On the 57th anniversary of the start of the Korean War, the Korea Times reports that fewer and fewer youngsters know anything about the war. One in five, in fact, believe the war was fought between Korea and Japan.
Meanwhile, words of wisdom from the KTU:
“In the past, many focused on teaching children to hate North Koreans and their ideology. The most effective tool was the Korean War, where they were told brutal and inhumane stories,” said Park Tae-dong of the Korean Teacher’s and Education Workers’ Union.
If unification is what we all are aiming for, education should focus on harmonizing and understanding each other rather than to hate each other and call names, he said.
Right… because all that hate should be reserved for the United States, Grand National Party and Chosun Ilbo. And as far as the Korean War is concerned, I guess it would be better to instead teach the kiddies about Nogeun-ni and party with former communist partisans.
UPDATE: The Chosun Ilbo (English) has more:
There were also changes in the historical view of the Korean War. In December 2002, more opted for “a proxy war of the U.S. and the Soviet Union” (44.5 percent) than “an illegal invasion by North Korea” (31.2 percent). In the latest poll, more than a half opted for an illegal invasion by North Korea (52.3 percent), followed by a proxy war (35.7 percent). Among college students, the view that the war was an invasion increased sharply from 17.7 percent to 41.7 percent, while those seeing it as a proxy war declined from 67.2 percent to 54.7 percent.
Read the rest on your own.
{ 98 comments… read them below or add one }
“Right… because all that hate should be reserved for the United States, Grand National Party and Chosun Ilbo.”
Robert, this is not what is really happening in South Korea. Some people could have been upset about “apparent” anti-U.S. sentiment in the country, but it was a temporary event and a reaction to certain foreign policy and the SOFA, I would say. Although the Chosun Ilbo sometimes makes valid points, using their “frequently” problematic reports and opinions (not the above one) may hurt your reasoning.
French Quarter, I don’t know how long you’ve been a Marmot Hole reader, but he has posted many times on obvious and blatant hatred of the US and it goes far back before Bush. I’ve also heard plenty of anti-business sentiment from average Koreans (and average Canadians and others). The fact that the SOFA is not unfair makes no difference (Korean forces have a more strictly protective SOFA when they are placed in other countries) as the media regularly spins the US as the bad guy. Also, witness all the demonstrations against an FTA with the US. Where were all the demos against an FTA with the EU? Free trade with anybody but those evil Yankees. Sounds like hatred of the US to me.
I think the comment was more narrowly targeted at the KTU.
Well, here it says: “In the survey of 1,005 adults jointly conducted by the vernacular daily Chosun Ilbo and Korea Gallup, 50.6 percent of the respondents had favorable sentiments toward the United States, while 42.6 percent had negative feelings.
“In a survey conducted by the daily just before the 2002 presidential election, only 32.7 percent reacted positively toward the U.S., while anti-Americanism was prevalent among 53.7 percent.”
http://english.yonhapnews.co.k.....0315F.HTML
So…42.6 percent are anti-American, that is still a significant percentage, and the rate would be higher if Roh hadn’t muffed every policy he took on and the norks hadn’t launched missiles and lit off a nuke, according to the article.
What about those who have favorable and unfavorable feelings about the US?
a boob in the White House=bad!
Police Academy movies=bad!
boobs in American movies=good!
Taxi Driver and Serpico=good!
French Quarter, anti-Americanism is rampant in South Korea – “it’s not an “apparent” or “temporary” situation, its very real and very strong, and has been for some time. Remember the South Koreans cheering for the soviets at the 88 seoul olympics?
Check out this poll for example:
http://www.breitbart.com/artic....._article=1
In the event of a war with the North, only 11% of south korean youth think SK should side with the states.
Snow, I joined this blog a few weeks ago so that I do not know which articles and topics have been discussed here. South Koreans fight against each other always. When they fight, they usually use very extreme words. I don’t think they would spare such expressions when their interests contradict those of the U.S.
If I can say about some of what South Koreans have in their minds: There are a couple of countries in the world that the majority of South Koreans do NOT fully trust. The U.S. is not one of them. Whatever you might have heard, their average sense of alliance with the U.S. is really deep. I’m neither pro-American nor anti-American. This is simply the fact.
Although a couple of conservative South Korean newspapers have attempted to label Roh as an anti-Amarican, even Roh is not an exception. Roh decided to send troops to Iraq despite strong resistance of the congressmen of his party and his followers. The report of Hans Blix had been known in South Korea, and people there knew there had been no known WMD. Roh’s reasoning was that the U.S. was the strongest alliance of South Korea, and that to help the U.S. was good for South Korea. A Korean-American lawyer/economist, who had worked (not in the FTA team) with some of those including Kim Hyung-Chong in the South Korean FTA representatives, told me that one of the assumption of the South Korean team was that South Korea should go with the U.S. competing with their neighbor countries, and that various systems of the U.S. are better than those of South Korea (the lawyer/economist does not agree to the latter personally).
(Let me add this: In 2002, there were numerous candle protests. Roh had not attended in any one of them. He actually asked people to calm down. On the other hand, Lee Hoe-Chang, the opposite candidate of Hannara, joined a protest in December. Lee demanded apologies from the U.S. government several times in his presidential campaign.)
About anti-FTA demonstrations: It is obvious that the agriculture industry is likely to be wiped out. Although the agriculture industry in South Korea is very small and weak, the industry has a symbolic meaning for South Koreans. On the other hand, the impact of the EU FTA is not known yet. More importantly, the sense of impact by the U.S. much bigger for South Koreans than one by the EU almost in any situation.
#6
My answer is: I don’t think that the survey result shows that “anti-Americanism is rampant in South Korea,” and that the U.S. will not and need not attack North Korea.
French wrote:
Could you venture a guess as to why the government has not been more innovative in promoting options to Korean farmers? The Government has offered farmers loans but that is very short-sighted and achieves nothing. There are other crops farmers could grow and true organic farming (not the current debased US food industry standard) is experiencing a growing demand everywhere.
Ultimately, the Korean Government has failed their agricultural constituents rather than them being the victim of an FTA (IMHO).
I want to add the following to #7:
(I will not talk about nuclear weapon things of North Korea)
The relationship among North and South Koreans and the U.S. was good at the end of the second term of the Clinton Administration. After James Kelly visited North Korea in 2002, there has been nuclear crisis. Whatever the cause of the crisis, which I will not discuss, there was a expectation that the U.S would attack North Korea like it attacked Iraq. If there would be attack on North Korea, tens of thousands of artilleries and missiles of North Korea would hit Seoul. In a few hours, or in one day, at least a million people in South Korea will be killed. Knowing this, people started raising their voices. A tragic incident also followed. Things went had.
I don’t know about the substance of the SOFA, but there was a procedural issue in the tribunal, which incurred misunderstanding or outrage. I can express my opinion, but I can’t really make any judgment at this point.
French Quarter, do you follow the news in Korea very closely? I’m asking because I can’t figure out why the metalworker’s union would go on strike against the FTA when the agreement wouldn’t really affect them. Welcome to the Hole by the way.
#9
R. Elgin,
I’m incapable of answering you question fully: Subsidy is only 10% of the household income in the agriculture industry in South Korean while subsidy is 35% of the household income in the industry in the U.S. There are many other factors such as mountainous and small land that have made the agriculture industry in South Korea weak and less competitive. They are simply incapable of competing with the agriculture industry in the U.s. They might switch to the higher-value items such as organic products as you mentioned, but many of them is unlikely to do so. There are chronic problems in the agriculture industry in South Korea that governments could not have resolved.
