Over the Top Hysterics
by Richardson ~ July 26th, 2007. Filed under: Anti-Americanism, Blogs & Blogging, Fiskings, Religion, U.S.-Korea Relations.First, a little disclosure: long time readers of this blog, Joshua’s blog (One Free Korea), and the now defunct joint blog Joshua, Richardson and I created in the past (The Korea Liberator) probably remember that the joint project unraveled under a less than amicable circumstance. We had different ideas about how to run the blog and what policy views we had regarding U.S.-Korea relations.
Nonetheless, Joshua and I likely still have very similar views on, say, 95% of topics that concern the Korean Peninsula (of course, among the 5% difference is a rather weighty topic of the U.S. military presence in Korea). Furthermore, despite our past disagreements, I have a good deal of respect for Joshua for his hard work on behalf of the North Korea Freedom Coalition and for his pioneering blog work under a previous iteration of his current blog.
Occasionally I would see something on his blog with which I disagreed, but I have been reluctant to write any critical comments or rebuttals (with one exception). But his last couple of posts have riled me badly enough that I now break that courtesy.
In the first place, I cannot let stand his just-below-the-surface condescension toward Korean Christian aid workers. Clearly Joshua’s view is nowhere as egregrious and toxic as other anti-Christian writers and commenters. He sets up the premise rather reasonably that:
What’s striking about the discussion is that the Taliban’s murder, kidnapping, intolerance, and ignorance never even became a subject. It was lost among the venom directed at the victims. [Snip]“If we’re looking for narrow-minded, intolerant fanatics to condemn, the Taliban ought to be our starting point. These missionaries might annoy you at the train station, but after all, they aren’t beheading anyone.”
Fine enough. But then he veers into the realm of amateur psychology himself and thinly-veiled condescension toward those who — fired by their faith — risk their lives to help others.
In the absence of any other information to the contrary, we ought to give the benefit of doubt to the church that says its aid workers “were not involved in any Christian missionary work [and] provided only medical and other volunteer aid to distressed people in the war-ravaged country.”
Yet Joshua states variously:
I grant that these Koreans don’t seem to be adherents of an especially open-minded or intellectual strain of Christianity, and Christianity in Korea can seem annoyingly messianic to a non-believer (worst example: an obnoxious attempt to convert my wife at her mother’s funeral). In the comments below, I’ve conceded the possibility that the missionaries’ motives were more psychological than altruistic, depending on what they were actually doing there. [Snip]But if they were simply looking for an inhospitable place to take their message and confront people with it, then there’s something about that mission that’s more about the missionary’s own emotional needs than it is helping others, spiritually or otherwise. [Snip]
I can simultaneously see this murder for the tragedy it is, chide the hostages from my safe home for putting themselves and others in danger through their choice of venues and methods…
Joshua is not stupid, so he always couches his statements with conditional phrases, but I cannot help but think that he harbors the rather too common metro-elite condescension toward evangelical Christians, particularly their missionary and aid work (an odd thing, considering Joshua works extensively with NKFC folks, many of who are evangelicals). Apparently, to Joshua, such brave, altruistic people who sacrifice for others because of their strong faith are bothersome and nuissant at minimum, and perhaps worse, emotionally needy and even dangerous (in the sense that they make poor choices and, as he puts it, put others in danger).
Now, Joshua and I also disagree on the nature of South Korean anti-Americanism. I acknowledge the deep strain of anti-Americanism in South Korea, but argue that the irrevocably anti-American segment of the population is in the minority (a noisy minority, of course).
Indeed public sentiment is notoriously fickle everywhere (look at our own country where the 90% of the public approved of President Bush less than three years ago and where now only a third approves of his job as president). One can argue that sentiment may be especially fickle in places like Korea where the government — and by extension the party in power and its ideology — has a tremendous influence on the media.
And that is why I find his last post particularly over the top and hysterical. Joshua calls South Korea “No Worse Friend, No Better Enemy.”
Huh?
I am very displeased with the left-wing government in South Korea today, but take heart from the fact that it is very unpopular. Although I do not expect a magical transformation, I do think the U.S.-South Korean relations will improve considerably and favorably should a conservative government take over the reigns there (and unlike Joshua, I have significant contacts in the Korean political right and almost universally they desire the return of more cooperative U.S.-South Korea relationship).
But “no worse friend, no better enemy”? One can surely debate the efficacy of their troops, but our South Korean allies at least sent military contingents to Iraq and Afghanistan.
