The Secrets of Lost - Daniel Dae Kim's Korean Accent

Dear Korean,

What did you think of Daniel Dae Kim's pronunciation of Korean in Lost? Given that he didn't grow up in Korea, how was his accent?

Jennifer


Dear Jennifer,

The Korean watched exactly half an episode of Lost so far, pretty much by accident. From that half an episode, the Korean recalls that Mr. Kim's Korean accent was really terrible.

But the Korean is willing to give a fair assessment, so he reviewed these clips:

And the Korean's verdict is...?

Mr. Kim's accent is a lot better than the Korean remembered. Judged only based on these clips, Mr. Kim's Korean is solid. He will have no problem getting himself understood in Korea.

But one can easily tell that Mr. Kim did not grow up speaking Korean. There are three major indicators to that effect. First is that -- and this is probably not Mr. Kim's fault -- sometimes, Korean phrases that Jin is speaking are awkwardly written. For example, in the second clip when the caption reads "How do I lose to both Hurley and Mike?", Jin is saying: "헐리하고 마이크한테 어떻게 질 수가 있어?" This is not incorrect, since Korean phrase literally means "How do I lose to Hurley and Mike?" But the phrase sounds as if Jin is actually looking for a way in which he can lose to Hurley and Mike, not as if Jin cannot believe that he lost to Hurley and Mike. (The Korean's suggested translation: "헐리하고 마이크한테 진다는게 말이 돼?", which would mean "How is it possible that I lost to Hurley and Mike?")

Second, Mr. Kim's rhythm of speaking the language is really, really off. This is more obvious in the second clip: Jin is screaming, but he is not accentuating the right words in the sentence to convey that he is royally pissed off. At some points in the clip, Jin sounds like he is reading a book at the top of his voice. (And the awkwardly written sentences, again, do not help. Because few Koreans would say such phrases, it is not easy to figure out where the proper emphasis should go.) Unfortunately for Mr. Kim, there is really no way to learn that rhythm other than simply being around Korean speakers all the time and picking it up, since the rhythm in Korean speech is not exactly a standard grammatical point.

Lastly, Mr. Kim is having trouble pronouncing certain consonants that are really difficult for English speakers. The most obvious incidence of this is when Jin says in the first clip: "총 맞으면 다 그래." ("That's what happens when you get shot.") Mr. Kim pronounces the word "총" ("gun") like 쫑. Of course, this differentiation is one of the toughest parts about Korean -- personally, the Korean has never seen a English-as-first-language, Korean-as-second-language person to be able to perfectly distinguish ㅈ, ㅊ and ㅉ sounds.

Of course, none of this should take away one bit from Daniel Dae Kim's achievements in Lost. Mr. Kim is a pioneer in successfully providing an image of a strong Asian American male on television, and all Asian American men -- and in particular Korean American men -- owe a little bit to him.

As an aside, Yunjin Kim's Korean accent is pitch perfect, mostly because she is a rare breed who has appeared in both Korean and American movies and television shows.

Please, no spoilers in the comments. The Korean plans to watch the entire show in one sitting via Netflix one day. 

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

Ask a Korean! Wiki: Where Are You Watching the World Cup?

Dear Korean,

I have a madcap idea of watching all the games of the 2010 World Cup in a bar / restaurant / club of one of the countries playing. Would be great to support a different team each game with local supports. Could you recommend anywhere I could watch the Korea v. Greece game in London? Ideally central.

James

Dear James,

The Korean does not know, but he is certain that AAK!'s UK-based readers do. In fact, let's open up the post to all locations outside of Korea. Fans of Korean football, where are you watching the World Cup?

The Korean personally will be watching the games in Hawaii, where he will be on a honeymoon during the games. (He will take recommendations for either Honolulu or Kona.) For New York, Maru/Yellowstone club in Manhattan Koreatown (32nd St. between 5th and 6th Ave.) has a nice big space with a projector. (But show up early, as it also tends to be very crowded.)

Group B's television schedule is available here.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

Here is a CNN report on Arizona's crackdown on teachers with accents, which was previously discussed here at AAK!.

ROKS Cheonan -- What You Need to Know, What You Need to Think About

There are many things in the pipeline to be discussed on AAK! -- like the 50 most influential K-pop project, the upcoming World Cup or a litany of really interesting questions -- but right now, any discussion other than the biggest news coming out of Korea feels frivolous. The Korean, of course, is talking about the sinking of ROKS Cheonan.

North Korea is not an easy topic to discuss. The history of inter-Korea relation is long and complicated, but not knowing that history deprives one of the context that one must know to properly assess the situation at hand. Worse, the topic of North Korea is highly emotionally charged on nearly every aspect, which makes the tone of the discussion shrill, hyperbolic and ultimately unhelpful. In discussions about North Korea, commentators often do not think seriously about the consequences, but instead focus on delivering zingers that feels good to say but are wildly implausible and/or extremely dangerous.

More importantly, North Korea is a topic for which the Korean simply cannot give an answer. Many people far more brilliant and knowledgeable than the Korean have searched for an answer, but none has borne fruit. Thus, the Korean prepared a simplified, two-part dossier on this issue. First part will be the basic information that everyone should know in thinking about how to assess the ROKS Cheonan issue, and the second part consists of the relevant questions that we should be asking ourselves in thinking about this issue.

ROKS Cheonan -- What You Need to Know

Here are the basic facts. On March 26 of this year, ROKS Cheonan -- named after the city in Korea -- split in half and sank nearly instantly. Forty-six sailors died or went missing. After an international investigation, it has been more or less confirmed that Cheonan was attacked by a torpedo fired from a North Korean submarine. North Korea is vigorously denying the accusations, but at this point there appears to be no other possible culprit. The critical piece of evidence was a remainder of a propeller for a torpedo, which carried Korean lettering.

ROKS Cheonan is being taken out of the water. (Source)

The attack on the Cheonan is the largest-scale attack by North Korea since the late 1980s. Up to late 1980s, North Korea was quite bold in its attempts for terrorism/military action. For example, in 1968 thirty-one North Korean commandos infiltrated Seoul and unsuccessfully attacked the presidential residence, killing many in the process. In 1974, a North Korean assassin fired at the South Korean president during a public address, but only managed to kill the First Lady. In 1983, North Korean spies bombed the South Korean president and his entourage in Myanmar, killing 21 including the Vice Prime Minister. In 1987 North Korean spies left a time bomb on a South Korean airliner which later detonated over the Indian Ocean, killing all 115 aboard.

But from the 1990s and beyond, North Korea was relatively quiet. While there were intermittent episodes of significant saber-rattling -- culminating in North Korea's threat of developing nuclear weapon a few years ago -- a deliberate military strike like this one simply did not happen in the last 20 years or so. The closest analogue would be the two naval skirmishes in 1999 and 2002, in which North and South Korean exchanged fire in the sea just south of the Northern Limit Line, which divides the North and the South.

But the attack on the Cheonan is significantly different from those skirmishes. It is true that those naval skirmishes resulted in some casualties and a loss of a ship -- in 2002, South Korea lost six sailors and a gunboat. But in the end, South Korea was easily victorious in the two naval skirmishes by any objective indication. Also, while nothing about the war should be stated cavalierly, the two naval skirmishes were essentially fair fights. North Korean navy provoked South Korean navy, South Korean navy responded and emerged victorious after a battle (although not without some damage.) In contrast, many more died on Cheonan, a more significant ship than a gunboat. More importantly, this was a surprise attack with no forewarning, instead of an outright provocation leading to a battle.

North Korea internally is going through a significant change. The long-time despot Kim Jong-Il is in ill health, and a three-generation succession is a hard sell even in North Korea. Also, what little we know about the announced heir, Kim Jong-Un, does not bode well. The younger Kim is only 27 years old and is apparently fond of shooting things, having majored artillery in Kim Il-Sung University.

Recently, North Korea instituted a currency reform which ended in a disaster, causing runaway inflation and severe disruption of food supply. In a rare gesture, North Korean regime even apologized to its people for the abysmal failure of the currency reform. It is fair to think that the internal instability is connected to this attack. Often, North Korea uses an external threat (that is self-generated unbeknownst to its people) as an excuse to crack down on its people, and this attack could be a part of such a plan.

Also, recent inter-Korea relations have been chilly at best. The last two administrations of Korea were pro-engagement toward North Korea, which over time became fairly unpopular among South Koreans. The current Lee Myung-Bak administration won the election with an explicit promise of taking a harder line against the North. So far Lee has stood firm on his promise, significantly reducing South Korea's aid toward North Korea.

On May 23, Lee administration unveiled the sanction plans against North Korea in response. South Korea will stop all economic aid to North Korea, except for aid aimed toward infants and children. South Korea will also significantly reduce the economic exchange program currently in place. Also, North Korean ships are no longer allowed to pass through South Korean waters. (Previously, the two Koreas had a treaty whereby airplanes and ships could pass through each other's territorial air and waters.) South Korea will resume the propaganda broadcast toward the North, and stated that in case of a naval provocation by the North, South Korea will annihilate the naval base from which the North Korean ship left.

In response, North Korea announced that it will cut off all communications with South Korea, including the Red Cross Communications Representative at Panmunjeom that had been operational for 39 years. It is also making overtures of further provocations/attacks. These measures essentially amount to reverting back to the Cold War posture between the two Koreas.

United States, through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is exploring ways to sanction North Korea. In particular, Clinton is asking China to intervene. Japan is also considering a sanction. UN Securities Council may be called upon to act as well, which will ratchet up the sanctions further.

More after the jump.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.




ROKS Cheonan -- What You Need to Think About

With this information, here are some questions to think about.

- Will North Korea attempt this type of attack again?

For better or for worse, North Korea's actions in the last 20 years or so were predictable. It is a mistake to think that Kim Jong-Il is a madman who will fire nuclear missile for shits and giggles. He is a calculating politician who is interested in exactly one thing and one thing only: the survival of the regime, and by extension, continued enjoyment of his power.

Also, if there should be a full-scale war between the two Koreas, there is no doubt as to the eventual outcome -- South Korea will emerge victorious. In fact, Kim Jong-Il knows that the beginning of a full-scale war is equivalent to his annihilation within minutes. Then the fact that North Korea would engage in this type of attack, raising the possibility of a full-scale war, is counter-intuitive. Even if North Korea needed a rise in tension for internal reasons, North Korea has been able to do so without necessarily causing casualty -- for example, by testing a nuclear weapon.

And this is the most worrisome aspect of this attack -- that the North Korean regime is no longer predictable. North Korean regime has talked big, but rarely followed through in an actual attack like this one. (For example, in 1994 North Korea famously announced that it will turn Seoul into a "sea of flames". No real action followed.) But now, things have changed, and no one knows how the situation will progress.

- Will South Korea's response be enough to deter this type of attack from happening again?

Withdrawal of the aid and the economic exchange program is unlikely to mean anything to the North Korean regime. Recall that Kim Jong-Il regime did not even flinch while millions died of starvation in North Korea in the early 1990s. While it does hurt North Korea's pocketbook, Kim Jong-Il's personal pocketbook will not be significantly affected.

It is not clear as of yet if South Korea's new resolution to fully retaliate whenever this type of attack happens again can deter such an attack. North Korea announced that it will attack any propaganda broadcast speakers set up in the South. South Korea responded that if they are attacked, it will retaliate accordingly. But it remains to be seen how much tolerance South Korean administration for the tension and the increased chance of a full-scale war that will inevitably follow such a retaliation.


- Is there anything else South Korea can do to deter this type of attack from happening again?

If the North Korean regime only cares about its survival, the only possible response by which South Korea can gain leverage is to threaten the survival of the regime. To this end, Mr. Joo Seong-Ha recommended improved intelligence on where Kim Jong-Il is at all times, and at least three stealth bombers that can be used to immediately kill Kim Jong-Il. But no matter how broad (e.g. full-scale war) or narrow (e.g. targeted assassination of Kim Jong-Il) the response is, South Korea must back the response with the gumption that a full-scale war might actually occur. For now, South Korea is responding by creating as much disruption without a military response, i.e. propaganda broadcasting. As discussed earlier, North Korea is reacting strongly even to this.

South Korean soldiers are installing the propaganda speakers. (Source)

While the second Korean War will almost certainly end in the South's victory, the central dilemma for South Korea has been the same for the last 40 years -- Seoul, the nation's capital with the population of 10 million people in its metropolitan area, is only 30 miles away from the DMZ. Along the DMZ, North Korea has a number of long-range artillery and missiles aimed at Seoul. Should North Korea decide to fire them, there is no way for South Korea to completely intercept them. Should North Korea decide to wage war, Seoul must endure at least one or two rounds of missiles and artillery shells raining down on Seoul before South Korean and American air forces and take out the missiles and cannons. Thousands will surely die -- and we did not even get into the economic loss that South Korea will suffer. This is the dilemma that makes South Korea hesitate to even think about the possibility of a full-scale war, especially because most policymakers of South Korea personally remember the devastation following Korean War.

This really is the bottom line for South Korea -- is it willing to gamble on the full-scale war?

- Is there anything anyone else can do to deter this type of attack again?

There is not much the U.S. can do, other than urging other countries to fall in line and sanction North Korea. Japan's sanction can be a little more effective, because pro-North Korea Korean-Japanese in Japan are known to send money and goods to North Korea. But ultimately sanctions from Japan will not amount to much effect either.

Much of it hinges upon China, which at this point is the only guarantor of safety for North Korea. However, China has been lukewarm about America's request to punish North Korea; A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Ma Zhaoxu, was noncommittal, saying of the Korea crisis, “We hope all the relevant parties will exercise restraint and remain cool-headed.”

One can hope that China will realize that the inter-Korea relations have changed dramatically since it formed its friendship with North Korea. In the sixty years following Korean War, South Korea has unequivocally won the race of proving which one of the two Koreas was better. Partnership with South Korea is becoming increasingly valuable for China, while partnership with North Korea is becoming increasingly worthless. At some point, the balance may shift and China may throw its support behind South Korea. But it is unlikely that China is ready to do that as of now.

- What does this mean for the reunification of the two Koreas?

There is much debate on this issue, but at the end of the day, no one knows. On one hand, this may drive the South Korean people to antagonize North Korea further such that they would no longer support, or actively oppose, reunification efforts. On the other hand, if we are to accept that reunification can happen only if the Kim Jong-Il regime disappears, this attack may serve as the catalyst for serious destabilization efforts -- despite the risk of war -- to begin.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

According to Wall Street Journal, crime rate fell sharply in the United States from 2008 to 2009. Particularly notable is Phoenix, AZ, where violent crime dropped by 17 percent. In particular murder rate dropped by 26.9 percent. Number of reported kidnapping also dropped in Phoenix. Property crimes dropped by 21 percent in Phoenix overall, including 36.3 percent drop in auto theft. All other major cities in Arizona registered a decline in crime rate also.

So yeah, those illegal immigrants were rampaging through the streets of Arizona, right? The Korean would love to see what other BS excuse xenophobes will come up with next.

Ask a Korean! Wiki: Gifts for a Prospective ESL Teachers?

Dear Korean,

A very good friend of mine will be leaving for Korea next month to teach English in Seoul for at least a year. I want to get her a really nice gift that will be useful to her during her stay. But I have no idea where to begin. Any suggestions?

Diya

Dear Diya,

The Korean has always been able to find everything he needed in Korea, so he does not know. Readers, any suggestions?

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

Fascinating article about LPGA star Christina Kim on the Wall Street Journal. An excerpt:

...

It's worth noting, as always with Ms. Kim, what she was wearing Monday night: a low-cut black sheath dress, spectacular jewelry and lacy, high-strapped, 4-inch René Caovilla heels which must have cost at least $1,000 when she bought them in Dubai last December. "They've even got sparklies on the bottom," she told an admiring cluster while demurely balancing on one shoe to show off the sole of the other. A few minutes earlier she had smashed a few 250-yard drives on the range at Chelsea Piers, just behind the party room, wearing said impossible shoes.

...

Ms. Kim was a straight-A student growing up in San Jose, Calif., but decided at 16 to drop out of high school to devote herself to golf. Her father, a South Korean immigrant, first put a golf club in her hands when she was 11 and directed her to swing as hard as she could 500 times a day. Dutifully she did so, in the backyard. After several weeks of this she was finally allowed to hit an actual golf ball at a range. At 17 she shot 62 in qualifying for the U.S. Girls' Junior Championship. At 18 she turned pro and has since won $3.5 million on the Tour.

...

The hardest part of the book to write, she told me, was the section about Koreans. "It's such a weighted topic," she said, referring to whispered insinuations about whether players from South Korea, few of whom speak fluent English, are hurting the LPGA Tour's marketing efforts. Since Ms. Kim understands Korean fairly well and speaks a little, some U.S. players consider her a liaison to the 45-woman South Korean contingent. "But the Koreans, they don't really know what to make of me," she said. "I'm loud, I'm not thin and I say what I think. I've got a bunch of good friends among the Koreans, but it's complicated."

Ms. Kim became a divisive figure in South Korea after praising the sex appeal of U.S. speed skater Apolo Ohno. Mr. Ohno is persona non grata there because his gold medal at the 2002 Olympics was awarded only after the South Korean skater who crossed the finish line in front of him was disqualified—unfairly and because of Mr. Ohno, most South Koreans think. The negative press about Ms. Kim in South Korea has, if anything, increased in recent years, she said. Last year she sued a South Korean newspaper for libel, charging it characterized her as a traitor.

None of which helps in finding her place in the world. She remains close to her parents. Last year she bought them a shiny new Mercedes-Benz, and she shares a house with them in Orlando. Her father remains her only golf coach.

"My parents came to this country because they wanted the best possible life for me and my siblings. They want me to be who I am, and that's why I speak out. Writing the book, getting my life down on paper, that's the American side of the Korean-American thing. It has been incredibly liberating," she said. (She admits, however, that she's glad her mother had to read her book with the help of a dictionary and might not get every reference.)

Christina Kim's Wild World [Wall Street Journal]

Click the link for a picture of Kim crushing a driver shot with her heels on.

The World Cup is approaching rapidly. Jamie Trecker at Fox Sports has an excellent rundown of the (South) Korean national team. Well, excellent if one only looks at Mr. Trecker's soccer analysis, because his linguistics skills (for example) appear to be a little rusty.

Take the very language of Korea: it is unique in Asia in that it is NOT ideogrammatically based as Chinese and Japanese are; the hangul (written) alphabet has 24 characters and the spoken (called urimal or gugeo) is what linguists call a "language isolate," meaning that is bears no roots to any other known spoken language on the planet (in comparison, the Romance languages -- of which the six most prominent are Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian and Catalan -- are rooted in Latin).

No, Mr. Trecker. Korean is in the Altaic language family, which includes Mongolian and Japanese.

But anyway, that's not important. What does Mr. Trecker think about Korea's chances?

PERCENTAGE CHANCE TO PROGRESS: 20%. It's going to be tough. You have to think that Argentina is the group favorite, and Nigeria should get the boost that we expect all African teams to get at this Cup. Greece stinks, but because the Koreans don't score a lot of goals, they could struggle to get on the board.

The Korean thinks that's a fair assessment.

In a related news, the Korean received the shipment this a few days ago. Freakin' sweet.

32 Teams in 32 Days: South Korea [Fox Soccer Channel]

Apropos of nothing...

The Korean attended a concert in which Robert Schumann's Scenes from Goethe's Faust was played. The songs were in German, and had an English translation in the programs.

One part of the music features four grey women, named Need, Guilt, Worry and Sorrow. The Korean was particularly struck by Worry's song -- in essence, it said Worry makes one paralyzed, such that one "starves, food in hand." Recently, the Korean had a lot of worry in his head, which made the song really resonate with him.

So he decided to come home and get the full lyrics, so that he can put it up somewhere and remind himself not to worry. After coming home, the Korean punched in the words he remembered in Google. (He lost the program on the way back.) And...

Nothing! The Korean could not find the English translation of Scenes from Goethe's Faust on the Internet. That was surprising. There was something not available on the Internet?

The Swedru All Blacks F.C. of Ghana sends their well-wishes to Korea's national team.

The All Blacks are singing Team Korea's new cheering song (in very good Korean!), whose original you can listen here.

Ask a Korean! News: How to be a Power Blogger by Mr. Joo Seong-Ha

Another good one from Mr. Joo Seong-Ha of Nambuk Story about being a power blogger.

*                     *                       *

"Tarzan, After Coming to the City, Became a Power Blogger"

(As my blog gained some publicity, a magazine called "Newspapers and Broadcasting" asked me to write an article for their March issue. They have been running a series by "power bloggers" which featured a free writeup on why they blog, what is special about their blog, what they learned, what they plan to do, etc., and they wanted my input this time. At first I politely declined because I did not have enough time, but finally I broke down. The following is the article on the magazine's April issue.)

I am a North Korean defector who came to Korea in 2002. To give an analogy, I am like the character in "Old Boy", living 40 years ago in the past and suddenly jumped into the modern society via time machine. Why 40 years? Because when I speak about my life in North Korea in Korea, it takes people who lived through the 1950s~60s to say, "Oh yeah, we did the same thing back then." Judging from everything I heard so far, the North Korea I lived appears to be most similar to South Korea of the 1960s. Of course, I had no idea that I would write as a "power blogger" like this back then.

The very next day after I left Hanawon [TK: educational facility for fresh North Korean defectors], I bought a computer for my house because I thought I had to learn this thing called the Internet that everyone here uses. But there was no one who taught me how to use a computer. I would just sit at home, clicking things away and mumbling to myself, "So this is the Internet." This is how the "computer-blind" got the first taste of the rumored "Internet."

At first, I would take the whole computer to a repair center even with the simplest error, because I had no one to ask. In fact, I did not even know where to fix the computer; there was one time I carried the computer into a laundromat and asked it to be fixed, because the sign of the laundromat said, "Computer Cleaning."

In the Internet world, discovered thusly, I found a help-wanted website on my own, and I applied for my first job through the Internet. Four months after I came to Korea, I became a reporter for a weekly paper. In the following year in 2003, I saw the announcement for a position at Dong-A Ilbo, and sent my resume through the Internet. Ten months after coming to South Korea, I evolved to the level of making a community site at Daum. [TK: similar to Yahoo!.] But that site naturally folded as I began to work for Dong-A Ilbo a few months later.

I did not start the blog because I had any special purpose or plan; it was entirely due to a fellow reporter who began working at the same time as I. He led the way in creating Journalog, Dong-A Ilbo's blog service, and pushed -- nay, begged -- his pushover colleagues to join. At first, I felt a significant pressure hearing that "you need at least an article every 2-3 days to keep the blog from dying." If I had known that soon afterward, I would have to put up one post per day like I do now, I would have never started that blog.

Reading up to this point, some might think, "Huh, there is not much to learn from this guy's life story, and there is nothing special about why he started the blog." Just to fend off the disappointment, I will tell you this now:  even if you read this whole article, there is hardly anything that will help you become a power blogger. The role of bloggers, the conscience or social participation of bloggers -- all the topics that regular power bloggers can easily talk about -- are too difficult for me. I would like to talk about them, but I really just don't know. Because of my ignorance, for this article I will just talk about my own story.

I think the reason why the Nambuk Story: Stories of Pyongyang, Written in Seoul blog became well-known is because it carries my stories that are different from others'. The readers come because the posts cannot be written without the experience of living in the North, and because there are posts that can only be read here. So I have no magic formula for how to become a power blogger; it is not as if I can tell people to try coming back after living in the North.

In the early days of the blog, I would write a post every two or three days. The blog opened on October 21, 2008; it exceeded 100,000 visitors exactly on January 1 of last year. There were a million visitors in late May -- seven months after the blog opened. The number of visitors started exploding in June of last year, when it was being listed on Daum View. Since August, I would have a million visitors every month. The blog exceeded ten million visitors this April. It took 10 months to go from a million visitors to ten million.

Having an average of 30,000 readers every day put a great weight on my shoulders. I started feeling the pressure that I should keep showing something new even if they come every day. I began to get busy.

The reason why reporters don't blog is because they don't have the time. But according to my experience, the more accurate reason is not that they don't have the time, but that they don't have a lot of readers. Once the number of the readers grow and your popularity rises, the time that did not previously exist come to exist.

Being a journalist certainly is a busy occupation. Especially an international desk reporter like myself has a largest turf among reporters. I have to review the entire world's politics, economics, culture, etc. It includes not just the earth, but the oceans and the space as well. In fact, I wrote a number of space-related articles. Other international desk reporters would do the same, but I have North Korea as my turf in addition. I have to examined the international news every day, and I cannot miss a single North Korea-related news.

The scope is so large that sometimes it is difficult maintain the "sense of news". I must also agonize over gaining new North Korea-related information through my own network, as well as over coming up with new feature ideas every week. In addition, I must act as a multi-player appearing on newspaper, television, magazines, the Internet, radio -- virtually all things that may be considered "media". I must write an article every day, write a post for the blog every day, host up to three radio shows per week depending on the schedule, and continue the monthly series on the magazine. Sometimes I also grab the microphone, get out on the streets and make a video news report for Dong-A Newsstation. On top of that, I do a considerable amount of extracurricular activities such as lectures and seminars. All this means that I live as a slave to the time.

