Squid Game

Korea makes a lot of money exporting cars, computers, and all kinds of electronics.  All of these items are concrete.  They also export culture which in essence is ideas.  K-Pop has made inroads on our airwaves and last year a Korean movie actually won the Best Picture Oscar.  Now with the blessing of Netflix, the Koreans are invading television series in a very big way.  

"Squid Game" has had a greater impact on Netflix than any other tv. series.  Many of you have noticed, but more is to come.

What is the attraction?  Unexpected violence leading to death plays a role, but what stands out is that there seems to be no justification for the violence.  The killings are just called "eliminated" for playing a game.  

The cruelty is stunning.  It is difficult to determine a motive for setting up such cruelty, but an expressed sentiment is sort of an explanation.  If you have too much money, life is boring, if you have no money life is no fun.  Harken back to Roman times when gladiators fought to the death which was sometimes averted if the crowd signaled that preference.  It was not just the idle rich that passed judgment, but often included the hoi polloi.  It was all for entertainment and it must be admitted that cruelty draws attention.

The dynamics when lives are at stake can be tense.  There are six games and the participants can only guess what they are.  There are twists galore.  There are cheaters among both the participants and the staff administering the games.  The police have tried to infiltrate.  Each participant is desperate for different reasons.  Most of them are heavily in debt with no prospect for getting out. 

"Parasite" (2019) was a bit deceptive, but in reality it depicted class differences and that modern Korea had a degree of inequality--like the rest of the world.  It seems inevitable that inequality will be with us forever, but historically there have been resets--due to such things as pestilence and violence.  Check out:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/01/the-great-leveler-violence-and.html

"Squid Game" highlights inequality and while it is highly entertaining, it should also be thought provoking.  Do we want some segments of our population desperate while another segment exploits them for personal profit (or their amusement).  The end should make viewers concerned about the direction of our society.

Other films have attempted to convey such themes entertainingly with various degrees of success.  Here are a few contributors to the success of "Squid Game."

Director, writer and producer Hwang Dong-hyuk   Directed and wrote "Silenced" (2011) and "Miss Granny" (2014), both highly regarded by me.   Check http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2019/09/comparing-two-grannies.html

Jaeil Jung, composed the music and earlier had done "Okja" (2017) and "Parasite" (2019).

Lee Jung-jae, the leading protagonist is a fashion model.  His face seemed vaguely familiar and it turns out many of his films are on my list.  "The Housemaid" (2010),  "The Thieves" (2012),  "Assassination" (2015),  and "Along with the Gods: The Two worlds" (2017).

Oh Yeong-su played an old man on the verge of dementia who turned out to be more useful than first thought.  Despite his age there are only a few screen credits, one of which I have seen.  "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring" (2003).

Anupam Tripathi played a Pakistani immigrant, another desperate participant.  Born in India he picked up an interest in theater while there, but ended up moving to Korea where he was able to not only learn the language, but able to gain small roles.  His role in "Squid Game" was his first feature and ironically there is supposed to be Urdu dialogue, but Anupam is listed as speaking English, Korean and Hindi. 

Jung Hoyeon played a North Korean defector and created quite a stir from her role that launched her to a huge Instagram following.  Prior to this role she was well established as a fashion model and had only been in video shorts.  Surprised to learn she has been known for her red hair.  Don't be surprised when she makes a bigger splash, not just in Korea, but in the English speaking world.

If this got you hooked on Korean films you could check out some of the following:

Parasite won 3 Oscars:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/09/parasite-breaks-oscar-tradition.html

"Crash landing on You" (2019)  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2020/02/crash-landing-on-you-very-addicting.html

Right now I am enjoying "Designated Survivor:  60 Days" (2019) and feeling it provides the same tension as the American original.

