[KS] candlelight demonstrations in Korea and the beef deal

[Minkyu Sung]

Dear Scofield,
I am writing to respond to your last reply to Alice's comments on your first
post on the topic. As I was reading your reply, I was struck by the two
underlying/organizing axes of reasoning you appear to have been mobilizing,
which has never convinced me in terms of figuring out your contention. It
seems to me that those two axes are nothing less than the ideological
assertions the ChoJoongDong complex has manipulated about the recent
events.

First of all, Mr. Scofield, you wrote that "more precisely, the consistency
of the demo message over time: a foreign threat (read: US) is trying to
undermine Korea in some way, encouraging and rallying the forces of Korean
nationalism across the country. These movements are usually orchestrated, or
at least broadly encouraged, through campaigns of selective
(dis)information."

(1) A foreign threat? Yes, I would agree with you, if you agree with my
reasoning, that South Koreans seem to have believed that the US has
threatened their "life itself" by enforcing the reduced restrictions of beef
in the Korea-US FTA agreement, let alone some imagination regarding how
South Korean could feel threatened by the neo-liberal principles of the FTA
itself. (2) "through campaigns of (dis)information"? I recommend that you
consult with the #1 reason the protesters have spoken about why they are on
the streets.It was the Lee regime that disseminated selective disinformation
about the beef import. Over the time, it proves that the Lee regime tried to
hide critical facts about the safety issues and mistakes in the beef import
agreement through many venues such as the "100 Minutes Toron" show  on MBC.
The South Koreans really want the Lee regime to be frank and sincere in
dealing with how/why the people are protesting against the regime's
authoritarianism and paternalism. (Have you seen the "shipping containers"
on Sejong-ro?)

"Who is behind the candlelight demonstrations?" This is an old-fashioned
ideological imperative that South Korean right-wing/conservative groups have
wanted to maintain over the events. They've emphasized "how innocent civil
society movements should be." But at this point this reasoning brings us to
how the 1991 democratic movements had been tainted by the "dirty" rhetoric
of the "undongkwon's command of successive self-immolations." One of the
victims for this ideological mobilization against democratic movements was
Kang Ki-Hoon, who was indicted and sentenced to a 3-year- term in jail for
the charge of "ghostwriting" the will of Kim Ki-Seol. The South Korean
Committee of Truth and Reconciliation in November last year found that the
case was manipulated by the government at the time. The
right-wing/anti-communist conservatives have long asserted that there are
some groups of communists/leftists organizing mass demonstrations against
the South Korean government, which seek to destroy "our blood brotherhood"
between the US and South Korea. This making of such "internal enemies" has
been a vicious strategy for promoting the ideological legitimacy of the
dictatorships. You may want to say, "Hey, it's the post-1987 era." But I am
not still convinced of how the ruling bloc of the Lee Myung Bak regime could
be different from that of the military dictatorships (just consider how the
Lee regime has contended about "the lost 10 years"!)


The second is the unashamedly emerging neo-liberal reasoning on the issue.
You wrote:

"High level discussions concerning the import of US beef have been occurring
since the ban was enacted in 2003. Indeed, limited importation began in
April 2007 and continued until October, yet this didn't trigger the events
we see today...why do you think that is?       In this instance, no one is
suggesting that South Koreans be somehow compelled to buy US beef. Koreans'
claim they may, unknowingly, consume US beef as wholesalers/retailers will
mix it with other beef. Given that South Korea is democracy, why would the
people not then demand - through protest in necessary - their elected
officials pass a law compelling all retailers and purveyors of meat to
provide the source country for the meat they sell? Then those who don't want
it, won't unwittingly consume it."
Yes, we didn't see mass demonstrations like the recent ones when South Korea
began limited importation of US beef last year, although it is very
problematic if we simply define "silence" as "defeatism" or "total consent."
At any rate, I really wonder if you did have a chance to think about the
reason why South Koreans were relatively silent at the time compared to the
recent ones. I suspect that South Koreans generally are willing to consume
US beef for various reasons such as low price. But my observation at the
time points to the fact that the import of US beef was (is still) integral
part of the Korea-US FTA agreement--at this point, you may want to refer to
the ludicrous performance of Lee Myung Bak in a meeting with American
entrepreneurs in his first visit to the US. Lee said to them, "I heard from
the South Korean Agricultural Minister that the beef issue has finally been
settled! That's who we're going to complete the FTA agreement!" At this
point, you may want to try again how you came up with the following idea:
"no one is suggesting that South Koreans be somehow compelled to buy US
beef."

South Koreans had been bombarded with governmental promotions of the FTA
supported by the mainstream media. But South Koreans were not entirely
silent about the US beef issue, consistently addressing some critical safety
issues (if you can read Korean, go to the website of the Veterinarian
Alliance for the National Health (www.vetnews.or.kr), and find the section
of Press Releases about the beef import issue, which dates from 2006), while
they would want to have low price and quality imported beef due to the high
price of domestic beef.

