Many advertisers regard the colorful billboards in Times Square as some of the world’s best spots to catch the attention of passersby. A 30-second video titled “Dokdo is part of Korea” will be played twice an hour, 48 times a day, on the billboard on which CNN broadcasts news throughout the day.
It was uploaded to YouTube a short while ago:
It says:
Hawaii. This is part of America. Sicilia. This is part of Italy. Bali. This is part of Indonesia. Dokdo. This is part of Korea. These are very simple facts. Visit Dokdo. The beautiful island of Korea.
In an earlier draft of this post I went through all the familiar themes that come up each time Dokdo, the Sea of Japan, or Kim Jang-hoon make the news. I'm not really in the mood to go through all that again, so I'll just close with some points specific to this ad.
Koreans frequently show a strong aversion to using proofreaders, to having native English speakers look over their English, and to running their ad ideas by non-Koreans when their ads are, in fact, intended for non-Koreans. Matter of fact, anecdotal evidence and my own experiences inform me that it hardly ever occurs to anyone to try those three things. This ad is an example of something that will look good in Korean-language papers but that won't have any effect on "foreigners" except to spawn some blog posts and a lot of comments. Here are some bullet points, because I'm too tired to make paragraphs:
* Complete this series of analogies:America : Hawaii
Italy : Sicily
Indonesia : Bali
Korea :
I'd be absolutely shocked if you answered anything other than Jeju. I wonder if Jeju, "Korea's Hawaii," resents all the attention the 46-acre islets get. When my students used to draw maps of Korea they'd frequently include Dokdo as a show of national pride, but would leave off the country's largest island.
* Why conclude with "Visit Dokdo"? If the point is establishing Korea's ownership over the islands, why switch over to tourism? Comparatively few people want to even visit Korea, let alone a bunch of virtually uninhabited, and uninhabitable, rocks in the middle of nowhere. Trips to Dokdo, when you can get a reservation and when the weather permits you to actually reach the islets, consist of little more than getting off and on the boat. It is not to be confused with a holiday destination by any means.
* I have never seen a picture of Dokdo island. Save your emails, I'm sure one exists, but my point is Dokdo is always shown as a pair of islands. The slogan on the official Dokdo website is "The beautiful island of Korea," but that's not reflected in the popular representation of the islets or even in the characters created by South Gyeongsang province.
* The ad has, um, "very simple facts," but after watching the viewer still has no idea what Dokdo is, why it's part of Korea, why there was ever any question about that, and why they should care. Oh, and why they should visit it. Although this issue is vitally important to Koreans, it really must be understood that this is of absolutely no interest to everyone else, and potential advertisers should not take it for granted that their audience knows about the dispute and comes anywhere near giving a damn about it.
49 comments:
"The beautiful island of Korea"
That says a lot right there.
Oh, there you go again, Brian, using reason and a 'global perspective' to subvert the Korean pathos.
Well, to be fair, ZK, I think Korea's islands are pretty cool. If I had had a lot of free time, I would have loved to visited some of those remote islands off of Jeollanam-do. I never did make it to Jeju, so I guess I'll have to save that for next time.
At the end of a day at Goldman-Sachs or Time-Warner it is everyone's dream to see a billboard that makes no sense and has no relevance to their life... you can completely dismiss it without a second glance! No energy wasted on thinking about coco puffs or monostat 7!
"Hawaii. This is part of America."
Grudgingly accepted, but a poor choice for the analogy they're looking for.
"Hawaii. This is part of America. Now."
There's a moment in the ad where they label a large body of water "East Sea".
Where's that? I'm looking at my map right here and I can't find it.
How many New Yorkers you think will know where this fictional "East Sea" is?
TIMP, no, pay attention. It says "East sea" because it was produced in the land of random, inconsistent capitalization.
I stand corrected.
* Complete this series of analogies:
America : Hawaii
Italy : Sicily
Indonesia : Bali
Korea :
Point well taken. Instead of Hawaii, they should have gone with Saipan, but the US gave it away to South Korea.
How many New Yorkers you think will know where this fictional "East Sea" is?
Probably only slightly less than know where the Sea of Japan is (see link above).
And the Hawaii analogy works better when dealing with Japanese annexation of Korea as a whole.
America : Hawaii
Italy : Sicily
Indonesia : Bali
Korea : Cheju!!!
An island which, like the others, is only nominally a part of the mainland, and deep down could give a crap about the mainlanders.
Folks in Hawaii give a crap about Mainlanders' money. And to some extent, I'm sure that's true of some Chejudoers.
Probably only slightly less than know where the Sea of Japan is
Yeah, but at least most people have a rough idea where Japan is (even if it's just as little as "on the other side of the world, near China, right?"). The word "Japan" in there gives them a point of reference. The East Sea doesn't. East of what?
East of Asia, near East Asia. Probably not near Western Europe or West Virginia.
No -- Hawaii, Sicily and Bali are all much more than guano-covered rocks in the middle of nowhere.
And please... picture the person who thinks "Oh, hey... let's go check out Dokdo for our next vacation!"... and googled it.
Whoever dreamt up this ad campaign probably cost Korea all 5 of the New York tourists it could have expected this year.
go back to the mainland you yobo-haole!
The purpose of ad in time square in NY is to inform that Dokdo is belongs to Korea not to Japan. Dokdo is Korea's; that is the true.
joy, it's not a good ad because it doesn't make any sense.
New Yorkers don't care about the Liancourt Rocks and never will, and that's true of just about everybody in the world. There's really no point in forcing Korea's political problems on them.
@Joy
Furthermore, the Liancourt Rocks are contested land, therefore, no, it is NOT true that they belong to Korea.
They are currently in Korea's possession, but they do NOT belong to Korea.
This is me posting,
How can you say that Dok-do is not belong to Korea? I wonder where you got that idea.
Dok-do was belong to korea throughout the history.
@Joy
Unfortunately, no, it has not. The Liancourt Rocks have changed ownership a few times throughout history.
It is my personal belief that they currently Japanese territory because of the last version of the Treaty of SF, but my personal belief means nothing in the face of facts: Of which the Liancourt Rocks are contested territory between Japan and Korea. Until such time as the two countries can solve this problem between themselves, they will remain contested territory.
Likewise, your personal beliefs mean absolutely nothing in the face of facts, nor do your ignorance on history itself. Saying that "Dok-do was belong to korea throughout the history." means that you don't even know your own country's history. I would suggest you study more about Korea. Therefore, while you may personally believe that the Liancourt Rocks "belong" to Korea, the reality is that they do not.
Please try not to confuse belief with reality.
/munches on popcorn.
*they are currently
*nor does your
This is me Posting,
What do you mean by "the reality is that they do not"? What is the "reality" to you?
@Joy
That's an absolutely fair question. Reality, to me, is defined as the state or quality of being real // resemblance to what is real // a real thing or fact.
The only reality that we can quantify and analyze is our own reality, and in our reality, these are the facts about the Liancourt Rocks:
- Japan has claimed ownership of the Rocks, designating them Takeshima under Okinoshima, Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.
- Korea has claimed ownership of the Rocks, designating them Dokdo (Dok-do, Tokto) under Ulleung-eup, Ulleung County, North Gyeongsang Province.
- Due (in part) to historical political strife, as of today (2010/MAR/02), the two countries have not resolved the issue of ownership of the Rocks between themselves.
- Since both nations list the islands as part of their respective countries, the Rocks are disputed territory.
- While the Liancourt Rocks are currently administered by the Republic of Korea, as we all know, possession DOES NOT necessarily equal ownership.
- Japan has indicated that they are willing to settle this matter in international court. Korea has indicated that they do not. Therefore, the matter is neither resolved internally between the two countries, nor externally in international law.
Those are the facts. All the facts point to the Liancourt Rocks being disputed territory. Anything else - including personal beliefs - would be incorrect.
No one except Koreans and some wacky Japanese care about Takeshima.
Koreans have been trying to spread their propaganda about it for years in the US and probably other places as well. What have the results of this been?
No one in the rest of the world really cares except Koreans and some Japanese people. Why should they? Most of the world doesn't care about Korea. Well, maybe North Korea. I'm not saying this to be mean, I'm saying this from what I've been observing.
These wackjobs who spend their money on adverts in newspapers and billboards should use that money to help out needy Koreans instead. Do something with their money that really matters.
I feel they are doing Jejudo a disservice. I've been there twice and it's a great place. Promoting Takeshima as a tourist attraction? Are they mentally retarded?
The only thing to see on Takeshima is a display Korean nationalism and seagull shit, neither one holds any interest for tourists who aren't Korean.
Oh, and to be fair, I will use the names Takeshima, Dokdo and Lian Court Rocks. Today, I will use Takeshima, tomorrow Dokdo, the next day-you get the picture...
No one except Koreans and some wacky Japanese care about Takeshima.
Well, not quite. The Tokyo government cares quite a bit about it, enough to put pressure on its newspapers to remove information that would run against their claim.
It seems very true that no one cares but Korea and Japan. The main reason why Korea is not going to International court, is there is no need to. Koreans are living there and Korean flags are flying over there and Korean polices are protecting over there.
There is more information about it in the facebook.
This is Me posting,
I got your Own opinion, and have a lot to argue regarding this issue. However, I rather not. I don't want to hear "F" words from you any more.
Yeah This Is Me Posting. Keep your "F" words to yourself. Facts belong in the classroom, not on message boards.
Is this your blog John? Who are you to say what can and can't be said here?
Kushibo: Did I not say some "whacky Japanese?
@Joy
I shall write this entire response without using the sixth letter in the English alphabet.
Since Koreans are not going to international court to settle the matter, it can be argued that Korea is currently illegally invading a sovereign country (assuming Japan is the country who currently owns the Liancourt Rocks).
Once again, possession does not equal ownership, otherwise, what would prevent me in stealing your possessions and saying: "Well, I have them now. They're mine. This is me owning your things!"? Surely being Korean, you might have some understanding about another country illegally invading and claiming ownership to something that does not belong to them?
This is WHY we have legal systems and international courts.
By illegally occupying the islands (then crying and screaming as Koreans tend to do when discussing the Rocks), Korea is simply making its case weaker in the international community's eyes. Your argument - that Korea currently controls the islands - is perhaps the main reason I am not sympathetic to the Korean stance in this case.
Should Korea REALLY be the Rock's owners, they wouldn't be scared about going to court against the Japanese. Instead, Korea is wasting all this time protesting and throwing away money with bullshit advertisements. What Korea should be spending the money on is winning the case in international court. To me, Korea's actions are cowardly. Put up or shut up.
The ONLY reason Korea doesn't want to go to court is that they're incredibly scared that they will lose.
And that, my dear, is a genuine certitude in all its truthiness.
@Chris
I'm pretty sure John was being sarcastic, dude.
I "lolled," as the kids say.
@ Chris
"No one in the rest of the world really cares except Koreans and some Japanese people."
That should be edited to read, "No one in the rest of the world [has any idea what Korean and Japan are talking about] or really care..."
Ironically, word verification: carev
Korea should never even entertain the idea of taking this to the ICJ until Japan renounces its claim that islands like Tokto and Okinotorishima generate an EEZ.
Tokyo's attempted maritime "land grab" of a large EEZ between Ullŭngdo and Tokto that would ensue, per Japanese claims, is reason enough not to pursue anything in such a court until then.
There are other reasons, of course, but not everyone in the "shut up already about Dokdo" crowd (of which I'm a part) knows all the aspects of this, preferring to think it's just about a bunch of guano-covered rocks.
(Sorry for being so verbose.)
