The Japanese government has joined the propaganda war and is running ads in several Japanese newspapers laying claim to Dokdo. South Korea has long wanted (some have argued unwisely) to make it an international debate and it now looks to be taking shape.
Though the ads are in Japanese and aimed at a domestic audience, I would gander a guess that this is a feeler campaign that could possibly evolve into an international PR push by Japan –much like the video ads Korea has run in Times Square along with several full page Dokdo spreads in major US papers.
According to the Joongang Daily translation of the ad:
[T]he advertisements, signed by Japan’s foreign ministry and titled “Now is the time to be informed,” Japan said, “Takeshima is historically and by international law part of Japanese territory,” and, “Japan established territorial rights in the mid-17th century and reconfirmed the rights over Takeshima in 1905 after the cabinet’s approval.”
The advertisement also states:
“Korea says it has been effectively controlling Takeshima even before us, but there is no clear evidence and the references are vague.”
The inclusive use of the word “us” could be viewed as effectively painting Tokyo into a corner where it can’t back down without losing face with its own public. It therefore likely indicates an upcoming push to win favor in the international court of public opinion. We’ll have to wait and see where that goes.
In a related story, Yonhap today offered up a 1909 U.S. Hydrographic Office document from the book, Asiatic Pilot: East Coast Of Siberia, Sakhalin Island and Korea that “saps Japan’s claim.”
It names Dokdo as Hornet Islands or Liancourt Rocks and describes them as “two barren rocky islets, covered with guano, which makes them appear white.”
While that certainly doesn’t jibe with the tagline of Korea’s Times Square video ad that ends with, “Visit Dokdo: The Beautiful Island,” the Yonhap piece quotes Yoo Gwang-un, a US-based Korean historian saying:
“The document shows that it is not true that Japan has claimed its sovereignty over Dodko since 1905 and that the U.S. did not acknowledged it at that time.”
The article did not, however, say whether the document gave land rights to Korea, but that it simply didn’t give rights to Japan.
I am not going to drop $25 on the book to find out what the entire document says, but “Korea” is in the title, so there’s that going for them.
This is going to be an interesting spectacle to witness if both South Korea and Japan deploy extensive PR campaigns against each other. Which country has the best claim may end up mattering less than which is better at swaying the international public.
In related news, Japan has finalized the purchase of the Senkaku/Diayou islands and China is sending in patrol ships. This can’t be good.
{ 85 comments… read them below or add one }
I think the BIG dokdo or takeshima supporters on here – shouldn’t say anything – until they have dropped he $25 on the book – read it twice and can argue anything from the book.
p.s. – then again the Ainu are the indigenous owners of Sakhalin.
Did I tell you the time I walked into Kyobo bookstore about 15 years ago and opened a Rand McNally, a very expensive atlas, and turned to the page showing the body of water surrounded by the Korean peninsula, the Japanese archipelago, and the far eastern provinces of Russia, and, lo and behold, someone had taken white-out marking paper and erased the words “Sea of Japan,” completely ruining this otherwise nice book.
Honestly, if you review objective evidence, it really is close. The arguments are strong on both sides.
Guess which town 2MB has gone to: http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/05/29/ilulissat-greenland/
I hope he’s not planning on a lightning visit to Tartupaluk.
Japanese government position has mutated as conveniently needed:
[Source: wiki]
As for Senkaku island issue, Chinese Island Chain(도련선, 島鍊線) would threaten Korea’s Ieodo, that Chinese occupation of the island would not serve the interest of Korea. That’s why Korea is reluctant to support Chinese position, whilst Korea shares with China concerns over Japanese instigation of territorial disputes all over the neighbor nations.
I wonder if Japan is premeditating the 2nd Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars. Japan might be dreaming of the revival of the good olde days when Japan humiliated China and Russia and devoured Korea. The question is if the US and EU would make imbecile support to the Japanese ambition when economy is suffering and the era of colonialism and cold war do not appeal any more. The ambitious dream would most probably end up being a nightmare again.
