By Unification Minister Chung Dong-young is at it yet again. Chung who is South Korea’s official Kim Jong Il butt kisser and bribe giver to ensure unification doesn’t happen some how feels his position gives him the authority to open his big mouth and bash the US whenever he feels like it. Here is his latest rant:
“A hundred years ago, the Philippines became a U.S. colony and the Korean Peninsula a Japanese one owing to the Taft-Katsura Agreement†of 1905, Chung said. “The division of the nation and Korean War were not our will either,” nor was the failure of the Gwangju Uprising. A century later, Chung promised “a hot summer in which our fate will be decided not by North Korea, China, the United States, Japan or Russia, but by our own pride and self-determination.”
This guy blames the US for the Japanese colonization of Korea, the Korean War, and the Gwangju Uprising. He might as well blame America for Dokto while he is at it too.
First of all, how is the US to blame for the Japanese occupation? Is it not Korea’s responsibility to defend their own country from the Japanese? It is not America’s fault that Korean society was so fractured between the Yangban and peasant classes and that the royal leadership was so ineffective. This all contributed to Korea’s isolationist policies that prevented the country from modernizing and having effective control of the country. This allowed Korea to become easy prey for outside powers like the Japanese. Chung must of forgot it was America that freed this country in 1945 from the Japanese. Korea didn’t do that.
Secondly, how is the Korean War anyone elses fault when Kim Il Sung is the one who pleaded with Stalin to allow him to go to war. The war actually would of started sooner if Stalin didn’t keep delaying Kim to make sure that America would not respond. Last I checked Kim Il Sung was Korean and it was a Korean civil war thus making it a Korean caused problem. It took 32,000+ American lives to correct this problem. Chung forgets that too.
Finally, the Gwangju Uprising has nothing to do with the US. This was a Korean internal dispute but some people like to bash the US for the harsh crackdown because the US military did nothing to stop it. I would not feel comfortable as a soldier being put into a situation like Gwangju where you have no idea what is going on and may have to engage ROK soldiers. In a situation like that the US military would probably do more harm than good. But once again you had Koreans shooting Koreans, how is that America’s fault?
Chung is trying to play to Korean nationalism by continuously blaming foreign countries for all of Korea’s problem and taking credit for things that he feels Korea accomplished independently when in fact America is partly responsible for the success of this country. Here is the reason he is playing to Korean nationalism:
Chung also asked the Uri Party to double inter-Korean cooperation funds, which currently stand at W500 billion (US$487 million) a year.
That is a lot more money he can give to Kim Jong Il. I wonder how much of that Chung gets to keep?
Anyway I hope someone at the US Embassy calls out Chung publicly on his statements. I get tired of the US government sitting back and taking this crap, which is sadly what we will probably do yet again. I wish someone would get this guy to shut his mouth for once.
Check out The Marmot for some more great commentary on this as well.
4:17 pm on January 8th, 2007 1
Aw shucks, cut the guy some slack. He was probably wasted on the Soju he had with his sam-gyup-sal at lunch. He simply became overwhelmed with emotion and said something stupid; this administration does it all the time and we should be used to it by now.
What bothers me is that if these negotiations prove to be successful, Roh and his communist lefties could actually become stronger.
Reply
4:17 pm on January 8th, 2007 2
Say hello to the next prez of Korea. Chung just speaks for the average soju swilling wife beating “dong hee” on the street. Yep all of koean history is bad nations picking on her and those yankees are the worst. in fact says chung, and many many many of his type (aka every korean/kyopo alive) those Yankess are still here raping women and robbing stealing and being unfair. He is gearing up to use populist anti-american rhetoric to excite his voters.
get ready for a replay of the 2002 hate fest. and i cant wait for some more dummy GI and engrish teachers to get fucked.
maybe just maybe you dipshits will open your eyes about Korea, and realize that koreans/kyopos hate you. Chung is just an average politician running on the I hate yankee ticket. He will win.
Reply
4:19 pm on January 8th, 2007 3
From the point of view of a fellow who was in the service in the late 70s and early 80s, let me say that in regard to the Gwangju Uprising that the US was still reeling from the failure of our efforts in the Viet Nam war. The last thing that the US government and the people of the US wanted was another major commitment/conflict in an Asian country. It is historical revisionism of the worst type to paint the Gwangju Uprising as a US goal or a result of a lack of action.
Reply
4:19 pm on January 8th, 2007 4
Actually, the U.S. IS 100% to blame for allowing the Japanese annexation and occupation of Korea from 1905-1945, and the subsequent division between North and South from 1945 to the present.
Uni-minister Chung’s pinpointing of the 1905 Taft-Katsura agreement is historically correct and right on. Had it not been for President Theodore Roosevelt pushing that agreement through, vis-a-vis his Secretary of War, William Howard Taft and Taft’s Japanese counterpart Minister Katsura, Korea would’ve never been annexed and occupied by the Japanese, would’ve never been divided, and would’ve never had to fight a civil war over it.
The Treaty of Portsmouth negotiations that Teddy Roosevelt negotiated between Russia and Japan that ultimately concluded the Russo-Japanese war while preserving U.S. colonial interests in Asia (the Phillipines), paved the way for the Taft-Katsura agreement that gave Korea to Japan in exchange for Japan agreeing to stay out of the Philippines.
Can you imagine this type of international larceny happening in this day and age? On the basis of that U.S.-brokered deal, Japan had the legal and explicit right to annex Korea beginning in 1905, which paved the way for Korea’s occupation and colonialization beginning in 1910. So of course, the U.S. is responsible for this. Who else?
How was the U.S. responsible for the actual division of Korea at the 38th Parallel though? Well, that happened in July of 1945 at the Potsdam Conference between Stalin, Truman and Churchill. In the wake of V-E Day, Truman was looking for an expedient way to end the Pacific War. While the U.S. was still preparing for an all-out invasion of the Japanese mainland, Truman was trying to get the Soviets on the American side of the war.
