.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
.jpg) |
Two banners hang at the entrance of a park in front of my home. They read: "Have you ever read our children's history textbook carefully?" and "A good president adorns history and a bad president changes the history textbooks."
The banners are in response to the government's decision to reintroduce state-authored history textbooks for middle and high school students starting in 2017.
The sudden move has touched off fierce resistance from opposition political parties as well as from liberal-minded people, including historians and teachers.
Although I'm not affected by the new policy, I am doubtful about the state history textbooks.
Fundamentally, I think, writing state history textbooks is unconstitutional. Article 31 of the Constitution says, "Independence, professionalism, and political impartiality of education and the autonomy of universities shall be guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by laws." Based on this, the context of education must be liberally determined by educators, and the authority's regulations against education must be excluded.
Moreover, it is stipulated in Article 22 that "Every citizen has the freedom of learning and art." "Freedom of learning," in this context, is the right not to be interfered with by the state authority. Therefore, the state history textbooks are a classic example of infringement on the autonomy and political neutrality of education and academic freedom.
The problem is that the national textbook does not merely end with regulating knowledge, but carries over into the regulation of thought and action. Not only history but also freedom of thought and of the press, and democracy itself, are all in danger, due to the new system of state-written history textbooks.
The reason why state publication is undesirable lies in the essence of history.
Although it is generally accepted that history is "a record of the past," history can never be simply "a record of facts." Since it is impossible to trace down past incidents as they actually happened, historians should go through the process of sorting through historical sources, which inevitably requires interpretation, judgment and perspective.
E. H. Carr, the English author of "What Is History?" argues that history is "an unending dialogue between the past and present," meaning that history is continually evaluated and restructured in light of new perspectives. He emphasizes the role of historians who interpret the facts, rather than a fact-based history.
Similarly in 2005, President Park Geun-hye, who was then a representative of the
Grand National Party, said that "Historians should be the ones who decide on history" and that "No matter what, the government must not judge history."
The nature of history is diversity. With various opinions existing, different conclusions about history must be allowed.
Many people are worried that government-issued textbooks may force students to unilaterally accept a unified historical view. As a result students lose the chance to think about the controversial questions of history and cannot develop themselves into critical thinkers. In today's world, this standardized way of thinking can be a major obstacle to progress and freedom.
Conservatives or ruling party politicians say the government-authorized textbooks compiled by private publishing companies are left-leaning. They even assert that the texts romanticize North Korea and its Juche (self-reliance) ideology while degrading South Korea. I actually learned about Juche from government-approved textbooks for the past five years in middle and high school.
However, I learned it critically, based on objective facts. The history textbook (Chunjae Gyoyuk), which I used when I was in ninth grade, states that "A theory that justifies the monolithic system of Kim Il-sung was named Juche. Since then North Korea has been perpetuating its system in which only Juche has sole power."
The government continues to ask for a stronger attack on North Korea, but textbooks are for students' understanding of North Korea and in-depth thought about a unified country, rather than a means to indoctrinate them against communism. Whatever the opponents say, conservatives insist on "correct history textbooks."
At this point we must reconsider what is "correct history." Can history be evaluated correctly or incorrectly with simple criteria? Isn't the government writing history that is merely "correct" according to its authority?
The writer is a second-year student at Shinmok High School in Mok-dong, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul.
![[ANALYSIS] Tesla, BYD's price cuts unnerve LGES, Samsung, SK](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/b1cf8ba68d474cb69352bfe7ea9d14f0.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] How ATEEZ achieved worldwide success](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/c7723b56dde94eb4b260950d368fe8fb.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
