Territorial Disputes

Territorial disputes have always plagued the human kind: we are always fighting over possessions, even over the land that we live on. For the Koreans, they seem to favor conquering land through peaceful means. Since the ancient days, Chumong claimed his kingdom with existing ruler by competing in shooting arrows and then tricking King Songyang that Chumong’s capital was built upon that land first. Then, closer to the millennium, the dispute over Tsushima shed no blood. Both Korea and Japan both tried to declare the island as their own, but no battle was fought over the land. Because the island is located at such borderline territory, the culture of that island became a mix of both countries, thus rendering it to be harder to separate whose property it is. The Choson had “chose manipulating selected levers of administration that sustained peaceful and managed contact rather than imposing militarily or by other forceful” while the Japanese So family governed the island without disturbance from the Koreans. In this article, I believe the citizens were the one who had benefited the most from this mutuality--no war, no casualty. Even in 2005, the Koreans wanted to claim the island had only done so through a drive to collect one million signatures.

***

Although the Immortal Yi Sun Shin was not about Korean territorial disputes per se, it was about Japanese expansion through Korea. After watching the first episode of this epic drama, (I noticed that they used the Pirates soundtrack) my first impressions of this national hero were of passion, patriotism, sentiment, sensibility. He embodies these values even during a war. When the battle ended, he went to the forest by himself and wept for those who had died, including his cousin whom he had sent on a suicidal mission to save the Ming general. Since it is a drama, it portrays the Koreans a bit too honorable and emotional whereas the Chinese were a bit to corrupt and petty, and the Japanese were a bit too cruel and devious.

Korea likes history and territory; so does China

A number of people talked about Korea's dispute with Japan over Dokdo in this forum, we read about the whole Tsushima/Taema-do thing, and I'm sure some of us are familiar with the East Sea/Sea of Japan debate, but there is another territorial dispute that I have learned about. This one also has roots in ancient history.

It seems that in the past few years Koreans were shocked by China's Northeast Project, which claims that the ancient Korean kingdom of Koguryo (Goguryeo) was actually Chinese because it extended into Manchuria, which is now Chinese land. (It's interesting to me how rewriting textbooks is a sure-fire way of making people angry. Also, I thought the claims of the Northeast Project were a nice contrast to the description of Koguryo under "Accounts of the Eastern Barbarians" in the Chinese dynastic histories up on Blackboard. It's amazing what a difference a couple of millennia make.) Some nationalistic Koreans started a global campaign (including getting the CIA Factbook revised) to make sure that everyone knows that Koguryo is definitely a part of Korean history. The Chinese attempt to take Koguryo most likely stems from a fear that if Korean reunification does happen, then Korea (or Koreans in Manchuria) will make a claim for the land along the northern border as Korean territory.

The funny thing to me is that it seems that only some people in Korea and China were/are really caught up in this whole drama; the rest of their countries and the world don't really seem to care all that much about Koguryo or a potential land grab. But, it does show how important history is in Korea. It's also interesting how Korean-Japanese relations seemed really strained with all the Dokdo and textbook controversies, but the Chinese-Korean relations have been mostly fine. But, speaking of drama, could the TV miniseries Jumong (Chumong), which is about the legendary founder of the Koguyro dynasty, be part of a greater plan to remind audiences across the world that Koguryo is not Chinese, but most definitely Korean?

On Mass Culture

Popular culture is more often than not described as being "lowly" or "fluff." And I also agree with a previous post that popular culture can serve as a social currency with which people can find common ground for discussion and self-identification (or even a sense of nationalism).

However, I think we need to be cautious of the differences between what we consider high culture, folk culture, popular culture, and mass culture.

Matthew Arnold describes (high) culture as being "the best that has been thought and said in the world." (Storey 14) In essence, it is the collection of texts that exemplifies the best of us. Later on, MacDonald mentions, “Folk art grew from below. It was a spontaneous, autochthonous expression of the people shaped by themselves…” (22) To take the example of Shakespeare, during his time he could be described as being folk culture before becoming popular culture as his works garnered more notice and popularity. Now his works are considered high culture. This is probably one of the most interesting and infuriating things I find about (popular) culture - it's often mutable.

On the flip side, Storey's discussion warns us through Van den Haag and MacDonald about the diluting of high culture and folk culture into a form of mass culture where it "must aim at an average of tastes. In satisfying all (or at least many) individual tastes in some respects, it violates each in other respects." (Storey 23)

Too often, critics and "industry insiders" have bemoaned the lack of creativity in their related field - whether it be the movies, music, or even video games. In an effort to gain maximum profits, many companies have attempt to create products with mass appeal. In doing so, innovation and creative risk-taking often fall to the wayside. Rather than creating something interesting and unique, they create something so generic it actually comes out bland and devoid of cultural value. It is here where I think popular culture gets a bum rap.

