Korea wants its flag back [Baltimore Sun]. My guess is that they’ll have as much luck with this as they have trying to get the Joseon royal archives from the French. I’m just impressed the Sun reporter could write about the Sinmiyangyo and not mention the burning of the General Sherman. Coincidentally, does anyone know if the Balangiga Bells have been returned yet? (HT to DPRK Studies)
Korea asks for Ganghwa battle flag back
Previous post: Korea 29th most competitive nation
Next post: Congratulations, Curzon!
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
I say, let the imperialists keep their stolen treasure. Teach the children that Western nations once came uninvited to Asia’s shores, engaged in acts of aggression, took things that didn’t belong to them, which remain in their possession as testimonies of their glory and superiority to this day.
I say, return the flag forthwith. Accompany the return with the immediate withdrawl of all US forces from the ROK.
They won’t be needed. Inspired by the return of their pre-colonial battle flag, all Koreans will rally to it and become invincible.
“…For Korea, the hard-fought battle – during which the nation lost 350 men, compared with three American sailors and Marines – has come to symbolize a great victory….”
Two-Gun Cho has erased that “loss-ratio” humiliation. Now the whole world knows that one Korean is the battle equal of 32 Americans. So get that flag back quick, before they get really mad at us.
I believe they already do that.
[DELETED for being off topic]
FYI, the two bells were the subject of a front-page feature story in the US edition Wall Street Journal. It was a while back, maybe about 3 or 4 years ago.
One of those non-business “feature interest” (my phrase for it) stories that always has a one-column lead on the front page, and then is continued deeper in the paper. This particluar type of WSJ story always goes into a magazine-article level of detail about the particular intricacies, which is why it might be more interesting than just another standard newspaper recounting.
As best I can recall, the adamant opposition to returning the bells was Wyoming local veterans (I think local National Guard, veterans of foreign wars, etc).
Maybe if someone has a subscription to the online WSJ they can search for the story, if such searches are part of the on-line subscription service.
Q: Why would anyone want to hold on to an old rag of defeat? A: Maybe the same reason we cherish the Stars and Bars. Solution: Light a match and give the Koreans Georgia.
I nearly choked when I read
“South Korea is probably the United States’ best friend in Asia”. I’ll have whatever Thomas Duvernay is smoking, please.
I laughed out loud when I heard him quoted as saying “SK is probably the US best friend in Asia.” I heard Condi Rice once say “We have no better friend than Japan”, I remembered that because in my mind I was thinking England will be pissed off. This quote goes to show the quality of some of the Univ. professors in Korea. And the sad thing is, people in America read “professor” and think very highly of the guy but they have no idea that it only takes a pulse to get a teaching job here.
It doesn’t bother me that the Poms have a captured “our flag”.
I’m all for war trophies, but if one’s trophy case is rather bare I reckon that’s gotta grate.
Just make up something, like a ironclad boat.
Is there an ethical difference between ’spoils of war’ and objects that were acquired through theft?
western countries have gone all over the world looting treasure form other lands. now we see the spectacle of westerners trying to justify their looting by talking about contracts, legalities, blah, blah, blah…..pathetic.
賣 忽 訪 羅 瑕
Pawi,
You don’t get irony, I see.
What’s pathetic is that you throw accusations that border on the racist while forgetting that Koreans have never looted another country.
And there, once again, you gloss things over in order to make a point. (What, you thought you’re the only one who can read Chinese? Don’t be silly.)
Correction: forgetting that Koreans have looted other countries in the past.
#10 someguy:
“Is there an ethical difference between ’spoils of war’ and objects that were acquired through theft?”
Yes, if one is willing to accept the precedent of the traditional law of war as it has been applied between nations (and not simply redefine “ethics” to suit one’s current politics).
Captured enemy war material (but not his personal property) becomes the property of the captor; battle standards are the traditional “gold standard” of this “war material” category.
By “flags” I mean ones that have little to no intrinsic value in and of themselves; indeed, if it were otherwise, this flag wouldn’t be the only surviving example of its type. And this one is evidently only a local general’s banner, not a national Korean symbol — at least, that’s how I read the Baltimore Sun article. If somebody can explain coherently otherwise, I’d be happy to be educated.
If it had been a valuable tapestry of silk, interwoven with gold, hanging somewhere in a room of the fortress, and had the landing force had carried it off — that would have been looting and a violaton of the law of war. As far as I know this type of thing didn’t happen, though I didn’t previously know about this particular bit of history.
