History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWTH? China?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Dahmanegi View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 29-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dahmanegi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: WTH? China?
    Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 17:40

China Co-Opts More Old Korean Kingdoms
China appears intent on going the whole hog and co-opt Korea’s entire ancient history. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has published abstracts of research papers on a website that define the era of Gija Chosun (300 B.C. - 194 A.D. or 1126 B.C. - 194 A.D.), Puyo (2 B.C. - 494 A.D.), Koguryo (37 B.C.- 668 A.D.) and Barhae (698 - 926 A.D.) as part of Chinese history.

CASS is the country’s largest research institute under direct control of the Chinese government and has played a leading role in distorting the history of Koguryo through the so-called Northeast Project since 2002. The publication of these papers violates a 2004 agreement between Seoul and Beijing that the Chinese government desist from claiming Koguryo history as its own.

Barhae “was not an independent country but a local government under control of the Tang Dynasty,” the introduction to the 18 papers related to the Northeast Project on CASS’s homepage says. “At the time of its establishment, Barhae was a nation of the Chinese Magya tribe.” The organization posted three papers on Barhae alone.

When it comes to Gija Chosun, which Korean historians regard as a kind of myth, one paper says, “Gija Chosun was a local government established on the Korean Peninsula by descendents of the Shang-Yin Dynasty of China and was an overseas tributary of the Zhou & Qin Dynasties of China.” But it adds unequivocally the kingdom “is where the history of Northeast China on the Korean Peninsula begins.”

In an apparent bid to catch critics on the back foot, the introduction says South and North Korea claim Barhae as part of their own history “to serve their own political purpose of claiming territorial rights.” In a final flourish, it claims China “never invaded” nations on the Korean Peninsula, while it was the Korean realms of Shilla, Baekje, Koryo and Chosun “that expanded their borders to the North and gradually eroded our territory.”

(englishnews@chosun.com )
Back to Top
Dahmanegi View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 29-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dahmanegi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 17:42
Seoul Smiles at China's Daylight Robbery


The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which is under the direct jurisdiction of the Chinese government, asserts that the history of not only the ancient Korean kingdom of Koguryo but also of Gija-Chosun, Puyo and Barhae all belong to Chinese history, and so do their territories. An institute in the academy that has taken the lead in distorting Koguryo history through the so-called Northeast Project since 2002, recently published 18 abstracts of papers. One of them asserts that it was descendants of the Shang-Yin Dynasty of China who founded Gija-Chosun on the Korean Peninsula. Gija-Chosun gave rise to the history of Koguryo, and Barhae “marks the beginning of China's northeast history on the Korean Peninsula.” The academy seems to be claiming pre-emptive rights to North Korea by asserting that ancient China's territories "extended to the Han River valley on the Korean Peninsula."

The CASS also asserts that the 668 A.D. attack by the Shilla-Tang allied forces on Koguryo was "a unification war in which Tang conquered Koguryo." The logic is the same as the Northeast Project’s, which described Koguryo as a provincial Tang government in 2004. Official media like the People's Daily and Xinhua News Agency made a great deal of this.

Now China insists that even Barhae is its own. CASS says Barhae “was not an independent country but a local government under control of the Tang Dynasty” and is “inseparable from Chinese history.” In 1980, when it tried to co-opt annexed Tibet and the Uyghur region into its history, China also said they were “inseparable” from it. It has claimed even Puyo, the root of Koguryo and Baekje, with the Liaoning Provincial Museum in Shenyang saying Puyo was among the minorities “that founded a state in our northeast."

But Seoul is as calm as if it was all someone else’s business. The Office for Government Policy Coordination under the Prime Minister‘s Office said in information to the National Assembly, "As of August 2006, no additional distortion of history has been made by the Chinese central government, party, administration and official media." The Foreign Ministry in a white paper published in July said, "The South Korean and Chinese governments attempted to resolve the Koguryo history issue satisfactorily." Asked if the CASS papers now can be regarded as the position of the Chinese government, a Foreign Ministry official would neither confirm nor deny it. If the Northeast Project, carried out with the participation of senior Chinese officials and with a national budget, doesn't constitute the Beijing’s official position, what does?

