首页 > 美国 > 韩国是否是像美国总统特朗普声称的那样,曾经是“中国的一部分”? [美国网评]

韩国是否是像美国总统特朗普声称的那样,曾经是“中国的一部分”? [美国网评]

五毛网 美国 2017年09月08日 来源:龙腾网

与中国会见后,在接受记者采访时,美国总统唐纳德·特朗普说,“我们之后谈到了中国和韩国的历史,不是朝鲜,是韩国。你懂的,我们谈论的是几千年的历史...和许多次战争。还有(原文如此)韩国曾经是中国的一部分。”作为一个历史学家,你们怎么回应特朗普总统提出的........  

                                    
Was Korea ever "a part of China" as US President Trump claims?

韩国是否是像美国总统特朗普声称的那样,曾经是“中国的一部分”?Context: https://www.washingtonpost.com/n ... _term=.c3ae824b5218
TL;DR- In an interview following a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, US President Donald Trump said that “[President Xi] then went into the history of China and Korea. Not North Korea, Korea. And you know, you’re talking about thousands of years . . . and many wars. And(sic) Korea actually used to be a part of China.”
How do you, as a historian respond to the claim presented by President Trump that Korea was a part of China? In my personal opinion, the wording of "part of China" can only be applied to the Four Commanderies of Han and the Yuan Conquest of Korea.

上下文:https://www.washingtonpost.com/n ... _term=.c3ae824b5218 (注:内容是华盛顿邮报关于这个的新闻报道)
总结一下上面的新闻——与中国会见后,在接受记者采访时,美国总统唐纳德·特朗普说,“我们之后谈到了中国和韩国的历史,不是朝鲜,是韩国。你懂的,我们谈论的是几千年的历史...和许多次战争。还有(原文如此)韩国曾经是中国的一部分。”
作为一个历史学家,你们怎么回应特朗普总统提出的,韩国曾经是中国的一部分的说法?依我个人的看法,“曾属于中国的一部分”这个说法只适用于汉四郡和元朝征服朝鲜的时候。

 

【以下是评论部份】  
randomanon000
The point to note for the Han commanderies is that what is Korean and what is not at that time period is defined by identities rather than territory due to the lack of an actual Korean state. While "China" may have owned land on the Korean peninsula, neither Koreans today or the states that preceded the current two republics claim descent from that said occupation. Once the Han dynasty started to disintegrate, the Han commanderies were quickly subsumed into Goguryeo and neither Goguryeo or Balhae ever saw themselves as Chinese or as part of China, never mind the southern portions of the peninsula.
The Yuan dynasty is a considerably different situation in that despite the initial long periods of resistance, Goryeo became heavily integrated into the Yuan. In addition to the territories that Yuan took from Goryeo to set up separate commanderies, it also heavily interfered in Goryeo's internal affairs, replacing multiple kings as well as setting up directly governed ministries/departments for the sake of collecting tribute. It was never fully integrated however, and the fact that these commanderies were set up, and the presence of the special deparments also means that Goryeo was normally not treated as a direct part of Yuan, and that its territories and governance were kept separate, retaining a considerable amount of autonomy compared to other lands ruled by the Yuan. It is the interpretation of the degree of autonomy as to whether to treat it as separate, or as part of Yuan during this period.
But even then, the speed at which the Goryeo dynasty rid itself of its Mongol influences and began to act against the Yuan once Gongmin of Goryeo rose to the throne, as well as the early conflicts and subsequent tributuary status between the two's successor states of Ming and Joseon, shows that while Goryeo may have been ruled by the Yuan, it never developed a greater Mongol or Chinese identity, and neither was it a part of the concept of "China", even accounting for the constant expansions of the concept.
Even modern Chinese historiography do not directly put the Koreans under the umbrella of China, although do use Goguryeo and its ties to Manchuria to claim Goguryeo's, and thus part of Korea's, history as part of its own. This is a very real dispute between Chinese and South Koreans that is ongoing even now.

需要注意的一点是,在汉朝的统治下,韩国由什么来定义?在那个时期,因为朝鲜半岛上缺乏本地政权的存在,所以当时的半岛是以统治者的身份而不是地域来定义的。所以虽然你可以说 “中国”在朝鲜半岛上占有领土,但目前统治朝鲜半岛的两个共和国无论是他们的人民还是政府都声称他们与汉朝时的占领没什么关系,所以不能说汉朝统治过韩国。汉朝一开始瓦解,汉四郡就迅速落入了高句丽手里,而无论是高句丽还是渤海国都从来不曾视自己为中国的一部分,更别说朝鲜半岛的南部了。
元朝的情况完全不同,尽管最初的时候遇到了长时间的抵抗,最终高丽大部分还是被元朝合并了。元朝除了把高丽的领土用来分别设立独立的郡外,还严重干涉高丽的内部事务,强行更换了多个国王,以及设立直接管理的部门,以收集贡品。然而,元朝从未完全合并高丽,郡的设置和特别部门的存在的事实意味着高句丽通常不被视为元直接管理的部分,而其领土和管理是和元朝中央分开的,所以和元朝统治的其他国家相比,高丽保留相当多的自主权。而对这种自治程度的解读,是作为朝鲜究竟算不算元朝的一部分的依据。
但即使是那时,当高丽的恭愍王登上王位之后也迅速使自己摆脱元朝的影响,开始反抗元朝,和元朝发生了早期的冲突,随后这种反元的状态又由明朝和朝鲜接替,这表明高丽虽然由元朝统治,但对蒙古或中国身份的认可从未得到扩展,也不属于“中国”这个概念上的一部分,即使把这个概念扩展,也包含不到韩国。
即使是中国现代史学也没有直接把韩国算作是在中国的保护伞下,尽管他们使用高句丽和满洲的关系要求高句丽、也就是韩国的一部分的历史作为他们自己的历史。这是一场在中国和韩国之间至今仍在进行中的真正的争端。

Leldy22
Also Balhae is disputed as whether or not it is part of Chinese or Korean history.

还有渤海国究竟是韩国的历史的一部分还是中国的历史的一部分也是有争议的。

lukeweiss
So, the basic response is, "of course not". The complicated response is: "sort-of".
Like many regions on the fringes of Han China (meaning the area of China dominated by Han ethnicity), the Korean peninsula was under administrative control of Imperial China at some points in history. Usually, this meant some kind of garrison, along with a regional diplomat. So, lets look at some points in history in which the peninsula was partially controlled by the Chinese state:
Han Dynasty ~200 BCE - ~200 CE - there is significant evidence (textual, steles) that the Chinese maintained military/official presence in the north, but not so much in the South. The commanderies set up to govern Korea lasted to some extent for the whole of the Han period.
Yuan Dynasty - The Khans really wanted Korea, and Japan. The Japan story is well known. Korea, of course is often overlooked. The war with Korea lasted around 70 years. By about 1280, the Koreans capitulated and became a vassal state, a relationship that lasted through the end of the Yuan period in the 1360's.
So, how do we interpret Trump's statement?
Not terribly defensible. The problem is that even in the Han, when there was official presence, we are talking about more of an occupation than a full incorporation. Surely there was sinification, which extended to comparatively never occupied Japan also in the Tang, but this does not mean we are talking about any kind of demographic effects that might suggest a joining of "Korea" and "China", like those demographic shifts that happened everywhere in what we now call China. There was no large population movements which led to Han mixing with non-han peoples.
These shifts happened in the Tang, Yuan, Ming, Qing, and in the PRC, and can be argued as being expansions of "China".

