Issue 4
He’s a North Korean Defector but Still Hopes That One Day, He Can Go Back
Chloe Yeo, News Feature
July 27, 2024
2013 in Pyongyang, North Korea was a dark period. Kim Jong Un executed North Korea’s top official and his very own uncle, Jang Song Thaek. This execution initiated a series of government purges, and as tribulation spread throughout the nation, a high-ranking North Korean family was plotting their escape. In October of 2014, Hyun-Seung, or Arthur Lee escaped with three members of his family.
Mr. Lee grew up in Pyongyang, the nation’s capital, where his father was a high-ranking official for the North Korean government. Mr. Lee joined the military at seventeen, and while his service “wasn’t exceptional,” he was adopted into the cut-throat nature of North Korea’s military. He recalls how far people would go to escape military service,
“The first day, I arrived at a military base, and I saw nine people without two fingers….I asked a decennial official and he just told me they didn't want to serve in the military. They weren't discharged from the military, so they cut their fingers by themselves. In the North Korean military, there was a rule that if you lost two fingers, you were automatically discharged.”
Mr. Lee still revisits these uncomfortable memories every so often despite it being a decade since his departure.
During his escape to South Korea, he changed his name, birthday, and even his family background. Mr. Lee never felt a drastic loss of his cultural identity during his defection because “in North Korea, [cultural identity] is blocked by the regime. They don’t allow people to think about it in that way.”
Regions in North Korea aren’t distinctly divided. Since North Korea is a one-party system, the country doesn’t allow local governments or people to accumulate power against each other or the government. Across the regions, people rarely celebrate cultural traditions, as they are banned. According to North Korean ideology, all of its citizens are a part of the Kim Family; their father is technically Kim Jong Un.
Mr. Lee elaborates on the mystification of his cultural identity: “My name is Lee. I might be from the Chosun dynasty because the King’s last name was Lee. It doesn’t exist anymore. I cannot check my tradition and history.” Due to the stigmas surrounding North Korean refugees in South Korea, Mr. Lee has to be cautious about acknowledging his cultural identity. Due to his educational opportunities outside of North Korea, Mr. Lee is just as knowledgeable and successful as South Koreans, yet he’s still pressured to hide his North Korean identity from South Korean society.
Since North Korea deeply values unification, Mr. Lee had a hard time adapting to the concept of discrimination and stereotypes against North Koreans once he was outside of the regime. His educated and privileged background negates the stereotype surrounding North Korean refugees as poor and helpless. Mr. Lee confesses that while some people mean well, they automatically assume that “Oh, escapees, they don't know anything.”As a result, many North Korean defectors are infantilized or perceived as homeless and needy regardless of their position in North Korea.
While Mr. Lee grew up in a privileged family, his defection forced him and his family to start from scratch. Mr. Lee waited tables and worked valet while simultaneously learning English. In 2017, The Washington Post interviewed Mr. Lee about his life in Pyongyang and came up with the term “Pyonghattan,” drawing parallels between the two wealthy regions. While the article exaggerates the luxury of Pyongyang’s 1%, Mr. Lee rejects the idea of Pyongyang’s aesthetic similarity to Manhattan. He believes that the “American media highlights the 1% as cold, loyal people to the regime, but I don’t think [North Korean elites] have massive privilege.” The elite in the regime don’t have private assets or money, so ultimately they are “still victims of the regime,” Mr. Lee explains.
Mr. Lee continues to share his defection experience with others and answer questions about North Korea. He explains “It's life. Sometimes you don't want to explain too much. I have to explain. And sometimes, you know, I want to because it's more beneficial for people to understand North Korea correctly.” He proactively utilizes his freedom of speech and access to information to destigmatize North Korea. Mr. Lee is a global changemaker involved with various organizations, but he still thinks of his childhood home affectionately. “Whether I like it or not, or whether the country is right or not, I think North Korea is still my home. My goal is to make North Korea an open society so that I can go back and see some of my old friends,” Mr. Lee emphasizes wistfully.
