‘3.1운동의 세계사적 의의’의 불완전한 정립과 균열

초록

Examined in this article is why the global meaning of the March 1st movement was never fully evaluated nor appropriately appreciated, and then was stuck in such status for such a long time. It is indeed an odd thing, considering the fact that this movement was arguably the first event ever to occur in Asia after the first World war ended, as a violence-free resistance against oppression, and as a struggle for a small and weak country to liberate itself from colonial occupation. Some politicians and intellectuals who took notice of such nature began to argue that this Korean Movement actually paved the way for other similar movements in China and India, and virtually led Asian people’s struggle for independence. Some members of the Korean academic circle even suggested that the Korean March 1st movement had significant influence upon the May 4th movement in China. These are all arguments and suggestions that had never been fully verified or proven (possibly with the exception of the aforementioned March 1st-May 4th connection). Nevertheless, the Korean press always emphasized March 1st movement’s “historical meaning,” in terms of its supposed influence upon other weak and small countries’ similar efforts around the world. Meanwhile, senior Korean scholars such as Shin Yong-ha and Yi Hyeon-hi began to write about the March 1st movement’s meaning “in world history” through their professional works. And beginning with the 1974 State-produced High school National history textbooks, the Korean government also dictated that the meaning of March 1st movement “in terms of global history” should be described in all National(Korean) history textbooks. All these efforts ironically forced the March 1st movement to be paralyzed, in a status of ‘past history,’ burdened with a responsibility to perform its role as a ‘global event.’ Forced upon the legacy of the March 1st movement was a nature which was never fully discussed or verified by academic circles.

키워드