Korean Nationalism
- This topic has 6 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 8 months ago by
Anonymous.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 21, 2007 at 9:42 am #5704
Rob_Hugo@PortNW
KeymasterI think Professor Hwang briefly touched on the subject of Korean nationalism (and how it manifestd itself into anti-American and anti-Japanese sentiments). This reminded me of an LA Times article a few months back. Here's the link:
Dragon Wars and Korean Patriotism
Basically, Dragon Wars is a movie that did very well in Korea, and not too well in the States. Most American critics agree that it's horribly acted and really bad, and not even bad enough to be good. However, Koreans love it.
But many say "D-War's" success stems from its blatant appeal to Korean nationalism. The movie ends with a postscript message from the director that vows " 'D-War' and I will succeed in the world market without fail" (the message was dropped from the American release).
The closing credits include a series of photographs of Shim in action as he directs the movie, concluding with a shot of him standing defiantly in front of the Hollywood sign while "Arirang," a patriotic Korean folk song, plays in the background.
One Korean critic, Chin Jung-kwon, gave it a bad review and received death threats, and racist comments about his Japanese wife and kids.
I guess this goes to the bigger question of nationalism and patriotism. I can certainly understand Koreans being proud of their countryman's accomplishments, but I'm afraid it might have turned into blind patriotism, which is truly frightening. At what point does nationalism and patriotism become too much and hurt a country and a people?
November 25, 2007 at 10:21 am #34231Anonymous
GuestI am very interested in your comments about nationalism vs. patriotism and was reminded of the many references to George Orwell's article on the subject in 1945. It is often quoted today and helps distinguish the two. A link I found with the transcript of the article is:
http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html
Here is a quote from the article, often referenced because in the US we confuse the two ideas frequently:
"By "patriotism" I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality." (http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html, accessed 11/25/07)
I got the impression from Professor Hwang's presentation that Korea is willing to go to great lengths to protect what is truly Korean. Korea is more interested in promoting and defining a Korean way that is distinctive from China and Japan. In my opinion, Korea is not posturing in an aggressive manner which is more characteristic of nationalism. It does not want to disappear in the shadows of China-Japan-US socioeconomic concerns.
December 10, 2007 at 9:35 am #34232GuestI understand what you're saying, and certainly, Korea actively tries to differentiate itself from China and Japan. However, the feeling that I get is that an underlying part of being a patriotic Korean is being anti-Japanese. I think what makes it worse is the fact that the Japanese leadership has yet to acknowledge their bad deeds, like the comfort women. Maybe if they were willing to apologize or at least acknowledge that, these feelings could go away.
December 12, 2007 at 9:33 am #34233GuestProfessor Hwang did not mention this in his talk, but both Betse and Judi's comments recall the idea of "han," a feeling or pathos that Koreans claim as unique to their psyche. I am sure that Judi or Sarah could provide a better explanation, but basically "han" can be explained as a feeling of bitterness or resentment that Koreans feel, having endured a history of hardship and suffering. "Han" is a recurring theme in Korean literature, especially that dealing with the period of Japanese occupation. If you have had a chance to browse the Fulton anthology, perhaps you will see it in some of the stories.
By the way, any comments on the Fulton anthology?
December 17, 2007 at 1:21 pm #34234GuestI do not quite agree with the concept that patriotism and nationalism are as distinctive as made to be and in the manner in which described. Patriotism, I agree, is the love for the place, the land whose culture, tradition, and history is shared by and contributed by the same group of people and descendants. The term nationalism has a similar meaning. The former refers to a small geographic area, once referred to as the city-state. The latter refers to a larger geographic area identifiable more by language, and/or history, customs, traditions, so-called natural geographic boundaries, and other similar characteristics. There is no sense of aggressive, military, power, greed or similar attributes attached to nationalism. These are attributes of imperial plans of any nation and they have nothing to do with the idea of nationalism. Nationalism refers to the unification of a people having certain basic characteristics in common as indicated above. We should not confuse and confound nationalism with nazism which is a degenerated form of fascism. Nationalism evolved in the early 1800s and saw the unification in Europe of such countries as Italy, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Greece, etc. coming into being from the break up of the Holy Roman Empire which in fact was neither Holy, nor Roman as many historians may have pointed out. France, England, Spain and Portugal were also nation-states but did not come into being propelled by the forces (idealism) of nationalism.
December 18, 2007 at 9:33 am #34235GuestThis morning I was listening to an NPR news program discussing the "Sunshine"policy referring to the rapprochement between South and North Korea... it appears to me that there has been a continuing thread of love-hate between the two organizational (for lack of a better term) systems of Korea. like the big and little brother, the obedient and the contrary... the relaxation of animosities between the two and the change in US policy towards the North appear to be facilitating a close nexus between the two brothers. The US's unilateral pigheadedness in opposing North Korea's nuclear development (to say nothing of the continue accusations relative to Iran) are quite absurd. I think South Korea has an innate admiration for North Korea's recalcitrance in full compliance with US demands to dismantle completely its nuclear arsenal as it demands the same of Iran while supporting, paying for and justifying nuclear power to countries like Israel situated in the midst of time bombs. The real question really comes down to: why should the US or any country impose its will on other countries when it is not willing to submit its nuclear power to an international committee and pledge to use its nuclear arsenals as directed by such international committee? The US cannot take the stand of do as I say and not as I do, and expect cooperation when itself refuses to cooperate with international consensus !
December 21, 2007 at 3:57 am #34236GuestI appreciate your thoughts on this because I too, do not see nationalism as always being aggressive. I enjoy the debate on this ongoing historical argument. And, like you, I do not see nationalism as a totally negative idea. I do think, however, that the perception of American's abroad is that we are nationalistic in a subtly arrogant way. There is a foundation of rivalry in nationalism. We are more than just patriotic. Americans do believe, sometimes naively, that our way is the best way and nations form identities in reaction to our identity . In so doing we have a difficult time interpreting how new democracies evolve. And it sometimes impacts how our foreign policy is perceived when we try to righteously dictate how 3rd and 4th world countries should behave. Present day nationalism may not be imperialistic or fascist but would you agree it is defensive, competitive and a reaction to "outside" forces? And do we want a North Korea that evolves as a reaction to U.S. ideals of what a nation should be?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.