Champion of the Rose of Sharon

By Kim Ji-myung

Last week, I picked up a bundle of rose of Sharon cuttings downtown at the Ministry of Forestry and handed them out to citizens in a campaign to plant Korea’s national flower around Arbor Day.

Rose of Sharon, or Mugunghwa in Korean, reminded me of a pioneering champion of a rose-of-Sharon planting campaign some 100 years ago.

Namgung Eok (1863-1939) served as an able government official, a prominent journalist, a high school English teacher and an insightful leader for independence in his final days.

He belonged to an academically blessed generation in Korean history as he and some of his contemporaries learned Chinese at a traditional school (seodang) as children, studied Korean and English at modern schools in their youth and learned Japanese after colonization. They had the keys to access the intellectual world in three languages.

After retiring from official positions in Seoul, Namgung moved to his ancestors’ hometown of Hongcheon and focused on education. His understanding of the national situation was astonishingly foresighted.

He had a clear vision of the nation and of regaining independence. His initiatives were precisely targeted and practical. He wrote an item-by-item manual for girls on how to manage their demanding lives.

It was in easy hangeul, the Korean alphabet, so that uneducated women could also read. He secretly published a brief national history book (Dongsa-ryak) in four volumes and the five-volume Story of Joseon (Joseon Iyagi) for youths, and distributed them nationwide.

In the preface to the history book, he deplored that Koreans long worshipped China, harvesting complex formalities while losing cause and righteousness. Trying to demonstrate a subjective and independent understanding of history, he wrote, ``I focused on the historical facts about love of country and justice.”

Namgung’s exceptional insight stands tall when we remember the general attitude of most people at that time.

The Rev. J. S. Gale argued in 1900, ``For 3,000 years, the Great Empire has forced its history and teachings upon the little Eastern Kingdom (Dong-guk), with evident desire to annex the same, not so much by force of arms as by appropriating the thoughts and minds of men.

``Korea, in her relations with China, has ever been called the East Kingdom or Eastern State (Dong-guk or Dong-bang), while China is none other to her than Dae-guk, the Great Empire or Jung-guk, the Middle Kingdom.” Gale’s speech became the first article in “Transactions, Vol. 1,” by the Royal Asiatic Society Korea Branch.

The Rev. Gale’s argument was refuted at that time not by a Korean but by Dr. Homer Hulbert, whom Koreans call a "man who loved Korea more than Koreans.” He questioned the idea that Korean society was dominated by Chinese ideas, pointing out that Korea was a nation of over 12 million people who had preserved a distinct national life for more than 2,000 years. It would be strange indeed if there remained on the peninsula nothing particularly and distinctively Korean.

No one, either Korean or foreign, would believe now that some absolute and ever-lasting influence of China held sway on the minds of the Korean people. In today’s world, the obvious presence of Chinese influence is revealed in economic and security relations in this part of the world.

It seems ironic to me when I remember my grandfather, who passed away in 1982. He was typical of Korean literati living in South Gyeongsang Province. Like others of them, he had passed the state exam for officialdom but remained as a scholar in his village. He revered the Confucian teachings.

During a winter vacation, I was filling my workbook with Chinese characters as my vacation homework. Suddenly I realized that this made him extremely happy. "Yes, yes, good job. We should always be very close with Qing,” he said. Not only my grandfather but many elderly Koreans had an image of China as the closest big-brother country, different from Russia, Japan or the alien Western nations.

Very often, you may notice that Korean history scholars have absolutely no sense of national boundaries when they cite great Confucian scholars in history. Maybe because of my ignorance, I sometimes wonder what portion of the intellectual assets of Korean humanities is of pure Korean origin?

Dr. Hulbert answered the question of influence in a responding paper in the same RASKB volume: "There had been admixture of Chinese blood in Korea but it terminated over a thousand years ago. We find precisely the same process occurring in England at approximately the same time. The admixture of Norman blood in England was indeed far greater than the Chinese admixture in Korea.”

Dr. Hulbert said also that Korea had received Buddhism not from China but merely by way of China: "In origin and philosophy Buddhism is an Indian product, and can no more be cited as Chinese influence.” He opined that Korea’s borrowing of Chinese ideas have merged neither the personality nor the characteristics of her people into any likeness to the Chinese.

We have recently been awakened to the solemn national borders by the territorial and historical disputes among countries in this part of the world. Before us now is the job of defining cultural identity, political influence and economic cooperation.

The writer is the chairwoman of the Korea Heritage Education Institute (K*Heritage). Her email address is Heritagekorea21@gmail.com.