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


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)


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。

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


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".

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。

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".


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


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.


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.


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.


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)。

“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.

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。

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


“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.


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?

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?

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.


“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?)


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.