RANTING/VENTING MEGATHREAD 3.0

.... at Daiso yesterday.
I love Daiso.

 

Just don't mention it to a Korean.  Just now, I was in the main teacher's room.  My co-teacher mentioned about my newish sweater, and where I bought it.  I said 'Uniqlo'.  Wow!  Cue about 10 teachers all putting in their two cents about how I shouldn't be shopping in Uniqlo.     Weeping Jesus.  The Social Studies teacher even asked if I knew why Uniqlo is not good.  Of course I said, 'Yes', with a shrug.  I took the brunt of the nonsense with quiet aplomb and I'm still  my eyes now.  Adults!  Grown people!!  And, yes, I read about that Uniqlo advert that a small percentage of Koreans reacted to so that Uniqlo pulled it last week.  Blind nationalism really is a stupid thing.   

Long after you and your "The rest of the world should just think like me" butt are gone, the Koreans will still be dealing with the Japanese.

It's the Koreans who expect everybody else to think and act their way over Japan. Not everybody in Korea wishes to join their mob, but they will bully those who don't. People have a right to shop where they wish and not be harassed over their consumer choices.

Also, Korea started this whole drama by violating the 1965 treaty between Japan and Korea with the court ruling last year.

I have a huge amount of respect for my CT, not because she agrees with me, but because she's developed a critical brain in a place which doesn't encourage it and got very irate when this whole mess re-surfaced... AGAIN. She told me, though I knew before, that Korea and Japan reached a final settlement in the 60s. Once you've settled, it's final, you can't demand settlement again.


When a student got heckled, in class, for admitting that he wanted to travel to Japan, she fiercely defended him.

The old mindset still wrestles with the tenants of Democracy and free speech.  I need some fresh, plain t-shirts and I'm off to Uniqlo on Saturday. If Koreans want me to buy their clothing, improve the quality and drop the price, simple.

"dealing with the japanese" and acting like an adult aren't mutually exclusive

Just because YOU think it's a trivial issue doesn't mean it is one. We have a multitude of various boycott novements going on around the world, some on far more trivial issues thsn the admittedly politically roused issue of wartime sexual slavery.

It's the Koreans who expect everybody else to think and act their way over Japan. Not everybody in Korea wishes to join their mob, but they will bully those who don't. People have a right to shop where they wish and not be harassed over their consumer choices.

Also, Korea started this whole drama by violating the 1965 treaty between Japan and Korea with the court ruling last year.

I don't think what was described constitutes harassment. I think it more describes an opinionated conversation.

I think at least 50% of started this goes to the country that invaded the other snd occupied it for decades. Agreed that MoonCo. has some responsibility for this as well. Finally the treaty doesn't have the greatest level of legitimacy considering it was agreed to by a military dictatorship. Not that I agree with what's going on.

I just think it's equally juvenile for a bunch of people who might be here only temprarily or have every intention of leaving to criticize the actions of people who will be dealing with this long after they're gone. The Japanese are not some completely innocent party. I think a reasonable look at this has to at least partially consider the nationalism of the Abe government as well as that of Korea.

I mean, complainjng about Korean nationalism when it comes to an Abe-lead Japan is a bit odd.

I have a huge amount of respect for my CT, not because she agrees with me, but because she's developed a critical brain in a place which doesn't encourage it and got very irate when this whole mess re-surfaced... AGAIN. She told me, though I knew before, that Korea and Japan reached a final settlement in the 60s. Once you've settled, it's final, you can't demand settlement again.

As I said, for many Koreans they don't feel like "they" settled it. The agreement was made by Park Chung-Hee whom roughly 1/3rd-1/2 regard as an illegitimate dictator who was also a collaborator during the Japanese occupation.

It would be akin to asseting the legitimacy of a treaty made by Franco. Technically legitimate it may be, but you can see where the problems are.

  I get it that Martin in his Korean/Americaness has stupid nationalism flowing through him.  I, however, don't. 

My opinion about Korea is tinged with nationalism because I'm ethnically Korean.  Or what because I'm American?

And I'm the one with stupid nationalism flowing through them.

I'm talking about people having long-trm skin in the game and the degree of loyalty, heritage, and investment they have in the country and community. Korea may just he snother country to you, one to which you have zero loyalty and minimal concern for, bug it's quite a different matter for others.

Now if you're a long-termer who anticipates dying here and your kids growing up and living here, that's a different matter. You have real skin in the game then. You will actually have to deal with the consequences then.

I have a huge amount of respect for my CT, not because she agrees with me, but because she's developed a critical brain in a place which doesn't encourage it and got very irate when this whole mess re-surfaced... AGAIN. She told me, though I knew before, that Korea and Japan reached a final settlement in the 60s. Once you've settled, it's final, you can't demand settlement again.

