The Korean on "An Economist Gets Lunch"

The Korean is a faithful reader of Prof. Tyler Cowen's blog Marginal Revolution. Like Prof. Cowen, the Korean is also a resident of Northern Virginia, and he cares about food deeply. So the Korean is expecting his copy of Prof. Cowen's An Economist Gets Lunch with great interest. The Korean did not read the book yet, but based on the reviews, it sounds fascinating -- Moneyball for lunch selections, as it were. A lot of what Prof. Cowen suggests makes perfect sense. For example, it makes sense to go for the ugly-sounding dish in a nice restaurant, because the dish had better to be good if it deserved a place on the menu. (Oven roasted bone marrow at Blue Duck Tavern in Washington D.C. comes to mind as a good example.)

But the Korean couldn't help but furrow his brow a little bit at the part of the book about selecting good ethnic restaurants. For example, in the New York Times book review that discussed Prof. Cowen's favorite Ethiopian restaurant:

It’s a sports bar, which seems like an unlikely choice, but not to Professor Cowen’s way of thinking. He chose it precisely because it was an unlikely choice. An American sports bar might mean Buffalo wings and cheeseburgers, but an Ethiopian sports bar? “They are making no attempt to appeal to non-Ethiopians,” he said.

How does he know it is good? Ethiopians eat there. It’s crowded. People look prosperous. But the two-page menu offers more clues. A few American items are tucked down in a corner, but other than that it is all Ethiopian. It has Ethiopian breakfast items. The descriptions are sparse, because why would they need explaining to its core audience? There are dishes on the menu that he doesn’t recognize. “That’s always a good sign,” he said.

At a first glance, all of the above seem to make sense. If you want the best Ethiopian food, it makes sense to look for the place that cater more or less exclusively to well-off Ethiopians. However, that idea rests on a critical assumption:  well-off Ethiopians know how to look for the best Ethiopian food. The Korean's problem with this assumption is -- at least when it comes to Korean food in America, that assumption is completely false. I cannot speak for any other ethnic cuisine in America, but I would not be surprised similar trends occurred in other immigrant communities.

Here, the Korean should take a quick detour and remind everyone about his own peculiar stance with food, especially Korean food. Simply put, I am an irrational Korean food purist. I have been called "Korean food Wahhabbist." I despise any and all efforts to steer Korean food away from the way it is supposed to be. (And "the way it is supposed to be" is defined as the way it is made in the place of the dish's origin, i.e. a particular region in Korea. And yes, that means I despise much of Korean food in Korea also.) When I comes to Korean food, I am a deranged lunatic. When it comes to Korean food, I am more unreasonable than an obnoxious sports dad attending his child's little league baseball game. I will utterly disregard the reasonable preference of everyone else. I will lose my shit and wantonly issue death threats to anyone who gives a bad Korean food recipe. So take this post as what you will.

Having said that, how is it the case that well-off Korean Americans still are not competent judges of good Korean food?

Korean Americans have been living in the U.S. in large numbers since the 1960s, and at this point it is fair to say that Korean American cuisine has developed a number of subtle differences that distinguishes it from traditional Korean cuisine. A few of those divergences are positive -- for example, Korean Americans expanded the potential of soondubu soup (spicy soft tofu soup) by adding more, and more diverse, ingredients, to the point that the American-style soondubu soup was reverse-exported back to Korea.

But the Korean would daresay that vast majority of changes applied to Korean cuisine applied by Korean Americans have been negative. One major difference in Korean versus Korean American cuisine is the infantilization of flavors -- going from sophisticated to crude, from complex to one-dimensioned. Much of Korean food in America is one or more of too sweet, too spicy, too salty, etc. Sweetness, in particular, is the all-encompassing evil that completely downgrades Korean food in America. Proper Korean food hardly uses any sweetening agent, but overwhelming majority of Korean restaurants in America liberally use sugar in their food. For anyone with discerning taste, it is vile.

Korean restaurants in America also take many shortcuts to save the cost and effort. Faking umami through the use of MSG in any brothy Korean food is an easy example. Less noticeable (at least to those who never had the real thing) are the "cheap restaurant tricks" that Korean restaurants use in certain types of food. For example, seolleongtang [설렁탕] is a cow's leg bone soup, whose broth becomes milky white after many hours of slowly boiling the bone in low heat as the collagen in the bone slowly melts out. But instead of spending those many hours, Korean restaurants use a shortcut -- take the regular, store-bought beef broth, and add coffee creamer (!) to it.

