10,000 Chinese Netizens Know Curtis Melvin, Google Earth North Korea

Amid the obligatory fury at the Chinese government for restricting the flow of information into China, it’s worth noting that articles like this one are increasing in prevalence: a Tianya translation of a CNN article about Andrei Lankov, Curtis Melvin, and the wonders of mapping North Korean gulags on Google Earth.

According to statistics the article has been read over 10,000 times; let’s hope the current dispute doesn’t potentially rob all 344 million Chinese internet users of a chance to bump into this extraordinary resource and understand further about their peninsular neighbor.

See Google Earth上的“裸体”朝鲜

中国的网络自由:关于谷歌,朝鲜观点

中国政府环球时报的消息中心 -- CCP's Huanqiu Shibao reports big-time with a funky perspective on the Google case - click image for link

中国和世界网民正在讨论“谷歌考虑退出中国市场事件“, 揭出好多问题 — 大火墙怎么办呢? 还有一个不少的问题: 事件后,中美要关系从什么基础继续? 美国政府,希拉里和欧巴马总统怎么可能不公开批评中国? 当然本事对中美,中欧政治和经济关系有影响,但是事件必须对中国全社会的思想自由,消息自由,说话自由有更更重重的重要性. 我因该承认这个热风讨论 (我也在这里多少册承认了中国大学生的反日情绪和纪念历史讨论阿?)– 不承认的话,我能不能在我们时代中?

(把自己现代化了,家伙!本博客的内容基本上没意思的,但是博客介值就为了我和伟大祖国[砸]地现代化,尤其我们美国年轻学者不可能走后面! 没有率领性,就没有认真生活。)

但是在全大规模的中国网络中,谷歌是一个小部分。今天我想试试另外个方面 –

中国网民的对朝鲜博客和讨论自由?

对我来讲,中国的讨论朝鲜政策的网站比较多,最好Hexun.com 宣布的, 见:

文革时期黑龙江朝鲜归侨境遇资料几则

朝鲜新年三报共同社论宣传画三帧【组图】 [有点儿可笑]

DPRK 2010 New Year's Poster -- note China's bizarre prominence, the unified Korean peninsula, the accurately stylin' if slightly whitened coat, in which the Chairman seems to have gained about eighty pounds and is standing NEXT TO A YOUNG PERSON

另外的是这个把西媒体的新闻报告翻译: google退出中国的真正原因

In English: basically I’m bloviating on the Google issue, and then turning to see if Chinese have freedom of information on North Korea, and then recommending a ridiculously well-documented PRC blog on North Korea which offers stuff you’ve never heard of, like these pictures of gravestones and returning the remains of North Koreans who apparently died in combat in North Vietnam in 1968.

Advance! : Sino-Korean Research in the Publication Pipeline

Seattle is full of goodness on this misty, sunny, drizzling, French press in the morning weekend.  Eastern mountains blaze with snow and light, Japanese-Americans send out slabs of sushi in Bellevue (Seattle’s Orange-County-with-rain banlieue), pages get scribbled in a windowsills on Fremont‘s young and proletarian streets, Taiwanese dole out sticky rice to a multinational gaggle on University Avenue, and funky Chinese jukebox joints thrum with glories both crude and glorious in Wallingford.

Which is all to say that I’m pleased to write that the journal Korean Studies has accepted and will be publishing my article entitled “Nationalism and Ethnic Identity in the Sino-Korean Border Region of Yanbian, 1945-1950,” in their 2010 issue.

Here’s the abstract:

Nationalism and Ethnic Identity in the Sino-Korean Border Region of Yanbian, 1945-1950

This manuscript chronicles the evolution of ethnic politics in the Yanbian region, focusing on the ethnic Korean Chinese communist leader Cho Dok-hae [朱德海]  during the Chinese civil war and the early Korean War.  Cho’s advocacy of Chinese nationality for ethnic Koreans is juxtaposed with his cooperation with North Korea, conflict over North Korean refugees, and examinations of the Yanbian region’s role between the PRC and the DPRK.  The “Resist America and Aid Korea” movement provides the most dramatic example of how Cho and ethnic Koreans in Yanbian expressed a uniquely tinged Chinese nationalism while continuing to lend support to North Korea.  The paper thereby aims to contribute to the regional history of Northeast Asia, add texture to debates on Chinese and Korean nationalism in that region, and reveal new aspects of Chinese Korean agency in the earliest years of CCP control.

Keywords: Chosonjok, Yanbian, nationalism, Sino-North Korean relations, Korean War.

Cho Dok-hae, ethnic Korean Chinese and, until the Cultural Revolution, leader of the Yanbian Autonomous Region; pictured with PRC Premier Zhou Enlai (R) in 1962

Korean Studies is one of the top journals in its field and publishes about four major articles per year.  I won’t reprise my anonymous reviewer’s points here, other than to note my (perhaps transitory?) pleasure that one of them considered the manuscript to be “a work of solid, first-class scholarship.”  Will someone please shoot me when I stop getting a little chill when reader’s reports come in?

In any case, I was glad they agreed with my assertion that “What happened in the Sino-Korean borderland from 1945-1950, and the role played by China’s Korean minority in those events, remains largely an untold story” and that I’m the guy who has the right to tell the story for the first time (in English, that is).

In the meantime, hit me with an e-mail at my university address if you are interested in getting an advance copy or helping out with the joyful task of copy-editing the piece before it goes to press.

Finally, anticipating some future postings on word counts — particularly the need for a more comprehensive system of scholarly statistics akin to baseball – the Korean Studies manuscript is 11,899 words in length.  Maybe this year I break 100,000 published words?  Time to fire up Excel and call the shareholders!