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

Jan 2015
433
Northern City
Except, to repeat again; testimonies and stories are completely irrelevant to your anachronistic claim here because no primary sources stated what people of Gu Chaoxian spoke, much less their "national" identity. Whereas primary pre-Han texts gives us all the evidence that this kingdom originated west of the Liao river. Accepting that Gu Chaoxian is "Korean" is a Ming era construct, and far from contemporary "testimonies" and "stories".




No, its because we have actual primary sources to examine, whereas you have nothing but a later historical construct to draw your evidence. A person who is not trained in history clearly can't use the proper methodologies and have the naive arrogance to denounce others who has.
How we organize ancient testimonies and stories and relate it to our worldview is really our main concern.

Look at the way this forum is organized for example. Asian history, European history, American history. There is room for a Korean history which Gojoseon belongs to.

You're just being irrational and talking nonsense in order to to mislead or deceive.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2012
231
Yeongsang is 100% chinese or Mao nationists. His or her comments are very similar with that in Chinahistoryforum.

Yeongsang just has the purpose that fight or blame Korean with other members

Why you reput this tread refuting by Legionarious 1year ago?

What do you want to do from Korean?

Moniters should check these trollings
 
Last edited:

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,486
How we organize ancient testimonies and stories and relate it to our worldview is really our main concern.

Look at the way this forum is organized for example. Asian history, European history, American history. There is room for a Korean history which Gojoseon belongs to.

You're just being irrational and talking nonsense in order to to mislead or deceive.
:deadhorse: Yeongsang, don't attribute your incomptence and lack of training on taxonomy. The fact that you don't know historicism, rather than stringent classification of the early 20th century, is the mainstream in history studies right now shows me that you are pathetically pretending to talk about a topic that you clearly haven't digested or even glanced. In fact, from the naive nonsense you constantly repeat, its hard to imagine that you even understand what historicism is.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
433
Northern City
:deadhorse: Yeongsang, don't attribute your incomptence and lack of training on taxonomy. The fact that you don't know historicism, rather than stringent classification of the early 20th century, is the mainstream in history studies right now shows me that you are pathetically pretending to talk about a topic that you clearly haven't digested or even glanced. In fact, from the naive nonsense you constantly repeat, its hard to imagine that you even understand what historicism is.
Keep waving historicism like a flag. Maybe someone will believe you're an actual historian.

This is a discussion about national succession. What are you doing here looking for cultural and linguistic continuity. This is just something that is widely accepted historically.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
433
Northern City
You're pretty good at the Mongols I would hope. By your standards, what kind of continuity do we see when they went into new areas and started adopting the local customs? The answer would be, bare minimum. So did this mean the Mongol polity suddenly just disappeared? Or can we look at this a little differently.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
3,492
Mountains and Jungles of Southern China
Yeongsang is 100% chinese or Mao nationists. His or her comments are very similar with that in Chinahistoryforum.
I really don't think he's Chinese. A normal Chinese person won't claim such things. I guess he's probably a korean american.
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,486
Keep waving historicism like a flag. Maybe someone will believe you're an actual historian.
The emptiness of emptiness. This discussion is obviously going no where because you don't even know what the terminologies that are put forward to you mean and yet you have the arrogance and stupidity to denounce those who does, shamelessly.
Maybe if you knew what historicism is, you'll actually know how professionally trained historians in a acknowledge institution should behave. Do not talk the talk, walk the walk.


This is a discussion about national succession. What are you doing here looking for cultural and linguistic continuity. This is just something that is widely accepted historically.
Other than "accepted" and "agreed upon" I have yet to see a single primary source provided by you to even try to be the least bit academical. All I see are nationalistic rants devoid of any evidence or academic vigor and you have the ironic hypocrisy of calling others irrational. Speaking of logic, do you even know what the fallacy of argumentum ad populum is?
 
Last edited:
Jun 2014
4,516
India
Buddhist sources of fifth century call Kushan emperor Kanishka as devout Buddhist. Kanishka died around 150 AD so gap is just 3 centuries. Historians now by examining inscriptions, coins and other evidences conclude that all those Buddhist texts are wrong and Kanishka was no more a Buddhist than he was follower of Greek religion. This when there is gap of just 3 centuries.

This is how rigorous standards are maintained in history, 'traditions' and 'beliefs' must be respected normally and outside historical domain but it is job of historians to separate fact from tradition and fiction. In this case, gap is of around 16 centuries, right? No competent historian uses such things without direct attestation.
In other thread, I have shown how even contemporary sources can be deceptive, Xuanzang described Harsha as Buddhist due to confusion and may use same but even a careful reading of Chinese account proves that Harsha was a Shaiva that is Hindu.
 
Jan 2015
433
Northern City
The emptiness of emptiness. This discussion is obviously going no where because you don't even know what the terminologies that are put forward to you mean and yet you have the arrogance and stupidity to denounce those who does, shamelessly.
Maybe if you knew what historicism is, you'll actually know how professionally trained historians in a acknowledge institution should behave. Do not talk the talk, walk the walk.




Other than "accepted" and "agreed upon" I have yet to see a single primary source provided by you to even try to be the least bit academical. All I see are nationalistic rants devoid of any evidence or academic vigor and you have the ironic hypocrisy of calling others irrational. Speaking of logic, do you even know what the fallacy of argumentum ad populum is?
If you want to use logic of fallacies, you have to eliminate all history. It is all becomes fallacy. This is why I don't think you're a historian. Your arguments just aren't practical for doing history, only for fitting your own personal agenda.

I KNOW you aren't a historian so please stop implying that you are one. You've even misused fallacies, since much of history relies on popular support. For labels, words. Trust.
 
Last edited: