≡ Menu

‘Comfort women’ madness—and you thought the rape talk in America was infuriating?

First it was Osaka mayor and possibly next Japanese PM Toru Hashimoto.

Then it was Prime Minister Noda. And National Public Safety Commission chairman Jin Matsubara.

Now it’s ex-prime minister Shinzo Abe.

The Yomiuri is also calling for the Japanese government to review the so-called “Kono statement”:

It was reasonable for Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto to call on the government to review the contents of the Kono statement after saying the statement–which was not authorized by the Cabinet–and the 2007 written reply contradict each other. He also said the statement was the “main cause” of Japan-South Korea friction.

The government must take measures to prevent misunderstandings on the comfort women issue from spreading further.

As there is no conclusive evidence that the Imperial Japanese Army forcibly recruited comfort women, the Noda Cabinet should review the Kono statement–a “negative legacy” of Liberal Democratic Party administrations–and explain the government’s stance on the issue to the public and the world in a manner easy to understand.

Serious facepalm.

I’m just going to reprint a comment I left on Facebook:

Without a doubt, the Japanese are whitewashing and would be advised to spend their time acknowledging their past and compensating their victims. Still, part of the reason the Japanese are able to whitewash at all—at least with the comfort women issue—is that many of the details are murky at best, and there’s probably a lot not being talked about on the Korean side, too. The problem is how did the women get from Point A (Korea) to Point B (the comfort stations). From what I’ve seen, it seems this was left largely to local (i.e., Korean) civilian recruiters. The Korean side is reticent to acknowledge this, and instead spins it as if the Japanese Imperial Army was kidnapping women from their homes, for which I’ve seen disappointingly little reliable evidence. The Japanese right seizes upon this to deny the much larger and much more important truth, namely, that the Japanese imperial military created and operated a vast system of rape centers where thousands of largely (but as you pointed out, not exclusively) Korean women were reduced to sexual slavery.

About the author: Just the administrator of this humble blog.

  • Veritas

    Honestly if Korea wants to seriously pursue this case I really think they need to acknowledge their own responsibility as well – or as stated, that the local civilian recruiters had a part to play in this whole incident. Of course, I can understand that blaming the entire incident wholly on the Japanese side is probably more acceptable in many ways, as stated there is very little evidence that was the case. Many Japanese who deny the whole issue seize on this to argue that the comfort women issue is entirely made-up and quite honestly, the current logic provided by the Korean side is the main thing that allows them to do that. They only need to point out that there is very little evidence of Army involvement and voila, therefore comfort women didn’t exist either (as seen in the argument presented by Yomiuri). That, or they simply argue that these women were simple prostitutes who were working on their own free will (which I seriously doubt).

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Robert: “Without a doubt, the Japanese are whitewashing and would be advised to spend their time acknowledging their past and compensating their victims.”

    Doctor: “Please continue, Robert.”

    Robert: “Still, part of the reason the Japanese are able to whitewash at all—at least with the comfort women issue—is that many of the details are murky at best, and there’s probably a lot not being talked about on the Korean side, too.”

    Doctor jots down in his notes, “Very likely patient has multiply personality disorder.”

  • http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

    Gerry starring in the lead role of The Nutty Professor . . .

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

  • bballi bballi Paradise

    The dark side of democracy. Politicians pandering to the right wing Japanese extremists for votes. Unfortunately the silent majority doesn’t seem to vote as often as the far right. So if you want to be elected, or raise your popularity, one way is pander to these nutcases….
    That’s what I see here.

  • AED

    even if the comfort women were all prostitutes who signed up willingly (which seems to be the japanese position when not denying that it didn’t happen), the japanese government is still accountable for systematically abusing these women. that’s not to say that the korean collaborators are off the hook but let’s keep things in perspective here

  • AED

    ^ denying that it happened

  • YangachiBastardo

    The only breathable oxygen the Japanese economy is currently receiving comes from their sales to the rest of Asia, so let’s piss off our biggest Asian trading partners.

    Pure genius

  • hardyandtiny

    Japan can’t have it both ways. When Japan colonized Korea it assumed responsibility of Korea. The Japanese government developed a system, or encouraged an existing system, causing the problem. Japan’s at fault, it was their country and it allowed its citizens to abuse prostitutes.

  • hamel

    Well don’t forget that it was the Japanese, not the Koreans who were exploited.

  • AED

    it’s unfair to label comfort women as prostitutes. were there prosti’s among them? probably. but it’s not hard to imagine girls being sold off by family members or tricked by middle men. some may even (gasp) been abducted. to call them all prostitutes seems dismissive, as if to suggest that they were asking for it. uh no, even if they were, they didnt ask to be sex slaves. they’re all victims.

    sorry for repeating myself but some of the powerful men in japan and apparently some of us here don’t seem to see the bigger picture, so to speak. it’s quite revealing actually

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @9

    Which Koreans were exploited, e.g., the ~800,000(!) Korean middle class men who volunteered for the Japanese Imperial Army before conscription was extended to cover Korea?

    There are an awful lot of self-proclaimed “victims” in this miasma

  • Q

    Those arsehat Japanese politicians are members of Nippon Kaigi (Japan Conference). Japan has been facing many serious internal crisis — dooming ecomony and disasters. No wonder the far rightist movements are recently gaining more traction… The article of San Francisco Chronicle (2001) is still valid in many ways.

  • Q

    Correction: the SFC article was published in Apr. 2002.

  • Pingback: Week Two: South Korea « Current Themes

  • Railwaycharm

    How do you un-fuck a comfort woman? Come-on girls, the Second World War was a long time ago. You are making your nation look foolish by whining about this tired old argument.

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Sperwer,

    Seriously, you need to stop using that. We refuted that a long time ago…

    http://www.rjkoehler.com/2010/08/10/japanese-pm-naoto-kan-apologizes-in-tears-to-korea/#comment-389248

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Railwaycharm,

    Of course because we all know that a woman can just shut down her body after she gets raped, right?

  • TheKorean2

    Sperwer,

    How about the more than 6 million Koreans who were forced into labor and mining camps for the war effort? or the tens of thousands who were massacred?

  • cm

    Seriously, anyone surprised by all this? Not really. They’re just coming clean in public where as before they were speaking in code language to avert trouble.

    But how many times Japan has to apologize before Koreans let this finally go?

    Well…uh… look at it now… Like Koreans told you so.

  • AED

    Sperwer is criticizing the Korean lack of introspection of their own roles in the Japanese war machine. it’s valid. there were indeed many koreans who volunteered to fight for japan. still, i don’t know why he’d frame it the way he did, particularly after my little post on comfort women as victims. very much in poor taste

  • TheKorean2

    Cm, apologizes are meaningless if Japan continues the distortions. Japan has a history of historical revisionism since the late Meiji period.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Railwaycharm: Really, dude?

  • cm

    #20,

    that’s what I meant. But who cares if Japan apologizes or not? It’s meaningless, and useless to keep asking for apology.

  • Railwaycharm

    @15 Wanker 936,
    Why not just blame Bush?
    Marmot,
    The victim mentality of this narrative is tired. What reparation will make-up for a shitty time in history, ancient history.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    The victim mentality of this narrative is tired. What reparation will make-up for a shitty time in history, ancient history.

    Yeah, except it ain’t ancient history—it happened in their lifetimes, and more to the point, to them. And oddly enough, it seems women have a difficult time getting over, so to speak, getting gang raped by a foreign army, especially when leaders of said foreign country continue to make statements aimed at minimizing their responsibility (and that’s being generous. I actually believe the Japanese are using coded language to say something far worse—see Gerry on the Australia prostitution thread). And frankly, the only ones making their country look foolish are Japanese politicians. The UN has released reports telling Japan to take responsibility, and the parliaments of the US, Canada, the Netherlands and EU have passed similar resolutions. If a foreign parliament has passed a resolution telling the comfort women to shut up, I’m unaware of it.

  • cm

    What scares me the most is that every year people like Gerry seem to multiply in numbers. As memory of this period fades, more and more people come forward to take up Japan’s side and cloud the issues.

  • Railwaycharm

    I am not taking Japan’s side on anything. I have read what they did in Nanjing and all over Asia. The Japanese are not going to change their spots. Move on. The Japanese did horrific things to Allied P.O.W’s, do you see them whining for reparations?
    The Koreans need to get past their little dick syndrome and join the grown-ups at the big table. This makes them look small.

  • Veritas

    #5
    As I see it it’s not really about the problem in perspective but rather, as stated, the Korean insistence that the entire system was wholly operated by Japanese (or to be exact, the Japanese military) is counter-productive if they really wanted to solve the issue on comfort women.

    For instance, let’s take a look at the current standoff considering Noda’s remark on comfort women. Many Korean newspapers are criticizing him for denying that they existed – which he does not do. Noda chose his words carefully – he stated that there is no proof that these women were “forcibly abducted” for which, as stated, there is very little proof. I’m not sure whether this is entirely intentional or not but many newspapers such as Chosun Ilbo are criticizing Noda over something he didn’t say, but rather they thought he said.

    This is why I think it’s necessary for the Korean side to admit that there were collaborated within their ranks who made this whole institution possible. By blaming Japan for something they didn’t do in an effort to whitewash their own history, they’re obscuring the real issue here – regardless of HOW they were brought into the system, these women were brought into it, were sent to various comfort stations, and suffered from it. That’s the real issue here.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @19

    What I find tasteless, and dishonest and dishonorable is the manner in which the comfort women have been turned into an iconic abstraction with which Korea tries to obscure historical reality, demonize Japan and stifle discussion through emotional blackmail. The 1965 Normalization Treaty was entered into pursuant to a protocol promulgated years before in the more immediate aftermath of the war that directed the various interested parties to work out bilateral arrangements concerning reparations. One of the principle provisions of that protocol was the proviso that such reparations, insofar as they pertained to individual claims, were to be paid to the affected individuals. That was the basis on which the negotiations between Japan and Korea proceeded until pretty late in the day Korea did an about face and demanded that all Japanese reparations be paid to the Korean state on behalf of the various claimants. Japan argued that individual claims should be settled drectly by payments made directly to individuals, but Korea demurred and made it clear that no conclusion would be reached unless Japan acceded to its demand for payment instead to the Korean govt. Japan finally acceded to the demand, officially reasoning that transferring all the funds to ROKGOV on the understanding of Korea’s apparent willingness to assume responsibility for distribution to the affected individuals – although Japan probably suspected or knew that ROKGOV would not do so. Indeed, it did not and, as is well known, it embezzled all the money intended for individual reparations for state development projects. Given these facts, for Korea to bleat on and on about wanting compensation from Japan for the comfort women (and others) is an act of enormous bad faith, made more grotesque by it’s using the comfort women, whom IT deprived of their just compensation, to try to bully Japan for a new deal.

  • bumfromkorea

    Wow. I haven’t been this disgusted by a comment on this site since the “Man, isn’t it so comforting to know that Korean church youth groups transport their members with the same model of vans that ran off a cliff in Philippines?” and “Someone crashed a ship near San Francisco? Must be a Korean drunk off some soju”.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler
  • bumfromkorea

    Well, at least he’s finally being honest about himself. -_-

  • Creo69

    ” Robert: “Without a doubt, the Japanese are whitewashing and would be advised to spend their time acknowledging their past and compensating their victims.”Doctor: “Please continue, Robert.”Robert: “Still, part of the reason the Japanese are able to whitewash at all—at least with the comfort women issue—is that many of the details are murky at best, and there’s probably a lot not being talked about on the Korean side, too.”Doctor jots down in his notes, “Very likely patient has multiply personality disorder.”

    Say what you want about Gerry, but he is one of the few on this blog who has the skill to get under the Marmot’s fur whenever he so desires. I am starting to think Gerry and The Marmot are one in the same, I just can’t decide which is the dominant personality.

  • YangachiBastardo

    sperwer: you are technically absolutely right. If i was Japan though i would be magnanimous and start quickly developing some kind of special friendship with most countries in Asia, before the Japanese find themselves alone in confronting China, who’s very eager to turn them into their favourite abuse-toy.

    I think Japan suffers from lack of real politik, lack of leadership in general and also still revels in some “Japan is best” delusion.

    Somebody gotta explain to them this is not the 1980′s anymore

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    YB:

    I don’t think there is anything merely “technical” about it; the 65 Treaty is not exactly a “Philadelphia lawyer’s” document. The problem here is in part getting the parties to play by civilized rules. That means complying with them. Korea hasn’t.

    The Japanese did exercise some realpolitik when they entered into the 65 agreement, reasonably expecting some closure and a transition to a “normalized” relationship. Korea has dropped the ball, and given its position on the Asian continent, and its increasingly fractious relationship with the US, while Japan still has the advantage of being a more or less “unsinkable aircraft carrier”, the onus imo is on it to exercise some realpolitik here.

    So Here’s my suggestion for some realpolitik:

    1. Another apology be offered up to the comfort women (and others) unjustly treated and uncompensated.

    2. Compensation be distributed to the individuals involved on the basis of the original amounts aid by Japan pursuant to the 65 Treaty plus market rates of interest between then and now, with individual distributions being made to survivors on a per capita basis as determined as of 1965, with unclaimed proceeds being distributed to foundations to benefit victims of sexual abuse and economic dislocation resulting from the chaebol domination of Korea’s economy (eg., individuals and SMEs).

    3. Korea as the first and principally aggrieved party has the prerogative to decide whether Japan does (1) or (2), while it performs the other; provided that in the event that Korea decides to take what’s behind Door # 2, it has to kick in the the principal amount it received under the 65 Treaty and Japan’s obligation to pay the remainder is subject to its reasonable satisfaction with the apology that Korea makes for its (disgraceful) treatment of its own citizens by giving them the compensation to which they were entitled in 1965. All apologies to be delivered by the respective heads of govt (prime minister and president respectively) on their knees per the Willy Brandt precedent.

    4. The both parties in good faith to get on with the business of confronting the geopolitical challenges confronting them today.

    I’d throw something in re Dokdo/Takeshima too, but maybe that’s a bridge too far; but the rudiments would be an agreement to disagree and a 50/50 compromise on resource allocation. :)

    How’s that for realpolitik?

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    by failing to give them the compensation.

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    ‘I am starting to think Gerry and The Marmot are one in the same, ‘ creo

    i’m sorry to say this but you should be banned for saying such filth. you are comparing a human being to sewage. i can’t think of a worse insult. please don’t ever associate vermin with our species. bevers represents the vile within us. a man who had to pay for tang. need i say more?

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Pot, meet kettle

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    don’t you have some story to tell us about how you beat up a korean guy? pathetic.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    I’m an equal opportunity pugilist, Pow, Pow, when it comes to people who physically assault me.

    What’s pathetic is , well, you and your lack of any distinguishing characteristic but your impotent rage.

  • Creo69

    ” i’m sorry to say this but you should be banned for saying such filth. you are comparing a human being to sewage. i can’t think of a worse insult. please don’t ever associate vermin with our species. bevers represents the vile within us. a man who had to pay for tang. need i say more?”

    We should ban everyone that doesn’t agree with your views…get a sense of humor man. Have you ever met Gerry? Maybe he is The Marmot’s ultimate puppet…come to think of it, more than a few have thought the same of you.

  • AED

    Veritas, Sperwer, i totally agree. I myself have issues with supporting the comfort women protests or even that statue in front of the japanese embassy mainly because it seems that for many of the koreans protesting, the comfort women are just another tool in their ‘hate japan’ campaign. Nobody likes a foreign occupier but to demonize them so and drill that idea into children’s heads just can’t be good for the psyche. as someone else here at the Hole said (sorry i forget who), it’s important to learn history but the lesson should be more about learning from the mistakes of humanity.

    i also happen to think there’s some truth to gbevers’ anecdote about the guy who lived during colonial times. over 35 years, koreans adjusted to japanese rule and for most, life went on. however, the point that gbevers seems to be missing is that koreans lived their lives with the understanding that if you were out of line, you were stamped out. thus to recount some guy having fond memories and conclude that koreans enjoyed japanese rule is way too simplistic and dare i say, just wrong.

    Veritas, when i said to keep things in perspective, i was basically agreeing with your last paragraph. i should have worded it better but it’s directed at those who seem to be thinking along the lines of ‘what’s the problem here? they’re just prostitutes..’ as if prostitutes can’t be taken advantage of and therefore no harm no foul.

  • AED

    some people here may think i’m too lenient on the japanese but the truth is i don’t focus on criticizing them because for one, i really don’t care what the the japanese think. what i see is koreans being way way more bothered by it than the japanese ever will be. and if they won’t budge, i’d rather koreans move on. trust me, it’s healthier that way.

  • Q

    Say to the Jews to move on and never complain about holocaust they suffered. Say to the African Americans to move on and never whine about slavery they suffered.

  • AED

    to add to #41, it’s not just that the comfort women are prostitutes but korea has a history of prostitutes , sejong had sex slaves…etc.

    Is the point of bringing these things up to play the “they did it too” game? i’ve no problems with poitning out korea’s faults. by all means, please do. it is what it is. but if it gets to the point where u can’t even acknowledge a wrongdoing because u don’t want to ‘score one for the korean team’, it’s just pathetic

  • AED

    43: u obviously don’t understand what i’m saying. moving on doesn’t mean to forget the past. moving on is to empower oneself

  • AED

    hey pawi what about korean men? i hear alot of them pay for tang. and at least gbev isn’t childish enough to bring people’s families into this, which is more than can be said about u.

  • jk6411

    http://news.donga.com/Politics/3/00/20120901/49033907/1

    From Interview with Prof. Yoshiaki Yoshimi:

    “Just because no North Korean govt documents have been found that say “Kidnap the Japanese”, does it mean that Japanese were never kidnapped by Japan?”

    “There are lots of evidence that the Japanese military forcibly recruited the comfort women. It’s just that Japanese politicians have closed their eyes and ears and are refusing to look at the evidence.”

    In 1992, when Yoshimi first uncovered evidence about comfort women and published them in the newspaper, on the very next day, the Japanese govt acknowledged the Japanese military’s involvement in organizing the comfort women system.
    A few days later, Prime Minister Miyazawa, who was visiting Korea, officially apologized at a meeting of Korean and Japanese leaders.

    After this, the Japanese govt conducted a study on the issue and announced in Aug. 1993 that the Japanese police and military indeed were involved in the comfort women system, that many of the women were recruited forcibly, and that the whole thing was a grave violation of human rights.

    Back then, Japanese were more manly.
    They admitted their wrongdoing.

    The truth is that Japanese police in Korea were often involved in recruiting the women. (by trickery and coercion)
    But Japanese police records from WWII are completely classified and locked up somewhere.
    This infuriates me.

    I can’t believe that the Japanese politicians are saying that there’s no evidence that comfort women were recruited forcibly, when so much documents from WWII were intentionally destroyed, and so much remain classified by the Japanese govt.