However, Stalin balked at the idea of committing troops to the Pacific War, mainly b/c Russia had already sustained untold losses in the European war.
So Truman came up with an ever-so brilliant plan wherein everything north of the 38th Parallel in Japanese-occupied Korea would be given to the Soviets in exchange for Russia’s participation in the Invasion of Japan.
On that, the Potsdam Agreement was signed, with the northern part of Korea already ceded to the Soviets by July of 1945.
Then, of course, Oppenheimer and company came out with the bomb and the events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki precluded any such invasion, as well as participation of the Soviets in the PTO.
However, the agreement stood and Stalin ordered his troops to occupy northern Korea down to the 38th starting beginning on August 8, 1945, which was, of course, the beginning of the whole mess that led up to the Korean War and today’s situation.
So, now, can we really say that the U.S. had nothing to do with Korea’s annexation, occupation, division, annihilation and current situation?
Only a fool would say that.
Reply
4:21 pm on January 8th, 2007 5
Many of us know the history lesson, but what I’m saying is that it was Korea responsibility to defend itself and it did not against the Japanese. In fact there had to have been many collaborators with the Japanese in order to pull off the occupation of Korea. How is that the US’s fault? Chung just focuses on the Taft-Katsura agreement as the reason for the occupation, while denying any Korean responsibility. Sure the US had a role to play with the agreement but that agreement would never had happened if Korea was willing to fight for their independence from the start.
The division of the peninsula is a by product of freeing Korea from the Japanese. The US wasn’t about to fight Russia over Korea. Nobody knew anything about Korea or cared and were not about to fight a war with Russia over it. Notice I didn’t mention this in my post because outside countries were responsible for the division of the country.
However, the Korean War was started by the Koreans themselves. Kim Il Sung is the one that attacked South Korea no one else did.
Also no where in my post did I say the US has nothing to do with Korea’s annexation, occupation, division, annihilation, and current situation. I just say that the US or other countries are not solely to blame for it. I also state that the US is only partly responsible for their current situation because Koreans themselves rebuilt this country with a lot of hard work but the US provided the security guarantee and trade backing to allow them to recover. Chung never credits the US with all the good that it has done here and dumps all the negative history of this country on the US while denying any Korean responsibility in its own history.
The only fool I see around here is Chung.
Reply
4:22 pm on January 8th, 2007 6
It probably won’t penetrate through your remarkable arrogance, Mr. Kim, but your very well-written posting above deserves a refutation, if only for any others here who might be interested.
Actually, Mr. Kim, the Taft-Katsura agreement (July 1905) preceded the Treaty of Portsmouth (September 1905). So the treaty did not “pave the way” for the agreement, as you incorrectly stated, but rather the other way around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Katsura_agreement, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Portsmouth
Considering that (in the summer and fall of 1905):
1) Japanese and Russian armies had just been rampaging up and down the length of the Korean peninsula, fighting massive land and sea battles with each other in the Russo-Japanese war; and
2) that the US Army was maybe the 20th in size in the world overall (not to mention that it was mostly still dispersed in small garrisons in the US Western states); and
3) that the US public of the time (1905) was committed to a firm policy of “no involvement in foreign wars” –
just exactly what do you think the US should have done in 1905? Sent the US Pacific fleet into battle with Japan and Russia, in order to free Korea?
If that’s your solution, so sorry, the US was a very different country back then. The chance of the US intervening in Korean affairs at that time was about as likely as the chance of a contemporary trip to the moon (as portrayed in one of Jules Verne’s novels of the time).
I’ll have to do some further research, but I suspect the reason President Roosevelt had Taft conclude the Taft-Katsura agreement (again, this agreement preceded Roosevelt’s mediation of the Treaty of Portsmouth) was so the US could secure its possession of the Phillippines without having to spend the money to construct extensive coastal fortifications there.
The US had just seen the newly-confident Japanese empire build a massive fleet, and use it to successfully deploy a massive army to the Asian mainland. So the US concern was undoubtedly to secure the Phillippines against a similar attack by Japan, and to do so without incurring massive defense expenditures.
Such expenditures would not have been been tolerated by the US public and Congress of the time (unlike now, when we Americans tolerate massive deficit spending in order to be able to do such things as help to defend our ROK allies).
The US did succeed in protecting the Phillippines from such a Japanese attack by these diplomatic efforts (at least until 1941). I’m afraid the US’s ability to secure Korean independence at the time (1905) was in fact non-existent (of course, if you want to arrogantly condemn we Americans for not going to war on your behalf at the time, I suppose that’s your privilege).
A current analogy for this situation? I suggest the one between North Korea and South Korea.
The citizens of the ROK currently have decided that instead of accepting all the DPRK refugees they can handle, they are going to deliberately exclude the vast majority of them from coming to the ROK (from such places as China), in order to gain refugee status in the ROK (I believe this is a violation of the ROK constitution?)
This is a remarkable example of current “indifference” to the troubles of others, and perhaps one that you should “take to heart” before being so arrogant in your criticism of others (if, as I suspect, you are an ROK citizen).
At least the US, in the early 20th century, didn’t deliberately adopt a policy of excluding Korean political refugees from Japanese colonialism (wasn’t Syngman Rhee such an exile? Have to go look it up to be sure, so correct me if I’m wrong. And of course I suspect the late Mr. Rhee may be political anathema to you personally, but at least he was for Korean independence, not so?)
Maybe it’s too bad we didn’t just leave the Phillippines to the Spanish. Then we could have stayed in Hawaii; and then maybe WWII never would have happened, and then Korea would never have been “divided” (of course it might still be “united” under the Japanese empire too).
Well, we’ll never know what “could” have happened I suppose. But tell me, what do you think the US should do right now?
Perhaps you will join me in agreeing that we Americans should just leave the peninsula, forthwith; that will free Mr Chung (and you, Mr. Kim?) to get on with the important business of reunification, so long delayed and so anxiously awaited. I certainly hope I’m not being a fool here as well, when I express a most-fondly held wish for the Americans to be gone — as soon as possible.
