It can only be called absurd.
Who in Japan, either then or now, would think such a thing?
This is surely what is meant by being left speechless.
That he was supposedly a philosopher and educator makes it all the more astonishing.
March 13, 2019
The following is a continuation of the preceding chapter.
The aforementioned Shin Il-chol wrote the following in the early 1970s:
〈Originally, within the Northeast Asian cultural sphere, Japan belonged to an “isolated region” far removed and alienated from the center of Chinese civilization, where its people were called “Wa.”
For a long period, Japan harbored an inferiority complex arising from its consciousness of being a cultural “illegitimate child.”
The hierarchy of traditional culture was firmly established in the order China–Korea–Japan (Wa), and from ancient times Wa revered Korea as a superior country.〉
It can only be called absurd.
Who in Japan, either then or now, would think such a thing?
This is surely what is meant by being left speechless.
That he was supposedly a philosopher and educator makes it all the more astonishing.
The February 1982 issue of Monthly Chosun carried the following passage by Lee O-young, born in 1934, the author of The Compact Culture:
〈There are two great mysteries in the world.
When you go to Japan and look closely at individual Japanese people, each seems deficient in some respect, although their facial features are acceptable.
Despite that impression, how did such people come together and create such a world-class economic power?
That is one mystery.
Conversely, there is another mystery that is exactly the opposite.
Viewed individually, South Koreans are in no way behind the Japanese; indeed, they are people who are further advanced.
Why, then, was the society formed by such admirable people so weak in the past that it came to be ruled by the Japanese?
That is another mystery.
Ultimately, the difference between Japanese collectivism and South Korean individualism created the difference between the two countries today.〉
I am surely not the only person who wishes that they would learn more about their own country’s history.
How many times were they invaded by China and Japan, and how many hostages did they send?
How much tribute did they present—and continuously, over all that time?
Although they are scholars, do they not know the historical fact that their country was ruled by Japan in ancient times?
Treating words so lightly and speaking on the basis of conjecture and speculation are tantamount to fabrication and distortion.
An excessively strong belief in one’s own country’s superiority over other countries exposes a historical inferiority complex.
I have drunk with South Korean authors many times, and some are my friends.
Personally, I am “pro-Korean,” but recent conduct has gone too far.
Excesses damage friendship between countries.
I was invited to join Japanese and South Korean university professors studying minority literature, and we once drank fine liquor together in Brazil.
I have also lectured at a South Korean university.
However, after witnessing exchanges concerning Japanese and South Korean historical perceptions following a university symposium, I realized that many of them had not read the books related to themselves or their own country’s “official history.”
As far as I know, Japan has not openly demeaned or verbally attacked South Korea.
By contrast, and I say this with due reluctance, South Korean politicians and intellectuals repeatedly make malicious statements of their own accord to the media.
Politics cannot move forward under those circumstances.
Why not reexamine the voices of the travel writers and missionaries of the period quoted here, together with what is recorded in the historical documents of China and Japan?
If they have lost their own “history,” they have no choice but to search for it through other historical facts.
Human beings cannot see their own backs.
If a piece of thread is clinging to us or our shirt is hanging out, someone else must tell us.
Consideration for others and humility are privileges possessed only by human beings, and are they not forms of kindness?
Above all, I want Professor Shin Il-chol to be acutely aware that words create history.
If he is a philosopher, he must remember the meaning of the word philosophy before he speaks.
Does philosophy not mean philein—“to love”—sophia—“wisdom”—in Greek?
Does it not mean seeking the fundamental principles of things?
Moreover, I cannot regard Lee O-young’s writing as the words of an intellectual.
When Japanese people encounter such reckless language, anyone would become defensive, and I fear that anti-Korean sentiment will intensify even further.
To begin with, national tragedies are inseparable from “history.”
Japan also suffered atomic bombings.
“History” cannot be constructed merely by directing resentful eyes toward the past.
History is the common cultural heritage of humankind.
It goes without saying that we need to view it with as much objectivity as possible.