June Cho posted an interesting interview with Mr. Mark Lovmo, the man behind the Dokdo information site http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo. She also ran an interview with him (in Korean) with Media Daum, and Yonhap ran another Korean-language interview with him today.
The Dokdo man speaks
This entry was written by Robert Koehler, posted on April 29, 2005 at 1:58 am, filed under South Korea. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
113 Comments
Gerry: Thank you for the reference. If you have other websites or web-based information that provides an alternative fact pattern to the information at my site, please let me know and I’ll make a link to it at my site. If not, I will make a link to the Korean-language text you cited above.
Just in case you didn’t know, I have already linked to Kunitaka Tanaka’s “Takeshima” site, the Japanese Foreign Ministry’s site, and the Shimane Prefecure’s site on this issue. I know Kunitaka basically covers most, if not all of the information I saw in your above post. What I haven’t seen is a Japanese (pro-Takeshima) explanation of why the Japanese Home Ministry opposed the incorporation of Dokdo in 1905, in addition to the earlier decisions they had made.
Again, thanks.
From the interview it said:
“Of course, there are those against Korea’s title to Dokdo, and I think they are all Japanese”
No they’re not all Japanese. I can even name a few in this blog here (which I won’t bother)~.
In 1946, the Choi Nam-seon book, ?€œCommon Sense Questions and Answers about Chosun?€?was published. The book was quite significant because it used a question-answer format to describe the culture, history, geography, and other aspects of Chosun, which was the name used for Korea at the time. In the section on geography, Mr. Choi wrote the following:
“Question: Where is our country located on a map?”
“Answer: The pennisula, itself, is located from an east longitude of 130 degrees, 41 minutes, 22 seconds to 124 degress, 18 minutes, 35 seconds, and from a north latitude of 34 degrees, 14 minutes, 16 seconds to 43 degrees, 0 minutes, 36 seconds. If islands (large and small) are included, east logitude is from 130 degrees, 56 minutes, 23 seconds to 124 degrees, 11 minutes, 00 seconds, and north latitude is from 33 degrees, 6 minutes, 40 seconds to 43 degrees, 0 minutes, 36 seconds.”
Gerry Writes: Dokdo/Takeshima is located at an east longitude of 131 degrees, 55 minutes, which is outside the eastern boundary stated above. That means that in 1946, Dokdo/Takeshima was still not considered a part of Korea.
“Question: Where are the farthest north, south, east, west boundaries of our country?”
“Answer: On the pennisula, the farthest eastern point is Noseo-myeon, in Gyeongheun County of North Hamgyeong Province. The fartest western point is Yongcheon-myeon, in Yongcheon Country of North Pyeongan Province. The farthest southern point is Songji-myeon, in Haenam County of South Jeolla Province. The farthest northern point is Yupo-myeon, in Eunseong County of North Hamgyeong Province.”
“If islands are included, the fartest eastern point is Jukdo [Dokdo], in Ulleung County of North Gyeongsang Province. The farthest western point is Ma-an-ri, Sindo-myeon, in Yongcheon County of North Pyeongan Province. The farthest southern point is Marado, Daejeong-myeon, in Jejudo of South Jeolla Province. The farthest northern point is Yupo-myeon, in Eunseong County of North Hamgyeong Province.”
“[Note of Im Seong-sam: Present administrative districts are slighly different.]”
Here is a link to the Korean version of the quotes above.
Gerry Writes: In the quote above, Mr. Choi writes that Jukdo of Ullung County is the farthest eastern point of Korea. He also states that another name for Jukdo was “Dokdo.” This, together with the longitude and latitude coordintates mentioned above, show that “Dokdo” was not referring to the Japanese island of Takeshima, but to the Korean island of Jukdo, just off the eastern coast of Ullung-do.
In 1900, Imperial Ordinance 41 of the Chosun Empire stated that Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and Seokdo were under Ullung County administration. As mentioned above, Jukdo is one of the small islands just of the east coast of Ulleungdo, but Seokdo’s location was unclear. Koreans have claimed that Seokdo was referring to present-day Dokdo/Takeshima, but Japanese scholars have said that Seokdo was referring to Kwanundo, another small island just off the coast of Ullungdo. According to the 1946 book mentioned above, Dokdo was Jukdo, not the Japanese island of Takeshima.
Koreans have also claimed that an island named Usan was also another name for present-day Dokdo/Takeshima. However, according to this 1899 Korean map, which even shows longitude and latitude lines, it appears that Usan was also referring to present day Jukdo, which is just off the eastern coast of Ulleung-do.
I hope Mr. Lovmo will use the information I have provided above to update his Web site.
Thanks Gerry for info. Mr. Lovmo loves to listen to the other side. Actually, he asked me before whether I knew people who researched this issue on either side. I will let him know about your post (and this entry too, thanks Marmot!).
By the way, Choi Nam-seon was pro-Japanese(?¹œ??¼?ŒŒ)writer. I studied his poem “??´????²Œ??œ ?†Œ?…?????²Œ (from Ocean to Boy?)” in Korean literature school text book when I was in school (in 80s). The Korean textbook was somewhat pro-Japanese at the time. But his piece might be removed by now (thanks to the Korean democratic movement), but I am not sure. By the way, his piece was great. I highly recommend you.
And it should come as no surprise that Choe Nam Seon was arrested on collaboration charges by the Banmin Teugwi (the Special Committee to Investigate Anti-Korean
Activities) after liberation, having among many other things been specially selected to serve on an advisory body to the Japanese colonial government.
It doesn’t matter Gerry. Dokdo or Jukdo or whatever is incorporated into and is and was part of Ulleungdo county. This has been pointed out to you over and over to no avail. And we’re back to square one.
I’m getting tired of reading Japanese/Korean conflict stuff, so I wish Marmot would go on to some other topics.
The picture of Dokdo seen from Uleungdo was very interesting.
Dear June,
Do not you find bizarre that a particular writer (and a very good one) might be censored because of the political views he hold some 70 years ago? How many countries in the world do such things? Even in the Soviet Union after Stalin they were much more lenient to pre-1917 “reactionaries”: we still studied Dostoevsky (right-wing Christian and Russian nationalist whose nationalism and believe in Russia?€™s inborn benevolence probably exceeded that of Noolji) or Fet (great poet, but also an enthusiastic supporter of serfdom).
It was past. People made choices. Some of these choices appeared perfectly logical and normal under the circumstances, but with the wisdom of hindsight we know nowadays that these choices were wrong. It is not politics any more. It’s history. But, alas, in East Asia past never really becomes history. It’s always political. In Korea, in Japan, in China, in Vietnam. This means that people are doomed to continue the same fight endlessly and, as a side effect, they cannot read good literature if its author had views currently believed to be bad?€?
The above brings to mind the current situation of Cho Young Nam, a fine Korean singer and entertainer, who apparently has been misquoted in the press and has been subsequently portrayed as being “pro-Japanese/anti-Korean”. Suddenly KBS (government-sponsored, government-owned) pushes him off the air and some Koreans claim they hate him now. This reminds me too much of the American “Freedom Fries” and the mean-spirited politicians that coined that term.
Here’s the article: Singer says news report wrong, lawsuit will follow
Prof. Lankov, I personally find it a little bizarre, but it depends on individual?€™s perception of history or past. I don?€™t have any problem reading Choi Nam Seon?€™s literature, but there may be some Korean people who aren?€™t comfortable with it.
