The Hani strikes again!
This time, in article rather than editorial form, the Washington correspondent of Korea’s progressive paper of record paints America as the Grinch Who Stole Dokdo with a piece entitled, “US, Outwards Neutral on Dokdo, But In Reality Taking Japan’s Side.”
Yep.
It hasn’t been translated yet, it appears, but it’s a winner. Just a sample:
The American position on Dokdo has been unfriendly from the very beginning. In fact, one could say the United States is the ringleader who fundamentally brought about Dokdo becoming disputed. After the end of World War II, Allied Commander Douglas MacArthur issued a decree including Dokdo as one of the islands to be returned to Japan. Even up to the fifth draft of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Dokdo was included as territory Japan should return to Korea, but in the sixth it was momentarily listed as Japanese territory and in the final draft mention of Dokdo disappeared. In the end, only Jejudo, Geomundo and Ulleungdo were mentioned as Korean territory. This is interpreted as a concession to strengthen the alliance with Japan, a fortress of East Asian capitalism, in the wake of the communist takeover of China.
The message — when Japan’s importance to America grows, Washington position on Dokdo leans to Japan, and when Korea’s importance grows (the example given in the piece is the 60s and 70s, when Korea became important as a containment base against the Soviets), Washington’s attitude on Dokdo seems to lean toward Korea. And the recent decision by the BGN to change Dokdo’s listing shows how US security policy in East Asia has become centered on Japan.
NOTE TO HANI: Might I humbly suggest that the reason Korea-US relations have been so shitty as of late — and indeed, one of the reasons why it seems the US is favoring Japan over Korea — is because your boy — former President Roh Moo-hyun — spent the last five years utterly mishandling Korea’s relations with Washington and Tokyo. When you have a president talking about “diplomatic war” and “Northeast Asian balancers,” allies aren’t going to take you seriously, and review their relationships with you accordingly. One might also argue that when you have media and civic groups fanning anti-Americanism and papers such as yourself using even Dokdo to take shots at Washington, American policymakers naturally are going to question the alliance’s long-term feasibility and instead pursue US interests in the region by strengthening relationships with other regional powers.
{ 78 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m curious are Koreans aware of the angle this particular newspaper plays?
Better than fiction.
I read the article in Korean, and glanced at the comments posted below. The consensus among them is that the Americans (most frequent description, though, is “Yankee bastards”) are betraying the Koreans. That they can’t be trusted. That they are selling Koreans down the river.
Now one does not have to be trained as a psychiatrist to note the spectacular cognitive inconsistencies and emotional immaturities being displayed here. It is long overdue for the U.S. to let Koreans, a nation of 40 million spoiled brats, fend for themselves. Enough of this overprotectionism.
Hani is the leftist paper, right?
Marmot, send that note to Hani directly to them, just in case they only skim the Marmot’s Hole for the pictures.
Yes, that may be the consensus among the comments of that article, but it would be hard to draw any general conclusions from that, given the Hani’s limited and somewhat particular readership.
Rob,
Couldn’t agree with you more. You can’t expect to have leverage over a government if you’ve spent 5 plus years pissing away all the goodwill developed over 50 plus years.
Why I don’t understand the lefties to know this, but to expect something for nothing is beyond me.
Korea is getting a tough lesson in international relations 101 and as much as I hate to say it… Japan is schooling them.
“just in case they only skim the Marmot’s Hole for the pictures.”
What pictures? There is a picture once every 10 or so posts!
Yes, I am breathlessly awaiting McCain and Obama’s positions on Dokdo before deciding. That’s the big hot button issue this year in the US Presidential Election, and *EVERYBODY* in America is talking about it. Who should we bestow the rocks upon?
Okay, that’s it! Tell me how an entire newspaper, its writers and editors can develop a printed version of tourette’s?
I’m so glad I’m gone in a month. I suggest anyone from the States do the same. Whether your civilian or military, Korean hospitality is wearing a bit thin.
The catalysts for all this should well be remembered-a phantom disease and the world’s most famous guano mine.
Start with Yongsan, then pull Osan, Pyeongtaek…
Robert K., please go to today’s (Wed.) “Chosun Ilbo,” turn to page A38, and read the op-ed by Yang Sang-hoon.
And it’s not just with the United States. It seems Korea has next to no leverage with Japan. You’d have hoped someone at the Foreign Ministry might figured that after decades of hysterics and emotional blackmail — much of it politically calculated — the Japanese would eventually just tune it out, or worse, use it against the Koreans with the Americans.
