A Lot of What You Know About North Korea Is Racist Nonsense
medium.com
medium.com
This place is very, very different from that portrayed by the Western Media.
I was sitting in the Nigerian Embassy waiting for a visa, and an American tv show was on.. NCIS or something, and they had these American "heros" over in some African hell-hole saving the world.. of course they get attacked and then work hard to survive and find their way to some place. People are being dragged out of cars, men smashed in the face by the butt end of AK47s, women thrown to the ground. People's eyes show pure hatred - enough to actually scare me, even though I was just watching TV.
The show was set in Mali, they were supposedly in Bamako.
The kicker?
I was sitting in Bamako that very moment, having spent over a month there already, walking around every day, on my own, perfectly safe and happy. I even walked around at night multiple times. People would say hello and invite me into their homes.
The reality is that I met hundreds and hundreds of the kindest, friendliest and happiest people I have ever met in Bamako, yet millions of Americans are seeing realistic looking images that it's a complete hell hole.
I have driven through more than 500 road blocks in 10 countries in West Africa, and I have never, ever seen anything remotely scary or threatening. Not even once.
It's simply not true. It's fake.
When Africans see super heros flying around New York saving us from Aliens they know it's not real. When Americans see African Hell holes on TV, they have no idea it's not real. They are being lied to en-mass and have no idea.
(if it makes any difference, I'm white, and driving a not-cheap Jeep around Africa)
How often did you travel to rural parts of Mali? Is it as safe as Bamako?
> ... I met hundreds and hundreds of the kindest, friendliest and happiest people...
Over the years, I've learned that most people from most places are sane, regular people just trying to make their way in the world. People from Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Afghanistan, Tibet, Venezuela -- they're just regular folks like you and me. They get up in the morning, go to work, try to have a good time with friends/family in the evenings.
If we were to hold up a mirror and try to judge ourselves based on the outlandish things people do and say that end up being worth news coverage, I think we'd feel some dread about where we live too.
Of course. However, the environment where they live may not be so regular. Of course it often surprises you when your expectations and prejudices aren't based on real experience, but crazy regimes make people also behave in crazy ways.
Remember the idolatry around Pavel Morozov, for instance.
No, it's not as safe. Certainly not for a white guy. I didn't go North, but a few friends did around the time I was there and had no problems. Regular ordinary people on the streets are very friendly, but there are bad dudes around up there for sure.
Though my point is they were depicting Mali (and Bamako) as a hell on earth, and it's nothing, nothing like the show portrays. I drove through many military stops in the country, and they are basically the opposite of what the show portrayed.
Over here in reality, the 2500 member United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigates 30-50 homicides a year (over their entire jurisdiction), most of which will be the sort of stupid crimes that typify murder, not the fascinating puzzles shown each week on the TV.
At least CSI, which started the modern explosion of such shows, was set in Clark County Nevada where murder is almost a daily thing.
I believed it, and was actually a little nervous to walk out onto the streets of Bamako, which is pure nonsense.
And of course, the news also does exactly the same thing.
Slow news day - let's pick something bad that happened in one of the 54 countries in Africa to show people. Never mind there are literally a billion people who are extremely friendly, happy and peaceful.
Think for a moment what your perception of the USA would be if you lived elsewhere, and the only news you ever got was the bad stuff - mass shootings, police violence, undrinkable water, fires, tornadoes, crappy education, high debt, more shootings, more violence, violence when the president is sworn in, etc. etc.
There were a bunch of military people in uniform shooting people and getting shot at. No computers, etc. It was about as realistic as saving private ryan. Full on war.
I could say "Lucky you were not in NYC in 2001... USA is hardly a good example of peace and prosperity" Which is the same nonsense you just said about Mali.
I don't particularly see this logic with Vietnamese, Chinese, South Koreans, Japan. At least in the particular context of military action. In fact, most of the articles I end up reading about Japanese, South Korean, or Chinese responses to what North Korea is doing at the current time.
That said, I think there is a big role of racism to play when North Korea is used as a fear tactic during political cycles locally. But maybe everything is just about America and I'm wrong here.
