Talk:Korean pride

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article Korean pride is being edited in conjunction with Talk:Korean nationalism, keeping an eye on avoiding content overlap and maintaining two distinct article identities, as merging was an idea oft suggested during Korean pride 's Votes for Deletion (VFD) discussion. (VFD discussion result was: no consensus) --Yonghokim 23:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Research

Please expand with more info and links

[edit] Original research

Err.. as much as I agree with the fundamental theses of this article, I think this is Wikipedia:original research which should be deleted. --Yonghokim 05:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you care to point out the specific parts of it that you think are original research or that can't be backed up by common sources? --Atrahasis 13:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think everything listed under

  1. Possible reasons for Korean pride
  2. Possible reasons for group-thinking and ultra-organization

are original research. I have done a fairly extensive search for scholarly articles describing in detail what I prefer to call Korean hysteric fascism during February-April 2005 with no avail. We all agree that the phenomenon is out there, and left intellectuals spout here and there (mostly as newspaper/magazine op-eds) that this is the surge of fascism and that we need to stop it, BUT there is no scholarly work on it as this is a fairly recent phenomenom.

Also this is not Original research stuff, but I object to qualifying individual instances of korean pride as positive or negative, because that's clearly POV.

--Yonghokim 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

now if newspaper editorials count as reputable sources, I would recommend 김규항's writing on the issue http://www.google.com/search?q=%EB%AF%BC%EC%A1%B1%EC%A3%BC%EC%9D%98+site%3Agyuhang.net - he wrote mostly on Cine21, ko:한겨레's film analysis branch. He wrote in some other left publications (ko:아웃사이더) but those have a small readership. --Yonghokim 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What is "academic commentary" but some kind of POV? Wikipedia has that "no original research" rule to filter out the fringe for their hard science articles, like for chemistry or physics or whatever, but if you think about it, that rule does not deal very well with the social sciences which are a collage of inherently conflicting POV's. In fact, if you take a look at a social science article in wikipedia, like the race and intelligence article, you'll realize that the way it has been dealth with is to include all the different POV's. Therefore in a social science topic like this, I don't see how you can write a worthwhile article that does not include POV's. The trick is to balance the POV's to bring all the issues up to the forefront to let the reader decide for himself, whcih in the end is the most fair kind of neutrality you can obtain. Newspapers and blogs are not really acadmic cources, but at times they can be taken to be credible sources, therefore I see no reason why reasonable comments that may be POV in a social science article like this one can't be included. The "original research" ban I think best applies to one not doing fringe work and presenting it as fact....in other words, that in order for something to be presented in wikipedia there has to be a general concensus in a community that so-and-so is in fact factual. If you and I can agree that the content here is on the right track, I say we can take that as a concensus, and no doubt there are others who are knowledgable about the topic may agree as well. In other words, the points raised here reflect an emerging concensus, not some kind of wierd fringe thing that is totally loopy. --Atrahasis 07:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I was writing a rather long rebuttal on your point that this race and intelligence is original research.. and decided to make it short. It is not, for it does not argue anything regarding race and intelligence. Rather, that particular article should be better titled as "Debates surrounding race and intelligence", as the article is a summary of the debates that are being carried over medical and social science journals. The problem with Korean pride, as I already pointed out, is that there is no such debate. When you collect people's impressions about korean nationalism, newspaper articles reporting riots and demos etc etc, those are all primary sources. As far as I'm concerned, the act of creating secondary sources (i.e. all that stuff that I now moved to Korean nationalism based on primary sources is original research.
But all this discussion may be pointless if the article is at the end, deleted -_- So I'll leave you in your HWS and VFD discussion and stick with my stuff, which is revamping and making the two articles (korean nationalism and korean pride) distinguishable from each other. --Yonghokim 10:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me a bit because I did not say that the race and intelligence article was original research, rather I was pointing out that it is a collage of POV, and that that seems to be the only logical way to write any kind of meaningful social sciences article in wikipedia which prizes neutrality above all else. If that's the case, then we can do the same here, and I welcome more input from others as time goes by. One thing I don't welcome is one single POV coming in and deleting or removing huge swathes of text, because that is inherently against the spirit of the pluralistic POV of the social sciences articles here, as I just explained. The value of the text you removed was that it gives possible reasons for and may promote a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of Korean pride, which any good piece of writing has to and should incorporate if at all possible.
As for your contention that there is "no debate" surrounding the topic of Korean pride, I suggest you look at how vehemently some people objected to the existence of the topic at all, and then decide if the topic isn't controversial. It is in fact controversial, and a good article on it should explore the many facets of it, which again can't be accomplished by huge deletions. The value of the text you removed is that it was the beginnings of a dialiectic which others over time can contribute to. I rather think you removed it all just a tad prematurely.
As for your contention that "secondary sources were created from primary sources" and that this constitutes original research, I beg to differ because it was more or less a straight description of just the way things are. People who are unfamiliar with the info presented may think it's brand-spanking-new stuff, but in fact it's not. Even though people have to inevitably sort out new info in their own minds, they shouldn't confuse new info with a new argument. --Atrahasis 12:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, for mor perspective on this, you may want to check out Wiki's "ignore all rules" rule.

