Scribblings of the Metropolitician

Back to Life, Back to Photography

LIFE, RECENTLY

There have been a lot of changes for me over the last couple of years, especially related to my sources of cash flow and dividends. Without getting into detail, I'll just simply say that teaching US History in a foreign language high school – especially at the institution before my present one – has been intellectually fulfilling, yet physically and emotionally draining. It pays well, but also takes up an extraordinary amount of time and my school is really far off in the countryside.

Over my last couple years in the FLHS system, I haven't been photographing like I used to, like I should be, like I'd like to be; there's just not enough time in the day and actually, not enough room in my bag for a camera on top of 2-3 books, a DVD, and papers for students and whatnot.

But that's gonna end soon, and the Metropolitician's going to go low and fast with the dissertation as first priority, with podcasting, photography, and other media stuff now being able to work itself back into free time, as opposed to being mere indulgences that take away from time I didn't really have. You see, I'm not going to return to my school next semester and I'm gonna make money on the independent, non-school related tip; I plan to work from home, write every day, and shoot and otherwise produce as much as possible. That's the new me from this summer past and on through the upcoming August, when I would normally return back to my school and once again have no time to do anything.

PHOTO STUFF

Yet, on top of all this, the one change that feels the most significant and frightening, as well as tinged with a bit of guilt, is my apparent change over to digital. I've been shooting on film all this time, and most of my photography from when I was a kid until early 2005 was done with two old film bodies, namely the venerable Canon AE-1 Program and Canon T-90, the latter camera being my bread and butter body for almost all of my years behind a viewfinder.

The AE-1 Program was, without a doubt, one of the most popular cameras ever made, the one of choice for hobbyists and even professionals for a couple decades. Back before the microchip got complex enough to really do much of anything on cameras (autofocus and really complex metering modes are really only since the 1990s), most cameras were SLR's – single lens reflex cameras for which you changed lenses and attached external flashes, all for which Daddies across the world had to carry a big camera bag in order to take pictures of their kids' violin recitals.

This was back when point-and-shoot cameras occupied a totally different place in the market than they do now. Back then, point-and-shoot cameras we really, really, dumb, as they didn't have much more intelligence nor subtlety than most disposable cameras do now. They weren't much more than boxes to hold film, with a dumb flash that had a couple of settings. Kids and people going to the amusement park used them, and the images came out harsh and overexposed. Think back to those pictures from when you were a kid (if you're over the age of 30) – they look horrible, or have a whole range of underexposed people in the background and other pics with people's faces washed out by excessive flash. We accepted a lot back then.

If you wanted a real camera, you got an SLR – one of the cameras with interchangeable lenses that was probably both black and silver, metal and plastic. In order to take decent pictures, you had to get a camera over $200, which meant SLR, which meant you inevitably had to learn a bit about aperture and shutter speed, you had to focus manually (remember – there was not autofocus then!), and of you wanted to use a flash, you had to stick one on top and preferably actually know how to operate it.

The AE-1 Program was a huge seller because it was one of the first cameras to have a "Program" mode, which meant that you just stuck it in "P" and it took the picture. WOW! It determined both the proper aperture/shutter combination and just did its thang. And if you stuck on a Canon flash – also in "P" mode – it even took care of the flash, too! Jumpin' Jehosaphat!

All real cameras were in the price range of around $200 to $1000. Even the top photog for Sports Illustrated with a Nikon F3 was really spending the big bucks on the lenses and accessories that neither you nor I needed, such as 500mm lens or 5 frames-per-second motor drive. But most people could afford to buy the same camera as a pro and similarly, most people had little use for "consumer" cameras. Or perhaps it's better to say that the line between "professional" and "consumer" cameras was blurred to the point of being non-existent. Well, there was a line, as many people didn't buy and F3; but I tend to think that the pro features it sported were pretty solidly "pro" – such as a titanium, airtight body that could survive on Everest and even the moon. Most people weren't going to drop dollars in the 4-digit range just for that; most people were more than content to do with the very good cameras and lenses and flash that they had, which weren't all too different, in essence, from the cameras that any pro had. Times were good, things were simple.

The beginning of the end of manual cameras – the last manual camera made by Canon and the beginning of the EOS line. But even at the top of Canon's line, it was only $499 for the body. Compare to now, when, depending on what you're looking for, the top-of-the-line Canon body can still net you 5 figures. Things done changed.

Then came the ergonomic bodies (the T-90 was the prototype for the EOS line that exists to this day and the first "sleek" design that broke away from the boxy silver-and-black design that dominated 35mm since forever) and the autofocus and the fuzzy logic and the digital recording backs and smarter flash modes that measured the reflected light off the surface of the film during the exposure and oh, Lord, oh Lord.

Things started getting expensive and the SLR started slowly shifting – I noticed this as far back as high school – from a general camera for the masses-to-masters of photography to an expensive luxury that could only be justified by actually having professional reasons to want one.

This was happening while consumer cameras were starting to get smarter, smaller, and better at taking the pictures that most people wanted anyway. Autofocus was in, so you could aim and actually guarantee that what you were aiming at would be in focus, they were measuring exposure better and more subtly, with flash pictures actually being better than the camera's mere guesses in the dark. They were even sporting zoom lenses! And they were getting smaller every day. What would you need a big and bulky, complex and scary SLR for? I don't want to carry a camera bag to my kid's piano recital! I just want a picture, ferchrissakes!

