Posts by fulltimestudent

32

A Korean Tragedy

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

the modern history is full of deep, dark tragedies.

and, my intention, as i sat down to write of those tragedies for a fb page i look after for a macquarie university student society, was to tell the story of these very dark contemporary events.

but east asia history is complex and i think its helpful to try to have an overview of that history to understand what has happened in the recent past.

fulltimestudent

For those to whom the subject is compelling, you may be interested in this book that will be published early next year:

If you wonder just how the situation in the Korean Peninsula has degenerated to where it is today, with both sides wasting words calling each other names, you may find the book to be interesting (when released in early 2018).

Whether or not you like Noam Chomsky, it is hard to disagree with his recommendation for the book.

Quote: "The failed invasion of North Korea by US-led forces in late 1950 and the unrelenting three-year long bombing campaign of North Korean cities, towns and villages – ‘every thing that moved [and] every brick standing on top of another’ – help explain why the Pyongyang regime is, and always has been, determined to develop a credible nuclear deterrent. As Alistair Horne once said so wisely ‘How different world history would have been if MacArthur had had the good sense to stop on the 38th parallel.
The first Korean War became the first of America’s failed modern wars; and its first modern war with China. It established the pattern for the next sixty years and marked the true beginning of the American century – opening the door to ever-increasing military expenditure; launching the long era of expanding American global force projection; and creating the dangerous and festering geopolitical sore that exists in Northeast Asia today. Washington has not learned the lessons of history and we are reaping the consequences.
‘Perceptive and compelling – often heart-rending, sometimes downright terrifying – this is a richly informed study…The lessons are all too pertinent in today’s toxic political climate, with Korea once again a centerpiece and victim.’
Noam Chomsky"

The author, Michael Pembroke, is a judge in the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Australia) and has travelled extensively through Asia. His father was an Army platoon leader in the Korean war, who was awarded a Military Cross for a singular military action.

In 2016 he travelled through North Korea from the Yalu River on the Manchurian border to the demilitarised zone in the south. His research has taken him to Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, Washington DC and Cambridge. Later this year, he will take up a position as a Director’s Visitor at the Institute of Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey.

32

A Korean Tragedy

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

the modern history is full of deep, dark tragedies.

and, my intention, as i sat down to write of those tragedies for a fb page i look after for a macquarie university student society, was to tell the story of these very dark contemporary events.

but east asia history is complex and i think its helpful to try to have an overview of that history to understand what has happened in the recent past.

fulltimestudent

Even before the election of the Workers Party to government in the North, th Soviet administration had permittee a number of reforms (by the short-lived Korean Peoples Republic). Any Korean who had collaborated with the Japanese was thrown out of office. In March 1946, a \land reform program had been implemented. The large tracts of land owned by the traditional Korean aristocracy (about 5000 landlords) and any land acquired by Japanese individuals or companies was confiscated ( individuals were allowed to keep approximately 12 acres) and redistributed to peasant families.Most landowners had already fled to the American occupied south, so the land re-distribution was accomplished without much violence. Major industries were confiscated by the state. Labour reforms (an 8 hour day, social security insurance, pay increases, equal pay for men and women) were also implemented. Generally, Korea, Old and New: A History notes that the reforms were carried out by Koreans and reflected the spirit of the Korean People's Republic.

A Soviet-US Joint Commission (established to work toward a single provisional Korean government first met in 1946 and also in 1947 but it was soon clear that little progress was going to be made, because of the differing views of the north and south. In the north Kim Il-sung had emerged as a potential leader and it seems he set about establishing control of both the Workers Party and a Soviet backed 'Interim People's Committee' set-up in February 1946. Later in 1946 a military corp was initiated that would eventually become the DPRK's Army.

In the south, the American Military Government brought Syngman Rhee (who had spent many years in the USA) to Korea. Rhee had a reputation as a patriot (and you may recall had been tapped as the head of the Korean People's Republic and was also a fervent anti-communist and was soon denouncing anyone who wanted to work with the Korean People's Republic, and any Korean communist group (in the south or the north).

