A reflection on the concept of Minjok and the 21st century

It is known that Korean society holds a distinct sense of nationalism related to ethnicity. A concept reserved for Korean nationalism, ‘Minjok’, implies that one must be born of a ‘true Korean blood’ to be accepted as a member of the Korean society. Because of its narrowness in the definition of Koreans, Korea has been derided by the international society of its exclusiveness towards other culture and countries. Through this essay, I will try to seek an explanation for the development of this eccentricity, and eventually suggest my view of Minjok and the 21^st century, my hope for the better future.

 

The term ‘Minjok’ derives its origin in the early 20^th century when Japanese occupation took place. Japanese, when translating the concept of ‘nation’, chose to accept the Germanic view of the word, which was closer to ‘ethnic group’ in English. Japanese translation of ‘nation’ and the term ‘minjok’ was directly applied to Korea as Japanese occupation of Korea commenced.

Japan had originally adopted nationalism as means of resistance against Western Powers, which tried to exert their influence on Eastern countries using their military force. Ironically, Japanese nationalism grew into an impetus for imperialism and worked as a justification for its invasion of nearby countries. In Korea, nationalism was introduced by Japan’s attempts to arouse a Japanese nationalism throughout its colonies, but instead developed into a Korean nationalism against Japanese occupation. One of the leading figures of this movement was Shin Chae Ho, the father of a Minjok-ist view of history. He cut out the ‘Giza-Chosun’ period in Go-chosun era and instead proclaimed ‘Dangun-Chosun’ as the start of Korean history, denying that the origin of Korea is from the descendent of Shang Dynasty in China. As Japanese persecution of Korea prolonged, the idea of Minjok flourished among Koreans, holding them tightly together. Meanwhile, the usage of Minjok as an ethnic term caused Korea to use the term as something beyond simple formation of a nation-state, but formation of an ethnic nation-state.

Minjok continued to be a fuel of Korean identity even after WW2 ended. Dictator Park Jung Hee reinforced the unity of Korean nation for the sake of rapid industrialization. Some of the policies he enacted were the creation of a Korean hero, most of whom were military figures who protected Korea against foreign invasions, and investment to Korean traditional art represented by the construction of a Minjok cultural art center. Collectivist remnant of the totalitarian government plus the revival of the past as a policy fused to intensify the sense of Minjok in Korean people. Even people opposing to Park Jung Hee exhibited strong nationalism, often offensive towards foreign influences and nonetheless anti-individualist.

Park Jung Hee actually had double citizenship; one to Japan, another to Korea. It's surprising that he managed to exhibit extreme nationalism to both countries.

The Seghehwa movement did not dilute this either. Rather, an ‘instrumental view’ of globalization became prominent, trying to seek ‘our nation’s profit’ through protective trading and diplomacy. President Kim Dae Jung emphasized globalization as a key for Korea to survive in a competitive world economy. According to a research in ‘The Paradox of Korean Globalization’, it even seems that the level of positive view towards globalization is relevant to ethnic nationalism. This paradigm continues until today. Koreans keep protectionist stance about foreign influence and the view requiring ethnic purity as a condition of Korean continues.

Looking at the history of Minjok, there are several factors that drove nationalism to the current situation. They are: first, the adoption of the term Minjok as an ethnic group, second, Japanese occupation and the advent of resistant nationalism, and third, rapid industrialization and totalitarian society.

Park No Ja, referred to as the 'Korean of Blue Eyes', is reliable for his objective criticism of the contradictive Korean society.  

 

It is true that Minjok has served its function in preserving Korean identity throughout the dark tunnels of persecution and unifying the nation in situation of poverty. However, it is a question whether Minjok is legit in this era. The trend of nowadays society is postnationalism, a movement transcending traditional views about nation and embracing the world as one homogenous group. So to say, ‘Minjok’ is likely to be abandoned as an anachronistic concept. Plus, serious discrimination is committed as people are skeptical about the influx of foreigners into Korea. Park No Ja, a Russian who naturalized to Korea, gives a most frank account of the exclusive Korean society in his book ‘What You Call Korea’. According to him, apartheid in Korea is even applied to Korean immigrants living in China, Chosun Jok, on the basis that they’re also not ethnically pure.

 

To elevate Korea to a post-modern country, the definition of Minjok as people sharing the same blood must be replaced by people sharing the same citizenship. Ethnicity or ‘true blood’ is an ambivalent concept in a globalized society, and Korea is no exception to this. Furthermore, nationalistic tendency of Korean history textbook should be modified. Professor Lim Ji Hyeon in Hanyang University suggests that ancient history be treated outside the nationalist frame, without the mention of ‘the great Han nation’ or any implication of nationalist tendency. Especially on the issue of Korguryo, a history in dispute with China, an approach of ‘border history’ would be more appropriate.

This is what Koreans call 'Hwanppah', people who believe in the forged book <Hwan Dan Go Gi>. <Hwan Dan Go Gi> claims that, well, it's exactly what you see above.  

Finally, irrational hostility towards other countries, especially Japan, should be rejected. It is true that Japanese government’s reflection of WW2 is surprisingly positive, and that most Japanese people are ignorant of the Japanese occupation of Korea. However, it must not lead to xenophobic behaviors against the basic principle of human rights; constant attempt should be made to achieve civil communication with Japan.

 

A ceremony referred to as the 'worst racial discriminating act in all Korea-Japan games', monkey ceremony.

My Melodramatic Friends

It's always refreshing to meet ideologists and melodramatics. They make me feel like I'm a bit more innocent and moral, that I do have my name on the long list of true humanists.
So, here is Stars, an indie rock band from Canada. The first taste of their music I had was Calender Girl, a song about a girl who thought of committing suicide then regained hope from everyday life. The melody was good, but too soft, too sweet without a touch of eccentricity in it. But since there was nothing else for me to listen, I decided to fill up my playlist with this new artist. There were three albums that they released when I found them: Nightsongs, Heart, and Set Yourself on Fire. All of them were surprisingly unknown. Filled up with great expectations, I delved into all of their songs. Within a month, Nightsongs was the best album of the year, a melodramatic, tragic, but piercing piece of work. So I introduce some of their songs here.

 

 

a 1990ish album cover; quite corresponding considering this was released in 2001

 

1. International Rock Star

The narrative of a woman and a man, inserted throughout the music is what amplifies the emotion. It's actually from a 1965 movie 'Collector' that they extracted the voice from. I never watched the movie, heard it was about an insect collector kidnapping and eventually murdering his student. The song is a replica of the movie: the woman hesitates from escaping from the collector in a vain hope that he is in love with her, while the collector thinks love is 'keeping her down'.

 

2. My Radio

http://youtu.be/1kACBhm8Mak

This song is just about listening to the radio. Seems nothing special, but hearing the hissing voices coming from the radio in the obscure hours of dawn, says Stars, is a remarkable experience. 'We kissed to that voice each night, bathed in pale reactor lights', 'All day long I fantasize in the dark behind other people's lies' are my favorite part of the lyrics. The melody is intimate, like you are in the small corridor holding a dull blue radio, putting it close to your ear as possible and breathing together with all the songs.

 

3. Write What You Know

 

It's the only song that's spiting others. The melodies are dripping cold, and the lyrics fiercely attack the streotypical Hollywood movies, with sexually attractive female and expectable storyline.

 

As you can see from these songs, Nightsongs is definitely a sad-core, melodramatic chronicle. I recommend you listen to these songs after 1 A.M., when your senses are heightened and your empathy with the singer unbearable.

Mr.Card...

I'm a fan of the SF genre. It's not that I'm particularly enthusiastic about spaceships and frontiers; the dynamic plot, great character development and portrayal of the human race that I get from the classic SF novels are something I value the most. Among a handful of SF writers it'd be Isaac Asimov, Frank Herbert, Arthur Clarke who are legends, but my favorite is Orson Scott Card, the author of the 'Ender's Game', a classic military SF novel. The books he write is insightful, poising a bundle of questions dealing with deep human nature, but at the same time he is faithful to the agenda of every book: that it must be fun.

But there's a problem with becoming a fan of this wonderful, intelligent Mr. Card. He holds strong allegiance to the Mormon religion, being a great-great-grandson of Brigham Young, an American leader of the Latter Day Saint movement. Having a religion in itself, of course, is nothing to be ashamed of, since every person holds the right to believe in what they want. It is the religious doctrine entailed to Mormonism, rather austere in its prohibition of homosexuality, that is harshly criticized. Mr. Card has been one of the leading figures to state his homophobic tendency and antagonism against gay marriage. The result of this was a direct bombarding on the sale of his books, expectable considering that the majority of SF fans are left. Many of his former fans claimed that they will never read his book again no matter how interesting it may be. Card was, of course, strikingly indifferent about this reaction. He stood firm and embraced the criticisms with sheer sarcasm.
I start to hesitate at this point. Shouldn't I hate all of Card's work if I'm truly against his stance?But does his being a homophobia actually 'contaminate' his books? Did he reflect his homophobia into the book? All kinds of thoughts cross my mind, some of them civil, some of them outright and frank like 'Shit I wouldn't really care if he's against gay or not. Fun is all that matters anyways.' It's harder when they start to apply dichotomy to the issue. 'Are you even sane for advocating a homophobia's work?' The Internet community would shout out. It's like for that quarter of a second, I' m a minority. So the question of 'Does an author and his book share a common tree of morality?' starts.
Seeing some examples in my own country, it seems only just that the work of a moral failure be embedded a scarlet letter. Seo Jung Joo, a renowned poet for his pro-Japanese stance, is never openly acclaimed by the critics even now. Actress Lee Ji-A's dramas are tacitly banned to mention among many internet communities after her identity as a granddaughter of a major pro-Japanese figure was revealed. I understand those cases and deeply empathize with the public emotion against them even without the direct relationship between an author and the book.
But in the case of Card, it's a bit more tricky. He never expresses any of his homophobia throughout his books, and it's considered by a problem of faith still by some people.

Becoming a major motion picture(yay!) while being sabotaged by its original fans, huh.

So I hesitate.

Monthly TOEFL essay #2: The 21st century has begun. What changes do you think this new century will bring? Use examples and details in your answer.

           Once, wars reigned on the lands of Asia and Europe through the bloody cries of civil population. Once, Martin Luther King Jr. stood on the ground of Lincoln Memorial and carried out the words of freedom and equality. Once, humanity reached a consensus upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Now, the new century has begun. It has brought us with inconceivable advances in technology accompanied by globalization. Great affluence came in, replenishing our infinite desires for a better quality of life. But in my opinion, this century will be an era of equality rather than of further economic development.

         Rights of LGBT will be greatly enhanced in the 21^st century. LGBT, standing for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, has stood on the social minority for most of human history. For example, the dominating religion in the Middle Ages, Christianity condemned homosexuality as a sin, and homosexuals were considered as equivalent to infidels. In the 20^th century, however, some influential figures like singer Elton John openly confessed their homosexuality and was followed a worldwide scramble for LGBT rights. The rights of LGBT have now grown as one of the major contemporary issues. Controversy over gay marriage is a first step in this. While some religion groups are still against the expansion of the definition of marriage, many countries in Europe including Denmark and many states in the U.S. are allowing gay marriage. As more people are willing to openly orient their sexuality and fighting for the social atmosphere to change, hostility against LGBT will gradually diminish and further rights will be prepared.

Scramble for 'Equal Love' 

computer for the blind

           The physically disabled will be substituted with technological developments to reach closer to equality. Currently, technologies involved in smart phones are used by companies to create a computer for the blind. While this case is only a small contribution in the overall enhancement of the quality of life for the disabled, this shows that technologies may help the disabled in carrying out various works they hadn't been able to do before. This will help them in widening their scope of careers, enhancing their competency compared to workers without disability. Similar levels of achievement in both groups will lead to improvement in the status of the disabled among social members. The position of the disabled in the society will elevate.           