What about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, “allies” of ours where the anti-American sentiment makes that in South Korea seem down right friendly? Or Egypt, whose government has received billions from us, but continues to repress its own people, who, not coincidentally, show near universal hostility to the United States.
Or, for that matter, what about France, whose government under Jacques Chirac undercut our efforts in the Middle East relentlessly?
Indeed, France offers an interesting analogy. In the last presidential election in France, a sizable majority, put off by the lack of reform and constant shift of blame to America by the left, elected an America-friendly rightist, Nicolas Sarkozy. Given the current state of Korean politics, the possibility that something similar will occur in the next South Korean presidential election is rather high.
I think there will be time enough once a conservative party is in power again in South Korea to pronouce whether South Korea is “no worse friend and no better enemy” of the United States.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I commented over at Josh’s blog. Dr. Stark’s The Rise of Christianity has a chapter on martyrs, in which he specifically rejects the “irrationalist” interpretation of martyrdom.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Thou doest protest too much. Joshua was perhaps a bit over the top, yet it was thoughtful.”couching his statements with conditional phrases” shows this and causes one to ponder. There is a very strong streak of the evangelical among many Korean christians. Yet at the same time an naieve innocence of the outside world.
July 26th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Dan tdaxp:
Looks interesting… though I must admit that I view “rational choice theory” to be highly limited in utility (that’s economist-speak for “wrong”).
Gerry:
Conditional phrases are fine and welcome. My point was, rather, that despite Joshua’s conditional phrases, his statement seem to betray some underlying prejudices.
For example, he writes:
Why would he even describe the second possibility in such a detailed fashion unless there is some presumption of the same?
Let’s put it this way. Let’s suppose I were to state the following: “If the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan to combat radical Islamic terrorism, that would be fine; but if it went to war there to impose its imperialist domination, that says bad things about Americans.”
I suppose I could defend myself from criticism of reflexive anti-Americanism by saying “hey, I wrote if a or b, I never declared the the latter was the American motive!” But we would all know what was in my mind to present such a possibility in the first place — presumption that the latter is likely.
Despite any lack of evidence so far that these folks were anything but self-sacrificing volunteers driven by a strong faith in God to help others, he brought up, more than once, this “if… then they must be emotionally needy, not atruistic” routine.
Of course, I will never know what is in his mind, but the post left a distasteful odor of thinly-veiled anti-evangelical sentiment couched in “if … on the other hand” type phrases. As I wrote, Joshua is not dumb enough to declare plainly whatever prejuices he might hold.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Gee, James, I sense that you’re carrying some baggage (since you brought it up, I admit it — I differed with you when you edited my posts). There’s no “courtesy” broken to simply disagree and leave the personal stuff out of it, so why not just do that?
July 27th, 2007 at 12:30 am
No baggage (although that certainly seems like a personal attack, from which you say we should stay away). I stayed quiet until these two last posts of yours really bothered me, especially the soft-pedaled anti-evangelical remarks. I merely mentioned the unraveling of the TKL in the interest of full disclosure.
But I must admit I find your statement “I differed with you when you edited my posts” odd. That happened once, because one of your posts was overriding the site’s formatting. When you objected, I apologized and we moved on.
In fact, this statement of yours is disengenous as to border on falsehood (yes, I find that disappointing, because I continued to hold high regard for your work with NKFC).
The disagreements over which we broke up were two-fold. First, we had a significant disagreement over USFK issue. Second, there was a blog administration issue. At times, you wrote enormous number of posts each day which, unintentionally or not, buried my posts as well as those of Richardson (for which you said you “felt bad,” I believe, after the break-up).
Now you write “I differed with you when you edited my posts” as if that’s the reason why TKL broke up.
I was certainly annoyed for a while over the break-up of TKL, but I never thought you dishonorable. But your remark above tells me that perhaps I was wrong.
While I don’t particularly care to be “personal,” if it has be so to be truthful, so be it.
July 27th, 2007 at 2:01 am
尴尬…
July 27th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
James /Josua, obviously in this argument I am in way over my head. It appears to be a personal issue, beyond my scope, vision, or interest. I suggest a truce and return to reality.
July 27th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
DPRK Studies which has obviously been on my favorites list is being deleted. I have found the site to primarily support one sided discussion. While I have spent several years of my life in South Korea, I have found much wanting in the South Korean political arena. I will continue to support those sites South Korean or otherwise that recognize the danger of staying in South Korea as a military force.
