According to the Foreign Ministry, some 40 Koreans have been murdered overseas this year through July [Munhwa Ilbo, Korean]. Some 13 of those victims were killed in China, eight in Japan, five in the Philippines, four in the United States, three in Vietnam, two in Afghanistan and one each in South Africa, Venezuela, Australian, Indonesia and Peru.
-
English Books on Korea... and More!
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
59 Comments
The high number of Korean murder victims in China does not surprise me. I knew of one case in my city of a resident businessman thrown out of a hotel window by gangsters sent by an angry Chinese girlfriend. For the many small, independent businessmen like this unfortunate fellow, China is the wild west. I myself spent one afternoon begging one of the feuding owners of our school to take her goon squad off campus before the kids got back from weekend visits home. Sadly, she was too angry to listen to me. You should have seen the kids’ faces as they passed through the phalanx of black-clad gangpae on the way to the dorm.
I’d like to see a comparative article on how many people have been murdered by Koreans around the world. They could start the survey in Virginia.
I’m just so sick and tired of how Koreans always portray themselves as victims without ever discussing the bad things they do.
I believe to this day the stories of the Army doctor that was murdered outside of the Yongsan gate (by a Korean) and the female soldier that was raped in Taegu (by a Korean) have never been mentioned in the Korean media. But let a GI bitch slap a taxi driver and its all over the news.
Sure, 30 or so hostages (23 Koreans, 2 Germans, and 5 Afghans (funny how nobody talks about the ‘foreigners’ in the Korean press)) is terrible, but you have to put it in perspective. That’s a drop in the bucket when you consider the number of pedestrians alone who were ‘murdered’ by negligent drivers, much smaller if you look at the total traffic accident deaths. Then, why aren’t we talking about traffic accident deaths more? Because we don’t like the solution to the problem.
the officer was murdered in itaewon stabbed by a mentally deranged korean (they always say that)
a person was killed outside of gate 7 years ago by being hit by a bongo truck if i recall correctly
another was a motorcycle fatality in itaewon caused by a korean driver
i am sure there are more
Considering the large number of Koreans who stay in China legally or illegally, should you really be surprised by the murdur number 13 here?
@5:
There are far more Korean nationals residing in the US, yet only four murders in a country with generally liberal gun ownership laws.
Maekchu, regarding #2,
The Virginia Tech killings were done by a Korean-American, regardless of his visa status. And besides….I think the Korean people (as in those in Korea) have MORE than acknowledged guilt by association.
So get sick all you want.
” believe to this day the stories of the Army doctor that was murdered outside of the Yongsan gate (by a Korean) and the female soldier that was raped in Taegu (by a Korean) have never been mentioned in the Korean media. “
Not true. The crimes got a few paragraphs of coverage in both English papers. One murder I nkow of that was not reported in the press was stabbing death of an American EPIK teacher in a Sunchon? high school by a Korean man who “didn’t like foreigners teaching Korean children.” The expat community speculated that the reason why the crime didn’t make the papers was because Korea’s answer to JET already had enough problems, and this sort of news might scare off applicants. Crimes against US military personnel get publicized in Stars and Stripes, so the Korean media puts its own spin on the stories.
#5, I think china is not a country that Koreans would like to live not even illegally.
Ref: #7 JK
“Maekchu, regarding #2,
The Virginia Tech killings were done by a Korean-American, regardless of his visa status…”
Nice attempt at “spin”.
Young Cho was born in ROK and moved to US at the age of eight. He was a “permanent resident alien” (colloquially known as a “green card” holder). This was the same status as his parents, who like he remained as citizens of the ROK.
So “visa” status is not relevant. For any statistical comparison of murder totals made on the basis of rationality (as opposed to rampant emotionalism), young Cho racked up his “points” on the ROK side of the tabulation.
I’m nevertheless amenable to an argument that young Cho was “Americanized” in his attitudes towards gun violence since he had lived here for so long. You can impress me by quoting various pronunciamentos on the subject (ie H Rap Brown, “Violence is as American as apple pie”, etc etc), but you’re not going to do it by deliberately “shading” the facts of the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.....h_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.....ident_Card
“I think china is not a country that Koreans would like to live not even illegally.”
