Baedal

Incidentally, there is another possible reason that the sites were off limit to visitors.  I think there were Koreans carrying banners claiming "we're taking over" when they were visiting Manchuria.  Not a very counterintuitive move on the part of China to close off the sites.

Granted, though, China is ridiculously nationalistic.  With nationalism always comes a need to define oneself historically.  It is one thing to be fascinated by the past dynasties; it is quite another thing to claim that such and such dynasties proved that "we were once a great people."  "We" are something that needs re-affirmation in every generation.  On what basis do we define "we" or "our nation?"  Is it land?  The Jews wandered for 2000 years without a land.  Furthermore, if the human race began in Africa, then every other land is acquired -- no one is strictly aboriginal to any place.  Is it ancestry?  That's an even more difficult definition.  The Chinese can trace their hybrid ancestry to many originall separate lines.  (Any Korean reading this and thinking "not our problem, we are a pure blood race" better reconsider the fact that different people have gone in and out of the Korean peninsula, leaving a hybrid ancestry.)  Is it history?  This only begs the question: whose history?  For the Manchurians assimilated into the Chinese people, are the Qin and Han dynasties a part of their history?  If there isn't one monolithic common history, then history cannot be a definition for nationality either.  Is it culture?  But it cannot be culture, because every nation consists of different cultural trends.  Confucianism can claim no more monopoly in China than Taoism.  Buddhism and Christianity can by now claim to be as Chinese as they as they are non-Chinese.  If nation is defined by uniform culture, it makes a lot more sense to define a particular sect as a nation.  Chinese nationalists, of course, are not the only people that irritate me, but being a Chinese myself, I would be slapping my mouth with my own words if I don't criticize them first.

Funny that the article should mention that China claims Korguryo as Chinese -- I've read that Koreans are claiming Eastern China to be historically Korean.  This reminds me of an episode of Sopranos: the Italian mafia were enraged when Christopher Columbus was decried as an oppressive conqueror.  (Christopher Columbus, though worked for the Spanish fleet, was Italian.)  The premise being that the mafia felt that they needed to defend their Italian pride.  Finally Tony Soprano said this to his fellow Italian: you're what you are because you've made it on your own, not because of such and such ancestor of the past.  It is a virtue to commemorate one's ancestors, but it is stupid to fight over "to whom does the past belong."  the nationalistic "historians" are portraying history with obvious agendas.  It doesn't mean that those pyramids didn't exist; it doesn't mean Han, Tang, Koguryo, Choson didn't exist; it doesn't mean there were no great civilization in the past; it doesn't mean that we inherited nothing from the past.  Rather, the dispute over "what belongs to whom" is no longer a study of facts and artifacts, nor even a historical interpretation of what might have happened -- it is ultimately a redefinition of the perimeter which wraps around the abstract and baseless concept of "nation."  For all we know some of my ancestors might be from Koguryo, and some of the Koreans here might be descendants of people from Han (not too difficult to imagine, considering one particular incident where 800000 people from the Korean peninsula was deported to Tang dynasty China.  I can only wonder how often people move back and forth between the two places.)  If the pyramids belong to Old Choson, that's where they belong; as far as we are concerned, the only things that belong to us are the things that we make ourselves.

Mengtzu, in the line back to top below your post, there should be a button called EDIT.  You can edit posts with that.

And that post was interesting.  I'll consider that.

Hey Gubukjanggoon,

    First of all, what racial factor?  We're all Mongloids.  If you mean an ancestral factor, then like I said, how the heck do we know whose ancestor is who?  The founder of Koguryo, I've read, claims to be a descendant of Huangdi -- the same guy that most Chinese claim lineage from.  On the other hand, some Koreans suggest that their ancestry goes back to the Yi, and sure enough, many ancient Chinese figures were Yi or Yi-affiliated, and I'd say Koreans have as much right as Chinese to claim of lineage from Yi.  Furthermore, people from China and the Korean peninsula probably migrated back and forth a lot and intermarried a lot.  And after all of this, consider the people who moved into China and Korea from without.  Ancestry won't solve this problem.

    Nor would culture.  Like you said, Koguryo adopted cultures from China, but who can deny that it also inherited culture from aboriginal people in Korea?  Culture doesn't solve this problem.

    It seems a bit postmodern to say that "there is no solution."  I'd say that the solution is to leave Koguryo as it is: Koguryo.  It's not China, and it's not Korea.  Much like my great grandfather is not me.  We're great because of what we do, not because of what the people from thousands of years ago accomplished.

Peace,

Michael

8-21-2004

Hey Gubukjanggoon,

    It's not really about both sides losing.  For example, I'd say that the Han Dynasty is no more Chinese as it is non-Chinese -- "China" is a modern convention used by us to categorize something in the past.  So what I'm saying goes far beyond the Koguryo situation: I think we need to rethink our conception of history altogether.  I'd continue to call Han a part of "Chinese" history and Koguryo a part of "Korean" history, since it is conventional to do so, and since they at least took place geographically in China and Korea, respectively.  But I urge everyone to deconstruct nationalistic history.

Peace,

Michael

8-21-2004

Hey Gubukjanggoon,

    Is enpowerment what it really comes down to?  I'm afraid so.  It seems that interest in one's history has too much to do with collective identity and pride, but little to do with objective truth.  =(

Peace,

Michael

8-22-2004