According to the Kookmin Ilbo, Korean netizens have apparently convinced the folk at Google Earth to mark the East Sea as the, well, East Sea. The other name it occasionally goes by has been placed in parenthesis.
The program also corrected the spelling of Korea’s capital from Soul (which I guess it would be according to North Korea’s romanization scheme) to Seoul.
89 Comments
“Soul” (or rather, S??ul) would be the McCune-Reischauer spelling of Seoul, not necessarily the North Korean spelling. When McCune-Reischauer was adopted in 1984, the spelling of Seoul was kept, as should have been done with Inchon, Pusan, Taegu, Taejon, and Kwangju, since these are all established names and the NAKL system says established proper names can remain the same.
Pyeongyang, by the way, should be written as Pyongyang or P’y??ngyang, since it is not a South Korean city subject to the NAKL’s atrociously inaccurate system. Same with K?mgangsan and Kaes??ng.
In the DPRK usage visible at KCNA (which I consult almost only for linguistic purposes), the southern capital would in fact be Soul, as they don’t make a distinction between ?? and ??, but they have it understandably as Seoul. Their own capital they have as Pyongyang and not as Phyongyang, ignoring the aspiration, which they otherwise show with “h”: ?????? == Choe Thae Bok.
I wish they would upgrade their North Korean imagery, although I realize they will never get the airplane-level country data sets like they have for a good number of U.S. counties, it would be nice to be able to make out the ????? hotel as more than a black blob. Maybe when can even have a digital nuke-making plant hunt. wheeeee
Whoah, Kush! You’re getting ahead of yourself! You and I have discussed the advantages of McCune-Reischauer over the NAKL system, but you wrote:
“When McCune-Reischauer was adopted in 1984, the spelling of Seoul was kept, as should have been done with Inchon, Pusan, Taegu, Taejon, and Kwangju, since these are all established names….”
By that logic, they should have kept their spellings Incheon, Busan, Daegu, Daejeon, and Gwangju in 1984, and retained them right down to the present day.
“??Soul?? (or rather, S??ul) would be the McCune-Reischauer spelling of Seoul, not necessarily the North Korean spelling. When McCune-Reischauer was adopted in 1984, the spelling of Seoul was kept, as should have been done with Inchon, Pusan, Taegu, Taejon, and Kwangju, since these are all established names and the NAKL system says established proper names can remain the same.
Pyeongyang, by the way, should be written as Pyongyang or P??y??ngyang, since it is not a South Korean city subject to the NAKL??s atrociously inaccurate system. Same with K??mgangsan and Kaes??ng.”
Shut up.
Katz is a coarse little troll. Time for some Internet insecticide, Marmot.
Retarded.
How long before they convince Google Earth to map Dokdo? hurhurhur….
(it wouldn’t surprise me one bit)
Ooo… Now if they can get Bill Gates to say Google is wrong, Korea’s quest to name the channel East Sea will be a success!
Hey, ray. You must be ugly as the picture you posted as you.
hahahahaha!
I’ve been KatZed!!!!
Retarded.Retarded? I wouldn’t say so.
Look, I have gone on record showing how the “Corea” thing is a sham, but I just don’t see the “East Sea” issue as lacking merit in that way at all.
Fully half of the four countries bordering the East Sea/Sea of Japan are steadfastly opposed to the name “Sea of Japan” (one-third if the two Koreas become one), which does count for something in at least international naming convention. Given that the Sea of Japan name was adopted when Japan controlled Korea, it would stand to reason that a post-liberation DPRK and ROK be able to challenge it.
Personally, though, I think the issue could be resolved with a grand face-saving deal involving China in which the East Sea is officially recognized as the Sea of Japan while the Yellow Sea becomes the Sea of Korea. This would only work after reunification, though, since the DPRK and the ROK wouldn’t be able to decide whether it should be the Han’guk Hae or the Chos??n Hae.
Understood, but do Koreans normally refer to it as East Sea because it’s EAST of the Korean peninsula, or just that it’s generally in East Asia?
Why should we go renaming long-established geographic entities to please the petty xenophobes of VANK? (I could be wrong, but) I don’t think Sri Lanka complains about the Indian Ocean or Mississippi complains about the Gulf of Mexico. This is plainly silly.
Hahahahaa.. I would think it’s really the Texans who would be peeved at the Gulf name. Gulf of Alamo. Has a nice ring to it.
I think calling it “East Sea” is unfair, because that would mean that a generation of poor Japanese school children will be really confused on which way is east and west.
I propose a compromise solution: Sea of Hideyoshi’s Invasion. It alludes to a Japanese historical figure, which makes it a big plus for the Japanese all at the same time signifying Japan’s historical aggression on Korea thereby satisfying Koreans. Happiness all around!
or maybe the takeshima sea?
that would make no one happy, except maybe some fishermen in Shimane, and that doesn’t bother me one bit…on second thought how about the Far West Sea of America??
Logically, it should be the Sea of Japan.
