Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

xtremzero t1_itj9nlv wrote

Reply to comment by spinnybingle in Joseon, the predecessor of modern Korea(s) - Part 3: Japan and Qing Invasions (early 17th century) by spinnybingle

I’m merely stating facts and it has nothing to do with my nationality. I think people need to remember that China today has nothing to do with Ming Dynasty nor Qing. The rise of nationalism in countries such as Vietnam and Korea has lead to a lot of history denying/revisionism, it’s like French denying to be ever part of the Roman Empire because they are salty and don’t want to be associated with Italians. Chinese today to Ming is like Italians to Romans.

All of the points can be verified in Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty, as well as related historic records in Chinese.

Joseon and Vietnam were a bit different. Vietnam has historically been part of the Chinese dynasty through direct rule. Vietnam became initially independent in 938AD, and have defeated Chinese armies at various points later. Due to its location the ruler of Vietnam have always considered themselves to be emperors interiorly, only calling themselves king when communicating with china. Joseon kings have never claimed to be emperor up until the point where they were annexed by Japan. Again, all can be easily verified by looking at the veritable records. Albeit it’s easier for me as most of the records and historic texts in both korea and vietn were written in Chinese characters.

Tldr: I don’t care about reactions from “the international community” as history is fact not bed time stories that can be changed just because someone is unhappy. That is called revisionism.

Nor I am implying Joseon being tributary state /vassal to Ming means Korea today is related to China today. Also, Vassals in sinosphere is completely different to the vassals in medieval history.

1

spinnybingle OP t1_itjdkra wrote

Few Koreans deny that there was a hierarchical international order between China and its neighbors in the pre modern time, and kings of Korea (as well as Vietnam and other similar countries) agreed to endorse the symbolic authority of Chinese empires.

They typically are cautious to emphasize that because of its obvious potential of being misused for Chinese expansionist agenda.

Plus I don’t think “revisionism” is a good word here because it has a connotation of a former aggressor/perpetrator of atrocities denying its past. Korea considers itself as a smaller nation that needs to be defended

2

xtremzero t1_itjk3ka wrote

I agree there are a lot of Chinese nationalists who wants to claim that everything touched by Sinosphere of influence and confucianism belongs to modern day China which is obviously bs.

However, this still doesn’t change the fact that Joseon dynasty (at least the ruling caste) was very close to the Ming dynasty as they considered themselves to be part of the chinese culture sphere (again, nothing to do with china today). This connection is much to some korean nationalists’ dismay which leads them to change history and portray the Joseon-Ming relationship as some sort of mutual alliance etc.

Examples include Joseon officials strongly opposing Hangul as “only barbarians invent their own language” .

King Seonjo even suggested he would rather “die in the lands of the emperor rather than die at the hands of japanese bandits”

https://sillok.history.go.kr/id/wna_12506013_007

imo korea and japan preserved more Chinese culture than the entire China combined (especially after the communist takeover).

2

spinnybingle OP t1_itjpgky wrote

Almost any Korean person knows that kings of Joseon were referred to as "king" while Chinese emperors were referred to as "emperors," and there was a strong symbolic hierarchy. Well Koreans can be quite nationalistic, but I don't think anyone will really deny that.

Imo Joseon-Ming tie was particularly strong because the Joseon ruling class followed very orthodox Confucianism, often following the social norms described in Chinese classical text to a letter. Many modern people are critical of that because it obviously weakened the nation (e.g. the suppression of commerce and trades). It was also the way the nobles distinguished themselves from commoners who weren't educated in classical Chinese

Almost any Korean person also knows that Hangeul was despised by noblemen in the Joseon era. So it's not a secret or taboo topic in Korea.

  • Plus, despite ignored by male aristocrats, the Korean script was widely used by women and commoners, which led to the rise of vernacular literature. We know a lot more about the Joseon era thanks to the vast amount of scripts written in vernacular Korean

However, when one says Korea (or Vietnam or others) was "tributary state" or "vassal state" of China, while it's basically true, there can still be contentions about to which extent it was symbolic and to which extent it was substantial. Joseon Korea didn't have to pay a lot of "substantial" tributes to China.

  • Joseon had to pay tributes to Ming just once every three years
  • The contents were Just dozens of kilograms of ginseng and similar amount of hemp, mats, paper, ink, etc. It can almost be seen as an expensive gift, rather than tax
  • There were very few exchanges of people/talents/human resources
  • Some tributary states were even benefited by the tributary relationship because some Chinese emperors doled out gold
  • The tributary states were sometimes asked to join military operations of China, but at least in the case of Joseon, it was very few and far between. Ming China only lasted for like 250 years anyways
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributary_system_of_China
  • (https://ijkh.khistory.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.22372/ijkh.2021.26.2.151) .

So there can be contentions about how "symbolic" or "substantial" the tributary relationships were.

I think it's a dispute that can only be resolved by collaboration of professional historians in different countries

1

xtremzero t1_itjrfe7 wrote

The so called tributes are actually trade in disguise. And a quite unfair one at that (for Ming)

All the tributaries LOVED coming to China, because not only is all the expenses covered, they also get way more gifts in return (you bring a few apples or oranges call it “specialty” but get gold in return)

The rules where Joseon tributes can only come once every 3 years was so that Ming doesn’t go bankrupt. But even then there are records of Joseon emissaries bringing tributes (and getting gold in return) every year. Ryukyu was supposed to come every 2 years but came multiple times a year.

So tributes sounds great but was actually like a charity event. Hence why even countries in Indonesia and Malaysia loved going to China to do “tributes”

2

wolflance1 t1_ityr7cz wrote

>which extent it was symbolic and to which extent it was substantial.

Oh it's far more than symbolic. Something as trivial as using the wrong calendar format can cause Joseon government to outright shut down because it offended Ming sensibilities.

1