[Maria Blake]

The resource titled, “Korea at a Glance,” which was about  the study of the similarities and differences between South and North Korea was quite helpful in shedding light on the two countries, overall. One thing, in particular, that was interesting was the description of the two flags and what the symbols and colors could mean in each context given political and historical readings to contextualize such readings. After watching the movies and getting a feel for the culture and history of the two Koreas, the designs on two flags made me think of several things. First, it seems to me that both flags reflect the political ideologies and histories of the two countries. For instance, the use of “People’s Republic”  in the name of the North Korean flag reminds me of the People’s Republic of China, which suggests the influence that communism has played in the formation of North Korea’s existence as a country. Moreover, the use of extreme words, such as “Supreme,” and “Ultimate” names for the South Korean flag suggests the hardships the South Koreans had to suffer to rise above the hostilities of the past and ascertain the only true political existence of the South Korean government and its people over their counterparts, the North Koreans, who the South Koreans, it seems, do not wish to represent the true Korean political identity in the international community.

             It was noticeable, moreover, how both flags identify different meanings to colors, with the exception of the color, “white,” which in both contexts is interpreted as “purity” and “brightness,” with the additional characteristic of “peace” for South Korea and “strength” given in North Korea. The color blue is given a negative meaning in the South Korea’s flag, the opposite of the positive red color, whereas the blue in the North Korean flag means “peace and friendship.” Red is given positive connotations in both flags. 

            Furthermore, comparing the two countries’ economic data suggests how South Korea is more developed and internationally involved in trade  in contrast to North Korea. For example, South Korea is high on services, a 58.2%,  whereas North Korea has a 31.3 %. Unlike North Korea , also, the advanced technology manufactured in South Korea is higher. Because of such disparities, the highlights of North Korea’s economy and trade focus on clothing and food instead. 

            Finally, the trivia information would interest students because it presents information that is visual and simple. It was tempting to me to interpret certain data in a certain light, and it would be interesting to see how students would interpret similar data. The names of cities and their meaning, such as Seoul and Pyongyang, which mean “Capital City,” and “Flat Land,” respectively,  are two additionally  interesting ideas students may use to talk about how such names can connect to history and claims to authority, power, and recognition at the local, national and international levels of interpretation.

[Maria Blake]

Hi Vera—

          Thank you for sharing this story about the current situation in South Korea.  As an outsider to the history and current affairs, I   am unfamiliar with the present political concerns of the country. Over our brief conferences and through our readings,  what you describe here makes sense. It reminds me of similar tensions that exist in other parts of the world, such as Cyprus, where there is a divided area between the Turkish and the Greek Cyprus. While growing up in Greece, also, I was hearing constantly on the news  about the political tensions in Palestine that were characterized with violence and destruction. The reality in South Korea seems to be tension-hanging-in-the-air, a feeling similar to that of a cold war situation. Violence has already occurred during the war but the inner alienation is still likely to be felt within, particularly, by those who lost family members during the war. The movies we can watch through the provided link in the forum further substantiates the cruelties of war and the potentially lingering effects. You are right, such movies do weigh high emotionally with viewers, particularly, due to the human drama described within and the cruelties that reflect war conditions.

 Nice talking with you! 

[Maria Blake]

        There were some interesting points that were discussed in the PowerPoint related to the years 1994-2011in both Koreas, and most of them were new to me and helped me understand better the current affairs related to the political relations between N. Korea and the U.S., or the rest of the world. The historical accounts described in the presentation explain how the tensions that dominate the diplomatic communications between N. Korea and other countries came into being. Learning about the history of both Koreas help us appreciate more the present and pursue ways to better resolve any issues that might arise as a result of the critical presence  Korea plays on a global stage;  the more people know about such conditions, also, the more prepared and successful countries will become at limiting the potential of a potentially disastrous nuclear warfare outbreak. 

            The new information about N. Korea contributed to increase my understanding about the influence of governments to shape the political and economic realities in societies. In this sense, my initial impression about N. Korea of being homogeneously a country that is resistant to westernization, because of a willing embrace of the ideals of the government, has been recalibrated to reflect the dominant presence of the government in the life of the people that leaves little space for thinking otherwise, or reacting against the expected norms. The government left their people to fend of themselves speaks volumes of the above, as it is that many people suffer from famine in the country and Korean government does little to lift the economic sanctions directed at the country  by the U.S. and other countries; the latter criticize the country’s isolationist policies and its refusal to accept monitoring of its military buildup, and particularly of its nuclear capabilities and trade of nuclear weapons with other countries, such as  the middle east.  If governments, thus, are at a disagreement, or at odds with each other, as is the case between N. Korea and the rest of the world, the people in N. Korea will continue to suffer. 

