Yeonmi Park, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the Alignment of Some Refugees with Far-Right Talking Points

[Debater Slayer]

Recently, I came across the story of Yeonmi Park, a North Korean defector and human rights activist who experienced severe persecution and abuse along with her family under the North Korean regime. Among her interviews and political views, I found out that, during an interview with Fox News, she made statements likening professors' asking students about gender-neutral pronouns to North Korean censorship and saying that "even North Korea was not this nuts."

North Korean defector says 'even North Korea was not this nuts' after attending Ivy League school

She has also cited her own experiences as a justification to dismiss and deride the protest of a Black athlete at the Olympics:

North Korean defector says US Olympian Gwen Berry's flag protest 'unthinkable'

It is perplexing, to say the least, that she would fall for the logical error of "X had it worse, so Y has no reason to protest their situation," especially since that logic would arguably mean she herself was "privileged" compared to North Koreans who couldn't escape the current regime. It is also perplexing that she would compare the large-scale atrocities committed by the North Korean regime to some trends in an Ivy League school that have nowhere near the same level of influence, severity, or scale as the former.

While there's a case to be made that the American left has harbored some problematic trends within the last several years in particular, it doesn't take first-hand experience of life in North Korea to see that it is quite hyperbolic and potentially minimizing of other North Koreans' struggles to compare concentration camps and mass torture to professors' asking students about their preferred pronouns or perhaps overly focusing on the perceived evils within Western culture and history.

But this isn't the first time a refugee who fled severe persecution has made hyperbolic statements or associated with far-right talking points: Ayaan Hirsi Ali has previously had ties to Geert Wilders, a far-right Dutch politician who echoes multiple fascist (in the literal sense) sentiments.

There are other refugees, such as Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, who adopt a stance critical of both the right and the left when it comes to the problematic aspects of their politics, so there's demonstrably nothing unique to refugees that means they must align with far-right beliefs as Yeonmi Park and Hirsi Ali have.

This leads to the main question of this thread: what, in your opinion, is the reason some refugees who have experienced extreme persecution adopt such extremist stances themselves when they flee to other countries? I'm not talking about merely being conservative; I'm talking about adopting hyperbole, dismissing others' issues or experiences, and leaning toward incendiary and divisive speech at the expense of nuance and reasoned argumentation. It greatly interests me to analyze and try to understand the causes of this alignment.

 

[Aštra’el]

This is a huge mischaracterization of Yeonmi Park.

Amazing how even the slightest criticism of the left (in America, at least) in some peoples’ minds equates to “extremist ideas” or “far right talking points”.

I’ve watched so many of Yeonmi Park’s videos on Youtube. Originally it was because I find North Korea fascinating, and she’s been a window where I can get a glimpse into that hidden world. But she’s really grown on me. She’s an exception to the fact that I don’t like activists. I like her. There isn’t an ounce of hate in anything I’ve seen from her, and she genuinely values the life and rights that she is afforded here in America.

There are many nice things I can say about her, but it is probably better for people to see for themselves and make up their own minds. Anyone who would like a more accurate impression than what was written here in the original post can just visit her Youtube channel. The videos there range from descriptions of her own experiences in North Korea, insights into North Korean culture (which varies greatly depending on class), comparisons between North Korea and the rest of the world, and speculation over what may or may not still be going on there since she left.

It’s kind of messed up, that someone who in my eyes has consistently appeared so entirely kind, compassionate and empathetic, is painted as a hateful “far right extremist” by people who really don’t understand what they are talking about. But I am not surprised.

 

[Stevicus]

This leads to the main question of this thread: what, in your opinion, is the reason some refugees who have experienced extreme persecution adopt such extremist stances themselves when they flee to other countries? I'm not talking about merely being conservative; I'm talking about adopting hyperbole, dismissing others' issues or experiences, and leaning toward incendiary and divisive speech at the expense of nuance and reasoned argumentation. It greatly interests me to analyze and try to understand the causes of this alignment.

I'm not sure about the motives of the refugees, although I recall during the Cold War, defectors and emigres from behind the Iron Curtain were often far more virulently anti-communist than many conservatives.

Something I often notice, whenever Americans or other Westerners discuss politics, foreign policy, or military policy, it's oftentimes done in insular situations where the discussants are far removed and detached from the situation they're discussing.

However, such discussions take on a different angle if one or more of the discussants come from personal experience. Two liberals discussing Vietnam might be challenged by a Vietnam Vet who would say "I was there, man! I know more about this topic than you do!"

