Vet Responds to Anti-Americanism in Korea
Jeff in Busan points out this letter to the editor in the Korea Times. Here are highlights from the letter:
I was sent to Korea and I served with the 7th Infantry Division. We were to serve for nine months and 36 points. When I finally rotated home, I was in Korea over 13 months and I had 52 points, but I was one of the lucky ones, I made it home.
I have always tried to feel I did some good in helping South Korea and its people. I wore my 7th Division cap with Korean ribbons on it in civilian life, but no more!
Like many Korean War veterans, I too have tired of the TV reports showing mobs of people in various Korean cities shouting “Americans, Go Home!”
When I think of the sacrifice we made and the number of people we lost in trying to protect the freedom of the South Korean people, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and to have the South Korean people throw our sacrifices in our face is too much to take.
Jeff tends to think that Korean anti-Americanism shouldn’t be taken at face value because the majority of Koreans do not want the US to leave they just want the US to change it’s attitude.
(…) letters like those written by Mr. Gunther remind me that to Americans, who do not understand the Korean way of doing things, words mean things. Americans hear the words and take them at their face value.
We don’t do a lot of processing words through the filters of other cultures. Although there needs to be greater education and less focus on the minor events in the Western press, the Korean side must also understand that a poor choice of words or misguided actions can end up doing much more harm than good
There is definitely cultural misunderstandings about what one sees on the news compared to the actual reality here in Korea. I remember last month’s Hanchongryun protest that totaled 3,000 college students at Yongsan fighting with the riot police. Most of those college students probably could care less about the ideology of Hanchongryun but just look forward to fighting with the riot police and trading war stories that night at the bar with their friends.
This violent protest was all over the world news and my parents even called me wondering what was going on over here after seeing it on the news. I just explained to them that this type of thing is something that college students typically do here every summer. It is like a rite of passage around here to protest something.
However, the next week 4,000 USFK workers stage an even bigger, but peaceful protest in favor of USFK and for keeping their jobs and no one cares or reports it. This selective reporting by the international media only further inflames the sentiment back in America. The international media in my opinion has an agenda to push anti-Americanism probably because it sells in the international market and the Hanchongryun types only continue to feed it and to further tarnish Korea’s image in America.
The domestic media in Korea is just as bad at fueling not just anti-American sentiment but also anti-foreigner sentiment in general with biased one sided reporting. This reporting only reinforces preconceived stereotypes that many Koreans hold about foreigners to begin with.
However, the Korea Times letter writer should take pride in the fact that him and his fellow American soldiers sacrifices during the Korean War are what have allowed the South Korean media to have biased free speech to begin with. Freedom and especially free speech, if even biased 50 years later is still something to proud of having given to the South Koreans.
Most American Korean War vets who make a return visit to Korea, say one thing after one day in Seoul: " I remember Korea as a filthy mudhole … I am proud my buddies died to allow this economic miracle in Korea to be possible." After a few more days, they long to get back on the plane to avoid a creeping fear– maybe they died for ingrates.
Korean War vets are not proud of dying for Korean flag-burners enjoying their free hate speech … no matter how positive a spin GI puts on it.
There are not as many Korean flag burners out there as you allege. More than likely you can go a whole tour here a not see a flag burning or a protest. When there is a protest it is hyped up in the media to make it seem more than what it is. However, I would be suprised if a large US military presence will remain here in 10 years. The Koreans have advanced enough to defend themselves.
I've been here a while, to include the hate fest of 2002/2003 but I still think that percentage wise, anti-Americanism is higher in the U.S. than here in Korea.
I tend to agree with Nomad. I have seen more of and larger anti-American protests in America than I have had here. As Americans we consider it their right to free speech where as when some of these Korean groups like Hanchongryun protest we look at it as rapid anti-Americanism in Korea and really take notice of the Koreans as being ungrateful allies.
I really don't care if they protest its their right to, as long as they don't harm others or destroy property. The fact that someone damaged a memorial cemetery to dead Korean War vets is an example of this. Whoever did it couldn't get their message heard through normal means because they know the majority of the population here doesn't really care to hear their message. So they decide to vandalize the UN cemetery. That is why a label whoever did it as truly despicable.
No matter how much Americans here in Korea get frustrated by the Hanchongryun types nobody would ever go to the Korean National Cemetery in Seoul and vandalize it. That is why I think the Korean media and government should take a strong stance against desecrating memorials like the UN Cemetery and the MacArthur statue in Incheon. This frustrates me more than some idiots protesting outside of Yongsan.
I realize Korea has a long tradition of student protest. However, there has been a change in the tenor and level of violence in those protests. In the seventies, those protests I saw around Seoul National University were fervent, but nonviolent. When they became larger and started taking on an unprecedented anti-U.S. tone, people said this was a reflection of a change in attitude of the broad middle-class toward the U.S. (Presumably, students would not have dared go that route without at least tacit familial approval.)
