So… I Take It You Don’t Particularly Like North Americans, Then?

#7,

Yep. I’ve heard gyopos talk like that too. It’s the ones that are a bit wealthy and educated that do think like that. Korean society (and women) treats them like gods and they don’t mind acting the part. I find it despicable behavior also. Part of it may have to do with not having many relatives in Korea, having less of a human connection to the country. I have several cousins in Seoul that are young women and I’ve hung out with them so again, I have a more human connection, thus it’s harder for me to dehumanize the women here (not saying if I ever would if I didn’t).

Also, there are plenty of Korean ladies here that swoon for materially well off guys. You have a gyopo guy in Seoul who speaks perfect English, has a good job, decent looking, went to a good U.S. school, etc. Let’s face it, for many girls this guy is the proverbial catch. Why do you think so many Korean female stars end up marrying gyopos? Anyhow, there are enough Korean girls who throw themselves at such a guy that this guy starts to think he’s the shit, whether or not it’s true or untrue. You list your resume during a conversation and the way they throw themselves sort of dehumanizes them and the gyopo starts to think less of them and transfers his thoughts (wrongly) to the rest of Korean womanhood.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/23/emailing_banker_bonks_his_korean/

Most likely Peter Chung’s wet dream propaganda, but it tells you something about Pete’s mindset.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Well JW, you try living in an area the size of Ohio and share it with 50 million other people and deal with most of the wealth being tied up in a handful of “chaebol” families and the meaningful colleges being harder than shit to get into (despite the fact that their diplomas are next to worthless internationally) and see if you want to stay in said area. Your parents and mine elected to vote with their feet…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Is NetizenKim IHBB’s gyopo sockpuppet?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@ Sonagi,

You forgot that the Koreans started the 20th century under the yoke of an oppressive, backwards regime (Yi Chosun). After that, 35 years of colonization that tried to erase Korean culture. After that? A separation that was arbitrarily decided by post WWII superpowers and certainly not the first choice of Koreans. After that? A war that destroyed what little infrastructure the Japanese left behind. Then after the war? Gross mismanagement by the Rhee administration (key quote by the senile octogerian Rhee, “Why do the people complain that there is no rice? Can’t they eat wheat instead?). After that? Park Chung Hee trying to modernize the country by bashing in the heads of everyone who disagreed. After that? Chun Doo Hwan doing more of the same, including Korean’s own version of Tiananmen Square. Then Korea’s version of the Great Depression in 1998 (just as deep, but about 1/3 as long). Other then that, Koreans have had a pretty great 20th century!

So, a century of backwards monarchy, colonization, division, civil war (in every sense of the word), right-wing dictatorship, hell-bent modernization, political oppression, economic calamity, etc. compressed into a single century. Sure, those Koreans have nothing to feel sore about! Particularly since most of the shit they have gone through in the 20th century is still a living memory. Truth be told, I think only Cambodia and Vietnam have gone through as much as Korea over the course of a single century and both those countries are still recovering. Cambodia may take another century to recover, if they ever do at all.

I respect the Irish people, but they pretty much stayed out of the World Wars and the Cold War whereas Korea was right in the center of it. The only wars the Irish fought in the 20th century was a very low intensity urban guerrilla one in the 1910s and 1920s.

35 years of colonization as the only traumatic thing happening to Koreans? Please tell me you know more about Korean history than that!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Few peoples have suffered like Koreans have.”

Unsupportable to an unsypathetic ear I’d imagine because it has an amount of subjectivity to it. However, let’s see who’s suffered as much or worse in relatively recent history? The Jews? Well, they are pissing away some of that good will by oppressing the Palestinians. The Chinese? Actually, they have a history that’s similar to the Koreans. Shitty first half of the 20th century and the victim of uneditied and unfiltered Japanese aggression until 1945. The Chinese have suffered a lot. I’d say that the Cambodians have suffered more than the Koreans. The Vietnamese have suffered a lot. However, I can’t say that the Vietnam was was any less or any more bloody than the Korean War. The Irish? Their 20th century was not too bad, I mean they got their independence and pretty much kept out of the rest of the conflagration that was engulfing the world at the time.

Other than the Jews and the Cambodians, I’m not sure if there have been anyone else who have suffered more than the Koreans in a history that can be consciously remembered by the first generation or stories that can be recalled by the second generation.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oh yeah, the Germans and Japanese suffered a lot too… but they suffered because they started something that others were more than willing to finish….

