Oct. 12, South Korea decided to implement a new nationalized Korean history textbook starting in 2017. As a South Korean and a history major, this is one of the most shameful downplays of historical study. This textbook applies to all South Korean public institutions from elementary to high schools. George Orwell emphasized the importance of history itself: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” History has to be studied and narrated by different sources and viewpoints; if not, then we will only harvest unripe and foul misunderstandings.
What’s concerning about the South Korean attempt to rewrite the history textbooks is that it is highly political and controversial. According to an Oct. 12 New York Times article, this change partly resulted from a dynamic web of ideological conflicts, “For years, conservative critics have charged that left-leaning authors poisoned the current textbooks and students minds with their ‘ideological biases.’”
Modern Korean history is tumultuous. The start of the 20th century was under the gloomy chains of colonization by the Japanese, ideological fights between communists and capitalists and a series of military coups that were often accompanied by brutality against many people. So, the major issue surrounding the teaching of South Korean history, especially in schools, is how to characterize this rough time period.
There is a gap in Korea in judging whether President Park Geun-hye’s father was a great leader or not. The older generations and conservatives deem him to be a hero who led the rapid modernization and industrialization of the nation, while the more liberal citizens criticize his dictatorial rule that persecuted many democratically minded individuals through systematic tortures, imprisonments and suppressions. Many people were falsely accused and persecuted. It was economically prosperous yet extremely oppressive. Because it was a hard journey for South Koreans to achieve democracy from military dictatorship, many citizens today hate to think of losing its value.
Then, there is also the issue of Japanese colonization. It is a harsh reality that many elites today in South Korea descended from the Japanese collaborators. They drained a great amount of wealth and influence from supporting the colonization while most others suffered. Even after the independence, many collaborators were employed as a spearheading force to the national government. Therefore, many with power and wealth in the government today, including President Geun-hye, whose father also was a collaborating officer, are in support of nationalizing the history textbook—downplaying collaboration efforts, making it a beneficial process to Korea. How can colonization be considered beneficial if so many people suffered from forced conscription and labor in the unwanted war, and such destruction from the war slowed actual progress?
Many criticize such a move to change the narrative for downplaying the efforts of Korean people who worked in the independence movements, who were victimized and had heavy suffering in those time periods. This also raises the problem of bias. The government revealed that the purpose of revising their history textbook is to make it less biased by ideologies. But, isn’t everything biased? Even now I am biased. In my opinion, it is not about having or not having biases. The concern is around the creation of a profound understanding. In order to make a conscious understanding, we need to have as much diverse information as possible to make the most rational judgment. The government is preaching to get rid of bias while forcefully implementing certain ideology over others. How can this be a truly bias-free politic?
And about ideological biases: How could this policy ever be properly opposite of totalitarianism, if it is attempting to limit the scope of minds? This policy replicates those of the Soviet Union and North Korea, South Korea’s exact, and dreadful opponent. More importantly, if South Korea is constitutionally democratic, how can the state suppress the opinions and diverse expression that are necessary components of democracy?
States should not have rights to limit the flow of thoughts and expressions. It eliminates diversity, thus eliminating the opporunity to find a more efficient solution to the problems that plague society. When there is no difference, there will be no ability to find a solution.
As this world is filled with conceivable faults, it is essential for us to have differences. In postmodern society, complex problems demand equally complicated solutions. If learning and thinking are limited, then how can we be truly enlightened humans capable of living innovative tomorrow?
We will never learn from history if we do not make history a product of thoughtfulness, constant analysis and questioning for a more rational answer. If we lose history, we would also lose the purpose and direction of livelihood in economics, social and political enigmas.
Hae Rin is a sophomore majoring in history. Do you agree with her view on standardizing a nation’s history? Do you disagree with her opinion that South Korea is making a wrong choice? Let us know what you think. Please email us your comments, questions and concerns at opinion@dailycardinal.com.
