No “Legends of the Three Kingdoms” for China.
According to Cho Bup-jong, history professor at Woosuk University:
“Chinese historians are reluctant to accept the term ‘three kingdoms’ because they define the ancient history of Korea as that of two kingdoms, Shilla and Baekje, not three that include Koguryo.”
thus a Korean-Chinese translation of the centries-old classic Samguk Yusa is deemed not acceptable for publishing in China. Cho was concerned that this could mean that the views of the “Northeast Project” are being accepted as the “official view of Chinese history.” (per the Chosun Ilbo article)
{ 97 comments… read them below or add one }
Allow me to decipher this “official view of Chinese history” in a meaningful prediction of the future for my Korean friends:
North Korea = next province of China.
The Chinese are right and wrong. Koguryo was not part of “Korea”; (nor for that matter were either Shilla or Baekche). The notion that any of them were “Korean” in any meaningful political/national sense is thoroughly anachronistic. Similarly, neither were any of them part of “China” – although the Chinese can get a lot of traction out of the fact that each of the three kingdoms at various times (and all of their various successors at all times) were vassal states (of varying degrees of vassalage) of the various dynasties located in Chinese territory; but the political paradigm on which such Chinese suzerainty was (irrevocably?) broken in the early 20th century when, by virtue of the Japanese moves on the Ryukyus, Taiwan and, most significantly, Korea itself, and the doctrine of the modern nation/state that underpins modern international law was extended to East Asia.
‘The notion that any of them were “Korean” in any meaningful political/national sense is thoroughly anachronistic. Similarly, neither were any of them part of “China” …’
yeah, until i see people start saying yamato ain’t japanese, it’s ok to call the three kingdoms korean. and by korean, i mean that they are part of korea’s historical timeline. still further, all western sources say as much regardless of what sperwer says. indeed, in the western world, the issue is already settled; koguryeo is part of korea’s legacy, not china’s.
‘North Korea = next province of China.’
let’s revise that:
north korea + chinese province = war
afghanistan and russia
us and vietnam
hizbollah and israel
iraq and the us
‘Japanese moves on the Ryukyus, Taiwan and, most significantly, Korea itself, and the doctrine of the modern nation/state that underpins modern international law was extended to East Asia.’
more arrogant poppycock from a westerner. the koreans knew who they were long before westerners deigned to tell them. man!
‘The notion that any of them were “Korean” in any meaningful political/national sense is thoroughly anachronistic. Similarly, neither were any of them part of “China” …’
Can we safely presume that Celts or Anglo Saxons are English? But how can that be, when back then, there were no such countries as England or Britain.
Pow Pow: The depth of your ignorance is only exceeded by the depth of the han in which you wallow:
See, e.g.:
Kim, Yongkoo, “The Five Year’s Crisis, 1866-1871: Korea in the Maelstrom Of Western Imperialism.”
Kang, Woong Joe, “The Korean Struggle for International Identity in the Foreground of the Shufeldt Negotiation, 1866-1882.”
Duus, Peter, “The Abacus and the Sword; The Japanese Penetration of Korea, 1895-1910.”
Alexis Dudden, Japan’s Colonization of Korea: Discourse and Power.”
Hilary Conroy, “The Japanese Seizure of Korea, 1868-1910: A Study of Realism and Idealism in International Relations.”
among others.
BTW, unless you can demonstrate that you’ve actually read past the dust jackets or the Amazon.com blurbs for any of these, your anticipated spew will go unanswered.
Not if you want to understand history (as opposed to political ideology).
you refer to me as pawikirogi and not pow pow, ok?
Say “please”.
#5,
Ouch. That’s quite a spanking.
(note to self: Never get on Spewer’s bad side)
‘Pow Pow: The depth of your ignorance is only exceeded by the depth of the han in which you wallow…’
can’t get past the name calling, can ya? i see you ignored the gist of my post, if k/b/s ain’t korean, then, yamato, ain’t japanese, nes pas? also, can you provide sources that support your claim koguryeo ain’t part of korea’s historical timeline?
‘your anticipated spew will go unanswered..’
my point is to counter the false history you present. doesn’t matter if you answer.
lastly, grow up, sperwer. learn to act like an adult and you’ll be treated like one.
lol!
Well, I sorta agree with Spewer regarding the fact that Koguryo, Silla and Baekje were not Korean in the modern sense. However, the same must be said about Wei, Shu and Wu in regards to China as well as Yamato and Kibi when it comes to Japan.
It’s improper and unfair to use history to support a nationalistic agenda. I think Europe had to go through two world wars (and a lot of smaller, but no less violent wars) to understand that the study of history and nationalism don’t mix too well if one is interested in peace, stability and cooperation across borders.
In any case, I believe that Koguryo, Silla and Baekje should be within Korea’s historiography (i.e. categorization for the sake of the study and organization of history). Considering Wei, Shu and Wu as Chinese helps historians study said kingdoms, recognize common trends, interpret archeological data, etc. as well as designate responsibility for funding from East Asian History departments as well as non-university scholarly organizations.
Pow Pow: You’re projecting again.
‘Ouch. That’s quite a spanking.
(note to self: Never get on Spewer’s bad side).’ someguy
that someone like you would say that is expected. you and sperwer are part of the same cloth. do you thik i’m really speaking to people like you? i’m speaking to the fair-minded who pass by here. and to those fair-minded, i’d point out that everything i wrote above is true.
koguryeo is korean.
koreans didn’t need westerners to tell them they were korean.
marmot, you said you wanted to get rid of the name calling. i’d request that you delete sperwer’s reference to me as ‘pow pow’.
‘Pow Pow: You’re projecting again.’
again, i going to ask you for your sources concerning your statement that koguryeo isn’t part of korea’s historical timeline.
Sperwer,
I think pawikirogi was requesting that you judge historiography with consistency (i.e. his example of Korean and Japan), which is something you ignored.
Then he got somewhat confrontational and you responded by being sarcastic. I see the smoke of a flame war com’in.
This is an interesting possibility. Does North Korea as a Chinese province automatically mean war?
Probably it does for South Korea. The United States would defend South Korea from an attack by the North — would Uncle Sucker risk nuclear exchange with China over annexation of a problem state like North Korea? Honestly, I don’t think so.
It sure would be nice to have friends, though. Who are Korea’s friends?
wangkon, wei, shu, and wu are post Han Dynasty. Collectively, they don’t even cover all of present day Chinese territory. Maybe 2/5th of it. Those 3 short lived Kingdoms are undeniably Han Chinese.
Sperwer, you’re just wrong.
Convince me why Wang Kon would title his own kingdom after a Chinese satellite one. Convince me why China considers Sui a unified Chinese dynasty and why the hell they attacked Koguryo twice. Pretty, please.
We all know where our ancestors come from. Shilla. But, can anyone deny that Shilla fucked up majorly and beyond words?
4.
Exactly. Do France, Britain, Belgium, or even Scandanavian countries have an exclusive claim to the history of the Normans? Of course not!
From what I understand, Koguryo likely shared more similarities with Shilla and Paekche – not just in terms of geography, but likely language, culture, etc – than with China. But this doesn’t mean that this kingdom somehow has no place in Chinese history when it once occupied – though military expansion no less – present day Chinese territory and also played a role – military, tributary, trade, etc – in ancient Chinese history. It is part of the timelines of both ancient Korea and ancient China, and I don’t think one can say with certainty it was 100% one and 0% the other.
The Chinese, like their neighbors in NE Asia, are putting their own spin on history, and certainly have ulterior motives for doing so, but Korea’s claim of Koguryo being purely “Korean” is also bad history. (But then again, none of this is really about uncovering historical fact, is it?)
“i’m speaking to the fair-minded who pass by here. and to those fair-minded, i’d point out that everything i wrote above is true.”
Fair-minded people should be able to make their own judgements as to whether “everything i wrote above is true” don’t you think?
“north korea + chinese province = war
afghanistan and russia
us and vietnam
hizbollah and israel
iraq and the us”
These aren’t great examples in comparing the ancient, modern or all-points-in-between relationship between Korea (north, south or both) and China.
I agree w/18.
Interesting though. I’ve been helping to mediate the Koguryo article on Wikipedia and I’ve rewritten large sections of it. One thing I noticed about Sino-centric contributors is that beyond points relating to the nature of Koguryo’s historiography and nationalism, they didn’t have much else to add. They didn’t contribute anything to Koguryo’s art, military system, legends, economy, etc.
Thus the point I’m trying to say is that many Chinese get jazzed up about trying to prove China’s influence/ownership of said kingdom that they don’t really think about what made the kingdom interesting, unique or important. That’s the problem you are gonna face if you are focused on trying to make Koguryo as related to Sui and Tang as possible. Can you imagine how boring history would be if U.S. scholars dug up those Mississippian burial mounds and interpreted the data in terms of Morm… uh I mean Anglo historiography? We wouldn’t understand, appreciate or be able to give proper justice to these priceless artifacts.
The solution to this controversy is to call Koguryo Japanese, as after all its language was closer to Japanese than anything else:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_language_classification
#16,
I am not entirely convinced that China wants to annex North Korea. Let’s face it. North Korea would be a headache and mess for anyone to assume ownership of.
I believe there is a possibility that China wants to incorporate Koguryo history into their own because the Chinese are deafly afraid of disunity. They stress a history of a unified and assimilated people because China’s most violent times are during civil wars, where the different kingdoms of the past tried to split apart from the doctrine of “Zhong Guo” (Korean pronounciation would be “Cheong Guk”). Another violent time in Chinese history is when minority groups in the north decide to move south. Thus you develop a history that tries to include all the histories in your borders as your own, or at least compatible with the history of the majority. Some of China’s rationale is understandable. In the case of Tibet, since they don’t share current Tibet’s land with anyone important, they rob that nation’s history blind. Who’s gonna stop them, Richard Gere? Hahahahaha. In Koguryo’s case, since today’s land also belongs to North AND South Korea (Koguryo’s maximum southern expansion was as far as today’s Taejon), China needs to exercise more discretion and diplomacy.
“Global”, the above linkage of countries (#19) was meant to signify that all were wars wherein the larger power was nullified or defeated by the insurgency of the smaller force. They are not meant as examples of anything else, if I’m not mistaken.
The original poster is saying that a Chinese attempt to annex land will result in eventual failure for them.
Brendon is right to wonder just who is Korea’s friend. Apparently the current government does not really seem to know.
I also note the very recent death of a senior Korean ambassador in Beijing, who was most likely the next Korean ambassador to China. Not that it means anything sinister whatsoever but it is “the flavor of the month” and seems to be very much unfit for Korean consumption.
#17, I understand that Wei, Shi and Wu were post Han Dyansty. Before Han was Qin, right? Qin’s core culture was in the central plains and around this core culture were former kingdoms, peoples and ethnicities that were not quite “Han” per say. Even Wei, the northern most kingdom had Xianbei and Turkic influences later on, did it not?
#23,
I have to agree that Korea’s foreign policy is pretty bad right now, but let’s be fair.
Other than Britain, who else is the U.S.’s allies? How about Japan? The U.S. is Japan’s friends for now, but neighbors who have been a part of Japan’s foreign policy for thousands of years, don’t like or trust them. And China? Hard to tell if they have any meaningful allies either. China is respected for its economic development but feared for its size and sino-centric world view.
Wedge (#21): You just like stirring the manure, don’t you?
#21,
The major proponent of your view would be professor Christopher Beckwidth of Indiana University. I’m guessing that you didn’t ready his book, “Koguryo, the Language of Japan’s Continental Relatives.” I did (although I didn’t understand a lot of it because I was never a linguistics major).
If you are to believe his views, then you need to be consistent. Beckwith also says that by the 7th century, Koguryo’s major language appeared to be the language of Silla’s. For whatever reason (Beckwith doesn’t elaborate) the Koguryo language changed over time and the languages on the peninsula reached a level of standardization.
May I be proven wrong on this – and, in any case, I probably won’t live long enough to know whether I was on to something or simply alarmist – but I really believe the Chinese have territorial designs that initially extend down to Seoul, and eventually down to Busan in the coming century.
Scenario one would be the DPRK leadership, facing catastrophic political/economic implosion, turns to the PRC as a last chance to hang on to power. The Chinese come to the rescue but on their dictated term and conditions that leaves the newly rejuvenated DPRK “with Chinese tendencies.” That is, the DPRK would continue to exist but as a de facto Chinese puppet.
Over time, with Han Chinese immigrants initially developing the North’s natural resources and later setting up shop, the Koreans eventually find themselves to be a very large Chosun minority. With that, what once was North Korea becomes the Chosun Minority Region of the PRC. Meanwhile, the South may get its act together and somehow (I have no idea how) confronts and rolls back Chinese hegemony — or collectively opts on a family-by-family basis to make fortunes elsewhere by joining the Korean Diaspora. In the case of the latter, the PRC Chosun Minority Region expands to fill what has become a hollowed out piece of real estate.
If all of this sounds a bit fantastic, the Chosun’s article is only the latest example of an obviously long-term Chinese strategy to rewrite history and quite possibly thereby later justify something similar to a Chinese Manifest Destiny on the Korean Peninsula.
Again, I really hope I got this one wrong.
Tom,
Please read my post on # 22 that may give you an alternative perspective on China’s motives. I’m not saying that an idea of the Chaoxian (Chinese pronounciation of Chosun) Autonomous Prefecture isn’t something that tickles the fancy of some PRC nationalists, but it may not be the immediate rationale for their historiographic methodology.
IMHO, Tom is closer to reality than not. Whether or not such can be done is another matter. The Chinese leadership is motivated more so by fear than anything else and out of fear, they are capable of the worst atrocities imaginable.
Tom’s political fiction short novel in #28 is indeed probably something that might have been considered by the ChiComs…
WangKon, there is a salient difference between the US and Korea. One is a large, powerful country with few external security threats from state actors. There is no power in the world which could mount an invasion and occupation of the United States, or threaten the core interests of the US. The US’s neighbors not only have productive relationships with America, but are significantly weaker than our country.
As for American allies, look no further than the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany (forgot about them, did you?), Japan, and — yes, France. But, honestly speaking, we don’t need them from a security perspective. None of them add all that much to American security. China is in that position now — while China doesn’t have any allies, it doesn’t need them either.
Contrast that with Korea’s position: Small, not powerful, and — increasingly under the Roh experience — bereft of friends. Its neighbors are all significantly stronger, and all three of them have a history of expansionism.
Korea has one “friend” in the world, but is doing its level best to chase that friend off. I happen to oppose the maintenance of the “alliance” as a waste of resources, but what I don’t understand is why any Korean would oppose it.
beckwith says that the language of koguryeo and the language of shilla were not related. really? to me, that’s a sweeping statement. if they had no relation with each other, then why are japanese and korean grammar identical?
to me, he’s just trying to help his japanese friends deny their korean heritage. that’s why he speaks japanese but not korean.
Right, not immediate — but i’m afraid that Tom is also right about the Chinese leadership’s long-term intentions — and Beijing has famously in long-term-focused.
> Brendon:
> Does North Korea as a Chinese province automatically mean war?
There’s been a lot of discussion about this in recent years — it seems to all depend on how overt or subtle it is. Some suggest that the South Korean government will not tolerate much visible interference or any domination of the North by Beijing. Others theorize that since there doesn’t seem to be any other soft-landing-way-out for the horrible North Korean situation, Southerners might tolerate a subtle and relatively peaceful occupation, as the best possible realistic solution — reunification can come later.
Was there not an official statement about this back in 1991 or 2, or am i only imagining that i remember that? Did not the Kim Young-sam government declare it as policy that the Chinese army moving across the Yalu River would automatically mean war between Seoul and Beijing? I seem to recall my Korean friends heartily agreeing with this announcement, saying yes, we will surely fight to the death to prevent China from taking over our northern half (popular attitudes may have changed, and i don’t know if the official policy has). Anybody else here recall any of this, or even have a cite…?
My comment was in response to #29 and above — lots of activity here!
> Brendon
> The United States would defend South Korea from an
> attack by the North — would Uncle Sucker risk nuclear
> exchange with China over annexation of a problem state
> like North Korea? Honestly, I don’t think so.
I seem to remember that at that time this question was put to the Americans in Washington DC and at Yongsan — clarification of policy was requested — and the Americans were quite reluctant to make any clear comment. And my memory says that the top US General at Yongsan at that time did rather quietly say that American military policy here is to defend the Republic of Korea from Northerner aggressor(s) — NOT to defend North Korea from foreign invasion. Something like that; it was unsatisfactory to the Kim government.
> It sure would be nice to have friends,
> though. Who are Korea’s friends?
Good point. Well, Koreans have lots of Vietnamese in-laws now, and the Vietnamese have proven themselves to be pretty tough, including against the Chinese… this could be some help?
#3 said “north korea + chinese province = war”
I don’t think so. South Koreans would go to war over a creeping, not-immediately obvious Chinese takeover of the north? If a NK general after Jong-Il’s death announces he is in control and a continuation of Chinese-NK friendship? Followed by creeping Chinese economic and even demographic infiltration? With all the while the same paid 5th-columnists like Hanchongnyun and the KCTU shouting in support, with their pay and directions now coming from Beijing rather than Pyongyang? The South Korea I see now would cause me to answer no to that.
Let’s go further. Imagine instead of the above, Kim JI’s death sets off chaos followed by the rapid entry of massive Chinese ground forces over the space of 3 weeks in support of some chosen NK General puppet. Would South Korea really initiate military action against China? Send their sons, or themselves to combat against an ocean of Chinese? Face down the Chinese nuclear threat?
It’s hypothetical, but if I had to bet my own savings, I would bet NO. I think when it comes right down to action, South Koreans are too pragmatic, prudent, and generally unwilling to risk sacrificing all for principle.
Ask yourself: what happened every other time the Mongols, or Chinese, or Japanese came? Ferocious resistance, or a bitter bowing down? We all know the answer.
spewer is most definitely dodging a few arguments here.
anyway, i’m no expert but wasn’t old japanese, koguryeo, baekje and shillan languages all at one point mutually intelligible? if that’s the case, going by the logic proffered by someone else here, one can say that japan is korean. and english is germanic, isn’t it? again, as i’m no expert, i wonder at what point in history these languages diverged as they have. whatever the case, it’s clear that koguryeo, shilla, and japanese were not “chinese.” there’s a linguistic kinship between japanese and “koreanic” languages that doesn’t exist between these and the languages spoken by chinese, notwithstanding the sinic vocabulary in korean and japanese today.
also, the point of conflict is not whether koguryeo or whatever is 100% “korean” vs 100% “chinese” – it’s that china is actively dislocating the “goryeo” (“korea”) from koguryeo and is denying the lineage, hence its banning of samguk yusa. its odd ontology of history is like spewers’ – there was no “korea” back then, therefore goguryeo is its own (defunct) entity, a part of chinese territory now and is therefore “chinese” in a very broad sense; yet koreans in china are koreans or josun-ren and there is such a thing as korea today. i think, i’m not sure, that china’s logic would work if there were no korea now; and if south korea became us territory- or japanese territory- would the “koreans” in china become american or japanese?
that’s one part of it. the second part of it is more sinister and it involves the idea that goguryeo is not only chinese and not korean in the soft sense sketched above but also that goguryeo is chinese in the sense of: koguryeo is chinese because goguryeons were chinese!
China already has an enormous investment in N.K. and is in effect buying control over the country. It’s not unthinkable that China could absorb N.K. or set up a puppet regime there since that’s what China does.
http://wpherald.com/articles/4643/1/Analysis-China-expands-investment-in-N-Korea/China-taps-N-Koreas-natural-resources.html
I would also observe that the CCP trucked in soldiers, from far away provinces, to Beijing to attack the tiananmen Square protesters. These Chinese soldiers did not know what was really going on and were told that they were to put down a rebellion.
Likewise, if a centuries-old book that details a history that is contrary to what the CCP wants their people to believe, it would be more difficult to prosecute a war since it would be obvious to the average Chinese that their government was lying, once again.
Like it or not, Koreans are probably already at war with China.
“Like it or not, Koreans are probably already at war with China.”
China’s conceivable annexation of North Korea would probably be the best possible solution from a rational (not emotional) South Korean point of view. It would relieve the country from its responsibility of having to integrate 27 million (largely unqualified) DRPK job-seekers into their national labour market.
I am German, I know what I am talking about – German reunification has effectively broken the country’s back…
“It’s improper and unfair to use history to support a nationalistic agenda. I think Europe had to go through two world wars (and a lot of smaller, but no less violent wars) to understand that the study of history and nationalism don’t mix too well if one is interested in peace, stability and cooperation across borders.”
WangKon936, #11, is full on spot…
WangKon:
Re #15:
1. So what? Whether what Pow Pow asserts about Yamato Japan is true or not is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Another egregious example of the knee-jerk Korean apologist propensity to deflect everything on a Great Satan rather than deal with the matter at hand.
2. I don’t know enough about the history of early Japan to have formulated a view on the subject.
The only flame war that’s likely to occur is the one that Pow Pow unilaterally conducts with the latest straw man he ineptly tries to string together.
WJK:
Re: #17
What am I wrong about, exactly? What’s your argument. Your post really just consists of a bunch of questions of no significance without any context.
abcedefg:
re #39,
Which “arguments” are those. I haven’t been able to discern anything resembling a reasoned response to my position, other than WangKon’s mainly compatible observations.
“yet koreans in china are koreans or josun-ren and there is such a thing as korea today.”
No, ethnic Koreans in China are Korean-Chinese. They are not Koreans. Many South Korean nationals living in China remarked to me that were significant cultural differences between themselves and the Joseonjok. The Joseonjok I was acquainted with felt the same. Apart from the virtually invisible Manchus, ethnic Koreans are probably the most assimilated of the 55 official minority groups.
“I’m not saying that an idea of the Chaoxian (Chinese pronounciation of Chosun) Autonomous Prefecture isn’t something that tickles the fancy of some PRC nationalists, but it may not be the immediate rationale for their historiographic methodology.”
Chaoxian Autonomous Prefecture isn’t just an idea. It already exists but is in danger of disappearing because the so many of the formerly majority ethnic Korean population has migrated to the large cities in search of better living standards that Han Chinese now outnumber ethnic Koreans. This isn’t a case of Sinocizing like in Xinjiang or Tibet. Han Chinese aren’t moving into this bleak area of few jobs and a harsh climate. IT’s that ethnic Koreans are moving out.
“anyway, i’m no expert but wasn’t old japanese, koguryeo, baekje and shillan languages all at one point mutually intelligible?”
I question whether old Japanese and Korean were ever mutually intelligible. The grammars of modern Korean and Japanese are similar but non-Sino native words are completely different. Native words for family, nature, animals, weather, and basic actions and emotions probably have ancient roots dating back to the beginnings of the Korean and Japanese languages. Korean and Japanese semantic equivalents sound nothing like each other.
