Talk:Culture of Korea/Archive 1

Expansion Request

For example, Traditional korean food hardly mentions kimchi, although it was the staple diet during winter months for hundreds of years. Someone with first-hand or good academic knowledge of Korea should expand on as many of the subsections as possible, particularly those impacting the life of traditional Koreans.

(BojiDebater 05:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC))]]

Latest additions

Please read this carefully first. Added small corrections, replaced "residences" with the more specific "houses" as palaces, military barracks, fortresses all in which people lived are not included. Added references to other wiki articles on: Korean ceramics, pottery, gardens, the Korean Tea Ceremony etc. And will add a reference to "post-modern Korean culture" which will take in developments after 1990 in upcoming days. Will add also references to Korean flower arrangements, and Korean opera as well.

aphy of list of famous Koreans. And cultural accomplishments. Article generally sound, although getting large; and rebuilt post-1945 Korean tea house mistakenly identified in photo as "residence"; will replace this with a more accurate photo; also request debate on spinning off Culture of Korea post 1990 to "Post-modern Korean Culture" with refs to wargaming, cellphones, new wave post-Shiri Korean films, the rise of President Roh, new emphasis on Korean history evolving in educational curricula, etc.

Also will correct South Korea and North Korea at some point in this article to at least initially using the official names: Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea as a matter of procedure to establish accuracy from the start. There is no "South Korea" or "North Korea" properly, although the slang forms have much use in the United States, for some reason.

POofYS Dated 05:05, 21 March 2005.

---

I've re-added Most people do not take pleasure in listening to this kind of music. because this is a statement. I don't think this statement is against NPOV policy. Kokiri 16:57, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This article only seems to talk about traditional Korean culture. Surely something interesting cxould be written about modern Korean culture. After all, South Korea is widely considered the most 'wired' society on Earth, and certainly the society in North Korea has a rather unusual structure.--Pharos 21:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are articles about the Contemporary South Korean and North Korean cultures here on Wikipedia. --Ce garcon 08:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rename this page?

Shouldn`t this page be renamed "Traditional Culture of Korea" given that it does not describe Contemporary Korean Culture? --Ce garcon 08:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I agree--Pharos 01:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

any other thoughts on moving this page to Traditional culture of Korea? Appleby 00:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What no movies?

Im surprised here

To find details on Korean movies, look to contemporary culture of South Korea and contemporary culture of North Korea as the header to this article states, this article is about the traditional culture of Korea. Cinema of Korea also is pretty good for Korean movies. --Zonath 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Festivals of the lunar calendar

How come one translation says the Lunar New Year's Day is "gujeong" and another says its "seollal"? Is one of them the day name, and the other one the festival? To a non-Korean, this is confusing. --tess 19:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically, "seollal" means "New Year's Day"; "gujeong" means "Old New Year's" (traditional lunar); "sinjeong" means "New New Year's" (Western solar).

"Seol" is the native Korean word for the first day of the year. "Nal" means "day" but is pronounced "lal" following "seol". "Seol" or "seollal" can technically mean the first day of the year of any calendar system, but generally refers to the traditional (lunar) calendar. "Gujeong" and "sinjeong" are hanja, not native Korean words, so modern Korean linguists prefer "seol" over "gujeong", although both are widely used. FieldNorth 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am moving the Traditional Holidays table to the Korean calendar article. The table takes up too much space for this overall culture article, and the calendar article needs this content anyway. FieldNorth 21:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese influences

I understand that this may be very insulting to ethnic Koreans, who may consider it a source of national shame, but I don't think we should run away from the fact that Korea was historically a tributary state of China and consequently, imported many elements of Chinese culture. I'm not trying to be Sinocentrist, and I'm sure I made it clear in my edits that Korea has managed to retain a distinct cultural identity from China. The part about the class differences wasn't meant to be degrading to Koreans, but was just to highlight a key difference between Chinese and Korean cultures. I don't mind that we hold a discussion to write the statement, as I do not want the article to seem too Sinocentrist, but I also do not think that we should ignore a fact just to please the Korean Nationalists. What I actually hope to see is something which presents the facts in a very objective way, where both cultural importations from China and key contransts between Korean and Chinese cultures are both highlighted, as I believe that this will improve people's understanding of East Asian cultures. -- The dog2 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is about Korean culture and not about how you think they are inferior to China, how about leave your edits off the article. I only say this since I see you are no longer blocked from editing and may decide to again make this article all about how great China is.--71.12.213.146 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not know you have a burden of spreading your own "national shame" to articles for yourself. The intro is summary of the article, and the unilateral sino-centric version is not quite based on Wiki policy. Once your content and claim are contested, blind revert is not tolerable since you have a strong Sino-centric point of view. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I did add in a source to justify my edit. If I were sinocentrist, I would just say that Korean culture was derived from Chinese culture, which is what people in China would say. I merely mentioned strong influences. I do not want any animosity between myself and the Korean population of the world, but I really think we should present facts in an objective manner. Naturally, it is not possible to please everybody, and I know that you, being an administrator, have the authority to block me anytime, but let's just try to work things out in a civilised manner as I do not wish to make enemies with anybody. I have made it clear that the two cultures are distinct. I do not subscribe to the notion that the Chinese race is superior to the Korean race or that Korean culture was just wholsale importation from China. But the article does not mention anything about the historical Chinese influences, which are a known fact. I am merely trying to highlight the key similarites and contrasts between Korean and Chinese culture. I suggest you read the book: it is written by Westerners so it is unlikely that the book is pro-Chinese, and it will put the facts into perspective. -- The dog2 (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not absorbed by Chinese culture --> That is very an impressive improvement. Chinese influence is undeniable fact to Korean history but your initial edit and this so-called revised version are also written from completely Sino-centric point of view. Your claim of that Westerners are free from Sino-centric point of view is utterly skewed. People tend to tilt toward their interest and study. What Chinese people say in their community is also irrelevant to this subject and point since it is widely known that they view world in their 中華思想 even if their empire was gone long ago in the history. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