You said it’s “a pair of islands” that isn’t popularly represented as anything else. If the use of “island” irritated you, you might be interested to know that the Republic of Korea has published (in Korean) an official language policy in 2008. This policy governs the way in which the government should refer to Takeshima in its external communications when using English. It expressly prescribes the exclusive use of the singular, AFAIU both for when they write/speak about the Liancourt Rocks as a whole and for when they write/speak about either of its two main constituents. It also insists they use “island” but not “islet” or “rock”. I appreciate the guidance, and sleepless nights are a thing of the past.
Oh and for something completely OT: Here’s another utterly useless crime statistic on the alleged rise of “violent crimes committed by foreigners in South Korea” that’s a bit unclear as to whom and what exactly was counted (probably arrests, which overlap with but are not the same as convictions), how the number of detentions relates to the number of foreign residents as a whole, whether the resulting per capita rate has actually risen, whether it is higher or lower than the rate for Korean nationals, and whether that gap is widening or narrowing.
And I don’t think I’ve ever commented here before, but let me assure you your blog will be dearly missed. Thank you for the amazing work you produced during all those years despite people behaving nastily against you!
- To go back to the original post, those really are unfortunate analogies when you look at the situations in which those islands became part of the territory of the countries to which they're attached.
-The ad itself is probably just there to make the mental connection in people's heads between said rocks and Korea. So when someone mentions their name, they will make "correct" assumptions. The problem I see here of course is that since know one is gonna know where the east sea is, it's just gonna confuse people.
- as far as ownership vs possession, I think you'll find international law takes a different stand on the matter. Korea has effective control of the rocks, so until someone else can effectively control the rocks or some final judgment can be made about the actual owner of the rock, the rocks will remain in the hands of the possessor. Of course, I'm no lawyer, but this is my understanding.
- I find it repulsive that any of you have any opinion on this matter. Including Koreans who have absolutely nothing to gain from possessing the rocks unless they happen to own large corporations who can reap the benefits of the maritime resources I assume to be at the core of this matter. My personal sympathies lie with anyone on the outside who never heard of said rocks, was then informed of them and thus now has the burden of contemplating how best to forget this information. This is truly a weird case of nationalism seeking validation via international recognition. Stop giving any of these people your time. it doesn't facting matter.
@Nik: "I find it repulsive that any of you have any opinion on this matter … Stop giving any of these people your time" – Do you mean everybody should just ignore those silly displays of nationalism? My antipathies lie with anyone who wastes money to draw attention to what would otherwise not be a issue, or who tries to strain relations between peoples or countries for pathetic reasons. In this particular dispute I am disappointed by these people's zeal and what seems like their attempts to spread it, so my opinion is that these clowns (on either side) are wrong. In fact, I'd rather find it worrying how somebody could look at this sort of mindset and behaviour and not find anything wrong with it. It does matter as soon as people are so obsessed that it damages their personal (or even their nation's) attitude towards their neighbours. So, no, I won't ignore any of this, if that's what you meant to suggest. (I won't use a grossly inappropriate comparison to the Munich agreements.)
"Koreans frequently show a strong aversion to using proofreaders, to having native English speakers look over their English, and to running their ad ideas by non-Koreans when their ads are, in fact, intended for non-Koreans."
I work in PR and this is 100% spot on. We have an Overseas PR Department but our job is simply to translate PR aimed at a Korean market into English. Worst thing is that none of our clients are Korean. Our latest campaign has us using the pyramids (Egypt, sand , mummies) to sell ships and oil platforms. That imagery works great on Koreans since it gives them the idea that their products are well known and last forever but seriously, listen to the one employee with a PR education hired specifically to prevent BS like this. My other pet peeve is using the blonde-haired-blue-eyed guy in print when 80% of our sales are to Middle East and Asian countries.
joji1909.wordpress.com
@This Is Me Posting
It's not really his personal opinion is it since it's the political stance of the pretty much the entire country. You can say it's a disputed assertion but the official stance of 40+ million people goes beyond one man's "personal opinion." Being a little bitch nitpicking about the semantics of "personal opinion" with a guy who's obviously not a native speaker is pretty much being a dumbass, especially when you're wrong and the term doesn't apply.
Can someone explain to me the hostility toward's Korea's position on "Dokdo?" Sure no one in the US cares but is that supposed to dissuade the Koreans from publicizing it? Logically that's pretty much the point of this crap in Times Square isn't it? Is it the concept of disputed territories that's so shocking to you all? I mean as Americans maybe the state of the disputed West Bank might be more prime fodder since we do spend over $3 billion of our own tax dollars supporting that occupation.
Can someone explain to me the hostility toward's Korea's position on "Dokdo?"
1. Foreign nationals in Korea are tired of reading and listening to news about this, especially when students bring it up as a topic.
2. The issue elicits a reaction from many Koreans that, depending on the reactor, is immature, shrill, overly nationalistic, or just plain stupid and silly.
3. Bashing Koreans on Tokto serves as a proxy for other frustrations about Korea, many of which seem to be exemplified in the things that make up #2.
1. The logical reaction for Foreign Nationals who are tired of reading to such news in KOREAN media might logically simply tune it out. And might tell their students that it's a topic which does not interest them instead of expecting their host nation to abide by their personal preferences.
2. It is true that the entire spectrum of the reactions of the millions of Koreans in Korea to this matter is immature, shrill, overly nationalistic, or just plain stupid and silly. Furthermore it does not say anything about the moral character of any foreign nationals who are inclined to lump them all together.
3. The one smart thing you said.
arilevi wrote:
1. ... And might tell their students that it's a topic which does not interest them instead of expecting their host nation to abide by their personal preferences.
Hmm... I wonder if they've tried that. And if so, I wonder if it hasn't failed miserably many times.
2. It is true that the entire spectrum of the reactions of the millions of Koreans in Korea to this matter is immature, shrill, overly nationalistic, or just plain stupid and silly. Furthermore it does not say anything about the moral character of any foreign nationals who are inclined to lump them all together.
True, perhaps, but you were simply asking why, and I answered.
3. The one smart thing you said.
And this answer demonstrates that you are a grade-A johnson. Why you be lashing out at me? I was just answering your question, not supporting the reasons that I listed. Maybe if you weren't ready to shoot the messenger, you could more could less smugly discuss the issues.
@arilevi
It's not really his personal opinion is it since it's the political stance of the pretty much the entire country.
So was support of the war in Iraq in the US. Or that the Iraqis had WMDs. Or that the levees in New Orleans would hold. Or that gay marriage would destroy the very foundation and structure of society. Or that the Earth was created in 7 days. Or that the Earth was flat.
Popular opinion has never automatically equated facts. Popular opinion is still popular opinion. Facts are still - and will always be - facts.
You can say it's a disputed assertion but the official stance of 40+ million people goes beyond one man's "personal opinion."
Unfortunately, no it doesn't. In this case, its still popular opinion. Especially since the territory was last owned by the Japanese, which is precisely WHY Koreans make such a big fuss about the Rocks. Once again, do not presume to think that just because you think it's true that it necessarily is.
Being a little bitch nitpicking about the semantics of "personal opinion" with a guy who's obviously not a native speaker is pretty much being a dumbass, especially when you're wrong and the term doesn't apply.
Incorrect once again. It pretty much still makes me incredibly right and means that you should listen to me more and/or understand the debate better and/or understand the meaning of words in English. Take your pick.
Furthermore, I am aware or her level of English and never once chastised her for her English, I simply debated her on her points. Her argument, like yours, was faulty. Then again, I'm not to concerned about your opinion or logic when you can't distinguish a her from a him. Joy is a she. Please try to pay attention here. That being said, feel free to keep calling me a bitch, though. Maybe you'll win this argument that way.
Can someone explain to me the hostility toward's Korea's position on "Dokdo?"
Sure. They're saying it belongs to Korea when the ownership is in dispute. Furthermore, they are very vocal about their position and want people to agree with them but get pissed off if people don't.
This isn't rocket surgery, kid.
Why did they write Sicily as Sicilia but not Italy as Italia?
Post a Comment