So Q, are you trying to say that if the US and the EU were to in some way support Japan we would be imbeciles but if we support Korea then we are geniuses? What if we both took a nuetral position and left it up to the provision of UNCLOS of which both of you are signatories? I would be in favor of this position as I believe that you could then keep your precious islets as they are just rocks unable to support life or be economically viable without outside support and therefor not able to be used to establish an EEZ or continetal shelf. Both Korea and Japan would then be able to develop their overlapping established EEZ’s jointly. So much better than war and wasted resources.
Andrew Salmon probably gives the best advice on this matter for Korea:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/special/2012/09/351_118972.html
영어 독해도 못하냐?
Last night I translated a 1735 Korean document from the records of the “Border Defense Council of Joseon” (備邊司) that describes a discussion between King Yeong Jo and his advisors on whether to postpone an inspection mission to Ulleungdo.
One of the ministers described Ulleungdo as being “broad and fertile” and as having a neighboring island “to the west” called Usando (于山島 – 우산도) that he also described as being wide and spacious.
I have found no Korean translation of the article, so I have been unable to check the accuracy of my translation with a Korean version.
1735 Jan 19 – Disccusion on Delaying Ulleungdo Inspection – Confirms Usando (于山島) a Neighboring Island
Yes Q, I can read English very well, too bad you can’t write coherent English. Please translate this statement for me since you are so much better at the English language than I – ” The question is if the US and EU would make imbecile support to the Japanese “.
For the record, that Times Square billboard was paid for by pop singer Kim Jang-hoon.
The Japanese newspaper ad was sponsored by Japan’s own Gaimusho.
There may be other “Korea” vs “Japan” propaganda comparisons, but this is not one of them.
DLB
Q – I see you also skipped right over the whole UNCLOS thing, any thoughts there? Would the US and EU taking a neutral stance and letting you settle the disagreement within the framework of an agreement you both signed to settle such disputes such as this be such a stupid move on our part? You do know we can be allies of both countries and still remain neutral in circumstances such as these.
hacker, you deleted “ambition” after Japanese. I explained what the ambition is.
#12 Venerable DLBarch
The Times ad sponsor I know about and hopefully didn’t infer it as an official push by Korea, but is the Joongang incorrect about the recent being signed by the Japanese Foreign Ministry and therefore Tokyo’s official stance?
Bobby,
No, you are correct. That print ad was definitely signed by Japan’s Gaimusho, or foreign ministry.
It doesn’t get much more official than that.
DLB
#7
UNCLOS is solely concerned with the law of the sea. It does not contain provisions for the settlement of territorial disputes.
What a great idea. And it would only require the continuation of what has been done since 2001.
Thanks DLB.
What do you think? Is Japan gearing up for a full on PR blast worldwide? I don’t see how they can back down now.
I see… a lot of Americans not caring but a lot of happy newspaper companies glad to see the extra ad revenue.
#19,
Bingo – asshattery for profit, at no expense to one’s own face, is perhaps not ideal but not unwelcome.
And face it, it’s a lot less messy than chopping a digit off or decapitating a dove.
finally starting to see articles in the west that actually get it right. dokdo and diao yu tai are vestiges of japans war machine and their refusal to atone for their behavior.
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/world-commentary/history-a-casualty-in-islands-dispute/story-fnfi3iga-1226472928479
Bobby @ 18 raises an interesting question, which is whether the Gaimusho’s recent newspaper buys in the Yomiuri and Tokyo Shimbun reflects the beginning of a new PR offensive by Japan over Dokdo.
At first blush, I’d say no. So far, a small notice in Japanese for a mostly Japanese audience would not seem to be much of an opening salvo for a global PR onslaught. I suspect that Gaimusho is responding to domestic political pressure to make at least some kind of token effort to combat what Japanese officials see as a new assertiveness by Korea, and especially by 2MB, over the so-called “Dokdo equilibrium.”
But Bobby is on to something here. 2MB’s recent visit may be perfectly reasonable if one thinks there’s nothing exceptional for a Korean president to visit a Korean island that the country has claimed for at least six decades. But let’s not pretend that such a visit does not obligate every future Korean president to also visit the islands, lest he or she be seen as unpatriotic.
Expect Dokdo to be a regular feature of any future Korean leader’s domestic travels. Guaranteed.
For Japan, though, this all but REQUIRES a response. Recall that after 2MB’s visit, the two houses of Japan’s bicameral Diet passed a joint resolution criticizing the trip — the first such resolution against Korea in six decades. That Gaimusho should follow up on this should not at all be surprising.
Whether Japan goes global with its PR campaign is anyone’s guess, but make no mistake: the dynamics surrounding Dokdo have changed considerably. If nothing else, it reflects a new confidence in Seoul that is probably overdo. (I personally think 2MB was right to visit Dokdo but has badly overplayed his hand.) But Korea is also playing an enhanced role on the global stage that in many ways now exceeds that of Japan. Korea is feeling confident, and Japan is increasingly playing defense.
One guess as to which side in those circumstances is usually the more desperate.
DLB
All the more reason why Korea should support China on getting their Diaoyu islands back from japan.
“Which country has the best claim may end up mattering less than which is better at swaying the international public.”
The international public doesn’t care enough to be swayed.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
JH,
Yup. Besides, Dokdo is one of those issues where the views of “the international public” matter not one iota.
Enomoseki,
Korea has no dog in that fight, and Seoul should stay as far away from that dispute as possible, lest it set the precedent for third parties to get involved in its own Dokdo “dispute.”
BTW, were Seoul to actually take a side on the Senkakus, it would have to support Japan, not China. A HUGE part of Seoul’s claim to Dokdo rests on its “continuous occupation and administration” of the islands for the last six decades.
(Contrary to MH discussions, the ICJ cares very little for historical claims. What transpired in the 17th century matters far less than what’s occurred over, say, the last several decades. Hence, the strength of Korea’s claim over Dokdo, old maps notwithstanding.)
Supporting China on the Senkakus issue would actually undermine Korea’s claim to Dokdo.
DLB
how?
Pawi,
The brutal reality of international law as it applies to territorial disputes is that bodies like the ICJ place far more weight on current “occupation and administrative control” than on historical claims. Given a choice between actual control and history, actual control virtually always wins.
(This also makes sense from a political standpoint. Think just how quickly the ICJ would lose credibility if it started re-distributing territory based on claims that no longer reflected current realities.)
In both the Dokdo and Senkaku cases, Korea’s and Japan’s respective claims rest on the winning argument that they have effectively controlled these islands for decades.
Were Korea to side with China’s argument that historical claims should trump current occupation vis-a-vis the Senkakus, that same argument could be used as precedent by Japan to weaken Korea’s current claim to Dokdo.
DLB
thanks, dlb. i see your point though its sad that korea cannot openly support chinas claim because the japanese got those islands as a spoil of war. thanks again. dlb.
kseki@17 – UNCLOS defines islands, islets, and rocks and how they can, or can’t, be used in the establishment of EEZ’s and continental shelfs. When a maritime scientific research ship or the threat of arrest of Coast Guard survey boats are not allowed to excersise rights in an overlapping EEZ then it has not been done since 2001 and hence an issue beyond the ownership of the rocks exist. So I believe UNCLOS does cover this dispute since I hold the view that Dokdo/Takeshima are nothing more than rocks unable to sustain life or an economy without outside assistance.
Q- still don’t see how adding “ambition” changes as the key to your statement “US and EU would make imbecile support” still seems to imply stupid support or incorrect support.
@pawikirogi #22:
most of us do not have an online subscription to the Australian newspaper, sop here is Ian Buruma’s column on a free site:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/east-asia-s-nationalist-fantasy-islands-by-ian-buruma
@Pawikirogii (and hamel)
That was an interesting article, thanks for posting. Your original comment is right, but I don’t think you pulled the most important point from the article:
“Since the press in all three countries is almost autistic in its refusal to reflect anything but the “national” point of view, these politics are never properly explained.”
It seems that nationalists in all three countries are controlling the dialog more than they should, irreparably harming the best interests of each country.
hacker, get other job than teaching English.
Irony, Q, irony.
I think Korea should take this case to the ICJ, because I think it’s 100% guaranteed Korea will win. Heck, even the Japanese Takeshima Island scholars who have spent half their lives studying this issue, agree the island does not belong to Japan. They go against their own government’s claims, and I think Korea will do well to put them on the witness stand. Any declaration by the court that there is no conclusive proof for either country’s claims, will mean Korea will win and they will be awarded with status quo, since Korea holds the island.
#36,
You wish The Good Captain’s work all washed away, much like the sands of time or birdshit from a rock? I’m shocked….
All I wish is to have this dispute ended once and for all. And of course, I’m biased for Korea.
Last week I received something truly unbelievable: a neutral speech from a Korean student about Dokdo. In what other country would this be a truly unbelievable document?
—————————————
The Liancourt Rocks are known as Dokdo in Korea and as Takeshima in Japan. Dokdo means Solitary Island in Korean and Takeshima means Bamboo Island in Japanese. They are located in the Sea of Japan, known as the East Sea in Korea. The English name comes from Le Liancourt, a French ship which came close to being wrecked on the rocks in 1849. They consist of two small islets and 35 smaller rocks; the total surface area of the islets is 0.2 square kilometres.
In January 1952, South Korea deployed its coast guard to Dokdo. Since then it has occupied the area without legal consent from Japan.
In 1991 the South Korean government sent two fishermen to the islets to show that Korea has permanent citizens there. In addition, there are 37 South Korean national police officers on guard duty, three government officials, and three lighthouse keepers staying on the islets in rotation.
South Korea has carried out a lot of construction work on Dokdo. Today, they have a lighthouse, helicopter pad, large South Korean flag visible from the air, staircase, and police barracks. In 2007, the government built two desalinization plants. Both major Korean telecommunications companies have installed cellular towers.
In 2004-5 Korea started allowing thousands of tourists to visit. 70 tourists can land at any one time. En route, the ferry shows an animated film featuring a giant robot warding off Japanese.
Along with their potential tourism value, the main reason why both Korea and Japan claim these islets is because of their potential for natural resources. They’re perfectly situated for a large-scale fishing base in an area rich with undersea life. More important is the natural gas which is thought to be under the ocean bed, because where natural gas is found, oil is often found as well, and both countries import almost all their oil. So, we can see how claiming ownership is very important to both countries.
World powers could have put the dispute to rest in 1951 when Britain and others suggested a boundary which would have put them in Korean national waters. The US disagreed and changed the boundaries between Korea and Japan, which has left the ownership in dispute.
Japan has suggested taking the matter before the International Court of Justice three times, most recently this year. Korea has refused because they, like Japan, claim the islets as part of their nation. Thus, there is no clear world body recognition of exactly who owns Dokdo. It remains a matter of nationalism and pride for both Koreans and Japanese.
I think that it is time for the international community to respond to Japan and Korea’s petty dispute over some uninhabited islands with an ad campaign expressing our severe apathy towards the whole situation.
Yu Bum Suk:
You mean it’s good or bad?
To me, it looks cool as it points out the U.S. role in changing the border putting Dokdo in favor of Japan — memoranda and the stuff; it’s not in the final treaty, I know, but it did lead to dropping reference to it — despite opposition from many allied powers so that the U.S. military could use it during the Korean War, then distancing itself once it was no longer necessary. Now it preaches us to lower the heat and talk over it! It’s like the British promises to Israelis and Arabs; they are shooting at each other, with little damage to Britain.
cm:
It would be nice to see ICJ put the issue to a complete rest.
I’m biased toward Japan, but still, despite what our MOFA says, it seems there is no way Tokyo would win the case. What DLB says above is convincing.
But as long as there is any distrust of ICJ, what’s the merit to Seoul of taking the risk? Korea effectively controls Dokdo, and instead of taking Tokyo’s “overreactions” seriously, it can afford to just keep sneering and keep the status quo.
Look at MOFA’s newspaper ad. It’s so puny that I could even laugh. It’s not like a full page ad. It looks as if a new novel were being advertised. It is obviously a token response to the right-leaning government resolution.
Sorry there Q, not an English teacher, never was, never wanted to be, and never will be. Don’t have the patience to teach people like you anything. If you want to believe it go on, and no I’m not in the military either but again if you wish to believe it that is your choice. You already have me working for a right-wing nationalist organization so whatever gets your panties in a twist I am all for. If you wish to disagree with how I read your post why don’t you make it crystal clear “imbecile support” is what it is. BTW – my minions over there in that special organization have assured me that the end is near. All those ship they have been sinking since the end of WWII have now built up sufficient reef beds to connect Dokdo to Oki and the tunnels from Mt. Fuji have been finished so that when it blows the lava will fill in the rest leaving an undeniable land chain to the mainland.
hamel:
Thanks for the free-version link.
A nice column overall. Comments attached there were disgustingly familiar, though.
mickster, I mean it’s very nice. As a speech it’s actually rather boring and uncompelling, it’s nice to see emotion not the main driving argument.
WangKon936@8
It’s so reasonable that it makes Japanese nationalists shiver — if Koreans can take his advice, that is.
I wish there were a Japanese-translated version of it.
Yu Bum Suk:
That’s comforting to hear. Thank you.
I support Korea’s move. Korea needs to show Japan that they’re serious about this issue and that Dokdo is already part of Korean territory.
Japan has been asking Korea to go to ICJ, however Korea should always say no. Because Korea already controls Dokdo and has built infrastructure there. Going to ICJ will weaken Korea’s stance on this issue.
Korea should be more aggressive and show Japan that Korea has a big player mentality. Japan should not be allowed to push Korea around. Japan’s illegal territorial ambitions need to be shut down.
# 39 Yu Bum Suk,
“The US disagreed and changed the boundaries between Korea and Japan, which has left the ownership in dispute.”
At the end of the “speech” one of your students blames the U.S., how ironic.
“Thus, there is no clear world body recognition of exactly who owns Dokdo.”
But all your student had to do was check the boundaries the U.S. changed to “clear” the fog and recognize the boundaries. F = Incomplete
Korea has huge allies in the form of Japanese scholars inside Japan, but Koreans don’t even know it. One of the scholars is Naito Seichu, a professor at Shimane University who scoffs at Japan government’s claims, and that virtually no Japanese scholar in his right mind believe that Takeshima was historically a Japanese island. (see Chosun Ilbo article today). Seichu goes onto say that Korea should not avoid, but actively engage in debating this issue with Japan. If Seichu is correct, Korea has very important potential allies in this debate who have been all but ignored because Korea’s official stance is that the island is unquestionable part of Korea which cannot be debated. Perhaps this inflexible stance should be changed if we’re ever going to resolve this issue.
A little fact checking of Naito Seichu turns up in an article at Japan Focus in 2007.
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Wakamiya-Yoshibumi/2850
Japan is getting closer to the way of waging war against neighbors.
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201207100073
Watch out playful macaque all of a sudden could wage violent attack on people:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/woman-mauled-aggravated-ape-performer
#50,
A chimpanzee is not a macaque.
jk, I was expecting you
Q – Your firendly non-English teacher, Q appointed member of some Japanese right wing organization here with a question, “Do you even know what Collective Self Defence means”? How about this “Why would Japan be interested in understanding their ability to exercise Collective Defense under their constitution”? This is not preemptive self defence they are talking about based on your article, oh maybe you forgot to even read it before you posted. Not so nice racial slam given that a significant portion of the Korean population share the same Haplogroup O2b DNA.
jkitchstk, I have no idea whether the facts of the speech are correct – I just edit and voice-coach / parrot-train.
Why is the Korean slur for Japanese “monkeys”?
Others like 豚足(?) referring to Japanese style socks make sense, but
monkey does not really bite (I mean, not literally) because Koreans, Japanese and for that matter Chinese are similar yellow monkeys to white folks if you will.
I searched the web, but there were several “theories” and none seemed to stick. One was that Koreans parroted Americans from the Korean War. Another was that wild monkeys are common in Japan whereas they are rare in Korea.
Any knowledge?
Korean kids call westerners monkeys.
I don’t think it refers to any particular feature, just general differance, i.e kind of looks similar to civilised humans (read host country) but is cleary not a civilsed human (read strange barbarian outsider)
LOL Japan is paying Diayou islands. Is Japan that desperate?
They already have defacto sovereignty, they are just buying the actual property right from tne private owners (japanese) and I’m not sure but I think it’s the Tokyo Metropolitan govt doing the buying not the national govt.
Arghaeri, its actually the Japanese government is paying it and “nationalizing” Diayou islands. China is sending patrol ships to the islands already. BTW, where are my popcorns?
China sends patrol ships to islands held by Japan
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/11/china-sends-patrol-ships-to-islands-held-by-japan/#ixzz26QFa4mUU
@Arghaeri
It’s the opposite. Lunatic Governor Ishihara wanted to solidify Japan’s control of the Senkakus to keep China away from them, and basically said that if the Japanese government wasn’t going to protect the islands, he was going to start a fundraiser to purchase the islands via the Tokyo Metropolitan government. Ishihara was going to develop the islands and set up a bunch of buildings to get Japanese fisherman and researchers based there and hand them over to the national government.
PM Noda couldn’t afford to have someone like Ishihara inflaming relations with China any more than he already had, so he proposed a higher bid to gain control of the islands on a national level where they could be dealt with in a more rational way. I think his intention was to purchase them from the Japanese owner of the islands and just let them be.
But now with the right-wing LDP most likely going to replace the left-leaning DPJ, there has been more talk as to what to do with the islands. Some of the people vying for the top of the LDP have announced that they want to continue with Ishihara’s plans to develop the land by placing a dock there for fishing boats and a place for fishermen to stay:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201209050013
I can’t remember which LDP people want to do what with the islands, but there is a debate tonight on TV and I will have to watch to refresh my memory.
#58
One can probably say that the Tokyo (Ishihara) forced the national government’s hand on this issue. On the other hand, it’s also kind of surprising that those islands – embroiled in a dispute since 1968 – was actually a piece of privately owned property. I mean, it’d be kind of funny imagining a situation where China or Taiwan gaining the upper hand and buying it before the Japanese government. Japan could still claim ownership over it but legal owners would be Chinese/Taiwanese.
Thanks for the clarification guys, looks like my memory wasn’t wrong about Tokyo Metropolitan givt, but rather things have moved on a bit since.
Thanks for the update.
Arghaeri
Thanks for your input on monkey. I guess it’s more generic than I thought.
Tapadamornin
Wow, seems like you are closely following Japanese news.
As you probably know, one of the LDP candidates is Ishihara’s 55-year-old son, and it was funny how he was criticizing the ruling party for being easily manipulated by the Tokyo governor and heightening tensions.
Re: saru, I think Sankei Shimbun has the right explanation:
http://jpnews.kr/sub_read.html?uid=8703
It’s just not a native animal in Korea and we have seen a lot of the images in that link, i.e. monkeys in onsen. It’s cute, in my opinion.
Also, this is just my input but some of the Japanese facial features remind them of monkeys, and the short height especially with some men with eyes stuck together might look a bit more like a monkey.
Arghaeri’s explanation of Koreans calling westerners monkey is something separate. A lot of kids growing up in the 80′s learned the song : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9DjutY9ktc
Hello Mr.Monkey, and for some reason kids love this song and found it funny and sang it to all the western people they saw in the street. I still saw this in Seoul around 7 years ago.
#65 correction: sorry, not necessarily to Western people, but non-East Asian people. Anybody they felt the need to say “hello” to in English!
Yuna, ARABESQUE wasn’t popular in Korea though, it was popular in Japan. BTW, that concert took place in Japan, not in Korea as mistakenly says.
re:64
For example somebody like this is a face that seems very strong in its (uniquely) Japanese features and to me he looks like a (cute) monkey.
