Why are people hating on Koreans page 2

54 posts

Flag Post

You guys move fast!

Draco,

Suffering in itself pushes us to invent and advance while gaining greater control of the natural world to either create or destroy—if we choose to destroy, we should never forget not to lose the knowledge and wisdom that we gained from creation; that would be a travesty.

Firstly, I agree with your theorizing that suffering can be enriching. That suffering is a tool, a facet of the human condition. I also agree that it is suffering that has driven us at odds with the natural world. Which to me, is the real grit. I dislike the idea of enforced, or accidental, or incidental suffering. The idea of a world where we have cleansed natural suffering and pursue it soley upon our own terms, our own self indulgence; that is an intriguing notion. Power dynamics, certainly.

Janto,

I’d argue most NKers would tell you without coercion that they’re happy to be part of something greater than themselves.

The problem is that the coercion is internalized. Fear of reprisal I am sure extends beyond rational boundaries. I am not sure as a general people they are capable of a neutral state. That said, yes I think they are happy with their government. But, that happiness is one of ignorance. They do not know their government, they do not understand their government, it is not their state that they are happy with but an idealized abstraction of it. Their state is the hero, desperately struggling against a mad, villainous cruel world; of course.

Not this. Number one, they aren’t communists. They never were. They’ve used communism as a shield to get benefits from actual communist countries like USSR and China, much the same way countries like Egypt and Afghanistan use(d) the pretence of Islamic government to get perks and recognition.

Now, “communism” is going to be one of those, I forget the expression, ‘badger words’? NK has maintained a State Directed Economy, something most would be ‘communist’ governments abandoned when they realized what a disaster it was. They also really pushed simple manufacturing and agrarianism, something again, most ‘communist’ governments are working hard to escape as second and third world industries.

 
Flag Post

Weasel words?

Economically, sure it’s state-directed. But their reliance on communism as a political philosophical system (the way it was in actual communist countries) is just fluff. They actually have a different term they use than ‘communism’, it’s korean and i forget the wording (but it’s more similar to iran’s veleyat-e fiqh), but in “the cleanest race” the guy suggests that it’s a thought system deliberately constructed to confuse outsiders, even fluent koreans. Like reciting sections of any baffling difficult philosopher whilst pretending to understand it. It’s really just a personality cult.

 
Flag Post

Gasp! From a jazz fan? Monster. As a matter of clarification, are we talking “The US” or, “The North America’s.” Us Canadians are sometimes confused if we count as them or not. We try to play up both sides, depending who we’re talking to.

I will happily concede that a nation which can produce Bessie Smith and Louis Armstrong in the same generation cannot possibly be all bad. But culture goes a long way beyond my taste for American music. And I don’t include Canadians with Americans; I was at school with a Canadian from Montreal and an Americam from Wisconsin, so I learnt to tell the difference early on.

Now I have to admit that I have never been to the USA, but live within easy reach of France and Belgium where I go shopping from time to time (wine, brandy and tobacco are all very cheap there, and the French street markets are a great source of edible delicacies). My knowledge of Americans is based largely, but not entirely, on what I have read or seen on documentaries. I don’t often watch American dramas because I have difficulty following them without subtitles. Perhaps the biggest difference I observe between Americans and others is the abysmal lack of knowledge the average Yank exhibits about the rest of the world. It’s a gulf the size of the Atlantic, they’re parochial beyond belief, it’s as if the rest of the world was on another planet. They just don’t seem to be interested, and I see that as a huge difference in culture.

I can go into a French cafe, and with a mixture of bad French and bad English chat to some of the locals about international politics. They all seem to be very knowledgeable and often very opinionated, but I suspect the average American would have no idea what we were talking about. I also patronise a very cosmopolitan chip shop in London which sees customers from all over the world who live locally. I like to chat with them. Among them is a medical student from New York. Even though he is educated and has travelled, his knowledge of world affairs does not compare well with that of people from Pakistan, Somalia or the West Indies. I know it’s only a personal perception, but I do see Americans as being very different. I shall now don my flameproof suit.

 
Flag Post

Maybe beuval, but it probably depends on the American and how much they’ve traveled. Not everyone’s a narrow minded hick whose never left their hometown; that’s just an unfortunate stereotype, probably perpetuated in part by movies like Deliverance.

My dad, for instance, just took a trip to Italy/Europe and had some interesting stories to bring back. Many people in the military have been all over the world. Another thing to consider is that some diversity hits us here; our universities, in particular, tend to attract a lot of different folks. My husband and I had an interesting dinner conversation on religion, politics, culture and everything else the other night with some guys from Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Weasel words?

Economically, sure it’s state-directed. But their reliance on communism as a political philosophical system (the way it was in actual communist countries) is just fluff. They actually have a different term they use than ‘communism’, it’s korean and i forget the wording (but it’s more similar to iran’s veleyat-e fiqh), but in “the cleanest race” the guy suggests that it’s a thought system deliberately constructed to confuse outsiders, even fluent koreans. Like reciting sections of any baffling difficult philosopher whilst pretending to understand it. It’s really just a personality cult.

Communism as a national ideology is always like this — vague and often bent to suit the leaders’ will. It might be easier to regard this as religion — look at how those commies treated revisionism. By the way, the word you forgot is Juche.

 
Flag Post
I was at school with a Canadian from Montreal and an Americam from Wisconsin, so I learnt to tell the difference early on.

Just so you’re aware, Americans from Wisconsin are the most majestic of all Americans.

I can go into a French cafe, and with a mixture of bad French and bad English chat to some of the locals about international politics. They all seem to be very knowledgeable and often very opinionated, but I suspect the average American would have no idea what we were talking about. I also patronise a very cosmopolitan chip shop in London which sees customers from all over the world who live locally. I like to chat with them. Among them is a medical student from New York. Even though he is educated and has travelled, his knowledge of world affairs does not compare well with that of people from Pakistan, Somalia or the West Indies. I know it’s only a personal perception, but I do see Americans as being very different. I shall now don my flameproof suit.

Very true. The issue is that the current American media landscape is generally not terribly interested in any foreign or international affairs. I have to go to the BBC when I want to get good international news – no American news agency really covers it adequately anymore. When media, such as ours, is ratings driven, the focus shifts to interesting stories. Tabloid murders and the political bickering in Washington prove to be better television than discussing foreign matters.

 
Flag Post

ALL media is ratings-driven. Also I think people tend to look at the worst parts of American media and forget the high points – The Economist is IMO the best foreign policy magazine in North America. Conversely, everybody talks about the BBC, but they overlook all the junk ‘page 3’ tabloids. It’s a question of picking and choosing and making generalizations from that – the sort of ‘dumb americans’ people keep referencing are probably the same types of people you’d find in Canada or anywhere else: wholly uninformed / apathetic about the world around them.

And to be fair, who can blame them? Politics make for great discussions, sure. But they aren’t intrinsically valuable. They’re no more useful to anyone than discussing celebrity oopsies. The idea that it’s unquestionably better to be an informed citizen rather than an uninformed citizen is self-justifying elitist pap. It’s an idea invented by people who only have knowledge about politics or art, etc, and feel the need to prop up their societal importance. Incidentally, and before the flames get me, I am very obviously one of those people…conversational ‘expertise’ on eastern politics doesn’t pay any of my bills.

As for beau’s example of the dumb american med student versus the pakistanis/somalians/west indies, well, keep in mind that world politics is probably rather more relevant to a guy from Somalia, whose reason for not being at home isn’t that he loves the UK so much. I mean, it’s like observing that young expat palestinians tend to move towards int’l social justice movements. Wow! Surprising!

 
Flag Post
ALL media is ratings-driven. Also I think people tend to look at the worst parts of American media and forget the high points – The Economist is IMO the best foreign policy magazine in North America. Conversely, everybody talks about the BBC, but they overlook all the junk ‘page 3’ tabloids. It’s a question of picking and choosing and making generalizations from that – the sort of ‘dumb americans’ people keep referencing are probably the same types of people you’d find in Canada or anywhere else: wholly uninformed / apathetic about the world around them.

The first part is simply not true. The ratings for such things as NPR, PBS, and CSPAN are thoroughly irrelevant. If 3 people or 300K people watch CSPAN during a Congressional Hearing, nothing really changes. The same is not true of a commercial media entity, at least not in the US.

As for the second point about the Economist – I’d agree they are damn good at covering matters. I just don’t read it regularly since they consistently butcher American domestic policy and politics.

And to be fair, who can blame them? Politics make for great discussions, sure. But they aren’t intrinsically valuable. They’re no more useful to anyone than discussing celebrity oopsies. The idea that it’s unquestionably better to be an informed citizen rather than an uninformed citizen is self-justifying elitist pap. It’s an idea invented by people who only have knowledge about politics or art, etc, and feel the need to prop up their societal importance. Incidentally, and before the flames get me, I am very obviously one of those people…conversational ‘expertise’ on eastern politics doesn’t pay any of my bills.

You’re correct to a point. Having some political knowledge I think is quite valuable – at least to the extent of knowing who/which party you want to vote for, which aligns with your own personal ideologies and how you want to see your country/state/district/city progress. After that point, it becomes mostly useless trivia, although the conversations discussing politics are generally more lively and more interesting than those talking about celebrity oopsies.