I think LMB understands the problem, but it’s been one “crisis” after another with him, and at this point, politically speaking, he doesn’t have the support to do anything other than pander. Same goes with the mainstream conservative press, which should and probably does know better, but doesn’t want to be caught again on the wrong side of an emotional issue after the beef fiasco, especially considering the, ahem, history of some of the papers involved.
“What pictures? There is a picture once every 10 or so posts!”
There used to be a lot of NSFW links on this blog. What happened?
I want pictures of silicon twins, instead we get a couple of trachyte mounds.
@3
“The consensus among them is that the Americans (most frequent description, though, is “Yankee bastards”) are betraying the Koreans.”
Really? Because right now this is what I’m seeing on the comment section (titles/gist, from the top)
1. we brought this upon ourselves
2. get Aragorn to charge at America (WTF on this one.)
3. watch out America
4. Japan bribed America
5. Americans and Japanese know wealthy and powerful people in Korea don’t give a shit about Dokdo (hear hear on that one.)
6. Would you help out someone protests against you while forgetting you helped him?
7. It’s our limit of diplomatic power
8. Send the president to Dokdo
9. It’s the retribution for 10 years of leftist Anti-Americanism
10. Call Bush and ask him.
So out of 10 comments, two (3, 10) are blaming America, four (1, 6, 7, 9) blaming Koreans themselves, one (2) random/dumb comment, one blaming Japan (4), and two observations (5, 8).
Where is the consensus anti-Americanism that you speak of?
Good to know that, where the official line is that there’s ‘no dispute’ over sovereignty (and the US would have no say in any dispute anyhow), some people can still go ballistic over what name the US decides to refer to the undisputed rocks in the two official publications that actually mention them.
# 12,
LMB, hamstrung by a faction of Koreans who have an overinflated opinion of themselves, can’t do anything else but be spoilers and obstructionists… recurring theme in Korean history, unfortunately.
I’m sure glad I’m not a Korean. Must be terrible with the whole world out to get you.
Foreigners deliberately sending dodgy disease infected meat,
Foreigners deliberately causing a currency crisis,
Foreigners deliberately depreciating (when it needs to go up)/appreciating (when it needs to go down) the won.
#14 The Korean
Are we looking at the same page?
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/diplomacy/301489.html
#11: basilides, great column by Mr. Yang. Hopefully the Chosun translates that for wider readership. If not, I might do it later. Here’s the Korean version, for those interested:
http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2008/07/29/2008072901428.html
BTW, I think he was looking at the Naver.com page, which, granted, had SOME comments that weren’t negative to the United States when I looked at it earlier. That being said, while looking at Naver comments can be entertaining, I don’t take them seriously. Frankly, I don’t look at them unless I have a reason to.
Rob:
I agree that: (1) the U.S. pursues its own interest and (2) it made a decision that its interest in the Far East Asia can be furthered by strengthening its relationship with Japan. Now, you state that (2) is due to (i.e., “one of the reasons”) Roh talking shit and other Korean institutions “fanning Anti-Americanism.”
I obviously have issues with your explanation.
1. I can’t imagine anyone being “Anti-Americanism.” “Americanism” is as wholesome as “motherhood and apple pie.” “America” as a concept stands for aspirational aims of all nationalities, including Koreans. It is a part of world consciousness. So let’s not hijack it for your own parochial views. That said, I am sure you meant “anti-U.S.” (Then again, you could be meaning that leftists and Koreans, but especially leftist Koreans–and for some idiots, Koreans in general and specific–are against “motherhood and apple pie.”)
2. If you are correct, that Korean institutions “talking shit” about the U.S. is “one of the reasons” for the U.S. decision-makers “favoring Japan over Korea” or questioning its relationship with Korea, then “cognitive inconsistencies and emotional immaturities (are) being displayed” by the U.S. decision-makers. I dread the thought that U.S. government, in pursuit of the U.S. national interests, engages in the sort of emotion and logic displayed by idiots like basilides. When the U.S. decision-makers follow the emotions and logic of idiots like basilides, the U.S. finds itself in a quagmire like Iraq. Instead, I am certain that the U.S. decision-makers are rational (at least most of the time and most of them) and make decisions based on hard cold reality. With respect to the issue of Dokdo, hard cold reality dictates that the U.S. “favor” Japan over Korea but leave a bit of wiggle room to offer at least a facially good faith (but substantively bull-shit) explanation to Korea. The hard cold reality is that in the Far East Asia, Japan is the dog you want to run with, since China and Russia, which by their sheer size and history, are going to be competing with the U.S. on a global scale, and the U.S. needs Japan and EU as allies.
3. You are also incorrect for these reasons:
(A) Not all Koreans are anti-U.S. For every Roh, there is 2MB. In fact, if your explanation is to be accepted as valid, then at least with respect to Dokdo, the U.S. should have made no changes to the designation of Dokdo at this time. 2MB, after all, has declared and shown himself to be the willing toy poodle to Bush at a time when he is a lame duck. (I guess that statement now makes me a leftist and possibly Korean to boot).
(B) Roh’s rhetoric may well have been anti-U.S., but in action he has supported the U.S. policies, e.g., sending ROK military to Afghanistan and Iraq–in fact greater in number then that sent by Japan military. To cut to the chase: the point is that politicians are politicians, and regardless of their colors, they understand one another that they need to talk the talk for their own constituents, that it‘s nothing personal (then again, I may be ascribing too much rationality to politicians). Relatedly, Koreans as a general population gets emotional when dealing with Japan, just like basilides when dealing with Koreans–I do hope that basilides didn‘t get his ass kicked by some Korean or some Korean girl rejected him, shattering all sense of his self-worth, thus explaining his apparent blanket hostility to Koreans in general; instead, I hope basilides is just born an idiot, so Koreans won‘t feel so bad about basilides‘ idiocy.
By the way, basilides and the similarly afflicted, I got a news for you: the U.S. House of Rep. passed resolution apologizing for slavery–you know, the black folks.
I know that I am probably asking too much, cognitively and emotionally, but let’s do try to be “fair and balanced”–though not in the sense used by Fox News Cable Channel.
#20 Devil’s Advocate:
I lost count on how many times you called me an idiot (a born idiot, to boot). Be that as it may, the facts remain as follows:
South Korea has prospered tremendously under U.S. protection. You are right. The vast majority of South Koreans are well aware of this, but out of pride (details on this if you like) they pretend to be anti-American, go through the motions, like adolescents complaining constantly about their oppressive parents, but knowing full well where their bread is buttered.
The U.S. has been a remarkably benign colonial power that puts up with all kinds of crap, most of it harmless (how many GIs have been kidnapped and tortured over the past 20 years, despite all the inflamed anti-U.S. rhetoric? All talk and no action, thank God!)
However, the time has come for South Korea to fend for itself (wean itself away from Uncle Sam’s rapidly dwindling teat, so to speak). This is for the mutual benefit of both parties, and especially for the potential emotional maturity of the South Korean citizenship.
You know, maybe the US is tired of being Korea’s verbal pinata. Can there be a single issue in which we aren’t the scapegoat. Talking this through is akin to Father Karras’ last conversation with Linda Blair. You get alot of straining at bindings, teeth gnashing, grunts, groans, subverbals and a reference or two concerning your mother.
“Hey, Cujo! Decaf, my friend.”
I thought the left was supposed to have an intellect or two.
@20 DA
1. You are a retard.
B. Troop levels are being drawn down in Iraq and diverted to Afghanistan after “The Surge” because the US was successful in the end (hardly a quagmire, giggity giggity goo).
* Take some English comprehension classes.
+ You are a retard.
“Not all Koreans are anti-Us.” Agreed wholeheartedly.
My question is, why do you continue to let this minority represent you? I promise you that Korea is not getting alot of world-wide publicity on these issues but when it does this is the group they see.
They’re not that bad-ass! They wear pink for crying out loud.
Toss a side of beef up their snouts and duck tape it in place!
I’d do it but I’d get thrown in jail even if provoked.
Of course, then my wife would kick my ass.
#20 Devil’s Advocate
And by the way, why does my inborn idiocy (your words) have to do with the U.S. House passing a resolution apologizing for slavery? Please give me some more time to discover the connection.
And no, I never had my ass kicked by a Korean, nor have I ever been rejected by a Korean girl (although my Korean wife and I sometimes disagree over this or that. No big deal.).
“Yes, that may be the consensus among the comments of that article, but it would be hard to draw any general conclusions from that, given the Hani’s limited and somewhat particular readership.”