July 27th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Gerry:
In my own opinion, blogs are designed for personal points of view, and if they are one sided, that’s the basic idea of such. While I do not agree with everything said here, I do agree with the premise that people have the right to speak.
The idea of the North Korea’s ultimate downfall was the suppression of ideas and only subscribing to one point of view and only worshiping the Kims.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:22 am
“Fine enough. But then his veers into the realm of amateur psychology himself and thinly-veiled condescension toward those who — fired by their faith — risk their lives to help others. “
You yourself are practicing amateur psychology by presuming to understand the thoughts and motives of the missionaries. Did they really understand that they were risking their lives? Did they really think that making Afghan kids sing praise to Jesus in an incomprehensible language was saving their souls? The Underwoods, the Allens, the Appenzellers, Hulbert, and other hallowed names all spent time living amongst Koreans, learning the language and the culture. Like Jesus, they walked with, ate with, and laughed and cried with the people they ministered. That is why Christianity survived initial government persecution and took firm root in a country that has now put itself on the global map as a home to a vibrant Christian community. It is an insult to compare real missionaries who live humbly amongst the people they serve with a group of sweet yet naive young people on a package missionary tour disguised to the Afghan government as a cultural program. At least Jesus in confrontations with Jewish and Roman authorities never hid his mission and was up front about his message and work.
How did this tour bus full of young people who do not speak any local language “help people”? As the Eleanor Rigby song goes, “No one was saved” but a husband and father is dead on his 42nd birthday. More people may die if millions of dollars are paid in ransom to the Taliban, who will use that money to wage war on the very people the amateur missionaries sought to help. As an apostate from Christianity, I actually respect Christian missionaries, for they truly live the Gospel by sharing the Good News with others so that they, too, may live eternally with God. If you really believe that Jesus saved your soul by dying on the Cross and rising again, then you should be praising Jesus every day and witnessing to others in ways that appropriate and effective. Missionary work by this amateur tour group, however, has done more harm than good.
“And that is why I find his last post particularly over the top and hysterical. Joshua calls South Korea “No Worse Friend, No Better Enemy.””
I no longer live in Korea and thus cannot gage first-hand public sentiments, but judging from the most rec’d comments on related message boards in a variety of forums, I would agree with you that anti-Americanism is a “noisy minority.” It is to their credit that Korean netizens did not swallow the Korean media bait to shift responsibility for the hostages onto the US.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Gerry:
Sorry to see you go, but I do not think anyone suppresses other views and insist on a “party line” here. I, for one, welcome a good argument.
It seems what bothers you is not so much that the views are “one-sided” here, but that they do not conform to your own.
Oh, well.
As for the “danger of staying in South Korea as a military force,” I point you to Richardson’s “The Coming East Asian Arms Race.”
There is also a considerable danger to leaving. We should always weigh the two rather than fall prey to those who play on emotions generated by episodic surge of anti-Americanism in our allied countries.
Our military forces in Europe and Asia have been the bedrock of peace and stability in these two very important areas. While I think they should be re-postured to allow for quick deployment to other trouble spots (which the Pentagon is already doing), we should continue to maintain substantial presence in them.
July 28th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Sonagi:
I am in no way claiming I know the motives of the missionaries. I am simply suggesting that:
Unless I know otherwise, I would like to give people of faith the benefit of the doubt, rather than engage in amateur psychology and start babbling about “emotional needs, not altruism” behind a computer screen.
Also, while I am aware of the video footage you mention, I do not think that is enough to condemn all Korean missionary and aid workers in Afghanistan or judge the entirety of their work.
Lastly, I think my view on Western missionaries of the past is pretty clear. I am in awe of them. Yet I also know that these moral giants of their day were not exactly perfect either. They, too, were often accused of being ignorant of local conditions and being unable to communicate effectively with indigenous populations. But some of them endured, learned, and suceeded magnificently. It would be unfair to render judgment on the success or failure of all missionaries and aid workers, Korean or otherwise, based solely on the extraordinarily gifted and successful ones from the past.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
“Also, while I am aware of the video footage you mention, I do not think that is enough to condemn all Korean missionary and aid workers in Afghanistan or judge the entirety of their work.”
Indeed, that is another reason why the Saemmul Church package tour was a bad idea. Koreans are now banned from visiting the country, and governments of other Muslim majority nations will examine more closely visa applications from Korean nationals.
