Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Gaya and Koguryo (goguri)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 17>
Author
I/eye View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 498
  Quote I/eye Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Gaya and Koguryo (goguri)
    Posted: 19-Dec-2004 at 19:37
I was surprzed he didn't have us call Koguryo Gauri..
[URL=http://imageshack.us]
Back to Top
chaeohk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Dec-2004
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 99
  Quote chaeohk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Dec-2004 at 18:52
Korea-Corea Shilla-Shina  Baekje-Paekje  Kimchi-Gimchi  Koguryo-Goguri-Gauri Gim-Kim-Cim??? Choson-Josun .....
there are so many different spellings and pronounciations for korean words

they are only spelled out and pronounced correctly in Korean


Edited by chaeohk
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2004 at 19:31
BTW Demon, remember when you were trying to convince us that Koguryo's correct pronounciation was Goguri.  Well I did some random research and I found that the Japanese pronounciation of Koguryo is Kokuri...a lil strange dontcha think?  BTW Shinla in Japanese is Shiragi (Isn't this a rice brand?) and supposedly Baekje is Kudara (I don't know how this one fits...)...

Edited by Gubukjanggoon
Back to Top
MengTzu View Drop Down
General
General

Retired Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 957
  Quote MengTzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2004 at 19:38

[/QUOTE]

 

I wonder how Xian Bei State and Qian Qin could be part of chinese history. Xian Bei (Sianbi) were the ancient Mongols and Qin people were Tibeto-Qiang (Burmese-related) people who invaded the Central Kingdom. 

 

[/QUOTE]

By that logic the entire world belongs either to Iraqis or the villagers of a small village in central Africa (the former being where Eden is supposedly located, the latter being where scientists believe to be the birthday of the first humans.)  "Chinese" is not just the "indigenous" people of the Central Plane (the so-called "Han" population most likely, by now, include a lot of ethnicities such as Xianbei.)

Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Dec-2004 at 16:06

TRAVEL
Hot Spot
Investigating Ji'an's Koguryo tombs 
BY

< name="print_email_subscribe">printopMailWin()" alt="send">

Traveler: Where Civilizations Once Clashed
Short Cut: Stairway to heaven
Detour: A monumental controversy
Web Crawling: Know before you go

Monday, Jul. 15, 2002
CONFLICTING CLAIMS Chinese scholars say the glistening white pyramid perched on a bluff overlooking the Yalu River is the tomb of Koguryo's 5th century King Changsu. Some of their Korean counterparts disagree, believing their national hero to be buried in Koguryo's second capital, Pyongyang.

The Ji'an region is host to the largest collection of Koguryo tombs outside of Pyongyang, including pyramidal, stepped tombs�like that of Changsu's�and more common mound tombs covered in earth and renowned for their painted murals. As some of the most impressive examples of ancient Asian art, these murals are also the latest fetish in the stolen antiquities trade. Even after 1,500 years, their colorful depictions of Koguryo life and myth still prove seductive, and there have been several reported tomb lootings. Chinese authorities assert that wealthy South Koreans are behind the thefts, an allegation backed by the sighting of stolen Koguryo murals in Seoul last year.

But unlike the region's more famous crypts, Changsu's boasts no colorful murals of meditating Buddhas. Instead, it inspires by its sheer size: a 20-meter-high stack of megaliths that far out-scales any other in the area.

I ascend the tomb's stepped granite blocks to the mouth of the crypt. A bored-looking Chinese guide watches me curiously as I examine the dank and empty hulk of the pyramid's interior. In a sign of deference, Chinese and South Korean banknotes and coins are strewn across the stone slabs of what are ostensibly the sarcophagi of Changsu and his consort. It's a telling display of the two national claims on the site. Hearing of my interest in Koguryo, the guide challenges me, eager to gauge my opinion on a controversial subject. "Was Koguryo a Chinese or Korean kingdom?" she asks. Not wanting to offend, I say I do not know. "Zhongguo de (it was Chinese)," she gushes. If he's still there, King Changsu must be turning in his tomb.

From the Jul. 22, 2002 issue of TIME Asia Magazine

Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
  Quote warhead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Dec-2004 at 09:05

 "I don't think Huang Di was a Chinese. He was an Eastern Barbarian from Shan Dong area and governed both Eastern Barabarians and some Chinese (Han) as well. "

Huang Di isn't even a real person, so how do you even give a imaginary been an identity?

 

"Central Kingdom is not the equivalent of "China" as we understand now or in the sense of the country of Han (Chinese) people, "

 

No, cental kingdom today don't mean the land of the Han people, it means the land of all those that live there, there are plenty of non han chinese there, I'm one of them.

 

"It's like Nu Wa's story that was included as Chinese (Han) history. As is well known, Nu Wa was the legendary god of Miao (Hmong, Mong, Tibeto-Burmese-Qiang-mi-meo) people. These people are still living in China, Myanmar, Thailand and Laos."

Why don't you show me the source that Nu Wa is Miao? Theories about ancient cultural diffisusion is always skechy, and what exactly is your point?

 


Back to Top
Dayanhan View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 61
  Quote Dayanhan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 19:49
Originally posted by warhead

As a native of the Central Kingfom, Wei emperor Xiao Wendi was indeed of the same nationality as the people of Northern China, according to the modern (and ancient) definition.  Xiao Wen Di had renounced his Xianbei heritage and he along with the other emperors certainly took his constitutional obligations to China seriously enough, and you only have to note the claim of his origin as descendent of Huangdi to know that he considered himself both Han and xianbei. Among all their honours and possessions the throne of China was the Qin emperor Fu Qian, Han emperor Liu Zong and the Wei emperors's highest and proudest.

Just as Alexander could be both Greek and Macedonian at the same time, Richard an Anglo-Norman, who happened to speak court French, the emperors of the north were politically Chinese in name as can be seen by their simple claim of origin, name of empire and institution.Discoursing in Latin did not make an English priest an Italian, since both Latin and French were international standards. Must you necessarily be an Englishman because you use English? By such logic as you would use to strip Fu Qian and Toba Hong of their identity. An Asian-American who speaks his parents language at home might not be considered an American, which would be an outrage, and wrong in fact as well as in point of law.

I don't think Huang Di was a Chinese. He was an Eastern Barbarian from Shan Dong area and governed both Eastern Barabarians and some Chinese (Han) as well.

However, some 2000 years later when Si Ma Qian described the history of Huang Di, he included the Huang Di history into the History of Central Kingdom.

Central Kingdom is not the equivalent of "China" as we understand now or in the sense of the country of Han (Chinese) people, 

because whoever (Hun-Turkics, Tungus, Hun-Mongol, Korean, Tibetans, Irano-Toharian peoples) ruled the modern territory of China claimed to be the King of Central Kingdom. 

The adoption of "Central Kingdom" by modern, predominantly Han governments (PRC and RC) is only one of the example of these numerous cases. 

It's like Nu Wa's story that was included as Chinese (Han) history. As is well known, Nu Wa was the legendary god of Miao (Hmong, Mong, Tibeto-Burmese-Qiang-mi-meo) people. These people are still living in China, Myanmar, Thailand and Laos.

 



Edited by Dayanhan
Veritas lux mea est!
Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
  Quote warhead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 10:34

As a native of the Central Kingfom, Wei emperor Xiao Wendi was indeed of the same nationality as the people of Northern China, according to the modern (and ancient) definition.  Xiao Wen Di had renounced his Xianbei heritage and he along with the other emperors certainly took his constitutional obligations to China seriously enough, and you only have to note the claim of his origin as descendent of Huangdi to know that he considered himself both Han and xianbei. Among all their honours and possessions the throne of China was the Qin emperor Fu Qian, Han emperor Liu Zong and the Wei emperors's highest and proudest.

Just as Alexander could be both Greek and Macedonian at the same time, Richard an Anglo-Norman, who happened to speak court French, the emperors of the north were politically Chinese in name as can be seen by their simple claim of origin, name of empire and institution.Discoursing in Latin did not make an English priest an Italian, since both Latin and French were international standards. Must you necessarily be an Englishman because you use English? By such logic as you would use to strip Fu Qian and Toba Hong of their identity. An Asian-American who speaks his parents language at home might not be considered an American, which would be an outrage, and wrong in fact as well as in point of law.

Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
  Quote warhead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2004 at 10:17

"I wonder how Xian Bei State and Qian Qin could be part of chinese history. "

Because they were the emperors of china they are part of chinese history, quite simple nothing worth wondering.

 

"Xian Bei (Sianbi) were the ancient Mongols and Qin people were Tibeto-Qiang (Burmese-related) people who invaded the Central Kingdom.  "

 

No, they nevered invaded, they were settled there by peaceful means, they were long sinicised before controlling the central Kingdom. Its irrelevant what ethnic origin they are from, one ought to be careful about defining nationality before the rise of the nation-state. For to suppose that hyphenated identities were necessarily self-contradictory rather than complementary is to misread the ancient mind. Just like how Richard the Lion hard could be both a English and Nornam, yet rules England as their king and thus would be considered English history. And discontent is possible whether the rule be formal or informal and the controlling power native or foreign.

As for Qin, the evidence of their ethnicity is shallow at best, and there are no evidence whatsoever that they are tibetan in origin.

Back to Top
Dayanhan View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 61
  Quote Dayanhan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Dec-2004 at 02:44
Originally posted by hannibal

East Jin and Sixteen Warring States period (317-420), in this period we can see that Goguri invaded and occupied the northern part of the  peninsula where once was Central Kingdom's prefectures.

 

I wonder how Xian Bei State and Qian Qin could be part of chinese history. Xian Bei (Sianbi) were the ancient Mongols and Qin people were Tibeto-Qiang (Burmese-related) people who invaded the Central Kingdom. 

 

Veritas lux mea est!
Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
  Quote warhead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 21:21

Its the different places, those places that are sinizied obviously don't, those that are at the borders do or just don't care.

My friend went with his dad to Xing Jiang once on a village that don't even have local water. At first he went into the store, the Uighur took out a rifle and said get out you Han bastard. He was pissed, but later his father found the water source and he went to the same store, the owner said nothing, then when he bought meet, the same owner said its free, "say thank you to your dad for me."

Back to Top
Omnipotence View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 494
  Quote Omnipotence Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 21:02

"Well, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, East Turkestan etc are within influences of Chinese sovereignty and people from those places mostly consider themselves to be Chinese "

So it's true? The Tibetans, Mongolians, ect... in China doesn't want independence? A lot of newspapers here talk about how everybody in China want independence, but somehow I seriously doubt it.

Back to Top
warhead View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
  Quote warhead Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 20:54

"The British occupied Hong Kong for 155 years. They ran all the schools, and they only taught their version of history at school. Yet, they didn't get that many people (if there were any at all) who bought into it. "

 

They never taught the Hong Kong people that they were British which is the major difference. The British form of occupation was imperialistic, China's was nationalistic, and obvious when people are treated equal they are going to buy it. And thats not a bad thing since its the sum that matter, afterall, nationalism is quite irrelevant to one's life, its cultural, and whatever you're brought up you like that country. The sum is the same, but if their life quality improves, then its positive.

"1400-1500 years the chinese have not gotten over the fact that Koguryo kicked their butts as Sui and Tang"

 

Considering Tang conquered Koguryo, there is nmothing to get over with, add to the fact that modern China is almost completely different from ancient ones, this hypothesis is not even feasibly plausible.

Back to Top
MengTzu View Drop Down
General
General

Retired Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 957
  Quote MengTzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Dec-2004 at 18:59

Hey Mongke,

    I dunno about that.  =)  Most Chinese (like myself) don't even know enough about that part of history to get or not get over it.  What this is about is mostly politics as far as the Mainland government is concerned.

Peace,

Michael

12-6-2004

Back to Top
mongke View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
  Quote mongke Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2004 at 21:34
After 1400-1500 years the chinese have not gotten over the fact that Koguryo kicked their butts as Sui and Tang.
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2004 at 17:51
Here's an interesting article I found...

Koguryo part of China?

Mark Byington byington at fas.harvard.edu  Sat Jan 3 00:18:17 EST 2004
-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
Dear List,

I would like to offer some additional comments on this very interesting thread. First, the provincial museum of Jilin (and all other museums in that province) presently give Koguryo's dates as 37 BC to 668. It does not surprise me to hear that the signs read 37 BC to 427 when Gari Ledyard visited in 1986 - this, I believe, was a conscious gesture to North Korean
sensitivities. As noted in a previous posting, the fact that Koguryo territories straddled the current Yalu River border between China and North Korea, making Koguryo into an minority nationality of China's distant past involved some problems. If Koguryo was part of China, what message does that send to Pyongyang today? For a while scholars in China tried to skirt the issue by offering a kind of compromise, first proposed in 1981 (I believe) by none other than Tan Qixiang, of Fudan University.
Tan suggested that Koguryo be considered part of China's history from 37 BC until 427, and as part of Korean history afterward, when its capital was in P'yongyang. I strongly suspect that the museum placards that Prof. Ledyard saw were a reflection of these times, when academic interchange between China and North Korea was more frequent. By the early 1990s, and especially after the explosive exchange between Chinese and North Korean scholars in 1993, such a compromise was probably no longer seen as necessary. By about 1995 (by my own observations) there was no longer much of a North Korean academic presence in Jilin Province.

As John Jamieson has pointed out, part of Koguryo (Gaogouli) was a part of what is now the PRC, and its place in the regional history of Dongbei must of course be acknowledged. But I would suggest that there are some qualitative differences in the ways that Koguryo is understood in China and in the Koreas. First, and not surprisingly, Koguryo's significance in Chinese history textbooks is limited primarily to the regional history of the Northeast. Students studying Chinese history in Yunnan would probably never have heard of it (so I assume - please correct me if I'm mistaken). Second, regional identity notwithstanding, I would estimate that nine out of ten people on the streets of Changchun would offer only a puzzled expression if the name Koguryo were mentioned (not including ethnic Koreans, of course). South of the Yalu one would be hard pressed to find anyone with more than a grade school education who couldn't tell us something about Koguryo. In China, only if one goes to Ji'an or Huanren, sites of old Koguryo capitals, would the majority of the population likely know what Koguryo was. Koguryo is, in short, part of the regional history of the Northeast, but, I argue, it is not significantly implanted in the cultural identity of the average Han Chinese in the Northeast.