Was it popular in Japan? I didn’t know. All I know is the Korean kids sing this song to foreigners in Korea when they want to say hello/tease them. I don’t know if the Japanese kids do in Japan.
Yuna, I don’t know about Korean kids singing this song. Calling anyone “monkey” is a pejorative term.
#70
Yes it may be, but nonetheless, the phenomenon is there.
A whole bunch of school kids (10-12 year olds) on a school trip (maybe from the countryside?) were doing it when I was accompanying an American guy in Seoul He wanted to know why they were all saying Hello and why “Mr.Monkey” and I was surprised by this that this had lasted that long, because I also remember my school friends doing it when they were young.
Thanks for a lot of input on monkey.
Hello Mr. Monkey was very popular in Japan, too, back then though I don’t remember kids saying that to caucasians. And the guy in your link is supposed to be among the very handsome types. Not many look like him
Yuna, I don’t recall ever seeing kids singing to foreigners!
the guy in your link = the guy in yuna’s link
I was writing that part to yuna in my mind but did not say that anywhere.
#72
Yeah I know
I think *some* of the Japanese male idols are very saru-like http://www.google.com/search?q=Frank+monkey&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=aCxTUO_KA8vXsgbAx4HgDw&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1009&bih=530
It’s not just the eyes, it’s the mouth, ears combination.
I can think of a few more, but like the guy I linked to, I would have to look up which drama I last saw him in to get the name of the actors because the ones I like, and I know the names of, they don’t look like saru in my eyes
#73, they don’t sing.
They just say ‘hello hello! hello Mr.Monkey!”
Some don’t even know what they are saying.
here’s a random blog I found by one Korean guy who reminisces about doing it to his American friend. He didn’t even know what it meant, and asked his sister.
TheKorean2
Yeah, the video is labeled Seoul ’81 and the MC says “back in Japan” LOL
mickster @#55,
It may have something to do with the indigenous Jomon people of Japan.
I heard that Jomon people were shorter and had longer arms than (mainland Asians?).
So they may have looked more ape-like to Koreans.
I don’t know, that’s my theory.
Also, there are monkeys in Japan, while there are none in Korea. Maybe that’s another reason.
No offense to Japanese, by the way.
(Just trying to answer your question.)
Thank you, jk, for your insight on Jomon poeple.
As for #79, of course.
And the monkey slur from a Korean probably does not really offend a Japanese so much as from non-oriental people or other familiar slurs would. If a white person calls me a yellow monkey, my blood pressure will rise, but if a Korean calls me a monkey, I will rationally realize it is an insult but stop short of getting stirred up and feel a question mark pop up in my head.
That’s what I meant by it does not bite.
Jk6411, the idea that Japanese are racially different from Koreans because of their facial/height features comes from the ancient idea that Japanese were dwarfs or midgets. Korea used to call Japan “dwarf country”, Waeguk 倭国. It’s pretty a derogatory name for Japan.
Yuna
Arghaeri
Yuna, I don’t recall ever seeing kids singing to foreigners!
Yuna
Arghaeri,
I’ve never heard them say Hello, Hello, Mr Monkey either.
In any case,
1) how do you explain it being said in korean
2) with the longevity if such songs, the phrase may come from there, but the choice in using the phrase ain’t because it was a “popular” song.
mickster,
No problem.
Yeah #83
As soon as I wrote “they don’t sing” I realized the discrepancy.
But you know what I mean, it’s not like they are breaking out a full song in front of you, it’s just “chanting” then. Just the Hello Hello Mr.Monkey.
I linked to the random youtube video I found when I searched for the term but a lot of the kids used to go around saying it and, especially leading up to the 1988 olympic games, to the “wegukin” Which is why I was surprised to hear it still in 2005.
This is just my explanation towards the “monkey” slur towards non-Japanese based on my experience.
Hmmm… the hacker guy repeated rightwing Osaka mayor Hashimoto’s proposal on Dokdo.
You must log in to post a comment.