UPDATE: KBS and KBS suggests the real aim behind the Wae “maritime exploration” mission is to get a leg up on Korea prior to an international meeting in Germany in June that will discuss seabed place names. Analysts point out that should the Wae stick their names on the seabed, it could become grounds for Japan to claim sovereignty over the Dokdo islets. Apparently, this line of thought was sparked by the Nihon Keizai Shimbun.
KBS also noted the rather odd position Japan is in. Some believe that Tokyo will soon attempt to submit the Dokdo issue before the ICJ, but at the same time, it’s trying to keep the Senkaku Island dispute (where Japan has actual control, like Korea has on Dokdo) from becoming an international issue.
ORIGINAL POST:
The devious Wae pirates across the East Sea are planning to invade Dokdo!
Tension between South Korea and Japan rocketed yesterday as the South Korean government summoned the Japanese ambassador to Seoul and questioned him about Tokyo’s plan to launch a maritime exploration project in waters near the Dokdo Islets, which Japan calls Takeshima.
The islets in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) are occupied by Korea, but also claimed by Japan. Japanese civilians and the government have since 1953 sought to occupy the islets, but South Korea has maintained firmly that the small rocky outcrops are its sovereign territory.
According to South Korea’s Foreign Ministry, the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency informed the International Hydrographic Organization yesterday about its planned sea probe. A Japanese exploration vessel is scheduled to enter the waters near Dokdo Islets and stay until June 30.
Where is the intended target of this dastardly attack? Well, according to the Chosun Ilbo:
The locations Japanese officials provided for their survey were to the East of Ulleung Island and the Dokdo islets at 37″ 40′ northern latitude and 131″ 35′ eastern longitude, 39″ 30′ northern latitude and 132″ 37′ eastern longitude, 38″ 20′ northern latitude and 136″ 5′ eastern longitude, and 36″ 27′ by 135″ 0′.
See the map below, ripped off from the Hankyoreh:
The red is where the Wae “maritime research craft” will conduct operations. The black designates waters open to fishing boats from both Korea and Japan according to the New Korea-Japan Fisheries Agreement of 1999.
Anyway, Vice Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan didn’t mince words in warning the Wae ambassador:
“Any research work in South Korea’s EEZ without Seoul’s approval is an illegal transgression,” Yu told Oshima. “Should Japan push forward with the plan, South Korea will use all possible means to block it.”
But clearly, the Wae know not shame:
The Japanese envoy replied: “The Japanese government’s position is that the waters Japan plans to survey are Japan’s EEZ. Anyway, I will report Seoul’s position on the issue to the Japanese government.”
Yes, they would be Japan’s EEZ if Japan owned Dokdo. Anyway, the ambassador was backed up by no less a Wae chieftain than Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe:
Japan’s position was reiterated by its Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe. He argued there is no problem with his country’s research plan because the areas belong to Japan’s EEZ.
Abe also warned that any attempt by the Koreans to stop the so-called “maritime exploration project” would be “unacceptable.”
No word on whether the Japanese embassy has started to burn its documents.
We’ve yet to learn when the Japanese will set sail, but given the Wae proclivity for surprise attacks, this is to be expected; as the Lost Nomad noted:
One minute they’re planning to explore to measure a sea route, the next minute they’re sinking the Pacific Fleet.
No doubt, the Armed Forces of the Republic of Korea, fully aware of the lessons of Port Arthur and Pearl Harbor, will be on guard against any and all acts of Wae aggression. We’ve yet to get a full order-of-battle, but when a small craft carrying four Yakuza nutters threatened to land on the Dokdo islets in May 2004, Seoul responded by dispatching five warships, two aircraft, five rubber dinghies and 15 commandos to the islets. I’d be shocked if the Japanese didn’t see the underside of at least one F-15K this time around. I don’t know what the Wae will be bringing to the dance, but you know the little bastards are up to no good when they’re building one-tenth scale models of the battleship Yamato in Kure.
The Japanese warmongers will likely be escorted by officials from Reuters, the CIA and the U.S. State Department. Oh yeah, and the Canadians.
In an editorial, the Chosun Ilbo, likening the Japanese move to the Unyo-maru Incidenct of 1875 (a rather interesting historical tidbit in itself, mirroring as it did Japan’s own experience with the Black Ships), laid the blame for this latest flare-up squarely at the feet of–you guessed it–the Roh administration:
President Roh Moo-hyun, around this time last year, vowed to put an end to Japan’s hegemonic ambitions. Since then, the only measure the government has taken was to cancel all further bilateral summits. That Tokyo continues with its stealth campaign to take the islets suggests the absence of a summit is causing no great inconvenience or regret there.
The U.S. has usually offered opportunities to resolve such disputes behind the scenes whenever South Korea and Japan became mired in them. Not this time. Because the bilateral alliance between Korea and the U.S. is shaky, the cooperative framework among South Korea, the U.S. and Japan has collapsed. The public must wonder what action Seoul has in mind as Japan carries on its campaign to seize Dokdo.
The Kyunghyang Shinmun analyzes Wae intentions. One of course is to weaken Korean claims on the Dokdo islets. Another major one, the paper points out, is to strengthen Japanese demands that the EEZ borderline be drawn between the Dokdo islets and Ulleung-do. Seoul and Tokyo held four rounds of negotiations over the EEZ boundry between 1996 and 2000, but talks collapse thanks to the Dokdo issue. The 1999 fisheries accord deals only with, well, fish. It did not establish the borders of the Korean EEZ. The paper also noted that Abe Shinzo is battling former Chief Cabinet Secretary Fukuda Yasuo for leadership of the LDP; the party will choose its new leader in September. The paper suggested that by highlighting the Dokdo issue, Abe could weaken Fukuda, who is known to be relatively dovish toward Korea and China.
{ 116 comments… read them below or add one }
maybe it’s those pesky ear mounds that make koreans so nervous about the japanese. or maybe it’s because the jap pm visits a shrine to honor war criminals.
those are the kinds of things that don’t seem to bother you. that’s why you’re becoming just like any given garden variety expat whose hobby seems to be mocking koreans whenever he can.
Very thorough, Marmot. I haven’t had a chance to look at all the links, but I was all ready to ask about what the 1999 Fisheries Agreement would say about doing stuff in these waters.
As I’ve repeatedly said, both Roh and Koizumi are responsible for the terrific deterioration of diplomatic relations between these two sides. Both have gone so far away from the future-oriented and pragmatic Obuchi-Kim agreement of 1998 (?) that it will essentially take new leadership from each (or a lobotomy from each) to bring things back the way they should be.
Whoops…
I was all ready to ask about the 1999 Fisheries Agreement… and there you had it right at the end.
By the way, the 2004 incident with the “yakuza” boat didn’t go through in part because Japanese authorities in the Okishoto urged, where they stopped for refueling (?), urged them not to go through with it.
pawikirogi: maybe it’s those pesky ear mounds that make koreans so nervous about the japanese. or maybe it’s because the jap pm visits a shrine to honor war criminals.
The “war criminals” at Yasukuni are Class A war criminals, i.e. war criminals in the sense that George Bush is a war criminal – for being part of the top leadership of a country that started a war many people opposed. Class C war criminals were the type that carried out massacres – things like the Rape of Nanking. These aren’t honored at Yasukuni. I can’t blame Koizumi for visiting the shrine. Japanese leaders engaged in a war of territorial expansion. But they weren’t responsible for the misconduct of Japanese troops. Unlike the Nazis, they did not order the systematic extermination of the people they considered the lesser races.
Zhang Fei said:
“Japanese leaders engaged in a war of territorial expansion. But they weren’t responsible for the misconduct of Japanese troops.”
At the risk of getting sidetracked: if leaders are not responsible for the behaviour of their troops then who the fV#k is ?
This is in my view a sevrely distorted way of looking at the goings on of WW2 era Japan but that was not the point of this post so I’ll leave it at that.
More saliently – Dokdo/Takeshima/Hojuin’s new caretaker protectorate who gives a shit what you call it, it’s a few crappy little islands that nobody is going to go to anyway (well maybe a few senile old folk to prove a point but after that we’ll all get bored and forget about it). Who gives 2 flying farks what color it is on the map.
May I ask for some consistency from the US ex-pats living in South Korea who defend Japan?
Ok, class C Japanese war criminals were involved in the Rape of Nanking?
I thought some of you say the Rape of Nanking never happenned.
I should go visit the German museum of war heroes, where I could find a replica of the Reich’s Parliament, a model of German tanks, and airplanes, Rommel’s original uniform in display, but no sign of SS leaders or Hitler…
Such a thing does not exist.
Such a thing exists in Japan. Inconsiderate ass holes.
Dear Zhang Fei, I suppose China is not harboring any class A war crimminals since the Chinese Government uses different words for what went on in Tibet and other places (?). As myopic as many Americans are regarding their leadership, they would never tolerate or sustain the generation of wolves that China has claimed as their leadership caste.
Pawikirogi,
Korea deserves mocking for the childish way it is dealing with Japan. Five warships, two aircraft, five rubber dinghies, and fifteen commandos to deal with four Japanese in a pleasure boat? How unbelievably silly! I wonder what they are going to deploy to deal with a survey ship?
Kushibo,
Roh and company are responsible for the deteriorating relations with Japan; in fact, they seem to want it that way. I suspect it is part of some crazy scheme to try get closer to China. I would not be susprised if Roh has not been calling up the Chinese and saying things like, “Did you hear what I said to the Japanese today? They are probably still in shock. hehehe.”
Roh has two choises: STOP Japan exploring the zone “by all means” and make it become an international dispute, or DO little and the leftist government will be gone for good. Either ways, his administration is cornered. The US might be behind this strategy, but the burnt-out sunshine policy is no longer acceptable for the freedom countries as it become obvious at the 6way talk in Tokyo.
wjk: May I ask for some consistency from the US ex-pats living in South Korea who defend Japan?
Ok, class C Japanese war criminals were involved in the Rape of Nanking?
I thought some of you say the Rape of Nanking never happenned.
I should go visit the German museum of war heroes, where I could find a replica of the Reich’s Parliament, a model of German tanks, and airplanes, Rommel’s original uniform in display, but no sign of SS leaders or Hitler…
Such a thing does not exist.
Such a thing exists in Japan. Inconsiderate ass holes.
Japan did nothing that hadn’t been done by other Asian powers. The difference is that they did it in the 20th century. Over the millenia, there have been many rapes of Nanking. The most recent Chinese incident was during the Taiping Rebellion in the 19th century. The only Japanese one occurred in the 20th century.
As to German war museums, they do exist. Germany has a military record to be proud of, although the ends to which its capabilities were put are, in my view, regrettable. It would be surprising if Germany did not have any museums covering WWII, where the German military covered itself in glory even in defeat – it absorbed 80% of the American war effort, 90% of the British war effort and 100% of the Soviet war effort, and held out for 6 long years. Two months after the 100% of the American war effort was switched to the Pacific theater, following Germany’s surrender, Okinawa fell. Another month later, Japan surrendered.
Hojuin: At the risk of getting sidetracked: if leaders are not responsible for the behaviour of their troops then who the fV#k is ?
This is in my view a sevrely distorted way of looking at the goings on of WW2 era Japan but that was not the point of this post so I’ll leave it at that.
By that logic, Nixon was responsible for the My Lai massacre. Fact is that when a soldier commits an atrocity, he alone is responsible for it, unless his superior ordered him to carry it out. Truman was responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed tens of thousands. Churchill was responsible for the fire-bombings of Hamburg and Dresden, which killed hundreds of thousands. Tojo was not responsible for the Rape of Nanking.
“Dear Zhang Fei, I suppose China is not harboring any class A war crimminals since the Chinese Government uses different words for what went on in Tibet and other places (?). As myopic as many Americans are regarding their leadership, they would never tolerate or sustain the generation of wolves that China has claimed as their leadership caste.” (R. Elgin)
Exactly. The US has had its El Salvadors, Iraqs, and Vietnams just as the Chinese have had their Cambodias, Tibets, Burmas and Vietnams. But the extent to which China represses its domestic population makes even Bush, war criminal that he is, seem like he’s been eating at least a few freedom fries. Americans can at least get rid of him. It’s two more years vs. God-knows-when.
Hu JinTao is certainly a war criminal. Among other atrocities he was directly responsible for sending 10 Chinese divisions into Tibet in 1989 following demonstrations after the death of the Panchen Lama. Reformist my ass.
wjk: I should go visit the German museum of war heroes, where I could find a replica of the Reich’s Parliament, a model of German tanks, and airplanes, Rommel’s original uniform in display, but no sign of SS leaders or Hitler…
Chinese, Koreans and Japanese alike all admire the Germans – each sympathizes with the German ideal of the herrenvolk. In fact, each country thinks of itself as the embodiment of the herrenvolk. I think Koreans should be a little more tempered in their appreciation of the Germans. Jews, Gypsies and Slavs were to Germany what Koreans and other East Asians were to Japan – inferior races. If the Japanese had acted like the Germans in their conquered territories, there would be no Koreans left alive today – after an occupation of 50 years. There is a reason that the Germans are so apologetic – they wanted the lands conquered from the “inferior races” populated with Germans, not natives who were to be assimilated into German culture. In the German mind, inferior races had no right to exist, and the best thing to do was to put them out of their misery, by either massacring them outright or working them to death on starvation rations in slave labor camps. Ironically, if Japan had acted like Germany in Korea, what is now the Korean peninsula would either be a Japanese province or a Chinese province thoroughly void of Korean speakers.
