Shin and Kim’s article, “Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Group Sound Rock” vastly helps comprehend the ties that connect Korean pop culture to the U.S. military system and the influence the latter established on the former. There is this continuous cycle of back-and-forth, giving and taking between American and Korean systems, which makes me raise questions about contribution and hybridity between the two nations. The geographical roots of Korean rock music is complex. The U.S. military authorities held constant control over Korean musicians, with them even being the final deciders of talent to be deemed worthy (277). This made me think of what Dr. Anderson talked about during our in-class video chat: that when Korean artists go abroad to perform, they need to hone various new skills to be accepted into the American culture sphere, whereas Beyonce, for instance, would never have to put in even a partial of that effort when performing in Asian spaces. This makes me think, even though there is this cycle of America needing Korean-ness to expand their culture to make it more multifaceted and Korea needing Americanness to globalize theirs, why is it that America demands much higher requirements for Korean-ness to enter? As Shin and Kim state, “musical versatility was crucial to the survival of a band playing U.S. military clubs (277).” There’s this need to reform and almost alter for the benefit of the U.S. How is it not the other way around as well, given America too needs the Korean-ness — or has that neediness only sprouted in the current day? Additionally, there was increased cramming to learn hits of the American pop charts: “The level of competition among the musicians to enter and stay on the camp show circuit was very high (277).” This to me is somewhat hypocritical on the part of Americans because they tend to often create stereotypes deeming Asians as being robotic, whereas it’s these very American spaces (such as the camp shows) that require memorization and extreme competitiveness in order for Koreans to be deemed worthy.
The controlling of the youth was also something I found interesting in this piece. Once the authoritarian Park Chung-Hee regime took control and deemed the “youth culture” as “vulgar,” the regime seemed to have mimicked military regulations: “Men got a free haircut on the spot if their hair was deemed too long. Women’s skirts had to be long enough to cover their knees” (282). This discipline of the body is very much a militarized form of regulation so the influences are almost too obvious. With the survival of decadence, “the go-go revolt was a warning sign that the heavy-handed cultural oppression would eventually backfire” (284). That is similar to Korean pop today and more recently. The bans on censored content and pop were all lifted after Psy’s “Gangnam Style”. The only difference, however, was that that may have come about from a transnational demand rather than a Korean revolt. Hence, going back to my previous question, why is it that American need overpowers Korean need even today (when Kpop does hold such high demand in the western sphere today) and why are regulations for Korean entering more rigorous than American?
The Politics of K-Pop 
In response to Maisha’s question of: why is it that American need overpowers Korean need even today (when Kpop does hold such high demand in the western sphere today)?
Today, US imperialism is still active through its 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. With the country’s physical expansiveness comes an entitled sense of territorial beliefs and exceptionalism which argue that America is somehow worthy of asserting its dominance. American forces are able to reinforce their needs above those of other countries in part because the country does so under the guise of a feigned genuine interest in harmlessly uniting people of all backgrounds into one huge melting pot “for liberty and justice for all”. The sentiment of Americanization seems harmless, and continues to be renewed with every violently xenophobic and racist act of imperialism through both hard and soft power.
America also has a reputation for distorting its historical involvements in colonization, genocide and war and so they use the narrative of the American Dream, which only works through Americanization to force their political, social and economic needs over Korea. It is as if America asks Korea, “Well, what have you done for me?” America claims the right to saving Korea from otherwise impending doom and holds that narrative over the heads of both American and Korean citizens.
In light of America’s entitlement in regard to K-Pop, it seems that America tries to again, take responsibility for uses its resources in media and finance to propel the genre to international fame, when in reality, the K-Pop idols that the American media is only recently discovering, have garnered international fame from their Korean-sanctioned media companies. PSY and BTS are exceptional examples, signalling the phenomenon of Hallyu 2.0, because they were able to achieve such success without the American press intervening. However, with other less record-breaking (but still popular) groups like NCT 127 and BlackPink, we see the American press trying to take advantage of their rise to success in US markets through the same implicit narratives of the American Dream.
LikeLike