영문 인터뷰 전문

1. What is the biggest problem of the government replacing a privately-published textbooks with government-issued ones?

The biggest problem is that governments do not know how to do history. Governments are led by politicians, and politicians are people who would say the moon is made of green cheese, if that will get support from the people. In the US, imagine Donald Trump deciding what should be in a history textbook—it would end up as a comic book. The government will say, well, we will hire bona-fide historians, not comic-book writers. But the politicians will choose those historians, naturally favoring those who agree with them about which history seems correct to them.

 
2. Park Geun-hye has depicted the process as "normalizing" history education in Tuesday's speech, and said "correct" textbooks will help achieve this. What is your take on her approach, and what are some of the problems that can occur when the government determines what is "normal," or "correct" for students?

What President Park said is not “normal” or “correct.” There is no normal history, and there is no correct history. There is only history with meaning. Historians are trained to interpret primary documents—those historical materials that allow us to get closest to the truth of what happened—and to develop suppositions, arguments, and theories, as to what happened in the past and what it means. Historians pursue truth, to the best of their abilities, not the “truths” that this politician or that politician may happen to believe about the past. What is normal and correct for historians is to be honest, and to pursue the truth where ever it might take them. If you show me a politician who says she or he is pursuing the truth no matter what, I will show you a liar.
 
3. Education Minister Hwang Woo-yea said that countries suffering from internal conflicts, such as Turkey or Greece, use state textbooks. Bridging the social and ideological conflict has been the government's main reason for a unified textbook. Do you feel issuing a single textbook under the authority of the ministry can achieve what Hwang says it will? If not, why and what do you feel is the appropriate approach to address such issue?

The way to bridge social and ideological conflict is to let the truth come out, let people debate the truth in a truly democratic manner, and thus use history to pursue reconciliation with those who think differently than you do. Korea is not like Turkey, which has had an ethnic civil war between Turks and Kurds, and very sharp religious conflict. Greece can’t pay its bills, I don’t see how it can waste money writing textbooks. Korea’s modern history is a minefield of political conflicts whether between North and South, or Korea and Japan, or conflicts originating within South Korea, like the Kwangju uprising. How can we expect politicians to write the history of political conflicts?

- The ministry claimed that content of the current textbooks are biased, particularly in favor of the leftists. Assuming there is some truth in such claim, what do you feel the government should address this if not publishing their own version?

Recently a Korean politican said that President Roh Moo Hyun and politician Moon Jae-in were “communists.” To a person like that—and there are many among Korea’s rightwing—anyone who wants daycare centers is a communist. What the Korean government means by “leftist” is to denigrate those courageous scholars who have shed light on some very difficult subjects, like the Cheju rebellion or the Korean war. The model of what historians can do collectively was the Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which scrupulously developed new forensic, documentary and eyewitness evidence on various tragedies of mass murder by the governments in Seoul and Pyongyang. Now how can we expect politicians from the Seoul government to tell us the truth about those incidents? They just want to cover them up again—again—as they have done so many times in the past. But because of the great work of that Commission, so much toothpaste is out of the tube that it can never be put back in. Anyone can go on the Internet or to the library and read about these events; what good would a state-issued textbook do?

 
4. Among the biggest problems opponents of state textbooks raised was that it will squash out diversity and different interpretations of history. The Education Ministry are saying that the issue of diversity can be addressed by holding open debates and inviting scholars of different backgrounds to participate as authors. Do you think the state textbooks can encompass various views?

Ideally this might be a way to educate people about what historians do, to have these debates, but the intent of President Park’s government is to unify viewpoints, not to give equal weight to various viewpoints.

 
5. Those who oppose state textbooks say that given President Park Geun-hye's political and personal background (being the daughter of former President Park Chung-hee, whom many Koreans criticize for being a dictator and extorting the working class), the new textbooks may attempt to whitewash some of the disputed political and social figures. Do you think it is possible the government or the president is able to remain a completely "neutral" attitude in writing history textbooks?

Of course not. History is not about neutrality; it is about human beings imposing their judgments on what happened in the past, and why. Both President Park and her predecessor have spent years trying to take us back to the Cold War, to vilify North Korea at every chance, and to undo the hard work of reconciliation with the North and within the South that went on from 1998-2008. I think their current attempt to foster state textbooks is just one more example of their general approach to the national division—make it last as long as possible, make it worse. As for President Park’s father, everybody knows that he was an officer in the Japanese Army, one who received a gold watch from Emperor Pu Yi. At a time of great trial for his nation, he chose to serve the Japanese. But of course, it was my country that put him through the 2nd class of the Korean military academy in 1946 (along with Kim Chae-gyu, his assassin), and proceeded to support his dictatorship in every way.

 
6. In relation to question No.5, some are saying that reviving the state history textbook is an influence of the elder Park, who incidentally was the president who introduced the state-published system in the first place back in 1974. As an expert in Korean history, do you feel that Park's authoritarian rule has had an impact on the calls for state textbooks?

Yes, I do—but it goes back to the Japanese government and politicians, now and in the past, who also prefer centralized state textbooks, and who deeply fear independent historians. These days under Abe Shinzo, he promotes textbooks that say the Korean sex slaves were a bunch of “prostitutes.” By going down this same road of centrally-controlled textbooks, Pres. Park is playing into the hands of Abe, and appearing to be just like him.

 
7. North Korea is a thorny issue in South Korea. The government is criticizing the privately-published textbooks for depicting the communist country without criticizing it. (A claim which is still up for debate) But publishers say that it is important for students to learn about Pyongyang, given that the two Koreas are still technically at war. In your personal opinion, how do you think education should approach the issue of North Korea?

When you pile lies on top of lies, young people come to the conclusion that everything you say is a lie. Yet that’s what the two Koreas have done to each other for 70 years. In the South, a balanced treatment of North Korea is the first step toward reconciliation between the two Koreas.

 
8. Two years ago, Russia's President Vladimir Putin also emphasized the importance of "unified history" in providing guidelines for new textbooks. Although his approach is not exactly the same to Park's, it sparked criticism that Putin was trying to "rewrite" history. How would you compare the two policies? Is there any similarities in motive or the process in general?

I can’t compare the two policies, because Putin’s has become the policy, but Pres. Park is just throwing (bad) ideas out to see what happens. If she went forward with these unworkable, retrograde and stupid plans, then she will be just like Putin—and just like her father.