I came across this article about a recent Rose Parade float created as a tribute to Korean War veterans.

The float is meant to replicate the Korean War monument in Washington, D.C. It was really surprising to me to see a float for "The Forgotten War," but it also made me think about the representations and perceptions of war, post-war narratives, and the concept of a party of forgetting. The front of the float reads "freedom is not free," a popular idiom we're familiar with in the U.S. Its use in relation to the Korean War is, no doubt, ironic and condescending considering the realities of the war and the United States' involvement. The fact that this expression has been used repetitively and is tagged onto something made about the Korean War, like any other war, seems to dismiss Korean War history and politics, and posits the U.S. within a paternalistic narrative wherein their mission was to liberate.

War narratives portraying the U.S. as arbiters of freedom aside though (because we're so accustomed to them by now), it also brings up issues of who is included in post-war representations and in what ways. Our discussion about the tendency of war films to focus on the heroic individual (which Huppauf writes about) rings true here, even when it comes to a seemingly insignificant float like this. Focus is on a few soldiers, who embody the bravery and heroism of the U.S. image of American combat. There is no outside context and no clear way of knowing where these soldiers are. All that matters is that they are masculinized symbols of American freedom and war. Unsurprisingly, the float (and the monument) only represents American soldiers and does not recognize Korean victims of the war, civilian or combatant. The article itself seems to similarly evoke this image of the individual soldier as the primary focus of war history and narrative, showcasing a few veterans without once mentioning the history of the Korean War. I find it interesting, then, that even a short news article incorporates the individualistic war representation mentioned by Huppauf.

All of this, of course, ties into the "party of forgetting" that we've discussed. I think this float embodies the U.S. privilege to forget, erase, and remake the past. It recasts the violence of war and even its participants in order to push a more patriotic, U.S.-centered narrative. History can be forgotten and, instead, replaced by a few symbols and a patriotic idiom.

Side note: I know we have been encouraged to find representations from North Korea and this is obviously not one, but I thought it brought up a lot of the concepts we've been talking about in class and seemed to fit well here.

(Sorry this is super late!)

A Question of Reality or Timing

         "I have tried to include events on a single negative, but the results were hopeless. Every-thing was on such a vast scale. Figures were scattered - the atmosphere was dense with haze and smoke - shells would not burst when required - yet all the elements of a picture were there could they but be brought together and condensed... on developing my plate, there was disappointment! All I found was a record of a few figures advancing from the trenches - and a background of haze. Nothing could have been more unlike a battle" (53).

          This is an entry from Frank Hurley's diary, he "played a considerable role" as a World War II photographer. This passage really stuck to me as I was reading the Bernd Huppauf article and came to mind again in class as we were looking at the image of the children in front of a tank. I looked around and found the above image which I believe must be pretty close to what it was that Hurley saw (though this is the Korean War version). It's true what he says, this is probably not what people imagine when they think of war. And as I read his diary entry, a part of me agreed with his justification for wanting to "montage" images together to create a more "realistic" depiction of war. It's true that the images that are staged or constructed are not organic but that is not to say that they are any less "real" when it comes to what can "realistically" happen in war during battle. Spectacular scenes like those that Hurley wanted to photograph more than likely do occur; the problem is that more often than not there is no one around to capture them.

          Perhaps this (photo on the right) is something more like what Hurley was hoping to capture. Here is a grand scene with explosions caused by shells bursting "when required" and an unobstructed view of a possible hero fighting with his unit. So even though there is clearly a greater desire to capture this second image there is no question that both are real depictions of war. Both of these images are in fact documentations of war, one grander than the other but both likely to occur. So the question is not a question of reality, constructed or not, but more of a question of timing. Being in the right place at the right time seems to be the motto of photographers. I guess what is so bad about the idea of staging or constructing images is the question of credit. Should a photographer gain credit or recognition for an image that he did not capture organically? Should an individual that creates such an image be credited as a photographer? Or should an image that has been constructed even be recognized as a photograph? (Something to think about and something I think about as an artist.)

