shakuhachi = Matt of Occidentalism,
You mind telling the world what you do for a living?
Seems like you learned Korean once, had sex at least once with a Korean girl, and seem to read local Korean publications when you eat Korean food, some of which seems to appeal to your taste, and you spend at least half the year devoting at least 10 minutes per day talking shit about Korea.
Please say it straight up.
Is your job related in anyway to be financially rewarded by the Japanese government?
Are you really a full Australian white of British convict lineage, being able to trace what your grandma and grandpa did as convicts to get stranded in Australia, or is one of your blood line in actuality, a Japanese?
Just curious. You’re not one of those types who were once married to a Korean, and then something split up you two, and you’re just doing this to vent, are you?
France probably couldn’t have done a whole lot, given that the interventions on their behalf basically saved French independence. So where are we going with this one? France, unlike Korea at the time, actually acted to protect itself and ensure that, when Germany invaded, other countries would come to its aid. Korea didn’t act until it was much too late. So really, what’s the difference here? Maybe, by fostering the kinds of international relationships that could protect it, France ensured that its occupation was a short one. And maybe, by closing its doors to the outside world for an extended period of time, Korea weakened itself so greatly (both in its international relations and its technological prowess) that it basically ensured that its own occupation would be much longer than otherwise.
Of course, I point all this out (I’m hard on Korea) not so much for the general pleasure of attempting to crush long-held and mistaken beliefs of persecution and victimhood that the South Korean school system seems to enjoy fostering, but because those beliefs threaten to make much the same thing happen again. Korea’s famous isolationism has long been its single greatest weakness, and continues to be such. Let me just point out my own hypothetical… If tomorrow, China invaded North Korea, what would be the eventual result? Sure, there would be protests and such, and the US and SK would probably move their armies closer to the DMZ in order to make sure that the Chinese army stopped there… There would be the inevitable threats of punitive sanctions against China… But who would actually lift a finger to help North Korea? What country would feel obligated to North Korea in such a way that they would go to war with China in order to ensure that North Korea stayed an actual country rather than a province of China? My guess is that, when the dust settled, and all the sabres stopped rattling, China would have a shiny (or dusty) new province, and the rest of the world would be well pleased about it. A few of them might even secretly agree with China beforehand not to intervene if such a move be made. Would this mean that they’d be selling North Korea down the river? (Of course, this assumes that a Chinese invasion led to a quick collapse of the KJI regime rather than a regional nuclear conflict…)
And so where is South Korea in all this? It’s continuing to press down its own road of isolation by trying to play the ‘balancer’ role in the region. It’s alienating its neighbors by insisting on pressing issues that would probably be better ignored. It’s stupidly isolating its agricultural markets rather than modernizing them. And all this while teaching its students that the Japanese occupation was anyone’s fault but Korea’s, rather than realizing that there’s an important lesson to be learned in history, not just justifications for their own impressively stupid and wrong-headed nationalism.
What kind of strawman is this? Quote me writing that or shut up.
If anyone cares I have posted my own views on the Taft-Katsura Agreement over at my site:
http://rokdrop.com/2007/01/08/the-taft-katsura-agreement-an-american-sell-out-of-korea/
Great analysis, GI Korea. Frogmouth should chew on that for a while.
I am also one of those that is amazed that Japan could take Korea with only 8000 men. Korea did nothing to protect its own sovereignty.
STEAK BURRITOS WITH MONTEREY JACK CHEESE
You can also make these with chicken, ham or roast pork.
1 tablespoon olive oil
1 12-ounce piece flank steak
4 10-inch-diameter flour tortillas
1 1/2 cups (packed) grated Monterey Jack cheese
3/4 cup chopped seeded tomatoes
3/4 cup chopped pitted black olives
3/4 cup chopped fresh cilantro
3/4 cup purchased salsa
3/4 cup sour cream
1/2 cup chopped green onion
2 cups shredded lettuce
Heat olive oil in heavy large skillet over medium-high heat. Sprinkle steak with salt and pepper. Add to skillet and cook to desired doneness, about 4 minutes per side for medium-rare. Transfer steak to work surface. Thinly slice steak on deep diagonal across grain.
