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 February 24th, 2015, 10:40 AM   #41
Goohweéli Áhlihi
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Amáyééhli
Posts: 2,772
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaicKorean View Post
I think that Yeonsang is cantonese nationist or He is Hansalam. I do not understand why Korean were mentioned in first civilization of China. Korean is related with Siberian-Scythian culture. Additionely. Shang people were more close to Southen Asian.

As Korean, I have seen ridiculous threads like this, which have intended insultation of Korea from chinese blood.

1. Korean nationists do not agree with Hwandangogi which is just novel like Conan

2. Many Korean and Korean historian do not recognize Hwangdangogi and ridiculous maps as history and nationism

3. Altaic and Hwandangogi are not related each other.

4. Chinese nationists in here should study Turanism before criticism korean nationism

5. That thread makers are not Korean, They can not speak Korean or write Korean.

If you do not trust me, You question true Korean nationist. I give nationist's site in Korea.
???? ????
Yeah. It's frustrating how people who are always complaining about Korean nationalism are always talking about claims made by the small-but-loud group that the vast majority of Koreans don't listen to, then claim that "Korean say this", "Koreans make X claim". Nobody ever talks about the claims that the Olmecs, Mayas, etc. were Chinese.

Apparently it's impossible to be a Chinese nationalist. At least, seemingly according to some people.

Last edited by Haakbus; February 24th, 2015 at 10:46 AM.
Haakbus is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 24th, 2015, 01:11 PM   #42
ise
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Gaia
Posts: 433

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakbus View Post
Olmecs, Mayas, etc. were Chinese.
.
Only Western academics say that
ise is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 03:28 PM   #43
Goohweéli Áhlihi
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Amáyééhli
Posts: 2,772
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by ise View Post
Only Western academics say that
How about Mike Xu (http://www.chinese.tcu.edu/www_chinese3_tcu_edu.htm)?

More about the issue here: Taiwan Panorama Magazine |


And also, most Korean nationalists are Korean-Americans.

Last edited by Haakbus; February 24th, 2015 at 03:33 PM.
Haakbus is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 06:19 PM   #44
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 982

The argument about Shang being related to Hongshan has nothing to do with Jizi. Rather, it came from a group of Chinese archaeologists. See, for example, Guo Da-shun's "Hongshan and Related Cultures" paper, in which he suggests that Hongshan was the "dawn of Chinese civilization." The cultural genealogy given by Guo Da-shun is as follows:

Hongshan -> Lower Xiajiadian
Lower Xiajiadian -> Upper Xiajiadian
-> Old Yan
-> Shang

Thus, in Guo's schema, Hongshan culture gave birth to Lower Xiajiadian culture, which in turn gave birth to Old Yan culture and Shang culture, as well as Upper Xiajiadian though Upper Xiajiadian was taken over by "nomads". Guo specifically suggests, based on shared archaeological motifs, that the Shang culture migrated south from Lower Xiajiadian into China, while those who remained in Lower Xiajiadian became the Old Yan culture, which explains why Shang and Yan were close allies, and also explains why a segment of the Shang fled into Yan after the fall of Shang.

Having said that...

Guo does not mention Gojoseon even once in his paper. This is, of course, because archaeologically speaking, "Gojoseon" - from the perspective of Guo, and also the bulk of archaeologists outside of Korea - did not exist till the middle of the Zhou period, when it was described as a region, and then a state, interacting with Qi and Yan, and which was later decisively defeated by Yan. To this end, and as I've already said in previous threads, Chinese archaeologists who subscribe to Guo Da-shun's view are not arguing for an "Altaic" - much less "Korean" - Shang. Rather, they are arguing for a "Chinese" Hongshan.

Naturally, Guo's arguments have been challenged both inside and outside of China. Roger Blench, for example, criticizes him for "politicizing" Hongshan culture in trying to make specious connections, while Juha Janhunen is on record saying that it is a huge stretch to consider Hongshan the basis of Shang culture, and that such a formulation contradicts other available information.

To this end, Guo and his supporters have not received international acceptance. Within China, they do have a following, which is widely described as the "Dongbei-shuo" - ie Northeast Theory - of Chinese civilization, but this school is increasingly challenged by more recent archaeological discoveries having to do with other Neolithic cultures in the vicinity of early Shang sites - eg Erligang, Erlitou, Xiaqiyuan, and others. I've talked about all this in the past and so won't repeat myself here, but suffice to say, the leading theory within China, at the moment, is that the immediate predecessor of the Shang was in southern Hebei, not the Northeast.

