bookmark_borderPost-115: Back to Jinju (Or, A Second Vacation in Summer 2013, to the Same Place)

Wednesday July 31st
Thursday August 1st
Friday August 2nd

Those are mandatory vacation-days for workers at educational institutes in Gyeonggi Province, which includes me.


Anyway. Taking advantage of this definite off-time, I will go tomorrow, by train, to Jinju, where I was a month ago. Jinju has a kind of bibimbap which is served with raw beef or raw fish, which I am curious to try (진주비빔밥). I was very impressed with Jinju in my last trip. It’s a nice city which lacks the pretension I see as common in the Seoul Megalopolis.

Here is a map of Jinju, which sits near the south coast in “Gyeongnam Province”, ancestral home of President Park.

I will be back to Jinju a third (and perhaps final) time in September 2013, but the circumstances will be very different. More on that later.

I’m told that this Wednesday-Thursday-Friday vacation is mandated by the provincial government. Forcing all institutes to have the same days off prevents typical Korean hyper-competition from…well, for example:

Director of Institute A: “Aha! Institute B is still going to be open next Friday! I know I promised it as a vacation day, but we cannot afford to close! The mothers may see us as being lazy and bring their children to Institute B…Cancel your plans now. It will be a normal work day!” No discussion!!

(The institute that I have the displeasure of currently working at honors neither the contracts they produce nor the law regarding [among other things] vacation days. They lie, promising days off, but refuse to give them, and threaten you if you get too “rude” in asking too much about them. When they do give them, it is strictly when it is convenient for them [a single extraneous Thursday, say]. Looking back over the two most recent foreign-teachers who have ended their time here, M.R. and J.H., both ended up without having received the vacation days the law specifies they must get. I will also not end up with all of mine.)

bookmark_borderPost-114: Climbing a Wall that Simulates a Rock

On Sunday, I went with two people to a small (one-story) “rock-climbing gym” in southern Bucheon.

Participants
(1) C.R. My coworker, who has gotten several mentions on this blog. He regularly rock-climbs (climbs rock?), and sometimes does excursions with the Korean gym people to climb real rocks.
(2) A.W. The brother of my friend Jared. He is visiting Korea and wanted to do some rock-climbing. He has long experience in California with rockclimbing.
(3) Me. It was my first time.

I was surprised to see that this “rock climbing gym” was not only one-story, but was in the basement. “Let’s go rock-climbing in the basement!” How many times has that sentence been spoken!

Below is a picture of A.W. swinging around, with a Korean man looking on, giving pointers (not that A.W. needed them). That Korean man had gotten on the gym computer and put on loud Beatles music not long after he arrived, which lasted for quite a while. I don’t know if he’d normally do that, or if it was our benefit (being foreigners).

Picture

A.W. Rockclimbing in a Gym in Bucheon, Korea [July 2013]

All of those colored things that jut out? They simulate rock-outcroppings in the wild. The idea is to use them to move around the wall. There are various “courses”, varying by difficulty level. My best accomplishment for the day was making it halfway through the easiest course before falling. Falling on that blue padded thing is nothing bad.

We stayed a few hours. It was fun. I went in with no illusions about my ability, and they were confirmed. I couldn’t even get a grip on the slanted walls. I could only do even the simplest of maneuvers on the “flat” 90-degree-angle wall (pictured above).

After the simulated-rock-climbing, we went to nearby Bucheon Station area, at my suggestion, and ate Dakgalbi (닭갈비) [See post-15]. The chicken was served as you see, in three large pieces, which were cut down to size by the waiter at the table as it was all cooking. I’ve never seen it done that way before. Usually it comes already cut up.

Picture

Eating Dakgalbi at “Yu Family Restaurant” (유가네) near Bucheon Station [July 2013]

The meal (including unlimited side dishes), plus beer, left us all satiated and happy for only $11 or so per person.

My forearms were sore. Carrying groceries the short distance home on Monday was noticeably harder than usual.

bookmark_borderPost-113: “Plenty of Work, Just No Money” By Larry L. Dill (Or, the Two Kinds of Work)

[I posted about this in post-112, but buried at the bottom. I want to make it its own entry.]


I came across a website called “New Hope Journal“, subtitled The Poetry, Essays and Personal Journals of Larry L. Dill”. I don’t know who this Larry Dill is, except that he is an American born in 1944. (He graduated from high school in 1962, according to an entry in which he reflected on his 50th class reunion in 2012.)