            Nonetheless, it was surprising to see how, regardless of such circumstances, the power inheres in the present and the possibility of progress in the relations between and among nations that takes place in the present. For example, in the presentation we learn about the meeting between Madame Albright, the U.S. Secretary of State, who went to visit the president of N. Korea in 2000, and gave him a basketball signed by Michael Jordan, and American movies, which highlights the humanity of the president. Another interesting event was when the New York philharmonic went to perform in N. Korea, and the musicians from the two countries were seeing each other without the weight of political failures on their shoulders but as human beings with the ability to find happiness and peace in the midst of other people of the same, or different national background. 

            Moreover, the potential for improvement in the relations between the North and South Korea exists in the way the two countries find ways to communicate, even if not yet vibrant. One example was the one of Hyundai, the president of the automobile company, who sent 1001 cows to N. Korean people to return a small favor, or when Hyundai built a summer resort in the north for the S. Koreans.  

            Finally, the content would be of interest to students who are curious about other countries and interested in how they are doing as a country and its lifestyle. Asia, also,  is increasingly becoming a topic of discussion in the news, particularly, as information about nuclear weapons becomes of interest and concern, and when such issues affect the relation of individuals to the environment and their future. In our study of literature, we broach a little on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; thus, the reference to the nuclear capability of N. Korea helps make history be of more relevance, since any wrong diplomatic step can lead to the use of dangerous weapons that can force humanity to experience the mistakes of the past, unless students are aware of such risks and become proactive about their future through their choices and proactive actions. 

 

 

[Maria Blake]

       There were several things that I learned through this video clip, which helped me understand better the history and the reality of the two Koreas currently. 

            First, it was that North Korea was invaded by the Soviets and the South Koreans by the Americans at the end of  WII. Koreans could not agree on a single government, so they had to establish their own government and the country was divided along the 38 parallel line several miles north of Seoul. The instability of a political government allowed for the establishment of a centralized government, or the involvement of foreign powers, as it was what happened in the above political contexts.  Dynastic Communism rules in North Korea, whereas democracy rules the government in South Korea. Students benefit from knowing how government plays a role in the shaping of the life of a country. 

            Over the course of the presentation, also,  it became clearer to me that governments have a big influence over history and culture. The first president of North Korea, Kim II Sung, had no significant political education, or family lineage, but because of his experience as a guerrilla fighter in Manchuria, he learned the tactics to win the game of politics and, thus, he won the first presidential seat of North Korea, and it seems he became the reason for the establishment of socialist monarchy and dynastic socialism in the country that would inform all the subsequent types of government. Such government types explain the anti-capitalistic ideologies that define the life of North Koreans versus their counterparts in the South. Being anti-capitalistic, though, suggests there are lurking seeds of anti-U.S. ideologies, which might not be espoused necessarily by the people but they are supported by the government, unless the government changes its ruler and the ruler shows signs of being more willing to keep open the paths of communication with the outside world. 

            In contrast to North Korea, South Korea had to go through a rough path to the establishment of its  government, just because it deviated from the path of a centralized government ideology. It was unknown to me that South Koreans had to experience some form of dictatorship before they reached the current state of democracy. During the presentation it was made clear to me how the reason for such turbulent times was the fear that existed in the South for an imminent threat from the north in the form of another military campaign, or the threat of communism, which resulted in a strict and centralized government  such as that by Rhee, who eliminated opponents and was considered “ a ruthless ruler.”  But through subsequent governments, who contributed in different ways to write the constitution, democracy was coming to be a stronger influence. It surprised me to learn there were, also, student protests that contributed to the democratization of the government over time. It was interesting to learn that the rapid economic growth that followed the government of Roh Tae Woe was a more certain assurance of the road to democratization that was paved for South Koreans. Nonetheless,  such a process would not have been achieved, overall, according to the information in the presentation, if it was not for “the struggles by the students, intellectuals, and workers.” The case with South Korea is a good example to show how the path to democracy is a path hard won for every country, as it happened in the U.S. in the colonial times. 

