North Korea expert Andrei Lankov has a lengthy and what some (but not me) might find controversial column in the Asia Times explaining why, after reunification, many North Koreans are likely to remember the Kim Dynasty past with nostalgia. Here’s a taste:
This sad situation is an unavoidable result of decades of the Kim’s family rule. Ideally, North Koreans might have admitted that they are paying a huge price for themselves (or rather their ancestors) being seduced by the seemingly attractive ideas once promoted by the founders of the regime and their Soviet sponsors.
These ideas emphasized social equality and a shared national destiny. They promised (wrongly, as it turned out) the general well-being and dramatic economic growth. Then, when around 1970, the emptiness of these promises started to become evident, the North Korean population could not challenge the system and found themselves in a state where a tiny semi-hereditary elite would maintain their powers whilst enjoying assorted perks and privileges.
However, such an honest and frank appraisal is unlikely to take hold – after all, it is seriously damaging for the psychological well-being of all those concerned. We humans are usually not too eager to see ourselves as victims of the dreams, delusions and fears of their grandfathers, we are not happy to say that we have spent our lives pursuing nonsensical goals while remaining more or less obedient tools for a tiny ruling caste. So, the North Koreans will be far more likely to start looking for some justification, a myth-based narrative (or rather a few different myth-based narratives) which will explain the disastrous Kim period in a less painful way.
To think we have a unified future of North Koreans bitching about arrogant South Koreans looking down on them, South Koreans bitching about lazy, ungrateful North Koreans, and everyone bitching about the Americans, Japanese, Chinese and Russians…
{ 72 comments… read them below or add one }
LOL..
tThis kind of silly thought crosses culture – it’s a more dramatic and evil expression of why some poor idiots in the US still believe in “trickle down” politicians.
Once you’ve signed yourself up for a retard ride like that?
Doesn’t matter that decades of evidence is against you.
It’s difficult to admit you’re on the rollercoaster that doesn’t really run.
It’s all about the seed for the crystal of dissent to form on. One needs very little seed if there is enough dissent. How much a former North Korean would hark back to the days would just depend entirely on the way he feels he is treated vs what he thinks he deserves.
Even for the Germans, there is definitely a softer, coloured lens the younger East Germans have on when they look at the DDR days (some too young to even remember but they seem to have the goggles none the same) compared to the Nazi past.
Someone once observed out loud if my former boss (ex-East German) worked for the Stasi, based on the way he operated.
Hello Dr. Lankov,
Yeah, I hear you and you may very well be right, but there is one factor about Koreans you may not have put into consideration that may be important to consider. Koreans hate their history. It’s not to say that they don’t love their country, but for the most part, they hate their history. However, I think patriotism and hating your history are two different things.
In any case, for example, yes, there are some Koreans that look upon Park Chung-hee with nostalgia and talk about how he laid the foundations for modern Korea, etc. but many more Koreans look upon that era with disdain and will never forgive Park for what he did. It’s the same with Rhee Syngman, the Joseon Dynasty, Koryo Dynasty and Unified Silla. Some people thought those were good regimes but most don’t. I don’t think Koreans will ever forgive Chun Doo-hwan.
Yeah, but are North Koreans like South Koreans in this regards? I think in terms of hating their history, there’s a fair chance they might be.
its very, very, very hard to be objective and admit that you and/or your family just fucked up a majority of your lifespan for bullshit, lies, and hypocrisy and benefitted a few very elite, and incredibly self-serving people.
It’s very, very hard to admit karma and justice does not exist when you are the victim of something like this.
if they are denied imagination and make-believe as a mental refuge, then….
I have mixed feelings about the Lankov essay. On the one hand, I can see his concern that post-DPRK/Kim Dynasty there will be efforts to look upon the very recent past through rose tinted lenses. By that same token, however, I don’t concur with the assumed conclusion from the essay that former citizens of the DPRK have to adopt the complete opposite position of total and utter repudiation of the DPRK/Kim Dynasty.
I’m sure the usual gremlins will take me to task for this, but I simply don’t agree with his depiction of the DPRK/Kim Dynasty project as a total, unmitigated, horrific failure. Should those things that Lankov outlined in his essay transpire, my opinion is that former citizens of the DPRK would have, at the least, a modicum of justification for believing such. Long story short, the need to eschew one extreme doesn’t ergo mean adhering to another one.
Finally, this assertion left me scratching my head:
This for me comes off as the usual sort of sucker punch that gets thrown at the South Korean left whenever DPRK issues come: They’re all Commies. To be sure, Lankov’s is delivered with more grace and finesse, but still the same nonetheless. He betrays a curious lack of curiosity as to what the “Left” in South Korea actually believes concerning the DPRK. For example, during 1980′s heyday of student activism, there were a sizable number of activists who clashed with their Juche Kool-Aid drinking counterparts (see Namhee Lee’s The Making of Minjung). Moreover, even during the DPRK succession process that occurred late last year, there were plenty of disagreements among the left as to what their response should have been (look up the contretemps that flared up between 민주노동당 and the 경향신문).
And all this without mentioning the right in South Korea. Does Lankov really think that they’re just going to sit idly by as these sorts of nostalgic narratives emerge? One need only look to currently circulating works such as 해방잔후사의 재인식 and 대한민국 이야기 to know that this won’t be the case.
@ Charles Tilly # 5,
Some phrases/words in Korean at the end of your comment just caught my attention.
민노당 is certainly interesting. (We) south Koreans know their stance: we have no doubt about this political party especially after hearing their opinion on the Korean war, e.g., “how it started”…
Yeah, some south Koreans like 민노당 and some don’t. Some support it and others don’t.
And I think you’re one of those who’ve read lots of Korean books and know Korea quite well. The book called “해방 전후사의 재인식” was published years after as a rebuttal to “해방 전후사의 인식”. Haha
Just some background info.: “해방 전후사의 인식” was published for the first time in 1979 and kept being published in the 80s (A total of six books, I heard). “해방 전후사의 재인식” was published around 2006, at least according to Aladdin Books (알라딘). The two books’ titles sound so similar but they were written by historians with very different or almost opposing views: to south Korean readers, the titles themselves clash.
You may or may not be referring to me as one of the usual gremlins. I don’t feel any need to take you to task for it – I think your sentence neatly summarizes what lies at the heart of our disagreement. I do see “the DPRK/Kim Dynasty project as a total, unmitigated, horrific failure.”
I can see that you are obviously an intelligent fellow, and a man who loves this country and knows its language well, so I struggle to understand how you can say what you said above. Can you walk me through it?
This is what I was looking for. Very little writing about post-unification focuses on this psychologically very traumatic process of discarding the last X decades of your life in order to fit into a completely new society that rejects any useful value in their experience.
For my thesis years ago I looked at this process in Germany, and how it led to a phenomenon of “Ostalgia” amongst “Ossis”, who pined not for their leaders (who were never very charismatic) but for the stability and certainty and meaning that their lives had lost. The Germans speak of a “Mauer im Kopf” ([Berlin]Wall in the Head) that still divides east and west Germans today.
I predicted then (and still believe now) that some type of “North-stalgia” will arise in the former North after Korean unification. We might well call it a “DMZ in the Head” (if a non-US pronunciation of “DMZ” is allowed) that will separate north and south Koreans for decades after political unification. What will differentiate it qualitatively from the east German Ostalgia, I think, will be this vestigial veneration of Kim Il Sung (for sure) and Kim Jong Il (maybe).
Some of the limited lines of possible work for North Koreans in a post-unification Korea:
1) unskilled labor – factory workers, construction and deconstruction work, work in the northern mines.
2) crime – expect phishing, all manner of frauds/cons/scams, drug & people smuggling, home invasions, muggings, armed robberies, etc, to inrcease in (particularly southern) Korea dramatically.
3) prostitution – ’nuff said
4) security – hired guards, mercenaries, protection rackets (see “crime”) and similar. But many of them will be susceptible to bribery due to the low pay
5) brokers – the smart North Koreans will place themselves at the disposal of 재벌 and other South Korean investors coming north across the border, as sellers of “knowledge” and “connections” between the existing infrastructure and resources and those who want to use/buy them.
6) some degree of semi-skilled labor – fishermen, sailors, merchant mariners, bus and taxi drivers (after they learn how to drive and learn the major routes/destinations), motorcycle couriers, gas station attendants, 7-11 store clerks.
Can anybody add to this list?
A very interesting topic. I would imagine, the full disclosure of what the whole North Korean state was about will be psychologically shattering for many North Koreans. However, it seems most common North Korean people have already realized that their system is an abject failure–though they probably blame it only on the failure of Kim Jong Il, not on his father or on the system in general.
When the walls come down and the Kims are history, I think that because (A) most people will finally be able to EAT regularly, (B) they won’t be living under the abject fear of the whole security aparatus, and
(C) the “disclosure of the manifold horrors which were perpetrated by the regime” alluded to in #7, that a “rose-tinted view” of the Kim regime will be limited to a tiny minory–probably by the former elites who are now selling lint-scrubbers on the subways. Which, come to think of it, might not be such a tiny minority.
@hamel:
First, the assumed notion in your initial sentence that there’s some contradiction between my knowing Korean, having enjoyed living in Korea, having South Korean friends, and having something “positive” to say about the DPRK somehow means that I have some animus toward the Republic of Korea is just exactly the sort flim-flam I’d expect from you. It’s really unfortunate that you live in the era that you do now. I really think people like you and milton would have enjoyed South Korea way better during the heydays of the anti-communist authoritarian regimes. These utterances are the sort of BS that I read constantly by that eras leftovers in the South Korean conservative press and in the documents housed in the ROK’s National Archives.
Second, I don’t need to walk you through anything. We’ve had this conversation. I’ve laid out my thoughts in length and in detail. Do a Google search of that particular thread if you need a refresher.
Finally, I find it telling that there’s this concern over the possible emergence of DPRK/Kim Dynasty nostalgia should the day come when that regime collapses. It makes me start to wonder if all this talk about the how the DPRK is so weak, bankrupt, and hollow is really believed by those who say so. I mean, if the entire DPRK project is so weak, bankrupt, and hollow-from its inception to now; from top to bottom-why this particular concern? If the DPRK collapses and unification happen on the terms of the ROK and the US, that really should settle any questions over whose narrative was just plain better. Moreover, when the DPRK collapses and should its then free citizens feel nostalgic longings for the days of yore, why begrudge them that? Aren’t they free to think whatever the hell they want? Isn’t that the sole thing you’ve wanted for these people?
Charles Tilly wrote in his comment #11,
“First, the assumed notion in your initial sentence that there’s some contradiction between my knowing Korean, having enjoyed living in Korea, having South Korean friends, and having something “positive” to say about the DPRK somehow means that I have some animus toward the Republic of Korea is just exactly the sort flim-flam I’d expect from you.”
“If the DPRK collapses and unification happen on the terms of the ROK and the US, that really should settle any questions over whose narrative was just plain better. Moreover, when the DPRK collapses and should its then free citizens feel nostalgic longings for the days of yore, why begrudge them that? Aren’t they free to think whatever the hell they want? Isn’t that the sole thing you’ve wanted for these people?”
Oh, my God.
I believe that Charles Tilly has been “south Koreanized”. Completely.
*** If this comment of mine seems offensive (I don’t think so… but anyone thinks that way), please delete it. I don’t mind.
