Comments on: America’s First Encounter With Korea: Shipwrecked Whalers

By: lirelou

lirelou — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 06:35:27 +0000

Sperwer, Good points! (doff plumed hat and render deep bow in Sperwer’s direction)

By: Sperwer

Sperwer — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:32:44 +0000

The analogy between European feudalism and the relations between China and its subsidiary states in the pre-modern East Asian geopolitical system may be useful for correcting Baduk; but it’s anachronistic. The relationship of Korea to China was that of a “tributary” state, the system of whose privileges, rights and duties vis-a-vis the Chinese suzerain had similarities with the system of relations between a feudal lord and vassal, but also was sufficiently dissimilar that it should be understood as a conceptually distinct phenomenon. Perhaps the most important difference revolved around military service. The duty to make (at his own expense) both himself and his own vassals available to his overlord was perhaps the single most important or principal relation between a western European noble vassal (or vassal “state”) and his/its overlord. In the Chinese system this duty was greatly attentuated, at least in relation to states/peoples who were recognized as being distinct from the Chinese themselves. Korea certainly did not understand itself as being obligated to take up arms for China, and generally only did so under extreme duress, e.g., when forced by the Yuan to assist in the attempted invasion of Japan. The relationship between Korea and China was essentially a ceremonial, symbolically hieratic one, in which Korean kings received investiture from the Chinese emperor and relatively infrequent tributary missions back and forth periodically symbolically affirmed the hierarchical nature of the relationship. Otherwise, the two states had remarkably little to do with one another. There was no trade, except for the limited barter of goods permitted during tribute missions. And while China insisted that Korean sovereignity was legitimated by imperial prescript, it generally disclaimed responsibility for both Korean domestic and foreign affairs - (although the earlier non-Han dynasties, e.g., the Mongol Yuan, as noted above) were sometimes major exceptions.)

By: lirelou

lirelou — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 23:28:21 +0000

Baduk, you really need to delete the paradigms in your mind about Korea. China did not “run” Korea. Korea was best described as a “vassal state” to China. A feudal vassal is lord within his own realm. But he owes certain duties to his lord, primarily military service. In the Chinese-Korean relationship, the Korean king, as the “younger brother” owed his “elder brother” a tribute payment (every two years, I believe), and troops for military service if and when the emperor called for them. Likewise, the Lord, or “elder brother” in confucian terms, had a responsibility to send troops to aid his vassal, when his vassal asked for them: As they did in 1894 to save Seoul from advancing Tonghak and Righteous armies. Thus the Chinese handled Korean relations with us “hairy western barbarians”, prior to Korea’s own treaties with these nations, ergo: the turnover of the sailors to China. I am no expert on Korean history, but if memory serves, official Chinese delegations had the right to enter Korea, but did so along a certain road, to enter the city of Seoul near the present “Independence gate”, via a gate designated for the entry of such Chinese delegations. Non-official chinese contacts with Choseon were limited (I believe) to Kangwha island and one small sector of Incheon (Chemeulpeo), just as the Japanese were limited to one small sector of Busan.

By: setnaffa

setnaffa — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:08:11 +0000

“Deemed as ‘not [having] profit[ed] much by their opportunities of travel;’ they were sent back to their ship.”

That is the most beautiful part of the story. After struggling to stay alive, they finally make it back to “civilization” and, having not attempted to spurn the hospitality of the Koreans and act as spies, they were dismissed by the illuminati…

What most folks who’ve never been to a foreign land don’t realize is that some things cannot be described accurately. And the first exposure of Westerners to Korean Culture (and probably most other Asian cultures) is enough to disorient (if you’ll pardon the pun) even experienced travellers…

By: Ut videam

Ut videam — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:25:03 +0000

Is it possible to be racist against one’s own race (ethnicity)?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....premacist/

By: Iceberg

Iceberg — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:30:31 +0000

Is it possible to be racist against one’s own race (ethnicity)? Just wondering.

By: French Quarter

French Quarter — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 08:28:19 +0000

I think it was a reasonable decision for the Chosun government to send the sailors to the Quing because there was an American consul in Shanghai. Should they have hold the sailors in Chosun indefinitely? About Confucianism, it worked in East Asia like in Christianity in the West. I see Christianity as a Italianized Judaism, and Christianity is the base of the Western Culture. People in East Asia read those text books in Chinese like some selected Europeans read Bible in Latin, and more people could read Bible in several European language including English, which are based on Lation.

By: French Quarter

French Quarter — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 07:57:59 +0000

baduk, I was so amazed by your ignorance and racist post. The Quing dynasty in “China” at that time was ruled by the Manchus, not the Chinese Han. Confucianism from the Han culture worked as a religion in Chosun and affected Japan. “China” is relatively a modern concept, and there had been numerous ethnic groups struggling in the “China” land in history. Many ethnic groups and their cultures vanished in the land, and one ethnic group sometimes ruled the others. The Mongols ruled the “China” land under the name of Yuan, and, later, the Manchus rule the land, which is Quing. “Korean” people, who originated from somewhere in Siberia, have been living in the Korean Peninsula or even had their territory in “China” land and Japan in the Bakjade era and the Balhae era, for example. Koreans, although used to have different countries, kept their identity for thousands of years and have their own language and alphabets unlike some ethnic groups that had built dynasties and lost their cultural roots. Baduk, do you have your own language from your heritage?

By: baduk

baduk — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 16:58:58 +0000

Robert, this is a fascinating story. I wish someone can visit Bedford and find out if those sailors left anything written. I am sure they had talked about “strange land” to their neighbors and children.

This story, along with Hamil’s account, reinforces my belief that Chosun was just a giant Gulak managed by China. Chosun was not allowed to behave as an independent country but as a local region belonging to China.

As soon as foreigners arrive, they were isolated and sent to mainland China. China kept Chosun isolated and stupid. The only way to learn of the world was through Chinese books. No wonder Koreans spent entire life time devoted to learning those Chinese characters! The only way to knowledge and wisdom.

Even today, Koreans are “frogs in the well”. They cannot know about the real world. Sort of like African Natives. They rot in their nationalism and ignorance.

By: SomeguyinKorea

SomeguyinKorea — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:35:53 +0000

“Can you eat a missile?”

Literally, no. But, have you ever heard the expression, “Eat this!”?