What all of this has to do with Gojoseon is a different story altogether. The fact of the matter is, very few actual scholars/archaeologists take seriously "Gojoseon" as a historical state before the Warring States period.

Last edited by Cerberus; February 24th, 2015 at 06:21 PM.
Cerberus is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 06:29 PM   #45
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,027

And if I'm mistaken, Guo see hongshan as Chinese/sinitic not Korean/Altaic right ?
Zoopiter is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 07:09 PM   #46
Scholar
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 982

He sees it as Chinese. Guo is not a linguist, and - different from the West, where linguistics and archaeology are deeply integrated - Chinese archaeology is not all that integrated with Chinese linguistics.
Cerberus is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 09:34 PM   #47
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: Mundo Nuevo
Posts: 1,445

People have no idea what languages a pre-literate culture spoke. There is no definite proof until you find writing. Like people don't know what language Indus Valley Civilization spoke.
unity is offline  
Old February 24th, 2015, 09:36 PM   #48
Goohweéli Áhlihi
 
Joined: Aug 2013
From: Amáyééhli
Posts: 2,772
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by unity View Post
People have no idea what languages a pre-literate culture spoke. There is no definite proof until you find writing. Like people don't know what language Indus Valley Civilization spoke.
Yeah, that's so true. People (me included) have a tendency to try to put existing (or related to existing) culture and language groups on archaeological cultures.
Haakbus is offline  
Old February 25th, 2015, 12:48 PM   #49
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 231

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakbus View Post
Yeah. It's frustrating how people who are always complaining about Korean nationalism are always talking about claims made by the small-but-loud group that the vast majority of Koreans don't listen to, then claim that "Korean say this", "Koreans make X claim". Nobody ever talks about the claims that the Olmecs, Mayas, etc. were Chinese.

Apparently it's impossible to be a Chinese nationalist. At least, seemingly according to some people.
Yes. All things are from chinese. you check this article
National sentiment controlled by rumors | ChinaHush

As considering chinese's terror on Korean and Korean history. Fake Korean nationists would be chinese also. They can speak and write Korean. Additionally, Their talk is nonsense as Korean nationists and me hear that.
AltaicKorean is offline  
Old February 25th, 2015, 01:15 PM   #50
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: Mundo Nuevo
Posts: 1,445

Korean nationalist claims are not new, and not from recent contact with westerners.

In the 19th century, westerners traveling in Korea heard many Koreans claim that the Ming dynasty founder Zhu Yuanzhang was a Korean. These Koreans were not exposed to western history or western society, they were repeating centuries old rumors made up by other Koreans.

Title The Korean Repository, Volume 4

Contributors F. Ohlinger, H. G. Appenzeller, George Heber Jones

Publisher Trilingual Press, 1897

https://books.google.com/books?id=FG...page&q&f=false

Quote:
Crown Prince Chang-hön had a kingly heart while yet being in every way a man of the people. He is said to have spent most of the time outside the Palace, for his sturdy and rough spirit delighted in rugged companionship hard to find among the courtiers. He was famous for his skill in the manly exercises of Korea, fencing, wrestling, fisticuffs, the use of the spear and of two swords, the club, the scimeter, dirk, knife and whip. He is sometimes alluded to as "a tiger and the son of a tiger,” an effort to afford a complimentary explanation of the strange and fatal feud between himself and his father. The Crown Prince had an exalted estimate of Korean prowess and deemed that the only proper ambition for a. young Prince like himself was the throne of China. It is popularly believed in Korea that the founder of the Ming dynasty was originally a Korean, and that more than one Korean has reigned on the Dragon Throne. Possibly these popular tales may have fired the young Prince’s ambition, and to emulate them he seriously conceived the project of expelling the Manchus from Peking and bringing China under Korean sway. This design of a Chinese conquest led to a serious rupture between himself and his father. The latter looked upon it as the vagary of an insane fancy; he foresaw in it the destruction of the Yi dynasty and possible annihilation of Korea as a nation. But the son refused to surrender his design, which convinced the King that the Prince was crazy. The contest was a bitter one and finally he decreed the son’s death. It is said the young man was shut up in a chest and transfixed by nails or rods which were driven into it. He was twenty-eight years of age, and is buried at Su-wön.
So there is a long history of Koreans making ultranationalist claims. Shin Chaeho was the father of modern Korean historiography.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean...historiography

Quote:
Na Se-jin, Korea's most quoted physical anthropologist, asserted in 1964 that Koreans are superior in "looks, brains, bravery, stature, and strength" to the Chinese and Japanese, and resemble Europeans more than "Mongoloids", reflecting nationalist historiography's fixation on prehistorical racial roots.[122] For Shin, the founding of Korea by such an antique figure as Dangun proved that Korea was more ancient that China; that Dangun colonized China proving that Korea was superior to China; and that mythical Chinese emperors and sages were really "Korean".[123] Shin also reconceived the "Great Plan" (Hungfan chin ch'ou 洪範九疇) given by Jizi of Gija Joseon as being made by "a man of [Joseon]", turning China into an importer of Korean civilization, opposite to the traditional view.[47]
Quote:
The Daejonggyo cult of Dangun wrote "historical tales" (sahwa) which influenced Korean nationalist historiography of the 20th century. The pan-Dongyi pan-Northeast Asian arguments of the sahwa included the assertion that the Korean nation included "not only the Korean peninsula and Manchuria, but also northeastern China", considering the Emperors of Shun, Liao, Jin,Yuan, and Qing as part of Korean history. This expanded concept of the Korean nation was included in Kim Kyo-hŏn's Korean history textbooks intended to boost the morale of military cadets studying in exile in China.[53] According to Kim, since all these peoples who led the dynasties originated in Manchuria—unlike, say, Jizi of Gija Joseon—, they are all descendants of Dangun, and thus part of the Korean minjok's "northern" branch of history. As a result, he considered all the lands conquered by those peoples, including most lately "the land of the Han, Mongolia, the territory of the Hui, and Tibet" all the way down to Burma as included in the territory of the Korean minjok.[40] Yi Sang-ryong made a number of arguments in common with Shin, Kim Kyohŏn and Park Eun-sik: that the Manchu people were actually Korean; that the Four Commanderies of Han were located in Liaodong and not "Korean" territory; and that some portion of Korean history should be centered in Manchuria, with the goal of creating a greater Joseon state which included the territory.[121] Shin argued that the "trends in geographical history" portended future Korean control over former Goguryeo territories, and advocated Korean emigration to "relight" (chunggwang) the lost history of Dangun.[140]
These forums and channels are all run by Koreans, and regularly make prepostorous ultra nationalist claims:

https://www.koreansentry.com/forum/



Hong Rhee Beom is a well known leader in the Korean American community and he wrote this nonsense about Confucius being a Korean.

Asian Millenarianism: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Taiping and Tonghak ... - Hong Beom Rhee - Google Books

https://books.google.com/books?id=E8...page&q&f=false

Quote:
Confucianism not only originated in the ancient Korean doctrines, but Confucius was also a Korean. Confucius affirmed that he was from the Yin people. The Yin people were Korean. Confucius has indirectly expressed, in his many writings, that he was proud of his Korean origin
Asian Millenarianism: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Taiping and Tonghak ... - Hong Beom Rhee - Google Books

Eidolon has never posted any anti-Korean slurs like YummYakitori and he wrote here on Korean ultranationalist claims.

The Source of Korean Ultra-Nationalist Claims - General Discussion - China History Forum, Chinese History Forum

Last edited by unity; February 25th, 2015 at 01:37 PM.
unity is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
chinese, civilization, foundations, theory



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proof Chinese civilization was founded in Liangzhu wingerman Asian History 29 June 7th, 2014 10:30 PM
Was 'six limb theory' of Chinese painting borrowed from India? vikas Asian History 8 March 21st, 2013 11:45 PM
Continuity of civilization and Chinese identity deke Asian History 0 September 19th, 2012 03:36 PM
Should the Chinese just admit that Western civilization and hisory is better? TruthSeeker1 Asian History 9 February 14th, 2012 12:50 PM
Chinese civilization: yellow river vs Yangtze tomar Ancient History 4 February 22nd, 2011 06:12 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.