“Chaoxian Autonomous Prefecture isn’t just an idea. It already exists but is in danger of disappearing because the so many of the formerly majority ethnic Korean population has migrated to the large cities in search of better living standards that Han Chinese now outnumber ethnic Koreans.”
Yes, that’s right – it is located in the easternmost corner of the Chinese province of Jilin. Not exactly an area which is teeming with prosperity…
While I agree that they’re prolly the most assimilated ethnic group in China, they’re hardly invisible, as their average size is way above the average.
well, i see it’s ok with marmot that you call me ‘pow pow’. thus, i’ll refer to you as han-spewer.
i see you didn’t address anybody’s concern about your contention that koguryeo doesn’t belong to korea’s timeline. answered questions with questions. can’t you back up your claim? let me ask you again:
what are your sources?
‘The grammars of modern Korean and Japanese are similar but non-Sino native words are completely…’
the grammars of korean and japanese are identical. korean immigrants to yamato probably gave the japanese language it’s grammar while it retained much of it’s own vocabulary. completely? not completely, sonagi.
btw, about a year ago, i had a japanese client who spoke only japanese. her daughter would translate. one day, i asked her about something that happened in the past. her daughter translated the question and something struck me about what i heard. i heard the word ‘-tta’ like 갔었다 at the end of her sentence. i asked her about that. she said it was an informal way to indicate the past tense. when she translated a declaritive sentence, i heard the word -te at the end of the sentence. i asked about that and she said it meant ‘he said’ just like 거기 있대. anyway, i just thoght that was interesting.
‘#3 said “north korea + chinese province = war”
I don’t think so….’ hugh
‘Ask yourself: what happened every other time the Mongols, or Chinese, or Japanese came? Ferocious resistance, or a bitter bowing down? We all know the answer.’ hugh
the chinese directly ruled vietnam for over a thousand years. did you know that?
we all know the answer? no, we all don’t. china taking any part of korea will mean certain war. and anybody who automatically thinks china will win is just iraqi crazy.
#44,
I still stand by the belief that both of you two were acting rather childish. Pawikirogi was pouting and you were being a smart ass. The two being pretty much the same except that one is just a more superficially mature version of the other.
#48,
Yeah, made a lazy mistake there. I was referring to North Korea perhaps being the new and EXPANDED Chaoxian Autonomous Prefecture.
#49,
I agree with this. People interested in early Korean history should really read the Nihongi. It’s pretty clear to me that the Nihongi contains information from Baekje history texts that no longer exist. There ares so many referrances to Baekje in the Nihongi that Jonathan Best uses it as his third most cited source in his recent book “A History of the Early Korean Kingdom of Paekje.”
Anyways, the Nihongi appears to say that Silla had a language that was different then what the Japanese in Yamato were speaking. The Nihongi says stuff like, “…in the Silla language they say…” and “…the envoys from Silla said in their language…” Baekje was probably a a bilingual state, with a more Silla like language for the common people and a “court” language that was similar to what the Japanese were speaking. Information gleaned from the Nihongi would indicated that Baejke and Silla envoys used the same words when communicating with one another, but gave no indication of any difficulty when Baekje envoys and royal hostages communicated with Japanese nobles.
Ashton, transalator of the Nihongi, thought that Korean and Japanese were related languages much like two old European languages (he says so in his footnotes). I think if we had the full corpus of Puyo/Koguryo/Baekje language materials (which we don’t, just fragments based on Chinese ideographic glosses based on place names of all things), then we could see the similarities better between modern Korean and Japanese.
pawi, wangkon, listen to enough Japanese, and you’ll be amazed at the grammar similarities with Korean, and some words that mean the same and even sound the same.
Now whether or not that was pre AD 300 or post AD 1850 is for other people to judge. There’s a little bit of both.
M“pawi, wangkon, listen to enough Japanese, and you’ll be amazed at the grammar similarities with Korean, and some words that mean the same and even sound the same.”
Be careful. Those words that sound the same are mostly Chinese in origin or Sino-Japanese words that entered the Korean lexicon during the colonial period. I do not think the grammar similarities are coincidental and agree with Pawi that early inhabitants of the Korean peninsula probably influenced the development of the Japanese language. This assertion, however, is not true:
“the grammars of korean and japanese are identical.”
They are similar but not identical. Some differences come to mind immediately. First, Japanese has no future/conjectural infix like the Korean 겠. The same verb form is used for present habitual and future actions. Second, Korean has the single infinitive ending, 다, used for both verbs and predicate adjectives while Japanese has five different infinitive verb endings that determine conjugation. Japanese also has two distinct predicate adjective endings and conjugations.
They’re just similar enough in grammar and syntax that when I was trying to learn both simultaneously, I had to give up and focus on Korean exclusively. I couldn’t retain both in my head! As a result, I’ve gone from having been able to write a long letter in Japanese (really bad Japanese, no doubt, but at least I tried) ten years ago, to understanding hardly a word of it even in speaking today.
” In Koguryo’s case, since today’s land also belongs to North AND South Korea (Koguryo’s maximum southern expansion was as far as today’s Taejon), China needs to exercise more discretion and diplomacy.”
Though I hope they don’t, as Chinese arrogance makes the job of America’s diplomats much easier (not that we are much less arrogant, but as long as we ARE less…)
“china taking any part of korea will mean certain war. and anybody who automatically thinks china will win is just iraqi crazy.”
Yes, if South Korea gets Uncle Sucker involved in this one, it might be hard to predict the outcome. Pawi, are you saying that Koreans will fight, even if the US doesn’t get involved? Can’t see the Americans (or the Chinese) being at all keen on a war, especially over North Korea.
# 55
I have to agree with Sonagi here. I personally don’t believe there is a direct genetic relationship between modern Korean and Japanese. There are, however, interesting similarities. Some Korean nouns became verbs. Korean nose, Koh, became Japanese Kagu or to smell. Korean for ear, Ki became Kiku, to hear. Korean mouth, ip, became ipu, to speak. There are approximately 300 non-sino cognates between Korean and Japanese. I think these similarities are interesting, but given that the native (non-sino) vocabs are SO different, it’s tough to make a case for a genetic relationship. Lastly, we have to compare apples to apples here and lining up modern Korean and modern Japanese won’t help anybody. What complicates things is that we know very little about old Japanese and even less on old Korean. I think all we have on old Korean are two very short Silla poems preserved in the Samguk Sagi.
There is likely a transitional language out there that’s now extinct that would shed more light on these incidental similarities between Korean and Japanese. Puyo/Koguryo/Baekje would be a good a candidate as any I suppose.
Knock yourself out 메뚜기
Sonagi, WangKon (55, 59):
Yes, it’s weird. It’s an intriguing mystery, that two languages so close to each other in provenance are structurally* so similar yet in terms of native vocabulary so wildly different.
*In terms of e.g., the existence of speech levels and honorifics; dual (native/Chinese) numbering systems and the purposes for which each is used; word order; use of post-noun particles; the general ways in which meaning is conveyed through verb endings; dropping of pronouns when context is clear; and so on.
uh, hans spewer, koguryeo has almost nothing to do with the evolution of what we call the chinese. however, koguryeo has everything to do with the formation of the people we call korean. you understand?
and did you notice? nobody seems to agree with your position.
‘The proponents of both those antithetical positions are nothing more than modern national chauvinists in search of validation. It’s too bad that your han-addled mind can’t grasp the idea….’ spewer
really? you mean the author of the samguk sagi is a modern national chauvanist? lol.
It is my understanding, based upon what I have read, pawikirogi, that the Samguk Sagi also has its own bias, belonging to the time of its creation (from what I’ve read).
I really wish there was more material left over from these earlier times, if for no other reason that, in the resulting partial vacuum of documentation, the Chinese Communist Party is hell-bent upon making so much history exclusively Chinese. Such actions are like a crooked landlord that invents dummy receipts so as to fake a paper trail, just to cover up their unsavory business practices.
The ancient relationship between Korea and Japan is quite interesting but also very complex. From the remaining myth and old documents we know that the ancient Yamato dynasty had close relationship with Bakchae, but there are numerous places (rivers,mountains, shrines) which bear the name of “Shilla”, “Koguryo”.
For example, for whatever reasons, strangely ancient tombs in the Nagano prefectures clearly resembles that of the royal tombs from Koguryo which has puzzled Japanese archaeologists for decades ( these tombs were one reason that Egami Namio, a popular Japanese ethnologist and archaeologist advocated the so called “Mounted horse rider theory”, in which he propagated that the emperor was a descendant from mounted horse riders from Koguryo. This theory was first published in 1930ies and became popular after the war, albeit condemned as a remnant of Imperial Japanese thought from the left side thus very notorious among progressive and Marxist intellectuals).
Of course the language relation is also a big mystery. As far I don’t think that there definite prove (linguistically or archaologicaly) to determine whether Bakchae or Koguryo or Shilla would be the major influence to Ancient Japan.
Maybe all of them.
By the way Pawikirogi
The relation between Ancient Japan and Korea was never denied by Japanese scholar (except maybe between 1941 to 1945), nor the imperial roots.
Actually the relationship was the main justification for the annexation of Korea.
“Hey we were once one nation. Let’s help our old bro’s who are suffering from lethal old east asian tradition and are unable to adapt to the modern world. Of course we have to guid them. First they have to abandon old clothes and must wear modern clothes (japanese culture and languages).As we are originaly one nation, that will not harm them”.
That is called 日鮮同祖論 (common ancestry of Japan and Korea), the main ideology behind the annexation and in post war era it became notorious, thus any reference to the common cultural roots of Japan and Korea was condemned as “reactionary” “imperialistic” “sign of renewed agressive policy” by the leftist and progressive for a long time (until the collapse of the soviet union).
Quite contrary to the belief of many contemporary Koreans (and maybe to some Japanese).
If you have an argument to make, please do; your incessant simple-minded bare citations of works it’s not clear you even have read, let alone understood, is tiresome.
And, btw, please take your meds so we can relieved from your maniacal lol
1. The notion that China would take over North Korea is ridiculous.
A. China’s biggest problem is its huge population of unemployed and unemployable. In order to maintain equilibrium, China must move millions of people to the cities every year. In other words, China has problems finding work for the people it already has. They don’t need to annex 24 million new people.
A2: North Korea’s population is unemployable. North Koreans, as a whole, don’t receive the education necessary for the 21st century. Combine education standards with language obstacles and you have a disaster worthy of the phrase: Mission Accomplished.
B. China’s northeast regions are some of its least developed. Annexing North Korea would only compound the problem.
C. Annexation of North Korea would put the U.S. military on China’s borders borders. China doesn’t have the stomach to face such a threat again.
D. China will have earned itself a new enemy in South Korea.
Ps Pow Pow:
Here’s someone who seems to agree with me:
http://hnn.us/articles/21617.html.
I know it’s a rather lengthy piece for someone of your attention span, and discouragingly fact-filled for someone with your aversion to reality, so I don’t really expect an honest response from you – just more of your usual 똥 말. Let it fly.
And isn’t it interesting, 메뚜기, that the only places that Ahn apparently can get her views published is in a US-university sponsored publication and (gasp!) one supported by the other Great Satan:
http://www.japanfocus.org/products/details/1837
Looking forward to seeing what mental acrobatics you undergo trying to deal with the cognitive dissonance induced by a Korean scholar taking a position so offensive to your han in those fora.
“North Korea’s population is unemployable. North Koreans, as a whole, don’t receive the education necessary for the 21st century.”
I agree with Young Rocco thus far, but not with regard to his other statements.
To mention only one point:
“Annexation of North Korea would put the U.S. military on China’s borders borders. China doesn’t have the stomach to face such a threat again.”
The US troups are likely to have left the ROK by then – and even if they had not, they would not constitute a threat to the PRC. It would be sheer madness for the US to take on China over the North Korea issue – and the Chinese would not be stupid enough to provoke a confrontation with the US by an attack on the ROK (which, unlike the DPRK, has only few natural resources and is therefore of very little interest to the Chinese).
Sperwer,
The article written by Ahn gives a broad (but good) overview of the issues involved in the debate; she concludes with 1 or 2 paragraphs merely suggesting a direction for improved research. Her paper makes no strong assertions and is not something that would unhinge any K nationalist earnestly interested in this dispute. Most of what Ahn covers I’ve found discussed by amateur Korean history buffs on pop-culture message boards and blogs such as this one.
As far as those two paragraphs go, she’s committting two mistakes. The first mistake is the same mistake you are accusing a few here of committing, though you are coming in from the opposite pole; namely, the thinking which leads you to believe that there is an “anachronism” driving this dispute is itself a form of anachronism. It’s a category mistake: “Korean” is not a national entity on the level or likes of Silla, Baekje, or Koguryeo. It’s a modern concept that emerges from an analysis of history that finds that certain political entities of the past are causal, proximally related, and important to the geographic, cultural, political, ethnic makeup of a group of people (the “Koreans”) in a way that’s unique to that group. Arguments cannot be anachronistic because “Korean” is a composite concept, modern by definition, and by definition related to Koguryeo.
Ahn seems to misunderstand the above. Her second mistake is that and when she writes about “histories in between”, she ignores that there are important differences in the way modern groups of people can be related to past entities. “China,” for sure, has a relation to Koguryeo; but this relation does not involve the sake stakes or is not of the same kind as Koguryeo’s relation to “Koreans” today.
I agree its silly to think China wants to take over north korea. If China wanted North Korea it could have taken it in the Korean war.
Second, despite the ideas on this board, South Korea would not likely go to war with China to defend North Korea. But South Korea is capable of building its own nuclear weapons. A nuclear armed South Korea would change any equation involving the Chinese taking over the North.
I don’t think Ahn’s work should be given much weight, as I doubt she has much professional knowledge on this subject to provide a professional opinion. Unfortunately, her work is cited often, due to the superficious neutrality of her work. By the way, Ahn holds no academic credentials in history or its related subjects. She has only majored in feminism.
In response to the following post by Sonagi,
“No, ethnic Koreans in China are Korean-Chinese. They are not Koreans. Many South Korean nationals living in China remarked to me that were significant cultural differences between themselves and the Joseonjok. The Joseonjok I was acquainted with felt the same. Apart from the virtually invisible Manchus, ethnic Koreans are probably the most assimilated of the 55 official minority groups.”
I do agree that there are cultural diffeerences between South Koreans and Korean Chinese. However, the same can be said between South Koreans and Korean Americans. I believe we are all products of our surrounding social environments, and as such, Koreans, regardless of blood, differ from eachother based on what kind of society we grow up in.
However, most Koreans nonetheless share unique cultural traits that makes us common among others. The Korean Chinese, though they grow up in a radically different environment than South Koreans, still carry on many of the unique Korean cultural heritages, most important being the Korean language. As I see it, in this regard, Koreans are probably one of the few ethnic minorities in China that will not eventually be “assimilated” into the majority Han Chinese population.
I believe language is the biggest factor here. Learning Korean in China has its practical uses, primarily due to the Korean investors in China who prefer to hire bilingual Korean Chinese fluent in both Korean and Chinese. For other ethnic minorities, unfortunately, learning their native language has little practical use. Without their language, their ethnicity gradually perish, as they become more and more like the Han Chinese. This is a trend that I believe is especially true for the Manchus. I have met many Manchus before, but I have seen none that could speak the Manchu language. Without such distinction, they are no different from the Han Chinese except that they identify themselves differently, though there are also cases where half-Manchus identify themselves as Han Chinese.
“I do agree that there are cultural diffeerences between South Koreans and Korean Chinese. However, the same can be said between South Koreans and Korean Americans. I believe we are all products of our surrounding social environments, and as such, Koreans, regardless of blood, differ from eachother based on what kind of society we grow up in.”
Well, I had a korean chinese friend who was a graduate student of anthropology in Japan. He said that (as he was an anthropologist) he felt both identity in Japan,Korean and Chinese because Japanese in general were interested about his view of China as a Korean, and his view of Japan as a Chinese.
In China, he said that he felt “Korean” especially when he was talking to the Han-Chinese.
But he said when he lived in South Korea,that he definitly felt his identity as a Chinese.
Identity pretty much changes due to context and environment.
An overall,united identity based on blood or language is, IMHO, an illusion.
tomojiro, you are right.
KorAms in Seoul are Americans to the Koreans, unless, unless they are Michelle Wie
or someone else who has accomplished something extra ordinary.
I would say that when I was in Korea that I felt American sometimes but then I felt Korean sometimes too.
If I was backpacking in Europe, then I’d feel more American then Korean.
I found an observation taken from the Presbyterian missionary James Gale (1898) that reminded me of the consequences of purloining Korea’s heritage:
Good point tomojiro, identities are indeed often influenced by the immediate environment. However, I disagree whether blood(I prefer ethnicity or culture) or language is an important basis for a shared identity. For instance, if that particular Korean Chinese couldn’t speak Korean at all, or didn’t really carry on any Korean cultural heritage, what would be “Korean” about him or her in the first place? On which basis on he or she identify him or herself as a Korean? This is what I’m talking about. Such cultural heritages makes one unique, and serves as an important basis for a unique collective identity.
I’ve also been meaning to make a response to your post regarding Japanese imperialism and Korean nationalism. I believe it is quite well known in Korea that the Japanese claimed shared ancestry with Koreans to justify annexation. I for one have known this for quite a while. It’s quite ironic that some Japanese ultranationalists today vehemently deny such a connection. I find their behavior understandable, however.
Korean nationalism made its own responses to that particular kind of Japanese imperialism. There were Korean nationalists who outright denied connections to the Japanese, as well as others such as the Chinese, and there were also those who would make subtle disagreements, such as whether Korea or Japan should be the “centerpiece” of this collective identity. From my experience, with regards to Korean relationship with Japan, the latter form of Korean nationalism is more dominant today.
“In China, he said that he felt “Korean” especially when he was talking to the Han-Chinese.
But he said when he lived in South Korea,that he definitly felt his identity as a Chinese.”
Yes, I know this situation very well from my experience as a counsellor for foreign students. I must admit, however, that I am not generally happy about such an attitude…
I (born in Romania as an ethnic South Asian) also once considered playing this card during my childhood in Germany. When I was in primary school in Cologne/Germany, I tried to make a big deal of my “otherness” – but the people around me quickly dissuaded me from doing so. And, with hindsight, I agree with them that this “I’m so different from all others around” attitude does not really benefit the individual concerned, quite the contrary…
“For instance, if that particular Korean Chinese couldn’t speak Korean at all, or didn’t really carry on any Korean cultural heritage, what would be “Korean” about him or her in the first place? On which basis on he or she identify him or herself as a Korean?”
This is exactly why I maintain that Korean adoptees (in particular those who have been adopted at a very young age) are neither Korean-Americans, let alone “Gyopos”.
I ran into a lot of trouble for stating the obvious…
The same goes, of course, for adoptees of other origin and in other countries, such as myself. In my view, I am neither legitimately entitled to describe myself as a Romanian (although I was born in Romania and am entitled to this country’s passport, nor as a Gypsy, let alone an Indian – although my ancestors in all probability originated from there).
I think Koreans whether they are adopted or not they should keep their own identity and have proud of their own heritage instead of abandoning it. They should be proud of it and pursue its interests and try to help it when in need unless you want to entitled as negligent and irresponsible.
#82:
Saywhatnow? Heck, I’m part German, but you’d be hard-pressed to find me cavorting in lederhosen or eating sausages, much less ‘pursuing the German culture’s interests.’ Why should a third- or fourth-generation Korean-American who probably doesn’t speak Korean (and might not even *gasp* like kimchi) — or anyone from any cultural ancestry — feel the need to identify with (much less ‘help out’) a culture they’ve never been a part of?
I know this thread is over a year old, but some of the remarks on here seem to have been asserted and not adequately addressed.
The first thing that struck me as most needing addressing is the Korean-Japanese language similarities. Let me begin by stating that the vocabulary-based similarities beyond those cognates resulting from local transliteration of Chinese characters in Korean and Japanese are indeed limited (I think someone mentioned 300 or so non-sinic cognates), but even 300 cognates between languages is pretty significant. Can you think of 300 words that are fairly clear cognates between, say, German and English, or French and Italian, or Russian and Polish, that aren’t the result of “sprachbund” or cultural acquisition/acquisition by proximity? I think you’d be hard-pressed to do so, unless you are an expert in those languages. Secondly, Korean and Japanese grammar, while not 100% identical, are uncannily close; so much so that there is no consensus on what language family either belongs to – currently, most scholars aver that both Korean and Japanese are language isolates with more in common with each other than with any other languages. Lastly, I noticed individuals citing (improperly, for reasons I will outline shortly) the Nihongi/Nihon Shoki for evidence that the languages spoken on the Korean Peninsula and in Japan were different. This is patently incorrect, which is obvious from one simple fact: none of these records, be it the Nihongi, the book of Sui, or the Samguk Sagi/Samguk Yusa, indicates the presence of translators between envoys or courts of the Korean kingdoms (by which I mean Silla, Baekje, and Goguryeo) and Yamato. In fact, one particular anecdote in the Nihon Shoki (I think – it could be the Nihongi or Kojiki) notes that envoys from Silla once mispronounced the name of a local Yamato landmark they liked so much only because they were not practiced in the common speech. 1) Not only did these envoys not have translators, this anecdote implies that 2) the only thing required for comfortable communication between the various courts was practice in the “common speech.” Take from all this what you will, but it’s rather clear to me that until Japan’s relative isolation from the rest of the Asian mainland (which was maintained fairly consistently with perhaps a few notable exceptions) from the 800′s on to the latter half of the 19th century, the languages spoken in Japan and Korea were fairly similar and are very likely variants of each other (if Yamato Japanese was not a direct amalgamation of Baekje/Goguryeo Korean and local languages of the time – I use Baekje/Goguryeo because let’s not forget that the two kingdoms have a common ancestral kingdom in Buyeo) that started to significantly diverge only after the unification of Korea in the late 600′s CE, the repulsion of Tang China from the Korean Peninsula by the mid-700′s CE, and the enforced isolation of Japan by the late 700′s CE.
That’s the first thing. The next item is about China’s alleged attempts to annex the DPRK. Despite the fact that the possibility exists and thus remains a fear in many minds until Korean reunification is complete, there are a number of factors that could indicate the PRC’s movement in either direction. The PRC’s notorious acquisition of foreign (relative to the Han Chinese) history, which someone aptly noted is likely out of a great deal of fear of internal divisions, while distressing, is not necessarily a pre-emptive maneuver to acquire territory outright. It certainly makes such a maneuver easier to accomplish, but only if the people in said territory believe that particular “spin” on history, which I am fairly certain the denizens of the DPRK do not. Let’s not forget the logistic issues of annexing new territories, particularly those of that backwards DPRK. Conservative estimates place the cost of bringing the DPRK’s infrastructure (pipes, electric lines, roads, mass transit, public works, and so on) just barely up to speed at U$ 1-2 trillion. Not only does the PRC not have that kind of money to spend on a pet project like the annexation of the DPRK, the PRC, by all indications, does not want to spend that kind of money on anything, period. We are talking trillions with a “t” here, and this is just to lay the groundwork. Couple this with issuing passports to some 20 million starved north Koreans who will begin demanding government food aid, the need to incorporate (or forcefully retire) much of the DPRK’s 1.1 million-man military (and shore up the DPRK’s military equipment, which is far behind China’s current standards – and let’s not forget training and weapons skills discrepancies), and teaching Chinese to a population that has been working to eliminate even Chinese characters from its written script, and you have the recipe for China’s worst nightmare in terms of stability. The PRC also wants to play “the good guy” or the “good superpower” in order not to draw the wrath of the rest of the world (which is why, despite the fact that it could probably get away with a lot more than it has, the PRC has been trying to put its best foot forward to present to the world its image), and even for this reason, the PRC will not readily attempt to acquire a territory that is not recognized as traditionally “Chinese.” Even in the long-term, the DPRK does not look like it will be improving in any of the aspects I mentioned, and thus as time goes on, the outlook for a Chinese-ruled northern Korea looks worse and worse, not better. Time might heal a lot of things, but time by itself will not heal the policies of the Kims.
Third. The Goguryeo descent argument. The major problem with any Chinese acquisition of Goguryeo heritage lies not with the fact that Goguryeo greatly influenced Chinese history (because it did – in fact, failed campaigns in Goguryeo ended up bringing down the Sui Dynasty), but in the context of that influence. Goguryeo was always an “outside” or adversarial influence on China, not an “inside” or cooperative or even ruling influence on Chinese history, like the Manchu, for instance. Even the Mongol Yuan dynasty, despite having ruled over China for a century and a half, is not considered “Chinese.” With regards to context, Goguryeo has had a far greater and more relevant influence on Korea (in addition to being an indirect origin of the name “Korea” since Goryeo, from whence we have “Korea,” took its name from Goguryeo) than it has had on China. For one thing, I have already noted the intercommunicability of the Goguryeo-Silla-Baekje languages, though such communicability does not appear to exist with Chinese states. Culturally and politically speaking, the three Korean (by which I mean “of the Korean Peninsula”) kingdoms frequently allied with one against another whose aims were neutralization, not complete conquest, of one another (very indicative of a sibling-like rivalry; though this ended when Silla, which showed these tendencies when it outright acquired the premature Kaya confederation, decided to just have it all and allied with Tang China). Baekje and Goguryeo in particular both made no secret that they shared the same ancestral origins (Buyeo), and neither of them made any such connection with the dominant Chinese states of the time. Indeed, the people of those kingdoms showed significantly more kinship with each other and Silla than with anyone else (with perhaps the exception of the Malgal in Balhae) – after the unification of Korea by Silla, when Silla undertook efforts to expel Tang China from the Korean Peninsula, warriors and refugees from the newly-collapsed Baekje and Goguryeo kingdoms joined the forces of Silla in repelling the Chinese; and get this: they did not attempt to resurrect their own kingdoms once China had been satisfactorily repelled. I would bore you all with more details, but I think my point is sufficiently made here, namely that Goguryeo is distinctly more relevant to Korean history and culture (and “Korean” in this context refers to “the inhabitants of the Korean Peninsula,” which by and large have not changed, in the south since Neolithic times, and in the north at least since the expulsion of the Han commanderies) than it ever could be to those of China.
Tomojiro raises a great point about the justification that Imperial Japan used to annex Korea. For one second, let’s put aside nationalist rivalries (I’ll admit that I’m almost as rabidly nationalistic as the next guy, but my own rationalism – I am a member of Mensa, so I can’t let myself get too carried away by things that make no real sense – prevents me from being stupid) and think about this:
““Hey we were once one nation. Let’s help our old bro’s who are suffering from lethal old east asian tradition and are unable to adapt to the modern world. Of course we have to guid them. First they have to abandon old clothes and must wear modern clothes (japanese culture and languages).As we are originaly one nation, that will not harm them”.
That is called 日鮮同祖論 (common ancestry of Japan and Korea), the main ideology behind the annexation and in post war era it became notorious, thus any reference to the common cultural roots of Japan and Korea was condemned as “reactionary” “imperialistic” “sign of renewed agressive policy” by the leftist and progressive for a long time (until the collapse of the soviet union).”
The way in which Imperial Japan attempted to modernize Korea was very similar to the way in which it modernized its own populace, and Japan’s modernization was anything but tranquil. It was a violent time of upheaval, somewhat akin to a nation’s birthing pains, and brought about a rather abrupt change in Japan’s outlook. Despite the fact that Imperial Japan clearly had designs on Korea and used the “common ancestry” argument to justify the annexation (failing to realize that the two peoples had diverged too much in some 1200 years for this to work so suddenly – and I’m being nice here), much of Imperial Japan’s policies, regardless of the taste it left in our ancestors’ mouths, were the mirror image of the policies enacted in Japan in the latter half of the 19th century. Imperial Japan probably (foolishly) assumed that what worked for the Japanese would work for the Koreans, or that it could make it work for the Koreans at the point of a gun or sword. Imperial Japan had seen similar troubles when modernizing its own people (doing things like, you know, cutting off the topknots of samurai in the streets and the like), and probably expected much of the same from the Koreans.
During Meiji Japan, and especially during World War II, the common Japanese suffered just as much as the Koreans, though the key distinction in all of this is that for the Japanese, such suffering was imposed upon their own “powers that be” and would ultimately (it was hoped) glorify their people and their nation (and the language, culture, and so on, associated with them), while for the Koreans, such suffering was inflicted by a foreign power and the fruits would ultimately benefit a people and nation not their own.
If there were a bigger mistake in a relationship between two (some would say supposedly) kindred people, I can’t think of one. If the rationale was indeed something truly believed by the Japanese leadership and its people at the time, it was a nice, but poorly-executed (as were so many things in the imperialist era) idea. And, as it turned out in Korea’s case, “it’s the thought that counts” is not really an argument that is at all defensible.
As for what happened when Korea had been invaded in the past by other powers, let’s not forget that Korea had been invaded hundreds of times in its history, and in only a handful of instances was it ever fully occupied and dominated/dictated by a foreign power.
The handful of examples noted (I do not include any Korea-China suzerainty simply because whatever we think of them today, they were not quite as clear cut as vassal-lord, but closer to a tributary alliance, much like the relationship between parts of Germania and the Roman Empire, though the Koreans never demanded tribute of China or sacked a Chinese capital – of course, the Chinese dynasties were never in as bad a condition as Rome was either):
1. the Mongols. This occurred only after a series of long invasions during which Koreans killed a Mongol commander (one of only two times an enemy force killed Mongol commander, the other instance being at Ain Jalut). After all was said and done, the Mongols did not actually fully acquire Korea, but opted to impose vassaldom on Korea of a rather strict sort (princes hostage to the Mongol court, stiff tributes, Mongol military authority in Korea, and the like). Even during the Mongol hegemony, Korean guerrillas continued to harass Mongol patrols in Korea (the Chinese, whatever their role towards Korea, never had regular patrols in Korea except when helping Korea in wartime, which happened once), and the Korean court, knowing the Mongol lack of prowess at sea, moved to Ganghwa-do, just a few miles off the west coast, more or less daring the Mongols to come get them (which they did not).
