Korean Job Discussion Forums

[MacLean]

I enjoy the palaces downtown Seoul. They can be a pleasant (and surprisingly quiet) respite from the city. But here's what gets me. The board providing information about the palace says "Gyeongbuk-gung was constructed in the Chosun Dynasty, 1290-1910." At first I thought 'cool'. Old stuff. Then I got thinking. So which is it? Was it built in the 13th century? Or was it built in the 20th century? I became slightly annoyed at the lack of clarity and transparency. (Teaching contracts came immediately to mind.) Later in the day I heard that the palace had actually been burned down by the Japanese under the occupation, and only rebuilt again in the 1960's or 1970's. So what I was looking at actually dated back about 40 years.

It seems Korea likes to exaggerate its antiquity. The same goes for Dangun, the mythical dude who allegedly founded Korea in 2333 B.C.
That's 4344 years ago. Yet Koreans feel no embarrassment in rounding that up to 5000 years. Another example. Last summer I visited a park in Korea. There was an old tree there with a plaque on it stating that it was 500 years old. When I went back two months later the plaque had been changed to read "1000 years old."

What's going on here?

[ThingsComeAround]

Pretty sure it wasn't always in complete design from 1290-1910. There must have been a few fires here and there that razed the area. But there is nothing wrong with saying the palace was built in the year X even if it has been rebuilt.

The thing that gets me is how lax they are at rebuilding Namdaemun. (and how easily the let it burn) Kind of like the WTC tragedy, which sadly lost the building effort to organized crime, politics, and bureaucracy

[happiness]

shhhh!!korea may only be under 1500 years old as a recognizable mass of people in an area SHHHH!

Dangun was made as a story to encourage the Koreans when the Mongol occupation, i seem to remember its like about 800 years old.
remember face and all that. read up on the occupations, confucianism, betrayls, hiding your family history, shallow shows of loyalities, and all that.
find out what namdaemoon and all that were made for (relating to the Chinese dignataries)

or basically, just look at a map, size and neighbors and all that.

[Cedar]

I hope you're remembering the sign wrong because the Joseon Dynasty started in 1392 not 1290, Seoul was not built until around 1398, so the palace could not possibly have been started until then and nearly every building in Gyeongbok Palace has been burned down and reconstructed at least once. It was in complete disrepair until Gojong's father the regent Daewongun had it rebuilt, if I remember correctly. And that means the latter half of the 1800s. Almost all of the old buildings there at present date to that reconstruction.

[CentralCali]

The dates are (discounting the error of the sign-maker) the beginning and end of the dynasty, not the actual construction dates of the building in question.

[balzor]

The Japanese burned down much of Korea's historical buildings in both of their occupations. much has had to be rebuilt

*Mod Edit

[Cedar]

[PatrickGHBusan]

[seoulsucker]

[NohopeSeriously]

[Cedar]

[PatrickGHBusan]

[balzor]

[Hyeon Een]

Ignoring all the fun and games above...

I have been GREATLY annoyed for the last several years by newspaper articles which mention (The Joseon dynasty, 1292-1910). It's not that I'm a stickler for dates.. it's just the massive scale of the dates that're given.

If I'm given, say, a fan, and told it's from the Joseon period, I'd really like to know whether it's 10 minutes old (19th century, AKA Joseon) or 500 years old (aka... Joseon).

It annoys me greatly that every newspaper article uses the most massive range of dates to describe some event that may have happened either very recently or a LONG time ago. If you know your history already it doesn't matter, but if you're trying to learn.. well.. every major event happened in the same short period.

[PatrickGHBusan]

You are right Hyon Hen! What was I thinking discussing silly history on here!

Carry on.






Disclaimer: The above is meant in jest