Comments on: Foreign teacher sacrificed to the Dokdo gods http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/ Korea... in Blog Format Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:27:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Some Reviews of Books on Korea: Part 2 « The Grand Narrative http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-121224 Some Reviews of Books on Korea: Part 2 « The Grand Narrative Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:33:55 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-121224 [...] one entitled Korea’s Convenient Invasion Myths, and knowledge of what happened last year to a blogger who dared question some of Koreans’ sacred cows, then that really struck a chord with me, and I read most of the book on the KTX home the next [...] [...] one entitled Korea’s Convenient Invasion Myths, and knowledge of what happened last year to a blogger who dared question some of Koreans’ sacred cows, then that really struck a chord with me, and I read most of the book on the KTX home the next [...]

]]> By: The Taft-Katsura Agreement; An American Sell Out of Korea? at ROK Drop http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-120787 The Taft-Katsura Agreement; An American Sell Out of Korea? at ROK Drop Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:58:18 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-120787 [...] recent topic of dispute among commenters at the Marmot’s Hole is the alleged American sell out of Korea to Japan with the mutual signing of the Taft-Katsura [...] [...] recent topic of dispute among commenters at the Marmot’s Hole is the alleged American sell out of Korea to Japan with the mutual signing of the Taft-Katsura [...]

]]> By: Andy Jackson http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62292 Andy Jackson Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:50:17 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62292 Oh Lord, how do I close the comments section? UPDATE:  OK, I found it.  A post with 510 comments is something, just not something useful.  I think it is time to cool down a little bit until the next regularly scheduled round of Dokdo chest thumping in early March. Oh Lord, how do I close the comments section?

UPDATE:  OK, I found it.  A post with 510 comments is something, just not something useful.  I think it is time to cool down a little bit until the next regularly scheduled round of Dokdo chest thumping in early March.

]]> By: Two Cents http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62290 Two Cents Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:41:53 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62290 Frogmouth, You miss my point entirely. I am asking you to present evidence to prove that Koreans knew about Dokto, as two little pieces of rock sticking out of the Sea of Japan barely visible from Ulleungdo and almost a day's travel away from it, and not how the Japanese regarded it. Somehow, Koreans always want to prove that Dokto was historically theirs using Japanese sources. The maps you linked to are also made in Japan. What is being questioned by most of the people who are not falling for the Dokto story is whether Koreans actually knew the existence of the Liancourt Rocks. Japanese documents and maps clearly show that when it was called Matsushima (松島) prior to the 19th century the Japanese meant the two little islands located approximately in the center of Ulleungdo and Oki islands, as the site you kindly linked to proves. Then, in the 19th century, when the western mapmakers started confusing the situation, records also show that Japan became confused, and the document in the first link you provide (松島巡視要否ノ議: "Regarding the Need for an Inspection Mission to Matsushima" in 1878) is evidence of that. The fact that Japan carried out an inspection mission to Matsushima in 1880 is proof that the above opinion was ditched and thus should not be used as evidence to prove that Japan officially considered Matsushima as Chosun's. The documents you provide in the second link are also parts of the debate. Unlike Korea, in Japan, people present the pros and cons of an issue before making a decision. Sadly, the Japanese text in the section "The Japanese Inquiry of Ulleungdo Region's History" is misread and presented as meaning the complete opposite of the original. It reads "Are these two islands what we refer to as Takeshima and Matsushima?" and not "These are what we Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo) and Takeshima." So the site's conclusion "It is interesting to note with this document that although Usando was drawn on Ulleungdo's wrong (West) side, Japanese were concious of this error and still considered Usando to be Matsushima," is plainly wrong. This is a report that compiles the contents of東国興地勝覧 (Korean document established in 1478) to examine the Korean stand on the island issue. Is there a Korean document, official or unofficial, which says the island Koreans have historically called Usan is the one mapped as the Liancourt Rocks or called Dokto in the late 19th or early 20th century? The Taehanjiji (大韓地誌) published in 1899 gives the eastern limit of Korea as E130º35' and the latter 朝鮮常識問答 (Q&A on common knowledge for the Koreans) published in 1947 gives it as E130º56'23". The second edition of the latter published in 1948 even states that the eastern boundary is Jukto of Ullengdo located at the said latitude. It is obvious that Koreans did not consider Liancourt Rocks to be a part of their territory, even after they had acquired the knowledge of modern mapmaking standards. http://bbs.enjoykorea.jp/tbbs/read.php?board_id=ttalk&nid=526516 The remainder of my counter-opinion to your comment will be posted at Occidentalism, because I think the details of Takeshima/Dokto debate are off-topic here. Lies, Half-Truths and Dokto Video Maps 4 http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=451 Frogmouth,
You miss my point entirely.
I am asking you to present evidence to prove that Koreans knew about Dokto, as two little pieces of rock sticking out of the Sea of Japan barely visible from Ulleungdo and almost a day’s travel away from it, and not how the Japanese regarded it. Somehow, Koreans always want to prove that Dokto was historically theirs using Japanese sources. The maps you linked to are also made in Japan. What is being questioned by most of the people who are not falling for the Dokto story is whether Koreans actually knew the existence of the Liancourt Rocks. Japanese documents and maps clearly show that when it was called Matsushima (松島) prior to the 19th century the Japanese meant the two little islands located approximately in the center of Ulleungdo and Oki islands, as the site you kindly linked to proves. Then, in the 19th century, when the western mapmakers started confusing the situation, records also show that Japan became confused, and the document in the first link you provide (松島巡視要否ノ議: “Regarding the Need for an Inspection Mission to Matsushima” in 1878) is evidence of that. The fact that Japan carried out an inspection mission to Matsushima in 1880 is proof that the above opinion was ditched and thus should not be used as evidence to prove that Japan officially considered Matsushima as Chosun’s. The documents you provide in the second link are also parts of the debate. Unlike Korea, in Japan, people present the pros and cons of an issue before making a decision. Sadly, the Japanese text in the section “The Japanese Inquiry of Ulleungdo Region’s History” is misread and presented as meaning the complete opposite of the original. It reads “Are these two islands what we refer to as Takeshima and Matsushima?” and not “These are what we Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo) and Takeshima.” So the site’s conclusion “It is interesting to note with this document that although Usando was drawn on Ulleungdo’s wrong (West) side, Japanese were concious of this error and still considered Usando to be Matsushima,” is plainly wrong. This is a report that compiles the contents of東国興地勝覧 (Korean document established in 1478) to examine the Korean stand on the island issue.

