I did the introduction to my American government class yesterday. As part of it, I was talking about hegemony. I asked the students something like “was there any country that was politically and culturally dominant in East Asia 500 years ago?”
….. (cricket chirping)
I tried rephrasing the question a few times, but still got nothing. I did a quick check after the class, to make sure I did not make a mistake: Yep 1508 was right in the middle of the Ming Dynasty, a time when China was certainly a hegemonic power in Asia.
I would like to think that I didn’t explain the concept properly or that it was just a language problem, but they seemed to get most of the other things I talked about.
Now I am wondering what they are teaching in history classes in Korean high schools. Perhaps it is no better than what we get back in the States.
87 Comments
Modern Korean history began with the invasion of Japan.
Before the Japanese, Korea was under the control of the Chinese. Koreans conveniently forget the abuses under the Chinese Qing & Ming Dynasty before 1900.
“Modern Korean history began with the invasion of Japan.”
Tmartin, Korea was not under the control of the Chinese “before the Japanese” as you so bluntly put it. Korea submitted under China’s tributary system only during the Joseon dynasty. Before that, Korea enjoyed a certain amount of power, and even exercised influence over Japan.
Korean high school students are taught a particularly and uniquely distorted brand of ethno-nationalist triumphalism, with the peculiar twist of Korea being the victim of everyone else’s depredations until Liberation miraculously occurred through some unidentified agency - which only gets named in connection with the greatest violation of Korea ever alleged to have occurred. Read the representative high school texts; they are very revealing. Sadae-buii doesn’t scan too well into the myth.
You heard crickets chirping because you asked a question with such an obvious and, as Sperwer alluded to, unprideful answer. Nobody likes discussing their elder brother’s achievements.
Oh man, I face that problem all the time when teaching my upper-level univ courses on American Culture, Korean Buddhism, Global Cultural Tourism etc. One must assume that even K seniors with fluent English know nothing useful about either K or world history. If they had classes in them at all, they have only memorized some words & numbers to spit back on an exam and then forget, or turn in ‘reports’ that are copied straight off a web-page. These courses are increasingly ‘optional’ in K high schools, and if offered are stripped of understanding-perspective content.
The prof must, then, start with a review of the bare basics every time — hopefully at high-speed — you just have to assume a blank-slate. For my Korean Buddhism course we begin with the rise of Hinduism in India 4,000 years ago (that would probably be needed in the USA too!). And it’s not just the high schools — K ‘Christians’ (Protestants) in your classes will not know how their religion is similar to or differs from Judaism, Islam, or even Catholicism — it has never occurred to them to wonder, or even care.
I thoroughly empathize with your frustration, Andy — but am used to it. And no most American high schools aren’t much better (though many univs are!).
Just re-set your expectations and you’ll be fine — keep in mind what a great service you’re doing the kids by teaching them the basics and understanding-perspective contexts that nobody else has ever bothered to. It’s totally heart-warming to see their faces light up as they realize they’re actually learning something thought-useful about the world and their own nation… It’s a ‘good service’ to perform, even if you’re not teaching the advanced material you’d expected to.
If it was Ming, why did it collapse about 100 years later, due to wars with Japan and the Manchus?
I think I would have answered, “not really.”
Defending Sa-dae is very important in Korean history to justify the over-glorified position of current big name clans, their ancestors, and their policies in the past.
If you do not defend it in the following equation,
“Kiss Chinese ass = Peace in Korean peninsula = Smartest political move, ever”
You become wjk.
I think you would have to throw out about half the people in the Korean list of “wie-ins”.
Without knowing anything about your curriculum or course objectives, perhaps I might suggest that your young students think America+hegemony is a dated topic, and they’d rather learn about how the US is dealing with the emerging multipolar reality of today’s world?
I think Sperwer is more correct than Sonagi there… it’s more false-teaching and plain ignorance than pride. and Tmartin does us a service in #1, demonstrating an utter absence of knowledge of / perspective on even the basics of the topic, a Badukian level of distorted ignorance. Dunno if Tmartin is Korean or Foreigner, but s/he gives us a perfect example.
Linkd, one could not effectively teach about how the USA is dealing (or not-dealing) with the emerging multipolar reality of today’s world without the students first understanding what hegemony is and when/how/why the USA had it… I think this is the point at hand.
very well put, sperwer.
ya’ think they’re gonna get it this second time around?
Most of the time I try to have discussions about concepts and why’s & how’s, even with very advanced students, I get the blank stares of deers in headlights.
They either have no clue because they never really learned it or they are so ingrained into the the pattern of “listen, teacher will tell us the ‘right’ answer so that we can repeat in on the test”. They never have any experience with critical participation.
As for Korean history classes, here it is in a nutshell:
-Confucianism is great. Korea is the most respectful & harmonius society.
-China has been our big brother. We have had a very harmonious relationship.
-Japan invaded several times, then took over. They are the worst country/people in the world. Hate them forever.
-Liberation happened. The Japanese just left for some reason.
-The Americans came in and they are greedy bastards. They say they are helping us, but don’t believe them. They have been trying to be just like Japan.
-North Korea is our friend. We must embrace them.
Thus endeth today’s lesson.
I swear, a Korean history class could take 20 minutes!
Oh yeah, add to that history lesson, as sperwer stated:
-Korea is and has always been the victim of foreign aggression. Of course, the Chinese have historically been the exception.
It could be worse. My brother’s buddy was teaching at a community college a few years ago. When he was explaining the concept of osmosis to his biology class, the class, nearly as a whole became offended and accused him of trying to trick them. They were sure that the guy had made it up. Class ended early that day and he went straight to the bar for more than one drink.
I wouldn’t argue with you, sanshinseon. I’m just saying that they’re young, and are likely less inclined to want to relive America’s past glories than to consider the relation of a somewhat weakened America to an increasingly strong Asia.
I haven’t had the opportunity to teach in Korea yet, but have considered some professor positions. I’ve heard the criticism that students are taught to memorize but never really required to analyze or operate at higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. For those of you who have taught at the university level, is this really so widespread? I am suspicious if it’s as bad as it seems from reading blogs, or if it is a case of:
1) new professor warned about K-students’ supposed inexperience in higher level thinking
2) some, but maybe not too significant evidence identified
3) stereotype is reinforced in professor’s mind
4) professor blogs
So, to the college professors here (of something other than ESL/EFL), how bad is this problem?
Rethinking my answer, I’m more inclined to agree with Sperwer. Koreans are aware of China’s great influence in the East and beyond, but even highly educated Koreans from the best schools may not recognize China’s great cultural, economic, and political dominance, reflecting what is taught in schools. The term “tributary state” gets a careful massaging when discussin Korean history.
I recall seeing on a Seoul pedestrian overpass a large sign proudly and earnestly proclaiming in Korean, “Korea: for 5,000 years the light of Asia.”
I think cmm’s comments provide some much needed balance here. I’ve got my own horror stories of teaching Korean uni students who come of as total idiots, but they are just that: stories. Anecdotal evidence does not make for good conclusions.
That said, I will add that I’ve observed (but not measured!) a general lowering of uni standards in the past few years. I’ve attributed it to a population dip for the uni age group, leading to universities needing to attract more students from a smaller pool, but I’m by no means sold on that theory. Comments and responses welcome.
Korean history is far more complex than most foreigners would believe. For those that say that China dominated Korea, this is just simply not the case. True, Chinese culture had a tremendous influence on Korean culture, but of course this was not limited to only Korea. Chinese culture has influenced every state in East Asia (some East Asian countries, particularly those in SE Asia, were also strongly influenced by India, such as Burma, Cambodia, Thailand, and Indonesia).
Politically, Korea was a “tributary” state to China, not a vassal or kingdom or what have you. In the tributary system, one only needed to recognize the superiority of China and Chinese culture. This was done with an annual tribute to Beijing. However, to show their guests that they were indeed wise and benevolent, the Chinese usually bestowed gifts on the visiting tributaries that were twice the amount that they had brought. It was rare for China to become politically involved in the affairs of its tributary states, although of course it did happen on occasion (the Imjin War is one such example).
As a result, the statements by Koreans that they were independent for thousands of years is not that far off the mark. Of course there were periods when they were dominated by the Mongols and other nomadic tribes that also wreaked havoc on the Chinese empire. Also, in the tributary system the closer a state was to China geographically, the more enlightened it was. This is a source of much of the pride (arrogance?) of many Koreans historically. The farther away from China you were, the more barbaric you were. Therefore, the Koreans were enlightened, the Japanese less enlightened (according to the traditional Confucian view).
Also, to say that Korea only started the tributary system with the rise of the Choseon dynasty is also misleading. These tributes stated long before that, as can be attested to the fact that the Koryo dynasty had to continue sending tributes to Beijing even after the Mongols had conquered the country. If the Koreans had to continue doing this, then obviously this system was in place long before the Choseon dynasty.
When the Manchus, a “barbaric” tribe, brought down the enlightened Chinese empire, Korean Confucianists were thrown into a flux. They could either acknowledge the Manchus as rulers of China, which would have meant that they were acknowledging “barbarians” who were less “enlightened”‘ than themselves (and who would do that?) or they could basically ignore the fact that the Manchus existed and continue to revere China and its Confucian enlightenment, basically revere the past and ignore the present and don’t think about the future (which to me sums up Confucianism perfectly, in many ways North Korea is very similar to this today). They chose the latter and sealed the borders and prevented any foreign knowledge from entering the country and kept the people from having any contact from the outside world. The “Hermit Kingdom” was created and lasted for nearly 500 years. In the end, this was Korea’s downfall as they had no way to comprehend a world where China was not the supreme cultural, political, military, and enlightened center. When China fell to the Europeans this threw the Koreans into greater confusion. The rise of Japan (who forced themselves to open up) only further complicated this. This is the reason both Korea and China were so “backwards” during the late 19th and early 20th century when other countries came knocking on their doors. They literally had no idea how to answer or acknowledge them.
Can anyone verify the allegations below? Because when I went to school, that’s not what I learned.
“-Liberation happened. The Japanese just left for some reason.
-The Americans came in and they are greedy bastards. They say they are helping us, but don’t believe them. They have been trying to be just like Japan.
-North Korea is our friend. We must embrace them.”
holy crap. am i reading the right blog? what the hell is an objective nuanced view of korean history doing here?
Couldn’t agree w/you more nacho. A lot of people have a general misunderstanding of Asian and particularly Korean history.
The reason why China had a problem responding to Europeans is that in the confucian system the lowest members of society were members of the military and merchants. What did the Europeans first send to the Chinese as representatives? Members of the military and merchants.
Andy,
My suspicion is that you asked them to apply a concept to a set of facts to come up with an answer that required a (modest) level of analysis. Korean schools are good at teaching people to remember a lot of facts. I’m sure if you asked your students what the name of the founder of the Ming Dynasty was and what date it was formally established, then I’m pretty sure there may have been an answer. Now for me personally, I didn’t fully understand the term hegemony until I took international relations 201 in college.
# 20,
An objective view of history is generally not welcomed here in the hole. Why? It’s just easier and less of a mental challenge to backwards project your personal prejudices onto current views of Korean history, thus making it a lot easier to make fun of what Koreans believe in.
nacho, you are believing what I used to believe.
in short, what you are believing is partially false.
I want you to look into why the Ming emperor wore yellow, while the chosun king wore red.
and why the Ming emperor had 9? dragons on his outfit, while the Chosun king has only 3.
sometime into Koryo’s kingdom, Korean peninsula kings were to stop calling themselves,
“hwang-jae.”
because at some point in time, the Chinese told the Koreans not to use it.
Of note, the waters protected the following countries from Chinese abuse and invasion.
Phillipines, Japan.
I think it is grossly unfair to group Han Chinese history with the accomplishments of the Mongols, Manchus, etc.
Fact, is Han China was conquered and occupied by powerful nomad tribes for about 1/4 of its history.
Grouping Han Chinese history into the others, is ironically playing into the
“Everyone is Chinese”
campaign that Red China is using to sinicize everyone.
Call me whatever you want.
Don’t be sinicized.
It’s a campaign by Han Chinese to destroy other tribe’s cultures and gradually their existance.
#19 cm, if you went to school in Korea, it really depends on what decade. That’s what they are taught now and have been taught for the last decade at least.
quite objectively, the only civilization Korea influenced is
Japan.
I’m not sure why Koreans keep on dreaming about Manchuria.
First, it was never just their land. It was shared property.
2nd, it’s not recoverable.
Sure, when Sa-dae started in Kyong Sang do, that land was undesirable, cold, no good for agriculture.
After the 1800’s, it is certified to be loaded with natural resources.