And I can find again in the quotations how you think about the recent mass
protests: the 2007 limited importation didn't trigger such mass protests,
but why now? Did you try to bring again the rhetoric of "Who Should Be
Behind the events"? You can blame the Alliance, for example, but that's one
of the ways people can make democracy, right? (At this point, I suspect that
Alice's comment on your "Orientalist" imagination of "democracy" seems to be
convincing.) Mr. Scofield, please understand the rubric of the FTA underway
between Korea and the US. South Korea has to import US beef if it wants to
proceed with the FTA agreement, and one of the reason why South Koreans are
doing all-out protests is that the Lee regime said to them that if you don't
want to buy US beef, just don't do it. That's it! This complete
irresponsibility of the regime is legitimized by the neo-liberal reasoning
that "the free market doesn't enforce anything on your choice. It's up to
you!"


Minkyu Sung
PhD Candidate
The Department of Communication Studies
The University of Iowa



On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 3:15 PM, <koreanstudies-request at koreaweb.ws> wrote:

> Send Koreanstudies mailing list submissions to
>        koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://koreaweb.ws/mailman/listinfo/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        koreanstudies-request at koreaweb.ws
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        koreanstudies-owner at koreaweb.ws
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Koreanstudies digest..."
>
>
> <<------------ KoreanStudies mailing list DIGEST ------------>>
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Korean Culture for eldest son to care for parents
>      (Stephen Epstein)
>   2. Re: candlelight demonstrations in Korea and the beef deal
>      issue (David Scofield)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:09:37 +1200
> From: "Stephen Epstein" <Stephen.Epstein at vuw.ac.nz>
> Subject: Re: [KS] Korean Culture for eldest son to care for parents
> To: "Korean Studies Discussion List" <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Message-ID:
>        <
> C006D56B469ACF43877A5FAB7E7C9CDF01A5AEF2 at STAWINCOMAILCL1.staff.vuw.ac.nz>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear all,
>
> As an additional observation on this thread, it's worth noting the
> remarkable shift that's occurring away from preference for sons to
> preference for daughters. I include below a piece from Choe Sang Hun, who's
> been doing excellent work for the NY Times. The article appeared in December
> of 2007. If anybody can point me to recent surveys that specifically track
> S. Korean preferences on this issue, I'd be grateful. Choe's piece cites the
> ratio of male to female babies born, which would seem a reliable statistic,
> but I suspect there is more to the story, and that the change in birth ratio
> may be lagging behind the attitude change. Although there may be some
> pressure from older generations to have one son, anecdotally (at least in
> and around Seoul, among middle class/professional circles) the shift to
> daughter preference has been almost seismic in just the last few years, as
> far as I can tell. One reason I've heard given several times, related to
> what Gene notes, is that in conjunction with other changes in family
> structure, daughters are now felt to be more reliable caregivers for elderly
> parents than daughters-in-law.
>
> Cheers, Stephen
>
>
>
>
> Where Boys Were Kings, a Shift Toward Baby Girls - Choe Sang Hun, Dec. 23,
> 2007
>
>    When Park He-ran was a young mother, other women would approach her to
> ask what her secret was. She had given birth to three boys in a row at a
> time when South Korean women considered it their paramount duty to bear a
> son.
>
>    Ms. Park, a 61-year-old newspaper executive, gets a different reaction
> today. ?When I tell people I have three sons and no daughter, they say they
> are sorry for my misfortune,? she said. ?Within a generation, I have turned
> from the luckiest woman possible to a pitiful mother.?
>
>    In South Korea, once one of Asia?s most rigidly patriarchal societies, a
> centuries-old preference for baby boys is fast receding. And that has led to
> what seems to be a decrease in the number of abortions performed after
> ultrasounds that reveal the sex of a fetus.
>
>    According to a study released by the World Bank in October, South Korea
> is the first of several Asian countries with large sex imbalances at birth
> to reverse the trend, moving toward greater parity between the sexes. Last
> year, the ratio was 107.4 boys born for every 100 girls, still above what is
> considered normal, but down from a peak of 116.5 boys born for every 100
> girls in 1990.
>
>    The most important factor in changing attitudes toward girls was the
> radical shift in the country?s economy that opened the doors to women in the
> work force as never before and dismantled long-held traditions, which so
> devalued daughters that mothers would often apologize for giving birth to a
> girl.
>
>    The government also played a small role starting in the 1970s. After
> growing alarmed by the rise in sex-preference abortions, leaders mounted
> campaigns to change people?s attitudes, including one that featured the
> popular slogan ?One daughter raised well is worth 10 sons!?
>
>    In 1987, the government banned doctors from revealing the sex of a fetus
> before birth. But experts say enforcement was lax because officials feared
> too many doctors would be caught.
>
>    Demographers say the rapid change in South Koreans? feelings about
> female babies gives them hope that sex imbalances will begin to shrink in
> other rapidly developing Asian countries ? notably China and India ? where
> the same combination of a preference for boys and new technology has led to
> the widespread practice of aborting female fetuses.
>
>    ?China and India are closely studying South Korea as a trendsetter in
> Asia,? said Chung Woo-jin, a professor at Yonsei University in Seoul. ?They
> are curious whether the same social and economic changes can occur in their
> countries as fast as they did in South Korea?s relatively small and densely
> populated society.?
>
>    In China in 2005, the ratio was 120 boys born for every 100 girls,
> according to the United Nations Population Fund. Vietnam reported a ratio of
> 110 boys to 100 girls last year. And although India recorded about 108 boys
> for every 100 girls in 2001, when the last census was taken, experts say the
> gap is sure to have widened by now.
