Barhae, Bohai

Dayanhan, I don't want to talk down to you or something, but your postivistic way of conceptualizing "history" is quite dated. Your fixation on putting modern identity labels onto ancient people demonstrates your inability to perceive history as a product of social construction. But Dayanhan, you have to understand that most historians themselves are also part of the so-called "reality" that they are trying to construct. So the only "good" way to "do" history is to deconstruct, not to construct identity, the thing that you're trying so hard to do.

So to address the so-called "only issue" that you raised - whether those ancient people living in Koguryo and Barhae were Koreans or Chinese, the answer is very simple - NEITHER - because neither the Korean nor the Chinese nationality in their modern forms existed at that time!!!!!!! Please bear in mind that the idea of "nationhood" is a very recent one. If you forcibly impose your modern idea of nationhood onto ancient history, you are (1) being theoretically discordant; (2) falling into the dangerous trap of historical essentialism.  

And your argument that the "only issue" involved in the study of the ancient kingdoms of Koguryo and Barhae is to identify whether those people were Chinese or Korean both saddens and alarms me. There are so many more interesting things that historians and scholars can look at rather than engaging in this futile exercise of ethnic-labelling. Look at the beauty and legacy of these cultures just as they are without politicizing them. Investigate how those people lived their daily lives, how did they relate to one another, what were their beliefs, etc. If those people themselves (I assume) were not concerned about or preoccupied with questions such as: "Hey, are we Korean or are we Chinese?" "Which country's passport should we get?"      , why should WE be concerned about that??? Isn't it the job of a good historian to tell stories of how ancient people lived instead of telling them who they "should" be from a modern perspective?   

If what you say (that ..NEITHER Koreans nor Chinese) should be ever correct, why do the Chinese historians say Koguryo and Barhae histories are not "Korean" and instead those of "Chinese or Chinese minorities"?

Further, applying your logic, then, there would be no "Chinese" history either because the so-called "Chinese" history was not created by "modern" Chinese, but ancient people who never claimed to be "Chinese". Instead, they merely claimed themselves to be the "people of Song State (Song Guo Ren)", the "subjects of Qing State (Qing Guo Ren) and so on.  

Why your logic or that of Chinese historians' unilateral logic should not apply to the "Chinese" history and the Chinese? Truth seeking process requires a consistent logic, not double standard.

There is nothing "sad" about the ethnic labeling as long as it is proper and correct, except the futile attempt to place a "FALSE" labeling, to justify false cultural or territorial claims.

If those Koguryans and Barhaeans are neither Koreans nor Chinese, as you say, are they the ancestors of a totally unrelated people, say Martians or even wild animals? They did not leave any descendants?

Can I say Song State history is not "Chinese", but "Korean" and that they are NEITHER Chinese nor Koreans, at the same time?

You are "attacking"  the wrong person.

Flyingzone is a French-Canadian, with rather consistent schema of thoughts thats neither necessarily biased towards Korean or Chinese.

"Political motivation? What the hell are you talking about??? For as far as I can see, you ARE the one who has this inexplicable (and probably racist-motivated) Eurocentric view of the world that forbids anyone to challenge. If you bother to expand your intellectual curiosity a little more and read other threads in other sections, you should have noticed that I am the one consistently denouncing "centrism" of any sort, above all sinocentrism."

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9638& ; ;PN=1&TPN=3

if you could just provide us with historical source and archaeological evidence, and how these people's live was like and whats their belief e tc, just like what Flyingzone has suggested. then may be you would discovered that its actually a better way to present and argue what you believe without unnecessary waste of enegy on wrong targets.

but you ethno-centric and obvious nationalism in this form would just automatically evoke flyingzone to respond with passion.

understand the person better before disagree or agree with him.

BTW: in my personal opinion, steer away from Chinese political purpose, Korguryo was a Korean state,and Barhae could be considered Korean as well.

One of the reason Tang named Bohai after one of Tang's own prefecture also called Bohai, is to dilute the reality that Bohai were at least contain some factions of former Korguryo people. Tang's application of the term Bohai was politically motivated, while it associates Bohai with Chinese to create an impresson that Bohai is a Chinese state, at the same time dilute their relation to former korguryo state, which gave much headache to the Chinese dynasties, they wouldnt want to resurgent of it.

This is correlated with Shilla's state letters to the Tang, which at occasion Shilla called Bohai descendants of the former Korguryo state, as to remind to China's frustration with Korguryo, Shilla may get appreciation from the Tang court by doing so. But at other occasion Bohai was also discribed by Shilla as a nation of Tangustic "barbarian".

May be this attitude reflect at least at occasions, that Shilla didnt feel Bohai would necessarily be a Korean state(if Shilla also represent Korean identity). While its probably even less to argue for a Chinese state based on ethnic identity. But Shilla at the time was powerless to reclaim bohai if they believe its korean and should be united with Shilla, but as Tang regarded Bohai to be Tang's vassal state regardless of its ethnic composition, any attempt by Shilla to do so would be contested by Tang, as it saw itself as the overlord. But Tang's lost of the territory(Bohai claims) due to internal revolts and later rising of Khitan and Jurchen states etc, not only overshadow the Chinese but those remain in the region which could be identified as Korean as well. And the region was continuously ruled by these nomadic groups, and because all these states were leaning towards Chinese nationhood rather than Korean one, the last of its kind the Manchu's Qing dynasty made it ultimately, a Chinese territory till present.