North Korea

[Herr Jan]

wow so there is a north korea thread.

 

you guys should check this guys book, 'I was Kim Jong-il's Cook': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenji_Fujimoto

it's pretty funny book and horrifying at some times.

 

also this: 'A Thousand Miles to Freedom: My Escape from North Korea' by sebastien falletti.

it's a story about young girl escaping north korea. really good too, it takes you in the scenes. the narrative it's quite straight lined, which i liked.

 

also this:

 

 

love that guy.

I recently bought John Sweeney's book he wrote about that trip, didn't know it was derived from this documentary, which was decent imo. Haven't continued reading the book yet as I was a bit put off by the way he seems to just belittle and make one big joke about how scary and ridiculous everything is, so far without any attempt to try and give an objective knowledgable view about the roots of the most fascinating state in modern history (to me). Maybe it'll get better, the docu was OK after all.

 

I like those descriptions of those other books you mentioned, will try and find them. I'm always trying to look for insightful documentaries / books about NK so if you have any great ones, please share. For example, there's quite a few very intense stories about North Korean defectors on YT, like this one:

 

 

Besides that there is that famous story of Dong Hyuk Shin (who turned out has fabricated a few things in his story, but still impressive) who was born in a prison camp because of a three generation punishment system, and escaped when in his 20's. There was a good docu on that (there are several) but can't seem to find it atm.

 

Anyway, why I bumped this thread was because of Laibach performing in North Korea and I honestly wonder how this could possibly happen? It seems like a joke almost.

[triachus]

Anyway, why I bumped this thread was because of Laibach performing in North Korea and I honestly wonder how this could possibly happen? It seems like a joke almost.

not as near the level of absurdity as this:

 

 

 

[Herr Jan]

^ Hah, almost forgot about that. That is sort of explainable for me though, dictator likes a sport and invites famous sportsman. I do have serious doubts he is fan of Laibach's music, but who knows? I assume it's mostly related to their totalitarian aesthetic but NK don't seem to be in on the joke yet?

 

Also, isn't it the first time a popular music group from Europe plays in North Korea?

[KovalainenFanBoy]

What's the deal with Laibach? Are they really pro-NK or what? I haven't really dwelved in their music but it always seemed to me that they were a parody/critique band and not really totalitarian/pro-military

Edited June 18, 2015 by ThatSpanishGuy

[Herr Jan]

What's the deal with Laibach? Are they really pro-NK or what? I haven't really dwelved in their music but it always seemed to me that they were a parody/critique band and not really totalitarian/pro-military

The name Laibach was banned by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Slovenia, where they were based, was part of that) back when they started out. They were also prohibited from performing live after showing pictures of Tito next to pictures of a penis, so they started out as a rebellious band in the midst of a regime, mocking them in aesthetics. They were also accused of being extreme left and extreme right many times over the years. North Korea has to be aware of these things I reckon?

 

It's maybe similar to Death In June's dubious interests in the totalitarian history of Europe. The problem is that (afaik) Laibach never actually told that they are a parody group so it's all pretty ambiguous.

 

To me these NK gigs seem like the ultimate punchline to the Laibach concept, but I'm still a bit in the dark about how this could happen.

[chenGOD]

John Sweeney is a hack and shouldn't be given the time of day, let alone your hard earned money for his book.

 

A response from people who actually work in North Korea

 

 

Recent news surrounding the dispute between John Sweeney, the London School of Economics (LSE), and the Panorama documentary on North Korea offers us an opportunity to evaluate the different ways we as foreigners can choose to approach North Korea.

On the one hand, we can follow Mr. Sweeney’s lead and adopt the attitude of an investigative reporter in search of ever more astonishing reminders that North Korea is indeed a whole lot different from “us”—and not in the good way. The depiction of North Korea as a nation of irate soldiers, inflammatory propaganda and oppressive brainwashing is hackneyed and simplistic at best, and both irresponsible and harmful at worst.

Mr. Sweeney and his crew visited North Korea as part of a highly restricted tour that over forty thousand other foreigners take every year. It is entirely naïve for Mr. Sweeney and his crew to assume that observations from this standard tour, specifically intended for foreign tourists, allowed them to draw meaningful conclusions about daily life in North Korea. To suggest as much, on a national stage, is extremely misleading. In an interview with the BBC, Mr. Sweeney claimed that North Korea is “more like Hitler’s Germany than other state in this world…extraordinarily scary, dark and evil.” This is a prime example of how simplistic and sensational characterizations absorb public attention away from the far more complex challenge of how to encourage productive engagement.