Wipe skillet with paper towels and place over medium-high heat. Add 1 tortilla and cook until soft and heated through, about 30 seconds per side. Transfer to plate; cover with towel to keep warm. Repeat with remaining tortillas.
Serve steak with warm tortillas and remaining ingredients, allowing diners to assemble burritos
i predict philly over new orleans by 6.
But, that is a natural extension of your line of thought. In fact, you can’t have your thought without extending the discussion in that direction.
If the US “allowed” Japan to colonize Korea, the implication is that it was supposed to “prevent” it – you and others who argue your line know this – thus the effort by yourself and Korean society to equate the “good offices” clause with a de facto alliance. (You point out later that you don’t go that far, but you dance really close to it and have to, like I said, based on the natural extention of the whole “allowed” train of thought).
And if the US was supposed to prevent it – and Japan was willing to fight two major wars over influence in Korea – one with a pathetically weak nation (compared to the Western industrialized ones) like China and the other with what was considered a major European empire (Russia) – the natural extension of the “allowed” line of thought is that the US should have gone to war with Japan for Korea.
This is simply wrong. In the sentence before, you mentioned Japan was firmly implanted in Korea. The conversation with Taft happened in July as it became clear Japan was victorious. Whatever the conversation was, it was held after Japan was in control of Korea. There is no way it could have been “permission to invade.”
And this type of language is begging other points that you don’t get into just like with the “allowed” terminology.
Why did Japan need America’s “permission” to go into Korea? (skipping the fact it was already there)
If the US had not “given permission” what do you imagine Japan doing? If the US did not give permission, and Japan went into Korea anyway, what do you envision they US would have done?
[Later edit]
I would alter even this by saying that, in the Taft conversation, Japan was asking if the US would interfere AFTER THE FACT. The meeting was held as the Japanese victory over Russia was pretty much fact (as I remember from the reading some time ago) and Korea was entrenched in Korea. It was asking a question that really had no relevance: both because 1. Japan was already the master of Korea and 2. Taft made absolutely clear in the conversation that he could not and was not speaking for Roosevelt and in no way should his words be considered a “treaty” or even an informal agreement.
Given the wording of the document itself, it really starts to irk me after awhile to hear so many people who should know better (which includes just about everybody) refer to this document as an “agreement”. I wish Taft were alive to take cut and paste onto a new document the words he used painstakengly to spell out to the Count that what he was saying was not to be consdiered an agreement and take that new document and go around beating people over the head with it…
Taft said that no treaty or agreement was really necessary, because everybody in the US (who knew about the sitaution in East Asia) was in agreement with the Count and Japan when it came to Korea. That might be shitty, but Taft’s very own words spell out clearly it is not an “agreement” and it certainly isn’t true that Japan NEEDED agreement from the US to take Korea. It already had it, and the US was in no position to kick it out even if it did want to — which it didn’t.
You (the generic you) can’t translate the lack of desire to defend Korea with “causing” the colonization….
[back to the original message]
I was hoping for exerts since I’ve read some of the stuff you mentioned but don’t really have time to get them again and go over it well to look for the kind of stuff you are saying (the way you are saying it), but I probably will take out The Abacus and The Sword, because I have some questions about whether he used the same kind of language as you — like “permission” and “allowed”. I don’t remember that kind of thought in it, but it’s been awhile.
As I said, I can’t remember of the authors you cited actually made those same connections, but if they did, they are stretching things beyond academic common sense.
As I said above, for that line of thinking to fly, you must say that the US had some obligation to defend Korea. There is no way around that. That is exactly what you are implying directly.
That is why people who go for this line of thinking have to drum up the idea that “good offices” meant a de facto alliance.
The problem is, it is clear the United States did not consider “good offices” an alliance that REQUIRED it to defend Korea from Japanese aggression or Russian agression or Chinese aggression.
And the idea that the American society at the time believed that if a country invades another country, all nations (or at least the US) must intervene is outrageous.
In fact, the idea that the typical professor in the humanities in the US today would say that if another country is invaded, it is encumbent on the United States to intervene is pretty funny given what the typical humanities professor thinks about US intervention (especially military intervention) in such situations today.
This is safe territory, from what I know. I am thinking in particular about how Thailand ended up not being colonized as France and the UK decided to avoid conflict with each other over it, they would leave it as a buffer state.
