Scribblings of the Metropolitician

"The Best American Film of the Year"

That being said at the end of the year, and coming from A. O. Scott of the New York Times, says a lot. And it's great to see old "Dirty Harry" of yesteryear become "the best American filmmaker working today." Whether or not those normative statements are "true" to you, surely you might agree that both Eastwood and the movies he makes are worth a look.

And what we get to see is so rare: an American filmmaker who takes a look and tries to deconstruct the iconic image of the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, the man who took the picture, and those behind the scenes in the film Flags of Our Fathers:

What do we want from war films? Entertainment, mostly, a few hours’ escape to other lands and times, as well as something excitingly different, something reassuringly familiar. If “Flags of Our Fathers” feels so unlike most war movies and sounds so contrary to the usual political rhetoric, it is not because it affirms that war is hell, which it does with unblinking, graphic brutality. It’s because Mr. Eastwood insists, with a moral certitude that is all too rare in our movies, that we extract an unspeakable cost when we ask men to kill other men. There is never any doubt in the film that the country needed to fight this war, that it was necessary; it is the horror at such necessity that defines “Flags of Our Fathers,” not exultation.

From what I can tell from the trailers and reviews, the film is far more than the Spielberg-esque look at WWII in Saving Private Ryan, and is a far cry above the Koreanized "remake" of that film, Taegukki. Both of those films – the former to a lesser extent – engaged in what I call in my dissertation a "monumental style" (virtual footnote: "Picturing Japaneseness" by Darrell William Davis) in which nationalism, simply put, is argued through the aesthetic of the film itself, through its icons, symbols, music, and other filmic conventions.

Both Ryan and Taegukki bothered me because they engaged heavily in the monumental style, with the latter resorting to cheap melodrama and contrived situations on such a level that I actually felt it was an insult to my intelligence. Still, I shed a tear, but I felt angry about it, since it was cheaply earned. Ryan, minus the bookends of the cemetery scenes and the orgy of memorializing to the so-called "greatest generation" that was going on at the time, was a far more emotionally honest and complex film. Still, it was very much a film that functioned in the American nationalist mode, and a fetishized obsession with a hyper-real depiction of wartime violence, which I actually applaud given the nature of the over-sanitized WWII narrative, but which is also why the film was harder to stomach by audiences less interested in such things.

Now, Eastwood's companion treatment of the same conflict, Letters from Iwo Jima, is hitting the theaters and is a brave and curious move: showing the same battle of the war, right after the film he had just made about it, from the point of view of our former enemy. And lest anyone forget, America's military and popular memory of the Pacific conflict with the Japanese was the harshest and most emotional, which is part of the reason that the memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remains a sacred cow in American culture – revenge over Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and all of the horrors committed in what noted historian John Dower called the "War Without Mercy."

And that guy who we thought was Raz al Gul in Batman Begins, or alternatively, the grumpy samurai whom Tom Cruise befriends in that movie with the ridiculous name – his name is Ken Watanabe – finally gets to do something other than grunt orders and stoic words and Japanese and come out of the stereotype. I haven't seen the film, but am looking forward to that talented actor getting to show his real chops for a change, at least in an American film.

I'm curious to see how the Korean audience will receive this film. Surely, many will think it to be a "too sympathethic" portrayal of "the Japanese" – whom I think would come across more palatably in a film portraying them committing some of the more savage acts of the Pacific War, e.g. abusing "comfort women", lopping off heads in Nanking, bombing Manchuria, or kamikaze piloting into American battleships. I showed the trailer to a Korean friend and she seemed none too pleased with the portrayal. I wonder if and when it'll open here.

Surely, they did all of these things. But what I am looking for as a historian and as an intellectual is something that looks deeper than "Look! See what 'they' did?!" as a means of simply arousing strong emotion and a negative, nationalistic rage – that's propaganda, in my book – but takes a look at the layer beneath the hero worship, or iconic hatred, to look at how belief, courage, and the will to kill your fellow man is put together.

I haven't seen either of these two movies, but the reviews bear out what I hope to see, and is a sign that perhaps American historical memory of the period can indeed mature. In any case, they're steps. Even Taegukki, which I hated like few other films in my life, marked a sign of progress in terms of the popular memory of the war vis a vis the north and south (although it also reflects a regression in terms of how a different Korean generation would like to remember America's presence in the war as little as possible, hence no American soldiers in Korea in that imagining of the war).

And is it my imagination, or are there some common shots between the films? Hard to tell from just the trailers, but that would be intensely interesting and cool. After all, these were two groups of men locked in the most intimate of combat – somehow it would be fascinating to have actual points of visible overlap for those who see both films. (As I re-scanned the review and proofread this post, I found a point from the Letters from Iwo Jima review I missed, and which also happened to remind me again just how far NYT writers are above my pay scale):

A few scenes serve as hinges joining this movie to “Flags of Our Fathers.” While “Letters From Iwo Jima” seems to me the more accomplished of the two films — by which I mean that it strikes me as close to perfect — the two enrich each other, and together achieve an extraordinary completeness. They show how the experience of war is both a shared and a divisive experience, separating the dead from the living and the winners from the losers, even as it binds them all together.

I applaud Eastwood for taking up such subjects that aren't easy to get past the superficial with – the veritable icon of that flag-raising and the memory of the faceless "Jap" enemy – and even encourages audiences to empathize with. Ryan goes as far as briefly humanizing a single German solider, and does complexify the narrative, but has him kill our beloved, all-American everyman – Tom Hanks – as repayment for the kindness. The wimpy, bookish character, who had symbolically wilted in the face of a more potent enemy, who simply ignored him on his way down from killing his buddies. In the final sequence, the wimp becomes a man by blowing away the man he had essentially freed, while blowing away any doubt that he had become a real soldier, or that the enemy was anything other than the enemy.

These films are far less conservative in their narrative – or so it seems and so they say – and I am waiting for it to get here. And since I don't see good films I want to see on bootleg, I'm itching. The wait is killing me, but I'm glad the films are floating out there, waiting to be seen.

And these will both be welcome additions to the film library I use as aids when I teach American history.

Damn, Letters from Iwo Jima look good!

"300"

Let me just start by saying that I'm bogged down with work, and this Metropolitician needs all the work he can get (did I just refer to myself in the 3rd person? Kind, but not really). So I can't do the big James Bond night I wanted to plan. But when March rolls around, be sure I will do one for Frank Miller's 300. Holy sheet, dude.

Wow – ancient history on the silver screen. Nothing new. But Frank Miller's the one to tell this near-mythic tale in his telltale, violence-as-beauty, mythical form.

"Spartans – tonight we dine in hell!" I haven't heard a testosterone-boiler like that since Gladiator. Dang.

There's gonna be a bright spot to March, and the cool thing is that there's just enough time to review your Greek history. Battle of Thermopylae, scantily-clad women writhing about, characters getting inflamed with passion and impaled with relish – whew! You can watch this in higher quality (and even HD!) on Apple's Quicktime trailer site.

And here, you can download the Herodotus's Histories in its entirety. Dang!

Question: Anti-Foreigner Sentiment Rising?

This may seem like a question with a clear answer, but instead of me rattling off a long post about the subject, how about you readers chime in with your opinions? Let's talk about the issue by speaking about our experiences, as well as patterns you may have noticed.

Source here.

First, a few ground rules. Let's talk about the issue. So no long flames about how "America has the same problems," as if that's even a point. We know. But we're talking about Korea, not America. If you want to flame about how foreigners shouldn't "talk bad" about Korea, please read this first. Also, no ad hominem or personal attacks – posts in this thread that engage in the latter will just get erased.

Please try to speak from experience, or at least make clear when something is a friend's direct experience, or mere hearsay. Also, try to link to specific sources if you have them.

Let's try to make this conversation one that can actually work as a resource, and let's try to respect the opinions of others. I'd like to also see some new people joining the conversation, so I encourage feedback. And instead of starting off with a big post, I'll just join in this conversation as it happens.

So, a few questions I'd like to pose:

• For you old-timers, or people who've been back and forth over a long period of time, do you see any overall changes here? Are they defined by a rise in a certain kind of behavior? Or is the "feeling" just different somehow? Are there no differences, perhaps?
• Depending on who you are, how would you describe the way Koreans look at you? If you were to use adjectives, how would you describe how you feel about life here? How might you describe the way you think Koreans perceive you?
• Would you recommend Korea to a friend as a place to work? Live? Visit?
• Do you like living here? Good points, bad points?
• If you had one minute of free airtime on Korean television and a simultaneous translator, what would you say?

Not exhaustive, and some a bit simplistic, but it's food for thought. What do ya'll think? And for those of you who may be Korean, or perhaps non-Korean and wanting to chime in or ask your own questions, please feel free.

On Racism

Larry Wilmore's light-hearted look at the subject. And Joe Frazier swimming. And Strom Thurmond.

"Racism today is in sorry shape, and we need it more than ever." Hehe. And too bad the producer of one of my favorite shows – The Bernie Mac Show – got canned because it was "too poignant." Nice.

Of Horrors and Hope, Heroes and History

UPDATE: Read the New York Times editorial about this issue, touched upon in the latter half of this post. Any American who holds dear the values of the Constitution should be outraged by these acts, as well as by the Bush administration. As my previous post makes clear, patriotism shouldn't be defined by which party you belong to or whether you support the present war, and that good Americans have been standing up to imperial, hawkish presidents stomping over civil liberties ever since John Adams and the Federalists were trying to shred the newly-inked Bill of Rights with the Alien and Sedition Acts. American History 1A, people – hello?