Is there a Korean document, official or unofficial, which says the island Koreans have historically called Usan is the one mapped as the Liancourt Rocks or called Dokto in the late 19th or early 20th century? The Taehanjiji (大韓地誌) published in 1899 gives the eastern limit of Korea as E130º35′ and the latter 朝鮮常識問答 (Q&A on common knowledge for the Koreans) published in 1947 gives it as E130º56′23″. The second edition of the latter published in 1948 even states that the eastern boundary is Jukto of Ullengdo located at the said latitude. It is obvious that Koreans did not consider Liancourt Rocks to be a part of their territory, even after they had acquired the knowledge of modern mapmaking standards.
http://bbs.enjoykorea.jp/tbbs/.....nid=526516

The remainder of my counter-opinion to your comment will be posted at Occidentalism, because I think the details of Takeshima/Dokto debate are off-topic here.
Lies, Half-Truths and Dokto Video Maps 4
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=451

]]> By: ponta. http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62276 ponta. Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:45:50 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62276 Frogmouth <blockquote>I imagine all of you guys were humiliated when the Japanese released the attached map only one month after and proved you were are wrong and I was right.</blockquote> What are you talking about?Are you talking about <a href="http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/Engnews/20061120/610000000020061120061553E1.html" rel="nofollow">this article </a> in which Korean media misleading made it as if Japanese government acknowledged the existence of the 19 century document for the first time when J government has never rejected acknoledging it, when everyone concerned knew its existence? Please be specific. You are not trying to mislead the reader just as when you misquoted the scholars of international law, are you? <blockquote>The identity of this “other island is irrelevant anyway.</blockquote>Great! I'll bookmark this comment. <blockquote> Maps of Shimane made after the inquiry show NO islands as part of Shimane Prefecture anyway.</blockquote> So? Japan was cognizant of Dokdo during Edo period. You admit it. Japan was confused about the island when the state was changing from shogunate to Meiji government. But after the investigation, Japan confirmed out that Korea did not own the Dokdo and incorporated it in 1905. In the mean time, from ancient time to 1905, Korean government had never cognizant of Dokdo. <blockquote>Just show us evidence Korea was cognizant of Dokdo before 1905</blockquote> Why have you been avoiding it? <blockquote>Ponta are you still posting fisherman maps made by the Murakawa families as proof of Japanese ownership of Dokdo? Listen, the maps you show also include Ulleungdo which was of course part of Korea at the time of these maps. (1724)</blockquote> Of course, because that is the detailed map of Dokdo that leave no doubt as to the reference. The map with Ulleungdo makes it clear that the two rocks are Dokdo and Japanese knew them. <strong> Just show us the Korean map of Dokdo as detailed and accurate as this one</strong> Why have you been avoiding show it? BTW I have read the relevant page of The Abacus and the Sword, it seems the author didn't say the US gave away Korea to Japan. I know you were talking about another book of Peter Duus. Could you quote the relevant passage? or you didn't misquoted the author just to mislead people to believe what you wanted to prove, did you? I would like to see his reasonings. Frogmouth

I imagine all of you guys were humiliated when the Japanese released the attached map only one month after and proved you were are wrong and I was right.

What are you talking about?Are you talking about this article in which Korean media misleading made it as if Japanese government acknowledged the existence of the 19 century document for the first time when J government has never rejected acknoledging it, when everyone
concerned knew its existence?
Please be specific. You are not trying to mislead the reader just as when you misquoted
the scholars of international law, are you?

The identity of this “other island is irrelevant anyway.

Great! I’ll bookmark this comment.

Maps of Shimane made after the inquiry show NO islands as part of Shimane Prefecture anyway.

So?
Japan was cognizant of Dokdo during Edo period.
You admit it.
Japan was confused about the island when the state was changing from shogunate to Meiji government.
But after the investigation, Japan confirmed out that Korea did not own the Dokdo and incorporated it in 1905.
In the mean time, from ancient time to 1905, Korean government had never cognizant of Dokdo.

Just show us evidence Korea was cognizant of Dokdo before 1905

Why have you been avoiding it?

Ponta are you still posting fisherman maps made by the Murakawa families as proof of Japanese ownership of Dokdo? Listen, the maps you show also include Ulleungdo which was of course part of Korea at the time of these maps. (1724)

Of course, because that is the detailed map of Dokdo that leave no doubt as to the reference.
The map with Ulleungdo makes it clear that the two rocks are Dokdo and Japanese knew them.

Just show us the Korean map of Dokdo as detailed and accurate as this one
Why have you been avoiding show it?

BTW
I have read the relevant page of The Abacus and the Sword, it seems the author didn’t say the US gave away Korea to Japan. I know you were talking about another book of Peter Duus.
Could you quote the relevant passage? or you didn’t misquoted the author just to mislead people to believe what you wanted to prove, did you? I would like to see his reasonings.

]]> By: Hugh http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62267 Hugh Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:14:19 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62267 Jiwonshi, I was Billy-Madisoning us all.... Jiwonshi, I was Billy-Madisoning us all….

]]> By: michael http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62258 michael Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:42:08 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62258 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22insignificant+rocks%22 http://www.google.com/search?h.....t+rocks%22

]]> By: gbnhj http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62253 gbnhj Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:25:04 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62253 Well done: Tokdo-inspired frisson has taken this thread beyond 500 posts. Many said that 500 was an impenetrable barrier, but that's certainly been proved wrong, and all it took was some good, old-fashioned intractability. Godspeed, and onward to 600! Well done: Tokdo-inspired frisson has taken this thread beyond 500 posts. Many said that 500 was an impenetrable barrier, but that’s certainly been proved wrong, and all it took was some good, old-fashioned intractability.

Godspeed, and onward to 600!

]]> By: michael http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62238 michael Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:37:50 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62238 jiwonsi, remember too that the circular motion of the fork gives lightness to the omelet. jiwonsi, remember too that the circular motion of the fork gives lightness to the omelet.

]]> By: frogmouth http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62237 frogmouth Wed, 10 Jan 2007 06:32:15 +0000 http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-62237 Ponta, I remember the conversation with Pacifist quite well. You, Gerry and Pacifist all argued tooth and nail that the islands in the 1877 Shimane Inquiry did not refer to Ulleungdo and Dokdo. I imagine all of you guys were humiliated when the Japanese released the attached map only one month after and proved you were are wrong and I was right. <b><i>The identity of this "other island is irrelevant anyway. Maps of Shimane made after the inquiry show NO islands as part of Shimane Prefecture anyway.</b></i> You can read about the 1877 document here. http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1877-doc.html Ponta are you still posting fisherman maps made by the Murakawa families as proof of Japanese ownership of Dokdo? Listen, the maps you show also include Ulleungdo which was of course part of Korea at the time of these maps. (1724) usinkorea, you are arguing with the Koreans through me on a few points here. First as I mentioned earlier, I never insinuated the U.S. should have "gone to bat" for Korea. Second I put part of the blame on Korea's colonization of the entire West's (not just the US) refusal to even lend an ear to the Koreans for example at Hague in 1907. I don't think the West could have done little more than delay the colonization of Korea in hindsight. What I find intriguing is the manner in which the world community concurred that the colonization of Korea was legal. usinkorea read again article 1 of the Treaty. If other Powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government, the other will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their friendly feelings..." From your post its clear you are attempting to negate America's obligations by citing Korea's misinterpretations. I still have seen no evidence from you that the Americans either "exerted their good offices" or attempted to bring about any "amicable agreement" to Korean legitimate claims that they had been coerced into signing the Protectorate Treaty. Basically you just disregard the whole treaty. Even in your own post you admit that maybe America didn't show her "good offices" Thus however you interpret Article 1. it's clear the Americans didn't honor the Treaty of Friendship. Alexis Dudden received her B.A. in East Asian Studies from Columbia University and holds a masters degree and doctorate in history from the University of Chicago and has studied in Rikkyo University, University in Tokyo and Yonsei University in Seoul. I'll go with her on whether or not Roosevelt traded the Philippines. Ponta, I remember the conversation with Pacifist quite well. You, Gerry and Pacifist all argued tooth and nail that the islands in the 1877 Shimane Inquiry did not refer to Ulleungdo and Dokdo. I imagine all of you guys were humiliated when the Japanese released the attached map only one month after and proved you were are wrong and I was right.
The identity of this “other island is irrelevant anyway. Maps of Shimane made after the inquiry show NO islands as part of Shimane Prefecture anyway. You can read about the 1877 document here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1877-doc.html
Ponta are you still posting fisherman maps made by the Murakawa families as proof of Japanese ownership of Dokdo? Listen, the maps you show also include Ulleungdo which was of course part of Korea at the time of these maps. (1724)

usinkorea, you are arguing with the Koreans through me on a few points here. First as I mentioned earlier, I never insinuated the U.S. should have “gone to bat” for Korea. Second I put part of the blame on Korea’s colonization of the entire West’s (not just the US) refusal to even lend an ear to the Koreans for example at Hague in 1907. I don’t think the West could have done little more than delay the colonization of Korea in hindsight. What I find intriguing is the manner in which the world community concurred that the colonization of Korea was legal.

usinkorea read again article 1 of the Treaty.
If other Powers deal unjustly or oppressively with either Government, the other will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement, thus showing their friendly feelings…”

From your post its clear you are attempting to negate America’s obligations by citing Korea’s misinterpretations. I still have seen no evidence from you that the Americans either “exerted their good offices” or attempted to bring about any “amicable agreement” to Korean legitimate claims that they had been coerced into signing the Protectorate Treaty. Basically you just disregard the whole treaty. Even in your own post you admit that maybe America didn’t show her “good offices” Thus however you interpret Article 1. it’s clear the Americans didn’t honor the Treaty of Friendship.

Alexis Dudden received her B.A. in East Asian Studies from Columbia University and holds a masters degree and doctorate in history from the University of Chicago and has studied in Rikkyo University, University in Tokyo and Yonsei University in Seoul.

I’ll go with her on whether or not Roosevelt traded the Philippines.

]]>