Now I hear from U.S.A.F. family members (recently returned from Yongsan), that soldiers have been beaten up outside the post. Yes, now that there is true democracy, they have the right to free speech. But perhaps there is a problem with how the Korean school system is teaching that era of history. (This would be unfortunate, since S. Korea just came in second place in a global math and reading survey, beating both China and Japan.)
Clearly, they are doing something right, but they also need to recognize that, even if our military hierarchy views it in a cool and responsible manner, American citizens will not take verbal abuse forever. Our government will not be able to sustain popular domestic support for defending S.Korea in the face of repeated anti-U.S. hostility – most Americans will not dismiss it as just Korea's "tradition" of cultural expression.
–big sigh–
This is one of those times I am used to, but I still find myself shrugging my shoulders and wondering why I go on with it.
I want to ask a question first. To the military people who believe anti-US/USFK feelings are in the minority in Korea, how frequently have you spent time with Korean adults?
That is the only way I can logically figure out why my understanding of the situation in Korea can be so different from you guys.
Another thing is that focusing on the protests is often a step in the wrong direction. It could be a step in the right one, but often you hear some people say that since only a small percentage of Koreans actively protest, and ususally the younger generations, it does not represent what the majority of Korean think.
And the second whammy in this direction is the expressed knowledge that most Koreans don't want USFK to leave.
I taught Korean adults for a long time in Korea. Adults ranging from the ages of 20 to 60.
The average Korean has better things to do than protest in the street over anything, but I know without the smallest shadow of a doubt — the average Korean shares many of the same ideas as the protesters when it comes to USFK and the US relationship to Korea. The only significant difference between the average protesters and the average adult I taught was that the other adults were not so pro-North Korean. But anti-US and USFK in general/on an "academic" way — yes.
I summarised it this way — The average South Korean sees USFK and the US-SK relationship as a cancer on their society – a cancer they just can't afford to cut out — yet.
I have spent a lot of time on my website trying to point this out and point out how the process of keeping anti-US culture alive and well but avoiding an anti-Korean backlash in the US or the US government works.
But, when I see what seems to me long time US expats in Korea who have come away with such a different understanding of the situation, I wonder if I shouldn't just give it up….
usinkorea,
The average Korean couldn't give a crap about pro or anti-Americanism because they, like most normal working folks anywhere, have more important things to worry about – like putting food on the table, education for their kids, and their own screwed up government. Sounds a lot like being an American, doesn't it?
Once again I have to agree with Nomad. The majority of people have other concerns to be worried about then protesting USFK. I would admit that probably a majority of Koreans dislike current US policies such as our current policies with North Korea and Iraq. But those opinions are influenced by the bias media here making out Bush to be a war monger when many Koreans do not want war with North Korea or anyone else.
What I have experienced talking to Koreans is that they are not anti-American but are in fact eager to be respected by the US. Ask Koreans about Clinton and they love him but they do not like Bush. Bush to Koreans is disrespectful where Clinton was really smooth and had a good image with the Korean public.
I have never had a problem with Koreans as long as you are polite and treat them with respect much like any other nationality. I live in the Northern Kyongi-do area which is staunchly pro-American which may to a degree shape my opinions but really the only time I have experienced anti-Americanism was in dealing with college aged students in Seoul. I have travelled all over this country and everyone has been extremely polite and not what I would call anti-American. Not once have I experienced rudeness towards me for being an American outside of Seoul.
Within the 10 years the US will pull out most of our forces out of here anyway and all of this will be irrelevant.
Speaking if anti-Americans in the US…
You know, I sometimes wonder if some these hanchongryun-type guys are really reflective of those American anti-Americans and so in some strange way 'worship' America or at least a segment of it. I think I read an interview with a hanchongryun type guy before and some of his rhetoric about the US and things related to the US seemed very similar to the things I read from the American anti-Americans. Seems that they are imitating and importing the anti-Americanism from America itself. Reading the Chomskys and Zinns, etc.
I'm still sighing.
Yes. The average South Korean is not going out to protest. They are not dedicated activists.
That doesn't mean they don't share most of the same ideas as the protesters. They do differ on what they think about North Korea – with the students being virtually blind on the issue. But, if you listen to Koreans talk about Kwangju, Cheju, "US pressure", the IMF, and even their ideas about what the average US soldier is probably like, you will find them agreeing with the basic anti-USFK/US thoughts.
The fact that individual soldiers can make good Korean friends does not damage my points at all.
This is not like racism in American society.
And you can't say this is just against the US government or Bush.
I was in Korea starting in the mid-1990s, and I've researched the topic much further back, but especially from my own first hand experience, the culture of anti-US/US military has been going on for a long time.
And I finally figured out after dealing with this topic for so long, you can't blame the Korean media for the situation either.
Today, the Korean media is free. They are saying what the Koreans want to hear. The same thing in higher education and now even in high school and some elementary schools.
On my blog, I just wrote about this one incident again —
back in 2002, after a TV news report on the firebombing of the guard shack at a small US base in Seoul, the female anchor said something like "That's a shame to see" and she was fired the next day and gave a public apology, because thousands of Koreans called in angry about her "un-Korean" attitude.
The average Korean doesn't protest, but they share the same thoughts.
The average Korean also wants the protesters out keeping the public aware of what they both "know to be true."
The average Korean is simply more practical. They have more pressing concerns in their daily lives, and above all, deep down they believe it isn't safe (yet) to tell the US to leave Korea alone (and USFK get out).
I did not come to these conclusions from a limited amount of exposure to Korea. I taught adults, often taught only adults, for years in Korea.
I can't ignore what I heard them say month after month for years.
And I liked and got along well with all my students. There were perhaps only 4 in all those years I got to dislike much, and it had nothing to do with their view of America.
The students were very nice to me. I also found that outside of Seoul, I got special treatment of a good kind for being a white foreigner in restaurants and shops — and everybody assumed I was American. (That might be a little different today with the amount of Canadian ESL instructors)…
Again, this is not racism like we are familiar with in American society.
But it is widespread and common. Looking at just the protesters is misleading….
Quick question from stateside: What happens with the dependents/families on Yongsan when demonstrations get violent, and large numbers of protesters storm the gates, etc…? Is there danger to the kids in the DOD school? As I recall, it is close to the main gate.
So let me get this straight. If average Koreans aren't going out there to protest against Americans, its their thoughts that are the problems here? Who the fuck cares what the average Koreans think, as long as they're not hurting or killing Americans? Not that I'm saying you know how the average Koreans think as much as the next guy who knows how average Americans think.
The DODDS schools are not to far from the South Post gate but not close enough to be in any danger but they don't have protests there anyway. Violent protests at Yongsan is very rare now a days and is directed at beating the local policeman and not the soldiers.
How many times do protests in the street injure US soldiers in Korea? Are injuries to soldiers the only real concern? That seems rather odd to me.
If South Korea were France, the level of anti-US and US military cultivation there would not bother me. In fact, I couldn't give a rat's ass about anti-Americanism in France. Why? Because we don't have 35,000 soldiers sitting near the most heavily defended DMZ in the world facing the most dangerous, nutty regime in the world in France.
If the US were not accepting huge risks by keeping troops squared off against North Korea, I wouldn't care what South Koreans think about us. But, I find the fact South Korean society has institutionalized anti-US thinking intolerable. Why risk so much in South Korea when they love to hate us?
Another point. We would not see such large spikes in demonstrated hate like we did in 2002 and 2000 if a continual process of cultivating anti-USFK and US thinking was not taking place. You would not see anti-US protests swell into the tens of thousands if there were not a wellspring of such thought ready to be tapped.
The 2000 spike is more instructive than the 2002, because in 2000 the supposed main cause was a very minor illegal environmental dumping. The real cause was the euphoric feeling much of South Korea had over the historic SK-NK summit —- with most of South Korea feeling so good about the potential for unforeseen peace, it was a ripe time to unload pent up anger at USFK/US.
I don't see how this is acceptable. Again — South Korea isn't France. We have a whole lot at stake inside South Korea. But, the anti-US process doesn't really mean anything because soldiers aren't being attacked in the streets???
And you can dismiss my opinion as just as valuable as anybody else who offers one, but I don't have any doubt I'm right. I lived in Korea too many years and spend much of my time with only Koreans — both at work and at play, I taught Korean adults too many years to believe anti-US thought is limited to the street protesters and the NGOs.
I still don't think "hate" is the proper terminology for the South Korean publics thinking. Possibly disagreeing with current US policies is a better term. The majority of Koreans are against the war in Iraq, concerned that Bush is trying to provoke a war with the Norks, think that the US is cozying up to Japan to much, and I still haven't met a Korean that likes Bush. I met a whole lot more pro-Bush Iraqis than I have Koreans.
So I think these a valid points of disagreement and not hate in the general public. I don't even think the majority of Hanchongryun types hate America. They just go and protest for something to do.
I totally agree with usinkorea. Our presence in this country is seen as a "necessary evil" to most Koreans. I have no doubt that if they were strong enough (economically, militarily and geopolitically) they'd tell us big-nosed Yankees to pack our bags and get the hell out of here in a heartbeat.
I arrived in Korea in the mid-1990s, and the feeling was just as common and just as strong. What I don't like about the US media coverage of anti-US attitudes in Korea is that with each new spike in demonstrated anger that reaches high enough for them to notice it, they point to the latest event as the root cause for "rising" anti-Americanism. Sometimes the Korean press says the same thing. It's Iraq. It's Bush. It's the 2002 tank accident. It's the 2000 summit. It's the 1997 IMF crisis. It's the 1994 subway incident. It's the 1991 or 92 Markle murder case. It's the 1988 Olympics. It's the Kwangju Massacre.
It's a process. It is a process of keeping a well of discord alive in the general public through recurrent prepping of the masses through things like university education (and now in lower education too) and in the media and elements of pop culture. And when a new event pops up, Korean society as a whole guages the current environment, and if they think the time is right, they explode. —- and tens of thousands of regular Koreans will feel the desire to join the ever-present radicals in the street.
The 2000 water dumping case is the best example I know of, because it was such a minor offense, in Korea's industrial cities, a tiny offense, but because even many conservative Koreans were suddenly thinking maybe peace was at hand after seeing the historic SK-NK summit start to come about, a large portion of the Korean people decided to go ape shit over that offense. — and as always, called back to memory the long list of offenses in the past.
I can't speak with firsthand knowledge about the past before 1995, but I know the same general understanding of the US-SK relationship you find today was present back then. When the topic came up, as it did about once a month, concerning whether USFK had a right to be in Korea or the US to "pressure" SK, (and again few of these adults were university students), perhaps on the generous side, I'd say 10% to 15% would say yes.
At about the 4 month mark of hearing the same thing regularly from new students, when they asked my opinion at the end of one class, I said that my mind had changed, and that I believed in democracy, and that since I had come to see how much Koreans want USFK to leave, I think they should be pulled out. —- and I said this in my understanding, multi-cultural, teacher voice.
But, the room suddenly got noisy as perhaps half of the 20 students started talking at once saying, "No. No. Not now."
I sat down confused, and I pointed to two of the students who had been with me all 4 months — two who had always said the US needs to leave because it is bad for South Korean society — and I asked them why they were now changing their minds after just having voted "go" again.
The class explained to me, "It's too dangerous now. Once we unify, then they have to go."
In the rest of my years teaching in Korea, I have never found the general attitude to have shifted significantly from that understanding. It is tempting to say the situation has gotten worse since the 2000 summit or the 2002 tank accident, but in the 1994 subway case, there were reports of car or truck loads of young adults riding around Yongsan with loudspeakers daring soldiers to come out and try to beat them up like they did the noble Korean on the subway who was trying to protect the honor of a Korean female (from her GI husband). And I've heard from a couple of former soldiers and others that the 1988 Olympics and other protests in the late 1980s were much worse than today and included a good bit of anti-US reasons for them.
Also, there was a down turn in the amount of violence in the mid to late 1990s that had little to do with US/USFK attitudes. A building was burned up at Yonsei University when the police retook it from students, and the student leaders had beaten to death a car mechanic they grabbed out of the sit in demonstrations who they thought might be a police spy and they interrogated him to death.
That event was big in Korea, and the opinion of my adult students on the radical students dropped a ton overnight. Before, they thought of them as fighting the good fight, but just a little carried away given how much South Korea had progressed since they had protested in the late 70s or in the 80s. After the murder of the mechanic, they looked on the whole student group as criminal. And both the public and the government wanted a end to the annual spring time violent riots. It really didn't pick back up until 2000. And today's violence isn't as big as it was in the mid-1990s and from what I've heard, that was nothing compared to the late 1980s.
But, in reading for research on the topic, you get similar stories about the mid and early 1970s and even the late 1960s. It's hard to differenciate the diffences from the periods, but before the 1990s, much of the anti-US feeling was promoted as part of the anti-authoritarian government movement. But, then again, Pres. Park Chung Hee could use his power over the media to stoke anti-US feelings occasionally when he wanted to put pressure on the US in an effort to lower the amount of pressure the US was putting on his regime. He didn't do this often and promoted more pro-Americanism than negative, but he did use Korean pride at times to threaten the US position in Korea.
There have been peaks and valley's over the long term, but George Bush winning the White House is not a fundamental element in the process. It might be the focul point for today, but I know from firsthand experience, the general feeling was just as strong in 1995 on up.
Like I said before my opinion of Koreans is influenced by living in a strongly pro-American area of the country just like your opinion was influenced by the college students you taught. But people thinking USFK should withdraw its forces from Korea I do not take as being anti-American. I actually take that as being realistic because we don't need all these soldiers here and we are slowly downsizing anyway.
But just some food for thought is that I had a Korean tell me once how if I lived in New York how I would feel if the French Army occupied Central Park. You would probably get tired of seeing them after a while because it is a symbol to you every day of your own country's weakness that it cannot independently defend itself.
So some Koreans indirectly take out their own sense of inferiority out on USFK. He was convinced that if USFK withdrew a big chunk of the forces here, US-ROK relations would improve incredibly because nothing between the DPRK and the ROK would change and you can't blame the US any more for those problems. Plus the economy would tank and they can't blame the US or the IMF for that either.
So the bottom line is that we are slowly withdrawing forces here which will make anti-Americanism in Korea irrelevant in the near future.
USinKorea,
He speaks the truth, laying out the reality very convincingly. But, the underlying assumptions derived from recognition of what he says, it not welcomed by Americans proud of their multicultural ethos.
