대만의 대학 역사교재 분석 —중국근대사(1840~1910년) 속의 한중관계사를 중심으로—

Abstract

The present study analyzed how Korean history in Chinese modern history is described in university history textbooks in Taiwan. The history of Korean- Chinese relation in Chinese modern history includes the Ganghwa-do Incident, Ganghwa-do Treaty, Korean soldier’s riot in 1882, Gapsin Coup in 1884, Donghak Peasants’ Revolution, and Sino-Japanese War. Accordingly, this study examined Korea-related descriptions found in textbooks ‘Chinese Modern History’ and ‘Complete Chinese History,’ diving them by themes. The characteristics of the descriptions can be summarized as follows. First, Chinese relation with Joseon is described in connection with Japanese invasion of China and the negotiation of China and Japan over Joseon. In the contents, Joseon is described as a tributary nation of China as a suzerain state, and it is maintained consistently from the beginning to the end that China protected Joseon from Japanese invasion by sending its troops. However, Joseon’s independent reaction and position are not mentioned. Second, Gapsin Coup in 1884 is explained mistakenly. Gapsin Coup in 1884 is described as a revolt resulting from the irrationalities of pro-Japanese enlightenment group and King Gojong’s blind following. For instance, it is stated that in 1884 the rioters in Joseon raised a rebellion in collusion with Japan, and the rebellion was suppressed by Chinese troops. No consideration is given to the formation of the enlightenment group in Joseon, the outline of policies in the Gapsin Coup, the meaning and evaluation of the coup, etc. Third, the Donghak Party and Donghak Peasants’ Revolution are not described correctly. Donghak Peasants’ Revolution is called ‘the Donghak Party’s uprising’ and the Donghak Party is understood wrongly to be pro-Japanese. Although the Sino-Japanese War was for taking the initiative over Joseon, China’s response is explained as an action for protecting Joseon as a tributary state and Japanese invasion is emphasized. During the period from 1885 when Yuan Shi Kai came to Joseon right before the Sino-Japanese War, China’s ‘imperialistic’ interference with Joseon was most oppressive but it is not described in detail. Fourth, when these descriptions are compared with Chinese university history textbooks, the degree of distortion is much more serious. For example, Chinese university history textbooks mention the meaning and evaluation of the Gapsin Coup in 1884 and Donghak Peasants’ Revolution. Of course, this is related to the tendency of Chinese historians who interpret China modern history as the history of anti-imperialistic and anti-feudal struggles. Nevertheless, Taiwanese university history textbooks mention Joseon only from the aspect of Chinese-Japanese negotiation and the two countries’ actions, emphasizing China as ‘protector’ and Japan as ‘invader’ and depreciating and distorting the meanings of Gapsin Coup in 1884, Donghak Peasants’ Revolution, etc., which are important incidents in Korean modern history. Fifth, different from Taiwanese university history textbooks, Korean university history textbooks overemphasize Joseon’s independent reactions and its position. Korea modern history is virtually the history of Korean-Chinese- Japanese relations. As confirmed in Taiwanese university history textbooks, Korean-Chinese and Korean-Japanese relations are closely interconnected to Chinese-Japanese relations. However, Korean university history textbooks hardly deal with Chinese-Japanese negation over Korea. Thus, it is considered necessary to promote exchange between the two countries, to understand each other’s history, and to make efforts to correct distorted historical facts.