Retired professor Choi Yearn-hong discusses the rise of Korean-American power and its influence on the Dokdo and East Sea issues:
Korean-American power is now emerging to correct the name of the sea between Japan and Korea and the sovereignty of Dokdo islets. Power is measured by influence.
Korean-American power is influencing local school boards, local councils and the state legislatures to accept the joint use of the terms East Sea and Sea of Japan and Korea’s undisputed sovereignty of the Dokdo islets.
Local and state politicians are enlightened by Korean-American influence on the issues of the unknown sea and islets. American people are the least educated on international affairs, especially on East Asian affairs.
They need education on these. Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin did not know how to distinguish Africa as a continent and a nation. This is just one good example.
On behalf of melanin-deficient Americans, let me thank my Korean-American brothers and sisters for educating me about these issues so critical to American interests in East Asia.
You can read the rest on your own, but I have to admit, this bit was both funny and unnerving:
I met and briefed newly elected congressman Jerry Connolly, from my district, who was chairman of Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, on the sea name and Dokdo. I said, “You will receive Korean-American voters’ support as long as you have a firm commitment to defending the dual sea name and the sovereignty of Dokdo.
“International free trade and mutual defense between the U.S. and Korea will be your next choice. But the name of the sea and the islet are imminent concerns of all Korean-American people.”
Dokdo Uber Alles!
{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }
Yes, and 7 out of 10 children I asked to identify Korea on a world map pointed to India. HURRAH!
But Dokdo is big enough to merit a mention on the TV weather reports. so it must be important then.
The obvious solution is to finally give Dokdo the respect it so rightly deserves – Korea needs a new and better name – Dokdoland.
Is that not the name of the theme park on Dokdo?
Eventually the Dokdo issue will be settled. I mean, weather erosion is still a natural process, right?
Can you believe how deficient American schools must be that Americans don’t even know what a Dokdo is? Even after that song about meeting the magical seagulls or something? Unbelievable. It’s almost as if the word “dokdo” means nothing to Americans at all.
You know, Korean Americans do have some sway in government. I have a specific example. Back when some groups were trying to pass the comfort women resolution (not just Korean groups mind you were in support of it) in 2006 there was a drive to see how certain congressman stood.
I heard this story when I was a member of the Korean American Coalition. Any ways, one congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of Huntington Beach, was known for taking money from Japanese lobbies. Thus he was the only member of the Foreign Affairs Committee to openly declare he would oppose the resolution. Well, three attorneys from the Korean American Coalition paid Mr. Rohrabacher a visit and in a short afternoon Rohrabacher “realized” the errors of his ways and reversed course.
It also helped that another member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Royce, had a huge Korean American constituency…
I always get a special tickle whenever the barbarians’ wrong behaviours are corrected.
Special note to Choi Yearn-hong: Dude, seriously. Get a grip. WE DON’T F*CKING CARE!
I got a kick out of this:
“However, many American people, including so-called intellectuals, think Dokdo is a disputed islet between Korea and Japan.”
Gee, how could they possibly get this impression, what with Koreans dismembering pinkies, drawing and quartering live swine, throwing rocks at Tsushimese temples, killing pheasants and all other manner of asshattery over these rocks that are currently SAFELY IN THEIR POSSESSION?
I forgot “eating Japanese flags.”
For all the snide comments and jokes about Dokdo from foreigners (including myself), it is past time for folks to take a moment and do some minor due diligence on a topic that most foreigners are actually under informed, namely of course, Dokdo.
The RAS has an upcoming lecture that may or may not change anyone’s final opinions on the topic, but it WILL leave everyone much better informed. Here is the official RAS announcement for Marmot’s Holers:
Tues. February 24, 2009,
RAS Lecture Meeting
Dr. Kim, Yongdeok
7:30 p.m 2nd floor, Residents lounge
Somerset Palace, Seoul
History and Justice – Approaches to the Dokdo Island Issue
The dispute between Korea and Japan concerning Dokdo Island is especially difficult for outsiders to understand. The highly emotional, nationalistic rhetoric often used by both sides provides no objective basis for an informed opinion. Many have gained the impression that there exists no such objective, factual basis and that they should take sides in the dispute simply on the basis of their own instinctive liking for one or the other country.
Among scholars of history and law in Japan and Korea, there has long been controversy surrounding their differing ways of seeing the history of Dokdo and of applying the system of international law to it. Yet all agree that accurate history must of course be based on historical facts, which are established by reference to concrete evidence as to what really happened in the past. Accurate historical research leads to correct history, which in turn supports right legal judgment and the establishment of justice.
Our speaker, Professor Kim Yongdeok, is one of the most respected Korean scholars of Japanese history, and of the history of relations between Japan and Korea. He has long advocated a reasoned dialogue in place of impassioned rhetoric in order to resolve the Dokdo issue. His opinion is that although there is plentiful evidence in support of the Korean claims to sovereignty over Dokdo among Korean sources, the most persuasive way to convince any third party and the international community at large will be to invoke foreign sources, including Japanese documents, about Dokdo (Takeshima in Japanese) to support the claims made by Korea. He will explain the Korean position in the current dispute, not by making use of Korean sources, or mere rhetoric, but by referring to Japanese and other foreign sources and employing a logic based entirely on historical evidence and the rules of international law.
Kim Yongdeok has been the President of the Northeast Asian History Foundation, Seoul, since 2006. He received his B.A and M.A in history from Seoul National University before going to Harvard, where he received a Ph.D. in history in 1979. From 1980 until his retirement in 2008 he was a Professor in the Department of History at Seoul National University. During that time he served as President of the (Korean) Association of Japanese History Research (1996-1998), as President of the Korean Historical Association (1999-2000), as Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University (2003-2006), as Director of the Institute for Japanese Studies, Seoul National University (2004-2006). He has published a number of books and articles on Japanese history and on the relations between Japan and Korea.
Will gbevers be there?
Last time I heard he was buying a block of land in Texas and fortifying it.
If Gerry shows up please record it. And post it.
Please.
tom coyner:
just to add s th to your ‘announcement’:
President Kim and the NE Asia History Found also
organized last year’s ‘Dokdo Essay Contest’, one
of the most laughable attempts to increase awareness
of the Dokdo issue in other countries (who probably
don t care anyway).
give me break, this guy should have more
credibility than other “highly respected scholars”?
he wrote several columns in the KH, pretty
boring stuff, nothing new. what makes you believe that “he will leave everybody much better informed”.
(note: i don t take sides in this dispute)
Here’s a thought. If the upcoming North Korean test were to misfire, like the first one, and the missile were to go off course and hit, say, two shit-encrusted islets in the Sea of Japan (a Baduk-like prediction, bless him), thus destroying them, I would die of happiness.
And yet I wonder if the VANKers and the esteemed Doctor Kim, mentioned above, would not then continue by arguing for post factum rights to a Dokdo that no longer existed. They’d have to channel their overheated nationalism somewhere.
Nothing would surprise me at this point.
What breakthrough research of the Dokdo Takeshima dispute has Gerry Bevers that gives him the credibility to bash a Harvard History grad?
Pretty much everything Mr Bevers has posted has been either misleading or outright wrong. Recently his “study” of the issue consists of little more than taking sarcastic potshots or writing weird songs.
Mr Bevers started his blog to “discuss” the Dokdo issue. Now it’s little more than a forum for Japanese right wing lobbyists to translate the slanted rants of Shimane Prefecture’s Takeshima activists like “Professor” Shimojo. Equally shabby are the bizarre historical map interpretations made by Mr Bevers’ colleagues.
I think Gerry started out with some valid points. However, as everyone’s research into the issue deepened the truth caught up with him. Because Mr Bevers sold out by strictly adhering to every syllable Japan’s MOFA stated, he has little credibility.
eujin, me thinks gbevers will be at Dr. Kim’s lecture with plenty of “questions.”
red sparrow,
I don’t know if my example could be interpreted that way. Rohrabacher’s office requested that whoever we send were actual consituents of his district. They were. They were probably expecting some Korean older people who could barely speak English to come. They were not. It turns out that the people we sent were not only American citizens, but attorneys, with a political background, who were born in the states, thus fully fluent in English and fully cognizant of the American political process and the special “motivations” that are effective towards influencing elected officials. Giving us autographed pictures of himself wasn’t going to do the trick.
Rohrabacher, as it turns out, was working directly with the Japanese Embassy to be the major point man for blocking the resolution within the Foreign Affairs committee.
“Yes, and 7 out of 10 children I asked to identify Korea on a world map pointed to India. HURRAH!
But Dokdo is big enough to merit a mention on the TV weather reports. so it must be important then.”
I assume that you mean children in Korea? Did the other three point to Russia, like they have in my classes?
I should add that the children in mind were all at in at least the fifth grade.
I should add that the children in question were all at in at least the fifth grade.
Yes, children in Korea. Kids at home would probably point to Thailand. But they sure as shit would know where the UK is! And we’re not even that patriotic.
However, we were when the whole Falkand Islands thang kicked off in 1982. But only after the Argentine invaded. Before that we didn’t really give a shit, though the government apparently did. Quiet diplomacy was the key, and when the islands were invaded, we had the moral upper hand, and could claim (and got) sympathy and support.
On the other hand, Argentina was whipped into a patriotic frenzy, and the streets of Buenos Aires were packed with Argentinians demonstrating against the UK. But then they had a fascist junta pulling the strings, and facilitating at state level, this patriotic fervour.
Recently, a visiting delegation to Mrs Scotty’s school were deliberately walked by a collage of Dokdo inspired posters, with the usual “Japan, you are die” sentiments. The visiting delegates were from Japan. Nice!
Show me an example when the Korean community got informed and rallied support for any given side in an international land dispute. Cyprus for example (a dispute many would consider to be at least marginally more important than silly Dokdo).
Korea is just being a pathetic attention whore with this Dokdo nonsense and trying to brow-beat the Japs with an argument that amounts to little more than “my dad can beat up your dad”. F*cken childish. And the next time I hear someone tell me I have to support Korea because otherwise I have many wrong behaviours, I will beat them about the head and shoulders with a sack of Jeju oranges.
The Koreans and Japanese have turned the issue into an overly emotional, nationalist farce and neither side deserves the support of the international community. Settle this idiotic sandbox argument among yourselves and leave the rest of us out of it.
I should add that the other three correctly identified 우리 대한민국. I was real proud of them. Just find it ironic that some guy is banging on about Americans’ ignorance of world geography,and shock horror that noone is aware of Dokdo, when Korean kids can’t point to their own country.
Tom Coyner wrote (#10),
Thanks for posting that announcement, but I doubt people will leave the lecture “much better informed”:
Professor Kim will simply repeat the distortions and lies that Koreans have been telling about Dokdo for years. The only difference is that he will focus on Japanese and Western sources, which will allow him to avoid being put in the embarrassing position of trying to explain why Korea has no old maps of Dokdo, by any name, and why there is no evidence anywhere of Koreans ever going to Dokdo before Japanese fishing boats started taking them there in the early 1900s.
Professor Kim will most rely on the name confusion caused by the mismapping of Ulleungdo by the the British ship “Argonaut” in 1789, which caused the Japanese and others to start referring to the non-existent island of Argonaut as “Takeshima,” which, at the time, was the Japanese name for Ulleungdo. As a consequence, people started referring to the real Ulleungdo as “Matsushima,” which, at the time, was the name the Japanese used to refer to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).
Even the Japanese relied on the mismapped Western maps of the 1800s because Japanese were prohibited to travel to Ulleungdo since a territorial dispute with Korea over Ulleungdo in the 1690s. That dispute resulted in Japan recognizing Korea’s claim over Ulleungdo (Takeshima). It was not until a Japanese ship was sent to Ulleungdo in 1880 that the Japanese finally realized that Ulleungdo was being referred to as “Matushushima” instead of the old name of “Takeshima.” After that discovery, the Japanese decided to continue to use Matsushima to refer to Ulleungdo and “Liancourt Rocks” to refer to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).
Yes, it is a little confusing, but Korea uses that confusion, assumptions, and people’s ignorance about the history to make their claims on Dokdo. The problem for Korea is that Korea’s own maps and documents disprove their claims, which is most likely why the professor will be ignoring Korean sources.
I want to visit Dokdoland. Is this a resort island in the Sea of Japan?
To earth_visitor and others:
Professor Kim Yong Duk’s presentations and articles always use well documented references to support his presentations, backed up by a decades-long respectable record as an historical academician.
If you want to make a valid point you should state who you really are and back up your opinion with valid arguments supported with reliable references and documentation and avoid phrases like, “… give me a break” and characterizing the essay contest as “laughable.”
It is often bloggers like yourself (claiming to be neutral on the subject) who lack any credibility, not serious academicians like Professor Kim Yong-Duk.
Tom,
Ignore those dipshits — they are here not for an intercourse, but for a masturbation.
Tom Coyner (#27) wrote:
If Professor Kim is claiming that Korea had historic claim to Dokdo, then he sucks as a historian, or else he is simply willing to sacrifice his “respectable record” as an historian in the case of Dokdo for the benefit of the motherland.
Korean historians have little choice but to support Korea’s historical claims to Dokdo because they would risk ostracism if they did otherwise.
In my opinion, there are no “respectable” Korean historians because if there were, they would have already stood up and admitted that Korea’s historical claims to Dokdo are bullshit.
I suspect that there will be few, if any, foreign members of Korea’s RAS who know enough about the history of Dokdo to be able to catch Professor Kim when he starts using his slight-of-hand historical explanations.
Tom, what would a non-RAS member have to do to be able to attend the lecture? I am not an eloquent speaker, but if there is a Q&A after his bullshit presentation, I would like to attend to be able to ask Professor Kim a couple of embarrassing questions.
That’s what I love about Bevers — his unerring commitment to balance.
[cough] RAS lectures are open [cough]
Holy crap. Can someone give gbevers all the information he needs, then take a camcorder and record him asking “Professor Kim a couple of embarrassing questions.”, then post it online for the rest of us? Pretty please? I have a feeling it’ll be a great sketch comedy, only it’s real life.
Is this really it, Gerry? High-noon showdown? Are you gonna get all your ducks in a row and put them all on the line? If you’re in, I, for one, will arrange a babysitter and be there with bells on; and don’t worry bum, vidcam in hand.
So gbevers, you’re saying that Korea took Japanese land? Good! Oh, the humilation for the Japanese that Koreans currently OWN Japanese territory!!! Let’s call it a reparation for Japan’s unjust colonial rule of Korea. Next up, TOKYO.
Alas, you’ve failed to prove anything, gbevers, except to say that any historian that disagrees with your opinion “sucks”, which isn’t really much of a credible argument that YOU are right.
Frogmouth, WELL-SAID in #16!!
Tom, what would a non-RAS member have to do to be able to attend the lecture? I am not an eloquent speaker, but if there is a Q&A after his bullshit presentation, I would like to attend to be able to ask Professor Kim a couple of embarrassing questions.
I’d really like to see that. Not because I’m so interested in Dokto itself but I enjoy seeing public debate.
Children, children…
The purpose of this upcoming RAS lecture is not to prove one country is right, but simply to explain why the Dokdo issue is actually important to the surrounding nations in NE Asia and their allies.
Now, if you want to take sides before or after the lecture, that is your personal business, but actually the RAS (and most people) couldn’t really give a flying f**k what most bloggers may think.
The RAS is there to inform and to let the general public draw their own conclusions.
And, yes, the lectures are open up to the entire public. We just ask non-RAS members to each consider donating W5,000 to attend the lecture.
Afterwords, we meet for cheap beer and pasta at a near-by restaurant (Jacob) where we are free to hash out the pros and cons of the lecture or whatever to everyone’s hearts’ content.
In any case, if you plan to attend, be sure to be on time (7:30 PM) or earlier, as we are starting to get close to or over 100 people per lecture, which comes down to standing room only for late arrivals.
So, Irasshaimase! (Takeshima-speak for oseoshipseyeo!)or “y’all don’t be late, now!”
Tom Coyner
VP, RAS, Korea Branch
Gerry Bevers, you’ve got more nerve than a toothache to bash any Korean Professor for his interpretations of historical records. You are the one who regurgitates Japan’s MOFA’s rubbish to the letter.
Koreans documents do not dispute their claim to Dokdo at all. Koreans knew about Dokdo for hundreds of years before Japan annexed the islets.
In fact, the recently translated Ulleungdo Sa-jeok from 1694 shows a few things.
http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10015299795
First, Koreans considered Japanese incursions into the Ulleungdo region an invasion even before the Shogunate “ceded” the Ulleungdo in 1695.
Second, Dokdo was visible from Ulleungdo and was known to Chosun.
But most importantly Jang Han Sang reported although he saw Dokdo he did not see Japan. This means the island was within the realm of Korea and separate from Japan.
On it’s own, this Korean record kills Japan’s historical claim. Combined with Japan’s Dottori inquiry to the Shogunate, and Hachiemon’s Takeshima (Ulleungdo) trespassing records, we know Dokdo was Korean land.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-takeshima-incident.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-tottori.html
Gerry this so-called “mapping confusion” didn’t start until at the earliest 1840 when Seibold copied European and Japanese maps. It really didn’t effect Japanese maps until the mid 1860′s. Saying the nation of Japan was collectively under the spell of Seibold’s error is misleading at best. It’s a pretty convenient way for Japanese “professors” to attempt to disregard reams of data that either exclude Dokdo from Japan or show the islets as Korean.
See here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seibold-study6.jpg
There are two interpretation of these maps.
The Korean side interprets these maps as showing Ulleungdo (竹島) and Dokdo (松) in more Westerly locations. This can be confirmed by Japanese maps that often show Ulleungdo labelled as both 鬱陵島 (Ulleungdo) and 竹島 (Takeshima). A common example is found below. Although the Japanese cartographer copied the form of Ulleungdo it is labelled as Dokdo (松島) the real Ulleundo is labelled as such and no other islands exist in the East Sea.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seibold-study8.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seibold-study2.jpg
So in reality with regard to Meiji Era Japanese cartography, despite the confusing origin of these mapping errors, the only real mistakes that resulted were errors of location and form of Ulleungdo and Dokdo and a handful of freakish maps showing three islands.
The Japanese side asserts Japanese map makers knowingly double mapped Ulleungdo and omitted Dokdo island on basically all maps of the 19th Century Meiji Era. Very few Japanese maps even show the name Liancourt Rocks. This can’t be supported.
Considering the Japanese consistently mapped Ulleungdo as 竹島 and Dokdo as 松島 for around 150 years prior the Japanese interpretation doesn’t make sense at all. In addition there is absolutely no proof at all the Japanese government was so confused in the vital records such as the 1877 Inquiry to the Dajokan and the 1870 Secret Report on Chosun. Just Japanese MOFAs bizarre excuses.
Tom Coyner wrote (#37):
If you really believe that Professor Kim is not there to try to prove Korea’s claim, then you are the naive child here, which probably qualifies you to be VP of RAS, at least, in the eyes of Koreans. By the way, you contradict your own ad for the lecture, which states the following:
If your own ad for the lecture is true, then Professor Kim is there to try to prove Korea’s claim, not to simply “explain why the Dokdo issue is actually important to the surrounding nations in NE Asia and their allies.”
Tom Coyner also wrote:
If true, then that comment shows the ignorance and arrogance of Korea’s RAS members.
Tom Coyner also wrote:
If the RAS were really there just to inform, then you would have arranged for the “general public” to hear both sides of the Dokdo issue. In this case, however, RAS is simply there to help promote Korea’s Dokdo propaganda.
Are you saying there is no Q&A with Professor Kim after his lecture?
The Professor and Gerry – who will go the distance?
As a member of RAS I can assure you that we are not so arrogant and ignorant as you (Mr. Bevers) believe. I think, however, that your approach to this lecture is completely wrong. The lecture is there to inform and is given as the opinion of the speaker, not of the RAS. Will the issue of Dokdo be settled by Prof. Kim’s lecture, absolutely not, but it will be nonetheless informative. Your accusation of the RAS promoting Korea’s Dokdo propaganda is insulting at best. As for Q&A with the speaker – yes, there is, but this is not a forum for you to bring your own soapbox and berate the speaker for his views. While I am truly impressed with your research and your writings, though I do not agree with them all, I find your posting on this thread childish and confrontative. I personally would enjoy seeing you at the lecture and after the lecture hearing your views over a couple of beers providing that you could do so civilly.
I trust that I will see you there.
Mr Neff, if you like the “research” of Mr Bevers then you are easily impressed.
Mr Bevers you don’t have to slog your sorry ass all the way to Somerset Palace to be discredited. Just keep posting your slanted trash here and I’d be glad to set you straight. Anytime.
Gerry Bevers appearance at this speech would be little more than a publicity stunt. It’s a diversion, but as we’ve seen on this forum numerous times, Mr Bevers doesn’t deliver the goods on many key points of Dokdo Takeshima dispute.
BTW Gerry, every time I try to post on your “open discussion” forum of your blog, my ID suddenly gets highjacked and I can no longer log in. Why could this be..? Hmmmm…..
You should deal with this technical glitch so I can openly discuss on your forum and help you and your “historians” know the truth about Dokdo Takeshima!!
After all, as your blog says, “You have a right to know…” Right Gerry…? LOL
Robert Neff wrote:
That’s good to know. Then, would the Korea’s RAS be willing to invite a speaker that supports Japan’s historic claims to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) since your lectures are supposedly just to inform? By the way, the ignorance and arrogance was not what I believed, but what Tom Coyner implied about RAS, which is why I wrote, “If true.”
Just to clarify two points from the above discussion:
1. We at the RAS really don’t care what anyone thinks, simply because we are not trying to evangelize. For us to be arrogant is to assume we are taking a firm position on any topic. We are not. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and to draw their own conclusions. We are just trying to inform, which is not to say a single lecture by itself is going to be able to handle all aspects of a given topic.
