With regard to Park, dude...though I was born here, both of my parents are from Korea. I go to Seoul on about once a year and keep in touch with some family there. Its an endorsement of Park. I'm honestly not familiar enough on the history of SK as to whether it was Park's action that directly resulted in the modernization, but I can tell you that he gets the credit with the population because it occurred over his nearly two decade watch. Even the head of the opposition who he almost murdered (instead imprisoned) gives him credit today.
Both the south and Japan received a lot of US Vietnam war spending and both economies accelerated their growth, which continued for a relatively long time (until the general East Asian economic crisis more or less.) Park's specific economic policies were indeed paralleled in Japan. There is no reason to think that Park's dictatorship had anything to do with this, especially US spending, which preceded him. This is true no matter what people supposedly think in the south about Park.
I'm sure that you are correct in saying that it has been conventional wisdom to attribute the economic growth to Park's crimes.
What I've been trying to say is that this is an idea propagated by people who a political agenda better advanced by an authoritarian or dictatorial government, a con job perpetrated on the populace
Further, and even more important, the vote for Park can be interpreted as endorsement for prosperity and economic growth, not
for dictatorship. Or it can be interpreted as a deliberate choice for a dictatorship capable of attacking the north. As for the first, in a capitalist system, political figures, even dictators, cannot grow the economy, especial not with torture and terror. As for the second? I really doubt that this woman ran on an open platform of war, especially if that is her real agenda.
Obviously killing someone doesn't directly lead to economic growth. I'm saying the people who went through the era as well as history are willing to overlook the abuses because they credit him for the economic success and his daughter's election in a very paternalistic society is further vindication of his reign by the population. Being a dictator did help in some instances.
One thing he did that helped out included normalizing relations with Japan and getting increased investment and trade from them. A democratic leader wouldn't have been able to do this politically until a whole lot later given the lingering animosity. He also committed 300,000 troops (as a point of reference, more Koreans died in Vietnam than Americans in Iraq) over the course of the Vietnam War to help the US in exchange for a lot of increased US aid and commitments to investment. A democratic leader wouldn't have been able to commit to the conflict as much as Park did.
Park disproves your statement about growing the economy while using terror and torture.
You betray your ignorance with a false dichotomy painting an inaccurate picture. The fact is in the minds of the populace the dictator and economic reform are intertwined and nobody wants a war with North Korea. Your point implying otherwise on North Korea is especially ignorant. South Koreans readily access all the information/various opinions they need to make informed decisions and judgements on their past, present and future leaders. Among other things, its the nation that is most connected to the internet. To characterize this population as brainwashed, while showing a clear lack of knowledge of their country's recent history, because they disagree with your opinion on their former leader, displays blatant ideological extremism. The fact that you needed to come to that conclusion in order to work out your cognitive dissonance shows you are clearly the brainwashed one. Is this personal because he made a habit of casually killing those of your political persuasion?
We'll have to disagree on Deng. He's acknowledged as a great leader by everyone for the economic modernization even with Tienanmen. The fact that you seem to criticize Deng for being too reformist shows how extreme and ideological you are.
Furthermore Zero Dark Thirty took a neutral POV on torture. It did not condone or condemn it. Neutral POV is Kathryn Biggelow's style if you look at her previous films. Just because this film decided to have a CIA agent as the protagonist and not condemn torture, doesn't mean it was condoning it or that we should find the film morally reprehensible. People seem to make this mistake all the time, but there is an inarguable distinction. It was a shame on the industry that she was snubbed for Best Director due to the sad, petty political motives.
Also, I hear former USSR militarists make that same mistake about Afghanistan's history so judge the US not to harshly