Ampontan compares Korean and Japanese newspaper editorials on Dokdo.
You might notice a slight difference in tone and demeanor.
Korean Vs. Japanese Editorials on Dokdo
Previous post: Translation and Comments on Lonely Planet Criticism
Next post: Cellphones and Cancer? More Researchers Voice Concern
{ 242 comments… read them below or add one }
One of the great things about this blog is that, reading the arguments of Gerry Bevers and Frog, I have learned a number of facts about Dokdo that I formerly was not clear about:
1. Korea’s historical claim over Dokdo appears to be founded on distortions. The claim that Korea was aware of the Liancourt Rocks in the 16th Century is based on questionable maps. Wikipedia: “A Korean claim is partly based on references to a Korean island called Usan-do (우산, 于山) in various historical records and maps such as Samguk Sagi, Annals of Joseon Dynasty and Dongguk Yeoji Seungnam. According to the Korean view, these refer to today’s Liancourt Rocks, while the Japanese side argues that they must refer to a different island located in the immediate vicinity of the nearest larger Korean island Ulleung-do, and ironically called Jukdo (죽도 竹島), meaning “bamboo island,” or the name the Japanese give to the Liancourt Rocks.” There are other conflicting interpretations of Korean and Japanese maps that do not conclusively support Korea’s position.
2. It appears that Korea was not aware of the Liancourt Rocks until the Japanese brought their attention to it when they incorporated the “unclaimed” islands as part of Shimane Prefecture in 1905. The Rocks are not clearly visible from Ulleongdo, as is often claimed, and Korea up to Chosun had no maps showing it. Japan claims the incorporation was valid on grounds that Liancourt Rocks was terra nullius and that Korea did not dispute the incorporation when the news was published.
3. Japan was the first nation to claim the Rocks and the first to occupy them as they built an observation tower there.
4. The US Rusk Report acknowledged Japanese claims. Wiklipedia again: “In Aug 10, 1951, a notification currently known as Rusk documents was sent to South Korea as a final U.S. Government reply on the issue of sovereignty between South Korea and Japan, and it states that Liancourt Rocks are territory of Japan.” The subsequent dmarkation excluded Dok Do, and it was not designated Korean territory.
5. Sigmund Lee drew up his own boundaries including the Liancourt Rocks in violation of the US demarkation.
6. Korea illegally occupied it militarily and continues to do so to this day.
7. Japan took the case to the ICJ but Korea was a no show.
8. A 1965 agreement with Japan shares fishing rights in the waters between Korea and Japan. It was agreed to acknowlege the Rocks as disputed territory and to show mutual sensitivity, but Korea has violated the accord on numerous occasions through beligerant and provocative actions. These include the taking of Japanese hostages, issuing of Dok Do stamps, turning Sminane Japanese fishing boats away in direct violation of the accord, demonstrations on Japanese soil, and disruptive diplomatic posturing including the current rejection of a Japanese offer for a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the annual ASEAN regional security summit in Singapore and current plans to send marines to replace a police contingent on Dokdo to thwart Japan’s territorial claim to the islets.
9. By contrast, the Japanese government has acted calmly and with diplomatic consideration, damping down Shimane calls for it to take action on the question. It plans to address the matter in school texts in a nonprovocative and nonconfrontational fashion acknowledging the dispute. Wikipedia: ” ‘if military tensions escalate, that would bring no benefit to either Japan or South Korea,’ Nobutaka Machimura, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary said. “So we need to calmly deal with the situation.’”
Formerly, I simply accepted Korean claims to soverignty over Dok Do out of sympathy and because the vehemence of the Korean arguments coupled with the inconsequential nature of the issue led me to accept the arguments without critical consideration. However, the facts speak rather clearly. Korea’s claims are exaggerated. The US’s neutrality and Japan’s diplomatic approach are clearly acknowledgements of the emotional irrationality with which Korea deals with nationalistic issues.
Given the weakness of Korea’s position, it is understandable why Korea does not wish to have the case adjudicated in an international court. However, it behooves Korea to cooperate with Japan rather than continue to be adversarial and provocative on the issue.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Possible_Methods_of_Resolving_Liancourt_Rocks_Dispute_between_Japan_and_ROK
@ 1. A self-correction on item #7 from Chosun Ilbo:
“The Japanese Foreign Ministry in February on its website posted a 14-page document to support its claim to Korea’s Dokdo islets. Entitled “10 Issues of Takeshima”…The Japanese document maintains that Japan strongly protested against Korea’s “illegal occupation” of Dokdo in 1952, when then Korean president Syngman Rhee “issued a declaration concerning maritime sovereignty,” which encompassed the Dokdo islets into the so-called “peace line.” In fact, Rhee’s installation of the line and stationing of guards on the islets was an exercise of sovereignty over Korean territory, which is guaranteed under international law. Finally, the document claims Korea rejected Japan’s proposal to take the “dispute” to the International Court of Justice.”
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200804/200804220024.html
Sorry, Mizar, I’m not convinced. Despite how really truly annoying Koreans can be about Dokdo, and how bad they are at arguing their position for it, I still think Japan’s claims are b.s. – they grabbed the islets when they had Korea by the throat, and Rhee did what he did as soon as he got the Americans off his back.
That said, of course the Japanese editorials are all asking Seoul to calm down, and of course, the Koreans aren’t going to calm down about it. If the Japanese were as rational and as unbiased as they’re made out to be, they would have recognized that bringing up the subject would provoke Koreans and make things harder during the six-party talks.
They did it anyway. The Korean editorials point this out, fairly, and then use over-the-top language that makes them look like fools.
This is getting boring as North Korea’s “compromises.”
Park Hyun (#4),
There was no one for the Japanese to “grab” Liancourt Rocks from in 1905. As I have written on this blog before, the islets were unclaimed by anyone, except by Japanese, before they incorporated them in 1905. There is no evidence that Koreans ever visited the rocks before the Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s, and Korea does not have a single old map of the rocks.
Since you are not convinced of Japan’s historical claims, then I assume you are convinced of Korea’s, right? If you are convinced of Korea’s claims, then can you tell me why you are convinced of them?
“If the Japanese were as rational and as unbiased as they’re made out to be, they would have recognized that bringing up the subject would provoke Koreans and make things harder during the six-party talks.”
Yes. The Japanese government should have anticipated that Korea would have an irrational emotional overreaction to the education guideline.
Wrong Mizar. you are oversimplifying the issue and you are wrong.
Let’s take this apart step by step. Part One
The Koreans were clearly cognizant of Dokdo is a couple of very old documents. I think the first clear evidence of this was the 1694. Here it stated:
This was the so-called Sambong (三峯 – “Three Peaks”). The winding shape of Daegwanryeon (大關嶺 – mountain range on the east coast of the Korean peninsula) was visible to the west. Looking toward the east, there was one island far off to the southeast. The size was only about one-third of Ulleungdo. It was only about 300 ri [120 kilometers] away.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/300-ri-shillok.jpg
The next document would be a 1714 Report from a Chosun inspector it reads.
I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, “Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is near the border of Japan.”
This document shows many Koreans of the coastal areas were both aware of the distant island to the East and that they considered the islands near Japan’s border but not part of Japan.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/1714-East-Island.jpg
In 2005 documents were uncovered from the Murakawa household showing that a Korean man (Anyongbok) went to Japan and protested Japanese fishing on Korea’s Ulleungdo. Here can be found Anyongboks assertions that Usando (于山島) was Matsushima (松島) It was also recorded that Takeshima Ulleungdo (竹島) and Matsushima~Dokdo (松島) were part of Chosun’s Gangwando 江原道 Province.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/anyongbok-doc15.jpg
Anyongbok recorded the distance of Usando to be 50ri which is about double the distance, However Japanese maps also made similar mistakes. In addition, Jukdo Islet is only about one half of a ri so this record shows Jukdo was not Usando in this document. Whatever the Japanese lobbyists dispute about the Anyongbok record, it shows the Koreans protested about Matsushima-Dokdo (松島). To these assertions the Japanese raised no objections at all in the following correspondences.
In more modern records the Japaese Black Dragon Fishing manual confirms Korean cognizance of Dokdo at least 5 years before the Japanese annexed Dokdo. This means the Japanese cannot assert as you do Koreans on Ulleungdo weren’t aware of Dokdo.
The Black Dragon Fishing Manual of spring 1901 states “Koreans and Japanese fishermen call this island Yangkodo (Liancourt)
You are also wrong about the visibility factor Mizar5. As I pointed out above the 1694 document records Dokdo’s visibility but so does the 1903 edition of the Black Dragon Fishing Manual Here it states:
“…About 30-ri south-east of Ulleungdo, and almost the same distance north-west from Japan’s Oki county, there is an uninhabited island. One can see it from the highest point of 山峯 (mountain) in Ulleungdo when the weather is fine…”
You can see the documents here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-20cent.html
Japan military occupation was part of the colonization of Korea. It was not natural nor peaceful. It was not open and public and Korea contested the act with what remained of her government and through the local media. Korea does not, and should not accept this annexation done during the largest war of the day while Japan was in the process of annexing the whole Korean nation.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html
Are you still asserting the Japan Peace Treaty gave the islands to Japan?
1. The Rusk papers were confidential memorandums that never saw any part of the Japan Peace Treaty.
2. Korea was neither participatory nor signatory to the S.F. Peace Treaty. It has zero legal effect on Korea.
3. America told the Japanese to take the issue to the ICJ and Korea refuses, as Japan does on her disputes. The Americans (Dulles) concluded the Japan Peace Treaty did not grant sovereignty to the Japanese and Japan would have to refer to Article 22 (ICJ) to resolve terrtitorial issues. Korea refuses, tough shit.
Gerry Bevers. Whether or not Liancourt Rocks was ownerless or not there are certain conditions a country must do to incorporate new lands. It must be done in an open and public manner and there must be an announcement to the degree so other interested sovereigns may have the opportunity to do so. Japan’s clandestine annexation was not sufficiently open and public enough.
Syngmane Rhee drew his Peace Line and to this day it stands. Here is Rhee’s Peace Line.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/rhee-line-limit.jpg
Here are the measurements from the nearest islands and land that now stands as a result of Syngman Rhee’s “brutal land grab.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/12-mile-limit.gif
Seriously what is wrong the current boundary in place. Clearly the waters of the region are divided up in a fair manner.
This is what greedy Japan’s MOFA wants. I a나 you, is this fair?
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-takeshima-border.gif
Formouth’s argument in short:
Japan is evil and has propensity for expansionism. Therefore, Japan took the rocks illegally.
Here’s the law in short:
Can you convict someone with propensity evidence? Usually not, because it’s so prejudicial. Is propensity evidence enough to negate contrary evidence? I’d say most likely not.
And I agree with mizar5 that it’s not referendum on Japan. Should leave wartime atrocities out of the argument. It only serves to cloud the issue. Well, that’s why “propensity evidence” is tricky.
Misspelled “frogmouth”. No intentions.
Anyways, if Japan is so bent on expansionism (and still is, as many Korean friends here are so determined to point out), why claim “Dokdo” rather than bigger fish like Ulleungdo, Jejudo, or even parts of the peninsula itself?
Seems logical to assume Japan never considered “Dokdo” Korean, even back in its imperial stage. It’s also interesting that, if what Matt pointed out is true, Imperial Japan never incorporated parts of Korea into “mainland” Japan.
Well, I guess “propensity” is everything.
Bevers,
I’m never really “convinced” of anything. However, two things put me in the Korea camp: the 1905 date of “incorporation,” and the fact that Korea has been in possession of the islets for five decades now.
Disapproving of Korea’s reaction is not the same thing as approving of Japan’s claim.
Also, has it occurred to anyone else that Japan’s bringing up Dokdo might be so that it can use whatever precedent it gets from court rulings to claim islands from Russia and China?
Mizar,
Yes, the two instances that Frogmouth mentioned are the only two pieces of instances that Koreans during the Joseon era probably saw Liancourt Rocks from Ulleungdo, but they support the Japanese claim, not the Korea.
In the 1694, Ulleungdo Inspector Jang Han-sang (張漢相) went to Ulleungdo and surveyed the island. He reported seeing in the distance southeast of Ulleungdo an island that looked to be about one third the size of Ulleungdo and said that it looked to be about 300 ri (120 km) away, which tells us he did not go to the island since Ulleungdo is about 390 times bigger than Liancourt Rocks, not three times bigger. He also reported that there was a small island five ri (2 km) to the east of Ulleungdo that had haejang bamboo growing on one side. That was obviously Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 – 죽도), which is about two kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. Another inspection by Bak Chang-seok (朴昌錫) in 1711 produced a map that showed a small island off Ulleungdo’s east shore labeled as having “fields of haejang bamboo” (海長竹田), which is bamboo that can grow up to six meters tall. The name of the island was labeled as “the so-called Usando” (所謂 于山島), which proves that Usando was not Liancourt Rocks, as Koreans claim, but rather was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. You can see the map and my translation of the relevant passage of the document HERE.
In the 1714 document, the Korean fisherman did not say it was “near” the border of Japan; he it was “on” or “connecting to” (接) to the border of Japan. Here is the passage:
Therefore, the above passage is evidence that Korean fisherman considered the island to be part of the Japanese border. Also, the fact that the Korean fisherman said that the island was “visible” from Ulleungdo suggests that he never went there.
By the way, judging by how Korea’s National Institute of Korean History (NIKH) translates the above passage, it seems they realize how damaging it is to the Korean claim. Here is how it was translated by the HIKH:
If you know how to read Chinese characters, you should realize that the Korean translation is ridiculous. Anyway, HERE is my translation of the full passage and a scan of the actual document.
Both of the above passages occurred after the claims of An Yong-bok, who did not know the distance to Liancourt Rocks. In fact, the 1694 inspection was conducted because of An Yong-bok. The fact that neither the 1694 or 1711 inspection recognized Liancourt Rocks as being Usando is evidence that Koreans did not consider Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory.
The 1711 map was just the beginning of a string of Ulleungdo maps that showed Usando to be Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks. The last known Korean map of just the island of Ulleungdo was made sometime between 1884 and 1994, which was after Ulleungdo was opened up for settlement, also shows Usando (于山) as Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks. You can see the map HERE.
For some reason, Frogmouth (Steve Barber) likes to distort the evidence, so keep that in mind when you visit his silly site.
Gerry we discussed you incorrect translation on your blog. Right here.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1714-july-22-island-east-of-ulleungdo.html
You clearly mistranslated the Korean term deliberately “접해 있다”
You say it means “connected to” however as I tried to pound into your thick skull it means adjacent to or near when used to describe territorial borders.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/adjacent.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/border.jpg
The 1714 does not say connected to Japan’s border. It says is near or adjacent to Japan’s limit or boundary. At any rate the document shows Koreans were cognizant of the island.
Frogmouth says -
“In more modern records the Japaese Black Dragon Fishing manual confirms Korean cognizance of Dokdo at least 5 years before the Japanese annexed Dokdo. This means the Japanese cannot assert as you do Koreans on Ulleungdo weren’t aware of Dokdo.
The Black Dragon Fishing Manual of spring 1901 states “Koreans and Japanese fishermen call this island Yangkodo (Liancourt)”
Frogmouth, we have been over this before. The Korean fishermen (not the government) were cognizant of the Liancourt Rocks because they were employees on Japanese ships, as is clearly stated in the Black Dragon Fishing Manual. That is a hell of a fact to leave out of your assertion.
To anyone who may be interested,
The Black Dragon Fishing Manual confirms that Korean fishermen were traveling to Liancourt Rocks on Japanese fishing boats in 1901 and were using the Japanese name for the rocks, not Dokdo, Usando, Sambongdo, Seokdo, or any other name that Koreans claim that used to call the islets. The reference in the “Japanese” manual was the first time anywhere that it was mentioned that Koreans were traveling to Liancourt Rocks, and they were doing it on Japanese fishing boats. There was no Korean document or map to show that Koreans had ever visited the rocks before that.
Gerry, you also misinterpreted the 1711 map. You ran on the premise that this neighbouring island next to Ulleungdo was Jukdo. However when we note the positions of the other places marked on Ulleungdo we can see this island was not Jukdo but rather an island added on from previous surveys.
The 1711 map you cite shows “So-called Usando” in front of Dodong Harbour. This is about 4kms off but more importantly it is totally wrong relative to Jeodong, Three Angles Rocks and Dodong where we now know Inspector Pak left his stone marker. These other places are marked accurately on Ulleungdo, but the Usando is way far off of Jukdo’s location. In fact Jukdo Islet isn’t even visible from Dodong.
It is most plausible the islet was an incorporated island from a previouls survey because it is drawn due East (as in the Ulleungdo Shillok) and has the same Haejang bamboo phrase as well. This is also because five islands are drawn on the map that simply don’t exists Gerry
You can see Shimane Prefecture followed your flawed reasoning and wrongly labelled Dodong in front of this “Jukdo” when in fact Dodong was far to the North. This is all because you worked backwards from the premise this island was Jukdo.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/shimane-1711.jpg
Mr Cho wrote an interesting article about your misinterpretations on his blog.
http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10032700058
Frogmouth,
Look at Korea’s National Institute of Korean History’s translation. Even they used “connect.” Or are you going to claim that their translation means “islands are ‘adjacent’ all the way to the Japanese border.”?
The Chinese character was 이을 接. 잇다 means “join,” “connect,” or “link.”
Matt, if the Koreans were working for or with the Japanese on Liancourt Rocks they too were utilizing the resources of the islets. It cannot be said the islands were truly ownerless or terra nullius as the Japanese wrongly assert.
The Japanese who were on Liancourt Rocks were ignorant, illiterate violent trespassers who had been told to get the Hell off Korean land at least six years before the Japanese used them as a “legal basis” to annex Liancourt Rocks.