Not true - South Korean industry has invested heavily in the PRC, and ROK managers have moved there in large numbers to ensure the proper functioning of their factories…
Tons of Koreans live in China, tens of thousands in Qingdao alone. (I heard 500,000 when I visited in 2004) Not sure if/why many would be illegals.
I’m surprised and relieved that only 40 were murdered overseas, given the great rise in overseas travel and the relative inexperience and attendant poor safety awareness of all too many ROKers.
10
These are the facts:
Cho is Korean. By ethnicity. Check. By nationality. Check. By culture. No, big X.
Koreans are ashamed of Cho. Check. Because he’s ethnically Korean. Check. Because of his nationality? Maybe a few feel this way, but perhaps this isn’t the general stance. Because of his Americanization? No, of course not.
So yes Cho racks up the points, but on what basis? Would there be a difference in the kind of responses seen here and elsewhere if Cho were a naturalized American citizen? I don’t think so. Koreans would still feel ashamed. Anti-Korean asian folk (read, the Japanese), hyperpolitical verbose wankers on blogs, and expats in Korea alike would still be bashing and mentioning Cho every other day. So, indeed, visa status really doesn’t matter.
“Would there be a difference in the kind of responses seen here and elsewhere if Cho were a naturalized American citizen?”
Well, in Germany there is a statute to the effect that a foreign perpetrator’s citizenship can (and should) be mentioned in the reports about the crime. If, however, the perpetrator gave up his/her original citizenship and became a naturalised German citizen prior to the crime, it is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE to mention the previous nationality in the reports.
Cho was a Korean citizen. Although he was entitled to an American passport, he chose not to take one - I would imagine on account of his continued allegiance to the ROK. How can you more convincingly prove your allegiance to a country than by retaining the citizenship for more than a decade after your departure ? In spite of your entitlement to the passport of your country of residence ? Cho deliberately chose to remain Korean, and thus he should be classified as a Korean.
“Although he was entitled to an American passport, he chose not to take one - I would imagine on account of his continued allegiance to the ROK.”
There are many reasons why green card holders do not take US citizenship. We cannot presume why Cho did not become a naturalized citizen. Now can we please not derail this thread any further?
abcdefg: As I see it, Cho has many “brothers in spirit and ethnicity” among the ranks of North Korean prison camp guards.
Brutal DPRK prison camp guards:
Korean. By ethnicity. Check. By nationality. Check. By culture. Yes, big big check (?)
ROK Koreans are ashamed of brutal DPRK prison camp guards? No, big X. Maybe a few feel this way, but perhaps this isn’t the general stance. Because of their “Americanization”? No, of course not (unless you subscribe to the stance that the Americans are responsible for everything that’s happened in all of Korea since Taft-Katsura).
I didn’t start this above comparison (ie murders by Cho as being racked up against the “ROK” side of the ledger), nor have I done so in the past. And I won’t bring it up again, at least not as a spontaneous “hit” on my part to “score points” (in spite of my propensity for verbose hyperpolitical “wankiness”).
It’s just that I don’t care for deliberate misrepresentation of clear facts, in spite of your attempt to gloss it over.
I’m not going to blame Korean culture and the ROK for Cho’s murders, and I’ll step forward along with the US Prez, the Commander UFK, and any other responsible American when it comes to taking my share of responsibility for the misbehavior of fellow Americans (such as a drunken American soldier who tries to intimidate frightened Koreans riding on a subway).
And I’ll even take on the burden of Cho’s behavior too, as being essentially “American” in its violence. I guess in return I’d just like to see ethnic Koreans everywhere (regardless of their citizenship/visa status) take reciprocal responsibility for their own internal “point ledger”.
Since they make such a big deal of this mystical bond of ethnicity. Or is that too hypercritically “wanky” of me?
“Now can we please not derail this thread any further?”
I do not think we are derailing this thread - after all the topic is “Koreans who have become victims of murder outside the ROK (and the DRPK, as well)”. And why should this figure not be compared to the inverse case, the number of murders committed by Koreans abroad ?
That sure makes sense…
Paul H, regarding #10,
I was addressing how Maekchu said Koreans play victim all the time wondering about the number of Koreans killed in other countries and not caring about the people Koreans may have killed in other countries. If anything, I thought Koreans unnecessarily apologized and felt remorseful for what one sick individual did in Virginia? Got it, Paul H?
Second of all, it is no spin that the killer, Cho, was a Korean-AMERICAN….even bordering on twinkiness. He was more American than the 1.5 Generation Korean-Americans at my church, most of whom came to the US at around the age of 15-17 and are CLEARLY American (many of them currently serving bravely in the US Armed Forces).
I know one guy whose ability to communicate in Korean is almost nil. His only real language is English. That’s because he came to the US at the age of around 3 and never really used Korean after that while living in NY. Can anyone deny he is anything but American? But wanna know something else? He still has Permanent Resident status.
Kinda like Cho, huh, Paul H?
“Since they make such a big deal of this mystical bond of ethnicity.”
Yes, many of them do, although of course not all of them. But those former Koreans who chose to take American passports should be regarded as Americans, and as Americans only, by us non-Koreans and non-ethnic-Koreans, even if they themselves continue to classify themselves differently.
If WE described them differently WE would accept “this mystical bond of ethnicity” as a reality. And this is something we should really be loath to do…
“I know one guy whose ability to communicate in Korean is almost nil. His only real language is English. That’s because he came to the US at the age of around 3 and never really used Korean after that while living in NY. Can anyone deny he is anything but American? But wanna know something else? He still has Permanent Resident status.”
So what am I to conclude other than that your friend is being careful to keep his options open, presumably so he can go with whatever “nationality/citizenship/ethnicity” option happens to be convenient for the moment.
That may be “smart” and even “legal”, but I don’t consider it particularly worthy of respect. He’s not “Korean-American” or any sort of “American” in his essence (meaning ideologically, the only “Americanness” that matters) until/unless he swears an oath of loyalty to the US Constitution and becomes a US citzen — now that (presumably) he has become a legal adult and is responsible for making his own decisions.
No man can serve two masters, as the Biblical saying goes. I like the John Wayne formulation better, the one in what is arguably his greatest role (”The Searchers”): “I figure a man is only good for one oath in this lifetime”.
“He still has Permanent Resident status.”
JK, why is it that your friend did not take a US passport ? I myself would take one straight away were I entitled. But, much to my chagrin, I have to remain a lowly German…
“I thought Koreans unnecessarily apologized and felt remorseful for what one sick individual did in Virginia?”
Yes, that was indeed unnecessary. But what if Cho had not turned into a mass murderer but had won a Nobel prize instead. Wouldn’t the ROK (and the Koreans as a nation) have tried to take the credit for it ?
We have the same problem here with segments of the Turkish immigrant community who, even as 3rd generation residents, refuse to take German passports and keep propagating slogans such as “We are proud Turks, fuck the Germans.” But if one of them seriously blunders, they turn around and say “The Turkish community has nothing whatsoever to do with this - his behaviour was exclusively due to his upbringing up in this morally rotten country that is Germany.”
Fantasy, regarding #22,
Yes, at least Koreans are consistent: They accept responsibility and show shame for failures on the part of individuals like Cho who are of the same ethnicity (even if they live in different countries) and they display pride when those of their ethnicity achieve something good. If anything, this shows consistency (even though it looks a little strange).
Fantasy, regarding #21,
I don’t know why he hasn’t gotten US citizenship. Makes no sense to me. But apparently he gets certain traveling advantages when he goes to other countries. His choice, weird as his choice may be.
Paul H.,
This guy did not choose his visa status to gain any respect from you or anyone else. And your respect for him, or lack thereof, is really not relevant to the point I was making, which was that the murderer, Cho, was an AMERICAN; and as abcdefg said, if he had HAD US citizenship, his Korean ethnicity would have still been an issue on Korea blogs frequented by expats.
The guy in NY serves a purpose in the US and does his job well. He COULD get US citizenship, but he chose not to for whatever reason. He chose to keep his Korean citizenship (though I think he’s wrong for doing so). End of story. This has nothing to do with respect from you or anyone else.
Paul H,
Since you brought up loyalties and nationalities and such….
I am willing to bet that my friend in NY with the Permanent Resident status will change his Korean citizenship to US citizenship the day that gbevers (who has lived in Korea for decades) gives up his US citizenship for Korean citizenship.
“If anything, this shows consistency (even though it looks a little strange).”
Yes, JK, I concede that the prevailing attitude in the ROK was, indeed, consistent in this case. They did not try to sneak out by the back door…
“…as abcdefg said, if he had HAD US citizenship, his Korean ethnicity would have still been an issue on Korea blogs frequented by expats.”
Yes, JK, abcdefg may be right here, it probably would have been - but let me clarify that this is NOT my position.
16
The first few paragraphs of your response (relating to DPRK guards) is what makes you the hyperpolitical wanker that you are - in case you don’t actually feel you are one. And I wouldn’t take comment 7 to be a “misrepresentation of clear facts”; JK shows he’s aware of those facts. And I can sympathize.
22
They’d take pride in him from the point of view of what Korean diaspora are doing, that is, for the same reasons that they’ve expressed guilt and shame for his actions in fact. Also, Koreans should feel proud. It wouldn’t matter if such a person sported a mohawk and spoke with a surfer accent.
And just to repeat — Cho’s not being naturalized should connote nothing about his politics. It would connote nothing even if he were.
Yes it is consistent and yes it is strange at the same time.
I will also address the citizenship vs. permanent resident status issue. I know lots of Koreans in the states that retain permanent residence and don’t bother to be naturalized citizens because becoming so doesn’t materially effect their day to day lives. You can get credit, buy property, open a bank account, get a job, get into college, pay taxes, etc. all with a green card. So why spend the couple hundred bucks, study for the citizen test, take a day or two off work and/or school to do it? There is always the patriotic angle, gain the right to vote, etc. (which is why my parents did it), but hell, there are a lot of born citizens who don’t vote either and are patriotically apathetic as well.
It’s like gasoline. People will always cling to their SUVs stateside unless the government gives them an EXPENSIVE reason to get a freak’in hybrid.
“They did not try to sneak out by the back door…”
They were indeed strangely consistent here, but then again, in other cases they were not. Never mind.
9:15 pm in Germany, I’m off for the week-end, my wife is waiting for me.
“Yes it is consistent and yes it is strange at the same time.”
WangKon,
you stole my formula - I had thought of it before and was still in the process of typing my comment when you…
Very, very naughty indeed !
Bye for tonight, folks !
“And just to repeat — Cho’s not being naturalized should connote nothing about his politics. It would connote nothing even if he were.”
That’s where we disagree…
At least I am consistent, as well, in case you did not notice.
JK: I have no doubt that your friend in NY is a productive member of society there, so as as far as I’m concerned he is welcome to stay as long as he likes in his current status.
As long as he doesn’t start shouting loudly to one and all that he is AMERICAN, since he’s not. And as long as he doesn’t engage in any outrageous criminal behavior and then tries to skedaddle back to Korea, in order to shelter from the consequences of his actions behind his newly re-discovered “Korean-ness”.
I have clearly implied in my previous postings that if Cho had been a sworn American citizen, you wouldn’t have heard a word from me here attributing his misdeeds to his Korean ethnicity. But now I’ll state it here explicitly, since that message clearly isn’t getting through to you.
(I say “outrageous” as a modifier to “criminal” here simply in order to rule out “ordinary” offenses against society, such as speeding tickets etc; after all, we’re all human and subject to such things in the course of ordinary life).
The division between US citizenship and the various permutatiations of resident legal and illegal aliens is a bright and sharply defined line for most Americans. Shouting hoarsely that Chos was AMERICAN doesn’t change the fact that he legally wasn’t, though we can argue about whether he was “culturally” one or not.
34
How could you disagree? It’s plain logic, if I may say so. There’s nothing neccesary about this inference “feels no allegiance to America” from this premise “has not naturalized.” The inverse is also faulty: ie “Feels allegiance to America” from “Has naturalized”.
# 33
I have mastered the art of transcontinental mind reading. If you want to learn I have a paypay account…
I also have a bridge I want to sell you too…
Cho, whose most salient attribute was mental illness/sociopathy, did not remotely belong on this thread. I’m sure I’m not alone in never needing to hear his name again.
Decided to drop in once more…
Sure, Cho was mad, no doubt about that. But so are many murderers. So what ? Do murders committed by the mentally ill not count ?
In all probability some of the Koreans who were murdered in China, Japan, in the Philippines, in the United States, in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in South Africa, in Venezuela, in Australian, in Indonesia and in Peru also fell prey to those not right in their mind.
That would not really be surprising, would it be ? Do these murders also “not remotely belong on this thread” ? If they do, where is the difference to Cho’s murders ?
Just a couple of days ago two Koreans were murdered by a group of religiuos/political fanatics who also might well be regarded as mentally ill. And 21 further Koreans are being held hostage and threatened to be murdered right now by these lunatics…
Those murders do belong on this thread, I suppose ?
And once more with regard to the naturalisation issue:
For us humble Germans it is downright incomprehensible that, while in our country millions are craving US citizenship (and have no possibility of ever attaining it), apparently some of the Koreans who are entitled to the much-coveted passport cannot even be bothered to take a day off and pay a small fee in order to get it.
Getting a US passport was one of the two great dreams I had when I was in my twenties. The other one was to become a university professor. Now, at the age of 42, I know full well that neither dream will become true.
Such is life. Never mind.
And these bastards are entitled and do not even care…
Well…
It’s a bit more then that. Non-fluent English speakers (which would be a majority of Korean Americans) need to take a multiple choice test that most native citizens couldn’t pass cold turkey. Sample questions below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/
There is also an oral interview that has about 15 to 20 questions. All this means you need some command of the English language to pass the citizenship process. Many KA’s take classes to prepare themselves. So it’s a descent investment of time for a lot of KA’s who own their own businesses and are workaholics. Many KA’s elect to do the citizenship thing when they either students or near retirement. It’s a trip. Younger KA’s go to the swear in ceremony in jeans and a t-shirt and the older KAs go in their Sunday best.
WangKon, maybe the US passport does not have the same allure for you as it has for us. You know, few countries outside of Europe grant the same preferential treatment to Germans as they grant to Americans.
Within the European Union it is a different matter - the British grudgingly had to concede that I am an EU-citizen and thus NOT a foreigner in their country. Luckily, a Frenchwoman had paved the way with a law suit in the 1980s which she took all the way to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. And there they ruled that EU-citizens are NOT foreigners anywhere in the EU.
But, apart from that, Americans are in a much better position, legally, and in terms of the respect their nationality commands. What did my wife dream about on her parents farm in Chungcheong-buk-do before she met me ? She dreamt about emigrating to the US, not to fucking Germany, of course. Now she is, together with me, in the latter country - and she has come to terms much better than me with the fact that, despite my frequent business travels to the US, we will never be able to take up residency over there, let alone acquire a US passport. The US offers Green Cards to all kinds of people from all kinds of countries, but for a German with a British and a Canadian law degree, and with a Korean wife in tow who will, in a year or two, graduate as a medical doctor, there seems to be no room…
That sucks big time. I think Germany is a fine country. My car is German and a fine piece of engineering it is.
Maybe your wife can reapply once she does become a doctor? Lord knows that every country can’t have enough doctors.
Personally, I think that if you are highly educated, then you should get to at least work in the states. I mean we provide so called “amnesty” to so many uneducated people from semi-third world countries anyways.
#37 -
Yes on the first, big no on the second. Implicit in the premise “Has naturalized” is that the person has chosen to take an oath of allegiance. Not only is “Feels allegiance to America” a safe inference from “Has naturalized,” it’s practically a tautology.
You’re right Ut videam, if you take the word naturalized seriously. But in the legal sense, naturalization unfortunately means nothing. I have attended a naturalization ceremony, and looking around the room at people chewing gum as they “swore” allegiance, or at the glowering family of Muslims (woman in burkah), it was obvious to me that the Americans in attendance were taking it far more seriously than those being naturalized.
Finally: I wonder, though the Korean press of course does not, how many of the Koreans killed abroad (especially in China and the US) were killed by ethnic Koreans.
Jawohl, Fantasy, we in America have no room for your sort! Until you can prove illiteracy, three illegitimate children and type 2 diabetes you must admire from afar.
#46 - Herod, unfortunately I don’t doubt the veracity of your anecdotal evidence. Nevertheless, as was pointed out above, a lawful permanent resident doesn’t attain any significant additional benefits by becoming a naturalized citizen. Why go to the trouble then, unless to formalize one’s allegiance to America?
