용산과 일본군 용산기지의 변화 (1894~1945)

신주백(Sin, Ju-back) 서울시립대학교 서울학연구소 2007 서울학연구 Vol.- No.29

Youngsan located in Seoul has precisely been a strategic place for military use: From the time of the Japanese colonial period Youngsan has operated to be a military camp city with other two cities as Nanam and Jinhae developed by Japan in Southern province in Korea. Accordingly, the formation of the camp city of Youngsan and the appearance of New Youngsan (Sin Youngsan) is related with the occupation process of the Japanese colonial power over the Korean Peninsula, which still remains. The historical image related with Youngsan made in the colonial period had no chance to be altered when after liberation new outer power U.S. replaced Japan, occupying former Japanese camp site Youngsan, not leaving any self-examination for Koreans. This kind of distorted image became fixed deeper into the mind of the people with the break of the Korean war. For these reasons most of the Koreans did not have a question of What is really Youngsan? Some people recognize Youngsan itself just as an U.S. Camp site in Korea not likely Americans. Therefore it was not meaningful for them to examine consciously the new name of Sin Youngsan (New Youngsan). With the building of Sin Youngsan subway station a decade ago, people have had a familiar image of Sin Youngsan better. But the name of Sin Youngsan was originally invented to indicate the residence of Japanese people in the colonial period by Japan: although there is nothing substantially different within Youngsan and Sin Youngsan, most of the Koreans now have vague geographical images of them. We see another scar made by tragic modern history of Korea.

지유샤판 중학교 역사교과서의 현대사 인식

신주백(Sin Ju-Back) 한일관계사학회 2009 한일관계사연구 Vol.33 No.-

지유샤판 역사교과서는 2006년도 ‘후소샤판의 완전 복제품’이다. ‘새역모’는 현재 사용되고 있는 8종의 역사교과서가 한중예속사관, 구미추수사관,공산주의찬양사관에 빠져있다고 비판하고 있다. 새역모는 이번 교과서에서 세련된 편집방식과 교묘한 논리전개 속에서 천황중심사관, 전쟁미화사관을 적극 내세우고 있다. 그들이 이렇게 역사교과서를 통해 역사를 왜곡하는 궁극적인 목표는 제9조를 폐기시키고 새로운 헌법을 만들어 위기에 강한 천황을 중심으로 자랑스러운 국민이 모여 사는 국가를 만드는데 있었다. 지유샤판 교과서는 이 목표를 명확히 제시한 교재이다. 하지만 현대 한일관계사와 일본현대사에 관한 기술을 보건데 지유샤판 교과서는 자기 중심적이고 배려심이 없는 교재이다. 학생들로 하여금 상대방에 대한 차별의식을 키우도록 하는 교재이다. 역사교육을 통해 상호 존중하는 학생을 육성하기보다 싸움 닭을 키우려 하고 있다. Jiyushya history textbooks are the complete clone of 2006 years Husoshya. Tukurukai currently the history textbook of 8 bells which are used is critical officer Korean-Chinese assignment and officer appetizing harvest, that is falling into to officer communism praise. Tukurukai with the editing method which is refined from this textbook the positive is standing officer emperor of Japan center and officer warfare beautification from the logical development inside which is dexterous. They will beg and 9th of constitution they disuse and making a new constitution, in order to secure the justifiability for the history textbook they distort. This leads and in order to make the nation which lives in crisis the strong emperor of Japan in the center the proud citizen Fall in from as is standing. But today about the contemporary Korean-Japanese relations history and Japanese contemporary history technique the hygienic Jiyushya textbook own center and is the teaching material which is not the care auricle. With the students in order to raise a discrimination consciousness letting about the counterpart, is a teaching material. historical education leads and the low of trade name respecting rears the student, raises the fight chicken.

