China's invasion of Goguryeo history has been in full swing since the Goguryeo ruins of North Korea and China were registered as UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Authorities in Jiaan, Jilin Province, China, where Goguryeo ruins are concentrated, are engaged in a historical war to limit the historical river of the "Korean people" to the southern part of the Korean Peninsula by distributing brochures called "Koguryo Historical Knowledge Q&A." The historical perception that China wants to formulate through this process is ▲ the subordinate regime of Goguryeo ▲ the invasion of Goguryeo by the Sui Dynasty, and ▲'Reporter Joseon and Wiman Joseon have no historical relationship with North Korea or South Korea.' It is an attempt to separate Gojoseon from Korean history. This is because the reporter is from the Eun Dynasty and Wiman is from the Han Dynasty. In an interview with historian Lee Deok-il in the February 2004 issue, we pointed out that China's Northeast Process is an attempt to include not only Goguryeo but also Gojoseon in Chinese history, and that the Korean historical community, which has ignored Dangun Joseon, IEN, is largely responsible. Let me introduce this article once again.(Digital Word Editor-in-chief) "The historical community that does not recognize Dangun Joseon called for China's history invasion." Talk | Reporter Lee Jong-tae _ Organize | Reporter Lee Jung-eun _ Photo | Guest Reporter Kim Jin-seok _ Northeast Fair, a Chinese historical research project, is rapidly spreading fear of losing Goguryeo history. However, it would be reasonable to properly know and criticize what logic China is looking over our history. For this work, the magazine Mal met Lee Deok-il, a historian who has been leading the popularization of Korean history. "Many people think China's 'Northeast Fair' project is aimed at South Korea, but in fact, the real target is likely to be the United States, not South Korea." This is Lee Deok-il's answer to the reporter's first question, "What do you think China's intention to the Northeast Process as a historian?" The reason was as follows. If China was only aimed at incorporating Korea's Goguryeo history into Chinese history, it would have been sufficient to designate the northern part of the Daedong River as the standard territory (editor: China has a view of history that 'all history that has occurred in current Chinese territory is Chinese history'. However, China is now setting the standard north of the Han River. In that sense, the entire territory of North Korea used to be China's. From China's point of view, it seems that the North Korean system will not last long in the future. After reunification through the work of "Northeast Fair," there may be a calculation to claim sovereignty over North Korean territory against the United States." It's a creepy story. Furthermore, Lee argued that China's push for such an absurd "work" was largely due to the "self-deprecation" of the Korean history community, which is also absurd. They say that the domestic private academia's disregard for Dangun Joseon gave China an excuse. There is no Goguryeo without Dangun Joseon. Usually, Gojoseon refers to Dangun Joseon-Giza Joseon-Wiman Joseon in the order of the times. However, among them, the Korean history community recognizes from reporter Joseon. A fairly complex problem arises here. This is because the reporter is known as a Chinese at the end of the Eun Dynasty. In addition, Wiman, the founder of Wiman Joseon, which connects Giza Joseon, is also from the Yeon Dynasty. In this case, Gojoseon will become a country established by the Chinese, and Goguryeo, which will also move on to the "Wholesale Price." So there are many problems with the perception of Gojoseon in Korean history. First of all, I don't believe in Dangun Joseon. However, if you put it out and say, "There is no Dangun Joseon," the resistance is obvious, so it cannot be done, and it is defined as "the 10th century BC that the Bronze Age of Korea began." (Editor's note: It is a common belief in the private academia that the state can only be formed in the Bronze Age.) Gojoseon in the 10th century BC recognized by the Korean private academia refers to Joseon, or Wiman Joseon. If China says, "Reporters and Weiman are people who have crossed from China, so I will include Gojoseon in Chinese history," there is nothing to say for the current Korean historical community. - If so, is there any basis or literature to acknowledge Dangun Joseon? "Dangun Shipbuilding" is a matter of space and time. Space is to what extent the territory of Dangun Joseon was, and it is undeniable that it extended to Manchuria. Dolmen, a representative relic of Dangun Joseon, is the evidence. Dolmen are widely distributed from Yanyeong Province in China to Heuksando Island, which was the exile of Jeong Yak-jeon. The fact that a group with the same funeral custom lived from Manchuria, China to the southern end of the Korean Peninsula means that the Korean people advanced to Manchuria. No more dolmens are found in areas above Manchuria. Danjae Shin Chae-ho also argued that Dangun Joseon was distributed to Manchuria. Nevertheless, as historians influenced by colonial history became the mainstream of academia after the Japanese colonial period, Dangun Joseon was reduced to the Pyeongan-do area. The bigger problem is the founding period. It was argued that it was also in the 23rd century BC, and in fact, Bronze Age relics estimated to be from the 23rd century BC have also been found in the Manchuria area. However, mainstream historians do not admit this either." - What does "recognizing Dangun Joseon" mean? "It is often referred to as Gojoseon as the 3rd Joseon Dynasty. It is a generic term for Dangun-Reporter-Wiman Joseon, but the reason why it is called Dangun Joseon is to emphasize that Dangun is the founder of our people. However, what is usually referred to as Gojoseon in Korean historical circles means Wiman-Giza Joseon except Dangun Joseon. In fact, there is considerable controversy over the actual existence of Giza Shipbuilding. Recognizing Dangun Joseon means that there has been a country established by the Korean people in Manchuria for 2,000 years. If that happens, even if Wiman, who came from China, briefly usurped Gojoseon, it does not significantly affect the identity of "Gojoseon, the first country of our people." Goguryeo is the local government of the Han Dynasty? At this point, the reporter decided to review the Chinese logic of Goguryeo with Lee Deok-il. Since Goguryeo was a minority regime that emerged in the northeastern part of China, the Chinese side argues that "the invasion of Goguryeo by Suyangje was a war of unification." One of the grounds is that the so-called "Goguryo" people consisted of ethnic groups active in northeastern China such as Yemaek and Goi. - Can Goguryeo be seen as a periphery of China? "That's a funny sound." Goguryeo is a country established within the old territory of Gojoseon. Of course, it should be seen as an extension of Gojoseon. It did not come out of China's territory. Countries such as Goguryeo and Balhae could not come out when Gojoseon played a strong central role, but after Gojoseon collapsed, various forces began to establish the country within that area. In the meantime, he also started a war with the prefectural forces (in China, which claimed to have jurisdiction over the Northeast region). According to Chinese records at the time, there are many contents describing Goguryeo as a "bad guy" from the beginning. The country of China originally acknowledged and saw the forces that appeared on the periphery, but it left a lot of negative records only about Goguryeo. This is because Goguryeo has collided and confronted with Chinese administrative agencies during the founding process. In other words, Goguryeo was different from other ethnic groups on the outskirts. Of course, more research is needed on the northern ethnic groups, including Yemaek, which formed the Goguryeo people. It is the fault of the Korean private academia that has neglected research in related fields that China was able to come up with this argument." The Chinese side also claims that Goguryeo was founded in the Hansa-gun area (collectively referred to as the four counties, including Hyeondo-gun, Nakrang-gun, Imdun-gun, and Jinbeon-gun, which were established by the Han Dynasty to control the northeastern region). Therefore, Goguryeo is China. It can be said that the ruling class of Gojoseon continued to dominate a significant portion of the old Gojoseon River even after the state collapsed. Buyeo, Goguryeo, and Okjeo were formed on this soil." - The reason why China mentioned Hansa-gun seems to be to argue that Gojoseon's river was completely incorporated into China, and Goguryeo was founded in such a Chinese territory, so it naturally belongs to Chinese history. The teacher's words mean that the existing ruling class maintained control even after Gojoseon collapsed, but is there any basis? "You can see the results of the war between the Han Dynasty and Gojoseon. The librarian records that the Han Dynasty won the war. However, all the generals who participated in the war were executed or saved their lives by paying a large amount of money while being sentenced to death. In the case of China, it is an example to go to war with immigrants and be sealed as a emperor if they win. However, even Samacheon Stream specially recorded that "no one of the people who participated in this war was sealed after the emperor." Do not believe in the Chinese librarian as it is, the Chinese side seems to suggest that the Han Dynasty's rule extended north of the Han River, citing the Hansagun army, which was in the northwest of the Korean Peninsula. It is said that Hansa-gun destroyed Wimanjoseon and created it by the Han Dynasty, but there is no record of Samacheon Stream. Judging from this, it is highly likely that it was installed only in some areas or was a device made by the Chinese to justify their history to future generations. The funny thing is that when I was in elementary school, I should have memorized all the names of Hansagun. This shows how deep the colonial view is in our academic world. Even if there was Hansagun, it is questionable what it meant to our history to memorize. Regarding the location of Hansa-gun, Shin Chae-ho said it was in Manchuria, but the problem is that later mainstream historians believe it was on the Korean Peninsula." - According to China, Goguryeo was a local government that has always come to pay tribute to China's "central government." "It is a unique historical narrative method in China. It is a way of recording that all envoys from other countries who came for diplomatic relations are here to pay tribute. In that sense, it is recorded in Samguksagi that a Tang Dynasty man named Jin Daedeok came to Goguryeo as an envoy, which means that he also came to Goguryeo to pay tribute. Some scholars make excuses here that "I gave tribute at the time, but because of East Asian relations at the time," but the part related to "sacrifice" is only China's unique historical narrative method. There is no reason to accept it as it is just because the Chinese insist." China also claims that when Goguryeo collapsed, many of its population was assimilated into China. Goguryeo people are different from these fairy tales.
It means that he did not resist anything else. "China led the ruling class to China after destroying Goguryeo. Nevertheless, as the revival movement took place in the old Goguryeo area, Goguryeo people there moved to the southern part of China in groups. Even though the desire to resist was prevented, the Goguryeo people who remained in Manchuria built Balhae. It is quite unreasonable to say that most of the Goguryeo people became Chinese after the fall of Goguryeo. - As mentioned earlier, the Chinese side argues that the Su-Goguryo invasion is a war of unification. In other words, it may mean that the Su Dynasty and Tang Dynasty viewed Goguryeo as one nation with them. In fact, what about records of librarians, etc. "There's nothing to answer if you're forced to do so. The Sui Dynasty claims that unification was completed after the collapse of the Qin Dynasty, which was located south of the Yangjagang River at the time. This is a possible description because Goguryeo was classified as a different ethnicity. However, immediately after the founding of the Su Dynasty, the war began again when King Yeongyang of Goguryeo attacked the Su Dynasty. Even the Su Dynasty problem, Yangje system, and Taejong of the Tang Dynasty did not think so. Tang Tae-jong once told his servants who stopped the war against Goguryeo that he was "going to avenge the descendants of the Su Dynasty." Tang Tae-jong was the protagonist in destroying the Su Dynasty and creating the Tang Dynasty, and what he said was that he would avenge the Su Dynasty children who died in the Go-Su War (Goguryo-Su Dynasty War) clearly viewed Goguryeo as a different nation. Local governments of the same people are trying to separate Goguryeo history in Korean history, saying, "No country despises its history like this." - China is trying to separate Goguryeo history, saying, "It is not Goguryeo that Goryeo inherited, but Samhan." Samhan is said to be south of the Han River. Then, how could Samhan be organized and what was the relationship with Goguryeo? "Choi Chi-won said in Samguk Yusa, 'Mahan is Goguryeo, and Jin is Silla.' In addition, Samguksagi elaborately described the establishment of powerful ancient countries such as Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla in the 1st to 3rd centuries AD. However, the Korean private academic community separated Mahan's territory from Goguryeo and limited it to Jeolla-do, saying, "Choi Chi-won is wrong." It also erased the existence of the three kingdoms in the 1st to 3rd centuries AD, and these days, Samhan, a collection of small countries by myeon unit, appeared. And it is argued that the ancient state was established only in the 3rd and 4th centuries of AD when the Three Kingdoms Period began." - Teacher seems to believe that the Three Kingdoms Period was already established in the 1st and 3rd centuries of AD. If so, is the period of the establishment of an ancient state of our people not after the 3rd century AD, but after the 1st century AD? "You can look at it as it is recorded in The History of the Three Kingdoms. Look at Pungnaptoseong Fortress. This relic already proves that the state (Baekje) was established in the first century. However, the Korean historical community has argued that Baekje was founded in the late 3rd century. History and relics did not add up. The problem is that the only basis for the argument of the Korean private academic community is the records of Chinese history. Moreover, the length of the related records is also very short, with two to three sheets. In the end, the Korean historical community abandoned all the vast records of The History of the Three Kingdoms and took Chinese librarians such as The Later Book, which is an unprecedented method of interpreting history in the world. "Which country in the world ignores their own history books written by their own people and interprets their own history based on "Karder News" - Lee Deok-il introduced several anecdotes, saying that history is often tailored by swords and snacks from later historians. "If you go to the National Museum of Korea, there is an exhibition hall of the Three Kingdoms Period." It exhibits artifacts from the 1st to 3rd centuries. Why is it "The Three Kingdoms Period"? The Korean private academia stipulated that this era was not the Three Kingdoms period. However, relics from the Three Kingdoms period from this period continued to be excavated. Now that it's like this, we have no choice but to put the wrong name "Wonsamguk." Korea is the only country in the world that has such a thorough denial and disparaging view of its history. Is this all? There is also a story in Chinese affairs that Baekje occupied the Yoseo region. But our academic community wave hands that it can't be. What is the political situation in China? In accordance with the form of the Spring and Autumn Writing Act, they used their own in favor and did not use what was beneficial to others. It was difficult to avoid the death penalty even if only one letter was contrary to this standard. Didn't Samacheon get a court sentence? That is the political situation in China. Even though such political affairs revealed that Baekje occupied the Yoseo area, it is a way of interpreting the history of the Korean historical community that does not believe it." The Chinese side argues that Goguryeo and Goryeo are separate because King Taejo Wang Geon of Goryeo said he succeeded Samhan himself. However, if Mahan was Goguryeo, it would be an appropriate response to China's claim. It is a very natural fact that the Korean historical community does not have to explain one way or another if it had a correct understanding of Mahan. It is often explained that King Jun, who was kicked out by Wiman in Gojoseon, became the king of Mahan in Jeolla-do, but it is not logically correct. It is described as "Injection Sea" by buying the image of King Jun of Gojoseon running away after being chased by Wiman Bay. It means that it entered the sea, which is evidence that the capital was Manchuria, not Pyongyang (as Korean historical circles claim), at the time of Gojoseon's collapse. If the capital was in Pyongyang, King Jun would not have to choose a sea route and run away. The reason why I chose the sea route was because the mountain was rough and I couldn't move quickly, and so was the Liaodong Peninsula. The sea route was suitable for moving from the Yodong Peninsula to Pyongyang. In this regard, the claim that Mahan is Goguryeo is convincing. In other words, when Wang Geon inherited Samhan himself, Mahan means Goguryeo. Otherwise, why would Wang Geon say he would inherit Samhan and call it Goryeo?" What does Goguryeo mean in Goguryeo - Korean history, which kept the big stem of our continental history? "Our national history largely has a system of continental and maritime history. Until now, we have been trapped in Korean Peninsula history and interpreted it. Goguryeo is an ancient country that protected the large stem of continental history following Gojoseon." The Chinese argue that "the history within the current Chinese territory is all Chinese history," which means that all ethnic groups currently active in the Chinese territory are Chinese nationals. But is that so? For example, weren't the northern peoples of Khitan, aftershocks, Mongolia, and Malgal who lived in northeastern China closer to our people than the Han Chinese in terms of language, culture, and customs? Wouldn't it be rather strange to see the yo, gold, and won they built as China? By any chance, isn't the Korean private academia doing this kind of research? "I'm not doing it at all." In the past, Kitan, Yeojin, and Malgal brought Goguryeo to their parents' countries for a reason, but in fact, there has been no research on them. If you study Chinese history, you only focus on nouns and government offices. The northern peoples are thought to be part of our people. We argue for a single lineage, but that's ridiculous and undesirable. The reason why Lee Seong-gye had a strong unit was that it was a mixed unit centered on cavalry composed of Mongolian and aftershocks. Full-scale research is needed in this field." - How to organize the concept of ethnicity. In the case of the West, it can be said that the state and people occurred during the time when the feudal system was dismantled and capitalism was formed. However, at least the concept of ethnicity in the East can be defined as a group that has worked with similar languages, similar cultures, and similar lifestyles in the same area. Asians formed the nation and people much earlier than the West and have lived within this boundary. "I think Lee Deok-il's concept of ethnicity may be the most fundamental criticism of China's Northeast Fair Program. This is because China's view of history is based on the philosophy of 'all history and ethnicity in Chinese territory are Chinese history and Chinese people'. Regardless of language, culture, lifestyle, etc. However, this view only slightly changed the left-wing view that "the people formed as capitalism was formed" to "the people's Republic of China was formed as the People's Republic of China was founded." - How do you see the Korean private academia and the Korean government's response to the "Northeast Fair"? In a socialist society, academics are strongly subordinate to politics. People who consider Goguryeo history as Korean history in the region cannot speak. Of course, the reprimand cannot be avoided in that Korean scholars did not prepare properly. However, since this problem has arisen these days, some historians are criticizing China for making China uncomfortable with its radical claims. What kind of country is China, so would it spare no state-level support for such matters and carry out projects? There is also a lack of response at the national level. China has provided all the support at the government level, and the South Korean Foreign Ministry also said, "Let's leave the government out and leave it to the private sector," adding, "It's not something the government will solve."In the case of Japanese history distortion, there was a lot of talk about textbooks made by one publisher, but isn't China distorting history at the national level? But I can't say much." Song's loyalist music expenses are half unified? - Recently, some Western historians argue that dismantling national history and dismantling the concept of ethnicity are fundamental measures against historical distortions in China and Japan. Of course, I object to the use of a large organization called the state as a system that suppresses humans or individuals. That's why the past dictatorship should not be revived. However, at a time when world history is flowing at the national level, what does it mean to dismantle national history only by us? Nationalism alone was the logic of oppression for foreign powers, but it was the logic of resistance for us. If we neglect all of these positive aspects and expand the dissolution of national history to all general countries, we have no choice but to go to the dissolution of history, not the dissolution of national history." At the end of the interview, Lee Deok-il introduced an anecdote about General Song's music monument. fight until the end when the gold kingdom came in. The music monument, which faced its end due to the plot of a traitor, was a symbol of loyalty in China to fight against the immigrants. Many people followed him and built a shrine. Traitor Jinhoe was standing next to the music award.
The award was given a notice saying, "Don't spit" because people spit so much. However, as the Geum Dynasty was incorporated into Chinese history, the status of Akbi became strange. According to this logic, gold and silver promoted the unification war against pine trees, and the music monument becomes an "anti-unification molecule." Lee Deok-il concluded the interview as follows, saying that there is a strong backlash from ordinary Chinese over this. "Attempts to dominate past history with real power may be partially successful, but as a result, they are bound to fail."
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기