The idea that non-Western societies can be collectively deranged and sick doesn't fit socialist theory that runs deep in America.
How can we celebrate diversity acknowledging non-Western cultures could harbor a willful irrational undercurrent of hate?
Best explain the rage as simple cause and effect of recent events … or best yet scapegoat the white male — not the noble savage: ignore the facts to preserve the fantasy of progressivism.
USinKorea … they won't handle the truth.
One big correction — I was not teaching university students. I taught adults ranging in ages 20-60, and I'd say 70-80% of them were not university students. I occasionally had a class that was primarily univ. aged in the school breaks, but month to month, my students were people in business or factory work — I also taught some large coporate classes.
That is one of the reasons why I am so convinced I'm right. I rarely stick my neck out to claim I am absolutely right. I hedge my bets and I know there is always room for interpretation, but with this topic, I have seen and researched enough to be pig headed about it.
But, I like exchanging the "food for thought" because it isn't good to get complacent, and its an interesting topic to me.
How about this….Maybe part of the difference in experience we've had has to do with the primary location of the work we did. What I mean is, around US bases, there are cottage industries beyond the entertainment establishments that owe their bread and butter to GI customers. So, from time to time, in a place like Pyontaek, you see businessmen and veterans organize anti-protest protests to square off against anti-US base protesters.
But, I didn't work that close to any US bases. I worked in about 4 different towns and cities, and my schools and apartments were nowhere near US bases or businesses that cater to soldiers.
Perhaps that is why you found more pro-USFK Koreans than I did.
You're mention of northern Kyongi province made me think of one of the nastier runs in I had. It was in 2002, and I was up in Paju doing some research on traditional confucian schools, and I was visiting one — which was a tourist attraction advertised on the web and in the city guides, and I had spent the morning in the Paju city hall maping out a plan to visit other related sites in the area — but the early 30 something year old caretaker decided to take whatever frustration he had out on me and spent a good 5 minutes screaming at me for no reason. It was bizarre. It was also the only time I came close to losing control of my own temper. But when I said in broken Korean a department head at city hall had told me to stop by the place, the man's wife came and took him away.
I don't offer that as an example of what normally happens in Korea. Like I said, it was bizarre, and I had been in Korea off and on for almost 10 years at that point.
Anyway, I believe what you wrote about the French army thing and feeling inferior is a factor, but understanding the root causes does not do much to dim my concern for the overall situation — the US putting much at risk by staying in Korea to face the North while South Korean society has continually created a long list of grievances they use to promote dislike for the very government and military that is prepared to fight and die for them.
Also, having been there teaching adults during the IMF period, which was one of the few times in Korea I was exasperated and dumbfounded by a negative anti-US spike, I believe it is a safe bet Korean society would blame the US for their economy tanking as USFK pulled out. I couldn't believe how quickly the Koreans blamed the US (via the IMF) for the economic collapse and how widespread the feeling was immediately — when these adult students had been talking about how bad their economy was getting all the time for over a year.
I think there is some of that too. I agree.
I agree, because that was who I was a good bit of the time in Korea. I was an English lit. major and had been in graduate school in that field before I switched course.
Let me put it this way, in I think the Joongang Daily, one of their columnists wrote an editorial saying Korea was a land of liars.
I still have a hard time not millie-mouthing the topic —
–even though that was one of the frequent things my own Korean adult students would tell me.
Every topic we discussed, divorce, drugs, movies, patrioticism, whatever, I always made it a point to tie the topic into both Korean society and American society. Sometimes, I'd have to do it be falling back on a general questions like, "What are some positive and negative things about Korean society?"
Not too infrequently, the adult students would say, "Koreans lie too much."
And I'd do my best to whittle down and blunt the edges of the statement. I'd say maybe they meant in the Confucian society, they tried to save face or didn't want to be rude to elders or something like that. I'd dig deep into my multi-cultural education upbringing to find a way around what the students were telling me.
What they meant was — Koreans lie to much.
Because they would give me examples, their own personal examples, of how they had loaned a co-worker a couple thousand dollars, and he had run away. Or they had been cheated by a old school friend or "circle" member in a deal when they thought the person was trustworthy, or they had lost a lot of money on a broken contract with a landlord or so on.
My first thought when hearing these stories was, gee wilikers, Koreans are very trusting, because in the US, there is no way in hell somebody would loan a couple thousand dollars to a coworker or even a not too distant relative.
I still don't consider Koreans "liars" even after I got butt reamed a number of times by hakwon owners. Maybe "shady" in doing business might be a better phrase.
But there I go again……why do I feel the need to argue against what the Koreans are saying about themselves???
USAinKorea,
You are getting to be likeable: a man without guile.