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. Our rules serve as a flexible framework to support that purpose, but if rules make you nervous and depressed, then simply use common sense as you go about working on the encyclopedia. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is best to ignore all rules ... including this one.
On occasion, rules may be disregarded if this is necessary to make the encyclopedia better. Disregarding a rule for other purposes is not good; the corollary to "Ignore all rules" is "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point".

Ignoring all rules is about cutting through red tape to construct an encyclopedia. Remember, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Some actions may be reasonable, even if they might be against a strict interpretation of a certain rule. Conversely, some actions that are not expressly forbidden by rule may still be obnoxious and lead to negative consequences. The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter. --Atrahasis 13:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. --Yonghokim 17:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory paragraph

I don't like my intro paragraph.. I'm going to keep a copy up here and work around manipulating it to introduce a clearer concept. --Yonghokim 19:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] text

[edit] new version

Starting late 20th century, korean youth developed a sense of pride based on their korean race and heritage, claiming to have a superior culture and/or genetic makeup. Who exactly they are comparing themselves against when claiming said superiority varies across contexts.

The expression Korean pride refers to either

  1. the slogan of joyous shouting, similar to "Black Power!",
  2. to the inner logic of attributing superiority to the korean race, as well as
  3. to the social phenomenon of the spread of organized and unorganized forms of said logic.

Korean pride refers to this phenomenon. It is a term used both by external observers and enthusiasts themselves.

[edit] new version scheme
  • definition
  • history
  • circumstances (place, time, class)
  • more power -> more pride
  • KN benefits from KP

[edit] old version

Korean pride is pride in identifying as (South) Korean. It's a term coined by korean youth, mostly second generation, living abroad in an english-speaking country (most notably the United States). It's also often used by their peninsular peers (as 한국인의 긍지) with a different connotation.

The collective social practice that emphasizes korean race, heritage and superiority of those who identify with the term is also loosely called korean pride. Social patterns of korean pride resemble those of Asian pride.

In Korean Left critique, it is often called Korean ethnocentrism (민족주의), and understands the phenomenon as an increasingly visible one as South Korea takes center stage in the world political economy and East Asian geopolitics.

In the peninsular context, korean pride is an ethos shared by male youth, which consists of ultra-organization and group-thinking. While korean pride generally highlights korean racial aspects and emphasizes its cultural heritage, peninsular korean pride also incorporate a sense of nationalism, that imagines the South Korean nation (sometimes even the Korean state) as an embodiment of individuals' collective superiority. For more on this context, see Korean nationalism

[edit] discussion

[edit] Gender

I think what you have is good and includes a lot of info, but why the "an ethos shared by male youth"? Let's not forget that amongst the millions of soccer fans at the 2002 World Cup, there were quite a lot of women, who I doubt were really soccer fans but they were really jazzed about supporting the national team. --Atrahasis 12:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think women are not included in a discourse about national interests. I'd see korean women joining the cheer during the Word Cup as a manifestation of k-pride (the racial one, as we're narrowing our definition) and not k-nationalism. Because basically there was nothing rational about the gains/benefits of the World Cup, as opposed to all the profit that koreans were speculating about over the internet these past weeeks that could be made out of Hwang Woo Suk. On a loosely related note, korean feminists are keenly opposed to nationalism, even more so than against anarcho-syndicalism or leftists who reduce everything to capitalism. Of course, women != feminism, so that's just a reference. --Yonghokim 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to clarify that that fourth (and last) paragraph of the intro secion in the article is my attempt to establish a theoretical link between KN and KP. So I'm pretty much talking about KN. Hence, the "male youth" qualifier. --Yonghokim 23:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is korean pride an abroad or peninsular phenomenon?

I initially made it that because "korean pride" was an english word by itself, it should be a strictly english phenomenon. Indeed, my impresion is that korean pride is imported from Korean Americans in the US towards the peninsula, by english-speaking koreans in the peninsula. Is this the right impression? What's the opinion of the press, which talks so much about it? --Yonghokim 19:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's the difference between racial pride and nationalism....I'd bet the overseas or ethnic Koreans have mroe to do with the former while nationalism is more prevalent on the peninsula. But the nationalism can be even worse because it not only may incorporate racial pride but may have other ambitions as well.
The racial pride angle, though, is probably what we shoudl be discussing more closely in this article. --Atrahasis 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where does "ultra-organization and group thinking" fit in here?

I'm not sure if that even fits in korean nationalism. My free association style reasoning goes like korean pride - macho culture - army culture - ultra-organization AND korean nationalism (new) - national interests - anti-individualism - group thinking. But how do you lay that out in wikipedia? --Yonghokim 19:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The group-think and ultra-organization are aspects of peninsular society, and we see examples of their manifestation from time to time which can be quite impressive or quite embarassing. I think it has to do with the ease of flow of info and impressions...if someone says X it can spread quite fast and maintain itself for a while even though it may be complete BS. On the other hand this kind of thing is good for business and fashion, and up till recently I thought also for research, but obviously the "back-current" of something like Hwang's deception takes the steam out of that. In a nutshell, the bad can flow just as easily as the good.
How it fits in is that when it manifests in a spectacular way it is awesome and can fuel feelings of k pride.
If we're operating on the idea that k pride is racial pride, I would say macho culture and army culture are not really relevant to a general discussion of k pride because those things can be found in just about any country. Perhaps you should focus on what you think makes k pride unique and try to flesh that out. --Atrahasis 12:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to better express relationship with Korean nationalism

Is it a stretch to say that "korean pride" is a sentiment, whereas "korean nationalism" is a calculation? --Yonghokim 19:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that if k pride can be defined as mostly racial pride, it can serve to fuel nationalism. --Atrahasis 12:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 20:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That was a most logical decision, and if everyone waits a while we'll all see how this topic will deepen understanding of Korea and Korea-related incidents. --Atrahasis 13:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What on earth?

Good grief - this entire article violates WP:NOR! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you know the difference between original research and source-based research, the latter which is allowed? Source-based research is easily verfiable, like the fact that the Statue of Liberty is in New York and anybody can check it. If you think any of this is OR I challenge you to pick out the precise sections. --Atrahasis 09:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The whole thing. Yes, I know the difference. Care to show me your sources? You haven't cited a darn one. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You haven't rebutted my challenge, and being general like that is not being logically persuasive. Also, you've obviously spoken prematurely because Yongho with his expertise on the matter has just compiled sources. With all due respect, I think the phenomenon that you were experiencing was that all of this was new information to you, which doesn't mean that it's original research. --Atrahasis 11:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have. You just claimed that you have source-based research, and yet you have not provided a single source. Care to explain? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
No, you haven't rebutted my challenge to be specific about your claims. As for not having a single source, I recommend you sift through the content that Yongho has so far listed and then come back and talk. The problem right now is that you are not on the same page as the rest of us who have deep knowledge about the topic. Listing of more sources will come, but the problem is that the topic is something that we have read about in articles and books over a long course of years and it's hard to track down the exact references to them...even more so on the internet, which in my view is still a shallow source of knowledge. The bulk of in-depth info still resides in books. The problem is compunded in that this is an Asia-centric topic, which English sources are largely ignorant on. --Atrahasis 07:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't concur with Atrahasis on this last one. As I mentioned very very early in Talk:, I already did a search both on the internet and databases such as JStor and InfoTrac, finding nothing. (But back then I was searching for "korean nationalism+gender+black+AIDS", which is pretty narrow) Now I'm lowering my standards a bit and I'm finding some stuff, but a lot of them are in books. I don't know if Atrahasis reads korean (I assume s/he does, based on some editing behaviour), but I'd like to point out that all 6 or so books I have found so far in korean language talk about "Korean (ethno)nationalism" and not KP. I'm pretty much done with internet search I think, unless more creative searchwords for google come to my mind. And I have very limited access to korean books from Los Angeles, CA, which is where I am at the moment. So while I'm trying to gather material, the future of citations for KP doesn't seem very bright. KN seems better off.
Also, I don't have "deep knowledge of the issue". I just know it exists, and I can see it in action. And I hear people talk about KP, both on campus (back when I was in college) and on korean blogs I subscribe to. But blogs and informal conversation are not things I would ocnsider "sources", nor my own observation. I really need someone with access to JSTOR to do some search on sociology journals. --Yonghokim 09:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
As you said, the majority of refs to it have been in newspapers and blogs but mostly by word of mouth, which are hard to cite as sources, and even harder to "prove" to the unaware or the unititated that what we're referring to is a real social phenomenon. I propose that in this case we have to apply some anthropoligical initiative and write down what we know of the "word of mouth" content, which we can anthropologically classify as "oral tradition", whcih has its own standards for citation especially if none of it is written down. As time goes by we may or may not be able to locate hard written sources for them, but speaking in a sensible and logical manner, that shouldn't stop us from listing the content. And as I mentioned before, since the topic is Asia-related which English sources (and even Asian sources who may not want to talk about it because it may be taboo) not being very reliable, I say that gives us a bit of leeway in this case. It's not OR if all we're doing is description, rather it is the same as source-based research except we're writing down something akin to "oral tradition" or cultural items that are hard to nail down with written citations. Do you concur? --Atrahasis 11:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Take for example the entire "basis for" section...what we have done is essentially list something akin to "oral tradition", which is our source and therefore resource-based research which is totally allowed in wikipedia. We could in fact be more nitpicky and make links for some of the snippets like S Korea being the 12th largest economy in the world, but off the top of my head I don't know any specific article that explicitly says that. I just know it's often quoted by newspapers and the spoken media on newscasts. In such cases, it would be nice if we could link to something, but even if we can't that shouldn't stop us from listing the content, especially since experts like you and I agree that it's true. --Atrahasis 11:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

for what it is worth, the authors of this page are correct about this NOT being original research. indeed, among a number of writers on line in korea (ohmynews, hangyore as 2 ongoing non-academic sources) would find much of the above rather "old." it also parallels some of the points inside the arguments churning around "korean wave" writings. these ideas are certainly bouncing around and in print in various places, but perhaps here is an attempt to bring together a variety of disparent threads, which is a good thing. having said that, i dont find much of this all that convincing as arguments go and think newer arguments in national identity and identity trump much of what is here, but that is just me. by the way, from what i can see in this so far, it has a distinctly south korean flavor to it. unless you are claiming that the south's form of korean identity is privleged over that of the north, then you should seriously consider revisiting your assumptions on what is korean about korea, and what you mean by these two crucial discourses. and by the way once more, the term 한국 did not come into "popular" use until the south korean state began to do so around 1948, so as to distinguish themselves from their rival regime in the north. until then, virtually everyone on the peninsula referred to the place as "조선." so even that very basic vocabulary invoked today in the south is a modern discourse that represents particular interests rooted in a specifc political, social, and historical epoch. does it make south koreans less any korean? and the only reason i raise this last question is to perhaps point out that under the topic of "korean nationalism" you could ask such a question. i am not sure you can ask that question under the topic of "korean pride." so, keep up the good work of keeping wikipedia relevant and interesting. Hongkyongnae 20:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] database of initial sources and reference

I'm building here a temporary reservoir of sources and references that may be used either on Korean pride or Korean nationalism. Feel free to contribute --Yonghokim 11:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Way to go! --Atrahasis 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] korean language

[edit] Papers

Tagore, Rabindranath(1916), <동방민족주의론>, 노태구 역(1997), 서울 : 경기대학교 연구교류처

  • 강준만 (2004), ‘민족주의는 시대에 따라 어떻게 동원되었는가 : 한국민족주의의 역사’, (인물과 사상 : 성역과 금기에 도전한다, 30) 개마고원
  • 김동성 1995, 한국민족주의 연구. 오름
  • 박정희 1969, 박정희 박정희대통령 선집. 신범식 편, 서울 : 지문각
  • 유병용 외, 1997, <한국 현대사와 민족주의. 집문당
  • 이종훈 한국정치학회 1995년 7월 20~21일 발표문 내용 ‘한국정치와 민족주의: 그 과거와 미래’
  • 전재호 2000 반동적 근대주의자 박정희. 책세상
  • 최장집 1996 한국민주주의의 조건과 전망. 나남출판
  • 탁석산 2004 탁석산의 한국의 민족주의를 말한다. 웅진닷컴


[edit] Newspaper articles

[edit] Opinion Pieces

[edit] Databases/Resource Centers

[edit] english language

[edit] newspaper articles

[edit] analysis

[edit] papers

[edit] Shortening the section Korean pride#Basis for Korean Pride

There's way too many subsections in #Basis, and it makes the article rather ugly. These sections are all extremely short, and they are not meant to be lengthened any longer, since they can all point to their appropriate subject articles in the form of "More at X".

The meat of KP is #factors-#ideology-#examples. Currently, it's arranged like this:

  • 1.1 History
  • 1.2 Mythological origins
  • 1.3 History of resistance
  • 1.4 Religio-political historic mission
  • 1.5 Ethics
  • 1.6 Sports Heroes
  • 1.7 Culture
  • 1.8 Entertainment and Pop Culture
  • 1.9 Cuisine
  • 1.10 Science and Technology
  • 1.11 Economy

And I would like to arrange it like it was before, being

  1. History: length, origins, resistance
  2. destiny: Park Jung Hee, religion,
  3. culture: ethics, culture, cuisine, pop culture, sports heroes
  4. technology and economy: scitech, economy

and the particular styling I'd favor would be

=== History ===
; LEngth : bla bla
; Origins : bla bla

=== next section ===
repeat

[edit] History

LEngth 
bla bla
Origins 
bla bla

[edit] next section

repeat


All of this would make #Basis look shorter and make the reader focus on what's really important, which is in #2-#4

Is this ok? --Yonghokim 17:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I say you're doing a fine job, this article does need a simpler organization to make it more digestible. --Atrahasis 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll take that for a yes --Yonghokim 21:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hangul story equivalents

"This incident [regarding the Hangul word processing software] has been cited as probably the first time that an entire nation, from the central government to corporations to private citizens, combined forces to save a local industry."

Really?

[edit] Zeppelin Airship Company in Germany & Hangul Software

When the Zeppelin Company in Germany crashed its pioneering rigid Airship circa 1910, and didn't have the money to continue, a large number of German citizens from children to adults sent money to the company to keep it going, relying on the German Post Office to deliver the money without the letters being properly addressed, which is otherwise very un-Germanic.

The Zeppelin and Hangul examples are roughly comparible.

Tabletop 11:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating! Another example of national pride producing ultra-organization. One may even draw parallels between the kind of racial pride the Germans felt that led to Naziism and the kind of racial pride in general (even in korea) that will produce this kind of effect. Note that in both cases the ultra-organization was not a very capitalistic kind of thing to do, which would have been to let weak companies die, but rather something very lefty that involved personal donation and/or sacrifice, which may point out that such organization is possible in only essentially mono-racial "extedned family" societies where people feel that they are all more or less kin. --Atrahasis 11:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

One cannot read too much into the Zeppelin example. The German Post Office being a stickler for rules, ordinarily returned to sender those letters not properly addressed, but in the Zeppelin case, they too were caught up in the excitement, as the Airship showed its stuff over the capital city of Berlin.

[edit] Turkish warships & Hangul Software

Just before WWI, the Ottoman Empire (what is now Turkey) was financing two warships by public subscription, the warships to be built in Britain. People contributed their savings or jewellery. WWI broke out before the ships were complete, and the British commandeered the ships, as was their right, though this act was probably unwise as it contributed to Turkey entering the war on the other side.

Tabletop 04:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE-EDIT??? RE-ORGANIZATION???

Ok, be nice please. First time editing in Wiki, but I wanted to contribute so here goes. I thought the article was quite sparse in quite a few areas and I think the article takes a few things for granted and makes assumptions that might not be necessarily true. I do understand that sources are difficult to find, but things like the term "Korean Pride" coined by the Korean Youth (source?), the Koreans being proud of their history of resistance as being "unprecedented in the history of the world" (source??), mythological origins of one being quoted to be "70,000 BC" (source?), etc.. lack of concrete sources, makes this article quite unbalanced. I understand that people might have heard this through korean friends or "primary sources", but to write such things down as encyclopedic fact, is quite presumptious... Point in fact, I'm a korean youth myself who lived in Korea, in other Asian countries, and North America. I have had my fair share of hearing many sides of the story, but the article I think is taking a few too many liberties. For example, there is, although may be my opinion (But since I'm a primary source myself), another deeper root of which many Korean Youth, in Korea and out, understand and know of this Korean Pride and Nationalistic Fervor, yet perhaps due to the hierarchial structure or "group-think", feel obliged not to point out such things as perhaps... a bit too zealous. So, to say there is an actual "Korean Pride" and it is acknowledged as such by all or most, is debatable. I think such contrasting view should be added to make this more balanced.

I think though, this article needs to be cleaned up to separate the rumours, the gossip, etc from the facts for the basis of Korean Pride... or at least make a clear distinction between the fact and the fiction, because I whole-heartedly agree that part of the phenomenon of "Korean Pride" is boasting and rumours. I think there should be a clear cut line stating this and that is what is believed for Korean Pride, while acknowledging another part as real. At this moment, the article seems to point to Korea and the Korean people as this deluded group who would believe in almost anything for Korean Nationalism and Pride including gross lies, myths, etc. That may be the perception, especially due to the Hwang Woo Suk tragedy/debacle, but that could be partially debated to again, a stereotype of the Korean demographic from the Outside.. NOT the inside.

Plus, I think another area we need to bring in is to find sources that delve deep into WHY such "Korean Pride" exists or is what it is. I found this site and article, I don't know if it has already been read, but here it is:

Korean American Experience: Ethnic Mobilization as a Mode of Incorporation

Yoon In-jin


Document File : 02 Yoon In-jin .pdf

This study examines and analyzes pending issues of the Korean American community, such as the history of immigration and settlement, the state of social and economic adjustment, race and ethnic relations with other groups, and the nature of ethnic identity and attachment. In particular, I investigate the mode of incorporation of Koreans in U.S. society and propose a theory that can adequately explain the Korean American experience. The primary data for this study is from a mail-out survey conducted in eleven cities of the United States from February to April 1996. 3,040 questionnaires (written in either English or Korean) were sent to survey agents (individuals as well as Korean ethnic organizations, like Korean churches, newspapers, and Korean language schools) and 1,315 were returned, a response rate of 43.3%. Supplementary statistical data was gathered from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Bureau of Census. This data was used to analyze trends in Korean immigration to the United States as well as the socioeconomic characteristics of the Korean American population. The Korean experience in the United States contains complex, multifarious, and sometimes contradictory aspects, which cannot adequately be explained by assimilation theory or pluralism. Instead, ethnic mobilization theory can best explain Koreans’ incorporation into U.S. society. Societal disadvantages and discrimination provide Koreans with the impetus to mobilize ethnic resources and solidarity to protect and advance their safety and welfare. Korean immigrant businesses represent Koreans' collective response to societal discrimination and rejection. Ethnic organizations, particularly Korean churches and mass media, play important roles in providing Koreans with social support and recognition and in maintaining ethnic pride, identity, and traditions. By creating protected niches in the ethnic Korean community and economy, Koreans establish a solid economic foothold and lay a stepping-stone for future generations to pursue upward mobility in mainstream American society. Because of their physical distinctiveness, Koreans are recognized individually but rather as members of a particular ethnic minority group. As a result, second and later generation Koreans maintain strong levels of ethnic identity and attachment even when they are culturally and structurally assimilated to the society at large. Korean ethnicity remains an important criterion of lifestyles and life chances of Koreans in areas as friendship, marriage, church affiliation, and career development. This illustrates that for Korean-Americans, ethnicity is not simply a symbolic cultural expression but an important base of social relationships."

[1]

and "The Review of Korean Studies" [2]

Research such as this point directly to the ethnocentricism of Korean-Americans and the pride that is associated with it.

It's also interesting to see the inherent philosophical reasoning behind Korean Pride, or Pride in general as philosopher Kwame Appiah states stems from an inferiority, need for validation, complex. It relates somewhat potently to Korean Pride and Ethnocentric Pride in General.

Ok, I hope this is ok and I didn't mess up some editing format or something.--211.38.173.186 02:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

hey! Greetings! That RKS article looks promising, I would read it on screen if it were not 44 pages.. but tou should totally feel free to add, edit or even remove some portions that you think that don't really belong in this page. I've reached a point where I'm conflating race and nation and nationalism with pride and a bunch of other stuff and I need to brainstorm this a bit over (see #new version scheme). Please please feel free to edit! This is not meant to be Atrahasis and Yonghokim's ideological toy.
.
I totally agree that KP stems from a need to defend themselves, ideologically, socially and economically, against what they perceived as a white-dominant society and nation. (A-hah! But they were mistaken! For they came en masse to, not White America, but Amexica, and Califaztlán!) The section Korean pride#Factors that drive Korean Pride definitely needs to be expanded.
.
On the other hand I dispute your suggestion that KP, as a trend at the very least, might not exist. I mean, there's people sympathetic to KP who use the term. --Yonghokim 04:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
What a great article! One that has to be thoroughly perused and digested if one has the time. But note that it's America-centric and it can't and shouldn't be the sole focus of this phenomenon which we call KP. With all due respect to the number of Koreans in America, I have to point out that there are also a great many overseas Koreans all over the world, including China, Japan, and Canada and no doubt they have their own sense of KP. My first instinct is that KP would be the most pronounced in predominantly white cultures, because overseas Koreans in Japan for example can try to hide the fact that they are Korean and change their names to Japanese ones and marry Japanese spouses...it has to do with getting along with the Japanese in company or business settings. In China, Korean last names can sound the same as Chinese names and so there is at times an unavoidable assimilation into mainstream China whether one likes it or not. In Canada there is quite a bit of racial mixing (25% of the country's population is said to be of mixed race) so it may not be as strong as it is in say America. In a nutshell, what I would find intersting to examine more closely is if KP is naturally endemic in a sufficiently large Korean population wherever Koreans are, inlcuding the peninsula, and/or if it actually is stronger in some countries than elsewhere, even than on the peninsula. That's one to keep in mind as we look for sources.
As for always quoting one's sources, that is always preferable, but the rules of WIkipedia actually leave room for doing the reasonable and appropriate thing even if you can't always find a written source, and you have to admit that Wikipedia's reliance on only being able to quote written sources can be a handicap, and can even be thought of as inappropriate in some special cases, especially where anthropological things like oral traditions and intangible or taboo cultural items are concerned. That's not to say that a written source for X doesn't exist somewhere, but rather that it is quite unreasonable to strike something out that experts know is true or exists just because you can't find a written source for that exact thing at the moment. That said, the most reasonable thing to do is not to strike something out, but rather to add new info, because it is entirely possible that one may be able to locate a written source for X in the future. But even if one can't, that shouldn't stop us from doing the reasonable thing and just getting the info down.
As for 211.38.173.186's experience as a Korean and his claim that he's a "primary source", this may be true to some extent but in my personal experience, the knowledge of things Korean by overseas Koreans can be quite shallow and there is usually tons of stuff about their heritage and of how the people on the peninsula live that they are largely very ignorant about. That said, if some things in the article are things that they have never heard about, that's a reflection of their own ignorance and not of whether X item is true or not. In other words, one is not necessarily an authority on things Korean just by virtue of his genes, because without a doubt there is tons of stuff he just never learned. For example, somebody like Yongho here was never really surprised by anything I said, whcih tells two things: He has a great depth of knowledge re things Korean and has lived as an adult in Korea for an appreciable amount of time and has probably studied there as well. In contrast to him, imagine someone who questions and takes issue with everything in the article and asks for sources for this and that...that tells me that this person probably has a shallow knoweldge of things Korean and gets most of his info from whatever English papers he can come across on the net or at his university or wherever, and has likely not lived or studied seriously on the peninsula as an adult. Put another way, to quote a professor of mine: "Real knoweldge is what you have left after you forget all the facts and figures." This has two implications: A person who really understands a subject will speak authoritatively on it and show great insight and relfection and can convey ideas in meaningful and diverse ways rather than relying on quoting facts and figures to sound like he knows something. In contrast, a person who really doesn't have meaningful knowledge about a subject will be the exact opposite and rely on dazzling with his volume and minutiae, and can often be stumped or infuriated when he or others can't find an exact source for this or that and will tend to believe that X item is simply not true because he has never heard of it before. This in fact is nothing more than displaying one's perosnal ignorance about a matter. On the other hand, a real expert can tell if something is BS or not not based on the fact that he never heard of it before, but rather that even if X item is new info to him he judges it based on whether it seems to fit into his overall grasp of the subject, which is likely vast and deep. --Atrahasis 14:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Atrahasis, I disagree with your last paragraph. What the IP user is trying to say is that even when oral tradition may be fairly continuous, to claim that as a sociological fact, one need to do more than just the word of mouth of a few dozen friends and family members. Furthermore, I challenge your claim that non-peninsular life experience lessens your knowledge of a phenomenon that, we have come to identify as diaspora-focused (because KP in the peninsula have the support of the state, thus would vye towards Korean nationalism than merely a sense of pride - e.g. when K youth were protesting Japanese State's claims over Dokdo, various congresspeople were involved in a semi-oficial way, as well as a statement from the govt to the Japanese govt. Indeed, I myself have neither studied nor lived in SK as an adult. Atrahasis, I sense a certain degree of purposeful taunting in your words against the IP user. --Yonghokim 17:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't taunting, rather I was pointing out to him that his claim that he himself as a "primary source" has its limitations, especially if we consider KP in the wider context of not just the Korean-American experience, and that any argument that one is an authority on things Korean baseed on just his genes alone is nonsense. And defining the peninsular form as just "nationalism" has its limitations too, because it doesn't fully encompass the sense of racial (and by that I mean mostly genetic and some cultural) pride which, as we established, is the core of KP. Also, I don't know precise details about your personal history of course, but it seems to me that you must have received at least some schooling or experience on the peninsula, because your sense of a framework of knoweldge about things Korean shows through. --Atrahasis 02:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My point was never to claim that I was a primary source and I am all knowledgable. My suggestion and point was that we should re-ogranize and add more things so that it doesn't look as if Korean Pride is some theory made by Atrahasis or Yonghokim and so that we can stop the continuous questioning by people that this is original material, isn't sourced enough, is a load of made up theories from friends and experience.

Plus, I simply used myself as a "primary source" (note the quote, unquote to show that I know perfectly well that this is debatable, and doesn't mean I'm completely valid as a source) to give an example of other info that perhaps you, user Atrahasis do NOT know about, and by doing so, give an idea of some things that may make this article more balanced. And yes, I have lived in Korea, and am living in Korea at the moment. In fact, I just might be more acquainted with the social underlying trends and beliefs in Korea and be able to be part of it as well as have an outside perspective. And yes, I've lived and am living in Korea for the moment, have lived outside of Korea including the U.S. and Canada and will be living there again soon. I also never claimed that because of my Korean genes I'm an expert, but I assure you there is a difference with Koreans opening up with fellow koreans vs. with foreigners. So, the claim of being Koreans isn't just completely invalid and you can't just wipe that off so easily and carelessly. And yes, I am a student, who happens also to be studying East Asian Studies... from both the "western" (I'm generalizing here) perspective, and from the inside... by living it, studying in Korea, etc. So please, I know perfectly well that I'm no expert, nor have I ever claimed to be. I just wanted to point something out and YonghoKim understood it as such.

Plus, to clarify, I'm saying source to those things because to the average person who do not know that much of Korean Pride, it really seems absolutely prejudiced and paints a picture of Korean Pride in a very negative light when in its entirety, it isn't completely that. Thus, I wanted to reorganize so that it shows a clear line of what is reasonable and factual, and what is fictional and boasting. At the moment, the article paints Korean Pride as something nearly blind and seems as if it dissing the Korean people. And YonghoKim... did I really say KP didn't exist? If so.. oops. I meant that there is a perspective in which people do realize it exists and due to a collective mentality and the hierarchical structure, acts as if they are also proud, when in reality, they might not be that proud. Then again, I can't source that at the moment, so... haha. Anyway, no hard feelings, and please, give the benefit of the doubt. I'm trying to help.211.216.82.16 08:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was with the re-organization and any additions because I felt we had a good base, until Big White Man came along and told us what was what with our own background...not unlike the way Christian misionaries would come and tell the natives what was what with their own ways. The problem we had was that we were dealing with an anthropological phenomenon that exists but is hard to find a lot of written sources for, especially in English. If the rest of you want to continue this article please feel free, but personally my enthusiasm for it has died. Wikipedia is not a place to get detailed and deep info, because as I have said before most of that is still in books or even intangible sources, and so Wikipedia is apparently to be used as only the most general and shallow of references. --Atrahasis 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR

This article appeared to be mostly random speculations and opinions, and even the central claim of the article -- which I have left in for the moment -- lacks a citation. There seems to be little evidence that the term "Korean pride" is notable. I might be wrong about that, but in any event, an encyclopedia article is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH and we absolutely MUST cite credible sources.

This article just barely passed AfD, having received very little attention there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean pride. My feeling is that clearing it out, asking for hard cites for everything in it, will help us determine whether it needs to go through AfD a second time.--Jimbo Wales 18:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources are nice! But as I've explained elsewhere before, an Asia-centric topic like this suffers in two ways if it is in Wikipedia: 1) Western knowledge, written or otherwise, is still very ignorant about lots of very precise minutiae and the more intangible cultural items of Asia, therefore to find Western sources for this or that may be hard to track down. Asian sources may exist, but they can be a bitch to deal with and are not as convincing as something in English, and neither is it guaranteed that X information is in internet-format. The bulk of detailed human knowledge is still in physical books, especially when Asia is concerned. As an aside, I personally find the internet is replete with very shallow information. 2) Wikipedia is notorious for being weak on the social sciences, but this problem is magnified when an Asia-centric topic is concerned.
Therefore, for a topic like this, the choices are to have very weak and shallow articles where Asia-centric articles are concerned, or to have realy good articles but put some faith in experts and first-hand experiencers and allow some leeway. That's not to say that sources are not needed, but imo for something like this, getting the info down first is more important than tracking down some obscure written source one may have read about years ago. That's not to say that sources may not eventually be quoted, however.
If all of that sounds logical and sensible to anyone, feel free to ring in. --Atrahasis 02:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo, your attention please

Jimbo Wales, I totally realize it's your encyclopedia. But have you considered that your personal perception that all of that valid info was "all imaginary and random" was because you are not from that particular cultural background? In contrast, editors here who are from that background had agreed on the content of the article and were on their way to researching it further. I assure you it is real to us, and frankly I can't help but be a little shocked and a tad offended at your cultural insensitivity. You yourself made up the rule that this place should not be a beauracracy and that the sensible and reasonable thing should be done. We were on the way to making it more "real" to the unitiated or unfamiliar, so was it sensible for you to claim it was all phoney and delete it all? --Atrahasis 03:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. User:Jimbo Wales was quite right to remove that essay. It doesn't matter at all what any Wikipedia editors thinks is true. What matters is Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for advice on how to demonstrate information that you would like to add to Wikipedia. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 23:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well then, I guess it was our mistake for trying to write a good in-depth article for a place that strives to be a very general reference. --Atrahasis 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallacious and Annoying?!

At the end of the article it says:

"as a belief in one's inherent racial superiority is both fallacious and annoying."

fallacious and annoying!!! Uh.. definitely not the standard of Wiki. Please delete... I'm still new to editing...:D

[edit] Unsourced

 "It's a term coined by korean youth, mostly second generation, living abroad in an english-speaking country (most notably the United States). [citation needed] "