My Photo

Korean Radio/TV

Blogs about that part of Asia that isn't Korea

« US takes a pass on giving France some pay-back | Main | Up date on the 'questioner' at the NK Human Rights symposium »

Wednesday, December 01, 2004


Dave C.

Was any mention made of the recent Chinese troop movements along the border or the photos of Dear Leader going missing in N. Korea? What's your take on the recent rumors?


I saw a panel discussion in the US on US-SK relations, and the North was the primary source of discussion, and these were all profs in the US but born and raised in South Korea with the exception of one white American and one Russian.

Every one of them were of the opinion the US should do what South Korea wanted ---- engage in direct talks with North Korea "before its too late" and cut a deal. They were clearly more interesting in the deal being cut and the US promising aid than they were about "real verification measures" which they seemed to mention in passing.

The exception was the Russian. He said he grew up in a harsh regime and he understood the mentality - especially since NK was much worse than the Russia of his day. He also had some interesting stories about meeting NK scholars in Russia.

His idea was the US should "bomb them now and take out the regime." He said many NK's would die, but more would surely die otherwise.

I don't go that far. Yes. More NK will die. But, I don't think it is in the US best interests (yet) to take the North out with war.

In the Q&A phase, all the questions were in full support of "Bush bad" and Bush as the bigger problem than the North's nukes, except one prof who did a good job of getting in a debate with the panel, and three other grad students (white Americans) who stood up for the US perspective.


(NOTE: Yangban edit for language)

I was there as well, and one comment that I believe should be made in light of your post is that the professor that you mention, the one that made his statements in both English and Korean, DIDN'T SAY THE SAME THING IN EACH LANGUAGE!

After speaking with Adrian afterwards, I grasped that this was his main reason for invading the panel and answering that self righteous prick that thought he could pull one over on the crowd. His basis for the entire splay was that, in English, Clinton had a plan for attacking NK nuclear facilities. His Korean interpretation, 공격하려고 했다고, translates into decided to attack.

Such dishonest propoganda rhetoric has no place in a symposium, and for some conceited (punk) to think he knows so much more than the rest of us that he will conveniently translate in order to make everyone happy is abhorent

The Bobster

I find "Me"'s comments quite interesting, but part of me wonders if the differing translations could be indicative of a lack of sufficient English ability on the part of the speaker? If not, then I agree with the conclusion you've reached : abhorent might be somewhat mild, in fact.


Bobster may have a point... Ive been to NK-oriented events where the Korean translator blatantly does not say in English what was said in Korean, and sometimes even translating things into weird distasteful phrases. One time I heard:

"Kim Jong-il should commit a righteous suicide!!!" passionately shouted by the translater. The speaker said no such thing.

Sometimes I think theyre under the pressure to say something in translation and they dont know how to translate it to english, so they throw in their own comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.