(Under different circumstances) Would Gwok Jing have rebelled against the Sung govt.?

[Ken Cheng]

In one of his most memorable speeches, Gwok Jing made this distinction to Kublai Khan: he (Gwok Jing) would shed his blood to defend his Han kinsmen, not the corrupt Sung Dynasty that ruled them.

This leads me to think: Gwok Jing never rebelled against the Sung government in LOCH or ROCH because the nation was under assault first by the Jurchen and then the Mongols and could not afford internal chaos on top of external invasion. Had the Sung Kingdom not been imminently threatened by foreign invaders, however, would Gwok Jing have willingly joined a rebellion against the Sung Dynasty government if the rebel forces had the goal of instituting a better native regime?

[Ian Liew]

You mean the way Yuan Chengzhi helped Li Zicheng overthrow the Ming Dynasty? If his father, Yang Tiexin, the Seven Freaks, Qiu Chuji, Hong Qigong and other people he met and respected had the same amount of anti-establishment feeling which Yuan Chengzhi's friends and teachers had, he probably would. However, given the way he was brought up and the teachings of the people who he respected, a genuine Li Zicheng could have waved his flag around during LOCH and ROCH and Guo Jing would still not have joined him, not unless those who molded him led by example.

[remixedasian]

Guo Jing put the people above all else, including loyalty to the Song government. (In fact, most people didn't seem too pleased with the current government, including his dad and Yang Tiexin)

[Ken Cheng]

You mean the way Yuan Chengzhi helped Li Zicheng overthrow the Ming Dynasty? If his father, Yang Tiexin, the Seven Freaks, Qiu Chuji, Hong Qigong and other people he met and respected had the same amount of anti-establishment feeling which Yuan Chengzhi's friends and teachers had, he probably would. However, given the way he was brought up and the teachings of the people who he respected, a genuine Li Zicheng could have waved his flag around during LOCH and ROCH and Guo Jing would still not have joined him, not unless those who molded him led by example.

Come to think of it, all of Gwok Jing's non-Mongol mentors and heroes weren't fans of the Sung regime. They all criticized it as corrupt and inept, but did not actively oppose it because the greater danger still came from foreign invaders.

Had there not been any foreign invaders, but only a corrupt and inept Sung regime, perhaps Gwok Jing and his mentors would have focused their efforts on removing that regime from power.

[tape]

I think it would be pretty likely that Guo Jing would have stayed on Peach Blossom Island indefinitely if there was no Mongol threat. For some reason Guo Jing doesn't seem to be the type to actively oppose the existing government (especially be the first to raise arms) because war would be necessary to bring change, and it be becomes hard to say whether a revolt whether successful or not, is better for the people.

[endo]

I brought this up before in previous discussions.

I still think he should have taken up Ghenghis Khan's offer in LOCH to help the Mongols conquer and overthrow the Song government.

Ghenghis Khan offered him to be the the King of Song:



"Genghis Khan was silent for half a day; he finally said, “You are loyal to the Song; what good does
it bring you? Once you told me the story of Yue Fei; he was utterly loyal, serving his country, yet in
the end he was executed anyway. You help me conquering the Song Dynasty, today in front of all
these people I give you my oath that I am going to make you the king of the Song, then you can
unify your river and mountain.”


Gou Jing would have been in a much better position to help out the common people. Also, with him leading the invasion, he can help reduce the mass slaughter of civilians since he's in a position within the Mongolian hierarchy to give them a voice (like what he did for the civilians of Samarkland)

[Ken Cheng]

I brought this up before in previous discussions.

I still think he should have taken up Ghenghis Khan's offer in LOCH to help the Mongols conquer and overthrow the Song government.

Ghenghis Khan offered him to be the the King of Song:



"Genghis Khan was silent for half a day; he finally said, “You are loyal to the Song; what good does
it bring you? Once you told me the story of Yue Fei; he was utterly loyal, serving his country, yet in
the end he was executed anyway. You help me conquering the Song Dynasty, today in front of all
these people I give you my oath that I am going to make you the king of the Song, then you can
unify your river and mountain.”


Gou Jing would have been in a much better position to help out the common people. Also, with him leading the invasion, he can help reduce the mass slaughter of civilians since he's in a position within the Mongolian hierarchy to give them a voice (like what he did for the civilians of Samarkland)

Gwok Jing rejected Genghis Khan's overtures precisely because he knew that he could *not* count on the Khan to honor that promise. If push came to shove, the Khan would not defer his will and authority to keep a promise to Gwok Jing...nor would Gwok Jing be content to allow his kinsmen to live at the mercy of foreign overlords who could, at any time, decide it's best for themselves to slaughter, enslave, or otherwise oppress the Han people. Moreover, EVEN if the Khan honored his promises, what guarantee would Gwok Jing have that the Khan's descendants and/or followers would do the same, especially after Gwok Jing himself died?

It would have been the wrong thing to do, and Gwok Jing would have been a fool at best and a traitor at worst to agree to such terms with the Khan.

