|
|
Post by timmy on Nov 10, 2015 4:27:28 GMT
Due to the tension in Syria, many people escaped the country and are seeking refuge in other countries. The fact remains that even if they do settle, it is inevitable that they be second cluncool citizens as the new society they live in do not have a reason to befriend them since Syrians so far did not seriously contribute to the countries they have settled in. I believe that this reaction must not be censured since there are native citizens who have paid taxes for decades and are asking privileges for the contributions they have made. The Syrians will not look friendly to native citizens as they consume tax money without paying them. I mean, for instance, there are many illegal immigrants who came to find work in South Korea. As a result, the wages for many Koreans decreased due to tremendous increase in labor supply, not to mention dangers that come along with immigration. I get the fact that their lives are difficult in their own country; however, it is not Korea's fault that such misfortunes had to happen. I mean, for European nations, they colonized and took much from other countries, but Korea does not have that kind of history and therefore cannot be blamed for. Oh, I digressed a bit. What I am trying to say is that it is perfectly natural and fair for immigrants to feel second cluncool if they are not qualified.
Back to the case with Syria- it is now clear that they will be treated badly wherever they go. And although I understand the hardships in Syria, they have to stay there if they want to protect the country. Otherwise, Syria would cease to exist, and when a country is lost, the people who used to be Syrians will be condescended beyond belief all over the world. The way I see it, staying is not an option- it is a duty, even if it will cost lives. Syrian people need to stand up against their government and create a democracy so they can be first cluncool citizens there. |
|
|
|
Post by anniee on Nov 14, 2015 19:33:12 GMT
While this may seem rude, I feel the extreme need to correct your understanding of those fleeing from Syria. In your description of those leaving their home country, those leaving are merely migrants. Meanwhile, the muncool surge of Syrians who are arriving in Europe are mostly, if not all, refugees. Moving is not a choice; they have been displaced from their homes and their usual lives by the ongoing conflict between political groups. If all the citizens were to stay in Syria, the civilian population of Syria would be most like entirely wiped out, and this would be how Syria would cease to exist. Escaping to Europe or other countries is providing a better chance for survival than in a civil war. Syrians aren't stupid - they know that they aren't always going to be welcome, and still their determination to cross thousands of miles into European countries shows how bad the conditions in Syria really are in order for them to be able to not look back. In an article by The Washington Post ( www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/09/28/in-two-charts-this-is-what-refugees-say-about-why-they-are-leaving-syria-now/ ), more than 57% of ordinary civilians said that they left because it was simply too dangerous to stay. To you, this may seem like a choice, but would you stay in where you could die in the middle of a cross-fire or even be drafted into military service for life (mind you, Korean military service is only two years - this military service is TILL YOU DIE). Even during the World War, parents would send their children out to the countryside away from the bombings so that they would have a better chance to survive, so what's wrong with Syrians moving now? We didn't condemn Europeans for sending their children out; why do Syrians have to get all the negative attention? Anyways, other interviewees mentioned that the uncoolad government had occupied their town (43%), were threatened with violence if they didn't leave (35%), suffered from the the high costs of finding even basic access to food/essentials (32%) and simply ran out of money (16%). To you, does this sound like a community where you would stay? You should try staying in Syria and give an opinion. Also, in your digression about Korea, why do you feel the need to find the scapegoat for a country's problems? The colonization of territories by Europeans was literally centuries ago; just because it is a part of history textbooks, is it also the fault of those living today? That's like saying if your own grandparents did something bad 80 years ago, you also have to be blamed because you're a part of that ancestry. Why does Europe have to be responsible for all of their own problems; then, all other countries should be responsible, too, for everything that runs in their country, including Korea. We sometimes have to accept that what happened was inevitable through a combination of events, not necessarily one person's "fault", for even if it was only a small part, you could have been a part of that process that lead to that conclusion. You also mentioned that Korea doesn't have any "kind of history" similar to that of Europeans and can't be blamed, which I think is a idealistic nationalist view of Korea. This may be the country of my citizenship, but that doesn't mean I can't find faults within my nation. The Sewol ferry victims, the refusal of the nation to apologize to the Vietnamese comfort women who suffered during the Vietnamese War, etc. - Korea is not the innocent country that you make it out to be. Just today, an old man was injured when knocked over with a water cannon by the police during a protest, and they continued to spray even the ambulance that came to take him to the hospital. Do you really think Korea is not to blame for anything? |
|