#11:
Thank you, michael. Although the FTA agreement does not seem to affect them, they think that the FTA would damage the industries in South Korea, and that many people would lose job. Although their strike is arguably political, the FTA agreement has apparently unfair clauses. Your question is actually about whole FTA agreement. Because I’m trying to write a paper regarding the KORUS FTA, I might be able to answer your question later. BTW, the Roh Administration, with the assumptions that I mentioned in #7, has been trying tone down the alleged unfairness the FTA agreement.
I read somewhere that the metalworkers think the FTA will cause plants to relocate to other countries but that’s already happening anyway because of China. It sounds like a “solidarity” strike.
French Quarter, as far as what I’ve heard about the FTA, it is largely quite beneficial to Korea. Many analysts here have praised it and know its a good deal for Korea, if it ever passes in the US.
As far as your contention that strong anti-US feelings didn’t really happen until Bush came along and upped the ante and the tank incident, I think you’re way off base. There was plenty of anti-American sentiment before this, but it just went over the top with the tank incident. Bush just inflamed something that was already strongly there, just not so blatant, perhaps.
I do agree with you that I think that most South Koreans know that the US is a much better ally to cosy up to than anyone else and that Korea has benefitted tremendously from the relationship with the US. But it sticks in the craw of many expats when we see the continual bashing of the US in Korea (and in Canada, too) considering how beneficial the relationship with the US has been for Korea and Canada.
Many Koreans are angry with the US, yet have no qualms with milking Uncle Sucker for military protection, sending their kids there for schooling, going there for birth/citizenship, etc, etc. I’m just sick of the neverending stream of hatred that I hear about the US from so many quarters. I do agree with you that I don’t think the average Korean really ultimately hates the US, as they know it represents everything they would like Korea to have: money, power, influence. But many just like to dislike or hate the place for no real reason.
Snow: I’ll sum it up in two words: penis envy.
Not unusual, kids don’t really care about this type of thing.
“… as they know it represents everything they would like Korea to have: money, power, influence.”
Snow,
Money, power, and influence are important for many people, but they cannot move all people. If South Korea, or other countries, seeks them only, perhaps it should stick with China. The foundation of the influence of the U.S. on the international society is not just money or military power. There USED TO be belief in the morality and values of the U.S. They, along with the U.S. Constitution (John Yoo, a Korean-American professor at U.C Berkeley School of Law, is the most-known theorist/supporter for the military tribunal (for detainees from the “war on terrorism”) setup by the Bush Administration, which violated the U.S. Constitution that gives such a exclusive power to the U.S. court only, on the ground that this is a “war” situation) have been undermined for the last a few years in the perspective of non-Americans (plus New Yorkers), although I believe they will be recovered. That’s one of the reasons that bashing America has become a national sports event in some countries.
True. I guess they deserve credit just for knowing that the Korean War happened, which is probably more than you could expect from American students.
French Quarter, I really think you underestimate the severity of anti-americanism here, as well as its longetivity.
Here’s another fact for you to contemplate (from http://www.jpri.org/publicatio.....wp93.html):
In a 2002 survey of national attitudes, conducted in forty-two countries by the Pew Research Center, a stunning 44 percent of South Koreans were found to hold unfavorable views of the United States. This level of disaffection topped France’s 34 percent, Germany’s 35 percent, and in fact, any country in Europe or East Asia. In the non-Muslim world, only Argentina, whose economy was in ruins for two years (arguably done in by the neoliberal nostrums pushed by Washington) was shown to harbor more unhappy sentiments vis-à-vis the United States. A Korean Gallup Poll, conducted around the same time as the Pew Research Center survey, confirmed as much and more, reporting that some 53.7 percent of South Koreans held “unfavorable” and “somewhat unfavorable” view of the United States. Most of these malcontents happened to be young, and included upwards of 80 percent of the college students polled.
In other words, only the muslim world and argentina (severely depressed) hated americans more. Now mix in the fact that 60,000 U.S servicemen died defending South Korea not long ago, and it paints a pretty dark picture of South Korean attitudes. I’m not american, but if I was, on the back of that sort of sentiment, I’d consider it a mandate to let the DPRK and the ROK duke it out on their own.
The idea that Bush had something particular to do with Korea’s brand of animosity is erroneous, since pretty much everyone in the world disliked him (and still does).
I think what it boils down to is pride (having to put up with a foreign army of protectors – god knows any country would get sick of that real quick) and the Han complex. IMHO.
“I’m incapable of answering you question fully: Subsidy is only 10% of the household income in the agriculture industry in South Korean while subsidy is 35% of the household income in the industry in the U.S.”
That latter statistic looks very inflated. Do you have a link? According to the anti-agricultural subsidy Cato Institute:
“In 2004, for example, agricultural support in the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) came to about $280 billion. The EU’s agricultural support amounted to about $133 billion, Japan’s to $49 billion, America’s to $47 billion, South Korea’s to $20 billion and Canada’s and Switzerland’s to $6 billion each. Moreover, in 2003, the British think-tank Policy Exchange found that EU consumers “pay 42 percent more for agricultural products than they would if the system were dismantled. Americans pay 10 percent extra, Japanese more than twice as much.”
US subsidy per person: $48 billion /300 million people = $157 per person
South Korea subsidy per person: $20 billion /48 million people = $416 per person
According to the Korea Statistical Information System, South Korean households average 3.3 people and an annual income of W33 million.
According to the US Census Bureau, US households average 2.6 people and an annual income of $46,000.
South Korea subsidies per household: $416 x 3.3 people = $1372 per household, or about 4% of household income
US subsidies per household: $157 x 2.6 people = $408 per household, or about less than one percent of household income.
Even without all these calculations, anybody could eyeball that 35% of income figure and know it was totally off, for the US top marginal tax rate is only 28%.
“I guess they deserve credit just for knowing that the Korean War happened, which is probably more than you could expect from American students.”
That’s understandable given that the Korean War was fought on Korean soil and has far more significance in Korean history than in US history.
And here’s the Cato Institute link:
http://www.freetrade.org/node/300
I reread your statistic, French Quarter, and I see you were talking about subsidies as a percentage of a farm family’s household income, not household incomes in general. I’d still like to see a link. The problem with comparing US and SK agricultural income subsidies is that the bulk of US subsidies are paid not to small family farms but to large commercial operations, and most of that money supports feed crops like corn and soybeans, not produce.
One reason for the children’s ignorance, perhaps, is the scant brushover it receives in secondary school history classes. Not much more than it receives in the US, which is almost nil. A pity, considering all the lives lost and families destroyed.
My personal believe is that a lot of the anti-U.S. sentiment is directly due to a deep and sustained infiltration of all levels of ROK government and education by DPRK or pro-DPRK elements.
That doesn’t explain all of it, of course. Other big factors include those already well-covered by other commentors:
-U.S. economy envy
-visible occupation/protector force presence (how much more “in your face” than Yongsan can you get ?)
-minjok sympathies taking precedance over pragmatism
The Chosun Ilbo (English version) also has a short but interesting interview with General Paik Sun-yup (Ret.) on the need to remember the Korean War.
- – – – –
French Quarter said:
A couple of papers? A lot more than that, I’m afraid. Roh rode the anti-American wave to office and has undeniably been a useful idiot/wedge for use by North Korea since. Roh talked the talk concerning USFK and alliance, but his actual policy decisions tell the true story and to not mesh with rhetoric of being allies. The decision to send Koreans to Iraq was done with much hand wringing and was in no way a sincere gesture of support; his administration made it clear that they felt they had not choice but to do so, and were not happy about it.