Kim Jeong-bae, the former chairman of the Koguryo Research Foundation, said, “China was prudent about history issues while the Kogoryo Research Foundation existed, but I'm concerned that the offensive came as soon as the foundation was dissolved.” The foundation, established by the government to counter the Northeast Project the year before last, was dissolved and absorbed into the Northeast Asia History Foundation last month. “The Koguryo history materials we prepared could not be distributed to students because of objections by the Foreign Ministry, and the education minister and vice minister declined to listen to our stories about the foundation's projects for even five or 10 minutes. How could they be so indifferent to a national project?” Kim added. Im Hyo-jae, a professor emeritus at Seoul National University, accuses the government of trying to sweep the matter under the carpet for fear of stirring conflict with China.

But the CASS papers breach a diplomatic promise China made our government in August 2004 not to distort history in a manner that hurts Seoul-Beijing relations. But the president or foreign minister have yet to make a protest. Why is a government that has no problems shaking our alliance with the U.S. to the roots being so timid? “Independence!” it hollers, quite impotent to safeguard even our essential history.

RELATED NEWS


Beijing Eyeing N.Korean Territory: Lawmaker


China is pursuing the so-called Northeast Project to co-opt Korean history with an eye on claiming North Korean territory when the regime there collapses, a senior lawmaker quoted a Chinese leader as saying. Former National Assembly speaker Kim Won-ki quoted the remarks in the Unification, Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee on Thursday, saying they were made in a frank meeting with the high-ranking Chinese official.

The Chinese leader also reportedly said Beijing finds the Kim Jong-il regime and the political situation in North Korea very unstable. In any emergency, the U.S and allied army would move to North Korea’s border with China and face the Chinese People's Liberation Army there, a situation Beijing would not tolerate, he said.

Meanwhile, Chinese attempts to distort ancient Korean history have this time taken it to the point of trademarking as their own the spot of the birth of the Korean people according to the Dangun mythology, Mt. Baekdu, by attaching the Chinese name, "Changbai shan."

Chinese students perform a torch-lighting ceremony for the 2007 Asian Winter Games, which will open in January in Changchun, at Mt. Baekdu on the border with North Korea on Wednesday.

On Wednesday, China’s torch-lighting ceremony for the 2007 Asian Winter Games that start on Jan. 28 in Changchun, took place at Cheonji, one of the highest crater lakes in the world on the summit of Mt. Baekdu. Holding an international ceremony there has the PR effect of giving the impression that the landmark is Chinese -- which it technically is, since Beijing took the northern part of Mt.Baekdu centered on the crater lake as the heavy price for joining the Korean War.

With the aim of attracting the 2018 Winter Olympics, Beijing's development of the area are reaching fever pitch. There are going to be international ski resorts and hotels, and China is breaking ground on an airport. The plans, observers say, are part of a broader strategy to add the region to its dominion. Beijing is also lobbying UNESCO to designate the area a World Heritage site.

sources :(englishnews@chosun.com )
Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 477
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Sep-2006 at 22:25
The Tang actually did view Korea as a unification war.
 
In the Ce Fu Yuan Gui volume 117 (Di Wang Bu , Qing Zhen 2), The Tang Emperor Tai Zong sates: "Liao Dong was part of the Middle Kingdom, since the Wei to the Zhou, it has been outside of the border. The Sui sent troops to it four times and returned with loss, lots of Chinese innocents were killed. Today they(koguryo) killed its leader, arrogant as ever, I thought about it for a long night and decided to invade it. I will revenge for the Chinese people that died, and oust the dicator for the people of Koguryo. At the present day, the nine regions(another name for China) is pacified, except for this place(refering to Koguryo), using the extra strength from the warriors, and pacify the bandit who killed his lord."
 
