User talk:Sylvia379

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unwritten edit summary[edit]

Unlike the classification of Joseon as a “外國(foreign country)” in the 『明史』 made in the 18th century, Joseon was classified as a “屬國(vassal state)” in the 『淸史稿』 made in the 1920s.[1] This makes it possible to misunderstand as if Joseon's status has been further downgraded in the Qing-Joseon relationship than in the Ming-Joseon relationship. However, this was only the result of the literal translation of “vassal state” into the previously widely used word “屬國” because intellectuals in the Republic of China at the time of the 1920s were already familiar with Western public law by the 『萬國公法』.[2]

In other words, it was the result of arbitrarily reinterpreting and using the long-used term "屬國" as the Western concept's "vassal state", as the 『萬國公法』 was widely distributed after the Opium War (1839-1842) and the Qing explicitly intervened in Joseon's internal affairs after 1882. Rather, the classification of Joseon as a “外國(foreign country)” in the 『明史』 made during the Qing Dynasty in 1735 proves that the Qing Dynasty viewed Joseon as a foreign country. And the classification of Joseon as a "屬國(vassal state)" in the 『淸史稿』 made during the Republic of China in 1927 proves that intellectuals in the Republic of China at the time retroactively understood Joseon as a vassal state during the Qing Dynasty. Therefore, the meaning of "屬國" used in the international stage of pre-modern East Asia before the 『萬國公法』 distributed cannot be considered to be the same as “vassal state” as a Western concept. In fact, the people of Qing before the opening of the port (1876) clearly recognized Joseon as a foreign country. In the end, even from the eyes of Western scholars, there is no reason not to view the “屬國” or “藩國” shown in China's historical records as sovereign states with their own power system and territorial sovereignty.[3]

Above all, the pre-modern East Asian tribute system was a ritual for international mutual approval between large and small countries, and the "屬國" independently handled domestic and diplomatic affairs without political interference from other countries. In this respect, it was fundamentally different from the Western "protectorate" or "semi-sovereign state", the deterioration of the meaning of "屬國=vassal state" was created in the process of spreading Western international law and distorting Chinese history after the 19th century. It is a serious distortion of history to interpret the traditional tribute relationship from the perspective of ‘suzerain-vassal’ in the sense of international law. In fact, the meaning of "屬國" in pre-modern East Asia varied, but it was generally a term referring to "tributary state". In addition, according to the 『萬國公法』, since it stipulates that “If the state is autonomous and not ordered from another country, it can be said that the state is a independent state(凡有邦國 無論何等國法 若能自治其事 而不聽命於他國 則可自主者矣)”, accordingly The traditional meaning of “屬國” corresponds to “independent state”.[4]

《清光緒朝中法交涉史料》, 1882 April 7, volume 4, p. 6

China's so-called "屬國" is a "vassal state" in overseas. All invasions for no reason from other countries or invasions of allies who have formed peace are prohibited by the Universal Public Law. According to the treaty they signed, it says “France clearly recognizes that Vietnam has sovereignty and does not obey any country. If there is a civil war or foreign invasion, France will immediately help.”. This clarifies Vietnam is not a vassal state of China, provides an excuse to protect and makes it easier to encroach just like Japan's scheme destroyed the Ryukyu. If China wants to argue on Vietnam, it must first argue on the name of "屬國" and if it wants to keep the name of "屬國" alive, it must first leave the fact of "protection".

《清光緒朝中法交涉史料》， 4卷 ，〈​内閣學士周德潤請用兵保護越南摺 光緖 9年 4月 7日, p. 6., "中國所謂屬國 卽外國所謂保護 無故侵人之國 及侵和好之與國 皆萬國公法所必禁者也 査法越和約云 法國明知越國係操自主之權 非有遵服何國儻有匪梗 幷外國侵擾 法國卽當幫助 是明謂越南非中國之屬國而欲以自許幫助 假託保護 以自便其蠶食之謨 如日本滅琉球故智 然則中國欲爭越南 必先爭屬國之名 欲存屬國 必先存保護之實"

In the quotation above, amid escalating military tensions between Qing and France over Vietnam in 1882 周德潤, a cabinet scholar in the Qing, said that “protection” must be provided in order to maintain the "屬國". This is the first case in China to argue that the responsibility of "protection" must be accompanied in order to redefine "屬國", which was the meaning of "tributary state". This is also evidence that the Qing Dynasty itself recognized the difference in meaning between the "屬國" of the concept of pre-modern East Asia and the "vassal state" of modern international law. In the 1880s China began to appropriate the meaning of "屬國", it results that china unilaterally reinterpretate pre-modern East Asia's "屬國=tribute state" as "屬國=vassal state" in the sense of modern international law. It should be noted that this reinterpretation itself distorts historical facts as a one-sided argument based on China's political intentions since the 1880s.[5]

