일제 강점기 일본인과 한국인의 ‘한국 근대사’ 서술
The Historiography of Korean Modern History by the Japanese and the Korean Historians during the Japanese Rule
1
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper is an attempt to explore the historiographical origin of the present image of Korean modern history by comparing Korean modern history writings by the Japanese and Korean scholarship during the Japanese rule over Korea. Both scholarships, delving into modern history, focused their writings on state, nation, and international relations. Both described Korean government and the relatives of Myoung-Song Empress(明成皇后) as incompetent agents responsible for the invasion of foreign powers, while the Korean nation as a weak, factious agent. As for the Qing Dynasty, the Japanese historians described it as hinderance to the peace of Asia and Japan’s expansion, while Koreans described it as an obstacle to the Korean independence and reform. In the meantime, the Japanese scholarship created a positive image of Japan as a peace maker of Asia who was assisting the independence and reform of Korea. Of course, an opposite view was developed by the Korean scholarship. This frame was unintentionally inherited by Korean historians in the post-colonial period. Moreover, they evaded to describe, intentionally or unintentionally, criticism of Qing as well as the internal cause of the collapse of the Korean Empire, while their predecessors did not. I argue that the fear of being condemned as a colonialist historian prohibited them from describing the unpleasant facts. They could debunk this incantation of modern Korean historiography only when they exit from the nation-state frame identifying people and territory.
Abstract
This paper is an attempt to explore the historiographical origin of the present image of Korean modern history by comparing Korean modern history writings by the Japanese and Korean scholarship during the Japanese rule over Korea. Both scholarships, delving into modern history, focused their writings on state, nation, and international relations. Both described Korean government and the relatives of Myoung-Song Empress(明成皇后) as incompetent agents responsible for the invasion of foreign powers, while the Korean nation as a weak, factious agent. As for the Qing Dynasty, the Japanese historians described it as hinderance to the peace of Asia and Japan’s expansion, while Koreans described it as an obstacle to the Korean independence and reform. In the meantime, the Japanese scholarship created a positive image of Japan as a peace maker of Asia who was assisting the independence and reform of Korea. Of course, an opposite view was developed by the Korean scholarship. This frame was unintentionally inherited by Korean historians in the post-colonial period. Moreover, they evaded to describe, intentionally or unintentionally, criticism of Qing as well as the internal cause of the collapse of the Korean Empire, while their predecessors did not. I argue that the fear of being condemned as a colonialist historian prohibited them from describing the unpleasant facts. They could debunk this incantation of modern Korean historiography only when they exit from the nation-state frame identifying people and territory.
참고문헌 (41)
- 朴殷植, "백암박은식전집 제1권" (2002), 동방미디어
- 李宣根, "朝鮮最近世史" (1931), 漢城圖書株式會社
- 張道斌, "甲午東學亂과 全琫準" (1926), 德興書林
- 張道斌, "壬午軍亂과 甲申政變" (1927), 德興書林
- 張道斌, "汕耘張道斌全集 卷一" (1928), 汕耘紀念事業會
- 崔南善, "六堂 崔南善 全集 10" (2005), 도서출판 역락
- 洪以燮, "洪以燮全集 4" (1994), 연세대학교 출판문화원
- 黃義敦, "新編 朝鮮歷史" (1923), 以文堂
- 黃義敦, "中等 朝鮮歷史" (1926), 鴻文園
- 林泰輔, "朝鮮近世史 卷下" (1901), 吉川印刷工場
- 杉本正介, "朝鮮史大系 最近世事" (1927), 朝鮮史學會
- 信夫淳平, "韓半島" (1901), 東京堂書店
- 조동걸, "현대한국사학사" (1998), 나남출판
- 이영화, "최남선의 역사학" (2003), 경인문화사
- 도면회, "역사학의 세기: 20세기 한국과 일본의 역사학" (2009), 휴머니스트
- 류시현, "최남선연구" (2009), 역사비평사
- 김종준, "식민사학과 민족사학의 관학아카데미즘" (2013), 소명출판
- 윤해동, "식민주의 역사학과 제국" (2016), 책과함께
- 구선희, "갑신정변 직후 반청정책과 청의 원세개 파견", 사학연구, 51 (1996)
- 구선희, "청일전쟁 직전 조선 ‘속방’ 문제와 조·청 관계", 사학연구, 54 (1997)
- 김성민, "조선사편수회의 조직과 운동", 민족운동사연구, 3 (1989)
- 김정기, "조선정부의 청차관 도입(1882-1894)", 한국사론, 3 (1976)
- 김정기, "병선장정의 강행(1888. 2)에 대하여", 한국사연구, 24 (1979)
- 김정기, "청의 조선 종주권 문제와 내정 간섭", 역사비평, 5 (1988)
- 김종준, "식민사학의 ‘한국근대사’ 서술과 ‘한국병합’ 인식", 역사학보, (217), pp.245~274 (2013), 역사학회
- 김창수, "汕耘 張道斌의 東學農民革命 認識", 東學硏究, 5 (1999)
- 노관범, "1910년대 한국 유교지식인의 중국 인식 - 柳麟錫, 朴殷植, 李炳憲을 중심으로 -", 민족문화, 40(40), pp.7~39 (2012), 한국고전번역원
- 노관범, "『韓國痛史』의 時代思想 －自强, 人道, 革命의 삼중주－", 한국사상사학, (33), pp.325~351 (2009), 한국사상사학회
- 노관범, "『한국통사』의 한국근대사론", 백암학보, 3 (2010)
- 박영석, "海圓 黃義敦의 민족주의사학", 산운사학, (창간) (1985)
- 박종린, "‘朝鮮史’의 서술과 역사지식 대중화 - 黃義敦의 『中等朝鮮歷史』를 중심으로", 역사문제연구, 18(1), pp.212~238 (2014), 역사문제연구소
- 신용하, "朴殷植의 愛國啓蒙思想과 民族主義歷史觀", 한국민족운동사연구, 10 (1994)
- 신용하, "박은식의 역사관(하)", 역사학보, 91 (1981)
- 연갑수, "1894년농민전쟁연구 제3권" (1994), 역사비평사
- 윤병희, "한국사학논총 하" (1992), 탐구당
- 장신, "조선총독부의 朝鮮半島史편찬사업 연구", 동북아역사논총, (23), pp.349~387 (2009), 동북아역사재단
- 정상우, "조선총독부의 『조선사』 편찬 사업", 박사, 국사학, pp.2011
- 정준영, "식민사관의 차질(蹉跌) －조선사학회와 1920년대 식민사학의 제도화－", 韓國史學史學報, (34), pp.235~270 (2016), 한국사학사학회
- 조동걸, "식민사학의 성립과정과 근대사 서술", 역사교육논집, 13ㆍ14 (1990)
- 조병로, "汕耘 張道斌의 近世史 認識", 汕耘史學, 3 (1989)
- "‘올바른 역사교과서’ 운운은 역사에 대한 무지의 소치" (2015)[URL]