<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Two quick thoughts on Mark's thought-provoking
post.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1) I wholeheartedly agree that while "the Chinese are usually
listed as invaders" there are very few examples of invasions of Korea by
identifiably Chinese powers. Far more important and influential in Korean
history has been the interactions with (and invasions by) a succession of
"barbarian" peoples--Khitan, Jurchen, Mongol, and "Manchu" (according to
Crossley's recent book, there were no identifiable "Manchus" at the time of the
17th century invasions of Korea) being the most prominent. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>2) As for "the point that Korea never invaded another
country," wouldn't Yi Song-gye's abortive attack on the Ming at least
demonstrate a Korean <EM>intention </EM>to invade its neighbor (even if Yi
ultimately chose not to actually follow through)? Moreover, I seem to recall
that the Choson government sent a force to aid the Ming in its attacks on
Jurchen/Manchu holdings in Liaodong (with careful instructions to see which way
the wind was blowing and surrender to the Jurchen/Manchus if needs be). The Ming
would probably paint this action as a defensive action but from the perspective
of the Jurchen, it would clearly be an invasion of their territory.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Cheers,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Kirk W. Larsen<BR>Department of History and<BR>Elliott School
of International Affairs<BR>The George Washington University<BR></FONT><A
href="mailto:kwlarsen@gwu.edu"><FONT size=2>kwlarsen@gwu.edu</FONT></A><BR><FONT
size=2>(202) 994-8115</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2>From: "Mark Peterson" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:Mark_Peterson@byu.edu"><FONT
size=2>Mark_Peterson@byu.edu</FONT></A><FONT size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>To: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws"><FONT
size=2>Koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws</FONT></A><FONT size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 11:31 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Subject: [KS] perspectives on Korean
history</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT size=2>> Dear List Friends,<BR>> <BR>> I'm writing
a little thing about Korean History, and I'm torn between <BR>> soft-pedaling
my views on a favorite Korean myth and going after it, <BR>> head-on.
It's for a popular format, that I've been asked to write, <BR>> so I'm not
sure how controversial I should be.<BR>> <BR>> The issue is this: it
drives me nuts to hear oft and o'er the bit <BR>> about how Korea has been
invaded so many times. There are so-called <BR>> scholarly studies that
document several thousand "invasions" -- some <BR>> number them, 2,386, or
whatever.<BR>> <BR>> My take is, that such a view, though nearly
universal, is a product <BR>> of recent, 20th century, events. Looking
at the long view, however, <BR>> aside from the Mongols in the 13th century,
and the Hideyoshi <BR>> invasion in the late 16th century, you've got a
culture of civilian, <BR>> not military dominance, and peace not war -- not a
product of <BR>> multiple invasions.<BR>> <BR>> There was the Manchu
Invasion shortly after the Japanese, in the <BR>> early 17th century, but
that, by comparison, wasn't much of an <BR>> invasion. The Koreans were
so beaten up by the Japanese that they <BR>> could hardly muster much
resistance, and unlike the Japanese and <BR>> before that, the Mongol
invasion, the Manchu's didn't really want to <BR>> conquer Korea -- they only
wanted a diplomatic surrender.<BR>> <BR>> Now, the two major invasions
were absolutely horrific; the <BR>> devastation was near total, and the loss
of life was tragic. I'm not <BR>> playing that down at all.<BR>>
<BR>> But, aside from those invasions, to get thousands of "invasions", one
<BR>> has to count every penny-ante pirate raid along the coasts. And
to <BR>> do that, cheapens the dramatic costs of the true invasions.<BR>>
<BR>> In other words, my take on it is that Korea's history is not so much
<BR>> one of multiple, or constant invasions, but one of civilian, <BR>>
Confucian culture -- not the culture of the soldier, or the warlord. <BR>> In
other words, not the Japanese style "bushido" -- the code of the <BR>>
warrior, the samurai. We had no such thing in Korea.<BR>> <BR>> Yet,
the myth, held dearly, is that "we" have been invaded, <BR>> stomped-on,
beaten, subjugated and down-trodden. And the Chinese are <BR>> usually
listed as invaders -- well, aside from Han dynasty outposts <BR>> and an
alliance with T'ang that led to unification and eventual <BR>> control of the
upper third of the peninsula, you don't have any <BR>> Chinese
"invasions". Do you want to count Sui and T'ang attempts <BR>> against
Koguryo^ in lands north of the peninsula? That's a fair <BR>> stretch,
too.<BR>> <BR>> On the other hand, the point that Korea never invaded
anther country <BR>> is the oft-heard counter point. And that, to their
credit, is <BR>> strikingly true.<BR>> <BR>> Have any of you aired this
kind of view with the general audience in <BR>> Korea. What kind of
feed-back or resistance did you encounter.<BR>> <BR>> People in any
culture hate to see their favorite ox gored, favorite <BR>> bubble
burst.<BR>> <BR>> Hope to hear from some of you....<BR>> <BR>> with
best regards,<BR>> Mark<BR>> </FONT></BODY></HTML>