Project 2025 Threatens American Democracy
Jennifer Li, Opinion
July 27, 2024
As recent polling reflects former President Donald J. Trump’s lead in the upcoming presidential election, the 2025 Presidential Transition Project— “Project 2025” —, a far-right organization working to establish the blueprint for the next Trump presidency, poses an imminent threat to American democracy. Among a myriad of conservative policies listed in a 900-page document, the project’s plans include expanding the president’s control over the federal government, removing the Department of Education, and outlawing abortion and related medication; the radical left’s worst nightmares. Indeed, the taut adversary language used in Project 2025’s official website projects the left as a threat to be dismantled by the future Republican president. However, independent of its political affiliation, this extremist project teeters the very foundation of democracy. The high likelihood of the manifestation of its plans, which center around funneling more power into the president’s hands and undoing many hard-won societal advances, makes Project 2025 a force to be feared.
Project 2025’s book “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise” spells out the innumerable policy proposals that will undo important societal advancements of the past decades. For one, it calls for a hard ban on abortion in all 50 states. The project wishes to resurrect the Comstock Act’s nationwide ban on abortion as well as related medication, including abortion pills and contraception access. To limit the latter, it proposes to defund Planned Parenthood, a prominent organization providing sexual healthcare in the US. On top of that, it will also strip away women’s rights to life-saving healthcare. Proposals in the book include removing student debt forgiveness, restructuring the tax code in favor of the wealthy, abandoning the attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increasing fees for asylum seekers, and promoting Christian nationalism. Evidently, these policies are closed-minded, and more importantly, they would alter existing policies that past generations have made immense progress on.
Another warning siren of the project, as a threat to democracy, is its call to extend the power and influence of the president, a decision that diminishes the very base of democracy in the US. A large motive of the project is to reduce the power of the federal government which their book describes as “a behemoth, weaponized against American citizens and conservative values.” Paul Dans, as director of the project, expressed the desire to “flood the zone with conservatives.” The plan proposes to fire as many as 50,000 federal workers and replace them with the president’s loyalists, creating a conservative “army” of a government that would allow easy access to abuse of power and political corruption. Project 2025’s blueprint also suggests placing the FBI and Department of Justice under the president, removing their independent status to become an “attack dog for conservative causes,” a Reuters article writes. If given the power, Project 2025 could turn the White House into a playground for conservatives while expanding presidential power. Such power is heavily anti-democratic; democracy strives to represent citizens’ opinions in their government, but this scenario may see the realization of extremist policies that far from represent the beliefs of the masses. This power concentrated in the hands of the president is dangerous and would pose great issues in the coming term.
In recent weeks, Trump has disavowed the project. He tweeted on July 5th, 2024 that he “[knows] nothing about Project 2025… [has] no idea who is behind it” and “some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” However, his past collaboration with some of Project 2025’s key administrators discredit this disavowment. Project 2025 is organized by the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank founded in 1973 which was widely influential in the previous Trump administration. Within one year in office, the Trump administration adopted almost two-thirds of Heritage’s plans. Some individuals who were in the Trump administration also played key roles in Project 2025. The Director of Project 2025, Paul Dans, once served in the Trump Administration as The Chief of Staff of Personnel Management amongst other roles. Associate Director of the project, Spencer Chretien, was a Special Assistant to Trump and Associate Director of Presidential Personnel. In 2022, Trump commented about the Heritage Foundation: “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detailed plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.” This quote completely undermines more recent comments denying affiliation with or knowledge of the individuals behind the project.
Project 2025 could feed Trump’s proclivity to eliminate opposition, and his far-right beliefs, presenting a worrisome projection of the future. The changes that will ensue over the next four years are still uncertain. But, one thing is for sure: the realization of Project 2025 would represent a colossal, shameful step back for America. Let us do our best to protect the nation from this extremist movement and their wishlist for the next Trump presidency.
You Probably Haven’t Heard of the World’s Largest Child Displacement Crisis
Louisa Corbett, News
July 27, 2024
Sudan is currently home to one of Africa’s deadliest civil wars and the world’s largest child displacement crisis.
But even though the 11 million displaced Sudanese people largely exceeds Gaza’s displacement count of 1.9 million people, Sudan’s current civil war is largely uncovered by mainstream media. While it could be reasonably asserted that most at least know of the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine conflicts, very few have heard of the equally catastrophic war in Sudan.
Out of nineteen interviewees, only one had heard of a civil war in Sudan. She requested anonymity.
“I barely know anything about it,” she said. “Wait, it’s still going on?”
The Sudanese Civil War is a conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdeh Fattah al-Burhan, and the paramilitary group the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo.
The SAF is Sudan’s official military force. The RSF, however, is not a rebel force: it is recognized by law and was “developed, tolerated, and sustained as an instrument of state power,” according to the United States Institute of Peace. While the RSF can more easily be identified as a corrupt institution, as it was formed to aid in Omar al-Bashir’s genocidal regime, both the SAF and the RSF abuse civilian populations, and both obstruct Sudan’s path to a peaceful democracy.
In 2019, the thirty-year dictatorial regime of Omar al-Bashir over Sudan ended. While in power, Bashir persecuted all non-Arab religions in the Darfur war, which was later found a genocide by the International Criminal Court and the U.S. State Department. Bashir’s rule was violent and aggressive, as he “turned a blind eye” to police crimes and government corruption. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, by the 2010s, calls for both Bashir’s resignation and a new, democratic government for Sudan swelled. To get Bashir out of power, the SAF and the RSF, led by Burhan and Hemedti, respectively, organized and carried out a coup (even though, during his reign, Bashir endorsed and employed the RSF). In mid-2019, Bashir stepped down, and economist Abdalla Hamdok took his place as prime minister.
Hamdok’s incumbency as prime minister was short – the SAF and RSF united to remove him from office in October 2021, reinstated his rule in November to appease international debt relief organizations, and then officially removed him from the government in January 2022. Since Hamdok resigned, Sudan has had no official prime minister. Instead, Burhan operates as de facto head of state; realistically, Burhan and Hemedti stand together at the helm of the country.
In January 2022, Burhan and Hemedti were left with the job of transitioning Sudan’s government from dictatorship to democracy, implementing national elections and guiding the populace to self-governance. By the end of the year, a two-year transitional plan was presented.
Many civilians rejected the plan because it allowed the military groups, mainly the SAF and RSF, to retain some state powers, and it failed to hold the groups’ leaders accountable for the abuse, theft, and massacres of the Darfur war and Bashir regime.
Both military groups tightened control over civilian populations, violently cracking down on protestors, as objections to the transitional plan increased into the spring of 2023. In addition to abusing the civilian population, the RSF and SAF found themselves at odds with each other.
The plan “elevated Hemedti to Burhan’s equal,” according to Global Conflict Tracker, and required the “eventual integration of the RSF into Sudan’s legitimate armed forces [the SAF] and placed both the SAF and the RSF under civilian leadership.”
Burhan and Hemedti, however, could not agree on a timeline for the integration of the RSF into the SAF. The power struggle between the two men, and between their military forces, climaxed in a set of explosions followed by heavy gunfire in Khartoum on April 15, 2023. Both the RSF and the SAF accused each other of firing first, and since then Sudan has been entrenched in a civil war that has displaced and killed staggering amounts of civilians.
Since April 15, 2023, over 12 million people in Sudan have been displaced from their homes. Over half of the population, or more than 25 million people, face crisis or acute food insecurity. Outbreaks of cholera, malaria, measles, and dengue plague the country as a result of limited medical care. More than 90% of the country’s children have no access to formal education.
Calls for peace, from international organizations, other countries, and the civilian population, sound relentlessly. While the SAF and RSF have agreed at several points during the war to ceasefires and peace talks, both sides have resumed fighting almost immediately on every occasion.
Nearby African countries, primarily Chad, are overflowing with refugees, and though the SAF has the most recent upper hand after receiving drone weaponry from Iran, there is no end in sight for the conflict in Sudan.
What Oppenheimer Left Out
Gia Priore, Opinion
July 27, 2024
Since Oppenheimer broke into theaters last July, it has received innumerable praise, grossing nearly one billion dollars and landing eight Golden Globe nominations according to Medium. The three-hour-long film directed by Christopher Nolan tackled J. Robert Oppenheimer’s quest to construct the first atomic bomb and the ensuing inner turmoil he faced in the aftermath of his achievement.
While in the movie’s conclusion, Oppenheimer briefly recalls how he and Albert Einstein worried that testing their nuclear weapon would destroy the planet, their concern serves only as a foreshadowing, bringing the film to a satisfying close. Ending the story on a post-apocalyptic note that only hints at future demolition undermines the real-life consequences of Oppenheimer’s invention. The narrow focus on one man’s contribution to science distracted from atomic bomb victims.
According to National Geographic, on July 16, 1945, girls attending a dance camp just forty miles away from the test site in Los Alamos, New Mexico, experienced a startling blast. Eagerly, they ran outside to play in the “snow,” which turned out to be ash from the experimental explosion. A Nuclear Threat Initiative study found that out of the twelve girls who were present, eleven died as a direct result of their exposure. The only surviving member later developed multiple types of cancer.
The girls were not the only group affected by fallout from the Trinity Test; numerous communities faced devastating repercussions from an incident they had no prior knowledge of and no means of protection from.
Perhaps the development of these weapons was inevitable. With the fast-paced technological advancements of the 20th century, humans may have been bound to invent a weapon with the potential for mass destruction.
Oppenheimer was not alone in believing nuclear weapons were a necessary measure to end the Second World War. Thus, Oppenheimer’s role is undoubtedly historically significant.
The atomic weapons that were unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killed a total of 199,000 people according to Atomic Archive—half of whom were incinerated instantly, engulfed in temperatures of up to 7,000 degrees Fahrenheit, National Park Services reported. It is estimated by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that around 95% of the combined casualties were civilians and families.
There is very little attention given to these events in Nolan’s biopic. It seems like we have forgotten the real implications of the Manhattan Project for the sake of a plot that is easier to rationalize. The movie doesn’t shy away from Oppenheimer’s feelings of terror as he reflects on his creation; he begins hallucinating and is unable to bear the reality of atomic bombs. The tortured genius trope comes off as extremely superficial when put against the backdrop of hundreds of thousands of deaths. If the movie confronted some of the darkest scenes in human history, it could have been a powerful commentary on the atrocities of war and the sacrifices made in the name of progress.
Why produce a movie of this nature without allowing it to take a moral stance? Although not all entertainment should be obligated to serve a political position, certain subjects—particularly ones based on real historical events—demand more holistic portrayals. History should not exist for the mere purpose of becoming entertainment.
Social responses to the movie’s release also solidified its detachment from reality. The counterprogramming of Barbie and Oppenheimer elicited memes and merchandise that encouraged people to take sides in the Barbenheimer trend. When considering the content of Oppenheimer, referring to it in such casual, even comedic terms is alarmingly distasteful. Many schools, including my own, participated in a “Barbie vs. Oppenheimer” day for Spirit Week.
In one of Oppenhiemer’s posters, Cillian Murphy, the actor who plays the film’s protagonist, stands at the forefront of the image with an impassive expression as light shoots out from a nuclear combustion. His back is turned to the atrocities that lie behind him. Such marketing makes it easy to forget that this isn’t science fiction, nor is it the story of some superhero or villain. This is the story of a very flawed yet highly intelligent individual whose contributions to science had immediate and devastating ramifications that forever altered the course of history.
It is a testament to our own historical ignorance that we, just like Oppenheimer himself, struggle to face the destruction born from advancement.
Japan committed terrible atrocities during the Second World War, and many people firmly believe their government would not have surrendered had such powerful forces not been exerted. While we may not be personally accountable for events of the past, our treatment of history intertwines us in its ever-evolving path, and likewise, our understanding of the past is inextricably linked to the future.