Sigh. As you wish. You’ve misunderstood me. It is actually you who have projected animus at me the last two times we have had an exchange. I wasn’t coming from that starting point at all.
Another sigh. I half expected this response. Of course you don’t need to walk me through anything. I asked it as a courtesy to me and the people who read this blog and might also have trouble getting their heads around it. I recall well the conversation we had last year, but I don’t think it is quite the same as what I am asking here. Never mind, you seem to think it is, so I can see I won’t be getting any further here.
I really don’t understand what your point is here. I suspect you are imputing some motives to me (and others), but I don’t know what they are. I am not telling the future post-unification north Koreans what to think or what not to think. That is indeed the freedom of any individual.
I think the concern of a DMZ in the Head is justified because it will ultimately be an obstacle to social cohesion in a future Korea. I imagine the latter is something that you and I would wish for. I think the onus now is on the South Korean authorities to walk carefully along the path to unification and not to focus simply on economic and political unification, but also on psychological and social aspects. Do you have an argument against that?
Maybe in the eyes of the world, but it is hard for individuals to grapple with this notion that they were “on the wrong side” for all these years, and that they have effectively “wasted” decades on study sessions and self-criticism and propaganda reading and the construction of a nation that now no longer exists.
I would recommend “The Saddled Cow” by Anne McElvoy and also “Stasiland” by Anna Funder as two good books about the German situation.
Charles Tilly, I feel that there is more that unites us than divides us. Our common disdain for schoolmarmish pedantry being only one thing. We may have met “offline” before, or we probably will someday if we stay here long enough and remain interested in these topics. It would be nice if we could get along.
Very interesting thoughts all round. One thing not mentioned yet is the denial complex that could emerge from SKs about what all happened. Most South Koreans don’t particularly enjoy discussing bad things that have happened in the North, as they like to see Northerners as part of the same Korean family. It’s a bit like not wanting to discuss one’s axe-murderer brother at the dinner table. The world, however, is going to want to know every gory detail. This could lead to SKs putting a bit of a damper on highlighting just how bad things really were and wanting to focus on the future much more.
Another matter not discussed is what NKs will do with universal suffrage. Could a bloc party emerge? 15 million new voters will change the political landscape, and I imagine they’ll like the SK left more than the SK right.
Hamel, I strongly suspect that if unification happens the government will have to control immigration within Korea for a number of years, stemming the flow of people south. From where I’m currently sitting I did, however, think of one more job Northerners could do: PC-방 manager … after someone shows them where the ‘on’ button is, of course.
Charles Tilly:
I find your last paragraph incredibly evasive and wrong-headed. OF COURSE people who are anti-Kim are worried about Northstalgia. There can easily arise politicians in the North to rise up and take advantage of Northstalgia…just look at Putin’s clever maneuvering of Soviet “pride” over his Russians. It has NOTHING to do with how weak the DPRK is at this moment.
Second, OF COURSE a free and democratic DPRK should have its citizens express whatever nostalgia they want. Does that mean no one can analyze and even – gasp! – criticize this Northstalgia if and when it occurs?
Again, your answer was incredibly defensive and emotional, without addressing hamel’s points.
“I’m sure the usual gremlins will take me to task for this, but I simply don’t agree with his depiction of the DPRK/Kim Dynasty project as a total, unmitigated, horrific failure.”
Well said. Pain and misery on that scale has shown the incredible resilience of the north Korean people to survive. Let’s also not forget the technical expertise Nork scientists applied to get that extra 500km out of scuds that dictators world wide delight in along with Iran. We would also be remiss in not mentioning the mass child abuse games, chilling in their perfection as befits glorifying the Kim clan above all else.
Honorable mentions should go to their counterfeiting skills and insurance fraud schemes. Without those Western governments would become lax and stop investing in countermeasures.
Other than that though, it’s a total, unmitigated, horrific failure.
Reading Lankov’s piece, I recalled this clip I had posted on my own blog of an argument Robert Farley made about authoritarian regimes and politics (1:19).
https://radcontra.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/authoritarian-states-have-politics-too/
As a rule, I don’t like to make predictions unless I’ve got quantitative data. But then, once I’ve got good hard data there’s so much else to do with it. There’s just something convoluted about making a prediction based on an event that also has not occurred and the probability of which is questionable and rife with ideological assumptions.
@hamel:
What you’re asking here is exactly the same thing we talked about back then. Since you seem to be unwilling to go search for the link, I’ll provide it for you here: http://www.rjkoehler.com/2010/10/16/open-thread-172/
Also, I don’t see why I have to extend some sort of courtesy to an individual who writes such transparent drivel:
Tell me, since you’re claiming I misunderstood you, where were you going with that? Because despite the well-mannered style it was presented, it sounds an awful like the anti-communist BS you hear when old ROK vets gather in front of Seoul City Hall.
Finally, I find this little bit curious coming from a MH commentator of all people:
So what are you saying? There needs to be some official nationalism that stanches any potential sprouting of alternative discourses? Gee, and I thought MH commentators like you were the ones always railing against this sort of thing; how it’s a serious flaw of all Koreans.
@billnye8068:
Science Guy like you are free criticize and analyze “Northstalgia” all you want. But I fail to see how your “criticism” and “analysis” is going to be all that helpful. Witness:
Let me break it down for you Science Guy: the above is chip off the old block triumphalism not any meaningful cool, calm analysis. It’s a “Let’s rub into these motherf**kers” mentality. Given this, it’s ironic that I’m the one being accused as “defensive and emotional.”
As for not addressing hamel’s points, you probably should go to the above link as well.