- Patty Ledezma

Past and Present Memories

Bernd Huppauf in the very beginning of Experiences of Modern Warfare brings in the idea that "the sheer mass of historical images transmitted by today's media weakens the link between public memory and personal experience" really stays in my mind. Because I believe it's very true because we are swamped with many different images that in the end  do not show the true context, which allows for us to move farther and father away these images. We have lost out on the meaning of these images, thus, can't connect personally. This then makes me think about how the U.S. is in the group of forgetting about the Korean War because we may see the images, but we won't connect to what it means. If the U.S. had been more affected by the Korean War, maybe we would make more of an effort to remember, like the people in Korea who were greatly affected. Especially considering that their country is still divided. The images and memories of the Korean War have become "isolated from time and space" because we want to leave it in our forgotten memory (41). 

 However, how can this have happened considering that the U.S. still has military personnel in South Korea? Someone I know is in South Korea right now, she's part of the air force. She is on a "secret mission" in Korea that she's not allowed to discuss, but somehow it relates to the "official mission" of keeping the peace between North and South Korea. But what does that even means? In what ways do they keep the peace, considering that families have been divided and aren't able to see each other? Even she says that she doesn't like the mission, but she enjoys the people and culture of Korea. but it still makes me wonder what gives the U.S. the right to "achieve peace" when they seem to actually be hindering the process? 

~Melissa

China and the Soviet Union in Korean War Propaganda

Throughout the The North Korean Revolution, one point that Armstrong especially stresses is that communism's roots in North Korea are intrinsically related to Korean anti-colonial movements.  This notion is averse to the propagandist assertion that communism in the peninsula is solely the result of the Soviet occupation after WWII, claiming that communism was forced upon Koreans.

This example of South Korean propaganda illustrates this perception of Korean communism, as the helpless North Korean soldier is involuntarily pushed into battle by Russian, Chinese, and then North Korean communist officers.  In an attempt to discredit the authenticity of communism in North Korea, propaganda like this portrays North Korean soldiers being forced into fighting for a cause that they in no way support.  The Armstrong reading refutes propaganda like this, as it describes how communist guerrilla movements in Korea and Manchuria were active throughout the Japanese colonial period, garnering much popular support.

Imagined Communities

While I was reading Charles K. Armstrong's The North Korean Revolution, 1945-50, I thought it was interesting how he described social reforms and nationalism in North Korea in terms of "imagined communities" (Armstrong 8).  In the beginning, he writes:

"A process of ideological construction created not only individual subjects, but also collective subjects, categories such as worker, poor peasant, woman, and youth, as well as the nation itself.  These new 'imagined communities' were imagined not only by intellectuals and political leaders, but also by the people whose lives were most affected by this change, especially those who were identified as objects of liberation" (Armstrong 8).

Armstrong refers to imagined communities again when he writes, "the state, in short, attempted to create in the worker an 'imagined community of class,' which in turn represented the whole Korean people" (Armstrong 91).  I found this distinction of imagined communities (and the internalization of the imagined community) versus actual communities interesting, because it reminded me of Bruce Cuming's The Korean War, when he mentioned that "the U.S. ambassador to the UN called the 38th parallel 'an imaginary line'" and asked the question, "Why is it aggression when Koreans cross the 38th parallel, but imaginary when Americans do the same thing?" (Cumings 23).  If the social reforms created, as Armstrong said, an "imagined community", what would be considered an actual community?

In 1983, Benedict Anderson wrote a book called "Imagined Communities," theorizing that a nation "is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion".  According to Anderson's definition, all nations are imagined communities, and this imagined sense of belonging to a larger group of people is what makes people cheer for their country at the Olympics, even when they don't personally know the athletes.  This sense of imagined community is also what makes people willing to die for their country.  When I read Armstrong's quotes, I thought his designation of the "imaginary" denied that the communities were so real to people– but after reading Anderson's definition, I think that the universal internalization of imagined communities demonstrates that imagined communities are actually stabilizing forces.  I think that the concept of imagined communities provides an interesting inquiry into the idea of nationalism and the creation of social and political boundaries, especially in the context of the Korean War.

