전후 미국학계에 소개된 한국사 연구와 식민주의 역사학

Abstract

As the Cold War system was established after World War II, American academia’s interest in East Asia as well as Korea, the front line of the Cold War, increased. Establishment of East Asian research institutes, new courses and professorship as well as the publication of Korean Studies Guide in the 1950s, shows considerable interest in East Asia and Korea in American academia right after World War II. Especially, the fact that Suematsu’s 『朝鮮史のしるべ』(1936) and Hatada’s 『朝鮮史』(1951) were translated and published in the days when there were very few Korean history books in English in the academic field, are an implication of the relation between the colonial historiography in pre-war Japan and post war Korean studies in the U.S. These two books, known to American academia by the Korean Studies Guide and its writers, received conflicting reviews from the time they were first introduced and even after the release of the book. A Short History of Korea was welcomed as a textbook and reference material in the absence of an English history book, but A History of Korea was evaluated as a fresh and objective Korean history book because it was not only based on socioeconomic perspectives but also described in strict criticism of colonial rule.BR Indeed, the two books revealed a clear difference in their description and composition, but they were common in that they negatively portrayed Korean history based on the study by former Japanese researchers. Hatada’s work based on socioeconomic perspectives was in line with the theory of lack of feudalism, which Japanese historians argued in the past, that the production relationship revealed in Korean history was developmental but centered on ancient production until the late Joseon Dynasty. This discussion was to find the reason why only Japan could succeed in modernization through feudalism from the time it first appeared by Japanese researchers in the early 20th century, which could lead to the modernization theory that emerged in American academia after the war. In addition, both books deal with the pressure and aggression of foreign forces on Korea as important historical nodes, which have resulted in not only emphasizing the heteronomy of Korean history but also explaining the development of Japanese history. The establishment of the Four Chinese Commanderies(Hansagun), and the Imjin War was a representative basis that not only showed Korea suffering from foreign invasion, but also described as a major phase revealing the historical relationship between the island country Japan and the continent. This was based on the research of former Japanese historians who tried to explain the history of Tōyō(東洋) centered on Japan, and could also be linked to the U.S. policy of pursuing U.S. hegemony and national interests in postwar East Asia.BR In conclusion, A Short History of Korea and A History of Korea are not only based on the identity and heteronomy of Korean history, but also faithful to the perspective of former Japanese historians in that they explain the historical relationship between Japan and the continent through Korean history. The reason why these works were able to be distributed to American academia was that the discussion of colonial historiography could easily match the U.S. policy and modernization theory that tried to carry out the security and U.S. national interests in East Asia with Japan as a policy partner.