"Draft The Tribute System: Understanding East Asian Diplomacy"의 두 판 사이의 차이
잔글 (강혜원님이 The Tribute System: Understanding East Asian Diplomacy 문서를 넘겨주기를 만들지 않고 Draft The Tribute System: Understanding East Asian Diplomacy 문서로 이동했습니다) |
|||
(사용자 2명의 중간 판 3개는 보이지 않습니다) | |||
11번째 줄: | 11번째 줄: | ||
=='''1차 원고'''== | =='''1차 원고'''== | ||
− | In pre-modern East Asia, China's neighbors sent regular missions to the country pay tribute in the form of goods and in return China bestowed gifts and invested titles on their rulers. The tribute system dates back to the ancient state of Zhu and by the Tang Dynasty it had become established as the normal order of foreign relations in East Asia. Hence it would appear that all China's neighbors were subject nations, but this is not necessarily so. Though Britain and other European nations traded with China in the 19th century based on the tribute system, they have never been seen as subjects. | + | In pre-modern East Asia, China's neighbors sent regular missions to '''the country''' pay tribute in the form of goods and in return China bestowed gifts and invested titles '''on''' their rulers. The tribute system dates back to the ancient state of Zhu and by the Tang Dynasty it had become established as the normal order of foreign relations in East Asia. Hence it '''would''' appear that all China's neighbors were subject nations, but this is not necessarily so. Though Britain and other European nations traded with China in the 19th century based on the tribute system, they have never been seen as subjects. |
For smaller countries in East Asia, paying tribute to China was a foreign relations policy that prevented Chinese invasion and meant inclusion in a Sino-centric world order that enabled trade and cultural exchange. | For smaller countries in East Asia, paying tribute to China was a foreign relations policy that prevented Chinese invasion and meant inclusion in a Sino-centric world order that enabled trade and cultural exchange. | ||
24번째 줄: | 24번째 줄: | ||
=='''감수본'''== | =='''감수본'''== | ||
− | In pre-modern East Asia, China's neighbors sent regular missions to its capital to ‘pay tribute’ in the form of various goods, and in return China bestowed gifts and invested titles upon their rulers. The tribute system dates back to the ancient state of Zhou, and by the Tang | + | In pre-modern East Asia, China's neighbors sent regular missions to '''its capital to ‘pay tribute'''’ in the form of '''various''' goods, and in return China bestowed gifts and invested titles '''upon''' their rulers. The tribute system dates back to the ancient state of Zhou, and by the Tang Dynasty it had become established as the normal order of foreign relations in East Asia, '''and remained so for a millennium.''' Hence it '''might''' appear that all China's neighbors were subject nations, but this is not necessarily so. Though Britain and other European nations traded with China in the 19th century based on the tribute system, they had never been seen as subjects. |
+ | |||
+ | For smaller countries in East Asia, paying tribute to China was a foreign relations policy that prevented Chinese invasion and meant inclusion in a Sino-centric world order that enabled '''lucrative''' trade and '''valuable''' cultural exchange '''that included upgrades of technologies'''. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In economic terms, the tribute system was an important channel for international trade. To the states paying tribute, China often granted gifts worth many times as much the tribute received, and in this way trading took place. A large volume of private trade also took place through the merchants who accompanied tribute missions. Thus the tribute system continued until the early 19th century as China's major form of foreign relations and included Korea and all neighboring countries. | ||
+ | |||
+ | While pre-modern Korea did indeed adhere to the tribute and investiture system, this simply meant that Korea was part of the foreign relations order in East Asia, not that it was a subject '''or colony''' of China '''in any effective or nominal sense. Joseon controlled all its own domestic affairs.''' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Through the tribute system, Joseon maintained strong ties with the Ming Dynasty, but when the Manchus defeated Ming and established the Qing Dynasty, Joseon began to look down on China as a land ruled by barbarians. Though forced to pay tribute after losing two wars with Qing, Joseon maintained the belief that Korea's culture was superior to that of China. | ||
+ | |||
+ | While such cultural pride held back modernization, it is notable that despite sharing borders with China for thousands of years Korea has managed to remain independent. To see Korea as a subject of China because of the tribute and investiture system is to ignore this fact. | ||
+ | |||
+ | =='''수정본'''== | ||
+ | In pre-modern East Asia, China's neighbors sent regular missions to its capital to ‘pay tribute’ in the form of various goods, and in return China bestowed gifts and invested titles upon their rulers. The tribute system dates back to the ancient state of Zhou, and by the Tang dynasty it had become established as the normal order of foreign relations in East Asia, and remained so for a millennium. Hence it might appear that all China's neighbors were subject nations, but this is not necessarily so. Though Britain and other European nations traded with China in the 19th century based on the tribute system, they had never been seen as subjects. | ||
For smaller countries in East Asia, paying tribute to China was a foreign relations policy that prevented Chinese invasion and meant inclusion in a Sino-centric world order that enabled lucrative trade and valuable cultural exchange that included upgrades of technologies. | For smaller countries in East Asia, paying tribute to China was a foreign relations policy that prevented Chinese invasion and meant inclusion in a Sino-centric world order that enabled lucrative trade and valuable cultural exchange that included upgrades of technologies. | ||
32번째 줄: | 45번째 줄: | ||
While pre-modern Korea did indeed adhere to the tribute and investiture system, this simply meant that Korea was part of the foreign relations order in East Asia, not that it was a subject or colony of China in any effective or nominal sense. Joseon controlled all its own domestic affairs. | While pre-modern Korea did indeed adhere to the tribute and investiture system, this simply meant that Korea was part of the foreign relations order in East Asia, not that it was a subject or colony of China in any effective or nominal sense. Joseon controlled all its own domestic affairs. | ||
− | Through the tribute system, Joseon maintained strong ties with the Ming | + | Through the tribute system, Joseon maintained strong ties with the Ming dynasty, but when the Manchus defeated Ming and established the Qing dynasty, Joseon began to look down on China as a land ruled by barbarians. Though forced to pay tribute after losing two wars with Qing, Joseon maintained the belief that Korea's culture was superior to that of China. |
− | + | It is notable that despite sharing borders with China for thousands of years Korea has managed to remain independent. To see Korea as a subject of China because of the tribute and investiture system is to ignore this fact. |
2017년 11월 6일 (월) 13:09 기준 최신판
Title | Was Joseon a Subject of China? The Truth about Tribute Diplomacy |
---|---|
Author | 조윤정 |
1차 원고
In pre-modern East Asia, China's neighbors sent regular missions to the country pay tribute in the form of goods and in return China bestowed gifts and invested titles on their rulers. The tribute system dates back to the ancient state of Zhu and by the Tang Dynasty it had become established as the normal order of foreign relations in East Asia. Hence it would appear that all China's neighbors were subject nations, but this is not necessarily so. Though Britain and other European nations traded with China in the 19th century based on the tribute system, they have never been seen as subjects.
For smaller countries in East Asia, paying tribute to China was a foreign relations policy that prevented Chinese invasion and meant inclusion in a Sino-centric world order that enabled trade and cultural exchange.
In economic terms, the tribute system was an important channel for international trade. To the states paying tribute, China often granted gifts worth many times as much the tribute received, and in this way trading took place. A large volume of private trade also took place through the merchants who accompanied tribute missions. Thus the tribute system continued until the early 19th century as China's major form of foreign relations and included Korea and all neighboring countries.
While pre-modern Korea did indeed adhere to the tribute and investiture system, this simply meant Korea was part of the foreign relations order in East Asia, not that it was a subject of China.
Through the tribute system, Joseon maintained strong ties with the Ming Dynasty, but when the Manchus defeated Ming and established the Qing Dynasty, Joseon began to look down on China as a land ruled by barbarians. Though forced to pay tribute after losing two wars with Qing, Joseon maintained the belief that Korea's culture was superior to that of China.
While such cultural pride held back modernization, it is notable that despite sharing borders with China for thousands of years Korea has managed to remain independent. To see Korea as a subject of China because of the tribute and investiture system is to ignore this fact.
감수본
In pre-modern East Asia, China's neighbors sent regular missions to its capital to ‘pay tribute’ in the form of various goods, and in return China bestowed gifts and invested titles upon their rulers. The tribute system dates back to the ancient state of Zhou, and by the Tang Dynasty it had become established as the normal order of foreign relations in East Asia, and remained so for a millennium. Hence it might appear that all China's neighbors were subject nations, but this is not necessarily so. Though Britain and other European nations traded with China in the 19th century based on the tribute system, they had never been seen as subjects.
For smaller countries in East Asia, paying tribute to China was a foreign relations policy that prevented Chinese invasion and meant inclusion in a Sino-centric world order that enabled lucrative trade and valuable cultural exchange that included upgrades of technologies.
In economic terms, the tribute system was an important channel for international trade. To the states paying tribute, China often granted gifts worth many times as much the tribute received, and in this way trading took place. A large volume of private trade also took place through the merchants who accompanied tribute missions. Thus the tribute system continued until the early 19th century as China's major form of foreign relations and included Korea and all neighboring countries.
While pre-modern Korea did indeed adhere to the tribute and investiture system, this simply meant that Korea was part of the foreign relations order in East Asia, not that it was a subject or colony of China in any effective or nominal sense. Joseon controlled all its own domestic affairs.
Through the tribute system, Joseon maintained strong ties with the Ming Dynasty, but when the Manchus defeated Ming and established the Qing Dynasty, Joseon began to look down on China as a land ruled by barbarians. Though forced to pay tribute after losing two wars with Qing, Joseon maintained the belief that Korea's culture was superior to that of China.
While such cultural pride held back modernization, it is notable that despite sharing borders with China for thousands of years Korea has managed to remain independent. To see Korea as a subject of China because of the tribute and investiture system is to ignore this fact.
수정본
In pre-modern East Asia, China's neighbors sent regular missions to its capital to ‘pay tribute’ in the form of various goods, and in return China bestowed gifts and invested titles upon their rulers. The tribute system dates back to the ancient state of Zhou, and by the Tang dynasty it had become established as the normal order of foreign relations in East Asia, and remained so for a millennium. Hence it might appear that all China's neighbors were subject nations, but this is not necessarily so. Though Britain and other European nations traded with China in the 19th century based on the tribute system, they had never been seen as subjects.
For smaller countries in East Asia, paying tribute to China was a foreign relations policy that prevented Chinese invasion and meant inclusion in a Sino-centric world order that enabled lucrative trade and valuable cultural exchange that included upgrades of technologies.
In economic terms, the tribute system was an important channel for international trade. To the states paying tribute, China often granted gifts worth many times as much the tribute received, and in this way trading took place. A large volume of private trade also took place through the merchants who accompanied tribute missions. Thus the tribute system continued until the early 19th century as China's major form of foreign relations and included Korea and all neighboring countries.
While pre-modern Korea did indeed adhere to the tribute and investiture system, this simply meant that Korea was part of the foreign relations order in East Asia, not that it was a subject or colony of China in any effective or nominal sense. Joseon controlled all its own domestic affairs.
Through the tribute system, Joseon maintained strong ties with the Ming dynasty, but when the Manchus defeated Ming and established the Qing dynasty, Joseon began to look down on China as a land ruled by barbarians. Though forced to pay tribute after losing two wars with Qing, Joseon maintained the belief that Korea's culture was superior to that of China.
It is notable that despite sharing borders with China for thousands of years Korea has managed to remain independent. To see Korea as a subject of China because of the tribute and investiture system is to ignore this fact.