>
>    The Population Fund warned in an October report that the rampant
> tinkering with nature?s probabilities in Asia could eventually lead to
> increased sexual violence and trafficking of women as a generation of boys
> finds marriage prospects severely limited.
>
>    In South Korea, the gap in the ratio of boys to girls born began to
> widen in the 1970s, but experts say it became especially pronounced in the
> mid-1980s as ultrasound technology became more widespread and increasing
> wages allowed more families to pay for the tests. The imbalance was widest
> from 1990 through 1995, when it remained above 112 to 100.
>
>    The imbalance has been closing steadily only since 2002. Last year?s
> ratio of 107.4 boys for every 100 girls was closer to the ratio of 105 to
> 100 that demographers consider normal and, according to The World Factbook,
> published by the Central Intelligence Agency, just above the global average
> of 107 boys born for every 100 girls.
>
>    The preference for boys here is centuries old and was rooted in part in
> an agrarian society that relied on sons to do the hard work on family farms.
> But in Asia?s Confucian societies, men were also accorded special status
> because they were considered the carriers of the family?s all-important
> bloodline.
>
>    That elevated status came with certain perquisites ? men received their
> families? inheritance ? but also responsibilities. Once the eldest son
> married, he and his wife went to live with his family; he was expected to
> support his parents financially while his wife was expected to care for them
> in their old age.
>
>    The wife?s lowly role in her new family was constantly reinforced by
> customs that included requiring a daughter-in-law to serve her father-in-law
> food while on her knees.
>
>    ?In the old days, when there was no adequate social safety net, Korean
> parents regarded having a son as kind of making an investment for old age
> security,? Professor Chung said. It was common for married Korean men to
> feel ashamed if they had no sons. Some went so far as to divorce wives who
> did not bear boys.
>
>    Then in the 1970s and ?80s, the country threw itself into an industrial
> revolution that would remake society in ways few South Koreans could have
> imagined.
>
>    Sons drifted away to higher-paying jobs in the cities, leaving their
> parents behind. And older Koreans found their own incomes rising, allowing
> them to save money for retirement rather than relying on their sons for
> support.
>
>    Married daughters, no longer shackled to their husbands? families,
> returned to provide emotional or financial support for their own elderly
> parents.
>
>    ?Daughters are much better at emotional contact with their parents,
> visiting them more often, while Korean sons tend to be distant,? said Kim
> Seung-kwon, a demographer at the government?s Korea Institute for Health and
> Social Affairs.
>
>    Ms. Park, the newspaper executive, said such changes forced people to
> rethink their old biases. ?In restaurants and parks, when you see a large
> family out for a dinner or picnic, 9 out of 10, it?s the wife who brings the
> family together with her parents, not the husband with his parents,? she
> said. ?To be practical, for an old Korean parent, having a daughter
> sometimes is much better than having a son.?
>
>    The economic changes also unleashed a revolution of a different sort.
> With the economy heating up, men could no longer afford to keep women out of
> the workforce, and women began slowly to gain confidence, and grudging
> respect.
>
>    Although change is coming slowly and deep prejudices remain ? in some
> businesses, women are pressured to leave their jobs when pregnant ? women
> are more accepted now in the workplace and at the best universities that
> send graduates to the top corporations.
>
>    Six of 10 South Korean women entered college last year; fewer than one
> out of 10 did so in 1981. And in the National Assembly, once one of the
> nation?s most male-dominated institutions, women now hold about 13 percent
> of the seats, about double the percentage they held just four years ago.
>
>    Shin Hye-sun, 39, says she has witnessed many of the changes in women?s
> status during her 13 years at the TBC television station in Taegu, in
> central South Korea. ?When I first joined the company in 1995, a woman was
> expected to quit her job once she got married; we called it a ?resignation
> on a company suggestion,?? she said. Now, she said, many women stay after
> marriage and take a three-month break after giving birth before returning to
> work.
>
>    ?If someone suggests that a woman should quit after marriage, female
> workers in my company will take it as an insult and say so,? Ms. Shin said.
>
>    According to the World Bank study, one of the surprises in South Korea
> was that it took as long as it did for the effects of a booming economy to
> translate into changes in people?s attitudes toward the birth of daughters.
>
>    The study suggests that the country?s former authoritarian rulers helped
> slow the transition by upholding laws and devising policies that supported a
> continuation of Confucian hierarchy, which encourages fealty not only to
> family patriarchs, but also to the nation?s leaders.
>
>    With the move toward democracy in the late 1980s, the concept of equal
> rights for men and women began to creep into Koreans? thinking. In 1990, the
> law guaranteeing men their family?s inheritance ? a cornerstone of the
> Confucian system ? was the first of the so-called family laws to fall; the
> rest would be dismantled over the next 15 years.
>
>    After 2002, the narrowing of the gender gap signaled that attitudes
> about the value of women ? and ultimately of daughters ? had begun to catch
> up to the seismic changes in the economy and the law.
>
>    And last year, a study by the Korea Institute for Health and Social
> Affairs showed that of 5,400 married South Korean women younger than 45 who
> were surveyed, only 10 percent said they felt that they must have a son.
