Sweet, Delicious Eff You

Dear Korean,

Reading this article, I was wondering whether the statement "The popular pumpkin toffees have become a shorthand for an insult in South Korea, where 'Go eat toffee' means a ruder version of 'get lost'" is true. Is there even a "tradition" to throw toffee? In my culture we throw sweets and candies as a sign of good luck and happiness.

Curious Reader

A bit of background first. As this blog (unfortunately) predicted, Korean national soccer team returned from the Brazil World Cup with a disappointing result of two losses and one draw.

Upon their return, they were greeted with a toffee shower:

Note the toffees on the floor.
(source)

So yes, it's true: throwing toffee is an insult. But why? That question becomes fairly easy to understand when one sees what a traditional Korean toffee looks like. It looks like this:

Sweet and delicious.
(source)

This is called 엿 [yeot] in Korean. "Toffee" is a solid translation, because that's what yeot is--it is a candy created by solidifying thin strands of syrup. The insult is to say 엿 먹어라, or "eat yeot." Hm, put this long, sticky thing into your mouth? Wonder what that could possibly mean?

(For those lacking in imagination, it means: "Eat a dick.")

Interestingly, this insult is more often delivered with words rather than with the actual candy. In the right context, gifting the candy is not an insult at all. For example, someone who is preparing for an exam often receives yeot as a gift, as an encouragement to "stick" the exam (=pass the exam.) But of course, there is no mistaking the intent behind the toffee shower that the the national team received.

Several of you also emailed to ask how the Korean felt about the way in which the players were received. His feeling is: they probably don't deserve it, but it is part of the job description. Certain players--Son Heung-min comes to mind--played their hearts out, and definitely did not deserve to be told to "fuck off." Ideally, one should be able to focus-fire the insult. If one threw the yeot only to those who deserved the most blame, striker Park Chu-young and goalie Jung Sung-ryong would be getting a cannonball of candies to their faces. 

(And Jung won't be able to catch a single one of them. Hey-oh!) 

But that's what sports stars are. They are not paid big money to put a ball through a goal or a hoop or into the end zone. They are paid to serve as the vessel into which we project our desire. In this instance, Korean people's desire was hardly unreasonable; it is not as if there was an expectation that the team would win the whole thing. The team was expected to play hard, and play competently. More than a few players on the team failed at this. And if all they receive in return is some candies thrown at their face, that is not a huge injustice.

-UPDATE: July 3, 2014-

1.  Renowned food blogger Joe McPherson, who blogs at Zenkimchi, lodged this objection:  "Yeot is more like a taffy than toffee." Truth be told, TK did not even realize there was a difference between taffy and toffee. Alrighty then.

2.  This post was featured on Deadspin, in which some of Deadspin's commenters questioned why the yeot showing in the photos taken at the airport does not look like the yeot photo in this post. The reason is actually pretty simple: in the era of commercialization, the traditional long yeot has been re-packaged into a bite-sized candy. The bite-size yeot is still quite enough to convey the insulting message, and has the bonus of being a better aerial projectile.

3.  Now, for the really fun part. Since this post went up, a number of Korean readers provided several alternate theories as to why "eat yeot" is an insult. The theory that TK presented in the post is the prevailing theory: that yeot looks like penis, and "eat yeot" means "eat a dick." But the alternate theories are plenty interesting in their own right, so here they are:

- Probably the most colorful theory is that "eat yeot" comes from a botched exam in 1969. In the middle school entrance exam of 1969 (yes, Korea used to have an entrance exam for middle schools,) there was a question about the appropriate coagulating agent in the yeot-making process. Because of a mistake, there were two possible answers, but the testing authorities only recognized one of the answers. The enraged parents of the students then mobbed the testing authorities, shoving a homemade yeot made with the alternate substance into the faces of the befuddled testing authorities, screaming: "Eat this yeot! Eat it!"

This event actually did happen, but it is almost certainly not the origin of the phrase "eat yeot" because there are examples of "eat yeot" usage that pre-dates 1969. But it's a fun story.

- One alternate theory says:  "eat yeot" means "shut up," because apparently there is a Western tradition in which the dead's mouth was filled with thick syrup to keep it closed. This is most likely a wild speculation.

- Another alternate theory says:  "eat yeot" is a bastardization of "eat yeom" [염 먹어라]. "Yeom" is a process by which Koreans prepare the dead body for the funeral. That is to say--the theory is that "eat yeot" really means "go die." TK does not think this is particularly compelling, because yeom is a process rather than a substance that actually goes into one's mouth.

- There is even a dispute as to whether "yeot" refers to a man's genitalia. One of the leading theories is that "eat yeot" is a slang term originating from Namsadangpae [남사당패], a famed circus/clown act in Korea that has survived for centuries. According to the Namsadangpae lingo, yeot actually refers to vagina rather than penis.

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

Korea was never a Part of China

Dear Korean,

I’m from Singapore and visited Korea for the first time last week. I went to the National and National Folk Museums in Seoul, and noticed that the Koreans talked mostly of their early relations with China as one of “international exchange” or “cultural exchange”, seemingly having forgotten that Korea was a vassal state of the Chinese empire and paid tribute to it in order to maintain autonomy. Will the Koreans never admit to having been part of China? 

Keith

Short answer: Koreans will never admit such a thing, because Korea has never been a part of China.

The confusion most comes from misunderstanding the term "vassal state." The concept of "vassal state" (alternately known as a "tributary state") does not really exist any more, nor has it truly existed in the history of the Western civilization. But it does vaguely sound like "colony" of the early 20th century vintage, which leads to the confusion that Korea was a part of China. That is simply not the case. "Vassal state" is a diplomatic concept that was unique to pre-modern Northeast Asia. The concept must be understood within that context, because it makes no sense outside of it.

(It must be noted that nationalistic Chinese and Japanese deliberately sow this confusion. By doing so, nationalistic Chinese exaggerate the reach of the Chinese Empire; nationalistic Japanese justifies Imperial Japan's invasion of Korea, by claiming that Korea was simply going from one colonial master to another.)

Depiction of Korean tributary envoys to China, by Kim Hong-do, circa late 18th century
(source)

Put yourself in pre-modern Northeast Asia for a moment. There is one nation in the center--China, or 中國 (literally, the "center country")--that has been clearly superior to all nations surrounding it in every aspect of civilization, including military, trade, arts, philosophy and science, for two thousand years. 

Stop there, and let two thousand years sink into your brain. Think hard about how long that time is. Think about how old your grandparents are, and think about how many more generations you have to travel upward to hit two thousand years. Think about how much of our current tradition we take for granted, and how old those traditions are. Americans love to talk about their democratic tradition, but the age of that tradition is barely more than ten percent of the Chinese empire's history. Americans look to Europe for a deeper tradition, but European tradition prior to the Renaissance--which began in the 14th century--was nothing to write home about. 

This exercise is necessary because we the modern people often get myopic, and think that beliefs of the past are dumb or absurd. Not so: if Chinese hegemony has been true for two thousand years, it is simply true to anyone living within those two thousand years in China or near China. It is like living next to the Roman Empire that never went away until the 20th century. In such a situation, it would actually be irrational to think anything other than that the world revolves around China.

In those two thousand years, Northeast Asia was a "sinosphere"--a vast region in which China acted as a center of gravity of every aspect of human civilization. Of course, other nations in the region, including Japan, Vietnam and Korea, developed their own civilization which was quite glorious in its own right. But every nation in the sinosphere shared roughly the same governing philosophy, religion, social structure and writing system, all of which ultimately originated from China.

In this sinosphere, the emperor of China naturally considered himself to be the ruler of the entire civilized world. To the Chinese empire, the entire world consisted of: (1) China, (2) civilized nations that are vassal states to China (i.e. having a diplomatic relation with China,) (3) civilized nations that are not yet vassal states to China ( i.e. having no diplomatic relation with China,) and (4) uncivilized barbarians. During the Qing Dynasty in the early 19th century, China even considered the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy and England to be China's vassal states.

Informed by Confucianism (the shared ideology in sinosphere,) there was a mutual obligation between China and its vassal states. China provided vassal states with governing legitimacy, military security and (relatively) free trade. Vassal states, in return, provided a pledge of loyalty, acceptance of the Chinese emperor as the ultimate governing authority and regular tributes.

(More after the jump.)

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

Now, for the important part. Vassal states pledge loyalty to the Chinese emperor and give regular tributes. That's it. Vassal state had no other formal obligation to China. Vassal states had its own king, and had its own manner of choosing its king. Vassal states had its own government, which independently governed its own country. Vassal state collected its own taxes and had its own military. Throughout its relation with China before the modern times, all of the foregoing was true for Korea as well. China never chose any king on Korea's behalf. China had no formal role in forming Korea's domestic policies. China had no authority over ordinary Koreans, and China's authority over Korea's royal family was symbolic rather than real.

One may ask: what about the tributes? Is that not a tax that Korea paid to China?

No. The word "tribute" evokes an image similar to "tax," but it does not mean what you think it means. Recall that the relationship between China and its vassal states (including Korea) was based on Confucianism, which provides for a hierarchy with mutual obligations. Casual observers often say Confucianism is hierarchical, while losing sight of the fact that under Confucianism, there are obligations that run both downward and upward within the hierarchy. Even as the subordinate recognizes the authority of the superior, the superior must play its part to earn the authority.

In the context of sinosphere, this meant that the Chinese empire repaid every tribute. In fact, this is how the tributary system worked in sinosphere: the vassal state sends the tributary gifts as a sign of respect for China's authority. Upon receiving the gifts, the Chinese emperor would send back his own gifts to the vassal state's ruler as a sign of appreciation. This is hardly a tax on Korea; it was a trade between Korea and China under a different name.

There are ample historical evidence to show that both Korea and China recognized, as a practical matter, that Korea's tribute was a trade rather than a tax. For example, in the early days of Joseon Dynasty, China's Ming Dynasty required that Joseon pay tribute once in three years. But Joseon Dynasty vigorously insisted that it would pay tribute three times a year, and did end up paying tribute three times a year, and eventually four times a year. This makes no sense if the tribute were a tax; nobody volunteers to pay more taxes. Joseon Dynasty wanted to pay more tribute because it turned a profit on the return gift. [1]

Often, Joseon paid tribute by plying horses to the Ming Dynasty, which constantly needed horses to fend off barbarian attacks. The royal records from the Joseon Dynasty show that Korea did not send its own horses. Rather, Joseon purchased the horses from the Jurchens and re-sold the horses to the Ming Dynasty for ten times the price. [2] Being China's vassal state was particularly lucrative to Korea because outside of the tribute-repayment trade, China did not allow any international trade since the Ming Dynasty. [3]

The modern parallel to this relationship is not the colonial holds that appeared in the late 19th and early 20th century. The modern institution that is the closest to the sinosphere's tributary system is the British Commonwealth. Did you know that Canada and Australia had a queen? A number of states within the British Commonwealth--including Canada and Australia--still consider the British queen to be their head of state. Governor-General of Canada, who is appointed by the British Queen, summons the Canadian Parliament; Governor-General of Australia, who is also appointed by the British Queen, has the authority to dismiss the Australian government. (And in 1975, this authority was actually exercised.) Based on the foregoing, one could perhaps make an argument that Canada and Australia were a part of the United Kingdom. But given that Canada and Australia have their own governments just like Korea throughout its history before the 20th century, few would take that person seriously.

-Notes-

[1] From 이덕일, <조선 최대 갑부, 역관>

[2] Same.

[3] It must be noted that some Korean historians are skeptical of the claim that the tributary system always resulted in Korea's financial profit. See, for example, 계승범, <조선시대 해외파병과 한중관계>. But even those scholars generally agree that Korea clearly benefited in the non-economic sense, in the form of China's military protection, importation of books, art pieces and luxury goods, emergency lines of credit during famine, etc.

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

World Cup Thoughts

Yes, the Korean realizes that he is far overdue for a post. In his defense, how can one write a lengthy post when there are so many excellent games to watch?!

I mean, just look at this amazing Van Persie goal. I could watch this all day.

Actually, forget that. I could watch THIS all day.

Every flying man deserves a cape.

Which brings us to Team Korea, which takes the pitch tomorrow against Russia. Unlike the Korean's other homeland--the United States, conquerer of the Black Stars--Team Korea belongs to the soft, soft "Group of Life." Other than Belgium (the "sudden juggernaut,") all three teams in the group--Korea, Russia and Algeria--seem to have a legitimate chance of advancing. On paper.

But don't be fooled by the paper. Haven't you learned anything from the papers like the New York Post? Or the papers that constituted credit default swaps which suddenly became a value-destroying black hole? Papers lie, and they lie about Team Korea's chances. This Korean team is one of the worst Team Koreas in recent memory. Everything about them is terrible. The defense is a never-ending horror show, the offense too young and too green. The team treats scoring chances like a nerdy teenager running into a supermodel. Instead of confidently approaching the object of desire, they blubber, kick about wildly and then explosively self-destruct.

You think the Korean is joking, but he emphatically is not. Just look at this chart of least favorite teams compiled by the New York Times. Obviously, Korea's least favorite team is Japan because obligatory. But Korea's second least favorite team? Team Korea. Our nationalism is not so great that we root for crap. When we see crap, we hate it, even if it ends up being self-hate.

So, that's Team Korea's World Cup chances in a nutshell. It would be lucky to salvage two losses and a draw, while giving up no more than two goals in either losses. (There is a real chance that Korea could lose 5-0 to Belgium. Mark my words.) Team Korea is that sick puppy that you picked up from the side of the road, that mangy one which would surely die in a couple of days. Like your parents said, don't get too attached. Just sit back, quietly mutter "Well, at least we made the Cup," and thank your lucky stars if you have another country that you may legitimately root for. In that spirit:  USA! USA! USA!

(Seriously though, I really want Korea to win. Just one game. Is that too much to ask?)

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