[KS] perspectives on Korean history

[Ted Han]

>The issue is this:  it drives me nuts to hear oft and o'er the bit
>about how Korea has been invaded so many times.  There are so-called
>scholarly studies that document several thousand "invasions" -- some
>number them, 2,386, or whatever.
>
>My take is, that such a view, though nearly universal, is a product
>of recent, 20th century, events.  Looking at the long view, however,
>aside from the Mongols in the 13th century, and the Hideyoshi
>invasion in the late 16th century, you've got a culture of civilian,
>not military dominance, and peace not war -- not a product of
>multiple invasions.

I have to partially agree with you. The concept of Yangban includes two 
sides of same coin: munban (literati or civilian) and muban (military). The 
16th century or later Korean dynasty's failure is not caused by the civilian 
dominance and/or despised military. To me, it was total inability for the 
Korean kingdom to deter foreign invasion.

I know you are not implying, but some Korean historians interpreted/ 
emphasized history that way in order to justify military dictatorship in 
Korea.

It may be true that Korea does not have militaristic culture as systematic 
as Japan, but I don't think that lack of tradition invited or caused 
invasions.

Regards,

Ted Han
Intercultural Institute of California


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp