1920-30년대 새로운 ‘동학농민전쟁상’의 형성
Formation of a New Perception of the Tonghak Peasant War during the 1920s-30s
2
조회
0
다운로드
10
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study examines how the historical features of peasant wars changed during the period spanning from the Tonghak Peasants War of 1894 to the 1920s-1930s. Peasant wars are currently perceived as having been a modern national movement that was anti-feudalistic and anti- foreign encroachment in nature. This particular perception contrasts greatly from that of the past. This is evidenced by the fact that not only was Ch´oe Cheu, the leader of the Tonghak peasants, executed for the crime of hokse mumin chwado nanjŏng (惑世誣民 左道亂正, deluding the world and deceiving the people, disturbing society with an evil religion), but the government and ruling class at the time defined the peasant soldiers as little more than bandits and marauding hordes. The current historical perception of peasant wars was formed during the days of the patriotic enlightening movement and the early period of the Japanese colonial era. More to the point, an image of peasant wars which was very similar with that which prevails today was established during the 1920s – 1930s. In this regard, the image of peasant wars that would become a part of the mainstream up to the present was formulated in the 1930s. This perception was in large part motivated by the emergence of socialists engaged in a struggle with the Ch´ŏndogyo who argued that the organizers of peasant wars were in reality using religion as a cover for their social agenda. This notion of “religion as cover” had first been introduced by Friedrich Engels in his work, <The Peasant War in Germany (Der deutsche Bauernkrieg)>. During this process, the ruling class’ perceptions of the Tonghak Peasant War and other peasant wars, which had been defined as the work of bandits and marauding hordes, underwent a significant change. On the other hand, this can also be perceived as the process through which the left and right wing elites sought to gain total control of the autonomous world and perceptions of the public (minjung), and to drag their experiences and awareness into the historical frameworks that they had respectively created. Finally, this can also be regarded as the process through which the identity of the public was suppressed and excluded.
Abstract
This study examines how the historical features of peasant wars changed during the period spanning from the Tonghak Peasants War of 1894 to the 1920s-1930s. Peasant wars are currently perceived as having been a modern national movement that was anti-feudalistic and anti- foreign encroachment in nature. This particular perception contrasts greatly from that of the past. This is evidenced by the fact that not only was Ch´oe Cheu, the leader of the Tonghak peasants, executed for the crime of hokse mumin chwado nanjŏng (惑世誣民 左道亂正, deluding the world and deceiving the people, disturbing society with an evil religion), but the government and ruling class at the time defined the peasant soldiers as little more than bandits and marauding hordes. The current historical perception of peasant wars was formed during the days of the patriotic enlightening movement and the early period of the Japanese colonial era. More to the point, an image of peasant wars which was very similar with that which prevails today was established during the 1920s – 1930s. In this regard, the image of peasant wars that would become a part of the mainstream up to the present was formulated in the 1930s. This perception was in large part motivated by the emergence of socialists engaged in a struggle with the Ch´ŏndogyo who argued that the organizers of peasant wars were in reality using religion as a cover for their social agenda. This notion of “religion as cover” had first been introduced by Friedrich Engels in his work, <The Peasant War in Germany (Der deutsche Bauernkrieg)>. During this process, the ruling class’ perceptions of the Tonghak Peasant War and other peasant wars, which had been defined as the work of bandits and marauding hordes, underwent a significant change. On the other hand, this can also be perceived as the process through which the left and right wing elites sought to gain total control of the autonomous world and perceptions of the public (minjung), and to drag their experiences and awareness into the historical frameworks that they had respectively created. Finally, this can also be regarded as the process through which the identity of the public was suppressed and excluded.
참고문헌 (80)
- 김한종, "고등학교 한국근현대사", pp.76~82 (2003), 금성출판사
- 주진오, "한국 근현대사", 중앙교육진흥연구소, 76~79 (2003)
- 케이스 젠킨스, "누구를 위한 역사인가", pp.57~ (1999), 혜안
- 배항섭, "근대를 상대화하는 방법: 민중사에서 바라보는 근대 - 『이단의 민중반란』과 『민중과 유토피아』를 읽고", 역사비평, 88(88), pp.358~380 (2009), 역사문제연구소
- 이세희, "프랑스혁명기의 농민운동에 대한 연구사적 고찰", 부대사학, 10 (1986)
- 최갑수, "프랑스혁명과 농민운동 논쟁에 대한 소고", 역사비평, (여름) (1992)
- E. P. Thompson, "The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth Century", Past and Present, (50) (1971)
- 제임스 스콧, "농민의 도덕경제" (2004), 아카넷
- 라나지트 구하, "서발턴과 봉기" (2008), 박종철출판사
- 김택현, "서발턴과 역사학비판" (2003), 박종철출판사
- 김선경, "농민전쟁 100년, 인식의 흐름", 역사학연구소, ~ (1894)
- 농민전쟁연구분과, "농민전쟁 100년의 인식과 쟁점" (1994), 거름
- 유선영, "근대적 대중의 형성과 문화의 전환", 언론과 사회, 17(1), pp.42~101 (2009), 성곡언론문화재단
- 김성보, "3ㆍ1운동", 역사문제연구소, ~
- 민족해방운동사 연구반, "쟁점과 과제: 민족해방운동사", pp.134~158 (1990), 역사비평사
- 윤경로, "1910년대 민족운동과 3ㆍ1운동", ~
- 한국역사연구회, "한국역사입문③", pp.426~442 (1996), 풀빛
- 임경석, "3.1운동 전후 한국민족주의의 변화", 역사문제연구, 4 (2000)
- 지수걸, "3.1운동과 국내 공산주의 계열의 민족해방운동", 한국독립운동사연구, 13 (1999)
- 류시현, "민족주의, 민중을 발견하다 -1920년대 민족주의 계열의 ‘민중성’ 논의와 ‘민중관’을 중심으로", 3.1운동, 기억과 기념, ~ (2009)
- "最近朝鮮에 流行하는 新術語", 개벽, (57), pp.69~70 (1925)
- "양호초토등록", ~
- "동학란기록(상)", ~
- "윤치호일기 4", 37~ (1894)
- "續陰晴史 上", 320~326
- "大韓季年史", pp.382~
- "錦營來札(雲養), 東學亂記錄 上", 85~
- 김영작, "한말내셔널리즘연구", 청계연구소, 327~ (1989)
- 東京朝日新聞, "東學黨巨魁宣告余聞’", ~ (1895)
- "獨立論(寄書)", 대조선독립협회회보, 13, pp.7~8 (1897)
- 南嵩山人, "過去의 狀況", 대한자강회월보, (11) (1907)
- 金文演, "新年希望", 대동학회월보, 2 (1908)
- 碧人 金淇驩, "日淸戰爭의 原因에 關한 韓日淸 外交史", 대한흥학보, 8, pp.36~ (1909)
- "대한매일신보, 1909년 5월 22일", ~ (1909)
- "공립신보, 1908년 12월 30일", ~ (1908)
- "신한민보, 1910년 3월 9일, 8월 3일", ~ (1910)
- 홍순권, "한말 호남지역 의병운동사 연구", pp.115~ (1994), 서울대학교 출판부
- 홍영기, "한말 호남의병연구", pp.54~ (2004), 일조각
- 黃玹, "梅泉野錄", pp.380~381 (1994), 교문사
- 박은식, "한국통사" (1999), 범우사
- 이만열, "박은식의 사학사상", 숙대 사론, 9 (1976)
- 이진경, "근대 계몽기 대한매일신보에서 근대적 역사 개념의 탄생", 사회와역사(구 한국사회사학회논문집), (74), pp.107~140 (2007), 한국사회사학회
