Koreans USE Arirang... but OWN It?: Part Three: It's Not Just Genealogies, and What do you Mean by Korean?

This is a several-part response to The Korean's post about Korea's ownership of Arirang. The Korean's post was a response to my post in June, stating provocatively that Nobody Owns Arirang.
Part one of this series.
Part two of this series.


Who can Identify with Arirang... or any Part of Korean Culture?

The Korean started his post off with an impressive story about seeing his name in the volumes of his family history. That's cool. I had a student who told me how his father ran back into his family's burning house, as the North Korean soldiers approached, in order to rescue his family history.  That's impressive too. I had a nine year old kid tell me he was the 28th generation firstborn son in his family tree. Sweetness. But you know what? My grandfather came to Canada with almost nothing, after the Nazi war machine boot-fucked his country so badly that there was nothing for him there, and the Dutch government, unable to provide a job for him (a former civil servant) in the devastated country, sponsored his emigration. When he got to Canada, he found a community of other immigrants who welcomed him, and helped him set up and provide for his five kids, his kids got free public education, and every one of them made it through university, too, and my grandfather literally worked himself to death to get his family established in Canada. And that's impressive too, even if it doesn't take two shelves of old volumes to tell that story.

Other commenters have taken The Korean to task for what they see as him privileging his type of identification with his origins over the ways other countries/heritages/individuals identify with their origins. They are correct, and pooh-poohing my methods of connecting with my heritage and my community because they don't include 2000-year-old books is just as short-sighted as as pooh-poohing those who turn to genealogies for their sense of connection, because long lists of dead guys don't mean anything to anyone but others whose names are in that book. (see Yujin Is Huge for more on that)

Source

And who can say that the swell of pride some Americans feel when they gaze upon the image above, is stronger, or weaker, than the swell of pride The Korean feels to look upon a bookshelf and think "that's my genealogy"? How the hell do we measure that?

(from Astrid Walter's flickr photostream)

Rather, I'd say we're back in the realm of arbitrarily drawn lines: why should history and ancientness matter more than powerful symbols, homeland geography, or family tribulations? Of course somebody with an old history's going to say that matters the most. And people who mine their identity along another vein would say THAT measure is the most valid.  Duh. "This is who I am" is a handle most people grip tightly, once they find it. Some people grip funny things for their handle, but once they grip it, they hold on tight.

While the artifacts or stories that help us create are identities are not always as old as The Korean's, the connections they make and represent are no less meaningful to us. 

Also...

genealogies are no longer the only way to feel a connection with Korean culture and heritage. As Korean culture becomes popular outside Korea, and as more non-Koreans make their home in Korea, non-ethnic Koreans are identifying themselves with Korean culture, both at a deep level of engagement, and in far greater numbers than ever before. One of my friends is a blonde-haired blue-eyed young woman who spoke Korean before she even came here, and now works in a Korean company, and has reached near fluent proficiency. Another person I know doesn't look like a Korean at all, but he has fathered Korean citizens, and lived in Korea longer than many of my students have been alive. A blog connection of mine has never visited Korea, but has taught herself to speak Korean by watching Korean dramas. 

In another direction, Koreans are using more, and more diverse aspects of what can be found in Korea to identify their Koreanness than ever before. When women's issues are urgent and rape culture remains rife in Korea, who dares tell the women who organized SlutWalk Korea that it's not relevant to Korea, that their effort to find a voice is not appropriate for Korea (as a journalist implied by asking me if a Slutwalk is appropriate for Korea)? Look at how differently the Korean political Left and the Korean political Right define their nation (a controversy that spills over into history textbooks). There are people who celebrate their Koreanness at StarCraft tournaments as well as Pansori performances, some who do by thanking US soldiers for their predecessors serving in the Korean War, and others by chanting "Yankee Go Home" until they're hoarse. Some young people would say that eating brunch and buying brand-name accessories are the most Korean thing you could possibly do... and really, no doubt historians could find historical precedents for such trend-following and ostentation in old timey Yangbanland as well.

The Korean makes a good point though - one I really like - that while Koreans do use these things to aid their identification with Korea, connection between bits of culture are also accretive (they grow through gradual addition over time) -- that is, generations of Koreans, in significant numbers, over a very long time, choosing the same things as representative of Korean culture, give them a deeper, stronger link with Korean culture than other aspects that are newer, or chosen as identifying reference points for smaller numbers. If (as I said in the last post) culture is like an ecosystem, then these things would be like the groundwater level, the climate, the tree density, and the terrain of the ecosystem: not absolutely unchangable, but more fundamental, and harder to uproot or change, than less fundamental, fixed things, like "rabbit reproduction rate."

I won't argue that, except to add that even those things that have been chosen by many people, over numerous generations, can still undergo radical changes, in order to continue to suit the changing needs of new generations. Arirang has, at different times, according to my background reading (yep, I looked up some scholarship on the history of Arirang for this), included songs satirizing the corrupt Yangban, songs of resistance against invading and oppressive forces, as well as the ever-present "nostalgic love song" motif. Kimchi and a lot of other foods have gotten a lot spicier recently, and all those battered deep-fried Korean street-foods everybody loves, and identifies as Korean food, didn't come about until after the war, when UN Food Aid came in the form of flour, and Koreans didn't know what to do with flour, so they started battering and deep-frying local vegetables like sweet potatoes and peppers.

Cultures are much less fixed than we think they are, and this is one of the problematic things about nationalism: it tends to take relatively recent developments or definitions, and imagine them as having origins much more ancient than they really are. (one example of a recent idea projected backwards by its followers: Rapture theology) Nationalism also tries to tie cultural practices to national borders, when national borders, as they exist now, are extremely recent developments, and for most of the history of these very old things, they existed in regions, not countries, and spread around freely. It wasn't until the  1900s that humans had the technology or the desire to establish, and guard national borders the way they're guarded now, with stamps in passports and border guards and tariffs and records of what comes in and goes out.

What do you mean by "Korea" anyway?

This seems to be a very common problem in discussions about Korea and Korean culture: many, many who discuss Korean culture etc. fail to distinguish whether they are talking about Korea the political entity (The Republic of Korea) or Korea the culture, or Korea the ethnic group.

As this Youtube Video about the differences between Britain, The UK, The British Isles, The Commonwealth, and The Crown demonstrate, clarity on just what one means, is helpful.

Because:

I would absolutely agree that Arirang is connected inextricably with Korean culture. And through that, maybe also with the Korean ethnic group.

But to say Arirang belongs to Korea, we have to ask:

Which meaning of Korean do you mean?