 
Flag Post

Right, ok, so almost ALL media, with the exception of government funded media, is ratings driven. Even there, though, ratings matter – CBC in Canada depends on a regulatory agency to oversee its funding. If they think that CBC’s coverage is no longer relevant to a majority of Canadians, they can recommend that its funding be cut or its programming changed…nobody in the media lives behind a ratings-proof bubble.

shrug Yes, but the Economist also attacks domestic policy regardless of who’s sitting in the oval office. Point me to another american news source that’s so even-handed.

You’re correct to a point. Having some political knowledge I think is quite valuable – at least to the extent of knowing who/which party you want to vote for, which aligns with your own personal ideologies and how you want to see your country/state/district/city progress.

Only if you believe your vote actually matters. It’s as much a matter of personal belief as practical necessity. The people who don’t care about politics, probably don’t vote because they don’t know enough to care. And, unless you’re living somewhere that either has a low vote percentage to guarantee a seat, like the Netherlands, OR someplace on the verge of instability, like Lebanon, there’s no reason to care. I don’t vote for national elections in Canada, not because I don’t know enough, but I just don’t care. Whichever party that comes into power here will continue to run things exactly as before with small superficial changes to distance themselves from the previous ruling party. And despite all the high-tensions and bitter feuding, I’m almost certain it’s the same situation in the US.

As for whether it’s more interesting or not, it’s subjective. If I didn’t find it interesting, I wouldn’t have invested myself so deeply into it. My buddy likes motorcycles. Which interest is more ‘lively’, or perhaps ‘deep’? I think most people would agree motorcycles are more lively than politics, and when you get right down to all the aspects of motorcycle maintenance, that book about the zen of motorcycles, bike tours, bike culture, etc, it’s probably just as deep as politics. I don’t know because I don’t give a damn about it. To me it looks shallow.

 
Flag Post
Right, ok, so almost ALL media, with the exception of government funded media, is ratings driven. Even there, though, ratings matter – CBC in Canada depends on a regulatory agency to oversee its funding. If they think that CBC’s coverage is no longer relevant to a majority of Canadians, they can recommend that its funding be cut or its programming changed…nobody in the media lives behind a ratings-proof bubble.

I think the comparison between the CBC and the CPB (Corp. for Public Broadcasting) isn’t entirely valid. Granted my extent of watching the CBC was during one fishing trip I took to Canada, but the impression I have is that the CBC is far more a player in terms of viewing audience than PBS has been since, really, the dawn of cable television.

In addition, I’m assuming the CBC’s programming is largely centralized by that one agency. With the American public television model, each station selects its own programming which is the one thing it does really well. Living in Wisconsin, we get a lot more outdoors, fishing, and hunting type stuff than people in Miami are going to get. I don’t imagine that much research goes in to what particular programs are attracting viewers but rather it’s more of a genre selection that fits the region. If a particular program fails to draw eyeballs (which most do)to my local public television station, I doubt that’s going to have much of an impact on if the station continues to schedule it. Perhaps the CPB will factor it in a bit, but as far as I know, relevancy of programming has no impact on the CPB’s funding.

shrug Yes, but the Economist also attacks domestic policy regardless of who’s sitting in the oval office. Point me to another american news source that’s so even-handed.

I’d suggest the news division of the WSJ does a pretty fantastic job of covering domestic and financial news. It’s really the only paper that both conservatives and liberals hold to a pretty high esteem which is incredible when you consider the current American political landscape.

As for whether it’s more interesting or not, it’s subjective. If I didn’t find it interesting, I wouldn’t have invested myself so deeply into it. My buddy likes motorcycles. Which interest is more ‘lively’, or perhaps ‘deep’? I think most people would agree motorcycles are more lively than politics, and when you get right down to all the aspects of motorcycle maintenance, that book about the zen of motorcycles, bike tours, bike culture, etc, it’s probably just as deep as politics. I don’t know because I don’t give a damn about it. To me it looks shallow.

My roommates two years ago were all car guys (I’m not at all). Their conversations never got especially feisty. I myself like the arguments to get a bit feisty – although as you say, it’s all in the eye of the beholder.

 
Flag Post

Fair points all around. I’ll have to check out WJS – you’ve recommended it before.

 
Flag Post

Nobody should ever be racist. Period.

 
Flag Post

Just to be clear about this, it’s not that I see Americans as being especially stupid or even deliberately ignorant. The med student is certainly not stupid, yet his knowledge of what’s happening in the EU or the Middle East for example is pretty sketchy at best. When it comes to anything outside their own back yard, most Americans I’ve come across just don’t seem to care. That’s what sets them apart from everybody else.