    By the way, AED, they weren’t prostitutes.
    “Though there were exceptions, as a rule, Japanese comfort women were adult prostitutes, while the vast majority of comfort women from other Asian countries (the colonies or occupied territories) were minors or were adults who had not been prostitutes.”
    (Yoshimi, Yoshiaki. Comfort Women. 2000. p. 206)

    As for Koreans “moving on”,
    Well, as Q has said countless times, tell the Jews to move on, when Germans deny the Holocaust.

    As long as Japanese govt doesn’t apologize unequivocally and properly teach the Japanese citizens about this history, there will always be vermin who deny Japan’s wrongdoings in the matter and accuse the comfort women of “lying”.
    And believe me, these vermin will multiply in numbers.

    This is why Koreans cannot “move on”.

    (As for Sperwer, you can take the money and shove it up your a**.
    This is not about money.)

  • Creo69

    Yeh…according to this article Gerry ain’t the only one who paid for a little “tang” in Korea.

    Meet my new hero, “The Room Salon King”

    http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/09/117_118746.html

  • jk6411

    Creo,
    This is grossly inappropriate.

  • Creo69

    “Creo,
    This is grossly inappropriate.”

    I suppose you will be writing the Editor of The Korea Times to make him or her aware of your feelings?

  • jk6411

    I meant you posting this on this thread.
    Smartass.

  • Creo69

    “I meant you posting this on this thread.
    Smartass.”

    This is in response to a post on this thread making a personal attack on Gerry’s …umm….sexual predilections. I am sure my reputation for going off topic precedes itself but if it doesn’t let me make it clear that my post has absolutely no relation to the topic. As I said before on this thread, I won’t go near the topic of “Comfort Women” with a ten foot pole…EVER. I have nothing but respect for those women.

    As for the rest of you, Gerry included, you are fair game.

  • mickster

    Hmmm,
    Robert, I’m not informed well enough on recent development on the issue to understand the title of this post ‘rape talk in America…’ What is it about?

    As for PM Noda’s remarks about “a lack of evidence”, many media reports are inacurate as Veritas has pointed out. He did not deny the whole incident, he just said records are not clear on how the women were taken away. He stands by the Kono Statement though he also stands by the Korea-Japan treaty of 1965, while right wingers are trying to deny the whole thing.
    As PM, he is in a difficult position — he cannot help respond in one way or another as prime minister when Presidnet Lee visits Dokdo and insults the emperor — but is trying to walk a fine, subtle line, though his leadership is pretty much in question. I hate to see him lumped up together with the likes of Jin Matsubara, who visited the Yasukuni Shrine, and Abe, a frail guy who ran from his responsibility in the middle of his term as PM.
    As things stand now, the sex slavery issue is likely to remain more emotional than logical. Sperwer at 28 says it all concerning the 1965 treaty and what followed, though his language may sound a bit harsh toward Koreans. An internaltial treaty is a big thing, and an about- face on one and not looking back on it are insincere.
    Japan tried some practical solutions after the Kono Statement, setting up a government-led, but non-official, fund to distribute compensations to victims of human rights abuse, with several prime ministers expressing apologies. Korea’s response was that it was not enough because the fund was not official, urging victims not to receive the compensation, which most of them actually did not.
    With President Lee rubbing Japan’s right wingers and potential right wingers the wrong way, alas, that practical atmosphere in Japan is fading. We need some time to cool down.
    To Japan, I say, let’s face it, it happend, and no matter how the women were recruited, the Japanese military was responsible. To Korean hardliners, try to be pracitcal and make good grounds for those who sincerely want to cope, instead of hammering the hard head of those who would never listen. Sensational headlines and inaccuracy in media do not help either.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @43

    There you go again.

    I don’t subscribe to the PC view that the Holocaust is some sort of cosmic singularity; substantial numbers of other people perished in the extermination camps; and thanks to some recent scholarship we are beginning to appreciate that the enormity of human death in Europe in Ww2 is much greater than previously thought, particularly in Eastern Europe and Russia, where btw probably more than 6 million Russian POWs alone were systematically liquidated by means of starvation and exposure. (i think i would have chosen the gas).

    We also now know that far more people died in Asia than was previously thought, particularly among the populations of SE Asia and China. Korean losses and other suffering is not diminished by noting that quantitatively it was not even close to ranking among the worse according to the numbers. Koreans moreover were not subject to anything remotely like the systematic genocide perperyrated against the Jews, gypsies, slavs and other purported degenerates or the Russian POWS of the Germans. Nor, it should be needless to say, were they enslaved like most of the black population of the Americas. Nor is colonialism, as awful as some of its features may have been, the same as death by Zyklon gas, a bullet to the head, a bayonet to the belly or systematic starvation. To think otherwise is to fail in two ways: in failing to see the differences. and in failing to see that the essential moral concern is for the injustice that was visited on individuals.

    Your failure of rational discrimination and your moral obtuseness in trying to make out the Imperial Japanese as “nazis” , trying to analogize the “korean” situation to that of the Jews or black slaves and failing to see that the moral issues involve individuals simply serves to discredit the claims it purports to serve.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @47

    If you want to join Pow Pow in avoiding honest argument in favor slinging kimchi turds at least grow a pair and say it loud and proud: ASS.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Robert Koehler wrote (#30):

    I take it you haven’t read Bevers’ comment here yet, Bum?

    What is wrong or inaccurate about my comment? Be more specific. This isn’t Twitter; you can wrote more than your usual silly quips.

    Here is what I wrote about the Korean prostitutes in Australia:

    For an ethnic group supposedly forced to become “comfort women,” many Korean women do not seem to have any qualms about selling their bodies now.

    Robert Koehler wrote:

    Finally, we get to the bottom of the Japanophile argument—It’s not that the Japanese military systematically raped thousands of Korean women. It’s that Korean women are whores.

    You make claims without any proof.

    When I asked you if the prostitutes in Australia were also raped, you didn’t reply. When I asked you if the prostitutes King Sejong sent to comfort his troops on Korea’s northern frontier, you didn’t reply. When I asked you if the South Korean prostitutes who protested in the streets against South Korea’s anti-prostitution laws were rape victims, you didn’t reply.

    You post silly quips and unproven claims and then run away when asked to defend them, hoping that someone will defend you or prove them for you. You may fool a lot of people on his blog, but you don’t fool me.

    Prove that “the Japanese military systematically raped thousands of Korean women.”

  • Q

    Toshiyuki Tanaka’s research “Japan’s Comfort Women (Asia’s Transformations)” has a chapter The organizational structure of the comfort women system.

    Gerry, does your BOSS still like to hire you?

  • frogmouth

    Gerry since you are so blinded from your hatred of Korea/Koreans perhaps you can see the light if you read information about “Comfort Women” from the Netherlands.

    It’s very similar in that both Korea and the Netherlands had and have prostitution in their countries. Also we can see although the Japanese may not have issued explicit commands to establish brothels it was still common practice. Also, the research shows that some Dutch women were also both forced and tricked into becoming “comfort women”

    Of course, some of these gals were pros but there is no doubt the Japanese systematically set up brothels and forced women to service Japanese troops.

    It’s interesting to see the Japanese government shut down the European camps probably because it was an occupied territory of ally Nazi Germany. Apparently the gals from the Netherlands were replaced with Asian girls form colonized countries.

    http://www.awf.or.jp/pdf/0205.pdf

  • Creo69

    “Of course, some of these gals were pros …”

    I seriously am beginning to think you guys lob Gerry these grounders just because you like to get him all wound up.

  • Q

    Toshiyuki Tanaka’s “Japan’s Comfort Women (Asia’s Transformations)” has a chapter From Karayuki-san to Comfort Woman:

    Karayuki-san: originally coined by the people of northern Kyushu to refer to those who sought work overseas, the term came to be applied specifically to the impoverished rural women sold into prostitution far from home.

    Many young women were kidnapped and smuggled out of Japan by “labor brokers” who specialized in trafficking women, particularly in the early karayukisan era. These “labor brokers” also deceived young women, and sometimes their parents, with false promises of employment overseas, promising jobs such as shop assistants in Japanese retail stores. There were highly organized Japanese groups trafficking in women both within and outside Japan, each controlled by a kingpin.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa

    So did Gerry marry a Korean woman, have the relationship go bad, and become a racist in that order? Or has he always been a Democrat?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa

    Sorry, DemocratMisogynist… :oops:

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa
  • frogmouth

    Creo, I’m not lobbing grounders, I’m being objective.

    I’d be putting my head in a noose by saying all comfort women were innocent virgin farm girls dragged away from their homes by drooling Japanese soldiers.

    We know some of the women were pros. Even so, there is a difference between a woman who willingly sells her body on her terms and being dragged off to a foreign, remote area and forced to service dozens of soldiers daily under the false promise of factory, hostess or restaurant work.

    The testimony of Dutch women almost identical to that of Asian women (including Koreans) and this is no coincidence. The Japanese are guilty as sin and watching Bevers defend them renders his Dokdo drivel useless.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com setnaffa

    There are still women being trafficked into the USA and it is both the Democrats and certain Republicans facilitating it by preventing stricter border controls. In spite of speeches by the President and Congressional leaders to the contrary.

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/15/Obama-targets-human-trafficking/UPI-61121331824619/?spt=hs&or=tn

    It’s not amusing. It’s not their choice. And they’re still using people up and killing them.

  • frogmouth

    Setnaffa, we are not sure exactly what set Gerry off.

    But, it must have been a doozy. He’s really koo-koo for Cocopuffs when it comes to Korea. He’s been back in Texas for Lord knows how long and he still can’t let it go man.

    I’d suggest he do like others his age and be the crabby guy down the street who chases kids off his grass. He really needs another release before he blows a gasket.

    What about trapping squirrels Gerry? Chainsaw sculpting? Maybe you could grow bonsai potatoes?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Frogmouth wrote (#64):

    The Japanese government has admitted the crimes against the Dutch women, commited by certain members of the Japanese Army who were punished for their crimes, but we are talking about Korean women here, and the Japanese government has denied that “its army” was kidnapping women in Korea to be comfort women, as has been claimed by Korea and others who have no hard evidence to back up the claim.

    That does not mean that Japanese and Korean pimps did not trick or even kidnap Korean women to be comfort women; it only means the Japanese army did not do it or sanction such practices, and there is hard evidence to prove that. LINK

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Sorry for the double post.

    Frogmouth wrote (#64):

    The testimony of Dutch women almost identical to that of Asian women (including Koreans) and this is no coincidence. The Japanese are guilty as sin and watching Bevers defend them renders his Dokdo drivel useless.

    The Japanese government has admitted the crimes against the Dutch women, commited by certain members of the Japanese Army who were punished for their crimes, but we are talking about Korean women here, and the Japanese government has denied that “its army” was kidnapping women in Korea to be comfort women, as has been claimed by Korea and others who have no hard evidence to back up the claim.

    That does not mean that Japanese and Korean pimps did not trick or even kidnap Korean women to be comfort women; it only means the Japanese army did not do it or sanction such practices, and there is hard evidence to prove that. LINK

    By the way, have you read my translation of Mr. Watanabe Kouki’s 1876 “Opinion on Matsushima – 2,” in which he refers to Liancourt Rocks as “Oki’s Matsushima” and wrote “since Matsushima is closer to our country than Takeshima, Korea also cannot oppose our saying Matsushima is part of Japan.” LINK

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    CORRECTION: Instead of “hard evidence to prove that,” it should be “hard evidence to support that.”

  • jk6411

    Sperwer,
    I have a question for you.
    How do you get along with your Korean neighbors?

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Just fine, thanks; they are not cranks

  • Q

    The organizational structure of the comfort women system:

    In order to clarify who was responsible for organizing the exploitation of women on such an unprecenteded scale, its is necessary to analyze how the comfort women system became a general policy of the Japanese Imperrial forces, and how this policy was implemented by military leaders.

    At this time, however, it is quite difficult to conduct thorough reasearch on this issue, mainly due to restrictions on access to relevant documentstion:

    * Firstly, many official military documents are still classified and not open for public inspection — for example, several thousand volumes of Gyomu Nisshi (Records of Military Plans and Operations) and Jagun Nisshi (Field Diaries) housed in the Research Library of the Japanese Defence Agency.

    * Secondly, all documents prepared by the Japanese Police during the Asia-Pacific War are still closed.

    * Thirdly, it is believed that many relevant documents were prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs adn the Ministry of Colonial Affairs, both of which had major responsibilities for colonial Korea and Taiwan. (From 1942, the Ministry of Home Affairs replaced the Ministry of Colonial Affairs in charge of administration of Taiwanese affairs.) However, none of these official records has so far been released.

    * Finally, it is also believed that Japanese government ministries — the Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of Public Welfare and the Ministry of Justice — still retain considerable numbers of relevant documents, but these are not accessible to researchers. The fact that there is no Freedom of Information Act in Japan makes it difficult to change the present research condition.

    In addition, many people whe were directly involved in setting up and implementing the comfort women system are still alive, but they remain silent on this issue.

    Therefore, the following analysis is based upon the limited number of official documents that have so far been discovered. A few documents as well as some testimonies are available, and these detail actual military instructions or orders to set up comfort stations (as detailed earlier) Let us look at these records more closely in order to clarify from whom such orders originated, and who was responsible for implementing the scheme.

    * In March 1932, the Shanghai Expeditionary Army under the command of General Shirakawa Yoshinori set up comfort stations in Shanghai. General Okamura Yasuji (the Deputy Chief of Staff), and Lieutenant-General Okabe Naozaburo (another senior staff officer of this Army) instructed their junior officer Lieutenant-Colonel Nagami Toshinori, to take charge of this task.(Okabe Naozaburo, op. cit., p.23; Inaba Maso, op. cit., p.302.) It seems very unlikely that the Army commander, General Shirakwa, was unaware of the fact that such instructions were issued by top-ranking officers of his own army. Shirakawa was the Minister of War between 1927 and 1929. In 1944, Okamura became the general commander of the China Expeditionary Army, the highest position within the entire Japanese forces stationed in China. Okabe was promoted to commander of the North China Area Army in the same year. Nagami later became the commander of the 55th Division.

    * In December 1937, the Central China Area Army issued an instruction to each contingent force to set up comfort stations. The commander of this Army was General Matsui Iwane, and the Chief of Staff was Major-General Tsukada Osamu.

    On receiving this instruction, Iinuma Mamoru (Chief of Staff of the Shanghai forces) ordered members of the 2nd Section of the Staff Office to draw up a plan. His junior staff officer, Liutenant-Colonel Cho Isamu, was responsible for implementing the plan. The commander of the 10th Army was Lieutenant-General Yanagawa Heisuke. This Army also set up comfort stations under the instruction of the Central China Area Army Headquarters. A staff officer of the 10th Army, Leiutenant-Colonel Terada Maso, set up a comfort stations staffed with Chinese women. He used the kempeitati to procure there women. (Nakin Jiken Chosa Kenkyu Kai ed., op. cit., pp. 211, 220, and 280.)

    After the war, General Matui was tried at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. He was accused of responsibilities for the Nanjing Massacre. It can be said that he was also responsible for the comfort women operations, as the commander of the Central China Area Army which issued an instruction to set up such facilities. Cho later became the Chief of Staff of the 32nd Army, and Terada was elevated to the position of head of the Armament Department in the Imperial Headqurters. The 10th Army commander, Yanagawa, later served as Minister of Home Affairs in Prince Knoe’s cabinet in 1941.

    * In June 1938, Lieutenant-General Okabe Naozaburo (then Chie of Staff of the North China Area Army) issued and instruction to each unit to set up comfor stations to serve several hundred soldiers in this army. ( JIS, Document No. 42, pp. 209-210) The commander of these forces was General Terauchi Hisaichi. Terauchi was the Minister of War in the previous two years.

    * The commander of the Kwantung Army was Lieutenant-General Umezu Yoshijiro, and the Chief of Staff was Lieutenant-General Yoshimoto Teiichi. It has been reported that in about 1941, the Kwangtung Army planned to mobilize 20,000 Korea women and requested assistance from the Government-General (i.e. the colonial government) of Korea. As a resutl, about 8,000 Korean women were reported to have been sent to northeast China (i.e. Manchuguo). Although no official documentation has been unearthed to prove such conduct, a number of testimoies refer to this operation, including one by a former staff officer of the Kangtung Army, Lieutenant-Colonel Hara Zenshiro. (Senda Kako, op. cit., pp. 103-105) It implicates many bureaucrats of the Gevernment-General of Korea in procuring a large number of Korean women, and therefore the Governor-General, General Minami Jiro, was also responsible. Minami served as the Minister of War for a short period in 1931.

    It is clear from these examples that seinor staff officers of each army issued orders to establish comfort stations, and that staff officers of subordinate units made a plan and put it into operation. All were undoubtedly elite army officers. As commanders of each army, they had distinguished careers. Some of them were cabinet members of the Japanese government. In short, the comfort women system was created and developed as a well-planned policy by a group of top Japanese military leaders.

    During the Asia-Pacific War, the Japanese Imperial forces stationed five armies overseas. There armies were under the supervision of the Minister of War and the Chief of the General Staff, who were subordinate to the Grand Marshal (i.e. the Emperor). (For details of the organizational structure of the Japanese Imperial forces, see US War Department, Handbook on Japanese Military Forcers (Presidio Press, California, 1991) Chapter III).

    Each army engaged in warfare at the Emperor;s orders. The Chief of the General Staff advised the Emperor in planning war strategies. The ultimate right of command over each army lay in the hands of the Emperor. However, in reality, the Chief of the General Staff was responsible for war strategies and military operations, and the Minister of War was responsible for military administration. As far as matters related to comfor women are concerned, the staff section of each army was responsible for dealing with them, and if necessary, the Ministry of War issued instructions to each army’s headquarters. (Yoshimi Yoshiaki, “Gun Ianfu Seido no Shiki Merei Ketd” in Yoshimi and Hayashi eds., op. cit, Chapter 2, pp.15-28).

    In the Ministry of War, there was no particular section designated to administer the comfort women system. The relevant Bureau would give instructions to each army as the occasion demanded. For example, the Mlitary Administration Bureau gave instructions on military discipline and troop morale in relation to comfort women and comfort statsion, while the Medical Bureau was responsible for advice on matter related to VD prevention and sanitary affairs.

