The Chinese government took the unusual step of deleting all accounts of Korean history prior to the establishment of the Republic of Korea on August 15, 1948 on the website of the Chinese Foreign Ministry on Thursday, prompting extreme dismay on the part of the Korean government. But first, some background for those who haven’t been following this saga. Up until April, the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s website had a rather full description of Korean history, including the following line:
After the 1st century AD, the whole of the Korean Peninsula was composed of three nations — Shilla, Baekje and Koguryo.
In May, however, “Koguryo” magically disappeared from the sentence, no doubt part of the PRC’s nefarious schemes (check out the comment sections in some of those earlier posts) to claim the ancient kingdom as their own. Crafty, but nobody pulls a fast one on Korea’s Internet users, who are nothing if not diligent in monitoring how foreign websites depict Korea.
Anyway, at this point, the Korean government, which had been taking a rather low-key approach to what appeared to many as a concerted effort by Beijing to distort Korean history for later political use, decided that perhaps something a little stronger was required. Last month, the Korean ambassador to China expressed his regret over the Koguryo deletion and demanded China take measures to correct the problem. When those inscrutable Chinese replied that returning Koguryo to the website’s section on Korean history might be difficult, Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Young-jin called in Chinese ambassador to Korea Li Bin (who, judging from some of the stuff that has been written about him in recent months, appears to be a real prick) and demanded that his government take serious measures to rectify the situation — Beijing was given to the end of July to put Koguryo back in its rightful spot on the Foreign Ministry homepage. At the time, Ambassador Li is said to have responded that the Chinese government would consider “wise plans” so that the issue wouldn’t have a negative influence on Sino-Korean relations.
Well, on Monday, China informed Korea — through diplomatic channels — of those wise plans. On the Foreign Ministry homepage, Korean history up until the foundation of the ROK in 1948 would be deleted, leaving only modern Korean history on the website. To be fair, perhaps, it would also erase pre-WW II Japanese history and the pre-modern history of that other Korea. On Thursday, 5,000 years of Korean history — save for the last 56 of them — disappeared from the website of the Foreign Ministry of the People’s Republic of China in a puff of cyber-smoke.
Needless to say, Seoul was not amused, and Foreign Ministry Asia-Pacific desk chief Park Joon-woo flew to Beijing on Thursday to give high-ranking Chinese officials a piece of his mind. Said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Shin Bong-gil:
The government is pressing that immediate measures to stop distortions of Goguryo history be taken by the Chinese government in the spirit of good neighborliness and friendship, as Goguryo history is the root of our people and a grave matter connected to our identity. We will closely scrutinize the attitude of the Chinese government with deep interest.
As CBS points out, the deletion of the pre-1948 Korean history was a stop-gap measure that did nothing to address the real issue — whether or not Koguryo history is Korean history or not. CBS also pointed out why China might be pressing this issue as much as it is — as a nation somewhat sensitive about its ethnic minorities, Beijing might fear that in the post-reunification era, control issues might develop with the ethnic Koreans who reside in the three Chinese provinces that make up Manchuria. It doesn’t help, as we shall soon see, that some Korean organizations and academics are seemingly bent on fueling those fears with their big mouths.
The Hanguk Ilbo ran some reactions from interested civic groups, some of which are, in my humble opinion, extraordinarily unhelpful. Myeongji University professor Yun Chang-hyeon, secretary general of the right-wing Citizens United for a Better Society, said, “We can see China’s intention to prevent the formation of a ‘Korean belt’ connecting Manchuria, North Korea and South Korea… China is revealing its imperialist intentions through its arrogant attitude in its relations with surrounding countries.” As a right-winger somewhat distrustful of Chinese intentions, I applaud the attitude, and sure, China’s one of the last countries on the planet that should bitch about nations making irredentist territorial claims. That being said, I’m not sure if having the secretary general of a Korean right-wing organization that happens to be one of the few civic groups spoken of positively by the Chosun Ilbo talk about any sort of “belt” involving Manchuria is such a smart idea. For denser readers, let me put this in simpler terms: Japanese collaborators+talk of Manchuria=Beijing going ape shit. Surely, you see the problem. Unfortunately, I’ve heard irredentist claims being expressed by professors before. Korea University Korean history professor Choe Gwang-shik issued a smarter warning, “Hasn’t China now revealed its intention to not only not recognize Koguryo history, but also not recognize Joseon, Koryo, Shilla, Baekje and the rest of our people’s history?” I thought the same thing, because regardless of whether Koguryo was “Korean” or not, it sure as hell wasn’t Chinese, and if Beijing thinks it can lay a claim on Koguryo, it could probably do so just as easily with any Korean kingdom up to the first Sino-Japanese War.
The piece also pointed out that some civic groups were concerned that China was using a double-sided strategy of playing diplomatic nice guy while at the same time “plundering” Korea culturally and historically. Lee Seong-min, head of the civic group History World (which goes by the much cooler Korean name of Citizen Solidarity for Knowing Our History Correctly), blamed timid government policies for allowing the issue to get as bad as it had. He said there was no room for compromise here, and called on the government to reject any Chinese “gestures” that don’t address the real problem. He also called for — you guessed it — a cyber-demonstration condemning the Chinese government for its historical distortions.
UPDATE: The Oranckay points out that if nothing else, this incident might wake Koreans up about China. He also indicates that Korea’s past military dictators share some of the blame for the unrealistically rosy views of China held by many Koreans.
Sphere: Related Content
35 Comments
For the record, 5,000 years of history is not only BS, but a display of bad math skills. Tangun is said to be born in -2333, which implies that at best we’re talking about 4337 years, AND believe that crap about animals shagging and giving birth to a human…
Alright so what are we looking at from the Chinese here? What is their motive? I harbor enough distrust of the Chinese to know it isn’t good but at the same time I don’t want my own feelings about them to cloud my judgement of other possibilites. From all I read I sincerely believe we’re going to see interesting moves out of China in the years leading up to the 2008 Olympics and then who knows what after. I’m just wondering if these are the small stones before an avalanche or not…
Perhaps we should see this latest episode as a way for the PRC to bolster its “historical” claim to Taiwan. How can Beijing expect to pull Taiwan back into its ample bosom if it were to let Tibet and Koguryo off the hook? China’s peculiar take on regional history comes apart at the seams if you start picking at its claim to succession that it inherited everything from the Qing dynasty, which inherited it from the Ming, and so on. I agree it may have something to do with the prospect of Korean unification, but for the time being Beijing’s main focus is to put the screws on anything that may be used against its claims to Taiwan.
China’s motive? I’d guess they’re positioning themselves for a land grab…in the case of the North’s collapse, you might see the Chinese People’s Army move into NK to “restore order” and subsequently refuse to leave the north provinces of Korea declaring them China’s. Presto! A port on the east sea! Potential airbases closer to Japan! And, a bigger China!
Whenever China’s started talking about historical land claims, a land grab hasn’t been too many years behind (except in the case of Taiwan, and they may one day try that yet). I thought this was nothing at first, but lately I’ve come to the opinion that Koreans should be very, very nervous about this.
“regardless of whether Koguryo was ?€œKorean?€? or not, it sure as hell wasn?€™t Chinese, and if Beijing thinks it can lay a claim on Koguryo, it could probably do so just as easily with any Korean kingdom up to the first Sino-Japanese War. ”
This isn’t really the issue though is it?
China has never said that Koguryo was “Chinese” in the same way that the Koreans claim it was “Korean”.
China has simply restated it’s Tibetan position, inserting the word “Koguryo” in every instance where you would expect to read “Tibet”. In that I mean, Tibet was never “Chinese” either, and the Chinese have never claimed it to be.
What they claim rather [and this is an important distinction] is that Tibet–and Koguryo–were “traditonally” or “historically” states that fell under Chinese influence so heavily that they are part of the history of the growth, development, and evolution of China. Tha claim is not, and never has been, that these foreign states were Chinese. And that’s what has the Korean people so confused.
The Koreans look at this as though China was trying to say that Koguryo people, rulers, whatever were actually Chinese. Not only is it factually incorrect, but it’s not even what China is claiming.
The real debate is how heavy Chinese influence over Koguryo was historically, not whether or not that influence existed at all.
In Tibet, Chinese influence was probably not enough, at least until Ch’ing times, to justify the events of 1959. In Koguryo’s case however, the evidence is clear that Koguryo, although independent in the same sense Shilla, Paekjae and later Koryo and Chosun were independent, was inextricably intertwined with China in every imaginable way, and for most of its history was a very subservient vassal state. Far more closely linked to China than later states on the peninsula.
Korea looks to Ulchi Mundok [whose name is derived from old Mongol, by the way. Hmmm.] and Kwang-gae-to, and thinks that Koguryo was therefore completely free and independent of all Chinese influence for 600 years. This is just not the case, as any Korean scholar could learn for himszelf if he only read history. but modern politics are too far tied up in this issue now for any Koreans to look at what they view as their cultural heritage with a critical eye.
China’s claim to Koguryo as an important part of it’s own history is at least as valid as Korea’s.
Kim Young Sam raises valid points although I think he takes the argument a bit too far. Whereas Korea sees Koguryo et al as the wellspring of its national history, China — with its long and strong Han ethnocentricity - would seem to view Koguryo as part of an inferior periphery. It would be great if this were merely a scholarly issue, but the PRC today is an imperialist power making up for lost time. For some Chinese, all lands conquered and briefly held by Genghis Khan are rightfully China’s. Although Beijing has made tactical retreats for diplomatic reasons, Chinese entertain sweeping claims on the former Soviet ’stans on the PRC border. China has bucked the post-war international decolonisation trend by being one of few states to acquire colonies. (Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Macao) In 2001, I heard a senior Chinese diplomat over dinner express shock when the Westerners in his presence rejected his declaration that “Kyrgyzstan is actually a traditional part of Chinese territory”. I think it was Henry Kissinger who counselled that the U.S. should not needless provoke China or force China’s neighbours to take sides, because if Beijing’s behaviour is egregious enough, a natural coalition from Moscow to Manila to Mumbai will rise to counter it. Oranckay today argues that China’s slap to South Korea on Koguryo might serve to wake the Koreans out of their willful Dream of the Red China. We must also ask here what it will take to disabuse the French-led EU of the notion that restarting Western weapons sales to the PRC is a good thing.
I’m being really dense here, but would someone please explain to me why a Chinese ministry webpage would BOTHER to have Korean history at all?
dda-
“Tangun is said to be born in -2333, which implies that at best we?€™re talking about 4337 years, AND believe that crap about animals shagging and giving birth to a human?€?”
To be more exact, 2004+2333-1 = 4336 years. Subtract 1 since there is only one year’s difference between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. (not -1 and +1, because there’s no year 0!) In that respect, the Gregorian calendar ain’t too mathematically logical in the Euclidean sense either
I think the historical existence of Tangun (or whomever he represents) can be separated from the myth attached to him according to how you interpret and corroborate the ??¼???œ????.
I think the historical existence of Tangun (or whomever he represents) can be separated from the myth attached to him according to how you interpret and corroborate the ??¼???œ????.
Wow. That’s a huge claim. Care to explain?
Historical evidence of Tangun?
Kinda like the Greeks looking for historical evidence of “the real Zeus”, doncha think?
After the 1st century AD, the whole of the Korean Peninsula was composed of three nations ?€“ Shilla, Baekje and Koguryo.
Ah yes, but…
They weren’t three KOREAN nations, only three nations. There is no dispute about the actual number, only their identity.
And where’s Kaya in this equation?
Shouldn’t it be FOUR nations?
Oh, but that’s hush-hush, isn’t it? Because KAYA WAS A FRIGGIN JAPANESE COLONY ON KOREAN SOIL.
When will the Korean [cough] “scholars” [cough] learn they can’t have it both ways?
joeblow -
Interpreting ??¨??° in a historical context? Not such a stupendous idea as you may think, my friend. I would like to be able to lay it out to you, but there are tons of websites that could do a far better job than I could. Just go to http://www.naver.com, type “??¨??°”, and start reading.
randalltim -
ditto for “?°€??¼”. “??œ????? ??™????“¤”??´ ??´????²Œ ????°??????”?§€ ?·¸??‡?²Œ ?¶??¸??????œ??´ ??¹?????? ??¤??´?²? ??· ??´??? ?°€??œ “?°€??¼”??¼ ??œ?²? ?²€??‰??´?³´??œ?§€ ?·¸??½????¹Œ?
Naver? Are you serious? “Naver” is your answer!
Omigod.
I can’t believe you rely on Naver to provide you with your informed opinions on world history and other scholarly matters.
You may not realize it, but you just sealed your own fate.
Korea will never establish Tangun to any outsider’s satisfaction because they rely on word of mouth transmittal and have low scholarly standards.
Sheesh, just because 47 million people believe in him, doesn’t make him real.
Kinda like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
joeblow-
I really shouldn’t be wasting my time bantering with a moron like you but my left ball itches a bit right now so while I intermittently give it a good scratch I’ll play along with you just this once.
Naver searches lead me to the 9/11 Commission Report, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have A Dream” Speech. But since everything supplied to me by Naver is “word of mouth transmittal” with “low scholarly standards,” I guess all that stuff I just mentioned should go straight to the trash. What a pity.
“You may not realize it, but you just sealed your own fate.”
?œ¼?????????????????????!!!!
Oh, and does Martin Luther King’s speech help you in any way to establish the proposition that Tangun was real?
Sheesh, talk about “I have a Dream”! That’s the biggest Korean dream of all.
Keep scratching those balls of yours. At least something good will come out of your net surfing.
C’mon, dude. Outside this little well you live at the bottom of, the rest of the world already knows that “korean scholar” is an oxymoron of the first order.
Lemme guess, all these so-called scholars got their Ph.D.s at such world class institutes of learning as Seoul National University. Woo-hoo. Hurray for the advancement of knowledge in Korea.
Well, something just got caught in my fingernails during my latest scratching, and I have high suspicion that it is at least as intelligent as you and your comebacks, mr. joeblow! ?‘¸?™€??????????????????????????????!!!! ????…?????³???¸??”!
Dude, don’t forget to wash up after you’ve finished your intellectual demolishing of anyone who challenges your foundation myths.
I hear that protein stains can be a bear to get off your seat cushions. Try scrubbing with mugwort and garlic for 100 days. Works best if you do it in a cave.
To be more exact, 2004+2333-1 = 4336 years. Subtract 1 since there is only one year?€™s difference between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. (not -1 and +1, because there?€™s no year 0!) In that respect, the Gregorian calendar ain?€™t too mathematically logical in the Euclidean sense either
Right-o. That’s why the 21st Century started in 2001, and not 2000, like some would have us believe… 1 to 100, 101 to 200, 1901 to 2000, 2001 to 2100, etc…
As for the nice little bedtime stories of the ?¸‰?œ???º?º? (a good chunk of which I read in the original Classical Chinese, ditto for ?¸‰?œ???²?¨?), they’re nice and all, but it doesn’t mean they’re anything accurate. There wasn’t a nation (or even 3) 4,336 years ago in this land or thereabouts. Order came with the Chinese…
That’s funny… I don’t quite remember ever claiming that the Tangun myth is true or that Tangun as a mythical figure existed (because if I were to, I would have to believe in gods up in the sky sending down their offspring to earth, and I don’t believe in gods), although I did refer to historical and symbolic interpretations that _may_ separate fact from myth. But who cares, let the mindless mud hauling festival continue. I’ve had my bit of fun now, so I’m calling it a day — 2 AM right now in this “little well” here that I “live at the bottom of”.
Really, Marmot, you need to have a “recent comments” sidebar to make it not only easier for me to find and read Sugar Shin’s comments (when he makes any), but also keep track of some of those that can be just as “interesting” as the ones I see on Ohmy. Sorry about the barrage of comments. I won’t be doing this again for the time being.
Xinjiang and Xizang are not colonies, they are legitimate territories within the People’s Republic of China. You may wish to argue this, but I know of no nation that recognizes either Xinjiang and Xizang as such, nor does the U.N., just disgruntled individual peoples. In regards to Hong Kong and Macao, those are former European colonies that reverted to Chinese control. Actually, it just occured to me, how come there are never any pro-democracy demonstrations or complaints out of Macao while Hong Kongers seem to do nothing but bitch and moan?
Also does bring up a good point, China does not claim that Koguryo was “Chinese” but rather that the historical Koguryo lies on the periphery of Chinese history.
As for the European arms embargo, the sooner it is lifted, the better. American interests are not neccessarily the same as Chinese interests nor European interests. The last holdout appears to be Tony Blair, even the normally prudish Dutch have come around.
