Talk:Songbun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hoax

This is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in Wikipedia about the DPRK, and I have read almost all of them (DailyNK ones are the most ridiculous).

I have never seen such amount of original research pulled together with no sanctions whatsoever. After this article was created, western media started using this false term in their publications.

As confirmed by Alejandro Cao de Benos, there's no such thing as a "Songbun" in North Korea, hell, that word isn't even known in the DPRK.--Kmaster (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide one single source for your unjustified claims? Just search for classification or discrimination in North Korea and you will find many reliable sources. Some examples:

• United Nations Human Rights Council: “Division of society into three different groups of allegiance to the regime, which affects the citizen’s level of enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including access to food;” (Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, p. 23)

• Human Rights Watch: “North Korea’s politically determined classification system restricts nearly all aspects of education, labor, and health care.. . . Access to medical care is also strictly based on the classification system, as hospitals admit and treat patients depending on their social background.” (World Report 2006: North Korea)

Without using the term Songbun these sources describe exactly what Songbun is about.

Cao de Benos only parrots the KCNA propaganda and always denies any negative news about the DPRK. He will tell you something like “there are no human rights violations in the DPRK, as all North Koreans in single-minded unity wholeheartedly support the government lead by the outstanding wisdom and noble virtue of Marshal Kim Jong Un”. Do you take that serious? For a balanced view on a country you need to read the positive news (e. g. from KCNA or DPRK media) and the negative news, e. g. about problems and criticism. The Daily NK is a good source to complete the critical view. Or do you know any better source for this? --Gamnamu (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

So any dissenting voice should be suppressed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

What dissenting voice do you mean? Cao de Benos is just a carbon copy of the DPRK official view without an own view. As the DPRK official line he categorily denies human rights violations, prison camps and all negative news about the DPRK. Do you take this serious? Besides some few DPRK fans who just deny what does not fit into their ideology, I did not find any sources for “dissenting voices” on these matters. If the United Nations are establishing a Commission of Inquiry for this and other issues, then it is certainly not just a “theory of some analysts”. -- Gamnamu (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, your sources are largely carbon copies themselves. (Though at least Lankov shows some scepticism.) The UN also endorsed Iraq's WMDs based on similar evidence - defectors and analysts from the other side of the world.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

There are more than enough reliable independent sources on Songbun, while you do not have any single source for your view. If you do not want to understand and even do not trust organizations like Human Rights Watch and the United Nations, then unfortunately I cannot help. The information about North Korea’s human rights violations including Songbun exists for decades and is mainly based on testimonies from North Korean refugees. I see no reason to doubt it. -- Gamnamu (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have never denied the existence of the supposed songbun ascribed status system. I have only asked for a NPOV. I have sought to balance the current presentation with Bruce Cumings' contrary view of North Korean society but this has been blocked. At least I am allowed to cite the North Korean government. Perhaps not a reliable source. But Saddam was perhaps not a reliable source on WMDs - but he was right.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, when I said I've never denied the existence of the system, I didn't mean I accepted its existence. As far as I can see, the situation is that the North Korean government denies it, many North Korean citizens are unaware of it, and various outside sources provide contradictory accounts. I can't deny it based on that, but I am sceptical about it, and I think that Wikipedia should adopt a neutral position.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That would actually violate NPOV by providing undue weight to fringe theories.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the official position of a government could ever be a fringe theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a fringe theory maybe, but an obvious lie. The North Korean government never admits any facts that they consider as negative. So on human rights topics this position can never be more than a marginal note. -- Gamnamu (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So any negative story must be assumed to be true, and any NK government denial must automatically be assumed to be a lie? And this is neutrality?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

New light has been shed on this by the revelation that the story of Hyon Song-wol being executed was totally false. On the subject of the DPRK, many mainstream sources are simply not reliable, and uncritically report negative stories.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Major Contradiction