The American Military Government made an effort to establish a moderate 'centrist' political group, but in the fast polarising political situation, there was little support.

Given all those developments it soon became impossible for any UN sponsored move to establish an independent Korean government.

The North reflected the leftist spirit of many Koreans, who had long dreamed and fought for a socialist state, while in the South an alliance between those opposed to such a move, wealthy business men, southern landowners, northern landowners who had lost their landed estates, and former collaborators with the Japanese Colonial Administration was soon seeking control of the south's political aspirations.

Both groups claimed to represent all Koreans. Both groups were soon talking about using force to achieve a 'unified' Korea, a situation developed is precisely what we still see on the Korean Peninsula.

In May 1948, elections were held in the south, the new National Assembly adopted a constitution and on August 15 of that year, the 'Republic of Korea' ( i.e. South Korea) was proclaimed, Syngman Rhee became President.

The north's reaction was to hold their own elections on August 25, and proclaimed the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' with Kim Il Sung as premier in September. Both of these governments adopted an attitude that there were the only legitimate government of Korea.

A little later in 1948 the USSR occupation army withdrew from north Korea, and in June 1949 the USA withdrew their military forces. Both states began to talk of a forced reunification with increasingly violent rhetoric, (somewhat like the Kim Jong-u - Donal Trump exchanges of late).

What can we say now after all these events, was the fate of that one opportunity for a unified Korea that existed in 1945 - the Korean People's Republic? Its fair to say that in the north, it was subverted by the USSR and the combined Korean Communist Party/Korean Worker's Party and Kim Song I.

In the south, it was ignored by the American Military government and atrophied away.

But just how did the war that started in 1945 develop?

20

Congrats Australia votes yes gay marriage! Awesome!

by Witness 007 in

well done aussie's 60% voted yes.

i really did not think this would happen here there is alot of gay phobia.

i saw men on the streets holding signs "vote no.

fulltimestudent

Thnx shepherdess for wanting to make sure that basic facts are correct. I'll respond to your criticism of my post by taking the most serious first.

shepherdess: "
I have not previously read any suggestion to that effect. The criticism of Pell is that, in his role, he must have known there was a problem and he didn’t act, or he acted to cover it up.

and having come under some unwelcome suspicion as having had a specific liking for younger boys

My response: Your statement is correct, in that the original complaint about Pell is that (like many others in various catholic hierarchies) he ignored information about priestly child abusers. But the charges against this man (claimed to be number 3 in the world hierarchy) is specifically one of historic child abuse.

According to a Sydney Morning Herald report on October 6, 2017:
Up to 50 witnesses could be called and a "voluminous" amount of evidence discussed when Cardinal George Pell, Australia's highest-ranking Catholic official, faces a committal hearing next year on charges of historical sex abuse. ...
Reference: http://www.smh.com.au/national/cardinal-george-pell-due-back-in-court-on-historical-sex-offence-charges-20171005-gyvds0.html

---------------------------

Second, is there any evidence for my statement:

Now Tony, who in his student days gained a reputation for slamming opponents in student politics, against walls and threatening them with worse, was also once a novice priest and is still very much a supporter of the church.

You are correct that there were no other witnesses to the female students allegation against Abbott. Except that a male student, who is now a Sydney Barrister has made this statement:

David Patch

Sept 13, 2012

"I did not see the incident, but I was nearby. The count had just finished. Barbara found me. She is a small woman, and Tony Abbott was (and is) a strong man. She was very shaken, scared and angry. She told me that Tony Abbott had come up to her, put his face in her face, and punched the wall on either side of her head. So, I am a witness. Barbara's immediate complaint to me about what Abbott had just done had the absolute ring of truth about it. I believed Barbara at the time, and still do."

- Sydney barrister and former Labor candidate David Patch backs Ms Ramjan's story.

Quoted from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-14/tony-abbott-barbara-ramjan-david-marr-university-days/4261254

Which lists a number of statements for and against Ramjan's claim.

Attempting to observe Abbott's character from afar, I see a strongly opinionated man who is intense in the way he approaches the causes in his life. Would you call his attitude pugilistic? I would, and could believe the above incident. You may not - but there are times when there is only one witness to an event.