Reply
4:24 pm on January 8th, 2007 7
American foreign policy is usually shaped by pragmatic and strategic concerns. Like all nations, we made our share of mistakes, not just in regard to the Korean peninsula, but in other regions, as well. But you always have to consider American policies and actions in historical context. For example, we couldn’t simply leave the southern half of Korea, which was unstable and lacked a viable government, in 1945 because the communist threat was looming and real (just as, incidentally, we can’t leave Iraq anytime soon). Dividing the peninsula in half and occupying it was better than letting the whole country become communist. Yes, it would have been nice to grant independence to the Koreans right away (especially after 35 years of hell under Japanese rule), but it wasn’t realistic. It’s unfortunate, but throughout the Cold War we had to support a lot of unsavory characters (like military dictators) and execute a lot of morally questionable plans in order to contain the spread of communism. But we had to pick the lesser of two evils, the greater evil being the spread of Communism.
On a completely different note, I noticed that a lot people in various fora and blogs tend to lump Koreans and gyopos together in one group. I’m not really sure what a “gyopo” is, but I gather it’s a term for Korean expats. I really hope it doesn’t also refer to foreigners (e.g. Americans, Canadians, etc.) who just happen to be of Korean descent. But, if it does, I want to make something very clear (which I unfortunately feel compelled to do over and over again). I was born and raised in the U.S., so I can’t “hate” all Americans, unless we’re talking about self-hate here. The only Americans I hate are White Nationalists/Supremacists, Black Separatists, affirmative action supporters, and telemarketers. I’m an American and I never considered myself to be “Korean”. I hate explaining that to other Americans, and Koreans. Let me put it this way: If North Korea/China were ever to take over South Korea and attack the U.S. with ICBMs or whatever, I would not hesitate to fire away at the Koreans with an M-16. Period.
Reply
4:24 pm on January 8th, 2007 8
Very nice refutation Paul.
However, I’m afraid that it will only fall upon deaf ears if it was intended for Mr. Kim and the Korean audience. From my experience, Koreans are not interested in objective reasoning and historical context, and introspection and critical thought are literally absent from the Korean mindset. Of course, there are some exceptions however.
Thank you Sir!
Reply
4:25 pm on January 8th, 2007 9
Very nice post jesuisamericain.
I “think,” and I emphasize think here, that Gyopo is a slang term (with negative connotations by the way) that “Koreans” use for “Koreans who have betrayed the motherland” and moved to the States. You, having been born in the States, would get a free pass on being tagged as a Gyopo.
Reply
4:25 pm on January 8th, 2007 10
Gyopo isnt slang and isnt negative. It means foreign born korean. Nothing more.
Reply
4:27 pm on January 8th, 2007 11
GI Korea, you are seeing the actually process how the public perception about history is going to be made up among Koreans, in LIVE.
First, a stupid and strange opinion is launched, a few radicalists accept it, but most regular people just ignore it.
Second, the opinion is printed as a tiny article on news paper or web sites, then it becomes a theory; at least some people do not neglect it since they think the theory is acceptable in some cases.
After years or months passing by, an event happens, such as the one triggered hate-Japanese or Anti-US storm. Some journalists or web logger start to find some story to fire up the public, and reach the above one burried in somewhere. Since it is written and was accepted some people once, people blindly and eagerly believe it, just because they always seek something to believe. The background of this is that the average Koreans have an obsession to pround of something about Korea, need to defend something shamed in Korea. This obsession is sometimes also expressed in a way to disgrace the other nations and people living outside of Korea.
Finally, the stupid and storange opinon becomes a fact among Koreans. Since the fact is broadcasted everywhere and the public perception becomes a solid rock, it is almost impossible to turn over the false fact.
Next?
Well, they start to fabricate another *true history clue* for Koreans step by step from there.
Apparently, the Uni-Minister Chung Dong-young knows what is appealing to regular Koreans very well and is enjoying his role. Although his skull is not fully filled, he understands what he should shout up. So, all this kind of strange politic show steers the South Korea in a *correct* way sooner or later. Congurationations to Kim Jong Il. Though, I’m pretty sure Kim will behead Roh and Chung after the unification.
You GIs unfortunately trapped in the peninsula cannot change this movement.
By the way, we Japanese call this kind of unpredictable statement issued by or policies announced by Koreans “NANAME-UE”, which means in Japanese “a strangely slanted upper way”, implying we cannot come to think of this sort of crap.
Reply
4:27 pm on January 8th, 2007 12
“…we couldn’t simply leave the southern half of Korea, which was unstable and lacked a viable government, in 1945…Yes, it would have been nice to grant independence to the Koreans right away…”
If you review the history in detail, jesuis, you’ll find that the US ended its military occupation government in 1948-9; unlike Japan (which was still under military occupation) the US handed national sovereignty over to the ROK government of President Syngman Rhee, withdrawing all its occupatioon troops (we left about a 450 man group of US military advisors, but they were advisors only, not in charge of the ROK military).
Had even 1 US regiment remained there, probably the Soviets wouldn’t have let Kim Il Sung make his attack in June 1950. This history is why we’ve kept troops there for so long since, so as to avoid a repetition of this.
Of course I think the time for this commitment has long since come to an end, especially given the comments of folks like Mr Kim above (who I suspect represents the views of many younger citizens of the ROK).
I don’t doubt your willingness to fight against the potential enemies of the ROK and the US on the peninsula. What worries me is folks like Mr Kim; given his expressed sentiments blaming the US for everything, it’s not at all clear to me whom ROK citizens like him would actually regard as their “enemies” if a potential war seemed near, and issues of life or death hung in the balance.
Bloggers like GI Korea tell me that relations with the ROK military are great; others like Kushibo tell me such attitudes don’t represent the majority of ROK citizens. Well, they’re on the ground and I’m not. But I’m older than them, and from my perspective of years (and thousands of miles away) I can tell you that there’s been a sea change in the last few years in US ROK relations (and I don’t think it’s going to get any better).
