Gaya and Koguryo (goguri)

Hey demon,

    ""The problem is with the word "inclusivity".  I do not find them totally inclusively"

    You're not even making sense anymore.  I was saying that Korean nationalists are resistent towards inclusivity: that is they try to establish an exclusive nationality, not a multi-ethnic one.  You don't seem to understand what that means at all.

    "Maybe I should start a new thread about the "Korean Nationalist" perspective (If I've got time)"

    If you really have to, I suppose.  If it's gonna be a bunch of garbage about how Confucius is Korean and how Samarai came from Korea, then may be you should save your breathe.  We've been over this stuff gazillion times, and not one of your fellow Korean on this board buy them, (may be except that Salubi bit, I really have no clue what that heck that's all about.)  But if you really have to, go ahead.  I don't think I have to wait for my turn to tear it to shreds: many here, Koreans or not, might get to it before I do.

    "There is a compromise to be done .  The problem about Koguryi is that China suddenly makes this BS without warning.  In the era where Kim Jong ill is in his 60's and 1 Million PRC army is placed over the Korean border.  In the era in which China is expanding into Myanmmar."

    You're taking two issues simultaneously.  If I haven't made it abundantly clear, the PRC is full of crap.  So I don't see why you're bringing this up as though I'm arguing in their favor.  What I'm arguing isn't that either side is right: but that both sides are employing the faulty methodologies.  It's like two people playing a game of tennis by kicking it like a soccer ball.  It looks like they are on to something but look a lil bit longer they look like idiots.

    "China didn't have to start a new construct"

    Once again, let me make it abundantly clear that PRC is full of crap.  No one here would deny the possibility of a conspiracy, and certainly no one would deny that PRC is ambitious and expansionist.  So let's gets our issues clear.  It's not whether China or Korea has the right to make definitive constructs.  The point is that it is a definitive construct in question: the old isn't anymore true than the new one.

Peace,

Michael

8-30-2004

Originally posted by MengTzu     The Koguryo question is even more pointless.  There's no longer any research of facts, no longer any need of evidence.  The debate, as I've said ad nauseum, is not about facts, it's about interpretation.  We have a big TV at home.  That's a fact.  Do I or my brother (when he comes home) have a greater claim to it?  That's interpretation.  No one here denies the fact of Koguryo.  But no one can prove the categorical interpretations about it either.  It's because "China" and "Korea" are definitive constructs.  They mean whatever people define them to be.  Definition is a given, you can't prove it, you don't have to prove it.

Thanks Meng-Tzu.  That's the same thing I express so much less elegantly in another post.  Koguryo is Koguryo.  It's neither China or Corea.  The same time it's both China and Corea.  It can say it to be what ever it is.  But it is just Koguryo and nothing more.

Well, unfortunately Gubukjanggoon (�j�B�N�x?)  that isn't my point at all.

For Shinla and Josun and Baeje, they were located squarely in the present day Corea.  And were part of this Corea identity ever since its unification.  But for Kugoryo, it was in between China and Corea.  Before the arrival of Kugoryo, that area has been part of China since the �P Yan kingdom of the warring states.  Then Han dynasty set a  few countys over in that area. 

It'd be like the Hungarians saying the Huns weren't a apart of Chinese history because the Hun weren't Chinese.  I think someone else said in a post.  There are plenty of records to prove Kugoryo wasn't Chinese.  But also there's lack of records that prove Kugoryo was Corean.  They did occupy north of COrea for sometime.  They also occupied part of Chinese for sometime.

If you are going to deney all that, and just say it has historically been Corean and always have, then what difference is there between Corea and what the PRC?  It would be just like what MengTzu said, they are both wrong on this Kugoryo thing.

In fact the people of Kugoryo probably came from somewhere else, and weren't part of the Chinese or Coreans make up back then.  That is why their were so agressive.  They did eventually became Chinese and Corean.  That is why Kugoryo is in the history of both nations.

Koguryo has been considered a part of Korean history since Korean history was written down...Yes, I do not deny that it can be considered a part of Chinese history, but when the PRC is telling tour guides in that area to stop even mentioning Koguryo as even a part of Korean history, this after not even considering Koguryo as a part of Chinese history after many years, I think you can see why we are so angry.  Koguryo can definitely be a part of Chinese history, but when CHina is trying to take it as its own it is disturbing.  also, by your reasoning, can the different periods of English history and french history be actually considered their respective histories, as Charlamange wasn't french in the modern sense.

BTW I can't read what you put in parenthases next to my username when you addressed me...is it chinese characters? Because it may help you to know my name means turtle General...I hope that helps

Originally posted by demon Old Choson- Puyo- Koguri.  They decended one after another.  Therefore Koguri= Old Choson= Coreans.  Even if that's wrong, Koguri- Kori and Kori= Korean and thus Koguri= Corean.

Hmm... let's see.  After Soong it was the Mangolian dynasty and then after that is the Ming dynasty, and after that is the Qing dynasty...

Therefore Soong = Mangolian = Ming = Qing.  Which proves  Han chinese = Mongolian = Manchurian?...

man, I hope that's not the case....

Edited by hansioux

Hey demon,

    The claim that Koreans invented the Han script is just as ridiculous as the other stuff (such as claim that Confucius was Korean) that I mentioned.  But please go ahead and start a thread.

