By David Tizzard
I'm sure many of you have encountered it. It's that situation in which you are only allowed to comment on something providing you have the right gender, skin colour, or ethnicity.
Of course, this rather unpleasant phenomenon no doubt exists more in the online world than in real life. But then again, where are you reading this right now?
People's right to say something is deeply important and while many countries have different laws regarding free-speech, hate speech, defamation laws, and so on, the developed G20 economies adopt similar principles that enshrine people's right to opine.
Here in Korea, articles 307-312 of the Penal Code provide a number of regulations and protections vis-à-vis crimes against reputation, defamation through insult, and the publication of false factual statements.
Perhaps most worryingly, even truthful statements bring with them the possibility of criminal liability here. To insult someone publically, regardless of whether what is said is true, brings with it repercussions.
Such laws seem designed to protect those in power from being criticized or having revelations about their character or actions revealed.
Thus, one of the earlier maxims I was told to pay great heed to while working here was as follows: It's extremely bad to lose face in public, but to make someone else lose face is unforgiveable.
Remembering that has stood me in good stead thus far, but there are times when certain things need to be addressed.
It begins with a comedy skit that featured on Australia's Channel Nine pop culture show "20 to One". While providing commentary on the world's biggest global trends, they featured – at number 18 – South Korea's latest pop idol sensations BTS.
One cannot deny the commercial success that BTS have achieved of late. Not only their selling out of Wembley Stadium and position on the American Billboard charts, they are now following in the footsteps of the Spice Girls and releasing a movie.
And so, with such success comes the inevitable satire and parodies. Of course, comedians and entertainers generally use the most popular and well-known of cultural references for their jokes… because otherwise no-one would get them.
And for as long as I can remember, comedians and entertainment programs have used singers and public figures as the source of the material – whether it's their hairstyles, their name, singing voice, proclivities, or even pet monkey.
So, the fact that BTS are now the subject of light-hearted observations on Australian TV is, if anything, testament to their growing popularity and global achievements.
Should BTS be exempt from criticism or humour?
Well, that is precisely what the internet demanded. The jokes were deemed "racist" and "xenophobic" by a whole slew of internet users.
It was as if everyone had read Edward Said's work on Orientalism overnight and were now experts on sociological and cultural observations.
They hadn't read it though, of course. They were just upset that something they love, and perhaps see as an extension of the country itself, could be treated so flippantly by people abroad.
Again, that's fine. Some comedy does upset us. Often, that's the point.
But the calling of the jokes "racist" and "xenophobic" is the problem. And it's a problem because it then clouds the water as to when something is actually racist or xenophobic.
The comedy was not designed to separate, segregate, or demean. Conversely, it was demonstrating that South Korean pop culture is now worthy of being joked about at the international level.
And, this is really important, it was COMEDY. It wasn't an academic article of the history of K-pop. It was not an op-ed in the paper about South Korea's growing soft power. It wasn't a university level debate on cultural perceptions.
It was a throwaway segment on a mainstream entertainment program featuring comedians telling jokes.
Conversely, what was not comedy were the remarks made by two Korean politicians this week.
On June 19th, the leader of the Liberty Korea Party Hwang Kyo-ahn stated, "Foreigners have not contributed to our country in the past. I don't think it is fair to maintain the same level of wages in mathematical terms for these foreigners."
Hwang's remarks follow a series of claims from the LKP regarding the current administration's economic policies and how his party would rectify them. Yet, to discriminate between people in terms of nationality and ethnicity seems deeply problematic.
Particularly if it is coming from a politician with designs on ruling the country and amending many of the country's current laws.
This was followed by revelations of a series of observations made by Mayor of Iksan, Chung Heon-yool. Speaking at an event for multicultural families, Chung is reported as having said, "Biologically and scientifically speaking, they say crossbreeds are stronger. Multicultural children are cute, but they might cause a riot if they are not properly brought up."
Again, Chung's comments seem to indicate his belief that there is a fundamental difference between those who are Korean and those who are not.
Is it a return of the han minjok idea that became widespread as the country fought so doggedly to create its identity and achieve magnificent economic, political, and social success in the face of a dreadfully difficult geopolitical situation?
Perhaps not.
Moreover, the situations I compare above are not simply a case of ‘whataboutism'. It's not trying to defend one bad action by pointing to another.
It's trying to make two points.
First, that comedians tell jokes and successful people will always be the butt of these. If South Korea is to thrive as a country in the 21st century – which I hope that it does and will support its continued success – it will have to be able to take satire, comedy, and the like from abroad.
Second, people – all people – should be a little less quick to label something as racist and/or xenophobic, particularly in online discussions.
This applies equally to media outlets who thrive on emotional responses from readers and viewers to generate clicks and likes. We have a duty to report accurately and provide observations as we see them in a manner that is fair.
But if everything is racist, then we will lose sight of more deeply problematic situations when they do arise. We will seek stronger and stronger language and then what will become of society and the charges laid against people?
There is a difference between someone saying something you find offensive and someone saying something that seems fundamentally racist or xenophobic. Together, we should seek to make sure that distinction remains.
Or at least so says this pale, stale, male.
David Tizzard is an assistant professor at Seoul Women's University. He can be reached at datizzard@swu.ac.kr. He will be leading a two hour discussion on "Nietzsche, Korea, and Me" this Sunday at Paper Street Cafe in Seoul from 4pm-6pm as part of a Socrates Cafe event. Details can be found online.
_2c99f194f0066.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
Of course, this rather unpleasant phenomenon no doubt exists more in the online world than in real life. But then again, where are you reading this right now?
People's right to say something is deeply important and while many countries have different laws regarding free-speech, hate speech, defamation laws, and so on, the developed G20 economies adopt similar principles that enshrine people's right to opine.
Here in Korea, articles 307-312 of the Penal Code provide a number of regulations and protections vis-à-vis crimes against reputation, defamation through insult, and the publication of false factual statements.
Perhaps most worryingly, even truthful statements bring with them the possibility of criminal liability here. To insult someone publically, regardless of whether what is said is true, brings with it repercussions.
Such laws seem designed to protect those in power from being criticized or having revelations about their character or actions revealed.
Thus, one of the earlier maxims I was told to pay great heed to while working here was as follows: It's extremely bad to lose face in public, but to make someone else lose face is unforgiveable.
Remembering that has stood me in good stead thus far, but there are times when certain things need to be addressed.
It begins with a comedy skit that featured on Australia's Channel Nine pop culture show "20 to One". While providing commentary on the world's biggest global trends, they featured – at number 18 – South Korea's latest pop idol sensations BTS.
One cannot deny the commercial success that BTS have achieved of late. Not only their selling out of Wembley Stadium and position on the American Billboard charts, they are now following in the footsteps of the Spice Girls and releasing a movie.
And so, with such success comes the inevitable satire and parodies. Of course, comedians and entertainers generally use the most popular and well-known of cultural references for their jokes… because otherwise no-one would get them.
And for as long as I can remember, comedians and entertainment programs have used singers and public figures as the source of the material – whether it's their hairstyles, their name, singing voice, proclivities, or even pet monkey.
So, the fact that BTS are now the subject of light-hearted observations on Australian TV is, if anything, testament to their growing popularity and global achievements.
Should BTS be exempt from criticism or humour?
Well, that is precisely what the internet demanded. The jokes were deemed "racist" and "xenophobic" by a whole slew of internet users.
It was as if everyone had read Edward Said's work on Orientalism overnight and were now experts on sociological and cultural observations.
They hadn't read it though, of course. They were just upset that something they love, and perhaps see as an extension of the country itself, could be treated so flippantly by people abroad.
Again, that's fine. Some comedy does upset us. Often, that's the point.
But the calling of the jokes "racist" and "xenophobic" is the problem. And it's a problem because it then clouds the water as to when something is actually racist or xenophobic.
The comedy was not designed to separate, segregate, or demean. Conversely, it was demonstrating that South Korean pop culture is now worthy of being joked about at the international level.
And, this is really important, it was COMEDY. It wasn't an academic article of the history of K-pop. It was not an op-ed in the paper about South Korea's growing soft power. It wasn't a university level debate on cultural perceptions.
It was a throwaway segment on a mainstream entertainment program featuring comedians telling jokes.
Conversely, what was not comedy were the remarks made by two Korean politicians this week.
On June 19th, the leader of the Liberty Korea Party Hwang Kyo-ahn stated, "Foreigners have not contributed to our country in the past. I don't think it is fair to maintain the same level of wages in mathematical terms for these foreigners."
Hwang's remarks follow a series of claims from the LKP regarding the current administration's economic policies and how his party would rectify them. Yet, to discriminate between people in terms of nationality and ethnicity seems deeply problematic.
Particularly if it is coming from a politician with designs on ruling the country and amending many of the country's current laws.
This was followed by revelations of a series of observations made by Mayor of Iksan, Chung Heon-yool. Speaking at an event for multicultural families, Chung is reported as having said, "Biologically and scientifically speaking, they say crossbreeds are stronger. Multicultural children are cute, but they might cause a riot if they are not properly brought up."
Again, Chung's comments seem to indicate his belief that there is a fundamental difference between those who are Korean and those who are not.
Is it a return of the han minjok idea that became widespread as the country fought so doggedly to create its identity and achieve magnificent economic, political, and social success in the face of a dreadfully difficult geopolitical situation?
Perhaps not.
Moreover, the situations I compare above are not simply a case of ‘whataboutism'. It's not trying to defend one bad action by pointing to another.
It's trying to make two points.
First, that comedians tell jokes and successful people will always be the butt of these. If South Korea is to thrive as a country in the 21st century – which I hope that it does and will support its continued success – it will have to be able to take satire, comedy, and the like from abroad.
Second, people – all people – should be a little less quick to label something as racist and/or xenophobic, particularly in online discussions.
This applies equally to media outlets who thrive on emotional responses from readers and viewers to generate clicks and likes. We have a duty to report accurately and provide observations as we see them in a manner that is fair.
But if everything is racist, then we will lose sight of more deeply problematic situations when they do arise. We will seek stronger and stronger language and then what will become of society and the charges laid against people?
There is a difference between someone saying something you find offensive and someone saying something that seems fundamentally racist or xenophobic. Together, we should seek to make sure that distinction remains.
Or at least so says this pale, stale, male.
David Tizzard is an assistant professor at Seoul Women's University. He can be reached at datizzard@swu.ac.kr. He will be leading a two hour discussion on "Nietzsche, Korea, and Me" this Sunday at Paper Street Cafe in Seoul from 4pm-6pm as part of a Socrates Cafe event. Details can be found online.