@Hamilton:
Bringing up the DPRK’s manifold present day problems to somehow indict it’s entire history is just the sort of shallow thinking I’d expect from a deep-fried American nationalist like you. If I were to somehow make the argument that the disaster of the GWB administration can be traced to the United States’ very inception, would you buy that? Please, whatever ideology you have-realist or nationalist-can you at least dispense with the presentism?
@Hamilton:
Gee, with the exception of the child abuse games, everything you describe above sounds pretty realist. You know, that assumed notion by all major realist international relations scholars that the preeminent goal of the state is to ensure its survival?
But of course, I should get real (so to speak). For folks like Hamilton it’s “Realism for me, but not for thee.”
Charles Tilly,
Okay. Sometimes people seek to cause offence, and sometimes people seek to be offended. It seems to me that you do both. Good day to you, sir.
hamel,
I’m more positive about an integrated Korean state. Assuming unification in the next 10 to 20 years, the (formerly South) Korean economy will get an injection of cheap labor just when it needs it most, as youth flee the agricultural sector, and Chinese migrant labor threatens to form an alarmingly large class of wage-slave non-citizens. Plus: women, i.e. no more need to plunder young virgins from SE Asia.
I’m far more concerned with what happens twenty years after that, if and when the children of former North Koreans run up against a very low glass ceiling while their peers (children of former South Koreans) enjoy prosperity and privilege. This has trouble written all over it.
PS – Spot on with Charles Tilly.
Yu Bum Suk:
Thanks for PC방. I had forgotten that one.
Regarding the need for border control by the south after an “opening” event in North Korea (however that plays out), I agree that of course the ROK government will want to stem the tide of North Koreans flooding south. China wants to do the same on its border.
However, the problem is this: how do you tell 20 million or so North Koreans that they must sit tight and wait a generation or two before open borders, so that their children or grandchildren can enjoy the fruits of unification? People there will be unlikely to be patient, when they know that their ethnic “brothers” and Northerners who got out early are enjoying significantly greater standards of living just a few kilometers away.
Secondly, there will also be a push from people in the south who have relatives in the north and/or who came from the north, and who still have (disputed) property claims, to open the borders quickly.
Thirdly, yYou will have in the North a now de-commissioned army of one million young, strong, healthy single men, who have no reason to stay in their barracks or go home to be a burden on their parents. Some may or may not have access to arms, and many will have a mind to venture southwards and try their luck.
Fourthly, border controls mean border enforcement. The question it comes down to (and I have discussed this with Dr Lankov in private and he agrees) how many northerners will the South Korean army be prepared to shoot while trying to cross the border before they or their leaders lose the stomach for it?
Sure, the South Korean populace do not want Apgujeong and Gangnam to be over-run by poor and scruffy northerners looking for food, work and shelter, but most will begin to feel pretty guilty once border guards fire upon these economic migrants. And unless you are firing, how do you patrol a border that long and through rugged, undeveloped terrain? It might be like the Mexico-US border situation, I think.
Granfalloon:
I admire your initial optimism, and I hope you are right. I think we run the risk of having – for at least the first generation – a literal sub-race of shorter, darker, less intelligent (chronic malnutrition leads to less-developed brains and also schizophrenia, according to some studies I have seen) people who appear like South Koreans but less “beautiful.” Kind of like the Morlocks and the Eloi. Let’s hope it doesn’t turn out as in H.G. Well’s book.
CT,
Your strawman arguments are pretty weak these days even for you. GWB did not have any hand in the creation of the US or in its development over 200+ years outside of his 8 years in office during which he shared power as our country is set up.
The Kim’s are north Korea, they created the state with the help of the Soviet Union and then China. You can’t separate them from north Korea.
Your insults are pretty funny also across every string. You can’t even be bothered to read the positions of those you attack. Pretty weak for a troll.
SKOR doesn’t need 20 million low wage workers (if there are that many left by then). It is long past the stage in which bringing more labor power to bear will produce significant productivity and wealth gains. Economically, it needs a culture of genuine innovation. Without that, and with 20 million potential Morlocks underfoot, it faces potentially ruinous socio-political problems.
Let me explain, Hamel.
Tilly is a product of a very liberal world-view, and would dearly love for the DPRK experiment in socialism to have at least some redeeming quality, if only to partially repudiate the conservative (capitalist/imperialist/fee market) ideology that has proved so successful in the ROK, and which he’s not entirely comfortable with.
Unfortunately for him, since the Kim Dynasty/DPRK
project is a total, unmitigated, horrific failure, he’s been forced to concoct a rather tenuous argument in its defence, largely based on semantics. From memory, it has something to do with legitimacy. Asking him to qualify his rather vague assertion is akin to trying to trap a Noam Chomsky fart.
Tilly is further motivated by envy. Lankov is a respected commentator on the DPRK, and Tilly is not. There’s not much room for another Cumings, unfortunately, so Tilly has resorted to flinging poo from the sidelines of popular blogs.
Thanks for the unpleasant visuals.
I think you mean “olfactory” visuals.
what they should do after unification is replace taxes on economic activity with a user fee for property rights (with an exemption on subsistence like a small home and small family business). this will spur growth and develop the north korean population.
“SKOR doesn’t need 20 million low wage workers…. It is long past the stage in which bringing more labor power to bear will produce significant productivity and wealth gains…. Without that, and with 20 million potential Morlocks underfoot, it faces potentially ruinous socio-political problems.”
–Sperwer
Granfalloon, I agree with hamel and Sperwer. You can easily find 20 million low wage workers anywhere, if you really need them. What the ROK wants more of now are more productive, higher skilled, better educated workers. Even China today has reached that point of transition in their economic development. In addition, north Korea is an aging society. In 10, 20 years, northern Koreans of a unified nation will strain welfare services and retard economic growth for the south for generations. The problem is, northerners will not see it that way. I agree with Lankov for the same reason as he: based on observations, it seems to me that that would actually be normal human response.
Even with a culture of genuine innovation in the south, I don’t see how Korea will avoid Morlocks underfoot. Nevertheless, I think younger South Koreans should desire unification as the benefits longer term far outwigh the short and mid term pains.
Hamel, I wasn’t thinking as long as a generation or two, but maybe something along the lines of a five-year plan. The NK army could be employed in construction projects (as many of them already are). Sponsored relatives could also be the first wave of immigrants to come down – they’d at least have people who could support them for a while. Then as the SE and south Asians get the boot they could be replaced by NK immigrant workers. Vietnamese bridal agencies could also close shop and move north.
HJ-S, Well said.
I knew someone would appreciate it.
Well, I’m outnumbered here, but I’m sticking to my guns. I can’t imagine a country with such huge construction and agricultural industries wouldn’t be able to find something for a few million people to do. Beyond that, it’s to say what will happen without knowing what policies will be in place, e.g. what restrictions will be placed on buying up Northern real estate and what kind of scholarships will be put in place for Northern students. (if the answer to either of those questions is “none at all,” things could get real ugly.)
Still, I see the real problem to be long-term integration and not short-term stabilization. The children of Northerners will likely face the same problems, but they won’t remember how much worse things used to be.
GF, I think the problem is the magnitude and the attitude. If the nK population is mostly wishing for the good ole’days when KIS and KJI used to whip up a grand project to fight the imperialists then just getting them to pay attention in vocational classes is going to be monumental.
That manpower is going to be hard to retrain right out the gate without all the indoctrination to unscrew. You have to remember these guys for the most part are completely worthless outside of raw labor due to their educational deficiencies.
When the wall came down in Germany, skilled East German electricians went to a couple of week schools to bring them up to speed on European technical and safety standards and they were put to work quickly. north Korean “skilled” workers for the most part have very few transferrable skills, they need to bring them up from the bottom.
We agree on this far more than we disagree.
I agree with Charles Tilly only in the sense that I think the prediction made by Lankov and the sentiment in agreement – it’s something that’s not *conducive* towards counteracting that prediction.
It’s like labelling humanity as hopeless plus giving up on the possibility of miracles even before it happens, based on recent historical case studies.
hoju_saram attempts to help the village nitwit hamel and commits his own acts of nitwittry. Where have I seen this movie before? Let me provide a capsule review:
Saying something “nice” about the DPRK and then ergo assuming that I have a desire to “repudiate” (all though in this case I think hoju_saram should have opted for “refudiate” since it would be a better match for his intellectual level) the ROK is just daft. Just because I point out something positive in the DPRK’s history and then in another instance point some failure in the ROK’s, doesn’t indicate a love for one or the other. It’s not all connected; two separate thoughts can be held at the same time. It’s called nuance. Try it. It does a body good.
There was nothing vague about my remarks to you back then. I provided my arguments and other scholarly works that I thought would be useful for you. If I recall, the best you came up with as a counterargument was the experience of your father in law. Please. Just a reminder: you, hoju_saram, are the one married to the lady and need to keep the peace. Not me. In all sincere honesty, I’m pretty sure it’s a touching personal story. But I’m not going to take a personal anecdote that only you have access to as the final word. I mean would you extend the same courtesy to me?
You’re capable of uttering some real nonesense but this one takes the cake. So I said something critical about the Lankov piece. In what world is that proof positive of my envy? Let’s just flip this around here hoju_saram: Since you’re incapable of saying anything critical about an opinion of Lankov’s, that just must indicate your sycophantic, obsequiousness to him.
“It’s like labelling humanity as hopeless plus giving up on the possibility of miracles even before it happens, based on recent historical case studies.”
–yuna
I don’t believe the pessimism in this case will result in self-fulfilling prophecy. I think we are what we are. I think the pessimism is inevitable because the issue will concern real needs of desperate people. There is nothing abstract about lacking fundamental skills, including skills a southern child would take for granted. Some northerners may try to look at the big picture, but most people stuck in hard times are self-interested because you can’t feed your family or impress the girls by living for the mere notion of living in relative poverty for the benefit of a greater good. And it will be the southerners who will control development and re-education and otherwise be in positions of power over the northerners.
On the other hand, talking about this in public so that a unified Korea can understand the issues is probably a good idea. Some skilled Korean writers perhaps should create a narrative, perhaps in novel or cinematic form, relating to Lankov’s and our concerns is such a way that northerners and southerners might be able to imagine and work out roles to optimize the gains of unification while minimizing the damages.
#38
Yes, I agree, but you have to give them a chance – starting from the Ansatz that they are not some deformed special breed of people bred from pure evil – would be a start.
See? Some might say I’m already self-fulfilling that self-fulfilling prophesy even before it happened.
though I don’t agree with those people who might say that about me, and it would be a real stretch to equate what I’d written above as “embracing a vision of the past blah blah” and “willingness to overlook that this vision blah blah”
“See? Some might say I’m already self-fulfilling that self-fulfilling prophesy even before it happened.”
–yuna
he he…
I agree with you that we need not agree with Lankov on this point. The narrative in question has not been written yet. It will be. Hopefully, Korean masters with the right kind of moral and constructive sensibilities and able to persuade both southerners and northerners will come along one day and defeat any divisive and destructive competing narratives that will be written, inevitably, as a result of unification.
You don’t recall very well.
HS, his recall skills match his inadequate logic skills. His pretentions of intellectual superiority are so high he no longer needs to build or support arguments.
He does however slander with a broad brush and his strawman building skills defy belief. Very sad, he actually alluded that I am a birther in another thread.
This is precious:
Broad Brush. Strawman. Inadequate logic skills. I’m going to chalk all these up as coping mechanisms that Hamilton uses when he’s displeased that someone would have the gall to disagree with him; and moreover, have the inability to mount a retort that could stand up to scrutiny.
Let’s make a small edit here:
Interesting to read some practical suggestions, concerns and well wishes for the future united Korea in this thread. Thank you all as a south Korean citizen! I wish the best for my country, south Korea, and its possible and hopeful future as the United Korea some day:)
Personally, I don’t feel I need to criticize Mr. Charles Tilly in any way: he’s very knowledgeable about south Korean society and holds his own views on it like any other south Koreans. Based on what I read above (his comments 5 & 11), my views on south Korea are a little different from his.
*** About my political position (well, it’s not that important here… but just for the sake of clarification…): Let’s say on a scale of 1 to 10, if the left is 1, the center 5, and the right 10… then, I think I belong to (around) 7 on that scale.
Anyway, me and my fellow south Koreans all differ from each other in views and opinions on our Korean society. Thus, I don’t think Mr. Tilly is an exception to this phenomenon although he’s not a south Korean. Also I believe that his opinions and views on south Korean society are valuable in part because they come from his access to sources written in Korean: his views certainly reflect some serious and important scholarly trend and tradition of south Korean academia.
CT, True to form, no substance in you Counter argument. Now would have been a great time to refute that you called me a birther….but wait..you did and I’m not, not even before the Birth Certificate was presented.
That makes you a liar and a coward in addition to everything else I said above. How smart is that?
Woops, I can’t see the smiling icon in my comment just above…
Let me try again: I wish the best for my country, south Korea, and its possible and hopeful future as the United Korea some day
Hamming it up as no other can, Hamilton writes that:
I never called you a Birther. Period. I went through the threads from the very recent past were I addressed you specifically and didn’t find a single instance were I outright called you a Birther. I first addressed you in an Open Thread towards the end of April and this thread.
Now, in the thread titled “Osama Bin Laden unarmed when killed” from May 5, 2011, I made this particular comment (#25) directed at you:
Tell me, where in that do you see me calling you a Birther?
Then in comment #32 and 33 of that same thread I wrote this:
Granted, in your frustration at not being able to make a cogent counterargument to me and subsequent animus that developed, I can see how you may have been confused (par for the course, BTW) and read the above as me labeling you a Birther. For instance, I know you have no love for the Hankyoreh. I know that more or less you’re a right-wing lout (despite the inevitable and desperate protestations that you’re a “realist”). But just because I think you’re those two things, doesn’t mean that I think, let alone called you a Birther. Trust me, if that were the god damn case, I sure as hell would have explicitly called you out on that like I do with your other nonsense.
I mean comments #32 and 33 weren’t even addressed to you, dipsh*t.
But please, if you can find me an exact quote were I called you, Hammyton, a Birther outright, show me. You’re not such a complete waste that I’m unable to man up apologize.
CT,
Oh you found it alright, didn’t take you long did it or would you like to list all the “right-wing louts that comment here”. That’s an interesting defense mechanism you have there, just declare that you were speaking about all the “other” guys you lump together. And you think you’re an intellectual? That didn’t work in Junior highschool professor.
You are a very busy poo flinging monkey these days so don’t be so surprised when people remember the inane crap you spew when you are out of ideas.
You have never actually supported your original assertation that THIS THREAD is about. What exactly are the contributions NK has built over its existence and how exactly is nostalgia not going to be problem? Can you just pony up anything without an insult?
Looking back to the good old days will cause problems, it has for East Germany and it certainly did for Russia. It certainly will be for north Koreans if people like you are yammering on about the accomplishments of a death regime who managed to kill percentage wise more of its people than anyone in recent history with the exception of Cambodia by its own policies.
Hamel, exactly what flaws has CT shown in my arguments? Just curious as to why you would support that statement.
I often disagree with you but have generally seen your arguments as well supported.
Here was my apparently flawed argument if you missed it. (shortened version) North Korea is an abysmal failed state by every measure conceivable. Jingoism and a fond feeling of grandeur for the past will cause problems for North Koreans to integrate post unification if that ever is to occur.
Apparently the logic flaw in my argument is so large mental giants like CT need not comment on it, just insult me. Seems and odd way to win an argument, I must have missed that in debat class all those years ago.
@Hammyton:
I found it because you’re not a very difficult person to figure out. Putting aside the issue that you’re an easy person to get a read on, it’s indicative of something rather pathetic that you’d read into that comment that I was in some way addressing you. Like I said, I may think you’re a right wing lout but that doesn’t mean I think that all right wing louts come in the same ludicrous colors. Witness Michelle Bachmann and Birtherism. Just because I excoriate right wing louts over Birtherism, and see Michelle Bachmann as a right wing lout, doesn’t mean, for example, that I’m somehow lumping her with that pathetic crowd. In other words, it’s not always about you.
Just to keep things straight, Hammyton, I’m not the one who mistakenly-and stupidly for that matter-brought up the Birther issue. You did. As to the contributions that the DPRK has achieved during its existence, I’m just going to refer you back to the link that I provided for hamel in comment #18 ( Link: http://www.rjkoehler.com/2010/10/16/open-thread-172/ ). It’s all there for you to read on your own (and not understand, most likely). It was a long running conversation that touched on issues like land reform, colonial era collaborators, industrial development, and the establishing of a stable (albeit very undemocratic) political order that I argue had genuine legitimacy (which should not be construed to mean that I somehow have some love for the current DPRK).
I mean, let’s get real here: I’m not going to start re-linking and re-quoting from articles and books that I wasted enough time doing before. Please, if your so interested just GO READ THROUGH THE LINK.