I was impressed by the following essay by Larry L Dill (originally from 1980) which describes “the two kinds of work”:

Plenty of Work, Just No Money
By Larry L. Dill

(The following essay by Larry L. Dill originally appeared in the Nacogdoches, Texas newspaper, The Sunday Sentinel, in April, 1980. )

Will Rogers probably had more to say about the Great Depression than he did about anything else.  For instance, he said, “People keep saying there’s no work.  Well, let me tell you, there’s plenty of work.  It just don’t pay anything.”

Will had a way of putting things that made them not as bad as they seemed, or at least made them seem not as bad as they were.  Like all good humor, his jokes often hinged on the definition of a word.  Take the word “work,” for example.

To most people work means money.  It’s a simple equation.  I give you so much of my labor and you give me so much of your money.  By that definition the way to get ahead in the world is to make more and more per hour so that less and less work will buy the same things.  The ultimate objective is to get more money than you need so you can turn around and start paying somebody else to do the work you’re supposed to be doing for less than you’ve agreed to do it and with you keeping the difference.  An entrepreneur is somebody who works to perfect this system until he builds a pyramid of workers and managers, positioning himself at the top with very little actual work to do.  Or to put it more fairly, his hourly wage now consisting only of critical management decisions, works out to thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour.  That’s been his objective all along.

The name of the system of course is capitalism and it is often confused with the American dream which really involves something altogether different and which leads us to another definition of work which exists more often  only in our minds, hence its association with the ephemeral American dream.  This second concept of work is the one Will Rogers alluded to when he said there’s plenty of work but it doesn’t pay anything.  He was talking about cleaning up our act, getting our minds right, finding our place in the universe, deciding what we want to be when we grow up and providing ourselves with our most basic needs like food and fuel.  When the economic machinery of a capitalist system (or a communist system for that matter) is running smoothly, everybody is busy either building their little pyramid or trudging along as a party to somebody else’s.  Either way we’re all working and we all have money.

Money has for so long now become the only medium of exchange that working directly to solve human needs without the mediation of money has almost disappeared, and with it, unfortunately, much of our humanity, our spirituality, and our compatibility with the earth we all live on.  Thus when there is a money shortage as happened during the 1930’s, there is a “depression” and the psychological implications of that word are as applicable to our mental conditions as the economic implications are to our financial plight.

But it ought not to be that way.  It only is that way because of our alienation from our own real work which is to be able to provide the basic necessities for ourselves, whether we have any money or not.

That’s what the back-to-the-land movement is all about, whether it manifests itself in a rural or in an urban setting.  It is a spiritual movement (and a practical one) based on rediscovering those abilities we all have to work directly to solve our own physical needs.

Gardening is the first step.  Admittedly, it is for most of us largely symbolic.  But it redirects our attention to the earth from which all our sustenance comes and helps us gain perspective on the real meaning of work.  Gathering firewood is a similar antidote for depression both spiritual and economic.  So is foraging for wild berries or used lumber.

I hope we never have another economic adjustment period that is as badly bungled as the Great Depression was.  But all my life the Depression was held up to me as a reminder that there is always something vaguely not quite right about a surging economic prosperity.  Too much easy money too fast.

If we take time now while there is still time to go back to the old definition of work, back to basics, back to enjoying things that don’t require money, that will indeed help eliminate the need for quite so much money, we’ll be a little better prepared for whatever comes, because no matter what comes, there’ll always be plenty of work.

http://www.newhopejournal.com/apr09.html

In my experience, the attitudes displayed in this essay are much, much more common among normal Americans than naked greed. “[T]here is always something vaguely not quite right about a surging economic prosperity.  Too much easy money too fast.”

bookmark_borderPost-112: “Why America Failed” (Morris Berman vs. Larry Dill)

A book called Why America Failed, by somebody named Morris Berman, has been sitting around my bedside for a few weeks now. I occasionally pick it up, but it annoys me. I found it at a Seoul bookstore. It was cheap.

Berman’s book, as I say, is odd and annoying. He imagines that Americans are and always has been, devoted to greed at the expense of everything else. He calls it “hustling”. The USA is a nation of pool-hustlers, or something, so of course it would decline. That’s about his thesis.

This is curious to me. I know a lot of Americans, and I can’t say I know even one who is a “hustler”, a greed-fanatic, or whatever Berman imagines the typical American to be. I think the personality he alludes to may actually exist in today’s East-Asia at a much higher rate than in today’s (or yesterday’s) USA.

The book-jacket says:

In “Why America Failed”. Berman examines the development of American culture from the earliest colonies to the present, shows that the seeds of the nation’s “hustler” culture were sown from the very beginning, and reveals how the very tools that enabled the country’s expansion have become the instruments of its demise.

At the center of Berman’s argument is his assertion that hustling, materialism, and the pursuit of personal gain without regard for its effects on others have been powerful forces in American culture since the Pilgrims landed.

Berman is not talking about a greedy “plutocracy”. He is talking about the character of the American people generally, the character of American culture, from lowest to highest. This is very clear in the book: It’s all these “Americans” who are guilty. Berman says the USA and greed-mania go together like horse and carriage.

I’ll say it again: This book annoys me. I don’t think Berman writes in good faith. He just grinds an enormous axe.

Who is Morris Berman? Professor; Born 1944 in NY; Jewish; now lives in Mexico. His background, as he describes it:

Although I [Morris Berman] was born in America, I am only first generation, my family having emigrated from eastern Europe in 1920. As a child, I was raised in what might be called a European socialist ethic: you help other people. As a result, I lived, in the United States, in a state of perpetual culture shock for nearly six decades.

I think this paragraph tells a lot about Berman, his identity, and thus his motivations. He does not view himself as an American at all, I guess, but rather as (defacto) a stateless long-term resident of the USA. Perhaps he even (somehow) imagines himself “a victim of the USA”.

It’s pretty outrageous, isn’t it, for him to so casually imply that “helping other people” is a un-American trait, only subscribed to be “European[-style] socialists”! (This is in line with the thesis of his book). Later, he writes:

Not helping other people is systemic in the United States; it’s as though it were woven into the very DNA of American citizens.

Berman’s ancestors probably had similar attitudes towards the gentiles that surrounded their villages back in Poland, and vice-versa. “Those people! They are not much above animals! It’s in their blood; they never help anyone.” One of Berman’s ancestors may well have said that about the Poles or Russians he lived around, a century or more ago.

Anyway, this thing about greed. Isn’t it true that the “American Dream” involves making a bunch of money?

Some time ago, I came across a website called “New Hope Journal“, subtitled The Poetry, Essays and Personal Journals of Larry L. Dill”.  I don’t know who this Mr. Dill is, other than (like Berman), he was born in 1944. Dill says he graduated from high school in 1962 (in another an entry, he reflected on his 50th class reunion in 2012).

I will reproduce, below, an essay from that site (originally from 1980) that describes “Americanism” a lot better, I think, than Berman does in Why America Failed:


Plenty of Work, Just No Money
By Larry L. Dill

(The following essay by Larry L. Dill originally appeared in the Nacogdoches, Texas newspaper, The Sunday Sentinel, in April, 1980. )

Will Rogers probably had more to say about the Great Depression than he did about anything else.  For instance, he said, “People keep saying there’s no work.  Well, let me tell you, there’s plenty of work.  It just don’t pay anything.”

Will had a way of putting things that made them not as bad as they seemed, or at least made them seem not as bad as they were.  Like all good humor, his jokes often hinged on the definition of a word.  Take the word “work,” for example.

To most people work means money.  It’s a simple equation.  I give you so much of my labor and you give me so much of your money.  By that definition the way to get ahead in the world is to make more and more per hour so that less and less work will buy the same things.  The ultimate objective is to get more money than you need so you can turn around and start paying somebody else to do the work you’re supposed to be doing for less than you’ve agreed to do it and with you keeping the difference.  An entrepreneur is somebody who works to perfect this system until he builds a pyramid of workers and managers, positioning himself at the top with very little actual work to do.  Or to put it more fairly, his hourly wage now consisting only of critical management decisions, works out to thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour.  That’s been his objective all along.

The name of the system of course is capitalism and it is often confused with the American dream which really involves something altogether different and which leads us to another definition of work which exists more often  only in our minds, hence its association with the ephemeral American dream.  This second concept of work is the one Will Rogers alluded to when he said there’s plenty of work but it doesn’t pay anything.  He was talking about cleaning up our act, getting our minds right, finding our place in the universe, deciding what we want to be when we grow up and providing ourselves with our most basic needs like food and fuel.  When the economic machinery of a capitalist system (or a communist system for that matter) is running smoothly, everybody is busy either building their little pyramid or trudging along as a party to somebody else’s.  Either way we’re all working and we all have money.

