Having a great interest in history, I naturally read the article in the Korea Times today `Tsushima Controlled by Ancient Korean Kingdom’ and found Prof. Lee Hyun-bok’s reference material extremely amusing.
I am not quite sure what Prof. Lee was hoping to achieve with his proof. He is said to have stated that Homer Hulbert’s book, “History of Korea” [1905] should be used as “important historical evidence in disproving Japan??s claim to Korea??s easternmost islets in the East Sea.” He further stated that:
“What we should do to counter Japan??s groundless claim over the Tokto islets is to find more historical facts, instead of just holding emotional and nationalistic protests.????
Perhaps we should talk a little about Homer Hulbert. Personally I think that he was a good man who really loved Korea, after all he is buried here and I have visited his grave more times than I can remember. He was chosen by Emperor Kojong to try and persuade President Roosevelt to come to Korea’s assistance in 1905 – which he failed at, not because of his faults, but because the President had deemed Korea not worth saving because Korea could not or would not defend itself. Homer Hulbert then went on his own personal campaign to highlight the faults of Japanese rule over Korea – the crimes that the Japanese committed as they raped Korea of its resources. Homer Hulbert was an extremely educated man – but he was also known for being blind to two sides of an issue.
Horace Allen, the American Minister to Korea and one of early American pioneers in Korea wrote about Hulbert in less than glowing terms. Morgan, Allen’s successor also did not speak too highly of Hulbert and found that his point of view was definitely biased against the Japanese. Hulbert wasn’t exactly tolerant of other religious beliefs and often wrote articles with a negative slant when describing the French Catholics in Korea.
With all of that said, I think that Hulbert’s book is a fantastic source of information on Korea’s history, but what I don’t understand is where Prof. Lee’s “historical evidence disproving Japan’s claim” to the islands in the East Sea is found in Hulbert’s book. Is it the highlighted part shown in the picture? Historical facts at their best.
Here’s a historical fact as reported in the Boston Sunday Post – the royal wedding of Emperor Kojong to an American in 1903.
{ 126 comments… read them below or add one }
Wow, I guess the Koreans really appreciated what this man did for the country. Probably a few things named after him or a museum or something. I bet if all the netizens from the Marmot Hole could come up with quite a list of things that Koreans have done over the years to show an appreciation for a guy like him.
On another note, it almost seems, at least the way the story is written, that this professor ?橫discovered?? this book or the passages regarding Tsushima island. But actually he is just reading from the book. Does anybody else wonder what the big deal is. I read that book and it says lots and lots of things. Even a few unflattering things about Korea. I guess those passages aren??t worth discovering from a Korean professor. Anyway, the real kicker is that the time period is about 500 AD. Ummmm who really cares if Korea owned, controlled, populated.. etc that place then. I heard that the Romans once controlled England.
Korea’s target is to become a Hermit Kingdom with China acting as the big brother.
They are doing this same shit as described in today’s paper
[??????] “??????? ? ????? ????????? ?????”?? ??????? ?????
http://www.chosun.com/editorials/news/200503/200503250394.html
to.. Japan.
America views Japan and Taiwan as friends, Korea has failed the friendship test. With America and Japan going going gone, there’s nobody left for Korea to trust other than North Korea. Many Koreans don’t realize if Americans aren’t going to be there, there won’t be no foreign investments from Britain, Canada, Japan, Germany, and France. I think it will be a pretty sad day when they find this out too late.
According to the Korean logic.
Whole Europe must be returned to Italians(Rome)?
But we all now when Koreans say “Ancient Koreans” it is always fabricating from historical records which is written in old Chinese.
Korea has failed the friendship test? For what? Asserting itself toward Washington? Is this part of the you’re either for us or against us policy?
Come on, Korea is the US’s second largest coalition partner in Iraq. If Korea has failed the friendship test, what is needed to pass?
Homer Hulbert clearly earned the right to be a really good foreigner to nationalists like Lee Hyun Bok, given that Lee doesn’t like the McCune-Reschaeur system for romanizing Korean because it was done by foreigners (not even close to entirely, but it has their names on it), and since he is one of those Korean linguists who think Han’geul is so totally superior to all other writing systems – and not just for Korean but for use to write any language – that he has spent some of his summers with a Southeast Asian hill tribe teaching the yougins Han’geul because the tribe lacked a writing system for its language. So there’s a small hill tribe that writes it language with Han’geul, “evidence” of Han’geul’s universal applicability. ??????? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??.
If anyone has some recommended readings on early, turn of the century korean history(like the one by Homer Hulbert), would you mind helping me out and posting the title and author?
Admiral Yi, I like your name.
Here’s the Chosun English version just in case you haven’t read it yet:.
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200503/200503250034.html
It could come as no surprise, the Americans traditionally eager to stay away from disputes between Korea and Japan, may increasingly side with Japan. Korea is losing a big leverage and they’re too stupid to realize this.
By the Roh government goes out of power in 2,3 years, it will be too late.
yawn. dokdo makes me sleepy…
Obviously, claiming Tsushima as a Korean is a cheap ploy to counter Takeshima claims. Tsushima claim is a bargaining chip against Japan. It is a childish and amaturish foreign policy display of a nation unbecoming. Koreans need a lot of growing up to do. I couldn’t have written any better, what mizarv wrote above. I guess that makes at least two ‘sa hwa dongs’.
Noolji -
Not quite sure if you realized that I wrote the post – and not Mr. Marmot. I assume that your using part of my quote and putting Mr. Marmot’s name behind it indicates that you thought he wrote it:
“blind to the two sides of the issue.??? mr marmot”
However, just in case – I agree completely that Tokdo is Korean territory and I fully agree with Mizarv’s view on the point. I think that Korea needs to wake up and act like an adult-nation and stop playing into the Japanese ploy of making Korea look like an idiot. I am sure that for the most part the Japanese are just rolling over in laughter at the tricks they have Koreans doing. I say trick, because it seems like the same thing I do with my dogs – I tease them by hiding their toys, or tie a string to it and pull it away from them before they can get it.
Somebody posted earlier about some minor little government official who declared Tokdo Day and now everything has erupted over this. The Koreans are now claiming Daemado Day (Tsushima) a tit-for-tat little girls’ game (sorry for the sexist comment). Daemado is extremely friendly to Korea – one of the only places in the world that I have seen two national flags flown with the same respect – the Korean and the Japanese. Why does some minor Korean government official want to endanger this great relationship between Korea and the island.
Orancay – thanks for the background of Prof. Lee. Not to take anything away from the esteemed man (nice to know that someday in the future, while trekking in the South-eastern part of Asia I will be able to speak using Korean) but with what you added I can easily see his [Prof. Lee's] logic in his article -NONE.
‘they may side with japan.’ sa hwa dong
yeah, so? japan ain’t getting tokdo back no matter what bush says. listen, what you think the japanese clinging to america’s jockstrap for? could it have anything to do with seeing their dreams of being the leader of asia disappear before their eyes? could it be their fear of falling back into the chinese orbit? got bad news for the nipponese, no amount of ass licking is going to prevent what will be. sorry.
‘blind to the two sides of the issue.’ mr marmot
and you aren’t? you’ve already admitted to being an apologist for japan.
‘korea has done far more for the us than japan has ever done.’ nulji
You miss the entire point and with your closed mind, you’ll never get it. You calling me a Korean Benedict Arnold doesn’t bother me at all. That’s because you tend to freely throw such name callings at anybody that doesn’t conform to your view of the world. It’s passe and boring. Forget about expecting any kind of intelligent reply to your unintelligent BS.
Right, Kimbob, Like the majority of Koreans, he’s missed the entire point and will never get it. I’ll spell it out.
By pretending to some supposed moral high ground, we are making fools of ourself in front of the entire world. By displaying our angst to the world and playing the eternal victim, we continue to embarrass ourselves and isolate ourselves from the entire world.
Dokdo is Korea’s simply by virtue of the fact that we occupy it. There is no moral issue at stake. All we need to win over world opinion is to act calm and confident and comport ourselves with dignity. But we only seem to know how to expose our insecurities and thereby shoot ourselves in the foot.
There is never any logic or self-interest in our reactions to international events of any kind which is why the president of Seoul National recently wrote that we will long remain on the threshold of being an advanced nation but never make the transition. We think like pigmies but aspire to be giants.
The 2 rocks is NOT a matter of national pride or national interests. It is a measure of our inability to reason.
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=newscat=9id=331861
This is getting interesting…
I think dbc, this one comment in your link sums it up just about perfectly. Just imagine what will happen if the US ever leaves this region. It will go to the dogs.
“i just don’t get it why these nations fight each other without looking at what they are supposed to do. japan is crazy by its stupid politician such as koizumi. china is crazy by its unappropriete policy maker. and koreas are especially crazy in all regards. is it humbleness a good heritage of our shared culture?”
Does Japan ever sleep? Let me be the first to suggest to Koizumi’s government a new day – July 4th, USA day. Might as well claim the United States ……hell…., get Canada too…..make a four day holiday just add July 1st to it.
I think that Korea needs to wake up and act like an adult-nation and stop playing into the Japanese ploy of making Korea look like an idiot. I am sure that for the most part the Japanese are just rolling over in laughter at the tricks they have Koreans doing.
Robert, that is a very irresponsible comment. Japan cannot be held to blame for the way Koreans conduct their international diplomacy. I would remind you that since the Choson Era, the Korean ‘method’ of diplomacy (and subsequent disasters) is very similar to what we are seeing now. Blaming the Japanese for everything, including Koreans own actions, will not help Koreans ‘wake up.
‘korea needs to grow up…’
and japan doesn’t? your implication that japan is a mature nation doesn’t wash with me; it’s not just a small prefecture declaring korean territory as their own. the central government was complicit here since shimane’s action falls into the realm of foreign policy. here in the us, states cannot conduct foreign policy. i’m sure the same is nominally true in japan. let me show you and the others why i think many of you are hypocrites:
1. japan declares it owns korean territory. korean reacts by declaring it owns japanese territory. your reaction? to slam korea but say almost nothing about japan. btw, masan is a local government and yet you say ‘korea’. shimane is a prefecture and yet you object to shimane being portrayed as representing japan.
2. your perscription for korea is to simply ignore any provocation by japan, yet you have absolutely no advice for the japanese. why?
what do you have to say to these things, mr neff?
****
the finger chopping was a bit much and the street protests were overdone but the masan declaration was right on the money. it was tit for tat. and korea can use dubious evidence that taemado is theirs as the japanese use dubious evidence to support their claim to dokdo. tit for tat is the name of the game and if japan can play it, so can korea.
****
why does korea have a trade deficit with japan? answer: it buys japanese components for korean products. that’s bound to change as the koreans lean to build them theirselves but why not, in the interim, look for a new supplier? is japan the only country that makes these things? i’ve noticed the french seem eager to do business with korea but seoul keeps snubbing the parisians. i wonder….
****
i’ll stop calling you ‘sa hwa dong’, but you remember this all started with your unwarranted comments about me. should you wish to continue with this chonjaeng, you know how to respond. and mizarv is not a sa hwa dong for he’s certainly no korean. that’s why i’ve stopped posting to him and ignore large parts of his posts for the mind wonders.
lastly, when have you seen a korean who speaks perfect english use the word ‘we’ to talk about korea and koreans? does kimbob do it? nulji? june? Sugar Shin? imperialismsucks?
Nulji — As Mr. Neff pointed out, I didn’t write the post. And while I am, generally, sympathetic to Japan when it comes to some of the arguments over “past history” (and not because I believe Japan is being completely honest, mind you, but because I feel that everyone else is either lying or being extremely selective/subjective with what choose to remember), I happened to agree that Dokdo is part of Korea. I also happened to agree that the Fusosha textbooks present what, at best, could be called an extremely incomplete version of history. My point of disagreement comes over how to handle the situation. In fact, all Seoul’s response has done, aside from possible give President Roh’s support numbers a short-term boost, is give ammunition to the Japanese right, who argue that Koreans are overemotional, unstable, hypernationalistic and dangerous to do business with. Is that true? Of course not. But President Roh hasn’t helped himself. And I willing to bet dollars to donuts that Seoul’s behavior as of late is actually going to increase the number of schools that adopt the Fusosha text, simply because nobody likes it when other states openly try to interfere in their internal affairs. That’s not to say that Seoul shouldn’t take an interest in the matter. It should, and I believe Japanese law does call for sensitivity toward Japan’s neighbors on the past of the Ministry of Education. But just as its a sensitive matter for Seoul, likewise, it’s a sensitive matter for Japan, being essentially an internal matter, and it needs to be handled with due care. What that means is that hyperbole — something we’ve seen a whole lot of the last couple of weeks — will likely backfire, putting Korea’s diplomats in an even bigger hole than the one in which they already find themselves.
Marmot,
Why do you believe Dokdo is part of Korea? And what specifically do you find wrong with the Fusosha textbooks? And why can’t there be a debate on these issues instead of the simply “I believe…, I believe…” argument or the often used “Well, look what the Japanese did in World War II” argument? Or maybe the debate was hidden somewhere among all of the emotional postings on this site and I just missed it?
Mr. Marmot, if you believe that “everyone else is either lying or being extremely selective/subjective with what [they] choose to remember,” why would you say, before getting all the facts straight, that you “agree that Dokdo is part of Korea”? Is it simply because Korea is occupying the islets now?
Curious in Incheon
Oranckay:
??? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???????: ??? ?? ??
(??)????????(???)
err, DONARD
Noodles “Japan declares it owns Korean territory. Korean reacts by declaring it owns Japanese territory”
Shimane prefecture declared a takeshima day. Takeshima Island is internationally recognized as a disputed territory. Japan has declared that it owned Takeshima for 100 years now.
The city of Mason said that Tsushima Island is Korean land. Tsushima has been recognized to be Japanese territory for centuries.
People actually live on Tsushima, and have for centuries. In fact Yi Dynasty Kings (not emperor because Korea had no emperors until Japan forced China to let Korea elevated its king to emperor) signed treaties with Tsushima. Takeshima is a rock and nobody (unless you count the ultra nationalistic kooks) can live there.
It??s not exactly the same thing noodles
I agree, Shakuhachi.
How is Japan playing Korea? By remaining clam in the face of Korea’s tantrums?
Kids throw tantrums to get attention, and they hate it when their mother responds by simply ignoring them. Maybe that is why Koreans are so upset with Japan?
Thanks for your agreeableness, Gerry. I second the the call for marmot to point out some of the issues regarding the textbooks. I have seen some examples of the complaints and they certainly do not ‘distort history’.
“…Koreans are overemotional, unstable, hypernationalistic and dangerous to do business with. Is that true?”
Let’s just say I agree with half that statement.
By the way, today, I went hiking with an American friend of mine who is fairly new to Korea. We stopped at a mountain ledge along the trail to look out over the fogged in scenery below. Sitting on a rock above us were three Korean boys who looked to be about 12 or 13. Expectedly, one of the boys yelled “Hello” and asked in English where we were from. My friend said, “The USA.” The boy responded by saying, “Tokdo is our land,” in Korean, and “F-ck Japanese,” in English. My friend raised his eyebrows and gave me a questioning look. I told him, “Let’s go. I’ll tell you later.” As we were walking away, “One of the boys said in a whisper, “F-ck you.”
I believe Koreans are hypernationalistic and overly emotional, and I believe they do not really have a problem about teaching those traits to their children.
It seems that even young korean children dont like you mr beav. I think you are all Aces.
If I was you I would tell your story to a korean person. I think they can come up with a very good excuse for the little tykes behavior. Perhaps it was your fault. You should be more reasonable. If you dont start brainwashing children when they are young, how do you expect adult koreans to have any beliefs.
When my Canadian friends get called a me-gook-nom, they correct the little ones to that they are not megook but kan-a-da-saram-nom.
on a last note, perhaps those kids are the missing “frog boys”.
As for dangerous to do business with: I don’t think dangerous applies, if it is meant as representing a danger for your physical integrity or your wallet ?? this is neither Vladivostok nor mainland China. That said, doing business here can be a little trying, as Koreans are usually, if not “good” negotiators, at least relentless ones. Negotiating with them implies a mixture of outright lies, chest-thumping, emotional bonding (usually around a full table of food and drinks), moments of (supposed) honesty and the ever-present ???[?????], which I am at a loss to translate accurately (maybe expediency, makeshift, something like that, and then some).
Prolonged exposure to Korean business practices ?? even (or maybe especially) for people who speak the language and know the culture ?? can be dangerous for the mental health, even if it has its good moments. Visiting businesspeople have an even harder time (as opposed to resident ones) because of the added pressure of the schedule (Oh well, your plane is leaving tomorrow morning, and if we don’t get an agreement tonight, we may have to look somewhere else…).
There are bad people, like everywhere else, and the whole BS about “face” (?????[????], like we Westerners ain’t got any!) and ??/bonding leading to an ever-lasting relationship can be misleading (many Korean biz partners will drop you in a New York minute if they find a better deal: very short-term oriented), but once in a while you stumble on very decent people who also treasure the relationship. I’ve been lucky to meet a few, and it is a pleasure to work with them.
On the other hand, for Koreans, doing business with certain countries can be trying, too. In the Kingdom of ?????????!, one does expect prompt answers to queries, and explanations like It is summer here, and people are on vacation or I know this is Friday, but our sales manager took a day off don’t go down easy. Extreme cases like Oh? Your email? Sorry, I haven’t opened our email box this week. We usually do that on Friday. (true story, believe me!) won’t even register…
1. japan declares it owns korean territory. korean reacts by declaring it owns japanese territory. your reaction? to slam korea but say almost nothing about japan. btw, masan is a local government and yet you say ???korea??. shimane is a prefecture and yet you object to shimane being portrayed as representing japan.
-You’re reading into too much of something that it isn’t there. You always do that.
2. your perscription for korea is to simply ignore any provocation by japan, yet you have absolutely no advice for the japanese. why?
- Again, you’re exaggerating. Everyone must be a Jap spy.
****
the finger chopping was a bit much and the street protests were overdone but the masan declaration was right on the money. it was tit for tat. and korea can use dubious evidence that taemado is theirs as the japanese use dubious evidence to support their claim to dokdo. tit for tat is the name of the game and if japan can play it, so can korea.