Autofocus, oh, my!

In the big picture, it was kinda good, I guess. But now, a new SLR in the mid-1990s with the same features as my old AE-1 Program from the 1970s/1980's was in the couple-to several thousand dollar range. Now, all that extra stuff like autofocus and better flash modes meant more, better, pricier chips in the body. And when the first digital SLR's started coming out in the nearly $20,000 range, I had officially checked out of being interested in buying any new major photo equipment besides a lens here and there.

I had my AE-1 and T-90, a dedicated flash for the latter, and the same features that others were paying out the nose for. I really only lacked autofocus, but it was a lack I didn't feel, as manually focusing was second-nature to anyone raised on manual bodies back before autofocus sounded like anything other than magical hocus-pocus voodoo. And since film was busy being in transition to digital, keeping prices up beyond anything I could afford or justify, I was happy. No need to even consider anything else, right?

Well, as a street photographer working in Korea, I was used to "zone focusing", which means that on a sunny day (having enough light is important), you choose a wide aperture setting and let the camera pick the shutter speed automatically (you have to choose an aperture that will get a higher shutter speed, which is why you need a lot of light for street photography).

Zone Focusing: See the strip of numbers with the red dot? Take a look at the "8" for example. It stands for f8, so if you set the aperture at f8 on the camera and turn the focus ring (the big top part with the grip), everything between the two 8's on either side will be in focus. As it is in the picture, everything between 3 and 10 feet (the green numbers – the white ones are meters) will be in focus. If you set the aperture at a very dark f16, everything from about 2.3 to infinity will be in focus. The joy of zone focusing and the detailed controls of the manual focus lens have been lost in the autofocus days of the present. The problem with zone focusing with autofocus is that if you're not looking through the viewfinder and shooting, your camera is still focusing on a specific point, yet you can't be sure of what that is.

If you do that, there is a zone of perfect focus, within which, if you're shooting on the street, is essential for getting shots when you can look through the viewfinder directly. With an extreme wide angle lens (20-24mm), liberal zone focusing (with an aperture of f5.6-f8 and above), and enough light to get a shutter speed capable of freezing any human movement (above 1/125 or so with a wide angle) with that narrow aperture – you can get pretty much anything within a pretty liberal range – everything from 3 feet to infinity – in focus and just worry about the action while shooting from the chest or hip. Knowing about where the frame falls is important, but this becomes pretty instinctual with practice.

But all the good equipment these days – the new stuff – is unfortunately designed for the autofocus bodies that I didn't have. And with the downward creep of autofocus into the market – Nikon recently announced that it would stop producing film bodies as of this year , for example – the price of film cameras had started coming way down by 2004 and 2005. My veteran T-90 flash just wasn't cutting it anymore, so I decided to move up to an entry-level Elan 7 (discontinued now) with 20mm and 24mm  lenses. I figured it would be a good move, since I could get an Elan 7 body for less than $300 and the money I'd spend on the matching flash could be used with any future autofocus EOSes I might purchase down the line. So even though there's a downside to autofocus and street shooting, the upside is that the camera actually focuses on a specific point, and it's usually pretty smart about it, most of the time.

Body with battery pack/grip. This camera's a sweet, economical buy for people wanting to get into film.

So with that in mind, I had made the move to autofocus in February of 2005 and really haven't felt much of a loss. I was a little sorry to suppress the instinct to turn the focusing ring while composing shots – isn't that what makes photographers in the movies so...umm...photographery? – but I felt like I had held out long enough. Digital, besides the little consumer model I had bought for friends birthday parties and such, was still way too expensive to be affordable for a photographer like me, right? Right?!

Enter my friend who wants to start her own online clothing retail business. She calls me up a few weeks ago about possibly shooting some pictures of the clothes she plans to sell online, with a couple of friends as models. But I knew that rolls and rolls and film were not going to cut it and that I needed to go digital. So I treated this as an opportunity to get into digital by getting some help to get the equipment to do the job. A good chance for me. But I was broke as a joke and still had to come up with some money to get everything I needed, since the camera's not everything: faster memory card, another battery, etc.

So? Either do the shoot and take this gig as a way to get in on a one-time big discount, or simply stay in the film world and save a little money that I could sorely use. I decided to take the pain, weather the lack of summer income, and do the shoot. And getting this camera would open up possibilities for the future, as well as give this documentary photographer some practice at the very different conditions of setting up commercial shots.

Here's what I end up with, the digital version of the low-end film camera I bought last year, with battery pack to add heft to the overly-small body that my hands were slipping and sliding all over, as well as allow me to use normal AA batteries in a lurch. The bottom battery pack has two cartridges, one to house 2 of those weird Canon digital camera batteries, another for 6 AA ones. And it makes it heavier. These new-fangled cameras are waaay too light. Now, I was set to shoot.

My new baby, my first digital SLR, ready to take pictures and actually have them ready to use when I need them! The camera's only 590,000 won, which is amazing, considering the fact that something similar to this was well over $10,000 just a few years back.

GOING COMMERCIAL!

We decided to highlight the clothes and experiment with everything from a "catalog" style to a natural environment look. Here are a few of the first attempts, from that first photo shoot, which are a decidedly mixed bag. The first of our shots that day came while walking around Yongsan's new mall, with a 50mm lens set at 1.8 to reduce the depth-of-field (making the background go out of focus, which they do a lot in fashion and portrait photography). Since the size of the chip in the camera is still less than the 35mm of a normal film frame, the effective frame size of the lower-end (full frame 35mm pro-level SLR's are still pricey as hell) cameras is muliplied by a factor of 1.6. So my 50mm lens becomes almost the ideal 85mm (80mm, actually) "portrait lens" that a lot of people use to take said fashion and portrait shots. So it was perfect to get that "catalog" look with this lens, which is a cheapy at $100.

We then gave my documentary shooting skills a whirl and decided to highlight the clothes in motion, like a cool fashion photography shoot. So I set the flash up and my friend changed clothes, and we prepared to enter the most colorful area of the building, that being the ticket area at the CGV, where there are lots of neon lights and flashing thingies. I wanted a mixed flash and ambient light effect, where the background gets motion blurred (the shutter stays open for a long time, so things get blurred with the camera motion as it pans) while the flash captures a clear-as-crystal image while the shutter is open. The effect can be pretty stunning; and it can also be simulated in Photoshop by cheaters, but it never comes off looking right, and a trained eye can always tell, I think.

So I had her set up to walk past me a few times, and since I knew that security would ask us to leave after only a few shots (the flash gives it away), I planned on getting 1-2 shots at best. As it was, the two young ladies in CGV uniform were more into their gossiping than doing their job of "protecting" the art design of the interior from industrial spies, which was fine by me. So we got several good shots and a costume change before a guy in a suit asked us to leave. Score!

Then we moved to a great little coffee shop in the mall called Harue (pronounced "하루에) that had this ornate interior and great backdrop to shoot against. My friend knew the place, as well as the owner, so we got carte blanche to do whatever we wanted in there. It was a fun shoot, but actually kind of boring to me, since I like light and colors and action and motion. But I know that's just me.

I had some issues with flash balance and focus (I know, such a rookie thing, no?); the funny thing was that the higher standards of getting the exact point to highlight in perfect, razor-sharp focus has never been super important. When shooting in the street, getting the subject pretty much in focus is ok; when doing something more commercial, missing focus or botching the composition even just a little is a crime – given the fact that you have time to prepare, there's no excuse to be sloppy with the exposure, flash, or composition. I realized that it was high time to tighten my shit up.

We shot quite a bit, talked, ate, talked some more, and planned for the next photo shoot. That's where the models came in, who were just friends but quite eager to get the chance to be the focus of attention in the middle of the Ehwa area (where we decided to do the next photo shoot), get some free clothes, and also gain some pictures for posterity's sake.

I also got some pointers in the form of a slight dressing down from my friend's friend, who is a designer, as well as her partner in the online clothing venture, in which she pointed out how I didn't think much about what the focus of the pictures were (as a documentary shooter, I usually compose to emphasize people and human relationships in the frame, not clothes), as well as as myriad other small points, such as when to change angles to flatter the model, as opposed to the item of clothing, and vice versa. It was quite a useful mini-education and opportunity to practice these brand-new principles in action.

We chose the Ehwa Womens University Area because it was 1) so femme, and 2) had so many colorful little stores and backdrops; the shoot was more fun than we thought and I learned a lot, this time about balancing flash with outdoor photography for portraits and making the subject "pop" out of the frame (that was the one thing I had hoped to practice, since I hardly ever use flash as a street shooter, since people tend to freak out when a random stranger starts popping off flashes for no apparent reason).

The shots we yielded made me very happy. Here's an example of a successful clothing shot, properly framed and slightly cropped, with just the right expression and pose by the surprisingly good first-time model:

Yow! Work it, girl! I never had to direct a model before, but it was certainly fun to enter Austin-Powers-as-photographer mode and actually have to give emotional cues such as "Look at me like you don't like me" or "Stand sassier, like you're turning me down for a date" and sometimes just "Smile!"

Actually, I didn't have to give much direction since she's a cute girl and far better at being sassy or sexy or sultry than me. I sort of just pointed her in the general direction and caught the best moments on film...ahem...I mean, CF card:

Ouch! Beside the heterosexually obvious, what I like about these two shots photographically is how the flash makes the models pop out a bit from the dusk background, which isn't as out of focus as I'd like it to be (I can't yet afford a wide-angle lens that goes down to f1.8 or 2.0).

I also like the busy background, which doesn't conflict with her top or bottom (in the first picture, the colors contrast, which also doesn't conflict with the top). Since my friend wanted to highlight the legs (obviously) with this mini/top combination, I took the designers simple advice of not shooting from the top, but rather got down on my ass and shot from underneath, making her legs look loooonger and the model look more powerful and imposing.

I'm learning.

In any case, with my changes in my job, getting more time to do dissertation and my personal projects, look for a lot more and various kinds of stuff from me in the near future.

I'm looking forward to getting back to photography and what inspires me, getting back on academic track, and also having a bit of fun while doing it.

Fighting!!!

Primetime for Hitler

Oooooooook, here we go.

Don't blame me, since I'm just the messenger.

We bloggers monitor who links in to our sites and I just found something very, verrrry interesting – kind of  ironic, actually.

And yes – I apologize – I'm going to say the word "Nazi" and "Korea" again in the same breath. I know I vowed to leave this subject alone (and I did); I've just got an interesting postscript for ya'll.

The American National Socialist Movement (American Nazi Party) web site has linked to my site.

When I found this new influx of hits in from another site, then found out that it was the site for a bunch of frickin' Nazis, well, one might say that I was a wee bit disturbed at this fact. I'm not on the links page, thank the Lord, but rather am graced a link to the text "Racial purity and Korean society...Some interesting photographs." That link goes right to my post on "The Gates of the Minjok."

I can only assume that they weren't looking for the pictures I found from the Nazi era, since they were nothing special or unique (I snagged them through Google search); the reasonable assumption is that the pictures they found so "interesting" were the truly unique pictures of Nazi-themed drinking halls in Korea.

Since I'm also sure the American Nazis aren't really surprised that someone else in the world is criticizing Nazi (or any other "pure race") ideology as negative, I don't think I would make the front page of their site for simply saying "Nazi=bad." I'm sure they get that all the time. It must go with the territory of being a self-proclaimed Nazi in 21st century America.

No, they simply found Korean claims of being a "pure" race and the Koreans sitting in bars adorned with swastikas and cute cartoon representations of Adolf Hitler, to use their word, "interesting."

Hey – if that sounds weird or disturbing or you don't like seeing "Nazi" or "Korea" in the same sentence, it's not my fault; if the American Nazi Party is interested in "racial purity and Korean society", as well as the pictures of Korean bars with pictures of Hilter and the hakenkreuze, go ask them. I just find it interesting that they find Korea's notions of racial purity "interesting." Hey – it's not every day that one's site gets linked to from the Nazis, so I thought it worth another blog entry.

Membership open to all those Aryans who "really care for our racial heritage."

And I'm sure they'll see this post, since I've linked to them. I'd rather have them reading this than me writing on their web page. I'd like to keep my interaction with Nazis down to a bare minimum, thank you very much.

To the people who think it somehow inappropriate to talk about a possible similarity/link/echo between the fascist culture of Germany in the 1930's and 40's and South Korea now – sorry, I don't think it's a sin to suggest 1) looking into any possible links between fascist Europe and the birth of modern Korean nationalism, when there are some compelling circumstantial and direct leads to follow, and 2) even if some of the similarities are seemingly superficial, it is certainly appropriate to point them out, especially in the spirit of making non-academic, thoughtful observations, which is the mode in which I have been writing.

I know that some people assume that merely bringing in the word "Nazi" automatically defines an extremist, polemical argument, but I don't share that knee-jerk assumption. Nowhere, if you check, do I call Korea or Korean people "Nazi" in any of my posts, nor do I suggest that Korean folks are actually deeply or directly interested in Nazi ideology.

I merely point out some ironies in terms of many Koreans who see the collective Korean self as a meta-victim of WWII, marked by high sensitivity about colonial occupation still sharpened to the point that if a hapless textbook company somewhere in the US uses the moniker "Sea of Japan," they might get emails and phone calls from VANK or worse – yet there can be actually people left in this very country who can party with swastikas and Nazi paraphernalia on the walls while having a cold one.

The irony stems from that fact, people. If such bars are/were in Japan, the reaction and moral indignation would be very different, given that imperial Japan was on the other side of thing vis a vis the Nazis and dubya-dubya-two.

The basic point is that superficially – and quite possibly more substantially – there are some pretty embarrassing legacies of early 20th-century thinking about race, nation, genes, Social Darwinism, and more general terms of national subjectivity that happen to still be quite alive and well in Korea, enabled by a perceived status of victimhood that creates the strangely uncritical mode in which overt expressions of nationalism take place. It also enables, I think, the possibility to not at all see why consuming nostalgia about a country and culture that nearly wiped an entire group of people out of Western Europe wouldn't even cross people's minds as an inappropriate place to kick back and have a few laughs.

And no, I don't think is my mere American ethnocentrism or high-saddle indignation. To postulate another theoretical, if this were a struggling, undeveloped country, no one would be pointing fingers. But Korea is a nation that goes to great lengths to make itself be taken seriously in the rest of the world, consciously and deliberately utilizes the terms "globalization" and "internationalization" to describe national goals, and is very, very sensitive about how it is represented in other countries and culture.

Place on top of this the way that Jewish expressions of historical victimhood have been used by Korean nationalists as an ideological stepstool for establishing Korean victimhood, and this becomes doubly ironic. Take, for example, this quote from Jo Jung-rae, nationalist novelist extraordinaire, translated by Antti over at his site:

How many Jews were killed by the Hitler government of Germany during the Second World War? According to the Jews the number was three or four million. [Try six million Jews, twelve million people in total, actually. - Met]

So how many of us Koreans were massacred and killed by the Japanese during the 36 years of Japanese colonialism? Is it three million? Or four million? Or is it six million? Unfortunately that estimate has not been made public or official. My estimate is between three and four million. With the writing of Arirang, I am going to make that figure concrete.

That task is one of the objectives of writing Arirang. With the fact that three or four million of us Koreans were killed by the Japanese, I'll present a question to the readers and to the whole nation.
A school class of 60 children are getting five lashes on their palms. Which child of the 60 feels the most pain? I have made this question to several people, and all have immediately answered that it's the first child. But it's a wrong answer. The correct answer is the last child. It is because the first child is freed of the fear of lashing after receiving the strokes and can be at peace while the other children are lashed.

