-
There's this KCNA article which has awful homophobic comments
-
This KCNA article which compares Obama to a "black monkey"
- This article** does analysis which states that the monkey comparison was merely referring to being a "trickster" which ignores:
- This KCNA article which is the worst of them all. The racist comparisons are unmistakable in my opinion.
**The aforementioned analysis article has what I find to be pretty unconvincing excuses for the homophobic comments, the quote, "a disgusting old lecher" is not properly addressed.
I'm willing to hear any possible explanations. I don't know what's going on.
It's a genuine tragedy. Much of the world sees all queer people as American cultural exports, or a type of imperialism. It's a common claim that certain countries simply have no queer people, and if they do, it's because of western propaganda trickery.
I really don't know how to fix it or even talk about it. The American state and corporations put on a face of LGBTQ equality as PR. ExxonMobil giving themselves a rainbow logo is in fact evil, but that's because ExxonMobil is evil.
I've talked with a lot of people from victimized nations, like Vietnam and countries in Latin America. The common belief is that queer people are some kind of American imperialist aggression to destabilize a country or make everyone so gay the birthrates drop. I really don't know how to approach it. The American empire doesn't fundamentally support LGBTQ rights, it just puts on a pleasant mask while it does imperial plunder, but for those in victimized nations maybe the mask and the actions seem the same?
I hate this. Death to America.
As always, the primary contradiction is imperialism in general and US imperialism in particular. They hold everything back. And until the entire imperial core is dismantled and the periphery becomes truly sovereign, humanity will never progress beyond a certain point.
It's an old contradiction of imperialism eating a new one.
Lots of places have historical understandings of sexuality and gender where some people are assigned identities we'd understand as somewhere in the LGBTQ spectrum. But here come the old empires, enforcing a 19th century European gender binary and heteronormativity. Generations of colonized people end up internalizing and passing on those beliefs, even if they hate the empire itself. So when the new empires fly rainbow flags in June and claim they need apartheid to protect gay people from the savage hordes, that hatred remains and so do the colonized beliefs.
I really don’t know how to fix it or even talk about it.
You can start by pointing out that 50% of the countries that outlaw homosexuality have these laws on their book due to the British empire. There's also plenty of historical examples of pre-colonized societies all over the world recognizing more than two genders, and of being much more permissive of non-heterosexual behavior. This absolutely terrified colonizers, they brutally eradicated it all over the world and replaced it with their cishetnormative garbage. Queerphobia in the Global South is not only a Western export, it is also still zealously propped up by colonizer religions and by reactionary forces from the West (or Western allies like Saudi Arabia or Qatar) until this day.
Also, the idea that ANY Western nation is substantially pro-LGBT is laughable, idiotic nonsense that only cishets in their ignorant privilege can believe in and that serves to pinkwash governments that treat me as a third class citizen until this day. The trans exterminatory governments of the West are paying mere lip service to our rights, are giving out cost-neutral hand me downs to the LGBT community and do none of that out of the goodwill of their rotten, foul capitalist hearts, but show even this lukewarm display of performative tolerance only after literal decades of grassroots activism from queer people who had to do all the groundwork in re-normalizing our very existence and campaigned endlessly for our rights, fought in the streets against queerbashing cops and endured endless legal battles in the courts to ensure our right to live as ourselves is respected at least most of the time. LGBT acceptance is OUR work and OUR success alone and i want to piss in the face of every liberal cishet hypocrit who thinks i owe them anything. It's not a western value to treat me with dignity, that's something my community has fought tooth and nail for AGAINST the West and still has to fight for AGAINST the West and its awful, genocidal terror values.
The common belief is that queer people are some kind of American imperialist aggression to destabilize a country
but HOW
you just give them the rights then and there's no movement :shrug-outta-hecks:
Yeah, I've never gotten how I'm supposed to handle that. What, am I supposed to sit there and let them shit talk me? Take one for the team? Fuck that.
I'm going to say a country that has send military aid to various African countries in their struggle towards national liberation and against apartheid at great material costs to themselves due to sanctions probably doesn't have structural anti-Blackness. Like come on, are we supposed to somehow accuse the DPRK of being racist because of some dipshit editor?
Yes, there's going to be reactionaries in any society and those reactionaries sometimes weasel their way into positions of prominence. This, however, is insufficient to prove that the society itself is reactionary. The DPRK was straight up training African revolutionaries in overthrowing their white supremacist apartheid regimes, but I guess all of that can be tossed to the trash because of four shitty articles.
Give me a fucking break.
There is a fourth apparently, one from the WPK magazine although I can't find the link. I actually would be interested to find out what happened to the author. The articles are no longer available even on naenara (although a lot of non-controversial ones aren't available either) so its possible there was regret.
there’s going to be reactionaries in any society
skill issue tbh, just root them out
Is the DPRK racist/homophobic?
I mean, probably. It's a nation with an ethnically homogenous population that's been forcibly cut off from the outside world for decades. But that doesn't mean you should start buying the US party line about it. This is just the critical in critical support.
The last time the DPRK was openly engaged in western discourses was when they were allies with the USSR. It's not surprising that they've been relatively insulated from the cultural impact of the 60s, which only really mainstreamed in the 80s.
Social movements become more progressive in coalitional struggle. The zapatistas are far more feminist than the surrounding Mayan communities.
Gay people are generally more pro harm reduction (in the public health sense) than straight people largely as a product of the AIDS crisis when we found ourselves allied with intravenous drug users.
The DPRK hasn't had a chance to struggle in coalition with the rest of the world since the Korean War and their publications reflect that.
Why has Cuba avoided becoming structurally racist or homophobic do you think? I know among everyday Cuban culture there's an emphasis on masculine bravado, probably ambient homophobia too, but otherwise Cuba is incredibly progressive compared to other Caribbean countries, and even other socialist countries.
Is it because of proximity to the US? Maybe it's because Cuba's history is full of racist violence and slavery, giving them a better context for struggling against racism. In any case, death to America.
Cuba had direct efforts from leadership, with Fidel's own granddaughter Mariela Castro as a major leader of the movement and making the push that it needed top-down support.
She has been absolutely instrumental in Cuba, without her I genuinely do not think things would be where they are today. There simply would not have been the support or leadership from the very top, it would have been a grassroots battle and a hard one at that.
I think one important aspect with Cuba is that they've maintained a relationship with the American left (and by extension the legacy of ACT-UP) in a way few other AES have. I mean, just listen to the way socdems like Bernie talk about Cuba. There's also the fact that BLA fugitives fled to Cuba, not Korea. I think you're right that it has to do with proximity.
I think you're also on the mark with their experiences with racial slavery.
It goes both ways though. The American left is better on imperialism when it's a country we've got ties to. Socdems talk highly of Cuba, but not the DPRK. BDS has built concensus on Palestinian nationhood among even anarchists. The western left becomes more progressive in coalition with imperialized peoples.
They're not really a multi-ethnic society so they can't have structural racism in the way have, which should make comments like those relatively harmless. They're not connected to a wider system of oppression. Nitpicking a people, who we genocided, about racist comments also seems misguided to me.
It's not nitpicking. The third article is an extremely detailed rant comparing Obama to an "African monkey". This is important because it shows a general racist attitude. These comments may not have a direct material effect but that doesn't excuse them. What you're essentially saying is that these comments are fine since the DPRK hasn't had the chance to discriminate against black people. I don't want to support a state that would treat black people in the same manner as the U.S. if they had the opportunity. Again, there may be an explanation but your justification doesn't land.
The problem is the DPRK doesn't have the history like US. Capture African people and enslave them, as others pointed out, they actually aid Africans overthrowing apartheid and white supremacists. The problem in this occasion I could said stemmed ignorant and hatred on Obama since he's american president. East Asian country in general, especially in rural area doesn't interact much with people of different skin color since they're homogeneous country. I remembered China also had this problem and still have it in current time, especially in their society, which is why they introduce many more law to prevent anti discrimination.
It's still racism though. You're right that it's harmless since the black population of the DPRK is presumably zero but it's clear that racism is alive and well there and even seems to be state sanctioned, which sucks but also isn't a reason to go full lib on the DPRK and denounce them entirely.
What's not harmless is the homophobia since gay people live in the DPRK too, but, again, moaning about it on hexbear.net doesn't help one single gay person in the DPRK. It's at least good to be aware that these issues exist there I guess, I dunno I'll shut up now.
Homophobic? Probably. Most Asian countries are socially conservative.
Racist? I’d say that depends on the person
Probably to some extent, yes. Every society has social ills, and reactionary idiot chuds are born everywhere.
Then those reactionary idiot chuds are allowed to publish extremely violent and specific racist rants in state media?
Apparently, yes. It's unfortunate, and obviously not something I personally agree with. But when discussing a country that has been ostracized, impoverished, and threatened with nuclear annihilation for the last 70 years, whether I, a hemisphere away, agree with the specific viewpoints and language of every contributor to a Korean newspaper is pretty low on my list of concerns for the region.
I can (and admittedly do) have a knee-jerk disagreement with this certain element of their social structure, with no other context, from afar, and with no input. But what can I do about that from where I am? And who the hell am I to criticize?
What I can spend my time and energy doing is talking to my friends and family about the great crime suffered by the DPRK at the hands of the West, and use my voice to counter the hegemonic narrative that North Korea is irredeemably evil and, short of being conquered from without and forcibly converted to a liberal democratic capitalist society, must be destroyed by hellfire.
Discouraging criticism of AES because they're AES, even when they're being incredibly racist stifles discourse within our movements and makes them weaker as a result. OP was not saying "N. Korea is racist (they must be overthrown)" OP was saying "DPRK publishes racism in the state newspaper, what do we make of this?"
That's a productive conversation and stifling it out of a habitual marcyism hurts our movements and our ability to analyze the world as it is.
