A presidential commission has ordered the confiscation of land from the descendants of 10 pro-Japanese collaborators [Korea Times]. You’ll be happy to learn that the property will go to compensate independence fighters and their descendants.
Land Confiscated from Collaborators
Previous post: The Assassination of D.W. Stephens
Next post: Happy Liberation Day
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 137 comments… read them below or add one }
WTF, money goes to Nork loving liberals, eh? Love Korean liberals, this is their legacy, huh. Nice job WangKon936 for voting the fun loving gerbils into office.
Yet another reason why korea can never be a truly advanced, ‘forward thinking,’ nation – Too obsessed with correcting every wrong from the past.
Rather reminiscent of the confiscation of white-owned farms in Zimbabwe. And that worked out so beautifully, didn’t it?
You mean Korea is going to apologize to and compensate the Japanese for provisioning, staffing the infantry of, building and manning the ships for and ferrying the Mongols over to Kyushu.
Oh, wait, of course not, that was “inevitable”.
OOoh, I never thought about that. I remember hearing in history class that two Mongol invasions were destroyed by the divine wind, but I never realized where they were from. They launched from Korea then?
Re: #2
“Yet another reason why korea can never be a truly advanced, ‘forward thinking,’ nation – Too obsessed with correcting every wrong from the past.”
So, Germany’s “obsession” with righting the wrongs of Hitler and Nazism keeps them from being an advanced, ‘forward thinking’ nation ?
To put it into perspective, the Japanese actively attempted to destroy Korean culture and supplant it entirely with its own. I can’t say I blame some Koreans for still being pissed at those who (may have) over-zealously profited from collaborating with the Japanese at the time.
Also, for better or worse, Korean and Asian cultures in general have a longer view of history and accountability, which is reflected in their customs and laws. The death of a criminal does not entirely absolve their family from the burden of punishment.
#4.
No harm done.
Kamikaze sunk all ships.
If anything, it probably made Japan more centralized and stronger.
WangKon936 is American and had nothing to do with voting the fun-loving gerbils into office, as far as I know.
#5,
Many of the ships were launched from Korea, yes. Many of the ships sent were riverboats, not sea-fairing ones. In any case, some researchers believe that the Korean builders of the ships purposely introduced flaws into them in the hopes that a defeat would bring an end to the Mongol Empire, which it eventually did.
I’ve actually seen a documentary on TV where they showed the design flaws in wrecks that had been excavated. The joints that held the masts were made so that the ships would lose maneuverability in heavy winds. The masts would twist and turn and snap…if the boat didn’t capsize first. I’ve also read that very weak nails were used to hold things together.
Divide South Korea into South South Korea and North South Korea.
Yes, I can see how punishing people for something they didn’t do will better Korean society. This should be extended into other areas. For example, if someone commits a crime, perhaps their children should be yanked out of school and put in jail/to work. Seems to work well enough in North Korea. The next Juche study group will be Friday evening, 5pm-midnight – get started while it’s still voluntary!
Slave labor will do that to you. Concentration-camp labor produced an abnormally high level of dud munitions for the Nazis. America won the war on the power of free labor — men and women motivated to do their best by pride and patriotism (and pay), rather than fear of the lash.
Welcome to South Korea, where you’re guilty until proven innocent, and maybe even after that.
You may be wrong on this one. I think I smell a Uri rat.
“Yet another reason why korea can never be a truly advanced, ‘forward thinking,’ nation – Too obsessed with correcting every wrong from the past.”
Obsessed they may be. Actually correcting wrongs and making things right, I think not. Punishing people for the supposed crimes of their grandparents is madness. It has everything to do with politics and nothing with justice.
“Slave labor will do that to you. Concentration-camp labor produced an abnormally high level of dud munitions for the Nazis. America won the war on the power of free labor — men and women motivated to do their best by pride and patriotism (and pay), rather than fear of the lash.”
America won the war? What war would that be? You didn’t even win the American Revolution on your own. So, please, spare us the misplaced patriotism. This thread is about Korean/Japan.
#16 -
You seriously need to chill. Brendon’s point was that slave labor tends to halfass, if not outright sabotage, the work their tormentors force them to do. Voluntary paid labor is far more effective for producing war materiel. He illustrated this point by his reference to WWII. It had nothing to do with “misplaced patriotism.”
Exactly. Justice is a forgotten virtue and it is the lack of such that will cause much more suffering here and elsewhere in the world.
#17,
And my point was that this, “America won the war on the power of free labor — men and women motivated to do their best by pride and patriotism (and pay), rather than fear of the lash.”
was totally unnecessary, regardless of what point he was trying to make about slave labor. In any case, slave labor doesn’t always produce junk. Every seen the Great Pyramids of Egypt? What about the Roman Acqueducts? The Great Wall of China? The Roman Coliseum? The Roman Roads? Or maybe the Inca Pyramids? Yeah, all junk that is lucky to be standing to this day after thousands of years. Right.
#17…I think you just didn’t get his point about the bad ammunition. How many Germans were killed because their guns misfired? Quite a few, I’m sure, just as the slaves had wanted.
#19~20:
I got his point just fine. Save your patronizing. Like I said, you need to chill. You overreacted to the part where he mentioned America winning the war—the point of which was to emphasize that voluntary labor produces a superior product.
Here, though, let me assuage your obviously wounded han: No one is questioning the great courage, tenacity, and ingenuity shown by the intrepid Korean people in their cunning sabotage of their Mongol oppressors’ weapons of war. Korea: pighting!
#19 -
Oh, and you obviously missed the point about the superiority of voluntary labor. Your “counterexamples” comprise a laundry list of unprovable assertions. We’ll never know whether the Great Pyramids of Egypt, the Roman aqueducts, Great Wall of China, Flavian Amphitheater. Roman roads, or Inca pyramids would have been better if built by voluntary labor, will we?
“In any case, slave labor doesn’t always produce junk.”
Nor did anyone claim that it did. But it makes a nice straw man, doesn’t it?
Ut videam; he’s already had the Kool-Aid.
# 8,
Yep. I’m an American citizen so can’t vote in the ROK. Besides, I don’t like Roh or his cronies.
What’s up with hanging me up in effigy here? Hardly mature fellas.
Ut Videam, Richardson, et al:
You guys just don’t get it. The underlying principle behind the confiscation is that these guys would not enjoy their current wealth if not for collaboration with Japan. Because collaboration with Japan was wrong–atleast from the standpoint of the Korean government–it would not make sense for the ROK to allow these guys to benefit from the wrongs committed by their ancestors.
But whether they seize the land now or whether they should have seized it earlier is immaterial. Whether it was seized in 2007 or 1947, the point is that these individuals would not have had the land anyways.
Such a simple concept, and yet you can’t understand. Unfortunate.
Youngrocco; you just don’t get it:
1) “allegedly collaborated” (i.e., not proved)
2) And the concept of not punishing people for things they did not do.
#22, Oh, please. Now you’re twisting my words (and putting ‘aqueducts’ in bold, wooo. I made a spelling mistake, so my point must then be moot).
I never said it was built better because of slave labor, but rather that not all slave labor is “half-assed”. Just read #20.
#23. Whatever, Richardson. You know what they say about those who live in class houses…
A few sentences more and I bet he would have had you singing ‘God Bless American’.
For the record, I have a serious problem with the principle of seizing property without due process…
Why wasn’t this property seized (by the proceedings of a commission, or just by state decree) in the immediate post WWII period?
Rhetorical question, I think I know the answer. But comments in reply are welcome.
Here’s a question I don’t know the answer to:
To maintain even a veneer of “justice” (in the moral sense, not the legal one — at least legal according to US standards)– it seems to me the land should be returned to the descendants of its original owners.
If descendants of independence fighters — with absolutely no historical connection to these lands — have suddenly been discovered to need compensation, seems to me that should be done out of state coffers.
Why isn’t it being returned to its original owners? No records, descendents can’t be located?
Mr. Carr’s comment, which struck me as entirely reasonable, brought to mind the apocryphal tale of a German P.O.W. who had been a gunner, and a good one. He had guarded a road. “Every time a tank came around the bend,” he said proudly, “I hit it and disabled it.” So how come you’re a P.O.W., he was asked. “Because I ran out of ammo before the Amis ran out of tanks.” Without understating the role of the other Allies in WWII, one can and should appreciate the impact on that conflict of the USA’s production of munitions.
With regard to the matter under discussion, the key issue is due process. But even if one waives that point, the ethics of expropriating the descendants of criminals seems complicated. Yes, the state is awarding to one set of individuals something that should have been theirs. But the state is (coercively) taking from other individuals something which — if enough time & generations have elapsed — is part of their experiential baseline: i.e., the State is doing them an injury. People who minimize this by saying, “But they never should have had the property anyway” enjoy a confident absolutism which rarely makes for good politics.
SomeguyinKorea; how else would you describe knee-jerk anti-American vitriol that goes miles out of the way to miss the obvious point even after spelled out in simpler language?
And you’re invited to provide an example for your [g]lass house comment, thanks.
#28 Wangkon:
Well, do the deliberate proceedings of this commission constitute due process? Seems to me that Koreans who support the concept can make a credible argument that it does.
The news article indicated deliberate proceedings, not pre-emptory seizure by force. I take it the current owners are allowed to appear before the commission, or at least submit written defense on their behalf. And the article indicates they have resort to appeal of the decision in the courts.
What takes it out of the realm of “legality” is the late date of the proceedings, but especially the arbitrary assigment of the proceeds of the potential seizure to descendants of indepedence fighters, if they are unrelated to the original owners of the land.
If the current ROK administration is out of office after the next election, will the decisions of this commission still stand or is it likely that they will be reversed? If any seizure decisions are reversed, then that makes it blatantly obvious (to this American observer, anyway) that such seizures would be purely political rather than legal.
Richardson, sorry to break it to you, but those tailors, well, the fabric isn’t “light and airy.”
1. Your first point is irrelevant unless you imply that these lands should be confiscated if their owners are collaborators.
2. What you don’t get is that the Korean government is not punishing them per se. At least not anymore than the U.S. government would be “punishing” you if it took back a 1000 tax return you had received by accident. The whole idea is that this land doesn’t/shouldn’t belong to them in the first place. Therefore, the government is not punishing them by taking it away.
Easy concept to understand. Now do you get it?
Paul H., great point that this isn’t restitution, and good question why couldn’t descendants of original owners be identified?
A wild speculation: were precisely these ten cases selected for action *because* there were no surviving heirs to the original owners? If true, that would demonstrate a purely political motivation.
If the original owners can be identified & have heirs, then won’t the heirs sue for the property immediately? There may have been reasons to balk at dispossessing (even in favor of rightful heirs) those who have possessed the property for so long, but once the gov’t takes *that* step, the heirs’ claim should be a no-brainer.
Youngrocco;
The lack of due process is indeed relevant!
Your analogy is off; consider the government takes a million of your assets for what your grandfathers “allegedly” got 60 years ago.
Gray Hat: maybe we’ll hear something from the expat legal eagles whot are regular contributers here, I’m genuinely interested to see what someone who knows the Korean legal system has to say once they have a chance to come back on line (difference between time zones, I’m in western CONUS).
I don’t expect ROK to hold itself to US Constitutional standards but the legal actions of ROK administration and its commission should be examined according to its own ROK constitutional standards, whatever those may be.
One “solution” that would involve a measure of “political” compromise would be to examine if the owners of the current lands are making a reasonable (or unreasonable) profit off them.
If some land holdings that were seized, say, back in the 1920’s (the commission holds a brief to examine for lands that were seized between 1910-1945) — then I suppose a case can be made “morally or ethically” to see about returning them to the heirs of the original owners.
But I doubt if the heirs have been sitting around for 80-odd years, standing by to resume the workings of their land right where their ancestors left off. There are so many possible complications to this that it boggles the mind.
Even if there have been no third party transactions (ie one or more legal sale(s) of the lands since 1945) — and direct heirs can be located — I don’t think the direct heirs deserve to just be given the land back so they can turn around and sell it immediately (because the heirs aren’t interested in being landowners anymore).
In this case, I think if the land is providing a profit to its current owners, said owners should be given an opportunity to retain it by paying some sort of long-term mortgage to the heirs.
Of course I don’t know the details of whatever law was passed by the ROK legislature authorizing this commission (I assume this has happened?)
If any law authorizing the commission and its procedures has been passed by the legislature, signed and implemented by the President, and upheld by the Korean courts — then I guess all a current landowner-descendant of “collaborators” can do is curse his ancestors while following whatever defensive legal procedures are authorized by the commission.
Youngrocco: standard definition of “punishment” in the legal sense of the word is simple — it’s the “taking away of life, liberty, and currently-owned property (to include money)”.
If the restitution of these lands to their original owners has been such a burning issue since the founding days of the ROK, then what should have happened is that some of the reparation money paid by the postwar Japanese government to the ROK as a matter of treaty (when was that, 1960?) should have been used to either purchase the lands back from the collaborator-owners at the time, followed by the return of the land to the original owners — or else used to compensate directly the original owners.
Since this obviously didn’t happen, and the ROK voting public has suddenly evidently decided that in the early decade of this new century “justice” demands that these “collaborator-descendants” be deprived of future benefits from their land holdings — what should happen is that the ROK government should purchase the lands at current fair market value.
Then ROK government can do whatever it is authorized to do with the land by law (return to descendants of original owners, give it to descendants of resistance fighters, or whatever).
Actually, before the ships were sunk, the Mongols (and their Korean conscripts (collaborators?)) had the chance to ransack Tsushima and Iki (during the first invasion) as well as fight a couple of battles in Hakata Bay (during both invasions). So not exactly ‘no harm done’ in either case.
youre damn right america won the war
who else did?
the french
What would Scripture say about this?
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t recall Christ ever having rebuked Matthew for collecting taxes from the Jews.
#16 SomeguyinKorea:”
“…America won the war? What war would that be? You didn’t even win the American Revolution on your own. So, please, spare us the misplaced patriotism…”
Well, there were some prominent examples of the US government winning wars on its own between the American Revolution and WWI, but that was in the pre-modern era. It’s certainly true that since 1917 the US has always fought expeditionary wars ovverseas in conjunction with allies, for moral reasons as much as for practical ones.
But I think it’s accurate to say that the US won WWII in the sense of “war production” (as Gray Hat was saying in his #30). The major Soviet offensives of 1943-45 against the German eastern front were logistically enabled by vast quantities of US Lend-lease military aid; one example was all-wheel drive trucks (supposedly the name “Studebaker” became well-known to the average Soviet soldier of the time, along with “Spam”).
Germans were unable to match this support vehicle war production; if you look at old war film footage you’ll see their logistical support vehicles consisted mainly of horse-drawn transport. The climactic Soviet offensives would have taken much longer to execute had it not been for US aid.
Another example: The Free French armored division fighting in the breakout from Normandy (July-Aug 1944) was entirely outfitted with US equipment.
“youre damn right america won the war
who else did?
the french”
Not to discount the absolutely essential role of the United States in winning WWII, but the Soviets certainly played more than a minor role, didn’t they? Britain played a key role too, and Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia deserve some mention for their participation.
Not all the French deserve the scorn they seem to get for WWII. They did lose about 100 000 dead fighting in 1940 – not exactly an immediate capitulation – and Free French forces fought with the Allies in Africa and Italy prior to D-Day.
Globalvillage: Reference the French in WWII, that 100,000 (some cite 90,000) is dead, seriously wounded, and missing. There are no figures as to how many of the final category later showed up. Stop by the monument to the dead in any French town and look at the names, and you’ll be struck by the paucity of names from WWII. Indeed, the great majority of French troops fighting in Italy were North African muslims, and was the mass of De Lattre’s 1st Army that landed in Southern France. It only “whitened” up later with the incorporation of volunteers from the various resistance units. So no small number of French do deserve the scorn, but it should not be carelessly splashed on everyone, anymore than property should be confiscated based upon “alleged” misdeeds of past ancestors.
Gray Hat: With regard to your comments “on the matter under discussion”, a deep bow of respect, Sir.
#41,
Sure, but if you eliminate the war production of the US, Germany would not have been able to match that of the Allies. Nevertheless, the US joining the war made it less tempting for Germany to attempt to invade Great Britain, which would have royally screwed the Allies.
http://www.wwii.ca/page17.html
It’s quite surprising that Germany lasted that long since it was fighting on so many fronts. Then again, the terrible defeat it delivered to the Allies at Dieppe (apparently because it was forewarned of the assault) bought it a lot of time.
#39,
Another French army joke? How original.
> why couldn’t descendants of
> original owners be identified?
I would uninformedly guess that many of the original owners were Yangban clans, who ‘owned’ the land in a feudal sense that had only recently become ‘legalized’ ownership in the modern sense. If so, there would be little-to-zero public/political support for returning property to the heirs of Yangban — and i’d agree that it should not go that way.
Sorry, I thought you might be someone I know, who is a Uri lover.
#45,
That’s exactly why I find this whole thing ridiculous. After all, some yangban had their land confiscated by the Japanese, right? If so, where’s the public outcry to return the land to their heirs?
#16. The U.S. is the reason WWII ended in victory. We pulled Britain out of the ashes and armed the Russians with lend-lease. Lest we not forget the fireworks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, do you recall? Lastly if it were not for the Americans, The Koreans would be speaking Chinese today. G-d bless America! Korea, deal with your envy and self-loathing with some class.
