전시 산업재해 실태와 재해보호 규정의 식민지성
The actual condition of industrial accidents and the coloniality of industrial accident protection regulations during the wartime regime
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article dealt with the historical nature of industrial accidents during the colonial period. In particular, it reviewed the actual conditions of industrial accidents and the countermeasures of colonial power during the Asian-Pacific War. Wartime industrial accidents were certainly not regarded as personal problems. The colonial power emphasized that in order to give preference to “industrial warriors,” it is necessary to treat and protect industrial accidents by enacting industrial accident protection regulations. However, even in such discourse, workers who are devoted to the “state” are not protected by the general workers. Protection against industrial accidents was not the object of general rights or social protection of workers, but a privilege enjoyed by certain classes. Hence, the “national responsibility” for industrial accidents was to cease to speak of war propaganda. Due to the necessity of mobilizing war, the “body” of Korean workers emerged as an opportunity to expand the social nature of industrial accidents. However, not only did not the protection regulations covering all workers have been established, but also discrimination and exclusion based on colonialism were the basis, so it can be seen that the sociality of industrial accidents was rather regressed.
Abstract
This article dealt with the historical nature of industrial accidents during the colonial period. In particular, it reviewed the actual conditions of industrial accidents and the countermeasures of colonial power during the Asian-Pacific War. Wartime industrial accidents were certainly not regarded as personal problems. The colonial power emphasized that in order to give preference to “industrial warriors,” it is necessary to treat and protect industrial accidents by enacting industrial accident protection regulations. However, even in such discourse, workers who are devoted to the “state” are not protected by the general workers. Protection against industrial accidents was not the object of general rights or social protection of workers, but a privilege enjoyed by certain classes. Hence, the “national responsibility” for industrial accidents was to cease to speak of war propaganda. Due to the necessity of mobilizing war, the “body” of Korean workers emerged as an opportunity to expand the social nature of industrial accidents. However, not only did not the protection regulations covering all workers have been established, but also discrimination and exclusion based on colonialism were the basis, so it can be seen that the sociality of industrial accidents was rather regressed.
참고문헌 (26)
- 長澤秀, "戰時下强制連行極祕資料集:-석탄산업 내부문서" (1996), 錄蔭書房
- 朝鮮勞務協會, "朝鮮勞務", ~ (1942)
- 朝鮮總督府殖産局, "朝鮮鑛業の趨勢", ~ (1938)
- 朝鮮總督府學務局社會科, "工場及鑛山に於ける勞動狀況調査", ~ (1933)
- 朝鮮土木建築協會, "朝鮮土木建築業協會報", ~ (1934)
- 桶口雄一, "戰時下朝鮮勞務動員基礎資料集 1~5" (2000), 錄蔭書房
- 大西淸治, "就業制限と災害扶助" (1939), 保健衛生協會
- 若命銳一, "産業災害の統計的硏究" (1944), 東洋書館
- "동아일보", ~
- "매일신보"
- "조선신문"
- 민족문제연구소, "일제하전시체제기정책사료총서" (2001)
- 강동진, "일제 지배하의 한국노동자의 생활상", 한국학보, 43 (1969)
- 姜在彦, "朝鮮における日窒コンツエルン" (1985), 不二出版
- 김미현, "1930 36년 일제의 노동통제정책", 석사, pp.1998
- 김봉국, "이승만 정부 초기 애도-원호정치: 애도의 독점과 균열 그리고 그 양가성", 역사문제연구, 20(1), pp.467~510 (2016), 역사문제연구소
- 김영근, "일제하 한국이 사회계급과 사회변동" (1988), 문학과지성사
- 박기주, "植民地期 朝鮮의 石炭 需給構造와 政策", 대동문화연구, (67), pp.545~593 (2009), 대동문화연구원[DOI]
- 宣在源, "植民地と雇用制度-1920˙30年代 朝鮮と日本の比較史的考察", 博士, pp.1996
- 송병건, "산업재해의 탄생" (2015), 해남
- 안승현, "일제강점기(1933 1938) 한국노동소설전집" (1995), 보고사
- 안자코 유카, "조선총독부의 '총동원체제'(1937~1945) 형성 정책", 박사, 사학, pp.2006
- 이병례, "아시아-태평양전쟁기 ‘산업전사’이념의 형상화와 재현", 史叢(사총), (94), pp.33~80 (2018), 역사연구소[DOI]
- 이상의, "일제강점기 ‘노자협조론’과 공장법 논의", 국사관논총, 94 (2000), 국사편찬위원회
- 정혜경, "일제말기 홋카이도(北海道) 스미토모(住友) 고노마이(鴻之舞) 광업소 조선인 노무자 노동재해 관련 기록물 연구", 韓日民族問題硏究, (30), pp.59~101 (2016), 한일민족문제학회
- 허수열, "개발 없는 개발" (2005), 은행나무