I support the DPRK against imperialism, I'm just worried about these comments since they might indicate a national anti-black attitude.
re: @Nagarjuna as well: That clarification helps and I'm glad to see it. Perhaps my :bait: -o-meter went off a bit quickly and I should touch grass lol.
It's the single most monoethnic country in the world, not surprising people would be unused to getting along with other races. You know how humans be.
Yes, I suggest writing them a strongly worded letter explaining why such comments are problematic.
If ability to lead has nothing to do with blood lineage, then why have 3 out of 3 north Korean leaders been of the same blood lineage? This is kind of a thing that we have to critical of if we want to claim "critical support", if we can't criticize Supreme Leadership being handed down from father to son, what do we criticize? Uncritical support is almost never cool.
That's what you call it when the law says that the members of one family are the only ones who can be in charge of a country, yes.
How about the party rules, which govern the actual selection process? Or when you call the governing institution's rules just 'party rules' does that make them magically not governing law?
I mean, the 10 Rules say that the revolution will be lead by Kim Il Sung's family. What more do you need?
'''The great revolutionary accomplishments pioneered by the Great Leader Comrade KIM Il Sung must be succeeded and perfected by hereditary succession until the end. The firm establishment of the sole leadership system is the crucial assurance for the preservation and development of the Great leader's revolutionary accomplishments, while achieving the final victory of the revolution. '''
It is. I've been trying to chase down any actual laws on succession, and it appears that the hereditary status of head of state is informally accomplished through the position of Suryong (and lets be clear that the great man theory of Suryong is fucked up as hell and not communist in the slightest, regardless of how heredity itself is related to it) determining inheritance, but even that is not made legally apparent. Not that one can swing a stick at English sources without finding either western academics or NGOs saying what law contains without quoting the law. Japanese sources are, predictably, worse.
I'm trying to tease apart primary and secondary sources, which is a total pain in the ass and makes doing any useful research next to impossible. What I can see is a problem inherent to all regimes of a tension between law and practice, wherein the ways in which the law behaves seem to tail the law itself. That said, because everything in English comes from dogshit sources, I can't tell what's real and what's shit. And my dive into Japanese sources was worse and gave me a headache.
Kim Il Sung was the President of the Republic, a position which no longer exists. Power has been diffused at every step. The President of the Standing Committee of the SPA is the highest democratic power and is not held by a relative of Kim Jong Un. The President of the SAC is the highest diplomatic position and is held my KJU but he doesn't have unilateral power over the SAC.
"It's a monarchy because a family was elected by the people to a leadership role for three generations as a result of US massacres and sanctions that caused untold misery which the family gained credibility by guiding the people through". That's your argument, and it's awful. And then when someone points out that this sort of :reddit-logo: nonsense is why they left the website you get incredibly rude and snarky. How long did it take you to think of the "you first" reply? Jesus christ please just stop talking. You're acting like a child.
anti-communist? give me a break. Juche isn't anti-communist, but adjacent to Marxism Leninism, and they seem to be doing well on their own thus far. Calling it a monarchy is also idiotic and robs you of any authority or place you had in a discussion of it.
Yes, the article in question refers to the two prior articles but not the third. The third KCNA article (which the MRN article does not address) goes into a detailed rant comparing Obama to an African monkey. The fact that this monkey reference is a repeated offense perpetrated only against Obama and the level of detail in the rant (including the physical comparisons) goes against the argument that the "black monkey" reference was merely referring to folklore which depicted monkeys as tricksters.
The third article is pretty astonishing...some real colonial-era-level racism.
Alright. Just keep in mind its genuinely some of the most awful stuff I've seen written abt black people. I mentioned physical and behavioral comparisons which are also in the article.
Now I'm just annoyed, There's a comment on this post calling the DPRK a monarchy. I knew this would attract libs fr. "Listen I know my country bombed millions of Koreans and the family that originally held diplomatic leadership gained support for the way they handled the destitution but you can't elect them three times." Complete misunderstanding of monarchy, since the president of the SAC doesn't have unipolar rule and power has actually been diffused with Kim Il Sung originally being the premiere which is a position that no longer exists. Also the SPA and SCSPA apparently don't exist now?
Maybe I shouldn't have made this post because support for the DPRK was already extremely tenuous. This is something that needs to be discussed but probably not here. I'll just say that I think your point about the wording of "African zoo" makes no sense to me, nonetheless I guess if it were some kind of habit of KCNA's it would be regrettable but these are now nearing a decade old, it doesn't hold the same context in Korea (even if some of these sentiments were imported over) and these were isolated remarks.
They already got the international wave of negative press over it, and imo they got the message and don't need anyone still beating them over the head with it, we can move on from it. Their actions before and since speak much louder than a couple isolated nasty remarks years ago for example the support for African liberation movements throughout their existence. I was shocked from the comments and made the post to see if there were any excuses but there aren't; the fact that this was such a big deal proves it is not a common thread. I think splitting hairs over the wording is a pointless exercise and we can just condemn these remarks and move on. Do you think I should delete the post? LMK