By the way, my comment above is directed to randalltim (just to avoid confusion because dda posted his while I was writing it).
Geeez, guess I missed a nice gathering here at Marmot’s. “5,000 years of history” is a nice catch-phrase and a cultural equalizing to China’s truelly great civilizing achievements in Asia. I can see some blokes here trying to marginalize, minimize and ridicule Korea’s ancient history. Who cares? For me, I would still love this little country and my people even if Korea would have had a short history span of 5 months. You can’t beat the feeling!
the korean states of baekche, koguryo, and shilla weren’t korean? well, then yamato japan wasn’t japanese but rather baekchean (and therefore korean :_). how you like them apples? see how that kind of stuff just slides into the toilet?
btw, koguryo, baekche, and shilla represent the real beginning of the history of modern day koreans. got it? hope you understand now.
‘KAYA WAS A FRIGGIN COLONY OF…!’ RANDALTIM
randaltim, could you tell me your sources in the form of names of books and magazine articles that you’ve actually read? kaya was a colony of japan? back it up. which books have you read to support this fit of fancy, delusion, and idiocy?
betya not a one.
‘no such thing as korean scholar.’
well, yes there is and to say such a thing is just an indication of the writer’s boone’s farm heritage. anyway, speaking of scholars, do a search for the book entitled ‘paekche and the origins of yamato japan’ by won tack hong. you can read almost the entire book online in the adobe format FOR FREE!. someone like mr marmot might be seriously interested in the book as it seems suited to seriuos koreaphiles. i encourage you to read it if you haven’t already. easy to find on the net.
of course, i know the whinos will just dismiss it as it’s written by a korean but you can never take the whine out of the whino. therefore, gerry bevers and rathbone owens should stay away. specially you, owen; wouldn’t want you to have to vomit all over the place again. say, you live in japan, maybe you can ask one of the offsrpings of baekche to help you clean it up.
lastly, one more title you all might be interestd in. easy to find at any given borders:
‘the manchus’ pamela kyle crossley
ms crossley is a professor at dartmouth. the book is intersting in that it never includes koguryo as part of manchu history. further, professor crossley not only uses chinese, manchu, and mogol sources, she also includes korean sources such as the official diary of an official of the yi dynasty named
shin jong il
‘chinese not claiming koguryo chinese… but on the periphery of chinese history.’
koguryo was and is central to korean history. and what the chinese ARE saying is that koguryo is not part of korea’s heritage but rather a part of china’s.
nope.
History belongs to no one. Or, perhaps, everyone. The accomplishments of the Goguryeo or the old Chinese kingdoms or of the US founding fathers (etc.) in no way makes you a better (or worse) person. Goguryeo existed where China is now, therefore it is China’s history. The people and culture of Goguryeo played a part in creating modern Korea, therefore it is Korea’s history. These are not mutually exclusive positions.
RE COMMENT: “Goguryeo existed where China is now, therefore it is China?€™s history. The people and culture of Goguryeo played a part in creating modern Korea, therefore it is Korea?€™s history.”
What is discomforting is China’s intentions. China only just started making these claims, only just started revising its official version of history. And it calls Goguryeo a “ethnic minority Chinese regime,” failing even to include ethnic “Koreans” as a minority people in Chinese history.
??¼???œ????, ??¼??????¸° may have various shortcomings, but to me the point is that Korea has consistently laid claim on Goguryeo, not erasing previous versions history to do so, not doing it all of a sudden, and it has talked as if Goguryeo was Korean for many hundreds of years. This Chinese project to claim Goguryeo is so ahead of itself that most Chinese textbooks don’t reflect that change in government-sanctioned history yet.
The idea that it can be the history of both is an abstract form of classroom correct, something for armchair historians, something coming from a more perfect world where recent developments didn’t mean scary things.
This argument will never end. Not enough evidence either way. So the Chinese have their version, the Koreans theirs, the US…, etc.
I’ll tell ya something that scares me.
5000 years over 900 invasions = an invasion about every 5.5 years.
Korea is way overdue!
Another point. Go to Southern Chinese provinces and ask the locals about “Koguryo” as an integral part of China’s ancient history. Answer:”Kogu… what?”.