As I said, for many Koreans they don't feel like "they" settled it. The agreement was made by Park Chung-Hee whom roughly 1/3rd-1/2 regard as an illegitimate dictator who was also a collaborator during the Japanese occupation.

It would be akin to asseting the legitimacy of a treaty made by Franco. Technically legitimate it may be, but you can see where the problems are.

You either think treaties are binding or you dont. How many treaties were signed by absolute autocrats? The treaty of Utrecht was signed by Louis the 14th, 300 or so years ago. The Spanish can't just come claim Gibraltar back because some inbred French king signed it over to the British hundreds of years ago and they don't like.

Also, the previous administration signed another agreement with Japan less than 5 years ago and people want to bin that as well. Didn't Moon try to return that money to Japan? It really is silly.

The Spanish can't just come claim Gibraltar back because some inbred French king signed it over to the British hundreds of years ago and they don't like.

They can't do that because the British would fight them militarily over it and likely prevail. That and the principle of popular sovereignty. If Spain had the upper hand in terms of power they'd simply declare the treaty invalid and reclaim it.

Now that's not to say they'd be right in doing so or to answer one way or another the validity of treaties signed by despots. I mean, we certainly wouldn't have an issue with countries not recognizing any treaties signed by Mussolini or Pol Pot. On the other hand agreements signed in good faith can't just be discarded simply because of a change in government, which is to say, it's complicated.

But the point was that to 1/3rd to 1/2 of the people "they" didn't sign anything and they do have something of a point there. Park Chung Hee was not Vichy France but there are still some issues. I mean a collaborationist dictator's treaty is pretty darn close.

Just because YOU think it's a trivial issue doesn't mean it is one. We have a multitude of various boycott novements going on around the world, some on far more trivial issues thsn the admittedly politically roused issue of wartime sexual slavery.

never said it was trivial. just said you don't have to act immature by having a go at your co-worker who happened to buy a japanese sweater.

never said it was trivial. just said you don't have to act immature by having a go at your co-worker who happened to buy a japanese sweater.

Well it depends how much of a real "go" this was. I know some might have gone way overboard. But it also couldn't have been anymore than someone saying "Oh you should stop playing Overwatch because Blizzard caved to China" and then explaining what went down.

  I get it that Martin in his Korean/Americaness has stupid nationalism flowing through him.  I, however, don't. 

My opinion about Korea is tinged with nationalism because I'm ethnically Korean.  Or what because I'm American?

Both.  Both countries that people get all bent out of shape at the meerest negative comment aimed at them.  Your posting history highlights this in buckets.  I have no 'stupid nationalism' flowing through me as I don't think I, or my country, are any better than anyone else.   

  I get it that Martin in his Korean/Americaness has stupid nationalism flowing through him.  I, however, don't. 

My opinion about Korea is tinged with nationalism because I'm ethnically Korean.  Or what because I'm American?

Both.  Both countries that people get all bent out of shape at the meerest negative comment aimed at them.  Your posting history highlights this in buckets.  I have no 'stupid nationalism' flowing through me as I don't think I, or my country, are any better than anyone else.   

Your comments seem to indicate that subconsciously you do. It's not my fault you aren't aware or self-honest enough to realize it.  Why else would you bring up my ethnicity and my nationality? Seems like something a nationalist would do.

I have a huge amount of respect for my CT, not because she agrees with me, but because she's developed a critical brain in a place which doesn't encourage it and got very irate when this whole mess re-surfaced... AGAIN. She told me, though I knew before, that Korea and Japan reached a final settlement in the 60s. Once you've settled, it's final, you can't demand settlement again.

As I said, for many Koreans they don't feel like "they" settled it. The agreement was made by Park Chung-Hee whom roughly 1/3rd-1/2 regard as an illegitimate dictator who was also a collaborator during the Japanese occupation.

It would be akin to asseting the legitimacy of a treaty made by Franco. Technically legitimate it may be, but you can see where the problems are.

If the dictatorship was foreign, they'd have a case, as it stands, the dictator was one of Korea's own. So, tough luck, like any other country, Korea is responsible for its own past and mess.

Furthermore, I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that I find it a bit of a stretch to believe that one of the most experienced nations in warfare makes it logistically possible to kidnap, house, feed and guard 200 000 non-combatants, while fighting a losing war. Doesn't it also raise an eyebrow to assume that the husbands, brothers and sons of these 200 000 non-combatants served in the japanese army and did diddly squat to sabotage their "masters", resist or rescue the "comfort woman"?

