3 ms·

The thing is ... complicated. America defeated Japan in WW2, leading to the liberation of Korea, but it was immediately followed by the US and the Soviet divid

The thing is ... complicated. America defeated Japan in WW2, leading to the liberation of Korea, but it was immediately followed by the US and the Soviet dividing the country in half. To make matters more complicated, the US backed a right-wing former independence fighter, who turned out to be a corrupt asshole who rolled in the same bed with national traitors (those who had worked for Japan under occupation). Because America now needed a strong military presence to fight the cold war, it also pushed Korea to be more friendly with Japan. The end result is that, in Korea, the "right wing" is friendlier toward the US and Japan, while the "left wing" tends to be more nationalistic (i.e., wanting a unified Korea) and hostile toward Japan. (Of course, even this is a gross simplification ...)

devchix 5y ago
The thing is super complicated! The US under SecDef William Howard Taft backed the Japanese annexation of Korea (tacitly, as it didn't do anything in protest) in return for Japan not raising a row over the US acquiring The Phillipines, during the Spanish-American war. Everybody is retconning history. Anyhow, the point is, it's a reach to say Korea's history has little historical baggage. Why is it not a poor, angry, belligerent nation state whose chief export is "freedom fighters" with massive chip on shoulder, as opposed to the technical, democratic state it is right now.
- yongjik 5y ago
  Err... I don't think your second point necessarily follows the first point. For a country to become "angry an belligerent, with massive chip on shoulder," it needs (1) angry, desperate people, and (2) someone who would gain politically by fanning the hatred (often in a self-reinforcing cycle). I think the anti-Japanese sentiment didn't really took off because, once you start looking into the matter, you'd rapidly realize that half of the country's ruling class was national traitors, at which point the question will become strictly verboten. By the time the country became democratic enough so that people could actually raise these questions, there was no point in becoming a "freedom fighter." Sure, everybody loves to hate Japan (especially when there's a soccer match), but nobody with half a brain would want to, say, visit Tokyo and blow up stuff ... it makes zero sense!
  - devchix 5y ago
    You're right, thanks for the nuanced view. I guess my impression here is that modern Korea, with its own cultural identity: dress, food, language, literature, history ... would not have been if the US hadn't entered WWII. I don't mean to create indebtors, it's an observation on how a country+culture could survive or disappear on a turn. And given what tenuous a beginning it had, it's amazing that South Korea is the entity it is now.
    - yongjik 5y ago
      Well, it's fun to speculate about "what if" - East Asia would look very different if the US had never entered the war, but I don't think the Korean culture would have just disappeared (not sure if that's what you mean). Do you know Korean has more speakers than Italian? It's very hard to eliminate the identity of dozens of millions of people, and Japan was definitely not planning to kill off Koreans even at the height of its madness. We enjoyed the dubious honor of being the "secondary citizen", close enough to be "civilized" (= assimilated) into the Japanese culture, unlike those other, savage Asians. "内鮮一体", as the Japanese Empire said: "The inland (Japan) and Chosen (Korea) are one body." I think the "worst case" result would have been something like Brittany or Scotland, having a shared identity but largely becoming a part of a bigger, dominant culture.

devchix 5y ago

The thing is super complicated! The US under SecDef William Howard Taft backed the Japanese annexation of Korea (tacitly, as it didn't do anything in protest) in return for Japan not raising a row over the US acquiring The Phillipines, during the Spanish-American war. Everybody is retconning history. Anyhow, the point is, it's a reach to say Korea's history has little historical baggage. Why is it not a poor, angry, belligerent nation state whose chief export is "freedom fighters" with massive chip on shoulder, as opposed to the technical, democratic state it is right now.

yongjik 5y ago
Err... I don't think your second point necessarily follows the first point. For a country to become "angry an belligerent, with massive chip on shoulder," it needs (1) angry, desperate people, and (2) someone who would gain politically by fanning the hatred (often in a self-reinforcing cycle). I think the anti-Japanese sentiment didn't really took off because, once you start looking into the matter, you'd rapidly realize that half of the country's ruling class was national traitors, at which point the question will become strictly verboten. By the time the country became democratic enough so that people could actually raise these questions, there was no point in becoming a "freedom fighter." Sure, everybody loves to hate Japan (especially when there's a soccer match), but nobody with half a brain would want to, say, visit Tokyo and blow up stuff ... it makes zero sense!
- devchix 5y ago
  You're right, thanks for the nuanced view. I guess my impression here is that modern Korea, with its own cultural identity: dress, food, language, literature, history ... would not have been if the US hadn't entered WWII. I don't mean to create indebtors, it's an observation on how a country+culture could survive or disappear on a turn. And given what tenuous a beginning it had, it's amazing that South Korea is the entity it is now.
  - yongjik 5y ago
    Well, it's fun to speculate about "what if" - East Asia would look very different if the US had never entered the war, but I don't think the Korean culture would have just disappeared (not sure if that's what you mean). Do you know Korean has more speakers than Italian? It's very hard to eliminate the identity of dozens of millions of people, and Japan was definitely not planning to kill off Koreans even at the height of its madness. We enjoyed the dubious honor of being the "secondary citizen", close enough to be "civilized" (= assimilated) into the Japanese culture, unlike those other, savage Asians. "内鮮一体", as the Japanese Empire said: "The inland (Japan) and Chosen (Korea) are one body." I think the "worst case" result would have been something like Brittany or Scotland, having a shared identity but largely becoming a part of a bigger, dominant culture.