Another historical debate is on ― not about Asia but about Korea, and not between Koreans and Japanese but among Koreans.
The so-called New Right academics published their ``Alternative Textbook'' yesterday, saying it is aimed at restoring balance to the existing, leftist-leaning modern history. As expected, however, the book appears equally lopsided, only toward the right this time.
Armed with what they call logical positivism, the latest history book all but rationalizes Japan's colonial occupation of Korea and post-liberation military dictatorship here as laying the groundwork for and completing this country's modernization. In sum, it puts economy over ideology, state over people and nation building over national identify.
So this ``re-revisionist" history extols ex-Presidents Syngman Rhee and Park Chung-hee, who either did relatively little to free Korea from Japan's rule or even served for the Imperial Army, as a founding father and an economic savior, respectively. In contrast, it disparages Kim Ku, president of the government-in-exile who led armed resistance, as having done little for the establishment of the Republic of Korea separate from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Granted, there should be no restrictions in the interpretation of historical facts in a free, democratic society. It is problematic, too, that some leftist scholars, mired in excessively nationalist ideology, appear to seek the legitimacy on the Korean Peninsula not in the democratized South but in the authoritarian North. Still, belittling the nation's roots based on a modernization-is-everything philosophy would be no less serious a mistake by denying the national spirits bent on only materialism.
It is still subject to scholastic debate which of the two theories is more plausible ― modernization through colonization or exploitation under the pretext of modernization. Stretching the rightist's claim a little too far, however, one could reach the conclusion that the nation must have been more modernized or even come closer to Japan economically, had Seoul remained as Tokyo's colony or stayed under continuous rule by generals-turned-presidents.
Their excessive neglect of nationalism also appears intentional. True, nationalism has been reduced to a legacy of the early 20th century by some Western historians. What does it mean, however, when post-modern Europe is being increasingly disintegrated into plenitude of nations ― Kosovo is its latest example ― despite the continent's economic integration?
It is simply nonsensical that the authors, none of whom are historians but are political scientists and economists, have put forth a ``textbook'' as an alternative. It is doubly suspicious that the head of the New Right quasi-historian group also leads a think tank for the governing Grand National Party. They say victors write history, but should it apply to a five-year-long administration? Would it be too much to say one could understand now why Japan welcomed President Lee's inauguration so warmly?
Left or right, the unchanging principles should be human rights, freedom and democracy, none of which really existed under the Japanese colonial rulers or military dictators. Spirit without material is somewhat empty but material without spirit is too shallow.