the fact that Korea was historically a tributary state of China

I stopped reading your post after this. Korea is not a watered down version of china. Your implying this while trying to hide by trying to pamper everyone with statements that you are unbiased. Good friend100 (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was a watered down version of China. I acknowledge that it is dinstinct from China, and I am aware that the Korean and Chinese languages are unrelated. I am just trying to put some things in perspective. In fact, I am trying to look for an appropriate spot to list down the similarities and key differences between Korean and Chinese culture, including the difference in languages. Just to name a few, the Chinese imperial examination was open to everybody, while the Korean one was restricted to the yangban. So in this sense, the Koreans combined the Chinese model of imperial examinations to select their officials with the native Korean hereditary class division system. And the Chinese slept on heated beds while the Koreans slept on the floor and used a centralised heating system (ondol) for their houses. So let's just try and work out something here. Hopefully we can come out with something that can show the influences from China but yet emphasise the point that Koreans have a distinct culture from China. After all, this will put things into perspective for many ignorant people who lump Chinese, Japanese and Koreans under one "East Asian culture" umbrella without realising the fundamental differences between the two cultures. And about the tributary status to China, like it or not, it is a part of Korean history, just as the Japanese occupation is. Instead of looking to the distant past and getting worked up over it, be proud of what South Korea has achieved economically in recent times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The dog2 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So according to your wonderful logic, Koreans should thank for their fortune that Korea is not like the fate of Okinawa of Japna, Hong Kong, and Macao, the Chinese regions of which were under the rule by English or Portuguese speaking nations until fairly recently? Hong Kong people boast their double citizenship or being British as forgetting their identity? Singapore was under the Japanese rule just like Korea and its culture has been heavily dominated by English speaking world unlike other East Asia as even the first language is English. Nobody would believe that you're neutral and balanced editor except yourself. Your Sino-centric point of view also crashed with other editors at Four Asian Tigers.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm merely quoting some facts from history. If you insist that these are inaccurate, could you please point me to a source which shows that Korea was never a tributary state and is vastly superior to China, with the Chinese empreor fearing the godlike Korean king. And do you mean to say that the Chinese characters were derived from Korean hanja? And you also mean to say that the Chinese imperial examination was based on Korean governemnt models. So in your point of view, Korea is the centre of the universe and we should all bow down to the supreme president of Korea, ruler of the universe. So far, all the books I've read on Korean history by Western authors have pointed to Korea historically recognising China as an overlord until 1895, but if these are rubbish, I hope you can educate me on the facts so that my understanding of history is corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The dog2 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. I only "imitate" your wonderful examples to some of the known facts. I did not expect that you're so jumping for nowhere like this. Please clam down and do not make yourself ridiculous. Now I understand that that is a nationalistic shame for you with Chinese and "English" background. As for Westerners' sources, you name it. RPC has been tried to cover up their own crimes and "distort" history of other countries to glorify themselves, so that Westerners do not trust Chinese sources written after the mid 20th century. (I've seen such debates here a lot) All are well-known fact in the world. I've never said the craps you said. If you can not provide a plausible logic, you should not resort to nonsense or racist attacks. Korea is the center of the universe --> Which means you think that China is the center of the universe. Even if Chinese think themselves so, history tells us many things. --Caspian blue (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Silly Caspian blue. How many times have I seen this: 'PRESUMABLY China distorted history, so this gives us(Koreans) the right to promote "Koreocentric" views, and anyone who tries to deny this are deglorifying Korea/Sinocentric/god knows what else'. Note to your crappy logic: half-truths are whole lies, two wrongs don't make a right, and don't forget Sinocentric views about Korea are far more accurate and truthful than what Korean nationalists want to think Korea is. As for westeners not trusting Chinese sources, there goes another logical fallacy: 'Because a group of people don't trust source A, source A must be unreliable (lets ignore the fact that it was written with careful consideration and historical research), and therefore source A must be false, making Korean nationalists truthful.' How utterly ridiculous you sound.

OK fine, I do not wish to make enemies with anybody, so why dont' we both try to discuss this in a civilised manner. Firstly, let's just try to analyse things from a purely historical point of view. Just like the great Roman empire has left a lasting impact on the cultures of Europe and the Middle East, the Chinese empire was also strong in the past during the Han and Tang dynasties, so it would have an influence on the neighbouring East Asian cultures like Vietnam, Korea and Japan. And I don't disagree with what you said about the PRC; and I know about the atrocities committed by the PRC government. Even the great USA isn't as "benovolent" as people make it out to be; just look at Abu Ghraib and the Iraq War and you'll understand why. Anyway, since you see my phrasing as Sinocentric, why don't you teach me how to phrase my statements such that they will present facts in a more objective way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The dog2 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference in the European/Middle East case is, they actually ADMIT the Roman Empire has left a STRONG lasting impact on their cultures. Maybe Europeans/Middle Eastern people are more sensible than Koreans; at least they want to preserve historical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.23.58 (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note Chinese culture is not the only culture that introduced to Korean culture, if Chinese are editing Korean topics then Koreans should also allowd to edit the Chinese topics as well. There are strong Indian and Mongolian and later by Japanese culture also introduced to Korea as well. Please also note, Chinese empires was multi-ethnics culture not bounded by Chinese culture alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Consoleman (talk • contribs) 06:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WRONG. Chinese people editing Korean topics are to factualise the article. Chinese people's views are more accurate than Korean views because Chinese has a much longer written tradition. Korean people are editing articles because it doesn't fall in their view's favour. They usually have no reliable sources and the only other people who agree with them is their fellow Koreans.

please note that south korean sources arent trusted by historians either. the south korean government claimed in its textbooks that lelang commandery was in west manchuria, while western historical sources show lelang extending past the seoul region of korea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.78.33 (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

...says the Chinese. I swear you guys have hard-ons for anything Korea-related. Kuebie (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Says the Chinese?" Why doesn't Korea invent their own writing before King Sejong and write their own history? Reliable facts from before that period come in the form of Chinese writing, not idiotic sources from silly modern Korean nationalists who want to think what happened. Korean nationalists need to get over the fact that they borrowed alot from China. Note how Chinese people have no problem admitting one of their major religions is Buddhism, and it came from India, which inevitibly led elements of Indian culture influence Chinese culture. That's because Chinese people (excluding the communist party) value TRUE, RELIABLE HISTORY and will react to idiotic claims by Koreans that obvious Chinese influences are not Chinese but instead invented by themselves. Note how the rest of the world doesn't actually even care; Koreans can whine about their culture for however long they want, but historical records > them. I'm glad Koreans are gradually losing the ability to read Hanja, so later they can't try to distort Chinese history. Same goes to Vietnamese nationalists.

OK, let's just put some well-accepted historical facts into perspective. I'm not trying to favour either side but historically, the Korean states from unified Silla onwards recognised the Chinese emperor as their overlord. Of course, I won't deny that Silla did manage to repel the Tang, and unlike many neighbouring cultures, Joseon wasn't conquered by the Ming and Qing dynasties. Of course, I'm aware that the communist party's official stance on many things is not completely accurate, and I disagree with what many Chinese say that Korea and Vietnam are watered down versions of China, which, if you scratch below the surface, is entirely not true. In fact, if you examine Chinese culture carefully, unlike what the Chinese government likes to portray, there is no single Han Chinese culture, and you will find that there is a wide range of customs specific to individual regions or even villages in China. I am also fully aware that the Korean language is not descended from Chinese, and merely borrowed many terms from Chinese. While it may be true that Chinese influences are not the only foreign influences in Korean culture, it is undoubtedly the most influential among all the foreign cultures. In any case, for elements of Korean culture that are clearly unique to Korea and are not derived from Chinese or other influences, such as the invention of ondol as well as the hanbok (which, though influenced by the Chinese hanfu, is still clearly distinct), I have no issue with the article mentioning so. The dog2 (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

All right. Although I'll freely admit to anyone that I'm South Korean and is very proud of my country, I'd like to straighten some matter. Sure, South Korea received a lot of help from China, but so did China did from Europeans. The world was interconnected long before air travel began, so every culture is influenced by another culture. This is called cultural borrowing. The dog2, you said that Koreans have no written and historical evidence to prove anything until the reign of King Sejong. Yes, Koreans used the Chinese written language to write, but just because a culture uses another culture's language to record their own history doesn't mean that they have no written and historical evidence. Also, I'd like to mention the fact that every country's textbooks are biased, mostly favorably to their own countries. This is a hard fact, and even Chinese textbooks (this comment was directed toward you dog2) and Korean textbooks (this one is directed at you CaspianBlue) are biased as well. To make my point, Korean culture was influenced by China, but so did China by other cultures, so don't try to spread your "purified Chinese culture" talk into websites. All textbooks are biased, so don't go into any debate about that. Also, the fact that China is trying to incorporate the lies about King Gwanggetto the Great into their own history while every Korean schoolchild knows about his feats and history and most Chinese people (even historians) haven't heard of him is just plain stupid. So in conclusion, everyone's culture is borrowed from another and Chinese manipulating (which is as hard as I try to judge fairly) of other's history is wrong. So, don't go writing some other debate about this page because I want this to be FINAL.--The Hegemarch (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)