How do we have to view the history of East Asia

Apr 2019
3
Seoul, Korea
#1
Recently I’ve seen quite a lot of comments online regarding disputes in East Asia history. There were so many nationalistic views from Korea, China and Japan.
In fact, they just pouring hatred on each other who’s great and who’s not. When everyone in the world literally share almost identical DNA, people seems to distinguish themselves and try to prove that their country is better than the others.

East Asian history, no doubt, had been largely influenced by China. As China is an amalgamation of large population of numerous ethnicities, it definitely influenced all surrounding nations. However, that doesn’t mean that other nations were less great. Each nations had or have their unique identities and cultures which make East Asian history much more interesting.

I would like to know what ya’ll think of perceiving East Asian history and ideal manner to view it. Thanks.
 
Mar 2019
1,463
KL
#2
i think that the present history of the world has been taught by the europeans with their POV and unfortunately the modern academics tend to cling on to european biased views and their racial superiority, this helps europeans politically and maintain their control on world politics, i dont think that europe can claim superiority complex based on their own analysis of their history, i mean since they couldn;t justify european ''civilization'' historically, they resorted to manipulate it racially, by europe i mean western europe. i think what europeans want us to teach is a parent civilization and then a borrower civilization concept, this is pathetic to say the least, the cultures always interacted and exchanged ideas with each other, i think rather than approaching east asian history through this myopic view that it is chinese influenced, why not be more constructive and expand on cross cultural interactions using historical data, i think what past is past, what is present matters the most, and historic manipulations should not be used to project one's superiority over another which can be very destructive and not at all constructive.

i was watching a documentary on england's history and i was surprised that a british presenter in BBC was trying to challenge his own western scholar views that england was always a borrower land where people had to migrate again and again to make the land civilized since it is believed that there was pre indo europeans than there were migrations of indo european people, then came superior celts with their iron tools and then came the superior romans and then germans who civilized england one after another, so i just wanna say that their own people are challenging their own narrative of history, few decades ago celts were barbarians now they are civilized and there were german civilization, celtic civilization, nordic civilization instead of ''culture'' or ''people'' etc, so if europe can redefine their own ''history'' why shouldn't the rest of the world grow up?

regards
 
Last edited:
Likes: Clearance

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,690
United States
#3
Recently I’ve seen quite a lot of comments online regarding disputes in East Asia history. There were so many nationalistic views from Korea, China and Japan.
In fact, they just pouring hatred on each other who’s great and who’s not. When everyone in the world literally share almost identical DNA, people seems to distinguish themselves and try to prove that their country is better than the others.

East Asian history, no doubt, had been largely influenced by China. As China is an amalgamation of large population of numerous ethnicities, it definitely influenced all surrounding nations. However, that doesn’t mean that other nations were less great. Each nations had or have their unique identities and cultures which make East Asian history much more interesting.

I would like to know what ya’ll think of perceiving East Asian history and ideal manner to view it. Thanks.
I really agree with you here. I try to avoid all the butthurt nationalistic poop-throwing contests that plague Asian history. It's not productive. The truth is there, but you have to dig some to get to it.

Too often people see East Asia in a center (China) vs periphery (everywhere else) paradigm which is not balanced or objective at all. In reality East Asia even though China was usually the #1 power and culturally and technologically influenced its neighbors to a great degree, East Asia was always a multipolar world where each state or society was looking out for its own needs, making deals or "paying tribute" or war with each other whichever was in their best interests. These societies, though drawing in large part from Chinese culture and technology, innovated on their own and modified those borrowed traditions to fit their own environment and culture.

One of the good things about Tibetan history is that Tibetan nationalism mostly deals with Buddhism or modern Tibet, leaving Tibet's actual history largely virgin ground.
 
Likes: Clearance
Apr 2019
3
Seoul, Korea
#4
i think that the present history of the world has been taught by the europeans with their POV and unfortunately the modern academics tend to cling on to european biased views and their racial superiority, this helps europeans politically and maintain their control on world politics, i dont think that europe can claim superiority complex based on their own analysis of their history, i mean since they couldn;t justify european ''civilization'' historically, they resorted to manipulate it racially, by europe i mean western europe. i think what europeans want us to teach is a parent civilization and then a borrower civilization concept, this is pathetic to say the least, the cultures always interacted and exchanged ideas with each other, i think rather than approaching east asian history through this myopic view that it is chinese influenced, why not be more constructive and expand on cross cultural interactions using historical data, i think what past is past, what is present matters the most, and historic manipulations should not be used to project one's superiority over another which can be very destructive and not at all constructive.

i was watching a documentary on england's history and i was surprised that a british presenter in BBC was trying to challenge his own western scholar views that england was always a borrower land where people had to migrate again and again to make the land civilized since it is believed that there was pre indo europeans than there were migrations of indo european people, then came superior celts with their iron tools and then came the superior romans and then germans who civilized england one after another, so i just wanna say that their own people are challenging their own narrative of history, few decades ago celts were barbarians now they are civilized and there were german civilization, celtic civilization, nordic civilization instead of ''culture'' or ''people'' etc, so if europe can redefine their own ''history'' why shouldn't the rest of the world grow up?

regards
I was living in India as well. The popularity of nationalistic perception of history of India arose as the economy of the country grew. Such phenomenon was seen in Japan during its expansion, in Korea since 40s till now and In China, as their economy shoot up.

I do not deny that East Asian civilisation and Indian civilisation have contributed to great extent to the world. However, my problem lies in the nationalistic perspective of it. Like suppose I’ve seen the nationalistic Koreans claim everything was made and done by Korean, same thing goes for nationalistic Japanese, Chinese as well as Indian.

I agree there has been Eurocentric perspective from Western countries. For example, like the term ‘Aryan Invasion’. However, as the studies go broader, the term got discarded and instead now they are using the term ‘Aryan migration’. I believe thats what the peer review suppose to be.

Many of the Asian countries, still within their deeper conscious, couldn’t swallow the history of subordination by Imperialist countries. We should not forget the history but I do not see the point of exaggerating the history. No matter what you do, one can’t hide the history of subordination.

Why don’t we just see the history as it is. Without adding extra-exaggeration to it? I believe the true history would reveal itself when we drop the emotions down and work with historians, archeologist, anthropologists and genetic scientists of different nations together.
 
Likes: Haakbus
Apr 2019
3
Seoul, Korea
#5
I really agree with you here. I try to avoid all the butthurt nationalistic poop-throwing contests that plague Asian history. It's not productive. The truth is there, but you have to dig some to get to it.

Too often people see East Asia in a center (China) vs periphery (everywhere else) paradigm which is not balanced or objective at all. In reality East Asia even though China was usually the #1 power and culturally and technologically influenced its neighbors to a great degree, East Asia was always a multipolar world where each state or society was looking out for its own needs, making deals or "paying tribute" or war with each other whichever was in their best interests. These societies, though drawing in large part from Chinese culture and technology, innovated on their own and modified those borrowed traditions to fit their own environment and culture.

One of the good things about Tibetan history is that Tibetan nationalism mostly deals with Buddhism or modern Tibet, leaving Tibet's actual history largely virgin ground.
Truly agree with you. For Tibetan, its may be due to their multi-ethinicity. There was no single ethnic major that have dominated the nation unlike other nations in Asia. China was under constant classification of their subordinates based on the ruling class. Korea too were looking down upon Manchus and Mongols and other minorities. Japanese ,during their expansion, too have classified grades between Japanese, Korean and Chinese.

May be the stronger your identity, stronger is the tendency to classify ‘us’ and ‘them’. Which makes one’s history ‘ours’ not ‘theirs’. That’s such a screw-up for proper perception of digging into history, isn’t it?
 

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,690
United States
#6
Truly agree with you. For Tibetan, its may be due to their multi-ethinicity. There was no single ethnic major that have dominated the nation unlike other nations in Asia.
Maybe? It might be simply because the issue of independence and the conquest and everything is much more sensitive and more apparent being well within living memory. Tibetan identity also seems to be more about cultural achievements than great empires (even though they did have one) since for most of Tibet's history they weren't a major power but were divided into many smaller states.

China was under constant classification of their subordinates based on the ruling class. Korea too were looking down upon Manchus and Mongols and other minorities. Japanese ,during their expansion, too have classified grades between Japanese, Korean and Chinese.

May be the stronger your identity, stronger is the tendency to classify ‘us’ and ‘them’. Which makes one’s history ‘ours’ not ‘theirs’. That’s such a screw-up for proper perception of digging into history, isn’t it?
Yeah every major civilization or empire classifies civilized (us) vs barbarian (them).
 
#7
China, just like Korea or Japan wasn't more special than the rest. History in East Asia began with the Liao Civilization, over 6000 years ago. The Liao river valley is neither part of Chinese nor Korean heartland, but right in the middle of them. From Liao civilization, culture influenced both sides, east and west, to China and to Korea/Japan. People blanket assuming everything in modern day PRC territory being EXCLUSIVELY chinese history is a big problem. Kiev is in Ukraine, but it is also Russian history even though Kiev is not in the current territory of Russia.
 
May 2017
258
China
#8
China, just like Korea or Japan wasn't more special than the rest. History in East Asia began with the Liao Civilization, over 6000 years ago. The Liao river valley is neither part of Chinese nor Korean heartland, but right in the middle of them. From Liao civilization, culture influenced both sides, east and west, to China and to Korea/Japan. People blanket assuming everything in modern day PRC territory being EXCLUSIVELY chinese history is a big problem. Kiev is in Ukraine, but it is also Russian history even though Kiev is not in the current territory of Russia.

you see? korean like you are the reason why we chinese hate korean. we never have any hatred before toward korean until korean become cocky and start to throw insult toward us, start distorting and fabricating historical facts.

first, korean nationalist like you must understand what civilization is.

one of many requirement to be called as civilization is to have their own writting system. what you called as "liao civilization" did not have any form of writting system, neither korean. you korean only have your own writting system in 1446 ad, which is very late.

yes, our chinese civilization are special, the only one cradle of civilization in east asia, the only one that very different than the other 3 cradle of civilization, proven by world archeologist, you korean just butthurt waking up in this modern time realized there is nothing that can be proud of from your own society.



you korean ultra nationalist love to claim and related with altaic people while in reality nothing from korean are related with altaic people at all.
Reference Populations - Geno 2.0 Next Generation

korea gene


mongol gene


your so called korean language according to alexander vovin are paleo siberian aka tungus language, never altaic. tungus people are different from altaic, tungus people originated from around lake baikal siberia, while altaic people originated from altai mountain central asia (west mongolia).
 
Last edited:
Sep 2016
526
天下
#10
your so called korean language according to alexander vovin are paleo siberian aka tungus language, never altaic.
1. Paleo-Siberian and Tungus[ic] are not synonymous terms.
2. Alexander Vovin never claimed that Korean is related to Tungusic or Paleo-Siberian. Quite the opposite.
3. You're oversensitive. Not every claim coming from Koreans is nationalistic rambling.

I recommend re-reading Vovin's publication again, more carefully this time.