[-UPDATE, 4/18/2012- Lest there should be any misunderstanding, this is not to say that "cheap restaurant tricks" are used exclusively in Korean restaurants in America. Most of those tricks originated in Korea, and are still used to cheap restaurants in Korea. The difference is that in Korea, the customer base knows enough about Korean food such that "cheap restaurant tricks," for the most part, actually stay within cheap restaurants. In the U.S., that is not the case -- coffee creamer seolleongtang can be found in the places that look like they are supposed to be decent places.]

Then there is the influence of American eating habits creeping into Korean food in America. Vegetables are the backbone of Korean cuisine, as Korea has more than 1,000 edible vegetables and herbs. Korea also has a huge variety of seasonal fish, thanks to the fact that it is surrounded by the ocean on three sides. To keep those vegetables and fish for a long period of time, Koreans have developed a number of pickling and fermentation methods that add a great deal of complexity to those ingredients. (Kimchi is the prime example of this.) In a typical Korean meal, vast majority of the food served will be vegetables or fish, and a lot of them are pickled and/or fermented. But in America, Korean BBQ is the de facto representative of Korean cuisine. Nary a fermented side dish (which invariably takes much more effort to make) can be found. In a disturbing trend, the newer, more "hip" Korean restaurants are doing away with the last vestige of vegetables in Korean BBQ by getting rid of the lettuce wraps that would always accompany the meat.

All told, Korean food to Korean American food is a movie to a pornography -- the entire endeavor is reduced to a single, crass purpose, which is achieved by artificial "enhancements." Yet Korean restaurants, even those only patronized by well-off Korean Americans, merrily stay in business. How?

Ever wished as a child that you could eat your cereal with chocolate milk, or have a piece of cake for breakfast? That's what has happened with Korean food in America. Unmoored from parental supervision (in this case, the centuries of tradition,) Korean Americans have made Korean food in America cheaper, easier and simpler, at the cost of quality. It is particularly notable that most well-off Korean Americans in America did not start out well-off -- they arrived poor, but became middle class through hard work. While Korean Americans' immigrant work ethic deserves lavish praise, it would be ludicrous to claim that those Korean Americans arrived at America with highly sophisticated culinary aesthetics. (Because rare is the case that a group of wealthy people immigrate to America, the Korean would think that similar trend may hold with other ethnic cuisines.)

The presence of young Korean Americans, second generation and beyond, drives this trend to a much deeper nadir. The second generation Korean Americans grew up without ever exploring the ceiling of what Korean food could be, or establishing the floor of what Korean food, at a minimum, should be. Yet, by virtue of their minority status, they become false representatives of authenticity to mainstream America, which is never all that good at appreciating finer differences within a given ethnic group. Even David Chang, probably the most famous Korean American chef in the U.S. right now, apparently "had no idea there were such endless varieties of namul," or seasoned vegetable dishes, in Korean cuisine. To me, that is an inexcusable level of ignorance -- namul is (or, at least, should be) on a Korean table every meal, every day. If you do not even know the characteristics of one of the most foundational components of Korean food, what the hell do you know?

This means that even following Prof. Cowen's advice does not necessarily lead to good Korean food. In Manhattan, for example, one could always find a restaurant around 32nd street that makes no attempt to cater to non-Koreans; that is crowded with prosperous-looking Koreans; whose menu is exclusively comprised of Korean food items with little English description accompanying them. Yet, no matter -- that restaurant will serve shitty Korean food laced with so much MSG that, if you have sensitive stomach like my wife, it will give you the runs all day long.

By my count, the New York metro area (Manhattan, Long Island, New Jersey) only has three or four good Korean restaurants. (Please note that this is "good" in the scale of "great-good-tolerable-inedible.") Northern Virginia has one that could be considered good.

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

What do Koreans Think About Turkey?

Dear Korean,

I always wondered what Korean people think about Turkey and Turkish people. I was in high school during 2002 World Cup. I was shocked when i see the large Turkish flag on the stadium carried by Koreans. Maybe there were always a love for Korean people in Turkish community. But that was the time I realized that. Two cultures have many similarities, and during the Korean War Turkey sent soldiers to Korea and there is a cemetery for Turkish soldiers in Busan. And during World Cup we felt like we were at our homeland.

Do new generation know about Turkey and Turkish people. What they know and think about us?

Ishak M.

The Korean receives many questions of a similar type:  "What do Korean people think about [Country X]?" In most cases, the answer is simple -- unless Country X is a country with which Korea interacts frequently (e.g., United States, Japan, China,) Koreans are unlikely to have any strong feelings about the country one way or the other. Any thoughts Koreans may have about that country would be no more than fleeting, inconsequential stereotypes.

