10세기~12세기 초반 고려의 북방지역 女眞人 관리 정책

김진곤(Kim, Jin-Gon) 고려사학회 2024 한국사학보 Vol.- No.95

Korea-Japan Academic Cooperation Disputing the Chinese History Expansionism

남창희,송옥진 사단법인 인문사회과학기술융합학회 2017 예술인문사회융합멀티미디어논문지 Vol.7 No.3

Along with its rise as an economic giant, China has rattled the international community of its Asian neighbors with its unprecedented maritime assertiveness over Senkaku/Diaoyudao and the disputed islands in the South China Sea. Chinese government-funded researchers all of sudden started to claim that the ancient Korean kingdoms, Goguryeo and Balhae, belonged to China. The Chinese unwelcome claim that ancient Korea was a part of Chinese Empires are often based on arguments politically-driven and fabricated from Japan’s colonial assimilation education process in the occupied Korea since 1920s. This co-work explores a possibility whether Koreans and Japanese can open new window of academic cooperation regarding the Chinese ancient history distortion and territorial expansionism. The small step of good will rendered by Japan can snowball into self-amplifying resonance of mutual trust between Korea and Japan, working positively for settlement of the mounting territorial disputes among the concerned parties in the region.

미국의 영토 형성과 독도 고유영토론에 대한 인식

최장근 대한일어일문학회 2014 일어일문학 Vol.62 No.-

This paper investigates how the territory of the United States was acquired. This also analyzes the definition of the territory that the United States has possessed.The concept that Americans hold is very important in solving the Dokdo issue which will be discussed in the future. First, the U.S. has been built by imperialistswho came from Europe in the 18th century. American territory was originally the Indians" territory. So there is no recognition that the United States should have original territory. Second, the current international law was made by imperialists. Third, strictly speaking, the United States created the Dokdo issue in the past and then indirectly supported Japan. The reason is that the United States had the imperialistic territory recognition. Fourth, today the United States holds hegemony in the international community. Therefore, in order to solve the Dokdo issue, the role of the United States is significantly important. There is no spirit on original territory in current theories of international law. Fifth, now we don"t have any factors of imperial legacy. Thus, the current perception of international law should be revised. This is how to solve the Dokdo issue. It is an urgent task on earth. Finally, because the United States takes the initiative in the international community politically and economically, the United States has a great influence on international organizations. Therefore, it is very important to understand the recognition of U.S. territory.

경계 넘어서기의 한계 : 차일드와 쿠퍼의 소설에 나타나는 이종혼의 가족형성과 혼종성 신화

정진만(Jin Man Jeong) 19세기영어권문학회 2013 19세기 영어권 문학 Vol.17 No.2

This essay investigates the politics of cultural and territorial expansionism in the representations of miscegenation and cross-cultural hybridity, in Lyida Maria Child’s Hobomok (1824) and James Fenimore Cooper’s The Pioneers (1823). In Child’s Hobomok, in the early colonial period Mary’s seemingly radical choice of intermarriage with Hobomok, a native in Massachusetts, cannot transcend safety the taboo of crossing the racial/ethnic boundary prevalent in Mary’s and/or Child’s age. In terms of mutual acculturation between Hobomok and Mary, the author biasedly foregrounds that Hobomok is Europeanized rather than the other way around, which means crossing the boundary does not make white Americans’ identity unstable at all. Additionally, Child portrays Hobomok’s later renunciation of his marital status as an inevitable course prepared for a doomed Indian. Little Homomok, a hybrid progeny symbolizing the (imaginary) reconciliation between the two racial parties, eventually loses his Indian heritage. In The Pioneers, similarly, unifying myth in the formative period of the United States in provided not only in the symbolic miscegenation between Elizabeth Temple (a representative of white pioneers in newly-built New York) and Oliver Edwards (a symbolic descendant of the vanishing Delawares) but also in the hybridization of several figures like Natty Bumppo, Oliver, and Indian John Mohigan. However, it turns out to be a rhetorical gesture imaginatively solving some historical tension from the whites’ encroachments of Indians’ lands. As in the case of Hobomok, crossing the boundary in The Pioneers does not actually endanger white Americans’ identity in terms of blood and culture, which testifies the author’s valorizing of asymmetrical and hegemonical relationship between the two racial groups. More than that, Cooper’s portrayals of symbolic intermarriage between Elizabeth and Oliver elaborately pave way for rationalizing white Americans’ entitlement of Indians’ land. Besides, this essay identifies that Indianized Natty’s romantic impulse to escape from the restrains of the Eastern civilized world is weirdly converted into a pathfinder’s desire for westward expansion. Also, this essay examines how Natty’s ostensibly sympathizing attitude toward a degenerated Indian John is involved with expansionist rhetoric often employed by a lot of Jacksonian politicians who campaigned for Indian removal into the West. This study would help us to understand that Child and Cooper conceal and reveal simultaneously expansionist rhetoric in diverse ways, in conformity with their contemporary (mis) belief of Manifest Destiny, in spite of (or more precisely because of ) their construction of unifying “myth” between white Americans and Native Americans.

후삼국시기 고려의 ‘주(州)’ · ‘부(府)’ 분포와 그 설치 의미

정요근(Jeong Yo-keun) 한국역사연구회 2009 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.73

Traditional big counties still kept functioning as provincial center called ‘ Chu’ or ‘ Pu’ even after Unified Silla’s local administrative system collapsed in the Later Three Kingdoms Period. But Goryeo founded ‘ Chu’ or ‘ Pu’ as local center on some strategic places where it newly occupied. Goryeo’s installation of ‘ Chu’ and ‘ Pu’ was obviously carried out by central government’s strengthened political initiative for attaining territorial expansion and unification of three kingdoms rather than by recognition of local powers’ regional independence. In addition the density of ‘ Chu’ and ‘ Pu’ distribution in some regions was outstandingly higher compared with it in others. Regional difference of ‘ Chu’ and ‘ Pu’ distribution also shows that difference of strategic importance appeared among several regions in the process of Goryeo government forming new local ruling system centering on Gaegyeong, its capital in the Later Three Kingdoms Period. Particularly, Counties called ‘ Pu’, newly established by Goryeo during the period, also functioned as military bases located in the forefront line for performing the unification war and territorial expansion.

시베리아 횡단철도

윤영미(Yun Yeongmi) 21세기정치학회 2005 21세기 정치학회보 Vol.15 No.2

The main purpose of this article is to investigate historical background and strategic importance of the Trans-Siberian Railroad (hereafter TSR) which had become the center of the industrial policy and development in Siberia and Northeast Asia under Tsarist Russia(hereafter Russia). Since the mid-16th century Russia's territorial expansionist policies toward Siberia and Northeast Asia were caused by military expansion and pursuit of economic profits. In the process of these aims, Russia brought up the necessity transport by railroad in order to revitalize development policies in this region. In 1891 Nicholas II and Secretary of the Treasury, Witte embarked on construction the TSR on the basis of the foreign loan from France. The TSR became the driving force of Russians' movement, settlement, development and military expansion. In addition, in 1903 Russia raised the efficiency of economy and military through bypass route, East-China Railroad of North Manchuria. However, after Russia was defeated by Russo-Japanese War(1904-1905) and was lost the influence in Manchuria, it took decisive action to complete the TSR which passed throughout Russian territory under its financial difficulties. On the other hand, the TSR was contributed the center of the Russian transport and the mining and manufacturing industries. In particular, it was played an important role of the industrialization of Siberia and Northeast Asia in terms of population movements and freight transports.