It’s Roh’s and South Korea’s prerogative to be that way, but let’s be real and call a spade a spade.
On Blix I think you grossly oversimplify;
http://www.dprkstudies.org/doc.....eapons.pdf
I’m not trying to hi-jack this into a pre-war intel debate, the quote is only to counter the bit of revisionism concerning what was known, esp by Korea.
Richardson:
You obviously didn’t bother to read the article you quoted. The author concludes this article by stating that the invastion of Iraq, even if one takes into account the exaggerated claims made about Saddam’s weapons program, was a grave mistake. Pollack writes:
At the very least we should recognize that the Administration’s rush to war was reckless even on the basis of what we thought we knew in March of 2003. It appears even more reckless in light of what we know today.
So in fact, your quote actually weakens the argument you hoped to make.
And you gotta apply critical thinking here. A calutron plant is not a nuclear weapon. Just as a micro-processor is not a PC. Shucks, even if Iraq did have WMD’s, I would certainly hope that the Bush administration didn’t think that a 4+ year military occupation would be necessary to remove WMDs.
French Quarter:
Thanks for bringing some intelligent debate to this forum.
hoju_saram’s point in #6 needs an answer…
In 1998, the US in Korea quickly gained the blame for the economic collapse and IM-F syndrome.
I thought nobody was anti-US until 1980? Is use of Bushie so strong it will replace that myth and bump the common perception up to 2002?
Never fear, though, with Rumsfeld out the door, Bush in full retreat (on things like USFK transformation especially), things will get back to normal within 1 to 2 years.
We will be basking in the love the South Korean people for the US alliance for as many decades as we can keep Pyongyang alive.
There’s no true anti-US sentiment in Korea.
A little tracking after 운동권, you’ll conclude so.
임수경, 권인숙, 김민석, 임종석, etc.
They just pretended/pretend to be anti-American to get the power.
The gist is power; anti-American sentiment is not important.
Ism/sentiment is important only when they can make use of it.
Most people, especially Koreans do not abide by their professed ideology, though I doubt if they have their own ideology .
I see lack of philosophy in President Noh and also doubt his trustworthiness.
I think it’s known to you all that the son of Mr.president is now in Stanford, which many members of Korean distinguished families herded into after Ms. Clinton.
For all practical purposes, South Korea is not Anti-American. You guys really need to consider how you define Anti-Americanism. Seriously. A few Anti-IMF demonstrations in Jongno cannot seriously be considered a sign of general negative sentiment toward the United States, nor can a few–or even thousands–of editorialis in a newspaper. If you’re looking for true signs of Anti-Americanism in Korea, you’ve got to examine two areas: Government policy and cultural trends. When you look at the facts, it’s pretty obvious that South Korea is as pro-american as they come.
1. Troops:
Korea has sent troops to help in America’s war effort. Whether it involved handwringing or not is immaterial. Sure, it would have been better if Roh Mu Hyun clapped his hands with glee when Rumsfeld requested troops, but he didn’t. Oh well. No point whining about it. The troops are on the ground and will in all likelihood stay there. That’s what matters.
2. Trade:
Despite strong opposition from numerous unions, Korea inked a free trade agreement with the United States. Indeed, when the United States requested more negotiations on the agreement, South Korea granted them. The bottomline here is that the deal will go through not once, but twice.
3. Culture:
Starbucks. Krispy Kreme. Papa Johns. Brittney Spears. Microsoft. The Ivy League. American cultural icons still dominate the Korean imagination. Korean parents choose spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to educated their kids in American culture.
So when you look at just a few areas, its clear that Korea is Pro-American.
Sonagi:
As I indicated, I’m far from an expert on this. (The article that you linked is interesting, BTW) I took a quick look at this article (in Korean) for my above comment:
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/eco.....13190.html
The below shows the similar numbers (PDF file in Korean):
http://databank.nonghyup.com/d.....정책.pdf
hoju_saram:
My comment #10 (the first paragraph) has an answer for the “2002″ survey. There was a prevalent fear for an “unnecessary” war at that time.
Richardson:
The information in the article you liked is very consistent with what was known in media in many countries including South Korea. The NIE’s judgment was rather based on belief, as the article indicates.
I’m not going to say that I’ve never experienced any anti-Americanism here, but I don’t think it’s as rampant as those statistics make it out to be. Sure, lots of Koreans say they don’t like America, but at the same time, when I walked into a new coffee shop in town today, I got a piece of cake “service’ before I even ordered my tea. I’m all but positive that happened for being miguk, or at least for being white. That happens fairly often in my experience, and unless they start poisoning the free cake, I can’t really say that’s anti-American.
What surprises me most about the kids not knowing about the Korean war is not that they don’t know about it from school, but that they don’t know it from OUTSIDE of school. My granddads talked about WW2 from time to time, and while I didn’t understand a lot when I was a kid, I was at least aware that it happened because some of the people around me had lived it. Then again, who has time for family when you’ve got 5 hagwons a day to go to…
#26
“Thanks for…”
Thank you, YoungRocco2.
YoungRocco2,
You fail to (understand?) differentiate between the fact I point to – the consensus of intel agencies on whether or not Iraq had WMD – and the opinion about what to do about it. Two very different things.
So save the lecture on critical thinking.
#25
Your though on Roh is clearly based on you misunderstanding. Although I’m not a fan of Roh, I have closely followed reports of what he has done since 1988 when he was known at a famous Congressional hearing regarding past misconduct of a previous administration.
#34
Try this; Your though[t] on Roh is clearly based on your misunderstanding.
Equals an “I’m right, you’re wrong” statement and no arguments to back anything up. Hey, we can do that all day long, and it proves so much.
You mean you’ve been following Roh since back around the days in which he was petitioning for the withdrawal of US troops? You mean the period in which he built up his anti-US credentials to the point he was the natural candidate to win over the Korean voters during their frantic, patrioticism-boosting frency in 2002 —- built up his credentials to such a solid footing in the masses that he didn’t have to take part in the massive street demonstrations like his opponent, Mr. Bamboo, felt the need to.
I started using the term “anti-US” to help avoid getting sucked into these “see, no white people being lynched in the street…..no beheadings…..They are clearly not anti-American” debates.
See. Most South Koreans don’t want US troops to leave.
Nope. No anti-Americanism here. All is well. All is well.
See. It’s Bushie’s fault. All will be well after the election.
If it isn’t —-
See. The US did this. And then that. And then there was Bushie…..Whatever the case, nobody is stringing up Americans in the street. All is well.
Why not just stick to the justification angle? You (the generic you) can do so without the Bushie canard too.
I agree down to the “not important” part.
What term can we use besides “anti-American”?
How about patriotic whore-monger?
That would explain why South Korean society as a whole likes to bend the US in Korea over and ream it in the —explitive self-deleted— while keeping it handy at the same time.
I didn’t need thousands of editorials to get that.
I got it between 1996-2000 teaching Korean adults….
(I hope readers will not 1996-2000 was not exactly before Bushie was born, so we can still lump all anti-US thought in Korea on his lap with about as much validity as blaming him post-election, but it was before he entered the White House)
This is not the first time Han Sung-Dong of the Hankroyeh has written such an obviously misleading and one-sided article, but this one is bad. Here is the concluding paragraph with the obligatory “Koreans are merely the victims of the evil foreign powers, most especially the U.S.):
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti.....17820.html
The biggest victims of these wars were, of course, the people living on the Korean peninsula. Millions died and the land was thoroughly in ruins. The Jeongyu Jaeran began after Toyotomi Hideyoshi asked Ming for part of the southern peninsula and was rejected, but 400 years later the peninsula was divided into North and South by foreign powers. The army of one of those countries that plotted the division still occupies a spot in the middle of Seoul, perhaps as if mock those who were unable to maintain hold onto their own land?