Right. Would be like judging Americans based on what people write in to “Z Magazine”, the US leftys’ choice rag.
Thank you for your comments, Devil’s Advocate. Allow me to retort:
Regarding #1: To be frank, I’m not sure if you are trying to split linguistic hairs here or trying to argue that anti-Americanism doesn’t exist in Korea.
Regarding #2: I’d like to believe my policy makers are rational, although again, to be frank, if we were, I don’t believe we’d be in a lot of places we currently find ourselves, Korea included. That said, I don’t deny for a second that it’s in the United States’ best interests to have good relations with Japan. At the same time, countries pay diplomatic prices for their actions. The United States has been paying the price for its diplomatic missteps in Iraq and elsewhere, and Korea is paying the price of its during the Roh administration. Declaring “diplomatic war” with Japan, the wartime command transfer issue, the “NE Asia balancer” announcements, conflicts over North Korea policy, any number of ill-thought statements from a number of Roh administration officials, even perceptions that Roh used anti-Americanism to get into office (see 2002) — I could go on and on about Korea’s hamfisted and generally amateurish foreign policy over the last five years, but I assume you know this all already, so there’s no need. My point is, the last five years have consequences.
Regarding a) Yes, for every Roh their is an LMB, although this comes after five years of Roh, preceded by five years of DJ. Do you think that just because LMB is in office, all if forgiven? Do you think all will be forgiven
whenif Sen. Obama wins in November? Like I said, what we do has consequences, and in Korea’s case, those consequences include forcing the United States to reexamine its relationship with Korea. And if I may say so, this is particularly so on the American right, which is especially ironic given how the American right has traditionally been the biggest supporters of the Korea-US alliance.BTW, the United States has not changed its designation of Dokdo. The US has, as far as I know, never officially recognized Dokdo as part of Korea. All that has changed is that an obscure gov’t body has updated its homepage to reflect long-standing US policy.
Oh, and I never said all Koreans are anti-American.
Regarding B) Hey, I happened to think Japan should do more, but you’re also being disingenuous — you know very well Japan is politically confined in its ability to send troops overseas, not the least of reasons being reaction from its neighbors, including Korea.
As for Roh’s support of US policies, let’s see:
Afghanistan: It was DJ who sent troops to Afghanistan, not Roh. And DJ sent NONCOMBAT troops in VERY small numbers, and did so in a manner that reflected his anger at a perceived lack of support from Bush for the Sunshine Policy. This was after 9.11, and should have made glaringly clear how the burden of the ROK-US Mutual Defense Pact was shared. Even the French did more.
In fact, Korea’s biggest contribution to the war in Afghanistan so far has been TO THE OTHER TEAM in the form of ransom paid to Taliban fighters to free Korean missionaries who should have never been there in the first place. And that contribution was all Roh’s.
Iraq: Taking over a year to send 3,000 troops to the safest place in Iraq to perform non-combat missions in return for Washington taking a softer line with North Korea and doing so in a manner so cynical as to greatly diminish whatever diplomatic goodwill it might have earned from the Americans is not “supporting US policies.”
USFK, North Korea: Do we even want to go there?
But yes, you are correct in that generally speaking, Roh rhetoric was worse than his actions. Granted, given his rhetoric, this is setting the bar quite low.
@27
Safest place in Iraq?! We were using them as human shields, just like MBC News Desk predicted!
b, I apologize for calling you an idiot. I didn’t realize that there could be individuals like NES. I hope NES is not a member of US military in SK, let alone a citizen of US, lest someone might think he is a representative of US military or its citizen. NES, go back to looking at the pictures of your comic books.
b: Yes, SK (and others) have prospered “under U.S. protection.” Yes, the US has been benign (relatively speaking). But it is in the interest of the U.S. to have SK and others to prosper, as it is in competition with China, Soviet/Russia, and whoever that may come along with opposing dispositions and aspirations. So, it is not really SK that needs to be weaned away the U.S., but the US that needs to extricate itself from SK and, heck, the world. Apparently, the US stills sees as its interest to be involved–the US likes the pecking order where it is the top dog and wants its ideals of political and economic liberty to spread to all corners.
As for people, Koreans and others, bitching about the U.S., it comes with the title of being the most powerful country in the world (at this point in time) willing to play the policeman, social worker, etc. Wrong or right, you want the cop to be on your side and if it turns out that the cop is not on your side, you bitch. It seems to me to be a natural event.
