Textbook checkers

By Mark Peterson

I returned recently from Korea where I attended a conference sponsored by the Academy of Korean Studies. The purpose of the conference was to celebrate the 15th year of the "understanding Korea project" ― the title of the program aimed at correcting mistakes in foreign textbooks in their coverage of Korea.

The object of the Academy's concern has been the way Korea is portrayed in textbooks, mainly world history textbooks, in countries around the world. I was one of two representatives from the United States. There were delegates from England, France, Serbia and Argentina as well.

My presentation went beyond the 15 years of the Understanding Korea Project they were celebrating, because I have been working to improve for 26 years. Before the National Assembly gave a budget to the Academy of Korean Studies, the budget line for improving Korea's position in overseas textbooks was given to the Korean Overseas Information Service (KOIS) ― now, the Korean Culture and Information Service (KOCIS).

A contact I had known at KOIS asked me if I would set up a team to conduct research on the way Korea is treated in American textbooks. I agreed I could do the research and could put a team of students to work on the survey of American textbooks, and KOIS provided the research funding.

The research was renewed for a second and third year. We evaluated 82 textbooks in the categories of world history, world cultures, world geography and American history. We had not planned on studying American history textbooks, but we found as much coverage on Korea there as in world history textbooks, in areas concerning the Korean War, immigration, trade and trade friction.

Because of my work on textbooks between 1992 and 1994, in 1994 the Korea Society contacted me to see if I would be interested in helping to take a group of textbook writers and editors on a fact-finding tour of Korea. The leader of the group at the Korea Society was a wonderful colleague named Choi (Kim) Yong-jin. She was the sister of Kim Seong-jin, the first president of the Korea International Cultural Society, the predecessor of today's Korea Foundation, and had lots of connections and friends in Korea who helped enrich the seminar. For example, another of her siblings was Kim Hee-jin, a designated National Living Treasure in the field of "maedeup," Korean macrame.

In subsequent years, I helped lead over 30 groups on fact-finding, in-country seminars in Korea. At the outset, KOIS provided the budget that supported the program, but 15 years ago, the government transferred the budget line item to the Academy of Korean Studies. Thus, the academy was celebrating its 15 years of the "understanding Korea project."

The wording of the project in Korean is "baro alligi" ― "informing about Korea correctly." There is another organization I have found recently with the same phrase, "baro algi" ― in this case, "understanding Korean history correctly." The term of "correctly" is odd in English ― "Correctly? According to whom?" American readers are off-put by the term, because it begs the question as to which authority is saying this or that interpretation is "correct."

But in Korean, the term "correct history" makes sense and is not at all odd because of the tradition of historiography in Korea during and after the Japanese period. The Japanese, consciously and overtly, corrupted Korean historiography in order to diminish Korean nationalism and self-esteem.

Intentionally important aspects of Korean history were told from the distorted perspective of the Japanese colonialists. Correcting some misleading concepts was easily accomplished, but some, more-subtle concepts are still lingering in standard Korean textbooks and historical narratives. (I'll write more about hidden Japanisms in Korean historiography in coming weeks.)

So the term "baro alligi" or "baro algi" (to inform others "correctly" and to understand "correctly") are not terms that create an odd response in Korean. In English, however, the response is uniformly negative or at least curious. Americans are suspicious, by nature, of government interference in academic affairs ― "academic freedom" is an oft-heard expression. And the phrase, one should "understand history correctly" sets off alarms.

The Academy of Korean Studies in defining its project that has the purpose of correcting mistaken coverage of Korea in foreign textbooks uses a softer term in English: "uderstanding Korea." That works better. Here is one case where a more liberal translation, though one could argue its accuracy, is much better. If they approached a foreign textbook publisher with the phrase, "your textbook doesn't have the correct information" the foreign textbook editor would reject their "interference" out-of-hand.

But to say that they would like to make sure people understand Korean history, it creates a more sympathetic and positive response. So, Academy of Korean Studies, I wish you well in your endeavors. This world can use a lot more understanding.

Mark Peterson (markpeterson@byu.edu) is professor emeritus of Korean, Asian and Near Eastern languages at Brigham Young University in Utah.