           Equality will be attained throughout the 21^st century as a result of changes in technology and conception. While it is only natural that the human race progresses towards an egalitarian society, 20^th century has shown a retreat in this through dreadful incidents, one of them namely the Holocaust. Having established a relatively peaceful world, people of the 21^st century will now focus on repairing the nightmares and taking further steps in the preservation of human dignity. 

Nacirema tribe: how it reveals common prejudice

As a human being, endowed with the ability to interpret and predict others’ behaviors, we are often obligated with the responsibility of using such capacity to add to the great archive of knowledge contributing to the understanding of the human race. A few, eager specimen of people with nothing but compassion towards the human race dedicates in taking this burden and brings humanity to a higher level. One example of this specimen is Mr. Menard, a teacher in KMLA who assiduously pursued the duty for the rest of our society and his own academic pursuit. He conducted an experiment about the level of cultural awareness in Korean students, taking the sixty-seven students in the International Field as a sample group. The experiment reveals the narrowness in which students view different cultures, especially those concerning the tribal culture. This essay will focus on a particular participant in the experiment, a fifteen-year old girl named Oh Yae-Lim, to illustrate the process and the conclusion of the experiment.  

A 10^th grader in KMLA, Oh Yae-Lim participated in the experiment without having been informed beforehand about it. Upon entering the class, she was told that she’d have to write an essay about a certain piece of writing, called Body Ritual Among the Nacirema. The given passage was about a tribal group in North America called ‘Nacirema’ and its peculiar custom. It was already famous for ‘Nacirema’ as a signifier of ‘American’, a satire of cultural prejudice and Americans’ lookism, but was unknown to her. She was required to write a page-long reflection and submit it. On the following week she was told that the passage was actually a sheer work of fiction, ‘Nacirema’ standing for ‘American’ and its masochistic practices for its obsession to beauty and health.

Reading Oh’s essay, incomprehension of the tribe Nacirema is recognizable. On surface she makes an effort to objectify the situation. She makes a criticism on the writers’ arrogance towards other cultures, pointing out that his use of diction is rather an effort not to look at the tribe’s culture seriously and recognize the functions that the eccentric custom may serve to the society. She assumes that the passage is of imperial origin, due to the fact that it was written in 1956, a period where imperialism flourished. However, she denies that Narcirema is even faintly similar to the modern culture, or within the reasonable range of capitalist society. Throughout the essay, she keeps the two subjects parallel. This behavior manifests her inner uneasiness about the Nacirema culture, contradicting her stance supporting cultural relativism.

Her subconscious action of dividing tribal custom and common social phenomenon can be seen as deriving from the concept of tribes as a ‘primitive group’, where a separate law of moral should be applied. She is unable of realizing the very likeness of Nacirema and her own capitalist society, though hints are scattered throughout the passage implying the similarity. A very developed market economy, painful treatment of patients, obsession to beauty through means of surgery are all neglected, not being mentioned at all throughout the writing. Similar tendency is observed in other students’ writings, with only a minority of students realizing sarcasm and satire which the essay conveyed through anagram of Nacirema.

A computation of the students’ essays reveals the poor level of cultural awareness these students hold; while they are injected of the injustice and narrow-sightedness of imperialism by education, they are unable to take out the prejudice consisting the imperialism themselves, most importantly unable of switching perspectives: that what they consider rational may seem crude and vulgar in other perspective. This conclusion indicates the necessity of future improvement in widening the scopes of perception, especially as communication between countries is increasing at an unbelievable speed. In order to successfully incorporate the next generation into a global society, prejudice and fear towards unknown culture should be rid of.

 

 

 

 

v

The Age of Stupid: a film review

notice the similarities? 

                                  

       Looking back through my shallow memory, there had been an era when 'saving the earth' was a serious agenda. On the TV was a man with the expression of a martyr, speaking Greenland and polar bears and alarming sea-levels; in the classroom were a teacher giving out environment pamphlets and an annual 'protect-the-environment' writing contest.
       Then things started falling apart. Rumors began spreading that the 'global warming' affair is all a big hoax. The rumors gathered to develop into an argument, and soon emerged evidences corroborating them. Anti-environmentalism gained its full power. A burden of blame was finally lifted from our shoulders.

