교학사 『한국사』 교과서의 현대사 서술과 민주주의 교육

강화정 한국역사교육학회 2014 역사교육연구 Vol.- No.20

This article is to examine the controversy of the Kyohaksa history textbook in 2013 with the keyword of democracy and democracy education. First, I have taken a close look at the process of how the term ‘democracy’changed into ‘liberal democracy’ in the National History Curriculum due to the suggestions from the The Association for Contemporary Korean History appertaining to authors of Korean history textbook. The concept of liberal democracy’ is basically unclear. Furthermore, the terminology is rarely used in other social studies education course, In addtion, this one faces manifold problems that the changing progressesof terminology are undemocratic. According to Kyohaksa history textbook, liberal democracy means ‘liberal democracy system based on anticommunism’. Following onthe Kyohaksa history textbooks contemporary history description, liberal democracy was emphasized through 5·10 general elections and founding of liberal democracy thorough founding of Republic of Korea and the aspect to protect the system after the Korean War. While other history textbooks described contemporary history after 1960 under the fact of oppression and resistance between the authoritarian government and pro-democracy movement, Kyohaksa textbook, onthe other hand, minimizes the description of pro-democracy movement and describes that the reason why the authoritarian government had to damage the value of democracy was an inevitable choice due to communism. After announcing government approved textbooks, the countless factual fallacy in Kyohaksa textbooks were a big issue. After that, the Ministry of education made a statement of recommended modification. After analyzing the content of recommended modification of 7 other textbook except Kyohaksa, they all resembled the historical view of New right. Through the recommended modification, the Ministry of education forced other Korean history textbooks with New right’s history by aggravating regression in the awareness1 of Korean contemporary history. 본고는 2013년 많은 논란을 일으킨 교학사 한국사 교과서를 민주주의와 민주주의 교육이라는 키워드로 살펴보려 한다. 먼저, 교학사 한국사 교과서의 집필자들이 속한 한국현대사학회의 건의로 역사과 교육과정에서 ‘민주주의’가 ‘자유민주주의’로 변경되는 과정을 살펴보았다. 자유민주주의는 그 개념이 불명확하고, 다른 사회과 교육과정에서 사용되지 않는 용어였다. 또, 용어 변경과정이 비민주적이라는 문제점이 있었다. 교학사 교과서에서 자유민주주의는 ‘반공에 기초한 자유민주주의 체제’를 의미했다. 교학사 교과서의 현대사 서술에서 자유민주주의는 5.10총선거와 대한민국 수립을 통한 자유민주주의 체제의 수립, 6.25전쟁과 체제 수호의 측면에서 강조되었다. 다른 한국사 교과서들이 권위주의 정부와 민주화운동 간의 억압-저항 구도 속에서 1960년 이후 현대사를 서술한 반면, 교학사 교과서는 민주화운동 서술을 최소화하고, 권위주의 정부가 민주적 가치를 훼손한 것을 공산주의에 의한 불가피한 선택으로 보았다. 한국사 교과서 검정 발표 이후 교학사 교과서의 무수한 사실 오류가 문제가 되었다. 그러자 교육부는 8종 한국사 교과서에 수정 권고를 발표했다. 교학사를 제외한 7종 한국사 교과서의 수정권고 내용을 분석한 결과 이는 뉴라이트의 역사관과 꼭 닮아있었다. 교육부는 수정 권고를 통해 한국현대사 인식의 퇴행을 조장하며 뉴라이트의 역사인식을 다른 한국사 교과서에 강요한 것이다.

한국사 교과서 검정 파동의 원인과 과제

김한종(Kim, Han-jong) 한국역사연구회 2014 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.92

A controversy over the Certification System for Korean History Textbooks broke out in 2014, as a new textbook written by conservative scholars became an issue of hot debate. In the aftermath, the Korean History textbook published by Gyohak-sa was not chosen by the high schools. A lot of historians, educators and civic organization members made efforts to prevent it from being used in the schools. But discussions and debates over how modern and contemporary history of Korea should be described in Korean history textbooks will definitely continue in the future. The recent controversy left behind some issues that deserve further contemplations, upon not only the nature of history textbooks and the textbook publication system itself, but also the operations of schools and the future of our society. Characteristics of the current textbook certification system should be further discussed, as they seem to have contributed to the intensification of national control over Korean history textbooks. Textbooks other than the Gyohak-sa textbook should be analyzed as well, for their accuracy, level of historical understanding and their value as a teaching material. General shape of the ultimately desirable textbook publication system, as well as the template for a model which could be called as a ‘good textbook,’ should be included in further discussions. Scholars of Korean history and historical education extensively analyzed the problems of the Gyohak-sa Korean History textbook, and succeeded in creating a social consensus and preventing schools from using it. But in appearance, such efforts were ideological conflicts. Members of conservative action groups argue that Korean history textbooks should be designated by the government, and the Ministry of Education is leading the charge on this issue. Controversies are destined to follow. It is the task of historians and history educators to improve the publication system of Korean history textbooks so that they could and would reflect the results of Korean historical researches and interpretations. History textbooks should enhance the students" critical consciousness and ways of thinking. Strategies to create such history textbooks should be devised.

일제의 한국 지배에 대한 인식의 갈등과 그 지양

정연태 한국외국어대학교 역사문화연구소 2015 역사문화연구 Vol.53 No.-

최근 한국사회에서는 일제의 식민지배에 대한 인식을 둘러싼 갈등이 심각한 양상을 보이고 있다. 이런 갈등은 정치적·사회적 갈등, 남북 대립, 그리고 한일 역사분쟁과 결합돼 소모적인 이념 대립으로 비화되고 있다. 그 상징적 양상은 최근에 벌어진 한국사 교과서 검정파동에서 나타났다. 한국학계 또한 이런 양상으로부터 자유롭지 못하다. 식민지 수탈론, 식민지 근대화론, 탈근대론 사이의 근대 역사관 논쟁이 학문 외적인 이념 대립과 연동돼 논쟁 자체가 변질되고 있다. 심지어 학계의 논쟁이 소모적 이념 대립을 해소하는 데 기여하기는커녕 불필요한 갈등을 오히려 증폭시키는 데 이용되는 경향조차 있다. 본고는 한국 근대사 인식의 이러한 정치성을 특별히 주목하고 싶다. 일제의 식민지배에 대한 인식을 둘러싸고 한국학계에서 전개되는 학술 논쟁이 정치 사회적 현실과 어떻게 연관되고 있는지를 살펴보고자 한다. 그리고 이러한 소모적인 갈등을 지양할 수 있는 방안을 모색해 보고자 한다. 주제어 : 식민지배, 역사분쟁, 교학사(敎學社) 한국사 교과서, 종북(從北) 좌편향 프레임, 식민지 수탈론, 식민지 근대화론, 탈근대론, 열린 민족주의 The recent conflicts over the recognition of Japanese colonial rule are serious in the Korean society. These conflicts are connected with political and social antagonism, inter-Korean confrontation, and history disputes between Korea and Japan. For this reason, they are creating exhaustive conflicts of ideology. A symbolic development aspect of these conflicts is the recent controversy over the official certification of Korean history textbooks. The academic world of Korea is not also free from these conflicts. The disputes on the view of the modern history of korea between the theory of colony exploitation, the theory of colony modernization, the theory of post-modernism are deteriorating in sync with the conflicts of ideology in Korean society. The disputes in the academic world didn’t contribute to settle these exhaustive conflicts. They even tend to be used to intensify unnecessary conflicts. In this paper, I would particularly like to pay attention to this kind of the politics of recognition of Korean modern history. And I want to examine how these disputes in the academic world are connected with the political and social realities in Korea today. Additionally, I would like to attempt to seek for solution to sublate this kind of exhaustive conflicts.

한국 역사 교과서인가, 아니면 일본 역사 교과서인가?

이준식(Lee Junsik) 역사비평사 2013 역사비평 Vol.- No.105

This paper presents a critical overview of a controversial perspective of Korean history―Japanese colonial rule in Korea (1910~1945), that is described in a history textbook produced by the Kyohaksa Publishing Company in Korea. The co-authors of the book can be described as belonging to the “New Right”. The problem of the book is that it contains a considerable number of errors and mistakenly informed facts, many of which occur in Chapter 5 that deals with the Japanese colonial period in Korea. The perspective of Korean history presented in the Kyohaksa history book runs contrary to the commonly accepted viewpoint about that period; it appears to overturn the idea of the forceful occupation of Korea by Japan and the Korean people’s resistance against this intervention. The idea is advanced that Japanese occupation resulted in the modernization of Korea, a claim the authors support with statistics and visual material. However, there is hardly any information on how much Japanese colonial rule deprived the Korean people of nearly everything they had leading to a national collapse. To justify their historical description, the authors identify the pre-colonial period in Korea as one of an inferior pre-monetary economy which recalls the “theory of the stagnation of history” idea that was devised one hundred years ago by Japanese academia to prove how inferior Korean history was to theirs and to justify their colonisation of Korea. The most disturbing aspect of the Kyohaksa history book is that the co-authors have attempted to overturn the commonly accepted historical description of Japanese colonial rule in relation to pro- and anti-Japanese confrontation. They do not conceal their desire to justify Japanese occupation of Korea; there is no difficulty in finding unnecessary long arguments in favor of so-called pro-Japanese Koreans. There is scant reference to the adverse aspects perpetrated on the majority of Korean people by pro-Japanese Koreans, but there is no shortage of excuses for actions that pro-Japanese Koreans were forced to do as part of a cooperative responsibility for the national crisis. The Korean Constitution of the Republic of Korea that succeeded the Provisional Korean Government (PKV) in China (1919~1945), relates to all Koreans who fought for the independence of Korea regardless of their ideological stance. The PKG declaration against all pro-Japanese groups and the removal of any pro-Japanese legacy from the new Korean republic became the independent spirit of Korea. Therefore, any attempt to justify Japanese colonial rule in Korea can be regarded as opposition to the Constitution of Korea. The pro-Japanese stance adopted in the Kyohaska Korean history book should be condemned accordingly.

냉전적 역사 서술과 상처받은 자유주의

홍석률(Hong Seuk-ryule) 역사비평사 2013 역사비평 Vol.- No.105

This article presents a critical overview of the history textbook published by Kyohaksa Publishing Company in Korea in terms that its descriptive view rests on the idea of cold war dichotomy. The co-authors of the history book equate the concept of liberal democracy with anti-communist ideology. Instead of emphasizing individual rights and freedom as universal modern values, liberal democracy is used to controversially justify authoritarian rule in which liberalism was suppressed as anti-social ideology. The authors’perspective appears to be limited to 1950’s cold war liberalism in the West. Therefore, many facts are unavoidably manipulated to support a rather narrow historical viewpoint.

1922년 ‘제2차 조선교육령’과 현행 한국사 교과서

정병욱(Jung, Byung-wook) 역사비평사 2014 역사비평 Vol.- No.109

Through analysis of historical records of the Second Education Ordinance of 1922 in history textbooks, this paper makes two arguments. First, historical documents on the Ordinance that Kyohaksa Publishing Co. included in its textbook reflect its authors’ level of expertise in this topic. Their selection of sources and organization of references show that they are not experts in this area. Secondly, Korean history textbooks published nowadays, including that of Kyohaksa Publishing Co., do not explain the Second Education Ordinance in depth and thus, fail to accurately depict the impact that the Ordinance had on Korean society at that time. These textbooks narrate as if the Ordinance limited the opportunity for educating the entire Korean population except wealthy Koreans who were able to attain the appropriate level of education required for their success.

역사가의 직업적 윤리 의식과 사회적 책임 : 교학사 한국사 교과서 사태에 대한 고찰

조한욱(Cho, Hanook) 호서사학회 2014 역사와 담론 Vol.0 No.69

이 글은 교학사 한국사 교과서 사태를 역사가의 직업적 윤리와 사회적 책임이라는 측면에서 성찰해 보려고 한다. 그 어떤 역사가도 자신의 연구 결과물이 단 하나밖에 없는 사실을 발견한 것이라고 주장할 수는 없다는 것이 오늘날 역사학계에서 공통적인 인식이다. 즉 역사가들이 알아낸 것은 어디까지나 사실에 대한 가설일 뿐이라는 것을 인정해야 한다. 이것이 역사가들이 지녀야 할 역사학계 내부의 직업적 윤리 의식이다. 또한 아무리 가설이라고 해도 그것을 뒷받침할 수 있는 믿을만한 사료를 확보해야 하고 그에 대한 합리적인 분석을 통해 설득력을 얻어야한다는 것이 역사가들이 지녀야 할 또 하나의 직업적 윤리 의식이다. 또한 역사가들은 그들의 기능을 수행할 때 사회적 책임감을 느껴야 한다. 역사를 연구하고 기록하고 교육한다는 것은 단순히 개인적이고 사적인 행위가 아니라 공적인 행위이기 때문이다. 공적인 행위라 함은 늘 자신의 행위가 개인적 편견과 우리 공동체의 부분적 이해관계의 결과라고 인식될 수 있는 것은 아닌지 공동체의 타 구성원들의 시선을 의식하면서 수행하는 것을 말한다. 이렇게 볼 때 이번 교학사 한국사 교과서 저자들은 역사가가 지녀야 할 직업적 윤리의식과 사회적 책임감을 결여하고 있다. 그들은 역사가로서 그들의 작업에 대한 학계 내부의 비판도 거부하고 공동체의 부분적 가치의 선전에 동원되고 있기 때문이다. This paper takes part in the current social debate of Kyohaksa Korean history textbook. This textbook is notorious for it"s ideological bias which, though supported by government party and some conservative part of civil society, incurred vehement criticisms in most part of both civil society and education field. While these criticisms generally focus on it"s ultra conservative and pro-Japanese interpretation of Korean modern and contemporary history, this paper questions whether the writers bear historian"s professional ethics and social responsibility in their minds. Historian"s professional ethics asks that historians should consider their propositions as just hypotheses which are to be revised and even annulled by new proofs and more rational interpretations. However, the writers can be accused of their ideological obstinacy to the extent that only their textbook tells the truth of historical fact with which large part of citizens and history teachers do not sympathize and agree. The writers seem to think of their textbook as official textbook which is not admitted in democratic society. Moreover they forget historian"s social responsibility which requires historian"s moral duty to preserve the values which democratic citizenry generally believes community should pursue. In conclusion they fail to negotiate their narratives in public sphere to lose the opportunity to entitle their textbook as a public history.

교학사판 『한국사』의 논리와 책략

지수걸(Ji Su-gol) 역사비평사 2013 역사비평 Vol.- No.105

Textbooks of the History of Korea written for secondary schools in Korea should be considered as ‘fundamental resources for teaching and studying Korean history’, and they are required to follow the School Curricula Notice from the Ministry of Education. Therefore, when it comes to evaluate the correctness and quality of textbooks, it is necessary to examine whether they reflect the criteria given in the Curricula Notice. From this perspective, the Korean history textbook published by Kyohaksa Printing and Publishing Co. is low-quality. It reflects a conservative right-wing historical perspective. It distorts and ignores the nature of the School Curricula Notice, especially with respect to the section ‘Who’s history for whom’. The goal of the Curricula is indicated in ‘Principles and methodologies’ of compiling the textbook stated in the Preface, the contents shown by the titles of chapters and sub-chapters and its chronology, the composition of contents of the Curricula’s teaching areas in ‘Theory of historical inevitability or theory of self-victimizing choice’, and in ‘Tactical historical discourse and rhetorics of plot’, and its teaching and studying methods in ‘Distorting history by utilizing “Further Study” as an excuse’. Utilizing the controversy about Kyohaksa’s Korean History textbook, the Ministry of Education and some conservative media have attempted to evoke the popular opinion that the government should publish Korean history textbooks through a ‘system of government textbook designation’. Considering the various realities of the education system in Korea, it is best to find a way to improve the problems while maintaining the present ‘Review and approval textbook system’ or ‘the principle of providing outlines of the educational curricula’. As a conclusion, it is emphasized that a good textbook cannot be written only with the good will of its authors, and that one should have the proper competency to write a good textbook whether the textbook is published under the government designation system, or the reviewed and approval system.

탈식민·탈냉전·민주주의에 대한 도전, `뉴라이트` 『한국사』 교과서

이신철 ( Lee Sincheol ) 역사문제연구소 2013 역사문제연구 Vol.17 No.2

This paper argues that there is a close connection between New Right`s attack on other history textbook and publication of Gyohaksa edition of “Korean history”. Also, this thesis emphasizes that focusing on economic growth in colonial period and anti-communism from dictatorship era rather than the value of independence and democracy is not only a regressive historical recognition but also anachronistic approach. In mid 1990`s, the new historical recognition under the democratization and post-Cold war influenced on the new history curriculum in Korea. Soon, it began to reflect on history textbook. The conservatives attacked politically and ideologically when the new trend of history curriculum began to appear. The conservative politicians and media indiscriminately attacked “Korean Modern and con Contemporary History” textbook from 2002. As a result, the center of controversy was rather an ideological debate than educational and academical dispute. New Right started to take full action in 2005, and began to attack “Korean Modern and con Contemporary History” systematically and consistently with ruling political power in 2008. Furthermore, New Right started to make a new history curriculum focusing on nationalism and anti-communism national identity. Also, members of New Right began to write their own history textbook and finally published the Gyohaksa edition of “Korean history” textbook. However, far too many errors have been confirmed in Gyohaksa edition of “Korean history”. It is highly doubtful if it even possesses the basic requirements to be an official textbook which leads to questioning political intervention in textbook screening system. It also causes an issue of how far the state can intervene on description of Korean history in textbook since Ministry of Education ordered amendment of not only the Gyohaksa edition but the entire series of textbooks. On the other hand, the Gyohaksa edition of “Korean history” raises the fundamental question on how to deal with the colonial and dictatorship issues in Korean modern and contemporary history textbook.