Criticism of Mr. Sweeney’s actions—that he placed LSE students at potential risk while also damaging LSE’s academic credibility—has been given much attention in the media and rightfully so. It should also be noted that concocting the identity of a professor and filming a documentary without permission might well have had repercussions in North Korea as well. By betraying the trust of their North Korean hosts, Mr. Sweeney and his crew unwittingly put their tour guides in personal danger. Mr. Sweeney’s claims that his actions “only deceived the government” are erroneous and betray his overly simplistic understanding of North Korea; it is false to again assume the “Government” is one cohesive unit.

For those of us who have spent years working with various North Korean ministries, bureaus, companies, institutions, committees, and universities, we understand that organizations operate with relative independence; the only group deceived would have been the tourism operator and agent with whom they arranged their tour. Should the Panorama documentary provoke negative backlash against North Korea, these tour guides may bare the brunt of the blame and the punishment. Considering the extent to which Mr. Sweeney compromised the safety of both his hosts and fellow travellers, it is disappointing that his ruse failed to reveal anything more constructive.

[chenGOD]

RE: Laibach - not confirmed yet.

[Herr Jan]

Thanks for clarifying Chen. I obviously picked out the wrong book, was having doubts between the Sweeney one and a book written by a NK defector and chose the former in hope it would give a broader perspective on it instead of just one story. Up until now it only compared NK to 'a glitch in the Matrix' as well as the Third Reich (so far without any explanation), uses the Team America character of Kim Jong-il as a thread throughout the book, has chapter titles like 'The Scariest Place On Earth', 'Zombie gods seep goo', 'Pissing on marble', 'God the fat boy Kim' and 'The Gulag Circus' (or even more subtle, 'The Man Who Went To North Korea And Came Back Mad') and has thusfar only used YouTube videos or dubious websites as sources in the footnotes. I really feel like finishing it now though, just so I can spot more Eurocentric elitism and simplistic sensationalism.

 

If you have a title that gives a better / more objective and complete insight in NK be my guest btw! As you already saw, I'm having trouble finding a decent one.

[chenGOD]

http://www.amazon.com/Real-North-Korea-Politics-Stalinist/dp/0199390037/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434647901&sr=8-1&keywords=andrei+lankov

 

Lankov is the man. Although his latest book is not as thorough as his earlier works, it's much more enjoyable to read.

Another interesting one to get is "A Capitalist in North Korea" by Felix Abt. Although Abt is a little too enthusiastic in person and in recent facebook discussions, the book is really good.

 

The defector books are worth your time for the most part, but there is now a serious industry surrounding them, and that has warped how the memoirs are presented.

[Guest kymppinetti]

I like those descriptions of those other books you mentioned, will try and find them. I'm always trying to look for insightful documentaries / books about NK so if you have any great ones, please share.

 

i remembered one more. http://www.amazon.com/Circus-Pyongyang-Happened-Birthday-President-ebook/dp/B00K28M012#customerReviews

i haven't read that though, but i have only see positive reviews of it, so it might be good. :)

 

and yeah i agreed you guys that John Sweeney is quite over the top with argument on hes documents. (see scientology document. there is actually two of em.) he's using hes own spices to raise up the documentarys interest. it's entertaining, but nearly never exact. but hey, this same custom is always used whatever is on the screen.

[Guest kymppinetti]

oh also that book (Circus Pyongyang) have a funny story what happens to the guy after the trip on finland. i don't quite remembed how did it exactly go, but something like the man needed a healtcare soon after he came back to finland. just a normal treatment, got nothing to do with nk. but in the hospital the nurse asked him all kind of normal questions, like where you been these last months etc. so the man says: 'yeah. i've been in north korea at the Kim Il-Sung birthday. and do a chain saw show there.' the nurse didn't belive him and sended him to psychologist and gave him strong pills. and, but i don't know if it's true, after some time they sented him to nut ward. xD

[Herr Jan]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33530538

Looks like it is actually happening!

 

Also, thanks for those recommendations Chen. Both titles are exactly what I was searching for, I'll start with the Lankov one though.

[LimpyLoo]

 

John Sweeney is a hack and shouldn't be given the time of day, let alone your hard earned money for his book.

 

A response from people who actually work in North Korea

 

 

Recent news surrounding the dispute between John Sweeney, the London School of Economics (LSE), and the Panorama documentary on North Korea offers us an opportunity to evaluate the different ways we as foreigners can choose to approach North Korea.

 

On the one hand, we can follow Mr. Sweeney’s lead and adopt the attitude of an investigative reporter in search of ever more astonishing reminders that North Korea is indeed a whole lot different from “us”—and not in the good way. The depiction of North Korea as a nation of irate soldiers, inflammatory propaganda and oppressive brainwashing is hackneyed and simplistic at best, and both irresponsible and harmful at worst.

 

Mr. Sweeney and his crew visited North Korea as part of a highly restricted tour that over forty thousand other foreigners take every year. It is entirely naïve for Mr. Sweeney and his crew to assume that observations from this standard tour, specifically intended for foreign tourists, allowed them to draw meaningful conclusions about daily life in North Korea. To suggest as much, on a national stage, is extremely misleading. In an interview with the BBC, Mr. Sweeney claimed that North Korea is “more like Hitler’s Germany than other state in this world…extraordinarily scary, dark and evil.” This is a prime example of how simplistic and sensational characterizations absorb public attention away from the far more complex challenge of how to encourage productive engagement.

 

Criticism of Mr. Sweeney’s actions—that he placed LSE students at potential risk while also damaging LSE’s academic credibility—has been given much attention in the media and rightfully so. It should also be noted that concocting the identity of a professor and filming a documentary without permission might well have had repercussions in North Korea as well. By betraying the trust of their North Korean hosts, Mr. Sweeney and his crew unwittingly put their tour guides in personal danger. Mr. Sweeney’s claims that his actions “only deceived the government” are erroneous and betray his overly simplistic understanding of North Korea; it is false to again assume the “Government” is one cohesive unit.

 

For those of us who have spent years working with various North Korean ministries, bureaus, companies, institutions, committees, and universities, we understand that organizations operate with relative independence; the only group deceived would have been the tourism operator and agent with whom they arranged their tour. Should the Panorama documentary provoke negative backlash against North Korea, these tour guides may bare the brunt of the blame and the punishment. Considering the extent to which Mr. Sweeney compromised the safety of both his hosts and fellow travellers, it is disappointing that his ruse failed to reveal anything more constructive.

 

 

 

 

There is a huge moral distinction between a tacet ultimatum ("we, the NK gov't, will punish the tour guides if this is shared") and a foreseeable consequence ("if I share this, the tour guides may be punished"). In fact, this distinction--specifically, the fact that no-one saw any distinction--was the cause of my immense frustration in the "should people draw Muhammad?" debate.

 

Let's say someone goes up to you and says "unless you do X, I will do Y"...are you morally obliged to do X? And if you don't do X, are you morally responsible for Y?

 

If someone says "devote your life to Satan or I'll bomb a Starbucks"...are you morally obliged to devote your life to Satan? And if you don't, are you essentially murdering Starbucks patrons? What determines your moral responsibility/accountability?

 

Now instead let's say you wanna chop down a giant tree in front of your house but you know that, in doing so, it's very likely the tree will fall onto a Starbucks. Are you morally responsible if you chop down the tree and it kills a bunch of Starbucks patrons? (hint: yes, yes you are)

 

So like, what's the difference? Well, the huge difference is the person or persons issuing the ultimatum can choose whether to bomb a Starbucks or not. If you say "nah, I'm not gonna devote my life to Satan" then that person can either bomb a Starbucks or not. It's completely up to them. Whereas the falling tree is a perfect causal consequence of your actions.

 

If you want to see the distinction even more clearly, imagine a world where everyone was morally obliged to capitulate to ultimatums or blackmail, and were also morally responsible for the subsequent actions of the ultimatum-given. Not only would this create massive world-changing perverse incentives, but we would be morally responsible every time some monster shot up a church for mixing the races ("we should segregate the races so that no more churches get attacked").