Money has for so long now become the only medium of exchange that working directly to solve human needs without the mediation of money has almost disappeared, and with it, unfortunately, much of our humanity, our spirituality, and our compatibility with the earth we all live on.  Thus when there is a money shortage as happened during the 1930’s, there is a “depression” and the psychological implications of that word are as applicable to our mental conditions as the economic implications are to our financial plight.

But it ought not to be that way.  It only is that way because of our alienation from our own real work which is to be able to provide the basic necessities for ourselves, whether we have any money or not.

That’s what the back-to-the-land movement is all about, whether it manifests itself in a rural or in an urban setting.  It is a spiritual movement (and a practical one) based on rediscovering those abilities we all have to work directly to solve our own physical needs.

Gardening is the first step.  Admittedly, it is for most of us largely symbolic.  But it redirects our attention to the earth from which all our sustenance comes and helps us gain perspective on the real meaning of work.  Gathering firewood is a similar antidote for depression both spiritual and economic.  So is foraging for wild berries or used lumber.

I hope we never have another economic adjustment period that is as badly bungled as the Great Depression was.  But all my life the Depression was held up to me as a reminder that there is always something vaguely not quite right about a surging economic prosperity.  Too much easy money too fast.

If we take time now while there is still time to go back to the old definition of work, back to basics, back to enjoying things that don’t require money, that indeed help eliminate the need for quite so much money, we’ll be a little better prepared for whatever comes, because no matter what comes, there’ll always be plenty of work.

http://www.newhopejournal.com/apr09.html

Larry Dill is a great writer and a great thinker.

If only bookstores carried a book by him, rather than by Morris Berman. I guess ol’ Larry just didn’t “hustle” enough to get his book taken up by a major publishing house and marketed around the world!

bookmark_borderPost-111: Google Street View and the Prius Vandal

In post-109, I wrote about the July 2013 “Prius vandalism” in Arlington, Virginia. A local-news reporter interviewed one woman whose Prius (hybrid car)’s tires were slashed. She was one of the 15 victims. Here she is:
Picture

Prius owner interviewed on NBC4 after her car’s tires were slashed, July 2013.
(She compares it to “a shark attacking a dolphin.”)
[See video here]

I was curious about the exact spot this interview took place (and by extension where the slashings took place). Visible is only “17th St.” on one street sign. The cross-street is not legible in the video. I tried several “Google Street View” locations before I found it. Here it is:
Picture

Screenshot from “Google Street View” of North 17th and Utah Streets (Arlington, Virginia). Looking West.

I was able to find this exact spot from the other side of the planet! It’d be, actually, much easier to do it online from here than if I’d been physically in Arlington but offline. The world of 2013 is amazing — or scary — or both.

In related news, “Arl-Now” reports that other Priuses were targeted in South Arlington on the same night, and one Arlington County government truck’s tires were also slashed. If the government truck was deliberately targeted, then the case for it being “political” may be strengthened, I guess.


This small affair makes me think of the 1970s novel The Monkey Wrench Gang by radical-environmentalist Edward Abbey. The roles are “reversed” here, of course.

I read Monkey Wrench Gang some time ago in the library. I also read some of Abbey’s diaries. Mr. Abbey was quite a character: I was surprised to see (to contradict what I just wrote) that Abbey was not a “radical environmentalist”. Not in the way we think of that term, of that “archetype”, today. He was a radical, certainly; he was an environmentalist, unquestionably, but… well, his diaries reveal many more (what would today be called) “radical right-wing” stances than “radical left-wing” ones. Abbey is remembered today (if at all) as a “radical environmentalist”. If you read the man’s own words, it’s…just…not…so. / I don’t think Mr. Abbey would like Arlington very much at all.

bookmark_borderPost-110: “It’s In the Nature of the Thing” (Or, a Coworker’s Befuddling Verbosity)

          C.R. [American] : “…Yeah, but that seems sort of in the nature of the thing.”
          E. Kim
[Korean] : “Nature?”
I overheard it in the teachers’ room tonight. They were discussing an upcoming presentation contest. Why didn’t he just say “It’s always like that” or “That’s what they usually do”, or any number of simpler sentences?

The Cast of Characters:

  • E.Kim is a Korean woman, around 30 years old, who is now “Elementary Team Leader” (초등팀장), and thus one of the many, many “managers” at this language-institute. (Elementary means 5th and 6th graders, in this case.) She has been at this language-institute since September 2010. She was one of the rare “Korean employees who is not a manager” when I arrived here, in September 2011. She was promoted sometime in 2012.  She has always been friendly to me, unlike most other Korean teachers. She speaks loudly.
  • C.R. is a White-American male (born in December 1989) who, a lot of the time, seems like a walking stereotype of his native-region of San Francisco. His body has been here since mid-February 2013 (in Korea and at this job), but his mind has never quite made the full cross-over (I think he’d say). He has plans to go to Thailand or Cambodia when his year is up. His goal is to get Scuba instructor certification, he says. Philosophy major.

C.R. is either unable or unwilling to change his register to “talk simple” with the Koreans. His use of difficult vocabulary/phrases, complex sentences, and even slang when speaking with them is puzzling to me. None of them is truly native-level, which would be required to keep up. They don’t understand what the heck he’s talking about half the time. The above exchange was a good example. E.Kim herself is quite good at English, but she didn’t get the point at all. “What’s he talking about ‘nature’ for?” — is what she probably thought at that moment.

C.R. is also the one who used the phrase “I’m down for that”, which I wrote about in post-87, and who disparaged me for using Yahoo Mail (post-2). / On the whole I like him, though, let it be known.


I was correcting essays at the time, and my concentration was broken by C.R.’s and E.Kim’s loud conversation (conversations with E.Kim usually are loud), so instead I jotted down that phrase from C.R., along with this one:

            “….but for the logistics, you might have other considerations, you know, in terms of….”

“Logistics”! “Considerations”! “In terms of”! He also kept using words like “rehearse” instead of “practice”. (E.Kim stood there and nodded along.) All these are unnecessarily-complicated ways to speak, and might impress native-speaker college professors but will cause confusion for non-native-speakers, especially most of this institute’s teachers.

It’s a skill requiring practice, I think, being totally clear (and vividly descriptive) while staying simple and understandable to non-native-speakers. I try. I’m not sure what C.R.’s “deal” is: Is he unable, or unwilling?

bookmark_borderPost-109: Anti-Prius Vandalism in Arlington

I was puzzled to hear that somebody slashed the tires of 15 “Prius” hybrid cars in Arlington, Virginia (my place of birth) overnight recently. Only Priuses were targeted. Local NBC-News reported it.

What could the tire-slasher’s motivation be?

View more videos at: http://nbcwashington.com.


I am puzzled and intrigued about the motivation of a Prius Tire Slasher.

I guess the only “profile” that makes sense is that the perpetrator has a grudge against the type who would buy a Prius (whatever that type is supposed to be). “In the interest of full disclosure”, my mother has a Prius, and has had it for something like six years. I don’t think she’s necessarily a “type”, though. She lives in Arlington, but quite far away from these slashings.

Three other scenarios are plausible:

  1. The act of an insane person.
  2. A dare by a group of kids.
  3. A “false flag” incident to make it look like the kind of thing described in the paragraph above, to drum up support for a perceived cause. This has been known to happen a lot, and national media has been tricked more than a few times, so it’d be foolish to discount the possibility.

These categories are not mutually exclusive. A #3 perpetrator would very probably also be, to some extent, a #1.


The reporter in the video, Pat Collins, gives some of the street names (amid his melodramatic delivery). It seems these crimes happened near North Taylor and 17th streets, near the southern end of zip-code 22207.

PictureZip Code 22207

Some facts about 22207 (according to the American Enterprise Institute):

  • 71%: Percent of resident adults over age 25 had a college degree in 2000, way above the national average.**
  • $150,000 (2010 dollars): The average yearly household income for the entire zip code. The streets reportedly affected are below U.S.-29 (Lee Highway), so the car-owners may be some of the lowest-income in this zip code, perhaps below $100,000. The really rich live further north, well above U.S.-29.***
  • 22207 was the highest-income zip-code in Arlington County in 2000, and probably still is.

** This is compared to about 25% nationwide. And actually, 22207 is not the “most educated” zip code in Arlington. That is 22201 (the core of the Orange Line Metro corridor), where 74% of over-25s held college degrees in 2000. The least-educated zip code in Arlington was 22204 (the heart of “South Arlington”), where only 38% of adults over age-25 held a college degree back in 2000; probably higher today after steady gentrification.