Why doesn’t Japan’s MOFA mention that little tidbit of data?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-not-japanese.html
Frogmouth,
I am not going to argue with you about the 1711 map because even Korea’s Dokdo Museum Director admitted that the Usando on that map was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. See HERE
Man, gbevers, you’re going to CONTINUE to argue about some islands which have no bearing on your life (except one time when you brought it upon yourself) when you could actually be doing something productive with your life. Pathetic.
No, JK, I am going to continue arguing about it because I know it makes you pee your pants worrying about it.
But gbevers, it just makes you look silly and obsessed with something useless.
And as I’ve said many times before, I HOPE you prove that Dokdo belongs rightfully to Japan…so I can say Korea TOOK Japanese land when it took Dokdo. I personally would have been okay with it if Korea had taken Okinawa. Heck, the city of Tokyo would have been a fine possession for Korea to take from Japan!
So good luck in trying to prove Dokdo really belongs to Japan because I’ll be happy if you DO prove it. But alas, you’re failing on that end.
Gerry the character you are talking about is 接. It is translated as “접해 있다” on the Korea National History Website.
http://sillok.history.go.kr/inspection/insp_king.jsp?id=ksb_14007022_001&tid=&pos=0&mTree=0&inResult=0&clsName=&indextype=1&searchType=a&keyword=&keyword2=&setlist_K=&setlist_W=&detail=0&opH=0&opAll=0&opP=0&opA=0&opB=0&opC=0&opQ=0&chkID=0&qH=&qAll=&qP=&qA=&qB=&qC=&qQ=&idS=&idE=&tabid=k
It is also translated as “접해 있다” in my published Dokdo book which also used a historical research group to translate this document. See the link below.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/1714.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/adjacent.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/border.jpg
Koreans don’t use “접해 있다” in the definition you are inferring when they talk about territories or areas. In fact it means they quite near but not touching each other. If they are very close or touching Koreans use other words to emphasize the close proximity. In this case they would say “바로 접해 있다“
The example “잇다“ is used for “linking” lines or objects it is not used in describing territorial boundaries Gerry.
After reading #25: SLAMD DUNK, eh Gevers?
@22: Barber’s just as obsessed as Gerry and the islands have no bearing on his life either — wouldn’t you say that makes him equally pathetic?
Frogmouth,
The Korean and Japanese borders did not butt up to each other. Their borders ended at their farthermost islands, which means that the Korean fishermen believed that Liancourt Rocks was Japan’s farthermost island. If he had believed that the island was Korean, he would have said that Japan was beyond the island, not that the island bordered Japan.
In this case, 接(접) means 接境 (접경), which means it is on the border of Japan.
JK,
I consider you pathetic for following me around like a little, retarded puppy.
Gbevers,
Hm, it doesn’t take much effort to write a comment a few lines long. You, on the other hand, write endlessly long posts on Dokdo for YEARS, despite the effect it’s had on your livelihood and despite the fact that it doesn’t make your life in Korea any better.
@13, it probably isn’t mostly because in int’l court they would never win as the govt hasn’t be able to produce historical evidence that Dokdo is Japanese.
Not to mention Japan isn’t in a position to threaten Russia or China.
lmao gbevers you are the pathetic one here.
and stop crying every time someone confronts you.
Gerry the document does not say (接境) “접경” Stop editing the original Chinese characters. That’s really shabby.
The text says “接于倭境” Here is the original record.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/1714-East-Island.jpg
-
In Korean it says “왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다”
-
“접해 있다” (接) means is adjacent to, near to or borders on. (于) means at or on.
“”왜경(倭境)” Wae-gyeong means Japanese territory,
-
It says the island to the East is adjacent to, near or borders on Japanese territory Gerry. This important document describes Liancourt Rocks as adjacent to or bordering Japanese territory and not as part of Japanese territory. It also records Koreans residing on coastal areas such as Pyeong-Hae and Uljin knew of Liancourt Rocks.
-
This was written about 20 years after the Shogunate inquired about the status of Takeshima-Ulleungdo (竹島) Matsushima-Dokdo (松島) The Japanese too concluded Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not part of Japanese territory.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-tottori.html
You are being silly again, Frogmouth, and you are also showing your ignorance of Chinese writing. I do not know how to read Chinese that well, but I know how to read it better than you.
接境 is just 接于倭境 without the preposition 于 (“to,” “on,” or “at”) and the adjective 倭 (Japanese).
I am going to sleep. If someone wants to believe the goofy stuff you write, let them. I don’t care.
@35, so we should believe you instead? Your personal opinion of him isn’t an argument, but given that you have been resorting to personal insults i gather you dont have anything worthwhile to say.
so i’m supposed to believe that korean fishermen who had been scouring the area for ages had no idea about the rocks but japanese fishermen did?
on that point alone, i find it very hard to believe that japan introduced the rocks to korea
“No, JK, I am going to continue arguing about it because I know it makes you pee your pants worrying about it.”
Gerry, did you pee your pants when they told you you’re fired?
#39 was mean and unfair. Can it be removed?
I really don’t care about the details you guys are thrashing out here. I’m just curious about one thing:
If Japan always had possession of the islets, why did it suddenly need to stake a claim on them in 1905?
“You might notice a slight difference in tone and demeanor.”
I noticed a HUGE “difference in tone and demeanor,” between the Japanese and Korean editorials.
Park Hyun,
I could not sleep, and I am in Korea.
Japan “incorporated” Liancourt Rocks in 1905, but Japanese considered them their territory before that as can be seen by 1877 THIS DOCUMENT from the Director of the Bureau of Documents at Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Incorporated territory is different from unincorporated territory. For example, Javis Island is an unincorporated territory of the United States of American. It is located halfway between Hawaii and the Cook Islands and is only a 4.5 km coral island. The United States has other unincorporated territories, as well, including Kingman Reef, which essentially just a submerged tropical atol 920 nautical miles south of Honolulu.
And there are two kinds of unincorporated territory, organized and unorganized. For example, Guam is considered to be an “organized” unincorporated territory of the United States.
In 1905, Japan legally incorporated Liancourt Rocks into Shimane Prefecture because Japanese businessman Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) wanted to invest in a sea lion harvesting business on the rocks and wanted Japan to incorporate the islets to help protect his investment. HERE is a link to a translation of his petition, which was accepted by the Japanese government.
Yozaburo had been fishing the rocks before the incorporation and had built facilities there in 1903.
Anyway, the point is that Japan legally incorporated territory that was unclaimed by any other country.
Park Hyun: “I really don’t care about the details you guys are thrashing out here. I’m just curious about one thing:If Japan always had possession of the islets, why did it suddenly need to stake a claim on them in 1905?”
Neither Japan nor Korea ever staked a claim on the islets until Japan incorporated the unclaimed islands as part of Shimane Prefecture in Shimane Prefectural Notice No. 40 of Feb 22, 1905.
Korea subsequently claimed them when South Korean President Syngman Rhee declared the Syngman Rhee line and the sovereignty over Dokdo on January 18, 1952, just before the Treaty of San Francisco came into force on April 28, 1952. This was an illegal unilateral territorial-waters declaration.
According to Russian and European maps during the first contact the islet was named ergo claimed.
Sounds to me that Japan was the ones who didn’t know about the islets funny how all of your problems become projected on to us.
Export dependency, etc…
Stacked,
The Japanese traveled to Liancourt Rocks long before any Europeans did. HERE is a Japanese map of Liancourt Rocks from the 1600s.
European maps were made long before the 17th century.
And I’m asking for the back ups of that “European maps made long before the 17th century”with the said rock is charted,stacked.
I would but i have no idea what back ups are.
Stacked,
He means back up your silly claim, you goofball.
A Japanese actor said “Japan should give the island to Korea”. His website was flooded with threatening angry messages. Later on, he had to issue an official apology. So it’s a load of poppy cock that Japan is totally innocent in esclating this issue, and that Japanese are totally free to disagree on this issue in their country, while Koreans aren’t.
I’m not exactly thrilled with Korea’s usual convulsive over-reactions, make no mistake about it. But..
Japanese knew fully well what the reaction of Korea would be, yet they went ahead and threw the pebble at the big sleeping dog anyway. Now they look all surprised, pretending they are innocent and persecuted. So what did they really expect? Please. If Japan doesn’t really care as many here point out and claim, why does Japan continue to make this into a disputed issue? Why doesn’t Japan just let sleeping dogs lay where it does? After all, this is just a useless rock right?
Mizar,
Did Korea have anything “claimed” at that time, and if so, in what form?
And Mizar5:
“One of the great things about this blog is that, reading the arguments of Gerry Bevers and Frog,”
Yet you have somehow managed to taken in all of Gbever’s points, yet threw out all of Frog’s points. You see, in a clouded historical/territorial disputes like this, there is no black and white truth. Usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Yet you’ve managed to be biased enough to support/accept any and all position that is against Korea. The more I read your posts lately, the more you sound bitter. And I find myself skipping and ignoring your posts more and more. But do keep it up (I mean the drowning yourself in negativity).
so, Mizar 5, you are from Kyong Sang Do, and you think Korea stole Dokdo from Japan. Also, your grandparents did not have a bad time during Japanese occupation.
Anything else?
Were your parents like Lee Hwae Chang’s parents?
#55 – Are we to assume that because someone deviates somewhat from the nationalist line on one issue that he and his family are/were traitors to their nation?
“The more I read your posts lately, the more you sound bitter. And I find myself skipping and ignoring your posts more and more. But do keep it up (I mean the drowning yourself in negativity).”
I merely investigate the truth from an unbiased perspective with an open mind.
But I’m really not intereested in getting dragged into these personal attacks. So forgive me if I do not respond in kind.
“Yo mama” insults. I guess that’s one way to attempt to shut down free inquiry and debate.
“I merely investigate the truth from an unbiased perspective with an open mind. ”
You merely repeated and accepted without question every point of Gbevers, but threw out every counter argument from Frog at post #1. Yet you recognized Frog’s along with Gbever’s posts as intelligent enough to help you to learn. Does that sound unbiased to you?
Give me a freaking break, anyone making comments about this thread are not exactly unbiased. Everyone is biased to a some degree based on the mood of how pissed off they are with Korea or Koreans at this moment.
I read both Gbevers and Frog’s and frankly they speak in gibberish to me with all those maps, links, and quotes. I don’t give a rat’s ass which country has historical rights to the island – and I’m not an expert to determine anything. All I know is that Korea had the island occupied for fifty years so that should be that, no fighting, no arguments, no stupid embarrassing displays of nationalism, just end of story – and let’s just move along.
no, no, no, Mizar 5.
I sincerely believe you and cm have more in common than either of you admit.
I am curious, though. Any relatives who studied in Japanese universities during the colonial period? How about Imperial govt jobs? Any of those jobs with legal gun possessions?
Acutally, I myself have a relative who studied in Japan during the era, and seemlessly got incorporated into Rhee Syng Man’s crowd. The other one didn’t get that high, but did managed to get into a school usually reserved for Japanese elites.
These kind of comments illustrate precisely what’s holding Korea back. It’s called triumphalism. In argument it’s known as argumentum ad baculum, “my way or the highway”. If you don’t agree with us you are a traitor.
But true strength of character lies in the ability to stand back and suspend belief long enough to listen to both sides of an argument.
True patriotism lies not in “my nation, right or wrong” but allowing the light of truth to illuminate our minds so we may better ourselves.
The greatest obstacle to progress is stubborn partisanship while the greatest stimulus is the humility to examine and
admitting when it appears that one has been wrong.
Thus, having formerly placed great credence in the Korean claims simply from the benefit of the doubt, I have opened my mind to the benefit of doubt.
It appears that I my opinions on the issue were not even worthy to be called opinions because they were informed not by information but by noise. My sympathies were coerced, and not informed by fact.
Now, how can a patriotic Korean attempt to undertake negotiations with foreign powers unless he dispassionately understands the circumstances of the case? Unless he does, it becomes a shouting match, and then a war. It results in mutual hostility and it serves no one’s interests.
But to be guided by wisdom and calm, and to measure one’s options in view of what is ethical and just, rather than simply what can be obtained through posturing and bullying, is to win the day.
In the end, the one who did not fear to stand for honesty and integrity is the one who will be judged by history the winner.
“You merely repeated and accepted without question every point of Gbevers, but threw out every counter argument from Frog at post #1. Yet you recognized Frog’s along with Gbever’s posts as intelligent enough to help you to learn. Does that sound unbiased to you?”
No it does not. That is what is called a strawman argument. One sets up a position other than the one actually being pur forth and attributes this position to his opponent.
A dispassionate thinker learns from both sides, and keeps an open mind to both. He weighs the evidence on both sides and pieces together the facts. And he remains willing to alter his perspective to accomodate new facts, or to re-evaluate those he has come to accept.
@ #13, good point, imho. Poke at the smaller fish for precedence and practice, before taking on the big fish.
@#51, I’ve always thought they were just useless rocks, but the way they keep coming up in the news, makes me wonder if there’s something valuable, (oil, natural gas, mineral deposits, whatever), in, on, under, or around those rocks that make it worth the effort. It could just be for territory and nationalism, but I just can’t shake this feeling.
Please, anyone, correct me if I’m wrong, but is surveying disputed land illegal?
How can you nerds be having yet another round of Dokdo Wars without anyone mentioning Breen’s latest editorial on the subject?
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/07/137_28152.html
Point being, regardless of ownership, Dok Rock has zero relation to either country’s history or geographic integrity.
wjk, my relatives were Milyang Parks from Andong. They were wealthy landowners who dissapated their wealth through indulgence. They made mistakes but they were hardworking agriculturalists. I do not know to what extent some of my relatives cooperated with the Japanese but I suspect that some of them must have just to get by as they were the top dogs. But how is that any worse than working for a corporate master who lays off the rank and file to pad the bonuses of top execs in the US?
#62
Except that neither sides have clear cut evidences to be decidedly convincing of one side over another. The possibilities are endless and we can go on an eternity without finding the answers. Perhaps the rocks may not belong to either countries historically. Yet here you are, saying you have found the truth. Except that all of it is from ‘facts’ provided by Gbever’s interpretations of it being rightfully belonging to Japan. Is that coincidence?
I found some old European maps defined the rocks belong to Korean territory before before 1905.
Furthermore, you can see the rocks from Ulung island with your bare eyes on a sunny day. It’s difficult to assume that the dwellers on the island wouldn’t have contacted with the rocks.
Koreans are so stupid that they don’t know how to effectively communicate their opinions. That’s the main gap between K&J.
Gerry, post 35. Stop editing the original text and admit you are wrong.
The 1714 clearly describes Liancourt Rocks as outside Japanese territory.
You are showing your slimy agenda driven method of translation. In fact you removed two Chinese characters to arrive at your erroneous translation. That is B.S. and I hope everyone here can see how you are deliberately misleading readers.
None of the translations from either my book nor the Korean historical foundation uses your “접경“ translation. Even if we do accept your version it doesn’t imply Liancourt Rocks were part of Japan at all. It still describes Liancourt Rocks as outside of Japanese territory. Quit trying to baffle us with bullshit Gerry.
“I’m not an expert to determine anything. All I know is that Korea had the island occupied for fifty years so that should be that, no fighting, no arguments, no stupid embarrassing displays of nationalism, just end of story – and let’s just move along.”
That’s pretty much the status quo, although, as I have said Korean polititos use the islets as a populist control tool. The reason the Japanese central govt mutes dwon the issue is that Shimane is not an influential political or economic bloc, and the reason for the Japanese diplomatic applomb is the far-sighthedness to understand how low an economic and political priority Dokdo really is.
As for historic claims, while Japan was the first to claim it, and apparantly not in an imperialist context, what is significant is that Korea was the first to forcibly occupy it when it was taken unilaterally by Sigmund Rhee in violation of international law.
This is why the real Korean Dokdo thinktank advocates placing more inhabitants on the island in an attempt to legitimize the Korean claim. While the historical claim is put forth as a red herring, the real historians harbor no illusions about the historical claims, and accordingly opt for the strategy of might makes right, as there are precedents whereby the ICJ has ruled in favor of those who exercise de facto control.
My point is two-fold. I remain critical of the Korean politico’s use of Dokdo as a tool of mind control. And I believe that the contining provocations on the Korean side are foolish from the perspective of Korean interests, as well as in the spirit of maturity and ethics.
Nationalistic self=righteousness is a prescription for disaster, and, unfortunately, Korea is headed full tilt into the storm.
Now, you may call me bitter, a traitor or a dislectic agnostic insomniac who lies awake wondering if there is a D O G. But I believe the proper, nationalistic amd ethical thing to do is to share the resources equally with one’s neighbor – to drop the grudges and become a good neighbor. To me this is the wise, self-interested and responsible course for a nation emerging into the status of an advanced power.
cm at #52
“A Japanese actor said “Japan should give the island to Korea”. His website was flooded with threatening angry messages. Later on, he had to issue an official apology. ”
That’s not exactly what he said,and he didn’t issue no apology.
The actor is Takaoka Sousuke and Japan’s sweetheart,Miyazaki Aoi’s husband.Takaoka was in the role of Zainichi Korean in the 2004 movie called “パッチギ！박치기” directed by Izutsu Kazuyuki and was in Seoul for PR tour at the time of interview by Chosun Ilbo on March 12.
Chosun Ilbo had reported that Takaoka had said
“個人的には日本という国はあまり好きではない。韓国に対し、日本は卑劣なように思える。 日本政府は正しい情報を国民に伝えるよう願う
Personally I don’t like Japan that much.I think Japan acts treacherous towared Korea.I wish Japanese government to tell the right information to it’s people.”
“So it’s a load of poppy cock that Japan is totally innocent in esclating this issue, and that Japanese are totally free to disagree on this issue in their country, while Koreans aren’t. ”
Flood of comments from 2ch did attack Takaoka’s personal website,and Takaoka responded with harsh comments.
