WTH? China?

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

 

 In terms of how greatly each of the Chinese and Korean entities influenced the region in comparison to each other, I agree this is very much in limbo.  On the other hand though, I fail to see how this is relevant to our discussion.  Chinese and Korean entities, along with other groups, exercised influence in Dongbei, Russia�s Maritime Region, and northern Korea.  I agree, but so what?

 

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.

 

I�m also aware of this.  The Sui considered Liaodong as part of their land.  Once again, so what?

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.

 

They didn�t view the states as Korean because there was no such thing as Korean at that period in terms of the ROK and the DPRK.  Likewise there was no such thing as China in terms of the PRC and the ROC.  Of course Gija and Wiman weren�t seen as Korean.  That construct hadn�t been invented yet.  When the Han conquered Wiman Joseon, they conquered a foreign state and created commanderies there.  I would like to see your reasoning and evidence for thinking that the Han felt that they were conquering �Chinese� states.

 

And yes, I am using the Liao, Jin, Yuan, and Qing as backing for the view that Wiman and Gija Joseon should be considered Korean entities.  China isn�t the only nation that is founded on a political basis.  The concept of dynastic succession exists in Korean historiography too.

As for the use of Liao, Jin, and Yuan for demonstrating the fluidity of borders in the Dongbei region, that�s great.  They�re great examples.  Once again though, so what?

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.

 

Lets start off with a few basics.  Liaodong is not in today�s northern Korea.  Liaodong is a peninsula located in China�s Dongbei region.  Liaodong is not to be confused with Lolang (Nangnang) which is thought to have been in today�s northern Korea. 

 

In terms of the early border between Joseon and the Ming, I think you do not understand me.  Let me be clearer.  I�m not saying that I think Goryeo should�ve crossed the Yalu.  Not at all.  I�m saying that the territory inherited by Joseon was the size of Goryeo�s.  Look at the map of Goryeo.  That�s how big early Joseon was.  The northern lands were effectively inhabited by Jurchens.  It wasn�t until the reign of King Sejong the great that Joseon�s lands were extended and consolidated to the Yalu river.  That�s what I�m saying.  Does that make sense?

 

I agree that both the Ming and Goryeo saw the collapse of the Yuan as an opportunity to gain land.  No argument there.

 

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

 

Yes, you have proved your point on the fluidity of the borders in the Dongbei region.  Once again though, so what?  How does this pertain to our discussion?

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.

 

Generally agreed.  We seem to be arguing about nothing.  The legitimacy of the Korean claim to Gando is questionable at best.  But, it is historically true that the Japanese, after making Korea a protectorate, ended Korea�s claim to the Gando region in exchange for being able to build a railroad between An-tung and Mukden (Tan-tung and Shenyang)  IMHO, to say that Japan sold Korean territory is to extreme a view.  No land was sold, but a potentially troublesome territorial dispute was put to rest. 

May be they are revelant.

 

Instead of giving vague and opaque answers how about giving some backing to your words?

 

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

Agreed. 

 

But you�re not answering my question.  You wrote this:

 

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.

 

Did Joseon sell these lands to the Ming and Qing?  What do you mean by sell?  As far as I know there was no transaction made.

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.

 

What you have there is a shrine to Gija not his actual tomb.  This was constructed during the Goryeo dynasty.  It proves little other than the fact that people in the Goryeo dynasty paid respect to Gija.  Once again, there is no archaeological evidence for Gija Joseon.  No Shang bronze wares, oracle bones, nothing.

 

As for your reasoning for the existence of Gija Josone based on the Han commanderies, that holds very little water.  It�s very Watchmaker-esque.  Because there is a watch there is a watch maker.  Because there is man there must be God.  Because there were the Han commanderies there must�ve been a Gija Josoen.  Not really.  We�ve found tombs, artifacts, edifices, and countless other things to prove the existence of the Han commanderies.  Why then can�t we find anything from Gija Joseon that was just before?  There were other tribes and statelets in the region when the Han commanderies were created.  These smaller entities may have been conquered to create the Han commanderies.  Savvy?

 

It�s best not to take the old texts quite so literally 

 

Cheers

Edited by Gubook Janggoon - 13-Sep-2006 at 15:03

i hope you understand i was talking about territorial expansion over the cross-border regions by ancient Chinese and korean states, which as i said is not historically definite. And your reply to this was

I may just be finding what you say a bit vague and unclear.  Are you saying that the borders were in constant flux?  Then yes I agree.  I misunderstood you before, but I think I get what you're saying.  But once again, so what?

Without having this consideration by Sui, and successive Tang dynasty, they wouldnt had persistently embarked on the military conquest of Koguryo, which eventually contributed to Koguryo's fall.

Does this play into the idea of borders being flux again?  Then yes, I agree, but it has little to do with anything.  It seems as if we're discussing two different things in which case this discussion is going no where.

