I also think that people aren’t thinking about how the US isn’t taking responsibility for these children as well. If they live in a foreign country, then the US and the soldiers that fathered them aren’t responsible? Post #1 says that Korea doesn’t want to acknowledge these kids, but neither does the US. So to say it’s only the Korean government’s fault is rather a narrow POV.

Also, that ethnocentricism happens everywhere. And what we should focus on as human beings, rather than ethnic tribes, is to learn to accept each other as we are. There are great similarities in our differences. And I think if we can teach that to others and our next generation that you do a service to both them and other people. Don’t think the US is any more or less ethnocentric than, Korea, Japan, China, Britain, France, etc. We all have our own dose of it running through us. And I see it as an adoptee too. When I went back to Korea, I learned of that too. Every country functions by thinking its the best, but if you look outside of it, you see and learn a lot more. Maybe this is really the “new” idea that TED was looking at, even if it’s not said.

What this story is, is about a journey of a girl to overcome and the people who brought her along to do it. He doesn’t spend time talking about Korean racism, because he knows as well as anyone else whose been to Korea that Korea is in rapid change. For better or worse, it is changing, and what we should look at is the future. And learning the fundamentals of trying to understand one another and help each other, probably is the best you can get out of this story.

Korea from 1953 to 1984 was also totalitarianistic, but Korea at least decided to be mercantilistic during the Park Chung Hee dictatorship.

Britain, Poland and Iraq are different enough from Korea that their examples cannot be used as an accurate comparison.

In Britain, the original peoples were essentially people in today’s Wales, who got pushed west by a conglomeration of Germanic speaking people we can somewhat lump together as “Anglo-Saxons.” The latest “invaders” were the Normans who conquered everyone else. The British saw themselves in very much tribal, if not genetic terms, until the rapid growth of their empire. Keep in mind, until recently, Wales was the English Chollado, with the associated cultural and ethnic stereotypes, as well as economic neglect. The Scots and the rest of the British people have been fighting each other for centuries. With exposure to so many non-white subjects, the British had to lessen their tribalism (and religiousism) for each other and unify in order to administer their vast empire. Treating fellow whites as second class citizens had the effect of disuniting their realm (i.e. the 13 American colonies and the Scots). Sort of like the Mongols, who were also very tribal, but had to unite in order to control their vast, non-Mongol empire. Lastly, the British haven’t had a nationwide consciousness of being invaded since the Norman conquest back in the 11th century A.D. Korea since the 11th century A.D? Major invasions/incursion include the Liao Khitans, Mongols, Chinese Red Turbans (briefly occupied the Koryo capital), Japanese pirate raids numbering several thousands penetrating as far as central Korea, a Japanese government sanctioned invasion, Jurchens and the Japanese again.

Poland? Yes, they do not identify nationality with genetics. Being a pure continental nation with essentially open access to its borders, ethnic mixing was inevitable. Poland’s national consciousness regarding invasions is far more recent the England’s. Although it has not made their national identity a racial one, it has helped forge a strong national identity anyways, that survived Soviet domination and sparked the momentum that allowed Eastern Europe to break free from the Iron Curtain when Lech Walesa’s Solidarity mobilized that nationalism. So racially bound nationalism no, but a strong (and more malign) version of nationalism nonetheless.

Iraq… it’s an ethic and religious mess right now. So, a poor comparison to modern day Korea any way you cut it.

Lastly, foreign invasions affect Island, Continental and Peninsular nations differently. Island nations tend to have waves of invaders until one invader maintains dominance and pacifies everyone else. Australia, England and perhaps Japan are examples. Nations on the Continent proper who have a long history of invasions tend to still have strong national identity, but tend not to identify that identity with race because borders are open and generally accessible. Poland is an example and so is China.

Peninsular nations are different. Peninsular nations are less accessible via borders and tend to have very strong racial and ethnic identity on nationalism, especially when they are surrounded by powerful nations. In extreme cases, peninsular inaccessibility doesn’t make invasions any less frequent, but given the limited access point, makes conquest harder, so peninsular people do get to obsess over their distinctive characteristics longer. The best of these more extreme cases is Korea and the Balkan Peninsula. Korea is surrounded by China, Russia and Japan and the Balkans were surrounded by Turks and the Austrian-Hungarians. So what happened today? A whole region obsessed with racial, ethnic and religious identity. The Greeks hated the Turks and look down on the Macedonians, the Albanians hate the Macedonians, the Serbians hate the Bosnians, so on and so forth.

I hope you are not talking about the Kurds, Sunni, and Shites.

Korea’s history of invasions, compounded by Korea’s specific interpretation of neo-confucianism, and Silla’s bone rank system has made them hypersensitive to sharing genes with other people’s groups.

Britain has been invaded more times than Korea but doesn’t value genetic ties as much as Korea does. Like Korea, Poland is sandwiched between two greater powers, which have invaded it repeatedly, but Polish people take their mixed European ancestry in stride. The peoples of the Fertile Crescent, crossroads of three continents, are comfortable with their diverse roots. Compared to many other countries, Korea, surrounded on three sides by water, has developed in relative isolation, largely free of foreign threats. It is the latter two influences, Korean neo-confucianism and the Shilla bone rank system, that are primary causes while Korea’s troubled history with its neighbors is secondary.

So what’s the “great idea” here?

That there’s an Amerasian woman who looks white but behaves Korean? That such people exist? That a white couple adopted her? I don’t get it.

http://www.stripes.com/article.....icle=56030

You got it partially right. Racism towards these children is not really rooted in a belief that their mothers are “loose” per say. It plays a role, but the fact that even kids with Korean fathers face racism is proof that it is deeper.

The real root of this the way these kids are treated is how Koreans have thought about Koreaness for centuries, which is through genes and not through assimilation. Big countries, such as the U.S., Russia and China, tend to think of nationality more through assimilation rather than genetics. They have to because they are big and have a greater likelihood of coming into contact with different ethnic groups.

Korea’s history of invasions, compounded by Korea’s specific interpretation of neo-confucianism, and Silla’s bone rank system has made them hypersensitive to sharing genes with other people’s groups. Korea’s version of neo-confucianism, which in itself is influenced by the Silla bone rank system (which in itself is as old as Korea’s prehistory) breaks down different groups into superior and inferior “ki” or life energy. The Yangban obviously has superior ki and the sangnom have inferior “ki.” A non-Korean barbarian? Even less ki than a sangnom. You get the picture.

Yuna, if you are Korean American, I’d say learn something about your historical heritage. It will help answer alot of questions on why Koreans (including your parents) hold such “interesting” and often times “archaic” views.