One prime example is the rise of hip-hop into the mainstream. This following article from Akilah N. Folami (Associate Professor of Legal Writing at St. John’s University School of Law) illustrates the point of how folk culture can become popular culture and then be diluted into a harmful mass culture.

Historically, young urban Black men, through Hip Hop and Rap’s radio air play, attained visibility from an otherwise marginalized existence in America. Hip Hop arose, in the late 1970’s, out of the ruins of a post-industrial and ravaged South Bronx, as a cultural expression of urban Black and Latino youth, who were primarily male and who politicians and the dominant public and political discourse had written off, and, for all intent and purposes, abandoned. Rendered invisible by both White and Black politicians alike, and isolated and ignored, in what was categorized by most as a dying city, these youth decided to celebrate and live through Hip Hop and Rap.

Soon Rap would be proclaimed by some as the Black CNN, with many different Rappers, giving voice to what would have otherwise remained unseen by the larger dominant American public, such as police brutality, poverty, and the conditions in America’s urban centers. Moreover, some scholars contend that rap would successfully form new allegiances with counter-culture white youth who found genuine pleasure in Rap, as a forbidden narrative and a symbol of rebellion, much like punk rock. Rap would defy both Black and White middle class norms with its confrontational style. Rappers, who were primarily urban Black male youth, would speak in their own voice and on their own terms, as members of a historically marginalized segment of America’s population living in America’s blighted urban areas.

Today, Gangsta Rap currently dominates the nation’s radio airwaves with messages of misogyny, violence, and excessive consumer consumption. It is largely corporate driven, heavily marketed, and commercialized by corporate media in a way that more socially conscious Rap cannot be. Gangster Rappers promote anything from sneakers, jeans, iPods, cellphones, colognes, and sports drinks. By solidifying corporate control of the nation’s radio air waves, the Telecommunications Act has stifled the social commentary and diverse views in Rap that were once heard over the radio, and has encouraged the proliferation of Gangsta Rap and the creation of the Gangsta image that has become the defacto voice of contemporary Hip Hop culture. The image and the message are clear: consume, consume, consume! Overlooked for radio air play, are female rappers, and non-Gangsta Rap songs that might appeal to niche audiences or to audiences with smaller buying power.

(Taken from http://www.freepress.net/news/19925)

Immortal Admiral Yi Sunsin

Impression is based on Episodes 1 and 2
FYI: The soap opera "Immortal Admiral Yi Sunsin" is a long epic with 104 episodes. However, the version with english subtitles is only subbed up to episode 19 (as of today 01/26/06). If you want a copy and know how to use bittorrent, you can go to (http://d-addicts.com/forum/torrents.php?search=immortal&type=&sub=View+all&sort=) to download the torrents for this.

If it weren't for this class, I probably would have never heard of the admiral Yi Sunsin, nor the invasion of Korea by the Japanese in the last decade of the 16th century(with the ultimate goal of conquering Ming China). That said, it was interesting to find parallels of this invasion with the invasion of Korea and China during WWII. Strategically, it is well known that China has been conquered multiple times from the north, citing the Mongols and Manchus in the 13th and 17th centuries respectively. It is also well known that Japan's invasion of China in the WWII also started from Manchuria. But the idea that Japan in the 16th century intended to invade China through Korea is one that is new to me. Indeed, I was surprised when the Yi Sunsin mentioned to the Chinese general Chen Lin that Ming China and Choson Korea's fate were tied together and they needed to fight together against the Japanese for the safety of their homelands. My impression of Japan during the Ming dynasty was always that of a land of pirates, after all the only military hero I know of the Ming dynasty (for it was not a dynasty known for its military might) Qi Jiguang, made a name for himself fighting Japanese pirates. The fact that Japan had the governmental organization and capacity to invade Ming China that early was certainly something new to me.

The Kdrama "Immortal Admiral Yi Sunsin"

Cautionary note: Watching this drama without understanding the context is extremely difficult so before anybody watches the drama they should read the Admiral Yi Sun-sin booklet and the Wiki article (which gives a more comprehensive historical background)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Korea since the drama starts in the middle of the war with Yi Sun-sin and his Chinese allies going into battle.

Summary of episodes 1 and 2:
The drama starts middle of an arguement between Yi Sunsin and the Ming general Chen Lin (though its spelled as Jin Ling in the subs). The Japanese troops seem to be trapped somewhere and the Chinese allies seem to be reluctant to fight since they think the Japanese just want to pull out and go home. This is the major theme in this and the next episode as the Japanese general Konishi continues to bribe the other Ming general Yu Jung (possbly Song Ying-chang? the Korean spelling is confusing) to undermine the naval forces of Yi and Chen. Indeed, there seems to be factional fighting within the Koreans and the Chinese as the Ming generals Chen and Yu don't seem to get along and the Choson court officials and even the emperor being jealous of Yi and fearing him because he is well-loved by the people. The emperor and court are percived as cowards by the Korean people as they have abandoned the Korean people and escaped towards the Ming border. Indeed the emperor is extremely wary of the admiral as at the end of episode 2 we see an emissary sent by the Emperor to keep an eye on Yi.

Impressions of the drama
While I don't understand enough of Korean history to comment on the historical accuracy of the drama, I am surprised by the effort they put into creating this drama. The 35 million won budeget clearly shows though in the amount of firepower they put into the naval battles and the sheer amount of people involved in the land battles. The costumes are relatively well done as we can tell who's who (nationalitywise - Japanese, Korean or Chinese) by the costumes they wear though I thought it was weird that the Chinese general Chen Lin had a dragon on his outfit (b/c its a symbol of the emperor and usually only the Chinese emperors wear it).

On the other hand, I feel that the portrayal of the actors (at least in the first 2 episodes) raises some issues. The Chinese generals are portrayed big, burly and arrogant (and often corrupt and cowardly), the Japanese as calculating and evil with relatively paler (sickly hue) skin, and the Koreans (well Yi and his generals at least) as upright and honarable. While it may be reasonable to portray the Japanese as villans because they are the antagonists of the drama, it was kind of weird to have them put such a negative view of their Chinese "allies". One scene even shows the Chinese soldiers raping, or at least roughly handling Korean women. While I feel that there may be some amount of truth in this, I feel that this drama (or at least the first 2 episodes) is really taking nationalism a bit too far as there seems to be not one good non-Korean character.

Nevertheless, I feel that the "Immortal" has taught me alot about Korean history and made me understand the roots of the Sino-Korean-Japanese conflict better. Indeed, it seems that the territorial conflicts between the 3 nations seem not to be a recent issue but one stemming back hundreds of years.

Thoughts on Tsushima

After reading Kenneth R. Robinson's work on the island of Tsushima, a few things struck me as quite interesting and unique. For one, the Choson government's balancing act between territorial sovereignty and not wanting too much of a jurisictional presence in Tsushima was astonishing. Korean Kings treated the area as royal territory but did not interfere with Japanese jurisdictional sovereignty in terms of taxation and military installations. These issues made me wonder why Choson treated the sitaution as it did. Was it because Koreans felt subservient to the Japanese and believed they were ill-equipped to challenge them in Tsushima? This may relate to concepts in Storey's discussion of culture and civilization. Could it have been that education had taught Koreans where they were socially in relation to the Japanese. Or was it simply that Tsushima's geographical contribution was in and of itself important to the Choson elite.

The other feature that was really unique was the way in which Choson Korea went about claiming their territorial possession of Tsushima. They attempted no violent or militaristic actions, but instead they used very precise, strategic and intelligent methods. They asserted history and tradition to strengthen their claim to original possession. Maybe the most unique technique was through cartography. Showing the island closer to the Korean Peninsula was certainly sneaky yet ingenious at the same time. Endowing the governor of Tsushima with the authority to issue travel permits was another example. I question though whether or not the Choson elite were intentionally trying to outsmart Japan in Tsushima or whether they were simply following their own agenda for territorial expansion the most effective way they could. Was trade and the growth of their economy more relevant than governing the inhabitants of Tsushima? It seems more than likely.

From Michael Tedori : Double-edged Sword

The first topic of The Paradox of Korean Globalization that really intrigued me was after the author had visited Korea at KMLA school Shin talks about contradictory forces. Being nationalism and globalization. This is the main topic of his essay however I feel like he neglects to really examine how the two may actually be more related than contradictory. Nationalism is pride in one’s country as I see it and protecting the best interests of your nation. While globalization is the communications and relationships that are built between nations. In reality, I see these two as globalization supporting nationalism. Shin points to the empirical data that supports the cell phone use in Asia especially in Korea and the import/export data. What Shin doesn’t realize is that globalization and nationalism do not have to be worded as right off the bat, contradictory. In reality, the way I see it, globalization has many benefits (albeit some negatives) and as long as nationalism is preserved in the process. People are quick to jump to conclusions that a country will lose its heritage from many thousands of years and rightly so to voice that opinion. However, to say that globalization is neglecting nationalistic issues is stretching it. Globalism and social Darwinism are facts of life and have been historically present for centuries. Nations need to understand that this is where the world is headed, bearing in mind as Shin brings up; there are some worries of nationalism being destroyed by globalism. I just think that overall his article is too centered on the hard facts that “over-globalism” is on the verge, when in reality the other facts are not presented.


Following up with my previous thoughts Shin on page 7 says “…conflicts over political identities and ethnic fragmentation”. Here he is saying that countries are worried about their ethnicity and political backgrounds may change with the advent of globalization. This is definitely a concern that I share with him and should be proceeded with caution for all nations. I just think that because man has become so more advanced from the early stages of life that ENTIRE globalization is inevitable. My thoughts on how to deal with this vary and there is no one answer nor is it is easy to describe. First, nations must understand that they will not be wiped off the map. It is not as if Koreans start emigrating elsewhere, start using American cell phone towers, or watching American monopolized TV shows on Korean cable; Korea will not be Korea. This angers me when people yell about the same thing in America. Yes, in America we share the same kind of globalization in a sense and outsourcing of labour and trade deficits are a concern, yet once again inevitable. My posing solutions that I might entertain would be that countries realize their role (hierarchy) as far as how they rank in GDP and so forth and make informed decisions about where to go from there, firstly.


To return back to nationalism, it is important to realize that whatever changes occur with respect to nationalism, the role of the government is tantamount and to bring back, increase, and pump up when nationalism might be going downhill or declining. Politics and government must listen to the people in order to act in their best interest. This is not only to keep them from emigrating and allowing foreign intrusions! It is the role of nationalism that is set by how patriotic and lively the government can make the nation. This may be not as related, but I feel it is like having a “pep-rally” in high school, showing the support of the school leaders riling up the community before a big football game. Imagine the game as the event of dealing with the two issues of globalization and nationalism head to head and the government being those powers that inspire (somewhat indirectly mostly) yet at the same time manage globalism.

This land is your land, this land is my land...

This post is an addendum to previous posts on Dokdo. It is interesting to see how this small island can brew up so much attention in Korea and Japan. Koreans and Japanese go back and forth claiming that Dokdo belongs to them. To much of my knowledge, I thought Dokdo was an uninhabitable island. However, there's always someone who can prove you wrong. I was searching for anything remotely interesting about Dokdo besides so many Koreans and Japanese are obsessed about their ownership of this rocky island. Based on the facts present on wikipedia, approximately 900 Koreans and 2000 Japanese list Dokdo as their permanent residence. However, only TWO (or may be 3) people actually live there.

Dokdo Hosts First Civilians in a Decade
By Kim Tong-hyung
Staff Reporter

A 66-year-old fisherman and his wife moved into a house built on one of the islets of Dokdo Sunday, becoming the first civilians in nearly a decade to call the small islands as home.

Dokto, a rocky set of islets off Korea’s eastern coast, has been the subject of political tension between Korea and Japan in recent years, with Tokyo renewing its claims the islets are part of its territory.

It took nearly 10 years years for Kim Sung-do and his wife Kim Shin-yul, 68, to return to the small islets they had called home for a few years since 1991. The couple moved fgrom Dokdo in 1996, after the pier facility they used was destroyed by storm, and have been living on a neighboring island, Ullung-do.

The couple will soon have a neighbor in Pyung Bu-kyung, a 55-year-old poet, who plans to move to Dokdo sometime in April.

With its political tension with Japan over Dokdo escalating, the Ministry of Maritime Affaires and Fisheries spent 1.7 billion won ($1.75 million) to build a four-room house and repair the port facilities to lure civilian residents to the islets.

Relations between Korea and Japan had been strained in recent years over aspects of history, with the spat over Dokdo, which Japan calls Takeshima, being at the center of the dispute.

Last year, the Shimane prefecture on Japan’s west coast passed an ordinance celebrating Takeshima Day, triggering anger from the Korea.
02-19-2006 22:35

It is interesting to note that despite so many Koreans and Japanese say that Dokdo belongs to Korea and Japan, respectably, people are reluctant to pack their bags and move to Dokdo. Although Dokdo is a small island, you would think that if you were to claim this place as your place of residence, you would at least take the initiatives to build a life there. Because it is easier said than done, people would rather argue passively (this isn't an oxymoron) than to be at the forefront of the Dokdo invasion. Therefore, the dispute over this tiny island ensues.

One possible outlet for espousing the zeal for territory expansion can be the media. Television shows such as the Immortal Admiral Yi Sun-sin and Jumong both deal with defending one's country while planning and executing strategic agenda to expand Korea. The them of territorial expansion has been an ostensible theme throughout Korean epic dramas. Koreans' obsession over war heroes and their accomplishments can be due to the fact that they pride in honor and dignity. The fact that these individuals were able to accomplish tasks beyond what is imaginable in today's society seems to engender nationalism. In my opinion, these epic dramas celebrate Korean history by taking advantage of the fact that the media attracts a large audience. It inculcates and entertains people about Korean nationalism, which involves the significance of one's geographic expansion in the context of history.

In Defense of [Korean] Popular Culture

According to Matthew Arnold, culture is the "best that has been thought and said in the world". The word "culture" conjures a multitude of of varied connotations--"culture" can be a painting by DaVinci or Sienna Miller on the cover of InStyle Magazine, a piano piece by Chopin or an R&B chart-topper by Ne-Yo; Raymond Williams (in "Keywords--A Vocabulary of Culture and Society) justifies the spectrum that culture covers by asserting that "culture is one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language". Returning to the aforementioned examples of culture, the works of DaVinci and Chopin marked what was "best" of their respective eras; their contributions were "endeavours to know the best and make [this] knowledge prevail for the good of all humankind" (Arnold). That said, are fashion magazines, hip hop music, MTV and Hollywood representations of the culture of our time? Arnold Levis declared that "the twentieth century is marked by an increasing cultural decline"--does his bold statement hold any weight? It is essential for one to take into consideration the distinction between "high culture" and "popular culture", but Levis' words still allude to a painfully truthful reality, perhaps one that we are still in denial of.

What is the popular success of J.K Rowling's "Harry Potter" compared to the classic plays of William Shakespeare? One may argue that the reason Shakespeare is established as a larger literary giant is because his works have the credibility of transcending time--would J.K Rowling be held on an equally high pedestal centuries later?--I think not. One may argue that Shakespeare and Rowling are both highly successful authors, but their works are classified under such different genres that it is not possible to compare them on a fair playing field--or it may be that society regards pop culture as decidedly less deep/meaningful/important than high culture. Who decides these standards and labels anyway? How does one arbitrarily classify a work of art as pop or high culture? Popular culture is "culture actually made by the people for themselves" (Williams)--since we make the rules, don't we have the same power to break the rules and guidelines we set for ourselves?

If the success of a cultural object is measured by the popularity of the product, pop culture objects win hands down: "popular culture reaches a far wider audience than high culture" (Macdonald). There is a disproportionate discrepancy between the probability of one picking up an entertainment/sports/fashion magazine versus reading a Shakespearean sonnet at leisure. Popular culture is the culture of the masses (Arnold), one might even say that it is a "low-class" culture (in contrast to high culture). Other labels and criticisms of pop culture include stigmas that pop culture is trivial, superficial, meaningless, an intellectual wasteland, and paradoxically, that pop culture lacks [high] culture altogether. That said, are we a lost generation without culture, refinement or talent, driven by self-seeking pleasures and monetary gain?--the enormous "financial rewards" (Macdonald) of popular culture cannot be overlooked. Is our society as trivial, superficial and meaningless as the mass pop culture we indulge in?

Why are we even in a class that focuses on [Korean] Popular Culture? I don't think pop culture is as inconsequential as the stigmas placed around it. Pop culture creates group solidarity, a sense of identity and belonging to the members involved. It also establishes identity, acts as a social glue, and at its core level, offers entertainment--where would we go to alleviate the stresses of life without music, television, magazines, sports, computer games, Facebook, etc.--besides being an enjoyable and pleasurable activity, pop culture provides the occasional, much needed escape from reality. An important point I would like to highlight is how pop culture acts like a social glue and creates a sense of identity, and how this applies to Koreans and Korean Popular Culture. I have noticed that Korean-Americans are a lot more nationalistic than Chinese-Americans. Their KP (Korean Pride) manifests in a variety of different forms, from being an activist in political issues such as LiNk (Liberty in North Korea), or indulging in Korean drama serials/being closet K-pop fans. I was surprised to see that an American-born Korean friend of mine had a huge flag of Korea hanging by his bed--no Chinese-American would ever do that. Perhaps for Korean-Americans, Korean Popular Culture holds a deeper significance than simply surface entertainment--it helps forge a deeper connection with their heritage and solidifies a sense of identity and community, which is so ever so essential in the melting-pot, "culture-less" culture of North America today.

The Dokdo issue

Someone already wrote about Dokdo, but I want to add a few things about the nature of the dispute.

One of the most familiar and still relevant territorial disputes is that of Dokdo (Liancourt, or Takeshima), a set of islets that have a combined area of about 180,000m². In even the most favorable portrayals, Dokdo is a gloomy, isolated and small volcanic protrusion. Yet Japan and Korea (often both North and South) are fighting a war over the islets using maritime surveys, historical precedents and newspaper articles as weapons.

The origin of this modern dispute arises from a technicality in the peace treaty following the Japanese surrender. The treaty explicitly lists certain territories to return to sovereign Korea, but Dokdo is conspicuously absent. Both nations also claim the islets under the auspices of different bodies of historical evidence, which are often conflicting or ambiguous.

I am less familiar with the Japanese media portrayal of Takeshima, but the Korean portrayal uses menacing rhetoric to portray the issue. Here is a sample of article titles published in the Chosun Ilbo during the 2006 “escalation” following a planned Japanese maritime survey (links to the articles are below):

-“Korea Vows to Stop Japanese Incursion Near Dokdo”
-“Japanese Provocations Over Dokdo Intensify”
-“Mystery Japanese Ships Strike Out”
-“Japanese Nomenclature Encroaches on Korean Waters”

This vocabulary creates images of imminent conflict, vilifies Japan and is designed to invoke nationalist sentiment. Such is the nature of territorial disputes; unlike other international issues, these conflicts do not invite compromise or mediation. The Dokdo dispute is almost unique in the fact that it includes little of the violence typical of such conflicts in other regions of the world, although one might think otherwise from the language being used.

The potency of the discourse echoes the gravity of the issue. From the economic standpoint, Dokdo represents an increased EEZ and a small boost to the fishing industry, so economics alone cannot be the only grounds for such struggle. The more important reason may be that this is a surrogate conflict for Korea to address unresolved grievances between the two nations, both real and perceived. As such, the media portrayals all serve to elevate the issue to that of a national crisis, and suggest unity in opposition to the perceived threat. I think it will be interesting to follow this issue it unfolds and is ultimately resolved.

And the 2006 Korean news articles I referred to:
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200604/200604140022.html
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200604/200604140035.html
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200604/200604180027.html
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200604/200604190015.html

The Japanese official stance on the issue:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html

Admiral Yi Sunsin as a Reflection of Korean Values

"He who seeks death will live, and he who seeks life will die."

So proclaimed Admiral Yi Sunsin, legendary Korean naval commander from the late 16th century. Although not well known in the West, Admiral Yi Sunsin is a celebrated national hero of Korea and probably the greatest naval commander to have ever lived. With an impeccable record of 23 wins in his 23 battles - many of which were fought outnumbered by enemy ships - Admiral Yi has achieved a feat which no one in either modern or ancient history can match. As such, Yi Sunsin is one of the greatest historical Korean figures, and was voted as the single best figure by 43.8% of respondents to a 2005 survey by Soonchunhyang University.

Famous leaders are admired for many different reasons - some for their stoicism and determination, others for their compassion and inspiration. The celebrated heroes of a certain culture can thus be expected to exemplify those qualities which are most esteemed by that culture. Along the same lines, considering the popular support of Admiral Yi, he can likely be considered a good representative of Korean values. I'd like to argue that Yi Sunsin's qualities are therefore likely a good representation of the values of Korean culture.

In one pamphlet (Admiral Yi Sunsin: A brief overview of his life and achievements published by Diamond Sutra Recitation Group), Admiral Yi is described as possessing "pure and absolute loyalty," "brilliant use of strategy and tactics," "invincible courage", "unbending integrity," and is even described as no less than "a miracle." These themes - loyalty, intelligence, bravery, integrity - are presented continually throughout the 88 pages of the pamphlet. In addition, it is repeatedly mentioned that Admiral Yi fought not to stretch Korea's imperial reach but to defend his country against foreign invaders, and that he fought for his country even after the king betrayed him. He is therefore always true to his country and does not let personal vendettas (if he is even harboring any) or quests for personal glory stand in the way of his allegiance. In his diary, Admiral Yi also recognizes all of the officers and men who fought below him and attributes his victories to the "united strength of commanders, sailors, and local officials." Thus, Yi Sunsin exhibits neither vanity nor a desire for fame, and instead is modest and unendingly loyal to his troops. He is also mentioned as having overcome hardship - in the form of betrayals by fellow officers, unjust demotions to his rank, and economic troubles - and continually striving to persevere even against unthinkable odds (such as the Battle of Myongnyang when Admiral Yi's ships were outnumbered 10 to 1 by the Japanese).

In my estimation, it appears that some of the most revered traits in Korean culture are a steadfast loyalty to country, intelligence, courage, modesty, unending perseverance, and integrity. Since many of these traits are often valued in other cultures, I find it interesting that the main focus is often Admiral Yi's uncompromising loyalty to Korea. Though many famous leaders are shadowed by their quests for glory, domination, and fame, or indulgent personal lives, Yi Sunsin is portrayed almost as having transcended these desires in his quest to defend and ultimately sacrifice his life for his country. I think that it is very interesting that as Korean pop culture is pushing to promote Korean history and tradition, one of it's greatest heroes - and the star character of a popular TV drama - exhibits the same loyalty to Korea as the drama, for example, is likely hoping to instill in its viewers.

My question, then, is whether you think that Yi Sunsin's extreme loyalty to Korea is more of a "propaganda" push which is embellished by Korean pop culture or if the reason Yi Sunsin is so popular is simply for his loyalty and his achievements? This is sort of a "chicken and egg" question, but I'm interested to see what reactions there are to the idea that perhaps Admiral Yi had motivation other than his love of country, and that popular media could be exaggerating his patriotism to win favor with the public (and in the case of the TV drama, more viewership).

Territorial disputes in Korea

I wrote an essay about unification of Korea and just wondered what other people thought about this topic. This is just my own opinion and I'm probably overlooking many other pionts of view so feel free to contribute your own opinions.

Unification for Peace and Prosperity

On November 9, 1989, the people of Berlin lined the streets and celebrated the fall of the wall. For three decades, the wall between East and West Germany has divided families and caged the east Germans within communist controls. While West Germany prospered East Germany suffered and stagnated. Parallel to the division of Germany during the Cold War, Korea was also divided into two different countries: North and South Korea. Unfortunately, unlike Germany, Korea is still divided to this day. If Korea could be reunited under the rule of south Korea then there would be more peace and prosperity in the world.

