PING:
TITLE: South Korean campus anti-Americanism
BLOG NAME: Solomonia
The Marmot responds to a Village Voice piece which leads to an interesting discussion of anti-Americanism on campus. Be sure to check the comments. The Marmot’s (Final) Hole: Village Voice lays an egg…

PING:
TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 12-09-2003
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
JAN 9/03 TOPICS INCL: Masterful analysis of reunification, Future of U.S. Forces Korea; South Koreans killed in Iraq; China & Korea fight over ancient history; Josh Marshall on Korean diplomacy; Riots; Bruce Cumings attacks; Hunger strikes; North Korea…

Great comments. Korea really did change after the 1997 meltdown and the xenophobia it spawned has just grown. The fact is, Korea is self destructing into its own little xenophobic bubble.

Thanks, or I should say “thanks” given your fondness for sneer quotes, for including me in your iconoclastic club. I guess.

Re “ban mi” and “bi mi,” I’m just curious about places I’ve never been, so please enlighten me, if that’s your intent.

SK radicals’ unrequited love for the juche prison to their north does seems pathological from afar. Maybe it’s because it is pathological, at least in part. Or perhaps the irony that laces their performances is too subtle for a mere foreigner to grasp.

I don’t suppose coming across as a patronizing anti-anti-anti-American overly fond of big words doth count as ‘protesting too much.’

What is wrong with describing Korea’s brand of anti-Americanism as “pathological”? Koreans seem obsessed with all things American. Why are Koreans obsessed with Apollo Ohno? Why do Korean newspapers report on every little scuffle with US soldiers? How is US formaldehyde any different from all the formaldehyde poured down the drains of university and commercial laboratories around Korea? Why is the environmnent on US military bases more important than the environment in other parts of Korea? And why did Koreans suddenly become culturally aware just as the US was preparing to build an embassy on land it bought at the urging of the Korean government?

One good thing about Korea’s anti-Americanism is that it has helped to nurture activism in Korea. Koreans were never really anti-war until the US went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Koreans were never really concerned with the environment until a US government employee poured formaldehyde down a drain on a US base. And Koreans were never really interested in archeology until the US decided to build an embassy on the land it owned near Toksu Palace. In regard to helping to diversify Korean activism, I think Koreans owe the US a lot.

what of the recent distinction made between being “ban mi” and “bi mi”? doesn’t this indicate that even the very term “anti-americanism” bears a bit more careful scrutiny? granted, it’s easier to decry signs saying “no americans allowed” or those students who poo-poo reports of humans rights abuses in North Korea; but such analysis seems aimed to simply placate those with zero tolerance for criticism of the United States.

by foreclosing the possiblity that the target of such criticism may in fact be deserving, or by ascribing only the most emotional/psychological/fashionable intentions to such criticism, many of the negative appraisals of “anti-americanism” ring rather hollow. that is, perhaps the anti-”anti-americanism” adherents doth protest just a bit too much.

I never understood SK student radicalism/leftism as reported here (here being Mainland US), from the context of an American familiar with the history of WW2 and the Korean War. You admire Great Leader and Dear Leader? You want renunification on NK terms? WTF?!

Marmot, your earlier posts on the subject made things much clearer. Now I can see SK student activism as an expression of (variously) nationalism, pro-Korean racial pride/racism, resentment, and indulgence (self- and by SK society at large). Not a pretty picture, but one that makes sense.

You and your commenters are speaking the same language; that Village Voice author isn’t–she’s interpreting things, as I used to, in terms of Left/Right conflict, as these concepts are viewed in the American ideological setting.

“Kim has said that if the U.S. threatens his nation, he’ll turn Seoul into a “sea of fire.”

Did I miss something or did the author just swallow the garbage she was handed without chewing? (Or am I in need of sleep?) The famous “sea of fire” statement (”?흸???™€????????흸???™€?징흹, ????????????????????흹쩌?징흹 ?흸??????? ?짼???쨈??짚. ????????쨈 ??쩌??쨈?????쨈 ??흹??쨍?????쨋??째???짚?징흹 ??? ?짼???쨈??짚.”) came from Pak Yongsu, head of the Northern delegation to some talks @ P’anmunjOm, in 1994, a few months before Jimmy Carter stopped by and a few more months before Kim Il Sung died. If I recall correctly, that momentary slip was shown to be just that because Pak was pulled from the North’s delegation. I remember exactly where I was when it hit the news, too. Anyway, so unless Kim Jong Il made such a statement after he came to power, which would be after the feel good times of the Carter visit and therefore highly unlikely, then the author got it wrong. Someone please set me straight.

Also…

I agree with Charles Tustison here:

“…this current anti-Americanism and the insane view of north Korea’s virtue is not part of the student tradition that toppled Rhee, kept Chun from delaying the election in 88, etc.”

Amen to that (though I think Chun didn’t want to “delay” the election, he wanted to hold the election with the same old electoral college type of non-direct vote, and he’d always said he’d step down after one term).