However the 60th child has to feel the fear each time the children before him are lashed.
A hint for this answer can be found also in a proverb. "The one who is caned first is the luckiest."
The Jews were killed on for three years, but Koreans were killed during a period of more than ten times of that, 36 years. Which people suffered more?

Even though we suffered horrors ten times more than the Jews, how is it possible that we still don't know many of us Koreans died?

And how do we feel the tragedy of another people, Jews, as if it was our own and detest the German army while wanting to avoid talking about own tragedy, forgetting and avoiding it? Was it because the times were different? Or was it different?

When naked Jewish girls were dying in gas chambers, the girls of our people were getting gang raped in Southeast Asian jungles as troop following corps in a similar manner. So how have we become such ignorant masses?

We have been subjected to two kinds of mass hypnosis. First, we have been hypnotized by the Jews who have made numerous novels, movies and TV dramas to tell about their suffering for the whole world. Second, we have been hypnotized by the pro-Japanese, who seized every sphere of the society after the liberation and with their organized plot have made the talk about Japanese occupation sound ignorant and stupid.

Jews have maximized their suffering and while securing their self-esteem, and have used it as a power to develop their future. In reverse to them, we have been guilty of living in shame. But to know the history correctly, nothing is too quick or too late. Because nation is immortal.

July 1994, Jo Jung-rae.

Well, it seems that this author needs his own history lessons, as well as a closer look at some of the other problematic aspects of the way he looks at the Holocaust and the Jews, but even he would agree that indeed, the Holocaust and the Nazi experience is more than just German history. It is rather a lesson for humanity and is a consistent part of any world history curriculum I've ever seen, so if "Korea" wants to see itself as a major player in the world and receive recognition as such – the 인정 people always talk about in the Korean language – then I'm gonna give Korean people crap for sitting around having a stout under pictures of Hitler.

Perhaps it's because Korea "suffered horrors ten times more than the Jews?" Do Koreans generally think that "Well, even with all that gassing and medical experiments and it only added up to a few million Jews?! Man, we survived our own Korean Holocaust, and we came out ok. So it's ok to have a brewskie in a Nazi theme bar." Obviously, this is a facetious, rhetorical question – but what's the explanation? It's a question worth asking.

This is the true global stance through which my gaze at Korea is presently fixed, and I'd say the same if I were intimately connected to and cared about any other host culture I found myself in, whether it be Peru, France, Malaysia, or Mexico. Overt celebration of Nazi nostalgia and behavior that rings strongly with the original spirit of the how the ancient system of the fasces became modern "fascism" – the bundle of many rods tied together by force to form a single, deadly tool – just isn't cool and shouldn't be considered acceptable.

The way I see it, standing by and saying "Well, it's just Korea – leave it alone. They don't know any better" is the true insult, the ultimate condescension.

Alternatively, a Korean person saying "We're ignorant of the outside world and shouldn't be expected to know any better" is a pretty dishonest copout and lame excuse when considering the fact that many Koreans bristle when they are treated according to that very logic.

And saying "How dare you bring up Nazis? That's beyond the pale!" is simply an intellectually dim and dogmatic question/response.

I say, if done intelligently and with an eye to historical and social context, "Why not?"

Especially if the Nazi Party of America seems to find this talk of Korea's "racial purity" and pictures of Korean Nazi theme bars "interesting," isn't it about time to be a little embarrassed?

Glimpses of the Past

I bogarted a cool picture from a Flickr site that I got from a link from The Marmot's Hole. Apparently, this is a shot from someone's personal archives, scanned from the original slides. Since the original hadn't seemed to benefit from a good Photoshopping job, I decided to throw my basic skills in and bring back the reality of the moment a bit, minus the faded original film and having turned decidedly green, either over time or because of originally using the wrong color temperature slide.

My touch isn't super-deft, but competent; I hope the original photographer likes the job I did. Compare with the original:

I admit that my version's a bit pumped up, but it feels like it brings me back even more to the moment, a year before I was born. I wish I had time to do this to all such precious photographs. It's interesting how much photos can act like a time machine. Here's another frickin' killer link (go to it, please, for the markers) pointed out by Mr. Marmot, one showing an amazing shot of Yongsan from the 1940's (according to the author), "amazing" because the area remains so recognizable.

Know where you are? Right at the base of Samgakji Station, going up past up where the US base is to Noksapyeong, on up to Itaewon. Great picture. I didn't photoshop it, since there's not much to do beside boost the contrast and sharpness. Don't forget to click over to the original page to find out more about what's in different parts of the picture.

What I'm curious about is where the photographer is standing, but let me venture a guess.

I don't think there are any natural features of the landscape (hill, mountain) that would afford a shot from this angle. Helicopters showed up in the late 1940's, no? They were definitely in use by the Korean War, but not during WWII. Am I correct in that? Could this picture have been taken from an early helicopter? More likely is this picture perhaps being shot from a plane window, no? I know that Yeouido was a landing strip for US planes for a long time, but not sure if 1) this picture was indeed taken in the late 1940's, and 2) if it was, when the US airstrip in Yeouido appeared. Still, it seems like this shot would make sense if a soldier snapped a shot while on approach for a landing in Yeoiudo. The picture seems like it was taken from around the right altitude, from my experience as a civilian plane traveler. If I were on approach to land in Yeouido, it seems like this would be a very possible snapshot to take.