Also similar to the German scenario, when Korea was divided, families were separated. Such as the example of Hwang Ui Bun, an 84 year old woman who finally got to see her elder sister and niece in 2000 after 50 years of separation. Hwang traveled with a delegation of 100 North Koreans who were hand picked by the North Korea government to meet with their families in a government planned reunion. Another member of the delegation told reporters that “It took 50 years for me to travel such a short distance.” Hundreds of stories like this exist in the currently separated Korea and if unification is possible then citizens in both North and South Korea would benefit.

Before the unification of Germany, East Germans were suffering under Soviet communist rule. While the idea of communism may be appealing in theory, in practice it is rather ineffective. Unemployment rates were at an all time high and people were isolated from the rest of the world, save for trade with Russia. After the unification of Germany however, the East Germans were able to move quickly towards prosperity and a better standard of living. Similar to the east Germans, the North Koreans are currently suffering under the rule of communism. North Korea is deteriorating because the government has been spending too much on military programs. There is an enormous gap in living conditions between North and South Korea. While South Koreans are enjoying the modern commodities of life such as television, computers, cell phones and other electronic gadgets, the North Koreans are barely getting by and suffering from famines not alleviated by the government. This is indeed a dire situation

Knowing that the North Koreans are living in horrible conditions and the country is slowly wasting away, it is no wonder the nuclear threats were issued. Out of desperation, North Koreans are using nuclear weapons as bargaining chips. While this threat should not be taken lightly, if Korea is reunified again, then perhaps North Korea could improve their economic conditions and would cease the nuclear threats. After Germany was united, East Germany's economy improved substantially and has reached the same level as West Germany. Hopefully North Korea could also improve by shifting from excessive military spending to investing in civilian consumption.

Sources:

“North and South Korean families reunite after decades of separation.” CNN. 16 August 2000. 23 January 2007 .

"German Democratic Republic." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 20 January 2007. 23 January 2007 .

“Korea, North.” CIA World Factbook 18 January 2007. 23 January 2007 .

Yi Sunsin on YouTube

If anyone's having trouble finding the KBS drama The Immortal Admiral Yi Sunsin on YouTube (as I was for a while), just try searching for "Yi Soon Shin" (instead of "Yi Sunsin") and you'll get a bunch of videos. However, most of these are clips and interviews. Does anyone know where we can find full episodes?

Dokdo Island Dispute and "Hyomillyu"

Hello Class. I was looking stuff about the Dokdo Island disputes between Korean and Japan and I came across this article that talks about this new genre of literature called "Hyomillyu" (hatred toward Japanese pop culture). The background info is that the Dokdo is a group of islands in the East Sea that has been occupied by South Korean since 1954. However, the Japanese government has been contesting the Korean sovereignty over them which has caused much political activism in both countries. One form of political activism can be seen in these comic books that bash each other's popular culture. I searched on-line for links to the actual Hyomillyu manga but could not find any. Hope you enjoy. And yes, Dokdo is Korean territory. hehehe.

Comic Book Against Japanese Hatred Published
By Bae Ji-sookStaff Reporter
The Korea Times
09-22-2006

A Korean comic artist has published a comic book rebutting a Japanese comic that took issue with Korean pop culture. Kim Sang-mo, a renowned comic artist in Korea, recently released “Hyomillyu” (hatred toward Japanese pop culture), a book he said he designed to counter the Japanese comic, “Hyomhallyu” (hatred toward Korean pop culture).” Kim said he intends to publish the book in Japan and with several companies showing interest, there are only a few loose ends to tie up before the final deal. “They think it will cause a big splash in Japan, too. They are willing to buy any future hot issues,” the artist replied when asked about why Japanese companies want to buy the book. The book is due to come out in Japan next month. The comic depicts a Korean man, Kim Han-soo, who is about to graduate from university, standing up again st Japanese people’s ridicule through pictures. To rebuff Japanese classmates claims that the Pacific War was to protect Asian people from a western invasion, Kim Han-soo shows them pictures of Japanese soldiers killing ordinary citizens. Later on, he gets a job and proves to a Japanese client who looks down on him that Dokdo is Korean territory by showing him ancient maps and historical books. He also criticizes Japanese people’s jealousy of hallyu. “It took me a year to gather information for the book,” said Kim, who is famed for his active and vibrant touch. Kim Sang-mo thinks the comic shows the anger Koreans feel through pictures when Kim Han-soo tells his client about the Yasukuni shrine and Japanese nationalism. When the artist first heard about Hyomillyu comics, he thought he had to do something about it. He visited the Yasukuni shrine and Yushukan museum for research and looked over 50 reports and books in coming up with his idea. “I was waiting for someone to talk about it, but there was no one. So I decided to do it myself. I know that some people think it’s stupid to deal with all those things, but I thought I could do something that would have a huge effect,” he said. He hopes the book can change some Japanese people’s way of thinking. “Individually, the Japanese are nice people, but the country’s public policy and education is keeping them away from the truth.” Kim Sung-mo is one of the most read comic artists in Korea. According to the Korea Manwha Information Archives, he has published 698 volumes of comics for adults and teenagers from 2001 to 2005.

