2023, Vol., No.150

The Review of Korean History 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 1.02

pISSN : 1225-133X
https://journal.kci.go.kr/hksh

Buddhist monks engaged in very active Bangnap activities amid the considerable withdrawal of the Buddhist temple economy in the first half of Joseon. This study focused its review on Bangnap granted by the government to Buddhist monks rather than Bangnap they personally did. One was entitled to Bangnap only when he had the ability to procure goods. Buddhist monks had the ability. As Buddhist temples were the subject of economic activities, Buddhist monks possessed considerable information about all kinds of goods, engaged in commerce themselves in many cases, and had substantial personal wealth. Granted the Bangnap permit, Buddhist monks and organizations carried out different jobs including making and distributing roof tiles, building the Suryuksa, making the inner and outer coffins, taking out books, publishing Buddhist scriptures, and relieving starving people(the four major Wons: Hwalinwon, Itaewon, Bojeowon, and Hongjewon). These works held huge significance in society, and the government decided to offer Buddhist monks the Bangnap privilege and had them pay for the costs with profit. Buddhist monks accepted these duties based on the premise of technological power, labor force, and mercy. The list of their Bangnap goods included firewood, straw mats, charcoal, lumber, Saengchu, and iron. Many of the items were available in forests, and the list of the Bangnap items contained no goods related to animals. Buddhist monks personally visited villages and collected high Bangnap prices after their Bangnap works were over. The prevalence of Bangnap was directly connected to the increased burden of the people, and it should not be neglected. The government tried to set reasonable Bangnap prices and forbade Buddhist monks to collect them themselves, reducing the Bangnap of Buddhist monks itself. Byeolwayo was abolished in the second year of King Danjong’s reign, and the construction of Suryuksa in Jingwan Buddhist Temple was ended in the first year of his reign. Bangnap for roof tile production and the construction of Suryuksa was no longer during the reign of King Sejo. Guihuso and Gyoseogwan were reorganized in the ninth and twelfth year of King Sejo’s reign, respectively, thus excluding Buddhist monks. The four major Wons were all banned on Bangnap except for Hongjewon in the ninth year of King Sejo’s reign. The Bangnap of Buddhist monks reached its peak from the middle of King Sejong’s reign to the reign of King Munjong and weakened considerably during the reign of King Sejo. There was a total ban on Bangnap during the reign of King Yejong. Bangnap was implemented with Buddhist monks hardly participating in it during the reign of King Seongjong. The extinction of Buddhist monks’ Bangnap activities represented the decline of religious economy and the sharp rise of secular economy.

With the Gabo Reform, red ginseng policy and trade had undergone major changes. The method of exporting red ginseng through land routes, which was handled by the Yukkwan[譯官], was converted to a method in which civilians manufactured and exported red ginseng by sea route. This can be said to be a transition from a traditional method to a modern method. However, reflecting the specificity of red ginseng, which had a great contribution to finance, Takji entrusted the manufacture and export of red ginseng to civilians, but intervened by receiving Munbing[文憑] at each stage. It also imposed a high red ginseng tax. This was intended to maintain the financial contribution of red ginseng. In addition, human continuity is also noted, and even during the Gabo Reform, there were many Yukkwans[譯官] and Kaesong people who led the manufacture and export of red ginseng. They had been engaged in related fields for a long time. As such, even if there was a policy change, they could take advantage of their experience. This was an important factor in the relatively successful manufacture and export of red ginseng during the Gabo Reform. Finally, compared to the imperial policy that implemented the resale system since 1899, it is particularly noteworthy that Koreans had entrusted red ginseng exports. The imperial family commissioned the sale of red ginseng to foreigners from 1900. Once the right to sell red ginseng was handed over to foreigners, it was impossible for Koreans to export red ginseng until liberation.

This article explains the main logic and issues of denial of forced mobilization and forced labor, the historical background and origins of that logic, and analyzes historical revisionism/denialism in Japanese society from the perspective of the crisis of democracy. This article traces the background and origins of the Japanese government’s denial of forced mobilization to a deep-seated sense of colonialism in Japanese society. It demonstrates this through two Foreign Ministry reports published in 1945 and 1946, the Allied occupation of Japan, postwar Japanese war memories reconstructed in terms of a “victim consciousness,” and returned “grassroots colonizers” who were caught up in invasion and colonialism. In response, I see that there is also an awareness and effort to radically critique colonialism, albeit weakly. This article analyzes the relationship between the conservatization of Japanese society, which began in earnest in the 1990s, and historical denialism by examining Abe's history policy, the arguments of historical denialists, the “Thought War” of the 1930s, and the “History War” of the 2000s. As historical denialism at the policy level dominates the public discourse, it is also addressed in civil society, where historical denialism that denies wars of aggression and colonization, such as the denial of the Nanking Massacre and the Japanese military’s “comfort women,” the denial of the Korean-Chinese massacre during the Great Kanto Earthquake, and the denial of forced mobilization and forced labor, dominates the public discourse. It also emphasizes that historical denialism is linked to hate speech and hate crimes, which threaten democracy, and that overcoming it is a necessary task to safeguard democracy.