I agree that it?€™s past and history. I once had a student (he was a rabbi). When I spoke about philosopher Martin Heidegger?€™s influence on postmodernism, he raised his hand and said, ?€œThen I won?€™t read postmodernism anymore.?€? I guess that Hannah Arendt wasn?€™t the only one that Heidegger lost from his Nazi past. Although I didn?€™t find the rabbi bizarre, it made me realize that some people really cared about past or history (whatever you named it). But if there were no Heidegger, I wouldn?€™t be in school.
Well, history is not easy. Historians (like you) should try harder to investigate the substance of history. Why do we care about history so much? By the way, I am glad that I am not a historian. That?€™s a tough job.
I’ve been a fan of Mark’s site for many months. It is refreshing to see the Japanese side’s arguments presented along with those of Korea, even if I don’t agree with it. While I’ve always been with Korea on this issue, I’ve found the near-absence of any explanation of the Japanese case a little troubling. Mark points out to violent acts of protest as not going over well in America - which I agree with fully - but the completely one-sided take on the issue here in the media, schools, etc. is just as damaging in that it might prompt some to think - in this case mistakenly - the Japanese claim is being hidden/ignored/censored because it holds water. In this case, I wish the Korean media would be a little more open to giving the Japanese side - it would actually make their own case stronger. Sadly, to do so would likely see one branded a traitor…
I don’t agree with Japan’s claim. Even their lame”Takeshima” page has little concrete evidence to support their clams. Their chronological page of the island doesn’t go beyond 1904. I’ve seen countless maps presented by the Korean side to bolster their argument. Gerry where did you dredge up that “map”?
Candu, the problem here is the press. I think there’s a good reason why they are so bad. Korean press do not enjoy the same freedom that we enjoy in the West. Thus the reason why Korea seems like one voice - the press makes it look like it.
http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....90023.html
Lack of press freedom is not what prevents any Korean media voice from presenting say, a non-ethnocentric leftist viewpoint the like of which is common in North America and Europe.
Candu: “… but the completely one-sided take on the issue here in the media, schools, etc. is just as damaging in that it might prompt some to think - in this case mistakenly - the Japanese claim is being hidden/ignored/censored because it holds water.”
Gerry: It is no mistake to think that “the Japanese claim is being hidden/ignored/censored” in Korea. Is it being hidden or censored even though it does not “holds water”? Well, do you really think Koreans are so insecure that they would hide or censor claims if they consider full of holes?
* Koreans, and even well-read foreigners, in general, are ignorant of Japanese claims on Tokdo. This because it is difficult to get any information on Japanese claims. Not only have Koreans hijacked the Internet to promote the Korean view, Japanese, in general, are indifferent to the issue, and the Japanese who do care enough to publicly state their views to the outside world have been effectively labelled as right-wing extremists by the Korean and Chinese governments and media. In fact, if anyone agrees with the Japanese claims, they are also quickly labeled “right-wing” or “anti-Korean.” In this regard, I can speak from personal experience.
I also believe that there are many foreigners who, even though they may agree with many of Japan’s claims on the islets, are reluctant to express their opinion to Korean friends, which only reenforces Korean ignorance. And the foreigner has good reason to be reluctant. Even normally quite easygoing, rational Korean friends often become extremely irrational if a foreigner says he or she supports the Japanese claim on Dokdo. Fear of losing one’s friends and job in Korea and of harming relations with Korean coworkers may be keeping many foreigners silence.
Here are some examples of how the Korean government, media, and educators have been hiding or distorting the truth.
* Korean textbooks have not been presenting the Japanese arguments for claiming Dokdo, and have hidden, omitted, or ignored Korean material that might be used to support Japanese claims.
* If the Korean media presents Japanese claims at all, it is almost always only brief, distorted views of the claims, and are almost always done as a lead-in for Korean claims. It is almost always, “Japan claims this, but…,” and rarely, if ever, “Korea claims this, but….”
* The Korean government has shut down Web sites judged to be too pro-Japanese and forced publishers to put plastic-wrap on books that it considers too pro-Japanese. The reason given is to protect Korea’s youth. My copy of Kim Wan-seop’s book, “In Defense of the New Pro-Japanese” came wrapped in plastic and labelled, “For Adults Only.” By the way, Kim Wan-seop has been castigated for his pro-Japanese views, and is now being sued for this comments about Kim Ku and other Korean “anti-Japanese patriots.”
* I believe Korean book stores may intentionally limit the number of books that carry too pro-Japanese messages. I, of course, cannot prove it, but except for a brief time after initial release, so-called, pro-Japanese books soon disappear from the shelves. Of course, if Koreans are not buying them, that would justify not stocking them, but I see other books that seem to also be unpopular collecting dust on book store shelves. Why aren’t any of the, so called, pro-Japanese books also collecting dust?
* Why aren’t there more debate on Dokdo in Korean academic circles? I believe there is more than enough evidence supporting Japan’s claims to Dokdo to stimulate academic debate, but Korea’s historians are unnaturally silents. They most likely fear their reputation and job will be in jeopardy if they take a pro-Japanese stand. Even the Korean author of “Japanese Claims on Dokdo,” went out of his way to say that even though he is presenting Japanese claims, he “absolutely” does not support them, and gave a list of books supporting Korea’s claim as proof. I think that was his way of protecting himself and his reputation.
Candu, do you think Japanese claims are full of holes?
When those black helicopters go by your house, do you wave?
Kushibo,
Gerry may perhaps be wrong — but you have not proved anything. Evidence is what counts. You say you “looked at things very carefully” but that is not an argument. That statement is a logical fallacy called “appeal to false authority.” The point is also not whether you are “pro-Korea/anti-korea” or “pro-Japan/anti-Japan.” What evidence do you have to support your opinions? So far I would say Mr. Beevers is winning the debate. I originally believed the Korean claim, but now I am not so sure … It seems like those supporting the Korean side just want to shut the other side up and not deal with actual evidence.
Kushibo: “Yet your zeal at presenting this same stuff again and again, without even a hint of addressing how others have refuted these claims….”
Gerry: “Refute me, Kushibo. Show me even one piece of evidence….find just one link… and post it here today.”
Kushibo: “It would be a waste of time to refute you ….”
Gerry: “Well, at least you can’t say I didn’t give you a chance.
Kushido: “Oranckay makes a strong case of why the island on the maps is Tokto and not the islets next to Ull?ngdo….”
Oranckay: “I have never said Dokdo = Usando. What I did do is list reasons why by any common sense of methodology it would be hard to conclude that either of the two islands in the following link are one of the small islets a few hundred meters off of Ulleungdo.”
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka.....ongdos.jpg
Gerry: 1899 Korean map of Ulleungdo Notice that the 1899 map shows Ulleungdo and Usan next to each other and that it even shows lines of longitude and latitude to show that the islands are within the 130 degrees east longitude band. Tokdo/Takeshima is farther east at 131 degrees, 55 minutes.
In addition, before King Kojong sent Lee Kyu-won to survey Ulleungdo in 1882, he asked the following questions:
Kojong: Songjukdo and Usando are next to Ullungdo. How far are they away from each other? Also, what is there, and what is not there?
Lee Kyu-won: Usando is Ullungdo, and Songjukdo is a small island about 30 or more ri away (1 ri = 393 meters and 30 ri is almost 12 kilometers). The island products are “danhyang” and “ganjuk.”
Gerry: Doko/Takeshima is 92 kilometers from Ullungdo, not 12.
Kushibo: “You on the other hand, rely in part on some weird notion that an island visible from Ull?ngdo today was somehow not visible from Ull?ngdo prior to 1905….”
Gerry: Again, I have never said Dokdo/Takeshima is “not visible from Ullungdo.” I have said that Koreans did not report seeing the islets from Dokdo before 1905, including Lee Gyu-won, the Korean official sent to Ullungdo in 1882 to survey the island. Lee Gyu-won reported to going to the top of Seongin-bong, the highest peak on Ullungdo, and looking in all four directions, but was “unable to see even one island.”
Gerry: A person cannot see Dokdo/Takeshima from sea level; he or she must climb up one of the island’s mountains, making his or her way through the dense forrest that covered the island at the time. There were likely very few good trails up the mountains, if any, since Korea had a “vacant island” policy at the time, which means few, if any, people were living on the island, which most likely allowed for a lot of overgrowth. And even if someone were living on the island and wanted to fight his way through the over- and undergrowth to reach the top of one of the mountains in search of possible islands in the vicinity, he or she would had to do it on a day that the weather conditions allowed visibilty of 92 kilometers.
Gerry: I have never been to Ullungdo, so I do not know for sure, but I wonder how many days a year there are conditions that allow for 92 kilometers of visibility? I also wonder how easy it is to find with islets with the naked eye? I have only found a couple of pictures taken of Dokdo from Ullungdo, and one of those is obviously taken with a zoom lens. Here are two pictures I have found:
Little Tokdo: Zoomed-in or not?
Big Tokdo: Definitely zoomed-in. (scroll down the page to see the picture)
Gerry: Are my “notions” really that “weird,” Kushido?
Gerry: Actually, I don’t think that Koreans are trying to hide Japanese claims for fear of the “truth” coming out as a result. I just feel that Koreans, when arguing an issue like this, don’t even think about including another side of the argument, even when doing so might make their own argument more credible.
I’m not sure the average Korean has ever sat down and considered other explanations about Tokdo ownership, any more than he or she might contemplate the possibility of the sun failing to rise tomorrow morning. It is simply one of those black and white issues here, with seemingly no room for middle ground. More tunnel vision - in this case highly emotional tunnel vision - than deliberate censorship I think. Frustrating to me but pretty genuine.
While I have stated I feel Korea is more in the right here - I don’t think the Japanese would have the islets were it not for their colonization of Korea, nor do I believe some Japanese claims that the Koreans were unaware of their existence - I welcome debate on this issue and others in Korea. There is nothing worse than an academic or your average person being demonized for expressing an opinion that goes against the grain.
Sa Hwa Dong: I agree with you that the press is less free than in the west, but there are often big differences between papers when it comes to domestic issues like politics, the economy, etc. When it comes to a bilateral issue like Koguryo, Tokdo, or the latest GI-related scandal, there is virtually no debate whatsoever and things get sort of tribal. Anyone who dares speak out, whether in the press, classroom, or neighborhood “hof” is likely to have his or her opinions met with blanket hostility, and their patriotism called into question. That shouldn’t be.
Gerry, most people don’t side with Japan because they, themselves haven’t put forward a strong enough arguememt. If this is the best they got they might as well give Dokdo to Australia.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/a.....ition.html
Basically it says Takeshima is ours because we said so.
Candu:
Are you fluent enough in korean to follow the discussions about Dokto issue in which also the japanese claim is reviewed?
The place to look at is not necessarily in the written press which often provides poorly and summarily translated english version.
It is a bit unreasonable to expect that every discussion and
information in korean is to be translated into english.
I think that there has been a lot of TV/Radio discussions
about the issue including the japanese version… that is
if you can follow them you would see.
The press `less free’ in Korea?….
Well… after seeing the ‘patriotic media’ of US… I think
this is less of freedom issue… hey I see them throwing
s##t without flinch on anyone on the other side of the political
spectrum… including the president, etc…
The bottom line is, if you care enough of the japanese version..
you have all the access you want… but do not expect the
koreans promoting it…. and I find this common sense… in the
end you can only speak for yourself.
If Japan states Dokdo is theirs then how do Koreans continually dig up verifiably authentic Japanese maps from various time eras that say otherwise??
http://dokdo.dgb.co.kr/main3_081.html
Steve,
Japanese maps show Dokdo/Takeshima; Korean maps do not. Korean maps show Ulleungdo and an island called, “Usando,” but, as I have shown above, documents and maps show that Usando was most likely the Korean island of Jukdo, not modern-day Dokdo/Takeshima.
Koreans point to maps like this 1882 Japanese map and say, “Look at the color of Tokdo; it is different from Japan. That means the Japanese recognized it as Korean territory.” However, the lack of color does not necessarily mean the Japanese considered Dokdo to be Korean. Japanese documents certainly do not say the islets were Korean. The lack of color only means they did not consider it to be Japanese, or anyone’s territory for that matter. Afterall, they were only a small group of uninhabited rocks with no fresh water source or arable land. The concept of international law and economic zones had yet to be established in Japan or Korea. Nevertheless, Japanese documents do show that Japanese regularly traveled to the islets and used them as a fishing base. Contrast that to Korean documents and maps that fail to show Koreans even knew of the islets, much less claim them.
Again, Korean documents and maps fail to show that Koreans even knew of Tokdo/Takeshima, much less, claim the islets. Japanese documents and maps, on the other hand, show that the Japanese knew of the islets, regularly traveled to them, and, most importantly, officially incorporated them as Japanese territory in 1905, which made Japan the first country to ever have claimed the islets.
Gerry, you keep bringing up the same claims (the Koreans didn’t know about Tokto, you can’t see them from Ull?ngdo, the islands on Korean maps refer to something else, no one had claimed them until 1905, etc., etc.) over and over as if no one on this blog or Oranckay’s blog has come close to satisfactorily refuting them.
Steve can read all this stuff in numerous posts at Marmot’s Hole and at Oranckay’s and all the links you and others have provided, so he knows how you have tried to poke holes in the “Korean” argument and how others have tried to poke holes in the “Japanese” argument.
Yet your zeal at presenting this same stuff again and again, without even a hint of addressing how others have refuted these claims, has almost convinced me of the strength of the Korean argument like never before. [I think the clincher here was when you said the different colors on the 1882 map "does not necessarily mean the Japanese considered Dokdo to be Korean." If the situation had been reversed and it had been a Korean map showing Tokto in the Japanese color, I am sure you would be all over such a thing, proudly proclaiming that the argument is OVER.]
Gerry, I think it’s time to admit you have swallowed the Kool-Aid.
Kushibo,
Yes, I am sure Steve can read the posts here on the Marmot’s, but he still asked a question, which I simply answered.
I have never said Dokdo could not be seen from Ulleungdo. I have said there is no evidence that Koreans before 1905 ever saw it from Ulleungdo.
You are right, Kushibo. No one has ever shown me a Korean document or map that satisfactorily proves that Koreans before 1905 even knew of Dokdo/Takeshima. Can you show me one now?
