SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — Lee Jae-myung, who rose from childhood poverty to become South Korea’s leading liberal politician vowing to fight inequality and corruption, will become the country’s next president on Wednesday after an election that closed one of the most turbulent chapters in the young democracy.
Lee, 60, the candidate of the liberal opposition Democratic Party, is taking office for a full, single five-year term, succeeding Yoon Suk Yeol, a conservative who was felled over his stunning yet brief imposition of martial law in December.
This is only a problem for people that want to keep the population’s “racial purity”, in every country. Every real problem that comes from too few young people can be solved with immigration.
There’s a fine line between what you’re describing, and colonization. If we agree that the current set of korean families are not going to sustain the population themselves, and we agree that one way to preserve the population is to bring in transplants, then we’re looking at a future South Korea that is primarily owned by people from other countries who had the resources to come in and take over. Which, “racial purity” aside, isn’t great.
No, no it’s not. Colonization is the replacement of an existing population, that if left alone, would’ve sustained itself. No external power (as in foreign govermment) is forcing South Koreans to have fewer kids. This is more like moving into a once thriving boom town. Sure, some people are still there, and they have a right to live there. South Korea is being colonized in the same way that the Turkish are colonizing Germany, in that, they’re really not. If birth rates go down for the US, then the only way to keep stuff like social security going would be bringing in foreign workers. Right now, that’s mainly used for the jobs that white people don’t really want. The Hispanic population in the US is extremely large, about 20% of Americans. Is this colonialism? No, it is not. Not just because it’s also the land of their ancestors (well, a lot of it is at least), but because they aren’t restricting any other residents of the country in any manner. It’s like moving into an abandoned house, not breaking into a house, killing the owner, and taking it.
From what I can gather from South Koreans on the internet talking about the matter, there is a direct relationship between their country’s capitulation to western hyper-capitalist expectations over the last 50+ years, and this phenomenon. And it wasn’t like the US was hands-off when it came to picking winners in the Korean War; to a large extent, South Korea is the way it is because of US, do you think that’s a relatively safe oversimplification to work from?