Claire Davidson

Aerial photos: a flexible instrument of propaganda

The Huppauf piece we read last week had some interesting interpretations of wartime aerial photography.  Personally, I have only worked with aerial photos in the context of earth science courses, where the goal is to locate features such as fault lines, landslide scarps, drainage patterns, etc.  In other words, there was absolutely nothing politically charged about it.  This article, however, made me conceptualize aerial photography in a totally new light.  

Huppauf theorizes on the nature of aerial photos: “Aerial shots do not represent sensuous or moral experiences of space . . . It not only eliminated smells, noises, and all other stimuli directed at the senses, but also projected an order onto an amorphous space by reducing the abundance of detail to restricted patterns of a surface texture.  In photographs taken from a certain altitude, only objects of a certain minimum size will be represented; smaller objects, in particular human bodies, will not be there, and cannot be made visible even with magnifying glasses or through extreme enlargements” (57).  

So I looked up some photos of the Korean War shot from aircrafts to see if Huppauf’s argument rang true.  This one of the bombing of Seoul bridges caught my eye --

It certainly seems that the photo remains at a cold, artificial distance from the event of the bombing.  Although the photo allows us to glean the geologic impact of the bomb, we can only imagine the effect that it had on the people and structures nearby.  The explosion evidently took place extremely close to main roads and buildings, but from looking at the picture, we cannot tell whether the area had been evacuated or if, on the other hand, civilians were present and suffered injuries and property damage.  

The caption reads (http://taylorempireairways.com/2010/05/dod-images-korean-war/): “Airview of bombs dropped by U.S. Air Force, exploding on three parallel railroad bridges across Han River, southwest of Seoul, capital of the Republic of Korea. Bridges were bombed early in war to delay advance of invading North Korean troops.”  This caption emphasizes the strategic value in destroying the bridges and thereby slowing the advance of enemy forces.  It says nothing of the human damage incurred.  

Another site, by the military historian Belvin Alexander, features the same photo, but with a different caption: “U.S. bombs drop on railway bridges at Seoul in early July, 1950. The broken highway bridge at the right was blown without warning by South Korean themselves early on June 28, sending hundreds of fleeing South Korean soldiers and civilians to their deaths.”  (http://www.bevinalexander.com/korea/korean-war-photos.htm).  Clearly, a different meaning is ascribed to the photo on this webpage.  We are informed that the bombing took place without notice and killed many soldiers and civilians.

These two contrasting captions for the same photograph illustrate the mailability of aerial photos.  Because the viewer cannot see details, he/she can only learn about the human aspect of the event from the photograph’s caption.  I can therefore see how the owner of an aerial shot would have an enormous amount of power in shaping the public’s perception of war.  Since photographs are often received as "real" depictions of events, and ariel photos lack all trace of human bodies or 'sensuous experience', it is very easy to insert a flexible meaning while retaining the facade of objective reality.

--Sarah T.

Link for Movie: An Unattached Unit

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7oehz0016q77dbj/AnUnattachedUnit.m4v


To view the film you may need to press download on the top right hand corner of this link. I guarantee its safe as I downloaded it myself. Sorry it took me all weekend to learn how to post this movie to the internet. Let me know if there are any issues viewing.

Kurtzman

A comic called Two Fisted Tales by Harvey Kurtzman offers the early 1950’s American reader a critical opinion of American militarism. Through our talks of propaganda I want to bring up this American comic books that might constitute propaganda for peace.

First consider your viewpoint as the reader. A crazed American soldier is shooting at you. His fellow soldier happily tells him that there’s “AN ARMISTICE!” while he continues to shoot. Referring to the third soldier soldier with a bullet in his head the shooting soldier entails, “tell Jonesey here about the armistice”. The portrayal of an American soldier so distraught that he continues shooting after a peace treaty places blame directly upon the American military.This frame leads the viewer to criticism of the American military simply by having us face a frantic, disillusioned American caught in the  reciprocal violence of War.

Another early 1950’s American comic book by Kurtzman entitled Frontline Combat also differs from many patriotic comics of the time period. 