And here 's the sticking point. When The Korean says "Arirang is Korean. Period," (At least in English... I haven't looked into how it shakes out in Korean) here are the people who stand up and shout "Hell, yes!" each with different understandings of what "Korean" means:

• A South Korean who sings Arirangs that are mostly sad love songs.
• A North Korean who knows a few versions of Arirang with "Down with USA" themes.
• A Chinese-Korean.
• A Japanese-Korean
• A Kyopo from a Koreatown somewhere in Europe or America (who sings a version that was translated into English, French, German, or Norwegian)
• A linguist who thinks the word "Korean" refers to the language.
• An anthropologist who thinks the word "Korean" means "somehow at least vaguely associated with the Korean ethnic group of Northeast China and the Korean Peninsula"
• A geologist who hasn't looked into it yet, and thinks Arirang is a kind of rock that can only be found on the Korean peninsula. Maybe that special lava rock from Jeju Island...

 And even though it seems pedantic, that's why scholars spend so much time arguing over how one defines words.

Let's go back to the scholar Benedict Anderson, "Imagined Communities" - one of the foundational studies in nationalism and national communities - who describes a nation as "an imagined political community [that is] imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign."

• A nation is imagined - it doesn't exist until a group of people agree that the things they have in common make them unique. Admit it: national borders are imaginary lines.
• A nation is a community - it requires a group of people who have come together, and who agree to conceive of themselves as a new unique thing. They imagine kinship with people they've never met, because they share a nation.
• A nation is inherently limited - every nation has rules for who IS, and who ISN'T a member, and how to become a member (if it's possible to). Yankee fans can't join Red Sox Nation, USA Nation requires paperwork, the Muslim Nation requires the Shahadah, and you can't be a member of Korean Nation unless you're born into it (for now). Though if you tell enough Koreans you like kimchi, you'll be dubbed a "blue eyed Korean"
• A nation is sovereign - it has its own rules and wants to be independent of other communities or nations. This is where Anderson's definition moves into politics.

Anderson is describing a political nation, but not all nations are sovereign political bodies. There are nations without their own state (like the Metis of Canada, the Kurds of Iraq, and North America's First Nations peoples) nations that never wanted or asked for sovereignty (Red Sox Nation of Major League Baseball, Justin Bieber's 10 million + twitter fans), political bodies that are home to multiple nations (for example, the politically fractured Belgium, which is unable to break a stalemate between its Dutch and French populations, and most of the countries that have had civil wars in the last generation), there are nations that find their home in more than one political nation-state (the Hmong in Southeast Asia, the Bedouin, and Koreans), and there are even other nations located in a few spots having "quarterback controversies" about which one represents the "real" nation - is Tibet's government in exile the real Tibetan government, or is the government that actually administrates Tibet's traditional land? The Wikipedia article says almost as many (2.5 mill) Jamaicans live abroad as live in Jamaica (2.8 mill).

And this is the biggest problem with all this discussion about Korean culture: South Korea is not the exclusive home of the Korean people. North Koreans have a right to Arirang, South Koreans do, and the Korean-Chinese in Yanbian have a right to it. And none of those groups has the right to say "our version of Koreanness is more valid than yours" any more than The Korean has the right to say his family story is more valid than mine, because mine doesn't have books with lists of names of dead people (it actually does), or mine more than his, because none of his ancestors participated in the Dutch resistance during the Nazi occupation.

Those Korean-Chinese in Yanbian even have a right to register their heritage with Unesco, or to ask China to do it for them. And they don't have to ask South Korea's cultural minister for permission first.

Bringing nation-states into a discussion of cultural ownership - particularly in a case like Korea, where Korean people are spread across a handful of states and regions, and others are spread all over the world - is extremely problematic.

The Republic of Korea officially became a sovereign state on August 15, 1948 (sez Wikipedia). It's only 63 years old, and Arirang is possibly thousands... the Republic of Korea has no right to assert ownership of something SO MUCH older than it.

The People's Republic of China was proclaimed on October 1 1949 (sez Wikipedia). It has no right to assert ownership of Arirang, either.

And now we're getting to the heart of the problem.

Koreans USE Arirang... but OWN It?: Part Two: Identify, Use... but Own?

Background: 

The Korean, of Ask A Korean! (with a festive exclamation mark) has responded to my post "Nobody Owns Arirang," with his own explanation of why Arirang belongs to Korea, period. This is my (several part) response.

Here's part one: the Identity Card.

Jang Sa-ik. He's not the most famous Arirang Singer (that's probably Kim Yeong-im), but his version of the classic (most popular version of) Arirang is my favorite.

Second Point: How does One Own a Culture?

While explaining his reasons for saying Korea owns Arirang, period, The Korean, who has clearly read Plato and his critics, has a little fun poking at my assertion that the idea of a culture is too slippery to wrap it in a box and own it. He takes the example of a door, which can be many shapes and vary on many details, but is still a door, and says a culture is unmistakable, particularly in view of how cultural practices are reinforced over time.

First, I'd suggest that discussing something as abstract as a culture as if it were analogous to something as concrete as a door is not very useful. Anybody can walk up to a door, and slap it with their hand, and agree, "This is a door between the hallway and the dining room." How do you slap a culture with your hand? You could slap a cultural icon with your hand, and yes, Simon Cowell's been asking for it, but you can't slap a culture. It's quite a rare door that I'd look at and call a door, while someone else would look at it, and say "I can't see how you think that's a door"... but exactly that happens with culture, when grandpa thinks K-pop isn't real Korean culture, but his granddaughter thinks it is.

See, a culture isn't so much like a door, or a cat (either it's a cat, or at least a type of cat, or it isn't).  A culture is more like an ecosystem: huge, complex, and made up of so many elements interacting with each other, and exhibiting different features in different spots, and, for the most part, fading gradually from one into the other, without sharp demarkations.

So what is a culture? 

A culture is a huge collection of texts (and we'll use texts in the anthropological sense, where a 'text' can be anything - any object, ritual, process, ceremony, method or behavior, that has/can have meaning for people), out of the entire set of which, each participant in the culture assigns differing levels of importance and value on different aspects, according to their life experiences, preferences, etc.. A culture is not genetic: it must be taught (or Kyopos and adoptees would be born able to speak Korean and cook dwenjang). One has to choose for oneself how deeply, and how exactly, one participates in, and identifies with a culture (not all Kyopos or adoptees or born-and-raised Koreans do), and the choices one makes might be controversial to others who identify with the same culture, because they've assigned meanings and levels of importance differently. A culture is also exclusive: it is defined at times by what it isn't, as well as by what it is. The "I Am Canadian" rant/beer commercial is a good example of defining a culture negatively, by outlining the ways Canada isn't like the USA.