Nevertheless, leaving aside the sarcasm of my earlier post on this thread, I favor returning the flag without any conditions. Anything that promotes a proud Korean nationalism and may help them gain the confidence to believe in their own ability to defend themselves (without dependence on US ground forces) is a potential plus in my book.
President Bush ought to issue an executive order directing the US Naval Academy to return the flag. In fact, if I were him, I’d put it on Air Force One and fly it to Seoul personally, to present it to President Roh.
At the ceremony, both presidents should announce proudly that this flag symbolizes the renaissance of an independent and pre-colonial-era Korea, and that at the end of 5 years all US forces will be withdrawn.
Desire for a withdrawl schedule for US forces is all the rage these days and I can’t for the life of me figure out why I’m the only one who thinks the idea should also be applied to USFK. This flag represents a remarkable political opportunity to start the ball rolling in that direction.
See, Paul, the lines are blurry.
The flag may have been the personal property of the general and since it was a general’s flag, it may have been quite valuable even back then if it’s made of silk and embroidered with gold thread.
“Captured enemy war material (but not his personal property) becomes the property of the captor; battle standards are the traditional “gold standard” of this “war material” category.”
Interesting point. This could explain why the US government doesn’t want its soldiers from bringing ’souvenirs’ back with them from Iraq and Afghanistan. The personal property is not theirs to take and the war material is given to the Iraqi government.
I second Paul H’s last comment, in principle. The flag should have been returned years ago, as a gesture of good will. In my perfect world, it would have been handed over to the Korean Marine Corps by the Commandant of the USMC, as a token of their common sacrifices in the 1950-53 war. As for an act of Congress, that can be a fairly simple affair if you have an astute congressman on your side, and I can’t believe that the USMC does not. I’d drop the idea of withdrawal, though. Not that we shouldn’t, but it is a separate issue.
ps. Saw the flag captured at the Alamo in a Museum in Churubusco, now a neighborhood in Mexico City, back in 1996. (Museum of the Foreign Invasions). Made a comment to a Mexican officer I knew that the Texans might really appreciate getting it back. His reply was that such a return was diplomatically impossible, given that Texas was no longer an independent republic.
Very well, I’ll drop the withdrawl condition. Just give the flag back unconditionally, we should be a big enough country for that.
Lirelou, according to a story in the San Antonio local newpaper a couple of years ago, the Alamo flag you saw in 1996 has disappeared and nobody seems to know (publicly speaking) quite what happened.
There is (or was) a similar proposal to the subject of this thread, involving the Alamo flag (which actually looks, or looked, just like the Mexican tri-color flag, with the year “1824″ in the middle).
If I recall, I think the idea behind the flag was that Santa Ana was in violation of the Mexican constitution of 1824, thus the revolt of the TX settlers. I think there were other revolts against S. Ana elsewhere in Mexico, Santa Ana efficiently put them down and then marched in late winter to TX, which was a surprise.
Anyway, I think the proposal was that the Mexican battle flags (three of them?) captured by the US in 1846-48 would be swapped for the one Alamo flag captured by Santa Ana. I can’t remember now who the proponent for this proposal (perhaps TX politicians, acting on behalf of the Daughters of TX who oversee the Alamo).
Not only was this idea evidently a non-starter with the Mexicans, but it evidently led to the “disappearance” of the
Alamo flag. Inquiries about where the Alamo flag is currently are meant with a shrug, or so I thought I gathered from the story I read.
In the meantime, I commend the example of the Mexicans to the ROK government. I think the Mexicans would rather walk through the bowels of hell than accept one American soldier (or military base) on their soil — and I suppose that if I put on my “global citizen” hat I can’t really blame them.
So they’re just not going to give up that flag (assuming it even still exists somewhere).
I’m confident I’m remembering this essentially correctly, but take it all as unconfirmed until/unless I can find a link to support it. Don’t have a “hard copy” of the story at hand.