HORRORS

Often, I am reminded of why I do the kind of work I like to do, often by being inspired to emulate examples of people who did what they felt was right to do, despite circumstances that would have made it easier to simply just look away. I am also sometimes moved by stories from the real world that remind me of why the documentarian documents, why writers write, photographers continue to shoot, why historians record.

If you listen to the following stories that I picked up over the last few podcasts of 60 Minutes, I can't see how you can't be both moved and inspired by them.

It is interesting to think about two separate "holocausts", the recent one from which the world is still reeling, and the seminal "Holocaust" that has become a lesson for the world.

Just when you think there's not much more to tell, the huge cache of files – literally millions of files never before released to the public – have been opened. Oskar Schindler's actual list – confirming the stories told of the many who sang his moral praises, Anne Frank's actual signature and internment records, as well as the signatures of millions of the people whom the Germans kidnapped, brutalized, and killed.

The Nazis were meticulous doctors of not only death, but detail – they even record the size of the lice taken from prisoners. 60 Minutes takes a few remaining survivors of this ordeal to the archives, and even shows them the signature of one man, signed when he was a teenager and given the identification number that was tatooed into his arm. Can you imagine that? Seeing a record you were never meant to see, not only because you were a prisoner, but because you weren't expected to live? Or another man, who saw his named crossed off a list of people who were sent on a work detail from which no one returned? And he'll never know why his name was crossed off, whether it was an administrative quirk to send him on another menial talk, or whether it was some small kindness that gave him a long life, the very ability to look back upon these books of horror. Man. As a historian, that's heavy. On a human level, man – heartwrenching. You have to give over these 10 or so minutes of your life to listen to this. And for those who would deny this Holocaust – millions of separate and corroborating documents, survivor testimonies from all over Europe, and eyewitness accounts from all sides and nationalities – most damning being those of the perpetrators themselves – how could a responsible person really deny this genocide?

HOPE

After that, I urge you to think about one woman who survived the genocide in Rwanda, the murder of her entire family, and yet live to forgive the Hutus who nearly eliminated her people at the group level, but even the man who was convicted of murdering her two cousins and said in an interview that he would have killed her without hesitation had found her. She has lived on to write a book about her experience, and do activist work to prevent such genocides from occurring in the future. this is another story you simply have to read. Nothing you're doing in your life should prevent you giving over another 10 minutes of your life on earth to listen to this.

HEROES

And finally, the story of a man with whom I was far more able to identify with directly, a fellow American living in the present, the man who saw the Abu Graib pictures that were being passed around and decided that these pictures – and the truth, as well as what's right – was more important than the lives and careers of the buddies he signed up with, his reputation amongst his peers and in his community, and even his life.

He's been called a "traitor" and feared for his life, and was even subtly "targeted" by Donald Rumsfeld, who nominally applauded him in a speech that revealed the identity of the man who turned in the pictures, but was really an attempt to get back at the "snitch." One man interviewed asks of him, "How could a man put the enemy over his own friends?" I say that it's the kind of man who places enough values on what it means to be truly American above the fleeting and petty interests of the present.

Like the U.S. Marine helicopter gunner who turned his weapon in the direction of his own commander in a little village called My Lai, and ordered him to "cease and desist" lest he fire upon his own troops, the final 60 Minutes story here is one of a true hero. Anyone who thinks otherwise, I do declare, is a poor excuse for an American, a moral person, a human being.

At the time, in the moment, a soldier who aims his gun at his commander may be a traitor; in reality – in the moral and ethical reality that most civilized human beings nominally occupy – history will remember him or her as a hero. And the man who wanted to stop torture and murder of prisoners not even convicted of any crime – is not a "traitor" or a "snitch" or any other horrible word; that person is a true American, through and through.

HISTORY

The new-age, would-be fascists who would want Americans to "never question the President" or "just do as you're told" and "trust the government to do its job" and all those other phrases that encourage Americans to simply "Praise God and pass the ammunition" and not even think to ask, "Why are we violating one of God's commandments again?" or "Aren't there some worldly interests here worth being concerned about?" – these are not the true Christians, the true Americans.

Those who would knowingly send over American soldiers to die overseas without real justification, who don't care about the lives of Iraqi human beings just as much as American human beings – these people don't know Christian charity, nor do they occupy any moral high ground in my mind. Nor do they remember their own history, from the times of the first imperial president, John Adams, who would have jailed all who criticized him and called questioning of the government "sedition."

Am I traitorous, as an American, in saying that the President is wrong? Or that he should never have been president, because the Supreme Court decided the election and not the people? Not to a true American, I say. The true patriot, the truly moral being, is the one willing to buck authority, propriety, ideology, and society itself if it means doing the right thing. How do you know what the "right thing" is? Because you "know" gay marriage is "wrong," come hell or high water, and it doesn't matter if the President supports the torture of enemy prisoners or the illegal search of its citizens? Because you want Christian prayer in schools, even at the expense of other religions, which is clearly protected in the Constitution? Or should you go about asking academic questions such as, "What if I fall into a mode of universalist thinking that trumps the appropriate amount of cultural relativism needed to..."