45 (and 46)
Absolutely incorrect. If instead of “feels allegiance to America” the proposition were “expresses allegiance to America”, you’d be onto something. A hater of USA can become a citizen for any reason he likes. Not only that, even in the case of “expresses allegiance to America” you’d still be incorrect. Simply put, if we analyze this situation modally and consider time factors, we can see that what a person feels at one moment in his life may change or be different at another. I’m not talking out my ass here, mind you. Such considerations are the reason for why temporal logics have been invented.
One more thing (and I hope this ends any further discussion of this rather simple topic): Parlances like “safe inference” sounds too much like “heck, it may not be deductively valid but it makes sense to me” which is still unacceptable. People do in fact exercise many motives for naturalizing including those that have nothing to do with one’s political inclinations whatsoever; they may have practical reasons such as being able to vote- not being deported- travelling to and from the USA without as much hassle, and more.
#49 - Pardon the imprecision in my use of “safe inference.” I meant “deductively valid.” As for the rest of your argument, it’s valid in the case of the proposition “feels allegiance to America.” It’s invalid in the case of “expresses…” You’re muddling the issue by bringing in temporal and emotional factors. In the case of the proposition “expresses…” the only time that’s material is the time at which the expression is made. Legally speaking, whether the person changes his mind (or “feels differently”) at another juncture is immaterial—and since citizenship is a question of law, the legal standard is the deciding one. Once he expresses allegiance, he is legally responsible for that allegiance unless and until he formally renounces it.
People do in fact exercise many motives for naturalizing…
Please refer to #48.
50
Yes, it’s valid for “feels..” (I’m glad we now agree). But it’s still invalid for “expresses…”; in fact the legal side of “allegiance” is not the sense of allegiance we’ve been using since comment 14. (In other words, guess who’s “muddling the issue by bringing in…” irrelevant considerations? It ain’t good abcdefg. ;))
Correction: “It’s still VALID for “expresses…”"…
#51 - You’re still wrong re: “expresses…” No matter what the person “feels,” in order to become naturalized, he must express allegiance. There’s no way to become naturalized without taking the oath. What he feels at that point or any other is immaterial. As for bringing in the legal sense, you’re right; there was no need.
53
You are focusing on the basics and missing the nuances of that comment of mine that you originally replied to.
-Sure, if you are taking an oath then you are by definition “expressing allegiance”. That is of course a tautology, but it’s not the language game pertinent here.
-Now, recall the use of tense in my previous comments — “Has naturalized” — “Feels allegiance” — “Expresses allegiance…”. Do you see my point?
When a person takes the citizenship oath (at least in the case of the United States), he or she declares “true faith and allegiance” to the United States. This declaration is expressed in the future tense. The person further declares that he or she takes “this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.” Nota bene that said allegiance (et al.) is called an obligation; it binds the person from that point forward. In the absence of evidence that a person no longer professes this allegiance, such allegiance can (indeed must) be presumed from the solemn oath he or she took.
Words mean things, and a fortiori, solemn oaths. Hence, my position remains that the inference “expresses allegiance” from “has naturalized” is a valid deduction.
There are at least 2 contexts that my comments postulate whereas your reply supposes just 1. Simplifying, this means we shouldn’t take “expresses allegiance” as a retranslation of “has naturalized”. Doing so misrepresents my argument, trivializes “allegiance” and gives it the irrelevant sense corrected earlier, not to mention the absurd results. For example: the naturalized America hater who “expresses allegiance to America” even though he plots against it.
And in case you forgot, “expresses allegiance” is the condition that I introduced, and that to give your first attempt at contradiction any weight at all.
Hi guys, I’ve worked with a lot of Korean-American and Korean-Canadian teens, many who came over at a young age like Cho and can’t even converse in Korean anymore. There is no nationalistic reason as to why they don’t carry US passports…many simply don’t know of the weight it carries, simply from never having needed it in day-to-day life for them to have found out. They are like many other young people of today…they don’t do something unless it impedes on their short visioned future, and not because they want to establish their national ties.
Ut,
Arguing with abc is like trying to untangle a ball of yarn while the cat’s still playing with it.
Sonagi,
Indeed.