Although I disagree with China's actions, bad should not be countered with more bad. The news provided is 100% Korean view and 0% Chinese view, and it says that everybody is letting China do what they do(obviously the media puts itself apart from the list). The question whether Koguryo should be considered Chinese or Korean is a matter of opinion, just like how whether the Jin dynasty should be considered Chinese or Korean is a matter of opinion. The way an individual views a country and its history is different from anyone else, and it is of no right for anyone to say that so-and-so extinguished empires must be a part of and ONLY be a part of so-and-so country. If you ask me, Koguryo(officially Korean) should be considered both Chinese and Korean, but the Jin dynasty(officially Chinese) should also be considered both Chinese and Korean, as well as Mongolian/Russian, etc, etc. If your modern territory includes the territory of another nation in the past, then that nation should be a part of you country's history.
 
Of course, that is not to say that Koguryo SHOULD be considered a part of the Chinese dynasties. That would cause massive border problems.
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 00:33
I'm going to give my opinion here.  Just for reference though, I don't like what the PRC is doing at all.  Now you know where I'm coming from, what my biases are, and I can start.

I think the thing to stress here is local history.

Ok so let me give an example.  I've given this before in countless posts, but allow me to rehash it because I think it's the best way I know how to explain it.

Take the Spanish missions in California.  Beautiful buildings that are very important to the art, religion, and identity of California and its citizens.  Places like San Juan Capistrano are visited by hundreds of school children yearly, learning about the history of their state.  I myself learned about the buildings in the 4th grade and did a multitude of reports and projects on them.  I consider them a core element of the Californian identity.

But that's just it.  They're critical to the Californian identity.  My local identity.  They play no part at all in my identity as an American.  In terms of national identity, they're actually pretty insignificant. The missions were built through the sweat and blood of Spainards and Native Americans (well actually more so the latter, but that's not the point) and not by the hands of Americans of the United States.

Starting to see the picture?

Ok let's bring it back to the subject at hand.  Goguryeo (and apparently now a few of its predecessor and sucessor states)

Goguryeo is critical to the history of Dongbei.  It's got pyramids, steles, and other sites/artifacts that you can see there.  Goguryeo was an important player in the period's geo-political situation and influenced the history, culture, ethnic makeup, and etc of the region.  I would say that Goguryeo is a very important aspect to the local identity of the Dongbei region. 

But, Goguryeo plays very little into the national history of China and the PRC.  It's insignificant in the wider view of things.  It never claimed Tian Xia and instead purused its own system of heavenly/moral recognition based around the worship of Jumong.  It didn't consider itself the sucessor to Hua Xia culture nor did its rulers see themselves as the moral descendants of the Yellow Emperor.  Goguryeo made no contributions to the national identity of the PRC. 

Instead Goguryeo was one of the three fathers (along with Baekje and Shilla) of the Korean language, culture, and most importantly, its identity.

Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom whose territory was partly in what is now considered the PRC.

Savvy?

In short, I don't think anyone doubts that Goguryeo is important to the local history of Dongbei.  On the other hand though, I think it would be day light robbery to make any claims that Goguryeo was significant to China on any national scale. 

Calling Goguryeo a Chinese kingdom or a Chinese local government is not appropriate or correct.  In fact, to take this logic further, to consider Shilla's conquest of Goguryeo as Koreans conquering Chinese land is just crazy.

And as for this Jin dynasty thing.  The Jin dynasty isn't a part of Korean history on the national scale.  It has no importance to the Korean identity.  The founder was Korean.  So what?  The founders of the Liao were Khitan.  The founders of the Qing were Manchu.  Some say that the founders of Tang were part Xian-bei.  So what?  The Jin, Liao, Qing, and Tang all had one thing in common:  They all claimed Tian Xia.  This is the beauty about China.  Anyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, can become Chinese.  All one needs to do is embrace the philosophy and culture.  By embracing Hua Xia and somehow attaining Tian Xia, these entities became a part of Chinese history and more importantly, influenced the national identity of the Chinese people today.

Just my 2 cents



Edited by Gubook Janggoon - 11-Sep-2006 at 00:38
Back to Top
Siege Tower View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Location: Edmonton,Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 578
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Siege Tower Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 07:50
did you say the founder of Jin was korean, i suggest you better do some reading on it, because thay were manchurian
Back to Top
The Charioteer View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 735
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Charioteer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 08:03
Originally posted by Gubook Gubook wrote:

Now you know where I'm coming from, what my biases are
at least you admit you are biased.
 
My opinion is that looking at the history of partial territory of present day "North-East" region of China and partial territory of north Korea, whether it was influenced more by Chinese or Korean before the destruction of Koguryo state(and perhaps like Korean perspective insist Korean influence should be extended to Bohai) is not historically definite.
 
Because Gija was from Shang dynasty, his state was recognized by
Zhou, similar, Wiman was from Chinese state of Yan, his state was also recognized by Han dynasty, subsequently, later Chinese dynasties consistently used this as legal base for their contined war with koguryo. In the eyes of Sui and Tang rulers, "the invasion of Korean state" was "reclaiming of Chinese territory, which were not only consist parts of modern "North East" region but also extended to north Korea.
 
Up until this stage, the region could be argued belong to both Chinese or Korean, they certainly contested for it, the establishment of Koguryo and its expansion over the region, as well, reunified China under Sui and Tang's persistent military conquest of it, were all part of the contest for domination over the land.
 
You can say Bohai was culturally influenced by and was ruled by Korean, equally Gija and Wiman states were culturally influenced by and were ruled by Chinese. Current Chinese side is denying Koguryo as Korean, equally, current Korean(and Japanese) historian are downplaying Gija state. As i argued before, the overlapping territory that these states(whether its Chinese or Korean at the ruling level) occupied were not Chinese or Korean in definity, its yet to be decided. Just like Chinese dynasties viewed the land as Chinese on the basis of previous states like Gija,Wiman. Korean states also regarded the land to be Korean on the basis of the legacy of Koguryo state etc.
 
But both ignores the historical influence of other ethnic groups. For instance, the Khitan Liao, Jurchen Jin, were they more Chinese or non-Chinese in nature can be consider later, but they certainly played important role in defining the geopolitical boundary of the region.
 
The pattern is that Jin subsequently inherited its sphere of influence from previous Liao dynasty, Mongol Yuan then subsequently inherited from Jin, during all these dynasties(be it Chinese or non-Chinese in ones arguement), Korean states were unable to reclaim or expand their influence to Chinese part(by modern sense) of the land, despite they have the intention at times.
 
The Ming dynasty also subsequently inherited in this part what the Yuan dynasty had in possession. The Koryo dynasty of Korea also see the overthrow of Yuan dynasty as an opportunity to reclaim what they believe are Korean land, so did the Ming, at certain stage, Ming wanted to use the Jurchens(since there were Jurchen tribes residing in northern korea) as medium to reclaim what they could regard as "Chinese" land(which here is specifically referring to northern part of North Korea, which historically overlapped by states such as Gija,Wiman).
 
Yi Seonggye was on the expedition of reclaiming territories belong to present day China's "north East" region, instructed by monarch of Koryo dynasty. But He turned back, instead he established friendly relation with the Ming, while replaced koryo dynasty with his own Choson Yi dynasty. At this point it seemed, the result is both gave up their territorial ambitions.
 
The geo-political boundary of two countries which is defined by Yalu river since then have maintain for the following centuries until now.
 
One can see the territory dispute had been ended when Ming and Choson Yi dynasty establishd good relation. Or alternatively, the previous centuries of relative border peace was only periodic discontinuity of continued struggle for dominance of the land which covers not only modern day "North-East" region of China, but that of North Korea too.
 
Both countries are focusing on Koguryo, a state exsited more than 1000 years ago. on the Korean part, the fact that there are Korean living in "north-east" border area of China echo the history that there were Korean in the region during Koguryo's era. But more objective fact is these Korean were immigrated largely during WW2 under then Japanese rule.
 
While Chinese government is distorting Koguryo's history which is not morally right, South Korean government essentially is embarking on the same thing. They claim "Gando treaty" was colonial Japan selling out "Korean" territory to China, but they are not claiming Choson Yi had already "sold" these land hundred of years before to Ming and Qing.
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1776
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 08:12
The Chinese did the same to Tibet & will do the same to Mongolia in future. I admire their ability in this.
Back to Top
jiangweibaoye View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 25-Mar-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 360
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jiangweibaoye Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 12:40
I like to make a comparison.
 
