quote:
In all these historical surveys there is no trace of a unique Korean religion or culture.
|
S. Kroeze
I wouldn't say I'm an Oriental expert but I'll will tell you as far as I know.
McNeil is my favorite historian too but that goes as long as he describes only Western civilisations. He is not an Oriental expert is he? I would not refer to him if I were to describe about Oriental civilisations. It will be like asking to Peter Connoly about Samurai warfare.(inappropriate reference)
Fairbank,though I think, has better understanding about East Asia than McNeil, is still a China specialist isn't he?
Reischauer's experience as an ambassador serving in Japan made him quite a Japan specialist but that does not mean he has overall understanding about East Asia as a whole. I'm not questioning their credibility as historians(they are all respected people)
The problem is most of their works are largely borrowing of other's works which is especially true about the case of Korea.
And most of work done about Korean history are almost exact replica of "Chosenshi" which
is written by Japanese historians(such as Hatata Takeshi)who are influenced by the works of World WarII Colonialist historians.
This Colonialist movement(Shokuminshikan-Undo)began when Japan annexed Korea in 1910 under strict guidance from the military government and the purposes of the movement
were quite clear: 1.Glorifying Japanese history(as being unique). 2.Justifying the annexation of Korea by changing Korean history as a crap to avoid any international condemnation(as mere variant of
Chinese culture->a destined colony).
Nazi Germany tried to do similar things during WWII for the Arians as destined high-culture and slavic civs as destined inferiors but ended up unsuccessful because their works began after they occupied poland then intensified after the operation Barbarossa so the length of the works 6 years was not enough. Futhermore, allied forces' efforts to putting down these kind of activities were quite timely and determined.
US force which occupied Japan made no move on this kind of things and many Japanese historians were free to maintain their stnads.
We will have no idea how much damages this kind of activity done to Korean history unless Japan releases its dark secrets.
So why not ask to Koreans themselves? Well Korea began its own archeology since 1970 and many of critical archeological evidences are still in Japanese hands thanks to 40 years of colonial rule.
That's why many Western historians ask Japanese to help to describe Korean history during 70~80s just like McNeil,Fairbank and Reischauer and many others.
If you study Japanese history carefully you can find swift change of what they are saying about Korea.
I will give one example "Mimana" debate. During 50~60s, When Korea was in ruin from the Korean war,Japanese historians
claimed Shilla,Packje and Kaya(7th century Korean states)were all under Japanese rule as colonies. During 70~80s,When Korea began its own archeology, Japan began to deny Shilla and Packje as their former colonies but still claimed Kaya as their former colony then named Mimana.
During 90s, Korean archeologists and historians bitterly debated with newly found evidences to nullify the Japanese claim.
Now even many Japanese historians say Mimana is utter nonsense. Professor Ueda suggests Kaya was some sort of protectorate of Packje-Yamato alliance agianst Shilla aggression not a direct Yamato colony. There are so many cases just like this waiting to be discovered and debated but that
seems long way ahead as long as Japanese government is not very cooperative.
This outdated Japanese version of Mimana was adopted into Age of Empire(Microsoft)and Microsoft got complaints from the Koreans then changed its products for Korea by merely deleting Yamato campaign.(see game company can be wrong too) Therefore if you want more accurate info about their history try the most recently published books because it keeps changing by time.
Since it is difficult to find Western historians who are specialised in Korean history it is better to ask to Koreans themselves. But depending solely upon only one source can be quite dangerous step when you describe Oriental civs since their sources differ greatly in detail when they deal with same events/incidents.
I will give one example "7years of war"(Japanese invasion to Korea)
About Ming intervention
Japanese source says Ming army was defeated twice by the Japanese ground force and lacked martial spirit.
Chinese source says Great Ming army once sent to Korea to save its vassal crushed the Wa(Japanese)army and returned with glory.
