2026-09-09

* 민족사학 - 朝鮮民族主義歴史学 Korean nationalist historiography

* 민족사학 - 朝鮮民族主義歴史学 Korean nationalist historiography

민족사학 - 위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전

민족사학

위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.

민족사학(民族史學)에는 두 가지 의미가 있다.

 첫째, 일제강점기에 민족주의 이념에 기초하여 한민족의 우수성과 자율 주체적인 발전을 강조하고 민족사의 기원을 밝힌 국사학의 한 이념을 말한다. 역사관으로서의 성격과 함께 재야사학과 연결되는 경향이 있다. 이는 근대적인 민족(nation) 개념에 입각한 역사관으로 단재 신채호 이래 독립운동기의 학자들과 20세기 중반 군사정권의 조국근대화 시기에 민족만들기(nation-building)에 동원된 학자들로 양분할 수 있다.

두 번째로는 ethnohistory에 대한 번역술어로서 이는 독일 민족학(ethnology)과 독일 역사학이 결합하여 탄생한 분야로 미국의 역사인류학과 유사하다. ethnohistory가 집단의 특수성에 주목한다면 역사인류학은 개인의 기억과 내러티브에 더 비중을 둔다. 최근에는 ethnohistory를 종족사학으로도 번역한다. 한국에서는 민족사학을 말할 때 일반적으로 전자의 의미로 사용된다.

개요

한국사를 태생에서부터 고대 중국의 식민지배에서 출발했다는 관점에 보는 식민사학을 일제가 강조하였을때, 민족사학자들이 내세운 사학으로, 그 바탕은 실학자에게서부터 시작한다.

초기의 민족사학은 위대한 왕과 용맹한 장수 등의 영웅으로 역사가 발전하였다는 전근대적인 경향을 지니고 있었으나, 사학자 박은식의 근대 이후 일제의 침략과정을 서술한 《한국통사》와 독립운동 사서인 《한국독립운동지혈사》으로써 민족사학을 정립하였다.

독립운동을 직접 전개하기도 하였던 신채호는 《조선사연구초》, 《조선상고사》 등을 펴냄으로써 '고구려를 비롯한 고대국가에는 민족적 패기가 있었으나 중세로 오면서 사대주의가 깊어졌다'고 하는 혁명적 역사관을 내세웠다. 신채호는 묘청의 서경천도운동을 '조선역사 1천년래 제1대사건'이라 평가하였다.

박은식, 신채호를 통해 정립된 민족사학은 정인보, 장도빈, 안재홍, 문일평 등에 의해 계승되어 식민사관에 맞섰다.

같이 보기

참고 문헌 및 링크


===

朝鮮民族主義歴史学

出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
申采浩(1880-1936)、朝鮮の民族主義歴史学の最も初期の提唱者

朝鮮民族主義歴史学（ちょうせんみんぞくしゅぎれきしがく）は、民族的または人種的に定義された朝鮮民族を中心とした、朝鮮の歴史を民族主義的な歴史観に基づいて研究したものである。

概要

この種の歴史学は、20世紀初頭に、日本の支配から朝鮮の独立を達成するために、民族意識を育成したい朝鮮の知識人の間で出現した。その最初の提唱者は、ジャーナリストで独立運動家だった申采浩(1880-1936)である。彼の主張にある壇君は13世紀に『三国遺事』によって創作された人物であるが、申は、朝鮮が日本の保護国となった3年後の1908年に出版された彼の論争的な『読史新論』(ko:독사신론)で、朝鮮の歴史は、壇君を人種的な祖神とする朝鮮民族の歴史であり、檀君はかつて朝鮮半島だけでなく満洲の大部分も支配したと宣言した。民族主義の歴史家は、これらの古代の「朝鮮」王国の領土に拡張主義的な主張をし、それにより民族の現状が裁かれた。

申や朴殷植(1859-1925)と崔南善(1890-1957)他の朝鮮の知識人は、1910年代と1920年代に、これらのテーマを発展させ続けた。それまで過去の歴史において朝鮮を説明し表現する2つの方法があった。1つは、中国の歴史学、もう1つが日本の歴史学である。しかし彼らは、中国歴史学は中国を中心とした卑屈な世界観を永続させる李氏朝鮮の両班の儒教的歴史学であり、日本歴史学は朝鮮を歴史上従属的で文化的に遅れていると描く植民地歴史学であると断じ、その両方を拒否した。

これらの戦前の民族主義の歴史家の仕事が、北朝鮮と韓国の両方で戦後の歴史学を形作ってきた。両国のイデオロギーの相違にもかかわらず、両国の支配的な歴史学は、1960年代以降、民族主義的なテーマを反映し続け、この共通の歴史的な態度が朝鮮統一交渉の基礎となっている。日本の植民地的学問を拒絶しようとする過程で、朝鮮の民族主義歴史家はその前提の多くを採用してきた。しかし、申采浩の満洲への失地回復主義的(en:irredentism)要求は、主流になっていない。

李基白（朝鮮語: 이기백、西江大学）は、「民族主義歴史学の歴史的意義は、民族概念の発見にある。民族主義史学は日本帝国主義の下で国家としての自覚や民族独立運動を思想的に支える貢献をした」としつつも、「民族主義歴史学の問題は、過度な民族概念の固有性の強調にあり、民族主義歴史学の先駆者である申采浩は歴史を『我』と『無我』の闘争とみている。今日、無批判に追従する場合、韓国は世界から孤立する危険性がある。民族主義歴史学の欠点は、歴史的発展という観念が欠如していることであり、民族主義歴史学のもつ歴史の時間的認識は、民族意識の強弱と闘争の勝敗だけであり、客観的な妥当性がなく、主観的な信念を重視する傾向も顕著となった」と評している[1]。

朝鮮民族主義歴史学の歴史

先駆者(1895年以前)

朝鮮王朝の後半の間に、多くの個々の学者は中華思想から脱し、朝鮮の独自性と独立性をより意識した[2]。この傾向は「実学」として知られるようになった。20世紀初頭における民族主義歴史学の台頭の最も重要な先駆者は、「実学」運動による中華思想の浸食だった。

非中華思想的歴史学思想は、洪大容(1731-1783)、丁若鏞(1762-1836)、朴趾源、柳得恭(ko:유득공)(1749-1807)、そして李種徽(이종휘)(1731-1786)の学者の作品で起り始めた。洪大容は、中国が他の全ての国よりも優れているという中華思想の神聖な考えに反論し、全ての国は対等であると主張した[3]。同時代の丁若鏞、洪大容は、文化的に優れた国はどこでも自国を「中心」と定義できると主張し、さらに、朝鮮は既に文化の発展がそのレベルに達しており「中心」と呼ぶことができると主張し、中国の古典だけではなく『三国史記』などの朝鮮の著作の教育の追加を強調した。朴趾源は、当時の一般的な朝鮮の歴史家は中国を国際システムの中心に置く朱熹の新儒教の枠組みにとらわれていると主張した[4]。朴趾源は、鴨緑江を越えて満洲に広がる朝鮮の歴史的領土の新鮮な視点を提供した[5]。李圭景(ko:이규경)(1788-1856)は、独立した国家意識の解釈の枠組みの中で、朝鮮の包括的な歴史を書いて、知識人に訴えた[6]。

最も代表的な「実学」歴史学の著作は、安鼎福の『東史綱目』(ko:동사강목)で、新儒教の枠組みで書かれているが、李氏朝鮮初期とその支配者に対し弁解的というよりも批判的な調子で表した[7]。

1895-1945

日本の植民地歴史学

日本の主流の歴史学は、1887年にドイツ人ルートヴィヒ・リースにより導入された西洋の歴史学と、江戸時代(1603-1868)から日本で確立していた中国の考証学の伝統との融合から生まれた[8]。日本の東洋史に関する歴史学は、白鳥庫吉(1865-1942)率いる分野だった。白鳥庫吉は、西洋のオリエンタリストの中国と朝鮮の否定的な描写を引き継ぎながら、日本をアジアや西洋と分離して西洋と対等に立つものと分類した[9][10]。朝鮮の歴史家が日本の「植民地歴史学」と呼ぶものが、日鮮同祖論を主張した東京帝国大学の1890年の日本史『国史眼』に見られる。『国史眼』は、『古事記』や『日本書紀』に基づき、スサノオや神武天皇の兄弟や神功皇后という伝説的な人物が新羅を支配したと主張した[8][10]。このような朝鮮の日本への歴史的従属の見解が日本の歴史学界で広く受け入れられ[11]、日本の国家の歴史に不可欠となり[10]、大鳥圭介の『朝鮮紀聞』(1885)、林泰輔の『朝鮮史』(1892)など明治時代(1868-1912)のほかの本でも同様の主張が見られる[12]。朝鮮に関する日本の歴史学のもう一つのテーマは朝鮮の後進性であり、1902年に経済学者福田徳三が最初に議論した。福田徳三は、朝鮮は日本の平安時代(794-1185)と同等だと言った[11]。

1876年の日朝修好条規から、日本は朝鮮の問題に関わりを増した[11]。日露戦争後1905年に満洲を日本の植民地に開き、日本は一体化した「満鮮史」の概念を促進し始めた[12]。「満鮮史」の学説は、稲葉岩吉が1920年代から1930年代に発展させ、朝鮮は政治経済でさまざまな勢力に他律的に服従し「独立性と独創性」を欠いていたとされた[11]。1915年に朝鮮総督府中枢院を通じて朝鮮歴史学への帝国の公式の関与が始まった[20]。日本の朝鮮総督斎藤実は、1919年の三・一運動の以後の「文化抑制」政策の一部として、申采浩、崔南善、李光洙などの朝鮮の民族史学家を対象とした[12][13]。朝鮮総督府学務局は、35巻の『朝鮮人』と呼ばれる作品を発表し、朝鮮人は日本に同化されるべきであると主張した。日本の知識人はこの目的のために朝鮮人の名前を日本風に変える（創氏改名）よう提唱した[13]。1922年に、総督は、委員会を設置し『朝鮮史』35巻をまとめた[12]。『朝鮮史』は主に中国、日本、朝鮮の史料からの引用で構成されており、日本統治時代の朝鮮で歴史研究の一次資料として使用された[11]。日本の行政官は朝鮮半島の歴史的価値がある遺物を調査し(古蹟調査事業)、また、朝鮮文化の民間信仰の檀君の姿を反証しようとした[12]。日本の歴史学における朝鮮人の一般的描写は、事大主義、あるいは外国勢力、特に中国に対して非常に卑屈であることだった[14]。

申采浩と朝鮮民族主義歴史学

論客である申采浩(1880-1936)は、学術的理由ではなく政治的理由で、儒教的歴史学と日本の植民地的学問の両方に不満を感じ、その代わりの分析対象として朝鮮「人種」(民族)を提唱した[15][16]。申は、数世紀にわたる中国への歴史的、政治的、文化的依存性の結果として、同時代の朝鮮人が「奴隷精神」を持っていると信じた。彼は、朝鮮民族と国家が集団的政治活動に向けて刺激されるように、アイデンティティの治療法を処方した[16]。

申采浩は、北朝鮮と朝鮮の両方で、朝鮮民族を朝鮮歴史学の中心とした最初の歴史家として記されている[17][18]。朝鮮研究者チャールズ K. アームストロング(en:Charles K. Armstrong)は、申が現代朝鮮歴史学の父と考えられていると述べている[19]。申は典型的な儒教教育を受け、1910年の日韓併合の後に朝鮮を去り中国に行った[18]。彼は、高句麗遺跡と国境の中国側の白頭山(長白山)を訪れて触発され、1936年に亡くなるまで亡命者として朝鮮民族主義の論文を発表した[18][19]。

日本統治時代の朝鮮人に影響を与えた新たな知的潮流のうち、中国の歴史家である梁啓超が広めた社会ダーウィニズムの翻訳が、申采浩、崔南善、朴殷植のような民族主義のジャーナリスト、歴史家の間に影響を及ぼした。梁は、世界は、アングロサクソンやドイツ人のように拡張主義で影響力のある民族と、弱く重要でない民族に分けられると教えた[20]。生存競争、適者生存(弱肉強食)、自然選択(天択)のテーマは、申自身の歴史観だけでなく、中国の洋務運動や日本の明治維新に似た朝鮮の「自強運動」にも影響を与えた[21]。申は梁の『中国歴史研究法』(1922)からも影響を受け、申の多くの方法はそこから由来する[22]。彼は、儒教の伝統の御用達を「退廃」し古代の「朝鮮」拡張主義の王国である高句麗に遡る朝鮮の「男らしい」伝統から切り離されたと非難し、それを壊す彼自身の朝鮮史を書いた[23]。申は、儒教歴史学、特に金富軾と彼の新羅寄りの偏向が、満洲の領土への朝鮮の正当な要求を抑制したと感じた[21]。申は、満洲は、高句麗の領土だっただけではなく、朝鮮史の中心舞台で、「民族」の強さの尺度だと考えた[24]。さらに、申によると、朝鮮人が立ち上がって再び満洲を征服しなくなった原因は、この歴史記述であり、その結果「偉大な国が小さな国になり、偉大な民族が小さな民族になった」[25]。彼はまた、儒者の「新史体」教科書も批判した。それは、日本に好意を持たなかったにもかかわらず、日本の歴史書を翻訳し、日本の世界観を反映したものである[15][21]。彼はまた、汎アジア主義を日本の拡張主義の口実として批判し、東アジアを連帯の基盤ではなく単なる地理的な単位とみなした[26]。その結果、彼は歴史学は「民族の精神と自立を促進すべきである」と主張し、彼の新しい歴史は、王朝の盛衰ではなく、「民族の闘争」と、中国と日本からの朝鮮の独立性の両方を強調した[27]。同様に仲間の歴史家朴殷植(1859–1925)と張志暎(ko:장지영)も、歴史的朝鮮の想像された勇敢な伝統を再現するため、両班の「奴隷的文化思想」を是正しようとした[28]。

日本の併合の後、何人かの朝鮮の知識人は、新たな権力との積極的な協力や公然の抵抗よりも、隠退して過去の朝鮮の文化の広がりを賛美する生活を選んだ。朝鮮光文会(ko:조선 광문회)の創設者である崔南善と朴殷植は、「民族史学家」と呼ばれた新しい歴史学派の代表者であり、朝鮮王朝の衰退を嘆き、朝鮮の独立を達成するために民族意識を高めようとした[29][30][31]。この運動の重要な人物の多くは、歴史家と呼ばれるが正式な歴史学の訓練を受けておらず、「客観的歴史的な批判の厳格なテストに耐える可能性がほとんどない」極端な主張をし、歴史を朝鮮の独立を達成するための政治的武器だと見ていた[29][30]。申采浩は、しばしば、彼の過去の朝鮮の自律性の理想を支えるために既存の歴史と神話を書き換え、それが見つからなかったり反対のものがあった場合は記録が「失われた」とか「偽造された」せいにしたが、その手法は彼が金富軾が使ったと非難したものだった[32]。これらの歴史家は、宮廷公認の『三国史記』より民間伝承的な『三国遺事』を出典として好み[33]、『三国史記』の編集者を儒教と事大主義(親中)の目的のために朝鮮史を歪曲したと非難した[34][35]。崔の歴史研究は、彼自身は公平だと信じていたが、朝鮮が外国の支配下にあった期間を強調する日本の国学に反論しようとする願望によって動機づけられていた[29]。民族主義学者の中で、申は、中国を低く見る支那という呼称の使用を含めて、日本の学問の手法を適応させることを選んだ[36]。別の朝鮮民族主義者、安廓(ko:안확)は、日本の歴史学説を逆転させ、李氏朝鮮後期の派閥主義は現代政党政治の初期形態だったなどと主張した[37]。1914年、金教獻(ko:김교헌)は、『神檀民史』(ko:신단민사)という檀君から李氏朝鮮後期までの朝鮮最初の民族主義の歴史書を書いた[38]。日本の検閲のため、民族主義的歴史書は反植民地の抵抗と融合した[39]。

朝鮮の歴史家は、日本の植民地主義歴史学は、日本の朝鮮の植民地化を正当化するために、次の4つの主要な歪曲をしたと非難した。朝鮮史の主役を中国、満洲、日本とした事(他律性論)、朝鮮社会を停滞した封建制以前のものとさえ描いた事(停滞性論)、朝鮮の政治文化の中の派閥主義を記述した事(党派性論)、朝鮮人と日本人の祖先が共通だと主張した事(日鮮同祖論)である[8]。李基白(ko:이기백)は、日本の植民地主義的歴史学を「停滞、未開発、半島党派主義と非独創性」の前提から生じたと要約した[40]。

申の死後に彼のやり方に従った歴史家は「朝鮮研究」運動の「新民族主義者」と呼ばれる。1930年代に、マルクス主義歴史学と、西洋的な科学的研究法を含む、別の学派が登場した(震檀学会)(ko:진단학회)[41]。李丙燾(ko:이병도)、李相佰(ko:이상백 (1904년))、金庠基(김상기)、金錫亨(김석형)、を含む震檀学会の学者は、日本の大学か、ソウルの京城帝国大学で訓練を受け、日本の雑誌に執筆し、客観主義のランケ的思想で、日本の植民地歴史学に挑戦した[42]。一方、新民族主義者は、鄭寅普(ko:정인보)や安在鴻のような人々を含んでいた。鄭寅普は、朝鮮や日本の大学の社会科学学部ではなく、中国古典教育を受けていた。彼らは、鄭が「依存心」(他心)と表現した新儒教や西洋風の学問と対照的なものとして「独立した自己の精神」(自心)を強調した[43]。

第二次世界大戦後

第二次世界大戦の日本の降伏は、朝鮮に独立を手渡したが、半島はすぐにイデオロギー的に反対の北朝鮮と韓国に分割された。まず、北では階級分析に焦点を当てたマルクス主義の歴史家が歴史記述を支配し、南では李承晩の強硬な反共産主義政府(1948–1960)が「民族」概念を歴史学の中心ではなくした[44]。北朝鮮では、朝鮮戦争のすぐ後の1950年代に、民族主義分析が階級分析に取って代わった[45]。韓国では、1960年の李承晩政権崩壊(四月革命 (韓国))と、1965年の日本との国交正常化(日韓基本条約)により起こった反日抗議が、「統一の枠組み」として「民族」を復活させ、反植民地歴史学を発展させた[46]。それ以来、南北両方の歴史学は、両国間のイデオロギーの相違にもかかわらず、「広く普及した強烈な民族主義的傾向」を示してきた[47]。この共有された歴史的見解は、2000年6月に両国首脳が朝鮮統一は歴史的義務だと述べたように、北朝鮮と韓国の関係の背景となっている[48]。

北朝鮮

1945年の独立後、韓国の歴史学と比較して「はるかに好戦的」な北朝鮮の歴史学の民族主義の傾向は、マルクス主義より民族主義として分類できる[49]。北朝鮮の指導者金日成は、最近の満洲での反日闘争と同様に、古代高句麗の唐に対する偉業も賛美する宣伝者となるように、歴史学者に要求した[50]。金日成は、中国共産党員であり、中国共産党が指導する東北抗日聯軍に参加していたが、この物語は後に「朝鮮人民革命軍」を率いていたとの証明不可能な主張に変えられ、その詳細は中国が主導した東北抗日聯軍との類似を思わせる[51]。満洲に亡命した金日成の功績の北朝鮮の歴史は、キリスト教やギリシャ神話と比べられる(「民族」の)放浪と救済の意味と同時に、省略、信じ難さ、捏造を含んでいる[52]。申起旭(신기욱、Gi-Wook Shin)によると、金正日の「血統民族主義」は歴史家申采浩、李光洙、崔南善の思想に由来する[17]。

同様に、金の個人崇拝のために認められていないが、金が強調する主体思想と、申采浩の「主体の精神」と卑屈な事大主義への批判の間には、類似点がある。南北朝鮮が相手を「従属」だと攻撃しあうのも、これらの概念に由来する[53]。北朝鮮の金の政府の地理的位置が、自己の正統性を支えるために高句麗や他の満洲の国家を使った民族主義的歴史を促進することを助けた[54]。北朝鮮で最も権威ある歴史書『朝鮮通史』(1977版)は、「朝鮮民族は[高句麗]統治下で最強だった」として、伝統的に重視されてきた新羅に比べて高句麗を不釣り合いに重視することを正当化している[55]。

『朝鮮通史』は、「統一新羅」が朝鮮を統一したという伝統的な見解に挑戦し、新羅が支配したのは「国土の南部」だけで、唐と同盟して「外敵を入れ…朝鮮民族に対し重大な犯罪を犯した」と述べる。北朝鮮は渤海が朝鮮であると考えているが、同書は続けて、高句麗の崩壊後に渤海が占めた土地に言及し、高句麗·唐戦争の結果、朝鮮は「小さくない領土を侵略者に奪われた」とする[55]。1950年代以降、北朝鮮の歴史学は、主体思想に合わせて民族主義的分類を支持し階級分析を放棄した[56]。その前に、北朝鮮の学問は、マルクス主義歴史学を朝鮮の歴史に適合させることに関わった。しかし1966年に、北朝鮮の歴史家の長は、どのようにマルクス主義歴史学を民族史と一致させるかという議論は、朝鮮人よりスラブ人とドイツ人に関係がある仕事だと考えた。北朝鮮の歴史学は、より民族主義的な様相を取り始め、満洲をその地理的中心とし、重要な歴史論争が討論や議論なしに決められ始めた[57][58]。「これまでの社会のすべての歴史は階級闘争の歴史である」と始まる「共産党宣言」とは対照的に、標準的な北朝鮮の歴史教科書は「人類の歴史は自主性への人々の闘争の歴史である」と書かれている。チャールズ K. アームストロング(en:Charles K. Armstrong)によると、この歴史概念は、マルクス主義よりも申采浩の「我」対「非我」の概念に似ている[58]。

この歴史記述は、朝鮮での中国文明の影響を否定し、主体思想に基づいて、朝鮮古代史の修正を求めた[57]。現代朝鮮に関する北朝鮮の歴史学は主に、金日成の先祖が1866年に群衆を率いてアメリカ海軍の船を燃やした(ジェネラル・シャーマン号事件)というような、金日成一族の民族主義的英雄的行為についての検証不可能な主張を扱っている[59]。北朝鮮の歴史学では、この攻撃は、朝鮮の近代史の始まりを示す[58]。白頭山は、ほとんどいつも金日成の息子金正日と並置されて、1960年代から北朝鮮の「神話集」で扱われることが増え、1970年代からは、指導者を朝鮮民族の先祖とされる檀君と関連付けることがますます増えている[58]。しかしまた、北では、改革派の実学者丁若鏞(茶山)が朝鮮が中華帝国の朝貢体制への参加を止めるのを望んでいたことで、丁を愛国者として賞賛してきた[60]。丁若鏞自身は歴史の「人間本位」(民本)理論の支持者だった。1970年の金正日の朝鮮労働党への演説は「社会主義的愛国主義の教育に寄与するために、我が民族に過去の事を示し教える事を確実にすべきだ」と強調した[60]。

韓国

韓国では1945年以降、朝鮮民族主義歴史学が、朝鮮研究の分野を支配してきた[61]。1945年から1960年代後半に、韓国の民族主義歴史学は、朝鮮独立運動の英雄的人物の伝記から離れ、三・一運動のような民族主義的事件の分析に向かった[62]。今でも韓国の民族主義歴史学は、歴史家李基白が「朝鮮史の植民地史観」と呼んだ、日本や外国の学者が今も支持していると考えられているものに、反論しようとしている[62]。そのような「植民地史観」の1つは、高麗(918–1392)が停滞していたということだが、民族主義歴史家は、活力と変化の証拠で反論しようと、高麗の制度を研究している[40]。しかし、韓国の歴史家は、李氏朝鮮時代に伝統主義から近代主義への潜在的、根本的、不可逆的な変化があったと想定しているため、李氏朝鮮の記事や研究論文の数は高麗の2倍以上ある。崔永禧(최영희)のような歴史家の主張では、彼らが社会不安と武装強盗のせいにする、16世紀からの様々な日本の侵略と究極の併合により、この変化が妨げられた[63]。金哲埈(김철준)は、1970年の著作で、朝鮮の歴史学の状態は「批判精神」を欠いていると評価した[64]。1978年に、民族主義的歴史家姜万吉は、「植民地」と「解放後」とに分ける既存の韓国の時代区分に挑戦し、20世紀後半は、統一された朝鮮民族国家の創造に先立つ、「分断」の時代として特徴づけられるべきだと示唆した。彼の「植民地」朝鮮歴史学への攻撃は、新たな「主体的史観」を提唱した[65]。1970年代以降、韓国歴史学界の少数派も、申の満洲への失地回復主義的焦点を復活させようとした。失地回復主義論者の1人が言うように、公の領域では「古代の領土の回復」の努力は最小限であるが、中韓関係の正常化や韓国人の中国訪問が地域への関心を高めている[66]。

公式の「大韓民国史」は、朝鮮民族を少数の協力者に対する彼ら自身の「解放」の主役として描き、第二次世界大戦の連合国を脇役としている[67]。権威主義的な韓国政府は、歴史学に強く干渉し、1930～1940年代の朝鮮での共産主義の人気などの話題をタブーにして、「公認の学問の伝統的順応性を増大」させた[68]。1987年の韓国の民主化以後、何人かの韓国人学者が「協力-抵抗」の二分法を疑問視したが、学者達は民族主義的歴史を出版し続け、日本統治が朝鮮文化を抑圧したと描くのが支配的であることに変わりはない[69]。1980年代から1998年の金大中の大統領就任まで、韓国の北に協力的な歴史家の多くは、在朝鮮アメリカ陸軍司令部軍政庁と李承晩の反民族行為特別調査委員会により守られた「親日派」によって、独立時に「民族の歴史が誘拐された」という見解に同意した[70]。2005年の親日反民族行為真相糾明委員会の設置のような最近の政治運動は、民族主義歴史学を歴史学の支配的な形態として定着させた[71]。国家は、歴史的記憶の最も強力な提供者であり続けている。例えば2010年に、朝鮮戦争や韓国政府に抵抗した民主化運動家の歴史を排除した自己正当化の物語である「国家主権と民主主義と経済発展を同時に確立した世界で唯一の輝かしい歴史を民族と共に記憶しよう」という運動を始めた[72]。しかし、李栄薫のような韓国のニューライトの歴史家は、朝鮮統一の失敗という不名誉よりも韓国の経済的成果に対して愛国心を持たせるために、国家中心の歴史を提唱し、民族中心の歴史に挑戦している[73]。イデオロギー的背景は異なるが、林志弦(ko:임지현 (역사학자))も、「一枚岩の民族」という考え方からの解放による歴史学の「民主化」の、現代の支持者の1人である。しかし彼は、国家の白色テロの「過去清算」をしようとする韓国の民主政府の努力(真実和解委員会)には批判的である[73]。

植民地独立後の韓国民族主義歴史家も、日本統治時代の朝鮮人を利己的協力者と自己犠牲的民族主義抵抗者に分類しようとした[14]。国家が推奨する支配的な民族主義歴史学への最初の主要な挑戦は、韓国人からではなく、1981年に『朝鮮戦争の起源』を書いたアメリカのブルース・カミングスからだった[68]。カミングスは、彼の歴史修正主義への激しい抵抗に直面し、「日本が朝鮮をなんとか「近代化」したと述べただけで、憤慨拒否、むき出しの感情、今まさに巻き込まれようとしている騒乱の感覚を引き出した事」を回想している[74]。

テーマ

申采浩の著作は、朝鮮民族の古さと独自性、朝鮮民族の「外国の侵略」を退ける長い歴史、「世界史の不可欠な部分としての」朝鮮民族の描写、を含む、後の民族主義歴史学のテーマを概説した[36]。

朝鮮民族

1945年以来の韓国の朝鮮民族主義歴史学(民族史学)の主な目的は、朝鮮についての以前の日本の学問(日帝史観)に反論する「朝鮮独立の新たな民族史」を書くことだった[61]。「朝鮮民族」という概念は、1890年代後半に「民族」という単語とともに朝鮮語の語彙に入ってきた。カーター・エッカートによると、19世紀以前には、「国民国家としての「朝鮮」という抽象概念や、「朝鮮人」としての半島の仲間の住民に対する忠誠心は、たとえあったとしても、ほとんどなかった。庶民にとっては、村、家族、王への忠誠が優先され、一方、朝鮮のエリートは、自分自身が「中国を中心とする世界文明」の一員だと考えた」[75]。

東アジアに国民国家システムが到来し、朝鮮が明治日本に併合されたことが、朝鮮人活動家に「内部の均質性と外部の自律性の点から朝鮮を再定義する」ことを促した。申采浩は、1908年の『読史新論』で、朝鮮の歴史(国史)と朝鮮民族の歴史(民族史)とを同一視し、人々の忠誠心を彼が歴史上常に存在すると主張する範疇に向け直そうとした[76]。例えば、申は、金富軾が鎮圧した高麗に対する妙清の乱(1135-1136)を「民族主義」の反乱だと断言した[32]。妙清は、高麗が都を北の西京(今の平壌)に移し、北の遼と金に対してより積極的な姿勢を取ることを要求していたが、金富軾はそれが高麗の安全を弱体化させると感じた[77]。申の後の著作は、『朝鮮上古文化史』から、大倧教(檀君崇拝)経典にあまり頼らず、考古学、金石学、比較言語学の方法を使って、一次情報源により批判的な評価を示した[78]。

古さとアジア内陸部との関係

民族主義歴史学は、同時代の遼東の夏家店上層文化(前1000–600)と夏家店下層文化(前2200–1600)の存在を見下して、濊貊を「先史時代の朝鮮半島における人種の統一、文化、国家」の始まりと考えている[79]。日本の植民地の固有性主義(en:indigenism)パラダイムに伴って、朝鮮民族主義歴史学は、朝鮮の文化的正当性を証明するために、朝鮮民族の起源をどんどん古く主張していった[80]。朝鮮人の「人種的起源」のような探索は、日本の国学の一部であった「国体」概念の反映である[81]。申にとって、古代の理想時代の調査は、中国の史書の皇帝堯と舜の物価安定政策のような儒教の平和と安定ではなく、朝鮮民族が最大の領土を支配した時代だった[82]。20世紀の人種や民族の概念の古代の朝鮮への逆投影が、「檀君の作り話で満たされた矛盾する物語の複雑な寄せ集め、競合する王朝の神話、部族の仮想的な侵略、説明できない考古学的データが…古代朝鮮の研究で事実とフィクションを区別することを事実上不可能にしている」という結果になった[83]。民族主義は、韓国で主流の歴史学に浸透して、最近まで朝鮮語を書くために排他的に使われていた漢字は、学術誌の脚注に追いやられたり、完全に除外されたりしている[84]。北朝鮮では歴史的時代区分は「各歴史段階の始まりをできるだけ遡らせ」て朝鮮文明の「優位性と先進性」を証明することに関わっている[49]。

韓国では朝鮮民族主義歴史学は「民間考古学」とつながっており、視聴率を競うテレビ考古学者は古代朝鮮の境界をますます大きく主張している。例えば、1993年にKorea Daily(中央日報の英字紙)が延世大学校の考古学者孫宝基(ko:손보기)のモンゴルのウランバートルへの旅を後援し、彼は高句麗が大興安嶺山脈を超えて拡がっていたことを証明する新しい高句麗の石の要塞を発見と主張した[85]。例えば、朝鮮の青銅器時代の芸術は、民間考古学者によってスキタイと結び付けられ、朝鮮半島への「優れた北部の人種の到来」を証明するものとされる[86]。朝鮮のジャーナリストや研究者は、朝鮮の「アルタイの祖先」を探して、定期的に中央アジアのシルクロードの遺跡に沿って旅行する[85]。崔南善は、申采浩の領土に対する方式で書いて、朝鮮は中央アジアの中に深くに拡がった「不咸文化」の中心であると主張した[87]。崔によると、世界はインド·ヨーロッパ、中国、「Părk」文化(不咸文化圏)に分けられるが、最後のものは神道に似た朝鮮の宗教でカスピ海から黒海、天山山脈、アルタイ山脈を経て、朝鮮、日本、沖縄に広がっている[88]。崔は、この超文化の中で檀君が普遍的に崇拝されたと主張した[89]。しかし、チズコ・アレン(Chizuko Allen)によると、崔は、朝鮮、中国、日本以外には、どの国の地域文化も調べておらず、地理的特徴の音韻的類似点をこの理論の基礎とした[88]。崔の不咸文化論は、その後、独立運動家で「朝鮮研究運動」の指導者安在鴻により採用されている[90]。

改訂された朝鮮の建国神話

李氏朝鮮中期 、歴史家の間で確立された見解は、朝鮮の起源を中国の難民にさかのぼり、朝鮮の歴史を中国とつながる王朝の長い連続だと考えた。箕子朝鮮と新羅はこのように価値づけられ、古朝鮮と高句麗は重要だとは考えられなかった[91]。この見解によると、朝鮮で最初の国家である箕子朝鮮は、紀元前1122年に、殷王朝に不満を持つ中国の顧問だった箕子によって設立された。彼が朝鮮半島に詩、音楽、医学、貿易、政治システムを持って来た物語は、トロイの難民アイネイアースによるローマ建国と同様に考えられていた[92]。しかし1930年代に、申采浩の歴史の影響を受けて、箕子朝鮮の建国物語より、虎と熊の子で朝鮮半島に文明をもたらした檀君の建国物語の方が人気が出たが、後者は日本の民話で一般的である[92]。申やこの神話を宣伝した他の歴史家は、檀君を崇拝する新宗教運動である大倧教の影響を受けていたが[93]、彼を日本の神スサノオの兄弟として描いた併合前の教科書の物語を攻撃した[15]。申にとって、檀君は朝鮮民族と最初の朝鮮の国の両方の創設者であり、したがって、朝鮮の歴史のために必要な出発点だった[19]。檀君を『三国遺事』の著者による創作だとする日本の学者白鳥庫吉と今西龍による挑戦に応えて、民族主義的歴史家崔南善は、日本の神話を創作によって作られていると攻撃した[33]。

朝鮮民族主義歴史学は、「神聖種族」を創った神話の神を中心に、古代朝鮮を、文化的成果が中国や日本に匹敵する、「神々と英雄」の黄金時代として描こうとしている[94]。それに沿って、申采浩は、檀君を持ち上げ、中国の黄帝や日本のアマテラスと同様の役割を演じさせた[95]。崔南善は、彼の不咸文化理論に基づき、中国の皇帝や日本の天皇は古代朝鮮の「Părk」伝統のシャーマニズム的支配者だと思われるので、檀君を彼らの上に置きさえした[96]。檀君の話も、朝鮮の遺産は5000年以上古いという主張に信用を与える。裵炯逸(배형일, Hyung Il Pai)によると、檀君研究の人気は「今日の朝鮮の歴史学と考古学が超国家主義的になってきている傾向を反映している」と言える[97]。申采浩は、中国と朝鮮の国境の長白山(朝鮮語では白頭山)を、神話の檀君との関連の効力により、朝鮮の遺産の一部だと示した。しかし、長白山は、すでに17世紀から、清朝がその起源の神話のために領有権を主張しており[98][99]、モンゴル人も同様で、中国の漢文化でも山は神聖だと考えられている[100]。この長白山/白頭山と朝鮮人との民族主義的同一視は、中国国境から行われた朝鮮独立運動パルチザンの行動によって強固にされ、古朝鮮と渤海の歴史を参照して過去に遡って正当化された[98]。古代朝鮮の中国文明との関係は、箕子朝鮮の歴史は「封建的支配階級、事大主義信者、大国至上主義者によって、不道徳に歪められた」と主張する北朝鮮の歴史家によって攻撃され続けている[57]。

中国や日本との関係

中国や日本からの独自性

朝鮮純血主義(zh:朝鮮純血主義)は、朝鮮人は古代から単一の独特で均質な人種(単一民族)として存在してきたという思想に基づいている。 中国や日本からの「人種的汚染」のない朝鮮民族の起源の物語を作るための努力の一部として、朝鮮で出版されている朝鮮人の人種の歴史は、たいてい「朝鮮人は日本人ではない」で始まる。その結果、最も政治的に正しく提唱された朝鮮人の起源は、南部シベリアから(北方系)、「南海」から、または(檀君の話のような)神話である[101]。これらの起源の民族主義的理論の最も影響力のある表現は、金廷鶴の『朝鮮民族の形成の歴史』(1964年)であり、他に、金貞培、李基白、李基東、金元龍、尹武炳、李鍾旭がある[101]。申采浩によると、朝鮮民族は檀君の子孫で、檀君は満洲の夫余民族を合併し、高句麗民族の核としてその発展を終えた[102]。

民族主義歴史学では、朝鮮は中国と日本の文化とは別の固有の文化を持つとして価値を付加される。朝鮮人への中国の文化的影響の証拠は、朝鮮人と日本人の共通の祖先の起源の証拠とともに、「朝鮮人を絶滅させる」(民族抹殺)ための「日本の帝国主義的歴史学」(日帝史観)の「邪悪な陰謀」と非難されている[103]。申采浩は、「朝鮮」を東アジア史の基本的区分単位にしようと努め、中国と野蛮人の間の目盛によって朝鮮人を評価した儒教の歴史家によってそれが歪められていたと考えた[32]。南北朝鮮両方の考古学者は、以前の学問に反して、朝鮮は、シベリアと満洲のものに似た人工物を持つ、中国とは別の青銅器時代文化を経験したと主張している[49]。

中国や日本に対する優位性

民族主義歴史学は、朝鮮は歴史を通してずっと中国と日本から被害を受け続けたが、道徳的、人種的、文化的に中国や日本より上位であり続け、中国や日本、より最近では欧米列強が「朝鮮の民族精神を抑制しようとしたができなかった」と描く[94]。申采浩の著作は、歴史を「夫余」(朝鮮)民族と、鮮卑、中国、靺鞨、女真との、領土をめぐる人種闘争として描いており、社会ダーウィニズムの影響が見られる[82]。彼は、「朝鮮」の満洲支配を維持し拡大した歴史的人物を褒め、そうしなかった新羅の武烈王のような人物を辱めた。結果として、昔の英雄の探索は、彼の『読史新論』を最近の歴史よりむしろ古代に集中させた[24]。「善民」(선민)や「倍達」(ko:배달)を含む様々な朝鮮人の自称が民族闘争の中で使われた[104]。植民地独立後の南北朝鮮の歴史学では、朝鮮の歴史的発展の「優秀性」と「先進性」を強調する傾向がある[49]。

民族主義歴史学は、高句麗–隋戦争(612)、高句麗–唐戦争(645)、高麗-契丹戦争(1018)、高麗–女真戦争(en:Korean–Jurchen border conflicts)(1107)、モンゴルの高麗侵攻(1231–1273)、日本の朝鮮侵攻(1592–1598)を含む、「朝鮮人」の「外国人」に対する様々な勝利を祝う[94]。したがって、高句麗の乙支文徳のような軍事的英雄や、同時代の高句麗、百済、新羅の三国の全ての将軍は、共通の朝鮮「民族」アイデンティティが割り当てられる。しかし、ジョン・ダンカン(John Duncan)の言葉では、それらの王国の人々が国境や国家への忠誠を超えて、より大きな「朝鮮」集合体と一体感を抱いたことは「極めてありそうにない」[105]。李相龍は、歴史は「国の尊厳を高め、愛国心を育成する」(kungmin chŏngshin)と主張し、檀君の時代から渤海までの満洲での朝鮮人の「北の歴史」の間には粛慎と日本の人々は檀君に服従していたと主張した[106]。

申采浩も、古代朝鮮の一神教の存在を主張し、朝鮮人を中東の「進んだ」文明に持ち上げたが、この理論は、シャーマニズムを古代朝鮮の宗教とする他の民族主義歴史学や、朝鮮人はシンクレティズムだと言うほとんど全ての宗教歴史学者に反する[97]。朝鮮の最も引用された物理学的人類学者羅世振(나세진)は1964年に、民族主義歴史学の先史時代の人種起源の定着を反映して、朝鮮人は中国人や日本人より「外見、頭脳、勇気、身長、強さ」に優れ、「モンゴロイド」よりヨーロッパ人に似ていると主張した[107]。申にとっては、檀君のような古代の人物が朝鮮を作ったことは朝鮮が中国より古いことを証明し、檀君が中国を植民地化したことは朝鮮が中国よりも優れていることを証明し、中国神話の皇帝と賢人は本当は「朝鮮人」だった[108]。申はまた、箕子朝鮮の箕子による「洪範九疇」を「[朝鮮]人」によって作られたものと考え直して、伝統的な見方とは反対に、中国を朝鮮文明の輸入者に変えた[32]。

歴史的領土

半島を所有し半島を越えて

申采浩は、彼の独創的な研究『読史新論』で、朝鮮史の主題を朝鮮半島だけから「満洲」の外縁および「人種的に定義された国民」(民族)へと再定義した[18]。彼は、朝鮮史を民族史と定義することで、高句麗、新羅、百済は、互いに頻繁に戦っていたが、「同じ民族で、結果的に、同じ歴史」だと主張することができた[95]。しかし、このような極端な北部領土を持っていた王朝に正当性を与えていなかった李氏朝鮮の儒教の歴史が、鴨緑江と豆満江を境界とする朝鮮民族の概念を強化した[109]。申采浩は、特にこの閉じ込めに憤慨し、高句麗の滅亡と、「朝鮮」が半島の外の領土の支配を失ったことが、民族の衰退の始まりだと考えた[110]。彼は「朝鮮民族が満洲を得れば朝鮮民族は強く繁栄する。他の[東や北の]民族が満洲を得ると…朝鮮[Han'guk]は…[東や北の]民族の勢力圏に入る。…これは4000年間変わっていない鉄のルールだ」と書いた[111]。多くの現代の朝鮮人はこの感情に同意する[112]。申は、嘆きつつ、満鮮史派の日本帝国の歴史家と共通の主張を発見した。彼らは、朝鮮半島とアジア大陸を切り離せないものとして描こうとした。しかしその目標は朝鮮独立の思想を土台を崩すことだった[111][113]。申だけでなく、民族主義歴史家仲間の朴殷植も、満洲を強力な「大朝鮮」を構築するための基盤だと考えた[114]。

しかし同時に、民族主義歴史学は、朝鮮半島に存在した全ての政体が「朝鮮」だったこと、および、半島の全ての住民が「5000年」間、変わることなく均質に「朝鮮人」だったことを前提としている。E. テイラー・アトキンス(E. Taylor Atkins)は、これらの仮定を「日本の植民地学者の前提と同じくらい疑わしい」し、現代の中国や日本との領土紛争の原因となっているとして批判した[14]。済州島、鬱陵島、竹島の歴史研究は、李氏朝鮮後期から朝鮮人としての概念に見合って、海上防衛の適時の要求に役立った[115]。

朝鮮としての渤海の再解釈

李氏朝鮮中期に、朴趾源は、漢王朝の領土が鴨緑江の南に広がっていたという事実を否定し、満洲の渤海を朝鮮の歴史から除いた金富軾を批判し、渤海は高句麗の「子孫」だったと主張した[4]。李圭景は、渤海の朝鮮の歴史からの除外は「それが広大な領域を占めていた」ため、「重大な誤り」だと主張した[6]。しかし、李氏朝鮮後期、渤海の創設者が朝鮮人とは考えられない靺鞨の人々であったことを認めるにもかかわらず、渤海を朝鮮の歴史に含める歴史家が増えた[116]。18世紀には次のように意見が分かれていた。学者星湖李瀷と安鼎福は渤海を朝鮮の歴史の一部と考えることを断固として拒否し、一方、申景濬(ko:신경준)と柳得恭はそれを完全に組み込んでいた。一世紀後、韓致奫(ko:한치윤)と韓鎭書(한진서)は、新羅のような議論のない朝鮮の王朝と等しいものとして渤海を朝鮮の歴史の中に含めた[117]。申采浩は、渤海や夫余王国（別の満洲国家）を朝鮮の歴史から除いたと『三国史記』を批判した[19]。彼は、渤海が契丹の遼王朝に敗れたことを「私たちの祖先（檀君）の古代の土地の半分を…900年以上の間失った」と解釈した[24]。北朝鮮の学者、およびより最近の韓国の何人かの学者は、統一新羅が朝鮮を統一したとの見解に挑戦することにより、渤海の歴史を朝鮮の歴史の不可欠な部分として組み込もうとした。この物語によると、渤海が朝鮮半島北部の旧高句麗の領土を占めながらまだ存在していたから、高麗が最初の朝鮮統一だった[49][58]。

古代の漢王朝の存在の否定

朝鮮での日本の歴史学的、考古学的な発見が帝国主義の偽造として悪魔化される理由の一部は、それらの学者の楽浪郡の発見である。その発見によって、漢王朝が平壌付近を統治しており、この中国の郡が朝鮮の文明の発展に大きな影響を与えたことが強調される[118]。北朝鮮が挑戦するまでは、楽浪郡は紀元前108年に古朝鮮を破った後に漢の武帝が確立した郡であったことが「普遍的に認められていた」[49]。北朝鮮の学者は、漢王朝の墓を扱うにあたり、それらを古朝鮮や高句麗の遺跡として再解釈している[118]。中国の漢に見られる物との否定できない類似性を持つ遺物のために、彼らは、それらが貿易と国際的な接触を通じて導入されたか、または偽造だとし、「決して遺物の朝鮮的特性を否定する根拠として解釈すべきではない」と提唱する[119]。北朝鮮はまた、楽浪は2つあったとし、漢は実は遼東半島の遼河の楽浪を治めており、一方、平壌は紀元前3世紀から2世紀まで存在した「独立した朝鮮の国家」楽浪だったと言っている[49][58]。彼らによると、楽浪の伝統的な見方は、中国の中国至上主義者と日本帝国主義者によって拡大された[49]。

遼東および他の中国の領土に対する所有権主張

申采浩は、日本帝国歴史学から失地回復主義的テーマを引き出し、過去の支配に基づき領土拡大を主張した。日本の歴史学者久米邦武は、大日本を正当化するために、日本を島国とする概念を批判し、日本が過去に朝鮮と中国南東を支配していたと提唱した。申の歴史学は、朝鮮が過去に持っていたと思われる領土を参照して大朝鮮を正当化した[120]。彼はそれを、百済から：遼東西部、山東省、江蘇省、浙江省、越州、およびその周辺地域、そして新羅から：東北吉林省とした[121]。彼は、統一新羅、高麗、李氏朝鮮は、それまで考えられていたような朝鮮民族の本当の「統一」ではなく、「半分」だけの統一(半偏的統一)で、完全な統一は檀君の時代以来まだ達成されていないと感じた[24]。それ以前に、朴趾源は、遼東と他の鴨緑江の向こうの地域は歴史的朝鮮の領土と見なされるべきで、そうでなければ朝鮮はもっと領土を失うことになる、と主張した[5]。李圭景は、遼東の朝鮮名は「三韓」だったので、遼東半島は「疑いなく」古代朝鮮の領土だったと信じた[6]。民族主義学者は、『遼史』と『金史』に基づいて、遼東と周辺地域の朝鮮の所有権を主張した[122]。しかし、朝鮮では満洲の領土要求を大勢が受け入れたのは、日本帝国が中国北部と東北部に拡大してからだった。稲葉岩吉、白鳥庫吉、鳥居龍蔵、今西龍、池内宏らの植民地時代の日本の学者は、統合された「満鮮史」があったと宣言した[123]。

韓国の尹乃鉉(ko:윤내현)は1985年に、古朝鮮は紀元前2333年以前から2000年間続き、中国北部河北省から全朝鮮に広がっていたと提唱した[118]。李氏朝鮮時代の遼東朝鮮説への重要な反対者に丁若鏞や星湖李瀷がいる。丁は、朝鮮の自然の川の国境には遼東は「余分」であると主張した。李は、中国に対する領土回復主義(irredentism)を将来トラブルになるかもしれない「貪欲な野望」とみなした[124]。安廓は、満洲の「喪失」と朝鮮民族の衰退を嘆いた1910年の民族主義歴史家に対し、反対の声を表していた[37]。檀君カルト大倧教は、20世紀の朝鮮民族主義歴史学に影響を与えた「史話」を書いた。「史話」の汎東夷汎北東アジアの主張は、朝鮮民族が「韓半島と満洲だけでなく中国東北部も」含み、舜、遼、金、元、清の皇帝を朝鮮の歴史の一部と考える、という主張を含む。この朝鮮民族の拡張概念は、中国に亡命して学んでいる軍事士官候補生の士気を高めることを意図した、金教獻の朝鮮の歴史教科書に含まれていた[38]。金によると、王朝を導いたこれらの全て人々は、箕子朝鮮の箕子とは異なり、満洲発祥であるから、彼らは全て檀君の子孫で、歴史の朝鮮民族の「北の」分岐の一部である。その結果、彼は、これらの人々が征服した全ての土地、最も後には「漢の土地、モンゴル、回族の領域、チベット」からビルマに至るまでを含む土地、が朝鮮民族の領土に含まれる、と考えた[25]。李相龍は、満洲民族は実際には朝鮮人だった、漢四郡は「朝鮮」の領土ではなく遼東に位置していた、満洲を含む大朝鮮国家を作る目的で朝鮮の歴史の一部は満洲を中心にすべきである、という、申、金教獻、朴殷植と共通の多くの主張を行った[106]。申は、「地理的歴史の傾向」は、高句麗の旧領土を将来朝鮮が支配する予兆だと主張し、檀君の失われた歴史を「再点火」(重光)するために朝鮮人の移住を主張した[125]。農民反乱、飢饉、日本帝国の奨励の結果として、満洲への朝鮮移民は1860年から急増し、1920年に40万人、1931年に90万人、1945年には200万人以上に達した[126]。

朝鮮民族主義歴史学は、朝鮮の王朝による満洲支配を栄光と考え、その地域を中国の辺境と見なす現代中国の民族主義と衝突した[112]。中国の歴史家は、帝国主義勢力がその地域を中国から分離しようとすることを正当化するために使われる歴史的な独立性を呼び起こす「満洲」という名前にも反対した。そのため、彼らは適切な名前は「東北」だと信じた[112]。2002年の高句麗論争[127]は、高句麗は中国の歴史の一部なのか朝鮮の歴史の一部なのかについての両国の国家に支援された学者や研究所の論争に刺激され、両国の民族主義的感情に反映した[112]。

脚注

  1.  “卷頭 특별 인터뷰 韓國史新論의 著者 李基白 선생이 말하는 韓國史의 大勢와 正統”. 月刊朝鮮. 2001年11月. 2021年10月15日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ.
  2.  Shin 2000, p. 5
  3.  Shin 2000, p. 7
  4.  Shin 2000, p. 11
  5.  Shin 2000, p. 10
  6.  Shin 2000, p. 12
  7.  Kim 1970, p. 5
  8.  Em 1999, p. 346
  9.  Em 1999, p. 348
  10.  Schmid 2000a, pp. 962–963
  11.  Ch'oe 1980, pp. 17–18
  12.  Han 1992, p. 77
  13.  Doak 2001, pp. 98–99
  14.  Atkins 2010, pp. 84–85
  15.  Han 1992, pp. 69–70
  16.  Robinson 1984, p. 122
  17.  David-West 2010, p. 112
  18.  Schmid 1997, p. 27
  19.  Armstrong 1995, p. 3
  20.  Allen 1990, p. 789
  21.  Robinson 1984, pp. 129–130
  22.  Han 1992, pp. 84–85
  23.  Jager 2003, pp. 4–5
  24.  Schmid 2000b, pp. 233–235
  25.  Schmid 2002, pp. 231–233
  26.  Kim 2011, p. 191
  27.  Pai 2000, p. 63
  28.  Jager 2003, p. 9
  29.  Allen 1990, pp. 791–793
  30.  Ch'oe 1980, pp. 19–20
  31.  Kim 1970, p. 6
  32.  Robinson 1984, pp. 131–132
  33.  Allen 1990, pp. 793–795
  34.  Ch'oe 1980, pp. 7–8, 19
  35.  Schultz 2004, pp. 4–5
  36.  Em 1999, p. 349
  37.  Han 1992, pp. 81–82
  38.  Han 1992, pp. 72, 75
  39.  Pai 2000, p. 8
  40.  Kawashima 1978, pp. 30–31
  41.  Han 1992, pp. 87–88
  42.  Ch'oe 1980, pp. 20–21
  43.  Han 1992, pp. 95, 97–98
  44.  North: Ch'oe 1981, pp. 504–5; South: Schmid 2002, p. 264.
  45.  Wells 2001, p. 187.
  46.  Schmid 2002, p. 264.
  47.  Ch'oe 1980, p. 22.
  48.  De Ceuster 2010, pp. 15–16
  49.  Ch'oe 1980, pp. 23–25
  50.  Palais 1998, p. 223
  51.  Armstrong 1995, pp. 7–8
  52.  Armstrong 1995, pp. 9–10
  53.  Robinson 1984, pp. 123–124
  54.  Schmid 1997, pp. 39–40
  55.  Ch'oe 1981, pp. 511–512
  56.  Wells 2001, p. 187
  57.  Ch'oe 1981, pp. 503–505, 522
  58.  Armstrong 1995, pp. 11–12
  59.  Ch'oe 1981, p. 520
  60.  David-West 2010, pp. 97–98, 102–103
  61.  Pai 2000, p. 1
  62.  Wells 2001, p. 188
  63.  Kawashima 1978, pp. 38–39, 41
  64.  Kim 1970, p. 8
  65.  Wells 2001, p. 189
  66.  Schmid 1997, pp. 42–43
  67.  De Ceuster 2001, pp. 215–217
  68.  De Ceuster 2001, pp. 218
  69.  Atkins 2010, pp. 85–86
  70.  De Ceuster 2001, pp. 207–208
  71.  De Ceuster 2010, p. 21
  72.  De Ceuster 2010, p. 23
  73.  De Ceuster 2010, pp. 16–18
  74.  Walraven 2001, p. 164
  75.  Em 1999, pp. 337–338
  76.  Em 1999, pp. 338–339, 342
  77.  Schultz 2004, p. 3
  78.  Han 1992, p. 74
  79.  Pai 2000, p. 98
  80.  Pai 2000, p. 111
  81.  Robinson 1984, p. 135
  82.  Schmid 1997, pp. 34–35
  83.  Pai 2000, p. 122
  84.  Palais 1998, p. 225
  85.  Pai 2000, p. 17
  86.  Pai 2000, p. 94
  87.  Schmid 1997, p. 39
  88.  Allen 1990, pp. 797–799
  89.  Han 1992, p. 78
  90.  Han 1992, p. 89
  91.  Karlsson 2009, p. 3
  92.  Simons 1999, p. 70
  93.  Walraven 2001, p. 158
  94.  Pai 2000, p. 2
  95.  Schmid 1997, p. 32
  96.  Allen 1990, p. 800
  97.  Pai 2000, pp. 95–96
  98.  Pai 2000, p. 254
  99.  Kim 2007, pp. 42–43
  100.  Armstrong 1995, p. 2
  101.  Pai 2000, pp. 57, 78
  102.  Robinson 1984, pp. 132–133
  103.  Pai 2000, p. 36
  104.  Pai 2000, p. 58
  105.  Em 1999, p. 350
  106.  Han 1992, pp. 76, 86
  107.  Pai 2000, p. 260
  108.  Pai 2000, p. 266
  109.  Schmid 1997, pp. 28, 29
  110.  Jager 2003, pp. 14–16
  111.  Schmid 2002, p. 227
  112.  Kim 2007, pp. 56–58
  113.  Schmid 1997, p. 30
  114.  Han 1992, p. 73
  115.  Han 1992, pp. 62–64
  116.  Karlsson 2009, p. 2
  117.  Karlsson 2009, pp. 4–5
  118.  Pai 2000, pp. 127–129
  119.  Ch'oe 1980, p. 509
  120.  Em 1999, p. 345
  121.  Han 1992, p. 86
  122.  Karlsson 2009, p. 4
  123.  Pai 2000, p. 26
  124.  Karlsson 2009, p. 8
  125.  Schmid 1997, p. 38
  126.  Armstrong 1995, p. 5
  127.  (Goguryeo controversies)

引用文献

  • Allen, Chizuko T. (November 1990), “Northeast Asia Centered Around Korea: Ch'oe Namsŏn's View of History”, The Journal of Asian Studies 49 (4): 787–806.
  • Armstrong, Charles K. (1995), “Centering the Periphery: Manchurian Exile(s) and the North Korean State”, Korean Studies (University of Hawaii Press) 19: 1–16.
  • Atkins, E. Taylor (2010), Primitive Selves: Koreana in the Japanese Colonial Gaze, 1910-1945, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  • Ch'oe, Yŏng-ho (1980), “An Outline History of Korean Historiography”, Korean Studies 4: 1–27.
  • Ch'oe, Yŏng-ho (May 1981), “Reinterpreting Traditional History in North Korea”, The Journal of Asian Studies 40 (3): 503–52.
  • David-West, Alzo (2010), “Between Confucianism and Marxism-Leninism: Juche and the Case of Chŏng Tasan”, Korean Studies (University of Hawaii Press) 35.
  • De Ceuster, Koen (2001), “The Nation Exorcised: The Historiography of Collaboration in South Korea”, Korean Studies 25 (2): 207–243.
  • De Ceuster, Koen (2010), “When History is Made: History, Memory, and the Politics of Remembrance in Contemporary Korea”, Korean Histories 2 (1): 13–33.
  • Doak, Kevin M. (2001), “Narrating China, Ordering East Asia: The Discourse on Nation and Ethnicity in Imperial Japan”, in Chow, Kai-Wing; Doak, Kevin M.; Fu, Poshek, Constructing Nationhood in Modern East Asia: Narrative Schemes, Nostalgia and Ambiguity of Identities, University of Michigan Press, pp. 85–117.
  • Ebrey, Patricia Buckley; Walthall, Anne; Palais, James (2006), Modern East Asia, from 1600: A Cultural, Social, and Political History, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, ISBN 0618133852.
  • Em, Henry H. (1999), “Minjok" as a Modern and Democratic Construct: Sin Ch'aeho's Historiography”, in Shin, Gi-wook; Robinson, Michael, Colonial Modernity in Korea, Cambridge: Harvard University Asian Center, pp. 336–361, ISBN 0674142551.
  • Han, Young-woo (1992), “The Establishment and Development of Nationalist History”, Seoul Journal of Korean Studies 5: 61–104.
  • Jager, Shila Miyoshi (2003), Narratives of Nation Building in Korea: A Genealogy of Patriotism, M. E. Sharpe.
  • Karlsson, Anders (December 2009), Northern Territories and the Historical Understanding of Territory in Late Chosŏn, Working Papers in Korean Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
  • Kawashima, Fujiya (1978), “Historiographic development in South Korea: State and society from the Mid-Koryŏ to the Mid-Yi dynasty”, Korean Studies (University of Hawaii Press) 2: 29–56.
  • Kim, Chol-choon (1970), In Search of National Identity: The Case of Korean History, 10, Korea Journal, pp. 4–9.
  • Kim, Bongjin (2011), “Sin Ch'ae-ho: 'A Critique of Easternism,' 1909.”, in Saaler, Sven; Szpilman, Christopher W.A., Pan-Asianism: A Documentary History, Volume 1: 1850–1920, Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 191–194.
  • Kim, Seonmin (June 2007), “Ginseng and Border Trespassing Between Qing China and Chosŏn Korea”, Late Imperial China 28 (1): 33–61.
  • Larsen, Kirk W. (2008), Tradition, Treaties, and Trade: Qing Imperialism and Chosǒn Korea, 1850-1910, Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard University Asia Center, distributed by Harvard University Press, ISBN 9780674028074.
  • Palais, James (1998), “Nationalism: Good or Bad?”, in Pai, Hyung Il; Tangherlini, Timothy R., Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity, Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California.
  • Pai, Hyung Il (2000), Constructing "Korean" Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State Formation Theories, Harvard University Asia Center.
  • Robinson, Michael (1984), “National Identity and the Thought of Sin Ch'ae-ho: Sadaejuǔi and Chuch'e in History and Politics.”, Journal of Korean Studies 5: 121–142.
  • Schmid, Andre (2002), Korea Between Empires, 1895-1919, Columbia University Press.
  • Schmid, Andre (1997), “Rediscovering Manchuria: Sin Ch'aeho and the Politics of Territorial History in Korea”, Journal of Asian Studies 56 (1): 26–46.
  • Schmid, Andre (November 2000a), “Colonialism and the 'Korea Problem' in the Historiography of Modern Japan: A Review Article”, The Journal of Asian Studies 59 (4): 951–976.
  • Schmid, Andre (2000b), “Looking North toward Manchuria”, The South Atlantic Quarterly (Duke University Press) 99 (1): pp. 219–240.
  • Schultz, Edward J. (2004), “An Introduction to the Samguk Sagi”, Korean Studies (University of Hawaii Press) 28: 1–13.
  • Shin, Yong-ha (2000), Modern Korean history and nationalism, Korean Studies, Jimoondang.
  • Simons, G. L. (1999), Korea: The Search for Sovereignty, Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Walraven, Boudewijn (2001), “The Parliament of Histories: New Religions, Collective Historiography, and the Nation”, Korean Studies (University of Hawaii Press) 25 (2): 157–178.
  • Wells, Kenneth M. (2001), “The Nation, the World, and the Dissolution of the Shin'ganhoe: Nationalist Historiography in South Korea”, Korean Studies (University of Hawaii Press) 25 (2): 179–206.

さらに詳しく知るために

  • Ch'oe, Yŏng-ho. (1976). "History in North Korea: Its Role and Characteristics." Journal of East and West Studies 5.1: 3-16.
  • Em, Henry H. (1993). "'Overcoming' Korea's Division: Narrative Strategies in Recent South Korean Historiography." Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique 1.2: 450–485.
  • Em, Henry H. (1998). "Democracy and Korean Unification from a Post-Nationalist Perspective." Asea yongu 41.2: 43–74.
  • Em, Henry H. (1999). "Nationalism, Post-Nationalism, and Shin Ch'ae-ho." Korea Journal 39.2: 283–317.
  • Em, Henry H. (2001). "Between Colonialism and Nationalism: Power and Subjectivity in Korea, 1931–1950." The Journal of the International Institute 9.1.
  • Em, Henry H. (2009). Sovereignty and Modern Korean Historiography. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
  • Hur, Namlin. (1998). "Collective Memory, Historians, and the Construction of the National Identity of the Koreans through the Japanese." The Review of Korean Studies 1: 5–25.
  • Ji, Su-gol. (2002). "Discourse of the Nation and the Modern’ Reflected in Korean History Textbooks." International Journal of Korean History 3: 255–293.
  • Ju, Bodon. (2003). "Recent Trends and Future Prospects in the Study of Ancient Korean History." International Journal of Korean History 4: 1–45.
  • Min, Benjamin H. "Japanese Colonialism and Its Impact on Korean Nationalism." Asian Forum 2.1: 54–61.
  • Noh, Tae Don. (1997). "Theories about the Formative Period of the Korean Volk." Korea Journal 37.4: 118–133.
  • Noh, Tae Don. (2004). "Theories on the Formative Period of the Korean Minjok." In Korean National Commission for UNESCO, ed. Korean History: Discovery of Its Characteristics and Developments. Elizabeth, NJ: Hollym.
  • Pai, Hyung Il. (1999). "The Colonial Origins of Korea's Collected Past." In Hyung Il Pai and Timothy R. Tangherlini, eds., Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity. Berkeley: Center for Korean Studies, Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California.
  • Pai, Hyung Il, and Timothy R. Tangherlini (eds.) (1998). Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity. Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California.
  • Park, Chan-Seung. (1999). "Should Korean Historians Abandon Nationalism?" Korea Journal 39.2: 318–342.
  • Park, Hyun Ok (2000), “Korean Manchuria: The Racial Politics of Territorial Osmosis”, The South Atlantic Quarterly (Duke University Press) 99 (1): 193–215
  • Robinson, Michael. (1996). "Narrative Politics, Nationalism, and Korean History." Papers of the British Association of Korean Studies 6: 26–40.
  • Robinson, Michael. (2008) "Narrative Politics, Nationalism and Korean History." In Susan Pares, ed. Korea: The Past and the Present: Selected Papers from the British Association for Korean Studies BAKS Papers Series, 1991–2005, volume 1. Kent, England: Global Oriental, 2008.
  • Ryang, Key S. (1987). "Sin Ch'ae-ho (1880–1936) and Modern Korean Historiography." The Journal of Modern Korean Studies 3: 1–10.
  • Ryang, Sonia. (1990). "Historian-Judges of Korean Nationalism." Ethnic and Racial Studies 13.4: 503–26.
  • Schmid, Andre. (2000). "Decentering the 'Middle Kingdom': The Problem of China in Korean Nationalist Thought, 1895–1910." In Timothy Brook and Andre Schmid, eds., Nation Work: Asian Elites and National Identities. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 2000.
  • Seo, Jungmin. (2008). "The Politics of Historiography in China: Contextualizing the Koguryo Controversy." Asian Perspective 32.3: 39–58.
  • Shin, Gi-Wook. (2006). Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Shin, Gi-Wook, and Michael Robinson (eds.) (2001). Colonial Modernity in Korea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University East Asia Center, distributed by Harvard University Press.
  • Shultz, Edward J. (2006). "How English-Language Scholarship Views Koguryo." Journal of Inner and East Asian Studies 3.1: 79–94.
  • Wells, Kenneth M. (1995). "The Cultural Construction of Korean History." In Kenneth M. Wells, ed. South Korea's Minjung Movement: The Culture and Politics of Dissidence. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  • Xu, Stella Yingzi. (2007). "That glorious ancient history of our nation: The contested re-readings of 'Korea' in early Chinese historical records and their legacy in the formation of Korean-ness." Ph.D. dissertation, Department of East Asian Languages and Culture, UCLA.
  • Yeo, Hokyu. (2006). "China's Northeast Project and Trends in the Study of Koguryo History." International Journal of Korean History 10: 121–54.

関連項目


===


===

Korean nationalist historiography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shin Chaeho (1880–1936), the earliest proponent of Korea's nationalist historiography

Korean nationalist historiography (Korean: 민족사학; Hanja: 民族史學) is a way of writing Korean history that centers on the Korean minjok, an ethnically defined Korean nation. This kind of nationalist historiography emerged in the early twentieth century among Korean intellectuals who wanted to foster national consciousness to achieve Korean independence from Japanese domination. Its first proponent was journalist and independence activist Shin Chaeho (1880–1936). In his polemical New Reading of History (Doksa Sillon), which was published in 1908 three years after Korea became a Japanese protectorate, Shin proclaimed that Korean history was the history of the Korean minjok, a distinct race descended from the god Dangun that had once controlled not only the Korean peninsula but also large parts of Manchuria. Nationalist historians made expansive claims to the territory of these ancient Korean kingdoms, by which the present state of the minjok was to be judged.

Shin and other Korean intellectuals like Park Eun-sik (1859–1925) and Choe Nam-seon (1890–1957) continued to develop these themes in the 1910s and 1920s. They rejected two prior ways of representing the past: the Confucian historiography of Joseon Korea's scholar-bureaucrats, which they blamed for perpetuating a servile worldview centered around China, and Japanese colonial historiography, which portrayed Korea as historically dependent and culturally backward.

The work of these prewar nationalist historians has shaped postwar historiography in both North and South Korea. Despite ideological differences between the two regimes, the dominant historiography in both countries since the 1960s has continued to reflect nationalist themes, and this common historical outlook is the basis for talks about Korean unification. In the process of trying to reject Japanese colonial scholarship, Korean nationalist historians have adopted many of its premises. Shin Chaeho's irredentist claims over Manchuria, however, have not made it into the mainstream.

Korean nationalist historiography was welcomed by both the left and right sides of South Korea in the 20th century, but in the 21st century, the Korean nationalist historiography was increasingly associated with leftist nationalism, which was critical of anti-communist conservatism.[1][2]

Historical context

A Japanese depiction of the signing of the Ganghwa Treaty (1876) between Meiji Japan and Joseon Korea, which opened Korea to foreign trade.

The late nineteenth century was a time of domestic crises and external threats for Joseon Korea (1392–1910). Starting in the 1860s, a series of rebellions caused by excessive taxation and misgovernment threatened the reigning dynasty, while foreign powers — mostly western countries, but also Meiji Japan — used military force to try to open Korea to trade.[3] The Japan–Korea Treaty of 1876 opened three Korean ports to commerce and granted Japanese merchants extraterritoriality in these ports.[4] This unequal treaty prompted even more foreign interventions, as it turned Korea into a target of rivalry between imperialist powers.[5] 

One crucial issue was whether Korea was a sovereign state or a Chinese dependency.[6] Despite Joseon's status as a tributary of Ming (1368–1644) and then Qing (1644–1911) China — which implied the sending of tribute missions and a ritually inferior position of the Korean king vis-à-vis the Chinese emperor — Korea could also dictate both its domestic and foreign policies, creating an ambiguous situation that frustrated western powers.[7]

To appease tensions, China and Japan signed the Convention of Tientsin (1882), in which both parties agreed not to send more troops to Korea. In 1884, however, Korean reformers supported by Japanese legation guards tried to depose King Gojong (r. 1863–1907), but Chinese troops stationed in Korea intervened quickly to foil the coup.[8] Ten years later, the Donghak Peasant Rebellion exploded and once again put the Joseon regime in difficulty. King Gojong asked China to send troops to help repress it, but Japan, under the pretext of protecting its interests in the peninsula, sent even more. In July 1894 Japanese forces seized the Korean king and forced him to establish a cabinet that implemented extensive institutional reforms. One of these reforms consisted in establishing the Bureau of History (Pyeonsaguk 編史局), which would play a role in later controversies over history.[9] Japan's attack on Chinese forces a few days later started the Sino-Japanese War, which was fought over who would control the Korean peninsula.[10] The war ended with a resounding Japanese victory confirmed by the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895), which forced China to recognize the independence of Joseon Korea. But Korea's escape from the China-centered world order simply cleared the way for Japanese imperialist domination.[11]

History of Korean nationalist historiography

Precursors (before 1895)

During the later half of the Joseon dynasty (1392–1897), many scholars became disenchanted with Sinocentrism and became more conscious of Korea's uniqueness and independence.[12] This trend became known as the silhak ("pragmatic learning") movement. The most important pre-1895 precursor to the rise of nationalist historiography was the erosion of Sinocentrism during the silhak movement.

Non-Sinocentric historiographical ideas began to arise in the works of the scholars Hong Tae-yong (1731–1783), Yi Chong-hwi (1731–1786), Pak Chiwŏn (1737–1805), Yu Deuk-gong (1749–1807), Chŏng Yagyong (1762–1836), and Yi Kyu-gyŏng (李圭景, 1788–1856). Hong Tae-yong rejected the sacrosanct idea of Sinocentrism that China was superior to all other nations, and argued that all nations were equals.[13] Hong's contemporary Chong Yag-yong argued that any nation excelling in culture could define itself as the "center", and further argued that because Korea had already reached this level of cultural development, it could therefore be called the "center". He also emphasized the importance of additional education in Korean texts such as Samguk Sagi (12th century) rather than the Chinese Classics alone. Park Ji-won lamented that the prevailing Korean historians of his day were beholden to Zhu Xi's Neo-Confucian framework, which placed China at the center of the international system.[14] He provided a fresh perspective on the historical territory of Korea as extending beyond the Yalu river into Manchuria.[15] Yi Kyu-gyŏng appealed to intellectuals to write a comprehensive history of Korea within the interpretative framework of independent national identity.[16]

The most representative silhak historiographical work is Yi Ik's (1681–1763) Dongsa Gangmok ("Essentials of the History of the Eastern Country"), which although written in a neo-Confucian framework, demonstrates a more critical than apologetic tone towards the early Joseon dynasty and its establishment.[17]

1895–1945

1895–1905

Contemporary Korean historians trace the roots of nationalist historiography to the Korean independence movement, which emerged in response to the rise of Japanese influence in Korea after Japan's victory in the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895).[18] Starting in 1895, Korean newspapers started to foster new ways of imagining Korea. In 1896 Seo Jae-pil (1864–1951) and Yun Chi-ho (1864–1945) founded the bilingual (English-Korean) Tongnip Sinmun (the Independent), which was the first Korean newspaper to be published in Hangul.[18] Seo and Yun, who had both come into contact with ideas of "nation" and "independence" during their studies in the United States, tried to promote national consciousness among Koreans, partly through historical education.[18] In 1899 the newspaper translated into vernacular Korean an essay "On Patriotism" that Chinese journalist and historian Liang Qichao had recently published in Japan.[19] But such calls for "Korean political unity and racial solidarity" in turn-of-the-century newspapers were censored by Japanese colonial authorities.[20] The Tongnip Sinmun was thus forced to close later in 1899. Japanese authorities also suppressed private schools that tried to promote patriotism through the teaching of Korean history, language, and customs.[20]

Social Darwinist ideas of struggle between races were also among the new intellectual currents influencing Koreans at the time. They were introduced to Korea in the 1880s by intellectuals who had traveled or studied in Japan.[21] Their first two proponents were Yu Kil-chun (1856–1914) and Yun Chi-ho (1864–1945), who had both been to Japan in the spring of 1881 as members of Eo Yun-jung's (어윤중, 魚允中; 1848–1896) Courtiers' Observation Mission (조사 시찰단, 朝士視察團), which the Korean royal court had dispatched to observe the Meiji reforms.[22] Yun mentioned ideas on the Korean "race" in editorials published in Tongnip Sinmun, but not enough to disseminate these ideas widely.[23] Indeed, until the imposition of a Japanese protectorate on Korea in 1905, the Pan-Asianist view that Koreans and Japanese, as members of the "yellow race," were allies in a struggle against the "white race," was more salient in Korean newspapers than portrayals of Koreans as racially distinct from the Japanese.[24]

Japanese colonial historiography

Mainstream Japanese historiography arose out of a fusion of Western historiography, as introduced by the German Ludwig Riess in 1887, and the Chinese scholarly tradition of evidential research (kaozheng 考證 or kōshōgaku 考證學), which had been established in Japan since the Edo period (1603–1868).[25] Japanese historiography on East Asia (Tōyōshi) was a field led by Shiratori Kurakichi 白鳥庫吉 (1865–1942) which generally followed the negative, orientalist portrayals of China and Korea by the West, while categorizing Japan as separate from both Asia and the West, but as on an equal footing with the West.[26][27] What Korean historians refer to as Japanese "colonial historiography" can be traced to Tokyo Imperial University's 1890 history of Japan, the Kokushi gan 國史眼, which argued for a common ancestry to Koreans and Japanese (Nissen dōsoron). Based on the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki chronicles, the Kokushi gan asserted that the legendary figures Susanoo, the brother of Emperor Jimmu, and Empress Jingū had ruled or invaded Silla (Korea).[25][27] Such views of Korea's historical subjugation to Japan became widely accepted in Japanese scholarship,[28] and integral to Japan's national history,[27] as it was presented in other books of Japan's Meiji era (1868–1912), such as Ōtori Keisuke's Chōsen kibun 朝鮮紀聞 (1885), and Hayashi Taisuke's 林泰輔 Chōsenshi 朝鮮史 (1892), made similar arguments.[29] Another theme in Japanese historical scholarship on Korea was Korea's backwardness, which was first argued by the economist Tokuzō Fukuda in 1902, who said that Joseon was equivalent to Japan in the Heian period (794–1185).[28]

From the time of the Japan–Korea Treaty of 1876, the Empire of Japan became increasingly involved in Korean affairs.[28] After the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 opened Manchuria (northeast China) to Japanese colonization, Japan began promoting the idea of a joint and inseparable "Manchurian-Korean history" (Mansenshi 滿鮮史).[29] In this theory of Manchurian-Korean history, developed by Inaba Iwakachi in the 1920s and 1930s, Korea was subjected to various forces of heteronomy in politics and economics, and thus lacked "independence and originality".[28] Official imperial involvement in Korean historiography began in 1915, through the Chungch'uwon office.[29] Saitō Makoto, the Japanese Governor-General of Korea, targeted Korean ethnic nationalist historians (minjok sahakka) such as Shin Chae-ho, Choe Nam-seon, and Yi Gwangsu, as part of a "cultural containment" policy since the March 1st demonstrations for independence in 1919.[29][30] The Governor-General's education office published a 35-volume work called Chōsenjin, which argued that Koreans should be assimilated to Japan; Japanese intellectuals proposed refashoning Korean names to Japanese style to serve this end.[30] In 1922, the Governor-General established a committee which compiled a 35-volume "History of Chosŏn" (Chosenshi).[29] The Chosenshi was mostly composed of extracts from Chinese, Japanese, and Korean historical sources, and was used as a primary source for historical works on Korea in the Japanese period.[28] Japanese administrators also surveyed artifacts of historical value on the Korean Peninsula (koseki chosa jigyo 古蹟調查事業) and sought to disprove the popular belief in the Dangun figure of Korean culture.[29] A popular portrayal of Koreans in Japanese historiography was that of the sadaejuui, or as being extremely servile to foreign powers, particularly China.[31]

Shin Chaeho and Korean nationalist historiography

The polemicist Shin Chaeho (1880–1936) found both Confucian historiography and Japanese colonial scholarship unsatisfactory on political, rather than academic, grounds, and proposed instead the Korean "race" (minjok) as an alternative subject of analysis.[32][33] Shin believed that Koreans of his time had a "slavish mentality" as a result of centuries of historical, political, and cultural dependence on China, and he prescribed as a cure an identification with the Korean nation and the state, so that this community could be goaded to collective political activism.[33]

In both North and South Korea, Shin Chaeho is credited as the first historian to make the Korean ethnicity the center of Korean historiography,[34][35] the Koreanist Charles K. Armstrong notes that Shin is "considered the father of modern Korean historiography.[36] He received a typical Confucian education, but left Joseon for China after the Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty in 1910.[35] Inspired by his visits to the Goguryeo ruins and Mount Baekdu (Changbai) on the Chinese side of the border, he published Korean nationalist tracts in exile until his death in 1936.[35][36]

Among the new intellectual currents influencing Koreans during Japanese rule, a version of Social Darwinism promulgated by the Chinese historian Liang Qichao was influential among nationalist journalist-historians like Shin Chaeho, Choe Nam-seon, and Park Eun-sik. Liang taught that the world was divided between peoples who were expansionist and influential, such as the Anglo-Saxons and Germans, and those peoples who were weak and insignificant.[37] The themes of struggle for existence (saengjŏn kyŏngjaeng), survival of the fittest (yangyuk kangsik) and natural selection (ch'ŏntaek) inspired not only Shin's own historical views, but also those the Korean "self-strengthening movement" (chagang undong), which operated in similar terms to that in China and in Japan.[38] Shin was also influenced by Liang's "Methods for the Study of Chinese History" (Zhongguo lishi yangjiufa, 1922), from which many of Shin's methods derive.[39] He wrote his own history of Korea which broke from Confucian tradition, whose purveyors he decried as "effete" and disconnected from Korea's "manly" tradition going back to the ancient "Korean" expansionist kingdom of Goguryeo.[40] Shin felt that Confucian historiography, and especially that of Kim Pusik and his alleged pro-Silla bias, suppressed a valid Korean claim to Manchurian territory, which not only had Goguryeo possessed,[38] but Shin conceived as a central stage of Korean history, and a measure of the minjok's strength.[41] Moreover, it was the act of writing history that caused Koreans not to rise up and conquer Manchuria again, according to Shin, resulting in a "great country becoming a small country, a great people becoming a small people".[42] Yet he also criticized the shin sach'e textbooks after the Confucians, who nonetheless treated Japan sympathetically, translated Japanese historical works, and reflected the Japanese worldview.[32][38] He also criticized Pan-Asianism as a guise for Japanese expansionism and regarded East Asia as a mere geographic unit, rather than a basis for solidarity.[43] As a result, his new history focused on both "national struggle" rather than on the rise and fall of political dynasties, and emphasizing Korea's separateness from China and Japan, as he argued that historiography "should promote national spirit and independence".[44] The fellow historians Park Eun-sik (1859–1925) and Chang Chi-yŏng likewise attempted to rectify the "slave literary culture" (noyejŏk munhwa sasang) of the yangban to reflect historical Korea's supposed martial tradition.[45]

After the Japanese annexation, some Korean intellectuals chose to retreat into a life of glorifying Korea's cultural expanse in the past, rather than active collaboration or open resistance with the new authorities. Choe Nam-seon, the founder of the Association for Korea's Glorious Literature (Chosŏn Kwangmunhoe) and Park Eun-sik were representative of a new school of historians called the nationalist historians (Minjok sahakka), who bemoaned the decline of the Joseon dynasty and aimed to raise national consciousness to achieve Korean independence.[46][47][48] Despite their designation as historians, many prominent figures in the movement did not have formal historical training, made extreme claims that "had little chance to withstand the rigorous test of objective historical criticism", and saw history as a political weapon to serve the aims of achieving Korean independence.[46][47] Shin Chaeho often revised existing history and mythology to support his ideal of historical Korean autonomy, and where he could not find it, or where there were contradictions, blamed it on "lost" or "falsified" records, a technique which he accused Kim Pusik of.[49] These historians preferred the folkloric Samguk Yusa as a source over the court-sanctioned Samguk Sagi,[50] blaming the sagi's compiler for distorting Korean history to Confucian and sadaejuui (pro-China) ends.[51][52] Choe's historical research, which he believed should not be unbiased, was motivated by the desire to refute Japanese kokugaku scholarship that emphasized those periods where Korea was under foreign domination.[46] Among nationalist scholars, Shin chose to adapt techniques of that Japanese scholarship, including the use of the derogatory exonym Shina to debase China.[53] An Hwak (安廓), another Korean nationalist, inverted Japanese historiographical tropes, such as by arguing that the supposed factionalism of the late Joseon was an embryonic form of modern party politics.[54] In 1914, Kim Kyo-hŏn (金教獻) wrote the first nationalist history of Korea, from Dangun to the late Joseon, called "A Popular History of the God Tan'gun" (Shindan minsa 神檀民史).[55] Because of Japanese censorship, the writing of nationalist histories was conflated with anti-colonial resistance.[56]

Korean historians charge Japanese colonialist historiography of four main distortions: of giving a leading role to Chinese, Manchurian, and Japanese actors in the history of Korea (t'ayulsŏngron); of portraying Korean society as stagnant and even pre-feudal (chŏngch'esŏngron); of documenting factionalism within Korean political culture (tangp'asŏng-ron); and of alleging common Korean and Japanese ancestry (ilsŏn tongjoron) in order to justify the Japanese colonization of Korea.[25] Yi Ki-baek summarizes Japanese colonialist historiography as stemming from the assumptions of "stagnation, nondevelopment, peninsula particularism, and unoriginality".[57]

After Shin's death, historians who wrote in his tradition would be called "New Nationalists" (shin minjokchuŭi) of the "Korean Studies" movement. In the 1930s, alternative schools emerged, including Marxist historiography and a Western-based, scientific approach (Chindan hakhoe).[58] The scholars from the Chindan hakhoe (Chindan Academic Society), including Yi Pyŏng-do, Yi Sang-baek, Kim Sang-gi, and Kim Sŏk-hyŏng, were trained at universities in Japan or at Keijō Imperial University in Seoul and published in Japanese journals, following objective Rankean ideas that challenged Japanese colonial historiography.[59] On the other hand, the New Nationalists included figures such as Chŏng In-bo (鄭寅普) and An Chae-hong (安在鴻), the first of which had a classical Chinese education, rather than at a social science department at a university in Korea or Japan. They emphasized "independent self-spirit" (chashim), in contrast to neo-Confucian and Western-style scholarship, which represented for Chŏng a "dependent spirit (t'ashim).[60]

After World War II

The surrender of Japan at the end of World War II handed Korea its independence, but the peninsula was immediately divided into ideologically opposed regimes in North and South Korea. At first, Marxist historians focusing on class analysis dominated historical writing in the north, whereas Syngman Rhee's staunchly anti-Communist government (1948–1960) also made the notion of minjok less central to historiography in the south.[61] In North Korea class analysis was displaced by nationalist analysis in the 1950s, soon after the Korean War.[62] In South Korea, the fall of the Rhee regime in 1960 and the anti-Japan protests triggered by the normalization of diplomatic ties with Japan in 1965 also reinstated the minjok as a "unifying framework" for developing an anti-colonial historiography.[63] Since then, historical studies in both North and South have displayed a "pervasive and intense nationalistic tone" despite ideological differences between the two countries.[64] This shared historical outlook has served as a backdrop to North Korea–South Korea relations, as in June 2000 when both Korean heads of state stated that Korean unification was a historical imperative.[65]

North Korea

After independence in 1945, the "far more militant" nationalist tone in North Korean historical scholarship, as compared to South Korean historiography, allows such scholarship to be categorized as nationalist, rather than Marxist.[66] The North Korean leader Kim Il Sung commissioned historians as propagandists to glorify the ancient Goguryeo kingdom's feats against Tang dynasty China, as well as the more recent anti-Japanese struggle in northeast China (Manchuria).[67] Kim was part of the Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army led by the Chinese Communist Party, of which he was a member, but this history was later replaced with his unverifiable claim to have led a "Korean People's Revolutionary Army" (Chosŏn inmin hyŏngmyŏnggun), the details of which strike a similarity to the Northeast Anti-Japanese People's Revolutionary Army which was led by a Chinese.[68] North Korean history of Kim Il Sung's exploits in Manchurian exile contain omissions, implausibilities, and forgeries, as well as a subtext of wandering and salvation (of the minjok) that has been compared with Christian and Greek mythology.[69] According to Gi-Wook Shin, Kim Jong Il's "blood-based nationalism" is descended from the ideas of the historians Shin Chaeho, Yi Gwangsu, and Choe Nam-seon.[34]

There are likewise similarities—although unacknowledged because of the Kim personality cult— between Kim's emphasis juche (chuch'e) self-reliance ideology and Shin's idea of "autonomous spirit" (chuch'e ŭi chŏngsin) and denigration of servile sadaejuui. It is also from these concepts where Inter-Korean charges and countercharges of "dependence" originate.[70] The geographical location of Kim's government in northern Korea has helped it to promote nationalist histories featuring Goguryeo and other Manchurian states to shore up its own legitimacy.[71] The most authoritative history in North Korea, the Chosŏn t'ongsa (1977 edition) justifies its disproportionate treatment of Goguryeo, especially relative to the traditionally-venerated contemporaneous Silla, "because the Korean people were strongest under the [Goguryeo] rules".[72]

The Chosŏn t'ongsa also challenges the traditional view of "Unified Silla" as having unified Korea, stating that the regime only "the southern part of the national land", and that by allying with Tang dynasty China, it "brought in the foreign enemies and... committed a serious crime before the Korean people". As a result of the Goguryeo–Tang War, it continues, Korea "lost no small amount of territory to the aggressors", referring to the lands occupied by Balhae after the collapse of Goguryeo, although North Korea considers Balhae to be Korean.[72] Since the 1950s, North Korean historiography has abandoned class analysis in favor of nationalistic categories, in accordance with the leading juche ideology.[73] Before then, North Korean scholarship concerned itself with fitting Marxist historiography to Korean history, but in 1966, the North Korean dean of historians deemed one controversy on how to reconcile Marxist historiography with national history as a task more relevant to Slavs and Germans than to Koreans. North Korean historiography began to take a more nationalistic aspects and took Manchuria as its geographical center; and important historical controversies began to be settled without debate or discussion.[74][75] In contrast to the Communist Manifesto, which begins "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles", a standard North Korean history text reads, "Human history is a history of struggle of the people for Chajusŏng [ko] [autonomy or independence]". According to Charles K. Armstrong, this conception of history is more similar to Shin Chaeho's conception of the "I" versus the "non-I" than to Marxism.[75]

This history writing denied the influences of Chinese civilization on Korea, and called for a correction of ancient Korean history based on the juche ideology of self-reliance.[74] North Korean historiography on modern Korea has mostly featured unverifiable claims about the heroic nationalist acts of the Kim Il Sung family, such as that one of Kim's ancestors led a mob to burn an American naval ship in 1866.[76] In North Korean historiography, this attack marks the beginning of Korean modern history (kŭndaesa).[75] Mount Baekdu, which is almost always juxtaposed with Kim's son Kim Jong Il, has been increasingly featured in North Korean "mythography" since the 1960s, and more rapidly since the 1970s, associating the leader with Dangun, the supposed progenitor of the Korean race.[75] However, it has also been used to praise the silhak reformist Chŏng Tasan as a patriot in the North, because Tasan wanted to end Joseon's participation in the Imperial Chinese tributary system.[77] Tasan himself was an advocate of a "people-oriented" (minbon) theory of history. A 1970 speech by Kim's son Kim Jong Il to the Workers' Party of Korea emphasized that "we should ensure that things of the past are shown or taught to our people so as to contribute to their education in socialist patriotism" (sahoe chuŭi chŏk aeguk chuŭi).[77]

South Korea

Korean nationalist historiography has dominated the field of Korean studies in the Republic of Korea (South Korea) since 1945.[78] From 1945 to the late 1960s, South Korean national historiography began to move away from biographies of heroic figures in the Korean independence movement towards analyzing nationalist incidents such as the March 1st Movement.[79] Still, South Korean nationalist historiography aims to refute what historian Lee Ki-baek called a "colonial view of Korean history", to which Japanese and foreign scholars supposedly still subscribed.[79] One such "colonial view" was that the Goryeo dynasty (918–1392) was stagnant, which nationalist historians studied Goryeo institutions to try to refute with evidence of dynamism and change.[57] But there are more than twice the number of articles and monographs on the Joseon than there are for Goryeo, since South Korean historians assume that there was a potential fundamental, irreversible change from traditionalism to modernism during that time. This change, so say historians like Choe Yŏng-hŭi, which inhibited by the various Japanese invasions from the 16th century and ultimate annexation, which they blame for social instability and armed banditry.[80] Kim Chol-choon, writing in 1970, evaluated the state of South Korean historiography as lacking a "critical spirit".[81] In 1978, nationalist historian Kang Man'gil challenged the existing periodization of South Korean history into "colonial" and "postliberation" blocs, instead suggesting that the second half of the 20th century should be characterized as one of "division", preceding the creation of a unified, ethnic Korean state. His attack on the "colonial" Korean historiography proposed a new "self-determining historiography" (chuch'ejŏk sagwan).[82] Since the 1970s, fringe elements in the South Korean historical community have also tried to resurrect Shin's irredentist focus on Manchuria. The normalization of China–South Korea relations and visits to Koreans in China have increased interest in the region, although efforts at "Recovering the Ancient Lands", as one irredentist author puts it, are marginal in the public sphere.[83]

The official History of the Republic of Korea portrayed the Korean people as center-stage in their own "liberation" against a small number of collaborators, giving the Allies of World War II a peripheral role.[84] Authoritarian governments in South Korea interfered heavily in historical scholarship, "aggravat[ing] the traditionally conformist nature of established scholarship" by making such topics as the popularity of Communism in 1930s and 1940s Korea taboo.[85] Since the democratization of South Korea in 1987, scholars continue to publish nationalist histories, and the hegemonic portrayal of Japanese rule as oppressive to Korean culture has not changed, although a few Korean scholars have questioned the "collaboration-resistance" dichotomy.[86] From the 1980s to Kim Dae-jung's presidency in 1998, most South Korean historians of collaborationism agreed with the idea that "the nation's history was kidnapped" at independence "by a clique of pro-Japanese stooges", who were shielded by the United States Army Military Government in Korea and Syngman Rhee from the Anti-Traitors Investigation Committee.[87] Recent political campaigns such as the establishment of a presidential commission in 2005 to identify and shame collaborators have entrenched national history as the dominant form of historiography.[88] The state retains the most powerful purveyor of historical memory in South Korea, launching for example a campaign in 2010 to "remember with the people the proud history of establishing simultaneously national sovereignty, democracy and economic development, something unique in the world", a self-legitimizing narrative that excludes the history of the Korean War and Korean democracy activists against the South Korean state.[89] However, some historians of the South Korean New Right, such as Lee Young-hoon, are challenging the nation-centered history by proposing a state-centered history which promotes patriotic pride (aegukshim, 愛國心) for South Korea's economic accomplishments rather than shame for the failure of unifying Koreans.[90] Im Chihyŏn is another contemporary advocate, though of different ideological background, for the "democratization" (minjuhwa 民主化) of historiography by its liberation from the "monolithic nation" paradigm. He is critical, however, of South Korea's democratic governments' efforts to reconcile (kwagŏ ch’ŏngsan) the state's past of White Terror.[90]

Postcolonial South Korean nationalist historians also sought to divide Koreans during the Japanese administration into categories of self-serving collaborator or self-sacrificing nationalist resisters.[31] The first major challenge to the hegemonic state-endorsed, nationalist historiography came not from a Korean but from the American Bruce Cumings, who wrote the 1981 book Origins of the Korean War.[85] Cumings recalled facing heavy resistance to his revisionist historiography including, "that the mere mention of the idea that Japan somehow 'modernized' Korea calls forth indignant denials, raw emotions, and the sense of mayhem having just been, or about to be committed."[91]

Themes

The writings of Shin Chaeho outlined the themes for later nationalist historiography, including the ancientness and distinctiveness of Koreans; the long history of Koreans warding off "foreign aggression"; and the portrayal of Koreans "as an essential part of world history".[53]

The Korean minjok

The main goal of Korean nationalist historiography (minjok sahak) in South Korea since 1945 was to write "a new racial history of Korean independence" that would refute earlier Japanese scholarship on Korea (Ilchesagwan).[78] The idea of a Korean race, or people, entered into Korean vocabulary in the late 1890s with the word minjok. Prior to the 19th century, according to Carter Eckert, "there was little, if any, feeling of loyalty toward the abstract concept of 'Korea' as a nation-state, or toward fellow inhabitants of the peninsula as 'Koreans'". Loyalty to village, family, and king took precedence for ordinary people, while Korean elites considered themselves as members of a "cosmopolitan civilization centered on China".[92]

The coming of the nation state system to East Asia, during which Korea was corporated into Meiji Japan, prompted Korean activists to "redefine Korea in terms of internal homogeneity and external autonomy". In Shin Chaeho's 1908 essay Doksa Sillon ("A new way of reading history"), Shin equated Korean history (kuksa) with that of the Korean nation (minjoksa), attempting to redirect people's loyalties to that category which he asserted always existed in history.[93] For example, Shin asserted that Myocheong's rebellion (1135–1136) against Goryeo which was crushed by Kim Pusik as a "nationalist" rebellion.[49] Myocheong had demanded that Goryeo move its capital north to sŏgyŏng (modern Pyongyang) and take a more aggressive stance against the Liao and Jin dynasties to the north, which Kim felt would undermine the security of the Goryeo state.[94] Shin's later work, from the Chosŏn sanggo munhwasa, showed more critical evaluation of primary sources, using methods from archaeology, epigraphy, and comparative linguistics, and relying less on Daejonggyo (Dangun-worship) scripture.[95]

Ancientness and Inner Asian connection

Nationalist historiography considers the Yemaek the beginning of the "unity of race, culture, and statehood in the prehistoric Korean peninsula", overlooking the presence of the contemporary Upper Xiajiadian culture (1000–600 BCE) and Lower Xiajiadian culture (2200–1600 BCE) in Liaodong.[96] Following the Japanese colonial paradigm of indigenism, Korean nationalist historiography asserts more and more ancient origins for Koreans in order to prove Korean cultural legitimacy.[97] Such a search for "the racial origins" of Koreans mirrors the Japanese concept of kokutai ("national essence"), which was part of kokugaku scholarship.[98] For Shin, the search for an ideal time in antiquity was not to when there was Confucian peace and stability—as in Chinese historiography's valorization of Emperors Yao and Shun—but when the Korean minjok controlled the most territory.[99] The retro-projection of 20th century concepts of race and ethnicity onto ancient Korea has resulted in a "complex jumble of contradictory narratives filled with Tan'gun fiction, competing dynastic myths, and hypothetical invasions of tribes, as well as unaccountable archaeological data... [that] has rendered it virtually impossible to distinguish fact from fiction in studies on ancient Korea."[100] Nationalism has so pervaded mainstream historical scholarship in South Korea that Chinese characters, used exclusively to write the Korean language until recently, are relegated to footnotes in academic journals or excluded completely.[101] Historical periodization in North Korea is concerned with proving the "superiority and advancedness" of Korean civilization by "pushing the beginning of each historical stage as far back as possible".[66]

Korean nationalist historiography is connected with "popular archaeology" in South Korea, where television archaeologists competing for ratings make ever more-expansive claims to the limits of ancient Korea. For example, in 1993 the Korea Daily sponsored a trip of archaeologist Son Bo-gi of Yonsei University to Ulan Bator, Mongolia where Son claimed that he discovered a new Goguryeo stone fortress which proved that Goguryeo extended beyond the Greater Khingan range.[102] Korean Bronze Age art has been connected by popular archaeologists, for example, to that of the Scythians, supposedly proving the "arrival of a superior northern race" into the Korean peninsula.[103] Korean journalists and researchers also regularly travel along Silk Road sites in Central Asia searching for Korea's "Altaic roots".[102] Choe Nam-seon, writing in the territorial tradition of Shin Chae-ho, argued that Korea was the center of the Purham culture which extended deep into Central Asia.[104] According to Choe, the world was divided into Indo-European, Chinese, and "Părk" cultures (Purham munhwa kwŏn), the last of whom was a Korean Shinto-like religion that spread from the Black Sea through the Caspian Sea, Tian Shan, the Altai Mountains, down through Korea, Japan, and Okinawa.[105] Choe alleged that Dangun was universally worshiped within this super-culture.[106] However, according to Chizuko Allen, Choe did not examine the local cultures of any countries besides Korea, China, and Japan, and based this theory on phonetic similarities of geographical features.[105] Choe's Purham culture theory has since been adopted by the independence activist and "Korean Studies movement" leader An Chae-hong.[107]

Revised Korean founding myth

Around the mid-Joseon dynasty, the established view among historians traced Korean origins to Chinese refugees, considering Korean history that of a long series of kingdoms connected with China. As such, the Gija Joseon and Silla states were valorized, while the Gojoseon and Goguryeo states were not considered as important.[108] According to this view, the first state in Korea, Gija Joseon, was founded by Jizi in 1122 BCE, who was a disgruntled Chinese advisor to the Shang dynasty. The story of how he brought poetry, music, medicine, trade, and a political system to the Korean peninsula was conceived similarly to the proposed Founding of Rome by the Trojan refugee Aeneas.[109] But by the 1930s, under the influence of Shin Chaeho's histories, the Jizi Korean founding story became less popular than that of Dangun, the son of a tiger and a bear – the latter being common in Japanese folklore – who brought civilization to the Korean peninsula.[109] Shin and the other historians who promulgated this myth had been influenced by Daejonggyo, a new religious movement which worshipped Dangun,[110] but attacked pre-annexation textbook narratives of Dangun which portrayed him as the brother of the Japanese god Susanoo.[32] To Shin, Dangun was both the founder of the Korean minjok and the first Korean state (kuk), and thus the necessary starting point for Korean history.[36] In response to a challenge by the Japanese scholars Shiratori Kurakichi and Imanishi Ryū of Dangun as a fabrication by the author of the Samguk yusa, nationalist historian Choe Nam-seon attacked Japanese mythology as being built upon fabrications.[50]

By focusing on a mythological god which founded a "sacred race" (shinsŏng chongjok), Korean nationalist historiography seeks to portray ancient Korea as a golden age of "gods and heroes" where Korea's cultural achievements rivaled those of China and Japan.[111] Accordingly, Shin Chaeho elevated Dangun to play a similar role as did the Yellow Emperor in China and which Amaterasu does in Japan.[112] Choe Nam-seon, according to his Purham culture theory, places Dangun even above the Chinese and Japanese emperors, because those rulers were supposedly Shamanistic rulers of the ancient Korean "Părk" tradition.[113] The Dangun story also lends credence to claims that Korean heritage is over 5000 years old. According to Hyung Il Pai, the popularity of Dangun studies can be said to "reflect the progressively ultra-nationalistic trend in Korean historical and archaeological scholarship today".[114] Shin Chaeho named Mount Changbai (Baekdu in Korean) on the Sino-Korean border as a part of Korean heritage, by virtue of connection with the mythical Dangun. Changbai, however, was already claimed by the Manchus of China's Qing dynasty since the 17th century for their origin myth,[115][116] as well as by the Mongols, and the mountains are considered sacred in Han Chinese culture as well.[117] This nationalist identification of Changbai/Baekdu with Koreans was cemented by the operation of Korean independence movement partisans operating from the Chinese border and retroactively legitimized with reference to the history of the Gojoseon and Balhae states.[115] The Chinese civilizational connection to ancient Korea continues to be attacked by North Korean historians, who allege that the history of Gija Joseon was "viciously distorted by the feudal ruling class, the sadaejuui followers, and the big-power chauvinists".[74]

Relationship with China and Japan

Distinctiveness from

Korean ethnic nationalism is based on the idea that Koreans have existed as a single unique homogeneous race (tan'il minjok) since ancient times. As part of an effort to create a narrative of Korean origins free from "racial contamination" from Chinese or Japanese, racial histories of Koreans published in Korea usually begin with the line "Koreans are not Japanese". As a result, the most politically correct proposed origins of Koreans are from southern Siberia (pukpang-gye), from the "South Sea", or mythological (as in the Dangun story).[118] The most influential articulation of these nationalist theories of origin is Kim Chŏng-hak's "History of the formation of the Korean race" (1964); others include Kim Chŏng-bae (1976, 1987, 1990), Yi Ki-baek (1977, [with Yi Ki-dong] 1983), Kim Wŏl-lyong (1970, 1986, 1989b), Yun Mu-byŏng (1987), and Yi Chong-uk (1993).[118] According to Shin Chaeho, the Korean people were the descendants of Dangun, who merged with the Buyeo (Fuyu) people of Manchuria and ended their development as the core of the Goguryeo people.[119]

In nationalist historiography, Korea is valorized as having an indigenous culture separate from those of China and Japan. Evidence of Chinese cultural influence on Koreans, as well as of common ancestral origins for Koreans and Japanese, is denounced as an "evil plot" of "Japanese imperialistic historiography" (Ilche sagwan) to "annihilate the Korean people" (minjok malsal).[120] Shin Chaeho strove to make "Korea" a primary, bounded unit of East Asian history, which he believed had been distorted by Confucian historians who measured Koreans by a graduation between Chinese and barbarian.[49] Archaeologists in both North and South Korea have claimed, contrary to earlier scholarship, that Korea experienced a Bronze Age culture separate from that of China, with artifacts resembling those in Siberia and Manchuria.[66]

Superiority over

Korea is alternatively portrayed in nationalist historiography as being continually victimized throughout history by China and Japan, but remaining morally, racially, and culturally superior to them, since they—and more recently, Western powers—tried and "failed to suppress Korea's national spirit".[111] Shin Chaeho's work shows the influence of Social Darwinism by portraying history as a racial struggle between the "Buyeo" (Korean) minjok with that of the Xianbei, Chinese, Mohe, and Jurchen over territory.[99] He praised historical figures who preserved or extended "Korean" control over Manchuria, and shamed those who did not, such as Muyeol of Silla. As a result, the search for heroes of the former led his Doksa Sillon to focus more on ancient, rather than recent history.[41] Various self-designations for Koreans in the minjok struggle include "the good race" (sŏnmin) and "the chosen or delivered people" (paedal).[121] In postcolonial North and South Korean historiography, there is a tendency to emphasize the "superiority" (ususŏng) and "advancedness" (sŏnjinsŏng) of Korea's historical development.[66]

Nationalist historiography celebrates various victories of "Koreans" over "foreigners" including the Goguryeo–Sui War (612), Goguryeo–Tang War (645), Goryeo–Khitan War (1018), Korean-Jurchen wars (1107), Mongol invasions of Korea (1231–73), and Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598).[111] Accordingly, military heroes such as Ŭlchi Mundŏk of Goguryeo—and indeed all the generals of the Three contemporary kingdoms of Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla—are assigned a common, "national" identity of Korean. In the words of John Duncan, however, it is "extremely unlikely" that the people of those kingdoms would identify with "a larger, 'Korean' collectivity that transcended local boundaries and state loyalties".[122] Yi Sang-ryong, who argued that history "raised the dignity of the country and fostered patriotism" (kungmin chŏngshin) claimed that during the "northern history" of Koreans in Manchuria, from the time of Dangun to Balhae, the Sushen (Suksin) and Japanese people were subordinate to Dangun.[123]

Shin Chaeho has also argued for the existence of monotheism in ancient Korea, elevating Koreans to the "advanced" civilizations of the Middle East; however, this theory contradicts other nationalist historiography which propose Shamanism as an ancient Korean religion, as well as that of nearly all religious historians, who say Koreans were syncretist.[114] Na Se-jin, Korea's most quoted physical anthropologist, asserted in 1964 that Koreans are superior in "looks, brains, bravery, stature, and strength" to the Chinese and Japanese, and resemble Europeans more than "Mongoloids", reflecting nationalist historiography's fixation on prehistorical racial roots.[124] For Shin, the founding of Korea by such an antique figure as Dangun proved that Korea was more ancient that China; that Dangun colonized China proving that Korea was superior to China; and that mythical Chinese emperors and sages were really "Korean".[125] Shin also reconceived the "Great Plan" (Hungfan chin ch'ou 洪範九疇) given by Jizi of Gija Joseon as being made by "a man of [Joseon]", turning China into an importer of Korean civilization, opposite to the traditional view.[49]

Historical territory

Owning and transcending the peninsula

In his seminal work Doksa Sillon, Shin Chaeho redefined the subject of Korean national history from only the Korean Peninsula both towards the outer limits of "Manchuria" and to that of the "racially defined nation" (minjok).[35] By defining Korean history as that of the minjok, he could argue that Goguryeo, Silla, and Baekje, despite frequent wars between each other, were "of the same minjok and consequently of the same history".[112] However, the conception of a Korean nation as being bounded by the Yalu and Tumen rivers was reinforced by Confucian histories of Joseon that did not confer legitimacy on dynasties that held such extreme northern territory.[126] Shin Chaeho particularly resented this confinement, considering the fall of Goguryeo and the loss of "Korean" control over its extrapeninsular territory as the beginning of the minjok's decline.[127] He wrote: "When the Korean minjok obtains Manchuria, the Korean minjok is strong and prosperous. When another [Eastern or Northern] minjok obtains Manchuria... then Korea [Han'guk] enters that... [Eastern or Northern] minjok's sphere of power.... This is an iron rule that has not changed for four thousand years",[128] a sentiment with which a large number of contemporary Koreans agree.[129] In this lament, Shin found common cause with Imperial Japanese historians of the Mansenshi school, who wished to portray the Korean peninsula and the Asian continent as inseparable, but with the obverse goal of undermining ideas of Korean independence.[128][130] Not only did Shin, but also the fellow nationalist historian Park Eun-sik consider Manchuria the foundation on which to build a powerful "Greater Korea".[131]

At the same time, however, nationalist historiography presupposes that any polity inhabiting the Korean peninsula was "Korean"; and that all of the inhabitants of the peninsula were unchangingly and homogeneously "Korean" for "5000 years". E. Taylor Atkins criticizes these assumptions as "no less questionable than those that Japanese colonial scholars brought", and as contributing to modern territorial disputes with China and Japan.[31] Historical study of Jeju Island, Ulleungdo, and the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), commensurate with their conception as Korean since the late Joseon, served the timely needs of maritime defense.[132]

Interpretation of Balhae as Korean

During the mid-Joseon dynasty, Pak Chiwŏn denied the fact that the Han dynasty's territories extended south of the Yalu, and criticized Kim Pusik for excluding Balhae (Bohai in Chinese) in Manchuria from the history of Korea, arguing that Balhae were "descendants" of Goguryeo.[14] Yi Kyu-gyŏng argued that the exclusion of Balhae from Korean history was "a grave error" since "it occupied a vast area".[16] Additionally, Balhae's founders Dae Joyeong and his father Dae Jung-sang were both generals in the Goguryeo army believed to be ethnically Korean and much of the ruling class of Balhae were Korean. In the Joseon dynasty's later years, however, increasing numbers of Korean historians included Balhae into Korean history, despite acknowledging that a large portion of the country's populace were Mohe people, who could not be considered Korean.[133] In the 18th century, the divide was such that the scholars Yi Ik and An Chŏngbok adamantly refused to consider Balhae part of Korean history, while Sin Kyŏngjun and Yu Deuk-gong fully incorporated it. One century later, Han Ch'iyun (韓致淪) and Han Chinsŏ (韓鎭書) would include Balhae as equal in Korean history to such uncontroversially Korean dynasties like Silla.[134] Shin Chaeho criticized the Samguk Sagi for excluding Balhae and the Buyeo kingdom (Chinese: Fuyu, another Manchurian state) from Korean history.[36] He interpreted Balhae's defeat by the Khitan-led Liao dynasty as having caused "half of our ancestor [Dangun]'s ancient lands... [loss] for over nine hundred years".[41] North Korean scholars—and more recently some in the South—have recently tried to incorporate Balhae history as an integral part of Korean history by challenging the view of Unified Silla as the unification of Korea. According to this narrative, Goryeo was the first unification of Korea, since Balhae still existed while occupying former Goguryeo territory north of the Korean peninsula.[66][75]

Denial of ancient Han dynasty presence

The demonization of Japanese historical and archaeological findings in Korea as imperialist forgeries owes in part to those scholars' discovery of the Lelang Commandery—by which the Han dynasty administered territory near Pyongyang—and insistence that this Chinese commandery had a major influence on the development of Korean civilization.[135] Until the North Korean challenge, it was universally accepted that Lelang was a commandery established by Emperor Wu of Han after he defeated Gojoseon in 108 BCE.[66] To deal with the Han dynasty tombs, North Korean scholars have reinterpreted them as the remains of Gojoseon or Goguryeo.[135] For those artifacts that bear undeniable similarities to those found in Han China, they propose that they were introduced through trade and international contact, or were forgeries, and "should not by any means be construed as a basis to deny the Korean characteristics of the artifacts".[136] The North Koreans also say that there were two Lelangs, and that the Han actually administered a Lelang on the Liao River on the Liaodong peninsula, while Pyongyang was an "independent Korean state" of Lelang, which existed between the 2nd century BCE until the 3rd century CE.[66][75] The traditional view of Lelang, according to them, was expanded by Chinese chauvinists and Japanese imperialists.[66]

Claims on Liaodong and other Chinese territories

Shin Chae-ho drew on irredentist themes from Imperial Japanese historiography, which argued for territorial expansion based on past control. To justify a Greater Japan, the Japanese historian Kume Kunitake criticized the notion of Japan as an island state, proposing that Japan had governed Korea and southeastern China in the past. Shin's historiography justified a Greater Korea with reference to territories Korea had supposedly held in the past,[137] which Shin took to mean—from Baekje: western Liaodong, Shandong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and the surrounding areas; and from Silla: northeastern Jilin.[138] He felt that Unified Silla, Goryeo, and Joseon were not true "unifications" of the Korean people as had been previously thought, but only "semi-" or "half-" unifications (panp'yonjok t'ongil), with a full unification yet unfulfilled since the times of Dangun.[41] Earlier, Pak Chiwŏn argued that Liaodong and other territories above the Yalu River should be considered historical Korean territory, or else Korea would lose more territory.[15] Yi Kyu-gyŏng believed that the Liaodong Peninsula was "irrefutably" ancient Korean territory because the Korean name for Liaodong was Samhan (Korean: 삼한; Hanja: 三韓), or "Three Korean States".[16] Nationalist scholars asserted Korean ownership of Liaodong and the surrounding area based on the Chinese dynastic History of Liao and History of Jin.[139] However, mainstream acceptance of claims to Manchurian territory in Korea occurred only when the Empire of Japan expanded into north and northeast China. Colonial Japanese scholars such as Iwakichi Inaba, Shiratori Kurakichi, Torii Ryūzō, Imanishi Ryū, and Ikeuchi Hiroshi declared that there was one unified "Manchurian-Korean history" (Mansen-shi).[140]

The South Korean Yun Nae-hyŏn proposed in 1985 that Gojoseon lasted for two thousand years from before 2333 BCE, stretching from Hebei in north China to all of Korea.[135] Important dissenters to the Liaodong-as-Korean view during Joseon included Chŏng Yagyong, who argued that Liaodong was "superfluous" to Korea's natural river borders; and Yi Ik, who regarded irredentism against China as a "greedy ambition" that could lead to trouble in the future;[141] against the nationalist historians of 1910 who bemoaned the "loss" of Manchuria and decline of the Korean minjok, An Hwak represented a dissenting voice.[54] The Daejonggyo cult of Dangun wrote "historical tales" (sahwa) which influenced Korean nationalist historiography of the 20th century. The pan-Dongyi pan-Northeast Asian arguments of the sahwa included the assertion that the Korean nation included "not only the Korean peninsula and Manchuria, but also northeastern China", considering the emperors of Shun, Liao, Jin, Yuan, and Qing as part of Korean history. This expanded concept of the Korean nation was included in Kim Kyo-hŏn's Korean history textbooks intended to boost the morale of military cadets studying in exile in China.[55] According to Kim, since all these peoples who led the dynasties originated in Manchuria—unlike, say, Jizi of Gija Joseon—, they are all descendants of Dangun, and thus part of the Korean minjok's "northern" branch of history. As a result, he considered all the lands conquered by those peoples, including most lately "the land of the Han, Mongolia, the territory of the Hui, and Tibet" all the way down to Burma as included in the territory of the Korean minjok.[42] Yi Sang-ryong made a number of arguments in common with Shin, Kim Kyohŏn and Park Eun-sik: that the Manchu people were actually Korean; that the Four Commanderies of Han were located in Liaodong and not "Korean" territory; and that some portion of Korean history should be centered in Manchuria, with the goal of creating a greater Joseon state which included the territory.[123] Shin argued that the "trends in geographical history" portended future Korean control over former Goguryeo territories, and advocated Korean emigration to "relight" (chunggwang) the lost history of Dangun.[142] As a result of peasant uprisings, famines, and Imperial Japanese encouragement, Korean immigration to Manchuria soared from 1860, reaching 400,000 Koreans by 1920; 900,000 by 1931, and over two million by 1945.[143]

Korean nationalist historiography which holds the subjugation of Manchuria by Korean dynasties as glorious has clashed with contemporary Chinese nationalism, which regard the territory as a Chinese borderland (bianjiang).[129] Chinese historians even object to the name "Manchuria", which evokes a historical independence used to justify imperial powers' attempted separation of that territory from China. Accordingly, they believe that the proper name is "China's Northeast" (dongbei).[129] The Goguryeo controversies around 2002 reflected nationalist sentiment in both China and Korea, stimulated by state-affiliated scholars and institutes from both sides which argued about whether Goguryeo should be considered part of Chinese or Korean history.[129]

See also

Notes

  1.  "독재가 없었으면 경제 발전도 없다? 위험한 착각". Pressian. 11 March 2015.
  2.  ""민족사의 모든 반동 결딴낸 사학계 녹두장군이셨죠"" [He was the Nockdu Janggun, who defeated all reactionists to the Korean nationalist historiography.]. 한겨레. 17 March 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2023.
  3.  Ebrey, Walthall & Palais 2006, pp. 433 (rebellions starting in 1862) and 437 (military pressure from westen powers and Japan).
  4.  Ebrey, Walthall & Palais 2006, p. 438.
  5.  Ebrey, Walthall & Palais 2006, p. 438 (the 1876 treaty "opened the door not only to trade but to foreign interference and a world of trouble"); Em 1999, p. 352 ("imperialist rivalry over Korea").
  6.  Ebrey, Walthall & Palais 2006, p. 437.
  7.  Larsen 2008, pp. 31–32 (tribute missions and ritual inferiority) and 37 ("like the Ming, the Qing virtually never interfered with Korean domestic affairs"; "dependent-yet-autonomous status"); Ebrey, Walthall & Palais 2006, p. 437 ("One of the reasons for the use of violence by the French and Americans was the frustration caused by the ambiguity over who was responsible for the conduct of foreign relations under the tributary system").
  8.  Ebrey, Walthall & Palais 2006.
  9.  Em 1999, p. 344.
  10.  Larsen 2008, p. 272.
  11.  Schmid 2002, p. 10.
  12.  Shin 2000, p. 5
  13.  Shin 2000, p. 7
  14.  Shin 2000, p. 11
  15.  Shin 2000, p. 10
  16.  Shin 2000, p. 12
  17.  Kim 1970, p. 5
  18.  Pai 2000, p. 7.
  19.  Tikhonov 2010, pp. 83–84.
  20.  Pai 2000, p. 8.
  21.  Shin 2006, pp. 29–30.
  22.  Huh 2001, pp. 41 and 43.
  23.  Huh 2001, p. 58.
  24.  Shin 2006, p. 27.
  25.  Em 1999, p. 346
  26.  Em 1999, p. 348
  27.  Schmid 2000a, pp. 962–963
  28.  Ch'oe 1980, pp. 17–18
  29.  Han 1992, p. 77
  30.  Doak 2001, pp. 98–99
  31.  Atkins 2010, pp. 84–85
  32.  Han 1992, pp. 69–70
  33.  Robinson 1984, p. 122
  34.  David-West 2010, p. 112
  35.  Schmid 1997, p. 27
  36.  Armstrong 1995, p. 3
  37.  Allen 1990, p. 789
  38.  Robinson 1984, pp. 129–130
  39.  Han 1992, pp. 84–85
  40.  Jager 2003, pp. 4–5
  41.  Schmid 2000b, pp. 233–235
  42.  Schmid 2002, pp. 231–233
  43.  Kim 2011, p. 191
  44.  Pai 2000, p. 63
  45.  Jager 2003, p. 9
  46.  Allen 1990, pp. 791–793
  47.  Ch'oe 1980, pp. 19–20
  48.  Kim 1970, p. 6
  49.  Robinson 1984, pp. 131–132
  50.  Allen 1990, pp. 793–795
  51.  Ch'oe 1980, pp. 7–8, 19
  52.  Schultz 2004, pp. 4–5
  53.  Em 1999, p. 349
  54.  Han 1992, pp. 81–82
  55.  Han 1992, pp. 72, 75
  56.  Pai 2000, p. 8
  57.  Kawashima 1978, pp. 30–31
  58.  Han 1992, pp. 87–88
  59.  Ch'oe 1980, pp. 20–21
  60.  Han 1992, pp. 95, 97–98
  61.  North: Ch'oe 1981, pp. 504–5; South: Schmid 2002, p. 264.
  62.  Wells 2001, p. 187.
  63.  Schmid 2002, p. 264.
  64.  Ch'oe 1980, p. 22.
  65.  De Ceuster 2010, pp. 15–16
  66.  Ch'oe 1980, pp. 23–25
  67.  Palais 1998, p. 223
  68.  Armstrong 1995, pp. 7–8
  69.  Armstrong 1995, pp. 9–10
  70.  Robinson 1984, pp. 123–124
  71.  Schmid 1997, pp. 39–40
  72.  Ch'oe 1981, pp. 511–512
  73.  Wells 2001, p. 187
  74.  Ch'oe 1981, pp. 503–505, 522
  75.  Armstrong 1995, pp. 11–12
  76.  Ch'oe 1981, p. 520
  77.  David-West 2010, pp. 97–98, 102–103
  78.  Pai 2000, p. 1
  79.  Wells 2001, p. 188
  80.  Kawashima 1978, pp. 38–39, 41
  81.  Kim 1970, p. 8
  82.  Wells 2001, p. 189
  83.  Schmid 1997, pp. 42–43
  84.  De Ceuster 2001, pp. 215–217
  85.  De Ceuster 2001, pp. 218
  86.  Atkins 2010, pp. 85–86
  87.  De Ceuster 2001, pp. 207–208
  88.  De Ceuster 2010, p. 21
  89.  De Ceuster 2010, p. 23
  90.  De Ceuster 2010, pp. 16–18
  91.  Walraven 2001, p. 164
  92.  Em 1999, pp. 337–338
  93.  Em 1999, pp. 338–339, 342
  94.  Schultz 2004, p. 3
  95.  Han 1992, p. 74
  96.  Pai 2000, p. 98
  97.  Pai 2000, p. 111
  98.  Robinson 1984, p. 135
  99.  Schmid 1997, pp. 34–35
  100.  Pai 2000, p. 122
  101.  Palais 1998, p. 225
  102.  Pai 2000, p. 17
  103.  Pai 2000, p. 94
  104.  Schmid 1997, p. 39
  105.  Allen 1990, pp. 797–799
  106.  Han 1992, p. 78
  107.  Han 1992, p. 89
  108.  Karlsson 2009, p. 3
  109.  Simons 1999, p. 70
  110.  Walraven 2001, p. 158
  111.  Pai 2000, p. 2
  112.  Schmid 1997, p. 32
  113.  Allen 1990, p. 800
  114.  Pai 2000, pp. 95–96
  115.  Pai 2000, p. 254
  116.  Kim 2007, pp. 42–43
  117.  Armstrong 1995, p. 2
  118.  Pai 2000, pp. 57, 78
  119.  Robinson 1984, pp. 132–133
  120.  Pai 2000, p. 36
  121.  Pai 2000, p. 58
  122.  Em 1999, p. 350
  123.  Han 1992, pp. 76, 86
  124.  Pai 2000, p. 260
  125.  Pai 2000, p. 266
  126.  Schmid 1997, pp. 28, 29
  127.  Jager 2003, pp. 14–16
  128.  Schmid 2002, p. 227
  129.  Kim 2007, pp. 56–58
  130.  Schmid 1997, p. 30
  131.  Han 1992, p. 73
  132.  Han 1992, pp. 62–64
  133.  Karlsson 2009, p. 2
  134.  Karlsson 2009, pp. 4–5
  135.  Pai 2000, pp. 127–129
  136.  Ch'oe 1980, p. 509
  137.  Em 1999, p. 345
  138.  Han 1992, p. 86
  139.  Karlsson 2009, p. 4
  140.  Pai 2000, p. 26
  141.  Karlsson 2009, p. 8
  142.  Schmid 1997, p. 38
  143.  Armstrong 1995, p. 5

References

Works cited

  • Allen, Chizuko T. (November 1990), "Northeast Asia Centered Around Korea: Ch'oe Namsŏn's View of History", The Journal of Asian Studies, 49 (4): 787–806, doi:10.2307/2058236, JSTOR 2058236, S2CID 162622386.
  • Armstrong, Charles K. (1995), "Centering the Periphery: Manchurian Exile(s) and the North Korean State" (PDF), Korean Studies, 19: 1–16, doi:10.1353/ks.1995.0017, S2CID 154659765.
  • Atkins, E. Taylor (2010), Primitive Selves: Koreana in the Japanese Colonial Gaze, 1910-1945, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  • Ch'oe, Yŏng-ho (1980), "An Outline History of Korean Historiography", Korean Studies, 4: 1–27, doi:10.1353/ks.1980.0003, S2CID 162859304.
  • Ch'oe, Yŏng-ho (May 1981), "Reinterpreting Traditional History in North Korea", The Journal of Asian Studies, 40 (3): 503–52, doi:10.2307/2054553, JSTOR 2054553, S2CID 145140808.
  • David-West, Alzo (2010), "Between Confucianism and Marxism-Leninism: Juche and the Case of Chŏng Tasan", Korean Studies, 35: 93–121, doi:10.1353/ks.2011.0007, S2CID 144136781.
  • De Ceuster, Koen (2001), "The Nation Exorcised: The Historiography of Collaboration in South Korea", Korean Studies, 25 (2): 207–243, doi:10.1353/ks.2001.0015, S2CID 144585443.
  • De Ceuster, Koen (2010), "When History is Made: History, Memory, and the Politics of Remembrance in Contemporary Korea", Korean Histories, 2 (1): 13–33.
  • Doak, Kevin M. (2001), "Narrating China, Ordering East Asia: The Discourse on Nation and Ethnicity in Imperial Japan", in Chow, Kai-Wing; Doak, Kevin M.; Fu, Poshek (eds.), Constructing Nationhood in Modern East Asia: Narrative Schemes, Nostalgia and Ambiguity of Identities, University of Michigan Press, pp. 85–117.
  • Ebrey, Patricia Buckley; Walthall, Anne; Palais, James (2006), Modern East Asia, from 1600: A Cultural, Social, and Political History, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, ISBN 978-0618133857.
  • Em, Henry H. (1999), "Minjok" as a Modern and Democratic Construct: Sin Ch'aeho's Historiography", in Shin, Gi-wook; Robinson, Michael (eds.), Colonial Modernity in Korea, Cambridge: Harvard University Asian Center, pp. 336–361, ISBN 978-0674142558.
  • Han, Young-woo (1992), "The Establishment and Development of Nationalist History", Seoul Journal of Korean Studies, 5: 61–104.
  • Huh, Dong-hyun (2001), "Forms of Acceptance of Social Darwinism by the Korean Progressives of the 1880–1890s: on the Materials of Yu Giljun and Yun Ch'iho", International Journal of Korean Studies, 2, translated by Vladimir Tikhonov: 41–63.
  • Jager, Shila Miyoshi (2003), Narratives of Nation Building in Korea: A Genealogy of Patriotism, M. E. Sharpe, ISBN 9780765638960.
  • Karlsson, Anders (December 2009), Northern Territories and the Historical Understanding of Territory in Late Chosŏn, Working Papers in Korean Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
  • Kawashima, Fujiya (1978), "Historiographic development in South Korea: State and society from the Mid-Koryŏ to the Mid-Yi dynasty", Korean Studies, 2: 29–56, doi:10.1353/ks.1978.0005, S2CID 161263322.
  • Kim, Chol-choon (1970), In Search of National Identity: The Case of Korean History, vol. 10, Korea Journal, pp. 4–9.
  • Kim, Bongjin (2011), "Sin Ch'ae-ho: 'A Critique of Easternism,' 1909.", in Saaler, Sven; Szpilman, Christopher W.A. (eds.), Pan-Asianism: A Documentary History, Volume 1: 1850–1920, Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 191–194.
  • Kim, Seonmin (June 2007), "Ginseng and Border Trespassing Between Qing China and Chosŏn Korea", Late Imperial China, 28 (1): 33–61, doi:10.1353/late.2007.0009, S2CID 143779357.
  • Larsen, Kirk W. (2008), Tradition, Treaties, and Trade: Qing Imperialism and Chosŏn Korea, 1850-1910, Cambridge (MA) and London: Harvard University Asia Center, distributed by Harvard University Press, ISBN 9780674028074.
  • Palais, James (1998), "Nationalism: Good or Bad?", in Pai, Hyung Il; Tangherlini, Timothy R. (eds.), Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity, Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California.
  • Pai, Hyung Il (2000), Constructing "Korean" Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State Formation Theories, Harvard University Asia Center.
  • Robinson, Michael (1984), "National Identity and the Thought of Sin Ch'ae-ho: Sadaejuŭi and Chuch'e in History and Politics.", Journal of Korean Studies, 5: 121–142, doi:10.1353/jks.1984.0003, S2CID 144453287.
  • Schmid, Andre (2002), Korea Between Empires, 1895-1919, Columbia University Press.
  • Schmid, Andre (1997), "Rediscovering Manchuria: Sin Ch'aeho and the Politics of Territorial History in Korea", Journal of Asian Studies, 56 (1): 26–46, doi:10.2307/2646342, JSTOR 2646342, S2CID 162879663.
  • Schmid, Andre (November 2000a), "Colonialism and the 'Korea Problem' in the Historiography of Modern Japan: A Review Article", The Journal of Asian Studies, 59 (4): 951–976, doi:10.2307/2659218, JSTOR 2659218, S2CID 162644147.
  • Schmid, Andre (Winter 2000b), "Looking North toward Manchuria", The South Atlantic Quarterly, 99 (1): 219–240, doi:10.1215/00382876-99-1-219, S2CID 144614553.
  • Schultz, Edward J. (2004), "An Introduction to the Samguk Sagi", Korean Studies, 28: 1–13, doi:10.1353/ks.2005.0026, S2CID 144403549.
  • Shin, Gi-Wook (2006), Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy, Stanford: Stanford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8047-5407-1 (cloth); ISBN 0-8047-5408-X (paperback).
  • Shin, Yong-ha (2000), Modern Korean history and nationalism, Korean Studies, Jimoondang.
  • Simons, G. L. (1999), Korea: The Search for Sovereignty, Palgrave MacMillan.
  • Tikhonov, Vladimir (2010), Social Darwinism and Nationalism in Korea: the Beginnings (1880s–1910s), Leiden: Brill, ISBN 9789004185036.
  • Walraven, Boudewijn (2001), "The Parliament of Histories: New Religions, Collective Historiography, and the Nation", Korean Studies, 25 (2): 157–178, doi:10.1353/ks.2001.0024, S2CID 145784087.
  • Wells, Kenneth M. (2001), "The Nation, the World, and the Dissolution of the Shin'ganhoe: Nationalist Historiography in South Korea", Korean Studies, 25 (2): 179–206, doi:10.1353/ks.2001.0025, S2CID 143411233.

Further reading

  • Ch'Oe, Yŏng-ho (1976). "History in North Korea: Its Role and Characteristics". Journal of East and West Studies. 5 (1): 3–16. doi:10.1080/12265087609432816.
  • Em, Henry H (1993). "'Overcoming' Korea's Division: Narrative Strategies in Recent South Korean Historiography". Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique. 1 (2): 450–485. doi:10.1215/10679847-1-2-450.
  • Em, Henry H (1998). "Democracy and Korean Unification from a Post-Nationalist Perspective". Asea Yongu. 41 (2): 43–74.
  • Em, Henry H (1999). "Nationalism, Post-Nationalism, and Shin Ch'ae-ho". Korea Journal. 39 (2): 283–317.
  • Em, Henry H (2001). "Between Colonialism and Nationalism: Power and Subjectivity in Korea, 1931–1950". The Journal of the International Institute. 9: 1.
  • Em, Henry H. (2009). Sovereignty and Modern Korean Historiography. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.
  • Hur, Namlin (1998). "Collective Memory, Historians, and the Construction of the National Identity of the Koreans through the Japanese". The Review of Korean Studies. 1: 5–25.
  • Ji, Su-gol (2002). "Discourse of the Nation and the Modern' Reflected in Korean History Textbooks". International Journal of Korean History. 3: 255–293.
  • Ju, Bodon (2003). "Recent Trends and Future Prospects in the Study of Ancient Korean History". International Journal of Korean History. 4: 1–45.
  • Min, Benjamin H. "Japanese Colonialism and Its Impact on Korean Nationalism". Asian Forum. 2 (1): 54–61.
  • Noh, Tae Don (1997). "Theories about the Formative Period of the Korean Volk". Korea Journal. 37 (4): 118–133.
  • Noh, Tae Don. (2004). "Theories on the Formative Period of the Korean Minjok." In Korean National Commission for UNESCO, ed. Korean History: Discovery of Its Characteristics and Developments. Elizabeth, NJ: Hollym.
  • Pai, Hyung Il. (1999). "The Colonial Origins of Korea's Collected Past." In Hyung Il Pai and Timothy R. Tangherlini, eds., Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity. Berkeley: Center for Korean Studies, Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California.
  • Pai, Hyung Il, and Timothy R. Tangherlini (eds.) (1998). Nationalism and the Construction of Korean Identity. Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California.
  • Park, Chan-Seung (1999). "Should Korean Historians Abandon Nationalism?". Korea Journal. 39 (2): 318–342.
  • Park, Hyun Ok (Winter 2000), "Korean Manchuria: The Racial Politics of Territorial Osmosis", The South Atlantic Quarterly, 99 (1): 193–215, doi:10.1215/00382876-99-1-193, S2CID 144058997
  • Robinson, Michael (1996). "Narrative Politics, Nationalism, and Korean History". Papers of the British Association of Korean Studies. 6: 26–40.
  • Robinson, Michael. (2008) "Narrative Politics, Nationalism and Korean History." In Susan Pares, ed. Korea: The Past and the Present: Selected Papers from the British Association for Korean Studies BAKS Papers Series, 1991–2005, volume 1. Kent, England: Global Oriental, 2008.
  • Ryang, Key S (1987). "Sin Ch'ae-ho (1880–1936) and Modern Korean Historiography". The Journal of Modern Korean Studies. 3: 1–10.
  • Ryang, Sonia (1990). "Historian-Judges of Korean Nationalism". Ethnic and Racial Studies. 13 (4): 503–26. doi:10.1080/01419870.1990.9993687.
  • Schmid, Andre. (2000). "Decentering the 'Middle Kingdom': The Problem of China in Korean Nationalist Thought, 1895–1910." In Timothy Brook and Andre Schmid, eds., Nation Work: Asian Elites and National Identities. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 2000.
  • Seo, Jungmin (2008). "The Politics of Historiography in China: Contextualizing the Koguryo Controversy". Asian Perspective. 32 (3): 39–58. doi:10.1353/apr.2008.0012.
  • Shin, Gi-Wook. (2006). Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  • Shin, Gi-Wook, and Michael Robinson (eds.) (2001). Colonial Modernity in Korea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University East Asia Center, distributed by Harvard University Press.
  • Shultz, Edward J (2006). "How English-Language Scholarship Views Koguryo". Journal of Inner and East Asian Studies. 3 (1): 79–94.
  • Wells, Kenneth M. (1995). "The Cultural Construction of Korean History." In Kenneth M. Wells, ed. South Korea's Minjung Movement: The Culture and Politics of Dissidence. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  • Xu, Stella Yingzi. (2007). "That glorious ancient history of our nation: The contested re-readings of 'Korea' in early Chinese historical records and their legacy in the formation of Korean-ness." Ph.D. dissertation, Department of East Asian Languages and Culture, UCLA.
  • Yeo, Hokyu (2006). "China's Northeast Project and Trends in the Study of Koguryo History". International Journal of Korean History. 10: 121–54.

===
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)