The viewer’s perspective of this Frontline Combat intrigues me. American soldiers walk along, one wonders if they hear a “kid crying” another says “nope”. I speculate that as the viewer we might assume the role of another orphaned Korean child or perhaps a dying family member. The viewer is crouched, low to the ground and not standing as the soldiers are. The viewer lay amongst rubble and broken furniture. As viewers of this image, we are lying in a house destroyed by war as the military passes by unconcerned. This frame highlights the circumstance in which the adoption industry solidifies because of the War in Korea. It is a visual depiction of a child being orphaned by American war atrocities. One problem I have with it, however, is why is the child hitting himself in the face? Anyone have a suggestion? It seems curious that this child would be punching himself in the face in the midst of this travesty. It almost brings a strange lightness to the situation. After these Comics Kurtzman went on to be writer and editor of Mad magazine so this may just be his strange humor.  

Anyway I thought bringing in these works would contrast well with the Marvel’s Combat Kelly and Battle Cry comics. The comics we read the first week of this course celebrated an American triumphalism and both put us as the viewer behind American soldiers facing aggressing Korean soldiers. Kurtzman’s Two-Fisted Tales and Frontline Combat show horrible ramifications of American militarism. More importantly, they put us as the viewer facing realistic American aggression rather than the far-fetched battles we see in Marvel's comics. In highlighting American aggression, do you think Kurtzman might have inspired American readers to consider War differently? Do these works propagandize for peace?

Look at this Combat Kelly for a quick comparison. The viewer stands behind Combat Kelly with hundreds of Korean soldiers running at us. He has a single grenade. He is our only chance. These comics instill a certain fantastical fear about battle in the young American reader. Our survival as the viewer depends on a seemingly impossible outcome. Combat Kelly must defeat hundreds of soldiers in this 1951 publication or else the series would not have lasted until 1957. This narrative looks way more patriotic than Kurtzmans simply in where we stand as the viewer. In Marvel's work, we face fantasized Korean aggression, while in Kurtzman's work we face undeniable American aggression. 

. 

While looking for propaganda, I ran into this Chinese poster here.

The source says that the message of the poster is "Long live the victory of the Korean People's Army and the Chinese People's Volunteers Army!"
The Chinese became involved in the war around late 1950 and early 1951, so I'm assuming that this poster came out around that time. It's pretty weird to look at, but I think it's interesting. I'm assuming that the two soldiers in green represent a Chinese soldier and a North Korean, and they are drawn in a noticeably different from the American and the others who are running from them. I don't really understand why they are holding their guns like that, but the way the darker looking soldier is pointing almost makes it seem like the pointing is representative of the fear that they want to make the Americans feel. I'm assuming (because it's in Chinese) that the audience is the Chinese people, so I'm thinking that this poster is an attempt to rally the support of the Chinese citizens back home. The enemies of the people are heavily caricatured and shown with heavy injuries. There even appears to be a monkey between the jeep and tank, which seems like it could be another racial insult. I also noticed that there is a difference between the two soldiers. It feels like a slight, yet very distinct way of differentiating between the peoples of the two nations.

Piagol (flm)