There is another useful point to be drawn from The Korean's door thing: there's no way to answer the question "Is the most 'door' of doors - Plato's ideal door, red, white, or brown?" However, we will be closer to a useful definition of a door if we focus not on its exact dimensions, but on the purpose it serves: to keep some things in, and to keep some things out.

This is also true of defining a culture: defining a culture by identifying exactly the set of practices and rituals that unmistakably identify it heads straight into a whole bunch of grey areas where everybody will draw the lines in different places, and (as I said earlier) the surest indicator of what people consider authentic is more often based on what their parents/grandparents remember things being like (while their grandparents tut-tutted that the younguns were losing the old ways)* than the result of study and research. I think it is more useful to define Korean culture by the purpose it serves for those who identify themselves as Korean.

*That being said, The Korean is right that many Koreans choosing to use and identify with one part of culture, over a very long time, does make something more Korean than it would be with a very short history, or having been historically embraced only by a small fringe.

So what is the purpose of Korean (or any) culture?

To create a sense of identification, a sense of community, a sense of shared history and experience, with others who identify themselves as Korean (or any other culture). The idea (from Benedict Anderson) of 'imagined communities' is a useful starting point here, with a few adjustments because we're talking about a culture, not a political nation-state, but the ideas of imagined community, co-identification, and exclusion, are important aspects of defining a culture, as well as a nation, (which was Anderson's project).

So if we say that Koreans identify with Arirang, I would say absolutely. Here are a whole bunch of statements I wholeheartedly agree with:

1. Koreans invented Arirang.

2. Koreans use Arirang.

3. Arirang is overwhelmingly, almost to the point of exclusively, practiced by Koreans.

4. Koreans identify with Arirang as a piece of Korean culture.

5. Arirang is associated with Koreans and Korean culture.

6. Koreans use Arirang, and think of it, as a symbol of Korean culture.

7. Arirang is overwhelmingly, and probably exclusively, identified with Korean culture.

8. These statements are true now, and these statements have also been continuously true for probably the entire history of Arirang, or at least for the entire history of the concept of something called "Korean culture"

"use" "practice" and "identify with" and "associate with" are useful verbs/verb phrases to attach to "culture."

But owning something... and by owning something, I mean making a claim of exclusive use of something - having the right to send a cease and desist letter... I don't think owning is a verb that can be attached to the noun culture, any more than the owner of land on which a forest grows can say that he owns the ecosystem living in the forest - he can tell himself he does, but the bear doesn't hunt on his command, the tree doesn't grow, and the river doesn't flow, according to his wish. At best, he can interact with that ecosystem, at worst he can raze it, and while he might reserve the right to hunt the deer on his land, they don't obey his orders.

And an individual can own a song (that they wrote)... but an entire genre of folk-song? No.

Take "Waltzing Matilda," a folk song that, I'm told (please correct me if I'm wrong*), many Australians identify with at least as strongly as they identify with their national anthem, "Advance Australia Fair" - I'd say it probably holds a similar place in Australian culture as the most popular Arirang (listen to the clip at the top of the post) holds in Korean culture.

An Australian has the right to sing their own version of Waltzing Matilda, and say "this is one of my country's national songs" but an Australian doesn't have the right to tell the Pogues (who did a version) to stop singing Waltzing Matilda, and to me, when it comes to cultural products, that's what ownership means. Aussies are free to hate the Pogues' version, and scream as loudly as they want that they're doing it wrong, throw tomatoes during stage performances, or head to the studio and demonstrate how to do it right, or chant "Screw you guys" between verses whenever they hear the song on the radio... but they don't have the right to send a cease and desist letter.

*UPDATE

An email exchange with an Aussie leads me to add the qualifier that Waltzing Matilda probably isn't as deeply or intrinsically tied to Australian national/cultural identity as Arirang. The ties are probably not as strong, not as old, and not for as many people.

If some people in China want to sing Arirang, South Korea's minister of Culture doesn't have the right to tell them to stop. Even if some people in China want to change the words and reinterpret Arirang with a Chinese angle, South Korea doesn't have the right to tell them to stop, and a better response than shouting "You can't sing OUR song!" is to support the Korean artists who are reinterpreting and developing Arirang as a cultural heritage that can still have relevance to Korea's Starcraft, Smartphone generation. 

I'd argue the same about Korean Kimchi and Japanese kimuchi. Would Koreans rather Korea's cultural products were being ignored and dismissed? Nope. Important cultures get their shit stolen... Is India telling Korea and Japan to cut it out with that imitation curry crap? Nope. Is China demanding royalty payments from Italian restaurants for using the noodles China invented? Nope. Is the US Foreign Minister trying to shut down Kraze Burger and Lotteria for getting hamburgers wrong? Nope. Are New Orleans musicians kicking over the music stands of non-Louisianan musicians who have tinges of dixieland in their music? Nope.

And nor should they.

Because people can identify with culture, they can interact with it, engage with it, adapt it, play with it, use it (for all kinds of purposes), teach it, build their identity around it, argue over what is authentic of it, interpret it, judge it, and even study, curate, and archive it. But they can't own it, if owning means having the right to tell others to stop doing any of those things with it. China can't, Korea can't, and I can't.

Koreans USE Arirang... but OWN It?: Part One: The Stakes

This article is heading into TL/DNR territory, so I'll break it into a few parts, and publish it over a few days. Here's part one.

A great old blog friend of mine, The Korean, of Ask A Korean! (with a festive exclamation mark) has responded to my post "Nobody Owns Arirang," with his own explanation of why Arirang belongs to Korea, period. He disagrees with me. However, I'm thrilled with how he disagrees with me: with a thoughtful, well-explained post laying out his view and responding to points I've made, not just in that post itself, but drawing context from other of my writings on the topic of cultural ownership. I'd like to respond in kind.

Kimchi Mamas has also weighed in with a very simple but well-stated post, the most important point being this: "In regard to whether or not Arirang is Korean, I don't even know why this is a question. It seems to be more about whether a national entity can claim to own a culture..." and at the same time, somebody commenting on my original post seems to want me to explain my meaning better, though she/he has done so in the language of internet window-lickers: personal insults. I don't mind people calling me ignorant, if they throw me a rope and fill me in on what I've missed. Absent that... I've been given nothing to convince me I'm not dealing with a troll, frankly. So rather than engage there, I'll add a little more here about what I meant.

First: let's not forget the title of the post was "Nobody owns Arirang" I'm not saying that Korea doesn't own Arirang or implying that if anybody had the right to claim it, it would be China, not Korea. 

(source)

Second, let's remember that a provocative blog post title generates interesting responses, as this has.

But let's be clearer.

The Korean and I agree that a big part of what's really going on here is connected to China's Northeast project: ongoing attempts to build a case for China's historical right to regions and peoples' in that area, with a somewhat predictable endgame... but this Korea Herald article detailing Korea's response to China's claim lays bare the real stakes: “The fact that ‘Arirang’ is sung by ethnic Koreans in Yanbian proves that region (of China) is a property of Korean culture.” (says Culture Minister Choung Byoung-gug).

So... we're back to 백두산은 우리땅!  (Baekdu Mountain is our [Korean] land), and we're back to calling a spade a spade, rather than having a landclaim dispute by proxy, with UNESCO playing the kid passing notes between the frenemies bickering in math class.

The upshot of this is might be South Korea's own Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, though late to the game, deciding to collect all the old forms of Arirang, and add them to UNESCO's world heritage list next year... it'd be good for Arirang for it to be recorded in some way.*

* Sidenote on that:

though I hope that it doesn't lead to a "canon" version of Arirang which then makes Arirang inflexible, and unchangeable according to the times and needs of Korean people, as it was for most of its history. Because fixing a piece of culture so that it can't change anymore is the first step on its path to becoming a dead artifact that is irrelevant to people's ordinary lives, rather than a living, changing tool for people to express or understand themselves.

It should also be made clear, before we go farther, that China designated a regional variation of Arirang (source) as a Chinese cultural heritage, not the entire body of Arirang.

And a commenter on Asia's Finest discussion forum points out that China's motivations for this could just as well be to validate and acknowledge the distinct minority group composed of ethnic Koreans in Yanbian, lest they feel marginalized as China celebrates all its other ethnic minorities in state-sponsored propaganda. This is echoed in the Korea Times editorial circulated by Yonhap News. 

(Don't forget my usual position - Culture is what people actually do, not what people should do, or used to do. For stuff people used to do, the word "heritage" is more accurate. For further reading, check this out.)

First point: Vested Interests

As an ethnic Korean who makes his home away from Korea, discussing Korean culture with an ethnic notKorean making his home in Korea, when we enter discussions of Korean culture and cultural change, we have almost exactly opposite interests in the issue. I'm not comfortable speaking on The Korean's behalf (other than on April 1st), so I'll give my own example.

(Tim Hortons donut shop - image source)

Because I live away from Canada, and have formed much of my self-identity through my interactions with Korean culture, it becomes important to me to use certain aspects of my Canadian roots and upbringing like anchors to my "Canadian-ness." Some aspects include things I expect to see or do when I come back to Canada: I've drunk much better coffee in my life, but when I arrive in Canada, I make a beeline for the nearest Tim Hortons and order a fresh Tim Hortons coffee. Medium. Two sugar. Because that's what Canadians do: Canadians drink Tim Hortons coffee! And I'm Canadian! SEE? 

this guy is clearly more Canadian than I am. (source)

I'm fairly choosy about what I select to represent my "Canadianness," but once I pick a few things, I invest a lot in them, so if I came back to Canada one summer, and I discovered that Tims had replaced their special Tims coffee with a set of boutique beans, and I said "Medium, two sugar" and the drive-through person asked, "Will that be Ethiopia Sidamo, Mexico Coatepec, or Indonesia Sumatra?" part of what makes me feel Canadian would be gone (even if every other Canadian loved Tim Hortons' new improved coffee menu.) When Tim Hortons stopped carrying fancies a part of my childhood disappeared (I'm not the only one who misses those artificial oil-stuffed monstrosities, it seems): the "wedge" saw me through a very difficult summer once.

An ethnic Korean living in Canada, who felt a little marginalized that this presumably representative Canadian donut shop was so culturally specific, might be pleased to see samosas, burritos or kimbap rolls next to the timbits in a Tim Hortons. But that would hurt my soul, not because I have anything against kimbaps burritos, samosas or those who eat/identify with them, but because Tim Hortons isn't supposed to change from how it was when I was seven and I went there with my mom, dammit! Or another of the reference points for my diminishing "Canadian-ness" will be lost. 

Thinking about the way I feel about changes in the Tim Hortons, one of the Canadian things I chose to identify with to preserve my sense of Canadian-ness, gives me a good framework for guessing at why The Korean is irrationally purist about Korean food. Other factors probably play into The Korean's food purist streak, but the contrast stands:

The mirror image of my Tim Hortons prejudice, applied to Korea, aimed at deeper/more fundamental aspects, and the very heart of the matter:

Quotable passage ahead:

The more Korean society accepts new imaginings of what it means to be Korean, the better chance I, my wife, and our multiracial, multicultural (future) kid(s) have of carving out a meaningful niche in this society, while the more Korean society bends, flexes, and invents/accepts new definitions for itself, the less familiar it will seem to The Korean and other Korean diaspora each time he/they come back for a visit.

All that to say... of course I'm going to argue for cultural lines to be blurry, contingent, indistinct, and drawn in sand, because pushing that sand around is how I carve out a home here. And of course The Korean is going to argue for cultural lines to be stark, fixed, and timeless, so that he can rest assured that he can come home for a visit, and have it still feel like the home he remembers. And I'll focus on the aspects that are contingent and fuzzy (starcraft and Isaac Toast) while he focuses on the aspects that are more timeless (family records and Arirang).

So every time The Korean and I disagree about what Korean culture is and how it's defined, don't think this contrast is the only relevant point, because I don't like dismissing arguments by playing the identity card (as a WASP entering the field of Korean studies, The Identity Card will more often be played at my expense than to my benefit, once it's in play), but it's a bit of context worth considering.

So anyway, bear that in mind while contrasting our views.

What DESERVES to lead the Korean Wave...

Kpop is fun and digestible.

but Korean film has always deserved to be the foundation on which the Korean Wave is built.

This sequence from Nowhere To Hide stands with any lovely bit of visual storytelling you can conjure.


The hallway fight scene in Oldboy is regularly namechecked on lists of great cinema fight scenes, I'm pretty sure I've seen it be the only non-American film to make the list.


It was even referenced for a viral video about anger over the 2008 US finance meltdown,

Discussion of Women and Clothings

Inspired by

1. Slutwalk Korea
2. Women wearing bikinis in the Cheonggyecheon and shocking the world (or something)...

I've been invited to speak on TBS radio tomorrow on the morning show about it. And we'd love to have people calling in.