I whole heartedly welcome such morally enlightened policies and would like to remind the Korean government that I have been patiently waiting patiently for my millions in compensation for the blood and sweat my grandfather put into saving them from marauding communist forces…
…and perhaps if that be tad too much to ask, can I at least have the guys at the immigration office stop openly cursing at me when I renew my f2 visa?
#44 Someguy: Interesting link about WWII Canadian war production.
Here’s a direct comparison of the dollar value of Canadian military aid to its WWII allies, vs US miltary aid to the same:
“….No [US] lend lease money went to Canada, which operated a similar program [to US lend-lease] that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to Britain and Soviet UASS.”
“….A total of $50.1 billion [of US lend lease war production] (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China.”
That’s 50.1 billion of war aid for US allies above and beyond US war production meant its own forces.
UK and Soviet Union produced most of their own front-line weapons of all types. Where US lend-lease aid made the difference is in the hidden logistics of war, essential to enable the front line weapons to stay in action:
“…Much of the [US Lend-lease] aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back on production of nonessentials severely, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military/industrial economy.
For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that only about 92 locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood.
Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel.
Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of US-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.
US supplies of telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical….”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
A chart in this link shows that the US provided the Soviet Union in WWII approx 376,000 trucks (these are probably 6 x 6 all wheel drive trucks, ones that could get through the Russian mud spring/fall and winter snow/ice). Also over 50,000 jeeps (technically 4 x 4 small trucks).
guys
the reason the US won the war was that it was fought on two fronts
lets say for the sake of argument the US only went to war with the japanese and only continued to support the effort in europe with equipment how would history have been shaped
the industrial might of the US played major roles in winning both fronts
yes the russians, british, and french all fought hard but still pretty much were defeated or at the point of defeat by the axis
now to this
America won the war? What war would that be? You didn’t even win the American Revolution on your own. So, please, spare us the misplaced patriotism. This thread is about Korean/Japan.
ok what is your point? and how is this any more original that the french army joke
sounds to me like you are just another person who belittles the US contribution to the world you live in and the freedoms you enjoy. pretty much like every liberal out there bash bash bash the US taking advantage of the liberties provided to you by historical facts
your kind need to be sent to places where your mouth would get you put in a nice labor camp, or put in front of a firing squad for speaking your mind and then you probably might not think the USA was so bad after all
then you could post under the name of someguyinyodok
Also in response to #44 someguy:
“….Then again, the terrible defeat it [Germany] delivered to the Allies at Dieppe…. bought ….[Germany] a lot of time….”
Not really. You’re engaging in your normal debate tactic here of taking one thing and then exaggerating it totally out of context.
The action at Dieppe (Aug 19, 1942) was only intended as an experimental raid (involving less than 10,000 men total). They intended to hold Dieppe only briefly ( “a short eime”, not sure if this was only hours or a few days) before withdrawing.
They wanted to see if the Allies could capture and hold a port as an experiment for when they later invaded France in a major way. This major invasion was desired to be projected for sometime in 1943 by the American Army war staff, but Churchill was resistant to that date because the Americans weren’t yet organized and in the UK with dozens of divisions, as of 1942).
“….3,623 of the 6,086 men who made it ashore [at Dieppe, no more than that were committed] were either killed, wounded, or captured….”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid
Far more significant to the overall progress of WWII at that time (Aug 1942) was the
1) just-concluded-in-July Commonwealth forces battle in North Africa that had stopped Rommel’s forward progress into Egypt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....El_Alamein; and
2) the beginning of the protracted battle of Stalingrad (August 21) on the Eastern front, that would prove to be a meat-grinder and then a terrible final defeat for Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad.
3) Also far more important than Dieppe was the ongoing preparations at that time by Allied (mostly US) forces, in both the US and the UK, for the upcoming landings in western North Africa in November 1942:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Torch
4) And finally, in the Pacific the US had just landed a Marine force successfully on Guadalcanal (August 7) and captured the almost-completed Japanese airfield there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalcanal_campaign
in spite of a terrible defeat deliverd to the US/Australian naval covering force the night of Aug 8-9:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Savo_Island
The Allied defeat at Dieppe on Aug 19 1942 had no effect on any of these other ongoing operations.
#47,
You need to read up on your history before you claim the atomic bomb as an American invention (and dropping the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was arguably war crimes, so I wouldn’t be so quick to throw that one in the discussion).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
Let me remind you that the US was not the only one fighting the Japanese. The Dutch, the English, the Canadians, the Australians, and even the French, among others, were participating involved in the Pacific Theater…and let’s not forget the Chinese and the Korean Liberation Army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....panese_War
“yes the russians, british, and french all fought hard but still pretty much were defeated or at the point of defeat by the axis”
Defeated? Oh, right, I forgot. There were only Americans on the beaches of Normandy. Canadians didn’t liberate Holland, and Russians weren’t the first in Berlin (the reason the Russians were initially defeated by the Germans is because they were operating under and offensive plan. Stalin had planned to attack Germany through Romania in July of 1941, which would explain why Germany attacked in June despite the fact they couldn’t possibly defeat Russia before the winter).
#52.
Maybe, but losing in Dieppe would have been nonetheless a huge blow to Germany.
In any case, all of this doesn’t detract from my original point that the US didn’t single-handedly win WW2.
Who said we did? The “single-handedly” is something you imagined (textbook straw man). Context smontext.
Still waiting on your “[g]lass houses” examples. . .
Hi, I’m new here.
I think we need to put in perspective here that Korea is still relatively new in terms of an independent and democratic nation. It’s only been about 50 years. Think about it – around 50 years after the Revolutionary War, do you think America would have been so nice to the British?
(Actually, I think that point is null considering that America and Britain became allies, no? Does anyone else have another example?)
In any case, you can’t expect Korea to become a “truly ‘forward thinking’ nation” in a fortnight (as someone mentioned). Anyhow, I do think confiscating land from the descendents (sp?) of Japanese collaborators is pointless. Sometimes I just don’t get Mr. Roh and his administration.
#55…
“America won the war”…
#55,
The glass house? Simply pointing out that after you were done gulping down the Kool-aid, there wasn’t any left for the rest of us.
the japanese were rolling thru asia you i think you need to read up on your history
even the austrailians were prepared for an invasion
nothing was stopping them definitely no one you mentioned in your argument
regardless america didnt single handily win the war but without its intervention everyone with an ounce of common sense knows what would have happend
#53 Someguy: “…You [Richardson] need to read up on your history before you claim the atomic bomb as an American invention (and dropping the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was arguably war crimes….”
Yes, without the British contribution to Manhattan Project it’s likely that it could have take another year to get US A-bombs ready. And that in this case the US would have gone ahead with the two phases of the major amphibious ground invasion of Japan, Operations Olympic and then Coronet.
The planning for these was quite far advanced, since nobody knew for sure the A-bombs would work until the last minute. You can read about these plans in detail here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
Nothing there about any US landings in the southern half of Korea, so I think it’s quite possible that there would have been no US troops to spare for that task. The USSR came into the war in the first week of August, as agreed by Stalin and FDR at Yalta in Feb 1945; perhaps without the A-bomb Korea would have been liberated in its entirety by the Red Army.
Maybe it actually happened that way, in a parallel universe somewhere.
You wankers, the US won the war. The British Empire was crushed by the Japanese and the Germans. The Dutch? Spare me! They were second in line to surrender. We won the war with innovation. We had shoulder fired missiles for example when the Japanese were still playing with stone axes. Canada? Do the math. How many Canadians walk the planet? 32 million today. They did contribute but you guys need to get real. Maple syrup.
That’s a “hypercritical verbose” wanker to you pard. And smile when you say it.
#61. Is that all you got? Install a windshield wiper on your monitor. Facts are facts. And furthermore; when people quote Wikipedia, it only points to cartoon mentality. Hangeul won the war, sorry for my misstep.
#53 by Someguy has one more piece of overripe historical fruit that simply must be plucked from the apple barrel — wankish though it may be.
“…the reason the Russians were initially defeated by the Germans is because they were operating under [an] offensive plan. Stalin had planned to attack Germany through Romania in July of 1941, which would explain why Germany attacked in June despite the fact they couldn’t possibly defeat Russia before the winter.”
No, I’ll give you partial credit here but you gotta watch those memory banks — you’re a year “out of phase”.
Stalin moved into western Rumania on June 28, 1940, taking advantage of the German commitment of forces to the Battle of France (the French surrendered to Germany on 25 June). (From 12-16 June 1940, Stalin had ordered the Soviet occupation of the Baltic republics).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....n_Bukovina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.....tic_States
Hitler was infuriated by Stalin’s taking advantage of victory over France in this manner. When it became clear that a German invasion of England was not practical by the fall of 1940, Hitler cancelled further planning for a cross-channel invasion and directed his general staff to begin planning for an invasion of the Soviet Union in the spring of 1941.
As that approached, far from planning his own offensive Stalin was in full appeasement mode, continuing to ship war material to his German “ally” (right up to 21 June 1941) via railroad, and forbidding his own military forces in western Russia to take any action in the face of the blatantly obvious German war preparations.