Korea’s loss.
cm, you went to school in Korea when military rule refused to paint the US in any negative light.
actually, I myself consider General MacArthur one of the top 10 most wonderful individuals who have ever lived on the face of the earth.
The US Korean War Vets who made South Korea a free country, and prevented what you can see today in North Korea,
are in their 80’s and late 70’s. I respect all such grandfatherly figures who tell back-in the days stories about the Korean War.
frankly, I don’t even care if they raped a Korean girl here and there, or even shot a Korean civilian by malice or accident.
frankly, South Korea is free and rich because of these men.
They should be given monetary rewards by the South Korean govt until they die in another 20 years or so.
Korean War Vets, you did something good. You can die happy and proud. Look at South Korea.
PRChina War Vets, eat dick. Die in pain.
Everything about Korean students not being used to critical participation in class is true. It is also true that education in Korea is focused on rote memorization. But as far as the silence to the above question goes, you guys are over-analyzing it. Assuming it wasn’t in the assigned reading, how many people can correctly answer the question on the spot? And remember, this is not America, where there is no correlation between level of preparation and level of participation, and where the most unprepared student volunteers to take a swipe at a question (”Um, Thailand?”). In Korea, students will rarely risk ridicule unless they are positive they have the “right” answer. So the students in his class either simply didn’t know the answer or were confused about what exactly he was getting at. In either case, Korean students tend to err on the side of being cautious, i.e., they shut up. There is a trade-off in either culture, but I won’t get into that.
The Knee-jerk reaction of attributing, to this trivial incident, the oft-cited “Korean bias” towards history (and everything under the sun, actually) is almost comical. I find it odd how Koreans are ridiculed for always feeling victimized and superior at the same time. So let me get this straight: Koreans, in order to whine about being victimized must, by definition, emphasize the “dominance” of neighboring countries. However, their sense of supriority makes them keep silent about any mention of the same “dominance” that they must emphasize. So they talk about the dominance but they never mention it. Makes sense.
It’s amusing how for some of you any fact pattern regarding Koreans, however innocuous, makes you yell “bias!” in a heartbeat. There are incidents that reveal bias, and there are ones that don’t. This one doesn’t.
Personally I think everybody is going way overboard with the historical perspective/educational system analysis here. (Not saying that it’s wrong, just that it’s not very relevant as to why the students didn’t answer Andy’s question)
When I came back to Korea and Korean high school after spending a few years overseas, I experienced something similar. In international or American schools students will not only answer questions from the teacher but will actually engage in easy classroom banter, so at first I engaged with my Korean teachers in a similar way, answering questions, maybe throwing in tangential but interesting observations, etc. I quickly realized, however, that the teachers and the other students were quite bemused by my actions. Not offended or angry, especially since they knew I’d lived overseas, but certainly they saw me as being somewhat unique.
After catching on to this, I tried shutting up and observing the normal classroom dynamic. What I found was that Korean students will rarely answer a question unless the teacher very persistently makes it clear that he does want some answer out of them. What I also found was that the students will ALMOST NEVER answer a question when that question is so easy as to be rhetorical. For example, if my math teacher was solving a problem on the blackboard and asked the class the calculation for the next stage, and the calculation was something that could easily be done in your head, nobody would answer. It’s not that the students didn’t know the answer, since the smartest kid in the school(or at least the one with the highest grades) was in my class and he’d already mastered high school math in middle school. There was just a sense that in that situation there’s really no advantage to speaking up and marking yourself out in the eyes of the other students. A Korean student, however smart, really just wants to be invisible in a classroom. Speaking up in class means risking the other kids looking at you as a stuck-up know-it-all. A situation in which the teacher might be able to get an answer from the smart student would be if the calculation was complicated enough to have to work out on paper and the teacher really did want that student to work it out for him to move on with his lesson. The smart kid in that situation would perform that function on behalf of the entire class and thereby be endowed with some legitimacy from his classmates.
It was pretty much the same thing when I went to university, even though I knew I was with some of the smartest kids in the country. There was a slightly higher proportion of students who continuously engaged with the professor, but they were still the odd ones out.
So based on my personal experience I think the reason Andy didn’t get an answer was not because his students didn’t understand his question or didn’t know the answer, but because his question was so easy that his students didn’t see the point in answering him, or thought it might be a trick question that might embarass the answering student. (Of course, some of his students may not have know the answer, but the entire classroom? C’mon! It’s not like East Asia was like Europe with its continuously shifting balance of power.)
Regarding Korean history as taught in schools, obvious nationalism aside, I think the problem is about emphasis, not tone.
As most Korean students will tell you, they barely even GET to modern Korean history in reality, because any serious discussion of it at the high school level comes at the very end, and this always gets truncated by exams, the biggest of which being the 수능.
So much emphasis is placed on ancient history that student essentially get no exposure to modern history, as opposed to the ideological indoctrination one might easily assume they’re getting.
I tend to think this is partially a purposeful neglect, since dealing, in a classroom and official setting, with the complexities, ironies, and nuance of Korea working to distance itself from China out of a previous 사대중의 relationship, nationalist intellectuals getting closer to the Japanese model, being bitten on the ass by that choice as Japan inexplicably colonizes Korea, the resultant occupation period, Pacific War, American occupation, the historical debates over the Korean War and the geopolitical ramifications of divsion, dictatorship and the rapid industrialization without democratic freedoms, on and on…
It’s no wonder so many kids are confused about their own history.
As a US History teacher, I try to use moments in Korean history as anchor points for understanding, but generally find that students (high school or college) don’t know enough of Korean modern history for that to work.
For example, I’d compare (very roughly) the collusion between government and industry to suppress labor in American durng the 1880’s and 90’s with a similar desire to do so in Korea during the 1960’s and 70’s, but then realize that the kids haven’t a clue about the details of what happened then, since they never learned anything in context. They memorized some stuff, but never really thought about what they were learning. When used as a case study in an explanation, the kids invariably go, “Oh! So THAT’S what that was all about.”
Sure, a lot of American kids don’t know their stuff, but that’s a different problem with different origins, although it looks like the same problem with “history” (lack of a unified curriculum, funding issues, and the general low priority given to history in the first place — which are not the issues in Korea).
One of the reasons few Koreans can talk reasonably about Tokdo, the occupation period, or even the complex and conflicted meaning of Japan having built railroads and banking systems and the fact that modern Korean nationalism itself cannot be separated from the catalyst of the Japanese occupation — it’s because the books also don’t have any nuanced (or ANY) conversation about that, and neither do many teachers.