***Relative wealth in the USA is easy to guess from maps: Neat street grids are usually a sign of lower relative wealth, e.g. the section of zip code 22207 south of U.S.-29 (Lee Highway) on the map above, where the tire-slashings took place. The really rich parts of North Arlington are all well north of Lee Highway, where the road pattern tends to lose coherence and disintegrate; twisting, turning, “cul-de-sac-ing”. This is because the rich (in the USA) want to be left alone, I guess. Those neighborhoods are not easily accessible. Interestingly, it’s exactly the opposite in Korea, and I suspect much of the rest of Asia, too. The Gangnam district of Seoul is all laid out in a perfect grid, as are all the “new cities”. If you find twisting and turning roads in Korea, and there are plenty, it means “old and poor”.



bookmark_borderPost-108: “Countdown”, a Fine Movie From Thailand

This week, there is a film festival going on in Bucheon (where I live as of this writing). It is called Pifan.

I saw a “Thai” movie at Pifan called “Countdown“. It was Thai in that the actors and director are from Thailand, and some Thai language is used in the movie, but mostly it is in English. It revolves around three Thais of university age who live together in New York City who are harassed by a drug dealer named “Jesus” (as in, Hey-zeus).

The movie was quite amazing, and not what I expected. I recommend it. Here is a good review of “Countdown”, from where I stole the above poster. I’d dispute that it was actually a Horror movie. Thriller may be more like it. The Pifan directory listed it as “Comedy”, and it does have a lot of that.

Here is a trailer, which really aims to make you think it’s a straight horror movie (which it isn’t):

Another review, by an American (though I question what kind of American would use the word “flat”).

Actually the movie turned out to be, in the end, —– [If you plan to watch the movie, don’t read the rest of this paragraph]  —————– [spoilers] a Buddhist morality tale. The big plot turn was [spoilers] [spoilers] that the White man turned out to be fluent in Thai (see below). He turned out [spoilers] not to be another murderous maniac, but actually an enforcer of “karma”, or something. The idea may have been that he was some kind of supernatural being. He knew all the dark secrets of the three young Thais, and forced them to confess them to each other and to their parents, and then forced them to recite the five Buddhist Precepts perfectly or he would kill them. It turned out that these attractive young people were all actually “bad”, and the unkempt, dirty maniac White man was the “good” one (or at least one might argue so).
________________________________________________________


Some searching on the Internet reveals the White actor in the movie to be David Asavanond, who is three-quarters French and one-quarter Thai (I presume Thai-Chinese). His picture:

Picture

David Asavanond

The three main actors in this movie were Thai-Chinese. (Pachara Chirathivat: Born into one of the the richest Chinese-Thai family, his wiki says. / Jarinporn Jookiat: Obviously Chinese by ancestry. / Patsaya Kreursuwansiri: She really looks like Korean pop star in this movie, i.e. also obviously Chinese). The director looks Chinese. He also looks a lot like “Steven”, a former Korean co-worker at my present workplace. Here he is:
Picture

Nattawut Poonpiriya, Director of “Countdown”

The Chinese totally dominate Thailand, I was told once, to which I nodded along. Okay, fine, they control Thailand. Big deal. I didn’t appreciate what that meant. Chinese are only 15% of the population, and another 25% or so claims partial Chinese ancestry, the Internet says. The majority looks more like this. It really came home, to me, to see a Thai movie that was directed, produced, financed, and acted entirely by Thai-Chinese people.

I think Koreans could relate well to the Thai-Chinese. Example: A big theme of the movie was that studying abroad is (or can be) wrong, dangerous, cowardly, lazy, immoral.  The male lead in the movie, in his early 20s, spent three years in a New York language-school, and had still not been admitted to any college, but rather lavishly spent his dad’s money on partying. A lot of Koreans have this attitude towards Koreans who go abroad to study. My first boss did. Ironically, her daughter (in 10th grade) now studies in Canada! (Double ironically, the boss went with her).


I liked “Countdown”. The bad part was that the only seats available were in the front row. My neck still hurts a little. It may be the only one I get to see, too, as the movies play from 2-10 PM during the week, exactly my work hours.

bookmark_borderPost-107: More on the Origin of “Philistine”

In Post-106, I wrote about the amazing etymology of the word “philistine” (=uncultured). The word’s origin is amazing to me, anyway.    [Post-106 was updated on July 22nd with my discovery of Matthew Arnold’s first mention of the term. The experts say Arnold popularized the word in English].

“Philistine” was German student slang of the 1700s. It was used by Goethe in the modern-English sense in the late 1700s. It didn’t enter English until Matthew Arnold popularized it in the 1860s.

Here are the occurrences of the word, from 1800-to-Present in the corpus of Google-Books. First, “British English” (books published in Britain) and next “American English” (books published in the USA).

Picture

Frequency of the word “philistine” (including its plural) in BRITISH ENGLISH, 1800 to 1990 [Source]

Picture

Frequency of the word “philistine” (including its plural) in AMERICAN ENGLISH, 1800 to 1990 [Source]

Notes:
(1) These graphs are not the same scale. I don’t think there is a way to manipulate that.
(2) The smoothing is 3 [base-year + three years before and after, i.e. “1880” in the above is actually 1887-1893, averaged).
(3) Google-ngram is capitalization-sensitive. The word “philistine” yields totally different results from “Philistine”. Bibles or other references to the Biblical ethnic group would all be capitalized. Uncapitalized uses, then, mean “uncultured”. However, some early uses may actually have been capitalized, before it became fully-entered English as a lowercase derogatory term for an uncultured person.

Is “Philistine” a British or an American Word?
The term was popularized in English via the efforts of Matthew Arnold, so its origin in English is British. It became more American over time, then went back to being British by the WWII era. I have always seen it as a more British word. Here are the ratios, decade-by-decade:

Frequency of “philistine(s)” in British vs. American English [Google-Books]
1880: British, 2-to-1
1890: Parity, British edge
1900: Parity, American edge
1910: Parity, American edge
1915: American, 2-to-1
1920: Parity, American edge
1930: Parity, American edge
1940: British, 3-to-2
1950: British, 2-to-1
1960: British, 3-to-2
1970: British, 3-to-2
1980: British, 2-to-1

The word “philistine” had a huge jump in popularity in the USA in the year 1916, Google-Ngram shows. It went from .00002% (combined singular/plural) words printed in the USA in 1915 to .000106%, then back down to .000027% in 1917 (you can set smoothing to “0” to see this). This is a jump of 5x in one year. It must have to do with WWI. People were writing about WWI and the USA’s possible involvement in it. Some may have alluded to the Philistines of the Bible, who were sometimes at war with the Israelites (e.g., Goliath was a Philistine). Some of the Biblical uses (capitalized) of the word may have been read as lower-case by Google’s imperfect scanning software. Google’s Ngram software is not perfect. A similar bump happened in WWII in Britain, perhaps for the same reason.

Maybe the better word to look at is “Philistinism“, to get around that problem. Here are the graphs:

Picture

Frequency of the term “Philistinism” in BRITISH ENGLISH. [From here]

Picture

Frequency of the term “Philistinism” in AMERICAN ENGLISH. [From here].

Both terms clearly emerged in the 1860s, after Matthew Arnold’s essay (if setting “smoothing” to zero, all years before 1863 actually get zero values). By the 1880s, American-English used the term “philistinism” more frequently than British-English, and the two languages used “philistinism” about equally for a long time. Americans started giving up on the term in the 1970s/1980s, but it actually increased in popularity in Britain then.

In post-106, I wrote:

A long-forgotten, unknown pastor in a town in late-17th-century Germany ended up (in effect) “coining a word” that emerged in English two centuries later

That pastor is the true originator of the word (again, unintentionally), but if anyone deserves credit for its use in English, it’s Matthew Arnold.

bookmark_borderPost-106: Where Does the Word ‘Philistine’ Come From? (Answer: You’d Never Guess)

From The Bonfire of the Vanities:

Mrs. Rawthrote leaned still closer, until their faces were barely eight inches apart. She was so close she seemed to have three eyes. “Aubrey Buffing,” she said. Her eyes kept burning into his.

“Aubrey Buffing,” said Sherman lamely. It was really a question.

‘The poet,” said Mrs. Rawthrote. “He’s on the short list for the Nobel Prize. His father was the Duke of Bray.” Her tone said, “How on earth could you not know that?”

“Of course,” said Sherman, feeling that in addition to his other sins he was also a philistine. “The poet.”

I was curious about the origin of the word “philistine”. It means something like “bourgeois” in the way the old Marxists sneeringly used that word, I guess. Right, but what about its origin? I thought it must have something to do with the Bible, but I had no idea what.

It turns out that it doesn’t have much to do with the Bible. In fact, “philistine” has an amazingly-specific history: The term was unintentionally “coined” by a pastor in Germany in 1693 in reaction to a murder. It was popularized in the 1700s as German university slang, and had seeped into highbrow German by the 1800s, and some English-speakers were aware of it. It was first printed in English in 1827. It entered English in-earnest in the 1860s-1870s, via the efforts of Matthew Arnold.

Word History: It has never been good to be a Philistine. In the Bible Samson, Saul, and David helped bring the Philistines into prominence because they were such prominent opponents. Though the Philistines have long since disappeared, their name has lived on in the Hebrew Scriptures. The English name for them, Philistines, which goes back through Late Latin and Greek to Hebrew, is first found in Middle English, where Philistiens, the ancestor of our word, is recorded in a work composed before 1325. Beginning in the 17th century philistine was used as a common noun, usually in the plural, to refer to various groups considered the enemy, such as literary critics. In Germany in the same century it is said that in a memorial at Jena for a student killed in a town-gown quarrel, the minister preached a sermon from the text “Philister über dir Simson! [The Philistines be upon thee, Samson!],” the words of Delilah to Samson after she attempted to render him powerless before his Philistine enemies. From this usage it is said that German students came to use Philister, the German equivalent of Philistine, to denote nonstudents and hence uncultured or materialistic people. Both usages were picked up in English in the early 19th century.         [From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000]

Drawing from this and other quick research I’ve done, I can sketch out this timeline:

Timeline of the Evolution of the Word “Philistine”

  • 1693 [Jena, Germany] : A non-student kills a university student in a quarrel.
  • 1693 [Jena, Germany] : The Lutheran pastor at the university delivers a funeral oration which involves a verse from the Bible about “the Philistines” (an ethnic group). The word had no connotation at all of “uncultured” yet.
  • 1690s and On [Jena, Germany]: Students adopt the word Philister (English: philistine) “to denote non-students”.
  • 1700s [German-speaking Europe]: The use of the word “philistine” spreads in German university slang, as a simple shorthand for nonstudents (like “townie” in English), and probably also functions as a kind of shibboleth — this use of “philistine” is esoteric, so only students in-the-know would understand.
  • 1797 [Germany]: Goethe and Schiller, Enlightenment men who valued aesthetics, use the word “philistine” (in the modern sense) for the first time in print. They use the term to derisively describe their critics, “old fashioned rationalists…who had no feeling for contemporary poetry”, a definitively modern usage. [I find this here (“Germany as Model and Monster” by Gisela Argyle, note #40), and here].
  • 1827 [Britain]: Thomas Carlyle uses the word “philistine” for the first time in English, in an essay called “The State of German Literature” [here, note #40].
  • 1863 [Britain]: Writer Matthew Arnold publishes a book on Heinrich Heine in which he also discusses, at length, the German use of the word “philistine”, defining it for readers. [See below]
  • 1870s: [Britain] The word “philistine” starts to increase in frequency in the British-English “corpus” [Ngram]
  • 1880s: [USA] The word “philistine” starts to increase in frequency in the American-English “corpus” [Ngram]
  • 1987: [USA] Author Tom Wolfe uses the word “philistine” in Bonfire of the Vanities (among millions of other uses in the past 150 years).

Here is Matthew Arnold’s 1863 discussion of the word “philistine” in his book on Heine:
Picture

A page from Matthew Arnold’s “Heinrich Heine”. [From here]

“PhilistinismWe have not the expression in English. Perhaps we have not the word because we have so much of the thing”.  He talks about other possible words to apply to the concept of the “philistine”, but rejects them, and concludes, “I think we had much better take the term Philistine itself.”  Which is what happened.

And so it went that “philistine” (“humdrum people, slaves to routine…stupid and oppressive” in Arnold’s definition above) entered English.

One Australian novel I find published in 1892 has a character saying the following: “Puritanism crushed the artistic sense out of the English, and they are only getting it back slowly by a judicious crossing with other peoples who weren’t Puritanised into Philistinism“. Arnold reported that the word didn’t exist in English in 1863, but by the early 1890s it was being casually used like that. In the 1870s and 1880s, it must’ve been born in English.


Conclusion
The English word “philistine” comes from German university-student slang of the 1700s. There is no case for any other origin, since the first usage of the word in English was in an essay about German literature, and the subsequent usage by Arnold is also lifted from a discussion of German writing. How did it come into German — Apparently from a sermon delivered in 1693, after a murder. Imagine, if that nonstudent in Jena, whoever he was, had not killed that Jena student 320 years ago, we would not have the word “philistine” in English today.

A long-forgotten, unknown pastor in a town in late-17th-century Germany ended up (in effect) “coining a word” that emerged in English two centuries later. I wonder how many other words have such narrow starting points. The most wildly-successful recent word-coiner must be whoever first used “Okay” (which most authorities now believe, I’m told, comes from 1820s or 1830s New England. “Okay” is now a word in almost every language of the world.


Update, July 23: A follow-up post to this is Post-107, “More on the Origin of the Word ‘Philistine’