Piagol is a 1955 Korean Anti-Communist propaganda film directed by Lee Kang Cheon. This film was met with many criticisms for violating the Anti-Communist Act, and was banned from screenings due to its rather gruesome depictions of North Korean partisan armies. This film sent the message of a nation that was facing an existential crisis, and later becomes an allegory for North Korea. There is this psychological complexity to North Korea which was another reason why it was censored so quickly after its release. The film became a representation for anti-communist humanism and begins to question the temporal construction of humanity during the war time. Interestingly enough, as an anti-Communist film, it contains no portrayals of the South Korean military but only the North Korean army. This can serve to possibly be problematic when the other cannot share their side of the story. You would think that by showing the South Korean military it'd be easier to raise awareness on the positive aspects of being on the opposing side of the Communists, which would make a bigger statement as a propaganda film. As far as film content goes, the ideology it tries to illustrate not only focuses on anti-communism and how inhumane it has made everyone become, but also a matter of survival. The matter of survival seemed to be a rather vital theme in the film because nearly everyone in the movie was killed at the end. It is also interesting that the female figure Ae-Ran was the last one standing after she killed the military partisan leader Agari, who was portrayed as the most brutal villain in the film. She rebels against the communist cause and even discusses defection with Cheol-Su until they both are caught and Agari kills Cheol-Su. Ae-Ran is an important figure because while she was first extremely dedicated to the communist cause and the partisan life, she does a complete 180, and progresses her character even further by being honest about her feelings. How a female figure had such an important role and ended up being the only survivor is rather remarkable, especially since Korea was still wading on the shores of Confucian ideals in society. However, it only seems right that Ae-Ran is the last figure standing in the film, as she admits to Cheol-Su that "I am only human," reiterating the fact that despite the lifestyle she leads, she detests it, and refuses it to let it control her completely as an individual. This again brings in a type of propaganda feel to the movie as the deadly wipeout of the entire partisan military at the end of the film serves as almost a warning sign that seems to say, "If you join the Communist cause, death will be the result." By having Ae-Ran renounce her beliefs and support of communism, she ends up surviving. Rather than this being depicted as an act of betrayal to the North Korean army, this seems to speak the anti-Communist message that when once renounces communist beliefs, they can gain back their humanity. 

Godhood and Brainwashing: Only in North Korea?

 This is the image I was referring to in my first post. Notice how the power grid shows South Korea as shining with lights, the largest from Seoul. North Korea by contrast has hardly any light at all. The only determinable light is from Pyongyang.

However, this image also aides my observation after seeing the national geographic film today about the "truth" of North Korea. North Korea has existed in a state of armed alert for exactly 60 years following the "end" of the Korean War. Because of this, there is a unity among the people that I found similar to the unity that gripped the U.S. following 9/11. To our Western mind, the people seem brainwashed, and everything appears staged or monitored extensively by the government. Yet, is this any different to the attitude of Americans or our government following 9/11 and the years that followed?

North Koreans believe in their Great Leader as the only thing that has kept them alive these 60 years. This has raised him to the statues of almost a deity. Within the homes we have seen mostly images of Kim II Sung and his son. Their images are everywhere. This Great Leader has kept the colonial power of America and Japan out of its country, while observing sadly that South Korea is subjected these same powers.

What is most striking about the film is how Kim II Sung is called "mystical." Think about it. Would FDR, if he were in the situation that Kim II Sung was in, if America was invaded and colonized, would this have raised FDR to almost godlike proportions in Americans minds? The possibility is there.

Yet, when the family in the film is asked if their Great Leader can do any wrong, the family is baffled or don't understand the question, as if the very idea is heresy. Because lets face it, it is. To North Koreans the Cold War and the Korean War never ended. The above picture testifies to this. They are still fighting for their survival against a much larger and stronger foe. Yet, now it is a battle of ideologies and not arms. But if it came to arms you could be sure North Korea would come out swinging.

Propagandizing Civilian Life

       Here is one of the propaganda leaflets that I found and it is, for me, the most interesting and one of the most loaded images. Though it is in Korean, this leaflet (#8286) was released by the U.N. on May 19th, 1952 under the title "Hungry Mother and Child." The caption reads: "Your beloved baby is crying for milk. Mother also weeps when the baby cries."

       This is the type of propaganda that I consider the most effective. First of all, it produces feelings of sympathy for the victims thereby inspiring the viewer to take action. This is also one of the most despicable forms of propaganda as it exploits the suffering of others in order to gain support for one's cause. And yet this technique remains one of the most practiced approaches, just consider all of the ASPCA and World Vision commercials. But as these organizations prove, this method of propaganda (which is not to say that these organizations are propagandist or despicable, simply that they utilize the same tactics of puling at the heart strings as this piece of propaganda does) wears off as the viewer becomes more and more desensitized to the imagery it presents. It seems lethargy is a stronger force than empathy.