[Maria Blake]

       From the discussions we did last week on the Korean era of 1945 through 1994, what stood out to me was the understanding that we all had that North Korea is a country that is enveloped in mystery, which makes us more curious to know about what is going on within in terms of the life people lead and the way the government runs in that part of the world sealed from the outside world community unlike any other country we know, and perhaps, our students know. Some of the interesting points we discussed, and which can be shared with our students in class in connection to the study of government types and the impact that those have on life and experience, are as follows: 

            First, it is the understanding that leadership informs the progress of a country and of its people. There is hope that the new leadership in North Korea, for instance, will be more open for dialogue and negotiations than the previous one, since we talked about how the earlier rulers of North Korea were more reclusive than the one that rules the country nowadays. Second, it is the point about the widespread symbolism in North Korean statues of the sickle, the hammer, and the calligraphy brush. I did not know that the last one meant bureaucracy. Students can begin to see meaning in the symbols they see around them, whether those are statues, or the currency of the dollar and the symbols represented within. Third, we talked about the shogun principle that was an important way to understand the government in North Korea with its emphasis on a centralized government that needs a military in order to keep its power centralized. Students can use this lens to interpret more instances of shogun in the politics of any war and conflict they study about in literature. The military is the source of pride in every country. Students can study the role of the military and its agency as an important tool for totalitarianism, but also for democracy and freedom. 

            Finally, regardless of how mysterious and reclusive North Korea appears to us,  and also regardless of how precarious has been the process of democratization of South Korea, we talked about events and life experiences that humanize the former and make South Korea a vital force in building international communication and relations with global communities. For instance, we talked about the desire that exists in North Koreans to check the news in an unofficial way, such as when they are able to check the internet through signals received from China, particularly, for those living close to the border with China. There are humanitarian agencies, moreover, with Red Cross as one of them, who support the union of families for long separated because of the war. The role of such agencies suggests that their services are not entirely oppressed. In addition, we talked about the participation of South Korea in the 1992 World Cup, which  suggests to me how sports can bring people together and unite them, regardless of past enmities, or divisions. 

[Maria Blake]

         The information gained through the article on “Korea’s 20^th Century Odyssey” was new to me  in most respects and familiar in fewer others.  

            To begin with, it was known to me that the U.S. military went to fight in Korea for reasons that had to do with fears of a new Communistic wave that would spread through the rest of the world, if left unchecked. It was known to me, moreover, that the war engaged the U.S. and Korea in a war that depended on napalm bombing and that there were deaths as a result of such a warfare. At different times, I have had students who told me they had one grandparent who fought during the Korean war. 

              Nonetheless, there were many more things that were unfamiliar to me. For one thing, it was how the war was perceived by the U.S. as a “police action,” or a conflict, but not a war. In this light, the United Nations came to be the overarching commanding entity that became involved and sanctioned the use of weapons for the purpose of defending peace and order. The commander of the United Nations military representation in Korea was an American commander, general MacArthur, who was blamed later for risking the lives of the military by attempting to forge forward, when the outcome would have been potentially disastrous, particularly, when China joined the North Koreans in their effort to defeat the attacks with their own use of weaponry. Some intellectuals were, also, fearful of the onset of the WWIII, if nuclear weapons were part of the subsequent military conflicts on the ground. In the same light, I did not know the confrontations were so intense at different times during the war that would lead to the city of Seoul being overrun four times in the three-year war, assumingly, by both the North Koreans and the South Koreans, which suggests the war front was moving north and south depending on how the military was positioned toward the two major cities, Seoul and Pyongyang, which determined the degree of success of either sides involved in the conflict; that is, if the front line was moving down to Seoul, it meant the North Koreans were being successful in maintaining their defense and they were aggressively moving south to defeat the foreign troops and South Koreans and occupy the entire Korean peninsula. But, if the front line was moving up to Pyongyang, it suggested the UN troops were making progress. 

            Furthermore, other things that were unfamiliar to me were how there were so many victims from both sides, but mostly from the Korean side, regardless of whether they were North, or South Korean. The article points out that there were: “ 33,626 Americans, while hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Koreans(North and South) soldiers, and millions of civilians died in the brutal police action.”(Robinson) The heartbreaking truth was the high death toll of civilians, which makes me think that in every war the civilians are those who suffer the most, even though the government and those involved in directly conflict suffer less. The war ended in a truce, also, although I thought it ended after two-to-three years. This makes it clearer why today the situation between the North and South Koreas are still intense, and there is military at the border division between the two countries, which remained the same ever since the first establishment of the 38 parallel division line before the outbreak of the war. 