A fundamental religious assumption of Multi-Culturalism and Progressivism is the innate goodness of mankind: the Noble Savage theory. If this ideological foundation remains unchallenged — the non-solution of socialism seems plausible: Eg. wiping out poverty in Africa by throwing money at it. Or, the false notion South Korea just needs a little more time and education to mature as a society.
Fundamentalists like GI, Marmot and others unconsciously resist the notion of Korean society as collectively "evil". Why? Because true-believers in the religion of Progressivism have no answers to the concrete reality of evil — other than the panacea of socialism ( stamp out poverty by redistribution of resources); and, furthermore, GI understands an anti-multicultural attitude is career suicide in the social-engineering project called the "New Army". They are frightened of the communist cadre that has infiltrated USFK reporting "incorrect attitudes" to their superiors.
These fundamentalists, therefore, instinctively reach for cause and effect explanations to explain away the underlying evil and dysfunction that prevails in both North and South Korean society.
It's a denial response of frightened fundamentalists who refuse to question their beloved religion. It's like reasoning with a drunk. You will waste your breath. But — not all readers are glassy-eyed cult followers such as the GI and Marmot. Your message is reaching some of us.
I don't know how you figure Koreans as a society are evil? I could agree that Koreans as a society have an inferiority complex but evil? Come on. I did a tour in Iraq and there were people there trying to kill me but I wouldn't classify Iraqis as an evil society, more like misguided and with a bigger inferiority complex than Koreans.
Also I do not agree with redistribution of wealth. The Live 8 concert was a joke. You could give a bunco of money to Africa and it won't change anything. It will just increase corruption and put more money in the hands of dictators and warlords to fund more fighting.
Also Korea does not need time and education to mature as a society. What Korea needs is to provide their own defense. Once this happens a lot of issues USFK gets blamed for like keeping the country divided could not be blamed on USFK after we leave and nothing changes. I can guarantee you that nothing would change with USFK gone.
So you are definitely making some false generalizations and I just want to set the record straight.
GI,
In Korean society you'll generally find nihilism, pragmatism, materialism, mimicry, narcissism, deception, pretense, opportunism, parasitism, haughty conceit and decadence all in abundance. You will find no honor in Korea.
The above are social effects of a society undergirded by shamanism. A parallel society is Haiti. Haiti is a physical and spiritual pest-hole rightly called an "evil" society regardless of the many nice folks over there.
GI, you resist the premise of evil infecting the very fabric of a society — because you don't believe in evil.
Silly Sally is more carried away than I would go on many of these points.
From what has been written so far, I would probably agree a good bit of the way on the more "academic" points about the nature of society in general, the state of man, the state of higher education in Western society and beyond, but I would still not be as far to an extreme.
When we get down to more specific things like GI Korea or GI Korea's type, we part company more. I can see somethings like the multi-cultural need to extend and rationalize as a trend, but not a debilitating illness like the plague.
I also don't agree with a thought like South Korean society is the same as Haiti.
I might conclude the US-SK geopolitical security relationship is fundamentally flawed and unfixable given the dynamics of South Korean society, but I would never call that society "evil" regardless of what I see as its fundamnetal anti-US nature. I don't see South Korean society as any more evil than most others in the world.
Which is about where I am philosophically — I believe individual man is good but society is inherently evil and must be continually watched over, questioned, and refined to keep from degenerating.
And I would agree one the main foundations of much global anti-American thought is an unstated, implied idea that the most of the rest of the world is inherently good….
This was very much in evidence from the 1930s to the collapse of communism in the 1980s, but it has gotten more covert since the reality of Stalin and even other "people's revolutions" in places like Central and South America have lost the luster influencial people in higher education and pop culture tried to fix on them.
As for me not having guile, I figure I probably come off sometimes on the net as a little combative and too critical, but I am just as critical of myself and my own opinions. I rake over my own thoughts periodically all the time and too often kick myself for misguided thought.
That is one reason why if you (the generic you) knew me better, you would know that I don't often come out and say "I know without a doubt I am right about subject X" like I did this week on the subject of anti-US culture in South Korea.
And lastly, if we were sitting around a table talking about all this stuff, the way I say things, people wouldn't consider the kind of language I use combative or too highly critical as they might sometimes come off in print on the net.
Simply put, we should pull out on our own timetable, not when its convenient for the ROK.
I liken our current government's attitude toward defending the ROK to a patient husband who good-naturedly continues working and providing for his family despite being hen-pecked by a selfish and emasculating wife.
USinKorea,
Your writing doesn't come across as combative: you write clear and concise with an outlook that "slightly" deviates from the progressive outlook. That is where the mild resistance comes from.
Furthermore, your ability to question your own opinions indicates a lack of treacherous cunning only interested in preserving self-pride. A trait deserving the attribute: guiless.
Let me point out an inconsistancey, however, in your presuppositions. You say the collective is inherently prone towards an evil oppressiveness against the individual — yet, the individual is inherently good. I would like to point out to you that the collective is merely a sum of individuals: if each individual is inherently good — then the collective should also be prone to express this innate goodness. But, it doesn't — and if you look behind the pretensions, you will see the intrinsic narcissism that pervades the human heart.
About the undertow of evil in Korean society: shamanism vitiates noble idealism that mitigates human narcissism, and reduces society to a cult of self-interested pragmatism with this guiding ethos: the survival and gratification of the in-group above all other principles.
The above ethos is that of the La Cosa Nostra — the Mafia. Any society exclusively guided by this principle is inherently evil — a sum of individual gangsters idealized as the Korean Minjok. Korea is a global parasite interested only in itself at the expense of others — not a good citizen of the world. You will find this pattern operates pandemically in individuals throughout the society of Korea.
GI looks at the giant tape worm and declares: "Yes, but the tape worm allows us to eat all we want — and stay thin!" GI is a "positive person". I bet he likes to tell others he is a "people person".
Something womanish about GI — probably a logistic or support soldier — maybe, a flute player in the Army band.
Like many things Silly Sally is wrong yet again. I'm actually a combat arms soldier trained on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and I have no musical talent what so ever so that kills any chance at the Army Band that you may think I have.
On the philosophical or pseudo-philosophical tendancies I have, as I said, I see the individual as inherently good while society is inherently evil.
I have made a semi-joke about it this way. "The Fall didn't happen because Eve was a woman. The same thing would happened if she'd ben an Evan."
If Cain had been the only one around and just tended his own garden, he'd never have gotten jealous enough to kill the other person – his brother Abel.
An individual might have built into the psyche core factors that lead to the evil found in greater society, but left to his own devices, I believe an individual would be basically good.
But, no man is an island, lone and whole unto himself. Everyman is a part of the whole. And there the problem begins, in my way of thinking.
On Korean society specifically, whatever the root socio-developmental causes of certain evils in Korean society today, in my opinion, they do not dominate South Korean society to the point that I would label South Korean society as a whole — the net sum — a "global parasite".
I'm not against creating those kinds of labels. I just do not view, as I said, Korean society as on the same level as Haiti, and I wouldn't put them in the level of negative category I would put many of the Muslim societies in the Middle East where currents of thought are in full support of such things as the bombings we saw today in London.
I would also caution against letting "academic think" get the best of you, Sally.
In intellectual and psuedo-intellectual discourse, the tendancies is to create great overarching theories to explain the whole of history or the whole of a society and such.
But, I believe the reality of human society (and even individual man) does not allow for neat packages of logical arguments.
These theories help us understand what we encounter in the real world, but it seems to me when we start getting into digging into the specifics of individual cases or events or aspect X, the theory starts to fray.
I even extend this type of thought to basics in my own pseudo-intellectual way. Such as the reality of mathmatics —- down to simple counting — or the creation of single words. Like "tree".
The word "tree" helps us greatly in dealing with the objective reality of those things we call trees. And numbers help us count them.
But, no two trees are exactly the same. Not even the two of the same species growing side by side in the same. When we go from 1 to 2, we have already accepted that we are destorying the objective reality of the siuation. We are not counting two idential trees in composition, space, or time. There are no two identical anythings whatsoever. There never was nor will be two of anything. So what should we do? Throw out all language and mathmatics?
No. They help us not only understand the world but manipulate it to our advantage.
The same is much less true, even if there is value in some/many of them, when it comes to social theories.
So, while I might find some value in following along with a discussion of shamanism and idealism and eventually to self-survival and mafia instinct —— when I step back an assess the whole of Korean society from my personal experience as well as what I've learned about it and what I've learned about social theories — I do not reach a conclusion that it is an evil nation compared to most others.
I am not arguing for social equivalancy. I am not saying all or most societies are morally equivalent.
I am saying that I don't find South Korea to be among the worst in the world today.
First, to GI. I stand corrected: but, I thought they don't allow women in combat positions. How did you pull that hat trick?
USinKorea,
I quote you: "I even extend this type of thought to basics in my own pseudo-intellectual way. Such as the reality of mathmatics —- down to simple counting — or the creation of single words. Like "tree".
Yes, your style gridlocks your ability to make a generalized statement about anything complex (very convenient way to hide from reality): you apparently must count every raindrop before you feel confident to declare — it's raining.
When I see the predominance of raindrops — I take a bold and reckless leap and say the obvious — it's raining cats and dogs.
About Korea: Did you know evil comes in mediocre and even positive appearing forms? A sweet charming face can hide a heart of murder, and many sweet old grandmothers — if empowered — would make Hitler look like Mother Teresa. You must look behind the appearances to the quality of the human heart. You really must get more sophisticated in your world outlook.
You say the individual considered in isolation is innately good. Why make this statement when even you admit the point is irrelevant: man is a group-based primate — he is a social creature whose quality of morality must be part of the equation when considering human nature.
Every animal is wired with a survival instinct: this instinct when extended into human consciousness expresses itself as a desperate desire to justify itself as "the" object of primary value — what is called self-esteem or negatively — selfishness: this being the source of ambition, the craving for status, the motive behind Korean nationalism and anti-USFK sentiment, and the underlying true motive behind the supposed struggle for limited resources — creating the clashes of civilizations.
The natural ethos of the individual: self-advancement at the expense of others: some of us hide this ethos with extreme subtlety appearing like saints on the outside.
Western Christianity mitigates this necessary — but irrational — selfish instinct through idealism: promoting an otherworldly identification and loyalty to a God-ideal — thus, creating a morality motivated by love. This underlying orientation still haunts Western civilization — despite its gradual fading.
Asian cultures rely on a shamanistic manipulation of invisble powers to provide for their needs and desires: the Asian standard for life is the survival and gratification of the human will above all other values. Even Buddhism is an attempt to spiritually "empower" oneself to obtain the exclusive satisfaction of the human will. There is no "THY WILL BE DONE" in the Asian religions. A transcendent God-ideal is not submitted to, but manipulated as a divine force, in the same manner as South Korea opportunistically manipulates USFK and the US government.
The individual, without personal submission to an abstract God ideal — is a rogue regime — a failed state — a sinner in Protestant terms.
But, since you personally can't see the exquisite and subtle narcissism within yourself — you just don't get it.
Therefore, South Korea doesn't seem so bad — because you don't seem so bad in your own eyes.
You can admit to that, can't you?
"Did you know evil comes in mediocre and even positive appearing forms?"
Just as my belief in the goodness of an individual is pointless since man is a communal animal, so is peering into the heart of the individual or the individual society — when what counts — what seperates the average grandmother from Hitler — are the scope of their actions?
Which is in the neighborhood of why I would not say South Korean society is on par with Haiti or some of the Muslim states of today.
On the idea of the mitigation of evil by Western Christian ethos you mentioned reminds me of one of the things I find somewhat annoying in Western acadmia's look at Confucianism. Without a doubt, neo-Confucianism has some nice thoughts, and I'd point to them in response to your notes on shamanism as a foundation for Korea's social aspects, but I keep wondering why Western higher education doesn't seem inclined to point out the negative aspects of how neo-Confucianism was used at different times in far eastern social history —— why they don't look for the negatives as they do with events in Christianity in western medieval history?
"Even Buddhism is an attempt to spiritually "empower" oneself to obtain the exclusive satisfaction of the human will."
I thought the general idea in Buddhism was the negation of the human will as well as objective and subjective reality?
As for my narcissism in myself, I have no problem admitting it, but I would tend to push the coversation toward the idea of degree.
Whatever the collective reasons, I don't see South Korean society as seeming so bad — not as bad as other nations I would point out – like Haiti or Pakistan or North Korea…
USinKorea,
Yes, I understand the scope and degree of harmful actions is your criteria for evaluating evil.
If you consider the above perspective it illuminates your own deeply ingrained narcissism: implied is that your judgement depends on how it affects YOU or your COUNTRYMEN, not how stealth-evil affects people beyond your kin and concern.
For example, a sweet little old Korean ajima may be a completely amoral creature, but since she has no power to nuke an American city — you see a low degree of evil.
But, you could care less how she is abusively smothering and emotionally incesting her first born son, out of resentment and frustration from the emotional abandonement of her Korean husband who frequents the brothels.
You could care less the Korean son absorbs his mother's ethic of amoral opportunism re-inforced throughout Korean society on a pandemic scale. You see no evil in the resulting mutual abuse, fraud, and exploitation rotting the core of Korean society.
It ain't evil according to you, because you don't see it, and doesn't affect you — directly (Korean evil, however, does have its butterfly-effect on the world). This tolerance of yours is an example of your own intrinsic evil — indifference.
Western Christianity, however, reveals there is an impartial judge that sees the totality of evil — and does make judgement because of its ultimate offensiveness.
Your blinkered evaluation of what is evil or not — is essentially irrelevant because it is skewed by your own self-interested need to "not see". Eg. you must "count" every ajima with extensive anthropological studies before making a positive judgement. May I respectfully call you –a weenie.
Now, Buddhism negates human "desire" as an attempt to provide a higher value desired by the human will — peace through stillness and resignation. This attempt to eliminate suffering, however, is still a subtle willfulness unsubmitted to a transcendent God-ideal. The result is an ersatz compassion based on human narcissism. The Buddhist is just as willful as the a Mafia gangster — just more subtle.
Neo-Confucianism will never be critiqued by academics because the post-modern project is exclusively dedicated to the eradication of human submission to a transcendent god-ideal. Western Christianity is the great obstacle to reconstructing a global religion to usher in global governance.
You will find Confucianism lionized in the future for its ethos of communitarianism which exalts the community over the individual — a necessary foundation for global socialism.
This is the religion GI is willing to fight for — apparently you too. Am I off base?