President-elect Joe Biden's foreign policy team will soon have access to the letters President Donald Trump exchanged with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un, correspondence that belongs to the US government -- not Trump -- and could provide insight into one of the world's most enigmatic leaders.
It's partially true (but I still upvoted you, cause it's more wrong than right). From what I've read, many of the "prison camps" mean that you and your family are sent out into a remote forest with 100lbs of rice for a few years. From there, you're kinda left to your own devices with the other convicts. The guards are around sometimes, some are pricks, some are helpful. Once your sentence is complete, you're considered rehabilitated. You start at the bottom, but you can even return to upper-tiers of social life after some time with some networking and a bit of bribery here and there. Source: The top of my head from what I remember from the book North Korea: Another Country, I think it was in Chapter 5 or 6.
Caveats:
The idea of an entire family sent to "prison" may be offensive to western liberal values, and even socialist values, but we must remember that the DPRK has both a traditional/conservative culture, and that they necessarily spend an inordinate amount of money on their military due to imperialist threats. Hopefully if they were given the opportunity, they could develop a more humane judicial system (on the path to abolishing it down the line ofc).
I'm sure this doesn't apply to all prisoners, this is just one case that I had read about, and it would explain where the propaganda about "multi-generational" punishment comes from. I would guess that violent crimes are dealt with more strictly, but I'm not an expert by any means.
The book that I cited explains in the same chapter that the researcher (a western professor of Korean history) has not found any indication that the judicial practices of the DPRK exceed or even match the issues that are present in the United States (but we already knew that, I hope).
The idea of an entire family sent to “prison” may be offensive to western liberal values, and even socialist values, but we must remember that the DPRK has both a traditional/conservative culture, and that they necessarily spend an inordinate amount of money on their military due to imperialist threats. Hopefully if they were given the opportunity, they could develop a more humane judicial system (on the path to abolishing it down the line ofc).
That's a ridiculous rationalization for an insane policy.
It's not a rationalization at all, it's just a material analysis of why the things are the way they are. If I am a citizen of their country, I would be outspoken against the current state of things. As a westerner, I don't feel like I have any such standing to do so except in certain situations and with a certain tone. Nothing in my post is intended to deem "DPRK good" or "DPRK bad" because that's not a meaningful way of understanding things imo.
Saying they wouldn’t do it if they had a lower military budget is material analysis?
Where did I say that? I said I hope that they would, but I am not a citizen nor a member of the majority party of the DPRK, so I really don't know.
As a human being I have every fucking right to call it barbaric, and arguing anything else is fucking stupid overly woke idiocy.
What does that materially do for the people who live in the DPRK when you call it barbaric and leave it at that? Considering that most of us live in countries and cultures that are eager to fuck up the people living there even more, you're probably contributing to an environment that will allow that to happen. Chapo.chat might be an appropriate place to have a critical discussion of the prison policy of the DPRK, but I think it's worth treading lightly.
Yeah, I personally don't consider them part of the global struggle to achieve socialism/communism right at the moment, but they obviously are nonaligned/non-capitalist which is cool. My hope/impression would be that they would be happy to move along with the rest of the world if it were predominantly socialist.
I don't fully agree, they are too small, underdeveloped, and directly targeted by imperial forces. They are largely unburdened from the forces of capital internally, but they are heavily burdened by capital when dealing with foreign affairs. It sucks that they need to spend so much on their militarization and nuclear program in lieu of infrastructure development, prison reform, and agricultural development (they've had an issue with flooding that caused severe famines in the 90s). However, if they didn't focus so much on defense, they would not exist as a country at all.
In the past decade, they've made huge strides in development. They're putting a lot into the military, but if you look at their tech, a lot of it is designed and assembled in the DPRK. Look at the 2016 and 2020 military parades and tell me there isn't something happening. They'd need massive investment in infrastructure and education to design some of those platforms.