Now, let the guessing and conjecture begin! See ya'll in the comments!

And Ya'll Ask Me Why I Avoid Crowds of Screaming Nationalists

I got a lot of flak for suggesting that large groups of Korean folks caught up screaming and yelling in nationalist fervor made me nervous. Well, some folks were in the wrong place at the wrong time and sporting the wrong color skin. Their nationality actually wasn't even "American," but that didn't stop the "protesters" from trying to beat them up.

But I'm just paranoid, right?

Anyway, I've been in the middle of anti-American crowds taking pictures, especially in late 2002 and early 2003. But I've been getting the distinct feeling that the either such crowds are getting more hostile, or the crazies are simply getting crazier. Either way, I've been staying away from crowds overcome with fervent nationalism. As I simply said – it makes me nervous. People seem to be more ready to start trouble these days.

I used to say to my friends when they'd ask me back in 2002-2003, "I wouldn't worry about myself, even during the most anti-American of protests. I think most of these people know how to distinguish the person from the issue."

That's not what I believe anymore, and I've been saying it for some time now.

If you don't believe me, why don't you ask the Swiss guy named Walter (see link above), who nearly got a mob beat-down when he was unlucky enough to come across some hardcore protesters. When asked if he was American, he apparently tried to just walk away. Maybe he should have just told him he was Swiss? No, no. I'm sure the rational young man who wanted to give him a knuckle sandwich for looking like a member of the nationality he had a beef with (American) would have had no negative regard for Walter being Swiss, even given how salty people were after the Korea-Switzerland game.

Not at all.

Because sports nationalism is meaningless, harmless, good, clean fun, right? Nobody ever gets hurt because of that. It's just a love of the sport, right? Koreans really only love soccer, right?

How many Koreans have you seen out and about, or up and awake, watching the remainder of the soccer matches since the Korean team got eliminated? Hmm.

Yeah, I guess everyone's right. It's "just" sports, right? And the FTA is really nothing more than "just" a little piece of paper, too, I guess.

I pose this scenario again: if somehow both the US and Korean teams could actually play their way to the second round and square off against one another, and the Korean team lost – if you were a foreign body in Kwanghwamun, would you feel safe? And if you really want to push it – would you root for the American team as an American?

Given the fact that there was even a report (sorry, can't find the article anymore) of Korean soccer fans people assaulting other Korean people for apparently not cheering hard enough, I really wonder if you could actually say "yes" to the previous two questions, at least with a straight face.

Podcast #23 - Monster Mash!

(From KrusherVision.com)

Podcast #23 is, after much time away from the Mike (hehe), finally out!

In this episode, (you can also listen and/or subscribe to the podcast in iTunes in the left menu) I travel to the press screening of The Host, which I predict will be the Korean hit of the summer (since I believe Hanbando will suck big rocks and sink into the sea of mediocrity from which it came), and even give you a short taste of the controversial opening scene. It's a short and sweet swipe at the US, but one pretty consistent with the origins of most maniacs and monsters in this kind of genre film – the "secret government laboratory" or "illegal corporate research facility." The movie's good, the post-game breakdown is good, and you heard it here first! Well, kind of.

Running Time: 19:15
File Size: 17.6 MB
File Info: 128 kbps (technically 96 kpbs stereo) at 44.010 kHz, MPEG-2, layer 3 (MP3)

Oops - I retract. Not "subhuman" but rather "Morlock"

You're right, Matt.

I should have checked the sources directly before remembering that post from awhile back. In discussing what to do with Muslims in England after the bombings, you did not indeed use the word "subhuman." You rather said the "the Eloi (British) live well but do not react when their fellow Eloi are hurt" and described Muslims as the "Morlocks that feast on the flesh of the Eloi" and ask the question "Why don't the Eloi deport them?"

In retrospect, I think the mere adjective "subhuman" is much nicer, but in the name of accuracy, I retract what I said, having spoken in error. You just likened Muslims to creatures that feast on human flesh who should be deported.

My bad. You didn't say Muslims were "subhuman" – you just described them as such. Or am I missing something in that when you describe a whole group of people with captions under a picture of green humanoid beasts with glowing eyes who live underground, beneath the blonde, white "British" people you captioned as being represented in the picture above, that's not describing them as "subhuman"?

The Eloi (British) live well but do not react when their fellow Eloi are hurt.

Morlocks that feast on the flesh of the Eloi. Why dont the Eloi deport them?

Yeah – you're not a racist. But I am for calling you one because of obviously racist drivel such as this? Oooook. My question is: just what the heck does someone have to do these days to "allowed" to describe someone as such?

These are the days when a defendant in a hate crime case actually said he used the word "nigger" as a term of endearment, even as he beat the victim with a baseball bat.

The Host, Anti-American? Nawwww...

This is an expanded response to a post from a blog I like and read regularly – GI Korea: A Look at Korea and the World from Someone Who Helps Defend It.

I've gotta disagree with the post a bit here. I've seen the film, and I don't think it's particularly anti-American.

"...the origin of the 'monster' or the cause of turning people into 'zombies' or whatever is embedded deep in the 'grammar' of the monster/creature film."

Another film critic – and you'll hear him in my podcast in a couple of days – made an enlightening comment in response to this very question.

He pointed out that the origin of the "monster" or the cause of turning people into "zombies" or whatever is embedded deep in the "grammar" of this kind of monster/creature film. If you look at any zombie or plague or monster movie, the origin of the problem is always found deep within the laboratories of a secret government facility or nefarious research installation.

And this movie's no different. And the most nefarious and/or secretive place imaginable in a Korean context – and I think this is outside of the very obvious anti-American streak that is otherwise very obvious in Korean popular culture and the news – is the "secret research facility" that, according to the logic of a Korean horror film, would definitely lie deep in the imaginary (we hope!) recesses of Yongsan.

You might also note that Godzilla found his origins as the leftovers of American nuclear testing in the Pacific. Japan at the time was certainly not overtly "anti-American" as Korea is now often described, but the origins of the beast that is Godzilla that destroys Japan as the physical embodiment of the memory of a real nuclear horror makes perfect sense in 1950's Japan.

"...the film is far from an anti-American rant, and is in fact, far harder on Korean society than anything outside."

I'm one of the first people to say that I think superficial and politically-motivated expressions of anti-Americanism and even hatred irritate the hell out of me. I've blogged about it as well. However, I think you'll see not only from the overall tone of the film, but from a specific plot point that I won't mention here (no spoilers), that the film is far from an anti-American rant, and is in fact, far harder on Korean society than anything outside.

And the film is so shot through with elements of comedy and ridiculousness that even the jabs in the film are only half-serious. It's really a story about a family who has to deal with their problem – as imposed on them and made more complex by forces outside of their control – as a family. They gotta take matters into their own hands.

Trust me – if you take the scene along with the others, it's not an anti-American rant at all. It just makes you bristle a bit because it's the first scene, and the film hasn't had the chance yet to establish its tone and hit its rhythm yet.

If you actually look deeply at Bong Joon Ho's films, he is merciless in roving his critical eye over all sorts of aspects of Korean society. For those of you who'd like to get a sense of how he does this, Memories of a Murder is a great start, but go back one more to Flander's Dog. It's hilarious yet deeply, deeply poignant.

"Go see the film – Americans might bristle uncomfortably for a few minutes, but once you see what the film is doing, you'll forget all about it..."

This film is not much different, and completely in keeping with the style of filmmaking from his previous two movies. In the interest of full disclosure, Bong has been my favorite director in Korea ever since the moment I laid eyes on Flander's Dog back in 2002, but I this certainly has not blinded me to be easy on him about this particular point.

Go see the film – Americans might bristle uncomfortably for a few minutes, but once you see what the film is doing, you'll forget all about it and fall right into the place where this very smart director wants you.

And you might accuse me of being on this director's jock too much, but I feel justified in my glowing praise because I've been a fan ever since he was a first-time director of a movie about some dogs in an apartment building that most Koreans haven't seen. Now that he's hit the bigtime and has become an even stronger filmmaker, I feel like I gotta make the extra effort to represent.

For those of us who know Korea and are at times critical of it, Bong Joon Ho's our friend, not foe. His films are equal parts smart, biting, and funny. And no one gets ignored, even the US – I mean our country's military and policies are certainly not above reproach, right? – which I think, considering how hard Bong hits the Korean authorities as well, pretty fair.

Back to Podcasting!

Just a quick announcement – back to podcasting comes the Metropolitician!

Episode #23 is on the way.

I got to attend the press screening of The Host, and even after having seen the film multiple times in order to massage the English subtitles, seeing it in full cinematic glory as a digital projection on a big screen was simply amazing. I was just as absorbed by the story – and seeing for the first time with fully finished sound and foley tracks really helped suck me back in.

After the show, I sat down with Darcy and a new friend to the podcast in a Coex Mall coffee shop for a quick and dirty breakdown. Their takes and analyses are must-hears before watching the film and can make the experience much more worth it.

So when I get this thing up on the 'Net and up into your portable MP3 device, make sure you take it to the show.

Expect the 'cast in a couple days.

Pig Wrestling

Oink!

I've come to find that blogging is as much an exercise in patience as it is in thinking and writing.

I want to make a point here while addressing the strange comment that Matt made, seemingly castigating me for not noting the apparent "racism" of another blogger – JiMong – on another site.

So? I clicked on the post and got taken to a site called "AsianWhite.org". I find it weird and creepy. Aha! Ya'll got me! I'm a racist and a hypocrite! You so swift!

This isn't the racist Fighting 44's, an Asian American "community site" that is really nothing more than a place to express hatred for anyone who dates across racial lines and use the most despicable racial slurs imaginable without batting an eye. Yeah, they are mostly Asian Americans, but I called them out because I found their behavior on their discussion forums beyond the pale of anything approaching reasonable dialogue. But Jimong's site is far from the racist drivel that goes on on the Fighting 44's – if it weren't, I'd be the first to say it.

Far from it, like Jimong said, he doesn't have anything against interracial couples. Clearly, neither do I, being the result of one. He was pointing out that this particular Asiawhite.org site – which advocates and defends Asian-White relationships as some kind of life philosophy – is weird and creepy. Am I racist because I find people who make it their life purpose to date a member of a certain group, or who has certain attributes, creepy? If it were a site about "Why I Like Banging Redheads" I would find it equally weird. A person who happens to like to date redheads for whatever reason – who cares?

