중국의 ‘다민족 통일 국가론’과 당대의 국제질서
The Unified Multiethnic State Theory of China and the International Relations in Tang Dynasty
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Tang(唐) tried to establish a China-centric world order by incorporating the neighboring countries into four categories according to the degree of her power infiltration: localized area, Jimifuzhou(羁縻府州), tributary-appointment relationship area, simple tributary region. If possible, Tang wanted to put the area it dominated under loclaized area that is, the jurisdiction of regular prefecture. Alternatively, Tang made out Jimifuzhou system or the loose-rein prefectures, which bestowed titles and granted authorities to local chiefs at the border of Tang proper. The third way to rule foreigners that were either voluntarily or unvoluntarily subdued was to hand out titles to the rulers of independent political entities. In exchange, Tang received an annual tribute from these countries. Simple tributary area means totally independent foreign countries over whom Tang exercised no political influence. However, the above-mentioned relations were changeable. A area under the jurisdiction of regular prefecture could be one under the Jimifuzhou as the case may be. According to diverse records of Tang, there were about three hundred countries who disappeared after paying an tribute to her. There were still seventy countries that must pay an tribute. Among them, some were simply groups that were not yet have a shape of state-country, and others, as contemporary Chinese scholars examine, were not belong to any local district of the dynasty such as Japan, Silla, Saracens, Persia, and India. Tang established 856 Jimifuzhou. But the Jimi administrative units were merely formal in that neither the dynasty appointed any central government official nor took the census in each region. The Tang dynasty did not even impose a tax both on a person and land. In this concern, it is arguable to recognize the Jimifuzhou as a local administrative unit of Tang. In other words, the argument based on the tributary-appointment relationship and the Jimi system was none the less nonsense from the outset. Furthermore, there must have been a lot of changes in character of the administration system of Tang as international power relations had been changed. Without a deep concerns about these kinds of changes, no one can insist whether Koguryo and Balhae were belong to Chinese local administrative units or were independent countries. Rather, this argument implies the current territorial problems and the minority problems. According to Chinese historical researches and textbooks, there has been a tendency to idealize the theory of unified multiethnic state. In addition, they evaluate the founding of neighboring countries as a simple development of China's peripheral local regions. If the history of neighboring countries of Tang such as East Turks, Uighur, Tibet, Koguryo and Balhae is understood as a mere development of China's peripheral local regions, this interpretation is nothing but an unilateral argument. Now, we all talks about international peace and partnership in the twenty-first century of northeast Asia. But, China, unfortunately, led up to many trobles and threats in northeast Asia due to her idealization of the theory of unified multiethnic state and making up history of the minorities as history of China. If China continue to argue either neighboring countries were belong to Chinese local region or the history of neighboring countries were the Chinese local history by exaggerating Tang's system such as tributary-appointment and Jimi it should be their own view within their own country only.
Abstract
Tang(唐) tried to establish a China-centric world order by incorporating the neighboring countries into four categories according to the degree of her power infiltration: localized area, Jimifuzhou(羁縻府州), tributary-appointment relationship area, simple tributary region. If possible, Tang wanted to put the area it dominated under loclaized area that is, the jurisdiction of regular prefecture. Alternatively, Tang made out Jimifuzhou system or the loose-rein prefectures, which bestowed titles and granted authorities to local chiefs at the border of Tang proper. The third way to rule foreigners that were either voluntarily or unvoluntarily subdued was to hand out titles to the rulers of independent political entities. In exchange, Tang received an annual tribute from these countries. Simple tributary area means totally independent foreign countries over whom Tang exercised no political influence. However, the above-mentioned relations were changeable. A area under the jurisdiction of regular prefecture could be one under the Jimifuzhou as the case may be. According to diverse records of Tang, there were about three hundred countries who disappeared after paying an tribute to her. There were still seventy countries that must pay an tribute. Among them, some were simply groups that were not yet have a shape of state-country, and others, as contemporary Chinese scholars examine, were not belong to any local district of the dynasty such as Japan, Silla, Saracens, Persia, and India. Tang established 856 Jimifuzhou. But the Jimi administrative units were merely formal in that neither the dynasty appointed any central government official nor took the census in each region. The Tang dynasty did not even impose a tax both on a person and land. In this concern, it is arguable to recognize the Jimifuzhou as a local administrative unit of Tang. In other words, the argument based on the tributary-appointment relationship and the Jimi system was none the less nonsense from the outset. Furthermore, there must have been a lot of changes in character of the administration system of Tang as international power relations had been changed. Without a deep concerns about these kinds of changes, no one can insist whether Koguryo and Balhae were belong to Chinese local administrative units or were independent countries. Rather, this argument implies the current territorial problems and the minority problems. According to Chinese historical researches and textbooks, there has been a tendency to idealize the theory of unified multiethnic state. In addition, they evaluate the founding of neighboring countries as a simple development of China's peripheral local regions. If the history of neighboring countries of Tang such as East Turks, Uighur, Tibet, Koguryo and Balhae is understood as a mere development of China's peripheral local regions, this interpretation is nothing but an unilateral argument. Now, we all talks about international peace and partnership in the twenty-first century of northeast Asia. But, China, unfortunately, led up to many trobles and threats in northeast Asia due to her idealization of the theory of unified multiethnic state and making up history of the minorities as history of China. If China continue to argue either neighboring countries were belong to Chinese local region or the history of neighboring countries were the Chinese local history by exaggerating Tang's system such as tributary-appointment and Jimi it should be their own view within their own country only.