Japan, as a landmass, creates the body of water in question. If Japan were not there, Korea would have Pacific Oceanfront property.
Korea doesn’t seem to complain about the East China Sea moniker for what they consider the “South Sea.” Or what about the Yellow Sea? If, as someone above mentioned, the East Sea is so-called because it’s in East Asia then we could rename either of these two as the East Sea as well. Korea wants to rename these bodies of water relative to their own position, but their proposed names are geographically irrelevent to the other countries of the region.
I don’t look at the Sea of Japan name as imperial aggression - though it may partially be that - but rather as a statement of geological fact. I’m all ears, though, if someone can come up with a new, equally-logical name that pleases all sides.
East Sea was the original before the Japanese named it Sea of Japan.
Ops, the original name.
aaron wrote:Logically, it should be the Sea of Japan.
Japan, as a landmass, creates the body of water in question. If Japan were not there, Korea would have Pacific Oceanfront property.But in turn, without the Korean Peninsula and the Asian landmass it’s connected to, those waters would then be just a part of the Pacific Ocean and not a separate sea at all. Japan would be an archipelago in the middle of the ocean, like Hawaii.Korea doesn??t seem to complain about the East China Sea moniker for what they consider the ??South Sea.”This is one of the biggest but least mentioned problems with the “East Sea” idea. The Chinese, I believe, don’t actually call Korea’s southern waters the “East China Sea” but the “East Sea,” at least in Chinese (if I’m wrong, please someone correct me). As a compromise, it may be necessary to call the “Sea of Japan”/”East Sea” instead the “East Asian Sea.”Or what about the Yellow Sea? If, as someone above mentioned, the East Sea is so-called because it??s in East Asia then we could rename either of these two as the East Sea as well. Korea wants to rename these bodies of water relative to their own position,Not exactly. Korea wants it renamed because the current conventional name, which was the officially accepted conventional name only in the 20th century, was supposedly selected as such because Japan’s occupation prevented Korea from having any say in the matter, which by naming convention rules could have made a difference.
Were it up to Korea, the body of water would again be the “Sea of Korea,” which seems to have at least as much historical backing as the “Sea of Japan” or the “East/Oriental Sea” (”Oriental” meaning, of course, where the sun rises. That they are pushing for “East Sea” (which was a somewhat common name relative to the sea’s position on maps of Asia) is a compromise in and of itself.but their proposed names are geographically irrelevent to the other countries of the region.To the other countries — plural? Only to Japan. To Russia, the DPRK, and the ROK, all but Japan, it is east of them.
The East Sea name is a historic moniker based on the sea’s position to the continent. The same naming convention as that sea that is south of Norway and west of Denmark, commonly called the North Sea.I don??t look at the Sea of Japan name as imperial aggression - though it may partially be that - but rather as a statement of geological fact.Given the supposed circumstances in which the Sea of Japan name was accepted as international convention, it is intrinsically tied to Japan’s imperial aggression. (I suppose we’ll here all the arguments about fake documents, and then someone will come along and say that the Koreans didn’t even know there was a sea there.)I??m all ears, though, if someone can come up with a new, equally-logical name that pleases all sides. I must admit that I thought the East Sea name had little merit until I started reading up on it, including seeing maps in Japanese atlases that referred to the Sea of Korea/Corea/Coree or the East/Oriental Sea. This is no Corea/Korea issue.
My understanding is that if the countries that share the body of water don’t agree with the name, then it is supposed to be reconsidered. Japan at this point wouldn’t agree to the name “Sea of Korea,” so that shouldn’t be foisted on Japan, either. The East Sea, or East Asia Sea, or some similar name would be more effective as a compromise. But I still think a grand deal should be tried in which the Yellow Sea (which is just a wasted naming opportunity) is renamed the Sea of Korea and the East Sea/Sea of Japan is accepted as the Sea of Japan.
I know Korea bashers like to point this out as some ridiculous and chidish issue unique to Korea, but Korea is not the only developed country with such a dispute. The French and the British can’t agree what to call the body of water separating them (I found out the hard way when I said the wrong thing to the wrong people).
And if the United States for some reason were to push for calling the Rio Grande River the Sam Houston River, the Mexicans would go nuts.
And speaking of the Gulf of Mexico, a better analogy than “the Americans don’t get upset about the name ‘Gulf of Mexico’” would be the United States invading Mexico, brutally occupying it for forty years, during which time they get international conventions to accept changing the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. Once Mexico got its independence, I have no doubt they would try to set that back the way it was.
“Sea of Japan” is East from Japan.
So they’d better find another name like “Sea of between Japan and Eurasian continent”.
East Sea was the original before the Japanese named it Sea of Japan.
We all know the name dispute is caused by Korean nationalism.
We all know Koreans’ history research is interlocked with the nationalism.
The body of water has never been called “East sea” except by Koreans.
In China, the East China Sea is referred to as “Dong Hai” (??, pinyin dong1 hai3; Wade-Giles Tung Hai), literally meaning “East Sea”. The name Dong Hai has already been registered as “East China Sea” in The Limits of Oceans and Seas published by IHO.
