Recovering family prestige: The inscriptions on the Pungsan Sim family tombs on Gaehwasan.

The tomb of Sim Jeong.

 

 A few weeks ago I wrote about the history of Gaehwasan and the Pungsan Sim family in the Korea Times ahead of a historical walk on the mountain for RAS Korea.

While I've led that walk several times over 12 years (and lived near the mountain for 11 years), my knowledge about the Pungsan Sim family, whose tombs dot the eastern side of the mountain, was limited to the basic outline of their lives. The first family members to be buried on the mountain also had the most dramatic lives. They are:

Sim Jeong (沈貞, 1471–1531)

Sim Sa-son (沈思遜, 1493–1528)

Sim Sa-sun (沈思順, 149_–1531)

Sim Su-gyeong (沈守慶, 1516–1599)

With the discovery of this blog post, which includes transcriptions of three of the tombs' epitaphs, and the judicious use of ChatGPT to translate them and to transcribe and translate a more recent tombstone, as well as to render dates in the Gregorian calendar, I was able to learn a great deal more about the dramatic lives and deaths of these men, as well as to understand the 'rectification of history' the epitaphs represent. What follows is an historical overview and transcriptions of the epitaphs, with a bit of commentary.

Historical overview:

Sim Jeong’s ancestors had served Joseon’s kings since the time of Taejong (r. 1400-1418) and Sim was part of the Hun'gu ‘old guard’ faction who deposed King Yeonsan-gun and enthroned his half brother Jungjong in 1506 and was made a ‘meritorious subject’ as a result. He rose through the ranks of government along with his sons, Sa-son and Sa-sun.

Jo Gwang-jo was the leader of the Sarim ‘scholar forest’ faction who challenged the Hun'gu, tried to strip them of their ‘meritorious subject’ status, and had Sim Jeong and Sim Sa-son removed from their positions.

With concubine Park Gyeongbin’s help, Sim Jeong was one of the Hun'gu who conspired to bring down Jo Gwang-jo and purge the Sarim faction in 1519, resulting in Jo’s execution.

Sim Jeong rose to new heights within the government (reaching the second-highest position) and in 1527 he saw to the exile of a new challenger, Kim An-ro (whose daughter married one of King Jungjong's sons). That same year he took part in condemning and causing the exile of the concubine Park Gyeongbin for her part in the ‘rat incident’ (which involved mutilated rats appearing around the palace, seen as a traitorous curse upon the crown prince).

In 1528, Sim Jeong's son Sa-son was killed by Jurchen raiders on the northern border.

In 1530, Kim An-ro returned to court and by 1531 had brought about the exile of Sim Jeong by spreading rumors that he had previously had an affair with the traitorous concubine Park Gyeongbin.

In 1531, his son Sa-sun was framed by an ally of Kim An-ro and died during interrogation. Soon after, Sim Jeong’s execution was ordered by the king.

Kim An-ro eventually rose and fell in a similar manner, and after his execution in 1537, Sa-sun was rehabilitated and seen as a victim of factionalism.

Attempts to rehabilitate Sim Jeong failed, however, because the Sarim faction eventually regained power and held it (as they splintered into multiple factions) for the rest of the Joseon era, and they never forgave Sim Jeong for his role in the death of their mentor, Jo Gwang-jo.

Because Sim Jeong's son Sa-son had been killed on the border while loyally serving the country, his legacy was untainted, and Sa-son’s son Su-gyeong was able to rise to the highest ranks of government. He is particularly known for organizing righteous army units during the Japanese Imjin invasions (1592-98).

While the date of Sa-sun’s gravestone (the current stone is very new) is uncertain, the tombstones of Sim Jeong and Sim Sa-son were erected in 1580 and were written or commissioned by Sim Su-gyeong when he was at the height of his prestige, and his own tombstone’s epitaph was written by himself and erected 2 years after his death, in 1601. As a result, the epitaphs on these tombstones should be viewed as Sim Su-gyeong’s attempts to restore his family’s honor.

Tomb Inscriptions:

Note: Korean dates mentioned in the epitaphs refer to the year (of the 60 year zodiac cycle) and the era (Ming Emperor’s reign).

The tomb of Sim Jeong (1471–1531), erected 1580, with 4 statues of  civil officials (muninseok).

 The faded epitaph engraved on the back of Sim Jeong's tombstone.

Tombstone Inscription for Sim Jeong (1471–1531)

Tomb of Lord Sim Jeong of Pungsan, Grand Supreme Pillar of State (Daegwang Boguk Sungnok Daebu) and Left State Councillor;
his consort, Lady Heo of Hayang, of the rank Jeonggyeong-buin, is buried to the left.

Epitaph for Lord Sim, Meritorious Subject of State Restoration of Joseon under the Great Ming.

The lord’s name was Jeong, his courtesy name Jeongji, and his clan origin Pungsan. His great-grandfather, Gwiryeong, assisted our King Taejong in suppressing internal rebellion, became a meritorious subject, and was enfeoffed as Lord of Pungsan. He rose to the rank of Jeongheon Daebu and served as Director of Military Provisions, and his posthumous title was Jeongyang. His grandfather, Chi, served as magistrate of Namwon with the rank of Gaseon Daebu. His father, Eung, was a meritorious subject who held the rank of Gaeui Daebu and was enfeoffed as Lord of Pungsan, receiving the posthumous title Yangho. When the lord rose to high office, his grandfather was posthumously promoted to Minister of Taxation, and his father to Chief State Councillor. His mother, Lady Seo, of the rank Jeonggyeong-buin, was the daughter of Munhan, Vice Director of the Royal Granary.

The lord was born on the 25th day of the intercalary ninth month of the Sinmyo year of the Chenghua era. In the Imja year of the Hongzhi era he passed the lower civil examination, and in the Imsul year he passed the higher examination and was appointed to the Office of Diplomatic Documents. He then moved to the Office of the Inspector-General as an inspector, and in the Gyehae year entered the Hongmun-gwan as Assistant Editor, being promoted through Editor, Deputy Director, Director, and Deputy Chief. The following year, the Gapja year, he observed mourning for his father. In the Byeongin year of the Zhengde era he became a meritorious subject of state restoration; in the Jeongmyo year he was appointed Chief Lecturer and rose to senior rank, later being promoted to Gaseon Daebu and enfeoffed as Lord of Hwachon. He served as Right Magistrate of the capital, Governor of Hwanghae Province, Vice Minister in the Ministries of Taxation, Justice, and Personnel, and Magistrate of Gaeseong; in the Jeongchuk year he was specially promoted to Jaheon Daebu and became Minister of Justice.

The lord judged cases sincerely and swiftly, so that prisoners did not accumulate and the prisons were emptied, for which he was commended. He then served as Vice Councillor of the State Council, Minister of Personnel, Mayor of the capital, Left Vice Councillor concurrently Director of the Office of Royal Investigation, and Commander of the Capital Garrison; in the Imo year of the Jiajing era he rose to Sungjeong Daebu and became Right State Councillor. In the Gyemi year he observed mourning for his mother, and in the Eulyu year he was appointed Minister of Rites, thereafter serving as Chief Inspector-General and Minister of Justice.

In the Jeonghae year, in spring he was appointed Right State Councillor and in winter rose to Left State Councillor. The treacherous Kim An-ro, who had earlier been exiled, secretly sought reinstatement during the Gyeongin years. At that time the lord served in the State Council, and his son Sasun was Deputy Director of the Hongmun-gwan; when both the State Council and Hongmun-gwan reported opposition, An-ro believed the father and son had led the effort and bore deep resentment. When An-ro was restored to office, he incited his followers among the censors to impeach the lord on false charges, resulting in his exile.

In the Sinmyo year, Chae Mu-taek, a partisan of An-ro, posted an anonymous placard criticizing the government; the censors accused Sasun and demanded interrogation. Sasun did not yield and died under torture, and ultimately disaster extended to the lord as well, who died in exile in Gangseo, causing the people of the whole country to feel deep injustice. This occurred on the 3rd day of the 12th month of that year (late January 1532), when the lord was 61 years old. In the 2nd month of the following year (March–April 1532), he was buried at Gaehwa-ri, west of Yangcheon.

His wife, Lady Heo, daughter of Dang, who held the post of Samang, possessed high virtue; however, after the family suffered calamity she fell ill from grief and died on the 19th day of the 4th month of the Gap-o year (June 1534) at the age of 67. In the 6th month she was buried together with the lord.

[A lengthy recounting of his descendants follows.]

Erected on the 3rd day of the 3rd month of the Gimyo year, the 7th year of Wanli (1601). Written by grandson Su-gyeong and inscribed by great-grandson Il-chwi.