There was some sort of an apology for the use of negative language to some of the posters on his blog’s commentary section,but there has been no “official apology” on what he had said(or said to be said)regarding Japan-Korea relation.
“Stop caliming Takeshima and give the Korean the right” appeared as an op-ed of the second largest daily Asahi Shimbun(circulation 8million)by chairman of editorial board and former Seoul correspondent Wakamiya Yoshibumi on March 27,2005.
http://www.asahi.com/column/wakayama/TKY200503270067.html
Wakamiya had also written the same thing on island dispute in the book “Korea and Japan” co-authored with ex-prime minister of ROK and former CEO of Donga Ilbo,Kwon O-kyu.
“I’m not exactly thrilled with Korea’s usual convulsive over-reactions, make no mistake about it. But..”
If so,cm.You might want to leave Mizar5 alone with his opinions.
Japan’s claim is based on terra nullius (meaning unclaimed land). Under this kind of claim, the first country to
claim that land gets it, unless another country can prove it was their territory first. So It is entirely up to Korea to produce a Korean map prior to 1905 with the name “Dokdo(独島)” on it as Korean territory. They have always been unable to do this, since no such map exists.
Therefore, in the meantime, the terra nulius claim wins out and Takeshima is legally Japan’s (illegally occupied by Korean soldiers).
“Now, you may call me bitter, a traitor or a dislectic agnostic insomniac who lies awake wondering if there is a D O G.”
Aww.. come on… now you really sound bitter. I did call you bitter, but I didn’t call you a traitor. WJK insinuated you a traitor. But then again, I don’t take him seriously and he’s in my ignore list.
Genie,
In your logic, it is cristal clear that Sengaku belongs to China. Japan has been illegaly occupying the island.
I’, not the least bit bitter, but what I meant to say was dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I suppose Woody Allen said it better though “teleological existential atheist.”
http://image.chosun.com/sitedata/image/200807/25/2008072500033_0.jpg
This Russian map printed in 1876 tells that the rocks belong to Korea.
Mizar5, you can’t be a traitor to Korea since you seem an American, even though you have the Korean background.
cm said –
“Japanese knew fully well what the reaction of Korea would be, yet they went ahead and threw the pebble at the big sleeping dog anyway. Now they look all surprised, pretending they are innocent and persecuted. So what did they really expect? Please. If Japan doesn’t really care as many here point out and claim, why does Japan continue to make this into a disputed issue? Why doesn’t Japan just let sleeping dogs lay where it does? After all, this is just a useless rock right?”
We already know what the reaction of Koreans is going to be in any situation. If there is any dispute where Koreans do not react in blind rage and circle the wagons mentality, please let me know. At some point people have to stop worrying about Korean reactions and just treat them like the crazy homeless guy yelling obscenities on the street.
@70, there are plenty of maps.
@71, he’s not Korean he’s a Jap claiming to be a Korean-American.
@73, dont cry when someone argues back all you do is solidify the japanese nerd stereotype.
Next time I find myself in a real situation in which some jackass gives to me behavioral generalizations about Koreans, I’ll remind myself to fly into a blind rage and knock his lights out for being such a stereotypical “Koreans have hwabyung” Jap/Japwannabe.
@79, I never cry over this kind of thing. I have nothing to do with Korea.
Technically, it is true that Japan has been illegaly occupying Sengaku islands.
Why do you nips keep arguing about Dokdo? No one in the int’l community gives a shit to be honest.
Hell even Australia tells you to fuck off when you try to whale of all things.
“there are plenty of maps.”
Like I said,I want to see it.Stacked.
“he’s not Korean he’s a Jap claiming to be a Korean-American.”
With words like “dyslexic agnostic insomniac” and “teleological existential atheist.” and no spelling mistakes?
I think not.
How about talking about the issue at hand and analyse the differences in tone in the editorials from a journalistic point of view? That would be something worthy to thrash out.
I think, aceface, you’re about ready to pounce on a produced map, and say,
Ah, ha !
But, that’s not DokDo !
That’s JukDo!
Or something to that effect, which is basically the heart of Bevers’s argument.
But, you can’t conclusively say that’s JukDo. How can you? That it’s Dokdo cannot be proven conclusively, 100%, either.
I find it problematic the Japanese are claiming an island they became aware of in 1905, and claiming it as theirs, with colonialism in full swing.
Germany lost more than 40% of its original land after 1945. Lots of physical raping, too. They’re not asking for any of the land back, land with rich natural resources and strategic value.
Japan is asking North, East, West, and South for land with hardly any comparable natural resources, but admittedly of strategic locations. Germany had these INHABITED lands for 100+ years. Japan is claiming land or “rocks” or “submerged rocks”, uninhabited rocks in some cases, just to fuck with neigbors.
That is my conclusion, and the Japanese should fuck off. Acquiring these lands have immaterial impact on Japan.
“At some point people have to stop worrying about Korean reactions and just treat them like the crazy homeless guy yelling obscenities on the street.”
True. It’s sad to see Koreans walk right into traps laid out by Japan.
You are already treating the Koreans as “crazy homeless guy yelling obscenities on the street”. In fact many are.
I don’t see why you would see the need to preach the converted.
may I ask what the Japanese effort is in getting Sakhalin back from the Russians?
no effort? negligence?
Then, this is just Japan fucking around with Koreans.
Koreans are justified in telling Japan to eat shit.
“True. It’s sad to see Koreans walk right into traps laid out by Japan. ”
Ha!Incredible mindset!
A trap by the Japanase!
CM,you and your Korean friends are just continuosly shooting on your own feet!
It’s basically a suicidal act, by the Korean Government and Co.
Actually its Japan’s shooting themselves.
Unlike the general population of the world. The elite and the governments around the world are aware of the truth. So congrats on deluding yourself because the rest of the world isn’t as delusion as you.
Case in point, Japan has been crying about it from day 1. Even after the pacific war the US government basically told you to fuck off.
So please feel free to grow up and mature and instead of watching cartoons and repeating “Japan is great!” like your self-esteem depends on it.
my Japanese freinds, fuck with my mind a little further, please.
Korea claims foreign devil maps dating earlier than the Imperial Japanese maps are showing the Sea of Japan to be actually the Sea of Korea.
What is your argument to support that it is the Sea of Japan?
Is it on the line, of “we registered it properly first”?
@1, 2, 3:
So instead of blindly believing the Korean claims, you now blindly believe the Occidentalism claims…
Come on now, did you really find this on your own, or are you just parroting what Gerry Bevers has already said ad nauseam? It looks awfully familiar.
#80
Korea is barking over Manchuria, right? And also this submerged shoal somewhere in the Yellow Sea.
It’s Korea that’s endlessly fighting over territorial claims and “history” with its neighbors, China and Japan. All the while China and Japan are deepening their ties, economically and strategically. I heard they’re even going to have joint military drills. China-U.S. relations are not bad, either. And of course, the U.S.-Japan alliance stands firm, and never have been better.
Who’s Korea’s ally now? Last time I heard, Koreans perceive the U.S. as their #1 threat. How in the world did that happen?
wjk,
For Japan, it’s a fact that Takeshima is historically Japanese territory. Japan has every right to teach what it wants in its own borders. It’s Korea that always try to force their views on rest of the world and it’s the same problem about‘Sea of Japan’/’East Sea’issue .
What right do they have in telling us what to call that body of water? Imagine the French demanding that the other countries should call the ‘English Channel’ ‘La Manche(The Sleeve)’. Koreans can use the ‘East Sea’, the ‘Sea of Korea’ or whatever they want in their own country and leave the rest of the world alone. I know they call the ‘East China Sea’ the ‘South Sea’ in Korea, however, I don’t see them demanding that other countries should use ‘South Sea’.
Korea has no realistic chance of ever getting Manchuria, and frankly there isn’t even a Korean majority there to support it.
Korea gave up Manchuria around AD 668.
The Kim clan did this, for their own benefit and security.
This is the 2nd biggest crime committed by the Kim clan in all of Korean history.
The 1st biggest crime is the birth of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il.
Other insults to Korean kind include abuse of the Joseon and Goryo courts, IMF under Kim Yong Sam, and the pseudo opening of North Korea by Kim Dae Jung.
I don’t support barking over Manchuria.
Goguryo is a kingdom that Shilla destroyed for its own benefit.
Barking about it now, is really an after thought, and the epitome of patheticness.
Korea had its chances, like many other non-Han tribes in East Asia had.
Kim Jong Il is our Joseph Stalin. He’s a Kim.
wjk,
Can you stop it with your Goguryeo vs. Silla rants?
Seriously… it’s getting tiring. You obviously don’t know much about the history of the time and the current situation at the mid-7th century. It’s also obvious that you haven’t read the Samguk Sagi. You should before you say stupid shit about that time period.
Summary: By 645, Baejke was on a full offensive against Silla, taking Pon Kaya, killing crown prince Kim Beopmin’s daughter and was laying siege to Silla’s last major fortress in the west end of the Han river valley. Silla was in desperate straits. Baekje was allied with Yamato Japan. Koguryo had the Mohe tribes. Silla had no allies. It sought an alliance with Koguryo but for the price of the alliance Yongaesomun requested the return of the Han river valley. Loss of the Han river valley essentially meant extinction for Silla (it was Silla’s most productive rice producing region and it’s only direct link to trade and high-culture from China) so they obviously said no. You know, Yongaesomun even imprisoned Kim Beopmin and Kim Yu-shin had to threaten to invade Koguryo in order for Yongaesomun to release Kim Beopmin. So, who did they have to turn to? They turned to Tang’s Emperor Taizong. In the Silla pongi of the Samguk Sagi, Silla and Taizong made a verbal agreement to split Koguryo along the Taedong river. Why? That was the price for the alliance. Tang would help Silla eliminate Baekje and Koguryo, but once Baekje was destroyed, Silla would help supply Tang armies deep within Koguryo and also provide troops. Now, Emperor Gaozong, Taizong’s son, choice to renege on this earlier verbal agreement and administer the entire Korean Peninsula directly, for which Silla had to fight Tang to prevent.
My point is that you can’t expect Silla and the Kim/Park clan establish policy that takes into account what the world would be like 200, 300, 1,400 years into the future. They had to make choices based on the geopolitical situation of their time and they didn’t have a whole lot of choices at that time. Besides, it wasn’t just Silla that made mistakes during that time. Perhaps Koguryo might have survived and eventually been powerful enough to conquer the other two kingdoms if Yongaesomun hadn’t of been such as ass and provoked Tang so much, being the jingoistic shithead that he was (per Kim Busik).
You know… Breen has a point. Regardless of who owns those damn rocks, how many Korean’s have chosen to protest Japanese claims have done more harm than good. Cutting off pheasant heads, burning themselves, cutting off fingers, etc. have only made Koreans look irrational and stupid to the rest of the world.
I really wish Koreans can just sit down and think for a second, take a deep breath and take a good look at the mirror and fight situations like this in a more analytical and smarter way…
It appears that Mizar has taken the time to look at the claims in the Dokdo/Takeshima issue in an objective way and has come to many of the same conclusions I have.
I also used to mistakenly assume that “Dokdo” belonged to Korea before I started to really study the issue. Now I realize that Koreans have been spreading ridiculous lies and half-truths about the history of Dokdo for more than fifty years. Actually, I was shocked to learn the extent of the lies.
One change that I have noticed over the past couple of years is that when I used to post on “Dokdo,” people used to respond to me by “parroting” all the Korean propaganda about the Korean history of the islets, but these days that does not happen quite as often.
For some reason, many of the same people who used to respond by “parroting” Korean propaganda are now responding with comments like, “I don’t really care about those silly rocks, but they have been controlled by Korea for the past fifty years, so they are Korean territory.” In other words, though they would rather die and go to hell than admit, I think they realize from mine and others’ postings on the history of Dokdo that Korea has no historical claim to it.
Stopping Koreans from “parroting” Korean propaganda about Dokdo’s history is the first step in bringing Koreans to the negotiation table.
The rocks are just rocks and cannot be used to claim an economic zone, even though Koreans have been trying since the 1980s to change the rocks into an island that could be used for that purpose. For example, they have been bringing soil with plants and trees to plant on the island since 1989 because for an island to be used as a base point for claiming an economic zone, it must have trees, plants, and water to sustain life. Dokdo does not have that, and even with all of their efforts to bring soil to the rocks, most of it has just washed away with the rain because of the steep slopes of the islets.
Personally, I think one way to solve the dispute is to withdraw Korean police and give Dokdo to the birds by making it and an a 12-mile radius around the islets an international nature preserve. Korea and Japan would then draw their economic boundaries using Korea’s Ulleungdo and Japan’s Oki Island as the base points.
I think the Japanese would eventually accept such a proposal. I wonder if Koreans would?
Gawa (#75),
The map you linked to was not a Russian map but a Japanese map made by coping a Russian map. The map, however, does not claim Liancourt Rocks is Korean; it simply maps the rocks.
The purpose of the Russians was not to make Koreans a territorial map.
“For some reason, many of the same people who used to respond by “parroting” Korean propaganda are now responding with comments like,”
My goodness. I’ve never “used to parrot” any of the “Korean propaganda”, and I certainly haven’t made too many comments in the past about this either since I try to stay away from this subject as much as possible.
But I do have to give you credit for your consistencies for parroting every line hook and sink that have ever been used by the Japanese right wingers. Do you actually work for them or something?
Like Gerry Bevers, I started off believing that Dokdo was part of Korea historically — and partially due to Gerry’s writings, I have been convinced now that the ROK has a very weak case. Notice that I am still emotionally stuck on Korea owning the rocks, but I think that if they went to the World Courts with the “proof” they have now — that would be the end of the story.
I believe that Lee Myeong-bak and Han Seung-soo sat down and looked at the “proof” and came away with the conclusion that Gerry has stated — Korea does not have proof. Thus it started a very reasonable plan and I applaud Lee Myeong-bak for taking a “long-range view” and Han Seung-soo for his diplomatic finesse in trying to get out of this mess — even though there is some risk involved.
Following the incompetent path that Roh Moo-hyun had mapped out by using short-sighted emotional “proof” with such things a trying to prove the Usando (Jukdo) was actually Dokdo because the Koreans can show Usando drawn on a map. Even on the 100,000 won note that is being printed up, the Koreans had to draw in Dokdo because it wasn’t on the map. Thus Lee Myeong-bak’s starting up a task force under the Prime Minister’s office is the first steps to find some historical proof that can be debated in the World Court. I hope it’s there, but first you have to look for it. This is what they FINALLY are going to do.
Did you also notice how Han Seung-soo’s diplomatic background has come into play? The ROK is no longer using “actual control” (actual dominion) in their documents. Under this concept, the ROK simply said, “Dokdo has always been Korea, therefore it is not disputed and I don’t have to prove it is mine. END.” They also have stopped using “effective control” (effective dominion) which is the same as if you owned 51 percent of a store, while someone else owned 49 percent. You “effectively control” the store. The ROK has now opted to no longer use this term as well — instead changing the terminology to “territorial defense”.
Basically, the ROK is taking itself out of the line of fire over the disputed islet to buy itself time to find some proof. This is the reason that it instituted the Dokdo Research Instititute under the Northeast Asia Historical Institute. It needs time to dig for proof and cannot afford the Japanese taking this to World Court at this time.
However, the term “territorial defense” when referring to Dokdo is fraught with danger. It is drawing a line and throwing down the gauntlet in front of the Japanese. But one has to applaud Han Seung-soo for his genius in picking the term. It is one that cannot be disputed internationally as it is strictly an internal affair. Only Korea can decide what it considers is essential for its national defense — and it is not open for debate internationally.
But still there is dange. Remember that this issue started with the Koreans drawing first blood in 1953 in the sinking of a Japanese patrol boat, wounding of numerous Japanese and killing one activist at Dokdo. In 2006, the ROK and Japan got into a face-off over the survey controversy — that luckily Japan backed down because it wasn’t worth the hassle. It is possible again.
Han Seung-soo is betting on the Japanese not wanting to make this an issue. Most Japanese don’t even give a damn about Dokdo and simply think it is a regional issue dealing with Shimane fishing rights. In addition, the Japanese Foreign Ministry are also seeking calm.
Remember that the ROK knows full well that they are outgunned and outclassed by the Japanese in the naval and air force areas. The Japanese have only been lacking a carrier to make up a carrier battle group for years and has been a blue-water navy for a hundred years. The ROK is still a coastal defense Navy with dreams of becoming a blue-water navy, but the truth is that it only has a half of the fighting ships that the Japanese have — and the Japanese have the newest equipment. As to the Air Forces, the F-15 is the only aircraft that can have hang time over the islet for defense because of fuel capacity. However, the 29 F-15Ks pale when compared to the 223 F-15DJs of the Japanese SDF.
This is why the ROK is preaching calm and trying to rein in the ROK nationalist whackos. No one in their right mind wants to take on the Japanese militarily under the present conditions. The ROK just wants time.
I also believe this is why Kwon Chul-hyun was brought home as ambassador. At first, I thought is was a ploy to recall him to appease the local populace, but now I see that the man is a loose cannon. As GNP Spokesman in the early 2000s, his blunt speech was always in the attack moe because he was operating as the minority party spokesman. This has now proven that he is not the stuff that diplomats are made of. His “temporary recall” may become permanent.
Sorry for blathering on. But I want to thank Gerry Bevers for the work he has done. Without his work, the Koreans would not finally be looking at their “proof” and seeing how weak it really is. If it wasn’t for his work — and others — Korea would still mindlessly shouting, “Dokdo is OURS!!!” — and then refuse to provide proof.
Good on Lee Myeong-bak and Han Seung-soo for coming up with a strategic plan. As I said before, emotionally I hope they can find some proof of Korean ownership of the islets.
“It needs time to dig for proof and cannot afford the Japanese taking this to World Court at this time.”
Afford time for what? This can only go to court if Korea agrees to take it to court.
All Korea has to do is to sit tight and there’s nothing Japan can do about it.
“, the Koreans would not finally be looking at their “proof” and seeing how weak ”
That’s funny because I don’t see any Koreans looking at their ‘proof and saying it’s weak’. I tend to think it’s the other way around, silly me. I had the impression that most Koreans have absolutely no doubt Dokdo is Korean and has always been Korean.
“I hope they can find some proof of Korean ownership of the islets.”
From the Korean perspective, Koreans say they already did. You may not be convinced of the proof, but I don’t think Japan has a solid 100% convincing evidence either, other than their 1905 colonial takeover (or alliance with Japan – depending on if you believe Gbevers or not) of Korea.
Gerry, you still didn’t answer regarding your misinterpretation of the 1714 Korean document. I addressed this in post #68 and you just skulked away changing the subject hoping nobody would notice.
This document shows Koreans were both aware of Dokdo and didn’t consider the islets as Japanese territory. I guess this one is another document for Gerry to g-file. You should correct your translation on your blog. It’s wrong.
You say this record says “Liancourt Rocks is on a tangent with the border of Japan. You really pulled that one of your arse..
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1714-july-22-island-east-of-ulleungdo.html
You posted a map of Dokdo drawn by the Murakawa family. What you forgot to mention is that in 1695 they declared the islands were not part of Japan.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-tottori.html
Gerry, the most posted is a Russian map called “The Coast of Korea” it was published by numerous navies throughout the world included Japan. Through all of these reprintings whatever the nation, it retained the title “Coast of Chosun” The Japanese also published it as such. This shows Japan did not consider Liancourt Rocks as part of Japan.
You quoted the document by Watanabe Kuoki as proof of evidence of Japanese sovereignty over Liancourt Rock. If I see you post that rubbish again I swear I’m gonna lose my lunch.
First Watanbe Kuoki didn’t have a clue about the situation in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) he gave his opinion about which islands may be which. He was citing incorrect civilian British maps that were inaccurate and wrongly coloured. His opinion was one of many. In fact some others believe Matsushima was attached to Ulleungdo. He thought there were three islands in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) In the end Watanabe Kuoki was wrong. When Japan sent a naval survey to the region and when they discovered no other islands existed, the issue was dropped. No maps of Japan or Korea showed Liancourt Rocks as part of the nation of Japan or Shimane Prefecture. So your interpretation of this record doesn’t wash. Anyone who says Japan thought Liancourt Rocks was part of Japan before 1905 is full of it.
Here are the maps of Shimane Prefecture.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html
Frogmouth,
You cannot even read Chinese, so how can I debate this with you if you cannot even accept the fact that the 接(접) in the sentence means 接境(접경)?
Believe it or not, 接境(접경) is actually a sentence that means “touches” or “connects to” the “border.” When you can add the preposition 于(우 – to) to the sentence, you get 接于境 (접우경), which means “connects ‘to’ the border”. And when you can add the adjective 倭(왜 – Japanese), you get 接于倭境 (접우왜경), which means “connect to the Japanese border”).
접해있다 does not mean “near.” It means the same thing as 접경(接境)하다, which means “borders on.”
If some of the Korean language speakers on this board were not so afraid of being seen agreeing with Gerry Bevers, they would tell you that you are full of crap, Frogmouth.
By the way, thank you, Kalani, for what you wrote.
Frogmouth,
Russia was not making a territorial map for Korea. It was making a navigational map for Russia. Notice that it did not draw any boundary lines or label Liancourt Rocks as Korean territory.
Watanbe Kuoki described the situation at the time perfectly, which is what really makes you want to throw up.
cm,
The bottomline as I stated was that it doesn’t matter what the hell you or I or all of Korea thinks. The World Court is the one that will make the case.
Do not flatter and fool yourself that it is the ROK that is preventing this from coming up as an international dispute. It is Japan. There is no national resolve on the part of the Japanese people to make this an issue. The reason this isn’t going to the World Courts is because the Japanese people don’t think this rock is that important.
This same opinion is held by the rest of the international community. Right now Dokdo is simply an irrelevant piece of rock (along with adjacent reefs) in the middle of the pond that has contrived significance to the ROK populace. But the truth is that rest of the world doesn’t give a damn if it ever existed.
I hope the ROK finds proof because of my emotional ties to Korea. I like Koreans and Korea.
But again. It matters not a twit what you think of who owns Dokdo. It matters not what I think. This is a matter for the World Courts…and Korea had better move fast as they are being boxed in by credible scientific and archaeological/historical societies around the world. The Japanese have done their legwork and are building up their case.
But did you ever wonder why Wikipedia switched back to Liancourt Rocks? It wasn’t because of proof matter. It was because of the irrational behavior of Koreans and Japanese in trying to rewrite the article with over 4,000 changes back and forth. Dokdo is really irrelevant, but to others it is simply silliness.
But as a side note, do you really understand the importance of this rock in international politics? Someone here mentioned that the real reason for this dispute coming to a head now is the Northern Island issue. Not quite right.
It is the Senkaku/Daioyutai Islands issue in its dispute with China. The islands were taken over for the same terra nullus reasoning in 1895 but once oil was discovered there, the Chinese claimed the islands — and have started to develop it despite it being a disputed island chain. This issue is important enough that the Japanese interpreted the Peace Constitution to give the SDF the power to take actions in “regional defense”.
Do you see the parallels? I hope so and the game that is being laid out internationally. This is high stakes for oil wealth in energy deficient Japan. Dokdo is just a minor piece that could provide a precedent that could cement Japan’s claim to the islands — and allow the Japanese to start development of the oil as well. However, the Japanese choose not to take this step as yet because of the risks involved.
Gerry, the problem isn’t with the Chinese at all. YOUR problem is your incorrect usage of the Korean language you are interpreting it as. “接” has many meanings and each one has a given application.
This is a Hanja NOT Chinese. You are showing your lack of Korean language ability and my Korean wife says you are dead wrong. I can say I bonded with my pet, it doesn’t mean I glued myself to it.
The useage you describe is for objects NOT territories. See the dictionary definition again with usages Gerry. You can see the usage of “接” in the context you imply (잇다) is for objects such as connecting string, pieces, fragments etc. Again Gerry look at the context of the usage
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/link.jpg
I’ve given you dictionary quotes showing the usage with regard to territories. This is the correct usage with examples
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/adjacent.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/border.jpg
“Border on” or “adjacent to” or “near” is NOT connected to or part of Gerry, so as I’ve said this document defines Japan’s territory and Liancourt Rocks as separate objects and thus the islet is not part of Japan. Period.
frogmouth and gbevers might want to invest in having someone professionally translate those documents for them. Seeing as how they can’t agree on each others’ translation.
Kalani have you seen this map?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-takeshima-incident.html
wangkon, I read Samguk sagi and Samguk yusa several times.
I think YOU are taking both books with more credibility than you should.
They were written 300+ years after the actual events in Goryo period.
Essentially, it’s our version of the Nihon Shiki. Lots of hocus pocus fairy tales, besides from actual historical events.
It’s apologetics for the Shilla kingdom, and later to somehow say that Goryo is indeed a continuation of Goguryo (never mind Goryo doesn’t have 1/2 the territory of Goguryo).
In short, I am saying intelligent shit, by reading between the lines. Shilla did was Kim Il Sung did. (What an outrageous claim, right?)
But, wait and think.
They invited China and settled for less land, for their own benefit.
This observation alone is surpassing those of normal human beings.
let’s not let our family origins blind us from criticizing our founding kingdom.
They invited China and settled for less land, for their own benefit.
bottom line.
That’s what Shilla did, and that’s what Kim Il Sung did.
Chris, I quote my translations from a published book. I cited it above.
I say the character “接” means 접해있다 and so does the book below.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/1714.jpg
Gerry said above “The island borders on Japan’s territory” this shows that Liancourt Rocks was not part of Japan’s territory or else the record would have simply stated “The island is part of Japan’s territory”
Gerry has interpreted the character “接”to mean (잇다) connect because it does mean connect. However as the dictionary example shows above, Gerrys usage of the character is not used to describe the geographic location of terrtories. It’s for “connecting” objects like string etc.
The Parks are exempt for blame. The Parks have produced Park Chan Ho.
Besides, the Parks really never again sat in the throne after the Kims sat in the throne.
If I am right, they were supposed to rotate.
The Kims would have none of it. They kept it.
Frogmouth,
As I said above, the Korean and Japanese borders did not butt up to each other. Their borders ended at their farthermost islands, which means that the Korean fisherman in 1714 believed that Liancourt Rocks was Japan’s farthermost island. If he had believed that the island was Korean, he would have said that Japan was beyond the island, not that the island bordered Japan.
In 1946, Korean scholar Choi Nam-seon (최남선) wrote a book entitled, “General Questions and Answers about Joseon” (朝鮮常識問答 – 조선상식문답). Here is one of the questions and answers from the book:
I will confirm that 接(접) means “contiguous or touching.” It does not mean “near.” In fact, an international border area like the DMZ is called in Chinese a “接境地区.” I speak both Korean and Chinese. If you want to prove that “接境” means “near” not “contiguous,” you’ll need to present other examples in which this expression is used to describe two geographical entities that are near but not touching.
I was asked to check up on how my relatives fared under the Japanese occupation. It seems some were educated in Japan and some worked under Japanese management – it apprears that any successful people would have had to. Interestingly, the relatives who studied in Japan were female. One of my aunts married a Japanese man. From what I’ve gathered, there really wasn’t very much resentment of the Japanese in those days; it appears they were seen as the Korean authorities before them. There were no oppressive incidents, massacres, etc. to report.
If anyone feels like they’re getting tired of reading this thread, try reading it while listening to this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bPLXwrj7i7Q
“The World Court is the one that will make the case.”
Kelani, correct me if I’m wrong. But I thought the only way the World Court thing will happen is if two disputing countries can’t come to terms with boundary so they decide to use an arbiter instead.
“The reason this isn’t going to the World Courts is because the Japanese people don’t think this rock is that important.”
Oh really? Could have fooled me. Obviously enough care, so much so that it pressures and forces a liberal Japanese government to appease the rightist nationalists in Japan.
“But the truth is that rest of the world doesn’t give a damn if it ever existed.”
True. So what makes you think Korea is running out of time??
“This is a matter for the World Courts…and Korea had better move fast as they are being boxed in by credible scientific and archaeological/historical societies around the world.”
What “credible scientific and archaeological/historical societies around the world” do you mean?
“The Japanese have done their legwork and are building up their case.”
100% agreed with that part. Japanese have done their homework and have been preparing for decades, step by step, year by year. They even have their own people in the World Court, waiting just for the moment. That only proves, Japan very much cares about the rock. It’s just that they are not nearly as noisy as the Koreans. Koreans have been wasting their times with emotional outbursts that have been counter productive outside of Korea, whereas Japanese have been preparing silently. I don’t know a better example that illustrates the cultural difference between the two countries.
“Dokdo is really irrelevant, but to others it is simply silliness.”
The reactions are silly. But the dispute itself is not. I believe this marking will possibly effect who gets the enormous natural resources potential in the future. That area is estimated to contain enough hydrate gas to power South Korea’s self energy needs for 30 years. The stakes will get bigger in the future when science advances enough to be able to safely extract and process them into energy source.
“It is the Senkaku/Daioyutai Islands issue in its dispute with China. The islands were taken over for the same terra nullus reasoning in 1895 ”
Terra Nullus 1905 is probably the best card that Japan has right now. And there are precedences in the past world court cases. Still, it’s like a murderer getting off on a technicality. And it certainly doesn’t make their position moral.
“This issue is important enough that the Japanese interpreted the Peace Constitution to give the SDF the power to take actions in “regional defense”.”
Regional defense through attacking Dokdo? Militarily, South Korea maybe in the inferior position and may lose a short clash. But knowing the Korean mind, Japanese have no ideal what they will be facing in the long run, if they think Koreans will accept getting beaten up twice to Japan in the same one hundred year period.
Mizar5, credit to you for reporting !
You got balls.
Frogmouth (#112),
First of all, the “Korean” translation you linked to is from a Korean book, so what do you expect?
Second, the translation that you linked to is that goofy translation that I mentioned above that is trying to hide the fact that a Korean fisherman in 1714 believed that Liancourt Rocks was Japanese territory. Here is the the Chinese and the Korean translation you linked to:
The translators of that book intentionally mistranslated “島嶼相望” (도서상망) as “섬이 서로 잇달아,” which means “(a series of) islands connected to each other.” They did that to hide what the passage really said. This is a perfect example of how some Korean scholars are intentionally mistranslating documents that disprove their claims. It is also an example that they recognized that 接于倭境 means “connected to the Japanese border.”
Here is the correct translation for the sentence:
That sentence is damning for Korea’s claims on Dokdo, which is almost certainly why the Korean translators came up with their goofy translation.
Sonagi understand what you’re saying.
I’ve given two dictionary definitions of the term. Each definition gives the example “접해있다” and uses it in the context of “borders on” or “adjacent to” for territories.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/adjacent.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/border.jpg
There was no definitive “boundary line” in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) here there was a territory to the East known as Japan. This island was “adjacent to” “bordering on” Japan’s land. It was not part of Japan.
If the DMZ’s nations are “”접해있다” they are also against each other. But that does not make them part of each other or as one as Gerry is trying to imply. The historical record simply does not say Liancourt Rocks were Japanese territory. Adjacent, near, bordering on whatever, but not one in the same.
sonagi’s not proficient in Korean nor Chinese.
we have seen numerous times, where she made errors on that.
#116(Mizar5)
I guess that qualifies you as “unpatriotic” to those who are obsessed with bloodlines here.
#106(Kalani)
The Koreans, at least the ones that are, are vocal and unrestrained because they’re sure that Japan will not retaliate or use force. Ever. Same with all the anti-American fiasco.
That’s how some see the situation, further supported by the recent North Korean shooting incident.
I guess if it serves them (= the ones vocal) to unite the nation, or keep them in power, it’s OK. Never mind the state of economy or international relations.
Gerry, I’ve already proven the term ”접해있다” and the character “” does not mean (잇다-connect) this is for object not territories.
Is Liancourt Rocks made of string, is it a table or an object?
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/link.jpg
It also says nothing about “connect to” the “Japanese border” Gerry
Thank you, Sonagi.
WJK (#122),
Since you claim to be proficient in Korean, why haven’t you given us a translation, yet?
Don’t thank me, Gerry, because I do not agree with your interpretation of “鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境.” In the context of geography, “接于” describes two distinct entities that touch each other but are NOT a part of each other. The best English equivalent is “contiguous.” Frogmouth’s model sentences in #121 correctly model the meaning. Thus the writer of “鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境” did not consider that visible island to be a part of Japan.
Frogmouth,
Are you retarded?
Look up the word 접경(接境) in a Korean dictionary. The fact that it is in the dictionary is proof that the the character 接 is used to connect more than just “string” or “a table.”
“Still, it’s like a murderer getting off on a technicality. And it certainly doesn’t make their position moral.”
What makes you so sure that “morality” is on the Korean side? In the end, that’s all that Korea has, and that’s why supporters like you have to bring up WWII, colonialism, and all the irrelevant stuff to cloud the issue. Which I kind of think is dishonest and yes, unmoral.
Sonagi,
So what are the “two distinct entities that touched each other”? Did the Japanese border run right up “to touch” Liancourt Rocks, but was not a part of it?
As I said above, the borders of Korea and Japan did not butt up to each other. Both countries considered the seas beyong their farthermost islands to be beyond their borders.
#127
The direct translation is:
“In the East of Ulleungdo/
Islands can be seen from each other/
Here touches the Japanese border”
Can’t really say “here” means east of Ulleungdo somewhere, or some islands that can be seen from each other. The “sentence” is ambiguous at best. I don’t think it can be used to support any claim on any side.
Agreed. Back when the text was written, there wasn’t the concept of territorial waters, so the use of “接于倭境” is strange. I hate to wade into this Dokdo mess, but I do like figuring out language, so I might have a look at the fuller context of the passage to figure it out. As I understand it now, that visible island was not considered part of Japan by the Korean fisherman. It is not clear from the quoted text that the island was considered part of Korea.
Sonagi,
In the old documents, one Chinese character could have different meanings depending on the context. It was not like today in Korea where you find characters combined to refine their meanings. For example, in this context, 接(접) had more of the meaning of 접속(接續), but they would not have wasted ink writing 接續 because they would have assumed that 接(접) and the context would have been enough to make it clear. That it why it is often difficult for people today to interpret the old documents, but I think the context of the above sentence is much clearer than most because there would have been no other way to interpret it.
As you said, they did not have the concept of territorial waters (beyond their farthermost island) back then, so the Koreans would have known right away that the sentence meant that the island was Japanese. In other words, the expression would not have been strange to them.
The fisherman would not have mentioned the “Japanese border” if he had considered the island to be Korean; he would have mentioned the “Korean border.” He would have said something like 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 我國境.
Anyway, it is 2:45 a.m. here in Korea, and my sleep schedule is all screwed up, so I should get to bed. Good night.
Gerry below are the correct definitions in Korea for 접하다. There are examples in bold. My Korean wife explains below.
게리 베버씨, 예전에도 이 문제로 논쟁이 있어서 충분히 설명을 했고 그리고 매듭지었다고 생각했는데 또 다시 같은 문제를 제기하며 억지를 부리시니 정말 답답합니다. 한국어로 “접하다”는 여러 용법으로 쓰일 수 가 있습니다. 국어사전을 참고하여 토종 한국인으로서 실생활에서 쓰이는 예문과 함께 그 정의를 정리해보겠습니다.
접하다 〔저파-〕
[동사]
━ ⅰ『…을』 1 소식이나 명령 따위를 듣거나 받다.
• • 사고 • 보도를 • 접하다
• • 그녀는 • 남편의 • 사망 • 소식을 • 접하자 • 너무 놀라 기절했다.
2 귀신을 받아들여 신통력을 가지다.
• • 무당이 • 되는 • 것은 • 그렇게 • 어려운 • 일인 모양이죠. • 그야 • 신을 • 접하게 • 되는데 • 쉽게 • 될 • 수야 • 없지요.
━ ⅱ『…에』『(…과)』『…을』 ｛‘…과’가 나타나지 않을 때는 여럿임을 뜻하는 말이 주어로 온다｝ 1 이어서 닿다.
• • 우리나라는 • 삼면이 • 바다에 • 접해 • 있다.(여기 예문에서는 서로가 붙어있다는 것을 의미하지요)
• • 우리 • 마을은 • 바다와 • 접해 • 있다. (이 경우는 서로 매우 가까이 있다는 말입니다. 마을이 바다의 부분이거나 바다와 정말로 딱 닿아있다는 말은 아닙니다)
• • 판자로 • 지은 • 집들이 • 서로 • 접해 • 있다.(여기에서는 서로 붙어있을 수도 있고, 또 그만큼 매우 서로 근접해있음을 묘사하는 말 일 수도 있습니다)
• • 우리 • 집은 • 바다를 • 접하고 • 있다.(이 경우도 마찬가지로 서로 매우 가까이 있음을 의미하지요. 집이 바다에 속해 있다는 의미는 아닙니다)
2 가까이 대하다.
• • 그는 거기서 • 엉뚱하게 • 동학의 • 교리에 • 접하고 • 바로 • 입도를 • 했습니다.
• • 나는 사람들과 • 접하면서 • 사람마다 • 다른 • 개성을 발견했다.
• 그들이 • 서로 • 접하기 시작한 • 것은 • 며칠 전이었다.
• • 그녀는 • 다른 • 간호원과는 • 달리 • 나를 • 접할 • 기회가 • 거의 • 없었다.
3 직선 또는 곡선이 다른 곡선과 한 점에서 만나다. 또는 직선, 평면, 곡면이 다른 곡면과 한 점에서 만나다.
위의 경우에서 알 수 있듯이 “접하다”는 의미는 서로가 정말로 맞닿아 있거나 그렇게 서로 붙어있다고 느낄 만큼 가까이 있음을 의미할 때 쓰입니다. 어느 한 부분이 다른 부분에 속해있다는 의미는 절대 아닙니다. 그리고 베버씨가 주장하는 “잇다”의 경우도 마찬가집니다. 밧줄이나 전선 같을 것을 “잇는(connect)” 경우라면 어쩔 수 없이 서로를 묶게 되겠지요. 그러나 그 밖의 경우는 서로 붙이거나 연결시키는 의미일 뿐 어느 한쪽이 다른 한쪽에 속해있다는 의미는 아닙니다. 제 말에 수긍하시기 어렵다면 베버씨가 알고 있는 모든 다른 한국인들에게 확인해 보셔도 좋습니다.
As Sonagi points out the islands were not considered part of Japan by the Koreans of Pyeonghae and Uljin. I’ve never stated this document is anything more than Korean cognizance but the Anyongbok Incident is proof of Korea’s claim to Dokdo.
The above record can be supported by the 1695 Japanese Shogunate’s Inquiry to Shimane (Dottori) Prefecture regarding the status of Ulleungdo-Takeshima (竹島) Matsushima-Dokdo (松島) This separate record also stated the islands were not part of Japan. So there must have been a mutual understanding by both countries that Matushima (Dokdo) was not part of Japan.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-tottori.html
Question for Dokdo experts:
What if that visible island isn’t a reference to Dokdo but to a larger island closer to Japan? I find it strange that in the 1700s, a Korean fisherman would describe two unihabitable rocks in the middle of the Sea of Japan as “接于倭境.” Even if the Koreans considered Dokdo to be Korean territory, they wouldn’t identify the adjacent waters as the beginning of Japanese territory. Could that other island be Oki Island, much further away but larger, visible, and, being so close to Japan, a border landmark? That other island in “鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境” is almost certainly not Dokdo.
#135
I wouldn’t even be sure if the 12 characters are one sentence at all. The grouping of the characters are arbitrary, and I’m sure there was nothing in the original document to separate sentences, as is often the case with classic Chinese. The last four characters can be a sentence in itself.
“于” means “here”. “接” is a verb meaning “touch”. I think you know that Chinese words are in principle mono-syllabic.
Thus, the last four characters mean “here touches the Japanese border” . And the question is, where?
Answer: it simply does not say enough to determine anything. So your argument can be quite valid, too.
@#136:
The string of characters may not be one sentence in English, but if no new noun has been introduced, then the topic, in this case the island, would be the same. Compound words have long been in existence, and this is Chinese written by a Korean anyway, so I would not take each character as an individual word.
Mizar5 strikes me as a Wikipedia-type.
Damn hyperlinks….
I mean Josephus.
#137
So you understand Chinese. But how does that affect the argument? I don’t see any compound words except for 鬱陵 (Ulleungdo) and 島嶼 (islands). Care to point out more?
BTW, 島嶼 is definitely a plural, not singular. Which “islands” do you think can be seen from each other (相接)? How do you know “Ulleungdo” is one of the islands? The first eight characters can mean “there are islands off the east coast of Ulleungdo, and the islands are close enough to be seen from each other”.
So many people comment that Koreans are emotional about this topic. Well as topics go, Dokdo must be one of the mooooost boring, yet we have 140 comments, most by non Koreans. Gerry lost a job over the issue. It seems its the foreigner who gets emotional over Dokdo. Its a rock! Who cares.
Call me shallow but give me boobie pics.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Barns_grand_tetons.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Barns_grand_tetons.jpg&h=1195&w=1600&sz=818&hl=en&start=19&um=1&tbnid=f1ZIrjBBZiRgnM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgrand%2Btetons%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN
鬱陵 (Ulleungdo) is a name, so I wouldn’t actually count that as a compound word. 島嶼 (islands) is the only true compound word; however, “于” doesn’t actually mean “here”. Its English equivalent is “at” or “in.” It works together with the word preceding it. Below are some examples:
关于 – regarding; pertaining to
由于 – owing to; as a result of
终于 – at last; in the end
至于 – as for; as to
“接于” isn’t a compound word, but the two characters work together.
I presume this is a typo and that you meant “相望”. The islands are not named, so I do not know.
My main point made earlier is that “接于” when used in the context of geography in modern Chinese means “contiguous” or “adjacent.” It does not mean “connected” as in a part of something as Gerry insisted earlier in a debate with Frogmouth. Thus, the text does not prove as Gerry thought that Dokdo was considered part of Japanese territory. I am in agreement with you that the text doesn’t prove sovereignty either way since the islands aren’t named and territorial ownership isn’t identified.
#143
Just curious, how would you translate the last four letters?
Sonagi the Oki Islands are about 250 kms from Ulleungdo. Historically, this translated into about 6 days return sailing in very heavy saes. They Oki Islands are definitely not visible from the Ulleungdo area. I doubt the Korean fishermen from Pyeonghae and Uljin voyaged beyond Dokdo because they would loss visual contact of Ulleungdo.
Here is a map of the region to help you visualize.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/ayb-mp2.gif
Sonagi you may have a point aboout the Oki Islands, Japanese maps consistently show the Oki Islands as the westermost point of Japanese terrtiories.
If you like solving language, Sonagi, here is a hotly contested document debated by Japanese and Korean scholars. Japanese say this record declares Korea’s Ulleungdo and as the boundary of Japan. Koreans say this document means Oki Islands are the limit of Japan. In this document the Japanese say “此州“means Ulleungdo Island.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/onshu-shicho-goki-different.html
Have fun!
frogmouth, since you’re online, can you please address my question #278 in this thread:
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/07/23/well-ive-heard-tsushima-is-pretty-this-time-of-year/#comment-174509
User 81. In answer to your question
Korean legal scholars have traditionally adhered to the belief that Dokdo is not capable of generating an EEZ. They enforce a 12 nautical mile limit around Dokdo.
However, I think they are gradually making the island inhabitable as a bargaining chip to force the Japanese into accepting the current 12 mile limit as a permanent boundary…..or else.I’ve been saying this for years. If the Japanese keep badgering the Koreans on Dokdo the Koreans are going to make the island permanently inhabitable and then Japan will be really sorry.
From there the Koreans can declare Dokdo as an EEZ. Japan clings to the rocks=EEZ theory religiously. Because Japan says the Okinotorishimas (rocks) can generate an EEZ, if Korea says Dokdo is an EEZ Japan can say nothing or stand to lose 400,000sq kms there.
I think Korea and Japan could arrive at an agreement that if the current 12 nautical mile boundary around Dokdo was made the Japan-Korea boundary, Korea would agree not to develop Dokdo into an EEZ.
The current 12 nautical mile limit Dokdo boundary is fair.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/12-mile-limit.gif
Big difference.
Okinotorishima is not a disputed territory.
“the Koreans are going to make the island permanently inhabitable”
Wow…are you going to live there when they do?
Aceface, Okinotorishima is not a “territory” at all. That’s the dispute.
It’s a rock which at low tide is smaller than the room you are sitting in now….
Japan’s acquisition of these uninhabited islands arguably originates from its Imperial colonial govt.
Can you deny that the Dokdo issue is basically Japan trying to retrieve what it got from the colonial era, and Korea saying STFU?
#151
I’d say if Japan is such a threat to be reckoned with, S Korea should concentrate their troops in Dokdo and Busan instead of the DMZ.
WJK, even if we wrongfully state that Dokdo was not part of Japanese colonialism I don’t see how Japan can argue we should grant sovereignty of the islets based on other circumstances of 1905.
First, we know Japan geographic rationale behind claiming Takeshima in 1905 was flawed. Japan’s Navy Hydrgraphic Director simply drew baselines from both Japan and Korea’s mainlands, decided Takeshima was closer to Japan and went from there. No consideration was given to Korea’s Ulleungdo.
Even when Japan annexed the island, no territorial limits of Japan and Korea were drawn afterwards because Japan had all but controlled the Korean nations. So using Japan’s 1905 incorporation can never be used as an equitable solution to defining Japan~Korea’s boundary.
Japan secured rights to Chosun coastal and inland waters just months after they took Takeshima.
As I’ve said, Ulleungdo was for all purposes a Japanese Island by 1905. The Japanese military controlled the island, their police were on the island, Japanese civilians had overwhelmed Ulleungdo as well. With these circumstances in mind, we can’t go back to the colonial era to draw Japan~Korea’s boundary.
On top of that, how would whopping a boundary between Ulleungdo and Dokdo resolve fishing and naval altercations in the future? The demands of Japan’s MOFA and Shimane Prefecture are totally out of line with the modern situation in the Dokdo region and Japan~Korea’s modern relationship.
Sonagi (#143)
One of the islands is named, “Ulleung,” and the only visible island east of Ulleungdo, not counting Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島), is Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo); therefore, it is saying that Liancourt Rocks was on the border of Japan.
You agreed that, at the time, there was no concept of “territorial waters” (beyond one’s farthermost island). Therefore, since Japan’s border would not have extended beyond it farthermost island, using one-plus-one logic, we can say that Liancourt Rocks would have had to be Japan’s border, according to the fisherman.
If you are going to say I am wrong, at least, make a logical argument for my being wrong.
Anyway, can you translate the sentence, Sonagi, instead of just talking about pieces of it?
鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境
————————-
By the way, where did you get your definition for 至于? I have not seen it used to mean “as for; as to,” but I have seen it used to mean “until,” as in the following:
三歲之習至于八十
“What you learn at three lasts until you are eighty.”
frogmouth (#147): “Korean legal scholars have traditionally adhered to the belief that Dokdo is not capable of generating an EEZ. They enforce a 12 nautical mile limit around Dokdo.”
Do you have a link or other reference for this? Also, is this the government’s official position (and do you have a reference/link for that answer, too) or is just the status quo?
#150
“Aceface, Okinotorishima is not a “territory” at all. That’s the dispute”
Actually it’s an atoll,and can be a territory.
China questioned Okinotorishima,an island suitable to claim EEZ,not about Japanese territorial claim.
Aceface, China disputes the area of land surrounding the islets, meaning it’s the size of this area that is under dispute. Without Japan bogus claim of EEZ these rocks are basically non-existent. It would only allow a tiny boundary.
The point I’m making is, Japan has painted herself into a corner. If Korea declares Dokdo an EEZ there is little the Japanese can do but suck on it or drop their EEZ claim around Okinotorishima. If Japan tries to apply 2 contradictory legal principles regarding EEZ in her border claims. the lawyers will eat her for breakfast.
A rock the size of a bedroom is a territory? My house must be a continent!!
“Aceface, China disputes the area of land surrounding the islets, meaning it’s the size of this area that is under dispute. Without Japan bogus claim of EEZ these rocks are basically non-existent. It would only allow a tiny boundary.”
So is Okinotorishima a rock or an islets?
Anyway you didn’t get what I said.China is not challenging the Japanese sovereignity over Okinotorishima,thus Okinotorishima itself is not disputed.
Takeshima/Dokdo is different.Japan is not acknowledgeing the Korean sovereignity over Dokdo.Tokyo thinks it’s Takeshima and it’s Japanese sovereign territory.
“The point I’m making is, Japan has painted herself into a corner. If Korea declares Dokdo an EEZ there is little the Japanese can do but suck on it or drop their EEZ claim around Okinotorishima. ”
Not exactly.Currently the sea around Takeshima/Dokdo is international waters,if Korea claim it as EEZ,anybody can make argument to Korea just like China is now doing on Japan’s Okinotorsishima EEZ claim.
I’d say Korean government is going to open up a can of worm,if they follow Steve’s advice,but then again,it’s not my business.
“If Japan tries to apply 2 contradictory legal principles regarding EEZ in her border claims. the lawyers will eat her for breakfast.”
Perhaps.
But in such case,Tokyo would simply claim EEZ is Japanese,not Korean,rather than the validity of EEZ itself around Takeshima/Dokdo.
And we have to be in court first,aren’t we.Something Tokyo has been saying since 1954.
“A rock the size of a bedroom is a territory? My house must be a continent!!”
Well,check your encyclopedia about “territory”again,Steve.
The size doesn’t matter when you claim sovereignity over atoll or sunken rock.
And Korea is already in dispute with China over sunken rock(Leodo/Soctra rock) already!
If Korea tries to apply 2 contradictory legal principles regarding her border claims,the lawyers will eat her for breakfast.
But hey,Korea does that all the time….
http://www.korea.net/News/Issues/issueDetailView.asp?board_no=15896
According to Korea.net,
“Reference to the International Court of Justice
ㅇ The incorporation of Dokdo in 1905, as was shown above, was a clear act of imperialist invasion, and all of the Japanese claims are the result of distortion and cover-up of history. Far from showing any remorse over its history of invasion and colonialism, Japan has instead insisted that Korea take the issue of sovereignty of Dokdo before the International Court of Justice.
ㅇ However, there is no reason whatsoever for Korea to bring the issue to the International Court of Justice when Dokdo so clearly belongs to Korea from the perspective of history, geography, and even international law.
ㅇ The reason why Japan wants the issue taken to the International Court of Justice is simple: Japan would gain an enormous political advantage by standing at the Court on equal footing with Korea. Since Japan has neither sovereignty nor control over the island, it has nothing to lose even if it goes to Court. It is interesting to note, however, that China has recently intensified its claims to the Senkaku Islands/Diaoyutai currently under the effective control of Japan, but Japan has not demanded that the issue be brought to the International Court of Justice. “
Why Japan’s 1905 incorporate is “illegal”?
1. Japan did not obeyed international rule,
When Japan incorporate this islands, They hide this fact. even official gazette of shimane 1905 was a “for reading of circulation members only”
after 1906, they announced this in minor local newspaper in shimane.
However, since 1905, ‘diplomatic rights’ of Korea deprived by Japan.(in 1910, Japan forced annexed korea) in 1906, all diplomatic agents in korea were Japanese.
Why Japan’s 1905 incorporate is “illegal”?
2. Japan’s claim “terra nullius” was originally false. so, ’1905 declare’ is originally invalid. (it as Korean territory from records that date back to the sixth century during the Unified Silla period and on the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance officially incorporating three islands into modern Ulleung County. also Japan official goverment documents proved that it is a territory of Korea) Japan’s claim “terra nullius” is a originally false claim.
http://english.dokdohistory.com/museum/m_j_history02.html
before 1953, Japan goverment did not recognized that Dokdo belong to Japan.
even Korea-Japan annexation period(1910~1945), Dokdo was classified as a part of Gangwondo, Korea.
After 1945, Korea liberation from Japan, Korea shortly govered by USFK and WW2 allied force. even that period, Dokdo was classified as a Korean territory.
Even 1951 Map (drawed by Japanese goverment 衆議院)
Dokdo was Officialy exclude in Territory of Japan.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690838397/
I have no idea to japanese, may japanese say liek this, “1951 japanese goverment was not a Japanee goverment!”
well, i don’t think so.
Aceface, I disagree.
Dokdo falls within EEZs that can be generated by both Korea’s Ulleungdo and Japan’s Oki. Both countries EEZs overlap in this area. Drawing an equidistant line between the islands looks as such. Using this baseline measurement Dokdo as non-EEZ generating islet/rock clearly falls on this side.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/ull-oki-EEZ.gif
Under the law of the sea, rocks that cannot sustain life can not generate an EEZ.
I’m not arguing a nation can’t be allowed to claim rocks as their “territory” meaning area. I’m disputing if rocks can generate EEZs. I don’t think Korea has claimed Dokdo as an EEZ or any other tiny rocks that can’t sustain life.