- Childish tit for tat. It’s getting out of hand. Now the fight is spilling over to the Washington Post. Americans who are reading the two rants must be scratching their heads, what the hell’s this?
why does korea have a trade deficit with japan? answer: it buys japanese components for korean products. that??s bound to change as the koreans lean to build them theirselves but why not, in the interim, look for a new supplier? is japan the only country that makes these things? i??ve noticed the french seem eager to do business with korea but seoul keeps snubbing the parisians. i wonder??.
- What are you proposing here, stop business with Japan?
****
i??ll stop calling you ??sa hwa dong??, but you remember this all started with your unwarranted comments about me.
- “Unwarranted?” Your rants only reinforces my points about you. By the way, I don’t care what you call me.
should you wish to continue with this chonjaeng, you know how to respond. and mizarv is not a sa hwa dong for he??s certainly no korean. that??s why i??ve stopped posting to him and ignore large parts of his posts for the mind wonders.
- I don’t care what mizarv is. But he sure does makes sense.
“That said, doing business here can be a little trying, as Koreans are usually, if not ??good?? negotiators, at least relentless ones.”
I concur. I do business with Koreans, I prefer not to. It’s so difficult to deal with Koreans. Doing business with non-Koreans is stress free compared to doing business with Koreans. I’ve heard even other Koreans say the same thing. I don’t know why Koreans are like that. It’s also hard to work and difficult to work for a Korean boss. They’ll take and take and take if you let them.
For all who think that Roh’s tirade was childish and stupidly undiplomatic, I would point out that the local elections are coming in April. Seems every year around this time, Roh says/does something incredibly stupid, the GNP responds in the worst or lamest way possible, and the Uri Party cleans up in the next election cycle. How many times does Roh and Uri have to do this before people catch on?
And just because the Japan (or the ultra-rightists, anyway) speak quietly and calmly, that hardly means they are being reasonable. I think the Japanese are the kings of passive aggressiveness. Some people there know how to press others’ buttons and do it quite well.
(That said, Dokdo is Korea’s (in fact, if not in theory)… No need for Koreans to get upset. Some old Japanese farts say something stupid, just give them the old ???????? and move on).
Anonymous,
If Dokdo is not Korea’s “in theory,” then what those “old Japanese farts” are saying is not “stupid.”
Sorry, Roh??s tirade WAS childish and stupidly undiplomatic–and duly noted overseas. And when I read stories like this: http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200503/200503250027.html
I really despair of the whole situation resolving in Korea’s favor.
there’s way too much seriousness going on in here. hey neffster, i bet you didn’t expect to generate so much blather over such an inoccuous post. not to demean all the replys… mizvarf was most eloquent of all; thread should’ve ended there.
anyways rob, when are we having that beer?
A top Japanese envoy claimed Friday that South Korea’s easternmost islets of Dokdo are Japanese territory and that the body of water between the Korean Peninsula and Japan should be called the “Sea of Japan.”
“These islands are an integral part of Japan, and thus they should be referred to as ‘Takeshima,’” Naoyuki Agawa, minister for public affairs at the Japanese embassy here, said in a contribution to the Washington Post, referring to Dokdo, which is called Takeshima in Japanese. “Japan believes it is essential to refer to this body of water as the ‘Sea of Japan,’ a name used widely by the global community since the early 19th century.”
But many South Koreans still harbor deep resentment against Japan for its brutal colonial rule as it mobilized millions of Koreans as forced laborers and sex slaves.
http://english.yna.co.kr/Engnews/20050326/610000000020050326152127E1.html
Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in the following statement?
?橫What we should do to counter Japan??s groundless claim over the Tokto islets is to find more historical facts, instead of just holding emotional and nationalistic protests.????
If the Japanese claim on the Tokto islets is so “groundless,” why does the writer feel Koreans need to “find more historical facts” to counter it?
Just curious.
It took decades, but progress made. A landmark decision by a Japanese court for the first time. They admit there was something wrong.
http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100no=217456rel_no=1back_url=
Japan was behind the creation of the Korean national anthem, for the purpose of modernizing the primitives.
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=10no=216153rel_no=1
Wow – I lost a huge post that I was doing in answer to all of this –
I will make it quick
KT
I didn’t think that it would have progressed the way it did. I was actually poking fun at the esteemed Prof.’s comments and reasoning.
Today while looking over Hamel’s journal and another book done by a Dutch mayor who relied on the eyewitness accounts of two other Dutchmen with Hamel I got to wondering why Prof. Lee did not use these books. They are the oldest Western books dealing with Korea that I know of {I believe Cerepedes -spelling and I don’t have access to my notes – did not leave a journal}. Hamel believed that Tsushima [a.k.a Daemado] was once ruled by Korea until about the 5th century when the Japanese occupied it. Seems like that would have been an idea source for him to use instead of Hulbert – but then I got to thinking about the time period – 1600s,…. plus maps from that period [Western] depict Korea as an island so maybe not. Then I read another section and noticed that when some of the Dutch asked the Korean fishermen about the sea to the north-east [East Sea a.k.a Sea of Japan] they were told that the sea was empty with no land – hmmm., doesn’t seem like they were too aware of Ullong Island and Tokdo.
History is a matter of perception – one side can support their views with “facts” and the other side can support their views with “facts” and both sets of facts are probably accurate from a point of perspective. It is the big picture made up of many many small pictures, uncolored by emotion that tells the true story.
Shakuhachi
Robert, that is a very irresponsible comment. Japan cannot be held to blame for the way Koreans conduct their international diplomacy. I would remind you that since the Choson Era, the Korean ??method?? of diplomacy (and subsequent disasters) is very similar to what we are seeing now. Blaming the Japanese for everything, including Koreans own actions, will not help Koreans ??wake up.
You are correct on a lot of what you said – Korea needs to answer for its own actions. Choson did blame many countries for its own misfortune, and in some instances had reason to, while other ways Korea was playing its “Superior inferiority Complex = everyone is always picking on me.”
However – I see this as a deliberate attempt to rile Korea and cause a reaction. If I remember right there are many Japanese who react somewhat negatively to the rememberance of the dropping of the Atom bombs and have protested. I remember several years ago a minor (?) government official invited the Japanese government to attend Pearl Harbor Day – the Japanese declined. You can not tell me in all honesty, especially after the incident last year with the minting of the Tokdo Island stamps and the large campaign in which Koreans sent postcards of protest to the Japanese government, naturally using Tokdo postage stamps, that the local Japanese government (with the tacit support of the main government) didn’t think this would incite the Korean public.?
Oranckay:
???? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???????: ??? ?? ??
(??)????????(???)
err, DONARD
Cute – where is Mickey?
‘i don’t care what mizarv is…’
well, of course, you don’t! he’s ashamed too. it don’t wash off, sa hwa dong. you’re not related to michael jackson are you?
btw, responding by saying ‘you’re reading too much into this.’ is not a response at all. it means you really don’t have one.
why am i always right?
gerry lives in korea? now, tell me gerry don’t need some medication.
you know, some nazis learned all about judaism, it’s culture, it’s heritage. why? so they could destroy it, of course.
kimbob, maybe you and bevers should get together, no?
Lobert:
???? ??????????? ????? ????? ??? ???????!
You see me CUT OFF FINGER for Mickey now, OK?
OK!?
DONARD
noolji “you know, some nazis learned all about judaism, it??s culture, it??s heritage. why? so they could destroy it, of course.”
What are your historical sources for this unlikely claim? I suppose you have studied naziism – to destroy it cor course?
You prove yourself a reliable demonstration of problem tendencies, our nation needs to overcome that stand in the way of our national interests, namely the tendency to rely on rhetoric and resort to sensationalist emotionalism rather than logic to express a view. The result of such behavior is that the more we continue to express our views in this manner, the less compelling our assertions become to world opinion. Two recent events illustrate this:
1- First, a motion was recently put aside by US congress to honor the anniversary of US Korea friendship while similar motions were passed to celebrate 150 years of friendship with Japan and US Taiwon ties. Tired of dealing with Korean intransigence, emotionalism and irrationality, US polititians have had enough of trying to make sense of a foreign policy that is tantamount to coddling the tantrums of hyperactive children.
Koreans have not understood, no less appreciated, the incredible sensitivity andd generosity of the US in dealing with Korea. Last year, for instance, Korea got an unprecedented personal apology from Pres. Bush on a traffic accident. As inappropriate as this gesture was considering the great sensitivity, consideration and transparency with which the US comported itself in dealing with this issue, the US government clearly demonstated its sincere unilateral spirit of friendship and cultural sensitivity through such an act of diplomacy. But the Korean media disdainfully disregarded this, just as they had willfully ignored and misreported the facts of the case itself. Because the facts of the case could not be allowed to stand in the way of the need to whip up anti-foreign sentiment and no appeal to Korean logic or sentiment could make a difference.
2- A second incident: The government has acted to block websites that present the Japanese perspective on Dokdo because of the potential to “damage young people’s minds”. If our claims are so ironclad, why move to prevent objective analysis of the situation? So much for “progressivism”…
The facts were sacrificed to emotion and this is good enough for our people. But it backfires in the larger arena of world opinion because no matter how much we demand the world understand Korea, the rest of the world could not be bothered trying to make sense of our temper tantrums.
