Search

The emergence of the South Korean New Right movement in the mid-2000s led to the questions of how to commemorate and evaluate the ROK state establishment in 1948, and when to precisely trace such a "foundation" (1919 or 1948?) to be vividly discussed in South Korean society. Was 1948 primarily a political division? Or was it a "foundation for success"? Following the 2008 Foundation Day Dispute, a significant number of scholarly works on the subject has been produced. This article analyses the conservative side of this discourse, approaching the foundation dispute as a conservative attempt to regain hegemony over South Korean Cultural memory in post-democratisation South Korea. Analysing New Right-authored historiography on the subject of "foundation," the present study discloses how conservatives narrated the formative years of the South Korean state, arguing that merely dismissing the New Right as historical revisionists is too simple a conclusion. Rather, this article argues that struggles over Cultural memory are rooted in the ideological and institutional polarisation of South Korean intellectuals in contemporary South Korea. Furthermore, by contextualising the Foundation View against progressive historiography within South Korea as well as Cold War history in a global context, this study answers why the Foundation View ultimately failed to gain acceptance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The New Right movement that arose in the early 2000s in South Korea was a response to a change in ownership of Korean nationalist discourse during the preceding decades. Although nationalism was the preserve of the South Korean right wing from the trusteeship crisis in 1945 through the end of the Park Chung Hee regime, a historiographical revolt in the 1980s that emphasized the historical illegitimacy of the South Korean state allowed the Left to appropriate nationalism. With the loss of nationalism from its arsenal, the Right turned to postnationalist neoliberal discourse to blunt the effectiveness of leftist nationalist rhetoric. An examination of New Right historiography on the colonial and postliberation periods, however, shows that despite the recent change in conservatives' stance on nationalism, a preoccupation with the legitimacy of the South Korean state remains at the center of right-wing historical narratives. The New Right represents old wine in new bottles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to offer both an overview of the key issues and controversial policy decisions that defined history education in Korea for the past 10 years and a critical analysis of the actions taken by, and claims exchanged between, the advocates of New Right thinking and their opponents during this period. In doing so, it will point out the following three things. First, there has been a great deal of partisan political interference, more on the part of the right than of the left. Second, there was a strong presence of a nationalist element in the collective efforts made by the left to counter the conservative government's attempts to take firm control of what and how history is taught in schools. Third, both the right and the left played fast and loose with the idea of diversity in order to consolidate their academic and political positions. This was, it will be argued, as much a manifestation of fragmented reflections on relevant epistemological issues as the result of political expediency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]