RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      검색결과 좁혀 보기

      선택해제
      • 좁혀본 항목 보기순서

        • 원문유무
        • 원문제공처
        • 등재정보
        • 학술지명
          펼치기
        • 주제분류
        • 발행연도
          펼치기
        • 작성언어
        • 저자
          펼치기

      오늘 본 자료

      • 오늘 본 자료가 없습니다.
      더보기
      • 무료
      • 기관 내 무료
      • 유료
      • KCI등재

        중등 “역사”ㆍ고등 “한국사” 교과서 국정화에 대한 반론

        서인원(Seo, In-won) 역사실학회 2015 역사와실학 Vol.58 No.-

        2015년 11월 3일, 박근혜 정부가 중등 역사와 고등 한국사 교과서 국정화를 확정고시하였다. 2015년 10월 12일, 황우여 사회부총리 겸 교육부 장관은 중학교 “역사”와 고등학교 “한국사” 교과서를 국정으로 발행하는 내용의 "중ㆍ고등학교 교과용도서 국ㆍ검ㆍ인정 구분(안)"을 행정 예고하였으며, 11월 5일의 확정 고시 기일을 기다리지도 않고 2일이나 빨리 발표한 것이다. 진보ㆍ보수 이념과는 상관없이 여론은 반대쪽으로 확연히 기울어졌지만, ‘청소년들을 위해서’라는 명분을 내세워 국정화를 단행하였다. 교육부가 현행 고등 한국사 교과서에서도 충분히 구현되고 있는 내용들을 ‘사실 오류ㆍ편향성 수정’, ‘다양성의 확보’, ‘질 관리 체계 구축’, ‘헌법 가치 수호’ 등의 왜곡되고 편향적인 방향으로 몰고 가고 있는 것이다. 역사는 결코 하나의 시각으로만 기술할 수는 없다. 붕당 정치로 정쟁이 무척 심했던 조선 시대의 〈조선왕조실록〉 저술 과정을 보아도 알 수 있다. 남인이 작성한 〈현종실록〉을 마땅치 않게 생각한 서인은 경신환국으로 다시 권력을 잡고 〈현종개수실록〉을 썼다. 그러나 정쟁이 심했던 이 시기에도 서인들은 후대가 참고하고 판단하라고 원래의 〈현종실록〉은 파기하지 않았다. 결국 “역사”와 “한국사” 교과서 국정화는 학문적 차원의 문제가 아니라, 정치공학적인 차원에서 결정된 잘못된 사례이다. 비록 현재에는 역사교과서의 국정화가 실시되고는 있지만, 앞으로의 역사교육은 다양한 가치관과 창의력이 개발되는 방향으로 전환될 것임을 믿어 의심하지 않는다. November 3, 2015, Park Geun-hye government confirmed government-designated textbook system, which is for middle and high school education. It was 2 days earlier than the official day which was clearly stated on the previous notice of Oct 12, which was issued by Woo-yeo Hwang, the minister of education. Although the major public opinion was opposed to the new government-designated textbook. regardless of political stance, it has been enforced ‘for the sake of our students.’ The mistry of education is arguing that current textbooks are biased, proposing ‘modification of factual errors and bias’, ‘more diversity’, ‘establishing quality management system’, ‘conservation of constitutional values’, etc. History cannot be recorded by only one view, which seems obvious if you look through the process that “Choseon Wangjo Sillok” was written. Since Seo-in(one of parties in Choseon politic) was not in favor of the way “Hyeon-jong silok” written by Nam-in, the opposite party, they rewrite “Hyeon-jong gae-su silok” after they took the power back through Gyeong-sin Hwan-guk. However, Those days when political power game was far more severe, than these days, Seo-in didn’ t abandon “Hyeon-jong silok,” the original record. After all, government-designated textbook system debate is not the academic issue, Rather, it’s quite the problem of political manipulation. Despite the fact that government-designated textbook system is confirmed to be implemented, there’s no need to doubt that further history education have to be changed to the way diverse values and creativities can be developed.