@29 DA
Comic books? Ah, so that’s where you learned “Engrishee!”
NES, you are better off looking at the pictures of your comic books than hanging out with the cheap bar girls. No offense to bar girls, cheap or otherwise.
#29 Devil’s Advocate
Thanks a million for your sincere and heartfelt apology. One question, though. You wrote:
b, I apologize for calling you an idiot. I didn’t realize that there could be individuals like NES. I hope NES is not a member of US military in SK, let alone a citizen of US, lest someone might think he is a representative of US military or its citizen. NES, go back to looking at the pictures of your comic books….
I am having trouble following your train of thought (and that goes for all your posts — make that, streams of consciousness). Granted Korean is your native language, and your culture is Confucian, but could you please tell me why NES is mentioned in your apology? Much obliged.
#30 NES
Please stop provoking you know who.
“The U.S. has been a remarkably benign colonial power that puts up with all kinds of crap”
The US has never been involved in colonialism or colonized any nation. The only brush the US ever had with it was the Spanish American War where the US briefly took over a European colony. While I agree with the gist of your comments, at least get your facts straight.
The unintentional irony by the US Government that seems to escape just about everyone’s notice in Korea, regardless of nationality, is that Washington may well be sick and tired of the whole Dokto/Takeshima mess and simply opted out for he politically neutral moniker to wash its hands of this silly squabble.
Meanwhile, the kids in NE Asia continue to argue that Big Brother in Washington is taking sides at the expense of one or the other.
I can just imagine how often US bureaucrats must be rolling their eyes, and then turning their attention to other, truly important matters.
I once heard that Dokto was once considered during the US occupation of Korea during the late ’40s as a bombing target practice range. Too bad the rocks were never decimated to below sea level when there was the chance.
#33 Mizar5
No matter how you slice it, South Korea is a U.S. colony, and so is Canada and quite a few others, for that matter. How do I know? Well, Noam Chomsky told me so.
@18, 19
Yup, I was reading Naver b/c that was what was linked in the post. I generally pay no attention to all the crap on any comment board in Korean news, but if you had to choose, wouldn’t Naver a fairer reflection of Korea? (I shudder at the thought.) It’s clear that Hani panders to leftist readers and people to who read it would be obviously anti-American.
If I were the Devil, I’d quickly fire my useless advocate.
“No matter how you slice it, South Korea is a U.S. colony, and so is Canada and quite a few others, for that matter. How do I know? Well, Noam Chomsky told me so.”
He also told me that the Khmer Rouge weren’t so bad. Brilliant guy but he’s better as a linguist.
The Hani is leftist, but its readers don’t always toe the party line. Commenters on stories related to the shooting death of Park Wang-ja were calling for candelight vigils at Geumgangsan and reminding the Hani of the outrage it showed towards the violent apprehensions of those two Korean base employees trespassing into a restricted area. When I read the comment sections of news stories even at leftist papers, I am surprised at how the comments echo sentiments expressed at the Hole.
I just scrolled back and saw comment #3, The Korean. The comment sections are often more worth a read than the stories themselves.
Slim, 37: I gotta hand it to you–you are so clever with word play.
b, 32: I am lost for words. I will say this, though: “Kids say the darndest things.”
Chomsky is without a doubt the worst thing to come out of the University of Pennsylvania since…hmmm…since anyone, I suppose.
mizar5
Post Spanish American Civil War, the Philippines were an American Colony. Guess you know nothing about the pre-WW2 history of the land.
Post Spanish American Civil War, Cuba was an American Colony. It was still a nice quasi-colony until Castro sort of had a say about it around 1960.
Americans were not especially good at colony making.
British were better and proficient. This has led to a lot of problems, especially in the Middle East.
French were horrid. Any success stories??
“But it is in the interest of the U.S. to have SK and others to prosper, as it is in competition with China, Soviet/Russia, and whoever that may come along with opposing dispositions and aspirations.”
Not really, if SK is not America’s friend. SK might end up to be everybody’s foe if it keeps bitching at everyone. Kind of like NK.
Ah, the Hankey, fueling the “han” since 1988. Happy anniversary Hankey!
Anyway, here’s aother rare voice of reason on Dorko:
“A professor of Korean studies at a French university said yesterday that the U.S. government and military have described the Dokdo islets as Liancourt Rocks for a long time.”