So, in the end, Koreans generally know what it was and that it sucked, but not WHY it sucked so very, very much, and how deeply the irony of Korean modernity itself is vis a vis Japanese modernity and colonialism.
And when this simplistic ignorance-while-knowing-the-basic-facts gets focused by jingoistic news media and popular culture — you get pretty unnuanced and often historically ignorant responses, such as protestors on 광복날 going to a US base and upending a tank in a show of “national spirit” when the irony of even calling that day “Liberation Day” while going to destroy the property of your “liberator” is lost on these young people, who see this stuff as just a nationalist activity, as opposed to an act with any real historical meaning.
And although I know the comments about “Liberation happened. The Japanese just left for some reason” and Americans being “greedy bastards” are meant in fun, I do think that it’s barking up the wrong tree to blame those atttitudes on the textbooks per se; like Japanese textbooks, I think their main crimes (besides a few disputable claims) against the real gist of the historical record is one of omission, more than distortion.
The ignorant historical stereotypes and non-facts that are passed around so easily about, say Americans, are usually not from those official texts, but passed around in society against an ignorance of any historical CONTEXT, e.g. “Why did the Americans come here in the first place?”
That’s why you can get these idiots who have no sense of historical agency who say “the Soviets and the US divided the peninsula” as if they were in collusion, as opposed to bitter opposition; which is what led to the Korean War in the first place. Without any geopolitical context (hello, Cold War?), it just looks, to many young Koreans who aren’t busy spending hours per day thinking about it, like a conspiracy to divide the peninsula (for no apparent reason other than to do it).
I think this kind of historical ignorance and glossing over of some pretty major parts of Korean modern history in the textbooks because it’s understandably painful and difficult to parse (having lost sovereignty, having been subject to two major wars as a result of outside forces, having lived under a dictatorship for most of the South’s time as a nominal “democracy”, etc.) is what ENABLES the gross historical misunderstandings we see, as opposed to directly causing them.
leefr, very well put. I completely agree with everything you said; that’s exactly what happens when the instructor asks an easy question. My only diagreement would be on whether Andy’s question was an easy one, but I think that’s because (a) i sucked at history, and (b) it’s been a long time since I learned world history in school.
I am now a fan of the Metropolitician.
# 28,
I can kind of see your point.
When I was in high school, I’d answer questions that teachers asked me all the time. Didn’t think twice about it. However, in Korean Sunday school, it was completely different. If I answered a question, the other students would look at me with the stink eye because they thought I was showing off.
Another explaination can extend into how these kids were raised. When a kid got in trouble, many times Korean parents would ask you a question, full knowing what the answer is. It was sort of like a test to see if you’d say something. Once you said ANYTHING, the Korean parent would smack you upside the head, rap a thin bamboo rod on your hands, etc. The point is, you are not suppose to say ANYTHING, no matter what your parents asked you. It’s hard to explain. You are also not suppose to cry either…
Nacho: B+.
Korean history is far more complicated than Koreans are taught and than most are prepared to admit.
The problem with the typical view of the “Sino-centric World Order” is its idealism, which mimics the utopian impulses of Neo-Confucianism.
“China” cannot simply be essentialized out of history by making believe that it wasn’t in fact controlled by the “barbarians” who happened to conquer and dominate it periodically for centuries at a time, especially the Yuan (Mongols) and the Ching (Manchus), and then like the Chinese themselves used the Chinese state to subdue and subordinate people in adjacent areas.
While Korea more often than not enjoyed relative autonomy from the Chinese state, Goryeo, e.g., was not independent of the Yuan, who exercised many forms of direct and indirect control over Korea; that was one of the rallying cries of the rebels who founded Joseon. Even under the Joseon, large swathes of the peninsula were under direct control of Manchu banners for long periods of time.
The tribute system on the peninsula goes back to both Three Kingdoms era Silla and Baekje, who sought it out - although one can’t entirely discount the impact of earlier Chinese coercion during the time of the Commanderies. Even Goguryo, if you insist on treating it as “Korean” or just implicated in peninsular history, had a tributary relationship with China - although it didn’t prevent Goguryo from constantly and violently contesting Chinese hegemony in any but the cultural sphere.
Korea was never a “hermit kingdom”. Given the constraints on transportation and communications in East Asia until the late 19th century, Korea was aware of and remarkably familiar with both the intra and the extra Sinitic worlds, knowledge of the latter generally being transmitted via the tributary missions that Korea despatched on a regular basis to China, e.g., Christianity made its appearance in Korea through the agency of the members of tributary missions who picked up some relevant books in China, brought them home and propagated the ideas themselves w/out benefit of clergy, as it were.
The problem, as you do seem to appreciate, is that the prevalent neo-confucian blinders of traditional Korea prevented it from really seeing and responding in any meaningful or sensible way to the facts of difference and change.
Tributary relations were not simply a function of geographical proximity but of (i) Neo-Confucian orthodoxy, and (ii) a perceived lack of threat to Chinese interests. Having satisfied these prerequisites, Korea was favored by China as its most loyal tributary because, in realist fashion, it also served as a useful geographic buffer against Japan - witness the fact that Korea’s suffering in the Imjin War was very much in part a function of China’s desire to deal with the attempted invasion of China itself by Japan in the Korean marchlands rather than in the homeland.
Omission IS distortion; just ask any Korean critic of Japanese textbooks.
Comment-wise, this is one of the better posts I’ve read here in a while.
timmy - I understand why you think that Andy’s question might not have been easy, since I didn’t come up with ‘Ming dynasty’ off the top of my head either. But in a classroom of western students with knowledge equivalent to Korean high-school graduates, somebody would at least have thrown out ‘China’. And Andy would have had something to work with, ie ‘Can somebody tell me which dynasty?’
I think Metro makes some good points, as well.
Wow, maybe I should do a classroom post a week if they get these kind of comments.
Yes, kudos to Metropolitician, leefr, and Sperwer all for serious, substantive, and thoughtful discussion… nice to have the occasional high-brow roundtable on this forum!
Sperwer,
Yes, you are right. Koryo was completely dominated by the Yuan (Mongols), there is no denying this. In fact, since all the Korean princes were forced to become “hostages” held in Beijing under the Yuan court, where they then married Mongol princesses, after a couple of generations the Korean royal family was not even Korean!! They were in fact Mongolian, they spoke Mongolian, wore Mongolian dress, etc. Mention this to some Koreans sometime, I’ve gotten some surprising responses. Some positive, some negative, but facts are facts.
As for your comment that Korea was never a “hermit kingdom”, yes you are right in that the tributaries did know of the outside world (outside of China that is) and yes they did bring back some books with them and sometimes even some knowledge. But when you say “Korea was aware of and familiar with…blah, blah” I think you need to make it clear that this was a very very small minority of Koreans that you are talking about. Not even all the yangban (many of whom lived in abject poverty) knew this knowledge and most certainly the peasants and slaves did not know about it. So while this information did exist and was known, the extent that it was distributed is miniscule in my opinion. I still feel that most of the officials in charge at the time felt that the “barbarians” had nothing to offer, therefore this information or technology is of no consequence. They are barbarians, end of argument.
Therefore, I believe the name “hermit kingdom” is aptly suited for Choseon Korea. I also base this on other actions, such as Koreans destroying the coasts, cutting down trees, etc. so as to make the country look poor so that no ship would try to land there and conduct trade, etc. When they did manage to land it was made abundantly clear to them that they should leave, maybe trade a little, but then go!!
Also, yes you are right Christianity and the knowledge of it began to trickle back with some of the tributaries. There was also a Jesuit priest (from Portugal, I believe) who landed with the Japanese during the Imjin War. If I’m not mistaken, I think I read that Hiyedoshi was converted, but don’t quote me on that (I’m at work and don’t have access to my books, and Wikipedia sucks).
So, yes Korea had some (and I stress some) knowledge of the outside world, but I believe it was limited to only a very few, and was never shared with the populace. In this way, Korea is somewhat similar to Meiji Japan just after the Tokugawa period, in which some Japanese had an impressive knowledge of the outside from translating books that came through the Dutch trading post at Nagasaki (for those of you who have never read the autobiography of Yukichi Fukuzawa, I recommend it). But again, this information was not dispersed among the general population. Large amounts of outside information about the world (outside of China) did not really begin to penetrate Korea until the late 19th century.
Finally, B+? I received straight A’s in my Korean history grad courses under Dr. Jim Palais, perhaps the most renowned Korean historian in the last 50 years. I’m sure he would like to see why I only got a B+
Nacho:
We don’t disagree about the degree of dissemination of knowledge of the world outside the well; but given the nature of the Korean polity, all who really mattered were in the central aristocratic/burueacratic lineages who dominated court intrigue (which I think is a more accurate term than “politics” to describe the workings of what passed for government in traditional Korea). In any event, the critical point was the close-mindedness of the neo-confucian world view, particularly as manifest in Korea (where, interestingly in relative contrast to China) it served as a domestic ideology (in the perjorative sense) of social exclusivity), which (as I think we also agree, militated against any receptivity to what was going on elsewhere.
As for the other thing, just twisting your tail. :))
I think leefr and timmy are closer to the mark. The first day, or week, is particularly difficult for class discussion. Metropolitician’s comments are insightful, but I doubt students are even thinking on that level. Students view foreigners’ classes as an opportunity to “free talk”, which amounts to doing nothing that they couldn’t do in a coffee shop. That foreign teacher up front asking questions is just a nuisance, and most students’ worst nightmare. The one guy who does know the answer wants to hide, and all the girls aren’t thinking about class. The rest are just occupying space, and the teacher has intruded upon their “home”. “Clock-punching” is the best I can characterize South Korean students’ behavior.
Just stick to multiple choice, or speak Korean all the time! The less English used, the better the students will enjoy English classes, and ironically will learn more completely the little English actually mentioned.
We should also draw a distinction between the Choson state and its predecessors. Prior to the ascendancy of Neo-Confucianism, Korea had numerous and deep links with the wider world through Buddhist study and missionary activity in China and elsewhere, something I think Dave Mason can probably describe in greater detail than I. Those Buddhist scholars travelled widely and spent decades abroad before returning to Korea with linguistic and technical skills that definitely affected the culture profoundly.
After the 14th century, I would agree on more limited contact with the wider world but it can’t be said that Koreans have “always” had such a narrow view. Just for 700 years! Can anyone honestly say that in the last 20 years the worm has not turned again? Just as Choson pulled up the drawbridge, it seems to be down again. Is Korea still “Neo-Confucian”? That can’t be said by any honest observer. There is some natural overhang from the last 700 years, but that ideology and cultural view is definitely on the wane.
Korean students don’t understand history, since they are only taught to memorize important events, personalities, and dates for the college entrance exams.
‘Korea was favored by China as its most loyal tributary because, in realist fashion, it also served as a useful geographic buffer against Japan - witness the fact that Korea’s suffering in the Imjin War was very much in part a function of China’s desire to deal with the attempted invasion of China itself by Japan in the Korean marshlands rather than in the homeland.’
A fantastic statement because it isn’t true. You mean, China wanted to maintain a vassal system with Korea to protect itself against the Japanese? You mean that’s one of the main reasons? I don’t think China thought much about Japan prior to the Imjin war. I think China wanted to protect itself from Korea.
‘China’s desire to deal with the attempted invasion of China itself by Japan in the Korean marshlands rather than in the homeland.’
uh, should the Chinese have waited till the Japanese got to china? What kind of military strategy would that be?
Nothing you say about Korea can be trusted. Now, come back with your pow pow line.
#43 Pawi
For centuries Chinese and Korean shores have been repeatedly invaded by the Japanese pirate (called Wokou or Wako). From the late 14th century to early 15th century coastal regions of the Goryeo Dynasty were devastated by Wokou. Goryeo raided in 1419, with 227 ships and 17,ooo soldiers, Tsushima island where Wakou had its base but failed to defeat them and retreated from Tsushima after the truce. This invasion, called “Oei Invasion”, and repeated devastation of Goryeo caused by Wokou were one of the factors leading to collapse of Goryeo.
Zheng Chenggong (1624 - 1662), half Chinese and half Japanese, was born in Hirado island, Nagasaki, defeated the Dutch to claim Taiwan in 1662 and was a prominent leader of the anti-Qing Dynasty movement. He and his father were also a pirate. If Hideyoshi had been smart enough to mobilize Japanese pirates in his Imjin invasion as the British queen did with Francis Drake to defeat Spain, he would have defeated China.
You must have quite a collection of scarecrows with you there in the trailer, Goose Boy; is it a double-wide? Anyway, knock yourself out playing with your strawmen.
#39 nachoinkorea
Very enlightening posts of yours.
