>> Pluralism and individualism are regarded as the greatest enemy. I understood the significance of being able to drive a car anywhere you want, when you please, where you please - as our guide told us in North Korea you only travel big distances by bus or train, when you get permission.
> Internal visa is an evil system, but this paragraphs just reeks of material and moral superiority. Hey why don't you just become a rugged individual like me and save up for a car when there is only three scheduled trains every week?
I'm not sure it's meant that way. I don't see material superiority in it. Noting your appreciation for your ability to get into a car and drive where you want when confronted with strict control of movement doesn't necessarily imply "they should get a car", but that the you understand that ability in a new light, as a freedom that isn't available to everyone.
I agree the captions sometimes come across as a little heavy handed, but also I think you're also being overly critical in some cases where it's not called for.
Addendum:
>> The man has some genuine dignity.
> Again, really hard to figure out whether it is sarcasm or not.
I was a bit unsure whether it was sarcasm initially as well, but decided it wasn't because a) The man looks dignified to me, especially in comparison to the train crossing guard in the prior slides, and b) I don't believe he uses sarcasm much in these slides, at least not the same type of sarcasm that would be exhibited here if this was meant sarcastically.
Thanks for the comments. Perhaps I was over-reacting, but I was more frustrated with other aspects of this post that I will spell out now at the risk of sounding like jealousy or argumentum ad hominem
- This set of photos has gone viral and was presented "the latest ILLEGAL photographs smuggled out of the hermit kingdom" in many reputable media outlets. It even made to the first page of HN (disguised as a technical write-up). Yet there is nothing remarkable about it. Sure, tourists are not supposed to take photos of soldiers, of police, of anything not pretty during their train journey to Pyongyang, or in some accounts, badly composed shots of their national monuments. But such photos seem to never be in short supply, a simple search will reveal hundreds of blog posts and image galleries littered with such snaps with nobody expressing slightest fear of reprisal. Whatever accomplishments it may have, had been blown out of proportion.
- The photographer is from Eastern Europe. My feeling from interaction with many Eastern Europeans of various background is that many of them will go out of their way to denounce their Cold War legacy, sometimes to the extent of borderline reactionary to my center-left mind. The multiple mentions of "individualism" in pretty unusual contexts as well as a general holier-than-thou attitude to countries presently aligned with Russia is eerily familiar.
> I was a bit unsure whether it was sarcasm initially as well...
This is a fair comment and I appreciate your thoughts. I actually stopped reading by that line then, but on my second attempt the last panel really stood out:
>> Elegant men, beautiful women, walking in a simulated hurry, travelers without a reason (ours was the only train that day), all to impress us and so that the station doesn't look empty.
Staged or not,there is no evidence either way. But if the observer has already decided that anything nice is only for show, then this will be the only thing he sees.
> Staged or not,there is no evidence either way. But if the observer has already decided that anything nice is only for show, then this will be the only thing he sees.
I agree there wasn't much evidence presented for a lot of the slides, but I took it more as a travelogue than an exposé. While I would have preferred more commentary and evidence for certain items, I'm not going to fault the photographer for describing each image and the context as they saw it.
> This set of photos has gone viral and was presented "the latest ILLEGAL photographs smuggled out of the hermit kingdom" in many reputable media outlets.
Is that the media, or was the author/photographer also pushing that agenda? It's very poorly titled here on HN as of now. The author mentions recovering an image once or twice from what I saw, but the title here suggests they are all rare and special images. I guess the question is, should we fault and be overly critical of the author because of how others pushed his work, or should be try to assess the author on his own merits and fault the media for their part in the circus (assuming the author was not pushing this view, which I know nothing about).
That picture is the first of a pair from this location in his second gallery (linked by someone here in the comments), and the description on reddit lines up with his comments on the slide:
In North Korea, there are places you can visit and places you cannot visit, and the latter are far more numerous. Well, this is one of them. Usually, we were accompanied by our guides, one in the front, one in the back. But at one point they were both in the front, which allowed for a literally 15-second long detour into this ordinary shop for North Koreans. That gave me maybe 10 seconds to take this and the following picture, before being kicked out by the bad cop, and the atmosphere became rather unpleasant. I'm not sure if he saw me taking these pictures.
He repeats that verbatim in one of the reddit comments, and adds "Also, I've got a photo album with the photos of my journey into North Korea, if anyone is interested." I don't really see that as the photographer trying to pass all the images off as special, he specifically linked this one image from that gallery, and clearly distinguishes between this image, and others from his trip. Whether this image is really special or not is another story, but I don't really doubt that the author believes it's special due to the circumstances he took it in (it could easily have been the guides trying to exert general control, not specifically that they viewed this location off-limits).
As another commenter here noted, it's possible he was sold an "experience" by the tour company he chose, and they were playing to the group. In any case, there's definitely a lot of popular mythology at play with regard to North Korea, intensified by the lack of useful information, and this all plays into that, which I'm sure it's one of the reasons it's gaining so much traction. People like the idea of him having to smuggle out the pictures, whether or not that's an accurate description of what happened or what he's really saying. I don't wonder at why it's being spread that way, even if I do lament it.
> As another commenter here noted, it's possible he was sold an "experience" by the tour company he chose, and they were playing to the group. In any case, there's definitely a lot of popular mythology at play with regard to North Korea, intensified by the lack of useful information, and this all plays into that, which I'm sure it's one of the reasons it's gaining so much traction. People like the idea of him having to smuggle out the pictures, whether or not that's an accurate description of what happened or what he's really saying. I don't wonder at why it's being spread that way, even if I do lament it.
I just had a chance to go through the second gallery and this is pretty much the same conclusion I have arrived at. A lot of information he tries to pass as facts are well-debunked myths that he swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Perhaps the word "agenda" is a little bit harsh, it feels more like ignorance/naivety than malice. After all, it is just another sad episode of regurgitated stale narrative being passed around as something novel.
> Internal visa is an evil system, but this paragraphs just reeks of material and moral superiority. Hey why don't you just become a rugged individual like me and save up for a car when there is only three scheduled trains every week?
I'm not sure it's meant that way. I don't see material superiority in it. Noting your appreciation for your ability to get into a car and drive where you want when confronted with strict control of movement doesn't necessarily imply "they should get a car", but that the you understand that ability in a new light, as a freedom that isn't available to everyone.
I agree the captions sometimes come across as a little heavy handed, but also I think you're also being overly critical in some cases where it's not called for.
Addendum:
>> The man has some genuine dignity.
> Again, really hard to figure out whether it is sarcasm or not.
I was a bit unsure whether it was sarcasm initially as well, but decided it wasn't because a) The man looks dignified to me, especially in comparison to the train crossing guard in the prior slides, and b) I don't believe he uses sarcasm much in these slides, at least not the same type of sarcasm that would be exhibited here if this was meant sarcastically.