Why is Mongolia in and not Korea

[MisterBarca]

On the contrary, someone should be able to back up what they say with some sort of proof. Especially if they say something that is not commonly accepted knowledge.

I would ordinarily agree with you, but that Japan was not an expansionist or hegemonic power prior to Hideyoshi's invasion is "commonly accepted knowledge"--at least among East Asians.

 

[Thormodr]

Eh, nationalism is one of the most destructive forces in the world. Not much good comes from it. And give me an hour or two, and I can give you a whole list of reasons you shouldn't be proud of your country, no matter what country you live in.

Could be. However, I don't see anyone threatening to blow up the Swiss embassy or crashing FIFA's website because they lost a soccer match in Canada.

Neither do I see any Canadians chopping off their own fingers or butchering pheasants and smearing their blood on another nation's flag either because of a small territorial dispute.

Nationalism is a very bad thing. It was certainly very destructive for Japan in the 1930s and 1940s as well as for their neighbours.

Perhaps that's why I find nationalism so off putting in Korea. No good will come from it.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

I would ordinarily agree with you, but that Japan was not an expansionist or hegemonic power prior to Hideyoshi's invasion is "commonly accepted knowledge"--at least among East Asians.

I would say the same for Western academia. A lot of the problem comes from popular culture and 'common' wisdom, and so on.

 

[Thormodr]

I would ordinarily agree with you, but that Japan was not an expansionist or hegemonic power prior to Hideyoshi's invasion is "commonly accepted knowledge"--at least among East Asians.

Certainly. I did say that Japan had only become more powerful than Korea in the last 400 years and especially in the last 200 years.

 

[MisterBarca]

In the six years I lived in South Korea I have observed that South Koreans put way too much stock in athletic success and their worthiness as a nation. There's way, way too much nationalism going on in South Korea. It is a bit off putting for foreigners to be sure.

Indeed. And I do not think Korean nationalists realize their antics (esp. regarding dead or previously-settled issues such as reparations for "comfort women" or their extraneous claims for Dok Do/Takeshima islands) actually hurt their very own nationalist cause.

 

[Thormodr]

I would say the same for Western academia. A lot of the problem comes from popular culture and 'common' wisdom, and so on.

Indeed. And I do not think Korean nationalists realize their antics (esp. regarding dead or previously-settled issues such as reparations for "comfort women" or their extraneous claims for Dok Do/Takeshima islands) actually hurt their very own nationalist cause.

I think you are quite sensible and I appreciate your calm, reasoned approach.

I have found that in general that people who scream and yell don't get taken seriously. I do admire Koreans for their passion but not if it is used to further nationalism. Issues like comfort women, Dokdo/Takeshima or Seas of Japan/East Sea are all good examples.

Also, organizations like VANK do much more harm than good. They are trying way, way too hard to get people to notice or like South Korea.

 

[MisterBarca]

Here is something more for Usi to consider, since I am getting sick of being lumped with lunatic Korean nationalists:

I actually think Japanese colonial occupation of Korea was fundamentally different in nature than Western colonialism, and in many respects beneficial; I think the "comfort women" issue is a dead one, since it was explicitly dealt with by President Park in the 1965 Normalization Treaty; I think the preponderance of historic evidence suggests--though I am tentative on this one--Dok do/Takeshima is not historically Korean territory; and I certainly do not think either the Japanese emperor or Prime Minister ought to apologize yet again for the colonialist experience.

Some kind of a Korean nationalist, eh--just like the original poster! It's most ironic that I actually have to defend myself from charges of being a nationalist, given that I have to deflect accusations of being a Japan apologist among koreans

 

[Thormodr]

Here is something more for Usi to consider, since I am getting sick of being lumped with lunatic Korean nationalists:

I actually think Japanese colonial occupation of Korea was fundamentally different in nature than Western colonialism, and in many respects beneficial; I think the "comfort women" issue is a dead one, since it was explicitly dealt with by President Park in the 1965 Normalization Treaty; I think the preponderance of historic evidence suggests--though I am tentative on this one--Dok do/Takeshima is not historically Korean territory; and I certainly do not think either the Japanese emperor or Prime Minister ought to apologize yet again for the colonialist experience.