The world is laughing and rolling thier eyes at us, Whose fault is that? Think about it, noolji. The fact that you insist on excluding me from your race because of my views speaks volumes about you. Which of us is in fact part of the problem and which part of the solution?
Why does the Tokdo in the first link look smaller than the Tokdo in the second link? Just curious.
Little Tokdo
Big Tokdo
-Beav-Why does the Tokdo in the first link look smaller than the Tokdo in the second link? Just curious.
Little Tokdo
Big Tokdo
Mr Beav, perhaps this is why Koreans young and old don??t like you( but I still like you). If you questions anything about Takeshima, you are attacking all of Korea. As a metaphor, you are making Korea your comfort woman (and not paying her enough!!!) By asking why in one picture of the clearly visible takeshima (90+ Km from Ullongdo) is much larger then the other, you are acting as a toady of Japan. By asking such utter and total nonsense you are stealing history. In fact, by even thinking that those pictures are somewhat odd, you become at least partly responsible for whitewashing history (by using arguable truths in .04% of middle school textbooks) and not apologizing sincerely for legally annexing Korea.
Next time I recommend you point out how beautiful Takeshima is in that picture.
What does “sa hwa dong” mean?
Mizarv, when Noogie Marzipan says he can’t believe you’re really Korean, it’s self-loathing on his part. He can’t accept that a Korean person can be level-headed and self-reflective. Fortunately I know many Mizarvs in Korea, and no Noogies save for the occasional drunk ajossi.
The minor discrepancies in the pictures could have a number of reasons. Different vantage points, different time of day, varying light levels, atmosphereic conditions at the time. The simplest explanation is that the second photo is zoomed in somewhat and resized. I don’t agree with Noolji, but this kind of boorish insinuation that there is foul play on Korea’s part is somewhat absurd Gerry. Takeshima was being sarcastic when he called you a Japanese toady in questioning the pictures. Im simply calling you irrationally anti-Korean for missing the obvious and jumping to paranoid conclusions.
I agree, Jing. It looks like they zoomed in to take the picture, giving the impression that the islets are closer than they really are and easily visible from Ullungdo at a certain altitude.
Do you really think I am paranoid? Then maybe you can explain why the manager of the “Big Tokdo” site forgot to mention the fact, among all the other facts on the site, that it was a Korean surveyor, not the Japanese, who in 1882 said he could not see any islands in the waters surrounding Tokdo? By the way, I did not jump to any conclusions; you did.
Also, thank you for pointing out that Takeshima was being sarcastic. I was worried there for a while.
“What does ?橫sa hwa dong?? mean?”
“sa hwa dong” is his way to term that kimbob is a traitor for the Japanese.
Sa hwa dong was a 16th century Choson Korean who betrayed his nation during the Japan’s Hideyoshi rule. He was caught and was executed. It’s his way of saying that I’m a Korean version of Benedict Arnold.
Is that dokdo in the little dokdo picture or is it a ship? I can’t tell. I’m sure Korean internet portals will be restricting the little Dokdo site soon for being Pro Japanese. How are people suppose to get both sides of a story with Korea blocking Dokdo sites that they feel are Pro Japanese?
Non Korean,
The “Little Dokdo” site is not pro-Japanese; the site manager simply posted what looks to be a none zoomed-in picture of the islets.
Even without the zoom, the island is still clearly visible with the naked eye. I don’t even see why you are debating that the Koreans are somehow fudgeing things. The island is VISIBLE with or without the zoom. The first picture shows someone’s head so you have a ready sense of perspective. Besides, the camera and image quality are not that good which is likely why its blurred out. It seems likely that the image is a scan of a regular photograph. Take a nice professional digital camera (no zoom) and you will get a very clear picture of the island.
From Michael Breens’ “The Koreans” (1998):
“Centuries of mutual dislike seems to have coagulated around the question of who owns a small uninhabited rock between the two, called Tok-do by the Koreans and Takeshima by the Japanese. The Koreans have by far the better case. Japan gave up all sovereignty rights over Korea at the end of the Second World War, but claims that the rock became Japanese just before formal annexation in 1910. This is a piece of legal trickery because Japanese domination of Korean affairs, through ‘advisers’ in government offices, began in 1905. With a bit of research the Koreans could have found out the name of a Japanese adviser who arranged the transfer of the rock and made a perfectly reasoned case that fell into the category of claims that Japan abandoned in 1945. Instead, they made an emotional, table-thumping response and whipped up a frenzy or nationalistic bluster which featured boatloads of patriotic students, poets, you-name-it, wearing headbands with slogans on them, clambering up on the rock and liberating it for the fatherland.” Plus ca change…
“The island is VISIBLE with or without the zoom.”
I think this is what you call over-scrutiny. Trying to find something, anything that will back up one’s biases. There’s not much you could do to debate someone who’s sole position is anything Koreans have as evidence are lies, while anything Japan (and we know they always tell the truth about history) gives as evidence is gospel truth.
The trees in both pictures look about the same. Another thing in common with both pictures is that they are both grainy. you can??t find more then two grainy pictures.
Sa Hwa Dong,
Why are the pictures even up on the sites? The “Big Tokdo” site guy said it was to prove that the Japanese were lying about the islets not being visible from Ullungdo, and the “Little Tokdo” site guy said it was to prove that Usan-do (????????), which is supposed to be Tokdo, can be seen from Ullung-do, as recorded in the Official Records of King Sejong.
However, the problem with the “Big Tokdo” site explanation is that it was not the Japanese, but a Korean official in 1882 who said he could not see any islands in the sea around Ullung-do. And the problem with “Little Tokdo” site is that we do not know that the island as being visible was Tokdo.
According to the “Little Tokdo” guy, Ullung-do and Usan-do (i.e. Tokdo) made up the country of Usan-kuk (?????????). Without going into the suspicions the Japanese have about Korea’s claim, I will simply ask my question: Why did the people living on Ullungdo call their country “Usan-kuk” instead of Ullung-kuk? In other words, why did they name their country after a small group of uninhabited rocks that were 90 kilometers away from where they lived?
Whether or not Tokdo/Takeshima can be seen from Ullungdo is not the point. The point is that there is not solid proof that Koreans even knew that Tokdo existed before 1905.
If you drink a few bottles of soju in Ullungdo and look out at the ocean you can see pink islets. Goodnight.
“However, the problem with the ?橫Big Tokdo?? site explanation is that it was not the Japanese, but a Korean official in 1882 who said he could not see any islands in the sea around Ullung-do. And the problem with ??Little Tokdo?? site is that we do not know that the island as being visible was Tokdo.”
- I don’t know what this is all about, but the guy might have made an honest mistake when he was looking at the quote, or he maybe right, and maybe indeed that’s what the Japanese said.
“Whether or not Tokdo/Takeshima can be seen from Ullungdo is not the point. The point is that there is not solid proof that Koreans even knew that Tokdo existed before 1905.”
- How can anyone possibly believe that there is “no solid proof that Koreans even knew that Tokdo existed”, if the islands are clearly visible from Ullungdo? Let’s see now, Koreans were capable of going to Ullungdo, but they weren’t capable of rowing few paces to an island that’s clearly visible from Ullungdo? That is what you’re essentially saying here. Japan also once claimed Ullungdo, Kommundo, and Chejudo. Do you also think those three islands should belong to Japan as well? I wouldn’t be surprised if you said yes.
Sa Hwa Dong,
Tokdo/Takeshima is only a few paces from Ullungdo?
Why didn’t the people living on Ullungdo see Tokdo/Takeshima from their island?
Maybe they did not see any reason to climb up a mountain on a clear day to search the horizon for islets they could not see from sea level. Besides, even if the people of Ullungdo climbed the mountain on a clear day, seached the horizon for an island, and spotted Tokdo, they seem to have forgotten to mention it to Korean officials.
Also, I have never been to Ullungdo, so I do not know what Tokdo looks like from there, but it is possible that even the small image of Tokdo is also a zoomed-in image.
By the way, I wonder how much Michael Breen really knows about what the Japanese have to say about Tokdo/Takeshima? Has anyone seen any English material on the Japanese views, besides what Koreans provide us or the brief summary provided by the Japanese Foreign Ministry site?
Does anyone have a reliable picture of Takeshima from Ullungdo? I mean, the difference in size in those two pics is so large that it is hard to accept them as genuine. Koreans are claiming that Takeshima is ‘visible to the naked eye’ from Ullungdo, but it seems that what we are really seeing is telescopic photography.
As for Michael Breen, if he was so sure that the Koreans have to stronger case, then why didnt he go into detail about it. Heck, if he has the answers, why doesnt he become an advisor to the Korean government and help the Koreans win at the International Court of Justice? Anyone that has read Breens book knows that he occasionally makes sweeping, unsupported statements.
Marmot,
I don’t know why you set up this site but known Japanese agents like Gerry Bevers and others are using this site to send out their propaganda and general hate of Koreans.
If you want to continue, you must kick out some of these paid psyop people. Otherwise, this will quickly become anti-Korean site.
Dear Concerned,
“Known Japanese agents?” I was unaware that Gerry was on anyone’s payroll other than some university in Incheon.
Rather than advising me to kick the “spooks” out, might I advise you to simply argue with them?
Wait – there’s a payroll?
There are a few different arguments running around here. The first has to do with the diplomacy (for lack of a better word) between Korea and Japan over the rocks known as Tokdo. Japan claims that the island is Japanese territory and should be returned to Japan. Some steps were taken and Korea chose to react. Let me liken that to the way children provoke each other. The provoker (Japan) does something they know will make their target mad and they (Korea) respond. The other choice is that Korea could have ignored it and chosen to remain aloof but they didn??t leading to some people posting arguments over the dynamics of Korean diplomacy and the future of Korea. The bottom line is that Korean (I think they are technically policemen) military people occupy the islands and if the Japanese want them back, someone is going to have to open a can of wup-ass. Unlike other areas of dispute like the west bank, Tokdo is not territory that has been taken by force. Unlike places like Maastricht or Prussia, it is not an area that has been lost to war. IF it ever was Japan??s territory and they didn??t defend it, is that not the same as the same little kid that leaves his bike out on the sidewalk for a few days or weeks until it disappears? Clearly they didn??t want it otherwise they would have defended it. Yes I am being a bit flippant but?? The best thing Korea could have done is for the government to subsidize Yon-sama making a historical drama addressing all the fallacies of the Japanese text book with a good sprinkle of Tokdo nationalism for good measure. If they were real creative they could use a Japanese actress and have him fall in love with her and in the process have to explain about Korea and his royal ancestors including those that went to Japan. That would have been subtle.
Gerry Bevers is still singing his old anti-Korean hymns over and over again. No other spare time hobbies left, dude-san???
How about teaching them Japanese right-wing folks some lessons about Japanese unglorious history… uh, in Japan, instead of babbling bullshit stuff to Koreans in Korea?
And your heartwrenching story of the indoctrinated Korean kids… the kids are all right. Never let the next 10000 upcoming generations forget the past!
Ah, well, Koreans… Mizar 1/5, you are definitely NOT Korean. Laughing my ass off about your pretentious writing style. So half-intellectual, sigh!
Hm, after this ranting: Easter greetings to Mr. Marmot. Your Tokdo posts are really filling your comment section and I enjoy reading the stuff. Mainly those ones from the silly brigade…
)!
Psyops? you don’t actually believe that mierda do you? Oh please-that would be like claiming that the Al-qaida sponsored the English teacher website that bragged about sexual exploits with Korean women in order to change public opinion about working with the Americans in Iraq. I can think of many much more effective means to disseminate anti-Korean materials and ideas than this forum-(I am a big fan-really)
Dear Concerned,
I am no Japanese agent. In fact, I cannot even read the Japanese language, though I wish I could. Why? Because I want to know both sides of the Tokdo/Takeshima controversy. Wouldn’t you? For example, wouldn’t it be nice to know what the guy on this site is saying?
By the way, does anyone know if Ullungdo can be seen from the east coast of the Korean mainland on a clear day? I am asking because of a couple of pictures I found on the site mentioned above. Consider the following:
The following is a link to a map of modern-day Ullung-do. (You need to scroll down the page to see the map.) Notice the two small islands off the east coast of the main island?:
Map of Ullungdo
Now follow the following link to a map of Korea published by the Chosun Kingdom in 1530. Notice that Usan-do, ????????(??????), which Koreans claim is Tokdo, is closer to Korea than Ullung-do, ???????(??????). Since present-day Tokdo is 90 kilometers southeast of present-day Ullungdo, not west, then that means that Usan-do could not have possibly been Tokdo, at least, not according to this 1530 map:
A 1530 Korea-government map of Korea
Could it be that Usan-do was really present day Ullung-do and that the Ullung-do mentioned on the 1530 map was just the larger of the two small islands just off shore of the main island, possibly present day “Chukdo,” ??????(????”)? Wouldn’t this explain why the country of Usan was named “Usan-kuk” (????????) and not “Ullung-kuk” (??????), since ????? would have been the larger island?
Now, if Ullung-do can be seen from the Korean mainland on a clear day, then I think I have solved the mystery.
Sorry. My link to the Ullung-do map was wrong. Here is the correct link:
Map of Ullung-do
If you want to continue, you must kick out some of these paid psyop people.
Marmot, man, how’d you miss responding to that part of “Concerned”‘s comment? I enjoy reading the stuff here but is the well so poisoned that not only are people who take critical stances labeled “Japanese agents” but also anyone who doesn’t censor “pro-Japanese” viewpoints can have their forum threatened (by hackers?) with being shut down? Cripes.
How much is the going rate for a Japanese agent these days Gerry:) Do ya get benefits? Retirement? If one can do it part time I will sell my services to the highest bidder (Korea or Japan)?
I’ll sign up for that. Are there performance bonuses? Any other fringe benefits?
For example, wouldn??t it be nice to know what the guy on this site is saying?
I don’t have the time/leisure to translate it, but the expression “????????” the author uses in connection with Korea and the islets — something along the line of “The de facto rule of Korea over Takeshima” — tells it all.
Maps from the period reflect thinking just as much as geography.
Look how close Jeju is.
Whichever island is which in whichever map from the time, there’s a reason Ulleungdo and Dokdo, whatever their names, are usually drawn so close together – they were thought of as being part of the same general sphere. Which is why Koreans say they claimed Dokdo even when the record says “Ulleungdo.”
Not quite like claiming Hawai’i…….. and by doing so also claiming Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, etc in the process, but something along those lines.
In the case of the map above, EITHER you have to find the fac they’re so close together as having special signifigance OR you have to say the cartographer was ignorant, and then you’d have to explain why you’re claiming the fact that the ignorant cartographer got the positions switched means something.
Dokdo “seen from Ulleungdo” or not, you’d get the impression it can be on maps from both Korea and Japan. LIke I say, evidence that they were always seen – by both sides – as intertwined. Dokdo was never out there in the middle of nowhere, it was always – and again, by both sides – seen as being within Ulleungdo’s sphere.
NOTE to Mr. Bevers – ????? (????”, Chukto, Jukdo) is ALSO to the EAST of Ulleungdo. Good try though.
http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~shkimhp/urd/urd_map.htm
Oranckay,
Could you explain your “note” to me? I do not understand it. I get the feeling you misread my post.
I know that the Korean island of Chukdo, ?????(????”), is just off the east coast of Ullungdo. In fact, that is why I posted the link to the Ullungdo map, to establish that fact and to propose that Chukdo may have been what the 1530 mapmaker was referring to when he showed Ullungdo east of Usando, which Koreans claim to be present-day Tokdo and I suggest may be present-day Ullungdo.
There may be evidence that Usando and Ullungdo were the same island, but where is the evidence that Usando was Tokdo?
Point well taken, sorry for the misread.
But the point remains that on most maps islands with names that can only be the present day Ulleungdo and with names that can only be the present day Dokdo are drawn very close together.
I think that’s the case here, too. Obviously there is some confusion in the cartography, but it seems utter nonsense to suggest something the size of Cukto (and hey, it’s either Chukto or Jukdo
) would warrant mention on the map. Look at all the islands on that map. ALL of them (????????, ???????, ????????, ??????? etc) have tiny little sub-islets the size of Chukto in real life but that are not mentioned on it. So, unlikely that one of the two islands that have been circled are Chukto, Kwan??mdo, “Pukch?k Pawi,” or any other islands/rocks you’d see if you swam around Ull??ngdo.
Oranckay,
Are you possibly confusing the Korean island of Chukdo, ?????(????”), which is just off the shore of Ullungdo, with the Japanese name for Takeshima (Tokdo), which has the same Chinese characters (????)? The Korean ????? is only a couple of kilometers off the shore of Ullungdo, while the Japanese ?????, which is Takeshima (Tokdo), is approximately 90 kilometers southeast of Ullungdo.
Oranckay,
Another possibilty is that the 1530 mapmaker was trying to say that both names, Usando and Ullungdo, were used to refer to the same island, which is what Japanese scholars claim. If Usando and Ullungdo were both referring to present-day Ullungdo, then that would explain why the residents of the island referred to their country as Usan-kuk ?????????(?????).
“Could it be that Usan-do was really present day Ullung-do and that the Ullung-do mentioned on the 1530 map was just the larger of the two small islands just off shore of the main island, possibly present day ?橫Chukdo,?? ??????(????)?” asked Mr. Bevers, and he answered as to why not by saying, immediately above, “…Chukdo, ??????(????”), which is just off the shore of Ullungdo….”
Chukto as seen from Ull??ngdo:
http://www.toursi.co.kr/ulleung/image/gallery/gallery36.jpg
S?ngmodo as seen from Kanghwado:
http://nakjo.com/JiRi/Do/SeokMo/200401131332.150.100.jpg
Chejudo, from Udo (couldn’t find pic of Udo from Cheju):
http://www.dhatour.com/goods_images/%EC%A0%9C%EC%A3%BC_%EC%9A%B0%EB%8F%84_1(2).jpg
There is no reason to believe one of the two islands circled on the map are Chukto, because the cartographer clearly has no interest in drawing the islands that you might bang your head on should you swim around the islands he did choose to include.
Oranckay,
Here are five choices. Pick one.
1) The Korean mapmaker screwed up and put the island that Koreans claim is Tokdo due west of Ullungdo, instead of southeast of it.