Even if a Korean map showed Dokdo/Takeshima to be Japanese, that would at least prove that Koreans knew of the islets. Koreans had had close to 5,000 years to make a map showing Dokdo/Takeshima, but, apparently, they did not. Therefore, isn’t it natural to conclude that Koreans did not know of the islets before 1905?
Refute me, Kushibo. Show me even one piece of evidence that shows Korea even knew of the islets before 1905, much less claimed them. Go back into the posts on Oranckay’s or the Marmot’s sites and find just one link of the many you say refuted me and post it here today.
It would be a waste of time to refute you with the same stuff, because it seems clear that you simply do not want to change your mind on this. Oranckay makes a strong case of why the island on the maps is Tokto and not the islets next to Ull?ngdo but you simply rehash your original argument.
You on the other hand, rely in part on some weird notion that an island visible from Ull?ngdo today was somehow not visible from Ull?ngdo prior to 1905, as if it rose up from the bottom of the sea like some anti-Atlantis, with the inhabitants bringing us tension and strife instead of peace and love. Perhaps the creation of the Salton Sea in far away California in 1905 dropped sea levels around the world just enough for Tokto to appear to the Ull?ngdo-ers, which would explain everything.
Look, I don’t buy everything that comes through the pipeline, and I looked at this very carefully, especially when it comes to Korea versus Japan. My own blog has been accused of having a slightly pro-Japanese viewpoint (which I would say it does not), and I can not only refute that the Japanese changed “Corea” to “Korea,” I can actually show that the Japanese continued to use “Corea” and “Chosen” in international usage. Talk about being willing to go against the nationalist grain!
But your summation of the Japanese argument and your inability to give a reasonable refuting of the points against your argument has actually strengthened my belief that the Korean viewpoint is right (though I will never be 100% convinced of it, or anything else for that matter). And for that I thank you.
locust: I am, to a large extent at least, limited to the English press in Korea. There is little or no explanation of the Japanese claim, which one might expect considering that Korea owns Tokdo at the moment and it is certain elements in Japan that are claiming otherwise. Kind of ignores a rather significant aspect of the story, don’t you think? Would you not expect these claims to be examined in more detail, if only to shoot them down?
I don’t think one can look at any bilateral issue - trade or territorial dispute for example - without having a general idea of what both sides are claiming. I don’t agree with the Japanese claim in this case, but good journalism, history, etc. should strive to at least summarize the opposing view. Missing information, especially stuff that might be relevant, might make readers think something has been omitted on purpose.
I would be equally happy for Korea to ignore this kind of provocation, but seeing as the Koreans - all the way up to the President - have taken the bait from a few wackos in Japan, I guess that kind of opens things up for debate. Ignoring them wouldn’t have changed the status quo one iota, but people couldn’t resist another seasonal Tokdo episode.
I am not impressed with the patriotism that exists in the US media either, especially network news - but talk to me when the Herald or Times features opposing opinion pieces on Tokdo - ie one historian’s view versus another’s - because this is the kind of thing you’d expect to see in the New York Times, Washington Post, or other better US papers. The kind where you get to read two opposing viewpoints and make up your own mind. Look what happens here when Cho Young Nam merely tries to present a balanced view…
First of all the Little Dokdo picture is not zoomed in. The person’s head in the foreground and the wide panoramic seascape show that. As magification of an image increase the width of the scene narrows. I would argue that atmospheric conditions hundreds of years ago would make visiblilty clearer.
This 1936 map was made by the most respected Japanese cartographer at the time. It shows Ullungdo and Dokdo as both separate islands and not under Japanese jurisdiction but rather Choson Territory. This map seems resonably accurate.
http://www.tokdo.co.kr/japantext/images/1936.jpg
although i am on the korean side in this, i don’t think the object on the horizon in the ‘little tokto’ picture is necessarily tokto. a large ship that is much closer would look the same, wouldn’t it?
Steve,
You say that the Little Dokdo picture is not zoomed because the scene would narrow with magification, but how do you know that the scene was not originally wider than the picture shows? By the way, how would you argue that visibilty was clearer around Ullungdo hundreds of years ago?
In 1936, not only were Ullungdo and Dokdo under Japanese jurisdiction, the whole Korean pennisula was. As for the lines on the map, I do not know what they signify since I do not read Japanese. However, if they are territorial dividing lines, why does it appear that the Japanese mainland is also divided?
At any rate, the map does not negate the fact that Dokdo/Takeshima was incorporated into the Shimane Prefecture in 1905, thereby, making it a moot point. Do you really think the Shimane Prefecture transferred the islets to a colonized Korea sometime between 1905 and 1936?
Candu:
If I believe you, at least you are not anti-korean person
in every single issue like some people here and it is a good
starting point.
I believe that a major point from the japanese side comes from
the fact that Shimane prefecture declared Dokto to be within
its juridiction in 1905 and it had legal effects. Without this claim I doubt that japanese would bother to build the case.
But we know what was happening in 1905 in Korea. Japan
could have declared, let’s say, Jejudo to belong to one of
its prefectures and Korea was in no shape to refute that
claim.
So clearly, japanese claim of Dokto as a legacy of its
past empire is a unacceptable claim for any korean in
his/her right mind and it is rather a strong reminder of
the past issues that both koreans and japanese rather want to leave behind.
You might be naive to believe that territorial issues are
subject to discussions…. The territorial integrity is a
sine qua non condition for any nation and one that cannot
maintain it ceases to be a nation.
So in short, this is a issue of strong national interest/security
where third country national’s self proclaimed logical/rational
approach does not hold.
So please, don’t feel frustrated because you are left out
of the `discussion’ because there’s not going to be any.
I believe most koreans are aware also of the japanese side
of the argument. This because they heard it from the
media, teachers, etc… most of it NOT translated into english..
Again, why should korean media bother to translate the
japanese version for the english speaker…..? you can go
to the japanese media and nobody is holding you back.
In short, let’s not be naive to believe that there are countries
in the world where you can discuss casually core issues of
of national intrest/security.
It is unfortunate Cho Young Nam made his
“pro-japanese” comming out just before this Dokdo mess.
I don’t know what exactly he said or wrote but the timing
could not be worse….
Gerry high magnification of the image would mean the persons head in the foreground would also be very large. The degree of magnification can be determined by us using the size of a humans head (a know value) relative to the background. Whether the photo was cropped or not means little. Cameras are not binoculars and even a long telephoto lens has very limited manificaton.
Locust,
First, Dokdo/Takeshima may be a matter of national interest, but security?
Second, what did Korea have to protest in 1905? She had no known interest in Dokdo/Takeshima, and very possibly did not even know of the islets existence. In contrast, the Japanese had been stoppng at the islets and fishing in its waters for hundreds of years. The 1905 incorporation was just a formality.
Third, just because Japan was handling Korea’s foreign affairs does not mean Korea could not have protested the islets’ incorporation after she learned of it in 1906. Moreover, Korea has presented no evidence that Japan prevented her from making such a protest. Besides, if Korea had had a problem with Japan taking the islets, why hadn’t she protested Japanese fishing in the area before 1905? If she knew about the islets and considered them hers, wouldn’t Korea have protested?
Fourth, very few Koreans know the Japanese side of the story, and I cannot believe you said that most do and that they learn it from the Korean media and their teachers. The surprised look you will get from most Koreans when you try to explain some of the things I have mentioned about Japan’s position should be an good indicator of just how uninformed Koreans really are; that is, if they give you a chance to explain. Anyway, why don’t you post a link to one of these Korean media articles that explains Japan’s positon, and let’s see what it actually says? And do not worry about my Korean, I will be able to read it.
Cho Young Nam is not the only Korean who has been castigated because he dared to speak up on behalf of the Japanese.
Steve,
Even just double magnification would make a big difference when one is talking about a speck on the horizon.
The size of a guy’s head is a know value? Interesting. What is that value, by the way?
Magnification would just pull the guy’s head in closer to the camera. From the picture, you cannot know actually how far away the guy is standing.
I am curious as to why there are not more pictures of Dokdo taken from Ullungdo on the Internet? All the Dokdo sites seem to be using the same picture.
At any rate, this is also a moot point since there is no written evidence that Koreans before 1905 saw Dokdo from Ullungdo.
Gerry:
From a cursory look at your posts, they show that your
interest in korean issues (N.K. human right issues, etc)
do not come from the position of neutrality and you clearly
have a agenda of your own.
Please, do not try to hide it… your posts exude your
passion to promote anti-korean views/opinions you
gather from the web and you are impermeable to
any evidence and explanation contrary to your believes.
I wonder, what your exact motivations are….. Is this just
your hobby?
Locust,
My posts are seeking truth. Is that anti-Korean?
the “truth” as you want to interpret..
the “truth” as you want to believe…
the “truth” as you want to promote…
you are absolutely free to seek the “truth”…
sorry for not being the companion for your noble search
for truth… for life is too short…. and I visit this board
just from time to time.. to see what nonsense autistic
babbling is going on…
Here is another image of Dokdo from Ulleungdo. The assumption that Koreans inhabited Ulleugdo but weren’t aware of Dokdo’s presence is rediculous. Again trees in the foreground give scale proving the island has not been highly magnified.
http://user.chollian.net/~zsto.....mg/047.jpg
Gerry, what the prefecture says obviously doesn’t mesh with the international boundaries on the map I gave you.
The Koreans translated the Japanese already. If you want I will tell you what they say the maps says.
Steve,
That is my “Big Tokdo” picture, which I posted a link to above. Compare it to my “Little Tokdo” picture and should easily be able to see that it has been magnified, despite your “tree-in-the-foreground” theory. Just forget about the tree for a second and look at the difference in the size of the two islands.
You got any more pictures?
Locust says about Beevers:
“From a cursory look at your posts, they show that your
interest in korean issues (N.K. human right issues, etc)
do not come from the position of neutrality and you clearly
have a agenda of your own.
Please, do not try to hide it?€? your posts exude your
passion to promote anti-korean views/opinions you
gather from the web and you are impermeable to
any evidence and explanation contrary to your believes.
I wonder, what your exact motivations are?€?.. Is this just
your hobby?”
Ad hominem attack. Point for Mr. Beevers again. It is irrelevant who Beevers is and questioning “whose side he is on” is not relevant in a civilized debate. What is relevant is the points Beevers is making.
Show me evidence prove it.
Here it is.
No that’s a fake. Show me a map that proves you.
OK, here it is.
No that’s fake.
OK, here’s a picture.
No No that’s fake.
OK, here’s another one.
No no that’s fake.
OK, here’s a map.
No no that’s a fake.
OK, earth is round.
How do you know? Have you seen it yourself? Prove it.
Here’s a picture.
Thtat’s fake. (and around and around we go).
Gerry:
From a cursory look at your posts, they show that your
interest in korean issues (N.K. human right issues, etc)
do not come from the position of neutrality and you clearly
have a agenda of your own.
Please, do not try to hide it?€? your posts exude your
passion to promote anti-korean views/opinions you
gather from the web and you are impermeable to
any evidence and explanation contrary to your believes.
I wonder, what your exact motivations are?€?.. Is this just
your hobby?
It doesnt matter if Gerry loves or hates Korea - it has nothing to do with the quality of his argument. This kind of logically fallacy is known as Circumstantial Ad Hominem.
From Dr. Labossiere’s work on fallacies:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A’s interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A’s circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person’s interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person’s interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person’s circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: “Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false.”
There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person’s claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person’s interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim. This is because the person has a motivation to make the claim, whether it is true or not. However, the mere fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make it false. For example, suppose a parent tells her son that sticking a fork in a light socket would be dangerous. Simply because she has a motivation to say this obviously does not make her claim false.
Obviously Gerry motivations have nothing to do with the validity of his arguments. However, I would say you are wrong about his motivations - I think you are projecting.
Some other thoughts: ??œ????¸??€ ???????????¸ ?†??¡? ?°??²???´ ?????´??”. ????????€ ?§€?????´ ?¶€?¡±??? ??Œ??? ??¼?????´ ?ŒŒ??? ??´ ?²???´ ??Œ??? “???????¼ ?³??¶€??´??¼” ?????” “?????”***?Œ€??™????¡œ?¶€??° ?¡¸??…????œ¼????¹Œ ?????” ????Œ€?¡œ ????°”??´??¤” ??¹??€ “??¹?????€ ??¨?§€ ??œ????¼ ?????´?????” ??…?§???¼” ??¼?³? ?§??????” ?????Œ??´ ?§¤??° ?§??????”. ??œ????€ ??œ?·¼?¹Œ?§€ ??…??????°€??? ????œ??¡?²Œ ?†??¡???? ??? ??? ??†??” ?????¼??€?œ¼??€?¡œ, ??œ????¸??€ ????…¼??? ????????€ ??®?????”. ??¹?????? ?????? ?†??¡???? ?°??°?????§€ ????³? ?™??????? ?°™??€ ?²???? ?“°?³? ?????´??”. ??‰, ??? ????…¼????§€ ?ª? ?????” ?????Œ??€ ?³§ ?ª¨?????? ?§???´ ?²???¤??”. ??…??? ??¸??œ??” ????œ????²?????Œ??†Œ?????œ ??´?²°??´??¼ ??? ?²???¸??° ??œ??????¶€?¸¡??€ ??œ????? ????¹??????¸ ??…?????? ?Œ€??´??œ ????????´ ??†??´??œ ????œ????²?????Œ??†Œ??? ?Œ???¨??? ?”¼????³? ?????´??”.
“This kind of logically fallacy is known as Circumstantial Ad Hominem.”
Just like your Ad Hominem attacks on Kyopos which you have stated you disliked. If the shoe fits, wear it. Pot calling the kettle black.
Just like your Ad Hominem attacks on Kyopos which you have stated you disliked. If the shoe fits, wear it. Pot calling the kettle black.
Sorry Sa Hwa Dong(?) but saying that you dont like Kyopo is not an Ad Hominem attack (Not to mention the fact that I never wrote anything of the sort - lets see you quote me). Your grasp of the meaning of words is as feeble as your grasp of irony and sarcasm.
It’s difficult to deal with some arguments on here…someone says “x happened a year before y”, or “I remember I read it somewhere at the beginning of year z”, and you rebut that with solid evidence to no avail…well, what more can one do?
Gerry, the point you make is valid in that there is a difference in the image size of both photos but what does this prove?
It proves the photos were taken using lenses of different focal
lengths.
Yes, there is magnification difference but the little Dokdo photo is taken with a wide angle landscape lens. We know this because the depth of field in the “Little Dokdo” photo is so wide. Both the grass and Dokdo are in focus. You cannot possibly take a telephoto picture and have such a wide depth of field and wide image. Little Dokdo is not magnified I would argue that the island appears smaller that how the naked eye would view it.
Big Dokdo is magnified more than the small photo. But if you are telling me the magnification is to the extent we couldn’t see it with the naked eye it’s clear you are wrong.
Gerry, Koreans DO have written records saying they could see Dokdo they say the Sejong Sillok 1432 mentions the isles. Koreans understand this as Dokdo is not so far that under a clear weather an island comes into view and that Usan-do exactly refers to Liancourt Rocks. Juk-do, is only 4 km east from Ulleung-do. It is so close to the main island that it does not have to be clear to view each other Liancourt Rocks to look at from each other, it has to be a good weather.
“You can see it with naked eyes”, “No you can’t”, “Yes you can’t”.
Well I got a simple solution to all this. Let’s travel to Ullungdo and see if we can or we can’t. Wouldn’t that be the simple solution instead of going back and forth and arguing this point incessantly?
From Gerry Bevers: The surprised look you will get from most Koreans when you try to explain some of the things I have mentioned about Japan’s position should be an good indicator of just how uninformed Koreans really are; that is, if they give you a chance to explain.
If your discussions with “most Koreans when you try to explain some of the things [you] have mentioned about Japan’s position” include information like the alleged facts and logic you have been using at Oranckay (”Japanese textbooks, Chinese textbooks”), then their surprise may be justified. The same with an attempt to cut you off in order to set the record straight.
For example, you have stated that an island 2 km (~5 ri) from the coast of Ulleungdo (Jukdo) is in fact 4 km (10 ri) from Ulleungdo, and that this makes it “much more likely” that Jukdo is one of the islands (Songjukdo) said in the Kojong shillok to be “30 ri or more” (12 km or more) to the east of Ulleungdo.
When that was pointed out to you, you insisted that it “was measured” as 4 km, but this was apparently your mistranslation of something in Korean (”??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? 4km ??? ???? ???,” which means that Jukdo is 4 km from Jeodong-hang Harbor, going northeast in the direction of Seommok, from which you stated, “The 4-kilometer distance I gave was measured from Seom-mok, which is also one of the closest points to Jukdo from the main island.” The map you provided, where you said I “can go here if you want to check it” contained no indication of kilometers or map scale.
You seemed determined to demonstrate that Jukdo (less than 2 km off Ulleungdo) was the Songjukdo Island mentioned in the Kojong shillok as “30 ri (12 km) or more away.” You words: “Since present-day Dokdo/Takeshima is 92 kilometers away from Ullungdo, it is much more likely that the Songjukdo mentioned by King Kojong and Lee Kyu-won is present-day Jukdo.” (Jukdo is 2 km away).
Toward that end, you also suggested that the “30 ri or more” distance from Ulleungdo to Songjukdo Island mentioned in the shillok annals might be because Lee Kyuwon had possibly measured 12 km from the center of Ulleungdo to Jukdo (your words: “I do not know why Lee Kyu-won said 12, unless he was measuring it from the center of the island, or something.”)
But it was pointed out to you that 12 km from present-day Jukdo (just off Ulleungdo’s east coast), would be a point on the west coast of Ulleungdo. To this point, you made no response.
It was also pointed out to you that it was unlikely that the island to the east of Ulleungdo would be Jukdo just off Ulleungdo’s coast, because similar sub-islands in other parts of the country were NOT put on the same map. (It was also pointed out that your choice of link to just a snippet of the map in question would tend to obscure this fact).
To this you responded that, “Whether the map fails to show other small islands around the Korean pennisula or not does not change the fact that it does show Usan-do and Ullung-do right next to each other, which means one of those islands has to be relatively small since there is no other large island in the vicinity.”
Just as your characterization of an island 5 ri from Ulleungdo could be an island described as “30 ri or more away” is highly questionable, your description of the two islands on the 1530 map being “right next to each other” is somewhat self-serving. The two islands are depicted as near each other, but there is at least some distance between them, certainly much more than one would expect for a small island just off the coast of a larger one.
I’m not trying to join the dogpile on you, Gerry, but I would like to make two points: at least a few of your assertions have been demonstrated to have serious flaws, enough that they should be discarded as part of your argument. The second point is that your apparent eagerness to believe them in support of what would be evidence to undermine a historic Korean claim seems to be what is preventing you from acknowledging these flaws.
It is interesting to read what you are writing, Gerry, but it would be more interesting if you showed the objectivity you condemn “most Koreans” for not having.
The Admiral has spoken.
For our visitors who do not read Korean, Shaku8 has imparted his guidance thusly:
“Koreans have a typical way of arguing. When their knowledge is insufficient, or their claims fail, very many simply say “study history” or “I graduated from college so I’m absolutely right,” or “you just hate Korea.” Since Korea was a dicatorship until recently and unable to engage in free discussion, Koreans’ rhetorical abilities are very low. You also do not rebut my discussion and write completely the same thing. In other words, persons unable to engage in debate simply resort to insults. The Dokdo issue should be resolved at the ICC, however, as the Korean government does not have confidence in its political position, it is avoiding the verdict of the ICC.”
Ipse dixit
From steve: Juk-do, is only 4 km east from Ulleung-do. It is so close to the main island that it does not have to be clear to view each other Liancourt Rocks to look at from each other, it has to be a good weather.
Jukdo, at the closest point to Ulleungdo, and at the point visible in the picture that shows Ulleungdo and its two sub-islands (Jukdo and Gwaneumdo), it is only 1.8 km away. At a number of other spots, it is just slightly over 2 km.
IOW, the 4 km figure is wrong and should be discarded.
The Admiral has spoken.
Good enough translation, but its the ICJ, not ICC.
Obviously you have little knowlege of photographic theory Gerry.
You camera doubles its magnification….Two times what?
At any rate we know the distance of Dokdo from Ullengdo and we know the forground is clear in the the little Dokdo pic.
Using a depth of field calculator we can easily approximate the focal length of the lens used to take the photo.
Try this.
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
For the past half century Korea, the most proximal nation to Dokdo/Takeshima, has controlled and occupied these two islets, which it has records that arguably show it has known about the islets and laid claim to them for centuries. It is being challenged by Japan, whose relatively recent claim went through virtually unchallenged 100 years ago largely because at least from 1904 it had, by its own design, an incredibly high degree of control over Korea’s affairs.
With no guarantee that Japan would abide by an unfavorable ICJ decision, what incentive does the country that controls the islets have to go to the Court?
Not going to the Court when you have nothing to gain from it (not even a guarantee that the issue would end) is simply prudent behavior, not acknowledgement of a weak position.
Not going to the Court when you have nothing to gain from it (not even a guarantee that the issue would end) is simply prudent behavior, not acknowledgement of a weak position.
True enough, but then, as Shakuhachi has pointed out, why is it Korea that is raising the issue so vociferously? It really is as though the powers that be in Korea are trying to convince themselves. All the Dokdo ruckus is strictly for domestic consumption.
Strange, no?
Steve is using the tried and true kyopo way of argument method . Insult and flood. Kyopos think that if they flood a website with enough comments then their arguments become true. Kyopos also think by insulting people that strengthens their weak argument. For other examples of this look at NoraSumiPark. Other variations of the kyopo way of arguing are the Noolji style=nonsensical insults, occasional flooding. And the sawhadong style, weak insults more flooding.
Are there any kyopos on this blog that don?€™t do this?
Steve, I have a map that shows russia owns alaska. So what if the silla dynasty claimed takeshima in 532. Why do all the kyopos line up and think just like all the other koreans on this issue.
The ruckus is not about convincing themselves of something, but about getting people angry in order to manipulate them.
If Ontario began repeatedly pressing a claim to Angle Inlet in Minnesota (the northernmost US territory in the lower 48), the loud voices from Americans in general and Minnesotans specifically would not be a sign that Americans were not convinced of their claim to that bit of real estate, but a sign that they were indignant, angry, and outraged.
The Admiral has spoken.
Admiral,
The empty cart makes the most noise, and I think Korea is the empty cart when it comes to Dokdo.
You are right about the distance from Seommok, however. I did misread the Korean. I just glanced at the reference to Seommok, Jukdo, and 4 kilometers and made a wrong assumption. Nevertheless, I think you are reading too much into the 30 ri (12 kilometer) reference, since that distance was reported in Lee Kyu-won’s pre-inspection report.
As I have said, I cannot explain why the distance was quoted as 30 ri (12 kilometers). I only suggested that it might have been a measurement from the center of the island. By the way, here is Mr. Lee’s pre-inspection report to King Kojong:
??????æª?????½¿?§¡?????? ?¾?™??¹? æ??æ?° ??±?™??³¶?¿‘有????œ??ºº?‰??¹???¡?¸¸?¾€?¾† ????‡ª????¾¿?¹??¼??º‘??? ?¸”æ?¾??¹?³¶????±±?³¶ ?œ¨æ?¼??±?™??³¶?¹???? ?€Œ?…¶??¸?·?????¿‘?½???? ?º?有?½??‰???‡??? 未??½??³??? ?????ª??¾?¡Œ ?‰¹??²æ“‡?·®?€… ??????æª???? ?¸”?°‡?¨??‘??²?¨? ?¿…????œ??½???‡?????® ??³?´€?Œ???”?¹? ??????æ?° ????±±?³¶??½??±?™??³¶ ?€Œ????±± ??¤?¹??œ???½????¹? æ?¾??¹?³¶??½?¸€?°??³¶ ?€Œ??‡??±?™??³¶ ??¸?·???²?¸‰æ?¸????‡Œ ?…¶æ‰€?”? ??½æª€??™??‡?°¡??¹?º‘??? æ??æ?° æ???¨±????±±?³¶ æ???¨±æ?¾??¹?³¶ ??†?¼¿?œ°?????½æ‰€?¼‰?¹? ?€Œ????¨±æ?¾?³¶??¹?³¶??‡????±±?³¶??²?¸‰?³¶??±?¨±??±?™??³¶??? ?…¶?½??¾¿?¸€??”æª???? ??±?™??³¶æœ?????¸‰?™??‡??°‡?¶?æ?¾???æ?¶ ?§????æ?œæª??€… ?€Œæ“§??†æœª?…?????¿½ ??ª????¤????æ???¾† æ?…?‡´æœ‰æ¤?¼? ??¾?‰‡?¿…??³?´°????¾??¹? ??????æ?° ??¹??¶æ·±?…?æª??????? æ???¨±æ?¾?³¶??¹?³¶ ?œ¨æ?¼??±?™??³¶?¹?æ?± ?€Œæ¤???æ?¾??¹?³¶????¤? ???有æ?¾?³¶??¹?³¶?¹? æ??æ?° æ??有所?¾????æ?¼æ?¾?¾€æ?œæª??ºº?¹??ªª?€¶ ??????æ?° æ?¾?¾€æ?œæª??¹??ºº 未?¾??€??‘? ?€Œ?½‰????…¶æ???°œ???.
The reference to the distance is this: ??¸?·???²?¸‰æ?¸????‡Œ.
I think the ??¼???????? is translated as “30 of more ri,” but I am not sure. I have seen a Japanese site translate it as “10 ri.” At any rate, there is no island 12 kilometers off the “east coast” of Ulleungdo, but Jukdo is much closer than Dokdo/Takeshima, which is 92 kilometers southeast.
As for Oranckay’s “sub-island theory,” it does not explain why Ulleungdo and Usando are drawn next to each other on Korean maps. Or why Usando is sometimes drawn to the west of Ulleungdo and sometimes to the east. To add to the confusion, I have read that Ahn Yong-bok, “the hero of Dokdo,” said that Usando was bigger than Ulleungdo. At any rate, in 1882, Lee Kyu-won told King Kojong that Ulleungdo and Usando were the same island, and in his diary of his inspection of Ulleungo, Mr. Lee was very clearly referring to Jukdo, not present-day Tokdo/Takeshima. If you would like to read Lee Kyu-won’s diary, it is here.
The diary is quite interesting, but one thing that I found especially interesting was that the Japanese Lee Kyu-won found on Ulleungdo referred to Ulleungdo as “Songdo,” which is the name the Japanese were using to refer to present-day Dokdo/Takeshima.
As for your subjective view of my objectivity, you are free to think however you wish.
Steve: “Yes, there is magnification difference but the little Dokdo photo is taken with a wide angle landscape lens. We know this because the depth of field in the ?€œLittle Dokdo?€? photo is so wide. Both the grass and Dokdo are in focus. You cannot possibly take a telephoto picture and have such a wide depth of field and wide image. Little Dokdo is not magnified I would argue that the island appears smaller that how the naked eye would view it.”
Gerry: I think you previously used a similar argument to also say that the “Big Dokdo” picture was not magnified. A high magnification may blur the foreground, but a relatively low magnification would not. For example, I use double magnification on my camera all the time without blurring the foreground.
Steve: “Big Dokdo is magnified more than the small photo. But if you are telling me the magnification is to the extent we couldn?€™t see it with the naked eye it?€™s clear you are wrong.”
Gerry: I have already said that I have never been to Ulleungdo, so I do not know if Dokdo/Takeshima can be seen with the naked eye. I have only said that Koreans before 1905 never reported seeing Dokdo/Takeshima from Ulleungdo. If you want to go confirm it for yourself, be warned that Ulleungdo has an average of only 55 clear days a year.
Steve: “Gerry, Koreans DO have written records saying they could see Dokdo they say the Sejong Sillok 1432 mentions the isles. Koreans understand this as Dokdo is not so far that under a clear weather an island comes into view and that Usan-do exactly refers to Liancourt Rocks. Juk-do, is only 4 km east from Ulleung-do. It is so close to the main island that it does not have to be clear to view each other Liancourt Rocks to look at from each other, it has to be a good weather.”
Gerry: I will deal with the Sejong Sillok later when I have more time.
This map it made by France which obviously had no reason to endorse a land dispute over some rocks back in 1832 by J. Kaproth. It shows Takeshima as Coree or Korean.
http://img.news.yahoo.co.kr/pi.....988661.jpg
Gerry said “No one has ever shown me a Korean document or map that satisfactorily proves that Koreans before 1905 even knew of Dokdo/Takeshima. Can you show me one now?”
http://www.tokdo.co.kr/english/tokdo_32.htm
Kyopos think that if they flood a website with enough comments then their arguments become true.
Gerry Bevers is a Kyopo?
