Why does everyone think North Koreans call Kim Jong Un “dear leader” or whatever? Is it a misleading translation of Korean honorifics or official titles or something? I know the main reason is bigotry, but this is so pervasive that I wanna know where it came from.
Same reason people keep referring to DPRK as North Korea, it’s a result of decades of western propaganda. DPRK along with Cuba have been hands down the biggest targets of US propaganda because they remain as the closest analogs of USSR today. They utterly reject capitalism and don’t even make an attempt to make any concessions to the west.
Is it a misleading translation of Korean honorifics or official titles
Thats what I’ve always assumed. Its a major tactic I’ve seen in reporting on China and the CPC, so i assume they’d use the same to the DPRK.
In the US politicians and officials (without a military rank) are formally refered to as “the honorable” so and so. Imagine how the US would spin that formality if it as used officially by a designated enemy. The average person in the US doesn’t say that or would ever use it, but imagine the propagannda of saying Americans “their love their ‘honorable leader.’”
Many (most?) countries have a prime minister. We’re very used to hearing those words in conjunction, but if you just tell people it’s a ridiculous phrase, then prime minister, supreme leader, dear leader, etc, are interchangeable in meaning and grandeur. Since you’re translating from another language, it’s up to you which variation to translate to.
Journalists do this with all sorts of translations. A foreign word for ‘small bump in the road’ gets translated as ‘an insurmountable roadblock’. They might be synonyms for ‘problem’ but what self-respecting propagandist is going to let a little context or accuracy get in the way of a good story.
It would be cool if someone who knew Korean could confirm this for us, but in my opinion I don’t think it’s that strange to call people “dear” in general. Didn’t FDR refer to Stalin with “my dear” in his letters to him? I don’t find that weird. Also it could very well be a cultural thing too, some are just “warmer” than others. I mean, this example isn’t the same, but I thought it was hilarious when Hakim called Putin “habibi.” Maybe it’s just me, though, I like sweetness.
The particular phrasing that gets thrown around is extremely cultish in English (dear leader, glorious leader, supreme leader, etc.) which is why westerners keep repeating it. It doesn’t come off as a term of endearment, more like subservience. I dunno what Koreans say in Korean and whether it carries the same connotations though (probably not).
Yeah that makes sense. In my political science classes when Authoritarian governments are brought up the term “supreme leader” is used a lot so maybe I’m used to it. Then again it very well might be a language barrier with tonal contexts (how they say it). I can’t recall a time when a Western leader was ever referred to as “supreme leader”…
Yeah, Aria mentioned how “prime minister” is the same thing but with neutral connotations. It’s another case of using good words to describe ourselves and bad words to antagonize our targets.
Why does everyone think North Koreans call Kim Jong Un “dear leader” or whatever? Is it a misleading translation of Korean honorifics or official titles or something? I know the main reason is bigotry, but this is so pervasive that I wanna know where it came from.
Same reason people keep referring to DPRK as North Korea, it’s a result of decades of western propaganda. DPRK along with Cuba have been hands down the biggest targets of US propaganda because they remain as the closest analogs of USSR today. They utterly reject capitalism and don’t even make an attempt to make any concessions to the west.
True, but I’m wondering whether this bit is based on anything at all. It’s remarkable how widespread it is.
Literally everything westoids believe about DPRK is based purely on vibes and racist South Park bits
Thats what I’ve always assumed. Its a major tactic I’ve seen in reporting on China and the CPC, so i assume they’d use the same to the DPRK.
In the US politicians and officials (without a military rank) are formally refered to as “the honorable” so and so. Imagine how the US would spin that formality if it as used officially by a designated enemy. The average person in the US doesn’t say that or would ever use it, but imagine the propagannda of saying Americans “their love their ‘honorable leader.’”
Many (most?) countries have a prime minister. We’re very used to hearing those words in conjunction, but if you just tell people it’s a ridiculous phrase, then prime minister, supreme leader, dear leader, etc, are interchangeable in meaning and grandeur. Since you’re translating from another language, it’s up to you which variation to translate to.
I’ve always thought ‘Prime’ is a very dramatic word
Journalists do this with all sorts of translations. A foreign word for ‘small bump in the road’ gets translated as ‘an insurmountable roadblock’. They might be synonyms for ‘problem’ but what self-respecting propagandist is going to let a little context or accuracy get in the way of a good story.
It would be cool if someone who knew Korean could confirm this for us, but in my opinion I don’t think it’s that strange to call people “dear” in general. Didn’t FDR refer to Stalin with “my dear” in his letters to him? I don’t find that weird. Also it could very well be a cultural thing too, some are just “warmer” than others. I mean, this example isn’t the same, but I thought it was hilarious when Hakim called Putin “habibi.” Maybe it’s just me, though, I like sweetness.
The particular phrasing that gets thrown around is extremely cultish in English (dear leader, glorious leader, supreme leader, etc.) which is why westerners keep repeating it. It doesn’t come off as a term of endearment, more like subservience. I dunno what Koreans say in Korean and whether it carries the same connotations though (probably not).
Yeah that makes sense. In my political science classes when Authoritarian governments are brought up the term “supreme leader” is used a lot so maybe I’m used to it. Then again it very well might be a language barrier with tonal contexts (how they say it). I can’t recall a time when a Western leader was ever referred to as “supreme leader”…
Yeah, Aria mentioned how “prime minister” is the same thing but with neutral connotations. It’s another case of using good words to describe ourselves and bad words to antagonize our targets.