2) The Korean mapmaker put the two names beside each other to show that the present island of Ullungdo was known by two names, Usando, ????????(?????”), and Ullungdo, ???????(??????).
3) The Korean mapmaker referred to the present island of Ullungdo as Usando, ?????????(?????”) and the Korean island of Chukdo, ?????(????”) as “Ullungdo,” ???????(??????).
4) The Korean mapmaker labled present-day Ullungdo as “Usando,” ?????????(?????”) and present-day Tokdo/Takeshima as “Ullungdo,” ???????(??????).
5) The island the mapmaker labeled as “Ullungdo,” ????????(??????) sank beneath the sea sometime during the past 500 years.
Before you make your choice, Oranckay, ask yourself the following question:
“Why did the people of the ancient country of Usan-kuk, ?????????(?????), call their country “Usan-kuk,” instead of Ullung-kuk, ??????(???????)? In other words, why would they name their country after a small group of uninhabited rocks 90 kilometers away instead of after the island they lived on?”
Also, if the 1530 Korean mapmaker felt that the Korean island of ?橫Chukdo,?? ??????(????) was too insignificant to put on the map, why do you think he would put Tokdo, which is just as insignificant, on it?
Does anyone know, or can anyone find out, the height of the highest point on Dokdo? You give me that number and I’ll give you proof of what height you would have to be to see Dokdo from Ullung-do.
Correction to my above post:
5) The island the mapmaker labeled as ??橫Usando,?? ????????(?????”) sank beneath the sea sometime during the past 500 years.
If I might throw in my own two-bits (inflation – no one wants to listen to 2 cents worth).
I personally believe that Tokdo is Korean. I am pretty sure that the Koreans were aware of the islets – I read some material on the islets being checked to determine if tax-evaders were hiding on them. Of course, I am not sure how accurate they are – Oranckay would be a better judge of that, and probably more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
A couple of days ago I was going to offer some fine reading material suggestions to the esteem prof. that might support his call for ?橫important historical evidence.” I would think that it is apparent just how I feel about the proof he displayed. However, several deadlines hit me at the sametime and I am still trying to get some stuff put together.
The one book that I am surprised that he didn’t turn to was Hamel’s Journal. Hamel states that Tsushima was owned by the Koreans up until the 5th century and then Japan took over (really big paraphrase – no notes). I think that might have helped his theory a little more than Hulbert because Hamel was here in the mid 17th century. However, I also realize why he probably didn’t use the book – because there is another side that would weaken his argument on Tokdo and Ullongdo. When Hamel, actually I think it was one of the other men (perhaps the whaler), asked the fishermen and Korean whalers along the coast if there was any land in the sea to the northeast [East Sea - a.k.a Sea of Japan], the Korean fishermen denied that there was any land and claimed that it was just vast open sea. This doesn’t seem to support the idea that they knew that Ullongdo existed, and for that matter, Tokdo. Is that proof that Korea knew nothing about these islands? Obviously not, because there are other documents that show that they did know of at least Ullong do.
As for Michael Breen digging up the name of the Japanese advisor – I don’t believe he actually needs to do that – but if he did need to do so he shouldn’t be that difficult. In 1905 there are not that many Japanese advisors to the Korean government – at least not that many that held the title of advisor.
A friend of mine, Henny Savenije, has his own website – he specialities are Hamel and maps – here is a map for all of you to argue over to prove your theories one way or another. I think this map is very good because it is dated 1843.
http://www.cartography.henny-savenije.pe.kr/quality/pages/chinaundjapandenmanendanvilleundklaprothgewidmet1843_jpg.htm
Incidently – those who would like to visit Henny’s site on maps it is below, but please note that he has a lot of material- not just on maps
http://www.cartography.henny-savenije.pe.kr/
Forgot to add -notice what color the islands are outlined in and why does Tsushima a.k.a Daemado have a green line beneath it?
Wow Mr. Beav. You have even more people that hate you. Sugar shin (no sweetness for the Beav) only left a post to an insult you and another person (smart of you to snuggle up to Mr. Marmot Sugar Shin). Then Concerned called you a spy. This is the second time I heard you being called a spy. What exactly kind of spy are you? It seems that your information is from books, pictures, internet etc, and your own analysis. In other words public knowledge plus thinking. You are a pretty sad spy if you are only getting your spy stuff from sources that anybody can access, and then just critically thinking about it, instead of just accepting it. Nobody is dumb enough to pay spies for public knowledge. I mean there isn??t a country in the world so full of dummies.
However, I do wonder, with all the people who do seem to hate you, and let it be known if you worry about your safety. Perhaps if you hold the opinion that Takeshima is a disputed territory that should be taken to ICJ to resolve who owns it, can get you into trouble in Korea. Perhaps it??s nothing to worry about, but somebody was helpful enough to let netizens your job and location so it??s not too hard to narrow down where you are. So, please be careful Mr Beav. In a nation where people eat flags, cut off fingers, and, if you remember 2002, attack, or kidnap foreigners without prosecution, you could get hurt.
On another note, I have to say that your arguments have convinced me that Takeshima is in fact Japanese land. I was sitting on the fence for a bit, but now I would definitely agree that Takeshima is Japanese.
Mr. Bevers,
What I “think” is of little consequence. What we are looking for is consistency within the material at hand.
The following are facts:
1) No sub-island the size of Chukto is on the map, anywhere, in the case of any of the other islands around the peninsula that are included on it, each and every one of them having little sub-islets the size of Chukto.
2) All geographical locations in Korea have had more than one geographical name (????), sometimes several, and yet NONE of those extra names get any mention anywhere else on the map. If he did so for Ull??ngdo, then the fact to be stated here is that he did it ONLY for Ull??ngdo.
Like I say, simple facts.
If, despite those facts, one of the two circled islands are Chukto OR the cartographer drew two Ull??ngdos to show that the island has had two names (which, BTW, is the wildest thing I’ve ever heard from you), then at the very least we would have to conclude that the cartographer had such an exceptional interest in greater Ull??ngdo – more so than for any other part of the country, I might add – that he broke the rules of cartography at the time (by drawing two of the same place to show it had two names) and broke his own rules about his own map, given the internal inconsistency he would be creating by making such a huge exception for greater Ull??ngdo.
As for your “why did the people of Usanguk call themselves Usanguk argument,” the reason would be that the name Ull??ngdo/guk did not exist when there were people living there calling their community Usanguk. “Usanguk” existed in Silla times, and at that time the name Ull??ngdo did not exist. They didn’t call their island “Ull??ngguk” because they hadn’t thought of the name yet.
The problems/inconsistencies in the map are not for me or any other modern living man to answer to, nor is it anyone’s responsibility to defend what was going on in the cartographer’s head. If we’re going to work with what he left us moderns with (the map), then before we start second guessing him we need to find internal paterns within his product.
Also, if the map has authority for you or the Japanese side, then one has to make sense of the fact Tsushima/Taemado are included as Korean territory. What to make of Tsushima/Taemado if the cargographer knew what he was talking about?
When it became apparent that the “Chukto theory” wasn’t working you brought up “another possibility” (your words, very telling words too, since you are more than trying to get the other side’s view on this and are doing a lot of the work for the other side all by yourself). I myself might try to deduce something from the map but to avoid confusing the issue I’ll stick to what is knowable for sure: the “Chukto Theory” and “Two Islands for Two Names for the Same Place” don’t hold much water in light of the material you suggest says something.
Oranckay,
1) Ullungdo and Usan-kuk were mentioned in the Samkuksagi (?????????), so I do not understand why you are saying the name “Ullungdo” did not exist during Silla times. Do you have an older source? See this link.
2) As you can see from the passage linked above, Usan-kuk (?????????) was also know as Ullung-do (???????), so it seems Koreans were doing some pretty “wild things” back when Samkuksagi was written. By the way, where can I find this list of these rules for Korean mapmaking that you are talking about?
3) I am not taking about Tsushima/Taemado. I am talking about Tokdo and whether or not Koreans before 1905 even knew it existed.
4) I gave you five possible explanations for the two names the mapmaker listed; you have given me none, choosing instead to ignore what you cannot use to support your argument.
5) I gave you multiple theories because, unlike you, I am trying to find the truth here, not win an argument.
Mr. Bevers again…
re: “…choosing instead to ignore what you cannot use to support your argument…”
I have sought to make any argument, just find the holes in yours.
When it comes to Korea there is so much baloney out there that just fighting it is enough to get somewhere close to the truth, without ever needing to argue a different point of view. Thus I have chosen to ignore the 5 or 6 options you mention above, though another reason is that you fail to see all the possible options and your choice to limit them was a little too triky for me.
RE: “I am not taking about Tsushima/Taemado. I am talking about Tokdo and whether or not Koreans before 1905 even knew it existed.”
I do not wish to argue any points specific to Tsushima/Taemado. But you are talking about a map that you imply means something, so, IF Tsushima/Taemado were Japanese territory by the time the map was made one has to conclude that perhaps the cartographer made mistakes.
RE: “By the way, where can I find this list of these rules for Korean mapmaking that you are talking about?”