But there are a few countries around the world that are exceptions to this trend -- that is, although Korea does not interact with them all that frequently, Koreans nonetheless have a relatively concrete feeling toward them. Turkey is one of those countries.

Koreans supporting Turkish national soccer team during 2002 FIFA World Cup
in a game against China, held in Seoul. (source)

Why Turkey? For this simple reason -- during Korean War, Turkey sent soldiers in aid of South Korea. In fact, Turkey sent the most number of soldiers (5,460) after the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, and had the most number of casualties (741 dead, 2,068 wounded, 163 MIA) following United States and United Kingdom among those countries that sent soldiers.

One should never underestimate just how grateful South Koreans are about being helped in that war. To this day, most Koreans would first associate Turkey with "blood ally" [혈맹]. It also helps that, since the end of the war, Turkey and Korea have maintained a healthy distance that is so crucial to a good friendship. (This is in contrast to the United States, which undoubtedly did a lot of things to annoy Koreans partially because it has been a little too close, eating away at the good will it earned by having been the greatest help in Korean War.) The fact that Korean pop culture ended up being popular in Turkey later is just gravy.

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

The Korean on Pro-Japanese Collaborators

Dear Korean,

The issue over so called "Korean collaborators" is quite the hotbed issue amongst the general Korean populace. Many so-called collaborators are dismissed by Korean nationalist historians, and Koreans in general as vile traitors to Korea and the Korean people. However, to simply dismiss these "collaborators" as such is a gross oversimplification, if not unfair. For example, Helen Kim was a champion for Korean woman's rights and access to education, but she is oft-characterized as a Japanese collaborator. Yes, Helen Kim was a "collaborator" in the sense that she fully cooperated with the Japanese. However, is it entirely right to dismiss her as a vile collaborator? At a time when rights and opportunities of Korean women were limited, Helen Kim embraced the option that she felt would best improve the situation of Korean women. For Kim, collaborating with the Japanese was the only way for Korean women to gain modernity and improve their livelihood.

Anyways, to put all of this into a question: What is the Korean's personal opinion on so called "Korean collaborators?" And how does the Korean assess the way in which a person such as Helen Kim is reviled as a traitor by Korean historians and Koreans in general?

T.S.

First, a little bit of background. As T.S. correctly stated, the pro-Japanese collaborator issue is an extremely sensitive one. Because the Imperial Japan's colonial rule over Korea was so unmitigatedly awful, for a Korean to be associated with the Imperial Japan's rule is a social death sentence. T.S.'s example of Helen Kim is a good one. While her achievement as Korea's first female Ph.D. and early feminist was undeniable, equally undeniable is her call for Koreans to sacrifice themselves for Imperial Japan's victory in World War II. Accordingly, her place in Korean history is very much in dispute.

Helen Kim [김활란]
(source)

The discourse surrounding the collaborator issue in Korea is not unlike the discourse surrounding racism in America in a number of ways:

(1) Both issues are spurred by incredibly painful historical memories. (Although, to be sure, slavery and Jim Crow lasted far longer and was just as abhorrent, if not more so, as Imperial Japan's rule over Korea.) 

(2) Because of the origins of those issues, the discourses surrounding those issues are highly emotionally charged. (Although, this being the Internet, the obvious point must be noted -- being emotionally involved is hardly an indication of being in the wrong position.) 

(3) Also, because of the origins of those issues, the consequence of being on the wrong side of the issue is extremely damaging. Being labeled a racist in America is a social death sentence. Likewise, being labeled a collaborator in Korea is enough to completely erase one's historical achievements. 

(4) Because of such severe consequences, all kinds of distortions enter into the discourse regarding these issues, making an uninhibited discussion on these issues very difficult. To wit:

(a) At least partly because it is such an easy way of discrediting one's foe, people are quick to resort to the accusation of these issues.
(b) For the same reason as (a) above, the line between who is and who is not a racist or who is and who is not a collaborator is constantly blurred, particularly when politics are involved. In Korea, even being the children of collaborators comes with some level of stigma, on the theory that the collaborators who benefited from betraying their country passed on that benefit to their children, giving them unfair advantage at the cost of their country.
(c) Counter-intuitively, the extremely severe consequences hinder a forthright discussion on who indeed is a racist/collaborator. On this point, writer Teju Cole said it best: 

"There is an expectation that we can talk about sins but no one must be identified as a sinner: newspapers love to describe words or deeds as "racially charged" even in those cases when it would be more honest to say "racist"; we agree that there is rampant misogyny, but misogynists are nowhere to be found; homophobia is a problem but no one is homophobic." 

Similarly, simple logic dictates that countless number of Koreans would fall under the (broader) definition of "collaborators," considering the number of Koreans who must have cooperated with the Imperial Japanese government on some level. Yet, except for scattered outbursts of accusations (often politically motivated,) many who truly deserve the label of "collaborators" (or their descendants) continue on unnoticed.

So, what does the Korean think about all this?

His personal stance for dealing with racism is the same as dealing with the collaborator issue. In the "chink-gate" involving Jeremy Lin, the Korean wrote:

Any condemnation of the writer himself must be made cautiously, keeping in mind the explosive power that the accusation of racism has in contemporary America. Just as much as we urge people to carefully consider racism in expanding number of situations, we must be ready to undergo an equally careful analysis before exposing people to harsh consequences. While not avoiding judgment, let us be generous with it.

Same is true for the collaboration issue in Korea. The judgment of the collaboration issue must not be avoided, because the crime, and the after-effects of that crime remaining to this day, are simply too great to be ignored. The collaborators at the top -- the high-ranking Korean officials who forced the emperor to hand over Korea's sovereignty to Imperial Japan -- actively sold out their country for their personal gain, condemning Koreans to 36 years of mass murder of independence activists, forced labor in war efforts leading to millions dead and injured, systemic rape of hundreds of thousands of women and live human experiments of biological and chemical weapons. The collaborators at the bottom -- the low-level Korean officers for Imperial Japan -- acted as the eyes, hands and feet of Imperial Japan that brutally oppressed their fellow Koreans, again for their own personal gain. Together, they irrevocably distorted Korean history, and caused untold amount of pain, suffering and death.

If the crime is so hideous, why must Koreans be generous to those criminals? For this simple reason:  neither you nor I are much better than them. Indeed, the call to be merciful to those who sin comes from this humbling realization -- that, if we were put in the same situation as those who sin, there is great likelihood that we would sin just the same. Koreans who are ready to condemn the collaborators to eternal vilification must, at some point in the process of that condemnation, confront the fact that in all likelihood, they may have acted the same. This self-confrontation is not made frequently enough, and even when it is made, it is done with an inflated self-evaluation of awareness and courage.

(With respect to that inflated self-evaluation, writer Ta-Nehisi Coates put it perfectly. To people who say "If I was a slave I woulda rebelled!", Coates says:  "Fool, you woulda picked that cotton.")

In short, the Korean's principle is this: do not eschew condemnation, but be generous with the condemnation's consequences. As a practical matter, this means a full disclosure and exploration of everything that happened, and of the roles that everyone relevant played, during Imperial Japan's rule of Korea. But in order for that to happen, those who are making those disclosures and explorations must do so in the spirit of truth-seeking and generosity, rather than that of vendetta and spite. Recognizing both the good and bad of imperfect people who were facing forces greater than their own does no more than speaking to what is human. In doing so, Koreans will be able to finally elevate the independence fighters in their proper place -- truly extraordinary people with superhuman courage.

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

The Korean does not know what book you should read

Here is a public service announcement, because the Korean constantly receives this type of question:

From this blog, you will not get an answer for a question like this one:  "I want to learn about XYZ aspect of Korea. Could you please recommend some books on it?"

It is a perfectly legitimate question, but one that the Korean is utterly unequipped to answer. Here is the problem: the Korean never reads any book about Korea in English. He learns about Korea by reading . . . wait for it . . . books and articles written in Korean language, written by Korean people. Unless he wants to learn something specific that involves a non-Korean perspective (e.g. U.S. perspective on Korean War,) there is little reason for him to read about Korea in English. When it comes to learning about Korea, Korean-language sources are always more accurate, more nuanced, more vivid and more contemporary. Given the abundance of excellent books about Korea in Korean language, the Korean simply cannot be bothered to read any book about Korea in English.

In fact, this language issue is something that mildly peeves the Korean, because many of the so-called "experts" on Korea actually cannot speak or read a lick of Korean. If a person who could not understand a word of Spanish claimed herself to be a Latin America specialist, she would be laughed out of the room. Yet that is the situation we have with Korea -- a lot of people who claim to know a lot about Korea cannot even decipher what Koreans are saying. Consequently, a lot of analysis about Korea -- especially if the analysis about a slightly more involved topic -- often miss the mark completely.

Of course, there are extraordinary people who manage to overcome the language barrier by the sheer force of astute on-the-ground observation and personal networking with important players in Korea. (Don Kirk, a veteran journalist who covered nearly every important event in modern South Korean history, comes mind.) But in most cases, the equation works out exactly how one would expect to work out:  if you can't understand Korean, your knowledge about Korea will always be limited, and often erroneous.