The Vietnamese name for the South China Sea is Bien Dong, which literally means East Sea. They also use “East Sea” in English.
Japan is a special case. Japanese used to vaguely refer to the Pacific Ocean as Tokai, whose meaning is East Sea, since it is located to the east of Japan, but it is no longer in use. Instead, Tokai today indicates the Pacific coastal region of Japan.
How the Name “Sea of Japan” Became Established
The Korean study bases its advocacy for adopting the “East Sea” on the use of the names the “Sea of Korea” and the “Oriental Sea” in many maps produced in Europe up to the 18th century. The study then concludes that the “Sea of Japan” is not a historically established name, and that the “East Sea,” which is taken to be synonymous with the “Oriental Sea,” is the “correct name.” However, the Korean study does not refer to the fact that the name “Sea of Japan” appears with overwhelming frequency in the maps produced in Europe during the first half of the 19th century. The study contends that the establishment of the name “Sea of Japan” is merely an outcome of Japan’ s expansionism in the first half of the 20th century. Moreover, the Korean study all but equates the term “Oriental Sea,” which signifies a sea located in the Orient as seen from Europe, with the name “East Sea” which signifies the sea located eastward as seen from Korea. This seems to be an inaccurate interpretation.
A very detailed examination of the name “Sea of Japan” was conducted in a paper titled “Changing the Name of the Japan Sea,” co-authored by Takehide Hishiyama and Masatoshi Nagaoka, published by the Geographical Survey Institute of Japan in 1994. This paper studied more than 200 maps drawn mainly in Europe from the 16th to 20th centuries, and studied in depth how the name “Sea of Japan” became established. There have been other notable papers that further clarify this issue, such as: “The Formation and Development of the Naming of Nihon-kai (the Japan Sea): an Approach from the Map History” (1993), “A Study on Formation of Geographical Knowledge of the Sea of Japan and Its Surrounding Areas and on the Name of the Sea of Japan” (1997) by Hiroo Aoyama, “The Term ‘Japan Sea’: Its Reasonable Naming and the Era of Its Frequent Usage and Firm Establishment in Maps” (2001) by Hideo Kawai, and “Process of the Denomination, Acceptance, and Fixation of the Sea Name ‘Japan Sea or Sea of Japan (Nihonkai)’ in the World and in Japan” (2002) by Masataka Yaji.
These five papers recognize and agree on the following four points. (See Fig. 2 and Table 2.)
The first time the name “Sea of Japan” was used was in the map “Kunyu Wanguo Quantu” drawn up by an Italian missionary priest Matteo Ricci at the beginning of the 17th century.
From the 17th to 18th centuries, partly because the shapes of northeastern part of the Asian continent and the Japanese Archipelago were not fully understood, various names were used for this sea area, including “Sea of China”, “Oriental Sea” or “Oriental Ocean,” “Sea of Korea,” and “Sea of Japan.”
From the late 18th century to the early 19th century, a number of explorers investigated the area, including the French explorer Jean La P??rouse, English explorer William R. Broughton, Russian explorer Adam J. von Krusenstern. They explored the areas surrounding the Sea of Japan, clarifying the shape of the Sea of Japan and the topographical features of the coastal areas. After this period, maps drawn in Europe began using the name “Sea of Japan” or the “Japan Sea” and the name became established and internationally accepted.
During that time, Japan’ s Tokugawa Shogunate government pursued a policy of isolationism, and contact with foreigners was banned. The government ended its policy of isolationism as late as 1854, thus Japan played no direct role in promoting the use and acceptance of the name “Sea of Japan” in European maps from the late 18th century to the early 19th century. Also, according to the studies by Aoyama, Hishiyama, Nagaoka and Yaji, Japan had no custom of naming a broad sea area from ancient times, and in fact began using the name “Sea of Japan” for the most part following on usage by the Europeans.
In this light, use of the name “Sea of Japan” became established in Europe from the late 18th century through the early 19th century, and has continued to be used for 200 years since then. Therefore, the Korean assertion that Japan sought to establish the name “Sea of Japan” in the beginning of the 20th century with a view to reinforcing its colonialist and militarist policies is simply not correct.
Methods Used for Designating Geographical Names
It is likely that the name “Sea of Japan” came to be generally accepted because of one geographical factor :
this sea area is separated from the Northern Pacific by the Japanese Archipelago.
As described above, western explorers explored this sea area from the late 18th century to the early 19th century and clarified the topographical features of the Sea of Japan. One of them, Adam J. Krusenstern, wrote in his diary of the voyage, “People also call this sea area the Sea of Korea, but because only a small part of this sea touches the Korean coast, it is better to name it the Sea of Japan.”
In fact, this sea area is surrounded by the Japanese Archipelago in the eastern and the southern parts, and by the Asian Continent in its northern and western parts. ROK and DPRK have coastal boundaries in the sea’ s southwestern part, but their coasts face only about one fifth of the total length of the coast of the Sea of Japan.