I've yet to make a decision on what really happened, but so far, logic dictates that those 'comfort women' were in fact, just prostitutes.

Alternatively, it must have been Koreans themselves who kidnapped their own women and sold them off as comfort women. Why not? Many Africans did this during the slave trade.
After the Allied WW2 tribunals, which convicted 146 Koreans of war-crimes, Korea makes up it's own little commision under Roo Moo-Hyun to exonerate 83 of these 146 individuals as being "victims of Japanese pressure"

- The Japanese made us kill all the Korean tigers to kill our national identity
- The Japanese made us chop down all our trees
- The Japanese made our women wear the 'breast exposed Hanbok'
- The Japanese made us commit war crimes

notice a pattern?

Reports and testimonials listed bellow state that Koreans themselves were largely responsible for rounding up comfort women, gangs of Koreans targeted women from poor peasant families and even managed the comfort women stations. Comfort women themselves claimed that comfort women gave Korean men a socially acceptable way to satisfy their carnal desires outside of wedlock.

https://www.e-ir.info/2019/03/07/inconsistencies-in-the-korean-comfort-women-narrative/

Again... there's no concrete evidence for either narrative. What I can say is that Korea right now gives us a clue to how Korea was in the past:

- Korean men make up the largest percentage of 'sex tourists' in SE Asia for underage prostitution.
- More than half of Korean men have cheated on their spouse and 40% believe paying for sex isn't cheating
  http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20160801000806
- Korea is one of the most patriarchial societies on Earth

Finally, a look to the other half of Korea to the North also gives us a clue to how Korea might have been in days gone by.
*Hint, make sure you're sitting down before you watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINTJVK1REk&t=475s

  I get it that Martin in his Korean/Americaness has stupid nationalism flowing through him.  I, however, don't. 

My opinion about Korea is tinged with nationalism because I'm ethnically Korean.  Or what because I'm American?

Both.  Both countries that people get all bent out of shape at the meerest negative comment aimed at them.  Your posting history highlights this in buckets.  I have no 'stupid nationalism' flowing through me as I don't think I, or my country, are any better than anyone else.   

Your comments seem to indicate that subconsciously you do. It's not my fault you aren't aware or self-honest enough to realize it.  Why else would you bring up my ethnicity and my nationality? Seems like something a nationalist would do.

Ohhhhh edgy, but incorrect.  It shows I can read.  My posting is not indicative of someone who would be considered a 'nationalist', whereas yours most definitely does.  Seriously, if you got less bent out of shape about the slightest negative comment about either Korea or the US, you'd have about 150 posts. 

I don't think I, or my country, are any better than anyone else.   

I think my country is better than say, Somalia. Does that make me a stupid nationalist?

I don't think I, or my country, are any better than anyone else.   

I think my country is better than say, Somali. Does that make me a stupid nationalist?

Unless you are from Wakanda, then yes. 

I don't think I, or my country, are any better than anyone else.   

I think my country is better than say, Somali. Does that make me a stupid nationalist?

Well, since you misspelled Somalia...

I think my country is better than Yemen. Does that make me a stupid nationalist?

I think my country is better than Yemen. Does that make me a stupid nationalist?

Did you use the ethnicity and nationality of an American of Yemeni descent to invalidate their opinion? If not, the probably not, at least not the stupid part. If you did, then quite probably, at least the stupid part.

I don't think I, or my country, are any better than anyone else.   

I think my country is better than say, Somali. Does that make me a stupid nationalist?

Bit of a shot at Ronnie here but I still wuv you................ ................... .....

Reminds me of people who say banal tripe like

"You shouldn't judge people."

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion."

Useless, useless sentences.

  What a horrid sweater on that person.

  YoU ShOuLD"Nt JuDgE PeePlE

  My uncle is a convicted pedophile. Still wanna go by that rule?

The people who use this sentence are usually the most vapid, empty-headed people I've ever met. And, yes, there's obviously taking things too far, a la

  Judging by that man's smile, he is a closeted homosexual and he is X, Y and Z.

That's just silly. And the entitled to opinion gem? UGH

Correct way of conversing.

  I don't like Burger King.

  Why not?

  Hmmm, just don't like it. Not great food.

  Alright.

Incorrect way of conversing.


  Apocalypse Now is the worst movie ever made.

  What? Why?

  It's just a total piece of shit.

  Yeah, but why? You have to list a few reasons why it's the worst.

3rd Party Eavesdropper  ACKSHUALLY, EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION.

  Get bent.

Like, what's the point of this sentence? "People have thoughts! And then they same them!"

If someone says they didn't like it, fine, ask them why and see what happens. But when people start claiming things as factual (yeah, yeah, art is subjective, I know BUT) then you'd better buckle up and have a few points to make.

So when people say "There is no best country............ .........." Yeah, no. If I asked you to colour in every country on a world map with green for "would live there" and red for "No way" there would be at least a dozen red ones.

I think my country is better than Yemen. Does that make me a stupid nationalist?

Did you use the ethnicity and nationality of an American of Yemeni descent to invalidate their opinion? If not, the probably not, at least not the stupid part. If you did, then quite probably, at least the stupid part.

Glad that's cleared up.

If the dictatorship was foreign, they'd have a case, as it stands, the dictator was one of Korea's own. So, tough luck, like any other country, Korea is responsible for its own past and mess.

Like I said, you're adding the collaborationist part on top of that. Plus there's also the mild influence of an external force in the United States as you could say that Korea was under de facto US military occupation at the time (and to some extent, Japan was as well). As I said, we certainly wouldn't regard any treaty made by Mussolini as legitimate. It seems that rather whether said treaty is successfully deemed legitimate or not comes down to influence and strength, rather than any objective principle. However, as I said, that's just one way of looking at things and there are legitimate reasons to still honor treaties, even those signed by dictators.

Furthermore, I'm going to play devil's advocate and say that I find it a bit of a stretch to believe that one of the most experienced nations in warfare makes it logistically possible to kidnap, house, feed and guard 200 000 non-combatants, while fighting a losing war.

They weren't losing from 1931-1941.  Also, that very experience in systemically organizing and caring for large numbers of people (which is a good 80% of what an army is anyways) would make it rather easy for them to round up (conscript), house (barracks), feed (quartermastering) , and guard (military police) 200,000 people (roughly the equivalent of a single "area army sized unit" of which Japan had 27 during WWII (and given the lack of necessary equipment, this would have been far easier to organize). Furthermore these would have been dispersed across Korea, China, the Philippines, and SE Asia, and thus easier to maintain. The Japanese already held tens of thousands of people as POWs (at least 50,000 from US and Commonwealth forces, who knows how many Chinese). This wouldn't have been some monumental task, especially from the invasion of Manchukuo up until Pearl Harbor.

but so far, logic dictates that those 'comfort women' were in fact, just prostitutes.

Given the Japanese record in WW2, logic dictates that a significant number were coerced, either directly by the military or through their go-betweens. Of course there were undoubtedly a decent number of women who were just prostitutes.

Alternatively, it must have been Koreans themselves who kidnapped their own women and sold them off as comfort women. Why not? Many Africans did this during the slave trade.

Undoubtedly there were. However, the impetus for that is the military occupation. The military occupation created the demand. The military occupation had the enforcement mechanism to make it happen.

- The Japanese made us kill all the Korean tigers to kill our national identity
- The Japanese made us chop down all our trees
- The Japanese made our women wear the 'breast exposed Hanbok'
- The Japanese made us commit war crimes

notice a pattern?

You ever read up on the history of the Japanese military during WWII and their general regard for prisoners? We're not talking nice people. When the situation is "Do this or get bayoneted", yes people were made to do this thanks to the Japanese military occupation.

Reports and testimonials listed bellow state that Koreans themselves were largely responsible for rounding up comfort women, gangs of Koreans targeted women from poor peasant families and even managed the comfort women stations.

Yes, every occupied country will have collaborators who work with the powers that be. The Jewish Ghetto Police under the Judenrat would round up Jews and administer Nazi policy. That doesn't mean the Jews (or the Poles or the Dutch) are without cause to blame the Nazis and seek redress.

- Korean men make up the largest percentage of 'sex tourists' in SE Asia for underage prostitution.
- More than half of Korean men have cheated on their spouse and 40% believe paying for sex isn't cheating
  http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20160801000806
- Korea is one of the most patriarchial societies on Earth

Korea is NOT one of the most patriarchal societies on Earth. In the developed world? Sure. On Earth? No.  Adultery rates are high in many other countries, France for example, that doesn't mean that the anything relating to the Nazi occupation of France is unfounded and perhaps we can look to modern French character to verify.

Regardless, while undoubtedly there were collaborators (and more likely, just common gangsters) who worked with the Japanese, the fact is that the military occupation was the source of the demand and the vehicle through which at least some women (probably a significant number) were coerced into sexual servitude. As the ruling authority of Korea at the time, the Japanese were responsible for law enforcement and justice in the occupied territory of Korea. They are the ones who drafted the policy, condoned it, gave it legal framework, enforced it, and gave whoever was involved the umbrella of protection to likely act with impunity.