베네치아 공화국과 날개달린 사자

남종국(Nam, Jong Kuk) 도시사학회 2016 도시연구 Vol.- No.16

이 논문은 날개달린 사자가 베네치아 공화국을 대변하는 제일의 상징물이 되는 역사적 과정을 밝히는 글이다. 어떤 연유로 날개달린 사자가 베네치아를 대표하는 상징물이 되었을까? 본 논문은 이 질문에 대한 답을 제공하고자 한다. 이를 위해서 우선적으로 날개달린 사자와 산마르코의 불가분의 관계를 이해해야 한다. 날개달린 사자가 산마르코의 수호신물이 되어 운명을 같이 하게 된 근거는 성경에 있다. 기독교 초기 4복음서의 저자와 성경에 나오는 4가지 동물이 한 쌍을 이루게 되었는데 날개달린 사자가 산마르코의 수호신물이 되었던 것이다. 날개달린 사자가 베네치아와 운명 공동체가 된 결정적인 계기는 산마르코의 유해가 베네치아로 옮겨오면서부터였다. 9세기 초 두 명의 베네치아 상인이 알렉산드리아에 있는 산마르코의 유해를 몰래 훔쳐 베네치아로 가져왔고 이후 산마르코는 기존의 베네치아 수호성인이었던 그리스 전사 출신의 테오도르를 대신해 새로운 수호성인으로 되었다. 유해의 이전만으로 모든 것이 종결된 것은 아니었다. 베네치아 공화국은 산마르코의 유해에 대한 정당한 소유주임을 대외적으로 과시하기 위해 신화와 전설을 창조했다. 이렇게 만들어진 전설이 바로 예정 이야기(Praedestinatio)와 출현(Apparitio)이었다. 예정설에 따르면 마르코가 아퀼레이아 지방에 복음을 전하는 임무를 마치고 배를 타고 돌아오는 도중에 폭풍우를 만나 베네치아로 떠밀려오게 되었다. 그 와중에 마르코의 꿈에 나타난 천사는 마르코에게 너의 육신이 여기서 안식을 취하게 될 것이라고 예언했다. 이 새로운 전설은 알렉산드리아에서 순교했던 마르코의 유해가 최종적으로 베네치아로 옮겨오게 된 것을 사후에 승인하는 문구였다. 이 이송은 천사의 계시를 통해 미리 예정되어 있었다는 것이다. 베네치아 공화국의 수호성인으로서 확고한 지위를 확보한 산마르코는 점차 자신의 분신인 날개달린 사자에게 주도권을 내주게 되었다. 산마르코 대신 날개달린 사자가 베네치아 공화국을 대표하는 상징물로 부상한 것은 13세기부터 본격화된 해외로의 영토 팽창 때문이었다. 4차 십자군 이후 본격적인 영토 팽창의 길로 접어든 베네치아 공화국은 성스러운 이미지의 산마르코보다는 동물의 왕 사자를 활용해 베네치아의 힘을 대외적으로 과시하려고 했다. 사자는 여러모로 이런 용도에 적합했다. 이렇게 해서 15세기 날개달린 사자는 바다와 육지에 넓은 식민지를 가지고 있는 제국 베네치아를 대내외적으로 대표하는 상징이 되었던 것이다. The aim of this article is to explain the historical process of the winged Lion to become the most prominent symbol of the republic of Venice. How did the winged Lion come to represent a medieval maritime republic? This article makes effort to give a plausible answer to it. First of all, it is necessary to comprehend the inevitable relatedness between St. Mark and the winged Lion. The reason that the winged Lion became the attribute of St. Mark derives from the biblical story. The Lion was among the four living animals described in the Ezekiel and the Revelations. Since St. Jerome has assigned the Lion to St. Mark, the Lion became the symbol of Mark the evangelist. Two Venetian merchants, Buono and Rustico stole the relic of St. Mark in Alexandria and brought it to Venice by sea. This translation from Alexandria to Venice of the body of St. Mark in 828 made the Lion associated with the Venetian republic. Therefore St. Mark became the patron saint of the Venetian republic replacing St. Theodore. To show that the Venetian republic should have the just right to possess the body of St. Mark, it fabricated two episodes: the praedestinatio and the apparitio. According to the praedstinatio, an angel came down from the heaven and said to St. Mark resting at Rialto after having finished his missionary work in Aquileia: “Pax tibi, Marce, evangelista meus. Hic requiescat corpus tuum”. This angelic proclamation ordained that St. Mark should remain in Venice forever, justifying the translation of the body of St. Mark. Since the thirteenth century, St. Mark has gradually given his way to his attribute of the winged Lion as the principal symbol of the Venetian republic. The likeness of the lion was depicted more frequently than that of the St. Mark. The rise of the winged Lion had a great deal to do with the territorial expansion of the Venetian republic which had started with the fourth Crusades. The Lion, the animal king, was more suitable than the saint for Venice eager for the territorial expansion. The Lion with half of the body on land and half on water became to symbolize a Venetian empire having the stato da mar and the stato da terra in the fifteenth century.

미국-멕시코 전쟁의 이해

임상래(Lim Sang-Rae) 한국라틴아메리카학회 2011 라틴아메리카연구 Vol.24 No.3

The Mexican?American War (1846-1848) was an armed conflict between the United States and Mexico that occurred in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas, which Mexico considered part of its territory despite the 1836 Texas Revolution. American President James K. Polk sought territorial expansion to the Pacific coast, so the American forces invaded and quickly conquered New Mexico, California, and other parts of northern Mexico. In September of 1847 the American army captured Mexico City and forced Mexico to sign the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty. The major condition of the treaty was the forced Mexican Cession of the territories of Alta California (currently California) and New Mexico to the U.S. in exchange for $18 million. Mexico accepted the Rio Grande as its national border, and the loss of an immense territory. However, upon reexamination the Mexican?American War has more diverse and important meanings. We can say the war was closely connected in the U.S. with the slavery controversy and motivations for the war had racist overtones. In addition the war carried a significant meaning when it is viewed in the context of America’s war history, which has made it the origin of the anti-Americanism in and of Latin America. Finally, the Mexican?American War exposed plainly that the ‘real’ independence of Mexico was still far from being complete. The economy and political system was not yet quite built and social integration between the classes and regions was not accomplished. Thus, given these factors the defeat of Mexico in the war could have been expected to some extent.

고려 말 조선 초 전쟁과 지도 만들기

이규철(Lee Kyu Chul) 역사비평사 2018 역사비평 Vol.- No.124

Goryeo & Chosun Dynasty in the 15th century maintained their balance of diplomatic policy through ‘Foreign Conquest’. We have diculty in nding the case that the Korean Dynasty Country since the Middle Ages had militarily suppressed the peripheral powers like the 15th century. In particular, Chosun Dynasty always tried to nd its conduct cause of military expedition externally when enforcing ‘Foreign Conquest’. However, basically the conquest meant a military conduct for suppressing the external powers. In order to begin the ‘Foreign Conquest’, they had to plan taking various factors such as troops & supplies into consideration. e Conquest was very highly risky of facing with it when it proved to be a failure unlike other foreign policies. What’s more, the military movement toward the specic powers had the great possibility of causing the peripheral resistance. erefore, the ‘Foreign Conquest’ was not a policy to progress through short discussion & preparation at all. Chosun Dynasty’s foreign conquest during the 15th century was a policy which was greatly influenced by Goryeo Dynasty. The time when the foreign conquest policy used to reveal its true feature was from the era of King GongMin at the end of Goryeo Dynasty. erefore, it can be explained that the foreign conquest of Chosun Dynasty was the representative foreign policy in the 15th century and was evidently inuenced by that of the end of Goryeo Dynasty. Of course, the wars fought by Goryeo & Chosun Dynasty were aiming for its own benets. At that time, ‘its own benets’ which Goryeo & Chosun Dynasty tried to obtained, were essentially related to the problems of area & territory. e conquest of Goryeo & Chosun Dynasty shared with the goal for the purpose of extending the external inuence abilities & securing a new area & territory.

2000년대 한국의 ‘극단적’ 민족주의에 관한 비판적 연구: ‘국수주의 역사학’의 존립 기반을 중심으로

전재호 한국정치사상학회 2019 정치사상연구 Vol.25 No.1

이 글은 기존 역사학계를 식민사관으로 공격하는 등 한국사회에 큰 파문을 일으켰던 국수주의 역사학을 다루었다. 그들은 영토 팽창주의에 근거해 거대한 영토와 문명을 지닌 한민족의 위대한 고대사를 주장했다. 1970, 80년대에는 자신들의 주장을 국사 교과서에 반영하는 활동을 전개했고, 1990년대부터는 사이버 공간을 이용하여 대중적 확산을 꾀했으며, 2010년대에는 역사학계의 학술사업을 공격하여 좌초시켰고 국가의 학술지원사업을 받기까지 했다. 지금까지 국수주의 역사학의 존립에는 일본과 중국의 민족주의, 정관계의 지원과 언론의 동조, 한국인들의 강한 민족주의 경향 등 역사학계 외적 요인이 존재했다. 역사학계 내적으로는 학계의 무대응과 방관 및 민족주의 과잉이 존재했다. 특히 민족주의 과잉의 구체적 사례는 초역사적인 민족 개념, 현재 민족주의적 시각에서의 역사 해석, 단군 신화와 고조선에 대한 ‘모호한’ 태도, 애국심 고취를 위한 국난극복 강조 서술 등이다. 역사학계는 초역사적 민족 개념 사용의 탈피, 당대 시각에서의 역사 해석, 전근대 정치체와 근대 국가의 구별, 과거에 대한 인식의 한계 적시을 통해 민족주의의 과잉에서 벗어나야 한다. This article examines recent “chauvinistic” approaches to Korean history, as a form of extreme nationalism. These narratives have been creating controversy in Korean society because of their aggressive attacks on current Korean history scholarship, accusing it of accepting a colonial perspective. Based on a nationalistic theory of territorial expansion, these approaches argue that the Korean people enjoyed the ancient history of a great civilization commanding enormous territory. After engaging in efforts to introduce their claims into Korean history textbooks in the 1970s and 1980s, they also attempted to disseminate their arguments among the wider public through activities on the worldwide web. During the 2010s, they not only attacked and thwarted important scholarly projects in the field of Korean history but also garnered state support for their efforts. A number of different factors have contributed significantly to this spreading of a chauvinist approach to Korean history. Outside of scholarship, these factors were Japanese and Chinese nationalism, political and governmental support and a sympathetic media, and a strong nationalist tendency in recent Korean society. Within the field of historical scholarship, contributing factors were scholars’ lack of response, as well as, at times, their own excessive nationalist tendencies. In particular, Korean historical scholarship embraced, to a degree, the concept of the nation transcending history, and occasionally interpreted history from a nationalist perspective, exhibited in an ambiguous attitude toward the Dangun founding myth and Gojoseon, and an emphasis on the Korean people’s overcoming of national crises in historical narratives. Based on underlying studies, this article argues that it is imperative for the field of Korean history to distance itself from excessive nationalism, by shedding the concept of a nation transcending history, by interpreting history strictly from the perspective of the known historical past, by differentiating premodern polities and the modern state, and by acknowledging the limits to our understanding of ancient events.