[KS] anti-Americanism in ROK

[John Frankl]

Dear All,

Professor McCann raises an interesting and often overlooked distinction;
this can only be positive and useful, particularly right now when so many
nuances are being quashed for the "greater good" of national unity (in
America, not Korea!).

But I also see Frank's point--if I understand him correctly. Professional
politicians and academics may make these fine distinctions, but they are
often lost on (or deliberately witheld from) the general public. Many of
my non-Asian friends and colleagues in Korea report a sharp rise in the
number of random "f$%# you"s and "Yankee go home"s over the past six months.
I say "non-Asian" as opposed to American to illustrate a point--the
average non-Asian person on the street in Seoul is "American"--despite
the fact that the friends referred to above also hail from England,
Germany, Denmark, and Canada--and s/he is treated as such. It is difficult
to view the unprovoked insulting of a Danish office worker as much more
than rude behavior, let alone an expression of a well-articulated
distinction between "ban-Mi" and "bi-mi."

This sort of ignorant conflation, of course, is not unique to Korea. In
the U.S., after 9/11, many immigrants from India, for one example,
suffered violence.

Returning then to  Professor Robinson's very practical question, I would
have to say yes, there is some possibility that the group would be
subjected to verbal insults and other unfriendly behavior.

John Frankl

 On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Ruediger Frank wrote:

> Dear Frank and all,
>
> I don't think the point Prof. McCann makes shall be so easily dismissed. If
> you are AGAINST something (Anti-Americanism), this attitude is much harder
> to change as compared to a case where you are FOR something
> (pro-Nationalist) and thereby automatically in a conflicting position to
> something else. In the latter case, what needs to be done to substantially
> improve the image of the United States (assumed one wants to achieve this)
> is simply to show that they are not detrimental to national interests or at
> least not so anymore. It would not be so easy in the other case. The
> implications for "real world" politicians are enormous.
> I personally find the notion interesting that ban-mi in Korea is weaker
> than bi-mi. Based on my very limited experience I used to think they are
> closely interrelated. Bi-mi without ban-mi implies an exceptionally high
> level of pragmatism. I suggest we continue to discuss this issue, since he
> implications are far-reaching.
>
> Best,
>
> Ruediger
>
> At 12:00 PM 1/28/03 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >David McCann wrote:
> > >> urged that a distinction be drawn between
> > >> "anti-American" (ban-mi) and critical of American policies (bi-mi)
> >
> >Got your point. But isn't this some academic approach of splitting hairs
> >on a bold head? Why would "the rest of the world" -- and especially the
> >"uncivilized" part of the world that maps President Bush's understanding
> >of the world, may want to make a distinction that leading U.S. politicians
> >are not capable or willing to make? Talking about culture -- yes, sure,
> >most nations are into American culture on various levels. Maybe some
> >anthropologist here could give us more insights about this .... Few are
> >against American culture, POP culture, film culture, entertainment
> >culture, shopping culture. But by now this has been so much internalized
> >around the world that it isn't even seen as American anymore. And indeed,
> >it isn't. If the U.S. is harshly being criticized in South Korea, for
> >example, then nobody should expect this trend to stop at any point and
> >expect that people will make those hair-splitting academic distinctions
> >when burning American flags or what not.
> >
> >Best,
> >Frank
> >==============================
> >
> >Transcript of President Bush's first State of the Union address, delivered
> >to Congress Tuesday night (1/28/2003)
> >
> >Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, distinguished
> >guests, fellow citizens, as we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our
> >economy is in recession and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers.
> >(...)
> >The men and women of our armed forces have delivered a message now clear
> >to every enemy of the United States: Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans
> >and continents, on mountaintops and in caves you will not escape the
> >justice of this nation.
> >(...)
> >My budget supports three great goals for America: We will win this war, we
> >will protect our homeland, and we will revive our economy.
> >(...)
> >==========END OF QUOTE========
> >
> >
> >>Not as someone living in the ROK, but as an attendee at a recent conference
> >>at the East West Center, University of Hawaii, where the demonstrations
> >>were a frequent topic, I would note that a number of scholars at the
> >>conference, Korean and American, urged that a distinction be drawn between
> >>"anti-American" (ban-mi) and critical of American policies (bi-mi).
> >>Because the demonstrations are reported as if they were anti-American, they
> >>cause anxiety among those thinking of travelling to Seoul, or huffy
> >>suggestions that, "if they're against us over there, maybe we should just
> >>leave," as Victor Cha observed of several then-recent op ed pieces.   But
> >>in fact the demonstrations are an expression of engagement with such issues
> >>as concerns regarding North Korea, or dissatisfaction with the outcome of
> >>the trial of the miltary personnel whose vehicle killed the two Korean
> >>girls.. .; in other words, specific, understandable, and not threatening
> >>harm.
> >>
> >>David McCann
>
>
> *******************************
>
> Dr. Ruediger FRANK
> Columbia University
> East Asian Institute
> International Affairs Building
> 420 West 118th Street, MC 3333
> New York, NY 10027
> - USA -
> Phone: (212) 85 49 206
> Fax: (212) 74 91 497
> email: rf2101 at columbia.edu
>
> >This e-mail is confidential and may contain privileged information.  It may
> >be read, copied and used only by the intended recipient.  If you have
> >received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately by
> >return e-mail. Please then delete the e-mail and do not disclose its
> >contents to any person.  Any legally binding declaration needs to be
> >confirmed in writing via letter or telefax for it to become valid.
>
>