> That was down from 40 percent in 1991.
>
>    ?When my father took me to our ancestral graves for worshiping, my
> grandfather used to say, ?Why did you bring a daughter here??? said Park
> Su-mi, 29, a newlywed who calls the idea that only men carry on a family?s
> bloodline ?unscientific and absurd.?
>
>    ?My husband and I have no preference at all for boys,? she said. ?We
> don?t care whether we have a boy or girl because we don?t see any difference
> between a boy and a girl in helping make our family happy.?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: koreanstudies-bounces at koreaweb.ws on behalf of Eugene Y. Park
> Sent: Thu 2008-06-12 3:35 PM
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [KS] Korean Culture for eldest son to care for parents
>
> Dear all,
>
> I fully agree with Clark's observations. I'd even go as far as suggesting
> that for quite some time, whether to live with the man's parents (or even
> near by them) has been a contentious issue for marriage couples. Of course
> the Koreans are aware of the tradition of parents-eldest son cohabitation,
> but now a days one would be hard pressed to find a woman duly accepting
> and abiding by the notion. She may as well--and rightfully so--ask: Why
> should it be my husband's parents who should be taken care of while my own
> parents too need help?
>
> On the last chuseok in Korea when I was trying to avoid the worst day of
> expressway traffic, a cousin of mine cynically noted: These days, it's all
> spread out; people make one-day trips, since the daughters in-law don't
> like to stay long at the parents-in-laws'.
>
> Best,
> Gene
>
>
> On Thu, 6 12, 2008 06:23, Clark W Sorensen wrote:
> > Dear Lawrence,
> >
> > I didn't mean to imply that Korean culture has changed as fast as Korean
> > law, but still there have been fairly drastic changes. With the
> > equalization of inheritance between sons and between sons and daughters,
> > however, the emphasis on the eldest son is much less than it used to be.
> > Coresidence of parents with married children is the exception rather than
> > the rule in urban areas, and when such coresidence takes place, although
> > it is most often with the eldest son, it is sometimes with more affluent
> > younger sons, or even daughters. At contemporary ancestor worship
> rituals,
> > while the eldest son may give the first offering of liquor, the
> subsequent
> > offerings are often not now limited to two, but extended to as many
> > descendents as wish to make offerings including daughters in some
> > families. Roger Janelli and I have both contributed articles to Charlotte
> > Ikels edited volume "Filial Piety: Practice
> > and Discourse in Contemporary East Asia" (Stanford Press) that discuss
> > both change and continuity in this value in present-day Korea. Just
> > because people still read the same old texts doesn't mean they understand
> > the significance of these text in the same way their parents and
> > grandparents did.
> >
> > Clark
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Jun 2008, lawrence driscoll wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Dear List:
> >>
> >> Although Clark Sorenson's reply to InJung Cho's query sounded very
> >> adept, and may be all that the lawyer needed, I must say that I am
> >> surprised that the subject did not generate more discussion.
> >> In my own mind the intricate father-son relationship had always been
> >> fundamental to the Korean family structure, and to Korean culture in
> >> general.
> >>
> >> I must admit that my first reaction to such a query, made by a person
> >> with a name that is clearly Korean, was amazement.  But then I realized
> >> that if I were to be approached to answer a question about my own Irish
> >> heritage, I too would be at a loss. Our family roots are now some 5
> >> generations removed from Ireland. And I am guessing that Dr. Cho's may
> >> be similarly distant from Korea.
> >>
> >> But regardless of Clark's citing of 1988 as the official end to such
> >> filial obligations, I can't but help believe that for many, these duties
> >> of the eldest son continue to be deeply ingrained in the national
> >> psyche. Granted that while the three year mourning period at the
> >> gravesite of one's father, has long been relegated to antiquity, other
> >> manifestations of the Master's (Confucius) teachings are no doubt still
> >> in tact. Please correct me if I am wrong, and if the demise of this
> >> tradition has indeed been happening at a far faster pace.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> Lawrence Driscoll    N.J., U.S.A.