I can even go along with the idea the US did such things, but trying to fit Japan’s colonization of Korea in there just doesn’t work. The holes in the argument about Korea and The Philippines are obvious and glaring. The only way you can suceesffuly come close to having such an argument hold up is if you talk about a “moral” or “ethical” obligation to do something, and academics won’t go there, because if you applied it to today’s world as a guide to US foreign policy, it would make their heads explode.
(Also, as a side note…people forget how preoccupied the US was in developing the continental United States. We are talking about 1905 here. I am not blowing wind at the common Korean perception that the US “caused” or “allowed” Japan to colonize Korea just because I’m an American. The historical facts and reality they use just won’t fit such a level of accusation. The US was too busy in the 1800s dealing with land accusition in what is the US of today while France, England, Belgium, Spain, and some others were racing around the world to aquire colonies. We had to spend a lot of national energy colonizing what became the 50 states (and the territories like Puerto Rico and The Philippines). The US has things it can be rightly blamed for, but the colonization by Korea isn’t one of them).
I don’t have a fresh enough memory on what I’ve read over the years on what the term “good offices” meant in the international lingo of the day, but it did not mean what King Kojong thought it meant and any other nation familiar with working within the international community of the day would also not have thought it required the US to extend itself much on Korea’s behalf. It was, as I remember it, pretty much standard jargon in such documents doing what that document did.
If I remember correctly, this was in the document that first established relations with the US, right? So, the US was making an agreement that required it to defend Korea from aggression from the very beginning — when American society and foreign policy had a well established history of avoiding international entaglements???
(The fact that Korea is said to have the same “obligation” to come to America’s aid is a big tip off as to how serious of a treaty obligation it was too.)
On Roosevelt, if I were Korean, I’d want to tell him to shove his head up him bum. But, hating his ideas about Social Darwinism and so on is a far cry from saying he had a duty as the American president to defend Korea against Japanese aggression.
Hating him because he thought Japanese controlling Korean foreign policy is one thing. Hating him for disliking Korea as a nation and people is one thing. Saying he “allowed” or “gave permission” for the colonization of Korea by Japan and thus “caused” it is something different.
Saying he thought the colonization was good is not the same as saying he was shirking a responsibility to stop it.
I agree with you on how a good many here are too hard on the Koreans. I do not tranfer over unhappiness at how weak the Korean elite and government made Korea as a society at the time to a lessened distaste for Japan’s colonial effort. To me, the level of resistance to Japanese colonization Korea offered does not alter the level of thought I have about whether Japan’s colonization was good or bad. (However, I don’t particularly like how too many Koreans exaggerate how much the society resisted or the way Korea thinks about “collaborators” either).
However, as to your reference to Europe, I already asked what I think is a better question:
What do we think about France, Britain, and other European reactions to Germany taking Czechoslovakia?
We do ridicule that reaction bitterly. We call it Appeasement. It is a four-letter word post-WWII.
But, what exactly are we criticizing?
It seems to me we are criticizing the failure of Western leaders to recoginize the extend of the threat Hitler’s Germany offered the other nations and how that threat was going to cause a war eventually no matter what. Churchill and some others argued that at the time, but others felt they could avoid war by not pressing Germany in defense of nations, as Chamberlain pointed out in the quote I used, that Britain was not formaly aligned with.
I do not think we really lambast Chamberlain for not recognizing, as frogmouth aserted above, that if ANY nation is invaded by another, it is the responsibility of the others to come to its aid.
Yes, that is the idea that got the United Nations founded – but I ask again – how well has that worked out?
How many of the world masses (especially the intellectual elite (you know – like the ones who teach in the humanities departments in colleges in the West) have been lining up each time a nation is invaded screaming that the UN as a whole must go to war in favor of one nation over the other?????
If the masses do criticize Chamberlain, and they do (rightly so), but they don’t support the UN racing around the world as the world’s policeman (and they surely don’t), what are they really criticizing Chamberlain for?
I don’t know nearly as much about WWI as I do WWII, but both the US and UK came to France’s aid in the second world war out of (in great measure) a sense of there own national self interest. Neither wanted to see a totalitarian regime like Hitler’s in control of the vast resources of continental Europe because such resources could be turned against them.
