. , ,
, .
: , 2, 3 ,
, ‘’ .
2019 .
1920
2/
1.
1 .
() ‘ ’ ‘ ’
.1 ‘’

3 — , , —
14 .2
,
3.1 .
3.1 .
‘ ’
.
() ()
, 1910 3 ‘
()’ .3
, ‘
’ ‘’ .
()
‘ ’ “ ” ,
“
”, .4
‘ ’ 3.1
.
1996, 15.
2 , ( 1919. 7.), 6, 54, 60.
3 , , , 1912, 14; , , , 1914, 13.
4 , , 2-2(1916. 2.), 205.
44 21
.
3.1 ‘’ ,
‘ ’

,
. 1917
() 1
“
, ” ,

.5
. ,
.
(), ‘ ’
1
‘ ’
. ‘ ’, 1920
.
“
” ,6

.
5 , , 38-1, 1923, 118.
6 , , 38-1, 1934, 439.
45 1920
.
.7
.

1920
. ,

, (), ()
.
1)
.
,
,
.8


7 () (, , 1990 , , , , , 18-12, 18-3, 1986 ), (
, , 24, 2012 ) .
, , , , , 1979 .
8 , , , , , 1979, 68.
.
() (, 1905)
, , ,
.9
() (
, 1908)
.
(
) .
, …
,
.10
“ ”,
, “ ”
“ , ”
.11
1912) . “
, , ()
.” .12

, .13
9 , , , 1905, 124~129.
10 , , , 1908, 119~120.
11 , , 52~53.
12 , , , 1912, 12.
13 , , 11.
47 1920
()
1916~17 , ,
, 10 ,
. “()”
,
“ ” .14

,
. ‘
’ .
1920 .

, ‘
’ ‘ ’ .
1927 11
(, 1920) ,
“ ”
.15 .
“
”16 . ‘’
‘’ .
‘ ’ ‘
’ “ ()”
.17
14 , , 4, , 1969, 48.
15 , , , 1920, 121.
16 , , 122.
17 , , 151.
.
1
. 1
, “
” ,
“
” .18

1920 . (
) () (, 1921)

, ‘ ’
. “
.
,

.” .19

. 1

. “
,
()
.” .20
18 , , , 1921, 14.
19 , , , 1921, 1~2.
20 , , 107.
49 1920
,
, “ ”
, .21

.
. , , , , ,
.
()
,
.

.22
“ ”
.
, ()
() (1924)
,
21 , , 108.
22 , , 108~109.
23 . ‘’(),
‘’() , ‘’ .
‘’ ‘’ ‘’ ,
‘’ . 1920 ‘’, ‘’
().
50 21

3.1

“ ” .
,
“ ”
.24
() (1927)
“ ” “
()” .25
(, 1926)
, , ,
,26
,
.
.
.

. ‘’
.
2)
1920
‘’( ‘’)
. ‘’ ‘’
.
1920
.
24 , , , 1924, 29.
25 , , , 1927, 13.
26 , (1926), 1, , 1963, 5.
51 1920
(1905)
‘’ ‘’ ,
.27
‘’
. “ ”
, ‘’
.28
. ,
.
(1908)
, , , ,
. .
,
.

. “ ”
, “

. ,
,
.” .29
‘’ ,

.
27 , , 10, 11.
28 , , 262, 266.
29 , , 236, 241.
52 21
’ ‘’ , ,
.30 ‘
’, ‘’ ,
, .
,
, , .
‘’
, “ ”
.31 , , “
” .32
.

.
,
()
.33
,

.
,
.
.34
30 , , 3.
31 , , 115.
32 , , 117.
34 , , 222.
1920
,
.
,

. 1920
.
(1920) ‘
’ .
‘’(policy of assimilation)
,
‘’
.
. ‘’(policy of selfgovernment)


, .
.35
, .
.
,
“ , ”
.
.
, , , ,
35 , , 156.

3.1

,
.
“ ”
,
.
,
.36
,
. 1
.

.
“ (
-) ”
.37
, .

,
. , ,


() .
,
()
36 , , 159~160.
37 , , 6.
55 1920

.38 (-)

.


. “
,
”39 .
, .


.
.40 “
(), ,
,
” .41
, ‘ ’
(1921) ‘ ’ ‘’ ‘’
. ‘’ ‘
’ . ‘’
,
. ‘’
38 , , 164.
39 , , 166.
41 , , 254.

3.1

,
, .42
,

.
,

, ()
, . ,
.
, , .
.43
‘’ ‘ ’
. ‘’
,
.
.44
‘ ’ ‘’
.

. (1926) ‘
’ (L’Assujettisement), (L’Assimilation),
(L’Autonomie) .
42 , , 279.
43 , , 282.
, “
” .
‘’
,
.
‘’()
. 1 ,
() ,
. ‘’
‘’
. ‘’ “ ”
,
, “
” .45
1910
.
, , , ,
,
. . “
()” .
,
.46
(1927) ‘ ’
‘ ’, ‘ ’ .
‘ ’ , ,
45 , , 247~250.
46 , , , 1924, 132~137.
58 21
, ‘ ’
.
, ‘’

.47
‘’
.
,
.

.

.48
,
.
.

.
3.

.
47 , , 96.

.
.
1)
“ () 3

() ” 3.1

.49

,
.
, ,
‘’
.

.
,

‘’
.50
, .

, ()
49 , , 9-3, 1919, 85.
50 , , 87~88.
60 21
() ()
. , ,
,

.
() .51
,
‘ ’

. “
,
()
” .52
? 44
(1920. 12. 27.~1921. 3. 26.)
. ‘’,53
‘ ’.54
, ,
51 , , 88~89. 1920 7
, , .
52 , , 91.
53 ‘’ , 1921
10 1934
, . , 1920 : ,
414, 1974; , , , 1983 .
54 1920 42
. 43, 44 , 44
,
. , , :
, , 2006, 2 1 .
61 1920

.
, .

.
,
()
.55
.56
.

,
. , ‘ ’ ‘
’ .
1905 ,
. ‘ ’
,
“, , ”

.
.57
, ‘
’ .
55 , , 202, 204.
56 , , 207.
62 21
.
,
. 1,500 4,000
. ‘ ’

.
, “ ” .58

“ ,
”
.59
.
.
1927 4 .

. 3.1
‘ ’ , ‘ ’
.
.

. “
.
” .
, ,
58 , , 375.
59 , , 376.
.60
.
.
,
,
.61
, , .
,

. 25
, () 5 21 3
,
.
.
,
,
.62
,
.

,
() ,
60 , (), 47-1, 1928, 14~15.
61 , (), 17. 1
2
, .
62 , (), 20~22.
64 21

.64
, .
,
‘’
. ,

,
.
.
,
.65

,
,
“ .
. .”
.
.66
,
.
,
,
63 , (), 47-2, 1928, 129, 132~133.
64 , : () <
>, 118, 2018, 138.
65 , (1927), 1, 729~730.
66 , , 739~740.
65 1920
“ ”
“
” .67

, 1925 “
” .68

.

. 1
1 .
,
() () .

,
.69 ,
(),
,
—


.70
. ,
67 , , 743.
69 , (1926. 2.), 1, 703.
70 , , 721~722.
66 21

.71
2)

.
. ,

.72

“ () ” ,
‘’ .73
, ()

.74

, .

, “
,
” .75

1
() ,
71 , (), 5.
72 , , 96.
74 , , 108.
,
.76 ()
,77 ,
‘’, ‘
’ .78
1920 7
. 12 2
10 5() , (), (), (), ()
,
. , , ,
.
. ,
.
,
. ,
.

.79

. ,
.

.80 1 (
76 , , 108~110.
77 , (), 26-13, 1920. 78 . ,
() : ‘’, 127, 2013 .
79 , , 1-3, 1920, 13, 15.
80 , , 4-4, 1923, 4.
68 21

. ()

.81
‘’
.

, .82
,
,
. “
”
.
“() ”
,
.83
.
56 (1928. 12. 26~1929. 3. 25)
.
“ ,
”
, “ ”
81 , 1920, 11.
82 , (, , 94).
83 , , 41-7, 1925, 143.
69 1920
.84 , , ,


.85
.86

,


.87 (1929)
, , ,

.88 30 “
” ,
, ()
.
‘ ’ “
”
.89
85 , , 86.
86 (), (), ()
,
, (, , , 1973, 79, 86).
87 , , 281~282.
88 , (1929), 2, , 1963, 380.
89 , , 387~388.
70 21
1
3.1
. , ‘’
, ‘’
‘ ’ .
1920

. 1930
‘’ 90
,
.
‘ ’ ‘ ’, ‘ ’
,
.
,
.

, ,
.

91 ,
90 , ‘’ , 28, 2017, 3 .
91 , -, 662, 1994.
71 1920
.
.
“
”
.

.
(Commonwealth)
.
306 21
| · 3.1
3.1 |
, , : ,
, 2006.
, : , , 2015.
, , , 1981 , , 1958.
, , · , ,
, 2010.
, , 2004.
, 2005.
2007.
, , , 2013.
3, , 2005.
1920 : |
, , : ,
, 2006.
, , , 1912.
, , , 1905.
, , 4, , 1969.
, (1929), 2, , 1963.
, , , 1983.
, , , 1990.
, , , 1921.
3.1: ‘’ ‘’()
|
, “ ” (1920~1929), 19, 2018.
, 3.1(I), 2014.
, 3.1(II), 2015.
, , , 1920.
, : , , 2019.
, ·, 92,
, 2005.
, , , 1920.
()1~4( ).
, , 1928.
Jun Uchida, Brokers of Empire: Japanese Settler Colonialism in Korea, 1876~1945, Harvard University
Asia Center, 2011.
, : ,
27, 2010.
, 3.1 , 62, , 2003.
, · (1914.8~1918.6) , 87, 2016.
, 1910~1945, , 1984.
311
| · 3.1
3.1 |
: 2019. 6. 3 | : 2019. 6. 19 | : 2019. 6. 21
1914~1918 1 1919 3.1 .
.
, ,
· ,
‘’ .
‘’
,
. 3.1 .
·
, ··
. ‘’
,
. 3.1 ‘’
. ,
.
1930 .
: 1 , 3.1 , , , ,
1920 : |
: 2019. 5. 19 | : 2019. 6. 9 | : 2019. 7. 1
1 , 3.1
.
, ,
‘ ’ .
1920
.

. ‘ ’, ‘ ’
312 21
, .
,
.
,
, .
: , , , , ,
3.1: ‘’ ‘’()
|
: 2019. 6. 8 | : 2019. 6. 20 | : 2019. 7. 8
, ‘’
3.1 . 3.1 ‘’
.
‘ ’ .
3.1 ‘’ ‘‘
.
. ’‘

. ‘’
. ‘’
.

.
3.1 ‘’
. ‘’ ‘
’ . ‘’
.
3.1
.
() 3.1 |
: 2019. 5. 22 | : 2019. 6. 9 | : 2019. 7. 3
3.1 .

,
. , 3.1
3.1
.
315

Japan, Japanese, and the March First MoveMent the debate on Military Use of colonial Koreans in the Japanese army Before and after the March First Movement | PARK Wan The First World War (1914~18) and the March First Movement (1919) shook the ruling order of Japanese imperialism. With these events as the momentum, Imperial Japan, as well as Japanese Army, sought the reorganization of imperial ruling order.
The Japanese Korean Army (Chosen-gun) was optimistic about the possibility of assimilating colonial Koreans and using them in the military. Therefore, to promote the assimilation of Koreans, the Army insisted that Military Academy should be open to Koreans and Korean volunteer units should be organized. Also, the reinforcement of deployed forces in Korea was requested, partly to accept Koreans into the Army. These stances remained firm in spite of the shock from the March First Movement.
On the other hand, the Ministry of War (Rikugunsho) focused on political, economic, and military legitimacy. For them, the military use of colonial Koreans was the final goal to be realized after assimilating Koreans enough for the conscription law to be enforced in Korea. Also, the March First Movement weakened their optimism about the possibility of such assimilation. As a result, the Ministry of War remained negative to the military use of Koreans until the mid-1930s. • Keywords: the First World War, the March First Movement, the Japanese Army, the Japanese
Korean Army (Chosen-gun), Utsunomiya Taro, Tanaka Giichi
colonial policy theories in colonial policy studies of Japan in the 1920s: colony-oriented policy and autonomy | PARK Yangshin In the wake of the changes in world trends after World War I and the March First Movement in colonial Korea, which was inspired by nationalism, Japan’s colonial policy studies showed a different change from the past. First, with regard to the purpose of colonial occupation, the emphasis on the political and economic interests of the colonial state was changed to stress the importance of the rule considering the interests of the colony. Second, the discussion over the colonial rule, which was not consistent before, came to a consensus in criticizing assimilationism and advocating autonomy of the colony in the 1920s.
This fundamental position of colonial policy theory is reflected in the discussion on Japan’s
Abstract
316 21
colonialism of Chosun and Taiwan. They emphasized the need of policies in consideration of the interests of Chosun and Taiwan, while insisting on stopping assimilationism and employing autonomy as a governance policy. Their interest was naturally directed toward the expansion of the two colonies’ self-governance, but they showed deviations in the extent of self-governance that should be allowed in its implementation. Also with regard to representative institutions, they all acknowledged that the establishment of colonial parliament is more valid than having colonial representatives participate in the Imperial Diet, but they differed in the timing and regional feasibility of the establishment of the Chosun Parliament and the Taiwan Parliament. • Keywords: colonial policy studies, assimilationism, autonomy, Yamamoto Miono, Izumi Akira,
Yanaihara Tadao
the March First Movement and Japanese settlers in colonial Korea
| YEE Donghoon This article examines how Japanese settlers reacted to and perceived the March First Movement. To consider Japanese settlers’ perception towards the March First Movement, the paper analyzes the initial reaction and the fixed perception after time lapse. This study also focuses on Japanese settlers’ consciousness which had been cultivated and shared in the Japanese community.
Just after the March First Movement, most Japanese settlers looked down on and ridiculed the independence movement. They believed that Korean rioters misunderstood the national self-determination principle due to their ignorance about international affairs. Regarding the causes of the incident, they did not consider the cruel military government rule in the 1910s and Japanese settlers’ discriminatory behavior.
For the perception towards the March First Movement, a difference between Japanese in homeland and settlers in colonial Korea is recognized. Contrary to Japanese in homeland, Japanese settlers’ consciousness had been formed by encountering and contacting with the colonized. Therefore, Japanese settlers’ perception on Koreans was exclusive and closed towards Korean society. On the basis of this chauvinism, Japanese settlers insisted on imposing strong measures against Koreans after the March First Movement. • Keywords: the March First Movement, Japanese settler, colonizer, settler colonialism
the March First Movement in the Kokumin shinbun | PARK Eun-Young The March First Movement was an event that aroused the attention of the Japanese media community, which had been indifferent to Chosun for a long time. Most of the newspapers at that time were dragged into the situation by reporting the announcements of the government and the military, or posting editorials of the same purpose. Instead of conveying the reality of Chosun enough, the articles of exciting titles decorated the pages. This article focuses on the media characteristics that were not of interest in previous studies and examines
2. 1
2. 2
2. 3
2. 4