[KS] Library of Congress Korean Controversy / "Suspected of Nationalism"

[Eugene Y. Park]

Dear all,

My comments on David Kosofsky's explanation of his use of the word,
"nationalism":

On Sat, July 19, 2008 19:39, David Kosofsky wrote:
>
> Speaking only for this reader, the perception of a nationalistic tendency
> in the posting under discussion had nothing to do with any observation
> about the `nationality or national origin' of the person who posted it. I
> don't believe I had even noted the poster's name before I encountered the
> sentence in the posting where that tendency was most clearly manifested:
>  
He is right. I admire his dispassionate objectivity.

> Two words in that sentence stood out as nationalistically informed:
> `shocked' and `arbitrarily'.  Had the perspective been other than
> nationalistic, the concerned librarian-scholar might have expressed
> herself as `surprised' or even `concerned'.  But `we were shocked' has a
> different ring, albeit it is a quite familiar formula to readers of
> `opinion' columns in Korea's English-language newspapers.
>  
So to David who does not judge others based on their names or national
perceived national origins, expressions such as "shocked" and "arbitrary"
on the part of the user marks him/her as a "nationalist"--especially
because "'opnion' columns in Korea's English-language newspapers" like to
use such words? I guess if anyone I perceive as an "American" uses certain
words often used in the Washington Post's opinion columns, then there's a
good chance that (s)he shares the WP's weltanschauung....

> Similarly, the use of the adverb `arbitrarily' indicates (at least to this
> reader) that a judgment has already been made regarding the legitimacy of
> the change in subject heading.  Had the perspective been other than
> nationalistic, the poster might have expressed an inability to see any
> reason for the planned change and expressed a desire for an explanation
> and justification, but would not, I suspect, have treated readers to an
> apodictic statement of its arbitrariness.
>
I'm afraid that one could find other's action "arbitrary" without being a
"nationalist."

> I find nothing objectionable in the posting about the Library of Congress
> Korean Controversy, nor do I consider it inappropriate for this list.  In
> pointing out those features of the text itself that, at least for this
> reader, marked it as nationalistic, I am merely registering a mild
> objection to the claim that the perception of that nationalism requires
> any special `scrutiny' occasioned by awareness of the poster's
> nationality.  Neither prejudice nor special scrutiny is required; the
> posting speaks for itself.
>  
Please correct me if I got this wrong, but this must be it:
1) there's a controversial issue;
2) person A expresses his/her position;
3) based on person A's choice of words, we assume that (s)he must be a
"nationalist" as those words happen to be those used by a particular
nation's newspaper opinion column; and
4) the above justifies a "special 'scrutiny,'" that is to take person A's
"nationality" into consideration in concluding that (s)he is a
"nationalist"!

I just wish Bedrich Smetana could have composed his Ma Vlast in a world so
full of nationalists.

Yours,
Gene Park

Eugene Y. Park
Associate Professor
Department of History
Krieger Hall 200
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697
Tel. (949) 824-5275
Fax. (949) 824-2865
http://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=4926