Oh, and I forgot to add Rwanda to that “suffered more than Korea” list. However, perhaps we should focus on populations of people at or over 10 million? I’m sure there are dozens of tribes out there that have suffered a tremendous deal, but we have to have some sort of size criteria, right? That criteria would barely include Rwanda because its pre-genocide population was barely over 10 million.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

yuna,

Sorry, but arguments from Rhie Won-bok’s book, “Koreans Unmasked” don’t hold much water here. Not because they are untrue or hold no merit, but because people here who may or may not have read any of his books will immediately discredit him due to his anti semitic views.

http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/02/27/its-official-rhie-won-boks-an-ass/

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Koguryo was close enough to the Chinese kingdoms that it could get Chinese technology and culture more through natural diffusion, thus it acted more independently than the other two.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I mean, “looking to follow-up on the Nationalists expulsion to Taiwan.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“So as Manchuria was…”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yes, those “chronically” poor countries need to have a damn big asterisk next to them… also, Bangladesh is essentially one big delta for the Ganges river, which is known to flood on a semi-regular basis since time immortal. It’s not a “nice” delta like the Nile Delta. It’s a pretty nasty and at times unpredictable delta. Unless the Bengalis can figure out how to suspend the laws of nature like the Dutch have (which won’t happen, unfortunately, for the foreseeable future), expect more horrible, high death toll floods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges_Delta

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Linkd,

East Asians love money more than they hate each other. One of the reasons why a majority of sushi restaurants in the states are Korean owned. Sushi restaurants have some of the highest margins in the industry… so a Korean will learn a few Japanese phrases and deck out his shop like an Izakaya to gain access to those margins. The average white person can’t tell the difference anyways (although the Korean sushi chiefs get annoyed when I insist talking to them in Korean).

If the East Asians focus on making money, they’ll be okay. Linkd, you are a capitalist (sort of), you should know that…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

hoju_saram,

Okay. After digesting what you wrote, you seem to have a few circular arguments. I’m confused. On one hand you say that it was all the Koreans fault for starting the Korean war (comment # 92, then a couple of other times) then in comment # 134 and #141 you say there are other factors and Koreans were more the “catalysts.”

There is a big difference between Koreans being a “catalyst” for a war and it “all being the Koreans’ fault.” But hey, the Israelis almost got the U.S. and the Soviets in a war when things were going badly for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, but no one brings that up…

You see, pure proxy wars don’t exist in the real world. Everyone’s got an axe to grind. It’s hard to get people to die for a cause unless they believe in it right? If you don’t have those things existing, than it’s hard to get people to fight. The Russians can pour as much money as they want in “Red Army Brigades” in Germany and England and not get shit for it. But if you have enough angry communist Brits and Teutons, there’s finally an object for you to support with money and weapons! Anyways, it is true that Kim Il Sung pestered Stalin for equipment and the green light to invade the South. It is true that if Syngman Rhee was equipped with enough hardware he would of invaded the North all by himself. It is true that both the Koreas in 1949 were probably itching for a fight. Yes, yes and yes.

However, consider these truths too. Kim Il Sung had a decisive advantage in tanks, planes and artillery, something even you have admitted. Did this advantage magically appear? Uh, no. Did North Korea manufacture them with their “considerable” industrial capability in 1949? No. Did Kim buy them from Russia? No. Kim asked uncle Stalin for them and he GAVE them to him. Yes. Without this decisive advantage, the North and South would have been roughly evenly matched, but the South would still have a x2 bigger population. With no weapons from either Superpower and with a population about double that of the North, in a grind it out street fight- advantage South. At the very least, two pawns locked in eternal combat!

Also, you might have skipped this in your history books but the U.S. withdrew the 7th infantry division from Korea in 1949. Documents from the Russian archives prove that Stalin saw this as a sign of America’s lack of resolve in Asia. This, coupled with Acheson’s remarks (which you did not sufficiently address) in January 1950 gave Stalin the impression that an invasion of the South by the North was a low risk operation with sufficient return at conclusion, particularly with China under communist rule. No Russian support, no North Korean blitzkrieg across the Korean peninsula. No Red China, no Russian support. Neither are mutually exclusive. Complex, huh? But that’s just standard geopolitics.

The American – and UN – involvement is something that Koreans should be eternally thankful for.

And you also say that Koreans should be “eternally thankful” for UN and American involvement. Ah, really? Just like Iraqis should be “eternally thankful” to Americans and the “Coalition of the Willing” for freeing them of Saddam? You know, there are probably more Iraqis who died during the U.S. occupation than under Saddam. Question, should Black Americans be “eternally thankful” for being freed immediately after the Civil War? Should Cubans be “eternally thankful” for being freed by the Americans of Spanish colonialism? Should the French be “eternally thankful” for all those dough boys coming over in 1917 to kick out the Huns and squashing the Kaiser? Should Western Europe be “eternally thankful” for GIs coming over to rescue them from the Nazis? What about all that military aid we gave the Afganis, huh? A decade later they welcome terrorists and give them a safe haven so they can plan the most horrific terrorist attack on American soil. Wow, hoju, you live in a very simple world, where all free nations on earth forever extol the virtues of the Yankees because of something they did 50 to 100 years ago. Nevermind that America typically does a terrible job of securing the peace once war is won. After WWI, to secure the peace, President Wilson tried to get the U.S. into the League of Nations. Congress shot him down. After the Afganis kicked out the Soviets, several Congressmen tried to get foreign aid into the nation so they can try and help the country rebuild itself. They were shot down also. It’s no wonder that America doesn’t get appreciated as much as they should, but any ways. Ya know… it’s too bad that the U.S. and it’s allies didn’t win the Vietnam War, then Vietnam would be “eternally grateful” to… gasp! South Korea also (being that ROK was the second or third largest contributor of troops on the U.S. side during the Vietnam War)!

Lastly, your assertion that it is solely the Koreans fault for all it’s troubles is squarely false. As I’ve explained before, Japanese domination of Korea was not just due to the ineptitude of Yi Joseon. It was also the result of Japan’s defeat of China and Russia- the prize was Korea, Manchuria and the Russian Far East. Also, you do remember Teddy Roosevelt telling the Japanese that if they left the Philippines alone that America would leave the Japanese alone with Korea, right? Furthermore, Kim Il Sung would never have had the ability to “race to the finish line” to Pusan if he didn’t have Russian weapons and backing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Another hoju brain fart contradiction in comment # 92:

“… if the Yangban had of modernized the country instead of looking after themselves, the colonial period may never have happened.”

Compare to # 107:

“I agree that the Japanese were primarily to blame for the colonial period – and I have a great deal of sympathy for Korea on this point…”

Proven wrong in # 101, he does a convenient mental u-turn…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Wow, this has become a time hog… and not just for myself.

Alrighty, I’ll try to be brief.

shak,

Overall, I disagree with you. However, I will say that it is true that Japan acted in their own self interests in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The larger context is that Western imperialists powers were on the move in Asia and Japan saw what happened to China and how it was carved up like the Christmas turkey and didn’t want to be a smaller version of it.

Had Japan just make Korea into a commonwealth instead of outright annexing it, I believe things would have been different and Japan’s administration of Korea would have been remembered differently by Koreans today. Korea was more like Texas (outright annexation) rather than Puerto Rico (commonwealth). I believe that was a mistake of Japan’s. This wouldn’t have been too difficult to do if the take over by Japan was as easy as you say. The Japanese at least allowed the Manchurians the illusion of self government in the vehicle of Manchukuo, right? The Koreans were not even given that illusionary formality.

hoju,

I respect Lankov but I would disagree with him in using Germany as an example. There are two big flaws to the German example for Korea. First of all was that German wasn’t even a nation until Bismark made it a nation in relative late 19th century. Yes, you had very vague notion of nationhood during the days of the Confederation of the Rhine (early 19th century), and you have the Holy Roman Empire, which was an often loose amalgamation of German, Austrian and Slavic peoples. The Protestant Reformation being a prime example of just how “unified” the Holy Roman Empire actually was, particularly culturally. However, Korea was a nation much longer than the Germans. Bavaria’s tramas were Bavaria’s, Westphalia’s tramas were Westphalia’s, and Prussia’s Prussia’s so on and so forth.

Furthermore, when it comes to collective historical memories, everything is relative. It is true that many European countries suffered a lot. Hell, look at Poland (which would be a far better example of Korea in Europe from an overall historical perspective). Prussia can say, “hell, all of European once ganged up on me just because I picked a fight with Austria (i.e. The Seven Year War) but at least I’m not a basket case like Poland! The Poles can say, hell, I’m Eastern Europe’s sick man, but at least I’m not artificially divided up like Italy! It’s like going to a high school where you have a lot of similarly sized and capable players in the quad area and who is the strongest and who is the weakest shifts through the centuries.

East Asia? Not so much. You have China, the 800 pound gorilla, Japan who seems to fight himself most of the time, but he’s pretty dang handy with knives and once in awhile rough Jurchen and Mongolian transfers who come in, beat up everybody and then transfer. However, the big kid in high school, China, despite getting his ass kicked by Mongols and other rough transfer students always manages to “absorb” whoever challenges him. Japan, once he snaps out of his bouts of schizophrenia, and kick some serious ass. Plus, he’s got a freak’in moat all around him and Mongols are afraid of water. Thus, although Korea’s suffering isn’t any worse than Poland or even maybe the Serbs, etc. he develops a complex because he can’t absorb bullies like China and he doesn’t have a freak’in moat around him like Japan. Korea doesn’t have a peer it can confine in or relate to or hang out with so he eventually ends up buddying up with China for protection. However, this has costs. You have to dress like China, you have to “speak” his lingo, you have to call him “big brother” so on and so forth. You can’t hang out in China’s “posse” without adopting his rules you know. Although you have a very defined sense of who you are and where you come from, you have to bend in order to “fit in.” So when the transfers come to your school, you don’t have any medium sized players to ally with and China can be a pretty indifferent guy. Oh, and you still have Japan playing with knives just beyond his little moat. He’s not threatened so he doesn’t feel the need to ally with you. Plus he comes out of his moat every once in awhile to steal your lunch money while you are not looking so you don’t feel too close to him either.

In this environment, what kind of psychology would you expect Korea to develop?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

gbnhj,

Some of us have jobs and lives.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Nope. That wasn’t my intention.

TMH for me is usually like twittering. Fast, easy and fun.

It’s only when I have to write multiparagraph comments that it sucks up all my time, for which I’ve done several times in this thread.

Like or Dislike: 0  0