That's the sort of worry-warting that disables action, that goes against what the gut, good home training, that respected teacher, Sunday school lessons, all that stuff – told you. Socrates wrestled with the same question. I simply believe that, in general, humans have a moral center, that humans are essentially "good." Specifically, I believe that American ideals – in their purest, lofty forms – are some of the best ideas the world has ever seen, and has given to truly lofty ideals, such as true democracy (an American invention), as well as freedom, and all the derivative ideas that come with it.

America has never been able to live up to these ideals and never will. That's why they are defined as "ideals" in the first place. But I believe American history – for all its blood and moral contradiction – has also been about a struggle for many to bring reality closer to the ideals that have infected everyone, and not just the people in power. It comes in fits and through struggle, but I feel the sweep of American history does at least have that story within it.

In terms of hope, in terms of people who live with their minds in the sky, whose beliefs are strongly ideological and work in the currency of grand ideas – I think Americans are fairly unique in that point, especially as the oldest continuous government on the face of the earth. In that way, for all of America's problems, there are still grand ideas and lofty hopes that motivate me, that drive American ingenuity, that creates a culture in which we can wage a horrible war in Vietnam against an imagined ideological threat but really against an innocent people, and in the midst of a horrible war crime, another American puts his gun in the face of his fellow American commander.

In the end, I think people know the difference between right and wrong. The vested interests and fleeting ideologies of the moment just confuse us. They make us hate the Tutsi, put Jews in ovens, or stack up Iraq bodies like cordwood and smile for the camera.

That's where I draw my lines in the sand. In my mind, my country stands for the ideals espoused in the Constitution, its attached Bill of Rights, and a people, government, and army that doesn't engage in secret kidnappings, secret trials, torture, and surveillance of its citizens. It is a country in which people have true freedom of speech – not just the technical right to say something, but a culture that actually values critical thinking and the appropriate questioning of authority. This is another story you shouldn't pass up.

And finally, a warning. This is the kind of behavior some people in my home country are condoning lately. What happened to common sense? To basic human decency? To thinking at all?

"I was just following orders?"

Things worked from both sides – both the parents who told her to "Do what you're told" and the manager who enabled this whole atrocity. That woman, almost as much as the man who sexually abused this young woman, is a disgusting excuse for a human being.

Such words are ones I never thought I'd hear in my own country, as words that enable all sorts of atrocities, that enable one's own ugliness to come out and find expression, under the excuse that that swarthy, brown guy in the wrong place at the wrong time's a suspected "terrorist" or that the teenage girl who's never committed a crime in her life's a "thief" or that the black man who runs from the men who don't identify themselves as cops obviously a "criminal."

This is the culture our country is creating, as we wage two wars that are being ineffective in actually catching the relatively few real evil mofos who caught a nation with its pants down with boxcutters that weren't even contraband items at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

Hello? Al Queda – a small and specific group of people, not an army or country or even political movement – has been trying to get us for decades now, and bad preparation, bad policy, and bad security allowed them to get through and pull off a guerilla operation that was truly grandiose and flashy. And we are helping them.

Terrorism works by destabilizing. A few determined men and box cutters have gotten the world's most powerful nation and economy overextended across the globe, has immersed an entire nation in its own fear, has caused nearly the entire world – even our former allies and friends – to start to dislike us. Now, people are willing to "shred the constitution a little bit – bend the law" to get the job done. Now, we're a culture in which there are people arguing that it's OK to torture? What?

And now, people – everyday people – are able to do this.

I have hope, of course. But amongst all this horror, we need more heroes. We need more history. And we need more forgiveness.

Otherwise, where the hell is my country – and the world – going?

Why I Continue to Do This

A commenter posed a good question today, one that actually speaks directly to what it is that I think I'm trying to do as a foreign researcher/writer living in this country.

I know this has been said many times over, but I dont mean the following as an attack in any way. If I was in a foreign country and I had as many problems with it as many of you do with Korea, I would leave and find a place that was more to my satisfaction... We are never gonna change Koreans, if they dont want to change... and I dont necessarily feel that as guests we should try to impose our standards on them, no matter how much we feel our causes are just.

And I don't mean this spotlighting of the comment as an attack, either. I actually think it's an honest question, one that I ask myself all the time.

Actually, I am quite happy here. I just do this kind of criticism wherever I am. Injustice is injustice (of course appropriate thinking should be applied). But I don't think I am trying to impose anything on Koreans at all. In fact, if this country and the vast majority of its people hadn't made (and continue to make) the assertion that they want to be a "global" society and want to join the ranks of great nations in being a country about democracy and morality, I wouldn't even be saying nothing.

If this were Korea in the 1960's under Pak Chung Hee, with no freedom and no end of that reign in sight, I'd just be like, "Oh, well. Whatchagonnado?"

But my protestations come from an inherent love of this place, as much as I get pissed and curse and want to pull my hair out sometimes. But you're right, the easiest thing to do would be to just become cynical, give up, and try to make as much cash as possible before getting the hell out of here.

For the sake of the country and this society, I hope that the people who are trying to look under the surface and look injustice in the face aren't driven out by the people who actually believe that intolerance and ignorance are actually ok, who want to keep out new ideas, who have vested interests in stopping change from happening where it's obviously needed.

When I criticize the education system, it's because most Koreans recognize the ship is sinking. When I criticize racism, it's because most Koreans acknowledge that such beliefs are wrong at a base level. When I talk about sexism or prostitution, it's because even most men would agree, in theory, that these are "social problems" even if you'd have trouble agreeing on a lot of other aspects of the problem.

The point is that most people agree in theory with the ideals of democracy, fairness, and the freedom to not be deprived of certain basic rights.

It's because I share the values held by the majority of South Koreans that I continue to struggle to make my points here. If this were some far-flung country with values jarringly different from my own – if I couldn't even get people to recognize women as human beings, for example – we're talking about a different set of questions, aren't we?

I think Korea is struggling with the same questions that many other like-minded, nominally free, democratic societies are – so it makes sense to function in an intellectually activist way. If I didn't believe this to be the case, you're right – I'd just be here trying to stack some dollars and sow my oats as deeply as possible while preparing to get the hell out of dodge.

It may sound arrogant – and perhaps it is – but I think that Korea is lucky to have people like me, who stand up for principles as much as possible, as opposed to simply act according to naked self-interest, like the foreigners Korea thinks it sees. You don't even know the opportunities I've passed up, or the money I could have made, if I didn't stick to those principles.

I could have kept my mouth shut a million times, held my nose, and be still making oodles of money – about a good 7-8 million won a month now – were I one of the people Koreans think all foreigners to be. If I were the person many Koreans seem to think they want me to be (keep your mouth shut and just do as you're told), I would have have a much fatter wallet and all the conveniences that come with that.

But as is my eternal weakness – at least in the eyes of people who care about me and would like me to have a stabler job and be more "settled" at my rising old age – I am constantly in search of something, constantly thinking that my role in the big scheme of things will make itself apparent.

As I look squarely in the face of 35 years now, I am beginning to feel the struggle wear at me and the temptation to just say "fuck it" and take the safer route, the one with the bigger per-hour rate while I am here and the best option to get me back to the States and PAID.

But I haven't as of yet, as I think this would mark a whole lot of ethical retreats and defeats for me.

You're right – you brought up a good point, one that I struggle with daily. Why fight the good fight? Why not just call it a day, leaving the people who've been telling me to "get the fuck out!" to themselves, and just "getting mine?"

Sometimes, I think that day is upon me. Most days, I am able to think of a good reason to keep going.

This blog is essentially a record of that internal struggle, my effort to keep a concrete reason as to why I should just give up, say "fuck this place", and go collect some duckets without moral compunction.

The day this blog gets scrapped amongst my priorities will mark that day as having come for me. I hope that day never comes.

For me, this blog gives me the concrete strength – through feedback from like-minded people – to keep me honest to my own ideals, to work out the inherent tug between reality and morality, to essentially keep on truckin'.

All my writings, photographs, and podcasting should be evidence of that. To me, it's clear as day. But of course, it would be. I hope to grow better able to make it clear to you as well.

Oh, I'm Really Getting Old

You know you're old when you become the prime target demographic for just about everything in the popular culture and people are doing "retro" celebrations of every extant trend from when you were in puberty.

But here's one I didn't expect, and I just got wind of. Am I late? First, let me ask if you remember this:

Oh ho! You do, do you? Then how about this?

Yeah! Holy crap, right? I know I may getting on the bandwagon late, but – damn! Michael Bay doing The Transformers as a live-action movie, to be released on July 4th? Yeah, baby! I wish crap like Pearl Harbor hadn't been made, but blockbuster bucks spent on watching Optimus Prime and Megatron duke it out on screen? YEAH!!!!!!!!

Don't believe this can be a live-action movie? Well, I also didn't think you could ever pull off real dinosaurs back in 1994, either.

This all looks like it's gonna be hella sweet.

"The Transformers! More than meets the eye!" Begin practicing making the "transform" sound with your mouth again. Just don't get caught actually playing with any action figures while doing it. Hehe. You know you want to, right?

So in celebration of our metallic friends' return, let's try to be a little nicer to the machines, shall we?

Have a good one.

"Rain in Myeongdong"

I haven't been putting up many pictures these days, because I'm not happy with my lens length, which is effectively 32mm, since my switch to digital. The effective lens magnification of the 20mm lens is by a factor of 1.6. It may not sound like a big deal, but when you shoot with a 20mm for four years and then it effectively becomes a 32mm – it takes some getting used to. And I don't have a couple thousand extra right now to buy an EOS 5D.

Anyway, I came up with something that struck the right mood, even though I'm not happy with the exposure and a lot of other things I won't talk about here. Shot at the equivalent of 1600 in the evening last week, this shot captures the early winter feel of Myeongdong on the night of a brief and cold shower.

And Now, For Something Upbeat...

It's good to see people coming together from all over the world in a positive way.

Wouldn't it be nice if people could participate in similar things and see our common similarities, instead of the stereotypes and differences?

I hate to sound all "We Are the World," but things are getting pretty frickin' depressing over here in Korea for us foreign types. From all the stuff I've been feeling lately, seems like we're fast becoming the collective "왕따" of Korean society.

Whew. Seeing people from different countries come together in a good way really makes me long for home, especially as we enter the holiday season.

Anyone got any cheery news involving foreigners and Koreans that isn't related to some English camp or something? I think we need it 'round here.

A Thought Experiment

Ah – it's the "all foreigners are druggies, homos, convicts, AIDS carriers, and sex offenders" argument.

Let me add a couple: we also all have big penises, talk loud, have no family values, sleep with anything that moves, smell bad, lack the dexterity that comes from using chopsticks, and are liars.

This is from the Cyjenglish Language Institute, where they list the reasons they don't hire foreigners. The fact that they don't hire foreigners is not something I actually care about, as there might be legitimate reasons for not doing so, such as the market rate being too high, or the fact that I'd actually prefer to see Korean education relying less upon the Korean belief in "native speaker magic" and more on the good teaching that could be done by non-native, Korean teachers of English.

But the reasons given are truly flabbergasting, and pander to the lowest possible stereotypes as effective marketing. Funny thing is, it probably works.

The reasons Native Speakers are not hired:

1. Most are only short-term visitors and, therefore, lack a sense of responsibility and duty.
2. They have no concept of teaching and, therefore, have absolutely no sense of duty or professionalism.
3. They are untrained in education.
4. They are absolutely not high-quality personnel (most graduate from no-name technical schools and 2-year colleges.
5. It is impossible to check what kinds of people they are or what their characters are (ex. drug user, homosexual, convict, AIDS patient, sex offender).
6. They only just barely teach their classes and do not invest any time in managing students.
7. They have no burning passion for the students.
8. They do not agonize at all over improving the student’s skills.
9. Legitimate native speakers are rare.
10. It is impossible for parents to easily consult with them anytime they want.

* I want to specify that the above applies to only some foreigners.

(Here's the original post that brought this subject to light, as well as source for the translation, which I checked and seems well-translated).

Let's try a variation on the "thought experiement" and try an "empathy experiment." Let's put together a list of things that could be and are sometimes true of a group of people and callously make a list and imply that it applies to all people in that group, but with a quick disclaimer at the bottom that it actually doesn't. Then, see how it feels afterwards. This list is made up of incidents that I or other Fulbright ETA teachers have personally witnessed in the Korean schools, or were well-documented in Korean newspapers as scandals about which many Korean nationals themselves became angry.

BEGIN EMPATHY EXPERIMENT

The reasons Koreans make bad teachers:

1. They have no sense of morality, since they take cash bribes and inappropriate presents from parents.
2. They have no concept of teaching, since they merely teach rote memorization and often do very little original teaching during class.
3. They often drink during school hours (especially lunch) and frequently sleep at their desks.
4. They often engage in inappropriate sexual relations with minors, especially male teachers drinking with female students in hotel rooms on school trips.
5. They serially rape their students and even when caught are merely given administrative leave.
6. Male college professors are known to exchange higher grades for sexual favors.
7. Male college professors actively and publicly sexually harass their female students.
8. Korean teachers care more about appearing to always have the right answer than exploring a question deeply, to the point that challenges their own knowledge set.
9. Korean teachers regularly take money to changes class rankings such that certain students will come out on top.
10. Korean teachers are habitually embarrassed to speak English in class, such that their students are embarrassed to speak as well, despite having developed a strong grammar and vocabulary base.
11. Korean teachers (male) regularly travel to Thailand and the Phillipines to have sex with underaged girls and are hidden carriers of all kinds of diseases, including HIV and Hepatitis C, which the Korean Center for Disease Control has said is a dangerous hidden social problem, something far worse than that posed by Westerners, who actually tend to use condoms.

* I want to specify that the above applies to only some Koreans.

END EMPATHY EXPERIMENT

Does that little disclaimer do anything? Doesn't it just serve to cover one's ass by saying "I'm not meaning to call you a motherfucking punk-ass shit-loving cocksucker or anything – really, I'm not – but if I were, I'd have to say that I sometimes feel that way about you. But you're only a pissant piece of putrid peckerwood sometimes. I really don't mean to insult you or anything."

Lame.

Let me address the "concerns" of these mental midgets running their little institute at Cyjenglish, one by one – even though they don't deserve the mental energy that I am expending on them:

Points 1, 3, and 10 are somewhat valid.

• Foreigners are often transitional, but that doesn't mean that this should necessarily be a problem. The real problem is that most places that foreigners end up teaching lack a viable curriculum. So the problem of new people constantly coming in, being forced to reinvent the wheel, and having little sense of teaching to specific levels is not the fault of the teachers – why don't some of these hagwons, which have been in operation for years, have curriculums? The same is true for foreign language high schools that lack a curriculum or alternatively, change it every year.
• Many foreigners lack formal education in training, but are highly capable and are some of the best teachers around. I'm going to raise some hackles here in making this point, but it's Korean-style management that sinks the ship, not the teachers. Some of the absolute best teachers in Korea come from the Fulbright English Teaching Assistantship (ETA) program, which takes the cream-of-the-crop academic achievers and leaders and places them in schools in small cities outside of Seoul. They are given language and cultural training, and ongoing support throughout the year. On the contrary, the Korean government's attempt to copy the program – the English Teaching Program in Korea (EPIK) – was another case of Korean administrators trying to exploit and overwork teachers who are actually more "qualified" than the ETA's (EPIK generally requires at least an ESL certificate and preferably a master's degree). Yet, ETA's have absolutely the best track record in Korea, and they get more applicants through word-of-mouth because they are treated trained, treated well, and given respect. The EPIK is an ongoing failure, not because of the foreign personnel, but because of attitudes just like Cjenglish's that make them feel insulted, bitter, and apt to leave their contracts early, stop caring about their teaching, and develop a negative attitude about Korea in general. Good job, Cyjenglish – your attitude is that of a typical Korean hagwon.
• As for the language barrier point – yeah, it's a legitimate problem. If we could communicate better with parents, there could be some advantages. But some advantages of not interacting with parents was 1) not having them place ridiculous and selfish false expectations on me that other Korean teachers get burdened with, and 2) I've never been offered a bribe, since I am insulated from contact with parents. Although some Koreans would think that to be a disadvantage, I like the fact that I have maintained my moral integrity to the present day.

Points 4 and 9 are just factually untrue and really reaching deep into the bag of anti-foreigner baiting.

• Most Western foreigners I meet are graduates of legitimate, accredited 4-year colleges, just as they claim. Yes, there have been a few cases of foreigners faking their degrees (although Koreans are the #1 buyers of online fake degrees in the world, but that's irrelevant right?) but everyone I know in Korea is a college graduate. And who's really the stupid one here? Some weird applicant who says they graduated with a 4.0 from "Yardale" or the school who never checks degrees or confirms parts of an applicant's resume? "Oh, their degree was fake. I was deceived!" Yeah, well, you're stupid for not having checked.
• "Legitimate native speakers are rare? Business at the hagwon must be going well, Cykenglish, because that's some good-ass dope you're smoking. Even the idiots who have fake degrees are usually native speakers. Or are you one of those hagwons where you have no one on staff who can tell if a given applicant is a Korean national trying to pass as Korean American so you just make a policy of hiring no Korean Americans? Point #9 hints at something like that going on. If you can't tell the difference between a German guy who speaks English well but passes himself off as a native speaker and a real native speaker – or the 1.5 Korean national who went to high school in the States and can talk a good casual conversation but can't write his way out of a paper bag – well, that's your problem, isn't it? " Legitimate native speakers are rare." Korea is awash with renegade native speakers, or didn't you hear? And you can't seem to find any. Hmmmmmmmm....

Point 5 is just getting down into the dirtiest of Korea's racist, basest assumptions about outsiders.

• Here we go. Yes, many Americans "use drugs." But America doesn't have Korea's paranoid culture about "마약" and generally use marijuana, something considered by many doctors to be not nearly as harmful as cigarettes, and actually available by prescription in many American states. Even President Clinton admitted using it. As for the others, there are some problems with drugs and society in the US, but generally they do not appear as problems in the workplace. And in Korea, contrary to Koreans's stereotypes about foreigners, most foreigners choose to stay away from drugs here because we are more targeted by the Korean police, and because it carried a higher penalty here. In short, drugs have no effect on our jobs in Korea, mostly because most foreigners don't do them. And just last month I was offered some marijuana by a Korean at a street food stand, because he assumed I wanted it. I would bet that there are more farmers and ajummas growing and smoking marijuana in the countryside than any foreigners who use it.
• Contrary to Korean heterosexist beliefs, homosexuality isn't a crime, and it should have nothing to do with one's ability to work. Dong Bang Shin Gi is most likely gay, but what does that have to do with being good singers? A and B are unrelated, they are non-sequitor. There are many gay teachers – good, respected teachers – working in Korean schools and hagwons. In fact, they say Korea is a great place for a gay man, because there are so many gay men here who are not "out of the closet." They would never come out in Korea, because they would be instantly ostracized and discriminated against, and they are no more likely to "touch" or "harmfully influence" young students than any "straight" male Korean teachers who engage in drinking, dating, and having sex with their students. Haven't you heard of "wonjo kyojae?" Which is a worse problem – that, or having a gay teacher? In general, no matter what the sexual orientation, a professional teacher leaves sex out of the classroom. Perhaps some of your Korean male teachers could learn more of that, or perhaps you watch too much "어린이 신부?" At least the west hasn't institutionalized a sexual fetishization of underage girls in school uniforms – ahem.
• By the way, anyone with AIDS is obviously sick. You can confirm that easily. Someone who is HIV+ leads a normal life and can work without any problems. There is no risk of infection unless a student in class either has unprotected sex with a teacher, or accidentally falls on some needles and the equipment necessary to give a blood transfusion during class – both of which are unlikely. And the effort to link "AIDS" and being gay is so 1980's. HIV infection and risk is clearly much more of a problem for heterosexuals these days.
• Sex offenders? Please. Look in your own backyard. The number of documented cases of sex scandals and crimes committed by teachers in Korea makes a place such as the United States look like Disneyland. a heaven-on-earth for kids. Foreign sex offenders in Korean education isn't even a blip on the radar.

As for points 2, 6, 7, and 8 – I'll just address those teaching-related issues at the same time. All those problems tend to stem from good, eager young teachers who come to Korea only to find that their school is completely unprofessional, changes their teaching hours and contract conditions nearly every week, is often rude and abusive to its staff and especially foreign teachers, are often run by either totally unqualified and uneduated commercial hagwon owners, or alternatively, underqualified school administrators with big egos who advanced because a) they are men, and b) they paid the right bribes and drank with the right people.

In an environment like that, it's easy to get depressed, angry, and begin to hate your school, and by extension, hating Korea. Many foreigners then enter a state of just wanting to collect their paycheck, have fun while they're here, and leave as quickly as possible.

Hey, I know a lot of disgruntled Koreans who hate their jobs – how do you think foreigners, who often feel treated as walking dictionaries – feel? Is it any surprise that if a hagwon or school lacks a real curriculum, lacks professionalism, and is often more concerned about collecting fees than properly setting up classes, that foreigners start taking their jobs less seriously?

It's because of attitudes exactly like those advertised by Cyjenglish that some foreigners start getting negative about not just their jobs, but about this country.

Cyjenglish – are you really doing anything to help students or provide the best services? Or are you just using anti-foreigner sentiment as a marketing tool?

Come on – be realistic – what's the answer?

Oh, and we foreigners aren't qualified?

As a Ph.D. candidate at UC Berkeley, I worked as a TA for 9 semesters and as a researcher for 2 before coming to Korea to work on my final dissertation. Combined with my having come from one of the top high schools in the USA (Phillips Andover Academy), an Ivy League education (Brown University with a double major in History and American Civilization), and being a Ph.D. candidate from one of the top graduate schools in America (UC Berkeley) – I can confidently say that I am one of the most highly qualified and experienced foreigners working in Korea.

I have received two separate Fulbright grants – one as an ETA and one as a full grantee – and have been active in the Korean academic community, having presented at several academic conferences, including ones at Yonsei and Harvard Universities, as well as one given while a Fulbright. I presently work as an editor for an academic journal at UNESCO, have taught several non-English (i.e. history or other humanities courses) university classes in Korea, and have other extensive qualifications that can be read in my curriculum vitae. I have also learned Korean to a high level of proficiency.

I've been inviting a lot of people and institutions these days to kiss my sweet, black ass – and Cyjenglish has just been added to the list!

And just for the sake of speaking in terms of the Korean way of sizing up "qualififications" – fellow foreigners who attended the many very fine institutions of higher learning across the globe close your ears for a minute, this is for the sake of the Cyjenglish publicists – the listing of teachers there isn't exactly top-notch, but it's really funny how you rely on a swatch of people who nearly ALL attended university outside Korea.

What you're really saying is "we don't hire non-Koreans but we do rely on non-Korean academic qualifications". And why are 90% of their teachers female? They've got some interesting hiring requirements over there.

Is this for real? Look at their list of teachers. I have nothing bad to say about them individually, except for the fact that they all tacitly support a racist organization that they should be ashamed to be part of, but for a school that doesn't want to hire foreigners, you sure have a lot of people with foreign degrees. Perhaps this would be a better sign:

And it's not just school names that make qualifications to be a good teacher – it's who you hire, how eager they are to do a good job, as well as the support a teacher is given to do their job properly.

If you treat foreigners like walking dictionaries and interchangeable factory labor, then that's exactly what you're gonna get.

If you treat foreigners like motivated young people who are expected to use their brains and give the freedom to do so, you will get some amazing young people. Too bad places like Cyjenglish still hasn't figured that out yet.

Don't worry, Cyjenglish. No foreigner – qualified or not – would ever work in your racist hagwon, anyway.

Why don't you give Cyjenglish a call to express how you feel about their views of foreigners? The number's publicly listed on their site:

02-2604-2325

I love racist people being ig'nant in public. Gives me so much to write about.