> >>
> >> > Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 13:23:55 -0700> From: sangok at u.washington.edu>
> >> To: koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws> Subject: Re: [KS] Korean Culture for
> >> eldest son to care for parents> > Dear Dr. Cho,> > It was indeed true
> >> until 1988 that eldest sons in South Korea succeeded to the house
> >> headship, received extra property in inheritance, and were expected to
> >> take care of their parents in old age. Korea family law has been
> >> revised several times since then, however, and the Constitutional
> >> Court has made a number of critical decisions, so the issue is no
> >> longer cut and dried. Eldest sons can now partition from their birth
> >> house if they wish. Other children have a residual obligation to their
> >> parents as well, so the legal status of the eldest son at the time of
> >> his death would depend upon whether he was still registered on his
> >> parents family register, whether he had children of his own, and
> >> whether he had any siblings. Because of the complicated nature of all
> >> of these considerations I would think hiring a Korean lawyer would be
> >> well worth the cost.> > Clark W. Sorensen> University of Washington> >
> >> > On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Injung Cho wrote:> > > Dear all,> >> > I was
> >> contacted by a lawyer about the Korean customs of looking after> >
> >> their old parents. I am afraid that I don't know much about this
> >> issue.> > So I am turning to this discussion forum for help. Any help
> >> will be> > greatly appreciated. I've attached her email below.> >> >
> >> Regards,> > InJung Cho> >> > =========================> >> > Further
> >> to our telephone conversation just now, I confirm that I act for> > a
> >> Korean family ??husband and wife who are farmers; their younger son>
> >> > (completing military service) and daughter.> >> > Last year their
> >> eldest son who had graduated with a degree in> > Hospitality
> >> Management was killed in the Kerang Rail accident.> >> > The family
> >> were flown over for the Memorial Service held last year.> > The eldest
> >> son was in Australia doing work experience in hotels with the> > hope
> >> of obtaining a better position in Korea with his international work> >
> >> experience. The family were assisting him financially during his> >
> >> studies and whilst he was here.> >> > They have advised that as is
> >> traditional in Korean society the eldest> > son would care for them in
> >> their retirement.> >> > This matter needs to be supported by
> >> independent proof of this cultural> > norm and I am hoping that there
> >> are some studies or statistics or other> > information which can be
> >> put before the court to establish the great> > financial loss to the
> >> parents.> >> > Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.> >> > Thank
> >> you> > Lesley Simons> >> > Lesley Simons & Associates> > Barristers &
> >> Solicitors & Migration Agents> > MARN: 0210699> > Tel: (613) 9509
> >> 2572> > lesleysimons at bigpond.com> > Fax: (613) 9509 2142> >> >> >> >>
> >> > >
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Search that pays you back! Introducing Live Search cashback.
> >>
> http://search.live.com/cashback/?&pkw=form=MIJAAF/publ=HMTGL/crea=srchpaysyouback
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:19:24 +0100
> From: David Scofield <D.Scofield at sheffield.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [KS] candlelight demonstrations in Korea and the beef
>        deal issue
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Message-ID: <1213294764.485168ace93d2 at webmail.shef.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Alice -
> I'm not suggesting that Korean beef, chicken, etc poses any threat to
> consumers...I have no knowledge one way or they other.
>
> The point I was making relates to the tone and tenor of the latest round of
> demonstrations. Or, more precisely, the consistency of the demo message
> over
> time: a foreign threat (read: US) is trying to undermine Korea in some way,
> encouraging and rallying the forces of Korean nationalism across the
> country.
> These movements are usually orchestrated, or at least broadly encouraged,
> through campaigns of selective (dis)information (ex. like presenting a
> video of
> downer cow as one of cow with mad cow disease to reinforce the idea that US
> beef is dangerous; or presenting the views of a NY expat, with no knowledge
> of
> the beef industry or associated regulations, to declare US beef over 20
> months
> old to be "illegal" in the US...nonsense, but the fact it came from the
> mouth
> of an American makes it very useful). And if you look back you'll see these
> street demos often lag the offending event by many months. Take for example
> the
> large demos that clogged the streets of Seoul when two middle school girls
> were
> run over by a US armored vehicle in 2002. There was little initial interest
> among Koreans - the great outpouring came about months later when certain
> groups released the political capital that could be made of it.
>
> High level discussions concerning the import of US beef have been occurring
> since the ban was enacted in 2003. Indeed, limited importation began in
> April
> 2007 and continued until October, yet this didn't trigger the events we see
> today...why do you think that is?
>
> In this instance, no one is suggesting that South Koreans be somehow
> compelled
> to buy US beef. Koreans' claim they may, unknowingly, consume US beef as
> wholesalers/retailers will mix it with other beef. Given that South Korea
> is
> democracy, why would the people not then demand - through protest in
> necessary
> - their elected officials pass a law compelling all retailers and purveyors
> of
> meat to provide the source country for the meat they sell? Then those who
> don't
> want it, won't unwittingly consume it. Asking this, quite obvious, question
> would certainly have made the initial article far more balanced and
> compelling.
>
> David
>
> Quoting don kirk <kirkdon at yahoo.com>:
>
> > One element that seems to have been lost here is that U.S. beef would
> cost
> > less than one third Korean beef, and the protest has the fervent
> > organizational support of farmers and commercial interests that
> distribute
> > their products and were not at all happy about the popularity? of U.S.
> beef
> > when sold in Korea from 2001 to 2003. The same activists who have been
> > opposing the FTA have been extremely astute in working with these
> interests
> > and spreading the word on the internet etc.? that the U.S. wants to
> export
> > beef that Americans won't eat. The word is out that the U.S. would ship
> off
> > to Korea the kind of SRMs -- specified risk materials -- that are banned
> in
> > the U.S. Actually, SRMs are banned under the beef agreement. The word
> also is
> > out that beef sold in the U.S. is from cattle less than 30 months old
> when
> > actually 20 percent of beef sold in the U.S. is from cattle above that
> age --
> > mainly used for hamburgers. And it's also forgotten that no case of Mad
> >  Cow disease has been found in anyone in the U.S. That's partly because
> feed
> > made from animals -- in other words, feed that turns? cows into cannibals
> --
> > has been banned in the U.S. for more than ten years ever since it was
> found
> > to be one root cause for the spread of Mad Cow disease in the UK.