My concern is for US soldiers and interests. If the young lions of the ROK can be so adamently against the US, then they are perfectly capable IMO of defending themselves against any threat from the North (if they want to). Better that we should leave in a relatively peaceful manner now, when we can depart as “friends”, than later having the humiliation of being forced out in a crisis situation (or even worse, having to face the North Koreans in the front and groups of hostile South Koreans in the back).
The current situation of ROK forced dependence on the US for a major portion of its defense breeds this type of resentment and generates the intense “clenched fist and teeth” attitude. I think it’s extremely dangerous (not to mention humiliating) for the US to endlessly put up with this; if the citizens of the South want to indulge in this lunacy, let’s clear out and leave them to it.
If most of them they don’t think there is any real danger from the North, who are we to try and tell them otherwise? Let’s get out and let them get on with reunification in whatever manner they see fit; it’s their country.
Reply
4:28 pm on January 8th, 2007 13
Relations between the US and ROK military are fine. The political element of the alliance is what is the problem. As far as the ROK public, the younger generation doesn’t like USFK but seem to be hesistant to push to move us out of here due to perceived increased mandatory service and defense expenditures for Korea. Slowly but surely we are lowering out footprint here, until an eventual pullout. The ROK government is the only thing slowing down the cosolidation of troops here. If the Camp Humprhey’s issue isn’t resolved I think you will see a complete pullout of 2ID instead. The Pentagon definitely doesn’t want to keep the status quo here which is what the ROK government wants to keep and then they send idiots like Chung to bash us for being here.
Reply
4:28 pm on January 8th, 2007 14
Yes, you’re right, the occupation was short-lived. I don’t remember too many details concerning the situation in Korea between 1945 and 1950, so I’ll just stop there.
In any case, I agree with your views on US-Korean relations. Things have certainly changed considerably. The older generations (namely, my grandparents’ and parents’) generally appreciate the great sacrifice U.S. soliders made in order to keep South Korea free, not to mention the subsequent infusion of billions of dollars in U.S. aid. As we all know, the younger generation, however, essentially put the current Noh administration in power, riding on a current of oftentimes vicious and hysterical anti-Americanism. But that’s the way it is also in Germany, France, and most of western Europe. What the world needs is a neo-conservative revival.
Anyway, I agree, we should definitely consider withdrawing all, or most, of our troops from Korea. The South Koreans have a far more technologically advanced military than their northern “brethren” and we also have to consider our long-term strategic goals in the Pacific vis-a-vis China. I suggest we let the Koreans fend for themselves, encourage Japan (our closest ally in the region) to build up an offensive military, and get our troops out of harm’s way. And, even though the Norks may seem like the biggest pain in the ass in the region right now, we really need to prepare for the much bigger (possible) threat: China. So that requires reorganizing all of our troops in PACOM. Why not start now?
Reply
4:30 pm on January 8th, 2007 15
The best thing Korea has going for it is general ignorance of the outside world concerning its history. The 2nd best thing is the drive by too many who do take the time to listen a bit to suck up to The Other and accept whatever they tell them.
It is discouraging that more people aren’t like Paul H., because the historical record falls more closely toward him than it does with what the Koreans are fairly good at selling to outsiders concerning Korea’s history.
Koreans might have been taught from cradle to grave the US “gave” Korea to Japan in the Taft-Katsura “agreement,” but that isn’t the version of history that does justice to reality.
The US was in no position to “give” Korea away. Korea was not an American protectorate, territory, or state.
Contrary to what the king of Korea and some others argued, the US had no strategic military alliance with Korea. America was not bound by agreement to go to war with Japan to save Korea. The US offer of “good offices” meant it would seek to act as an arbitrator for Korean interests if having trouble with another nation, but it was not a strategic security obligation.
In fact, how could the US “give” Korea to Japan when Japan was already firmly established in it?
Japan fought two major wars for control of Korea — first knocking out the Chinese then pulling off a stunning defeat of Russia — a major European power already firmly established in Korea’s backyard?
But, Japan needed permission from the US to colonize Korea? The US caused the colonization by allowing Japan to do it?
Japan’s defeat of Russia solidified the hold it had already established in Korea. The US didn’t give it a damn thing. It took it.
The Taft-Katsura talk was basically a clarification of an understanding of already established fact –
Japan had Korea and the US wasn’t going to raise a
stink about it – much less go to war to kick the
Japanese out.
And the US was firmly in the Philippines, and Japan
wasn’t going to make it the next stop on the Japanese
advance into Asia.
It was not an agreement nor a treaty. It was a memorandum on an understanding of the facts on the ground.
As for the division of Korea in 1945 — I have no argument with you there.
If it had not been for the United States, Korea never would have been divided. More than likely, Russia would have extened its reach into Korea just as it did across Eastern Europe after the war in the face of the allies, especially America, not moving to stop them ahead of time, because the US was hoping with the end of World War II, the capitalist and communist states could avoid conflict. And when the Cold War was finally accepted as fact by both sides, the Soivet Union was already entrenched in Eastern Europe and would have been in Korea too.
However, the US did not follow through with the Potsdam agreement once it arrived in Korea which was to establish a decades long protectorate type arrangement.
The US, feeling the pressure from South Koreans, moved to seek unification through national elections through United Nations help. Russia balked at allowing an open election, and the division of Korea was solidified politically by the election of two sepearte governments.
However, the US then moved to pull itself out of the South.
And that move would have lead to the unification of Korea —- through the help of the North Korean invasion…
If Truman had only stuck to his policy and not gotten into the Korean War and kept the US troops out after he had just removed them, Korea would have become unified again.
And statues of the Great Leader and the Dear Leader would be adorning the streets of Seoul today, and South Korea could be sharing in the great economic miracle unleashed by the Juche philosophy.