Hideo Kawai, the aforementioned Japanese researcher, examined the geographical validity of the name “Japan Sea” in a paper presented to the Oceanographic Society of Japan in 2001. Kawai pointed out that the most frequently used method of naming sea areas separated from an ocean is to use the name of a major archipelagic arc or a peninsula that separates the sea area in question from the ocean. The examples he cited include the “Sea of Japan,” the “Andaman Sea” (separated from the Indian Ocean by the Andaman Islands), the “Gulf of California” (separated from the southeastern part of the Northern Pacific Ocean by the California Peninsula), the “Irish Sea” (separated from the northeastern part of the North Atlantic Ocean by Ireland) and so on. (See Fig. 3.)
According to Kawai, the “East Sea” name advocated by ROK is based upon another method of naming, a method that names a sea area based upon a direction from a specific country or region toward that sea area. Examples include the “North Sea” and the “East China Sea.” However, according to Kawai, a comparison of the naming methods used for the “East Sea” and for the “Sea of Japan” shows that while the “East Sea” is a subjective name as viewed from the geographical locations of ROK and DPRK, the “Sea of Japan” is a name that focuses on the geographical feature –the Japanese Archipelago–that is indispensable for the existence of this sea area. Herein lies the objective validity of the use of the name “Sea of Japan.”
One of the reasons why Koreans might oppose the name “Sea of Japan” could be that they think that this name implies “Japanese ownership” of this sea area. However, the name “Sea of Japan” is based upon the geographical features of this sea area and its established use in Europe from the late 18th century to the early 19th century. As such, the name itself does not imply any political intent.
Summary
The following three points summarize the studies on the name “Sea of Japan” presented in this pamphlet:
A recent Japanese study of 392 maps in 60 countries revealed that only 11 maps (2.8%) did not describe the sea area using solely the name “Sea of Japan.” On those 11 maps, both the name “Sea of Japan” and the name “East Sea” were shown. There was no map that described the sea using solely the name “East Sea.”
Historically, the name “Sea of Japan” became widely accepted and established in Europe from the late 18th century to the early 19th century. It did not come about, as asserted by ROK, as a result of Japan’ s colonialistic and imperialistic intent in the first half of the 20th century.
In view of the methodology for geographical naming, the name “Sea of Japan” was objectively determined by its geographical characteristics–the sea area is separated from the Pacific Ocean by the Japanese Archipelago. By contrast, the “East Sea” is a subjective name proposed from a perspective centering on ROK and DPRK.
The adoption of the name “East Sea” was first proposed by ROK and DPRK at the sixth United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names in 1992. Today, only ROK and DPRK advocate the adoption of this name. Considering the fact that only one name, the “Sea of Japan,” is broadly accepted and internationally established and that there is virtually no historical or geographical basis for the use of the name “East Sea,” one may infer that the assertions of ROK and DPRK are backed by strong political intentions.
If a firmly established sea name were to be changed for the political intentions of only a few countries without a valid reason, such an action would not only bring about confusion in the world’ s geographical order, but also would leave a bad precedent for generations to come. Japan strongly opposes such an attempt. We sincerely hope that the international community will understand and support Japan’ s position.
From mofa.go.jp
Kushibo wrote:
But I still think a grand deal should be tried in which the Yellow Sea (which is just a wasted naming opportunity) is renamed the Sea of Korea and the East Sea/Sea of Japan is accepted as the Sea of Japan.
In my view, this proposal, while oozing pride all over the map, is simply another example of the two countries working on each other rather than working with each other.
Despite anecdotal evidence from a tourist on holiday, there is no great dispute between France and the UK regarding the body of water between them. Instead, both countries simply call it what they want, and don??t bother anyone terribly about it. The English Channel/La Manche differentiation is just not an issue of any great concern.
Much better that Korea and Japan get together and choose a neutral name (as, for example, Yellow Sea), and actually start to agree on things, isn??t it?
Correction.
??Sea of Japan?? is West from Japan.
Study of maps possessed by the United States Library of Congress (July 2005)
Overview http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/m.....udy-3.html
List of Maps http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/ar.....aplist.pdf
The Study of maps possessed by the Bibliotheque Nationale de France (March 2004)
Overview http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/m.....tudy-2.pdf
Full Text http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/m.....udy-2f.pdf
List of Maps http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/m.....udy-2l.pdf
The Study of maps possessed by the British Library and the University of Cambridge (September 2003)
Overview http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/m...../study.pdf
Full text http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/m.....udy-f.html
Change of the names adopted in the Foreign Maps (Japan Coast Guard)
http://www1.kaiho.mlit.go.jp/G.....ii_eng.htm
So gonorea, you’re implying that it should be called Sea of Japan rather than East Sea or Oriental Sea?
How about calling it a “Sea of Discord” and letting this topic die?
Hey Katz, check this out.
Hey marmot.
Is your blog in Korean server?
I posted links to the map research on
the United States Library of Congress
the Bibliotheque Nationale de France
the British Library and the University of Cambridge
have been deleted.
Cool, I just noticed they got the high resolution imagery for Seoul online, and there are random panels of North Korea that have high resolution imagery now too. You can make out individual North Koreans toiling away in their workers paradise!
South Koreans’ Lame Attempt At Influence
ROK President Roh Moo-hyun and Unification Minister Chung Dong-young are already irritating enough, without this lame wheeze from the South Korean nationalist belly wafting like a flatulent breeze across the pond. Who cares what the puddle is called, i…
No Name Sea
looks like korea’s going to get it’s way sooner or later. that’s what bothers the korea bashers.
???!???!
ps the post on korean food in the west was several threads prior to the one in which i posted a comment about the subject. i don’t remember where but it was an off topic post. i think the thread dealt with nk.
The resolution for Korea seems better than it was when I first downloaded Google Earth. It also looks like the Korean pics were taken during the winter, since there’s so little foliage visible.
There is another solution that may be satisfactory to everyone. Green tea is a drink equally popular in both Korea and Japan. (Other varieties of tea are also popular in Russia, too, the fourth country bordering the sea, in case anyone forgot.)
So why not rename it the “Sea of Green Tea” to honour this common interest? To commemorate the renaming, massive amounts of tea would be dumped into the sea (hey, it’s been done in Boston, and as far as I know, it shouldn’t hurt the fish), from samovars. This in turn would kick off a new trend: green-tea-flavoured squid, which would of course become an immediate hit in the Koreas and Japan, thus furthering reconciliation between the various countries.
if it’s about commonalities, why not
‘the sea of baekche’?
Curious wrote:Other varieties of tea are also popular in Russia, too, the fourth country bordering the sea, in case anyone forgot.Forgot? I mentioned them three times, I think.
For the Russians, it is also a sea to the east. Plus a little south.
gbnhj wrote:Despite anecdotal evidence from a tourist on holiday, there is no great dispute between France and the UK regarding the body of water between them. Instead, both countries simply call it what they want, and don??t bother anyone terribly about it. The English Channel/La Manche differentiation is just not an issue of any great concern.That there is no great dispute may be because mapmakers follow the IHO’s dual-name policy for that body of water. Same with the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas.
And this is precisely what Korea is officially promoting:
Therefore, the most logical and reasonable solution would be the concurrent use of both names, East Sea and Sea of Japan, as the international standardization rules require, until the countries involved in the dispute reach agreement on a name.
It is Japan’s official position to use only the one name, not the dual names which the IHO “recommends”:
IHO Technical Resolution A4.2.6
It is recommended that where two or more countries share a given geological feature (such as, for example, a bay, strait, channel ore archipelago) under a different name form, they should endeavor to reach agreement on fixing a single name for the feature concerned. If they have different official languages and cannot agree on a common name form, it is recommended that the name form of each of the languages in question should be accepted for charts and publications unless technical reasons prevent this practice on small scale charts.
To Korea’s credit, Korea is not pushing for a much more divisive “Sea of Korea,” even though that may have a stronger international foundation than “East Sea.”
Why do Koreans have no problem with the “Yellow Sea”? The Chinese yellow river empties into the sea and therefore China named it the yellow sea. It is on almost all maps but yet Koreans who call it the “West sea” have no problems with the Chinese name “Yellow sea” on virtually all maps.
OK if you erase Japan from a map it is just part of the ocean and thus I see the name sea of Japan. If you erase Korea from the map the “yellow sea” becomes part of the ocean and IMO should be called the sea of Korea. Let’s start a movement. The Yellow sea is really the Sea of Korea- fighting.
Maybe Koreans should try reading Don Quixote by Cervantes. That is certainly what their quest to turn the Sea of Japan into the ‘East Sea’ is.
10 reasons why the sea is called the Sea of Japan.
1. The Sea of Japan is the official name recognised by the UN.
2. The Sea of Japan is the name it is known as by pretty much all English speakers.
3. Calling that sea the ‘East Sea’ does not make sense as the ‘East Sea’ is not the English name for that seas, but rather a translation from the Korean name.
4. The ‘East Sea’ gives no hint of the seas geographical location, but calling it the ‘Sea of Japan’ makes it instantly recognizable to everyone.
5. Without Japan, there would be no sea. Calling it the ‘East Sea’ makes no sense considering it is a mariginal sea.
7. A study of 1,435 maps published between 1300 and 1900 at the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration by the Geographical Survey Institute of Japan revealed that 1,110 out of 1,435 maps use ‘Sea of Japan’.
8. Virtually no one outside Korea knows where the ‘East Sea’ is. The majority of publications on the internet or in print refer to it as the ‘Sea of Japan.
9. There are four countries that border the Sea of Japan and the two (Japan and Russia) that call it Sea of Japan have a greater coastline and population along the sea than the two countries (South and North Korea) that call it East Sea (East Sea of Korea). To Russia, the Sea of Japan is south and to Japan it is to the west. That being considered, why should Korea claim any special rights to the naming of that sea? This ‘East Sea’ is east of Korea only, and shows partisan Korean ethnocentrism.
10. The UN made a decision in 2004 regarding the international use of the ‘Sea of Japan’. As far as the international community is concerned, the body of water is officially reconfirmed as the ‘Sea of Japan’. For UN documents, only the ‘Sea of Japan’ is used - ‘East Sea’ is not even in brackets.
YAWN
Everyone knows that it should be called East Sea. The truth speaks by itself. There were more maps as Korean Sea on 18th Century, and I assume that there were more maps produced since 19th century and Japan was worldly recongnized at that time that’s why it was called Sea of Japan. But we are treating this matter about justice.
Katz, even though I agree at least that the two names should be used concurrently, at least until a single name can be agreed up on by all four bordering countries, it is just not that simple that a mere assertion that “everyone knows” makes it true, based on your own sheer will.
Why are you here for?
I am your conscience, Katz. You should listen to me or else you’ll start shooting up post offices.
It’s a curious phenomenon, this idea which has taken root since the 1960s that the losers should get to write the histories.
You know, maybe it should rain atomic bombs on the US to see what you feel.
Sure, Katz, what city are you in?
Brendon, which losing country is writing what history?
the chosun is reporting that japanese netizens have shut down various parts of VANK. i can’t wait to see the expat try to excuse such behavior.
The Korean media totally sucks.
The Chosun Ilbo and the JoongAng Daily (Japanese Edition):
Cyberterrorism:
When the Japanese do it: “Cyberterrorism”
When the Koreans do it: “CyberDEMONSTRATION”
Seriously WTF?!?!?!?
source(Japanese)
By the way…
Link (Korean)
with pic.
“Everyone knows that it should be called East Sea.”
No they don’t, you dumbass.
“Sea of Yonsama Well-Being Poong-Poongi Hub Between Land of Mourning Clam and Whale Meat Sashimi Panty Vending Machine”
The Korean media totally sucks.
Yes, to a great degree this is true. You really have to read the editorial sections of Korean newspapers to get more diverse viewpoints though.
Anyway, your own cited source is itself full of queer/creepy Nihonjinron nationalism.
“Sea of Thank God There’s a Sea Seperating Us”
Slim:
Katz is a coarse little troll. Time for some Internet insecticide, Marmot.
I’m inclined to agree. Katz, I’ve warned you about the manner in which you attack commentors. Now you’re telling Kushibo (!) to “shut up?” Please, keep it reasonably civil. I’m pretty lenient, but there is something very disconcerting about a guy who introduces himself to an online forum by referring to other posters as mfs and calling for mild-mannered commentors to “shut up.”
JYC wrote:
Anyway, your own cited source is itself full of queer/creepy Nihonjinron nationalism.
I know. His website is pretty much useful though.
I’ve been checking the ???, ??, and ?? (plus yonhap) recently, with extremely shocking results.
I gotta question to you guys living in Korea. How are the other media - like Han-Kyoreh, Ohmynews, KBS etcetc- doing?
Do you guys have any reliable media over there?
Most media sucks, too here in Japan, but at least we’ve got some reasonable ones like the ?????????.
Watoro wrote:I gotta question to you guys living in Korea. How are the other media - like Han-Kyoreh, Ohmynews, KBS etcetc- doing?
Do you guys have any reliable media over there?What I have found you have to do is read several and then triangulate. This is something I got in the habit of doing back in Orange County, where in those days it seemed that the only way to get a close to accurate picture was by reading the same topic in the Times Orange County (the OC edition of the LAT) and the Orange County Register, which used to have some very major bias.
Here in Korea, it’s probably more of a case of which is least unreliable. For that I would vote Chosun Ilbo, but even that is less than perpect.
I tried to keep the morning and evening news programs I’ve worked on as objective and ism-free as possible, but when the producer is there to put his/her stamp on things, that’s not always possible.
There was a lot of herd mentality stuff, especially when we wanted to put something on the air that no one else had. Like in 2001 or 2002 when a Daewoo affiliate (?) announced what was, at least up to then, the largest corporate loss in Korean history. Because of the way Daewoo had released the information, it missed the news cycle in Korea but the international media had picked it up. In fact, that’s where we got it. But the producers were scared to put it on the air, fearing a lawsuit or something in case the English-language sources had been incorrect and we just went with it. Even saying, “such-and-such news service reports that…” was just too dangerous for them.Most media sucks, too here in Japan, but at least we??ve got some reasonable ones like the ????????.Is the Mainichi pretty reliable? Good to hear.
Ah, the Libertarian Register…my folks live in O.C. I think that paper is decent, considering its stance.
Here’s the best part of the Mainichi:
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/waiwai/index.html
Check out the story “Japan’s ‘Female emperor’ bares her Korean heritage”
Check out the story ???Japan??s ??Female emperor?? bares her Korean heritage???
Thats a wierd article. People have known for years that Akiko Wada is Korean. Why is the writer of the article acting as if he broke the story?
It’s really difficult to say what’s a decent news source here–they all have their “uri nara” moments when logic flies out the window. The best reporting on Korea tends to come from outside–Barbara Demick at the L.A. Times, Norimitsu Onishi at the NYT, Choe Sang-Hun at the IHT…. The English-language papers here have some of the worst, most biased, even unethical “reporting” I’ve ever seen. They aren’t worth a glance.
Not having “correct answers” for everything as in Korea, in Japan some things can be simultaneously “widely known” and “widely denied.” Yes that’s sort of a compliment.
The bigger question would be why it is many Koreans and Aniu have long felt they’ve had to hide their heritage in the course of everyday life.
In the recent, highly popular anti-Korean comic book one of the characters has a Japanese name who is is described (third from teh top) as a fourth-generation zainichi, but that his “real name is unclear.”
I guess some people in Japan find it even a little gratifying that Koreans have felt uncomfortable using their Korean names, as if that’s something Japanese should take pride in.
My comment above refers to comment 60 by shakuhachi. Meanwhile I agree with “foreigner” at 61, except that Choe Sang-Hun received his Pulitzer for the Nogun-ri story because it was he (and his co-worders) who got it into the English press. OhmyNews broke the story.
Oranckay, you sound like you know people at the Hankyoreh, why not get them to translate a feature once in a while for those less-than-fluent in Korean? I know it’s not particularly profitable (although it could become so) but it would be interesting.
oranckay wrote:The bigger question would be why it is many Koreans and Aniu have long felt they??ve had to hide their heritage in the course of everyday life. I’m guessing the same reasons ethnic Chinese or people of mixed heritage have sometimes tried to get away with passing as 100% Korean.
Japanese society deserves serious chastisement for that, but like so many other things like this, Korea and Japan are far more alike than different.
If both countries would scrap their bogus notion of homogeneity, that would be a big start.
Korea may have to drop its “bogus notion” soon, because I heard that about a fourth of the marriages in rural areas now are between Korean men and non-Korean (i.e. Vietnamese, Phillipine) women.
8% of all marriages in Korea are “international marriages.” This does include some marriages between ROK citizens and PRC citizens who are ethnic Koreans, but that is by no means all of them. 8% is pretty amazing for such a racist, xenophobic, insular country.
They talk a good game, those Koreans, but they’re really all a bunch of party animals
International marriages also includes marriages between kyopo men and women in Western countries. I’d guess that of that 8%, a rather large number, if not an absolute majority, are between ethnic Koreans holding different citizenships. I don’t have any stats on that, though.
As far as that being amazing for such a racist society, I agree, and note that these international marriages in rural areas are most definitely choices of last resort.
International marriages also includes marriages with kyopo men and women in Western countries. I’d guess that of that 8%, a rather large number, if not an absolute majority, are between ethnic Koreans holding different citizenships. I don’t have any stats on that, though.
As far as that being amazing for such a racist society, I agree, and note that these international marriages in rural areas are most definitely choices of last resort.
As far as that being amazing for such a racist society, I agree, and note that these international marriages in rural areas are most definitely choices of last resort.Must be it.
How about in the city, then? The banners everywhere must be having some effect, or else why would they be there? Maybe South Korean men just think South Korean girls are mostly materialistic sluts.
Anyway, there are desperate men in places like the U.S. and Canada, too, but I don’t see mail-order brides approaching 8%. Even if it’s a “last resort,” a person can’t be that xenophobic and insular if they are considering producing children who are half not of their own country.
Maybe ?????? has reached epidemic proportions and this is the result?
mild-mannered commentors…
That’s why they are more dangerous. If you knew their intentions you wouldn’t say that unless you are like them.
On the subject of google Earth, if you want to see images of North Korean paratroops training go to
N 39 54 13.14
E 125 29 24
if you look carefully (go to around 600 feet)
you can see a line of soldiers on the road that
is between and paralles to the runway and the
area where the planes are stored.
To see the jumpsite go to
N 39 51 40.55
E 125 29 23.01
This is less obvious but you can see
white circles and dark circles off
to their northwest. The jump started
to tne north east and runs southwest
as the distance between the white
circles (parachutes) and black circles
(their shadow) increases.
Part of the DMZ is also visible in another
image as well.
Shaku did great research.
If Japan wasn’t there, the sea is just the Pacific Ocean.
People have known for years that Akiko Wada is Korean.
Correct.
She is one of most famous Korean in Japan.
She is also known as most violent celebrity.
“I am your conscience, Katz. You should listen to me or else you??ll start shooting up post offices.”
hahahhaha
I think “yellow sea” really is “yellow.” That’s one really muddy nasty body of water.
I think it might be more amusing if Korean people start to demand that the sea be renamed, “Sea of Imperial Japan.” Now that would be really witty and sarcastic.
Shaku did great research.
If Japan wasn??t there, the sea is just the Pacific Ocean.Shak, as usual, presents the half of the story he finds most convenient.
Without Japan there, it’s just the Pacific Ocean, but without the Korean Peninsula it’s just the Yellow Sea. Without Russia and Korea, the Japanese archipelago would be just like the Hawaiian archipelago, with no “sea” around it at all, just ocean.
Thanks for the info, Mamtengo (#74). I think one of them is waving.
From Wikipedia on cartography: “Often the explorer would address the nearest native, pointing at the landmark in question and speaking in a loud voice; whatever the native said was then written down as its name.” The Sea of Japan was named using this sort of scientific method. Seriously, though, it doesn’t merit any dispute–only Korea is trying to politicize it.
International marriages also includes marriages between kyopo men and women in Western countries. I??d guess that of that 8%, a rather large number, if not an absolute majority, are between ethnic Koreans holding different citizenships. I don??t have any stats on that, though.
Well, I have some stats and it seems that it is not quite the case. Marriages with Chinese citizens, who are overwhelmingly (but not exlusively!) kyopo constitutre about half of all mixed marriages, and 72.4% of all marriages between Korean males and foreign females. Then 9.6% of foreign brides are Vietnamese, slightly smaller number are Filippinas. In both cases, they are not kyopo, since neither country has an established Korean community. Hence, at least 20% (more likely, 30-35%) of foreign brides are not kypo. Yesterday I went to Imigration to renew my re-entry permit, and was surprised to see a huge collection of foreign wives of all types.
As far as that being amazing for such a racist society, I agree,
Korea is still more racist than the average Western country, but it is becoming less and less racist over the years. Situation is improving. The 386ers might be crazy nationalists with rather stupid ideas about the North and the world in general, but they are far more open-minded than the average Korean of their parents’ generation (I mean average, not a SNU or Harvard graduate). And all these foreign brides, including kypo, might make difference, too.
Is this entry about Sea of Japan or East Sea? Anyway, since prof. Lankov provides a good insight of interracial marriages in Korea, I??d like to add some of my view.
I am very happy to see more and more foreigners and interracial (or international) couples in Korea. But reading some news pieces and netizens?? reaction to the international marriage from a Korean portal site, I have to raise a little concern. It seems to me that some Korean guys (who are looking for foreign wives) are not well bred. In other words, they couldn??t get Korean women by any means, so they are looking for somewhere else. Getting laid is the biggest goal in their marriages. Some netizens suggest that Vietnamese women are the best because they tend to be virgin and respect men and follow old-fashioned (Korean) practice of male-preference (????????????????). Give me a break! Vietnamese women are amazing and absolutely beautiful inside and out. The women should know what they??d get themselves into by getting married to the Korean men. Anyway, choice should be made by each individual woman, and I am sure that good Korean men are looking for foreign wives too. The best of luck for all!
I totally disagree with international marriages. If I was president I would destroy the Union Church who is promoting this and disincourage international marriages as possible as I could. Just because your countries are multiracial that doesn’t mean that my country also has to become one. It is as if a disgraced guy tried to induce others who are better than him to disgrace just because he is disgraced, which is revolting.
Which one would you choose between East Sea/Oriental and Sea of Japan? Of course East Sea/Orienta Sea. And between East Sea and Oriental Sea which one would you choose? Of course East Sea because it goes well better. And I think it wouldn’t make difference to Japan because it actually covers the sea.
The real question is whether Google will pick Huntington Beach or Santa Cruz as the “real” Surf City, USA. Hard to believe they’re taking this all the way to the Senate.
tired of all the crazy bitching, google decides to display both “East Sea” and “Sea of Japan”…
I totally disagree with international marriages. If I was president I would destroy the Union Church who is promoting this and disincourage international marriages as possible as I could. Just because your countries are multiracial that doesn??t mean that my country also has to become one. It is as if a disgraced guy tried to induce others who are better than him to disgrace just because he is disgraced, which is revolting.
Typical hypocritical and racist Korean.
Keep it coming.
Those of you trying to fight “Eastern Sea” are lucky that you don’t actually live in the city named after it ….
From Katz:
I totally disagree with international marriages. If I was president I would destroy the Union Church who is promoting this and disincourage international marriages as possible as I could. Just because your countries are multiracial that doesn’t mean that my country also has to become one. It is as if a disgraced guy tried to induce others who are better than him to disgrace just because he is disgraced, which is revolting.
To Katz:
I gues I’m disgraced, because my gal is Thai, and she is doubly disgraced because she married me and because her mother was Thai and her father was Chinese. But then again, her mother was disgraced because she was mixed, too.
How about this for a solution: don’t tell other Koreans whom they should marry. Let the individual choose. You are neither their god nor their emporer.
People like you meet us on the street every day and assume my wife is a Korean who married a foreigner, then shun us (or worse), without ever learning about who we are. Mild nationalism is fine — wild nationalism which shuts down logical thinking is right up their with radical fundamentalist religion as damaging to society, but I still won’t prohibit you from it or return the inslt you laid at my feet, just suggest you change to a more moderate viewpoint which allows the other people who live in your country to follow their hearts.