Exactly, then we shouldnt seen all those Korean nationalist came to China's north-east and claim the territory should belong to Korea, some South Korean MP even claimed "the border of China and Korea should be  along Shanhai pass." China's "north-east" project was to some degree the result of Korean ultra-nationalism.SK minister did mention that South Korean visitors to China's north-east leave message like "give our territory back" , Ultra-nationalism organizations in SK, and SK government's preferential policy to Korean-Chinese living there may have contributed to Chinese government's "north-east" project.

as for the "evidence"
"司马迁著《史记?#26397;鲜传》中记：?#26397;鲜王满者，故燕人也。自始全燕 时，尝略属真番、朝鲜，为置吏，筑鄣塞。秦灭燕，属辽东外檄。汉兴，为其远难守，复修辽东故塞，至浿水为界，属燕。燕王卢绾反，入匈奴。满亡命，聚党千余 人，魁结蛮夷服而东走出塞。渡浿水，居秦故空地上下鄣，稍役属真番、朝鲜蛮夷及故燕、齐亡命者，王之。都王险。?
http://wiki.pinkcool.com/index.php/%E5%8D%AB%E6%BB%A1%E6%9C%9D%E9%B2%9C

This is extract from Simaqian's Shiji-commentary on Choson.

The Korean government doesn't control the speech of its citizens.  That's simply not how the nation works.  Unlike the Northeast Project, these nationalists arn't funded by the government.  I'm sure the MP was admonished for what he said.  As for the preferential policy that the SK government gives to Korean-Chinese could you perhaps elaborate more on this?

And I can't read Chinese.  Would you mind translating that bit you posted up?

"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."

My emphasize is their 'role in defining the geopolitical boundary of the region'.
You replied "This has nothing at all to do with the ethnicity of the rulers of the states"
I said "during all these dynasties(be it Chinese or non-Chinese in ones arguement)" was also emphasize on borderline evolution than focus on ethnicities of these states. I tried to prevent any relevance to it, you just didnt realize.

I really dont get it when you are repeating your remark "so what". If you think its not worthy to examine how modern Korean-Chinese border evolved in the centuries. I dont know whats worthy to discuss and relevant.

Our problem seems to be that we're discussing two different things.  I'm talking about Goguryeo's role in Korean/Chinese history and you seem to be talking their influence on the borders of the region. 

This is totally different from what I was talking about.  I was talking about the roles of local and national histories. 

Historically "Liaodong" wasnt confined to todays Liaoning province. "Liaodong" prefecture was established by Yan which encompassed land east of Yalu river(i.e in north Korea). The original 4 Han prefectures consisted of Zhenfan,Lintun,Xuantu,Lelang,during the Wei(3 kingdoms) era, it evolved into Liaodong,Daifang,Xuantu,Lelang. "Liaodong" canbe describing Liaodong prefecture, but also canbe described to encompass greater north-east regions(for instance, Wei's 4 prefectures were referred to as "4 prefectures of Liaodong"). Thats why Tang taizong believed "Liaodong was originally the land belong to China", hes not just referring to Liaoning.

Liaodong is never listed as a Han commandery in any of the texts that I've referenced.  In fact, I got the impression that the area was in fact, instead ruled over by the Kung-sun family. 

The other thing is that you stated that Liaodong is in today's Northern Korea.  But if Lolang (Nangnang) and Taifang (Daebang) were around northern Korea, then how could this supposed Liaodong comandery also be there?

Liaodong's borders may have changed over the years, but Liaodong has never meant northern Korea.

Choson claimed parts(north Korea) that once occupied by Koguryo, but it gave up what Koryo(King U) tried to claim which also were once occupied by Koguryo. Hongwu rejected Tieling claim, but hinted "China is not stingy on few counties." If there is no agreement between the two countries, Why should be Choson's extension stopped at Yalu? Does this fact illustrate what Hongwu said?  Establishment of Ming-Choson border is not unilateral development.Any claim by Chinese side on northern Korea based on previous entities, or any claim by Korean side on north-east China based on previous entities are unilateral. Hence, it should be confrontation rather than peace between Choson and Ming, which is not historically correct.

You're not reading what I write it seems.  What I'm saying is pretty simple.  The territory of Goryeo is about 2/3's as big as the territory that is usually associated with the Joseon dynasty.  I Seonggye inherited a kingdom that was the same size as the Goryeo dynasty.  Who was living in the northern regions?  The Jurchens.  The Jurchens controlled the northern regions.  It was only until the reign of King Sejong the great that the border of Joseon was actually moved north to the Yalu river.  Savvy?

what should be discussed in your opinion?

Quite frankly I don't care what we're discussing, as long as it's the same thing.  Like I've said previously in this post, I was talking about the ideas of local vs national history and how it applied to Goguryeo in terms of its role in Chinese and Korean history.  That's all I'm really talking about. 

You're talking about the fluidity of the borders.  I have no problem with that.  I actually agree with a lot of what you have to say in those terms.

one of the purpose of "north-east" project is concerns over regional stablility, and there are ultra-nationalism in Korea which might spread to Korean-Chinese in the region. Thats where i saw the relevance, since it has something to do with "north-east" project, which has much to do with this the dispute.

Ok now we're getting somewhere.  Thank you for clarifying your point.  I'm sorry, you'll have to be clear with me like this.  I'm a bit thick you see.

If you want, now that I understand where you're coming from, we can discuss this. 

I completly agree that the Northeast project could be a reaction to the rise of pan-Korean nationalism in recent years. In fact, I see it as very probable.

If "Gando" sold "Korean" territory like SK claimed, then Choson sold these already since Gando included land belong to Jilin not Choson. Its Sarcastic.

One thing I've learned in my time here is that sarcasm doesn't work on these forums.  There's no way for me to interpret your tone of voice through the text savvy?  It's best to be clear with what you mean to say.  Now I understand. :]

There is no archeaological evidence to prove the existence of Gija Choson i agree.

The tomb is ground-evidence, there are many accounts in both Chinese and Korean records mentioned Gija, or why would Koryo built the tomb if its completely a myth as argued by modern Korean and Japanese scholars? the tomb was built in Pyongyang because its supposed location of Gija Choson. It seems Koryo not only paid respect to Gija, but also believed Gija state existed.
Any archeaological evidence for "mythical" Gija should be in north Korea, but this ground-evidence of Gija was "destroyed" by the DPRK in 1959, with attitude like that of Kim Il Sung, its doubtful their archaeology would be entirely objective. Or they wouldnt have destroyed Gija's tomb.

Either contemplating that "they took on the torch of Korean legitimacy", or "they are myth or speculations", you should be consistent with what you "pre-conceived", inconsistency regarding Gija here actually shows your consistency on the idea "they are Korean", which exhibits more nationalistic sentiment than historical sense.

I was working under the assumption that Gija Joseon did indeed exist.  I'm sorry I should have been clearer with that.  You made claims that Gija Joseon was Chinese.  Let me be clearer with my argument.  If indeed Gija Joseon did exist, then it could not have been Chinese because it did not hold any elements of Chinese statehood. Instead, it received its dynastic morality from previous "Korean" states. 

Why did they Greeks make shrines to Zeus and Apollo?  Is there a Zeus because there is a Mount Olympus?

A tomb to Dangun was also constructed during the Joseon dynasty.  Dangun though was most likely a mythical figure.  According to your logic, Dangun must have existed because he had a shrine built to him.  Not really. 

Joseon also paid respects and made offerings to Dangun.  It seems that they genuinely believed he existed.  In reality though, Dangun most likely didn't exist.  It's like Santa Claus.  Children make little offerings of milk and cookies and many genuinely believe that he exists?  Does he exist?  No. 

Starting to catch my drift? 

As for the state of North Korean archaeology, I agree.  It's in ruins.  I mean come on, they claim to have found Dangun's bones.  That's bull crap. 

But you have no real proof that anything was even found and destroyed.  Once again, without solid proof, there's no real backing to the existence of Gija Joseon.

As for where I stand on the issue of Gija Joseon, I'm not sure.  I havn't explicitly said that I don't think it existed here so don't put words in my mouth.

I'm definitely open to the prospect that it may have existed, but without any solid proof it's all pure speculation and "what if".  That essentially leads to nothing in proving the existence of Gija Joseon. 

Now under the assumption that Gija Joseon existed, then yes, it did take the torch of Korean legitimacy.  It rejcted Tian Xia and gave itself a distinctly Korean name.  Politically, the state was Korean.

Am I a nationalist?  To a certain extent.  I don't need you pidgeon-holing me though like you seem to be doing to everyone else.  I'm open to the concept that I can be wrong.  I just need sufficient proof that something is wrong before I back down from an idea.  Savvy?

Cheers

-GJ

Originally posted by ricecake 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.

 

Originally posted by Qin Dynasty 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.

Originally posted by I/eye the Yalu border was set a long time ago. but the Yalu river only covers the west side of the border. on the east, that's where Gando was.

Edited by The Charioteer - 15-Sep-2006 at 19:55

Originally posted by I/eye so you don't even really know about gando.. then what were you arguing all this time?

Edited by The Charioteer - 17-Sep-2006 at 05:07

Originally posted by I/eye during Qing. the map was made by a European.

Before on AE may be, but this thread is recent.

Edited by The Charioteer - 20-Sep-2006 at 01:26

now this situation give you the legitimacy to claim the land?

Legitimacy is an imaginary concept. For all peoples for all sides anywhere.

Again legitimacy depends on who is more powerfull at the time.

Originally posted by I/eye stop talking about the damn pan-Korean nationalists. there are none on this thread so just stop it.

Edited by The Charioteer - 20-Sep-2006 at 08:46