There is nothing that seems so bizarre and yet so normal to all my friends in Korea than dressing in Red and supporting the Korean national team. During the World Cup Korea becomes football crazy; when Korea plays, the world stops, 75% of all people put on a red shirt with English language slogans on them about Korea's victory or 'fighting'. Its kitsch, silly and stupid, I hate cheap patriotism. But there are massive anomalies in this, that none of my foreign friends seem to recognize or care to notice.
Korean patriotism is merely a softer form of Korean nationalism; Koreans are one, racially homogeneous master race according to the grand narrative of Korean nationalism. They stand apart from a globalizing world, defined by the enmity towards the brutal, cunning Japanese and dirty, uncivilized Chinese. Korean's are naive, simple and civilized people as Brian Myers says of North Korean literature, South Korean nationalists perceive themselves in the same way. This sea of red is an exclusionary, exclusive, ethno-nationalist group expression. It is not for us foreigners; in fact it is defined by the dichotomy of 'insider' Koreans and 'outsider' foreigners.
My foreign friends who wear their red and participate in the Korean nationalist wave all give me a similar reason for it. They're trying to get to know a culture, and participate in a harmless sporting event. Yet what's forgotten by them is that most Koreans do not care about football itself. Most Koreans do not watch football except during the world cup, and do not play football. This is just a nationalistic (and commercial) fetish; participating in such events makes no sense to me. Furthermore I doubt it makes much sense to most Koreans seeing foreigners participate in something that is explicitly not for them. It almost appears patronizing to try to imitate a nationalist group wave. If I were Korean nationalist, I would find it offensive, in the same way as I would find it offensive if someone thought I was so stupid that they had to talk to me slowly in my own language.
Before I sound like a hypocritical racist. I would say the same things about any ethno-nationalist or even just patriotic wave. When English people don their shirts and support the national team they do not do so in racial terms. Britain is still a multi-ethnic state; England used to be the metropolitan centre of an inclusive multi-ethnic, cosmopolitan, global empire. So we have black, and white players. I much prefer this, I really hate ethno-nationalism, it reminds me of fascism because of my European cultural roots. Nonetheless its still ridiculous to me. It's something I find very discomforting. Why does a state deserve to be treated like a parent, with loyalty and respect? Its an inhuman structure of symbols, ideas, bureaucratic processes and institutions. It does things which are good and things which are bad. We do not owe it unconditional allegiance and we should not take pride in it, it does many terrible things. Korean nationalism is far more discomforting to me, it reminds me of Nazism, although it must be said it is not at present expansionist. Many Koreans do care about Dokdo, and I would class this as somewhat expansionist. But I doubt Korean nationalists will succeed in making war out of this.
Yet it is also truly paradoxical and bizarre. Why do Koreans don t-shirts that are written in the language of the United States, a country that so many progressives blame for dividing their country. Korean nationalism's greatest pride is King Sejong, the man who invented the Korean alphabet. The alphabet one of the ultimate symbols of ethnic particularity. It seems ever so strange and contradictory. Why are the slogans in Konglish, a Koreanisation of American English words; Koreans often say Paiting (fighting), and go K'ori'a.
Its even more ironic that the word 'Korea' is used. The word is a bastardized Romanisation of the word Koryŏ, the name of the dynasty that ruled Korea from 918-1392. I have not been able to trace its precise origins, but the name Corea/Korea appeared on western maps before 1392 so the name stuck in English before a new dynasty called Chosŏn was founded in 1392. Anyways the reason why this is so bizarre is that the name of Korea in the Korean language is Han'guk. This name is a shorted form of Taehanmin'guk, the name itself means 'Great Han People's Nation'. The word Han is very significant in this, it is associated with a group of states that existed on the Korean peninsula in ancient times, the so-called 'Three Han states period'. Han therefore is used to harken back to a great time of independence for the Korean race. Furthermore the name was chosen in 1897 (at that time Taehanjaeguk) when Korea switched from being a tributary nation of Confucian China to being an empire (in name only). The choice of name reflected the desire of the Korean court to rid itself of the legacy of dependence on China (in Korean 'Sadaejuui'). In 1392 when the new Korean dynasty asked China what it should name itself China chose the name Chosŏn over the name 'Han'. So in a symbolic act of retroactive defiance the court changed the name.
The Japanese when they colonized Korea in 1910 eliminated the name, reverting it back to Chosŏn. Nonetheless the name was resurrected by the South Koreans in 1945. The word Korea is a bad western translation of a dynasty that has not existed in Korea since 1392. Why is it now being used as a slogan of popular Korean nationalism?! The word Koryŏ is now associated with the North Korean reunification policy of the 'Democratic Republic of Koryŏ' so to me it seems even more ironic that Korean people should use a bad romanisation of a word now used by North Koreans in their bid for unification.
This is an ever so strange contradictory blend of racial hatred of outsiders, plus an almost slavish adoption of so many foreign cultural symbols. Many Korean parents would hate the idea of their children marrying foreigners. Most Korean girls think western men are dangerous, I got accused of sexual harassment two days ago for doing little more than ask a girl why she was wearing a formal evening gown during the afternoon. (She probably misunderstood my words are nighty, but still the assumption is that I am a pervert gagging for sex.)
I just do not understand, and I am starting to feel the same way about South Korean nationalism as I do about English patriotism. Am I supposed to accept it for what it is? Should I allow my back to break into cultural relativism, and just accept another culture on its own terms? This is a cynical ploy by media executives in the pay of a number of vast corporations who sell their products through appeals to nationalist sentiment (just look at SK telecom, how much more brazen can you get?!). Its also an ideology of national unity that is so important for the South Korean state to rap itself in. Why should it not be criticized? Why should it be respected? Its not a personal choice, its an ideology of the cultural industry; an ideology of a state that does good and bad things and attempts to make itself above criticism through appeals to the imagined idea of race. Its thoroughly worthy of critique.
Post-mortem:
I suppose I maybe attributed a tad too much malice to something that whilst infuriating is quite harmless. Nationalism is blind, bumbling and stupid, yet it needn't end in confrontation or war. Moreover most of the people who were watching the game were probably just there to have a good time, not to partake in some kind of fascist parade.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I have too much to say, but too much (paid) work to do. But trust me, this one is not dead.
I have a cultural anthropology on saturday, this is a good excuse to put my new-found vocabulary to use.
Firstly, ethnicity is defined as an aspect of the relationship between groups, not a stand-alone feature of a group, I don't think there is much of a contradiction if you look at it this way, koreans want to show they are capable of being as fun and cool as the rest of the world (oh, brazil!) is capable of being, yet having their very own identity that they perceive as much more important and much less temporary. this communication of cultural traits assumes an audience, ie america/west who are in a dominant position globally (this audience was once China)
Secondly, You wonder why koreans are tied to the state and its uni-ethnic character.. overcommunication of ethnicity is a classic symptom of an ongoing cultural transition process (that you are in a much better position to describe and are fortunate enough to witness first hand) - Meiji Japan? (transitional period=overcommuncation of japanese-ness) hell, islamism is a good example (though an unfortunate one, some money in afghanistan some 50 years ago would probably would have turned them into something not too far from what you're complaining about). P.s. look for overcommuncation in england (though much less quaint - because its not being culturally dominated - and perhaps unnoticeable to an insider) ; hint hint: immigrants
Thirdly, yes, yes, you should have the same uniform response... why should you react differently to different kinds of nationalism? they are essential an expression of the same type with varying degrees and different circumstances. but just because you realize what it is shouldn't stop you from pausing for a second and admiring the glorious mechanisms of interaction between hapless individuals to produce the fantastically devised abstract collective will of a people, set back and enjoy.
i meant sit back, goddamn spellchecker
and the first sentence is i have a cultural anthropology exam on saturday, i should reread whatever i typed above but im really sleepy
Omar thats fascinating. I love to read more about cultural transition and cultural anthropology seems to a rich paradigm through which to explore Korean nationalism. And also thank you for confirming that I am not a racist (the greenman has by text!)>
Post a Comment