®

in love with kim seokjin 🥰🥰

[® @cherryliia]

💜💜💜💜💜💜💜

[® @cherryliia]

what the fuck is happening i just entered twitter bro

[® @cherryliia]

holy shit i can't be sick right now, i need to see bts

[® @cherryliia]

dont even joke bro

[َ @piedparks]

does this mean 134340 is on the table

[♪ @jinspam_]

WAKE UP EVERYONE WE GOT A NEW SEOKJIN EYE DROP CLIP AFTER 8 YEARS !!

[٭ @_sdl93]

they performed PARADISE so LOVE MAZE IS IN DANGER

[® @cherryliia]

pelo amor de deus dday tour é um assunto delicado pra mim

[𓂃 ࣪˖ ཐིཋྀ @juridicoyoonmin]

nao ter tido a chance de ir na dday tour é algo que vai me atormentar pro resto da vida

[colin @colin_goldmund]

ARMYs, this is one of the most interesting and trenchant takes on BTS's Grammys decision, even digging into America's history of "Separate but Equal."

Kim Ou-joon, one of Korea's most influential public figures and its most prominent progressive voice (I recently wrote a seven-part article about him in the Articles section), devoted a lengthy segment to the BTS-Grammys controversy on his program, Gyeomson News Factory. It is the most-watched live political and current affairs program on YouTube in Korea (and in the world), drawing more than 200,000 live viewers and averaging around 1.2 million views per day.

Kim was sick last Friday, so he wasn't there to host the show when three music critics appeared and made the most misguided arguments about BTS's decision:

1. This is just a Korean inferiority complex. It may feel emotionally satisfying, but it wasn't the right decision.
2. HYBE probably realized BTS had little chance of winning a major Grammy category anyway, so they made a calculated business move before the Grammys could reject them. This is basically a power game.
3. Now that the Grammys have created an Asian Pop category, future artists may dream of winning in that category. So we can't say BTS's decision was entirely the right one.
4. Didn't BTS work so hard to learn English and Japanese in order to break into the U.S. and Japanese markets? Now that there's an Asian Pop category, artists might not have to do that anymore. They could stay in their own language and still be nominated in the Asian Pop category. Isn't that actually a good thing?

Here is Kim Ou-joon's commentary from today's show. I translated them as faithfully as possible. Because of his short, conversational style of speaking, I added a few words here and there for context so that his intended meaning would come across accurately. And I omitted the exchanges between Kim and the announcer during Kim’s commentary.
—----------------------------
“I think the Grammys created the new Asian Pop Music category because they were planning to give that award to BTS. But then BTS refused to submit their music, and it became a global controversy.

Media outlets around the world started pouring out articles. From The New York Times onward, pretty much every major international media outlet we know covered it. And, for the most part, they viewed BTS's boycott positively.

They called it "a gentle but powerful criticism" (The Guardian). “Refusing was the right thing to do” (Cosmopolitan). "A declaration of independence" (Sportal Korea). “BTS had captured the spirit of the times" (The Economic Times)

Now, last Friday, the music critics who appeared on our program seemed to say that this new category could have become a stepping stone for Asian-language music to succeed in the global market, so they felt a little disappointed by BTS's decision.

Yes, I understand that point of view. There's some validity to it. But I think differently.

If I had been there, I probably would have argued against them pretty strongly. Since I wasn't, let me add my thoughts now, even if it's a little late.

Because I don't think this is something we should just let pass. I think this is a significant event, one that deserves to be recorded not only in Korean cultural history but also in the history of world culture.

Let me briefly explain why. To understand this, we have to look at it not from our perspective, but from the Western perspective. Using their way of thinking. Because it's a Western award show. It was their decision. We have to understand why they did it from their point of view. That's how you understand their intention.

Now, there's a precedent for this. I think it was 2019. MTV became the first major music award show to create a Best K-Pop category. It should have just been called Pop. Instead, they created a separate Best K-Pop category.

At the time, The Washington Post used a particular expression. They said this was America's "separate but equal" rule in music awards.

That phrase is extremely important in the history of the American civil rights movement. For Americans, just hearing those three words is enough. They immediately understand what's being implied.

This goes back to around 1890. Louisiana was one of the places where racial discrimination was especially severe. The state passed a law requiring separate railroad cars for white people and Black people. Black and white passengers had to ride in different train cars. Civil rights activists wanted to challenge that law as unconstitutional, as racial discrimination.

At that time, there was a man named Plessy. By appearance, he looked white. But he was one-eighth Black. His great-grandmother was Black.

At the time, America had what was called the one-drop rule. If you had even one drop of Black blood, no matter how white you looked, you were legally classified as Black.

So this man boarded a whites-only train car. Then he deliberately announced that he was Black. He wanted to be arrested.

That's how the lawsuit began. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Louisiana judge's name was Ferguson, so in America it's known as “Plessy v. Ferguson.”

It's a very famous case. One of the most famous rulings in American history came out of that case. That's where the phrase "separate but equal" comes from.

The Court ruled that separating railroad cars was constitutional because, although they were separated, they were supposedly equal. In the end, it was a ruling that justified racial discrimination. This was at the end of the nineteenth century.