The DPRK is not to blame, it’s a victim !
Also, the U.S. was so evil that it plotted with Russia to divide Korea for its own purposes and then gave 60,000 of its soldier’s live to cement the deception. The U.S. then had the gall to not let crazy DPRK dictators kill millions more of South Koreans and bringing them the economic glory and personal freedoms of the DPRK.
The gall !
The sad part is, there are a very large number of Koreans who agree with Han Sung-Dong’s half-truths and conveniently put aside the obvious result that would have happened had the U.S. not stepped in.
Many stupid ROK citizens apparently don’t ask themselves the simple question : “Would you prefer to live in South Korea or North Korea ?”, despite the fact that they haven’t chosen to walk across the Bridge of no Return answers the question for them.
To all uneducated or illogical ROK citizen : The U.S. is not a saint, but it’s also not an enemy of South Korea. Stop turning a f’ing blind eye to your minjok DPRK and biting the hand that has fed you and has allowed one of the world’s leading democracies and economies to flourish. You can dislike many things about SOFA, USFK, and the U.S. in general, but don’t delude yourself about what would have happened if the U.S. didn’t step in when it did. Listen to your f’ing parents and grandparents who actually lived through the Korean War rather than nutjobs like Han Sung-Dong.
P.S. – I love how he attributes all positive acts in the Korean War to “U.N. forces” and all negative things to “MacArthur” and “the United States”.
#35
Thank you for correcting my typo.
One reason why I don’t trust Chosun Ilbo’s surveys, especially those with statistics:
“61.8 percent of the respondents correctly answered 1950, 38.2 percent replied “I don’t know,” and the remainder gave wrong years.”
61.8% + 38.2% == 100%
100% – 100% = 0%
The remainder is 0%, so nobody gave the wrong years ?
South Korea sent troops to Iraq to support the US? Bah!
Troops were sent because 1) the Koreans didn’t want to get left out of the anticipated post-war economic boom (as happened after Gulf War I, where the Koreans set a medical unit to deepest, remotest southern Saudi Arabia, and the Kuwaiti’s didn’t recognize the deployment as “assistance”) and 2) the US threatened to pull out a lot more than 2ID’s 2nd Brigade.
There’s been quite a few public opinion pools where the US is the 2nd most disliked country/people. Japan is #1, of course. Though I remember one right after the LA riots where the rankings where 3. America, 2. Japan and 1. Black.
Dig back to the mid 1980’s, when America began its plot to “destroy Korea” by demanding market access.
Forgive me for not reading all the back-and-forth debate, but it seems to me that the reason so many children don’t know anything about the Korean war is that it won’t help them get into a SKY school.
The media, both progressive and conservative, try to argue that the war is taught less because the South does not want to instill hatred of the North. Isn’t that just too simplistic a rationale?
I was taught about the horrors of World War Two extensively throughout my elementary and high school years. Do I hate Germany, Italy, and Japan? No. Why? Well perhaps it is because I was also given information about the post war years.
I can’t understand why children are not learning about the war, the post war, the warming of relations, and all of that.
The fact that kids don’t know what’s happening is because they are spending a disproportionate amount of time learning math, English grammar, and other “easily testable” subjects. Heaven forbid the Korean education system teaches subjects that kids might develop conflicting opinions of.
This is not the US. Here, it is not just a simplistic rationale. History is taught as a weapon – and I am not saying that is completely a bad thing – pointing out how bad things would have been had the South lost the war, how bad things have been for the North Koreans above the 38th parallel, that North Korea clearly started the war, and so on might create bad blood feelings toward the North, but that is not a bad thing in and of itself.
South Korean society as a whole has decided they prefer feeling good about the North under the cloak of paving the way for unification.
A major part of this is burying even contemporary items like concentration camps.
What gets chosen as a focus on teaching history is a part of that.
And it is practiced by the society as a whole – with some pehaps (hopefully) growing opposition.
It is also a boomerang away from the time period up to the 1990s when the authoritarian South Korean government used heavy propaganda about the North to justify its own harsh rule.
There are a lot of reasons the North’s role in the Korea War (and China’s for that matter) is being edged out of the national consciousness.
Kinda reminds me of the kids in Canada. In general, Canadian people don’t know jack about their military anyway. As far as Koreans hating America, well they do. Not all of course. I’ve been hearing constantly from my adult students for years about how evil Americans are. I ask them if they mean Korean-Americans and they always so no. They just mean black and white Americans. The people 40 and under seem to be the worst.
Meant to say they always say no.
I think this is a case of overcompensation. I remember my education back in Korea, and I thought, even as a kid, that the information given to us in the matters of Korean War were a bit.. propagandaish. (Stories of SK soldiers blowing themselves up with mortars tied to grenades to take out NK bunkers and tanks in the BEGINNING of the war)
I think to compensate for that (’cause, after all, reunification is what everyone’s shooting for), they went a little too far. I’d advocate changing the education they used to give, but not virtually omitting the war…
Just a process I guess.
Their argument for not educating their children about a time which reverberates strongly through their lives even today is because it will spread hate? The only thing that spreads hate is propaganda and misinformation.
This is the sort of thing that continues to keep Korea in the dark about even its recent past. These people actually believe that ignorance will bring contentedness, a generation of bewildered yet happy youths bent on unification.
I am starting to understand the lack of impact that logic often has here.
MigukNamja, you’re right about the Hankie editorial–playing the victim card all the time is not only lame and revisionist, it makes Koreans sound as if they had no will of their own and got yanked around like puppets. In the book Korea Between Empires you can readily see that Koreans were active agents in defining the Korean nation and the dominant ideologies. Sure they were “forced” to choose sides, just as the U.S. was forced by the Soviet Union to defend democracy against an imperialist communism.
The Hankie crew is naive and willfully ignorant.
Also, I noticed that the Chosun’s percentages don’t come out right too–unless nobody gave the wrong years, which is unlikely.
Also…why not teach kids the truth about the North’s dictatorship while showing that the average N. Korean is not complicit in the leadership’s crimes? Is that too real?
“They just pretended/pretend to be anti-American to get the power.”
Yup, just as Kim Jong Il doesn’t believe in communism and Juche (I don’t foresee him giving up is cognac any day soon).
anti-IMF protests?
Haven’t seen any of those in nearly ten years…but I do remember most of it was agit-prop (ie. BS) thought up by the powers that be in order to erase from our collective consciousness the notion that Koreans (whether it be the government or the cheabols) were to blame for the economic collapse. The irony of it all is that the Korean economy as grown in leaps and bounds since the IMF provided that loan under the condition that certain irregularities be ironed out.
It was crap, but readily gobbled down by the masses and spewed with bitter glee back out.
And we’re touching on a way in which this “blame them” mentality plays into the Juche-need in South Korea’s society too:
When you are told all the time that the problems were caused by your powerlessness against outside forces, time and time again, about how you were just a pawn and puppet dancing on the strings of on outside master, doesn’t cutting every string to the outside world and “doing it all yourself” sound peachy?
And if you preach it to the masses and they hunger for it enough, they can keep believing it even when the complete collapse of the North when the Soviets cut it off exposed this idea of a “nation whole and unto itself”) as one of the biggest frauds in history.