 
Flag Post
Just to be clear about this, it’s not that I see Americans as being especially stupid or even deliberately ignorant.

Americans are especially stupid though.

When it comes to anything outside their own back yard, most Americans I’ve come across just don’t seem to care.

Pretty much this. Hell, Americans don’t really care that much about what happens within its borders, let alone what happens across an ocean.

 
Flag Post

Americans are especially stupid though.

Even the ones from Wisconsin?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:

Americans are especially stupid though.

Even the ones from Wisconsin?

Exceptions to every rule!

 
Flag Post

Similar to what others have posted before, we shouldn’t hate the people, but hate the government or any political power that leads the country. The people are victims, subject to their rule.

N.Korea is an excellent example of corruption and sheer cruelty. The people live under military rule, are sent off to prison camps (not your average summer camp), and are expected to “worship” their leader, Kim Jong-un.

There are unreported deaths occurring every day at the border of the North and South countries. People trying to escape to China or South Korea get gunned down or recaptured to face worse punishment.

Hate is the correct word for a leader like that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:

This is it.

PSY gagnam style is translated into this: A girl who is warm and humanle during the day
A classy girl who know how to enjoy the freedom of a cup of coffee
A girl whose heart gets hotter when night comes
A girl with that kind of twist

Psy and King John UN look nothing alike. Yes, they are both korean, and koreans look alike. But they are two different people.

This is a serious discussion and that video was a comedy. None of it was true. North Korea isn’t allied with anybody and there’s a law about not have any secret treaties. That law was made just before the holocaust.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by XxsamuroxX:
Originally posted by AllStarDominatio:

This is it.

PSY gagnam style is translated into this: A girl who is warm and humanle during the day
A classy girl who know how to enjoy the freedom of a cup of coffee
A girl whose heart gets hotter when night comes
A girl with that kind of twist

Psy and King John UN look nothing alike. Yes, they are both korean, and koreans look alike. But they are two different people.

This is a serious discussion and that video was a comedy. None of it was true. North Korea isn’t allied with anybody and there’s a law about not have any secret treaties. That law was made just before the holocaust.

Actually North Korea were allied with China(I’m not so sure now). I agree with you Psy and Kim Jong-Un are nothing alike.

 
Flag Post

I think south Korea girls are sexy, im not hating on them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by xProStar:

I think south Korea girls are sexy, im not hating on them.

But their appearance seems to come from the same mold!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Pulsaris:
Originally posted by xProStar:

I think south Korea girls are sexy, im not hating on them.

But their appearance seems to come from the same mold!

The difference between North and South Koreans are their average heights. Other than that they look similar.

 
Flag Post

Actually, North Koreans are well aware that-
- their country is poor
- South Korea has better living standards than them.
The KCNA keeps censoring and limiting the their media, so rebel groups are almost non-existent due to limited knowlege if there actually are any.
The NK’s Great Leader is like an eternal god in their beliefs. Even if you ask the North Korean citizens (especially the defectors) of the state of their country in public, they would say that it is fine. But for the defectors, there is a tremendous amount of difference on their accounts. The North Korean citizens are not to blame, but the Kim regime is the problem.
If there was a revolution that started in NK itself, you could see major amounts of KPA soldiers (50-85%) would defect to the rebels. But if the revolution was American influenced, the NK would be more than happy to clean the toilets than join them because of what was taught to them about Americans in their school days.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by yes12345678:

Actually, North Koreans are well aware that-
- their country is poor
- South Korea has better living standards than them.
The KCNA keeps censoring and limiting the their media, so rebel groups are almost non-existent due to limited knowlege if there actually are any.
The NK’s Great Leader is like an eternal god in their beliefs. Even if you ask the North Korean citizens (especially the defectors) of the state of their country in public, they would say that it is fine. But for the defectors, there is a tremendous amount of difference on their accounts. The North Korean citizens are not to blame, but the Kim regime is the problem.
If there was a revolution that started in NK itself, you could see major amounts of KPA soldiers (50-85%) would defect to the rebels. But if the revolution was American influenced, the NK would be more than happy to clean the toilets than join them because of what was taught to them about Americans in their school days.

However, Kim has the liberty to declare any revolution American influenced. In fact, they were already doing this long ago.

By the way, why defectors are called defectors, not refugees?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Pulsaris:

By the way, why defectors are called defectors, not refugees?

I think because they have defected from one political system to another.

There’s no disaster that has forced them out of their country; rather they have chosen to defect to a nation whose system is hostile to the one they came from.