Do you see the Europeans laying claim to long dead civilizations the same way the Japanese, Chinese, & Koreans do?  Do you hear Italians laying claim to the territories of the Roman Empire (aside from WWII)?  Does Macadenian (misspelling) lay claim to all territories conquered by Alexander?
 
Asians have a lot to learn about being honest about their heritage.  Not everything is so black and white.
 
All this about being "Chinese" or "Korean" is a neverending debate.  Like I stated before, those two terms are not revelant until the collapse of the Mongol Empire. 
Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 477
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 13:30
Actually, Europeans do lay a lot of claims to whether Columbus belongs to so-and-so country or whether Magellan belongs to so-and-so country. But since Europe is more United than East Asia, these problems have a lot less dirt throwing as can be seen in the article given.
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 13:40
did you say the founder of Jin was korean, i suggest you better do some reading on it, because thay were manchurian

The Jin were ethnically Jurchen in the majority, but one of the actual founders of the dynasty was an ethnic Korean.  His name apparently Kim Hambo.  This is all according to Tianzhuwoye over at CHF.  He's a resident in Harbin, sadly he hasn't been active as of late. 
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 14:32

at least you admit you are biased.

 

Everyone’s biased.  Anyone who says that they come to an issue without any pre-conceived ideas and notions is a liar.

 

My opinion is that looking at the history of partial territory of present day "North-East" region of China and partial territory of north Korea, whether it was influenced more by Chinese or Korean before the destruction of Koguryo state(and perhaps like Korean perspective insist Korean influence should be extended to Bohai) is not historically definite.

 

I think it is.  The old texts clearly state how these states saw themselves in terms of being successor states.

 

Because Gija was from Shang dynasty, his state was recognized by
Zhou, similar, Wiman was from Chinese state of Yan, his state was also recognized by Han dynasty, subsequently, later Chinese dynasties consistently used this as legal base for their contined war with koguryo. In the eyes of Sui and Tang rulers, "the invasion of Korean state" was "reclaiming of Chinese territory, which were not only consist parts of modern "North East" region but also extended to north Korea.

 

I believe the model for this moral legitimacy was based on the Han commanderies and not on Gija or Wiman Joseon.

 

Up until this stage, the region could be argued belong to both Chinese or Korean, they certainly contested for it, the establishment of Koguryo and its expansion over the region, as well, reunified China under Sui and Tang's persistent military conquest of it, were all part of the contest for domination over the land.

 

Agreed :]

 

You can say Bohai was culturally influenced by and was ruled by Korean, equally Gija and Wiman states were culturally influenced by and were ruled by Chinese. Current Chinese side is denying Koguryo as Korean, equally, current Korean(and Japanese) historian are downplaying Gija state. As i argued before, the overlapping territory that these states(whether its Chinese or Korean at the ruling level) occupied were not Chinese or Korean in definity, its yet to be decided. Just like Chinese dynasties viewed the land as Chinese on the basis of previous states like Gija,Wiman. Korean states also regarded the land to be Korean on the basis of the legacy of Koguryo state etc.

 

 

But both ignores the historical influence of other ethnic groups. For instance, the Khitan Liao, Jurchen Jin, were they more Chinese or non-Chinese in nature can be consider later, but they certainly played important role in defining the geopolitical boundary of the region.

 

The pattern is that Jin subsequently inherited its sphere of influence from previous Liao dynasty, Mongol Yuan then subsequently inherited from Jin, during all these dynasties(be it Chinese or non-Chinese in ones arguement), Korean states were unable to reclaim or expand their influence to Chinese part(by modern sense) of the land, despite they have the intention at times.

 

This has nothing at all to do with the ethnicity of the rulers of the states.  If this were the case the Jin, Liao, Yuan, Qing, and etc would not be considered a part of Chinese history.  Neither Wiman nor Gija Joseon claimed Tian Xia.  Instead, by name themselves after the (mythical?) state of Gojoseon, they took on the torch of Korean legitimacy.  Gija and Wiman may have been Chinese but they ruled Korean states, just as the Mongol Kublai Khan ruled a Chinese state.

 

The Ming dynasty also subsequently inherited in this part what the Yuan dynasty had in possession. The Koryo dynasty of Korea also see the overthrow of Yuan dynasty as an opportunity to reclaim what they believe are Korean land, so did the Ming, at certain stage, Ming wanted to use the Jurchens(since there were Jurchen tribes residing in northern korea) as medium to reclaim what they could regard as "Chinese" land(which here is specifically referring to northern part of North Korea, which historically overlapped by states such as Gija,Wiman).

 

Yi Seonggye was on the expedition of reclaiming territories belong to present day China's "north East" region, instructed by monarch of Koryo dynasty. But He turned back, instead he established friendly relation with the Ming, while replaced koryo dynasty with his own Choson Yi dynasty. At this point it seemed, the result is both gave up their territorial ambitions.

 

The geo-political boundary of two countries which is defined by Yalu river since then have maintain for the following centuries until now.

 

One can see the territory dispute had been ended when Ming and Choson Yi dynasty establishd good relation. Or alternatively, the previous centuries of relative border peace was only periodic discontinuity of continued struggle for dominance of the land which covers not only modern day "North-East" region of China, but that of North Korea too.

 

Not quite.  The territory inherited by I Seonggye was the territory of Goryeo.  This was about 2/3’s as big as the current area of what is now considered Korea.  Joseon’s territory was expanded to the area to which we are more familiar with during the reign of King Sejong the Great.  So there was some military activity in terms of taking the land up until the end of King Sejong the Great’s reign.

 

Also, the Qing and Joseon were in frequent negotiation in terms of where the border lay in the north, particularly in terms of Baekdusan (Paitoushan). 

 

Both countries are focusing on Koguryo, a state exsited more than 1000 years ago. on the Korean part, the fact that there are Korean living in "north-east" border area of China echo the history that there were Korean in the region during Koguryo's era. But more objective fact is these Korean were immigrated largely during WW2 under then Japanese rule.

 

I agree.  The Koreans in China’s northeast have little to do with Goguryeo.  They’re not relevant at all to the discussion.

 

While Chinese government is distorting Koguryo's history which is not morally right, South Korean government essentially is embarking on the same thing. They claim "Gando treaty" was colonial Japan selling out "Korean" territory to China, but they are not claiming Choson Yi had already "sold" these land hundred of years before to Ming and Qing.

 

When did Joseon sell these lands to the Ming and Qing?  The claims were still there during Joseon and the Daehan Empire.  It was the Japanese who sold the land to the Qing.

 

 

It should be noted that there is no evidence for Gija Joseon.  Gija came with countless numbers of servants and courtiers, and yet there are no artifacts that are of the Shang style or of Shang origin anywhere in Korea.  No tombs, no artifacts, no nothing.  Partly do to this lack of evidence, ideas on where Gija Joseon actually existed are nothing more than mere speculation.  In fact, the actual existence of Gija Joseon itself is highly questionable at this point.

 


I think we can generally agree though that all governments distort history to some extent.
Back to Top
ricecake View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 05-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ricecake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Sep-2006 at 23:19
Korea's Koryo Dynast WangKon's ancestral root was Han Chinese,can China claim it as part of Chinese history for the family was ethnically Chinese.LOL 
 
The matter of fact is,China and Korea inter-wined in entire history and a percentage of both populations are genetically related more or less if we go back in time.
 
However,nowadays Chinese are Chinese and Koreans are Koreans. 


Edited by ricecake - 11-Sep-2006 at 23:22
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1776
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 01:38
Originally posted by jiangweibaoye jiangweibaoye wrote:

I like to make a comparison.
 
Do you see the Europeans laying claim to long dead civilizations the same way the Japanese, Chinese, & Koreans do?  Do you hear Italians laying claim to the territories of the Roman Empire (aside from WWII)?  Does Macadenian (misspelling) lay claim to all territories conquered by Alexander?
 
Asians have a lot to learn about being honest about their heritage.  Not everything is so black and white.
 
All this about being "Chinese" or "Korean" is a neverending debate.  Like I stated before, those two terms are not revelant until the collapse of the Mongol Empire. 


Europeans did do this when they had the power to do it. They not only claimed ancient lands but also exterminated old civilisations, colonized them after wiping out their cultures,committed countless attroicites on the original inhabitants & usurped their lands as colonies or the so called new world. They dont do it now because they are not that powerfull now.

Back to Top
I/eye View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote I/eye Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2006 at 22:45
we get into this argument every time China expands its claims..
 
funny thing is it's always an argument between the Korean side and the "seemingly neutral" side..
 
no one ever supports the PRC claims lol
Back to Top
ricecake View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 05-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ricecake Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 00:01
PRC has rightful claims to every inch in China's NE region,what's more for Chinese to support in cyberspace forums.
 
Average real life Chinese either don't care or don't know about the issue.Chinese generally support China ( regardless of regime ) stays as one solid nation and Chinese army to protect the land.
 
Back to Top
Qin Dynasty View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 08-Jan-2006
Location: China
Status: Offline
Points: 210
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qin Dynasty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 00:43
we get into this argument every time China expands its claims..
 
funny thing is it's always an argument between the Korean side and the "seemingly neutral" side..
 
no one ever supports the PRC claims lol
 
i did not find the Chinese government supported book mentioned in the topic, so i cant give any valid arguments here. In fact i dont know much about Koguryo, and i m sure  most average Chinese do not care about it at all. So the quarrel broke out at an official level really suprises me. I had thought it should stay at a certain professional field and be debated with good evidence and without emotions. It seems to Korean Koguryo is extremely crucial, coz it was their solid evidence to verify their boasted long history of their civilization. And maybe superiority of their race?( i just guess, no offends)
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1776
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 00:45
China does it in a very subtle fashion. But is very firm & ruthless as was demonstrated in tibet.
Back to Top
Qin Dynasty View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 08-Jan-2006
Location: China
Status: Offline
Points: 210
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Qin Dynasty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 00:57
China does it in a very subtle fashion. But is very firm & ruthless as was demonstrated in tibet.
 
how? would u please extend it?
Back to Top
The Charioteer View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 735
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Charioteer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 01:35

Originally posted by Gubook Gubook wrote:

Everyone抯 biased.  Anyone who says that they come to an issue without any pre-conceived ideas and notions is a liar.

exactly, so one can either be willing to listen to the opposition, or be persistent on what might not be completely correct, there the ways to exploit one's bias.

Quote I think it is.  The old texts clearly state how these states saw themselves in terms of being successor states.

Im talking about the extension of territory that these states and commandaries occupied, not Koguryo's relation with Bohai,Shilla,Koryo, etc.

Quote I believe the model for this moral legitimacy was based on the Han commanderies and not on Gija or Wiman Joseon.

Later dynasties based on Han commandaries, but the Han commandaries was established on the basis of Wiman Choson, whos regime had previously overthrew the Gija Choson. When Sui minister suggested Yangdi on Koguryo, his reasoning started with "the territory Koguryo occupies was once the "Guzhu" kingdom(which was a vassel to the Shang), then was the state of Gija,the 4 Han commandaries, Wei and Jin also had authority.." In their eyes, the territory of Liaodong should belong to China.

Quote This has nothing at all to do with the ethnicity of the rulers of the states.  If this were the case the Jin, Liao, Yuan, Qing, and etc would not be considered a part of Chinese history.  Neither Wiman nor Gija Joseon claimed Tian Xia.  Instead, by name themselves after the (mythical?) state of Gojoseon, they took on the torch of Korean legitimacy.  Gija and Wiman may have been Chinese but they ruled Korean states, just as the Mongol Kublai Khan ruled a Chinese state.

Your line of thinking is from your pre-conceived view that Gija and Wiman should be seen as Korean states, and you are mixing up with the Chinese case. But when the Han set up commandaries over Wiman Choson, they didnt view it as Korean, its what they pre-conceived not necessarily mine.