“I am in no way claiming I know the motives of the missionaries. I am simply suggesting that:
In the absence of any other information to the contrary, we ought to give the benefit of doubt to the church that says its aid workers “were not involved in any Christian missionary work [and] provided only medical and other volunteer aid to distressed people in the war-ravaged country.”
Unless I know otherwise, I would like to give people of faith the benefit of the doubt, rather than engage in amateur psychology and start babbling about “emotional needs, not altruism” behind a computer screen.”
Trouble is that there is no independent evidence that these young people, only one of whom had professional medical training, actually provided medical or education assistance during their week-long visit, as claimed. Common sense suggests strongly that a group of young people with no professional medical skills are unable to offer any meaningful aid. These guys aren’t Medicin Sans Frontiers or the Smile Team that flies around the world repairing cleft palates. This group apparently took videos of Afghan children praising Jesus in Korean, and there are photos on the Net of Korean cultural performances like the fan dance. Well, where are the videos and photos of Afghans getting medical care or learning something besides Latin chants? I cannot give them the benefit of the doubt owing to evidence to the contrary and common sense.
July 28th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
“It would be unfair to render judgment on the success or failure of all missionaries and aid workers, Korean or otherwise, based solely on the extraordinarily gifted and successful ones from the past.”
But it is fair to judge the feasibility of this and other church trips. Missionary groups (or anybody else for that matter) don’t get a pass just because they believe they’re doing a good thing.
July 28th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
it’s kinda like blaming a beautiful young girl for being raped.
it’s her fault. yeah. i buy that arguement…
July 29th, 2007 at 5:52 am
Conclusion: We don’t know.
I’ve felt strong prejudice against evangelicals because I’ve felt spiritually abused by some of them. I’ve also met some that would literally and joyfully lay down their life for someone if they thought it would save someones life, and you certainly knew they loved you.
There’s all kinds every where you go, as in anything.
As for USFK and US-SK relations…. I say… GO GNP in 07!!!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Ghola, your analogy is illogical. Being beautiful is not an action. Doing missionary work is. Besides, I’m surprised you aren’t aware that rape has little correlation with one’s physical appearance. Ugly women get raped, old women get raped, even pregnant women get raped.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
mr. james na. by any chance, are you related to kevin Na, the golfer ?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
have you or will you start your own blog ?
July 29th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
ms sonagi..
i’m not very logical as you can see.. just ignore my stupidity.
tyvm.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Your comment was stupid, but it takes maturity and humility to admit that.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Ghola,
Na, while not as common as a Kim, Lee, Park, or Choi/Choe, is not exactly an extremely rare Korean surname either. So kinship should not be presumed.
Sonagi,
You are quite possibly the most consistently insightful and rational commentator on the Korean Blogs. Any chance you’d open your own Blog?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Indeed, I do not know Kevin Na although I would not be surprised if we were distantly related.
A little bit of info on the “Na’s.”
July 30th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
James, thank you for your commentary.
The depth of antipathy towards Christians in mainstream North American society was already quite clear to me, but this incident has opened my eyes to how much contempt there is for Christians even among the relatively conservative English-language Korean blogosphere. This is, as you and others have noted, all the more surprising, given the constructive role evangelical Christians have played in modern Korean history, and especially the key role they play now in aiding North Koreans.
Now that a second hostage has reportedly been killed, let’s pray that the remaining hostages will be freed without further bloodshed.
July 30th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
“You are quite possibly the most consistently insightful and rational commentator on the Korean Blogs. Any chance you’d open your own Blog?”
Nope. I’d rather eat up other people’s bandwidth with my idle chatter. Don’t flatter me, Won Joon. Seriously, don’t flatter me. Where you been hidin’ anyway? You never post at the Marmots anymore.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
mr richardson, i hope that the little one and mrs are doing fine..
July 30th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
ms sonagi.
is sonagi, a name of a bird ? or, does it mean, a noise maker…?
July 31st, 2007 at 8:12 am
A sonagi is a sudden downpour of rain. It is also the title of a novel that is part of secondary school Korean literature anthologies. It is not an uncommon username among Korean netizens. When I register at a major Korean or US website, I often find the username is already taken.
July 31st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Ghola,
“Sonagi” is a sudden, brief rainstorm. It’s also the nickname of the most grossly over-rated Korean athlete of all-time, the former boxer Yuh Myung-woo. He threw a lot of girly punches in rapid succession, hence the nickname.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Sonagi,
1. I do not flatter, mademoiselle. If anything, Spiro Agnew’s infamous “nattering nabob[s] of negativism” (supposedly penned by the formidable Mr. Safire) epithet better fits me. But the flip-side of that curmudgeonly quality, I hope, is that whatever rare compliments I occasionally hurl at people mean more.
