Kogoryo, was it chinese

Who were they? The "ethnic minorities"? Chinese, Koreans, Manchus, Mongols, or Sianbis? Japanese? Turks, or Russians? Who are they? I think they must have been Mongols or Russians or Europeans or American-Indians!?

DON'T SAY THEY WERE HAN-CHINESE, PLEASE! AND THAT THE CHINESE AT THAT TIME SPOKE IN KOREAN?!!!!!

"Among two armies, equally armed, skilled and able to fight the winner will be the one with the better morale (conditions) and spirit, and with soldiers morally ready to fight. The morale of the Koguryo soldiers was extremely high-this is certified by partisan units in the Chinese rear and the high pathos of soldiers during the battle, by people, who by their own will, left their homes when Uiji Mundok implemented his scorched earth policy.

The main point is that the men of Koguryo had already come to grips with their ethnic self-consciousness, understanding their non-Chinese tradition and culture. Quintessential of this was the cult of Chumong, the legendary founder of the Koguryo kingdom and ideal ruler and hero. The temple of Chumong is mentioned even in Chinese sources. After the wedding of the god with a specially selected bride, faith in the presence of the unseen Chumong so raised the morale of the defenders that the Chinese could take them only by completely destroying them. Both the paintings from the tombs and the legends that many Koreans have heard around the fires are different from the Chinese stories."

Your prejudice shows how little you know about China. Things in fact are on the contary.

Until just a decade ago, there are no debate on Gorguryo issue at all. Why? Because after the PRC was founded, there is hardly academic freedom. You can say in decades all Chinese scholars were "producing only results that their employer expects". On the other hand,  North Korea has long been the PRC's "Comrade plus brother" .  Any thing that might do harm to the "great friendship and brotherhood" between NK and China would be shunned by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Gorguryo issue for sure would be one of this troblesome stuffs. Therefore, any statements that were different with the NK opinion had been recklessly oppressed.

Today, China is rapidly changing, as what we can see on the press or by your own feeling if you has been to this amazing country. The environment of academic resaerch are much much more free than before. In historian field, the government now seldom interfere with the academic researches.  The debate on Gorguryo issue has becoming active under this circumstance.  It was actually the rebound after a long time depression. But this subject is just a tip of an iceburg if you look at the whole picture. Many scholars now dare to express their own views on many historical subjects, some of which could been deemed as taboo only ten years ago. For example, some historians write books to argue that Li Hongzhang was in fact a patriotist. But Li, the most influential official during the late Qing Dynasy had long been decribed as a big quisling.  Even this final judgement in the text book now are being challenged. The Gorguryo debate is only a drop in the ocean during this period of "Chinese academic renaissance".

As what I said: there is no broadly accepted paradigm with regard to historical research. I respect your view. But that does not mean the Chinese historian's arguement are totally nonsense, though they may make you uncomfortable.

You mentioned the ancient Choson. To my knowledge, this dynasty (or just kind of prehistorical culture?) is something like the Xia Dynasty in Chinese history. So far we don't have enough information to even prove its existence. If you take it as the grounds of your argument, IMHO, it does not sound persuasive enough. BTW, do you really believe Tangun was offspring of a bear?

I don't think so, really.  I am afraid you have underestimated the wisdom of Chinese people and overweighted the importance of the Gorguryo history in minds of Chinese. I bet the reaction of 99% people that saw that signs would be like this: Read it and say " I see" , and then forget it after they wake up next day. The rest 1%, those people like me who is interested in historian stuff will ask" Is that really the case?", and then they will look up this matter on web or in book and have their own opinions.

Who are those "others" you referring to? Whether they means other Chniese historians? Remenber I told you that nearly all Chinese scholars more or less have connection with the government. That comes the problem: if both sides are considered "official", your dixit that "they'll believe official government handouts more than the one person who actually knows better" would go to nowhere.

That's not the logic, according to what Koreans hear.  If that was the case, the entire Manchuria would be claimed.  And let's not have another Goguryeo debate, but focus on this region of interest  (I'll try my best to not link those two)

Gando/Gendo (southern Yanbian- I type Gando because its much easier than Southern Yanbian; it's more specific than Southern Yanbian (you can argue like "how much of the Yanbian are these crazy koreans claiming?") and it fits the description of the conflict) conflict arose during Choson and Qing dynasty, when multiple factors just kick in. 

Partially it was because the Manchus originated from the region; partially because the two countries didn't give much damn about the borderline until then when the two did start to care.  There were Korean farmers living in that area - some who moved before the conflict, and others during/after (Most korean immigration to Manchu occured after Japanese colonization, due to high taxation, however). 

So Qing decided to set up a stella in Baitou(Bekdu) mountain and send topographers to draw boundaries, and all that.  Then there was a quarrel (explained later on in this post)...all the way until Japanese intervened Choson politics, and made the Gando agreement (as mentioned in my earlier post in page 2) that gave Gando to Qing in return for the rights to build railroads in Manchu. 

Then when Japanese lost WWII, it agreed to cede all land dominations to the colonized countries- leaving NK and PRC to deal the issue.  They did, in 1962, without the consent of any other nation (not even to South Korea), or the UN. 

See the problem? 

Here's a picture I've found from a "Gando for Korea" article. 

The red markers indicate the "artificial mud stockades" constructed by Qing to indicate their boundaries with Choson, or what's left of them.  It starts out from the left-top, where "Bekdu-mountain apex stella" is (Baitou Mountain or white headed mountain- historically it was the stella that basically wrote the boundaries), all the way through Amnok river and Tou-moon river.

The Stella mentioned the border to be from "Abrok to Tou-moon."

Abrok(Amnok) river(����˰) is Yalu river.  In the picture, its the one on the very left that touches the red margin until the margin heads right

Tou-moon river - that's the one opened to interpretations.  In that period, Tou moon river for Choson was the predecessing river for song hwa river.  (In the picture below, tou moon river is the circle in the rightmost part- tou, pronounced "to" with the o as in nope, means dirt.  Topographically speaking, Tou-moon river is a "dried up river," thus the "dirt.")  However, the Qing interpreted Tou-moon as the "Chinese way" (technically its the "Qing" way of saying) of pronouncing du-man river(��ػ˰), or the actual NK borderline river along the northern-rightmost region.

But if, and I mean if, the Qing claim is just a fabricated excuse, Gando- the eastern section of the land stretching along tou-moon river- would be part of Choson. 

Since the Japanese Imperialists made an unfair agreement during their height that gave up Gando to Qing (or reaffirmed it or whatever fits you), and since they agreed to surrender all land to the colonized ones after WWII, the Gando problem really is an interesting conflict.  (Well, technically there's the NK and PRC's agreement against SK and UN's consent, which makes the issue more complicated, which can be discussed later on)

That's my view so far.  I'm opened to the Chinese viewpoint about the issue.

Where did you get that information? 

At least I know the backgroud of the painting in my photo is one of the frestos of Goguryeo period.  On the other hand, I don't think the Yanbian ("Gando" as the Korean call the region) issue has nothing to do with the Goguryo argument. Both on the web and in my conversation with some Korean when I was in SK, I notice some Korean radical  nationalist believe in this logic -- Goguryeo ruled Yanbian (Gando) for almost a millennium. Korea is the rightful successor of Goguryeo. So those lands should be Korea's proper possession.

I know this is only a few extremist's thought. But it is more offensive and dangerous than any academic argument on Goguryeo's ownership.

First, there is no broadly accepted paradigm on judging the ownership of  a vanished civilization like Goguryeo. Even in the historian circle,  no consensus has been made yet. Under such circumstance, the Chinese surely have the right to express their own opinion on Goguryeo history.

In view of pragmatism, of course the Chinese should have better keep silent on the Gogueryeo matter, because whom Goguryo history belongs to means so much to the Korean and so little to Chinese. But should a genuine intellatual give up his academic position only because another nation's collective amour-propre should be take care of? If you ask me, I would say "no". for a historian, that is a matter of moral integrity . I reckon this is the reason why many Chinese scholars disagree their Korean counterpart's view on Goguryo.  I would like to re-paste one of my post in another thread that initiated by you.

Interestingly, the very reason that Goguryeo is thought to be Chinese in China is almost the same with that it is thought to be Korean in Korea. Let��s check it out:

 l         Territory, a part of Goguryeo Kingdom today is ruled by PRC while the other part by NK.

l         Capital, the capital of Goguryeo originally was located in Jilin Province, China, but it was moved to Pyongyang  later.

l         People, after the collapse of the Goguryeo Kingdom, the conqueror, Tang Dynasty forced most of its people to reinhabit in Chinese hinterland, while the rest took refugees in Shilla (right spelling?). Thus, both Chinese and Korean are entitled to claim kindred of the Goguryeo people.

l         Culture, you could hardly tell the Korean culture from Chinese culture in that period. Perhaps the right description is that Goguryeo belonged to the East Asian Confucius Cultural Rim.

The root of Goguryeo is so profoundly mixed between China and Korea that actually you are always justified no matter you declared it Chinese or Korean. What really matters is the position you are at. 

last time it was because China's stance changed from 'Korean history' to 'both Chinese and Korean history'

this time because China's stance changed from "both Chinese and Korean history" to "Chinese history and not Korean"

'course, being Chinese, you couldn't know that, since you guys don't care about Korguryo as much as we do..

I agree with your point,demon,it's more complicated than "this is ours"

or "this is yours". In fact, I can offer more detailed historical background

infromation about the Gando problem to you,but sadly,all of them are in

Chinese language.I think you can do the same thing too.  We all tend to

believe the facts provided by our own side.

You're a nice guy.I'm not here to quarrel with you for Gando or Goguryo

But when one of your neighbors always claim in newspaper one room of

your house was his,you will feel uncomfortable too.

You do not know China. Our media seldom make fuss about Kogryo,partly

because  they are not aware of the importance of koguryo,partly because

our government banned such reports. The government leaders did not wish

unpleasant thing appear between the media community of the two countries.

BTW��I have read The Record of Three Kingdoms through the link you

provided , I even bought one book. If I'm here to argue now, I can quote

some content of the book to sustain my viewpoint But I'm not here to

quarrel.  The best policy for me at present is to keep silence.  

As I recall it, the Gando/Gendo conflict was resolved as part of Qing only after in 1909 Japan and Qing signed the Gando treatise, giving Japan the right to construct railways in return.  And in that treatise, Choson was excluded.   

Before that, there were like several attempts to define the boundaries between those two countries.  I think the first one, or one of the first was this stella called Mokguk (��к��) that was found in 1712 after an incident where 5 chinese were killed around the region.  I don't remember how the geographical boundaries were like around that time, so I won't make claims now.

So after the Japanese withdrawal, NK and China had another agreement, w/o SKn consent, in 1962, ����ܫͣ��� (Whatever that is), setting the boundaries between the two countries, that gave Gando to China.  But even that treatise is not registered to the UN.

My point is that the problem is more complicated that "this is Korean" or "this is Chinese," because like, 4 countries are all involved in this issue and they all made things worse. 

So yeah, don't just go like "hey, it's chinese because it's our land now."

It's true that Koreans immigrated to that region, especially after Japanese colonization, becaues of land being fertile and it being Qing dynasty's birth ground, but that's not the whole story.

The same way some Chinese media and government tries to make a fuss about this Koguryo being Chinese ethnic minority.