Edited July 15, 2015 by LimpyLoo

[triachus]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33530538

 

Looks like it is actually happening!

 

 

and they will be performing songs from Sound Of Music

 

i hope this gets broadcasted live

[chenGOD]

Oh yes, forgot to confirm before.

But if anyone wants to go - I know who you should contact ;)

[poblequadrat]

 

What's the deal with Laibach? Are they really pro-NK or what? I haven't really dwelved in their music but it always seemed to me that they were a parody/critique band and not really totalitarian/pro-military

The name Laibach was banned by the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Slovenia, where they were based, was part of that) back when they started out. They were also prohibited from performing live after showing pictures of Tito next to pictures of a penis, so they started out as a rebellious band in the midst of a regime, mocking them in aesthetics. They were also accused of being extreme left and extreme right many times over the years. North Korea has to be aware of these things I reckon?

 

It's maybe similar to Death In June's dubious interests in the totalitarian history of Europe. The problem is that (afaik) Laibach never actually told that they are a parody group so it's all pretty ambiguous.

 

To me these NK gigs seem like the ultimate punchline to the Laibach concept, but I'm still a bit in the dark about how this could happen.

 

 

imo death in june are pretty scary whatever their actual ideas are, while laibach are very obviously a parody band whose message is fascism lurks everywhere. i don't necessarily agree but that's what i get out of their stuff.

 

i've grown tired of the guy but zizek has said a few interesting things about laibach and i think knows them personally

Edited July 15, 2015 by poblequadrat

[poblequadrat]

also, what is so hard to understand about the idea that people living under dictatorships just live and do their business and then die just like anywhere else? the fact that a country is poorer or that there are military parades or that there are a thousand extra things that would land you in prison or worse doesn't really change that much about everyday life. it's as if people were expecting horror and guts and inhumanity at every single corner, and i'm sure i wouldn't like living in north korea but really...

 

also going to a dangerous place and asking random people dangerous questions knowing that they'll be stuck there but you can leave whenever you want, then commenting on how "brainwashed" they are or how scared and terrified and cute and defenseless they are is the fucking worst of the worst

Edited July 15, 2015 by poblequadrat

[awepittance]

also, what is so hard to understand about the idea that people living under dictatorships just live and do their business and then die just like anywhere else?

do you live in the united states or the uk? then congratulations for some how escaping empire baby syndrome, a syndrome almost everybody born in the UK and US suffer from in an almost crippling fashion.

[Ivan Ooze]

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33530538

 

Looks like it is actually happening!

 

 

and they will be performing songs from Sound Of Music

 

i hope this gets broadcasted live

 

wow, first dennis and now this, north korea is ballin these days

[chenGOD]

 

 

John Sweeney is a hack and shouldn't be given the time of day, let alone your hard earned money for his book.

 

A response from people who actually work in North Korea

 

 

Recent news surrounding the dispute between John Sweeney, the London School of Economics (LSE), and the Panorama documentary on North Korea offers us an opportunity to evaluate the different ways we as foreigners can choose to approach North Korea.

 

On the one hand, we can follow Mr. Sweeney’s lead and adopt the attitude of an investigative reporter in search of ever more astonishing reminders that North Korea is indeed a whole lot different from “us”—and not in the good way. The depiction of North Korea as a nation of irate soldiers, inflammatory propaganda and oppressive brainwashing is hackneyed and simplistic at best, and both irresponsible and harmful at worst.

 

Mr. Sweeney and his crew visited North Korea as part of a highly restricted tour that over forty thousand other foreigners take every year. It is entirely naïve for Mr. Sweeney and his crew to assume that observations from this standard tour, specifically intended for foreign tourists, allowed them to draw meaningful conclusions about daily life in North Korea. To suggest as much, on a national stage, is extremely misleading. In an interview with the BBC, Mr. Sweeney claimed that North Korea is “more like Hitler’s Germany than other state in this world…extraordinarily scary, dark and evil.” This is a prime example of how simplistic and sensational characterizations absorb public attention away from the far more complex challenge of how to encourage productive engagement.