    As already briefly mentioned, there were basically two different “recruiting” methods. The first method involved local civilians in the occupied territories. In these cases, staff officers attached to army divisions, brigades or regiments, together with members of the kempeitai, requested local leaders to supply certain numbers of young women. (The kempeitai in the occupied territories were under the control of the commander of each army.) As a result, a large number of women who were not prostitutes appear to have been forced to render sexual sevice to the Japanese troops. This point is proven by the following extract from the diary of a medical officer, Yamaguchi Tokio, who was assigned to conduct VD examinations of some selected local Chinese girls in a village near Dongshi (Hubei province):

    At the first VD check-up, one girl was too shy to take off her trousers for the examination of her sexual organ. My interperter and the head of the local security council yelled at her, to force her to take them off. When I made her lie on the bed and started examining, she frantically scratched at my hands. When I saw her face, I realized she was crying. Later I was told that she kep crying for a while, even after she left the examination room. The next girl also behaved the same way. I felt I would like to cry, too… I wonder whether these girls unwillingly came to see me because local leaders talked them into complying for the sake of the village’s peace… This kind of work does not suit me, and I cannont get rid of the thought that this is a violation of humanity.

    (11August 1940)

    (Mizobe Kazuto ed., Doku San Ni: Mohitotsu no Senso (private publication, 1983) p. 58.

    Another method was that each army headquarters selected its own recruiting agents (i.e. brothel owners or labor brokers). They were then sent to Korea, Taiwan, and Japan to secure comfort women. These Japanese and Korea brothel owners/labor brokers, with support from the Kempeitai and the police forces in those countries, searched for and “recruited” suitable women. Frome various testimonies, including those of formenr Korea comfort women, there is no doubt that many of these labor brokers used dubious methods, including deceoption, initmidation, violence, and in extreme cases, even kidnapping. Its seems clear from diaries and individual testimonies that the Governments-General of Korea and Taiwan made their kempeitai and police force available for this purpose. Although no official documentation has so far been discovered in relation to the activities of the kempeitai and police in this field in Korea and Taiwan, it seems that government officials well understood the nature of the work that these women would be engaged in. It seems likely that they also knew the methods used for such “recruitment.”

    We do, however, possess important official documentation concerning key aspects of the comfort women program. One document prepared by the Ministry of War is an instruction entitled “Matters related to the recruitment female and other employees for military comfort stations,” which was issued on March 4, 1938 to the Chief of Staff of the North China Area Army and Central China Area Army. It ststes:

    In recruiting female and other emplyees from Japan for the establishement of comfort stations in the place where the China Incident occurred, some deliberately make and illicit claim that they have permissions from the military authorities, thus damaging the Army’s reputation and causing misunderstanding among the general population. Some others are causing social problems by trying to recruit [women] illegally through the mediation of war correspondents, visiting entertainers and the like Due to the selection of unsuitable recruiting agents, some have been arrested and investigated by the police because of theri [dubious] methods of recruitment and kidnapping. Thus, great care is necessary in selecting suitable agents. In future, when recruiting those [women], each Army must tighten control [of the selection procudure] by carefully selecting appropriate agents. Inactual recruitmen, each Army must work in closer cooperation with local Kempeitai or police authorities, thus maintaining the Army’s dignity and avoiding social problems. The above is issued as letter of proxy. (JIS, Document No. 6, pp. 105-107)

    This letter was drafted by the staff of the Military Administration Bureau and issued under the name of Colonel Fushibuchi Senichi. It was approved by the then Vice-Minister of War, Umezu Yoshijiro. It is important to note that this instruction was issued as “a letter of proxy,” which means that it was also approved by the Minister of War, Sugiyama Hajime. In other words, top army leaders in the Ministry of War closely monitored the procurement of women in Japan by the North China Area Army and the Central China Area Army. This was intended to control the use of “agents” of questionable character in order to prevent potentially explosive abuses, while santioning the basic comfort women system. While apprehensive about the methods of procurement, they made no attempt to stop their armies from operating comfort stations.

    On the contrary, the following document endorses the fact that the Ministry of War promoted the comfort women scheme as an effective method to maintain military discipline and prevent VD. The document called “Measures for enhancing military discipline based upon experiences in the China Incident” was distributed as “educational material” to all army units from the Ministry of War on September 19, 1940. It states in part:

    [Since the Sino-Japanese War started], despite brilliant achievemets in war, our soldiers have committed various crimes such as looting, rape, arson, murder of prisoners, and the like which are contrary to the essence of the principles of the Imperial Army. It is therefore regrettable that such conduct had created a sense of aversion both within and outside Japan, thus making it difficult to attain the object of our holy war… Having observed the circumstances in which crimes and misconduct were committed, it is recognized that many of them occurred immediately after combat activities… In the battle zone, it is necessary to make efforts to create a good environment, to pay considerable attention to the facilities for amenities, and to eas and control rough and low feelings from the troops… In particular, the psychological effects that the soldiers receive at comfort stations are most immediate and profound, and therefore it is believed that the enhancenment of troop morale, maintenance of discipline, and prevention of crimes and VD are dependent on successful supervision of these [comfort stations].

    (Ibid., Document No. 28, pp. 164-172)

    According to Mr. Shikauchi Nobutaka, who was trained to become a paymaster at the Military Paymasters School in 1939, cadets were taught how to establish and manage military brothels. Incidentally, during the Pacific War Shikauchi was seconded from the Material Section in the Ordnance Bureaus of the Ministry of War to the Kokusai Gomu Kogyo (International Rubber Industry) Corporation, in order to supervise the production of confoms for military use. The Army Accounts Department and the Supply Headquarters were responsible for sending condoms to forces stationed overseas, and officials ensured a ready supply. In 1942, for example, 32.1 million condoms were sent to units stationed outside Japan. (For details of statistical data on condoms used by the Japanese Imperial forces during the Asia-Pacific War, see Hayashi Hirofumi, “Rikugun Ianjo Kanri no Ichi Sokumen: Eisei Sakku no Kofu Shiryo o Tegakari ni” in Kikan Senso Skinin Kenkyu, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 12-19).

    There is no doubt that the Ministry of War was directly involved in transporting comfor women to war zones, since it was impossible to use any Japanese military ships without its permission. The operation of army ships was controlled by the Army Section of the Imperial Headquarters under the authority of the Commissary General. (This position was usually held concurrently by the Vice-Chief of the General Staff.) The Army Section of the Imperial Headquarters was staffed by the senior bureaucrats of the Ministry of War. From various available documents and testimony it is clear that comfort women were transported by army cargo ships from Japan and Korea to many places in the Asia-Pacific region. In cases where Korea women were sent to China from Korea, the Kyogi Railway in Korea and Southern Manchurian Railway in Manchuria were used Both railwas lines were owned by Japanese companies. In China, local railways controlled by the Japanese Army were used for this purpse. In places where railway service was not available, army trucks were provided. In some special cases, women were even flown by army planes to the front lines. (Yoshimi Yoshiaki, “Gun Ianfu Sedo no Shiki Meirei Keito” in Yoshimi and Hayashi eds., op. cit. pp. 24-25).

    However, the Mistry of War needed the co-operation of other governmental organizations, such as the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Governments-General of Korea and Taiwan, in order to facilitate the procurement and transportation of comfort women.

    For example, on February 23, 1938, Tomita Kenji (Chief of the Police Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs) issued and instruction to the governor of each Prefecture in Japan, entitled “Regarding the treatment of female travellers to China.” In this document, he ordered that only prostitutes over the age of 21 should be permitted to travel to northern and central China. It could be interpreted that such instructions, allowing only the travel of professional Japanese prostitutes to China, was issued as a countermeasure to prevent illegal trafficking of women. (Such illegal trafficking was against the International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children of 1921, to which Japan became a signatory.) However, the fact that no such instructions were issued in Korea or Taiwan indicated that the Japanese government had no intention of suppressing illegal trafficking of Korean and Taiwanese women for military prostitution. It seems that officials believed this international law was not applicable to Japan’s colonies.

    Testimonies by former comfort women also indicate that police in Korea and Taiwan were involved in various ways in the the procurement of comfort women. For example, Mun P’ilgi, a Korean woman from Chisu District, South Kyongsang, testified that a local policeman called Tanaka was with a Korea labor broker when she and other women were “recuited.” Another Korea women, Mun Okchu from Taegu city, said when she was arrested by two members of the kempeitai for no particular reason, a Korean policeman accompanied them. She was then sent to northeast China to become a comfort woman.

    In both Korea and Taiwan, police forces were under the control of teh Bureau of Police Affairs of the Government -General (i.e. the colonial government). No official documents regarding the involvement of the police of these colonies in procuring comfort women have been discovered so far. However, each police station under the control of the Bureaus of Police Affarirs was responsible for issuing passports. It was illegal for the police to issue a passport toa local woman knowing that she was being forcibly recruited as a comfort woman. If they did so unwittingly, then this should be condemed as “neglect of duty.” It is most unlikely that the police in both colonies were unaware of forcible recruitment of comfort women, for it was standard prctise for them to throughly investigate each traveler’s age, occupation, family background, career, native language, and the purpose and intended period of travel before issuing a passport. Police should not have issued a passport unless the travel had a legitimate purpose.

    [...] After the outbreak of the Pacific War in December 1941, the Ministry of War, on its own initiative, started implementing various policies to promote the establishment of comfort stations and to control the transportation of comfort women in the Asia-Pacific region. Until then, as we have seen, the Ministry of War played a somewhat secondary role in establishing the comfort women system, and the primary responsible body was each army headquarters.

    Indeed, the Ministry of War’s plan to set up comfort stations in future war zones was already under way several months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. For example in mid-1941, a Medical Officer, Major Fukuda Masuo, was assigned to secretly conduct a field study in the Dutch East Indies (i.e. Indonesia). After returning to Japan, he submitted his report to the Ministry of War on July 26, 1941, recommending the establishment of comfort stations in Indonesia immediately after the Japanese occupation commenced. He also recommended a “request” be sent to each village chief in occupied territory to provide local women to work at these stations. There is little doubt that “request” in this case meant “order.” Major Fukuda believed such arrangements would be necessary in order to avoid rape of local civilians by Japanese troops, as well as to prevent the spread of VD among the forces.

    In January 1942, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Togo Shigenori, instructed his staff that comfort women should be issued with military travel documents and that they would no longer require a passport for overseas travel. In other words, the movement of comfort women was not controlled by the Ministry of War, and thus the Ministry of Foreign Affairs lost its administrative power as far as controlling the travel of comfort women was concerned.

    For more reading, you could buy the book: http://www.amazon.com/Japans-Comfort-Women-Asias-Transformations/dp/0415194016

    In addition, here is gebever’s boss:

    Nippon Kaigi Kokkai Giin Kondankai (日本会議国会議員懇談会)

    Multi-partisan. Established in 1997 and is the largest organization demanding the revision of the constitution. The Japan League, often called the “Japan Conference” in English, denies that World War II was a war of aggression; it downplays the Nanjing Masacre; wants education reform with a strong central control and an educaatino curriculum based on patriotic values; and rejects equality between the sexes. Diet Members’ Japan League was established to support and work with Japan League.

    The Diet Member’s Japan League has three main political goals: 1) history/education/family issues; 2) defense/diplomacy/territory issues (headed by current PM Abe Shinzo in 2002); and 3) Constitution/Imperial Family/Yasukuni Shrine issues. It has succeeded in producing a textbook on morality, Note for Heart.

    LDP Policy Research Council Chairman Shoichi Nakagawa is the Acting Chair, Prime Minister Abe is the Deputy Chief Secretary, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Hakubun Shimomura is the Secretary General and Foreign Minister Taro Aso is a Special Advisers to Prime Minister Abe belong to this group. The League’s President is Takeo Hiranuma, former METI minister, who is a signatory to the “Facts” advertisement in the Washington Post.

    Website: http://www.nipponkaigi.org

    http://www.jiaponline.org/documents/Jun14AdALLSignatoriesLIST.pdf

  • jk6411

    That’s good.
    I wish you could be as nice to Korea/Koreans on the internet as well.
    Well, good night!

  • jk6411

    #73 was in response to Sperwer.

    Thanks a lot, Q.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Thanks, same to you.

  • bimbalimba

    Bbut, weren’t the Dutch ones case solved during the Tokyo Trials?
    Because they really happened.
    Isn’t it strange that Korean testimonies started suddenly surface in the mid 1990s (or even later)? Not mentioning they change sometimes (theres a post about it on ROKDROP ). Since 1945 Korean media, educational system etc were strongly anti-japanese, it’s kind of unusual the severeal hundreds of kidnapped’s fate was silenced because of social stigma (as it is being explained)

  • frogmouth

    Gerry Watanabi’s opinion will always be just that. One of three views of Japanese officials that in the end resulted in Japan officially excluding Dokdo from Japanese territory. You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

    Listening to Watanabi’s confused island theories is like an Abbott and Costello routine. He has no idea about the situation in the East Sea. And when he finally did get in the know, Japanese maps consistently excluded Dokdo (Takeshima)

    In the same investigation another Japanese official stated Matsushima was Usando and part of Korea.

    BTW, looking at the records Watanabi was citing…

    It seems he was referencing old historical records of Shimane fishermen who were travelling to Ulleungdo illegally after the travel ban. It’s pretty ridiculous to see Japanese citing maps of 1724 Ulleungdo voyages. These are simply proof of Shimane trespassing. So as far as historical proof of Japanese ownership they mean nothing.

    You’ve proved on my exact point about “comfort women”. The Japanese government have not have issued explicit orders to set up these camps. However, records from the Dutch confirm it was military policy in the field to establish brothels, recruit and force women to engage in prostitution. The Dutch investigation shows this. Also, it became clear the situation became much worse later in the war when it became more difficult to recruit women.

    Really Mr Bevers, what do you expect to find? Shipping Invoices and reciepts for blowjobs and sex?

    Let me get this straight. You give me a link to an article that shows women were kidnapped work in Japanese military brothels to prove the Japanese military is innocent. WTF?

    Mr Bevers, why don’t you take the time and start reading the links provided by Q? Apparently the book was written by a real researcher he seems to cite his data. It beats pulling a few select documents out of your ass and forcibly dragging us you your own bizarre conclusions, .

    Now, let’s try and find you a better way to spend your time Mr Bevers. How about raising Sea Monkeys Gerry?

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    I don’t think Gerry would be interested in sea monkeys. The way you follow him around like an organ grinder’s monkey, he doesn’t need them.

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    sperwer, you’re so witty.

    NOT!

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Valley girl locutions? Seriously, gooseman?

  • frogmouth

    Aw, Spews, that’s not very nice!

    Perhaps, if you have some relevant historical data about the Dokdo dispute feel free to contribute. After all Mr Bevers brought it up.

    If not, maybe you could lube up and grind your organ somewhere else.

    Anyway, Mr Bevers, as I’ve said, the Watanabe document was one record of a large volume of historical data. Other Japanese were consulted and had differing opinions about the islands of the East Sea (Sea of Japan)

    This document by another official stated:

    “In the middle of the Gangwando Sea stand two islands, the West of which is Usan and the East is Ulleung..” These are what we Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo) and Takeshima (Ulleungdo)..”

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/1881-Japanese-doc.jpg

    Of course this official was citing Korean records but he had concluded the obvious by reading Korean documents. Usan was Dokdo and Takeshima was Ulleungdo.

    If I were your Korean counterpart I’d run around saying this document proves all Japanese thought Usan was Dokdo. We know this is wrong. Mr Bevers you shouldn’t cite one document from Japan’s Takeshima Investigation and then draw sweeping conclusions.

    After invesigating Ulleungdo, the Japanese came to the conclusion Dokdo was worthless rocks and appended to Chosun’s Ulleungdo. This position would prevail until the Japanese Navy annexed Dokdo during the Russo Japanese War.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Naw, I think both of you are mostly engaged in a circle jerk with your tit for tat map talk. The only relevance of all that – and the elephant in the room that both of you seem to be unable to see – is that the obviously murky and unsettled state of affairs before 1905 simply buttresses Japan’s claim of terra nullius – so I guess in the end the Bevs and the Japanese win on the issue of the de jure entitlement to Takeshima

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Oh, and you of all people have no standing to complain about being ridiculed given your propensity to do the same to others. Unclean hands from slinging the shit and all that

  • hamel

    I guess in the end the Bevs and the Japanese win on the issue of the de jure entitlement to Takeshima

    Hi Sperwer. I remain unconvinced.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Why? What specific considerations lead you to think otherwise

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    You don’t get to just sit back and utter decrees. Even judges have to give reasons

  • hamel

    Sperwer: I am allowed to say that I am not convinced. I don’t need to supply reasons for that.

  • frogmouth

    One weak organ grinder joke amounts to ridicule? Whose complaining? Don’t flatter yourself Spew.

    I’m here effectively debunking Mr Bevers. Again if you have something relevant to say please do. It’s clear you don’t know nothing about the subject. Thus, please guess how much I value your worthless “Japan wins” opinion.

    Why not practice obscure vocabulary and endless sentences on your empty 9-month old blog?

  • frogmouth

    Yes do tell Sperwer!

  • frogmouth

    Terra Nullius? No man’s land? I don’t think so.

    Japan had already declared Dokdo off limits in 1837 after they executed a man for trespassing.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-takeshima-incident-of-1837.html

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @87

    Yes, you are …

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @88
    Then why did you complain? Weak, man, weak.

    You haven’t debunked anything, let alone “effectively”. You flatter yourself. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the Dokdo issue, and have no ambitions to become one. My view, like Hamel’s is conclusory and based on what I have read, including your stuff, which I find unpersuasive.

    Huh? I’ll have you know that my blog has been moribund for more than 7 years – ever since I changes hosts and ended up losing all the previous content – except for the most (not-so-) recent entry. SO what? Is that supposed to be some kind of demeaning comment? Fail.

    @90 Your usual drive-by factlet approach. So what. the essence of Terra Nullis is the failure of anyone to have exercised sustained, unchallenged “control” of the place in question.

    Go back to sucking on your bottle of soju while you pick your toes.

  • http://www.chinasmack.com/tag/funny/page/3 Jakgani

    Japan had already declared Dokdo off limits in 1837 after they executed a man for trespassing.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-takeshima-incident-of-1837.html

    In that article – it is stated that -
    Takeshima = Ulleungdo and
    Matsushima = Dokdo.

    But, I always thought that the Liancourt Rocks, =
    Dokdo or Tokto (독도) in Korean,
    and Takeshima (たけしま) in Japanese.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Frogmouth wrote (#81):

    “In the middle of the Gangwando Sea stand two islands, the West of which is Usan and the East is Ulleung..” These are what we Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo) and Takeshima (Ulleungdo)..”

    “Dokdo” is east of Ulleungdo, not west, so that means the official did not believe Usan to be Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). You should know that by now. The guy was relating on outdated Korean maps that showed an island named Usando (于山島 – 우산도) to the west of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 – 울릉도). 1530 Korean Map

    Frogmouth wrote:

    Of course this official was citing Korean records but he had concluded the obvious by reading Korean documents. Usan was Dokdo and Takeshima was Ulleungdo.

    Obvious to only goofballs who don’t know their compass directions. By 1877, Koreans knew that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. All of their maps prove it. What was the name of your Japanese official?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Sorry for the second posting.

    Frogmouth wrote (#81):

    “In the middle of the Gangwando Sea stand two islands, the West of which is Usan and the East is Ulleung..” These are what we Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo) and Takeshima (Ulleungdo)..”

    “Dokdo” is east of Ulleungdo, not west, so that means the official did not believe Usan to be Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). You should know that by now. The guy was relating on outdated Korean maps that showed an island named Usando (于山島 – 우산도) to the west of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 – 울릉도). 1530 Korean Map

    Frogmouth wrote:

    Of course this official was citing Korean records but he had concluded the obvious by reading Korean documents. Usan was Dokdo and Takeshima was Ulleungdo.

    Obvious only to goofballs who don’t know their compass directions. By 1877, Koreans knew that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. All of their maps prove it. What was the name of your Japanese official?

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    SO much for Frogboy”s “effective” rebuttal of the Bevs.

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers, the Japanese official of course had plenty of Chosun data to cite. Korean maps began to show Usando East of Ulleungdo by the 17th century. This would include many Chosun maps and documents.

    Again he drew the same conclusion that the Usando from Chosun’s ancient records was Matsushima (Dokdo). Otherwise why would assign the name Matsushima to Usando? Japanese maps don’t show Matsushima West of Ulleungdo. I’m not saying the Japanese person was correct in his assesment, I’m saying his perception was Matsushima=Usando=Dokdo did not belong to Japan.

    Mr Bevers, as I’ve said Watanabi Kioki’s opinion was the minority view. It was one of many opinions in Japan’s Investigation of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) So for use to use his view as evidence of Japanese owership over Dokdo is false.

    The above is not my opinion. This is the accepted view even among some Japanese researchers.

    Please read page 493 of Japanese author Kazuo Hori’s article “Japan’s Incorporation of Takeshima into Its Territory in 1905″

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/Kazuo-Hori-Dokdo.pdf

    Jakgani, Takeshima (竹島) was Japan’s original name for Korea’s Ulleungdo Island and Matsushima (松島) was Japan’s name for Dokdo.

    Mr Bevers please don’t mislead Sperwer anymore. He’s at a very impressionable age and he idolizes you.

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers you may also read page 453 of Japanese author Hideki Kajimura.

    He also stated Watanabe Kioki’s views were a minority opinion and that Japan did not consider Dokdo as part of Japan until 1905.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/Hideki-Kajimura-Dokdo.pdf

    So, as I’ve said, you are misleading readers to say Japan considered Liancourt Rocks, Matsushima or Dokdo as part of Japan before 1905 when their military annexed the rocks during the Russo Japanese War.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Frogmouth wrote:

    Mr Bevers you shouldn’t cite one document from Japan’s Takeshima Investigation and then draw sweeping conclusions.

    What “sweeping conclusions did I draw? This is what I wrote:

    By the way (Frogmouth), have you read my translation of Mr. Watanabe Kouki’s 1876 “Opinion on Matsushima – 2,” in which he refers to Liancourt Rocks as “Oki’s Matsushima” and wrote “since Matsushima is closer to our country than Takeshima, Korea also cannot oppose our saying Matsushima is part of Japan.”

    Mine was not a “sweeping conclusion.” Yours, on the other, was, and was only on your own imagination.

    Frogmouth wrote (#81):

    After invesigating Ulleungdo, the Japanese came to the conclusion Dokdo was worthless rocks and appended to Chosun’s Ulleungdo. This position would prevail until the Japanese Navy annexed Dokdo during the Russo Japanese War.

    What actually happened was that the Japanese rejected Mutoh’s petition to develop “Matsushima” because they suspected it was actually Korea’s Ulleungdo, a fact they later confirmed.

    As for your sweeping conclusion that the “Japanese Navy annexed Dokdo during the Russo Japanese War,” Japanese documents prove otherwise.

    Liancourt Rocks were incorporated into Japanese territory after the Japanese government received a petition to do so from Nakai Yozaburo, who was operating a sea lion harvesting business of the Rocks at the time. The decision to incorporate the Rocks was made on January 28, 1905, and the reason for doing so was given. See THIS LINK.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Frogmouth wrote (#97):

    Japanese maps don’t show Matsushima West of Ulleungdo.

    That’s right, but Japanese maps DO show Usando west of Ulleungdo, which means they did not consider “Usando” to be Liancourt Rocks. Can you show me one Japanese map of Korea or Japan that shows Liancourt Rocks labeled as “Usando”? You simply cannot do it because there are none.

    Frogmouth wrote:

    Mr Bevers, as I’ve said Watanabi Kioki’s opinion was the minority view.

    Watanabi Kioki’s view was that he was unsure of the location of the Matsushima in Mutoh’s petition, but he was sure that “Oki’s Matsushima” was Japanese territory.

    What majority view are you talking about? Who were they and what were their views? Put up or shut up.

  • frogmouth

    “What majority view are you talking about? Who were they and what were their views? Put up or shut up.

    I already “put up” two links to support the truth. Read them yourself, before you post and do more thorough “research” before you make such bold statements. The two links are above. Watanabe Kioki was not the only person the Japanese Government inquired to about Takeshima. For example Tanabe Taiichi’s opinion won the day and Japan military (that’s right military) did not annex the islands until 1905.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-ii.html

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-illegal-1905-annexation-of-dokdo.html

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Frogmouth wrote (#101):

    I already “put up” two links to support the truth. Read them yourself, before you post and do more thorough “research” before you make such bold statements.

    I did read it, the opinion of one man more than 100 years after the fact who believes that An Yong-bok went to “Dokdo” and that the small island next to Ulleungdo on the 1899 map on Page 483 is Dokdo, rather than Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is just 2km offshore.

    Is that your opinion, as well?

    Your source said Watanabe Kioki believed Usando to be Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (#293), which was true, but Usando was not mentioned in either of Mr. Watanabe’s opinions, so I wonder how he knew that?

    Tanabe Taiichi, who your source also mentioned, believed Matsushima to be Ulleungdo and rejected another petitioner’s petition to develop “Matsushima” by stating, “Matsushima is Korea’s Ulleungdo.” Therefore, Watanabe and Tanabe agreed since Mr. Watanabe also suspected that the “Matsushima” mentioned in the petition was Ulleungdo.

    In a different opinion Tanabe did write that Matsushima was Usando and part of Ulleungdo, but he did not give the location of Usando. The petition talked about Matsushima being covered with trees up to the peaks of the mountains, which would rule our Liancourt Rocks being the Usando mentioned. And as I said, all Japanese maps showed Usando to the west of Ulleungdo.

    Another opinion had no opinion and wanted to survey the island to make sure of its location.

    Therefore, one opinion was that Matsushima was Ulleungdo or its neighboring island of Usando, another was not sure but suspected it was Ulleungdo, and a third did not want to give his opinion until a survey of the island was done.

    Therefore, the majority opinion was that Matsushima was Ulleungdo.

  • frogmouth

    Here’s a post on your own blog that agrees with me Mr Bevers!

    Maybe you should read comments from others more often, you might learn something.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.kr/2007/06/1877-different-japanese-views-on.html?showComment=1333062627651

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Frogmouth (#103):

    Here’s a post on your own blog that agrees with me Mr Bevers! Maybe you should read comments from others more often, you might learn something.

    You are talking about a Commentor named “Sloww,” who has been flooding my blog with copy-n-paste junk from your blog. Is that your retort to my argument, your pointing to some goofball who floods the Comments section of my blog with silly arguments supporting Korea’s claim?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Flogmouth, are you “sloww”?

  • Q

    Anyways, here is where gbevers gets regular paycheck:

    Nippon Kaigi Kokkai Giin Kondankai (日本会議国会議員懇談会)

    Multi-partisan. Established in 1997 and is the largest organization demanding the revision of the constitution. The Japan League, often called the “Japan Conference” in English, denies that World War II was a war of aggression; it downplays the Nanjing Masacre; wants education reform with a strong central control and an educaatino curriculum based on patriotic values; and rejects equality between the sexes. Diet Members’ Japan League was established to support and work with Japan League.

    The Diet Member’s Japan League has three main political goals: 1) history/education/family issues; 2) defense/diplomacy/territory issues (headed by current PM Abe Shinzo in 2002); and 3) Constitution/Imperial Family/Yasukuni Shrine issues. It has succeeded in producing a textbook on morality, Note for Heart.

    LDP Policy Research Council Chairman Shoichi Nakagawa is the Acting Chair, Prime Minister Abe is the Deputy Chief Secretary, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Hakubun Shimomura is the Secretary General and Foreign Minister Taro Aso is a Special Advisers to Prime Minister Abe belong to this group. The League’s President is Takeo Hiranuma, former METI minister, who is a signatory to the “Facts” advertisement in the Washington Post.

    Website: http://www.nipponkaigi.org

    [Source]

  • jk6411

    All this talk about Koiki Watanabe is useless.

    Japan’s Dajoukan (highest level of Japanese government, at the time) ruled in 1877 that Ulleungdo and Dokdo “have nothing to do with Japan”.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Jk6411 wrote (#107):

    Japan’s Dajoukan (highest level of Japanese government, at the time) ruled in 1877 that Ulleungdo and Dokdo “have nothing to do with Japan”.

    No, it said “Takeshima” (Ulleungdo) and another island,” which means the Japanese were still unsure of the location of the Matsushima in the petition. Otherwise, they would have just written “Takeshima and Matsushima,” especially since Matsushima was the subject of the debate.

    The Japanese had already given “Takeshima” (Ulleungdo) to Korea in the 1690s, so listing “Takeshima” was no problem for them, but listing Matsushima was a problem because the Japanese considered “Oki’s Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks) to be part of Japanese territory. Unsure of the location of the “Matsushima” mentioned in the petition, they simply avoided the problem by using the vague phrase “Takeshima and another island,” which only concedes that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) is Korean territory.

  • Q
  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote:

    Japan’s 1695 Tottori Bafuku Records: Japan’s Shogunate Formally Excludes Ulleungdo and Dokdo From Japanese Territory.

    No. Only “Takeshima” (Ulleungdo) was given to Korea. Here is the order read:

    Years before, while Matsudaira Shintaro reigned Inshu and Hakushu, merchants from Yonago in Hakushu, Ichibee Murakawa and Oya Jinkichi, went to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) to fish and continue to do so today. We have heard that the Shogun (Tokugawa Tsunayoshi) now prohibits voyages to Takeshima. His intention must be kept in mind. We humbly convey this to you.

    28th day of January (1696)

    Tsuchiya Sagaminokami
    Toda Yamakinokami
    Abe Bungonokami
    Okubo kaganokami

    Notice that only Takeshima was mentioned. The Director of the Bureau of Documents in Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote the following in his 1876 opinion:

    The (mentioned) “Takeshima” is considered to be Chosun’s Ulleungdo, which the Shogunate ended up entrusting to them (Koreans) as a convenient quick fix, without considering future implications. Therefore, if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan. It is still inconclusive.

    As you can see, only Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was given to Korea.

  • Q

    The Question asked by the Shognate to Inbashu

    Question 7. “…Besides Takeshima (Ulleungdo) are there any other islands that are within the two areas jurisdiction? Do citizens from these two areas exercise their fishing and gathering on the island..?”

    The 1695 Response to the Shogunates Inquiry

    Answer 7. “…There are no other islands belonging to the two prefectures including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo)…”

    [Source]

  • Q
  • jk6411

    gbevers @#108,

    We’ve been through this before.

    This is the map that Japan’s Ministry of Interior sent to the Dajoukan in 1877, when they were asking the Dajoukan to confirm that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not Japanese territory.

    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/2a10kou2032-1877/
    (The map image is divided into 4 quadrants. Click on any one quadrant to get an enlarged image.)
    On this map, you clearly see Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo).

    Here’s the actual 1877 Dajoukan order.

    http://www.dokdohistory.com/?bmode=view&search=&s_word=&mode=&board=&menulev=&didx=&bname=&sidx=11&page=1&bidx=162&stype=1&subject=

    hi-res images here:
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/2a10kou2032-1877/018.jpg
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/2a10kou2032-1877/019.jpg

    As you can see, the final sentence was written in big red letters, for extra emphasis.

    “CONCERNING THE INQUIRY ABOUT TAKESHIMA AND ANOTHER ISLAND, YOU SHOULD REMEMBER THAT THIS COUNTRY (JAPAN) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM.”

    The Dajoukan clearly was not confused about the identities of the two islands. They were Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote:

    Question 7. “…Besides Takeshima (Ulleungdo) are there any other islands that are within the two areas jurisdiction? Do citizens from these two areas exercise their fishing and gathering on the island..?”

    The 1695 Response to the Shogunates Inquiry

    Answer 7. “…There are no other islands belonging to the two prefectures including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo)…”

    I am not sure of your translation, so I cannot comment on that, but the reasons given for the Shogunate’s accepting Korea’s claim to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was that it not only appeared on Korean maps, but also that it was closer to Korea than Japan. It was not because it had not been incorporated into an administrative district of Japan, which is what I think those questions were asking.

    Why wasn’t Matsushima mentioned with Takeshima in the 1696 travel ban?

    Because Matsushima was considered Japanese territory since it was closer to Japan. This was mentioned in Mr. Watanabe Kouki’s 1876 opinion and in other places. Here is what Mr. Watanabe wrote in 1876:

    Also, the mentioned names “Matsushima” and “Takeshima” are, of course, Japanese names. Considering that, one can say that the islands were once considered to be part of Japan.

    Next, in regard to our country’s relationship with Korea, the Shogunate then did not want a noisy dispute, so simply based on the geographic proximity, the Shogunate said it was Ulleungdo on their maps and gave Takeshima to Korea.

    However, Matsushima and Takeshima are two islands, and since Matsushima is closer to our country than Takeshima, Korea also cannot oppose our saying Matsushima is part of Japan.

    Notice that an island did not have to be incorporated into an administrative district of Japan to be considered Japanese territory. It simply had to be near Japan.

    Another reason Matsushima (Liancourt Rock) was not given to Korea was that Korea did not ask for it and did not know anything about it.

    Koreans knew it not only as an unnamed island visible on the distance horizon from the mountain peaks of Ulleungdo on a clear day, but also that it was Japanese territory, as the following 1714 entry in Korean records clearly said.

    鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境
    “Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island attached to Japanese territory.”

    There is only one island visible on the horizon to the east of Ulleungdo, and it is Liancourt Rocks.

  • jk6411

    Newsflash for gbevers:

    The 1877 Dajoukan order supersedes some opinion piece written by a confused official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1876.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote (#112):

    Check out also Mori Kinseki’s 1877 Map of Japan – Chosun, Shows Dokdo as Korean.

    That 1877 map shows Ulleungdo and the non-existent island of Argonaut mislabeled as Matsushima and Takeshima, respectively.

    JK6411 wrote (#113):

    On this map, you clearly see Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo).

    Yes, very clearly, but it is a Japanese map. Have you switched to my side now?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    JK6411 wrote (#115)

    Newsflash for gbevers: The 1877 Dajoukan order supersedes some opinion piece written by a confused official in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1876.

    Are you drunk right now? Read my #108 comment.

  • jk6411

    Gerry,

    You’re obsessed with Dokdo.
    This is not healthy for you.
    I think you should move on to other things.

  • TheKorean2

    Gbevers,
    which one is it? Matsushima or Takeshima? I think you are confused just like the Japanese back in the days.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Jk6411 wrote (#118):

    You’re obsessed with Dokdo. This is not healthy for you. I think you should move on to other things.

    Look who’s talking. Go to bed and sleep it off.

  • http://pawikoreapics.blogspot.com/ pawikirogii 石鵝

    look who’s talking. lol. i think you need to stfu dronning on about dokdo day and day out. how’s your son, gerry? must be hard to raise him without the comfort of a woman.

  • Q

    gbevers wrote:

    That 1877 map shows Ulleungdo and the non-existent island of Argonaut mislabeled as Matsushima and Takeshima, respectively.

    It is evidence that Japanese were sometimes confused about the names of Dokdo and Uleungdo switching the nomination — Mastushima and Takeshima. It only reveals the fact that Japan always identified both islands as a pair (松: Mastu, 竹:Take), that often appears in traditional Asian literature.

    As for translation of the 1695 Tottori Bafuku Records, here is the original Japanese record:

    7.“…二つの地域管轄中に竹島(鬱陵島)以外の他の島もあるか? これら二つの地域人々は彼らの漁業をして島に集まっているか..?” (“…Besides Takeshima (Ulleungdo) are there any other islands that are within the two areas jurisdiction? Do citizens from these two areas exercise their fishing and gathering on the island..?”)

    7. “…竹島(鬱陵島)そして松島(独島)その外に二つの県に属する他の島はない…”( “…There are no other islands belonging to the two prefectures including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo)…”)

    Ask your Japanese boss for the translation.

  • Q

    Check out Chosun’s (Korea’s) 1714 Report on Coastal Defences and Dokdo:

    鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境. (Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is adjacent to the limits of Japan

    Gerry, you repeat your mistranslation. You know that, right?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote (#122):

    Ask your Japanese boss for the translation.

    I do not see the “including” part. I see “excluding” (外に) To me it looks like it is saying the following:

    Except for Takeshima and Matsushima, there are no other islands in the two Prefectures.

    Amazing. I did that without even speaking Japanese. Notice that the meaning completely changes.

    By the way, the “Ulleungdo” and “Dokdo” in parentheses were not there originally because Liancourt Rocks were never called “Dokdo” until the 20th century.

  • TheKorean2

    Gbevers, you must be confused, go take a nap! hahaha

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    TheKorean2 wrote (#125):

    Gbevers, you must be confused, go take a nap! hahaha

    No, I do not think I am confused. I think I just caught Frogmouth (Steve Barber) and Q trying to pawn off some more doctored translations on people.

    Steve and Q translated “竹島(鬱陵島)そして松島(独島)その外に二つの県に属する他の島はない…” as follows:

    There are no other islands belonging to the two disticts, including Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo)…”

    Notice how awkward the sentence looks? Well, it also looked awkward to me until I saw the 外に in Q’s translation, which translates as “except,” not “including.” Then I realized the sentence was actually saying the following:

    Except for Takeshima and Matsushima, there are no other islands in the two districts.

    In other words, the sentence was saying that Takeshima (Ullleungdo) and Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) were Japanese territory. Steve Barber (Frogmouth) and Q mistranslated it to make it seem like Takeshima and Matsushima were not part of the two Japanese districts.

    That means that after Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was given to Korea, Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) continued to be Japanese territory since it was not given.

    The claims that Steve, Q, and JK make about Japan’s maps, the 1696 travel ban, and the 1877 petition denial are all just bunk. Notice how when you shine light on them, they all scatter and hide until they can come back with more bunk to try to cover up the fact that their previous bunk had been debunked.

