2020-08-02

1907 Vladimir Tikhonov People often think that NK is 'strange. Anna Fifield’s The Great Successor

(7) Facebook

North Korea, Without the Hacks
BY KAP SEOL
Kap Seol is a freelance writer based in New York.
---
Most US reporting on North Korea is inaccurate fluff produced by self-serving careerists. But a new book finally shows how to do it right.


Kim Jong-un attends the joint press conference at Paekhwawon State Guesthouse on September 19, 2018 in Pyongyang, North Korea. (Pyeongyang Press Corps / Getty Images)
----
Most US reporting and writing about North Korea is saturated with intellectual frivolity. In the murky waters of North Korea reporting, journalists and writers have been flouting fact-checking and common sense in favor of self-dealing and careerism.

In his now-discredited best seller of 2013, Escape from Camp 14, American journalist Blaine Harden devoted an entire page to the tale of how North Korean defector Shin Dong-hyuk had to crawl over the body of a friend electrocuted on a high-voltage fence to escape Camp 14, the country’s most notorious gulag. Harden did not explain how Shin himself was not instantly electrocuted in this scenario. However, Shin was a petty criminal, not a political prisoner, and could not have escaped Camp 14 because he has never been jailed there.

In another best seller on North Korea, Without You, There is No Us, Korean-American author Suki Kim depicted herself as an investigative journalist who went undercover as an English teacher at a Pyongyang college to study the lives of the North Korean elite’s youth. But she was never as incognito as she claimed.

On day one in Pyongyang, Kim was greeted by a minder who had accompanied her on her previous visit to the country. The mystique around her time in North Korea is supported by the impression that visiting openly as a writer would have been a huge risk. But before her time as an English teacher, Kim was already well-known for her best-selling debut novel, The Interpreter, and had visited North Korea twice already. North Korea would understand the global firestorm of criticism it might create by detaining or deporting a best-selling American author.

This, of course, isn’t to say there are no concentration camps (there are many) or that there is freedom of the press (there is none) in North Korea. But the mendacity of these authors helped to sell their books to gullible Americans — at the cost of the ordinary North Korean people who the authors claim to care deeply for.


That’s why Anna Fifield’s new biography of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, The Great Successor: The Divinely Perfect Destiny of Brilliant Comrade Kim Jong Un, is so refreshing. Fifield, the Beijing bureau chief of the Washington Post, has collated what is probably the current maximum of what can be known about the leader of a secretive, nuclear-armed state. Nevertheless, it is a fine piece of journalism. With more than two decades of experience in covering the two Koreas for the Financial Times and the Post, Fifield doggedly sifted through primarily- and secondarily-sourced information and fact-checked to create a fair and unbiased portrait of Kim. In an environment where the US debate over North Korea is most often defined by hysterics and saber-rattling, a balanced account like Fifield’s is crucial. It’s also a reminder that there is more to North Korea than its nuclear weapons. Whether its economic and political structure can support the country’s working class should also be of interest to socialists. Fifield’s account gives us insight into both.

Self-Sufficiency

As Fifield notes in her book, North Korea’s economy was actually larger than the South’s until the mid-1970s. Indeed, out of the ruins of the 1950–53 Korean War, North Korea staged a spectacular economic recovery. It sounds surreal now, but in the late 1950s to mid-1970s, average North Koreans were fed and sheltered better than their Chinese or South Korean neighbors.

North Korea’s postwar expansion was possible thanks to the country’s mobilization of both natural and human domestic resources; plus fraternal aid from China and the Soviet Union. Fifield aptly explains that the North Korean government’s claim that it achieved complete self-sufficiency conveniently overlooks its dependence on its Cold War benefactors.

That said, North Korea was neither a Chinese vassal nor a Russian satellite. Fifield raises this point several times but does not dwell on it. Kim Il-sung, the grandfather of Kim Jong-un, rebuilt the economy with Chinese and Russian aid, but often, in defiance of their will. In 1956, during a virtual coup later called the August Incident, he purged pro-China and pro-Russia factions from the Workers Party of Korea for their attempt to prioritize light over heavy industry at the advice of their communist sponsors. For Kim, a North Korea without its own industrial base would be doomed to dependency on China or the Soviet Union. He asserted that the country needed to develop both light and heavy industries simultaneously.