[tape]

Accepting the offer isn't ideal, but what good does not accepting it or opposing the Mongols do either? He might die trying and have a more honorable and noble end, but is it really in the best interest of the people either?

You are right that there's a lot of unknowns in if Genghis Khan would keep his promises, or if his descendants would have a change of heart, but those factors exist even if turned down the offer. The Mongols could invade and kill them if he didn't accept, and his decision to defend could be a futile attempt that brings more harm than good anyway. I personally believe that Guo Jing didn't really think as much as you give him credit for, and he stubbornly clung to Confucian ideals of being loyal to your country unto death, regardless of circumstances. Those are admirable traits, but not necessarily the best choice.

Defending your land and country, especially for a hero like Guo Jing, is the natural and emotional response. He was in a very unique situation where surrendering and becoming the Song Lord could have been the best choice. The combination of the tremendous Mongol army that makes defending futile, the existence of an already corrupt Song government, and the implications of warring with the Mongols are really big factors for surrendering, and adding onto the fact that Guo Jing would be doing what he could to help the people afterwards makes it a viable solution in a situation where the best solution is still unsatisfactory.

I don't think Guo Jing thinks that way though, and would die than surrender.

[Ken Cheng]

Accepting the offer isn't ideal, but what good does not accepting it or opposing the Mongols do either? He might die trying and have a more honorable and noble end, but is it really in the best interest of the people either?

You are right that there's a lot of unknowns in if Genghis Khan would keep his promises, or if his descendants would have a change of heart, but those factors exist even if turned down the offer. The Mongols could invade and kill them if he didn't accept, and his decision to defend could be a futile attempt that brings more harm than good anyway. I personally believe that Guo Jing didn't really think as much as you give him credit for, and he stubbornly clung to Confucian ideals of being loyal to your country unto death, regardless of circumstances. Those are admirable traits, but not necessarily the best choice.

Defending your land and country, especially for a hero like Guo Jing, is the natural and emotional response. He was in a very unique situation where surrendering and becoming the Song Lord could have been the best choice. The combination of the tremendous Mongol army that makes defending futile, the existence of an already corrupt Song government, and the implications of warring with the Mongols are really big factors for surrendering, and adding onto the fact that Guo Jing would be doing what he could to help the people afterwards makes it a viable solution in a situation where the best solution is still unsatisfactory.

I don't think Guo Jing thinks that way though, and would die than surrender.

I don't know if you're American, tape, but as an (Chinese-) American myself, Gwok Jing's decision resonates deeply within my understanding of the importance of freedom and control of one's own destiny in one's life.

Somebody once said that that if you allow someone else to own you (e.g. decide your life and fate), you're already dead. If one's body survives, but one's life is dominated by others...that's not really living. It's more of a living death. The person is no longer a human being, but chattel...property.

This principle has guided American national identity since the beginning of the U.S. Remember Patrick Henry's famous words, "Give me liberty, or give me death." He spoke for the majority of Americans in the years leading up to the American Revolution. In the years since, American citizens have looked to their leaders (e.g. the President) to protect their lives and freedom with the understanding that if freedom were forfeit, then life was of little value. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis: President Kennedy brought the nation and the world to the brink of nuclear catastrophe, but when the crisis passed, nobody in the U.S. criticized Kennedy as a reckless warmonger who did not care about the lives of the American people: they understood that if the President had allowed the Soviet Union to dictate terms to the U.S. and the rest of the world, survival would have meant little because freedom, including the freedom to live, would have been in the hands of a tyrannical power. That tyrannical power *might* allow you to live, but would it be a life worth living? Most people didn't think so. History remembers President Kennedy as having done the right thing, as risky and dangerous as it was, because the alternative would have been sending the message that justice and freedom mean nothing...aggression and tyranny would become legitimized. That's not a good principle for living...and it's CERTAINLY not province of a hero.

So coming from my own national and cultural experience, I totally understand where Gwok Jing's decision comes from, and it only reinforces my admiration of the character.

[tape]

I am not questioning the integrity, patriotism, or nobility of the act, as his decision is the clear and unarguable choice 99.99% of the time for most people, never mind a hero.

Taking into consideration the sovereign nature of ruling nations at the time in China, I strongly believe that Mongol rule and corrupt Song rule does not pose much of a difference for the common peasant. They would be oppressed by the ruling authority regardless if it was a corrupt Song official or a brutal Mongolian overlord. They are living their life in daily worry that they offend the wrong person, or someone has a bad hair day and decide to seize his property or beat him mercilessly. This is why I listed the corrupt Song government as a big factor of why surrendering was a good option; they are not even fighting for freedom and dignity as the current regime is not offering them that.

For the context of the story of LOCH though, it's just interesting to decide whether to view Guo Jing as a stubborn idealist, or a patriotic martyr. I see a bit of parallel between this and Dagger Li's decision to give up his love. Both commit acts where the underlying intent is so powerfully noble that it's difficult to fault them for anything, but the actual act is somewhat questionable. (Guo Jing's is much less so, just a random observation).

Again, from a real world and moralistic perspective I would never fault Guo Jing, but in a complete vacuum, given the pros and cons of the situation, surrendering seems like an optimal choice to me if the premise is for the good of the people.

Btw, I am an American born Chinese just like you, but I've been favoring more of a globalized view due to cultural integration through the Internet and the like. Cutting the world into chunks and creating huge inefficiencies through government and arbitrary conflict is so...inefficient (can't find the right word) considering economy and culture now is already on a global scale. I don't think that's a unreasonable view to have, and it's certainly very unpatriotic, but I don't think patriotism has much value in our global setting anymore. This is probably why I'm interested in this topic now, whereas it was totally dismissable in the past.

[Ken Cheng]

I am not questioning the integrity, patriotism, or nobility of the act, as his decision is the clear and unarguable choice 99.99% of the time for most people, never mind a hero.

Taking into consideration the sovereign nature of ruling nations at the time in China, I strongly believe that Mongol rule and corrupt Song rule does not pose much of a difference for the common peasant. They would be oppressed by the ruling authority regardless if it was a corrupt Song official or a brutal Mongolian overlord. They are living their life in daily worry that they offend the wrong person, or someone has a bad hair day and decide to seize his property or beat him mercilessly. This is why I listed the corrupt Song government as a big factor of why surrendering was a good option; they are not even fighting for freedom and dignity as the current regime is not offering them that.

For the context of the story of LOCH though, it's just interesting to decide whether to view Guo Jing as a stubborn idealist, or a patriotic martyr. I see a bit of parallel between this and Dagger Li's decision to give up his love. Both commit acts where the underlying intent is so powerfully noble that it's difficult to fault them for anything, but the actual act is somewhat questionable. (Guo Jing's is much less so, just a random observation).

Again, from a real world and moralistic perspective I would never fault Guo Jing, but in a complete vacuum, given the pros and cons of the situation, surrendering seems like an optimal choice to me if the premise is for the good of the people.

Btw, I am an American born Chinese just like you, but I've been favoring more of a globalized view due to cultural integration through the Internet and the like. Cutting the world into chunks and creating huge inefficiencies through government and arbitrary conflict is so...inefficient (can't find the right word) considering economy and culture now is already on a global scale. I don't think that's a unreasonable view to have, and it's certainly very unpatriotic, but I don't think patriotism has much value in our global setting anymore. This is probably why I'm interested in this topic now, whereas it was totally dismissable in the past.

The Sung Dynasty government was incompetent, corrupt, diffident, and unresponsive to the needs of the people over which it ruled. A benign regime it was not, but it still held one significant advantage over the Mongol regime that eventually replaced it: its leaders did not have a specific goal of extermination/enslavement in mind. The Sung government was far from exemplary, but compared to the Mongol overlords that replaced it, it was nevertheless the lesser of two evils.

When I was younger, I also considered the establishment of a one-state world a benign development that would create greater world harmony. As I've grown older and learned more about how people live, think, and work, I understand the reasons that the idea would be impracticable at best and unethical at worst. In this world, there is a great diversity of individuals and cultures. They all have different ideas about what works for them in terms of how they should live. Likeminded people will come together to form communities...even nations. That being said, it is unrealistic to expect any single form of government, no matter how benign, to meet the needs of EVERY culture, ideology, lifestyle, etc., in the world. It's enough if the various national communities in the world can coexist peacefully and respect each other's differences and needs (a difficult enough endeavor, but the best humanity can do); forcing them all to live under the aegis of a single authority would be wrong.

[tape]

The world as it is right now would be unable to operate under a single government, but in time, with how similar people of a similar economic class (an indicator that is stronger than cultural) act and think as an example, many cultures would meld into a huge hodgepodge like America once pioneered. Change is always hard to envision and it is always resisted, but I do think cultures and countries across the world will become more and more similar due to instantaneous global information until it reaches the point where a singular government would be vastly more efficient. I don't think it would really ever happen either, I still think it would be for the best.

A lot of culture and tradition was developed in response to the economic climate around them at the time. As the world becomes more economically equalized, and larger amounts of people live in industrialized, modern cities and society, it is inevitable there will be cultural decline and an increase in monotony whether it's good or bad.

[tape]

The Sung government was far from exemplary, but compared to the Mongol overlords that replaced it, it was nevertheless the lesser of two evils.

I agree with this, but it's not simply picking either the Song or the Mongols to rule you. If you choose the Song, you are also choosing to fight for decades with a low probability of living and a high probability of futilely losing. The benefits of living as a Song citizen just don't sound appealing enough for the hardship and length of time you have to endure to reach that goal. If the Song government was a glorious empire that treated its citizens well, then sure it's better to die fighting than to live as a slave --but that really isn't the situation here.

[Trien Chieu]

tape, I think Kwok Jing was right for rejecting the offer by Genghis Khan. If he accepted it, he would be the biggest traitor. Do you know how the Mongolians treated the Han Chinese after the downfall of the Sung dynasty?