Japan has followed this rock=EEZ policy and I think it’s bullshit. Especially in Asia where real estate and resources are scarce and the population is dense.
Socotra Rocks (submerged) from what I gather is about 145kms from Korean island called Marado, Koreans have lived on Marado for at least a century. Marado island is inhabitable and can sustain life and thus can be considered capable of generating an EEZ.
Socotra Rocks apparently is in both China and Korea’s EEZ zone, however it is closer to Korea. I’ve never heard Korea wanted to use Socotra to generate an EEZ like the Japanese are trying to do with the Okinotorishimas.
Korea is not “opening up a can of worms” Aceface. If they claim an EEZ around Dokdo, it’s more a case of giving Japan a taste of their own (bitter) medicine.
Japan and Korea should go to court. A court where both countries mutual interests can be equally represented. This means they should negotiate bilaterally. Unless Japan goes to ICJ with the other nations who have disputes with her, Japan should put up or shut up. It’s very hypocritical for Japan to bash Korea on this point.
“I’m not arguing a nation can’t be allowed to claim rocks as their “territory” meaning area.”
Frogmouth #150:
“Aceface, Okinotorishima is not a “territory” at all. That’s the dispute”
also #157:
“A rock the size of a bedroom is a territory? My house must be a continent!!”
Glad you finally agree with me,Steve.
“Under the law of the sea, rocks that cannot sustain life can not generate an EEZ.”
But an island can.
The Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone has adressed three point for the definition oof “island”.
1)any piece of land that is completely surrounded by water.
2)It has to be above high tide
3)It has to be naturally made.
The logic of GoJ is Okinotorishima fits all three.It’s pretty phony logic,I admit.But still valid legally.
“Socotra Rocks (submerged) from what I gather is about 145kms from Korean island called Marado, Koreans have lived on Marado for at least a century. Marado island is inhabitable and can sustain life and thus can be considered capable of generating an EEZ. ”
“Socotra Rocks apparently is in both China and Korea’s EEZ zone, however it is closer to Korea. I’ve never heard Korea wanted to use Socotra to generate an EEZ like the Japanese are trying to do with the Okinotorishimas”
True.
But you also can’t claim a submerged rock as a “territory”.And ROK claims it’s an “island”belongs to them,you know that,Steve.
Besides,the rock is on the Chinese side of continental shelf.No wonder Seoul won’t claim any EEZ.It just can’t,since Socotra rock’s Korean sovereinigty is highly questionable.and if you look at the map,it’s far closer to Chinese shore where I understand people have been living for at least four millennia.
This “dispute” is another legacy of Rhee’s “Peace Line” in 1952 along with Takeshima/Dokdo disopute.Somehow I’ve never heard about Korea taking the issue to ICJ,nor rejecting to share EEZ with Chinese.
“Unless Japan goes to ICJ with the other nations who have disputes with her, Japan should put up or shut up.”
ICJ solution is unikely with Russia regarding Kunashiri,Etorofu,Habomai and Shikotan since all the current islanders are Russian and Japanese islanders were focifully removed by the Soviet in 1945.
ICJ may not take this into consideration compared to the current dominace of the islands by the Russian citizens.
Anyway,I see nothing wrong with the differences between dispute with Russia and Korea,since the Northern territories were not Terra Nullius.
As with the Senkakus,ICJ solution is more troublesome for Beijing,because Taipei is also involved in this dispute and somehow neither of them want the other to represent them at ICJ.
Chiang Kai-shek had said nothing of Senkaku in neither Cairo nor Potsdam conference on these islands,even though he was one of the three participant of these historic summits that decided how to deal with post-war Japan.
There were no mention on the territory to Japanese government from neither Taipei nor Beijing until 1971,it popped out only after the UN published a report on potential under water oil field.
Chiang Kai-shek hadn’t mntioned a word to the U.S either,even though the Senkaku along with whole Okinawa islands was under U.S occupation.(Okinawa wasn’t part of Japan until it was returned in 1972).PRC only followed ROC in the same year.
Tokyo will probably wins at ICJ on the Senkakus,if the case goes there.
But since it’s under Japanese control,and neither of the government in Taiwan nor China can endure the defeat,it’s diplomatically wiser not to make such offer from our side.
Correction.
PRC only followed ROC in the same year on Snekaku claim.
I take down”If you look at the map,it’s far closer to Chinese shore where I understand people have been living for at least four millennia”part.
Looking at the wrong map.sorry.
“
Well, Okinotori is not a island.
Diaoyutai island belong to Taiwan.
Kuril chins belong to Russia.
Aceface, “I agree with you?” Guess again.
Nakagawa is right, Okinotoroshima is not an island.
Okinotoshima is much like Professor Van Dyke compared to Rockall islet near England. The British had the common sense to drop their claim that this island could generate an EEZ. If Japan’s MOFA would stop being so greedy maybe they would get along with their neighbours better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall
Whether or not Socotra is an island is moot.
It’s the area around it that falls in Korea’s EEZ. Socotra is about 149kms from Marado (which is only about 10kms from Chejudo. Even excluding Marado, Socotra is closer to Cheju Isand than the nearest Chinese land. Socotra is only about 160kms from Cheju and around 245kms from the nearest Chinese land. Korea has a far stronger claim to this region, but to be honest, it doesn’t interest me.
http://blog.daum.net/originalstone/16120450
Both Korea and China’s EEZs overlap in this region. Generally, any point within an overlapping EEZ area ownership defaults to the most proximate state (Korea) Korea wants the water around it. I don’t blame the Koreans for wanting to lay claim to this region. Who knows what the future of international law may hold?
Japan is already conducting experiments with island construction and artificial reef building. If legal precedents are established that allow this then Korea should and must too or lose out big time. It is a wise thing to claim this area to posture for the future of marine law.
@Gerry and Squatch,
Somewhere back in the thread, Squatch came up with a better translation that correctly translates 島嶼 as “islands” rather than “island.” I’ve seen 島嶼 used to denote one island, but usually it refers to more than one.
至于 has more than one meaning, and your translation of the saying is correct. Below are some context examples of 至于 meaning “as for” from sentences googled off the internet:
至于这件事，我无话可说
As for/regarding this issue, I have nothing to say.
至于我,有点迷惑不解
As for me, I was a little puzzled.
他只顾好不好吃，至于营养价值根本不管
He only cares about whether the food is good to eat; as for nutritional value, he couldn’t care less.
鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境
“To the east of Ulleung(do) are mutually visible islands/islets contiguous/adjacent to the border of Japan.”
That is how I would translate that sentence based on my knowledge of modern Chinese. Notice how I offered “islets” as an alternative translation because 島嶼 can denote either large or small islands or islets.
If my translation is correct, two things seem strange: 1) identifying the islands as near the border with Japan; and 2) noting they are mutually visible. Dokdo’s east and west rocks are so close, they aren’t just mutually visible but seem like one rock from a distance.
Remember I’m translating based on my knowledge of modern Chinese, not classical Chinese as written by Koreans. “島嶼相望” cold possibly refer to the Dokdo islets being mutually visible with Ulleungdo. This would make more sense than the two rocks being mutually visible to each other when in fact, they’re so close, old maps treated them as one entity. That still leaves the puzzle of “接于倭境.” I just don’t see either side back in the early 1700s thinking of those two uninhabitable rocks as an international border.
I think the big idea about using historical documents to support sovereignty claims over Dokdo is that many of the documents aren’t clear because of a lack of names or use of different names. A little common sense is in order here. We’re talking about two unihabitable rocks in the middle of sea. Their only apparent value prior to the 20th century was for seal hunting and a safe haven for fishing vessels. The historical evidence shows that both countries knew of the rocks’ existence hundreds of years ago, but it is highly unlikely that either side established defensible control prior to Japan’s 1905 claim. This doesn’t mean Japan is the rightful owner as that claim was made at at time when Japan was preparing to annex Korea.
It amazes me that two non-Koreans, Gerry and Frogmouth, have spent countless hours researching, translating, and posting documents and maps on this overblown dispute, and Gerry, you lost your job because of your public pursuit of the issue.
sonagi
why is it so amazing? i know a guy who spend countless hours fixing an old car and some people spend countless hours collecting and studying old things that most people do not care about or even know about. it must be their hobby and they probably really like it. and gerry shouldnt have lost his job. it wasnt his fault.
鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境 =
East of Ulleung there is mutually visible island that connects to the Japanese border.
As far as I can see it does not express ownership of the island to either country. It seems to be simply giving these details as a frame of reference. Could be wrong but I have been on this all day and consulted with others.
Matt, Gerry.
“adjacent to” or “bordering on” but NOT part of Japan’s territory.
As I’ve said, this document confirms Korean cognizance of Liancourt Rocks and excludes them from Japanese territory.
On…..sigh……..post #7……
The big secret is Gerry didn’t lose his job about Dokdo blogging…
Cognizance is not sovereignty. The new 100,000 won bill will feature the late 1880s Grand Map of Korea with one added detail: Dokdo, which is absent on the real map. Not surprising that Joseon cartographers didn’t consider the two tiny rocks worth including.
@kimchi2000:
I didn’t even imply that Gerry deserved to get fired. Don’t confuse cause-effect with moral and ethical judgments. I’ve exchanged a few emails with Gerry, and he strikes me as a polite and pleasant person. I really enjoyed reading his Korean Language Notes blog and would like to see him continue to share his exploration of the Korean language with others.
BTW, Gerry, I noticed that you have set up a counter blog to Frogmouth’s Dokdo-Takeshima website. I don’t care about the issue, but I do like puzzling out language. If there’s a language dispute similar to the one discussed here, I’d be willing to have a look. I’m not a scholar, but I can give my unbiased two cents worth.
You’ve got it backwards Sonagi. I started my blog to counter Gerry’s posts on Occidentalism. These days Gerry’s website is practically run by Shimane Prefecture and Japan’s MOFA.
My website is my own, not a forum to post regurgitated propaganda publications by Japan’s MOFA
Sonagi, check my post #145 !!
Take a look and have fun!!
#
WangKon936: “Mizar5 strikes me as a Josephus-type.”
Quite a compliment, but I don’t understand the reference. Oddly, Josephus has been used to justify the belief in an hisorical Jesus, which is something I am too well educated to buy into. I too well uderstand the roots of Christianity in the Greek mystery religions and too well recognize the Greek gods like Horus from whence the Jesus myth was derived to place any credence in the literal historical interpretation of what is obviously a melding of Greek and Hebrew mythological figures.
Anyway, thanks I guess.
Aceface (#165) wrote:
“I take down”If you look at the map,it’s far closer to Chinese shore where I understand people have been living for at least four millennia”part.”
What a difference that makes to what you said about Korea’s “highly questionable” claim. Ieodo is not being used by Korea to make an EEZ and it is already inside Korea’s own EEZ.
If frogmouth is correct that Korea is not trying to claim an EEZ from Dokdo, then the “irrational Koreans” are the only ones not trying to make an EEZ “land grab” in the region.
do you know why the Shilla court signed on to relinquish land north of the DaeDong river?
all they were looking for back then was arable land. If they knew anything about natural resources other than growing plants, they probably wouldn’t have done it. (thus, the faux unification) In modern day, considering our families weren’t continuing their blood lines, the people in charge of that were worthy of the death given to traitors.
Han River basin? That wasn’t originally their land. Baekjae and Shilla took it from Goguryo, and Shilla took it from Baekjae, in a classic betrayal of an alliance. Thus, the unconvincing tale of they had to ally with Tang China. They had an alliance, which they betrayed. Turns out, Tang betrays Shilla as well, but it works out in the end.
do you know why Chosun conquered Tsushima, but never really took it? Non-arable land. If they could foresee the future Imjin war 100+ years later, they surely would have taken it themselves. Any military commander not doing so should have been executed.
do you know why Dokdo was ignored by Korea and Japan until lately? Is it arable?
Japan wants a collection of rocks North, East, South, and West.
United States should have confiscated Okianawa and the southern isles and not returned them, the way Germany was stripped of INHABITED land for 100+ years, permanently.
Now, the Japanese are starting a shit war over unmanned, uninhabited land, with some potential for resources other than growing food.
Nakagawa:”Japan did not obeyed international rule, When Japan incorporate this islands, They hide this fact. even official gazette of shimane 1905 was a “for reading of circulation members only” after 1906, they announced this in minor local newspaper in shimane.”
Irrelevent.
“However, since 1905, ‘diplomatic rights’ of Korea deprived by Japan.(in 1910, Japan forced annexed korea) in 1906, all diplomatic agents in korea were Japanese.”
Irrelevent.
” Why Japan’s 1905 incorporate is “illegal”? Japan’s claim “terra nullius” was originally false. so, ‘1905 declare’ is originally invalid. (it as Korean territory from records that date back to the sixth century during the Unified Silla period and on the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance officially incorporating three islands into modern Ulleung County.”
Where is the proof of this claim?
“also Japan official goverment documents proved that it is a territory of Korea) Japan’s claim “terra nullius” is a originally false claim.”
Also suspicious.
I looked at one of your links http://www.flickr.com/photos/28788327@N05/2690838397/ and it misrepresents the facts of the US Military occupation. The US did NOT classify the Liancourt Rocks as Korean. The internal documents do not establish Korean ownership. And the existence of this map also proves nothing.
You assert that Liancourt was Korean territory since the 6th century but offer no proof. Where is your proof for this claim?
@#175, Frogmouth:
I looked at the two links in #145. The first contains copies of original documents only. I’m weak in traditional complex characters as it is and have difficulty reading script as opposed to word processor Chinese characters, so I’m going to skip that one. I will look at the second when I’m bored and have nothing better to do. It looks full of place names.
Nakagawa “The incorporation of Dokdo in 1905, as was shown above, was a clear act of imperialist invasion, and all of the Japanese claims are the result of distortion and cover-up of history.”
This is simply political rhetoric. Where are the supporting facts? Those who make an argument without supporting facts, which in this case is Koreanet, are in fact the ones who are guilty of “distortion and cover-up of history.”
“Far from showing any remorse over its history of invasion and colonialism,”
False. Every Japanese administration has apologized.
“Japan has instead insisted that Korea take the issue of sovereignty of Dokdo before the International Court of Justice.”
And if Korea had a valid legal case with nothing to hide, then why would it refuse?
“However, there is no reason whatsoever for Korea to bring the issue to the International Court of Justice when Dokdo so clearly belongs to Korea from the perspective of history, geography, and even international law.”
It’s easy to make an assertion without any supporting facts, but that is not a valid argument.
“The reason why Japan wants the issue taken to the International Court of Justice is simple: Japan would gain an enormous political advantage by standing at the Court on equal footing with Korea. Since Japan has neither sovereignty nor control over the island, it has nothing to lose even if it goes to Court.“
Jibberish. This passage makes no sense at all. It is an emotional appeal to prejudice bereft of any facts whatsoever.
“It is interesting to note, however, that China has recently intensified its claims to the Senkaku Islands/Diaoyutai currently under the effective control of Japan, but Japan has not demanded that the issue be brought to the International Court of Justice.”
Irrelevent.
As is obvious to any third party observer, Koreanet’s arguments are entirely self-negating, sloppy and illogical.
The elaborate effort being made to build a smoking gun from circumstantial evidence, half-truths and outright lies greatly undermines the Korean position.
It is obfuscation pure and simple.
Now, Korea may have a defensible claim that it is not illegally occupying Liancourt. But so far, I have seen no bona fide attempts to prove the case. What I see are bald assertions, prejudicial language, half truths and distortions, argumentum ad baculum, strawman arguments and circular logic.
So this begs the question: what is it the Korean side knows that it is apparently attempting to cover up?
Mizar…
I think you missed the point, or at least how I’m viewing it. Josephus is a case study of someone who can originally be from one ethnicity, adopt into another ethnicity, but still have enough interest in the ethnicity of origin to be a social critic, and view that culture from the outside looking in, but also view it from the inside looking out as well, but ultimately view it as something flawed and to be left behind.
As for the historicalness of Jesus, even the harshest critic will generally not debate whether or not he existed but rather if his message was misinterpreted by his earliest followers. Read Elaine Pagels and John Dominic Crossan for more info.
Sonagi wrote,
Gerry writes: The reason your translation seems “strange” to you is that you are ignoring the concept of territory back in those days.
First, 接境 (접경) means “on the border,” not “near the the border,” as you had previously agreed. You can translate it as “contiguous to” or “adjacent to” if you want, but why use convuluted words when you can just say “on the border” since that is what the fisherman was saying?
Second, 相望 (상망) was just the way they wrote “visible” back then, and that phrase apppears repeatedly in the old documents, so there is no need to translate the word “mutual” here.
Third, 島嶼相望 (도서상망) was not talking about the islands to the east of Ulleungdo being visible to themselves since as you said that would not really make sense in regard to “Dokdo.” It was talking about “the island” or “islands” east of Ulleungdo being visible from Ulleungdo. The fisherman would not have gone to Liancourt Rocks to seen if there were other islands visible from there, and even if he had, he would have found that there are none.
Therefore, the translation of the sentence is as simple as follows:
“There is (are) an island (islands) visible to the east of Ulleungdo that is on the Japanese border.”
Now lets add one plus one.
Since Japan’s border would not have extended beyond its farthermost island (no territorial waters back then, right?), and since you agreed that 接境 (접경) means “contiguous to the border,” then that can only mean that the island, itself, was the Japanese border since the next nearest island would have been Oki Island 157 kilometers away.
Forget the fact that the island or islands east of Ulleungdo were not named since we are not in a courtroom here trying to determine sovereignty. Can’t you just admit that logically the fisherman was saying that the island or islands visible to the east of Ulleungdo were the Japanese border? If you cannot admit that, then can’t you, at least, admit that he was saying they were “on the Japanese border”?
Sonagi wrote:
The Korean fisherman probably did not known the rocks were “uninhabitable” since he probably just saw Japanese fishing boats coming from that direction and did not know the size or makeup of the rocks.
Even though Ulleungdo is about 390 times bigger than Liancourt Rocks, a Korean inspector looking at the rocks from Ulleungdo in 1694, judged them to be about one third the size of Ulleungdo.
By the way, why do you spend so much time writing on “The Marmot’s Hole”? Don’t you have a life?
———————-
As for 至于我 meaing “as for me, I can see how it could be used that way since 至(지) means “to reach” or “to extend.” In other words, a direct translation could be “As it extends to me.”
WangKon936, thanks for the clarification. I don’t want to get off topic on this thread right now, but would be honored to discuss mythology and religion with you on another theread. Regards.
what’s your basis for claiming “irrelevant”?
are you a lawyer?
Sonagi (#173)
Just in case you might misunderstand, I do not mean to be attacking you in my explanation of the Chinese sentence. For some reason, I am not very diplomatic when I write, especially when I am debating an issue. My mom says I like to argue, and it used to be true, but as I get older I am getting to where I do not like to debate as much. In fact, I am getting to where I do not even like to write about Dokdo, but there are still just a few things about Dokdo that I need to get out of my system.
As for the Korean language, I still enjoy studying that, except that these days I am more interested in the culture of the language, which can be explored by studying Korea’s Sino-Korean words.
If you are interested, I really, really recommend the following book, which I just finished reading.
“살아있는 한자 교과서, 1권”
The book explains Korea’s culture through Chinese characters, and it is very enlightening and includes a lot of great photos and illustrations to help understand the orgin of Korean culture and thought. There is also a second volume that I will start reading today. Check out some of the sample pages that are on the page I linked to.
When I asked why you spent so much time writing on The Marmot’s Hole, I was just trying to point out that we all have our pastimes. Anyway, at least, when I write about Dokdo, I am not out on the streets getting into trouble.
相 in classical Chinese, when placed ahead of verb, is often used to emphasize the verb. In this particular case, 相 does not mean “each other”.
My translation:
To the east of Ulleung, a few islans(large and small) can be seen leading to the border of Japan.
I am not sure whether Dokdo(Takeshima) is included in the islands. If it is included, it is not clear in this sentence whether Dokdo is inside or outside of the border.
Natto,
Where is the “leading to” part of the sentence?
接境(접경) means “touches the border” (경계(境界)가 서로 접함), not “leading to” the border. See HERE.
As for 相望(상망), it means “looking at each other” (서로 바라봄). 望(망) is the verb “to see,” and 相(상) means “each other,” so 相望(상망), means “looking at each other” (서로 바라봄). See HERE.
Here is an example phrase:
相望之地 (상망지지) 서로 바라보이는 가까운 곳
“a place close enough that they are visible to each other.
Therefore, your claim that 相(상) does not mean “each other” when it comes before the verb is wrong, as is your conclusion.
Maybe you are talking about China’s Chinese grammar, or something, not Korea’s Chinese grammar?
wjk:”what’s your basis for claiming “irrelevant”? are you a lawyer?”
No, a logician.
There are many different ways of influencing what people think without using evidence. When an argument relies on premisses that are not relevant to its conclusion, the fallacy committed is the fallacy of relevance.
Nakagawa writes, quoting from Koreanet,
“Since Japan has neither sovereignty nor control over the island, it has nothing to lose even if it goes to Court. It is interesting to note, however, that China has recently intensified its claims to the Senkaku Islands/Diaoyutai currently under the effective control of Japan, but Japan has not demanded that the issue be brought to the International Court of Justice.”
This is a form of Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi) or “mistaken proof,” in which the argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion is instead directed to to prove a different conclusion.
The apparent implication is that Japan, thinking strategically, ould not be inclined to take Korea to the ICJ if it had something to lose, just as it is not inclined to take China to the ICJ because it would have something to lose in doing so.
Although this may well be true, it does not address the legitimacy of Japan’s claim on Dokdo, which is the topic at hand.
The reasoning may seem plausible in that the premises do provide evidence for another conclusion, but the argument misfires because it is not a defense of the conclusion in dispute. Any argument that obscures the issue with attractive generalizations about a topic other than the logical subject of the conclusion commits the ignoratio elenchi. Such arguments often succeed by distracting the attention of the audience.
It’s a rhetoritician trick, not a logician’s proof.
Nakagawa:”Japan did not obeyed international rule, When Japan incorporate this islands, They hide this fact. even official gazette of shimane 1905 was a “for reading of circulation members only” after 1906, they announced this in minor local newspaper in shimane.”
According to Sean Fern’s article – http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal51/japan2.pdf
- “international legal scholars do not have a consensual standard for determining legitimate territorial acquisition. “Once granted, however, sovereignty, in relation to a portion of the surface of the globe, gives a state a legal right to include such a portion into its territory,” writes Douglas Shaw in International Law. Customary international law provides the following five principles by which international tribunals can resolve sovereignty disputes…
(1)”Cession of state territory is the peaceful transfer of territory by the owner to another state…”
(2) “the principle of subjugation, which refers to title by conquest. It is the act by which one state acquires territory by annexation following military victory. Acquisition of territory following armed conflict, however, requires further action of an international nature in addition to domestic legislation to annex, including a treaty of cession or international recognition…”
(3)”Prescription is the process of acquiring territory through a “continuous and undisturbed exercise of sovereignty lasting long enough to create a widely held conviction that the possession conforms to the standards of the international community…”
(4)”Occupation is a state’s intentional claim of sovereignty over territory treated by the international community as terra nullius, or territory that does not belong to any other state. It is, Jennings write, “the appropriation
by a state of a territory, which is not at the time subject to the sovereignty of any other state…”
(5) omitted from the article! Could it be geographical proximity? More likely, display of state function or authority?
An interesting article from the Korean perspective is found here:
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-legal-doc5.pdf
While it is beyond me to be the arbitrator in territorial disputes, I note that the above-cited article ends in a description of the Korean public perception of the dispute that shows pretty clearly that Korean perception as a whole is based on the logical fallacy of the appeal to emotion:
“Some compare Korea’s position to an innocent man who is asked1o go to a court of law to prove that his beloved wife really belongs to him because another man appears and sues him, arguing, “Your wife is mine, we have a legal dispute and I am willing to settle the legal dispute in court.” Other people might suggest to the innocent man, “If you are so sure of her, why don’t you go to court to settle the matter for good?” The answer of the husband would be short but clear, “I will never go to a court of law to argue over one who has always been with me. Would you?” It seems to Koreans that Japan’s attempt to dispute the owner- ship of Tokdo might be a legacy of Japanese colonialism and imperialism. Unlike other countries once involved in colonialist adventures, Japan has not shed its colonial legacy entirely. This Japanese historical baggage, in our view, still remains an important stumbling block to matching its economic strength with the prowess necessary to playa leading role in shaping international affairs.”
It is these emotional arguments one sees rehashed in threads like these. They describe feelings and perceptions but are irrelevent from a logical or legal perspective.
To say it politely, I think your logic is flawed, Mizar5.
One of the main Japanese arguments is that, Korea did not bother to contest or claim Dokdo in 1905.
1905. Japan already was taking over all of the Korean peninsula and some more.
To say it impolitely, something is wrong with your head.
Yes that was impolite. But it’s forgivable to be impolite, not forgivable to use argumentum ad hominem in lieu of a valid point.
WJK,
Korea was given an opportunity to protest in 1906, but she did not.
See HERE.
“Korea was given an opportunity to protest in 1906, but she did not.”
With the Eulsa Treaty of 1905 making Korea a protectorate no control over its foreign affairs and the establishment of the Resident-General office as “advisors,” what freedom of protest did Korea really have in 1906?
User-81 (#195),
Ulleungdo was not a foreign affair issue. This was an issue between Korea and Japan, and Koreans protested other things the Japanese did. Besides, if Koreans were not allowed to protest or express grievances, why did the Japanese Residents-General bother to ask Korea’s Interior Ministry to clarify which islands belonged to Ulleungdo? Even if Japan would not have accepted Korea’s claim on Dokdo, the Korean ministry could have still made the claim, but did not.
The claim that Koreans did not have the freedom to protest because Japan was handling Korea’s affairs is a silly excuse that Koreans use to hide the fact that they did not protest. The Korean newspaper article I linked to is now the monkey wrench in Korea’s excuse for not protesting. The article was only recently discovered, and Korea’s Dokdo researchers have been scrambling to come up with excuses for it.
Why didn’t Koreans protest?
The Koreans had probably learned that Liancourt Rocks was just a couple of barren rocks that was much farther away than they had originally been told. They probably realized that it was not Korean territory and did not see an value in the rocks, anyway.
Gerry you are translating this document from a few wrong perspectives.
A. From the Japanese side toward Korea.
B. From a standpoint coastal fishermen had clear geographical concept of how far away Japan was.
C. That there was a clear definitive borderline between Japan’s and Korea’s territorial waters.
The Koreans knew of an island beyond Ulleungdo (Liancourt Rocks) They knew if they went beyond this island there was a nation called Japan nearby. They only knew it was beyond the island and not how far.
This document was written because the Chosun government was worried about potential invasion from Japan. It talks about how far Korea was from Japan. In describing this they are “looking” eastward toward Japan describing Ulleungdo and islands that leads to Japan border.
Thus no matter how close or far the island is from Japan’s border it lead to the border (adjacent to, bordered on) Thus is it not part of Japan because the document is written from Chosusn’s (Western) location and directional perception.
Japan’s border would be best described visually as the picture below.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/seibold-temp.jpg
Gerry Korea lost the ability to independently conduct foreign affairs in 1904.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japan-korea-treaty7.jpg
Frogmouth,
You are ignoring the word “bordered on” (接境) or are trying to misinterpret it.
The Korean emissary was reporting on east coast defenses, which he felt needed to be strengthened.
The reason he reported on his interviews with the Korean fishermen was that he wanted to use the fact that a Japanese island was close enough to be seen from Ulleungdo to press the government to strengthen coastal defenses. He felt that the government, which had committed most of its resources to defend for a possible attack from Daemado (Tsushima), should not ignore the possibility of an attack from the direction of Ulleungdo.
#188 gbevers
The subject of the sentence 島嶼相望 is not 島嶼. The regular word order is
望島嶼、in which the subject(we, I, you, people) is skipped. In order to empasize 島嶼、the word order is reversed. However, if you mention 島嶼望、it sounds too flat. Therefore, 相 is added to make the words sound better, which is not unusual in classical Chinese, and 相 has no meaning here. Also in English, the similar word order is often used as follows:
You did not go there. Neither did I.(instead of; Neither I went.)
接 means touch. But also means “approach or access and almost touches”, in which case somthing does not necessarily physically touches another as in 接岸 、接見、接遇、面接. This was not written by a native Chinese speaker or a lawyer or geographer. I really cannot tell exactly what 接干倭境 means.
誰在乎呢?
Natto,
望(망) means “to look at,” but 相望(상망) means “to be visible,” so 相(상) is necessary to convey that meaning.
Also, two subjects are needed when you use 相望(상망), which comes after the second subject is introduced. That is done so that you know what two things are “visible to each other” (looking at each other).
In the case of 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境, the first subject, Ulleungdo, is implied, and the second subject is 島嶼 (도서). Therefore, “Ulleung” (鬱陵 – 우릉) and “the islands east of Ulleung” (鬱陵之東 島嶼 – 울릉지동 도서) “are visible to each other” (相妄 – 상망). In other words, the islands are visible from Ulleungdo.
If you write 島嶼望(도서망), then you are saying that the islands are looking at something, but islands have no eyes to see, do they?
Again, 接(접) does not mean approach; it means “meet” or “touch” and the examples you gave demonstrate that:
接岸 (접안) – dock at a wharf
接見 (접견) – give an audience (meet a person)
接遇 (접우) – greet someone with a handshake (the hands meet).
面接(면접) – to interview (face to face)
#201 gbevers
相 not only means “each other” but also “appearance” as in 形相、死相、人相、”from one to another” as in 相続、相伝、相承 and “phase” as in 気相、液相、固相. It is also used rhetorically as in the following famous phrase originated from a legend. 舌り目相待(the first character is not available. 舌り is one character) meaning “open your eyes, wait and see.” Here 相 has no meaning other than stressing 待. The same is true with 相望 in the sentence.
Your knowledge of Chinese characters is far above that of average Korean though not up to my level. I am not refuting your arguments in general. Although I don’t care which country Takeshima/Dokdo belongs to, I quite agree to what you have been arguing about the islets.
Frogmouth,
The Japanese map you linked to HERE shows two Ulleungdos, the mismapped one (Argonaut) and the real one. The mismapped one is the one nearest to Korea’s coast and did not exist. It even shows Usando (于山島) as a neighboring island off the west shore of the non-existent Ulleungdo. As you know, Usando is what Koreans claim was the old name for “Dokdo.”
I do not know why you would link to a map like that since it supports Japan’s claim rather than Korea’s.
In fact, all Korean and Japanese maps I have seen show Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not as Liancourt Rocks.
As for your second link, Ulleungdo would not have been a “foreign affair” since it would have been a dispute between Korea and Japan, and Korea could lodge protests with the Japanese.
How do you explain the fact that Korea did not claim “Dokdo” as being a neighboring island of Ulleungdo when Japan’s Residents-General asked her to clarify which islands belonged to Ulleungdo in July 1906 HERE?.
The Interior Ministry knew that the Ulleungdo County magistrate had just months earlier said that “Dokdo” (獨島) was part of his county even though he did not know where it was, so why didn’t Korea list “Dokdo” as being a neighboring island of Ulleungdo when they were given a chance in July 1906?
I think it was because the investigation ordered by the Korean government revealed that “Dokdo” was 92 kilometers away from Ulleungdo, rather than the forty claimed by Ulleungdo’s county magistrate, and was just a couple of barren rocks rather than an island that would have been worth claiming.
Anyway, the fact is that Korea did nor protest Japan’s incorporation of Liancourt Rocks.
Natto,
Yes, 相(상) has several meanings other than “each other,” but when it is used as 相望(상망), it means “to be visible,” at least, in Korea.
Yes, you probably do know more about Chinese characters than I do, but in this case you are wrong.
Gerry,
Here’s the best Korean editorial to date:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/07/113_28336.html
How would you address the following:
“Japan may not like King Gojong’s Imperial Ordinance 41 which was issued in April 1900. Under this ordinance, Ullung-do was renamed Uldo and the superintendant of the island was upgraded to county chief who was under the governor of Gangwon Province (Article 1) and the county chief supervises Jukdo and Sokdo (Dokdo) administratively (Article 2). Dok in Dokdo means “stone” or “rock” and becomes “sok” in the Chinese characters.” The ordinance confirmed that Dokdo was under the administrative control of Ullung-do. That has been the case since 512.”
You mention Sok Do (Seok Do) on your blog. To what would this name have actually referred?
gbervers,
Have you ever heard of 広開土王碑、the stele of King Gwanggaeto of Goguryeo, erected AD 414. The Korean, Japanese and Chinese historians have been arguing for decades about the interpretation of about 20 chinese characters on the monument which mention the “Japanese” invasion of the Korean penisula. As far as I am concerned, I am much more interested in this issue than in Takeshima/Dokdo.
“The claim that Koreans did not have the freedom to protest because Japan was handling Korea’s affairs is a silly excuse that Koreans use to hide the fact that they did not protest. ”
Now I’ve heard it all. So, Gbevers, Korea was 4 years away from COMPLETE annexation by Japan and was already effectively under Japan’s control by 1905…yet you say it’s a silly claim that Korea did NOT protest Japan’s illegal seizure of Dokdo in 1906??? Man, what have YOU had in your cornflakes today, bevers?
As for the arguments you’ve been having, it seems that Frogmouth and Sonagi have been correcting you but you won’t budge from your stance and admit you were wrong. Some patterns never cease from 9 years ago, eh bevers?
Matt wrote:
“It seems to be simply giving these details as a frame of reference. Could be wrong but I have been on this all day and consulted with others.”
Were they Japanese or Japanophiles like yourself? Were they Korean? Just wondering who “others” were.
Sorry, but I have to point this out.
Gbevers wrote:
“First, 接境 (접경) means ‘on the border,’ not ‘near the the border,’ as you had previously agreed. You can translate it as ‘contiguous to’ or ‘adjacent to’ if you want, but why use convuluted words when you can just say ‘on the border’ since that is what the fisherman was saying?
So Detroit, it could be said, is “on the border” of Canada, or WITH Canada, or even TOUCHING the Canadian border. Does this mean Detroit is legitimately a part of Canada? What is your point, Gbevers?
Mizar,
The 1900 imperial edict making Ulleungdo a county of Gangwon Province said the following in Article 2:
The “whole island” (全島 – 전도) was referring to the main island of Ulleungdo. Jukdo (竹島 – 죽도), of course, was referring to Ulleungdo’s largest neighboring island, which is about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. And Seokdo (石島 – 석도), which means “rock islets,” was a legal catchall phrase used to include all the remaining rocky islets surrounding Ulleungdo.
Japanese historians tend to claim that Seokdo (石島) was referring to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Gwaneumdo (觀音島) since it was Ulleungdo’s second largest neighboring island and since there is a Japanese map that refers to Gwaneumdo by a name that is very similar to the Korean pronunciation of “Seokdo” (石島 – Seokdo), but the problem with that claim is that the name “Seokdo” has never appeared on any Korean map of Ulleungdo or in any Korean document.
Koreans, of course, claim that “Seokdo” (石島 – 석도) was referring to “Dokdo” (獨島) and give an elaborate explanation of how “Seok” (石 – 석 – rock) transformated into “Dok” (獨 – 독 – solitary), but they can provide no evidence of this since Korea had no maps of the island under any name. In fact, in 1901, Korean fishermen were referring to Liancourt Rocks by the Japanese name, not by Seokdo, Dokdo, or any other Korean name.
