session 5b: korea to 1800

What has surprised me most from the presentations of the development of societies in both China and Korea, are the parallels to "western" civilization development. This may be because I've never bothered to study the development of civilization in Asia. It seems to me that European civilization from the beginning of the AD era until the 1400's was more fuedal; that is, more local government, than regional government. In addition, regardless of which side of Asia you are on, there is a constant transition in the size of a "kingdom," the nature of alliances and the attendent conflict that causes significant upheaval and to some extent, a migration of societies. A previous commenter in another forum mentioned the relatively flimsy historical records and the challenge in interpreting events 1000 years old. In addition, the age-old concept that the "victor" gets to write history also limits our knowledge of what really transpired. I would agree sparse and slanted information is better than no information as all.

I really enjoyed this reading, as it is a great example of how history is written by the victors. A good exercise in the classroom to help students understand this is to put two students in a situation with one another (possibly a debate) and then have them relate their side to a group of students and poll the students on their opinion of each person, who won the debate, etc. I also found it very interesting that Wang Kon was portrayed as such a benevolent and forgiving leader, that he forgave and even promoted his former enemies to high posts. That is highly unusual and it makes me question its accuracy. If it is accurate, why was it done? Were the posts merely in title only or did he give actual responsibility and power to his enemies? I believe that we would all like to think that with the technology to gather information from many sources and the transparency that we have on many issues, our history will not be so one-sided; however, it is all about what survives and is commonly read and accepted. For example, there are authors and politicians today who write on topics from each side of the political fence. Although we can currently access books from both Democrats and Republicans on the same topic, for example, one side will become more widely read and accepted and thus will be more likely to last and be carried on and read by future generations, while the less "popular" side or opinion will likely fall by the wayside and virtually be erased from history.
edited by kmoore on 8/8/2011

I have always known the east asian countries put great emphasis on education. However, I was amazed by the level of emphasis Koreans have on education. Businesses adjust working hours on the college entrance exam day so the traffic is better for students. Airports cancel planes' taking off during listening hour. Policemen escort students in need to the testing site etc. All of these are amazing. Can you imagine how much better our students would perform at school if our society supports more education?
In the last ten years, our district has consistent increase in Korean students population. Some of the students I knew were here by themselves to study without the presence of their parents. Today I learned the reasons behind this .

We really don't know if history is true because things get manipulated all the time. However, at least, through the reading of "The Good, the Bad, the Ugly" I know that Wang Kon, Kyon Hwon, and Kung Ye were three kings during Shilla Dynasty. No matter how historian observed them, they all did something that they believed that were necessary to be accomplished. Here are some of the main traits I noted during my reading:

Wang Kon ( the good) - Born on a luck day, had dragon forehead and a square chin.
Kyon Hwon (the bad) - had tiger faces and tiger spirit.
Kung Ye (the ugly) - Born outside on an unlucky day.
edited by vding on 8/15/2011

"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" is quite an entertaining account, yet difficult to follow because the names are so foreign to me. I needed to jot down notes to help me follow who was who. History can be very biased and difficult to reconstruct with minimal primary sources available. The Watergate analogy puts into perspective how difficult it is to write the history of early cultures in East Asia, especially Korea. I suppose there will always be some degree of distortion.

I agree Dylis... the article was difficult for me to remember who was who without any background knowledge. It would be helpful to see a picture of the rulers such as Kung Ye and a map to see where Chorwon and Songak and Paekche (not sure if this one was a place or title) are located. It astonished me as to how Kung Ye could consider himself a "Buddha incarnate," yet go down in history as the "bad last ruler." Religion coupled with tyrannical and murderous evil... just don't get it!