Comments on: Tonghak and Taiping http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2010/02/tonghak-and-taiping/ The Korea History Group Blog Sun, 16 Oct 2011 01:29:23 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: Jonathan Dresner http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2010/02/tonghak-and-taiping/comment-page-1/#comment-77613 Jonathan Dresner Mon, 22 Feb 2010 04:10:09 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/korea/?p=386#comment-77613 You're not wrong: I'm not claiming that the comparison goes much beyond some structural similarities, and you're right that there are parallels elsewhere. I think the "vague element of Catholicism" takes Ch’oe Che-u too much at his word, though. Unless you want to argue that there's some way the Han-era Taoist movements somehow transmitted their rhetoric to 19c Korea, I don't see how Tonghak isn't a very monotheistic revelation. I also find it interesting, from a social history perspective, that Catholicism in Korea was mostly influential in urban populations, while Tonghak was a largely rural phenomenon; this suggests to me that they were filling a similar psychological or theological niche in different social climes. <i>Cixi’s support for the Boxers also reminds me of Taewongun’s support for the Tonghak.</i> Well, that raises a whole other interesting parallel I talked about with my students a bit: Cixi and Taewongun rank as some of the least constructive national leaders in 19th century history, for many of the same reasons. You’re not wrong: I’m not claiming that the comparison goes much beyond some structural similarities, and you’re right that there are parallels elsewhere. I think the “vague element of Catholicism” takes Ch’oe Che-u too much at his word, though. Unless you want to argue that there’s some way the Han-era Taoist movements somehow transmitted their rhetoric to 19c Korea, I don’t see how Tonghak isn’t a very monotheistic revelation. I also find it interesting, from a social history perspective, that Catholicism in Korea was mostly influential in urban populations, while Tonghak was a largely rural phenomenon; this suggests to me that they were filling a similar psychological or theological niche in different social climes.

Cixi’s support for the Boxers also reminds me of Taewongun’s support for the Tonghak.

Well, that raises a whole other interesting parallel I talked about with my students a bit: Cixi and Taewongun rank as some of the least constructive national leaders in 19th century history, for many of the same reasons.

]]> By: Sayaka http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2010/02/tonghak-and-taiping/comment-page-1/#comment-77611 Sayaka Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:27:48 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/korea/?p=386#comment-77611 Wait. Ch'oe Che-u's teaching only had a very vague element of Catholicism at best (it was largely the government that confused Christianity and Tonghak as "dangerous" religions) and it was more shamanistic (although he's male), wasn't it? I want to know if I am wrong. I talked about it with my adviser and we concluded that Tonghak's origin was much closer to Japanese Tenrikyo and Omotokyo than the Taiping although, as you mention in the footnote, they did not become political movements later. But all focused on healing and daily problems. The uprising after 1893 under Ch'oe Sihyong feels a bit more like the Boxer to me too. Cixi's support for the Boxers also reminds me of Taewongun's support for the Tonghak. But again, if I'm wrong, I want to know. Wait. Ch’oe Che-u’s teaching only had a very vague element of Catholicism at best (it was largely the government that confused Christianity and Tonghak as “dangerous” religions) and it was more shamanistic (although he’s male), wasn’t it? I want to know if I am wrong. I talked about it with my adviser and we concluded that Tonghak’s origin was much closer to Japanese Tenrikyo and Omotokyo than the Taiping although, as you mention in the footnote, they did not become political movements later. But all focused on healing and daily problems. The uprising after 1893 under Ch’oe Sihyong feels a bit more like the Boxer to me too. Cixi’s support for the Boxers also reminds me of Taewongun’s support for the Tonghak. But again, if I’m wrong, I want to know.

]]> By: Jonathan Dresner http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2010/02/tonghak-and-taiping/comment-page-1/#comment-77582 Jonathan Dresner Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:14:54 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/korea/?p=386#comment-77582 In the sense that they're both <i>fin de siecle</i> anti-foreign, proto-nationalist religious uprisings, the Tonghak and Boxers have points of comparison as well, but there are more differences, I think: Boxers were a syncretic movement, but much more consistent with existing Chinese religious traditions, not with strong Christian elements, nor is there a single visionary founder. And the Tonghak were founded contemporaneously with the Taiping, and built slowly, rather than being a Boxer-like craze In the sense that they’re both fin de siecle anti-foreign, proto-nationalist religious uprisings, the Tonghak and Boxers have points of comparison as well, but there are more differences, I think: Boxers were a syncretic movement, but much more consistent with existing Chinese religious traditions, not with strong Christian elements, nor is there a single visionary founder. And the Tonghak were founded contemporaneously with the Taiping, and built slowly, rather than being a Boxer-like craze

]]> By: lirelou http://www.froginawell.net/korea/2010/02/tonghak-and-taiping/comment-page-1/#comment-77578 lirelou Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:04:52 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/korea/?p=386#comment-77578 I must confess that the obvious differences blinded me to their similarities. I took the Tonghaks to be more akin to the Boxers, but my knowledge of both is superficial. There is certainly a lot more in print in English on the Taipings. I must confess that the obvious differences blinded me to their similarities. I took the Tonghaks to be more akin to the Boxers, but my knowledge of both is superficial. There is certainly a lot more in print in English on the Taipings.

]]>