All of this might suggest only that Koguryo is a more significant component in Korean national sentiments than in Chinese, and given Koguryo's place in Korean historiography, this is not surprising. But I think there are several levels to the Chinese treatments of Koguryo, and it may be useful to distinguish between Koguryo as part of the regional history of the Northeast, and a primarily political element, associated with territorial concerns, that underlies much (but not all) of what is currently written about Koguryo in Chinese newspapers and academic journals. (I do not, however, suggest that Korean treatments of Koguryo are free of
political elements!) I also stand by my original statement that the arguments offered for proving that Koguryo was a minority nationality of early China (as opposed to its being part of the regional history of Dongbei) are both defensive and historically weak - one need only read the many papers on the topic written by Sun Jinji and Zhang Boquan, the two most vocal and articulate proponents of the "Chinese Koguryo" position, to illustrate my claim.

What many find objectionable in this is the insistence of some Chinese scholars of "proving" that Koguryo was Chinese - not just a state that once occupied part of what is now Dongbei, but an indivisible part of early China. This view results in a denial of the Korean association with Koguryo, and its "proving" necessitates a serious warping of history. Why don't these scholars (and, again, not ALL Chinese scholars hold this view!) simply admit that Koguryo was its own state, that Koreans also view it as part of their own past, but since its history is part of the history of the Northeast, it belongs also to the regional history of a part of China? Part of the answer is that Koguryo must take its place with all other ancient neighboring states and peoples in the current view that makes those states and peoples out to be minority nationalities of early China.
Another reason, closely associated with the first, is that a solid claim (loudly stated, if not convincingly proven) to Koguryo and its territories, at least those north of the Yalu, are viewed in China as necessary to ensure the security of its borders in the Northeast. A simple recognition of Koguryo as part of the regional history of the Northeast would not accomplish this objective.

Mark Byington

(Source : http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/2004- January/004061.html)


Note he uses the word Dongbei instead of Manchuria...*tear...Kulong would be proud.



Edited by Gubukjanggoon
Back to Top
sephodwyrm View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 19-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 359
  Quote sephodwyrm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2004 at 14:37

There's gotta be some form of 3rd party behind this. Chinese and Koreans are like neighbors and brothers. Dude, we covered each other's rear when situations become desperate, though sometimes we spent time and blood trying to kill each other. But hey, it is not within the Korean or Chinese interest to be hostile against each other.

I can only think of Japan or the US trying to blow this matter up. They're the only ones that can benefit from antagonisms between Koreans and Chinese. I hope both sides can see more clearly about this matter and instead of monopolizing history, acknowledge that it is as mutually shared experience and work on it together.

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them"
"Not what goes into the mouth that defiles the Man, but what comes out of the mouth" Matthew 7:12, 15:11
Back to Top
Gubook Janggoon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired Global Moderator

Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
  Quote Gubook Janggoon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2004 at 10:53
I agree with Mengtzu and Seph...although this is a conterversial and sensitive issue...I mean come on...it's a bunch of fricken stamps.
Back to Top
MengTzu View Drop Down
General
General

Retired Moderator

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 957
  Quote MengTzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2004 at 02:41

Hey Seph,

    That's right.  It's blown out of proportion.  And the party that is probably the most instrumental in blowing this out of proportion is the Chinese government.  I'm disappointed with how they are handling this.  If it's just a squabbling between some nationalist nuts from either side, let them squabble.  But when the Chinese government does it, it's certainly not due to nationalistic pride.  There's an agenda, and this agenda, I believe, isn't necessarily antagonistic to the Koreans: China is facing the reality of a multi-ethnic nationality.  Similar to how the US has to recognize the contribution of various ethnic groups, China is going in that direction.  But it seems China is either making the wrong moves or it wants more than that: if China merely wants to give credit to the small Korean-Chinese population, they could simply trace their contribution as Korean-Chinese.  Koguryo, however, lies outside of the Korean-Chinese experience.  It's like claiming that the ancient Cherokee nation was actually a part of US history -- just ain't making sense.  I know a lot of people here have an axe to grind against China (which is among a few oft critiqued entity on these boards,) but in this particular case, I believe the Koreans have a good case -- or at least the Chinese have a bad one.

Peace,

Michael

12-3-2004

Back to Top
sephodwyrm View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 19-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 359
  Quote sephodwyrm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Dec-2004 at 21:10

So maybe China should not have the plum blossom on our stamps because the plum blossom is not the Chinese national flower?

I personally feel that people are blowing this matter way beyond its rightful proportions.

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them"
"Not what goes into the mouth that defiles the Man, but what comes out of the mouth" Matthew 7:12, 15:11
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 17>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.