Unfortunately, the young people in Korea have been fed too much leftist and North Korean propoganda and believe against reality staring them in the face that the US is the source of most problems on the peninsula. Most older Koreans remember what it was like to be dirt poor and they know they would still be that way without the intervention of the US to save them from the Norks. Just as in Canada, many people are anti-business, ignoring the fact that business/capitalism is what has made Canada rich.
Individual Koreans can be wonderful and are often very helpful and generous, but I think most expats here can give plenty of examples of anti-foreigner sentiment in the country. On a personal level, I rarely encounter any negativity, but it is very obvious in the dealings of business and other activities that there is an undercurrent of anti-foreign sentiment. For example, see Dram man’s post about the thieving chaebols getting a pass by the courts and yet, how Lone Star is being attacked, even though it followed Korean law. Only one example of many.
The Marmot’s Hole was a good read today. Lots of well written posts and good arguments.
I have been thinking a lot recently about Koreans’ tendency to put appearance over reality, and a lot of the comments here tie into that.
Well done, writers.
Perhaps another factor in the avoidance of examining the Korean War is the nature and legacy of the government of Lee Sung-mun. Would any nation really want to fess up to that kind of start?
You guys whine far too much. Stop pulling the race/nationalism card at every turn.
Anti-Americanism? Ridiculous. As I stated above, the fact of the matter is that Korea is anything but Anti-American. Whether its sending troops into Iraq, signing FTA’s, or paying thousands of dollars to attend American schools, Koreans love the United States and appreciate its sacrifices. All relevant factors point to a healthy relationship between Korea and the United States.
And let’s not even forget the fact that most of you guys have time to waste on this blog. How many, say, Mexican immigrants have the time to spend writing comments on blogs about how bad they have it in the United States? That’s right. They don’t. Most of them are too tired from working to whine and moan about how bad El Gringo is treating them.
What am I getting at? I’m getting at the fact that most of you guys got a very free and easy pass into Korea. Your visa approval process took less than three days. You were given an apartment here free of charge. You were given a salary several percentage points higher than that of an average native citizen and received several opportunities for pay on the side. All these perks just because you were American–your only qualification being an ability to speak your native language.
Most of your were given jobs just for having lived in the United States.
Guys, you really gotta look at common sense here and stop bellyaching all the time. For criminey’s sake, Korean companies employs thousands of Americans just for being American.
None of your arguments carry any weight when you look at the facts on the ground.
Ironically, the very fact that you’re here to whine about your experiences disproves the very notions that you’re whining about.
Anti-Americanism? Nope.
Of course there is no anti-Americanism in South Korea.
Just kidding. Citing where South Korean’s emulate American culture still omits the hate part of that love/hate relationship, and completely ejects reality. I have to wonder where you live/work in Korea that you don’t see it. Or perhaps you’re so far left that South Korea seems pro-U.S. to you.
I’d also bet that some working in South Korea might not agree they’ve been “given” so many things. My employer does not “give” me my salary, I earn it. But given your confusion concerning fact vs. opinion above (see #26 & #33), I don’t think that difference will cause any cognitive dissonance in your case.
There was a logically impaired and factually challenged young rocco on another site (Occidentalism or Lost Nomad?)a while back.
There are anti-American elements to Korea. But I don’t think the nation overall is “anti-American.” If so, why do so many Koreans send their kids to the US to study? Why do so many allow their children to marry Americans (and not even of Korean descent)?
A few demonstrators burn the US flag. Okay, bad, and I condemn this action; but we have flag-burners in the US and yet we don’t call America “anti-American.”
I once saw some Korean students (not MY actual students) at this school where I used to teach being interviewed on 60 Minutes back in 2002. They were asked “Who do you fear more, George W. Bush or Kim Jong-Il?” They said the former as he was more likely to start a war than the latter. I remember I was shocked and embarrassed….and many of my American friends that I told the story to were also shocked at the students’ seeming ignorance.
Then again, who DID start a war in 2003? One of my American friends said, “I guess that student of yours [he mistakenly thought I actually TAUGHT the student doing the speaking on 60 minutes] turned out to be right.”
Anyway, I condemn anti-Americanism….but I don’t think anyone who calls W an idiot is “anti-American”; they’re just telling the truth.
“How many, say, Mexican immigrants have the time to spend writing comments on blogs about how bad they have it in the United States? That’s right. They don’t. Most of them are too tired from working to whine and moan about how bad El Gringo is treating them. “
Indeed, the undocumented workers in my community are too busy working to complain about the food stamps and WIC coupons that feed their American-born children or the bags of groceries from the local food bank, not to mention the Medicaid benefits for those US-born kids and other medical and dental care paid for by private organizations like the Lions’ Clubs, no questions asked. Plus, those racist school districts provide free breakfasts and lunches to all children who demonstrate need, regardless of citizenship.
However difficult life is for undocumented residents of the US, virtually all enjoy a higher standard of living than they did back home, and what’s more, their children have a brighter future here, which makes the sacrifices worth it.
Next time you spew some lame red herring argument, please try to make some sense.
And let’s not even forget the fact that most of you guys have time to waste on this blog. How many, say, Mexican immigrants have the time to spend writing comments on blogs about how bad they have it in the United States? That’s right. They don’t. Most of them are too tired from working to whine and moan about how bad El Gringo is treating them.
Bravo!
I’ll add this, (just replace “Mexican” for “Korean” in the article and it works also):
by Fred Reed
Bobbling about on the web, like flotsam in some drear tidal pool, is a piece purporting to show that Mexico mistreats immigrants in all manner of ways offensive to the North American soul. Most curious. I am one of those immigrants, and still waiting to be mistreated.
The specific charges:
“In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:
Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.”
Most of this is true. Much of it is trying too hard. If it is intended to suggest that Mexico behaves badly toward legal immigrants, it is silly. Many hundreds of thousands of American citizens live here and like it. After all, if they didn’t, they could leave. Further, I think the law entirely reasonable—provided that you realize that the Mexican government exists for the benefit of Mexicans, not gringos.
Bear in mind that the United States is far more powerful than Mexico, and far richer, and that America and Americans are by nature meddlesome. At the national level the US tries to impose democracy, change “regimes,” and dictate social policy in all sorts of countries. At the level of the individual, Americans, certainly those in Mexico, try to pass leash laws, make horses wear diapers, regulate smoking, and set closing hours for bars. Neither the US nor most of its people grasp that some things are simply not their business.
Protecting Mexico from such intrusiveness is a concern of the government here.
Politics? No, you may not engage in politics. I am not sure why Americans think they should be permitted to, but I know why Mexicans think that they should not. In the Yankee enclaves, they would take over and run things as they wanted, not as Mexicans want. They would want rules, regulations, correct attitudes, laws, laws, laws. They would want to instruct Mexico. There would be encampments of activists demonstrating in Chiapas. (When the US has solved its own ethnic problems, then perhaps it might make polite suggestions to others. Day after tomorrow, you think?) And a naturalized American is just an American with a different piece of paper in his pocket: Same attitudes, culture, and lack of respect for other countries.
The Mexican approach is, “You are free to live here, but we will make our own laws, thank you.” Which makes perfect sense to me. I came here in large part to escape the micromanagement of everything by the damned government up north.
“Basic property rights”? These are what a particular country says they are, not what the United States thinks they ought to be. Things are a tad complex here for historical reasons—the ejidos, land reform for the indigenes and so on. The practical fact is that if they could, Americans and American corporations would buy up, for example, all the best beachfront land. They don’t, because Mexico won’t let them, which is exactly the right policy. (There are complex trusts that let foreigners pretty much own land near the beaches, and many do this.) The fact is that countless gringos own homes in Mexico with no problem. I do, for example.