Korean source says the first sent Ming army was so small in size so defeated by the Japanese. Second contingent were Ming's Royal regulars which won the siege of Pyongyang but later ambushed by the Japanese at the valley of Byockje.
About Korean naval might
Japanese source says Japanese did not have proper warships to fight the Korean fleet and
values Yi sun-sin as master tactician and Korean fleet as the strongest in the Orient at that time.
Chinese source never mention about him nor Korean navy but Ming's naval victory against Wa fleet.
Korean source says Yi sun-sin invented turtle-ship and saved Korea.
About atrocities
Japanese source says Ming army commited greater atrocities than the Japanese.
Chinese source never mention about atrocities.
Korean source says both(Chinese & Japanese) committed atrocities against civilians.
About the ending of the war.
Japanese source says Hideyoshi's death saved Korea and possibly Manchuria from Japanese onslaught.
Chinese source says Hideyoshi's death saved the Japanese army from total destruction since his death gave an
excuse to the Japanese to withdrew.
Korean source says even before Hideyoshi's death, the Japanese army already lost the war.
See how different the so-called source can be. That's why careful cross-examination of sources from three sides are required to have more correct picture of historical events when we talk about Oriental history.
I sincerely ask you to read about Korean source too so you can have more balanced opinion about Korea.
And check whether they think about themselves as variants or the unique. I remember when Fairbank describes about Korea, he uses the Chinese sources and Reischauser uses the Japanese sources when he talks about Korea.
McNeil went even further by faithfully adopting only Chinese source when he describes about the 7years war he mention "Ming's naval tech so great when Ming sent its fleet to engage the Japanese and they sank even few Portugese galleons." In fact, Portuguese never intervened the war(check Portugese/Korean/Japanese sources pal
) and he failed to mention Korean naval technology and its fleets' decisive role for the victory. He said Chinese ship design greatly influenced the Japanese design throughout history. Was it? really?
According to the Chinese source it seems but both Korean and Japanese sources tell different story. Until 9th Century, Japan had only one ocean-going vessel called Kudara-sen(150 tonnes)Kudara means Packje(One of three Korean kingdoms)in Japanese and During 6~7th centuries Packje was powerful naval empire ,constructed many ocean-going vessels and dominated sea trade in that region.(now that explains a lot)
16th century Japan warship design was actually influenced by the design of the Koreans. Only Korea had cannon-armed fleets at that time and under the leadership of Admiral Yi, invented many revolutionary warships such as Turtle-ship(Ironclad)and Pan-oak(Korean version of "man of war")After the first war, the Japanese learned from the concept of arming ships with cannons(this time they used Portugese ones)and ramming device.
Since we know the so-called source can be quite self-serving for anyone's own national interest, without hearing from one side and only hearing from the other can be quite hazardous for true understanding of any nation's history.
Korean culture
Korean religion.
Sounds like a show off but I have to tell you I've been these three countries(China,Korea and Japan)and I learned little bit of Mandarin,Korean(south)and Japanese(Kanto).I studied their general histories with some specialisation with martial arts/military/ceramics histories.
According to my observation and study, they(Chinese,Korean and Japanese)are all different and unique people with distinctive cultures. Since we are talking about Korea I will focus on that.
McNeil also failed to notice the secular trends of Korea towards Confucianism and labelled Korea as nation with religon:Confucianism. Hahaha
The Koreans,even Yi-dynasty Koreans, did not perceive Confucianism as a Religion but rather a source for virtuous code of conduct that explains why there is no single shrine in Korea for worshiping Confucian but with thosands of Buddist temples. It's like an accepting principles of the Bible without necesarilly believing the God or Jesus.
Koreans' primary religious life can be described as Buddism plus Mu-sok. Mu-sok which basically is polytheism(thousands of gods)with characteristics of nature worshiping and generally practised by female sorceress named Mu-dang.(some similarities with Shinto)While Koreans' primary religions have been changed from Buddism to Christianity, Mu-sok still survives within Korean's religious life today as being the supplementary by occupying the grounds of superstitions/taboos,etc. If you ask any Koreans what is Mu-dang they will tell you what it is.
Korean alphabet
It is true they adopted Chinese charater for their writing system during 4th century AD but later they develop their own writing system called Han-gul and many linguists say it is the most sceintific writing system. As a minor civ it is quite an achivement I think. Japan still uses its supplementary writing system called Kana along with Chinese charaters(Kanji)
Others
Korean dishes have no similarities with the Chinese and Japanese ones(I love them all
especially Japanese one)
Korean traditional wearing has no similarities with Chinese and Japanese ones(They are all beutiful)
Korean folk tales have no similarities with the Chinese ones but some similarities with the Japanese ones.
Tradtional Korean architecture, though look similar, vastly different from Chinese and Japanese ones such as castle and fortress design(I don't remember all the jargons told by the tour guide now sorry)
Traditional Korean housing uses distinctive features of centralised heating system named On-dol(Can't be found from Chinese bedroom and Japanese Tadami)There were only two ancient civs which used centralised heating system Roman and Korean civs. Fairbank failed to recognise this great invention by criticising the Koreans, people sleeping on the floor.
The list goes on and on but I will stop here.
Some minor points
Reischauer also failed to notice both China and Korea went through feudalism by saying only Japan had one. Zhou dynasty China was actually supported by many feudal lords. Late Shilla and early Koryo had feudal lords named Ho-jock and their clan titles were
hereditary.
Warrior elite class appears Shilla prior to samurai of Japan and called Hwa-Rang and acted under strict code named Hwa-rang-do. During the three kingdom period of Korea, Yamato had no specilised warrior elite class. Also some suggest the ancient Korean word "Saulabi" is the origin of Samurai. "Saul" in ancient Korean mean "fighting" and "abi" means father or man so the word meant "fighting father" or "fighting man". This theory becomes more probable because to Japanese the word "Samurai" has to be used as a whole otherwise it means nothing which strongly suggest the foreign origin of the word. Even in modern Korean, "Samu" means "fighting" but Japanese use "Kenka" or Tatakai" as a word for fighting. "Bushi" is a word from China.
This earlier existance of warrior class in Korea and the word Saulabi and Samurai all helps to us to reach the conclusion Samurai class in Japan actually came from Korea and when this class was replaced by scholar class in Korea, Japan consolidated more for this warrior class.
Japanese cultural debts to Korea is not new things to say and even McNeil,Fairbank and Reischauer know about them but lack in details.
"Tea cermony" and "Zen culture" are actually from the China and Korea also developed these as its own called "Da-do" and "Son". So don't make too big deal about these OK?
These Korean influence to Japanese culture are strongly supported by the evidences of massive influx of migrants from Packje and Kokuryo(Two Korean kingdoms) Yamato created special districts to settle these migrants in Satuma and its surrounding regions of Kyshu and Kai,Shinao and considerable part of Kanto regions. These influx of people to Yamato was a hugh boost towards more civilised society.
Kokuryo's territory was that of Manchuria so people are quite aggressive,tough and full of martial spirit. Packje was a naval empire so its people are truely seafaring ones and highly artistic and have good sense of commerce. These two Korean kingdoms' peoples' characteristics are inherited as Today Japanese people's dual characteristics.(while kind and peaceful but on the other hand aggressive) Actually I think there is no point of dividing these two people(Korean & Japanese)because they share same ancestors which Japanese bitterly deny.
Yayoi culture which is prior to Yamato too was under great influence from Korea. Bronze culture and Rice farming introduced by the Koreans. I think that's why many Japanese historians deny Yayoi as thier first culture.
Jomon culture is quite popular with Japanese historians and they want to see this as thier first culture but its too primitive to be seen as civilised culture.(stone age)
I think I talked too much maybe I wanted to release my strees from the exams. Well I don't know.