Thus there is a second tactic present in this piece of propaganda. On the other side of the leaflet there is this poem. It reads: Baby, baby, stop crying. If your Dad who was dragged out [to the battlefield] happens to hear you crying even in his dream, it will crush his heart into pieces. Baby, baby, stop crying. It may cause the ugly police man come in with his rifle and take our millet away. Baby, baby, stop crying. The devilish Chinky Commie may climb over our fence and violate your Mom. Baby, baby, stop crying. No milk flows out from the empty intestine. Your crying only dries up your throat and wets my eyes."

        With the accompaniment of this poem, the propaganda is complete, it has it all. These vain pleas on behalf of the mother only add to the disparity of her situation. There are references to militaristic kidnappings, the people's police, starvation, and the all too likelihood of rape.

        For me, this propaganda is successful. I read this and empathize with the mother, I worry for her child and for her safety, and I wish to help them. However, this propaganda was not intended for me or for any Americans of the time. So what is the U.N. after? Support from the inside most likely, resistance from the people. This leaflet is tactical. It calls fathers to arms against the invading forces before they are "dragged" away by the enemy. It asks the women of threatened cities to band together against the "Chinky Commie" lest they become victimized or even raped.

        I though it important to see propaganda that was not intended for American viewing. There are a great many differences between the propaganda intended for American eyes and that intended for the people that are actually living through these events.

Let's Raise Goats!

Something I noticed in my internet search for Korean propaganda pieces, is that Korea is often referred to as “fatherland” (like in Melissa’s poster), while in Soviet propaganda, “motherland” is the appropriate term.  I’m not sure if this due to shoddy translation, or if this really is a distinguishing feature.  If so, this might be an interesting entry into an analysis of the position of women in both of these cultures.  Our reading for this week suggested that North Korea made strides in women’s rights (at least in the beginning), and the same is often said of the USSR.  Well, I’ll leave this for another day.

Here is the poster I wanted to share with you:

Its translation reads:

“Let’s extensively raise goats in all families!”

According to the article I got it from (http://www.businessinsider.com/kim-jong-il-kim-jong-un-north-korea-propoganda-2011-12?op=1), this poster came out in North Korea relatively recently and likely steams from the food shortages that this country has faced since the fall of the USSR.  The smiling face, healthy worker depicted in a bandana and work clothes, pastoral scene w/ city in the background, posing with a commodity (in this case, it’s an adorable goat), are all commonly found in soviet propaganda. However, it caught my eye because the color scheme is entirely void of red.  This is perhaps the key visual aspect that differentiates it from the socialist-realist propaganda posters from the soviet union.  

Could this lack of red be an attempt to draw the focus away from a soviet-influenced past?  This week’s reading talks about the other factors, besides external pressure, that led to the “communist” revolution in North Korea.  Perhaps the more recent propaganda to come out of North Korea is aimed at revisiting the nation’s legacy, rather than emulating the very stark, border-line violent, and Stalin-esque artwork that appears all over the internet when you search for “Korean propaganda.”  I don’t know enough about Confucianism or Korea’s history to actually make this claim, but it could potentially be an interesting point of inquiry when looking at contemporary propaganda. 

I also love the way that the government advertises to the consumers/producers, rather than producers advertising to their consumers, as we usually see in the U.S.  It goes to show just how different our economies are from each other.

--Sarah T.

I found this piece amongst a collection of other propaganda posters from North Korea. It is clearly meant to depict American soldiers as cruel thieves who pillage Korean villages and leave destruction in their wake, but something I find interesting is the way this is depicted and who is included in the image. The American soldiers and the North Korean soldier are placed on opposite sides of the image, seeming to polarize them, while the livestock and a Korean woman are centered and become symbols of what is at stake for North Korea. The fact that a woman is employed here is telling, and it relies on the classic dichotomy of men as protectors/fighters and women as helpless victims. She has already been overtaken and, although I'm not exactly sure what is going on with some of those ropes, she is exposed, alluding to perhaps some sort of sexual conquest. I think the woman being tied to the cow seems to also imply their relation to one another, that both are in the same category of resources. North Korean soldiers are, then, at risk of losing not just their livestock and sustenance, but also "their" women. So the woman here is not just collateral damage, but a symbol for the threat of American dominance and masculinity. It is a war between two masculine powers and it is waged by the damage to resources, women here being depicted as instruments in wartime and their possession an act of emasculation. The fact that there are two American soldiers vs. only one North Korean soldier seems to further heighten the danger and threat of Americans.

I also found it intriguing that this image is not in the same style as most other propaganda pieces. Instead, it's an oil painting and after more web searching, I learned that it is actually part of a collection of paintings from the Sinchon Museum of American War Atrocities in North Korea, depicting the war from a North Korean perspective. So perhaps to call it propaganda is debatable (is it a genuine portrayal or only meant to rouse people to anger?), but it then raises questions about wartime truths. What really happened during the war and could we ever know? What does it say about the Korean War and the powers involved? In many ways, these events seem locked away forever, but it is valuable, I think, to be exposed to varying perspectives of war, re-evaluate notions of good vs. bad and state-sanctioned narratives about war, and even understand, through paintings like this, what is seen as worthy of portrayal and what kind of meaning can be found in it.

North Korea in International Sports

One of the few areas in global relations in which North Korea is ostensibly equal in opportunity with the rest of the world is in international sports.  At the 2012 Olympics, North Korea placed 20th in the overall medal table, higher than Canada, Spain, Brazil, and various other nations with famous sporting pasts.  However watching the opening ceremony, the depiction of the North Korean athletes is still very similar to the typical western depiction we see on the news.  There are no closeups of the athletes as the video shows them parade into the stadium, reminiscent of the frequent depictions of North Koreans as a uniform mass, void of individuality.  On the contrary, the coverage of the South Korean team is exceedingly more personal, as the camera focuses on various individual athletes throughout.

 

North Korea enters at 0:27:30 and South Korea at 0:48:20

A much more personal display of North Korean athletes can be found at the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.  Before their match against perennial favorite Brazil, the cameraman focuses on each member of the team and highlights the overwhelming emotion felt by one of the North Korean players.  While North Korea went on to lose the match 0-1, it nevertheless showed a passionate and personalized aspect of North Koreans that western viewers  normally never see.

North Korean propaganda: "Reuniting the Fatherland"

“Let’s drive the US imperialists out and reunite the fatherland!”

The website where I found this image of North Korean propaganda, http://calitreview.com/875, had many images where the U.S. was shown as the aggressor of the war in Korea. The propaganda is obviously aimed at the people of North Korea as a way to get them into a ‘fighting spirit’ to drive out the U.S. This particular propaganda poster is meant to show that the North Korean army is strong and can win the war. The Korean in the poster is larger than life and is shown as strong and fierce, while the Americans look small and weak in comparison. The US men are falling on the North Korea poster, so falling back in the face of the fierce North Korean army. This message of falling back will shine through to the people of North Korea to help make them believe in the strength of the North Korean military. The added touch of the torn American flag also drives the point home that North Korea wants the US out of the whole country of Korea. This is made even clearer with the phrase that they want to drive the empirical US out in order to “reunite the fatherland.” This means that North Korea’s aim is to make the North Koreans believe that their country can become whole again, but that this can only happen once the last traces of the US have disappeared.

The phrase on the poster also creates a sense of pride and nationalism for not only North Korea, but for Korea as a whole because their country is their fatherland. I think the poster creates an inspirational message for North Koreans because they can hope for a reunion with any family members on the wrong side of the divide in Korea. However, the reuniting of the fatherland can only happen after North Korea drives out the US. The propaganda poster needs to create a sense of nationalism in their people because this will give them a reason to believe in the war, and continue fighting.

Another interesting part about the poster is the fact that it only mentions the US as imperialists, and leaves out the other foreign powers at play in the war. This makes sense for propaganda because they want North Koreans to blame the other side for the Korean War. The poster makes North Korea appear as if they are blameless for the war, even though it takes both sides to start a war in the 1^st place.