In spite of that, I never think that I cannot continue blogging because I'm too busy. I only worry that I cannot keep writing because I ran out of contents. Fortunately, the work of writing for the blog decreases significantly because I post the North Korea-related articles or radio scripts that I wrote on the blog. But I cannot implement the so-called "one source, multi-use" trend. Even though the forms may differ, I don't want to put up the same thing twice on the blog. No matter what the form of the writing is -- through broadcasting, magazines or a newspaper article -- I endeavor to make them all about different things. It would be convenient to repackage a blog post into a magazine article or a broadcasting script, but I have not been able to do that.

Doing all these things means that there are things that I must sacrifice. I can hardly have a dinner-and-drinks with people unless it is very important. About two days out of the week, I sleep about two to three hours.

Then the question is -- is this blog worth sacrificing my lifestyle like this? Frankly, this is a tough gig unless one has one's own reasons, like being addicted to it or grasped by a sense of calling. Even the "several tens of thousands of visitors per day" number gets old once you get used to it. I am not a politician, and my blog gets no advertisement, which make being passionate more difficult. I would have quit long time ago if I did not have something like a sense of calling, that I must inform South Korea about North Korea. I also like that, as a bonus, I get to periodically post what I already wrote about North Korea without having to bury them in a pile.

North Korea is an issue that has especially sharp ideological conflicts in South Korea. It is impossible to write something that makes everyone happy. In North Korea-related posts, the negative comments can be chilling. Despite such limitations, I endeavor to keep fairness and objectivity. I consider it to be a characteristic of my blog. Generally, "current issues" blogs clearly divide friends and enemies, and grow their influence by attracting certain types of readers. This would be a really easy way of running a North Korea-related blog. It would attract more attention if it had an extreme viewpoint and a shrill voice. I wanted to make a blog that would not cause one to be turned off, regardless of which side one is. Once I took my stance that way, various kinds of people actually visit my blog. I have a worldwide readership, even including North Korea's current diplomats.

As I run my North Korea-related blog, I only have one principle -- love for North Korean people. With that love, the indignation for those who oppress them flows naturally.

But it is so difficult to live in Korea without having someone on your side. This is especially true for North Korean defectors. One side looks at me crookedly, saying I escaped from North Korea; the other side does the same, saying they doubt my identity.

In addition, I frequently receive all kinds of threats. It would be an easier life to just stick with one, but I cannot bring myself to do that. This is out of self-respect for my life, which has overcome many chances of death. However, I do often think to myself, "I am just inviting trouble -- I could at least just keep quiet."

When I first started blogging, I interviewed with a newspaper. The reporter asked me how long I could maintain the blog, and I replied, "About three years." Of course, that was with the assumption that I would post once in two or three days. Every blog has an upswing and a downswing, because of the limits on personal contents. Even the most excellent ballplayers retire. Bowing out is no shame. To me as well, there will come a day when the blog will fold.

But North Korea itself is a destiny with which I must travel together. Even now, no matter how many articles I write, if I do not write a North Korea-related article in a while the company officers ask, "Why aren't you writing anything recently?" Even though I am a reporter on the international desk, my presence is diminished when I do not write a North Korea article.

As a trainee, the beat to which I was assigned was the "Gangnam line", including Seocho, Gangnam, Songpa and Gangdong. There were other trainees who grew up in Seoul, but they showed no mercy putting me -- who knew nothing about Seoul's geography or general affairs -- into what was known as the most difficult course. I still do not understand why they did that back then. What did they expect from me?

That was about a year-and-a-half since I came to Korea. Because I was living outside of the city at the time, I had no idea where these Gangnam or Gangdong places were -- I went there for the first time during training. I had to visit every police station and hospital twice a day from Seocho to Gangdong, sleeping three to four hours a night. Of course, I went to every district in Seoul for work afterward.

The most memorable thing was the directive to interview the head of Daechi-dong's best private academy regarding the fervor for private education. The person was considerably flummoxed by the strange Dong-A Ilbo reporter with a Korean-Chinese accent who was totally ignorant about Korea's education system but nonetheless boldly fired away questions. I still feel bad for him to this day.

During that hazing process, I told this to my senior reporter over drinks:

"I am a Tarzan who used to live in the mountains, and now I'm in the city. I can run the fastest with bare feet in the jungle, but I can't run like other people wearing sneakers on asphalt."

Seven years later, now I feel confident that I can run as well as anyone on the asphalt as well. Just an aside, but I indeed ran around on the searing asphalt of Bangkok in the 39 degree Celcius heat last month, reporting the anti-government protests. But even so, I still feel comfortable like Tarzan returning to the jungle when I write about North Korea.

Stories of Pyongyang, Written in Seoul is like a jungle for me. It makes me reflect on where I came from, and where I must go. Frankly, I did not think I would feel this way when I started the blog. On the day I return to North Korea, the posts on the blog are the marks and the chronicle of my life to be shown proudly to my hometown folks. I did not leave North Korea because I committed a crime, or because I was hungry. I went on the road after beating my chest over the unimaginable tragedy of the people. My blog is the space where I can show someday that I had done my best to tell the world of their pain when they were oppressed, that my choice of leaving was the correct one.

I write not for today, but for tomorrow.

"도시에 내려온 타잔 파워블로거가 되다" [Nambuk Story]

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

Interesting Financial Times article comparing how Koreans dealt with the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, and how Europeans are dealing with the financial crisis today:

Would Europeans queue to hand in their wedding rings to be melted down in the interests of repairing their national finances?

That is what South Koreans did amid the Asian markets crisis of 1997-1998 and the draconian strictures imposed by the International Monetary Fund following a $58bn bail-out. It was the IMF's biggest such package, over which arguments still rage on its size.

Nonetheless, many South Koreans look back on the period with pride, saying it showed the nation, which boasts of its collectivist spirit, was willing to pull together.

"Korea collected gold; Greece throws stones," quipped the rightwing Chosun Ilbo newspaper recently.

However, such rhetoric overlooks significant strikes and demonstrations in South Korea in the late 1990s. The Dong-a Ilbo, another newspaper, warned the insular Koreans not to be smug, saying at least the Greeks had "neighbours who would help them".

S Korea Recalls Spirit of Unity [Financial Times]

If cheering for LeBron's implosion is wrong, the Korean does not want to be right.

Recipe -- Beef Turnip Soup

Dear Korean,

I am looking for a recipe for a Korean soup that's got a clear broth and is made with turnips. Do you know what I am talking about?

Amy P.


The Korean sure does. Here is the recipe for Korean style beef turnip soup. (소고기 무국.)

Ingredients:

Korean turnip (무), which looks like this:

Beef -- head meat flank (양지머리)
Korean leek (대파), which looks like this:

Pressed garlic
Soup soy sauce (국간장)
Sesame oil
Salt, pepper

Notes about the ingredient -- The highlight of this soup is Korean turnip, which adds a distinctively clean taste to the beef broth. You absolutely must get a Korean turnip for this dish -- otherwise it's not the same food. There might be room for some compromise with other ingredients. Koreans generally use head meat flank for making beef broth, but a generic beef stew meat will do in a pinch. If Korean leek is hard to find, regular scallion is serviceable. For seasoning, freshly pressed garlic is almost always better than any other form of garlic, but minced garlic from a jar is ok if that peeling and pressing garlic is too much of a pain. "Soup soy sauce" is different from your regular sushi restaurant soy sauce -- it has darker color and much stronger flavor. Regular soy sauce is serviceable, but it is the small things that will push a dish from "good enough" to "excellent". (Or, in the Korean's mind, from "incorrect" to "correct".)

Cooking:

- Soak the beef in water until the meat bleeds out.
- Cut the turnips into large chunks. Slice it first into an inch-thick rings, then quarter the rings.
- Cut the leeks into large chunks, about an inch long.
- Put cut leek and pressed garlic (adjust amount according to preference) into a pot. Add water and boil in high heat.
- When the broth comes to boil, add the beef and cut turnips. Then lower the heat and simmer, until the beef is fully cooked and the turnips are soft. (Note: adding the beef in cold water to boil muddies the broth. For the clear broth, the beef needs to be without any blood, and then added when the water is boiling.)
- Take out the beef and turnip. Shred the beef with hand along the grain. Cut the cooked turnip into bite-sized slices. Season the beef and cut turnip with salt, pepper and sesame oil. Adjust the amount of condiments according to preference.
- Put only the broth to boil one more time. Season with salt and soup soy sauce. Watch out against over-using soup soy sauce; it has a very dark color, and might make the soup appear unappetizingly dark if overused. (Remember that the whole point of this soup is to have a clean flavor -- the looks must complement that.) Rely on salt for most of the salty flavor, and use the soup soy sauce for umami.
- In a bowl, add the seasoned meat and turnip with the broth. Serve with steamed rice.

When finished, the final product should look like this (except this one cut the leeks smaller than what the Korean is used to -- which does not make a big difference other than aesthetics):

맛있게 드세요. (Bon appetit!)

-EDIT- Translation error was pointed out by commenter Ji Soo. 

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com

Ask a Korean! News: Korean and Japanese Scholars Issue Joint Statement on History

While the Korean has been consistently critical of Japan's efforts to revise its imperialist past, he will also give credit when credit is due. This is a big step for an improved relationship between Korea and Japan:

Korea-Japan Intellectuals: "Korea-Japan Annexation Was Null and Void From the Start"

Ko Eun, Oe Kenzaburo and 200 others make a joint statement

"Act of military oppression which was unjust and wrong."

Public intellectuals of both Korea and Japan issued a joint statement that Korea-Japan Annexation which Japan forcibly committed was never valid. The 200 representative public intellectuals of Korea (including poet Kim Ji-Ha and professors emeritus Baek Nak-Cheong and Lee Tae-Jin of Seoul National University) and Japan (including Nobel Laureate writer Oe Kenzaburo and professor emeritus of Wada Haruki of Tokyo University,) simultaneously issued "Joint Statement of Korea-Japan Intellectuals," which declared that the Annexation Treaty was never valid, in Seoul and Tokyo on the 10th.

The statement, issued in consideration of the 100 year anniversary of Japan's forcible annexation of Korea, declared: "The annexation of Korea, actualized by using the military might to suppress the vigorous resistance of every person of the Empire of Korea from the emperor down to the public, was literally an act of imperialism that was unjust and wrong."

The statement also declared that: "The preamble of the treaty is a lie, and so is the body of the treaty; furthermore, there are serious defects and shortcomings in the process and formality of entering into the treaty," and that: "As the process that led to Korea's annexation was unjust and wrong, so was the Japan-Korean Annexation Treaty." With respect to the "already null and void" clause in the Treaty of Basic Relations between Japan and Republic of Korea of 1965, over which Korea and Japan have had differing interpretation, the statement said: "Korea's interpretation should be accepted as the mutual opinion."

Kim Young-Ho, president of Yuhan University who led the issuance of the joint statement said: "This statement went through five rounds of compromise between Korea's draft and Japan's draft, which involved a passionate debate over each and every word by experts of both countries," and assessed that "This joint statement will go toward removing the cloud that hangs between Japan and Korea."

From Korea, one hundred intellectuals including poet Ko Eun, President of Yuhan University Kim Young-Ho, poet Kim Ji-Ha, Board President of World Peace Forum Kim Jin-Hyeon, Executive Director of Hope Productions Park Won-Soon, Professor Emeritus of Seoul National University Baek Nak-Cheong, Professor Emeritus of Seoul National University Lee Tae-Jin signed the statement. From Japan, one hundred major intellectuals including Professor Emeritus of Tokyo University Wada Haruki, Oe Kenzaburo, Sakamoto Yoshikazu, Mitani Taiichiro, Miyazaki Isamu signed the statement.

韓·日 지식인 "한일병합은 원천무효" [MK Business News]

A little more explanation is necessary for the "null and void" issue. In the Basic Treaty that restored the relationship between Korea and Japan, Article II says: "It is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void." Korea and Japan so far had different interpretations of the "already null and void" portion of this language. Pursuant to the clause, Korean government has considered the Annexation Treaty to be the result of Japan's imperialism and therefore was never valid. In contrast, Japanese government has considered the Annexation Treaty to have been entered freely between two equal parties. With this statement, the public intellectuals of Japan made it clear that Japanese government has been taking an incorrect position on the Basic Treaty.

The full statement in Korean is available here. The translation is available after the jump. The Korean absolutely loves the statement -- it is clean and honest, expressing only the necessary sentiments of outrage and penance. Huge credit is due to the scholars who led the effort, and in particular to those Japanese scholars who took an important step toward the final reconciliation between Japan and Korea.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.


This is the translation of the Joint Statement, done by the Korean. For lesser-known historical events, the Korean added a link to Wikipedia for context.


Pay a special attention to how the statement specifically refers to America's apology to Hawaii in 1993. The Korean has always said that America's moral authority is what makes it strong (and abandoning the moral authority makes it weak,) and here is a great example.


Joint Statement of the Intellectuals of Korea and Japan Around the Centennial of Korea's Annexation

On August 29, 1910, the Empire of Japan declared that the Empire of Korea was to be obliterated from the earth, and the Korean Peninsula would be annexed into the territory of Japan. In welcoming the 2010, one hundred years after the event, we consider it to be important to confirm the shared viewpoints between the governments and the people of Korea and Japan as to how that annexation was achieved and how to view the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty. This issue is the core of the historical problem between the two countries, and the foundation for the mutual reconciliation and cooperation.

So far, the scholars of history of the two countries clearly revealed that Japan's annexation of Korea is a result created by the Japanese government's long-term policy of aggression, Japanese military's repeated acts of forcible occupation, the murder of Empress Myeongseong, the threats against the king and the members of the government, and the suppression of Korean people's resistance in reaction to the foregoing.

In 1875, the modern Japanese nation sent a naval ship to Ganghwa-do Island and engaged in a military operation to attack and occupy a fortress. In the following year, Japan sent a special envoy to Korea, forcing upon it an unequal treaty and the opening of ports. In 1894, when the Qing Dynasty army was issued in response to a major peasant rebellion in Joseon, Japan issued a massive army and occupied Seoul. It occupied the palace, imprisoned the king and the queen and began the Sino-Japanese War by attacking the Chinese military. Meanwhile, it also suppressed by force Korea's peasant army who resisted. Victorious from the Sino-Japanese War, Japan was successful in driving Qing Dynasty out from Korea, but it had to return the Liaodong Peninsula that it gained as a spoils of the war due to the Triple Intervention. Facing this result, Japan, concerned with the possibility of losing the foothold in Korea it had secured until that point, murdered Queen Min in order to terrorize the king. When King Gojong asked for protection from the Russian Embassy, Japan attempted to settle the situation by negotiating with Russia.

However, after Russia occupied Manchuria due to the Boxer Rebellion, in 1903 Japan demanded Russia to recognize the entire Korea as Japan's protectorate in response. When Russia refused, Japan decided to wage war; in 1904, it sent a massive army into the Empire of Korea, which had declared neutrality in the war, occupying Seoul. With the pressure from the occupying army, on February 23, Japan forced Korea to ratify Japan-Korea Protocol which served as the first step toward turning Korea into a protectorate. Russo-Japanese War concluded in Japan's victory, and Japan made Russia to recognize Japan's rule over Korea in Portsmouth Treaty. On November 18, 1905, Ito Hirobumi, a special envoy from the Japanese Emperor, through alternating use of threats and persuasion, forced Korea's entry into Japan-Korea Protectorate Treaty which robbed Korea of its power of diplomacy. While the Righteous Army was rebelling in various parts of Korea, Emperor Gojong sent an endorsed letter to various heads of state, writing that the treaty was forcibly entered into and was therefore ineffective. Governor Ito Hirobumi sought to hold Emperor Gojong responsible for sending a special envoy to the Hague Convention of 1907; Ito forced the emperor to abdicate, and disbanded the Korean military. Simultaneously, on July 24, Japan forced Korea to enter into Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty of 1907, taking over the supervision of Korea's internal affairs as well. The Righteous Army Movement arose in a massive scale in response to such invasion by Japan; as Japan was suppressing the Righteous Army Movement, it proceeded to annex Korea in 1910.

As seen from the foregoing, the annexation of Korea, actualized by using the military might to suppress the vigorous resistance of every person of the Empire of Korea from the emperor down to the public, was literally an act of imperialism, an act that was unjust and wrong.

