Money, ideology and lists

By David Tizzard

If you were given $500 million and a timeframe of two to three years to try and make society a better place, what would you do?

Obviously that's an incredible amount of money (more than most of us will ever likely see in our lifetime) and a timeframe which allows for a long-term vision to take place. Naturally many of us might turn our attention to the most vulnerable in society.

We might suggest improving the plight of the elderly; creating a more welcoming environment for people with physical disabilities; providing greater psychological support for a country that has had the highest suicide rate in the OECD for the better part of the last two decades; or improving social awareness toward cultural and ethnic minorities.

Others might turn their attention to the arts, technology, the environment, digital futures and so on. Frankly, the possibilities are rather endless when you consider the amount of money and time. We can truly make the world a better place and foster creativity, positivity, and unity.

So it was with some frustration that I read this week of the latest plans coming out of the central bank and the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. They are reportedly going to take that amount of money (470 billion won) and time (two to three years) to change the portraits on the 100 won coin, 5,000 won note, 10,000 won, and 50,000 won note.

Fair enough, you might think. Change always happens and it seems rather natural for a state to upgrade the designs and symbols on their money. It's an effective method of nation-building and projects values, heroes and symbols toward citizens.

It should be noted, however, that they are not changing “who” will appear on the currency, they are simply changing who “creates” the art.

For example, an image of Admiral Yi Sun-shin (1545-1598) has been on the 100 won coin since 1983. Anyone who has spent any time in Korea will undoubtedly recognize it. While no official portraits of Admiral Yi remain from his era, the current image used is housed at the Hyeonchung Shrine in Asan and is based on descriptions and anecdotes.

It was created by Chang Woo-soung, aka Woljeon (1912-2005). His entry on the British Museum website describes him as a leading artist in the Korean ink painting tradition and someone who developed one of the two main streams of art during the 1930s.

As he lived and worked during the period of Japanese colonization (1910-1945), like many members of the middle class and the broader population, he would have had interactions with the administrative body. The Institute for Research in Collaborationist Activities (IRCA) has said Chang received recognition and support from the Japanese colonial government from 1941-1944.

For that reason, a new portrait of Admiral Lee will be produced and Chang's work removed from the national currency. It will be given to an artist that does not feature on the IRCA's lists.

Currently, one of the only other known images of Admiral Yi was produced by the Scottish painter Elizabeth Keith during her trip to the peninsula's southern coastal regions in the 1920s. This was discovered by a relative in Canada last year and finally published in a book just a few months ago. I can't help but wonder if that very recent discovery and this latest story aren't connected.

And all this talk reminds me of the “blacklist” controversy and lack of support for certain artists that surrounded ex-President Park Geun-hye's administration before her eventual impeachment: Plus ca change,?plus?c'est la meme chose, non? (The more things change, the more they stay the same. No?).

The focus on denying rights and privileges to those who were said to have collaborated with Japan began with some force under ex-President Roh Moo-hyun's presidency. The Special Law on the Inspection of Collaboration with Japanese Imperialism was passed in 2004 and a year later a further bill was passed which sought to redeem property from those found guilty.

In 2005, the IRCA disclosed a list of 3,094 Koreans who were said to be “chinilpa” (pro-Japanese collaborators) and this was followed by a presidential commission which produced an official list and began confiscating land from those found guilty. In 2007, the government began confiscating land from the descendants of pro-Japanese collaborators.

President Moon, who was a close friend and chief of staff of Roh Moo-hyun, has revisited this approach. Relations with Japan have reached their lowest ebb in decades while domestically the President has vowed to seek out “deep-rooted evils” in Korean society.

This week a public court notice went into effect to proceed with the liquidation of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries' assets in Korea as part of a compensation process for the victims and families of those who sadly endured forced, unpaid labor before and during World War II. The assets to be seized include two trademark rights, six patents, as well as financial monetary compensation.

The idea of basing one's current status (or lack thereof) on the actions of your ancestors during the period of Japanese colonization also forms the basis of the North Korean state. The Songbun system north of the border determines the responsibilities and opportunities provided to citizens based on the political, social, and economic background of their direct relatives ― most notably with reference to Japan.

The North also keeps detailed lists on all citizens in this regard. By keeping such lists secret, it keeps citizens in a state of fear, unsure of their status, not knowing whether the government will come for them. Something that Robespierre, Marat, or Stalin would have greatly approved of.

Do I support Japanese colonization? No. Do I believe that the Korean people suffered under the yoke of this oppression? Yes.

Nevertheless, it's the form of collectivism and family punishment that I find most difficult to comprehend here. If we are to be held as autonomous and free individuals, why should we be judged on the actions and deeds of our ancestors over whom we had no control?

And how far back do such lists go? And for what crimes based on what interpretation?

If slavery was only eventually made illegal on the Korean Peninsula through the Gabo Reforms in 1894, doesn't that mean that all those that lived before ― including the great kings, generals, poets, and artists ― were slave owners? From a modern perspective, is slavery in one's lineage more or less acceptable than holding a government position during a colonial administration?

I don't know, to be honest. But I think judging the past through the eyes of the present fails to account for the ideational development that takes place in human consciousness in a Hegelian sense vis-a-vis freedom.

When I discussed this topic of changing the currency on the radio during the week and highlighted the opportunity cost of spending so much time and money on this project, we received messages from citizens of South Korea saying that they supported the movement. Those who took the time to contact the show said that such actions were worth the time and money to ensure the legacy and future of South Korea.

Thus, if it's a decision supported by the majority of the South Korean people and has a popular mandate, then more power to them.

I just worry about these lists and committees as I keep reading about discussions on the taking of money, land and privileges from people in the modern age based on their descendants' past behavior. I've read about it before in history books and the endings were never that glorious.

Dr. David Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) has a Ph.D. in Korean Studies and is an assistant professor at Seoul Women's University. He discusses the week's hottest issues on TBS eFM (101.3FM) on "Life Abroad" live every Thursday from 9:35 a.m. to 10 a.m.