Even though Stalin was thoroughly and repeatedly warned of the impending attack (22 June 1941). That’s why the Soviet forces in the western Soviet Union were so completely unprepared (and consequently almost completely destroyed) in June-July-Aug 1941:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
Dictators like Stalin, Hitler, and KJI can turn their countries’ policies on a dime; democracies take longer to reverse field, especially when it’s matter of a complete
“about face” (like these examples).
That’s why cranky old Americans like me remain convinced that North Korea is an intractable enemy, not an “estranged brother” — but of course I’m not Korean.
#62 “Is that all you got…”
Yup, I’ve shot my wad and exhausted my facts. Windshield wiper installed as per your directive; shamed by my embarrassing repeat referrals to the false god Wiki, I hereby profer my abject apologies.
Exult in your triumph — but take hostages and place them on the locomotive. Lest I become later ashamed of my shame, and begin plotting to “plastique” the tracks of your charming railway.
Paul H. Eloquently put. I will try my best to mind my track.
Has anyone else noticed how over the top jingoism has recently become the accepted norm on this blog?
Regardless of the issue the same basic pattern emerges repeatedly:
Korea = bad
“the West” (i.e. USA) = good
Sing it, Congee!
Thanks for your detailed and informative comments, Paul H. I suspect that Wiki is not “all you got” — but sources with better pedigree are not likely to be freely available and linkable. And anyway, what stokes academic scorn about Wikipedia is the fact that so often it’s really quite good, and that drives the credential-preeners crazy!
Of course, there are many kinds of scorn, and the Internet has them all. Good night, Congee!
#66 now you have this all wrong! Korea = Victim USA = Oppressor, Subjugator, Betrayer, and Four Flushing Pig Fucker.
#66. Check out the “Roy Pearson Appeals Case” thread and see if your basic pattern theory holds up.
…getting back on topic, I have two things to say:
1. Ill-gotten gains
The land was (allegedly) ill-gotten. Since I don’t understand the details of the case enough to properly judge nor myself, nor do I have the Korean legal background to do, I will have to assume the allegations were sufficiently proven. As such, the ill-gotten gains were confiscated.
If you think this case is extreme, I suggest you research into what can seized in U.S. law as part of the “War on Drugs”. In many cases, proof of possession of narcotics and ownership of property are irrelevant. So, if you’re belly-aching about this case, you need to belly-ache about U.S.-style property seizure “justice” as well.
2. Different legal system
The Korean legal system is not the same as the U.S., for better or worse. Almost all of the same concepts of justice apply, but the methods of implementation of that justice are different.
As I said before, Korean and Asian cultures are different, especially when it comes to the scope of family history and responsibility. Therefor, the implementation of the “statutes of limitations” concept is quite different. Generations and decades can and are spanned.
Richardson:
You still don’t get it.
1. Due Process was applied in this case. Some one already stated that the commisions’ proceedings can be considered due process because the land’s current “owners” had opportunity to present their side of the story.
2. I’m not going to get into a semantics war with you, Richardson. I don’t have the time or the patience for it. I’ll simply state that if you believe these individuals were punished, you have to consider that they were justly punished.
3. Stop hiding behind hyperbole, Richardson. You cannot compare the commision’s actions here to actions done in North Korea. The commission is not punishing them for being the descendants of traitors. The commission is simpy taking away(some of) the rewards they earned as a result of treachery.
4. The principle of justice you advocate is hollow, Richardson. You believe that the descendants of collaborators should not be punished, but you have no problems with the descendants of collaborators benefitting from their collaboration.
So many exspurts, so little concluded.
YoungRocco and MigukNamja, you have inspired me. There is no statute of limitations, and victimhood and guilt may be passed through the generations and require action by scrupulously fairminded govts to rectify.
Centuries ago, the English squeezed Scotland and seized most of the useful land, causing my ancestors to eventually flee. I intend to demand to the English parliament that some English bastard’s property be taken away from him and given to me. It’s only fair and just, as you say.
The more I think about it, the more I am sure I have more coming. Those goddamn vikings raided and terrorized Scotland for centuries. Women were raped! I demand restitution be deducted from some dude in Norway’s bank account and given to me! As I spend it I shall feel the thrill of justice fulfilled. And Norway must give to me said dude’s hot daughter, for the need for justice throbs in my loins.
I do worry a bit, though. We all have criminals as ancestors, it’s statistically inevitable. Somewhere in our lines, YR2, MKNamja, and myself as well, is a murder, a thief, an illegal English teacher, etc. Aren’t you afraid of his or her victims showing up and demanding your cash as payment? Of course, our ancestor’s crimes are fogged in history, so it is easy to judge harshly here. There is nothing so principled as decisions on other people’s money. But would you say the same if it actually was your property being taken? I bet you’d be furious. Anyone with a brain would, no?
I believe youngrock-head has gotten to the Kool-Aid.
WWII was a joint effort, so of course the US contributed by coming for the final inning.
However going by our pathetic attempts to take North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, despite the help of countries with professional military organizations, claims to have “won WWII” are a little weak.
Sadly the modern US military is a third world organization with 1st world technology.
And while I’m off topic, I’d like to see that barren bitch Park Geun-hye hand back her ill gotten gains in the Pusan Ilbo, that wasn’t too long ago
#75 -
Gotten to? He may very well be the illegitimate son of the Kool-Aid Man. “Oh yeah!”
He said in English, with little understanding of why.
Youngrocco;
You obviously don’t know what “due process” is. Google is your friend – use it.
Seizure of the property of the descendents of “alleged collaborators” is not due process. A trial before punishment is what we’re looking for, and that would have to be for the actual accused collaborators, not the descendents of someone “alleged” to have done something wrong. Having the opportunity to go to court after punishment is not due process.
Also, the ROK Constitution and legal code do not allow for ex post facto actions, i.e., using a law created after the fact to prosecute someone (to our Korean legal experts, please correct me if I’m wrong on that point).
ALLEGED! Not convicted! No due process! Ex post facto!
This is neither semantics nor hyperbole; words have meanings – learn them, but don’t create meanings and pretend you have a clue.
Seizing the property of “alleged” collaborators is indeed exactly like North Korea’s actions in the years and decades after WWII. Perhaps the ROKG should jail/execute the decedents of the alleged collaborators, and they move in someone like Youngrocco from the underclass and slap the label “intellectual” (in the North Korea usage, which is not how it’s used in the rest of the world!), and call it good. That would complete the rest of the treatment for those/descendents of “alleged” of committing crimes in North Korea.
Even if the ancestors of these people were found to be “collaborators,” it is still wrong to punish a descendent for something they did not do (and clearly illegal per the ROK Constitution).
#76 you obviously don’t read past the funny papers. It is true that most Americans did not want to get involved in WWII until December 7. Once energized, we kicked ass. Yes it was a joint effort. Greece was a huge player; the allies really loved their hardware. Rommel butt-fucked Montgomery in North Africa. France did their very best at loosing. Britain lost their whole empire in Asia to the Japanese. The Help from the ANZACS was a fart in a skittle. The U.S. did the heavy lifting before and after the war as we ALWAYS do. I don’t know if you are a German, but if you are, come to grips, you are not the master race.
One of my favourite jokes in the Reagan “Star Wars” era was how the US was trying to make up for being late in the first two world wars by starting the third. ba boom!!
Strnange concept of “whole” you have there. Malaya & Singapore constitute a fairly small part of the Empire in Asia perhaps you didn’t know India, Pakistan, Burma, and various other entities were in Asia.
No one contests Americas contribution to the war, what gets their goat is the way many (not all Paul) Americans, as above, talk as though they one it alone.
American resources in terms of materiel was a major key, but due to geography mainland US was not under major threat compared to the other participants, an advantage it used to the full.
Indeed if I recall correctly the largest “volunteer” army as opposed to conscripted in the war was the Indian Army.
Apparently they do; Chun Doo Wan and Roh Tae Woo were convicted under exceedingly ex post facto legal enactments.
Hugh:
Your argument is fatally flawed.
1. Scotland is not an independent country. You cannot demand a farthing, much less any lands belonging to your ancestors. Your ancestors were colonized and conquered. Deal with it.
2. Stop playing the victim card, Hugh. You demean yourself when you do so. The only one here using that word or concept is you.
3. My ancestors had the good sense to avoid aiding and betting those who would destroy their country and traditions. I have nothing to be ashamed of. You, on the other hand, seem unnaturally concerned about the fate of said collaborators, Hugh. You sure seem to have a lot of sympathy for em. Do you have some skeletons in your closet, Hugh? A Nazi informant swinging around the branches of your family tree maybe?
4. There is an important characteristic of justice that you fail to acknowledge, Hugh. A just act does not become less just over time. Nor does an unjust act become more just over time. This is to say that the actions of the collaborators is just as reprehensible now as it was when it occurred. Taking the view that an unjust act should be remedied and fixed, I see nothing wrong with making the descendants of collaborators give up their lands.
5. You’ve failed to provide an adequate basis for your reasoning, Hugh. Your only defense of the injustice is that it happened long ago. This is an inadequate defense, Hugh.
6. Sarcasm is not an acceptable substitute for well reasoned debate, Hugh. You can whine and gripe, weep and gnash your teeth as much as you like, but none of that will change the lack of logic behind your reasoning.
If you want to improve your critical reasoning ability, you have to exercise your mind.
“Rommel butt-fucked Montgomery in North Africa.”
Another strange definition “butt fucked”
has clearly been redefined as “pushed the axis forces all the way back to tunisia”.
Also, would be quite difficult to butt fuck Montgomery before he had even arrived in North Africa.
Youngrocco;
Per your logic, if we find an ancestor of yours who “allegedly” murdered someone, we could execute you for that crime – without a trial.
Richardson:
You still don’t get it.
Your post is a logistic technician’s dream; I could drive a truck through the holes in your argument.
“it is still wrong to punish a descendent for something they did not do”
Your argument is inconsistent, Richardson, because it allows for a host of absurd situations to occur. Here are some goodies that can occur under your conception of justice, Ricahrdson.
1. A criminal can steal a million dollars and give the money to his son. The bank has no recourse to retrieve its funds. After all, the son didn’t do anything wrong.
2. A jewish nazi collaborator can give to his grandaughter the money he earned from ratting out his fellow jews. After all, the grandaughter didn’t do anything wrong.
3. You can steal 100 books from the library and give them to your uncle. The library has no right to retrieve its books. After all, your uncle didn’t do anything wrong.
Your idea of justice doesn’t sound too different from mafioso money laundering. Under your idea of justice, blood money can be cleaned simply by changing hands. This is the largest hole in your argument, Richardson. And its one that could easilly have been avoided if you’d decided to think critically.
Now let me be clear. I am not saying that the descendents of criminals should be punished in every case. The son of a homicidal maniac should not go to jail, receive the death penalty, or pay a fine. After all, the descendent did not benefit from the father’s murders. Similarly, the grandson of a mine owner who employed slave labor should not have ALL of his money taken away. After all, not all of the money the son possesses was derived from slavery–some of the money he has was earned by his own sweat. However, it is perfectly logical to seize “the principle” of the money earned from the descendents of collaborators; they’ve had 60-100 years to earn interest on that principle and build nice eggs.
And just to toy with you a little bit more, I’ll include another zinger. Richardson, yor idea of “they didn’t do” is far too passive. Just because the descendents weren’t there to sell out the country, one can’t assume that they are passive actors. One could argue that by accepting the fruits of a crime, they have, in efect, become complicit in it. A bank that knowingly accepts money from Osama Bin Laden is aiding terrorism, even if it has not committed terrorism itself. And as you are certainly aware, the U.S. government doesn’t accept your naive view of justice when it comes to punishing banks that aid terrorism.
Okay, now that your argument on justice has collapsed, I’ll proceed to your argument on the legality of the commision’s actions.
Now let me be even clearer, Richardson. The son of a murderer does not deserve to die because the son of a murderer has a natural right, as a human being, to life and liberty. The son has not violated the social contract, nor is his life the direct result of a murder. Therefore, it would be wrong to kill the son of a murderer simply because of the crime his father/mother committed.
Now if the son of the murderer, as a result of his father’s crimes, received a priceless Rembrandt that was formerly owned by a wealthy jewish family, I believe that the son does not deserve to keep that Rembrandt. After all, the son does not have a natural right to own a Rembrandt. The Rembrandt was acquired unjustly. It should be taken away from him.
You’re begging the question, Rocco. I’ll be a pal and spell it out for you.
What crime?
All your argumentation above assumes that a crime took place. What the alleged collaborators did, however, was manifestly not a crime at the time they did it. What they did was subsequently criminalized—the textbook definition of ex post facto.
Before you start your customary ad hominem attacks, Rocco, I am NOT defending collaboration. I’m simply saying that Japan was the lawful authority in Korea at the time, so how could cooperating with them be criminal? Despicable, perhaps, but not legally actionable.
Next, the acts of the alleged collaborators were criminalized many years after the acts, and well after most of the accused were able to defend themselves against the charges. Ergo, there seems to be a problem with due process here.
Damn it, YoungRocco. If you don’t mention your debate adversary by name in every sentence you are going to lose the argument YoungRocco.
Richardson:
1. The article that heads this thread does not contain the word “alleged.” It seems that you inserted that word in their yourself, either that or you quoted another article.
1a. But you have to use common sense, Richardson. What exactly is alleged? You don’t even know, do you? Is the commission unsure that these individuals’ ancestors collaborated with the Japanese or is the commission unsure that these individuals are truly descendents of collaborators? Both questions are pretty easy to answer, and the commission almost certainly has the correct individuals. Open a history book, check birth records and political documents, not exactly difficult research. The “allegedly” probably stems from the article writer’s own ignorance of the issue.
2. The commission’s findings and actions were approved by the Korean Congress. A law was formed to give the commission it’s authority. So there is no question that the commission’s actions are legal.
3. The individuals, have legal recourse for their grievances in court.
4. Eminent Domain. The government has the right to acquire property from private landholders if it serves a national interest.
Richardson, the commission’s power has been granted by law. I know that you haven’t read the law and so I know that you have no basis to argue that the actions of the commission are illegal.
You can’t even prove that the actions were immoral.
You’re done, Richardson.
I must say that I agree with YoungRocco to an extent. I do see this as a bit of a slippery slope. Is collaborating with the Japanese so heinous that it ends there. A more contemporary and just as callous and self-absorbed a crime is say, perhaps the Hyundai Motors Chairman embezzling billions from share-holders. I don’t think he has been just sitting on that money because he can’t get it laundered. What has he paid back, maybe a quarter after some five years? If he’s invested it, and likely he has, hasn’t that money benefitted his descendants? If so, shouldn’t we start yanking their cache and property and giving it back to the share-holders? Where does it end?
Ut Videam:
What crime did they commit?
Their ancestors picked the wrong side.
Their ancestors sided with Hirohoto and his boogie buddies and lost. Too bad for them. Japan’s empire died. A new government, the Republic of Korea, came into power.
The Republic of Korea is not obligated to honor the laws of the defunct empire of japan. The Republic of Korea, as sovereign, has the right to re-distribute property at its pleasure.
This should have been obvious to you, Ut Videam.
Save the “it wasn’t illegal at the time” argument for a debate on the comfort woman issue, young one. It won’t help you much here.
#92 – Rocco does make a solid point with his example of the stolen Rembrandt. So IF the alleged collaborators were given land in compensation for their dastardly deeds, AND the land that was given was unjustly taken from someone else for the purpose of giving it to the collaborators, THEN I could see a strong case for the government taking it away from the collaborators’ estates and returning it to the estates of those from whom it was unjustly taken in the first place.
But that doesn’t appear to be what’s happening here. The confiscation of these lands does not appear to be in the interests of giving justice to those whose lands were wrongly taken. This looks like politics, not justice.
Youngrocco,
You appear to suffer no cognitive dissonance when you refer to others sarcasm, but fill your own responses with superfluous rhetoric.
Did you go to the Roy Pearson School of Law or something?
Please go look up “alleged.” You’re still arguing it’s ok to punish someone for alleged crimes that they have not had a trial for or been convicted of, nevermind that they are the ancestors of the accused. While you’re at it, look up “due process” and “ex post faco.” I’m not kidding, you really do need to look up those definitions.
You also lack any historical perspective; as Japan compensated the ROKG for wrongs in 1965, those who claim to have lost land to the alleged collaborators (there aren’t any, the govt is going after them), should in fact be compensated by the ROKG.
Your theft counter-examples are all spurious; they all have an identifiable victim that can receive the property back again. In the current case show me the victim! It’s not the ROKG that got compensated in 1965. Show me a plaintiff who allegedly lost land to an alleged collaborator.
You can’t.
Better yet, show me the convicted collaborator.
Again, you can’t.
I specifically said, “‘allegedly’ murdered,” not a “murderer.” And now you’re inconsistently arguing that it’s not ok to seek reparations from a descendent. In a theft a value can be assessed and taken; in a murder a life cannot be given back, but a life can be taken. The second part of your example is irrelevant as the murder is in addition to a theft, which is where your theft/return focus is.
Finally, and I do hate to resort to ad hominem, but you really are a true dumbass. It just so happens that there are other news sources besides the Korea Times, and – gasp – I read some of them. You can to;
http://news.google.com/news?hl.....amp;tab=wn
Gotta go. . .
Ah, Rocco, ever quick—and ever predictable—with the ad hominems. Of course, you’ve failed to address the point at hand; rather, you’ve switched your argument to a far less convincing one.