  • Q

    That’s the modern Japanese translation of original text “竹島、松島、その他、両国(因幡・伯耆)に附属する島は、ありません。” It means outside of Takeshima (Uleungdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo), there is no islands belonging to the two prefectures.

    Also note that the response to the Shogunates inquiry already answered to the first question: “…Takeshima does not belong to Inaba Province (因幡) or Hoki Provnce (伯耆).” (竹島は、因幡・伯耆に附属してはおりません。)

  • Q

    Gerry and his boss mistranslated 外に as “except for”. The meaning of 外に is “outside of” in the sentence.

    Gerry also mistranslated 接于倭境 as “attached to Japanese territory,” whilst the actual meaning is “adjacent to Japanese border.”

  • Arghaeri

    Terra Nullius? No man’s land? I don’t think so. Japan had already declared Dokdo off limits in 1837 after they executed a man for trespassing.

    The two are not mutually exclusive, as the latter indicates only that it was not under the jurisdiction and control of Japan, not that it was under the jurisdi tion and control of Korea.
    i.e. if anything it supports a subsequent claim of terra nullias.

  • Veritas

    Q,
    That source is so unreliable that it makes me want to cry. I’m not really one for arguing that the Liancourt rocks is either Japan or South Korea’s territory but the incorrect usage of historical text here is really quite disturbing.

    First of all, there is no Tottori “shogunate”. It’s a Han, or a domain – a semi-independent entity that is part of the Tokugawa Bakufu/Shogunate. In the series of questions there, Tottori domain simply stated that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) is not part of their domain – they considered the islands part of Matsue domain (present day Shimane prefecture), which is why the Bakufu sent a similar inquiry to the Matsue domain as well (which is conveniently ignored in the “source” presented above). To seize on this as a proof that Japan, as a country (which is a strange argument in itself because such a modern concept has not developed yet), declaring Liancourt Rocks as not being part of their country is a gross misrepresentation of facts.

    The Bakufu also sent a series of questions concerning the Liancourt Rocks (or back then known as Matsushima in Japan) to Tottori domain such as the position of the island, how far it is from Japan and how far it is from Korea and such. I’m going to have to disagree with Gerry regarding the interpretation of the original text but I certainly can’t agree with your interpretation either.

  • Veritas

    129
    As mentioned earlier, Takeshima back then refers to Ulleungdo and that declaration from 1837 declared Ulleungdo as being off-limits following a series of diplomatic exchanges between Japan and Korea. There’s really no reason to declare the Liancourt Rocks as being off-limits because, well, unlike Ulleungdo there were no inhabitants.

  • Q

    Check out The Japanese 1870 Secret Report on Chosun (Korea) – “…How Ulleungdo and Dokdo became Chosun Possessions…” (竹島松島朝鮮附屬).

    Japanese government keeps telling lies that Japan earnt Dokdo in 1905 by terra nullius.

  • Q

    Veritas, are you a Japanese?

  • Veritas

    #133
    I thought I stated somewhere that I was an American.
    That said, I am fluent in Japanese and have studied East Asian history quite extensively. Am I going to join the ranks of Gerry Bevers now as “someone on the payroll of Nihon Kaigi” because I don’t agree with you?

  • Veritas

    #53
    “the rape talk in America” is about a American politician (Todd Atkins) running for the senate – he made a rather splendidly stupid comment about how a victim of “legitimate rape” is less likely to end up with a pregnancy. This rightly caused an uproar in the states because 1) the claim wasn’t true, and 2) what the hell is a “legitimate rape”. He has caused (and quite frankly, is causing) a great deal of damage to his campaign and there’s also a good chance that this incident will hurt the Republican bid for Presidency as well.

    As for the rest of your post, I basically agree with you entirely. Both sides needs to move away from the whole “how did the women get brought into the system” bit. It’s a technicality. That’s not the important bit. So the Japanese army may not have been (at least entirely) responsible for bringing these women into the system, but repeatedly stating that “well, we weren’t really responsible for that part” doesn’t help. Nor does the Korean hard-line attitude which tries to sock all of the blame onto the Japanese.

    These women are getting old. Many of them have died, and more will probably die in the near future. I’d like to see both side reach some kind of agreement that provides some sort of closure to those people, but I’m not sure whether that will happen anytime soon.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @ Once again , the reveal: if you don’t drink the soju you must be Japaenese or drinking the sake.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Veritas wrote (#130):

    I’m going to have to disagree with Gerry regarding the interpretation of the original text but I certainly can’t agree with your interpretation either.

    That’s fine because I do not read or speak Japanese and am unfamilar with that text. I simply noticed that the translation supplied by Q used 外に, which would mean in the context of the sentence fragment provided, it would mean “except,” not “including.”

    You do not have to participate in the Dokdo/Takeshima debate, but I hope you will continue to point out any gross errors or misstatements made by either side.

  • Q

    @Veritas,

    What do you think about #132?

    @ Gerry,

    If 外に was used as a meaning of “except for”, it contradicts to the answer to the first question: “Takeshima does not belong to Inaba Province (因幡) or Hoki Provnce (伯耆).” You cannot see that?

    You also mistranslated 二つの県に属する他の島はない as “there are no other islands in the two districts,” whilst it means “there are no other islands that belong to the two prefectures.”

  • YangachiBastardo

    Goddamitall the day an alien ship crash onto the rocks and finally sink ‘em into the ocean i’m gonna get myself a nice bottle of Barolo

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote (#123):

    鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境. (Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island that is adjacent to the limits of Japan.)

    Gerry, you repeat your mistranslation. You know that, right?

    Let’s assume that your translation is correct, and the sentence means “Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island adjacent to Japanese territoritory” (接于倭境).

    So, what Japanese territory is “adjacent” Liancourt Rocks? There is nothing there except water. It is surrounded by water for as far as the eye can see, so your translation makes no sense.

    The only translation that makes sense is the island “connects to Japanese territory” or is “on the Japanese border,” meaning that it represents the Japanese border.

    Why would Koreans think that? Because everytime Koreans saw a Japanese ship coming toward Ulleungdo, it was coming from the direction of that island.

    Back then outlying islands represented territorial borders. If the island had represented the Korean border, the sentence would have said it “connected to Korean territory” instead of “connect to Japanese territory.”

    In his 1946 text, “Questions and Answers on General Knowledge of Korea” (朝鮮 常識 問答), Korean historian Choi Nam-seon wrote the following:

    Question: What are our countries extreme boundaries on the north, south, east, and west?

    문: 우리나라의 동서남북 극단은 어디입니까?)

    Answer: On the peninsula, the easternmost boundary is Noseo-myeon, Gyeongheung County in Hamgyeong Province. The westernmost boundary is Yongcheon-myeon, Yongcheon County, in North Pyeongan Province. The southernmost boundary is Songji-myeon, Haenam County in South Jolla Province. The northernmost boundry is Yupo-myeon, Eonseong County in North Hamgyeong Province.

    반도에서는 극동은 함경북도 경흥군 노서면, 극서는 평안북도 용천군 용천면, 극남은 전라남도 해남군 송지면, 극북은 함경북도 은성군 유포면이요.

    If islands are included, the easternmost boundary is Jukdo, Ulleung County in North Gyeongsang Province. The westernmost boundary is Maa-ri, Sindo-myeon, Yongcheon County in North Pyeongan Province. The southernmost boundary is Mara Island, Daejong-myeon, Jejudo in South Jolla Province. The northernmost boundary is Yupo-myeon, Eonseong County in North Hamgyeong Province.

    도서를 넣어서는 극동은 경상북도 울릉군 죽도, 극서는 평안북도 용천군 신도면 마안리, 극남은 전라남도 제주도 대정면 마라도, 극북은 극북은 함경북도 은성군 유포면입니다.

    Notice that Mr. Choi wrote that Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore) represented Korea’s easternmost boundary. In other words, an island represented the easternmost boundary of Korea.

    Therefore, in the 1714 passage Koreans were saying that the island visible to the east of Ulleungdo (Liancourt Rocks) represented the boundary of Japanese territory. Japan’s territory being so close to Ulleungdo was the excuse the Korean official used for requesting the East Coast defenses be strengthen.

  • Q

    倭境: Japanese border

    境 지경 경 1. 지경(地境: 땅의 가장자리, 경계) 2. 경계(境界), 국경(國境) 3. 경우(境遇) 4. 상태(狀態) 5. 곳, 장소(場所) 6. 처지(處地)

    接于倭境: adjacent to Japanese BORDER

  • Q

    朝鮮常識問答 was written under Japanese censorship during colonial period. It was published in series by 每日新報 from Jan. 30 to Sep. 22 in 1937.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote (#132):

    Check out The Japanese 1870 Secret Report on Chosun (Korea) – “…How Ulleungdo and Dokdo became Chosun Possessions…” (竹島松島朝鮮附屬).

    Japanese government keeps telling lies that Japan earnt Dokdo in 1905 by terra nullius.

    Q, the “Matsushima” (松島) mentioned in the 1870 report was referring to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore), not to Liancourt Rocks.

    In an April 7 1882 entry in The Annals of King Kojong, King Kojong, himself, said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island named “Songjukdo” (松竹島 – 송죽도) that he said was sometimes called “Songdo” (松島 – 송도) and sometimes called “Jukdo” (竹島 – 죽도). “Songdo” is the Korean pronunciation for “Matsushima.”

    At the meeting being described in the entry, Ulleungdo Inspector Lee Gyu-won told the king that “Songjukdo” was a small island between 3 to 10 ri offshore of Ulleungdo and that it had juniper (檀香) and “pipestem bamboo” (簡竹) on it.

    Three to 10 ri would be between “1.2 to 4 km.” Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo is 2km off Ulleungdo’s east shore from the closest point from shore, but if you travel to Jukdo from Jeodong, which is the main harbor on Ulleundo’s east shore, it is 4 km to Jukdo.

    Here is the translation of the 1870 Japanese report:

    How Takeshima & Matsushima Became Part of Korea

    As to this matter, Matsushima is a neighboring island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo). We have no previous records of Matsushima. In regard to Takeshima, after the Genroku years (1688 – 1704), Korea sent people there to live for awhile, but now, as before, it is uninhabited. It produces bamboo and also reeds thicker than bamboo. Ginseng and other products also grow there naturally. We have also heard that there is an abundance of marine products.

    Notice that they described Matsushima (Songdo) as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo and that there were no previous records of the island. That means the Matsushima being described in the report was not Liancourt Rocks since Japan did have records on Liancourt Rocks, including the record of a travel ban to the Rocks in 1837.

    Therefore, the Matsushima described in the report was almost certainly referring to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which King Kojong said in 1882 was also called “Songdo” (Matsushima).

  • Creo69

    Hey Gerry,

    You know the Korean govt. just valued Dokdo at like $7 million. Why don’t you just get some venture capitalists together and buy the damn place? You could open up a University of “Freethinking” and one of those “Popeyes” chicken and biscuit places on the helipad.

    With that nutty Reverend Moonie gone there is an opening again for a man of your character in Korea,..Carpe diem!

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote (#142):

    朝鮮常識問答 was written under Japanese censorship during colonial period. It was published in series by 每日新報 from Jan. 30 to Sep. 22 in 1937.

    Then why wasn’t it quickly revised in the 1947 edition, two years after liberation, and in the 1948 edition of his book “General Knowledge of Korea” (朝鮮常識), three years after liberation? Maybe because Koreans had not yet come up with their scheme to try to claim Japan’s Liancourt Rocks.

    Regardless of how you want to spin it, the book described Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo as being the “easternmost boundary” of Korea. That means islands were recognized as the boundaries to a country’s territory.

  • Q

    Yawn… Check out Japanese maps in the 19C.

    In the higly detailed Uleungdo map attached to the 1870 Report On Chosun’s Ulleungdo (竹島) and Dokdo, there is not any adjacent islet named Matsushima (Dokdo).

    In this Japanese map, Matsushima(Dokdo) is marked about one third distant between Takeshima(Uleungdo) and Oki island. Matsushima does not indicate the island 2 km away from Takeshima.

    In another map of the 1877 Kobunruko Documents, Matsushima(Dokdo) is marked 40 ri away from Takeshima(Uleungdo). It’s not 2.2km away from Uleungdo.

  • Q

    Gerry, now do you agree that 接于倭境 means “adjacent to Japanese BORDER“?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Creo69 wrote (#144):

    You know the Korean govt. just valued Dokdo at like $7 million. Why don’t you just get some venture capitalists together and buy the damn place? You could open up a University of “Freethinking” and one of those “Popeyes” chicken and biscuit places on the helipad.

    With that nutty Reverend Moonie gone there is an opening again for a man of your character in Korea,..Carpe diem!

    Why is it that some people feel uncomfortable with Korea’s lies about Dokdo being exposed? Aterall, Korea has been using its Dokdo lies to stir up anti-Japanese feelings in Korea and abroad for years. Is that something people want?

    Why do some people ridicule the search for truth? Why is it acceptable to study certain aspects of Korean history, but not other aspects? Curious, isn’t it?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote (#146):

    Yawn… Check out Japanese maps in the 19C.

    In the higly detailed Uleungdo map attached to the 1870 Report On Chosun’s Ulleungdo (竹島) and Dokdo, there is not any adjacent islet named Matsushima

    I don’t understand, Q. Are you trying to make my point for me? The 1870 Japanese report said that Japan has no record of Ulleungdo having a neighboring island named “Matsushima,” which means their maps would not have shown it.

    Now, wake up and explain to me why King Kojong, who, by the way, was the king of Korea, said in April 1882 that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Songjukdo,” which was also referred to as “Songdo” (松島 -Matsushima) and “Jukdo” (竹島). Also, explain to me why Ulleungdo Inspector Lee Gyu-won told the king that “Songjukdo” was a small island between 1.2 and 4 km offshore of Ulleungdo and had juniper and pipestem bamboo growing there?

  • Creo69

    “Why do some people ridicule the search for truth?”

    Gerry. I am just poking fun at you. I personally admire your tenacity and the hard work you have invested in learning Korean which would allow you to search in depth as you do. I may not always agree with you though … but I am 100% positive you could care less about that :)

  • Creo69

    And Gerry, just for the record, considering what the Japanese did to the Koreans … the Japanese could be big enough to give up the fight over a couple rocks valued at 7 million US.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Creo69 wrote (#150):

    Gerry. I am just poking fun at you. I personally admire your tenacity and the hard work you have invested in learning Korean which would allow you to search in depth as you do.

    Thank you, Creo.

    Creo69 wrote:

    And Gerry, just for the record, considering what the Japanese did to the Koreans … the Japanese could be big enough to give up the fight over a couple rocks valued at 7 million US.

    Well, what exactly did the Japanese do to the Koreans? I have heard conflicting stories, so I am interested in studying that, as well.

    My study of the Dokdo dispute has shown me that Koreans can make up some pretty wide stories, so when it comes to any history involving Korea and Japan, I need to see hard evidence rather than just reading a Korean version of it.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Correction: “some pretty wild stories”

  • Q

    gbevers said (#143):

    the “Matsushima” (松島) mentioned in the 1870 report was referring to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore), not to Liancourt Rocks.

    gbevers also mentioned(#149):

    The 1870 Japanese report said that Japan has no record of Ulleungdo having a neighboring island named “Matsushima,”

    The confused gbevers contradicts himself.

  • Creo69

    “Well, what exactly did the Japanese do to the Koreans? I have heard conflicting stories, so I am interested in studying that, as well.”

    Gerry…whatever it is that Koreans did to you, at some point in your life you need to lay it to rest. In the Korean Confucian based society, every one gets shit on and shit on plentifully. The fact that they cared enough to shit on you in the first shows that at one time they enjoyed your company enough to consider you a part of the madness. Can’t you take that as a compliment and live and let live?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Creo69 wrote (#155):

    Gerry…whatever it is that Koreans did to you, at some point in your life you need to lay it to rest.

    I’ll tell you what Koreans did to me. They lied to me about Dokdo. I don’t like being lied to.

    Also, studying the history of the dispute is a hobby for me, which means I enjoy doing it. It is not a burden on me, so you need not worry.

  • Creo69

    “I’ll tell you what Koreans did to me. They lied to me about Dokdo. I don’t like being lied to.”

    Not that I am saying I agree with you about Dokdo. But … it took you how many years to figure out that the Western concept of “truth” simply doesn’t reside here? Exactly how many more years do you intend to battle windmills for Don?

  • YangachiBastardo

    it took you how many years to figure out that the Western concept of “truth” simply doesn’t reside here?

    I can tell you never worked for a currency-trading chop shop, otherwise you would harbour less idealistic views about the truth and the West

  • Creo69

    “I can tell you never worked for a currency-trading chop shop, otherwise you would harbour less idealistic views about the truth and the West”

    Sorry, there were no currency trading chop shops in the part of the Midwest where I was raised in. And, even after living in Korea for eight years I still value the truth…I have just come to accept that there is less of a need for it here and learned to live with that. Life is actually a lot more relaxing when you are not restricted by concepts like “truth” anyway.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    YangachiBastardo wrote (#158):

    I can tell you never worked for a currency-trading chop shop, otherwise you would harbour less idealistic views about the truth and the West.

    I used to think the Korean media was deceitful and untrustworthy, but since I have returned to the United States, I now realize that the US media is almost as bad. Fox News is about the only news I can trust now.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote (#154):

    The confused gbevers contradicts himself.

    Let me try to explain my logic to you, Q.

    The 1870 Japanese report said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Matsushima” (Songdo) that the Japanese had no record of. In April 1882, King Kojong said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island that was sometimes called Songdo (Matsushima) and sometimes called Jukdo. Therefore, the Matsushima mentioned in the 1870 Japanese report was referring to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore).

  • hamel

    Hey Gerry, do you still believe that Japan had territorial sovereignty over Korea until the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Hamel drones (#162):

    Hey Gerry, do you still believe that Japan had territorial sovereignty over Korea until the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951?

    I simply reported what Sec. of State Dean Rusk wrote in his August 10, 1951. I will let people decide for themselves, including goofballs like you.

    Asst. Sec. of State Dean Rusk (10 Aug 1951):

    With respect to request of the Korean Government that Article 2(a) of the draft be revised to provide that Japan “confirms that it renounced on August 9, 1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the islands Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo,” the United States Government regrets that it is unable to concur in this proposed amendment. The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan’s acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration.

    As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.

  • hamel

    I simply reported what Sec. of State Dean Rusk wrote in his August 10, 1951. I will let people decide for themselves, including goofballs like you.

    Thanks for letting goofballs like me decide, that’s very giving of you.

    I read the quote from Rusk above, but I couldn’t find the part where it says that Korea was under Japanese sovereignty until 1951. I did see the part where it said that Japan did not renounce her claims to sovereignty over Korea until 1951, but that is a separate thing.

    I think if you argue (as you seem to be doing) that Korea actually WAS de jure under Japanese sovereignty until 1951, then it raises problems of which country invaded which country on June 25, 1950. Was it one rebellious Japanese province attacking another?

    I am not making light of what you are saying here, Gerry (though I have done so in the past with regard to other matters). I seriously think you have misread or misinterpreted the quote from Rusk, and taken it to mean something that it was never intended to mean. Not out of malice, mind you.

    *******
    One goofball to another. ^^

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Hamel,

    What’s your objective in asking such a question? It seems to me that you’re just trying to stir the always on the verge of boiling over pot, by eliciting some response that, probably misconstrued, will just unleash a new shitstorm of fulmination from the usuak korchauvbsuspects. What’s the point in that? The inquiry has about as much practical significance as asking whether the Armistice ended the Korean War.

  • hamel

    Sperwer: why does it bother you that I am asking Gerry what I believe to be a legitimate question?

    We were having a discussion about this very issue in another thread, where I explained how I saw the matter (in answer to your request/order), and by then Gerry had left the discussion and moved on. So I simply wanted to know if he still held the same position.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Hamel wrote (#164):

    I think if you argue (as you seem to be doing) that Korea actually WAS de jure under Japanese sovereignty until 1951, then it raises problems of which country invaded which country on June 25, 1950. Was it one rebellious Japanese province attacking another?

    I am not arguing it, which I would have thought would make many people here at the Marmot’s Hole quite happy. Something was mentioned on another thread, and I simply pointed out what Sec. Rusk wrote.

    I do not feel like speculating with you on rather it was Korean citizens fighting each other in the Korean War or Japanese citizens, or if we should change the name of the war to the Japanese War.

    Anyway, I will stop calling you “goofball” if you stop bugging me.

  • yuna

    Old Korean men who are left at home when their wives go out used to hang out in Jongak. They are looking for Jangki(Chinese chess) or Paduk or sex partners – I think a similar physical space needs to be set up for old non-Korean men.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Not bothered; just genuinely curious what the nature of your interest is

  • CactusMcHarris

    #168,

    And how do you know this? Are they hitting on you (and why wouldn’t they)? And that’s some choice variation there – some games or The Game.

  • yuna

    #170
    Sorry, it’s not Jongak, but more Jongmyo.
    http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/08/02/2012080200049.html
    I don’t look like a Bacchus박카스 woman, so they didn’t bother me.
    It’s been a big problem for a while now. It was like finding out your parents have sex – I didn’t want to give up my seats for gramps for a good while after learning that men are still “up to no good” in their old age.

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers the Japanese (Gov’t) did not have records of Matsushima (Dokdo) because at the time of this report the Meiji Government was very new. That’s the whole purpose of this report, they were trying to gather data.

    They had just ousted the Shogunate. Even today most historical records related to Matsushima (Dokdo) are from the households of the Murakawa or Oyas. Some Japanese records of Dokdo were discovered as late as 2005. It’s not surprising they lacked records, but they new it was Chosun territory.

    There is not one Japanese record or map that shows Ulleungdo’s Jukdo as Matsushima. The Japanese fishermen called Jukdo Islet Igashima or Squid Island.

    Gerry the Japanese explicity issued a travel ban to Ulleungdo and this would have included Matsushima.

    Why? Could you image sailing about four days in heavy seas to a rock with no water, fuel (wood) or shelter. It would be suicide. Not only that, what would Japanese do if the arrived at Matsushima and the weather was too rough to moor? Even today, modern vessels can’t moor at Dokdo about half of the time.

    Unlike most, (if not all) people on this thread I’ve been to Dokdo numerous times and even stayed overnight. It is not the kind of place I’d want to be in hot, wet, cold, rainy, snowy or even sunny weather for an extended period of time. It’s basically a rocky desert surrounded by salt water.

    To issue a travel ban to Dokdo is akin to forbidding people from voyaging 300kms retun voyage to a rock in the Sahara Desert. This would be a about 700kms considering it was only the Murakawas and Oyas from Yonago who went there. Unitil 1837 there was no explicit travel ban because Japanese didn’t voyage there as a destination. At this time even the seals of Dokdo has zero value.

    Mr Bevers, stop hammering on Q’s interpretation of the Shimane’s travel ban in 1696. This is accepted fact. You are the one making false translation here.

    Why not read publication from other authors Mr Bevers? Oh I see, when history doesn’t suit your agenda you write your own bogus translations!

    The same translation is found on this article and numerous other websites. See page 28/33.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/Hoon-Lee-Dokdo.pdf

    I think you owe us apologies for accusing us of making fake translations that are accepted facts. You are over your head.

  • yuna

    Then again, I would definitely give up my seat for this old Japanese man:
    http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2012/09/02/2012090200036.html?r_ranking
    There are a lot of reasonable Japanese people. Koreans should just find themselves personal Japanese friends, that will save all the hassle in the world.

  • yuna

    In his letter:

    세이노씨는 서한에서 “1905년에 일본이 독도를 편입했다”는 주장과 “1952년 샌프란시스코 강화조약 당시 국제사회가 독도를 일본 영토로 인정했다”는 일본 측 주장에 대해 견강부회(牽强附會)라고 비판했다.
    그는 “한국을 식민지로 병합하는 과정에서 다케시마를 편입한 것이나 한국전쟁 와중에 한국이 회의에 참석하지도 못한 상태에서 체결한 샌프란시스코 조약을 근거로 일본 땅이라고 주장하는 것은 정의에 어긋난다”면서 “일본이 부끄러움을 모른 채 북방영토(쿠릴 4개 섬)와 다케시마라는 두 마리 토끼를 쫓다가는 한 마리(북방영토)도 얻지 못할 수도 있다”고 말했다.

    견강부회(牽强附會) WOW! What an apt description! Seriously there is a 4자성어 for every situation !

    “이상해진 나라에서 죽기는 싫다. 제대로 된 나라로 돌려놓고 싶다는 생각으로 편지를 썼다”고 말했다고 연합뉴스는 전했다. 또 일본 젊은이들에게 ‘진짜 애국심’을 전해주고 싶다고 강조했다.

    This is what I usually think. Rather than angry, I feel sorry/alarmed for the Japanese for really missing out on the country-wide introspection, with their heads wrapped around in Hello Kitties and Murakami Harukis
    The majority of Koreans are aware of their own faults and failings as well – the collaborators, the communists, the dictators, even when they are up against China or Japan.

  • jk6411

    Gerry,
    You are not just doing this as a hobby.
    I’ve discussed Dokdo with you on many occasions, and I’ve seen that even when you have completely lost an argument, you just keep bringing up the same old argument at a later time.

    You’re either completely pigheaded in your hate for Korea, or you need to get your head checked.
    I think the former is true.

    You’re a pretty intelligent guy.
    Why not put your mind to use and do something useful?
    It’s never too late to pick up something new.
    Maybe even go back to school.
    And start over.

  • Q

    gebevers (#161) wrote:

    the Matsushima mentioned in the 1870 Japanese report was referring to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore).

    Your claim contradicts attached Japanese maps (#146) which show Matsuchima(Dokdo) 40 ri distant from Takeshima(Uleungdo).

  • frogmouth

    JK I’ve noticed the same thing about Mr Bevers. I don’t know why he keeps spinning his tires on the same historical records when he’s been proven wrong before (even on this blog). Memory problems?

    The fact he accuses others of falsifying translations reveals he probably does it himself. It seems he likes to stretch the truth or make things up.

    Regarding Lee Gyu Won’s converstion with King Gojong Mr Bevers.

    The translation I’ve seen for 相距爲三數十里 is 20~30리쯤. This means about 20~30 ri. Or 8 to 12 kms in Korean ri.

    http://blog.naver.com/hurrah21c?Redirect=Log&logNo=70017659647

    This translation is the same as mine in the Korean Dokdo book series “독도자료집“

    Don’t you find giving a ball park distance estimate of between 3 and 10
    ri kind of weird?

    http://blog.naver.com/hurrah21c?Redirect=Log&logNo=70017659647

    Having stood on the shore of Ulleungdo at Seom-mok there it’s not realistic to mistake Jukdo Island as being 20~30ri (8~12kms)

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/seommok-to-jukdo.jpg

    However, it makes more sense Gojong had heard of an island called Songdo (Japanese,Matsushima=Dokdo) from a Japanese source. This would about 20 to 30 Japanese ri (between 80~120kms) distance away.

    At any rate the informaton Gojong and Lee Gyu Won exchanged was pre-survey and merely speculation from heresay.

  • jk6411

    At any rate the informaton Gojong and Lee Gyu Won exchanged was pre-survey and merely speculation from heresay.

    Yes, exactly.

  • YangachiBastardo

    I feel sorry/alarmed for the Japanese for really missing out on the country-wide introspection, with their heads wrapped around in Hello Kitties and Murakami Harukis

    The former being much more bearable than the latter

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Let me start first with the biggest fish in the barrel. A lot of this seems obvious to me, but for the benefit of any other Q-like, common-sense-challenged people on this blog, I will try to explain.

    Q wrote (#176):

    Your claim contradicts attached Japanese maps (#146) which show Matsuchima(Dokdo) 40 ri distant from Takeshima(Uleungdo).

    As far as I know, none of the three maps to which you linked was attached to the 1870 Japanese report, but let’s go through the list, anyway.

    1) The first Japanese map shows Ulleungdo without a neighboring island named “Matushima,” which supports the claim in the 1870 Japanese report that said Japan had no record of Ulleungdo’s having a neighboring island named “Masushima.”

    2) The second Japanese map shows Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks). If it were attached to the 1870 report, then it would prove that the Japanese did not consider Liancourt Rocks to be a neighboring island of Ulleungdo since the report said the Japanese had no record of Ulleungdo’s having a neighboring island named “Matsushima.” It did not say it had no record of “Oki’s Matsushima” (Liancourt Rocks).

    3) The third Japanese map shows Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) with a distance of 40 Japanese ri between them. If this map were attached to the 1870 report, then it too would prove that the Japanese did not consider Liancourt Rocks to be a neighboring island of Ulleungdo.

    4) In April 1882, King Kojong told Ulleungdo Inspector Lee Gyu-won that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Songjukdo” (松竹島) that was sometimes called “Songdo” (松島 – Matsushima) and sometimes called “Jukdo” (竹島). Inspector Lee confirmed that Ulleungdo did have a neighboring island named “Songjukdo” and said it was 1.2 to 4 km offshore. He added that it had juniper and pipestem bamboo growing on it.

    Obviously, the 1870 Japanese report was referring to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore), which Kojong said was sometimes also called “Songdo” (Matsushima). “Songdo” is the Korean pronunciation of the Chinese characters that make up the name “Matsushima” (松島).

  • yuna

    OMG. There was a time I thought Gerry might have some actual ground. The comment above which ends with “Obviously” (LOL) just erased that doubt clean out of my mind.

    For those who read Korean, here is a Japanese-Korean professor in the news:
    http://news.hankyung.com/201209/2012090248751.html?ch=news
    His is a concise argument I can understand.

    Why is that in both countries there exists proponents for the other side and the ones like this professor comes across as reasonable, and actually concerned about Japan and its ugly raising of the head of the ultra-right, and the ones like 안병직 come across as old man gone loonie-tunes?

    #179
    I’m glad! Finally! Somebody else who thinks Murakami Haruki is overrated! Effing HELL, if I were to come across another person (doesn’t matter if he/she is Korean, or British, or German) who thinks his shit is hot and deep I will scream.

  • yuna

    I would like to confess that I also hate Paulo Coelho. If either of these two ever win the Nobel Prize, I will be very upset with the Nobel Prize people.

  • yuna

    take a couple of s’s from 181 and toss them in 182.

  • mickster

    Veritas:
    Thank you for enlightening me on Todd Atkins. Surely, it sounds infuriating.
    Also, thank you for your kind comment. I respect you for your knowledge and decent choice of language in debating.
    Best regards.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Yuna wrote (#181):

    OMG. There was a time I thought Gerry might have some actual ground. The comment above which ends with “Obviously” (LOL) just erased that doubt clean out of my mind.

    Yeah, right! Then why didn’t you ever come to my defense? Can you give me an example of one of those times?

    Yuna wrote:

    For those who read Korean, here is a Japanese-Korean professor in the news:
    http://news.hankyung.com/201209/2012090248751.html?ch=news
    His is a concise argument I can understand.

    I just wasted 5 to 10 minutes reading that stupid article, which is entitled, “Shocking Admission that Japan Conceals Evidence that ‘Dokdo is Korean Territory.’” In other words, “the reason we have no evidence Dokdo is Korean territory is that Japan is hiding it.”

    The guy interviewed in the article is Yuji Hosaka, a Japanese goofball who took Korean citizenship a few years back and has been carrying Korea’s Dokdo flag for past few years. He claims, “I was born to defend Korea’s Dokdo claim.” I posted about him in 2009 HERE and HERE.

    The guy is a total goofball. He makes the same claims that Q and others goofballs make here at the Marmot’s Hole, except he is worse. Besides pointing to Japanese maps of Korea that show the non-existent island of Argonaut labeled as “Takeshima” and Ulleungdo labeled as “Matsushima” and then saying the map proves Dokdok was Korean territory, also has claimed that the Usando (于山島) on Korean maps could not have been Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore) because some of the maps show the island with a mountain on it while Jukdo has a flat surface. You can see my 2009 post on the article HERE.

    In the article to which Yuna linked, Yuji claims that Japan has only made 70% of his Dokdo-related documents public, I am guessing is the “shocking admission” the Korean article was referring to in its headline.

    Yuna, if you think Yuji Hosaka is reasonable, then I have a couple of rocks in the middle of the Sea of Japan I would like to sell you.

  • Q

    @ gbevers (#180),

    LOL. And the 1870 Japanese report with attached map said: 竹島松島朝鮮附屬 (Takeshima and Matsushima belongs to Chosun).

  • jk6411

    The Dokdo dispute is over.

    They recently discovered Korean govt documents from 1902 which prove that the Korean govt collected taxes from Japanese fishermen operating at Ulleungdo and Dokdo.
    The documents specify that Japanese fishermen who catch sea lions (on Dokdo) must pay taxes if they want to export their catch (to Japan).
    This is the clearest evidence that Korea exercised control over Dokdo.
    Korea exercised control over Dokdo way before Japan annexed Dokdo in 1905.
    Japan’s 1905 incorporation of Dokdo was completely null and void.

    (H/T to Yuna)

  • Q

    The 1870 Japanese document does say that “…Matsushima (Dokdo) is a neighbor island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo),” which contradict your claim.

  • Q

    Japan’s 1870 Report on Chosun (Korea):

    “…竹島松島朝鮮附屬 “How Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) became Korean Possessions…”

    “…Matsushima (Dokdo) is a neighbor island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and there is no document on file by the shogunate concerning this (these) island(s). 2. The island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was settled by the Korean people after the 1690s (During the reign of King Sukjong) but it now has become uninhabited…..”

    [Source]

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote (#188):

    The 1870 Japanese document does say that “…Matsushima (Dokdo) is a neighbor island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo),” which contradict your claim.

    You’re delusional. Did you not read my #143 comment, especially the part about King Kojong saying that Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore) was sometimes called “Songdo” (松島), which Japanese pronounce “Matsushima”?

    Q wrote (#189):

    Japan’s 1870 Report on Chosun (Korea):

    “…竹島松島朝鮮附屬 “How Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) became Korean Possessions…”

    “…Matsushima (Dokdo) is a neighbor island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and there is no document on file by the shogunate concerning this (these) island(s). 2. The island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was settled by the Korean people after the 1690s (During the reign of King Sukjong) but it now has become uninhabited…..”

    The correct title of the report was “Investigation of How Takeshima and Matsushima Became Part of Korea” (竹島 松島 朝鮮附属ニ相成候始末).

    Now, let’s remove the part of your translation that says, “on file by the shogunate,” because I do not see it in the Japanese.

    Here is how it should be translated:

    Investigation of How Takeshima and Matsushima Became Part of Korea

    As to the matter of Matsushima being a neighboring island of Takeshima (Ulleungdo), we have no records so far on Matsushima. In regard to Takeshima, after the Genroku years (1688 – 1704), Korea sent people there to live for awhile, but now, as before, it is uninhabited. It produces bamboo and also reeds thicker than bamboo. Ginseng and other products also grow there naturally. We have also heard that there is an abundance of marine products.

    竹島 松島 朝鮮附属ニ相成候始末

    此儀ハ 松島ハ竹島ノ隣島ニシテ松島ノ儀ニ付 是迄掲載セシ書留モ無之 竹島ノ儀ニ付テハ元禄度後ハ暫クノ間 朝鮮ヨリ居留ノ為差遣シ置候処 当時ハ以前ノ如ク無人ト相成 竹木又ハ竹ヨリ太キ葭ヲ産シ 人參等自然ニ生シ 其餘漁産モ相應ニ有之趣相聞ヘ候事

    Notice that the report said they had no record of Matsushima being a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Since Japan DID have records of “Oki’s Matsushima” (隱岐ノ松島), which was Liancourt Rocks, we know the report was not referring to Liancourt Rocks.

    Therefore, the Japanese mission to Korea must have seen a map in Busan that showed Ulleungdo with a neighboring island called “Songdo” (松島), which Japanese pronounce “Matsushima” or they heard that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island named “Matsushima.” The Japanese mission did not travel to Ulleungdo.

    Since King Kong said in 1882 that Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore) was also sometimes called “Songdo” (Matsushima), we can assume the Japanese report in 1870 was referring to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo.

  • Q

    The 1870 Japanese document started with the title “Investigation of How Takeshima and Matsushima Became Part of Korea” (竹島 松島 朝鮮附属ニ相成候始末) and the 19C Japanese maps consistently show Matsushima as Dokdo. Simple.

  • jk6411

    Re: #187,

    Sorry about that.
    The Dokdo dispute is not over just yet.
    (But Korea’s case is getting stronger.)

  • Q

    The 1870 Japanese report is also evidence that Japanese government is telling lies that Japan acquired Dokdo terra nullius in 1905.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote (#191):

    The 1870 Japanese document started with the title “Investigation of How Takeshima and Matsushima Became Part of Korea” (竹島 松島 朝鮮附属ニ相成候始末) and the 19C Japanese maps consistently show Matsushima as Dokdo. Simple.

    Take off your blinders, Q. I know it hurts, but you have to face it sometime.

    King Kojong ( April 7, 1882) : Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore) “is sometimes called Songdo (Matsushima).

    King Kojong ( April 7, 1882) : Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore) “is sometimes called Songdo (Matsushima).

    King Kojong ( April 7, 1882) : Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore) “is sometimes called Songdo (Matsushima).

    King Kojong ( April 7, 1882) : Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (2km offshore) “is sometimes called Songdo (Matsushima).

  • Q

    In the 1870 Japanese document, there is no reference to King Gojong and only relevant information that appears in Japanese maps and documents is Matsushima as Dokdo.

