CIA Steals, Returns 2000 Years of Korean History
The CIA has fixed information regarding South Korea’s history on its World Factbook website, according to Asia Media News Daily. The CIA changed its description of Korea from an “independent kingdom for much of the past millennium” to an “independent kingdom for much of its millennia-long history,” the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea said. That gave Korea approximately another 2000+ years of history–certainly nothing to snuff at.
The original sentence in the CIA almanac was inaccurate since it insinuated that South Korea’s history only began a millennium ago and ignored its Goguryeo (B.C. 37-A.D. 668) and Gojoseon (B.C. 2333-B.C. 108) periods. However, some of Korea’s history remains in jeopardy, since:
Goguryeo has been at the center of a historical dispute between Korea and China for the past several years. China has been claiming that Goguryeo, one of the three ancient Korean kingdoms, is part of its own history. It also claims old Joseon and Balhae were part of ancient China.
Korea disputes this claim and in protest several hundred enraged nationals have cut off their little fingers and mailed them to Beijing. (Just kidding! But they do strongly disagree and are probably right).
I wonder, though, if it was actually “insinuation” or simply a mistake. “Insinuate” carries that extra hint of maliciousness that is absent in something like “indicate” or even “imply.” I really doubt the CIA meant to insinuate anything. If it were China, yeah, I could see insinuation.
And it would be more accurate to say that the statement excluded the Gojoseon period and the Three Kingdoms period. The three kingdoms were Goguryeo, Baekje, and Silla–none of these three kingdoms ever unified the entire peninsula, so it would be less than accurate to refer to a “Goguryeo period” as representative of the whole peninsula. And while we’re at it, it’s also inaccurate to say that Korea was “an independent kingdom” for much of its history–what is now recognized as Korea didn’t become a single kingdom until 1392.
You also left out what is known these days as the “Northern and Southern Kingdoms period.” It used to be called the “Unified Silla period,” but this designation fell out of favor with some scholars because it fails to include Balhae. You’ll still see “Unified Silla” used a lot in Korea, but I’m guessing it will be used less and less as China continues to claim large chunks of Korean history as its own.
January 17th, 2007 at 4:25 pmOh yes Charles–that “insinuate” was the journalist’s word and I’m quite sure it was some kind of simple mistake, maybe from a shaky grip on the history, or maybe sloppiness, or in too big a hurry to check things, or maybe just the wrong word–a slipup. But I’m quite sure they didn’t do it on purpose or with any kind of intention.
But all your historical notes are QUITE beyond me! You must have studied this stuff! Suppose it wasn’t really much of a story anyway–could easily have used a headline like “CIA Corrects Typo”?
January 17th, 2007 at 4:52 pmO problema da história nos livros
A China e a Coréia do Sul brigam por 2000 anos de história. É a velha história da região: todo mundo reclama que a história contada pelo outro não vale. Claudio…
January 17th, 2007 at 7:21 pm[...] In particular, when the vice foreign minister met with the Massachusetts governor in December, he explained the need to take corrective measures concerning the novel. The ministry said that along with government action, Korean-American society—centering on Korean-American school parent organizations in Massachusetts and New York—was also working to block the use of the book in American schools. The ministry added that the government would continue to raise the issue. As far as I know, VANK—fresh off its victory against the CIA—has yet to issue a statement. Of course, then again, I haven’t checked. Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
January 17th, 2007 at 9:16 pmTo call what existed several thousand years ago, on what we call the Korean Peninsula today, “Korea” is as ridiculous as insisting that Yayoi era civilization in what we today call “Japan” is Japan in any sense of the word. Absolutely ridiculous. Nationalist revisionism run amok.
January 18th, 2007 at 4:34 amPaul: I’m currently studying for my Ph.D. in classical Korean literature, so you could say that I have more than a passing interest in Korean history.
As for it being much of a story, well, it probably isn’t–but I don’t need to tell you how even the slightest detail tends to get blown out of proportion.
RTN: if we’re going to start discounting historical legacies, where do we draw the line? China claims a 5,000-year history, but for a vast majority of those 5,000 years the political setup was nothing like what we call China today. To take a European example, what about Germany? Are you telling me that Germany has only a hundred years or so of history?
Of course Gojoseon, Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla, Goryeo, and even Joseon were not modern Korea–they were the precursors to modern Korea, and are rightfully part of her history. To call that nationalist revisionism is absolutely ridiculous (if I may borrow the phrase).
January 18th, 2007 at 9:25 amYes, where do you draw the line? I suppose that it’s different in each case? Because, before some despot defeats all the warlords/kingdoms and unites the place as some kind of single country, they might have all been SORT of like that nation for a while before? In the case of China, is it like that movie Hero and China becomes China when the Emperor Quin unites it under the iron fist of Imperial domination or was it already China for a while before that (they seemed to think so)? However, as you go back further into the mists of time, you must get to a point where nobody or the place was really “Chinese” in any real sense? I wonder if when some of these countries are talking about their ancient “history” they don’t sometimes mean “pre-history?’
January 18th, 2007 at 11:39 amAh, but now we’re getting into the question of what it means to be “Chinese,” “German,” or “Korean.” I agree that there is certainly a difference between history and pre-history, but how useful is that distinction? A lot of national history books go back to prehistoric times, talking about how long the current political entity has been occupied by humans–even if those humans are not ethnically the same as the people who eventually came to occupy that territory. If those “pre-histories” are counted, than how do we define a nation? Solely by political border? By ethnicity? Where does it start, and where does it end?
Unfortunately, I don’t think I’m going to be able to satisfactorily answer any of those questions here. But they certainly make for tasty food for thought.
As for the specific issue of whether or not the Three Kingdoms can legitimately be called part of Korea’s history, I think the answer is yes. Korea may have inherited her language from Silla, but Baekje and Goguryeo each exerted cultural influences on the peninsula that are still felt today. That’s my take on it, at any rate, and I will admit that I am a bit biased. I guess it depends on whether you are adopting a strict or loose interpretation of national history. As long as you are consistent, there shouldn’t be a problem.
January 18th, 2007 at 3:48 pmFormal history of Korean heritage depends on the book Samguk Yusa by a 13th century monk Iryeon. I have the luxury to read its first chapter regarding Gojoseon because I am a Chinese. The book is well composed in classical Chinese – I mean even grammatically. I still can recount one of sublimely beautiful poems. My impression of first chapter is that it is very much immersed within Buddhist’s perspective, including using Buddhist Sage (Lord) Hwanin. Considering the timing of the inception of Buddhism, I think it is more or less to say “ Jesus drives a Hyndai car into the city of Jeruselum”. Quite remarkable…
February 6th, 2007 at 7:47 amHistory is a collection of written words; otherwise it is all but legend or hearsay. Zhou people (1100-220 bc) lived around upper and middle bank of yellow river. Yes, Chinese character “eastern-bowmen” refers to the people lived at eastward of Zhou. It is not refer to a specific homogenous ethnic people. See ShiJi (200bc). In fact, Zhou is itself a federation of tribes (800 lords). Over time, Zhou’s culture gradually integrated with local bowmen. Eastern-bowmen’s descendents Confucius, for example, advocates the Zhou’s cultural dominance. Having said that, how on earth can anyone relegate eastern-bowmen to Korean people? Huge historical gap!!! By the way, Chinese have their own historical vacuum regarding anything before Zhou Dynasty due to lacking written accounts.
February 6th, 2007 at 8:32 am