Is it only a virtue for a centralized state? History develops. When asked how it has developed, researchers in ancient history say this. The clan - tribe - chief society - small country - federation state - centralized state, that is, ancient state. This is a rough saying, and scholars have numerous theories, so it hurts my head to write properly. In any case, the conclusion is that humans formed a small society and eventually created a state centered on rulers with strong power. This is said to be the development of history. However, was Gaya really ruined by Silla because it could not form a centralized state? So, can it be concluded that Gaya is an incomplete civilization? Also, if the centralized system weakens and decentralized, has the society not developed? Is the historical development later than that of the Joseon Dynasty just because there was Sokhyeon in the Goryeo Dynasty? The Silla Dynasty will have more vulgarities than the Goryeo Dynasty, so can it be said that it is a less developed society? Can a centralized state be formed only at what point, and cannot it be formed by a strong ruler suddenly appearing without a shear? The Huno Modon (Mukteuk) Seon-woo suddenly appeared and formed a powerful force around 200 BC, and his descendants took over the port king, King Woo Hyun, which was not seen in previous nomadic societies. Why do we conclude that this can't happen at all in our history? Isn't it the myth of politics and anthropology that a centralized state has developed? Can it be said that Joseon's centralized system is superior even though Japan's medieval period, which has completely centralized, has developed significantly compared to Joseon in commerce, economy, and military. I think the current problem in Korea is a strong centralized system. I don't understand why the efforts that historians put into clarifying the process of forming a centralized system are important. In Korea, everything is centered on Seoul. Because of this, fat is dying. Public officials in the center are eagerly preventing the authority of the heads of local governments from becoming stronger. Therefore, when the center shakes, the local road also shakes. There is no alternative to the center. The reason why factories are built only in the suburbs of Seoul is that if you want to do something, you have to talk to a public official in the government building and wait for instructions even if you talk to a local public official. Isn't it because you can only hear the sound, so of course, what should you do close to Seoul so that things can proceed quickly? In short, Korea is a government organization and social structure that has not been decentralized. Do you know how delayed our development is? Korea is now a country that has not developed a unique and diverse culture due to its weak local culture and low internal competition. Korea is a country with a narrow range of culture, Seoul, and Gyeonggi Province, where a bomb is dropped. It is also the fault of a historian who has taught only centralization as a virtue that Korea's weaknesses have been made. The desire to monopolize everything, so you have to succeed in Seoul, but you think it's really successful. This is our big problem. Even though Lee Bang-won, who took power by mobilizing private soldiers, hated Jeong Do-jeon, who insisted on the private army, he took power and started the private army to drive out the Minmu-jil brothers. So what was the result? Has politics stabilized? No. Rather, the width of our culture has decreased, the economy has weakened, and the vitality of the country has died. A country where the loose central government and various local tax forces cooperate is rather stronger. Culture develops when local tax power is strong. If China's Warring States period was such an example, it would be a little exaggerated, but isn't that the heyday of Chinese history? It is good to have a strong central government appear and unite the country's culture, economy, and military capabilities once, but a society that always controls it from the center is rather regressed. Isn't the Soviet Union that typical? Although the United States has a strong central government, how powerful each state is. Isn't the United States a country where Washington will fail to bomb New York? How is Japan? Japan also has a strong central government, but based on the long tradition of local culture, each region develops in a unique and balanced manner. I doubt that the strong central government orientation of the Park Chung-hee regime led to the emphasis on the centralized system in our historical research. I don't think that's possible. It is also true that the once strong government drive has become a development of our history. However, the times are changing and demanding a diversified society. A country where the government has become lighter and colorful local culture has blossomed is now treated as competitive. If so, shouldn't historical research now look at ancient society from a different angle in response to the demands of the times? Looking at history focusing on political history, there were many research results on the process of centralization and the stage of national development. However, if you look at history centering on cultural history, the appearance of Korean history will be greatly different from now. In the case of Gayasa Temple, where various local cultures have blossomed, it may not be seen as a less developed and incomplete country so far, but as a coalition of highly developed urban states that have extremely demonstrated the capabilities of each region. In the case of Goguryeo, the history of the Liaodong area, the history of Buyeo area, and the history of the Chaekseong area. The cultural characteristics and development process of the region, such as the history of the domestic sexual region and the history of the entire Goguryeo history, should now be studied separately. Although there is a lack of literature, research is expected to be possible to some extent now that a lot of archaeological data has been accumulated. So, you will be able to see how the ancestors who lived in each region achieved their history and expressed their capabilities. Likewise, in the study of local history, which is still less active, it should be described not as a history of which figures in the region went to the central government and played a role, but as which figures contributed to regional development while working in the region. Such a decentralized history, a colorful history, never slows or lowers the development of history, but is a way to expand the horizon of our history, and will be a way to reveal more diverse human diversity. The strange obsession of researchers in ancient Korean history with the centralization process is a truly bizarre study that cannot be applied to Chinese or Japanese history. Now I want to get out of this obsession. Author: Kim Yongman Source: History
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기