2. the Japanese in 1592-8. While they did not occupy nearly as much of Korea in the second part of this conflict (from 1597-8) as they did in the first, Korean lack of preparation, as well as experienced Japanese military commanders and personnel (they were near the end of a centuries-long campaign to unite Japan, after all), allowed the Japanese to reach Korea’s far north; Kato Kiyomasa in fact engaged Orangkae (Orangai in Japanese) beyond what we think is the Tumen River in northeast Korea in 1593 before being recalled back to central Korea to help out his fellow samurai commanders who weren’t quite as quick as him. Even so, while the Japanese forces were able to penetrate as far as Pyeongyang, they could not actually hold any territory save for the line of fortresses they occupied and a few islands off of Korea’s southern coast, and their lines were continually harassed by Korean guerrillas (I note a recurring theme here). Eventually, the notable intervention of Admiral Yi Sun-shin and Ming Chinese involvement put an end to Hideyoshi’s fanciful expeditions and the Japanese were forced to leave. I wonder if the “common ancestry” idea was part of the motivation of the court of Hideyoshi to initially just request safe passage through Korea to attack China (which, given historic accounts of the shogun and samurai of the time, is a pretty civil request); I say this even though I know that the So clan in Tsushima did not want its trade with Joseon to be damaged by a war with Korea and thus worked its influence on the shogun to prevent this (though the clan’s efforts failed catastrophically and eventually had to help with the Japanese invasion effort, much to its own detriment trade-wise), but I figure this was not the only reason, and certainly not the major reason why the Joseon court so rapidly restored relations with Japan after the invasions.
3. the Japanese, again, in 1910-1945. This needs little explaining, save for the fact that resistance within Korea was quashed quite well by the Japanese colonial forces, in addition to the fact that the expatriate resistance forces in Manchuria were something of a thorn in Japan’s efforts there though never a significant enough force to merit major maneuvers. Given that this took place in the imperialist era and the discrepancies between the major powers and the nations with which they had their way, it is no surprise that effective resistance and guerrilla efforts were few and far between.
There. Three instances in which Korea has been occupied and dictated by foreign powers. Chinese suzerainty (which was a loose hegemony at best) notwithstanding, Korea has not been particularly amenable to foreign interference in her own jurisdiction, and she certainly would not be today.
This an answer to “what happened every other time the Mongols, or Chinese, or Japanese came? Ferocious resistance, or a bitter bowing down? We all know the answer.” Yes, we do know the answer. It was always ferocious resistance, with the exception of the most recent occupation by Japan – and even then, the resistance persisted, albeit mostly outside Korea. To assume that Koreans bitterly bowed down to foreign invasion every time would be foolish and betrays a significant ignorance of Korean history. The Mongols had to invade Korea six times before Goryeo, unable to sustain such massive defensive campaigns, signed a treaty. The Japanese militarily invaded Korea only twice (1592-8 being two separate invasions) and retreated both times (albeit the first time in part thanks to Chinese intervention). The Chinese never actually invaded Korea proper after the Tang Chinese assistance to Silla in the late 600′s CE, and after Korea was united, the Tang were kicked out, never to return in force.
Again, here is an example of backwards-thinking East Asian mentality and historical baggage.
Mizar,
I don’t know what they heck you are referring to. Ecthelion’s comments look very well researched to me. Maybe you just didn’t read them.
Lol, no it was not a comment on his comments. I am referring to the constant bickering about the remote historical past in Korea, China and Japan. It’s absurd, backwards-looking thinking that does nobody any good and only causes needless strife. “Hey! You wronged me XX years ago!” “Hey, this land was historically ours, based on XX revisionist interpretation of XX inaccurate map/document.
Why are East Asians so obsessed with race, nationality, history, sovereignty and image over such forward looking values as truth, good will and setting aside the murky past in favor of building a better present and future?
Ecthelion,
Very well thought out and scholarly exhibition. However, a few errors I’d like to point out.
“I noticed individuals citing (improperly, for reasons I will outline shortly) the Nihongi/Nihon Shoki for evidence that the languages spoken on the Korean Peninsula and in Japan were different. This is patently incorrect”
I read Ashton’s transalation of the Nihongi three times and it did clearly make a distiction several times between what language Silla was speaking vs. what the Japanese themeselves were speaking. However, you are correct in saying that the Nihongi never said that Silla brought offical transalators to speak to the Yamato court. It would appear that Silla envoys switched easily from their language to the “common speech” of Yamato Japan. The Nihongi does not make this distiction with Baekje envoys or royal guests (hostages?) or with Koguryo.
“I wonder if the “common ancestry” idea was part of the motivation of the court of Hideyoshi to initially just request safe passage through Korea to attack China”
Hideyoshi’s often declared rationale to invade Joseon was that he was just following the legendary exploits of Empress Jingū and his son Hachiman, when they supposedly conquered southern Korea.
“intercommunicability of the Goguryeo-Silla-Baekje languages”
Glosses of Koguryo and Baekje place names would imply that at least the older language of Koguryo and Baekje were very different from Silla. This point was popularly brought forth by Beckwith. He explained that Koguryo/Baekje/Silla intercommunicative ability had emerged by the 5th or 6th century because most of the Korean peninsula was populated by Han Korean peoples who spoke the Silla language and it by this time became the lingua franca of the peninsula.
“after the unification of Korea by Silla, when Silla undertook efforts to expel Tang China from the Korean Peninsula, warriors and refugees from the newly-collapsed Baekje and Goguryeo kingdoms joined the forces of Silla in repelling the Chinese”
There were plenty of Baekje troops that worked for Tang and fought against Silla as well. Also, I’m skeptical that Silla supported Koguryo rebels to destabilize the Andong administration in Pyongyang because of any ethnic affiliation. If you read the Samguk Sagi you’d know that Kim Beopmin (in a lengthy exposition in the Silla pongi), an envoy to Tang at the time, got a verbal agreement from Emperor Taizong to split the Korean peninsula along the Taedong river. Supporting Koguryo rebels was a good way for Silla to destabilize the Tang threat on its border without directly antagonizing Tang.
“and get this: they did not attempt to resurrect their own kingdoms once China had been satisfactorily repelled”
This statement is false. The last Koguryo king recognized by Silla, Anseung, and his followers and Koguryo refugees were settled in modern day Iksan, in southern Korea. Anseung revolted and tried to set-up a new Koguryo kingdom, but his uprising was quickly quelled and Anseung was moved to the Silla capital, given a Silla surname and his followers were scattered to different parts of the Silla kingdom. Essentially, Silla did the same thing as Tang, and scattered them across a wide geography when the Koguryo refugees became too bothersome.
“Why are East Asians so obsessed with race, nationality, history, sovereignty and image over such forward looking values as truth, good will and setting aside the murky past in favor of building a better present and future?”
Eh, just as much as Europeans were before two World Wars almost completely purged it out of their systems.
completely?? You must not have been to eastern Europe lately… Hungarians and Czechs won’t shut up about how they were wronged by history.
But yes, it’s really the whole world, except in places that purged it out of system through World Wars (western Europe) or places that effectively wiped out all the natives (U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ). I argued repeatedly that one of the great detriments of American foreign policy is Americans’ inability to understand the baggage of history.
And I have repeatedly argued that the US’s lack of this historical baggage is America’s greatest asset, freeing it to write its own destiny. The proof is pretty much in the pudding as they say.
The Korean: “I argued repeatedly that one of the great detriments of American foreign policy is Americans’ inability to understand the baggage of history.”
I disagree. US area specialists are among the world’s most knowledgeable. The intelligence failure of the Bush Administration was in deliberately ignoring and/or cherrypicking intelligence reports, and making improper decisions.
Mizar,
Believe it or not, I agree. Not quite “greatest asset”, but a very significant indeed. But it does have its drawbacks in the foreign policy area.
I also have zero doubt that America’s area specialists are among the world’s most knowledgeable. But the inability to understand the historical baggage is, for example, one of the reasons why Bush Administration foolishly thought it could solve the Gordian Knot that was Iraq by bombing the shit out of it.
Agreed.
The attempts by Britain and Russia, to think of the modern ones, to control Afghanistan should have not been ignored, too, yet they were. I realize the U.S. going into Afghanistan was different than that of going into Iraq, but some historical baggage at the time would have been useful. We shouldn’t have gone in there half-force, if we were going to go in at all.
You must log in to post a comment.