Monthly Archives: November 2012

Against “Anti-youthism”

Emanuel Pastreich
December 1, 2012

Against “Anti-youthism”

There is an elephant in the room that most people want to ignore. It is the biggest news around, but no one takes it seriously.

We talk about racism, sexism and anti-gay sentiments, but there is something at least as serious out there that has no name. I struggle to come up with a term. Let us call it “anti-youthism”. Read more of this post

“A new kind of scholar breaks ground in Korea” in Asia Times

The Asia Times

December 1, 2012

 

“A new kind of scholar breaks ground in Korea”
By Subadra Arvind

An American expat has found an odd niche in Seoul as a commentator on Korean culture, history and policy not for foreigners, but for Koreans. His name is Emanuel Pastreich, and he writes books in Korean and lectures to government and business leaders about how Korea can make full use of its remarkable assets from organic farming to traditional houses.

Pastreich is employed as a professor at Kyung Hee University and is the founder of The Asia Institute, a think tank based in Seoul. In his best-selling book, Scholars of the World Speak out about Korea, he interviewed leading intellectuals like Francis Read more of this post

“Prospects for Korean as an International Language” (Guest Report)

“Prospects for Korean as an International Language”

 Craig Urquhart

Guest Report for Circles and Squares  

November 29, 2012

 

Living in Korea, I often hear things like this from boosters or those within institutions:

l  “Hangeul should be used by more languages around the world. It’s possibly the most regular and best alphabet ever invented. I predict that one day it will be used everywhere.”

l  “Korean can become a true international language.”

l  “Korea is moving up, and one day we’ll be number one!”

l  “Don’t you think Korean food is the best in the world?”

l  “Korea is the most convenient country in the world. It’s the best.”

Often, when these themes are framed as questions, there’s an implicit assumption that if you disagree, you’re a critic, and critics of Korea who aren’t accepted as ideologically proper Koreans are dismissed or viewed with hostility. The opinions of many questioning Koreans, let alone foreign-born Koreans and foreigners, are often not welcome. From a foreigner’s perspective, I’ve found that in personal life, it’s socially dangerous to be anything but hopelessly positive about Korea or Korean culture. In theoretical or academic discussions, a similar veil descends over many people, blinding them to what seems to be something more accurately approaching reality. Read more of this post

Emanuel’s article in Korea times: “Taking Korean language global: Start with dictionaries”

KOREA TIMES

 

November 25, 2012

Taking Korean language global: Start with dictionaries

One needs to look no further than the Korean-English and English-Korean dictionary to see where we must start if we want to truly internationalize the teaching of Korean language. Most English-Korean and Korean-English dictionaries (all dictionaries that I have ever seen) are written in a manner that discourages foreigners from learning Korean. I think that it would be easy to create truly foreigner-friendly dictionaries and the investment could revolutionize the status of Korean language around the world.

Most Korean-English and English-Korean dictionaries are difficult or impossible for foreigners to use for the simple reason that they were designed for native speakers of Korean. Such an approach creates a tremendous barrier to learning the Korean language. For example, if you pick up an English-Korean dictionary and look up the word “happy,” this is what you will find: The word “happy” in English is followed by definitions of its various usages in English, given entirely in Korean. These definitions are incomprehensible for a beginning student and even difficult for an intermediate student. These definitions are useless as the international student does not want to know what “happy” means, but rather how to say it idiomatically in Korean. Read more of this post

The Problem of Introducing Korea Overseas (essay)

The Problem with how Korea is Perceived in the United States
Emanuel Pastreich
November 17, 2012

I worked at the Korean embassy in Washington D.C. for two years from 2005-2007. During that time I served as the editor-in-chief for the official magazine of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs online newspaper “Dynamic Korea” and also as the director of a think tank in the Korean Embassy, known as the “KORUS House,” that ran a very successful lecture series for diplomats, reporters, scholars and businessmen. The experience was tremendously exciting and I much enjoyed the time I spent in that wonderful little room on the fourth floor of the Culture center. There was a small window with a delightful view out over Rock Creek. It was my first time working with Koreans in a serious manner. At the time I was determined to help in the effort to make Korea better understood among policy makers in Washington D.C. Read more of this post

Taking Korean Language Global: Let us Start with Dictionaries and Input Systems

Taking Korean Language Global: Let us Start with Dictionaries and Input Systems

Emanuel Pastreich

November 17, 2012

One need look no further than the Korean-English and English-Korean dictionary to see where we need to start if we want to truly internationalize the teaching of Korean language. Most English-Korean and Korean-English dictionaries (all dictionaries that I have ever seen) are written in a manner that discourages foreigners from leaning Korean. I think that it would be easy to create truly foreigner-friendly dictionaries and the investment could revolutionize the status of Korean language around the world.

Most Korean-English and English-Korean dictionaries are difficult or impossible for foreigners to use for the simple reason that they were designed for native speakers of Korean. Such an approach creates a tremendous barrier to learning the Korean language. For example, if you pick up an English-Korean dictionary and look up the word “happy” this is what you will find. The word “happy” in English is followed by definitions of its various usages in English given entirely in Korean. These definitions are incomprehensible for a beginning student and difficult for an intermediate student. These definitions are useless as the international student does not want to know what “happy” means, but rather how to say it idiomatically in Korean.

Moreover, the definitions are given in rather technical language which is at a great distance from spoken Korean. The best Korean equivalent “gibbuda” is often hard to find in that collection of definitions because it is too simple a term and seems rather un-scholarly. Those definitions are followed by sentences in English using the word “happy” in its different senses which are in turn followed by Korean translations. The Korean translations of the sample English sentences are literal translations and are often rather unnatural in their phrasing. The purpose of these Korean sentences is to explain the meaning of the English sentence, not to give an idiomatic Korean equivalent.

So let us think about what an English-Korean dictionary for international learners should look like. First, the word “happy” should be followed with a list of Korean words that are equivalent of happy. Each of those Korean words should be followed by an explanation in English of the nuances of that usage. Then, there should be a series of sample sentences in idiomatic Korean that are followed by English translations and explanations. Moreover, both a hangul and a Romanized version of the Korean term should be given in every case. Often the actual pronunciation, and the stress, in Korean words is difficult to predict even for internationals who know hangul script well. The ending consonant of one hangul unit often changes its pronunciation, but not its hangul rendering, depending on the initial consonant of the following hangul unit. Any English-Korean dictionary for internationals must have a Romanized version of all terms that indicates such transformations, as well as odd rising and falling tones, that can trip up even a foreigner like me who has been speaking Korean for over a decade.

In the case of the Korean-English dictionary, the reverse is true. The Korean-English dictionary you will find in a bookstore gives a Korean word followed by examples of English words that are equivalent to the different meanings of that word. The English words are often followed by an explanation about their significance written entirely in Korean. But the international user needs the complete opposite. The international user needs to have explanations in English of the various meanings of the Korean word. Then the international reader also needs idiomatic sentences in Korean that employ that word followed by English translations and explanations about usage. As long as there is no English definition of the Korean words given, the dictionary will be profoundly frustrating for the international user. As far as I know, although there are simple learners’ dictionaries for Korean for beginning students, there exist no practical Korean-English dictionaries aimed at international users.

In addition, we need a universal option in Korean language input systems for word processing that allows for a Romanized input (using the alphabet) of Korean language instead of only hangul. Such Romanized input systems exist for Japanese and Chinese and make it far easier for internationals to write in those languages. The lack of a Romanized input system is a major barrier to foreigners writing in Korean which is unfortunate given the growing importance of the Korean language around the world.

Korean is increasing becoming an international language and we find people from different countries around the world communicating with each other in Korean even when neither is a native speaker of Korean. Going forward, we really need to do now is focus on the needs of international users for dictionaries and input systems, not just the needs of Korean users.

“한국 기업 홍익인간을 되새겨야” 매일경제신문

매일경제신문

글로벌포커스

2012년 11월 13일

한국 기업 홍익인간을 되새겨야

 

삼성 현대 LG 등 한국 대기업들은 전 세계적으로 대단한 힘과 영향력을 갖고 있다. 이들 기업은 미국 일본 독일 기업들과 더불어 세계 제조업 시장을 형성할 뿐만 아니라 다양한 분야에서 앞서가고 있다.
하지만 이런 성장에도 불구하고 국제사회에서 한국 기업 이미지가 긍정적인 것만은 아니다. 한국 기업들은 단기적인 수익에 너무 많은 가치를 부여하고 있으며 환경과 인권 문제에 대한 의식이 높지 않다는 비판을 받고 있다.
수익만을 핵심 가치로 여기는 기업들은 그 기업을 구성하는 직원에 대해 인간으로서 가치는 존중하지 않는 경향이 있다. 유럽이나 미국의 자본주의 성격은 초기와 달리 상당한 수준으로 개선되는 추세를 보이고 있다. 그러나 국제사회에서 큰 영향력을 발휘하고 있는 한국 기업에서 유럽의 초기 자본주의에서 나타났던 회의감이 재연되는 현상이 나타나고 있다.
세계화 시대에 인적 자원을 하나로 통합하는 것은 제1ㆍ2차 세계대전, 그리고 냉전ㆍ탈냉전을 겪으며 시행착오를 겪어온 자본주의 진영과 전 세계 대부분 지역 지식인들의 소망이다. 이는 자본가나 기업인에게도 나쁜 것만은 아니다. 가난한 나라, 힘없는 나라의 국민들이 교육을 더 많이 받고 경제적 위상을 높인다면 지구촌 전체적으로 구매 능력과 소비 총량을 확대하는 결과가 될 수 있기 때문이다.
그러나 현실적으로 인적 자원을 통합할 수 있는 힘을 가진 것은 각국 정부나 국제기구가 아닌 기업들이다. 세계 정부 창설을 상상할 수도 있지만 현실적으로 그런 정부를 만드는 것은 쉽지 않은 일이다. 그러므로 막강한 영향력을 가진 세계적 기업들이 좀 더 인간답게 세계에 공헌하는 모습으로 바뀌는 것이 현실적인 대안이 될 수 있다. 기업과 경쟁할 수 있는 세계 정부는 없고 이것은 실제로도 어렵다는 점에서 기업이 스스로 바뀌는 것이 유일한 방법이다.
핵심은 기업의 DNA를 바꾸는 것이다. 본질과 성격 자체를 바꾸는 혁신이 필요하다. 세상은 지금 새로운 정신과 문화를 가진 기업을 원하고 있다. 이런 과업을 한국 기업들이 선도적으로 수행하면 어떨까. 한국 기업들은 수익 중심의 기업 문화를 운영하고 있지만, 한국에는 분명 인간다운 기업 문화를 창출해낼 수 있는 홍익인간 정신이 존재하고 있다.  Read more of this post

Emanuel’s talk on the problem with islands: Solutions for the Senkaku-Diaoyu Conflict

“The Problem with Islands:

Long term solutions for the Sengaku-Diaoyu conflict”

 

Emanuel Pastreich

Director

The Asia Institute

November 2, 2012

 

The Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands in Chinese) are a set of uninhabited islands not far from Taiwan, the coast of Fujian, People’s Republic of China, and the Japanese island of Yonaguni in Okinawa that have become the site for remarkable dispute between China, Taiwan and Japan. The collision between the Chinese fishing trawler Minjinyu and a Japanese coast guard vessel on the morning of September 7, 2010 (and the subsequent detention and release of the captain of Minjinyu) made a long-brewing dispute over territory into a cause célèbre in China that has taken the form of a series of protests in both China and Japan of a severity not seen in since the Cultural Revolution.

The announcement by the City of Tokyo that it would buy the Senkaku Islands from its private owners, thus conflating private real estate with national territoriality, set off an even more virulent set of protests in China in 2012 that have created a sense of distrust and foreboding in Asia at a time when many looked forward to an age of increasing economic and cultural exchange. 2012 was slated for a series of celebrations to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the normalization of relations between Japan and the People’s Public of China. All of those events have been cancelled or postponed. In fact, even an innocent conference of comparative literature to which I had been invited was abruptly cancelled. On the Japanese side as well, protests are planned and emotions have run high—a marked contrast to previous demonstrations that were widely ignored in Japan.

[more]

Link to original paper

“The Moral Equivalent of War: Joining with our Chinese Neighbors to Stop the Spread of Deserts in Northeast Asia” by Ambassador Kwon Byung Hyun

This article by Ambassador Kown Byung Hyun, the founder of Future Forests, explains vividly the effort to get youth in both Korea and China involved in the enormous project of confronting the threat of desertification. Future Forests is a close partner of Asia Institute and this article presents quite well the important work that Ambassador Kwon has undertaken.

 

Ecocity Media

November 2, 2012

link to original article

 

 

The Moral Equivalent of War: Joining with our Chinese Neighbors to Stop the Spread of Deserts in Northeast Asia

By Ambassador Kwon Byung Hyun
Former South Korean ambassador to China
Founder & President Future Forest

 

It seems as if we are constantly preparing to fight the last war and completely unprepared for new challenges. But one needs only travel to the edge of the Kubuchi Desert in Inner Mongolia to see that mankind faces threats on an unprecedented scale that call our for our united action. We must use the full extent of our imagination to come up with solutions to this crisis through new global alliances that require us to completely rethink terms like “security” as we create a new civilization that can lead humans from the dark night of endless consumption to a hopeful future.

My engagement in the long-term effort to stop the spread of deserts in China started from a very distinct personal experience. When I arrived in Beijing in 1998 to serve as ambassador to China, I was greeted by the yellow dust storms. The gales that brought in the sand and dust were very powerful and it was no small shock to see Beijing’s skies preternaturally darkened. I received a phone call from my daughter the next day and she told that the Seoul sky had been covered by the same sandstorm that had blown over from China. I realized that she was talking about same storm I had just witnessed. That phone call awakened me to the crisis. I saw for the first time that we all confronted a common problem that transcends national boundaries. I saw clearly that the problem of the yellow dust I saw in Beijing was my problem, and my family’s problem. It was not just a problem for the Chinese to solve. Read more of this post

“세계의석학들, 한국의미래를말하다” 언론 반응

세계의석학들, 한국의미래를말하다

뉴수

2012년 11월 5일

한겨레 2012.11.3일자

세계의 석학들, 한국의 미래를 말하다

개성공단의 장기 전략적 목표는 북한 사람들이 어느 날 문득 자신들이 남한의 경제·금융 체제의 일부가 돼 있음을 깨닫게 하는 것이다. 이런 얘기를 한 사람은 콜린 파월 전 미국 국무장관과 그의 보좌관이던 로런스 윌커슨 조지워싱턴대 교수다. 윌커슨과 존 페퍼 정책연구소 공동이사는 남북한 문제 해결에 최대 장애물은 미국이라고 지적했다. 이들에 따르면,미국은 자국 안보이익에만 집착해 남북한 문제도 북핵과 안보에 초점을 맞추고 간섭함으로써, 남북의 주체적 해결 노력을 망쳐 왔고 통일에도 최대 방해세력이 됐다. 남북 문제나 이란 문제에 대한 미국의 최우선 관심사는 미제 무기 판매 등 안보이익이며, 햇볕정책이 좌절한 것도 미국의 오만과 방해 때문이었다고 한다. 북은 강해서가 아니라 너무 약해져서 문제고 또 그래서 위험하다고 이들은 본다.

<세계의 석학들…>은 경희대 후마니타스 칼리지 교수로 한국에서 활동중인 미국 출신 학자 임마누엘 페스트라이쉬(한국이름 이만열)가 정치·경제·문화·교육·복지 등 각 분야의 쟁쟁한 세계 지식인들 10여명을 직접 만나 한국 사회에 대한 통찰과 조언을 듣고 기록한 책이다. 이 참신한 기획에 참여한 그들의 진단과 제안 속엔 깜짝 놀랄 만한 혜안과 탁견들이 많다.부잣집 자녀 무상급식 반대자들을 겨냥해 “무상급식을 하기 위해 가난한 아이들과 부모들에게 가난을 증명해 보이라고 하는 것 자체가 사회적 차별”이라 질타하는 지은이. 이에 공감하면서, 물질적 복지도 좋지만 “소비하는 국민에서 국가를 주체적으로 생산하는 국민” 만들기 시민교육을 더 강조하는 벤저민 바버 메릴랜드대 공공정책 대학원 교수. 언론의 공공성 회복을 외치는 한국 언론노동자 파업에 경탄하면서 미국이 배워야 한다는 노엄 촘스키 교수. 프랜시스 후쿠야마와 독일·일본·아일랜드 등의 다른 석학들 얘기도 다 귀담아 들을 만하다.

한승동 기자 sdhan@hani.co.kr

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/book/558807.html

  Read more of this post