Then, in 1904, a Japanese ship captain reported that he was told that Korean fishermen were then referring to Liancourt Rocks as “Dokdo” (獨島), which was also the name that the Ulleungdo County Magistrate used in an April 1906 letter to his superiors reporting Japan’s incorporation of Liancourt Rocks.
If “Seokdo” (石島 – 석도) was the official name of Dokdo in 1900, why did Ulleungdo’s County magistrate use the name “Dokdo” (獨島 – 독도) when he reported to his superiors about Liancourt Rocks’s incorporation in 1906?
Also, if Ulleungdo’s county magistrate and his superiors were using the name Dokdo (獨島 – 독도) to refer to Liancourt Rocks in April 1906, why did Korea’s Ministry of Interior not mention “Dokdo” (獨島 – 독도) in its July 1906 reply to the Japanese request to list the neighboring islands of Ulleungdo? The Korean ministry only mentioned “Jukdo” (竹島 – 죽도) and “Seokdo” (石島 – 석도) as being Ulleungdo’s neighboring islands.
The simple truth is that “Dokdo” was not the “Seokdo” in the 1900 edict, and there are no maps or documents to suggest it was. That “Dokdo-was-Seokdo” theory was suggested by a Korean professor named Bang Jong-hyeon (方鍾鉉) in 1947, and now Koreans use it to claim to that the “Seokdo” in the 1900 edict was referring to Dokdo.
The fact that there are no Korean maps or documents, besides the 1900 edict, showing or mentioning the name Seokdo (石島 – 석도) in regard to Ulleungdo suggests that it was not a proper name, but was just a general reference to Ulleungdo’s surrounding rocky islets.
My post on the subject can be found HERE.
Gerry you are wrong on many points as usual.
Seokdo was a “catchall phrase” for a all surrounding rocks of Ulleungdo What a pile of rubbish. There is absolutely no basis for this at all. First if the Koreans included Jukdo, Ulleungdo’s furthest island why would they have to declare a bunch of rocks as part of a county as well.
Seokdo was the only rock island near Ulleungdo that lacked a clear name. We know the Koreans called it Dokdo and Yankdo much as the Japanese did. Up to 1905 the Japanese called Dokdo, Riyangkodo, Yangkokdo, Matsushima and finally Takeshima. It wouldn’t be surprising at all if the Koreans called Dokdo, Seokdo and I have yet to see any clear evidence from anyone to suggest otherwise.
Hanmamy’s site was very critical of your theory.
http://dokdo.naezip.net/DokdoE/DokdoWedgie03-3.htm
The map I gave you shows Ulleungdo-(Japanese name Takeshima) and Matsushima (Dokdo) mapped (traced) in the form of the real Ulleungdo. By your definition Japan excluded Liancourt Rocks (former Matsushima) and knowingly double-mapped Ulleungdo. This is the bullshit explanation dreamed up by Japan’s MOFA to disregard all maps and documents of the mid-19th century that show Japanese considered the islands Korean land.
But that’s another issue. This map was posted to illustrate the definition of 접해있다. This map shows what the term 접해있다 would have meant.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/seibold-temp.jpg
J.K. hit the nail on the head. Whatever term you want to apply to these characters they describe the islands to the east and the limits of Japanese territory as two separate objects and not “joined together” as you almost fanatically insist. Because the Koreans are talking about Japan from a western perspective the island is West of Japan’s territorial border, however this term does not say how near or fat.
Gerry, Korea protested not only through the government but also through local media. Korean newspapers in Seoul also protested Japan’s annexation of the islets.
Frogmouth,
You are being silly again.
Show me a Korean map or document that referred to Liancourt Rocks as “Seokdo” (石島 – 석도). In fact, show me a Korean map or document that referred to Liancourt Rocks by any name before Japan incorporated them in 1905.
They most likely named Jukdo because it was large enough to actually be an island and probably because it was farther away from the main island. The rocky islets were unnamed because they were too many of them and they much closer to Ulleungdo’s shore.
The Korean newspapers just reported the visit of the Japanese official and the county magistrates reply to his superiors, but that is not a protest. Neither Ulleungdo’s county magistrate nor any Korean official protested to Japan. The last thing they told the county magistrate was to investigate further.
Look at this translation of an April 1, 1906 Japanese newspaper article describing the Japanese visit to Ulleungdo.
Can you explain why Ulleungdo’s county magistrate used “Dokdo” instead of “Seokdo” to refer to Liancourt Rocks in an official letter to his superiors?
Can you explain why Korea’s Ministry of Interior did not mention “Dokdo” as being a neighboring island of Ulleungdo in their response to the Japanese request for the names of Ulleungdo’s neighboring islands, even though they had been talking about Dokdo just a few months earlier?
So the red line you drew between the two islands on the map is your proof of the definition of 접해있다?
You forgot to mention the date of the map you linked to, but the island nearer Korea was the non-existent island of Argonaut. Many Japanese believed Argonaut to be Korea’s Ulleungdo, which they called “Takeshima” (竹島), and the real Ulleungdo to be Japan’s Matsushima (松島), which had appeared on many old Japanese maps.
Frogmouth, why don’t you try to answer the questions I asked in this comment instead of just ignoring them.
Gerry, the island to the West on this map says 竹島-鬱陵島. As you know this means Takehima-Ulleungdo, so the Japanese cartographer considered the west island to be Ulleungdo on this map NOT the other as you imply. The island on the right says 松島 as you know this means Matsushima which was the Japanese name for Dokdo since around 1618.
Of course the form is wrong but we know. Japanese national maps never once showed Dokdo in its correct form. Only some private fishing maps did. This map shows Ulleungdo and Dokdo mapped more Westerly, that’s all.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/seibold-temp.jpg
If not, where is Dokdo Gerry? Are you going to sell us this nonsense Japan knowingly drew a phantom island and deliberately omitted Dokdo? Please, can’t you stop regurgitating Japan’s MOFA’s brochure for once Gerry?
The map is a visual reference because you can’t seem to read the dictionary links I’ve given you so I’ll post them again for you. 접해있다 means “adjacent to” and “bordering on”
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/adjacent.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/border.jpg
Gerry, I mentioned already when the Interior Ministry inquired in 1906 they simply parroted Imperial Ordinance 41 which listed Ulleungdo, Jukdo and Seokdo as under Uldo County’s jurisdiction. Then they quoted the dimension of Ulleungdo from old Chosun maps. There was six years time lapse since Ordinance 41 and Japan’s annexation of Dokdo, Gerry who knows why?
Frogmouth,
I know why.
So no Korean maps of documents before 1905 mentioning “Seokdo” or Liancourt Rocks under any name?
Gerry we know Japanese mapped Ulleungdo and Dokdo in more Westerly positions from many other maps.
First if you look at this map you can see that the island in Argonaut’s position is not a ghost at all. It is labelled as Takeshima (竹島) Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) and Matsushima-Dokdo (松島)
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seibold-study8.jpg
Also you can see this map also labelled the island 朝鮮鬱陵島 (Chosun Ulleungdo and 日本竹島 (Japanese Takeshima-Ulleungdo)
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seibold-study2.jpg
And this map also shows the islands labelled as Takeshima (竹島) Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) and Matsushima-Dokdo (松島)
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seibold-study9.jpg
Thus knowing the above we cannot conclude the Japanese omitted Dokdo from their 19th Century maps as you and your Takeshima lobbyists have stated Gerry.
Knowing the above, Japanese maps showing Seibold’s positioning of islands that illustrate the islands were perceived as Korean land can be verified as true.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-professor-hosaka.html
Gerry, the Koreans have explained their interpretations of Imperial Ordinance 41 if you have no more a credible one. Too bad.
You are as they say “great at dishing it out” but I don’t see anything original coming from you to give Japan’s claim any more validity. Just denial about Japan’s colonial involvement, highly questionable map interpretation and incorrect agenda tainted translations of historical documents. (as shown above)
What do you say to the maps above? What about the scores of Japanese maps that consistently excluded Liancourt Rocks from Japan?
Or what about these maps?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-kinseki.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-takeshima-incident.html
Frogmouth,
I knew you would not answer the question.
Good night.
Gerry, we’ve proven Kroean cognizance of Liancourt Rocks before 1905 above.
We’ve also confirmed the Japanese consistently excluded the islets from their territory. On top of that, you can see their own maps and documents often placed Liancourt Rocks under Korean territory.
You have to do better than take potshots at Korea’s claim Gerry. If the Japanese want to take Liancourt Rocks they have to put forth a solid case of their own.
At some point Gerry, you have to ask yourself. “Why do Japan’s own records always fail to support their claim to Dokdo?”
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-2.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-3.html
Because Japan thought the islets were Korean.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1890-japanese-limit.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1895-japanese-limit.html
If Takeshima means “bamboo island,” where is all of the bamboo on Dokdo? Were the Japanese talking about Jukdo (竹島) all along and then changed over to Dokdo? Are we sure that Japan wasn’t actually taking Jukdo in 1905?
#219, frogmouth:
“Gerry, we’ve proven Kroean cognizance of Liancourt Rocks before 1905 above.”
Obviously, cognizance is not enough to establish territorial claim. Ancient Koreans were cognizant of the moon but that does not make the moon Korean territory. You have to put the land under control. Can you show that Korea put Dokdo under its control before 1905? Were there any Korean flags on the island? Were there any signs that said “This is Korean territory” on the island?
In addition, Korean Imperial Edict 41 of 1900 does not mention Dokdo. This fact is the decisive evidence that Dokdo did not belong to Korea at that time.
#221, NES:
“Are we sure that Japan wasn’t actually taking Jukdo in 1905?”
In the 1905 declaration, the longitude and latitude of Takeshima was mentioned. We can be fairly sure that Takeshima is Dokdo.
J there was no “announcement” by Japan in 1905. There was a minuscule ad in the second page of a local newspaper. In fact in Japan’s so-called “announcement” there wasn’t any mention of either Liancourt Rocks (the internationally known name) or Matsushima (Japan’s former name) when Japan annexed the islet.
This was identical as the clandestine manner in which Japan incorporated Marcus Island. Because Marcus Island was also annexed silently this lead to the U.S. and Japan almost having a military altercation and it the diplomacy was handled by Komura Jutaro. In other words, the Japanese government knew full well annexing Liancourt Rocks and using only the bare minimum of publicity they could annex the island “legally” but at the same time not attract the attention of other foreign sovereigns.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-marcus-island.html
There was no public announcement beyond a cabinet meeting. International territorial land claims must be handled by the national government, not a prefecture. Prefectural governments have no say in the forum of international politics. Florida could not incorporate Cuba, the U.S. Government must do this.
Koreans say Dokdo is Seokdo. I’ve seen no evidence from Japan otherwise.
Koreans assert Japan announced Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were part of Chosun in 1870. The Japanese say these islands are different ones.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1870doc.html
In other words, you won’t see the boundary of Korea being remapped on Japanese claims or assertions.
frogmouth, lack of notice does not invalidate Japan’s incorporation of Dokdo/Takeshima back in 1905, but just makes it subject to objection.
And Korea had better a valid objection, which I do not think they have.
Anyone with minimal eyesight can see Seokdo is not Dokdo. “Se” is different from “D”. I think “Seokdo is Dokdo” is one of the most stupid arguments Koreans make in their country’s history.
frogmouth, the Japanese document in 1870 does not mean Japan thought Matsushima/Dokdo was Korean territory.
In essence it says,
Question: How and when did Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo) belong to Korea (if at all)?
Answer: There is no document as to Matsushima(Dokdo) to that effect.
The person who questioned was not sure about the status of Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo). The investigator answered that there is no document that imply Matsushima(Dokdo) belonged to Korea.
@224 J
“Anyone with minimal eyesight can see Seokdo is not Dokdo. ‘Se’ is different from ‘D’. I think ‘Seokdo is Dokdo’ is one of the most stupid arguments Koreans make in their country’s history.”
The argument isn’t over telling the difference between letters of the alphabet (or Chinese characters). The Japanese have referred to the Liancourt Rocks as Riyangkodo, Yangkokdo, Matsushima, and Takeshima. Thus, the argument is that Koreans used two different names, which is two times less than the four Japanese names.
Frogmouth (Steve Barber) said:
What silly logic! It is Koreans who are making the claim, so they are the ones who must prove it.
An example of Frogmouth’s logic would be like my saying Martians live in cities under the surface of Mars and I have seen no evidence from anyone to prove otherwise. Just silly.
There is not one piece of evidence that Koreans used “Seokdo” (石島) to refer to Liancourt Rocks, but there is evidence that they used the Japanese name for the rocks in 1901 and the name “Dokdo” (獨島) in 1904, which is evidence against the claim that they referred to the rocks as “Seokdo.”
Even Ulleungdo’s County magistrate used “Dokdo,” not Seokdo, when he referred to Liancourt Rocks in 1906.
The simple fact is that there is no evidence that Koreans visited Liancourt Rocks before Japanese fishing boats started taking them there in the early 1900s, which is almost certainly why they started out using the Japanese name for the rocks, since they did not have one of their own.
That is why Frogmouth cannot show us even one Korean map that shows Liancourt Rocks or a Korean document that shows Koreans ever traveled there. Instead, he wants us to prove that they didn’t go there.
If “Takeshima” was already part of Japan and made up its border in the past, then why did Japan claim it in 1905 and why did they “give Korea a chance to protest Japan’s claim to ‘Takeshima?’” This doesn’t make much sense to me, Bevers. Why claim land you own and give a foreign country a chance to counter that claim? The timing is suspect given the 1910 annexation of Korea. It seems like a prelude to invasion where they were testing the water (no pun intended).
Also, it’s interesting that Japan contends that Korea does not have any historical claim to Dokdo after burning the Korean historical archives and rewriting Korean history during the occupation. It’s almost like how the mafia takes care of witnesses before trial.
Are there any other instances of Koreans using “Seokdo” to describe small rocky islets around larger Korean land masses? If not, then “Seokdo” would seem to refer to a specific place.
Given that the Japanese have had 4 different names for Liancourt Rocks, it is not unreasonable that the Koreans could have had other names as well before one was formalized.
#227
You nailed it Gerry. Isn’t it funny that it’s always the Japanese that has to prove Seokdo is not Dokdo when it should be that Korea has to prove Seokdo is Dokdo?
#229
Unless you show us an old Korean document that explains “Seokdo” is another name for “Dokdo”, or, documents giving details of “Seokdo” which leaves little doubt it means present-day “Dokdo” (such as: how to get there, what lives there, what does the island look like, etc.), it’s not good enough.
@231
I agree that it isn’t concrete proof as is, not that it matters in the big picture given current possession. Although, they might have been able to show you that old Korean document if you guys hadn’t burned them all.
Oh, and one thing that doesn’t seem abundant on “Takeshima” is bamboo…
The two countries are also at odds over territorial claims to a group of small islands, Dokdo in the East Sea of Korea controlled by South Korea.
Japan, which calls them Takeshima, seized the islands in 1905, when it imposed 35 years of harsh colonial rule on the Korean peninsula.
So Dokdo belongs to Korea.
And japan have to reflection!!!
@233 KIM JE IN
That is an illogical, simplistic argument. You are helping the Japanese point of view more by making Koreans look silly.
“Although, they might have been able to show you that old Korean document if you guys hadn’t burned them all.”
As if that constitutes an argument at all. Kind of reminds me of UFO advocates.
Gerry you’ve got it backwards old man.
Korea owns the islands. If Japan wants to kick the Koreans out they’ve got to prove valid ownership.
Unfortunately, Japanese maps and document either show the islets as not part of Japan or show them as Korean.
Japan has to do a better job of proving their own case before they can think of adding Dokdo Islands to the 4,500,000 square kms of EEZ they greedily claim.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-not-japanese-2.html
Frogmouth:
Is that all you care about? “Dokdo”? How come I don’t see you in other threads?
Yo Squatch,
Why not ask the same question to Gbevers. The PROPORTION of his comments that are about Dokdo (even if the thread on which he is writing is about some other topic) is RIDICULOUS.
Good point, Frogmouth.
So Gevers, Japan cannot prove it ever legitimately owned Dokdo…and yet Japan wants to claim it now even though Korea owns it. Hm….the Japanese are gonna have to do better than that!
gbevers: “Frogmouth (Steve Barber) said:’Koreans say Dokdo is Seokdo. I’ve seen no evidence from Japan otherwise.’What silly logic! It is Koreans who are making the claim, so they are the ones who must prove it. An example of Frogmouth’s logic would be like my saying Martians live in cities under the surface of Mars and I have seen no evidence from anyone to prove otherwise. Just silly.”
This is called negative proof. I’m still waiting to read a single coherent logical argument to prove Korea’s supposed historical claims over Dokdo. Instead all we seem to get are fallacious anti-Japanese rants.
NES (#232),
Last year I saw a Pohang KBS Documentary on Ulleungdo Inspector Lee Gyu-won. As part of the documentary, they went to a place called Daepungheon (待風軒) in Uljin County, where Ulleungdo inspectors during the Joseon dynasty used to go to wait for calm seas and a fair wind that would take them to Ulleungdo. The building there is the same building they used more than 150 years ago. It is supposed to be, at least, 150 years old since there is a sign on it that says it was restored in 1851. Now I think is used as a kind of community center for old people.
Anyway, in the KBS interview, one of the men there showed the interviewer several copies of old records from back in the Joseon Dynasty on the inspections. The old man said they used to have many more records, but government officials came there a few decades ago and burned most of them. They were not Japanese government officials; they were Korean.
Do you have any similar stories related to the Japanese buring historic documents related to Ulleungdo or Dokdo?
And I see no one can address #239.
You must log in to post a comment.