In Reflection...

Looking back at all the different texts and films we’ve talked about, I think LTWL 190 might have been one of the most illuminating classes I’ve taken in a while. Beforehand, my knowledge of the Korean War and Korean politics, in general, was pretty limited. I basically only knew a few facts about it and was familiar with certain aspects (like the existence of war prostitution and transnational adoption), but it wasn’t until taking this course that I’d ever actually read about the specific circumstances that shaped the war and “post-war” Korea.

Since my concerns are usually around gender, race, and sexuality—or pretty much any social issue that affects people directly and forces us to confront the human cost of institutional power—the most memorable subjects for me were probably the race and gender politics during the war, in post-Korean war society, and in the camptowns. The extent to which we discussed the issue of women being coerced into or just having to resort to sex labor for American GIs was especially eye-opening. As an extension of that, I am glad we were able to engage with the ways global politics and American imperialism played a role in this history because, as an American, it’s something I need to constantly interrogate. But I think Christine engineered the course in such a way that made it impossible to NOT talk about the human and sociopolitical aspects of the Korean War, so everything we discussed seemed to touch upon those issues in some way. Oh, and Memories of My Ghost Brother was my favorite text. It was a fun but moving read and I’m really glad I got to do my presentation on it!

I guess, to end off, I just want to say that I’ll be leaving this class with a more well-informed (but complicated) view of North and South Korea, and definitely a greater interest in them. I think learning about the political and social histories of a certain geographical context always helps me understand that history independently, but also on a global scale. It’s a reminder that we are always implicated in these social, political, and historical entanglements (as Americans, usually in really awful ways), so that’s important to understand and engage with, in my opinion.

I also want to say that I really appreciated the way everyone was able to bring their own interests and unique perspectives to the discussion, because it really made class that much more worthwhile. So thanks for enhancing my experience in the class and I hope you are leaving feeling as fulfilled as I am!

Final Blog and Thoughts

This course offered for me a chance to see the Korean War from multiple perspectives. This enabled me to learn certain "truths" about the Korean War, and about how it has been portrayed ever since. One of these truths, is the real starting date of the Korean War. Look at the above image. "The War Began Here - June 25, 1950"  Not 1945, when America and Russia decided to split Korea in half. Not after America had installed a collaborationist government in South Korea. No, the war is on June 25, 1950, when North Korea supposedly invaded South Korea. Though even that historically is still up for debate.

It is things like this I didn't expect to learn when I signed up for this course. As I said today, learning that the South Korean government was potentially more brutal to it's civilian populace than the "evil" North Korean government never ceased to make me frown. That such news was never really talked about, because it was always better to demonize North Korea, then point out the flaws, apparently. Seeing that America would just turn a blind eye to a dictatorship it had created also disgusted me. This is not the actions of a nation that seeks liberty and freedom for all.

I for one wonder if I will see the reunification of Korea in my lifetime. Most of the civilian populace seem to want it, or at least the ability to travel freely between the two. The fact that it hasn't happened, some sixty years after the Korean War, makes me wonder if it will though. And if it does happen, will it be peaceful, or through war? The biggest question though is how much will America be involved? I for one hope that it isn't involved at all. Because American involvement is what divided Korea in the first place. How would Americans like it if some foreign power came in and split our nation in half? Drew a line and said you cannot pass this mark?

Overall I enjoyed the course because it exposed some ugly truths that no amount of hand waving will hide. I would like to thank my class mates for adding to a fun, and learning  environment. Special thanks to Professor Hong for making the course so entertaining, and I look forward to seeing most of you next quarter.

Repatriation --> Reunification?

One moment in Kim Dong Won’s film A Repatriation almost gave me chills. (It wasn’t the adorable scene on the beach -- I just wanted to post that image).  Do you remember when one of the grandpas answered his phone in the middle of the night?  The person on the other side of the line was congratulating him because the possibility of repatriation had become a reality.  Instead of the joyful outburst one might be expect, the grandpa answered with (or something to the effect of): “It’s not about being about to go to the North, it’s about being able to come and go as we please.”  I thought that this statement really incapsulated the underlying argument for a reunified Korea.  The right to live in the Korea of your choosing is surely an achievement, but the real problem is that people are being forced to choose in the first place.  

