≡ Menu

Great piece… for a Japanese Foreign Ministry press release

Newsweek is taking flack from this side of the East Sea for its recent story on the Dokdo kerfuffle.

Written by Takashi Yokota, Newsweek’s Tokyo correspondent and editor of the magazine’s Japanese edition, the piece is being criticized for, well, read the comments (or the Chosun Ilbo story lived above).

Interestingly enough, Newsweek’s Seoul correspondent B.J. Lee told the Chosun he neither received instructions from Newsweek regarding the story nor was involved in its writing. I’d be keen to see him write a response, though, because IMHO, this stinker really needs one.

Heck, if he can’t, I’d be happy to write one.

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

  • Wedge

    That Newsweek piece is Exhibit A in why Korean stunts which increase international awareness of the rocks are wholly counterproductive.

  • Veritas

    Well, after reading it must say it was kind of tame. I expected there to be a bit more content judging from the title of the article but it wasn’t really there. Next editions “Reader’s Corner” (or whatever they call it in Newsweek) should be an interesting read though.

  • bballi bballi Paradise

    I found the piece insightful. Mostly because I’ve never actually read or listened to the Japanese point of view (right or wrong that it might be).

    One part that made me cringe though is when he referred to the past as “misdeeds”. Really?, a misdeed might be forgetting to brush your teeth, Japanese war crimes were medieval, barbaric and depraved.

  • slim

    What would you have wanted in this article to balance it toward Korea’s point of view? A bloody shirt? Spittle? A dumb racist comment from Q?

    There is no way on earth an article on this by a Korean reporter would ever be nearly as even-handed.

    I’d say he’s gotten Korean hysterics on the Dokdo issue nailed to a T.

  • Wedge

    Gotta agree with Slim on this.

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

    Robert Koehler wrote:

    IMHO, this stinker really needs one.

    The only thing that was inaccurate about that article was that it said “Dokdo” meant “rock island.”

    Why don’t you tell us, Robert, why you think it is a “stinker.”

  • http://vmphotography.com.au hoju_saram

    I’m with Robert on this one. The article is “even-handed” in a sense, but it’s also infuriatingly blithe.

    Imagine a former rapist of your grandma – whom you never got even with, and who never showed much remorse – politely condescending to sooth you about some new dispute, in between remarking to other folk that you had a cute tendency to get mightily worked up about the silliest little trifles.

    The whole article focusses on Korea’s “irrationality” and amusing little immature escapades – juvenile, I think Mr Chiku calls them – but never once examines the real reason behind Korean hostility, except to claim that history has nothing to do with it.

    “It’s not that Japan is oblivious to its dark past, or unrepentant”, Mr Chiku assures us, “It’s just that ordinary Japanese are running out of patience with Seoul’s demands for apologies.”

    Poor dears, we wouldn’t want them to get impatient with their pesky former subjects now would we?

  • http://vmphotography.com.au hoju_saram

    Moderation hell!!

  • Q

    slim, wedge, gbevers,

    Here you are.

  • DLBarch

    I’d say that not only is the Newsweek piece a solid piece of reporting, but also that the Korean reaction against it confirms one of the points raised in the piece: that while “Takeshima” is a fringe issue barely on the radar outside of nationalist right wing circles in Japan, in Korea the issue of “Dokdo” has led the country to become completely unhinged.

    Part of this is by design. Both the left and the right in Korea (but especially the right) have long used and exploited relations with Japan as a way of deflecting attention away from domestic problems. Even casual observers of Korean politics can set their clocks by the lag time from the eruption of a domestic scandal to the “sudden” reappearance of Dokdo (or the comfort women) as a renewed cause celebre.

    Reading the regular flow of foreign policy papers from any number of think tanks dedicated to East Asian security over the last few months, I’d add that the Newsweek piece pretty accurately reflects the view of the security community more broadly.

    Namely, that when it comes to Dokdo, the Koreans may or may not be right on the merits, but they’ve been woefully unsophisticated in their mishandling of the issue.

    DLB

  • dogbertt

    What I don’t understand is how we have one white guy who has made it his life’s work to try and prove that the Liancourt Rocks are Korean and then we have _two_ white guys who are equally obsessed with proving him wrong.

    The only thing more absurd would be to have a group of Koreans obsessed with the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh.

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

    Japan is going back into their islander cave…

    http://goldsea.com/Text/index.php?id=13549

    And people complain about Korea’s foreign policy…

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    What would you have wanted in this article to balance it toward Korea’s point of view? A bloody shirt? Spittle? A dumb racist comment from Q?

    That just about answers why you incessantly focus on one kind of dumb racists and not the other.

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

    TK,

    You mean to say that expats (and former expats) are racist? Balderdash!

  • Q

    Korea-bashing haters consider Korea as sh*t, and amazingly they never stop licking on it. I could only imagine 똥개 would do that.

  • DLBarch

    BTW, hoju-saram @ 7 is absolutely correct to (actually) highlight a specific example of Japanese perfidy, where he quotes from the Newsweek article that “…ordinary Japanese are running out of patience with Seoul’s demands for apologies.”

    A lot has already been written about the differences between how Japan and Germany have dealt with their wartime legacies. Germany has, of course, been much more forthright in acknowledging its wartime atrocities, while Japan has, frankly, gotten away with murder, and in many circles actually sees itself as the victim!

    Nothing new there.

    What we’re seeing in both countries, though, is a growing unwillingness — if not hostility — by a new, younger generation to accept continued guilt for the sins of their fathers. Time alone is working against the willingness of many Japanese (and Germans) to continue to entertain demands for further apologies.

    I noticed this on a recent trip to Germany. Over dinner one night, a good friend remarked that Germany’s film industry has only recently come out of its obsession with WWII-themed movies. And sure enough, looking over the German film offerings on Netflix (anecdotal, I know) upon my return, one is struck at the vast majority of German films that deal with the war and/or the Holocaust.

    In contrast, take one look at the offerings of Japanese movies and, well, not so much.

    Japan has been largely given a free pass on its wartime guilt, but demographics suggest this isn’t about to change anytime soon.

    DLB

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

    ‘Japan has been largely given a free pass on its wartime guilt, but demographics suggest this isn’t about to change anytime soon.’

    by people like you. i hope that irony isn’t lost on you. you feel moral outrage at western leaders who accidently visit nazi graves but feel absolutely nothing when japanese politicos go to yasukuni. asian life is cheap, ain’t it? if the western world had constantly condemned japan for it’s lack of contrion, then we wouldn’t be talking about this
    cuz if there’s one thing the japanese don’t like, it’s not being coddled by the west.

    ‘another apology.’

    no more apologies since they are worthless. japan needs to act; remove all war criminals from yasukuni. make it a crime for any politician to step foot on grounds that harbor class a war criminals. revise history books to show the true horror of the japanese people. have japanese king visit korea and deliver an apology in front of kyeong bok.

    we ain’t going to shut up about this no matter how much you try to help them, dlb.

    quotes:

    ‘i was a doctor at unit 731. i impregnated a 14 year old girl and let her come to term. then, we slit her open without anesthesia. i ripped the baby from her and then i placed a needle lengthwise into baby’s finger. afterwards, i slit it’s belly open as it wailed in pain. haha. i didn’t pay a single price for that. see, westerners saw that baby’s life as cheap. that’s why i lived free as a bird! thanks, slim and dlb!’
    keseki kunoma, japanese doctor at unit 731

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    You mean to say that expats (and former expats) are racist? Balderdash!

    And even more shockingly, a lot of them pretend to be rational and impartial.

  • DLBarch

    Pawi @ 17,

    In four years on MH, I have never excused or tried to excuse Japan’s colonial or wartime treatment of Korea or Koreans.

    And I don’t plan to. Ever.

    Full stop.

    DLB

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    The article is “even-handed” in a sense, but it’s also infuriatingly blithe.

    While I agree with the rest of your comment, I cannot figure out in what sense the article can be called “even-handed.”

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

    DLBarch (#10):

    I’d say that not only is the Newsweek piece a solid piece of reporting,….

    Good, we white guys need to stick together. Your “Free Takeshima” key chain is in the mail.

  • jk6411

    frogmouth,

    If you’re here, could you e-mail me at jhk641@netzero.net?
    I need to talk to you about something.
    Thank you.

  • Q

    gbevers wrote:

    Good, we white guys need to stick together

    Stick together again?: http://japanfocus.org/data/19.japskeepmovin.jpg

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

    jk6411,

    NetZero? Seriously? Thought NZ died with AOL in the Cretaceous age of internet evolution.

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

    DLB @ #19,

    That’s why we’ll still remain friends. I’ll remember you next time I make a donation to the Anti-Defamation League.

    Btw… are familiar with this?

    http://regions.adl.org/pacific-southwest/programs/asian-jewish-initiative.html

    Don’t know if they have a chapter in NoCal.

  • jk6411

    WK,

    Don’t worry.
    It’s my old e-mail account that I never use..

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

    Hoju wrote (#7):

    The article is “even-handed”….

    Your key chain is in the mail.

    Hoju also wrote:

    The whole article focusses on Korea’s “irrationality” and amusing little immature escapades – juvenile, I think Mr Chiku calls them – but never once examines the real reason behind Korean hostility, except to claim that history has nothing to do with it.

    It sounds like you are trying to use something similar to “the-alcohol-made-them-to-it” excuse.

    The issue is “Dokdo,” Hoju, and the problem is that Koreans do not want to deal with just the facts of the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute because they have nothing to support their claims. That is why Korea tries to muddle the issue by linking it to apologies, the comfort women, the colonial period, the 1590′s invasions or anything else they can think of.

    Why, for example, did President Lee Myung-bak travel to Dokdo, come back, and then, out of the blue, say, “If Emperor Akihito ever expects to visit South Korea, he should first apologize for Japan’s colonial rule of the peninsula before and during World War II”?

    Emperor Akihito to Roh Tae-woo (May 24, 1990):

    Reflecting upon the suffering that your people underwent during this unfortunate period, which was brought about by our nation, I cannot but feel the deepest remorse.

    Emperor Akihito to Kim Dae-jung (October 8, 1996):

    There was a period when our nation brought to bear great sufferings upon the people of the Korean Peninsula.” “The deep sorrow that I feel over this will never be forgotten.

    Everyone here knows that no matter how sincere an Emperor Akihito apology might be, it will never be accepted as sincere in Korea. And everyone here knows that Korea does not take the Liancourt Rocks dispute to the International Court of Justice because it has no historical claim to the Rocks and expects to lose.

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

    Gerry,

    Neither of those are apologies. They are expressions of remorse and regret. Any ways, personally, I don’t think an apology from the Japanese Emperor is warranted. He has no power.

    Queen Elizabeth did something similar for Ireland when she toured that country last year (i.e. the whole “remorse and sympathy” thing) but the press knew it wasn’t a real apology.

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/05/queen-offers-ireland-half-apology-violent-past/37894/

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10726545

  • Q

    Japanese do not know any apology for their war crimes. “The US, not Japan, was the Aggressor”: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/82_S4.pdf

    Anyway, it would be a good time check out professional articles on Dokdo:

    1) Jon M. Van Dyke, Legal Issues Related over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary:This article examines the historical events relevant to the claims of sovereignty by Japan and Korea over Dokdo. It examines the principles governing maritime boundary delimitation that are relevant to the ocean space around Dokdo. It was written by Professor of Law, Jon Van Dyke, BA, cum laude, Yale University, 1964 JD, cum laude, Harvard Law School, 1967.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/jonvandyke-doc.pdf

    2) Shojin Sato, Japanese Expansionist Policy and the Question of Dokdo – Takeshima:Then President of the Asian Rearch Institute, Japanese researcher Shojin Sato, gives historical context and perspective regarding Japan’s 1905 annexation of Dokdo (Takeshima).

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/Shojin-Sato-Dokdo.pdf

    3) Kazuo Hori, Japan’s Incorporation of Dokdo – Takeshima Into Its Territory in 1905:Japanese Professor, from Kyoto Kazuo Hori gives detailed historical information about Japan’s true motives for annexing Dokdo in 1905, a must read.

