Zwei Pässe, ein Groll: Ursachen für Koreas Unbehagen gegenüber „schwarzhaarigen Ausländern“

There’s an unexpectedly (and in my opinion misplaced) class dynamic that’s emphasised in the article, but I’m hoping to stay clear of it.

I think this example explains best not only *that* they’re not appreciated by the Korean public, but also *why*.

>“I simply chose one of the two options I had, and there’s nothing wrong with that,” said Lee, who is now a graduate student in biology in the US. His family moved back to Korea shortly after his birth. He moved alone back to the US in eighth grade for his studies.

>“I still feel more comfortable speaking Korean and when I’m around my Korean friends. I consider myself a Korean. It’s just my passport that’s different.”

>Lee now travels to Seoul every few years to see his family on a C-3 visa, a short-term visit permit intended for temporary stays such as tourism. He hopes to return to Korea someday to be near his family and build his career here.

To my eyes this represents a misunderstanding of what „Korean“ Koreans see in these people such that they’re rejected by their homeland. You can emigrate and live a good life, and no one wants to deny you that right. But when you voluntarily pick and choose what part of a national identity you’ll subscribe to.

Social capital in Korea (and by extension of being Korean) isn’t just built upon language, or what your passport says; it’s a collective understanding and expectation that you’re willing to make sacrifices for the general society. When you go at such lengths as to move to a different country and renounce your passport to avoid a responsibility that applies to half the population, you’re not gonna get that trust.