This issue echoes the “choice” that Chinese POWs had to make at the end of the hot war, as we saw in War Trash.  Chinese prisoners who chose Taiwan were forever tarnished by this decision, and were prevented from ever going back home.  They could not move freely between countries allied with the U.S. and countries allied with China.  They had one chance to choose and afterwards they would forever be separated by barriers of enmity.  Likewise, I got the feeling that the grandpas would probably never have the opportunity to visit South Korea after their repatriation, and if they did, it would only be under exceptional circumstances.  As they were leaving, they almost didn’t even dare to hope that letter communication could be maintained with their loved-ones in the south.  This is an absurd notion, when you consider that the geographic distance between the two capitols is so negligible.

In an attempt to better understand why “going and coming” is so out of the question for even the most respected Korean citizens, I did a little bit of research.  I was curious to see what contemporary scholars are saying about the possibility of reunification.  I was trying to avoid obviously biased sources, like those from the U.S. or nations in close proximity to the Koreas.  One scholar, Wojciech Stankiewicz, published an article in 2012 through the University of Warmia and Mazury in Poland (http://dspace.uni.lodz.pl:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11089/1063/05-stank.pdf?sequence=1).  The article outlines three potential scenarios in which the reunification of Korea might be possible.  Some of the assumptions of war start and end dates and general impressions of North Korea are clearly questionable, but I think it’s interesting that the author tries to imagine what reunification would look like in various situations.

The first model is described as: 

“ . . . peaceful integration. This can be perceived as the most optimistic scenario, but in fact, it would be extremely difficult to perform. That kind of inter-Korean development would involve steps like: an initial acceptance of the status quo by the two Koreas and by four major powers which are the United States, China, Russia and Japan . . . What is more, a mutual recognition of that model would be indispensable. The next step would involve a formal peace treaty ... The integration itself, would entail levelling of each countries policy, which are completely different. Cooperation on economic level with limited political and social integration is required” (67).  

The second model discussed is: “ . . . unification through default assumes a state failure in North Korea and an abrupt unification of absorption. This view 

was particularly popular during the late 1980s and early 1990, with the 

end of Cold War and widening of a yawning gap between the North and 

South economic development. The general steps in the collapse scenario 

begin from some kind of triggering event” (69).

The final model is “often referred to as the ”worst” end of spectrum. 

Unification in that context would be an effect of war. This could be, 

hypothetically, a repeat of the North invasion of the South, as happened 

in 1950. Such similar action is rather not possible, because the US-ROK 

alliance is very strong and this would be a suicidal action undertaken by 

the North” (70).  

Stankiewicz concludes the article on a pessimistic note.  “Throughout the 1990s, enthusiasm for Korean reunification predictions has faded due to the resilience of the North regime. Although the underlying assumption of reunification remains, forecasts of when and how this will occur have been more restrained. Even the death of Kim Jong Il will not bring changed to domestic and  foreign policy as 

North Korea is going to continue adopt an aggressive approach toward 

the South. In summary, in the short-term reunification is definitely not in 

the interest of the current ROK administration, and the South has no 

intention of encouraging it” (72).

It will probably be a very long time before “going and coming” is possible.  In an interview with Cindy Yoon of The Asia Society, Kim Dong Won says that reunification is not considered as crucial an issue as it was in the past.  When asked about the younger generation’s concern for the issue, he replies: “There is not as much hatred for North Korea, but I think there isn't as much concern about them. Young people are not so interested in that problem. Some say they don't want to reunify because it will be too costly. North Koreans are poor and they don't want to have that burden” (http://asiasociety.org/arts/film/kim-dong-wons-film-north-korean-prisoners-held-south-korea).  I wonder if the time spent under U.S. occupation is causing South Koreans to forget.  If the Cold War was about winning over hearts and minds, U.S. capitalist imperialism certainly seems to have hastened South Korea’s process of forgetting the vital cause that so many Koreans feel to strongly about.  They don't want the "burden" that an influx of "poor" Northerners would put on the South Korean economy.  Are the family ties that bound the two Koreas severed beyond repair?  Perhaps the desire for economic success in the international arena in partly to blame.

--Sarah T.

The Photo-shoot Continues

"The immediate response among the soldiers to the miserable plight of orphaned children was a whole mixture of evacuations, fundraising drives for food and clothing, the setting up of orphanages, and, most importantly, the spontaneous incorporation of children into care at military bases as regimental mascots, houseboys or interpreters. In many cases, these relationships developed into a kind of informal adoption" (Hubinette 278).

        My immediate reaction to this picture is to take this as proof that the US Military really cares about the welfare of civilian life during times of war. But this is probably what the journalist that wrote the blurb beneath it wanted to communicate to the American public. There is obviously a hint of propaganda in this image that is attempting to hold or gain support for the military and its involvement in Korea. The more critical side of me takes this as a "puff piece" with a purpose. Clearly, the deliberate language choice of the phrase  tiny tots is attempting to inspire an emotional response. Thus, the military comes off as humanitarian and urges us (the public) to believe that they really do mean well. I now look at this image and wonder if the GIs in this picture are responsible for the orphaning of these children. I wonder why the GIs in this picture are all black. I'm curious as to what will happen to these children when and if these GIs are killed in action, after all they are gunners. How are these children going to be kept safe if these GIs cannot guarantee their own safety? Are these children really orphaned or just separated from their families?

        Knowing what  know now, this photo inspires more questions than answers and inspires me with more anxiety than security. Frankly, I consider their other actions (fundraising drives and the setting up of orphanages) to be more successful and helpful over all. What these children need is the surroundings of their own country and the support of the US. Domestic adoption should be the goal for the welfare of these children. Even now, the rate of international adoption is higher, hence this picture:

        This is a fairly recent Vogue related campaign aimed at promoting more domestic adoptions. Though this picture is a great deal later than the first and the orphans in the second are not war orphans, these pictures are not entirely unrelated. The differences are evident but the similarities are striking. Both are using a similar technique to promote adoptions. In each, the "models" (GIs and an all-girl Pop group) are using their influence to persuade others to support their cause. Even still, international adoptions trump the number of domestic adoptions and that can be directly linked to the history of Korean orphan adoptions which had its major start with the Korean War. Thus, the first picture actually inspired the second. And this is only one of the many attempts to promote more domestic adoption.

        "Tax reductions were provided to encourage domestic adoption, which was projected to grow by 400-600 placements a year... At the same time, the government has encouraged domestic adoption, which, by the end of the 1990's stood for one-third of all adoptions. Also, since the end of the economic crisis, the government has strived to create a long term foster care system based on Western models as an alternative to adoption" (Hubinette 286).

These facts are relatively old but the facts remain, more or less, the same, hence the need for this Vogue campaign.



Gift Culture/Theft Culture

Before I write my closing post (and since I have missed a few), I wanted to talk about Jane Jeong Trenka’s piece, Fugitive Visions, first. I think that was probably one of the most interesting reads of the quarter for me because it so creatively confronts a lot of the issues we’ve been talking about by bringing to the forefront their relationship to identity and transnational adoption.

Trenka shows how global politics, power structures, and the Korean War impact the lives of Koreans now, from reproducing something as systematic and life-altering as transnational adoption to perpetuating racism and cultural appropriation.

It’s difficult to focus on any one topic because she writes about so much: alienation via language, culture, race, and gender; (un)belonging to a community; being torn from her origins, forced to assimilate into a new culture and not have the chance to even acknowledge that divide; fetishization by her (white) ex-husband; sexual violence, and more that I am probably forgetting. One thing that is always a backdrop to all of this, though, is the relations between Korea and the U. S. Trenka names them as “gift culture” and “theft culture,” respectively (76). I was thinking of how apt this description is—and not just in the Korean context—because the U.S. has such strong ties to the colonial project of stealing from and exploiting other countries for gain, while those places must constantly relinquish their own culture, politics, and people in order to even survive. 

I was thinking of the ways we (the U.S.) have, among other things, unrightfully pillaged colonized countries for artifacts that we now display in museums for American viewing pleasure, how we appropriate bits of cultures, transforming them and caricaturing the people they belong to for our own entertainment or profit, and still we and our culture are thriving, while colonized countries have gradually been forced to give up more and more (esp. language) in order to assimilate into a system we have forced onto them. This is as big as having to compete in global economics to as personal as internalizing racism and white superiority.

