http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 丁慶姬(Chung Kyung-Hee) (검색결과 122 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
-
재미한인의 사회경제적 성장 - 그 연구를 위한 이론적 고찰
정경희(Kyung-Hee Chung),이인표(Inpyo Lee) 한국아메리카학회 2004 美國學論集 Vol.36 No.3
For the last forty years Korean-Americans achieved an outstanding socioeconomic development. This paper is an attempt to find theoretical perspectives which can explain the development more properly.<BR> One major approach which analyses Korean immigrants" socioeconomic adjustments to the host society is middleman minority theory. In spite of much criticism against the theory it is still helpful to understand Korean immigrants" concentration in small business and their involvement in racial conflicts with minority customers.<BR> Another useful approach for an analysis of Korean immigrants is the ethnic enclave hypothesis. Several researchers argued that the term ethnic enclave should not be used because of the difficulty of definition and measurement, They overlook the original insights of the hypothesis. The ethnic enclave economies enhance opportunities of ethnic groups within. Also the structuring and impact of ethnic enclaves constitute a core part of the study of the incorporation of immigrant groups.<BR> The middleman minority theory and the ethnic enclave hypothesis, recast to theorise the invisible networks of object/persons expanding across space will be the basis for the research of Korean-American society.
-
정경희(Kyung-Hee Chung) 한국아메리카학회 2008 美國學論集 Vol.40 No.3
The controversy over the Natinal History Standards in America during 1994-5 and the controversy over Korean modern history textbooks in Korea since 2004 assume a very similar aspect in spite of almost a decade's time difference. This study aims to analyze and compare in derail the history education debates in the two countries. First of all, both in America and in Korea the controversy was stimulated by the media, not by the academics Soon, the controversy extended to the legislative body of each country, and sparked intense poltical debates over history education. In January 1995 the United States Senate passed a resolution condemning the National Standards for History as un-American, and the authors of the standards were forced to revise them. In 2004 Korea National Assembly, too moch swayed by the party interests, did not do anything but further polarized the bitter dispute when a conservative Congressman insisted that the narrative of the Korean modern history textbook is overly anti-American and Pro-North Korean Textbook Forum, a group of intellectuals held symposia and published several books including korean Modern History an Alternative Textbook as a counter to the existing Korean modern history textbooks, which were deemed to be left-leaning by the group. However, it was not until the new conservative administration was launched in early 2008 that the revision of korean modern history textbooks saw any progress. Conservatives led by Lynne Cheney criticized the Standards for describing American past "too grim and gloomy" In Korea its modern history textbooks were blamed for narrating Korea's history of recent sixty from negative perspective, while writing that of North Korea as positively as possible. In both countries it was the main issue of the debates that the national history, especially the stories of nation building and the founding fathers were depicted too negatively in the Standards and history textbooks. It is also similar that during the debates both sides condemned that the other sides are politicizing history. Peoples involved in the Standards controversy and Korean modern history textbooks controversy charged that the opposing sides are politically motivated. As a result, the history education became the arena for the ideological controversy. Thus, ironically teachers and students who are directly involved in the issue of teaching and learning were excluded from the debates in both countries. It is noteworthy that the long ideological controversy in both Korea and in America was pressed by the extreme difference of historical recognition between the traditionalists and the revisionists.
-
-
-
-
丁慶姬(Chung Kyung-Hee) 역사학회 2008 역사학보 Vol.0 No.198
Why did the framers adopt the Constitution instead of the existing Articles of Confederation in 1787? Many historians and political scientists conclude that both the defects of the Articles of Confederation and the vices of the state politics during the 1780s led the framers to consider an alternative. Especially historian Gordon S. Wood insists that the latter was the principal reason because the framers such as James Madison were disenchanted with the abuse of power by the state legislatures. This essay, however, is an attempt to consider the making of the Constitution and the Union to be an experiment in international system of cooperation on a continent divided into 13 states. The Federalist papers indicate that the Federalists' determination to establish a united national government was resulted primarily from their concerns with the dangers from foreign force and secondarily from concerns with the dangers from war between the 13 states. By 1787 the Federalists discerned that the failures of the Union created a full-blown crisis of the American Revolution. They believed that the tendency of American politics was toward disunion, and that the anarchy of disunion would soon lead to tyranny and counterrevolution. The imminent collapse of the Union would multiply potential dangers by exposing each state to the rivalry of other American as well as European states. A strong Union was the only guarantee of American independence. In 1787 two extremes, before the Federalists, were a perfect separation and a perfect incorporation of the 13 states. The Federalists rejected both extremes, in favor of a "middle ground". They chose this "middle ground" because they believed that both the dissolution of the Union and the consolidation of the Union would be a betrayal of the Revolution. Both the anarchy and the empire were the threatening factors to the republic, what the founding fathers considered as the ideal type of nation system.
-
정경희(Kyung Hee Chung),강규형(Gyoo-hyoung Kahng) 한국사회과교육연구학회 2015 사회과교육 Vol.54 No.1
2009개정 교육과정에 따라 2014학년도부터 고등학교에서 쓰이게 될 한국사교과서 8종이 2013년 8월에 교육부의 검정을 통과했다. 그러자 이를 둘러싼 ‘교과서파동’이 다시 시작되었다. 이 8종의 『한국사』 교과서 가운데 상당수는 여전히 논란으로부터 자유롭지 못하다. 이들 교과서는 기존의 교과서가 지녔던 주요 문제점을 거의 그대로 지니고 있다. 교육부의 수정 과정을 종합적으로 검토해보면, 제(諸) 문제들은 주로 현대사 서술에 집중되어 있으며, 크게는 북한에 관한 호의적인 서술과 대한민국의 건국을 부정하고 대한민국의 정통성을 폄훼하는 서술로 나눠진다. 예를 들어 대한민국은 1948년 유엔총회에서 한반도 내 유일한 합법정부로 승인을 받았다. 하지만 현행 한국사 가운데 3종은 역사적 사실과 다르게 서술했다가 교육부로부터 수정 권고를 받았다. 특히 대한민국의 정통성을 폄훼하는 서술을 하고 있는 5종의 교과서는, 북한에 불리한 사실은 누락시키거나 북한의 주장을 그대로 되풀이하는 서술을 하고 있다는 평가를 받는 바로 5종의 교과서이다. 이들 5종의 교과서는 북한 정권을 옹호하는 서술과 대한민국을 폄하하는 서술들에 관해 교육부로부터 수정 권고를 받았다. 하지만 수정 권고를 제대로 이행하지 않거나 또는 ‘원문유지’ 입장을 고수하면서 아예 수정을 거부했고, 그 결과 편향적인 교과서라는 한계를 드러내고 있다. 8 kinds of high school <Korean History> textbooks were authorized by the Ministry of Education in August, 2013. ‘Textbook crisis’ over the contents of the textbooks soon resumed. Most of the 8 textbooks are still not free from criticisms of acute biased interpretations. These textbooks contain most of main problems of previous textbooks. When we examined authorization process overall by the Ministry of Education, most problems were concentrated on descriptions on contemporary history. The problems were mostly divided into two categories: sympathetic descriptions on North Korea and negative appraisals on the legitimacy of the Republic of Korea(South Korea) denying the establishment of the Republic of Korea in 1948. For example, the UN General Assembly approved of the Republic of Korea as the only lawful government in the Korean Peninsula. 3 kinds of the textbooks, however, described the fact incorrectly, and received recommendations for revision from the Ministry of Education. Moreover 5 kinds of textbooks, which were recognized as denigrating the legitimacy of the Republic of Korea, also ignored various facts unfavorable for North Korea and reiterated North Korea’s false claims. These 5 textbooks received recommendations for revision from the Ministry of Education because they contained descriptions advocating for the North Korean regime and degrading the Republic of Korea. The writers of the 5 textbooks, however, did not follow the recommendations or denied revisions by “sticking to original descriptions.” As a result, the textbooks show shortcomings of biased interpretations.
ScienceON
DBpia연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