2. There is a Q&A session following each lecture. And, if the speaker is willing and able, we have informal discussions with the speaker at the Jacob restaurant, following the formal RAS meeting.
Frogmouth,
Whatever the technical glitch is, it also affects me because I can no longer post to my blog. In fact, no posts are currently appearing on my blog (http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/).
Since my blog seems to have been sabotaged, it appears that some people do not share our “right to know” philosophy.
As for the passage from the “Ulleungdo Sajeok,” which you mentioned above, I think the Koreans may have mistranslated the passage.
The relevant passage was as follows:
The Korean translation is as follows:
The Korea Maritime Institute claims that the above passage is evidence that Jang Han-sang considered the distant island he saw faintly to the southeast of Ulleungdo to be Korean territory, not Japanese, since the above passage said no islands could be seen when looking at Japanese land.
I have two problems with the Korean claim. First, it does not make sense logically. Inspector Han had previously said he saw an island far off to the southeast of Ulleungdo that he judged to be less than one third the size of Ulleungdo and about 120 kilometers away. The unnamed island he saw had to be Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). Since Liancourt Rocks is only about one 390th the size of Ulleungdo, not one third, and since it is only ninety-two kilometers away, not 120 kilometers, we know that Han did not go to the island and that the island was unknown to him. Therefore, he could not have known if the island was Japanese or not.
The second problem I have with the Korean claim is the Korean translation of the above passage. Why would the Korean inspector use the characters 之島 if he did not see an island? The sentence construction does not make sense to me. Therefore, I think the phrase 杳茫無眼杓之島 was describing the island the inspector had seen to the southeast of Ulleungdo, which would mean that the above passage is evidence that the inspector considered the island to be Japanese since he said he was looking at Japanese land.
I think 杳茫無眼杓之島 could be translated as “distant, indistinguishable island.” Therefore, I would like to suggest the following translation of the above passage:
Frogmouth wrote:
Steve,
Before the Japanese started taking Koreans to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) in the early 1900s, there were only two references to the Rocks in all of Korean history, and both references referred to them in relation to Japanese territory. The first reference was in 1694, when Inspector Jang Han-sang reported seeing a distance island to the southeast of Ulleungdo that he guessed to be about one third the size of Ulleungdo and about 120 kilometers away. In the document’s summary of the Japanese threat, Inspector Han wrote the following:
So that you can set me straight, I will help you out with the Chinese, which breaks down as follows:
The second reference to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) in Korean history appeared in a 1714 document. The reference was as follows:
Have a nice day, Steve.
Gerry you state in your translation “…there IS an island…” You are adding the character “exists” where it says no such thing. You are also pulling the word “unimposing” out of your arse as well. You are trying to slyly infer the island was slightly visible when the character says NOT striking the eye or visible at all.
You are ignoring the character “없을 無“ this can only be interpreted as “not exist or totally lacking” It is a negative modifier in this context. Jang is saying something does not exist or is not there. It’s similar to ~less (suffix) OR in~ un~ without~ (prefix) in English.
“없을 無“ is placed in front of objects to indicate they are not present or non-existant.
무명 (無名) nameless.
무심 (無心) careless
무안표 (無眼杓) not visible
Thus the phrase is: “…There didn’t exist/wasn’t an eyecatching (visible) island, NOT there was an island that did not catch the eye.You’re saying Jang Han Sang saw an invisible island. Again this character 무 “없을 無“ is a negative modifier to describe a total lack of something. In this case meaning visibility
“dark and distant, visible landmark(s) nor/and islands did NOT exist” So its (Japan’s) distance could not be determined…”
OR
“NO landmark islands were visible. So its (Japan’s) distance could not be determined…”
Jang Han Sang was concerned about how far away Japan was, NOT a tiny rock. His inspection was done because Chosun had heard Ulleungdo had been invaded (see page one) Chosun was concerned about attacks from Japan not from a tiny rock Jang perceived as LESS THAN 3kms across.
Also Gerry your translation doesn’t work when we read all of Jang Han Sang’s report. He had already stated on page six the distance to Dokdo was “NOT EVEN 300 ri” Jang wouldn’t say he couldn’t estimate the distance of Dokdo after he already had. You are contradicting the rest of Jang’s report. So, your translation is out of context with the rest of the Ulleungdo Sa-jeok. Note, the way Jang states this also shows he didn’t really think Dokdo Island was that far. Jang says NOT EVEN 300 ri.
He also estimated the size of the island as about one third of Ulleungdo which isn’t really that bad for simply eyeballing it. So he was close enough to Dokdo to even give a reasonably accurate assessment of its size. This is very difficult at sea when there a no other objects for comparative reference so Jang Han Sang had a very good look at Dokdo.