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

    4) Mark Selden, Small Islets Enduring Conflict, Korea – Japan Colonial Legacy and America:A brief article by Mark Selden, Senior Research Associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University, a Coordinator of The Asia-Pacific Journal: Emeritus Professor of History and Sociology at Binghamton University.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/Mark-Selden-Dokdo.pdf

    5) Professor Hosaka Yuji, A Study on the Legitimacy of the Peace Line:In this article a Japanese Professor of Humanities, Hosaka Yuji from Sejong University, Seoul Korea explains the reason behind the Republic of Korea’s declaration of the Peace Line in 1952. Professor Hosaka also explains why Korea feels justified in protecting her adjacent waters.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/Peace-Line-Hosaka.pdf

    6) Sean Fern, Dokdo or Takeshima? The International Law of Territorial Acquisition in the Japan – Korea Island Dispute:In this article Sean Fern (Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs) explains why Korea’s claim to Dokdo Island would prevail over Japan.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/Sean-Fern-Dokdo.pdf

  • DLBarch

    BTW, this thread inspired me over lunch (California time) to go back and refresh my memory over 2MB’s Dokdo statement that if Emperor Akihito wanted to visit Korea, he would have to first agree to apologize “from the bottom of his heart.”

    Somebody help me out here. For the life of me, I cannot find any indication anywhere that the Japanese government, the Imperial Household Agency, or Emperor Akihito himself ever expressed any interest in or intention of visiting Korea.

    Was 2MB’s comment something out of the blue? Or where there proposals floating around somewhere out there that the emperor might visit Korea sometime in the future?

    DLB

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

    Wangkong wrote (#28):

    Neither of those are apologies. They are expressions of remorse and regret.

    The emperor went beyond “apology”; he said “deep remorse.”

    remorse – “a gnawing distress arising from a sense of guilt for past wrongs”

    apology – “an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret”

    Wangkong wrote:

    Any ways, personally, I don’t think an apology from the Japanese Emperor is warranted. He has no power

    Then why did President Lee demand one from the Emperor?

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

    “The emperor went beyond “apology”; he said “deep remorse.”

    I still think the two are different. I don’t think remorse trumps apology though, IMHO.

    “Then why did President Lee demand one from the Emperor?”

    I dunno. I’m not LMB.

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

    there was talk of the jap king going to korea for the world cup. look it up.

  • DLBarch

    The World Cup in 2002? Yeah, that’s definitely true.

    And if we’re going back in time, I think either Kim Dae-jung or his prime minister (Kim Jung-pil maybe?) actually invited Emp. Akihito to visit Korea back in 1998 or 1999, something like that.

    I can’t find anything more recent than that, though. But my, we certainly have come a long way since those days.

    DLB

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

    also cant prove it but i am sure there have been secret talks about this subject.

  • Bendrix

    seriously, why are there so many creepy white dudes who feel they need to take Koreans to task? you guys hover around anything on the web about korea-japan and unceasingly comment. it’s no coincidence you’re all japanophiles, right? you guys don’t need to worry: even if Dokdo is solidly deemed Korean by the world, Japan will always be bigger, richer and more populous. the Koreans are petulant children in your eyes, but they’re not your children, so I don’t know why you feel the need to intervene. seriously, I’ve gone through phases of nationalism, racism, whatever but most sane people outgrow those obsessions. stop being such political tools of any government. you guys say all the time the Korean government is to blame, why do you care about that kind of politicking? you yourselves are getting caught up in their manufactured animosity and diversions.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Why don’t you tell us, Robert, why you think it is a “stinker.”

    Let’s see. It’s condescending tone? It’s failure to mention Japanese provocations and Tokyo’s “kid-in-a-scuffle”-like behavior? It’s failure to explain why it is that many Koreans view Japan’s apologies as insincere, or why the Japanese government feels the need to pander to the Japanese right?

    Was 2MB’s comment something out of the blue? Or where there proposals floating around somewhere out there that the emperor might visit Korea sometime in the future?

    I’ve read there’s been talk—at least on the Korean side—of generating a possible breakthrough in Korea—Japan ties through something symbolic such as a visit to Korea by the Japanese emperor, during which he’d apologize and finally get Japan’s Willy Brandt moment out of the way:

    http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/549735.html

  • Veritas

    #29
    Back in 2009, Ichiro Ozawa (then the secretary general of DPJ, now the head of People’s Life First party) has stated that the Emperor could visit Korea if is welcomed by the people there – but I think that’s the only case where anyone actually mentioned anything about the Emperor visiting Korea. I don’t think the Japanese government (represented by the Prime Minister), the Imperial Household Agency, or the Emperor himself ever really explicitly stated that there was any plans to visit Korea.

    That’s why the comment from LMB seemed, well, so surreal in a sense. If there were on-going talks about the Emperor visiting Korea in teh near future, then it would have made more sense. There wasn’t. As you said, it really came out of the blue.

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

    Robert Koehler wrote (#36):

    It’s condescending tone? It’s failure to mention Japanese provocations and Tokyo’s “kid-in-a-scuffle”-like behavior? It’s failure to explain why it is that many Koreans view Japan’s apologies as insincere, or why the Japanese government feel the need to pander to the Japanese right?

    What Japanese provocations? Korea has been provoking Japan for the past decade. Which government calls the other’s ambassador in for a tongue-lashing everytime his government mentions their claim to Liancourt Rocks? Which country is putting full-page ads saying “Dokdo Is Our Territory” in the New York Times, setting up putting the message on giant billboards in Los Angeles, and greeting arrivals with Dokdo signs at an airport in Australia?

    What provoked the bees, the fingers, the flag-burnings, and the dead birds? What provoked the Dokdo banners at all sports events involving Japan and Korea? You know all of this stuff, Robert, because you have posted about much of it.

    How does the Japanese government pander to the Japanese right? By claiming a group of rocky islets that they have been claiming ever since they incorporated them in 1905?

    Robert wrote:

    I’ve read there’s been talk—at least on the Korean side—of generating a possible breakthrough in Korea—Japan ties through something symbolic such as a visit to Korea by the Japanese emperor, during which he’d apologize and finally get Japan’s Willy Brandt moment out of the way:

    Wouldn’t that be something Korea should discuss with Japan before announcing that the Japanese Emperor is pesona non grata unless,…? And how would the Japanese Emperor get to Korea to apologize if he has to apologize before he can get to Korea?

  • Q

    Hmmm….. the commenting policy at Takashi Yokota’s Newsweek article is rediculous. The admin selectively delete scholarly articles of legal studies on Dokdo, such as Dr. Jon M. Van Dyke’s “Legal Issues Related over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary.”

  • Q

    ridiculous… not rediculous.

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

    Q wrote (#40):

    Hmmm….. the commenting policy at Takashi Yokota’s Newsweek article is rediculous. The admin selectively delete scholarly articles of legal studies on Dokdo, such as Dr. Jon M. Van Dyke’s “Legal Issues Related over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary.”

    Really? You mean they don’t like your 5-page-or-more, cut-n-paste posts?

  • Q

    The admin SELECTIVELY deleted scholarly articles… It was simple links, not cut and paste of the content.

  • Q

    Anywasy, Gerry Bevers, you are such a brazen liar. How could you have thought you could get away with it?:

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

    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.

  • cm

    Back maybe 10, and even up to 4,5 years ago, if a Korean president said something not so kind about the Japanese emperor, noone in Japan would have cared nor anyone would have raised a fuss, and Korea would have been ignored.

    But some kind of dynamics have changed over the last few years. Now Japan is jumpy when it comes to anything Korean with perceived slight, toward Japan from Korea. Now, one step taken in Korea will be countered by two steps in Japan. So what happened? Japan’s economy is sinking like the toilet getting flushed, and Korea has become a formidable economic rival to Japan. I hear that Korea’s sovereign credit rating is now higher than Japan’s, and Korea will record another solid year of account surpluses, while Japan is expected to sink to a first time account deficit in decades. The fortunes of the two countries seems to be going the opposite way, and the Japanese are fearful and are frustrated with Korea’s relentless persuit – like the tortoise catching up with the hare and bypassing it.
    The result is Japan’s rise in nationalism, any slight from Korea will be met by growing anti-Korean sentiment in Japan. The dynamics of the relationship between the two are changing quickly.

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    What Japanese provocations? Korea has been provoking Japan for the past decade. Which government calls the other’s ambassador in for a tongue-lashing everytime his government mentions their claim to Liancourt Rocks? Which country is putting full-page ads saying “Dokdo Is Our Territory” in the New York Times, setting up putting the message on giant billboards in Los Angeles, and greeting arrivals with Dokdo signs at an airport in Australia?

    What provoked the bees, the fingers, the flag-burnings, and the dead birds? What provoked the Dokdo banners at all sports events involving Japan and Korea? You know all of this stuff, Robert, because you have posted about much of it.

    Right, and Japanese don’t have their black van brigade, nationalists who harass ethnic Korean schools, activists who actually come to Korea to insult rape victims, right wingers who glorify the imperial past, sports fans who fly the Rising Sun flag, or politicians making comments about the comfort women. And it’s a lot easier to make it look like Koreans being the babies when you omit it’s Japan that withdrew its ambassador simply because a Korean president visited a piece of territory his country has maintained effective control of for sixty years, or that it’s Japan that’s threatening a currency swap deal over it.

    As for pandering to the right, what do you think visits to Yasukuni, comfort women comments and, frankly, Dokdo are all about in Japan?

  • Bendrix

    I could take the Korea critics here and elsewhere more seriously if they didn’t disingenuously portray themselves as disinterested and objective outside observers. obviously you have an axe to grind. it’s the same beef I have with American conservatives like the tea party: just admit you have an agenda and I will actually be more receptive to what you say. otherwise it comes off as fake and patronizing, like adults trying to bullshit kids who know better.

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

    i like this bendrix.

  • Arghaeri

    frogmouth, If you’re here, could you e-mail me at jhk641@netzero.net?
    I need to talk to you about something.

    LOL Spoiler alert, :-)

    WK, Don’t worry. It’s my old e-mail account that I never use..

  • Arghaeri

    I still think the two are different. I don’t think remorse trumps apology though, IMHO.

    Not sure on that, an apology can be insincere, whereas remorse demonstrate real sadness and regret, I would say that remorse can trump apology. but not necessairly a dincere heartfelt apology i.e that a companied by remorrse.

    Really needs the two together to be complete…

  • yuna

    On the subject of apology, nobody does it better. The Japanese are very very quick to apologize, in company settings, customer settings, family settings, they make it into an artform with their heads bowed deep and hearts falling out, *even if they don’t mean it 100 percent*, like they mean it.
    I’m not saying that they should, but I do find it funny.

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

    Bendrix (#36) inquired:

    “seriously, why are there so many creepy white dudes who feel they need to take Koreans to task?”

    Hey, we’re not all creepy white dudes who take Koreans to task! Some of us are creepy white dudes FOR Korea!

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

  • Ssamzi

    Omission can be as effectively misleading as outright inaccuracy. Having said that, LMB just gave the Japanese too much free bullets with nothing much to gain in return except for his temporary approval ratings.

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

    Robert wrote (#46):

    Right, and Japanese don’t have their black van brigade, nationalists who harass ethnic Korean schools, activists who actually come to Korea to insult rape victims, right wingers who glorify the imperial past, sports fans who fly the Rising Sun flag, or politicians making comments about the comfort women.

    So the black vans provoked the “the bees, the fingers, the flag-burnings, and the dead birds”? No, it was simply because Japan said Liancourt Rocks belonged to them.

    The bees: LINK

    The fingers: LINK

    The flag burning: LINK

    The birds: LINK

    You, Robert, are also trying to link Dokdo to unrelated issues, just like the Dokdo crazies. The comfort women and Yasukuni, for example, are separate issues.

    Just as the article said, I think after a decade of crazy anti-Japanese protests in South Korea, even moderate Japanese have finally gotten tired of it and are starting to fight back.

    I suggest you take off your Korean hanbok, put on some jeans and a T-shirt, and read the article again.

  • frogmouth

    Actually I got a real kick out of the writer’s photo.

    It looks like some 19th Century photo from the Meiji Restoration.

    Gerry Bevers, isn’t it interesting to see that Japanese were EXPORTING seals they caught on Dokdo through Ulleungdo and then through the Foreign Minstry in Busan!

