With the implementation of the Tangpyeong policy, the Joseon Dynasty began to tilt.

 The biggest negative effect of TV dramas may be that they caused viewers to misunderstand the party dispute. The political appearance of our ancestors in historical dramas plays a role in evoking hatred rather than pride in history, such as plotting, revenge, exile, receiving poison, and vomiting blood. However, this view of the party dispute is rooted in colonial history during the Japanese colonial period. After merging Korea, Japan had to develop the logic that Koreans did not have autonomy and qualities to rationalize it, and tried to find the most appropriate argument in the party dispute. Thus, Japanese scholars and Korean pro-Japanese historians such as Akira Shidehara, Shoko Oda, Hajime Hosoi, and Yasusuke Hayashi joined the logic that "Chosun collapsed due to a party dispute, and if Japan does not rule, it cannot lead the country on its own." According to the logic of colonial historians criticizing the party strife, the partisan fight heated up because the ethnicity of Koreans originally liked fighting, cruel, and belittling people's lives. ▼ Even the claim of "bloody people" ▼ In particular, Hajime Hosoi wrote that blood is "dirty and dirty" because Koreans are physiologically different from Japanese. Therefore, he argued that how can he deceive blood and how can he improve this nation. In this logic, Koreans followed the rhythm and the "National Reform Theory" appeared, and the representative person was novelist Lee Kwang-soo. Even if it is not worth even arguing that Hoso, who is not an anatomist, mentioned the blood of Koreans, it is necessary to point out whether Koreans are a people who only like fighting so much. During the Joseon Dynasty, Korea was rich in naturalism in the agricultural era centered on rivers. From the perspective of ethnic psychology, it showed a very pacifistic and humanitarian tendency as it laid on in-depth psychology the Confucian influence that values humanity, regardless of religion, study, or mind, and Buddhist influence based on mercy and karma. It is not true that such Koreans are people who like to fight. In addition, colonial historians set the period of struggle for partisan disputes ridiculously long. This point was brainwashed us so persistently that even those who might know know know it is believed that the 500 years of the Joseon Dynasty were all partisan. ▼The influence of persistent brainwashing to date ▼ It was in 1575 during the early days of King Seonjo's reign that a party dispute occurred. However, it has been only about 50 years at most that the party dispute has been historically criticized, that is, it has turned into an innocent killing of life. To be exact, it was only from the 6th year of King Sukjong (1680) when men Heo Jeok and Yun Hue received poison to the 3rd year of King Yeongjo (1727) that took place in the process of implementing the Tangpyeong policy. Colonial historians are also exaggerating the tragedy caused by partisan strife. It is inflated by countless swords, deaths, and poison, and this is a common belief among ordinary people. This is primarily due to the inability to distinguish between party strife and social painting. Looking at Lee Kun-chang's "Party Strategy," which is considered to have been used from a relatively neutral standpoint when it comes to party disputes, 79 people are clearly judged to have died due to party disputes. In other words, 1.6 people died a year. Life is precious to everyone, and it cannot be glorified that nearly 80 people were intensively sacrificed during this period. However, in history, there was never an example in which there was no sacrifice of life in a political place of politics. This is also the case in the West, the so-called birthplace of democracy. For example, 1,300 victims died on August 10, 1792, during the French Revolution. There were 718 royalists executed on July 21, 1795. During the Paris Commune, from May 21 to 28, 1871, 25,000 people were killed in a week called Blood Week, and 150 people were executed on Blood Sunday, January 22, 1905, during the period of enacted Russia. Why should their history be the history of struggle for democracy, and our history be the history of party strife? In the case of Korea, regardless of what others say, an average of 7.5 people a year have been executed for political reasons since liberation. Only 1.6 people in the year of the sacrifice of ▼ In the end, the party dispute was only a medieval form of a political party that existed in the Joseon Dynasty. In other words, the party dispute was a political debate process that took place in the mediation. Our ancestors referred to such a discussion as a party. The term party dispute itself is also a name that Japanese scholars named to maliciously express the party, not our term. There are several aspects that we should pay attention to about the partisan history of colonial history as described above. First, the most severe party strife in the Joseon Dynasty was in the year of King Sukjong, which is the fact that King Sukjong is revered as a saint of the Joseon Dynasty. This is not a coincidence. Paradoxically, this means that the more acute the party was, the more comfortable it was for the people to live. With the silence watching with eyes wide open, politicians could not be corrupt, and unfairness could not arise in the lives of the people. King Sukjong was able to become a saint thanks to the party dispute. Second, it should be noted that the Joseon Dynasty began to tilt as the party dispute disappeared with the implementation of the Tangpyeong policy. As shown in Jeong Eon Han Hyun-mo's appeal in June of the 4th year of King Yeongjo's Annals, along with the Tangpyeong policy, people began to give the royal court no more opinion and announce the twilight of the Joseon Dynasty. Third, then, why did King Yeongjo implement the Tangpyeong policy? It was not a measure he desperately felt the evils of the party dispute and took to get rid of them, but his political trick. He was not in the rank of succession to the throne. When he ascended to the throne with the support of Noron, he had political debt to Noron, and he had no choice but to adopt Noron by vaporizing it. Taking advantage of this background, when they made a statement, Tangpyeong was suggested as a reason to re-appoint Soron to control it. After all, partisan strife was a common political phenomenon in all politics in the East and West. As Yulgok Yi I pointed out, the people who belonged to Dongin were young and active, and the people who belonged to Seoin were old and thoughtful. ▼ What to praise for the presentation of policy alternatives ▼ In the end, if this phenomenon is expressed by borrowing modern terms, Dongin was progressive at the time and Seoin was conservative. It was praiseworthy and not to be criticized that they did not speak out the same voice and suggested policy alternatives. Life is a strange thing, so if the present life is happy, the pain of the past becomes a memory, and if the present life is unhappy, the pain of the past remains a regret. To dismiss a party dispute as our unfortunate legacy, which can never be regarded as abusive, is only to come to us as more negative because the current politics is unhappy.

A tolerant open mind, such as the Tangpyeong policy, is only possible when all political members have basic morality and basic skills. If there are many bad private-interest opportunists, it is the right way to brutally punish and reform only bad guys.