The translation at Mr Cho’s website was done by a professional translation service. Initially a Japanese translator was very eager to translate this record. After a quick look he quickly declined and stated he didn’t want to damage Japan’s claim. Go figure.
The 1714 Record is explained here Gerry. We know the Japanese had already concluded Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not part of Japan in 1695 by the Dottori inquiry so aside from your bizarre slanted translations there is no evidence to support Japan thought Dokdo was theirs.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1714-report.html
The people on this forum already agreed Gerry, your translation of the 1714 record doesn’t wash at all. Dokdo Island and Japan’s border are described as separate from each other.
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/07/25/korean-vs-japanese-editorials-on-dokdo/#comments
BTW, the map you inquired about some time ago has been located. It was the another record regarding the Japanese trespassing on Ulleungdo. Here again we see the decision handed down by the Shogunate declared Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean land NOT Japanese.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/banggakdo-cms1530.jpg
Frogmouth (Steve Barber),
You are so full of bullshit.
眼 means “eye” and 杓 means “to pull,” so 眼杓 is the Chinese equivalent of 눈을 끌다, which can be translated as “eye-catching.” Therefore, 無眼杓 means “not eye-catching,” in other words, “small” or “unimposing.” It does not mean “not visible.”
Also, if you used your brain and considered the rest for of the phrase, you would realize that your translation would not make sense.
The phrase was 杳茫無眼杓之島.
杳茫 means “distant and hazy,” and 島 means “island.” The 之 in front of 島 (island) means that the characters in front of 之 will be adjectives describing the island. If we used your translation of 無眼杓 (not visible), the phrase would translate as “a distant and hazy, invisible island,” which does not make sense. An island has to be visible to be “distant and hazy.” However, my translation of “a distant and hazy, unimposing island” does make sense.
I have read all of Jang’s report. In his report, Jang referred to the island twice. The first reference was when he was simply describing Ulleungdo and its surroundings. The second reference was in the final paragraph when he was summarizing the Japanese threat.
In the first reference, Jang said he saw an island to the southeast of Ulleungdo that he guessed to be less than a third the size of Ulleungdo and about about 120 kilometers away. That was only a guess because Liancourt Rocks is much smaller and closer, which tells us that Jang did not go to the island or have knowledge of it. Therefore, he could not be sure of the size and distance.
In the second reference, which is what we are talking about above, Jang said that when he climbed Ulleungdo’s peak and carefully looked at that country’s (Japan’s) territory, there was a distant and hazy (杳茫), unimposing (無眼杓) island (之島), of which the (exact) distance was unknown.
By the way, your “professional translator” BS does not work with me because I have seen Korea’s professional translators intentionally mistranslate documents related to Dokdo. The 1714 document is a very good example.
The National Institute of Korean History translated the passagge from the 1714 document as follows:
The “mutually visible” (相望) was referring to Ulleungdo and the island east of it being visible to each other. It was not referring to a string of islands east of Ulleungdo that stretched to the Japanese border. The reason National Institute of Korean History came up with such a goofy translation was that they did not want to admit that the island visible to the east of Ulleungdo was on the Japanese border.
Here is the correct translation:
鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境
Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that connects to (is on) the Japanese border.
鬱陵之東 (울릉의 동) – east of Ulleung
島嶼相望 (도서 상망) – [an] island[s] is visible
接于倭境 – that connects (接) to (于) the Japeanese (倭) border (境)
Post the document where the “Shogunate declared Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean land.” The map you linked to only shows the places that Japanese were forbiddened to travel to. Japanese fishermen were forbiddened to travel to Liancourt Rocks in 1836 after a fisherman reported he was going to the rocks, but went to Ulleungdo, instead. The Japanese had already been forbiddened to travel to Ulleungdo since the 1690s.
Gerry, Even if I were to accept your translation it would mean “island(s) NOT catching your eye” or not noticeable NOT unimposing. It would be island(s) that don’t catch the eye. Jang Han Sang knew the islands of Japan lay beyond the horizon he was looking for them but nothing grabbed his attention.
In other words, Jang was aware the islands of Japan lay beyond Ulleungdo’s East. Jang Han Sang was trying to determine the distance to Japan NOT a rock. His sentence begins with looking toward that country (Japan)….. And he finishes with “thus the distance (to Japan) not this rock was unknown.
