Open Thread #91

Matt/Shakuhachi over at Occidentalism did not like my comment from the thread about Ann Chang-ho and issued a rebuttal.

Apart from the insults suggesting that I have never held a contrarian opinion, or, if I did, I never expressed it to Koreans, and that I may be some kind of race traitor, perpetuating a kind of censorship against those who dare to speak up against the prevailing opinion, Matt raised some interesting points.

That is why, regardless of the merits of his arguments [...], Gerry’s work is very important. There needs to be dissenting opinion. There being no dissenting opinion in Korea on this issue, this taboo, and it is very unhealthy.

I agree. It certainly is good to have dissenting opinion, and it is good to have open, intelligent, reasoned debate about the issues. Even in Korea. I think that if Gerry Bevers is serious about providing an alternative vision of the Dokdo history, it would be great for him to do so to a Korean audience.

After years of debating it (mostly) in English to a (mostly) English speaking audience, Gerry has probably reached market saturation here in the K-blogosphere.

Contrary to the Marmot Himself, I also think that blogs lack some of the weight that a paper publication still has. Therefore, I would advise Gerry to put his arguments out there in Korean and in print. Submit his research to academic journals and book publishers, go to conferences and symposia and contribute to the research. I am all for that.

Gerry has probably done all he can do for us here; it is time for him to broaden his horizons and deliver his message to those who need to hear it: the Korean public.

Think about it – Gerry expresses an opinion backed up with vast amounts of data

Perhaps I am incorrect in assuming he hasn’t done so. Has he been to conferences? has he had a paper published? or a book? It would be a shame if serious scholarly work would be available only in the un-cite-able, unindexed Internet.

Yet all we have are people ascribing evil motives to Gerry’s work without even dealing with the substance of his argument.

From what I have seen, both elements have been addressed by various people over the years, here and at other blogs. People can hold contrary viewpoints for a variety of reasons and motives. I won’t go into Gerry’s possible reasons for holding fast to this one, sometimes seemingly irrationally. We can save that for another time.

We are not talking about a normal academic issue here, or even a territorial issue, it is a taboo.

Well, we are talking about a couple of issues: who had the historic claim to those rocky islets? Who can have them now?

Gerry has stated in another post (and I agree with him!) that he is interested only in the historic debate. He has no interest in the legal issues, or in who gets control of the islets now.

They are two separate, but overlapping (and sometimes conflated), issues. I am slightly interested in the historical issues (I am yet to be convinced of the extraordinary claim that “Koreans did not know about those rocky islets” until Japan had already claimed ownership of them). But I am more interested in the issues of current occupation (and even then it is not something I think about – or want to – every day).

A little support for someone that actually faces societies taboos would be helpful.

Again, I support Gerry’s efforts to take this debate to the Koreans, both in popular venues (the media) and academia (journals, books, conferences).

Your snide insinuations, sarcasm, and disingenuous remarks are just part of the taboo enforcement mechanism, whether you consciously participate or not.

Touche. Just call me “Kettle,” old Pot.

Oh, and your commenter Errol writes some nice doggerel. I will be humming it all day.

Shak: Will you now be helping the immigrant to Japan Debito stand up and voice his contrarian opinions?

Hamel, any idea about how to do that without having to flee the country because of death threats, with no help from the police at all, like Kim Wansop?

1) There are a lot of threats of violence and death against all kinds of people around the world made on the Internet each day. Thankfully, very few of them translate into reality in the real world.

2) I was not aware of Kim Wansop until today, but to say things like “[16-year-old Korean independence activist] Yu Gwan-sun was a female gangster” or “Korea is to blame for Yasukuni” is pretty gutsy. It takes “more front than Myers/David Jones” you might even say. It makes you wonder why someone would say that.

3) I don’t think it is a good idea to ban his book in Korea. I believe in the relatively free open marketplace for ideas. I have also argued that communist (and especially North Korean literature) should not be banned here, so that people may read and see for themselves the real intellectual barrenness within, and not be tempted by the allure of the forbidden.

4) If someone were to kill or harm Kim Wan-sop because of his beliefs, I would condemn it.

5) If, heaven forbid, something similar were to befall Gerry Bevers, I would absolutely condemn it without hesitation or equivocation.

6) Likewise, I condemn Bevers’ being let go from his last university position for writing about those rocky islets (taking for granted that that was the only or main reason for not renewing his contract).

Is that clear enough, Shak? What more do you want me to do/say?

Shak: Wansop’s quotes were taken from the Korean wiki on him and the link I inserted above from Yellowpeep.

Shak: not saying that Kim Wansop did not get beaten up. Norbert Vollertsen has been beaten up too. I still think that saying the threat of violence is an overall trend is overstated, even if individual acts of violence do occur. Obviously, to anybody who gets attacked at any time in any place, that violence will appear to be very real, regardless of overall trends or patterns.

And everyone has a reason for believing something. Everything can be mitigated in someone’s eyes. We all do and believe what is right in our own eyes.

If Christopher Hitchens can make Mother Theresea out to be something just shy of the Antichrist, and the League of Rights can make Anne Frank out to be a wicked slut, then I am sure someone can paint Yu Gwan-sun to be a gangster. Sure, why not?

Cactus: hold your hourses. I do like a Honey Brown but first you must prove your bona fides to Marmot. Mike doesn’t want his email address given out to any Tom, Dick or McHarris.

Also, I have tried debating the subject with Koreans, but it was essentially a waste of time because the Koreans seemed interested only in hiding and distorting the truth rather than finding it. A common response to my claims was to simply call them “nonsense” and accuse me of being anti-Korean.

Is this why you keep proclaiming your message to (mainly) foreigners and gyopo in English?

Do you have those language skills, Gerry?

I can read the Korean books on the subject and can read and compare the Korean translations with the old documents with little or no problem, but even though I know about 1,200 Chinese characters and am pretty good with my Chinese character dictionary, I struggle to translate some of the old documents on my own. However, I have taught myself enough about Chinese writing to be able to translate short passages.

I was asking whether you have the requisite skills to write in Korean about Dokdo; I don’t doubt you can read the texts about Dokdo.

In regard to my interest in the legal aspects of the dispute, when I write my book, I do not intend to waste pages discussing international law.

That’s interesting, Gerry. Let us say for argument’s sake that Koreans never knew about thoe rocky islets (henceforth TRI)until Japan claimed them for herself. If current international law finds that TRI are Korea’s on legal grounds REGARDLESS OF HISTORICAL CLAIMS, wouldn’t that render all research about the historical claims on TRI to be interesting, but ultimately moot?