When Yuan Shikai argued Joseon as “vassal state” was since the Qing explicitly intervened in Joseon's internal affairs after 1882 and began to unilaterally reinterpretate it's meaning of “屬國” as “vassal state”. And William W. Rockhill, who started living in Beijing in 1883, said The Qing dynasty of China viewed the Joseon dynasty of Korea as an autonomous vassal state.[6] But William W. Rockhill also said that calling Korea a vassal state is "misleading".[7] According to Rockhill, "The tribute sent to Peking by all the 'vassal states', and also by the Tibetans, and the Aboriginal tribes of Western China, is solely a ‘quid pro quo’ for the privilege of trading with the Chinese under extraordinarily favorable conditions."[8] This means the word “vassal state” he used at that time was not as same as one of western concept's "vassal state". The Joseon dynasty was autonomous in its internal and external affairs.[9][10] Owen N. Denny argued that Korea was an independent "tributary state".[11] In these facts, viewing Joseon as not a vassal state looks more reasonable.

References

  1. ^ Choi, So-Ja (2005). 淸과 朝鮮 : 근세 동아시아의 상호인식 [Qing and Joseon: mutual recognition of pre-modern East Asia] (in Korean). Seoul, Korea Republic: 혜안. p. 180-183. ISBN 8984942529.
  2. ^ Koo, Seon-Hee (2009). 한중일 학계의 한중관계사 연구와 쟁점 [(The) issues and study of Sino-Korean relations in Korean, Chinese, and Japanese academia] (in Korean). Seoul, Korea Republic: 동북아역사재단. ISBN 9788961871259.
  3. ^ Kye, Seung-Beom (May 2012). "16-17세기 明·朝鮮 관계의 성격과 조선의 역할" [The Nature of the Ming-Choson Relations in the 1500s-1600s]. 정치와 공론 (in Korean). 10 (0). 한국정치평론학회: 31–57. ISSN 1976-6920. Retrieved 2022-03-19.
  4. ^ Kim, Jong-Hak; Sim, Sang-Min; Pyo, Na-Ri; Lee, Dong-Wook (December 2020). "한국은 중국의 일부였는가?: 한중관계사 속에서 '속국'의 의미". 한국은 중국의 일부였는가?: 한중관계사 속에서 ‘속국’의 의미. 주요국제문제분석 세미나. Seoul, Korea Republic: 국립외교원 외교안보연구소. pp. 2–5. 11-1261021-000001-03.
  5. ^ Kim, Jong-Hak; Sim, Sang-Min; Pyo, Na-Ri; Lee, Dong-Wook (December 2020). "한국은 중국의 일부였는가?: 한중관계사 속에서 '속국'의 의미". 한국은 중국의 일부였는가?: 한중관계사 속에서 ‘속국’의 의미. 주요국제문제분석 세미나. Seoul, Korea Republic: 국립외교원 외교안보연구소. pp. 2–5. 11-1261021-000001-03.
  6. ^ Rockhill, William (1889). "Korea in Its Relations with China". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 13 (0). American Oriental Society: 1. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 592442.
  7. ^ Rockhill, William (1889). "Korea in Its Relations with China". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 13 (0). American Oriental Society: 2. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 592442.
  8. ^ Rockhill, William (1889). "Korea in Its Relations with China". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 13 (0). American Oriental Society: 2. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 592442.
  9. ^ Lin, Ming-te (July 1991). "Li Hung-chang's Suzerain Policy toward Korea, 1882-1894". Chinese Studies in History. 24 (4). Taylor & Francis: 69–96. doi:10.2753/CSH0009-4633240469.
  10. ^ Oh, Si-Jin (28 October 2019). "Resolving the Misunderstood Historical Order: A Korean Perspective on the Historical Tributary Order in East Asia". Journal of the History of International Law. 21 (3). Brill Nijhoff: 341–377. doi:10.1163/15718050-12340115.
  11. ^ Fuchs, Eckhardt; Kasahara, Tokushi; Saaler, Sven (4 December 2017). A New Modern History of East Asia. V&R unipress. p. 96. ISBN 978-3-7370-0708-5.

Bold, revert, discuss[edit]

Just so you know what is happening, Wikipedia has a process called wp:bold, revert, discuss and that is what is happening at the article talk page now. The principle is that editors (such as you are, now) are encouraged to wp:be bold (= brave) and just go ahead and change articles, add to them and yes, delete from them, no permission needed. But it is always done on the understanding that other editors may not accept the change and revert it [as I did with yours]. The next stage is to discuss the the proposal and try to reach a consensus on what the article should say.

If you want a better explanation, please ask at the WP:Teahouse.

Best wishes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I got what's going on. Thank for your explanation. Sylvia379 (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to BRD, maybe you are the Discussion Partner, aren't you? I left a reply on your comment yesterday. But I don't have any reply. I have no assurance if the reply is correctly sended to you. I am sending my point again.
In my edit summary, this paragraph uses all references which cited in deleted section. All references are saying Joseon was not a vassal state. So I think Joseon is out of place to be in the vassal state article.
When Yuan Shikai argued Joseon as “vassal state” was since the Qing explicitly intervened in Joseon's internal affairs after 1882 and began to unilaterally reinterpretate it's meaning of “屬國” as “vassal state”. And William W. Rockhill, who started living in Beijing in 1883, said The Qing dynasty of China viewed the Joseon dynasty of Korea as an autonomous vassal state.[1] But William W. Rockhill also said that calling Korea a vassal state is "misleading".[2] According to Rockhill, "The tribute sent to Peking by all the 'vassal states', and also by the Tibetans, and the Aboriginal tribes of Western China, is solely a ‘quid pro quo’ for the privilege of trading with the Chinese under extraordinarily favorable conditions."[3] This means the word “vassal state” he used at that time was not as same as one of western concept's "vassal state". The Joseon dynasty was autonomous in its internal and external affairs.[4][5] Owen N. Denny argued that Korea was an independent "tributary state".[6] In these facts, viewing Joseon as not a vassal state looks more reasonable. Sylvia379 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In principle yes, it should be me because it was I who reverted your edit. I did that purely because you want to delete material that appears to be properly cited, because you do not agree with it. But my problem is that I know nothing about the history of Korea, so I am completely incapable of engaging in a discussion on whether the sources that you have provided have proved that the existing material is WP:FRINGE, which is the only basis on which reliably cited material can be deleted. I asked for advice at wp:Wikiproject Korea and Bamnamu (an experienced editor on Korean topics) responded at talk:Vassal state to say that you had misunderstood the existing text. So if you wish to pursue the deletion argument, you need to convince editors like Bamnamu that the preponderance of expert opinion says that the current text is fundamentally in error. That really needs someone who reads Korean.
I have already advised that you can add your new sources and invite readers to draw their own conclusions. And yes, it might help if you were to propose a compromise version. The apparent 'vassal' status of Joseon under Qing China is known and we have to have something about it.
I wonder if perhaps it might help if I invite you to look at a very similar discussion but on a topic that you are more likely to be neutral about? See Introduction is total fantasy and mythology - it is absolutely incorrect. It may be that it explains the issue more clearly? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got it. I'll talk to Bamnamu. Thanks! Sylvia379 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Rockhill, William (1889). "Korea in Its Relations with China". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 13 (0). American Oriental Society: 1. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 592442.
  2. ^ Rockhill, William (1889). "Korea in Its Relations with China". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 13 (0). American Oriental Society: 2. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 592442.
  3. ^ Rockhill, William (1889). "Korea in Its Relations with China". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 13 (0). American Oriental Society: 2. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 592442.
  4. ^ Lin, Ming-te (July 1991). "Li Hung-chang's Suzerain Policy toward Korea, 1882-1894". Chinese Studies in History. 24 (4). Taylor & Francis: 69–96. doi:10.2753/CSH0009-4633240469.
  5. ^ Oh, Si-Jin (28 October 2019). "Resolving the Misunderstood Historical Order: A Korean Perspective on the Historical Tributary Order in East Asia". Journal of the History of International Law. 21 (3). Brill Nijhoff: 341–377. doi:10.1163/15718050-12340115.
  6. ^ Fuchs, Eckhardt; Kasahara, Tokushi; Saaler, Sven (4 December 2017). A New Modern History of East Asia. V&R unipress. p. 96. ISBN 978-3-7370-0708-5.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sylvia379&oldid=1079025073"