Now, the last time I tackled women's issues on TBS radio, back in February when I did "The Bigger Picture" on the evening show, I remember wishing more females called in... so this time, if you have something to say about the "short skirt" defense for sexual assault, or the burka philosophy (since we can't expect men to control themselves, pigs and animals that we are, we should just make women dress in burkas/wear longer skirts/hide away in women's subway cars/change their behavior so as not to bring sexual assault upon themselves [sarcasm]... I'd love to have you call in. Or send a tweet. Or at least tune in and listen. Contact information (and host Mike's handsome face) is here. -

It's a little early in the AM, but at about 8:05am, on Thursday, on 101.3, I'll be talking about the topic with Mike, and somebody named Eva John.

So... anybody in Korea anger Yahweh?

One

So did the president of Korea put shrines to Samsung products on the peaks of Korea's mountains or something? Because this latest rain smackdown looks like something straight out of the old testament. Dozens of people have died, and entire regions of Korea's richest area are literally flooded.

Fortunately, the place I've been teaching summer courses, and my home, are on high ground, and I can drive from one to the other without going through any of the floody low-ground.

Knock on wood.

More, including picture links, at the Marmot's Hole. ONE TWO

And Zenkimchi Joe's radio show was stopped midway when EBS got flooded and had to be evacuated. More here. Or here.

and youtube is FULL of these kinds of videos.


Two


The guy who massacred so, so, so many people in Norway mentioned Korea and Japan as model countries that avoided multiculturalism.

Read more here.

This has spurred discussion of Xenophobic groups in Korea.

More at The Marmot's Hole here.

And The Artist Formerly Known as Korea Beat reports the difficulties foreign students have in Korean universities.

tee hee... this makes me think of fight club

Got some real posts in the works... to tide you over...

SlutWalk Seoul 2011

(possibly from here... anybody have an ORIGINAL original source?) (from here)

A police officer in Toronto said that women should protect themselves from rape by avoiding dressing like sluts. Toronto's feminist community called bullshit on victim-blaming, an all-too-prevalent attitude in assault safety discussions, and organized a response called "SlutWalk" -- a group of women dressed like "sluts" and walked through the streets of Toronto carrying signs, to raise awareness that those attitudes are really not cool, and possibly to reclaim the word "slut."

Since then, SlutWalk has spread to other cities, and it appeared in Seoul last Saturday, July 16, 2011.

I attended in solidarity, because I strongly believe that the idea needs to be introduced, championed, and spread, that it doesn't matter what a woman wears: nothing even remotely justifies sexual assault, and focusing on what a woman should do to avoid the attack implicitly acquits men (and other would-be attackers) of their responsibility to not be rapists, which is where every discourse about sexual assault should begin and end: with better education of what rape is, and what the consequences are, until the slogan "No means no" jumps to the lips of 20-year olds as quickly as other slogans, like "don't drink and drive."

The proceedings for Slutwalk Seoul started at 2pm. I joined up near Gwanghwamun at 4 - demonstrations aren't allowed in Gwanghwamun Square proper - during a welcome pause in the intermittent downpours in Seoul that day. There were speeches, some songs, a non-verbal performance, and then a march down to Deoksugung palace, in front of which there was a dance, and then a return to Gwanghwamun.

The SlutWalk crew moved on to Hongdae, where I was a little too wet and cold to catch up with them, though I met with a few of my feminist and/or supportive friends, including The Grand Narrative (from whom I found out about SlutWalk Korea) and Popular Gusts, for some burgers and drinks afterwards.


signs were carried, slogans were shouted.

At the event, there were almost as many cameras as demonstrators, and rain concerns may have caused the "costumes" or "slut" outfits to be less extreme than they might have been at other slutwalks; however, the crowd was enthusiastic, and people were generally OK with the different people who'd come - including males with cameras.

They ran out of the red ribbons which indicated a person didn't want to be photographed, so I can only publish pictures I took where no faces show... in that respect, the rain and face-obscuring umbrellas turned out to be a boon... and even if it hadn't rained, the point of going wasn't to take lots of pictures of women dressed like "sluts" anyway -- that'd kind of be missing part of the point of the event, that self- objectification for the male/appraising gaze is not the reason for the event, nor the reason women dress the way they do when they go out.


Here's a link that includes a video made by the Hankyoreh.


body-paint was used to interesting effect.

Why did I especially like this event? Two main reasons:

1. Because it was planned and promoted by Koreans for Koreans - the blog and the twitter account and the poster were all Korean only, and I think it's awesome that Korean women are speaking with their own voice.

2. Because when sexual assault comes up in Korea, even in my classes (I like bringing a lesson based on this article into my discussion classes), the discourses I've heard have overwhelmingly focused on the victim's side -- "she shouldn't wear short skirts" "she should not drink too much" "she should use the buddy system" -- what the woman did to bring her attack on -- and barely brought the attacker's side into it (things like stiffer punishments or public awareness campaigns). Overwhelmingly skewing the discourse toward the victim's responsibilities eventually results in an atmosphere of complicity and maybe even enabling, for would-be attackers, in which they figure they can get away with it, if she's drunk enough, or dressed sexy enough, because that's what they always hear when sex attacks are in the news anyway.

Blaming a rape on a short skirt is like blaming a pedestrian hit by a drunk driver for using the crosswalk. Especially in Korea, where short skirts are just about the norm.

I'm strongly of the opinion that for every time somebody says "she shouldn't dress that way" somebody should say "she has the right to dress how she likes and not be attacked for it" and "it's on the attacker's head" twice, and for every dollar spent promoting the former idea, two should be spent on the latter, and so forth. So that no sex attack ever happens again because somebody simply didn't understand, or hadn't had it impressed strongly enough upon them during that one class during high school, where the law draws the line.

It reads something kind of like this: "Sorry my body's not beautiful. Ha ha ha. -From an unsexy slut"

SlutWalk has, predictably, been controversial in many places where it's occurred, and I'd like to touch on a few of those controversies.

1. Maybe SlutWalk makes sense in Canada, where it was invented, but it's not culturally appropriate for Korea.

A journalist asked me if I thought this was an appropriate kind of demonstration for Korean culture, which (by asking it of a foreigner) turned into a kind of loaded question, given that the event was planned by Koreans: I think Korean women should be free to express themselves however they want. Cultural appropriacy doesn't come into it when a. people raised in this culture made the choice to express themselves this way, b. cultures change all the time, and c. some cultures systematically suppress women's rights, and ignore women's voices.

Deoksugung gate. Note the boys dressed as sluts.

2. Isn't this a pretty shocking and outrageous way of starting discussion about this issue?

Maybe it is... but sometimes controversy gets people talking in a way that doesn't happen when one minds their p's and q's, and sometimes something a little brash is needed to capture public attention. A hundred women walking past city hall in lingerie counts as such.

