I cover a wide range of stories about Korean society — one of the most dynamic places in the world. To me, journalism means being on the ground, uncovering untold stories and amplifying marginalized voices, especially in an era when AI is reshaping the media landscape. That’s why I’m always here to listen. Tips and stories are welcome — feel free to reach out via email. Before becoming a journalist, I traveled through 24 countries over 702 days, served two years as a military police officer in the Republic of Korea Air Force and later studied filmmaking at the Korea National University of Arts.
President Lee’s remarks on discredited history book sparks controversy
A copy of "Hwandan Gogi," a problematicbook on Korea’s ancient history, is displayed at a bookstore in Seoul, Sunday. Yonhap
By Park Ung
Experts say controversy unproductive, book’s academic accuracy settled long ago
A book widely dismissed by mainstream historians, "Hwandan Gogi" claims that an ancient Korean state known as Hwanguk ruled much of Asia around 9,000 years ago, with some adherents even asserting links to Sumer, one of the world’s earliest civilizations.
Published in 1979 by pseudo-historian Lee Yu-rip, who claimed to have based it on a 1911 text by a religious figure, the book has been rejected by scholars due to a lack of evidence and unclear origins.
The long-dismissed book resurfaced amid controversy after President Lee Jae Myung mentioned it publicly, sparking criticism over the appropriateness of referencing pseudo-history in official discourse.
During last week’s education ministry's annual policy briefing, Lee asked Park Ji-hang, president of the Northeast Asian History Foundation, whether the foundation had shown interest in derogatory terms used against followers of Hwandan Gogi.
“There seems to be a difference in perspectives over how history should be viewed and from what standpoint,” Lee said, after Park responded that professional scholars’ theories are far more persuasive than the widely discredited text.
The president’s comments drew swift criticism from opposition lawmakers, who argued that it is inappropriate to regard a work that mainstream historians overwhelmingly consider highly problematic as merely a matter of opinion.
“Labeling Hwandan Gogi as just a different historical perspective is comparable to claiming Snow White was a real historical figure," wrote Rep. Kim Eun-hye of the main opposition People Power Party on social media Sunday. “Presenting pseudo-history as verifiable fact makes meaningful dialogue impossible.”
Lee Jun-seok, leader of the minor opposition New Reform Party, echoed the criticism, saying that if Hwandan Gogi were considered history, then the fantasy novel "The Lord of the Rings" should also be considered history.
The presidential office said Sunday that Lee’s remarks did not endorse the book’s claims or instruct officials to study or review them.
Lee Kyu-yeon, the presidential secretary for public relations, said Tuesday the remarks were meant to draw attention to relatively understudied research on ancient and early Korean history.
“I don’t think it’s fair that public opinion has focused so narrowly on Hwandan Gogi,” Lee said.
Experts say the controversy is unproductive, as the book’s academic assessment has long been settled.
“Mainstream historians see the book as a fabrication and its claims as too far-fetched for serious discussion,” said Kim Tae-woong, a professor of history education at Seoul National University, adding that it reflects chauvinism rather than fact-based nationalism.
“At a time when the humanities are struggling, and there is much meaningful historical research to be done, the government should focus on supporting research rather than fueling unnecessary controversy,” Kim said.
Yoo Hong-jun, director of the National Museum of Korea, said Tuesday that the president raised Hwandan Gogi supporters not to endorse their views but to ask how the foundation was addressing them.
“It claims ancient Gojoseon (an early Korean kingdom) once ruled the world. Is that a history we should follow?” he said, describing the book as imagination and self-consolation rooted in a sense of national inferiority.