  • Q

    Also note that when 1870 Japanese report was written, the King Gojong’s reference of 1882 did not even exist.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote (#196):

    Also note that when 1870 Japanese report was written, the King Gojong’s reference of 1882 did not even exist.

    You’re funny, Q.

    King Kojong did not say people started referring to Jukdo as “Songdo” (松島 – Matsushima) in 1882; he said Jukdo (2km offshore) was sometimes called “Songdo,” which means people had referred to it as “Songdo” before 1882.

    By the way, in his 1876 opinion, Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基) wrote that the small island in the south corner of THIS MAP was probably “Uindo” (于人島), which was almost certainly a misspelling of Usando (于山島). That means the Head of the Bureau of Documents in Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs believed Usando to be a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, and the island in question was almost certainly Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is 2km off Ulleungdo’s east shore.

    On the south corner of the map is drawn an island that has a circumference of about 1.5 ri. The island is probably Uindo (于人島).

    而シ圖中南隅ニ一里半周圍ノ一島ヲ載ス、是于人島ナルベシ

  • Q

    The Japanese 1870 document does not say anything about nominal custom of Chosun. It simply says Takeshima and Mastushima belongs to Chosun and 19C Japanese maps clearly indicate they are Uleungdo and Dokdo, respectively.

    As for Kuoki, check out Japan’s Watanabe Kouki’s Confusion About Matsushima (松島).

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Good night, Q. I’m not going to waste my time on you, anymore.

  • Q

    Keep in mind when you are in bed that SCAPIN and SF Peace Treaty excluded Dokdo from Japan:

    General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers promulgated SCAPIN No. 677:

    Japan is defined to include the four main islands of Japan (Hokkaido, Honshu, Kyushu and Shikoku) and the approximately 1,000 smaller adjacent islands, including the Tsushima Islands and the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 30° North Latitude (excluding Kuchinoshima Island); and excluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Take Island) and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island

    The SCAPIN has been revised twice: SCAPIN 841 issued on March 22, 1946 returning Izu and Nanpo Islands to Japan; the revised SCAPIN 677 dated December 5, 1951 returned the islands between 30-29 degree N. latitude and Kagoshima Ten Village Islands to Japanese sovereignty. However, no such directives, memoranda and/or orders were ever issued to change the separation of Dokdo. The territorial provisions in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty merely conformed what had already become an accomplished fact. The separation of Dokdo by SCAPIN No. 677 — so far as it has not been changed specifically — should be acknowledged and respected as the accomplished facts which were actually carried into effect by the Peace Treaty. (Source: Professor Young K Kim, A Suggestion for an Impeccable logical integrity, Dec. 2011: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=young_kim)

    San Francisco Peace Treaty pronounced that:

    Japan recognizes the validity of all acts and omissions done during the period of occupation under or in consequence of directives of the occupation authorities or authorized by Japanese law at that time, and will take no action subjecting Allied nationals to civil or criminal liability arising out of such acts or omissions.

  • Q

    Coming back to this post’s topics, it would be helpful to check out The Colonization of Korea and the Growth of the Prostitution Industry in Toshiyuki Tanaka’s research “Japan’s Comfort Women (Asia’s Transformations)”.

  • Q

    gbevers’ Dokdo trolling coincide with Gemba Koichiro’s TBS comment on Sept. 3 claiming Japan established her ownership of Dokdo during Edo period. Ironically, the propaganda contradicts Japanese claim of acquiring Dokdo terra nullius. It is evident Japanese government keeps telling a lie.

  • yuna

    #185
    Sorry, I meant “if there were” a time that I thought you had some ground, and even that, I am afraid is not based on anything you wrote but the zeal and the amount you seemed to write, because I don’t think I ever read anything by either you or Q or anybody else on Dokdo on this site until now. I don’t (didn’t) want to get into this issue (too much work) and like all matters of dispute I was(am) prepared to acknowledge that both sides must have some basis for their argument.
    However your last comment just happened to catch my eye and my eyes just rolled back into its socket- it seemed especially convoluted forced and contrived. Maybe all your other comments (and the Japanese arguments) are like that in which case the Korean side has even less to worry about. I don’t know.

    The Japanese-Korean professor seems very reasonable to me. http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/program/program_seoulreport_detail.htm?No=4149

    He doesn’t appear to be a puppet or anything and I believe him when he says a lot of his Japanese colleagues are not berating him, because I do believe that the Japanese are very level-headed people on the whole. I hope that they drop this animosity-gesturing soon. At least from their pop culture they have realized that “making war” and “misdirected love in dying for Japan” is a futile thing, along the same line they should now realize that only a little bit of seeing eye to eye with their neighbours is a good direction for them.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Frogmouth wrote (#177):

    The translation I’ve seen for 相距爲三數十里 is 20~30리쯤. This means about 20~30 ri. Or 8 to 12 kms in Korean ri.

    1) 20-30 would be 8-12km. There are no islands with juniper and pipestem bamboo 8 to 12 kilometers offshore of Ulleungdo.

    2) 相距爲三數十里 translates as follows:

    The distance between (相距) is (爲) 3 (三) to some (數) 10 (十) ri (里).

    Where do you get 20-30 ri?

    Besides meaning “number, 數(수) can mean “some,” as in 수년(數年), which means “some years” or “a number of years.” For example, 수년 전 means “some years ago.” LINK

    Consider the following:

    Putting a number before 수(數):

    수년 (數年) = some years
    삼수년 (三數年) = 3 and some years
    십수년 (三數年) = 10 and some years
    삼십수년 (三十數年) = 30 and some years
    삼백수년 (三百數年) = 300 and some years

    Putting the number after 수(數):

    수년 (數年) = some years
    수십년 (數十年) = some decades
    수삼십년 (數三十年) some 3 decades
    수백년 (數百年) = some centuries
    수삼백년 (數三百年) = some three centuries

    Putting numbers before and after 수(數):

    백수십년 (百數十年) = a hundred and some decades
    삼백수십년 (三百數十年) = three hundred and some decades
    千數百年(천수백년) = a thousand and some centuries
    삼천수백년 (三千數百年) three thousand and some centuries.

    * Notice that when you put a number before 수(數), it is larger than the number following 수(數)

    Insteand of 년(年) in the above examples, you can, of course, subsitute the distance measurement 리(里).

    Now, let’s go back to 삼수십리 (三數十里), which has a number before and after 수(數). The problem with the expression is that the number before 수(數) is smaller than the number after 수(數).

    Let’s substitute 년(年) for 리(里) in the expression, which would give us 삼수십년 (三數十里). Does the translation “3 and some decades” make sense? No, because 3 is smaller than a decade. Does the translation “3 and some ten years” make sense? Yes, because it represents a range from “3 to ten years.”

    Therefore, the phrase 삼수십리 (三數十里) should be translated as “3 and some 10 ri,” which would be “3 to 10 ri (1.2 and some 4 kilometers).

    That would make sense because Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo is between 2 to 4 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore, depending on where you depart from.

    The reason your source, Frogmouth, has fuddled the translation is that entry is so damning to the Korea’s Dokdo claim.

  • Q

    境 지경 경 1. 지경(地境: 땅의 가장자리, 경계) 2. 경계(境界), 국경(國境) 3. 경우(境遇) 4. 상태(狀態) 5. 곳, 장소(場所) 6. 처지(處地)

    倭境: Japanese border
    接于倭境: adjacent to Japanese BORDER

    Gerry, now do you agree that 接于倭境 means “adjacent to Japanese BORDER“?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Yuna wrote (#181):

    OMG. There was a time I thought Gerry might have some actual ground. The comment above which ends with “Obviously” (LOL) just erased that doubt clean out of my mind.

    Then she wrote at #203:

    Sorry, I meant “if there were” a time that I thought you had some ground, and even that, I am afraid is not based on anything you wrote but the zeal and the amount you seemed to write, because I don’t think I ever read anything by either you or Q or anybody else on Dokdo on this site until now.

    So, you accidentally clicked on my name and read my entire post before realizing that it was about Dokdo, a favorite subject of mine that you never read, which was so OMG that you looked up an article by a goofy Japanese convert whose explanation of the dispute was so reasonable that you had to post a link to it and write a three- or four-paragraph comment praising it?

    Do I understand you correctly?

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    #205,

    Sorry, Q, I will not be discussing anything more with you.

  • yuna

    Yes.

    But no I didn’t click on your name, it was there at the end of the thread.

    I was actually trying to make a point that old men like (not just) you should find a good physical space/hobby to release their unpent something, and then Cactus MacHarris asked about these old Korean men so I looked up a recent article on the subject of senior loiterers and users of fake viagra in Korea and from there there was a link to a recent news article which had the old Japanese man writing a letter to the Korean embassy.

    Anyway, good luck to you and your hobby. Gambattene!

  • Q

    Do not pretend not to know your are wrong, gbevers.

  • frogmouth

    Gerry I didn’t fuddle any translation. I just quoted some translations from academic sources. Please follow the link below.

    http://m.dokdohistory.com/mobile_kor/data/records_view.asp?bidx=132&bmode=view&bname=&board=&didx=&menulev=2&mode=&page=4&s_word=&search=&sidx=11&stype=1&subject=

    If you would like I could scan and post an image from my book that shows the same translation from yet another source. That would be three separate places that show you are wrong.

    The correct translation is 20~30 ri and I’ve also talked to some Koreans who stated it could also mean “about 30 ri”. So you are working backwards from the false premise your translation is correct.

    You’ve already botched one translation on this thread why don’t you quit while you are ahead.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Frogmouth wrote (#209):

    Gerry I didn’t fuddle any translation. I just quoted some translations from academic sources…

    ….The correct translation is 20~30 ri and I’ve also talked to some Koreans who stated it could also mean “about 30 ri”.

    I didn’t say you fuddled it. I already know you do not know enough Korean to translate this stuff. I said your source fuddled it.

    Where is “20″ mentioned in the phrase? Where is “30″? If the writer had wanted to say “about 30 ri,” he would have written it as either “삼십수리 (三十數里 – 30 and some ri) or 삼십여리 (三十餘里 “about 30 ri). The 수(數) is just a substitute for 여(餘).

    Not only does your source’s translation not make sense, it does not fit the geography. There is no island 8 to 12 kilometers offshore of Ulleungdo, but there is an island 2 to 4 kilometers offshore.

  • Q

    1903 Japanese War Map Published by the Japanese Army and Navy’s Survey Departments Shows Dokdo/Takeshima as Korean:

    At the upper left corner of the map we can read the Kanji characters “帝國陸海測量部編纂” these characters can be translated as “The Japanese Empire’s Army and Navy Survey Department Compiled and Published.” From this we know this chart represented the territorial perceptions of the Japanese government. This would mean Japan considered both Ulleungdo and Dokdo as part of Chosun (朝鮮) Korea in 1903.

  • hacker

    I got a question for both Q and gbevers. Since both countries are signatories to to UNCLOS which states “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”Why does it really matter who owns the two piles of stone? Both of you have stated pretty much that except for the occasional fisherman these rocks have been void of human life and until 1974 I believe no trees grew on the rocks that they are just rocks. And I believe that “on their own” means without artificial means .

  • Q

    Check out Why Japan Can’t Have Dokdo and see if today’s current Japan – Korea boundary is unfair.

  • frogmouth

    Gerry, there is no island called 송도 (松島) to the East of Ulleungdo. Except for Matsushima or Dokdo. This is fact. I prefer to start working from facts then go from there.

    There is no record or map showing Jukdo Island as Matsushima. If you have a map or some historical records that really proves that feel free to show it.

    By the way, Mr Bevers how long and where did you study Hanja and Kanji characters? Did you find a school on the back of a book of matches or did you find a “Hanja for Dummies” book on Amazon.com’s website.

    You’ve already translated wrong on this thread. Why should we trust you now Mr Bevers.? I like to leave difficult translations to publications.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Hacker wrote (#212):

    I got a question for both Q and gbevers. Since both countries are signatories to to UNCLOS which states “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.”

    You are right, Hacker. Liancourt Rocks are just rocks and would not qualify as an island that could affect either country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), but the island would still be a territory of the country that owns it, which I think entitles it to a 12-nautical mile border around it.

  • hacker

    Stay on point Q, you guys have been arguing for 200 some posts about Dokdo not Okinotorshima. Unless I am mistaken Korea and Japan have a number of agreements regarding Dokdo, 65, 74, and 98 I believe, that lay out the fact that Dokdo/Takeshima (not taking a side now) would not be used in determining EEZ’s. So what is it, the land that is important to you or the EEZ which your governments already negotiated what should be a mutual understanding beneficial to both sides.

  • frogmouth

    Hacker, it’s Japan’s that has long insisted rocks can generate EEZ’s. This is the case in the Okinotoroshima Islands. Japan now claim 400,000sq kms around these bedroom sized rocks.

    This has caused other nations to follow suit or be pushed back to their limits.

    Rocks should not be allowed to create EEZs but if UNCLOS rules they can, you can thank greedy Japan and former colonial nations for that!

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/why-japan-cant-have-dokdo-i.html

  • frogmouth

    Hacker, apparently Japan seems to think that Dokdo (Takeshima) can generate a border midway (44kms) between Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

    Have you seen Japanese maps on Yahoo and Google?

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/japanese-tricks2.jpg

    Japan is legally bound to follow the rule “rocks = EEZ” or they will lose 400,00sq kms around Okinotorishima rocks.

  • hacker

    Alright, I know that some of the wording in UNCLOS can be a bit ambiguous in places but both countries have established binding agreements regarding Dokdo/Takeshima and how it would not be used to establish an EEZ. I have read about Okinotorshima as well as Rockal which is a very similar situation to Dokdo/Takeshima. To be honest Okinotorshima is not high on my attention list but rather is the land or the EEZ most important. If it is the land, then I can understand all the nit-picking but if it is the EEZ then why not live up to the already negotiated standards that seem beneficial to both sides?

  • Q

    Also check out Why Japan Can’t Have Dokdo ?Takeshima: The Politics, Economics and Demographics of the Dokdo Region In 1905, and The Present :

    Under international law, possession of Dokdo Takeshima will determine the modern boundary between Japan and Korea. Today the Japanese government wishes to again define Korea’s territorial limits based on the historical circumstances of 1905. This is not a practical approach to settling the Dokdo Takeshima problem. It’s also an unacceptable premise for establishing the present-day Japan Korea maritime limits.

  • frogmouth

    Hacker, the bottom line is this.

    Korea currently imposes as 12 mile nautical limit from Dokdo’s Eastern shore.

    If you measure the distances to both Korean and Japanese mainlands and outlying islands the division of marine territory is quite fair.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/12-mile-limit.gif

    Japan wants to grab as much real estate as possible based on her 1905 military annexation of Dokdo.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-illegal-1905-annexation-of-dokdo.html

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Frogmouth wrote (#214):

    Gerry, there is no island called 송도 (松島) to the East of Ulleungdo. Except for Matsushima or Dokdo. This is fact. I prefer to start working from facts then go from there.

    The island is now called Jukdo, which is 2km off Ulleungdo’s east shore. And it is a fact that on April 7, 1882, the King of Korea said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island named “Songjukdo” (松竹島 – 송죽도) that was also sometimes called “Songdo” (松島) and “Jukdo” (竹島). Ulleungdo Inspector Lee Kyu-won, who was in discussion with the king, confirmed that Ulleungdo did have a neighboring island named “Songjukdo” that was 1.2 to 4 km offshore. He added that juniper and pipestem bamboo grew on the island.

    Frogmouth wrote:

    There is no record or map showing Jukdo Island as Matsushima. If you have a map or some historical records that really proves that feel free to show it.

    You do not consider the April 7, 1882 entry in the Annals of King Kojong a historical record?

    The following is a translation of the April 7, 1882 “historical record” from the Annals of King Kojong, where King Kojong is in conversation with Lee Kyu-won, whom the King has just appointed “Ulleungdo Inpector.”

    The 7th Day
    Inspector Lee Gyu-won was called before the king to give his farewell greeting.

    The king says, “It is reported that these days there is the evil practice of foreigners freely travelling to and from Ulleungdo and doing as they please. Also, Songjukdo (松竹島) and Usando (于山島) are next to Ulleungdo, but there are no details of their distance and what resources they have. You were chosen especially for this trip, so carry out your inspection with particular attention. We also have plans to establish a settlement there, so be sure to prepare a detailed map and report.”

    Lee Gyu-won replied, “Usando is just Ulleungdo. Usan was the name of the ancient country’s capital. Songjukdo (松竹島) is a small island about three to ten ri offshore (相距爲三數十里). The products there are juniper (檀香) and pipestem bamboo (簡竹).”

    The king said, “Both Usando or Songjukdo (敎曰 或稱芋山島 或稱松竹島) are written in the Yeojiseungram (輿地勝覽). It is also called Songdo (松島) and Jukdo (竹島) and together with Usando, three islands combine to make up what is called Ulleungdo (而又稱松島竹島與芋山島爲三島統稱鬱陵島矣). Inspect the situation on all of them. Originally, the Samcheok commander (三陟營將) and the Wolsong commander (越松萬戶) have taken turns surveying Ulleungdo, but almost all of them have been careless. They inspected only the exterior of the island, which has led to these evil practices.

    Lee Gyu-won said, “I will go deep inside and conduct my inspection. Some say that Songdo and Jukdo are east of Ulleungdo (或稱松島、竹島, 在於鬱陵島之東), but there is only Songjukdo, no separate Songdo and Jukdo (而此非松竹島以外, 別有松島、竹島也).”

    The king asked, “Did you possibly hear that from previous inspectors?”

    Lee Gyu-won said, “I have not met previous inspectors, but that is the general information I have heard.”

    Here is the full record:

    初七日。 召見檢察使李奎遠。 辭陛也。 敎曰: “鬱陵島, 近有他國人物之無常往來, 任自占便之弊云矣。 且松竹島、芋山島, 在於鬱陵島之傍, 而其相距遠近何如, 亦月何物與否未能詳知。 今番爾行, 特爲擇差者, 各別檢察。 且將設邑爲計, 必以圖形與別單, 詳細錄達也。” 奎遠曰: “芋山島卽鬱陵島, 而芋山古之國都名也。 松竹島卽一小島, 而與鬱陵島, 相距爲三數十里。 其所産卽檀香與簡竹云矣。” 敎曰: “或稱芋山島, 或稱松竹島, 皆《輿地勝覽》所載也。 而又稱松島、竹島, 與芋山島爲三島統稱鬱陵島矣。 其形便一體檢察。 鬱陵島本以三陟營將、越松萬戶, 輪回搜檢者, 而擧皆未免疎忽。 只以外面探來, 故致有此弊。 爾則必詳細察得也。” 奎遠曰: “謹當深入檢察矣。 或稱松島、竹島, 在於鬱陵島之東, 而此非松竹島以外, 別有松島、竹島也。” 敎曰: “或有所得聞於曾往搜檢人之說耶?” 奎遠曰: “曾往搜檢之人, 未得逢著。 而轉聞其梗槪矣。”

  • Q

    境 지경 경 1. 지경(地境: 땅의 가장자리, 경계) 2. 경계(境界), 국경(國境) 3. 경우(境遇) 4. 상태(狀態) 5. 곳, 장소(場所) 6. 처지(處地)

    倭境: Japanese border
    接于倭境: adjacent to Japanese BORDER

    gbevers, you are so much in shame to accept you are wrong.