      • KCI등재후보

        1950년대 일본 고유영토설의 정치적 분쟁화 모순점에 대한 고찰

        서인원(SEO, In won) 동북아역사재단 2018 영토해양연구 Vol.15 No.-

        고유영토설은 일본 정부가 만들어낸 정치적 용어로 타국과의 영토 분쟁을 나타내는 용어이며 역사적 권원을 부정하는 주장이다. 그래서 1950년대 전후 일본의 영토 처리 문제를 중심으로 고유 영토의 개념에 대해 고찰하면서 고유영토설의 모순점을 분석하였다. 1950년대 이후 일본 정부가 쿠릴열도, 센카쿠제도, 독도를 고유 영토라고 주장하는 것은 이 섬들이 역사의 어느 시점에서 획득되었던 토지임에 지나지 않고 그 이전에는 일본의 영토가 아니었다는 사실을 나타내는 것이다. 최근에 일본 정부는 다른 나라가 점령하지 않은 영토는 고유 영토에 해당하기 때문에 무주지 선점론은 고유영토설이 성립된다고 주장하고 있다 . 이런 논리는 1950년대 일본 외무성 영토 연구에서 나왔고, 1959년 1월 일본 정부 견해(4)에서 처음으로 ‘일본 고유 영토(日本固有の領土)’라는 말을 사용하였다. 이때부터 일본 외무성은 고유영토설과 무주지 선점론을 양립하는 논리 전개 양상을 보였고1 960년대부터 본격적으로 고유 영토를 사용하기 시작하였다. 일본의 영토 개념은 동양의 화이질서에서 나온 것이고 이를 유럽식 국제법 논리에 적용하다보니 상반되는 모순점이 드러났다. 또한 독도 영토 편입을 영유권 재확인이라고 표현하는 것은 일본 고유 영토라는 의미를 부정하는 것이다. 전후 일본 외무성의 영토 문제에 대한 연구는 내셔널리즘적 측면에서 일본 고유 영토라는 논리를 개발하는 데 주력하였고 이 연구가 나중에 발전해서 외무성의 「다케시마를 이해하기 위한 10포인트」로 정리되었다. 이런 일본 정부의 논리는 1946~1954년 대장성 고시 등의 일본 법령들로 고유영토설을 반박할 수 있다. 이 법령들은 일본 국내법으로 만들어진 것이고 강화조약 체결 전후에도 SCAPIN 677호를 계승하면서 쿠릴열도와 독도를 일본의 부속 섬에서 제외하고 있다. 이것은 쿠릴열도와 독도가 일본영토가 아님을 증명하는 것이며 이런 법령들을 통해서 독도가 국제법적으로 일본에서 한국으로 완전히 반환되었음을 증명하고 있다. 또한 독도에 대한 일본의 고유영토설은 1959년 이후 개발된 정치적 용어로 1950년대 러시아와의 쿠릴열도 분쟁에서 함께 만들어졌다. 이 논리는 일본의 우경화와 국내 여론을 통일하기 위해 만들어진 전략이었고 고유영토설은 정치 · 외교상의 필요에 의해 만들어낸 용어에 지나지 않는다. The inherent territory theory is a political term created by the Japanese government. This is a term referring to territorial disputes with other countries and is a claim to deny historical authority. Therefore, we analyzed the contrariety of the inherent territory theory by focusing on the problem of territorial disputes in Japan in the 1950s. Since the 1950s, the Japanese government has claimed that the Kuril Islands, the Senkaku Islands, and Dokdo are inherent territories, indicating that these islands are not Japanese territory that was acquired at any point in history, but were not previously Japanese territory. Recently, the Japanese government claims that territories that have not been occupied by other nations belong to their own territory, so that the terra nullius theory establishes the inherent territory. This logic came from the study of Japanese foreign ministry in the 1950s and the Japanese government used the first Japanese territory in the Japanese Government Views(4) in January 1959. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan combined the inherent territory theory and the terra nullius theory from this time, and began to use the inherent territory from the 1960s. The concept of the territory of Japan comes from the Sinocentrism and there are contrarieties when applied to the logic of European international law, and the expression ‘reaffirming the sovereignty of Dokdo’ is a denial of the meaning of Japan’s own territory. This logic of the Japanese government can refute the inherent territory with the Japanese ordinances such as the legislations of the finance ministry’s notice of 1946~1954. These laws also exclude the Kuril Islands and Dokdo from Japan’s attached islands, succeeding SCAPIN 677 before and after the San francisco Peace Treaty. This proves that the Kuril Islands and Dokdo are not Japanese territories, and these laws prove that Dokdo was fully returned from Japan to Korea under international law. In addition, Japan’s inherent territory theory on Dokdo is a political term developed after 1959, and it is a logic created together in the Kuril Islands dispute with Russia in the 1950s. This logic is created by Japan’s right-wing and political and diplomatic needs.

      • KCI등재

        朝鮮初期 歷史認識과 領域認識 : 『東國輿地勝覽』을 중심으로

        서인원(Seo In-Won) 역사실학회 2008 역사와실학 Vol.35 No.-

        A number of books were issued in many fields as a part of maintenance of new ruling system in the early Chosun Dynasty. A good number of books which were written by many officials who were also scholars were published about history and geography. Books which were published by individuals were supported by the government. Most of history books and geography books which were issued at those times reflected real contents needed in setting up a new dynasty. Those books were made use of as ways to gather revenue needed in governing the dynasty. Those books reflected efforts used to expand confucian culture which was prevailing governing ideology at that time. At that atmosphere a book named'DongKukYeoJiSeungRam' - generally perceived as a geography book- considerably reflected history perception and territory perception which is based on the former history perception. In the Korean ancient history the Chosun Dynasty raised its pride as a civilized ration by promoting understanding the level about GiJa Chosun and DanKun Chosun. The Chosun Dynasty had a characteristic viewpoint thinking Goguryeo followed Mahan in terms of the proceeding Dynastys' orthodoxy. In its territory perception superficially it declared its territory at north River Duman and River Amnok at south JeJu Island and Mara Island and at east Ulleung Island and Dokdo Island. Actually taking into consideration diplomatic conflict on Yodong region with Myeong Dynasty in the early Chosun Dynasty Chosun had not revealed its doubting about the region between Yodong and Soonchunryeong(Gonghumjin) and had missed the regions thinking that the regions had been its own territory including Daemado Island. Therefore a book named'Dongkukyeojiseungram' reflected the history and geography perception of the early Chosun Dynasty. The book showed its value as the most important basic reference which gave birth to history-geography in the late Chosun.

      • KCI등재

        일본 홋카이도 아사지노비행장 건설 조선인 강제동원 실태에 대한 고찰

        서인원(Seo, In-Won) 한일관계사학회 2020 한일관계사연구 Vol.69 No.-

        1942년에서 1944년 사이 일본 홋카이도 아사지노지역의 육군 비행장건설에 강제 동원되어 사망한 조선인들에 대한 진상규명을 하기 위해 「아사지노신증사(信證寺)과거장」, 「사루후쓰무라 매 · 화장허가기록」, 「하마톤베쓰쵸 매 · 화장허가기록」, 「홋카이도개척순난자조사보고서(1991)」등에서 아사지노비행장 건설 사망자 명부와 피해 신고서를 비교 분석하여 사망자피해 실태를 파악하고 사망자의 사망원인, 노동환경에 대해 분석하여 강제동원 및 인권유린 실태에 대해 분석하였다. 명부, 사료, 다코베야 수용시설 등을 종합하면 조선인은 아사지노비행장에서 1,000~1,200명 정도 거주했을 것이고 사망자는 300~400명으로 추정할 수 있다. 현재 남아있는 명부인 「강제연행기 홋카이도 조선인 사망자명부」, 「아사지노 신증사(信證寺)과거장」, 「홋카이도개척순난자조사보고서」,「하마톤베쓰쵸 매화장인허증」을 정리하여 99명 정도의 조선인 사망자 명단을 확보할 수 있었다. 명부를 분석하면 건설업체 책임자가 학대와 폭행치사 등의 사망 사실을 은폐하기 위해 매화장인허증을 작성했을 때 사인을 허위로 작성하는 경우가 많았다. 丹野組는 사망자의 현주소가 존재하지 않은 비행장 관계 함바로 기입을 하고 허위 사망원인을 적은 매화장인허증을 하마톤베쓰쵸에 제출한 것도 있었다. 허위 매화장인허증은 사루후쓰무라에서 받아주기 않기 때문에 하마톤베쓰쵸에 사무실이 있는 것처럼 꾸며 사망신고서를 해당 관공서에 제출한 것이다. 또한 도망간 조선인을 잡아 구타로 사망하게 해놓고 매화장인허증 사인에는 정신이상, 변사 등으로 기재하고 있다. 이것은 홋카이도신문, 관련 사료, 증언 등의 분석을 통해 조선인이 구타에 의해 사망했다는 것을 입증할 수 있었다. 노동환경면에서 강제 동원된 조선인은 가혹한 중노동으로 영양실조가 되거나 장티푸스, 설사 등이 계속되어 치료도 받지 못하고 공사 현장에서 사망하는 경우도 많았다. 조선인 사망자 59%가 공사 현장인 아사지노비행장 대지와 현장막사에서 사망한 것은 과로사를 입증해주는 데이터이다. 이런 사망 원인은 가혹한 중노동, 인권유린, 감금, 폭행치사, 도주 감시 등 혹독한 노동환경에서 왔다. 일본 홋카이도 아사지노지역 사망자 현황과 피해 증언의 의하면 강제동원 조선인 사망자들은 대부분 강제 동원되었고 면서기, 일본경찰, 헌병, 행정직원들에 의해 조직적으로 강제 동원되었고 가혹한 노동과 열악한 노동환경에서 희생되었다는 것이 증명된다. We were analyzed in the list of victims, Certification for Burial and Cremation in order to clarify the facts about the Koreans who were forced to build an army airfield at Asajino in Hokkaido, Japan from 1942 to 1944. We analyzed the history of the forced mobilization of Asajino Airfield and the cause of death and the place of death in the list, proves the fact of forced mobilization. Analysis of victims list and materials proved that Koreans would have lived at about 1,000 to 1,200 people at Asajino Airfield and victims could be estimated at 300 to 400 people. The list of about 99 Korean victims could be obtained. When we analyzed the victims list, it was often the case that the person in charge of the construction company made false autographs when he wrote Certification for Burial and Cremation to cover up the deaths of abuse and assaults. There was also a case where the victims residence address was forged and submitted to the other government office. Koreans forced to work in the labor environment often suffer from malnutrition due to severe hardship, typhoid fever and diarrhea. 59% of Korean victims died at the Asajino Airfield site and barracks. Analysis of the list and the feed showed that Koreans were forced to work to Asajino at that time and that they were sacrificed in harsh and depressed working environments in construction sites.

      • KCI등재

        고등학교 과정에서 한국 근현대사 수업의 현황과 전개

        서인원(Seo In-won) 역사실학회 2006 역사와실학 Vol.30 No.-

        Korea's seventh national curriculum is trying to reconstruct knowledge in order to meet the need of the knowledge-based society in twenty-first century. In the past accumulation of knowledge led national power, in the present human resources which are equipped with creative knowledge become main factors which determine the national power, and the resources decide quality of life of a notion's people. therefore, we need highly-qualified education which is needed by recent years in order to train creative-minded intellectuals, and revolution of school education is essential to achieve the highly-qualified education. Among various tasks for revolution of school education, the seventh curriculum is trying to change from a rigid education which is based on "teachers to diversified education which is based on students' choices." So by the policy of user-centered curriculum or enlargement of autonomy, subject of history is divided into compulsory subject, Korean history which means 'before open port' and deepened choice subject, modern & contemporary history which means 'after open port'. The curriculum make public that the reason why Korean modern & contemporary history is separated from Korean history is to 'develop historical ability cope with impending work by knowing the exact near post of korean people'. This has something in common with the opinions between historians who insist that we study history to understand the present by studying the past, and the historians insist that we can teach live history using various materials which are found in our surroundings, and can train historical mind of students easily using the method. But in the process of the Korean curriculum change about the history, 'Korean modern & contemporary history' has been separated from Korean history, has become deepened choice subject, has compete with the other social studies subjects, and some questions can be arise form the process. There can be criticism that the idea which modern & contemporary history is very important and be a subject which gets many lessons from some officials and some historians. Some of history teachers think that history improves historical thinking facility and imaginative power through understanding the flow of the past, and that ancient & medieval history is as much important as modern & contemporary history and that we can fully understand the present through ancient & medieval history and can foretell the future. But Korean modern & contemporary history is chosen as the seventh national curriculum asks, is bring to operation as a class. A proposition which says 'class is operated like so and so, therefore it helps students improve historical thinking power and imaginative power and makes the present understood' rather than 'because of much nearer past' assertion should be prepared.

      • KCI등재

        국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN협약 상 이행기 전 계약위반 법리에 관한 연구

        서인원(Seo, In Won) 서강대학교 법학연구소 2017 법과기업연구 Vol.7 No.1

        비엔나협약 상의 ‘이행기 전 계약위반 법리’는, 계약체결 후 이행기까지를 공백상태로 인식해온 대륙법계 국가에는 매우 낯선 입법이다. 더불어 비엔나협약 성안당시 광범위한 지지를 보냈던 제 3세계 국가들의 맹렬한 반대에 부딪힌 입법이기도 하다. 이들에게 본 법리는, 시장의 주도권을 가진 계약당사자가 계약을 해체하고자 한다면, 언제든 사용할 수 있는 구밀복검(口蜜腹劍)에 다름 아니었던 것이다. 하지만 이들의 선입견과는 달리, 본 법리는 ‘이행거절의 명백한 의사표시’가 있거나 혹은 ‘이에 준’하는 경우, 계약해제를 기초로 발생한 손해를 전보하고, 계약당사자 쌍방이 신속히 시장으로 복귀할 수 있도록 돕는 입법이라 하겠다. 본 법리는, 19세기 영국의 Hochster v. De la Tour 사건, 미국의 Dingley v. Oler 사건에서 처음 논의되었다. 20세기 초까지 판례법에 의한 법리발전을 거듭하던 양국은, 1932년 제 1차 리스테이트먼트가 편찬되면서 각자 다른 진화과정을 겪게 된다. 영국은 판례법 발전에 기댄 채 성문화과정을 거치지 않은 반면, 미국은 연성법 형식의 성문화 과정을 거듭하게 된 것이다. 제정/제 1차 수정 통일상법전 제 2편(1952/1958), 제 2차 리스테이트먼트(1981), 제 2차 수정 통일상법전 제 2편(2002)이 바로 그 증거다. 이에 본 논고는, 상기한 입법의 제도사적·비교법적 논의를 진행함으로써, 본 법리가 시대적 흐름에 따라 개념의 점증과정을 거치고 있음을 발견하게 된다. 더불어 본 논고는, 1980년 채택된 비엔나협약이 이러한 진화적 일관성의 예외임을 분석하게 된다. 특히 비엔나협약 상의 이행기 전 계약위반은, 법률요건 차원에서는 19세기 영국판례의 정도, 법률효과 차원에서는 제정/제 1차 수정 통일상법전 제 2편의 정도에 달하는 진화가 있었음을 도출하게 된다. 이러한 입법적 ‘뒤틀림’에 대해 본 논고는, “첫 번째로, (법률요건 차원에서)명백한 이행거절 의사표시에 준하는 경우가 무엇인지 한정·열거하고, 계약위반당사자의 ‘철회권’을 명문화하는 한편, 비엔나 협약 제 72조 제 2항의 삭제”를 주장하고 있으며, “두 번째로, (법률효과 차원에서)인과관계 존부에 따른 손해배상 면책·제한규정을 도입하는 한편, 제 71조 제 3항에 ‘상거래 관행’을 명문화”하도록 요구하고 있다. 더불어 본 논고는, 이러한 법리의 현대화가 국제상사계약의 현실서, 과수요-저수요의 파동 폭을 줄여, 당사자 간의 거래비용을 효과적으로 감소시킬 것이라 분석하고 있다. 마지막으로 본 논고는, 이행기 전 계약위반의 법리를 역사적 제도주의 관점으로 재 해설(再 解說)한 본 논고의 분석틀이, 제도의 과학적 진화를 촉진시키는 데 도움이 될 것이라 주장하고 있다. The legal principle of anticipatory breach specified in GISG is highly unfamiliar to countries based on civil law that have recognized the time between conclusion and performance of a contract as being blank. In addition, this legislation met with fierce opposition from third world countries that showed extensive support for the draft of CISG; because, to them, it meant the contractor that has dominance in the market can arbitrarily use the provision to cancel the contract. However, contrary to their belief, this principle is intended to enable canceling a contract, upon express intention or equivalent notice prior to the period of performance, and transferring incurred damages so that both parties of the contract can promptly return to the market. This principle of law was first discussed during the Hochester v. De La Tour in England and Dingley v. Oler during the 19th century. The two countries, which used to develop principles of law based on case law until the early 20th century, began to walk different paths in the evolution of law, after compilation of the first Restatement in 1932. While England did not undergo codification based on common law, and, instead relied on development of case law, the US pursued codification in the form of soft law, as exemplified by the first/amended Uniform Commercial Code Second Edition (1952/1958), Restatement Second (1981), and second amended Uniform Commercial Code Second Edition (2002) This article disused the aforementioned law based on history of institutionalism and comparison and suggested that the concept of this law has steadily increased through the passage of time. In addition, this study analyzed CISG adopted in 1980 and showed that it is an exception to such evolutionary consistency. Particularly, according to findings in this article, anticipatory breach specified in CISG has seen evolution that corresponds to precedents in England during the 19th century in terms of legal conditions, and to the second edition of the enacted/first amended Uniform Commercial Code in terms of legal effect. Regarding such legislative contradiction this article, first, defined and listed cases that correspond to express intention of anticipatory breach from the viewpoint of legal conditions, and proposed deletion of Article 72.2 of CISG while introducing cooling-off. Second, it suggested introducing a provision of damage exemption based on existence of causality, from the viewpoint of legal effect, and addition of legislation related to lex mercatoria to Article 71.3. Lastly, this article proposed that the framework it used for analyzing the legal principle of anticipatory breach based on historical institutionalism can help promote scientific evolution of institution.

      • KCI등재후보

        동아시아 교과서의 ‘실학’ 서술

        서인원(Seo, IN-Won) 역사실학회 2014 역사와실학 Vol.55 No.-

        Silhak has been significantly dealt with in the textbook of East Asian History. This study was intended to identify how ‘Silhak’ was suggested in the 2011 Revised National Curriculum course of study and how the suggestion was realized in the textbook of East Asian History. Many scholars of academia claim that the Silhak should not be interpreted from the view point of Anti-Neo-Confucianism nor Anti-feudal. Rather, Silhak should be discussed Neo-Confucianism. These scholars also claim that Silhak must not be considered as the scholars, academic traditions of out of power or one of the commercial-centered academic traditions and agriculture-centered academic traditions. This paper analyzes the East Asian History textbook of 2011 Revised National Curriculum. There were several issues in the structure of description and contents in the textbook of Sinhak. Describing too much content on the limited space of textbook, it only lists the rough facts and specifies Silhak as a reformism based on the agriculture and commerce(industry) resticting an understanding of Silhak by students. In addition, dividing the struture of Silhak was confused the understanding of student. In order to solve such issues, it is needed to re-examine a scope and degree of the Silhak covered in the East Asian textbook. In addition, it is also recommended to suggest a case of various academic propensity and characteristics of them. This paper just points out the faults of the textbook from the research achievement of History Academia. I hope this paper could be a stepping stone for improving the context of Silhak in the middle social studies textbook reflecting the research achievement of History Academia.

      • KCI등재

        역사 교과서 검정발행제 분석

        서인원(Seo In-Won) 역사실학회 2007 역사와실학 Vol.32 No.-

        Basically, It is considered that free publication system of textbook is the principle of issuing Korean History textbook, and the system should be pursued continuously. Therefore, it can be said that the publication system for authorized book is need as a transition stage because there needs adjusted point of view between social class members in order to move from the authorized publication system to free publication system. Making textbooks is a matter of deciding our nation's future. Especially, Korean History and Korean Modem Contemporary History are the our past and the present. We have duty to hand over the text book's contents which is described deliberately to our descent and to make them keep right historical view. I believe that in making the greatest history textbook system doesn't matter. I claim that it should be the awareness of the textbook writers that really matters, whether the books are nation-make or authorized. A nation should abandon its control or interruption over textbook making process, academic circles should give up adherence to their achievement, too. Teachers should study the textbook which is considered to be the most excellent, and should reflect on history education. This time should be a chance to improve textbook making process. To be a chance to make a most excellent textbook, government, academic circles and teachers should cooperate tightly.

      • KCI등재

        『東國輿地勝覽』에 반영된 自主意識

        徐仁源(Seo, In-Won) 한국역사민속학회 2009 역사민속학 Vol.- No.29

        『동국여지승람』은 세종 조에 편찬된 지리지 이후, 변경된 사항을 바로잡기 위하여세조 조부터 시작하여 1477년에 양성지 등이 완성한?『팔도지리지』에 우리나라 문사들의 시문을 첨가하여 1481년(성종 12)에 50권으로 완성되었다. 이 책은 1485년(성종 16) 김종직 등에 의해, 1499년(연산군 5) 임사홍·성현(成俔) 등에 의해 2차에 걸쳐 교정과 보충이 이루어졌으며, 중종 조에는 새로운 보충 작업이 시도되어 『신증동국여지승람』으로 전해지고 있다. 『동국여지승람』의 편찬을 주도했던 인물은 조선 초기 세종·문종·단종·세조·예종·成宗의 6대 왕조를 거치면서 군주의 신임을 두터이 받은 양성지였다. 그는 조선 초기 훈구파들 중에서도 변계량과 함께 가장 강력한 자주주의자였다. 따라서 그는 민족주의적 역사인식과 지리인식을 바탕으로 天祭에 대한 거행을 주장하는 등 자주인식을 보여주고 있다. 양성지는 단군을 신화 상의 인물로 파악하지 않고, 실제 인물로 파악하면서 중국과 대등한 역사의 시작을 강조하고 있다. 또한 우리도 중국처럼 제천 행사를 단독적으로 치루자고 함으로써 중국에 예속되지 않은 자주 독립 국가임을 강조하였다. 지리에서는 요동에 이루는 광활한 영토가 우리의 땅임을 강조하면서 언젠가는 수복할 지역으로 강조하였던 것이다. 이와 같은 양성지의 역사·지리·문화의 자주적 의식이 그대로 반영된 것이『동국여지승람』이라고 할 수 있다. 그러나 두 차례에 걸친 수찬과 한 차례에 걸친 신증으로 인하여 양성지의 자주의식을 부분적으로 밖에는 파악하지 못하는 한계가 있다. Adding poetry and prose of our country"s literary men to Paldojiriji commencing from King Sejo to correct changed matters since Jiriji compiled at the reign of Sejong and completed by Yang Seong Ji in 1477, Donggukyeojiseungram(『東國輿地勝覽』) was completed as 50 volumes in 1481(the 12th year of Seongjong"s rule). This book was proofed and complemented over two times by Kim Jong Jik in 1485 (the 16th year of Seong"s rule) and by Yim Sa Hong, Seong Hyeon in 1499(the 5th year of Yeonsangun"s rule), and supplemented anew at the reign of Joongjong, and handed down as ShinjeungDonggukyeojiseungram(『新增東國輿地勝覽』). The figure taking lead of compiling Donggukyeojiseungram was Yang Seong Ji trusted by the kings through Sejong, Moonjong, Danjong, Sejo, Yejong, and Seongjong early Joseon Dynasty. He was the foremost independence proponent along with Byeon Gye Ryang among meritorious retainers early Joseon Dynasty. Thus he shows awareness of independence by arguing performance for the ritual for the heaven based on nationalistic perception of history and geography. Not understanding Dangun as a mystical character, but as an actual character, Yang Seong Ji stresses the start of history corresponding to China. Also he insisted we should independently perform a ritual event for the heaven like China, by which he emphasized that we are an independent nation not subordinated to China. Geographically, pointing out that the spacious territory reaching Liad?ng is our earth, he underscored that it should be restored whenever. Likewise, it is the very Donggukyeojiseungram that reflects Yang Seong Ji"s awareness of independence about history, geography, and culture. However, due to editing twice and addition once, it has limitations of being understood only partially.

      • KCI등재

        統一과 國史敎育

        서인원(Seo In-won) 역사실학회 2002 역사와실학 Vol.22 No.-

        After the summit talk between North and South Korea, social atmosphere which has a hallucination that reunification of two Korea can solve all can cause some danger. Like our divided long tine, in order to solve suddenly changes consciousnesses and values and to regain same quality we should exert ourselves. Education is a exact way among the mentioned methods. But, if the education tried to find fault with the others and to attack the other side in order to take sides with specific side, it would bring about another division as well as ruin the reunification itself. Therefore, we should first understand the North Korea and prepare integration of education through active interchanges, then subject name 'Korean history' is the best effective subject to the last stage of the integration of education which can educate both South and North people. So first we South people should catch hold of North's history, in order to prepare history education interchange with North, we establish basis. That is, through strengthening history education we should build basis to unify the Korean peninsula and should surmount extraneous natures of the two.

      연관 검색어 추천

      이 검색어로 많이 본 자료

      활용도 높은 자료

      해외이동버튼