Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 21st, 2017, 11:42 PM   #51
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: 天下
Posts: 138

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jangkwan View Post
You mean to say Hebei. That location is firmly northerly.

The Zhou had coastal lands lying to its east. Take a look at the map of Zhou I posted. It's plausible that the Donghu started in the eastern lands, roughly coastal Shandong and stretching south along the coast, which is more along what their name would suggest.

It's also related to the founders of Goguryeo and Baekje likely being of Donghu-Xianbei stock (Mongolic essentially). If we think about a narrative where the founders of Baekje and Goguryeo started on the coastal lands of mainland China, it best explains why Baekje seems to have had a major enclave somewhere on the Chinese mainland with no mention of any conquest.
Yeah Hebei. That's what I get for writing on my mobile.

And well, there's no basis for anything you speak of. Historians don't create hypothesis based on what they want to be true, but what information they have.
Vaderfan is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 22nd, 2017, 01:24 AM   #52
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Northern lands
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally Posted by bananasinpajamas View Post
Bravo

Please explain why does Baekje "seem" to have a major enclave on the Chinese mainland? Was it the infamous KBS "documentary"?
Now you're the one dismissing facts in favor of the more established narrative.

It's quite simple. And since you seem to know already, let's not get into it. But you know the details. Very briefly, faction on mainland China has large scale cavalry battle with Baekje explicitly recorded. It gets widely dismissed as an anomaly, which is understandable. Except maybe its not an anomaly.
Jangkwan is offline  
Old April 22nd, 2017, 01:32 AM   #53
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Northern lands
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pessimist Crow View Post
It seems like you want Koreans to be related to Mongols or some other equestrian nation. You also make large assumptions on where and from whom the Proto Koreans originated from. Why is that?
Good questions. First of all, Koreans are related to the equestrian nations you speak of. The question is how, why.

Second, I'm really discussing Baekje and Goguryeo. Proto-Korean is a more complicated matter. In short, my view is proto-Koreans are related to a separate Scytho-Siberian complex and view the Mongolics as a separate group from the south that left a imprint on Korean history, in ways we are still trying to better understand.

Quote:
Shouldn't you build a narrative from facts rather than building a narrative and trying to find out which facts supports your narrative?
How do I even answer this... That's a question fraught with complexities. There's the moment you think you know something. And the need to just accept or believe.

Last edited by Jangkwan; April 22nd, 2017 at 02:14 AM.
Jangkwan is offline  
Old April 22nd, 2017, 02:15 AM   #54
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: 天下
Posts: 138

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jangkwan View Post
Good questions. First of all, Koreans are related to the equestrian nations you speak of. The question is how, why.
If you don't know how or why, then how can you state it as a fact? It's just wishful thinking and nothing else.
Vaderfan is offline  
Old April 22nd, 2017, 02:24 AM   #55

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 29,274

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jangkwan View Post
How do I even answer this... That's a question fraught with complexities. There's the moment you think you know something. And the need to just accept or believe.
It's not complex at all. It's the difference between trying to make the facts fit the theory or the theory fit the facts.

A historian does the latter. Someone with an agenda does the former.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old April 22nd, 2017, 02:35 AM   #56
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Northern lands
Posts: 86

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
It's not complex at all. It's the difference between trying to make the facts fit the theory or the theory fit the facts.
It's not that simple. You know there's Occam's Razor. How it applies in this case is that, there are numerous historical facts, records, against my theory. It is therefore simpler to reject the theory that is in conflict with with a larger number of historical facts and details.

But there are pitfalls to this, like weighing facts differently.

Quote:
A historian does the latter. Someone with an agenda does the former.
That's a no-true-scotsman fallacy.

Last edited by Jangkwan; April 22nd, 2017 at 03:21 AM.
Jangkwan is offline  
Old April 22nd, 2017, 03:26 AM   #57

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 29,274

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jangkwan View Post
It's not that simple. You know there's Occam's Razor. How it applies in this case is that, there are numerous historical facts, records, against my theory. It is therefore simpler to reject the theory that is in conflict with with a larger number of historical facts and details.
Yes, it is that simple actually.

If the theory is true, the facts will support it. If the facts don't, you're simply making stuff up because you want it to be true. And that smacks of an agenda, but that's par for the course for East Asia.

If the facts don't support it, then there's a reason why.
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old April 22nd, 2017, 03:51 AM   #58

Drizzt's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: NE Kingdom
Posts: 84

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
Yes, it is that simple actually.

If the theory is true, the facts will support it. If the facts don't, you're simply making stuff up because you want it to be true. And that smacks of an agenda, but that's par for the course for East Asia.

If the facts don't support it, then there's a reason why.
Yes, I totally agree with your statement that history should be without bias or nationalism. It should be about truth. You, I and everyone knows what China is trying to do with Northeast Project. Xi Jinping alluded what the ultimate goal is for China in regards to Korean peninsula (at least NK for now). Before Northeast project was Northwest and Southwest project.

Talk about agenda! China smells worse than any other country in that matter. You talk about truth. You talk about history based on fact. Historium should be a place where all 'facts' should be freely discussed without belittling comments and wild accusations from a MODERATOR. It seems to me you are the one with agenda here.
Drizzt is offline  
Old April 22nd, 2017, 04:08 AM   #59
Academician
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Northern lands
Posts: 86

Ultimately we can only judge a theory based on how useful it is. Something like "the truth" has no place in the discussion. This is the proper scientific outlook.

In general, a theory's usefulness is implicit in its consistency with the facts. But I like to toss out facts I don't like, such as Buyeo being an extremely wealthy nation on the edge of no-mans land.

Last edited by Jangkwan; April 22nd, 2017 at 04:17 AM.
Jangkwan is offline  
Old April 22nd, 2017, 05:58 AM   #60
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: 天下
Posts: 138

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drizzt View Post
Yes, I totally agree with your statement that history should be without bias or nationalism. It should be about truth. You, I and everyone knows what China is trying to do with Northeast Project. Xi Jinping alluded what the ultimate goal is for China in regards to Korean peninsula (at least NK for now). Before Northeast project was Northwest and Southwest project.

Talk about agenda! China smells worse than any other country in that matter. You talk about truth. You talk about history based on fact. Historium should be a place where all 'facts' should be freely discussed without belittling comments and wild accusations from a MODERATOR. It seems to me you are the one with agenda here.
No one talks about China or Northeast project here, what are you even going on about?
Vaderfan is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
jurchen, jurchens, koreans, mongols, origin, share



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jurchen people in North Korea (1100s) Pessimist Crow Asian History 0 March 11th, 2017 12:03 AM
Manchu/Jurchen soldiers, how were they so strong? YeunTchai Asian History 22 December 5th, 2016 04:24 AM
The Jurchen? Haardrada Asian History 70 April 12th, 2015 09:46 AM
the relation about sushen,jurchen, manchu fangqingming Asian History 18 December 2nd, 2012 08:03 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.