True, I don't disagree that they are building something, I just am not sure how much of a role it will play in building socialism around the world. I think that having a nuke may give them enough security to start directing resources toward internal development though, not to mention they could work with China as they develop their own IP as well (but I know that relationship isn't always as stable as it's most people think).
Edit: just watched the parades, and damn there's definitely a contrast
Yeah, I'm not a fan of military stuff really, but it's definitely a good sign that they're capable of producing their own hardware now and not reliant on old Soviet surplus. Means that they're actually proletarianizing and moving forward.
Cumings wants to humanize not only North Korean women, but North Koreans in general. Presumably, as a Westerner fortunate enough to have already entered the previously mentioned “world of profound difference,” he thinks and behaves just as, if not more, empathetically and respectfully toward North Koreans as anyone else. His characterization of his experience at the North Korean Museum of the Revolution, however, perfectly encapsulates the contrast between Cumings’ non-stop moralizing and his condescending tone throughout North Korea: Another Country. Commenting on one exhibit of gifts given to Kim Il Sung by foreign dignitaries, Cumings writes,
“My guide, a young woman whose English was less than fluent, paused in front of a glass-encased chimpanzee, and began to instruct me in a sing-song voice that ‘the Gleat Reader’ had received this taxidermic specimen from one Canaan Banana, vice president of Zimbabwe. I dissolved into hysterics and could not stop laughing as she continued to intone her mantra without dropping a single (mangled) syllable.”
Cumings is considered a “progressive” academic. His ostensible liberalism and unique ability to “transcend” his own experience does not make him a less dogmatic, petty person as demonstrated by his paragraph-long mockery of a North Korean woman’s English accent—obviously not up to his standards. Finally, Cumings presents himself as a person and a historian of Korean history (unable or unwilling to speak Korean fluently) who considers Korea and the United States equals culturally and socially, and in an ideal world, politically as well. Following the “cultural exchange” Cumings describes at the Museum of the Revolution, though, who had the privilege of publicly ridiculing and contributing to negative public perceptions of the “Other?” The young, female North Korean tour guide? Or Cumings, an older white guy with a comfortable job at a prestigious American university?
So this guy is just doing a white savior complex and likely has huge misunderstandings from not speaking Korean well himself.
Yeah I'm extremely aware that the guy is a huge liberal from the tone of the book, I don't take him uncritically as an authoritative source (although I more or less did here, I admit). One thing I really like about the book is that he's constantly having to admit that the US/ROK were the "bad guys" (as much as he expressly dislikes the DPRK and communism). I usually note all of this whenever I bring the book up, but I didn't do so here cause laziness or whatever.
But yeah, those criticisms are valid, if a tad harsh (he's extremely fair to the DPRK for a lib IMO). If you have more/better resources about the DPRKs internal workings I'm always looking to inform myself, it's one of my favorite topics.
Edit: forgot to mention, but obviously he makes a huge ass of himself making fun of the guides accent. Don't know what that's about tbh, but I guess he can fuck off.
It's partially true (but I still upvoted you, cause it's more wrong than right). From what I've read, many of the "prison camps" mean that you and your family are sent out into a remote forest with 100lbs of rice for a few years. From there, you're kinda left to your own devices with the other convicts. The guards are around sometimes, some are pricks, some are helpful. Once your sentence is complete, you're considered rehabilitated. You start at the bottom, but you can even return to upper-tiers of social life after some time with some networking and a bit of bribery here and there. Source: The top of my head from what I remember from the book North Korea: Another Country, I think it was in Chapter 5 or 6.
Caveats:
The idea of an entire family sent to "prison" may be offensive to western liberal values, and even socialist values, but we must remember that the DPRK has both a traditional/conservative culture, and that they necessarily spend an inordinate amount of money on their military due to imperialist threats. Hopefully if they were given the opportunity, they could develop a more humane judicial system (on the path to abolishing it down the line ofc).
I'm sure this doesn't apply to all prisoners, this is just one case that I had read about, and it would explain where the propaganda about "multi-generational" punishment comes from. I would guess that violent crimes are dealt with more strictly, but I'm not an expert by any means.
The book that I cited explains in the same chapter that the researcher (a western professor of Korean history) has not found any indication that the judicial practices of the DPRK exceed or even match the issues that are present in the United States (but we already knew that, I hope).
That's a ridiculous rationalization for an insane policy.
It's not a rationalization at all, it's just a material analysis of why the things are the way they are. If I am a citizen of their country, I would be outspoken against the current state of things. As a westerner, I don't feel like I have any such standing to do so except in certain situations and with a certain tone. Nothing in my post is intended to deem "DPRK good" or "DPRK bad" because that's not a meaningful way of understanding things imo.
Saying they wouldn't do it if they had a lower military budget is material analysis?
I think that's just making an excuse.
As a human being I have every fucking right to call it barbaric, and arguing anything else is fucking stupid overly woke idiocy.
Where did I say that? I said I hope that they would, but I am not a citizen nor a member of the majority party of the DPRK, so I really don't know.
What does that materially do for the people who live in the DPRK when you call it barbaric and leave it at that? Considering that most of us live in countries and cultures that are eager to fuck up the people living there even more, you're probably contributing to an environment that will allow that to happen. Chapo.chat might be an appropriate place to have a critical discussion of the prison policy of the DPRK, but I think it's worth treading lightly.
DPRK giving off VVITCH vibes with their prison sentences. That's definitely a holdover from feudalism.
Yeah, I personally don't consider them part of the global struggle to achieve socialism/communism right at the moment, but they obviously are nonaligned/non-capitalist which is cool. My hope/impression would be that they would be happy to move along with the rest of the world if it were predominantly socialist.
They're in a much better place to build socialism than most countries.
I don't fully agree, they are too small, underdeveloped, and directly targeted by imperial forces. They are largely unburdened from the forces of capital internally, but they are heavily burdened by capital when dealing with foreign affairs. It sucks that they need to spend so much on their militarization and nuclear program in lieu of infrastructure development, prison reform, and agricultural development (they've had an issue with flooding that caused severe famines in the 90s). However, if they didn't focus so much on defense, they would not exist as a country at all.
In the past decade, they've made huge strides in development. They're putting a lot into the military, but if you look at their tech, a lot of it is designed and assembled in the DPRK. Look at the 2016 and 2020 military parades and tell me there isn't something happening. They'd need massive investment in infrastructure and education to design some of those platforms.
True, I don't disagree that they are building something, I just am not sure how much of a role it will play in building socialism around the world. I think that having a nuke may give them enough security to start directing resources toward internal development though, not to mention they could work with China as they develop their own IP as well (but I know that relationship isn't always as stable as it's most people think).
Edit: just watched the parades, and damn there's definitely a contrast
Yeah, I'm not a fan of military stuff really, but it's definitely a good sign that they're capable of producing their own hardware now and not reliant on old Soviet surplus. Means that they're actually proletarianizing and moving forward.
lmao source
Here's some fun info on the author of that book:
So this guy is just doing a white savior complex and likely has huge misunderstandings from not speaking Korean well himself.
Yeah I'm extremely aware that the guy is a huge liberal from the tone of the book, I don't take him uncritically as an authoritative source (although I more or less did here, I admit). One thing I really like about the book is that he's constantly having to admit that the US/ROK were the "bad guys" (as much as he expressly dislikes the DPRK and communism). I usually note all of this whenever I bring the book up, but I didn't do so here cause laziness or whatever.
But yeah, those criticisms are valid, if a tad harsh (he's extremely fair to the DPRK for a lib IMO). If you have more/better resources about the DPRKs internal workings I'm always looking to inform myself, it's one of my favorite topics.
Edit: forgot to mention, but obviously he makes a huge ass of himself making fun of the guides accent. Don't know what that's about tbh, but I guess he can fuck off.