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 : 신복룡 (검색결과 93 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
申福龍 건국대학교 1984 學術誌 Vol.28 No.1
As B. Croce once pointed that "all history is contemporary history," it is necessary for us to reestimate the historical backgrounds which made it possible for the Dong-hak to emerge on the viewpoint of contemporary history. So many elements can be presented to explain it, but the author would like to summarize the historical environments as follows. (1) The main reason why the Dong-hak emerged was, most of all, the socio-economical depression, so as to say, hardship of the people's life, occurred in the late Cho-Sun Dynasty. For example, the corruption of the civil examination, exploitation by officials which derived from the insufficient salary, the spread of infectious disease, and shamanist topography made the people convert to newly emerging religion, the Dong-hak. (2) Lack of dominant thought, as it were, the poor value-system of the society can be secondly pointed as a reason why the subjects wished new religion to which they could convert. According to the protest of Choi Je-Woo, Founder of the Dong-hak Religion, "not only Confucianism and Buddhism but also Taoism can hardly relieve the depressed society." And he directly denounced the Western impact, Catholicism. In spite of the fact that his protests were partially true, we can hardly deny that he accommodated and synthesized the above thoughts. (3) At least in the age of Cho-Sun Dynasty, Korean people, who felt themselves similarity and common fate with China were afraid of the disastrous history of Chinese mainland. From the Tai-Ping Rebellion to the Boxer Accident, the Chinese people had suffered national insults by the Treaty of Nanking (1842) and the Treaty of Peking (1860) promulgated with the Western Power, Unfortunately a series of conflicts with Western Powers were related with opium, which made the Oriental people thick them immoral, and they thought that it was most immediate task for them to protect themselves from the Western infiltration. As a result of such a thought, Choi Je-Woo named his religion as Dong-hak (Eastern Learning), contrary to the Western Learning. (4) Korean people, who had not experienced any relationship with Western Powers on account of Sino-centrism, were equipped with defence mechanism, when they encountered a series of disputes with them. Those disputes were related with the presecution of Catholician, Westerner's claim for open port, and their covetous approach to Korea. Such disputes as invasion of the American Steamship General Sherman to Pyong-yang (1866), French Admiral Roze's attack on Kang-Hwa Port (1861), smuggling of E. Oppert, Northern Prussian merchant to rob the Grave of King's grandfather, and American Admiral John Rodgers' attack on Kang-Hwa Port (1871) made Korean people feel a crisis, and consequently convert to a religion. (5) Japanese pillage beginning from the 1st Century, through the invasion of 1592, continued up to the 19th Century brought about the Korean national antipathy on Japan. In addition to those hostile heritages, Japan attempted to land the Korean peninsula in order to solve the problems occurred around premature capitalism. The Japanese expansionists conceived that the most available and fittable target for their marketing, and importation of raw materials as rice and corn and fishery is Korea. Such a hostile relationship escalated into several conflicts between them, and gave a momentum to evolve the new religion. (6) Concluding the historical backgrounds of the Dong-hak thought, we can find that we need supports from the neighbouring science as economic history, liberation from the Weber's agony (Seinsgebundenheit) under the Korean circumstances, and slough of colonialist viewpoint on Korean history.
-
-
신복룡 건국대학교 사회과학연구소 1999 社會科學論叢 Vol.23 No.-
[1] This study was written to depict the logic of disputes on trusteeship after the Liberation in Korea, 1945-1947. [2] It is necessary to analyse the traditional interpretation exactly that the right-wings asserted the anti-trusteeship and the left wings assented the trusteeship, because right-wing really asserted the anti-trusteeship but left-wing, exactly speaking, asserted the Agreement of Three Ministers of Foreign Affairs(USA, USSR, UK) in Moscow Conference. Considering that the right-wings focused on the terms of trusteeship but the left-wings on those of provisional government, it is not logical to say that the right-wing protested against the trusteeship and the left-wing approved the trusteeship. The right-wing, who read the English edition of Agreement which focused on the trusteeship, were deeply impressed by the term of 'Trusteeship' but the left-wing, who read the Russian edition which contained the guardianship(Oneka) in stead of trusteeship, were impressed by the promise of Provisional government, and consequently they were not negative to the Moscow Agreement. Therefore the disputes on trusteeship were originated from their misunderstanding of the terms of Moscow Agreement. This controversial problem could be solved by sincere dialogue and broader view point among the political leaders, but both sides of them were neither generous nor able. [3] Our ultimate question is which was right, anti-trusteeship or pro-trusteeship? As the advocates of pro-trusteeship said, it is true that the trusteeship would postpone the independence of their state but it could deter the aggressive desire of Russian people. But the history could not turn her face from the popular emotion, as to say, anti-trusteeship atmosphere. It is important to point that they had to unite along the same line whether it was anti or pro-trusteeship. It was tragic that they were separated along their partial and selfish interest. If they were united, there would be some possibilities to evade the separation of territory. [4] It is not true logic to say that pro-trusteeship was pro-communist and anti-trusteeship was nationalistic. And it is not true to say that pro-trusteeship was emotional conclusion and anti-trusteeship was theoretical one. Both of them were neither reasonable nor patriotic. They did not have any concrete idea. They were worried about their own interest. They had to persuade the mass who were indulged in Jacobian mentality. They had to guide the people in the turmoil of Liberation. "ey had to do as the eye-surgeon specializing in removing cataracts." [5] The above logic does not deny the reasonabilities of the three Powers. They were also responsible for the national rupture after the Liberation of Korea. They devoted himself to exclude the "main of one power."hey were not sympathetic to the destiny of Korean people. Concludingly speaking, the device of anti-trusteeship was impossible one. It made the Korean people give up the Union of peninsula as hopeless one.
-
-
-
-
-
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