 

Criticism of Mr. Sweeney’s actions—that he placed LSE students at potential risk while also damaging LSE’s academic credibility—has been given much attention in the media and rightfully so. It should also be noted that concocting the identity of a professor and filming a documentary without permission might well have had repercussions in North Korea as well. By betraying the trust of their North Korean hosts, Mr. Sweeney and his crew unwittingly put their tour guides in personal danger. Mr. Sweeney’s claims that his actions “only deceived the government” are erroneous and betray his overly simplistic understanding of North Korea; it is false to again assume the “Government” is one cohesive unit.

 

For those of us who have spent years working with various North Korean ministries, bureaus, companies, institutions, committees, and universities, we understand that organizations operate with relative independence; the only group deceived would have been the tourism operator and agent with whom they arranged their tour. Should the Panorama documentary provoke negative backlash against North Korea, these tour guides may bare the brunt of the blame and the punishment. Considering the extent to which Mr. Sweeney compromised the safety of both his hosts and fellow travellers, it is disappointing that his ruse failed to reveal anything more constructive.

 

 

 

 

There is a huge moral distinction between a tacet ultimatum ("we, the NK gov't, will punish the tour guides if this is shared") and a foreseeable consequence ("if I share this, the tour guides may be punished"). In fact, this distinction--specifically, the fact that no-one saw any distinction--was the cause of my immense frustration in the "should people draw Muhammad?" debate.

 

Let's say someone goes up to you and says "unless you do X, I will do Y"...are you morally obliged to do X? And if you don't do X, are you morally responsible for Y?

 

If someone says "devote your life to Satan or I'll bomb a Starbucks"...are you morally obliged to devote your life to Satan? And if you don't, are you essentially murdering Starbucks patrons? What determines your moral responsibility/accountability?

 

Now instead let's say you wanna chop down a giant tree in front of your house but you know that, in doing so, it's very likely the tree will fall onto a Starbucks. Are you morally responsible if you chop down the tree and it kills a bunch of Starbucks patrons? (hint: yes, yes you are)

 

So like, what's the difference? Well, the huge difference is the person or persons issuing the ultimatum can choose whether to bomb a Starbucks or not. If you say "nah, I'm not gonna devote my life to Satan" then that person can either bomb a Starbucks or not. It's completely up to them. Whereas the falling tree is a perfect causal consequence of your actions.

 

If you want to see the distinction even more clearly, imagine a world where everyone was morally obliged to capitulate to ultimatums or blackmail, and were also morally responsible for the subsequent actions of the ultimatum-given. Not only would this create massive world-changing perverse incentives, but we would be morally responsible every time some monster shot up a church for mixing the races ("we should segregate the races so that no more churches get attacked").

 

 

I'm not sure if you're supporting Sweeney or not in your argument, but my position is quite clear:

In your analogy, Sweeney is cutting down the tree.

 

Beyond that, his actions caused further distrust of foreign visitors by the North Korean regime and set back efforts of civil society engagement.

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

John Sweeney is a hack and shouldn't be given the time of day, let alone your hard earned money for his book.

 

A response from people who actually work in North Korea

 

 

Recent news surrounding the dispute between John Sweeney, the London School of Economics (LSE), and the Panorama documentary on North Korea offers us an opportunity to evaluate the different ways we as foreigners can choose to approach North Korea.

 

On the one hand, we can follow Mr. Sweeney’s lead and adopt the attitude of an investigative reporter in search of ever more astonishing reminders that North Korea is indeed a whole lot different from “us”—and not in the good way. The depiction of North Korea as a nation of irate soldiers, inflammatory propaganda and oppressive brainwashing is hackneyed and simplistic at best, and both irresponsible and harmful at worst.

 

Mr. Sweeney and his crew visited North Korea as part of a highly restricted tour that over forty thousand other foreigners take every year. It is entirely naïve for Mr. Sweeney and his crew to assume that observations from this standard tour, specifically intended for foreign tourists, allowed them to draw meaningful conclusions about daily life in North Korea. To suggest as much, on a national stage, is extremely misleading. In an interview with the BBC, Mr. Sweeney claimed that North Korea is “more like Hitler’s Germany than other state in this world…extraordinarily scary, dark and evil.” This is a prime example of how simplistic and sensational characterizations absorb public attention away from the far more complex challenge of how to encourage productive engagement.

 

Criticism of Mr. Sweeney’s actions—that he placed LSE students at potential risk while also damaging LSE’s academic credibility—has been given much attention in the media and rightfully so. It should also be noted that concocting the identity of a professor and filming a documentary without permission might well have had repercussions in North Korea as well. By betraying the trust of their North Korean hosts, Mr. Sweeney and his crew unwittingly put their tour guides in personal danger. Mr. Sweeney’s claims that his actions “only deceived the government” are erroneous and betray his overly simplistic understanding of North Korea; it is false to again assume the “Government” is one cohesive unit.

 

For those of us who have spent years working with various North Korean ministries, bureaus, companies, institutions, committees, and universities, we understand that organizations operate with relative independence; the only group deceived would have been the tourism operator and agent with whom they arranged their tour. Should the Panorama documentary provoke negative backlash against North Korea, these tour guides may bare the brunt of the blame and the punishment. Considering the extent to which Mr. Sweeney compromised the safety of both his hosts and fellow travellers, it is disappointing that his ruse failed to reveal anything more constructive.

 

 

 

 

There is a huge moral distinction between a tacet ultimatum ("we, the NK gov't, will punish the tour guides if this is shared") and a foreseeable consequence ("if I share this, the tour guides may be punished"). In fact, this distinction--specifically, the fact that no-one saw any distinction--was the cause of my immense frustration in the "should people draw Muhammad?" debate.

 

Let's say someone goes up to you and says "unless you do X, I will do Y"...are you morally obliged to do X? And if you don't do X, are you morally responsible for Y?

 

If someone says "devote your life to Satan or I'll bomb a Starbucks"...are you morally obliged to devote your life to Satan? And if you don't, are you essentially murdering Starbucks patrons? What determines your moral responsibility/accountability?

 

Now instead let's say you wanna chop down a giant tree in front of your house but you know that, in doing so, it's very likely the tree will fall onto a Starbucks. Are you morally responsible if you chop down the tree and it kills a bunch of Starbucks patrons? (hint: yes, yes you are)

 

So like, what's the difference? Well, the huge difference is the person or persons issuing the ultimatum can choose whether to bomb a Starbucks or not. If you say "nah, I'm not gonna devote my life to Satan" then that person can either bomb a Starbucks or not. It's completely up to them. Whereas the falling tree is a perfect causal consequence of your actions.

 

If you want to see the distinction even more clearly, imagine a world where everyone was morally obliged to capitulate to ultimatums or blackmail, and were also morally responsible for the subsequent actions of the ultimatum-given. Not only would this create massive world-changing perverse incentives, but we would be morally responsible every time some monster shot up a church for mixing the races ("we should segregate the races so that no more churches get attacked").

 

 

I'm not sure if you're supporting Sweeney or not in your argument, but my position is quite clear:

In your analogy, Sweeney is cutting down the tree.

 

Beyond that, his actions caused further distrust of foreign visitors by the North Korean regime and set back efforts of civil society engagement.

 

 

i know what your position is

that's why i wrote the post

 

so, do you also think that we should segregate the races so that white supremacists don't shoot up churches?

(I mean, we're just asking for white supremacists to shoot up churches by NOT segregating the races)

I mean, since we're gonna be folding to ultimatums in this world of yours

where should we draw the line?

[LimpyLoo]

my point is: we shouldn't fold to the ultimatums of unreasonable people

and we're not responsible for what they do when we ignore their ultimatums

be it the NK gov't, people who are violent as a result of blasphemous cartoons, unibombers, etc

 

think of the implications of what you're saying, please

[LimpyLoo]

So Chen, yes or no:

 

are we morally responsible for the actions of white supremacists that angry about desegregation?

 

Say yes if you want, but just please be consistent

[poblequadrat]

So Chen, yes or no:

 

are we morally responsible for the actions of white supremacists that angry about desegregation?

 

Say yes if you want, but just please be consistent

 

we're morally responsible for whatever it takes to wipe them out, cos that's what the endgame is

in the case of NK, publishing exploitative crap is irresponsible unless the endgame is 3 centuries of "lol north korea is so fuuuuukkt uuuuuup looool i arxed some difficult questions loooooool"

[chenGOD]

Ugh limpy. Give me something besides a false equivalency to argue against.

But I'm going to play ultimate and then spend time with family. So don't expect a response any time soon.