From the website of Adriana Perez Flores,* my attorney in Mexico: “Until recently, foreigners could not buy land in Mexico unless the title was placed in a Trust (Fideicomiso). Now a foreigner can purchase a home or vacant lot in his own name, except for property located within 50 kilometers of the coast, or national border. A home in Puerto Vallarta or Nuevo Laredo would still need to be purchased in the name of a trust.”
Employment “rights”? Why do Americans think they have a right to work in Mexico? As in most countries you need to get a work permit, and here they tend not to be issued if you are going to take work away from a Mexican. Perversely, Mexico does not believe that it exists to employ gringos. Gosh.
If you want to live here, it’s easy. You get a tourist visa for 90 days when you land (try that in the US), and with no hassle you can then get FM-3 residence status (try that in the US), provided you can demonstrate in income of $1000 a month. (You are welcome, but Mexico isn’t going to support you. Why should it?) Driver’s licenses are easy. You can bring your car and belongings, and no, the police aren’t going to give you a hard time. The government hassles you far here less than does the government up north. But also no, you are not going into politics and, if you do something adequately undesirable, you will be chucked unceremoniously out. And why not?
“Due process”? You aren’t a citizen. (Read the Patriot Act, by the way.) Behave or go away. Mexico is much less a police state, much less watched, tapped, bugged, cross-referenced, data-based, regulated, intimidated, regimented and politically corrected than the US, which is a major reason why people come here.
Now, Americans will say, “But Fred, all these Mexicans come into the US and get welfare, school for their kids, driver’s licenses and medical care, and don’t pay taxes, and who knows what all. It isn’t fair.”
To which I respond: “All true. But why is it Mexico’s fault? You practically invite them. Mexico has no obligation to keep its citizens in, though the United States has the right to keep them out. If you folks up north choose to let in poor Mexicans, don’t be surprised when you have poor Mexicans.”
Note that the immigration problem is entirely of America’s making. Laws, decisions in the courts, amnesties, interpretation of the Constitution, and policy all encourage illegal immigration. What the US does is to say to impoverished and desperate people, “See this river? Don’t cross it. If you do, we’ll give you all sorts of privileges, and jobs, and a chance to advance in life and give your kids a good future. Now, don’t cross it, you hear?”
Keeping immigrants out would once have been easy, but you didn’t do it. You could have fined employers a thousand dollars a day for hiring illegals, half of it to go to whoever turned the employer in; denied them all services, and deported them instantly. Today, taking things away from people who have lives in the States and kids in the schools would be brutal. (You are going to forcibly deport millions of people? That will be pretty.) And of course they soon come to have the votes to make deportation impossible. But it wouldn’t have been in the beginning. Don’t blame Mexico for having an immigration policy more sensible than yours.
Stipulating that Netizen Kim is at his most readable when he cuts and pastes others’ work, this contribution follows youngrocco2’s plunge into the deep waters where only the reddest of herring swim. Unless I’m on the wrong thread, the topic at hand was anti-Americanism and its bearing on the South Korean remembrance of the Korean War. That many Koreans will send their kids to study in the USA, yet indulge in the crassest displays of anti-Americanism (or swallow that stuff uncritically from their media on a regular basis), is a mark of hypocrisy more than a refutation of the notion of anti-Americanism.
You don’t have to like something to recognize its superiority – perceived or real, that’s not the argument – when making an impression is the goal. Thus American education and experience living in the U.S. is highly desirable for Koreans, who are well known for going to extreme lengths to get ahead/get their children some advantage to get ahead.
They may like the individual American, but still be anti-U.S. (as UNinKorea notes – hating America but not one American still means they’re anti-American). Problems in the area of international marriages arise more from simple racism than anti-Americanism.
I guess that’s all a matter of how one defines “a few”;
http://www.dprkstudies.org/doc.....us003.html
No, we may call the people who actually participate, support, and appreciate in such activity anti-American. When hordes in South Korea do it. . . you do the math.
JK, your arguments might actually convince someone who is a neophyte when it comes to Korea, but anyone who’s actually spent time there will recognize them for what they are.
JK, when will you realize that according to expats who grew up watching MASH and believe in the Greatest Generation mythology, that puny, shit-hole nations, especially Korea should be eternally and unconditionally grateful to the United States for the American blood shed during the Korean War? Americans were protecting Korean’s liberty and freedom, God dammit! Because of America’s sacrifice, Koreans must not be critical of America! That’s what free nations are supposed to do, follow America without question! Bush: you’re either for us or against us. Nevermind, that Korea’s “anti-Americanism” hardly affects America in any significant way whereas the way America deal with North Korea, or America’s misadventures in Mess-in-potamia affects Korea, and indeed, the world in very significant ways.
Above we have an example of the love/hate dichotomy discussed previously; America is evil, but it’s in English and not Japanese.
And let’s blame North Korea for North Korea’s actions, shall we?
RIchardson wrote:
“They may like the individual American, but still be anti-U.S.”
Define “anti-US.” Criticizing US foreign policy? Wanting US troops out of Korea? Heck I know AMERICANS that do the same thing! And as netizenkim said, if Korea won freedom and democracy through American (and Korean)blood…..why is it being categorized as “anti-American” when some of the people today are practicing the right of free speech, even if I myself don’t agree with what they are saying? What would be Korea’s “proper” practice of democracy….freedom of speech but NO complaining of anything about the US?
As for “hordes” of people who are supposedly anti-American, I can tell you as someone who lived in Korea and still has friends and loved ones there that while there are MANY Koreans (like Americans) critical of the Bush administration AND the decades-long presence of US troops in South Korea, I know of few that could be considered “anti-American.” Yes, I have sometimes heard unreasonable complaints about America….but America is not immune from complaints….and if America claims to want to see the spread of freedom and democracy around the world, it cannot muzzle every ally and categorize every critical country of the US, be they whiney or not, as “anti-American.”
LOL at Bluejives enjoying Fred Reed…incongruous to be sure.
I agree that Americans should not keep saying to Korea, “you owe us” (or else we should ourselves acknowledge the debt we owe to France, say, for their military assistance to us way back when), but it is grating to see so much anti-Americanism in comparison to the admiration of North Korea. I believe it is this that makes people think, “maybe we should have let the north win”.
You can talk all you want about South Korea being a vibrant democracy and speaking its mind about the U.S., but it is rather odd for citizens of a democracy to admire instead such a repressive regime.
First I’ll point out that I never said anything about free speech, so you’re inventing things to argue about. But it’s such an unusual argument I can’t resist responding to it.
You’re essentially arguing that because Koreans are practicing “free speech,” the content of that speech, even if blatantly and undeniably anti-American, isn’t anti-American after all because it’s only “free speech.” If anything should inflict the writer with a terminal case of cognitive dissonance, that thought process should qualify. Yet I’m certain you’ll live to comment again.
The problem with your position is that, unless the government (or someone/thing) is making “them” (“many” Koreans) do/say something, then whatever “they” (again, Koreans) do/say is part of “their” free speech, and thus an avenue for expressing a feeling/sentiment/view, not the view itself. The thing expressed is what is important, which is the actual feeling/sentiment/view/opinion/action/etc., in this case anti-Americanism.
So Koreans that employ their free speech to conduct in anti-American behavior are indeed anti-American.
BTW, anti-Americanism in Korea was around long, long before Bush was president, so you can safely bury that dead argument along with the “free speech” apology.
Should be, “conduct and participate in”
That does not mean he’s anti-American, it could just be a hypocritical action.
