Gaya and Koguryo (goguri)

Perhaps never...

Sorry demon, I didn't write it clearly again. What I meant was that there are lots of tombs in North Korea, as you know, if a South Korean goes to the North Korea, they won't be aloud to go back and stuff, so that what I meant about tombs getting closed for us. Sorry, my bad

Hey demon,

    I don't think this intellectual squabbling will change whether China will take the course of aggression.  It's not like winning this debate will stop it from invading any country (I'm not saying that it'll; nobody wants that to happen.)  There's no problem in making Genghis Khan a Chinese figure as long as the Chinese consider that he's also a Mongolian figure, for the simple reason that Mongolian, whether by blood or culture, have already been thrown into the mix of a hybrid construct called "Chinese."  It's actually rather honest to say Genghis Khan a Chinese hero -- you can say, with more specification, a Mongolian Chinese hero.  If "Chinese" is just the English name for "Chong Guo Ren," the "Ren" of "Chong Yuan," then pretty much every people that have lived, ruled, and made an impact in Chong Yuan qualify as Chinese.  The point here is that we don't obliterate the obvious Mongolianess of Genghis Khan -- we cannot deprive the Mongolians of a cultural symbol.  But then we can't be unfair to those aspects of Chineseness that are Mongolian either.  I hope you understand that this, as I've demonstrated, can be understood at a moderate and nonaggressive level.  As far as I'm concerned, Korguryo is ancient Korea -- there's just no point in changing that.  But I would not deny that Koreans, like so many other cultures and peoples, have also been thrown into the mix that is Chinese hybrid culture.  These should be the focus of the Korguryo debate: it doesn't matter whether Korguryo was or wasn't ruled by Tang China (because this is irrelevant) and it doesn't matter whether this is a part of China's expansionist scheme (because if it is, refuting it won't deter China from expansion.)

Peace,

Michael

11-23-2004

Edited by MengTzu

Originally posted by sephodwyrm I don't see why any threads about Taiwan would have to be closed. Maybe because Tobodai is overly sensitive about Taiwan. But I see no problems with it because I am Taiwanese. And are you really in Uzbekistan?

1st question.  Well I don't know about that, but things just seem to work like that.  Also it still has nothing to do with Koguryo...if it does I am still to be informed on how it does...

2nd question.  No, I'm actually in the U.S....I just think it's fun to play with the little flag by my name...

Let's try not to talk about Taiwan in here...
1.  It doesn't pertain to the subject
2.  It only seems to get threads closed.

Hey I/eye,

    What I pmed Gubuk I say to you too: I wasn't interested at all by this topic to figure out who is really a part of the debate.  I merely said it to deter the sane ones from being a part of it.  Your posts are always well balanced, so you have nothing to worry about (though I think we should all just ignore the trolls.)

Peace,

Michael

11-23-2004

Originally posted by MengTzu At least there is one sane person here (Seph.)  Y'all make us Asians look extremely petty.  Everyone else has moved on to a new discourse about nationalism, and you are still using paradigms reminiscient of the 1950s America.  Gubuk, I thought you're quite above all this, you're one of the last persons I expect to be debating about this, bro.

what did I do(am I incl. in the 'y'all?')? the 2 previous posters were misinformed about the Gando treaty so I merely posted the facts

Originally posted by Gubukjanggoon Ummm...I wasn't debating....someone got pissed off b/c Eye used an anaology that compared China to a dog (in a non offensive way) and I was explaining it to them...I don't recall getting back into this....

it was Moonster's analogy, to which coolstorm reacted

Originally posted by hansioux I just have to say.... you are sig picture is "so cute" indeed!!!!  They are SO CUTE!!!!

 they are, aren't they?

Originally posted by MengTzu Hey all,     At least there is one sane person here (Seph.)  Y'all make us Asians look extremely petty.  Everyone else has moved on to a new discourse about nationalism, and you are still using paradigms reminiscient of the 1950s America.  Gubuk, I thought you're quite above all this, you're one of the last persons I expect to be debating about this, bro. Peace, Michael 11-22-2004

Ummm...I wasn't debating....someone got pissed off b/c Eye used an anaology that compared China to a dog (in a non offensive way) and I was explaining it to them...I don't recall getting back into this....

Hey Korean Patriot,

    I for one don't agree with making Koguryo a part of Chinese history.  To me it's not even about whether Tang controlled Koguryo, Koguryo defeated Tang, or whatever happened -- it's a battle of semantics, so honestly I think the argument that it is Chinese is entirely moot from a historical point of view.  That being said, let's put one thing in perspective: when Korean patriots were travelling in Manchuria carrying banners saying that the Koreans are taking over (I kid you not, but not that this should be surprising =) ), it's not unthinkable that China became wary.  Keep in mind that PRC government is extremely paranoid.

    If you still don't realize the actual premise underlying the Chinese argument, here it is: it really has nothing to do with whether or not China once controlled Koguryo.  The real problem here is that the social construct "Chinese" is ambiguous: it has never been just "Han" people perhaps except in certain periods, and throughout history, "Chinese" is a hybrid people.  Neither is the boundary of China static.  Now that 1) some Koreans are a part of Chinese population, and 2) half of historical Koguryo is within the border of China, some Chinese "official historians" are claiming that Koguryo was a part of Chinese history under the pretext of a "greater Chinese identity."

    Now needless to say I don't buy this argument.  The fact that there are Italian Americans doesn't mean Italian history is American history.  The fact that California is a part of America doesn't mean Mexican history is American history.  Histories of various people often overlap, but to claim a history in the situation of an overlap is faulty logic.  But I hope this nonetheless helps you understand why it's Koguryo in particular.  If I were you I would just ignore the so called "Chinese historians" for the sake of sanity.  I can almost assure you that the majority of Chinese either 1) maintain the traditional understanding that Koguryo is ancient Korea, or 2) don't care enough about the Korea to care about Koguryo.

Peace,

Michael

11-22-2004

Edited by MengTzu

Hey all,

    At least there is one sane person here (Seph.)  Y'all make us Asians look extremely petty.  Everyone else has moved on to a new discourse about nationalism, and you are still using paradigms reminiscient of the 1950s America.  Gubuk, I thought you're quite above all this, you're one of the last persons I expect to be debating about this, bro.

Peace,

Michael

11-22-2004