Lee Jin-myung of Lyon III University: “To describe the Dokdo islets as Liancourt Rocks on a map is not a serious problem. The U.S. had previously used the term Liancourt Rocks to describe Dokdo. Maps used by the CIA and the U.S. Army also use the term. The CIA World Fact Book has always used Liancourt Rocks. The sailing directions published by the U.S. Army Map Service have a category of “Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) (Takeshima).” The chart only uses Liancourt Rocks.
Dong-A: Why did the board change the name?
Lee: The board’s maps have not been updated. As Korea revised its regulations to denote foreign words in 2000, the names Pusan and Cheju have been changed to Busan and Jeju. The board’s Web site, however, still uses the former expressions, proving the agency has yet to reflect changes in description. Such inaccurate description can be an obstacle to military operations. It’s also possible that a person in charge saw the news (of the dispute) and changed the reference to Dokdo from Korean territory to undesignated sovereignty.
Dong-A: Does the name change affect Korean sovereignty over the islets?
Lee: Not at all. The name does not influence sovereignty over the islets at all, whether Dokdo or Liancourt Rocks. The islets have long been under Korea’s effective control. Korea doesn’t need to bring the case to the International Court of Justice. Even if Japan files a lawsuit, Korea doesn’t need to go to court. It is Korean territory. That means Korea can just keep controlling the islets. But what Koreans should keep in mind is that they should not be enraged over the name change.
Dong-A: How should Koreans respond?
Lee: Koreans should stay calm.”
http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2008073096638
@31 I know NES. He would never touch a bar girl.
@39,
Wow Sonagi, I didn’t expect that from you.
Michael:
“Dong-A: How should Koreans respond?
Lee: Koreans should stay calm.”
Did he say Koreans should STAY calm?
What do you mean, The Korean?
Tom: “I once heard that Dokto was once considered during the US occupation of Korea during the late ’40s as a bombing target practice range. Too bad the rocks were never decimated to below sea level when there was the chance.”
Tom, they were indeed a bombing target practice range. Much has been made of this. Pardon the expression but no rock is left unturned on this issue. Some issues even crawl out from under the rocks – I believe they must be haunted.
And I concur with your above remark. The US should have demolished the islets when they had the chance.
The idea of the U.S. bombing the islands into the water seems popular among some of my fellow Americans.
How much would it actually take to submerge 46 acres of mostly solid rock, some the height of a 50-floor building?
Trying to bomb it to oblivion might have just expanded its area and flattened it, making it more hospitable to structure-building.
Are there mosquitos in Dokdo? I’d live there if there weren’t.
If you measure colonialism based on territory acquired from unwilling locals, there have only been really 3 successful colonialists in modern times. The United States being the most successful. No one seems to realize that almost every state west of the Mississippi was acquired in the 19th century by completly annihilating the locals and shoving them onto reservations. The other less successful model is China, having acquired Xinjiang, Tibet, half of Mongolia, and most of Manchuria during the same time period but not having totally pacified the natives in the former two. Russia also greatly expanded it’s borders at the time, though most of it’s Asiatic territories is empty tundra.
Ah, historical revisionism. Great. I needed a chuckle.
Jing, I look forward to Mizar5 using his powers of logic to prove you wrong. Right out the gate, I think you made a bald statement.
BTW, we didn’t completely annihilate them, not even with our diseases (and hey, fair’s fair since they gave us syphilis). Some are still there on Indian reservations. And they thrive thanks to casinos and the oil-rich lands we gave them. Reagan told me so!
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/01/14/syphilis-columbus.html?ref=rss
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFDD163AF930A25751C1A96E948260
While attributions of neocolonialism, and internal colonialism have been leveled against the US, my purpose is to draw the distinction against European style colonialism.
While I agree in substance with Jing’s criticisms vis a vis the Native Americans, I am focusing on the global picture. The US did not engage in European style colonialism, characterized by marching into a country, taking it by force and controling it administratively. There were trusteeship-type arrangements and interventions, but not colonialism in the sense of the extension of sovereignty over territories beyond the nation’s borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced.
While I am critical of the Vietnam War, this cannot be equated with China’s subjugation of Tibet.
“The US did not engage in European style colonialism, characterized by marching into a country, taking it by force and controling it administratively.”
What were the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico to the United States? I’m not an expert on their history, but I thought we took them by force and controlled them administratively.