Never heard of any direct descendants of NE Asian/ Manchurian tribes or Han Chinese having emotions or a conscience of deep cultural & identity-building attachment to Koguryo’s history and ancestral royalty like Koreans from the North and South have - and not only recently, but had throughout the last decades or centuries. And no, it’s not because of an alleged brainwashing of the Korean populace through a ultra-nationalistic historical indoctrination during the Park Chung- Hee and/ or Kim Il-Sung regimes.
The Mainland Chinese “Koguryo” claim is a totally new, politically driven one, not mentioned in the authoritative scholarly works or school books of the PRC before, not to speak of the historic chronicles of the different Northern and Southern Chinese dynasties, who referred to proto-Koguryo, proto-Paekche and proto-Shilla kingdoms of being the “Eastern Barbarians/ Archers”, inhabiting the Korean peninsula and Manchuria among other nomadic tribes. The hostile Sino-Koguryon rivalry regarding the mutual challenge about the hegemony over Manchuria have excluded Koguryo out of the centralistic, paternalistic Chinese view on its conquered territories and the peoples of different ethnicity within. They tried to subdue and control Koguryo under a diplomatic trbutary system, but received, besides short time spans of reconciliation and peaceful exchange, not the expected calming of a threatening expansionary policy of Koguryo.
Away from the territorial stuff and back to Tangun, I thought I’d share a theory.
One of the history profs at my uni and I got talking about it over lunch one day, and to tease him a little I asked if he really believed the Korean people sprang from a man who was the offspring of a bear and a tiger. (Yes, I was being a dick, but he and I have given each other permission to needle each other a little)
He answered that it was both true and not true, and said “Let me tell you how Korean historians approach this story”.
(From memory as best I can remember) “Although we call it history, some of our 5,000 years is in fact prehistory. We know there were people here, and they were up to something, but exactly what we have very little idea.”
Me: “So, how many years history does actual history does Korea really have?”
Him: “Oh, 5,000 years or more, it’s just complicated.” (evasion, perhaps). “Anyways, the likeliest theory is that there was A Bear and A Tiger, but that they were tribes, not actual animals. They probably used these powerful animals in a totemic way - to represent them, like a flag. This creation myth of Koreans probably represents an alliance or merging of these two tribes, and since the story endured it was probably surprising, and since it was surprising these two tribes probably had had very bad relations for a very long time.”
“This is all conjecture of course, we have no original sources, but just as European historians suspect the pre-historic volcano explosion near Crete may have lingered into recorded history as the Atlantis myth, the enduring and detailed nature of this Tangun creation myth suggests it symbolizes some actual pre-historic events”
(Honestly, he really talks like this. It’s why I always try to eat lunch with the guy)
“Tangun may well have been the real name of a real leader…perhaps the unifying leader of these two tribes, or a son of the unifying leader. He must have achieved something during his rule, too - a great defense, or victory, or as I personally think, he lead them to abandon nomadic behaviour and settle the first city/town on the peninsula.”
Well, that’s the core of the theory for anyone interested. I found it interesting.
I read somewhere that the Tangun myth was actually fabricated to give legitamacy to the rulers of one of the korean dynasties. Sorry for the non specifics but the book went on to say tangun was not in the literature anywhere until 1000 AD or so making it likely it was never even a real myth dating back 4337 years ago.
The Blog Roll Rundown
Haven’t done this in awhile and there is quite a few interesting posts that have come up today so I figured I’d knock ‘em all out of the park at once. According to Tokyo Times, I Is For Instant Ramen.
Asia by blog
Another look at Asian blogging… Hong Kong, Taiwan and China Tom reports that my homeland is caving in to pressure from China on a refugee application. You can imagine the reception waiting for her when she gets back to China. China is facing a shorta…
First, Koreans should NOT take the views of a small group of policians in China as valid or set in stone. Remember, these are policians calling the shots. Communism does not have a great tradition of historical studies or expertise or accuracy. This is the same government that says the Tiananmen Square massacre didn’t occur. As a Chinese and student of history, I strongly believe no true expert of chinese history would in their right mind make such a claim that Koguryo is a Han state. So please do not take their(the Chinese Communist Government’s-aka CCG) claim too seriously as that of the view of a vast of majority of Far East Asian scholars. Furthermore, almost all Chinese reject and disagree with what the CCG recently said on their website. There are also a few Chinese from an island called Taiwan that love to exploit this recent controversy just like they have tried with Tibet to give themselves legitimacy as the true “China”.
What I know is this:
Although the present Chinese Communist Government may distort certain facts of history, time eventually will correct the propagandas and lies. I say this because its already been shown that no matter what the government of China had wanted to hide or distort, it will later be accurately recorded. For example, Mao Tse-tung, the founder of present Chinese Communist Party made major blunders with his reforms that resulted in shortages of crops and the starvation of millions of people in the 1960’s. Today, this has been acknowledged as a disastrous mistake of of Mao and his government.
The Chinese have a great and respected tradition of historical knowledge that is for the large part reputable for its accuracy and unbiasness. Most biases and inaccuracies are eventually corrected given a decent amount of time. In this case, I’d say the more widely held knowledge that Koguryo was an independent Tartar kingdom in the present day area of Manchuria China was perhaps largely ethnically Tartar and make up the ancestors of the present day Northeastern Chinese, Manchu, and North and South Korea is correct. Both present day Chinese and present day Koreans have a claim to the Koguryo heritage (Manchuria being among the Chinese voice).
And I feel that both the Chinese and Koreans are committing HUGE falicies by applying the present definition of what they identify themselves as today, as being identical to the ethnic makeup of the peoples of the kingdom of Koguryo. Descendents are not of the same ethnic makeup as their ancestors even if those ancestors are acknowledged as a direct line. Certainly the early Chinese are not ethnically the same as people who call themselves Chinese today. The same should be understood for Koguryo and present day Koreans.
Much of northeastern chinese population has Tartar blood. In fact, the present day Chinese capital of Beijing was established by the Kingdom of Jin (Kim, meaning Gold) in the 12th century. Strangely, many Chinese acknowledge the Kingdom of Jin are closely related to Koreans but many Koreans seem NOT to acknowlege this. The Kingdom of Jin and present day South Korea was then conquered by the Mongols who built upon Beijing as a permanent capital. After the Mongols fell, the Ming dynasty was established. The Ming dynasty was the ONLY Chinese dynasty whose founder was Chinese in origin. It may interest you guys to know that Every single Chinese dynasty was established and founded by non-chinese. After several hundred years, these non-chinese adopted the ways of the locals while defining a NEO-Chinese identity for their empire. Interestingly, the founder of the Ming dynasty was an orphan so his true ethnic background is really unknown.
Moving forward, after the Ming dynasty(chinese), the Manchus from Manchuria established the Ching dynasty. The Manchus were a Tartar people related to the Mongols as well Koreans and likely descended partially from the old Koguryo Kingdom.
The Manchus conquered China, subjugated (didn’t conquer) the Koreas, and then as what has happened to many other groups that conquered China in the past, the Manchus assimilated into the Chinese population, adding another layer to the modern Chinese identity.
So my message to Koreans about this issue is that IT’S THE MANCHUS who DEFINED the present day border between China and North Korea,NOT the Chinese. Today’s Chinese Government just merely inherited the lands and borders from the last (Manchu) dynasty. It’s also wrong and unfair for Korea to say the Chinese somehow took or annexed Koguryo, referring to Koguryo as if the Kingdom STILL EXISTS today. The Kingdom and its people no longer exist. Their descendents are present day Chinese (in the northeast), Manchus, and Koreans. Yes, there are Korean minorities in northeastern China as well as Manchus and others today, but it is erroneous to imply that the Korean minority living within the present day Chinese borders are the sole and direct descendents of old Kingdom of Koguryo.
Koreans should not worry too much over what a small handful of Chinese politicians say or claim at this moment. Also as a Chinese, I feel it’s disgraceful that politicians are forcing the voices of Chinese Scholars and China’s respected tradition of historical record keeping. It’s an abuse of Chinese wonderful tradition historical studies.
Someone posted a good question asking why the Chinese would bother having Korean history on their website. The reason for this concern is present day China is a remnant of an empire made of many peoples and the ORIGINS of many of it’s present day neighbors. So these old kingdoms that once existed within what is now present day China hold the earliest record of these peoples. This is true for the heritage of the Thais, Burmese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese, Eastern Turks, Huns, and others too many to name. If you want to study ancient history of these groups, you need to study Chinese because their earliest histories were written in Chinese and probably recorded by Chinese historians. As far as the written record, the Chinese have been the best keepers of the torch with a few inaccuracies here and there, but eventually corrected along the way. Chinese historical records are not complete, but they are often contain the most ancient records that any of its neighbors has of it’s OWN history. Additionally, Chinese records have more hard details about its neighbors. They don’t fabricate mythical origins nor do they try to invent where these people originated from. If they don’t know, they’ll record the earliest established knowledge at hand at the that time. For themselves, the Chinese have the confidence to stand by their claim that they DO NOT KNOW their own true origin, only that their ancestors came from the northwest and their people are made up of a polyglot of settled peoples and nomads who shared “some” common ancestry from a tribal Chief called the Yellow “Emperor”. The Chinese also have the uncommon confidence to NOT insist of any fictitious “pure” bloodlines. They acknowledge the friction and conflicts with their neighbors, but often times they record intermarriage and a mutual brotherhood with many of its neighbors ie. the Thais(Dai). Please note, the Thais acknowledge a brotherhood with the Chinese. The Thais were pushed out of China by the Mongols, NOT the Chinese. Intermarriage and assimilation, adoption of culture in both directions was so great that any Chinese claiming a pure bloodline is considered ludicrous by an overwhelming majority of peoples past and present.
Because the Chinese have so many different ethnic elements to begin with, what is recorded is the more generally accepted by MANY sources. Sometimes only until recent times, with archeological evidence and findings can we confirm how truly accurate these historical “tails” are. The discovery of the Teracotta warriors has been written about recorded but no one could confirm it’s validity until the discoveries of these Terracotta warriors in the 1970’s.
Another example is that of Westerners disputing that Chinese written records have drawings and descriptions of Red haired and Yellow haired peoples living within China’s territory far earlier than Westerners have any information about. Western peoples just didn’t live that far east that early in time according to the Western record. Yet, within the last few years, anthropological records of mummies found in China’s northwestern province were uncovered showing an Indo-European culture whose existed were lost or uncertain in Western records.
In the long run, archeological, anthropological and DNA records will let us know about the Kingdom of Koguryo and its people. What may disappoint both the northeastern Chinese and Koreans is that they are the ancestors of both groups despite having more cultural affinity with modern day Koreans.
What I have say about China and my disappointment with its government is that archeological findings can validate SO MUCH of the historical data of the Chinese, of themselves and others it today shares borders with, yet they’re chosing in one way or another, to “destroy” it if it is unimportant, threatening, or doesn’t corroborate with the current Chinese Government’s version of the “story”.
As a southern Chinese, I decry the archeological loss of Yangtze river with the Chinese Government’s monsterous Three-Gorges project that is to damm up the Great Yangtze river. As you know, huge areas of the rivershore will be flooded and submersed by the damming project. Many aboriginal culture of the southern Chinese originate from this area. The Yangtze also holds the Archeological records of most of the Southeast Asian nations and Pacific Islanders who migrated south. Lastly, this area was just recently found to be extremely rich in anthropological records of early ancient modern humans from 30,000 years BC to 10 years BC. Archeologists are scrambling to excavate and save what they have but the projects agressive deadline means that anything that have not be discovered will be lost forever, likely submerged and deteriorate from river water and erosion.
The irony of it all is that by the China Communist Government trying to change the historical records of Koguryo, they are invalidating the Chinese’ own historical records which has long been considered the most authoritative, accurate and respected of East Asian region.
So shame on the Chinese Communist Government. The cultural richness of our ancestors (both Chinese and Koreans) will likely be neglected and lost if it’s not preserved and studied now. All due to the Political games of modern day politicians. For a government barely over 55 years old, the Chinese government has got a long way to go if it wants to earn the respect of the Asian region and restore its dynamic past.
All peoples involved, Make Love Not War.
Asia by Blog - Month in review
Thank you to everyone for the good wishes. Everyone is doing well. Now to keep you going…as part of the Winds of Change team I provide a monthly briefing on Asian goings-on, particularly China and SE Asia. I thought this would give me a good opportun…
I don’t think your site is working.