한일 간의 流動하는 국민적 기억

신주백(Sin Ju-Back) 한일관계사학회 2007 한일관계사연구 Vol.26 No.-

이 글은 1909년 10월의 安重根義擧와 그 시기를 전후로 일본이 한국을 어떻게 침략했는가에 대해 1945년부터 지금까지 발행된 한일 두 나라의 교과서를 통시적인 측면에서 비교 검토한 논문이다. 두 나라 고등학교 역사교과서에서 安重根義擧에 대한 서술은 한국의 경우 1974년 교과서부터, 일본의 경우는 1994년경 교과서부터 확연히 바뀌어 갔다. 이제는 민족운동가로서의 安重根의 이미지와 그의 행위가 의병운동의 일환이었다는 서술이 정착되었다. 또한 일본의 역사교과서 가운데 安重根義擧가 한국병합의 원인을 제공했다고 책임을 전가하는 서술도 없다. 그렇지만 두 나라 역사교육은 安重根이 항일을 위한 싸움만 한 사람이란 단순 이미지 대신에 일본의 제국주의적 침략이 갖는 문제점과 더불어 이에 저항하며 한국독립과 ‘동양평화’를 위해 이토 히로부미伊藤博文를 저격했다는 관점을 적극 도입할 필요가 있다. 안중근의 행위는 일본제국주의에 맞서 자신의 목숨을 던진 행위였다. 지금의 시점에서 그의 행위를 폭력이란 잣대로 평가하는 것은 역사적 맥락을 무시한 접근이다. 앞으로 安重根義擧와 伊藤博文狙擊事件, 그리고 伊藤博文에 關한 硏究와 歷史敎育은 각자의 존재적 차이를 인정하면서도 당시의 사회와 국제관계 그리고 반제국주의운동을 더 잘 이해하고 인류 보편적 가치까지도 밝히려는 방향에서 이루어져야 한다. This paper is a diachronic comparative study of how Korean and Japanese textbooks have portrayed the period of Ahn Jung-geun’s patriotic deed of October, 1909and the Japanese invasion of Korea. The portrayal of Ahn Jung-geun’s patriotic deed changed noticeably in the Korean textbooks beginning in 1974, and in the Japanese textbooks around 1994. UnderstandingAhn Jung-geun as a nationalist activist and his tactic as a part of the irregular military movement has become dominant in the narrative. Moreover, Japanese textbooks no longer attribute Japan’s annexation of Korea to Ahn Jung-geun’s deed. However, the history education curricula of the two countries have a sharedresponsibility to convey Ahn Jung-geun’s political views more accurately totheir students. They need to move beyond the image of Ahn Jung-geun as merely ananti-Japanese militant tointroduce the viewpoint that his purpose ofshooting Ito Hirobumi was to establish “Peace in East Asia.” What he did was a heroic act of self-sacrifice defying imperialism which was the mobilizing order of the most violent country in the history of mankind. To evaluate his deed today in terms of violence is to disregard its historical context. Future studies on Ahn Jung-geun should attempt to illuminate his contemporary society, international relations, and anti-imperialist movement as well as universal human values.

국민에서 시민으로 : 새로운 동아시아사 인식의 가능성과 의미를 찾아서

신주백 ( Sin Ju Back ) 역사문제연구소 2017 역사문제연구 Vol.21 No.1

People who live in the region called `East Asia` have not been thinking about their future as (part of) the `future of East Asia.` But a new possibility is rising. Having recently gone through the East Asian economic crisis in 1998, the Koreans are now considering Southeast Asia as part of the East Asian realm on a daily basis. This kind of a rather new concept of East Asia (at least in terms of the Koreans` perspective) is establishing itself in the region, as a very complex political, economic and socio-cultural system. And in the process, an attitude to respect and share various kinds of memories is also forming, thanks to small-scale on-going efforts.

