Sometimes foreigners’ observations of our culture are strikingly insightful. In the late 19th century, the Russian government dispatched four military officers and one government official to observe the Hermit Kingdom called Joseon.
Their observations, which were quite accurate and comprehensive, were later published in book form in 1858. As I read the book, which was full of useful, intriguing information on pre-modern Korean society, a passage caught my attention: “Koreans are a curious people and thus enjoy gossiping enormously. As a result, there seems to be no secret in the Joseon Kingdom.”
Even today, Koreans still seem to be curious and have thirsty souls by nature. Indeed, we are so curious of other people that we frequently gossip about people behind their backs in order to quench our thirst for juicy tidbits about others. So we like to use the “information superhighway” called gossip. Therefore, one can say that it is hard to keep a secret in Korean society.
Koreans are thirsty souls not only metaphorically, but also quite literally. Koreans love drinking and when we drink at a bar, we drink to quench not only our physical thirst, but also mental thirst for information. While drinking, therefore, we indulge in gossip about others, beginning with politicians. Then we gossip about sex scandals. When we run out of political and sexual gossip, we gossip about our peers who happen to be absent from the gathering.
The problem with gossip is that gossip and praise often do not go hand in hand. When we gossip about someone, we are likely to criticize or speak ill of the person. When we do that, we feel guilty and unpleasant. On the contrary, when we praise someone, we feel good. Why, then, should we make ourselves feel unpleasant by maligning others? Lately, therefore, I have been trying to praise others instead of criticizing them, and speaking favorably of others instead of sneering at them. I have found that adopting a positive attitude lifts my mood.
I have always been disappointed in our ex-presidents and thus have often disparaged their achievements. These days, however, I have been examining their merits, an exercise that has changed my perspective. Syngman Rhee, for example, was an arrogant, obstinate dictator to be sure. Nevertheless, he was a superb diplomat who steered the nation in the right direction through the turbulent modern history of Korea. Rhee became president in hard times and yet, he did a splendid job of leading a war-ridden country in crisis.
Park Chung-hee, too, was a dictator who ruthlessly oppressed his political dissidents. Nonetheless, he genuinely cared about the economic development of his destitute country and dedicated himself to making Korea an affluent society. Had it not been for Park, we could not have been as prosperous as we are today, achieving remarkable economic growth in such a short amount of time. Park turned the bleak postwar landscape of South Korea into the colorful scenery of an advanced nation that other underdeveloped countries look up to.
Chun Doo-hwan was also a dictator who brutally crushed the May 18 Gwangju Uprising. Perhaps due to his sense of guilt for seizing power illegitimately, Chun did do some good things. For example, he appointed the nation’s best men for his cabinet, even though many of them were unfortunately killed in Burma in a North Korean terrorist attack. Chun also lifted the curfew and freed students from wearing monochromatic uniforms.
Roh Tae-woo was appraised as a relatively incompetent president and yet, he, too, accomplished an important achievement: through his northern policy, he successfully opened diplomatic channels with China and Russia. Kim Young-sam was blamed for the 1997 financial crisis that eventually forced Korea to turn to the International Monetary Fund for help. But Kim did something no one could possibly do: He had the guts to arrest the two ex-presidents Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo and send them to prison.
Kim Dae-jung has been criticized for his unsuccessful Sunshine Policy, which consequently misguided the Korean people into believing in imminent unification. Yet Kim has been hailed as a competent leader who overcame the IMF crisis in a surprisingly short span of time, and at the same time achieved the democratization of South Korea.
The assessment of Roh Moo-hyun has been controversial; the conservatives label him as a failed president who led the nation in the wrong direction, whereas the progressives worship him as their spiritual leader. But one thing is certain: Roh showed the Korean people that anyone can become the nation’s president, and that even conservatism can be benign.
There are two ways of perceiving our ex-presidents. One way is to view them with pride, and the other to do so with prejudice. The same logic goes with our history as well. Instead of dismissing and denouncing our past, we need to assess it in a more positive, optimistic light. If we drop our prejudice, we will be able to see the bright side of our history. After all, there are so many things we can be proud of.
By Kim Seong-kon
Kim Seong-kon is a professor of English at Seoul National University and president of the Literature Translation Institute of Korea. ― Ed.