                                             


After a while the matter settled down: Environmentalism is the new feminism.
Like feminists had been and still are, environmentalists now became a prey of newspaper cartoons. The mass media portrayed them as petty, heartless beings threatening the freedom of human activity. The annual green campaign never died, but the general feeling of urgency had significantly faded. People eventually returned to their old consuming habits, like cockroaches returning for the night. It was, indeed 'The Age of Stupid', at least concerning environmentalism.

a typical image of an environmentalist, the phase is
--Why won't they just leave us alone? 

So, 'The Age of Stupid' is a movie intended as a tipping point for the stagnation in environmental movements. But just how? In the age of skepticism, it is difficult to make any argument cogent enough for people to give up their convenient coat of civilization. People simply wouldn't buy it. That's why this movie takes a bold step to distinguish itself from other movies.

'The Age of Stupid' not only depicts the environmental problems that will affect us in the future, but also how the poorer population of the world is already exposed to it right now by the great powers. By capturing the brutality of each instance, it convicts the richer nations and the multinational companies of committing a 'crime'. An example of this is the scene featuring Malemi, a Nigerian woman who aims to attend a medical school. Around her home village is a Shell factory that polluted her home town.

Here, the movie juxtaposes her scene with an informative piece about the benefits of oil, expressing the gap between the two; while we use oil nonchalantly, appreciating the convenience it brings, the other side of the earth is suffering because of it. Eventually, environmental problem is not discrete from our everyday life, but is closely related to our infinite consumerism.
 This approach is more compelling than the simple 'tipping-point-is-nearing' approach, since it deals with problems of the present moment; whether one seriously considers the future destruction of the earth doesn't matter here. However, it may also be a little dangerous. One must keep in mind that the people watching this movie is mostly people with western consumerism inscribed in their fiber. Most of them have never questioned their lifestyle, nor have ever met direct denial of it. They may be offended by the explicit conviction and reject it as obnoxious. Thus, this is persuasive yet a bit controversial. But sometimes in order to achieve the required level of precaution, a certain amount of controversy must be put up with; it is fairly acceptable.

What is unacceptable is the clumsiness of other parts of the movie.
For one, an exaggerated figure of 2055 as a year of apocalypse was definitely not effective. The last man on earth lamenting about 'how we didn't save ourselves' in 2055,  is incomprehensible. Even the most stout believer of global warming wouldn't assert it. Plus the poor graphics in the beginning contributes to its remoteness to real life. So to say, the whole SF part of it was poorly made. Its influence to the whole movie was minute, and it only decreased the overall quality of the movie.

I think of the global warming issue as depending on one's views. I do not conceive it as the most urgent issue human race is facing, neither do I think it is all a big hoax. Climatology is a study dealing with immense threads of possibilities, and if one of them indicates that this global crisis will happen, we should take notice.

                                                             

For that, 'The Age of Stupid' is austere in its conviction but necessary. However, if the message of the movie is inhibited by low quality, it is a problem. For that, 'The Age of Stupid' exposes its flaws. And the consequence of this flaw is clear now: a failure to turn the tables.





   

Speech Script

   
Hi. Today I'll talk about an experience I had when I was 12. Obviously, it contains a moral, so I expect all of you ambitious, aspiring students to attain yet another string of wisdom at the end of this speech.

     Not long after my return from America, there was an election for the class president. As usual, the loud, popular students won the position, and the promises they had given were already dangling on the edge to be dissolved into nothing. But whatever, who cared? The winners were happy, the losers tried to be happy; the deed was over. Except for one.

     The girl elected as a vice president was crying. Hard. At first I thought her yearn for over-achievement had led to despair, that she was angry for failing to earn the glamorous badge of 'class president'. As I was unsure, I decided to investigate the issue. I squished through a crowd of girls, keeping their place firm as a fortress, and there she was; her eyes tainted red, and a dark stain on her cheek where BB cream had been applied thoroughly. I asked her quite blatantly.

     "Why are you crying?" Her face lost its shape, and she spitted bitterly. "Because Jenny hates that I won." By the way, Jenny is a fake name I created for convenience. Anyways, Jenny was one of the losers. She was a girl who was enthusiastic and participating for every school event, so this arrow of blame seemed out of nowhere. From my knowledge, the ones who expressed contempt for this soon-to-be vice president were the girls who wore a makeup, or boys. And she didn't fit into any of the categories.

     So I asked her again. "What makes you think she hates you?" She muffled through broken cries, "Because she's looking at me." I felt my sense of logic wavering. But I countered anyways, "Looking at you doesn't mean she hates you. Why don't you go and ask her about her intention?" That was when her face suddenly jerked up, and she shot out, "No, she hates me! Just look at her, you can see distaste looming in her eyes... Oh, I know where you're going. You hate me too!" The girl busted into tears. I wanted to refute her; much as I was baffled, I was as eager as ever to persuade her. Then someone from the crowd hissed, "Stop. She’s saying the right thing. You’re hurting her." I felt a thread of conviction nearing me. I retreated. As I seated myself, all I was thinking was, "Jesus, they're weird."

     It was years later that I realized the significance of that obnoxious, incomprehensible encounter. Looking back, though I still despised the vice president as much as I despise Wordsmart, I never challenged nor raised a question against her again. And it was because I knew she determined and managed what is true and false. That is, my definition of truth widened as to include 'the words alleged by the person in power'. But if my realization was confined to that, I'd only be encouraging servile, docile attitude. Right?

Now, after hurrying out from that scene of crime, I was boiling with frustration and embarrassment. However, beneath all that layers of emotion, there was a profound pride. I was proud that I had bought their disfavor. I was proud that I had the courage to raise objection to that bossy girl. And I believe this is what lighted my conscience even through the darkest days. Of course, nowadays I’m not as reckless and aloof as I was back then, and the stakes have gone too high for me to become an outright pariah. I just think there are different ways to express your despondency towards authority, and you don’t necessarily have to go so far as to call up the headmaster in 애국조회. What’s important, though, is to be aware that those situations are indeed unfair, and always remember to leave a tinge of sarcasm in your voice. That, I think is enough to persist as a rebel in this society. And that, is what I learned. Thank you.

 

A revised version of 'personal narrative'

     I was 10 years old when I found a small callus on my ring finger. Not larger than the size of a coin, it was embedded right on the tender nuckle like an unwelcomed guest. Usually kids my age had a pinkish trace on their middle finger, but nobody had one with such a definite shape. This gave me nerves. I knew well that being a lefty, I was bound to put more burden on my finger which may cause in calluses. But looking at the soft, smooth hands of fellow students, I couldn't help but feel frustrated towards my already contaminated hand. It wasn't only me who was hostile, either. My friends, upon discovering a new chunk of skin resting on my finger, seemed to think of it as a bit gross, while my mom simply sighed. She just said "I told you" in a way that I felt very guilty.
      As the callus grew, my hatred for it also increased. I started having calluses all over my hand;
wherever the pencil touches it spread its ugliness. I adopted the habit of peeling the dead skin off the callus. Sometimes it would end up bleeding, sometimes it would not, but I didn't care. My only aim was to get rid of that creature of a devil out of my finger. But irritable enough, the thing
kept its expansion. Steadily it grew, and never seemed to stop.
     Then one day, it did stop. 
     It was from the words of someone I only knew the face of . It was that time of the day when you didn't have anything in particular. I was staring into the void when she said, "You must have studied very hard. It shows on your finger."
     A new perspective swept over me. I realized for the first time how my foe could have actually been a friend, a token given for all the time I spent forcing words down the paper with my left hand. Rather than a doom, it was a present I could gloat over. After that was a wave of appreciation. Looking back, there had been some perks of having a callus, such as when I was able to identify left and right through where my callus was: left with the callus, right without callus. I took each of them with gratitude and laughed at all I had missed during the past years. It was a jovial encounter.
     In conclusion, the moral I got from this experience is simple: be positive. If I kept the horror towards having a callus, I'd probably still be obsessing over it, ripping off of it untill my skin hurts. What's more productive, however, would be to wake up from the bad dream and face what you have in front of you. Then you'd be able to perceive what you never did before: that the horror and the monstrosity was nowhere but in your mind.
    

    

A reflection on the movie: Les Miserables

     The movie 'Les Miserables'  had been arousing quite a worldwide phenomenon, producing
 dozens of parodies and a fair critical acceptance. Especially in Korea, the release date of the movie coincided with the election and gathered a great deal of audiences disappointed about the result. The revolutionary vigor and the grand musical number 'Do you hear the People Sing?' left a deep echo in the hearts of those who watched it, and soon the movie was treated as an altar of leftists. Personally, I have no will of supporting a certain political aspect. However, I did grow a bit skeptical about Les Miserables being a flawless political enlightenment.
     Les Miserables is a movie about salvation. The protagonist Jean Valjean's repentance and following affluence  is a manisfestation of individual salvation, while the revolution of February, to which the second sect of the movie is devoted to, is about the salvation of the society. Each of these two themes is developed thoroughly on its own, unraveling into a heartfelt tale. However, these themes fail to blend into one another organically.
     Individual salvation and social salvation are concepts that inevitably contradict each other. The former is often very confined, because one's success means another's fall. Look into the cover of every magazines. People who overcame their hardships and was accepted to a higher social class are the exact faces of those who threw others in inferno.
     Returning to the movie, Jean Valjean is actually a character uninterested in social equality or reformation. He sympathizes the poor and is generous towards them because he was once one of them, but it does not get him to dream the same dreams of those who threw their chairs and tables to build a barricade. He may be a nice mayor who feeds the people working under him, but he doesn't know he can change the system itself so that all people gets a daily bread to carry home. The only reason he puts his life on peril is because his dear Cosette's destined lover is walled in the barricade. He is 'not' a part of the revolution. His life centers around his salvation, and not upon the salvation of France.
The movie, however, seems in complete oblivion of the big gap between him and the revolutionists. It just clumsily juxtaposes a separate story, then sews it up by 'Do you hear the People Sing?', denying the character they developed throughout the movie by saying, 'hey, he was probably into this revolution stuff, because he's nice.' They don't explain why Jean Valjean's life is related with the revolution of February, why he, a rather self-absorbed character is depicted as a 'revolutionary hero' at the end of the movie. The two theme simply doesn't fit together, and they are pouring glue into the blanks to keep it from falling apart.   
     This is why the movie(and the novel if it didn't come up with a better explanation) didn't convince me of its political purity. Jean Valjean's story holds a religious, conservative tone, rather obedient towards the existing social order than against it. Sure, the grand musical scenes may stimulate our lacrimal system well enough, but we must not forget the amount of capital poured into the very scene, and where it came from.
    

    
    

    

Monthly Toefl Essay #1

 

           Describe a custom from your country that you would like people from other countries to adopt. Explain your choice, using specific reasons and examples.

 

           A country’s custom is differentiated from others by a number of environmental factors.  Korea is no exception of this. Having had been an agricultural society with the influence of Confucianism, its custom also centers around those themes. One of those customs that I’d like to introduce to foreigners is paying respect to adults, because it can promote order within the society and bring back the concept of family.

           Recovering the order of this society can be done by respecting adults. In our modern society, and especially within the western society, adults and children tend treat each other very equally. For example, the English language itself doesn’t contain forms exclusively used to address the elder, meaning their communication process is also quite equal. While this tendency is beneficial in a way that it doesn’t create an uncomfortable atmosphere between the young and the old, it may cause the young to become rude toward the old, ignoring the experience and knowledge the adults have earned through their years of living. So by promoting the atmosphere of respect towards the adults by ways such as bowing to them, the younger generation will naturally recognize the minimum hierarchy that must exist. The preservation of social order will be a product of this.

