In 2020's History2 Textbook, Review of the ‘Development of the Age of North and South Korea’ Section

This paper reviewed the text description of Chapter II of the "Development of the Age of the North and South Korea" of the Middle School History 2 textbook developed in accordance with the 2015 revised curriculum and currently used in middle schools. First, the differences were confirmed by comparing the 2009 revised curriculum and the 2015 revised curriculum, and problems and improvement directions were presented by comparing the system and quantity of unit composition for each textbook. Then, according to the order of description in the textbook, review the text description of the textbook by dividing it into ① statements that are subject to errors and misunderstandings in historical facts, ② statements that do not reflect academic research results and are controversial in terms of theories, and ③ statements that need improvement. pointed out and suggested improvements. As a result of the review, there were several problems and improvements. The important ones are as follows. First, when comparing the 2009 revised curriculum with the 2015 revised curriculum, it was analyzed that there was no significant difference in the amount of student learning. There was no significant difference in the description system or volume of each textbook. ① As for the narratives that may have errors or misunderstanding of historical facts, first, the international situation in Northeast Asia from the end of the 6th to the 7th century was characterized by the confrontation between the north and south powers of Goguryeo, Baekje, Wa, and Dolgwol, and the east and west powers of Silla and Sui and Tang. It is wrong to describe. Second, it is an error to describe the process of forming an alliance between Silla and the Tang as if Silla took the lead. Third, it is an error to say that the ruling class was divided due to frequent wars of conquest as the cause of Baekje''s fall. Fourth, the description of the inhabitants of Balhae as composed of ‘Goguryeo people’ and ‘Malgal people’ is highly likely to be misunderstood in many ways. It should be stated first that Goguryeo is a country made up of several races, and the expression ‘Goguryeo people’ includes various races, so it needs to be corrected. ② As for the narratives that do not reflect the research achievements of Korean ancient history academia or have the potential to be controversial in theory, the first is that the Cheonri Wall, which is said to have been built by Goguryeo in preparation for the invasion of the Tang Dynasty, is controversial. Second, the nationalistic description of the outcome of the war between Goguryeo and Sui-Tang should be revised. Third, it is an error to describe the territory at the time of the unification of the three kingdoms of Silla as a line connecting the Daedong River and Wonsan Bay. At that time, it even occupied the Imjin River basin, and it was only after 735 that it advanced to the Daedong River. Fourth, the statement that Kim Chun-chu was born in Jingol and became the first king does not reflect the research achievements of academia. Fifth, the statement that the role of the opposing party and the painters'' meeting in Silla''s politics after unification has weakened is different from the research results of academic circles and therefore needs to be revised. ③ As for other descriptions that need improvement, first, Kim Chun-chu''s diplomatic negotiation target is often described as Yeon Gaesomun. Second, in the Baekje revival movement, there are cases where the Buyeo style is not described, but it is necessary to describe it because it is a person who has been appointed as king. Third, since Balhae moved the capital several times, the fact should be indicated. Fourth, it is necessary to correct the part that may lead to misunderstandings in the descriptions of ''Dogseosampoomgwa'' and the ''Bingonggwa''.