The Great Leveler: Violence and Inequaltiy

Barack Obama thought, rising inequality "is the defining challenge of our time."  The future is intertwined with several concerns, climate change, pollution, nuclear tensions, but underlying them all is a feeling that the average person has no impact.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer has long been a cliche, but like most cliches there is a base element.  Inequality is natural and if unchecked tends to increase.  Not all bad as the pursuit of wealth has motivated many to innovate and work harder to improve the lives of the rest of us.  Scheidel uses some of the material uncovered by Thomas Piketty, although does not agree with all his conclusions.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/10/capital-in-twenty-first-century.html

Using a wide range of information Scheidel uses the Gini Co-Efficient to compare different societies at different times.  Obviously there is a limit imposed by the lack of numerical data for much of what he studies.  He improvises with such things as burial goods, size of housing, prices of different commodities.  His conclusions do not suffer.

Violence has proved to be the most reliable leveler of inequality.  The author classifies what he called the "Four Horsemen" the factors that have leveled inequality:  1). mass mobilization warfare;  2). transformative revolution;  3). state failure and 4). lethal pandemics.

In the course of over 300 pages he recounts instances of these leveling factors.  Inequality first became a fact with the agricultural revolution which made possible specialization and the accumulation of surpluses that enabled some to increase wealth and power.  Before in a hunter foraging economy everyone was important for overall survival and although some people are more talented or hard working than others they could be kept in line.  Two tools enabling inequality were land/livestock ownership and the ability to transmit wealth to future generations.

Many minor events could have a very temporary effect on inequality, but it takes a massive event to really level inequality with some examples being World War II, the Black Plague (followed in quick succession with other pandemics), the Russian Revolution, European invasion of the Americas  and the American occupation of Japan.  Some major events actually increase inequality or the wealthy are replaced with other wealthy people.  In all cases inequality restarts significantly over time.

What about the future?  The author concludes that the four leveling factors will have less likely impact in the future, so it seems likely inequality will always be with us.  Modernisms work both ways.  Those in power have more tools to stay in power.   The masses of people have more effective communication and ability to organize. 

There have been many suggestions to rectify or moderate inequality.  Progressive taxation, estate taxes, wealth taxation, boosting unions, universal medical insurance.  Poorer people tend to vote less than their wealthier fellow citizens suggesting perhaps that education might make a difference.  There will be resistance and costs to any radical solutions.

An earlier blog gives the perspective of John Maynard Keynes who thought the only purpose of economics should  be that everyone could live better.  He understood about the pendulum of the ups and downs of the economy.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/04/book-on-john-maynard-keynes.html

Although inequality has the advantage of offering incentives that generate innovation and hard work, there are disadvantages that become more evident as it becomes more extreme.  Number one is the inequality of opportunity that eventually hurts everyone when merit is secondary to connections.  Universal health care ensures that the poorest have an opportunity to receive preventive care that ensures the health of the rest.  A sense of fairness such as accepting that some people contribute more and deserve more is best achieved when the discrepancies are not too threatening.

My own thoughts on the inevitability of inequality.  If you took a random room of 100 people and were somehow able to redistribute the wealth to for example, $100,000 each, within minutes things would start to change.  Some would want to spend some to enjoy some of the things they had long wanted.  Others would see an opportunity to sell something, loan money so others could get what they want faster.  Some might be a bit fearful of the "rainy day" and keep their spending under (relative) control deferring gratification.  Some would steal from the others in the form of theft, intimidation, or fraud.  Of course some have more relevant talent than others.  It boils down to short term thinkers versus long term thinkers and yes a bit of luck, but essentially this has been our history.  

There is a lot of meat in the book provided by Walter Scheidel.  I found many of my thoughts debunked, but also gained a better understanding of the mechanisms that account for inequality.  The future is unpredictable, but many of the factors that will determine the life style of future generations are identified.

Confession.  I stumbled on this book because I had heard of a more recent book of the author, Walter Scheidel called "Escape from Rome."  Being cheap (and patient?) I just checked the library which had not yet ordered it, but had this other from the same author.  I have long concluded that there is more than one good book in any author and we often miss the early ones when they might have been more enthusiastic because they had not yet reached a tipping point.  I am on the look for "Escape from Rome" and for that matter other books by Walter Scheidel.

Minority Rights are the key to democracy

This is a cliche for many people, but too many of us need reminding.  Democracy cannot grow without minority rights.

