66 replies to this topic

[kaixin]

No offense, but Koreans have always had a psychosis about their history.

I understand they had a sad history, but to cover it up with fallacy is not right. It is just like black people in America claiming Egypt and Moors as their ancestors. They had no connections with them whatsoever.

It is funny how Koreans are quick to claim any supposed link they had with Altaic empires of the past, but they are also quick to denounce or eliminate any connection they had with Chinese (ie Kija, Wiman, Han colony in Lolang, etc.).

DNA tests have already prove they have a little more than 60% connection with China and East Asia. Only a moderate strain of their genes comes from northern Asia.

[Gubook Janggoon]

No offense, but Koreans have always had a psychosis about their history.

I understand they had a sad history, but to cover it up with fallacy is not right.  It is just like black people in America claiming Egypt and Moors as their ancestors.  They had no connections with them whatsoever.

It is funny how Koreans are quick to claim any supposed link they had with Altaic empires of the past, but they are also quick to denounce or eliminate any connection they had with Chinese (ie Kija, Wiman, Han colony in Lolang, etc.).

DNA tests have already prove they have a little more than 60% connection with China and East Asia.  Only a moderate strain of their genes comes from northern Asia.

::SIGH::

Psychosis?

Sad history? There are sad parts to every nation's history. I don't find Korea's particualry sad.

And who's covering up Korean history? If anyone it's being uncovered as of late. The slow death of the Mimana theory is only one example of this. Covering up Korean history? If anything the Goguryeo dispute shows who's making an attempt to cover up Korean history.

Sad history. Ugh.

What you're doing here is confusing Extreme Korean Nationalism with the mainstream view of Korean history.

Eliminate connections? I know there's a bit of un upstir about Wiman and Gija, but the Han commanderies? No one denies their existance. (No one in mainstream Korean academia that is).

And what does Genetics have to do with anything?

Yes, there are extreme Korean nationalists out there that have fun screwing with history, but that doesn't mean mainstream Korean historians believe the same.

Bah.

[tianzhuwoye]

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.

Just a note- this didn't last. Nurhaci tried to be of assistance in Joseon affairs early on, sending an envoy to meet a fleeing King Seonjo caught up in factional struggles, and offering his own forces for backup. These moves were cut off by the increasingly nervous Ming court. Later when war broke out, the Ming Empire used Joseon armies and tons of supplies to help with the effort but Joseon tried to opt for neutrality after the joint forces were abused by Nurhaci at the battles of Sarhu and Dungge. The Ming kept up its demands for supplies and it got to the point where Joseon shifted allegiance in favor of the Jin. In 1627, with an oath phrased in terms of an elder-younger brother relationship and topped off by the sacrifice of a white horse and a black ox, Joseon swore to join the Manchus against the Ming, but soon enough again found itself being used for resources and faced with a demand to become a vassal state. Irked, they declared war on the newly-christened Qing Empire who was all over them instantly, sending the court fleeing in various directions. King Injo, held under siege for 40 days, finally came out when the news came that just about the entire rest of the royal family had been taken prisoner, and had no choice but to submit to Huangtaiji, who had led the attack personally. Still, the state was allowed to continue and Qing demands were for tribute, and that's interesting. Maybe a pre-Dorgon Regency Qing just wasn't up for anything else yet? By the late 1600's Qing tributary requirements were negligible, and the relationship between the states was centered around formalized yearly embassies and trade at the interestingly well-defined border- settlement on a strip of land 50 miles wide under the Yalu was prohibited.


Also, nationalism is dumb no matter who's bringing it.

[Ryz05]

How can you say Manchus are Koreans. They lived on Chinese territory! The Koreans never conquered Manchuria. The Manchus might have intermarried with the Koreans, but that does not suggest they are Koreans. It might be more right to say the Koreans, the Japanese, and the Manchus are Chinese.

[Gubook Janggoon]

How can you say Manchus are Koreans. They lived on Chinese territory! The Koreans never conquered Manchuria. The Manchus might have intermarried with the Koreans, but that does not suggest they are Koreans. It might be more right to say the Koreans, the Japanese, and the Manchus are Chinese.

Chinese territory? The Manchus have long been an independent group away from China.

As for Koreans having conquered Manchuria, I guess it depends on how far back and to whom you want to extend the term "Korean" too, but names like Goguryeo, Barhae, and Buyeo come to mind.


Quite frankly, almost everyone (I'm not going to say everyone because there are no absolutes) from main stream Korean academia does not claim that the Manchus were Korean. Goodness.

How would it be more right to say that the Manchus, Koreans, and Japanese are Chinese? That's based off of loosely the same logic as these Extreme Korean Nationalists are using.

[Ryz05]

How would it be more right to say that the Manchus, Koreans, and Japanese are Chinese?  That's based off of loosely the same logic as these Extreme Korean Nationalists are using.

Korea had been a subject of the Qing Dynasty. Many people say the Japanese might be the sons and daughters of a ship sailed off during the Qin dynasty to look for the elixir of life across the sea to the east. While the Manchus in Manchuria were basically in Chinese territory.

[Gubook Janggoon]

Korea had been a subject of the Qing Dynasty. Many people say the Japanese might be the sons and daughters of a ship sailed off during the Qin dynasty to look for the elixir of life across the sea to the east. While the Manchus in Manchuria were basically in Chinese territory.

Who ruled the Qing dynasty? The Manchus. So technically then would the Koreans be Manchu?

The Japanese MIGHT be the sons and daughters of that ship. I've heard the story before. The Japanese also might be descendents of the people of Baekje. So they're Korean after all.

Goodness.

All wild speculation of course eh?

I'm done with this.

[Ryz05]

Who ruled the Qing dynasty?  The Manchus.  So technically then would the Koreans be Manchu? 

The Japanese MIGHT be the sons and daughters of that ship.  I've heard the story before.  The Japanese also might be descendents of the people of Baekje.  So they're Korean after all.   

Goodness. 

All wild speculation of course eh? 

I'm done with this.

If the Manchus are Korean, then China would be a subject of Korea, not the other way around.

The Japanese might be Chinese, but if Koreans are Chinese, then the Japanese would definitely be Chinese.

[GuanYu]

Quite frankly, almost everyone (I'm not going to say everyone because there are no absolutes) from main stream Korean academia is claiming that the Manchus were Korean. Goodness.

If thats's the case, then these people are revising nationalist history just as bad as the Chinese were claiming Koguryo. I have yet to see a valid source claiming that the Manchus were Korean. Just about every academic source about Chinese history or the history of Inner Asia and the Steppes gives me no info regarding the Manchus as Koreans. As far as I'm concerned they are not the same. They are undoubtedly related due to geographical proximity but going by that logic, so would Northern Chinese and Manchus. Also the fact that ancient Korean kingdoms held some small territory in modern day Manchuria doesn't mean anything. The Manchus/Jurchens actually originated further north from Siberia. The reason Manchuria became Manchuria is because it was absorbed by those peoples. I really apologize for starting the topic and it's starting to become total nonsense. Also I don't see how anyone can claim another groups civilization because of genetic relationship, to me there really is no logic behind that. It's like Italian people claiming the Spanish American colonies because Spanish and Italian are related. Or that since France and Germany share a border, France is responsible for the causing both world wars. The idea that Chinese are related to this or Korean related to that means they are one in the same and therefore claiming each other's accomplishments is truly idiotic.

Edited by GuanYu, 27 June 2005 - 01:58 PM.

[Gubook Janggoon]

If thats's the case, then these people are revising nationalist history just as bad as the Chinese were claiming Koguryo. I have yet to see a valid source claiming that the Manchus were Korean. Just about every academic source about Chinese history or the history of Inner Asia and the Steppes gives me no info regarding the Manchus as Koreans. As far as I'm concerned they are not the same. They are undoubtedly related due to geographical proximity but going by that logic, so would Northern Chinese and Manchus. Also the fact that ancient Korean kingdoms held some small territory in modern day Manchuria doesn't mean anything. The Manchus/Jurchens actually originated further north from Siberia. The reason Manchuria became Manchuria is because it was absorbed by those peoples. I really apologize for starting the topic and it's starting to become total nonsense. Also I don't see how anyone can claim another groups civilization because of genetic relationship, to me there really is no logic behind that. It's like Italian people claiming the Spanish American colonies because Spanish and Italian are related. Or that since France and Germany share a border, France is responsible for the causing both world wars. The idea that Chinese are related to this or Korean related to that means they are one in the same and therefore claiming each other's accomplishments is truly idiotic.

That's a typo on my part. I meant to write that they arn't claiming that Manchus are Korean.

Much appologies. I've gone ahead and fixed my post.

[MengTzu]

Just a note- this didn't last. Nurhaci tried to be of assistance in Joseon affairs early on, sending an envoy to meet a fleeing King Seonjo caught up in factional struggles, and offering his own forces for backup.

My point is the contention of Manchu-Korean connection is about as strong as Chinese-Manchu and Chinese-Korean connections.

Edited by MengTzu, 28 June 2005 - 12:00 AM.

[stupidumboy]

Of course Jurchens and Manchus are NOT Koreans.

Korean history has many proudable things ,but the exggerated complexed nationalistic attitude spoiled them all.

Obviously we Koreans have wrong education about historical view.
Because usually we are only open minded to listen up good things for us.

Also Koreans' attitude to face into discussion with different nationals are wrong and ugly.

Totally wrong.

Edited by stupidumboy, 28 June 2005 - 06:30 AM.

[stupidumboy]

slightly off topic,

But I personally want to compare Korea-Manchu relationship to the Prussia -Polish and Russian (Koenigsberg-the home of east Prussian -currently Poland) relationship.

Ethnic Koreans originally came from the Baikal lake and along the Manchu regions- we moved down to the peninsula and established Korean civilization in Korean peninsula,(of course affected most by Chinese civilization then Koreanized it to our right environment)

Prussians were originally from the Koenigsberg (currently Polish and Baltic territory) but they moved to the brandenburg region and then established tight national system and lived there till today. Currently theres no Prussians(or Brandenburgers in modern technical term) in Koenigsberg .

Edited by stupidumboy, 28 June 2005 - 06:40 AM.

[tianzhuwoye]

Are the links everybody’s talking about here supposed to be political or ‘ethnic?’ The ‘Chinese-Korean’ connection boils down to a heavily one-sided cultural exchange and political borrowing- Tang forms influenced Silla administration which would factor in to notions of statehood and legitimacy later down the line. Key: from 936-1910, there were a total of 2 states on the Korean peninsula (3 if you count Parhae), with the transition from Koryeo to Joseon being internal and ‘smooth’ in the sense rarely seen in the chaotic succession of conquest empires in ‘China.’ How many separate states came and went on the central plains in this time period? Koryeo continued even during the Mongol period- there was no ‘Chinese’ state at this time. The little brother status we usually attribute to the Korean peninsula essentially dates from Joseon, which formed at just about the same time as the Ming Empire in the aftermath of the Mongol Empire. Joseon support for a relatively stable political entity like the Ming Empire was eventually factional in character, with a ‘Confucian’ court element (with Confucianism not firmly established until the Yi came to power, taking over from the Tang-era holdover of Buddhism) interested in painting the Ming as a kind of guardian of the value systems that kept them in power- Yi Seonggye, in what is widely understood to have been a surprise move, allied with the Ming and picked up on some of their politics early on for support in his ambitions, and that’s the connection.

Any Chinese-Manchu connection consists of a handful of Sinicized Jurchens, with Jurchens as a unified concept pretty much ruled out anyway. The Manchus came to China from the outside, and China as we know today it is in no small part a Manchu creation.

The extent of 'Chinese' political domination of the northeast, or presence in general, tends to be greatly exaggerated. Even the Beijing area, which was the Liao Empire's Southern Capital, was eventually known as Khanbalik, etc, while briefly occupied by the Song was never fully within any 'Chinese' sphere of influence until later on during the Ming Empire. The Ming gradually pushed the 'cultural frontier' up as far as today's Liaoning province, leading to the confrontation with the soon-to-be-formed Manchus. Nothing north of this had any connection with the central plains until the Qing went in and took it over.

Regardless, the political argument for a Koryeo/Joseon-Manchu connection is pretty much out once stability was achieved on the peninsula, but the common ancestral root theory is still alive, again since conclusive evidence one way or the other is lacking. Professor Zhao Jie of Beijing University, a linguist, has a theory that Manchu is a more recently diluted form of a language that once spread across the northeast, including the peninsula, whose other modern representative is Korean. Highlights are mentions in the Sanguo Zhi that the language of the ‘Dongyi’ was almost identical to that of the Buyeo, but with the Okjeo language starting to show differences with the Koguryeo language, and the Yilou, recorded to be a very similar people as the Buyeo, speaking a language diverging from Buyeo/Koguryeo. The《北史》 records that by the time the Mulgil 勿吉 showed up as a term (note Korean ‘Malgal,’ Mandarin 沃沮) Koguryeo was settled in to a completely unique language, and this is asserted to be the beginning of the break with Tungusic. There are lexical comparisons between Manchu and Korean if anybody’s interested, but they’re in a weird transcription that I’m still working on. Language isn’t supposed to count for much anymore, plus this is a long time ago and the differences arising are apparently political, resulting from stability and isolation, but there was clearly a bunch of interaction up in the area well before the ‘China/Korea’ border became a thing. Fun to note is the occasional notion back from the 60’s and 70’s that the Buyeo rulers of Baekje were supposed to be oppressive foreign occupiers…

Here’s a thing: where is Jianzhou? Joseon had full control of all lands south of the Yalu only by 1447. Previous to this the area was Jurchen and (tell this to the nationalists) Yi Seonggye got his start late in the Koryeo period conquering the Jurchens when the court decided to start reclaiming all lands held by Koguryeo. Regardless, Jianzhou had already formed at this point (1411, but held very briefly by a different house than the one that would become the Aisin Gioro), most likely including land well into the peninsula. Mongke Temur, the first Jianzhou chief in the line leading to Nurhaci 6 generations later, died fighting the Yain, 野人 Yeren ‘Wild’ Jurchens who were harassing Yi outposts in the area. Whatever lip service was paid to the Ming by federations like Jianzhou had a similar counterpart to the closer Joseon, and if Ming recognition implies political control, Joseon had the same claim. Still there's no indication that Nurhaci figured himself to be representing the Yi court, and obviously whatever happened in the past was rendered irrelevant by Huangtaiji’s invasion.

[DomaHwang]

Obviously we Koreans have wrong education about historical view.
Because usually we are only open minded to listen up good things for us.
Totally wrong. 

Well the nationalistic attitude was raised to propel development at hard times.
They needed confidence that fight againt the feeling that Koreans are minor and looser-
which was educated during the Japanese oppucation period.
It made some side-effect of over-reactant nationalism - sad but it is.

However, you need to undertand the previous education - Japanese occupation.
In the period, Han occupation and govern of Korea is exaggerated.
For example, I personally start to think Han occupation reached LiaoDong close to Yalu river not further, even though Gojeosun included North Korea region.
(This is still on debate even amongst Korean scholars)
Gojeosun main capital could be in Liaodong area - I am not so sure but it is highly likely. There is even a claim that Japanese produced false art (like the seals of Han dynasty which is out of standard size of Han seals - according to North Korean scholar).

I heard that some Korean history books were lost or ignored as improper during Japanese occupation (in particular those reflecting Korea's strong independence or glory - this is what I read from the Korean nationalist history site)
This is why Balhe (Bohai?) is not strongly included by Japanese occupation version of Korean history text book (Silla unification? it is funny to say with the existence of Balhe in North) it has not changed even after liberation because the professors were educated by Japanese scholars.
So the current Korean nationalism in history is a kind of reactive response. Some went too much too far - claiming just with the fact that a name of region in Korean history locates in China (this is stupid there are many Anyang even these days)
However, some are reasonable.

P.S.
I do not think that Manchurian is Korean, but they are close.
Considering the mix of some Chinese into Korea, it is certain that North-east Chinese are very close in ethnic DNA as well as Korean - Manchurian.
In fact, many Northestern Chinese are assimilated Manchurian and Xianbei.
They now claim that they are 'Han'.

It is find to say that Korean old kingdom come from Liao area and some from Dong-Yi. The problem of Korean nationalist is to ignore that Dong-Yi tradition left more (to my thought) in mainland China than small branch that went to Korea. They insist that China = Xia people which is not true. Chinese core ethnic composition - Han?- (to my eyes) includes the old Dong-Yi.
Maybe some old Dong-Yi went to later Dong-Yi (Chosun, Korean, and Liao river area people) and the Tungus composition caused Dahn-gun Wangguhm.

Edited by DomaHwang, 14 July 2005 - 04:52 AM.