Sim Su-gyeong would have been at the height of his career in 1580 when he wrote this epitaph for his grandfather. Since Kim An-ro was himself eventually executed in 1537, he could be described openly as “treacherous” and Sa-sun, who “died under torture,” was later exonerated. Attempts to rehabilitate Sim Jeong, however, ultimately failed because the Sarim faction returned to power and held it for the rest of the Joseon era, and refused to forgive Sim for his involvement in the downfall of their mentor, Jo Gwang-jo, in 1519. As a result, the text of Sim’s tombstone can only vaguely state that “disaster extended to the lord as well…causing the people of the whole country to feel deep injustice.”

 

The tombs of Sim Sa-son (1493-1528) and his wife, Lady Yi (1493-1578) flanked by 2 stone civil officials and 2 stone pillars (mangjuseok). 

Spirit road stele (sindobi) of Sim Sa-son, erected 1580, flanked by stone civil official and pillar.

Text on Sin Sa-son's spirit road stele.

Sindobi (Spirit-road Stele) Inscription for Sim Sa-son (1493-1528)

Epitaph inscription for the spirit-road stele of Lord Sim, who in Great Ming Joseon was posthumously granted the rank of Jaheon Daebu, Minister of Rites, concurrently Director of the Royal Lectures, the Annals Office, and Sungkyunkwan, Chief Scholar of the Hongmun-gwan and the Office of Royal Decrees; who in office served as Jeolchung Janggun, Senior Guard of the Chungmu Guard, and Commander of Manpo Garrison.

Composed by Hong Seom, Grand Supreme Pillar of State, Chief State Councillor, concurrently Director of the Royal Lectures, Hongmun-gwan, Office of Royal Decrees, Annals Office, and Directorate of Astronomy.
Calligraphy by Song In, Heon Daebu, Lord of Yeoseong.
Seal script heading by Han Jun, Tongjeong Daebu, Magistrate of Onseong.

The Pungsan Sim clan produced many notable figures over generations. Gwiryeong assisted our King Taejong in suppressing internal rebellion, was recorded as a meritorious subject, and was enfeoffed as Lord of Pungsan; he rose to the rank of Jeongheon Daebu and served as Director of Military Provisions, with the posthumous title Jeongyang. His son Chi served as magistrate of Namwon with the rank of Gaseon Daebu. The magistrate’s son was Eung, who was recorded as a meritorious subject and, as Gaeui Daebu, was enfeoffed as Lord of Pungsan, with the posthumous title Yangho. Yangho-gong’s son was Jeong, who became a meritorious subject of state restoration and rose to Left State Councillor, though he was eventually dismissed due to an incident. He married the daughter of Heo Dang of the prominent Hayang clan, and on the 25th day of the 12th month of the Gyechuk year of the Hongzhi era, the lord was born.

The lord’s name was Sason, courtesy name Yanggyeong. He possessed a loyal and generous character and excelled in many talents. Though he did not delve narrowly into scholarship, he attained deep understanding. He delighted in careful and far-reaching thought, often surpassing others’ expectations, and did not engage in shallow, opportunistic behavior like “morning three, evening four.” In all matters he sought to accomplish things through diligence and prudence, without the slightest hesitation. Thus he repeatedly undertook tasks that others found difficult—this was the principle he upheld throughout his life.

At eight or nine years old, his filial piety, fraternal affection, loyalty, and sincerity were already evident, setting him apart from ordinary children; by the age of twenty, he was tall and striking in appearance, with distinct features and a heroic bearing that clearly distinguished him from his peers—one could tell what lay within him simply by seeing him. In the Gyeyu year of the Zhengde era he passed the sama examination, and in the Jeongchuk year he passed the higher civil examination and entered the Office of Diplomatic Documents. He was then recommended to the Office of Royal Decrees and served for a long time as a historiographer, never once compromising the integrity of his brush. He entered the Royal Secretariat as a Juseo, and shortly thereafter was appointed Assistant Section Chief in the Ministry of Rites, then transferred as a censor in the Office of the Censor-General, and was promoted from Assistant Section Chief to Section Chief in the Ministry of War. Studying military affairs, he responded skillfully to the needs of the time; important and major matters were always entrusted to him, and he in turn exerted himself to realize his ambitions. For this reason, while serving in military office, there was hardly a day of rest, and it is said that even seasoned generals of the time could not match his ingenious strategies and foresight. He entered the Hongmun-gwan as Suchan and rose to Eunggyo. He firmly upheld upright principles without wavering, so that his colleagues relied on and respected him. He repeatedly undertook remonstrance duties, widely establishing discipline, and whenever he presented forthright arguments, all who heard them admired him. In the Eulyu year he entered the State Council as Sain, was appointed Jibui in the Office of the Inspector-General, moved to the Hongmun-gwan as Jeonhan, and then rose to Jikjehak.

At that time, as northern frontier tribes stirred, King Jungjong considered carefully and judged that only someone combining civil and military abilities could defend Manpo, the western gateway; thus he selected the lord from among his close attendants, specially elevated him to Dang-sang rank, and appointed him Manpo cheomjeoljesa. Deeply moved by royal favor, the lord resolved to devote his life to the state and, upon taking up his post, exerted himself to the utmost. Carefully observing the situation of the frontier peoples, he applied both authority and benevolence appropriately, so that both the garrison troops and the frontier tribes called him “grandfather.” As he remained long at Manpo, he came to understand all aspects of frontier conditions and, whenever there were hardships among the people or soldiers, he found ways to eliminate them. Learning that firewood was scarce in the garrison, he led troops across the Amnok River and personally supervised its collection; when suddenly attacked by barbarians, he attempted to withdraw across the river, but his horse fell, and he was ultimately killed. This occurred on the 23rd day of the 1st month of the Muja year, when he was only 36 years old. When news of this spread, the entire country was shocked and grieved, and King Jungjong, lamenting the loss of a worthy minister, rolled up his sleeves wishing to avenge the disgrace at once, and for several days was unable to take his meals at the proper time. Alas! It was not that he lacked talent, nor that his aspirations were not great, nor that he failed to meet his time—why, then, was his fate so ill-starred? In the 3rd month of that year, on the 11th day, he was buried on a southeast-facing site on the northwestern slope of Gaehwa Mountain, west of Yangcheon County.

The lady was of the Yi clan, a distinguished family of Gyeongju. She was the great-granddaughter of Yeon-son, a Vice Minister, and the granddaughter of Gyeon, a Cheomjeong; her father was Ye-jang. Her mother, of the Kim clan, was the daughter of Su-mal, who was posthumously promoted to Yeongjungchu and had served as Sadosi jeong; she was born on the 15th day of the 2nd month of the Gyechuk year of the Hongzhi era (1493). Having lost her parents at an early age, she was raised by her maternal aunt, the Lady of Sangsan-bu, wife of Prince Je-an. The Lady of Sangsan-bu loved her dearly and educated her well, so that although she remained deep within the inner quarters, her good name became widely known. At eighteen she married into the Sim family; she served her parents-in-law with filial devotion and lived harmoniously with her sisters-in-law, so that all relatives praised her as a virtuous person. When news of the lord’s death arrived, she nearly died herself but revived, and always lamented that she had not been able to follow him in death. Her son, the Minister (panseo-gong), was only thirteen at the time, but despite many hardships she raised and educated him well and saw him grow into distinction. When her son rose to the high office of Minister, the lord was posthumously promoted to Minister of Rites, and she became a government lady (jeongbuin). She passed away at home, having lived out her natural span, on the 1st day of the 4th month of the Muin year of Wanli [1578], at the age of eighty-six. The Minister served as provincial governor of the Eight Provinces, receiving great honor and the utmost filial support; with descendants flourishing to more than eighty persons, she enjoyed rare blessings and prosperity. On the 10th day of the 6th month of that year, she was buried beside the lord’s tomb in a separate grave.

She had three sons and two daughters. The eldest son was the Minister (panseo-gong), whose name was Sugyeong. He took first place in the higher civil examination in the Byeongo year and held numerous important offices, and is now Minister of Taxation. The second was Suyak, Jikjang of the Sadosi; the third was Sujun, Bongsa of the Saongwon. The eldest daughter married Magistrate Yi Ui-chung, and the second daughter married Yu Dae-eop. The Minister married the daughter of Magistrate Sin Pa and had two sons: the eldest, Iljang, is Sageun chalbang, and the second, Ilchwi, is a Dosa of the Uigeumbu; he also had five daughters—the first married Jeong Yeon, the second Hong Gi-yeong, holder of the Saui post, the third Jeon Hong-guk, the fourth Jo Gyeong-in, and the fifth Seong Rip. By a concubine he had Ilmae, Jikjang of the Gwansanggam, and three daughters. Suyak married the daughter of O Chung-hak and had two daughters: the eldest married Manho Yi I, and the second married An Gyeong-hui. He remarried the daughter of Magistrate Hwang Mong-jeong, and had two sons, Ileom and Ilgang, and three daughters, who are still young. Sujun married the daughter of Yi Gyeong-pil, a Jubu, and had two sons, Ilsin and Ilje, and two daughters: the eldest married Seol Ham, and the second Yi Eung-nam. He remarried the daughter of Yun Eom, an overseer, and had two sons, Ilja and Ilgeun, and one young daughter. Yi Ui-chung’s son was Hong-gi, and his daughter married Yi Gyeong-ham. Yu Dae-eop’s son Ji-yeong passed the military examination and became a Jubu of the Military Supply Office; he had two daughters, the eldest married Min Geon, and the second Sin Geuk-seong. There were seven great-grandsons—Gwan, Gon, Ran, Byeok, and the rest still young—and eight great-granddaughters.

After some time had passed following the lady’s burial, the Minister [Sim Su-gyeong] brought the complete family genealogy and requested of me [Hong Seom], saying, “If you do not write this, we cannot teach later generations the achievements of our ancestors.” Alas! Before I entered official life, I heard that the lord had met an untimely calamity at the hands of barbarians, and I wept with concern for the country. Now, being related by marriage to the Minister, how could I refuse on the grounds that my writing is unworthy to be inscribed on the spirit-road stele? Thus I compose the following inscription:

Heaven sent down a worthy man, as if to aid me.
He was to be made my minister, yet met with such grievous misfortune.
Was it only he who suffered calamity?
Heaven was imperiled and the state disgraced.
Yet Heaven has washed away his resentment; the Way of Heaven turns again.
An extraordinary and heroic man—his descendants will not cease.
On the hill of Gaehwa gathers pure energy; the river flows grandly encircling the tomb.
Here stands a lofty stele, by which one may behold his virtue.

Erected on the 1st day of the 5th month of the Gyeongjin year of Wanli (1580).

In the spring of the Eulyu year of Wanli (1585), when the Minister [Sim Su-gyeong] rose to Right State Councillor, the lord was again posthumously promoted to Left Councillor, and the lady was posthumously granted the title Jeonggyeong-buin. In the spring of the Gyeongin year (1590), when the Councillor rose to Right State Councillor, thereby the lord was… (illegible due to wear).

 

Sim Su-gyeong would have been at the height of his career when his mother died in 1578. The text of this Sindobi stele detailing the lives of his parents was written by Hong Seom (whose son married Sim Su-gyeong’s daughter), at Sim’s request and erected in 1580, the same year Sim himself wrote the epitaph and erected the tombstone for his grandfather, Sim Jeong. The final paragraph was added after the stele was erected to reflect Sa-son's posthumous promotions, which were based on the rank of his son, Su-gyeong.

A few meters down the hill from Sim Jeong's tomb is that of his son, Sim Sa-sun, with a much newer tombstone.

Tombstone Inscription for Sim Sa-sun (149_-1531)

Tomb of Sim Sa-sun, an official who served as Vice Director of the Hongmungwan and a lecturer for the Royal Lectures.

Grave of Lady Lee of the Deoksu Lee clan.

Among the worthy officials of the great Joseon state, there was one whose endowment of loyalty and filial devotion was abundant, whose learning was upright and whose conduct was pure. This was the late gentleman of the Pungsan Sim clan.

From early on he showed unusual seriousness and integrity. His disposition was firm and resolute, and he devoted himself to study, taking righteousness as his guiding principle. He did not seek adornment in empty words but grounded himself in substance, and those who knew him recognized his sincerity and strength of character.

[Genealogy follows]

In due course he passed the civil service examinations and entered official life. He served in offices of remonstrance and counsel, where it was his duty to speak directly to the throne and correct what was amiss. In deliberations on state affairs, he held fast to what was right and did not bend to the opinions of others. When he perceived error, he spoke without concealment, even when this brought resentment upon him.

His nature was such that he would not compromise for the sake of advancement, nor adjust his words to please those in power. Thus, although he was respected by those who valued principle, he also drew the enmity of those who preferred expediency.

At a time when the court was unsettled and factional strife intensified, accusations arose and spread. Though he had committed no wrongdoing, he was implicated and brought under investigation. Those in authority pressed him harshly, seeking to force admissions and construct a case against him.

He was subjected to repeated interrogations and severe treatment, yet he would not distort the truth nor falsely confess. Holding fast to his integrity, he endured suffering without yielding. In the end, his body succumbed, but his resolve did not break.

Alas, that a man of such uprightness should meet his end in this way. Those who knew him mourn deeply, and even those who hear of his fate from afar are moved to grief. His spirit, firm as metal and stone, remains unshaken, and though his life was cut short, his righteousness cannot be extinguished.

The calamity did not end with him alone, but extended further, bringing sorrow upon those connected with him. Yet even so, his conduct stands as a model, and his name endures as something that cannot be obscured.

He left descendants to continue the family line, and though he is gone, the trace of his virtue remains. In quiet reflection, one cannot but sigh at the injustice of his fate, and at the same time revere the constancy with which he upheld what was right.

Therefore, this account is set down, so that those who come after may know the truth of his life, and that his integrity and righteousness may be made manifest for all time.

 

The current tombstone is very new, perhaps replacing an older one. There is no date noting when the stone was originally erected, but the text was certainly written after Sim Sa-sun was rehabilitated following Kim An-ro’s downfall. This is a defensive and vindicating epitaph, which presents Sim Sa-sun as a righteous official destroyed by factional politics who died rather than betray the truth.

 

The tomb of Sim Su-gyeong (1516-1599) and Lady Sin, erected 1601. The stone civil officials are smaller in stature than the ones he erected for his father and grandfather.

Tombstone Inscription for Sim Su-gyeong (1516-1599)

Tomb of Lord Sim, Grand Supreme Pillar of State (Daegwang Boguk Sungnok Daebu), Right State Councillor of the State Council, concurrently Director of the Royal Lectures and Supervisor of the Annals Office, retired from office;
and the tomb of his consort, Lady Sin, of the rank Jeonggyeong-buin.

Tomb tablet of Lord Sim, retired Right State Councillor.

Of Great Ming Joseon … (illegible due to wear) … retired Lord Sim’s tomb tablet.

The lord’s name was Su-gyeong, his courtesy name Hui-an, and his clan origin Pungsan. His fifth-generation ancestor Gwiryeong was a meritorious subject who assisted the throne and held the rank of Jeongheon Daebu as Lord of Pungsan. His great-grandfather Eung was a meritorious subject who held the rank of Gaeui Daebu and was also Lord of Pungsan. His grandfather Jeong was a meritorious subject of state restoration and rose to Left State Councillor, but was dismissed in connection with an incident (the affair of Consort Park’s cursing of the Crown Prince). His father, Sason, served as Jikjehak of the Hongmun-gwan and, by special royal command, was appointed Military Commander of Manpo; he was posthumously promoted to Chief State Councillor. His mother, Lady Yi of the rank Jeonggyeong-buin, was the daughter of Ye-jang, a Mugongnang.

The lord was born on the 20th day of the 12th month of the Byeongja year of the Zhengde era (1516). In the Gyemyo year of the Jiajing era he passed both the saengwon and jinsa examinations, and in the Byeongo year he took first place in the higher civil examination. This was the year after King Myeongjong ascended the throne.

Among the offices he held in the capital were: Assistant Section Chief, Vice Minister, and Minister of the Ministry of Works; Vice Minister and Minister of Justice; Assistant Section Chief, Associate Director, Vice Minister, and Minister of War; Assistant Section Chief and Minister of Rites; Assistant Section Chief, Associate Director, Vice Minister, and Minister of Taxation; Assistant Section Chief and Section Chief of Personnel; Inspector and Counsellor of the State Council, Left and Right Vice Councillors and Chief Councillors, and Right State Councillor; Remonstrator and Senior Remonstrator of the Office of Censors; Inspector and Chief Inspector of the Office of the Inspector-General; and within the Hongmun-gwan he served as Deputy Editor, Deputy Chief Lecturer, Director of Publications, Jikjehak, and Chief Scholar. In the Royal Secretariat he served as various Royal Secretaries up to Chief Secretary. While serving in the Hongmun-gwan and Royal Secretariat, he concurrently held posts in the Royal Lectures, Annals Office, and Sungkyunkwan, including Registrar, Chief Instructor, and Associate Director. He also served as Right and Left Magistrate and Mayor of the capital; Judicial Commissioner of the Court of Review; Associate Director, Director, and Chief Director of the Office of Royal Investigation; Associate Director, Director, Chief Director, and Senior Councillor of the Privy Council; Vice Commander and Commander of the Capital Garrison; Commander of the Five Guards; Assistant Director of the Bureau of Armaments; and Director of the Court Music Bureau.

In provincial posts, he served as magistrate of Bupyeong and Anbyeon; governor of Gangwon, Chungcheong, Jeolla, Gyeongsang, Hamgyeong, and Gyeonggi Provinces; military commander of Pyeongan and South Hamgyeong; and Governor of Gaeseong. As a civil official, he was selected for special royal reading privilege and for drafting royal edicts, gaining renown for his literary ability; yet he was also chosen for posts usually held by military officials, such as Royal Guard officer, circuit inspector, staff officer, and positions within the Border Defense Council.

In the leap 4th month, 20th day of the Gihae year of the Wanli era (1599), he died of illness at the age of 84. On the 25th day of the 7th month of that year, he was buried in the family burial ground at Gaehwa-ri, Seo-myeon, Yangcheon County, in a paired grave with his wife, Lady Sin. He lost his father at thirteen, but through his mother’s instruction rose to prominence and honored her with his success; she died at the age of 86.

Though he long desired to retire from office, repeatedly requesting resignation after the age of seventy, this was not granted; instead, he spent his later years composing poetry, drinking wine, and passing time with archery and board games among village elders. At last, at the age of eighty-one, his resignation was accepted and he returned home. He often told his children: “Though I have undeservedly held the highest rank, and a spirit-road stele should be erected, when I reflect, there is nothing worthy of record—do not do so.” Therefore, this brief record is inscribed on a tablet stone.

His wife, Lady Sin, was the daughter of Sin Pa, an official of the Bureau of Armaments. She died fifteen years before him. They had two sons and three daughters…

[Extensive genealogy of descendants follows.]

His late father did not delight in self-praise, and personally composed this tomb inscription, writing at its end: “In later days, do not alter what I have written.” His words were so stern that not a single character could be added; nor could a full stele inscription be commissioned to praise his achievements—how could the sorrow of his descendants ever be exhausted? His loyalty, filial piety, integrity, learning, and virtue are briefly recorded in the royal edict issued upon his retirement.

The stone was erected on a day in the 5th month of the Sinchuk year, Wanli 29 (1601).
Respectfully written by his second son, Il-chwi.

 

Like the epitaphs for his father and grandfather, which Sim Su-gyeong either wrote himself or commissioned, Sim wrote his own epitaph, but refused to allow a Sindobi stele to be raised. Sim rose to the height of power but died peacefully of illness after retirement, unlike his father and grandfather. Having reached the peak of power unscathed, he had recovered his family’s honor. As a result, his epitaph displays his restraint and explicit rejection of self-glorification, while ironically still recording a career filled with immense prestige.

Below is a map showing the locations of the tombs and the routes to them from Banghwa Station at the end of Line 5. Two tombs are along the main road up the mountain (the green route), but Sim Jeong's is not, and is best approached by going through Neuti Park (which contains zelkova and gingko trees that are nearly 500 years old) and then heading north up the hill (the blue route). The valley to the southeast of Sim Su-gyeong's tomb also has a number of tombs and statues.

Unearthing the bloody history that lies beneath the tranquility of Gaehwasan's flowers

My latest Korea Times article is about Gaehwasan, the mountain I lived next to for 11 years, and the relics, tombs, and Korean War memorials that can be found on it. I'll be leading a walk there for RAS Korea on April 11, and the article lays out the highlights of the walk.

I've done quite a bit of research on the Pungsan Sim family members who were buried on the mountain - needless to say, trying to climb to the height of power in the factionalism-ridden 1500s was a tough gig - very Game of Thrones-esque.

The Tomb of Sim Jeong, who helped overthrow Yonsan-gun and purge Jo Gwang-go and his faction before falling victim to a purge himself.

In addition to the stories and historical relics, there will be lots of opportunities to take in views of the Han River and surrounding area and enjoy what nature has to offer.

.

For more information about the RAS walk, or to sign up, see here. 

Vindication for teacher who convinced students to speak out against sexual harassment, then reported her school when it violated their rights and was transferred as punishment

The story below is infuriating but predictable in many ways, unfortunately. I first learned of it by reading this article:

The Seoul Administrative Court erupted in applause Thursday after a judge ruled in favor of teacher Ji Hye-bok, nullifying a transfer order issued by the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education’s Jungbu District Office and reinstating her as an instructor.

Ji played a crucial role in publicizing mass sexual violence and harassment against the majority female students at her school in 2023, for which male students were held responsible. She applied for relief from a violation of student rights with the Seoul education office, and the following investigation led to written apologies from the perpetrating students.

However, the education office subsequently issued a transfer order for Ji in December 2023, effective from March 2024, citing the need to reduce teaching staff due to a declining student population. Ji argued that the move was retaliation for her whistleblowing and, from January 2024, staged a one-person protest in front of the Seoul education office.

She was later dismissed from her post in September 2024 for taking multiple unauthorized absences.

The court ruled Thursday that “Ji’s complaint constitutes public-interest whistleblowing.” [...] 

Ji’s attorney said that if the education office does not appeal, the ruling will be finalized and Ji will be able to return to her school; the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education confirmed Friday that it would not appeal the court’s decision.

That second paragraph is so convoluted and murky that I was curious to dig around and find more information about what happened. As it turns out, while what the boys did was nowhere near as horrible as what happened in Miryang in 2005, these cases are similar in that the identities of the students who spoke out were made known to their harassers, which led to them being re-targeted. The actions of the school administration are pretty unbelievable, but, perhaps, predictable considering the collision of enduring attitudes and the perceived need to protect "the school's reputation," along with the those of the administrators. Below is a video from May 22, 2024 featuring an interview with Ji Hye-bok, followed by a translation of the transcript (done with AI and quite a bit of editing based on the video's embedded subtitles; sentences in quotation marks are statements by Ji unless otherwise stated):

For several months now, there has been a teacher holding a one-person protest in front of the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education. What could have driven a veteran teacher with over 30 years of experience to stand in the street holding a placard?

“My total teaching career spans a little over 30 years. I worked for four years at the school I most wish I could return to, and up until now I have continued working as a social studies teacher [at the school I have been transferred to].”

[Note that public school teachers typically spend five years at a school before being transferred to a new school; she therefore had one more year to go at the school where she was a whistleblower.]

Last spring [2023], through conversations with her students, she came to learn that sexual violence against female students had been occurring at the school for a long time, repeatedly and continuously. 

“I first heard about it in late May of last year while counseling female students. It was not a one-time incident. From their first year through their second year—over the course of two years—there were numerous cases of persistent and repeated sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.”

[A supporter speaking at a protest]: “‘Why did you take off your mask? You’re ugly. Put your mask back on.’ ‘Your breasts are big.’ ‘Your face is ugly.’”

“Do you consider this to be words exchanged jokingly among close students? Absolutely not. This was something a male student said to a female student with whom he was not even particularly close. That female student was absent from school for several days afterward.”

— Statement from a parent (Issued April 2, 2024)

Even prior to this, some male students had directed remarks toward female students such as comments about whether their breasts were large or small, saying their faces were ugly, whispering in their ears that they wanted to have sex, and even asking a temporary (contract) teacher whether she had sex with her boyfriend, or saying that her teeth were yellow and asking whether she smoked—all of which constitute sexually harassing and sexually violent remarks.

Support for the Struggle Against an Unjust Transfer
— Statement from a parent (Issued April 2, 2024)

[A supporter speaking at the protest]: “Because it was difficult to identify specific individuals, these were incidents that were sometimes covered up and passed over, that did not surface publicly, and for which no special measures were taken.”

“I asked other teachers for help and also went to the student guidance department, but most cases were handled with verbal warnings only. Because the issues were not properly resolved, the students’ behavior continued. That was the result.”

“When I first heard the students’ stories, I immediately told them how sorry I was. As a teacher, I was deeply sorry that for two years I had not fully known what was happening and that I had not stepped up more actively to resolve it. I told them, ‘I’m truly sorry. But from now on, let’s work together to try to resolve this.’”

“After that, I made an initial report together with the principal and vice principal. Then we discussed how to proceed. Under a teacher’s duty, once such a matter is learned of, it must be reported within 48 hours. But to report it properly, we needed to understand exactly what was happening and how to describe it.”

“So we conducted an anonymous survey of female students. They were told to write exactly what had happened, including incidents they had heard about. According to the results, about three quarters of the female students had experienced sexual harassment or non-consensual touching over a two-year period. We judged the matter to be serious, and the principal and vice principal decided to compile the report quickly and file it.”

The teacher moved forward in order to resolve a sexual violence problem that had been occurring routinely over a long period of time. However, during the investigation process, the identities of the victimized students were exposed, and the teacher in charge arbitrarily downplayed the case. After the school violence report was filed, even more problems arose.

The investigation process was conducted in a way that seriously violated students’ human rights. Because the initial reporting, which took the form of a brief survey, was anonymous, the names of the students who reported could not be included. As a result, the teacher who was in charge of the investigation at the time said that reports had to be submitted with the student’s name clearly written and limited to a description only of what they themselves had experienced. If you look at the Ministry of Education’s sexual violence manual, eyewitness accounts are also considered important evidence. This is also true more broadly in society, because when cases of sexual violence occur, eyewitness testimony is always included. I think that, at that first stage, the case was already being minimized.”

“As a result, about six students—those who were more courageous and who had long recognized the seriousness of the situation—expressed their intention to report. At first, their confident expressions and attitudes—saying, ‘I’ll do it’—moved me deeply. Seeing second-year middle school students take such an active, self-directed stance toward resolving the problem gave me hope. I felt proud, thinking that if these students grew up with this mindset, many problems in society could gradually be resolved.”

“So, the students wrote factual statements together, and I collected what was written and submitted to the vice principal, who was the chair of the school violence committee. I submitted the six students’ factual statements, the parents’ confirmation letters, and requests for separation measures that three students had asked for. This was around June 13.”

“From that point, I felt a sense of relief. After the School MeToo movement, I believed that our society had put in place fairly concrete and relatively thorough measures for responding to cases of sexual violence when they occur in schools. And because the school principal, the vice principal, and the teacher who was responsible for the investigation within the school violence committee all promised that they would handle the subsequent process properly, I trusted them and had expectations going forward.”

“At that time, the principal told me that from this point on, the school violence committee would take over and that I should completely step away from the matter. I said I would do so, except for one thing:  ‘The identities of the victimized students who made reports must be strictly protected,’ and ‘Secondary harm must not occur.’ But then the school violence committee said they would investigate the victim students. And not only that—they said the investigation would be conducted publicly, by calling them into the Student Guidance Department. I told them that this could not be done because there was a risk that the students’ identities would be exposed. Then the teacher in charge of the investigation said, ‘The students identified as perpetrators could be unfairly harmed. We need to call them in and investigate to verify the facts,’ and ‘I looked at the fact-checking statements the students wrote, and stalking is not sexual violence.’”

“So I said, ‘This is extremely dangerous. We must not make such judgments lightly.’ If the students were called publicly to the Student Guidance Department, there was a real possibility that their identities would be exposed, so I said, ‘I am absolutely opposed to calling the students to the Student Guidance Department.’ It was an open space where many students and teachers pass through. If interviews were conducted there, exposure would be inevitable.”

After that, Ji Hye-bok sought advice from the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education’s Gender Equality Team, the Jungbu District Office Integrated Support Center, and the school violence supervising officer. 

“I was advised that the school should submit the students’ original factual statements as is—without alteration—to the district office, where professionals on the review committee would determine the facts. Victims, alleged perpetrators, and parents would all have opportunities to testify there. The school should not make arbitrary judgments. I was also told repeatedly that protecting the identities of victimized students must be the top priority throughout the investigation. I conveyed all of this—three times—to the principal, vice principal, and the investigating teacher.”

Nevertheless, identity exposure and secondary victimization occurred almost immediately.

“On the very day the statements were submitted, three female students—two who knew the details very well and one student who had made a report—ran to me in shock. Near the school, there is a small park. They said that a student accused as a perpetrator had gone to the student guidance office and came out knowing exactly who reported whom and what had been written. That student then verbally attacked and insulted the reporting student in front of others. When the three girls passed by, they too were pulled in and subjected to an angry outburst. The students asked me, "How could a teacher in charge, in the Student Guidance Department, disclose things like that at all?"

[Interviewer]: “From their perspective, they had written and submitted their own experiences, only to have their identities exposed immediately.” 

“That's right. That same evening, Instagram posts targeting the students began appearing. The next morning, many male students gathered in the hallways, went to the classrooms where reporting students were concentrated, kicked desks, and kicked chairs during lunch. They mocked the situation, saying things like, ‘Is this sexual harassment too?’”

“It became painfully clear that students had not received proper sexual violence prevention education. They did not even understand why what they said could constitute sexual harassment. “So the students who had been identified as perpetrators were full of anger. According to testimony given by parents just beforehand, there were students who went around classroom to classroom dragging a box cutter and saying, ‘Just try writing my name.’ I only heard about that later, but at the point when the statements of fact were being written, the names of the students who had made those threats were all left out. And because they were told, ‘Only write what you personally experienced,’ eyewitness accounts were also excluded, so the case had already been significantly scaled down during that process.”

“On top of that, secondary victimization became extremely severe. On the day in question, the entire corridor where the second-year classrooms were was filled every break time with male students gathering separately, forming what they called a ‘task force,’ meeting in the stands on the school playground and chanting together. Female students kept coming to me during every break, saying, ‘Teacher, what should we do…,’ telling me they were terrified.”

“What was happening did not resemble the step-by-step procedures laid out in the manuals that were supposedly in place; instead, it was unfolding in the most serious and alarming direction I had feared. Eventually, about three times, all of the victimized students were called to the Student Guidance Department. According to the reporting victims, when they were called, they didn’t go at first. In the students’ own words, they were ‘too scared.’ Because they didn’t go, the teacher in charge of the school violence investigation came to them during class time. Then, in front of other students, that teacher called out the three reporting victims and said things like, ‘Why aren’t you coming?’ Forced by the situation, they went.”

“Their interviews were recorded. The teacher told them the recording was necessary because they might face disadvantages. According to the Ministry of Education’s manual, when victimized students are questioned, a parent or legal guardian must be present to prevent fear or distress. None of this was followed.”

“I only learned later—after the investigation was over—how severe the human rights violations had been. When I met the students again after school, I felt overwhelming anger. Despite repeatedly emphasizing that protecting students’ rights was the most important thing, procedures had been carried out in reverse. I could not accept what appeared to be attempts to minimize or conceal the issue. Parents were furious as well, and complaints were filed to prevent such violations from happening again.”

Ji Hye-bok reported the human rights violations in the school’s internal investigation to higher authorities, including the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education and the Jungbu District Office.

“I received a call from the head of the Jungbu District Office in charge of school violence. He was shocked. ‘How could this situation be handled this way?’ He seriously considered the matter and promised, ‘We will take all necessary steps.’” 

The Jungbu District Office said it appeared to be a problematic situation and that they would investigate, so Ji waited. In the end, however, the Jungbu District Office concluded that there was no problem.

“They came once at the end of August and stayed for about two hours, apparently sitting in the principal’s office before leaving. When I asked whom they had met, I was told they met four people: two teachers from the student guidance department, the homeroom teacher whose students had repeatedly requested that this issue be resolved, and the head teacher of that grade. Under those circumstances, how could that investigation possibly be considered objective?”

“I then called the supervisor in charge of school violence at the district office. The day I called was September 2, but as of September 1 the person in charge had already been replaced. The new person said they had only read the documents and found no major issues, that they had listened to the school’s explanation and found no procedural violations, and that there were no problems with the investigation process. I felt utterly deflated.”

“They said ‘Matters involving human rights during the investigation are not our responsibility.’ Their role, they said, was only to convene the School Violence Review Committee once the school submitted its findings.”

In the meantime, the School Violence Review Committee was held. Measures for the three perpetrators were concluded as follows: written apologies and dismissal for lack of evidence.

“The day the committee met was also the day when the school sports day was being held. Some of the students [the victims] were participating as athletes, and the committee was held at 2pm, a time when the students could not attend. The students later expressed complaints to me about this as well.”

“Because the parents of the victimized students were already deeply disappointed with the Jungbu District Office, not a single one of them attended the School Violence Review Committee. In the end, the student whose sexual harassment had been particularly severe was told to write a written apology and do five days of volunteer service in the school. The second student was told to write a written apology. The third student was found not guilty due to insufficient evidence. This outcome once again caused great disappointment to the victimized student and their parents.”

Even the written apologies were not properly carried out. 

“One student wrote the names of several victims at the top, then wrote a single handwritten apology below. That apology was photocopied and distributed to the other students. The victimized students brought it to me and showed it, saying, ‘This is what they gave us.’ How can that be considered a sincere apology? The second student who was supposed to submit a written apology did not apologize at all.”

“I met with the superintendent of the Jungbu District Office, the head of the Integrated Support Center, and the supervisor in charge of school violence. When I explained how the matter had been handled within the school, I was told that a written apology was a recommendation, not mandatory.”

As the case remained unresolved, a dangerous misconception spread—that even sexual violence would go unpunished.

“Students who had committed very serious acts were not properly guided, and many other students were excluded from the process altogether. As a result, sexual violence continued. I raised this issue with the vice principal and stated that a solution was necessary.”

“The vice principal responded by saying that in order to resolve the issue, once again ‘The names of the victimized students are required.’ When asked, the students said, ‘I’m afraid and don’t want my identity exposed,’ and ‘I’d rather just endure it.’ This situation continued. Recently, I heard from parents who came forward that one student who had suffered sexual harassment was considering dropping out of school, and another had stopped attending school altogether.”

Ji Hye-bok requested a reinvestigation by the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education’s Student Human Rights Education Center. 

“Because the students feared exposure of their identities, they met separately and secretly—almost like a covert operation—at places like a bakery, and then met together with the center director and investigators. At those meetings, the students gave testimony and expressed their demands. The parents of the victimized students were also met separately. This process continued until mid-October.”

After a long investigation, eight months after the incident occurred, the Student Human Rights Education Center issued a recommendation stating that violations of the victimized students’ human rights had occurred during the investigation process. 

“The recommendation included detailed findings of fact, an apology from the school principal and the teacher who conducted the investigation to the victimized students and their parents, comprehensive sexual violence prevention education for students, parents, and teachers, and the establishment of broad, systemic measures to address the issue. I felt relieved.”

Ji Hye-bok attempted to share the school notice and request implementation of the recommendations. However,  as she was about to do so at the end of December, she was notified of an involuntary transfer.

“From the perspective of the principal and vice principal, how uncomfortable must it have been for me to be there? If the recommendations had been publicly announced and implementation required, I would have demanded compliance on site and monitored it. Anyone could predict that removing me from the school would be considered necessary.”

The official reason given for the transfer was seniority-based reassignment. However, at Ji Hye-bok’s school there were three history teachers and two social studies teachers, meaning history teachers were in surplus. Transferring a social studies teacher like herself would result in a shortage. Nevertheless, the school claimed that history and social studies were integrated subjects and transferred her against her will.

“In reality, according to the plans for the 2024 school year, the school needed two social studies teachers and two history teachers. There were not three history teachers. The school combined history and social studies and applied a rule based on who had been at the school longest, saying ‘The person who is set to transfer earliest must leave [now].’ At first, I thought that if such a standard had been agreed upon in a faculty meeting, perhaps it had to be followed.”

“But history and social studies are independent subjects. Their instructional hours differ, their textbooks differ, their exams differ, and their curriculum plans are separate. After 2010, world history, which was previously included in social studies textbooks, was merged with national history, making history a completely independent subject from social studies. Teaching licenses are also issued separately, as clearly stated in education law.”

“From the standpoint of students’ right to education, guaranteed by the Constitution and the Framework Act on Education, it is a basic principle that subjects should be taught by teachers who are licensed in that subject. Otherwise, one would be saying that social studies teachers can arbitrarily teach history and history teachers can arbitrarily teach social studies. That does not make sense.” 

[Interviewer]: “The content is different, and so are the areas of specialization, and from the students’ perspective, they cannot properly learn under such conditions?”

“That’s right. I concluded that this was neither reasonable nor principled.”

The basis the middle school used for the transfer was a document titled the “2014 Middle School Teacher Transfer Plan.” According to Ji, this document was an arbitrary internal guideline created merely to assist transfer administration. It has no legal force and violates higher-level regulations.

“When one looks at the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education’s guidelines for middle school curriculum organization and operation, social studies and history are clearly separated, with distinct operational guidelines. That document is an officially promulgated administrative notice with legal force. There is also the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education’s Secondary Teacher Personnel Principles, which state that the first criterion for transfer is subject-specific supply and demand. This too is an officially announced document. According to all legal grounds, social studies teachers and history teachers should have been selected separately for transfer.”

“Up until 2023, even the Jungbu District Office issued transfer appointments for social studies and history as separate subjects. Other district offices did the same. But then, suddenly, on December 29, 2023, they combined the two subjects. I checked the websites of all other district offices. All of them still separate the subjects—western, eastern, southern districts alike. I have also served as a committee member for over ten years in consultations related to Jungbu District Office information, and until 2023, transfers were always conducted separately. Yet suddenly, in 2024, only Jungbu combined them.”

Ji Hye-bok is now awaiting the result of her appeal regarding this unjust transfer. What she truly wants is for victimized students to no longer be hurt, and for them not to regret having had the courage to speak out about sexual violence.

“There is a Teachers’ Appeals Review Committee. If I win, I will return to my previous school. If I lose, I will proceed with an administrative lawsuit. However, rather than waiting for legal judgment—which takes too long—I am demanding that the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, as the appointing authority, resolve this immediately and allow me to return as soon as possible.”

“Waiting for a court ruling takes time, and the students are now in their third year and will soon graduate. A parent told me that the students are worried that what they started may have caused harm to the teacher instead. Hearing that broke my heart. I want to tell the students face to face that this was not their fault, that they did what they needed to do, and that it was wrong for adults to cover it up and avoid resolving it. By my return, I want them to see that things were set right—that justice still exists in our society. I want to return quickly and work to ensure that the recommended measures are properly implemented. The students showed remarkable courage in trying to resolve this issue themselves. But if, during the resolution process, they become discouraged, thinking, ‘We’ll never report again,’ and graduate in a state of resignation, then I will never have the chance to speak to them, nor show them that things can be corrected within the school. I want to remain a teacher to whom students can come—even quietly—to share the harm they have endured.”

[Woman speaking at a protest; unclear if these are her words or Ji’s]: “I will make this struggle a victory and return dignity, courage, gender equality, and justice to children who suffered in silence after being victimized. I will give back to survivors of sexual violence the courage and will to change the world, and I will help create safe, gender-equal schools. I ask for your solidarity and support. Thank you. Tujaeng!”

* * * * * *

The Kyunghyang Shinmun reported on Ji's court victory and some of the other issues surrounding her case: 

At the time, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education also did not recognize Ji Hye-bok as a public-interest whistleblower. In response to Ms. Ji’s request to withdraw her transfer, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education sent her an official notice in March 2024 stating that it was “difficult to definitively regard her as a public-interest whistleblower.” At the time, the Office of Education judged that it was difficult to view Ms. Ji as a public-interest whistleblower based on the Anti-Corruption Act rather than the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act. However, in this ruling, the court applied the Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act and determined that the transfer constituted a disadvantageous measure.

In response, Ms. Ji refused to report to work and appealed the unfairness of the situation through a one-person protest. The school dismissed her, citing unauthorized absence. It took two years for a ruling to be issued. During Ms. Ji’s protest, civic groups formed a joint countermeasures committee, and after the December 3, 2024 illegal martial law incident, she received support and encouragement from the so-called “Wasp Comrades” (citizens who quickly rush to sites of struggle, like the “Wasp Man” who appeared on a variety show). Victimized students and parents also submitted petitions to the court to support Ms. Ji.

This case left both hope and limitations in terms of protecting public-interest whistleblowers. After the sentencing, Ms. Ji stated in front of the courthouse, “I want teachers who, like me, suffered and left their schools after raising problems within schools to be fully protected,” and added, “I hope today’s ruling gives them courage.” As she said, this ruling confirmed that legitimate public-interest reporting is protected by law.

The problem is that it took more than two years of raising her voice in the cold streets before Ms. Ji was recognized as a public-interest whistleblower. In a Kyunghyang Shinmun interview last March, Ms. Ji reflected on the words “Please win, no matter what,” spoken by the Wasp Comrades as they shared their own experiences of victimization during their student years. Thinking of students who had suffered sexual violence, she said she felt she could not give up. Without the solidarity and support of civil society, this may have been impossible.

Ms. Ji’s arduous struggle stemmed from the fact that she was placed in a legal blind spot immediately after making her public-interest report. The Public Interest Whistleblower Protection Act stipulates punishment of up to three years’ imprisonment for those who disadvantage whistleblowers. Yet, as in Ms. Ji’s case, once a whistleblower is subjected to a transfer or dismissal, they are forced to endure the harm until they are officially recognized as a public-interest whistleblower. Even when whistleblowers apply for protective measures, only 7.3 percent of cases have been accepted by the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission over the past five years. [...]

Resolving the core issue of the case—sexual violence within schools—also remains a challenge. Ms. Ji said, “If sexual violence was blatant before School MeToo, now it has simply gone underground,” adding, “When a teacher steps forward to address a sexual violence case, they become isolated. They are subjected to criticism and attacks from the offending students, their parents, and fellow teachers.” Analyses pointing to the intensification of anti-feminist and far-right sentiments among teenagers in recent years only deepen these concerns.

* * * * * *

This Reddit post notes the name of the school, and when I looked it up, I suddenly remembered a story told to me by someone I know. She moved a bunch of her daughter's things to her brother's house in order to convince her daughter's school that that was her address (there was an inspection) ahead of her graduation from elementary school. This was because, she said, based on her own address, her daughter was likely to be sent to a co-ed middle school full of boys, and she wanted her to go to a girl's middle school instead. Seeing the location of the offending school, I realized that it was likely that school in particular she was trying to avoid.

It's unfortunate Ji was unable to be there for her second-grade students' final year and graduation, though the last article suggest she remains in touch with them. There are several elements of the system, most notably those at ground level in the school, that terribly failed the girls who spoke out and the teacher, while others did their job as they were supposed to, like the SMOE Student Human Rights Education Center, though that only succeeded by contacting it secretly. At least SMOE isn't appealing the ruling, but that's a pretty low bar when you consider she was holding a sit-in in front of its main office for two years and they could have done the right thing at any time.

Encouraging Outrage: The Inculcation of Anti-Japanese Feeling in South Korea

Almost ten years ago, in the summer of 2016, I wrote this post (titled "Comfort Women, nationalism, and the inculcation of anti-Japanese feeling") that focused mainly on an exhibition of comics about the comfort women that I had seen two years earlier. Not long after posting it I was asked if I could write a piece for another website based on the post, which I did eventually (I was busy doing my MA at the time), adding more background on how the comics came to be made, but it never got published. It popped into my mind the other day and, I realized it was still gathering dust in my draft posts, so I decided I might as well publish it (with updated links and some cosmetic revisions). Relations between the ROK and Japan have since worsened (2019 was a pretty dire year, though nothing compared to 1974; a story for another day) and then more recently improved to their best in years, but I don't think these attitudes have gone that far away, at least for those over the age of 30. I've been meaning to look through the newest elementary school history books to see how they portray the colonial period, but that's a project for another day.

* * * * *

In 2007, while working at an English hagwon in Seoul, I asked a class of grade five and grade six students where (or rather, when) they would go if they had a time machine. One boy did not hesitate to give an answer: "To Hiroshima in 1945 to see Japan get nuked." While one can profess shock at hearing an eleven-year-old express bitterness toward Japan with such intensity, the mere fact of such an expression is not surprising considering the pervasiveness of anti-Japanese sentiment in South Korea.

Relations between South Korea and Japan have long had their ups and downs, but controversies rooted in the colonial period, such as the comfort women issue and the territorial dispute over Dokdo / Takeshima, have worked to raise tensions over the past two decades. While attention has been directed to the omissions of Japanese history textbooks, the depiction of Japan within South Korea's education system is also worthy of scrutiny. The portrayal of the colonial period in South Korea has long highlighted the brutality and rapacity of Japan and the victimization of Korea, punctuated by the heroic deeds of independence fighters, As a study of depictions of World War II East Asian and American history textbooks by Daniel Sneider describes it,

The narrative of the wartime period offered to South Korean students is focused almost entirely on the oppressive experience of Koreans under Japanese colonial rule and on tales of Korean resistance to their overlords. The larger wartime context for Japan’s increasingly desperate and forced mobilization of Koreans for the war effort—namely the quagmire of the war in China and the mounting retaliatory assault of the Americans after 1942—is not provided. South Korean textbooks barely mention the outbreak of war in China in 1937 or the attack on Pearl Harbor, and in the case of the main textbook published by the government there is no mention at all of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Considering these omissions, it is less difficult to be surprised by textbooks (which I've examined but was first informed about by Scott Burgeson) which make assertions such as "the steadily unfolding independence movement at home and abroad formed the basis of liberation," or, "Ultimately, liberation was the fruit of our nation's independence struggle, which constantly fought the Japanese empire at home and abroad." The focus on homegrown resistance to Japanese oppression is not only found at the middle or high school level, however. Similar messages are aimed at young children, and one of the primary means of encouraging historical bitterness is tied to the need to defend South Korea's sovereignty over the Dokdo islets. At the elementary school in Seoul I taught at in the early 2010s, Dokdo Day (October 25) was, in the words of the vice-principal, "a day to sing a Dokdo song and impress upon the children once again that Dokdo is our land." While not an official holiday, the military has, in the past, greeted the day with military maneuvers around the islets. It was approached in a softer manner for children, who were encouraged to sing songs like "Dokdo Is Our Friend":

From ancient times Dokdo has been our friend
From the days of my ancestors Dokdo has been our friend
A place where white seagulls go to rest
A place where waves beckon
A place where fluffy clouds sing
A place where love dreams
Don't be lonely, we are there,
Our precious friend
We'll be together forever
Friend of the nation

In addition to this, Dokdo Studies is a part of the curriculum, while at the sports day held every other year, where entire grades took part in choreographed mass dances, grade two students performed a flag dance to the song "Dokdo is Our Land." Some schools have "Dokdo learning centers" featuring various maps, displays, and even scale models of the islets.

The school I worked at, after years without one, opted for a "Dokdo video learning center" which featured a television screen set to a special KBS channel which broadcasts live video of the islets, offering students a constant reminder of the islets' existence.

That schools (in some cases constantly) "impress upon the children" from a young age "that Dokdo is our land" may help explain why there is such an emotional component to this territorial dispute in Korea.

In addition to material critical of Japan within the education system, well-known children's book publisher Nobelgwa Gaemi has a series of books titled Hanguk Uiin Jeonjip (Complete Series of Great Korean People) with books focusing on different Korean heroes such as Kim Ku or Yu Gwan-sun. In addition to biographical information and photos, the books contain illustrations of events in Korean history designed to make an impression upon a young audience. One such event is the murder of Queen Min by Japanese assassins;


Another is the torture of Yu Gwan-sun by Japanese police;


The suppression of the Samil protests by Japanese police;


The assassination of D.W. Stevens in 1908;



The assassination of Ito Hirobumi in 1909;




In fact, An Jung-geun's assassination of Ito has been depicted numerous times, such as at the Independence Hall of Korea:

This illustration aimed at children depicts the assassination at an exhibit on An Jung-geun held at the Seoul Museum of Contemporary History in 2015.

The captions transform an image which, devoid of context, would resemble a thug shooting an elderly man into a "noble soul" and great patriot.

In addition to violent acts against Korean victims or by Korean patriots, far more controversial topics related to the colonial era have been depicted in sequential art that would appeal to children. In February 2014, a South Korean exhibit about the comfort women, entitled "Flowers that Never Wilt," was held at the Angouleme International Comics Festival in western France, where 17,000 visitors attended the exhibit. South Korea's Gender Equality and Family Minister Cho yoon-sun attended the opening, though festival director Franck Bondoux said that "The subject was proposed by the South Korean government but the artists were completely free to evoke the subject independently," Not everyone was happy with this exhibit:

Japan's ambassador to France, Yoichi Suzuki, said he "deeply regrets that this exhibition is taking place," saying it promoted "a mistaken point of view that further complicates relations between South Korea and Japan."

In addition, according to the Joongang Daily, extremist Japanese civilian organizations sent a petition to the local press signed by 16,000 people calling for the exhibition's cancellation. The event organizers also "shut down a Japanese publishing booth, which displayed a banner that read, 'Comfort women do not exist,' claiming the booth was politicizing the event." As a KBS article described it,

the special exhibition of Korean comic strips and cartoons about the wartime sex slaves told their heartbreaking stories and exposed the ruthless savagery of the Japanese military to the world. Koreans are still angered by the fact that young, innocent Korean women were taken from their homes and forced to satisfy the sexual urges of Japanese troops. However, this heinous incident is little known outside of Korea. [...]

At the special exhibition the stories of Korean comfort women took the forms of comic strips, cartoons, installation artwork, animated films and documentaries. Seventeen comic works, four videos and three installations displayed at the 41st Angouleme International Comics Festival were so revealing and heart-wrenching that visitors were outraged at the extent of cruelty inflicted on innocent people during the war.

As comics artist Kim Gwang-seong described it,

"The reactions were hotter than I expected. People left so many encouraging messages, telling us how outraged they were. The reason they were so shocked and infuriated is that teenage girls were dragged from their homes and forced into sexual servitude for years.[...] I was surprised to see older French women get teary as they saw our comics." 

Much like high school textbooks that omit the international dimensions of World War II and obscure how Korea's liberation was achieved in order to highlight Korean heroism and Japanese repression, the description of  teenage girls being "dragged from their homes and forced into sexual servitude" obscures the role Koreans played in facilitating this comfort women system and in enforcing their silence for over four decades.

This exhibition did not only appear in France, however. Encore exhibitions "testifying to the barbarity of the Japanese Army's comfort women" system, as the Donga Ilbo put it, have been held throughout Korea since, in places such as the Korean Comics Museum in Bucheon. the Incheon Korean Literature Museum, Seoul's Seodaemun Prison Museum, Daejeon Artists' House, the Wonju Hanji Museum, and the National Memorial Museum of Forced Mobilization under Japanese Occupation in Busan, among others; it has also been shown in the US, China, Germany, and Algeria. As well, a statue and permanent installation related to this exhibition were installed in Ahn Jung-geun Park in Bucheon in 2016.

In the spring of 2014 I visited the Museum of Korean Modern Literature in Incheon and came across this exhibit on the first floor, where each page of the comics was printed as a poster affixed in order along the walls. One, below, was titled '70-year-long nightmare':

The comic above tells the story of a former comfort woman in a symbolic way, but also reduces it to an overly simplistic tale beginning with a happy-go-lucky innocent child picking flowers before history overtakes her. This is common to many popular Korean historical films of the first decade of the twenty-first century, such as Taegukki or May 18, which portray innocents happily going about their lives before the events of the Korean War and the Kwangju Uprising, respectively, wash over them like a force of nature. This lack of political commentary stands in comparison to many films of the 1990s which examined the roles the Korean state or ordinary people played in the tragedies of the twentieth century. In Park Kwang-su's To the Starry Island (1994), for example, internal village squabbles contribute to a massacre during the Korean War. Park Kwang-hyun's Welcome to Dongmakgol (2006), on the other hand, depicts a village as a utopia untainted by division which faces destruction at the hands of outsiders, in this case the American military.

While the above comic made use of symbolism and refrained from depicting the sufferings of the comfort women in a graphic manner, other artists were not so reticent, as excerpts from another comic, titled "Where are we going?" reveal:

While the above comic also uses symbolism to articulate the way in which these girls were stripped of their youthful innocence, it also is far more graphic in depicting the exact nature of their sexual exploitation and rape. Beyond encouraging bitter feelings regarding the colonial era and Japan, these depictions of female suffering are in accord with gendered representations of the colonial era in Korea. According to this nationalist division of labor, women such as Queen Min, Yu Gwan-sun, or the comfort women are victims:

Men, on the other hand, are heroes who actively stand up to Japan:

The division between these spheres of remembrance can be defended quite vigorously. In 2008, when it was suggested by the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan that a museum devoted to the comfort women be built in Independence Park (the location of Seodaemun Prison History Hall), former independence fighters and their descendants harshly denounced these plans:

"The proposed museum denigrates the independence movement and the men who gave their lives as patriotic martyrs for the liberation of Korea," said Kim Yeong-il, the [Korea Liberation] Association’s president, at the Nov. 3 press conference. "The museum will surely create a false image about our history by highlighting our suffering rather than our many military achievements," Kim added.

This is all quite ironic, considering that the Seodaemun Prison History Hall at the time featured wall-sized photos of mutilated people and depictions of torture featuring animatronic mannequins accompanied by screams on an endless loop. A guide map described one of the highlights of the exhibition: "Torture Room (experiencing nail picking and tortures with boxes and electricity)." Though the museum has since been changed, for over a decade countless students were guided through these exhibits.

One wonders if Sheila Miyoshi Jager's description (in Narratives of Nation Building in Korea : A Genealogy of Patriotism (2003), pgs 71-72) of reactions to the plight of sex workers who served American soldiers could also be applied to the comfort women. She describes them as "both pitied and despised...[and] thus [they] became the symbol of the nation's shame as well as the rallying point for national resistance." That they are a source of "national shame" may explain why descendants of independence fighters would feel the presence of a museum for the comfort women would "denigrate" the memory of the (mostly male) independence fighters, It may also explain in part why these women were rarely spoken of in Korea for over forty years.

This was also highlighted by an unnamed prominent expert on prostitution, interviewed by Michael Breen, who described (off the record) the comfort women issue as "Pure hypocrisy":

We all know Japan was guilty of terrible things up to 1945, but, she said, this chauvinistic focus on justice for a historical matter is popular with Koreans because it conveniently distracts us from the real issue and our own continued guilt. The real issue is the attitude in Korea of men towards women and human trafficking in the sex industry that operates on the scale it does as a consequence of that attitude.

These gendered attitudes have revealed themselves in other ways, such as when Kim Seon-il, a Korean contractor in Iraq, was beheaded in 2004 and the Korean government went to great lengths to ensure the video could not be seen in Korea. While this may have been intended to prevent political criticism of the Korean government's decision to send Korean troops to Iraq, Kim-Yun Eun-mi, writing in Ilda, perceived other reasons. The government's suppression of the video stood in contrast to the display of photos by anti-American protesters of the mutilated bodies of Yun Geum-i, a sex worker killed by an American soldier in 1992, and "Mi-seon and Ho-sun," two middle school girls who were crushed by an American bridge layer in an accident north of Seoul in 2002. Wondering why the photos of these women and Kim Seon-il's beheading video were treated so differently, Kim-Yun wrote:

No matter how you think about it, there is no other conclusion than that this situation reflects the social gaze upon women's bodies. If you look Yun Geum-i's photo, it causes resentment in men whose nationalistic sensibilities have been stimulated. If you are a woman, most look at the photo and feel fear and pain wondering if they could suffer such violence, not react like men thinking "We must protect our sisters."

Furthermore, the effect aroused by Yun Geum-i's photo and internet porn with a rape motif have something in common. They both aim to arouse an intense impression of violence inflicted upon women's bodies. 

The same can be said for images like this, in which the artists were depicting the women's suffering perhaps a little too enthusiastically.

In fact, other comics went even further:

What follows (I chose not to photograph it) is the graphic depiction of the rape of a child. That she was a child was made clear by the size of her breasts and lack of pubic hair (which were on display in the images), but while it might seem surprising that illustrations of this nature were on display for people of all ages to view at the museum, in Korea posting photos, some of them gruesome, of colonial-era Japanese repression in public places like subway stations is not unknown. As well, large images of the bodies of Shim Mi-seon and Shin Ho-sun, the two middle school girls crushed by an American bridge layer, were common sights in subway stations in 2002. Judging by this YTN report, it appears the above final, graphic image of "Where are we going?" and the comic described above were not displayed at the French festival at all.

The fact that some of the most outrageous images were for Korean eyes (and ire) only suggests that B.R. Myers' description of inner and outer tracks of propaganda in North Korea, with the former seen only by Koreans but the latter accessible to outsiders, may also be applicable to South Korea as well. A visit to the Seodaemun Prison History Museum, for example, reveals exhibits that are only partly, or not at all, translated into English and Japanese.

If adults in France felt "outrage" when viewing the comfort women comics, one wonders what effect seeing them - without the self-censorship practiced overseas - would have on Korean children, who most certainly made up a portion of the audience at the exhibitions in Korea. A Korea Times columnist criticizing President Obama for his visit to Hiroshima may have unwittingly provided an answer when he wrote that in Korea "memories of Japan's brutal occupation remain fresh even after the passage of 70 years." Popular culture, media, and the education system work to refresh these bitter memories on a regular basis, suggesting that aspiring to victim status at the hands of Japan (or the U.S., depending on one's political leanings or geographical position in relation to the 38th parallel) is an important element of Korea's national self conception. While sites such as the Seodaemun Prison History Museum have toned down the visual and auditory assaults on visitors in recent years, the depictions of suffering in the comfort women comics reveal that the cultivation of outrage still has a role to play in cultivating anti-Japanese sentiment, which, judging by the degree to which Korean history textbooks dwell on resistance to Japanese imperialism, plays an incredibly important role in modern Korean national identity.

An insistence in Korea on allowing displays like these to portray the nation as a historical victim may encourage a nationalist belief in Korea's moral superiority or, more cynically, serve to distract the populace from more pressing issues, but despite these short-term benefits (if they can be called that), considering its geopolitical position and the fact that the Korean Gordian Knot - its division, and all of the complications associated with it - will remain in place for some time to come, it would seem that inculcating such historical bitterness is something that could prove to be counterproductive in the long term.