관학파가 만든 '민족사'에서 우리를 만든 '한국사'로

이종욱 한국고대사탐구학회 2009 한국고대사탐구 Vol.1 No.-

There is a reason that we founded the Society for the Study of Early Korean History, publishing our academic journal. Following the methodology of national school historians (Gwanhakpa) in the Japanese Colonial period, the post-colonization historians invented "the national history" arguing for the legitimacy of Tan-gun, based on nationalism and positivism, since the Liberation of 1945. Furthermore, they completely denied the initial records of Samguksagi, the Chronicles of the Three States, erasing the substantial portion of Korean history. In particular, Son Jin-tae, who describes Tan-gun Chosun as the beginning of the national history, praised the history of Goguryo with the glory of the national history, denouncing the history of Shilla which unified the Korean peninsula in alliance with T'ang as the disgrace of the national history. This kind of historiography based on Korean nationalism has long been continued without any criticism, and even the Korean official textbook has followed this tendency. The 'national history' fabricated by the post-colonization historians in the name of positivism, however, is totally different from Korean history. In Gwanhakpa's explanation, 'Minjok' does not mean a nation, but rather a 'race' - they fell into an error to categorize all races which have existed in Korean history as 'Korean nation.' If a Korean wants to trace his/her origin, he/she should chase the history of countries which have left the largest number of Korean family names and cultural heritages to the Korean society. In this context, we can find the beginning of Korean history from the Shilla at the period of Three Kingdoms. We should trace the origin of Korea and Korean people, therefore, in the history of Shilla ascending to the reign of King Naemul, which has been forced to remain silent by the national history, not in the history of the Kochosun - Goguryo separated from the Korean history. Now we propose a brand new research model, "Model 3": we aim to reconstruct the early part of Samguksagi arguing for its authenticity, beyond the scope of the national history. 우리들이 한국고대사탐구학회를 만들어 학술발표회를 갖고 『한국고대사탐구』라는 학술지를 발간하는 데에는 이유가 있다. 일제시대 관학파 사학자들의 연구방법론을 계승한 후식민사학자들은 해방 후 '민족'과 '실증'이라는 슬로건을 내세우며 단군을 정통으로 하는 '민족사'를 발명해냈다. 이와 더불어 그들은 『삼국사기』 초기기록을 철저히 부정함으로써 우리나라 역사의 상당 부분을 말살하기까지 하였다. 특히 단군조선을 민족사의 출발점으로 규정한 손진태는 고구려의 역사를 민족사의 영광으로 칭송하였고 당나라를 끌어들여 삼국을 통일한 신라의 역사를 민족사의 수치로 여겼다. 이러한 민족사 서술 경향은 별다른 비판 없이 현행 국사교과서에 이르기까지 면면히 이어져오고 있다. 그러나 관학파 후식민사학자들이 실증이라는 이름으로 의도적으로 조작해낸 민족사는 '한국사'와는 전혀 다른 개념이며 한국사는 민족사와는 별개로 인식되어야 한다. 관학파가 말하는 민족이란 '민족공조'와는 무관하며 사실상 '種族'에 가까운 개념이다. 그들은 nation 개념이 도입되기 이전 우리 역사상 존재했던 모든 종족을 민족의 범주에 포함시키는 오류를 범하였다. 현대의 한국인이 자신의 근원을 찾고자 한다면 한국인에게 가장 많은 성씨와 문회유산을 물려준 역사 속 국가들을 추적해 나가야 할 것이다. 이러한 맥락에서, 한국사는 마땅히 조선→고려→대신라→삼국시대 신라로 거슬러 올라가 역사를 시작한다는 점을 명확히 알 수 있다. 그러므로 한국ㆍ한국인의 오리진은 한국사와 단절된 고조선ㆍ고구려에 있는 것이 아니라 민족사가 철저히 침묵시켜왔던 내물왕 이전의 신라사에 있다. 이제부터 민족사의 한계를 뛰어넘어, 『삼국사기』 내물왕 이전의 역사를 인정하고 재구성하려는 〈모델 3〉의 세상을 활짝 열어나가야 하지 않을까 생각한다.