All of this is a long way of saying:  don't come here for book recommendation, because you won't find it. Sorry.

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

Ask a Korean! News: Serial Murders of North Korean Officials

More indications that North Korean regime is falling apart at the seams:  since last year, there have been a series of murders targeting the North Korean equivalent of police chiefs. According to the Dong-A Ilbo article by Joo Seong-Ha, there have been five cases of murders or attempted murders of high-ranking security officers, who are most directly involved in conducting surveillance on and extorting people. In February 2011, a local security bureau chief was killed in Cheongjin by getting hit by stones at night. In June 2011, a brigadier general working at Kim Il-Sung Political University was axed to death in Yanggang-do. In November 2011, a local security bureau chief was severely injured in Yanggang-do after having been attacked with an ax. Around the same time, a local security bureau chief was axed to death in Pyongyang. Finally, in January of this year, a security bureau chief and his entire family was found murdered in their home in central Pyongyang.

This series of murders are significant for two reasons. The more obvious first reason is that these are not simple cases of errant murders. Killing a security bureau official in North Korea is a crime that would damn the entire extended family to a gulag. The reports say that murders of low-level security bureau officers have so common that they are not even newsworthy in North Korea any more.

The second reason for the significance of these murders is that two of these murders happened in the middle of Pyongyang, the capital that is not only supposed to be safe, but also supposed to hold only the most loyal to the regime. What is more, the last murder in Pyongyang occurred during the mourning period for Kim Jong-Il, where North Koreans were admonished not even to breathe too heavily.

North Korean regime is slowly losing control, and the loss of control can only accelerate.

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

Ask a Korean! News: Shooting in Oakland

First Cho Seung-Hui, now this? Yesterday, Korean American Goh Won-Il shot up his former school at Oikos University in Oakland, California, killing seven and injuring three. Goh was captured alive after fleeing the scene.

Oikos hardly deserves the name "university," as it is a barely accredited school that was located in a nondescript office park near the Oakland Airport. The school is known to be run by Korean Americans, and only has a few hundred students. The Korean would hazard a guess that it is mostly an I-20/diploma mill.

Goh apparently has a troubled personal history, as his mother and his older brother (who was a sergeant in the U.S. army) passed away last year. His precise motive for shooting, however, is as yet unknown.

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

Who Takes the Wedding Money Gifts?

Dear Korean,

With all the monetary wedding gifts, who does that belong to? Does it go to the couple? Or does it go to the parents? Traditionally in the US, the money is suppose [sic] to go to the couple regardless who it came from and meant for them to pay off their wedding expenses and use for their future living or towards buying a house etc...

J

The Korean's first caveat would be that no Korean custom is as hard-and-fast as it seems. Instead, the application of a Korean custom depends heavily on the situation and the people involved. This should be an obvious point, but for a lot of people, it is not. Even though it is usually out of good intentions to be respectful of Korean culture, too many people treat Korean customs to be this monolithic, unchanging thing that must be strictly followed no matter what the circumstances. Relax! If you are not a Korean person, always remember the Foreigner Rule.

Standard envelope for
wedding gift money
(source)

Having said that, here is a quick recap. In Korea, giving cash for major occasions, including weddings, is perfectly fine. Therefore, it is not uncommon to have a large pile of cash after the wedding is over. Then a question could arise -- who takes the cash? Technically, the answer is:  the parents. But it is more important to understand why the parents take the money.

The parents take the money because in Korea, the parents of the newlyweds generally pay for the wedding. In fact, this question is rarely actually raised because, in most cases, even the huge pile of cash is still not quite enough to cover the wedding expenses. Even if the cash were somehow enough to cover the wedding expenses, Korean parents generally shoulder a much greater burden than wedding expenses -- the groom's family usually buys a house for the newlyweds, while the bride's family buys the furniture and electronics with which to fill the house. The two families exchange expensive gifts for the immediate and extended family as well, again usually out of the parents' dimes.

Another consideration is that the parents are essentially receiving a return on the many, many cash gifts that they have made throughout their adulthood. By the time they are marrying off their children, Korean parents have paid an untold sum of money to their families, relatives and friends for every major occasion. Those gifts are made with an implicit expectation that someday, they will get them back in some measure by the same families, relatives and friends.

But of course, like everything else in Korea, this custom is constantly in a state of flux. If the newlyweds ended up paying for the entire wedding themselves, there is some room to say that a portion of the cash gift belongs to the newlyweds. However, in most cases, the cash gifts will be gone by the time they were applied to the wedding expenses, making this a non-issue.

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