These were all acquired after the Spanish-American War, ceded by Spain in the December 10, 1898 Treaty of Paris.
Guam was captured by Japan in 1941 but was retaken by the United States in 1944. It became an organized, unincorporated territory of the United States in August, 1950, and is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Insular Affairs.
Puerto Rico (“Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico”, or “Associated Free State of Puerto Rico”), is a self-governing unincorporated territory of the United States.
The Philippines gained its independence from the United States on July 4, 1946 after the the Second World War via the Treaty of Manila. Independence came with strings attached, of course – The U.S. retained military bases, and independence was linked to legislation ensuring that the Philippines would remain an economic ward of the U.S. (for example, the Bell Trade Act prohibited the Philippines from manufacturing or selling any products that might come into substantial competition with US-made goods and required that the Philippine constitution be revised to grant U.S. citizens and corporations equal access to Philippine minerals, forests and other natural resources.
Still, these territories were not vanquished by invasion. They were inherited rather than conquered. As William McKinley put it, they “fell into our laps.” That’s about as close as the US ever came to classic European-style colonialism.
“As for people, Koreans and others, bitching about the U.S., it comes with the title of being the most powerful country in the world (at this point in time) willing to play the policeman, social worker, etc”–
And what other potential Superpower would be as benevolent as the U.S. has been to play those roles? Imagine China as a world superpower, I bet there would never be a protest in the streets of Seoul….
“Still, these territories were not vanquished by invasion. They were inherited rather than conquered. As William McKinley put it, they “fell into our laps.” That’s about as close as the US ever came to classic European-style colonialism.”
They weren’t inherited, with the possible exception of Puerto Rico. The United States destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila harbor and took the city by force. They also captured Guam. Both of these events happened before hostilities in Cuba had ended. The Philippines were definitely not an afterthought in the Spanish-American War.
“And what other potential Superpower would be as benevolent as the U.S. has been to play those roles?”
Very true.
“As William McKinley put it, they “fell into our laps.””
Anyone who has studied McKinley’s presidency should know that he was obsessed with establishing a strong American presence in the Pacific. (This included the annexation of Hawaii.) His quote might also suggest that outside of political/economic motivations, he felt the United States was somehow chosen or destined to administer territories such as these.
“Still, these territories were not vanquished by invasion. They were inherited rather than conquered. As William McKinley put it, they “fell into our laps.” That’s about as close as the US ever came to classic European-style colonialism.”
So what were the 126,000 American soldiers in the Philippine Insurrection all about then?
http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2000/summer/philippine-insurrection.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Insurrection
“They fell into our laps”? Ha ha. American apologism sounds as stupid as Korean apologism.
@31 DA
As cmm tells you, I would never even consider hanging out with your mother.
P.S. You already used the comic book insult twice. Please ask your tutor to teach you a few more insults to mix it up. I’m getting bored.
(Sorry basilides, but it’s too hard to pass up the amusement.)
McKinley did want to annex Hawaii, but he was opposed to the annexation of the Philippines, which was the doing of TR who as Secretary of the Navy exceeded his remit while in the office one day when the rest of Washington was on vacation, and authorized Dewey’s attack on Manila. I think that’s what McKinley was wryly referring to – the problem of Philippine colonialism -including the need to dispatch nearly the entire land combat ready strength of the US Armed Forces to put down the rebellion – being put into his lap by TR.
I see I’ve spurred some people to research history. Excellent. A great exercise in analysis. Although I observe that user-81 still needs a lot of work to abandon rhetoric for understanding. However, as this may be the awkward initial stages of an emerging analytic mind I’d like to encourage it.
“I think that’s what McKinley was wryly referring to – the problem of Philippine colonialism -including the need to dispatch nearly the entire land combat ready strength of the US Armed Forces to put down the rebellion – being put into his lap by TR.”
Could be, though I’m not convinced that McKinley didn’t want the Philippines. He definitely wanted a naval base there, if not the whole deal. The funny thing about McKinley, if I can remember my history professors correctly, is that he was pretty clever in that he didn’t make a habit of writing things down. As a result, we can only speculate on many of the things he thought or said.
He was also deserves mention for being one of the first presidents to understand and exploit the power of the press. As other presidents have subsequently learned, if you’re going to go to war, the press is a key component of selling it at home.
#65, In the “Logic for Dummies” book you have in your bathroom, what term is used for your evasive tactic of shifting away from a direct question and hoping no one will notice?
