The Development and Reflection of the Discourse on Countering “Historical Negationism” - The Refraction froｍ Critiquing Anti-Japan Tribalism to Asserting National Legitimacy -

This study analyzes the development and refraction of the discourse on countering-“historical negationism” in the Korean historical academic community since the publication of Anti-Japan Tribalism. While previous studies primarily focused on refuting the claims of historical negationists, this research examines how the concept of “historical negationism” was defined, mobilized, and reconstructed across academic, educational, and political-public spheres. The analysis reveals that initially, historians concentrated on categorizing “anti-Japan tribalism” thesis as “historical negationism” and “maintaining critical distance” through scholarly refutation. In contrast, history teachers and education researchers recognized it as an educational challenge and sought to establish it as a domain of history education through independent conceptualization and pedagogical practice. This demonstrates fundamentally different strategies between the two groups. As the discourse entered the political arena—particularly during legislative debates on penalizing historical distortion and in responses to the Yoon Suk-yeol administration’s historical policies—it underwent significant refraction. The core justification for countering “historical negationism” veered from the protection of universal human rights toward the defense of national legitimacy, refracted through the force field of nationalism. By tracing this trajectory, this study identifies the inherent limitations of the academic community’s response, resulting in an inertial reproduction of the binary nationalist framework from past “history wars.” It emphasizes that countering “historical negationism” must not be confined to defending national orthodoxy, and explores tasks including interdisciplinary analysis and responses to “history negationism,” as well as international comparative studies on measures to counter “historical negationism.” Ultimately, the discourse must be reconstructed on the basis of universal human rights and critical historical awareness.