Hideyoshi did not convert, but was rather the architect of the persecution of the Catholic Church in Japan, which at the time claimed as much as 10% of the population. A Catholic samurai who took part in the invasion baptized 200 Korean children who had been abandoned by their fleeing parents.
Metropolitician & others, yes I was making generalizations in my shortlist of what Koreans are taught in history class. I was trying to be a little comedic as well- failed!
Anyway, I just get upset when I meet very few Koreans who can or even want to have discussions about modern Korean history.
Most don’t seem interested and the woeful ignorance is just sad.
I was a history teacher in the States, so I find it totally fascinating. I really enjoyed my university courses with debates and discourse over history and meaning.
There just seems so little of it here. With very advanced students, when I try to talk about some modern history topics they mostly seem to just shut down. There are one or two who will jump in, a few who will throw out the nationalistic/jingoistic slogans, but most just don’t participate.
Some of you had some very interesting points which I have already thought about:
-fear of giving the “wrong” answer.
-fear of looking like a show-off.
-no experience with critical analysis of modern history.
Mostly, students just give off the vibe of “we are not interested in discussing this, so let’s talk about something ‘fun’”. That’s a problem right there- many students want all of their time with waygook teacher to be “fun”.
Many times I think of Korean university students like my middle school students in the US. Our books and materials spent so much time on the founding of the nation and all its “glory”. It got to modern history and all its complicated messiness at the end when it seemed just rushed through without any real indepth study.
Let’s take for example the Vietnam War. The US history book had a couple of paragraphs near the end. The students know that we got into a war there, but don’t really know why. It’s like it’s too complicated and unpleasant, so we shouldn’t dig too deeply. It’s not until university really that students start getting to the real guts of complicated and messy historical issues.
However, here in Korea, it’s like they never get to it. There are certain groups who really like to get into it when it comes to blaming other countries for their problems. Sadly, these ideas usually get disseminated to the rest of the people who just don’t know any better.
That’s where you get to situations where in 2002 anti-American groups easily spread disinformation about the military vehicle accidentally killing the 2 middle school girls. There were so many people saying that the 2 girls were killed on purpose and the soldiers celebrated their “kill”.
I just couldn’t believe it. I would ask where they got that information and they would just say they “heard it from somebody”.
I just wanted to shake them and say “how could you ever think that was possibly true? It makes no sense at all! Don’t you have a brain? Do you ever really contemplate everything you are told?”.
Well, it all boils down to ignorant people are very easily lead by others who look to influence them.
There are some in Korea and the US who would seem to benefit by keeping the populace ignorant and easily told what to believe and what is “true”.
Truthiness!
#43 does underscore the all-too-important role of comic books, fantasy and imagination in shaping historical views
# 43,
“I don’t think China thought much about Japan prior to the Imjin war. I think China wanted to protect itself from Korea.”
*sigh*…
Japanese pirate raids became a persistant problem for China throughout the 15th and 16th centuries and was a major reason why Ming China sent it’s navy to help Yi Soon Shin during the last year of the Imjin War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wak%C5%8D
‘Japanese pirate raids became a persistant problem for China throughout the 15th and 16th centuries and was a major reason why Ming China sent it’s navy to help Yi Soon Shin during the last year of the Imjin War.’
’sigh’. show me where china’s relationship with korea was mainly based on fear of japan. SHOW ME! till then, i think you need to shut up, smart(and arrogant) guy. ps, the rivalry between china and japan that the west likes to promote only existed in the minds of the japanese.
‘japan would have defeated China.’ japanese person, as usual, always proud of his people causing other people misery
well, japan couldn’t even beat korea. lol. and your people’s second attempt to take over the world also ended in failure. don’t feel the same kind of pride when you read that, huh?
‘You must have quite a collection of scarecrows with you there in the trailer, Goose Boy; is it a double-wide? Anyway, knock yourself out playing with your strawmen.’
you must remember the last time i challenged you where the audience concluded you were coming off as defensinve and vague. you remember that, don’t you? i believe your argument then was korea had nothing to do with defeating the japs during the imjin war which, of course, was an absolute lie just like your contention that korea’s vassal status was primarily because of the japanese. a lie.
of course, when asked to back up this claim, we get the same kind of response we got during our imjin tiff.
game, set, and match.
‘As for the other thing, just twisting your tail. :))’ sperwer to new poster
uh, no, you weren’t. that was your arrogance talking.
巌今
‘teaccher, teacher, pick me! pick me! i know! i know everything!’ wanggon in kindergarten
‘you must remember the last time i challenged you where the audience concluded you were coming off as defensinve and vague. you remember that, don’t you? i believe your argument then was korea had….’ pawi to spew in above post
you know, i got to thinking. you can’t even win an argument with someone you say lives in a trailer. all that education down the drain. lol.
ps slim, you see the ap reports about camp david? now it’s not a lie promtoted by korean papers, right?
波衣古衣皆次
pawi…
You are like my ee mo bu’s Jindo gae. You don’t need a reason to bark at someone at the top of your lungs. You just need your master (in this case Korean Nationalism) to tell you who to bark at and you just do it. No critical thinking on your end is asked for and certainly it’s not required.
“i think you need to shut up, smart (and arrogant) guy.”
A professor once told me, “When people who know their shit speak to people who don’t know their shit, they naturally feel as if they are being talked down upon when they are merely being educated.”
In your case, insecurity magnifies the effect.
I was enjoying my excommunication.
Never said it was a lie; I said it could be a premature announcement of an event I hoped would happen. You might recall LMB’s people unwisely announced a Bush meeting before the election that had to be scrubbed.
Learn the meaning of basic English expressions (Night school?) before you start fucking with classical Chinese, dipshit
Just for the record, my high school students don’t even know all of the provinces of Korea in Korean. They could name the major cities. I could only dream of bringing up “something slightly harder than easy”.
If one accepts Goguryo as Korean, then it’s been about 1,300 years since the Chinese last worried about a Korean army pouring over the border.
pawikigori and Koreans like him, including those deserving the name Korean-Chameleons, are why Koreans know so little. Korean nationalism and arrogance once again clouding minds.
These are the type of people that say Korean blood is pure yet openly admit that they are in some way related to Mongols.
These are the same people that believe only Korea has four distinct season and the bluest skies in the world.
These are the same people that believe they defeated the Japanese only to become a colony of Japan in the end. In truth, foreigners defeated Japan and set Korea free. You’re welcome Korea. No thanks needed
These are the same people who claim their history is so terrible and violent, yet their 3000 year history pales in comparison to Europe’s violent history.