And especially in women's issues, where part of the problem is that women are programmed that being loud, and demanding their rights is unladylike, imprudent, or not "demure" the way a good filial daughter and dutiful wife should be, I'm all for women getting angry, and loud, until middle-aged, male middle-managers feel ashamed to say "well I think women's rights have come far enough in Korea because women have taken over every entry-level position in my district office, and I can't find a single man at the entry-level to promote into division manager," and until women feel empowered enough to confront them on actually believing Korea's come far enough when Korea's Gender Empowerment Measure was woefully low in the last year it was measured (61st of 109 in 2009 - shockingly low when compared to its very HIGH Human development index (26th in the world).)  (for the record, yes, Korea does better when you include women's access to quality healthcare and education here)

Sometimes a vanguard comes along with a pretty strident message, and acts as the shock troops for an important idea. After they've put the idea out there, it becomes OK to talk about it, where before people just changed the subject. Once it becomes OK to talk about it, very smart, less brazen voices (hopefully) appear to present the idea in a way that is palatable to those who feel accused and attacked by the stridency of the vanguard. Over time, idea enters the mainstream. I'm OK with that process taking place. I'm OK with there being a noisy vanguard for important ideas. I'm OK with some screeching about important ideas, especially because marginalized populations are marginalized because people don't listen to them: clearing their throat and raising their hand and saying please hasn't worked.

I liked this boy's sign.




3. But isn't it true that women who dress that way are dressing that way because they want men to look at them? Why would a woman dress like that if she wasn't looking for sex?

Hmm. Something I've learned: despite how I like to think the world is aligned, it's not always about men.

There are any number of reasons a woman might dress up nicely/sexy (and let's not forget that what's sexy to one person may be absolutely modest to another):

1. To pick up other women
2. To impress other women
3. To make their friends jealous
4. To make their boyfriends jealous
5. To display status
6. For their own damn selves
7. To feel more confident
8. To enjoy being admired by other women
9. To enjoy being admired (and only admired) by men
10. To balance feeling bad by looking good
11. To show off those bitchin' new heels she just bought, the sixteen pounds she finally lost, the hairstyle she's been waiting to try, or the great (name accessory) she got as a gift
12. To live out a Sex And The City, or similar, fantasy she has
13. Because of a bet she won or lost
14. Because going out and flirting with boys or girls helps her forget something that's bothering her
15. Because most women dress that way at the place where she's going
16. Because she was raised to believe looks were the only important thing
17. Because she was taught that sexual attractiveness is the best way for women to gain power over men
18. Because she grew up in a culture where people judge women who don't dress up and look good as "lazy" (I've had a man say that in class)
19. To attract the attention of men, because she wants to talk to men
20. Because she likes getting free drinks when she goes out (jeez. I'd dress in a tube top and high heeled boots if it meant I drank for free every Friday night. Wouldn't you?)
21. To turn on the boyfriend/boyfriend prospect who came out with her that night
22. To advertise she's looking to make whoopie with some guy she meets that night

That's twenty-two I thought of just now, and I'm not even a woman, and only one of them invites a proposition from a stranger who was ogling her across the room.

I wasn't catching every word, but the point of the event wasn't man-hating, as far as I could tell. I had an interesting conversation with a journalist about it, and the fact is, this is a really complex issue with a lot of variables...

1. There are any number of ways women can dress and behave, for any number of reasons (see above)
2. There are any number of ways that dress and behavior can be interpreted by the (usually male) observer (though too many automatically assume reason 22, and act accordingly)
3. There are any number of ways a male can act on their interpretation of a woman's dress and behavior
4. There are any number of ways that male's behavior can be interpreted by the woman he approaches

And clearly some things are out of line from the start, but there are others - certain types of compliments, certain types of eye (or not-eye) contact, and other kinds of movement and attention, that can be easily misinterpreted, on either side, at numerous points in the interaction... and it's unfortunate that the amount of alcohol flowing increases the chance signals will be misread.

But in the end, it'd be great if responsibility for those misreadings and misunderstandings were blamed equally on the dudes thinking with their one-eyed trouser-snakes (that's penises, y'all), as on the ladies who supposedly "brought it on themselves." And until responsibility for those misreadings and misunderstandings is shared by both sides, and moreover, until it is recognized that men are capable of better than acting on every sexual urge that comes along, and thus share more responsibility, women have a reason to hold slutwalks, and whatever other demonstrations bring these issues back to the forefront, where people have to be confronted by them**, and think about them, and hear ideas they don't necessarily agree with, that might force them to change some of their ideas.

And that's the point of SlutWalk, to me.





**I'm lucky, as a man, because for me, these issues are things that I can touch on from time to time, read about at my leisure, and comment on when it suits me. It's not something that confronts me every time I dress up to go out, or get leered at in a bar; it's not something that casts a bit of suspicion and even fear on every night out, or every up-and-down I get from a stranger. I'm lucky to be able to approach the topic so academically, because I've never in my life felt like I'm three, or two, or even one decision from being raped. And the fact I haven't, and many males in these conversations haven't, means (I think) that some of us wildly misjudge what's at stake for others taking part in the conversation, because they, or someone they love, was. Because I'm not confronted by these issues every Friday night, I'm still learning about them. Somewhere stewing in me is a post, or maybe a series, about why these discussions get so fraught, and dramatic, and (frankly) ugly, when people go beyond preaching to the choir... but for now, suffice it to say I know I'm in a lucky spot, to be approaching the topic so casually. That bears on everything I write about it.



Comment moderation is on. I don't like deleting comments, but I also don't like trolls, flames, misogyny, misanthropy (that'd be man-hating) and general disrespectfulness of either the host (me), women, men, or other commenters.

And by the way: If you're about to go into the comments and say that "Yes, well, it's still true that women should be careful etc. etc."

To save you some time, I know. I never said otherwise. Everybody in the presence of strangers should use their smarts. Public awareness campaigns can help people who don't understand their choices, or who wrongly think their justifications are enough, but they won't stop pure predators. I know that, and I'm not saying parents and teachers should stop teaching would-be victims to get reckless... I AM saying that message should be a distant second to "Don't sexually assault people" in emphasis, but right now I don't think it is.

Epic Battle: Sleep vs. Play

From time to time Wifeoseyo shows me a video I can't resist posting.

Random bit: Do You Know Shakira

So in my class, we read about Shakira, who (according to what I learned in the article) richly deserves to be a world star. (and frankly, who deserves to replace Britney Spears as the shorthand name-check to reference a top sexy female popstar - from now on, she's Korea's Shakira, not Korea's Britney Spears.) Among other things, she sang the theme song for the 2010 World Cup, the video of which probably set a record for star power that won't be topped until world cup 2014 (sorry, We Are The World. you're number 2 now). It's a pretty good video all around, too...