The declaration of Korea's annexation by the nation of Japan is explained pursuant to the Annexation Treaty dated August 22, 1910. The preamble of the treaty explains that the emperors of Japan and Korea wished for an intimate relation between the two countries, were convinced that there is no better alternative than annexing Korea to Japan in order to permanently secure mutual happiness and peace in East Asia, and decided to entire into the instant treaty. Also, Article 1 of the treaty states: "His Majesty the Emperor of Korea makes the complete and permanent cession to His Majesty the Emperor of Japan of all rights of sovereignty over the whole of Korea," and Article 2 states: "His Majesty the Emperor of Japan accepts the cession mentioned in the preceding article and consents to the complete annexation of Korea to the Empire of Japan."

Here, the historical truth of the annexation, which by force trampled upon the will of the people, is covered and hidden by a myth featuring two equal parties and a voluntary agreement, in which the Emperor of Korea petitioned Japan for a transfer to sovereignty and the Emperor of Japan accepting, by consenting to Korea's annexation. The preamble of the treaty is a lie, and so is the body of the treaty; furthermore, there are serious defects and shortcomings in the process and formality of entering into the treaty.

As the process that led to Korea's annexation was unjust and wrong, so was the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty.

As the Empire of Japan met its demise at the end of the war of aggression, Korea escaped from Japan's colonial rule in 1945. Republic of Korea, established in the southern part of the liberated Korean Peninsula, and Japan established a relation in 1965. Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea ("Basic Treaty"), entered into then, declared in Article 2 that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void. However, the interpretation of this clause differed between Korea and Japan.

The Japanese government has interpreted that the treaties, such as the Annexation Treaty, were valid when entered into, and were made invalid due to the establishment of the Republic of Korea in 1948. With respect to this clause, the Korean government has interpreted that the unjust and wrong treaties, "the products of Japan's expansionism of the past," were illegal and invalid from their beginning.

Looking back from the perspective gained from the facts about the history of the annexation that have been revealed so far as well as the analysis without distortion, Japan's interpretation is already untenable. The Annexation Treaty and other treaties were unjust and wrong from the start. Therefore, Korea's interpretation that the treaties were originally null and void must be accepted as the common view.

To date, the recognition of colonial rule has progressed in Japan also, however gradually. The new recognition was revealed in the 1990s, through Address by Minister of Foreign Affairs Kono Yohei (1993), Address by Prime Minister Murayama (1995), Japan-South Korea Joint Declaration (1998), Pyongyang Declaration between North Korea and Japan (2002), and so on. In particular, through Prime Minister Address by Murayama in 1995, the Japanese government expressed "deep remorse" and "heartfelt apology" for "tremendous damage and suffering" caused by "its colonial rule."

Also, Prime Minister Murayama, at the Budget Committee meeting of the House of Representatives held on October 13, 1995, replied regarding the Annexation Treaty that "I do not think the two parties were on an equal footing"; on the same day at a press conference, Minister of Foreign Affairs Nosaka Koken also admitted that "Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty was ... extremely forcible." On November 14, Prime Minister Murayama emphasized in a letter to President Kim Young-Sam of Korea that, as to the Annexation Treaty and the treaties preceding it, "there is no doubt that they were treaties of the Age of Imperialism, not recognizing the people's self-determination and dignity."

The foundation prepared here, having undergone various trials and examinations thereafter, enables the Japanese government to make an official determination regarding the annexation and the Annexation Treaty, and correct the interpretation of the Article 2 of the Basic Treaty. The American Congress also adopted a resolution that recognized to be an "illegal act" and apologized for the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom, which served as a precursor to Hawaii's annexation, one hundred years after the event in 1993. This year, there are a number of efforts in the scholarship of international law regarding anti-humanitarian crime and colonial crime. Now even in Japan, accepting the new wind of justice, an era in which Japan becomes fundamentally penitent over the history of invasion, annexation and colonial rule is coming.

Facing the centennial of Korea's annexation, this is the common perspective of history that we share. Based on this common perspective of history, the many problems between Korea and Japan originating from history can be resolved through mutual effort. The process necessary for reconciliation must progress with heightened self-awareness.

To strengthen the common perspective of history, the material regarding the historical relations between Japan and Korea for the last hundred plus years must be made public without any concealment. In particular, the Japanese government, which monopolized the creation of recorded documents during the colonial rule, has a duty to actively collect historical materials and make them public.

Crime must beg for forgiveness, and forgiveness must be bestowed. Pain must be healed, and damages must be repaid. All barbaric acts, including the mass murder of Korean residents in Japan during the Kanto Earthquake, must be examined repeatedly. We are not yet in a situation in which it can be said that the issue of Japanese military's Comfort Women has been resolved. We urge the Japanese government, corporations and people to actively respond to the consolation and medical assistance for forced laborers and conscripted soldiers and their families that the Korean government began.

Issues in which the two countries are in opposition must advance toward resolution without delay, while reflecting on the past and gazing toward the future. The normalization of relations between Japan and the other country present in the northern part of the Korean Peninsula, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, must also advance on this centennial year of the annexation.

Through this, Korea and Japan will be able to open the new century based on true reconciliation and friendship. We request that this spirit is widely announced to the governments and the people of Korea and Japan, and that they solemnly accept it.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

...and here is the Deprofiler to wear when traveling in Arizona.

Mr. Clarence Dupnik, sheriff of Pima County, Arizona, considers Arizona's new immigration law to be unconstitutional and unnecessary:

I have spent over 50 years in the law-enforcement profession in the Tucson community, the past 30 of which I have served as sheriff. ... I have argued from the moment that this bill was signed that it is unnecessary, that it is a travesty, and most significantly, that it is unconstitutional.

...

The more fundamental problem with the law is its vague language. It requires law enforcement officials to demand papers from an individual when they have a "reasonable suspicion" that he is an illegal immigrant. The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal" and that "they are endowed . . . with certain inalienable rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Those who look "suspiciously" like illegal immigrants will find their liberty in severe jeopardy and their pursuit of happiness disrupted—even if they are citizens or have lived, worked, paid taxes, and maybe even have served in our Armed Forces for decades.

When used in a law-enforcement context, "reasonable suspicion" is always understood to be subjective, but it must be capable of being articulated. In the case of identifying illegal immigrants, the ambiguity of what this "crime" looks like risks including an individual's appearance, which would seem to violate the Constitution's equal protection clause. Such ambiguity is especially dangerous when prescribed to an issue as fraught with emotion as that of illegal immigration.

I have an enormous amount of respect for the men and women of my department—the deputy sheriffs who respond to calls for assistance throughout Pima County every day of the week. I have no doubt that they make intelligent, compassionate and reasonable decisions countless times throughout their shifts. But no one can tell them what an illegal immigrant looks like and when it is ok to begin questioning a person along those lines. This law puts them in a no-win situation: They will be forced to offend and anger someone who is perhaps a citizen or here legally when they ask to see his papers—or be accused of nonfeasance because they do not.

There is a horrible problem with illegal immigration in this country, and it affects the citizens of Pima County every single day. Because of our proximity to the border, our county population demographic is heavily Hispanic (both legal and illegal). That means we must interact with witnesses and victims of crime in their times of need, regardless of their immigration status. Though this legislation states that inquiry into a person's immigration status is not required if it will hinder an investigation, that's not enough to quell the very real fears of the immigrant community.

Law enforcement did not ask for and does not need this new tool. What we do need is assistance from the federal government in the form of effective strategies to secure the border. Additionally, the federal government must take up this issue in the form of comprehensive immigration reform policy. If any good is to come from this firestorm, it is that our legislators will finally recognize that a problem exists and that they are the only ones with the authority to address it.

Arizona's Immigration Mistake [Wall Street Journal]

When the Korean's friends plan his bachelor party, everyone gets together on time at Las Vegas, we all get drunk, gamble money away, make deposit into some ladies' college fund and generally have a good time.

When the Korean Fiancee's friends plan her bachelorette party, they bicker about where to meet in New York, can't agree on the dress code, engage in catfights and backbiting among the bridesmaids until they separately narc one another to the Korean Fiancee.

Who's awesome? Men are awesome.

Korea, in English?

Dear Korean,

I'm in a class called Asian Americans of Mixed Heritage and we have to do a research paper. I picked mixed heritage Korean Americans (mostly due to the fact that I got into K-pop and just the Korean culture/entertainment in general.) I don't exactly have a thesis yet, but I guess a good place to start is to examine the treatment/do an in-depth analysis of mixed heritage Korean Americans in the Korean community (both in the U.S. and in South Korea). I was wondering if you could recommend me some books or articles pertaining to the topic? Unfortunately I can't speak, read or write Korean. And I did a lot of researching on my own and I'm surprised to say that I can't find a lot on mixed heritage Korean Americans.

