At the Memorial of the Murdered Jews of Europe near the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, the capital of Germany, there lie 2,700 small and big concrete pieces. These pieces symbolize the tombstones of the Nazi victims. When a person passes the site, she can practically hear the cries telling her not to forget the atrocities of the Nazis. Why do the Germans so severely force themselves to remember their past mistakes?
Saenuri Party leader Kim Moo-sung said, "Our current history textbooks are based on an anti-Republic of Korea perspective denying our history." He even used the expression, "a self-tormenting perspective of history." It's hilarious how he attacked the textbooks, which were reviewed and passed by the Park Geun-hye government, as being based on an anti-Republic of Korea perspective of history, but let's ask a different question. Why are the government and the ruling party trying to change our history textbooks, going so far as to condemn the textbooks that they themselves screened and approved as "leftist"?
There is a certain formula to the history that they are trying to "cover up" and the history that they want to "highlight." Kim Moo-sung's father, Kim Yong-ju donated an airplane to Japan during the Japanese occupation. In 1944, he delivered a statement at a meeting of public officials who "resolved to destroy the U.S. and U.K. grateful for Japan's enforcing of the draft," and called for the people to take part in the draft. But Kim omitted such information when publishing the biography of his father. President Park Geun-hye once mentioned in an interview that one of the reasons she entered politics was to recover the honor of her late father, the dictator, former President Park Chung-hee. For these two to accomplish their goal of erasing the acts of their fathers they must reduce or glorify the descriptions of their pro-Japanese acts and dictatorship in the history textbooks.
And to do this, they must reduce some parts of our history, which refer to the same past, but in a slightly different way. They are the independence movement and the pro-democracy movement. In the middle school textbooks, the part describing the independence movement after the 1930s has been taken out, and August 15, 1948 is described as the day the "Republic of Korea was established" reflecting the argument of the New Right scholars who claim this as the day the nation was founded. In other words, the new textbook reduced its description of the independence movement, which succeeded the legal traditions of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea established in 1919. In the revised curriculum for 2015, the term "dictatorship" is not mentioned. The textbook describes the eighteen years under the Park Chung-hee regime as an "authoritarian regime." The description of the pro-democracy movement, which fought against the dictatorship, is also ambiguous. The new textbook has a weaker description of how South Korea came to achieve democracy and eliminated the controversy concerning industrialization, simply describing it as the history of the growth of our economy.
As they tried to cover up the shameful history of one's family and highlight their positive achievements, the historical facts, which most accept as common sense, have been distorted. In the end, they reduced the description of pro-Japanese activities and dictatorship and along with them they reduced the volume of their description on the independence movement and the pro-democracy movement as well as tone down the narration. This resulted in the proportion of modern and contemporary history in textbooks falling below 50%. This runs against the international trend, which emphasizes modern and contemporary history.
What is the use of history education when history cannot learn and grow from its past?
Saenuri Party leader Kim Moo-sung said, "Our current history textbooks are based on an anti-Republic of Korea perspective denying our history." He even used the expression, "a self-tormenting perspective of history." It's hilarious how he attacked the textbooks, which were reviewed and passed by the Park Geun-hye government, as being based on an anti-Republic of Korea perspective of history, but let's ask a different question. Why are the government and the ruling party trying to change our history textbooks, going so far as to condemn the textbooks that they themselves screened and approved as "leftist"?
There is a certain formula to the history that they are trying to "cover up" and the history that they want to "highlight." Kim Moo-sung's father, Kim Yong-ju donated an airplane to Japan during the Japanese occupation. In 1944, he delivered a statement at a meeting of public officials who "resolved to destroy the U.S. and U.K. grateful for Japan's enforcing of the draft," and called for the people to take part in the draft. But Kim omitted such information when publishing the biography of his father. President Park Geun-hye once mentioned in an interview that one of the reasons she entered politics was to recover the honor of her late father, the dictator, former President Park Chung-hee. For these two to accomplish their goal of erasing the acts of their fathers they must reduce or glorify the descriptions of their pro-Japanese acts and dictatorship in the history textbooks.
And to do this, they must reduce some parts of our history, which refer to the same past, but in a slightly different way. They are the independence movement and the pro-democracy movement. In the middle school textbooks, the part describing the independence movement after the 1930s has been taken out, and August 15, 1948 is described as the day the "Republic of Korea was established" reflecting the argument of the New Right scholars who claim this as the day the nation was founded. In other words, the new textbook reduced its description of the independence movement, which succeeded the legal traditions of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea established in 1919. In the revised curriculum for 2015, the term "dictatorship" is not mentioned. The textbook describes the eighteen years under the Park Chung-hee regime as an "authoritarian regime." The description of the pro-democracy movement, which fought against the dictatorship, is also ambiguous. The new textbook has a weaker description of how South Korea came to achieve democracy and eliminated the controversy concerning industrialization, simply describing it as the history of the growth of our economy.
As they tried to cover up the shameful history of one's family and highlight their positive achievements, the historical facts, which most accept as common sense, have been distorted. In the end, they reduced the description of pro-Japanese activities and dictatorship and along with them they reduced the volume of their description on the independence movement and the pro-democracy movement as well as tone down the narration. This resulted in the proportion of modern and contemporary history in textbooks falling below 50%. This runs against the international trend, which emphasizes modern and contemporary history.
What is the use of history education when history cannot learn and grow from its past?
No comments:
Post a Comment