To some people, it may just be a movie. But, to me, portraying a subject matter that bears such considerable moral weight should have been handled with respect for the sake of those who lost their lives. Instead of pursuing a biopic, this film may have been better off as an examination of the past through multiple perspectives and layers that capture the complexity of such a relevant issue.
Alpha Males: A Symptom of the Culture
Eliot Bicknell, Opinion
July 27, 2024
If you’ve been on the internet in the last three years, you’re likely familiar with the “Alpha Male'' influencer archetype. A fit guy sitting on a podcast, telling his predominantly young male viewers that “women are the root of all their problems” and that the solution is: money, suppressed emotions, and buying their 10-day program. These influencers have been present on the internet for an unfortunately long time but were only thrust into the mainstream with the arrival of Andrew Tate in 2020, who propagated all these same ideas. Tate, who now faces trial for rape and human trafficking charges, accelerated this movement. Despite being out of the spotlight now, Tate left behind quite the legacy: An internet cesspool of toxic masculinity and blatant bigotry that appears to be here to stay. Of course, misogyny and toxic masculinity are not anything new. These issues have been around for an incredibly long time, and it is only recently that we’ve started to really make progress against them. But is this online movement indicative of our regression as a society, or simply a sign that we have not progressed nearly as much as we think we have?
What I think it comes down to, as many of our issues do in the modern political climate, is the overall polarization in our society. The internet has pushed us closer and closer towards extremism. This is most readily obvious in the current political climate in America. In the last few decades, extremism on both sides has expanded, as has animosity towards the other side.
This unwillingness to stray away from one perspective is also present in toxic masculinity.
But many young men see discourse and take it as a deeply personal attack, and they are not completely delusional in this interpretation. The frame by which some feminists have attacked the issue of toxic masculinity and misogyny has often strayed antagonistic towards all men in a way that is decidedly unproductive. Calls to “Kill All Men,” although blown out of proportion by the right, have possibly done much more to derail the feminist movement than they have done to help it. 60 percent of young men would not call themselves feminists, possibly due to them seeing feminism as an anti-male movement, as opposed to one that calls for equality. It is also important to remember that young men are harmed by toxic masculinity as well. For instance, some men can end up feeling like they can’t open up or show emotion. Men's mental health is a real issue. For men, suicide rates are worse than ever. 15% of men say they have no close friends, up from 3% in 1990. Depression and social isolation are not at all uncommon for young men, especially those deemed undesirable by society.
As a result of these factors, young men are more vulnerable than ever, and therefore easy to exploit. This is where men like Andrew Tate come in, looking to profit off of vulnerable teenagers. During the pandemic and the years after, Alpha Male influencers flooded the internet, preying on their impressionable audience by telling them exactly what they wanted to hear: “that there is absolutely nothing wrong with traditional masculinity and that the problem is women.” Many young men latched onto this ideology, making posts and flooding comment sections. Why were they so easily swayed? It was the easiest choice. It is much easier to lash out at women then it is to take the time to truly improve yourself and come to terms with your own masculinity. In fact, it is completely understandable how so many boys were indoctrinated so easily. As a young man myself, I’ve seen friends and classmates utterly convinced by these influencers, offloading sexist remarks and dropping everything in favor of trying to make money and acquire a materialistic lifestyle.
Online Masculinity is a real problem, one that threatens to disrupt the ideas of equality and acceptance that we strive to achieve as a society. It directly hurts women and adds to the already large amount of anti-woman rhetoric that exists online. The truth is, online masculinity is not the root of the problem in and of itself, it is a symptom. It is a call for help from young men.
So what’s the solution? How do we disconnect a pipeline that thrives on social media? It has to be cut off at the source. Boys need to be taught a real definition of masculinity, at home and in school. One that is not centered on money, sex, or dominance, but instead on strength, kindness, and self-acceptance. There is nothing inherently wrong with traditionally masculine activities; boys can still play sports and be competitive if they want to, but they need to know that is not the only way to be a man.