> > The issue of exporting Korean beef to the U.S. is interesting. One has to
> > wonder if that would be profitable considering how much more Korean beef
> > costs in Korea than beef from Australia and NZ -- from "grain-fed cattle"
> --
> > and how much higher it would cost than U.S. beef.
> > It's also interesting that the KCTU and AFL-CIO (and others) share common
> > cause in opposing the FTA. The reasons for their opposition are
> diametrically
> > opposed. The KCTU believes FTA would hurt Korean workers and farmers, and
> the
> > U.S. trade unionists and politicians say a flood of Korean imports will
> hurt
> > American workers. One other difference is that the KCTU is dominated by
> > leftist leadership that opposes the whole U.S.-Korean alliance whereas
> the
> > AFL-CIO is essentially conservative.
> > Don Kirk
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Alice S. Kim <kim.alice.s at gmail.com>
> > To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:07:00 AM
> > Subject: Re: [KS] candlelight demonstrations in Korea and the beef deal
> issue
> >
> > Dear David,
> >
> > As much as you and Scott may not appreciate a 'left-leaning' perspective
> on
> > the SK candlelight vigils against the reduced restriction US beef import
> > agreement, I also felt uncomfortable reading your response, and the
> direction
> > in which it clearly leans:
> >
> > , David Scofield wrote:
> >
> > I second Scott's observations.
> >
> >
> > It would also be helpful if the article touched on the other side of the
> > trade
> >
> > issue: South Korea is asking, for example, that the US declare Korea free
> of
> >
> > foot and mouth disease and to allow the import of Korean beef into the
> US.
> > They
> >
> > are also seeking agreement on the relaxation of restrictions on the
> import to
> >
> > the US of canned ginseng chicken. And of course the larger issue of a
> free
> >
> > trade agreement with the US and Korea's inclusion on the visa waiver
> list.
> >
> > These street demonstrations - like so many in the past - are a way for
> the
> >
> > South Korean government to leverage the US in negotiations.
> >
> > There are two reasons why I don't think these trade demands by the South
> > Korean government needed to have been included in the article for it to
> > appear non-biased. ? First, the article was intended to address why South
> > Korean citizens have been hitting the streets, protesting for over a
> month
> > now (and having grown exponentially in recent weeks) over the US beef
> import
> > agreement (which quickly spread to other controversial neoliberal reforms
> > introduced by Lee Myung Bak, like the canal project, his education
> policies -
> > which the high school students abhor as much as the reduced restriction
> beef
> > agreement - and plans to privatize healthcare and water, among others)
> and
> > not an article based on the KorUS FTA agreement (which is related to the
> beef
> > imports since it is a ? conditionality imposed by US lawmakers for
> potential
> > ratification of the ? KorUS FTA, but not part of the official FTA
> agreement
> > or the principle issue behind these protests). ? Moreover, If
> >  you are alluding to the fact that potential Korean beef ? and canned
> ginseng
> > chicken imports may be a health risk for Americans if imported then that
> is a
> > grievance that should be addressed to and blamed upon the US govt. and
> its
> > negotiators and lawmakers if the FTA is eventually ratified, and perhaps
> > mobilized amongst American citizens to oppose it (like the South Koreans
> > protestors are doing with the beef), not blamed upon the South Korean
> > protestors to the beef agreement or even the S. Korean government as
> their
> > hypocrisy. ? The KCTU in SK and the AFL-CIO and the UAW in the US jointly
> > oppose this FTA deal -- and the reason for these protests appear to be
> the
> > South Korean government's generous compliance with the US demands so far
> > (including reducing safety restrictions on the beef imports - which the
> > protesters want renegotiated).
> >
> >
> > Second, you appear to be making a dangerous conflation between the South
> > Korean citizens who are participating in these demonstrations AGAINST the
> > South Korean government ? AND the South Korean government. The people and
> the
> > state are not the same thing, nor do their interests always overlap. ? To
> > even imply that the significance of these demonstrations is merely a
> > leveraging tool by the LMB government as a measure to get a more
> advantageous
> > trade deal vis-a-vis the US is ludicrous, offensive, and patronizing to
> the
> > hundreds of thousands of people attending rallies chanting "Lee MyungBak
> > Resign!" ? There is a difference between how the government attempts to
> use
> > the protests in negotiations with the US and the actual antagonistic
> relation
> > between the SK government and the protesters. Your conflation of the
> state
> > and people and your? implication that these Koreans are just sheep being
> > steered by their leaders,? are at best, sloppy, and at worst
> >  Orientalist: ? the premise of your argument being - Koreans can't
> actively
> > participate in a democracy because they have a follow-the-leader
> mentality.
> > ? Some may consider these massive protests a sign of a healthy
> > democracy.? How else are people supposed to register their complaints and
> > make their voices heard? What does a politically engaged citizenry look
> like
> > for you?
> >
> >
> > (BTW, LMB's approval rating having fallen to 20% from over 60% when he
> was
> > first elected has been reported in papers of all stripes.)
> >
> >
> >
> > I sense the author is new to Korea and may not be aware that that
> > 'spontaneous'
> >
> > outpourings of emotion by Korea's netizens are anything but spontaneous.