However, there are two articles regarding the DPRK and ROK and land reform during the later half of the 1940′s and early 1950′s that I didn’t provide back then that I’ll provide here. I don’t know if you have access to Korean language historical journals, or read Korean for that matter, but the citations are provided below:
김태우, “한국전쟁기 북한의 남한 점령지역 토지개혁” [Land Reform in South Korea under the North Korean occupation during the Korean War], 역사비평, Vol. 70, Feb. 2005, page(s): 243-273
This article discusses the preparations the DPRK initiated in planning for eventual land reform in the South in anticipation of an eventual occupation, as well as how implementing organizations were set up, what their initial goals were, and finally how things actually unfolded with the reality of actually occupying areas in the South.
정병준, “한국 농지개혁 재검토-완료시점·추진동력·성격” [A Re-examination of Korean agricultural reform: When it was completed, Its momentum, and its characteristics], 역사비평, Vol. 65, Nov. 2003, page(s): 117-157
This article mentions a lot of things. But one important one is that it takes aim at certain arguments that under then President Rhee land reform had been completed before the Korean War (see 해방 전후사의 재인식). The argument presented in the article above says that there were serious problems in implementing land reform before the war. One of which was the South’s weak administrative capacity at that time. One finding is that it was US officials, concerned over the political ramifications that the DPRK’s land reform would’ve had and possibly were having, that pushed then President Rhee to get serious.
Now, Hammyton, I believe I’ve provided more than enough to address any questions or concerns that you have. Enjoy the weekend.
CT,
Again with the names. You are a complete joke, you call me a “right wing lout” but when you lump the “right wing louts” on this board into a birther camp you were not refering to me as well? Complete and utter crap, so I will add a lack of integrity to your long list of undesirable characteristics.
So, land reform was a great success in north Korea. That’s delightful and an utter fraud. I will posit that in a country where one family owns the country there was no reform, just a serfdom allocation of land for the peasants to farm and produce for the Kims. North Korea never worked without massive infusions of Soviet and Chinese capital, it was a fraud from day one. The Kims murdered anyone in the way and stole all the land even from small farmers in the name of equality.
We will have to disagree on this point I’m sure you are a fan of Pol Pot’s reforms for Cambodia as well. He did take land from the rich after all, just that pesky million dead to deal with. Not something an academic like you to worry about.
I also noticed you are a big fan of Bruce Cummings, I actually suspected so much from you odd handling of the disaster that is north Korea. You have shown yourself to be morally bankrupt and it is only natural for your character to wish success upon a regime without any good points. Your education is clearly very deep and clearly a complete waste of money.
Have yourself a good weekend and keep up the insults it continues to show your low character.
@Hammyton:
Fine. Keep up the circus act Porky.
Yeah, this particular oink of yours is only possible from a “delightful and utter” ignorance of the topic. The only remedy I can offer is to refer to the link and read the two articles.
I’d hardly call myself a big fan of Bruce Cumings. Yes, I found a good deal of his scholarship provocative, insightful, and useful. But I’m also aware that there are limitations (i.e. too heavy a reliance on world systems theory; utilization of post-modernist theories that I don’t think necessarily suit all that well what he wants to illuminate). But really, why are we talking about Bruce Cumings? First it was that Birther crap, now you’re trying to divert things by prattling on about how you don’t like Cumings. Alright, I get that you don’t like him. Let’s move on, dipsh*t.
Finally, just because I pointed out something “nice” in the DPRK’s history hardly means that I wish success upon the regime. See my comments to hoju_saram (comment #38).
CT, you are a real piece of work.
“Porky” and “dipsh*t”? Name calling again, boy are you heading for the bottom of the barrel faster than ever. Is this what intellectuals call high level debate these days?
You asked me to read the whole thread, then take me to task for reading your simpering defense of Bruce Cummings. Quite stupid and again unsupportable.
And yet you still haven’t explained how calling all the conservative louts on this board birthers somehow didn’t apply to me. You can’t defend it and you won’t actually say you are wrong so the only thing left is more insults?
You are morally bankrupt but your true lack of empathy for the victims of what the murderous dPRK has done from day one of its existence is what marks you out as a sociopath.
Is this where you escalate from more name calling to threats of violence? Will you threaten to drop a box on my face like Sperwer? Look in the mirror CT, you are a very unstable man. Only a coward wouldn’t back away from what you have said. I can only imagine you are as weak in body as you are in spirit.
@Hammyton:
Let’s make a deal. The name calling will stop as soon as you f*ck off and go enjoy the lovely weekend.
I asked you to read through the thread to get my views on aspects of the DPRK’s history. Not, per se, in order to understand my thoughts on Bruce Cumings.
I did. You just seem to have developed this weird victim mentality/paranoia as of late that’s precluding your ability to comprehend written language. Really, even for you it’s unbecoming. You should perhaps seek out the aid of a certified professional.
You think too highly of yourself, Hammyton. I’m afraid you only rise to the level of general mockery and humiliation. You’re harmless. Violence or the threat of it is unnecessary. Moreover, I suggest you read a little more carefully my back and forth with Gym Rat.
CT said “The name calling will stop as soon as you f*ck off.” Wow, still looking for the bottom. You beclown yourself again, not a surprise considering your lack of logic, social, and debating skills.
Take your own advice and have a nice weekend. Better men than you ensure it will be safe regardess of the scorn you have for them.
I think a coupla somebody’s need to get a room.
Well, we all know how well taking land away from prosperous families and giving it to the government turned out for the people of North Korea, China, and other People’s Republics.
Reread Hamel’s version of CT’s quote, paying particular attention to the italicized text. Hamel is cleverly mocking CT’s clumsy sentence construction in which he actually insults himself, not you.
This Russian, being surrounded by students and so-called intellectuals, does not understand Koreans.