I pointed out some problems (not even insurmountable ones, mind you, but problems all the same) with your argument that the land seizures are just. You responded with the argument that the ROK government can do whatever it wants. (And plenty of your customary condescending tone and ad hominem aspersions, which as usual do nothing to further your case.)
Of course the ROK government can do whatever it wants. That doesn’t make it right or just. This should have been obvious to you, YoungRocco.
Ah, Mark….err, I mean YoungRocco.
I thought I had penned some good wit, but your #84 smoked me. Hilarious, I laughed the whole way through. Never dropping the tone of pompous verbosity even once shows your commitment to truly inhabiting your role.
and c’mon Vinette, if I don’t get a farthing from the English bastard at least can’t I get said Norwegian dude’s hot daughter?
Need some good lovin’ justice!
Yes. When normal principles of Korean law are applied (i.e., when we’re not kicking collaborators’ grandchildren in the mouth), this is exactly the rule that controls. I know — I handle (and love — send more!) fraud matters for foreign clients. Stolen money is very effectively protected from the civil-court system by simply transferring it to the thief’s wife, or friend, or son, or whoever — which person then claims, very innocently, “I didn’t think anything of it. Why, my uncle abruptly gave me W10,000,000,000 before he went on his sudden extended vacation in China. Anyway, it’s a gift and I don’t have any obligation to give it back to you.” The burden then shifts to the plaintiff (usually a bank) to affirmatively prove the relative’s knowledge of fraud. Which they can’t do, so the money stays where it is.
This is one of the reasons why I love reading this blog, I learn a few things. I gotta ask my sister who’s in law school if she know what “ex post facto” mean.
Miguknamja, brings up a good point about the difference in legal cultures of Korea and America. I submit that the way the legal system of a particular country evolves over time is related to the peculiar history of that country. If so, then, it is inevitable that the legal understanding of an issue like land confiscature in America, which traditionally has relied on the taking of other’s land and mass exploitation for its development, would inevitably collide with that of Korea, which historically was often on the receiving end of imperialism and exploitation.
Pressing the case for statute of limitations and the notion that one is not responsible for the wrongs of predecessors is argued a bit too strenously. This land confiscature smells a bit too much of 40 acres and a mule to the expat nose. Hence, the hearty howls of protest.
NK,
This is not a difference in U.S./Korean legal cultures; it is clearly unconditional in Korea. See Article 13 of the ROK Constitution, which specially addresses this issue on several points:
Wasn’t a crime at the time. Check.
Property being seized by retroactive law. Check.
Done (allegedly) by a relative. Check.
http://www.isop.ucla.edu/eas/d.....onstit.htm
Maddlew,
If there was a victim/plaintiff (there isn’t), if the ROKG hadn’t already been compensated in 1965 (they were), if the “alleged” crimes were crimes before they were committed (they weren’t), if there was some due process (hasn’t been), and if it weren’t all expressly unconstitutional (it is), I’d agree with you that Youngrocco was on to something.
#100 netizen Kim:
1) “….This land confiscature smells a bit too much of 40 acres and a mule to the expat nose….”
If this were true, it would be only so to historically-well-educated US expats from the 11 states of the Old Confederacy (possibly also the 4 border states as well, will have to research as I’m not sure if this rumor was current there in the 1860’s-70’s).
Sadly, I’m afraid the vast majority of American white expats won’t “get” your insult. Being too subtle with insults is normally not a Korean trait, at least not from what I’ve observed here in comments from others; I think you should just drop the subtlety and hit us across the face with a large rotting fish as per normal SOP here.
2) “… Hence, the hearty howls of protest.”
Actually, “howls of protest” would be better modified by the adjective “heartfelt”. “Hearty” would be a better (stylistically, not grammatically of course) adjectival modifier to the noun “laughter”; am I correct in surmising that this is your reaction to the plight of the “collaborators” who are about to have their land confiscated?
The good German word for this is “schadenfreude”, which has no exact English translation. Perhaps the Korean language does; if so maybe somebody here will thoughtfully provide the Hangeul for me.
Paul H, it was not a subtle insult but merely an observation. A personal theory actually.
It is my opinion that conservative white expat reaction to most legacy issues dealing with Korea’s past with Japan, such as this one, is informed by baggage carried over from traditional Black versus White racial dialogue in America. I suspect that Koreans incessantly playing the victim card and demanding apologies or reparations from past oppressors hits the same exact buttons in you guys as Blacks who try to induce White guilt by constantly bringing up slavery or charges of racism. Although, my 40-acres-and-a-mule analogy is probably more appropriate for that other thread about forced laborers suing POSCO, but I placed it here since you guys seem to identify more readily with the descendants of collaborators than with POSCO.
Basically, what I am saying is you guys are well practiced in deconstructing and deflecting traditional Black accusations regarding past/present injustice and apply that talent very well to parallel issues in Korea as well. In other words, you’re not as purely objective as you may think you are.
Honestly, I’m not sure what to think regarding this land confiscation. I don’t know if the presidential commission is doing the right thing or not, although I am inclined to think it is erring on the side of error. I do understand how this sort of thing would raise some serious concerns about liberty, Constitutional rights, and legal precedents and what have you for an American. If something like this were to happen in America it would really open up some major cans of worms.
At the same time, I believe Korea needs to go through this, whatever it is…coming to terms with its past, the need for closure, whatever it is. You cannot apply the American mentality to Korea’s issues today. Americans may regard
their own past with a detached coolness, even many Blacks today have “gotten over it”. Not so Korea, there are still enough people who remember the old days and lived through those times.
NK,
No, not everyone automatically views the situation through the framework you suppose.
Or the Korean constitution either, it seems. But that’s just the law.
I have a feeling this may all become rather moot if, or perhaps when, the individuals targeted by the decision file an administrative suit or appeal to the Constitutional Court… as it appears will happen.
Post of the month – #104 Netizen Kim.
Interesting point about our objectivity. Made me think.
Ref #104 NK:
well, your theory might receive an excellent reception as a possible Master’s or Ph.D thesis in Asian or Black studies at one of our leading US universities, if you care to develop it further along the lines you indicated.
From my perspective as a distant observer of Korea, it seems clear that the proper framework for understanding this commission is merely as a desperate attempt by the Roh administration to “make nice” with the NorK’s.
I like to imagine the commission literally having these startled “descendants of collaborationists” grabbed by the scruff of their necks and held up for display like a string of hunter’s ducks, for inscrutable NorK observers gazing impassively through binos on the other side of the DMZ. It’s simply a variation of a classic political trick (one documented by Machiavelli, perhaps?) — ginning up “foreign devils” (or in this case native traitors working with the foreign devils) in order to paper over some rather stark current internal political differences involved in the concept of “one Korea”.
Doing it 60 to 100 years after the fact may indeed be a new wrinkle on the part of the ROK, worthy of at least a footnote mention in future editions of poly sci texts (though Mugabe in Zimbabwe has waited about 25 years before making a rather similar gambit as regards land confiscation).
Naturally ROK citizens and ethnic Koreans of other nationalities don’t like “we white boys” pointing this out so you-all reach for the nearest handful of mud and start flinging, in order to turn it into a racial thing. Well, ok, if that works for you go for it but it doesn’t change the essential fact that these “descendants” are being done an injustice. And I personally doubt that the NorK’s are all that impressed anyway.
One imagines KJI greeting a rather breathless report by Pres Roh’s later this month — about “progress” being made in rooting out “collaborationists” down south — with the casual observation about how the DPRK has already shot all of its collaborationists back in 1945-9 and confiscated their lands for collective farms so what in the hell has taken you guys so long anyway?
(Answer: “the Americans put pressure on us because they made Japan their ally”. But of course).
BTW, I look forward to hearing some specifics here about these “collaborator descendants”; right now they’re just another “cartoonish image” on this blog. One rather imagines them as cackling elder Oriental slumlords with thick glasses, counting their gold in strongboxes in some inner sanctum while a Japanese flag hangs shamefully on the wall.
I rather doubt that’s the reality but what the hey let’s hear all about it; if this in fact states the case maybe I should volunteer to be a righteously outraged US observer at the commission’s final formal proceeding. I reckon I can still work up outrage at pre-war and WWII Japanese deeds made against our Korean allies if I just put a little effort into it.
absolutely right, Netizen Kim. Well said.
I feel that the arguments about the confiscation being disingenuous because of the political motive behind it is a bit of a dead point. Considering the history with a skeptic and critical eye (as we all should), we can find many instances where important developments were partially fueled by the political (or economics… which is usually linked to politics) agenda of the time. While one can justifiably celebrate the U.S. Constitution as an excellent legal document (albeit not perfect), no one can legitimately argue that political agenda had not contributed to many aspects of its creation and development over the years.
Is the government initiating the confiscation because it needs some brownie points from the people before the election? Sure, absolutely. But I don’t see how that inherently devalues the act of confiscation itself.
Let’s move on to the due process issue. I think there is a confusion up there between procedural protection (8th Amendment in U.S.) and procedural due process. “Procedural due process” does not inherently imply court cases, but simply a right to be heard in a proceedings and charge announcement in which the individual is affected (of course, in U.S. the concept of due process adapted predominantly into a form of court procedures). As the article notes that there is an option of administrative suit for appeal, as well as the fact that the confiscation targets are organizing a suit themselves, demonstrates that due process is at work here. Of course, up to this point, we’re talking legal technicalities, and not the “moral” of it all.
I think it is fair to say that at least in Korea (I cannot speak for other countries), the concept of ‘recentness’ is vastly larger than the U.S’s perspective (again, I cannot speak for other countries/cultures that I have not lived in). People are usually laughed at when the concept of slavery reparation is mentioned (even reflectively by comedians such as Dave Chappelle (”I’m rich, biatch!”)) in United States. “Slavery happened. Get over it.” is the dominant sentiment as far as I can observe (in both “white” and “black” communities). Perhaps it is this mindset (rather than the “white man’s guilt” as presented by Netizen Kim (though I’m not challenging the idea)) that formulates most of the comments here.
Can, then, the Korean attitude towards the “past” be considered “irrational” or “immature”? I contend that it cannot be so. I think this is the genuine case of a culture difference and the consequent misinterpretation of the issue.
I feel that the confiscations are justified considering the historical contexts and the social sentiments. Though I also subscribe to the opinion that the government needs to be very careful and thorough in its actions so as to avoid any third-party getting hurt.
F.Y.A…M. (For Your Amusement… Maybe): My paternal grandfather was a son of a rich Pyongyang family (*hint*) who moved to Seoul to get a job in the military (*hint*) as an “intelligence” officer (*hint*) until the liberation.
My maternal grandfather was a rural policeman who ran safe houses for gwangbok army in Bosung until the liberation.
If my maternal grandfather hadn’t died before my parents met each other, I might not be here today. ^^;
#111 -
All in all, I think you’ve presented the most even-handed, well-reasoned case in favor of confiscation out of any of those who have tried. Your points regarding the presence of some form of due process are particularly well taken.
In your discussion of the legalities, however, you didn’t respond to Richardson’s point at 102, which is the key to this entire matter: the confiscation of land belonging to the descendants of alleged collaborators, as well as the legislation authorizing the same, directly violates Article 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.
I think you, perhaps inadvertently, summed up the entirety of the argument in favor of confiscation, to wit:
It has everything to do with feelings and sentiments, and nothing to do with law or justice. Problem is, therein lies the difference between rule of law and mobocracy, and so far in this instance the ROK’s coming down on the wrong side.
I share Robert’s hope that the Constitutional Court will put an end to this foolishness sooner rather than later.
Richardson, Richardson, Richardson.
You still don’t get it.
But I am glad to see that you’re focusing on the legal aspect of this event; you recognize that your moral/justice argument is toast.
Cute sarcasm aside, it’s pretty clear that you are the one who failed the bar exam. Pick up a copy of Black’s law dictionary, Richardson, before responding to my points.
Here are your arguments’ holes:
1. You mistakenly assume that “due process” pertains only to criminal court proceedings. Richardson, don’t you understand that the proceedings of the commission, in this instance, constitute due process? Besides, as stated, earlier, these individuals will have their day in court.
2. Your use of the word “alleged” fails on two grounds.
A. You cited only one article that said “alleged” decsendents of collaborators, and you had to search pretty hard to find it.
B. You haven’t answered the basic question I put to you. I asked what exactly was alleged and you haven’t responded. Richardson, what is alleged? Is the commission unsure that the descendents’ ancestors collaborated, or is the commission unsure that these indivuals are indeed the descendents of collaborators? I contend that the commission knows the answers to both questions and that the use of the word “alleged” was inserted by the author because he did not know the details of the case.(He probably just wanted to avod the appearance of bias)
Don’t base your argument on a single word in a single article, Richardson. You look silly when you do.
3. The victims here are those who lost something as a result of Japanese collaboration. In this case, the Korean people. The government has a right to prosecute on behalf of the Korean people.
4. You haven’t proven that the law authorizing the commission’s power is unconstitutional. I contend that the Korean congress knows more about its own constitution than you do. This law was passed by Korea’s congress under a democracy, so there must have been constitutional justification for it. It is up to you to prove otherwise.
5. As for your “ex post facto” argument, I’ve already addressed that. You have a responsibility to prove that the Republic of Korea is obliged to respect laws, and land titles granted under Japanese administration. I’d argue that it doesn’t and you have to prove otherwise. Of course, the Republic of Korea shouldn’t retroactively prosecute acts that were legal during its own tenure, but it should prosecute acts that were legal and immoral under Japanese imperialism.
Richardson, you can’t hide behind legalism. Justice is justice, no matter what the laws on the books may be. Recognize that and you’ll have less heartburn.
Have a wonderful day.
@ Ut videam
And indeed, Article 13 will be the major defense of the accused, but I don’t think the legality is crystal clear as you assert.
For one, when the ‘crime’ was committed, the government of Korea did not exist. Perhaps it can be argued (by the state) that since current Korean administration recognizes the interim Korean government as its predecessor, and no doubt that the interim government would have condemned the acts of collaboration, the case of ex post facto cannot be applied in this case (or the retroactive nature of the action).
In addition, it can be argued that the legislation isn’t “harming” anyone (technically) since it is trying to restore the status quo (confiscating ill-gotten gains) rather than “punishing” the descendants (making them worse off than they would have been). I think many of Richardson’s argument up there would apply more to a hypothetical case where the descendants are convicted of treason and are about to be executed. (Where a definitive case of ex post facto, retroactive, and relative clause would exist).
As for “unfavorable treatment”… I think that’s the question that is yet to be answered. The state’s argument would be that since the descendants wouldn’t have gotten those properties if the collaborators didn’t collaborate in the first place, the state’s action would be merely restoring the status quo as much as it can. The descendants’ argument would be that enough time has passed for the properties to be considered theirs rather than the collaborators.
I think that, once again considering the societal standard on what “recent” is, the court would favor the state’s argument (and I admit that descendants won’t be getting the most balanced judgment on it). Nevertheless, I think that at least morally, this action by the parliament is justified. Legally… we’ll see ^^;
Just as a curious observation: the legislation itself… is it a civil case or a criminal case? I don’t think it’s a court case at all, but a government action via its legislative branch. Perhaps this is why there was a confusion about procedural due process, plaintiff/prosecution vs. defendant, etc. up there.
Youngrocco,
I thought you’d given up, faced with the truth. But perhaps you just couldn’t post bail, or had to pull a few extra shifts at McDonalds.
Concerning your “points”;
1.) Irrelevant; unconstitutional (unless they amended their constitution, which they did not for this.)
2.) A. You still didn’t read. I provided a link to a Google search, there are several articles that say alleged. Some papers omit the “alleged” and thus report less accurately than those that use the correct terminology. The fact remains there has been no trail, no due process.
2.) B. Obviously “collaboration” was “alleged.” What part of that can’t you understand?
3.) The ROKG is coming forward, there are no victims identified. If there are; where are they?
4.) Every single element of Article 13 has been violated. It’s quite clear. You’ll have to prove that Article 13 has not been violated. But you cannot.
5.) Ex post facto is also addressed in Article 13. You don’t have to like it, but it’s true. The Japanese were the legal government at the time, that is the fact of the matter. Alternativley, there was no ROKG at the time, so any laws made after the ROKG was established would also therefore have an ex post facto element if applied afterwards.
The facts that the “crimes” are so far only “alleged” yet punishment is being exercised is not just a legalistic argument; it goes to the foundation of fairness and civil socieity.
==> Until you can prove that a) Article 13 was not violated, b) show me the 10 victims for the land of the 10 descendents of “alleged” collaborates being punished, you wont’ get another response, other than a repeat of these unanswered questions.
———
Note to ‘bumfromkorea’; the ROK assembly must still abide by Article 13. This is not a gray area; it’s a clear violation of their own law. Also, the land is being confiscated and taken by the government, not given back to the former landowners, who would have been Yangban.
Like I said, Article 13 will undoubtedly be presented as the major argument for the descendants during the administrative suit. And like I point out above, the legal issue really falls down to whether this action being an act of punishment or an act of restoration. And, considering the societal standard of ‘recent’, vastly different from at least the U.S. perspective (which is the only other perspective I can be confident talking about), I don’t think, in the societal context (which would determine the concept of ‘recent’), it can be considered as a long-gone past.
Yes, the most preferable way of distributing the confiscated land would be to give them back to the previous owners (and as you point out, though I’m not so sure whether it’s very relevant, they were yangbans) descendants. However, I’m sure we can see that the task may be next to impossible considering the circumstances (mainly… documentation problems). So, cannibalizing the assets to fund the independence fighter fund… I think that’s the next best course of action (and I’m sure the sense of poetic justice had a hand in the decision too ^^).
#113 -
Rocco, that is pure, unadulterated idiocy. If the Korean National Assembly (or the U.S. Congress, for that matter) were incapable of passing a law without constitutional justification for it, there wouldn’t be a Constitutional Court (ROK) or Supreme Court (US) that has and exercises the power to overturn legislation that is unconstitutional. Yet you’re suggesting that it’s your opponents who have failed the bar exam?
After all the ad hominem we’ve seen from you during your unfortunate tenure here, I’m sure my fellow readers will excuse me this one descent to your level:
YoungRocco, you are a fucking moron.
For scientific purposes, let’s see if the aforementioned moron is educable:
http://www.ccourt.go.kr/home/e.....dure01.jsp
Go enlighten yourself, dipshit.
This is your weakest argument. Taking property away from the descendants of handpicked collaborators will not bring closure. It takes more than a few collaborators to turn a nation into a prefecture. After the suppression of the March 1, 1919 Movement, there was very little active and successful resistance inside Korea. Japan’s acculturation policies were well on the way to transforming Koreans into Japanese citizens. Japan was in firm control of the Korean peninsula until August 15, 1945, and it is possible that had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor, there would be no Korea today, only Chosun Prefecture. For whatever reason – fear of punishment, lack of national identity and patriotic sentiment, acceptance and appreciation of Japanese development of Korea – it seems that most Koreans were unwilling to risk any active resistance against the Japanese, and their descendants today are unwilling to acknowledge this. Scapegoating a few is not closure.
Like the bill of impeachment it passed against The Great Pretender that was declared unconstitutional by The Constitutional Court??
sonagi, read more from kimsoft.com
you’re reading the wrong stuff.
you’ve been brain washed by occidentalism, and you wrote for them. Probably without even knowing the face or real name of Matt.
I know the real face and name of YS Kim, because he puts it there, for crying out loud.
I’m proud to say that he even wrote me back once, concerning General MacArthur.
Kimsoft does not deny that majority of Koreans gave up the idea of being independent, but there were a number of well known Koreans who were actively seeking independence. That is for certain.
And the collaborators already got a free ride for 60 years. Giving back won’t ruin them.
this I say, with full suspicion and and a logical conclusion that both sides of my family collaborated to some extent.
it should be pretty clear after reading kimsoft.com, that Koreans were better off pursuing independence rather being servants to the Japanese empire.
True, some servants were treated better with better opportunities.
But, ultimately, a servant.
Every man will fight bloody hell for freedom. How dare you wae gooks declare that Koreans were better off being slaves to the Japanese?
After you folks have declared independence here and there for much trivial discrimination.
Examples?
England on Scotland.
Hapsburg Empire on Netherlands.
French on Belgium.
Britain on the United States.
Korean experience under Japan should be better compared to that of
USSR over Eastern Europe.
i can only think of one such uprising in eastern europe during soviet influence. Prague.
yet, no one says these people were happy to be a soviet satelite, do they?
She doesn’t have to because
hence making the same point she does.
You need to poke your head out of the well more often, kermit:
E.g.:
East Germany 1953
Hungary 1956
Poland 1980
Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria. Romania 1989
“…i can only think of one such uprising in eastern europe during soviet influence. Prague…”
Actually, the “Prague Spring” of 1968 was largely non-violent resistance but was still suppressed by force with a Soviet invasion, based on the precedents of 1953 violent uprisings in1953 and in particular the 1956 Hungarian uprising in which the Hungarian Communist party was actually overthrown for several days until Soviet armored forces re-invaded; there were pitched battles involving significant amounts of casualties on both sides.
There’s a few other examples of resistance bands in other E. European countries, also the Ukraine about 1945-48.
The “Solidarity” non-violent resistance movement in Poland starting around 1980 was significant in that the “old Guard” generation of leadership in USSR was dying out and the new generation of Soviet leadership was just sensitive enough to world opinion to forebear armed intervention, though the speculation was rampant during the 80′d about when/if additional Soviet divisions would be moved into Poland. As best I can recall, the Solidarity movement was careful only to use non-violent tactics for this reason.
Kermit also misses the point that Eastern Europe, for the most part, did not take revenge upon those who collaborated with the Soviet-supported regimes. A few high-ranking officials were put on trial, but their relatives were not evicted from their homes.
don’t try too hard to elevate Europe, Sonagi.
The world knows of the trail of rape, forced emigration, hangings leading toward Siberia gulags or East Germany that took place all across Eastern Europe, involving a lot but surely involving the Polish.
Sprewar, I don’t appreciate your name callings.
Birdboy, frog, cricket, etc.
What should I call you?
frog humper?
Europeans were ultra intolerant of other races until post World War II, and that is proven by history.
It’s undeniable. Koreans didn’t do all that much crime against the fleeing Japanese and that’s a fact. Relatively speaking compared to what took place in Europe.
Kimsoft says the Koreans were orderly towards the Japanese until the Russian troops and their commy cronies got involved. This is similar to what Yoko Kwashima claims. The commys of Russia were driving people to do the same in Korea as they drove people in East Europe to do. Blame Russia. Not Korea.
I have come to the logical conclusion that everything Kimsoft wrote is profound and true.
sprewar, everything you wrote about in 1989 was bound to happen anyway. You don’t want to credit Korea in 1945, but want to credit East Europe in 1989?
Help me out, Sperwer. Which logical fallacies appear in #127?
I think the post is full of guilt by association. What sayeth you?
What happened in Korea in 1945 DID happen solely because the US defeated Japan, not because of any effort made by the Korean Liberation Army or any other Korean partisan groups (laudable as their efforts otherwise may have been).
What happened in Eastern Europe in 1989 was the culmination of decades of determined resistance by the peoples of the Eastern Bloc nations – not usually armed resistance, although East Germany and Hungary saw plenty of that too – and would NOT have happened, and certainly would not have produced the democratically-inclines govts that came to power in most (except some of the former “republics” of the USSR itself) despite the US-induced retreat of the USSR absent the success of such resistance movements in keeping alive the idea of democracy among the overwhelming majority of the population.
Sonagi:
It would inappropriately dignify WJK’s infantile copraphilia to discuss it in terms of logical fallacies. Having made astonishingly ignorant (or han-addled?) claims and getting called on it, his response – like that of a particularly truculent child – is to start flinging his shit around in the hope that no one will notice that he’s been eating it.
My dear poor benighted WJK:
“frog humper?
You should try it some time.
Oh, I forgot, you have; you’re the frog.
Say “ribbit”.
I don’t know, Sperwer.
You seem very condescending. I didn’t get called on anything.
I bet you would credit French independence over the Germans by elevating their Resistance.
the same Resistance that would have achieved practically nothing without British and American troops.
Don’t get pissed because I’m calling you names. You like doing it to others.
What comes around, goes around.
Wow… Now I finally understand why everything you write seems so profoundly out-of-touch with reality (well, not everything). ‘Kimsoft’ is the sort of guy who molds his ‘facts’ to fit an uber-nationalist agenda… The type of person who would take Beowulf as literal truth if it fit into his rather dubious vision built on psuedoscience and long-discredited racial theories. But hey, if you really want to believe someone when they tell you that ‘blacks are the smelliest’ race and that Sumeria was an ancient Korean kingdom… Well, you probably won’t gain a whole lot of credibility around here anyhow.
WJK: I didn’t get called on anything.
Cf.:
sonagi, read more from kimsoft.com
She doesn’t have to because
Kimsoft does not deny that majority of Koreans gave up the idea of being independent,
hence making the same point she does.
WJK: i can only think of one such uprising in eastern europe during soviet influence. Prague.
You need to poke your head out of the well more often, kermit:
E.g.:
East Germany 1953
Hungary 1956
Poland 1980
Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria. Romania 1989
Kermit also misses the point that Eastern Europe, for the most part, did not take revenge upon those who collaborated with the Soviet-supported regimes. A few high-ranking officials were put on trial, but their relatives were not evicted from their homes.
WJK:
Is that all you got, potty-mouth?
WJK: I didn’t get called on anything.
Cf.:
sonagi, read more from kimsoft.com
She doesn’t have to because
Kimsoft does not deny that majority of Koreans gave up the idea of being independent,
hence making the same point she does.
WJK: i can only think of one such uprising in eastern europe during soviet influence. Prague.
You need to poke your head out of the well more often, kermit:
E.g.:
East Germany 1953
Hungary 1956
Poland 1980
Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Bulgaria. Romania 1989
Kermit also misses the point that Eastern Europe, for the most part, did not take revenge upon those who collaborated with the Soviet-supported regimes. A few high-ranking officials were put on trial, but their relatives were not evicted from their homes.
WJK: throws around some kimchi
Is that all you got, potty-mouth?
You must log in to post a comment.