Ok, I was el wrongo about the “1824″ flag, should have thought it over some more before posting (how come I never get these uneasy feelings until I “commit” my post? One still longs for a “preview” function O Mighty Marmot).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.....lamo#Flags:
“After the battle, Mexican soldiers discovered the company flag of the New Orleans Greys and sent it to Mexico City as proof of U.S. involvement. It is now the property of the National Historical Museum in Mexico City. No one knows which flag flew over the Alamo during the battle. One flag of note was the Mexican tri-color flag with the numbers “1824″ set in the middle denoting the Constitution of 1824. Another flag might have been the Mexican tri-color with two stars in the middle denoting Coahuila y Tejas. The image of a tricolor with “1824″ on it flying over the mission has been a myth handed down through the years. The flag with the two stars was probably a company banner of those of Mexican ancestry fighting against Santa Anna—perhaps just less than ten answering to Juan Seguin.
The New Orleans Greys banner might not have flown at all over the mission but was simply discovered in a room after the battle. It was in a pristine state with no tears or bullet holes, and the earliest photographs of it show it had no way to be attached to a pole. The de facto flag of the Texas Revolution was a banner patterned after the American Flag with 13 stripes of red and white and a blue field. A large single star was present in the blue field with the letters T-E-X-A-S appearing between the points. This identification of the Alamo battle flag has been confirmed in the recent book Texas Flags by Robert Maberry. It is also the earliest representation of an Alamo battle flag being first declared as such a few months after the battle.”
“ps. Saw the flag captured at the Alamo in a Museum in Churubusco, now a neighborhood in Mexico City, back in 1996. (Museum of the Foreign Invasions). Made a comment to a Mexican officer I knew that the Texans might really appreciate getting it back. His reply was that such a return was diplomatically impossible, given that Texas was no longer an independent republic.”
Makes me wonder…Korea became fully independent of China in 1895 (shortly thereafter, the Korean King gave himself the title of Emperor). So, is the flag in question a property of China or Korea? I’d say it’s Korean, but maybe I’m basing that on my impression that Canadian regiments of the British Army became Canadian after the treaty of Paris and the American Revolution, which was 100 years before confederation.
The first character is not the one you want.
Try again.
‘What’s pathetic is that you throw accusations that border on the racist while forgetting that Koreans have never looted another country.’
accusations? it’s no accusation germany in possession of art that shouldn’t be theirs. it’s no accusation to point out france in possession of looted documents from chosun korea. what accusations are you talking about? are you saying that western people haven’t been masters at looting other people’s heritage? are you saying to point that out is racist while you yourself point out the same thing out about korea?
i’ve noticed something about you and your posts to me; you never refute anything i write, you just say i don’t have any idea what i’m talking about. that’s juvenile. refute my ideas. that’s harder, isn’t it?
oh, btw, can you tell me about korea’s ‘looting’ of chinese characters? can you tell me about korea’s looting in general? i’ve never heard of this before and think you’ve made it up. could you clarify?
買 忽 訪 羅 瑕
dogbert, you’re one smart man, that’s for sure.
Thanks, and I agree that Korean historical items should be returned to Korea.
pawikirogi wrote; Koreans have never looted another country.
Did you forget what they did in Vietnam ? What about “the USS Pueblo” ?
Here’s a picture of the “alamo” flag that (I think) Lirelou saw in the Mexico City-area museum:
http://www.galleryoftherepubli.....rleans.htm
Note the last two paragraphs of the explanatory caption:
“…The 1824 flag had been create to call attention to the Mexican constitution of that year, which Santa Anna had revoked. Unlike any of the other historic flags of Texas, the Flag of the New Orleans Grays clearly indentified an American origin, and was therefore special to the Mexican dictator.
After the defeat of the Texans, this flag was saved by Santa Anna as proof that his army was not fighting against a revolution of Texans, but rather an invasion by American seditionists. Santa Anna sent the flag back to his government in Mexico City, where it has been held since 1836.”
It hadn’t occurred to me before that Santa Ana would have had a political motive to destroy any captured flags that resembled the Mexican one. No wonder Mexico doesn’t want to give up the “New Orleans Grays” Alamo flag.
#15 Someguy:
1) “…See, Paul, the lines are blurry.
The flag may have been the personal property of the general and since it was a general’s flag, it may have been quite valuable even back then if it’s made of silk and embroidered with gold thread.”
My mention of a valuable tapestry made of gold and silk hanging in the fortress was theoretical; I’ve seen no indication that this particular Korean flag had any valuable components.
A battle flag is meant for durability as it will be exposed to the weather; the use of gold thread and valuable silk would not be particularly durable for something meant for the battlefield and exposed to the weather.
2) Someguy: “…This could explain why the US government doesn’t want its soldiers from bringing ’souvenirs’ back with them from Iraq and Afghanistan. The personal property is not theirs to take and the war material is given to the Iraqi government.”
