한말 의병사 연구에 있어서 용어 사용 및 시기구분 문제와 중등교과서의 서술체계

Abstract

A lot of researches on the ‘Uibyong’(Righteous army) have been accumulated since the 1960s. Their academical results have been reflected by the history textbooks in secondary school or the cultural studies in college. They deepened the historical recognitions of the public on the ‘Uibyong’ at the end of the Chosun dynasty. But there is the difference between the researchers’ recognitions on the ‘Uibyong’ at the end of the Chosun dynasty. We can find such a difference in their choice of words or periodization about the ‘Uibyong’ activities. There are a few words as technical terms such as movement, war, struggle and resistance using now when they are alluding the ‘Uibyong’ activities as a historical event. But the choice of words is optional. There is no strict or scientific definition of such technical terms. The choice of historical words is very important, because they prescribes the meaning of the historical event. Therefore the optional usage resulted from the insufficient examination of the terminology may confuse the education of history, specially in the secondary school when it influence the description of the historical textbooks. Nowadays there is a tendency to replace the ‘Uibyong movement’ with the ‘Uibyong war’. The user of the ‘Uibyong war’ explain that ‘Uibyong’ is the main stream of the national movement against Japanese invasion at the end of the Chosun dynasty, and that we can name the historical event the ‘Uibyong war’ to express the national will of the ‘Uibyong’ activities. But this expression is a kind od rhetorics. It is hard to say that it is a scientifically defined historical term. There are many researchers using the ‘Uibyong movement’ for the ‘Uibyong’ activities as yet. I think that this traditional usage is more reasonable and could be more scientifically defined. Some other researchers prefer to use the ‘Uibyong’ struggle or the ‘Uibyong’ resistance, because they want to avoid the possibly wrong option between ‘war’ and ‘movement’. We can find such a confusion also in the past and present textbooks of secondary education. The confusion of periodization of the ‘UIbyong’ activities could be found in the researchers’ papers and textbooks of secondary educationas well. Some researchers use the sexagenary cycle, such as ‘Uilmi(乙未) Uibyong’, ‘Uilsa(乙巳) Uibyong’, ‘Byong-o(丙午) Uibyong’, or ‘Jengmi(丁未) Uibyong’. Some people prefer to phase of time, such as ‘earlier Uibyong’, ‘middle Uibyong’, and ‘later Uibyong’ or such as ‘first Uibyong’and ‘second Uibyong’. I think that we should examine deliberately and take the causes and the background of the beginning of uprising, the changes of joining groups and leader groups, and the phase of the situation etc. into consideration. This is our present task. So I suggest we use the ‘Uibyong movement’ as a historical term of Uibyong activities and the two period periodization of Uibyong activities, such as ‘earlier Uibyong’ and ‘later Uibyong’ which has four stages in the development of Uibyong activities. I hope futhermore discussions of my view afterward.