개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 저널정보
- 역사교육연구회 역사교육 歷史敎育 第163輯
- 발행연도
- 2022.9
- 수록면
- 69 - 107 (39page)
- DOI
- 10.18622/kher.2022.09.163.69
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
As the Cold War system was established after World War II, American academia’s interest in East Asia as well as Korea, the front line of the Cold War, increased. Establishment of East Asian research institutes, new courses and professorship as well as the publication of Korean Studies Guide in the 1950s, shows considerable interest in East Asia and Korea in American academia right after World War II. Especially, the fact that Suematsu’s 『朝鮮史のしるべ』(1936) and Hatada’s 『朝鮮史』(1951) were translated and published in the days when there were very few Korean history books in English in the academic field, are an implication of the relation between the colonial historiography in pre-war Japan and post war Korean studies in the U.S. These two books, known to American academia by the Korean Studies Guide and its writers, received conflicting reviews from the time they were first introduced and even after the release of the book. A Short History of Korea was welcomed as a textbook and reference material in the absence of an English history book, but A History of Korea was evaluated as a fresh and objective Korean history book because it was not only based on socioeconomic perspectives but also described in strict criticism of colonial rule.
Indeed, the two books revealed a clear difference in their description and composition, but they were common in that they negatively portrayed Korean history based on the study by former Japanese researchers. Hatada’s work based on socioeconomic perspectives was in line with the theory of lack of feudalism, which Japanese historians argued in the past, that the production relationship revealed in Korean history was developmental but centered on ancient production until the late Joseon Dynasty. This discussion was to find the reason why only Japan could succeed in modernization through feudalism from the time it first appeared by Japanese researchers in the early 20th century, which could lead to the modernization theory that emerged in American academia after the war. In addition, both books deal with the pressure and aggression of foreign forces on Korea as important historical nodes, which have resulted in not only emphasizing the heteronomy of Korean history but also explaining the development of Japanese history. The establishment of the Four Chinese Commanderies(Hansagun), and the Imjin War was a representative basis that not only showed Korea suffering from foreign invasion, but also described as a major phase revealing the historical relationship between the island country Japan and the continent. This was based on the research of former Japanese historians who tried to explain the history of Tōyō(東洋) centered on Japan, and could also be linked to the U.S. policy of pursuing U.S. hegemony and national interests in postwar East Asia.
In conclusion, A Short History of Korea and A History of Korea are not only based on the identity and heteronomy of Korean history, but also faithful to the perspective of former Japanese historians in that they explain the historical relationship between Japan and the continent through Korean history. The reason why these works were able to be distributed to American academia was that the discussion of colonial historiography could easily match the U.S. policy and modernization theory that tried to carry out the security and U.S. national interests in East Asia with Japan as a policy partner.
Indeed, the two books revealed a clear difference in their description and composition, but they were common in that they negatively portrayed Korean history based on the study by former Japanese researchers. Hatada’s work based on socioeconomic perspectives was in line with the theory of lack of feudalism, which Japanese historians argued in the past, that the production relationship revealed in Korean history was developmental but centered on ancient production until the late Joseon Dynasty. This discussion was to find the reason why only Japan could succeed in modernization through feudalism from the time it first appeared by Japanese researchers in the early 20th century, which could lead to the modernization theory that emerged in American academia after the war. In addition, both books deal with the pressure and aggression of foreign forces on Korea as important historical nodes, which have resulted in not only emphasizing the heteronomy of Korean history but also explaining the development of Japanese history. The establishment of the Four Chinese Commanderies(Hansagun), and the Imjin War was a representative basis that not only showed Korea suffering from foreign invasion, but also described as a major phase revealing the historical relationship between the island country Japan and the continent. This was based on the research of former Japanese historians who tried to explain the history of Tōyō(東洋) centered on Japan, and could also be linked to the U.S. policy of pursuing U.S. hegemony and national interests in postwar East Asia.
In conclusion, A Short History of Korea and A History of Korea are not only based on the identity and heteronomy of Korean history, but also faithful to the perspective of former Japanese historians in that they explain the historical relationship between Japan and the continent through Korean history. The reason why these works were able to be distributed to American academia was that the discussion of colonial historiography could easily match the U.S. policy and modernization theory that tried to carry out the security and U.S. national interests in East Asia with Japan as a policy partner.
목차
1. 序言
2. 미국학계에 소개된 한국사 연구서와 영역판의 등장
3. 한국사 서술의 이면 - 일본사를 위한 한국사
4. 結語
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
동양, 탈아와 정체, 아시아연대와 타율 - 식민주의 역사학에 대한 단상
역사비평
2023 .02
-
‘발전’을 문제 삼기 ―‘발전사(History of Development)’ 연구의 전개와 동향
역사비평
2021 .02
-
공공역사 논의의 한국적 맥락과 공공역사가들
역사비평
2021 .08
-
Mapping World History in Korea
The Asian review of world histories
2015 .01
-
한국사 연구와 역사교육에서 정체성과 역동성, 공동체 정신
역사교육
2016 .06
-
한국 공공역사 연구의 가능성과 지향
역사비평
2024 .08
-
최근 대만 역사교과서의 한국사 인식 변화 - 101과강 『선수역사(選修歷史)』와 108과강 『역사(歷史)2』 비교 분석
동북아역사논총
2021 .03
-
Japanese Perspectives on "Global History"
The Asian review of world histories
2015 .01
-
공공역사로서의 구술사와 지역사
역사비평
2022 .05
-
학습내용구성 관점에서 본 최근 역사교육의 민주시민교육논의 : 대안적 구성 방향의 모색
역사교육논집
2018 .01
-
사학사의 관점에서 본 국내 중국 환경사 연구
韓國史學史學報
2022 .12
-
한국의 2015 개정 교육과정과 일본의 현행 국가교육과정 비교 연구: 역사 교육과정을 중심으로
전북사학
2018 .01
-
공공역사가로서의 역사교사를 말하다
역사비평
2022 .05
-
한국사와 역사철학
유라시아문화
2020 .08
-
역사학은 어떻게 “예능”이 되었나 : 2000년대 이후 한국사의 대중화와 TV 미디어의 여러 문제들
한국사연구
2018 .12
-
한국사 수능 필수화 이후 고등학교 역사수업
역사교육
2018 .09
-
일본사 관련 학습요소 체계화를 위한 방안 모색
역사교육
2019 .12
-
World history가 아닌 Global history
동서인문
2021 .04
-
지속가능한 발전을 위한 역사교육 - 환경사와 역사교육의 연대를 위한 제언
역사비평
2022 .02
-
‘학습부담 경감’으로 포장된 역사교육의 퇴행 : 세계사와 동아시아사 내용 구성의 문제점
역사비평
2015 .11
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
동양, 탈아와 정체, 아시아연대와 타율 - 식민주의 역사학에 대한 단상
정상우
역사비평
2023
.02
역사 속의 비인간: 포스트휴머니즘 역사학의 현황과 쟁점
송충기
역사학보
2022
.12
중국 국가건설 100년의 역정과 역사학(Ⅰ) - 천하 패러다임의 해체와 근대 역사학 -
전인갑
역사학보
2022
.12
동아시아론을 넘어 동아시아에 직면하기 : 강상규 지음, 『동아시아 역사학 선언: 근대 동아시아에 나타난 역사적 전환들』(에피스테메, 2021)을 읽고
김인수
아시아리뷰
2022
.08
장-자크 루소의 자기 편애의 추론적 역사학 : 혁명과 전쟁
안두환
정치사상연구
2021
.11
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0