[KS] Rhetoric of Hatred: the cornucopia of Korean 4LW's and the English polish..

[Kye C Kim]

Hi,

*Translator Effect?*
During the Arab Spring, I was rather puzzled by the two very different
Kadffi that emerged from CNN and BBC.  These were the last broadcasts by
the besieged Kadaffi as he made his appeal to his supporters.  The man that
emerged through CNN as translated into English was a totally different man
from that seen through BBC.  In one version, Kadaffi was totally
incoherent, somebody who had already lost his marbles, blabbing one
nonsense after another with incoherence, almost comedic when topped with
the ungrammatical English.  In the other, he was a well spoken, elegant,
and dignified leader of a nation, making his defiant last stand and calling
for courage to his followers even as the sky and bombs were all falling
down around him.  So, which was the real Kadaffi?  Was the dignity an
illusion or was the incoherence the illusion?  Was he just a sad, and
uneducated, thug sulking and blustering? Was he the shadow of a roaring
lion who once commanded the respect of his nation?  The point is, the
effect was so powerful that one was left with misgiving and distrust about
both the CNN and BBC.  It was impossible to know whether Kadaffi was better
than the incoherent translator or worse than the eloquent doppleganger,
with the lingering doubts about the faithfulness of both. I don't think
this is unimportant.

*English and other other Languages?*
I think the standard practice in many countries is to first produce
documents in English and then have that version translated into other
languages (*sometimes into the native language as well, as noted by Prof
Mair in Remarks on the slogan for the 2008 Beijing
Olympics<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinyin.info%2Freadings%2Fbeijing_olympics%2Fslogan.html&ei=uvS9T4fcBKWXiQeG7Pm5Dw&usg=AFQjCNHVL_R3iEixMOE91FFqxVF_Jssa2A&sig2=lmqox0vphjsisiCVycd2tQ>
)* rather than making separate translations from the original.  I am not
sure if this would be the case for NK, especially for Russian, Chinese, and
Japanese.  I am curious how NK rhetoric is actually transformed and
delivered into non English-speaking countries?  Is there a qualitative
difference in those languages, say German, French, Spanish, or Russian, and
do these versions similarly evoke a netherworld of strange as well?

Regards,
Joobai Lee
5/24/2011

Thank you for your clarification about the source of the repated
"rat-like"   Rat, or 쥐, doesn't quite bring the sames associations/images
in Korean as in English.  Rat is more often associated with "petty"
craftiness, something trifling, and petty thievery, as well as cowardice,
but not necessarily with the imagery that the rat evokes in English.  I am
not sure if this is correct, but the only link between 쥐 and the current
president from the recent past I can think of is another word-play based on
어린쥐, which translated to "baby rat" and also transliterates "orange."  This
was ironically coined by the former Prime Minister Chung Un-Chan to parody
the transition committee's proposal for English Immersion Education in
Korea.  Irony has many twists: He is now the Honorary Mayor of Jejudo's
English-Village.

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Ruediger Frank <ruediger.frank at univie.ac.at
> wrote:

>  Dear Scott,
> I don't want to get political here, but I vaguely remember relatively
> recent phrases like "unruly children" (Hillary C.) and "I loathe that guy"
> (George B.). Not very mature either, I'd say. Besides, since when is a
> comparison across times not allowed. The argument was that other states
> have applied derogatory rhetoric at times when they felt that was
> necessary. NK very obviously is in crisis and feels surrounded by enemies.
> Not that this would justify anything, but it certainly helps to understand.
> Regarding the internet, of course the Korean version is also meant for
> foreigners; alas, how many North Koreans would have regular access? So we
> can (and should) regard *all* of NK's internet propaganda as being
> directed at foreigners; assuming this only for the English version makes
> little sense. When Brian wrote about propaganda in Korean, he referred to
> non-internet sources like Chosòn Munhak or all types of sosòl that are
> usually only distributed internally or end up being ignored in the big
> libraries in South Korea or the West.
> As much as I agree that Kim3 has a serious legitimacy crisis (I wrote a
> few words here: http://38north.org/2012/05/rfrank050912/), I do not think
> that the current outbursts are unique enough to be counted as additional
> evidence. I remember that very similar verbal derailments were more or less
> common until the first inter-Korean summit in 2000, and then were picked up
> again from mid-2008. I agree, though, that the NKs have recently stepped up
> their efforts at making better (and at technically moe professional) use of
> the new media. Just look at all the new websites by KCNA and Rodong Sinmun
> including photos, videos and PDFs.
> I am not saying we shouldn't be worried. With a young leader still
> struggling for legitimacy, making heavy ideological mistakes along that
> way, and in the end betting on performance-based legitimacy through
> economic progress, the chance for conflict on the Korean peninsula is now
> bigger than last year. So it indeed does make sense watching their
> propaganda closely. I just don't think what we have seen so far is unique
> enough; I thus agree with Jim.
> Best,
> Rudiger
>
>
>
>
>
>
> on Donnerstag, 24. Mai 2012 at 03:06 you wrote:
>
>
>   --- On *Wed, 5/23/12, jimhoare64 at aol.co.uk <jimhoare64 at aol.co.uk>*
>  wrote:
>
> *So what we see from KCNA is indeed nasty - but it is not unique.
>
> *Well, it is certainly unique in the present historical moment. WWII
> ended over six decades ago. What other nation-state today deploys such
> hostile, infantile rhetoric towards its neighbors? I can only think of
> non-state actors like Al Qaeda, but we all know what kind of organization
> that is.
>
> The point about reading the original Korean is well-taken, but clearly the
> DPRK is intent on getting its "message" out into the world in multiple
> non-Korean languages, as its current revamped Internet offensive attests.
> In "The Cleanest Race," B.R. Myers argues that DPRK propaganda tends to
> soften or downplay its frequently racist, or hypernationalistic, message
> when translated into foreign languages. As Aiden's paper makes clear, such
> "softening" no longer seems so apparent when perusing official DPRK Web
> sites these days.
>
> What's going on here? Is this is a sign of some sort of crisis of
> legitimacy on the part of the new Kim Jong-un regime? Or have the North
> Koreans belatedly discovered the power of Internet "memes," hoping to have
> some of them "go viral" if possible? If this discussion is any indication,
> it seems to be working, doesn't it?
>
> Or, perhaps they're tired of being seen as a sick silly joke by the rest
> of the world, and have simply decided to double down on the last bad hand
> they have to play?
>
> --Scott Bug
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20120524/b9280577/attachment.html>