Likewise, during the Cold War, subjects like disarmament, détente, aiding anti-communist regimes, etc. might have come up. I recall watching a talk show where aid to the Contras was a topic, and a lot of people who were against aid to the Contras were challenged by a Central American refugee who kept going on "I'm from there! I was born there! Therefore I know more about this than you do!"

It seems to be a familiar pattern, where people from various parts of the world come to the U.S. and tell Americans of all kinds of atrocities and other horrible things about the outside world. That creates the impression that the outside world is dangerous, filled with nothing but crazed, murderous thugs and tyrants.

The impression is that the only thing standing between the world and a thousand years of oppression and darkness is the "shining city on the hill" - the wonderful American militarists and white knights who have selflessly pledged to do everything possible to save the world from itself.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This is a huge mischaracterization of Yeonmi Park.

Amazing how even the slightest criticism of the left (in America, at least) in some peoples’ minds equates to “extremist ideas” or “far right talking points”.

I’ve watched so many of Yeonmi Park’s videos on Youtube. Originally it was because I find North Korea fascinating, and she’s been a window where I can get a glimpse into that hidden world. But she’s really grown on me. She’s an exception to the fact that I don’t like activists. I like her. There isn’t an ounce of hate in anything I’ve seen from her, and she genuinely values the life and rights that she is afforded here in America.

There are many nice things I can say about her, but it is probably better for people to see for themselves and make up their own minds. Anyone who would like a more accurate impression than what was written here in the original post can just visit her Youtube channel. The videos there range from descriptions of her own experiences in North Korea, insights into North Korean culture (which varies greatly depending on class), comparisons between North Korea and the rest of the world, and speculation over what may or may not still be going on there since she left.

I made sure to link to the Fox News articles directly quoting her statements in the interviews to avoid any assumption of "misrepresentation," actually. The interviews and videos are there for anyone to see, so it's not like the statements I cited in the OP are a secret or things she didn't say herself.

Furthermore, in the OP, I didn't doubt her experiences in North Korea or paint her views about those in any negative light; I'm specific in what I'm aiming to analyze in this thread. To say that "even North Korea was not this nuts" in reference to some trends, problematic or not, in a specific university seems to me quite hyperbolic and emotionally charged rather than grounded in reason given the large-scale torture, concentration camps, and other abuses happening in North Korea.

Additionally, it's quite questionable to dismiss a Black athlete's concerns and call her "spoiled" just because her issues were different from those of Yeonmi Park or not as consistently severe.

It's also a misrepresentation of the OP to say that it's about "even the slightest criticism of the left," since Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, another refugee I mentioned in the OP, often criticizes the American left, but he doesn't conspicuously repeat far-right rhetoric like Yeonmi Park did in the interview I linked.

It’s kind of messed up, that someone who in my eyes has consistently appeared so entirely kind, compassionate and empathetic, is painted as a hateful “far right extremist” by people who really don’t understand what they are talking about. But I am not surprised.

Given some of the political beliefs you've stated on this forum, I'm not surprised that you see no issue with the quotes in the OP. However, that's not really relevant to this thread, since, whether you like Yeonmi Park or not, the purpose of this discussion is to understand why she aligns with the far right on some issues (the keyword being "some," just to avoid any further straw men about supposedly misrepresenting her views). I care more about understanding that than whether you view her as "entirely kind, compassionate and empathetic."

 

[Aštra’el]

@Debater Slayer

It is ridiculous but not unexpected that you are here framing the narrative as if she were equating Kim Jong Un’s atrocities to radical left school teachers in America.

What Yeonmi had said on the subject- and you would know this if you actually listened to what she has been saying with context, instead of making wild assessments and inaccurate assumptions, is that this is how it begins. She was urging caution, regarding the way people slowly give up more and more of their freedom, sometimes even with positive intentions at first, especially regarding subjects as subjective as “hate speech”, or what “should or should not be” censored, etc. Eventually all it takes is for the wrong people to seize power and truly exploit it, and by then it might be too late and the consequences could become irreversible. Then the country you love no longer exists and transforms into something else, possibly even the next North Korea.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not sure about the motives of the refugees, although I recall during the Cold War, defectors and emigres from behind the Iron Curtain were often far more virulently anti-communist than many conservatives.

Something I often notice, whenever Americans or other Westerners discuss politics, foreign policy, or military policy, it's oftentimes done in insular situations where the discussants are far removed and detached from the situation they're discussing.

However, such discussions take on a different angle if one or more of the discussants come from personal experience. Two liberals discussing Vietnam might be challenged by a Vietnam Vet who would say "I was there, man! I know more about this topic than you do!"