The distinction is between war material (items issued to the enemy soldier by his government, therefore the property of the capturing government) — vs personal property.
In this case (1871, in Korea), one would presume that swords, spears, muskets, etc were captured Korean war material and thus upon capture became US property — to include battle flags.
Personal property of any dead or captured Koreans would be such things as gold rings. The taking of these (from either enemy dead or captured) would be looting and forbidden by the disciplinary code of the time (US military Articles of War, the predecessor to the current Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Personal “souvenirs” from captured enemy war material such as enemy weapons may be authorized, depending upon the circumstances. During the Vietnam war, I gather that it was forbidden for US military personnel to have an AK-47 to take home as personal property since it was a fully automatic capable weapon, but they could take home a WWII era Soviet bolt-action rifle such as the “SKS”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS
I gather as the war went on the NVA/Viet Cong ceased to commonly use these rifles, and thus they became highly sought after as “souvenirs” by US personnel coming home from Vietnam.
I don’t know the exact policy currently for US forces in Afghanistan/Iraq, but I’m going to guess that the taking of any “souvenir” pistols or semi-automatic rifles is no longer authorized by the military authorities — probably due to the chance of them getting out of control later and being used in a shooting incident, either overseas or back in the USA.
You can understand this, I’m sure. These days the whole world is anxious to put all members of the US military under a microscope, so that any infraction of the rules can be used to make a political point.
#22 pawi:
“…can you tell me about korea’s ‘looting’ of chinese characters? can you tell me about korea’s looting in general?…”
For a recent example of Korean “looting”, scroll back a few months on this blog to read about the Korean employees of AAFES who “looted” and sold for personal profit past-expiration-date imported beer that they were supposed to ensure was destroyed.
“Looting” in the ethical sense of the word, in that they violated a trust. Strictly speaking, it wasn’t “looting” in a military justice sense, since these Korean civlian employees aren’t subject to the US miilitary justice system (nor, I presume, to the Korean military one).
I guess they are subject to Korean civilian justice, assuming they have been (or ever will be) apprehended by the civil authorities.
pawikirogi,
“accusations? it’s no accusation germany in possession of art that shouldn’t be theirs. it’s no accusation to point out france in possession of looted documents from chosun korea. what accusations are you talking about? are you saying that western people haven’t been masters at looting other people’s heritage? are you saying to point that out is racist while you yourself point out the same thing out about korea?”
When did I accuse Koreans of looting? They certainly have at one point or another. Racist? Certainly not. Name one country that hasn’t invaded or looted another in the past?
I don’t need to refute your ideas as they are generally hateful. I just try to ignore them, but sometimes it’s a bit much to take.
Oh, and Koreans didn’t loot Chinese symbols. Korea was essentially part of China until 1895, wasn’t it? How can you loot a writing system, anyways? By copying old Tibetan and Sanskrit letters and calling them your own? Oups, my bad.
Paul,
FYI; SKS rifles are semi-auto rather than bolt-action.
I don’t need to refute your ideas as they are generally hateful. I just try to ignore them, but sometimes it’s a bit much to take.
Oh, and Koreans didn’t loot Chinese symbols. Korea was essentially part of China until 1895, wasn’t it? How can you loot a writing system, anyways? By copying old Tibetan and Sanskrit letters and calling them your own? Oups, my bad.’
just like i said; can’t refute. can only talk shit. this post here is the last one you’ll get from me. you are now excommunicated. bye.
oh, just one thing, someguy….
‘but sometimes it’s a bit much to take..’ someguy
yes, it is, isn’t it?
while forgetting that Koreans have never looted another country.
Someguyinkorea,
Maybe you don’t know this but the way this usually works is that much bigger and stronger country invades/attacks/loots a smaller and weaker country.
“Korea was essentially part of China until 1895, wasn’t it?”
You said it!
“you are now excommunicated. bye.”
Whatever, I’m an atheist.
Net Kim,
So Korea never invaded Japan or China? You need to brush up on your Korean history.
“Korea wants its flag back. My guess is that they’ll have as much luck with this as they have trying to get the Joseon royal archives from the French.”
The Baltimore Sun is reporting that the Naval Academy has agreed to return the flag. It is scheduled to reach Seoul on October 19.
The article includes a nice archive picture of the huge flag.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/ne.....?track=rss
You must log in to post a comment.