It would not be the first such instance.
Yeah. I thought there was a sheriff around…
JK,
Can you explain to me how anybody but you equated free speech and anti-Americanism? Can you…
ehhh…..What Richardson said….
—-bending over to watch for pigs flying out my ass—-
This didn’t start out being a thread about anti-Americanism. It began as an excerp from some fishwrap about Korean children not being taught about the Korean war. There was a follow-up about kids being herded to someplace to pay homage to those who had died fighting for the North.
Anti-Americanism exists here in abundance. It doesn’t because I say it does and not because or in spite of all these things mentioned. There is a resentment which is understandable. The part that galls is, just as children are unaware of the horrible events of the early 1950’s, they completely lack an understanding of that which they resent.
Similar to their blind and all encompassing hatred of Japan, their resentment of the US is undefined. For both they have been told some but not all of the truth, the good and the bad. Alot of what they have been told is just horse-bleep.
I forgot, slim…
You are supposed to rise above the #60s and #62s.
It is responding to them that makes things bad.
That’s why the law has to be laid and actions taken.
I wonder what JK thinks of Occidentalism these days? My heart’s aflutter cause I haven’t heard him mentioned yet…
I wonder if this comment will survive?
‘You’re essentially arguing that because Koreans are practicing “free speech,” the content of that speech, even if blatantly and undeniably anti-American, isn’t anti-American after all because it’s only “free speech.” ‘
Uh, no. As I said, define “anti-Americanism.” You have yet to have done that. To me, signs saying, “America sucks!” or “I hate America” is anti-American. So are signs that say, “Yankee go home.” But signs that say, “We want the US troops out!” is NOT anti-American in my view. It’s a sign by Koreans about what they want….in Korea. And they have that right to say this without being called “anti-American.”
Burning the US flag is anti-American.
Holding signs that say, “US troops out of Korea!” is not. It’s a sign about Koreans and what they want…in Korea. As far as I’m concerned they have the right to voice this.
I just hate the way some Americans paint anything critical of America as “anti-American.”
And yes, dogbert, I also think it’s a shame that many South Koreans are as sympathetic as they are to North Korea. Then again, I wonder what Americans would do if OUR country was divided in half like Korea was and some dictator in the northern half was starving his people; they would STILL be our fellow Americans, no? Even if they killed lots of southern Americans in the Civil War. I would still want to see reunification with the northern half of the US if it was divided….and I would still view them as lost brothers.
Maddlew, good points–kids are taught utter bullshit about the U.S. and Japan and they parrot it without understanding. Like when the elementary school in Incheon displayed anti-Japan drawings by kids in the subway station a year or two ago.
I beg to differ slightly…
The Korean veterans and other Koreans who voice displeasure with what they see as the forgetting of history view a link between that, pro-Pyongyang efforts like burying talk of even contemporary concentration camps and human rights violations, and the foundations of the anti-US in Korea culture in the society.
usinkorea, aren’t you the guy who kept saying I defend “uri nara” because I happen to be of Korean descent? Gee, since you base this kind of claim that I would defend “uri nara” based on my ethnicity, I wonder what you will say about your son if you ever have one. That he defends HALF of “uri nara”?
Anyway, I never once equated free speech with anti-Americanism. However, that term “antiAmericanism” has been wrongly used by right-wingers in the US. It was used by those who did not like foreign criticism of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003….and it’s being used wrongly to categorize ANYONE in Korea critical of the US. Yes, there are anti-American elements in Korea….but there are also MANY people who make critical comments about America who are NOT anti-American….in fact their views are often shared by many Americans.
Understand, usinkorea?
Fascinating.
So, are you saying that burning the US flag in Korea (which is actually illegal per Korean law) and holding up a sign that says “America sucks” can be rightfully muzzeled? They have a right to comment on the status of US troops, and that is not anti-US if they say, “GI’s Go Home!!” but if it is just “Yankee Go Home!!” it is anti-US and that isn’t protected….
I think if you break down your free speech comments and map them out, that is most likely what you are actually arguing…
It’s like a fun brain twister trying to figure it out, however…
What about all those darkies?
Those plantations.
How much of slavery could we bury in the name of brotherhood?
I must paraphrase because memory fails, but one of the classic lines from the Korea chapter in PJ O’Rourke’s “Holidays in Hell” collection was something like
They don’t like anybody who’s not Korean and they don’t like themselves all that much.
In that sense JK and co are right: It’s not simply anti-Americanism; it’s chauvinism and an omnidirectional resentment, with some targets more obvious and fatter than others.
The worry I would have if I were ever to live in Korea again is that the improvements that started to kick in again with the ROK internationalization might well be neutralized if not reversed as Seoul tries to harmonize its values with those of the North to placate Pyonongyang or promote “unity”. We’ve already seen this in the sphere of human rights, media pulling punches on North Korea and, I would expect this is what is coloring the selective teaching or ignoring of the Korean War.
Strawman.
You equated free speech, in the first comment on it, with anti-Americanism by saying that those of us complaining about the trend in Korean society were attempting to destroy Korea’s democracy by crushing its free speech.
Understand?
And thanks for the concern about my family…
usinkorea, think what you want. Koreans have a right to free speech, and if a SMALL PERCENTAGE of the population wants to protest with signs and slogans, be they “anti-American” or otherwise, that is not a reflection of the nation’s overall attitude toward America.
BTW, if Koreans were to say HALF of what a LOT of Americans are saying about the Bush Administration, I guess they’d be categorized by you saying “anti-American” stuff, huh?
#76 & #78
I rightly see where I have gotten carried away again and will desist…
If counting heads at the protest was the definitive method for defining anti-US sentiment in the society, you would be correct….
To confuse the DPRK regime with the subjects/hostages/victims of the regime is to fall into Kim Jong-il’s trap. That’s why the Roh government’s claim to be helping “our lost brothers” with unconditional aid and by conducting the whole N-S relationship on Pyongyang’s terms gets no respect from the outside world.
Uh, yes (alive and well as expected – also, I don’t take assignments so save that as well). Having the right to voice whatever opinion or thought IS NOT THE ISSUE; if the content is anti-American, well then, that’s what it is, anti-American. Free speech has *nothing* to do with it. I don’t think I’ll repeat an explanation; you just don’t get it, and I don’t think you want to. You can attempt to carefully craft a definition of anti-Americanism that suits your apologetic needs, but that’s just what it’ll be, and it won’t address the issue.
You said, and I paraphrase, that free speech, even when used to air anti-American opinions, frees the actor of any taint of anti-Americanism.
Again, you need to be reminded that anti-Americanism was not invented for George W. Bush, and has been around for a long time.
You make a good point usinkorea.
Why don’t they educate their children? Why can’t people merely figure it out for themselves?
Who are these people they resent so much? Basically, if they ever have to do their job, they are people who need to die slowly. If, god forbid, it ever comes to that, they need to die slow enough so that intelligence can assess the field and counter with much more sophisticated weaponry. Well, more sophisticated than a guy with a rifle and boots.
I would say that people’s resentment might be a tad missplaced. “Yankee Go Home”. Okay. Then it’s your brothers, fathers, perhaps even sisters and mothers who are to become the canon fodder.
You say you’re in favor of unification? Do you have the vaguest clue as to what that would entail?
This isn’t a rant on anyone in this thread. I just wish that they’d allow people to understand what they are railing for and against. What is wrong with education?
Richardson,
I dare you to find me one example where a Korean has beheaded an American in Korea? One example!!
(caveat – in the 20th century….)