In fact, Korean young adults could be burning American flags on top of a statue of Kim Il Sung instead of the one of Yi Sun-Shin that stands just down the road from the US Embassy….. if the US had just left Korea alone….
Reply
4:30 pm on January 8th, 2007 16
I feel I can definatively tell you Kushibo is wrong. I taught Korean adults of varying ages and in different cities long enough to feel confident enough to say it.
There is a sharp divide when you reach older Koreans — say about 65 and above these days.
Below that, the younger, more radial Koreans between the ages of 20-25, share the same basic conclusions about the nature of the US-SK relationship.
Where they differ is on when the US should get the hell out.
And even among the 20-25 year olds, either a solid majority or majority agree with the older generations that the US should be forced out only when there is no real threat of war with the North and South Korea’s economy can safely see the US leave without a major drop.
In short, they want to despise the US-SK relationship but keep it intact at the same time.
Convienent for them….
In this meantime, they want to enjoy a process that continually reminds them that the US is the source of Korea’s woe. There are a butt load of annual “days of rememberance” for the Kwangju Massacre, Jeju Masacre, 1945 Liberation Day, the 1950 start of the war and then the end of the war, and things like the 2002 tank accident day, and so on and so forth. And there are long running issues to mine ad nausem — USFK environmental crimes, GI crimes, SOFA misery, economic strongarming, US prevention of unification, and so on and so forth.
GI Korea has direct contact with the issue of the ROK military and USFK, but I’ve always heard the same thing — that the military to military relationship is strong and fairly smooth.
The rest of Korean society, however, is just waiting for the approprite time it can do to the US what France did in the 1960s — and when that time comes, it will be much uglier than it was in France, which wasn’t a pretty sight…
Reply
4:30 pm on January 8th, 2007 17
I meant to say that the 20-25 aged Koreans share the same basic assumptions regarding the US that those between 25 and 65. The significant difference doesn’t appear until you get into the oldest Korean generations.
Reply
4:31 pm on January 8th, 2007 18
This guy is obviously just a blind nationalist who will say just about anything to stir things up….he’s a lackey for sure.
BTW…GI….I want to say this as gently as I can and hope I don’t offend. I really appreciate your articles and views on politics and history…I am a regular reader. However, as an English teacher, I feel a bit duty bound to butt my nose into your grammar. There is a grammatical error that you make on a regular basis that you might want to try and avoid. You frequently use ‘could of’ ‘would of’ and ’should of’ instead of the correct Could’ve, would’ve, and should’ve (could have, would have, should have).
Reply
4:32 pm on January 8th, 2007 19
Count on a English major to poor cold water on a good writer.
Reply
4:33 pm on January 8th, 2007 20
I concur that GI is a good writer…but I tried as much as I could not not give the impression that I was “pouring cold water” over his writing. I said, “I am a regular reader.” the writing itself is excellent and I have made that known. I am merely concerned that others who read his work would find him as interesting and well-written as I. Such incorrect grammar cannot detract from the importance of what has been written if it is written well (God knows I am not a perfect writer either). However, such grammatical errors can detract from the readers opinion of the writer. You may not feel this way and may enjoy the reading and not even notice the errors….however, I hope that others who read this find it useful, informative and veracious. For lack of a more sensitive way to put it; there are those who would wish to dismiss GI’s opinions as nothing more than the opinions of an uneducated person (which we know is not true if we read beyond the mechanics) because of the types of grammatical errors he is making. Perhaps, the previous poster and GI could care less…in that case, please ignore my comments.
GI, I hope you do not misunderstand my intentions as, perhaps, the previous poster has done. Keep up the great work!
BTW…not an English major….Applied Linguistics
Reply
4:35 pm on January 8th, 2007 21
Oh Rob,
Here we go again! Rob — do us a favor and spare us from your racist and bigoted comments. Not only are they unseemly, but they make you look like a stupid, uneducated dork and a foolish ignoramus. Btw, are you a redneck? You sure sound like one of the hordes of rednecks I rubbed shoulders with having grown up in Oklahoma and New Mexico — not that I have anything against them — as long as they drop that racial crap, which I learned to just ignore after awhile.
(I once bought a round of longnecks for a bunch of rednecks at a bar in Claremore, Okla., who were staring at me like they’d never seen an Asian before. After that, I chatted them up, and they were all pretty cool to me.)
Anyways, Paul’s “refutation” refuted nothing! It was simply a rebuttal, if not a pathetic rant of revisionist history. The only thing I will concede is that the Taft-Katsura agreement did indeed pave the way for the Treaty of Portsmouth. Otherwise, everything else he’s contended is pure unsupported conjecture.
Paul H’s comments ignore the fact that the U.S.’s agreement to do nothing in the face of Japan’s annexation of Korea, which btw was illegal by international law, was tantamount to the U.S. giving their explicit approval.
And the Koreans did fight against the Japanese annexation and later, occupation. The untold stories of Korean guerillas and freedom fighters who engaged the Japanese are numerous. Korea may not have had a standing army at the time, but that didn’t prevent them from fighting small-scale insurgent actions against the de-facto Japanese rulers.
While the Korean resistance put up a good fight, it ultimately wasn’t enough against the Japanese. And for somebody to say, ‘Why didn’t they do more?’ is really naive.
That type of attitude is analagous to former President George H.W. Bush’s naively asking the Kurds in 1991-92 after the First Gulf War to engage in an uprising and insurgency against Sadaam Hussein, at first with promises of U.S. backing, then later, without.
How many Kurds died at the hands of Sadaam and his Republican Guards as a result of the U.S.’s betrayal of them is still unknown, and still being documented today. The Kurd’s near annihilation by Sadaam, though, will no doubt go down in the history books as one of the great betrayals by the United States of an oppressed people in the 20th century. (That, as well as approving the wholesale larceny of a sovereign state [Korea] to a greedy colonial power [Japan].)
Reply
4:37 pm on January 8th, 2007 22
ministry of uniFICaTION
Reply
4:37 pm on January 8th, 2007 23
Thank goodness the ROK brigade is in Kurdistan now! The Kurds must be mightily relieved, especially given how anxious the ROK was to send the brigade there in the first place.
I’m sure the Kurds understand that stalwart ROK nationalists (such as yourself, H. Kim) will never abandon them (the way that you say the US did…).
It’s hopeless to try to pierce the solid shield of your obtuseness, Mr. Kim. Nevertheless I feel compelled to make another “pathetic” attempt at refutation (or rebuttal, whatever).
The careful study of any reasonably good (meaning non-ideological) US history book, covering the 19th century, will be definitive. The US Presidents of that time hadn’t the political and moral authority to commit the US to “entangling alliances”; i.e. ones that would involve the waging by the US of a major war overseas (other side of the Pacific or Atlantic) against the “great powers” of that era (such as Japan).
The US Congresses of the era would not have voted for a declaration authorizing any such war; indeed, any US President back then would not have dared to start any war without such a declaration. Moreover, the funding for it could only have been approved by the Congress, and they would never have done so, as their constituents would never have gone for the major commitment of US soldiers and naval vessels (and the deficit spending necessary to support them).
Had any President (even Teddy Roosevelt) tried to send the US fleet, and/or the US Army/USMC, to Korea to fight such a war, he would undoubtedly have been impeached.
(As President Andrew Johnson had been, in 1868; the memory of Johnson’s impeachment still loomed large, for every successive US President, well into the early 1900’s, Mr. Kim. Again, I suggest you “read up” on US history of the era).
You are projecting your knowledge of later 20th Century US foreign policy back into the the US 19th and very early 20th Century. Later 20th Century US foreign policy was changed forever by the US’s participation in the first and especially the second world wars.
Poor King Kojong (and his “domineering” wife, Queen Min) should have come out from their “Hermit Kingdom” sufficiently enough in 1882 to send trusted, high ranking Korean court emissaries of their own to Washington, in order to find out what the decision-makers there actually thought about foreign alliances.
http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1623.html
(However, I reserve the prerogative to read other sources on the exact language and provisos of the Chemulpo Treaty, before accepting the word of the Korean writer at this link).
Or even better (if it’s accurate that the King really considered the “alliance” as guaranteeing that the US would go to war to preserve his country’s independence) — King Kojong should have gone to the US for a personal visit, to discuss this projected “alliance” in person with the US President and leaders of Congress.
USinKorea tells me (on Marmot’s board) that the “alliance” proviso in the Chemulpo Treaty was seen by the US side as only a requirement for the USA to use its “good offices” as a possible arbitrator between Korea and other foreign powers.
Ah, the perils of translation. The exact language matters, to include as well as the importance of getting such language agreed upon with high-ranking US authorities. I gather instead that the King chose to trust the advice of Korea-resident American missionaries. I suspect the missionaries’ own idealism made them equally blind to the realities of US domestic 19th century politics.
Of course, maybe even such a hypothetical visit by the King may not have done him any good; but it’s unforgivable that he didn’t exert himself enough to at least try, considering the proximity of the expanding Japanese and Russian empires, and the trend of events in Northeast Asia in the late 1800’s.
Oh well, you yourself evidently have spent considerable time in the USA, H. Kim, yet you seem to have retained a thoroughly functional set of ethnocentric Korean nationalist blinders. So maybe a visit to the USA wouldn’t have done the King any good after all….
Why don’t you yourself take up the call for modern Korea to avoid repeating King Kojong’s 1882 error? I suggest you begin by calling here and now for the benign protection of China for all of Korea (since you say that the US has this disgraceful history of “great betrayals”?)
Unlike the Chinese imperial dynasties of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, I’m sure the modern PRC has the military power to benevolently shelter Korea, drawing a protective veil over the peninsula while you Koreans get together to work out a final “disposition” of your internal disputes.
Asia for the Asians — that’s my motto. In that, I suppose I’m very much like my 19th century US predecessors, whose wisdom is often considerably underrated.
Reply
4:37 pm on January 8th, 2007 24
“Paul H’s comments ignore the fact that the U.S.’s agreement to do nothing in the face of Japan’s annexation of Korea, which btw was illegal by international law, was tantamount to the U.S. giving their explicit approval.”
Roosevelt did approve of Japan taking Korea. Specifically, he thought it was a much better outcome than Russia taking it. But, Roosevelt didn’t like Korea and he liked Japan.
So, if we are saying the US is bad because its government liked the idea of Japan taking Korea — go for it.
However, that isn’t the claim, is it?
The claim is the US C-A-U-S-E-D the colonization by giving Japan permission to colonize Korea. That the US was in a position to stop the colonization. Or, that the US had an obligation to stop the colonization. And/or that the US had a treaty-like obligation to go to war to stop Japan if that was what it took. Or that if the US had said it didn’t like the colonization, Japan would have stopped.
All of which fall flat.
The common Korean belief that the Taft “agreement” was “the cause” of Korea’s colonization — which they have successfully exported to a good number of expats — is not supported by what really happened.
As for Rob’s statement being racist, perhaps parts of it are an overgeneralization, but I have heard Korean profs and education professionals say much the same thing – in general – about Korean society as a whole and Korean education.
As to the illegal nature of the annexation, that reminded me….
At a conference with Korean and Japanese scholars that was supposed to discuss this very topic from an acadmeic perspective —- the legality of the 1910 annexation — the Koreans — who were the only ones presenting evidence in this round of the conference — took a few days laying out points. The Korean leader of the group spent much of his oral presentation – in fact – talking about Roosevelt and the batrayal of Korea by the United States — and how that fits into a legalistic argument about the nature of the annexation, I have no f-ing clue — and when he read the infamous quote of Roosevelts about why should anybody fight for a nation that won’t fight for itself, he paused from reading his notes and took his glasses off and said something like, “You know, I know I’m a prof and academic, but as a Korean, when I read words like this, I….” and he couldn’t finish the sentence because he was choked up and then went on with the rest of the presentation.
Anyway. After a couple of days of presentations by the Koreans, a Brit scholar on international law who was invited to the conference to listen and give his thoughts said something close to, “I’ve been listening, but I haven’t heard anybody yet discuss what international law was during this period. —- I’m not familiar with the Korean situation, but I am with that in Manchuria and Egypt and India, and in the international law of the day, the Powers used social darwinistic thinking to create a law in which they argued areas like Manchuria and Egypt were not really states. They said that they could not take care of themselves and were in turmoil and thus not states and thus did not possess the rights of a state under the law. And they used this to justify interference in those places. And many would say that this type of paternalistic “legalism” hasn’t really been replaced today…”
He didn’t get a chance to say that all together. Because as soon as he mentioned Manchuria and social darwanistic thinking, a Korean professor stood up and began screaming at him. “You…..you don’t know anything about Korea!! How dare you…..” and so on for a few seconds until the head of the conference had quickly walked over and put his hand over the guy’s mouth and forced him to sit down. For the rest of the Brit’s talking about the material presented in the conference, the Korean prof would say out loud snide comments like “Social Darwinism! Pah!” and such.
Reply
4:38 pm on January 8th, 2007 25
On the “good offices” clause — the Korean king did believe it was like a treaty of alliance.
And as you noted, missionaries in Korea were against the colonial powers – whether Russian, Japanese, or French – and favored Korean autonomy. They and others at the time also argued the “good offices” clause of the US-SK treaty gave at least a “moral” obligation for the US to fight for Korean independance.
But, a moral obligation is a far cry from a legal one.
But, Korean scholars are not the only ones projecting opinions on mid and late 20th century geopolitics (like the Cold War) back onto the Japanese colonization of Korea….
And the more important point, to me, is that Japan was already in Korea by 1905. It had fought two wars and won decisively — in 1905 as the Taft “agreement” was happening — Japan was kicking the butt of a major European power either considered much stronger than the US or around the same power —– meaning we quickly forget the US of 1905 was not the powerhouse of 1945 and that the European Empires were yet to destory themselves in two world wars —– so, the assumption that the US was in a position to prevent Japan from taking further control of Korea is plain wrong.
The US thought on Japan taking Korea was not a decisive factor in the colonization.
Japan took Korea. Roosevelt didn’t think it was a bad idea. Stone him for that.
But don’t blame the US for “causing” the colonization of Korea or paticipating in it.
Reply
4:39 pm on January 8th, 2007 26
While I generally agree with this sentiment, I think it is 10 times more appropriate for Japan. Japan is really bad at ignoring the fringe crazies who make seriously stupid statements… then, as the years go by, the stupid statements become more and more believed.
Not that it is any less annoying when the Koreans (or Americans or Canadians or …. ) do it. But as a history major, I find it majorly annoying how history is done in East Asia.
Reply
4:39 pm on January 8th, 2007 27
Hey muruneko:
You’re the one to talk aren’t you? Before you go pointing your finger at Korean perceptions, how about the revisionist slang on history that your countrymen seem to have, especially about what happened in WW2?
You see, what makes Japan different from Germany is that Germany went on the record about its war crimes by admitting them, apologizing for them, making numerous restitutions to Israel, and maintaining an education system that is so hardcore, it almost makes young German people anti-German.
On the otherhand, what has your country done to address the war crimes committed by Imperial Japan? Remember, your’s is a country that described the infamous Rape of Nanking as a “military action”, as continues to deny that the Imperial Japanese Army forcibly drafted Korean and other Asian women as “comfort women.”
When will your country stop the “strangely slanted ways”? As a Japanese, you must stop the hypocrisy and fix your own country before you start to accuse Korea please.
Reply
4:40 pm on January 8th, 2007 28
I will have to remember that for future posts. I’m a recovering backwoods country boy so sometimes I still talk that way.
Reply
4:41 pm on January 8th, 2007 29
I think we are all just going to have to agree to disagree with Mr. Kim. I just don’t think the US had the responsibility to protect Korea in 1905 like it does today. With the US-ROK alliance in effect the US will not abandon Korea today. It wasn’t like that in 1905 because I’m not so sure the US could have defeated the Japanese at that time and Roosevelt knew it. If the Korean nation had begun modernizing earlier like the Japanese did after the Meiji Restoration the Japanese colonization wouldn’t have been successful. But the internal bickering with the Yangban more concerned with keeping the status quo and the nation closed made Korea an easy victim to the Japanese.
South Korea has now modernized and has a united population that would cause any invasion of Korea to be a foolish endeavor even without US involvement.
I think an interesting arguement would be that if the US military leaves Korea and the US-ROK alliance is dissolved and Korea is attacked by North Korea or China in the future, does the US still have a responsibility to defend Korea?
Reply
4:41 pm on January 8th, 2007 30
Having spent time in Iraq working with the Kurds I think I can speak with some authority on this. I can tell you they are the most pro-American people I have met. They are more pro-American than Americans. They love both President Bushes. They even have stores and business named after famous American locations. The Kurds want what Americas has. They want freedom and prosperity.
The Kurdish mind set after the first Gulf War was not of betrayal but they were thankful the US set up the no fly zone and brought in relief aid and Special Forces. Kurds blame Saddam and his henchmen for the massecres that happened, not the US. They never expected full military invasion from the US. The Kurds are tough people and they are willing to fight for their own independence. They don’t expect anyone to do it for them and they did win their own independence from Saddam well before the 2nd Gulf War.
The Kurds today would rather be their own country then be tied down with the rest of Iraq. Kurds do not feel like Iraqis. However, if they do get independence Turkey has made it clear they will stop any Kurdish independence. Now is the US willing to go to war with Turkey over the Kurds? No, and that is why the US is working hard to integrate the Kurds into the Iraqi government.
The Kurds in the 1990’s is a poor example to compare to Korea in 1905 because the Kurds did fight off Saddam and win their independence unlike Korea in 1905. The Japanese pretty much just moved in and had to deal with limited guerilla attacks in the North of the country and occassional demonstration uprisings across the country they would quickly smash. Think of the amount of Korean collaborators their must of been to colonize Korea. Even Korea’s most well known President Park Chung Hee was in the Japanese military.
The Kurds in Northern Iraq would not collaborate with Saddam making any colonization of the place impossible. Saddam has to forcibly move the Kurds out of the city of Kirkuk to secure it. The Kurds overall won their freedom not because of the US but because they fought for it themselves. I don’t think the same can be said for Korea in 1905.
Reply
4:14 pm on January 10th, 2007 31
[...] A recent topic of dispute among commenters at the Marmot’s Hole is the alleged American sell out of Korea to Japan with the mutual signing of the Taft-Katsura Agreement. This piece of history, little known to everyone else in the world, is treated with almost Dokdo like reverence in Korean society. This agreement is often used by Koreans to blame the US for the Japanese colonization of Korea. You think I’m exaggerating? Let me remind everyone what the South Korean Unification Minister had to say on this subject: [...]
9:25 pm on January 27th, 2007 32
[...] First of all I would love to see Lee pull out an audit report of all the money given to North Korea by the ROK to prove his claims. I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Secondly, even if the money isn’t used directly in the nuclear program, it will instead be used to buy the Dear Leader and the regime elite mansions, booze, luxury cars, etc. which are in violation of the UN resolution prohibiting this. Additionally the money given by the South Korean government to ensure the lifestyle of the regime elite means that money brought into North Korea from other sources can be used for the nuclear program instead.  To Lee Jae-joung’s credit, he still has a long way to go to reach the useful idiot status of former Unification Minister Chung Dong-young. [...]
2:08 pm on February 18th, 2007 33
“Well, that’s your perception, men” in a reluctant mood of Dude Lebowski….
Seriously, yes, we have a lot of strange lefties and news papers. The big differece between Japan and Korea is that the stupid and crazy left-wing opinions are rapidly loosing the public support, many thanks to North Koreans and the Chineses in the main-land.
Reply
2:09 pm on February 18th, 2007 34
Kim, first of all, I’m not accusing Koreans. I’m just sneering that your Korean DNA orders you what to do.
As for your claim about Nanjing, yes it was a pure military action. I don’t believe that the Nanjing Massacres happened really, although there was surelly severe fights between the Japanese Imperaial Army and the Chinese Nationalist army. It has been a propaganda for both Chinese Nationalist and Communist parties. Did you know the number of victims is still and ever increasing over 50 years? This is the card for the Chineses to contempt Japan. They seem to like this card so much, so I believe they give us a *rise* in the near future again.
The main differece between Germany and Japan, the Germany couldn’t compensate the nations they invaded, since there were two Germany countries before the unification. That’s why they had to select to compensate individuals. Also their compensations to indviduals are limited for the Holocaust and the ethnic cleansing, mainly for Jewish. They have never compensated for their “comfort” women or “drafted” workers indivudually.
You just blindly belived what is broadcasted on Korean TV and news papers, didn’t you? What I’m sneering is that this kind of typical Korean way of history reinterpretation. Check things up if you don’t believe.
As for the compensations to Korean nations or the Chosun peninsula, Japan tried to make compensations not only for the occupied countries but also for the individuals. The South Korean president Pahk administration took all the money from Japan by refusing the compensation to the North Koreans and individuals. I belive you alerady know this fact; the official documents ware recently disclosed by the Roh administration. By the way, the document wasn’t a secret in Japan for long years.
As for the draft of workers in the Chosun peninsula, it was also forced in the Japan mainland. Yes, the peninsula was legally a part of Japan. So, the law enforced Japanese civilians to work in militrary factories was also applicable for Koreans in the peninsula. In fact the administration of that time didn’t force the draft to Koreans until 1944; before this year, most Korean workers came to Japan for economic reasons (still they coming….) I think you didn’t know this neither. Again you blindly belive what is seen on Korean TV and news paper, don’t you?
As for the “comfort women” or “sex slave”, whatever you’d like to call, I simply say they were just prostitutes. Did you know most of those comfort women are Japanese women came from poor viledges. They were sold by their parents (a sad story). This figure was also replayed in the peninsula and Manchuria. You know the long history in the peninsula having lots of pimps gathering or kidnapping womens in local villages until very recently (even after the Korean war). Historically, it is very understandable, because the rulers of Li-regimed Korea had to send young Korean women to the Chinenese counter-parts to survive.
I do believe your official version of “text books for the Korean history” didn’t tell you the truth. Do you really believe those books? Oh, surely you do, if you are *pure* Koreans.
Check all the historical issues you are arguing by reading history books written in English, Chinese, and Japanese, not in Koreans, if you dare to do so. You will be very miserable if you find the *true* history of Koreans and the Chosun peninsula. I assure you.
Reply
2:10 pm on February 18th, 2007 35
Thanks for continuing to prove my point Mr. Kim. Your profanity-laden posts are starting to take away from any credibility you might have had.
Reply
2:10 pm on February 18th, 2007 36
Thanks for proving my point Mr. Kim!
You call my comments racist and bigoted, and then go on to denounce me as a “stupid, uneducated dork and a foolish ignoramus.” (Ignoramous! LOL I haven’t heard that in years by the way.)
Take note of the fact that I will never resort to petty, childish name calling Mr. Kim. Why? Because it is something a “stupid, uneducated dork and a foolish ignoramus” would do.
Reply
8:39 am on May 23rd, 2007 37
[...] That is according to one of the all time South Korean useful idiots, Chung Dong-young: [...]
9:02 pm on August 2nd, 2007 38
[...] group really is. There is plenty more absurdity to come and one of my noted useful idiots Chung Dong-young never fails to deliver. Courtesy of the Marmot’s Hole is this letter to President Bush from [...]