~ Melissa White

 

North Korean Leaflet

Source:  http://www.psywarrior.com/RadioLeaflet.html

I found it interesting that this North Korean leaflet, which was produced during the time peace talks were being held, was written in English, because that suggests that the U.S. military was the intended audience.  The title reads, "Let peace be realized and the soldiers be returned home by the cease fire negotiations and pulling foreign troops out of Korea!"  At the bottom of the leaflet, it reads: "General Political Bureau of the KPA. Pyongyang Radio arranges an English program for you at 22.15 every Tuesday."  In this cartoon, it's the American, and not the Korean, who is otherized and made to appear villainous; with his dollar sign patch and the letters "US" written on his scowling face, the American holds a gun while the handsome North Korean soldier restrains his hand, presenting him with a peace treaty.  The way the North Korean soldier is presented as so much larger than the American soldier portrays a new power dynamic– it suggests to the reader that the North Koreans have the upper hand. Because it's written and drawn in the style of a comic book or a political cartoon, it appeals to the young servicemen who might be questioning why they are still there.  After researching this particular Pyongyang radio show, I found out that it's still on air– but now it's called Voice of Korea.  According to Wikipedia, the broadcasts usually consist of "stories about the lives and achievements of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, praise for the Kims and the DPRK from foreigners, programmes about Korean culture, history, music, etc."

This leaflet advocates for peace in Korea– not North or South Korea, but Korea as a whole– and it suggests the possibility of reunification.  The largeness of the Korean soldier might suggest that he presents both the interests of South Korea and North Korea.  The way the U.S. and North Korea are represented speaks to the way North Koreans may have perceived Americans: the American is drawn with wiggly, curving lines, while the North Korean is drawn with straight lines.  Visually, this suggests that the U.S. is a duplicitous, slippery character, while Korea is a steadfast, patient one; at the same time, it portrays the U.S. as more feminine and North Korea as more masculine.  The exaggerated nose and ears on the American also implies some kind of moral shortcoming, while the proportionate features of the Korean imply morality.  But in direct contrast to all of the moralizations in the drawing, the text is very positive.  Rather than saying what not to do, it proposes a solution, and explains what needs to happen in order for that solution to happen.  It does not blame the U.S. for anything; it even mentions how the U.S. soldiers could benefit from the ceasefire by being able to go home.  I found it particularly interesting how the text and the picture seem to be saying entirely different things.

Claire Davidson

North or South Korea?

        Hey everyone, so this is the meme that I mentioned in class that is supposed to be a representation of the differences between North and South Korea. What I find interesting about this representation is that it is actually pretty open to interpretation depending on the values of the viewer. For many viewers, South Korea definitely looks like more fun what with their trendy outfits and fashionable hair and make-up. However, I am sure there are those that would look at this image and think that South Korea is lacking morals and structure (those shorts are awfully short). They too might think that North Korea does not look too bad, sure they demonstrate a high attention to detail and uniformity, but the women are allowed to wear skirts (not too short, not too long) and since when is discipline a bad thing. I guess it depends on the observer but therein lies the problem... we are only observers. We lack the experience to make an informed judgment.

        The other night when we saw the film Homes Apart, for me at least, there seemed to be a switch. Visually speaking, North Korea was lookin' pretty good. The people are taken care of and openly celebrate and declare their appreciation for Communism (I realize that that was probably the intention of the government when they insisted on screening all footage shot within their boarders). South Korea, on the other hand, was kind of caught with their pants down, so to speak. Unfortunately for their country's image: a protest got out of hand, the police handled it poorly, and it was all caught on tape. Surely the government in South Korea did not insist on controlling what was filmed within their boarders especially considering the fact that there were people that openly criticized their government.

        So we are at an impasse... one thing I will say is that there was one thing that both North and South Korea share and that is the desire to get America to mind its own business. Perhaps that is exactly what we need to do. Should we not fix our own country before we go imposing our will on others? Why are we trying to get others to follow our example when our way does not always seem to work? Just some things for y'all to think about... (Though I'm sure you all have already thought about this).

See everyone in class,

Patty