所以,对于这个问题,基本的回答是“当然不是”。复杂的回答是:“有点”。
像中国汉朝的许多边远地区(意思是由中国的汉族控制的地区),在历史上的某些时刻,朝鲜半岛处于中国帝国的行政控制下。通常,这意味着某种驻军,还有一个地区外交官。因此,让我们来看看半岛部分由中国控制的一些历史上的观点:
汉朝~~公元前200年—公元200 ~~有重要证据(文本、石碑)表明中国人在北方保持军事和官方的存在,但在南方却不多。该郡的设立用来统治韩国,在一定程度上延续了整个两汉时期。
元朝——可汗真的很想获取韩国和日本。日本的故事是众所周知的。当然,韩国经常被忽视。与朝鲜的战争持续了大约70年。1280年左右,韩国人屈服了,成为了一个附庸国,这一关系一直持续到14世纪的元朝末期。
那么,我们如何解读特朗普的陈述呢?
很难为他辩护。问题在于,即使是在汉朝,当朝鲜半岛有中国官方存在的时候,我们所说的更多都是一种占领而不是全面的结合。当然,那里也有进行中国化,在唐朝的时候也延伸到与朝鲜相比从未占领过的日本,但这并不意味着我们谈论的是任何一种表明加入了“中国”“韩国”的人口效应,这种人口结构的变化在我们今天所称之为“中国”的里面到处都在发生。(注:即汉族人口进入各个地区,完成汉化)。在朝鲜半岛没有导致汉族与非汉族的混合的大规模的人口流动。
这些人口结构的变化发生在唐、元、明、清和PRC,可以说是“中国”这个概念的扩张。

HigherMeta
Actually, Mark Byington and his fellow contributors, in The Han Commanderies in Early Korean History, recently argued that the Han ruled over its Korean commanderies as full-fledged administrative units, no different than its rule over other provinces outside of the capital. A specific piece of evidence used is that the Han conducted both a formal survey of the Lelang population and imposed equivalent taxation. The population of the actual commandery - and many of them were "Chinese" immigrants - was considered "citizens" of the Han empire; it was not simply a garrison over "barbarians".

实际上,马克·拜因顿和其他的贡献者,在《在汉朝统治中的韩国早期历史》中认为,汉朝对韩国的郡县统治是作为成熟的行政单位存在的,与首都以外其他省份的统治没有什么不同。具体的证据是汉朝对乐浪郡实施正常的人口调查以及和其他郡县相当的税收。实际上这个郡县的大部分人口都是“中国”移民,也就是汉帝国的“公民”;它不仅仅是一个“野蛮人”的要塞。

lukeweiss
I have not read this, but appreciate the perspective immensely and would be happy to be proven wrong! It is now in my list.

我没有读过这本书,但是非常欣赏这个观点,并且我很乐意我的观点被证明是错误的!这本书现在在我的名单中了。

HigherMeta
For the record, I also don't agree that "Korea was a part of China," but I'd consider that to be the case regardless of whether the Korean peninsula was ruled by ancient states from China, because "China" and "Korea" are modern nations, and aren't equivalent to their ancient predecessors.

郑重说明一下,我也不同意“韩国曾经是中国的一部分”这个说法,但在这种情况下我会考虑到不应理会朝鲜半岛是不是曾经被古代中国的政权统治,因为“中国”和“韩国”是现代国家,不等同于他们古代的前身。

wangpeihao7
I would argue that "China being a modern nation", and even the name "China" itself, are merely western constructs that were put on so that it is easier for westerners to understand the Middle Country.
The entire core apparatus, including the state owned enterprises of Waring States, the centralized bureaucracy and characters of Qin, the "One China, Two Systems" of Han, the exam-based meritocracy of Sui, etc., is still alive and kicking.

