|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lastat06513
Joined: 18 Mar 2003 Location: Sensus amo Caesar , etiamnunc victus amo uni plebian
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: To all the Korean history buffs; Help me figure this out. |
|
|
Was Korea a truly "independent" Kingdom?
Ok, Korea has claimed to be a kingdom that was independent of foreign influence.
However, my love for history has proven some of that to be wrong;
1. The Sino- Japanese War (1894)
At the same time as this conflict, the Korean Queen was murdered because she favored the Russians and Chinese consuls in the Korean court over the Japanese "advisors". Also, she was politically savvy enough to allow a Russian construction company to have the contract to build Korea's first Pyongyang-Pusan railway (the contract was later recinded and given to a Japanese company that was partially owned by relatives of the Japanese royal family). And she paid with her life. Which forced the King to seek refuge in a foreign consulate. Due to the treaty of support that the Chosun Kings formulated with every dynasty (in way of monetary tribute), China was obliged to fight Japan, which proved to be its ultimate undoing.
2. The Russo- Japanese War (1905)
As Korea came closer under the Japanese sphere of influence, Russia grew increasingly ambitious and greedy and thought of Japan, although militarily modern, as feeble and easy prey for them. Under the guise of protecting its interests in China, Russia launched an attack on Japan with the hopes of also acquiring influence in Korea as well (and possibly to take revenge for losing influence 9 years earlier. This also proved disasterous for the Russians as well. With no foreign power in the region strong enough to guarantee its "hermit" status, they were forced to sign a treaty in the site of DeoksuKung conceding almost complete authority to the Japanese.
3. Annexation (1910)
At the same time and some time prior, there was upheaval all over Asia against the colonialist powers in the West (U.S., Germany, France, Neatherlands, Portugal, Russia, U.K.) and the Japanese had a hand at supplying the locals in these colonies with weapons and basic leadership training. Unwilling to go to war with Japan (sometimes again in the case of Russia), the colonial powers in Asia held a secret meeting with the Japanese and asked them (rather politely at that) to stop aiding in local insurgencies in their colonies. Japan agreed to do that, but under the condition that they would have absolute control of Korean affairs- thus paving the way for the formal annexation of Korea under the guise of the "puppet Emperor" who took power a few years earlier. The western powers turned a blind eye to this, which would explain why no nation protested when Korea vanished from the map.
4. Japanese Surrender in 1945
On August 15th, 1945, The Imperial Japanese government surrendered its entire arm force and all conquests to the Allied force commanded by Five-star General Douglas MacAuthur.
1~ The Sino- Japanese war proves that Korea was indeed a "vassel state" or a mere satalite of China that could be conquered at any time, but fended off attack mostly by paying off the Qing Dynasty.
2~ It showed that Korea was at the whims of outside powers who were willing to fight over Korea for mere control of its resources.
3~ The first 2 events have proven that Korea was truly vulnerable to foreign conquest and had no true control over its own affairs.
4~ If the U.S. didn't drop the bomb on Japan or if MacAuthur allowed Japan to keep Korea as a territory, then Koreans would be speaking Japanese and adopting Japanese names. They in no way had any hand in their own independence.
Where in these events did Korea conduct itself as a proud independent nation that it claims to be?
It sounded more like a lacky at best.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| #2 Keep in mind that the RUSSIANS had a NAVY BASE at JINHAE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pyongshin Sangja

Joined: 20 Apr 2003 Location: I love baby!
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ouch. Yes, yes, we all know that. You don't have to yell it from the rooftops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Do you really? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ChuckECheese

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| #2 Keep in mind that the RUSSIANS had a NAVY BASE at JINHAE. |
Americans have many Army Camps and Air Force bases in Korea. Korea is still occupied country.

Last edited by ChuckECheese on Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lastat06513
Joined: 18 Mar 2003 Location: Sensus amo Caesar , etiamnunc victus amo uni plebian
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Imperial Russia actually had naval bases in Jinhae, Pyongtaek and Busan (notice the strong Russian connection the city has).
And YongSan was first a Chinese garrison and then the seat for the General Chief of Staff for the Imperial Japanese Forces for Korea (sounds familiar )
C-E-C~ When will Korea ever stand on its own two feet?[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
techno_the_cat

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The above examples are for only a very small portion of Korean History. At it's peak the Goguryeo kingdom ruled a territory that included large portions of northern China. This was an independant Kingdom. Of course the Silla and Beakje Kingdoms occupied Southern Korea during the same time, so we're not talking about a unified Korea here.
The Joesan dynasty, even at it's lowest, was still an independent state, despite it's lack of politcial power in the region. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ajgeddes

Joined: 28 Apr 2004 Location: Yongsan
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| While the Joseon dynasty was an independent state of sorts, I would call it completely independent. It was basically a vassal of China for a lot of the dynasty, right up until about 1895, when that switched over to Japan basically. I am not going to get into it more because it is pretty complex, but it is easy enough to find info on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| basically a vassal of China |
Like the poster said, when you are required to send girls and eunuchs ( ) to the neighbors, you are not really independent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
techno_the_cat

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think if we're talking about independance, in a political sense, we are referring to whether or not a nation is a soverign power. I dont think anyone would argue against the Joseon Dynasty being almost entirly co-dependant on it's surrounding neighbours for political and economic survival. But if that was the test for what defines an "independant" nation, I dont think there would be too many independant nations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ajgeddes

Joined: 28 Apr 2004 Location: Yongsan
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno_the_cat wrote: |
| I think if we're talking about independance, in a political sense, we are referring to whether or not a nation is a soverign power. I dont think anyone would argue against the Joseon Dynasty being almost entirly co-dependant on it's surrounding neighbours for political and economic survival. But if that was the test for what defines an "independant" nation, I dont think there would be too many independant nations. |
The Joseon dynasty was only independent for a short period of time at its beginning. Economies 500 years ago weren't like today's, where economic survival is dependent upon international trade. They farmed, and then they ate it.
The Joseon dynasty paid money to China because it was more or less a vassal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hosub
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
|
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You'll have to define what you mean by Korea in the first place. All the events you picked out were relatively recent; you mean if the Joseun Dynasty was ever independent? The Modern Korean state? What? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
noelinkorea
Joined: 09 Apr 2003 Location: Shinchon, Seoul
|
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I knew about the Independence Gate in Seodaemun - I think many believe it refers to independence from Japan...doesn't of course. I think Korea was never truly independent, and I think Korea' current history and as fabricated as any other country intent on nation-building - most seem to do something like this and Korea is no different.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Independence Gate (Hangul: ???) is a memorial gate located in Seoul, South Korea. The gate was built to commemorate Korea's independence from the influence of China.
Its building was started on November 21, 1896, and finished November 20, 1897. The gate measures 14.28 meters in height, 11.48 meters in width, and is made of approximately 1,850 pieces of granite. Its design modeled on the Arch of Triumph in Paris. In 1979, it was moved from an original position to 70 meters northwest by rezoning.
In 1895, Joseon Kingdom of Korea ceased the tributary relationship with Qing China when the Japanese Empire defeated China in the First Sino-Japanese War to invade Korea and made China discontinue the influence on Korea and renounce any claims to the country by the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
After that, Korea demolished the Yeongeunmun Gate, which had been the symbol of prevailing submissive diplomatic policy towards China, and built the Independence Gate. To raise funds for the building, the Independence Club collected contributions.
Nowadays, some people in Korea have the misconception that the gate commemorates an independence from Japan[citation needed].
[edit]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Yeolchae

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
|
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
An Independent State/Country:
1. Has space or territory which has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
2. Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
3. Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
4. Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
5. Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
6. Has a government which provides public services and police power.
7. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
8. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries
|
from
http://geography.about.com/cs/politicalgeog/a/statenation.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Yeolchae

Joined: 24 Aug 2006
|
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is an example of a quick analysis of Scotland
| Quote: |
Has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK)?
Yes, Scotland does have internationally recognized boundaries. Scotland is 78,133 square kilometers in area.
Has people who live there on an ongoing basis?
Yes, according to the 2001 census, Scotland's population is 5,062,011.
Has economic activity and an organized economy?
Somewhat. Scotland certainly has economic activity and an organized economy; Scotland even has its own GDP (over 62 billion pounds as of 1998). However, Scotland does not regulate foreign or domestic trade, the Scottish Parliament is not authorized to do so.
Has the power of social engineering, such as education?
Somewhat. The Scottish Parliament is able to control education, training, and social work (but not social security). However, this power was granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament.
Has a transportation system for moving goods and people?
Somewhat. Scotland itself has a transportation system but the system is not fully under Scottish control. The Scottish Parliament controls some aspects of transportation, including the Scottish road network, bus policy and ports and harbors while the UK Parliament controls railways, transport safety and regulation. Again, Scotland's power was granted by the UK Parliament.
Has a government that provides public services and police power?
Somewhat. The Scottish Parliament has the ability to control law and home affairs (including most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts) as well as the police and fire services. The UK Parliament controls defense and national security across the United Kingdom. Again, Scotland's power was granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament.
Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory?
No. The United Kingdom Parliament definitely has power over Scotland's territory.
Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries?
No. Scotland does not have external recognition nor does Scotland have its own embassies in other independent countries.
|
from http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|