#17 Haeinsa Temple Stay and Pohang Visit

[스티븐스 대사]

My son and I visited Haeinsa over the weekend for something which in Korean is called a temple stay.  Surrounded by mountains, the Haeinsa temple is set in Gaya National Park. When you are there it is hard to believe you could be so close to Daegu because you feel like you are a million miles away.  It was a memorable experience; if you have the opportunity to experience a temple stay, I highly recommend it.  

I must say, however, that it was more rigorous than I had imagined.  I was somewhat relieved to find out I was not the only one who felt this way.  One of my favorite quotes over the weekend came from a Korean woman that I met during our stay.  As we were hiking up Maehwasan to see the sunrise, she commented to me that she thought she had come for a temple stay, but she felt more like she was on an extreme survivor reality show!

My other favorite quote during the stay came from my son.  As a university student in the United States, he rarely gets up before 10:00 am unless he has a class to attend.  But on our temple stay, we had already hiked up a mountain, eaten breakfast, meditated for an hour, and done a number of other activities before 10:00 am.  He was having a great time and could not believe the clock.  During breakfast in the large temple dining hall where monks and visitors helped themselves cafeteria style and then ate in silence, he actually said – and this is my other favorite quote – that he wished his college cafeteria served that kind of food every day – steaming rice, vegetable and bean curd, steaming soups.  I agree that the temple’s food was delicious!

In the evening there was a traditional ceremony in which several monks in succession beautifully beat the temple drums.  It was very cold outside and there was an almost full moon.  A young girl from Seoul who was at the temple with her mother had never seen such a bright moon before.  The sky and the stars were a spectacular sight, and I was reminded that many children living in the city - both in the United States and Korea - very rarely experience the outdoors in this way.

 

This also happened to be an evening when a number of determined Buddhists were at the temple to bow 3,000 times.  I did not try to keep up with them but I was very impressed with their fortitude.  I could see why they needed to have a hearty breakfast at 6:00 am as many of them had stayed up all night doing these bows.

In addition to the temple, there are numerous hermitages at Haeinsa.  I explored only a few.  It was snowing as we clambered up and down the steep stone steps and pathways, truly magical. I am already looking forward to a return visit.

While at Haeinsa, I learned from the head monk that 2011 will mark the one thousand year anniversary of the engraving of Haeinsa’s beautifully preserved wooden block collection (Tripitaka Koreana).  Haeinsa is truly one of the great treasures of the world, and this anniversary gives us all an opportunity to reflect on the ingenuity of Korean technology, even one thousand years ago.

I also recently re-visited Pohang where POSCO and POSTECH are focused on continuing Korea’s modern tradition of technological development.  Like so many others, I had long heard of Park Tae-jun, the founder of POSCO.  I first visited the city when I was in Korea in the 1980’s.

It was fascinating to return to Pohang.  Despite the fact that POSCO and Pohang are experiencing the same economic challenges that we all are, they have a great “can-do” spirit.  In Pohang, technologies are being developed to address environmental issues and there is a real resolve to be competitive.  It is also clear that POSTECH is a world class institution.

With the area’s focus on modern technology, it is nice to see that tradition is also well-respected.   I enjoyed the opportunity to eat gwamegi (a Korean half-dried Pacific herring).  In fact, we liked it so much that my staff and I all brought some back to enjoy in Seoul.

My visits to Haeinsa and Pohang reminded me of how well Korea blends its long tradition of innovation with its commitment to preserve and honor its ancient and wonderful heritage.

Dear Netizens, have you visited these places?  What did you think? 

  

[종이배]

^^

[역사학도]

Dear Ambassador Kathleen Stephens, by your title "Haeinsa Temple Stay and Pohang Visit" do you mean you visited Pohang soon your Haeinsa Temple stay last weekend. If so, it might have been a journey from pre-modernity to modernity. Now, this episode of your recent cultural exploration can be taken as a good illustration for the argument as to why Kim Dae Jung is nondemocratic by his nature. Kim Dae Jung is nondemocratic by nature because he is a pre-modern man, a pre-modern man like him does not fit for democracy. Kim Dae Jung is a pre-modern man; not a man of modernity. Although Kim

[역사학도]

Dae Jung is negatively "a pre-modern man," your description of Haeinsa Temple Stay is a hint to a pre-modern culture. When you go to the Buddhist temple, you do not say there, "Let's do democracy here." For to enforce the rule of democracy over tradition in a Buddhist temple is to destroy the Buddhist system. You go temple stay not to enforce democracy, but to taste and appreciate the traditional life of that temple. When you go temple stay, your purpose is not to suggest, "Let's modernize and transform the cultural symbols from traditional into contemporary ones. You go there to accept

[역사학도]

and experience the traditional cultural symbols. And to accept the traditional cultural symbol is to accept the worldview that tradition is the source of authority. In sharp contrast to is, in a world of modern technology, something outdated is not valued. In Haeinsa, the Tripitaka Koreana(팔만대장경) is more valued because it approaches one thousand year anniversary. But POSCO and POSTECH is not the place where one-hundred or ten-year old antiques are valued. What people in POSCO and POSTECH seek for is the newest technology. POSCO and POSTECH are the place where they want to impress

[역사학도]

you by newest technology. POSCO and POSTECH represent the world of modernity where you can easily implement democratic system. But the Haeinsa Temple is quite different place. It is the place where authority comes from tradition. This is the place where traditionalism dominates. It is the place where you expect or demand democratization (민주화운동). It is not the place where you want to call the chief priest(큰스님) a dictator. If your goal is to implement democracy in a Buddhist temple, you must modernize everything there first. But if you do so, you will face a very strong

[역사학도]

resistance. And this is exactly the picture of what happened in the history of Korean democracy. Korea had been a traditional society. Korea had been the kind of society where you had to first modernize culture and civilization to implement democracy. This is what President Lee Seung Man and President Park Chugn Hee had attempted to achieve. And this is what Mr. Kim Young Sam and Kim Dae Jung have attempted to block. Kim Dae Jung is a very traditionalist in a negative sense. He is a pre-modern man. He has blocked the way to democracy by resisting to modernization and industrialization.

[역사학도]

When Kim Dae Jung mentions democracy he means democracy for pre-modernity. When he instigated and supported anti-American/anti-government rallies last summer, he emphasized that those rallies meant to be experiencing the direct democracy(직접 민주주의) originated from Athens of the ancient Greece. To quote his Korean speech spoken at the eighth anniversary ceremony of the 6.15 Joint Declaration of the Two Koreas(6.15 남북공동선언) on June 12, 2008, "2000년전 그리스 아테네에서 시작된 직접 민주주의 이래 처음으로 수천만 국민의 참여와 관심 속에 한국에서 다시 그 직접 민주주의를 경험하고 있다."

[역사학도]

And it was just after six months of his speech that we saw the violent rallies and riots in Greece. Did modern Greek people appreciated that riots as realization of direct democracy? No! Ask the Greeks and they will tell you how the extreme Leftists make life difficult in Greek. Does it make sense when Kim Dae Jung equates anti-American/anti-government rallies with direct democracy? The population of Athens as a city state was only sixty thousands, which can barely make a small village in modern Korea. Not only he does not know two totally different historical contexts, he also fails

[역사학도]

to see the difference between pre-modernity and modernity. Kim Dae Jung has only a very primitive idea of democracy because he is still a man of pre-modernity. (Actually, Kim Dae Jung does not know even democracy in ancient Athens whose ideal was politics by words and persuasion and not by power and violence.) If it is true that Kim Dae Jung's ideal for democracy is direct democracy by violent rallies, it betrays your understanding of democratization. In Kim Dae Jung's language, "direct democracy by violent rallies" is democratization, which he instigates to do now. If we follow your

[역사학도]

logic, the present Lee Myong Bak's government has an undeniable legacy of democratization. Right? In other words, the present Lee Myong Bak's government has been born as a result of democratization. But now Kim Dae Jung is giving the message that overthrowing Lee Myong Bak's government by violence will be the beginning of democratization. If we follow your logic, democratization must be the event of "already" since 1987 (Actually, you are quoting and supporting a common view when you state, "내가 부산영사관에 부임한 1987-89년 당시 한국 대선이 국제적으로 큰 관심거리였고 당시 직선제가 한국이

[역사학도]

발전하는데 하나의 전환점이 됐다는 것이 역사적 평가" http://cafe.daum.net/usembassy/641D/6509). But Kim Dae Jung himself is overthrowing the argument of "already since 1987" when he instigates a series of anti-American/anti-government rallies to overthrow Lee Myong Bak's government. If Kim Dae Jung supports and accepts the view of "already since 1987," he cannot deny the legacy of that democratization Lee Myong Bak's government has. If he denies, the existing theory of democratization is denied and shattered. If this is denied and shattered, the legacy of 5.18 will also be denied and

[역사학도]

shattered, We can discuss it in the light of the history of Hanguel, too. When you saw the Tripitaka Koreana last week, you might a little bit wonder why it was written in Chinese character. In this case, the explanation is not difficult. We simply had not yet our own character Hanguel one thousand years ago. But what did you feel when you visited the Kim Goo Memorial Hall(김구기념관) last January 3 and received a peace of Kim Goo's calligraphy as a gift? Not only that calligraphy is written in Chinese character, the direction of the reading goes from right to left. What is written is

[역사학도]

"韓美親善 平等互助," but in opposite direction there. Here comes the question of cultural identity. If you presents a piece of your calligraphy to your Korean friend, you do not have to write in Russian Alphabet. No matter how good your Russian penmanship is, to give the priority to cultural identity is important to an ambassador. Cultural identity will be even more important for a national leader. Nevertheless, Kim Goo wrote in Chinese character when he expressed his idea for mutual friendship to an American diplomat.

[역사학도]

This is how one notes the difference between Kim Goo and President Park Chung Hee. Follow the link http://study21.org/library/art/park-calligraphy.htm and you will see most of President Park's calligraphy is written in Hanguel. Here is an important fact you need to know as an Goodwill Ambassador for Hangeul. When you came to Korea in 1975, you saw Hangeul everywhere. But did you know that could only be possible through President Park vision and efforts in 1960's? Even King Sejong was not able to make Korean people use Korean character Hangeul after he invented it. It took five

[역사학도]

hundred years before Hangeul could be a fully official language for public and official documents. And it could only be possible by President Park's vision and efforts. Why, then, Kim Young Sam and Kim Dae Jung resisted to that vision? The Two Kims(양김씨) represented the two Confucian tradition both in Kyongsang Province(경상도) and Cholla Province(전라도). Kim Young Sam is from Geoje Island and Kim Dae Jung is from Sinan-kun. Their two Islands happened to be the place where the political parties from the Confucian tradition sent into exile each other. For hundred years

[역사학도]

the Confucian tradition resisted the use of Hangeul. But for President Park the use of Hangeul was the necessity for democratization, as democratization and modernization go hand-in-hand and the first step for modernization of the nation would be the use of Hanguel. Here was the situation where President Park's vision for Hanguel was a minority and the resistance to it was the majority. The two Kim's logic was that where President Lincoln's vision for equality of the humanhood was a minority, the majority's resistance to that vision is democracy. The two Kim's logic was that where Rev.

[역사학도]

Martin Luther King's vision for equal opportunity was a minority, the resistance to that vision is democracy. In other words, the dull two Kim's logic was that President Lincoln was a dictator if he would not surrender to the majority's opposition, and Rev. King was a potential dictator if he would fail to surrender to the majority's resistance. But should President Park gave up his vision for using Hanguel, for building highway, and for constructing POSCO when facing strong resistance from the unenlightened majority represented by the two Kims? In fact, Mr. Kim Young Sam is not much

[역사학도]

different from Kim Dae Jung in confusing his Confucian tradition with democracy. Nevertheless, Mr. Kim Young Sam clearly knows that Kim Dae Jung is the enemy of democracy when he deplored, “DJ는 입만 열면 선동과 파괴적인 언행을 일삼고 있으니 전직 대통령으로서 부끄러운 줄 알아야 한다”(http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/01/23/2009012301070.html?Dep0=chosunmain&Dep1=news&Dep2=headline1&Dep3=h1_03). By DJ's agitation and destructive speech(선동과 파괴적인 언행), YS is referring to DJ's speech of one day ago: “민주당이 ‘용산 사고’에서 어떻게 싸우냐에 따라 국민이 민주당에 대해

