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 : 한철호 (검색결과 208 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
한철호 한국근현대사학회 2012 한국 근현대사 연구 Vol.61 No.-
An Jung-geun’s patriotic deed was practiced as a kind of righteous armies war against the invasion Korea by imperial Japan. Ito Hirobumi is regarded as the founder of Japanese modernization. Therefore it is not easy to come to an agreement between Korean and Japanese academia on Aung-geun and his patriotic deed. So this paper looks into the research trend in Japanese academia, focusing on the meaning of his deed, the possibility of third person shooting or double shooting, and the appraisal about his “Theory of Oriental Peace”. First, regarding An Jung-geun’s patriotic deed, Japanese scholars argue that Ito opposed the Japanese forced occupation of Korea before the patriotic deed. But this argument has a serious flaw, since it is directly linked to the view that An’s patriotic deed frustrated Ito’s moderate position on Korea and accelerated Japanese forced occupation of Korea. Some studies consider An's act as a patriotic one executed for the independence of Korea and oriental peace without any personal resentment. Thus we have to focus on the meaning of An’s patriotic deed. His deed disclosed the character of Japanese invasion policy to the world and made direct damage to that policy. Another well-known distortion of An’s patriotic deed is the theory of third shooter. It was first suggested by Murota Yosiaya, one of Ito’s retinue. It seems that this view reflected Japanese prejudice or Murota’s wrong pride, which does not accept that Ito was killed by a Korean. Still this third shooter theory is widely known in Japan and there are many speculations on who really shot Ito. But this third shooter theory has no grounds and is criticized even in Japan. Lastly, there are positive appraisals on An’s “Theory of Oriental Peace”, which argued for the independence of Korea and opposed Japanese annexation. But the viewpoint on the “Theory of Oriental Peace” should be reconsidered. The essence of the theory is in the necessity for the unity of Korea, China, and Japan facing with the invasion of Western powers and the removal of the causes of war and conflict between nations regardless of East and West. His “Theory of Oriental Peace” neither fell into racism nor contradicted the Idea of World Peace. So we should point out that this theory aimed for universal internationalism beyond the theory of Asian Solidarity. An Jung-geun’s patriotic deed was practiced as a kind of righteous armies war against the invasion Korea by imperial Japan. Ito Hirobumi is regarded as the founder of Japanese modernization. Therefore it is not easy to come to an agreement between Korean and Japanese academia on Aung-geun and his patriotic deed. So this paper looks into the research trend in Japanese academia, focusing on the meaning of his deed, the possibility of third person shooting or double shooting, and the appraisal about his “Theory of Oriental Peace”. First, regarding An Jung-geun’s patriotic deed, Japanese scholars argue that Ito opposed the Japanese forced occupation of Korea before the patriotic deed. But this argument has a serious flaw, since it is directly linked to the view that An’s patriotic deed frustrated Ito’s moderate position on Korea and accelerated Japanese forced occupation of Korea. Some studies consider An's act as a patriotic one executed for the independence of Korea and oriental peace without any personal resentment. Thus we have to focus on the meaning of An’s patriotic deed. His deed disclosed the character of Japanese invasion policy to the world and made direct damage to that policy. Another well-known distortion of An’s patriotic deed is the theory of third shooter. It was first suggested by Murota Yosiaya, one of Ito’s retinue. It seems that this view reflected Japanese prejudice or Murota’s wrong pride, which does not accept that Ito was killed by a Korean. Still this third shooter theory is widely known in Japan and there are many speculations on who really shot Ito. But this third shooter theory has no grounds and is criticized even in Japan. Lastly, there are positive appraisals on An’s “Theory of Oriental Peace”, which argued for the independence of Korea and opposed Japanese annexation. But the viewpoint on the “Theory of Oriental Peace” should be reconsidered. The essence of the theory is in the necessity for the unity of Korea, China, and Japan facing with the invasion of Western powers and the removal of the causes of war and conflict between nations regardless of East and West. His “Theory of Oriental Peace” neither fell into racism nor contradicted the Idea of World Peace. So we should point out that this theory aimed for universal internationalism beyond the theory of Asian Solidarity.
-
-
한철호 한국근현대사학회 2016 한국 근현대사 연구 Vol.79 No.-
The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture and Trade (MAT) took the lead of Japan’s occupation of Dokdo with Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Navy in 1905. Then, the Imperial Geological Survey of Japan (IGSJ) that is one of affiliated organizations in the MAT, published and revised the Topographical Map of the Japanese Empire (TMJE : 1888, 1892, 1897). It did not have marks to show Seongin-bong in Ulleungdo and mountaintops of Dokdo on the TMJE, in spite of the fact that the others Japanese islands are marked with mountains and so on. The MAT had not recognized Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Japanese territory so that they were excluded from survey from the beginning. Therefore, the TMJE did not have any mark with colors or signs of mountain for Ulleungdo and Dokdo. There were written as Matsushima and Olivutsa Rocks/Menelai Rocks, being based on the East Coast of Korea issued by the Japanese Hydrographic Office (JHO), in the TMJE. Matsushima represents Ulleungdo and Olivutsa Rocks/Menelai Rocks means Dokdo. Because JHO regarded Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean territory, MAT accepted the JHO’s cognition about Ulleungdo and Dokdo without any aversion. The face that there did not have a sign for ‘Liancourt Rocks’ or ‘Liancourt islands’ of which name was known well in Oki in those days, supports to show that the IGSJ did not aware Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Japanese territory. That The MAT did not consider Dokdo as Japanese territory is proved as the face that Japanese border clearly excluded from Dokdo on the map, the Asia in the Chuto-kyokayo-jizu, Gaikokubu (『中等教科用地圖 外國部』, 1902) and the Joshi-kyokayo-jizu, Gaikokunobu, Jo (『女子教科用地圖 外國之部 上』, 1903) written by Yamagami Manziro (山上萬次郎). Yamagami surveyed for himself Oki during one’s tenure of office in the MAT, and drew up the Oki-zuhuku-chishitsu-setsumeisyo (「隱岐圖幅地質説明書」). Therefore, TMJE is one of the important materials to disclose the Japan’s unrealistic claim to the original title and occupation of terra nullius on Dokdo. 일본 외무성ㆍ해군성과 함께 1905년 일본의 독도 강제 편입을 주도했던 농상무성은 「일본제국전도」(1888, 1892)와 「대일본제국전도」(1897)를 간행하였다. 「일본제국전도」에는 일본의 섬들과 달리 성인봉이 있는 울릉도와 산봉우리로 이루어진 독도에 산을 나타내는 표시가 없다. 농상무성은 울릉도ㆍ독도를 일본영토로 인식하지 않았기 때문에 애초부터 측량 대상에서 제외되었고, 그 결과 색깔뿐 아니라 산 표시도 하지 않았던 것이다. 「일본제국전도」와 「대일본제국전도」에는 일본 수로부가 간행한 「조선동해안도」에 근거해 울릉도와 독도의 이름이 ‘松島’와 ‘오리우츠뢰ㆍ메네라이뢰’로 각각 적혀 있다. 수로부 간행의 「조선동해안도」 등과 수로지에는 울릉도와 독도가 한국영토로 간주되었기 때문에, 농상무성도 자연스럽게 그 인식을 수용했을 것이다. 농상무성이 독도를 일본영토로 인식하지 않았다는 점은 야마가미가 집필한 『中等教科用地圖 外國部』(1902)와 『女子教科用地圖 外國之部 上』(1903)에 똑같이 실린 「아시아(アジア)」 지도에 독도를 제외하고 일본의 국경선이 확실하게 표시된 사실로 입증된다. 야마가미는 농상무성 재직 중 오키를 직접 측량하고 「隱岐圖幅」와 「隱岐圖幅地質説明書」를 작성했던 인물이다. 따라서 독도를 일본영토로 간주하지 않은 「일본제국전도」는 일본의 고유영토론 주장과 무주지선점의 허구성을 밝히는 중요한 자료로 평가된다.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
