Criticism of the Korean Academic on the “Man Xian's View of History(满鲜史观)” and “Manchurian View of History(满洲史观)” during the Japanese Occupation Period: Focused on Research of Early 21st Century

Songxin Lian, Ji-won Yu
{"title":"Criticism of the Korean Academic on the “Man Xian's View of History(满鲜史观)” and “Manchurian View of History(满洲史观)” during the Japanese Occupation Period: Focused on Research of Early 21st Century","authors":"Songxin Lian, Ji-won Yu","doi":"10.46823/cahs.2022.57.111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Korean academic call the study of Korean history and “Manchurian history” during the Japanese Emperor period “colonialist history”, which is usually characterized by the theory of heteronomy, stagnancy, the theory of Japan's common ancestor, and the “Manchurian view of history”. The Korean academic began to criticize colonial historiography in the 1960s. After the Northeast Frontier Research Fever appeared in China in the early 21st century, the “Man Xian’s View of History” became the focus of the Korean academic. A series of critical studies focused on the “Man Xian’s View of History” of ancient Korean history, Gao Gou Li history, and Bohai history. These studies mainly expose and criticize theories such as “inseparable theory of Manchurian-Korea”, “non China theory of Manchuria and Mongolia”, and “inseparable relationship between Manchuria and Japan”, which are carried out by Japanese scholars like Shirikuki and Inaba Yanji for the needs of the Japanese Empire's invasion and expansion to Korea and China and its colonial rule. \nThere has been another proposal to rethink the problems and limitations in “colonial history research”, and to reconstruct the ancient Korean history system. The key to finding an effective method to solve the East Asian history ownership problem is to avoid equalizing historical problems with contemporary reality, to avoid equalizing territorial problems with history. Historical studies should be considered purely academical and historical facts should be restored by “seeking truth from facts”.","PeriodicalId":318621,"journal":{"name":"Institute for Historical Studies at Chung-Ang University","volume":"85 24","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Institute for Historical Studies at Chung-Ang University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46823/cahs.2022.57.111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Korean academic call the study of Korean history and “Manchurian history” during the Japanese Emperor period “colonialist history”, which is usually characterized by the theory of heteronomy, stagnancy, the theory of Japan's common ancestor, and the “Manchurian view of history”. The Korean academic began to criticize colonial historiography in the 1960s. After the Northeast Frontier Research Fever appeared in China in the early 21st century, the “Man Xian’s View of History” became the focus of the Korean academic. A series of critical studies focused on the “Man Xian’s View of History” of ancient Korean history, Gao Gou Li history, and Bohai history. These studies mainly expose and criticize theories such as “inseparable theory of Manchurian-Korea”, “non China theory of Manchuria and Mongolia”, and “inseparable relationship between Manchuria and Japan”, which are carried out by Japanese scholars like Shirikuki and Inaba Yanji for the needs of the Japanese Empire's invasion and expansion to Korea and China and its colonial rule. There has been another proposal to rethink the problems and limitations in “colonial history research”, and to reconstruct the ancient Korean history system. The key to finding an effective method to solve the East Asian history ownership problem is to avoid equalizing historical problems with contemporary reality, to avoid equalizing territorial problems with history. Historical studies should be considered purely academical and historical facts should be restored by “seeking truth from facts”.
日本占领时期韩国学界对“满贤史观”和“满洲史观”的批判——以21世纪初的研究为中心
韩国学界把日本天皇时期的朝鲜史和“满洲史”研究称为“殖民主义史”,其特点通常是他律论、停滞论、日系共同祖先论和“满洲历史观”。他从20世纪60年代开始批判殖民史学。21世纪初中国出现东北边疆研究热后,“满贤史观”成为韩国学界关注的焦点。对朝鲜古代史、高沟历史、渤海史的“满宪史观”进行了一系列批判性研究。这些研究主要是揭露和批判白树、稻叶延吉等日本学者基于日本帝国对朝鲜、中国的侵略扩张和殖民统治的需要而进行的“满朝不可分说”、“满蒙非中国说”、“满日不可分关系说”等理论。还有人提出重新思考“殖民史研究”存在的问题和局限性,重构朝鲜古代史体系。要找到解决东亚历史归属问题的有效方法,关键在于避免将历史问题与当代现实等同起来,避免将领土问题与历史等同起来。历史研究应坚持纯学术性,以“实事求是”的态度还原历史事实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信