Kogoryo, was it chinese

To me, however, their distintions are:

Your photo demonstrate the different views on a historical issue between Chinese and Korean, which is a common and unharmful thing if it were not politicalized and limited to pure academic argument.

On the other side, what shows in my photo, especially the map, which comes to my notice that actually it is not a historical map of Gorguryo,  is utterly a bad violation against the current international law. It exposes some Korean's ambition  on Chinese land. I don't think it is right to advertise such extremist hysteria. Imagine how the Korean would feel if you saw a Japanese map including Korea into the territory of Japan?

Goguryeo! Goguryeo again!

After I visited SK, actually I have become to understand why Korean care this matter so much.  That is a indispensable part of your national pride. To be honest, I feel Korean sometime are too sentimentalist when they are talking about history, especially those history that they think to be their national pride. For example, when our guide told me about Tangun, she said " in 2031 BC (don't remember very clear) ... and then a mythical story about how the god let a bear, the fictionary ancestor of Korea became human and bore Tangun. "  Though common enough, every nation have their own mythology about their ancestor, it was my first time to hear that someone treats a myth as chronicle.  I don't know whether it was her own idea. However, if she really learnt it from school or some educational books, then it is not strange to me why some Korean's views on Gorguryo issue are so radical.

Gubook,you posted a photo about the Chinese extremists. I would also like to post one I took in SK. In fact, I don't know exactly what the words that were painted on this Korean tourist bus mean. Judging from the picture and the map, I reckon they are about Gorguryo and possibly unfriendly to Chinese. Could you translate for us? Thanks!

Edited by oodog

In my personal opinion, Koguryo is Korean.  Ask the people above me.

Intellectually speaking, it's a good question. 

Like if we ask a Koguryeo-ean whether he is chinese or korean, he'd be like "WTF.  I'm someone who lives in here."  It's that simple. 

But the catch is that if he had to choose between China and Korea, he'd most likely side with Korea.  Because Koryo dynasty was made to honor Koguryo, which got toppeled by Choson, which formed korea.  China, however, is a mixed culture of many different ethnicities, with Han being the dominant and the one represented.  In other words, it's a new idea.  It's not completely Han because China assumes the status of other ethnicities and embraces their own culture, different from Han, as theirs.  So the choice for the Koguryo-ean is a country who followed the ways of Koguryo, or a mixed Koguryo-Han-Sui-Tang-ethnic minority idea.  I'm pretty sure Koguryo people would not side with a country whose ancestry includes a rival state of them.

If I rude, Sorry for that Gubook Janggoon and Trukic10.

As I'm not good at Enlish, I can't express my thought well.

But I'd like to you think whole after see only one side.

Edited by Koguryeo-sonyeon

That is your thought. I don't want to abuse all.

Edited by Koguryeo-sonyeon

oh boy, I believe that the kingdom is a part of Korean history and Koreans should be proud of its existence

Originally posted by ChineseManchurian well, Manchu were already Chinese territory in Ming dynasty. in Tang dynasty Tang never claim Koguyeo as Tang territory, but Korguyeo does take some territories from Tang dynasty. Tang never clamed Koguyeo as Tang's monority, where you get that from?

The first is highly debatable.  Ming occupation of Dongbei was limited to, IIRC please correct me if I'm wrong, a few isolated outposts.  They didn't really have that much control over the area.

As for the latter, no Tang never claimed the Goguryeoans as Tang's minority.  I don't think the concept of minority group even existed back then.  :Q

That's the claim that the PRC is making though.  Go figure.

well, Manchu were already Chinese territory in Ming dynasty.

in Tang dynasty Tang never claim Koguyeo as Tang territory, but Korguyeo does take some territories from Tang dynasty. Tang never clamed Koguyeo as Tang's monority, where you get that from?

 

