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 207 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
한철호 한국근현대사학회 2010 한국 근현대사 연구 Vol.55 No.-
Hwang Hyun wrote Maecheonyarok recording the contradictions and demise of Chosun Dynasty. Though there are several opinions on his historical view expressed in this book, these opinions have not paid a comprehensive attention to the changes and characteristics of his view. Referring to the achievements of existing studies, this paper traces the variation of his historical view on the contradictions of the dynastic system and the aggression of Japanese imperialism in the changing historical conditions. Hwang Hyun consistently and correctly criticized the tyranny and corruption of the royal family and kin group. Especially he made a harsh criticism on Emperor Gojong and Empress Min for their incompetency and corruption, though he expressed relatively favorable opinions on Heungseon Daewongun. Thus we can understand that he regarded the establishment of dynastic order as the most important. He also made severe criticism on the corruption of officials and the social and economic confusion. He viewed that the incompetency and misgovernment by Emperor Gojong and the ruling group intensified the contradictions of the dynastic system and became the direct and fundamental source of the loss of sovereignty. But he expressed a negative view on the people's movement that denied the legitimacy of Chosun Dynasty. Though he recognized the contradictions of the Dynasty as the origin of the popular uprising, he defined the uprising as a rebellious action that denied the ruling order. And he showed the limits of failing to suggest a modern view of the state that puts people at the center. Thus we can see that he regarded the protection of the dynastic order as more urgent than the deterrence of the strong powers’ aggression. Hwang Hyun concentrated his efforts on revealing Japanese aggressiveness that seized the sovereignty of Chosun Dynasty. He followed the Chinese world view on the nature of Japan up to 1894 but he recognized Japan’s aggressive ambition thereafter. Especially he realized Japan’s aggressive nature after the Russo-Japanese War and made harsh criticism of Japanese seizure of the sovereignty of Chosun Dynasty. This is revealed by his favorable writings on the struggle against Japan conducted by the people of all status, class, and nationality. It seems that Hwang Hyun blamed the incompetency and misgovernment of officials and the people’s senselessness without recognizing the nature of the Japanese economic aggression by 1894. However, after the Sino-Japanese War he began to understand the essence and evil effects of Japanese economic invasion and raised his criticism of the invasion while paying more attention to people’s resistance. He also made precise records and criticism on the seizure of cultural assets and the cultural policy by imperial Japan. Hwang Hyun understood the contradictions of the dynastic system and the aggression of Japanese imperialism as the main cause for the demise of the state. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Japanese Compulsory Occupation of Korea. We can get many suggestions from his understanding on the loss of sovereignty that the comprehensive incompetency and misgovernment of the ruling group including Emperor Gojong provided the cause, in addition to the forced aggression by Japan and the betrayal of a small group of pro-Japanese officials.
-
-
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.
-
한철호 영남대학교 독도연구소 2014 독도연구 Vol.- No.17
The Japanese Hydrographic Office(JHP) was the specialized survey officethat published Charts and Pilots by conducting surveys on the islands andshores of Japan and Korea. Thus it had accurate understanding about the titlesto islands. The Charts and Pilots published by JHP show the official positionand understanding of the office or Japanese government regarding the title ofDokdo. As these records have significant meaning regarding JHP’s view ofDokdo, its change, the title of the island and the logic behind Japan’susurpation of Dokdo, there have been intense debates over the interpretationof those records between Korea and Japan. Korean and several Japanese scholars have argued that JHP Pilots andCharts reveal that Japan admitted Dokdo as Korean territory. Their reason forthe argument is that JHP Pilots were published by states, showing theperception of a specific state on its jurisdiction of its islands. Dokdo isincluded in all the Korea Pilot, which was published even after Japan’susurpation of Dokdo, but the island was first included in the Japan Pilot in1907. Other Charts such as East Coast of Korea and Coast of Korea includedDokdo so that even Nakai Yozaburo recognized Dokdo as Korean territory. Other Japanese scholars insist that the Pilots and Charts do not prove thatJapan admitted or recognized Dokdo as Korean territory. The Charts and Pilotswere prepared for navigational safety and did not mark the territoriality ofislands. The Korea Pilot did not include Dokdo within its eastern limit, andNakai Yozaburo asked for fishery permission to Japanese government byresolving the mistake in the Coast of Korea that shows Dokdo as Koreanterritory. This paper grasped accurately the contradictory arguments from Korea andJapan by analyzing the research achievements in both countries about theCharts and Pilots by period and by subject. It also proposes the tasks forsolution and new direction for research supposing that we find new historicalrecords and develop new perspectives and methods of research. 일본 수로부는 일본과 한국 등 주변국의 해안과 도서 등을 측량하고 해도와 수로지를 간행했던 측량전문부서로서 도서의 소속 여부를 가장 정확하게 파악하였다. 따라서 수로부가 간행한 각종 수로지와 해도에는 독도에 대한 수로부 혹은 일본 정부의 공식적인 인식과입장이 담겨져 있다. 이들 자료는 수로부의 독도인식과 그 변화 과정, 나아가 독도의 소속여부와 일본의 독도 편입논리를 밝혀줄 수 있는 중요한 가치를 지니기 때문에, 한일 양국은 이에 대한 해석을 둘러싸고 치열한 논쟁을 벌이고 있다. 한국 측과 일부 일본학자들은 수로부의 수로지와 해도를 일본이 독도를 한국영토로 인정한 자료라고 주장하여 왔다. 그 근거는 수로지는 국가 관할 단위로 편찬됨으로써 섬에 대한 국가별 소속 인식이 담겨져 있으며, 일본의 독도 강제 편입 후까지 간행된 『조선수로지』에모두 독도가 들어 있지만 『일본수로지』에는 1907년판에 비로소 독도가 포함되었고,『조선동해안도』와『조선전안』등 해도에도 독도가 포함되어 나카이마저도 독도를 한국령으로인식했다는 것이다. 그 반면 일본 측은 수로지와 해도를 일본이 독도를 한국영토로 인식 혹은 인정한 자료로볼 수 없다고 주장하고 있다. 그 논리는 수로지와 해도는 단순히 항해상의 안전을 도모하기위한 것일 뿐 섬의 국가별 소속을 표시하지 않으며, 『조선수로지』의 조선 범위에 독도가 제외되었고, 나카이는『조선전안』 등의 해도를 참고로 독도를 한국령으로 잘못 파악한 오해를 풀고 일본 정부에 어업 허가원을 제출했다는 것이다. 이에 본고에서는 수로지와 해도에 관한 한일 양국의 연구 성과를 시기별·주제별로 분석함으로써 독도를 둘러싼 한일 양국의 상반된 주장과 논리를 정확하게 파악하였다. 아울러 본고는 기본적으로 새로운 자료의 발굴과 연구시각 및 방법의 개발을 전제로 향후 해결해야할 과제와 그 방향을 제시하였다.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