- 최기영, "애국계몽운동 2-문화운동", 한국독립운동사편찬위원회, 220~ (2009)
- 박은식, "한국독립운동지혈사", ~ (1920)
- 박은식, "한국독립운동지혈사" (2008), 소명출판
- 최수일, "개벽연구", pp.420~432 (2008), 소명출판
- 허수, "1920년대 개벽의 정치사상-‘범인간적 민족주의’를 중심으로-", 정신문화연구, 31(3), pp.305~331 (2008), 한국학중앙연구원
- 李敦化, "混沌으로부터 統一에", 개벽, (13) (1921)
- 一記者, "甲午東學亂의 自初至終", 개벽, (68) (1926)
- 黃義敦, "民衆的 呌號의 第一聲인 甲午의 革新運動", 개벽, 22 (1922)
- 黃義敦, "民衆的呌號의 第一聲인 甲午의 革新運動(續)", 23, pp.74~ (1922)
- 壽春山人, "辛未年과 朝鮮", 별건곤, (36) (1931)
- 起瀍, "農民運動國産運動이 勃發하기까지-餓鬼의 威壓에서 解放되려하는 民衆運動의 二三", 개벽, (32), pp.46~ (1923)
- 金自立, "五百年間의 革命運動", 개벽, 70 (1926)
- 朴達成, "孫義菴의 三大快事(逸話中에서)", 별건곤, 10 (1927)
- 金自立, "五百年間의 革命運動", 개벽, 70 (1926)
- 白頭山人, "洪景來와 全琫準", 개벽, 5 (1920)
- 鄭應琫, "朝鮮은 어데로 가나? -종교계", 별건곤, 34 (1930)
- "民衆이어 自重하라", 개벽, 23, pp.3~ (1922)
- 安在鴻, "過去의 先驅者와 將來의 先驅者", 삼천리, 6~ (1929)
- 박찬승, "한국근대 정치사상사연구", pp.199~200 (1992), 역사비평사
- 李敦化, "최근 朝鮮에서 起하는 各種의 新現象", 개벽, 1, pp.14~15 (1920)
- 小春, "世界社會主義運動의 史的 記述", 개벽, 46, pp.51~52 (1924)
- 起田, "上下ㆍ尊卑ㆍ貴賤, 이것이 儒家思想의 基礎觀念이다", 개벽, 45, pp.18~ (1924)
- "人乃天主義의 主唱者 崔水雲 先生의 誕生 百年記念에 就하야", 개벽, 53 (1924)
- 文一平, "甲子以後 六十年間의 朝鮮", 43 (1924)
- 오영섭, "1940년대 후반 유물사가들의 동학농민운동인식", 동학학보, 9(2), pp.229~287 (2005), 동학학회
- 고광규, "東學黨과 甲午役", 學之光, 21, pp.56~57 (1921)
- コミンテルン, "極東勤勞者大會-日本共産黨成立の原點", pp.116~117 (1970), 合同出版
- 朴日馨, "東學黨과 東學亂-天道敎의 歷史的 考察 第一部", 신계단, 4 (1933)
- 南哲, "問題 중에 잇는 天道敎의 解剖와 展望, 그 出現과 生長", 동광, 33, pp.58~61 (1932)
- 一記者, "천도교청우당의 신계단사 습격사건과 천도교 正體 폭로비판회 조직경과", 비판, 20, pp.47~52 (1933)
- 南哲水, "조선운동과 領導權문제의 비판", 비판, 18, pp.24~25 (1932)
- 朴日馨, "東學黨과 東學亂-天道敎의 歷史的 考察 第一部", 신계단, (4), pp.66~74 (1933)
- 柳海松, "1933년과 조선운동", 비판, 20, pp.30~32 (1933)
- 南哲水, "천도교의 조선운동관 검토", 비판, 21, pp.26~30 (1933)
- 李敦化, "混沌으로부터 統一에", 개벽, (13) (1921)
- 李敦化, "混沌으로부터 統一에", 개벽, 13, pp.3~ (1921)
- 長風山人, "(近代人物評判)李商在と全琫準", 京城日報, ~ (1935)
- 柳解頌, "천도교 일파의 내용검토 비판", 비판, 21, pp.37~38 (1933)