민족사 연구에 관한 고찰-노라와 스미스를 중심으로-

마은지 한국세계문화사학회 2019 세계 역사와 문화 연구 Vol.0 No.50

Exploring National History of Pierre Nora and Anthony Smith Eun-Ji MA This paper aims to explore the rise of the paradigm of ‘memory and history’ and its national meaning in historiography. Pierre Nora and Anthony D. Smith meet at the point of national history. Nora created a word the “realms of memory” as new French national history. The “realms of memory” is a history of the national and collective memory of French. On the another hand, it is realized through the imaginary representations and historical realities that occupy the symbolic sites that form French social and cultural Identity. It means the French national history as representation. Smith, a British historical sociologist, provided the distinguish theory of nations and nationalism. He created an approach of nationalism he called ethno-symbolism and national history. He provided the cultural history of the nation as a type of a historical and cultural community. It analyzed tradition, memory, value, myth, symbol that composed the accumulated heritage of cultural unit. Conclusionally, Nora and Smith reconstructed the national things historically. They all sought to write the cultural history of the nation in common. How can one study and write the national history of a collective community through the history of memory and the cultural history of nation? It may be considered that the question will be continued. So the historiographical meaning of Nora and Smith on national history will be continued to interest and study. 본고는 사학사에서 ‘기억과 역사’ 패러다임의 등장과 그것의 민족사적 의의를 살펴보는데 그 목적이 있었다. 피에르 노라의 민족사와 앤서니 스미스의 민족사 연구는 서로 만나는 지점이 있다. 노라는 프랑스의 새로운 민족사로 평가되는 “기억의 장소”의 창안자였다. 기억의 장소는 다른 말로 하면 프랑스인의 민족적인 집단기억의 역사이다. 다른 한편, 기억의 장소는 프랑스인의 사회적 문화적 정체성을 형성하는 상징적 장소들이 응축하고 있는 표상들이자 역사적 실체들로 인식된다. 즉 그것은 표상(representation)으로서의 프랑스의 민족사라 할 수 있다. 스미스는 영국의 역사사회학자로서 민족과 민족주의 이론에서 족류상징주의라는 접근방식을 통해 민족사에 대한 독특한 시각을 제시했다. 스미스는 민족과 민족주의 연구에서 역사적 문화적 공동체의 한 유형으로서 민족의 문화사를 제시했다. 그것은 특정 인구(=민족)의 문화단위의 축적된 유산을 구성하는 전통・기억・가치・신화・상징들을 분석하는 것이었다. 결론적으로 노라와 스미스는 상징과 표상으로서의 민족적인 것들을 역사적으로 재구성해냈다. 그들은 민족의 문화사를 추구했다는 공통점을 갖고 있다. 기억의 역사와 민족의 문화사를 통해 한 집단공동체인 민족의 역사를 어떻게 연구하고 서술할 것인가의 문제는 지속적으로 대두할 것으로 생각된다. 그런 점에서 노라와 스미스의 민족사의 사학사적 의의는 앞으로도 지속적인 관심과 연구가 필요해 보인다.

