Someone's useless opinion on colonial modernization theory.

 Professor Yoon Myung-cheol, author of the study of Goguryeo maritime history, said, "History is a study for the future."I agree with Sohae, and if there is a difference, I think Sohae is a study for reflection. I think there was a premise that taking out old stories that I don't even have to use right now (as with most studies) and grabbing my head and fighting like a pig, eventually had something to learn from "history" and that I might need something, if not right now. As for Sohae's clumsy knowledge, the "colonial modernization theory" succeeded in developing under the influence of external ruling forces by accepting the knowledge and experience of the ruling class by Western or westernized forces. That's how much I understand. Of course, it doesn't matter if you talk and analyze any theory, but the "colonial modernization" is a little bad because there are many people who use it to justify Japanese colonial rule or to glorify certain politicians (who died a long time ago). First of all, the strange thing about Sohae is that certain theories should eventually be the result of research on generalized phenomena, and there are only two countries - Korea and Taiwan - that can use colonial modernization theory. More than 100 countries have been colonized in the West with short knowledge of the Yellow Sea, and most countries have gone through longer colonies than us, and the time when we accepted the modernization was earlier than us, and Japan has been forced to modernize by the "real West" forces. I wonder if the theory of "colonial modernization" could have emerged if even Korea and Taiwan had not grown properly. I also think history is a "comprehensive study." First of all, I think that "military, geography, religion, architecture, and metal" can enter a wide range of historical studies. I believe that judging and cutting the history that has passed simply from one point of view is the same as talking about it while touching an elephant with your eyes closed. I don't know what the results will be if I judge history only from an economic point of view, but I have nothing to say but that it is too hasty to conclude about an era or past history from a single point of view. Lastly, the last thing Sohaeh hates the most is people who regard history as "decorations or means." I only have poor knowledge, but when I post or post a comment, if I'm not sure, I don't bring it up or say it's "estimated." Of course, it's the same when talking about anything, but I don't know if I'm keeping it well, thinking that there should be nothing as careful as "history," but Sohae is also trying to stick to the principle. The reason why they hate so-called "strong private academia" is because of some scholars who regarded history as just their "exclusive" and some who still can't open their eyes under the influence of those scholars, and because they treat "unproven stories" as "mentalists" unconditionally. It's natural for a three-year-old child or a eighty-year-old man to see only what he wants to see.But I believe that so-called academic people should be "objective" than anyone else. Because of what I am writing these days, I feel it deeply while reading Goguryeo-related books written by various scholars. The reason why Professor So Hae-i Yun Myung-cheol personally cites and likes his writings a lot is that he is almost unrivaled in the study of Goguryeo maritime history, but what is not clear is that he must mark it as "estimation" and shows a cautious attitude. On the contrary, even with the ability to refute immediately with the knowledge of Sohae, I also see a number of articles that are writing as if they were true and true. In the past, there was an argument with someone about the Japanese clerk issue at Dico.Personally, it doesn't matter whether you believe in the Japanese secretary or not, but I believe that much of the early records of the Japanese secretary are distorted, and without any explanation, he once argued for "why the southern domination of the Korean Peninsula" by citing the early records of the Japanese secretary. I remember telling my friend this during the argument with him. "When talking about history, there is no need for a scholar's conscience or nationality. You don't have to talk about anything else except excavated artifacts and records of librarians or gaps between them. "I can't say with confidence whether I'm still looking at history properly or if I'm showing similarities to others criticizing and cursing, but I think I can tell you at least not to forget what I said above. P.S.: These days, I'm reading a book by North Korean scholar Son Young-jong, and aside from the burdensome typeface, every first word of each chapter contains the words of the general. I'm worried if I'm going to be red.^^

The theory of colonial modernization is not worth mentioning. Is it necessary to study evil and foolish content? Those who argue that colonial modernization theory is justified are merely "bad private opportunist scammers" who are either a traitor or fall into a sense of intellectual superiority.