0
RudyB Posted 23 years ago
Essay & Composition Writing
My revised thesis. Please give your thoughts and opinions!!
Hello everyone!
I want to make sure the average reader who is somewhat knowledgable in Korean politics could understand my thesis. Please also let me know if you see any blatant grammer errors or wrong word usages. Thank you!
I have added some IDs to help you guys out.
Some IDs:
Chosun Dynasty: lasted from 1392-1910 Korea. Funny how it took an outside power to break up this country that has been arguably unified longer than any other country in the world. Oh well
Taewongun: Grand Prince, or Korean King Kojong's dad who ruled in his son's name when his son was a minor from 1864-1873. Supported domestic reform but foreign isolationism. Pretty stable ruler.
King Kojong: The son of the Taewongun who ruled Korea from 1873-? Overthrew his daddy in 73' because the elites thought his dad was to progressive. Kojong was basically used by elites. Eventually Kojong became more progressive domestically and open to international contact than his father. Very unstable ruler.
"Opening of Korea": Took place with Kanghwa treaty that was signed with Japan in 1876 under King Kojong.
Thesis
In late 19th century Chosun Korea, the leadership could not envision a Korea without a strengthened throne. Within this conceptual barrier and monarchial government, the Taewon’gun’s policies seem to resemble more closely popular opinion, than the volatile Kojong policies. I agree with Syngman Rhee when he “attributes the weaknesses of the Korean people to the traditional system and rules that oppressed them and denied them proper education.” Indeed, both these late 19th century Korean leaders can be considered at fault for not supporting popular democratic reforms more openly. I argue, however, that within this available Korean leadership, a stable and sturdier leader such as the Taewon’gun would have better served the Korean people during the “Opening of Korea” than Kojong who “projected an overall image of an insecure, frightened, vacillating, and irresolute [youth].” The Taewon’gun gauged public sentiment more effectively, and his promotion for limited domestic policy reform laid the groundwork for future democratic development. King Kojong on the other hand took various stances, aligning with literati, foreign governments, or popular sentiment; catering to whichever choice he needed at the time and was least threatening not only to his throne’s power, but its mere existence.
I want to make sure the average reader who is somewhat knowledgable in Korean politics could understand my thesis. Please also let me know if you see any blatant grammer errors or wrong word usages. Thank you!
I have added some IDs to help you guys out.
Some IDs:
Chosun Dynasty: lasted from 1392-1910 Korea. Funny how it took an outside power to break up this country that has been arguably unified longer than any other country in the world. Oh well
Taewongun: Grand Prince, or Korean King Kojong's dad who ruled in his son's name when his son was a minor from 1864-1873. Supported domestic reform but foreign isolationism. Pretty stable ruler.
King Kojong: The son of the Taewongun who ruled Korea from 1873-? Overthrew his daddy in 73' because the elites thought his dad was to progressive. Kojong was basically used by elites. Eventually Kojong became more progressive domestically and open to international contact than his father. Very unstable ruler.
"Opening of Korea": Took place with Kanghwa treaty that was signed with Japan in 1876 under King Kojong.
Thesis
In late 19th century Chosun Korea, the leadership could not envision a Korea without a strengthened throne. Within this conceptual barrier and monarchial government, the Taewon’gun’s policies seem to resemble more closely popular opinion, than the volatile Kojong policies. I agree with Syngman Rhee when he “attributes the weaknesses of the Korean people to the traditional system and rules that oppressed them and denied them proper education.” Indeed, both these late 19th century Korean leaders can be considered at fault for not supporting popular democratic reforms more openly. I argue, however, that within this available Korean leadership, a stable and sturdier leader such as the Taewon’gun would have better served the Korean people during the “Opening of Korea” than Kojong who “projected an overall image of an insecure, frightened, vacillating, and irresolute [youth].” The Taewon’gun gauged public sentiment more effectively, and his promotion for limited domestic policy reform laid the groundwork for future democratic development. King Kojong on the other hand took various stances, aligning with literati, foreign governments, or popular sentiment; catering to whichever choice he needed at the time and was least threatening not only to his throne’s power, but its mere existence.
Top answer
Hi Rudy. Very good. My suggestions are all of a minor nature.
- Hi Rudy.
- Very good.
- My suggestions are all of a minor nature.
- In late 19th century Chosun Korea, the leadership could not envision a Korea without a strengthened throne.
- - "Envision" is an American term.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
Hi Rudy.
Very good. My suggestions are all of a minor nature.
In late 19th century Chosun Korea, the leadership could not envision a Korea without a strengthened throne.
- "Envision" is an American term. That's fine with me. It depends on your target audience. The British equivalent would be "envisage".
Within this conceptual barrier and monarchial gove
Very good. My suggestions are all of a minor nature.
In late 19th century Chosun Korea, the leadership could not envision a Korea without a strengthened throne.
- "Envision" is an American term. That's fine with me. It depends on your target audience. The British equivalent would be "envisage".
Within this conceptual barrier and monarchial gove
00
Thank you very much John. Your comments are very clearly thought out and informative.
0
Related Questions