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
Examined in this article is the “Korean history (and history textbooks) controversy,” which has been going on fiercely since the mid-2000s.
People tend to view differently the experiences of the Korean people being colonized, nationalism that they held onto to escape from such ruling, and the subsequent democratization process as well as anti-Communist attitudes that prevailed. It was such a dynamic period, so academic approaches to define the era had already been in place in the early 2000s, but discussions have thus been distorted, manipulated and oppressed, by power-hungry politicians and other individuals. The government’s nationalization of Korean history textbooks in 2015 placed history under politics, and pushed back the entire discussion to a condition that existed before the past two decades.
In this article, in order to properly analyze the issue, the controversy itself is comprehensively examined. As a result of such examination, it becomes clear that in order to reestablish academic approaches to sensitive historical experiences, institutional devices to prevent the government and politicians’ intervention in history education are more than necessary, and need to be established soon. It is also evident that, as the collisions have been triggered by the clash of certain macroscopic viewpoints (under the labels of progressive and conservative) trying to reinterpret 100 years that was the Korean modernity, it is imperative (for the revival of healthy discussions) that discussions should return to the original goal, which was meant to establish an understanding of the century based upon forward thinking attitude.
Only after a social consensus -over the relationship between historical education and politics- is established, and a new perspective to view one hundred years of Korean modernity is properly put in place, questions like where the state should stand in historical education, what should be the ultimate goal of Korean history education in the 21st century, and what kind of institutions should be developed in order to ensure that, could be answered appropriately.
People tend to view differently the experiences of the Korean people being colonized, nationalism that they held onto to escape from such ruling, and the subsequent democratization process as well as anti-Communist attitudes that prevailed. It was such a dynamic period, so academic approaches to define the era had already been in place in the early 2000s, but discussions have thus been distorted, manipulated and oppressed, by power-hungry politicians and other individuals. The government’s nationalization of Korean history textbooks in 2015 placed history under politics, and pushed back the entire discussion to a condition that existed before the past two decades.
In this article, in order to properly analyze the issue, the controversy itself is comprehensively examined. As a result of such examination, it becomes clear that in order to reestablish academic approaches to sensitive historical experiences, institutional devices to prevent the government and politicians’ intervention in history education are more than necessary, and need to be established soon. It is also evident that, as the collisions have been triggered by the clash of certain macroscopic viewpoints (under the labels of progressive and conservative) trying to reinterpret 100 years that was the Korean modernity, it is imperative (for the revival of healthy discussions) that discussions should return to the original goal, which was meant to establish an understanding of the century based upon forward thinking attitude.
Only after a social consensus -over the relationship between historical education and politics- is established, and a new perspective to view one hundred years of Korean modernity is properly put in place, questions like where the state should stand in historical education, what should be the ultimate goal of Korean history education in the 21st century, and what kind of institutions should be developed in order to ensure that, could be answered appropriately.
목차
머리말
1. 역사(교육)의 정치도구화와 균열
2. 학술적 논의로의 전환과 민족주의 비판
3. 역사(교육)의 재정치도구화와 식민주의 공방
맺음말 : ‘위기’ 극복을 위한 방향 모색
참고문헌
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
한국현대사 교육을 둘러싼 갈등의 역사화와 그 함의
역사교육논집
2023 .06
-
제1차 교육과정기 발행 『중등국사』 (역사교육연구회 엮음) 교과서의 특성과 의의
역사교육
2018 .06
-
최근 한국 보수정부의 역사교육정책과 국가주의 역사교육
역사교육논집
2015 .01
-
역사교육의 정치적 성격과 다양성 논의
역사교육논집
2016 .01
-
학습내용구성 관점에서 본 최근 역사교육의 민주시민교육논의 : 대안적 구성 방향의 모색
역사교육논집
2018 .01
-
중·고등학교 역사 교육과정 한국 근현대사 내용 요소 선정의 적합성 검토
역사연구
2017 .12
-
‘논쟁성’에 기초한 근현대사 수업 사례 : 고등학교 <한국사> 토론 수업을 중심으로
역사교육
2017 .03
-
최근 대만 역사교과서의 한국사 인식 변화 - 101과강 『선수역사(選修歷史)』와 108과강 『역사(歷史)2』 비교 분석
동북아역사논총
2021 .03
-
우리나라 역사교육의 지형도 변화와 초등학교 현대사 교육 : 다문화 시민사회의 어린이 역사교육 방향 탐색
HOMO MIGRANS
2020 .05
-
시민을 위한 역사교육으로서 독일의 공공역사(Public history)
역사교육논집
2018 .01
-
디지털 역사 교과서에서 역사콘텐츠의 교육적 활용을 위한 제언
역사와교육
2023 .05
-
중등 “역사”ㆍ고등 “한국사” 교과서 국정화에 대한 반론
역사와실학
2015 .11
-
국사를 넘어선 역사교육
대구사학
2016 .01
-
2020년 간행(2018년 교육과정) 중고등학교 역사교과서의 조선사 서술 검토
한국사학보
2020 .08
-
특집논문 : 세계화 시대 한국의 역사학과 역사교육 - 서양사의 시선
서양사론
2016 .03
-
최근 논쟁 중심 역사수업 논의와 교사전문성, 교사교육
역사교육
2019 .03
-
National History Textbooks in the Era of Global Citizenship Education: Coexistence of Global Objectives and Nationalist Narratives on the History of Ancient Korea
Korea Journal
2022 .06
-
세계사 교육과정과 교과서의 중국근현대사 서술 구조 : 2009 교육과정과 교과서, 2015 교육과정을 중심으로
역사교육
2017 .06
-
고등학교 세계사 교과서의 중국고중세사 서술 : 역사 용어를 중심으로
역사교육
2017 .06
-
학교에서 학습하는 역사 지식의 생활 맥락으로 전이 가능성 - 중학교 역사 교과서의 ‘역사의 의미’와 ‘역사학습의 목적’ 분석을 중심으로 -
역사교육
2024 .09
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-911-000645735