关于韩国的历史教科书

前段时间我在很多论坛上看到有关韩国历史教科书的帖子。

http://cn.bbs.yahoo.com/message/read_funny_741345.html
http://bbs.military.china.com/jsp/pub/staticFile/htmls/2006/10/1011/5893993_page0.html http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/read.php?tid=81274
http://military.club.china.com/jsp/pub/staticFile/htmls/2006/12/1011/6848404_page0.html http://free.21cn.com/forum/bbsMessageList.act?currentPage=1&bbsThreadId=1528356
http://bbs.wenxin8.com/read.php?tid=87621
http://bbs.military.china.com/jsp/pub/staticFile/htmls/2006/10/1011/5893993_page0.html http://bbs6.news.163.com/board/rep2.jsp?b=zhongri&i=982873

这些帖子大多数都用了一些相同的扫描图,象下面这一幅。(在这里看更多的图)

1dfc9d6d1e36a9e6ba105e0c0ae4c175

我们伟大唐朝的领土在这副所谓韩国的历史教科书里被挤到西南的一角。这激起国人无限的爱国热情,对如此“无耻”的韩国当然就没有什么好话了。

姑且不论历史遗留下来的问题,这些图到底是不是真正的韩国教科书?

我就此问了一个韩国人朋友,得到了一个否定的答案。

看来是有人搅浑水。

我不懂韩文,只好用英文发了这一篇Are these from the real Korean textbook?,问一下到底这些图是怎么回事。

关注韩国的英文网站The Marmot’s Hole作出回应R. Elgin写道,

…pretty much the same accusation that is commonly made about the Chinese Government and their attempts to reinterpret or revise historical fact to suit their own political purposes.

(这些中国人对韩国人的指控)跟韩国人对中国政府的指控很相像。韩国人指责中国政府为了他们的政治利益而篡改历史事实。

I wonder just where this sort of nonsense is going to go since it is undoubtedly indirectly sponsored by the Chinese Government or, rather I wonder if there is going to be a Chinese Dokdo in the future.

显然这是由中国政府背后支持的。我想知道这种荒唐的东西会走多远,我更想知道将来会不会出现一个中国“独岛”问题。

The Marmot在little bridge上的留言回答得更详细,

There are historians in Korea that make claims such as these—one of the books is by the former vice-chancelor of Daejeon National University, while the others are by historian Oh Jae-seong—but such claims are not widely accepted within the Korean historical community (as the Korean consulate in Shanghai explained when those maps first became news in China in May of last year). In fact, Koreans are much more concerned with what many consider to be creative map-making in Chinese textbooks (both in the PRC and the ROC)—see here and here.

确实有些韩国的历史学家是这么认为的。这其中有一本书是大田国立大学的前副校长写的,另外的书是历史学家Oh Jae-seong写的。但是他们的观点并没为韩国其他历史学家所广泛接受(正如韩国驻上海的领事在去年5月份这些图首先被新闻报道的时候,他所解释的那样。)事实上,韩国人对中国人(包括共和国和民国)在历史书上的创意更为关心,请看这里这里

Winne这么回应,

The above books are not Korean textbooks. If it’s an official textbook, it has the title “교과서”.
Anyway, it is sure to be eccentric people, including Koreans. I’m Korean and don’t know the territory images.

以上几本书并不是韩国教科书。正式的教科书上有“교과서”这个标题。

无论如何,这肯定是一些怪人(做的),包括韩国人。我是韩国人,我并没有看过那些地图。

来自莫斯科的Dr. Lankov回应说,

The map is from a book published by some marginal extremist group of ultra-nationalist amateur historians. Very few people in Korea (and nearly nobody in the professional community) would consider their wild claims seriously. Needless to say, nothing like it is to be found in Korean textbooks. There are some nationalist distortions in the textbooks, but on much, much smaller scale.

这些地图是由少数极端民族主义业余历史学家制作的。在韩国很少人(在学术圈里基本上没有)会把他们那些疯狂观点当回事。不用说,在韩国教科书里是找不到这些图的。在他们的教科书里会有些民族性的偏差,但远远没那么严重。

来自美国的Sonagi先生在韩国住了很多年,后来又迁居青岛4年。Sonagi先生掌握英文,中文和韩文。他帮忙找出很多有价值的资料。

The second image, a book with a yellow cover, is of a book published in 2002 by a retired history professor. The poor-quality color maps (notice that the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido seems to be missing) may have been created by the author, Professor Lim. All of the other black-and-white images http://bbs.news.163.com/mil/968958,52.html ) circulating around Chinese websites are from several books or maps published by the same author, historian Oh Jaesung. The materials were published many years ago, not recently, and one of the images looks doctored.

They are NOT textbooks and the maps and views of history published in these books is scoffed at by mainstream historians …

(上面)第二幅图,就是黄色封面的那本书是由一个退休教授在2002年出版的。

ac25031088efd76c5f24f9a6ded67b8d

那些质量不好的彩图大概是那个作者,Lim教授制作的(请注意上面好像没有日本北部的Hokkaido岛)。其它在中国网上流传的黑白图片是出自同一历史学家Oh Jaesung出版的不同的几本书或地图册。

0afe74b0bf104c91114caa8474cc12ab

这些都是很多年前印的材料了,不是最近出版的。其中有一幅图看起来被人修改过。

那些都不是韩国教科书。韩国主流历史学家很鄙视那些地图和相应的观点…

热心的Sonagi还把他收集的真正的韩国历史教科书扫描并上传到网上,

这是由韩国教育部批准的2002年版高中历史课本里的一幅历史地图

同一本课本中唐代的东北和朝鲜半岛的地图

1952年版的韩国课本中的历史地图。

 

到此为止,我们可以确认那些不是韩国的历史教科书。

韩流在中国到处吹,但很多中国人对韩国还是很不了解。有人利用这点制造网上事端。我不大相信这是中国政府或是日本政府的阴谋,我更倾向于相信这是有的人为了吸引眼球而无事生非。

教科书的真伪问题解决了,但Won Joon Choe先生在讨论中提出了一个很让人深思的问题,

Dr. Lankov and Sonagi,

As a Korean citizen who is unusually attached to his patria in this rootless age of ours, I appreciate that you two are doing a yeoman’s work in defending the sanity of the contemporary Korean historical consciousness. Nor am I surprised by your attempt to inject some perspective here, for you two are both among the most balanced and rational commenters in the Korean Blogsophere–where rationality is often an orphan. But I cannot in good conscience agree with the seeming thrust of your message.

Namely, I object to your seeming effort to simply dismiss these outrageous Korean historical claims on China as rantings of a lunatic fringe. There is a point at which a well-meaning defense transmogrifies into an unreflective apology that refuses to believe that Rome is indeed burning. May I be as bold as to even say, to reverse Burke’s elegant formula, sometimes our helper is our adversary? For instance, speaking from my own intellectual background in political philosophy, the one-sided apology of Nietzsche as purely an aesthete to counter the fascist accusations by Walter Kauffman (or the attempt to portray Leo Strauss as an ordinary “liberal” rather than the father of neoconservatism by his legion of defenders) have distorted Nietzsche as much as corrected pernicious misperceptions of him.

(Won Joon Choe先生在上面两段文字里说,Dr. Lankov和Sonagi是韩语博客圈里少数理性的人。他理解他们的好意,但他们把那几个韩国历史学家的观点评论为极端分子的狂嚎(rantings of a lunatic fringe),并对他们不屑一顾,这却有可能不利于大家对问题的理解。)

And likewise, the fact of the matter is this: There is a serious disconnect between the South Korean public historical consciousness and what most impartial scholars posit as Korean history. Moreover, much of that disconnect does involve the size and power of ancient Korean kingdoms of Gojoseon or Koguryo. While it is true that no textbook (as far as I know) claim that the Chinese heartland used to be Korean, such a belief is ubiquitous in the popular culture. I have certainly encountered numerous Korean students living abroad who believe it and blame Chinese chroniclers and their Korean sycophants for distorting the true Korean history.

同样,事实是:南韩公众的历史认识与大多数公正的历史学家所认为的韩国历史有很大的差异。而且,这些差异很多都跟古代韩国高句丽的大小与影响有关。在韩国确实没有课本(至少按照我的认识)把中国中原地带划为以前韩国的领土,但这种观点在韩国的大众文化里却普遍存在。我就遇到无数的住在国外的韩国学生相信这种观点。这些韩国学生指责中国历史学家和韩奸们歪曲了真正韩国的历史。

In fact, as I have written elsewhere, such a view is the standard view among Korean television historical dramas. In “Yeon Gaesomun,” perhaps the most anticipated and costliest Korean historical drama of all-time, it is explicitly said that China was Korean land in the time of Gojoseon. And in the context of the drama, this is advanced as a historical fact, not fiction. Likewise, in an upcoming drama about Dangun, the putative mythic founder of Gojoseon, Dangun’s territory supposedly spanned from Tibet to Sakhalin. And online Korean historical fora are absolutely replete with a similar historical understanding.

事实上,就如我在其它地方提到过的那样,在韩国历史电视剧里这种观点是主流。在也许是有史以来最受瞩目和最昂贵的韩国历史电视剧《渊盖苏文》里就明明白白地说中国在高句丽时期是韩国的领地。在整个电视剧的剧情都把这件事是当作历史事实,而不是一个虚构的请节。同样,在即将播出的有关檀君的电视剧里,檀君就大约拥有跨越从西藏到库页岛的疆土。(檀君是传说中高句丽神秘的开国国君)。在韩国网上的历史论坛里到处都充斥着类似的历史观点。

So we do have a serious problem in the South Korean historical consciousness or imagination. And we don’t need Hegel nor Kojeve to tell us that, at least in East Asia, history often commingles with reality to produce an ugly brew between nations. So I propose that we talk about addressing this problem rather than intoning that it doesn’t exist.

因此,在我们的南韩历史观有一个严重的问题。至少在东亚,用不着黑格尔(Hegel)或科耶夫(Kojeve)提醒我们就可以知道,历史总是和现实纠缠在一起酿成各国的苦酒。就此我提议我们来聊聊这个问题,而不是一路高歌,装着问题不存在。

 

Won Joon Choe先生这一大篇文字很有“众人皆醉我独醒”的味道。我很佩服他的清醒与深刻。

现代科技发达,我们很容易就能接触到不同的信息。有些问题只要我们稍加分析就不难分辨出是事实还是谎言,就像这次我发现有人把几本韩国书放在网上冒充韩国教科书来挑起事端一样。

但是世界上很多的事情并不会因为科技发展而变得简单。同很多其他的中国人一样,无论以前接触到的是事实还是谎言,对于中国的感情已经深深地扎在心里。我不能免俗,受到一点点刺激就会热血沸腾,这时候任何的冷静分析都无济于事,因为心中已有答案:谁不希望自己的祖国好呢?

争执是难以避免。这时候存着一份开放的心而进行沟通就显得弥足珍贵,而且很多时候是必不可少的了。

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *