Talk:History of Korea

User:Kuebie's repeated reverting

A user named Kuebie has been trying to remove this information on the section "Japanese entry".

As a result of this war (Sino-Japanese war), China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea.

He doesn't want to admit that Korea was under the strong influence of China. However, this is what the Treaty of Shimonoseki says. "Article 1: China recognizes definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, and, in consequence, the payment of tribute and the performance of ceremonies and formalities by Korea to China, that are in derogation of such independence and autonomy, shall wholly cease for the future." China had had a strong influence on Korea and Japan had to cut the link between the two country in order to hold control of Korea. This was the aim of the war.

Maybe Kuebie does not know what the Independence Gate in Seoul was made for. The article says "The gate was built following the first Sino-Japanese war to inspire a spirit of independence away from previous Korean arrangement as a Chinese protectorate. Its construction began on November 21, 1896, and finished November 20, 1897."

There had been a gate named Yeongeunmun before the Independence Gate was built. It says "In 1896, the gate was demolished along with Mohwagwan one year after the First Sino-Japanese War ended, which was a war between China and Japan primarily for the control over Korea. The Korean independence activist Seo Jae-pil (known as Philip Jaisohn) built the Independence Gate on the site with the desire towards inspiring the spirit of independence in Korea."

Korean people may think that Korea had been independent since its birth, but the Chinese don't think so and there is no doubt that China's recognition of the "full and complete independence and autonomy" of Joseon was due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895. Koreans at that time admitted it as you can see from the fact that they built a gate named "Independence Gate" right after the treaty. No one cannot deny this fact.

Kuebie repeatedly says that Korea was never a part of Qing. He is right. Joseon was never a part of China or a colony of China. But it is true that Joseon was under strong influence of Qing and it became "independent" from China due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki as you can see the fact that there is a gate named the "Independent Gate" in Seoul.

I don't think there is any reasons to remove this sentence. As a result of this war (Sino-Japanese war), China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea..--Seven-Year Child (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The clause was just to repudiate China's claim to suzerainty. China never had control of Korea's domestic affairs, which is why it's ludicrous to exert the clause as something more than it really is. Akkies (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Your claim does not make any sense. There is no doubt that China definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea due to the result of the Sino-Japanese war. It is worth mentioning here because it was the first step for Japan to control Korea.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Then let me make this simple; what does the treaty have to do with Korea? Whether or not China recognized Korea's independence means nothing. Akkies (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You really make no sense. I've been saying that this treaty was the first step for Japan to hold the control of Korea. China had had a very strong infuence on Korea. Korea was not a part of China, indeed. But Korea was under strong influence of China. Korea was a part of the tribute system of China. See List of tributaries of Imperial China#Qing Dynasty.

Japan needed to cut The tributary relationship between the two countries before holding control of Korea. and that was the aim of the first Sino-Japanese war. The article Korea says "Japan began to force Korea out of the Manchu Qing Dynasty's traditional sphere of influence into its own. As a result of the Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), the Qing Dynasty had to give up such a position according to Article 1 of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, which was concluded between China and Japan in 1895." It is only you who won't admit this fact.

The tributary relationship between China and Korea came to an end due to the Treaty. The Treaty has a lot to do with Korea. Whether or not China recognized Kore's indepedence means "a lot". If this treaty has nothing to do with Korea, how would you explain the reason for the existence of the Independence Gate? But for this Treaty, the tributary relationship would have continued Joseon could not have built the Korean Empire. Moreover, Japan would never have been able to hold the control of Korea. This Treaty has a lot to do with the history of Korea.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What 'fact'? You're trying to push this idea that Korea was part of the "" by using the first clause of a treaty of an uninvolved war. Do I have to reiterate that Joseon operated as a fully independent country (no matter what China considered it to be)? Akkies (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Korea is one of the oldest and yet, perhaps, the least known nation—once a nation—in the world. She had preserved her distinct national identity during the four thousand years of her history until Japan established the protectorate over her at the point of the sword in 1905, and subsequently annexed her to the Japanese Empire in 1910.

The so-called vassalage of Korea to China was a mis-applied designation given by those who had only a superficial knowledge of the historical relation between Korea and China, China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895. Yet, Korea had made her treaties with the leading Western Powers before this date, as an independent nation. In the Kang-hua treaty of February 26, 1876, between Korea and Japan, the first article reads: "Chosen being an independent state enjoys the same sovereign rights as does Japan." In 1871 the Chinese Foreign Office wrote to the United States Minister in Peking, Mr. Frederick F. Low, in response to Mr. Low's inquiry concerning the relation between Korea and China: "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China, yet she is wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered." Again, in 1882, the King of Korea wrote to the President of the United States saying: "Now as the Governments of the United States and Korea are about to enter into treaty relations, the intercourse between the two nations shall be carried on in every respect on terms of equality and courtesy, and the King of Korea clearly assents that all of the Articles of the Treaty shall be acknowledged and carried into effect according to the laws of independent states."

The true relation between Korea and China has been that of "big nation" and "small nation," as the Korean used to say. Westerners were told that though Korea was "a tributary state of China, it was entirely independent as far as her government, religion, and intercourse with foreign states were concerned, a condition of things hardly compatible with our ideas of either absolute dependence or complete independence," as has been stated by one Western observer. Indeed, W. W. RockiiiLi,, the great American scholar of Eastern history and politics admirably summarizes the historical relationship between Korea and China as follows :

"Korean traditions point to Ki-tzu, or Viscount of Ki, a noble of China during the reign of Chou-hsin of the Whang Dynasty (B. C. 1154-1122), as the founder of the present civilization of Korea in B. C. 1122, and through him Korea claims relationship to China, to which country Koreans say they stand in the same relation of subjection as a younger brother does to an elder one and head of the family. This peculiar form of subservience, based as it is on Confucian theories, which have shaped all Chinese and Korean society and made the people of those countries what they are, must never be lost sight of in studying Korea's relations with and to China."

The present Japanese régime in Korea is doing everything in its power to suppress Korean nationality. The Government not only forbade the study of Korean language and history in schools, but went so far as to make a systematic collection of all works of Korean history and literature in public archives and private homes and burned them.

Such records as the treaties contained in this volume, are extremely difficult to find in Korea. The present writer's wishes will be highly gratified if this volume serves as a contribution, even in a small way, toward preserving the nationality among the Koreans and aiding students of Oriental history in their search for the past records of the Korean Nation.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PP15&dq=Korea&ei=jedPSu-vEI2WzgTz_-jyAg&client=firefox-a&id=BwMMAAAAYAAJ&as_brr=1&output=text

Yes, Japanese has a lot to do with the history of Korea. The Goguryeo language and Baekje language are Japanese. After the fall of Goguryeo and Baekje the Koreans became pro-Chinese, see Sadaejuui. Nationalism is from the West. The culture of Korean dynasties is Confucianism. Kings are servants (臣) of the Chinese sovereign emperor and have to be recongized (冊封) by them. Such records as the Korean kings called themselves servants are not difficult to find. The Koreans followed the Chinese emperor regnal year (奉正朔) and state funeral. Some Ming Dynasty emperors even sent edicts ordered Korean kings on chosing women and attacking the Qing.

Nah, What is a joke?--Aocduio (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sammyy85's claim is absurd, of course, but so is Kuebie's. He does not even understand what he is saying. When it comes to history of Korea or relationship between Korea and Japan, he always lose his head, I must say. Somehow he repeatedly says I'm trying to say that Korea was a part of Chinese Empire, but I never said such a thing. I've been saying Korea was a tribute of China and this relationship came to and end due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

The book he quoted says "The so-called vassalage of Korea to China was a mis-applied designation given by those who had only a superficial knowledge of the historical relation between Korea and China." I never said anything about "vassalage", but I have been saying that there was a tributary relationship between the two countries. Joseon was one of the tributaries of Qing Dynasty and nobody cannot deny this fact. The book also says "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China". Korea was "wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered," but she was indeed "a country subordinate to China". Korea was not a part of China. She was not a colony of China, either. But she was "a country subordinate to China" and this is what the book Kuebie quoted says. It also says "China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895." This is just what I am trying to add to this article. What Kuebie says does not make any sense at all.

You should also read that article of Donghak Peasant Revolution, which was the catalyst for the First Sino-Japanese War. It says "Joseon Korea had been an autonomous tributary state of Qing China since the 1637 Second Manchu invasion of Korea." The fact that China sent sent troops into Korea when the Donghak Peasant Revolution broke out shows that China had a strong influence on Korea and regarded her as "a country subordinate to China".

The article, Second Manchu invasion of Korea, also says "Until 1894, Korea remained a protectorate of Qing China, even though the influence of Manchus decreased from late 18th Century as the Joseon Dynasty began to prosper once again. Japan forced Qing China after the First Sino-Japanese War to acknowledge the end of the tributary relationship with Korea, in an attempt to implement their plan to exploit and eventually invade Korea in the 20th century."

Kuebie still hasn't explained the reason for the existence of the "Independence Gate" in Korea. The gate shows that Koreans at that time regarded the end of the tributary relationship, which is a result of the first Sino-Japanese War, as "independence". If not so, why would there be a gate named the "Independence" Gate in Korea?

As a result of this war (Sino-Japanese war), China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea.

Nobody cannot deny this fact. China regarded Korea as a country subordinate to China and this relationship came to an end because of the War. There is no reason for removing this sentence.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Everybody is subordinate to the emperor according to Confucianism. See Princely state of British India and French Indochina also.Sammyy85 (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I've already explained to you that your initial edit was 'needless chest thumping' rubbish. The reasoning behind adding such an insignificant tidbit from a treaty that Korea had no part of you've never explained. Other than that a treaty says Korea wasn't independent (in your words "independent from Chinese Empire" - never a part of to begin with) until after the war (a statement I've absolutely obliterated just above my stalker-fan Sammyy85). I've already presented my point supported by a source, while yours in the other hand is a synthesis of various wikipedia articles (which is WP:OR) trying tie it to whatever you're trying to say. Long story short, Joseon was a fully independent country no matter what a Japanese treaty says. By the way, vassal = tributary. If you didn't know that, then we have a problem. Akkies (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note, Qing Dynasty wasn't Chinese Dynasty and Korea declared Empire prior to illegal Japanese treaties. Therefore Japanese version of Sino-Japanese war and other facts are fully fabricated by Japanese imperialists, therefore Sammyy85 edit is not valid.--Korsentry 02:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems waste of time to talk with Kubie because he is absolutely lacking of the ability to judge coolly when it comes to relationships of Japan and Korea. His claim really is nonsense. When you talk about Japanese entry and the first Sino-Japanese war, it is impossible to avoid mentioning the treaty. Everybody easily understand my claim as long as one has an ordinary brain. Just read the sentence that is written in the article for now.

"By 1876, a rapidly modernizing Japan forced Korea to open its ports and successfully challenged the Qing Empire in the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)."

This sentence tells us that the first Sino-Japanese war enabled Japan to force Korea to open its ports. However, it does not tell the reason what the war exactly has to do with the relationship between Korea and Japan.

The sentence says "Japan successfully challenged the Qing Empire". It means that Japan had to kick Qing out of Korea in order to force Korea to open its ports. Why? This is because Joseon was a tribute of Qing and Japan had to put an end to this relationship. Without mentioning the Teaty of Shimonoseki, readers would not understand what the sentence above is trying to say.

Kuebie says "I've already presented my point supported by a source." But I already said that his source actually is on my side. It clearly says "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China" and that "China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895." Your source says exactly the same thing as I've been saying. Your source does not support your idea. The source clearly shows that the Treaty of Shimonoseki has a lot to do with Korea by stating that "China recognized the complete independence of Korea in 1895". In order to make it easy to understand the article the sentence below has to be put there.

