Comments on: Defending Koguryo http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/ Korea... in Blog Format Mon, 7 Jul 2008 00:05:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: SomeguyinKorea http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51744 SomeguyinKorea Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:44:00 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51744 Hugh, don't forget that there has been migration since Goguryo. To use your examples...many of the French surnames in the UK do not originate from the Norman invasion, but from Frenchmen who arrived much late, such as the Huguenots. Hugh, don’t forget that there has been migration since Goguryo. To use your examples…many of the French surnames in the UK do not originate from the Norman invasion, but from Frenchmen who arrived much late, such as the Huguenots.

]]> By: Zonath http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51720 Zonath Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:54:54 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51720 <blockquote>We would all scoff if France seriously tried to claim that the Normans belong to their history, and by the way it wanted southern and central England back.</blockquote> Uhm... but the Normans actually <i>are</i> part of French history, being from, y'know, Normandy and all. But unlike Korea with China, France isn't quibbling with England over whether or not the Normans should be considered to 'belong' to the French or the English because, of course, they're part of <i>both</i> countries' histories. <blockquote>ummm….maybe for “Goths” above, I should have said “Angles” or “Saxons”…Maybe some better student than I of English history can point out which Germanic tribe invaded and stayed.</blockquote> Saxons would probably be right... along with Angols, Jutes, Frisians... Heck, just about <i>everyone</i> settled or invaded England at one time or another.

We would all scoff if France seriously tried to claim that the Normans belong to their history, and by the way it wanted southern and central England back.

Uhm… but the Normans actually are part of French history, being from, y’know, Normandy and all. But unlike Korea with China, France isn’t quibbling with England over whether or not the Normans should be considered to ‘belong’ to the French or the English because, of course, they’re part of both countries’ histories.

ummm….maybe for “Goths” above, I should have said “Angles” or “Saxons”…Maybe some better student than I of English history can point out which Germanic tribe invaded and stayed.

Saxons would probably be right… along with Angols, Jutes, Frisians… Heck, just about everyone settled or invaded England at one time or another.

]]> By: Hugh http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51701 Hugh Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:19:05 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51701 ummm....maybe for "Goths" above, I should have said "Angles" or "Saxons"...Maybe some better student than I of English history can point out which Germanic tribe invaded and stayed. ummm….maybe for “Goths” above, I should have said “Angles” or “Saxons”…Maybe some better student than I of English history can point out which Germanic tribe invaded and stayed.

]]> By: Hugh http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51699 Hugh Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:15:11 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51699 Lirelou said "It makes sense that every people who crossed or occupied the Korean peninsula left their genetic imprint here, but does that make those peoples Korean as we know Korea? " Gotta disagree with you on your post. Despite Korean dramas which show Koguryan people speaking in perfect Seoul accents, I don't think that is what Koreans mean when they say that kingdom is part of Korea's history. They did not just cross through the peninsula for a while, or occupy a piece temporarily, but lived permanently with descendents left behind to this day. To answer Is this part of Korean or Chinese history? you have to answer, I think, Are their descendents primarily Korean (ethnically and linguistically as well as in a citizenship sense) today, or not? Are there clear linguistic lines down to the language spoken today? I would say they are and there are, and for me that makes Koguryo part of Korean history. Sure, they would not have thought so about themselves, because there was no Korea then. But by that token you would have to say the Normans or the Goths were not part of English history! They might not have seen themselves as "English", but none the less they stayed, left their descendents and significant traces of their language survive in England and the English language today. They are clearly part of English history. We would all scoff if France seriously tried to claim that the Normans belong to their history, and by the way it wanted southern and central England back. I believe the analogy holds here between China and Korea on this issue. Just because Koreans get emotional about it, doesn't mean they are not right. Lirelou said “It makes sense that every people who crossed or occupied the Korean peninsula left their genetic imprint here, but does that make those peoples Korean as we know Korea? ”

Gotta disagree with you on your post. Despite Korean dramas which show Koguryan people speaking in perfect Seoul accents, I don’t think that is what Koreans mean when they say that kingdom is part of Korea’s history. They did not just cross through the peninsula for a while, or occupy a piece temporarily, but lived permanently with descendents left behind to this day.

To answer Is this part of Korean or Chinese history? you have to answer, I think, Are their descendents primarily Korean (ethnically and linguistically as well as in a citizenship sense) today, or not? Are there clear linguistic lines down to the language spoken today? I would say they are and there are, and for me that makes Koguryo part of Korean history.

Sure, they would not have thought so about themselves, because there was no Korea then. But by that token you would have to say the Normans or the Goths were not part of English history! They might not have seen themselves as “English”, but none the less they stayed, left their descendents and significant traces of their language survive in England and the English language today. They are clearly part of English history. We would all scoff if France seriously tried to claim that the Normans belong to their history, and by the way it wanted southern and central England back. I believe the analogy holds here between China and Korea on this issue.

Just because Koreans get emotional about it, doesn’t mean they are not right.

]]> By: bluejives http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51691 bluejives Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:57:04 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51691 <i>Two-thirds of Koguryo's territory lies within contemporary China, and Beijing wants to forestall any future Korean claim over its northeastern territory, which is home to large ethnic Korean communities, experts said.</i> Priorities, First, a unified Korea. Then.....<i>anschluss</i> Two-thirds of Koguryo’s territory lies within contemporary China, and Beijing wants to forestall any future Korean claim over its northeastern territory, which is home to large ethnic Korean communities, experts said.

Priorities,

First, a unified Korea. Then…..anschluss

]]> By: slim http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51689 slim Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:42:10 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51689 The Northern half of the Korean peninsula could not be more ill-behaved if it were run by Romulans or The Borg, so maybe the emergence of signs that China wants a change of management there is to be welcomed in these times. The Northern half of the Korean peninsula could not be more ill-behaved if it were run by Romulans or The Borg, so maybe the emergence of signs that China wants a change of management there is to be welcomed in these times.

]]> By: Jing http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51682 Jing Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:04:25 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51682 Heh, funny that Choe Sang-Hun would mentioned kimchi. I guess he missed the delicious (pun intended!) irony of his comment. http://www.fiery-foods.com/zine-industry/kimchi.html %quote Kimchi is the generic term given to a group of fermented foods combining either cabbage or radishes and chiles, garlic, fish sauce, ginger, and sometimes pickled fish or fresh seafoods. It is thought that the origin of kimchi is <b>Chinese pickles</b>, which were brought into Korea and changed by cooks to form several types of kimchi to suit the taste of Koreans... Heh, funny that Choe Sang-Hun would mentioned kimchi. I guess he missed the delicious (pun intended!) irony of his comment.

http://www.fiery-foods.com/zin.....imchi.html

%quote
Kimchi is the generic term given to a group of fermented foods combining either cabbage or radishes and chiles, garlic, fish sauce, ginger, and sometimes pickled fish or fresh seafoods. It is thought that the origin of kimchi is Chinese pickles, which were brought into Korea and changed by cooks to form several types of kimchi to suit the taste of Koreans…

]]> By: lirelou http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51676 lirelou Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:29:39 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51676 What is the genetic (i.e., DNA), archeological, or written historical evidence that makes Goguryo Korean? Beyond tombs, what other archeological evidence have they left that Gorguryo was the great, advanced nation that the few Korean historical writings I have read (in English) refer to? It makes sense that every people who crossed or occupied the Korean peninsula left their genetic imprint here, but does that make those peoples Korean as we know Korea? My problem with Korean historical claims is that they also take the Dangun legend seriously, thus accepting a time-line that would have seen Dangun live 1,900 years. Where is the textual evidence that Koreans even believed in Dangun prior to the 1200s? This is, after all, a nation with at least 1,700 years of textual evidence to back up its claims to at least 300 AD, which means that omissions must be considered. What is the genetic (i.e., DNA), archeological, or written historical evidence that makes Goguryo Korean? Beyond tombs, what other archeological evidence have they left that Gorguryo was the great, advanced nation that the few Korean historical writings I have read (in English) refer to? It makes sense that every people who crossed or occupied the Korean peninsula left their genetic imprint here, but does that make those peoples Korean as we know Korea? My problem with Korean historical claims is that they also take the Dangun legend seriously, thus accepting a time-line that would have seen Dangun live 1,900 years. Where is the textual evidence that Koreans even believed in Dangun prior to the 1200s? This is, after all, a nation with at least 1,700 years of textual evidence to back up its claims to at least 300 AD, which means that omissions must be considered.

]]> By: Mingi http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51675 Mingi Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:27:17 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/10/13/defending-koguryo/#comment-51675 I agree, though I wouldn't say it'll be 'the' thing. There are a range of reasons that should motivate South Koreans, or those of a unified Korea, to head down an anti-Chinese path that'll make today's anti-Japanese and anti-American sentiments appear like child's play. The issue of Goguryo should certainly be one of the main factors. I agree, though I wouldn’t say it’ll be ‘the’ thing. There are a range of reasons that should motivate South Koreans, or those of a unified Korea, to head down an anti-Chinese path that’ll make today’s anti-Japanese and anti-American sentiments appear like child’s play. The issue of Goguryo should certainly be one of the main factors.

]]>