South Korea should not apply double standard to inherited political guilt

Actress Moon Geun-young When South Korean actress Ha Young spoke on television in August about four generations of doctors in her family, she praised the medical accomplishments of her great-grandfather, Ahn Sang-ho. Subsequent scrutiny linked Ahn to the Daejeong Friendship Association, an organization associated with cooperation with Japanese colonial rule. Ha Young said that she had known only part of his history and apologized after the controversy emerged. The reaction quickly moved beyond criticism. Samsung Electronics made all six Samsung Art TV advertisements featuring Ha Young private, while other advertising and promotional material disappeared from public view. She later withdrew from the next season of Netflix’s The Trauma Code: Heroes on Call. This episode raises a broader question: should descendants bear different burdens depending on which side of South Korea’s ideological history their ancestors occupied? A useful comparison is actress Moon Geun-young. In 2008, Moon – then widely called the nation’s little sister – became the target of ideological attacks after the public learned that she had anonymously donated 850 million won over six years. Critics pointed to her maternal grandfather, Ryu Nak-jin, whose political history included pro-North guerrilla activity and decades as a political prisoner, and portrayed Moon’s philanthropy as communist propaganda. Moon had also spoken warmly about her grandfather. In 2005, she described him as a man of “deep purpose” and said she wanted to be remembered as his granddaughter. That praise was open to public criticism and discussion. But praising her grandfather as a person did not mean endorsing every political activity associated with him. Actress Ha Young. Photo: Wikimedia Commons Ha Young’s praise was narrower. She praised Ahn Sang-ho’s medical achievements, not Japanese colonialism or his political associations. Ahn was the first Korean to obtain a Japanese medical license and served the Korean royal household. After learning more about his political record, Ha Young apologized. Despite Moon’s relative praise of her controversial ancestor, she maintained visible mainstream defense. Contemporary coverage described the attacks as an ‘ugly smear campaign’. Supportive comments outnumbered hostile ones in contemporaneous reporting. Moon also received political support, including a public statement from the minor Democratic Labor Party criticizing attacks based on her family history. Ha Young received little comparable defense from mainstream Korean media or politicians. Some of the clearest criticism of guilt by association came instead from Japanese media. The professional outcomes also diverged. Only weeks after the 2008 controversy, Moon won the Grand Prize at the SBS Drama Awards for Painter of the Wind, and two months later she won best actress in television at the Baeksang Arts Awards. Her commercial and broadcasting career remained visible. In contrast, Ha Young suffered substantial commercial and professional fallout. This raises a legitimate question about whether descendants associated with Japanese colonial collaboration now face a different institutional standard from descendants associated with communist or pro-North activities. The cases are not identical: they occurred almost two decades apart, and colonial collaboration and communist activism are different historical phenomena. But the liberal standard should be the same – separate ancestry from personal responsibility. People do not choose their ancestors. They can reasonably be judged for what they themselves say and do. If a public figure knowingly praises an ancestor’s participation in violence, coercion or other specific wrongdoing, that praise is open to criticism. Moon’s praise for her grandfather was therefore a legitimate subject of public debate. But criticism should remain tied to her own words and knowledge, not to inherited guilt. The same standard should apply to Ha Young. Pride in an ancestor’s medical service does not amount to endorsement of every political association that ancestor had. Ha Young did not praise colonial rule. After learning more, she apologized. A liberal society should leave room for criticism, correction and reintegration. Historical accountability should identify specific wrongdoing, distinguish knowledge from ignorance, and keep sanctions proportionate to an individual’s own conduct. Otherwise, historical responsibility slides into inherited stigma. South Korea knows the dangers of inherited political categories. Families were once stigmatized because a relative had communist or North Korean associations. Today, descendants of people labeled pro-Japan risk a different version of the same logic. Reversing the ideological direction of guilt by association does not make the principle more liberal. The point is not that Moon Geun-young should have been punished more harshly. Her praise of her grandfather was open to criticism, but she should not have been held responsible merely because she was Ryu Nak-jin’s granddaughter. The question is whether the same restraint is extended to Ha Young. South Korea has every reason to investigate colonial collaboration, communist violence, authoritarian abuses and other painful histories. But historical judgment is strongest when it is specific about who did what, rather than allowing political stigma to travel through bloodlines. Wonjun Yun is a graduate student in political science at Hanyang University in Seoul. Joseph Yi is an associate professor of political science at Hanyang University. Joseph Yi is an associate professor of political science at Hanyang University, South Korea. More by Joseph Yi