Are there any kyopos on this blog that don?€™t do this?
I don’t know, as I don’t ask commenters to identify themselves by ethnicity.
And for the love of Christ, could we avoid the kyopo-bashing (or bashing of anyone, for that matter), please.
Where do I insult Gerry? You say I flood this blog but my posts are short, factual and with links to buttress my argument. The only one hurling insults here is you.
I’m not a kyopo. I’m blue-eyed and fishbelly white.
I don?€™t know, as I don?€™t ask commenters to identify themselves by ethnicity.
And for the love of Christ, could we avoid the kyopo-bashing (or bashing of anyone, for that matter), please.
Agreed. But if bashing Kyopo is to be forbidden, then the Kyopo should also be restrained from making comments about peoples motivations. As far as I can see only one person is making negative comments about Kyopo, but all the Kyopo are guilty of at one time of accusing people of being racist, anti Korean, of smoking crack, of being Japanese agents (!). The Kyopo have also been exceedingly rude, using foul language without contributing to the debate etc.
Another thing to consider is that most of the Kyopo here did not announce themselves as such but I have been able to correctly pick them out as Kyopo simply because of the kind of things they write. The idea of Kyopo living up to the stereotype is very cogent, I think.
Shakuhachi,
In America, the president is chosen by popular votes. Everybody gets one vote, because America believes in equality of people. One cannot discriminate against the other’s race, nationality, sexual orientation, education or anything else.
The internet should be like that as well. Your comments of singling out the Kyopos worry me. Even if we have emotional attachment to Korea and biased(who is not?), our voices should be heard. You think a Korean Kyopo’s thoughts does not count while a white person thoughts matter? What a racist!
I do not believe this web blog is a courthouse where we have to state the most reasonable case, nor is this a place to prove you are correct once and for all. This blog is a place where we can VOICE what we think, feel(yes, emotion is a part of us too) and provide some interesting remarks and exchange our thoughts. If you want a formal political debate, watch PBS or take a political science course at nearby college.
I think this site should be informative, entertaining and worthwhile.
Marmot, maybe it is time that we outlaw “Dokto” discussion; the issue is too divisive. Let’s move on to other things in life such as the BradJan’s divorce, movies, soccer games,etc. I think even the majority of Koreans have moved on; there are less and less news about Dokto in the Korean media anyway.
I do wonder how many trolls/race baiters there really are? Just idle speculation, but I figure lots of them are really the same person or persons posting from different handles and IP addresses.
Steve,
You are right. I do not know much about photography. I have a Cannon Powershot S10 with 2.0x optical zoom. What does that mean?
As for your Korean maps, I wonder if you have been paying attention to the discussion? None of the Korean maps you linked to show “Dokdo.” They show an island next to Ulleungdo labeled “Usan.” Usan is not Dokdo; it is another name for Ulleugdo, a fact that is stated in Korean documents and by Korean officials. By the way, I have a book that says Lee Yun-won did find some people living on Ulleungdo in 1882 who referred to Jukdo as Usando. Jukdo is the small island just off the shore of Ulleungdo.
Steve, read the captions on the maps you linked. They do not say Dokdo; they say Usan. And look at the caption for the second map. It is almost comical:
A Complete Map of Eight Provinces of Korea in the first page of the New Augumented Survey of the Geography of Korea made in 1530 places Usan(Tokdo) closer to Korea proper on the western side of Ullungdo. But both islands are shown clearly as Korean territories.
The map shows Usan (Tokdo) closer to Korea than Ulleungdo, which is, of course, ridiculous, yet the caption downplays that fatal flaw to focus on the positive by saying, “both islands are shown clearly as Korean territories.”
The whole Korean argument for claiming Tokdo/Takeshima is based on the false premise that Usan-do is present-day Dokdo/Takeshima. Without that premise, the Korean argument falls apart.
Check out some of the Dokdo sites and see how many mention the fact that Lee Kyu-won, a Korean government official, told King Kojong directly in 1882, “Ulleung-do and Usan-do are the same island.” Even Lovmo’s site does not mention that. Korea’s whole argument for her claim on present-day Dokdo/Takeshima is based on a false premise, which, of course, leads over and over again to false conclusions.
As for your French map, it looks like it is referring to Ulleungdo by its Japanese name. Ulleungdo was called Takeshima by the Japanese until around 1905, when the name started to be used to refer to present-day Tokdo/Takeshima. No one on this blog is disputing the fact that Ulleungdo belongs to Korea. Even the shape of the islands look like Ulleungdo with its neighboring island, Jukdo.
Correction: “Lee Yun-won” should be “Lee Kyu-won” in my above post.
shingles wrote:
Steve, I have a map that shows russia owns alaska. So what if the silla dynasty claimed takeshima in 532.
psst… the russians sold alaska in 1867. bad analogy.
“. The Kyopo have also been exceedingly rude, using foul language without contributing to the debate etc.”
Shaku, name one Kyopo in this thread or any other who has used foul language and have been exceedingly rude. Give us an example other than maybe Noolji which you have already made ad hominem attacks (and Kyopos that you say are hated by foreigners) on your Cyworld page.
“I?€™m not a kyopo. I?€™m blue-eyed and fishbelly white. ”
Doesn’t matter, anyone who argues in favour of any Korean position, shall be labeled as Kyopos - foul mouthed, rude, traiterous, and Korean spies. he he/
I get it now Gerry. If Japan “mistakenly” calls Ulleundo Takeshima they can simply say they made a mistake and now Takeshima means Dokdo……..hmmm. Ok…..
Steve,
I think the English and a German were responsible in a big way for the Japanese name confusion, at least according to a poster named “Passerby” in the comments section of the Flying Yangban blog. You can read about ithere.
Of course, if you have gotten it already, then why bother?
Shaku, name one Kyopo in this thread or any other who has used foul language and have been exceedingly rude. Give us an example other than maybe Noolji which you have already made ad hominem attacks (and Kyopos that you say are hated by foreigners) on your Cyworld page.
Ill name more than one. And these are the mild ones in the most recent threads. I dont have time to search for the worst.
to my korean brothas?€?do what i do?€?fuck as many japanese chicks as you can?€?this should be easy since japanese women are known to jizz standing just hearing the word ?€œyonsama?€??€? - Sang, a Kyopo
but if you just find another girl, shazzam, you can get over her.
she?€™s gone; she got married to that salaryman from seoul national university and she?€™s just not thinking about you anymore. you were just an ephemeral fling as a way to get back at her parents in her mind without her parents actually knowing about it and reacting to it. now that she?€™s gotten that out of her system, you don?€™t even occupy but a few cells of gray matter in her brain. - Meaningless insults from Nora
hey apple sack?€?i admit?€?you take a (big phat bong)hit keep coming back?€?you apple-facking turd?€?it?€™s not easy admitting you?€™re a fascist a$$.. - sang
i wanna ask you apple crack?€?if someone put a gun to your head said he?€™s gonna ass fuck you you better scream like a little porker with a real nice fuji apple in your foul mouth?€?or get shot?€?would you resist kicking screaming? I didn?€™t think so (it wouldn?€™t matter cuz you?€™d still get rimmed in the ass with a fat fuji in your mouth)?€?and good for you for admitting what ass crack you are?€? More gems from sang
YES! SCHOOLS to culturally eradicate Koreans, ROADS to faster