Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Happy Lunar New Year!
Happy year of the horse! Hope everyone got to taste some rice cake soup today. For your enjoyment, below is the Google doodle that was seen in Korea for the lunar new year celebrations.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
The Korean on NPR, and "East Sea/Sea of Japan"
The Korean appeared on NPR's Kojo Nnamdi show to discuss the pending bill on Sea of Japan/East Sea for Virginia's textbooks. You can listen to the show here. (Click "Listen" on the top left.)
A note on the Sea of Japan/East Sea issue: personally, I am agnostic about this issue. At the end of the day, I don't think it matters all that much no matter what the outcome. If we are dealing with issues of Japan's colonialism, I think the effort would be better served focusing on the issue of Comfort Women, as those women represent the most direct victims of Japanese imperialism who is being denied justice. In fact, when it comes to addressing the dark legacy of Japan's colonialism, there are several more issues that I would devote my energy before I get to the Sea of Japan/East Sea issue.
But then again, people have different priorities than the Korean's. And that's fine, as long as those priorities are within reasonable boundaries. And there should be no question that the attempt to list both "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" is a reasonable effort to address the stain of Japan's imperialism. As I said in the broadcast, it is an American tradition for immigrant communities to express their views on world history, and ensure their children and other children who study with them are introduced to such perspectives. This is such a natural desire that even the representative of the Japanese Embassy tripped up and said he would prefer his children to learn about all sides of the issue, even as he was claiming that there was only one correct name for the sea.
Indeed, the makeup of the show's guests was telling. "Korean side" had a local small businessman and a blogger; "Japanese side" had the embassy representative. If you ever thought Koreans were the ones who were too sensitive to the historical issues, think again.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
A note on the Sea of Japan/East Sea issue: personally, I am agnostic about this issue. At the end of the day, I don't think it matters all that much no matter what the outcome. If we are dealing with issues of Japan's colonialism, I think the effort would be better served focusing on the issue of Comfort Women, as those women represent the most direct victims of Japanese imperialism who is being denied justice. In fact, when it comes to addressing the dark legacy of Japan's colonialism, there are several more issues that I would devote my energy before I get to the Sea of Japan/East Sea issue.
But then again, people have different priorities than the Korean's. And that's fine, as long as those priorities are within reasonable boundaries. And there should be no question that the attempt to list both "Sea of Japan" and "East Sea" is a reasonable effort to address the stain of Japan's imperialism. As I said in the broadcast, it is an American tradition for immigrant communities to express their views on world history, and ensure their children and other children who study with them are introduced to such perspectives. This is such a natural desire that even the representative of the Japanese Embassy tripped up and said he would prefer his children to learn about all sides of the issue, even as he was claiming that there was only one correct name for the sea.
Indeed, the makeup of the show's guests was telling. "Korean side" had a local small businessman and a blogger; "Japanese side" had the embassy representative. If you ever thought Koreans were the ones who were too sensitive to the historical issues, think again.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
The Right and Wrong Questions to Ask About Plastic Surgery in Korea
Dear Korean,
I read about the incredibly high percentage of young girls going for a plastic surgery. I asked to my friends, and they told me in Korea, beauty means looking western for women. This is quite funny because I personally think, and as me many people here, that Asian women are really beautiful and have that mysterious look we find so appealing. So the question is: do they know they don’t actually need that surgery to look better, do they know western people appreciate Asian beauty? They could save that money away for more important things, like traveling for example, or studying, or whatever.
Giorgio
You know the Korean is not the one to mince words, so here it is: this is a dumb question. But Giorgio is hardly alone in asking this kind of dumb question about Korea's high rate of plastic surgery. "Plastic surgery" in Korea, in a sense, became another kind of "dog meat"--that is, a quick-and-dirty topic for the media to do a hey-look-at-these-weird-Asian-people story. The coverage is dumb, shallow and sensationalized, and so are the reactions to the coverage, like the one coming from Giorgio here.
Part of the reason for the stupidity of the commentary about Korea's plastic surgery is plastic surgery seems like such an easy issue. People going under the knife to change the way they look--seems easy enough to solve that. The well-meaning people would lament, "If only Korean women believed in themselves!" with the implication that, if only the silly Korean people listened to them, the world would be a better place.
Well, no. Take your good intentions and continue paving that road to hell, because few things are more infuriating than well-meaning ignorance. Such ignorance belongs to the same species as the well-intended advice to the poor that they should simply try a little harder. It diminishes the complex challenges that the people embroiled in the issue face.
What makes Korea's plastic surgery issue so tricky? Consider the following questions:
For all the gasping expanded on plastic surgery, few people can seem to articulate their position on the most fundamental question regarding plastic surgery: what, if anything, is wrong with it?
Is it wrong to undergo bodily modification? LASIK surgery is far more invasive than the most common form of plastic surgery in Korea, the epicanthic fold surgery (commonly known as the "double eyelid" surgery.) Yet the numerous advertisements about LASIK surgery does not seem to raise the same questions as the same for plastic surgery. Why is that?
Is it because plastic surgery does not appear to be "necessary," or necessary only to the extent that we care about the way we look? But we do "unnecessary" things every day for the sake of looks. We wash our faces, comb our hair, (some of us) put on makeup and dress in stylish clothing. Or is it that there is a line between putting on clothes and receiving a surgery that alters our body? But orthodontics alters our body as dramatically as any plastic surgery. Solely for the sake of looks, orthodontists pull out perfectly good teeth, cut off flesh and push the whole jaw into a direction that is not meant to go. So why is there no sensationalist article about the world's addiction to braces?
Is it because when it comes to Korea, the looks at which plastic surgery aims appear foreign and imposed? First of all, it is not true that Koreans aspire to look like a Westerner; oval face and pale skin have been a part of Korea's beauty standard for centuries. It is more accurate to say that Korea's evolving standard of beauty involves certain Western elements, such as rounder eyes. Very well, one may concede that Korea's beauty standard has elements that are not Korean. But so what? Everything in Korea has elements that are not Korean. Overwhelming majority of Koreans wear traditional Korean garb only on special occasions. Restaurants selling non-Korean foods are plenty, and Koreans visit them all the time. Koreans liberally borrow non-Korean concepts (e.g. democracy) to run their society, and use non-Korean words to explain those concepts. This is the consequence of living in a world in which the West has won for the last several centuries. Why not the sensationalist articles about the fact that Korean businessmen wear suits, just like their Western counterparts? Why no outpour of sympathy along the lines of, "If only Koreans knew how beautiful hanbok was!"
Is it because the high rate of plastic surgery reveals something peculiar about Korea? But what is that something, exactly? That Koreans care about looks? (But people who get orthodontic procedures don't?) That Korean women are subject to undue pressure from society? (Because television shows and advertisement boards elsewhere in the world feature regular-weight women with no makeup?) That Koreans' sense of beauty is too uniform? (Because elsewhere in the world, there is never any attempt to make regular-weight woman appear slimmer, or a darker-skinned woman appear lighter, on magazine covers?)
Let me be clear: I do not intend to imply an answer to these questions. (Frankly, I cannot even fully answer them.) Nor are these questions meant to be a series of reflexive tu quoque. There may be a real difference between plastic surgery and makeup. There may be a real difference between plastic surgery on one hand, and LASIK surgery and orthodontics on the other. There may be a real reason such that incorporation of Western elements in Korea's standard of beauty is so much more unacceptable and so much more offensive than the incorporation of Western elements in Korea's governing system. There may be actual insight about Korea to be gained from this phenomenon that is significantly different from the insight to be gained from what we are seeing elsewhere in the modern world. The point of listing those questions is: the answers to these questions are not obvious, and require a serious intellectual engagement to explain.
A helpful rule of thumb in trying to explore this issue: if you find yourself moving toward a perspective that does not treat Koreans--especially Korean women--as people who make autonomous decisions in the face of certain factual situations, stop and start over. If you find yourself cobbling together the few facts that you know about Korea to figure this out ("Isn't K-pop Korean? Of course they must be connected!"), stop thinking and start reading more about Korea. If you cannot recognize the parallels between Korea's plastic surgery and other bodily modifications common in the place you live, even just for the sake of discerning the starting point from which those two things part company, stop thinking about Korea and develop more self-awareness about your own society first.
In other words, stop asking questions like Giorgio, and don't write articles like this. Stop the stupid, because you can do better.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
I read about the incredibly high percentage of young girls going for a plastic surgery. I asked to my friends, and they told me in Korea, beauty means looking western for women. This is quite funny because I personally think, and as me many people here, that Asian women are really beautiful and have that mysterious look we find so appealing. So the question is: do they know they don’t actually need that surgery to look better, do they know western people appreciate Asian beauty? They could save that money away for more important things, like traveling for example, or studying, or whatever.
Giorgio
You know the Korean is not the one to mince words, so here it is: this is a dumb question. But Giorgio is hardly alone in asking this kind of dumb question about Korea's high rate of plastic surgery. "Plastic surgery" in Korea, in a sense, became another kind of "dog meat"--that is, a quick-and-dirty topic for the media to do a hey-look-at-these-weird-Asian-people story. The coverage is dumb, shallow and sensationalized, and so are the reactions to the coverage, like the one coming from Giorgio here.
Part of the reason for the stupidity of the commentary about Korea's plastic surgery is plastic surgery seems like such an easy issue. People going under the knife to change the way they look--seems easy enough to solve that. The well-meaning people would lament, "If only Korean women believed in themselves!" with the implication that, if only the silly Korean people listened to them, the world would be a better place.
Well, no. Take your good intentions and continue paving that road to hell, because few things are more infuriating than well-meaning ignorance. Such ignorance belongs to the same species as the well-intended advice to the poor that they should simply try a little harder. It diminishes the complex challenges that the people embroiled in the issue face.
What makes Korea's plastic surgery issue so tricky? Consider the following questions:
For all the gasping expanded on plastic surgery, few people can seem to articulate their position on the most fundamental question regarding plastic surgery: what, if anything, is wrong with it?
Is it wrong to undergo bodily modification? LASIK surgery is far more invasive than the most common form of plastic surgery in Korea, the epicanthic fold surgery (commonly known as the "double eyelid" surgery.) Yet the numerous advertisements about LASIK surgery does not seem to raise the same questions as the same for plastic surgery. Why is that?
Is it because plastic surgery does not appear to be "necessary," or necessary only to the extent that we care about the way we look? But we do "unnecessary" things every day for the sake of looks. We wash our faces, comb our hair, (some of us) put on makeup and dress in stylish clothing. Or is it that there is a line between putting on clothes and receiving a surgery that alters our body? But orthodontics alters our body as dramatically as any plastic surgery. Solely for the sake of looks, orthodontists pull out perfectly good teeth, cut off flesh and push the whole jaw into a direction that is not meant to go. So why is there no sensationalist article about the world's addiction to braces?
Is it because when it comes to Korea, the looks at which plastic surgery aims appear foreign and imposed? First of all, it is not true that Koreans aspire to look like a Westerner; oval face and pale skin have been a part of Korea's beauty standard for centuries. It is more accurate to say that Korea's evolving standard of beauty involves certain Western elements, such as rounder eyes. Very well, one may concede that Korea's beauty standard has elements that are not Korean. But so what? Everything in Korea has elements that are not Korean. Overwhelming majority of Koreans wear traditional Korean garb only on special occasions. Restaurants selling non-Korean foods are plenty, and Koreans visit them all the time. Koreans liberally borrow non-Korean concepts (e.g. democracy) to run their society, and use non-Korean words to explain those concepts. This is the consequence of living in a world in which the West has won for the last several centuries. Why not the sensationalist articles about the fact that Korean businessmen wear suits, just like their Western counterparts? Why no outpour of sympathy along the lines of, "If only Koreans knew how beautiful hanbok was!"
Is it because the high rate of plastic surgery reveals something peculiar about Korea? But what is that something, exactly? That Koreans care about looks? (But people who get orthodontic procedures don't?) That Korean women are subject to undue pressure from society? (Because television shows and advertisement boards elsewhere in the world feature regular-weight women with no makeup?) That Koreans' sense of beauty is too uniform? (Because elsewhere in the world, there is never any attempt to make regular-weight woman appear slimmer, or a darker-skinned woman appear lighter, on magazine covers?)
Let me be clear: I do not intend to imply an answer to these questions. (Frankly, I cannot even fully answer them.) Nor are these questions meant to be a series of reflexive tu quoque. There may be a real difference between plastic surgery and makeup. There may be a real difference between plastic surgery on one hand, and LASIK surgery and orthodontics on the other. There may be a real reason such that incorporation of Western elements in Korea's standard of beauty is so much more unacceptable and so much more offensive than the incorporation of Western elements in Korea's governing system. There may be actual insight about Korea to be gained from this phenomenon that is significantly different from the insight to be gained from what we are seeing elsewhere in the modern world. The point of listing those questions is: the answers to these questions are not obvious, and require a serious intellectual engagement to explain.
A helpful rule of thumb in trying to explore this issue: if you find yourself moving toward a perspective that does not treat Koreans--especially Korean women--as people who make autonomous decisions in the face of certain factual situations, stop and start over. If you find yourself cobbling together the few facts that you know about Korea to figure this out ("Isn't K-pop Korean? Of course they must be connected!"), stop thinking and start reading more about Korea. If you cannot recognize the parallels between Korea's plastic surgery and other bodily modifications common in the place you live, even just for the sake of discerning the starting point from which those two things part company, stop thinking about Korea and develop more self-awareness about your own society first.
In other words, stop asking questions like Giorgio, and don't write articles like this. Stop the stupid, because you can do better.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
50 Most Influential K-pop Artists: 11. Lee Hyori
[Series Index]
11. Lee Hyori [이효리]
Years of Activity: 1998-present (1998-2002 as a member of Fin.K.L.; 2003-present as solo)
Discography (Fin.K.L.):
Fine Killing Liberty (1998)
White (1999)
Now (2001)
영원 [Eternity] (2002)
Discography (solo):
Stylish (2003)
Dark Angel (2006)
It's Hyorish (2008)
H-Logic (2010)
Monochrome (2013)
Representative Song: Miss Korea from Monochrome
Translation notes: Although the lyrics are simple, it is oddly difficult to translate it elegantly.
In 15 words or less: Pioneer of K-pop womanhood
Maybe she should be ranked higher because... Has there been any other woman in K-pop who single-handedly changed the conversation?
Maybe she should be ranked lower because... Did she achieve anything musically?
Why is this artist important?
Women pop artists always face a steeper road to success in pop culture, because they have another aspect about themselves that they may package and sell: their sexuality. Some female artists, feeling that their sexuality (or at least, the external version of it) gets in the way, quietly present their music and hope that their talent will win out. Other female artists embrace this seeming advantage, package their sexuality and market it along with their other talents. And still other female artists sublimate their sexuality and turn the prevailing convention on its head. The sexuality that latter group of artists--such as Madonna or Lady Gaga--displays is rarely crass or vulgar. Instead, it is highly stylized to a degree that is mildly confusing. They make the viewers ask themselves: is this sexy? Then the inevitable answer: it must be, if they claim it with such confidence!
Lee Hyori is perhaps the first K-pop act that made K-pop fans ask those questions to themselves. Lee's remarkable career came in two stages: first, she established the prevailing standard in K-pop, and second, she destroyed it. Lee Hyori's initial group, Fin.K.L. (pronounced "finkle") still serves as the model girl group for K-pop's idol groups to this day. Fin.K.L. is arguably the most successful girl groups in K-pop history. Not even Girls' Generation, that young upstart that I previously described as "the most perfect business plan," can approach the heights that Fin.K.L. reached. Fin K.L. still holds the record for second-best in total album sales among girl groups. Though S.E.S. outsold Fin.K.L. (3.6 million to 2.8 million), no one has heard of S.E.S. once the main group disbanded. Not so with Fin.K.L. Even setting aside Lee, former members of Fin.K.L. have had solid-to-excellent solo careers as actresses for television and live musicals. Fin.K.L. also had a deeper and wide fan base, likely creating the first generation of "uncle fans," i.e. the group of older men who follow idol girl groups.
Then came Lee's solo career, which was as glorious as any solo career in K-pop history. If measured by utter ubiquity of presence--in TV shows, in advertisements, in people's conversations--one can make a solid case that Lee Hyori was the greatest K-pop act ever. She single-handedly pushed Korea's female standard of beauty from pale, wafery and demure to tanned, fit and active. Her utter confidence in herself radiated through her music, dance and demeanor, causing K-pop watchers to re-evaluate their deep-seated aesthetics that they never previously had to evaluate.
Miss Korea is the hallmark of such confidence. Sure, knock Lee Hyori for her supposed lack of compositional talents, especially with the massive plagiarism scandal of her disastrous fourth solo album. But you do so at your own peril: like Lee sings in her song, it only takes one look for everyone to fall for her.
Interesting trivia: Technically, Fin.K.L. never disbanded, which makes them the oldest continuously surviving K-pop girl idol band. (However, Fin.K.L.'s last album was in 2005.)
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
11. Lee Hyori [이효리]
Years of Activity: 1998-present (1998-2002 as a member of Fin.K.L.; 2003-present as solo)
Discography (Fin.K.L.):
Fine Killing Liberty (1998)
White (1999)
Now (2001)
영원 [Eternity] (2002)
Discography (solo):
Stylish (2003)
Dark Angel (2006)
It's Hyorish (2008)
H-Logic (2010)
Monochrome (2013)
Representative Song: Miss Korea from Monochrome
Miss Korea
유리거울 속 저 예쁜 아가씨
The pretty girl inside the glass mirror
무슨 일 있나요 지쳐 보여요
What's the matter, you seem tired
많은 이름에 힘이 드나요
Do the many names drain you
불안한 미래에 자신 없나요
Does the uncertain future hurt your confidence
자고나면 사라지는 그깟 봄 신기루에
That spring mirage that disappears after night
매달려 더 이상 울고 싶진 않아
I no longer want to hang onto that and cry
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
세상에서 제일가는 girl이야
The best girl in the world
누구나 한 번에 반할 일이야
Everyone just takes one look to fall for me
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
세상에서 제일가는 girl이야
The best girl in the world
누구나 알면은 놀랄 일이야
Everyone will be surprised if they found out
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
명품 가방이 날 빛내주나요
Does the expensive purse make me shine
예뻐지면 그만 뭐든 할까요
Should I do everything just to become pretty
자고나면 사라지는 그깟 봄 신기루에
That spring mirage that disappears after night
매달려 더 이상 울고 싶진 않아
I no longer want to hang onto that and cry
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
세상에서 제일가는 girl이야
The best girl in the world
누구나 한 번에 반할 일이야
Everyone just takes one look to fall for me
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
세상에서 제일가는 girl이야
The best girl in the world
누구나 알면은 놀랄 일이야
Everyone will be surprised if they found out
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
사람들의 시선 그리 중요한가요
Does the way people look matter so much
망쳐가는 것들 내 잘못 같나요
Does it feel like it's your fault that everything goes wrong
그렇지 않아요. 이리 와 봐요 다 괜찮아요.
That's not true. Come over here. Everything is ok.
넌 Miss Korea
You are Miss Korea.
유리거울 속 저 예쁜 아가씨
The pretty girl inside the glass mirror
무슨 일 있나요 지쳐 보여요
What's the matter, you seem tired
많은 이름에 힘이 드나요
Do the many names drain you
불안한 미래에 자신 없나요
Does the uncertain future hurt your confidence
자고나면 사라지는 그깟 봄 신기루에
That spring mirage that disappears after night
매달려 더 이상 울고 싶진 않아
I no longer want to hang onto that and cry
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
세상에서 제일가는 girl이야
The best girl in the world
누구나 한 번에 반할 일이야
Everyone just takes one look to fall for me
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
세상에서 제일가는 girl이야
The best girl in the world
누구나 알면은 놀랄 일이야
Everyone will be surprised if they found out
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
명품 가방이 날 빛내주나요
Does the expensive purse make me shine
예뻐지면 그만 뭐든 할까요
Should I do everything just to become pretty
자고나면 사라지는 그깟 봄 신기루에
That spring mirage that disappears after night
매달려 더 이상 울고 싶진 않아
I no longer want to hang onto that and cry
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
세상에서 제일가는 girl이야
The best girl in the world
누구나 한 번에 반할 일이야
Everyone just takes one look to fall for me
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
세상에서 제일가는 girl이야
The best girl in the world
누구나 알면은 놀랄 일이야
Everyone will be surprised if they found out
Because I'm a Miss Korea
Because I'm a Miss Korea
사람들의 시선 그리 중요한가요
Does the way people look matter so much
망쳐가는 것들 내 잘못 같나요
Does it feel like it's your fault that everything goes wrong
그렇지 않아요. 이리 와 봐요 다 괜찮아요.
That's not true. Come over here. Everything is ok.
넌 Miss Korea
You are Miss Korea.
Translation notes: Although the lyrics are simple, it is oddly difficult to translate it elegantly.
In 15 words or less: Pioneer of K-pop womanhood
Maybe she should be ranked higher because... Has there been any other woman in K-pop who single-handedly changed the conversation?
Maybe she should be ranked lower because... Did she achieve anything musically?
Why is this artist important?
Women pop artists always face a steeper road to success in pop culture, because they have another aspect about themselves that they may package and sell: their sexuality. Some female artists, feeling that their sexuality (or at least, the external version of it) gets in the way, quietly present their music and hope that their talent will win out. Other female artists embrace this seeming advantage, package their sexuality and market it along with their other talents. And still other female artists sublimate their sexuality and turn the prevailing convention on its head. The sexuality that latter group of artists--such as Madonna or Lady Gaga--displays is rarely crass or vulgar. Instead, it is highly stylized to a degree that is mildly confusing. They make the viewers ask themselves: is this sexy? Then the inevitable answer: it must be, if they claim it with such confidence!
Lee Hyori is perhaps the first K-pop act that made K-pop fans ask those questions to themselves. Lee's remarkable career came in two stages: first, she established the prevailing standard in K-pop, and second, she destroyed it. Lee Hyori's initial group, Fin.K.L. (pronounced "finkle") still serves as the model girl group for K-pop's idol groups to this day. Fin.K.L. is arguably the most successful girl groups in K-pop history. Not even Girls' Generation, that young upstart that I previously described as "the most perfect business plan," can approach the heights that Fin.K.L. reached. Fin K.L. still holds the record for second-best in total album sales among girl groups. Though S.E.S. outsold Fin.K.L. (3.6 million to 2.8 million), no one has heard of S.E.S. once the main group disbanded. Not so with Fin.K.L. Even setting aside Lee, former members of Fin.K.L. have had solid-to-excellent solo careers as actresses for television and live musicals. Fin.K.L. also had a deeper and wide fan base, likely creating the first generation of "uncle fans," i.e. the group of older men who follow idol girl groups.
Then came Lee's solo career, which was as glorious as any solo career in K-pop history. If measured by utter ubiquity of presence--in TV shows, in advertisements, in people's conversations--one can make a solid case that Lee Hyori was the greatest K-pop act ever. She single-handedly pushed Korea's female standard of beauty from pale, wafery and demure to tanned, fit and active. Her utter confidence in herself radiated through her music, dance and demeanor, causing K-pop watchers to re-evaluate their deep-seated aesthetics that they never previously had to evaluate.
Miss Korea is the hallmark of such confidence. Sure, knock Lee Hyori for her supposed lack of compositional talents, especially with the massive plagiarism scandal of her disastrous fourth solo album. But you do so at your own peril: like Lee sings in her song, it only takes one look for everyone to fall for her.
Interesting trivia: Technically, Fin.K.L. never disbanded, which makes them the oldest continuously surviving K-pop girl idol band. (However, Fin.K.L.'s last album was in 2005.)
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Enough with Amy Chua Bashing
Amy Chua, of the "Tiger Mother" fame, is in the news again. Many readers emailed me to ask what I thought of her new, forthcoming book, which apparently attempts to find the success factors of various ethnic and cultural groups in the United States. Short answer: I will reserve my full judgment until after I read the book, but my initial impression is not positive, as it sounds more like a hare-brained exercise in culturalism rather than a rigorous examination.
But this post is not about Amy Chua or her new book. This post is about the reaction of Asian Americans that Chua's new book triggered. Once the scathing New York Post preview of Chua's new book came out, (some) Asian Americans immediately burst into outrage. Much of the outrage was dedicated to busting the Asian American stereotype Chua appeared to enforce. And a smaller, but vocal, fraction of the outrage was directed at Chua herself, and the concept of Tiger Parenting.
This post is about that smaller fraction. I believe the Asian American outrage against Chua and Tiger Parenting is misguided. But first, let me be clear: I am not here to defend Tiger Parenting. The way I feel about Tiger Parenting is hardly a secret. I believe I made a solid case in favor of Tiger Parenting already; if I did not convince you then, I don't expect to convince you now. Again, this post is not about Chua herself, or her new book, or even about Tiger Parenting. It is about how we Asian Americans who wish to fight the stereotypes ought to know the correct target for our outrage.
Suppose two African American diners visit a restaurant. Once they sit down, a Caucasian waiter comes to the table and informs that the dinner special for that day will be fried chicken. The first diner considers the menu, considers the special, and orders fried chicken because it sounds delicious. The second diner also considers the menu, and considers the special. Then the second diner looks at the white waiter, looks around to find a great number of white diners around their table, and reminds himself about the pernicious stereotype regarding black folks and fried chicken. He then orders something else from the menu.
In this example, which diner truly enforced the stereotype about African Americans and fried chicken--the first diner who simply ordered what she wanted to eat, or the second diner who decided his dinner to oppose the prevailing stereotype? What if the second diner berated the first diner for daring to order what she felt like having for dinner? Would he be justified in doing so?
This hypothetical is akin to how some Asian Americans react to Amy Chua. And the answers to the questions above, to me, are clear: it is the second diner that does more to enforce the stereotype, and his criticism of the first diner is misguided.
(More after the jump.)
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
My answer may sound counter-intuitive. The stereotype is that African Americans are unduly fond of fried chicken, and the first diner ordered fried chicken. How did she not enforce the stereotype? But this line of thinking is short-sighted, for it confuses the fundamental error of stereotypes. The fundamental problem of stereotypes is not that there exist some individuals who fit the stereotypes. The fundamental problem of stereotypes is that they are made to fit everyone in a given group.
To understand this distinction, it is critically important to understand who operates the stereotypes. Going back to the example of two African American diners, it must be understood that an African American who simply orders what she feels like having is not the one who imposes the stereotype on all black people. Rather, it is the mainstream society that imposes the stereotype that all African Americans are genetically predisposed to prefer fried chicken. Likewise, it is not Amy Chua that imposes the Model Minority stereotype on Asian Americans. Rather, it is the mainstream society that imposes the Model Minority stereotype on all Asian Americans.
Note that none of this depends on the relative merits of the thing or the action that underlies the stereotype. One can rationally discuss whether eating fried chicken is a good idea, considering its health effects. Similarly, one can debate vigorously on whether Tiger Parenting is a sound educational philosophy. But the outcome of those debates does not affect the pernicious effects of stereotyping, because the evil core of stereotypes is never, and has never been, about the particular vehicle of stereotype. The evil core of stereotypes is, and has always been, the act of stereotyping, the mainstream society's willingness to indiscriminately assign stereotypes to individuals belonging to particular racial, ethnic, religious or cultural groups.
I can see the frustration of the proverbial second diner: "If only African Americans stopped eating fried chicken around white people, that stereotype will go away!" Similarly, I can see the frustration of some Asian Americans: "If only Amy Chua stopped talking about Tiger Parenting that makes us look like automatons, Asian American stereotypes will disappear!" But while understandable, this frustration is misguided in several ways.
First, without addressing the core evil of stereotypes, i.e. the act of stereotyping, stereotypes will never go away. Instead, one just replaces the other. Recall that the stereotypical image of a submissive Asian woman travels with the equally stereotypical image of a domineering Dragon Lady. Even if tomorrow, by some miracle, all African Americans were to find fried chicken unpalatable, all Hispanic Americans were to have perfectly legitimate American citizenship and all Asian Americans doctors were to became the most creative, free-wheeling artists in the world, the mainstream society that seeks to stereotype these ethnic groups will simply find some other vehicles of stereotype with which reduce blacks, Hispanics and Asians down to a caricature.
Second, a mind beholden to bias does not operate rationally; it distorts the reality around it to fit its preferred stereotypes. We constantly see that, for example, someone who is convinced that illegal immigrants are more crime-prone, highlights every crime committed by an illegal alien and filters out of his mind the statistical truth that illegal immigrants are in fact less likely than the native-born to commit crimes. A bigoted mind requires but one example to validate its bias. It is foolish to attack the example, when the root of the problem is the bigotry.
Third, as I alluded before, such frustration empowers the stereotype further. In the case of the two diners, consider which one has the greater primacy of his or her own life. The first diner will have what she wants for dinner. The second diner surrenders that choice, opting instead to let the stereotype dictate what he will have for dinner. Which one of the two is more freed from stereotypes? If we are fighting stereotypes so that we may be treated as an individual rather than a caricature, we cannot do so by delegating our individuality to the force of those stereotypes.
Nor can we do so by attacking our peers. The most distressing part of watching Asian Americans' Amy Chua-bashing was that it smacks of an attempt to establish themselves as "the cool ones with individuality" by throwing another prominent Asian American under the bus. It has been a constant refrain in Asian American intellectual history to seek the mainstream society's acceptance by becoming an outspoken critic of what is perceived as peculiarly Asian. Renounce the language, the food, the culture, and soon we can be full-fledged Americans like the ones we see on television--so the thinking goes. But it does not work that way. A house slave may feel closer to the white society than a field slave; to the slave owner, they are slaves all the same. Likewise, a bigoted mind does not spare an Asian American from stereotypes no matter how much that Asian American renounces Tiger Parenting and Amy Chua.
We cannot fight the prejudice against us by letting the prejudice set the course of our actions. We can only do so by claiming our full individuality, by living our lives in a way we see fit, with pride and no apologies. If you are critical of Tiger Parenting, go on and be critical. But know that Amy Chua is simply living her life with no apologies. If you want to combat stereotypes, you should too. For Amy Chua is not your enemy; the enemy is the mainstream society that expects you to be the same person as she.
Got a question or comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
But this post is not about Amy Chua or her new book. This post is about the reaction of Asian Americans that Chua's new book triggered. Once the scathing New York Post preview of Chua's new book came out, (some) Asian Americans immediately burst into outrage. Much of the outrage was dedicated to busting the Asian American stereotype Chua appeared to enforce. And a smaller, but vocal, fraction of the outrage was directed at Chua herself, and the concept of Tiger Parenting.
This post is about that smaller fraction. I believe the Asian American outrage against Chua and Tiger Parenting is misguided. But first, let me be clear: I am not here to defend Tiger Parenting. The way I feel about Tiger Parenting is hardly a secret. I believe I made a solid case in favor of Tiger Parenting already; if I did not convince you then, I don't expect to convince you now. Again, this post is not about Chua herself, or her new book, or even about Tiger Parenting. It is about how we Asian Americans who wish to fight the stereotypes ought to know the correct target for our outrage.
* * *
Suppose two African American diners visit a restaurant. Once they sit down, a Caucasian waiter comes to the table and informs that the dinner special for that day will be fried chicken. The first diner considers the menu, considers the special, and orders fried chicken because it sounds delicious. The second diner also considers the menu, and considers the special. Then the second diner looks at the white waiter, looks around to find a great number of white diners around their table, and reminds himself about the pernicious stereotype regarding black folks and fried chicken. He then orders something else from the menu.
In this example, which diner truly enforced the stereotype about African Americans and fried chicken--the first diner who simply ordered what she wanted to eat, or the second diner who decided his dinner to oppose the prevailing stereotype? What if the second diner berated the first diner for daring to order what she felt like having for dinner? Would he be justified in doing so?
This hypothetical is akin to how some Asian Americans react to Amy Chua. And the answers to the questions above, to me, are clear: it is the second diner that does more to enforce the stereotype, and his criticism of the first diner is misguided.
(More after the jump.)
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
My answer may sound counter-intuitive. The stereotype is that African Americans are unduly fond of fried chicken, and the first diner ordered fried chicken. How did she not enforce the stereotype? But this line of thinking is short-sighted, for it confuses the fundamental error of stereotypes. The fundamental problem of stereotypes is not that there exist some individuals who fit the stereotypes. The fundamental problem of stereotypes is that they are made to fit everyone in a given group.
To understand this distinction, it is critically important to understand who operates the stereotypes. Going back to the example of two African American diners, it must be understood that an African American who simply orders what she feels like having is not the one who imposes the stereotype on all black people. Rather, it is the mainstream society that imposes the stereotype that all African Americans are genetically predisposed to prefer fried chicken. Likewise, it is not Amy Chua that imposes the Model Minority stereotype on Asian Americans. Rather, it is the mainstream society that imposes the Model Minority stereotype on all Asian Americans.
Note that none of this depends on the relative merits of the thing or the action that underlies the stereotype. One can rationally discuss whether eating fried chicken is a good idea, considering its health effects. Similarly, one can debate vigorously on whether Tiger Parenting is a sound educational philosophy. But the outcome of those debates does not affect the pernicious effects of stereotyping, because the evil core of stereotypes is never, and has never been, about the particular vehicle of stereotype. The evil core of stereotypes is, and has always been, the act of stereotyping, the mainstream society's willingness to indiscriminately assign stereotypes to individuals belonging to particular racial, ethnic, religious or cultural groups.
I can see the frustration of the proverbial second diner: "If only African Americans stopped eating fried chicken around white people, that stereotype will go away!" Similarly, I can see the frustration of some Asian Americans: "If only Amy Chua stopped talking about Tiger Parenting that makes us look like automatons, Asian American stereotypes will disappear!" But while understandable, this frustration is misguided in several ways.
First, without addressing the core evil of stereotypes, i.e. the act of stereotyping, stereotypes will never go away. Instead, one just replaces the other. Recall that the stereotypical image of a submissive Asian woman travels with the equally stereotypical image of a domineering Dragon Lady. Even if tomorrow, by some miracle, all African Americans were to find fried chicken unpalatable, all Hispanic Americans were to have perfectly legitimate American citizenship and all Asian Americans doctors were to became the most creative, free-wheeling artists in the world, the mainstream society that seeks to stereotype these ethnic groups will simply find some other vehicles of stereotype with which reduce blacks, Hispanics and Asians down to a caricature.
Second, a mind beholden to bias does not operate rationally; it distorts the reality around it to fit its preferred stereotypes. We constantly see that, for example, someone who is convinced that illegal immigrants are more crime-prone, highlights every crime committed by an illegal alien and filters out of his mind the statistical truth that illegal immigrants are in fact less likely than the native-born to commit crimes. A bigoted mind requires but one example to validate its bias. It is foolish to attack the example, when the root of the problem is the bigotry.
Third, as I alluded before, such frustration empowers the stereotype further. In the case of the two diners, consider which one has the greater primacy of his or her own life. The first diner will have what she wants for dinner. The second diner surrenders that choice, opting instead to let the stereotype dictate what he will have for dinner. Which one of the two is more freed from stereotypes? If we are fighting stereotypes so that we may be treated as an individual rather than a caricature, we cannot do so by delegating our individuality to the force of those stereotypes.
Nor can we do so by attacking our peers. The most distressing part of watching Asian Americans' Amy Chua-bashing was that it smacks of an attempt to establish themselves as "the cool ones with individuality" by throwing another prominent Asian American under the bus. It has been a constant refrain in Asian American intellectual history to seek the mainstream society's acceptance by becoming an outspoken critic of what is perceived as peculiarly Asian. Renounce the language, the food, the culture, and soon we can be full-fledged Americans like the ones we see on television--so the thinking goes. But it does not work that way. A house slave may feel closer to the white society than a field slave; to the slave owner, they are slaves all the same. Likewise, a bigoted mind does not spare an Asian American from stereotypes no matter how much that Asian American renounces Tiger Parenting and Amy Chua.
We cannot fight the prejudice against us by letting the prejudice set the course of our actions. We can only do so by claiming our full individuality, by living our lives in a way we see fit, with pride and no apologies. If you are critical of Tiger Parenting, go on and be critical. But know that Amy Chua is simply living her life with no apologies. If you want to combat stereotypes, you should too. For Amy Chua is not your enemy; the enemy is the mainstream society that expects you to be the same person as she.
Got a question or comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Military Draft Quandry: Update
Before the Korean writes anything about Korean citizenship, military draft, etc., the usual caveat must come first:
The Korean is not an immigration attorney of Korea. This post is for broad informational purposes only. Do NOT ask him about your specific situation, because he cannot possibly give a competent answer that fits your situation. Immigration law and conscription law of Korea are complicated things, and you must consult an attorney if you are seriously worried about your situation.
This post is to provide update on the strange twilight zone in which many young Korean American men find themselves. To recap the situation: a strange confluence of new Korean laws, which sought to restrict the ability to dodge the military draft and at the same time encourage more ethnic Koreans living abroad to visit and live in Korea more freely, resulted in a messy situation: a number of young, second-generation Korean American men suddenly gained Korean citizenship, and accordingly, the duty to report for Korea's mandatory military service. What is more, if these Korean American men missed the very small, three-month window after their 18th birthday to renounce their Korean citizenship, they are not allowed to renounce their citizenship until after they are 38 years old, i.e. no longer eligible for the draft.
Naturally, this puts young Korean American men in an odd situation. Many of them did not even know that they were Korean citizens as of 2010, when the dual-citizenship law came into effect. Then if they tried to study or work in Korea or visit Korea for the long term, they would first find out that (1) they had Korean citizenship, (2) they might be subject to the draft because of their Korean citizenship, and (3) they cannot even renounce their Korean citizenship, because their 18th birthday had already passed.
As of late last year, Korea's Military Manpower Administration carved out a couple of exceptions that would help many people in this twilight zone.
First, there is an exemption for second-generation, non-resident citizens [재외국민2세]. This page from the MMA explains the exemption in detail. To be eligible, one must:
- Have been born outside of Korea OR left Korea before turning six years old, AND
- Have continuously lived abroad until December 31 of the year in which he turned 17 years old, which means he was not present in Korea for more than 60 days in a one-year period, AND
- Currently possess permanent residency or citizenship of a foreign state. IN ADDITION,
- One's parents must also currently possess permanent residency or citizenship of a foreign state.
One would verify that he is a second-generation, non-resident citizen by submitting documentation to Korean embassy or consulate, which provides a stamp on the passport signifying the exempt status.
Second, there is an exemption for those studying in a "domestic educational institute." This page from the MMA explains this exemption in more detail. To be eligible for this exemption, one must simply have a permanent residency or a citizenship of a country other than Korea. The exemption is cancelled if:
- One stays for more than six months after graduating, finishing, taking a break from or having been expelled from the school;
- One's mother, father or spouse stays in Korea for more than six months out of the year during the time at school; OR
- One works and earns money during one's study.
If your situation does not fall under the two exemptions, there is still hope. There is currently a Constitutional Court petition in progress to find the 2005 law that prohibited renunciation of citizenship unconstitutional. Hopefully, the Constitutional Court would fashion a more rational solution to the military draft issue. It would be a good idea to check back on this issue in a year or so.
The Korean will stress this again: he is not an immigration attorney of Korea. Nor is he watching this situation very closely. The laws and regulations may change again at any time. If you are difficult situation in terms of citizenship or military draft status, make sure to consult an actual attorney, and/or Korea's diplomatic staff.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
SXSW 2014 - Here We Come!
About a month ago, the Korean asked if anyone would be willing to come with him to SXSW 2014. Several of you replied to say yes. So now, the pass is purchased, flight ticket is bought, hotel is reserved: SXSW 2014, here we come!
It is not too late to join the party. If you are interested in hanging out with the Korean this March in Austin, please do not hesitate to shoot an email to the Korean. Hope to see you there.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
It is not too late to join the party. If you are interested in hanging out with the Korean this March in Austin, please do not hesitate to shoot an email to the Korean. Hope to see you there.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Tonal Vestige in Korean Language
Dear Korean,
In your recent post about the meaning of Korean names, you wrote:
Funny Canadian
First of all, a brief explanation on the concept of "tone" in linguistics. A "tonal" language uses tones to distinguish different meanings of syllables that may otherwise sound the same.
One example of a tonal language is Mandarin Chinese, which uses four tones. Here is an example of four tones, each pronouncing the sound "ma".
These four tones are necessary because the meaning of the syllable "ma" changes depending on the tone, like so:
(Note: Tones are not the same thing as an accent. Tone changes the meaning, while accent does not. For example, reading "caramel" as two syllables (like "car-mel") versus as three syllables (like "ca-ra-mel") is an accent. Regardless of how you read "caramel," the meaning of the word does not change.)
According to written records, it appears that Korean language made use of tones until late 16th century. The original hangeul (known as Hunminjeongeum [훈민정음]), which was created in 1443 and promulgated in 1446 (i.e. mid-15th century,) contained a system of denoting the four tones that Korean language used at the time by placing one or two dots on the left of the letter. (See example below.)
The tonal marks in hangeul begin to disappear around late 16th century and completely vanishes around early 17th century, indicating that the use of tone in Korean also disappeared around then.
However, the vestiges of the tonal language survived for centuries afterward, and continued to serve their core function: a means to distinguish the different meanings inhabiting the same sound unit. Until very recently (i.e. until around early 20th century,) it was common for Koreans to distinguish certain words by pronouncing them for a little longer.
Example: in Korean, nun [눈] is a homophone for both "eye" and "snow." Under the strictest Korean grammar rules, the 눈 to denote "snow" is pronounced a little longer than the 눈 to denote "eye" (that is, almost like 누운.) Similarly, bae [배] is a homophone for (among other meanings) "stomach" and "double." To say "double" in Korean while avoiding confusion at the same time, one would pronounce the word 배 a little longer.
There are many more examples of Korean language's tonal vestiges, but the Korean need not present them all here. Why? Because today, most Koreans simply ignore this rule. Although the "long syllable rule" is still taught in school in a standard curriculum for Korean language, vast majority of Koreans quickly forget the rule as soon as the final exam is over. So if you are a Korean language learner, there is no need to bother learning this rule. The only place one could conceivably hear the long syllable in Korean might be the hallway of the National Institute of Korean Language [국립국어원].
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
In your recent post about the meaning of Korean names, you wrote:
Note: the Chinese language does a much better job at distinguishing these characters because the Chinese language is tonal. Centuries ago, Korean language used to be tonal as well--which probably helped navigating the Sino-Korean words. But today, Korean language only has the tiniest vestiges of tones, most of which are unnoticed even by Koreans themselves.Could you explain those vestiges in some detail?
Funny Canadian
First of all, a brief explanation on the concept of "tone" in linguistics. A "tonal" language uses tones to distinguish different meanings of syllables that may otherwise sound the same.
One example of a tonal language is Mandarin Chinese, which uses four tones. Here is an example of four tones, each pronouncing the sound "ma".
(source)
These four tones are necessary because the meaning of the syllable "ma" changes depending on the tone, like so:
- mā (媽/妈) "mum/mom"
- má (麻/麻) "hemp"
- mǎ (馬/马) "horse"
- mà (罵/骂) "scold"
(Note: Tones are not the same thing as an accent. Tone changes the meaning, while accent does not. For example, reading "caramel" as two syllables (like "car-mel") versus as three syllables (like "ca-ra-mel") is an accent. Regardless of how you read "caramel," the meaning of the word does not change.)
According to written records, it appears that Korean language made use of tones until late 16th century. The original hangeul (known as Hunminjeongeum [훈민정음]), which was created in 1443 and promulgated in 1446 (i.e. mid-15th century,) contained a system of denoting the four tones that Korean language used at the time by placing one or two dots on the left of the letter. (See example below.)
 |
No dot indicates a flat tone, unless a letter ends with ㄱ, ㄷ, ㅂ, ㅅ; in such a case, the tone starts high and ends abruptly. One dot, a high tone. Two dots, a low-to-high tone. (source) |
However, the vestiges of the tonal language survived for centuries afterward, and continued to serve their core function: a means to distinguish the different meanings inhabiting the same sound unit. Until very recently (i.e. until around early 20th century,) it was common for Koreans to distinguish certain words by pronouncing them for a little longer.
Example: in Korean, nun [눈] is a homophone for both "eye" and "snow." Under the strictest Korean grammar rules, the 눈 to denote "snow" is pronounced a little longer than the 눈 to denote "eye" (that is, almost like 누운.) Similarly, bae [배] is a homophone for (among other meanings) "stomach" and "double." To say "double" in Korean while avoiding confusion at the same time, one would pronounce the word 배 a little longer.
There are many more examples of Korean language's tonal vestiges, but the Korean need not present them all here. Why? Because today, most Koreans simply ignore this rule. Although the "long syllable rule" is still taught in school in a standard curriculum for Korean language, vast majority of Koreans quickly forget the rule as soon as the final exam is over. So if you are a Korean language learner, there is no need to bother learning this rule. The only place one could conceivably hear the long syllable in Korean might be the hallway of the National Institute of Korean Language [국립국어원].
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)