Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from June, 2013

Flashback: Fights over seating arrangements between the two Koreas

The New York Times has the kind of article I like--a review of an issue/event that includes a bit of history to remind readers to be skeptical of today's optimistic headlines. During border talks decades ago, the sides took the competition over protocol and appearances to the extreme, with North Korean military officers secretly adding inches to the legs of their chairs so they would look taller than their counterparts across the table from South Korea and the United States. In those cold-war-era meetings, the sides usually exchanged invectives and retorts. But they also sometimes persisted in silence — for over 11 hours in one session in 1969 — challenging the other side to speak first. In the best-known contest of pride on the divided peninsula, North and South Korea once engaged in a race over which country could raise its national flag higher over the heavily fortified border. That battle was eventually settled with the North beating the South; today, the North’s flagpole

What's Worse?

Re: Can't see the forest for the trees! What's worse: * A Korean husband who beats his immigrant wife--or the Korean government that makes it difficult for that immigrant wife to live here legally without that abusive husband? I ask that question because both issues are raised in Kim Rahn's article in today's Korea Times. Yes, I counted the paragraphs--the first 20 paragraphs of the article are about those abusive husbands. The last nine discuss the role of government making things more difficult for those immigrant wives. Reporters are taught to put a human face on issues--in this case, the faces of immigrant wives having their faces bashed in by their Korean husbands. And, of course, it is possible that Rahn has focused on the government in other articles. Okay, so some people don't like "what's worse" questions, and I accept that. For those people, feel free to rephrase the questions as, "which part of this problem deserves more attent

Change we can believe in, sure--but how to get it done?

RE: When everyone agrees there must be change, but when change is slow... Don't most people who experience Korea agree that there must be some serious societal changes (high suicide rate, constant complaints about inequality, other daily news complaints). At least, that seems to be true among intellectuals, politicians, culture vultures and others in the chattering class. But when there is such broad agreement, and that change doesn't happen, then what is the explanation? Andrew Salmon writes in today's Korea Times about the kinds of stuff that I suspect most Koreans would agree about: that the education system needs to be reformed so that it can be more individualized and less competitive, there must be more diversity of talent, more variety in Korean life, more diversity in business, diversity of opportunity, etc. More and more, different and different. So when almost everyone agrees, I suppose there will be a tipping point and change will come about. But it isn

Hey, ya'll--I ate my veggies

If I ever go to Africa--and I don't expect that I will anytime soon--then I won't feel guilty at all. That's because I will be able to say to anyone I meet, "I ate all my vegetables." Yesterday on TBS eFM 101.3 in South Korea, "This Morning" host Alex Jensen  interviewed a lady who sounded like everyone's mom, warning about the danger of wasting food. She actually mentioned about everyone's moms telling them not to waste their food!  In my case, if I ever  go to North Korea--which I have no interest in doing--then I will also be able to say the same thing to them: "Hey, ya'll, I ate my vegetables. So don't blame me." A few Korean friends have told me that when they were growing up that their moms told them to eat all of their food because the children in North Korea were starving. And I suppose that North Korean parents used to say the same thing about South Korean children--until the CDs and DVDs smuggled in proved otherwi

The right of locomotion (Frederick Douglass, 1869)

(1869) Frederick Douglass Describes The "Composite Nation" In an 1869 speech in Boston, former slave and leading 19th century abolitionist Frederick Douglass challenged most social observers and politicians by advocating the acceptance of Chinese immigration. Thirteen years later, the US Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the first major piece of legislation blocking people from entering the country, laying the foundation for other exclusions.   Here is an excerpt in which Douglass argues that there is the universal right of locomotion (I hate to put words in his mouth, but I suspect he would argue today in favor of North Koreans also having the right to locomotion).   There are such things in the world as human rights. They rest upon no conventional foundation, but are external, universal, and indestructible. Among these, is the right of locomotion; the right of migration; the right which belongs to no particular race, but belongs alike

Rating the 10 Magazine speakers

I attended another 10 Magazine speech organized by Barry Welsh. Here are my unofficial grades for the speakers I have heard so far: 1) Shin Dong Hyuk (A+) : The audience was captivated. A few ladies were in tears as he discussed his escape from North Korea, his adjustment to living in South Korea, his difficulty at enjoying life. I first met Shin shortly before the best-selling book (Escape from Camp 14) in America about him was published, and was a bit surprised when he recognized me at an event and struck up a conversation with me even though he is so shy. Even though I was already familiar with his story, it was still great to hear it first hand in an informal setting. I threw a curveball at him, mentioning that that some people have doubted the veracity of his story. He took it in stride. After escaping from a prison camp in North Korea, I guess that there aren't many things that could rattle him. Shin, Lartigue 2) Michael Breen (A): An outstanding mix of humo