            Finally, the article spoke about North Korean’s bunker mentality, which was something I did not know, and how such a mentality originated in the fear the country has of a future threat of bombing. That the country was devastated  during the war is the cause of this fear and the hatred that exists in the history of North Korea towards the West, and in particular, towards the U.S. that had caused all the devastation. The thought that the country was able “ with “the tenacious will of the government, the determined leadership of the centralized mass party” to make the country stand on its own feet is a testament of how strong the government exerts its influence on the people. The author describes the people’s bunker mentality as paranoia, which had led to the building of “defenses and strategic industries into Korea’s ubiquitous granite hills and mountains.” (Robinson)The use of nuclear weapons is one way the country could defend itself and that is a scary reality. The latter explains why not only the West but also China, Japan, and South Korea are on the alert and supporting sanctions on North Korea to keep the area safe. The U.S. is also supportive of such measures because any nuclear  conflict has global consequences. 

[Maria Blake]

         The videos I watched were two for this first discussion forum. The first one was what all of us had to watch with Dr. Jung-Kim, and the second one was because I missed attending the live forum,  which was about the predictable unpredictability of North Korea, specifically, in the context of the new political dynamics that developed with the new leadership in North Korea and the U.S. There are some interesting takeaways from the two presentations, particularly, as they relate to North Korea, which is a country that has alienated itself from the world due to its communistic monarchy. The unknowability about North Korea sparked this interest in learning more about it through the video presentations.

            In the first presentation with Dr. Jung-Kim, one of the takeaways was that North Korea has been divided from South Korea ever since the end of the WWII, and particularly the Korean War. That the two countries are not united speaks to the fact that the war has not ended between the two countries, which I did not know. Both countries have mandatory the service by able-bodied men, which suggests the high priority placed on  safety and security in case there is a threat of an attack, or a need for defense.  

            Furthermore, one of the highlights from the presentation with Dr. Jacques Fuqua corroborates what Dr. Jung-Kim said before, that is, that   Koreans  put a high premium on their military for either aggressive, or defensive reasons. The assumption that predominates, though, is that the threat for a nuclear war exists mostly with North Korea, a country that seeks to achieve its stature in the world as a nuclear powerhouse so as to maintain its independence from China,  Japan, or western countries, and also  to achieve its “autonomous self-identity,” the “Juche,” pronounced /tsuse/.  There is obviously a pressure from China and Japan for North Korea to conform to agendas,  but North Korea has  managed to gain some  independence with the adoption of the title as one of the major nuclear powerhouses  in the world that produces nuclear weapons for itself and for other countries. North Korea has other weapons of mass destructions, as do other major economic powers such as China and the U.S. 

            It is unsettling to think that North Korea would think nuclear weapons is the solution to independence. Dr. Fuqua claims that it would be really hard to dissuade North Korea from continuing with the production of nuclear weapons, since the only two solutions that could exist, economic sanctions, or accepting North Korea as a nuclear power, do not eliminate the potential threat of a nuclear weapon use in a potential future conflict. If used in South Korea the destruction would be devastating, Dr. Fuqua supports,  because of  the high density of cities and the potential use of other weapons such as chemical and biological weapons. 

            Finally, there is hope that peace will always preside over any political dialogue, because North Korea wants to have relations with its allies of Russia and China. The fear of nuclear weapon use, though, exists as a threat and it was interesting to see that being suggested in the two presentations, but mostly in the second presentation. 

Resources Consulted:

5 Things to Know about Korea. 

Presenter: Dr. Jennifer Jung-Kim 

 

North Korea: A Predictable Unpredictability (9/19/2017)
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/recording/3151256785799706625
Presenter: Jacques Fuqua, author

[Maria Blake]

Greetings All--

I am a Sophomore English teacher at an IB high school here in Tucson and this is my 10th year teaching. The curriculum for Sophomore English includes the study of political systems of thought, particularly, as those are studied in relation to George Orwell's, "Animal Farm." It was possible for me to study a little Korean literature through a summer class on High School Asian Literature at Indiana University at Bloomington, but otherwise know little about the society and history of Korea, and thus it is with great curiosity and enjoyment that I am participating. Thank you for inviting me, and good luck to all! 

[Author]

Posts