2. As for my lack of activity in the Korean Blogsophere, I’ve decided to dramatically restrict my output for two reasons.
A) I am finishing up a manuscript I have been working on for over five years on John Locke and the original liberal understanding of the executive power. (It began as a short essay I was approached to write for an academic philosophy journal and has ballooned to currently 300-plus pages of book-length text.) I should have been done with it two years ago, so I thought I better finish it before the topic remains relevant.
B)I do not think incessantly engaging in Blosophere commenting serves me well for at least three reasons.
First, I am not a native English speaker, so unless I spend inordinate time on my comments, I invariably produce embarrassing, at times indecipherable, Konglish prose. Obviously, I would rather expand this level of energy on my publications than on online flame wars.
Second, possibly because of my strong views, coupled with an even stronger style of expressing those views (i.e., my lack of rhetorical prudence), I always get bogged down in ad hominem exchanges. This obviously makes me look bad.
Third, relatedly, the basic fact of the matter is that a lot of my views on Korea and Korean matters are “controversial.” And the older I get, the more I learn to keep them to myself. A venerable Korean American historian of Korea once told me that he makes sure that his more controversial writings about Korea is not published in Korean, because he does not want to deal with the inevitable distortions and subsequent harassment from the Korean press and Korean intelligentsia in general. Guess what? The advent of the Internet makes every lunatic Korean nationalist his own newspaper.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I took you at face value, Won Joon, until I got to this:
“First, I am not a native English speaker, so unless I spend inordinate time on my comments, I invariably produce embarrassing, at times indecipherable, Konglish prose. Obviously, I would rather expand this level of energy on my publications than on online flame wars. “
Noted writer Chang-rae Lee is not a native speaker of English by definition, either, since his first language was Korean. Can’t wait to read all about “John Locke and the original liberal understanding of the executive power.”
July 31st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Sonagi,
If you read my posts with an eye for grammar, you will see the Konglish tendencies. I really do have a huge complex about my grammar.
I don’t think the comparison with Lee is the best comparison: From what I recall, he immigrated when he was an infant.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
By the way, I have not perused as many Korea Blogs as I ought to lately, but why is no one really raising the following scenario:
If it ends up that all or the majority of the hostages are executed, could this not be the 2007 presidential election version of the armored vehicle incident? Sure, for now the blame seems to be directed mostly at the missionaries and the Taliban, but Korean public opinion is famously mercurial.
It would be truly farcical if this tragedy contributes to catapulting someone like Sohn Hak-kyu to the Blue House.
Even the thought of it makes me ill.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
“If you read my posts with an eye for grammar, you will see the Konglish tendencies. I really do have a huge complex about my grammar.”
As a school teacher, I do notice misspellings and awkward usage without purposefully looking. Either you are being modest or you don’t realize that your English skills are at the level of educated native speakers. I spent a lot of time proofreading papers written by Korean academics equipped with North American PhDs. They used sophisticated vocabulary and generally correct grammar, but there were always little errors here and there. One does not acquire native-like language by studying hard. You’ve obviously been educated extensively in English from an early age. This is possible in Korea. One of two women professors at Yonsei received an American education at Seoul Foreign School and earned a PhD at Princeton. Technically, she is not a native speaker, but she speaks and writes like one, skills that helped her get hired over male candidates.
“I don’t think the comparison with Lee is the best comparison: From what I recall, he immigrated when he was an infant.”
Five years old, but still young enough to acquire native proficiency.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:15 pm
As far as language instruction goes, one can overcome a late start with intensive total immersion.
I first came to the United States as a teenager (at which time I spoke exactly three words in English, “Herro” and “Sank you”) but few people today can tell I was foreign-born when I am on telephone.
It ain’t easy, but it’s possible.
In my view, languages are generally not taught well. Instructors tend to concentrate on correct syntax and grammar, which are not nearly as essential to communication in the purest sense of that word than vocabulary.
I have always preferred to utilize the baby method in learning languages. Babies are bombarded with vocabulary first, and then acquire grammar “organically” after a sufficient base of vocabulary makes a degree of “brute” comprehension possible first. That large vocabulary then makes it possible to learn quickly how individual words relate to one another (grammar).