As a result of this war, China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, which was the first step for Japan to control Korea.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Be careful, declaring emperor is a nine exterminations offence. The power of a Korean king is similar to other Chinese kings and Indian princes. States during the Spring and Autumn Period even declared their regnal year. Korean kings declared their regnal year after the war.Sammyy85 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain what Sammyy85 wants to say. May be he is referring to the fact that only the Chinese sovereign was allowed to be called the "emperor". The rulers of other countries were not allowed to be addressed as an emperor and they were called "kings" instead. Gojong proclaimed the Korean Empire in 1897 in order to justify its independence from tributary status of China[1][2]. This fact clearly shows the close relationship between history of Korea and the Treaty of Shimonoseki. But for the treaty, Gojong would never have renamed its state Korean "Empire". Therefore, the Treaty must be mentioned here.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. My source explicitly states that Korea was a fully independent country despite a mis-applied designation of vassal state from "those who has superficial knowledge (you) of the historical relation between Korea and China". Kick Qing out of Korea? Since when has Qing ever occupied Korea? If you're talking about the 3000 Chinese soldiers in Asan bay, they were requested by Korea to assist them with suppressing the Tonghak rebellion. Interesting fact, the after Japanese sent 7000 and 7 warships of their own to "protect their citizens", China proposed a joint withdrawal as the Tonghak rebellion was no longer in Chonju. The Japanese of course rejected this, instead counter-proposed to jointly reform the Korean administration. China rejected on grounds that such a move would be interfering in the internal affairs of another nation. And there you have the events leading up to the Sino-Japanese war. Akkies (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It is you who have superficial knowledge of your own country. You really don't understand your own source and my claim. I never said Qing occupied Korea. What are you talking about? Don't make up your own story.

I've been saying Korea was an independent country. I don't say Korea was a vassal state of China. However, although it was an independent country, Korea was a tributary of China. You have to make clear the difference between "vassel state" and "tributary". Read this source[3]. It says "Korea was an independent tributary of Qing China". An independent country can be a tributary. For example, Japan was never occupied by China. However, it was once a tributary of China during Muromachi Period.

You've been just misunderstanding. You think I am saying Korea was a part of China or that Korea was a vassel state of China. But I never said so. You are just making up a story. I've been saying Korea was a tributary of China.

You also misunderstand your own source. You own source say

In 1871 the Chinese Foreign Office wrote to the United States Minister in Peking, Mr. Frederick F. Low, in response to Mr. Low's inquiry concerning the relation between Korea and China: "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China, yet she is wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered."

This clearly shows that China regarded Korea as an independent tributary of China. Yes. Korea was an independent country. But it was a tributary of China. You cannot deny this fact because your own source says so.

Since China regarded Korea as its sobordinate country, Japan had to cut the relationship between Korea and China. This aim wa complished by the Treaty of Shimonoseki. China finally recognized "definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea". Therefore people in Korea built the Independence Gate in Seoul.

JoongAng Daily, which is one of Korea's most influential newspapers, clearly states

"During the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910), Korea was largely under the influence of the Chinese."

The site had been the location of Yeongeunmun, a gate where Korean royals once greeted Chinese envoys. But after the first Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), fought between China and Japan for control over Korea, and Japan’s resulting victory, Yeongeunmun nearly lost its function, as did Mohwagwan, a nearby royal pavilion. Koreans demolished Yeongeunmun, leaving just its foundation stones, and erected Dongnimmun to the north. Mohwagwan was renamed Independence Hall and became the Independence Club’s headquarters."Joong-Ang Ilbo

China finally recognized "definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea" due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki. This fact made it possible for the King of Korea to call his own country "Empire" rather than "Kingdom" because the title "Emperor" was allowed to be used only by the emperor of China and "the status of empire meant independence from China[4]".

Although Korea was an independent country, it is completely impossible to deny the fact that "Korea was largely under the influence of the Chinese(Joong-Ang Ilbo) during the Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910)" and that the Sino-Japanese war put an end to this relationship. In this sense, the Sino-Japanese war has a lot to do with history of Korea. Without this war, Japan would never have been able to annex Korea because China would never have allowed Japan to do so because it regarded Korea as one of the countries "subordinate to China".

I have enough sources including Joong-Ang Ilbo and your own source supports my claim, too. There is no denying the fact that "as a result of this war (Sino-Japanese war), China, which had had an enormous influence on Korea for centuries, was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea" and that this Treaty has a lot to do with history of Korea and worth mentioning here.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going summarize that wall of text. You're arguing that Korea was a part of the Chinese Empire by using an uninvolved war treaty that says China must recognize Korea's independence (which implies Korea wasn't independent before the war). I've sufficiently provided an explanation that on the contrary, Joseon was every bit a sovereign nation as its neighbors. And "kick Qing out of Korea" implies China held military hegemony over the country. Akkies (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note that economicexpert.com is a mirror site of wikipedia. I suspect Seven-Year Child must have just googled various keywords. Akkies (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm very surprised that you still do not understand. Did you really read what I said? How many times do I have to explain it? I NEVER SAID THAT KOREA WAS A PART OF THE CHINESE EMPIRE! It's your imagination. I said Korea was an independent country but it was a tributary of China. The "full and complete independence" meant that Korea was no longer a tributary. What you say really makes no sense because you don't even read what I've been saying.

I don't know if you have ever heard of the Second Manchu invasion of Korea, but Korea surrendered to the Manchus and agreed to submit to Qing and pay tribute to the Qing dynasty emperors. Joong-Ang Ilbo states that "Korea was largely under the influence of the Chinese".

What do you need more? You've been misunderstanding what I say. I cannot believe you still think I'm arguing that Korea was a part of the Chinese Empire although I've said several times that I never said so. I said "kick Qing out of Korea" but it means Japan tried to stop the tributary relationship. "China held military hegemony over Korea"? I never said so. Don't make up a story. It's your imagination. You've been making up my claims. Read them once more. You will find out that you've been altering my claims.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"-independent from Chinese Empire" literally means Korea was a part of China, hence not independent. As I've stated again and again, Korea was an independent nation despite a mis-applied designation of vassal state from "those who has superficial knowledge (you) of the historical relation between Korea and China". Akkies (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You cannot read your source?! Your source says that "Korea is regarded as a country subordinate to China, yet she is wholly independent in everything that relates to her government, her religion, her prohibitions, and her laws; in none of these things has China hitherto interfered." This means a country can be subordinate to China while it is an independent country. Therefore, the Treaty of Shimonoseki established "FULL and COMPLETE" independence of Korea from China.

My idea:

Althought Korea was an independent country, she had been largely under the influence of the Chinese and a tributary of China for centuries(Joong-Ang Ilbo). However, as a result of the first Sino-Japanese war, China, which regarded Korea independent, but as one of its subordinate country[5], was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea.

--Seven-Year Child (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Refer to my initial post of the explanation of Korea's mis-applied designation of a vassal state. Korea was a wholly independent country before the Sino-Japanese war, despite what a treaty says. Akkies (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

And me just add that claims of suzerainty while the "vassal state" fully operates and even considers itself to be independent, is down right ludicrous and unfit for an encyclopedia. Akkies (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You really don't read your own source... The term "vassal state" may be misapplied. However, your source does not deny the fact that Korea was a country subordinate to China. If not, why was there a gate named Yeongeunmun which was built only for the guests from China[6]? Why is there a gate named the Independence Gate in Seoul?

You cannot deny at all the sentence I wrote above. Althought Korea was an independent country, she had been largely under the influence of the Chinese and a tributary of China for centuries(Joong-Ang Ilbo). However, as a result of the first Sino-Japanese war, China, which regarded Korea independent, but as one of its subordinate country[7], was forced to recognize the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea.

Whatever you say, what is written in the Treaty is worth mentioning because it has a lot to do with history of Korea in the sence that it put an end to the tributary relationship between China and Korea which had lasted for centuries.--Seven-Year Child (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It actually goes into detail as to why Korea is considered an independent country despite China's claim of suzerainty. Akkies (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The culture of Korean dynasties is Confucianism. 「普天之下 莫非王土 率土之濱 莫非王臣。」 Sammyy85 (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)