The US also came to South Korea’s aid (in large measure) also due to a perceived common national interests.
Teddy Roosevelt also watched Japan’s expansion and worried that it would mean they would eventually go to war with the US some decade or two later. (I can’t remember if he made that comment when Japan moved against Korea or not, but I think so), but at the time of Japan taking over Korea, he and pretty much nobody else in the US saw a big enough national interest to get involved in defending Korea.
And as I pointed out earlier, both China and Russia did believe it was in their interests to fight Japan over its increasing interest in Korea, and the effort of both nations is not considered a wonderful thing by Koreans (or other historians). Both are viewed as China and Russia fighting to control Korea just as much as Japan wanted to control it — meaning Korea was considered just a pawn in the game.
And that is something else to consider.
If we can throw aside American society’s huge distaste (at the time) for getting involved in foreign entanglements —
—if we can imagine that the US had intervened on Korea’s behalf and kicked Japanese troops out and then helped rebuild Korea and modernize its industry and its foreign policy and what not —
— how many of you believe today’s history books would be writing about how the US used Korea as a pawn too to increase its own influence over Korea and in Asia
—- vs — how many of you believe today’s history books would be writing about how the US saved Korea from Japan
???????
Sonagi, I am not of the only opinion that Roosevelt gave away Korea to the Japanese it’s not a radical view spoken only by right wing Koreans.
For example in the Alexis Dudden’s “Japan’s Colonization of Korea Power and Discourse” it states.
“In the Taft Katsura agreement (August 1905) in which the United States traded the Philippines for Korea and the second Anglo-Japanese in which Japan and England exchanged Korea for India and Burma…”
Japan did not need permission to invade Korea. I don’t entirely agree with that, as Japan didn’t just barge into Korea. Japan almost lost the chance to colonize Korea entirely after the “Triple Intervention” in 1895. When Russia, Germany and France stepped in and occupied territories Japan took after the Sino-Japanese War. This severly eroded Japan’s position in Korea and the Japanese never forgot that bitter pill. As I’ve mentioned Japan proceeded very cautiously before coercing Korea to sign the protectorate treaty.
There were actually two chains of thought on how to deal with the Korean problem. Some of the military thought they should just march in an annex it. However some of the more influential Japanese like Ito Hirobumi and Inoe Kaoru feared aggressive policies would alienate the West.
Here was Ito’s quote…
“If we repeatedly follow selfish principles, the Western countries will doubt our sincerity and place no trust in us. As a result they may cut off the advance to the capital and our economic society would bear the direct brunt…” This was in 1907 so it’s fair to say that the Japanese considered the West’s reaction before taking bold steps in Korea at this point in time.
usinkorea, you seem really hung up on the legal definitions outlined in your assessment of the treaty of friendship. But as you point out in your own post America did offer “good offices” and to mediate which they did not. So, that being said how did America offer it’s “good offices”?
BTW I really didn’t realize title the “Betrayal of Korea” was very controversial at all because I’ve seen it writen as such so often. I’m going to tone the page down a bit.
Will it or won’t it?
For some reason, Jim Elliott concluded, citing this, that Theodore Roosevelt Gives Korea to Japan, but you can not give the territory you
don’t own.
Note that this is the same mistake many Koreans
are making with respect to Dokdo.
You can not invade Korea by incorporating the territory which had never belonged to Korea.
Gerry’s posts has shown Korean government was never coginzant of Dokdo before Japan included Dokdo.
Frogmouth insists that Usan is Dokdo.But all the document about Usan, all the map of Usan href=”http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/AF_17C/img/1899_ani.gif”>Usan fail to fit the description of Dokdo.
In other word, so far he has failed to show Gerry wrong. For this reason or other, he is often using ad hominem attack at Gerry.
WJK:
None of us is entitled to know the reasons why Matt is posting the way he is posting. He may have been jilted by a Korean woman, sacked by a Korean employer, mugged by a Korean robber, bitten by a Shindo dog…
All that is not relevant to the question whether the arguments he is putting forward are correct or not. Nor is he under any obligation to include posts in his Occidentalism blog which are suitable let Korea appear in a positive light. There are plenty of other blogs plus ample ROK government propaganda devoted to exactly this task…
Just curious myself – are you in any way related to the JK of Metropolitician’s fame ? Because this question IS relevant for our better understanding of the overall constellation…
And as for Gerry, I haven’t got a clue as to the correctness of his views about Dokto, nor do I seriously care. I merely see a humble but dignified foreigner standing his ground against the relentless forces of intolerance and oppression so typical of Korean society. For me, Gerry is a symbol in the struggle against the racist industrial complex in the ROK and in Korean overseas communities (expression courtesy of Occidentalism). I only wish we could help Gerry in any way…
Ponta, I dealt with the Dahanjiji map on this thread already. The map is based on previous maps of Ulleungdo which showed islands on the wrong side of Ulleungdo and other glaring errors. The text also said Usando is Southeast of Ulleungdo showing the map is wrong. Where do I attack Gerry other that point out his posting of backward ancient maps prove nothing?
Two Cents, (Pacifist or Ponta) Anyongbok didn’t declare Usando as Matsushima alone. Many Japanese do as well. In a Japanese investigation as to the historical background of Ulleungdo can be found the following document that states.
“It is said that Matsushima (Dokdo) was named by us Japanese but the truth is, the real name of the island is Usando which is part of (attached to) Ulleungdo of Chosun (Korea)…”
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Usando-songdo-doc.jpg
This document not only reveals that Usando was Dokdo it does more. It shows some of the Japanese authorities of the day considered Matsushima (Dokdo) as attached to or part of Ulleungdo Island.
There are other documents Japanese and Korean that say Usando is Matsushima so the issue of when the name Dokdo came to be is moot.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-usando.html
Again, I’ve mentioned the testimony given was not by just Anhyonbok there were ten other men who concurred with his statements.
As you’ve said the Japanese smuggler went to Ulleungdo and was executed. There is a difference between voyaging to Dokdo and claiming it was Japanese territory. There is no record of Japanese visiting Dokdo was a sole destination and fact the Japanese fisherman lied proves this. Because he asked for permission to visit there proves Dokdo was not considered part of Japan. And all of my maps prove this.
Most importantly, after the Japanese banned travel to Ulleungdo, the Japanese continued to trespass there as we see here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-expansionism-2.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-expansionism-3.html
The Japanese were illegally settling on Ulleungdo to the point where they had to be forcibly removed in 1883. This shows how the Japanese blatantly ignored both their own domestic laws and agreements signed with Chosun in good faith.
Do you have even ONE map that shows Dokdo as Japanese territory prior to military annexation of it? I have some that show it as Korean.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japan-world-map-songdo.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seitailen-1835-songdo.jpg
Y’all ready for something truly profound?
Somebody pull my finger…
That shows Koreans were not familiar with even Ulleungdo.
You did. One on many I most vividly remember was ad hominem attack with JK , making up the fake story about the private life of Gerry.Did you forget?
The point is what “matsuhima” referred to.
You need to check what the proper name refer to
by checking the definite description that was associated with it.
All the descriptions, all the maps that were associated with “Matsuhima” that Korea said is Dokdo fail to fit the the physical and geographical properties of Dokdo/Takeshima.
There is a record in which Japanese fisherman was executed because he sailed to Ulleungdo, saying he would sail to Dokdo.
It shows,
(1) Japanese fisherman were allowed to sail to Dokdo. and it is most likely that
(2) Japanese fishermen sailed to Dokdo.
Maybe some were illegally smuggling on Ulleungdo just as there were a lot of illegal smugglers. But to take care of illegal smuggler
is Korean job. but she didn’t. That shows Korean didn’t have effect control over even Ulleungdo. In respond to Korean request, Japan sent the police to regulate the smugglers.
http://homepage1.nifty.com/sira/takeshima/
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=234#comment-5303
Hey you were there discussing with Pacifist. Did you forget?
Be sure to let every view Korean maps that show Dokdo on them
Don’t mislead the reader. It says “Matsuhima” and it definitely fit with geography of Usan.
Gerry has already mentioned it.
Just show us Korean maps and Korean documents that mention Dokdo before 1905
I wonder why you have been avoiding it.
Beware of anyone (regardless of how well-educated) who uses words like “discourse” and “power” in the title of their work or liberally in the body of their text.
Reading that title before, I got a pretty good picture of where that author is coming from in American (Western) academia, and knew pretty much to roll my eyes.
The guy who wrote The Abacus and the Sword, however, is not particuarly of that ilk, so I would be somewhat suprised to see him drawing such strong “conclusions” of historical “fact” like that, but given my own ability to read texts and think, that scholar would have to lay out some pretty good evidence to convince me of that “truth.”
I could be mistaken, but in July 1905, when Taft met Katsura, and explained to him in some detail about how he was not making an agreement or treaty, ——- was the Japanese army not already in Korea and Manchuria? Had it not just increased the ammount of troops in Korea as a part of the Russo-Japanese War? And it is without question that the result of that war placed Japan in the supreme position of influence in Korea.
Here you are talking about 1907 and Korea was firmly in the hands of the Japanese. Pointing out that Japan discussed worry about Western reactions does very little to advance the idea the US not doing something or saying it would not do something is a root cause of the colonization.
Timing and legal definitions are vital. The definitions are how nations operate with each other.
If “good offices” had been commonly understood in the lingo of the day like the Korean king stated (as a de facto alliance), the US not going to bat for Korea would be a major issue.
But, given what the players of the day understood “good offices” to mean, you can’t lay “blame” for the colonization on the US. You can, but you have to make clear you (the generic you) are basing that opinion on a sense of moral/ethical grounds, and I’d bet $10 that if I read that author you mentioned who used the words “discourse” and “power” —- I would find her definition of the “truth” would be founded on such a moral claim rather than legal and historical facts.
It also just seems like common sense that if you are going to blame the US for the colonization, you have to establish it was their duty to prevent it.
Or, you would have to prove the United States was somehow in control of Korea’s fate — that Korea’s fate clearly depended on whether the US said yes or no to the colonization.
Before 1945, the US was never is such a position and not since the Korean War has the US had the obligation to defend the southern half of Korea.
I couldn’t download this book review, but the lines above already start setting off slight warning bells….
Marmot lottery for who’ll be #500?
Very well, said, USinKorea.
Frogmouth,
I’d like to ask you to rank in order the major reasons why Japan was able to colonize the Korean peninsula. If you want to claim that the US failed to use its “good offices,” I agree. If you say that the Taft-Katsura Agreement and the treaty with the British facilitated the colonization, I agree. Given how much Koreans and some Western scholars talk about these historical events and the language used – betray, gave, handed over, traded, sold down the river, it seems that Koreans consider the US more responsible than their own leaders!
USinKorea has rebutted your remarks very clearly and logically, and I’d like to reiterate that US faculties in the social sciences are highly political and tend to be leftist. As Dr. Lankov remarked much earlier in this thread, criticizing the US is good for one’s career in American universities. Even if “most historians agreed” (an impossible thing to prove), I would still disagree. You cannot trade or give up what you do not control or possess as USinKorea has made so clear. With all due respect to the scholarship of Professor Dudden, she is misusing that English word. If you still don’t agree, then there’s a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.
Even – and I shudder to use the reference – Bruce Cumings admits that the “good offices” clause in Taft-Katsura Agreement was never intended to be what Koreans imagined it to be. It’s a dead end argument, which leaves those who want to apply it in a very uncomfortable position (not that they’d ever admit to that).
OMELET WITH RED CAVIAR AND SOUR CREAM
To make an omelet for one or two, break 3 eggs into a bowl. Mix together 1 tablespoon cold water, 1/4 teaspoon salt, and a dash of Tabasco (Tabasco brings out flavor and develops tenderness).
Add to eggs and beat until light and foamy. Place omelet pan over a moderate heat. To test for correct temperature, scatter a few drops of water into it. If they dance about and disappear almost instantly, the pan is ready. Add 1 tablespoon butter and swirl it about. Pour in eggs. With your left hand, palm down and fingers grasping the handle, move the pan back and forth. With a fork in your right hand, stir the eggs with a circular motion, keeping the flat part of the fork flat on the bottom of the pan. This back and forth motion keeps the omelet from sticking; the circular motion of the fork gives lightness to the omelet.
When eggs are set on the bottom but still slightly moist on top, run the fork around the edge to loosen omelet from pan and change position of your left hand. This time hold the handle of the pan palm side up. Raise the handle side of the pan at an angle and roll the omelet over on itself with the fork, starting the roll close to the handle. Hold a hot plate in your right hand and turn the omelet out onto it. Cut an incision lengthwise in the omelet, about 3 inches long. Open the cut slightly and spread in a mixture of 1 tablespoon red caviar and 2 tablespoons sour cream. Sprinkle with 1 tablespoon chopped parsley and serve.
Makes 1 to 2 servings.
Michael, your point is not lost on me….. We should all ask ourselves what John Lennon would do?
railwaycharm, you are truly an Enlightened One
“Imagine there’s no Dokdo,
It’s easy if you try…”
” No Chok pualli below us, above us only frys”
“Imagine all Koreans,
talking calmly for a change”
“You may say I’m a schemer, but I am not the only one, I hope some day you’ll join us, and all the reason can be un-done.”
LOL railway
Ah shit…..Now I have to rethink my whole position….
And nobody has taken up my Czechoslovakia question…..
Do we lambaste Chamberlain and the leaders of other European democracies for “giving” that nation to Hitler?
Or, for failing to recognize that as long as Hitler was in control of Germany, he was a big threat and only grew bigger the longer we did not move against him?
Mr. ForeignTeacherSacrificedToTheDokdoGods, what we all just posted is one of the most insanely, idiotic things we have ever read. At no point in our rambling, incoherent response were we even remotely close to anything that can be considered a rational though. Everyone on this blog is now dumber for having listened to it. I award us no points, and may God have mercy on our souls.”
With respect, Hugh, I beg to differ. Your opinion is too severe, I think.
Before I ran across this post, I didn’t know that Tabasco sauce brings out flavor AND develops tenderness.
Ponta, I remember the conversation with Pacifist quite well. You, Gerry and Pacifist all argued tooth and nail that the islands in the 1877 Shimane Inquiry did not refer to Ulleungdo and Dokdo. I imagine all of you guys were humiliated when the Japanese released the attached map only one month after and proved you were are wrong and I was right.
The identity of this “other island is irrelevant anyway. Maps of Shimane made after the inquiry show NO islands as part of Shimane Prefecture anyway. You can read about the 1877 document here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1877-doc.html
Ponta are you still posting fisherman maps made by the Murakawa families as proof of Japanese ownership of Dokdo? Listen, the maps you show also include Ulleungdo which was of course part of Korea at the time of these maps. (1724)
usinkorea, you are arguing with the Koreans through me on a few points here. First as I mentioned earlier, I never insinuated the U.S. should have “gone to bat” for Korea. Second I put part of the blame on Korea’s colonization of the entire West’s (not just the US) refusal to even lend an ear to the Koreans for example at Hague in 1907. I don’t think the West could have done little more than delay the colonization of Korea in hindsight. What I find intriguing is the manner in which the world community concurred that the colonization of Korea was legal.
usinkorea read again article 1 of the Treaty.
If other Powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government, the other will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their friendly feelings…”
From your post its clear you are attempting to negate America’s obligations by citing Korea’s misinterpretations. I still have seen no evidence from you that the Americans either “exerted their good offices” or attempted to bring about any “amicable agreement” to Korean legitimate claims that they had been coerced into signing the Protectorate Treaty. Basically you just disregard the whole treaty. Even in your own post you admit that maybe America didn’t show her “good offices” Thus however you interpret Article 1. it’s clear the Americans didn’t honor the Treaty of Friendship.
Alexis Dudden received her B.A. in East Asian Studies from Columbia University and holds a masters degree and doctorate in history from the University of Chicago and has studied in Rikkyo University, University in Tokyo and Yonsei University in Seoul.
I’ll go with her on whether or not Roosevelt traded the Philippines.
jiwonsi, remember too that the circular motion of the fork gives lightness to the omelet.
Well done: Tokdo-inspired frisson has taken this thread beyond 500 posts. Many said that 500 was an impenetrable barrier, but that’s certainly been proved wrong, and all it took was some good, old-fashioned intractability.
Godspeed, and onward to 600!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22insignificant+rocks%22
Jiwonshi, I was Billy-Madisoning us all….
Frogmouth
What are you talking about?Are you talking about this article in which Korean media misleading made it as if Japanese government acknowledged the existence of the 19 century document for the first time when J government has never rejected acknoledging it, when everyone
concerned knew its existence?
Please be specific. You are not trying to mislead the reader just as when you misquoted
the scholars of international law, are you?
Great! I’ll bookmark this comment.
So?
Japan was cognizant of Dokdo during Edo period.
You admit it.
Japan was confused about the island when the state was changing from shogunate to Meiji government.
But after the investigation, Japan confirmed out that Korea did not own the Dokdo and incorporated it in 1905.
In the mean time, from ancient time to 1905, Korean government had never cognizant of Dokdo.
Why have you been avoiding it?
Of course, because that is the detailed map of Dokdo that leave no doubt as to the reference.
The map with Ulleungdo makes it clear that the two rocks are Dokdo and Japanese knew them.
Just show us the Korean map of Dokdo as detailed and accurate as this one
Why have you been avoiding show it?
BTW
I have read the relevant page of The Abacus and the Sword, it seems the author didn’t say the US gave away Korea to Japan. I know you were talking about another book of Peter Duus.
Could you quote the relevant passage? or you didn’t misquoted the author just to mislead people to believe what you wanted to prove, did you? I would like to see his reasonings.
Frogmouth,
You miss my point entirely.
I am asking you to present evidence to prove that Koreans knew about Dokto, as two little pieces of rock sticking out of the Sea of Japan barely visible from Ulleungdo and almost a day’s travel away from it, and not how the Japanese regarded it. Somehow, Koreans always want to prove that Dokto was historically theirs using Japanese sources. The maps you linked to are also made in Japan. What is being questioned by most of the people who are not falling for the Dokto story is whether Koreans actually knew the existence of the Liancourt Rocks. Japanese documents and maps clearly show that when it was called Matsushima (松島) prior to the 19th century the Japanese meant the two little islands located approximately in the center of Ulleungdo and Oki islands, as the site you kindly linked to proves. Then, in the 19th century, when the western mapmakers started confusing the situation, records also show that Japan became confused, and the document in the first link you provide (松島巡視要否ノ議: “Regarding the Need for an Inspection Mission to Matsushima” in 1878) is evidence of that. The fact that Japan carried out an inspection mission to Matsushima in 1880 is proof that the above opinion was ditched and thus should not be used as evidence to prove that Japan officially considered Matsushima as Chosun’s. The documents you provide in the second link are also parts of the debate. Unlike Korea, in Japan, people present the pros and cons of an issue before making a decision. Sadly, the Japanese text in the section “The Japanese Inquiry of Ulleungdo Region’s History” is misread and presented as meaning the complete opposite of the original. It reads “Are these two islands what we refer to as Takeshima and Matsushima?” and not “These are what we Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo) and Takeshima.” So the site’s conclusion “It is interesting to note with this document that although Usando was drawn on Ulleungdo’s wrong (West) side, Japanese were concious of this error and still considered Usando to be Matsushima,” is plainly wrong. This is a report that compiles the contents of東国興地勝覧 (Korean document established in 1478) to examine the Korean stand on the island issue.
Is there a Korean document, official or unofficial, which says the island Koreans have historically called Usan is the one mapped as the Liancourt Rocks or called Dokto in the late 19th or early 20th century? The Taehanjiji (大韓地誌) published in 1899 gives the eastern limit of Korea as E130º35′ and the latter 朝鮮常識問答 (Q&A on common knowledge for the Koreans) published in 1947 gives it as E130º56’23″. The second edition of the latter published in 1948 even states that the eastern boundary is Jukto of Ullengdo located at the said latitude. It is obvious that Koreans did not consider Liancourt Rocks to be a part of their territory, even after they had acquired the knowledge of modern mapmaking standards.
http://bbs.enjoykorea.jp/tbbs/read.php?board_id=ttalk&nid=526516
The remainder of my counter-opinion to your comment will be posted at Occidentalism, because I think the details of Takeshima/Dokto debate are off-topic here.
Lies, Half-Truths and Dokto Video Maps 4
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=451
Oh Lord, how do I close the comments section?
UPDATE: OK, I found it. A post with 510 comments is something, just not something useful. I think it is time to cool down a little bit until the next regularly scheduled round of Dokdo chest thumping in early March.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 5 trackbacks }