And anyway, finding someone strange for having a stated predilection for something and commenting on it – I don't find that racist. What I do find racist is a site that consistently and categorically dismisses entire groups of people as "subhuman" (your words, Matt) or any other litany of derogatory adjectives. No, I'm not every going to have a definitive "proof" that yours is a "racist" site – like a figurative smoking gun. I have given my definition of the term and how I employ it, and the reasons why I utilize the term when I do.

If anyone is "racist," it's the people who imply that I don't have the right to speak out on through my own blog because I am black (yes, all your little comments about me being all kinds of whatever bcs of my apparent affirmative action breaks are straight and obviously "racist"), or I should go to Africa, or that I smell, or am stupid, or shouldn't write in Black slang because it makes me sound even more stupid (along with the backhanded compliment that I am apparently not, which is why I shouldn't use Black speech slang) – there's racist fools out there like a mofo.

But me pointing out racism or talking about race makes me racist?

Puh-leeze.

You don't have to agree with me. You don't have to write like me. You don't even have to come to this blog, you know. You can call me crazy, deranged, or a "racist" myself. But I stand by my words and don't hide, like some people, behind a sheltering mask of anonymity.

Who is more believable – the person who speaks up loudly and clearly  upon a stage of reasonability, or the person who cowers behind a virtual  mask and feigns a superficial righteousness and indignation? I sign my name to my blog, as well as all the things I write and the comments I make on other blogs – and take full responsibility for everything I have to say, even if sometimes I have to swallow my pride and eat crow, which I have done here when I have spoken out of line, as anyone who actually reads this blog knows full well.

And contrary to whatever has been said about me on my detractors' blogs, I don't write under other people's names and I have never misrepresented myself or lied to make a point.

Can any of these Internet trolls say the same?

I think not, which is why it's hard for moral and reasonable people to talk about anything substantial on the Internet.

But I'm learning a lot about keeping a cool head and holding a steady course, even when stupid people occasionally rear their unreasonable little heads.

Thanks be to the commenter who reminded me of my main professor's favorite quote: "Don't wrestle with pigs, because you just get dirty and the pigs like it."

I won't wrestle with the pigs, but I still feel obligated to engage with them when they offer themselves as a foil against which to make an interesting point.

And most of the time, the posting of Internet trolls actually do most of my arguing for me. I just have to remember to wash more often than I would if  I were only dealing with actual reasonable people.

To All the Racists on My Site (English)

I apologize to my readers for not providing an English version of my little letter – it just took so much mental effort to write that I got lazy and kept putting off writing up an English version.

It occurs to me that it's funny how language functions. Even though Korean is a second language, I think I learned it the "right" way – naturally and in relation to real-life contexts – so I either think in Korean or in English. So what I realized after writing this letter is that even though I wrote it in Korean as a native speaker of English translating what I could much more comfortably say in English, it was still kind of work translating it back to English.

Weird.

Anyway, here's the text of the letter, albeit probably with a smoother flow in English than in Korean; after all, I am a native speaker of English and know what I wanted to convey, even if it came out awkwardly in the Korean. But I still tried to keep this translation as accurate as possible in representing the relative simplistic level I speak in Korean as opposed to English.

What I think worth noting is the different tone one takes in Korean when dealing with stupid-ass people. I find that in Korean, I end up entering a mode of half-indignant, half-wounded, sarcastic self-deprecation that is intended to make the attacker look bad. In English, it's more like attack, parry, attack, parry.

Anyway, I realized that I need to read and write in Korean more. Thanks for reading!

----------
Hello -

My name is Michael Hurt. I was really surprised after reading your comment.

Although I'm a dirty, trash-like "nigger", I'm still a human being. Also, I am certainly not "anti-Korean."

Please think for a moment after reading my blog again. Even though you can dislike foreigners criticizing Korea – it might be something that puts you off – you shouldn't hurl insults. Is this the kind of behavior you, as a Korean, can be proud of? Are these the acts of a true patriot?

I'm not criticizing Korea without knowing anything about it, and I believe that I do a lot of good work here.

I have done a lot of good work through the Korean-American Educational Commission (Fulbright), Korean Educational Development Institute, Seoul Alternative Learning Cooperative Network (namely, the Haja Center and SSRO.net), the MIZY Youth Center, the Korean Commission for UNESCO, Hanguk University of Foreign Studies, Ewha Women's University, and numerous other good organizations.

And also, I studied Korean hard from an elementary level and am writing this letter. I have been doing Korea-related work for 13 years and lived in Korea for 7 of them. As I'm 35 years old now, this means I've spent 1/5 of my life in Korea. I've spent half of my adult life here. (Please excuse the awkwardness of the last sentence, but I wanted to write this letter completely by myself, so I am not having it corrected.)

Anyway, even though I have done a lot of good work here in Korea – if you could ask my Korean pupils, co-workers, and friends about me, you would know this. But since you have only had relations with me through the Internet and don't ever need to see my face directly or meet me, it seems like you are able to insult me easily.

However, such insults still hurt, nonetheless, even if I am a dirty, filthy American. About that, I wanted to say that you were absolutely right.

People like me shouldn't be in Korea.

After I finish my Korea-related dissertation, I will leave this "great land of the Han people" (daehan minguk). Please don't worry about that.

So I am thanking you from the bottom of my heart.

You seem like such a wise Korean man.