일제 시기 ‘(일본)국사’의 ‘조선사’ 포섭 논리

김종준 ( Kim Jong-jun ) 인하대학교 한국학연구소 2013 한국학연구 Vol.0 No.29

이 글은 일제 시기 역사교육에서 국사와 조선사 간의 위상 및 관계 변화를 시기별로 정리해보았다. 먼저 역사교육이 시작된 1920년대 이래 1930년대 전반기까지는 국사의 조선사 포섭 논리가 모색되고 정리되어가는 과정이었다. 조선에 머물고 있는 일본인 교육자들에게는 역사와 구별되는 국사 체계를 정립시키는 것이 우선적 과제였다. 국사는 순수사학이 아니라 응용사학이라는 구분법이 말해주듯, 국사는 특정한 목적을 가지고 있는 것이었고, 그 특수 목적은 바로 교육이었다. 교육적 목적이라는 미명하에 역사의 보편적 가치 훼손이 용인되고 있다. 한편 1931년 만주사변이 발발하고 세계적으로 국가주의 추세가 확장되면서 국사의 위상을 높이자는 주장도 더 강화된다. 그 속에서 조선사를 국사 체계 안에 포섭시켜야 한다는 논리도 등장하고 있다. 1920년대에는 향토사라는 차원에서 조선사에 대한 접근이 존재했는데, 당대 교육자들은 조선과 일본과의 관계가 역사적으로 좋지 않았던 점과 조선인들의 자국 역사 인식이 강하다는 점 때문에 고충을 토로하고 있었다. 그러나 1930년대 들어 원칙적으로 조선사를 국사 체계 안에 포함시켜야 한다는 논의도 좀 더 뚜렷해지는데 조선총독부는 그전부터 이미 경성제대 교수 등을 동원한 조선사편수회 사업의 식민사학 연구, 즉 관학아카데미즘에 기반하여 조선사 연구를 통제하고자 했다. 조선학운동이 한창이던 1935년 총독부는 본격적으로 국사와 조선사가 결합된 교과서 편찬에 들어간다. 결과물이 나오는 것은 1938년 이후인데 침략전쟁을 개시한 일본은 사상적으로 더 경직되어 있었다. 총독부는 조선사편수회 사업이 마무리되는 시점에서 조선사 포섭은 물론 일본 내지의 국사 체계 자체의 혁신을 요구한다. 조선사의 국사 편입은 전시체제기 황국신민화 정책의 강제성에 의해 하루아침에 이루어진 것은 아니고, 그전까지 추진되어 오던 일련의 시도들이 특정 국면에서 실현된 것으로 보아야 할 것이다. This writing organized changes of the position and relation between Japanese national history and Joseon history in the historic education during Japanese occupation by times. First of all, the logic of assimilation of Joseon history in the national history was sought and organized during the period from 1920's to the early 1930's in which historical education started. To Japanese educations staying in Joseon, it was top priority to establish national historical system discriminated from the history. As said in the division method that the national history was not pure historical science but application history, the national history had special goals, which means the education itself. Under the pretext of educational goals, damage in historical universal value was allowed. In the meantime, as Manju War occurs in 1931 and nationalism tends to expand in the world, the assertion is more reinforced that national position needs to increase. In the midst of such trends, the logic Joseon history shall be included in the national history appears. In 1920's, Joseon history was dealt under the name of local history, and then-current educators were complaining about difficulty things owing to the facts that relation between Japan and Korea was not so good and that Joseon people's recognition of their history was strong. However, in 1930's, the assertion that Joseon history shall be basically included in the national history became more clear, and Japanese Government General of Korea tried to control Joseon history study, on the basis of colonial histories study of Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe that used Gyeongseong Imperial University professors, etc., that is, national academism. In 1935 in which Joseon studies movement was at it peak, Japanese Government General of Korea in earnest starts to edit a textbook which combined the national history with Joseon history. The result is to come out after 1938, and Japan that started its war of aggression was more stiff ideologically. At the time of Joseon history editing business being finished, Japanese Government General of Korea demands renovation of the national history system including Joseon history. It would be considered that Incorporation of Joseon history into the national history has not been made in a day by colonial policy of subjecting to Japan, but has been made by a series of attempts, which have been carried out from the past, have been realized in a certain time and situation.

해방 후 國史敎科의 社會科化와 ‘國史科’의 置廢

趙美暎(Cho Mi-Young) 역사교육연구회 2006 역사교육 Vol.98 No.-

The liberation was an opportunity to restore legitimate history Which was interrupted and destroyed by the Japanese Empire and followers. The national history education of legitimacy and independence was what should be. However, the national history education was included in Social Studies. However, in the country with immemorial history and culture, the national history as a branch of Social Studies cannot present the essence and meaning of history. Objection to anti-independence reached the climax with 4?19 revolution. While the emphasis on democratization and national independence arose and many people were interested in national identity, the base for normalizing national history education was ready. The Committee of Consolidating National History Education was organized in 1972 to normalize national history education in middle and high school. Proposed plan suggested national history education must develop “independence” based on “systematic true knowledge of national history”. National history became a separate and mandatory subject in school. After the collapse of Park, Jung-Hee"s regime, the social force that had been damaged by the normalization of national history education asserted that national history education played a role of an political instrument and crammed korean students with uniform education. As the idea that all social subjects are merged into one is emerging, national history has lost existing position.

개항과 청말 ‘民族國家’ 관념의 형성 - 國家史로서 근대 ‘中國史’의 탄생을 중심으로

이춘복 한국중앙사학회 2008 중앙사론 Vol.27 No.-

Late Qing birth of ‘Chinese National History(中國史)' as National History(國家史 or 國史) was closely related with the process of the nation-state building in modern China since the concept of the modern ‘Nation-state' of the western world was first introduced during the 10 years of the beginning of the 20th century(Xinhai(辛亥) Revolution period) Based on this understanding, this essay places its focus on the formation of ‘nation-state' and the birth of ‘Chinese National History(or Chinese History study)' -both of which are crucial in understanding modern Chinese history, at the same time attempting to examine a historiographical side of ‘the genealogy of National History. Historical backdrop of the appearance of ‘Chinese National History' is closely linked to the breakdown of the traditional Chinese word-view(天下觀) and new formation of nation-state concepts. As they felt the collapse of the Chinese world-view, the racial extinction and national fall very imminent, late Qing intellectuals tried hard to seek an alternative. They finally accepted ‘nation-state' theories as a new political community appeared. However, considering that late Qing historians' ‘nation-state' concepts came from the diverse and mutually different sources like J,J. Rousseau's ‘social contract theory' and J.K. Bluntschli's ‘state theory', it's natural that Qing intellectuals' 'nation- state building' models were divided in two kinds. The process of nation-state building and the formation of national identity which appeared in late Qing period interrelated with the birth of 'Chinese National History(or New History studies)'. The 'New History studies', which in the beginning of the 20th century, criticized the Chinese traditional history studies, provided the basic system and directivity of 'Chinese National History' as 'National History'. It did this through 'history revolution' and 'history reform' advocated by historians which accepted modern conceptions of 'people' and 'state', etc. In the new structure of 'National History' were included national name 'China' instead of dynasty names, national History name 'Chinese National History' instead of Dynastic history. and additional writing and publishing of 'Chinese National History', and so on. History involves a common memory, and its structure can be determined from the genealogical evidence. This genealogy of national history related to the origin of modern nation-state was usually an invention of late Qing age. Nationalist historians then transformed the Yellow Emperor into the earliest ancestor of the Chinese nation, and then transformed persons of pre-modern into modernized national heros. However, the Yellow Emperor and national heroes in the pre-modern age was reconstructed and embellished by the historians who accepted the modern western concepts of the 'people' , 'nation state' and so on. In fact, their national histories mirrored their national-state consciousness formed in the 20th century.

근대 독일 역사학의 민족사 기획 : 형성에서 해체로?

박용희(Park, Yong-Hee) 한국사학사학회 2007 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.16

It has been implausible to deny that the advance of modern history was closely linked to the historiography of the national history. It is no doubt that the rise of nationalistic historiography in Germany kept pace with the political process of establishing and consolidating Germany as a new modern nation-state. Of course, scholars participated eagerly in social activities while showing their capacities as professionals, intellectuals, politicians, and citizens, that would contribute to promoting national identities. Ranke was a leading figure and famous historian when Prussia emerged as the strongest German representative that became a centripetal force for eventual unification of German nations. However, because Ranke's period preceded the formation of a nation-state of Germany, he paid a special attention to the history of ideas that had led a nation as a substitute for state in a sense. From the latter half of the 19th century, with the rise of the nation-state, nationalist historiography gradually took over, while at the same time specialization in history became prevalent. Until 1945 the dominant version of presenting German development was the “national masternarrative", which sought to legitimize the presence of the nation state. Created by liberal leaders with the drive to unification, such as Heinrich von Treitschke, it was appropriated by advocates of imperialism during the Wilhelminian era, modified by defenders of a defeated nationality after Versailles, and pushed out of recognition by the Nazi zealots of racial hegemony over Europe. Since 1945 the German historians had to write their national history in a new mode. As different types of historiography based on Marxism and modernization theory gained a firm foothold in East and West Germany, respectively, there was a growing tendency that critically examined the historical process from the Empire to the Nazi era. But the new criticizing approach did not succeed in building up a new history escaped from the national history writing. Although their purpose was to criticize the evolvement of German history, their epistemological assumption still fell into a trap in nationalist thoughts. In spite that there were growing demands for de-national or post-national approach among German intellectuals, they did not evolve into a new historical understanding that might replace the conventional nationalist one. Until the late 1990s, most of histori ns had denied the need of a radical critique of the national history writing. Many historians reaffirmed the role of national history as a dynamic force for the future. However, there was also a new current that challenged the nationalist paradigm. Since the late 1990s, the research paradigm for several German historians has undergone great transformation. It is true that this transformation was mainly due to the current socio-political change of German society, the establishment of European Union, and its entry into multi-cultural environment. In addition, the new reality of globalization allowed German historians to reflect their pastpractice in more elaborated ways. Inspired by the new currents of ideas, some German scholars began to execute new paths. Presently the call for an alternative to national history writing gains more attraction in Germany. But the consequences and perspectives for a new conceptualization of German history in the newly-established German nation-state were still wide-open. It would be inconsiderate to expect that the turning away from the nation as a favoured subject of German historiography be completely succeeded. Considering the current political realities, the influence of the German nation-state has continued. But it is necessary under these circumstances to concede that, despite the importance of national history, many different history writings try to constitute a more plural identity.

국방역사서 편찬에 관한 연구

박균용 육군군사연구소 2020 군사연구 Vol.- No.149

역사에 대한 관심과 중요성이 증대되면서 각 국가나 기관별로 이에 대한 전문성을 강화하기 위하여 노력하고 있다. 특히 미국을 비롯한 각국의 군사연구기관은 역사프로그램을 구축하여 자료수집, 공간사(Official History) 편찬, 전사교육과 연계, 유물관리 등의 임무를 수행하고 있다. 우리나라도 국방부를 비롯한 각 군의 역사자료를 수집·관리하고, 이를 토대로 역사서를 발간하기 위한 기능과 조직을 갖추고 있다. 역사서를 발간하기 위해서는 기초 사료가 필수적이며 그것의 수준에 따라 역사서의 질은 달라진다. 따라서 사료가 온전하게 관리·보존되고, 이러한 사료가 왜곡됨이 없이 올바르게 기록될 때 신뢰성 있는 공간사로서 가치를 인정받게 된다. 본 연구의 목적은 국방정기역사서를 작성했던 실무경험을 토대로 국방역사서 편찬의 문제를 식별하고 발전방안을 제시하는 것이다. 이를 위해 외국의 국방 관련 공간사의 편찬 사례와 함께 우리나라의 국방부 및 각 군에서 발간하는 국방역사의 편찬 실태를 분석하여 문제점을 식별하였다. 연구목적 달성을 위해 제1장 서론에서 본 연구를 위한 문제 제기에 이어, 제2장에서는 선행연구를 통해 분석된 외국 군사연구기관의 편성과 국방역사 편찬 사례를 연구하고 3장에서는 우리나라의 국방역사 편찬 실태를 분석하였다. 3장의 우리의 국방역사 편찬 실태분석에서는 편찬기구 및 편찬체계, 연구조직과 인적구성, 편찬업무체계, 자료수집 및 관리 분야를 중점적으로 살펴보았다. 제4장에서는 제3장에서 분석한 내용을 토대로 발전방안을 제시하였다. 이 연구결과가 국방 관련 정기역사서를 편찬·발간하는 군사연구기관은 물론 이를 위해 사료를 제공하는 군사업무담당자들에게 방향을 제시하고, 군사업무를 발전시키는 정책 수립과 조직 편성에 유용하게 활용되기를 바란다. These days, each country or institution is strengthening its expertise in the field of history due to the increasing importance of history. In particular, military history research institutes in the U.S. and other countries have established history programs to collect historical records, compile official history, link with war history education, and manage relics. The South Korean military also has the function and organization to record and study the history of the Ministry of National Defense and each military and can also publish history books related to national defense. Basic data is needed to prepare these history books, and the quality of the history book varies depending on the level of the data. Therefore, when the data are kept intact and these data are correctly recorded without distortion, it can be recognized as the ministry’s credible history book. The purpose of this study is to identify problems in compiling national defense history books and to present development plans based on practical experience in writing national defense history books regularly. To this end, the problem was identified by analyzing the actual state of compiling national defense history published by the Ministry of National Defense and each military in Korea, along with examples of compilation of foreign official history regarding national defense history. In order to achieve the purpose of the research, succeeding the proposal of problems for the research in the introduction of Chapter 1, Chapter 2 studied the compilation of foreign military history research institutes and national defense history analyzed through prior research, and Chapter 3 analyzed the actual state of compilation of national defense history in Korea. In the research analysis of our national defense history compilation in Chapter 3, we focused on the compilation organization and compilation system, research organization and human composition, compilation work system, data collection and management field. Chapter 4 presents a development plan based on the analysis in Chapter 3. It is hoped that the results of this study will be useful for setting up policies and composing organizations to develop military affairs, as well as military research institutes that compile and publish national defense history books regularly.

내선일체론의 역사교육 적용

김한종 한국역사교육학회 2014 역사교육연구 Vol.- No.20

‘Japan and Korea are One’ theory, which was officially declared by Governor-General of Korea in the late 1930s, was the principle of school education as well as the administrative policy. The subject, in which ‘Japan and Korea are One’ theory was well reflected, was history education. This study researched how ‘Japan and Korea are One’ theory was applied to history education during late 1930s and early 1940s from the aspects of national curriculum, history subject matters and teaching-learning strategies. ‘Japan and Korea are One’ theory was the principle that colonial Korean and Japanese were unified with the real meaning of Japanese national body(國體). It was argued to know sacred achievements of Japanese emperors to realize the real meaning of Japanese national body because Japanese imperial family had preserved it. The origin of founding Japanese, great achievements of imperial family and so on were stressed to be main subject matters in history teaching. National history(Japanese history) teaching was not just knowledge education but spirit education, and ‘Japan and Korea are One’ theory was an argument that Korean and Japanese should internalize one nation people beyond understanding. Understanding and practice were both two elements and integrated one of ‘Japan and Korea are One’. What people should understand was the essential outline of National history(Japanese history), while what practicing was Japanese national body's holy reason. Any independent Korean history units disappeared in the revised Elementary National History(『初等國史』), and their contents were integrated in Japanese history units. But Korea and Japan relative history was described more in Elementary National History than Primary School National History(『普通學校國史』). Contents on Japan's conquering Korea were decreased, while interchanging and friendly relationship of both countries were increased. Such the trends were strengthened in National History and Geography(『國史地理』) published for a four-year course ordinary elementary school(尋常小學校) children. Spirit training, the utilization of intuitive teaching aids and the interrelating with other subjects teaching were recommended to teach national history for cultivating nation people to know Japanese national body and to have Japanese spiritual purity. Fostering nation's emotion through reliving historical facts was emphasized in national history learning. Understanding theory argued by Dilthey, German philosopher, was discussed on this purpose. 1930년대 후반 본격적으로 제기된 내선일체론은 조선총독부의 시정방침이었을 뿐 아니라 학교교육의 원리였다. 내선일체의 논리가 잘 반영된 교과 중 하나는 국사였다. 이 글은 내선일체론이 국사교육에 어떻게 적용되었는지를 교육과정과 내용, 교수학습방법의 측면에서 검토하였다. 내선일체론은 조선인과 일본인이 일본 國體의 本義로 하나가 된다는 의미였다. 국체를 유지해온 것이 황실이므로, 국체의 본의를 깨닫는 것은 천황의 聖業을 아는 것을 통해 이룰 수 있다고 보았다. 肇國의 유래, 황실의 위업 등이 국사교육의 내용으로 강조되었다. 국사교육은 지식교육뿐 아니라 정신교육이었으며, 내선일체론은 이해를 넘어서 몸으로 체득해서 실천해야 하는 논리였다. 이해와 실천은 내선일체론의 두 측면이면서 통합된 하나였다. 이해해야 할 것은 국사(일본사)의 大要였으며, 실천해야 할 것은 ‘國體의 존엄한 所以’였다. 개정된 『초등국사』 교과서에서는 조선을 독립적으로 서술하는 단원이 사라지고 내용이 일본사와 통합되었다. 그러나 한일관계사 서술은 오히려 늘어났다. 일본의 한국 정벌이나 우위를 서술하는 내용이 줄어든 대신 두 나라의 교류나 우호관계를 쓰는데 비중을 두었다. 4년제 심상소학교 역사교과서로 새로 간행된 『국사지리』의 서술에서는 이런 관점이 더욱 뚜렷했다. 국사교육의 방법으로는 정신교육, 직관교편물의 이용, 다른 교과와의 연계교육 등을 권장하였다. 국체를 아는 것과 국민으로서 정조를 가지는 것은 국사교육의 양면이었다. 국사학습에서 체험을 통한 국민적 정서의 함양이 강조되었다. 독일 철학자인 딜타이의 이해 논리를 차용한 것도 이를 위한 것이었다.

초등 역사교육에서 국가주의와 애국심 교육

방지원 한국역사교육학회 2016 역사교육연구 Vol.- No.26

By installing the subjects of ‘National History’ in the 3rd national curriculum, Nationalist historiography in elementary history education clearly reveal the look of ethno-national standing to justify the Yushin dictatorship. The friendly Dictatorship ethno-national narrative won a public authority as one of structures of knowledge in korean history, through the 4th and 5th national curriculum. In order to allow students to cultivate a sense of pride of the country and nation, ‘National History’ highlighted the characteristics of the Korean history, A long history of about 5000 years, cultural achievements, overcoming the national crisis. Based on national pride, ‘National History’ have tried to keep internalized nationalistic beliefs for students. It was the core idea of those, that states absolutely, it is more important than any individual, in all cases. This doctrine had given legitimacy to the domineering government of that day, and agreeably granted it the status of ‘Social studies’ has delivered more directly to the nationalistic values. This can be summarized as follows; the state decided everything, and the people obey this. Responsibilities and duties of citizens precedes the fundamental rights. This is the very essence of nationalistic education forcing students to accept themselves norms of obedience to their state. So, the way out of nationalistic education is to assist students to grow up themselves citizens to think and act independently, not to obey to state power blindly. Urgent need is to develop textbooks and curricula for various and active history class exploring the roles of the democratic state in promoting peace and human rights. Another thing we should not neglect is the importance of democratic classroom culture. In this respect, overcoming nationalistic education, discussion and debating methods in classroom are should be stressed again, because they are based on critical and independent thinking of Individual student consistently. 초등학교 ‘국사’의 역사인식이 국민형성 교육을 넘어, 권위주의 독재를 합리화하는 국가주의적 인식으로 넘어간 때는 제3차 교육과정 시기였다. 이때 형성된 민족-국가 서사는 제4차, 제5차교육과정을 거쳐 국정교과서의 형식을 빌려 공적 권위를 지닌 ‘국사의 체계’가 되었다. 주제별 생활사를 통해 당시의 정부를 역사적 전통의 계승자로 위치시키고, 국난극복과 문화적 성취로 빛나는 민족과 국가의 내력을 강조함으로써 국가에 대한 자긍심을 길렀다. 국가가 없으면 민족도 없고, 민족이 없다면, 나, 개인도 있을 수 없다는 국가주의적 인식이다. <사회>는 더욱 직접적으로 국가주의적 가치를 전달하고 내면화하도록 했다. 결정 주체인 국가와 이에 순종하는 국민, 기본권에 앞서는 ‘국민’의 책임과 의무가 그 내용이다. 현행 2009 교육과정에 의한 <사회>의 정치 관련 내용에서는 인권과 다원적 관점 등 민주적 가치를 강조하는 쪽으로 변화하였으나, 한국사 내용은 국가와 민족 중심의 서사를 유지하는데다, 현대사 서술에서 퇴보하였다. 국가 권력이 나서 특정한 집단의 주장을 교과서에 반영하는 국정교과서의 폐단을 극단적으로 보여주는 사례라 하겠다. 국가주의 교육의 본질은 국가와 국민의 관계를 지배-복종의 규범으로 정의하고 이를 전파하는데 있다. 학생들이 국가가 국민에 의해서 구성된다는 것을 스스로 깨닫고, 국가를 구성하는 주체로서의 권리와 책임을 다하려는 태도를 취한다면, 고민 없이 현존 질서에 순응하고자 노력하고, 사회 문제에 눈을 감는 ‘순종적인 국민’이 되지는 않을 것이다. 이에 국가를 상대화하여 인식하고, 민주국가의 역할을 인권과 평화의 보장이라는 차원에서 다양하게 상상하는 수업이 가능하도록 교육과정과 교과서를 개발하도록 노력해야 한다. 자기 생각을 주장하면서도 다른 이들과 소통하는 방법을 배우는 토론 수업, 질문을 제기하고 스스로 탐구하는 수업 또한 국가주의 교육을 넘어서기 위한 실천으로 그 의미를 다시 새겨보아야 한다.

1990년대 이후 몽골 역사학자들의 근현대사 서술동향

이평래 중앙아시아학회 2017 中央아시아硏究 Vol.22 No.2

This study examines the trend of modern history research and narration by Mongolian historians and its features after the system transition of the 1990s. The Mongolians abandoned their socialist system in the early 1990s and embraced a market economy. The transition had a significant effect on the study of history and also led to a tremendous change in the study and narration of national history. Although a new perspective emerged across the whole spectrum of Mongolian history in terms of research and narration, the most substantial change occurred in the field of modern history. The study focused on this detail and considered the new trends of research on the modern Mongolian history and the characteristics of national history narration. The items discussed in the study are as follows. In Part 2, the question of the periodization of modern history, raised by various researchers after the 1990s, was discussed. The key points to note are the standard for the periodization and the issue of the scope of modern history. During the period of socialism, the Mongolian historians divided the period into the pre-modern period and the modern period based on the Mongolian Revolution of 1921. After the 1990s however, new historical events to divide the period of modern history, such as the independence from the Qing dynasty in 1911 and the pro-democracy movement of 1990, appeared and the period of 1911-1921, which was previously classified as part of the feudal age, was included into the period of modern history. As a result, the event of 1911 is currently the branch point for dividing the modern period and the pre-modern period. In Part 3, the features of the new trend in modern history narration were examined. The key point to note is the problem of evaluating the events of 1911 and 1921. During the socialist period, Mongolian historians assessed that the aristocrats leading the national liberation movement in 1911 were defending their own interests and that the resulting Bogd regime was a feudal reign that should have been overthrown through a revolution. After the 1990s, however, the event of 1911 was assigned a more active meaning, being evaluated as the “prelude to Mongol’s restoration,” and included as part of modern history. The historians of the socialist period also narrated the 1921 revolution wholly in relation to the Soviet and the Comintern but focused on the activities and roles of the Mongolians and national interest after the democratization. Other points to note regarding research on modern Mongolian history after 1990 include the publication of biographies on historical figures, 20th century social research using oral data, and the introduction of new historical terms. In Part 4, the discussion of researchers on the continuity and succession of key events of modern history, such as the events of 1911, 1921 and 1990, was examined. The main point to pay attention to in relation to this is the issue of correlation between the major events of 20th century Mongolian history, namely the events of 1911, 1921 and 1990. The Mongolian historians before the system transition narrated the events of 1911 and 1921 as events symbolizing feudalism and the modern era respectively but after 1990 started to narrate the events of 1911, 1921 and 1990 as a chain of events having continuity and succession. Thus, it was recorded that the event of 1921 was based on the event of 1911, the event of 1990 was based on the event of 1921, and the main goal of the three events was complete independence from foreign influence. In addition, the names of the three events are being set as the National Liberation Revolution (1911), National Democratic Revolution (1921), Democratic Revolution (1990).