66 replies to this topic

[GuanYu]

Or so says this Korean I met in real life today at Borders. Anyways it's really odd that I would run into real life nationalists and Korean ones at that might I add but anyways I was picking up an interesting read at the store, Imperial China 900-1800 by F.W. Mote. As I was reading, I somehow got into a conversation with this Korean kid who was interested in my choice of reading, one discussion led to another and he claims that the Jurchens and Manchus were actually Korean therefore logically asserting that the Koreans have rightful claim over the Qing dynasty and the Jurchen Jin empire. Of course I know deep down the errors of such misinformation but as a member of this forum, I'd like to ask for your opinions about this topic especially considering my knowledge of Chinese history particularly of the Song dynasty is rather shaky.

Edited by General_Zhaoyun, 27 June 2005 - 01:22 AM.

[Gubook Janggoon]

Hm..

The stuff about the Qing dynasty is pure um..how to put it delicately BS.

There is a story behind the Jin dyansty claim though. Tianzhuwoye would know more about it though.

[GuanYu]

DIdn't both the Khitan Liao empires and the Jurchens tried to assert suzerainty over Korea? Based on what I've read in that book, the Khitans absorbed the Bohai empire in 926 and the Jurchens demanded Koryo submission as a vassal state.

[Gubook Janggoon]

DIdn't both the Khitan Liao empires and the Jurchens tried to assert suzerainty over Korea? Based on what I've read in that book, the Khitans absorbed the Bohai empire in 926 and the Jurchens demanded Koryo submission as a vassal state.

Yea they did.

One of the histories might say that the first Emperor of Jin was from either Goryeo or Shilla. Once again though, I don't know much about this.

Hm..I think we might have had a thread on it though. Let me see if I can dig it up.

[Gubook Janggoon]

Found it.

http://www.chinahist...opic=1100&st=30

Post 37 and 38.

Saying that Manchus/Jurchens are Korean is quite a bit of a stretch though. Hehe.

[GuanYu]

I think the very fact that both the Jurchens and later the Manchus demanded Korean submission as a vassal state historically proves they were not. I mean with this kind of reasoning, one might as well assert that Genghis Khan was Korean and the Mongol empire was a Korean empire or the Koreans founded the Ottoman Empire under the Turks.

[Gubook Janggoon]

I think the very fact that both the Jurchens and later the Manchus demanded Korean submission as a vassal state historically proves they were not. I mean with this kind of reasoning, one might as well assert that Genghis Khan was Korean and the Mongol empire was a Korean empire or the Koreans founded the Ottoman Empire under the Turks.

Hehe, you're right of course. But I bet you we could find someone who would claim those things.

[tianzhuwoye]

It might be slightly more possible to assert something like a common ancestor between the people on either side of the Yalu from way, way back but most of the states involved weren't very literate so records are few. Ancient peoples in this area were very mobile and had no reason to think of the peninsula as politically outside of the central plains or Dongbei in the way we do now. Hanpu, the guy who started the Wanyan up on their development towards dominance of the northeast is without question from Koryeo, but at the same time former Peruvian president Fujimori was 'Japanese,' etc. Communication and ritual between the northeastern states and the far more established Koryeo and Joseon courts are full of references to a kind of 'brotherly' relationship, Parhae spanned the Yalu and Tumen Rivers, the Qing court claimed that the Manchus originated as a people from Changbaishan, many of the early states on the Korean peninsula were founded by arrivals from today's Dongbei, but concrete evidence for the 'links' or whatever between everybody are still shady. All these states were around during a time when national borders weren't nearly as definite or recognized as they are now (something that is very, very new) so people were coming and going everywhere. Still, it's the 21st century already and these theories and debates won't end up influencing anything but vague notions of nationalist pride.

As far as the Wanyan invasions or Qing demands on Joseon, that probably doesn't prove anything past the political relationship between the two states. Did the American northerners and southerners have to be 'racially' separate before starting their civil war? We tend to look over the fact that all the major central plains empires had to fight to secure their territory and didn't end up with what they had since they were ethnically entitled to it. How about the Warring States period? Any of the other periods of fragmentation in the central plains? Nurhaci or Genghis Khan's wars of 'unification?'

[tianzhuwoye]

I think the very fact that both the Jurchens and later the Manchus demanded Korean submission as a vassal state historically proves they were not. I mean with this kind of reasoning, one might as well assert that Genghis Khan was Korean and the Mongol empire was a Korean empire or the Koreans founded the Ottoman Empire under the Turks.

Think about what goes into the idea that Mongols are Chinese, that the Yuan was 'China,' and the popular notion that the territory administered by Kublai Khan was synonymous with the Mongol Empire at its height.

Another thing about the Qing/Joseon relationship that's interesting is that the Qing, who would go on to conquer the lands of the Ming Empire, Mongol tribes going way out west, the states in the area eventually known as Xinjiang, the Tibetan Empire and so on was content to maintain Joseon as a vassal state and never incorporated the peninsula wholesale into the empire. Why did things work out like this?

