KJCKorea
Journal Central

@article{ART002210250},
author={Kim Jeongin},
title={Emergence of Critical Analyses of Colonial Historiography and Formation of the “Internal Development theory”},
journal={The Review of Korean History},
issn={1225-133X},
year={2017},
number={125},
pages={7-44}

TY - JOUR
AU - Kim Jeongin
TI - Emergence of Critical Analyses of Colonial Historiography and Formation of the “Internal Development theory”
JO - The Review of Korean History
PY - 2017
VL - null
IS - 125
PB - The Historical Society Of Korea
SP - 7
EP - 44
SN - 1225-133X
AB - Examined in this article is the ‘Origin’ of two trends: Critical analyses of the occupied Joseon people which were launched against ‘Colonial Historiography,’ and the “Internal Development theory” launched later by Korean historians. The beginning points of these two trends may seem (at first glance) to have been different from each other, but both trends actually took place at the time of liberation from Japanese occupation, and amidst the surge of Anti-Colonial historiography studies. And these two trends sure interacted with each other in the 1960s, so such interaction is examined in this article as well. This is not an analysis of what came after the emergence of the Internal Development theory, but rather of what came ‘before’ it, as the origin itself should be construed within the context of situations (as well as academic efforts in the area of history) that unfolded right after the liberation. And in order to do that right, we should also be well aware of how a series of critical analyses of ‘Colonial Historiography,’ and the eventual advent of “Internal Development theory,” sort of fueled each other for years, to reach their full potential. Meanwhile, also stressed in this article is that critical analyses of Colonial historiography did not only criticise the colonial historical perspective shown by the Japanese, but were launched to overcome colonial historical studies done by Korean scholars, which were performed in the name of pursuing “empirical studies (dealing ‘facts’ that could be confirmed by written records).” And most importantly, suggested in this article is that it was the Nationalistic historiography and Marxist historiography, which were both against Colonial historiography, that bridged critical analyses of colonial historiography and the Internal Development theory.
KW - Colonial Historiography;Chauvinistic historical perspective;notion of ‘stagnated development;’ Anti-Colonial historiography studies;Internal development theory
DO -
UR -
ER -

Kim Jeongin. (2017). Emergence of Critical Analyses of Colonial Historiography and Formation of the “Internal Development theory”. The Review of Korean History, 125, 7-44.

Kim Jeongin. 2017, "Emergence of Critical Analyses of Colonial Historiography and Formation of the “Internal Development theory”", The Review of Korean History, no.125, pp.7-44.

Kim Jeongin "Emergence of Critical Analyses of Colonial Historiography and Formation of the “Internal Development theory”" The Review of Korean History 125 pp.7-44 (2017) : 7.

Kim Jeongin. Emergence of Critical Analyses of Colonial Historiography and Formation of the “Internal Development theory”. 2017; 125 : 7-44.

Kim Jeongin. "Emergence of Critical Analyses of Colonial Historiography and Formation of the “Internal Development theory”" The Review of Korean History no.125(2017) : 7-44.

Kim Jeongin. Emergence of Critical Analyses of Colonial Historiography and Formation of the “Internal Development theory”. The Review of Korean History, 125, 7-44.

Kim Jeongin. Emergence of Critical Analyses of Colonial Historiography and Formation of the “Internal Development theory”. The Review of Korean History. 2017; 125 7-44.

Kim Jeongin. Emergence of Critical Analyses of Colonial Historiography and Formation of the “Internal Development theory”. 2017; 125 : 7-44.

Kim Jeongin. "Emergence of Critical Analyses of Colonial Historiography and Formation of the “Internal Development theory”" The Review of Korean History no.125(2017) : 7-44.