    I see a slow and painful death to Japan’s claim of terra nullius.

  • DLBarch

    Q @ 40,

    Thanks for that Van Dyke reference. I tracked down his thesis and printed it out this morning.

    I now know what I’ll be reading over the weekend. Looks interesting.

    DLB

  • Q

    DLB,

    No problem, Sir. You would be one of not many at MH who could dig on legal terms in the article.

  • JK

    “Gerry Bevers, isn’t it interesting to see that Japanese were EXPORTING seals they caught on Dokdo through Ulleungdo and then through the Foreign Minstry in Busan!”

    Indeed it is, Frogmouth. So, the proof that Dokdo was recognized as a part of Korea continues to grow.

    I promise you this, though, Frogmouth: Gerry Bevers will NOT ever give in no matter the mounting evidence. He’s too stupid and stubborn. And you know this, too.

  • hamel

    Gerry:

    You, Robert, are also trying to link Dokdo to unrelated issues, just like the Dokdo crazies. The comfort women and Yasukuni, for example, are separate issues.

    This clip is for you, especially seconds 8 and 9.

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#55):

    Gerry Bevers, isn’t it interesting to see that Japanese were EXPORTING seals they caught on Dokdo through Ulleungdo and then through the Foreign Minstry in Busan!

    The Korean document does not mention anything about Liancourt Rocks or the County of Uldo (Ulleungdo) collecting taxes on seal lions. The 1905 Japanese Embassy document in Busan said Japanese fishermen were catching seal lions on “Liancourt Rocks,” which it said was “100km southeast of Ulleungdo,” and it did not mention anything about the Japanese paying any taxes on them to the Korean government. If Liancourt Rocks was Korean territory, why didn’t the Japanese embassy refer to them by a Korean name? It used the name “Ulleungdo” instead of the Japanese name for Ulleungdo, but it used the Japanese name of “Liancourt Rocks” for the Rocks.

    Also, Liancourt Rocks was outside the jurisdiction of Uldo County (Ulleungdo County). As reported in a July 13, 1906 Korean newspaper article entitled “Facts on the Arrangement of Uldo County,” the Korean Ministry of Interior said the following when the Japanese Resident General asked it to clarify what islands belonged to Ulleungdo.

    “It said the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島), and that it was sixty ri from east to west and forty ri from north to south for a total (perimeter) of 200 ri.”

    Notice that the Korean Ministry of Interior said that only Jukdo and its “rocky islets” (Seokdo) were part of “said county.” It also said the “said county” stretched 24km (60 ri) east-to-west and 16km (40 ri) north-to-south, which tells us that Liancourt Rocks were not part of the Uldo County since they are about 90km southeast of Ulleungdo.

    That means that Japanese fishing boats were simply based at Ulleungdo for convenience, but fishing outside Korean territorial waters.

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers, we’ve all told you many times the dimensions given were not of Uldo County but rather of Ulleungdo from old maps. Ulleungdo was described as (60 ri) east-to-west and 16km (40 ri) north-to-south. Do we have to tolerate yet another of your lame translations/interpretations?

    Japanese boats were based on Ulleungdo. They harvested seals on Ulleungdo. If Dokdo were not thought of as Korean they could have just shipped them straight home.

    Instead the Japanese followed Korean law at the time and registered them through the Ministry of Forieign Affairs in Busan.

    The seal products were EXPORTED from Korea’s Ulleungdo. If Japanese thought Dokdo (Takeshima) was Japanese they would have sent them directly home from Ulleungod.

    Do you know how far it is from Ulleungdo from Busan? What a pain in the ass it must have been for Japanese to register seal products from Dokdo through the Foreign Ministry in Busan.

    You don’t classify products from you own country as EXPORTS Mr Bevers, obviously Japanese considere Dokdo as Korean.

  • jk6411

    Do you know how far it is from Ulleungdo from Busan? What a pain in the ass it must have been for Japanese to register seal products from Dokdo through the Foreign Ministry in Busan.

    LOL. Very true.

  • frogmouth

    It’s interesting to see what other posters will think of this new data. We all know Mr Bevers is beyond repair.

    The fact Japanese harvested sea lions and then registered them at Uldo Country office in Dodong on Ulleungdo for the purpose of export is damning for Japan’s claim of terra nullius and prior occupation. Especially when you consider the fact Koreans were also involved in the process of hunting the animals as hired hands.

    The tax record complaint Gerry is whining about is moot. At this time the Japanese seldom paid required taxes and would haggle with local officials instead.

    Agian, the Japanese seal hunters wouldn’t have claimed these animals and sent the data to the Foreign Affairs Office in Busan had the seals not been subject of taxes or considered a Korean product for export. These animals would have fallen under the category of marine animals and subject to a 1% tax. Whether the Japanese obeyed this law or not is another matter.

    I’ve heard Yu Mi Rim has some records but I’m always a little wary of Korean newspaper ads.

  • DLBarch

    Gerry,

    If you can select one or two of the most authoritative papers that best reflect your views on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue, please let me know the links, if any.

    I am laid up this weekend and have finally decided to do some serious Dokdo-related reading.

    Thanks.

    DLB

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#61):

    Mr Bevers, we’ve all told you many times the dimensions given were not of Uldo County but rather of Ulleungdo from old maps. Ulleungdo was described as (60 ri) east-to-west and 16km (40 ri) north-to-south. Do we have to tolerate yet another of your lame translations/interpretations?

    It doesn’t matter how many times you tell me, my translation of the July 13, 1906 Korean newspaper article is exactly correct. Show me the part of the translation you consider lame.

    (It said) the islands under the authority of the said county (該郡所管島는) are Jukdo and seokdo (竹島石島오)、and it is sixty ri east-to-west (東西가 六十里오) and 40 ri north-to-south (南北이 四十里니), for a total of 200 ri (合 二百餘里라고 하였다더라.)

    該郡所管島는 竹島石島오、東西가 六十里오 南北이 四十里니, 合 二百餘里라고 하였다더라.

    The old maps that gave the same dimensions were giving the dimensions for Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and its neighboring rocky islets (Seokdo – 石島 – 석도). Can you show me any old Korean map that shows Liancourt Rocks as being part of Ulleungdo? We both know you cannot.

    Frogmouth wrote:

    You don’t classify products from you own country as EXPORTS Mr Bevers, obviously Japanese considere Dokdo as Korean.

    If the sea lions caught outside Korean territorial waters were being brought back to Ulleungdo for processing, then they could be classified as exports. Japanese were living on Ulleungdo at the time.

    Anyway, Japanese fishermen catching fish or sea lions on Liancourt Rocks, 90km southeast of the boundaries of Uldo County, and then bringing their catch back to Ulleungdo for processing or whatever does not make Liancourt Rocks Korean territory. Again, the Rocks were referred to my the Japanese name, not by any Korean name.

    Here is the translation of the Japanese document. LINK

  • jk6411

    If the sea lions caught outside Korean territorial waters were being brought back to Ulleungdo for processing, then they could be classified as exports. Japanese were living on Ulleungdo at the time.

    Gerry, give me a break.

    These Japanese hunters weren’t stupid. They would’ve done everything humanly possible to avoid paying export taxes on the sea lions they caught.
    They would’ve tried everything to avoid having their catch being classified as “exports”, because then they would’ve had to pay export taxes.

    The Korean govt on Ulleungdo was monitoring the Japanese ships which were coming and going, and levying taxes on anything the Japanese exported.
    Uldo County dispatched two officials each time to collect the taxes from the Japanese. It says so in Japanese Foreign Ministry records.

    They even found contracts the Japanese fishermen signed with the Uldo County magistrate, pledging that they will pay taxes.
    And Japanese records say that they did pay.

    Again, the Rocks were referred to by the Japanese name, not by any Korean name.

    According to the log of the Japanese warship Niitaka from Sept. 25, 1904, Koreans called the island “Dokdo”, and Japanese called the island “Lianko”.

    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-i.html)

  • jk6411

    Japanese knew that Dokdo was Korea’s.
    That’s why they reported their sea lion catch on Dokdo as “exports” from Korea.

    (No wonder Nakai Yozaburo originally thought that Dokdo was Korea’s and tried to lease it from the Korean govt, before he was dissuaded by Japanese govt officials who had ulterior motives regarding Dokdo.)

  • jk6411

    The story of Nakai Yozaburo and Dokdo.

    (http://dokdo-research.com/page11.html)

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

    Jk6411,

    You are a Korean, right? Could you please correct the “lame” part of my translation in Comment #65.

    Nakai Yozaburo’s petition to incorporate Liancourt Rocks can be found HERE.

    Can you please link me to a petition submitted by a Korean citizen to incorporate Liancourt Rocks? No?

    Well, then can you please link me to an old Korean map of Liancourt Rocks? No?

    Well, then can you please link me to a pre-1905 Korean document or newspaper article that gives the name of the Rocks and their correct location? No?

    Korea has no evidence that it ever incorporated Liancourt Rocks or that Koreans ever traveled to the Rocks before Japanese fishermen started carrying them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. It has no old maps showing the Rocks, and the only descripton of the Rocks in all of Korean history is that they were an unnamed Japanese island visible on the distant horizon from the peaks of Ulleungdo on a clear day.

    Therefore, Koreans are reduced to claiming that Japanese maps and export documents prove that Japan give Liancourt Rocks to Korea, but Koreans cannot even produce a “Thank you” note.

  • Q

    Chosun’s (Korea’s) 1714 Report on Coastal Defences and Dokdo: The July 22, 1714 passage from King Sukjong’s “Bogweoljeong-o” (補闕正吳)

    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 mistranslated 境.

  • jk6411

    I think this whole episode with the sea lions drives home the point that Dokdo by itself was absolutely useless.

    Only in association with Ulleungdo did Dokdo have any value as a destination, either as a stop-over point or a place to catch sea lions or abalones.

    Traveling to Dokdo as a sole destination was suicide.
    (There’s no water there, and very little shelter. And the rocks are often battered by rough weather.)

    Even the Japanese who caught sea lions on Dokdo had to use Ulleungdo as a base and had to live on Ulleungdo in order to carry out their economic activity on Dokdo.

    Dokdo has been tightly associated with Ulleungdo since the beginning of time.

  • jk6411

    gbevers @#69,

    Can you please link me to a petition submitted by a Korean citizen to incorporate Liancourt Rocks?

    There are none. Because Dokdo has been a part of Korea since 512 AD, when Shilla incorporated Usanguk.

    Well, then can you please link me to an old Korean map of Liancourt Rocks?

    Here are some maps that show Dokdo (Usando).

    http://blog.naver.com/storyphoto/viewer.html?src=http%3A%2F%2Fblogfiles2.naver.net%2Fdata33%2F2008%2F7%2F20%2F257%2F0020_cms1530.jpg

    http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=cms1530&logNo=10033261020

    http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10033214692

    http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10033214761

    http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10033442554

    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/genbanchousenzenzu-1877/map.jpg

    You’ll probably say that Usando on these maps can’t be Dokdo because it’s not drawn in the exact geographical location.
    But these maps were made in the pre-modern era.
    Back then, Korea didn’t have any steam ships, airplanes, or satellites. They didn’t have the technology necessary to measure long distances at sea accurately.
    They drew Dokdo next to Ulleungdo because the two islands were an inseparable pair.

    the only descripton of the Rocks in all of Korean history is that they were an unnamed Japanese island

    That’s a lie. And they never said that it’s a “Japanese island”.

    The only reason Korea’s historical evidence regarding Dokdo isn’t crystal clear is that Ulleungdo (and Dokdo) were largely deserted in the 2nd millennium AD.
    Usanguk (the original “kingdom” which occupied Ulleungdo and Dokdo) thrived until it was devastated by Jurchen raids in 11th Century. After that, the population of Ulleungdo decreased sharply.
    In the 15th Century, because of constant raids by Japanese pirates on Ulleungdo, the Korean govt decided to vacate Ulleungdo and prohibited Koreans from living or traveling there.

    (It’s during this time of “vacancy” that Japanese started making inroads of Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Illegally.)