The thing that puzzles me is, as in any dictatorship -- why does the military enforce the unjust rule? Is it that they don't see the plight of their people, they don't care, or they're enriched by the status quo and can't imagine disrupting it? Or something else entirely?
And why do the Chinese continue to support this state? Is it because of a belief in the ideology? Or a perpetual bargaining chip with the US?
Self-interest (in the most case, individual, on the part of each actor.) As in any dictatorship.
> Is it that they don't see the plight of their people, they don't care, or they're enriched by the status quo and can't imagine disrupting it?
They see the plight of their people, and don't want to join it, and even moreso don't want to be (along with potentially their family) killed when any one of the many co-conspirators they would need to do something about it turns out to be a regime loyalist who scuttles the plan before it kicks off.
> And why do the Chinese continue to support this state?
Because they don't want a united Korea, and even moreso don't want a US (and Japan)-allied united Korea on their border. The DPRK is an alternative focus for China's global and regional rivals attention.
Like it or loathe it, this is the problem.
But so does this piece, when it is referring to the U.S. armed forces: "still technically at war with them and poised to invade at moment’s notice."
Hardly poised to invade at moment's notice. There is no such capacity to attack quickly. The U.S. is there and together with South Korean forces, able to respond to fire, and perform limited airstrikes, but there is nothing that would realistically be useful for an actual invasion of North Korea.
The article makes it a big thing that DPRK has no real capability to attack the U.S. using ballistic missiles. It does not make a big thing that DPRK loudly and repeatedly announces it has such a capability. Or that it has repeatedly used so-called unconventional methods, such as murdering people on the shopping concourse in other countries. [0] I don't consider it an exaggeration to expect that they might try things like packing a nuclear bomb in a freight ship that then attacks a coastal city of a perceived enemy.
That is quite clearly the reason that it is considered as somewhat crazy, or at least unstable and unpredictable.
I am not much worried about DPRK launching a nuclear attack against Western countries in the short term, but thinks like the recent threats against Australia [1], [2] don't make it any easier to accept them as harmless.
Their Twitter feed [3] makes a rather disconcerting read.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/14/kim-jong-un-ha...
[1] kcna.co.jp/item/2017/201704/news21/20170421-29ee.html
[2] http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/north-korea-threatens-aust...
It doesn't matter if the actor, behaving rationally towards his ends, has ends that are absolutely incompatible with ours, or if he's acting irrationally. [edit: I mean it doesn't matter from a defense of his behavior standpoint. It's fine to call him "crazy" if his ends are absolutely unacceptable]
I agree with the critique of the piece - no one thinks North Koreans are inferior as human beings. We think they've been fed a ubiquitous dose of propaganda their entire lives. We think that a dictator, so very isolated through years of behavior that necessitates (and invites) it, lacks any sense of acceptable end-states for his country.
I also agree that it's misguided to dismiss him as actually crazy. One must treat him as a rational actor - moves you make will have moves he makes. There is rationality involved. May be shitty rationality, may be myopic rationality, but it's rationality. You move warships towards North Korea he's not going going to launch Rubber Ducks at you. That'd be crazy. He's not going to poop his pants and eat the feces on live television and announce he's a little princess.
Few overall, but if there were zero the world might be a much happier place than it actually is. Given the effect that such people have, even that small number is significant, and the numbers get larger among children of dictators whose parents bequeathed them a massive security apparatus.
> the burden of proof is on you
Um, no, it's on the OP and anyone who takes their side. That's how this really works.
Except his predecessors all had exactly the same behaviour. So either they were all crazy yet managed to build that massive security apparatus and perpetuate their regime. Or, more likely, you have never bothered to put yourself in their shoes to consider that this might be their optimal strategy (hint: Irak, Libya, Syria).
You claimed earlier to have proofs that the NK leadership is crazy. Where are they?
http://www.allday.com/kim-jong-il-never-pooped-and-other-cra...
Do you deny that these sorts of claims are made, or that they're just a bit delusional? Also, BTW, did you really create an account only to argue on behalf of Kim Jong-Un? How interesting.
