"Korea's 1st kingdom ruled today's Beijing"

Feb 2011
1,018
A new wrinkle in the Sino-Korean History conflict as a Korean scholar publishes a new book extending the territory of Gojoseon into China:

'Korea's 1st kingdom ruled today's Beijing'

The new territory of Gojoseon according to the article:



It is difficult to see, even were we to believe in Shim's argument that the red markers stand for places that were called Joseon in the past, how such an expansive map is capable of being drawn into places where no red markers exist. But detailed analysis from international scholars has to wait till the book is translated.
 

mingming

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
4,742
Los Santos, San Andreas
The Han also ruled over Pyongyang. Is that suppose to mean anything?
 

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,808
United States
The territory is obviously extremely exaggerated, even if those places were really called Joseon (and I am curious to find out if that is true).

I do believe Gojoseon existed, but I believe it was little more than a confederacy of (probably) related tribes, something like the Iroquois confederacy in the US and Canada.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,018
The Han also ruled over Pyongyang. Is that suppose to mean anything?
Read the article. The author of the book specifically denies that the Han ever ruled over Pyongyang. His positioning of Gojoseon is designed to counter that idea, in fact, because by expanding the territory of Gojoseon, it becomes easier to argue that the Han commanderies never reached the Korean peninsula, but were only established inside China.

Shim suggests that the government form a special committee for history under the presidential office to review my findings and find ways to bolster Korea's position on historical disputes with neighboring countries.

He criticized the state-run Northeast Asian History Foundation for siding with China regarding the dispute.

In a booklet published in English, the think tank stated that an administrative district of the Chinese Han Empire was inside the Korean peninsula.

The publication, "The Han Commanderies in Early Korean History," sponsored by Harvard University and the Northeast Asian History Foundation, acknowledged that the regional provinces of the ancient Chinese kingdom were located within the Korean peninsula.

"If the government does not act upon this issue, I feel a historical revolution is necessary," Shim said. "There have been democratic revolutions and even industrial revolutions — why not have a revolution about history that aims for the truth?"
 
Jul 2014
94
Melbourne
So, what is point here??

you want people to hate korea or something??

If you want, I also can get those pictures about Chinese nationalists.
 
Jul 2014
94
Melbourne
Read the article. The author of the book specifically denies that the Han ever ruled over Pyongyang. His positioning of Gojoseon is designed to counter that idea, in fact, because by expanding the territory of Gojoseon, it becomes easier to argue that the Han commanderies never reached the Korean peninsula, but were only established inside China.

Many scholar already found a lot evidences that Han dynasty ruled Norther Korea for around 400 years.

There is no doubt that Han ruled over Pyongyang.
Many Korean historian already know that but some Korean nationalists.
 
Feb 2011
1,018
So, what is point here??

you want people to hate korea or something??

If you want, I also can get those pictures about Chinese nationalists.
This is a history forum. Raising awareness about new history disputes fits with the forum's goals.

And Shim Baek-kang is the president of the National Culture Research Center in Seoul. This isn't just a random Korean nationalist. He holds positions at several universities, including ones in Taiwan and China.
 

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,808
United States
It implies, but does not directly state, that he denied the Commanderies' presence in the peninsula near the end of the article. But earlier in the article I think he was denying Gija and Wiman Joseon as belonging to China.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kazeuma
Feb 2011
1,018
It implies, but does not directly state, that he denied the Commanderies' presence in the peninsula near the end of the article. But earlier in the article I think he was denying Gija and Wiman Joseon as belonging to China.
Denying the commanderies' presence on the Korean peninsula is not exactly a new phenomenon in Korea. In North Korea, it has been state dogma from the early days of the DPRK. In South Korea, the movement was first taken up in 1986 by Yun Nae-Hyon, a professor of history at Dankook University, who also tried to argue that the Shang was Tungus/Korean. Yun and his followers were a minority within the Korean academic establishment, but they have their adherents. Shim's rejection of the Northeast Asian History Foundation's stance places him along the same lines.
 
Last edited:

mingming

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
4,742
Los Santos, San Andreas
Read the article. The author of the book specifically denies that the Han ever ruled over Pyongyang. His positioning of Gojoseon is designed to counter that idea, in fact, because by expanding the territory of Gojoseon, it becomes easier to argue that the Han commanderies never reached the Korean peninsula, but were only established inside China.
Whether Gojoseon is Chinese or Gojoseon is Korean, we simply don't know. The reason is simple - the concept of "Chinese" and "Korean" is a fairly modern construct. No one knows what people called themselves back then. One thing is certain though, the rulers of Gojoseon didn't call themselves 中国 or 한국.