    During the many centuries that this “vacant island policy” remained in effect, Korea’s knowledge of Ulleungdo and Dokdo obviously became much diminished.
    The Korean govt finally abolished the “vacant island policy” in 1883, when it realized that Ulleungdo was being overrun by Japanese who were illegally cutting down trees and fishing on Ulleungdo.

    Korea started resettling Ulleungdo at that time.
    But the Japanese never left.
    Before long, Ulleungdo and the rest of Korea was colonized by Japan.

    Dokdo was the first Korean territory to be annexed by Japan.
    (Japan annexed Dokdo for military purposes, during the heat of the Russo-Japanese War.
    In fact, during that war Japan illegally utilized the whole of Korea for military puroposes.)

    When Korea found out in 1906 that Japan had secretly annexed Dokdo in 1905, Koreans were shocked.
    But they could do little to take back Dokdo, because by then Korea was firmly under Japan’s control.

    But as soon as Korea regained independence, Korea took Dokdo back.

    And that’s the story of Dokdo in a nutshell.

  • jk6411

    My comment is awaiting moderation.
    Did I post too many links?

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

    Q,

    Here is the definition for 접하다 (接). I used the first meaning; you used the second, which makes no sense since there is nothing there for it to be “adjacent to”. LINK

    1 [접촉하다] touch; come in[into] contact[touch] ((with)). [→접촉(接觸)]

    2 [인접하다] adjoin; be adjacent ((to)); be contiguous ((to)); border ((on)); abut ((against, on)).

    Here is the definition for 경(境). I used the second definition. Your definition is not there, but even if it translated as “touched the Japanese border, it would still mean the island was part of Japanese territory. LINK

    1 [상태] a state; a stage.

    2 [지역] a place; a district; an area; a region.

    Therefore, the translation for 接于倭境 is as follows:

    “An island is visible to the east of Ulleung (鬱陵之東, 島嶼相望) that connects (接) to (于) the Japanese (倭) region (境)”

    If the writer had wanted to said “near” or “adjacent to” the Japanese border, he would have used 近(근), just as he used it to say, “Pyeonghae and Uljin are nearest to Ulleungdo” (平海、蔚珍, 距鬱陵島最近)

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers what the Koreans have uncovered are a few key points that you can’t seem to refute.

    Before Japan incorporated Dokdo, Korea as a nation, had an economic interest in Takeshima. Whether you like it or not, this represents an act of sovereignty. It also destroys Japan’s claim of terra nullius or no man’s land Japan clings desperately to. Now we see both the Korean government AND civilians were involved in Dokdo.

    Records of export from Japan Foreign Ministry specify the seal products came from Liancourt Rocks, yet they are classified as Korean exports from Ulleungdo Island. The Japanese Export did not differentiate the seal products from Dokdo and any other of Ulleungdo’s natural resources.

    The export records explain why the Japanese Black Dragon Fishing Manual of 1901~1903 listed Dokdo appended to Ulleungdo and as part of Gangwan Province. Furthermore we can see the Japanese Business Guide to Chosun also wrote that Dokdo was part of Gangwan Province and part of Ulleungdo. Those who frequented Ulleungdo knew the situation well.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-in-the-early-20th-century.html

    These export records serve to erode Japan’s case for Dokdo even further. With new data continually being brought to light, Korea should refrain from bringing the case before the ICJ.

    DLB, if you want Gerry’s opinion on the Dokdo dispute just go read any publication his boss (Japan’s MOFA)

  • frogmouth

    Leads to, connects to, adjacent to, next to…

    Not part of Gare Bear..

    You lose again.

  • frogmouth

    BTW Gerry your usage of [접촉하다] is used for people not for geographic landmarks or national borders. See the usage given below. In contact with is not the correct English translation of 접하다(接).

    Thus, in contact is not correct.

  • TheKorean2

    Takeshima? Bamboo island? Where?

  • Q

    DLB wrote:

    Gerry,

    If you can select one or two of the most authoritative papers that best reflect your views on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue, please let me know the links, if any.

    Is there any other than MOFA propaganda or the like?

  • Q

    接(touch or adjacent to) Japanese border or territory. That means Dokdo does not belong to Japanese territory. If I touch your body, does my body become your body?

  • Q

    TheKorean2 wrote:

    Takeshima? Bamboo island? Where?

    Takeshima, Aichi, an island in Aichi Prefecture, Japan.
    Takeshima, Miyagi, an island in Miyagi Prefecture, Japan.
    Takeshima, Kagoshima, an island in Kagoshima Prefecture, Japan.
    Takeshima, Yamaguchi, an island in Yamaguchi Prefecture, Japan.
    Takeshima, Kumamoto, an island in Kumamoto Prefecture, Japan.

    [Source: wiki]

  • Bendrix

    #52

    True. I hope that didn’t come off the wrong way. Whenever I read a sentence starting “Koreans …” I roll my eyes ’cause I know a gross generalization is about to follow. As if people always do things collectively by ethnicity.

  • Bendrix

    In other news, a 13-year-old Korean boy was arrested for saying Dokdo/Takeshima is Japanese territory? http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20120907-00000007-jct-soci

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#77):

    BTW Gerry your usage of [접촉하다] is used for people not for geographic landmarks or national borders. See the usage given below. In contact with is not the correct English translation of 접하다(接). Thus, in contact is not correct.

    You do not even speak Korean, Frogmouth. Ask your wife what 접경(接境) means.

    접경(接境) – a border (line); a border land (area); a boundary; a frontier

    접왜경(接倭境) – in (on) Japanese border (line); in (on) Japanese border land (area); in (on) Japanese boundary; in (on) Japanese frontier

    Q wrote (#80):

    接(touch or adjacent to) Japanese border or territory.

    To say near or adjacent to the Japanese border, Koreans used 近 (근), which means “near” or “adjacent,’ as in the following 1769 entry in the Annals of King Yongjo. LINK

    鬱陵島地近倭境 (울릉도지근왜경).
    The Ulleungdo area is near (adjacent to) Japanese territory (border).

    In other words, 近倭境 (근왜경) means “near the Japanese border area(territory),” and 接倭境 (접왜경) means “in (on) the Japanese border area (territory).”

  • Ssamzi

    @ 83 Bendrix
    No, that’s merely an eye-catching headline on Yahoo Japan. The Korea Internet Safety Commission cracked down on a ‘Cafe’ that has spewed excessive racism against Koreans under the influence of the Japanese nationalist right. You can’t legally do anything about private Cafes but if they are open to public, it seems there is some law regulating them especially when they defame independence activists. They found that the admin of the Cafe was a middle school boy who even burned a national flag to draw attention.

  • hamel

    You do not even speak Korean, Frogmouth.

    And while we are at the ad hominem’s Gerry, have you “even” been to Dokdo/Takeshima or Ulleungdo?

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

    I feel as if Gerry’s getting a little overwhelmed, but I admire his panache.

  • hamel

    DL Barch: I am genuinely curious (when am I not) to see if Gerry does supply with some academic papers written in English (and not by the Japanese foreign ministry) to support his argument.

    As I see it, Gerry has consistently shown a disdain for/distrust of academia. When several of us here suggested that he submit a paper of his own to a peer-reviewed journal, he poo-pood that.

    I think Gerry is happy to rely on his own translations of Korean maps/documents/articles (have they been double-checked/proofread by an academic?) or Japanese same (again, has anyone checked them? That would help clear up a lot of the arguing about meanings of Chinese characters at the time).

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

    … unless that “panache” is getting financially compensated somehow, at which point if that’s ever revealed, I withdraw my admiration.

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

    Hamel wrote (#86):

    And while we are at the ad hominem’s Gerry, have you “even” been to Dokdo/Takeshima or Ulleungdo?

    If I do not make the pilgrimage to Dokdo, will I not get my 72 virgins?

    Do you think I might find some 17th c. Japanese coins there or a rock carbon-dated to that time with the inscription, “Property of Japan”?

  • mickster

    I am interested to know why Newsweek decided to let a Japanese reporter/columnist write the article. I suppose it sounds ‘condescending’ because an equally ‘kid-in-a-scuffle’ like Japanese, of all people, is preaching to Koreans (and also to Japanese) to call the whole thing off.
    Since I’m Japanese, I guess I am honestly numb to what in this article angers anti-Japanese folks. (I know by now.) My initial response was similar to that of Veritas @2. (Allow me Veritas; I often second your opinion. I am starting to like you.)
    Would the same article sound as ‘stinky’ if it were done by an American writer? Of course in that case, the headline could not say, You call it…, we call it….
    Just being curious.

    Veritas:
    Is your fluency in Japanese adversely affecting your English? You tend to put the article ‘a’ in front of vowels and add a third-person-singular ‘s’ to verbs when the subject is plural. I know I write more strang phrases, but again just being curious and kidding.

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

    san diego is on the mexican border. stfu, gerry. got tang?

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

    “If I do not make the pilgrimage to Dokdo, will I not get my 72 virgins?”

    Even if you did go, Gerry, the Dokdo seals are extinct, so you wouldn’t find those virgins there anyway.

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

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

    Jefferyhodges wrote (#93):

    Even if you did go, Gerry, the Dokdo seals are extinct, so you wouldn’t find those virgins there anyway.

    They were Japanese sea lions, not seals, and I think I read somewhere that the Koreans occupying “Dokdo” killed them all.

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

    Those weren’t Japanese Sea Lions! They were East Sea Lions!

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

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

    Q wrote (#80):

    接(touch or adjacent to) Japanese border or territory. That means Dokdo does not belong to Japanese territory. If I touch your body, does my body become your body?

    Here is another example of 接 being used in an April 10, 1598 entry in the Annals of King Seonjo:

    忠淸道錦江一帶之水, 上連荊江, 下接海口

    “A tributary of the Kum River in Chungcheon Province joins with the Hyeong River above and connects to the sea (接海口) below.”

    충청도 금강(錦江) 일대의 물이 위로는 형강(荊江)과 연결이 되고 아래로는 바다에 닿아 있어 …

    Notice that 接(접) was used to mean “connect” or “join.” In other words, the river became part of the sea.

  • frogmouth

    Right, Gerry the Kum River and the Hyeong River join connect whatever….

    But that does not make them one in the same. They are still separate objects. The Chunnel connects England and France but they are different things.

    The island East of Ulleungdo (Dokdo) is described as a separate object from Japan’s border. Whatever bogus translation you pull out of your backside you can’t make them one. Try some crazy glue.

    Hamel, I have constantly had Mr Bevers translations compared to publications from other historical pages and websites. He’s rarely right.

    Mr Bevers has no formal education in the translation of traditional characters, grammar or spoken usage of them. Right Mr Bevers?

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#97):

    BTW Gerry your usage of [접촉하다] is used for people not for geographic landmarks or national borders. See the usage given below. In contact with is not the correct English translation of 접하다(接). Thus, in contact is not correct.

    Look at the Korean in Comment #96, Frogmouth (Steve Barber). I didn’t translate that. Korea’s National Institute of Korean History (국사편찬위원회) translated it.

    Notice that they translated 接(접) as 닿아있다, which means “touching, in contact,” not “adjacent to.” Go ask your wife if an “sea” or a “river” is a person or a geographic landmark. LINK

    Therefore, the July 22, 1714 entry in King Sukjong’s “Bo Gweol Jeong O” (補闕正吳) means the following:

    “An island is visible to the east of Ulleung (鬱陵之東, 島嶼相望) that connects (接) to (于) the Japanese (倭) region (境)”

    And that means Koreans is 1714 recognized Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @86

    The Bev’s noting Froggie’s lack of linguistic competence is an entirely jusifiable use of ad hominem – all the more so since it’s true, as FM has admitted as much and confessed his reliance on secondary sources that he is incompetent to evaluate critically? The question whether Gerry has bisited Dokdo is doubly impertinent.

  • hamel

    The Bev’s noting Froggie’s lack of linguistic competence is an entirely jusifiable use of ad hominem

    Look, everyone justifies their ad hominem attacks in various ways. Vid. my earlier discussion with HJH on this topic. Of course it is an entirely justifiable use of ad hominem in the eyes of Gerry.

    - all the more so since it’s true, as FM has admitted as much and confessed his reliance on secondary sources that he is incompetent to evaluate critically?

    Is this a question or a statement?

    The question whether Gerry has bisited [sic] Dokdo is doubly impertinent.

    Do you mean that I am being both insolent and not irrelevant? If so, I am fine with that accusation.

    I think it is a relevant question in terms of the broad overview of Gerry’s research of this issue.

    But anyway, as I have said before, let Gerry publish. Please, let him publish.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    It’s not just Bev who thinks it’s justified; so di I and any reputable handbook on the subject you might consult.

    You are never insolent. The impertinence inheres in the utter irrelevance and its (conventionally asseses, ie, objectively) unjustified ad hominem

  • frogmouth

    Seriously Mr Bevers!

    How many different times have you changed your translation for this record? Remember when you said it meant “on a tangent to last year Mr Bevers?

    Now you are cross referencing unrelated historical records to pull yet another Korean usage of the document to say this now means “닿아 있어”

    Well publications regarding this document say “접해있다” they make no mention of “”닿아 있어” Here’s two examples one from a respected publication and another from a Korean website.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/1714-doc.jpg

    http://www.dokdohistory.com/?bidx=113&bmode=view&sidx=11&stype=1

    Also stop trying to be slick by adding words with brackets. Those are simply wrong.

    Mr Bevers stated “In other words, 接倭境 (접왜경) means “in (on) the Japanese border area (territory).”

    Literally the translation passage states “adjacent to the limits of Japan” There is no “On” or “In” Some could say leads to as well, but save the extra words for your Japanese friends over at Bevers Boys of Bushido Clubhouse.

  • frogmouth

    Gerry also remember, the passage also tells the Koreans not to worry because “the sea is a vast barrier” Are you trying to tell me Koreans thought they could see Japan from Ulleungdo.?This is wrong because in 1694 the Inspector clearly stated he could not see Japan.

    Just years earlier this Korean map showed how far away they thought Japan was. This chart was commonly used by Korea.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/chosun-asia-map.jpg

    Judging from the distance do you really think Koreans thought they could see Japan from Ulleungdo? I don’t think so.

    BTW Sperwer, I openly admit I’m not an expert on ancient Korean or Japanese characters. Mr Bevers should too.

    The difference is I have the integrity to admit it. Just a week ago Mr Bevers made a translation mistake on the Marmots Hole and yet he still has the arrogance to challenge publications by people who have made it their life’s work to study and translate historical records.

    Those who publish material have a lot to lose by printing false data. When Mr Bevers screws up he simply throws up his hands and says “Erm, well y’know I’m not really a historian…”

  • hamel

    It’s not just Bev who thinks it’s justified; so di I and any reputable handbook on the subject you might consult.

    Appeal to authority. That’s fine, Sperwer. And I (and others here) think that it is relevant that Gerry Bevers has not been to Dokdo not Ulleungdo. Why is it relevant, I hear you ask? Because he makes arguments about whether or not Dokdo can be seen from the highest point on Ulleungdo.

    In fact, it reminds me of James Mill (father of John Stuart Mill) who wrote a three-volume History of British India without ever setting foot in India. Great theory, but where is the practice?

    You are never insolent. The impertinence inheres in the utter irrelevance and its (conventionally asseses, ie, objectively) unjustified ad hominem

    I wonder what you mean when you say I was “doubly” impertinent. I took it to mean that you were referring to both dictionary definitions. Now I am just confused.

  • hamel

    frogmouth: And don’t think you’re getting off scott-free either. Work on your gosh-darned Korean! Don’t rely purely on others!

  • frogmouth

    Here is another example of the usage of “접해있다” and not

    http://sillok.history.go.kr/inspection/insp_king.jsp?id=ksb_14007022_001&tid=&pos=0&mTree=0&inResult=0&clsName=&indextype=1&searchType=a&keyword=&keyword2=&setlist_K=&setlist_W=&detail=0&opH=0&opAll=0&opP=0&opA=0&opB=0&opC=0&opQ=0&chkID=0&qH=&qAll=&qP=&qA=&qB=&qC=&qQ=&idS=&idE=&tabid=k

    Hamel how long do you think it takes to become qualified to accurately translate traditional Korean and/or Japanese characters? If Mr Bevers or I started tomorrow we’d be pushing daisies before we’d be half as good as a Korean or Japanese historian.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Hamel

    Are thr facts concerning Dokdo’s visibility in any imaginable fashion dependent on whether Beavers could or could not see it were he to visit it. Isn’t there a wealth of evidence on the subject from other reliable, disinterested witnesses? Would you credit Beaver’s observation in any event? You are being silly!

    I was using impertinent to mean both “irrelevant” to the issue at hand and irrelevant and argumentatively unacceptable because impermissibly ad hominem.

    The impermissibility is based bot on authority but convention; it is part of the definition of what is common usage re justifiable/unjustifiable ad hominem. Eg in a criminal trial, evidence of past bad acts ordinarily inadmissible as proof of guilt for the criminal act alleged, unless the defendant chooses make his character an issue himself, eg by introducing character witnesses. Similarly, when Froggie admits that he’s incompetent in the relevant languages, it’s perfectly legitimate for Beavers to call him on it. I am incompetent in hanja and Japanese, so i’m not a qualified judge of the accuracy of Beaver’s translations, but it is evident that he has a fair degree of familiarity with at least the hanja and the chinese characters in Japanese; so I’m willing to give him some leeway. Frogmouth on the other hand, admits he’s incompetent, but nevertheless presumes to critic Beavers on the basis of a combination of looking at dictionaries (of languages he doesn’t understand) and referring to secondary sources of dubious objectivity (to say the least) that he can’t himself critically evaluate. Relatively speaking, He therefore has 0 credibility for this reader.

  • frogmouth

    Sperwer, interpretation of these Korean and Japanese records involves more than translation of the ancient characters,

    After you find the equivalent Korean word you must be fluent enough to apply the correct usage. As a non-native speaker this is another problem of Mr Bevers. You can see he too uses a Korean dictionary and picks the word that fits his agenda without checking the examples to verify he is using the applicable usage.

    In addition many of Mr Bevers translations are not his. They are spoon-fed to him by Japanese lobbyists straight from the pages of Occidentalism blog.

    If I have any doubt about the Korean, I consult my loving Korean wife of twelve years (who is an English major BTW).

    Before you bash me for ad hominem attacks maybe you should see what Mr Bevers has posted about me on his “blog” Also check out a list of academics Vandyke, Hosaka Yuji, Mark Seldon, Mark Lovmo etc etc on Gerry’s “Goofball” list.

    Google dokdo, gerry bevers goofball!

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers’ “Dokdo isn’t visible from Ulleungdo!” argument died a few years back.

    But he went kickin’ and screamin’ every step of the way!

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/a-visual-study-of-dokdo.html

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#102):

    Well publications regarding this document say “접해있다” they make no mention of “”닿아 있어” Here’s two examples one from a respected publication and another from a Korean website.

    All three of your translation examples above come from the same source, Korea’s National Institute of Korean History (국사편찬위원회). And that Institute’s translation of this 1714 passage proves that nationalism trumps honesty and respectability in Korea when it comes to Dokdo. Here is how your “respected publication” translated the passage into Korean:

    鬱陵之東, 島嶼相望, 接于倭境。

    울릉도 동쪽에는 섬이 서로 잇달아 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다.

    East of Ulleungdo islands connect in succession to each other to Japanese territory.

    In spite of the Chinese saying that Ulleungdo and the island east of it are “visible to each other’ (相望 – 서로 바라봄), your “respected publication” ignores that and creates the ridiculous translation “in succession to each other” to avoid having to say that the only island visible to the east of Ulleungdo, Liancourt Rocks, connects to Japanese territory.

    I’m not the one, Frogmouth, denying Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) is visible to the east of Ulleungdo, your “respected publication” is.

    And since you do not trust my “Hanja for Dummies” training, I will quote the translation of Kim Ho-dong (김호동) from his book, “The History of Dokdo and Ulleungdo (독도 – 울릉도의 역사).

    鬱陵之東, 島嶼相望, 接于倭境。

    울릉도 동쪽에 섬이 서로 보이는데 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다.

    East of Ulleungdo an island is visible that connects to Japanese territory.

    In his footnotes, Mr. Kim writes the following:

    ….鬱陵之東, 島嶼相望, 接于倭境”. 그런데 국편의 최근 번역에는 이것을 “…울릉도 동쪽에는 섬이 서로 잇달아 왜경(倭境)에 접해 있다” 고 하였다고 잘못 번역하고 있다.

    ….鬱陵之東, 島嶼相望, 接于倭境”. However, in its most recent translation, the National Institute of Korean History is mistranslating it as “… East of Ulleungdo islands connect in succession to each other to Japanese territory.”

    Nevertheless, being a good Korean, Mr. Kim interprets the sentence as proving that Koreans were aware of Dokdo at the time and its representing Korea’s boundary with Japan.

  • Q

    When gbevers’ d*ck touched(接) the holes of prostitutes he had encountered in Korea, they could have claimed the d*ck rightfully belonged to them.

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#103):

    The difference is I have the integrity to admit it. Just a week ago Mr Bevers made a translation mistake on the Marmots Hole and yet he still has the arrogance to challenge publications by people who have made it their life’s work to study and translate historical records.

    First of all, you have no integrity since you were once a troll who used to post under multiple IDs before getting caught. LINK

    Second, I did not make any translation mistakes on the Marmot’s Hole a week ago.

  • mickster

    Q:
    Don’t be so low … LOL
    But in that case, I would say the right usage would be ‘conntected to’ rather than ‘touched’.

  • Q

    gbever (#74) defined 接 as “touch”, “come in contact with”:

    Q,

    Here is the definition for 접하다 (接). I used the first meaning; you used the second, which makes no sense since there is nothing there for it to be “adjacent to”. LINK

    1 [접촉하다] touch; come in[into] contact[touch] ((with)). [→접촉(接觸)]

    2 [인접하다] adjoin; be adjacent ((to)); be contiguous ((to)); border ((on)); abut ((against, on)).

    Now he conveniently changes it to “connected to”.

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

    Q wrote: “When gbevers’ d*ck touched(接) the holes of prostitutes he had encountered in Korea, they could have claimed the d*ck rightfully belonged to them.”

    Interesting point, Q. The Happy Hooker said as much in her first book, and women seem to generally believe this. Gerry! This is clearly a gender war! Whose side are you on?

    Jeffery Hodges

    * * *

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

    “The Happy Hooker”? You are showing your age, Jeffery.

    I remember that book and was just checking on Wikipedia for its publication date when I noticed that the writer, Xaviera Hollander, was born in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) in 1943 to a Dutch Jewish father and a Thai-Vietnamese mother. It said that she spent the first two years of her life in a Japanese internment camp. I wonder if her mother was one of the Dutch comfort women.

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#103):

    Gerry also remember, the passage also tells the Koreans not to worry because “the sea is a vast barrier” Are you trying to tell me Koreans thought they could see Japan from Ulleungdo.?

    Again, you show your ignorance of the 1714 passage. The Korean official was arguing for the need to strengthen defenses along the east coast of Korea and used the fact that there was a Japanese island visible to the east of Ulleungdo to help prove his case.

    Here is the full passage:

    Gangwon Provincial emissary Jo Seok-myeong (趙錫命) discussed the neglected coastal defenses in the Yeongdong region. Here is a summary:

    I listened carefully to the people in the ports (浦人) who said, “Pyeonghae (平海) and Uljin (蔚珍) are closest to Ulleungdo, and there are no obstructions along the sea route. Visible to the east of Ulleung is an island attached to Japanese territory.” In 1708 and 1712, strange-looking ships drifted to the borders of Goseong (高城) and Ganseong (杆城), so we know that Japanese ships frequently come and go. The government, however, says that the vast sea is a barrier, so there is no need to worry, but how can we be sure that a future war will not break out in the Yeongdong region instead of the Yeongnam region? We cannot allow even a little delay in taking measures to be thoroughly prepared.

    In accordance with the request, the Myodang (廟堂) requested that Gangwondo be reprimanded to cracked down on its military officials.

    辛酉江原道御使趙錫命 論嶺東海防疎虞狀略曰 詳聞浦人言 平海蔚珍 距鬱陵島最近 船路無少礙 鬱陵之東 島嶼相望 接于倭境. 戊子壬辰 異攘帆穡 漂到高杆境 倭船往來之頻數 可知. 朝家雖以嶺海之限隔 謂無可憂 而安知異日生釁之必由嶺南 而不由嶺東乎. 綢繆之策 不容少緩. 廟堂請依其言 飭江原道 團束軍保.