731 and Hellfire Pass anyone?
Zhang Fei,
Lyndon B. Johnson was President when the My Lai massacre occurred.
I find it amazing that in America, there is this drive to blame Vietnam on Richard M. Nixon, when it was John F. Kennedy who started it all, and Lyndon B. Johnson who continued the vast majority of it. Nixon ended it. American culture is so twisted towards exhonerating Kennedy like he never had anything to do with it. Very weird.
Does JFK, “war mongerer “, upset too many liberals?
Zhang Fei, good point about wars and atrocities. Good link on the museum, but I think the Y shrine is in a totally different spirit than the one you provided thru the link.
I say, let North Korea deal with the Japanese. They’ve got the hardware to protect Dokdo and KJI doesn’t worry about public opinion.
“Truman was responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed tens of thousands. Churchill was responsible for the fire-bombings of Hamburg and Dresden, which killed hundreds of thousands. Tojo was not responsible for the Rape of Nanking.”
Responsible yes but with different justifications. The Rape of Nanjing was carried out by an agressor (or ‘perhaps’ as you infer by a multitude of out of control middle-men). Hiroshima and Dresden were much more justifiable as acts of war in response to/defense of such agressors.
It’s about time for Korea to cool it. Japan is not a country to back down. This thing can blow over.
Who wins? China!
In a sense, Korea is fighting a war for the Chinese. Let the Chinese deal with Japan. Korea should find the way to skip out of the upcoming China-Japan war.
Let the Japanese come and do some measuring. Nothing big.
Who knows? North Korean ships may suddenly appear and shoot at the Japanese vessle. Rho and KJI may be working out details on that scenario right now.
“I say, let North Korea deal with the Japanese. They’ve got the hardware to protect Dokdo and KJI doesn’t worry about public opinion.” (frogmouth)
Interesting, never thought of that scenario. Wonder how the fishing is around the glorious little islands?
Zheng Fai said: “By that logic, Nixon was responsible for the My Lai massacre”
My Lai was a platoon (possibly comapny?) of American Infantrymen, Nanking was a batallion plus of the Japanese army, the numbers do not tally there and IMO a comaprison cannot be made. Nanking was just a speck in the scheme of Tojo’s nastyness during the war and to suggest the leadership of the time are ‘not such bad fellas’ just because they didn’t stick any bamboo under any fingernails is bloody stupid.
Ah, geez, I read in my history book that Vietnam began during the Truman era, and Kennedy inherited it?? Hum. Actually, if one wants to back even further, we could blame the French, whom Truman made all those loans to…….
FYI, the former ROK government had declared in 1998 that Ullung-do, not Dok-do/Takeshima, is its starting point of EEZ.
http://japanese.donga.com/srv/k2srv.php3?biid=2006041520258
In an editorial, the Chosun Ilbo, liken[ed] the Japanese move to the Unyo-maru Incidenct of 1875 (a rather interesting historical tidbit in itself, mirroring as it did Japan’s own experience with the Black Ships)[…]
That mirroring wasn’t entirely coincidental – in In Korea With Marquis Ito, George Ladd relates that Inoue Kaoru brought along a copy of Bernard Taylor’s history of the Black Ship expedition when he went to Korea to force the signing of the Treaty of Ganghwa in 1876, since “he feared the Koreans might show signs of obduracy, in which case it would become necessary for his colleague and himself to have recourse to some of the measures which Commodore Perry found so efficacious. Inouye wished to have the book so that he could refresh his memory and be better perfected in the part if it became necessary to play it.”
There is an interesting article in Korean Chosun Daily about the strained China-Japan relationship and the possibility of the war between these two super powers.
http://www.chosun.com/magazine/news/200604/200604150121.html
The author predicts the two countries are at warpath due to the heavy deposits of oil and natural gas at the islands located at their border area. And, the ambition to be the top dog in Asia.
I agree. I have been saying the same thing for last two years. My prediction is that two countries will go to a war within ten years.
With looming possibility of the war, Korea must be very, very and very careful about where it stands. If it belongs to the wrong side, the coming war between China and Japan may end Korea as a country and Koreans as a people.
There’s no reason to be tense about this. Just attack any invader. And Japan won’t attack. Japan is only worry to make a good name to the world.
‘Korea deserves mocking for the childish way it is dealing with Japan. Five warships, two aircraft, five rubber dinghies, and fifteen commandos to deal with four Japanese in a pleasure boat? How unbelievably silly! I wonder what they are going to deploy to deal with a survey ship?’
gbevers,
that’s just basic geopolitical strategy. overwhelming show of force. works almost every time. every country with the ability does it. and yeah, it’s always silly. of course, if korea wasn’t prepared to deploy that force, and it had been just the beginning of the erosion of korean sovereignty and eventual annexation by japan, again, gbevers jr. some day would be blogging about how korea had deserved the annexation because they were militarily inept and failed to respond to those early incursions. (lots of sarcasm here all around.)
japan allowing a few thug/miscreants to cause an international incident would have been childish. that they are deploying a survey ship knowing full well how it would play out is just slightly less childish.
” 역사적으로 볼 때 이 지역은 원래 중국 영토였으나 청일전쟁 이후 1855년 일본은 이 섬들을 오키나와에 편입시켰다. 1945년 2차 대전에서 패배한 일본은 대만을 중국에, 댜오위다오는 미국에 이양했다. 미국은 1972년 오키나와를 일본에 반환하면서 이 지역까지 포함시켰다. 일본 정부는 “국제법상 ‘주인 없는 땅(無主地)’을 선점한 것으로 아무 문제가 없다”고 주장하고 있다. 반면 중국은 “역사상 명백한 자국 영토를 청나라가 쇠약한 틈을 타서 훔친 것으로 국제법에 어긋난다”고 주장하고 있다.
일본은 지난해 최남단 바위섬 오키노토리(沖の鳥)에 자국 영토임을 밝히는 영구 표지판을 설치했다. 이 섬엔 이미 일본 땅임을 주장하는 경계비가 있는데도 불구, 영구 표지판을 세운 것은 섬이 아니라는 중국의 주장을 반박하기 위한 것이다. 일본의 극우 정치인 이시하라 신타로(石原愼太郞) 도쿄도(東京都) 지사는 지난해 5월 20일 이 섬을 방문, 일장기를 흔들며 1인 시위를 벌인 적도 있다. ”
http://www.chosun.com/magazine/news/200604/200604150121.html
Baduk’s link…
You guys should check out the link that baduk provided. I highly doubt that there will be a Japan-China war, one reason being because Japan has a lot of factories in China.
It’s interesting to note that Japan also has a Dokdo-like issue with China. Japan is essentially claiming an uninhabited island that has little to do with established historical occupation, but has more to do with 20th century occupation during a time when it’s opponent was weak.
Same theme as the Dokdo issue.
Japanese interest in these uninhabited islands are mainly vested in the fact that there are economical interests to gain from these islands.
Interesting to note also that the US gave this “land” to Japan. If Rhee Syng Man didn’t put up a watch tower and gun presence in Dokdo, Japan would be the owner of Takeshima to this day.
Marmot–”Unexceptable?” Does this mean unable to make an exception? And watch loose vs. lose, eh? We’re relying on you.
If anything, Japan should be claming Sahalin back from Russia, not claiming these uninhabited islands tied to natural resources from Korea and China. Japan should be ashamed of itself, and claiming these remote uninhabited islands seem to be psychologically empowering Japanese nationlists who hold the Pan East Imperial Japanese Empire period in positive light.
Look, Germany gave up historically German land to France (Alsace-Lorraine, last I checked they still speak some German there), Poland, and other neighbors. They do fine, even without those lands.
The Japanese are a poor example. As a defeated World War II aggresor nation, the least they could do is not anger the nations it oppressed thru that War by claiming these lands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Wei-kuo
Taiwan and Japan both have ties with Nazi Germany. I didn’t know about Taiwan, until a Chinese friend of mine said something like Germany had influence on China. Presumably, Taiwan wants to hide it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_Relations
Ahn Eak Tae composed the South Korean national anthem. Years later after that, about 10 years or so later, he would submit to the Japanese Empire and cozy up with them. This would allow him to work in Third Reich territory with Strauss, the composer. Credit to ohmynews.com for that information. However, I disagree with ohmynews’s view that Korea should have a new national anthem. Ahn was just playing the game of survival in later times. Although I’m not sure why he accepted Spanish citizenship under Franco instead of a South Korena one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahn_Eak-tae
It’s probably true that Germany would have gotten rid of Koreans, if they had Korea. We didn’t have much to offer the Germans like mainland China did. Although it’s ironic that China didn’t really help out the German needs. Chiang Kai Shek never had that much control.
oh yeah, please note that my only sources are wiki and ohmynews. Ohmynews is not a very credible source, so the idea that Ahn submitted to Japan is purely speculative. I don’t think Koreans like Germans, they just wish they got war compensation the German way.
The title to this Chosun article is hilarious: What Force Will Counter Japan’s Designs on Dokdo?
apparently, Japan doesn’t even have a historical claim on Sakhalin, either. I just thought they did, since they moved Koreans there for labor. Turns out, the Koreans were brought there to work in coal mines. Japan’s stake in Sakhalin is much like its stake in Dokdo, and the Chinese islands. NO historical precedence, and only recent 20th or 19th century occupations by force or economical means. That gives them rightful ownership?
There is not much on the Japan survey today in Korean news. I wonder if that means Korea is regretting making such a big deal out of it in the first place? Will this be another example Korea sticking her foot in her mouth before thinking about the consequences?
If the Korean strategy is to pretend that the area around Dokdo/Takeshima is undisputed, then wouldn’t it have been better for Korea to have proposed a joint survey with Japan or simply given Japan permission for the survey? Capturing one or two Japanese survey ships is certainly going to highlight the fact that it is disputed territory.
By the way, according to Mainichi Daily News, Korea has conducted three similar surveys in the disputed area in the last three years. Besides, as Kimcity2000 mentioned above, Korea proposed in 1998 to use Ulleungdo, not Dokdo, as the standard for determining its Exclusive Economic Zone. See the following Korean-language article:
http://japanese.donga.com/srv/k2srv.php3?biid=2006041520258
This seems to be another case of emotion overruling logic in the Korean brain.
Seem more like a typical attempt by the Japanese to ratchet up tensions in the region as a means to score brownie points at home or to drag Korea to the ICJ.
Let them survey the region. Send in half the navy and cosely ‘escort’ the Japanese every step in the way. Have a few squradrons of fighters come in low-level for added effect. This could be a good day to conduct some navy excercises for Korea.
See how well the Japanese can read their ‘survey’ when it’s soaked with sweat….
Frogmouth,
If Japan’s survey is an attempt to ratchet up the tension, then I guess that means Korea has being trying to ratchet up the tension for the past three years since she has conducted similar surveys in the disputed area.
As for Japan dragging Korea to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), so what? What does Korea have to fear? Isn’t her claim on Dokdo/Takeshima supposedly ironclad?
When if comes to Dokdo/Takeshima, Korean historians seem to be either shameless liars or such cowards that they remain silent for fear of being labeled traitors. When is someone going to stand up and tell the truth? Where are the Ed Murrows in Korea? Koreans should be ashamed of their historians, their reporters, and their politicians.
there’s a Japanese judge in ICJ right now. One. I don’t know if he’ll handle the case. But South Korea has none. Gerry, got anything to say about China’s claim on the islands near Taiwan? Mr. Bevers, do you read Japanese? If not, isn’t your investigation of the Japanese side limited? It seems you read Korean and English well.
Wjk,
Has there been a Japanese judge on the ICJ since 1954, when Japan first offered to let the ICJ decide the issue? No, Korea is not taking the dispute to the ICJ because there is a Japanese judge on the court; she is not taking it there because she knows she will lose.
No, I do not have anything to say on China’s claim on the islands near Taiwan. I no little about it and have even less interest.
No, I do not read Japanese, and neither do many other people, which is why so few people know Japan’s side of the story on the Dokdo/Takeshima dispute. Korean English Web sites dealing with the issue far outnumber the Japanese, which may be why people like Oranckay, Kushibo, and Lovmo have been so easily deceived.
Yes, it would be nice to be able to read Japanese, but it is not necessary since it is Korea that has to prove that it claimed Dokdo/Takeshima before Japan did in 1905. However, everything that I have seen regarding Korea’s claim on Dokdo/Takeshima is based on false assumptions, smoke-and-mirror arguments, and closed-eyed denial.
Is there really freedom of speech in South Korea? Even North Korea has dissenters, but where are the voices of dissent in Korea when it comes to Dokdo/Takeshima? Even if there were not so many holes in the Korean argument, I would think that there would be, at least, one or two Korean historians or reporters saying Japan’s claims have merit, but I have not heard of any? Is it because the dissenters would be fired from their jobs or driven into exile in a foreign country? Is the propaganda in the Korean education system so thorough that Koreans cannot reason for themselves with it comes to Dokdo/Takeshima? Is lying considered meritorious when it is viewed as promoting Korean nationalism?
Freedom of speak in Korea will never be truly free until Koreans feel comfortable enough to stand up and say, “Dokdo belongs to Japan.”
Gerry, Japan knows full well there isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell Korea will ever give up these rocks for God. The sooner they (and you) realize this then they can move forward. Japan is in serious denial about the drastic shift in power occurring in Northeast Asia over the last decades and it’s about time she was taught a lesson.