참고문헌 (62)
- 원자바오 中총리 ‘역사논쟁 있지만 학술과 정치는 별개, "경향신문", 2007
- 馬大正, "關于‘東北邊疆歷史與現狀系列硏究工程’的幾個問題,, In 中國東北邊疆硏究", pp.14~ (2003), 中國社會科學出版社
- 厲聲, "東北邊疆歷史與現狀硏究｣, 九州大學韓國硏究センター․米國韓國硏究評議會 主催, In 東北アジア邊疆歷史硏究國際會議 要旨集" (2007)
- 이희옥, "중국의 ‘동북공정’ 추진현황과 참여기관 실태, In 중국의 동북공정과 중화주의" (2005), 고구려연구재단
- 송기호, "동아시아의 역사분쟁", pp.139~168 (2007), 솔출판사
- 강현사, "중국 학계의 중국민족사 서술 분석, In 중국학자들의 소수민족 역사 서술", pp.16~ (2008), 동북아역사재단
- 胡錦濤, "在中央民族工作會議講話" (2005), 人民出版社
- 윤휘탁, "‘以古爲今’：중국의 민족문제와 중화민족 국가관", 동북아역사논총, (21), pp.185~211 (2008), 동북아역사재단
- `중앙일보 죠인스뉴스, "죠인스뉴스, 03.17, ｢올림픽 성화 ‘티베트 불씨’ 잘 넘을까｣", 중앙일보, ~ (2008)
- "04.17, ｢中, 티베트 사태로 민족주의 부활｣", 연합뉴스, ~ (2008)
- "쿠키뉴스,04.18, ｢티베트 사태로 中 애국운동 활활｣", 국민일보, ~ (2008)
- "조인스뉴스, 04.27, ｢중국 네티즌 ‘中華 민족주의’에 빠지다: 티베트 시위, 성화 봉송 사태 싸고 잇따르는 反서방 캠페인｣", 중앙일보, ~ (2008)
- "조선북스, 2008.05.17, 임지현, ｢“우리는 피해자” - 강대국 중국의 빗나간 민족주의, 중국의 신민족주의 : 자부심, 정치, 그리고 외교｣", 조선일보, ~ (2008)
- 윤휘탁, "신중화주의", pp.397~ (2006), 푸른역사
- 王珂, "민족과 국가-중국 다민족통일국가 사상의 계보", pp.289~293 (2005), 고구려연구재단
- 박장배, "중국의 ‘소수민족’ 정책과 지역구조-지역 재구성 및 ‘서부 대개발’과 관련하여, In 중국의 동북공정과 중화주의", pp.166~168 (2005), 고구려연구재단
- 조세현, "중국의 국경․영토 인식-20세기 중국의 변강사 연구", pp.191~405 (2004), 고구려연구재단
- 김유리, "개혁 개방 이후 중국의 역사교육과 ‘통일적 다민족국가’론", 북방사논총, 6, pp.245~246 (2005)
- 馬大正, "中國邊疆通史”叢書總序, In 中國邊疆通史叢書 東北通史", pp.2~ (2002), 中州古籍出版社
- 김일권, "중국 역사 교과서의 신화긍정론과 민족융합론을 통한 역사통합이론 고찰, In 중국 역사 교과서의 한국 고대사 서술 문제", pp.336~ (2006), 동북아역사재단
- "全日制普通高級中學敎科書(必修) 中國近代現代史 上冊", pp.1~ (2003), 人民敎育出版社
- 윤휘탁, "중국 중․고교 역사 교과서에 반영된 ‘중화의식’, In 중국 역사 교과서의 민족․국가․영토 문제", pp.45~47 (2006), 동북아역사재단
- 刑玉林, "1989～1998年中國古代疆域理論問題硏究綜述", 中國邊疆史地硏究, 2001(3), pp.90~93 (2000)
- 白壽彛, "論歷史上祖國國土問題的處理, In 民族宗敎論集", pp.25~28 (2001), 河北敎育出版社
- 孫祚民, "古代中國民族關係問題探究" (1992), 河南大學出版社
- 白壽彛, "中國通史", pp.79~ (1989), 上海人民出版社
- 譚其驤, "中國歷史地圖集 第一冊" (1982), 地圖出版社
- 歷史上的中國和中國歷代疆域, "譚其驤", 中國邊疆史地硏究, 34~38 (1991)
- 이개석, "현대중국 역사학 연구의 추이와 동북공정의 역사학, In 중국의 동북공정과 중화주의", pp.43~ (2004), 고구려연구재단
- 翁獨健, "民族關係史硏究中的幾個問題", 中央民族學院學報, pp.1981~1984
- 翁獨健, "中國民族關係史論文集 上集", pp.200~203 (1982), 民族出版社
- 楊建新, "沙俄最早侵占的中國領土和歷史上中國的疆域問題, In 中俄關係史論文集" (1979), 甘肅人民出版社
- 周偉洲, "歷史上的中國及其疆域, 民族問題", 雲南社會科學 (1989)
- 윤휘탁, "중국학계의 영토․민족․국가인식, In 중국의 동북공정 논리와 그 한계", pp.337~338 (2004), 국사편찬위원회
- 張碧波, "關于歷史上民族歸屬與疆域問題的再思考-兼評“一史兩用”史觀", 中國邊疆史地硏究, pp.1~5 (2000)
- 김정희, "당 전기의 화이관과 변경 정책", 중국고중세사연구, 15(15), pp.229~271 (2006), 중국고중세사학회
- 김정희, "발해사의 귀속문제와 唐代의 覊縻府州 제도", 북방사논총, 10, pp.120~125 (2006)
- 鄒逸麟, "中國多民族統一國家形成的歷史背景和地域特徵", 歷史敎學問題, pp.39~ (2000)
- 王承禮, "中國東北的渤海國與東北亞", pp.53~55 (2000), 吉林文史出版社
- 葛劍雄, "中國統一․中國分裂", pp.58~59 (1996), 신서원
- 李大龍, "漢唐藩屬體制硏究" (2006), 中國社會科學出版社
- 孫進己, "我國統一多民族國家的形成和發展", 史學集刊, pp.14~ (2001)
- 孫進己, "當前硏究高句麗歸屬的幾個問題", 東疆學刊 (2001)
- 譚其驤, "唐代羈縻州述論, In 紀念顧頡剛學術論文集", pp.562~563 (1990), 巴蜀書社
- 譚其驤, "歷史上的中國和中國歷代疆域", 中國邊疆史地硏究 (1991)
- 孫進己, "我國統一多民族國家的形成和發展", 史學集刊, pp.14~ (2001)
- 중국학계의 발해국, 발해사의 정체성 인식, 중국의 동북공정 논리와 그 한계, "김정희", 국사편찬위원회, ~ (2004)
- 孫進己, "確定歷史歸屬的意義和依據, In 高句麗學術硏討會" (2006)
- 李云泉, "朝貢制度史論-中國古代對外關係體制硏究", pp.1~ (2004), 新華出版社
- 피터윤, "서구 학계 조공제도 이론의 중국 중심적 문화론 비판", 아세아연구, 45(3), pp.269~290 (2002), 아세아문제연구소
- 김종완, "고구려의 조공과 책봉의 성격, In 고구려의 정체성" (2004), 고구려연구회
- 古畑徹, "1-7세기 왜와 중국의 조공과 책봉의 성격-일본의 중국사 연구자의 견해를 중심으로, In 고구려의 정체성" (2004), 고구려연구회
- 김유철, "중국 사서에 나타난 고구려의 국가적 정체성, In 고구려의 정체성" (2004), 고구려연구회
- 李成珪, "中國의 分裂體制模式과 東아시아 諸國", 韓國古代史論叢, pp.300~318 (1996)
- 朴漢濟, "隋唐 世界帝國과 高句麗-朝貢秩序 및 羈縻體制와 관련하여, In 한국 고대국가와 중국왕조의 조공․책봉관계", pp.127~ (2006), 고구려연구재단
- 김택민, "譯註唐六典(上) 권4", pp.462~463, 尙書禮部
- 김한규, "天下國家―전통 시대 동아시아 세계 질서", pp.118~121 (2005), 소나무
- 김정희, "당 전기의 화이관과 변경 정책", 중국고중세사연구, (15), pp.229~271 (2006), 중국고중세사학회
- 日野開三郞, "日野開三郞 東洋史學論集 第一卷, In 唐代藩鎭の支配體制", pp.32~33 (1980), 三一書房
- 栗原益男, "七․八世紀の東アジア世界, In 隋唐帝國と東アジア世界", pp.140~141 (1979), 汲古書院
- 송기호, "대외관계에서 본 발해 정권의 속성, In 한국 고대국가와 중국왕조의 조공․책봉관계", pp.222~223 (2006), 고구려연구재단