Australia, PNG, and a Diamond
Kangaroos ahead!
Another shot from northern Seongbuk-gu, this one for a sign indicating the best way to reach the Australian Ambassador's Residence. Australia (호주) is probably one of the few places in the world that can use an animal for its national symbol and still have everyone and their kid sister know exactly which state is being referenced. The brand image is so powerful that there is no text to accompany this sign -- everyone is just expected to know. Granted, there are some informational posts a few blocks away at the bottom of the hill. Still, not even the distinctive silhouette of the Raggiana Bird of Paradise, Paradisaea raggiana, is enough to elevate Papua New Guinea to the level where a textless image is enough to highlight the location of the ambassadorial residence.
Discussing semantics over what constitutes "Australia" can be interesting, if frustrating. In English we seem to treat it - at least in my experience - as the result of three overlapping circles within a geographic Venn Diagram. Nevermind that it can refer to three distinct locations. Within this imaginary Venn Diagram are the island of Australia, the nation of Australia, and the continent of Australia. Papua New Guinea is a part of the Australian continental shelf but is a sovereign nation and is obviously not the island of Australia. Meanwhile, Tasmania - former home of Tasmanian devils and Thylacines - and the Torres Islands are part of Australia the nation but cannot all be Australia the island. Finally, there is Australia the island that makes up a country which is located on a continental shelf.
I'd be curious to know if there are any languages that delineate a clear difference between these three categories. While Korea has two names for the Commonwealth of Australia - 오스트레일리아 in pure Korean and 호주(濠洲) from Chinese - they appear to be terms that can be used interchangeably.
In PNG-related news, Jared Diamond is creating quite the controversy among the anthropological community for his April 2008 article in The New Yorker Magazine. I have to wonder -- when is it ever okay to make cross-cultural comparisons based on the report of a single informant, and especially when one does not have the consent of the informant to use their recollection of events in the first place? It does, however, bring up the important reminder that it doesn't matter how far one travels, the results of one's research can have a very real impact on the lives of those who have participated. For those interested, a copy of Diamond's original article is available to read / download from this site, while this post from Savage Minds helped kick-start the online discussion of the issue.
Who knew I'd get all that from a pair of photos taken two weeks ago?