Who controls the past controls the future; so read the immortal lines of George Orwell’s “1984.” No wonder, then, that the interpretation of complex historical events rarely fails to generate controversy.

Not for the first time, the teaching of Korea’s turbulent modern history to the nation’s young has become the subject of bitter division. At issue is the alleged distortion of history by a textbook preliminarily approved for use in high schools by the National Institute of Korean History.

Like so many disputes in Korea, the controversy has largely been drawn along ideological and partisan lines: Liberal critics claim the book downplays the importance of the Gwangju Democracy Movement and exaggerates or glorifies Japan’s contribution to Korea’s modernization, while the book’s authors and conservatives contend it simply presents a severely needed nuanced view of Korea’s independence struggle, development and democratization.

“The conservative textbooks lead to an incorrect understanding of Korea’s modern history,” Kwon Nae-hyun, an associate professor at Korea University’s department of history education, told The Korea Herald.

“They value the conflict with North Korea more than a peaceful reunification. For example, President Park Chung-hee’s coup d’etat could be misinterpreted and glorified rather than be criticized as being for his own political interests. General values like peace and democracy can be misinterpreted by students.”

The process of approving textbooks has sparked controversy repeatedly since 2003, the year the government began accepting the work of private publishers. Just as conservative ideology is in the spotlight currently, conservatives regularly claimed textbooks had a left-wing bias when previous liberal administrations were in power.

A spokesperson for the NIKH, which operates under the Ministry of Education, said that it would be “highly inappropriate” to comment on the recent controversy, but said that it regularly made recommendations to the ministry on ways to improve the textbook selection process.

“Revision of the textbook authorization system falls under MOE’s authority; it is not within the competence of NIKH. However, we will keep forwarding ideas and suggestions to improve the authorization system as NIKH always has,” the spokesperson said on condition of anonymity, adding that the agency approved textbooks strictly in accordance with related presidential decrees and ministry proclamations.

The Education Ministry itself would appear to see little need for reform at present. An official from the ministry said it was premature to question the process when the final draft of the textbook in question had yet to be revealed.

“We do not directly manage things. Instead, a specialized history-education institution is in charge of management,” said the official on condition of anonymity. “How the content of the drafts has been written is not yet verified so it would not be suitable to expect changes. The ministry believes that the specialized history education institution will do a good job investigating this issue as it has continued to do so in the past.”

The spokesperson also defended the sourcing of books from multiple private publishers.

“The ministry used to use a government-designated textbook. There was a demand for the use of different historical textbooks. To keep pace with a society that is diverse and creative, there were opinions that authorized textbooks would be needed. As a result, from 2007 onward, all textbooks were changed to authorized textbooks,” said the official.

Demand for change, however, hasn’t been restricted to those who perceive creeping conservative influence over the education system. Lee Myung-hee, one of the coauthors of the textbook at the heart of the current dispute, believes the system is broken ― albeit not for the reasons his liberal critics might identify. While dismissing criticism of his book, Lee said that the current criteria for textbook selection were overly vague.

“Standards of authorization for history textbooks need to be made more concrete,” Lee said. “The current criteria are too wide-ranging and abstract, leaving room for authorization panelists to judge arbitrarily.”

But the bigger problem, Lee said, was the leeway given to teachers to choose textbooks for class.

“Adoption is a more serious issue. Korea may be the only country in the world in which school teachers are able to choose history textbooks,” he said, arguing that books used in public schools should cover a wide area of history. “Many school teachers are among the writers of textbooks, so textbooks are likely to reflect teachers’ propensity.”

Lee took aim at “leftist history textbooks” that he said resembled right-wing history textbooks used in Japan in their glorification of totalitarianism.

“A conservative Korean history book is critical of the totalitarian rule under the militarism of the Japanese colonial subjugation and also of the communist movement in the early 20th century as well as North Korean communism,” he said, adding that it was natural for school textbooks to advocate for Korea as the country with historical legitimacy on the peninsula.

“Leftist history textbooks, rather, are similar to ultra-rightist Japanese history textbooks in that they both advocate totalitarianism and in that they also are tolerant of the communist movement during Japanese colonial rule and the North Korean regimes under Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il.”

Others, however, see the problem as less to do with the system and more to do with needless political interference in the reading of history. Lee of Korea University said that it should be educators who decide what is taught in class once it has met the requirements of the educational authorities.

“Verifying the textbooks should be up to the education system, and the distribution of the textbooks should be up to the teachers. Since the President Lee Myung-bak administration, interference by the political authorities in the publication, verification and distribution of textbooks and the input of their own historical and political ideologies has always been the biggest problem,” he said.

“Teachers should be able to decide what goes into the textbooks and the education system should simply verify. So trying to insert a specific historical ideology is the problem, not the verification system.”

By John Power (john.power@heraldcorp.com)

Chun Sung-woo and Kim Ji-yeon contributed to this report. ― Ed.


Readers’ VOICE

History textbooks…

We should choose facts, and description based on facts. The current controversy on history textbooks is mainly based on total lies on the Internet made up because of political conflicts. And in the selection of facts we must exclude any political influence. If there is something controversial we have to include, we must treat various facts impartially.

“Who” could be a question about the whole textbook system. There are problems in the current system that make competition overheated and require too short a time to make and examine textbooks. So we could think about reforming the system, and that could include a change in the decision-making body. But I’m sure that it should not be some politicians or political media.

― Jung Un-soo, Seoul, via Facebook

Gaeseong reopens...

The underlying tension hasn’t disappeared. South Korea can say they’ve “won” because of the speed of the negotiations, while North Korea can continue to claim they’ve “won” based on their ability to use the same tactics over and over again.

If you were a chaebol, why would you put up with this level of unpredictability? You wouldn’t ― and so you lean on the president you helped to elect to make things more stable. Congratulations for helping to fund North Korea’s nuclear program and cult of personality, chaebol.

― Chris Backe, Bangkok, via Facebook

Government change in Egypt...

I think it is not a coup. In a coup the armed forces take over and rule; that is not happening in Egypt. What I do think has happened is that the armed forces have realized democracy and Shariah law cannot coexist, so they have told the people to go about making a real democracy. This is a well-deserved smack in the face for Islamic Shariah law.

― Bill Burrell, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia, via Facebook