白南雲의 단군신화 인식

Abstract

Baek Nam-woon wrote The Economic History of the Joseon Society and The Economic History of the Feudal Joseon Society from the perspective of Marxist historical studies during the colonial days, trying to overcome the colonial view of history and demonstrate the universal development process of Korean history. In his “Critical Opinions of the Dangun Myth” in the introduction of his The Economic History of the Joseon Society that covered the ancient history, in particular, Baek criticized some nationalist historians including Choi Nam-seon and Shin Chae-ho for their interpretations of the myth. From the perspective of Baek that tried to systemize the Joseon history in the universality of the world history, the embodiment of the Joseon people that originated in Dangun and were represented by him was a “single particular view of cultural history” and “reactionary” view of history that was very threatening to the understanding of Joseon history based on the scientific view of history. Baek pointed out that the Dangun Myth was an outcome of the hierarchical society and was subjected to possible changes according to the times and made it clear that Dangun was neither real nor certain man or character. Even after the liberation of Korea, Baek maintained his theory on the Dangun Myth that he raised in his The Economic History of the Joseon Society. When the bourgeois nationalists tried to adopt the idea of Hongikingan as the educational ideology of the nation under the US military regime, Baek actively criticized it as a nationalist reactionary view of history that was the same as the view of history advocated by the ruling Japanese. Baek maintained his old attitude toward the Dangun Myth in his The Joseon History, which is estimated to have been written during the Korean War, and at the discussions about the myth held by the academic circles of North Korea. In the early 1960s when the historical circles of North Korea tried to connect the Dangun Myth to Gojoseon, however, his perception of the myth was under fire. This flow can be understood in the context of the historical circles of North Korea trying to reinforce the perspective of nationalist historical studies instead of Marxist historical studies in the background of “Juche” raised by Kim Il-sung those days. This process implies the circumstances in which Baek, who was a stubborn Marxist, was gradually excluded from the historical circles of North Korea.