지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper examines the Jumong narrative of the ‘Northeast’ history project of China in the first half of the 20th century, which is a part of the research of ‘A Genealogical Approach to the Jumong Narrative in the Discourse of Nationalism in Korea and China’. The ultimate goal of this paper is to investigate the meaning of ‘Manchuria’ in the first half of the 20th century, and reveal how the Jumong narrative was mobilized by China to turn Manchuria into ‘Northeast’ of China. For this, firstly, this paper examines the logic of Japanese argument. Then, it explores the debate on the correct name: ‘Manchuria’ or ‘Northeast’. Also, focusing on Dongbei Shigang by Fu Sinian, it investigates how the Jumong narrative was mobilized by the ‘Northeast’ history project of China. Lastly, it looks into the image of Manchuria(Northeast) which had the substantially different aspects in imagined geographies of Korea, China, and Japan in the first half of the 20th century.
In the first half of the 20th century, Japanese scholars supported Japanese expansionism, emphasizing Manchuria’s own history separated from China. In response, Chinese scholars claimed that the region of Northeast had been an integral part of Chinese territory. The debate on whether it is ‘the history of Manchuria’ or ‘the Northeast history of China’ represents different understanding of history between China and Japan. Dongbei Shigang, representative work related to Northeast, is also the result of conflict over Manchuria between China and Japan.
This paper intends to critically examine how Dongbei Shigang deals with the Jumong narrative. By comparing the myths, Fu Sinian tried to prove that Northeast had been an integral part of China from the early Chinese history. For this, Dongbei Shigang takes the Jumong narrative. Fu Sinian focused on the myths to relate the root of Northeast region with the Shang dynasty. As he related Northeast with the Shang dynasty, consequentially, Gojoseon was interpreted as being descended from the Shang dynasty, and also, Buyuo and Koguryeo were subordinate to China. Likewise, the myths related to the region, which was symbolic space that the modernity of nationalism and imperialism exist, are skilfully used as a tool of selfish nationalism.
In the first half of the 20th century, Japanese scholars supported Japanese expansionism, emphasizing Manchuria’s own history separated from China. In response, Chinese scholars claimed that the region of Northeast had been an integral part of Chinese territory. The debate on whether it is ‘the history of Manchuria’ or ‘the Northeast history of China’ represents different understanding of history between China and Japan. Dongbei Shigang, representative work related to Northeast, is also the result of conflict over Manchuria between China and Japan.
This paper intends to critically examine how Dongbei Shigang deals with the Jumong narrative. By comparing the myths, Fu Sinian tried to prove that Northeast had been an integral part of China from the early Chinese history. For this, Dongbei Shigang takes the Jumong narrative. Fu Sinian focused on the myths to relate the root of Northeast region with the Shang dynasty. As he related Northeast with the Shang dynasty, consequentially, Gojoseon was interpreted as being descended from the Shang dynasty, and also, Buyuo and Koguryeo were subordinate to China. Likewise, the myths related to the region, which was symbolic space that the modernity of nationalism and imperialism exist, are skilfully used as a tool of selfish nationalism.
목차
1. 들어가며
2. 정명 논쟁, 만주 vs 동북
3.「동북사강」과 주몽서사
4. 서로 다른 심상지리로서의 만주
〈參考文獻〉
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2015-800-001336360