The general view is that anti-Americanism really began in 1980, after Gwangju, with the arson attack on the Busan USIS, but as other commenters note, it just feels like a whole different kind of anti-Americanism. Most of the time I just role my eyes at what you see today, because on a personal level, the stuff in the eighties I had to face more often, on campus, and there truly were people who hated me for being an American, though they were few. For most students it was a more general feeling, and, for that matter, it was probably more justified, in that same general way, with politics then and all. Americans got booed at the 1988 Olympics. Even playing against the Soviets, if I remeber correctly. The difference between then and now was that there were specific reasons. The U.S. team carried themselves in what was seen as a disrespectful manner at the opening ceremonies. Brian Gumbel did some sort of scene on Good Morning America where he held dried squid up and asked “how the heck do you eat this stuff?”, or something like that. I think it was an American swimmer who stole a wall ornament off the wall at JJ Mahoney’s at the Seoul Hyatt. Koreans wanted recognition from The Ally for the acomplishment of hosting the Olympics, but the Americans were being obnoxious.

Now it just seems more overwhelmingly hateful, and as it’s furthered by fad and a silent conspiracy of mutual disinformation. No one dares come out and explain that Jay Leno said far worse things about Bill Clinton than he ever did about skater Kim Dong-sung. One the one hand, at last summer’s candelight protests in downtown Seoul the mood was almost wholesome…. old people, young people, middle school students, and they were all nice and welcoming to me, though I’m sure things got out of hand after I went home. But you never used to hear about physical attacks, establishments prohibiting the entrance of Americans, and it would’ve been impossible to imagine Korean football players imitating the Kim Dong-sung/Ohno scene after kicking a goal during the World Cup. When GNP presidential candidate goes to one of the candlelight vigils for the two middle school girls, you know it has become a national issue, on center stage.

About the article… I’m old and way out of touch but even these days there seems to be student activism that isn’t anything pro-North, not by any means, but lately we tend to associate whatever is pro-North and whatever doesn’t get much support beyond college students as “The” student movement. Feminist students don’t get called student activists, and they’re not the least bit impressed with the North’s cheerleaders. Universities didn’t used to have much to show for environmental groups, gay activism, and so on, but now they’ve got it all and a lot of it. I guess you could say that desipte Hanchongnyeon and what gets called The Movement, activism on campuses is more mature, complex, and less Third Wordly than it used to be. In the past there were to competing schools of thought within what was called the student movement, but it is was the strain more nationalistic and therefore more anti-American and sympathetic to the North which now leads Hanchongnyeon.

Wrote too much.

And I’m sorry, but outside the university gates, I don’t see a whole lot of people who think of Hanchongnyon as “patriots” - even people I know who are sympathetic to some of their causes regard their ideology as abhorent and their tactic counterproductive, if not outright insane. In 1987, the students were instrumental in bringing down a government. In 2003, the only thing they are instrumental in is increasing their own irrelevancy - Noh (who, if anything, owes them a favor for services rendered before the election) doesn’t like them, and even Hanyang University’s student council has split from Hanchongnyon.

Having said all this, what I do find serious is the government’s refusal to take strong action against students who go beyond the flag-burning and slogan-chanting to commit somewhat more dangerous (not to mention illegal) acts. I’m not saying we should bring back the samch’eong kyoyukdae, but if you’re going to give those kids who broke on to the firing range in Pocheon suspended sentences (and the seniors who organized the operation got only suspended sentences, too), you might as well just give the more mentally unbalanced ones a green light to continue doing those sort of things. Eventually, someone (Korean or American) is going to get seriously hurt in one of Hanchongyon’s harebrained stunts, and THEN we’ll have a serious problem on our hands.

I don’t think this article intended to do anything more then convey the statements of some radicals. A discussion of the roots of anti-Americanism which I have seen some scholars trace back to some unequal treaty with the Mongols was certainly beyond the scope of the article. I would also like to suggest that this current anti-Americanism and the insane view of north Korea’s virtue is not part of the student tradition that toppled Rhee, kept Chun from delaying the election in 88, etc.

I do not see the “egg” you mentioned in any of your comments, which seem to focus more on showing a history of Korean student activism and anti-Americanism than correcting any flaws in the article. You argue that anti-Americanism is nothing new to Korea and that it is nothing to worry about, but I disagree. The kind of anti-Americanism we see in Korea today is new and different, and more serious than it was in the past.

I have been in and out of Korea since 1977, but have never seen nor felt the kind of anti-Americanism that I see and feel today. When Korean students made anti-American comments in the early eighties, they were half-hearted and designed more to stimulant debate than anything else. If you corrected their misconceptions about the US, they would usually reply with comments, such as, “Oh really? I didn’t know that.” In contrast, today’s anti-American students are much more confident in their beliefs and show much less interest in debate.

Then there are the obvious differences between past and present anti-Americanism. In the past, soldiers were not baited and attacked as they are today, and millions of people did not turn out to rally against the US because of a traffic accident. In the past, US soldiers did not have to physically battle with Korean protesters to keep them off US military facilities. In the past, one did not hear the kind of anti-American comments in the Korean government that we hear today. And, in regard to the Hanchongnyon, in the past, they really were a fringe group of “ideologically confused kids,” as you are trying to paint them now, but today they are considered patriots by and have the sympathy of many Koreans.

If an anti-American platform can get a poorly qualified person elected to the Korean presidency, then I say that it is a serious problem, which can and is adversely affecting the security alliance between the US and Korea.

Gerry Bevers