A Korea Enthusiast


Dear Korea Enthusiast,

Sorry, but no.

The Korean gets a lot of these questions -- something along the lines of, "Dear Korean, I am trying to research on this topic. Can you recommend me a book or an article that deals with this topic? By the way, I can't read Korean."

The Korean appreciates the interest in studying Korea, but the truth is that there are relatively little English material about Korea out there. There are general overview of history, culture or travel guides, but step into a topic that is a little more focused -- like the issue of mixed-heritage Koreans in Korea, for example -- there is just no material in English. The reason for this is simple: there are relatively few people who speak Korean and English fluently, and study Korea in a systematic way in English.

For an important example, check out this interview with B.R. Myers, who recently authored the book The Cleanest Race. The central thesis of the book is that the propaganda that North Korea makes toward the outside world is drastically different from the propaganda aimed toward its own people, and that propaganda aimed at its own people is not communism or the juche ideology as many have previously thought, but a crude race-based nationalism that elevates the North Korean race above everyone else in the world.

Although certain minor points that Myers makes are eyebrow-raising, (like the idea that South Korea is the second most nationalistic country in the world following North Korea -- seriously?) Myers' main thesis is very good. The Korean's only quibble with Myers' thesis was how it was received -- people thought this was an earth-shattering idea that North Korea was not really a communist state, as Myers' book was praised for being "fresh" and "counter-intuitive" from a number of prominent reviewers.

The Korean was intrigued by this reception. Myers' point is insightful, yes, but counter-intuitive? How was it not obvious that North Korea's internal ideology was a race-based ideology, only slightly different from the version that was pushed in South Korea (especially during the Park Chung-Hee regime)? Many South Korean scholars studying North Korea knew this fact at least for the last 30 years. Just a cursory look at what North Korea uses for internal propaganda makes it really obvious...

Then it hit the Korean: English-speaking people were NOT reading articles in Korean, much less the original source materials. Why? Because they can't. Myers himself makes it clear in the interview:

You talk about how the lack of skills with the Korean language, reading and speaking, which are no problem for you but stop a lot of other North Korea-watchers from truly understanding the country. How hard is it beyond that to read between the lines in the propaganda and get some genuine information like what you describe?

It's not hard to read between the lines with North Korea. If you read Soviet newspapers — and I remember doing that back in the eighties, back during the Cold War — you had to read between the lines, because a lot of information was written in a cryptic way: information about which functionaries were on the way up and which functionaries were on the way down, for example.

But North Korean propaganda really isn't like that. There aren't any hidden messages or coded messages in there, but occasionally you come across things like the articles about the diseases that I just mentioned, which give you an insight which perhaps the government in North Korea does not want you, as a foreigner, to have. They'd be perfectly happy if no foreigners ever read their internal propaganda materials, I think.

In essence, Myers is saying -- "If you numbskulls who purport to observe North Korea had bothered to actually read what the regime was telling its people, what I am saying right now should be freakin' obvious." This is so ridiculous that the Korean can hardly believe it -- how can anyone attempt to learn anything about Korea without speaking Korean?

Some of you might wonder, "What about Korean news in English? Surely they should be helpful toward learning about Korea, right?" The Korean would agree, but only to a degree -- one should take with a grain of salt what little things about Korea that are available in English. First of all, some English-language Korean newspapers are extremely dubious in journalistic quality. Korea Times is the most frequently cited example of this, and deservedly so with this kind of articles. This is because English-only newspapers about Korea such as Korea Times and Korea Herald have a tiny circulation (for obvious reasons,) so they cannot do much about having a strict quality check. In fact, the survival of these newspapers largely depend upon Koreans who are trying to learn English (and presumably get their actual news elsewhere), which makes the journalistic quality nearly irrelevant.

What about the English-language versions of major Korean newspapers? They are definitely better than English-only Korean newspapers, but they have their own problem. The Korean previously wrote about it here, but the gist is: Back in July 2008, there was a major incident when a South Korean tourist in North Korea was shot in the back by a North Korean guard. It was a huge news that was immediately made the top story in every single news media in Korea. But in the English versions of the two leading newspapers in Korea, the story did not appear until 20 hours after it was first reported in Korean versions. Even when the story did appear, it was tucked in the bottom half of the website. This is because for these newspapers, the English portion is an afterthought. Their main business is to deliver news to Koreans who speak Korean language.

OK, then what about established English-language media, like the New York Times or BBC? They are not free from problems either. First, they often display a shocking lack of knowledge of even the most obvious facts when it comes to Korea. For example, as the Korean pointed out previously, a BBC reporter wondered in an article whether Christianity had a long-term place in Korea, although in fact Christianity has been going strong in Korea for 200+ years, so much so that Pyongyang in late 19th century was called the "Jerusalem of the East". For another example, when former president Roh Moo-Hyun was elected in 2002, Wall Street Journal put up a picture of former president Roh Tae-Woo.

Seriously, this actually happened.

Second, even if an established English-language media has an established Korea-related correspondent, their scope is necessarily limited. To be sure, beat reporters like Choe Sang-Hun of New York Times or Evan Ramstad of Wall Street Journal are terrific reporters and quite knowledgeable about Korea. But despite their knowledge, they are often the only person for their respective newspapers covering a nation of 48 million people. Even if it is a New York Times or a Wall Street Journal story, in effect it is just one person's perspective informing the article.

Also, as it is almost inevitable when it comes to news from abroad, a good number of Korea-related articles are in the frivolous, hey-look-at-these-crazy-people variety -- such as the reportage on a Korean man who stole 1,700 pairs of shoes.

Because of all this, the Korean refuses to read anything about Korea in English, for the most part. (There are obvious exceptions, such as books and articles about America's foreign policy with respect to Korea, for example.) Practically, this means that the Korean really just does not have any recommendations to give if you are unable to speak Korean. (And if you could speak Korean, you probably won't be asking the Korean.)

So, very sorry to all of you high school and college students who are writing a research paper about Korea -- the Korean is no help. He gets most of his knowledge about Korea by (surprise!) reading in Korean. (And please, do not cite this blog for your paper. That is absolutely inappropriate.)

But for those of you who are really, truly interested in Korea, consider this to be an opportunity. If you can somehow become fluent in Korean and have some measure of intellect, you can re-package what was already known in Korea into English and become a pioneering academic. Because you will likely be one of the few sources in English on that topic, your book/article will be frequently cited as an authority. Frankly, the Korean is an idiot for not doing that right now. 

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

Ask a Korean! News: Arizona Demotes Teachers for Having an Accent

The Korean really tried. He tried mightily to avoid discussing the topic of the new Arizona law that essentially requires Americans (particularly Asians and Hispanics) to carry a passport in the state. He only dropped one line on this blog, and discussed this topic elsewhere -- online and offline.

In fact, as odious as the Korean finds this law, it was the perfect opportunity for the Korean to practice one of his guiding principles in his life -- If you don’t understand why people are doing certain things, you are the one who is stupid, not the people. And on some level, the Korean can understand what drove these people to pass the Arizona law. The Korean disagrees with that reasoning, but at least one can make a fair argument that the law was not (primarily) motivated by xenophobia, but by legitimate concerns over safety of persons and property.

But this article from the Wall Street Journal (no friend of illegal immigrants) made the Korean fucking lose it:

Arizona Grades Teachers on Fluency

State Pushes School Districts to Reassign Instructors With Heavy Accents or Other Shortcomings in Their English

PHOENIX—As the academic year winds down, Creighton School Principal Rosemary Agneessens faces a wrenching decision: what to do with veteran teachers whom the state education department says don't speak English well enough.

The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.

State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators.

The teacher controversy comes amid an increasingly tense debate over immigration. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer this month signed the nation's toughest law to crack down on illegal immigrants. Critics charge that the broader political climate has emboldened state education officials to target immigrant teachers at a time when a budget crisis has forced layoffs.

"This is just one more indication of the incredible anti-immigrant sentiment in the state," said Bruce Merrill, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University who conducts public-opinion research.

Margaret Dugan, deputy superintendent of the state's schools, disagreed, saying that critics were "politicizing the educational environment."

In the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America.

Then in 2000, voters passed a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.