Jang Han Sang had already stated Dokdo was not even 300ri.So as I’ve said, Gerry Jang would say he couldn’t estimate the distance after he had already quite accurately done. Like I’ve stated before Gerry, your translation doesn’t work when we read page 6 of the Ulleungdo Sajeok, Jang Han Sang had already stated the distance to Dokdo. You are merely making a slanted inference.
Jang Han Sang stated the distance to Dokdo was ONLY 300 ri. This means he thought the island was not that far. However, what form of 里 was he using? We know inspectors of this era often used a smaller ri (200ri) Which ri did Jang use?
First Jang states the ocean between Japan and Korea was 3000 ri. Using a 400 meter ri means the East Sea was about 1200kms long which is way off. Using the 200 meter ri we get a distance of 600 kms which is about right. He stated Ulleungdo was around the middle of a 3000 ri ocean, so he was measuring from Gangwan to Japan. For this measurement 200 ri was used
Second Jang describes a path as ” About 50 ri toward the bamboo field from the valley between the East and South extends a path which must have been made by bamboo carriers.” He also states walking 20 North from Seonginbong and then 40 ri to the South from one point of Ulleungdo. Both of these distances are too far to have been using a 400 meter ri. The distances above are (50ri) 20km and (40ri) 16kms respectively, much too far for an island only 10kms across. Remember Jang was only referring to portions of Ulleungdo. Although, Jang estimated the distance of the island to the East (Jukdo) to be 5ri. By a 400 meter ri this is correct but he could have easily estimated 1km.
Knowing the above, Jang Han Sang’s real estimated distance of Dokdo to be around 60kms NOT 120kms as has been thought. This explains why Jang Han Sang states Dokdo was only 300 ri away. He didn’t think Dokdo was far at all. From this fact we can also rule out what you say are the “island(s) that don’t catch the eye” were Dokdo because he said they were very distant.
Gerry, we’ve been over the 1714 document numerous times and whatever spin you put on the translation of 점해있다 it doesn’t work to make the island Japanese. It effectively separates Dokdo from Japanese territory by describing the island and the boundary of Japan as separate.
“leads to” A path leads to a city, but it doesn’t make the path part of the city.
“connects to” a tunnel from New York “connects to” New Jersey. The tunnel is not part of New Jersey.
“adjacent to” A house is “adjacent to” a part. The house is not part of the park.
“Borders on” Korea “borders on” Japan’s boundary Korea is not part of Japan.
So you see Gerry, none of the translations we can imagine for this character can be interpreted to mean Dokdo was Japanese land. Everybody on the Marmots Hole tried to tell you but you are just too arrogant and thick headed to admit it. So if your translations can’t hold up on an expat website what chance to they stand in academic circles Gerry.
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/07/25/korean-vs-japanese-editorials-on-dokdo/#comments
In the 1714 document the local fishermen of Korea’s coastal areas knew of Dokdo. They thought the island was en route to the limits of Japanese territory. They had no exact idea how far Japan was, and they had no concept of a linear boundary. They merely thought Japanese land lay somewhere not far beyond the island East of Ulleungdo.
Gerry, the Hachiemon trial resulted in a ban on Japanese travel to Dokdo. Why?
Because the Shogunate realized the island was Korean territory. This whole incident was about which lands were Korean and Japanese. Hachiemon saw maps with Ulleungdo and Dokdo not coloured and assumed the islands may have been ownerless.
The maps related to the trial say it all. They are color-coded clearly showing Dokdo and Ulleungdo as Korean land. If you have trouble wrapping your head around the concept of red=Korea, yellow=Japan I feel sorry for you. This map was copied in more than one edition with the same color coding meaning it represented more than just one man’s opinion but a government policy regarding Dokdo. Are you trying to say Japanese couldn’t travel to Japanese land? LOL
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/trespass-map.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/banggakdo-cms1530.jpg
Two factors changed Japan’s policy about Dokdo. First the mapping confusion caused some doubt about the status of Dokdo. Second the expansionist policy of colonial Meiji Era made the greedy Japanese leaders expand their empire in all directions. Cleary however, early 20th Century Japanese broke the promises of their ancestors to stay off Chosun land when the annexed Dokdo in 1905. Dokdo was not ownerless, it was Korean.
Here we go again. But at least these guys know how to argue rather than just throw around self-inflated logicical nonsequitors.
Here we go again. But at least these guys know how to argue rather than just throw around self-inflated logicically fallacious nonsequitors.
Frogmouth (Steve Barber) wrote:
Could someone fluent in Bullshit please translate the above paragraph?
You must log in to post a comment.