And the emphasis should almost always be on the spoken form first (just as with a baby). I am of fervent belief that teaching writing in a foreign language early on hampers the development of native accents and retards mastery of the spoken form by forcing the brain to work in ways that are not natural to learning the spoken language.
There was a noted linguist (who passed away a few years ago) whose name escapes me for the moment. He was able to be conversant with an obscure tribal group with a unique language (new to him) after listening to the tribal members for only a very short period of time. I believe he utilized a similar method that concentrated less on grammar, more on vocabulary.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:45 am
“As far as language instruction goes, one can overcome a late start with intensive total immersion.
I first came to the United States as a teenager (at which time I spoke exactly three words in English, “Herro” and “Sank you”) but few people today can tell I was foreign-born when I am on telephone.
It ain’t easy, but it’s possible.”
I’m impressed. I do know of other Koreans who immigrated as teenagers, and like you, have no discernible accent.
“I have always preferred to utilize the baby method in learning languages. Babies are bombarded with vocabulary first, and then acquire grammar “organically” after a sufficient base of vocabulary makes a degree of “brute” comprehension possible first. That large vocabulary then makes it possible to learn quickly how individual words relate to one another (grammar).”
I generally agree with this. The nice thing about teaching children is that grammar explanations fly over their heads anyway, so language is taught through exposure, modeling, and very limited correction.
“And the emphasis should almost always be on the spoken form first (just as with a baby). I am of fervent belief that teaching writing in a foreign language early on hampers the development of native accents and retards mastery of the spoken form by forcing the brain to work in ways that are not natural to learning the spoken language.”
Based on my own experience learning Chinese, I’m not sure I agree with this. Chinese instruction for Westerners usually focuses on oral language development with pinyin support. Since I learned Chinese in Korea, I was expected to read and write characters from the first lesson. My pronunciation has been praised as clear and natural by many Chinese. With older learners, I think differences in pronunciation reflect the fact that some people have an ear for language and are natural imitators of what they hear.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I enjoyed reading about the language learning experience. As a “back-woods” native english speaker, I make many mistakes with my one and only language. I am always impressed by those that have mastered a second language. I learned a bit of “konglish” during my military time in korea. Taxi driver told me once that I was “half-korean” and some females have inquired as to how long I have been married to my “Korean Wife”. I’m single.
I sometimes think of trying to learn Korean again. I have the time. What is this “intensive total immersion” of which you speak? Can it be done alone with a CD?
Not asking for instruction, just some insight on how to begin.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Total immersion means you have to be in an environment where only that language is in use. You cannot use CDs to recreate this environment.
Usually this means living in the country where the language is spoken. But there are some places that simulate this environment in the U.S. Middlebury in Vermont, for example, used to offer a summer program of total immersion (if you used English more than a couple of times, you were kicked out with no refund). I am sure it still offers those programs.
August 2nd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Sonagi,
It is perhaps rude to contradict someone’s complimentary words, but I am generally neither modest nor a bad judge of my strengths and weaknesses. Instead, my grammar is simply in dire need of improvement. Perhaps you are less struck by my bad grammar, because I tend to edit my posts more so than the average commenter, and hence you do not see the original product. If you saw my writings at the first draft stage, however (or better yet, talked to me in person), you would clearly tell that I am not a native speaker–both because of occasionally glaring grammatical errors and at times awkward diction. The source of all this woe is that I immigrated in my teens and was placed in ESL and Language Arts courses that emphasized vocabulary expansion, and not grammar, until high school. So I was never formally drilled in English grammar. And I think a formal, Korean-style drilling in grammar is almost always necessary in cases like mine, because the grammatical structures of East Asian languages and Western languages are so dramatically different.
Be that as it may, let’s not belabor this point, as we are getting off on personal tangents that detract from the issue at hand. If you really persist, however, I will send you something completely unedited–perhaps a 10-page footnote on Leo Strauss’s interpretation of Hobbes?
Returning to the topic, no one is biting on my conjecture that the hostage crisis–if mishandled–could become this election’s armored vehicle incident?
Perhaps it’s too early to speculate, but I don’t think you need an Alfred Hitchcock-like imagination to envision Sohn Hak-kyu in the Blue House, if this crisis ends in a bad way and engenders another round of anti-American bacchanal. (Well, I suppose I am a tad bit superstitious, and did not that famous mudang claim Sohn is the next president?–it is all coming together now! :))