Some kind of a Korean nationalist, eh--just like the original poster! It's most ironic that I actually have to defend myself from charges of being a nationalist, given that I have to deflect accusations of being a Japan apologist among koreans

A refreshing viewpoint to be sure. Certainly, a rabid Korean nationalist would never state that they thought Dokdo/Takeshima was Japanese territory.
I have actually studied the Dokdo/Takeshima issue quite extensively and have come to the same conclusion as you have. Well, a little more definite in my case.

Anyway, you are right. People jump to conclusions all the time which is unfortunate. You really can't judge a book by its cover.

 

[MisterBarca]

Also, organizations like VANK do much more harm than good. They are trying way, way too hard to get people to notice or like South Korea.

VANK is a national embarrassment. I cringe whenever I see those silly hyper-nationalist ads in the New York Times.

 

[Thormodr]

VANK is a national embarrassment. I cringe whenever I see those silly hyper-nationalist ads in the New York Times.

Lol. They really are over zealous in their defense of all things Korean.

I wonder if VANK subscribes to the 10,000 years of Korean history theory?

 

[usi]

As I replied above, I do not believe my comments were off-topic, since I was specifically responding to a number of posts like this one:
...

I would have not joined if I had known that, but OK, let's continue.
I like informative debates.

Again, you are being unfair and borderline trolling and perhaps even ad hominem in comparing my numbers (which are often reproduced on Western demographers) to silly Korean nationalist claims like "Koreans invented Chinese characters." Comments like this will only make it difficult to seriously engage you.

Well, if someone says, "Yamatai (Kyoto) was as big as Rome at that time!" I would
But sorry if it offended you.

As for the Kyongju population estimates, the Silla dynasty--just like many Chinese dynasties--was highly bureaucratized and conducted regular census. The precise household number of 178,936 is from Samguk Yusa--one of the two canonical histories of ancient Korea--that was compiled a few hundred years after Silla's fall during the Koryo dynasty. It is generally believed that the author took the household number from the actual census records, as most primary records are presumed to have survived at the time, esp. since Koryo's annexation of Silla was not violent and thus no burning and pillaging of the royal property.

Samguk Yusa was written in late 13th C (pretty late), and at least Wikipedia says, "Samguk Yusa focuses on various folktales, legends, and biographies from early Korean history."
Are there good reasons or other evidence to assume that the estimate is accurate and Samguk Yusa is trustworthy?

I do partially buy your evidence this time, but I'm still unconviced.
At least I do doubt that there were exaggerations, just as in China the number of soldiers involved in battles tended to be exaggerated.

Or picture this situation: Nihonshoki said that Yamatai (Kyoto) had had a million people.
Would you buy that?

I also do not understand how the fact that Kyongju was bigger than Rome around 750 AD is such a fantastic proposition that you try to pillory as it being. Rome had declined by then and was no longer so glorious. In fact, your Wikipedia source gives its population at 500 AD as 100,000.

Check the source again.
There are estimates of Roman population at older times, and none is greater than a million.

 

[MisterBarca]

Lol. They really are over zealous in their defense of all things Korean.

I wonder if VANK subscribes to the 10,000 years of Korean history theory?

No, but the majority of Koreans probably believe that the Daungun myth is actual history--which is scary and laughable and something akin to contemporary Greeks actually believing Theseus really founded Athens.

 

[UknowsI]

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/how-solid-doc.pdf

korea gdp/capta is second only to us and some other tiny countries no one cares about

That must be some careful picking of sources, as they are listed 36, 27 and and 40 by IMF, World bank and CIA respectively, unless you consider Germany, Australia and Japan small countries.

Other than that I learned quite a bit from this thread, a good read.