The mention of Liao,Jin,Yuan was to emphasize their influence on the territory once occupied by whatever states, how the border was evolved between present China and Korea because of their historical presence.But you are using them as a case to defend Korean legitamacy over Gija and Wiman Choson.

Quote Not quite.  The territory inherited by I Seonggye was the territory of Goryeo.  This was about 2/3抯 as big as the current area of what is now considered Korea.  Joseon抯 territory was expanded to the area to which we are more familiar with during the reign of King Sejong the Great.  So there was some military activity in terms of taking the land up until the end of King Sejong the Great抯 reign

King U demanded territory up to Tieling(in today's Liaoning province of China) when he sent his messenger to emperor Hongwu.Hongwu rejected such demand but also hinted that China is not so stingy on few counties. Like i mentioned Korea and China both see the collapse of Mongol Yuan as an opportunity to seize the land that their predecessors wanted to gain foothold. For Korean wanted to claim former Koguryo territories which is in today's China, for Ming wanted to claim Liaodong which is in today's north Korea. Yi Seonggye's overthrow of Koryo dynasty changed all the initials, instead, Yalu river was used as a natural landmark for Choson-Ming border, its rather a wise move, a sign of peace rather than confrontation.If you want to insist on your view, then Choson Yi should had crossed the Yalu, or Koryo shouldnt had been replaced by Yi in the first place. Furthermore the area(expanded by Choson) was not under Korean rule during previous Liao,Jin and Yuan eras. Even Bohai is considered a Korean state, It was replaced briefly by Dongdan then Khitan Liao. Koryo was rather based on former Shilla, but Shilla never able to extend its rule to the region despite in Korea some regard this period to be "northern and southern Korean states". The fact is for centuries after Tang had been long collapsed, Korean states(i.e Shilla-Koryo) were unable to "reunite" with the northern "Korean" states of Bohai, let alone northern parts of North Korea.

Quote Also, the Qing and Joseon were in frequent negotiation in terms of where the border lay in the north, particularly in terms of Baekdusan (Paitoushan).

The Qing before it entered China invaded north Korea, and forced Choson to acknowledge Qing's overlordship. Changbaishan is regarded by the Manchus as their birthplace, the area was restricted as imperial hunting ground, the Qing has no reason to give it up and they didnt. Even if the negotiations is taken as a sign of "Korean persistent struggle for legitimacy over the former Koguryo territory", then Choson should had negotiated with Ming and Qing earlier, rather than during the later Qing. What made Choson changed their attitude? May be old Koguryo legacy inspired the Choson government, may be its also the fact there were Koreans came over as refugees, nevertheless, Qing government never agreed to anything beyond present borderline.Thats why when writting "gando" treaty Qing government insisted on the existing boundary from then the Japanese colonial government of Korea. But the Korean side is claim Japan sold "Korean" territory to China.

Quote I agree.  The Koreans in China抯 northeast have little to do with Goguryeo.  They抮e not relevant at all to the discussion.

May be they are revelant.

Quote When did Joseon sell these lands to the Ming and Qing?  The claims were still there during Joseon and the Daehan Empire.  It was the Japanese who sold the land to the Qing.

The Yalu river as borderline was already established during the Ming-Choson era. "Gando" treaty was the result of Japanese involvement.

Quote It should be noted that there is no evidence for Gija Joseon.  Gija came with countless numbers of servants and courtiers, and yet there are no artifacts that are of the Shang style or of Shang origin anywhere in Korea.  No tombs, no artifacts, no nothing.  Partly do to this lack of evidence, ideas on where Gija Joseon actually existed are nothing more than mere speculation.  In fact, the actual existence of Gija Joseon itself is highly questionable at this point.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=12537&PN=2
please refer to what i wrote there.
Besides, Han commandaries were set up after Han conquered Wiman Choson, Wiman Choson was established on the basis of Gija Choson. If Han commandaries were true, Wiman and Gija Choson should be true as well.


Edited by The Charioteer - 13-Sep-2006 at 02:07
Back to Top
The Charioteer View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 735
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Charioteer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Sep-2006 at 11:24
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.