1930년대 초중반 조선학(朝鮮學) 학술장(學術場)의 재구성과 관련한 시론적 탐색 ―경성제대 졸업자의 조선연구 태도 및 연구방법과 관련하여

신주백 ( Sin Ju Back ) 역사문제연구소 2011 역사문제연구 Vol.15 No.2

Examined in this article, are various trends of academic efforts, which attempted to study certain aspects of Joseon while also trying to employ a Modern attitude, in the early and mid-1930s. By attempting such examination, hopefully the entire picture of Joseon studies attempted at the time could be reconstructed, and the activities of graduates from the Gyeongseong Imperial University could be evaluated as well. Previous studies tried to analyze the nature of the Joseon academic society at the time, with the `Joseon Studies Movement` kept in mind as a major force and a mainstream phenomenon. Previous studies also tried to `group`the scholars and researchers of the time into certain categories, and explain the relationships between those groups. Unfortunately, such intentions resulted in leaving certain trends of studies, studies which were not part of the Joseon Studies Movement yet managed to exhibit clearly focused attitudes and perspectives in their studies of Joseon topics, literally unexamined or even completely ignored. Previous studies also failed to determine what was the exact nature and status of the Joseon Studies Movement itself, inside the entire arena of academic efforts trying to study everything Joseon. To overcome the limitations that were displayed by previous studies, first of all, boundaries that existed between certain groups, such as the leaders of the Joseon Studies Movement, the people who led the Jindan Society,the Marxist scholars, and the Gyeongseong Imperial University graduates,should be clarified before all else. Marxist researchers tended to emphasize the importance of Joseon Studies` maintaining of a `scientific approach,` and also an active stance and view to regard current matters. On the other hand,leaders of the Jindan Society maintained a fairly Positivist view of the history,and attempted a `cooperative competition` (with the Japanese), instead of facing the grim reality of colonized Joseon and maintaining a critical position against Japan. Meanwhile, the Jindan Society members found it difficult to ally themselves with the people who were involved in the Joseon Studies Movement, as (in their eyes) the Movement`s participants were not engaged in `scientific` researches and were only displaying their arguments through popular media while merely `emphasizing actions.` The Gyeongseong Imperial University graduates who were trained with modern academic studies, also exhibited similar hesitations. With such clearly visible boundaries established among them, all the participants of the arena should be categorized into five groups, according to their respective nature defined by four criteria: their attitude toward reality,their research method, their bearing(whether they belonged to the mainstream or the minority), and the media they used in their academic activities. First, there were groups that pursued Joseon Studies as a `Method of Social Action.`Leaders of the Joseon Studies Movement and the Marxist scholars belonged to this category. And second, there were groups which displayed a completely different attitude. They pursued `Joseon Studies as a Discipline,` or `Joseon Studies as Local Studies.` Leaders of the Jindan Society, and the Japanese researchers in Joseon belonged to this category. Meanwhile, many of the Gyeongseong Imperial University graduates showed particular inclination to Marxism, or even participated in the Jindan Society, yet it should be noted that none of them ever joined the Joseon Studies Movement. And finally,there was a `fifth` group, composed of people who were very much interested in the present, yet decided to distance themselves from active social participation, and just went on with their Joseon studies based upon methodic or bibliographical approaches. After the liberation, the people who pursued `Joseon Studies as a Discipline`took control of the Korean Studies in the area of Humanity studies, without adequate reevaluation or critical analysis of their own previous attitudes and academic ideas which considered Joseon Studies as nothing but `Local Studies.`In the meantime, the people who pursued `Joseon Studies as a Method of Social action,` as well as their own arguments, gradually began to shape forms with the April 19th revolution of 1960 as a turning point. They continued to develop themselves and their agenda, and eventually established its own place, as the Democratization movement continued to grow.

식민지기 민족운동 세력의 3・1운동 소환과 流動하는 기억 -1946년 3・1절 기념집회를 둘러싼 집단기억의 뿌리를 찾아서

신주백(SIN, Ju-Back) 한국사학사학회 2018 韓國史學史學報 Vol.0 No.38

두 세력 사이에 차이가 난 집단기억은 기본적으로 부활한 운동인가 실패한 운동인가, 운동을 주도한 사람이 민족대표였는가 노력대중이었는가, 운동을 계승하고 재현하는 세력은 정부인가 정당인가에 대한 평가, 달리 말하면 신념 체계에서 갈렸다.1946년 3.1절 기념집회 때 3·1운동에 관한 두 유형의 집단기억이 나타났 다. 이 글은 집단기억의 형성과정을 추적한 연구이다. 시기를 크게 둘로 나누고 민족운동의 다양 공간을 고려하며 분석하였다. 식민지 조선은 3월 1일과 독립만세를 기억하는 공론장이 형성되기 어려웠 다. 조선공산당은 비합법 출판물로 공감대를 유지하였다. 조선공산당은 3·1운 동의 지도부가 지도력을 발휘하지 못하고 실패한 운동이라고 보았다. 이에 비해 임시정부는 3월 1일을 대한민족이 부활한 ‘국경일’로 간주하였다. 1930년대 들어 두 유형의 집단기억은 서로 교차할 기회조차 없이 각자 독자적 논리로 기억을 강화해 갔다. 조선공산당을 재건해야 하는 사회주의자에게 3·1운동은 자체의 무장을 스스로 해제했으며, 토지문제도 제기하지 않았 고, 전위당도 없어 명백히 실패한 운동이었다. 임시정부에게 3·1운동은 대한 제국의 정통성을 자신이 계승했음을 보여주는 상징적인 사건이었다. 임시정부는 민주주의를 옹호하고 민족자결주의를 지켜낸 3·1정신을 자신이 이어받았 음을 특별히 강조하였다. Two types of collective memories of the March 1 movement appeared during the March 1946 Memorial Rally. This article is a study that traces its formation process. This paper divides the time into two parts and considers the various spaces of the national movement It was difficult for the colonial Joseon to form a public sphere that remembers from March 1 and independence hurrah. The Communist Party of Korea maintained a consensus as an illegal publication. The Communist Party of Korea regarded the leadership of the movement of the March First Movement as an unsuccessful exercise in leadership. In contrast, the provisional government regarded March 1 as the ”national holiday” in which the Korean people revived. In the 1930s, the two types of collective memories reinforced their own logic without the opportunity to cross each other. For the socialist who had to rebuild the Communist Party of Korea, the March First Movement itself lifted its own armed forces, did not raise land issues, and it was a clearly unsuccessful movement because there was no vanguard. To the interim government, the March First Movement was a symbolic event that showed that he succeeded the legitimacy of the Korean empire. The Provisional Government specifically stressed that it had taken over the 3.1spirit of defending democracy and defending national selfdetermination. The collective memories that differ between the two forces are basically resurrected or failed, whether the person who led the movement was a national representative, the effort was popular, the forces that inherit and reproduce the movement were divided in the evaluation of the government or political party.

1920年代 中後半 在滿韓人 民族運動에서의 "自治"問題 檢討 : 獨立戰爭論의 變化와 關聯하여

辛珠柏(Sin Ju-Baek) 독립기념관 한국독립운동연구소 2001 한국독립운동사연구 Vol.17 No.-

1910年代 日帝의 朝鮮統治와 朝鮮駐屯 日本軍

辛珠柏(Sin Ju-Back) 한국사연구회 2000 한국사연구 Vol.109 No.-

관점과 태도로서 내재적(內在的) 발전(發展)의 분화와 민중적(民衆的) 민족주의(民族主義) 역사학(歷史學)의 등장- 민중(民衆)의 재인식(再認識)과 분단(分斷)의 발견(發見)을 중심으로

신주백 ( Ju Back Sin ) 연세대학교 국학연구원 2014 동방학지 Vol.165 No.-

This paper examines research trends in the 1970s with respect to perspectives and attitudes towards Korea``s internal development. It also discusses these trends in the historical context of Korean academia and evaluates their significance in terms of publicness. In the 1970s, two groups of researchers interpreted Korean history in terms of internal development. The first initiative was a reaction to the historical perceptions of the Park Chung-hee regime. The second development resulted from a new awareness of the people as the main body of history and the discovery of the country``s division. The former manifested itself as democratic publicness as opposed to government-inspired publicness, while the latter inspired the formation of the internal development of democratic publicness. Academic awareness of the division of Korea has expanded from historical studies into Korean studies of the division period, that is, the initiative of critical Korean studies. Advocates of this idea argued that the people, as the main witnesses of history, should play a leading role in overcoming division through the establishment of democracy. Advocates of democracy introduced popular nationalism by establishing a relationship between nationality, democracy, and the public in their theorization of the concept of ``the people.`` As a result, historical studies of the division period became historical studies of popular nationalism.

남북한 , 일 , 중 , 대만의 역사교과서 속에 표현된 전후책임 과 역사교육

신주백(Ju Back Sin) 한일민족문제학회 2002 한일민족문제연구 Vol.2 No.-

N/A N/A