Swapping places of power

The Associated Press is reporting that 79-year-old Cuban President Fidel Castro underwent intestinal surgery and temporarily relinquished power to his younger brother Raul, his 75-year-old heir apparent.  It is unknown whether Castro is critically ill or whether he will recover and reassume power.  Eventually Castro will permanently step down–or die in office–and Cuba will name a new leader.  When Castro resigns as Cuban President and head of the Cuban Communist Party, Cuba could very well follow the precedent set by North Korea and name a family member to succeed him.  North Korea became the first communist nation to engage in dynastic succession by transferring power from Kim Il Sung to his son, Kim Jong Il.  Raul is his brother’s most likely successor.  Some suggest that Raul, at 75, is too old to be president and would have a brief tenure as president.  From a democratic point of view, a brief length of tenure would be a welcome change for a communist regime.  Like the selection of 79-year-old Pope Benedict XVI to succeed Pope John Paul II, it is likely that Raul will succeed his brother in spite of his age.  No one really knows what will happen in Cuban politics after Fidel Castro dies, but President Raul would be much more likely to continue his brother’s policies than other potential candidates.
 
Kim Jong Il’s son Kim Jong Chol is currently considered the leading candidate to succeed his father as leader of North Korea.  In a fit of futile "what if," and "what will never be" musing, I pondered what would happen if Raul Castro and Kim Jong Chol decided to swap power and take over as presidents of each other’s countries.  I thought about what would happen if the new leaders of two very different, relatively isolated communist nations swapped power and suddenly became the ruler in each other’s countries.  Aside from having to learn Korean and Spanish, Raul Castro and Kim Jong Chol might actually infuse reform into their newly adopted nations.  While they might not last long as leaders, because they would lack the support apparatuses necessary to sustain their regimes, they might just achieve international legitimacy and prompt their countries to reform.  Of course, this is all an exercise in futility.  It is indisputable that Cuba would develop a mighty fine kimchi and ginseng industry, and North Korea would field one heck of a baseball team and start manufacturing cigars.

Why are we so happy?

A recent survey published by the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom named Denmark "the happiest place on earth."  I immediately wondered whether the survey was taken after violence against Danes flared up in the Muslim world following the publication of controversial cartoons in the Danish Jylland-Posten newspaper in September 2005.  If I were Danish, I still would not wear a Danish flag when traveling outside Europe for fear of possible reprise.
 
I noted that the United States is ranked higher than most European countries, with the exception of Scandinavian countries and other small states such as Switzerland and Austria.  European countries traditionally rank high in terms of quality of life, and many people assume that European life is more satisfying (happy) than American life.  That may not be the case.  At the same time, Americans often seem discontent and angst-ridden, particularly when it comes to dealing with world events, politics, and economics.  Perhaps life is not as bad as it seems to some Americans.
 
I also thought it interesting that residents of the New World (North and South) appear to be generally happier than those in the Old World (with the exception of Cubans), and although Asian and Oceania Pacific Rim nations ranked generally lower, as a group their happiness factors were higher than those in Central/South Asia and the Middle East.  One big surprise–Saudi Arabia.  Perhaps Saudis are among the happiest people because they are flush with petrodollars.  African nations, as expected, generally ranked at the bottom of the survey.
 
Here’s a condensed list of country listed in order of their happiness factor:

1.   Denmark

2.   Switzerland

3.   Austria

4.   Iceland

5.   The Bahamas

23. United States of America

41. United Kingdom

82. China

90. Japan

125. India

177. Zimbabwe

178. Burundi

Lost in translation

Today, while out and about with my son, I heard this comment in English for umpteenth time from a Korean:  "Your son is more handsome than you."
 
If you are a native English speaker, how do you interpret this comment?  It could mean any of the following:
  • "You are handsome, but your son is more handsome than you."
  • "You are ugly, but your son is handsome."
  • "Your son must have gone his good looks from his mom, because he surely could not have gotten them from you."
  • "You and your son are very handsome, and you imparted your best qualities to him."
  • A throw-away comment that means absolutely nothing.

So, which one is it? 

 

I asked a Korean what it means to a Korean.

 

Actually,  to Koreans, this utterance is a throw-away comment, something Koreans say to fathers with cute kids.  It’s intended to be small talk, not a referendum on the child’s looks or the father’s appearance.

 

Now how would a native English speaker interpret that comment?

 

I may be wrong, but I believe most English speakers would find the comment a bit negative.  Akin to the Chinese comment frequently uttered about people’s weight, "You look fat," (which in its purest sense means you look healthy, not fat), "Your son is more handsome than you" is the kind of comment that can be easily misinterpreted in English.  If you are a narcissist, you might assume that it means you are handsome and have great genes.  If you have self-esteem issues and/or are self-deprecating, you would probably take it to mean that you are ugly while your son is handsome.

 
I suspected that the comment is a rough interpretation of a common Korean phrase.  I assumed too that it is intended to be a complimentary comment.  It’s just too bad that Koreans have no idea how bad it can sound in English!