  • Q

    In the 1903 Japanese War Map
    (帝國陸海測量部編纂: The Japanese Empire’s Army and Navy Survey Department Compiled and Published), Ulleungdo Island (竹島) and Dokdo (松島) are located within Korea’s land:

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/rus-jap-warmap-closeup.jpg

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers quotes Chosun Inspector Lee Gyu Won..

    “I have not met previous inspectors, but that is the general information I have heard..”

    The information you quote was third hand rumors Lee Gyu Won may have heard before he even went to Ulleungdo.

    Again you distance calculation of 3 to 10 ri is only yours. You have no formal education in translation of ancient Korean or Japanese characters Mr Bevers is that right?

    The real translation across the board is 20~30ri. I think this is just an approximation of 30ri. Do you still want me to scan the translation from my book>

    So, then we will have to go with translations from credible sources as you have already revealed your incompetence on this thread above.

    So then, Mr Bevers, did Lee Gyu Won confirm the existence of Songdo as Ulleungdo’s neighbour island Mr Bevers? What did he report when he returned home?

    Lee Gyu Won verified what we’ve known all along. Ulleungdo’s neighbour island is Jukdo not Songdo. He drew Ulleungdo’s neighbor island as Jukdo on his map of Ulleugdo.

    So, as usual you are just a big gas bag Mr Bevers.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Frogmouth (Steve Barber) wrote (#225):

    Mr Bevers quotes Chosun Inspector Lee Gyu Won..

    “I have not met previous inspectors, but that is the general information I have heard..”

    The information you quote was third hand rumors Lee Gyu Won may have heard before he even went to Ulleungdo.

    They were not just rumors, Steve. King Kojong said he read in the Yeoji Seungram (輿地勝覽), which was a geography text, that Ulleungdo had neighboring islands named Usando (芋山島 – 우산도) and “Songjukdo” (松竹島 – 송죽도) and that Songjukdo was also called “Songdo” (松島 – 송도) and “Jukdo” (竹島), which makes sense since Songjukdo is a combination of the two names.

    Inspector Lee confirmed that Ulleungdo did, in fact, have a neighboring island named “Songjukdo” that was 1.2 to 4 km offshore. He said he had also heard that “Songdo” and “Jukdo” were islands east of Ulleungdo, but he said Ulleungdo had only one neighboring island island named “Songjukdo.”

    Frogmouth (Steve Barber) wrote:

    Lee Gyu Won verified what we’ve known all along. Ulleungdo’s neighbour island is Jukdo not Songdo. He drew Ulleungdo’s neighbor island as Jukdo on his map of Ulleugdo.

    Yes, when Lee Gyu-won inspected Ulleungdo, the Koreans he found illegally fishing there were calling Ulleungdo’s neighboring island “Jukdo,” which was one of the alternate names for the “Songjukdo” mentioned by King Kojong.

    The neighboring island did not have a big billboard sign on it that read “Jukdo,” “Songdo,” or “Songjukdo.” Ulleungdo was supposed to be uninhabited, so the name of the neighboring island was whatever name the illegal visitors to the island at the time were calling it.

    If Inspector Lee had interviewed everyone on Ulleungdo, he might have found some referring to its neighboring island as “Songjukdo” or “Songdo.” Or maybe visitors from a different place at a different time might refer to the neighboring island by a different name. For example, Ulleungdo Inspector Bak Chang-seok referred to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island as “Usando” (于山島 – 우산도) on his 1711 map of the island.

    Frogmouth (Steve Barber) wrote:

    The real translation across the board is 20~30ri. I think this is just an approximation of 30ri. Do you still want me to scan the translation from my book

    That translation is just another example of Koreans mistranslating a passage to hide the truth. Again, show where “20 – 30 ri” appears in the phrase 三數十里 (삼수십리).

    If the writer had wanted to say “20 – 30 ri,” he would have written it as 二三十里 (이삼십리), which is explained in Chapter One in “Hanja for Dummies.”

  • Q

    三數十里, in my opinion, means “at least 30 ri”. gbevers’ translation as “3 and some 10 ri” is another mistranslation of gbevers. For example, 수십번(數十繁) does not mean some 10, but it means numerous multiples of 10, which could amount several times of 10.

    Anyways, there are many 19C Japanese maps that do not show Dokdo in her territory. It seems Dokdo and Uleungdo appears in Japanese maps only when it speculates relation with Korea.

    Check out Japanese Ancient Maps Excluded Dokdo: “If Dokdo was an inherent part of the nation of Japan as her MOFA insists, why do historical Japanese maps consistently exclude Dokdo Island or show it as Korean..?”

  • Q

    Considering Lee Kyu Won was talking from hearsays, the 三數十里 might have used the Japanese unit (1 Japanese ri = approx. 4km), so that 30 ri equals 120km. If it means 20 – 30 ri, it would be 80-120km, which is equal to the distance between Uleungdo and Dokdo.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote (#227):

    三數十里, in my opinion, means “at least 30 ri”. gbevers’ translation as “3 and some 10 ri” is another mistranslation of gbevers. For example, 수십번(數十繁) does not mean some 10, but it means numerous multiples of 10, which could amount several times of 10.”

    Q, I am not sure if you are playing dumb or really are dumb.

    The 數(수) does not go with the 十(십) in this case because there is a number in front. It goes with the number in front. The 十 is the upper limit. For example, 三數里 (삼수리) translates as “3 or more ri.” Therefore, 三數-十里 (삼수-십리) translates as “3 (or more) to 10 ri.”

    I broke my vow not to respond to you again just to point out your ignorance with your own language. At least Frogmouth (Steve Barber) has the excuse of not being a Korean.

  • CactusMcHarris

    #214 Frogmouth,

    That’s a poor question to ask, Mr. Scholar.

    #229 Gerry,

    While not being Korean may be the answer to my question (ain’t it always – it’s at least not a unique situation), why do you translate it as ’3 (or more) to 10 ri’ – when it’s translated as ’3-10 ri’ isn’t it inclusive that it could possibly be more than three (but no more than 10)?

    Not trying to shake your translation (that would be non-common-sensical, and we know we don’t want any of that), but genuinely curious – if the writer of those original words was a reporter for the king/media/government organization, I find it odd that such imprecise language would be used.

    Thanks

    Manlima Jeff

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Cactus wrote (#230):

    why do you translate it as ’3 (or more) to 10 ri’ – when it’s translated as ’3-10 ri’ isn’t it inclusive that it could possibly be more than three (but no more than 10)?

    I appreciate the question. Of course, the “or more” in parentheses is not needed, but I put it in parentheses to try to show the link from 三數里 (삼수리), which translates as “3 or more ri,” to 三數-十里 (삼수-십리), which translates as “3 to 10 ri.”

    I try to explain things in as simple a way as possible. It’s the teacher in me.

  • jk6411

    gbevers & Cactus,

    In all likelihood, it means “30-odd RI”.

    If it was “3 to 10 RI”, it doesn’t make sense.
    If it was “3 to 10 RI”, it would’ve been close enough to Ulleungdo that they would have known exactly how far it was.

    The fact that they said “30-odd RI” means that it was far enough from Ulleungdo that they didn’t know the exact distance to it.

    BTW, it wasn’t written in any Korean historical record that 松竹島 was “30-odd RI” from Ulleungdo.
    Lee had just heard this from other people, and it was unconfirmed.
    No govt official had inspected Ulleungdo for some time, so that’s why King Kojong was sending Lee there to make a thorough inspection.

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Sorry to interrupt the thread that has morphed (to yet another) Dokdo thread…. but wait? Noda said that?

    Isn’t he the same guy that “apologized” to Korea in “tears?”

    http://www.rjkoehler.com/2010/08/10/japanese-pm-naoto-kan-apologizes-in-tears-to-korea/

    Japanese apologies. Obviously retractable.

  • http://www.xanga.com/wangkon936 WangKon936

    Nevermind. Not the same. Japanese PMs change out so quickly. Hard to keep track.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Jk6411 wrote (#232):

    In all likelihood, it means “30-odd RI”.

    If it was “3 to 10 RI”, it doesn’t make sense.
    If it was “3 to 10 RI”, it would’ve been close enough to Ulleungdo that they would have known exactly how far it was.

    The east shore of Ulleungdo stretches 4 to 5 or more kilometers. From the closest point on the main island to Jukdo, it is about 2km, but from the harbor of Jeodong (저동), which was one of the few places on the east shore where ships could moor, it is 4km to Jukdo, so Lee Gyu-won’s “1.2 to 4km” description was pretty accurate.

    JK wrote:

    BTW, it wasn’t written in any Korean historical record that 松竹島 was “30-odd RI” from Ulleungdo.

    I know. The historical record said “3 to 10 ri.

    JK wrote:

    Lee had just heard this from other people, and it was unconfirmed. No govt official had inspected Ulleungdo for some time, so that’s why King Kojong was sending Lee there to make a thorough inspection.

    Inspector Lee confirmed it when he went to Ulleungdo and found Jukdo 2 to 4km off Ulleungdo’s east shore.

    JK, maybe you and Q should form a club.

  • Q

    三數十里 (at least 30 ri) would approximate 40 ri, Japanese record of distance between Takeshima (Uleungdo) and Mastushima (Dokdo) in Meiji’s 1877 Kobunruko Documents (report on Chosun).

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/1877-docmap-2.jpg

    Note in the map that estimated 40 ri between Takeshima and Mastushima.

    gbevers wrote:

    I broke my vow not to respond to you again

    You’ve always broken your vows. Here is what you said before:

    I just finished writing about your post over at the Marmot’s Hole, where they do not generally like to read comments about the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute. I will not debate it there and do not recommend that anyone here do either

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Q wrote (#237):

    三數十里 (at least 30 ri) would approximate 40 ri, Japanese record of distance between Takeshima (Uleungdo) and Mastushima (Dokdo) in Meiji’s 1877 Kobunruko Documents (report on Chosun).

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/1877-docmap-2.jpg

    Note in the map that estimated 40 ri between Takeshima and Mastushima.

    You’re such a goofball, Q. You do not even know that the map to which you linked is a Japanese map using Japanese ri measurements.

    1 Japanese ri = approx. 4 km
    1 Korean ri = approx. 0.4 km

  • Q

    That’s what I am saying. Lee Gyu Won might heard hearsays from fishers who heard of the Japanese ri(里). Considering Japanese pirates illegaly settled in Uleungdo, there must be some communication between fishers of Chosun and illegal inhabitants of Japan.

    Now you broke your vow again. Such a liar… Never vow, man.

  • Veritas

    #132
    Again, that “source” leaves out important details – like the phrase that’s written right next to “竹島松島朝鮮附属ニ相成候始末”. It states “此儀ハ松島ハ竹島ノ隣島ニシテ松島ノ儀ニ付是迄掲載セシ書留モ無之竹島ノ儀ニ付テハ元禄度後ハ暫クノ間朝鮮ヨリ居留ノ為差遣シ置候処当時ハ以前ノ如ク無人ト相成竹木又ハ竹ヨリ太キ葭ヲ産シ人參等自然ニ生シ其餘漁産モ相應ニ有之趣相聞ヘ候事”, which states that while he was able to find proof that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) became part of Korea but could not find any proof that the neighboring island (Matsushima/Laincourt Rocks) was part of Korea. It bloody ignores the phrase right next to the main title which does a pretty good job of explaining what he meant in the title. It’s a confusing title, yes, but to claim this as proof that the Meiji government renounced their ownership over Liancourt Rocks?? If I had anything to say to the person posting this “proof”, I really want to tell him that if he’s going to use some Japanese source then he needs to actually bloody read them. He (or she) obviously hasn’t. Just jumping on the title because it sounds good is a pretty dumb thing to do.

    If I were you, I really wouldn’t rely on that site for objective information or proof that Liancourt Rocks is part of South Korea. It’s wildly unreliable and quite frankly, seems quite deceitful in many cases.

  • Q

    Veritas,

    Check out The 1877 Japanese Kobunruko Documents that shows Meiji Government formally excluded Dokdo from Japan (LINK: 日本語) and Japanese Ancient Maps Excluded Dokdo: “If Dokdo was an inherent part of the
    nation of Japan as her MOFA insists, why do historical Japanese maps
    consistently exclude Dokdo Island or show it as Korean..?”

  • frogmouth

    Wrong Veritas.

    The Report on Chosun states “How Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) became possessions of Chosun.

    It simply stated although they considered both islands Korean they had no further records regarding Matsushima (Dokdo)

    The Japanese gov’t lacked many records about Dokdo because first the Meiji Government had just come into formation and secondly because they were just two rocks en route to Chosuns’s Ulleungdo. Even today, most Japanese records of Dokdo from the Murakawa family archives. That’s why the Japanese government and Shimane often cited the Murakawa and Oyas from Yonago.

    Veritas, I don’t translate. I use data from other sources. As far as the Report on Chosun we’re talking about. Here is an article that mentions this record and it from a Japanese author.

    See page 16/49 on Japanese author Kazuo Hori’s “Japan’s Incorporation of Takeshima in 1905”

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/Kazuo-Hori-Dokdo.pdf

  • frogmouth

    BTW Q some Japanese records did mention the distance between Dokdo and Ulleungdo as 30 Japanese ri.

    One was from the editions of the Japanese Black Dragon Fishing Manual in 1901 and 1903

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/black-dragon-1903-1.jpg

    The other was the Japanese Business guide for Korea published in 1902 I think.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/1904-korean-doc3.jpg

  • Veritas

    #242
    Unfortunately I am disinclined to agree with Hori’s interpretation of the said document. I’m rather inclined to agree with Masao Shimojo’s (granted he’s more of a rightward leaning professor) interpretation of the phrase but then again, I do have to admit that original statement is written in a rather awkward tone. I’m not sure whether I agree with some of the interpretation that states that “Takeshima” in this case refers to Jukdo instead of the Liancourt Rocks, but on the other hand this report would make more sense if that was the case.

    And as for the maps… I think I mentioned this before, Q, but I don’t really care about maps all that much. I think the whole idea of pulling out old maps to prove or disprove that the Liancourt Rocks is or isn’t part of Japan (or Korea) is really kind of silly as an argument. Your source lists maps that don’t include Liancourt Rocks. By just looking at maps from that site, one might get the impression that there are no maps from Japan that shows Liancourt Rocks as being part of Japan – which is not true.

    The fact of the matter is, there are number of maps from Japan that also show the Liancourt Rocks as being part of Japan but I don’t really think this affirms the Japanese position that the Liancourt Rocks was part of Japan from ancient times either.

  • Q

    It is really entertaining to find Masao Shimojo along with Gerry Bevers at Wiki :) :

    Adherents including Masao Shimojo (下條正男, Shimojo Masao), Kunitaka Tanaka (田中邦貴, Tanaka Kunitaka), and Gerry Bevers have presented arguments building on Kawakami’s arguments.

    Would Gerry Bevers be enlisted next to Masao Shimojo help either of their credentials?

    Veritas wrote:

    there are number of maps from Japan that also show the Liancourt Rocks as being part of Japan

    For example?

    In addition, what do you think about 1903 Japanese War map (“帝國陸海測量部編纂” The Japanese Empire’s Army and Navy Survey Department Compiled and Published) that clearly shows Uleungdo and Dokdo in Korean territory?

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/a-1903-japanese-war-map-shows-dokdo-takeshima-as-korean.html

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    #242

    Veritas,

    Korea has no documents showing they ever traveled to Liancourt Rocks before the Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s or that Korea ever claimed the Rocks before Japan incorporated them in 1905. Also, Korea has no maps showing the Rocks, so Koreans must somehow convince the world that Japan gave them the Rocks even though there are no documents on either side that support such a claim. That is why Q and others point to “Japanese maps” and say, “Look, Japan recognized Dokdo as Korean territory,” even though that was not the case.

    Maps, however, are important in disproving the Korean claim since Korea claims that an island labeled “Usando” (于山島) on their maps was Liancourt Rocks. When you look at Korean maps, however, they show Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks. They also show Usando as one island instead of the essentially two islands that make up Liancourt Rocks.

    If you ever get more deeply into studying the issue, you will find that all of Korea’s claims are baseless.

  • Q

    Takashi Yokota at Newsweek could be claimed he is technically “American”:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/02/why-japan-and-south-korea-are-feuding-over-a-cluster-of-rocks.html

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers, what do you think of this recent discovery?

    http://www.anewsa.com/detail.php?number=382192&thread=09r02

    Japanese paying taxes for harvesting seal while on Ulleungdo in 1902?

    I don’t think there was an appreciable amount of (if any) seals on Ulleungdo at this time. If fact a Korean newspaper article said there used to be seals there in 1899.

  • http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/ gbevers

    Frogmouth wrote (#248):

    Mr Bevers, what do you think of this recent discovery?
    Mr Bevers, what do you think of this recent discovery?

    http://www.anewsa.com/detail.php?number=382192&thread=09r02

    Japanese paying taxes for harvesting seal while on Ulleungdo in 1902?

    I cannot read the document, so I cannot comment on it, but Liancourt Rocks was outside the jurisdiction of Uldo (Ulleungdo) County, as was confirmed by the Korean Ministry of Interior in 1906, when it said Uldo Couny was only 24km east-to-west and 16km north-to-south. LINK Since Liancourt Rocks is about 90km southeast of Ullungdo, that puts them outside the jurisdiction of the County.

    Japanese fishermen were simply using Ulleungdo as a base to fish Liancourt Rocks. That does not make Liancourt Rocks Korean territory. It would be the same as if Japanese fishermen fished international waters and simply brought their caught back to Ulleungdo for processing. Such a thing would not make the international waters in which they fished Korean territory, so why would this make Liancourt Rocks Korean territory?

    Actually, the document seems to be more evident that Japanese knew of and were active on Liancourt Rocks before Japan incorporated them in 1905.

    This is just another silly claim being thrown against the wall by Dokdo advocates to see if it will stick. Of course, if the documents mention that the Japanese were fishing “Seokdo” (石島), that might mean something. Do the documents mention anything about “Seokdo”?

  • mickster

    WangKon936:
    Yeah, too many PMs in a short period of time :)
    I refer you to Vertias #27 as to media misrepresentation of what Noda said.