The bigger problem, for me at least, is not a true “Yankee Go Home” sentiment – it is the much more popular, “Yankee Go Home!! Just not yet….” attitude.
(JK can file this away in the “What usinkorea has as an anti-US definition”…)
Several K-bloggers have also pointed out over the years – despite the talk of brotherly love and easing tension and unification – South Koreans are anti-unification —– unless your definition of pro-unification includes, “We want unification only after North Korea’s economy is built up roughly close to ours in strength, and until that happens, we don’t want unification, and since that will never happen………”
This is how I’d schematize Korea’s anti-Americanism: xenopbobia -> decades-old military presence -> decades of real, physical conflict between military and locals –> military boots you out of your home, runs over your daughter, rapes your mothers, etc –> military is American, America is a nation known to be an international bully of some sort–> Bush epitomizes and amplifies bulliness –> Koreans already with axes to grind, jump on the anti-American bandwagon.
In this way, Korean anti-Americanism is pretty mild and superficial. On the one hand, it’s not all imaginary — much of it is reactionary, a response to real, life-changing events that comes about from Americas presence in Korea. On the other hand, it’s poseur politicking. My wae-samchon hates Bush in the same way that I’ve seen French, Canadians, Finnish and Rosie O’Donnel hate Bush. That’s the extent of his anti-Americanism; he is not actively wishing for the death and destruction of the USA.
My 2 cents.
The posters claiming that there’s no real anti-Americanism in Korea or throwing in ridiculous red herrings about how easy we expats have it in Korea are missing the point. If Korea continues to not respect their own laws and ignore property rights (which are a fundamental basis for capitalism-there is no relativism in determining property rights, it’s either yours or not) then foreign investors are going to take their cash elsewhere. After all, why is there such a thing as the Korea discount? And why do so many kyopos turn this into a Korea vs. US thing? Ridiculous.
If Korean businesses and government continue to pull fast ones on foreign companies using nationalist rhetoric, it’s only hurting Korea in the long run. If you can’t see that this kind of behavior is anti-foreigner/anti-foreign business or think it’s justified, then accept the consequences ie. the Korea discount or to be left behind in the wake of China and globalization.
Wake up and look what this kind of anti-foreigner business activity does to Korea’s economy. It’s a fast track to oblivion, especially with the Chinese breathing down everyone’s necks. If you think it’s anti-Korean to point out the stupidity of Korean attacks on the basic tenets of capitalism, you are an idiot. In the West, foreigners routinely criticize each other over business matters and I, for one, hate the rampant anti-business sentiment I find in Canada.
I wonder if this is an example of “anti-Americanism”:
In 2003, much of the world, particularly Europe led by France, opposed the upcoming US invasion of Iraq. Much of the US public, manipulated by Rove and Co., saw these foreign critics as being “anti-American” and ungrateful for American sacrifices in WWII.
In the eyes of many Americans, it became a “US vs. France and the rest of ungrateful Europe” thing. Heck, a Congressman from my home state of NC (Walter B. Jones, Jr.) even came up with the ridiculous phrase, “Freedom Fries” for french fries. (Of course this very same Congressman wants US troops out of Iraq now and says the invasion was a mistake.)
France’s opposition to the US invasion of Iraq was viewed as “anti-American” by much of the US public, as a result of a general brainwashing of the American people. However, when Americans like actor Sean Penn opposed the invasion, there were no accusations of him being “anti-American.”
What exactly is being “anti-American”?? If being critical of US policy, whether it be a recent one or a decades-long one, is being “anti-American”, then I think that accusation is being wielded a little too much like a witch-hunt. “How dare you criticize American policy! Our troops are there for YOUR benefit! Anti-Americanism!!!!”
JK, don’t be ridiculous. Korean anti-Americanism is more than just anger at US foreign policy. And it goes back far before Bush ever came to power.
Also, I would call some Canadians anti-American for their refusal to see anything good about the place and to always focus on the negative. Same for many Koreans.
We need a fish monger at the Hole to shovel away some of these herrings before we suffocate in them.
All of Europe, eh? Well, since anti-US thought in Korea didn’t begin before Bushie and it’s only on policy and it’s a free speech issue and to think differently is racially motivated bias against Korea and pro-US fanaticism……….sigh…..
All of Europe, eh? The UK, Spain, Poland, and other Eastern European nations didn’t count?
Well, no, they didn’t. Not to the cloud of pseudo-intellectuals (with exhibits in this thread) or even our own American media elites.
When
E. F. HuttonParis talks…France, anti-US?
Well, good golly, yes… And JK, it goes beyond Bushie there too…
It might be worth considering why France and South Korea went that route. De Gaulle was very clear on the issue from the early stages of the war.
He said the only way France would be able to hold its head up in the world once the Axis was defeated was to find ways to oppose the US (and UK). If France allowed the US to lead the war effort and just follow along like Churchill was going to do for the Brits, France would be lost as a great power, he thought, so he sought to kick the allies in the shins even when he was nothing more than a name.
South Korea, too, I’d say, decided it would live down the humiliation of needing US troops to defend itself, and put down the humiliation of having been colonized for so long by Japan, by making anti-US sentiment a key part of Korean patrioticism. Even in the best days under Park Chung Hee, he knew how to play on anti-US and anti-foreign sentiment among the masses.
The North’s invasion and conduct during the Korean War did wonders in preventing this sentiment from becoming the overriding norm. It did create a healthy dose of positive feeling for the US-SK relationship, but that faded over time and was significantly eroded by the end of the 1970s.
How about this, JK –
In the US, there is an anti-France bias…
Can you live with that one?
“usinkorea”, I’ve listened to some wine growers in France talk about that anti-France backlash and it is pretty bad for them, especially considering that they have done nothing to justify the petty attitudes of too many people in the states. I suppose some Americans have forgotten just who it was that gave them the Statue of Liberty as a gift.
More so on topic, Here is another blog that has compiled a short list of several Korean’s reflections upon 6.25. It is interesting to read.
Right, and you can also make the case that discord between Americans and the French is also justified. We could look at geopolitical differences as well as socio-political/philosophical and anti-US attitudes in France as well.
But, there is no question but that there is a significant enough anti-France bias in American society (and for the US in France).
What level it is at and what type and what kind is open to interpretation. I think in the US, it is more playful than anything.
For me, the bottom line is — 30,000+ Americans are not stationed in France waiting for Germany to invade with Germany a constant threat to invade or strike out if it finally collapses.
In South Korea, anti-US culture is so much more significant for Americans to pay attention to ——- because we have SO MUCH at stake over there.
We should know how Koreans treat the alliance and overall relationship….
usinkorea, do not make the mistake of saying that everything Koreans say about the US is anti-US. For Koreans to say they want US troops out of Korea….or to say US foreign policy is wrong and too aggressive is not anti-US. I am not saying that anti-US elements don’t exist in SK. They do. But be careful of sweeping generalizations.
As for what happened in early 2003 with Iraq, I am STILL amazed that Karl Rove was able to make the pending US invasion of Iraq into an “Americans vs. ungrateful and whiny French” thing to somehow sell the war to the US public. And much of America did buy it. Not anymore, though, thank God. But a terrible price has already been paid….
Don’t make sweeping generalizations….kay…
Now we have Karl Rove playing up anti-France passions to justify the war which stupid Americans bought…..kay….
Yeah, don’t make sweeping generalizations. Glad you understood that.
“…which stupid Americans bought…”
Why are you attempting to put words in mouth? I never said nor implied that Americans were “stupid.” Quit trying to play the spin game, ala Rove.
You must log in to post a comment.