    Frogmouth wrote:

    This is wrong because in 1694 the Inspector clearly stated he could not see Japan.

    Again, you are wrong. Surprise, surpise!

    In 1694, Ulleungdo Inspector Jang Han-sang ((張漢相) also said he saw an unnamed island to the southeast of Ulleungdo that he judged to be a little less than 1/3 the size of Ulleungdo and about 120km away, but apparently because of its size, he did not consider the island to be of any significance, as he mentioned in the conclusion of his report. Inspector Lee was also worried about the Japanese.

    We know Inspector Lee did not go to the distance island because Liancourt is about 1/400th the size of Ulleungdo, not 1/3. Also, the distance he gave for the island was 30km too far.

    Here is the passage:

    On a day when the rain stopped and the fog lifted, we climbed Seong-In Bong (Mountain) and saw two peaks, one to the North the other to the South facing each other and towering toward the sky. We then learned they are “Sambong” (Ulleungdo was also called Sambong-do). Looking toward the West, we could see (Korea’s) Dae Gwal Yeong mountain range on the horizon. Toward the East, in the middle of the ocean, an island was vaguely visible to the east-southeast (辰方). It was just one third the size of Ulleungdo and only 300 ri (210 km) away.

    面霽雨靄捲之日八登中峯則南北兩峯岌崇相面此所謂三峯也西望大關嶺逶迤之狀東望海中有一島杳在辰方而其大未滿蔚島三分之一不過三百餘里

    Then in the conclusion of his report, while discribing how Ulleungdo might be defended against the Japanese, Inspector Lee mentioned his climbing up the mountain and looking toward “Japanese territory,” which he described as being “faint and distance and having no islands of significance”:

    Before the stream there is an entrance to the valley, and upon looking for a strategy to drive away the enemy, this could be a place where one person could defeat a hundred men. Their (Japapense) boats can’t be grouped together for an extended time. Also if there are any strong winds or waves, even maintaining the boats would be difficult. When I climbed to top of the island’s mountain peak and looked carefully toward their (Japan’s) territory (登島山峰審望彼國之域則), it was faint and distant (杳茫), and there were no islands of significance (無眼杓之島), so its distance is still unknown (其遠近未知幾許).

    前溪有洞口若慮寇之策則一夫當百夫之地彼船難欲乆為結船而風浪若開則船必不保之勢登島山峰審望彼國之域則杳茫無眼杓之島其遠近未知幾許

    At the beginning of his report, Inspector Jang reported climbing Ulleungdo’s Songinbong Mountain and looking toward the east (toward Japan) where he saw an island “vaguely visible to the southeast” that he judged to be about 120 km away and only about 1/3 the size of Ulleungdo. Then in the conclusion of his report, he mentioned his climbing the mountain and looking toward Japanese territory, but not seeing any islands of significance. That means he considered the distant island he saw to the southeast of Ulleungdo to be insignificant. It also suggests he considered the island to be part of Japanese territory.

    The above 1694 reference and the 1714 reference are the only two references in all of Korean history to what we now know to be Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).

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

    Correction: In Comment #117, I switched from Inspector Jang to Inspector Lee for some reason. It should be Inspector Jang.

  • TheKorean2

    登島山峰審望彼國之域則 doesn’t mean “When I climbed to top of the island’s mountain peak and looked carefully toward their (Japan’s) territory.” You can’t even read classical Hanja, you idiot.

  • jk6411

    Gerry and his messed-up translations again.

    無眼杓之島 doesn’t mean “there were no islands of significance”.
    It means “눈에 띄이는 섬이 없었다”, or “no islands were visible”.
    It means that Jang literally couldn’t see any islands that belonged to Japan. So he couldn’t tell the distance to Japan.

    Earlier in his report Jang said that he could see Dokdo about 120km away. So obviously Dokdo was not a part of Japan.

  • jk6411

    Gerry still talking about Korean references to Dokdo from when Ulleungdo was a deserted island.
    Koreans’ knowledge of Ulleungdo and Dokdo were limited at the time.
    I wish some historical records remained from back when Usanguk still existed..

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

    TheKorean2 wrote (#119):

    登島山峰審望彼國之域則 doesn’t mean “When I climbed to top of the island’s mountain peak and looked carefully toward their (Japan’s) territory.” You can’t even read classical Hanja, you idiot.

    You forgot to tell us the correct translation.

    登(등) – 오르다 (go up)
    島(도) – 섬 도 (island)
    山(산) – 뫼 산 (mountain)
    峰(봉) – 봉우리 봉 (peak)
    審(심) – 살피다, 주의하여 보다 (look carefully)
    望(망) – 전망(展望), 풍경(風景) – (view, scene)
    彼(피) – 저, 그, 저쪽 (that, their)
    國(국) – 나라 (country)
    之(지) – 의 (possessive marker)
    域(역) – 구역 (territory)
    則(즉) – ~하면, ~할 때에는 (if, when)

    “When I climbed to top of the island’s mountain peak and looked carefully toward their (Japan’s) territory, …”

  • hamel

    Are thr facts concerning Dokdo’s visibility in any imaginable fashion dependent on whether Beavers could or could not see it were he to visit it. Isn’t there a wealth of evidence on the subject from other reliable, disinterested witnesses? Would you credit Beaver’s observation in any event? You are being silly!

    No, I don’t think I am being silly at all, though I suppose I should be grateful that you didn’t choose a harsher adjective. I sincerely do think it is relevant to the argument that Gerry has refused to visit Dokdo while he lived here in Korea.

    I was using impertinent to mean both “irrelevant” to the issue at hand and irrelevant and argumentatively unacceptable because impermissibly ad hominem.

    Then I disagree most strenuously and sincerely on both points.

    Similarly, when Froggie admits that he’s incompetent in the relevant languages, it’s perfectly legitimate for Beavers to call him on it.

    I think it is a valid point, but I think that it doesn’t exclude Froggie from making linguistic arguments if he calls on other who do have the language skills. Just as is the case for any of us.

    Secondly, as far as I recall, Gerry does not claim to have any facility with Japanese. Therefore, he too is using an external linguistic resource for his analysis of Japanese texts. I shall return to this point to show why that is fraught.

    I am incompetent in hanja and Japanese, so i’m not a qualified judge of the accuracy of Beaver’s translations, but it is evident that he has a fair degree of familiarity with at least the hanja and the chinese characters in Japanese; so I’m willing to give him some leeway.

    Okay let’s look at this. I know the Latin etymology of some English words. Many words in French and Spanish also come from Latin roots and are sometimes cognates. However, they don’t always come out with the same meaning, so I would not use my knowledge of Latin etymology of English words to suggest that I can plumb the meanings of French and Spanish words from the same roots. I could make an educated guess, sure, but that would not be enough to seal an argument in a linguistic debate such as this one. Add to that the fact that we are talking about documents written 100-300 years ago, and that makes the whole case less strong than it looks.

    Just to show an example, in modern Chinese, the word for “careful” is 小心 (you can see this on the subway in Hong Kong). These same characters in Korean, read “소심” mean timid, gutless or chickenshit. So there are many cases of linguistic “false friends” and shifts of nuances between the Chinese characters used in China, Japan and Korea.

    To really get to the bottom of meanings of the characters used in the Japanese documents and maps that Gerry translates, I would like to see the opinions of some academics who are familiar with Japanese used 100 or more years ago. I don’t think Gerry is that man.

    Frogmouth on the other hand, admits he’s incompetent, but nevertheless presumes to critic Beavers on the basis of a combination of looking at dictionaries (of languages he doesn’t understand) and referring to secondary sources of dubious objectivity (to say the least) that he can’t himself critically evaluate. Relatively speaking, He therefore has 0 credibility for this reader.

    Hey that’s fine. For you. I agree that I would rather have an academic knowledgeable in the use of Chinese characters in Korean circa 100-300 years ago, and I would also prefer to see it that Frogmouth worked on his Korean language skills (but the same is valid for thee and me, I feel), but I think that, in the absence of such academics here in this forum, and inasmuch as Gerry’s Japanese ability is rudimantary at best, Frogmouth’s work is at least as credible as his.

  • hamel

    Frogmouth

    Hamel how long do you think it takes to become qualified to accurately translate traditional Korean and/or Japanese characters? If Mr Bevers or I started tomorrow we’d be pushing daisies before we’d be half as good as a Korean or Japanese historian.

    1) Generally I find it an excuse of those who consider themselves too “busy” to learn a foreign language that it would take too long to learn it. Your wife has learned English, so why can’t you do likewise?

    2) It would be appropriate for you (and Gerry) in this debate to at least consult Korean & Japanese academics on the meanings of words in both their textual and historial contexts, and then use that in your arguments, rather than stating:
    (a) “my wife says X”
    (b) “my online dictionary of modern Japanese prepared post A.D. 2000 says Y”

    These sources carry equal weigt in this current discussion.

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

    JK6411 wrote (#120):

    無眼杓之島 doesn’t mean “there were no islands of significance”. It means “눈에 띄이는 섬이 없었다”, or “no islands were visible”. It means that Jang literally couldn’t see any islands that belonged to Japan. So he couldn’t tell the distance to Japan.

    無(무) – 없다 (no
    眼(안) – 눈 (eye)
    杓(작) – 당기다, 치다 (pull, strike)
    之(지) – 의 (possessive marker)
    島(도) – 섬 (island)

    It means literally “no eye-pulling island” or “no eye-striking island.” In other words, the island was insignificant. If he had wanted to say he saw no island, he would have said something like Lee Gyu-won said in 1882, when he inspected Ulleungdo. He said he looke in four directions and saw only sky and sea, but “no speck of an island”:

    無一點島嶼(무일점도서) – “no speck of an island”

    We already know Jang saw an island on the horizon in 1694 because he had mentioned it previously. Also, he described Japanese territory as being faint and distant, which sounds like he was referring to the island that was far off to the southeast of Ulleungdo.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    I sincerely do think it is relevant to the argument that Gerry has refused to visit Dokdo while he lived here in Korea.

    how so, exactly? Or is this another of those points on which you reserve your “right” not to give reasons.

  • hamel

    Sperwer: I tried to spell that out above, but I guess it didn’t get through to you.

    Did any of the other points in #123 above get through to you? I find your brief rejoinder surprising.

  • http://blog.oranckay.net oranckay

    Hello Mr. Bevers, glad to see you’re fine and well.

    I disagree with the definitiveness you attach to your interpretation of 無眼杓之島.

    Hanmun being what it always is, one cannot say for sure that it means “no eye-striking island” and thus, in your words, that the “island [that he did see] was insignificant,” any more than 無眼杓之島 could just as easily mean “no island struck the eye” at all.

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers the whole point of the translation is Inspector Jang saw Dokdo but at the end he said he said he could not see Japan. He gave a distance of Dokdo as 300ri earlier, so it is not feasible he would say he didn’t know the distance of Dokdo after having quoting the correct exact distance. BTW he gave the ballparked the distance to Dokdo (Takeshima) even more accurately than Japanese of the day (160km)
    So while you cook up translations, you miss the point. Koreans were coginzant of Dokdo, and they considered it outside of Japanese territory and within their sphere of influence.

    Mr Bevers quoted:
    In his footnotes, Mr. Kim writes the following:
    …….鬱陵之東, 島嶼相望, 接于倭境””. 그런데국편의최근번역에는이것을“”……울릉도동쪽에는섬이서로잇달아왜경(倭境)에접해있다”” 고하였다고잘못번역하고있다.
    …….鬱陵之東, 島嶼相望, 接于倭境””. However, in its most recent translation, the National Institute of Korean History is mistranslating it as “”…… East of Ulleungdo islands connect in succession to each other to Japanese territory.””

    Mr Kims translation uses the exact same usage of “접해있다” His translation is the one I’ve been using all along. The slight differences are inconsequential Mr Bevers.

    Hamel I have sourced my data from publications and historical websites. The one I use above is from a highly respected series of historical records releted to Dokdo.