Globalism

Before last semester, I really did not know much about Korea, only knew that it existed. I didn’t know what their traditional clothes look like nor do I know how their languages sound like. However, last semester, there were a few important things that happened to me that led me to become much more interested in Korea and its culture. First, my roommate is Korean. Second, my Asian friends were talking about Korean drama ever so excitedly. Finally, in my Japanese Pop Culture class, my professor actually brought in a book that housed the entire script to Winter Sonata that essentially taught Japanese people the Korean language! After seeing the cover of that book, I think I had hit the lid that was supposed to contain my curiosity. So when I went back to my room, I asked my roommate if she knew about Winter Sonata (but, of course she would know). She became very enthusiastic about recommending all the top drama to watch and told me to watch them all. I went and *did* watch them all; I was swept by the Hallyu. The drama I thought that really brought the culture to light was Goong, revealing the traditional clothing and customs. In terms of modernity, perhaps Let’s Go to School Sang-doo reflects Korean society the most today: ordinary people dealing with financial issues, unfair justice systems (in terms of lower class citizens), and family issues.

As the Koreans are entering seemingly a paradox between globalization and nationalism, I do agree with Gi-Wook Shin that “globalization…intensif[ies], rather than weaken, ethnic/national identity…”. It is because that people are moving towards modernity, as it is often associated with de-ethicizing a country of her roots, that I believe that people are chasing after what they are losing. Thus, we can start to think of our traditional customs as being special and sacred.

Other than globalism, another factor that strengthens ethnicity is of course media. Before the Hallyu hit the Asia continent, only older people watched saguk dramas. However, the younger generation is watching more of these saguk, although that is mainly because the directors are keener on inserting a love story behind those dramas. This exemplifies the nationalism, the going-back-to-the-past, that the Koreans are experiencing. Nevertheless, it is similar to a cycle. Because the media was able to produce influential material about the traditional Korea, thus more people are interested in that area. As this interest grows, more media will be produced to satisfy the demand. Relating to one’s ethnic identity, which is basically equivalent to bringing out the country’s history, became more popular en masse.

I know, it's getting late. And yes, I'm eating kimchee as I'm typing this.

An American Hallyu?

Here is a link to an article in The Korea Times: US Hallyu: Korean-American Roles Become More Visible in Hollywood. While I thought this was an interesting article, I thought it overstated its case for a "Korean Wave" happening here in the U.S. I don't think that a handful of Korean-American actors and roles shows that Hollywood is falling in love with the idea of all things Korean (or Korean-American). Also, I think that having Korean-American actors in dramatic roles is supposed to highlight the fact that just because the actors don't look like stereotypical Americans doesn't mean they aren't American. This takes away from the idea that Korean-American actors are becoming popular because Korean culture is the "in" Asian culture in America.

Actually, I thought that this article was evidence more for the fact that Koreans (although the writer of the article might not be Korean) seem to take great pride in anything remotely associated with Korea. And, as we talked about in class two weeks ago, to be a truly global (pop) cultural success, you have to make it in American media. So, the successes of a few Korean-American actors seem to be appropriated by Koreans to showcase how great Korea is. Also, take for example the hype in Korea after Hines Ward and the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl last year. While Koreans have been notorious for discrimination against people of mixed heritage in the past, it seems that they are now ready to let that history go as people with a Korean heritage are become known globally. Things, such as more Korean Americans in Hollywood and biracial Hines Ward's athletic success, are marketed worldwide to further advance a great Korean identity.

In doing the readings for this week, I saw this theme come up several times. The website about Chang Po-go and the corresponding drama Emperor of the Sea both focused on bringing an ancient Korean hero to modern audiences. Eckert in "Korea's Transition to Modernity" talked about how 20th-century nationalistic historians focused on epic historical moments, showing a "will to greatness" (133). Even now, Koreans use ancient history to promote national greatness. Also, Shin notes in "The Paradox of Korean Globalization" that the government under Kim Dae Jung attempted to use overseas Koreans to promote a Korean nationalistic agenda (11). This goes along with my examples above to show how huge making Korea look good around the world is. Shin says that Koreans "appropriate globalization as a nationalist goal" to promote a Korean identity (6). As the Korean Wave continues in Asia (and perhaps on a greater global scale), Koreans will continue to use pop culture to market themselves as great (and it seems to be working in Asia).