Madeleine Albright. from "Fascism"  states "in a true democracy, leaders respect the will of the majority, but also the rights of the minority.  One without the other is not enough."  More about her book, http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2018/10/fascism-warning-form-madeleine-albright.html

With every election, we expect everyone to accept the result.  That is how our decisions are made.  However over history we have countless examples of how the majority can be wrong and even sometimes come to regret their decision.  Donald Trump got in without a majority with a platform that seems against minorities as well a big part of what he calls his base.  Too often politicians will set majorities against a minority to win an election.

My concern in this blog post is with minorities, the ones whose vote did not translate directly to power.  The majority/minority split can be in almost every category. (race, sex, age, political preferences).  Ideally every individual should fit into society and contribute to it.

However many minorities are not respected and are even commonly discriminated against.  But examining the concept of a minority any individual can be considered a minority.  There are considered a number of races and even more ethnicities and religious affiliations.  then there are education and employment status.  Sexual preferences are achieving greater public awareness.  We can go further--short or tall (or in between). age, there are more females in a society than males are a minority, although females may feel they are because they have in effect less political power. 

The point is any one person can be discriminated against, but society is only optimized when every individual is allowed to make a contribution.

Minorities have fought back violently.  Other forms of resistance are not so obvious, but nonetheless impact all of society.

John F. Kennedy quote--"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Nelson Mandela was very realistic after his years in prison.  He knew the majority blacks needed the educated whites and found ways to alleviate criticism.  Gandhi understood that Hindus were stronger with the support of the Muslims and worked to ally them (and others) to fight the British.  India today has more Muslims than any other nation, although conflicts are still there.

The American constitution and others have tried to give rights to the minorities.  The separation of church and government is crucial.  Although in Lebanon they have achieved some stability by holding some positions of power to specific minorities.  The trend today seems to be to expand minority rights such as for sexual preferences.  The majority normally resists losing their privileged status, but with more contact increase their acceptance.

Proportional voting gives a strong voice to minorities.   One complaint against it has been that too often power is split,  That is true, but when it happens it is more difficult for one party to discriminate against the minority

THE AMERICAN GUN DILEMMA

Outsiders often look at Americans in amazement.  We cannot understand why they value gun ownership more than human lives.  Not just owning a gun for household protection or hunting, but semi-automatic weapons capable of killing dozens of people in less than a minute.  Of course that is a little over simplified, but the American discussion seems a bit unbalanced.

Here in Canada while we have had some violence in our history we actually got our independence through peaceful means.  The American second amendment is interpreted by many as a protection against state abuse.  The American Revolution, the taming of the "Wild West" were violent and made Americans conscious that possession of a gun could be an important ingredient for freedom.  Vigilantes and lynchings have a long history in the US.  Americans are one of the few remaining countries to allow executions.

The National Rifle Association presents itself as deeply concerned over constitutional rights, but in reality it is very self serving as they really represent gun manufacturers.  Of course they will benefit if our reaction is we need a gun to protect ourselves from all the bad guys out there.  As a salesman I have learned that fear is one of the most potent motivators.  Get a prospect to become aware of the danger of not buying whatever you are selling and they are more apt to pay attention.  For gun manufacturers fear is their best ally.  The bad guys have guns so you need guns to protect yourself.

The government itself is visualized by many as something to fear instead of something to provide protection and nurturance.  Nazi Germany could have been stymied if enough Jews had been armed goes one argument.  In fact politicians fear the National Rifle Association and many go to great lengths to win their endorsement.

One factor facilitating violence is income inequality.  As long as there is real hope of improving your standard of life, there is enough incentive for most people to play by the rules.  In the best of times there is envy of those in better circumstances, but worse when the scales tip too much.  It is not so much that the majority of people feel a need for survival, but some feel life is unfair and they are better off with their own rules.  One of the things people do as they get more wealth is to protect it.

Violent cultures from movies and video games have spread around the world.  The ancient Romans escalated their demands for excitement culminating in a variety of gladiator contests to the death.  We feel they were very barbaric, but in fact we in North America seem to be evolving in the same direction.  United States is not unique in its love of violence in sports, movies and video games.

Mental illness is a concern, but as I once heard, the mentally ill are more apt to be victims than perpetrators. As mental illness becomes more accepted as part of society we can deal more effectively with it.  Rosalynn Carter, former First Lady has given out journalism awards for covering mental illness in a positive manner to help remove the stigma.  Health insurance which should include mental illnesses, in the United States lags most other industrial nations.  Mental illness is a factor in gun violence, but is much bigger issue and much more serious.

I have mostly lived in cities, except for a two years of high school when I lived in a rural area.  The attitude towards hunting was something I was unfamiliar with.  Businesses close down or employees take holidays.  Hunting season is looked forward to and talked about the rest of the year.  It is not something its participants would willingly give up.  Hunters might be afraid of losing their life style, but in fact if something isn't done to curb urban violence at some point the efforts to deal with urban fear may affect rural life styles.

Americans are not as safe as much of the rest of the world, but seem to feel if they just get a gun they will be safer.  Of course it tends to be counter productive.  Guns may in fact keep some of them safer or their property more secure, but there is a price.  Homicides, suicides and fatal accidents all occur because guns are too easily accessible.  Fear and intimidation are not conducive to improving relations.

Citizens recognize concerns with cars and dogs and have taken steps to control their abuse. Lawmakers are very reluctant to impose any further restrictions on the use of guns.  Even so called assault weapons or multiple bullet systems are easy to obtain.

What can a politician do?   The gun lobby is very powerful and there are enough people who are fearful of danger that a politician can risk losing a contested election by not being pro gun enough. What can a private citizen do?  Joe Biden suggested there is no total solution, but that we ought to diminish the problem.  Voters need to make their concerns known, but perhaps more importantly they need to be educated.  Look around the world.  Some of the underlying causes of violence need to be dealt with including income inequality.

Freedom to own a gun is an imposition on other people who feel a need to protect themselves from gun owners (some of whom are not trustworthy) or want to keep up with the Joneses.

PAYBACK: WHY WE RETALIATE, REDIRECT AGGRESSION AND TAKE REVENGE

We humans have many ways to react when we are hurt. We can retaliate, redirect aggression, take revenge or become anxious or depressed. We can also bounce back in a positive manner.

Common themes in literature and movies (and real life) are retaliation and revenge. We are also very familiar with somebody not able to fight back directly. People who have been abused are often in a difficult position to directly retaliate, but often re-direct their hurt and anger to those lower in the pecking order.

The author says this goes far back in evolution. It was necessary to somehow fight back. Being able to re-direct stress does seem to lessen stress, but is it helpful overall?   Some observers have noted that many of us actually derive pleasure from the suffering of others.

Abuse comes in all types. Physical is the most obvious, but verbal abuse can hurt even more.

To-day at both the individual and global level we need to find alternatives to survive. Some suggestions seem idealistic, not realistic for humans.

Gandhi felt (and demonstrated) that a non violent response can put the initial attacker in an unexpected position of being unbalanced and disoriented. Non violence can help break the chain of anger and hatred. Gandhi thought it cowardly to avoid violence, but non violence was the best response.

Other philosophers hold that reverence for life is a key and an understanding that suffering is unavoidable. Reflecting on these thoughts more deeply would alleviate thoughts of passing on your pain.

Another thought is that we need to focus much more on restitution rather than punishing. That falls on our legal system and legislation process. Restore the situation to what it was before violence intervened. On the other hand some situations are unjust and there needs to be non violent ways of dealing with them.

How do you as an individual deal with violence or other hurt inflicted on you. One piece of advice is first to take a deep breath and take time to think. A reflexive action without thinking often leads to more complications. What is in your best interest? A well thought out response is most often better than an immediate violent reaction. An obsession of revenge is also not conducive to developing your own prospects.  F Scott Fitzgerald once said "Living well is the best revenge." 

Another approach comes from game theory. A lot of experiments have taken place and one of the most effective strategies is called Tit for Tat. It boils down to making a conciliatory move, but respond in kind to that response to your effort. It indicates that you are not vindictive, but you expect to be treated fairly. Sounds simple, and many of us know situations where it doesn't have a positive outcome. The theory doesn't claim 100% success, just that it offers the best odds. In the long run avoid those who are not reasonable.

The problem of how we react to unfairness and violence is a concern for individuals and for society. This book provides much food for thought.