 

[usi]

Here is something more for Usi to consider, since I am getting sick of being lumped with lunatic Korean nationalists:

I actually think Japanese colonial occupation of Korea was fundamentally different in nature than Western colonialism, and in many respects beneficial; I think the "comfort women" issue is a dead one, since it was explicitly dealt with by President Park in the 1965 Normalization Treaty; I think the preponderance of historic evidence suggests--though I am tentative on this one--Dok do/Takeshima is not historically Korean territory; and I certainly do not think either the Japanese emperor or Prime Minister ought to apologize yet again for the colonialist experience.

Some kind of a Korean nationalist, eh--just like the original poster! It's most ironic that I actually have to defend myself from charges of being a nationalist, given that I have to deflect accusations of being a Japan apologist among koreans

I don't really care about people's conclusions, as reasons are more important IMO.

But to make a real off-topic talk, my "conclusions" moved like:

Until high school: Loved all Asian countries including Korea (I was a leftist)
High school to early univ.: Disliked Korea a bit after I met some not-very-nice Koreans, though some other koreans I met were still nice
Now: So-so for all East Asians; no country (incl. Japan) is really "special," though people from different cultures do seem to possess different "dispositions"​

 

[MisterBarca]

Samguk Yusa was written in late 13th C, and at least Wikipedia says, "Samguk Yusa focuses on various folktales, legends, and biographies from early Korean history."
Are there good reasons or other evidence to assume that the estimate is accurate and Samguk Yusa is trustworthy?

I do partially buy your evidence this time, but I'm still unconviced.
At least I do doubt that there were exaggerations, just as in China the number of soldiers involved in battles tended to be exaggerated.

Or picture this situation: Nohonshoki said that Yamatai (Kyoto) had had a million people.

Do you buy that?

Yes, the Saumguk Yusa does contain some mythical material (esp. in regard to founding) as most national "histories" of such antiquity do. And the numbers may have been exaggerated, even if presumably based on actual census records. I think a perfect analogue is the supposed number of 600,000-plus Sui dynasty troops that invaded Koguryo in the early 600s--which is a far more controversial and frankly "unbelievable" number, even if presumably based on records of an actual head count.

But I am sure you know that history can never achieve absolute certainty, and the attempt to achieve it would invite a wholesale skepticism or nihilism. So unless you are willing to submit other ancient historical sources to the same level of scrutiny, I am not sure why the Samguk Yusa numbers must be stricken out.

As for your rhetorical question about Nohonshoki, I would not dismiss it out of hand, as you have done with the Samguk Yusa. (I actually think Nohonshoki is more reliable than its Korean or Chinese counterparts, but that's a whole another can of worms.)

 

[MisterBarca]

I don't really care about people's conclusions, as reasons are more important IMO.

But to make a real off-topic talk, my "conclusions" moved like:

Until high school: Loved all Asian countries including Korea (I was a leftist)
High school to early univ.: Disliked Korea a bit after I met some not-very-nice Koreans, though some other koreans I met were still nice
Now: So-so for all East Asians; no country (incl. Japan) is really "special," though people from different cultures do seem to possess different "dispositions"​

Of course. Right conclusions mean nothing if you reason badly.

And my own personal experiences are similar: In my early youth, I was programmed to hate and despise everything Japanese by the Korean educational system and group-think. Greater education, exposure--and I daresay "enlightenment"--have slowly transformed my view.

 

[Thormodr]

That must be some careful picking of sources, as they are listed 36, 27 and and 40 by IMF, World bank and CIA respectively, unless you consider Germany, Australia and Japan small countries.

Other than that I learned quite a bit from this thread, a good read.

Actually, he meant GDP per capita and not straight GDP.

In that aspect, South Korea does score quite highly.

I don't think this report is very accurate though.

This report was written in 2005 and world economic conditions have changed significantly in the last 5 years.

South Korea is quite vulnerable to the price of oil skyrocketing as they have almost zero oil and gas. Countries like Vietnam are much better off as they are self sufficient in oil.

Furthermore, they are becoming increasingly uncompetitive simply because they are getting too wealthy. They won't be able to rely on their slave labor 3D workers in the future for much longer.

Also, their population is rapidly aging (2nd in the world for % of people over 65) and they have one of the lowest if not the lowest birthrates in the world. Simply put, who is going to pay the taxes there? It certainly won't be immigrants as South Koreans are loathe to let foreigners gain citizenship.

Finally, reunification would nearly bankrupt South Korea and it would greatly lower Korea's GDP per capita.

So, I would find this 5 year old report to be of dubious value.

 

[usi]

Yes, the Saumguk Yusa does contain some mythical material (esp. in regard to founding) as most national "histories" of such antiquity do. And the numbers may have been exaggerated, even if presumably based on actual census records. I think a perfect analogue is the supposed number of 600,000-plus Sui dynasty troops that invaded Koguryo in the early 600s--which is a far more controversial and frankly "unbelievable" number, even if presumably based on records of an actual head count.

But I am sure you know that history can never achieve absolute certainty, and the attempt to achieve it would invite a wholesale skepticism or nihilism. So unless you are willing to submit other ancient historical sources to the same level of scrutiny, I am not sure why the Samguk Yusa numbers must be stricken out.

As for your rhetorical question about Nohonshoki, I would not dismiss it out of hand, as you have done with the Samguk Yusa. (I actually think Nohonshoki is more reliable than its Korean or Chinese counterparts, but that's a whole another can of worms.)

Well, at least I don't believe that Japanese emperors in old days lived longer than a hundred years, while Nihonshoki says so.

I think they counted "a year" per half a year, which was done in other regions too IIRC.
I would change my opinion if archiologists found some real evidence of them living so long though.

But I guess this is just a matter of attitudes toward sources, so I don't think either one of us is right or wrong about it.

 

[Vordeo]

About the US


China has serious problems with unemployment and corruption.

Errr... based of this, the USA has an unemployment rate of 9.28%, and China's is 9.3%. Not much difference there. That's probably from a few months back too, so I wouldn't be surprised if the rates are roughly even now.

Corruption I'll grant, but given that they're not in massive debt and aren't in the midst of a painful recession, I'm giving the advantage to them.

If a Chinese is born in a dirty officer's family, s/he would enjoy the stable economy.
But most Chinese people are in stably poor economy.

And stable =/= strong, e.g., some African tribes might not have any debts, but their economy sucks.

China doesn't have too many debts and is big enough that it can compete with the US in terms of foreign influence and buying power.

Standard of living isn't as good as in the USA for the average person, but their economy is generally stronger at the moment.

Rome had serious problem with economic stability too, but Roman economy was super strong.

Er... if your economy isn't stable, it probably isn't strong, unless we're using different definitions here.

Not all geniuses get the prize, but those who got the prize must be geniuses IMO.

That doesn't follow at all though. Also, using Nobel prizes as the measuring stick for geniuses doesn't work for a whole host of reasons.

Yeah, I understand that.
But my point was that Japan being a mere warmonger is one of some examples of imperfect representation.

Eh, if they wanted to represent Japan perfectly they'd have to overhaul pretty much everything. Civ isn't meant to be a perfect representation of history: that just isn't feasible.

And what I wanted to say was that it is funny to see some people complaining that Korea was not represented well, while in fact most civs were ill-represented.

Many are pretty well represented actually, IMO. Aztecs, for instance.

Well, from the Western perspective, yes, they weren't globally important at that time.
But the problem is that most non-European countries were not interested in global trades and invasions.

Japan was in isolation mode at the time though, so even regionally they weren't doing much.

 

[Blitz47]

Here is something more for Usi to consider, since I am getting sick of being lumped with lunatic Korean nationalists:

I actually think Japanese colonial occupation of Korea was fundamentally different in nature than Western colonialism, and in many respects beneficial; I think the "comfort women" issue is a dead one, since it was explicitly dealt with by President Park in the 1965 Normalization Treaty; I think the preponderance of historic evidence suggests--though I am tentative on this one--Dok do/Takeshima is not historically Korean territory; and I certainly do not think either the Japanese emperor or Prime Minister ought to apologize yet again for the colonialist experience.

Some kind of a Korean nationalist, eh--just like the original poster! It's most ironic that I actually have to defend myself from charges of being a nationalist, given that I have to deflect accusations of being a Japan apologist among koreans

Of course. Right conclusions mean nothing if you reason badly.

And my own personal experiences are similar: In my early youth, I was programmed to hate and despise everything Japanese by the Korean educational system and group-think. Greater education, exposure--and I daresay "enlightenment"--have slowly transformed my view.

You are more reasonable. That's why I specifically named you in one of my post. I don't think I'm alone in that observation. One thing I tend to learn as I get more and more education is the skill of independent critical thinking. I've met some Asian graduate students where they don't question professor's teaching. I was shocked when one person responded to my question "why don't you guys ask questions in class" with "why? won't the professor get upset?" This is from someone who went to a prestigeous undergraduate school back in Asia. I explained that while I was in undergraduate, more than one professor, some in math/science, some in social science feel "depressed" when there are no questions in class. When students ask no question in class, it means either the professor's class is too easy, which is no good, or the professor is not clear or material too hard so the students don't understand, which is also no good.

South Korea has excellent grade school education, compare with USA, but I found some of my friends from east Asia tend to shy away from challenging the professors while in graduate school. Indian students are fine, they challenge professor. In higher learning, you probably should develop critical independent thinking. That's how new knowledge is made. If you blindly accept what predecessor said without challenge, we won't have new idea to prove and won't be able to develop and discover new theories.

I do partially buy your evidence this time, but I'm still unconviced.
At least I do doubt that there were exaggerations, just as in China the number of soldiers involved in battles tended to be exaggerated.

Or picture this situation: Nihonshoki said that Yamatai (Kyoto) had had a million people.
Would you buy that?



Check the source again.
There are estimates of Roman population at older times, and none is greater than a million.

I think it's hard to get accurate battlefield death/casualty number. For that to happen, all sides involved have to be truthful and there are no desertion (which happens fairly often until recently where it's much easier to keep tabs on your troops)

One of my roommate was a recon lance marine in the 1st Persian gulf war. When I asked him how many enemies he has killed, he told me he has no idea, then proceeded to explain why. They often recon at night to utilize our superior technology vis a vis Iraqi troops, using night vision goggles, etc. he was involved with some battles that made to newspaper headline but still, he has no idea how many enemies he has killed because when you are fighting in the frontline, survival mode often takes over. You duck behind cover, then just shoot from behind your cover. You don't poke your head out, check and count how many enemies are around you, how many you have wounded, how many have you killed, etc. It's too dangerous, you expose yourself to danger when you are ordered to, such as complete a task. Otherwise, it's duck, fire, supress enemy fire or kill them (directly or via support such as air bombing, strafing, etc.)

another one of my friend enlisted in the marine after 9/11. His first tour of duty was in Afghanistan, in the most remote front base we have close to Pakistan. He was decorated, he estimated he probably wounded/killed over 30 Al Qaeda but even then, he is not 100% sure. They're in hostile territory, you don't stop and count the enemy dead + wounded, especially they were ambushed often. How they got some of those number of him wounding enemies (he was a mortar man), was when it's safer, some air units, such as helicopter may fly by and count the body parts left behind by the enemy (mortar explosions can be messy). Sometimes you estimate, you have a rough idea how many enemies are around based on the enemy fire, if you silence them, they're probably dead or wounded.

I read some study on those ancient battle number. One way to estimate is by estimate how much food a particular nation/province/fief/duchy/etc can produce and then roughly translate that to how much population that "nation" can support, which in turn can give you a rough estimate of how much soldiers they can call on battle. You then tweak it by estimate how many are combat, how much are support. Mongolians are able to mobilize a lot of their population into their cavalry as their troops are able to live off the land better. Iranian heavy cavalry will require more support. bronze age infantry probably require less support so a nation should be able to mobilize more. I think US infantry used to require 4 support personel for every combat soldier on the field. That number is probably higher now.

Asia land combat # are probably bigger as rice is the best cereal so to speak. If I remember correctly, you can produce the most calory from 1 hectar of land by planting rice IN the southern part of Asia, where it's possible to harvest rice twice a year.