Likewise, during the Cold War, subjects like disarmament, détente, aiding anti-communist regimes, etc. might have come up. I recall watching a talk show where aid to the Contras was a topic, and a lot of people who were against aid to the Contras were challenged by a Central American refugee who kept going on "I'm from there! I was born there! Therefore I know more about this than you do!"

It seems to be a familiar pattern, where people from various parts of the world come to the U.S. and tell Americans of all kinds of atrocities and other horrible things about the outside world. That creates the impression that the outside world is dangerous, filled with nothing but crazed, murderous thugs and tyrants.

The impression is that the only thing standing between the world and a thousand years of oppression and darkness is the "shining city on the hill" - the wonderful American militarists and white knights who have selflessly pledged to do everything possible to save the world from itself.

I think there's most likely more depth than this to Yeonmi Park's adoption of some far-right stances, but I think what you've said also highlights another issue: some people, whether conservative or liberal, seem to only listen to minorities when the latter state or support beliefs that match the former's.

For instance, some leftists who claim to care about the voices of minorities seem to so readily dismiss the experiences of the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Yeonmi Park wholesale when the latter state beliefs like what I outlined in the OP. Instead of listening and then making sure not to conflate any problematic views a refugee or minority activist might have with their legitimate, lived experiences, what I've seen is that some people are simply willing to entirely filter someone out instead of considering each of their views individually and on their own merits.

This happens on the right as well, of course: some of the very same far-right conservatives who frequently oppose immigration and demonize refugees praise people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Yeonmi Park when the latter state beliefs that agree with the preconceived notions or political beliefs of the far right. The main mistake of both the conservatives and liberals who do this seems to me to be that they analyze refugees' beliefs from an American-centric or, more generally, a Western-centric lens, which leads to this selectivity to confirm one's pre-existing beliefs and prejudices (as we can see in the Fox News articles I linked).

 

[Debater Slayer]

@Debater Slayer

It is ridiculous but not unexpected that you are here framing the narrative as if she were equating Kim Jong Un’s atrocities to radical left school teachers in America.

These are her exact words from the article, once again:

She was also shocked and confused by issues surrounding gender and language, with every class asking students to announce their preferred pronouns.

"English is my third language. I learned it as an adult. I sometimes still say 'he' or 'she' by mistake and now they are going to ask me to call them 'they'? How the heck do I incorporate that into my sentences?"

"It was chaos," said Yeonmi. "It felt like the regression in civilization."

"Even North Korea is not this nuts," she admitted. "North Korea was pretty crazy, but not this crazy."

So she did say "North Korea is not this nuts" while talking about professors who asked students to announce their preferred pronouns. In my opinion, this is a stark exaggeration, and she directly drew the comparison between such a thing and the situation in North Korea.

What Yeonmi had said on the subject- and you would know this if you actually listened to what she has been saying with context, instead of making wild assessments and inaccurate assumptions, is that this is how it begins. She was urging caution, regarding the way people slowly give up more and more of their freedom, sometimes even with positive intentions at first, especially regarding subjects as subjective as “hate speech”. Eventually all it takes is for the wrong people to seize power and exploit it, and by then it might be too late and the consequences could become irreversible. Then the country you love no longer exists and transforms into something else, possibly even the next North Korea.

See above.

Also, even if we go by your assessment, it seems to me that it's still irrational in the extreme to conclude that something like the situation she cited about preferred pronouns would somehow segue into a North Korea-like tyranny. That kind of dramatization strikes me as being fueled by partisanship and political prejudice more than anything else, which is kinda ironic given that a lot of the people who support it claim to oppose tribalistic partisanship.

On the flip side, I think what you said about the wrong people seizing power applies to right-wing politicians and not just left-wing ones. If a right-wing politician became POTUS and sought to overturn legalization of same-sex marriage or increase religious influence on state laws, I would view them as just as much of a threat to freedom as any leftist who sought to restrict freedoms unnecessarily. What about you? Hopefully their political alignment with the right wouldn't make a difference to you if they started seeking to restrict freedoms in such a fashion.

 

[sun rise]

what, in your opinion, is the reason some refugees who have experienced extreme persecution adopt such extremist stances themselves when they flee to other countries?

You're asking a deep psychological question about human nature.

I'll approach a possible answer by considering the deep fear and anger some refugees have. After they leave their country, for some that fear and anger don't automatically dissipate.

In addition, there's overoptimistic hope that now all their problems will be solved and they are coming to the "promised land". And of course that's not true as well.

I read a very useful piece this morning about our cultural ignorance of the Afghani people and how it contributed to what we saw happen. So refugees also have their cultural sensitivities and automatic assumptions shattered by the reality of American (or European) culture. People here do the "wrong thing" from their cultural perspective.

And of course there are some who approve of and seek to amplify and channel all their emotional distress The Emperor and Luke Skywalker is psychologically accurate.

So, while sad, it's not surprising to me that this happens. It's somewhat of a miracle it does not happen more often.

 

[Kooky]

What Yeonmi had said on the subject- and you would know this if you actually listened to what she has been saying with context, instead of making wild assessments and inaccurate assumptions, is that this is how it begins. She was urging caution, regarding the way people slowly give up more and more of their freedom, sometimes even with positive intentions at first, especially regarding subjects as subjective as “hate speech”, or what “should or should not be” censored, etc. Eventually all it takes is for the wrong people to seize power and truly exploit it, and by then it might be too late and the consequences could become irreversible. Then the country you love no longer exists and transforms into something else, possibly even the next North Korea.

Do you actually believe that North Korea started as a democracy that promoted racial tolerance and outlawed hate speech? If so, have you ever actually read up on the country's history, or are you taking all of this from this guy because he happens to share your political ideas without actually fact-checking any of these claims?

 

[Aštra’el]

Do you actually believe that North Korea started as a democracy that promoted racial tolerance and outlawed hate speech? If so, have you ever actually read up on the country's history, or are you taking all of this from this guy because he happens to share your political ideas without actually fact-checking any of these claims?

“This guy”. “He”.

You did not really read the post you responded to. You do not really know anything about the person being discussed. You have not heard anything Yeonmi has said about herself or NK, because if you had, you would not be referring to her as “he” and “this guy”.

So... how about doing some research yourself before demanding it in those who have a greater understanding of the subject than you do.

Also: Try controlling your emotions better.

 

[Koldo]

Recently, I came across the story of Yeonmi Park, a North Korean defector and human rights activist who experienced severe persecution and abuse along with her family under the North Korean regime. Among her interviews and political views, I found out that, during an interview with Fox News, she made statements likening professors' asking students about gender-neutral pronouns to North Korean censorship and saying that "even North Korea was not this nuts."

North Korean defector says 'even North Korea was not this nuts' after attending Ivy League school

She has also cited her own experiences as a justification to dismiss and deride the protest of a Black athlete at the Olympics:

North Korean defector says US Olympian Gwen Berry's flag protest 'unthinkable'

It is perplexing, to say the least, that she would fall for the logical error of "X had it worse, so Y has no reason to protest their situation," especially since that logic would arguably mean she herself was "privileged" compared to North Koreans who couldn't escape the current regime. It is also perplexing that she would compare the large-scale atrocities committed by the North Korean regime to some trends in an Ivy League school that have nowhere near the same level of influence, severity, or scale as the former.

While there's a case to be made that the American left has harbored some problematic trends within the last several years in particular, it doesn't take first-hand experience of life in North Korea to see that it is quite hyperbolic and potentially minimizing of other North Koreans' struggles to compare concentration camps and mass torture to professors' asking students about their preferred pronouns or perhaps overly focusing on the perceived evils within Western culture and history.

But this isn't the first time a refugee who fled severe persecution has made hyperbolic statements or associated with far-right talking points: Ayaan Hirsi Ali has previously had ties to Geert Wilders, a far-right Dutch politician who echoes multiple fascist (in the literal sense) sentiments.

There are other refugees, such as Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, who adopt a stance critical of both the right and the left when it comes to the problematic aspects of their politics, so there's demonstrably nothing unique to refugees that means they must align with far-right beliefs as Yeonmi Park and Hirsi Ali have.

This leads to the main question of this thread: what, in your opinion, is the reason some refugees who have experienced extreme persecution adopt such extremist stances themselves when they flee to other countries? I'm not talking about merely being conservative; I'm talking about adopting hyperbole, dismissing others' issues or experiences, and leaning toward incendiary and divisive speech at the expense of nuance and reasoned argumentation. It greatly interests me to analyze and try to understand the causes of this alignment.

Can you please tell me where exactly she "compare concentration camps and mass torture to professors' asking students about their preferred pronouns"?

I couldn't find it. Or do you mean that is what you understood when she said "even North Korea was not this nuts"?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Can you please tell me where exactly she "compare concentration camps and mass torture to professors' asking students about their preferred pronouns"?

I couldn't find it. Or do you mean that is what you understood when she said "even North Korea was not this nuts"?

See post #7. Yes, saying "even North Korea was not this nuts" directly compares North Korea's situation to the objections she had about the U.S., which makes it an excessively hyperbolic statement for the reasons I clarified in earlier posts.

Also, even without that one statement, she made other problematic ones such as her dismissal and mocking of a Black athlete by calling her "spoiled." It's deeply inconsistent for her to dismiss the concerns of another person from a minority group just because she herself may have had it worse. Basically, she echoed far-right sentiment at the expense of said athlete and gender nonconforming individuals at her alma mater by dismissing some of their issues the way she did.

 

[Koldo]

See post #7. Yes, saying "even North Korea was not this nuts" directly compares North Korea's situation to the objections she had about the U.S., which makes it an excessively hyperbolic statement for the reasons I clarified in earlier posts.

There is a distinction to be drawn between calling something crazy and calling something evil. She wasn't claiming that what she experienced in the USA was evil, just downright crazy.

Also, even without that one statement, she made other problematic ones such as her dismissal and mocking of a Black athlete by calling her "spoiled." It's deeply inconsistent for her to dismiss the concerns of another person from a minority group just because she herself may have had it worse. Basically, she echoed far-right sentiment at the expense of said athlete and gender nonconforming individuals at her alma mater by dismissing some of their issues the way she did.

Considering you are not in the USA, you most certainly understand the concept of 'first world problems'.

This protest was done because of a first world problem. I still support it, but it is what it is.

 

[Kooky]

“This guy”. “He”.

You did not really read the post you responded to. You do not really know anything about the person being discussed. You have not heard anything Yeonmi has said about herself or NK, because if you had, you would not be referring to her as “he” and “this guy”.


So... how about doing some research yourself before demanding it in those who have a greater understanding of the subject than you do.

Sorry, you are right of course.
Kim Il Sung came to power in Korea because of political correctness and being too lenient towards Black protesters.

North Korea was, after all, famous for its inclusive attitude towards LGBTQ people and people of colour, before it turned towards an oppressive Stalinist hellhole. Kim Jong Un has been heard saying "Black Lives Matter" to a crowd of cheering leftists.

 

[Kooky]

Can you please tell me where exactly she "compare concentration camps and mass torture to professors' asking students about their preferred pronouns"?

I couldn't find it. Or do you mean that is what you understood when she said "even North Korea was not this nuts"?

Presumably, torture and starvation are easier to bear for some people, than a professor asking students for their pronouns.

 

[Koldo]

Presumably, torture and starvation are easier to bear for some people, than a professor asking students for their pronouns.

Do you have a source for that? Or are you just making that up?

 

[Kooky]

Do you have a source for that? Or are you just making that up?

If asking students their gender is "worse than North Korea", and North Korea is a place where people starve, then that reads to me like a reasonable conclusion. Do you disagree? If so, then on what grounds?

 

[Koldo]

If asking students their gender is "worse than North Korea", and North Korea is a place where people starve, then that reads to me like a reasonable conclusion. Do you disagree? If so, then on what grounds?

What is the context?
You are taking a sentence completely out of context to make your point.

 

[Kooky]

What is the context?
You are taking a sentence completely out of context to make your point.

What context would you say I need to write a comment on this subject?

 

[Debater Slayer]

There is a distinction to be drawn between calling something crazy and calling something evil. She wasn't claiming that what she experienced in the USA was evil, just downright crazy.

I think that kinda treads into purely semantic territory. The main point was that Yeonmi Park's statements were hyperbolic to the detriment of clarity and appreciation of the difference between the situation in the U.S. and that in North Korea. That she found professors' asking students about their preferred pronouns to be so offensive is in itself bizarre given that it's a practice that harms no one, but that issue is secondary to the excessive exaggeration in her statements.

Considering you are not in the USA, you most certainly understand the concept of 'first world problems'.

This protest was done because of a first world problem. I still support it, but it is what it is.

I don't see much point in calling any specific issues "first-world problems," although I agree that some issues are more urgent than others. For instance, starvation is clearly more pressing than the usage of an incorrect pronoun, even though the latter can still cause distress to some people.

In my opinion, calling someone "spoiled" for having issues that we might view as less pressing than ours is counterproductive, dismissive, and minimizing of their experiences. It's possible to be in solidarity with others even if we think their issues don't necessarily have the same urgency as ours, and vice versa. By that same token, someone could call Yeonmi Park's gripes about her experience at an Ivy League university "first-world problems."

After all, how many people in the world get to attend an Ivy League school and then complain about its culture? That certainly isn't an issue most people in developing or third-world countries can claim to have experienced. For almost any problem one can think of, there's always an arguably worse or more urgent one. That's why I don't think such comparisons or minimization of issues that may be important to others is useful.