You don't seem to understand what constitutes a proof. Deifying yourself is hardly an irrational strategy for a dictator. It's an easy way to ensure obedience. The roman emperors did just that and so did Staline to some extent. All that matters is whether your people will buy it.
> Also, BTW, did you really create an account only to argue on behalf of Kim Jong-Un? How interesting.
Sounds like you are running out of argument since that's hardly relevant. I felt compelled to educate a redneck's binary view of foreign policy probably shaped by years of watching Fox News and Hollywood action movies. Futile I know, given that most Americans can't even place NK on a map.
It could be done rationally, in the short-term, but relying on such silly and easily disproven falsehoods is pretty poor long-term strategy. When the truth comes out, as it inevitably will, the results are usually worse than if the falsehoods had never been promoted. That makes it irrational in the long term.
Also, what's your evidence that KJU doesn't actually believe he's a fashion icon etc.? All empirical evidence suggests that he does, and that's only one aspect of his questionable mental health. Besides being delusional, acts such as having subordinates - or even relatives - killed and even erased from memory indicate a certain level or paranoia and sociopathy. If you think such acts are rational, you have a view of rationality that's based on too many assumptions of motive. At some point, an accumulation of such acts indicates an irrational decision process. Your Dear Leader is well beyond that point, in fully documented ways, and any truly rational+honest person can see that.
> shaped by years of watching Fox News and Hollywood action movies
Most obvious ad hominem yet, and false as well so it's also a strawman. You just did exactly what you accused me of, only more so. Keep going and I'm sure you'll escalate into flag-land. You know nothing about me. FYI, I'm a staunch progressive/internationalist who has lived (even grew up) abroad. To paint with such a broad brush, based on no evidence at all, is just jaw-droppingly rude and counterproductive.
But, instead of getting further off track and (probably) escalating hostility still further, let's try to unwind a bit to the original point. Even if we could agree on whether Beloved Of Heaven Kim Jong-Un is rational or not, which seems unlikely so long as I start from facts and you start from loyalty, that's not the point. The original strawman was that Americans in general consider most North Koreans irrational, stupid, etc. Not the leaders; the populace. Do you believe that is true? If so, do you have any evidence for it? That's the original claim. It's up to the original claimant or his proxies - such as you - to prove it, not for anyone else to disprove. Anything other than evidence relevant to that point is just diversion.
Remember that according to KN Kim Jong-il's birth caused a new star to appear in the sky and the season to miraculously change from winter to summer, and never needs to defecate. This is also the same country that is home to some of the worst human rights violations in the world and keeps their dissidents in concentration camps.
Painting them as innocent and reasonable feels like a bit of a stretch.
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2017/04/12/nuclear-kim-armed-dem...
As usual the bonehead Repiblicans under Clinton, and later the disastrous George W Bush administration preferred to save a buck and reneg on the Agreed Framework, instead having their children spend 100 bucks and people's lives go up in smoke in what might be the first nuclear war since WW2.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework
"Soon after the agreement was signed, U.S. Congress control changed to the Republican Party, who did not support the agreement.[16][17] Some Republican Senators were strongly against the agreement, regarding it as appeasement.[18][19] Initially U.S. Department of Defense emergency funds not under Congress control were used to fund the transitional oil supplies under the agreement,[20] together with international funding. From 1996 Congress provided funding, though not always sufficient amounts.[11][21] Consequently, some of the agreed transitional oil supplies were delivered late.[22] KEDO's first director, Stephen Bosworth, later commented "The Agreed Framework was a political orphan within two weeks after its signature".[23]
Some analysts believe North Korea agreed to the freeze primarily because of the U.S. agreement to phase out economic sanctions that had been in place since the Korean War. But because of congressional opposition, the U.S. failed to deliver on this part of the agreement.[24]"
"As late as the end of 2003, North Korea claimed that it would freeze its nuclear program in exchange for additional American concessions, but a final agreement was not reached. North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003."
However keep in mind that NK already helped Syria build a NUCLEAR WEAPONS FACILITY in 2006, which Israel had discovered and successfully destroyed.