But note what this Peking University professor says about the Northeast Project — he DOESN’T agree that Koguryeo should be considered part of ancient China. Note in particular the last paragraph — the CASS papers may not represent the “official” view on the matter:

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200609/200609130027.html

September 14, 2006 @ 12:36 am | Comment

Richard,

you might want to add a little more balance to the story:

http://tinyurl.com/emgzy

September 14, 2006 @ 2:04 am | Comment

Bingfeng, I wasn’t blogging the story, just pointing readers to the thread. In a case like this, where I didn’t do the research, I look to you and other cherished commenters to add the balance.

September 14, 2006 @ 2:17 am | Comment

To follow up on my post in the Duck Pond, I would agree with Bingfeng that dodgy ‘historical’ maps to support contemporary claims is far from being a Chinese invention. It’s a game played the world over. NH and Maine have been fighting over 17th century maps since nearly the 17th century to lay claim to a chunk of territory near Portsmouth, NH.

With regards to Danfried’s post, I’m interested in learning more about the “Serial Research Project on the History and Current Status of the Northeast Border Region” and the Centre for the Study of Borderland History and Geography. According to one report, they don’t just do research on Dongbei but also Vietnam and in Xinjiang.

Do they have a website? Does anyone have a link to their publications?

September 14, 2006 @ 2:23 am | Comment

You’d think stuff like this (ACTUAL threats to Korea’s integrity as a nation) would make South Korean leftists (yes, leftists as in people who have study groups for Marxism-Leninism and Kim Il-Sung in 2006) see that the USA isn’t actually their real enemy.

Needless to say, you’d also be wrong.

September 14, 2006 @ 3:20 am | Comment

“Korea has been a part of China since ancient times!”

See, the Korean people should be in-debt to the Japanese for freeing them by kicking the Chinese out. hhah

September 14, 2006 @ 9:24 am | Comment

I’ve always been curious what the Koreas’ plan to call themselves when/if they reunite. Right now, officially north is called “Chosŏn”, while the south is “Daehan”. So, is there an agreed name for the future? Will Goguryeo make a comeback?

September 14, 2006 @ 12:54 pm | Comment

Why can’t we (Korean and Chinese) just share the history of Koguryeo?

Regardless of what Koguryeo was, Koguryeo historically lies within the present boundaries of China, therefore, it is a part of Chinese history, as much as it is a part of Korean history since the ancient kingdom is also situated with North Korea.

Besides, let me ask the Korean nationalists and China-debunkers, was there ever a Korean identity (as conceived by Koreans today) back in the 6th century? I am totally willing to bet Kyoguryo did not even see its neighboring kingdon Silla (which is today’s South Korea) as the same people. In fact, Silla and Tang Dynasty China were allies against Kyoguryo. So I don’t see who you can suddenly claim Koguryeo is this exclusive Korean-only kingdom that only Koreans can consider as part of its history.

It’s like me living in the United States. Well, California was a part of Mexico about 150 years ago. So does that mean Californian history is not part of American history? California is a part of American history precisely it is TODAY a part of the United States.

September 16, 2006 @ 9:43 am | Comment

I see what you’re saying, but you do realize that the rhetorical question [i]”was there ever a Korean identity (as conceived by Koreans today) back in the 6th century”[/i] could be equally applied to China, right? Since Chinese nationalism is a 19th-century invention, by that reasoning Koguryeo has never been part of “Chinese” history neither. (I’m being somewhat facetious here.)

The crux of the issue, though, is that the Chinese government (or, excuse me, their study group) is claiming that Koguryo was a Chinese vassal state (under Chinese rule)which it wasn’t, even if it was within China’s sphere of influence. People too frequently confuse the tributary system/ diplomatic relations with actual Chinese sovereignty. If that were true all of East Asia and most of SEA would have been Chinese vassal states.

So something does smell funny, at least to me. And I’m not Korean, nor a fan of rabid Korean nationalists (some of whom can be quite creepy with their emphasis on racial/ethnic purity.) Or indeed rabid nationalists of any kind.

September 16, 2006 @ 10:50 pm | Comment

Not to mention, theProject’s conception of Koguryo strikes me as oddly similar to the contemporary idea of an “autonomous region/province”.

September 16, 2006 @ 10:58 pm | Comment

Nausicaa,

The term “China” is a terrible translation of the Chinese term “Zhongguo”, meaning Middle Kingdom. The concept of the Middle Kingdom and being a citizen of the Middle Kingdom is as long as 2000 years ago and surpasses any ethnic or racial distinction. The ancients were forever talking about this Middle Kingdom, or Zhongguo, or in English, “China”. So I will not say the identity of being a member of China, or a “Chinese” is a mere 19th century invention.

Anyways, that is beside the point. Being in America, we also study Californian history (way before the Gringos took it over). I think it would be quite absurd if Mexicans start complaining that since California WAS Mexican territory, therefore Californian history cannot be a part of American history.

Also, yesterday, I was looking at maps of the Han Dynasty from Wikepedia (not CCP propaganda mind you : :: ), and northern part of Korea was part of “Zhongguo”, or China. So I don’t think even claiming Korea originated from China is really that far-fetched.

Please don’t get hysterical, it’s just history. And Chinese people have no intention to take over Korea.

September 17, 2006 @ 1:26 pm | Comment

What’s the fuss?

Your California analogy is way off. American history books acknowledge clearly that California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona were once part of Mexico, which is, itself, a colonial creation just like the United States.

Why can’t we (Korean and Chinese) just share the history of Koguryeo?

Chinese history books do not acknowledge Goguryo as Korean and the Chinese government has literally erased Goguryeo from Korean history.

The concept of the Middle Kingdom and being a citizen of the Middle Kingdom is as long as 2000 years ago and surpasses any ethnic or racial distinction.

Tell that to the ethnic Indians and other non-Han Chinese residents of Hong Kong who were denied Chinese citizenship and left stateless.

September 17, 2006 @ 5:44 pm | Comment

Fox,

Thanks for your defense. Sonagi is a long-time anti-China partisan. She’ll do and make any argument to get her anti-China stance across.

Like I said, the most sensible solution is to share the history of Koguryo, while acknowledging it is a history important to the Korean people.

My real sense tells me, however, Koguryo is a hybrid kingdom, rather than anything exclusively belonging to Koreans. After all, Koguryo did subjugate many Han Chinese.

September 17, 2006 @ 8:09 pm | Comment

Unfortunately, “Fox” is our old troll, Hello/Arabian Nights. He has been told multiple times not to post here buyt he always does, always from the University of Alabama. I hate to delete, but this guy has been doing mischief here for many months and I can’t allow him to post here. Thanks for your understanding.

September 17, 2006 @ 9:33 pm | Comment

Fox, in response to your last question – your very first post here as “Fox” started by saying I always delete people’s comments. If you are really new to this site as you just said in your last, deleted comment, why would you make that charge? And your IP is the exact same as Arabian Night’s – fancy that! And you left oodles of comments on several threads picking fights, just the way Arabain Nights did, and Hello, and all with the same IP address for UoA in Birmingham. We both know the game you’re playing, and I politely request (again) you go play the game elsewhere. As you know from my long argument with Bingfeng, I never delete those who disagree with me. I welcome them, as they keep things interesting. I only ban spammers like you, and people who come here with devious intentions, like Jessica and yourself – they are easy to spot, and no one is fooled. Take care.

September 18, 2006 @ 3:07 am | Comment

Thanks for your defense. Sonagi is a long-time anti-China partisan. She’ll do and make any argument to get her anti-China stance across

An adhominem attack is a poor substitute for a logical argument supported by facts. I don’t recall seeing your moniker before this thread, yet you call me a “long-time anti-China partisan.” Hiding behind several usernames is very trollish.

September 18, 2006 @ 4:38 am | Comment

Thanks Sonagi – you’ve got “Fox” all figured out.

September 18, 2006 @ 6:43 am | Comment

[quote]Like I said, the most sensible solution is to share the history of Koguryo, while acknowledging it is a history important to the Korean people. [/quote]

*sighs* The most [i]sensible[/i] solution? You mean the least historically-accurate one, right? As I’ve said before, Koguryo [i]wasn’t[/i] a Chinese vassal state, nor a part of China. It was foreign, period.

And you have no idea of what you’re talking about. China is isn’t a translation of “zhongguo”, but of “zhi na” (and that term has an etymology all its own.) The ancients [i]rarely[/i] used “Zhongguo”, and when they did it was generally only in reference to the heartland kingdoms on the central plain. Everyone else – people who we’d consider as Chinese today – were referred to as “Yi”. So I repeat, the idea of a Chinese national identity/nation-state is a 19-century invention (emerging from the New Culture movement.)

Look, there’s no need to appropriate other people’s histories. We’ve got plenty of our own. Would you be as receptive to bad historical scholarship if some hack inferred from the influence of the Tokharians (an Indo-European, Caucasoid people that settled in Tarim Basin) on ancient Chinese culture that therefore China/Chinese culture originated in Eurasia? (A bad example, but there you go.)

September 18, 2006 @ 4:15 pm | Comment

Just saw Richard’s post. Nevermind. Foolish of me to waste my breath on a troll.

September 18, 2006 @ 4:16 pm | Comment

I enjoyed the history lesson, Nausicaa. 🙂

September 18, 2006 @ 6:13 pm | Comment

Aarrgh, correction. When I wrote “emerging from the New Culture movement” I meant that as a concept it rose to prominence during the New Culture/May Fourth movement, not that it orginated from it. Sometimes my English sucks eggs.

And thanks, sonagi. I’m tired of trolls though. At least jessica sticks with one name. So please, future trolls, if you’re going to troll, at least stick to one name, so we’ll know to avoid you.

September 18, 2006 @ 10:42 pm | Comment

Just saw the comment you left over for me at the Marmot’s. I’m not fox, nor a troll, but am a long time commenter at the ducky dictat and I’m willing to call you out on what you are Sonagi, an anti-China partisan who is willing to use any arguement no matter how incomplete or just plain wrong. Not that there’s anything wrong with being an anti-China partisan, that title applies to plenty of other people. It just gets my goat that that you would use passive aggressive stupid/completely wrong arguements to support your case. I’ve gotten bitter in my dottage, bitter and cranky. I realize that if I wanted to change anyone’s opinion, I would be more accomodating and less confrontational in my refutations of general asshattery. But the fact is, I doubt your opinion can be changed nor am I particularly interested in changing them.

Refer to this month’s volume of the Asian history carnival at Mutant Frog’s and make sure to read all the articles regarding the Koguryo/Gando issue to get at least a neophytes understanding of the issues in question. Particularly of interest are the posts by professor Lankov which provide a brief historiography of South Korean identification of historical origins. Particularly of note is the twists and turns, even by communist standards, that both of Koreas have engaged in to construct what is really a 20th century national identity by appropriating and ignoring history at whim.

Chinese textbooks have no responsibility to acknowledge Koguryo as Korean. The Koreans have been adding, erasing, and plain making up plenty of truths regarding the issue of Koguryo which hasn’t even been part of their “history” as they presenty recognize it except in the last few decades.

In summary, I claim Ivan’s vacanted position as Peking Duck’s resident blow hard and I say to thee Sonagi, suck it.

September 19, 2006 @ 3:03 pm | Comment

“I’m not fox, nor a troll, but am a long time commenter at the ducky dictat”

I did not even imply that you are “Fox.” Richard made a reference to that username after my post in response to ‘What’s the Fuss,” a new username who called me a ‘long-time anti-China partisan.”

“It just gets my goat that that you would use passive aggressive stupid/completely wrong arguements to support your case. I’ve gotten bitter in my dottage, bitter and cranky. I realize that if I wanted to change anyone’s opinion, I would be more accomodating and less confrontational in my refutations of general asshattery. But the fact is, I doubt your opinion can be changed nor am I particularly interested in changing them. “

I was wrong about three points, and I acknowledged that clearly. No passive aggression, there. A jack of all trades is a master of none. No one knows everything about everything. If I , or any other commentator has stated facts incorrectly or used illogical arguments, then correct or counterargue. I acknowledged my factual errors and thanked Sunbin, Lankov, and you, despite your insults, for correcting me. It is wrong to say that my opinions cannot be changed. I am not always right, but I am open-minded, Jing. You say you are not interested in changing my opinions, yet you chase me around the blogsphere. I’m glad. I learn more from people who disagree than agree with me. What would you like me to suck, Jing? Your dick? Uh, no thanks. Hostility is a big turnoff.

September 19, 2006 @ 7:16 pm | Comment

Would anyone object if I closed this thread down? I think all sides have spoken.

September 19, 2006 @ 7:23 pm | Comment