The article says that songbun is pivotal in people's lives, but then says Kim Jong Un's mother Ko Yong-hui was able to marry into the ruling dynasty despite her bad songbun.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no contradiction; this just shows how almighty the Kim family is. Kim Jong-il had the power to choose film stars (Song Hye-rim) or dancers (Ko Yong-hui) as mistresses as he desired and did not have to care about Songbun rules. It was reported that he even forced the husband of Song Hye-rim to divorce her. The North Korean propaganda is very skillful to conceal the family background of Ko Yong-hui and others who got related (not even married) into the Kim dynasty. The authorities put a lot of effort to create a myth and change her biography (and even her name) to maintain the dynasty’s “Bloodline of Mt. Paektu” and to keep the pressure on the ordinary people. Biographical changes are routine in Pyongyang, as you know e. g. for Kim Jong-il’s birthplace (claimed to be Baekdu Mountain instead of Vyatskoye, near Khabarovsk). The people in North Korea simply get no information that Kim Jong-un’s parents were not married and that his mother was a dancer from Japan. --Gamnamu (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So in the key example given, it doesn't apply.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you not read my answer? Songbun does not apply to people powerful enough to overrule it. Kim Jong-il had several mistresses. Not talking about Songbun this could disqualify him as a leader in Confucian Korea. But as mentioned he simply had the power to overrule this. Do you think people in North Korea know that Ko Yong-hui was not married with Kim Jong-il and that she was a dancer coming from Japan? (And if not, why is it a secret?) -- Gamnamu (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In other words, truth and logic don't matter. It's all about assertion.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

On the North Korea page I argued that the presentation of songbun violated the NPOV policy as it reflected the opinion of some analysts, not others. I provided a quote from American historian Bruce Cumings. This was described as wrong, biased, irrelevant, original research, and even a misrepresentation of Cumings.

Here is a fuller quotation, taken from Korea's Place in the Sun (p 397):

The unique symbol/logo of the Korean Workers Party (KWP) place a writing brush across the hammer and sickle, indicating an inclusive policy towards the educated and the expert: Kim rarely if ever denigrated them, in contrast to Maoist China... This category [samuwon meaning intellectual or "white collar worker"] served two purposes: for the regime it retained educated people and experts who might otherwise have fled south; for large numbers of Koreans it provided a category within which to hide "bad" class background.

Thus the Korean revolution, after polarizing the population into good and bad classes at its inception, soon pursued an inclusive, all-encompassing mass politics.

The symbol of the KWP does not tell you anything about Songbun. And your interpretation of Cumings is not correct. What he says is that initially workers and peasants were the “good” class and higher educated people the “bad” class. But later (and that was then defined into the Songbun classification) the lines were drawn slightly different: Even educated richer people were classified as core class, e. g. if the family supported the revolution, if relatives were killed as soldiers in the Korean War and so on. And even workers and peasants were classified as hostile class, e. g. if they were Christians, if family members fled to South Korea or cooperated with enemy forces, if families immigrated from Japan and so on. -- Gamnamu (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This is deemed irrelevant because it doesn't use the magic word songbun. However, Cumings does use it (in passing) in North Korea: Another Country. After saying:

Here is the microcosmic evidence of a thorough social revolution, a class structure stood on its head. At any time before 1945, it was virtually inconceivable for uneducated poor peasants to become county-level officials or officers in the army. But in North Korea such careers became normal. Even something as fundamental as Korean marriage patterns began to change quickly. It became important to marry a woman with the proper class background.(pp 131-132)

Cumings says that the earlier Korean class structure before 1945 (mainly rich and poor classes) was replaced by another class background based on system loyalty. And this completely changed the rules for careers, marriage and so on. -- Gamnamu (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

he gives the following example in a footnote (p 234):

One respondent says he “forgot to be politically conscious” and allowed his parents to arrange a marriage for him, "according to village custom" and without proper checking on the bride’s songbun. Thus he ended up with Kim Suk-hyong of an unfortunate (i.e., high) class background.

Even Cumings is using the term Songbun. So different from your earlier comments it’s not just a theory. This quote just says that Songbun still seems to matter and it could cause difficulties to disregard it. -- Gamnamu (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I would submit that this is a totally different view of the issue than the one presented in this article. It might be wrong, but it is non-neutral to exclude it. And I don't see how quoting a secondary source can be construed as original research.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