Consistency. Could we talk about consistency? The likelihood that the cartographer made what would be a massive departure from the methodology he used in making the map in question and do it just for Ull??ngdo (by including Chukto and by drawing two whole islands to let it be known that there are were two different names) is extremely unlikely. You are swinging in the dark for yet “another possiblity” so I will not be surprised if you try to hold onto that utterly nonsensical unlikelihood, but that’s what it would be nonetheless.
I don’t see how anyone with any familiarity with ancient texts could argue that that someone would draw two islands to let it be known there were two different names for the same island.
Good footwork there on Samguk Sagi. Really. But what it does show is that Ull??ngdo was what they called it in 1145, which is when Samguk Sagi was written. Note that the text written in 1145 is talking about a community that existed in 512. The fact that in 1145 Kim Pusik et al. felt they had to identify the place by the name Ull??ngdo says much. I cannot prove that the name Ull??ngdo was not known in Silla times, but your “why didn’t the people of Usanguk call themselves…” is more blindfolded grabbing for “possibilities.”
If I were you I’d try to find instances of someone in the history of Chinese character-based East Asian cartography drawing two of the same place to show it had two different names – instead of just writing both names on the same place.
If there are Japanese arguing that this map says something then frankly that’s very encouraging.
Hey takeshitty, I “snuggle” to Robert because I like his blog. You know, I piss on the types like Mizbeav and man, you must be a brand new member of their silly weird fan club. Congratulations!
Let me butt in here for a second.
Mr Bevers said this above:
“In fact, I cannot even read the Japanese language, though I wish I could. Why? Because I want to know both sides of the Tokdo/Takeshima controversy. Wouldn??t you? For example, wouldn??t it be nice to know what the guy on this site is saying?”
And then amazingly, Mr.Bevers said this in the following post:
“I gave you multiple theories because, unlike you, I am trying to find the truth here, not win an argument.”
You don’t know what the other guys are claiming, yet you have already said Takeshima belongs to Japan. Unless you’ve changed your mind only recently, you’ve already mentioned that Takeshima belongs to Japan because Korean history is untrustable. Yet, you admit you don’t even know what Japanese are saying when they’re claiming Takeshima.
The problem with your agrument is that your entire basis of argument that Takeshima island is that Korean history is not trustable. Yet, you do not have the same critical analysis of Japan’s claims of history. Why is that? I think someone was joking when he called you a Japanese spy. But I think there is some element of truth to it in that you get a rise out of being anti-Korean. I think no matter which position Korea takes, you’ll just take the opposite just for the sake of not to agree with what the Koreans say.
I just wanted to say that article on the “wedding of Brown and King Kojong” was indeed awsome. Robert Neff, kudos to you. I especially loved the quasi-Chinese picture on the side.
Mr. Bevers wrote “he read a book about Dokdo” and 10 minutes later he “typed in” the excerpt from the book.
Since then, he does not tell us the name of the book he is quoting, nor how he got possession of out-of-print and very esoteric piece of anti-Korean literature?
I must agree with YoMo that he lied about the source. He copied the text from an pro-Japanese website because he is a pro-Jap.
He promised that he would translate the said text but he never did.
Professor? He said he was a military retiree and attended DLI(military intelligence language school). Hardly an academic type.
Earth to YoMo…earth to YoMo..Wake up!
You are authorize again to unleash your venom to Marmot Hall attendees.
Thank yee, Marmot. I will behave.
Reminds me of my favorite song, “I will survive”.
At first I was afraid, I was petrified
Kept thinkin’ I could never live without you by my side
But then I spent so many nights thinkin’ how you did me wrong
And I grew strong and I learned how to get along
And so you’re back from outer space
I just walked in to find you here with that sad look upon your face
I should have changed that stupid lock, I should have made you leave your key
If I’d have known for just one second you’d back to bother me
Go on now, go walk out the door
Just turn around now ’cause you’re not welcome anymore
Weren’t you the one who tried to hurt me with goodbye
Did you think I’d crumble, did you think I’d lay down and die
Oh, no, not I-I will survive
Oh, as long as I know how to love I know I’ll stay alive
I’ve got all my life to live and I’ve got all my love to give
And I’ll survive, I will survive, hey, hey
It took all the strength I had not to fall apart
Kept tryin’ hard to mend the pieces of my broken heart
And I spent, oh, so many nights just feeling sorry for myself
I used to cry, but now I hold my head up high
And you see me, somebody new
I’m not that chained up little person still in love with you
And so you feel like droppin’ in and just expect me to be free
But now I’m savin’ all my lovin’ for someone who’s lovin’ me
Go on now, go walk out the door
Just turn around now ’cause you’re not welcome anymore
Weren’t you the one who tried to hurt me with goodbye
Did you think I’d crumble, did you think I’d lay down and die
Oh, no, not I-I will survive
Oh, as long as I know how to love I know I’ll stay alive
I’ve got all my life to live and I’ve got all my love to give
And I’ll survive, I will survive, hey, hey…
Some people here have been claiming that article 41 mentions Dokdo, and therefore proves that Korea exercised control over it in 1900, 5 years before the Japanese. And yet article 41 doesnt mention Dokdo by name, instead it says ????? (chukdo) and ?????? (sokdo) are to be incoporated into ulleungdo. The Koreans never offer any proof that sokdo is really Dokdo. Why would their be an order to incorporate Dokdo which is so far away, and not ???????? (gwaneumdo) which is right next ????? chukdo? I think Koreans are playing games and ?????? (sokdo) is actually ???????? (gwaneumdo).
Take a look at this map I have edited to see the real ‘article 41′.
Hyundai,
I did give you the name of the book, “???????? ???? ???? ????????? ?????” (Japanese Claims on Tokdo). It was written by a Korean named Kim Byeong-ryu (???????). The author is considered by many in Korea to be a leading expert on Tokdo/Takeshima, so I do not know why you consider it “anti-Korean literature”?
The book was published and printed in 2001, so I do not understand why you cannot find it. Have you tried doing the online search I suggested previously?
By the way, I did not say that I did not know what “the other guys are claiming.” I said I did not know what the person operating the site I linked to was claiming.
Also I have never claimed to be an academic type and never promised to translate the section of the book for you. However, one does not have to be an academic type to read a book that punches many big holes in the Korean argument. I recommend the book to you (if you can read Korean) since I get the feeling that you are not really an academic type, either.
Sa Hwa Dong,
I think the Japanese claims to Tokdo/Takeshima are generally stronger than the Korean claims because they seem more reasoned. Why don’t you present specific evidence for Korea’s claim on the islets, and then we can discuss critically the claims of both countries?
Sa Hwa Dong, among all your postings concerning this forum topic, have you ever posted any evidence for Korea’s claiming the islets? Or are you just into the personal attack thing?
Welcome back, YoMo.
On certain days at sunset you can see San Clemente Island from San Diego and that’s about 125km from shore. It may actually be possible to see Ullung-do from the mainland just before sunrise.
Anyone know the height of highest point on Ullung-do?
Hello Handyandtiny, I will repost this stuff for you (since you’re interested).
I posted this before so if you’ve read it just skip by
My post was made to counter “Dude” because he claimed since Dokto is too far out (94km) Ulleungdo natives could not see it. Since they could not see it they did not know it existed. I countered with the following post.
Juan from Says:
March 20th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Dude?? I just posted a link with a picture that shows that dokto is viewable from Ulleugdo. Dude when you face facts please stop making up reality.
#1. The world is round??? umm?? we all know that??? what does that have to do with seeing 94 kilometers out?
Okay its science time. Let me introduce you to an article:
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF8/800.html
The title ?橫On a Clear Day, You Can??t Necessarily See Forever??
The article states that the human eye under ideal state can distinguish objects on the earth??s surface Under 200miles. (Hey the upper limit is 200 miles!)
Did you also know that the highest point in Ulleungdo is 984meters? At 1000meters you can see under 120~150 km at ideal conditions.
#2. Daemado/Tsushima not viewable from Pusan? (Hey I don??t think Korea has claims to Tsushima, what ever the past, but I??ve got to sepearte your fantasy from reality). Tsushima lies only 50km away from Pusan. It is a very well known fact that you can see Tsushima from Taejongdae of Pusan. And for the visibility range I??ve explained it on #1.
#3. My ID here is Juan. It is by origin a spanish name thus the ???J?? should be pronounced as a ??H??. So the ID is pronounced Huan not Won.
Dude stop showing-off how ignorant you are of what you talk about. It just discredits your arguments.
Thanks for the height Juan. I am still trying to understand the physics and the variations. I will consult an old friend physics before I post a conclusion.
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html
from orange county beaches you can very clearly see santa catalina island. catalina is about 1000 meters high, but even the part that’s only a few hundred meters is quite visible on a clear day. catalina is only about 50 km away, half the distance from ull??ngdo to tokto, but in an earlier post i had surmised that fishermen heading out in the direction of tokto for their routine fishing would have eventually seen tokto, even if they never ventured out of sight of ull?ngdo.
the site that hardyandtiny just linked says that on rare occasions san clemente island is visible from san diego, some 125 km away, so to me it’s looking more and more to me like we’re going to have to lay this idea to rest that people in ull?ngdo didn’t know that tokto existed, a claim apparently used to discredit korean claims of sovereignty.
as for the inability to get from ull?ngdo to tokto, if that were the case, how did people get from the korean mainland to ull?ngdo in the first place, which is even farther?
sorry for rehashing this, but i just wanted to get some questions answered.
Oranckay,
What are the valid, important points that Korea is right on? That they currently occupy the islets? That is the only Korean argument I have seen that I can agree with without reservation.
I think one of the main argument of Japan and Mr. Bevers is that Ullungdo, along with Chejudo and Kommundo, also belonged to Japan. If this holds up, then Tokdo being able to be seen from Ullungdo would be moot point.
Well, good point Nora Park. I guess if you put an apple next to an orange and talk long enough they are the same.
Where are all the picures of sweet takeshima island from all the patriots. Or, perhaps the reverse. No pics from takeshima?
Hmm.. only a two fuzzy pictures of takeshima, from a nation that sings the takeshima song and cuts off their fingers for takeshima. Eats the Japanese flag for takeshima. Oh, nora, talk talks talk talk. But no pictures?
Good question, Takeshima.
Where are all the pictures of Tokdo as seen from Ullungdo? One would think that with all the interest in proving the Japanese claims wrong, we would see more pictures, besides the one zoomed-in image we see circulated on the Web?
Today, Koreans have trails to the top of the peaks, a marker sign pointing in the direction to Tokdo, and thousands of people with cameras waiting for just the right weather conditions to get that one shot that will prove the Japanese wrong, yet they still seem to be having trouble finding the island.
Now consider the situation of Koreans more than 100 years ago.
* There were relatively few Koreans living on Ullungdo.
* The island was covered with dense forrest before Koreans and Japanese started deforresting it.
* There was probably few if any trails up the steep mountains and little, if any, incentive to climb them since most were probably busy just trying to survive.
* And if anyone did have the time, energy, and motivation to climb to the top of one of the peaks, he would have have to search through the forrest to find an unobstructed, 380-degree view of the surrounding ocean and then hope that the weather conditions that day were just right so that he could see a peak of an island, which he was not looking for, on a distance 360 degree horizon.
Is it really that hard to believe that the few Koreans on Ullungdo did not see Tokdo from the island?
Correction: 360-degree view
takeshima,
i think you are so used to producing chest-thumping and agitation, you mistook a legitimate question for the same. i was asking…. asking. that’s where you pose a question and wait for the information.
interesting, though, your logic…
two pictures of tokto from ull?ngdo: a lack of evidence
two people who cut off their fingers in protest: “a nation that cuts off their fingers for takeshima”
gerry bevers,
where are the pictures of ull?ngdo from tokto? given that it is a highly restricted area, maybe there aren’t many. even if such a thing were readily available, you could easily retort that it means nothing, since a large island being visible does not prove that a far smaller islet would be visible from the same distance.
i did a google image search for headquarters + yongsan and found only two pictures of the army headquarters there. could it be that it, too, is a figment of korean nationalism, evidenced by there being only two pictures on the internet?
you’re right about one thing, though: koreans would never take the time, energy, and motivation to climb to the top of anything to get an unobstructed view of the surrounding area. nope, never.
what do i know… my only friends are tom brokaw and pikachu.
Jeez, Mr. Bevers, I’ll front you the 50,000 won for a bus ticket and you can actually go to Ullungdo and get a 360-degree view, a 3-D view and some postcards
pssst… bevers… don’t take the bus to ull?ngdo… it’s a trick!
The height of a mountain does not determine ownership of an island. Given that they are “relatively” close, whether Dokdo can be seen from Ulleungdo is mostly a matter of elevation, that is, how high the peaks are on both, and I don’t see how elevation gets you anything in terms of territory.
So I’m wondering, who cares whether Dokdo can be seen from Ulleungdo or not?
Korea does make a lot stupid arguments about Dokdo, but it is right on the important ones, the points that are valid. The strategy of some is to obsess with the stupid ones in order to ignore the arguments that have validity.
Nora–first the bus, then the boat, then enlightenment.
Why not the bus? I say we let Mr.Bevers take the bus all the way to Takeshima. Mr. Takeshima can hitch a ride as well. Koreans are liars anyway, there is no Tokdo, there is no Ullungdo, there is no Korea. All of you don’t exis (you don’t exist nor do I)t, it’s all one guy – Marmot posting and replying to himself. For instance, how do we know all these flags aren’t put in by Marmot himself? Prove that this is not the case.
As the demon told Jesus, “My name is legion, for we are many.” Damn, isn’t it time for lunch yet?
Wow, Ullungdo is beautiful. I didn’t realize. I’m gonna go check it out.
http://www.geocities.com/kp_diver/index45ULLUNGDO.htm
thanks for the link, hardyandtiny.
this is some place i have long wanted to visit, but i’ve been warned that bad weather can prevent you from getting back, so i haven’t been able to carve out the time. maybe this spring if i’m feeling up to it.
Sugar”You know, I piss on the types like Mizbeav…”
Um, your toileting habits fall under the category of “too much information” – not just gross but desperate red herring arguments.
Robertneff”I personally believe that Tokdo is Korean.”
Like everything on earth, Tokdo is up for grabs. Japan lost it to Korea.
The Tokdo flareup is not easy for foreigners to understand/feel. You have to understand “Korean patriotism”, a story unto itself. Logic and reason are all out the window. We are simply desperate to beat the Japanese and this is our way of hitting after the bell.
One Korean commentator has put the issue in real perspective….and should shame bigots like sugar shin and noolji who think nationality should be determined by compliance with a right-wing orthadox creed.
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200504/01/200504012149297209900090109012.html
JoongAng Ilbo’s Kim Young-hie points out that “Shimane prefecture has demanded for 50 years that the central government take an interest in Dokdo as much as it has in the northern territories of Japan, but the Japanese government responded that the Dokdo problem is a nuisance…It was because the government took into account Korea-Japan relations… The establishment of ??Takeshima Day was intended to raise an issue before the Japanese people and Shimane prefecture residents…Arguments that the Japanese government supported or aided Shimane prefecture in creating Takeshima Day are far from the truth that I observed in both Tokyo and Shimane prefecture.”
Economically, Shimane is poor with a per capita income 15.6 percent lower than Japan’s national average, and about 4,500 fishermen in Shimane are dependent on the rich fishing grounds near the Dokdo islands shared by Korea and Japan. Korea’s willful violation of their fishing rights under the 1999 treaty was the provocation that caused Shimane fishermen to raise their voices resulting in the local legislature’s adaptation of “Takashima Day”
Also, “linking the Dokdo islands situation to the greater issue of school textbooks that distort history is a strategic mistake.” After it was approved by the Japanese government in 2001, no school in Shimane prefecture has adopted it.
Bottom line: the Dokdo issue is a shameful legacy for Korea. It was a provocation not by Japan, but by Korea, shamelessly looking to pick a diplomatic war with Japan, shattering the myth of “Korea has always been peaceful and never gone to war with any nation.”
The politicians are shamelessly exploiting the issue. The Roh government is irresponsibly unconcerned with public safety. People have set fire to their bodies and severed body parts in their misguided protests and misunderstanding of the Dokdo issue).
The Roh government is naively unconcerned about the mounting damage to Korea’s national interest and international reputation.
Roh talks about being a “stabilizing influence for the region” and yet routinely engages unilaterally in such international provocations with its neighbors and allies.
And what about the the poor fishermen of Shimane? How can we Koreans shamelessly pretend to be so sensitive to the plight of the downtrodden when they are in fact hurting the poor fishermen to appease our own hatred of Hiorohito’s Japan, a political entity which no longer eveb exists except in our own deluded minds?
The 1999 treaty which Korea violated is a lucrative one for Korea that has raised our fishing yield manifold. Yet our media is up to their disengenuous manipulations again, arguing that we made a mistake when we signed it (as though we had signed it under duress) and that it is “flawed” and invalid.
Internationally, Korea is gaining a well-deserved reputation as a nation that is manipulative, self-centered, irrational and childish and an unstable, untrustworthy ally. Treaties and agreements made with Korea are not worth the paper they are written on because we always seek to renegue by playing the innocent victim and maintaining we were taken advantage of when in fact, it is us who nickel and dime, hedge and violate our treaties.
Pseudo patriots, don’t lecture people about patriotism when you really mean jingoism. Patriotism is the bravery to face and correct our wrongs – not the perverse obstinacy to perpetrate what is most odious about us in the name of national pride.
mizarv,
i think what you wrote was quite good. the left-wing agenda-driven media machine in korea has been depicting the 1999 treaty as an unfair agreement japan made while taking advantage of a korea weakened by the economic crisis (the so-called ‘imf crisis,’ as if the imf caused it).
i’m glad that the joongang ilbo (and hopefully others) is pointing that out.
bst vr th cntr dt plls
You may find it interesting to visit some relevant pages dedicated to dt plls cd
Txs Hldm
Take your time to check some helpful info about Txs Hldm
prty pkr dlt
You may find it interesting to take a look at some information dedicated to prty pkr mlln
fr csn gm rltt
You may find it interesting to visit some relevant information about chnk wnds csn
slot machines, online
Please visit some relevant pages in the field of play slot machine online
tamiflu price
In your free time, take a look at some relevant information in the field of tamiflu purchase
forex advisor
Please check some relevant pages about jimmy young forex trader
You must log in to post a comment.