> >
> > Rather, as in the past (the 'poisoning' of the Han; the accidental death
> of
> > the
> >
> > two middle school students; Onno; the Liancourt rocks - Dokdo -
> fiasco...),
> >
> > these demonstrations are the result of careful and deliberate agit prop
> by
> >
> > certain groups (PSPD, Green Korea, Korea teacher's union) and sympathetic
> > media
> >
> > in S. Korea.
> >
> > It also does not necessarily follow that considering South Korean
> netizens'
> > outpouring of emotion as 'spontaneous' has to do with the fact that the
> > author must be "new to Korea." This may not be the first time that
> > demonstrations have been initiated among netizens, but that does not
> > invalidate the fact that they did spontaneously begin and have been
> sustained
> > (and grown) among average citizens on the internet and not by social
> > movements. ? One of the most interesting and amusing aspects of the
> > continuing mobilization of these protests is the 'agora' phenomenon.
> Agora
> > went from being a message board on the Daum internet portal site to
> acquiring
> > its own Flag/Banner during the past month of demonstrations! ? I've been
> > puzzled by the numerous 'agora' flag/banners flying at the
> protests.....but
> > then there are banners for 'anti-lee myung bak' as well as other ad hoc
> > 'groups'. These flags/banners are quite different from the Democratic
> Labor
> > Party or the ? KCTU
> >  (the korean confederation of trade unions) flags or other 'organized'
> social
> > movements who have always had a flag/banner. ? I even heard a first hand
> > account of how the police have been asking those arrested at the protests
> if
> > they were members of ? 'Agora' - confusing this internet message board
> for an
> > organization. ? It's interesting to see internet mediums like blogs and
> > message boards taking on organizing/mobilization functions for the
> > 'unorganized' as the people move from the screen to the streets. While
> > attending these, it's hard not to notice that many of the the flags look
> > quite different from what you would see at organized protests like the
> > anti-KorUS FTA protests that took over the streets all last year (in much
> > smaller numbers than these).?
> > You appear to be echoing the unsupported "who's pulling their strings"
> theory
> > drummed up by ? ChoJoongDong. ? The People's Countermeasure Council
> Against
> > the Full Resumption of US Beef Imports - a coalition of various (and not
> just
> > left-leaning) social movement groups, Ngos, unions, community groups,
> etc.
> > was formed weeks after these protests commenced. ? They are the rearguard
> in
> > these protests (pragmatically and literally).
> >
> >
> > The author would do well to bear in mind that the Korean state has more
> than
> >
> > enough riot police and soldiers to put down any demonstration they deem
> not
> > to
> >
> > be in the government's interest...these street demos happen because the
> >
> > political establishment is not at all threatened by them (as long as
> people
> >
> > perceive the enemy to be beyond Korea's shores), and see them as
> providing
> >
> > useful leverage against the Americans, while reinforcing the notion in
> the
> >
> > minds of many young Koreans that threats to Korea always originate from
> > outside
> >
> > Korea - it's a useful distraction that has been used by Korean
> politicians
> >
> > since the Korean war, perhaps before.
> >
> > Considering modern South Korean history and the many protests "deemed not
> to
> > be in the government's interest" ? that were violently 'put down' ? with
> not
> > a few deaths and casualties (alongside martial law) by the military
> > dictatorships, the reason why the deployment of tear gas and other forms
> of
> > military violence are not a matter of light consideration for the current
> > government and its "more than enough riot police and soldiers" is
> > understandable. ? Also, 60 shipping containers weighted with sand and
> welded
> > together in the middle of Sejong-ro to barricade the road to Cheongwadae,
> as
> > well as impending resignations of LMB's newly appointed cabinet members
> DOES
> > signal some amount of perceived threat on behalf of the SK government. ?
> And
> > lastly, in addition to the monikers '2megabytes' and 'rat' (?????????)
> that
> > Lee Myung Bak has been given by the protesters is 'Public Enemy'
> (?????????
> > ? ? ). I believe it is fairly apparent that in these demonstrations
> >  the people perceive the enemy ("Public Enemy number 1") to be much
> closer to
> > home (via a sentiment - of betrayal - ? shared amongst even those who
> > probably voted him in earlier this year but are on the streets today),
> even
> > if the pressures may originate from further away.
> >
> >
> > The most popular song at these protests is "South Korean Constitution
> Article
> > 1" (??????????????? ??????? ?1???), which begins: ? "South Korea is a
> > democratic republic...".
> >
> > The second most common is the newly coined song/jingle "Leave
> office/resign
> > Lee ? Myung Bak" - ???????????? ????????????/???????????? (repeated to
> the
> > melody of "????????????? ??????????").
> >
> >
> >
> > Alice S. Kim
> > PhD Candidate
> > Department of Rhetoric
> > 7408 Dwinelle Hall, #2670
> > University of California
> > Berkeley, CA 94720
> > kimas at berkeley.edu
> > kim.alice.s at gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > policebus6.10.JPG
> >
> > the poster reads: Public Enemy (middle); ?
> > top left in red: All country Mouse/Rat catching day; (nickname for LMB)?
> > bottom in white: Opposition to Privatization of water, education, health
> > insurance, public service
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 10, 2008, at 12:46 AM, David Scofield wrote:
> >
> > I second Scott's observations.
> >
> > It would also be helpful if the article touched on the other side of the
> > trade
> > issue: South Korea is asking, for example, that the US declare Korea free
> of
> > foot and mouth disease and to allow the import of Korean beef into the
> US.
