Earticle

In the year 1755, Qing Dynasty destroyed nomadic state ‘Jungar[準噶爾]’ of Northern Xinjiang[北疆] which is located in the northern area of Tian Shan Mountains[天山山脈] of Xinjiang. In succession, Qing Dynasty conquered southern Xinjiang[新疆] completely and settled present Xinjiang. Eventually, Qing Dynasty built a great empire unprecedented in history. But northern Xinjiang region was a strategically important place which Russia had aimed at continuously. It was not only a fine pasture which nomadic tribes who has refused to yield to Qing Dynasty, such as Kazakh [哈薩克] and Kirghiz[黠戞斯, 布魯特], had watched an opportunity to occupy but also a trade road connected to central Eurasia by way of Steppe Route. Hence, it was a strategically important place which Qing Dynasty absolutely never gave up and wanted to keep preserving by all means. Qing Dynasty recruited many soldiers from the other places and immigrants who had to do the duty of cultivating a Garrison Farm[屯田], maintaining their fort[駐防], and executing rotation defence[換防] in order to defend northern Xinjiang looked like a vacant land. As the target of supplementaries, the tribes of Tungus descent and Mongolian lineage were chosen. The tribes of these Tungus descent are Evenki[鄂溫克], Orochon[鄂倫春], Dagbur[達斡爾], and Xibe[錫伯]. These Tribes are generally called as solon. Mongolian descendants include minor Mongolian tribes as well as Chakhar[察哈爾] and Oirad[額魯特].

이 글은 한국서양사학회에서 2007-2018년 사이에 지속적·공통적으로 제기되었던 주요 이슈와 논쟁을 재조명해 봄으로써 학계가 직면한 도전을 숙지하고 풀어야할 과제를 함께 고민하고 전망해보는 것을 목표로 한다. 지난 10년간 〈회고와 전망〉 필자들이 강조했던 특기사항들을 유기적으로 종합하고 긴 호흡과 연속적인 시각으로 접근하여 비평함으로써 국내 서양사학의 발전과 변화를 위한 밑거름과 발판으로 삼으려는 의도이다. 서양사 분야 필자들이 동의한 최근의 지배적인 연구경향과 문제의식은 크게 두 가지로 요약된다. 첫째, ‘우리 서양사’를 위한 학문적 정체성에 대한 모색과 모델 수립을 위한 노력이 증가했고 트랜스내셔널 시각으로 한국사와 서양사의 경계를 넘나들며 ‘한국적 서양사’ 서술의 가능성을 보여주는 의미 있는 성과물들이 선보였다. 둘째, 인문학과 함께 학문후속세대가 멸종위기의 벼랑 끝으로 내몰린 현실을 직시하고 서양사학자들이 선도적으로 연구의 중심축을 논문에서 저서로, 전문학술서에서 대중교양서적으로 전환하여 대중에게 한 발짝 더 다가가야 마땅하다. 〈회고와 전망〉 필자들이 제기한 이런 견해에 기본적으로 공감하는 나는 다음과 같은 과제와 전망을 결론으로 내놓았다. 첫째, 국내 서양사학계 수준은 서구에서 생산된 역사지식을 수입·유통하는 중계업자를 뛰어넘어 국내 전문가들이 생산한 독창적인 담론을 외국학계에 거꾸로 수출할 만큼 성숙했다. 그러므로 둘째, ‘서양에는 없고 국내에만 있는’ 1차 사료를 적극적으로 발굴하고 탈식민주의적인 시각으로 해석하여 ‘서양 본토에는 없고 한국에는 있는’ 흥미롭고도 세계사적으로 빛나는 주체적인 로컬 서양사 쓰기에 도전해볼 결정적인 시간이 도래했다.

The basic objective of this article is to grasp major issues and controversial themes raised by most reviewers in the past decade (2007~2018) for the purpose of perceiving the current challenges to deal with and the remaining task to resolve. Many reviewers agree that (1) the time is very rife and critical for us to practice a sort of ‘Our/Korean Way of Western History’, and transnational perspective may become a useful methodology for achieving the goal; (2) in order to cope with extreme pressure of recent market-oriented world-view, scholars and researchers should shift their concern and focus from writing a monography to publishing popular and interesting books which ordinary people can access and consume. Supporting to these opinions, I confidently conclude that Western historians in Korea are ready and competent enough to present an unique local & post-colonial stories based on primary sources that are available not in the West but only in Korea.

This paper is a review and analysis of descriptions of the March First Movement in Western language introductions to Korean history from the 1950s up to the 2010s, including introductions of East Asian History. Due to the fact that there is only few genuine Western research on the March First Movement, many non-Korean scholars refer to such books to learn about Korean history and the Movement in general. Also, such books are widely used as textbooks for introductory classes to Korean History at university level, especially in classes of the Korean Studies curriculum. Next to translations from mostly outdated Korean textbooks, introductions to Korean history originally written in Europe or the U.S. tend to downplay the role of the Movement. No textbook offers a really wholesome introduction to the Movement that would include all nuances of its importance or the Korean discourse on the movement over time. This is, however, not because of lacking perceptions about the Movement, but rather due to the limitations of the medium itself. Introductions to history need to be precise and all-encompassing at a handable amount of pages. This is why the March First Movement can easily be overread. At the cententary of the Movement, this gives rise to the question of how to position it properly in the entirety of Korean history.