This blog post explores the discussion that history is not merely a record of past facts, but is reinterpreted and reconstructed according to the changes of the times and society, examining the meaning and bias of historical records.
To answer the profoundly difficult question of what history is in very simple terms, it can commonly be said that it refers both to the facts themselves that occurred in human society in the past, and to the written records about those facts. However, what we must consider here is that not all past facts are recorded as history. Not every fact that occurred in human society in the past becomes history. Let’s illustrate this with an example. The marriage of Mr. Kim and Miss Park cannot become history, whereas the creation of the Korean alphabet (Hangul) or the outbreak of the Imjin War between Joseon and Japan are historical events.
Viewed this way, it might seem that trivial matters or routinely recurring events cannot become history, while only monumental events or those occurring only once qualify as history. Yet this is not necessarily the case. Consider the Goryeo Dynasty: solar and lunar eclipses, periodic natural phenomena, were seen as warnings from heaven about human worldly injustices, thus becoming history. Yet, the world’s first metal movable type was not considered history because the significance of the transition from woodblock or wooden movable type printing to metal movable type was not recognized. This means whether something becomes history depends on how humans perceive and evaluate it. Ultimately, history can be defined as facts from past human societies that someone deemed important enough to select and record. In this process, people selectively document history based on the values, cultural backgrounds, and political interests of their era.
Considering that “history consists of events deemed important enough to record among the countless occurrences in past human societies,” several issues warrant reflection. First is the question of “what constitutes an event important enough to record.” Second is the issue of “the perspective and position of the person discerning which past events are important enough to record.” For example, victors in war may record history to justify and glorify their triumph, while the vanquished may attempt to conceal the facts or record them from a different perspective. This can lead to bias in historical records, and how these records will be interpreted and received by future generations remains another issue. Here, regarding “what constitutes an important issue worth recording, and what are the criteria for deeming something recordable,” it can be said that it is something that may serve as a reference for future generations, and “the act of discerning what is worthy of reference and what is not” can vary from person to person and also differ across eras.
Does this then change the meaning of history? Earlier, it was stated that what becomes history is facts that remain important and worthy of reference for future generations, facts whose significance gradually rises and expands. Yet, in many cases, history not only gains greater significance but is also interpreted with entirely different meanings. For instance, the actions of Jeon Bong-jun and others in 1894, referred to as the Donghak Rebellion until the Japanese colonial period, were called the Donghak Revolution after liberation. This is a prime example. The same holds true for inlaid celadon. The origins of its production method—who first created it and when—were largely unknown. However, after transitioning into modern society, its excellence and originality gained worldwide recognition. Consequently, the fact that inlaid celadon was produced during the Goryeo Dynasty has now become one of the most significant historical truths.
These examples demonstrate that history is not merely a straightforward record of past facts. Instead, it reflects the changes of the times and society, leading to the reinterpretation and reconstruction of its meaning. In this sense, the statement “history changes” is considered an undeniable truth. Therefore, without understanding the questions “In which direction is history changing?” and “Where is human history ultimately heading?”, it is difficult to view history itself correctly. Analyzing thousands of years of human history, historiography suggests that historical change follows a certain direction. Broadly speaking, this direction is the path toward humanity shedding political bonds, overcoming economic inequality, resolving social grievances, and expanding freedom of thought. Recognizing this directionality provides crucial clues for understanding our current position and predicting the future. How should we view history? We must be able to discern whether the actions we ourselves are taking and the events unfolding around us ultimately align with this direction or not. This can be considered one direct, yet straightforward, way of viewing history.