> > They
> > are also seeking agreement on the relaxation of restrictions on the
> import to
> > the US of canned ginseng chicken. And of course the larger issue of a
> free
> > trade agreement with the US and Korea's inclusion on the visa waiver
> list.
> > These street demonstrations - like so many in the past - are a way for
> the
> > South Korean government to leverage the US in negotiations.
> >
> > I sense the author is new to Korea and may not be aware that that
> > 'spontaneous'
> > outpourings of emotion by Korea's netizens are anything but spontaneous.
> > Rather, as in the past (the 'poisoning' of the Han; the accidental death
> of
> > the
> > two middle school students; Onno; the Liancourt rocks - Dokdo -
> fiasco...),
> > these demonstrations are the result of careful and deliberate agit prop
> by
> > certain groups (PSPD, Green Korea, Korea teacher's union) and sympathetic
> > media
> > in S. Korea.
> >
> > The author would do well to bear in mind that the Korean state has more
> than
> > enough riot police and soldiers to put down any demonstration they deem
> not
> > to
> > be in the government's interest...these street demos happen because the
> > political establishment is not at all threatened by them (as long as
> people
> > perceive the enemy to be beyond Korea's shores), and see them as
> providing
> > useful leverage against the Americans, while reinforcing the notion in
> the
> > minds of many young Koreans that threats to Korea always originate from
> > outside
> > Korea - it's a useful distraction that has been used by Korean
> politicians
> > since the Korean war, perhaps before.
> >
> > A final thought. In July 2000, when the furore centered around the
> dumping of
> > 20
> > gallons of formaldehyde into a drain at US Camp Humphries (the embalming
> > fluid
> > was then processed through two separate treatment centers before reaching
> the
> > Han river), headlines screamed that the US army was "poisoning the Han
> > river"...street outrage ensued, prompted by Green Korea, the PSPD among
> > others.
> > But what wasn't discussed, aside from the fact the chemical had been
> twice
> > treated and posed no threat to the river as a result, was that S. Korean
> > hospitals and clinics routinely dump chemicals like formaldehyde in a
> similar
> > way. Nor was the fact that lumber companies upstream of Seoul dump TONS
> of
> > formaldehyde untreated into the Han every year discussed. Neither point
> was
> > allowed to distract Korea's netizens from their rightful rage.
> >
> > David
> >
> > Quoting "J.Scott Burgeson" <jsburgeson at yahoo.com>:
> >
> >
> > 1. `While cows 30 months of age and older at the time of slaughter are in
> >
> > general not allowed to be sold for food consumption in the US and
> elsewhere,
> >
> > the agreement between the US and South Korean government included the
> import
> >
> > of beef from cattle over 30 months old.`
> >
> >
> > Q:????????Can you provide a reliable and up-to-date source for the first
> part
> > of
> >
> > this statement? I have read elsewhere that beef over 30 months old is
> widely
> >
> > used esp. for hamburger meat in the US.
> >
> >
> > 2. `A video of a cow in the US that was unable to walk but was passed as
> >
> > acceptable to be slaughtered and its beef included in the human food
> supply
> >
> > was distributed on the Internet by netizens.`
> >
> >
> > Vague attribution. What was the source of this video? MBC`s PD Such`op?
> And
> >
> > did that cow actually have BSE (I have heard otherwise)? Please provide a
> >
> > clear reference if possible.
> >
> >
> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? * ? * ? * ? * ? *
> >
> >
> > Your article implies that there is insufficient democracy in South Korea
> but
> >
> > does not really explain why so few people chose to participate in the
> >
> > Presidential election of Dec. 2007 and thereby register their democratic
> will
> >
> > at the institutional level. Political apathy is distinct from lack of
> >
> > democracy. One might also note that the GNP won a majority of seats in
> >
> > Parliament in April, yet your article does not account for this
> phenomenon
> >
> > either (beyond perhaps objecting to it on ideological grounds). Up until
> >
> > recently the Korean electorate was seemingly conservative, which again is
> >
> > distinct from lack of democracy.
> >
> >
> > ChoJoongDong have their biases but many of the left-leaning sources you
> site
> >
> > approvingly in your article have their biases as well, which renders the
> >
> > persuasiveness of your analysis somewhat less than it might otherwise be.
> >
> >
> > --Scott Bug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Commercial Property Research
> > Department of Town and Regional Planning,
> > University of Sheffield,
> > c/o 220 Sable Creek Drive
> > Alpharetta, GA
> > USA, 30004
> >
> > T: +1 770 676 7463
> > M: +1 678 602 0753
> > Department website: http://www.shef.ac.uk/trp/
>
>
> --
> Commercial Property Research
> Department of Town and Regional Planning,
> University of Sheffield,
> c/o 220 Sable Creek Drive
> Alpharetta, GA
> USA, 30004
>
> T: +1 770 676 7463
> M: +1 678 602 0753
> Department website: http://www.shef.ac.uk/trp/
>
>
>
> End of Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 60, Issue 15
> *********************************************
>



-- 
"Le nom est une facilité" (Foucault, 1980, in an anonymous interview with Le
Monde)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20080612/0dcd604b/attachment.html>