-----------------------------

And third, my statements that (a) Tony A is a bit like D.Trump, and (b) that Abbott is a supporter of his church.

You state categorically that, "D Trump and T Abbott are not alike." And further that, "Abbot is a career politician and an ideologically conservative one. Trump is not a real conservative. He is a populist who says things that appeal to a conservative base."

Here we approach a problem with definitions. What is a 'conservative?' I see similarities, you don't. OK! I think that Trump's approach to politics is 'conservative,' you think he is a populist that only pretends to be 'conservative.' We can agree to disagree.

But how deeply are Abbott's religious beliefs involved in his political agenda? I'll let the Jesuit publication, Eureka Street,(which I subscribe to) answer:

"Tony Abbott is the most prominent current Australian political leader with ties to the Labor Split of the 1950s, through his personal association with B. A. Santamaria, the leader of the Catholic Social Studies Movement.
... Other current politicians have connections through their parents and through its residue in party and union politics. But no one else has ties as deep as Abbott, who stresses the closeness of his association with Santamaria, his personal inspiration and mentor from school days onwards.
Abbott joined the Sydney University Democratic Club, supported by Santamaria's National Civic Council, before he moved on to the Liberals. Abbott often reflects on the consequences of this period, including the rise of Catholic Liberals. He has been known to observe enigmatically that the DLP is alive and well within his party.
Abbott has personified church ties with politics through his relationship with the man he has called his confessor, Cardinal George Pell. In the past the relationship of Catholics with their church authorities has contributed to Protestant distrust."
From an article entitled: " Abbott, Santamaria and Catholic Liberals." by a John Warhurst.
Link: https://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=20247

May I add that i originally wrote my post in a rather light-hearted mood, but I always like to have a good level of 'truthiness' in things I say. With some regret, I feel I have left that 'light-heartedness' in this response.

20

Congrats Australia votes yes gay marriage! Awesome!

by Witness 007 in

well done aussie's 60% voted yes.

i really did not think this would happen here there is alot of gay phobia.

i saw men on the streets holding signs "vote no.

fulltimestudent

Just a sidelight - but I need to background it, for all you 'non-Aussies.'

First we have,Tony Abbott. A former (very) conservative Prime Minister ( a bit like one D.Trump), who was dumped by his own party when surveys started showing voters were starting to think he was a dickhead. Tony does have a gay sister, but was probably the highest profile campaigner for a 'NO vote', even though his own daughter publically announced she would vote YES!!

Now Tony, who in his student days gained a reputation for slamming opponents in student politics, against walls and threatening them with worse, was also once a novice priest and is still very much a supporter of the church.

Tony, in his younger days also gained a reputation for liking to be photographed in his swimming briefs (that Aussies often refer to as "budgie smugglers," as in this pik:

What did that particular peculiarity really mean? Sorry I just don't get it.

Now the second man. Here we have a man who was once Australia's highest profile catholic, and having come under some unwelcome suspicion as having had a specific liking for younger boys, found himself promoted to be the catholic church's top money man at the vatican. This is Cardinal George Pell in all his glorious finery.

and ....

I don't know if Georgie boy did anything to any kid, but certainly it seems that he likely knew of priests who did, and did nothing to prevent it. I guess the current court hearing will decide the validity of any police information.

Georgie boy and Tony were good friends. Tony took a lot of notice of what George thought and said, and recently dismissed the allegations of possible child abuse, telling us that George was a really fine man. Some people saw the relationship differently as the satirical image explains:

So to come (at last) to the point, after the successful YES vote announcement on wednesday, an artist painted this picture on a wall, at Newtown's ( a gay locality) Botany View Hotel.

Within hours some (apparently) Christian Terrorists arrived and white-washed the Cardinal Pell caricature in the painting, but leaving the Tony A image untouched.

Apparently, some Christians are sore losers, but I guess most of us learnt that quite some time ago.

22

Did Being a JW Make You a Better Person?

by Boredposter in

i heard many times when i was a witness how much "learning the truth" helped people.

many have been said to have become much better people.

addictions were given up.

fulltimestudent

Grin - did being a witness make be better in some way? Well, it did make me poorer, but yeah, there were some positive aspects. But the financial cost (which must be affecting a lot of older people) is easily the most negative thing about my near 50 years of delusion.

I don't think I ever experienced the negative aspects of witness life that some here complain about. Of course, there were some witnesses that could easily rub you up the wrong way, but I think I realised that's the case in all walks of life.

On the positive side, as an inexperienced 17 y.o. that couldn't concentrate very well, I had to learn to study hard.

And, a bit on the shy side, I had to learn to approach people and start conversations. A handy ability! (Always hated door-to-door though - a rather useless activity). But I did learn how to work a room and meet people. Maybe I would've learned to do that in some other field, but the fact is that I learned it as a witness.

However, I think the most important 'character' forming thing I learnt was caring for people. That doesn't fit the way many people here see the witnesses, and that may be because Aussies tend to be bit more laid back than the national characteristics of some other nationalities.

Anyway, I always tried to care for the folk in the congregations associated with. Being an elder isn't always conducive to that. I considered standing down as an E once, and had a chat with Max Lloyd, then on the branch committee. He told me that some elders ran round with bits of paper in their hand arranging things and some were real servants always doing something for someone. In Max's view both were neccessary. I only wanted to be the 'serving' kind, although in my secular work I loved organising things and I think that I was a good manager. Maybe that was part of me before I became a witness, but even so I honed that skill as a witness.

I decided not to attend the meeting when my disfellowshipping was announced, but I was told that there were many tears, so maybe I was seen as caring - just sorry now, that part of that caring involved trying to help people continue serving the YHWH/JESUS duo and thus waste their lives like I was doing.

And none of those (supposedly useful) things can disguise the fact that I wasted my bloody life trying to be like Jeeeeezuuuuz and wasted the lives of all the people that I may have helped.

32

A Korean Tragedy

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

the modern history is full of deep, dark tragedies.

and, my intention, as i sat down to write of those tragedies for a fb page i look after for a macquarie university student society, was to tell the story of these very dark contemporary events.

but east asia history is complex and i think its helpful to try to have an overview of that history to understand what has happened in the recent past.

fulltimestudent

And in the north ...

Its likely difficult to imagine ourselves in the Korean milieu of 1945. And it is even more difficult to imagine the northern sector, effectively under Soviet Russian control from some point in August/September 1945.

Most Koreans were still involved in small scale subsistence farming, the Japanese had developed heavy industry in the north of the peninsula, so that 65% of the peninsula’s heavy industry was in the north, and the Koreans employed in the mines, hydro-electric plants, steel mills etc. could be described as an industrial working class. In contrast, only 37% of agriculture was located in the north. The border areas between Korean and Manchuria had also been the chosen location for resistance fighters against the Japanese colonisers. One other unique feature, now almost forgotten is that the northwest of Korea, and centred in the Pyongyang area, was a Christian stronghold.

During August, 1945 People’s Committees associated with the Korean People’s Republic movement had also been formed in the Pyongyang area, so the Russian army entering Pyongyang on August 8, 1945, found a People’s Committee, led by longtime Christian nationalist, Cho Man-sik, already functioning. Unlike the American army in the south, the Russians accepted the People’s Committees and the idea of the Korean People’s Republic. Some accounts suggest that Cho Man-sik was the first choice of the Russians as a potential leader of a government in the north.

On September 19, Kim Il-sung and 36 other Koreans who had fled to Russian territory after harassment by the Japanese Army, arrived in Wonsan. On October 14, the Soviet army introduced Kim to the population as a guerrilla hero.

In December 1945, at a conference in Moscow, the Russians agreed to an American proposal for a trusteeship for five years before independence for Korea. Under Soviet pressure, Kim and other Communists supported the Moscow agreement, but Cho Man-suk opposed it publically and the Russians placed him under house arrest. In December 1945, existing Communist groups were combined intp a new North Korean Communist Party, and later in August 1946 the NK Communist Party was merged with the New People’s Party to form the Worker’s Party of North Korea. In December an election was held and an alliance of the Worker’s Party and other groups won the election.

32

A Korean Tragedy

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

the modern history is full of deep, dark tragedies.

and, my intention, as i sat down to write of those tragedies for a fb page i look after for a macquarie university student society, was to tell the story of these very dark contemporary events.

but east asia history is complex and i think its helpful to try to have an overview of that history to understand what has happened in the recent past.

fulltimestudent

The two ‘new’ occupying armies, the USA and the USSR that now controlled Korea, shared one goal – both wanted to influence the political form of an independent Korea would be friendly to their own concept of world security. Already, it seemed the Americans had quickly assumed an outlook that saw communism as a monolithic force controlled by Stalin’s USSR, rather than a grouping of localized nationalist and socialist movements each with unique historical roots founded in patriotic opposition to European/ American colonization.

That view was likely founded on advice (to the American Military) from the conquered Japanese government sectors that had controlled captive Korea, to the effect that an alliance of communists and independence agitators were attempting to take control of Korea. So its not surprising that General J.R.Hodge, commanding the American forces in South Korea, had orders not to recognize any form of independent Korean government, but to establish a USA Army authorized Military Government in Korea.

Faced with the task of forming a government, Hodge first called on existing Japanese officials from colonial days, which led to a vociferous resistance from Koreans. Hodge then turned to Koreans who had served in the Japanese Colonial Administration, most of whom were judged to be former Japanese collaborators. So sadly right from the start of the USA’s military government, many Koreans were dismayed by American insensitivity. Tensions were created that persist to this day in the political make-up of the eventual Republic of Korea.

Hodge had a difficult job. The only people who had governance experience were discredited, in the eyes of most Koreans, by their association with colonising Japan.

A new conservative political party was formed, the Korean Democratic Party, founded by a group of wealthy landowners and businessmen. The Military government then set about closing down the Korean Peoples Republic organization and branches, which led to often violent protests. To counter the protests, the American Military Government used a police force that included thousands of Koreans that just months before had been serving and upholding the authority of the Japanese Colonial Government. These ex-servants of the Japanese State worked alongside American servicemen to suppress the unrest. By the end of 1946 most localized rebellions were controlled, except one major rebellion, which we must come back to at a later point.

7

The True Heir of the Roman Empire was not the Anglosphere, or Western Europe - It was the Russian Imperial Empire.

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

may i recommend this podcast discussing the russian revolution.

its made by a the conversation, an academic web-site, and features interviews with a number of historians.

i recommend it because an in-depth knowledge of history will protect your thinking from the shallow historical interpretation evident in the jws concept of a progression of world powers and the view of ww1 being a world war.

fulltimestudent

Crazyguy, I'd like to explain the reasoning.

First I used the term 'Imperial Russia' to differentiate the USSR from the Russia of the czars. Although to be descriptively accurate, terms like Imperial and Empire are often used very loosely, Russia was self-declared to be an empire in the 18th century. It did however, exist in similar form prior to the Romanovs. But that's a side issue to my comments on the JW approach to history as demonstrated in their teachings on the King of the North and the King of the South.

Leaving to one side the question of whether or not we are reading a genuine prophecy in the Bible, I wanted to show how Franz's explanation of how these so-called prophetic titles changed in later history is not accurate.

As I recall Franz's book, the King of the North became Russia (in modern times) through the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire. Historically I cant see that as true, because anyone who examines Byzantine (the Eastern Roman Empire) history knows how closely eastern Europe and Russia are linked (particularly culturally) to the Byzantine Empire.

By the fall of Byzantium to the Ottomans, Russia had a accepted a general Byzantine culture, particularly in combining an acceptance of autocracy and in combining church and state. Moscow was seen as the third Rome. And, even all those years of atheistic teaching by the Russian Communist Party does not seem to have weakened those attitudes. In contemporary Russia, the Orthodox church seems as strong as ever.

The whole K of the N, versus the K of the S, is just a fairy story, but I wanted to point out how a lack of historical knowledge can lead people astray. We could probably point out similar flaws in Franz's, the King of the South explanations. Starting from Egypt, he traces the defeat of Prolemaic Egypt by the Romans, and then connects England to Egypt by the Roman occupation of England. So is Rome, the King of the North or the King of the South? Rather tenuous isn't it?