Ms. Dugan said some schools hadn't been complying with the state law that made English the only language in the classroom. "Our job is to make sure the teachers are highly qualified in fluency of the English language. We know districts that have a fluency problem," she said.

Arizona's enforcement of fluency standards is based on an interpretation of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. That law states that for a school to receive federal funds, students learning English must be instructed by teachers fluent in the language. Defining fluency is left to each state, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Education said.

"The teacher obviously must be fluent in every aspect of the English language," said Adela Santa Cruz, director of the Arizona education-department office charged with enforcing standards in classes for students with limited English.

The education department has dispatched evaluators to audit teachers across the state on things such as comprehensible pronunciation, correct grammar and good writing.

Teachers that don't pass muster may take classes or other steps to improve their English; if fluency continues to be a problem, Ms. Santa Cruz said, it is up to school districts to decide whether to fire teachers or reassign them to mainstream classes not designated for students still learning to speak English. However, teachers shouldn't continue to work in classes for non-native English speakers.

About 150,000 of Arizona's 1.2 million public-school students are classified as English Language Learners. Of the state's 247 school districts, about 20 have high concentrations of such students, the largest number of which are in the younger grades.

Nearly half the teachers at Creighton, a K-8 school in a Hispanic neighborhood of Phoenix, are native Spanish speakers. State auditors have reported to the district that some teachers pronounce words such as violet as "biolet," think as "tink" and swallow the ending sounds of words, as they sometimes do in Spanish.

These teachers "are very good educators who understand the culture" of their students," said Ms. Agneessens, Creighton's principal. "Teachers should speak grammatically correct English," she acknowledged, but added, "I object to the nuance of punishment for accent."

"It doesn't matter to me what the accent is; what matters is if my children are learning," said Luis Tavarez, the parent of sixth- and eighth-graders at Creighton.

"Student achievement and growth should inform teacher evaluations, not their accents," said Kent Scribner, superintendent of the Phoenix Union High School District.

John Hartsell, spokesman for the Arizona Education Association, a union that represents 34,000 teachers, said the recent focus on fluency was a distraction from more important issues. "This is not the time to be pressuring districts to deal with accents that have nothing to do with quality teaching; we are trying to figure out how to best fund operations" because of cuts in education, he said.

State education officials deny any discrimination against teachers, saying they are acting in students' best interest.

Ms. Santa Cruz, the state official, said evaluators weren't looking at accents alone. "We look at the best models for English pronunciation," she said. "It becomes an issue when pronunciation affects comprehensibility."

"Teachers should speak good grammar because kids pick up what they hear," said Johanna Haver, a proponent of English-language immersion who serves as an adviser to Arizona educators. "Where you draw the line is debatable."

After evaluation and despite completing an accent-reduction course, some teachers at Creighton were ruled still unsuited to teaching English-language learners.

That poses a dilemma for Ms. Agneessens, the principal. In kindergarten, three of four classes are for English-language learners. Two of those three classes are taught by immigrants whose English didn't pass muster.

Ms. Agneessens said she was trying to find a way to retain those two teachers by shifting them into classrooms not designated for English-language learners, even if that meant teaching a different grade. Both teachers declined to comment for this article.

Recently, she informed one experienced kindergarten teacher that she would have to be reassigned to a mainstream class in a higher grade in the fall, if she wished to remain at the school.

"We both cried," she said.

(Emphasis the Korean's.)

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

The Korean's first point: 

It has become clear that "Arizona" (used as a shorthand for the people who make the decisions in Arizona and the majority of the electorate that backs those people,) as of now, will attempt exploit every little loophole in the laws to screw over the people Arizona does not like. The No Child Left Behind Act has a common sense requirement that in order to teach English-learning students, the teacher must be fluent in English. The requirement was obviously not designed to demand the teachers to lose their accent. But Arizona has taken one concept -- "fluent" -- and stretched it beyond recognition. Most Dutch people speak English with ease, although with an accent. Now, Dutch people would be considered fluent in English everywhere in the world, except in Arizona school districts.

This willingness to twist the words of the NCLB is highly relevant for the way the new immigration enforcement law will be implemented. The supporters of the law point to the provision that require "lawful contact" for the police to demand a proof of citizenship from a person, as well as the provision that race or national origin cannot be the sole consideration for making such a demand. Relying on this, supporters of the law characterize as if the new law will only come to play at a traffic stop after an infraction or following an arrest. (For example, the author of the linked New York Times op-ed uses the example of a minivan pulled over for speeding, in which the police sees a dozen Mexicans packed in without identifications.)

Well, shit load of good those provisions will do now. Arizona just displayed the willingness to stretch one law -- the federal law that it did not author -- beyond the breaking point. How can one expect that Arizona will strictly adhere to the most disciplined interpretation of the law that it wrote for itself? If Arizona intended to screw over immigrants -- legal and illegal alike -- there are ample means to do so within the meaning of the new law. And that's what really makes this new law so odious.

Here is an example of how that law can be enforced. A "lawful contact" include stop-and-frisks, otherwise known as "Terry stops." A police officer can lawfully stop-and-frisk anyone without probable cause, as long as the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. And the crime can be any crime, including misdemeanors. And here is something everyone should know about misdemeanors -- if all misdemeanor laws were strictly applied, you can be thrown in jail for breathing. (For example, did you know that using a leaf blower in Santa Monica was a misdemeanor?)

Here is an example. You know what's a misdemeanor in Arizona? Loitering, which is so helpfully defined as being "present in a public place and in an offensive manner." So, under the Arizona law, the police can stop-and-frisk anyone, and demand a proof of citizenship in the process, as long as the police reasonably suspects that the person was, is, or is about to be present in a public place and in an offensive manner. And there are minimal restrictions as to what "offensive" means here. 

In this context, the prohibition of using race or national origin as the sole consideration is completely meaningless, because the police can only needs to prove that he had a reasonable suspicion that someone was about to loiter. In other words, the police in Arizona is now given a blank check anyone produce a proof of residence. Now, Arizona is demanding the police to go hunt down illegal immigrants. Gee, the Korean wonders if they will stop-and-frisk any white people for "loitering"?

Of course, this type of search is unreasonable, and relies on the most strained interpretation of the law. And that's the Korean' point here -- Arizona is ready and willing to twist the law (which it conveniently wrote for itself with broad authorization and hollow restrictions) in a way that will screw over immigrants.

The Korean's second point: 

As the Korean previously stated in the post about his process of learning English at age 16, he believes that grammar is one of the most -- if not the most -- important thing to learn in a language. But on the flip side, the Korean does not believe for one second that having an accentless speech is important. In fact, when the Korean put up the post about learning English at age 16, a number of Korean Americans emailed the Korean, asking, "Your speech has no accent at all. I came to America late, like you. How do I get rid of my accent?" 

The Korean always replied: "Don't worry about the accent! There are some ways to get rid of it, but there is no need to kill yourself doing it. Having an accent did not stop Henry Kissinger from becoming the Secretary of State, nor did it stop Arnold Schwarznegger from being the governor of California. America is a fair place; as long as you can communicate, you can succeed as long as you can show you are smart, educated and hard-working."

Now the Korean feels like an idiot for having believed in his country enough to give that kind of advice. If rank xenophobia was thinly veiled in the Arizona immigration enforcement law, it is completely naked in Arizona's accent-related demotion of teachers. With the immigration enforcement law, there is at least a possibility of semi-plausible excuses -- illegal immigration is illegal, some illegal immigrants have known to commit crimes, illegal immigrants are a burden on the American society, and so on and so forth. 

But none of those excuses applies in this situation. The accented teachers are lawful residents of Arizona. They committed no crime. They already have a job that requires having a degree and passing a test, and are not a drain on the welfare. They are not even accused of being bad teachers. In fact, some of them are praised for being "very good educators" by their principal. No matter -- if you have an accent, you cannot teach English-learning students. Arizona has clearly stated: "Having an accent is bad, and we don't like that. So you cannot teach the next generation who is learning English, because we don't want you transmit that disease you have." With this accent-punishment, Arizona effectively declared that Americans who speak English with an accent are second-class citizens. And what animates Arizona is clearly revealed: it is xenophobia, xenophobia, xenophobia.

Some supporters of Arizona's immigration enforcement law speak of how they are in favor of legal immigration, while opposed to illegal immigration, and Arizona is only acting to curb illegal immigration. Bullshit. Arizona hates immigrants altogether, legal or illegal. It hates anyone who looks different and speaks differently. If that was not obvious before, it is obvious now.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.