These are the same people who…….
This is one of the more enjoyable threads I’ve had the pleasure of reading in a long time. Very insightful for the most part.
There is even some comedy in #43….”I don’t think China thought much about Japan prior to the Imjin war. I think China wanted to protect itself from Korea.”
Thought provoking discussion, historical analysis and comedy. This thread has it all.
John T,
I’d still say that “these people” constitute a very vocal, but minority viewpoint among even Koreans themselves. To think that most Koreans believe this in its most virulent forms is, in my opinion, setting up a straw man.
#45
I dont know what form of history you are taught in Japan but im pretty sure youre wrong about the Oei invasion. Korea was the victor of that invasion following the So clans surrender to Yi Jong Mu of Joseon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Jong-mu
It culminated in the signing of the treaty of Gyehae in which piracy was curbed somewhat and tribute was payed to Joseon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Gyehae
And I seriously doubt that Hideyoshi would have been able to defeat China even with the aid of the pirates. Japans capability at sea at the time was limited and weak in comparison to Korea or China. For example in the battle of Myeongnyang the Korean navy was able to defeat an enormous battle fleet of 133 warships and 200 logical support ships with only 13 ships(none of them turtle ships, just regular run of the mill ships). The Japanese navy lost 31 ships with an additional 92 ships being disabled. Casualties for the Japanese navy were estimated to be between 8,000 to almost 19,000.
The Korean navy lost no ships and only 2 Koreans were killed. And I am dead serious here. Only 2 casualties were reported.
The wokou who constantly plagued the seas of asias were not threatening military forces. They were instead quick hit and run raids. More of a nuisance then a military threat. In direct naval engagements against Korean or Chinese ships, the Wokou were outclassed. This almost always ended in disaster for the pirates. The wokou instead employed hit and run tactics in which they quickly attacked coastal cities and looted what they could grasp and left just as quickly before the militia and navy arrived. Obviously such a force would be useless in a war when the navy is constantly at alert and cities were heavily defended.
WangKon:
If only it were true. This is admittedly somewhat anecdotal, being based on 15 years of mere sporadic observation rather than any sort of proper social scientific survey, but consider these two phemonena:
1. Very many well and foreign educated (unfortunately the two are nearly synonymous and exclusive of any other alternative) Koreans will privately (and sincerely?) agree with a non-ideologically interpretation of Korean history, but will close ranks like lemmings with the nationalism know-nothings if there is any chance of being heard by the latter. What do they really believe? Given their intellectual cowardice, aren’t the rest of us forced to deal with Korea as a whole as though everyone is a mugwump?
2. Regarding the real beliefs of such chameleons, consider just one example of something that happens with great frequency: Last Fall, Chung Young-Lob, a distinguished Korean economist who has long been associated with the Korean Studies program at Western Michigan University, presented a lecture at Yonsei regarding the first of his two recent books regarding Korean economic history, the one dealing with the transition from traditional Korean society to the colonial period and through the latter to 1948. After meticulously sifting through ALL the available data, he concluded that despite evidence of some economic “change” in pre-colonial Korean society, including the emergence of some new forms of economic relations, there was no economic progress in Korea and no likelihood of indigenous economic development because Korea did not generate any significant economic surplus that could be saved for the accumulation of capital, and that what little surplus was created was diverted by the court and the ruling class into economically frivolous luxury consumption. [Although not really in the class of the sort of decadent prodigality that Chung had in mind, perhaps it's worth recalling in this connection the Daewongun's effective bankrupting of the Korean fisc to rebuild Kyungbokkung (even after factoring in the various and onerous additional taxes he imposed to help defray the cost and that the labor for the project was unpaid corvee)]. Similarly, despite the development (adoption really) of certain new agricultural techniques, Chung found that there was nothing even remotely resembling the development and deployment of the sort of critical mass of modern agricultural technologies that historically laid the basis for industrial revolution and economic take-off elsewhere.
Finally, Chung observed that, notwithstanding its shortcomings in other areas, the colonial period must be recognized as the time within which Korea did begin to modernize and that the dispositive factors were Japanese capital, technology and know-how and the displacement of Joseon’s incompetent ruling class and government.
The audience reaction was what one with any familiarity with Korea might expect. The foreign students and other listeners probed various technical issues regarding the presentation, but generally found it persuasive. The Korean students, and without exception, the Korean professors present were outraged and could barely contain their fury. Even those who were fami8liar with the relevant data sets couldn’t refute what Chung was saying, but they simply were not willing to acknowledge it. They pointed out, like some of the foreigners, that the volume of the available data leaves something to be desired, which is a fair but in some ways irrelevant consideration - it is what it is and what can be known on the basis of is what it is. Instinctively (it seems) realizing this, they turned to repeated, convoluted and increasingly pathetic exercises in counterfactual analysis, i.e., wishful thinking and fantasizing about how Korea would have developed anyway, because of one after another implausible supposition about e.g., American support, British support, self-strengthening, etc. the likelihood of each of which must be considered fantastic to anyone familiar with the actual historical record, including in particular, the evidence Chung presented regarding the absence of both the material and the “spiritual” (in a generalized Weberian sense) preconditions for even elementary capital formation.
Any way, the point is that all this folderol was being spouted by the best that Korea has to offer (not trolls like Goose boy).
One can alays depend on “water cooler talk” to elicit a large number of comments.
Which reminds me where is the arthjm and aaronm with their “water cooler talk” complaints?
#62 Sperwer,
What about the studie: ‘Reform and Modernity in the Taehan Empire’ I am thinking about the chapter:
Enlightment and Electrification: The Introduction of Electric Light, Telegraph and Streetcars in Late Nineteenth Century Korea, Min Suh Son, Yonsei Korean Studies Series No.2
These were results of the reforms that started before 1900 though opposed by many. But the outcome matches with observations of a German journalist around 1900, Siegfried Genthe, who wrote that only Seoul had all these elements of street cars, telegraphs and electricity at one time, what Tokio and Shanghai had not yet.
What I mean, there is evidence for a significant change done by Koreans before 1900.
Jens-Olaf:
Where did the capital, technology and know-how (and for that matter, most of the labor) for those projects come from?
If you look into it, you’ll discover it wasn’t Korea.
I see, right, it is mentioned there that Americans had installed electricy during the 1880s. But that is just the way you do when others are ahead. Important for me is that the initiative for change was within the Korean society and not only forced by others.
Who copied the Britsh after the first industrialization? Many did in the beginning.
But the initiative was NOT in Korea.
Korea only opened to modernization under pressure from the Chinese, threats by the Japanese and a combination of pressure and threats from the US, Britain, Russia, etc.
Nearly all the earliest modern improvements made in Korea were made by American firms who were the principal economic beneficiaries of such projects, the second (but much significantly lesser) beneficiaries being King Gojong himself or various members of the Court, including members of the Min consort family and the particularly rapacious keeper of the privy purse whose name I forget. None of these people, moreover, were using their profits such as they were for purposes of capital accumulation and knock-on investment; they generally were pissing it away in various forms of frivolous consumption. Perhaps the most notorious example of the latter were the subventions that many such American firms were coerced into making (in order to get payment of their own invoices) of the spendthrift philandering of the royal prince who was cavorting around the US at the time. I’ve seen the account books of one such American firm, Collbran & Bostwick, and the amounts involved were not insignificant. The point is that the Koreans themselves were by and large not inclined to engage in economic modernization, except in ways that were designed more to enhance the prestige of the sponsor and principal consumer than to promote general societal development, and the inte’l system at the time, particualry as it applied to Korea, was not conducive to Korea’s modernization (in contrast with the private pecuniary interests of the foreign investors). symbolic
i’m gonna ask both of you again, where is the proof that china’s relationship with korea was primarily predicated on china defending itself against japan? show me the proof. all you have to do is spend a minute or two writing down the names of sources. you can spend time putting down one liners, spend some time and back up your claim.
‘Korea was favored by China as its most loyal tributary because, in realist fashion, it also served as a useful geographic buffer against Japan - witness the fact that Korea’s suffering…’ sperwer
brilliant for it’s manipulative powers. again, i ask, where’s the proof china’s relationship with korea was predicated on japan?
folks, sperwer did the same thing when i grilled him about his ridiculous statement that korea had nothing to do with winning the imjin war. instead of simply telling his sources, he came out with pow pow and goose boy.
put up or shut up, sperwer and wang.
巌
‘
slim, i got bad news for you:
‘Learn the meaning of basic English expressions (Night school?) before you start fucking with classical Chinese, dipshit.’ slim
from the last open thread:
pawikirogi
Posted March 14, 2008 at 5:04 am | Permalink
i’ve known for some time that people here keep records on me. some have acutally even done worse than that. i’m a bit amused by it all and that’s why i put those litlle chinese characters at the end of my posts; i knew it would drive some of you to acutally waste your time in trying to understand their meaning. secret messege? not hardly. here lookee:
波衣古衣皆次 = 바 이 고 이 가이 시 = rock swan king = kogurean
巌 = 바(호이) = rock = middle korean
波兮 君 干 = 보이 닐임간 = rock king = kogurean and baekchean
no random use. all have meaning. and that chinese last night, marm, was just hyangchal. lol. now you all know!
‘uh, slim, you were saying?’ pawi
波 兮 君 干
Isn’t it past your bedtime gooseboy?
‘Isn’t it past your bedtime gooseboy?’
i would have put you into that catagory of those who would run right out to decipher their meaning but i concluded you don’t know a lick of korean let alone chinese-korean characters.
you used ‘gooseboy’ in an attempt to anger me. it won’t work if you make it so obvious. try harder.
catagory != catastrophy…
‘uh, slim, you were saying?’ pawi
I was saying that you misrepresented my account of the earlier Camp David reports, which of course you did, continuing your 4-year pattern here at the Marmot’s Hole.
Wank about all you want with middle Korean uses of Chinese characters (from an era where your mindset is stuck, coincidentally) — in fact, I’d prefer that you drop all the English in your postings and just dazzle us with that linguistic brilliance that, to some, obscures your all-purpose idiocy.
I don’t know, Gooseshit, if you’re a bona fide dimwit or just so disoriented and blinded by the miasmic force field of Korean Pride [TM] that you’ve spewed out around yourself that you just seem like one.
In any case, I feel no compulsion and have no interest in trying to adduce arguments or evidence pro or con for your misrepresentations of mine or WangKon’s positions.
I’m was and am very content to be consigned to your own version of the Index Populum Prohibitorum, hit list, persona non grata or excommunicado, kill file or whatever, so feel free to rave on if you must - and I know you do.
But. heh, if you ever stop channeling and are dispossessed of the spirit of Gwanggaeto, or whoever it is that you so pathetically fantasize that you are, give a shout.
On second thought, don’t call us ….
“i’m gonna ask both of you again, where is the proof that china’s relationship with korea was primarily predicated on china defending itself against japan? show me the proof.”
When did I ever advocate this position? Now generally speaking, China did seek to make tributes out of neighboring countries in part to be buffers against states (or groups of people) that it considered more barbarian. China generally gets run over by barbarians when it experiences dynastic decline so it’s in their interest to seek buffers, particularly from states that actively sought sinic-culture (i.e. Korea). So, the tributary system was in part (not in whole) driven by China’s desire to seek stability on its borders. Korea, due to its strategic position, served as a buffer to both the Manchurian tribes and to Japanese piracy.
Other then that, I think you have some serious reading comprehension problems.
‘gooseshit…’
just the response that i thought i’d get. the guy presenting just his opinion as fact. i’m going to ask you once again, sperwer:
‘Korea was favored by China as its most loyal tributary because, in realist fashion, it also served as a useful geographic buffer against Japan - witness the fact that Korea’s suffering…’ sperwer
where can i find information supporting your claim here?
‘I feel no compulsion and have no interest in trying to adduce arguments or evidence pro or con for your misrepresentations of mine or WangKon’s positions.’ sperwer
‘Korea was favored by China as its most loyal tributary because, in realist fashion, it also served as a useful geographic buffer against Japan - witness the fact that Korea’s suffering…’ sperwer
no misreading here. simple to read tho’ briliant in it’s manipulative powers. i’m not asking you to argue with me, i’m asking you to provide a source or sources to support your statement above. surely someone who can take the time to write personel attacks has the time to write down a couple of sources.
you see, i’m asking for sources because the statement you make is something i’ve never heard of. please back it:
‘Korea was favored by China as its most loyal tributary because, in realist fashion, it also served as a useful geographic buffer against Japan - witness the fact that Korea’s suffering…’ sperwer
please don’t evade the question. i’m not interested in argument; i’m interested in where you got this information.
so for the third time, what are your sources?