However... I couldn't help but laugh in my sleeve, because Shakira, doing a few African dances, made me think of "Aldous Snow" (the fictional rockstar character played by Russell Brand), and the video which ruined his fictional career somewhere between his show-stealing performance in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and the movie "Get Him To The Greek," in which he was the central character.

Well-meant, but completely racist and wrong-minded... how NOT to approach the Other, the best satire of dumb rockstars getting it wrong since "Christmas Is All Around," and maybe longer.


If I have time, I'll write up my thoughts on Sohn Hak Kyu's idea of including North Korea in hosting the Olympics this weekend. But as a good starting point, I agree almost completely with this great write-up from One Free Korea. Any group or organization that sidesteps or ignores North Korea's human rights situation has thrown any and all of its moral authority right out the window.

Later!

Pyongchang Olympics Predictions and Perspective in Question and Answer Format

Well, it's very convenient that Pyongchang was awarded the 2018 Olympics just now, as I just finished reading over 600 pages worth of books and articles on the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, so I have lots to say...

In Question and Answer Format, then:

1. People in Korea are, like, REALLY excited about this. Why?

Almost every Korean you talk to wants Korea to be recognized as a world-class nation. Whatever that means*. Every Korean you ever meet wants foreigners to think well of Korea, and in order for MORE foreigners to think well of Korea, Korea needs to attract their attention. Big events like the Olympics are a great opportunity to do this. Koreans like to see Korean-related things high on lists comparing  countries, and get distressed when Korea's position on such comparative lists are low. Here's a list Korea now belongs to:

Countries that will (by 2018) have hosted a Summer Olympics, a Winter Olympics, and a FIFA World Cup:
France, Germany, Italy, USA, Russia, Japan... and South Korea. That's more exclusive than the G20!

Not only is Korea now on a very very exclusive list (absent: famously "highly advanced" nations like Sweden, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, and even the United friggin' Kingdom!), but Korea gets to show that anything Japan can do, they can do, too. Which is important to some people here.

*Usually, what "world-class nation" means is a nation that resembles nations universally recognized as "highly advanced" - usually in terms of technology, economic and military power, and cultural influence. These nations tend to be "Western" nations like the USA and European nations. And Japan.

2. That's a lot of talk about prestige and status, Roboseyo. But The Olympics are about peace and harmony through sport, aren't they?

Actually... whether the Olympics are successful at bringing peace and harmony and cultural understanding to the world is debatable -- during the 60s and 70s, the Olympics were extremely politicized, with major boycotts to the 1976, 1980 and 1984 games, a political hostage situation at the 1972 games (Munich), and a massacre of protestors just days before the opening of the 1968 games (Mexico City). There are also constant rumors of corruption in the International Olympic Committee, and the IOC is known for turning a blind eye on some horrific stuff: the Seoul Games were awarded to Korea only a year after the horrific Gwangju Massacres in 1980, and the IOC very nearly gave the 2000 Summer Games to Beijing, only four years after the Tiananmen Square massacre: a bid which China submitted after being actively encouraged to bid by IOC leaders.

Meanwhile, though Olympics bring lots of nations together, it's debatable whether one sees an increase in international understanding during the Olympics, or whether one simply sees nations gathering to root for their own tribe. Pride gets involved. Winning at all costs becomes more important than fair play and excellence.* The Olympics and similar events warm over old national rivalries, and when things don't go the way one or another nation wants, especially when one of those old rivalries is in play, it can lead to an international incident (see also: Ohno, Apolo).

(For the record, FIFA has generally, but not always, been less political, but especially recently, even more corrupt and unaccountable.)

The one thing the Olympics are SURE to bring is not peace and harmony, but a jump in international visibility, which acts as a blank canvas on which the host (and anyone else with some media savvy) can paint their messages. Beijing 2008 used the Olympics to make some bold declarations about China's rise. The 1988 Seoul Games, the 1968 Mexico City games, and the 1964 Tokyo games did likewise. After World War II, the Olympics were held in a series of former Axis nations, to show their return to normalized relations with the world (Rome 1960, Tokyo 1964, Munich 1972). The Olympics are also a great opportunity to do a little national swaggering, as in the 1936 Berlin "Nazi" Olympics, the cold war Olympics (Moscow 1980 and LA 1984 - which featured Sam the Eagle, the most nationalist mascot ever), and some might argue, the 1948 "Who just won a world war?" London Olympics.

(Sam the eagle: 1984 LA's mascot. A bit flag-wavey, no?)

*Lest I be accused of finger pointing, Canada is also guilty of focusing on winning. Canada's "Own the podium" project missed the point of the Olympics, if it really IS about understanding, harmony, excellence and fair play.


3. But fair play and excellence comes into it, right?

Somewhere in there... but with few exceptions, the medal counts have become more a reflection of who puts money into their Olympic program than anything else. And why do governments and corporations think it's worth it to support Olympic programs? Swagger, not sport. Look at the change in China's medal counts that have happened since the 1980s, leading up to China's 2008 gold frenzy - directly connected to national "glory" and prestige. If medals weren't a way of building national prestige, why would countries strategically focus funding on less popular, high medal-count events (swimming, diving, rowing, and skating events) in order to pad their totals?

4. But the 1988 Olympics were really good for Seoul, and Korea in general. Why wouldn't these Olympics be equally good for Korea?

A few reasons.

First, in 1981, all anybody knew about Korea was the War, and MASH, and Western news coverage on Korea at that time focused on North Korea, civil unrest in South Korea, and visits to Korea by heads of state. That's about it. There was nowhere for Korea's national image to go but up, and by putting on a helluva good show, Korea's national image DID go up.

Were the Seoul Games the "foundation for an Advanced Nation" advertised in the 1988 Olympic Museum (Olympic Park)?



Hard to say. A lot of other things were going on at the time. The games were a convergence point for forces that had been gathering speed in Korea for a long time, towards democratization and internationalization and a new stage of economic development, but those forces existed before the Olympics, and would have had their effect on the national trajectory without them, though in different ways and with different timing. The Olympics definitely gave Koreans a better story to tell themselves about Korea's rise in status, acting as a tidy turning point in the national narrative being constructed.

The 2002 World Cup also provided a nice turning point in the narrative of Korea's recovery from the 1997 financial crisis... but that was a constructed narrative, too. Not necessarily an objective truth. Often, that's what big sports events are best for - national storytelling.


5. So why wouldn't the same happen to Korea this time?

Well...

Now, Korea already is a prominent nation. You don't see Mongolian TV dramas sweeping their time-slots in Taiwan, you don't see Laotian pop bands hitting top ten charts all across Asia, and you don't see Burkina-Faso's top popstars getting headlining roles in crappy Hollywood movies, do you? Park Jisung even has his own chant from Manchester United fans, which, while as crass as any other soccer chant, is at least aware enough of Korean culture to choose the correct ugly stereotype.



Korea has much less to gain this time, and much more to lose if the games go poorly, or if something embarrassing happens, like the 2008 Beijing Torch Relay fustercluck, or closer to home, the Byun Jong il boxing brouhaha, during which a Korean security guard hit a boxing official. (More on that) ... do you know how close they came to canceling the rest of the Olympic boxing tournament in 1988?


6. So what do you think is going to happen during the 2018 Pyeongchang games?

I think they will be a successful games, but not enough to be considered among the best ever.

Predictions will wildly overestimate the number of tourists and dollars the Olympics will attract. But that's true of literally EVERY Olympics.

I think Koreans have overestimated the Winter Olympics - they're nowhere near the importance, length or scale of the Summer Games. They have much fewer events, and they only appeal to nations with winter sports.

It will raise Korea's profile, but not as much as expected, and not only in the ways hoped for: that visibility gives EVERYBODY a platform, not just the official party line, and protesters and dissenting voices WILL be a part of these Olympics.

If this article is on base, the region has its work cut out for it, to develop a venue area that will impress people from winter sport regions, rather than just Koreans who can't afford to travel to Whistler.

I think there will be a lot of talk, but the Olympics will not help improve North/South Korea relations. Nobody will win the Nobel Peace Prize because of these games.

I think North Korea will do some big stunt a few months before the games, to get attention and try to piss on the Olympic party, but be relatively quiet during the games. I don't know whether they'll send a team (they didn't in '88)... too many variables in play, particularly in terms of succession.

I think negotiations to send a unified Korean team to the Olympics won't work out, and both sides will blame the other. As usual. This one might hinge on whether the president at the time is lefty or righty (politically).

I think the facilities will be completed ahead of time, but over budget. Either that, or early and under budget, with problems in workmanship cropping up close to the opening day. This would be very embarrassing to the nation, especially if it was discovered that construction funds were funneled elsewhere. However, due to TV revenues, etc.,  the games will pretty much break even.

Then, I think Pyeongchang will not know what to do with the extra facilities, and mad surplus of hotel accommodations no longer needed after the games, and maybe tear down things like the bobsled track, once all the Olympic jobs evaporate and public funds have to go into maintaining mostly unused facilities. Best case scenario? Pyeongchang becomes an Olympic training complex for future Olympians.  Pyeongchang's nearby ski resorts will become WAY overpriced and overcrowded.

I think it will be run better than that F1 Racing event (racing events remain a mess), because the President will see to it that extremely capable people will be involved in the olympic project.


7. What are some pitfalls that you think should get some media play during games preparations, so that Korea doesn't end up in a media standoff like they did with NBC during the 1988 Olympics?

Here's the thing:
I'm sure the planning and execution of the games will go well. And I'm sure the "official version" of Korean culture will be well represented during the opening ceremonies and such.

But...


There will be some bad calls during the games. Some of those bad calls will go against Korean athletes.

Some journalist will do a piece on the nearest dog meat market to Pyeongchang.

Another will report on the gender empowerment gap, and the prostitution industry here. And maybe even the intellectual crime (pirated DVDs and such) or the continuing corruption of the high-and-mighty elites. Or the mistreatment of migrant workers. If people try to suppress these stories, there will be instead a series of stories about how Korea is not ready to take criticism the way a truly developed nation should (as happened to China when they lashed out at BBC). Western media likes to position non-western nations as "Other" and somewhat "inferior."

People will talk about North Korea more than South Koreans would like.

A few Koreans will act like hypernationalist asses, and it will get a little play in the international news, like the "USA" chanters at the Atlanta summer games.

If North Korea sends a team, they'll send a squad of beautiful cheerleaders who attract a lot of media attention.

Some athletes or guests will act like asses, and get into some kind of scuffle with locals or local police.

Some protestors will jump in front of cameras and talk about the Korean issue of the day: the 2018 equivalent of the 4 rivers project, or the US Agent Orange dumping.

Some Koreans will dislike the style of foreign nations' reporting on Korea, and try to stir up a nationalist outrage like the one that led NBC to advise its reporters to hide the peacock logo during the 1988 games.

Somebody's going to write a cheeky article about Korean culture that seems mocking to a reader without enough English skill to pick out nuances of tone, or write some stuff that's overwhelmingly positive, but has a few critical lines in it. (see also: Hohleiter, Vera)

How the Korean internet, and media, respond to these things, will demonstrate Korea's true level of advancement as a nation either confident in its status as a major player, or still insecure about whether EVERY person likes EVERYTHING about Korea - an impossible goal for a high profile country. Will the media and public response be different than it was in 1988 (exactly 30 years earlier)? That'll be a test of whether Korea's truly comfortable in its own skin as a player on the world stage.


8. So how can Korea prepare for those kinds of unexpected things?


With a preemptive series of media discussions about why it's unsporting, and makes Korea look bad, to crash the websites of countries, athletes, or sport governing bodies, that are party to decisions that go against Korean athletes or say bad things about Korea, or to threaten the lives of, well, anyone, over something as inconsequential as sports, and a series of media discussions about the fact people coming to Korea will be behaving by different norms than Koreans behave, which doesn't mean they're bad, inferior, immoral, or trying to insult their hosts: it just means they're not from around here.


9. Do you think that'll happen?


I don't know. But it'd be refreshing if it did.  We saw during the 2008 Beijing Games, as well as the 1988 Seoul Games, that host nations do not have complete control over the messages conveyed about their countries during such global events. Responding by taking it on the chin, with a "Yeah, maybe that's true. Everybody hosting the Olympics this year raise your hands!" instead of with prickly defensiveness, would demonstrate a kind of confidence Korea hasn't always demnostrated, and didn't in 1988. The point of big event hosting is swagger... so swagger! Korea would do well to bear this in mind while preparing for the games, and to aim for a populace ready for this inevitability, come games time.

One Week Vacation

Got back from my anniversary trip to Canada.

It was great... I don't particularly like telling the entire internet when I'm going to be away from home for a week, but now that my locked doors are once again attended, I'll tell you I had a great time.

And something about the Olympics? Did any of you pick up on that?

I'll have something to say about that, too.

Later.