Confusing! Why? Because once we assume that the Book of Daniel was written around the 5th Century BCE and is therefore prophetic, we will have a problem of making it fit the real world. IF we accept that it was written much closer to the Christian era, and the so-called prophecy was not prophecy but just relating known history (masquerading as prophecy), then we wont even try to fir it into modern history.

Of course, the witnesses are not the only Krazy Kristians that try to interpret the Book of Danial document as history, there are plenty of others out there in the world of today.

And finally your comment:

Early Russia around Moscow was controlled by the Vikings other northern Russia cities were under their control too.

Yes, because the Russians (or many of them) were Vikings.

Quote: "The traditional beginning of Russian history is 862 A.D. Kievan Rus', the first united East Slavic state, was founded in 882. The state adopted Christianity from the Byzantine Empire in 988, beginning with the synthesis of Byzantine and Slavic cultures that defined Slavic culture for the next millennium."

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia

7

The True Heir of the Roman Empire was not the Anglosphere, or Western Europe - It was the Russian Imperial Empire.

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

may i recommend this podcast discussing the russian revolution.

its made by a the conversation, an academic web-site, and features interviews with a number of historians.

i recommend it because an in-depth knowledge of history will protect your thinking from the shallow historical interpretation evident in the jws concept of a progression of world powers and the view of ww1 being a world war.

fulltimestudent

Crazyguy : Imperial Russia came on the seen about 300 years after the fall of the eastern Roman Empire.

OK Let's test that. Byzantium fell to the Ottomans in 1453, and you want to locate the development of Imperial Russia some 300 years later. Is that correct?

The Western Empire did not just morph into the Holy Roman Empire. In 476 Germanic tribes under Odoacer sacked Rome and Oadacer claimed the title Emperor. But what followed was not traditional Rome. Traditionally, historians see 476 as the end of the Western Roman Empire. Charlemagne's efforts attempted to draw on the West Roman Imperial traditions, but it was not a direct lineal descendent.

7

The True Heir of the Roman Empire was not the Anglosphere, or Western Europe - It was the Russian Imperial Empire.

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

may i recommend this podcast discussing the russian revolution.

its made by a the conversation, an academic web-site, and features interviews with a number of historians.

i recommend it because an in-depth knowledge of history will protect your thinking from the shallow historical interpretation evident in the jws concept of a progression of world powers and the view of ww1 being a world war.

fulltimestudent

May I recommend this podcast discussing the Russian Revolution. Its made by a The Conversation, an academic web-site, and features interviews with a number of historians. I recommend it because an in-depth knowledge of history will protect your thinking from the shallow historical interpretation evident in the Jws concept of a progression of World Powers and the view of WW1 being a world war. It was not. It was the last gasp of European Imperialism.

(To be clear that opinion is mine and not a conclusion reached in the podcast)

https://theconversation.com/anthill-18-revisiting-the-russian-revolution-86284?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%2086537194&utm_content=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%2086537194+CID_7cbc31deab768caa5e5be950c89940af&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Anthill%2018%20Revisiting%20the%20Russian%20Revolution

Soviet revolutionaries attacking the Csar's police in 1917.

The Russian Revolution swept away a political tradition that was 2000 years old, not only sweeping away the last remnants of the Roman Empire,* but also changing the course of modern history.

Leninist Propaganda Poster

While few people in the Anglosphere or the more advance economies of the west would feel stirred by the slogan, "Пролетарии всех стран, объединяйтесь!," because the Russian Revolution forced those nations to improve social living conditions for their citizens, the peoples living in third world conditions may still feel the need to revolt. Generally speaking, people need to be hungry and desperate before they will revolt.

*Rome (In Italy) was swept away by invaders from the Asia Steppe, but survived as the Eastern Roman Empire ( also known as the Byzantine Empire) which was eventually destroyed by the Islamic Ottoman Empire, but survived in the form of Imperial Russia.