Seven common-sense acts of colonial historians who are dressed in the mask of empirical history.

 Everyone knows that the Japanese organized the Joseon History Compilation Association and compiled Joseon history, and we know that there are historians who praise this trashy book written to exterminate Sanggosa in Korea as a great work (see Seo Hee-geon's lost history). We should immediately face the reason for the Japanese compilation of Dangun. Whether the Japanese truly organized our history and compiled Joseon history for proper history education or to exterminate our history, roots, and national spirit. No Korean would think that Japan compiled Joseon history for the former. Nevertheless, absurdly, national history textbooks in this country are fundamentally no different from Joseon history created by Japan. What is the difference between the current national history textbook, which eradicates and reduces the existence of Dangun Joseon and the early records of the Three Kingdoms, and the Joseon history of Japan? If I say this, any historian or historian might oppose it. They may argue like this [Our academic community has raised the founding date of the three kingdoms a little bit due to very empirical research rather than Japanese Joseon history] In a situation where the original basis of historical research, the historical view, and mental state of researchers are wrong, these arguments are not convincing at all. It is empirical that Korean and Japanese historical circles put our history at the forefront while eradicating it, but what's strange is that when emphasizing the weakness of our history, Dangun Joseon, and the non-factuality of our history, it lacks evidence and excludes empirical research. It is said that the tomb of King Michu was excavated in Gyeongju in the 1970s, and King Michu's Bogum was discovered, but the relocation of King Naemul of the Three Kingdoms period was treated as a myth, and even now, why not the tombs of many Silla kings, including the first Park Hyukgeoseung in Gyeongju? Someone said it's because I don't have preservation skills. Is that true? Of course, that's not without a reason, but if you look at the current pathetic historical world, you can only think that it's because their colonial history is fully revealed, but King Michu is still suspected of its existence. However, as the historical community argues, our Kims become ancestors and rootless clans. This is the fact that all clans with a long history are holding, no, fundamentally, due to the eradication of Dangun history, the founder of our people, all of our people have become pathetic people who have lost everything, including ancestors, roots, and culture] For the second time, one or two historical specials aired recently, many people must have been very surprised to see Goguryeo's greatness and power, and some people could not help but feel bitter. Professor Yoon Nae-hyun's book, which I have introduced countless times here, almost coincides with the Goguryeo territory he claimed in his book, Fever of Korea, but what I want to say here is not simply that Professor Yoon is great, but mainly in his books. The main argument is that it has advanced to the current Yoseo region, which is fluctuating (with various other grounds) When I saw Professor Yoon's book, I thought there was no theory of Goguryeo's entry straightforwardly. Therefore, Professor Yoon thought that he had no choice but to refer to these Chinese records (about the location of Yosu), but in the History Special episode of Goguryeo, some historical records, including Queen Gwanggaetotae, indicate Goguryeo's entry into Yoseo and expansion of territory to the Inner Mongolia area. How absurd is this? Ancient fluctuations = Even if it was not the current "Yoseo" theory, there were so many direct records of Goguryeo's entry into Yoseo........ But historians in this country denied even seeing these Chinese records and Queen Gwanggaeto's records with their eyes. Is this empirical history? Did Goguryeo pass Daeheung Anryeong Pass and engage in a conquest political struggle without visiting the mainland of China? Could I have crossed the Great Wall? Sitting still, discussing the tabletop, at that time, numerous Goguryeo ruins in China collapsed and disappeared silently, Goguryeo and Baekje-style place names disappeared...... What did they do? Did you think, "Did our ugly ancestors do such a great job?" that you could go on a tour or travel at least once as written in the record? Japanese colonial education must have been so effective that even elite-educated university professors looked so pathetic at our ancestors (I don't know who they were educated by), and countless barbarians at that time occupied tremendous territory beyond China and disappeared in a moment. This is the true image of empirical history that has been the basis for denying the early records of Dangun and the Three Kingdoms. When the demonstration of the excellence of our people is eliminated or taken at all, and the weakness of our people and the long history of Dangun are denied, we create or manipulate demonstrations that do not exist. What is the difference between the strong historians who unconditionally deny the records that tell us the greatness, power, and excellence of our history from the historians of the Japanese imperialism? Third, I will take the recently revealed date of the Bronze Age on the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria as an example. Until now, the Bronze Age on the Korean Peninsula turned out to be around the 10th century BC (in fact, this is not an objective solidarity by scientific measurement, maybe hundreds of years of solidarity). Some historians in Korea have seen the actual founding solidarity of Gojoseon as the 10th century BC.It completely destroyed the arguments of previous colonial historians using First of all, radioactive carbon dating of the sub-lowering culture (bronze culture) of the Nanha Basin, believed to have been located in Manchuria, turned out to be 2,400 BC, and the bronze dating of the bronze ruins in Yangpyeong and Yeongam, South Korea. So far, the starting date of the Bronze Age in Siberia has been 1700 BC, but hundreds of years earlier than this on the Korean Peninsula reveals the contradiction of the belly and the patheticness of colonial historians again, but why only Professor Yoon Nae-hyun mentions these tremendous ruins found in Yangpyeong and Yeongam on the Korean Peninsula (not to refute).Although they are refuting the fact that Iran is true, the Chinese academic community's claim that the area of Gojoseon has been reduced by conventional wisdom and the Korean people cannot claim the hometown of the Yoseo region's lower class culture, applauding that it is correct. Professor Yoon Nae-hyun refutes critics by saying that according to the conventional wisdom of researchers of the northern Chinese race, the location of the Dongho = is located in the northern part of Inner Mongolia, which has nothing to do with the ruins of the lower class. Until the 1980s, many artifacts in Korea were dating China or the Korean Peninsula without scientific dating (the most serious problem is that the effects of conventional wisdom before science play a major role) but Korea began measuring radiocarbon dating for decades., As in the case of Pungnaptoseong Fortress), it is a sad and heartbreaking reality in which historical scholars who shouted demonstration turn a blind eye to the found demonstration. Fourth, I would like to give an example of Lee Byung-do, a member of the Joseon History Compilation Association organized to exterminate Korean history. Among Korean historians, the introduction to the Korean Commercial Exam, co-authored with Dr. Choi Tae-young not long before his death, is one of the two situations that represent how distorted our history is, one of his life, one of Lee Byung-do's Korean Commercial Examination is by old.