Peace,

Michael

8-30-2004

Edited by MengTzu

So, i am minority nationality here and then I am wrong before I say anything? Right?

I never said you are wrong, I said you need to convince us with your case.

I have posted an article in hybrid language . (Korean, and Chinese) , for I got some important information (about half of the content, for there are Chinese characters in it)about the Gendo problem. Why not read, or give it to one of your friend who can read it .

first of all, the hybrid article was posted in another thread, not this one, and you never directed me to it. even so, I can't read that one anyway, and no friend of mine can. the korean part says things like "of, already, concerning, and" etc.

Yes, you want my viewpoint and I said I will give you my point. Never? Kidding? One week is enough. Those papers I listed ,you say you can not read  So,I will translate some of them.For that's why I am here.My point again?  I have said more than one times in different post:I'm not good at English. So, I need time.

you don't have to tell us your point along with all your proof. just tell us your point first, then say "proof soon" like demon does so many times.

For Shinla and Josun and Baeje, they were located squarely in the present day Corea.  And were part of this Corea identity ever since its unification.  But for Kugoryo, it was in between China and Corea.  Before the arrival of Kugoryo, that area has been part of China since the �P Yan kingdom of the warring states.  Then Han dynasty set a  few countys over in that area.

Koguryo started in the area along the northen border of present day North Korea, and were part of the Korea identity ever since the very idea of the identity was created(Koryo times) Before the arrival of Koguryo, that area was part of Korea ever since the Kochosun or other Korean kingdoms, depending on who you ask, for few centuries to few millenia. the Han commandaries were a source of influence, and I won't deny that, but it was not the actual source of origin of Koguryo, and compared to the total history of Korea, the time under the Han commandaries passed by pretty quickly.

But also there's lack of records that prove Kugoryo was Corean.  They did occupy north of COrea for sometime.  They also occupied part of Chinese for sometime.

you can't use territory to determine who the people are. you need to look at the people, and things like customs, such as the heating system which passed down from Koguryo to Balhae/Koryo to Chosun to some area of present day North and South Korea, but was never found in China.

In fact the people of Kugoryo probably came from somewhere else, and weren't part of the Chinese or Coreans make up back then.  That is why their were so agressive.  They did eventually became Chinese and Corean.  That is why Kugoryo is in the history of both nations.

the Koguryo people came from Gochosun region, and were part of the Koreans make up back then. they were aggressive because their land was not fertile, and there were the Han commandaries nearby.

the Koguryo people became China and Korean but those that became Chinese lost their Koguryo characteristics and naturalized to China. those that became Korean claimed continuing Koguryo and continued with Koguryo customs etc. That is why Koguryo is Korean history not Chinese.

oh and you claim Koguryo history is both Korean and Chinese history, which isn't as outrageous, but the Chinese government's stance has gone from "only Korean" to "both Korean and Chinese" to "only Chinese" history recently. keep up with the times. that's the source of the anger. that's what makes it not-so-silly.

oh and hannibal, the Chinese government has cut chinese.chosun.com and some other sites concerning Koguryo from accessing from China.. Chinese government wants to hide something from its people, eh?

Edited by I/eye

Hey I/eye,

    Nope, custom is also a shaky basis for defining a people.  There isn't a culture today that isn't somewhat hybrid: if there's one, that culture has isolated itself and has never been known.  If every culture is hybrid, then it's impossible to use it to define a monolithic people.  The fact that many Asian countries have McDonalds don't make them American (Hansioux, sorry for stealing your example.)  Some who persist in this weak argument would say, "well, the majority and central part of X's culture is original" and such.  But then on what anthropological or mathematical formula do we base such a definition on?  So I also challenge your notion that culture defines a people.  I gave this challenge to Gubukjanggoon in another forum, and let me give this challenge to everyone: give me a basis for defining a nation other than collective agreement and political imlementation, anything.  I can show you that none of them works.

Peace,

Michael

8-30-2004

Hey I/eye,

    I understood your argument.  The problem is that custom is not sufficient indicator of what keep a people the "same people" as if it's a temporally continous entity.

Peace,

Michael

8-3-2004

Originally posted by hansioux Hmm... let's see.  After Soong it was the Mangolian dynasty and then after that is the Ming dynasty, and after that is the Qing dynasty... Therefore Soong = Mangolian = Ming = Qing.  Which proves  Han chinese = Mongolian = Manchurian?... man, I hope that's not the case....

1 difference.  Korean people never called Koguryo peoople as "barbarians"the way Han ethnicity called mongols and Manchus "barbarians"

The claim that Koreans invented the Han script is just as ridiculous as the other stuff (such as claim that Confucius was Korean) that I mentioned.  But please go ahead and start a thread.

I'm not the type who claims Koreans did everything.  I might claim "Dong Yi"did however(btw, I won't claim all Dong Yis are Korean because there are some Chinese Dong Yi and stuff)

Originally posted by hansioux However there are thing the Kugoryos shares with the Chinese as well.  But since they share things with Corean, so those Chinese things doesn't matter?

Hmmm.  I watched the Chinese propaganda about Koguri.  There was a chinese background, chinese instrument as background music claimed it theirs(minor ethnic country) BUT NO CREDIT TO KOREANS  You consider that "sharing" equally?