Adopting the custom of respecting the adults will help revive the concept of family inside the society. Respect accompanies the act of paying more care when treating the person. While keeping a friendly manner doesn’t cause trouble, it may cause the young to stay unconcerned about the old, and the old unconcerned about the young. On the other hand, reverence toward the elder would bring the young more attentive towards the acts of the old, since they try not to make mistakes while in front of them. For instance, when I’m in front of teachers, I become aware of what they say more because I’m careful not to blurt out something inadequate and disappoint them, eventually be regarded as ‘rude’. Observing the adults’ behavior would help the young know more about them, thus giving them an opportunity to create a close relationship with the adults. This connection between the younger and older generation is likely to develop into a relationship similar to that of a family, restoring the concept of ‘family’ in the society as general.

       Bringing the tradition of honoring the adults to other countries would benefit them in two ways: it would keep the society from entering the state of chaos, while also causing the society to become an enormous family. This custom does have its own weaknesses, since it is prone to authoritarianism in that it requires its subjects to conform to the higher-in-rank. However, if it is done in terms of not going against individual’s rights, it will create a desirable social atmosphere. The older generations won’t feel ignored of their life and achievements, while the younger generations will learn how to appreciate the older generations for building the society they are living in.

Introduction of myself

    When I was in my early childhood, my parents had this habit of exclaiming 'very creative!' whenever I exhibited any kind of behavior; whether I drew a collection of meaningless circles or spat out a single word, through their lens it was a manifestation of my infinite possibility and talent. The implication was that by being second and free from the burden imposed on the first, I was bound to be of a spontaneous character. If it were now, I would have jeered at the total misconception and muttered out, "No, I don't think so". But as children are, at that time I was not skilled in picking out the inescapable flaws parents made about their child. Adults were wise beings; I was not in the position to analyze and interpret their minds, full of inconsistent, contradicting morals as I see it now. So for quite a long period of time, I actually believed that I was this 'big tank of imagination', striving for the career of being a fantasy writer or a singer-song writer.
     This way of conceiving myself faded after my entrance to middle school.  It suddenly occured to me that despite the devotion I paid to this whole affair about 'creativity' and 'ideas', I never had any concrete evidence of my talent. The works I've done, frankly, was a bunch of cliches pasted together by a cheap set of vocabulary. I was in no way a innovative person. I was the one barely jagging behind them, struggling even to put a step forward. The realization, while harsh, gave me an opportunity take one step backwards and construct an objective account of myself: my character, and my dreams.

     What is my character?
Once I thought I was the kind of a moral saint, a common conception that teenagers hold while strucking the thunder of justice over adults. I despised the atmosphere of snobbishness flowing about the closest people around me. That is, until I realized I was a snob, too. While I embraced myself in the ideas of utopean society and equality, I also was a sheer bourgeois, caught in the grandness of success and dreaming of a social climber. I think it's just my inborn quality; at the very moment I decide I'm going my own way, I grow conscious of the person next to me as a potential rival. A strong ego takes hold of me and sometimes strangle me to do better. So in sum, I'm what you'd call an ambitious student, though it is questionable whether I can keep up with high expectations.
    
     Dreams?
There's this monumental character who contributed to my dream.
GEORGE ORWELL


I've developed an affinity for anything 'Orwellian'. There's this attitude about himself, his acuteness and straightfowardness that almost makes me shiver. His depiction of the world is surprisingly objective despite his being quite a radical socialist. His life itself centers around what is right, and a constant fight against what is wrong.
He is what I want to be like. Of course it won't all be possible for me, 'living in a material world'. There's also the issue of individuality, too, that I shouldn't be a clumsy replication of him. But his life is so much of importance to me that it is hard for me to ignore it.
My future career has always been inconsistent; ranging from a journalist to a singer. But whatever I become, I'm sure of one thing: I won't live to be a person of little integrity. My ambition and worldly matters may perplex my view of this world, but I won't let that contaminate my whole mind, and I want to build my heart with stronger materials than now so I could persist in my believing. So that is my dream.

Strictly speaking, until now.