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
- 발행기관 : 한국역사연구회 (검색결과 2,223 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
주강현(Joo Kang-hyun) 한국역사연구회 2009 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.74
The folklife studies is different from folklore. This treatise analysis about scolastic Meaning of historical folklife & method of research. The folklife studies is mainly interest in a science of history,but in korea folklore is mainly interest in a literature. After 1945 year, historical folklife become extinct with a death of Son-Jin-Tae (孫晉泰). Son-Jin-Tae conduct an studies about history & folklife, but no one suceed to his scolastic tradition. The folklife studies set up a purpose critictical viewpoint of riddance in historic study. The theory of remain cultural viewpoint in folklife studies have many problems. The folklife studies emphasis on the history of the folklife, and long-term history & short-term history. The folklife studies conduct extention of historical-folklife text. The field-work research and ancient document research is main methods of historical-folklife studies. The folkhistory related with ancient document. In the studies of historical-folklife,the phases of the time is very important,and that is realize by reserching ancient document. And,This treatise analysis a little about “The Society for Korean Historical-folklife Studies”(韓國歷史民俗學會) & “The Journal of Historical-folklife” (歷史民俗學).
-
오항녕(Oh, Hang-nyeong) 한국역사연구회 2016 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.100
I, in this article, marking the year 1990 as a milestone, aimed to give an overview on the efforts by the Korean history community to “popularize” the outcome of their research. I also shed a light on the current situation of the “history consumption” by the public through mass media such as movies and TV dramas. As early as the 1980s, while striving to disengage itself from the historicism predominantly focused on politics and famed political figures, the Korean history community already began its research in an attempt to bring into the various foregrounds of history those common people like peasants and laborers as an underlying mainstream, and as the research found diversity in the economic, social and cultural aspects of history, the efforts were never discontinued to share the achievements with the public. However, in the “history consumption” process were found some problems, one of which was the confusion of fact and fiction, a phenomenon dubbed “faction” by a newly coined term. Moreover, due to the lack of substantial evidence and documents, there were even some cases in which it resulted in “fabrication” way beyond the boundaries of acceptable suppositions and conjectures and this was synonymous with the negation of the very identity of the historical studies as an empirical discipline. The line between history and morality was blurred too, which was followed by the evaluation method based on the good- versus- evil (I call it “Konggyi-Patgyi”, two characters in Korean folk tale) frequently degenerating the discipline of historical studies into a battlefield among warring camps. This was reflected in the attitudes of the government and the ruling party when they unsuccessfully tried to nationalize the Korean history textbook . The Korean history community can never be exempt from its share of responsibility and criticism for this distortion in the history consumption process. Unfortunately It still finds itself trapped in the curriculum organization disproportionately centered on the national history and ,nevertheless, remains encaged in the interpretational framework of the Western historicism that postulates the Western modernity as an ideal model for the historical developments. One of the common fallacies committed by many historians is that they view the discipline of historical studies as one of mere interpretation. The factional viewpoints that are currently pervasive and recurrently reproduced in the studies on the history of the Joseon dynasty are clear evidence that the Korean history community still lacks the logical approach required to distinguish between history and morality.
-
-
유엔의 ‘한국 문제’ 연례 토의의 기원: 1953~1954년 미국・인도의 외교적 경합을 중심으로
류기현 한국역사연구회 2024 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.131
이 글은 1953년 한국전쟁 정전 직후부터 1970년대 중반까지 이어진 유엔총회 ‘한국 문제’ 토의가 한반도 통일 문제를 처리하는 국제적 제도로 자리잡은 역사적 기원을 추적한다. 특히 이 연구는 냉전의 역사적 구성 과정에서 제3세계의 존재와 역할을 중시하는 ‘지구적 냉전사’ 시각에 입각, 정전 이후 장기간에 걸친 유엔의 대한반도 관여가 시작되는데 인도가 핵심적인 역할을 했음을 입증하고자 했다. 1950년대 인도는 신생 독립국의 맹주로서 상당한 외교적 위상을 지녔고, 비동맹·중립 노선을 표방하며 유엔의 한반도 관련 논의에 주요 행위자로 등장했다. 인도는 한국전쟁 시기부터 유엔에서 한반도 관련 논의에 적극 개입했고, 정전 직후에도 제네바 정치회담(1954) 참가를 시도하며 한반도 문제에 적극적인 목소리를 냈다. 제네바 회담 결렬 이후 인도는 정치회담 재개 등 한반도 문제 해결을 위해 유엔의 틀을 벗어나는 ‘적극적’인 해결책을 주장했고, 미국은 이에 대응하기 위해 유엔을 통한 원론적인 해결을 고집했다. 1953~1954년 기간 미국과 인도가 벌인 외교적 경합 속에 유엔의 ‘한국 문제’ 토의는 하나의 제도로 굳어졌다. 이후 1960년대 제3세계의 팽창과 비동맹운동의 확산으로 유엔의 ‘한국 문제’ 논의 구도는 근본적으로 바뀌는데, 1953~1954년 인도가 미국을 상대로 벌인 외교적 도전은 그러한 흐름의 첫 단추를 끼운 사건이었다. Examined in this article is the historical origin of the practice of discussing the ‘Korean Question’ at the U.N. General Assembly. Such discussions began as an effort to deal with the issues pertaining to the unification of the Korean peninsula, after the cease of the Korean War in 1953, and continued ever since almost as an international convention through the mid-1970s. This study is also based upon a perspective that strives to ascertain the nature of the global Cold War history, with a specific focus on the role and presence of the Third World, in the historic formation of the Cold War itself. What I would like to prove in this article is the fact that India played a pivotal role in U.N. taking a more active and long-term interventive stance regarding the Korean peninsula situation ever since the Armistice in 1953. In the 1950s, India was the leader of the newly liberated countries and had a considerable amount of diplomatic influence. It maintained a stance of non- alignment and neutrality, and joined the U.N. discussion of the Korean matter in a prominent fashion. Ever since the Korean War, India actively participated in all debates pertaining to the Korean peninsula held at U.N., and after the Armistice also attempted to join the Geneva Political Conference(1954), voicing its opinion regarding the Korean issue. After the Geneva talks failed India argued for the resuming of talks, and even called for a more aggressive approach to be taken outside the U.N. to resolve the Korean problem. In response, U.S. maintained its position which favored a resolution through the U.N. With the U.S. and India competing with each other diplomatically in 1953 and 1954, U.N.‘s discussion of the Korean issue was literally institutionalized, and became an established practice. Later in the 1960s, however, when the Third World continued to enlarge while the Non-alignment movement was also expanding, the frame for U.N.’s debate of the Korean situation shifted fundamentally. In retrospect, India’s diplomatic challenge to the U.S. authority in 1953~1954 was indeed the catalyst for such shifting.
-
-
-
-
-
-
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