Originally posted by Gubook Janggoon Originally posted by Conan the destroyer China has never claimed Koguryo was Han Chinese. They claim that it was the kingdom of an ethnic minority of China. This is true. I don't think anyone has ever confused Goguryeo as an ethnic Han nation, except that very confused individual who voted as such on the poll. This is where the problem lies. China claims that Goguryeo was an ethnic minority who took its orders from the Tang and Sui courts.  This not only negates any "Korean" aspect about Goguryeo it is pure fallacy.  If Goguryeo was taking orders from China why would the Sui dynasty have to invade Goguryeo four times and the Tang have to send one of their greatest generals Su Dingfang to subjugate the nation? Proponents of the PRC's side often inject here that Goguryeo was a tributary of the middle kingdom.  So it was, but so were countless other nations such as Baekje and Shilla.  They then say Goguryeo can be considered a part of Chinese history because part of its former territory is now PRC territory.  Fair enough.  There's nothing wrong with teaching local history if you give due credit to the peoples you are teaching about.  But you shouldn't be putting up signs like this at the same time.  That say things like "Gao Gou Li Ren Bin Fei Chao Xian Ren" of "The people of Goguryeo don't have any relation to Koreans" Now granted The Korean camp doesn't have much meaningful stuff to say either. I've argued for a long time about this on the Korean side ever since the whole controversy started.  I've learned a lot since then and I've realized that a lot of the stuff we, Koreans, say is crap.  There are a few things that do mean something though. 1.  History-Goguryeo is recorded in the old histories of Korea as being part of the history of the area.  The Samguk Yusa and the Samguk Sagi both record Goguryeo as being one of the three kingdoms of Korea along with Baekje and Shilla.  Chinese records always label them as barbarians and not a part of China or any Chinese dynasty. 2.  Succession-Succession is as important in Korea as it is in China.  The closest thing that we have to a Chinese entity claiming Goguryeo as an ancestor state is when the Tang dynasty installed a member of the old Goguryeo royal family as king/governer of the now subjugated Goguryeo and giving him the title of "King of Chaoxian".  This though is short lived because of the king's constant rebellions.  On the other hand, there are two permanent states which do claim that Goguryeo was their ancestor state:  Barhae and Goryeo.  Barhae actively pushed itself as Goguryeo sucessor even taking the names of Goryeo and Goguryeo sometimes in its diplomatic ventures.  Goryeo was founded as the the sucessor of Goguryeo plain and simple.  Khitan invasions would eventually destory Barhae leaving Goryeo as the sole sucessor to Goguryeo. Those two reasons, IMHO, are the strongest reasons Goguryeo should be and is considered a part of Korean history.  The fact that they happened in antiquity doesn't hurt either.  By occurring in the past, it gave time for Goguryeo to become solidified as a part of Goryeo history and therefore a part of Joseon's history.  That's my take on it.  Hope that helped.

The problem is it's true Koguryeo are not Korean, not Chinese, but later on 90% of people become Chinese and 10% become Korean, if Chinese claim that Koguryeo is ethic group of Chinese border, I think Koreans should claim that also. Xian-Bei were also be known as an ancient ethic monority on the Chinese border later on become Chinese, and lots of example for that.

Originally posted by Conan the destroyer China has never claimed Koguryo was Han Chinese. They claim that it was the kingdom of an ethnic minority of China.

This is true.

I don't think anyone has ever confused Goguryeo as an ethnic Han nation, except that very confused individual who voted as such on the poll.

This is where the problem lies.

China claims that Goguryeo was an ethnic minority who took its orders from the Tang and Sui courts. 

This not only negates any "Korean" aspect about Goguryeo it is pure fallacy.  If Goguryeo was taking orders from China why would the Sui dynasty have to invade Goguryeo four times and the Tang have to send one of their greatest generals Su Dingfang to subjugate the nation?

Proponents of the PRC's side often inject here that Goguryeo was a tributary of the middle kingdom.  So it was, but so were countless other nations such as Baekje and Shilla. 

They then say Goguryeo can be considered a part of Chinese history because part of its former territory is now PRC territory.  Fair enough.  There's nothing wrong with teaching local history if you give due credit to the peoples you are teaching about.  But you shouldn't be putting up signs like this at the same time. 



That say things like "Gao Gou Li Ren Bin Fei Chao Xian Ren" of "The people of Goguryeo don't have any relation to Koreans"


Now granted

The Korean camp doesn't have much meaningful stuff to say either.

I've argued for a long time about this on the Korean side ever since the whole controversy started.  I've learned a lot since then and I've realized that a lot of the stuff we, Koreans, say is crap.  There are a few things that do mean something though.

1.  History-Goguryeo is recorded in the old histories of Korea as being part of the history of the area.  The Samguk Yusa and the Samguk Sagi both record Goguryeo as being one of the three kingdoms of Korea along with Baekje and Shilla.  Chinese records always label them as barbarians and not a part of China or any Chinese dynasty.
2.  Succession-Succession is as important in Korea as it is in China.  The closest thing that we have to a Chinese entity claiming Goguryeo as an ancestor state is when the Tang dynasty installed a member of the old Goguryeo royal family as king/governer of the now subjugated Goguryeo and giving him the title of "King of Chaoxian".  This though is short lived because of the king's constant rebellions.  On the other hand, there are two permanent states which do claim that Goguryeo was their ancestor state:  Barhae and Goryeo.  Barhae actively pushed itself as Goguryeo sucessor even taking the names of Goryeo and Goguryeo sometimes in its diplomatic ventures.  Goryeo was founded as the the sucessor of Goguryeo plain and simple.  Khitan invasions would eventually destory Barhae leaving Goryeo as the sole sucessor to Goguryeo.

Those two reasons, IMHO, are the strongest reasons Goguryeo should be and is considered a part of Korean history.  The fact that they happened in antiquity doesn't hurt either.  By occurring in the past, it gave time for Goguryeo to become solidified as a part of Goryeo history and therefore a part of Joseon's history. 


That's my take on it.  Hope that helped.