我对你“中国作为一个现代国家”的观点,甚至“中国”这个名字本身都保留看法,这些说法只不过都是西方为了更容易地理解中央王朝而给它穿上的外衣。
中国整个国家机构的核心,包括战国时代的企业归属国家、秦朝的中央集权官僚体制和文字、汉朝的“一个中国,两种制度”和隋朝的通过科举考试筛选精英等等,这些古代中国的精髓至今仍在中国活蹦乱跳的。

dukeofcai
The entire Korean Peninsula was never made a province of China. But parts of it did fall under administrative conteol of various dynasties. I had written a response to this question and unfortunately dexed it on accident like an idiot. I think formally, The entire peninsula has never fallen under Chinese control in terms of it being a province correct? They have always been only partly under Chinese administrative control, i.e. liaodong under the Han, and Goguryeo under the Tang. But most of the time they have been vassals or tributary states like under the Yuan, Ming, and Qing, no? Just clarifying for my own sake.

中国从来没有使整个朝鲜半岛成为中国的一个省份过。但半岛的一部分确实在各朝代的行政控制之下。我之前写了一个回答来回应这个问题,不幸的是我像白痴一样意外地把它删了。我想,从正式的历史来说,整个半岛从来没有在中国的控制下成为一个省,对吗?它们只是一直有一部分在中国的行政管理控制之下,即汉朝统治下的辽东,唐朝统治下的高句丽。但在大部分时间里他们只是元、明、清的附庸或者属国,不是吗?只是为了我自己的国家而澄清一下。

bbyeok
Goguryeo, or any of the Three Kingdoms Period nations, for that matter, were never under the Tang. I guess you can say when the Tang + Silla unified the Peninsula the northern territory (which would make up Goguryeo) was under Chinese administrative control, but the nation didn't exist at that point. I might be being pedantic. :p It wasn't until the Goryeo dynasty and on that the Korean dynasties saw the Chinese dynasties as superiors (and therefore became tributary/vassal states).

高句丽,或任何朝鲜三国时期的国家,就这件事来说,从来不在唐朝的统治之下过。我猜你会说唐朝+新罗统一了朝鲜半岛北部的领土(这些领土将构成高句丽),并在中国的行政管理之下,但高句丽这个国家在当时根本就不存在。我可能有点迂腐。 :p 这不是一个国家直到高丽王朝出现,而到了那个时候,朝鲜王朝把中国王朝视为上级(因此成为附庸国/属国)。

pgm123
“I guess you can say when the Tang + Silla unified the Peninsula the northern territory (which would make up Goguryeo) was under Chinese administrative control, but the nation didn't exist at that point.”
Certainly never unified, but parts of the Korean Peninsula were under Tang control.
668 - Establishment of the Protectorate General to Pacify the East, centered around Pyongyang. They also set up a puppet government in the Baekje territory (whether that's a "part" of China depends on your defintion)
671 - Silla takes Sabi and overthrows the puppet in Baekje
676 - Chinese forces expelled from Korean peninsula and the capital was transferred to Liaoyang (which had been a part of Goguryeo)
699 - Former Korean prince established as general of Protectorate. He declares independence as the (lesser) Goguryeo Kingdom.
761 - The Protectorate is abolished.
So, realistically, China controlled a part of modern Korea for eight years. While it's not much, it deserves a mention.

朝鲜半岛北部从来没有统一过,但是朝鲜半岛的部分地区在唐的控制之下。
668 - 以平壤为中心,建立了安东都护府。他们还在百济建立了傀儡政府(是否属于中国的“一部分”取决于你怎么定义)。
671 - 新罗夺取了sabi并推翻了百济的傀儡政权。
676 - 中国军队被从朝鲜半岛驱逐,安东都护府首府被转移到辽阳(这是高句丽的一部分)。
699 - 前朝鲜王子建立了受唐朝保护的受保护领,他宣布作为(小)高句丽王国独立。
761 - 保护领被废除。
所以,现实地说,中国控制了八年的现代韩国的一部分。虽然不长,但值得一提。

hborrgg
wasn't korea essentially made a vassal state again during the Qing dynasty? And if so, when did it break away again?

朝鲜在清朝的时候不也是一个附庸国吗?如果是这样的话,它又是在什么时候再一次打破了这种关系?

laforet
“wasn't korea essentially made a vassal state again during the Qing dynasty?”
Yes. The Joseon Kingdom was allied with the Ming Dynasty and switched allegiance only after military defeat at the hands of Manchus. The relationship was formally abolished in the aftermath of the first Sino-Japanese war when China formally recognised Korea as a fully independent state in the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

是的,朝鲜王朝和明朝结盟,并且只是在对满洲的军事失败后才更换了效忠的对象。在甲午战争结束后,两国关系正式取消,中国在下关条约中正式承认韩国是一个完全独立的国家。

Commustar
How does Chinese occupation of Korean peninsul (or specific kingdoms) during the Han or Yuan dynasties compare to occupation during the Sui-Goguryeo and Tang-Goguryeo wars in the 6th and 7th centuries?
Is it even accurate to talk of occupation during Sui and Tang periods, or is it better to talk of campaigning without the ability to consolidate an occupation?

汉朝和元朝对朝鲜半岛(或具体的王国)的占领和6世纪到7世纪之间隋-高句丽和唐-高句丽战争的占领有什么不同?
把隋朝和唐期间对朝鲜半岛的行动说是“占领”是不是更准确?还是说 “(隋唐和朝鲜)只发生了某些战役而没有能力去巩固他们占领的领土”这种说法更好?

HigherMeta
The Han's rule over its commanderies in northern Korea was much closer to formal incorporation than the Tang's and even the Yuan's. The Tang's brief excursions could be described as a failed occupation because they never had the time to incorporate their territorial gains before Silla drove them out, while the Yuan never disposed the Goryeo king but treated him as a sort of inner vassal. The Han both destroyed Wiman Joseon - the previous state of the region - and levied sustained and formal taxation.

汉朝对朝鲜北部郡县的统治比唐朝甚至元朝的统治都更接近于正式的合并。唐朝短暂的远征可以被描述为一次失败的占领,因为他们在新罗把他们赶出去之前从来没有时间去把那些领土合并;虽然元朝从未取代高丽国王,但把他们看作是一种内附;汉朝摧毁了卫满朝鲜——这个地区的前政权——并持续在此地征收正式的税收。

pgm123
“Again, none of this can be said about the Korean Peninsula. As much as Xi would like it to be so, or Trump would like to parrot it because he is a tactless diplomat.”
What would the Chinese view of the historical status of Korea be? I have heard from some Chinese nationalists the view that Korea was "a part" of China and I'd imagine Trump at least interpreted something Xi said to that effect (I don't know if that's what Xi said). Article I of the Treaty of Shimonoseki is typically viewed as a part of the unequal treaty and the century of shame. Is it fair to view Korean non-independence as a part of the historical Chinese mindset? Or is that just later propaganda? (Or option C?)

中国人对韩国历史地位的看法是什么?我曾听到来自中国的一些民族主义者认为韩国曾是中国的“一部分”,而我可以想象至少特朗普解释了如果是中国说了“某些事”会带来的效果(我不知道这是不是中国说的)。下关条约的第一条通常被视为不平等条约的一部分,是世纪之耻。但把韩国当作附属作为中国历史思维的一部分是否公平?或者那只是后来的宣传?(或者是其他的原因?)

Scaevus
I think many people are making a mistake by trying to apply modern concepts of sovereignty and nationalism to ancient relationships. Just like "England" in the modern sense did not exist in 200 BCE, whether some lords in what is today Korea paid tribute to some lords in what is today China 2000 years ago does not actually address the question of whether Korea was a part of China.

我认为许多人犯了一个错误,他们试图把现代主权和民族主义的观念应用到古代关系中。就像现代意义上的“英国”在公元前200年并不存在一样,2000年前在今天韩国领土上的领主是否对当时中国的领主表示臣服,实际上并不会解决韩国是否是中国的一部分的问题。

                     

爷点一下来个评论

发表评论