I’ve read the Japanese claims to Dokdo and they are weak as water. Japan says they own the islands because of the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion however this document was declared dead. History teaches us it was illegal to begin with.
Japan also tries to claim there was confusion about which islands were being referred to in agreements where they declared Songdo (Dokdo) Chosun territory but any study of maps of this time show this to be false.
Here is the Japanese link.
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/Takeshima/2usando.html
Japanese also claim that Korea’s reference to Usando is in fact the tiny isle of Jukdo next to Ulleungdo but there are maps that show both Usando and Jukdo.
Click the link to access page. Click 지도자료 below the Korean flag and then click 해동여지도중 강원도부분
http://www.cybertokdo.com/new-design/html/sub-10-01.html
It amounts to this. If I have a contract saying that Mr Smith gave me his car and I have the car in my driveway why should I give it back just because one day he comes to the realization the car is suddenly worth something?
Here’s the car registration and ownership.
http://www.tokdo.co.kr/english/tokdo_33.htm
Scroll down, third doc.
Forget about Dokdo, Gerry it’s a done deal. You’ll sleep better…….
in defense of Gerry, South Korea has limited freedom of speech. Many HanNara supporters say KBS news is government propaganda, but this is exactly how KBS news was used when HanNara’s ancestral parties were in charge of the Presidential office. I think I read here or somewhere linked that South Korea shuts down web sites that has a degree of content that is considered Very Pro Japanese. I don’t know what the standard or the limit is, until you get shut down, but apparently, didn’t the South Korean government shut down all South Korean websites showing the video of Sun Il Kim’s execution in Iraq? I’m sure they did. So, Gerry, even if there was a South Korean who wanted to say Dokdo was Japanese land, his work would never show up on the internet, and there would be so few of them. He’d be a real oddball.
Well, I think the South Koreans are reluctant to go to ICJ, because they got screwed in the San Francisco treaty after World War II. That’s my personal opinion.
The issue is not who is suppose to be there, but who is there now. Korea has posted guards on that island. So it is theirs. You can go back as far as history, but if we all do that then California would go back to Mexico.
Sun Il Kim has nothing to do with Japan, but I just put that in to prove that there is limited freedom of speech in South Korea. Historically, the South Koreans preferred to believe MBC tv news because it was privately owned. But, on various occaions, the ruling government would wise up and even manipulate news broadcasted by MBC, to paint a picture it wanted to be painted. They do that on and off, while KBS will steadily voice the viewpoint of the ruling party. It’s just quite funny when South Koreans will watch KBS news, and get all angered up, saying KBS is government propaganda, when they would watch it 20 years ago, and say everything that KBS is saying is the way it really is. I witnessed that myself with my grandparents, who are more in line with Han Nara’s political stance.
This is just another example of Japan’s passive agressive nature. Face it, there is no real justification for Japan to do this so-called maritime survey. Japan is once again stirring a pot that doesn’t need stirring. But again these are the Japanese, they can’t help themselves. Irritating their neighbours is done out of sport not necessity. Japan has really turned childish under the current government administration.
HansaraminVancouver,
Korea has done at least three similar surveys in the area in the past three years, so has Korea been more aggressive and childish than Japan?
Frogmouth,
None of the Korean maps you link to show any island named “Dokdo. Moveover, the islands they do show are right next to Ulleungdo. The map you linked to above is too small for me to read, but the islands, again, appear to be right next to Ulleungdo. Why do Korean maps show Usando right next to Ulleungdo instead of 92 kilometers away? Because they were referring to present-day Dokdo/Takeshima.
Korean documents and maps have said and shown that Ulleungdo and Usando were the same island, so if the map above lists Ulleungdo, Usando, and Jukdo all right next to each other, then the mapmaker obviously confused Usando as being another island next to Ulleungdo instead of just another name for Ulleungdo. Remember that even Lee Gyu-won had to clear up the confusion for King Kojong in 1882.
As for the Japanese document, it says that 松島 (Songdo: “Pine Island”) is an island next to 竹島 (Jukdo: “Bamboo Island”), which was the name the Japanese were using to refer to Ulleungdo at the time. If 松島 (Songdo) had been referring to present-day Dokdo/Takeshima, then they would not have said that it was next to Ulleungdo. They would have most likely given its location with a bearing and a distance.
Dokdo/Takeshima was a barren, rock island with no bamboo and no pine trees on it. Ulleungdo and Jukdo, on the other hand, did have bamboo and pine trees. In spite of Japanese maps referring to Dokdo/Takeshima as both “Bamboo Island” and “Pine Island” over the centuries, it seems obvious from the names that the mapmakers were confusing Ulluengdo and the island just four kilometers off its shore with present-day Dokdo/Takeshima.
Up until the Japanese sent inspectors to Korea in 1869, it appears that the Japanese were just as confused as the Koreans were in regard to Ulleungdo and Jukdo, the small island just four kilometers off the coast of Ulluengdo. The 1870 Japanese document simply confirmed for the Japanese that there was a small island just off the coast of Ulleungdo, and that Ulleungdo and that small island belonged to Korea. The document was not referring to present-day Dokdo/Takeshima.
The confusion in regard to Ulleungdo, Jukdo (the small Korean island just off the coast of Ulleungdo), and present-day Dokdo/Takeshima was pretty cleared up for the Japanese, when they sent a ship to survey Ulluengdo in 1880. The Japanese discovered that 松島(Bamboo Island) was actually just a few rocky islets (Dokdo/Takeshima) on the way to Ulleungdo. After they reached Ulleungdo, which they had been calling 竹島 (Bamboo Island), they decided to rename Ulleungdo “Pine Island,” and call present-day Dokdo/Takeshima “Liancourt Rocks,” which was more appropriate since, afterall, it was just a bunch of rocks.
Correction to my post above.
Instead of “Because they were referring to present-day Dokdo/Takeshima,” it should read, “Because they were NOT referring to present-day Dokdo/Takeshima.
HansaraminVancouver,
You are right. These stupid waenoms just want trouble. After 50 years of Korean occupation of Dokdo, why suddenly claim that it is their island? Why now? WTF!
Waking up from fifty years of group amnesia, the Japanese felt the sudden need to expand their territory? WTF!
Now they are playing power game with Koreans. Why? They want a war? China will give them war soon enough. Do they want to fight Koreans first before taking on the Chinese? WTF!
Time for all Korean fighting ships to move to Dokdo area. Load all weapons available. Shoot to kill anything Japanese.
Stupid people will die. Tora, Tora, and Tora!
Baduk, didn’t you used to espouse a more pro-Japan, anti-China orientation for Korea?
Baduk, Baduk, Baduk…. Japan is sending maybe one boat for a survey, just like Korea has done several times in the same area, the overlapping EEZs the two countries claim. The zones are always being disputed — China and Japan are arguing about the same thing. It’s an economic issue, and Korea is going over the top as usual.
Baduk: I’m responding to two comments on two posts.
…
First, your tone. You sound a little schitzo.
Second, that’s flawed logic. Koreans on message boards may want war, that doesn’t mean the Chinese and the Japanese want war. I lurk on some 2ch boards and I can count on one hand the number of people I’ve seen call for violence against Korea or China. Rather, it’s mockery and scorn, which at worst manifests itself as “These chinks are crazy!”
Japanese policymakers want Korea and China to calm down and yet refuse to bribe them for it. Just because neighbors foam at the mouth doesn’t mean you should give them an extra corner of your backyard. Indeed, the animosity makes them want to maintain their long-standing territorial claims on both Takeshima and the Senkakus. No country will ever sacrifice this just because demonstrators are burning effigies in the streets.
In this case, I believe that the Koizumi administration is trying to provoke Korea in a way that will make Seoul act irrationally and thus gain 1.) political capital at home and 2.) international support (i.e. show how irrational both South Korea and China are). Having said that, a large majority of Japanese support Koizumi in domestic politics and economics, but a majority also think 1.) he should not visit Yasukuni, and 2.) he provokes Korea and China unnecessarily.
Yes, I am very schizo about Dokdo issue.
1) For a long-term goal, Korea should be close to Japan. If Korea gets eaten up by Japan, Korea may be able to maintain the present standard of living. But if Korea gets eaten up by China, the Chinese will take everything valuable out of Korea and make her into a big concentration camp like NK is.
2) However, I hate Koizumi pushing the envelope like this. Actually, Japan should be sucking up to Korea now and working toward forming a stronger alliance, to fight off China together. In stead of doing that, this monkey is f***ing with Korea. I feel like punching this joker on the face. Why make trouble for nothing?
Koreans are volatile people including myself. Koreans may say “F***! Just shoot the torpedo. Que sera, sera!” And, if Japan retaliate, Korea will be pushed into making stronger ties with China. Koi f***ing monkey! Is this what he wants?
Gerry at the time of the 1870 document was issued ALL Japanese maps show Dokdo as 松島. Period.
Do you want me to post the maps again?
Japanese maps show Dokdo as Songdo up until well in the 1900′s until after the islands were stolen.
You’ve been saying for the longest time that Usando is the tiny island of Jukdo next to Ulleungdo but here we have a Korean map that shows both isles. Pretty much destroys your theory I’d say.
This is what Japan’s been doing for years. The World Cup, the year of Japan-Korea friendship, dropping visa requirements, etc etc.
See this wiki article for more: “Korea is geographically close, yet emotionally distant from Japan.” That’s the biggest problem to the current relationship: Seoul is willing to believe the worst about Japan.
It’s a two-way street. If Korea stops the finger-chopping wackiness and realizes that the real enemies are to the north and west, things just might improve.
It was interesting that Dok-do stamps were released
at the exact same time that President Roh is due to appear in court over corruption charges. Recently critics accuse the government of not helping families of South Koreans who have been kidnapped by North. Isn’t it obvious that the Korean government is using the Dok-do flap to take media attention off of other important problem? People in Korea will definately take an interest on a “Korean vs. Japanese” issue, and more people would be inclined to follow this story. A convenient smokescreen. They routinely provokes these kind of issues when they are under scrutiny from the media.
My favorite Japanese excuse is, “It was not us, it was the Korean and Taiwanese conscripts!”
I worry that Koreans might wake up someday and realize they’ve been sold down the river by leftists and other scum who have (tried) to ruin the alliance with the US while throwing away closer ties with Japan.
Such things may come in very handy depending on how things develop with North Korea and China in the future, and the laughable ‘balancer’ role will be long forgotten as China makes NK into another Tibet, despite the protestations of their vassals, the SKers.
. . . and then THIS: Two Koreas May Discuss Japan’s Dokdo Incursion
This is why I will be so glad to see this Uridang trash gone. I suppose the two Koreas will unite and fight evil Japan. This is so sad and is probably going to make a popular Korean movie soon.
Curzon,
Pray tell how this “measurement around Dokdo” help the relation between Korea and Japan? Is this the way to improve the friendship between two countries?
As Stallon said in the movie, “First Blood”, they drew the first blood. I mean the Japanese are starting this war.
May Koizumi and the waenom rightwingers rot in Hell!
Correction:
Change “Koreans look at a map of Usando and automatically call it Ulleungdo, even when it is draw right next to Ulleungdo” to
“Koreans look at a map of Usando and automatically call it Ulleungdo, even when it is draw right next to “Dokdo.”
Marmot,
What happened to my post, just before my correction? It said it was being moderated, but not it is not there? What’s going on?
Even my correction is wrong. It should be ““Koreans look at a map of Usando and automatically call it Dokdo, even when it is draw right next to “Ulleungdo.”
I spent a long time on my previous post, Marmot, please try to find it for me.
Gerry Bevers wrote:
I spent a long time on my previous post, Marmot, please try to find it for me.
Yeah, if his posts don’t show up, the Black Dragon Society won’t send him his checks.
Baduk: As I said, Japanese policymakers want Korea to calm down but will not bribe them for it — and I believe they have now decided to needle Seoul to make Roh’s crew act irrationally and thus gain Tokyo international support when Korea plays the usual role of hysterical teenager.
Certainly the news stories get more hilarious by the day: http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200604/200604180013.html
Oh smack! Nothing to end 55 years of war between North and South Korea like a Japanese boat entering waters near a rock that Korea occupied and Japan claims.
At least the GNP has realized that taking Tokyo’s bait does not work to the ROK’s advantage. Not. one. bit.
The best thing Korea could do about this would be to send a dozen college kids to Dokto to moon the boat when it gets close.
Other stories:
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200604/200604170031.html
Strategy? The current regime in Seoul wouldn’t know strategy if it hit them in the face. Who would have thought: some are starting to realize that sulking and bitching wouldn’t be an effective policy!
How will Korea ever counter those crafty Nips!
Curzon,
Korea has been raped by Japan for thirty five years. Please note that fact!
“Baduk: As I said, Japanese policymakers want Korea to calm down but will not bribe them for it”-Curzon
They say to calm down but yet sending their ship near Dokdo. WTF! Calm down? Shove it to your what!
Korea has been raped by Japan for thirty five years. Never again! Fuck ‘em. Kill ‘em. Korea will never be raped again! Koreans will rather die than to kneel to these waenoms.
Gerry the only thing I can agree with you on this one is that Korean maps are too inconclusive or inaccurate to ascertain which island is which so why even bother to cite them as proof of anything?
Of course Koreans will believe what they want to and maybe they’re right but the fact is we will never know what these amateur cartographers were referring to when they haplessly scrawled some of these maps.
However, the Koreans have presented documents (mostly Japanese) that show two things. One is Japan knew Korea was using the isles and another shows possession of these islands was given to Chosun. So their terra nullius claim is obviously a sham. At any rate, agreements after WWII effective killed Japans ‘jurisdiction’ over Liancourt Rocks anyway.
These evidence Korea has shown carries far more weight. The Japanese say “Dokdo is ours because we took it 1905″ Koreans say “Dokdo is ours because the Japanese said so in this official document” and then can back it up with indisputably authentic papers and maps that clarify what maps the Japanese were referring to.
I can’t say I approve of the way Korea ‘acquired’ Dokdo but they own the islands now and in my opinion Japan hasn’t put forth a strong enough case to warrant booting out the Koreans.
Baduk,
When you say, “Kill ‘em (waenom),” who do you mean? Any Japanese? Japanese politicians? Japanese politicians who pay respects at Yasukuni? The Japanese who participated in the occupation of Korea? A little late, since most of them are dead.
How would you feel if an angry American called Koreans “gooks”? It’s okay to get angry, disagree, and yell about what Japan did to Korea, but let’s avoid epithets.
Frogmouth,
The 1870 Japanese document says that 松島 (Songdo: “Pine Island”) was next to 竹島 (Jukdo: “Bamboo Island”), which is what the Japanese were calling Ulleungdo at the time. The document also says that the island had not yet been mentioned in Japanese records, which is another clue that tells us the document was not talking about Dokdo/Takeshima, since Dokdo/Takeshima had been mentioned before.
You can link to your maps again if you want, Frogmouth, but that will not change the fact that the 1870 document was talking about an island next to Ulleungdo, not about Dokdo/Takeshima.
The Japanese were confused about 松島 (Pine Island), which is why they sent officials to Korea in 1869 to try to clear up the confusion. Maybe that is why the following 1878 Japanese map shows two islands named “松島” (Pine Island).
http://dokdomuseum.go.kr/images/full01_092.jpg
Also, the following 1875 Japanese army map shows 松島 (Pine Island) right where Dokdo/Takeshima should be, but is drawn to look a lot like Ulleungdo.
http://dokdomuseum.go.kr/exh/fullimages/f_img_s01_item65.jpg
The Japanese were still confused in 1880, which is why they sent a ship to survey Ulleungdo. They discovered that 松島 (Pine Island) was a group of rocky islets (Dokdo/Takeshima) on the way to Ulleungdo, and that 竹島 (Bamboo Island), which is what they calling Ulleungdo at the time, was actually the island they used to call 松島 (Pine Island). Therefore, they renamed Ulleungdo as 松島 (Pine Island) and renamed Dokdo/Takeshima as Liancourt Rocks, which is the name Western mapmakers were using at the time. Here is a 1887 Japanese naval map labeled with the new names:
http://dokdomuseum.go.kr/images/full01_082.jpg
If Japanese mapmakers were still referring to Dokdo/Takeshima as 松島 (Pine Island) after 1880, then they were behind the times.
As for Usando, old Korean documents say that Ulleungdo and Usan-guk were the same island, and there is even a Korean map that show them as one island. Later Korean maps separated Usando from Ulleungdo, but the two islands were still drawn next to each other. Sometimes Usando is drawn east of Ulleungdo and sometimes it is shown west, but they are almost always drawn next to each other.
When Koreans see Usando on a map, they automatically say it is “Dokdo,” even though the island is draw right next to Ulleungdo, and even though no Korean historical document has ever said that Usando was Dokdo/Takeshima. Such Koreans are either blind nationalists or bold-faced liars.
Look at the following maps, Frogmouth. They all place Usando just off shore of Ulleungdo, the very place that the Korean island of Jukdo is today. How can you look at the following maps and say that they are referring to Dokdo/Takeshima, which is 92 kilometers southwest of Ulleungdo.
Late 18th Century Korean Map
http://ullungdo.com/map/image/5.jpg
Late 18th Century Korean Map
http://ullungdo.com/map/image/6.jpg
Early 19th Century Korean Map
http://ullungdo.com/map/image/7.jpg
Early 19th Century Korean Map
http://ullungdo.com/map/image/8.jpg
19th Century Korean Map
http://ullungdo.com/map/image/9.jpg
19th Century Korean Map
http://ullungdo.com/map/image/10.jpg
1899 Korean Map (This map even has coordinates.)
http://ullungdo.com/map/image/12.jpg
Also, look at pages 47, 48, 53, and 55 of the following PDF file.
http://kgeography.or.kr/publishing/symposium/2005/04/02.PDF
How can you, Frogmouth, and others look at those maps and still insist that Usando (于山島) is present-day Dokdo/Takeshima? It goes against all reason.
Frogmouth, no agreements after World War II ended Japan’s jurisdiction over Dokdo/Takeshima. Korea illegally occupied the islands in the 1950s and continues to do so today.
———–
This is my third time to post this. Something is screwed up with your blog, Marmot.
Nothing is screwed up–when you post five links or more, the comment must be approved first. Part of the blog’s anti-spam protection.
Thanks for explaining that, Robert.
Gerry, it’s always been said “Garbage in garbage out” The maps you’ve posted again prove nothing. You can’t prove anything by posting maps Japanese or Korean that are known to be inaccurate. I don’t really care what Korean nationalist say about Dokdo I’m not Korean.
Yes, Songdo is a neighbouring island to Ulleungdo in fact it has been proven to be visible on a clear day. The part on the document says there are no written records this could mean between the two parties. Please show me an authentic, accurate Japanese document/msp that shows any other island to be Songdo besides Dokdo. You haven’t and you can’t.
The Japanese had long since established (for about a hundred years in fact) which island was Songdo before the 1870 document with perfect attention to detail.
Follow the links to Berkley University and do searches under these maps
davidrumsey.com/japan
Map 1. Nakakuba Sekisui 1783. Again here is another map that shows Dokdo and Ulluengdo in perfect location a hundred years before giving the islands away.
Map 2. Matsumoto Yasuoki 1835. Shows Songdo in correct location.
Map 3. Matsumura Kyube 1837. Show both Jukdo and Songdo correctly.
Map 4. Kikuchi Toramatsu 1843. Again Songdo is accurate.
Map 5. Seika Shujin 1847 Songdo accurately placed
These maps were printed after the 1870 document.
Map 6. Uchida Shinsai 1872 This map shows both Ullengdo and Songdo shows both the same color as mainland Chosun.
Map 7. Hirosawa Nobufusa 1877 Songdo is Dokdo
Map 8. Tanaka Kazutomo 1879 Songdo is Dokdo
Map 9 Shimizu Akira. 1885 This map still shows Songdo as Dokdo 15 years after the document.
So your lame-duck defense is the Japanese were confused about which island was Songdo…. Listen, I’ve posted over a dozen maps, most predate the 1870 document that are both authentic and accurate to prove my point that Songdo is in fact Dokdo so I’m sorry Gerry but you are dead wrong.
I don’t buy it one bit. But hey, if the Japanese were so stupid as to give away territory before confirming exactly what they were talking about I would say that falls under the age old legal term know as the “tough shit” act.
Frogmouth,
Is there any pre-1905 Korean map that you will accept as accurate? If not, then what are you using to claim that Usan-do is present-day Dokdo/Takeshima? Korean documents? No pre-1905 Korean document claims that Usando or any other Korean island is present-day Dokdo/Takeshima.
What problem do you have with the 1899 Korean map that places Usan-do right next to Ulleungdo, and even shows lines of latitude and longitude? Moreover, the book in which it is printed says that the adminstrative district of Ulleung County extended east to a longitude of 130 degrees 35 minutes. As you know by now, that longitude excludes present-day Dokdo/Takeshima, which is farther east at a longitude of 131 degrees, 55 minutes. Look at the 1899 Korean map I am referring to. Notice that the Chinese characters for Usan “于山” are printed right next to a small island just off the coast of Ulleungdo. That island is located right where present-day “Jukdo” is. How can you dismiss that?
http://ullungdo.com/map/image/12.jpg
The 1970 Japanese document say that 松島(Songdo) was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. An island four kilometers off the coast of Ulleungdo is considered a “neighboring island,” not an island beyond the horizon, 92 kilometers away. Ulleungdo has about 50 some-odd clear days a year, and I have read that Dokdo/Takeshima can only be seen from one of Ulleungdo’s peaks only on certain clear days during certain times of the year when the wind is blowing in a certain direction. An island with such ghostly appearances is not considered a neighboring island.
By the way, one of my former students works for a travel agency that specializes in trips to Ulleungdo. When I asked her if Dokdo could be seen from Ulleungdo, she said, “No,” and added that they had to sail about twenty to thirty kilometers closer to Dokdo before it could be seen.
I have already show you a Japanese map where Ulleungdo is labeled as 松島 (Songdo) and Dokdo/Takeshima is labeled as “Liancourt Rocks.” It was the following 1887 Japanese naval map:
http://dokdomuseum.go.kr/images/full01_082.jpg
The 1870 Japanese document does not “give away” Dokdo/Takeshima. It was a document that the Japanese officials sent to the Japanese Foriegn Ministry to tell them of the results of their investigation of Ulleungdo. The document said that 松島 (Songdo) was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo and was Korean territory. It also said that the island had not yet been mentioned in Japanese records. That means that the island was a different 松島 (Songdo) from that mentioned in all the pre-1870 maps you listed above since the Japanese already knew about the “Songdo” listed on those maps. Remember that in 1882, Lee Gyu-won, the inspector that King Kojong sent to inspect Ulleungdo, also referred to the island just off the coast of Ulleungdo as 松竹島(Songjukdo). Korea was using the same Chinese characters for the small island just off the coast of Ulleungdo that Japan was using to refer to Dokdo/Takeshima. That is most likely what caused the confusion.
In 1880, Japan sent a ship to further clear up the confusion. That is the year that Japan finally got the mess sorted out, and they renamed Ulleungdo as 松島 (Songdo) and started calling present-day Dokdo/Takeshima “Liancourt Rocks,” which was a more appropriate name since the rocky islets has no pine trees on it or any other kind of tree.
Finally, if Japan had really given Dokdo/Takeshima to Korea in 1870, why didn’t Korea acknowledge that gift? Lee Gyu-won did not say anything about Dokdo/Takeshima in the report of his inspection to Ulleungdo in 1882, and the 1899 Korea text with a detailed map that I mentioned also did not mention it. In fact, the 1899 text said that Ulleungdo’s administrative boundary extended only to 130 degrees, 35 minutes. If Dokdo/Takeshima was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, why did the 1899 Korean text exclude it from Ulleungdo’s administrative district? Can you answer that question, Frogmouth?
Gerry for the last time the 1899 maps is way off in regard to degrees Ulleungdo is about a whole degree west of where it should be. How can you use this map for defining Chosun boundaries when you can tell it’s way off at a glance?
Dokdo is a neighbouring island and is visible from Ulleundo. This has been said by both Japanese and Koreans numerous time during history and I’ve seen pictures and historical docs to prove it. The fate of Dokdo doesn’t rest on Gerrybeaver’s definition of the word neighbour.
The 1870 document confirms the fact that an island known by the name of Songdo for over a hundred years by Japanese is Chosun Territory. You silly theory that Japan developed geographic amnesia doesn’t work.
The document says there are no written records. It does not say Japanese records. This could mean Korean or joint records.
It doesn’t change the fact I’ve proven Songdo is Dokdo. If you want to re-write history publish a science fiction book or invent a time machine. Better yet post a map of reasonable accuracy that predates the document that shows Songdo as anything other than Dokdo. The map you posted shows Liancourt to be about ten times the size of Ulluengdo and obviously is of too poor quality to make any definitive judgemnets regarding Japan’s stance on Dokdo.
The fact is, Japan frequently mapped the neighbouring island of Jukdo. Sometimes you can see Ulleungdo marked with 2 Jukdos. This map is two years after the document and shows clearly Ulleungdo and Dokdo the same colour as the Korean mainland. Also you will see two Jukdo islands mentioned.
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page12.html
Leekyuwon said the island was 20~30ri away. Too far to be one of the small islands you are talking about considering the known definition of a ri at the time. Leekyuwon did nothing to clarify which island was which. Didn’t we agree his pre-inspection information was third hand and heresay Gerry?
Japan didn’t ‘give’ any gifts in this document. They confirmed to their own leaders that Songdo (Dokdo) is Chosun. Take note, this document was made after the area was surveyed.
Whether or not Korea knew if Japan gave them Dokdo as Korean is moot. The document shows that Japan considered Songdo as Chosun. Thus the terra nullius land claim under the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was illegal.
There are no accurate Japanese maps that show Songdo as anything other than Dokdo. Period..
Here is “Map of the Eight Circuits(八道総図)”
http://www.globetown.net/~yesudian/hachidou01.htm
This original map shows Usando is to the west of Ullungdo.
Korea’s Dokdo museum displays the distorted version of “Map of the Eight Circuits” which shows Usando is to the east of Ullungdo.
http://www.globetown.net/~yesudian/0001.htm
Frogmouth,
Why do you keep saying the 1899 map is off by one degree? The book the map is in says the jurisdiction of Ulleungdo county extends to 130 degrees, 35 minutes. The map in the book shows Ulleungdo just on the other side of 130 degrees, and Usan is just about exactly at 130 degree, 35 minutes. Modern maps say Ulleungo is located 130 degrees 55 minutes, 20 seconds. The 1899 map was off by only 20 minutes, not one degree. Why the difference? Well, maybe the 1899 map did not include Jukdo? Or maybe the measuring instuments at the time were not as good are they are today? At any rate, the difference is not one degree, and the Usan is obviously right next to Ulleungdo, not on the other side of the 131 degree line. Are you sure you know how to read a map, Frogmouth? Look at the map once more:
http://ullungdo.com/map/image/12.jpg
Dokdo is not a neighboring island of Ulleungdo because is is 92 kilometers away, and it is almost impossible to see from Ulleungdo, even if you go to the observation deck on the highest peak of Ulleungdo on a clear day, which are very few, by the way. I have read that many Korean tourists are disappointed when they go to Ulleungdo and find out that they cannot see Dokdo from Ulleungdo. Koreans have suggested offering a reward for anyone who gets a picture of what appears to be a ghost island. I have seen two pictures of Dokdo/Takeshima taken from Ulleungdo on the Internet, and one of those is obviously a zoomed-in picture, which defeats the whole purpose of saying you can see it with the naked eye. That zoomed-in version is the one that Lovmo chose to put on his site, which, by the way, shows his bias. You can see it at the following address:
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html
That picture was taken Kim Chul-hwan in 1999, and it was supposedly the first time anyone had succeeded in taking a picture of Dokdo/Takeshima from Ulleungdo. Mr. Kim was an employee of the Ulleungdo county office. Also, the first time a picture had successfully been taken of Ulleungdo from Dokdo did not occur until 2002. Here is a link to a Maeil Newspaper article that talks about that big news.
http://www.imaeil.com/sub_news/sub_news_view.php?news_id=33896&yy=2002
The fact that a picture of Ulleungdo taken from Dokdo was news gives you an indication of how rare the event is.
Here is the other picture taken of Dokdo from Ulleungdo:
http://user.chol.com/~td96/3.jpg
Notice that the picture immediately above is much smaller than the 1999 picture, which obviously was taken with a zoom len. I am not sure if the second picture was taken with a zoon len, but I have my suspicions.
Koreans say that the reason Lee Gyu-won could not see Dokdo from Ulleungdo in 1882 was because he went there in the spring, and, supposedly, you cannot see Dokdo from Ulleungdo in the spring. Supposedly your best chance of seeing the ghost island is sometime around November, if even then. Also, even on a clear day, Dokdo, itself, is often covered in fog because of the intermingling cold and warm currents in the area. Anyway, Frogmouth, can you show me a picture of Dokdo taken from Ulleungdo, other than the two I linked to above?
If it is so hard for Koreans today to see Dokdo/Takeshima from Ulleungdo, in spite of all the tourists, all the interests, and knowing exactly where to look, how can anyone really believe that the few Koreans who lived on Ulleungdo during the Chosun period would have been able to see it? Besides, they were probably too busy just surviving to waste a day climbing up a mountain, through the thick underbrush, just to look around. As I said before, an island that is 92 kilometers away and can be seen only once in a blue moon from one of Ulleungdo’s peaks does not qualify as a “neighboring island.”
The 1870 Japanese document said that 松島(Songdo: “Pine Island”) was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, and that it had not been mentioned in any records. Whether the Japanese official meant Korea records, Japanese records, or both is not important. What is important is that they were saying that they had never knew of the island before. Why is that important? It is important because it means that there were at least two islands east of Ulleungdo, not just one that the Japanese knew of. An extra island between Ulleungdo and Japan can cause a lot of confusion. For example, if Japanese fishermen coming from Ulleungo tell Japanese officials that 松島 (Songdo) was an island east of Ulleungdo, Japanese officials might have assumed that they were talking about Dokdo/Takeshima, instead of an island just off the east coast of Ulleungdo.
Another thing that I am curious about is the story of Ahn Yong-bok. In 1696, Ahn Yong-bok said that he confronted Japanese on Ulleungdo by saying that Ulleungdo was Chosun territory and that the Japanese were trespassing. Supposedly the Japanese answered that they lived on 松島(Songdo) and just came occasionally to go fish, and that they were just getting ready to return. Ahn Yong-bok then said that Songdo was Jasan-do (Usan-do) and that it was also Chosun territory. The next morning Ahn and his people got on their boat and went to Jasan-do and found Japanese boiling fish there. He then chased them off with a stick. The Japanese got in their boats and headed east. Ahn and his people chased after them, but got blown off course.
Koreans say that Jasan-do (자산도: 子山島) is Usan-do (우산도: 于山島) and surmise that Ahn Yong-bok just got the first character confused because 子(자) and 于(우) look alike. If Jasan-do is Usan-do, which is drawn right next to Ulleungdo on almost all of Korea’s maps, then it can be reasoned that Songdo was Usando, and Usando was Jukdo, the small island just off the coast of Ulleungdo. I do not believe that Ahn Yong-bok would get up the next morning and sail 92 kilometers just to see if there were Japanese on Dokdo/Takeshima, but he might have gotten up and sailed four kilometers to see if there were Japanese on Jukdo (Usando & Songdo).
Also, the Japanese said they lived on Songdo, which does not make sense if they were referring to Dokdo/Takeshima, which is just barren rocks with no water source. I am not sure if there is a water source of Jukdo (the island just off the coast of Ulleungdo), but it does have trees, plants, and land to grow crops. If the Japanese were living on an island, it would be much more likely they were living on Jukdo than Dokdo/Takeshima. Here are some great pictures of Jukdo. It looks like a very nice place to live:
http://life.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=251734
Once again, Frogmouth, I would like to remind you of what Lee Gyu-won told King Kojong. He said that some people say that there are islands called 松島(송도: Songdo) and 竹島(죽도: Jukdo) east of Ulleungdo, but there is only “Songjukdo” (松竹島). Notice the names Songdo, Jukdo, and Songjukdo? Do you see anything in common with those three names? To me it looks like Jukdo (4 kilometers off the east coast of Ulleungdo) was also called Songdo by some Koreans, Jukdo by others, and Songjukdo by still others.
Yes, Jukdo is four kilometers off the coast of Ulleungdo, and Lee Gyu-won said that Songjukdo was eight to twelve kilometers off the coast, but either way, the island would have been easily visible from Ulleungdo, even at sea level. And, yes, he made the statement before he actually went to Ulleungdo, but after he got to Ulleungdo, he found that there were two islands just off the coast. The inhabitants called them Jukdo (죽도: 竹島) and Dohang (도항: 島項). Lee Gyu-won said he climbed to the top of the tallest peak on Ulleungdo surveyed the seas, but could not see any other islands, which means Jukdo and Dohang were the only neighboring islands of Ulleungdo. And no inhabitant of Ulleungdo mentioned anything about a ghost island that appears only once in a blue moon.
Darn! I put too many links in my post, again.
Marmot, please ignore my post that is currently waiting for moderation since the following post is a revised version. By the way, is it possible to adjust your anti-Spam linking limit to seven or eight instead of five? Five just seems a little too stingy.
————————–
Frogmouth,
Why do you keep saying the 1899 map is off by one degree? The book the map is in says the jurisdiction of Ulleungdo county extends to 130 degrees, 35 minutes. The map, itself, puts Ulleungdo just on the other side of 130 degrees, and Usan is just about exactly at 130 degree, 35 minutes. Today Ulleungo I have read that Ulleungdo is at 130 degrees 55 minutes, 20 seconds. The 1899 map was off by only 20 minutes, not by one degree. Why the difference? Well, maybe the 1899 map did not include Jukdo? Or maybe the measuring instuments at the time were not as good are they are today? At any rate, the difference is not one degree, and Usan is obviously right next to Ulleungdo, not on the other side of the 131-degree line. Look at the map once more:
http://ullungdo.com/map/image/12.jpg
Dokdo is not a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. It is 92 kilometers away and is almost impossible to see from Ulleungdo. Even if you go to the observation deck on the highest peak of Ulleungdo on one of the few clear days in the year and follow the arrow on the sign pointing to Dokdo/Takeshima, you are not likely to see the islets. I have read that many Koreans go to Ulleungdo expecting to be able to see Dokdo, but are disappointed. Koreans have even suggested offering a reward for anyone who gets a picture of what appears to be a ghost island.
I have seen two pictures of Dokdo/Takeshima taken from Ulleungdo on the Internet, and one of those is obviously a zoomed-in picture, which defeats the whole purpose of saying you can see it with the naked eye. That zoomed-in version is the one that Lovmo chose to put on his site, which, by the way, shows his bias. You can see it at the following address:
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html
That picture was taken Kim Chul-hwan in 1999, and it was supposedly the first time anyone had succeeded in taking a picture of Dokdo/Takeshima from Ulleungdo. Mr. Kim was an employee of the Ulleungdo county office there. Also, 2002 was the first time a picture had successfully been taken of Ulleungdo from Dokdo. Here is a link to a Maeil Newspaper article that talks about that big news. (To see the article, you need to add an “h” at the beginning of the following address. I dropped the “h” to get around The Marmot’s SPAM protection feature, which limits posters to only five links.)
ttp://www.imaeil.com/sub_news/sub_news_view.php?news_id=33896&yy=2002
The fact that a picture of Ulleungdo taken from Dokdo was news gives you an indication of how rare the event is.
Here is the other picture taken of Dokdo from Ulleungdo. Notice that the picture is much smaller than the 1999 picture, which was obviously taken with a zoom len. I am not sure if the following picture was taken with a zoon, but I have my suspicions.
http://user.chol.com/~td96/3.jpg
Koreans say that the reason Lee Gyu-won could not see Dokdo from Ulleungdo in 1882 was because he went there in the spring, and, supposedly, you cannot see Dokdo from Ulleungdo in the spring. Supposedly your best chance of seeing the ghost island is sometime around November, if even then. Also, even on a clear day, Dokdo, itself, is often covered in fog because of the intermingling cold and warm currents in the area. Anyway, Frogmouth, can you show me a picture of Dokdo taken from Ulleungdo, other than the two I linked to above?
If it is so hard for Koreans today to see Dokdo/Takeshima from Ulleungdo, in spite of all the tourists, all the interest, an observation deck that stands up above the trees, and a sign pointing in the direction of the islets, imagine how hard it was for the few Koreans who lived on Ulleungdo during the Chosun period. Chosun Koreans did not go to Ulleungdo to sightsee or to waste their time climbing to the top of a densely wooded mountain to look for a ghost island. They were probably much too busy just trying to survive. As I said before, an island that is 92 kilometers away and can be seen from one of Ulleungdo’s peaks only once in a blue moon does not qualify as a “neighboring island.”
The 1870 Japanese document said that 松島(Songdo: “Pine Island”) was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, and that it had not been mentioned in any records. Whether the Japanese official meant Korea records, Japanese records, or both is not important. What is important is that they were saying that they had never heard mention of the island before. Why is that important? It is important because it means that there were at least two islands east of Ulleungdo, not just one the Japanese knew of. An extra island between Ulleungdo and Japan can cause a lot of confusion. For example, if Japanese fishermen coming from Ulleungo tell Japanese officials that 松島 (Songdo) was an island east of Ulleungdo, Japanese officials might have assumed that they were talking about Dokdo/Takeshima, instead of an island just off the east coast of Ulleungdo.
Songdo (松島) is also mentioned in the story of Ahn Yong-bok, who, in 1696, confronted Japanese treapassing on Ulleungdo. He told the Japanese that Ulleungdo was Chosun territory and that they were trespassing. Supposedly the Japanese answered that they lived on 松島(Songdo) and just came to Ulleungdo occasionally to fish and were just getting ready to return home. Ahn Yong-bok then said that Songdo was Jasan-do (자산도=Usan-do) and that it was also Chosun territory. Supposedly, the next morning Ahn and his people got on their boat and went to Jasan-do, where they found Japanese boiling fish. Ahn got a stick and chased off the Japanese, who got in their boats and headed east. Ahn and his people supposedly chased after them, but became a victim of the wind and got blown off course.
Koreans say that Jasan-do (자산도: 子山島) is Usan-do (우산도: 于山島) and surmise that Ahn Yong-bok just got the first character confused because 子(자) and 于(우) look alike. If Jasan-do is Usan-do, which is drawn right next to Ulleungdo on almost all of Korea’s old maps, then it can be reasoned that Songdo was Usando, and Usando was Jukdo, the small island just off the coast of Ulleungdo. I do not believe that Ahn Yong-bok would get up the next morning and sail 92 kilometers just to see if there were Japanese on Dokdo/Takeshima, but he might have gotten up and sailed four kilometers to see if there were Japanese on Jukdo (Usando & Songdo).
Also, the Japanese said they lived on Songdo, which does not make sense if they were referring to Dokdo/Takeshima, which is just barren rocks with no water source. I am not sure if there is a water source of Jukdo (the island just off the coast of Ulleungdo), but it does have trees, plants, and land to grow crops. If the Japanese were living on an island, it would be much more likely they were living on Jukdo than Dokdo/Takeshima. Here are some great pictures of Jukdo. It looks like a very nice place to live:
http://life.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=251734
Once again, Frogmouth, I would like to remind you of what Lee Gyu-won told King Kojong. He said that some people say that there are islands called 松島(송도: Songdo) and 竹島(죽도: Jukdo) east of Ulleungdo, but there is only “Songjukdo” (松竹島). Notice the names Songdo, Jukdo, and Songjukdo? Do you see anything in common with those three names? To me it looks like Jukdo (4 kilometers off the east coast of Ulleungdo) was also called Songdo by some Koreans, Jukdo by others, and Songjukdo by still others.
Yes, Jukdo is four kilometers off the coast of Ulleungdo, and Lee Gyu-won said that Songjukdo was eight to twelve kilometers off the coast, but either way, the island would have been easily visible from Ulleungdo, even at sea level. And, yes, he made the statement before he actually went to Ulleungdo, but after he got to Ulleungdo, he found that there were two islands just off the coast. The inhabitants called them Jukdo (죽도: 竹島) and Dohang (도항: 島項). Lee Gyu-won said he climbed to the top of the tallest peak on Ulleungdo and surveyed the seas, but could not see any other islands. That means that Jukdo and Dohang were Ulleungdo’s only neighboring islands. By the way, no inhabitant of Ulleungdo mentioned anything to Lee Gyu-won about a ghost island that appears only once in a blue moon.
Gerry I’ve seen the map a dozen times and it’s way off and it is one of many maps of the region that are way off there are also numerous island below Ulleungdo. On my large map of Korea it shows the East coast of Ulleungdo around 130-45 degrees. This translates into the map being off at least 70kms. My argument is this. When the map is off, the co-ordinates can’t be taken as gospel.
You seem to be stuck on the Usando doesn’t equal Dokdo argument that I’ve never said I buy into to begin with. It is as if you are arguing with some phantom Korean.
I’ve mentioned before to you that I’ve taken a lot of photos over the years and I can assure you this. Cameras are a very inefficient medium for gathering visual
images. If you can take a picture of it, you definitely can see it with the naked eye unless you are using serious telephoto equipment. But with foreground objects for
reference this can be verified or discounted.
What I’m looking for are maps that denote ownership are more accurate and and follow repeated trends.
Here is some trends I find on many Japanese maps.
1. They show Dokdo as Songdo.
2. They often show them together.
3. Japanese maps often show the following Chinese characters often between both
Jukdo and Songdo. Also they are usually divided into two sentences or in a manner that deliberately spans both Ulleungdo and Dokdo
見 means see
高麗 means Koryo or Korea
猶 same very
Second sentence
雲 cloud
州 province
望 look far away
隱 hidden
州 province
http://ddb.libnet.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/exhibit/maps/map063/image/1/n1008000.html
You can see the cartographer arranged the text in a manner to link the islands together. This is not the only Japanese map that does this. Ulleungdo and Dokdo are
indeed neighbour islands. If not why link them together with text refering to Korea?
Davidrumsey.com/japan
search under
Matsumoto Yasuoki 1835
This map shows the same charcters linking both islands as well under Koryo.
BTW you can see the same characters between Ulleungdo and Dokdo in this link I posted before. There are two Jukdos on this map as in many Japanese maps.
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page12.html
Frogmouth,
If the Ulleungdo on the 1899 map is at 130 degrees, 35 minutes, and the Ulleungdo on your wall map is at 130 degrees, 45 minutes, then that is a difference of 10 minutes. Are you saying that 10 minutes equals 70 kilometers? If you are, than that would mean that Dokdo/Takeshima is 770 kilometers away from the Ulleungdo on your wall map since Dokdo/Takeshima is at 131 degrees, 55 minutes. As I hope you know by now, Dokdo/Takeshima is 92 kilometers from Ulleungdo, not 770.
A telephoto len not only brings distant objects in closer, it also brings the foreground in closer so a foreground does not really help us know if a telephoto lens was used or not, but the different sizes in the two islands does.
As for your two Japanese maps, you do not seem to understand the meanings of the two pieces of text next to Ulleungdo, so here are their translations:
기죽도 is just another name for 죽도, and I think it comes from a Japanese saying that means, “There are lots of bamboo, fish, and seals at Ulleungdo.”
The first piece of text seems to be saying that one can see Korea from Ulleungdo, and the arrangement of the text has nothing to with anything, except to point out that fact. The second piece of text just tells the travel time from Dokdo/Takeshima to Ulleungdo, so the only “linking” that is done is to tell the travel time.
Frogmouth, why do I get the feeling that I am doing your school assignments for you?
By the way, Frogmouth, if you do not buy the “Usando-equals-Dokdo” argument, then what makes you think Dokdo/Takeshima belongs to Korea? Without the premise that Usan-do is Dokdo/Takeshima, Korea would have nothing to show that they knew about the islets, much less have claim on the islets. That is why Koreans close their eyes and plug up their ears and say over and over, “Usando is Dokdo, Usando is Dokdo, Usando is Dokdo….” Usando could be drawn of a map next to Incheon, and I think Koreans would still say, “Usando is Dokdo, Usando is Dokdo, Usando is Dokdo….”
Corrrection to my above translation:
By the way, the following 1785 Japanese map basically says the same thing, but Dokdo/Takeshima is not drawn on the map. Instead there is a small, unnamed island drawn right next to Ulleungdo that is obviously Jukdo, the island just 4 kilometers on the east coast of Ulleungdo.
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/sangoku-tsuuranzusetsu.jpg
Koreans have also said that Ulleungdo can be seen from the Korea mainland. To back up its claim on Ulleungdo, following the Ahn Yong-bok incident, Chosun officials said, “The dense forrest on the peaks of Ulleungdo can be clearly seen from our shore, as stated in our text, “Yeojiseungram.”
The whole Korean claim on Dokdo/Takeshima seems to be essentially based on a passage in the records on King Sejong (1454). Here is that passage:
The disagreement between Korean and Japanese historians is how to translate the above passage. Koreans say that it is saying, “the distance between the two islands is not far,” but the Japanese say it is saying, “the distance between the two islands and Uljin is not far.” In other words, the Koreans see the two islands as separate while the Japanese see them as grouped together.
The Japanese say that Koreans referred to their islands by giving a bearing and a distance. The Japanese say the passage gives the bearing and the distance by saying the two islands are due east of Uljin and are close enough to be seen on a clear day when the wind is blowing.
The Korean interpretation, on the otherhand, would leave one wondering exactly where the two islands were since only a bearing is given but no distance. For example, they could been right in front of Uljin or on the other side of the Sea of Japan.
Of course, I support the Japanese interpretation, not only because it makes more sense and says the two islands were once known as Ulleungdo, which implies they were right next to each other, but also because Chosun officials used a similar passage to argue that Ulleungdo was Chosun territory because it could be clearly seen from the Korean mainland.
You are misquoting me on the location I gave Gerry. The East coast of Ulleungdo is at about 130-45 not 130-30. The 1899 map has the Ulleungdo’s east coast on at least 130 degrees that is about 45 degrees off. Have you noticed the size of Ulleungdo as well?
Another silly point you are making is that Koreans weren’t cognizant of these islands because they couldn’t see them from the Ulleungdo. Do you think the residents of Ulleungdo sat at home all day? They were residents of an island and survived by fishing. To think that over the course of centuries they never ventured
a mere 90kms in prevailing winds within visual distance of Dokdo is rubbish.
If you can see Korea from Uleungdo you certainly can see Dokdo from Ulleungdo. So you have inadvertently contradicted yourself on that point. If you can see Oki from Onshu you can see Dokdo from Ulleungdo. If you can take a picture of it you can see it.
At any rate the only translation I can find of the Hanja text shows Shimane is in fact mentioned but the other characters refer to Eun-gi-do Maybe this is Oki. If so, it makes sense that it would be a reference to the 1667 Saito Hosen report that says the border of Japan is Oki islands. He also refers to these islands as one in this document. It’s no accident references to Korea are made on these maps.
I don’t believe everything that comes down the pike like as you do Gerry. I also don’t disbelieve the Korean Usando=Dokdo argument I just think it’s to difficult to argue the point given the information we have. I’ve been saying for the longest time Korean maps/docs only cloud the issue.
I base my argument on the 1870 document that gives the Songdo to Chosun and maps prior to the agreement that verify which islands were mentioned. In one breath you imply Japanese were masters of the sea the next you say they lost their bearings in their own back yard. The only rebuttal I get is the Japanese were
confused. All maps that predate the agreement show otherwise. Maps that show Songdo as Dokdo for a hundred years take precedent over Gerrybevers defintion of
“neighbour island” You also say the islands are not mentioned before so given the fact Japan had mapped the area for centuries what is this phantom island Gerry and where is your proof? So why should Japanese get back these islands if they indeed were confused. Mentioned or not Songdo is Dokdo is Chosun.
Telephoto lenses do more that magnify Gerry. They have a very shallow depth of field and narrow range of view. Telephoto lenses compress images. Thus it is impossible to focus on infinity and still have foreground objects in focus with a telephoto lens of any appreciable magnification. Also it is impossible to include nearby peripheral objects because the field of range is so narrow.
This is not a telephoto picture.
http://user.chol.com/~td96/3.jpg
BTW if the islands they were referring to was the islet of Jukdo mentioning weather would be irrelevant. An island of that size from 4kms would be visible on a day almost as thick as pea soup without so much as a gentle breeze.
Frogmouth Wrote: “You are misquoting me on the location I gave Gerry. The East coast of Ulleungdo is at about 130-45 not 130-30. The 1899 map has the Ulleungdo’s east coast on at least 130 degrees that is about 45 degrees off. Have you noticed the size of Ulleungdo as well?”
Gerry Writes : Where did I ever mention 130-30? The 1899 text said that the administrative district of Ulleungdo extended to 130 degrees, 35 minutes. I did not say you said that; I said the text said that. Your 130-45 minus the text’s 130-35 equals 10 minutes, not “45 degrees.” By the way, on the 1899 map, the west coast of Ulleungdo is east of the 130-degree line, so how could the “east coast” of Ulleungdo be “on” that line? Could you explain the physics of that?
Ulleungdo is 430 times bigger than Dokdo/Takeshima, and its peaks are almost six times higher. Moveover, the observation peaks on the mainland are at least as high or higher than the peaks on Ulleungdo, so even though the distance between Ulleungdo and the Korean mainland is farther than the distance between Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima, Dokdo/Takeshima would be a speck on the ocean compared to Ulleungdo.
A fisherman would have to sail at least 34 kilometers south-east of Ulleungdo, on a particular heading, before he could see Dokdo/Takeshima. Why would he choose to do that, especially when the waters around Ulleungdo were rich in fish and seal? In fact, that is why the Japanese sailed all the way to Ulleungdo. Besides, even if Korean fisherman knew about Dokdo/Takeshima, that would still not make it a neighboring island of Ulleungdo.
Frogmouth wrote: “If you can take a picture of it you can see it.”
Gerry writes: That’s the problem, Frogmouth, Koreans cannot take a picture of Dokdo/Takeshima because they cannot see it. By the way, have you found any pictures of Dokdo/Takeshima taken for Ulleungdo, besides the two I mentioned above?
Yes, the Chinese characters on your maps were references to the 1667 Japanese document, but the 1667 document did not say that Oki Island was the border of Japan. Oki was used as a central reference point and the distances to different places surrounding Oki. The document said that 松島(Songdo) and 竹島(Jukdo) were northwest of Oki, which implies that Japan considered those two islands as part of their territory.
Frogmouth, if you base your argument on the 1870 Japanese document, then you do not have much of an argument. First, the 松圖(Songdo) in the document was “a neighboring island” of Ulleungdo, not Dokdo/Takeshima. The document said that the island had never before been mentioned in any records. That means that the Songdo in the 1870 document could not have been the “Songdo” for Dokdo/Takeshima since the the Dokdo/Takeshima Songdo was mentioned in Japan’s 1667 document, which I just discussed above. Second, the 1870 document was a report to the Japanese Foreign Ministry; it did not give away anything.
Frogmouth Wrote: “Thus it is impossible to focus on infinity and still have foreground objects in focus with a telephoto lens of any appreciable magnification. Also it is impossible to include nearby peripheral objects because the field of range is so narrow.
This is not a telephoto picture.
Gerry Writes: Both photographs of Dokdo/Takeshima taken from Ulleungdo have foreground objects in them, but one of the photos shows a DokdoTakeshima that is much bigger than the other, so it is NOT “impossible to include nearby peripheral objects” in a picture taken with a telephoto lens. Compare the two pictures again:
Little Dokdo
http://user.chol.com/~td96/3.jpg
Big Dokdo
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html
Gerry, my correction what I meant is this. On a real map of Ulleungdo the West coast of Ulluengdo is at 130-45. On the 1899 map the West coast of Ulleungdo is at 130 degrees. This is out by 45 minutes.
If Dokdo could be sailed from Ulleungdo in one day at 87kms they could be within visual distance of Dokdo in hours. Who says they would have to set an exact course ? It’s only natural given the predominant wind direction and proximity and chance through generations of familiarity. It’s ridiculous to think they were sailing from the Korean mainland frequently and they would never venture a few hours West over generations of life there.
I think there are not many photos for a few reasons. Ulleungdo is not a great tourist mecca especially in the fall and the few tourists that go there aren’t willing to schlep up a 1000 meter mountain in November to score a picture.
The leaves in the foreground of the big Dokdo picture are not peripheral, in fact they are almost covering the subject. However I would say that picture does have a little magnification involved for ‘effect’. To me it looks like maybe a 200~300 millimeter lens. Camera lenses are not binoculars and this image would still be visible with the naked eye. Also you can see the image is compressed as well meaning the trees look really close to the islands this is also done for ‘effect’ I think. This photo looks more professional. However you may note there are clouds present, this isn’t a day of spectacular clarity.
Little Dokdo is more realistic. It looks more amateurish to me. You can see the person’s head in the forground is blurry and the leaves off in the distance are clear. Also we have three points of reference. The person’s head, the trees and infinity so it’s hard to cheat on this one. This is done with a lens of a much shorter focal length. We also know the person used a fast shutter speed because despite the fact it was windy (see waves) the leaves aren’t blurry due to shake.
In 1870 those who went to survey the region no doubt already had maps as to what Songdo was. When they returned to Japan they reported what they saw and confirmed this. All maps that predate the document show Dokdo as Songdo. If there an ancient Japanese law that defines neighbour island let me know. The document doesn’t give Songdo to Korea it confirms it already is Chosun.
Gerry what is your basis for the Japanese claim……? The Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of 1905 was dead as of 1946 when Japan’s area of jurisdiction excluded
Liancourt. Mr Rusk himself said the rocks were uninhabited the Koreans took it and they all lived happily ever after……….good night.
Frogmouth,
East coast, east coast, Frogmouth, think east coast. The west coast longitude of Ulleungdo is irrelevant to this discussion. The 1899 text the map came in said Ulleungdo’s jurisdiction extended east to 130 degrees, 35 minutes. Today we know the main island of Ulleungdo extends to 130 degrees, 55 minutes, 20 seconds. The difference is only 20 minutes, so now let’s get back to the point. Dokdo/Takeshima is located at 131 degrees, 55 minutes, so Ullungdo jurisdiction in 1899 did not extend to Dokdo/Takeshima, and the small island drawn next to Ulleungdo on the 1899 map was not Dokdo/Takeshima, but almost certainly Jukdo.
What Mr. Rush actually said was the following:
Korea is illegally occupying the islets, and Koreans do not seem very happy when Japan points that out.
Korea is not occupying these islands illegally.
Japan was bound by an agreement she signed willingly to give up claim to the
islands.
Dean Rusk and USA are not the boss of Korea. But America was the boss of Japan and after signing the peace agreement Japan lost Liancourt. Korea took the island and Uncle Sam has little say on the matter. America has always maintained a neutral policy on Dokdo and still does.
I used the East coast as a reference point to show far off the maps coordinates are. Not only that, the island of Ulleungdo is at least double the size of the real island. The map is way off and can’t be used as a reference in terms of location.
Frogmouth, you are a goofball, and anyone believes your crap is a goofball. Also, anyone who says on this blog or any other blog that Korea’s claim on Dokdo/Takeshima is stronger than Japan’s is either a dumbshit goofball, a Korean ass-kissing goofball, or a dumbshit, Korean-ass-kissing goofball. And anyone who knows the truth, but fails to expose the ridiculous lies of Korea’s goofball historians is chicken-shit goofball.
Now, here is a goofball comment from Kim Hak-jun, the author of “독도는 우리땅.”
Under a big picture of the 1899 Korean map that shows “于山” (Usan) right next to Ulleungdo with lines of longitude that eliminate any posibility that it could be Dokdo/Takeshima, Mr Kim says the following on page 127 of his book:
Frogmouth, Mr. Kim seems to disagree with you on the accuracy of the map, but, amazingly enough, Mr. Kim still has the brass balls to say that Usando is Dokdo.
It is almost guaranteed that Korean historians know the truth about Dokdo, so it is just amazing how Korean historians can lie through their teeth the way they do. It also amazes me that there is not even one Korean historian with guts enough to stand up and tell the truth. And where are the papers on the subject from our goofball Western historians. It all just makes me sick.
Just to remind people, here is a link to the 1899 Korean map and to a blow-up of the portion where Ulleungdo and Usan are located:
1899 Map of the Korean Empire
http://ullungdo.com/map/image/12.jpg
Blown-up section of the map showing Ulleungdo and Usan
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/great-koreas.gif
By the way, if Korean historians can lie the way they do about Dokdo, then why would anyone believe them when they write about Japanese oppression in colonial Korea?
Old Korean maps seem to be disappearing off the Internet, especially the ones that are particularly damaging to their “Dokdo” argument. Before my computer malfunction, I used to have a pretty good 18th century map of Ulleungdo, but now I cannot find it anymore on the Internet. There are others maps too that I used to have, but can no longer find. Moveover, these “Dokdo-is-our-land” sites tend to make their arguments using ittle baby maps that are too small to read, anyway. Why do they do that? Are they doing it to hide something?
Also, why don’t any of the Korean sites mention that Choi Nam-seon wrote in 1946 that “Dokdo” was Jukdo, the small island just 4 kilometers offshore of Ulleungdo?
I do not think Korean historians are trying to find the truth of Dokdo/Takeshima; I think they are trying to hide it.
Gerry you want goofball. Here’s goofball. I give you at least a dozen Japnese accurate maps that show Dokdo is Songdo. Next I give you a Japanese document that says Japan gives Songdo to Korea and you claim Japan is ‘confused’. You also claim that Japanese thought that Songdo was one of the tiny isles around Ulleungdo without a shred of evidence so support your idea.
Now you think you’ve found the Holy Grail of maps that you feel Usando is the islet of Jukdo. But what about the other maps that prove it couldn’t be? Here is a page of maps of Ulleungdo with Usando next to it. Sometimes Usando is huge sometimes it’s small. On one map they show both Jukdo and Usando. Explain that.
http://www.ullungdo.com/map/map.htm
In reality, due to the size and proximity of Jukdo even the best of 17th~19th century Japanese maps of this era fail to show the islet of Jukdo especially on a map of such a scale such as national maps.
Why do national maps of Korea even to this day fail to label Ulleungdo’s Jukdo? I have a huge up-to-date map of Korea in my den. Jukdo is the size of the period in this sentence and is not even labled. It’s not important. It’s understood that an island a distance you could spit to is part of you territory especially when it’s not a border.
Jukdo is close, so close it doesn’t warrant even being mentioned. Why the Hell would you show a minuscule rock a mere 2.5 kms away from another disconnected island on a national map of Korea. If Jukdo is so important why aren’t the other island drawn on Korean maps then?
The Koreans probably sensor Choi’s stuff because he been proven to be pro-Japanese. This is Asia y’know……..
Headline:
Gerry goes postal, details at 11 PM.
Frogmouth, you are a goofball, and anyone believes your crap is a goofball. Also, anyone who says on this blog or any other blog that Korea’s claim on Dokdo/Takeshima is stronger than Japan’s is either a dumbshit goofball, a Korean ass-kissing goofball, or a dumbshit, Korean-ass-kissing goofball. And anyone who knows the truth, but fails to expose the ridiculous lies of Korea’s goofball historians is chicken-shit goofball.
Easy there Gerryberry. Breathe in/breathe out/breathe in/ breathe out…..
Frogmouth,
Your Japanese maps show that the Japanese knew Dokdo/Takeshima as “Songdo.” Your 1870 Japanese document shows that there was another island right next to Ulleungdo also called “Songdo.”
Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 survey report of Ulleungdo shows that the Choson government did not know of Dokdo/Takeshima and could not see it from Ulleungdo. The map that Lee draw of Ulleungdo to accompany his report can be seen here:
http://www.ullungdo.com/map/image/11.jpg
On the top right side of the island are four thorn-like rocks. Just below those rocks are two islands right next to each other. Between those two islands is written 島項(도항-Dohang-”Island neck”). Just below Dohang is another island called 竹島(Jukdo-”Bamboo Island”), the same name the Japanese had been using to refer to Ulleungdo. Anyway, Lee described Dohang and Jukdo as islands just off the shore of Ulleungdo, and he also reported that he climbed to the tallest peak of Ulleungdo and could see no other islands in the distance.
An 18th century map of Ulleungdo, the one I mentioned I was looking for above, also shows the rocks and islets just off shore of Ulleungdo, and it also has an island in almost the exact same place that Jukdo appears in the 1882 map, but the island in the 18th century map is not named Jukdo. It is named “Usando.” In fact, what is written on the island are the following Chinese characters:
所謂于山島
소위우산도
Translation: “The so-called Usando.”
That language implies that in the middle of the 18th century, the Koreans finally discovered the mystery of Usando, which would sometimes appear on the west side of Ulleungdo and sometimes on the east. The island is drawn in almost the exact same location as Jukdo in the 1882 map and is the only significant island among all the little rocks and islets surrounding Ulleungdo. It is very obvious that the Usando on the 18th century map is Jukdo, not Dokdo/Takeshima.
My question is this. Why don’t the Korean sites claiming Dokdo/Takeshima is Korean territory show the 18th-century Ulleungdo map on their sites?
Usando appears right beside Ulleungdo on all the Korean maps in the link you provided here:
http://www.ullungdo.com/map/map.htm
Even though it is obvious that the Usando in the maps is drawn as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Dokdo/Takeshima, Koreans will still insist that it is Dokdo/Takeshima, saying that the scale is too small to draw a neighboring island like Jukdo on the map. However, the reason they do not show the 18th century Ulleungdo map on their sites is because it is a close-up view of Ulleungdo, with Usando drawn among all the little rocks surrounding the island. If the sites were to show that map and say that Usando is Dokdo/Takeshima, then even someone with half a brain would ask, “Well then, where is Jukdo, the small island just 4 kilometers off the coast of Ulleungdo?”
By the way, if you would like to see a picture of the 18th century Ulleungdo map, you can find in on page 34 of a book entitled, “한국 고지도 발달사.”
Those Ulleungdo maps added together with the 1899 Korean text and map, a 1907 Korean text, and the 1946 Korean text, which all use map coordinates to exclude Dokdo/Takeshima from Korean territory, should be even to convince anyone, except a goofball, that Dokdo/Takeshima was not considered Korean territory before 1946.
Correction: I meant to write the following:
“…should be enough to convince anyone, except a goofball, that Dokdo/Takeshima was not considered Korean territory before 1946.
The debate here is that Koreans say that Usando is Dokdo. The Japanese say Usando is the tiny island off of the shore of Ulleungdo and both maps countries maps seem to prove they both truly believed this.
Some Japanese maps show Usando as being next this neighbour island. Here is one example.
Follow the link and search under. Chosen yochi zenzu
http://digarc.usc.edu:8089/cispubsearch/
Here is another. Follow the link and search under. So Mokan.
http://davidrumsey.com/japan
Here Songdo is another colour than Korea but it is still in a relative position to show that it is Dokdo.
My belief is that the position of Ulleungdo became unclear for a brief period with the outside influence of Europeans. But the names given to the islands by the Japanese has long since been established. The name Songdo was given to Dokdo at least a century before this mess occured.
In addition as we see some Japanese maps do in fact name the tiny island next to Ulluengdo but the name is never Songdo. The maps I showed you have three names on them Ullungdo-Jukdo-Usando. Songdo is also there but it is far away in a position consistent with the distance to Dokdo island.
Another trend is also apparent in viewing Japanese maps. A very large portion of Japanese maps around 1880 fail to show both Dokdo or Ulluengdo. HIstory tells us why. Around the late 1870′s Koreans were outraged at the influx of Japanese coming to the region and Japan maintained a hand-off policy in this area. It’s also notable a lot of Japanese maps of Korea during this era include Ulleungdo and Dokdo.
In summary the 1870 document gives Songdo to Korea. The accurate maps I’ve given you show Ulluengdo with neighbouring islands did not include any islands called Songdo. Period.
Frogmouth,
Your “accurate” Japanese map has Usando west of Ulleungdo, between Ulleungdo and the Korea pennisula, which, I think, is the same mistake made on Korea’s 동국여지지도, which was made around 1710. Was your “accurate” Japanese map made after that?
By the way, the Ulleungdo map I referred to was made after Korea’s 동국여지지도, which shows that the Korean mapmaker was still confused about Usando. I think the Ulleungdo map may have finally cleared up that misunderstanding.
By the way, your “accurate” Japanese map only shows two islands, with three names. The small island to the west of Ulleungdo is labeled Usando, and Ulleungdo is labeled with two names: Ulleungdo (the Korean name) and Jukdo (the Japanese name). How does that help you come to your conclusion that the 1870 document gave Dokdo/Takeshima to Chosun?
Gerry I don’t cite these maps as accurate in all aspects. Of course Usando isn’t on the West side of Ulleungdo But I say this.
Right or wrong Japanese maps that give enough scale to show islands that are adjacent to Ulleungdo prove to us that NO islands next to Ulluengdo were called ever called Songdo. Now I’ve given historical maps to prove this.
Your theory relies on this wild assumption that dispite centuries of mapping and venturing in the region Japan forgot what Sondo was. You are no better than the so called “goofballs” you refer to. This goes against all verifiable known history in the region that both Japanese and Koreans agree upon.
The 1870 document stands as probably the strongest piece of evidence EITHER side offers as to the ownership of Dokdo.
The Usando argument can be argued till the cows come home as long as people use these same crappy, ambiguous maps and plug in the names where they feel it suits their agenda it’ll never end. You are just like the Koreans, Gerry. When I look at these maps I just laugh. I’ve seen Korean maps from the 1700′s and to cite them as accurate whether you are Korean or Japanese is silly. That’s why I stay away from the whole mess Gerry. I know better.
To be honest long ago I was very skeptical about this map the Koreans posted before.
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/sangoku-tsuuranzusetsu.jpg
But once you referenced it to this map
http://ddb.libnet.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/exhibit/maps/map063/image/1/n1008000.html
it really makes sense that the other island in the aforementioned map would be Dokdo not the islet of Jukdo. Why? Because the islands are grouped together with the same Hanja text as you mentioned. Also no Japanese maps that I’ve seen even show Jukdo. Does that map look like it has the attention to detail that would include Jukdo? Not at all. Other Japanese maps of this era show both Ulleundo and Dokdo but never the islet of Jukdo.
The Usando issue is only part of the Korean claim but not everything. The Japanese claim is based on the dead Shimane Prefecture Inclusion. It’s funny how they no longer mention the terra nullius claim, isn’t it Gerry…..?
The Japs got their asses kicked after WWII. After being bombed back to the stone ages the Japanese watched helplessly as the opportunistic Koreans seized what was theirs to begin with. It’s a done deal.
You have proved nothing, Frogmouth, except that you are a goofball.
The 1870 document said that Songdo was a neighboring island of Jukdo (Ulleungdo), and that it had never before been mentioned in any documents. That implies that it would not have been named on any Japanese maps before 1870. The island did, however, appear “unnamed” on Japanese maps. You can see it on the following 1785 map:
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/sangoku-tsuuranzusetsu.jpg
Goofball eh? ………brlliant.
Your theories have more holes than the rusting hulk of the Yamato Gerrysan.
Please tell us what made a rock next Ulleungdo of so valuable that it warranted being included on national maps of the region. What made this boulder so important that Koreans were careful to include it in future agreements?
Jukdo is only about a hundred meters high.
There are no resources on it.
It isn’t of strategic value.
It is only about 2kms away from Ulleungdo.
It’s minuscule. There are arguably hundred of islands on the shores of Korea as big or bigger that are not on Korean maps of that era.
In fact, even the map you posted shows of Ulleungdo has Jukdo a little bigger than surrounding boulders. What is so special about Jukdo on Leekyuwon’s map relative to the other outstanding features on Ulleungdo? Nothing.
That’s why it was and still isn’t included on national maps to this day.
http://www.ullungdo.com/map/image/11.jpg
Despite the 1870 document explicitly mentions the island of Songdo you still have some wild theory that it refers to some other island. Please enlighten us “goofballs” Gerry as to which island they were referring to. Be sure to cross reference it with accurate maps/docs of the era like I did. Maps that are the same, maps that show trends that define true government policy and international borders of the time.
The fact some foreign official says written records don’t exist on Songdo without context as to who, what, which department etc… doesn’t negate what historians agree Songdo was mapped as for a hundred years. The document makes no written reference to maps either.
I think it’s time you followed Kushibo’s advice Gerry and drink the grape Kool-aid.
Frogmouth,
Jukdo is 4 kilometers offshore of Ulleungdo, not 2. By the way, I have found a 19th century map of Ulleungdo that has Usando just off shore of Ulleungdo, just where Jukdo would be. That is nice, but the interesting thing about the map is that it has distances on it.
In the very middle of the island there is a peak labeled 自中峯(자중봉). On the north, south, east, and west sides of the island are the following Chinese characters:
North: 自中峯二十里 (자중봉 20 “ri”)
South: 自中峯二十里 (자중봉 20 “ri”)
East: 自中峯三十里 (자중봉 30 “ri”)
West: 自中峯四十”里 (자중봉 4″ “ri”)
They seem to be distances to the center of the island from the four sides of the island, and they all add up to about 110 (40 “ri” north to south & 70 “ri” east to west). In the Records of King Sejong, it said that the 地方(지방) of Ulleungdo was 100 “ri.”
So why am I telling you this? Well, the dimensions of Ulleungdo in kilometers is 10 kilometers north to south, and 12 kilometers east to west. So if you divide the 10 kilometers from north to south by 40 “ri,” you will get 0.25 kilometers per “ri.” If you divide 12 kilometers by 70 “ri,” you get 0.17 kilometers per “ri.”
Now, remember, in 1882, Lee Gyu-won told King Kojong that Songjukdo was 20 to 30 “ri” offshore of Ulleungdo? If we use the calculated distances from the 19th century (1800s) Ulleungdo map to calculate the distance from Ulleungdo to Songjukdo, we get the following:
20 “ri” times 0.17 kilometers = 3.4 kilometers
20 “ri” times 0.25 kilometers = 5 kilometers
30 “ri” times 0.17 kilometers = 5.1 kilmeters
30 “ri” times 0.25 kilometers = 7.5 kilometers
Isn’t that just about where present-day Jukdo is offshore of Ulleungdo?
Also, do you remember this map?
http://dokdomuseum.go.kr/images/full01_043.jpg
If we use the calculated distances to calculate the 800 “ri” distance from the mainland to Ulleungdo, as mentioned on the map, we get the following:
800 “ri” times 0.17 kilometers = 136 kilometers
800 “ri” times 0.25 kilometers = 200 kilometers
Note the following:
* From Kangwon, Samcheok-gun, Imwon-ri to Ulleungdo: 134 km
* From Kangwon, Donghae City to Ulleungdo: 161 km
* From Kyeongbuk, Pohang City: 217 km
As I surmised before, besides 0.4 kilometers, there was also another measurement used for “ri” during the Chosun Dynasty. I believe that between the two distances I calculated above, the 0.17 “ri” is the most accurate.
By the way, if you would like to see the map that I used to calculate the distances, you can find it on Page 80 of a book entitled “한국 고지도 발달사.”
Frogmouth, I have already given you the reasons for why I think the 1870 document was referring to Jukdo, so I am not going to repeat myself.
First of all this.
http://user.chollian.net/~zstokdo/t_corea_data/08_1.jpg
Check this map, the scale is not great but it is well under 4kms from Ulluengdo to Jukdo Island.
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/Takeshima/
My map book shows Jukdo well under 2.5kms around about 2.2.
My road map shows the same.
My tour books confirm this.
About 2.2 kms shore to shore.
That’s about 13 Gerry Ri’s.
BTW, can we start calling you “Gerry ‘ri’ Lewis.?
Ask yourself this.
If they were measuring the distance to nearby Jukdo why would they need such a broad (20~30) estimate for an island that is so easily calculated? They shouldn’t have to guestimate the to the tune of 30% for an island that has visual reference. Second why would they use such small increments for measuring huge areas such as the seas when they already had .4 ri as an accepted measuring standard?
The map you referenced also showed the distance from Pusan to Daemado was about 480 ri. The Japanese map I referenced showed Japanese 48 ri.
This makes sense because a Korean ri is one tenth of a Japanese ri.
Daemado to Pusan is not 480 Gerry ris.
There is a 1911 Japanese map showing major ship route as Ulleungdo to Pusan and I’ve seen few other that do the same on
Davidrumsey.com/japan
Kawai, Rikitaro.
The page wouldn’t increase size for me today. I don’t know why.
Can you be sure it’s from peak to coast and not perimeter survey using the peak as a reference point. But what does a
I dunno, I’d like to see the book anyway. Isn’t there a picture online?
I gave you the information as to what as recorded in Korean history as to what a ri is. Someone had posted the same question on a history website and
the I cut and pasted the answer on the last thread.
Did somebody use .17 as a ri? Why don’t you ask a museum?
Here’s the timeline again.
태종실록 15년 12월 14일(1415년)) 이를 환산하면 1 里는 약 432 m 가 됩니다. 2. 고종황제께서 계실적에, 현대 도량형제도를 도입하여 光武 6년 10월 21일(1902년)에 제정한 도량형규칙이나 이후 光武 9년 3월21일(1905년)에 우리나라 법률 제1호로 제정된 도량형법에 의하면 1 里는 1386 尺(또는 2100 周尺)이고 1 尺은 30.303.. cm(10/33 m) 이며, 1 周尺은 20 cm (1 尺 = 10/33 m, 1 周尺 = 100/66 尺)이므로 1 里는 420 m 가 됩니다.(이때의 1 里를 周尺과 步로 환산하면 1 里= 350 步= 2100 周尺이다.) 3. 이후 1909년 9월 20일 제정된 일본식의 도량형법(도량형법 법률 제26호)에 의해 1 里는 12960 尺의 길이이고 尺값(10/33 m)을 고려하면 1 里는 3927.2727.. m 가 됩니다. 4. 해방 후에 계속 이 값을 사용해오다가 1960년 미터정의가 기존의 백금이리듐 미터원기에 새겨진 두 눈금 간의 길이로부터 크립톤 램프에서 나온 빛파장을 기준으로 하는 미터 값으로 바뀜에 따라, 우리나라에서도 1961년 5월 10일 계량법 제 615호를 제정하여 미터법으로 바꾸고, 1963년 12월 31일 까지는 기존에 사용하던 척관법을 그대로 인정하였읍니다. 5. 현재의 里값에 대한 고찰 오늘날의 년말에 제작하는 각종의 다이어리나 기타의 책자에서 사용하고 있는 도량형환산표의 里값을 살펴보면 1909년부터 사용하던 1 里= 3927.2727.. m 값을 사용하고 있음을 알수 있습니다
You really are a goofball, Frogmouth.
I cannot believe you are arguing about the distance of present-day Jukdo from Ulleungdo. It is 4 kilometers. If you do not believe me, check it out at one of the following addresses:
http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=772486
http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/죽도_(울릉군)
It is 50 kilometers from Busan to Tsushima (Daemado). Your Japanese map is using “ri” to represent the modern distance for kilometers, so your calculation is all screwed up. If we used 0.4 to calculate the distance (470 x 0.4), then that would mean that Tsushima (Daemado) is 188 kilometers from Busan, which, of course, is not the case.
As for my “ri” calculation, I will tell you more about it in a day or two. First, I want to study another Ulleungdo map that also seems to be using the same short distances for “ri.”
Yes, you can find small versions of the Ulleungdo maps online at the following address:
http://kgeography.or.kr/publishing/symposium/2005/04/02.PDF
Go to pages 55 and 56 and look at pictures 31, 32, and 33.
I posted the following comment on a page on the KBS Web site,
Unfortunately, the voting is going against me. As of this moment, I have zero votes supporting my comment, and 10 “against.” I hope to win more supporting votes during the day.
http://news.kbs.co.kr/article/news9/200604/20060427/871168.html
Are you sure this map isn’t refering the distance from Busan to mainland
Japan. The distance is about 200kms or about 480 ri.
http://dokdomuseum.go.kr/images/full01_043.jpg
Frogmouth,
The Japanese mainland does not even appear on the map, and the line drawn from the Korean mainland to Tsushima (Daemado) with 470 “ri” written on it should be enough to convince even a goofball that the mapmaker was referring to the distance from the Korean mainland to Tsushima (Daemado).
Gerry, use logic here.
There are two distances given on the Chosun map.
800 ri and 480 ri. There is no single unit of measurement that could be used that would jibe with the ratio given of these two locations. So something has to give here and I believe the location of the ports on the sea-route are the weak link.
We know the distance to Daemado. We know the distance to the mainland next to Ulleungdo.
The .17 ri you quote doesn’t work any better than a Korean .4kms ri. The other figures that seem to make sense are the 1:10 ratio camparison between a Japanese and Korean ri.
So I ask you. Why is the Korean 480ri exactly one-tenth of Japanese measurements on their maps (48ri)…..?
Regarding goofball.
If you posting Dokdo is not part of Korea on Korean internet sites and you are residing in Korea you gotta be the biggest goofball of them all. Gerry. Some hacker is gonna find you address and they’ll be a line of Equus with tinted windows outside your door.
I’m not kidding. Stick to expat sites.
Frogmouth,
The 0.17-km works for both distances.
My KBS post has generated 91 “against” and none “for.” There has been no argument made against my post. All the comments have been just blind, nationalistic denial. However, among those 91 against, I am sure some will be checking the facts, so there may be some good that comes out of it.
Here is the link the KBS page I mentioned above. You may have to click on 전체 to see all of the comments, but maybe not.
1843 maps shows distance in ri
http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/sumita/map/5C082.html
Metric timeline show Japan didn’t adopt metric until 50 years later.
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm#japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_unit
Try this map Gerry it gives a distance of one Korean ri= .15
I doubt the link will work though let me try first.
http://digarc.usc.edu/cispubsearch/sidview.jsp?object_name=seakorea-m150&ORN=EAMC_149
Anyway I think the scale at the top says 30 Japanese ri equals 800 Korean ri.
I can’t really get it to magify and the Hanja character for one hundred looks kind of smeared. Check it out anyway.
The scale is on the upper right side and compares Korean ri to Japanese ri I thin….
I’m too busy to play today.
Here is an interesting tidbit:
In 1794, Han Chang-guk (한창국) was sent to survey Ulleungdo. In his report, he said there were three islands offshore of Ulleundgo. They were Bangpaedo(防牌島-방패도), Jukdo (竹島-죽도), and Ongdo (瓮島-옹도). He said that each of the islands were only about 100 “bo” distance away. The island of “Ongdo” caught my eye because the pure Korean word for Ong (瓮) is Dok (독), which is an earthenware pot. Could it be that Dokdo(독도) is not a “lonely island,” but an island shaped like an earthenware pot?
Another interesting thing about the Chinese character 瓮(ong) is that the top portion of the character is 公(공), which is also used in the character 松(송), which means “pinetree.” Ongdo, Songdo, Ongdo, Songdo. They seem to rhyme, don’t they?
Frogmouth,
If you would like to continue our discussion on Dokdo/Takeshima, I will be presenting my arguments over the next few weeks on my blog at the following address:
http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/
You are welcome to come and make comments.
Look, here is how we solve the Liancourt Problem – Force South Korea to give up the entire island and then populate it with an independent republic of elderly men who happen to like each other too much. Then the island should be renamed “Lemonparty Island.” That way the old men win and both countries lose.
Seriously, this vitrol over the Liancourt Rocks is very annoying. It doesn’t matter *who* (Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Canadian, Australian, Nigerian, whatever) does it – It just gets on my nerves.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 5 trackbacks }