I asked a direct question in #62.
It’s well-documented and appears in most of the standard histories, e/g, LeFebre. I think access to a naval base was what reconciled McKinely, who was an expansionist, to the Philippine adventure, but he didn;t want any part of it in the beginning, nor to get bogged down in colonial administration.
I don;t know how much initiative McKinley took in exploiting the press as a medium The press as an instrument of political manipulation was pretty much a self-invented idea at the time: e.g., Hearst and Pulitzer.
“I don;t know how much initiative McKinley took in exploiting the press as a medium The press as an instrument of political manipulation was pretty much a self-invented idea at the time: e.g., Hearst and Pulitzer.”
While he must certainly have been aware of the Hearst and Pulitzer papers, I was thinking more of his influence over papers friendly to the Republican Party, as in having some possible say in what was and wasn’t printed regarding the war.
As for McKinley not having left as much in the way of a written record as many other presidents, his assassination didn’t help matters. Had he lived longer, he might have chronicled these events in more detail.
If America had to choose sides, I think she should choose Japan.
Japan is a better friend and it’s the number two economy in the world. What’s Korea, like the thirteenth or something? And they are not a good friend to the US.
“#65, In the “Logic for Dummies” book you have in your bathroom, what term is used for your evasive tactic of shifting away from a direct question and hoping no one will notice?”
What you are guilty of in doing so is plurium interrogationum, which is a fallacy of presumption.
In raising questions that purport to request “clarification” while ignoring the fact that they have already been addressed, you are using hidden premises to introduce uncertainty into the argument thereby shifting attention from the argument.
“I asked a direct question in #62.”
No, you did not. Rather, you leveled a leading question that is irrelevent to the point at hand.(ie. “so what were the 126,000 American soldiers in the Philippine Insurrection all about then?”)
In response, I would refer you back to my statement that the US has not invaded and subjugate a foreign nation as per the European-style colonial model.
Either you are honestly unable to follow the jist of an argument in a logical fashion and require constant reiteration of points previously explained presented, or you are employing intellectually dishonest rhetorical devices to discredit an opponant.
I hope this analysis may be helpful to you.
“In response, I would refer you back to my statement that the US has not invaded and subjugate a foreign nation as per the European-style colonial model.”
Your original statement in #33:
“The US has never been involved in colonialism or colonized any nation.”
No mention of “European-style colonial model.” Your tendency to use shifting definitions when your cornered is a clear sign that you’re full of shit and there is no use discussing anything with you.
“No mention of “European-style colonial model.” Your tendency to use shifting definitions when your cornered is a clear sign that you’re full of shit and there is no use discussing anything with you.”
Really? I refer you back to # 56.
basilides:”#33 Mizar5 No matter how you slice it, South Korea is a U.S. colony, and so is Canada and quite a few others, for that matter. How do I know? Well, Noam Chomsky told me so.”
Touche! Prof. Chomsky is highly entertaining and makes for wonderful reading material for adolescents on the threshold of developing critical reasoning skills.
JohnT:”If America had to choose sides, I think she should choose Japan. Japan is a better friend and it’s the number two economy in the world. What’s Korea, like the thirteenth or something? And they are not a good friend to the US.”
It’s not an either-or proposition. Some of the reasons the relationship will continue are featured in this thoughtful commentary on ROK Drop:
http://rokdrop.com/2008/07/04/why-immediate-withdrawal-of-usfk-will-not-happen-anytime-soon/
“Really? I refer you back to # 56.”
Shifting definitions, Mizar5. In #33, you said “The US has never been involved in colonialism or colonized any nation,” and when people corrected you, you tried to weasel out of your mistake by narrowing your definition.
How is this a matter of shifting definitions when no initial definition was offered? While it is interesting to watch your eel wriggling, you may want to reread the advice I offered you in #71. Discussion concluded.
Chick A: Let me get this, you just had a salad.
Chick B: No, my salad was $16.47. I definitely owe at least $20.50.
Chick A: Nonsense. And let me pay for parking, since you drove here.
Chick B: Oh, don’t worry about it. Remember when you brought that lovely wine to my place last month?
Chick A: Tell you what, I’ll pay for lunch, you get the tip and parking. Or we could just split it 47/53, since I had a bigger desert….
At least I picture you both as totally hot.
Linkd’s chime-in from his vacation in Mountain Standard Time ends.
You must log in to post a comment.