As explained before this is no evidence for a totally different view, in fact it mostly supports the provided view, if you don’t misinterpret Cumings. I agree to keep the comment that the North Korean government denies any discrimination (though this is obvious, as they deny any human rights violations and any critical information), if you think this provides a NPOV view. -- Gamnamu (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you are wilfully distorting what the issue is. The issue is not whether the Korean word "songbun" exists, or whether there are social differences in North Korea. The question is whether there is a caste system in the country. The fact that the government denies it is relevant, because this makes it a secret caste system, which is a rather strange concept.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you expect the North Korean government to say? It has an obvious conflict of interest....TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly a crowd-pleaser. It could say: "We have a wonderful social system that rewards patriotism and punishes treachery even unto the third generation. Human rights is an imperialist plot, and the very concept of equality is a denial of the natural order of things." Moreover, caste systems by their nature require caste to be obvious: hence caste marks in India. Discrimination can be based on skin colour (with white or black areas), or the oppressed group can be forced to wear a yellow star. Such extreme discriminatory social systems have been operated quite openly. Apparently not in the DPRK.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The Songbun article does not use the term caste system; this is just your interpretation. Songbun is a classification by the North Korean state security to control the people. Main purpose is the surveillance of the “hostile class” to exclude any opposition in the country. Moreover it ensures privileges for the “core class” of people loyal to the government.

Gamnamu, what's your source that's in an official classification? Socialistguy (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You got the point: The official DPRK line on Songbun is similar to that for human rights, concentration camps, religious freedom, refugees and so on. The DPRK reality as described by thousands of refugees is indeed not a crowd-pleaser. But the government claims to “have one of the best systems for promotion and protection of human rights in the world” and has never admitted any negative information. Unfortunately they are not as honest and frank as you proposed, but take many efforts to at least please their few uncritical followers. -- Gamnamu (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

So you agree NK does not have a caste system? The article uses the term ascribed status, and that article gives a caste system as a key example. The other key example is a race-based system, which isn't applicable here. However, apartheid would be a good comparison. The South African government did not deny apartheid existed. It would be impossible for apartheid to exist in secret. It just claimed apartheid was a good system for everyone. Similarly, the NK government does not deny having a planned economy where private property is minimal. It just claims this is a good system.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

PS I have since added material from Barbara Demick which supports some of my points: (a) that the alleged Songbun system is a caste system; (b) that it is essentially an invisible caste system, a secret apartheid. To my critics, I say: please do not defend theories if you don't understand them.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Your added paragraph quoted from Barbara Demick’s book is very good. I’m a bit surprised that you believe an American journalist more than international human rights organisations, but this book is definitely a reliable source. It does not in any way contradict my earlier comments. When the classification system was established, the former caste system of the Joseon Dynasty was taken as a model. The classification is mostly used by the North Korean state security to control the people and is not openly communicated. I think reading different sources on a topic really helps to get the best understanding. -- Gamnamu (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe Demick any more than I believe the DPRK government (or Cumings!). I'm just genuinely trying to insert some NPOV. I know you mean well, but maybe you should practise what you preach.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I came here after reading this, curious what WP had to say. Seems OK, though maybe should mention that things are changing under the influence of recent economic and cultural exchange with China. Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancy on Social Background

There seems to be a major discrepancy on social background. Speaking about songbun, Helen-Louise Hunter describes the descendents of "factory workers, laborers, and poor farmers" as making up (together with the descendents of guerrillas) 25-30% of the population and being the "elite of today" (pp 4-5).

But what is the social background of the other 70%? Hunter states that most Koreans were uneducated in 1946, and that most intellectuals and technicians had fled south by the end of the war in 1953 (p 207). Similarly, Bruce Cumings paints a picture of pre-Communist north Korea being rough country with a "vast peasantry" mostly engaged in subsistence farming and largely ruled over by absentee landlords who lived in the south (and by the Japanese), and with a heavy industrial base largely owned by Japanese corporations. With the Communist take-over, he says many capitalists and landlords fled south, and there were shortages of experts. (Korea's Place in the Sun, pp 182, 228, 232, 397).

If this is true, poor workers and poor peasants must have represented more than 30% of the population in 1953. In fact, it seems clear they would have been a majority before 1945, and their relative weight in the population would have only increased as Japanese, officials, capitalists, landlords, intellectuals, and technicians fled over the next decade. Hence, the amount of people in the "elite" would have to be very much larger than Hunter and others imply. There seems an inbuilt bias in sources such as Hunter to complain about the injustice of the "songbun" system as if it affects the vast majority of North Koreans, whereas this appears to be logically impossible.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, no answer to that, then.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Big take down of the hoax that is this page

http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/13470/

read this well cited forum post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasnfbi1234 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's apparently 'not credible and read like obvious propaganda', in spite of the numerous citations. Seems opposing political viewpoints regarding North Korea are illegal in Wikipedia, The Free Propaganda. 125.161.137.252 (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)