[역사학도]

큰 기대를 할 수 있다”; “그 모멘텀을 타고 2, 3월로 임박한 큰 싸움의 전초전이 되면서 국민의 성원을 얻게 될 것이며." By "2, 3월로 임박한 큰 싸움" Kim Dae Jung is suggesting that his grop is ready to launch another anti-American anti-Lee Myong Bak government uprising within one month. Various information already indicates that this time the uprising possibly be a civil-war scale (http://cafe.daum.net/issue21/3Fdk/3819). In his biographical work(백범일지), Kim Goo warns against returning to the dictatorship of the Confucian tradition when he discusses: "수백 년 동안 이조 조선에 행하여 온 ''계

[역사학도]

급독재''는 유교, 그 중에도 주자학파의 철학을 기초로 한 것이어서 다만 정치에 있어서만 ''독재''가 아니라 사상, 학문, 사회생활, 가정생활, 개인생활까지도 규정하는 ''독재''였다. And it took less than two decades that the two Kims appeared on the scene to bring back the old dictatorship of the Confucian worldview (more specifically, the 주자학(朱子學) worldview. The two Kims have falsely defined democracy as returning to the old dictatorship. Among the two Kims, it is Kim Dae Jung who is radical and dangerous one. Always Kim Dae Jung wears the mask of the slogan,

[역사학도]

"Fight against dictatorship!" But what is hidden under the slogan is his real intention to achieve the eternal dictatorship by his party and by his group. Down through the ages in Korea the shackle of that Confucian tradition has been so strong that President Park Chung Hee was the only leader who could free the Korean society from that shackle of the Confucian tradition so that modernization can be possible. President Park Chung Hee was the leader who could offer an impetus for modernization, leading the Korean people from the pre-modernity to modernity. But when the two Kims controlled

[역사학도]

the political hegemony Korea suddenly lost the impetus for modernization. What now remained was the inertia to go back to the old Confucian tradition. We are already seeing the signs of the integration of the society. In appearance we have a leader, a President. But where Kim Dae Jung' goal is to discourage the new President's vision for the nation and when Kim Dae Jung still plays the Emperor thing behind the scene, Korea has gone back to the old situation about which Kim Goo describes: 군주나 기타 개인독재자의 ''독재''는 그 개인만 제거되면 그만이거니와 다수의 개인으로 조직된 한 ''계급''

[역사학도]

이 ''독재''의 주체일 때에는 이 것을 제거하기는 심히 어려운 것이다. 이러한 ''독재''는 그보다도 큰 조직의 힘이거나 국제적 압력이 아니고는 깨뜨리기 어려운 것이다. 우리 나라의 양반정치도 일종의 ''계급독재''이거니와 이 것은 수백 년 계속되었다. In democracy, the leader is chosen by the way of election. But in the logic of Kim Dae Jung group's dictatorship, he eternally remains the boss even after his presidency is over. When the new President is not from his group, Kim Dae Jung and his group attempt to overthrow the new government by violence. The violence they used for the 5.18 Kwangju Uprising

[역사학도]

in 1980, they will use anytime again. Among Kim Dae Jung's group, it is not Lincoln, but Mao whom they make their role model. But you know that Mao is really far from being a leader of democratization. So when the Kim Dae Jung's group claim that their 5.18 Riot in Kwangju was for democratization, you must ask them how they define democracy. All refugees from North Korea testify that many of the 5.18 gunmen were, in fact, the North Korean soldiers. And there are lots of object facts that support their testimony. If the riot in Kwangju was for democracy, the 5.18 gun men must be the

[Tomas chong]

My hometown is pohang ,thank you for the visited there.

[역사학도]

enemy of the North Korean regime. Then, how do you explain the fact that the leading figure of the Kwangju Uprising have been treated as heroes in North Korea. One example is Yoon Ki-Kwon(윤기권) who went to North Korea to serve his Great Leader Kim Il Sung. Just for being a 5.18 gun man a few days in May 1980, he was rewarded two billion won in 1991. (You know the amount of two billion won was a huge fortune in those days.) If his goal was to serve democracy, how do you explain he went to North Korea after taking that money, and also how do you explain the North Korean regime welcomed

[역사학도]

him as hero? You can read more about the story of Yoon Ki-Kwon at http://study21.org/518/doc/518movie06.htm . Perhaps, the name Moon Ik Whan(문익환), the other representative figure of 5.18, might be familiar to you. I am reluctant to call him with his Reverend title(목사 직함) because he is more a Communist rather than a pastor in his ideology and worldview. Indeed, he is from North Korean perspective as well. A special North Korean stamp bears his photo. In a country where the freedom for Christian faith is denied, Rev. Moon Ik Whan is remembered as the one faithful to the North

[역사학도]

Korean ideology. And if it is true that both Yoon Ki-Kwon and Moon Ik Whan's intention was to support the interest of the North Korean regime, where is the logic to claim that their 5.18 uprising was for democratization? Now, according to Kim Goo, the most important criteria for democracy is the freedom of speech. Kim Goo discusses it in his biographical diary(백범일지): "우리 나라가 망하고 민력이 쇠잔하게 된 가장 큰 원인이 실로 여기 있었다. 왜 그런고 하면 국민의 머리 속에 아무리 좋은 사상과 경륜이 생기더라도...세상에 발표되지 못하기 때문이었다. (....) 언론의 자유가 어떻게나 중요한 것임

[역사학도]

을 통감하지 아니할 수 없다. 오직 언론의 자유가 있는 나라에만 진보가 있는 것이다." This discussion is a reflection about the mistake of the Confucian tradition from historical perspective. Their fatal mistake was the oppression of speeches from other view. And this was what exactly Kim Dae Jung group did when they started riot in 1980. Follow the link http://blog.naver.com/rice2meatu/90033331499 and you will see why it took twenty seven years before the journalist Kim Dong Moon(김동문 기자) could publicly open his 5.18 diary. While it was his strong desire to make the truth known,

[역사학도]

the threat from the Kim Dae Jung group made him patiently wait for twenty seven years for the freedom of speech. Follow the link http://blog.naver.com/rice2meatu/90033331983 and you will see how the Kim Dae Jung group threatened to kill him twice. Although journalist was fairly neutral in his political position, Kim Dae Jung group put his name on the purging list. They already threatened to kill him at the time of the 10.26 Incident in 1970. This time on May 19, 1980, the 5.18 gun men called him with threatening voice to say, "유신 언론인은 방문할테니 기다려!" It was the threat from

[역사학도]

occupying army to the object of purging. In their time line the 5.18 gun men meant to be the occupying revolutionary army. The goal of 5.18 was the dictatorship by the Kim Dae Jung group. That is why his group promised to his followers that they would be given the position of the mayors if the uprising turned out to be successful. "광주 민중봉기가 성공하면 김대중 씨를 추종하던 사람들은 시장 군수를 할수있다는 유언비어도 있었고 이 유언비어를 뒷받침하는 것이 김대중의 예비내각 명단이 기록된 문서였다. http://blog.chosun.com/sionvoice/345434 ). So when Kim Dae Jung promised that his comrades

[역사학도]

would have government positions, he already had what he called 예비내각 명단, that is, a preliminary register of the names of the cabinet. The spring of 1980 was the time Kim Dae Jung lost the race for the Presidential candidate because his competitor Mr. Kim Young Sam won more support within their Shinmin Party(신민당). Could it be possible that Senator Edward reshuffle the cabinet right after he lost the race in his Democratic Party? But that was exactly what Kim Dae Jung did in May 1980, causing the Kwangju Uprising. The testimony on that register(예비내각 명단) also

[역사학도]

comes from Kim Dae Jung's group. Follow the link http://www.donga.com/docs/magazine/new_donga/9907/nd99070020.html and you will find the testimony of Mr. Lee Ki-dong(이기동). Mr. Lee was the man whom you you might call the house servant of the Kim Dae Jung's family. He helped Kim Dae Jung on May 17, 1980, by hiding the evidences of Kim Dae Jung's crime such as 예비내각 명단(a preliminary register of the names of the cabinet). When defeated by his race competitor Mr. Kim Young Sam, Kim Dae Jung planned to overthrow throw President Choi Kyu Wha's government by nationwide uprising on May 22.