[GuanYu]

Think about what goes into the idea that Mongols are Chinese, that the Yuan was 'China,' and the popular notion that the territory administered by Kublai Khan was synonymous with the Mongol Empire at its height.

Another thing about the Qing/Joseon relationship that's interesting is that the Qing, who would go on to conquer the lands of the Ming Empire, Mongol tribes going way out west, the states in the area eventually known as Xinjiang, the Tibetan Empire and so on was content to maintain Joseon as a vassal state and never incorporated the peninsula wholesale into the empire. Why did things work out like this?

Perhaps they were content with the historic pattern that Korea simply remain as a vassal state was it was at times in the past. Obviously China has historically failed to incorporate the Korean peninsula into her own empire in the past and at best made them a tributary.

[Gubook Janggoon]

Perhaps they were content with the historic pattern that Korea simply remain as a vassal state was it was at times in the past. Obviously China has historically failed to incorporate the Korean peninsula into her own empire in the past and at best made them a tributary.

Mmm..nope. The Han dyansty did a pretty good job of subjugating parts of Korea.

Tang dynasty didn't do too much of a shabby job either, although their hold didn't last for very long.

[tadamson]

The Korean claims to Liao anf Chin stem from the fact that these dynasties arose from outwith China itself. At one point the Korean Kogyuro state included much of Eastern Manchuria. The sucessor state of Parhae was conquered by the Khitan and formed much of the Liao empire. The Nuzhen/Jurchin that overthrew the khitan to form the Chin (more of a civil war than external conquest) came from the North and West, they were aided by a large number of Jurcin troops who had been part of the army of the Korean Koryo state.

It's not exactly a strong argument for Korean righte to Manchuria, though it's as good as any Chinese claim prior to the post WW2 conquest.

rgds.
Tom..

[GuanYu]

The Korean claims to Liao anf Chin  stem from the fact that these dynasties arose from outwith China itself.  At one point the Korean Kogyuro state included much of Eastern Manchuria.  The sucessor state of Parhae was conquered by the Khitan and formed much of the Liao empire.  The Nuzhen/Jurchin that overthrew the khitan to form the Chin (more of a civil war than external conquest) came from the North and West, they were aided by a large number of Jurcin troops who had been part of the army of the Korean Koryo state.

It's not exactly a strong argument for Korean righte to Manchuria, though it's as good as any Chinese claim prior to the post WW2 conquest.

rgds.
        Tom..

Not a very strong claim indeed, that's like saying since a good portion of the Byzantine empire is part of modern day Turkey, it was always Turkic in origin. Either way, the Jurchens and Khitans were not Korean. Based on their logic for claiming them, they might as well claim both the Mongol Empire and Ottomans as theirs as I've said before. Besides both the Khitans and Jurchens were seminomadic and pastoral. Based on what I've studied, Korea was always sedentary.

Edited by GuanYu, 23 June 2005 - 03:12 PM.

[MengTzu]

Or so says this Korean I met in real life today at Borders. Anyways it's really odd that I would run into real life nationalists and Korean ones at that might I add but anyways I was picking up an interesting read at the store, Imperial China 900-1800 by F.W. Mote. As I was reading, I somehow got into a conversation with this Korean kid who was interested in my choice of reading, one discussion led to another and he claims that the Jurchens and Manchus were actually Korean therefore logically asserting that the Koreans have rightful claim over the Qing dynasty and the Jurchen Jin empire. Of course I know deep down the errors of such misinformation but as a member of this forum, I'd like to ask for your opinions about this topic especially considering my knowledge of Chinese history particularly of the Song dynasty is rather shaky.

The problem of such argument is like claiming Germans are actually French because a long time ago the Charlemagne empire split into three, two parts become today's France and Germany. "Koreans," like "French" and "Germans," as well as most modern nationalities (including "Chinese") didn't exist in ancient time, but are constructions of the modern world. Another obvious problem is that the Choson Koreans and the Ming Chinese fought in an alliance against the Manchu. If one is to claim that Manchu are close kin to Koreans, one might as well argue that Chinese are also close kin to both Koreans and Manchu.

[浪淘音]

one thing i've noticed when it comes to Korean nationalists, they never actually talk about Korean history directly, they talk about supposed relations to altaic speaking nomadic people and THEIR accomplishments. Even from a bad pseudo pop pscyhology point of view, this is clearly a huge sign of insecurity.

the genetic relation of Koreans and Manchus are no more significant than Manchu relations to certain Northern Chinese or Tungus or paleosiberian populations. Koreans cluster the closest to Khalka Mongols (by their nationalist logic, the Mongol empire was Korean). Manchus lack a genetic marker found in most Koreans(i'll dig up the study)

genetic relation or not. their culture, lifestyle and ethnic identity were different.

WanYan Aguda was of the "Sheng" NuZhen. the "Shu" NuZhen could somewhat be theorized to be the descendants of the Mohe people of Kogyruo but relations with the Sheng NuZhen is too indirect to steal their history.

by korean nationalist logic, if my brother (genetic relative ) makes a million dollars, its MY accomplishment