    On the other hand, Mr Bevers usually quotes from unknown Japanese sources for a lot of the data on his website. This in itself is not bad. The problem is they are all anonymous and have connections to biased websites like Occidentalism and take right wing views on other issues like the Comfort Women.

    Regarding their Korean colloquial usage I had my wife verify to make sure the application is commonplace. She said Mr Bevers’ interpretations are often not natural.

    About the 1714 document, we had this debate about Mr Bevers interpretation on the Marmot’s Hole some time ago and readers agreed he was wrong

    Mr Bevers is forcibly trying to say Dokdo was attached to Japanese territory when in fact Koreans didn’t even know exactly how far away Japan was. It was also at a time (1714) when the concept of maritime borders or ocean limits of territory didn’t even exist. Thus, it’s more likely Koreans perceived somewhere beyond the visible island (Dokdo) there was Japan’s territory (land)

    Again here is a map of the day, do you really. Looking at the location of Ulleungdo, do you really think Koreans thought Japanese territory was visible from Ulleungdo?

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/chosun-asia-map.jpg

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

    Hamel,

    I cannot read Japanese. I can only read their Chinese characters and a few of their prepositions. Therefore, I rely on Korean translations of the Japanese documents and receive some input from the Japanese posters on my sight when the Korean translation is off.

    I translated Mr. Watanabe’s 1876 “Opinion on Matsushima” from a Korean translation, but the Korean translation was not completely accurate. For example, the Koreans translated 于人島(우인도) as “무인도” (an uninhabited island), hoping that no one would notice, I guess. I didn’t notice until a Japanese poster pointed it out.

    Why did the Koreans mistranslate that word? Probably because it was a critical piece of information that hurts the Korean claim. Mr. Watanabe was talking about a neighboring island of Ulleungdo on THIS JAPANESE MAP that he said was probablyl “Uindo” (于人島 – 우인도). It is very probably that Mr. Watanabe meant to write “Usando (于山島). Koreans claim “Usando” was the old name for “Dokdo,” but Mr. Watanabe seems to have believed it to be a neighboring island of Ulleungdo.

    As for the old Korean documents, I also rely heavily on Korean translations and dictionaries, but I now have enough skill with Chinese writing to check Korean translations for accuracy, which is something you have to do. I have already shown a few examples on this thread of how Koreans mistranslate the documents related to Dokdo.

  • Arghaeri

    Gerry, how many times, adjacent, connected, contiguous and whichever other synonyms you want to come with are not “part of”

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Hamel:
    I beg to differ; you have not provided any argumentatively relevat explanation why Beaver’s presence on Dokto has any bearing on the merits of the issue.

    Re the rest, I may return to it later; right now I’m busy with personally more important things at the gym. :)) in the meantime, suffice it to say that nothing in your post would lead me to change my mind about the RELATIVE superiority of Beaver’s contributions on the linguistic front.

  • Arghaeri

    or “belongs to”

  • hamel

    Gerry: see what I wrote above in #123 and Oranckay in #128 for the point about Chinese character usage geograhpcially and historically.

    Does your knowledge of modern day Hanja usage in Korean enable you to make dispositive translations of Korean texts 200 years ago, or Japanese texts in any period?

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

    Oranckay wrote (#128):

    Hanmun being what it always is, one cannot say for sure that it means “no eye-striking island” and thus, in your words, that the “island [that he did see] was insignificant,” any more than 無眼杓之島 could just as easily mean “no island struck the eye” at all.

    That’s why you have to use a little bit of common sense, Oranckay. Inspector Jang had already said he saw a remote, unnamed island to the southeast of Ulleungdo, so he could not later say he saw no island. Therefore, logic tells us that 無眼杓之島 meant “no striking islands,” only a small, insignificant island.

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#129):

    Mr Kims translation uses the exact same usage of “접해있다” His translation is the one I’ve been using all along. The slight differences are inconsequential Mr Bevers.

    If you have been using Mr. Kim’s translation all along, why did you post three different links to the mistranslation done by Korea’s National Institute of Korean History (국사편찬위원회) and claim it was correct?

  • http://blog.oranckay.net oranckay

    Not having seen the larger context, if that’s the case, then perhaps, though imho it’s always the best translation policy to keep any ambiguity – something that can be translated either this way or that – and not pin it down as being necessarily one or the other, in the resulting translation.

    Also, “杓” and “striking” as you’ve used it in your last sentence above are hardly the same.

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

    Oranckay wrote (#137):

    Not having seen the larger context, if that’s the case, then perhaps, though imho it’s always the best translation policy to keep any ambiguity – something that can be translated either this way or that – and not pin it down as being necessarily one or the other, in the resulting translation.

    But there is no “ambiquity” here. Jang clearly said he saw a remote, unnamed island when looking to the east (toward Japan). Look at Comment #117 for “the larger context” if you need to.

    Oranckay wrote:

    Also, “杓” and “striking” as you’ve used it in your last sentence above are hardly the same.

    “Eye(眼) striking (杓)” means “striking.” In other words, it stands out among the crowd because of its size or beauty. In this case, there was “no eye-striking island,” only a remote, insignificant island probably less than 1/3 the size of Ulleungdo, which is already a relatively small island.

  • http://blog.oranckay.net oranckay

    No, 杓 means “striking” only inasmuch as “striking” means “hitting” or “slapping” or such, not “striking” as in “striking beauty.” In your character-for-character hanja-to-han’geul translations above you said 杓 = 치다, and though 치다 can mean “strike” (as can other definitions of that character, like 때리다, here: http://hanja.naver.com/hanja?q=%E6%9D%93) , 치다 can never mean “striking” as in “awe-striking.”

    For example, no one is going to say “there are no striking cars” because no vehicles have struck any children.

    Also, I’ve never seen 杓 used as an adjective.

  • http://blog.oranckay.net oranckay

    Also, I’ve never seen 杓 used as an adjective.

    Which isn’t saying much. I haven’t seen 杓 all that much period.

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

    Oranckay wrote (#140):

    Which isn’t saying much. I haven’t seen 杓 all that much period.

    I was thinking about asking you where you had seen it used, but decided, instead, to search for other examples, myself.

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

    無眼杓之島
    눈을 당기는 섬이 없다
    There is no island that draws the eye’s attention.

    No (無) eye (眼) pulling (杓) island (之島)

  • Q

    西望大關嶺逶迤之狀 東望海中 有一島 杳在辰方 而其大未滿蔚島三分之一 不過三百餘里

    “to the west can be seen the rugged mountains of Daegwallyeong; beholding the sea to the east, I noticed a faint island in the jin (辰) direction (east-south-east), not more than one-third of the size of Ulleung, and not possibly more than 300 li (approximately 100km) away.”

    That’s description on Dokdo. The subsequent sentence 登島山峰審望彼國之域則杳茫 無眼杓之島其遠近未知幾許. (“I climbed to the peak of the island in order to see the boundaries of Japan, but no Japanese islands could be seen at all, and I cannot, therefore, fathom the distance to the border”), could be understood in the context that Jang already saw Dokdo 300 ri (about 120 km) away from Uluengdo.

    As for 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):

    Q,

    Here is the definition for 접하다 (接). I used the first meaning; you used the second, which makes no sense since there is nothing there for it to be “adjacent to”. LINK

    1 [접촉하다] touch; come in[into] contact[touch] ((with)). [→접촉(接觸)]

    2 [인접하다] adjoin; be adjacent ((to)); be contiguous ((to)); border ((on)); abut ((against, on)).

    I could only assume gbevers does not have his d*ck any more. Whores he had touched (接) with his ruthless d*ck must have claimed it belongs to them and own it somewhere in Korea. That could only explain his hate on Korea and Korean women.

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

    Orankay pointed exactly was I’ve been saying earlier on. It’s one thing to find the equivent Korean word for ancient Hanja, it’s far another to find the correct usage. This is why a native Korean speaker is essential. It’s not as simple as plug and chug math problems. Mr Bevers has difficulty in using the correct Korean (in English) for the correct situation

    Mr Bevers stated:

    Inspector Jang had already said he saw a remote, unnamed island to the southeast of Ulleungdo, so he could not later say he saw no island.

    Wrong, Inspector Jang already had said this island was 300ri away. He could not say he wasn’t sure how far he was from Dokdo after already having given the distance. In other words Inspector Jang wasn’t talking about Dokdo in the last summary, he was trying to see the islands of Japan.

    Korea had long known Japan was an nation made comprised of islands. Chosun Inspector Jang was looking for large islands (such as the Oki Islands 隱岐) or significant land mass to determine if Japan was close enough to be a threat. He did not see Japan. The whole idea of his inspection was to determine if Japan was a local threat.

    This map shows how Chosun percieved Japan. Inspector Jang was probably looking for Oki Islands at the bottom (隱岐)

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/chosun-japan-1872.jpg

    Again, with regard to the 1714 Chosun record. Whichever translation I’ve used, has no bearing whatsoever on the critical Hanja in question. All four translations I’ve used say the same thing.

  • mickster

    Understandable response, I guess.
    A pitty, the story inaccurately says, not sure the MOFAT said so or the article took it wrong, that the writer maintains the islets belonged to Japan since 1905. He simply described Tokyo’s position as such.

  • mickster

    Dong-a Ilbo:
    Understandable response, I guess.
    A pitty, the story inaccurately says, not sure the MOFAT said so or the article took it wrong, that the writer maintains the islets belonged to Japan since 1905. He simply described Tokyo’s position as such.

  • CactusMcHarris

    ‘Ruthless dick’

    I could finally have a named alter-ego….

  • mickster

    My last comment was about Dong-A Ilbo.
    Somehow, a portion saying so did not get thru.

  • mickster

    Sorry for the dbl posts. Something went wrong.

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

    Frogmouth said (#145):

    Again, with regard to the 1714 Chosun record. Whichever translation I’ve used, has no bearing whatsoever on the critical Hanja in question. All four translations I’ve used say the same thing.

    First, Kim Ho-dong (김호동) said the National Institute of Korean History mistranslated the 1714 passage, so the translations were not the same.

    Second, not only are you and your wife unable to see the difference in the two translations, you do not seem to know the meaning of the Chinese character 接(접).

    Naver lists HERE 14 meanings for it. Look at meaning No. 1, which means that it is the most common.

    接(접)

    1. 잇다 – join, link (something to something), connect (something to something)
    2. 접붙이다 – graft (something onto something)
    3. 접하다
    4. 홀레하다
    5. 접촉하다(接觸–), 체험하다(體驗–), 견문하다(見聞–)
    6. 사귀다, 교제하다(交際–)
    7. 대접하다(待接–), 대우하다(待遇–)
    8. 대답하다(對答–), 응대하다(應待–)
    9. 모으다, 모이다, 회합하다(會合–)
    10. 가까이하다, 가까이 가다
    11. 받다, 받아들다
    12. 빠르다, 신속하다(迅速–)
    13. 엇걸리다, 교차하다
    14. 접(椄)

    In Chinese writing, 接(접) usually means “connect” or “join,” and 近(근) usually means “near.” In the 1714 passage, both characters were used.

    Pyeonghae and Uljin (平海蔚珍) are nearest in distance to Ulleung (距鬱陵島最近)

    East of Ulleung (鬱陵之東) an island is visible (島嶼相望) that joins (connects) to Japanese territory (接于倭境).

    Frogmouth wrote:

    Orankay pointed exactly was I’ve been saying earlier on. It’s one thing to find the equivent Korean word for ancient Hanja, it’s far another to find the correct usage.

    If you don’t like my Korean translation for 無眼杓之島 (눈을 당기는 섬 없다), then tell me your Korean wife’s Korean translation. Is it the same as that of JK6411 in Comment #120, which was “눈에 띄이는 섬이 없었다”? By the way, I’m sure your wife will notice that JK misspelled “뜨이는.”

  • Q

    gbevers’ ruthless d*ck joined/linked/connected many whores that his d*ck no longer belong to him.

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

    Q (#152):

    I think your inane comments prove that I am winning the language argument because you are Korean and know that 無眼杓之島 means “눈을 당기는 섬 없다,” which is why you don’t bother to refute the translation. Frogmouth, on the other hand, is too ignorant of the language to know better.

  • CactusMcHarris

    Q,

    Your argument is looking as weak as a week-old kitten, especially when you’re attacking Gerry’s member. Remember, don’t be a dick – whether you do the dick is up to you.

  • TheKorean2

    Gerry, again you messed up with the translations to fit in your agenda. I think you’re confused, just like the Japanese who thought bamboos naturally grown in Dokdo.

  • Q

    gbevers’ mutation of defition of 接: touch –> connect. Hey, when State of New York 接于 Canadian border/territory, does it make the State of NY belong to Canada?

  • Q

    gbevers(#153),

    You gotta read the whole paragraph, man.

    西望大關嶺逶迤之狀 東望海中 有一島 杳在辰方 而其大未滿蔚島三分之一 不過三百餘里 (“to the west can be seen the rugged mountains of Daegwallyeong; beholding the sea to the east, I noticed a faint island in the jin (辰) direction (east-south-east)[Dokdo], not more than one-third of the size of Ulleung, and not possibly more than 300 li (approximately 100km) away.”)

    The writer already saw Dokdo and now he tries to find if there is any Japanese islands seen but he could not see:

    登島山峰審望彼國之域則杳茫 無眼杓之島其遠近未知幾許. (“I climbed to the peak of the island in order to see the boundaries of Japan, but no Japanese islands could be seen at all, and I cannot, therefore, fathom the distance to the border”).

  • jk6411

    Congratulations, Gerry, I did misspell “눈에 뜨이다”.
    You happy now?

    When Jang HanSang stood at the top of Ulleungdo and looked toward Japan, it was “faint and distant”, and he could not see any Japanese land.
    He was searching through the distant haze on the horizon, but no Japanese island caught his eye.
    That’s why he said that he could not tell the distance to Japan.

    This is not a matter of “striking islands” and “insignificant islands”.
    From Ulleungdo, the only land visible to the east is Dokdo.
    That’s it.
    From Ulleungdo, you can see the Korean mainland to the west, and Dokdo to the east.
    You cannot see any Japanese island from there.

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

    Q: wrote (#157:

    The writer already saw Dokdo and now he tries to find if there is any Japanese islands seen but he could not see:

    No, the inspector saw a distant, unnamed island that he judged to be only 1/3 the size of Ulleungdo and 120 km away. In other words, he had no knowledge of the island, except that it was far to the east-southeast of Ulleungd0 (toward Japanese territory).

    In the beginning of the report the inspector said he looked toward the east and saw a distant, unnamed island. In the conclusion of his report, the inspector said he had looked toward Japanese territory (toward the east) and saw “no eye-pulling islands” or “no eye-opening islands,” as JK6411 translated in Comment #120.

    In other words, the inspector did not say he saw “no island” (無島 – 무도); he said he saw “no eye-pulling islands,” which means he saw “no islands of significance.”

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

    JK6411 (#158):

    Congratulations, Gerry, I did misspell “눈에 뜨이다”.
    You happy now?

    :) :) :) :)

  • Q

    You still do not respond to DLB:

    Gerry,

    If you can select one or two of the most authoritative papers that best reflect your views on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue, please let me know the links, if any.

    Is there any other than MOFA propaganda or the like?

    Are you going to recommend yourself, Gerry?

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

    Q wrote (#161):

    You still do not respond to DLB:

    I have been responding to DLB. All of the Korean historical arguments are bogus, so any theory based on them is also bogus.

    Yes, I do recommend he read what I have written and also what the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has written.

  • TheKorean2

    Gerry bevers, there’s no historical proof that Dokdo was occupied by Japanese before 1905. Your theories are bogus.

  • Q

    Gerry Bevers recommend himself as the most authoritative man on earth on Dokdo? HAHAHAHA…

    Wouldn’t your interpretation of the old Korean/Japanese documents (Dokdo belonged to Japan) contradict MOFA propaganda that Japan acquired Dokdo terra nullius in 1905?

  • Arghaeri

    Not entirely, since Korea thinking it belonged to Japan, or vice versa is not relevant to whether either party had exercised some acts of sovereignty, or indeed maintained sovereignty at the time 1905.

    It is not enough to have exercised sovereignty at some point in the long distant past.

    But certainly it doesn’t bode for consistency with his arguments for terra nullius being the basis of japanese claims.

  • Arghaeri

    and I’d certainly like to see Gerry maintain that connected tk, adjoining, adjacent to etc, would mean. belonging to or part of or territory of in the case if tbe numerous exclaves and enclaves throughout the world, or similar examples duch as Gibraltar.

    The problem is arguments over Gerry’s abilities in Japanese Korean or Chinese are rather moot when he foesn’t even understand english.

  • Arghaeri

    I amquite happy to accept that in this argument an island was seen in the distance, that it was small and not of any real interest, that the observor later looked out in the direction of japanese territory and saw nothing of significance and therefore could not gauge the distance to japan.

    But if I look out towards, Someones territory it does not mean everything between is theirs or mine, it could be someone elses it could be no-ones (terra nullius). It being joined is not conclusive, one could argue Hong Kong adjoins, is adjacent to, connects to Chinese territory but that did not make it Chinese territory between approx 1890s and 1990′s.

  • Arghaeri

    The only thing established is that the observer saw an island of no major significance in the distance.

    Which in itself is interesting because, correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t not being able to see dokdo from ulleungdo used to be one of gerry’s arguments against the possibilty that korea exercised sovereignty over it at one time.

  • Q

    whether either party had exercised some acts of sovereignty, or indeed maintained sovereignty at the time 1905.

    Japanese fishers registered harvested seals of Dokdo through Ministry of Forieign Affairs in Busan. Isn’t it an evidence Korea maintained sovereignty over Dokdo? (Ref. frogmouth’s comments #61, 63)

  • Arghaeri

    That rather depends Q, my understanding is that the records refer to sealions landed and processed in Ulleungdo, and does not actually state where they were caught. In any case even if they were caught on Dokdo, it does not automatically mean any act of sovereignty ocer those islands, since the islands are not mentioned. The act of sovereignty arguably is over Ulleungdo as the seals were landed and processed there and hence then exported.

    This would be analagous to catching say tuna in international waters and then landing and processing them in Ulleungdo, whereupon no doubt exporting them to japan for sushi would result in export registration through uldo county.

  • Arghaeri

    I.e if dikdo was terra nullius in 1904 then the sea lions landed and processed in Ulleungdo would presumably still be registered for export simply by having been landed at Ulleungdo.

    Accordingly, without more detail on the rules applicable to registering exports in 1904 and confirmation they were caught on dokdo the evidence is at best inconclusive.

  • Q

    the records refer to sealions landed and processed in Ulleungdo, and does not actually state where they were caught.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xt1mlq_yy-yy-yyy-yy-1905y-yyy-yy-yy-yy_school

  • frogmouth

    Arghaeri, there was no other place in the vicinity were sea lions existed near Ulleungdo. Niether Japanese nor Koreans argue these were seals were from Dokdo.

    The exports records show that hundreds of these animals were caught (by both Koreans and Japanese). This is too many sea lions to have been just by lucky kills. The seals must have been from a large colony that only existed on Dokdo near Ulleungdo.

    Historical records also show Japanese were legally supposed to pay taxes on sea products exported from Ulleungdo Island. When these animals arrived on Ulleungdo, presumably at Dodong, the islands capital. the Ulleungdo office must have been recording the kills. From there Ulleungdo’s office kept track of sea skins, meat and seal oil. They would have quantified these products to calculate taxes due upon export. I think there was a 10% (or 1% tax) depending on the classification.

    The seal products were logged together with other Ulleungdo products and showed no special treatment. Again the quantities were accurately recorded.

    If these products were not subject to due taxes there would be no need to register them as exports of Korea’s Ulleungdo, they would be shipped off from Ulleungdo unrecorded. I’m sure the administration on Ulleungdo had other matters to attend to than count seal skins, meat and oil unless there was a reason. Also conservation was not an issue back then.

  • JK

    Frogmouth wrote:

    “If these products were not subject to due taxes there would be no need to register them as exports of Korea’s Ulleungdo, they would be shipped off from Ulleungdo unrecorded. I’m sure the administration on Ulleungdo had other matters to attend to than count seal skins, meat and oil unless there was a reason. Also conservation was not an issue back then.”

    Okay with these words, it is obvious that this Dokdo debate is over since Korea always legitimately owned Dokdo.

    So no more about it, okay Gerry Bevers? You lost.

  • Arghaeri

    Frogmouth, thank you for completely missing the point I spelt out for you.

    Even if caught in Dokdo the records appear only to confirm a sovereign act over Ulleungdo not Dokdo. If Dokdo was terra nullius the sealions presumably would still have been taxed as produce of Ulleungdo having been landed and processed there.

  • frogmouth

    No you missed my point.

    These records prove Koreans had an economic stake in Dokdo Island before the Japanese Navy annexed the islands in 1905. Thus with hindsight Dokdo Island was not terra nullius “no man’s land” in 1905.

    Japan’s claim to Dokdo was contested in two ways. First we can see both Korean and Japan were economically involved on Dokdo Island.
    Collecting taxes is an act of sovereignty and the Japanese who allowed this were thus aware that these seal were on Korean territory. Otherwise the Japanese fishermen/sealers would have told the Uldo Gun leader to go screw himself when he taxed them.

    Second when the Japanese announced to the Koreans the islands were annexed by Japan, Koreans contested publicly through government and media.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/korean-objections-to-japans-1905-claim.html

  • yuna

    #172

    That was a good link to an interesting documentary.

  • Arghaeri

    No you missed my point.

    These records prove Koreans had an economic stake in Dokdo Island before the Japanese Navy annexed the islands in 1905. Thus with hindsight Dokdo Island was not terra nullius “no man’s land” in 1905.

    Dear, dear, in that case since many of the “fishermen” after sealions were japanese then they too had an economic stake!

    Individuals harvesting sealions off Dokdo is not a sovereign act of jurisdiction.

  • Arghaeri

    Collecting taxes is an act of sovereignty and the Japanese who allowed this were thus aware that these seal were on Korean territory. Otherwise the Japanese fishermen/sealers would have told the Uldo Gun leader to go screw himself when he taxed them.

    See missed it yet again. Yes collecting taxes is an act of sovereignty, however again the evidence only demonstrates taxation on product landed and processed on Ulleungdo.

  • Arghaeri

    Anyway its all mot simce Korea wins by the ancient laws of Finders keepers and the laws of conquest.

  • frogmouth

    Thanks for the unnecessary recap. Again if both countries had a stake in Dokdo, Japan’s claim of prior occupation, and terra nullius in 1905 are false. It is the Japanese who are claiming Korens weren’t involved on Dokdo. In fact, it is Japan’s whole basis for their case.

    Actually Arghaeri, the Record of Taxation from Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs states as following..

    The Sealion called “トド(Todo)” lives on the island called “Lanko” which is located about 25 ri Southeast of Ulleundo. From around last year, the residents of Ulleundo(鬱陵島民) started to hunt them.

    The documents states the “residents of Ulleungdo” hunted the sealions. Although we know it was mostly Japanese (many of whom were illegal squatters) the Koreans were also voyaging to Dokdo and involved in the harvest of sea lions.

    BTW have you even read the document in question?

  • Arghaeri

    It is clearly a necessary cap, since you continually claim to have got the point, whilst simultaneously in the same sentence demonstrating you have not.

    As to reading the document, you clearly have not as you have admitted you do not have the language ability to do so, so whats your point.

    I is quite clear that I am responding to the evidence put before me, and that I have stated that that evidence is not conclusive.

    If you have some then by all means put it forward, your above comment does not meet that criteria.

    You state that the sealions were caught by “residents” then acknowledge that that included Japanese residents of Ulleungdo, i.e you merely “recapped” what I previously noted. You have not in anyway rebutted that the tax was a sovereugn act over anything but taxing produce landed at and processed in Ulleungdo.

    You are also fully aware that whilst the Japanese claim in 1905 was on the basis of terra nullius they have since modified their position.

    As noted “fushery” of an area is not sufficient to be a sovereign act, so it matters little whether it was fished by japanese or korean or russian, these acts do not establish sovereignty.

    Accordingly neither party establishes sovereignty on the basus of the evidence you puf before me.

Next post:

Previous post: