현대사박물관, 어떻게 만들 것인가?

이동기(Lee Dong Ki) 역사비평사 2011 역사비평 Vol.- No.96

This essay deals with principles and processes of the making of historical museum in a democratic society. In 21st century, historical museums should not be built to define political legitimacy or to reinforce national identity for some ideological purpose. As we can see the making process of the ‘House of History of the Federal Republic of Germany’ in Bonn, the democratic discussion on its fundamental purpose and substantive direction of exhibition is of great importance, in particular for a national museum for contemporary history. But, the initiators of the ‘National Museum of Korean Contemporary History’ in Seoul are neglecting the democratic process of debate and discussion in public sphere and with experts groups as historians and museum specialist. They are now only interested in (re-)definement of their right-wing political legitimation and strengthening of the Korean national identity. Moreover, in their opinion the Korean contemporary history since 1945 had been filled with ‘miracles’ and ‘successes’ which should mainly be exhibited in the National Museum of Korean Contemporary History. But, their images of the Korean contemporary history are not in accordance with various experiences and memories of most ordinary people in South Korea. The present objective and exhibition plan of the ‘historical cultural’ institution should be replaced by a new concept which would be aimed at a museum as communication space for plural democratic histories and critical reflection on historical tragedies.

개념의 정치인가 개념의 역사인가 -『역사용어 바로쓰기』(역사비평 편집위원회 엮음, 역사비평사, 2006)

나인호(서평자) 역사비평사 2006 역사비평 Vol.- No.77

‘남북 역사인식 연합’을 위한 역사학 교류

정태헌(Jung, Tae Hern) 역사비평사 2012 역사비평 Vol.- No.99

In order to accomplish a union between North and South Korea, a broadening of the homogenous historical understanding must be demanded, ‘The North-South Korean Union for Historical Understanding,’ which is towards a methodology of coexisting with difference, is the essential element at this stage of Union between North and South Korea. It does not mean the absorption of a single historical understanding, which connotes a one-sided nature. Whether the period needed for union between North and South Korea is long or short, it will depend on the level of union between North and South Korean historical perception. Historical exchange will incrementally increase interchange according to the level of the relationship between South and North Korea, following steps such as ‘the Period of Reconciliation and Cooperation’, ‘the Period of Peaceful Coexistence’ and ‘the Period of Union between North and South Korea’. The main contents of history interchange during the Period of Reconciliation and Cooperation, whose first task is composing the foundation of exchange, should be an orientation towards outstanding historical questions shared by both North and South Korea. In addition, ‘The North and South Korean Committee for the Promotion Socio-Cultural Cooperation.’ as an organization that operates between South and North Korea authorities ‘The North and South Korean History Exchange Agreement.’ Likewise, ‘The Account for History Interchange Between North and South Korea’ by the Inter-Korean Cooperation Fund. In the North, the Ministry of Unification’s administration guide, which maintains an ‘anti-market’ policy and which that fails to provide research funds for North Korean scholars, should be changed. Following this an array of ‘cultural agreements’ can be signed between North and South Korean authorities marking ‘the Period of Peaceful Coexistence’. The primary theme of history exchange at this point should be the reexamination of political difference between each history so as to find signs for a methodology that can relieve hostilities. The founding of ‘The Inter-Korea Committee for Historical Interchange and Promotion’ as well as subcommittees classified by each subject of exchange is demanded. Henceforth the biggest theme of history exchange is the completion of the methodology of ‘The North-South Korean Union for Historical Understanding’ and reaching the level of cooperation where ‘The Joint North-South Korean Commission on History’ can compile a collaborated historical outline publication.

이명박 정부의 역사 인식과 역사교육 정책

김한종(Kim Han Jong) 역사비평사 2011 역사비평 Vol.- No.96

History education has fallen into confusion in Lee Myung Park Government, and the dispute about history education continues until now. Lee Myung Park Government aim to throw his own historical awareness into school history education. Lee Myung Park Government and conservative scholars regard history since founding Republic of Korea 1948 as ‘history of miracle’. They think that main agents making ‘history of miracle’ are political leaders such as Rhee Syng Man and Park Chung Hee, and particularly respect Rhee Syng Man as ‘father of founding Republic of Korea’. They don’t have willingness to admit historical view and history textbook contents critical to such political leaders and their government. Compulsorily modifying Korean Modern and Contemporary History textbook contents and criticizing revised Korean History textbook as left leaning are its products. And Lee Myung Park Government reinforce certification of history textbook for the purpose of controling its contents and suppressing its authors’ resistance. Lee Myung Park Government has implemented history education policies focused on political judgment than intrinsic value of history. He aims to utilize history education as the instrument of integrating people under his policies. It is because policies on history education have been confused. National history curriculum has been revised every year during Lee Myung Park Government, and school history lesson has been weakened 2009, but Korean history shall be become mandatory subject in high school since 2012. This confusion makes teachers difficult to plan history lesson and pupils learn history systematically. Moreover, it is difficult to anticipate that the reinforcing policy of history education will be effective in school and history classroom.

정부 간섭은 역사교육의 퇴행을 가져올 뿐

이만열 역사비평사 2014 역사비평 Vol.- No.107

‘역사전쟁’과 역사영화 전쟁

천정환 역사비평사 2016 역사비평 Vol.- No.117

‘대한민국역사박물관’ 사업 비판과 정책 대안

이동기(Lee, Dong Ki),홍석률(Hong, Seuk Ryule) 역사비평사 2012 역사비평 Vol.- No.99

This essay aims to criticize the ongoing building project of the Museum of Korean Contemporary History by the ruling South-Korean government and to propose an alternative concept for the historical museum of Korean contemporary history. We should note that the initiators of the Museum of Korean Contemporary have ignored the democratic procedures and processes for the museum building in a democratic society. Besides, their images of the Korean contemporary history are filled with notions such as miracles and successes which are not in accordance with various experiences and memories of the South Korean ordinary people. Therefore, the current exhibition plan of the Building Committee of the Museum of Korean Contemporary History should be given up and the planed opening schedule of the exhibition for the end of 2012 delayed, until the South Korean political community would have discussed on this issue on the democratic principle. In its process it is crucial to respect the pluralistic histories and memories of various social groups and to take into account the opinions and criticism of the historians who study the Korean modern and contemporary history.

역사 교육 현장에서 본 검정제 역사 교과서

김민수(Kim Min-su) 역사비평사 2013 역사비평 Vol.- No.105

국가 간 역사갈등 해결을 위한 역사정책 모색

이신철(Lee, Sin-Cheol) 역사비평사 2012 역사비평 Vol.- No.100

Since 2000, Korean and Japan have continually conflicted concerning the past historic faults conducted by Japanese during the Japanese colonial rule times. Historic conflicts between nations are essentially caused from the both nations’ political interest relationship or their national interest. However, a nation does not have a logical structure to concede his perception of history in case of conflicting with other nation. So it is very important to solve through intensive talk and efforts to solve historic conflicts from the private term. Nevertheless, because the historic conflicts around 21C Korean Peninsula are directly connected to future matters of 4 nations-South, North Korea, China and Japan-, it is absolutely necessary to devise the ways to solve such issues from the national term. For South Korea, it is very important to resolve Japanese past faults against Korean in order to establish a peaceful future. For achieving this task, it needs to organize the ‘Korean-Japanese New Times Committee’ organized by private institutions. This committee can help for both nations to resolve Japanese past faults and to newly define the future relationship by concluding a new treaty. Meanwhile, it also needs to establish the ‘East-Asian Peace Foundation’ jointly organized by Korea and Japan in order to resolve Japanese past faults and practice their new relationship in future. It is very important for both governments to establish historic polices and to practice them based on long-term perspectives.

[전시분석 ②] 반쪽의 역사 보여주기

양정심(Yang, Jeong Sim) 역사비평사 2013 역사비평 Vol.- No.103

The National Museum of Korean Contemporary History was opened without broad consultation and with the historical view focused on national success. As the Museum was hastily opened, exhibitions are deficient of contents. The most serious problem is the historical view of the Museum. The initiators of the Museum have claimed that it is important to compile and convey Korean history with a “balanced view” and that the exhibitions in the Museum reflect this. However, the contents of the exhibitions are problematic. There are some discrepancies between the contents in the exhibition and the guide book. At a glance, the exhibitions have the appearance of conveying the results of an objective study of modern Korean history, but the historical context is different according to the arrangement of the selected exhibits and the facts. The same problem is seen in the organization and placement of the exhibited items. Also, there is a problem with the arrangement of the exhibits. There is a lack of accurate historical continuity between the establishment of the R.O.K and the U.S. Army Military Government in Korea, nor between the May 16th Coup and Park Jeong Hee’s government. Above all, the Museum does not actually show the relationship between state violence and human rights issues and the exhibits should show the pain of the victims if the Museum claims to deal with industrialization and democratization in a balanced way.