In September of that year, the Soviet Union and China jointly intervened to undo the purge by sending Nikita Khrushchev confidante Anastas Mikoyan and Korean War–era commander of the Chinese People’s Volunteers Peng Denhuai to Pyongyang.

Kim emerged triumphant not just because his nationalist slogans rallied young cadres. China and the Soviet Union could not unseat Kim from power because their mutually increasing rivalry meant they could not agree to an alternative to Kim who would simultaneously suit their different needs.

Kim Il-sung consolidated a mostly self-sufficient socioeconomic system that ran on domestic resources, while playing the two communist superpowers off against each other over their rivalry in the region. In parallel, he expurgated any possible domestic dissent that might undermine his position with respect to the two allies.

After the purge, Kim Il-sung introduced the concept of juche, or self-reliance, as the guiding ideology of the country. A personality cult began to rise, laying the groundwork for Kim’s one-man rule, which, over three generations, morphed into one family’s hereditary rule.

The outcome of the August incident still has reverberations on the mindset of Kim Jong-un who has shown zero tolerance for any externally linked dissent. The grandson of Kim Il-sung executed his China-connected uncle and once regent, Jang Song Thaek, and engineered the public assassination of Kim Jong-nam, his self-dealing half brother with CIA ties.

Implosion Foretold

Woefully absent from Fifield’s book are the details of how North Korea slid into famine in the early 1990s. The North Korean socioeconomic system was based on a contradiction: it needed a strong self-sufficient base in order to have the leverage needed to manipulate the Sino-Russian rivalry to its advantage. This meant an increasingly unsustainable exploitation of its natural and human resources.

This contradiction became evident in the agrarian sector by the early 1980s. North Korea became a net importer of grains from China, which sold grains and fuel at a socialist fraternal price, far below market value. North Korea is not an ideal place for food sufficiency. Before the division, the North was an industrial hub that depended on the South, the granary of the peninsula, for grains. Only 16 percent of North Korea’s mountainous surface is arable, and weather conditions are harsh and cold. None of the North’s technological advances could make up for these inherent limits.

Any attempt at improving agrarian productivity took its toll on the environment and human life in the form of overexploitation of arable land and longer and more intensive working hours. By 2011, a UN report said, “As soils degraded due to attempts to boost productivity, yields started to decline.  More and more fertilizers were needed to maintain the production level and more and more pesticides were needed to control pests.”

The entire economy was subject to this self-enforcing vicious cycle in the agrarian sector. Meanwhile, the country’s near-exclusive dependence on domestic coal and hydroelectric power left the energy sector vulnerable.

Thus, the North Korean famine of 1994–96, which the New York Times said left more than two million dead in 1995–1998, was not caused solely by the deluge of a warm El Niño weather pattern.

Internally, North Korea was imploding because of the way it had built and run its socioeconomic structure. Years of soil degradation meant large portions of soil no longer held together. Deforestation for the country’s ubiquitous rice paddy terraces had left much of its surface vulnerable to landslide. Industry was brought to a stop as flooding disabled already-dilapidated hydroelectric plants and inundated coal mines. Food rations discontinued. Externally, there was no communist ally left to provide fraternal assistance. The Soviet Union had collapsed. China had embarked on market reforms and was preparing to join the World Trade Organization, which penalizes its members for unfair trade practices such as fraternal pricing.

Expediency of Staying Power

North Korea was an industrialized economy, where urban residents outnumbered rural ones. In modern history, no industrialized economy grounded to a halt as phenomenally and abruptly as did the North.

The North Korean state should have collapsed at least two decades ago. But it still stands where it has been in the past seven decades due to a combination of mutually conflicting domestic and international factors.

In the aftermath of the famine, there was a tacit consensus among the North’s foes and friends alike that a North Korean collapse would be a nightmare unleashing all sorts of trouble into the region, from a refugee crisis to a runaway military machine. They kept North Korea above the famine line, with humanitarian aid. When it was not applying sanctions, the United States was the largest contributor to the World Food Program for North Korea up until 2006. But U.S. aid discontinued in 2008 as North Korea continued to step up the development of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Weapons: Multipurpose Insurance Policy

The consensus of shoring up North Korea was an expedient one. In a famine-stricken, desperate country, any political change from within was out of the question, leaving the Kim family and their small cohort in control. Probably, more importantly, any substantial political change could not be injected into the North without entirely recasting the post–Cold War political landscape of Northeastern Asia, where economic and military interests of the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan, and Russia began again to promiscuously cross. In the post–Cold War 1990s, China was growing exponentially. However, it was still far from having the same weight as Japan economically or the United States politically in Northeastern Asia. Japan was sliding into a decade of economic recession, later termed the Lost Decade. Russia was wrestling with its irreversibly declining influence on the region. For South Korea, the specter of a collapse-induced reunification was a prohibitively expensive one that would ruin its burgeoning economy. For all these countries, North Korea was a liability. The United States had little incentive to sway the regional pollical balance already tilted in its direction.

In this context, nuclear weapons were and are a multipurpose insurance policy for Kim Jong-un and his cohort. The nuclear capacity of the North has already placed the continental U.S. within its fire range. However, North Korea will not nuke the United States or Japan or South Korea for that matter, because retaliation would be instant and deadly.

Rather, the nuclear weapons are an invincible bargaining chip to play foes and friends off against one another to gain the most — in the same way North Korea did during the Cold War with its communist allies. They provide the young leader’s legitimacy as a military leader among his enormous army. They are the reincarnation of once-diminished national pride among the North Korean people. Indeed, North Korea has enshrined itself as global nuclear power in its own constitution.

Fifield concludes that for these reasons North Korea won’t likely abandon its nuclear weapons. Or at the very least, it won’t give up them in a single big deal, as the United States has been pursuing for two decades. A denuclearized North Korea will be the result of careful and committed diplomatic efforts, like those initiated by South Korean president Moon Jae-in, that may well last more than a decade. Kim Jong-un won’t surrender his nuclear bargaining chip until it becomes irrelevant to the game of international relations.

Kim Jong-un’s New Normal

Domestically, the North Korean elite began to adapt to the post-famine situation by 1999. Kim Jong-il, the father of Jong-un, at first condoned the ad hoc markets that sprang up nationwide, where people bartered their necessities. The government often looked the other way as small-scale trading and smuggling began to flourish with China. When the government tightened control over the markets and trades, newly emerging merchants bribed their way around it.

Living standards improved, though they never recovered to pre-famine levels. However, some North Koreans — especially those with connections to the government and the party — became richer than others. All North Koreans became better off when they got around or curbed their once omnipotent state — in their unprecedented confirmation that there was an alternative to the state’s monopoly and dysfunctional ration and health care systems.

It was under Kim Jong-un that these markets became fully allowed. The once scattershot network had become too important to the economy to be eliminated or subdued. Now donju, or wealthy money lords, have emerged to control increasing numbers of mines, factories, and even real estate. Much of their network is lubricated by briberies and kickbacks, with “everyone jockeying to show his or her loyalty to the regime and amass more economic power.”

In a chapter called “The Elite of Pyonghattan,” a portmanteau of Pyongyang and Manhattan, Fifield vividly depicted how the children of state bureaucrats and donju, the North’s 1 percenters, enjoy their life, sipping cappuccino and gobbling up on fresh sushi while much of the country struggles to stay above the famine line. As one North Korean defector said, “They say North Korea is a socialist country, but when I gave birth, I had to bring the rubber gloves and the drip and the syringe and the meals for the doctor and everyone else on staff.”

Evidently, the 1 percenters are Kim Jong-un’s constituency. For them, life is good and will likely be better under Kim. But what about the remaining 99 percent? They are now experiencing a new form of inequality and corruption while they want to not just survive but also thrive. Their economic and political expectations and hopes are higher than any point in the history of North Korea. While pointing to the fact Kim Jong-un learned about the French Revolution at his Swiss boarding school, Fifield asked, “Political scientists will talk today about the potentially destabilizing effect of rising expectations going unmet. Does the Great Successor remember these lessons?” Just as Fifield argued, the future of Kim Jong-un does not depend on how he bargains over his nuclear weapons but lies with how these 99 percenters will react when he fails to meet their expectations.

----
People often tend to think that North Korea is somewhat 'unusual' or 'strange.' I always wonder why. Inherited supreme power? Not to mention our good friends in the Gulf, the likes of Saudi and UAE, what then about the inheritance of super-sized fortunes in our own societies? It is well-known statistically that the majority of the US billionaires inherited their money, pretty much in the same way in which Mr. Kim inherited his power. And money, in the end, is the source of power, isn't it?

A society exhibiting glaring contrasts between Pyongyang's middle-class prosperity and provincial poverty, now economically dominated by wealthy investors (tonju) with governmental links?

What about the proliferation of gated communities elsewhere, or about out own neo-patrimonial neoliberalism, which allows politically well-connected conglomerated to benefit from all sorts of "privatizations"?

Nuclear weapons as the ultimate 'insurance policy'? Had US invited Mr. Kim under its nuclear umbrella, I could well imagine him accepting the invitation (and dealing a huge blow to the Chinese geopolitical strategy on the way). But he was never invited, and needs to obtain an 'umbrella' of his own.
North Korea is a part and parcel of our crazy neo-liberal world, with all its conflicts and contradictions - just in different forms.
Charles Park, Albert Kim and 55 others
31 comments
7 shares
Like
Comment
Share

Comments

  • You provide a good criticism of my analysis--I am really thankful.
    2
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 1 y
    • Edited
  • I wish I could be bothered to read Anna Fifield's book and write a review of it. But right now I can't.
    2
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 1 y
    • Same here! Would love to read it through, but too pressed for time right now...
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1 y
    • I just ordered it yesterday, though no guarantee I'll read it. I have to say I was never impressed with her reporting. Always written as if it was someone coming to it for the first time and merely repeated commonplace knowledge. Jonathan Cheng at the Wall Street Journal on the other hand (nearly) always produced interesting well-researched analyses that weren't just rehearsals of stylised facts, and showed that good reporting for a mainstream newspaper is possible.
      3
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1 y
    • Thank you for the tips! Will try to trace down his writings!
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1 y
    • I have read it but I found it pretty poor stuff. Lots of padding, not very well written and nothing new. I was going to review it but...
      3
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1 y
    • Thanks Jim. I sometimes wish I had time to keep up with the shelves full of pop non-fiction written about North Korea so it's good to have a reminder that it's mostly filler.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1 y
  • For hereditary power, obscene wealth and state propaganda fuelling a bizarre personality cult, one need only look at the British royal family.
    4
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 1 y
    • 앤서방 Which has practically no power
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1 y
    • David Shon they live in obscene luxury at our expense with no democratic way to get rid of them. That amounts to power.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1 y
    • 앤서방 We're talking about the political power, the power that is powerful enough to brainwash the whole country to serve the governor as a god, like the Kim regime. The British royal family lives in luxury, yes....but I just think they're a bunch of dolls for show of the british "royalty", "elegance", which are long gone in terms of history
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 52 w
      • Edited
    • David Shon you and I have different views about the power British royalty has. My illustration was simply to echo 
      Vladimir Tikhonov
      ’s point that we’re encouraged to view North Korea and the Kim dynasty as something strangely unique, and they are not. I had a similar conversation with an American, who said of North Korea - without irony - ‘I can’t stand their military-first policy’.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 52 w
      • Edited
  • I kind of have to disagree with you on this one. No country-including your examples-has this much of an isolation in terms of ties with the outside world....and other than the nuclear weapons, the dark and hidden sinister actions of the Kim regime, which obviously crosses the rules of basic human rights, is the main reason that North Korea is criticized
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 1 y
  • Much of 'isolation' now is due to the UN/US/Japanese sanctions which obviously are not of North Korea's liking.Fortunately, some countries manage to evade/disregard the sanctions and that is why you have North Korean presence/ties there. You still can find North Korean workers in Vladivostok, for example. As to the 'rules of basic human rights'....I wonder what happens with these rules in general as our neo-liberal world is sleepwalking into new disasters. Separating toddlers from their mothers and detaining them in the overcrowded concentration camps on the Mexican border - what sort of 'basic human rights' is that?
    2
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 1 y
    • Vladimir Tikhonov I agree, those incidents are also very gore and cruel to watch...but on the other hand, the United States offers justification for strict border control by its own/international law and its situation of society...United States would be one hell of a chaotic country without it. But is it justified for the Kim regime to kill and throw its citizens to concentration camps with practically no reason? Killing Warmbier for stealing a propaganda poster?
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 52 w
    • Vladimir Tikhonov I can offer hundreds of "disasters" that you mentioned, but I don't think that the comparison makes the status of North Korea any less inhumane...
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 52 w
    • Absolutely! I very much dislike many of the DPRK patterns of sentencing. In the same vein, it is above my comprehension how, for example, the US judges can sentence somebody to life without parole for growing some marijuana plants for personal medical use: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/opinion/outrageous-sentences-for-marijuana.html I would personally prefer to live somewhere where the juridical power of DPRK does not reach. And in the same way, I wish to end my sinful life without getting involved in any way with the US legal system. The REAL difference between DPRK and USA? The latter is incomparably stronger, which also makes it significantly more dangerous for the rest of humanity, and for our poor, old planet too....
      Opinion | Outrageous Sentences for Marijuana
      NYTIMES.COM
      Opinion | Outrageous Sentences for Marijuana
      Opinion | Outrageous Sentences for Marijuana
      1

      EDITORIAL

      Outrageous Sentences for Marijuana
      By The Editorial Board
      April 14, 2016

      197
      Lee Carroll Brooker, a 75-year-old disabled veteran suffering from chronic pain, was arrested in July 2011 for growing three dozen marijuana plants for his own medicinal use behind his son’s house in Dothan, Ala., where he lived. For this crime, Mr. Brooker was given a life sentence with no possibility of release.

      Alabama law mandates that anyone with certain prior felony convictions be sentenced to life without parole for possessing more than 1 kilogram, or 2.2 pounds, of marijuana, regardless of intent to sell. Mr. Brooker had been convicted of armed robberies in Florida two decades earlier, for which he served 10 years. The marijuana plants collected at his son’s house — including unusable parts like vines and stalks — weighed 2.8 pounds.

      At his sentencing, the trial judge told Mr. Brooker that if he “could sentence you to a term that is less than life without parole, I would.” Last year, Roy Moore, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, called Mr. Brooker’s sentence “excessive and unjustified,” and said it revealed “grave flaws” in the state’s sentencing laws, but the court still upheld the punishment.

      On Friday, the United States Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Mr. Brooker’s challenge to his sentence, which he argues violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments. The justices should take the case and overturn this sentence.

      Life without parole, second only to the death penalty in severity, should never be a mandatory sentence for any crime, much less for simple possession of marijuana, which is not even a crime in many parts of the country. If this punishment is ever meted out, it should be by a judge who has carefully weighed the individual circumstances of a case.

      Besides Alabama, only South Dakota, Louisiana and Mississippi have such laws; in Mississippi, possession of barely one ounce of marijuana is enough to trigger a mandatory sentence of life without parole for someone with prior convictions for certain felonies. Almost everywhere else, public attitudes and policy toward drugs in general, and marijuana in particular, have changed significantly. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical  marijuana, and four states, along with D.C., have fully legalized its possession for recreational use. In most states, the maximum sentence for possessing less than three pounds of marijuana is at most five years.

      In other words, Mr. Brooker’s punishment for marijuana possession is the definition of cruel and unusual. He received a punishment typically reserved for the most violent crimes, like murder, rape and terrorism, even though he poses no threat to society. The trial court even allowed him to remain free while he awaited his sentencing.

      In 1991, the Supreme Court upheld a state law that mandated life without parole for possession of less than one and a half pounds of cocaine. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who concurred in that opinion, has since spoken out on the scourge of mandatory minimum sentences, which he said are often “unwise and unjust,” and represent a “misguided” transfer of power from judges to prosecutors.

      The court has already banned mandatory death sentences and mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, both on the grounds that the Eighth Amendment must adapt to the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” By that standard, and given rapidly evolving public opinion on marijuana, no one should be sent to prison forever for possessing a small amount of marijuana for medical or personal use.

      Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

      · 
    • David Shon
      Vladimir Tikhonov That's very wise of you...but I find myself right now in the middle of Manhattan for school..what a sad reality xD
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 52 w
    • Vladimir Tikhonov
       Yes - and the US also sentences people to death outside of their country, and anybody nearby also killed by the drone sent to execute that sentence is, at best, an unfortunate accident, and at worst, posthumously declared a terrorist.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 51 w
    • Extrajudicial killing - basically, state-administered murder.
      2
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 51 w
    • Vladimir Tikhonov
       I read somewhere that they do have an obviously improperly handled trial for the person to be executed - so not quite extrajudicial - just a faulty and corrupt legal system.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 51 w
    • You likely missed this special moment in time (and I hope I haven't posted this here already), but I remember that during the 1990s there was briefly great excitement in Newsweek etc., about the USAn teenager (white, of course) in Singapore who went around vandalising cars and had been sentenced to several blows of the cane. There was a great deal of huffing and puffing about the permissive US and the overly hard (or just harsh enough) "East," and somehow it was hardly mentioned that during that very same time people his age were being sentenced to immensely long sentences in the US for all sorts of minor crimes. Somehow, there was not similar concern to rescue Salvadorean youth in prison for ten years for sitting in a car in the US with a friend who turned out to have both drugs and a gun. I don't speak in favour of caning, but I have trouble seeing it as more brutal then sending someone to prison for a long sentence. I think Newsweek also became terribly excited about the plight of USAans in Japan's "terrible prisons," similarly without any sense of irony.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 51 w
      • Edited
  • The isolation part is wrong.
    "North Korea puzzles many of its observers. Often it is referred to as being the most isolated country in the world..."
    "...The almost ahistorical assumption made about North Korea’s isolation, and the ensuing lack of knowledge (per Gates’ comments from the 1970s and Campbell’s remarks from 2010), marginalizes the significance of the country’s active engagement with, for instance, developing countries in the 1970s – which involved cultural, diplomatic, economic military and political relations with Eastern Bloc states and members of international institutions, such as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77 (G-77)."
    "...Further, statements referring to North Korea’s isolation usually fail or neglect to acknowledge that, if measured for instance in terms of official diplomatic relations with other states, North Korea is not even as remotely isolated as Taiwan is."
    Visual Politics and North Korea (Interventions)
    AMAZON.COM
    Visual Politics and North Korea (Interventions)
    Visual Politics and North Korea (Interventions)
    2
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 1 y
    • Edited
    • Comparison to Taiwan is not a fair one, PRC being in a position to enforce its "one China" policy internationally while ROK and DPRK used to be on a much more equal footing. DPRK mismanaged its own foreign policy, lost its credit by its own deeds or lack of them, aided, of course, by ROK's much more sensible moves.
      ("Mismanaged" is a word used by Barry Gill in his very good account <Korea versus Korea: A case of contested legitimacy>, Routledge 1996.) Much of DPRK's bad rap internationally is of its own making. I mean, which country manages to have three of its ambassadors expelled from a fairly neutral country such as Finland in the 1970s-80s for various misdeeds. (A Finnish diplomat once in an informal setting described the country's attitude towards the both Koreas at the time as "tried to avoid touching either even with a stick".)
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1 y
    • I think isolation has to be understood at different levels. At the interstate level North Korea has been very un-isolated since the beginning (somehow the old Cold War biases mean that people don't count the interstate relations among the Eastern Bloc as being real international relations). Then there is the more social/individual level of isolation of the population from the rest of the world, which the state certainly seemed to pursue between the early 1960s and the mid 1990s, effectively a period of around 30 years when North Koreans were relatively isolated from information about the outside world and any casual contact with people from other countries. I'm pretty sure that can't be said for North Korea today though as there is so much movement over the northern border and so much information/media coming into the country digitally.
      5
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1 y
      • Edited
    • Owen Miller
       It is a bit like people who will insist that the Qing and Edo Japan were isolated from the world, despite rather extensive connections to the broader world - just not always to "the right countries."
      3
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 51 w
    • The logic is basically: "oh so you don't want to be under our imperial domination? You must hate everyone then."
      3
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 51 w
  • Speaking of which, I am sorry to hijack your facebook, but I am likely to give a general interest lecture for a series called Liberal Arts 101, a set of lectures set up by my colleague Alison Meek for people in our community who were unable to pursue higher education because (generally) of poverty. Two years ago I lectured on foreigners in Koryo, but this year I have decided to be a bit more political and lecture on understanding the recent history of North Korea. I am planning to begin my discussion with the 1990s. Sadly, i cannot be comprehensive. Do you have any suggestions of readings (shouldn't be too burdensome) that I can assign?
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 51 w
    • Maybe Lankov's Real North Korea? Can't agree with everything there, but pretty readable stuff!
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 51 w
    • Hazel Smith's book is good I think. And there is now Michael Seth's general history.
      2
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 51 w

No comments: