While the public is sensitive to historical issues, the business sector often remains indifferent. A recent series of incidents in the cultural and retail industries highlighted a significant lack of historical sensitivity. The backlash from exploiting painful modern history and tradition for profit has been severe.
The most egregious misstep occurred in the retail sector. On May 18, marking the 46th anniversary of the Gwangju Democracy Movement, Starbucks Korea named a tumbler discount event "Tank Day" and included the phrase "Bang!" in promotional materials. This trivialized the tanks used by the military to suppress civilians and the absurd explanations given by police during the 1987 torture and death of Park Jong-cheol.
The controversy quickly escalated. Shinsegae Group promptly canceled the event and dismissed the president in an attempt to mitigate the fallout, but public sentiment remained cold, leading to a boycott of Starbucks.
On May 20, President Lee Jae-myung weighed in, recalling a previous controversy involving Musinsa's sock advertisement, stating, "Money may be the root of all evil, but one should not act in such a manner while wearing a human mask." This marked a direct warning from the highest authority against crossing ethical lines in pursuit of profit.
The entertainment industry has not fared any better. The MBC drama "21st Century Daegunbuin," which had a budget of 30 billion won, faced intense backlash for its poor historical accuracy. It hid behind the guise of a fictional constitutional monarchy while misrepresenting the emperor's status and introducing dubious Chinese tea-drinking customs, providing fodder for Northeast Asian territorial disputes. It echoed the painful mistakes of the 2021 SBS drama "Joseon Exorcist," which was canceled after two episodes due to similar controversies, and tvN's "Mr. Queen," which faced legal penalties for dismissing the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty as mere "trash."
Despite the gravity of the situation, the responses from the writers and directors responsible for historical accuracy have been slow, leaving only the lead actors to face public outrage and offer tearful apologies. The government's late response, suggesting the return of funding after the controversy erupted, has drawn criticism for being a typical example of bureaucratic ineptitude.
Given that we vividly remember the struggles for independence and democracy, it is natural for us to be sensitive to historical issues. If we fill the void left by a lack of proper historical understanding with shallow commercialism and irresponsible creativity, we cannot avoid public disdain. A few insincere apologies cannot cover the deep and damaging wounds that have been inflicted on the public's historical consciousness.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.