The biggest task of Korean History in the late 20th century was to overcome the colonialism. There would be no objection to point out Ki-baik Lee as the historian who made the greatest contribution to perform the task. Lee’s positivism has two objectives: First, to establish a scientific scheme for Korean historiography that can overcome the colonialism. Second, to present the alternative to the nationalism, which studies history for the nation rather than studying the nation for the study of history. He can be called Ranke of Korean History in terms that he pursued truth-suprematism rather than nation-suprematism. However, should the study of Korean history in the 21th century still stay within the paradigm of positivism? I insist that we should overcome Lee’s positivism, relying on two observations. First of all, positivist approach cannot resolve the national and international disputes on history. The point at issue in the disputes on history is how and by whom the past is remembered and described. Then, the premise of positivism that the history should be identical to the past cannot be valid anymore. Secondly, Lee failed to position Korean history within the larger East Asian history by accusing the emphasis of the geographical condition of Korea as a peninsula to be the result of the colonialism. In the international era of the 21th century, Korean history should break away from the perspective of the “national History”, and should seek after a new paradigm in which Korean history can be placed within the larger East Asian history. Therefore, I insist that the Korean historians in the 21th century should put more effort to overcome the great historian, Ki-baik Lee, in order to look at Korean history from a different perspective than Lee’s positivism.

The biggest task of Korean History in the late 20th century was to overcome the colonialism. There would be no objection to point out Ki-baik Lee as the historian who made the greatest contribution to perform the task. Lee’s positivism has two objectives: First, to establish a scientific scheme for Korean historiography that can overcome the colonialism. Second, to present the alternative to the nationalism, which studies history for the nation rather than studying the nation for the study of history. He can be called Ranke of Korean History in terms that he pursued truth-suprematism rather than nation-suprematism. However, should the study of Korean history in the 21th century still stay within the paradigm of positivism? I insist that we should overcome Lee’s positivism, relying on two observations. First of all, positivist approach cannot resolve the national and international disputes on history. The point at issue in the disputes on history is how and by whom the past is remembered and described. Then, the premise of positivism that the history should be identical to the past cannot be valid anymore. Secondly, Lee failed to position Korean history within the larger East Asian history by accusing the emphasis of the geographical condition of Korea as a peninsula to be the result of the colonialism. In the international era of the 21th century, Korean history should break away from the perspective of the “national History”, and should seek after a new paradigm in which Korean history can be placed within the larger East Asian history. Therefore, I insist that the Korean historians in the 21th century should put more effort to overcome the great historian, Ki-baik Lee, in order to look at Korean history from a different perspective than Lee’s positivism.

Ki-baik Lee, positivism, nationalistic History, colonialism, truth- suprematism