thoughts about session 7 (Korea w/Prof. Jung-Kim)

The combination of the two articles on the South Korean education system provided an interesting contrast, describing both the lengths to which South Korean students are expected to go in order to gain entry to elite universities AND the frustrations parents feel with the pressures and inflexibility of that process, leading them to actually leave the country with their small children. As my own school debates what a "21st century education" should look like, it's intriguing to imagine that conversation taking place in South Korea as well. My own experience with South Korean students who have come to Archer for a semester or a year is that they are highly motivated and disciplined but somewhat baffled by the expectations for engaging in class discussion, devising their own interpretations of literature or historic events, and so on. I don't mean to play into stereotypes with that description, but that really has been my experience!

Several of the articles brought up issues of gender roles and the importance of Confucianism in Korean culture, and it's interesting to see the ways in which gender relationships seem to be shifting as South Korea becomes more affluent and its female citizens more highly educated. I would have like to know more about the apparent shift away from a preference for male children, as the first article didn't really go into much detail. And it would also be fascinating to know the extent to which Confucianism plays a role in North Korean culture. Maybe topics for further discussion this evening!

Professor Jung-Kim's lecture and the readings in the textbook showed how South Korea never had legitimate free democratic elections until the late 1980's. Nevertheless, South Korea's Economy developed under Park Chung Hee and Chun Doo Hwan, even though the two Presidents acquired power in a military style coup and executed their power as dictators. I initially wondered how South Korea was able to develop economically at such a fast pace despite being under dictatorial rule, while countries like India and the Philippines have been democracies for a longer time yet still continue to live under "Third World" Underdeveloped conditions. The best conclusion I came up with was that the population of India and the Philippines simply skyrocketed at a rapid pace while South Korea had a slower population growth; South Korea was thus able to keep its development up to pace with slower population growth.

I truly enjoyed this session of the seminar. I especially enjoyed the portion on the Korean War. My grandfathter served in the Air Force and fought in this war. He spoke very little of it which made it even more mysterious. The bits of information provided, only made me more curious as to the what, when, why , and how of the war. I definitely plan to do more research. Another interesting fact shared with us was how military dictators ran the goverment vs. the "traditional" government leaders and how seriously their leaders were about success and failure. Lastly, the 6th Era of Globalization, and the question. "How can Korea change with the help of others?" caused me to look further into Korea's economy, politics, and culture. I was blown away by the amount of resources they have and how they are being utilized.

Session 7 with Professor Jung-Kim offered a wealth of knowledge about modern Korea. It was very interesting to learn about the different perceptions/labels of the Korean War, because my knowledge was truthfully limited to what was in the textbooks and a few other supplemental readings. While it is common knowledge that the Korean War was a civil war and a proxy war (we call in a surrogate war in my classroom), it was fascinating to hear Professor Jung-Kim say that it wasn’t over. A typical student would questions such a statement seeing as though there are no actual “war-like battles” taking place there today, but we know that this statement is made because the country is, indeed, still divided. Another topic I was interested in, mainly because kids inquire about it all the time (i.e. “So what do you mean they CAN’T leave???”) is the idea of travel to and within the two regions of the country. Southerners can travel North for business and tourism, but Northerners cannot travel south. I definitely would like to know about this topic…

Two more things I was fascinated with were (1) the government’s transition from military dictatorships to democracy and (2) The 6th Era of globalization and the Asian Financial Crisis. I can certainly use the stories of students/civilians protesting for democracy in my classroom when we look at similar events such as the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. I found it interesting that Kim Young Sam, the first civilian president since 1963, placed the previous 2 presidents on trial. Finally, I admire the way Korea bounced back from the Asian Financial Crisis and how Lee Myung Bak’s 7-4-7 Plan was successful in raising the GDP and bettering the overall economy. One remaining question I have is - given the different types of economies in North and South Korea, but also considering their recent history of economic growth, would reunification strengthen or weaken the country as a whole? If not, is that a major deterrent for the idea of reunification?

The Korean War is the war is the one war in the 20th century that I seem to forget to teach every year. This is mostly because the textbook gloss over it and there isn't much emphasis in the standards. This year I was able to spend a little more time on the Korean War, but I don't feel like I was able to really discuss the significance of the war with my students.

After listening to the lecture, I feel like I have more information to impart to my students. I learned about the origin of the war that's a different perspective than the typical perspective that I've been presenting to my students.

The section about reunification was quite fascinating. How our popular media portray the potential reunification and the how the Koreans feel about it is food for thought that I will be incorporating in my classes next year.

I too found this particular topic very interesting. I hate to compare because someone always loses, but it is evident to me that the Asian cultures have a strong sense of honor that we’re missing in ours, otherwise we wouldn’t have so many students taking their education for granted because as cbacon puts it, in that culture young and old have a great deal of pressure to “make [their] family proud”. The concept of “honor suicide/killing,” however, remains as unfathomable to many of my students as the concept of being a STUDENT, which just breaks my heart especially when some of them very candidly share their belief that drug dealing can earn them more money than an education!!

I found the 10 things to know about Korea very interesting. I have personally experience it in my visit to Korea five years ago. 1. Korea is not small- I saw a lot of high riser and many Koreans in Soul. 2. Korea is not new- I saw part of the historical sites. 3. Korea is the home of many inventions- I personally visited the museum where they house the wood-block printing-Dharani sutra. 4. Koreans have a passion for nature- I visited palaces, temples and natural parks. 5. You can still see confucianism in action on the Korean peninsula. Koreans respect the parents and service to leaders and the state. They respect the teaching profession more than any other culture I know. 6. Korea is not a copy of China. 7. The Koreas are not hermit nations. 8. Korea is technologically advanced. Many technology stores in Soul, but most of the latest technology is only sold to Koreans and not foreigners. When we were there, they told us we needed a Korean I.D. to purchase new technology. 9. The Korean peninsula cannot be ignored. They have many soccer athletes. They were in the final 4 in the World Cup. 10. Koreans want to be reunified.

I wonder if people who committed suicide in South Korea know what will happen afterwards. For example, the politician who committed suicide, and all the investigation against him were dropped. Was that something that was supposed to happen? Or did peole feel guilty?
In the American culture it seems that we're not supposed to say anything negative about someone who just died, regardless of the reason. Take for example, the recent death of Ryan Dunn (Jackass actor) and the controversy over Roger Ebert's tweets about his death. Dunn drove drunk, crashed his car resulting in his and his passenger's death. Yet many people were quick to defend him and quick to call Roger Ebert insensitive for pointing out that people should drive drunk.
Another thing about suicide that comes to mind is a conversation I had with a Japanese international student while I was in college. He basically said that the reason he's still alive is because he hadn't done anything to shame his family. He said that if he had, then he would not be alive. I've wondered if this belief was widespread and/or how widespread it is.