They are not idealistic people; Koreans are 100% materialistic. Just look at their mating system. All about money.
North Koreans would miss Kims? F-ing nonsense. One bowl of Ramen will change their ideology in one day.
Of course, NK mobs, which will rule Korea after unification, will use Kims as their gods, to unite their organization. But in words only. They would kill off Kims first secretly. Then, they will make up stories about Korean Sun being killed by Capitalist pigs.
Normal NKs will change fast. Just like SK changed in one day after LMB was elected.
Songai writes:
Alright, without turning this thread into a dragged out debate over land reform itself, let me say this and let you say any last words you want to chip in.
So the assumption being here that land reform per se caused untold misery in the DPRK, China, and other communist countries and nothing more. That’s highly debatable. Let’s consider the case of Taiwan under the KMT during the early 1950′s:
There’s more as well outside of the Taiwan example. While I can’t provide page numbers here since I don’t have these titles right at my finger tips, do have a look at these works and the sections where land reform is discussed:
The Great American Mission: Modernization and the Construction of an American World Order, David Ekbladh (A lot of discussion on Korea in this work).
The Hungry World: America’s Cold War Battle against Poverty in Asia, Nick Cullather
Empire and Aftermath: Yoshida Shigeru and the Japanese Experience, 1878-1954
No, that’s not the assumption. In China, the new Communist government and its collectivist reorganization was initially greeted enthusiastically by the masses, who were exhorted to work for the glorious future of the New China. Early euphoria was crushed by the hunger and starvation of the Great Leap Forward. Taiwan’s land reforms were successful because the Taiwanese government actually put the land in the hands of the tillers instead of turning them into government serfs. If you want to argue that Chinese collectivism pushed Taiwan into real land reforms that benefited Taiwan, I’d agree with that. Returning to your quote that I responded to, were you trying to make a a similar point about the failed NK land reforms as a stimulus to successful land reforms in the South?
I’m not nearly as well-read and knowledgeable about Korean history as many other commenters at TMH, but I do have the benefit of having had conversations with older Chinese with firsthand experience living through both collectivism and a transition to a mixed socialist-capitalist economy. A favorite quote comes from the Joseonjok father-in-law of a friend of mine, who gestured with his hands at the table full of prepared dishes, “It is thanks to Deng Xiao Peng that we Chinese can eat like this.” His son and daughter-in-law both drew their incomes from the South Korean expatriate community of businesspeople and their families.
Hamilton: what Sonagi said (thanks).
I have noticed in Mr Tilly that, apart from resorting to insults and offences (while pretending to be offended) he cannot write proper English, and not just in the example quoted above.
Sorry about Sperwering the html tags. I tapped it into my iphone while lying in bed after an almost sleepless night. Must reserve my commenting – at least when it involves html tags – for computers in future.
I think Mr Tilly’s most significant meaningful recent contribution on this blog was the article about sexuality, including women’s attitudes to erotica. His remark about “rubbing one out” to certain starlets was gratuitous, but did confirm his status as an Onanist. (That was you who posted that, wasn’t it, Charles? Apologies if it wasn’t. And more power to you, or at least your left/right hand, if it was.)
To anyone,
(It’s a quarer past eleven pm in the zone of EDT in America…) so I may read answers to this comment of mine tomorrow if anyone explains my question…
Related to #46, #62 & #65,
I mean… my TOEFL (and GRE… awww…) era was gone forever; I took them and got the scores a long time ago and now I don’t remember much (and thus much happier
). Well, English is a foreign language to me, after all.
(On the other hand…) I try to answer questions on Korean grammar given by any non-Koreans because Korean is my native language. I’d love to help any foreigners who have some difficulty in understanding my native language. Yet, I have to admit explaining Korean grammar isn’t easy precisely because Korean is my native language: I much perfer questions on Korean literature and poetry
So, I’m sorry, native English speakers, I’m asking this question.
Taken from Mr. Charles Tilly’s #46:
“I’m going to chalk all these up as coping mechanisms that Hamilton uses when he’s displeased that someone would have the gall to disagree with him; and moreover, have the inability to mount a retort that could stand up to scrutiny.”
I thought at first… yeah:
“I’m going to chalk … when he’s displeased that someone would have the gall to disagree with him (“here, it goes back to someone again” in my English reading reasoning) and moreover someone would have the inability to mount a retort that could stand up to scrutiny”.
I’m not a linguist…
Maybe some other people can draw a tree diagram and explain it better than me. Or maybe there’s another interpretation of the sentence that is totally different from what I just wrote above.
What bothers me is the semicolon between “him” and “and”. The semicolon has made me wonder about the meaning of the sentence; the whole sentence structure seems unclear and vague to me (because of that). I think Mr. Tilly put the semicolon deliberately.
Is Mr. Tilly going to explain the structure of the sentence syntactically?
Now it’s 12:00 pm…
Good night
Sorry, guys…
But why my clock says that it’s 12:20 am? Awww… it becomes am again with 12:00… after all…
Bye
Thanks Sonagi and Hamel, the entry is much clearer to me now in context. I actually don’t use much HTML anymore since I tend to botch it when I’m typing fast.
There are a couple of other land reforms that haven’t gone so well for people who like to eat: the Soviet Union in the Ukraine and Georgia, Cambodia and present day Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is the least lethal but has turned a net exporter into a food aid emergency importer.
Belair: his sentence does not work grammatically or syntactically. That is what I tried to point out above.
@ hamel # 71,
Technically speaking, that seems true; the “semicolon” creates so much confusion and ambiguity in terms of syntax and meaning.
* * * * * * *
I believe that Mr. Tilly intentionally put the “semicolon” and the word, “inability”.
I guess he’s not going to explain why…
You must log in to post a comment.