Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: joey703
What's the natural order of things and what does that mean ?

Why are you asking ME this? This "natural order of thing" argument is yours, not mine. And frankly, I don't know quite what it means except that in the author's mind it means that Communist insurgencies ought to have been allowed to engage in subversion at their will with no resistance from the West, or specifically from the United States, because that upsets the "natural order of things".

I hope you won't be too offended if I point out that this is gratuitous circular reasoning.

I could just as easily point out that the communist insurgencies were disturbing the "natural order of things" in their native societies when they began to engage in subversion and armed revolution, but I wouldn't. Why? Because the entire line of reasoning is specious.

31 posted on 09/11/2009 11:46:27 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: John Valentine
This "natural order of thing" argument is yours, not mine. And frankly, I don't know quite what it means except that in the author's mind it means that Communist insurgencies ought to have been allowed to engage in subversion at their will with no resistance from the West, or specifically from the United States, because that upsets the "natural order of things". Wow, how hard is it to understand this. I'm going to make you the target audience for my next posting as well. I really would like for us to see eye to eye here, but... perhaps, it's not as obvious as you think it is, hence... the three part posting (i'll write the 3rd later), it's 3:14 pm here... The "natural order of things" was bolded in those two articles...

Can't you see where I'm arguing from? If anything, I wouldn't be a communist, but a traditionally minded American with conservative values that's trying to look at things from a Korean point of view?

What I meant in the two articles by the natural order of things are:

#1. It's not in the natural order to have a divided Korean peninsula or rival Korean states.Korea has pretty much had the same borders with the same homogenous group of people since 664 AD.. even without having to resort to the most ridiculous exercise of revisionist/nationalist history that has become the Balhae debate. So, imagine a country that has had one ethnic group... No minorities whatsoever for 1300 years... Consistently... Where's your sense of other in society? I mean if you look at American History, the identity of what it means to be American has gone from being defined by a particular ethnic group and religious denomination to a set of values and principles (and i'd like to language tradition as well -- "language")... But, in Korea, it has been the same for 1300 years, either you're Korean ("we") or an outsider (even "Chinese" would count here). If you go back far enough into Korean history, you'd actually see that Ming, yes, Ming Chinese emissaries in Korea were not allowed to even travel outside certain roads without Korean "interlopers" in not what is North Korea, but what was Joseon (a unified Korea)... So, as you can see, take these xenophobic tendencies that have lasted for more than a millenia and add that with colonialism and an unconcluded civil war and you are left with the bizarre state that is North Korea today that builds dams to kill other Koreans (And of course, a South Korea in denial).

#2. The natural order of things has also shown that Northeast Societies, or more precisely, Confucian societies have a favorable advantage when trying to obtain sustained economic growth(you can check the CBO's report on The Role Foreign Aid has Played in the Economic Development of South Korea and the Philipines (1997), for the exact link, i believe it's somewhere on my blogfor that)). But anyways, Korea being a Confucian society and the Philipines not. Thus, as in the 1950s it was the prevalent view or the Washington Consensus that export oriented development or that sustained economic development in Northeast Asia was just not going to happen, when first Japan and then the four Asian Tigers (all Confucian societies by the way) showed sustained economic development... then it was argued that these Korea's economic development was a miracle... (since all these tigers minus Korea were small island states)... I argue that it is not... I view that Confucian societies also enjoy (though not nearly to the same extent that American or Anglo-Saxon societies do with their strong legal and political institutions combined with free market enterprise and strong innovation)... that is a natural tendency to get rich... So, in this view, if Korea was destined to be rich at some point or well off, would it not have been better for Korea to have been unified during a civil war regardless of who did the unifying... I believe either route would have led to the same thing eventually... a prosperous Korea with strong democratic institutions (though favoring somewhat socialist principles of wealth distribution that all Confucian societies, such as Japan, have also shown)...

Perhaps, this is clearer... I will re-write it better on the blog shortly...

-Han

Author of Breaking Down Borders : Korea

p.s. I'll also be podcasting the course i'm teaching and the first class will have a specific slide hinting at this... that have traditionally favored education East is that the Confucian societies that have value Hence, it's weird to have a peninsula that's divided. This has led to a very bizarre state that is North Korea. Everything about North Korea is weird.. I think there's going to have to be a part III...

32 posted on 09/12/2009 3:36:47 AM PDT by joey703 (northxkorea.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson