Anyway, they suggested I might do well to read some more "left leaning" papers. I am always up for the chance to broaden my perspectives, so I checked out an article in Hankyoreh Well, most of their stuff was in Korean but if you look at this editorial (and most are translated thanks to the folks at http://www.seoulselection.com/) you'll be able to slug through "their thoughts".
Let's take a look at some of these thoughts:
There are persistent accusations that permitting a massive delegation to go to North Korea's "Arirang" performance is shaking the state's foundation. It's the same old people and arguments, too. It all got started when the government allowed around 5,000 people to watch an event that is used as propaganda for the North Korean system. Maybe they think that those who have watched the mass games have come to admire North Korean-style socialism.
OK, so the government in the South allows 5,000 people to partake in a admittedly propagandized ceremony and you have no worries?
Card sections and other elements of mass games were rampant under South Korean dictatorship as well.
So, it was bad then but because we've learned from it, it won't affect anyone now?
How could someone think that a person could be moved by such an event and come to sympathize with the North's government? Viewing the Arirang event was probably time in which people reaffirmed the democratic and pluralist nature of Southern society and came to agonize over what the Korean nation has to do in the future.
Well, at least somebody thought so (bah, can't find link for the first "unification baby" that was born in pyongyang this past week).
Currently there is rice, flour, corn, powdered milk, and oil going to the North, while defectors are continuously arriving in the South. Unless you're worried about criminals taking flight, there's no reason to be scared about people traveling to the North.
So, they send propaganda and defectors to the South, while we send food and aid to the North. Sounds like a GREAT trade.
We hope to see the procedures and qualifications for visiting the North changed swiftly to be consistent with changed realities. The principle should be that there is more frequent and freer passage.
Ok but you mean both ways right? Right? When making a statement like that I AM SURE that you mean that travel rights should be "freer" (sic) for ALL koreans right?
Funny how this article did it's best to lambaste the "conservative side" in the South while totally letting the North off the hook for any responsibility. Wow, am I ever glad I found this paper to add to my collection.
7 comments:
It's good that you are reading other papers than the big three, not that I like hani, but it is good to get a variety of opinions.
Do you think having both sides send delegations back and forth like that does more harm than good?
While I understand why you said "this article did it's best to lambaste the "conservative side" in the South while totally letting the North off the hook for any responsibility", don't you think it says something about Korean society that it gives the freedom to its citizens to travel freely, as opposed to forcing them not to go. I mean if Southern society is so much better than the north, there is no reason to restrict the freedom of thousands of people who would like to travel there.
Don't you think that's an importamt part of being a democratic country and setting an example to the north?
Don't you think the 핱겨레 should be praised for promoting a democratic spirit in the south? (Even if some of the people who work there are kind of like loonies)
I'll try to answer the questions in order
1) I think an even exchange of delegations and information of the like (ie. videos, broadcasts, and such) is a great thing. I just feel that at present, the exchange is uneven.
2) I quite agree with your statement about South Korean freedoms. I'm not the biggest fan of the National Security Law and believe it needs to be ammended. That being said, again, I'll say that for this type of "freedom of travel" (exchange) to work, it needs to be mutual. To write an article about the freedom, or lack there of, in the South. While not mentioning the North's horrible record on the subject is in my mind irresponsible.
3) Again, agreed. It seems I'm in an agreeable mood this evening. And while I agree with the South "setting the example" for the North (in economic development as well), I still have not seen any fundamental shift in the DPRK to indicate they are truly ready for change.
4) Now, this might be where we part ways. While I AM GLAD there is a paper/source of information out there to counter "the big three", I feel Hani does itself a diservice as a news agency when it blantantly shows it's bias.
Call me silly, but I think a news source should at least try to eliminate as much of it's bias that it can. The problem is, Hani only translates it's editorials into English so for now, my opinion, like always, is limited.
Do you feel the remaining newspapers in Korea do not show their bias? I admit the they may claim to be neutral, but there is no such thing as an un-biased newspaper,to think otherwise is naive.
I actually appreciate that 한겨레 blatantly spits its bias out for all to see. Newspapers like 조선 may not seem to be biased to you because it may share many of your opinions. I know avid readers of both the 조선일보 and the 한겨레 and they both think their paper is telling the God's truth when in fact both have been guilty of telling some woppers.
As for the one sided thing with the Norks, some would argue that even if the Norks are pack of dirty liars, the South gains by becoming a society that in general tolerates anything. I appreciate Hani for the fact they, despite their faults, may hold this country to a higher standard than they do the evil dictatorship across the DMZ. Maybe South Korea should compare itself to the free nations of the world and not their wayward brothers to the North. Being a free democratic society should in my opinion be an end in itself and not necessarily something done just because the other side reciprocates.
Perhaps they should condemn them more, or on the other hand maybe conservative papers should concentrate more on how to make the South a fair, open and just society more than they do, rather than focus on those "bastard North Koreans" exclusively.
On a tangent, Great Britain's economy grew on free trade from the 1840's to the first world war. It conducted free trade all on its own (that is, it removed all tarrifs into the country) because it believed that it gained from free trade despite what everybody else did, and in their case they were right. They removed all tarriffs and their economy skyrocketed for decades.
Could the same not be said for political freedom?
Do you feel the remaining newspapers in Korea do not show their bias?
I thik the majority, if not all, of the papers show some type of bias. Either with what they report, or what they leave out.
I actually appreciate that 한겨레 blatantly spits its bias out for all to see.
While I suppose I'd agree with you if I had stumbled on this paper of my own accord. However, it was recommended to me by a number of people who insisted that "it was more accurate than the Chosun and told the truth!"
some would argue that even if the Norks are pack of dirty liars, the South gains by becoming a society that in general tolerates anything.
I would be curious to know of any society that "tolerates anything".
Maybe South Korea should compare itself to the free nations of the world and not their wayward brothers to the North.
I thought this was an interesting comment. Actually, to tell the truth, I am quite sick of the South comparing itself to everyone. Maybe we are barking at the same thing in hopingthat the ROK would "lead" for a change.
conservative papers should concentrate more on ... rather than focus on those "bastard North Koreans" exclusively.
I guess it all comes down to a matter of perspective. I look at the Chosun today and see articles about the six-party talks, the US blackilisting some North Korean companies. Honestly, I don't find them overly aggressive, but that's just me.
As for the stuff about GB's economy and "letting everything in" (ie. without a tarrif), I honestly think that is why Economics and Politics are separated at most schools. IMO, the theories do not always blend well.
Can you name one nation that has allowed, welcomed, and embraced all comers, and let it's society, religions, economics and politics be changed by allowing the other nation to dictate the terms of import?
*ps. good discussion by the way.
I am glad you are enjoying this little discussion, but I have a few things I need to clear up because I think you may have misunderstood me.
You are no doubt aware of all the scandals surrounding the Chosun Ilbo, in the past it has been accused of lying about and fabricating a lot of what it published in the past. People got very angry at it for its selective reporting. In fact part of the reason that 한겨레 got started in the first place was to counter the fabrications and selective reporting of Chosun and present a more objective voice in the news. Whether they succeeded at that is another thing altogether though. Unfortunately under its banner it has attracted even the “reasonable progressives” to the “national left” making it a bit of a target and tarnishing a lot of what it set out to do.
Secondly when I said “a society that tolerates anything”, I was saying that in comparison to the North, whose government does not tolerate anything in the society that does not conform to what they envision for it. I was not trying to refer to a 100% open society, but rather comparing it to the 100% intolerant society to the North.
Thirdly, you again did not catch my point about the South comparing it to the nations of the world. I am not reefing to the fact that many Korean newspapers think it is important to point out that “Korea is (insert random ranking) in the world at (sports/the economy/free/intelligence…random self serving nationalistic tripe). If some Koreans feel the need to do that, whatever, that is their business, but it is not what I was talking about. You seemed to be angry at 한겨례 for condemning South Korea and its conservatives when the North is so much worse and yet it does not even glance an eye in that direction.
My point is, why must it compare itself to the North? For example even if the North’s human rights abuses are worse than the ones known to have happened in the South, that doesn’t mean that the ones that occurred in the South should be condoned or ignored. The same could be said for inequality of wealth, Jeabol power, lack of relative freedom in parts of the society and a number of other issues. Comparing itself to other more developed countries, not just economically, is much more productive than always just saying things like, “well the North is worse!” or “what about the North?” South Korea maybe in many respects is (or maybe all) a better place to live than the North but it still is much worse than several other countries. It is not for example receiving top marks in Freedom House’s annual ranking. The country has a long way to go.
“conservative papers should concentrate more on ... rather than focus on those "bastard North Koreans" exclusively.”
The fact that you chose to “…ize” the part I was emphasizing, illustrates my point, there are many issues that Chosun does not discuss about Korea society, in fact things they just choose to ignore because it is not part of their vested interests.
I think my GB example is more relevant than you are opening your mind to consider. You cannot divorce economics an politics so cleanly because they are so closely twined together in policy but that is another debate altogether.
I was suggesting that allowing Korea to become a completely free society was an end in itself. I was suggesting that by being free, even if the North chooses not to be, South Korea will become a better and stronger society. The country should not allow some conservatives (i.e. factions of the 하나라당) to use the North to slow progress in this country or so easily use it as a scapegoat for the problems in this society. I am not suggesting Korea should “silence” the conservatives, but just choose not to listen to them.
Anyway I am running out of steam writing this, maybe some other time…
With our long winded comments here, it's no wonder that you're tired. As well, If you feel i'm mis-reading your thoughts... appoloies. Thruth be told, you have a very passive style of writing. I don't have a problem with it, it's just hard to pin you down (so to speak) on some definate points.
I'll try to keep my comments brief:
-I am (somewhat)aware of the papers past. Honestly thoug, it doens't bother me all that much. I'm willing to look at people (organizations, countries, ect) for what they do and say "now"... and judge them on it.
-the "tolerate anything" comment I kind of figured, but like I said, I kind of dig specifics.
-you may feel I did not catch your point on this one, but honest, I did. I know that you're hoping that the South hold itself to a higher standard (as it should). I'll stand by my comment about the feeling of Korea comparing itself too much to other countries.
I think maybe you've pegged me in with the conservative crowd. I'm not sure where I wrote anything about ignoring "the injustices" of the South, or saying "well, the North is worse". Honestly, if a spade is a spade, call it so. If Mr. Kim has bad hair, tell him, and if Noh looks goofy after his eye surgery, then so be it. Maybe some people think that "being to the right" (or whatever convenient label fits for now) means that you have to support "your side" no matter what. For me though, I see idiots all around me. I keep this blog to keep track of some ;)
My appologies for cropping your quote.
"conservative papers should concentrate more on how to make the South a fair, open and just society more than they do,"
Shouldn't all papers try for this? Why is it only conservatives you have focused on? I'm not sure if I agree with your statement, but if you are going to make something that sweeping, would you not want to include them all?
Personally, I thought this was your best quote:
"I was suggesting that allowing Korea to become a completely free society was an end in itself. I was suggesting that by being free, even if the North chooses not to be, South Korea will become a better and stronger society."
I have two questions for you;
*How do conservatives slow progress, while the progressives... "progress" it? (I presume your talking about two specific parties but you can clarify)
*(repeat) Can you name one nation that has allowed, welcomed, and embraced all comers, and let it's society, religions, economics and politics be changed by allowing the other nation to dictate the terms of import? (I ask this because I firmly believe that as of right now, the North is dictating the terms of the relationsip to the South)
Bah! Don't mind the spelling above. It seems I am in need of a rest as well.
Post a Comment