[역사학도]

Imagine what might happen if Senator Edward did the same thing in America last Summer. Then, you have only one choice: resignation or confrontation. That was exactly President's Choi' situation. On May 17, Kim Dae Jung demanded that President Choi should resign by May 19. But that was an impossible option because what Kim Dae Jung was doing was not democratization. In democracy the leader is selected by election. But in May 1980 Kim Dae Jung attempted to be the monarch himself by overthrowing the President Choi's government by means of 민중봉기(the people's uprising). Just as he now

[역사학도]

attempts to overthrow Mr. Lee Myong Bak's government by violent rallies, he attempted to overthrow President Choi's government by agitating nation-wide uprisings. The logic that it was for democratization is impossible if you know what democracy is. In democracy the leader is selected by election. But what Kim Dae Jung did was that he attempted to be the monarch for himself, right? And if you have read Kim Gu's biographical work(백범일지), you know Kim Dae Jung attempted to be the monarch by Fascism(파시즘), and not by democracy. Kim Gu says, "한 개인에게서 오는 것을 ''전체[주의]'' 또는

[역사학도]

''독재''라 하고 한 계급에서 오는 것을 ''계급독재''라 하며 통칭 ''파쇼''라고 한다." Thus, when the Kim Dae Jung's group attempted to threaten to death and purge those journalists whom they categorized "유신 언론인," they meant to do what Kim Goo calls ''계급독재''(class dictatorship) by Kim Dae Jung's group or ''파쇼''(Fascism) by Kim Dae Jung's group. Democracy is possible only when you do not oppress the other opinion. Recently, two young journalists were shoot to death by a masked gun man in the street of Moscow just after they contributed to an article which include a critique of the

[역사학도]

government. That kind of oppression against other views or opinions is not democracy. When the Kim Dae Jung group had 예비내각 명단 for the dictatorship by their group, they also had the list of those to be purged. But purging is not democracy. And you do not purge journalists and reporters in democracy. The Kim's group already purged professors in April, one month before the Kwangju Uprising. Those scholars and professors who did not promise support for Kim Dae Jung were categorized as 어용교수(professors that do not belong to Kim Dae Jung's group) and purged them by forcing them to

[역사학도]

resign. Did you say they struggled for democracy? No! No! No! That was the sign of Fascism, not of democracy. Kim Gu wants his readers to distinguish democracy from such Fascism. Doesn't he? Well, at the moment, I feel an urgent need to digress to the hot issue in one of the dialogue boards. Even with my Korean I cannot read unspoken words between the lines. I see netizens responding to your recent activities for the legacies of Kim Gu. I know they sense something and want to express something. But I cannot fully grasp the meaning between the lines in some of their sentences. We

[역사학도]

all have different perceptions of words and some words can lead to misunderstanding. Historical discussion is a difficult job in contemporary Korean society. Many Koreans devote lots of their time to historical discussion, yet it has been very challenging task. It is because Koreans have learned history not in the way Americans learn history. Korea since 1990's has been the country where the pre-modern man Kim Dae Jung's group ruled in many realms of the society. And a pre-modern man does not write history as a modern man does. We can take the case of O. J. Simpson as an example. If

[역사학도]

America were the society where the pre-modern man Kim Dae Jung's voice prevails, the verdict could be quite different. I call Kim Dae Jung a pre-modern man because his group ignores the objective facts. A pre-modern man like Kim Dae Jung is characterized by his dependence on subjective feeling. The object fact is not important to the person like Kim Dae Jung. If this group happened to be fans of O. J. Simpson, they create false fiction to defend O. J. Simpson. And it is by this kind of logic that the Kim Dae Jung group has destroyed our history by eliminating objective facts and by

[역사학도]

filling our history with their false claims. When you hear their lies over and over again, you are confused and brainwashed. This is why we find many of Korean netizens bring confused concepts when they come to historical discussion whether they represent the Leftist or the Rightist camp. Thank you for seeing a newer generation of Koreans as men and women of reason. Unfortunately, they are not. Their reason has been destroyed by Kim Dae Jung group's false education. For example, Kim Goo himself was fairly neutral in his political orientation. He was not that much anti-American. Now,

[역사학도]

the problem comes from the way the Leftists misrepresent him rather than what he was. When I fought against anti-Americanism in 2003, it was a fight against a distorted claim about him. The teachers from Kim Dae Jung's group were teaching that President Truman ordered a CIA man An Doo Hee to assassinate Kim Goo. For us, we can quickly detect their lie. But newer generation from the Kim Dae Jung group's era lacks such intellectual capacity. Go to http://bbs1.agora.media.daum.net/gaia/do/debate/read?bbsId=D003&articleId=2147583 and you will see how they even now claim that it was the

[역사학도]

American government which was behind Ahn Doo Hee(안두희). They never present objective facts. They only make extremely subjective claim based on wrong assumptions shaped by the Kim Dae Jung group's false education. Kim Dae Jung group is not without writers, but when they write they create false theory to give the false impression to readers that America took a terrorist action against Kim Goo as you can find one example from their blog at http://blog.ohmynews.com/jeongwh59/entry/백범과-미국-6-끝-안두희는-미국-정보기관-첩보요원 . In reality, Ahn Doo Hee was not a CIA agent. He was a North

[역사학도]

Korean--a son of a well-do-do family who sponsored efforts for independence. The joy of liberation from Japanese Colonial rule in August 1945 soon turned out to be a tragedy when the Kim Il Sung's group killed his parents with axes and took all the properties. When he could manage to escape from North Korea, his goal was to liberate North Korea from Kim Il Sung's rule. But when Kim Goo was going to help Kim Il Sung to put South Korea also under his rule, Ahn Doo Hee's patriotism and anti-Communism was expressed by stopping from doing that. He had no other choice to save the nation from

[역사학도]

impending danger. His action was his decision, not President Truman's decision. When Kim's group spread the rumor last summer that all Koreans will die from the air contagion of the mar-cow disease if we import U.S. beef, the majority of the crowd were deceived. In the same manner, the Leftist historical education that gives false charge against the U.S. government over the death of Kim Goo can inflame anti-American sentiments anytime. Anti-Americanism in South Korea has come with Kim Dae Jung group. It was President Truman who helped our nation to be liberated from the Japanese rule

[역사학도]

in 1945 and saved our nation from the invasion of the North Korean Communist force in 1950. But when the newer generation is educated by the Leftist teachers, their perspective begins from the false worldview that President Truman was responsible for the death of Kim Goo. This is why historical debate is important and we cannot surrender to the false claims of the Leftists. You must see the motivation of their false representation of Kim Goo, Did they show you this photo http://www.chosun.com/media/photo/news/200510/200510010059_00.jpg when you visited the Kim Goo Memorial Hall on last

[역사학도]

January 3? This is the photo the North Korean representatives donated to 백범기념관(Kim Goo Memorial Hall) in 2005. By donating this photo to 백범기념관, North Korea was communicating their claim: 평양에서 김일성을 만난 자리에서 백범이 김일성에게 상해와 중경에서 그가 이끌었던 ''대한민국 임시정부''의 ''국새''를 바치면서 "나는 내가 해야 할 일을 다한 늙은이에 불과하니 이제 나에게는 고향인 황해도에서 능금밭이나 하나 주어 여생을 보내게 해 주고 앞으로 나라 일은 김 장군이 도맡아 챙겨달라"고 청했다. Now, the problem is that the Leftists including Kim Dae Jung group and Roh Moo Hyun government

[역사학도]

supported that North Korean claim. In other words, they were using that claim on Kim Goo to destroy the legitimacy of the founding of the Republic of Korea, and to give the legitimacy to North Korea. Incidentally, you can see more photos of Kim Il Sung and Kim Goo at http://cafe.daum.net/issue21/3Iky/4 and additional information at http://www.chosun.com/politics/news/200510/200510010059.html . You can also read the document Kim Goo signed while he was meeting Kim Il Sung in North Korea at http://www.chosun.com/politics/news/200510/200510010059.html .

[gomdori]

thank you for your articles, i think these postings will be a good material to help my english. and... I haven been to Haeinsa, but to Bulguksa in Kyongju in my middle school years. But we learned about the temple and the history through history classes. And i'm really happy to see you are very interested in our culture and tradition.

[하심장]

^^