If I can chime in on your question, I think it has a lot to do with orientalism, like you said. But I think there’s a language barrier component as well, people in the US can speak Spanish more readily than Korean.
And I think it’s a matter of Korea having been so violently ripped in half, while Cuba isn’t. Similarly, the part of Korea that makes up the DPRK is all mountainous and rich in mineral resources, but lacks a lot of abundant farmland, meanwhile Cuba has farmland in spades.
I once wrote a paper about this for a class comparing the political economies of Cuba and Venezuela, but I still think it works if you slot in the DPRK. A country with resources that largely come from the ground is going to develop a more centralized bureaucracy around those resources, since imperial powers will want access to them. You can’t easily diversify your economy, so you have to defend and make use of what you have.
A mainly agricultural exporter, as Cuba historically was, can diversify easily, because you can just plant different things in the ground. Similarily, while the US might be pissed that it lost its sugar colony, and reprimand Cuba for stepping out of line, it can get sugar elsewhere. It can imperialize a different nation rich in agricultural land.
So Cuba is more free to diversify its economy, and be more self sustaining, because it can grow food for its people, and not have to centralize power quite as severely, as a result. The Special Period, for instance is full of examples of innovative, decentralized, urban agriculture and permacultural experiments.
The Arduous March, meanwhile, was a time of general food scarcity, and rationing. The DPRK is forced to make due with minimal agricultural land, and heavy sanctions mean it can’t take proper advantage of its unique mineral resources. The few that its able to make use of need to be more vociferously defended, in the face of imperialism.
![[CW: extreme liberalism] You just doubled down on using Holocaust denial logic. I wonder why.](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/d3da0ded-5afa-4e47-8a0c-6258a8c4c767.png){kind=link}
Thank you very much!
If I can chime in on your question, I think it has a lot to do with orientalism, like you said. But I think there’s a language barrier component as well, people in the US can speak Spanish more readily than Korean.
And I think it’s a matter of Korea having been so violently ripped in half, while Cuba isn’t. Similarly, the part of Korea that makes up the DPRK is all mountainous and rich in mineral resources, but lacks a lot of abundant farmland, meanwhile Cuba has farmland in spades.
I once wrote a paper about this for a class comparing the political economies of Cuba and Venezuela, but I still think it works if you slot in the DPRK. A country with resources that largely come from the ground is going to develop a more centralized bureaucracy around those resources, since imperial powers will want access to them. You can’t easily diversify your economy, so you have to defend and make use of what you have.
A mainly agricultural exporter, as Cuba historically was, can diversify easily, because you can just plant different things in the ground. Similarily, while the US might be pissed that it lost its sugar colony, and reprimand Cuba for stepping out of line, it can get sugar elsewhere. It can imperialize a different nation rich in agricultural land.
So Cuba is more free to diversify its economy, and be more self sustaining, because it can grow food for its people, and not have to centralize power quite as severely, as a result. The Special Period, for instance is full of examples of innovative, decentralized, urban agriculture and permacultural experiments.
The Arduous March, meanwhile, was a time of general food scarcity, and rationing. The DPRK is forced to make due with minimal agricultural land, and heavy sanctions mean it can’t take proper advantage of its unique mineral resources. The few that its able to make use of need to be more vociferously defended, in the face of imperialism.