After that decision, segregation spread far beyond railroad cars. Because racial segregation had now been accepted under the Constitution, separation spread into every part of society. Schools. Hospitals. Parks. Buses. Theaters. Restrooms. Eventually even cemeteries. People were separated from birth until death.

But the facilities for Black people received less than one-tenth of the funding that white facilities received. Because the people making those decisions were all white. So the facilities for Black people were in terrible condition.

That's why the phrase "separate but equal" really meant separation, inequality, and exclusion. But those words were used to hide racial discrimination. That system continued for nearly seventy years.

That's exactly what The Washington Post meant when it described MTV's decision as "separate but equal." By creating a K-pop category, it looked as though K-pop was being treated equally. But in reality, it excluded K-pop from competing in the main categories while hiding that exclusion.

At the time, there was another expression people in the West used to describe MTV's decision. Ghettoization. During Nazi Germany, Jews were confined to ghettos. So people said K-pop had been ghettoized. It had been placed in its own separate space.

That expression also has a precedent. When Black music began to rise in America, award shows grouped Black artists into R&B and Rap categories. Black artists would receive those awards, while the major awards continued to go to the mainstream. People called that the ghettoization of Black music.

So MTV received that criticism. After that, MTV nominated BTS in the regular Pop category. And BTS won.

At the time, Billboard wrote that BTS had entered through the side door, and that it had taken a long time before they were finally allowed to use the front door like everyone else. After MTV, the other award shows adapted to that criticism.

The Grammys were the last one left. The Grammys see themselves as the most prestigious music awards because, unlike other shows, there is no fan voting. Like the Academy Awards, only industry professionals vote.
So they created a side door, just like MTV. This was basically saying, "Asia, come in through the side door. Separate but equal."

When MTV did this, BTS still attended despite the controversy. But this time, BTS declared to the American mainstream music industry, "We're not using the side door anymore." And they refused.

That's why Western media, who understand this context exactly, praised BTS. They said, "Well done." They called it the spirit of the times.

That's how I see it too. I think this will remain a landmark in world cultural history for a long time.

An artist from outside the mainstream boycotted the most prestigious award in the mainstream and declared, "You are out of step with the times."

It's contextually similar to Black Americans demanding racial equality and human equality.

That's why western media call it the spirit of the times. Some in Korea don't immediately understand why it's being called that. They think, "Wouldn't this have been a good opportunity for Asian artists?"

That Friday's comment comes from not seeing how people in America think about this issue. That's all I wanted to add.”
—--------------------------
For those who understand Korean, you can watch the video of his commentary here. (I wish I knew how to add English subtitles, but unfortunately I don't.)

https://t.co/bsgO5X8KwA

[sam @joshdonnapilled]

when you go to sleep, do u make up fictional scenarios for ur ship, its the only way you can fall asleep, or are you normal

[phd in joon⁷ @suga4rm]

i just don’t think america of all places deserved autumn leaves u guys call that shit fall

[mona lina⁷⟢ˎˊ˗ @y00ngipurrs]

AUTUMN LEAVES BY THE WAY

[☁︎⁷ @yen____psd]

and she's still safe RAAAAAHHHHHHHH

[kai | shadowbanned @kaixthv]

hip hop phile, 134340, if i ruled the world, we on, rain and love maze STILL HERE

[® @cherryliia]

SHUT THE FUCK UPPPPPP

[𓂃 @voocket]

🕷️spider-kook

[pri @howlmichaelis]

chego na casa de vó e noto um porta-retrato novo na prateleira dos netos, quando chego perto-

[About Music @AboutMusicYT]

Forbes about BTS and Grammys, 2019:

"But as BTS continue smashing records and the Grammys continue to lose relevance, who really needs who?"

[About Music @AboutMusicYT]

Aliens by BTS reaches #1 on US iTunes.

[chart data @chartdata]

BTS' "Aliens" has reached #1 on US iTunes.

[BTS Charts & News @btschartsxdaily]

[Forbes] With the success of their most recent album, ARIRANG, dominating the charts and breaking numerous sales records, many experts have slated it as a leading contender for the Grammy Awards.

The BTS members have spoken in the past about their desire for the golden gramophone.. But as time went on, BTS grew even bigger, breaking records and receiving other awards and recognition. Over their 13 years as a group, BTS has won over 500 awards domestically and internationally.

So when the album did eventually release and received global and critical acclaim, with the poise to dominate this awards season, the Recording Academy announced in June that there would be several rule changes and five new categories for the upcoming 69th Grammy Awards next year including Asian Category.

But with the Asian Pop Performance category, BTS’s refusal to participate in the Grammy Awards is a sign of protest over the new category that is meant to divide. The group has proven with this album, ARIRANG, that language has no barrier, as the group continues to embark on their World Tour across North America, Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceania, and more from all walks of life will sing along to the traditional Korean folk song, “Arirang,” during their “Body-to-Body” segment.

BTS’s lack of presence in “music’s biggest stage” is their way of saying they’ve had enough with them. The members have mentioned their disdain towards the awards show

https://t.co/l9BJHGYlWE
#westandwithbts