This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nishidani (talk | contribs) at 13:05, 23 April 2016 (→TH1980 . Again, read the source and construe it correctly in historical context. You are wasting my time by your carelessness: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:05, 23 April 2016 by Nishidani (talk | contribs) (→TH1980 . Again, read the source and construe it correctly in historical context. You are wasting my time by your carelessness: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Korean influence on Japanese culture was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 8, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Korean influence on Japanese culture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 October 2014. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
Don 't quote 'stuff' because it backs a prejudice (confirmation bias). Understand the subject first.
TH1980 you added this nonsense: "Japan's present exuberant publishing industry can be traced back to the Edo period when Korean influence was instrumental to its flourishing It is reliably printed but I removed this telling you to ‘Learn to paraphrase the text correctly’.
By that I meant that if you reread the text (a) you would realize it was stupid (b) and by citing it you are indicating you know nothing of the topic since even if construed correctly to intuit the author’s intent, it happens to be silly.
The text as it stands implies that Korean influence from 1590s ‘was instrumental’ for a few decades accounts for the 'flourishing of (its=) Japan’s present exuberant publishing industry’. First of all that is plain dumb, and secondly false. Woodblock printing was far more important for the rise in Edo literacy and book consumption.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I know what I am talking about. Etsuko Kang is hardly alone in understanding the role of Korean printing in Japanese publishing. I noticed also that historian Ha Woobong wrote an entire essay about the huge influence of Korean printing on Japanese printing during the Edo period. I will agree to include Machi Senjuro's opinion, but ultimately we should just begin by saying "According to Machi Senjuro", not "In fact", at the start of the sentence. Etsuko Kang and Ha Woobong represent the dominant point of view, and we should not put the words "in fact" in front of the minority point of view from an essay that only mentions Korean influence incidentally on one or two pages.TH1980 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- You have a long history of getting most edits wrong on several articles. What you can't perceive is that this subject is not supposed to be a rehash of the petty, ridiculous, fatuous rewriting of history by nationalists, Korean or Japanese. I only added Machi to show how silly Kang's remark on that was (her book is generally very informative, she wrote a sentence that is ridiculous in its implications which you use, not understanding how dumb it is). I'm minded to remove both Kang and Machi, but have no hurry. That you can read nonsense and take it seriously indicates that you know nothing of the topic. Moveable metal type once introduced quickly revealed its inadequacies for large scale publishing to cater for the merchant class and growing urban world of Edo Japan. It only worked with short print runs, and it was for that reason that the Japanese publishing industry reverted to woodblock printing as the dominant technology right down to the end of the Tokugawa period. Since you don't know that, you allow yourself to be convinced by a stray sentence or a silly nationalist. The Japanese book industry flourished because of woodblocks, not moveable type (until Western technology led to innovations in late Tokugawa early Meiji times) The dominant point of view is that of Peter Kornicki and numerous other serious scholars of the subject.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Do we need to add a mistaken opinion by a non-specialist on an issue like the impact of Korean movable type?
In my view, Etsuko Kang, though RS, is making a patently misleading indeed demonstrably incorrect assertion when she is quoted as saying what we have below. I glossed it with a more accurate account for a while, but obviously the piece is there because it backs a nationalist misperception, not because it is relevant to the historical facts. If anyone disagrees please discuss here.
Etsuko Kang claims that, "Japan's present exuberant publishing industry can be traced back to the Edo period when Korean influence was instrumental to its flourishing."In fact, the qualitative upsurge in Japanese reading, dated to around 1630 onwards, was related to the spread of woodblock printing, which, as opposed to metal-type printing of books in both Korea and Vietnamese, allowed for stable texts accessible to many because reading marks were added, that enabled Chinese style texts to be read as though they were Japanese.Nishidani (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Etsuko Hae-Jin Kang, Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations: From the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century (1997) Springer reprint 2016 Diplomacy and Ideology in Japanese-Korean Relations: From the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century, (1997) Springer reprint 2016 p.108.
- Machi Senjurō, 'The Evolution of ‘Learning’ in Early Modern Japanese Medicine,’ in ,Matthias Hayek, Annick Horiuchi (eds.) Listen, Copy, Read: Popular Learning in Early Modern Japan, Rev.ed. BRILL, 2014 pp.163-203 pp.189ff p.191.
- The text quoted above amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS. A better solution would be to drop the disputed text. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Only the part cited to Machi Senjuro was synthesis. The part about Korean influence on Japanese printing has been the subject of whole essays. Ha Woobong has contributed a number of peer reviewed studies on this very subject, and he's no nationalist either. The particular essay that I am citing came from a previous version of the article, but it's just one example of the same information.TH1980 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed this nonsense (scholastic!!!! oh really!) as well, the author clearly knows nothing of the history of printing in Japan.
According to the historian Ha Woobong, "the metal and wooden printing types taken from Korea laid the basis for the printing technology of the Edo Period in Japan and the development of scholastic learning."(Ha Woobong, "The Japanese Invasion of Korea in the 1592-1598 Period and the Exchange of Culture and Civilization Between the Two Countries," in The Foreseen and the Unforeseen in Historical Relations Between Korea and Japan, eds. Northeast Asian History Foundation (Seoul: Northeast Asian History Foundation, 2009), 228-229.)Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well drop a note to Ha Woobong and tell him movable metal printing was dropped as too expensive after a few decades in Japan, and the book industry thereafter used woodblocks, as had Buddhist monasteries since the 9th century in Japan, a technology developed under the Sui in China.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
TH1980 . Again, read the source and construe it correctly in historical context. You are wasting my time by your carelessness
User:TH1980. If as you always do, you go about looking in indexes to googled books for ‘Korea’+Japan and cherrypick something while you have absolutely zero knowledge of the period, its complexities, and context, then you almost certainly will produ ce edits that are reverted for their POV-pushing incompetence.
You write:
According to Mikiso Hane, immigrants from the Three Kingdoms of Korea also played a role in implementing the Taika Reform of 645.(Source: Mikiso Hane, Louis Perez, Premodern Japan: A Historical Survey, Westview Press, 2015 p.15)
That phrasing to any normal reader, would suggest Koreans were behind the Taika Reform at that specific date, 645 and thereabouts, whereas they took several decades to ‘implement’, and what Mikiso Hane is referring to is not 645 but a long period from 670-720s. More importantly, you contaminate the sense of the original, to push your ‘Korea’- is-behind –everything--Japan POV. Mikiso Hane wrote:
‘In the middle of the seventh century, Silla allied itself with Tang China and put an end to the kingdoms of Paekche and Koguryo (in 660 and 668, respectively). Many people from these kingdoms fled to Japan. Some became influential figures in the Japanese court and played significant roles in implementing reforms, known as the Taika Reforms, in the late seventh and early eighth centuries.’
What you wrote is a falsification of the source, that might look trivial, but since you do it so consistently, and your misrepresentations arise from the POV that spins a thesis, this habit is getting to be noxious.
- The wording, and hence the meaning, of the original source is ambiguous
You want the text to refer to the ‘Three Kingdoms of Korea’, meaning this is a united Korean influence. these kingdoms of course just possibly might also refer to Silla, Paekche and Koguryo. However, the commonsensical reading of MH’s passage would take the ‘Many people from these kingdoms (who) fled to Japan,’ to refer only to the latter two, the grammatical antecedents, for the simple reason that the people of Silla were victorious, and having them flee from their own victory together with the defeated enemies of that kingdom sounds, to put it kindly, weird.
As always, scholars who go outside their field (Mikiso Hane’s was Tokugawa Japan and peasant revolts) to give a broadbrush synthesis often write clumsily when synthesizing what their reading of secondary sources of other periods say, and this is a good example.No edits about this period can be done unless you have a precise understanding of the details of that age, details which are interpreted differently by different scholars and often in the respective national scholarly traditions. If you take Beckwith’s approach for example, the context of what Mikiso wrote would be as follows:
The Goguryeo (Koguryo) state, dominated by the Puyo people spoke as its official language Koguryo related related to old Japanese (so far about 140 lexemes have what look like close OJ cognates). Speakers of old Korean, a different language,had a growing minority presence within that state, and they spoke a language whose dialect spread over Korea only when the Silla-Tang alliance MH alludes to, destroyed that state.
In fleeing to Japan, in this theory, the people of Goguryeo were fleeing a Chinese-led invasion, backed by Silla, to join a people they were at least linguistically affiliated to. This would not therefore ebe a ‘Korean’ efflux to Japan, with the impact it carried: Korea as we understand it as a unified political entity emerged after Silla unified the kingdoms. Earlier to 668, Korea was constituted by a distinct ethnic-linguistic congeries of tribal groups that did not share a unified ‘Korean’ identity. Scholars used the word ‘Korean’ in that period geographically, in the sense of ‘peninsular Korean’, where the word ‘Korea’ is geographical, and not cultural. Beckwith for one argues that the traditional Korean scholarly treatment of Koguryo language as part of the ‘Korean’ language group (taken to be allied to Tungusic/Altaic) is deeply flawed (See Beckwith Koguryo, 2007 pp.3-5) In his view, it would follow, at least the Koguyro component in the ‘(peninsular) Korean refugees’ to Japan who with their descendents helped implement the Taika reform program over the next two generations can been see as ethnic Puyo. The distinct Koguryo population of the Korean peninsula was extinct within a few hundred years, as unification under Silla was implemented. (Christopher I. Beckwith Koguryo, BRILL, 2007 pp.48-49 (‘by the end of the millenium the Koguryo people and language had ceased to exist.’)
So too the Paekche ruling class, some of whose remnant fled also to Japan after it was defeated in 662 (later than the beginning of the Taika reform) was also Puyo. If you prefer, of course, James Unger, Alexander Vovin et al.,'s interpretation of these same materials, you will get a more unified Korean perspective, but that too is just an hypothesis, not a fact, and the implications I sketched above remain valid, because a specific pan-'Korean' identity was formed later than this period. Don’t look at the wiki links to all of these subjects: those pages are as useless as tits on a bull as to the respective states of scholarship on these topics. All one can say in a neutral manner of that source would be:
When a military alliance between Silla and the Tang dynasty destroyed the peninsular kingdoms of Goguryeo and its southern ally Paekche - an ally of Japan which had sent a fleet with military contingents in its defense - many from these kingdoms fled to Japan and, according to Mikiso Hane, later contributed significantly to the implementation of the Taika Reforms and the Taihō Code, which imitated the Tang dynasty model of administrative centralization.
I'll put that in, with reserve, because I don't think this has anything to do with the topic of this article, namely with a specifically 'Korean' impact on Japanese culture. To be a culture-bearer, often of Chinese civilization, doesn't mean the messenger is making an impact in terms of his anachronistically imposed 'nationality'. All MH is saying is that Sinicized peninsular Korean of varying ethnicity, escaping from their peninsular Korean enemy, help the Yamato court impose Chinese reforms, so what?
What you are doing, to use an analogy that is simpler that the details given above, is similar to arguing that that the Welsh, Scots and Huguenots played an important part in writing and implementing the American constitution because James Wilson, John Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison all hailed from those backgrounds. The various continental/peninsular tribal groups shifting to Japan over 3 centuries did not have a ‘national identity’, neither did Japan. Japan itself, reflecting these partial origins, did a blowback, as these ancestral clan linkages turned policy into sending armies back to peninsular Korea to support one or more of the several dominant warrior groups there. All of this is lost on nationalists wanting to make ethnic capital out of history, like yourself. Stop wasting other people's time, by taking a few months actually to study these subjects in depth, rather than just jumping in with your ethnic hammer when you spot a tidbit or two that fits your naïve preconceptions.
I'll be fucked if I know why one has to waste an hour every other edit cleaning up the mess you make in here simply because you are a lazy and inattentive POV pusher who refuses to pull up her socks.-Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mikiso Hane, Louis Perez, Premodern Japan: A Historical Survey, Westview Press, 2015 pp.15f.