【摘要】：賴肖爾(Edwin O.Reischauer)生于1910年的日本,是美國著名的歷史學家、外交家,是美國著名的“日本通”,曾擔任美國駐日大使。賴肖爾對日本社會有著很深的觀察和研究,并形成了自己的理論觀點----日本現(xiàn)代化論。該理論以戰(zhàn)后美日同盟為背景,主張肯定日本的近代,認為日本在近代通過明治維新改革,在東方率先實現(xiàn)了現(xiàn)代化和民族獨立。井上清(Inoue Kiyoshi)生于1913年,是日本著名的馬克思主義歷史學家,曾擔任京都大學日本歷史研究室主任。井上清的近代日本觀以戰(zhàn)后日本學界對戰(zhàn)爭的反思為背景,主張對日本近代的侵略戰(zhàn)爭和帝國主義進行徹底反省,軍國主義在日本的滋生土壤必須得到肅清,天皇應(yīng)當承擔戰(zhàn)爭的責任,主張以批判的視角去審視日本的近代歷史。由于二人不同的成長經(jīng)歷和身份,秉承著不同的歷史觀,在不同的時代背景下,二人對日本近代歷史的認識存在著很大的不同。賴肖爾肯定日本的近代,而井上清則對此持批判態(tài)度。以往的研究多側(cè)重于賴肖爾作為美國駐日大使的政治生涯和井上清作為日本左翼馬克思主義學者對日本軍國主義和釣魚島歸屬問題的研究。二人雖然同作為日本研究的著名學者,又出生于同一年代,但學界之前沒有將二人不同的近代日本觀進行過比較。本文將對二人對天皇制、明治維新、侵華戰(zhàn)爭、整體近代日本觀的觀點進行比較。通過對比將會為我們的日本研究提供更多的視角,幫助我們?nèi)妗⒍嘟嵌鹊厝タ创@段日本歷史上的特殊時期,促進日本研究的向前推進。第一章分為兩個部分。第一部分首先介紹了賴肖爾日本和美國的雙重教育背景和賴肖爾回到美國哈佛大學任教后參與美國外交活動的經(jīng)歷,其次介紹了賴肖爾的著作情況。第二部分首先介紹了井上清在京都大學的學術(shù)生涯及其與中國的友好往來,其次介紹了井上清的著作情況。第二章中本文運用了中文、英文、日文資料,將二人對天皇制、明治維新、侵華戰(zhàn)爭、整體近代日本觀的觀點進行分析和對比,闡述二人觀點的不同之處。第三章分析二人不同的近代日本觀的形成原因,并對二人不同的近代日本觀做出評價。結(jié)語部分總結(jié)了二人不同的近代日本觀,指出了本文的研究意義,即為我們多層次、多角度地分析日本近代這一日本歷史上的特殊時期提供不同的研究視角,幫助我們?nèi)娣治鋈毡镜慕鷼v史。
[Abstract]:Reischauer (Edwin O.Reischauer), born in 1910 in Japan, is a famous American historian, diplomat and famous American "Japan Tong", who served as American ambassador to Japan. Reischauer observed and studied Japanese society deeply and formed his own theory of Japanese modernization. The theory is based on the postwar alliance between the United States and Japan, which advocates the affirmation of Japan's modern times, and holds that Japan, through the Meiji Restoration Reform in modern times, took the lead in realizing modernization and national independence in the East. Born in 1913, Inoue Kiyoshi (Inoue Kiyoshi) is Japan's leading Marxist historian and former director of the Japanese History Research Department at Kyoto University. Inoue Kiyoshi's modern view of Japan is based on the reflection of the Japanese academic circles on the war after the war, and advocates a thorough introspection of the aggressive war and imperialism in modern Japan, and the breeding ground of militarism in Japan must be eliminated. The emperor should bear the responsibility of war and advocate a critical view of Japan's modern history. Due to their different growth experiences and identities, they hold different views on history. Under different historical background, they have very different understanding of Japanese modern history. Reischauer affirmed Japan's modern times, and Inoue Kiyoshi was critical of it. Previous studies have focused on Reischauer's political career as American ambassador to Japan and Inoue Kiyoshi's research on Japanese militarism and the ownership of Diaoyu Islands as Japanese left-wing Marxist scholars. Although they were both famous scholars in Japanese studies and were born in the same time, they had not been compared with their different views of modern Japan before. This paper compares the views of the two against the imperial system, the Meiji Restoration, the War of aggression against China and the overall view of modern Japan. The comparison will provide more perspective for our Japanese study, help us to look at this special period in Japanese history comprehensively and from many angles, and promote the advancement of Japanese research. The first chapter is divided into two parts. The first part introduces the dual educational background of Reischauer in Japan and the United States, and the experience of Reischauer's participation in American diplomatic activities after he returned to Harvard University to teach in the United States, and then introduces the works of Reischauer. The second part introduces Inoue Kiyoshi's academic career in Kyoto University and his friendship with China, and then introduces Inoue Kiyoshi's works. In the second chapter, using Chinese, English and Japanese materials, the author analyzes and compares the views of the two people on the imperial system, the Meiji Restoration, the War of invasion of China and the whole modern Japanese view, and expounds the differences between the two people's views. The third chapter analyzes the formation reasons of their different views on modern Japan, and makes an evaluation of their different views of modern Japan. The conclusion summarizes the two people's different views on modern Japan and points out the significance of this paper, that is, to provide different perspectives for us to analyze this special period in modern Japanese history. To help us analyze Japan's modern history in a comprehensive way.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：K313.4

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 井上清;;日本歷史學家井上清的信[J];新文學史料;1982年03期

2 黎報;日本井上清教授來我院作學術(shù)報告[J];天津師院學報;1980年03期

3 俞辛q;日本的進步史學家——井上清教授[J];世界歷史;1979年02期

4 ;日本著名歷史學家井上清教授應(yīng)邀到我校講學[J];延邊大學學報(哲學社會科學版);1980年03期

5 管寧;光勝;;日本井上清教授來南開大學講學[J];歷史教學;1980年05期

6 曉鳴;日本著名歷史學家井上清在呼和浩特作學術(shù)報告[J];內(nèi)蒙古社會科學;1984年03期

7 孫志民;日本著名歷史學家井上清先生來校講學[J];復(fù)旦學報(社會科學版);1984年03期

8 本刊編輯部;日本著名學者井上清先生談釣魚島歷史及主權(quán)歸屬問題[J];民國檔案;1997年03期

9 周崢嶸;;《井上清:釣魚列島屬于中國》一文廣受關(guān)注[J];世紀;2012年06期

10 黃穎;;辨析原田禹雄對冊封使錄中釣魚島問題的誤區(qū)[J];福建教育學院學報;2013年06期

相關(guān)會議論文 前2條

1 傅波;;想到了井上清教授——他說:“釣魚島是中國的”[A];中國中日關(guān)系史研究·2012年第4期（總第109期）[C];2012年

2 陳平平;;論井上清對琉球問題的研究與琉球問題再議——紀念井上清誕辰100周年之二[A];鄭和研究2013年第3期[C];2013年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前4條

1 記者 杲文川;“井上清文庫”在近代史所建成[N];中國社會科學院院報;2004年

2 熊志強;來自日本國內(nèi)的正義之聲[N];中國國土資源報;2012年

3 記者 王大軍;日著名史學家井上清逝世[N];人民日報;2001年

4 上海社科院國際關(guān)系研究所世界史專業(yè)研究生 劉夏妮;井上清：日本史學界的正義之聲[N];解放日報;2013年

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前1條

1 馮春雨;賴肖爾與井上清的近代日本觀之比較[D];吉林大學;2017年

，

本文編號：2189192