Trenka leaves reminders of these dynamics throughout her piece, particularly when it comes to race, language, and even food. But it’s easy to tie to the camptowns and the ways that Korean women have been a part of this theft. It reminded me of the documentary we watched, The Women Outside, and how these women have had to give up nearly everything to Americans in order to make a living. The scene showing the classes that teach Korean women how to be American housewives, in particular, is a perfect example of identity erasure and assimilation into something consumable by American men. It is colonist thievery and violence that tears these women away from their culture both physically and socially. But the misnomer of “gift culture” is a tragic reminder that this is not really an act of willful giving, but of taking that is so normalized that those on the receiving end feel entitled to it and have the power to demand it, so that giving becomes the only option, as if it was always only a charitable act of gifting from the beginning.

Closing Thoughts - Adoption Surprises & Problems

 I have learned a lot about Korea and the Korean War that I otherwise wouldn't have known if I hadn't taken this class, but an eye-opening moment for me was reading and watching the material related to the topic of adoptions. I still find the idea of "social death" that Cho and Kim bring up very surprising. I didn't realize that such a negative stigma would also be placed on the child when s/he is biracial. It is also very surprising that transnational adoption connects into the camptown of the Korean War, so it has become the birthplace of the "war orphans" who are sent overseas to America.

But the other side to this is how not all adoptions connect into the "social death" of the camptown, but instead it's disadvantaged mothers and families who can no longer hold onto and care for their children. But in a sense they still become associated with a negative stigma. And like we saw in Deann Borshay's film, many adoption agencies lie about the children's history in order to create a "perfect template" for the American families. I still find this shocking, so it makes it that much harder for these adoptees to return to Korea and search for their birth mothers and families. But most likely the government didn't want these children to return, as soon as they left Korea, it meant a "clean break" and a new identity in America or some other country. And as Borshay's film shows, many what-ifs become attached to the adoptee's new identity once they reach America. So that means they are forever left wondering, but they can't completely return to Korea even if they do go back because they were raised in a different society that doesn't mesh with the beliefs and ideologies of Korea. The people who return can try to learn about their birth culture, but as Jane Trenka wrote, "I was never supposed to return. And I was never supposed to know the word jeong" (15). But she can use this idea and feeling of "Korean togherness" to a certain degree to go against people who "insist upon her foreignness," but it will not work entirely because she didn't learn about this idea until later in her life. I think the idea of "jeong" is full culturally specific meanings that can only be fully understood if you were raised in the Korean society. So this means that Jane and other adoptees can try to use "jeong" in their defense as not being a part of Korea, but they cannot completely embody this feeling in their lives.

Challenging Cycles of Aggression: Closing Thoughts

“I was born from a dream, and now I will fly into the heavens, to the West, into another dream; and if I am awake now, perhaps I shall sleep and wake again to dream this new dream with my mother and my sister.” (Fenkl 271)

In the closing lines of Memories of My Ghost Brother, Fenkl recounts his thoughts about returning to America.  The final sentence of the book creates a bridge with the first portion of the book, replacing linear temporality with circular temporality, and mirroring the cycle of trauma and grieving.  Through these circular structures, Fenkl attempt to make sense of the relationship between Korea and the U.S.  When I was thinking about what to write for my final blog entry, I thought about this circular structure Fenkl had explored in his memoir.

When I read about North Korea cutting of the Red Cross hotline with South Korea, I thought about how far North and South Korea were from reconciliation, especially because of the U.S. presence in South Korea.  North Korea cutting off the Red Cross line could be a response to excessive sanctions, the U.S. involvement in Korea, and the U.S. politicization of food aid; this deepens the divide between North and South Korea, escalating the cycle of aggression between the two countries.  This cycle reminded me of the cyclical structure of narrative in Memories of My Ghost Brother, which moves back and forth in time, slowly escalating.  Unless the U.S. withdraws troops from South Korea, these colonial cycles of violence from the camptowns to the government, which are social, economic, and political, will continue for another sixty years.  By questioning the media’s skewed portrayal of North Korea, petitioning the government, and educating more people about what happened in the Korean War, we can begin to challenge this cycle of aggression.

I found this petition to end the Korean War and withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea on the National Campaign to End the Korean War website.  I strongly feel that it should have WAY more than 528 signatures.