[Editorial] Depoliticizing history textbooks

Posted on : 2011-11-19 11:51 KST Modified on : 2011-11-19 11:51 KST

A few days ago, the National Institute of Korean History (NIKH) made an announcement of the middle school history textbook authorization standards, which was originally scheduled for January 2012. It stated that a faithful account should be given for major incidents of contemporary history that had been omitted from the textbook writing standards, namely the April 3 Uprising in Jeju, the April 19 Revolution, the May 16 coup d'etat in 1961, the May 18 Democratization Movement in 1980, and the June Democracy Movement in 1987, as well as the process of reconciliation with a history of Japanese collaboration. With this, it would appear that the NIKH has backed off a step.
It looks as though the NIKH felt burdened about having to wage a history war with the academic community after attempting to modify history textbooks to the Lee administration’s liking based on the arguments of conservative news outlets and government-sponsored researchers. It is difficult to watch the institute acting as a foil for the actions of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, only to come out and engage in belated cleanup efforts. More importantly, however, the stopgap authorization standards are ineffective and change nothing about the fundamental issue.
Accounts about major incidents are just one of many items for review in the category of “compliance with the educational curriculum,” which accounts for 25 points out of a possible 100. The claim is that writers are required to include these accounts, but the points assigned are so few as to render this meaningless. And the amendment educational curriculum that serves as the supreme standard has been made to rationalize Japanese colonial rule and dictatorship.
It is impossible to write that the dictatorships of Rhee Syng-man and Park Chung-hee were unavoidable for the safeguarding of liberal democracy or to give an account of Japanese collaboration that follows from the argument about how colonial rule promoted modernization. It is impossible to overturn the highest standard, the educational curriculum, or the next highest standard, the writing guidelines, based on the lower-level authorization standards.
The amended curriculum has “liberal democracy” used in place of “democracy,” omits accounts of the Rhee and Park dictatorships, and argues, contrary to the facts, that the South Korean government is the only legal government on the Korean Peninsula. It is these very elements that the academic community took issue with, and they do not change simply by tinkering with the authorization standards at the bottom while leaving the distorted standards in place at the top and just below it. It is ultimately the educational curriculum that allowed the writing standards to equivocate on specific incidents and elements of the democratization movement and dictatorship.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) and NIKH argue that this was merely intended to guarantee autonomy in the writing process. But the writing standards for the modern history section call for explicit accounts of incidents such as the Gapsin Coup of 1884, the Tonghak Peasant Revolution, and the Gabo Reforms. This is merely a bit of prevaricating to gloss over the recklessness and ploys shown to date. The only option is to turn the history textbook curriculum and writing standards over completely to the academic sector for reamendment. We look forward to seeing an end to this reckless history battle with academia. It may be embarrassing now, but it's better than going down in history as the administration that had to have history and education its own way.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]

Most viewed articles