≡ Menu

Japanese rightwing asshat defaces New Jersey comfort women memorial

And in Palisades Park:

A Korean civic group says a memorial dedicated to the memory of women forced into sexual slavery during World War II was defaced on Friday.

The group, Korean American Civic Empowerment (KACE) said in a statement that the “comfort women” memorial was “defiled with a stake by an unidentified perpetrator.” Police were notified and are conducting an investigation, the statement said.

Why yes, it appears to be the work of Nobuyuki Suzuki, the guy who tied a stake to the comfort women memorial in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul earlier this year. You’ve got to give the fucker credit—at least he’s persistent.

Also on the New Jersey front, Bergen County is planning to erect its own comfort women memorial:

Officials announced over the weekend that a memorial to Korean “comfort women” — who were forced into sexual slavery by Japanese soldiers during WWII — will be placed outside the Bergen County courthouse.

The monument, paying tribute to the estimated 200,000 victims of the practice, will be placed inside the county’s “Ring of Honor,” which includes memorials for the Holocaust, Armenian Genocide and the Irish “Great Hunger.”

New Jersey is famous for tomatoes, smokestacks, auto theft and, of course, Kalmuck Mongolian Buddhist Center.

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

  • http://adamsawry.wordpress.com Adams-awry

    You’re a weird guy, Bobcat.

  • hamel

    Only a matter of time now until Texas Daddy (not Bevers, but the other one) makes good on his claim to go to NJ and pay a visit to one or both of these comfort women memorials….

  • Railwaycharm

    This only brings more attention to a dead issue.

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

    Railyway wrote (#3):

    This only brings more attention to a dead issue.

    Did you intend to be oxymoronic?

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

    The group, Korean American Civic Empowerment (KACE) said in a statement that the “comfort women” memorial was “defiled with a stake by an unidentified perpetrator.” Police were notified and are conducting an investigation, the statement said.

    So the Palisades Park police are conducting an investigation to find out who left a Takeshima stick beside a monument? Really?

    By the way, a few days ago I found dog poop in my front yard. The local police have sent it away for DNA testing. I’m almost positive it was left by the Shih Tzu next door.

  • Q

    The poor Suzuki kun might think the military sex slave is the same sh*t with “Japanese man defeats Indian to buy Catarina’s virginity”:

    http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/WOR-TOP-japanese-man-defeats-indian-to-buy-catarina—s-virginity-3967120-NOR.html

  • frogmouth

    I love this guy Suzuki guy!

    He’s just trying to stir up crap. In reality, he’s sabotaging Japan’s claim to (Dokdo) Takeshima by falsely analogizing two unrelated issues.

    Atta boy Suzuki, keep the Takeshima boys on the lunatic fringe where they belong. Wacky for Taki….

  • Stereo

    >The monument, paying tribute to the estimated 200,000 victims of the practice, will be placed inside the county’s “Ring of Honor,” which includes memorials for the Holocaust, Armenian Genocide and the Irish “Great Hunger.”

    I would call it a “Ring of Hypocrisy”. Why do not they build a massive monument for black slaves or Native Americans?

    By the way, the letters on the stone reads “MORE THAN 200,000 WOMEN AND GIRLS”. The number keeps going up. I think they have no interest in the facts, but only in sensationalism.

  • yuna

    By the way, the letters on the stone reads “MORE THAN 200,000 WOMEN AND GIRLS”. The number keeps going up. I think they have no interest in the facts, but only in sensationalism

    I am interested in facts, so how many women and girls do you think, Stereo?

  • Stereo

    I do not know.
    The Korean historians estimated as follows.
    There were 2,000,000 Japanese soldiers during WW2. Assuming 1 comfort woman for every 10 soldiers, there were 200,000 comfort women. Of course, most Japanese think this estimate ridiculous.

  • frogmouth

    Two questions Stereo.

    1. How many women do you think were forced?

    2. What difference does it make, when Japan’s Gov’t claims it didn’t happen at all?

  • inkevitch

    “Why do not they build a massive monument for black slaves or Native Americans?”

    Plenty of those around the place, in fact museums, departments of Universities.

    Keep attacking the minutiae to distract from the central issue. Id there a textbook on how to argue against comfort women/ dokdo issues. Because yourself and Bevers go from the same page.

  • cm

    “By the way, the letters on the stone reads “MORE THAN 200,000 WOMEN AND GIRLS”. The number keeps going up. ”

    I heard that 200,000 number from day one, when the Comfort women issue first hit the public air more than 20 years ago. I don’t understand how you think the numbers are keep going up. It hasn’t.

  • provIdence

    In the first article, written by Mr. Sullivan, quoted at the top by the MH owner, there is a following passage:

    “Bergen County Executive Kathleen Donovan, just back from a trip to South Korea, visited a home for surviving comfort women, many of them in their 70s and 80s”.

    When we consider the ages of those women at the home at the end of WW2, I would rather presume that they worked not for the Japanese but for the US and UN or Korean soldiers.

  • berto

    koreans can take pride in the knowledge that none of the monuments set up in other countries commemorating the rapes and murders of vietnamese women at the hands of korean soldiers have ever been defaced.

  • Q

    UK Guardian has an article “Anger of wartime sex slaves haunts Japan and South Korea”:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/18/forced-prostitution-wartime-japan-korea

  • Q
  • Stereo

    >cm October 30, 2012 at 10:30 pm
    >I heard that 200,000 number from day one, when the Comfort women issue first hit the public air more than 20 years ago.

    The issue of comfort women has been talked about for more than 60 years. The number is going up ever since. And notice, it went up from “the estimated 200,000 victims” to “more than 200,000″, as we see today. Koreans, if you want to make a case, you should show a more concrete number.

    >frogmouth October 30, 2012 at 9:35 pm
    >2. What difference does it make, when Japan’s Gov’t claims it didn’t happen at all?

    Oh, that relly shows you are brain washed. Tell me what Japanese government claims did not happen at all?

  • CactusMcHarris

    By the way, a few days ago I found dog poop in my front yard. The local police have sent it away for DNA testing. I’m almost positive it was left by the Shih Tzu next door..

    Gerry,

    Once again, you demonstrate the sensitivity of a cretin and the contextual awareness of a clod. Attaboy!

  • Q

    It is difficult to obtain exact number of victims of enforced sex slaves due to Japanese government’s “restriction on relevant documentation.” Toshiyuki Tanaka’s research Japan’s Comfort Women (Asia’s Transformations) says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    More reading: http://www.rjkoehler.com/2012/06/16/open-thread-247-the-normal-weekend-edition/#comment-466296.

    However, Tanaka does suggest some numbers in his book:

    The comfort women were treated as “military supplies,” but relevant document were either hidden or destroyed at the end of the war. It is impossible to know, therefore, how many women were exploited. The best estimates range from 80,000 to 100,000. According to the Japanese military plan devised in July 1941, 20,000 comfort women were required for every 800,000 Japanese soldiers, or one woman for every 40 soldiers (This estimate is based upon a report that the Kuwantung Army of 800,000 men planned to mobilize 20,000 Korean comfort women during the so-called “Kuwantung Army Special Maneuvres” in July 1941). There were 3.5 million Japanese soldiers sent to China and Southeast Asia during the war, and therefore, by this calculation, an estimated 90,000 women were mobilized. Of these women 80 percent are believed to have been Koreans, but many also came from Taiwan, China, the Philppines, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

    Why were comfort women almost invariably from Taiwan, China, or various places in Southeast Asia, and above all Korea? This might seem odd at first, given that the Japanese were notorious for their racism towards the people of other Asian countries. However, racial prejudice provides part of the answer to the question – that very racism helped make these women suitable for the role of comfort women. Japanese prostitutes did serve the military abroad during the war, but most were in a different position from the comfort women. The Japanese prostitutes mainly worked in comfort stations that served high-ranking officers, and they experienced better conditions than the Asian comfort women. Apart from the difficulty in recruiting Japanese women into comfort stations, Japanese military leaders did not believe Japanese women should be in that role. Their mission was to bear and bring up good Japanese children, who would grow up to be loyal subjects of the Emperor rather than being the means for men to satisfy their sexual urges. The Japanese wartime government took its lead from Nazi eugenic ideology and policy in these matters. In 1940 the National Eugenic Law was proclaimed. The purposes of the law were to prevent miscegenation and the reproduction of the “unfit,” such as those with mental illness that was believed to be inherited.

    More reading: http://www.rjkoehler.com/2012/06/20/comfort-women-memorial-the-long-island-edition/#comment-466865

    Tanaka’s research also provided other numbers:

    Mobilization of the Korean labor force into war-related industries was greatly strengthened from 1943. In 1943 alone, nearly 140,000 people were mobilized by the Government-General (Yoshimi Yoshiaki, Jugun Ianfu, p.100). In September 1943, the “Women’s Voluntary Labor Service Corps” was organized throughout Korea. Through the corps many young, unmarried women were forced to “volunteer” for various types of work in wartime industries. In August 1944, a new law – the “Women’s Voluntary Labor Service Law” – was enacted. This allowed the Governor-General of Korea to force any unmarried woman between 12 and 40 years to engage in war-related labor for 12 months. Under this law a vast number of young girls were mobilized and many were sent to Japan to work at large industrial factories. This policy probably created the situation in which procurement of young Korea women for military comfort stations became difficult. As a result, it seems that the power of the police force was abused by the military authorities for the purpose of securing comfort women. According to testimonies of former comfort women, it appears that some representatives of the local Neighborhood Association, an organization that the Government-General required local civilians to establish, were also forced to act on behalf of owners/managers of comfort stations or their sub-contractors.

    Some girls accepted offers of “employment” by labor brokers, or through the mediation of leaders of the local Neighborhood Association, in order to avoid being drafted into the Women’s Voluntary Labor Service Corps. Ch’oe Myungsun was one of them. In January 1945, when she was 19 years old, she accepted an introduction by a representative of the Neighborhood Association to a “good job” in Japan. She was sent to Hiroshima to become a mistress of Japanese military officer for a couple of months. Then she was taken into a comfort station in Osaka, where she was forced to serve the Japanese soldiers until shortly before the end of the war.

    It was shortly after August 1944, when the Women’s Voluntary Labor Service Law was enacted, that a rumor spread in Korea that all unmarried girls over 14 years old would be forced to become comfort women. Many middle- and upper-class Korean families withdrew their daughters from women’s colleges and hurriedly arranged marriages for them to avoid their being drafted. However, some families in lower social strata felt trapped.

    More reading: http://www.rjkoehler.com/2012/06/20/comfort-women-memorial-the-long-island-edition/#comment-466861

    Tanaka estimated 80,000 to 100,000 enforced sex slaves, which were calculated based only on the sex slave supply plan of 1941 for Japanese Imperial army in China and Southeast Asia. If we count women like Ch’oe Myungsun who were initially drafted for Women’s Voluntary Labor Service Corps and later enforced to be sex slaves, hidden or destroyed document’s number of women, and enforced sex slaves of other nationalities — such as China, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, and Netherlands — the number could be estimated to reach 200,000 or more.

  • cm

    “And notice, it went up from “the estimated 200,000 victims” to “more than 200,000″, as we see today. ”

    You’re taking a small matter of word differences, and use it to discredit the comfort women, isn’t going to work. Who cares if it’s 200,000 right on the dot versus more than 200,000. That’s just being nit picking silly. If you feel Comfort women are liars, then state your opinion and tell us why you think so, don’t give me this bull shit.

  • Stereo

    >Q

    If you call it an estimation. Everyone should know how unreliable the estimated 200,000 is.

  • bimbalimba

    Bull shit?

    What about Kang Ilchul testimonies ?

    She’s the unofficial spokeswoman and …. http://rokdrop.com/2009/05/04/la-times-features-korean-world-war-ii-comfort-women/

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

    I wonder why South Koreans have not set up a monument in New Jersey to the more than 261,000 Korean women the South Korean government had forced into sex slavery in 1959, a number that can be verified HERE.

    In other words, in 1959 the South Korean government had forced 61,000 more “comfort women” into sexual slavery in South Korea alone than the Japanese supposedly did throughout all of Asia during all of World War II. Moreover, the South Korean government’s system of sexual slavery continued into the 1980s.

  • Q
  • Q

    How could enforced sexual slavery of imperial Japan with postwar prostitution in Korea?:

    Twelve [Japanese] soldiers raped me in quick succession, after which I was given half an hour rest. Then twelve more soldiers followed. … I bled so much and was in such pain, I could not even stand up. … I felt much pain, and my vagina was swollen. … Every day, from two in the afternoon to ten in the evening, the soldiers lined up outside my room and the rooms of the six other women there. I did not even have time to wash after each assault. At the end of the day, I just closed my eyes and cried.

  • Q

    How could you compare enforced sexual slavery of imperial Japan with postwar prostitution in Korea?

  • JK

    Gbevers, even by your extreme standards, you’re one sick f*ck.

    As Q stated, how does forced sex slavery equate to prostitution?

    Can you imagine how insane someone might look if they said that the 9/11 memorial should not be built since Americans (the non-native ones) practically wiped out the native American (what used to be called American Indians) population? He or she would look pretty stupid, no?

    Now look at yourself.

  • cm

    “How could you compare enforced sexual slavery of imperial Japan with postwar prostitution in Korea?”

    His point is they were not forced sex slaves. They were volunteer prostitutes. It’s a position taken by Japan’s conservatives, and he’s promoting it.

  • provIdence

    Women in their 70s now were 12 or younger at the end of WW2. Thus, they are out of question. Some older ones in their 80s are also out of question still.

  • Q

    NPR article (#25) picture descriptions show that the victims of enforced sexual slavery were early teens. And here is a case presented in the NPR:

    Like Niyem, who, at 10 years old was kidnapped and loaded into a truck full of other women destined for a military camp in West Java. She shared a small tent with two other girls, where soldiers openly raped them. “I was still so young,” she is quoted by Janssen as saying. “Within two months my body was completely destroyed. I was nothing but a toy, as a human being I meant nothing, that’s how it felt during the Japanese era.”

  • Railwaycharm

    @#4 Leave it to Bevers daddy who jacked-off in a flower pot and gave birth to a blooming idiot……

  • bimbalimba

    Dutch Comfort women from Java were kidnapped by Japanese army and during the Tokyo Trials some people got life sentences for this …
    But untill 1990s there were no such claims about Korean women, which is quite strange as apparently thousands of them were victims of same crime.

  • Q

    Hey, read the NPR article @ #25, it’s not about Dutch women. The stories are about Indonesians. It was researched by Dutch journalist Hilde Janssen.

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

    Q wrote (#26):

    How could enforced sexual slavery of imperial Japan with postwar prostitution in Korea?

    Q, by calling the Korean government’s system of forced sexual slavery “prostitution,” you are using the same excuse Japan has used for hers.

  • provIdence

    Crimes are crimes. They can happen in any society. Many criminals were punished by Japanese Military or by Tribunal.
    We better be careful not to be cheated by pretenders:

    http://japanese.joins.com/article/513/62513.html?sectcode=&servcode=

  • Q

    Why until 1990s did not victims speak up? Read the NPR article (@ #25). For your convenience, here is a quote:

    Of the many horrors suffered by both sides during World War II, the existence of “comfort stations” is one of the most unsettling: Organized by the Japanese military in occupied countries, these were locations where women were forced into prostitution to “comfort” military personnel. Over the years, many of the surviving women have shared stories of kidnap, coercion, rape and abuse — yet the Japanese government has been reluctant to acknowledge the crimes, let alone extend reparations.

    It’s an issue that has been brushed under the carpet, not only by government officials, but also by many surrounding cultures. In Indonesia, for example, little has been done to compensate the surviving women and their families; to the contrary, their stories have been suppressed by the society at large, says Dutch journalist and researcher Hilde Janssen. Very few women have ever shared their experiences – until now.

    “It’s the kind of story that is pushed away because it is very shameful in their eyes,” Janssen says. Because sexuality is relatively taboo in Indonesian culture, former comfort women were too guilty and ashamed to share their memories. “But it should have a place in history,” says Janssen.

  • Q

    Check out Comfort Women Wanted: http://vimeo.com/31999613

    I agree with historian Suzanne O’Brien:

    “the privileging of written documents works to exclude from history…the voices of the kind of people comfort women represent – the female, the impoverished, the colonized, the illiterate, and the racially and ethnically oppressed. These people have left few written records of their experiences, and therefore are denied a place in history.”

  • jk641

    Having a bad day, Gerry?

  • JK

    So I think the crux of Gerry’s argument is that if a country’s gov’t did bad things to its people, then those very same people have no right to complain if a foreign gov’t did something bad on a much larger scale to them.

    First of all, we have nothing to show the South Korean gov’t forced its own citizens to be comfort women that I am aware of (and as most commenters at the MH know, Gerry is not a very dependable translator considering his weak knowledge of Korean), so I don’t know where he’s basing his claim on. Secondly, say what Gerry says is true; does this in some way exonerate the Imperial Japanese government of the 1930s and 1940s for what it did to those Korean women???

    That would be like some non-American saying to Americans who commemorate the 9/11 attacks that Americans have no business commemorating the terrorist attacks because Americans may have done far worse to their own citizens (like for instance, against the native Americans, African-Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.). But if someone WERE to say something like that and complain about the 9/11 memorials, that person would look like an idiot, no Bevers?

    Now look at your own arguments about the Korean Comfort Women, Gerry. Unless you play disingenuous, you get my point.

  • provIdence

    Not those women, but some Korean old men are very honest, as I hear that General Paik recently answered a young PM on Independence Army that how he ever could kill such soldiers when no such army was present.

    I happened to find a book by Kim Wansop (Book 2) in my bookcase. I’ll read the book today to have a glimpse of Korean History. zzZ zzZ

  • jk641

    JK @39,

    The Korean UN prostitutes Gerry is talking about weren’t forced into sex slavery.
    Most of them went into prostitution due to poverty.
    I don’t know why there were so many of them in 1959.
    But between 1960s and 2000s, there were about 10,000-20,000 of these prostitutes at any one time.

  • jk641

    providence @14,

    “Bergen County Executive Kathleen Donovan, just back from a trip to South Korea, visited a home for surviving comfort women, many of them in their 70s and 80s”.

    That is incorrect. The surviving comfort women are in their 80s and 90s.
    This 2011 article says that their average age is 86.

    Really, try to have some respect.

  • Q

    I’ll read the book today to have a glimpse of Korean History.

    You said Kim Wan Sup, the guy hired by Nippon Kaigi?

    http://youtu.be/oOV-WmFz2Ls

  • Q

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

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

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

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

    Website: http://www.nipponkaigi.org

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

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

    Jk641 wrote (#42):

    Most of them went into prostitution due to poverty.

    Proverty forced Korean women into prostitution during Japan’s colonial period, as well. Why? The money was better.

    The Korean POW at THIS LINK, for example, started a small house of prostitution with just five Korean women somtime between 1941 and 1942 because it was more profitable. He had been earning 50 to 60 yen a month working for a transportation company until it was closed. Then, with just five Korean prostitutes, he started making 300 to 400 yen a month. And when he took his prostitutes to Manchukuo to service the Koreans there, he made even more money, with profits averaging about 1,000 yen a month. However, he gave up his profitable business in November 1942 because it was too cold in Manchukuo and because he had gonorrhea. He then joined the “Navy Patriotic Work Group” because he wished to see the world.

    The point is that poverty forced many women into prostitution under Japanese rule, and the same proverty forced many women into prostitution under Korean rule.

  • jk641

    gbevers @45,

    Proverty forced Korean women into prostitution during Japan’s colonial period, as well.

    Wrong. The poor Korean women (mostly from the countryside) sought legitimate work with the Japanese. They were told that they’d be working in factories, hospitals, restaurants, and such. But when they reached their destinations, they were forced into sex slavery.

    The comfort women were paid very little, if any.
    Could they protest? No.
    They were far from home in foreign countries and battlefields, with no one to help them.
    The Japanese military kept close tabs on the comfort stations, even if they were privately run. The comfort stations were guarded by Japanese soldiers.
    If the women tried to escape, they were severely punished.
    It was a coercive environment through-and-through.
    (And I’m being very euphemistic here.)

    The point is that poverty forced many women into prostitution under Japanese rule, and the same proverty forced many women into prostitution under Korean rule.

    No, you snake. It wasn’t the “same poverty”.
    After the Korean War, Korea was devastated and the economy was in total shambles. There were millions of orphans and widows.
    But during WWII, Korea didn’t suffer any direct damage. (Other than the 100,000s of conscripted Korean laborers who died because of the Japanese.)
    They were two completely different situations.

    You really think Korean women would’ve volunteered to be sex slaves for Japanese soldiers?
    During WWII, Korean parents intentionally married off their daughters at a very young age, because they thought that all the Korean women conscripted into Women’s Volunteer Service Corps would be made comfort women.

  • Q

    jk641 wrote:

    Having a bad day, Gerry?

    He is competing with this guy for stipend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r84gyKSaRK4

    Both of the live in Texas! Must have met for workshop. Look like brothers.

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

    JK641 wrote (#46):

    Wrong. The poor Korean women (mostly from the countryside) sought legitimate work with the Japanese. They were told that they’d be working in factories, hospitals, restaurants, and such. But when they reached their destinations, they were forced into sex slavery.

    No, what you are describing happened under the South Korean government. That even happened in the late 1970s, when I was in Korea in the US Navy:

    “Country Girls Lured into Prostitution,” Donga Ilbo, 1953 Jul 21

    Go Ok-i (高玉伊), a 53-year-old woman who lives at No. 83 on 3rd Street in the Cho Ryang-dong area of Hanmok City, was operating a comfort woman business for UN servicemen until she suspended operations because of financial difficulties. Then on the 3rd of this month, with the intention of reopenning her business, Ms. Go had her maid, Im Mi-ja (林미子), lure five virgins, including 15-year-old Gang Pil-yeon (姜必連) of Jinju City (at No. 888 in Tongbong-dong), to Busan with promises of getting them jobs in the 34th Military Hospital.

    Telling the girls that they would need to wear “high-class” clothes if they expected to be hired, Ms. Go gave each of the six girls an advance of 5,000 hwan worth of high-class clothing with the idea of putting them to work as comfort women. However, she was detected by police authorities prior to that, and on the 7th, Ms. Go and Ms. Im were undergoing intense questioning at the Investigation Section of the Busan Police Department.

    LINK

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

    JK641 wrote (#46):

    You really think Korean women would’ve volunteered to be sex slaves for Japanese soldiers?

    Yes. The following article describes the culture of Cheongjin City in North Hamgyeong Province in 1925:

    If you walk down a Korean street in this city, the first thing you notice after one or two houses are signs that say “Boarding House,” “Restaurant,” and “Pawn Shop.” And in every alley you see places with such names as “Seoul House” and “Daegu House” that sell rice wine. You also see many prostitutes in heavy makeup going in and out the doors. However, rather than seeing these establishments as promoting immorality, I see them as places that necessarily exist to provide natural, temporary relief to an increasingly large number of laborers.

    Speaking of prostitutes, scores of Korean and Japanese bordellos fill Bukseong-jeong (part of the port city of Cheongjin in Northern Hamgyeong Province ) and have become the town’s specialty product. Whenever military ships, which allow no women onboard, enter the port, it is said that dozens and dozens of sailors race ashore, completely turning the port into a “City of Flesh.” Even when there are no military ships in port, it is said that the streets are bustling with nightlife as sailors are always coming and going.

    Most of the buildings along the street are Japanese style. Many of the people on the streets wear Western suits. Hundreds of people leave and enter the city each day. Even many of the locals seem to be wearing Western suits. You hear auctioneers shouting, “five cheon, ten cheon,” and you also hear, “Let’s play, let’s play.” You hear, “The Social system is blah, blah, blah,” and you also hear, “Amen.” All parts of the new and old worlds are represented on the streets of this city.

  • berto

    once again gerry quietly puts out researched information with links to back up his claims in front of the show goers, and once again the show goers hoot and squawk, wring their fists and dance about and spit and call him names and try and desecrate bever’s well being, his family and state and country. the patrons are going to sleep well tonight.

  • Q

    Look how gbevers comments contrast with his demand of the US apology for A-bomb on Japan:

    http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/08/28/video-hiroshima-survivor-meets-enola-gay-pilot/#disqus_thread

    Gerry Bevers: It is hard for me to believe that the surviving American aircrewman in the second video does not regret that he was a member of the crew that dropped an atomic bomb on Japan, killing so many people. But I think it was wrong to ask him to apologize since he may have felt they were asking him to take personal responsibility for killing 100,000 people. Who wants to take on that kind of responsibility when you were following orders of other people and may not have even known the extent of the destructive power of the bomb.

    The question should have been, “Do you think the bombing was wrong?” If he answered, “No,” then they could have then asked, “Are you proud of the fact that you were on the plane that dropped the bomb or does it bother you?” That way they could have found out his true feelings.

    The United States was wrong to firebomb Japanese cities and drop the two atomic bombs because those tactics were done to kill and terrorize civilians, not to destroy the fighting forces of Japan.

    Americans were angry that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, but imagine how much more angry they would have been if the Japanese had also firebombed Honolulu, killing tens of thousands of civilians.

    By the way, I thought the “This is your life” episode was awkward and weird, especially in the beginning. They should not have brought out the pilot. It was kind of like surprising someone with the repentant murderer of a family member or friend.

    Ridiculous.

  • jk641

    #48,

    How did this “happen under the South Korean government”.
    This sort of thing was clearly a crime.
    The two bitches who lured the girls were caught by police, were they not?

    During WWII the Japanese police in Korea took part in recruiting the comfort women, often using deception.

  • jk641

    correction: gbevers @49

  • tapadamornin

    One thing I don’t understand is why there was so little support for the Asian Women’s Fund. It seems to me that that was most likely going to be the last real opportunity for reparations, especially after the details of the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea were released in 2005.

    If the Dokdo/Takeshima issue is really tied to the Comfort Women issue, we can be assured that the conflict will never go away. The Japanese insistence on missing the forest for the trees while keeping crucial documentation under lock and key is extremely frustrating and disingenuous.

    On a side note, what happened with the Korean brokers and recruiters after the war? Were there any domestic war tribunals to punish Japanese co-conspirators?

  • dogbertt

    Tying a stake to something is about the lamest way of “defacing” I’ve ever heard of.

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

    Jk641 wrote (#53):

    This sort of thing was clearly a crime. The two bitches who lured the girls were caught by police, were they not?

    It was also a crime during the colonial period, Goofball, and there are newspaper articles from the colonial period showing that people were also arrested for it.

    Jk641 wrote:

    During WWII the Japanese police in Korea took part in recruiting the comfort women, often using deception.

    Do you have any proof?

    Anyway, I’ve told this story before, but in the late 1970s, when I was stationed in Korea in the US Navy, uneducated, Korean girls from the countryside were lured to the camptowns with cheap magazine ads promising high-paying waitress jobs. Once they arrived, they were given rooms and furniture, which immediately put them in high-interest debt. They soon realized their waitress salaries could not keep up with their accumulating debt, which gave the pimps the excuse they needed to threaten the women. Either prostitute yourself or go to jail. That was the common way girls were tricked into becoming prositutes.

    Back then you could not declare personal bankruptcy, and a girl could not run away from her debt because the police worked with the pimps to help make sure the women did not run away. Even other prostitutes helped keep an eye on the new girls.

    In the 1953 article I posted in Comment 49, the women was trying to use the same trick to ensnare the young girls. They promised them good jobs in a hospital, but the girls would first have to borrow 5,000 hwan each from the women to buy expensive, new clothes to interview for the job. The girls would be expected to pay that money back with high interest, whether they got the jobs or not. And they most likely would not have gotten the jobs because they were not qualified. The women would then forced to pay the money back by prostituting themselves. That was the intention.

    Notice that the article did not say the two women were arrested. It only said the women were “undergoing intense questioning.” Why? Maybe because the police also wanted a piece of the action. That’s how things worked back then and even in the 1970s and 1980s. In other words, you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.

  • jk641

    tapadamornin @55,

    One thing I don’t understand is why there was so little support for the Asian Women’s Fund.

    The former comfort women rejected it because the funds didn’t come from the Japanese government, but from private donations.
    The women wanted an official apology and reparations from the Japanese govt.

    The Japanese insistence on missing the forest for the trees while keeping crucial documentation under lock and key is extremely frustrating and disingenuous.

    That’s not all.
    The Japanese military burned a huge amount of documents at the end of WWII, especially those pertaining to war crimes.

    “The director of Japan’s Military History Archives of the National Institute for Defense Studies estimated in 2003 that as much as 70 percent of the army’s wartime records were burned or otherwise destroyed.”
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women#CITEREFDrea2006)

  • Awarren

    Another question might be, considering the miserable plight of the comfort women and Korea’s supposed outrage, why are there still so many dammed Korean prostitutes in Japan? How can Koreans frequent these Karaokes in the presence of Japanese as they slobber over these Korean girls. Where is the outrage? The simple fact is that even now in Korea if it turns a buck, principles go out the window.

  • jk641

    It was also a crime during the colonial period, Goofball, and there are newspaper articles from the colonial period showing that people were also arrested for it.

    Really?
    There are articles showing that they arrested people for outright kidnapping girls, not tricking them.

    Notice that the article did not say the two women were arrested. It only said the women were “undergoing intense questioning.” Why? Maybe because the police also wanted a piece of the action.

    Thanks for turning this discussion into a farce.

    Again, you’ve made it abundantly clear that you are strongly prejudiced against Korea/Koreans.
    Stop pretending that you’re unbiased on the comfort women issue.

  • tapadamornin

    @58

    But that’s what I don’t understand. The government is funded through taxpayer money. Whether the money is coming from the government directly or from private citizens in Japan, the source is the same. Even more so, it seems as though money from the public could have served as a true message of apology from the Japanese people.

    According to wikipedia:
    - ¥565m ($4.7m) was raised in donations from the Japanese people, and given to 285 comfort women from Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines, each of whom received about 2m yen ($16,700)
    - ¥770m ($6.5m) in taxpayers’ money was provided to pay for medical fees for these women, and for 79 other women from the Netherlands
    - ¥370 million ($3.1m) was spent building medical facilities and old peoples’ homes in Indonesia, rather than compensating individuals there, and the rest was used for the fund’s running costs and other smaller projects.

    It just seems as though this was a terribly missed opportunity to build a better relationship between Korea and Japan.

  • Q

    gbevers and his colleagues are exactly following the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact: http://www.sdh-fact.com/index.html

    The WaPo ad about “comfort women” in 2007 (http://www.occidentalism.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/thefact.jpg) was created by Japanese right wing political leaders, LDP and Democratic party of Japan, also refer to the website for further information.

    We all know that the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact also assert that “The US, not Japan, was the Aggressor”:
    http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/82_S4.pdf

  • berto

    @59 and why would korean men wait around in myongdong and take japanese men to korean prostitutes? and why would koreans in japan recruit korean women into japanese hostess bars? and why would koreans rejoice in the fact that japanese men are turned on by korean entertainers? and why would korea spend billions exporting and marketing scantily clad korean women to be ogled at? hmmmm difficult questions. it would be way easier to just follow suit and call anyone who asks an asshole and assume a korean woman dumped them.

  • Q

    As for brothels around the US military camps in Korea, there is a documentary:

    http://youtu.be/KM8WxGpfQj0

    The absurdity and corruption of postwar prostitution or sex industry in Korea could not lessen the moral culpability of what imperial japan had done to Korean women. The women’s voice should be recorded in history permanently, whether it was under “comfort stations” of Japanese military or prostitution for US military.

  • yuna

    Gerry could easily campaign for the Japanese women through the exact same method that he is accusing the Korean government of doing, who were used by their government to service the US military.
    http://blog.daum.net/dandakhan/16545660

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #61 tapadamornin:
    “@58

    But that’s what I don’t understand. The government is funded through taxpayer money. Whether the money is coming from the government directly or from private citizens in Japan, the source is the same. Even more so, it seems as though money from the public could have served as a true message of apology from the Japanese people.”

    I understand. It’s not simply about the money; it’s about official recognition and apology. Accepting money from a private group of citizens is a backdoor way for Japan (as a people as in nation) to avoid responsibility.

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

    Q wrote (#64):

    The absurdity and corruption of postwar prostitution or sex industry in Korea could not lessen the moral culpability of what imperial japan had done to Korean women.

    People who were not in Korea in the late 1970s cannot really know what it was like. It was a much different country from the Korea of the latter 1980s and beyond. There were pimps and prostitutes everywhere in the late 1970s, and the police and government were working with the pimps and barowners because prostitution was making the government a lot of money. Many, many women were tricked and forced into prostitution, and there was no where they could go for help. Their only escape was to marry American servicemen.

    I don’t really know what it was like in the colonial period, but I suspect it was not much different from the Korea I knew in the late 1970s.

  • frogmouth

    It’s interesting to note…

    It was the Japanese themselves who set up red light districts in Seoul (initially for themselves)

    I think I read Japanese set up whorehouses in Seoul even before they had even colonized Korea.

  • Q

    The Colonization of Korea and the Growth of the Prostitution Industry: http://www.rjkoehler.com/2012/08/31/k-community-down-under-at-war-with-korean-prostitutes/#comment-497336

  • yuna

    Anyway, it is interesting to see that the youtube poster of that old (US) documentary about Korean women who used to sell their bodies to the US soldiers is Japanese.
    Equally convoluted beyond comprehension is the logic he/she expresses in the accompanying comment which I will cut and paste in case they take it off:

    米軍慰安婦と韓国系アメリカ人社会は、われわれが想像している以上に深い
    関係にある。

    韓国系アメリカ人のルーツをたどると、米兵の妻としてアメリカに移住した
    女性にたどりつくケースが多い。しかも、その多くは米軍の元慰安婦であり、
    彼女たちが足場となって韓国から次々と親戚を呼び寄せて築いたのが、
    現在の韓国系アメリカ人社会だと言われている。08:53

    パート3では、米兵に殺害された売春婦の例が出てくる。
    しかし、これは決して珍しい事件ではない。

    Basically he/she says that this shows that there is a very close and deep rooted connection between the Korean Americans today and Korean Uianbu women who used to sell their bodies to the US soldiers. They would get married as a GI bride, and then bring their families over one by one, and this is what forms the basis of the Korean American society today.

    What I don’t understand, after watching half of the documentary, why the women would still contemplate going out with the Americans despite having one abusive relationship after another. It is hard to feel sympathy for them.

  • Q

    Toshiyuki Tanaka’s “Japan’s Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution during World War II and the US occupation” has a chapter , The Japanese government creates a comfort women system for the occupation forces:

    In the week following its surrender, and before occupation forces arrived, the Japanese government had discussed ways of dealing with the anticipated problem of sexual violence by occupation forces. On August 21, Prime Minister Prince Higashikuni Naruhiko called a special meeting of several of his ministers. The subject of discussion was the various demands put forward by the Allied forces regarding the actual procedures for ending the war. The details of these demands were brought back by Lieutenant-General Kawanabe Torashiro, an envoy extraordinary, who had just returned to Tokyo that morning from a meeting with the military commanders of the Allied forces in Manila in the Philippines.

    At this cabinet meeting, Prince Konoes Fumimaro, then Deputy Prime Minister, who had serverd as Prime Minister three times during the Asia-Pacific War, expressed grave concern about the possibility of “mass rape” of Japanese women by Allied troops. He suggested setting up a comfort women system to protect Japanese women and girls. The suggestion seemed to come out of his anxiety over the possibility of “mass rape” such as that committed by Japanese troops against civilians in occupied territories during the war. It was during Konoe’s first term as Prime Minister that Japanese troops committed mass rape in Nanjing city – the so-called “Rape of Nanjing.” Lieutenant-General Kawanabe by contrast praised the strict morals of the Allied forcs. He told the cabinet members that the Allies probably would not accept a scheme of military-controlled prostitution, even if offered by the Japanese. However, after a long discussion, Konoe’s proposal was endorsed by the attending cabinet members. In fact, the government had already taken the first step towards establishing such a system four days earilier – the day that Princ Higashikuni formed the new government. This comfort women scheme was probably initiated by Konoe, together with Prime Minister Higashikuni and the Minister of Home Affairs, Yamazaki Iwao, without consulting other cabinet members, as it was regarded an urgent matter.

    On August 18, the Police and Security Department of the Military of Home Affairs telegraphed the following instructions to the governors and police chiefs of all prefectures:

    With regard to the comfort facilities in areas where the foreign troops are going to be stationed:
    In the areas where foreign troops will be stationed, the establishment of comfort facilities are necessary as outlined in the following separate notation. As the handling of this matter requires circumspection, please take every possible precaution by paying attention particularly to the following items.

    1. It is still beyond speculation where the foreign troops will be stationed and when they will arrive. Therefore, do not cause public unrest by forming a hasty conclusion that it is inevitable for those troops to advance to your prefecture.
    2. Make preparation of such facilities now confidentially as their prompt establishment is required in the case of the troops’ station, but ensure that the information not be revealed to the outside.
    3. In carrying out this plan, avoid arousing misunderstanding among local people by explaining to them that this scheme will be implemented for the purpose of protecting Japanese citizens.
    [Separate Notation]

    The outline of the preparation for the establishment of comfort facilities for the foreign troops:

    1. Allow the business for the foreign troops within limited quarters, regardless of existing regulation of control.
    2. The above-mentioned limited quarters should be determined by the [prefectureal] police chief, and prohibit Japanese subjects from using the facilities.
    3. The police chief should actively give guidance in management of the following facilities and promote their rapid expansion.
    · Sexual comfort facilities
    · Eating and drinking facilities
    · Recreation centers
    · Recruit the women required for the business from geisha, licensed and unlicensed prostitutes, waitresses, barmaids, habitual illicit prostitutes and the like.

    Before and during the war, Japan had a licensed prostitution system under which the Metropolitan Police Headquarters in Tokyo and each prefectural police division had the authority to regulate prostitution in its own area by issuing licenses to brothel owners and prostitutes and at the same time suppressing unlicensed prostitution. The above-mentioned document, therefore, clearly indicates that prefectural police chiefs were now instructed to recruit unlicensed prostitutes rather than cracking down on their clandestine business. Towards the end of the Pacific War, due to the government policy of promoting nationwide sumptuary regulations, each prefectural police division war not only tightening the control of clandestine operations but also encouraging licensed brothel owners and prostitutes to change their occupations. Yet, just three day after Japan’s surrender, they were told the opposite – to secure enough comfort women for the expected Allied troops.

    The reaction of each prefectural police division to this government instruction can be found in the official history of various prefectural police forces.

    […]

    In almost every prefecture throughout Japan the police played a crucial role in setting up comfort stations and recruiting comfort women to serve the occupation troops. It should be noted that the police were actually breaking the law by introducing unlicensed and illicit prostitutes into the sex industry and by allowing the establishment of comfort stations, which were really special military “brothels” operating without the owners being licensed. Some senior police officers were clearly aware of the fact that their conduct was against the law, made worse by the fact that the instruction had originated from the Police and Security Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs. For example, the above-mentioned Superintendent Ikeda Hirohiko, who converted the single policemen’s dormitory into a comfort station in Tsuchiura, looked back on those days by saying that:

    Although it was a sort of overstepping the bounds of the Police Act, I thought that, even if I had requested further instructions from Headquarters, I would not have got anything at all. Therefore I made up my mind to deal with the matter by myself, on my responsibility, without making any queries to my superiors. I was prepared to stand between the occupation forces and the Japanese people for general good in maintaining peace and order, and if necessary, to bear any reprimand.

    Moreover, the official historical account by the police gives the false impression that those recruited as comfort women for the occupation troops were all professional prostitutes, whether licensed or unlicensed. In reality, some non-professional women, notably high-school students who had been put to work in munitions factories towards the end of the war as members of the Women’s Volunteer Corps, were recruited. It seems that some Yakuza (Japanese mafia) groups, who were closely linked with extreme right-wing, fascist organizations controlled by prominent political fixers such as Kodama Yoshio and Sasagawa Ryoichi, were closely involved in “recruiting” from the Women’s Volunteer Corps.

    For example, although the war had ended, about 10 high-school students were still staying at a dormitory of one of the arsenals in Kawasaki city in Kanagawa prefecture. The students had lost their families due to bombing and had nowhere to go. One day, a certain Yoneyama Saburo came to this dormitory in a truck carrying the sign “Re-born Public Enterprise, Leisure Division.” He introduced himself as the Chugoku District Manager of the Peace Maintenance Association, an organization formed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Yoneyama told these students that they would be drafted into the “special volunteer task.” He took them away in the truck. It is almost certain that these girls did not know what sort of “task” they were “volunteering” to carry out. A dozen high-school students, who were members of the Women’s Volunteer Corps, were staying at a dormitory of one of the arsenals in Kure, a major naval port in Hiroshima prefecture. They had become war orphans when, on August 6, 1945, their families had perished and their homes had been destroyed by the atomic bomb. (Shortly after the bombing of Hiroshima, the younger sister of one of the dormitory students, Momoyama Chikako, had made the trip from Hiroshima to Kure on foot, only to fall dead in front of the factory gate on arrival due to radiation exposure.) As the students had nowhere to return to, they stayed at the dormitory, doing domestic work for the factory manager’s family. One day, the above-mentioned Yoneyama appeared at the factory, and gave the factory manager several tins of sugar and some packets of foreign-made cigarettes. Then the factory manager took Yoneyama to the dormitory. Yoneyama told the students about a “task” – the same “task” about which he had told the students in Kawasaki. They were put into a truck and taken away. First they were taken into a house in an unknown place where they were gang-raped by a number of GIs, then they were taken the same truck to a building in another place, where they were again gang-raped by a different group of GIs. Eventually they were taken to a comfort station and attended by a medic of the occupation troops. A few days later all were found to be infected with V.D.

  • Q

    Toshiyuki Tanaka’s “Japan’s Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution during World War II and the US occupation” has a chapter, The Recreation and Amusement Association:

    The largest private enterprise for the purpose of rendering sexual and other recreational services to the occupation troops was set up in Tokyo.

    On August 18 the Police and Security Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs telegraphed the governors and police chiefs of all prefectures regarding comfort stations for the occupation forces. The newly appointed Superintendent-General of the Metropolitan Police Headquarters, Saka Nobuya, was summoned by the Deputy Prime Minister, Prince Konoe. Saka was told to act on the instructions in order to protect “respectable women.” Immediately after the meeting with Konoe, Saka summoned the deputy chairman of the Tokyo Metropolitan Association of the Restaurant and Bar Industry, Nomoto Genjro, the owner of an exclusive Japanese restaurant, Saganoya, and asked for this co-operation. As Saka often dined at Saganoya, he and Nomoto were already acquaintances. At the same time, Saka assigned the project to the head of the Public Peace and Security Section, Takanori Shakutoku, and his subordinate, Otake Bungo. The Public Peace and Security Section of the Metropolitan Police Office was responsible for controlling prostitution in Tokyo. Takanori and Otake received instructions not to make any official documents on this matter, as this work would be “outside of the police duty.” They were told that all messages should be conveyed verbally.

    It is interesting to note that Saka sought the co-operating of the restaurant and bar industry for setting up comfort stations rather than approaching the Tokyo Metropolitan Association of Licensed Brothels, and that the staff of the Public Peace and Security Section were instructed not to produce and paperwork on the matter. This indicated that the Superintendent-General of the Metropolitan Police Headquarters himself was clearly aware of the fact that the police were about to launce illegal clandestine operations. It seems that Saka could not openly encourage the licensed brothel owners to break the law by recruiting unlicensed women or even habitual illicit prostitutes in order to secure sufficient numbers.

    Both the chairman of the Tokyo Metropolitan Association of the Restaurant and Bar Industry, Maiyazawa Hamajiro, and his deputy, Nomoto, felt that they were in the wrong industry to properly repond to Saka’s request. As expected, most members of their Association, owners of top-class Japanese Traditional restaurants in places like Ginza and Shinbashi, refused to join such a project. As a result of these refusals, Miyazawa and Nomoto had to use their personal connections to make contact with representatives of the owners of nightclubs, saloons, coffee shops, and popular cheap restaurants, and representatives of licensed brothel proprietors and geisha-house owners. On August 21, Takanori summoned the representatives, with whom Miyazawa had managed to make contact, to the Metropolitan Police Headquarters in Tokyo. Takanori explained the purpose of the project to them, repeatedly emphasizing that he was asking their cooperation in his “private capacity.” He said they were not required to report to the police about the details of their business operations, although he guaranteed sufficient financial support from the appropriate authorities. Miyazawa asked for their help “in order to protect 40 million Japanese women.” In return, these representatives requested police permission to openly recruit women in and around the Tokyo area because there were far too few existing sex workers. This request was immediately accepted withouth the issuing of any official document.

    On the morning of August 23, these representatives gathered again and officially established the organization called Tokushu Ian Shisets Kyokai (the Special Comfort Facilities Association), which was soon renamed the Recreation and Amusement Association (RAA). Takanori, Otake and two other officers from the Metropolitan Polic Headquarters also attended this meeting. Miyazawa was elected director, Nomoto and two other men were elected deputy-directors, three others managing directors and 15 others members of the board. On August 28 the executives of the RAA gathered in front of the Royal Palace, where an “inauguration ceremony” was held involving a group of distinguished guests, government bureaucrats and top-ranking police officers. Director Miyazawa made a speech and said that he had decided to sacrifice himself in order to contribute to laying the foundation for rebuilding the new Japan and for protecting the “purity of all Japanese women.” This ceremony was concluded with three cheers of “Long live the Emperor!” It seems that these people were truly proud of their patriotic “enterprise” aimed at protecting innocent Japanese women and contributing to the well-being of the nation and the emperor.

    Financial aid was given by the Ministry of Finance of the Japanese government through Nippon Kangyo Ginko (the Japan Industrial Development Bank) – a quasi-governmental bank. The executive of the RAA were ordered by the Minister of Finance, Tsushima Toshiichi, to se the Director of the Tax Bureau in the Ministry of Finance, Ikeda Hayatato, later Prime Minister between 1960 and 1964. Ikeda told them that he would make sure that up to 100 million yen would be available for the newly established organization. The executives could not believe the astronomical sum that Ikeda was offering for setting up comfort stations. At that time the average monthly salary of a factory workers was 166 yen. It is said that Ikea told the RAA executives that 100 million yen was cheal if it would provide good protection for Japanese women. Nippon Kangyo Ginko offered a scheme whereby the first installment of 50 million yen would be given to the organization at low interest. As the bank had to take the formality of lending money on security, it was decided that the fire-insurance of each RAA member would be mortgages. As fire-insurance had been frozen during the war by the government, in reality, this meant an unsecured loan. The bank eventually loaned 30 million yen (approximately US $2 million at current value) to the RAA on September 6, and a further 3 million yen on January 10 the following year. The shares, valued at 10,000 yen each, were acquired by individual members of the RAA, and according to Mark Gayn, a Canadian correspondent posted in Tokyo shortly after the war, “some shares were presented, as a mark of esteem and appreciation, to high Japanese officials.”

    Although the 100 million yen that Ikeda had promised was never fully to materialize, 30 million yen was more than sufficient capital to start the RAA. The initial idea was to buy out the entire building of the Mitsukoshi department store in the middle of Ginza and convert each floor to accommodate a comfort station, dance-hall, beer-hall, various restaurants, and the RAA’s main office. However, the police authorities probably thought the site too conspicuous and the plan was not approved by the Metropolitan Police Headquarters. Instead, the RAA was advised to set up comfort stations along the Keihin National Highway in the Omori and Oi areas in Shinagawa ward of south Tokyo, a traditional red-light district since the feudal Edo period. Here there were a number of brothels, large restaurants, and inns. Towards the end of the war they had been closed and use as dormitories for the members of the Women’s Volunteer Corps who were working at nearby arsenals. It was also expected that the highway would be the route by which the US occupation troops landing at Yokohama and Yokosuka would get to Tokyo The RAA managed to secure several former Japanese restaurants in this location and quickly converted all of them to comfort stations.

    Although the RAA gave up the initial plan to set up a large-scale “entertainment complex” in Tokyo’s expensive shopping district of Ginza, it did locate its head office in a Chinese restaurant in Ginza, called Koraku, and managed to set up a few cabarets, a beer hall, a dance hall and the like in the area. With police protection and strong government financial backing, the RAA had, by the end of November 1945, set up a range of facilities in Tokyo, Chiba, and Atami, a hot-spring resort town in Shizuoka prefecture. The facilities were available only for members of the occupation forces; use by Japanese clients was totally banned.

    […]

    The RAA put up a large recruitment poster in front of its office in Ginza, which said:

    Announcement to New Japanese Women! We require the utmost cooperation of new Japanese women who participated in a great project to comfort the occupation forces, which is part of the national emergency establishment of the postwar management. Female workers, between 18 and 25 years old, are wanted. Accommodation, clothes and meals, all free.

    Although these advertisements avoided the words “comfort women,” most people who read them would have been clear about what sort of work was being advertised. It is said that many “taxi dancers” were recruited through newspaper advertisements. As the condition of “free meals and free accommodation” was extremely attractive, the jobs enticed not only previous entertainers but young women who had become war orphans and young widows who had lost their husbands in the war. They were attracted to work as a “dancer.” However, as time passed, the boundary between “dancers” and “comfort women” became blurred; many “dancers” were gradually dragged into the prostitution business as well.

    It is not surprising that this kind of blatant advertising upset some nationalists. For example, one day, a surviving former Kamikaze pilot stormed into the RAA office in Ginza, holding a drawn sword, and shouted: “I am going to kill the traitors to the nation!” The workers in the office somehow managed to calm him down by saying that they were doing the work purely out of patriotism, to protect the majority of Japanese women, and that really they deeply resented the Americans.

    On August 29 a group calling itself the National Salvation Party put up leaflets at various places in Shinbashi railway station near Ginza, which said:

    Notice to the Women of the Japanese Imperial Nation! The women of our imperial nation must not have intercourse with the black race. Those who violate this order deserve the death sentence. Therefore make absolutely sure to keep the purity of the Yamato race!

    It is interesting to note that this propaganda identified only the black race as the foreign group that would contaminate “the purity of the Japanese blood,” not white men – perhaps a reflection of popular Japanese feelings of inferiority towards Caucasians.

    Despite having given the RAA initial verbal permission for “open recruitment,” two months later the police issued an instruction warning the RAA and its labor brokers not to “unfairly recruit women by using exaggerated or false expressions or by suppressing the names of employers.” The existence of this police document strongly suggests that many of those employed by the RAA had been deceived or trapped into the prostitution.

    […]

    By the time the occupying forces landed, the RAA had managed to set up only Komachien. As a result of this comfort station was flooded with GIs from as early as August 30. There were only 38 comfort women in the station. Given the demand, they hardly had time to rest or have a meal. Shortly thereafter, the RAA recruited new women, managing to increase the number of comfort women at the station to 100. Even then, it is said that the minimum number of clients that each comfort women had to serve each day was 15. One woman was said to have served 60 GIs a day.

    GIs paid their money at the front desk and received a ticket and a condom. They gave the ticket to the comfort women who served them. This procedure replicated that used at the Japanese military comfort stations during the war.

    The physical hardship that these Japanese women faced was strikingly similar to that endured by Asian comfort women during the war. The only difference was that these Japanese comfort women were paid properly, in most cases, whereas the former had received hardly any payment.

  • Arghaeri

    What I don’t understand, after watching half of the documentary, why the women would still contemplate going out with the Americans despite having one abusive relationship after another. It is hard to feel sympathy for them

    For some an abusive relationship is better than no relationship, and may be all they know, particularly if thats whats providing food and shelter.

  • Q

    If you watched the documentary to the end, you would notice that the woman end up having happy and stable marriage with a very nice and honorable GI.

  • Railwaycharm

    Why not just name the price and get on with it. A lot of people were terrorized by the war and they have moved on. Do you see American POWs crying over the torture they endured? Where is the River Kwai memorial in New Jersey? You all have misplaced loyalties.
    The Japanese will never cop to this. Be bigger than the monsters and be dignified. Stop your fucking belly aching. Its over!

  • Q

    American POWs could move on because no distortion or denial of history were incurred about their suffering and their honors were secured.

  • Q

    I am not sure if Japanese asshats vandalize Pacific War memorial museums with such a sign “The US, not Japan, was the Aggressor,” Americans would take it calmly.

    Source: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/82_S4.pdf

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    American POWs could move on because no distortion or denial of history were incurred about their suffering and their honors were secured.

    Americans could move on (more easily) because they were on the right side and they won. Koreans were by and large on the wrong side and they lost; moreover, unlike say the Poles, some very few Koreans put up only very meagre token resistance at best. Hence the investment in the comfort women as people who ostensibly were innocent victims to (mis)represent all Koreans; and the efforts to restore the “honor” of the Koreans who participated in the war on behalf of Imperial Japan and even perpetrated war crimes as “victims”.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #78 Sperwer, How dare you nail it? How dare you!

  • MrMao
  • Q

    Americanism sucks…

  • Awarren

    @78 Sperwer – spot on!

  • JK

    Sperwer and Awarren: NOT spot on!

    Saying Koreans were on the side of the Japanese is like saying Jews in Germany and eastern Europe were on the side of Nazi Germany or like saying African-American slaves in the South were fighting on the side of the Confederacy during the US Civil War. Where do you guys get your crazy ideas?!? Quit drinking from the Bevers Nonsense Kool-Aid.

    Geez…

  • JK

    From what I hear from Bevers, Sperwer, and Awarren, might makes right, hence why they say Koreans fought on the side of the Japanese. Sort of like blaming the rape victim for having sex with the rapist.

    Do you three guys also feel the Poles and Hungarians first fought with Nazi Germany and then later fought with the Soviet Union during the Cold War? Was East Germany a willing ally of the USSR? Or was it forced upon them? Surely you guys are not saying that African-Americans had it coming to them by not fighting harder against their white masters in the US and by essentially “supporting” slavery and segregation for hundreds of years…because that is essentially the logic you are using by saying Koreans “fought on the side of Japan.”

  • Q

    They could say that because their ancestors were motherf*ckers.

  • Awarren

    20% of the Koreans who meant anything then and their ancestors who still mean anything now were on the side of the Japanese, and the rest for the most part meekly followed.

  • JK

    Awarren, rather than see your ridiculous claims in an attempt to provoke Koreans, ala Bevers, perhaps you could post up a source?

  • JK

    BTW, what do you mean by “meant anything then” and “their ancestors now”? God help Koreans if you’re an English teacher in Korea.

  • Awarren

    How many important Koreans in business and politics today can say that their ancestors were not Japanese sympathizers. Not everyone who posts on this blog is some off the boat English teacher.

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

    JK wrote (#83):

    Saying Koreans were on the side of the Japanese is like saying Jews in Germany and eastern Europe were on the side of Nazi Germany or like saying African-American slaves in the South were fighting on the side of the Confederacy during the US Civil War.

    It is not the same. Koreans were not being exterminated by the Japanese and they were not slaves of the Japanese. They were part of the Japanese Empire and had been so for more than thirty years when the war started. They supported Japan in the war and fought in the war against Japan’s enemies. And they also cheered Japan’s victories.

    As for the comfort women, some people seem to have a hard time believing that Korean women would prostitute themselves during the colonial period, despite the evidence to the contrary. But if Korean women were willing to prostitute themselves after the colonial period, why would it be any different during the colonial period?

    If a woman is hungry, uneducated and has no other means of income, she will do almost anything to survive. If a woman is kicked out into the streets by her inlaws because she cannot give birth or because she gives birth to a mentally or physically challenged baby, what is she to do? Indentured servitude was common was in Korea, and prostitution was an option because it was legal, accepted as a necessary evil, and paid fairly well.

    In such circumstances, why is it so hard to believe that Korean women volunteered to be comfort women during the colonial period and continued to do so after the colonial period?

  • hamel

    Gerry, you are very good at blurring issues into one gelatinous mass. In fact, I think I would like to give you an award for it.

  • yuna

    It’s not hard to believe, it sounds very probable, and most people believe it. However, what we are arguing about is what subsequently happened to them. No matter how you want to emphasize your sob-story of “you had to be there” of Korean US camp prostitution in the following years, it cannot be compared to and used as an excuse the brutality and the horror with which the fucked-up Japanese soldiers (fucked up because they had to implement a particularly cruel current campaign of world war) took out on the girls.

    Also, nobody, you, or stereo or the Japanese who have problem with the numbers that Koreans come up with seem to be able to deny that there *were* women/girls who were “kidnapped” or “lied to” or at “gunpoint” i.e. NOT prostitutes or destitute girls, and to give an exact number of that either. In which case, it is an extremely weak argument to and a travesty to the women (no matter how small the number is) who have a chance of being remembered and mourned and not cast aside as “wartime prostitutes” by the likes of you.

  • Q

    gbevers chronic resentment to Korea could only be explained from sequelae of VD he possible contracted when he was engaged with whores in SK.

    VD problems and the failure of GHQ’s VD preventive policies

    The Allied troops suffered VD problems from the start of the occupation. Within a short time VD had become the most serious health issue that GHQ had to confront. This was despite the establishment of a number of VD preventive prophylactic stations in red-light districts.

    For example, the VD ratio for the 8th Army troops more than doubled from 26.84 per 1,000 in early September to 56.39 per 1,000 in late October, 1945. The VD rate for the entire US occupation forces during the first three months of 1946 rose as high as 233 per 1,000. The rate was astonishingly high among the US Navy and Marine troops – 476.12 per 1,000 for the troops in Yokosuka and 574.84 per 1,000 for the troops in Sasebo in Nagasaki prefecture in June 1946. In other words, in some cases, at least half the US Navy and Marine troops were suffering from VD, in particular gonorrhea. (Toshiyuki Tanaka’s “Japan’s Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution during World War II and the US occupation” )

  • Q

    Old soldiers never die; they just fade away… with gonorrhea.

  • Stereo

    yuna, you should not blame Japanese for what Koreans did.
    It was Koreans who kidnapped or lured Korean girls into comfort women. It was Koreans who ran brothels called comfort stations.

    Japan apologized what it did, why does not Korea do the same?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Nothin’ beats an ad hominem, and a speculative one at that, when you want to knock someone’s argument. Keep throwin’ pasta against the wall to see if it’s done.

    Throw in a little tu quoQue, and that’s today’s Quinella.

  • yuna

    Stereo,

    yuna, you should not blame Japanese for what Koreans did.
    It was Koreans who kidnapped or lured Korean girls into comfort women. It was Koreans who ran brothels called comfort stations

    Then

    Japan apologized what it did,

    What did Japan apologize for?

  • JK

    HAH! Great response Yuna.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Very attractive Q; does wonders for your position

  • JK

    I also am not crazy about some of Q’s responses, Sperwer, but please look at my comments relating to you and your stand on this issue.

  • provIdence

    It is judged that so-called comfort women were very rich.:

    http://www4.kjclub.com/UploadFile/exc_board_63/2011/07/15/131068651124.jpg

    The owner of this Post Office account is Ms. Moon Ok-ju (文玉珠). She had ¥26,940 at the end of WW2. She said in the court that she also sent home ¥5,000 before. She had a half to 1 Bln won of cash in current value at that time. I hope any of you are richer than the so-called poor comfort woman. As I understand, she was one of the two most probable former comfort women Prof. Ahn singled out by interviewing about 40 (?) of them who asserted they were comfort women (forced by Japanese Military).

    Although her statement varies from one to the other, she said, in the Korean interview, she was grabbed at the arm by Japanese with military outfit on the way back from her friend’s place and taken to a place which appeared to her a MP station. On the next day, she was handed over to a non-official man who took her by train and truck to a comfort station in China. It was in 1940 (she was 16).

    Interestingly enough, Prof. Yoshiaki Yoshimi (the Liar?) analyzed that the man in “military outfit” might have been in Kokumin-fuku, an ordinary outfit for men during the war.

    http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/文玉珠

    Another one of the two is Ms. Kim Hak-sun (金学順).

  • Q

    She had ¥26,940 at the end of WW2.

    Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications still hold her wage. Ms. Moon Ok-Ju is the lady who refused compensation money from Asian Women’s Fund:

    http://shindonga.donga.com/docs/magazine/shin/2005/02/22/200502220500036/200502220500036_1.html

    http://www.imaeil.com/sub_news/sub_news_view.php?news_id=35312&yy=2012

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

    Yuna wrote (#92):

    Also, nobody, you, or stereo or the Japanese who have problem with the numbers that Koreans come up with seem to be able to deny that there *were* women/girls who were “kidnapped” or “lied to” or at “gunpoint” i.e.

    No, I have a problem with the claimed numbers and with the claim that the Japanese kidnapped Korean women at gunpoint because no one has shown me any evidence of it.

    I do not have a problem with the claim that women were forced into prostitution by poverty or that they were tricked into becoming prostitutes by despicable pimps because there is a lot of evidence of that happening both during the colonial period and afterwards, but especially afterwards.

    Yuna wrote:

    No matter how you want to emphasize your sob-story of “you had to be there” of Korean US camp prostitution in the following years, it cannot be compared to and used as an excuse the brutality and the horror with which the fucked-up Japanese soldiers….

    How would you know? You were not in Korea during the colonial years or during the 1970s.

    If Japan’s comfort woman system was so “f**ked up,” then why did Korea start its own comfort woman system after the war? Why were there no post-war newspaper articles talking about Korean women being kidnapped at gunpoint by the Japanese military? Why did it take almost 50 years for Koreans to start making these unsubstantiated claims against Japan’s comfort woman system?

    The fact is that before, during, and after Korea’s colonial period poverty forced many Koreans to indenture their daughters or indenture themselves to pimps. Prostitution and indentured servitude were legal, which creates a near perfect enviroment for prostitution. Then, when you add into the mix the fact that women were disowned by their inlaws for things as ridiculous as not being able to give birth or giving birth to physically or mentally challenged babies, the environment for prostitution moves even nearer to perfection.

    Yuna wrote:

    In which case, it is an extremely weak argument to and a travesty to the women (no matter how small the number is) who have a chance of being remembered and mourned and not cast aside as “wartime prostitutes” by the likes of you.

    Remember the women who were forced into prostitution by poverty, despicable pimps, and ignorant, uncaring inlaws, but why limit it to just the women during the colonial period when it also continued under Korean rule after the colonial period?

    Because Koreans–including you and Q–are more interested in demonizing Japan than in seeking comfort for the women.

  • provIdence

    I am sorry for Mr. Yoshiaki Yoshimi. I want to swallow the bad word (the Liar), but it remains. I’ll study about you on the web.

  • yuna

    The evidence, when presented by the very few who survive, are cast aside (you said yourself and the Japanese say) by saying the Korean grandmothers are lying. You and the Japanese government deny that such a system existed (that Japanese military forcefully drafted Korean women) against the grandmother’s own words, so then where can we go from there?

    GBevers, I do not demonize Japan. You and the Japanese who post here do it themselves. I can understand why the Japanese might do it, I have seen their Asadoras (morning dramas). To them Japan is a makeinu as far as the first half of 1900 is concerned. They have weaved themselves a nice snug victim’s cocoon, I just feel incredibly sad that even the most reasonable and the so-called best among the Asian race, cannot snap out of it to grow up and admit and educate their own people.

  • yuna

    why limit it to just the women during the colonial period when it also continued under Korean rule after the colonial period?

    Nobody is limiting it. Koreans do not deny that those women existed, as do many prostitutes today all around the world.
    On the other hand, what do you think the act of putting a stick of “Takeshima belongs to Japan” next to such a memorial does for the rights of those women that you have chosen to be so het up about?

  • Q

    #104,

    It’s funny to see Japanese call each other liars. “I call it the sickness of Japan. First, we hide, then we postpone, and then we assume no responsibility.” Mitsuhei Murata (Japan’s former Ambassador to Switzerland )(6:43)

  • jtyler79asia

    well said q. btw sperwer can foad.

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

    Yuna wrote (#105):

    They have weaved themselves a nice snug victim’s cocoon, I just feel incredibly sad that even the most reasonable and the so-called best among the Asian race, cannot snap out of it to grow up and admit and educate their own people.

    Are you talking about Koreans or the Japanese?

    Yuna wrote:

    The evidence, when presented by the very few who survive, are cast aside (you said yourself and the Japanese say) by saying the Korean grandmothers are lying.

    If they were kidnapped and forced to be “sex slaves,” why were they being paid for their services, and why were they allowed to go home after their debts were paid? Where are the newspaper articles, police reports, and other documents to prove their claims of kidnapping? Why do their stories change with each telling? Why didn’t they or their families come forward with their stories immediately after the war? Why were the comfort women not mentioned in any of Korea’s post-war, anti-Japanese textbooks or in any of Rhee Syngman’s anti-Japanese rhetoric?

    And, again, why do you not care about the women who were forced or tricked into prostitution under Korean rule?

  • provIdence

    The account of Moon Ok-Ju appears to have been closed since 1965. I suspected that the task of paying that amount of money has been turned over to the government of Korea since the Treaty of 1965.

  • yuna

    Are you talking about Koreans or the Japanese?

    I would not regard Koreans the most reasonable or the best.

    If they were kidnapped and forced to be “sex slaves,” why were they being paid for their services, and why were they allowed to go home after their debts were paid? Where are the newspaper articles, police reports, and other documents to prove their claims of kidnapping? Why do their stories change with each telling? Why didn’t they or their families come forward with their stories immediately after the war? Why were the comfort women not mentioned in any of Korea’s post-war, anti-Japanese textbooks or in any of Rhee Syngman’s anti-Japanese rhetoric?

    Because vast majority of them died, and those who survived were too embarrassed/traumatized and were too young and helpless at the time, and are now all dead or dying of age which is the best witness/victims to have in a court case when you are fighting against their claims? and, yes Korean government themselves were FOUND guilty of not doing more and letting things slide under the table, at the cost of the real victims and the weak, in sacrifice – kind of like what Japan and the US get accused of doing at the San Francisco Treaty.

    1) Korean government did not do enough to vindicate the rights of Comfort Women (and also those Koreans who were irradiated from Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and; (2) such inaction violated the constitutional rights of surviving Comfort Women and other victims of Imperial Japan. Therefore, the Court ordered the government to proceed under the dispute resolution procedure provided for in the treaty at issue.

    You and your brigade are constantly implying falsely Korea was a willing Japanese accomplice, an ally, did not put up any protests, yet at the same time dismissing the heroes and the organized mansei marchers as terrorists, it’s damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

  • yuna

    And let me add, it really does make me think even less of you as a human being (as if that’s possible) to pretend that you have even a shred of real sympathy for those camp prostitutes during your time, by bringing that as some sort of tit-for-tat two-bit argument against the Korean comfort women issue. I didn’t feel at all good doing it about the Japanese US camp prostitution myself, and I apologize to myself.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    @108

    I can’t think of a better way to go than in flagrante delicto. So thanks for that.

  • http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

    Jk

    I’ve just gotten off a long teleconference and its way past my bedtime. I’ll come back to you.

  • provIdence

    I wonder whether all Korean people agreed when General Paik said, to the effect, that why he could kill Independence Army soldiers when there was no such army.

    Koreans or Chinese cannot stop these historical arguments because they know they start fighting among themselves when they are gone.

  • jk641

    gbevers keeps putting emphasis on whether the women were kidnapped at gunpoint or not. As long as they weren’t kidnapped at gunpoint, no harm was done.
    This is a very perverse logic.

    It was perfectly okay if the girls were lied to and shipped to faraway lands, and there they were forced into sexual slavery.
    It was perfectly okay if the women were raped 50 times a day and when they became ill they were shot and discarded.

    I don’t want to discuss any more with gbevers, since he seems to have a bad memory or a very selective one.
    But I will reiterate this for the rest of you.
    Before the 1990s, the comfort women were not called 위안부.
    They were called 여자정신대. (Women’s Volunteer Service Corps)

    I have found old Korean newspaper articles from the early 1960s that talk about the comfort women.
    I have read accounts of Koreans who met comfort women during and just after WWII. I don’t want to get into specifics, but it was very sad.
    When they recognized that they were Koreans and heard what they had been through, they all wept bitterly.
    The women had been lied to and forced to do the unthinkable for the Japanese.
    It’s really heart-rending.

    It’s really terrible that people are calling comfort women liars and prostitutes.

  • JK

    I agree with you, jk641. If it isn’t obvious to everyone at the Marmot’s Hole (and I think it is), Gbevers has an agenda. He will villify Koreans at every possible opportunity.

    I don’t know what the specific reason is, but losing his Korean wife and losing more than a few jobs in Korea probably didn’t help matters.

  • Charles Tilly

    If it isn’t obvious to everyone at the Marmot’s Hole (and I think it is), Gbevers has an agenda.

    Got that right. JK’s always scheduled on the itinerary to demonstrate what a complete fucking dope is he by consistently falling for it.

  • JK

    And Charles Tilly has to put in his two cents, like anyone gives a f*ck what he thinks, just to get his attention.

    Charles Tilly, shut the f*ck up!

    There, it had to be said.

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

    Yuna asked (#106):

    On the other hand, what do you think the act of putting a stick of “Takeshima belongs to Japan” next to such a memorial does for the rights of those women that you have chosen to be so het up about?

    The problem with that “memorial” is that it was erected with the purpose being more to demonize Japan than to memorialize abused women. Also, there is no evidence to support the inscription on it.

    The following is part of a Korean newspaper article I am thinking about translating. Try to guess if the article was written after the Japanese left Korea or before. Then tell me how much sympathy you have for Billy’s mother.

    Billy’s mother (28 years old), who remembers during her childhood holding cleaning rags to her mouth and wringing them out because the matron of the ophanage would not give them water at night because she said they would wet themselves in their sleep, tells the circumstances that brought her to this place

    I grew up in an orphange in Gunsan until I was adopted in third grade by a family that did a lot of farming. Everyday I worked to exhaustion. I spent 12 years there and was even raped by my adopted father until I was kicked out. That day, with no place to lay me head, my first thought was of the “Hellos.” The Hellos would sometimes come to the orphanage and have us form one line. They would pick out the children that liked and give them pretty clothes and chocolate to eat

    Why weren’t women who suffered under the Korean government’s comfort woman system also mentioned on the New Jersey memorial?

  • Q

    Toshiyuki Tanaka’s “Japan’s Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution during World War II and the US occupation” :

    On October 14, 1945, the Metropolitan Police Headquarters issued a statement reversing the order that it had issued in March 1944 prohibiting brothels, bars, night clubs, expensive restaurants and the like. This legalization of the “entertainment bushiness” gave endorsement to the widespread clandestine prostitution industry for the occupation troops in Tokyo and neighboring areas. The police force itself had helped develop and expand these facilities, which were in addition to the facilities run by the RAA. According to one of the documents prepared by the Public Health and Welfare (PHW) Section of GHQ, by the third week of October there were 23 red-light districts in Tokyo used extensively by GIs, including traditional brothel quarters such as Mukojima, Hakusan, and Yoshiwara, and central shopping town like Shibuya and Ikebukuro.

    Within just a few months, the sex industry spread quickly and widely in Tokyo. While ostensibly the services were set up for use by Japanese clients as well as the US troops, some brothels adopted the same policy as the RAA and operated for the occupation troops only. Indeed, given the economic hardship faced by the Japanese at that time, the prostitution industry immediately after the war can be said to have serviced almost exclusively US troops. The largest facility outside the RAA organization was the International Palace, in Koiwa in the east end of Tokyo. This brothel was set up in five of the female workers’ dormitories of the munitions plant that the Seiko Company had operated during the war. With advice from the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Headquarters, a certain Harada Gennosuke set up the brothel. He purchased the dormitories from Seiko and converted them into the “world’s largest brothel.” He enlisted the help of 10 proprietors, or chaperones, from the neighboring downtown red-light districts, each of whom brought three or four girls.

    […] It also estimated that the total number of prostitutes in all Japan was 150,000. However, the PHW Section acknowledged that this “estimate does not take into consideration any number of street prostitutes.”

    According to one Japanese source, by the end of November, apart from RAA facilities, 25 new comfort stations had been set up in various places in Tokyo, employing a total of more than 1,500 comfort women. The number of comfort women and “taxi dancers” employed by the RAA was well over 2,000 at that time. Thus, in the Tokyo area alone, it can be estimated that the total number of comfort women and prostitutes serving the occupation troops at the end of 1945 was 10,000.

  • Q

    In his memorandum on December 6, 1945, Lieutenant-Colonel Hugh McDonald, Chief of the Legal Subsection of PHW briefly analyzed the “practice of procuring girls” for brothels in Japan and wrote:

    The girl is impressed into contracting by the desperate financial straits of her parents and their urging, occasionally supplemented by her own willingness to make such a sacrifice to help her family.

    It is the belief of our informants, however, that in urban districts the practice of enslaving girls, while much less prevalent than in the past, still exists…

    Yet, for most of the staff of the PHW Section, whatever their thoughts on the plight of the women, their most important task was quickly to reduce a high VD rate among their own men by administering effective medical VD control methods among the Japanese sex workers.

    The contemporary Japanese situation, which was one of the major contributing factors ot the boom in prostitution during the occupation, did not really concern the medical specialists. For them, the main concern was the health of their own men and not the health and welfare of the Japanese “service women.” GIs saw the Japanese women in the sex industry and the lust for male domination. Many called Japanese sex workers a “yellow stool.” The attitude of medical officers of the PHW Section towards these women was fundamentally little different from that of the GIs. To medical officers of the PHW section, the Japanese women infected with VD were also seen as mere “defetive sexual commodities” that had to be fixed in order to satisfy the customers. Throughout the vast number of documents prepared by the PHW Section, any consideration for the women’s humanity is totally lacking. In this sense, there is a striking similarity between the medical officers of the US occupation forces in Japan and their counterparts in the Japanese Imperial forces who had been in charge of the VD problems of Asian comfort women during the war.

    […] As many as 200,000 VD cases, mainly women in the sex industry, were recorded in Japan in 1946. Yet, it must not be forgotten that the majority of their clients were occupation troops and that the systems of prostitution they patronized were established and sanctioned by both the Japanese and Allied occupation authorities.

  • jk641

    gbevers @120,

    Why weren’t women who suffered under the Korean government’s comfort woman system also mentioned on the New Jersey memorial?

    The comfort women issue is not just about these women’s sufferings as sex slaves.
    It’s also about Korea’s sufferings at the hands of Japanese.

    Korea had been attacked and victimized by the Japanese since back in the 13th Century, when Japanese pirates’ depredations on Korea began.
    It continued with the Hideyoshi invasions in the 1590s.
    Then Japanese taking over Korea since the late 1800s.
    And all the sufferings and humiliations Koreans underwent under Japanese colonization. The Korean independence movement that was brutally repressed by the Japanese. The countless Koreans who were tortured and killed. The 6 million Korean who were conscripted as slave laborers during WWII. And of course, the comfort women.

    Gerry, you obviously don’t know how the Koreans feel about all this.
    So quit questioning Korean’s intent in building comfort women monuments.

    Yes, the Korean UN prostitutes also suffered.
    But the comfort women suffered far worse. (most of them died, in fact.)
    And they suffered at the hands of the hated Japanese.
    So it’s a bigger issue.
    Do you understand this?

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

    JK641 wrote (#122):

    Gerry, you obviously don’t know how the Koreans feel about all this. So quit questioning Korean’s intent in building comfort women monuments.

    JK641 also wrote (#122):

    The comfort women issue is not just about these women’s sufferings as sex slaves. It’s also about Korea’s sufferings at the hands of Japanese.

    Thank you for admitting that the comfort women issue is about more than just a concern for the sufferring of Asia’s comfort women. See! I did know the intent of the monument.

  • slim

    Is there really anything more that can be said about this issue — at least, by the usual suspects?

  • JK

    Slim, do you mean yourself, Bevers, et al? I don’t know. Is there?

  • Charles Tilly

    Slim, do you mean yourself, Bevers, et al? I don’t know. Is there?

    I can’t believe you’re having trouble with this. It’s not hard at all. Nevertheless, allow me to help you:

    Slim, do you mean yourself, Bevers, et al?

    All the above and you included, numbnuts.

    I don’t know.

    That’s been pretty self-evident for some time.

    Is there?

    NO. Now shut your god damn trap.

    Did this help?

  • jk641

    Thank you for admitting that the comfort women issue is about more than just a concern for the suffering of Asia’s comfort women.

    You’re welcome.

  • Arghaeri

    The account of Moon Ok-Ju appears to have been closed since 1965. I suspected that the task of paying that amount of money has been turned over to the government of Korea since the Treaty of 1965.

    Isn’t the fact that its in her post office account indicatove that its already been paid?

  • JK

    To the attention-whore @127:

    Charles Tilly, shu the f*ck up!!

    There, it had to be said.

    Idiot.

  • Q

    Isn’t the fact that its in her post office account indicatove that its already been paid?

    No, Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications of Japan held her wage and did not return it to her. According to Shindonga (LINK @ #102):

    문옥주씨의 존재가 세상에 알려진 것은 1992년이었다. 다른 위안부가 모두 그랬듯 문씨도 위안부 생활을 하면서 받은 돈을 ‘군사우편저금’ 형식으로 일본 우정성에 강제 예치해야 했다. 광복이 된 뒤에도 일본 정부는 이 돈을 돌려주지 않았다. 1992년 문씨는 일본 정부에 자신의 군사우편저금을 돌려달라고 요구했다.

    이 요구를 계기로 일본 정부는 태평양전쟁 당시 군인, 군속으로 일한 한국인들이 우정성 군사우편저금에 예치한 뒤 돌려받지 못하고 있는 임금을 공개하기 시작했다. 일본 정부는 일본군 위안부의 실체를 부인하면서도 유엔 인권위원회가 일본 정부의 범죄인정과 법적배상을 권고하자 피해자에게 1인당 200만엔의 보상금을 주는 ‘아시아평화국민기금’안을 제시했다. 그러나 이는 정부 차원의 보상이 아닌, 민간기금으로 피해를 보상하는 것으로 책임회피라는 비판이 일었다. 문옥주씨는 이 기금을 받는 것을 거부했다.

    1996년 9월 기자는 문옥주씨를 만난 적이 있다. 임대아파트에서 홀로 살고 있던 문씨는 가난과 병마에 시달리고 있었다. “생전에 부모의 마음을 너무 아프게 했는데 추석에 차례도 지내지 못해 아쉽다”고 했다. 주변 사람들에게 연락해 차례상을 차려줬다. 그로부터 한 달 뒤 문씨는 숨졌다. 그의 미불(未拂) 임금은 지금도 일본 우정성에 그대로 남아 있다.

    엄연히 자기 명의의 계좌에 예치돼 있는 그 돈을 문씨는 돌려받고 싶어했다. 그러나 일본 정부는 이 가여운 여인의 손때 묻은 돈을 움켜쥔 채 끝내 내놓지 않았다.

  • slim

    Time for you, Tilly, to switch over to one of your pornsites and rub one out: Sex with the only person on earth who will let you touch them.

  • Railwaycharm

    @76 Bullshit. The Japanese denied the torture they imposed on POW’s.
    @81 Americanism kept you from speaking Chinese. Fuck you
    Korea is better than this. I am pro-Korea, its time to move on.

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

    yes, tilly, i think its time u stfu!

  • provIdence

    Ms. Moon Ok Ju died in October 1996. The Treaty of 1965 was made public in Korea only in January 2005. So, it is likely that she was suing a wrong one.

  • Stereo

    >provIdence November 2, 2012 at 11:57 pm

    The 1965 Treaty was ratified by Korean Congress in December 1965. It was hardly a secret.

  • Stereo

    >yuna November 2, 2012 at 12:13 am 97
    >What did Japan apologize for?

    Japan apologized for (1) being customer to comfort women, (2) licensing comfort women business for brothel owners.

    So, it is time for Koreans to apologize comfort women for (1) kidnapping and luring Korean girls into comfort women and (2) running comfort stations.

    >jk641 November 2, 2012 at 3:45 am 116
    >Before the 1990s, the comfort women were not called 위안부.
    >They were called 여자정신대. (Women’s Volunteer Service Corps)

    It is just amazing that there still exists a misinformed person after all this long long discussion. They are called 慰安婦 form the beginning. 女子挺身隊 is a different thing.

  • provIdence

    I often think that Japan and Korea can boast a long-standing friendly relations of more than 400 years among neighboring countries in the world without any wars since the days some decades before Pilgrim Fathers of the Mayflower landed at Plymouth.

    In the 13th century, Koreans led the two wars on Japan. One, in 1274, was with about 900 vessels and 40 thousand soldiers and sailors. The other, in 1281, was with about 4400 vessels and 150 thousand soldiers and sailors. The second one could be one the greatest naval expeditions in the world at that time (cf. 155 thousand for Normandy). Japan survived the two invasions, but produced pirates from areas devastated by Koreans and others.

    Getting to the point, I want to have some URLs of sources which describe massacres and atrocities committed on Koreans by Japanese in the Korean peninsula during the annexation period (not including 3.1) which could be sources of Korean hatred on Japanese.

  • jk641

    #137,

    It is just amazing that there still exists a misinformed person after all this long long discussion. They are called 慰安婦 form the beginning. 女子挺身隊 is a different thing.

    I know that, numbnuts.
    Japanese called them 慰安婦 from the beginning.
    Not the Koreans.
    Koreans called them 여자정신대 (女子挺身隊) until the early 1990s.

  • jk641

    In the 13th century, Koreans led the two wars on Japan.

    You’re talking about Mongols, right?
    Mongols subjugated Korea after a 30-year struggle, then launched two invasions against Japan from Korea.

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

    Jk641 (#139):

    Japanese called them 慰安婦 from the beginning. Not the Koreans. Koreans called them 여자정신대 (女子挺身隊) until the early 1990s.</blockquote

    No, Koreans also called the military prostitutes "comfort women" (慰安婦). It was later, after the war, that Koreans started confusing the female factory works (여자근로정신대) with the "comfort women," either intentially or unintentially.

    Wikipedia says that the female factory workers (Japanese and Korean women combined) totaled about 200,000. Of those about 50,000 to 70,000 were Korean women.

    Interestingly, the "comfort women" monument in New Jersey says that more than 200,000 women were made "sex slaves" of the Japanese. Is it just a coincidence that the number of female factory workers is the same number that Koreans claim were comfort women?

    조선여자근로정신대에는 12세 이상 40세 미만의 배우자가 없는 조선 여성이 소속되었으며, 군수공장 등에 투입되었다. 동원 방법은 관청의 알선, 공개 모집, 자발적인 지원, 학교나 단체를 통한 선전 등 다양한 형태로 이루어졌다. 근로정신대로서 동원된 일본과 조선의 여성은 20만명이며, 그 중 조선인은 5만에서 7만명이다
    ….

    조선여자근로정신대는 노동력의 동원이라는 점에서 성적 착취가 이루어진 위안부와는 다르다. 종전 후 위안부와 혼용하여 정신대라는 용어가 사용되기도 했다.[12] 이 때문에 근로정신대로 강제노역을 마치고 온 여성들 가운데 일본군 위안부 경력자로 오해받을까봐 근로정신대원이었다는 사실을 발설하지 못하고 살아온 경우도 있었다.

  • provIdence

    The Korean prince (king, later) proposed the invasion and prepared that many vessels. But the invasions cannot be the source of Korean hatred on Japanese.

    What I want to know is written in the latter part of the post. There could be too many incidents for Koreans, but I don’t know even a single case. Please let me know, not all at once, but a few or a single case at a time.

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

    Jk641 (#139):

    Japanese called them 慰安婦 from the beginning. Not the Koreans. Koreans called them 여자정신대 (女子挺身隊) until the early 1990s.

    No, Koreans also called the military prostitutes “comfort women” (慰安婦). It was later, after the war, that Koreans started confusing the female factory works (여자근로정신대) with the “comfort women,” either intentionally or unintentionally.

    Wikipedia says that the female factory workers (Japanese and Korean women combined) totaled about 200,000. Of those about 50,000 to 70,000 were Korean women.

    Interestingly, the “comfort women” monument in New Jersey says that more than 200,000 women were made “sex slaves” of the Japanese. Is it just a coincidence that the number of female factory workers is the same number that Koreans claim were comfort women?

    조선여자근로정신대에는 12세 이상 40세 미만의 배우자가 없는 조선 여성이 소속되었으며, 군수공장 등에 투입되었다. 동원 방법은 관청의 알선, 공개 모집, 자발적인 지원, 학교나 단체를 통한 선전 등 다양한 형태로 이루어졌다. 근로정신대로서 동원된 일본과 조선의 여성은 20만명이며, 그 중 조선인은 5만에서 7만명이다
    ….

    조선여자근로정신대는 노동력의 동원이라는 점에서 성적 착취가 이루어진 위안부와는 다르다. 종전 후 위안부와 혼용하여 정신대라는 용어가 사용되기도 했다.[12] 이 때문에 근로정신대로 강제노역을 마치고 온 여성들 가운데 일본군 위안부 경력자로 오해받을까봐 근로정신대원이었다는 사실을 발설하지 못하고 살아온 경우도 있었다.

  • yuna

    Japan apologized for (1) being customer to comfort women, (2) licensing comfort women business for brothel owners.

    Could you expand on that for clarity’s sake?
    1. when did it apologize, to whom and how?
    2. (1) what does that mean? Who exactly was being customer to which comfort women?(2) who licensed it for which brothel owners?

    And if you are talking about the 河野洋平 Kono statement, why is Noda talking about withdrawing it and what good is an apology if it is withdrawn?

  • yuna

    And seriously you’re having a laugh, no?

    And why should Japanese apology stop the Koreans from putting up a memorial to commemorate its dead and what right does this give Japanese (or any third party) have to force Korean government to apologize to the Koreans when the Koreans are not the ones demanding it?

    We strongly request President Obama to remove the monument and not to support any international harassment related to this issue against the people of Japan.”

    In fact how *dare* they accuse them of *harrassment*. Do they know the meaning?

    When I approach subjects like comfort women (or Dokdo, which I really want to leave out) I admit, that I never cared about or was interested in before I came on this blog, (and even then I tried to stay out, thinking it’s too much reading) that I approach with caution, because I start from an ansatz that I know that Koreans can be nationalistic, hot-headed lot, especially compared to the cool and more rational Japanese people that I hold to a very high regard.

    But the more I read or engage, the more I am flabbergasted at the complete non-case of the Japanese side, and the utter disappointment I feel. I would like to think there are more strong voices like Kenzaburo Oe’s, but it’s not so. The majority just seem to follow and get fed the shit their government gives them, just like the Chinese.

  • jk641

    Interestingly, the “comfort women” monument in New Jersey says that more than 200,000 women were made “sex slaves” of the Japanese. Is it just a coincidence that the number of female factory workers is the same number that Koreans claim were comfort women?

    Yes.

  • jk641

    providence,

    The Korean prince (king, later) proposed the invasion and prepared that many vessels.

    Wow, we certainly have a lot of discrepancies in terms of our historical knowledge.
    Is this what you were taught in school? That the Korean king proposed to the Mongols to invade Japan?

    In 1266 and 1268, Kubilai Khan sent emissaries to Japan and ordered them to surrender and send tributes, or else be invaded.
    After he was rebuffed by Japan twice, he was ready to invade Japan in 1268, but he did not have a sufficient navy.
    So in 1272 the Korean king told the Khan that he would help.
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Japan)

    Also,
    when I said “The countless Koreans who were tortured and killed”,
    I was mainly referring to the March 1 Movement and its aftermath.
    But during the Japanese occupation, the Japanese govt never stopped hunting down Korean independence fighters and any elements that it considered “seditious”.
    Korean freedom fighters also fought (alongside the Chinese) against the Japanese in Manchuria and China.

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

    In Comment #139, Jk641 said that the “comfort women” (military prostitutes – 위안부) and “female factory workers” (정신대) were the same women, but they were not the same women. The former provided sex to Japanese soldiers, and the latter worked in Japanese factories during World War II. Jk641 confused the two groups of women the same way many other Koreans confuse them.

    There were about 200,000 Japanese and Korean “female factory workers” (정신대) mobilized by the Japanese during World War II. Of that group, 50,000 to 70,000 of them were Korean women. These women were not prostitutes; they were factory workers.

    After being confronted with the above facts, Jk641 has now changed his mind in Comment #146 and seems to admit that the “comfort women” (위안부 – military prostitutes) and the “female factory workers” (정신대) were two separate groups of women. However, he now claims that it is just a coincidence that the number of “female factory workers” (200,000) is the same number that Koreans claim were “military sex slaves” (comfort women).

    I don’t think it is a coincidence. I think Koreans have either intentionally or unintentionally confused the two groups of women to come up with their 200,000 figure for comfort women, the same way Jk641 did.

  • JK

    Again, Gbevers mistakenly believes someone said something he didn’t then uses it to slam all ‘Koreans’ since supposedly all Koreans think alike. Still making a fool of yourself, Gbevers, after all these years.

  • provIdence

    jk641

    Why was the king interested in the matter of diplomacy between Japan and Mongol. How the king behaved on matters of Japan and Mongol is written in Korean history book of ‘高麗史’. You can find some references at the following:

    http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/忠烈王

    I hope you believe what written in the Korean history book. Whichever the truth was, it is not fair for you to accuse Japanese on the matter of pirates of the 13th and early 14th century because Korea and her allies were responsible for their appearance.

  • jk641

    gbevers,

    I have never confused 위안부 with 정신대.
    But Koreans were confused in the past.
    Between the 1960s and 1990s, newspaper articles referred to comfort women as 정신대. That’s what they were called.
    I think during WWII also there was a rumor that all Korean women conscripted into Women’s Volunteer Corps would be made comfort women. I’ve read that some were.

    The “200,000 comfort women” estimate is not solely a Korean one.
    A number of different researchers (Korean, Japanese, Chinese, etc.) have proposed different figures as to the total number of comfort women, some lower and some greater than 200k.
    200,000 seems to be the middle ground.

    I don’t know why you keep fixating on this number. It’s an estimate.
    Geez.

  • jk641

    providence,

    Whichever the truth was, it is not fair for you to accuse Japanese on the matter of pirates of the 13th and early 14th century because Korea and her allies were responsible for their appearance.

    Nonsense.
    The Japanese pirate raids started way before the Mongol invasions of Japan.
    “The first raid by Wokou on record occurred in the summer of 1223, on the south coast of Goryeo Korea.”
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wokou)

    It says that “The lack of political stability in Japan at the time was one of the primary causes of the appearance of wokou.”

  • provIdence

    jk641,

    Considering that very modern boats of Korea cannot often go from Ulluendo to Liancour Rocks even today, the early pirates of Japan must have had very good boats and sailing skills exceeding our expectations. Earlier Japan was very much depended on and thankful to a very famous Korean sailor. While worrying minor troubles, the whole country of Korea appears to have been taken by Mongolians. Do you think that modern Mongolians should at least pay money your ancestors spent in building the vessels?

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

    any koreans who lived through mongol invasion still alive today?

  • provIdence

    pawi,

    Thank you for the hint. Then you just keep accusing Mongolia or China, or both, on that matter.

    By the way, I made a request to jk641 @138. He could not think of anything. Can you kindly give me some examples on his behalf?

  • Q

    Bottomless Japanese pirates that often caused headache to neighbor countries (‘왜구도권’(倭寇圖卷), 16th Century, Ming dynasty painting):

    http://img.kbs.co.kr/cms/ICSFiles/artimage/2010/08/17/c_1tc_natio1/EMB000012d83094.png

    Was the bottomless fashion for feasibility to rape or severe diarrhea?

  • provIdence

    Q,

    Here you are. We all know you are a very kind person providing us with a huge varieties of references while no one was ever asking you. Saying that, I appreciate such references because they are often instructive for me. Tonight, I have something to request to you. As a matter of fact, I wrote a request to j641 at #138. He appeared very busy last night, or rather, this morning, and he could not think of anything other than 3.1. As I am very sleepy, I have been asking this to any one like ‘pawikirogi’ I happen to come across. I don’t know he is a Korean or not, and if not, it might be difficult to answer for him. So, please read #138 and give me a list of references.

  • Stereo

    >yuna November 4, 2012 at 5:14 am 144
    >1. when did it apologize, to whom and how?

    Do not you know this apology letter from the Prime minister of Japan to each former comfort woman?
    http://www.awf.or.jp/e6/statement-12.html

    “As Prime Minister of Japan, I thus extend anew my most sincere apologies and remorse to all the women who underwent immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women.”

  • yuna

    #158
    Well, then it’s about time you actually act sorry, and not say LIES IT’S ALL LIES and let us have our memorial plaque or photo exhibitions, and not talk about “reviewing” the statement

    Reading material for you.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/31/world/asia/31yoshimi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
    Grow up, Japan.

  • yuna

    “It may help the Japanese people” says a Canadian war veteran. Very telling.
    Instead,
    we get “Japanese military sex slavery did not exist, did it?” in the Japanese parliament
    What is a normal Japanese person’s answer to that woman politician’s question? And how are the old women who campaign next to the statue meant to accept and be happy with the so-called apology?

  • cm

    In the hindsight, United States should take part of the blame. After the victory against Japan in 1945, United States never dismantled Japan’s apparatus that was in charge of the Japanese Empire. Too bad, but Japan could have been the country with a strong leadership in Asia if they hadn’t had so much stubborn pride.

  • yuna

    What I find also strange, again, because I usually deem Japan to such a high standard, no not at all like the silly Koreans, is how they(both the politicians, let alone the stick-placers) seem to be mixing the two issues, Comfort Woman, and Tokdo.

  • Stereo

    >yuna

    Your comments became so illogical that I cannot understand you. Cannot you talk straight? Lies? What lies?

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

    Yuna wrote (#162):

    What I find also strange, again, because I usually deem Japan to such a high standard, no not at all like the silly Koreans, is how they(both the politicians, let alone the stick-placers) seem to be mixing the two issues, Comfort Woman, and Tokdo.

    What I find strange is that Koreans like Yuna are so blinded by nationalism that they blame the Japanese for conflating the Dokdo issue not only with the comfort women issue, but with almost every other historical issue between Korea and Japan.

    Why do Koreans do that? Because Koreans get more sympathy for the comfort women issue and annexation than they get for Dokdo. Koreans are trying to make people believe that since the Japanese annexed Korea and used Korean women as “comfort women,” they obviously also stole Dokdo. It’s logical, right?

    It is hard to find a Korean article on Dokdo where the comfort women, annexation, and other historical issues between Japan and Korea are not also mentioned.

    Here is an example from a Korea Times article entitled “Why we refuse to seek legal recourse on Dokdo”:

    Japan asserts the legitimacy of both its incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 and of the Korea-Japan annexation treaty in 1910, which Korea was forced to sign. However, in denying any legal responsibility for its actions on the grounds of “legitimacy,” Japan fails to mention the fact that, in 1895, as a precursor to its occupation of Korea, Japan ruthlessly assassinated the Korean Empress (“Queen Min”), who was resistant to Japanese influence. Furthermore, during its 35-year occupation, Japan caused enormous pain to Koreans, depriving innumerable Koreans of their lives and human rights, including the exploitation of women as sex slaves for its military (so-called “comfort women”).

  • JK

    Gbevers wrote:
    “Why do Koreans do that? Because Koreans get more sympathy for the comfort women issue and annexation than they get for Dokdo. Koreans are trying to make people believe that since the Japanese annexed Korea and used Korean women as “comfort women,” they obviously also stole Dokdo.”

    ONCE AGAIN, Gbevers makes a comment about “Koreans” like there’s some sort of group think or something. He did this in the past, he’s doing it now, and he’ll do it to his dying day because he has some beef with “Koreans.”

    And then he poses a question and stupidly answers it with an incorrect one.

    No wonder no one here takes him seriously.

  • JK

    As for the article you quoted (next time please put a link), what the writer was saying was that the seizing of Dokdo by the Japanese was yet one more step in an aggressive seizure of the entire Korean peninsula. This process had already started in 1895 (or maybe even earlier) and concluded with the complete seizure of ALL Korean territory in 1910. In between 1985 and 1910, Dokdo was seized by Japan. Territory was also illegally taken from Russia and China during this period. Why is this so hard for you to understand, Bevers??? Japan was WRONG, plain and simple.

  • provIdence

    To jk461 @147

    While I was waiting for a fortune of information I asked to others, I noticed you mentioned about Freedom Fighters. Is it the same thing as ‘独立軍’ Kim Wan Sup wrote “there was no such thing” in his book, which led to his arrest? If so, you may as well ask General Paik who answered to Rep. Kim Kwang-jin that there was no such thing. Strangely enough, Rep. Kim is being accused this time. This is a matter which requires changes to Korean history textbooks, and I am anxious to know the development. (I don’t ask you to deny its existence, because it can be a matter of life for you if you are in Korea.)

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

    Let me clarify what I meant to say in Comment #164. The Koreans, not the Japanese, have been the ones trying to conflate the Dokdo issue with other historical issues, including the comfort women issue.

    In fact, Korean President Lee said Japan’s reluctance to deal with the comfort women issue was what prompted him to visit Dokdo. In other words, even Korea’s president linked the two issues.

    For the past few years Koreans have been trying to link Japan’s incorporation of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) with Japan’s annexation of Korea, but they are separate issues. Koreans like to claim that Japan’s incorporation of “Dokdo” was the first step in Japan’s annexation of Korea, but Dokdo was never part of Korea and had little or no strategic importance. Such an argument relies on Westerners’ knowledge of Japan’s annexation of Korea and their ignorance of the history of Liancourt Rocks. However, that argument falls apart when Westerners start looking at the evidence.

  • provIdence

    While thinking about the mysterious comfort number of 200,000, I came across with a statement which says that Yun Jongok (尹貞玉) misread a book by Kakou Senda:

    http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/千田夏光

    It also says that the word ‘Military Comfort Women’ was first used in his book titled as such.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    GB, Koreans have wanted to talk to me about Dokdo, and I’ve made the mistake of stepping into that Afghanistan.

    They were Ph.D.’s and researchers, so they should have been smart. I do realize that we were playing on their turf but with my language, so I did not so much make points as simply ask questions. Apparently, I angered the hell out of them, and before we really should have finished they wanted me to drink hemlock.

    I explained to them that they wanted to know what I (as a waegukin) thought about the issue. I repeated (as I still do) that I had no skin in the game, and I hope that Dokdo stays with Korea for no better reason than my connection to Korea. The one question they really couldn’t get past though, is “if the argument is so obvious, why not go to the ICJ?” Their answers were preposterous, making everything from an analogy to “why doesn’t the U.S. go to the ICJ about Hawaii” to citing Japan’s relative power and influence.

    The other head-scratching argument that they gave was “all Koreans think Dokdo is Korea’s while even some Japanese think that Dokdo is Korea’s.” I did not cite you as an example, but I asked “what would happen if someone in Korea supported the position that Dokdo is Japan’s?”

    Their anger and vitriol had me fearing for my position. Apparently, I “can’t understand because [I am] not Korean.” In which case, they’re going to have a hard time at the world court and the world court of public opinion.

    Again, let me reiterate that I really hope Dokdo ends up with Korea, really for no better reason than I couldn’t give a rat’s ass.

  • JK

    Anonymous_Joe,

    WHY would anyone (in this case, Korea) who owned something go to a court to prove it was theirs when there is no danger of them losing it anyway?? That’s the silliest argument I’ve ever heard.

    Say I own my house. You come and claim it’s yours. Your argument is ridiculous, but you stick to your guns. I know that the truth supports my side. You want to take this to the ICJ as you would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by having the ICJ arbitrate this case while I have everything to lose and nothing to gain in doing so.

    WHY WOULD ANYONE GO TO COURT TO PROVE SOMETHING IS THEIRS WHEN THEY ALREADY OWN IT?

    Hey Anonymous, I like your car. I claim it was my own. I once owned it (by force) when I was a car thief (which I got away with compared to say, Nazi Germany). I say let’s take it to court!

    Please don’t tell me you would honestly agree to my request.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    You are arguing by analogy, and your analogy is weak. Why not simply cut-and-paste the “U.S. does not go to the ICJ for Hawaii” argument from my post?

    However, let me cursorily address your argument. Are you credible? On the surface, can you make some credible claim to my car or house? On the surface, unanswered, and unrefuted, Japan’s argument and evidence are credible.

    If Korea’s argument is so strong, Korea can but an end to all of this. Here are some benefits to Korea: Korea would not have to spend so much for its formidable defense of Dokdo. School children could learn something besides the history, topology, and geography of Dokdo. Korean politician would not have to be distracted and Koreans would not have to suffer the distraction of Dokdo when there are more pressing matters at hand.

    …oh, wait. Scratch that last one.

  • provIdence

    I am only waiting for examples of Japanese cruelties and massacres as I asked at Comment #138, and I have much time to make ‘thought’ questions. Although I may have to make improvements on them, I just show some of them now, just for noting.

    (1) Are Koreans happy to have had the 3.1 movement? — Yes
    (2) Are Koreans happier if they did not have the 3.1 movement? — Yes
    (3) Are Koreans sad if they did not have the 3.1 movement? — Yes

    Which is the answer, (1), (2) or (3)?

    (4) Korean style of control of civil uprising as exemplified in Vietnam
    (5) Japanese style of control of civil uprising as exemplified at the 3.1.

    Which do you prefer, Korean style (4) or Japanese style (5)?

    When I speak of Vietnam, a song comes up to me. American style.
    You may listen, but, (I can’t think of words. It’s a long long time ago.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYii6nxhvUk

  • Anonymous_Joe

    “WHY would anyone (in this case, Korea) who owned something go to a court to prove it was theirs when there is no danger of them losing it anyway?? That’s the silliest argument I’ve ever heard.”

    No, it’s a great argument. “There is no danger of them losing it anyway.”

    “Say I own my house. You come and claim it’s yours. Your argument is ridiculous, but you stick to your guns. I know that the truth supports my side.

    The begging the question fallacy aside, ridiculous is not so ridiculous as you might think in real estate law. Chain of title can get quite messy, and you might think that you own your real estate because you purchased a warranty deed, have been living openly and hostilely (by defending your property rights) on the property for the past 12 years, have the keys to the doors, and all your sweet stuff inside, but wait until someone knocks on your door with a credible claim of broken chain of title.

    …tell ridiculous to the judge, and then try to argue Dokdo by analogy.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    for clarity I should have written “conveyance by general warranty deed”

  • Anonymous_Joe

    165 JK: “ONCE AGAIN, Gbevers makes a comment about ‘Koreans’ like there’s some sort of group think or something.”

    :roll:

  • jk641

    providence,

    “(1) Are Koreans happy to have had the 3.1 movement? — Yes”

    “(4) Korean style of control of civil uprising as exemplified in Vietnam
    (5) Japanese style of control of civil uprising as exemplified at the 3.1.”

    Are you actually comparing what happened in Vietnam War with the 3.1 Movement? I am at a loss for words.
    Japanese are incredible.

  • Q

    Toshiyuki Tanaka’s “Japan’s Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution during World War II and the US occupation” has a chapter, US military indifference towards comfort women:

    Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945, and the occupation of Japan led by the US forces commenced less than two weeks later. The purpose of the occupation was “democratization” of Japan’s entire political, economic, and social system. As one of the important exercises in this process, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (usually know as the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal) was convened to prosecute Japanese war leaders who had investigated the war against the Allied nations and bore final responsibility for the various war crimes committed by their own forces. The tribunal, which lasted two and a half year, was presented with massive evidence of such war crimes as rape, murder, and ill-treatment committed by the Japanese against Allied soldiers and non-combatants. Yet the issue of comfort women – a crime against humanity on an unprecedented scale – was never dealt with by this trial

    Does this mean that the US authorities were utterly unaware of this crime? On the contrary, well before the end of the World War II, the US armed forces became aware of the comfort women system organized by the Japanese Imperial forces.

    […] Some photos of Korean, Chinese, and Indonesian comfort women captured by the Allied forces have been found at the Public Record Office in London, the US National Archives, and the Australian War Memorial. However, the fact that no record of interrogation of these comfort women has yet been found implies that neither the US forces nor the British and Australian forces were interested in investigating crimes committed by the Japanese forces against Asian women. It can therefore be concluded that the military authorities of the Allied nations did not regard the comfort women issue as an unprecedented war crime and a case which seriously violated international law, despite their having substantial knowledge about this matter.

    There were two cases in which some members of the Japanese Amry were tried and prosecuted at B&C Class war crimes tribunals for the crime of enforced prostitution. One involved 35 Dutch girls in Indonesia, who were force to work at military brothels for about two months – the case that we have examined in the previous chapter. The victims in the other case were islanders from Guam. However, these were exceptional cases in that the victims in the former case were Caucasians and the trial in the latter case was conducted in conjunction with an affront to the American national flag by the Japanese.

    […] Why was awareness of the comfort women issue as a serious war crime clearly lacking in the mind of the leaders of the Allied forces? One reason probably lies in the fact that the majority of the women victims of this enforced military prostitution were Asians and were therefore neither white women nor civilians of the Allied nations. As we have seen in the previous chapter, the Dutch forces, who prosecuted Japanese officers for the crime of forcing Dutch girls and women into prostitution, did not even bother to investigate most cases in which Indonesian women were victimized. Some historians have pointed to the “absence of Asia” in the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. Probably the comfort women issue was also ignored for the same reason. It took almost half a century for the enslavement of the comfort women to be considered one of the most serious and unprecedented war crimes in history.

    Another reason can be sought in soldiers’ common perception of women (i.e. their sexual ideas), which we find more or less universally in military ideology, regardless of its nationality. A common refrain is the idea that women are morally obliged to offer amenities to soldiers who are fighting at the risk of their lives, to defend their people and the nation. This kind of androcentric ideology has been, and still is, deeply rooted in most military forces and the societies that support them. For this reason, military men are generally quite insensitive toward the services rendered by women. American soldiers and officers during the World War II were undoubtedly tainted with these attitudes, and this was probably one of the major factors that hindered them from correctly understanding the comfort women issue.

  • provIdence

    Although I gave a reference to the number 200,000 which appears almost always as the number of comfort women, at #169, I think I should have shown the essence more explicitly (by my translation):

    In the book [Military Comfort Women I], Kakou Senda wrote that “Among the 200,000 women mobilized as Women’s Volunteer Service Corps, 50 to 70 thousand women were forcefully made to engage in prostitution.” According to studies, however, no example of women, belonging to WVSC, working in prostitution has been confirmed.

    He wrote, in addition, “Among the 200,000 women mobilized as WVSC, 50 to 70 thousand women were from Korean peninsula, and the lest were from mainland Japan.” The trouble about the WVSC had become more complicated when Yun Jongok (尹貞玉) misread this as “200,000 Korean Military Comfort Women”.

    So, according to the wiki entry, Yun Jongok (尹貞玉) created the 200,000 military comfort women misreading a book by Kakou Senda.

  • yuna

    What I find strange is that Koreans like Yuna are so blinded by nationalism that they blame the Japanese for conflating the Dokdo issue not only with the comfort women issue, but with almost every other historical issue between Korea and Japan.

    HA!
    1. Read the actual post. That’s right. Japanese rightwing asshat defaces New Jersey comfort memorial. Now how did he deface it? and who was it who did it? That’s right.

    2, Read the first sentence from the yomiuri shimbun

    South Korean President Lee Myung Bak’s recent visit to the Takeshima islands has reignited the so-called comfort women issue.

    That’s right. Who wrote that? LMB? No. Yuna? No.

    The more you talk on this blog, the more good you do the Koreans. Kind of like your campaign against the Korean language.

  • Q
  • yuna

    but with almost every other historical issue between Korea and Japan.

    And who is it who keeps asking weird historical questions off topic to stir more shit on this thread?
    Is it Yuna? No. Is it a Korean? No. That’s right. It’s your friends who drifted in here (and very welcome they are, as they show their true colours).

  • yuna

    I reiterate, LMB visiting Dokdo was the most WTF thing one could do, so transparent in his agenda to deflect from all the shit that’s about to hit the fan as his tenure endes, and this sentiment is echoed by insiders and the outsiders. Some Koreans even think that it was done under secret agreement with the Japanese government, who faced similar situation (want of a popularity boost)
    Korean government officially, up till now was trying to do a “quiet diplomacy on Dokdo” and all the hype and the song and dance that you’s complain about, were mostly done by civilians.

    LMB, like bulldozer that he is, managed to smash it all in one swoop.
    Clap Clap Clap.

  • provIdence

    jk641 @177,

    Thank you for your quick response. You didn’t like the second question. So, it must be improved.

    The first question appears passable, and I like your choice. As I am reading Mrs. Bishop’s “Korea and Her Neighbors” at Sogan Univ., I am sure she should have been delighted at the news only if she survived up to that time. According to articles we can find on the net, many Japanese applauded Koreans at the news. It is understandable as I am reading her book. I am at Chapter 32 now.

    We can possibly talk about the 3.1 in the future as I try to improve those questions. One thing I want to ask now is whether the Freedom Fighters and Independence Army are the same thing or not. They were working just outside the Korean peninsula if they were ever present.

  • JK

    To Anonmous Joe @74:

    “You are arguing by analogy, and your analogy is weak. ”

    No, it’s not.

    Anonymous wrote:
    “On the surface, unanswered, and unrefuted, Japan’s argument and evidence are credible.”

    Bullsh*t. Have you even read the arguments going back and forth between the two sides? And can you STILL say the Japanese side is right?

    Irregardless, as I’ve told Gbevers on this blog and others, I WANT him to prove that Dokdo is really Japanese territory. That way, I can thus proclaim that South Korea TOOK Japanese territory as a reparation for its wrongful colonization of Korea. Heck, I wouldn’t have minded if South Korea took the island of Okinawa. Alas, Bevers and the right-wing Japanese failed in this endeavor, so I have to accept the bittersweet fact that South Korea merely took back its own territory when it took Dokdo in 1951.

    Anonymous then wrote:
    “The begging the question fallacy aside, ridiculous is not so ridiculous as you might think in real estate law. Chain of title can get quite messy, and you might think that you own your real estate because you purchased a warranty deed, have been living openly and hostilely (by defending your property rights) on the property for the past 12 years, have the keys to the doors, and all your sweet stuff inside, but wait until someone knocks on your door with a credible claim of broken chain of title. ”

    That’s the whole point, isn’t it? WHAT credible claim of broken chain of title occurred? Japan was expanding after its modernization. It began its expansion into Korea in 1895. It concluded its takeover in 1910. In between it took the Korean territory of Dokdo during Japan’s conflict with Russia.

    In the early 1950s, Korea took back the island of Dokdo. Plain and simple.

    And once again, Anonymous, if I were to make a claim on your house or other possessions based on a fictitious history where I once stole your house and occupied it illegally Japanese-style but you now own it, why would you go to court to fight with me over ownership of your house when you own it and I can do nothing about it?? Going to court means ownership of this house is being decided by a third party and you COULD lose possession of your house. Why go to court when you legally already own it? Why would you even RISK that? Geez…how hard is this for you to understand?

    Anonymous then wrote:
    “If Korea’s argument is so strong, Korea can but an end to all of this. Here are some benefits to Korea: Korea would not have to spend so much for its formidable defense of Dokdo. School children could learn something besides the history, topology, and geography of Dokdo. Korean politician would not have to be distracted and Koreans would not have to suffer the distraction of Dokdo when there are more pressing matters at hand.”

    But Korea could potentially lose something it has no reason to fight for since it already owns it. Think logically for once! The League of Nations recognized Manchuria as a part of China, but that didn’t stop the Japanese from taking it. Even if the ICJ ruled in favor of Korea, the Republic of Korea would STILL patrol the island. School children DO learn something in school besides the topic of Dokdo. What planet are you living on, Anonymous??

    I hope this argument finally sank in. I doubt it, but one can hope.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    185 JK:

    Anonymous wrote: ‘You are arguing by analogy, and your analogy is weak.’ ”

    “No, it’s not.”

    I gave a reasonably thorough explanation for the reasons your analogy was weak. If Korea argues “No, it’s not” for their reasoning at the world court, their Dokdo “argument” is going to get blown out of the water.

    “Anonymous wrote:

    ‘On the surface, unanswered, and unrefuted, Japan’s argument and evidence are credible.’

    Bullsh*t. Have you even read the arguments going back and forth between the two sides? And can you STILL say the Japanese side is right?

    Have you read the part about “unanswered” and “unrefuted“? There is no “back and forth” if Japan only presents its evidence and its argument and Korea does not.

    Irregardless, as I’ve told Gbevers on this blog and others, I WANT him to prove that Dokdo is really Japanese territory. …

    Cazzawha? Nothing to do with me, and I GBevers does not have standing in the case.

    ” Anonymous then wrote: ‘The begging the question fallacy aside, ridiculous is not so ridiculous as you might think in real estate law. Chain of title can get quite messy…’ ”

    That’s the whole point, isn’t it? WHAT credible claim of broken chain of title occurred?

    The whole point is that I tried to argue based on your weak analogy by argument. Even fraudulent claims go to court. Good news for Korea, the ICJ should summarily toss Japan’s clearly fraudulent claim and provide Korea with yet another opportunity to humiliate Japan.

    “And once again, Anonymous, if I were to make a claim on your house or other possessions based on a fictitious history where I once stole your house and occupied it illegally Japanese-style but you now own it, why would you go to court to fight with me over ownership of your house when you own it and I can do nothing about it?? Going to court means ownership of this house is being decided by a third party and you COULD lose possession of your house. Why go to court when you legally already own it? Why would you even RISK that? Geez…how hard is this for you to understand?

    I would perceive zero risk if the claim were as flimsy as you believe that Japan’s claim for Dokdo is. The point of my “property argument” is that even with a fraudulent claim, I would have to go to court. If I don’t show up and refute the fraudulent argument, the court would make a judgment, and guess who would prevail?

    “Anonymous then wrote:

    ‘If Korea’s argument is so strong, Korea can but an end to all of this.’

    But Korea could potentially lose something it has no reason to fight for since it already owns it. …
    How could Korea lose? Even though Korea’s claim is so strong as to be irrefutable, does Japan have the persuasive power to convince that black is white?

    I hope this argument finally sank in. I doubt it, but one can hope.

    Perchance dost thou have Netizen blood coursing through thy brain? Take your argument to a non-Korean, and see how well you do. Or better yet, encourage Korea to go to the International Court of Justice and be done with it.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Again, I have no skin in the game, and I hope Korea wins its Dokdo argument for no better reason than I have ties to Korea and none to Japan. But anyone aside from Koreans (sui generis) must marvel at Korean reasoning as exemplified in this case by the likes of JK.

  • JK

    Anonymous,

    Your arguments are very weak, and using it as an excuse to slam ‘Koreans’ (implying the entire population) is pretty pathetic.

    I’m sure there are others (non-Koreans at that like Frogmouth) that agree with my logic, but the point is I don’t need support to make the obvious case THAT NO ONE WOULD GO TO COURT TO HAVE A THIRD PARTY DECIDE IF HE SHOULD HAVE LEGAL RIGHT TO POSSESS SOMETHING HE ALREADY POSSESSES AND THAT HE IS IN NO DANGER OF LOSING. SOUTH KOREA WOULD BE STUPID TO GO TO THE ICJ TO DECIDE OWNERSHIP OF DOKDO SINCE SOUTH KOREA OWNS IT ANYWAY AND IS NOT ABOUT TO LOSE IT.

    Going to court to decide ownership only benefits the other party who COULD get the island. Japan could either 1) get the island or 2) not get it and be without Dokdo (exactly like it is now). So it makes absolute sense for Japan to insist going to the ICJ. South Korea could 1) keep the island or 2) lose the island it already possesses.

    I won’t hold my breath expecting you to understand, Anonymous, but that is the logic of why going to the ICJ would be stupid for South Korea.

  • JK

    Actually, Anonymous, the Hawaii analogy is perfect to illustrate the point that is not sinking in that brain of yours.

    Say another nation makes claim on Hawaii with some bogus historical claims. Should the US go to court and risk losing Hawaii when it already owns it? Nope, the US would be stupid to do it. Likewise, South Korea would be stupid to go to the ICJ to decide rightful ownership of Dokdo when it already possesses Dokdo.

    I already know you won’t get it, but this logic is sound. I’m sorry that you got ripped into by a few Koreans for stating your opinion on this case, but their apparently overly emotional reaction does not take away from the logic of their Hawaii analogy, which was quite strong.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #185 JK: “But Korea could potentially lose something it has no reason to fight for since it already owns it.”

    If the ICJ is a court of law, then the ICJ will only consider and issue judgments on the legal arguments and evidence. If as you assert Japan has no legal arguments or evidence, then how could Korea potentially lose?

    Post your answer JK: under what scenario or in what situation could Korea potentially lose?

  • Q

    One possible situation Korea potentially lose is when Judge Hisashi Owada might play a dirty trick.

    http://www.icj-cij.org/court/?p1=1&p2=2&p3=1&judge=13

    Considering he is from Japanese legal system where the Former chief Justice of Japan, Tōru Miyoshi is the chair of Nippon Kaigi, the Japanese right wing political association, it is a possible scenario:

    ‘Japan Conference,’ pro-Yasukuni force, makes up the core of Abe Cabinet

    “Now that part of the postwar regime has fallen apart with the revision of the Fundamental Law of Education, it is high time to break the main part of this regime, the Constitution, and replace it with a constitution specially made for the Japanese people.”

    A recently published magazine called “Nippon no Ibuki (Breath of Japan)” enthusiastically welcomes Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s call for “breaking away from the postwar regime” as a golden opportunity for constitutional revision. This is a magazine of the Japan Conference (Nippon Kaigi), which marks its 10th founding anniversary this year.

    The Japan Conference was established on May 30, 1997, through the merger of the “National Congress to Defend Japan (Nippon wo Mamoru Kokumin-Kaigi)” founded in 1981 and the “Society to Defend Japan (Nippon wo Mamoru Kai)” founded in 1974. The new organization was a product of their effort to unite rightist pro-constitutional revision forces that had promoted at the grassroots level since the 1970s movements demanding constitutional revision, legalization of the imperial era name, and opposition to the separate surname system for married couples.

    The Japan Conference at present is led by Chair Miyoshi Toru, former chief justice of the Supreme Court, Vice Chair Odamura Shiro, former president of Takushoku University, Vice Chair Yamamoto Takuma, chairman emeritus of Fujitsu Limited. They are also acting as representing worshippers for Yasukuni Shrine, the center propagandizing justification for Japan’s past war of aggression. Thus, the Japan Conference is recognized as the headquarters of the pro-Yasukuni forces.

    235 Dietmembers

    One day before the inauguration of the Japan Conference, the Japan Conference Dietmembers Council was formed with the participation of more than 200 dietmembers. As of June 2005, 235 Dietmembers of the Liberal Democratic Party, Democratic, and People’s New parties as well as independents joined this group.

    The Japan Conference and the Japan Conference Dietmembers Council came into being amid their “sense of crisis” that reflection on Japan’s past war of aggression could spread widely in society. In 1993, then Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei issued a statement expressing remorse over Japan’s conduct during WWII of forcing foreign women into sex slavery. In 1995, then Prime Minister Murayama Tomiichi in his statement expressed an apology for Japan’s past erroneous policy of aggression and colonial rule.

    The Japan Conference took a hostile view of these moves. Its prospectus said, “The ever spreading view of history of the Tokyo Trial (the International Military Tribunal for the Far East) is creating an obsequious diplomacy of apologizing to foreign countries and robbing young people who will bear the Japan’s destiny of their pride and confidence in their nation.”

    Since then, the Japan Conference has been trying to impose on Japanese society, fully making use of state power, their peculiar values justifying the past war of aggression and eulogizing the state and the society of Japan that rushed to war.

    The Japan Conference produced a movie entitled “We Won’t Forget” shown at “Yushukan”, Yasukuni Shrine’s war museum. This film praises Japan’s war of aggression, saying, “It was a war for self-existence and of self-defense in which 100 million Japanese people fought with heroic resolution for the continued existence of the state and nation.”

    Emperor at the top of the nation

    On May 3, the Preparatory Committee to Promote Enactment of a New Constitution, formed under the Japan Conference Dietmembers Council, made public a draft outline for a new constitution clarifying their view of an ideal nation.

    It proposed an emperor-centered nation, stating, “United around the emperor, the Japanese people have overcome many difficulties and developed their country.” It stipulated the emperor as “the head of the state.”

    The draft devoted a chapter to “Family” in which it states, “The value of family as Japan’s traditional and laudable custom is placed under the protection and assistance by the state.”

    It proposed a complete revision of Article 9 that renounces war, declares non-possession of war potential, and denies the right of belligerency.

    On the other hand, it calls for “a clear definition of the principle regulating human rights” and states that the Japanese citizens have “the duty to defend the nation.”

    The draft is calling for placing the emperor at the top of the nation, imposing restrictions on human rights, regarding the family as the basic unit of the nation, and mobilizing all citizens for war; hence, it is indeed calling for the revival of the prewar Japanese society.

    Causing concerns over its peculiar values

    The Abe Cabinet is pro-Yasukuni and led by members of the Japan Conference Dietmembers’ Council. Prime Minister Abe himself was the deputy secretary general of the council until 2005.

    Among 18 Abe Cabinet members, 12 are in the council. Combined with those who take part in other similar Dietmembers’ groups, the number of pro-Yasukuni cabinet members has reached 15.

    Furthermore, two vice cabinet secretaries and four of the prime minister’s special advisors also are members of the council.

    ‘Just war’

    Prime Minister Abe’s slogan, “Beautiful country, Japan,” comes from “reconstruction of the beautiful country,” a slogan that the Japan Conference put up at the time of its establishment. His call for “breaking away from the postwar regime” implies the reconstruction of a prewar national polity centered on the emperor.

    The pro-Yasukuni force is claiming that Japan’s war of aggression was a “just war,” and denounces the preamble to the Constitution calling for lasting peace as “a bond of apology to the Allied powers.” They appreciate “family values” established within the polity centered on the emperor as “a traditional and beautiful custom.”

    The fact that the pro-Yasukuni force, which maintains such peculiar values longing for the prewar society, has taken the center stage casts a shadow on Japan’s future. Concerns over it has been expressed even in the LDP itself and in the United States.

    At a symposium held in Tokyo on May 20, LDP House of Representatives Constitutional Research Committee Director Funada Hajime said, “Our party has started to deviate from the cardinal idea to restrain the state power by the limits imposed by the Constitution,” adding, “Mentioning of the idea to prescribe in the Constitution duties of people to love nation and other duties will make things dubious.”

    Isolated from rest of Asia

    Referring to Abe’s slogan of “Breaking away from the postwar regime,” U.S. Columbia University Professor Gerald Curtis said that it is hard to understand that the leader of a democratic country calls for a regime change of his own country and expressed his wish to hear Abe’s explanation about what part of the postwar regime is so bad.

    Francis Fukuyama, a conservative critic, said, “Japan’s unilateral revision of Article 9, viewed against the backdrop of its new nationalism, would isolate Japan from virtually the whole of Asia.” – Akahata, May 27, 2007

  • JK

    Well, Q answered your question, Anonymous. But let me further state, in general it’s stupid to go to court to let someone decide the fate of your possession if there is even a REMOTE chance that they might decide for the other party. Hey, courts don’t always make the right decisions. Remember OJ in 1995?

    Why even do that and risk it? You might have a Gerry Bevers presiding over the ICJ, who while he may claim to be objective all he can, but would suspend the logic button in his brain and side with the Japanese.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #191 Q, do you mean that an international court that is made up of international judges has one Japanese judge on it. :shock:

    Ya know, you can’t trust those slanty eyed bastards. The court should be on guard against Japanese Judge Hisashi Owada so that he can’t “play a dirty trick”. What if the ICJ recused Judge Owada and barred him from entering the court so that he can’t lay whoopi cushions on jurists’ chairs and light hotfoots under their feet?

    The rest of your cut-and-paste post makes me think that you put the ‘Q’ in non seQuiter.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #192 JK: when do you recommend that disagreeing parties go to arbitration?

    Listen, Koreans’ “there is no dispute”, “Dokdo is not a political issue”, “SK is too busy to go to court”, “the case is so obvious (but we might lose)” arguments do not play well with foreigners or in the international community. Waegukin in Korea will agree with you to your faces out of fear for their jobs, but we all laugh behind Koreans’ backs because Koreans demand that we lie to their faces.

    (BTW, your remember OJ is a straw man. OJ was a criminal trial, and the burden of proof was much higher; Dokdo is a civil issue. Besides, OJ lost the civil trial.)

  • Q

    Hey, he is not just “one” international judge. He is the President of the International Court of Justice.

  • Q

    Listen, Koreans’ “there is no dispute”, “Dokdo is not a political issue”, “SK is too busy to go to court”, “the case is so obvious (but we might lose)” arguments do not play well with foreigners or in the international community.

    Please yell at Japan the same thing over Senkaku and Kuril, dude.

  • JK

    Anonymous wrote:
    “Waegukin in Korea will agree with you to your faces out of fear for their jobs, but we all laugh behind Koreans’ backs because Koreans demand that we lie to their faces.”

    First of all, I am an American (Korean-American ethnically, but American all the same). Secondly, are you taking your generalizing statements about ‘Koreans’ and now speaking for all foreigners in Korea? Dude, you have Westerners on this very blog living in Korea who believe with all their conviction that Dokdo belongs to Korea. You have Westerners on this blog (well, mainly one or two) who believe just as strongly that Dokdo belongs to Japan. Quit thinking you speak for all “Waegukin” in Korea. Third (and continuing from the second point), YOU may laugh, but don’t speak for all foreigners in Korea because you would be wrong as I illustrated already.

    South Korea is doing the smart thing by not going to the ICJ. I will keep saying it until it sinks into your brain, Anonymous, but you don’t suddenly bet ownership on something when you already have it. In the case of Korea, the most you have to gain is the very property you have and the most you have to lose is the very property you didn’t even need to gamble with in the first place just to prove your opponent wrong. If you don’t get this, which you apparently you do not, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

    And Q, good points @ 196.

  • JK

    My point about OJ, Anonymous, is that courts DO make wrong judgments…and they do it often as the OJ trial was an example of. They do it also for property. That’s to be expected; courts are comprised of humans who are not infallible.

    Hence, why South Korea should never go to the ICJ to get ownership of Dokdo…when it already HAS Dokdo.

    If International bodies such as the ICJ are so almighty in your eyes, then I wonder if the same applies for the League of Nations after WWI. After all, the League recognized Korea as belonging to Japan despite how much the Korean populace protested (actually, they were barred from protesting offically to the League). With this kind of history, you’re saying South Korea should gamble with its own territory to an international court that could (not likely) side with the Japanese argument? No, South Korea is doing the smart thing by not taking it to the courts.

    Heck, I wonder if South Korea should make a claim on the city of Tokyo based on some historical claim. Should Japan then go the ICJ? Yeah, right.

  • Bendrix

    Exactly, if you already own something, why would you gamble on that ownership if you have the title in hand? That would be like indulging your neighbor’s false claims that he is the rightful owner of part of your yard by agreeing to take the case to court. It would be a stupid move to even waste the energy or take a risk on something like that.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #197 JK: “Anonymous wrote:

    “Waegukin in Korea will agree with you to your faces out of fear for their jobs, but we all laugh behind Koreans’ backs because Koreans demand that we lie to their faces.”

    …are you taking your generalizing statements about ‘Koreans’ and now speaking for all foreigners in Korea? Dude, you have Westerners on this very blog living in Korea who believe with all their conviction that Dokdo belongs to Korea. …YOU may laugh, but don’t speak for all foreigners in Korea because you would be wrong as I illustrated already.

    ummm…. way to take my quote out of context.

    I’ve said nothing about Korea’s claim on Dokdo other than “I have no skin in the game”, “I hope that Dokdo stays with Korea for no better reason than my connection to Korea”, and the like. Nowhere have I ever said that I thought that Dokdo did not belong to Korea.

    Here’s the full context of the quote, given by simply appending the preceding sentence in the same paragraph:

    “Listen, Koreans’ “there is no dispute”, “Dokdo is not a political issue”, “SK is too busy to go to court”, “the case is so obvious (but we might lose)” arguments do not play well with foreigners or in the international community. Waegukin in Korea will agree with you to your faces out of fear for their jobs, but we all laugh behind Koreans’ backs because Koreans demand that we lie to their faces.

    I never wrote that laugh at Korea’s claim to Dokdo; I wrote.foreigners laugh behind Koreans backs at the rationalizations Koreans make for not settling the matter at the International Court of Justice.

    …and we laugh at Koreans lack of reading comprehension and logic skills while fearing for our jobs due to the lack of those skills.

    Although seemingly harsh, lack of reading comprehension and logic skills is the charitable interpretation of this cultural difference. The objective interpretation for such repeated incidents is intellectual dishonesty.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #198 JK: “My point about OJ, Anonymous, is that courts DO make wrong judgments…and they do it often as the OJ trial was an example of. They do it also for property. That’s to be expected; courts are comprised of humans who are not infallible.”

    You are arguing by analogy, so your argument is only so strong as the situations are analogous.

    Let me ask you: is Korea’s evidence and claim on Dokdo stronger, weaker, or the same as the evidence for OJ in the criminal trial?

    Also, OJ prevailed only in the criminal trial, which had a burden of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”. OJ lost the civil trial, which was decided by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

    Is Korea’s claim on Dokdo, stronger, weaker, or the same as in the OJ case based on a preponderance of evidence?

    (Remember, you wanted to reason by the OJ analogy, so defend your reasoning.)

  • http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

    Waegukin in Korea will agree with you to your faces out of fear for their jobs, but we all laugh behind Koreans’ backs because Koreans demand that we lie to their faces.

    Speak for yourself.

  • tinyflowers

    Anonymouse,
    Why go to trial to determine ownership of something you already own? How many times must this be repeated for it to sink in? I don’t know why this concept is so difficult to comprehend for you. Is it stupidity, lack of reading comprehension or intellectual dishonesty?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #202 Robert Koehler:

    “Waegukin in Korea will agree with you to your faces out of fear for their jobs, but we all laugh behind Koreans’ backs because Koreans demand that we lie to their faces.”

    Speak for yourself.

    Mr. Koehler, I did not say “all waegukin in Korea”; I simply said “Waegukin in Korea”. My statement stands as logically consistent. I think outside of Korea and without fear for their livelihoods, many waegukin would opine differently.

    On this board, in pubs across America, in breakrooms, foreigners (I will use Americans in my examples) do not fear questioning their most cherished truths.

    For example, if I questioned while chatting up my coworkers around the water cooler that the U.S. was the aggressor against Japan in WWII, instigated the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and should be tried as war criminals for the use of Atomic weapons against a Japanese civilian population, my coworkers might laugh and think that I was stirring the pot at best, a crackpot at worst.

    Try playing devil’s advocate in Korea on whether Korea should go to the ICJ let alone Japan’s merits on the Dokdo issue.

    In fact, your the editor of a magazine, why don’t you write an article: Japan’s Argument for Dokdo, even explicitly prefacing that the article is written from the devil’s advocate position? After all, you have no reason to fear for your job, and you’re in the magazine sellin’ business, aint’cha?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #203 tinyflowers: “Anonymouse,
    Why go to trial to determine ownership of something you already own?”

    To force others to recognize your obvious claim to ownership. If the ICJ rules for Korea, Japan, the U.S., and the rest of the world would be forced to recognize Korea’s ownership of Dokdo.

    Apple and Google could be forced to recognize Dokdo’s proper name in their mapping and other services.

    If Japan landed on Dokdo, the world community would be forced to condemn Japan’s actions as hostile and aggressive acts of war. Countries that Korea has treaties with would be forced to come to their moral and military defense.

    If Japan landed on Dokdo the U.S. would view Japan’s invasion as an act of war and necessarily side with Korea. Without a declaration from the ICJ, the U.S., particularly its taxpayers, would say “settle your dispute in the world court.”

    Are those good reasons?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    …and once again, I feel compelled to post the following disclaimer:
    I have no opinion and not much knowledge about the merits of the relative claims by both Korea and Japan on the Dokdo issue. I have no skin in the game, and do not stand to personally profit by the ultimate outcome of the Dokdo issue. I hope that Korea gains international recognition for its claim that Dokdo is Korean territory for as simple a reason as I have a personal connection to Korea.

  • tinyflowers

    the rest of the world would be forced to recognize Korea’s ownership of Dokdo

    The world already recognizes Korea’s de facto ownership of Dokdo. Why would Korea go to court to “force” the rest of the world to recognize the status quo?

    If Japan landed on Dokdo, the world community would be forced to condemn Japan’s actions as hostile and aggressive acts of war

    Dokdo isn’t under imminent threat of invasion by the Japanese, and won’t be in the foreseeable future. I’m surprised how quickly you had to resort to conjuring up these wild hypothetical situations though. I guess that answers your last question.

  • tinyflowers

    #206,
    That’s a bit of a spineless disclaimer.
    “I have no real opinion on the subject, but I’ll use it as a soapbox to rant on and on about how “The Koreans” are liars and thieves.” Grow a pair. Take a stand for what you believe in. If you don’t believe what you’re saying, then just STFU. At least gbevers staked his real name and professional career on the subject, and paid the price. But you, you’re just a shit-stirrer with “no opinion and not much knowledge”

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #208 tinyflowers:
    “#206,
    That’s a bit of a spineless disclaimer.
    “I have no real opinion on the subject, but I’ll use it as a soapbox to rant on and on about how “The Koreans” are liars and thieves.”

    You have quoted me out of context: I have no real opinion on the subject of the validity of the relative claims by Korea and Japan on Dokdo. I have a strong opinion on whether Korea should go to the ICJ.

    Nowhere have I used the term “The Koreans“, and I certainly in no place called them “liars and thieves” as you have put in quotes. You at best lack reading comprehension skills and are more likely dishonest. Either find the quote or retract.

    Grow a pair. Take a stand for what you believe in. If you don’t believe what you’re saying, then just STFU.

    I have taken a strong stand and strongly believe what I am saying: Korea should go to the International Court of Justice and gain international legal recognition that even Japan must recognize.

    At least gbevers staked his real name and professional career on the subject, and paid the price. But you, you’re just a shit-stirrer with “no opinion and not much knowledge”

    Isn’t this the part that means gbevers lost his job because he held an opinion Koreans en masse determined should not even be discussed? Isn’t this my stated reason for feeling compelled to write a disclaimer? Isn’t this the part that I fear some Netizens will quote me out of context, attribute statements to me that I never made, threaten my position?

    The phrase “no opinion and not much knowledge” was snipped from the sentence, “I have no opinion and not much knowledge about the merits of the relative claims by both Korea and Japan on the Dokdo issue.” Your dishonesty diminishes what little was left of your credibility. The only opinion that I have strongly stated and supported in this thread is that Korea should go to the International Court of Justice and be done with this issue.

    The ad hominem “shit stirrer” is just another phrase for troll. Ad hominems and the troll epithet are the last refuge for those who have no real counter argument beyond “dummy”, “stupid”, “idiot”, “where’s the troll spray….”

    If you really want to see whether you can engage in honest, rational debate, write a post summarizing my opinion the way I would write it.

  • Q

    싫다는데 자꾸 여관방 가자는 성폭행범 같은 소리하고 있네…

  • provIdence

    jk641 at #123,

    The accusations on Japan written in this comment (#128) appear to be wrong except the story of Hideyoshi which appears to have some truth.

    By the way, I want to have some more cases of Japanese atrocities, from anyone here, as described in Comment #138.

  • Q

    Japan knows that the trial could not even start at the ICJ without SK’s consent, because of Korea-Japan Treaty in 1965. That’s why they are so much restless over “SK should to ICJ!” agenda. Japan might be glad to pay someone to stir the ICJ sh*t around Korea blogsphere.

  • JK

    Sigh. So I guess South Korea should follow Anonymous’ silly advice, voluntarily go to the ICJ (because it cannot be FORCED to go to the ICJ), and risk losing its territory of Dokdo while the the upside is that it just gets to keep what it already has.

    Anonymous, I know already you won’t change your mind, but your logic is so flawed it’s not even funny. If South Korea goes to the ICJ and wins, it pretty much is in the same situation it is now, which is it has ownership of Dokdo and will continue to have anger over the colonization by Japan; if it loses (because anything is possible), it loses territory it should have never gambled away with to the ICJ anyway.

    But I suppose South Korea should risk and all with nothing to gain just because Anonymous says so. OMG….

  • provIdence

    I found, for Koreans’ delight, that Mr. Hisashi Owada is not the “President” of the ICJ anymore. His tenure was from February 6, 2009 to February 5, 2012.

    http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/小和田恆

    I think Korea has right not to go to the ICJ not because of the Treaty of 1965 but because Korea has declared to be no part of it, indicating she cannot take anything to the court either. I also hear that Korea still has to present her excuses to the ICJ when indicted by a country.

    China has the same policy, and Japan is not in a position to take the matter to the ICJ yet. Russia and Japan have been negotiating on the matter of the northern territory for more than 50 years.

    By the way, I today went to Yotsuya where ‘provisional’ Korean Embassy is present. There was a building of the Japan Foundation just about next to the embassy. The Japan Foundation is different from the Nippon Foundation, which is confusing.

  • Q

    He was reelected for the position:

    Judge Hisashi Owad: Member of the Court since 6 February 2003; President of the Court from 6 February 2009 to 5 February 2012; re-elected as from 6 February 2012

    You know what? When DLB asked about most authoritative papers on this territorial issue, I presented scholars who support Korean view on Dokdo, among whom Professor of Law, Jon Van Dyke, BA, cum laude, Yale University, 1964 JD, cum laude, Harvard Law School, 1967:

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/legal-study-of-the-dokdo-issue-i.html

    Gerry Bevers recommended reading his collection of comments and Japanese MOFA propaganda for the most authoritative source that could support Japan’s position. I was so wondered by the lack of scholarship of Japan’s claim of the islands.

    I do not think ICJ serve the best interest of SK-Japan-US alliance. The most desirable approach would be academic and scholarly joint-study on the Dokdo issue and try to have consensus on it. I expect conscientious Japanese scholars would respond to that.

  • Q

    Here is also an interesting fact about the Judge Hisashi Owada:

    In 1993, his daughter Masako Owada, a diplomat in her own right, married Crown Prince Naruhito, the heir to the Japanese Chrysanthemum Throne.

  • provIdence

    It is not fair for Koreans to keep accusing Japan on the matter of annexation. Did not Korea beg for annexation? Were there any major opposition activities on the matter of annexation in its process?

    http://japanese.joins.com/article/651/18651.html?sectcode=&servcode=100

    I would like to have some examples of major opposition activities which occurred in Korea in the process.

  • Q

    provIdence,

    Could you give link to the Holers the most authoritative papers (in English) that could best represent Japan’s position on Dokdo? Are you going to recommend Gerry Bevers and Japanese MOFA?

  • provIdence

    I am having a lot of trouble in deciphering from and ciphering into English. So, I have not virtually debated much on anything, and I cannot remember the case where I said something about Takeshima or Dokdo other than things like what I wrote at #214.

    I could not decipher, for example, DLB and Holers. I majored in science like Mr. Kim Wansup, but I did not give up early as he did, so I am learning much from many of you.

    Would you please show me some examples of major oppositions I wrote at #217?

  • Bendrix

    Some of you revisionists can’t be serious. Korea wanted to be annexed and sent huge groups of female sex volunteers to show their willingness, right?

  • tinyflowers

    I have taken a strong stand and strongly believe what I am saying… The only opinion that I have strongly stated and supported in this thread is that Korea should go to the International Court of Justice

    Since you failed to give a single good reason for Korea to do so, I’m not sure what the basis for your “strong opinion” can be. The best you could come up with is some hypothetical about Japan invading Dokdo. Use some logic and common sense here. Why would Korea go to trial to determine ownership of something it already owns? (repeating this question because you keep dodging it or giving bullshit answers).

    Nowhere have I used the term “The Koreans”…You at best lack reading comprehension skills and are more likely dishonest. Either find the quote or retract

    Here’s two examples:
    “we laugh at Koreans lack of reading comprehension and logic skills”
    “we all laugh behind Koreans’ backs because Koreans demand that we lie to their faces”

    Who’s “we”? And speaking of reading comprehension skills, read #208 again and tell me if you really thought that was meant to be a direct quote, or if it was a mocking paraphrase. Figure it out.

    If you really want to see whether you can engage in honest, rational debate, write a post summarizing my opinion the way I would write it.

    Here’s a summary:
    “I have no opinion or knowledge of the *actual subject at hand*, but I have a *very strong opinion* that Korea should go to the ICJ, even though it makes no sense and I can’t provide a *single good reason* for it to do so. In the meantime I laugh at Koreans for their lack of reading comprehension and logic skills. I wish everyone can be as honest, rational and principled as I am. Did I mention I have *no actual opinion* on the subject? I really don’t. I feel compelled to repeat that over and over.”

    There’s your fucking summary. I find it ironic that you harp about “honest, rational debate” yet your entire response only deals with a superfluous post, #208 (guess you couldn’t resist the bait), while completely ignoring the main thread of the debate in post #207. If you really care about honest, rational debate, why are you avoiding it?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #221 tinyflowers: (Quoting Anonymous_Joe:

    If you really want to see whether you can engage in honest, rational debate, write a post summarizing my opinion the way I would write it.

    Here’s a summary:
    “I have no opinion or knowledge of the *actual subject at hand*, but I have a *very strong opinion* that Korea should go to the ICJ, even though it makes no sense and I can’t provide a *single good reason* for it to do so. In the meantime I laugh at Koreans for their lack of reading comprehension and logic skills. I wish everyone can be as honest, rational and principled as I am. Did I mention I have *no actual opinion* on the subject? I really don’t. I feel compelled to repeat that over and over.”

    There’s your fucking summary.

    Do you honestly believe that is the way that I would write a summary of my opinion that Korea should settle this issue at the ICJ? (That’s a yes or no question, and it’s not rhetorical.)

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #215 Q: “He was reelected for the position:

    Judge Hisashi Owad: Member of the Court since 6 February 2003; President of the Court from 6 February 2009 to 5 February 2012; re-elected as from 6 February 2012

    Judge Hisashi Owad was re-elected as a Member of the Court after his term as President of the Court expired.

    Judge Peter Tomka of Slovakia is now President of the Court (reference: http://www.icj-cij.org/court/?p1=1&p2=2&p3=1&judge=15)

    Your scholarship is at best sloppy and at worst dishonest. On this issue, I will go with the most charitable interpretation: sloppy.

  • Q

    Oh, thanks for the correction. Now, where is scholarship of Japan on Dokdo? Could you please give links?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    I have never made any claims as to the relative merits of Korea’s and Japan’s claim on Dokdo. In fact, your questions (“Now, where is scholarship of Japan on Dokdo? Could you please give links?”) bolster my assertion that Korea should go to the International Court of Justice. Given the absence of any evidence or scholarship that support Japan’s claim, Korea should easily get a judgement in favor of its claim for Dokdo.

  • Q

    The vast lack of scholarship of Japan on Dokdo only elucidates the clue to resolve this territorial issue. Japan and Korea need joint scholarly studies to find out consensus. That would be most reasonable way to secure peace in East Asia.

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

    Q wrote (#226):

    Japan and Korea need joint scholarly studies to find out consensus.

    There is no need for a joint study. The issue has been studied to the point of silliness. The main conclusions are that Korea 1) has no old maps of Liancourt Rocks, 2) has no evidence that the Rocks were ever a part of Korea, 3) and has no evidence that Koreans ever travelled to the Rocks before the Japanese started taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #226 Q: “The vast lack of scholarship of Japan on Dokdo only elucidates the clue to resolve this territorial issue.”

    Q, there’s a “territorial issue“? :shock:

  • JK

    Holy geez, Bevers, what do you mean “main conclusions”?? You mean YOUR conclusions based on very faulty logic? Frogmouth and others have pointed out the many flaws and mistranslations in your arguments, but you stick to them like herpes.

    The Korean argument is the most sound. And Korea owns Dokdo. The end.

  • Q

    gbevers wrote:

    There is no need for a joint study. The issue has been studied to the point of silliness.

    IMHO, The silliest thing is that Mr. Bevers recommends his own collection of comments and Japanese MOFA propaganda for the most authoritative source that support Japan’s claim on Dokdo.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #229 JK: The Korean argument is the most sound.

    Are you sayin’ there are other (though less sound) arguments? :shock:

  • Q

    Korea and Japan should organize joint study on Dokdo. Both countries had joint study of Korean-Japanese history in 2001, which was peaceful and productive.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    So there is a territorial issue (see Q, #226) and there are other, though less sound, arguments besides “the Korean argument” (see JK, #229).

    This looks like a job for…

    …wait for it…

    …wait for it…

    The International Court of Justice

  • Q

    Please refer to scholarly articles that support Korea’s position on Dodko:

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/legal-study-of-the-dokdo-issue-i.html

    And please present the most authoritative scholarly articles that support Japan’s claim on Dokdo.

  • JK

    I claim Anonymous’ house! And I have “proof” that I legitimately own it. Let me think of a few lies from the past…hold on…

    Hey, I know! Let’s take it to court!

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

    JK wrote (#235):

    I claim Anonymous’ house! And I have “proof” that I legitimately own it. Let me think of a few lies from the past…hold on…

    Your analogies are about as convincing as Obama’s claiming he called it a terrorist attack from the very beginning. I have heard better analogies from 3rd graders.

  • JK

    My analogy was perfect to illustrate the Japanese side. It was about as perfect as Obama’s vision for the country for his second term. Yay, Obama!

  • tinyflowers

    Do you honestly believe that is the way that I would write a summary of my opinion that Korea should settle this issue at the ICJ? (That’s a yes or no question, and it’s not rhetorical.)

    No. That’s me *mocking* your silly position using your own statements. Did you really need that explained to you? It’s not my job to summarize your position for you.

    Nice job dodging direct questions and ignoring the actual argument though, exactly like your last response. So much for “honest, rational debate.” But hey, what can you do when multiple people point out holes in your argument and you have no answer? C’mon anonymous, make use of those vaunted “logic skills” you like to brag about.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #235 JK: “I claim Anonymous’ house! And I have “proof” that I legitimately own it. Let me think of a few lies from the past…hold on…

    Hey, I know! Let’s take it to court!”

    Go ahead. Once you produce no real “proof”, I will file a nuisance suit against you and seek criminal charges for perjury, abuse of process, and so on.

    (As a side note and because you are arguing by analogy, clearly you have no idea about real estate law in the U.S. (and I am sure other countries have similar laws). I know for an absolute fact that these disputes arise not uncommonly. Many title holders thought they “owned” their real property. The sad part is that they did nothing wrong themselves. One further bit of commentary on your “Anonymous_Joe’s house” ananlogy: anyone who has any knowledge (even having taken a basic real estate licensure course) of this would think that you are an ignoramus.)

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #238 tinyflowers: “Do you honestly believe that is the way that I would write a summary of my opinion that Korea should settle this issue at the ICJ? (That’s a yes or no question, and it’s not rhetorical.)

    No. That’s me *mocking* your silly position using your own statements. Did you really need that explained to you? It’s not my job to summarize your position for you.”

    No, tinyflowers, that’s you intentionally misquoting my statements and misrepresenting my positions to the point that you are damaging my reputation. I understand that this blog is hosted in Korea, and if you are in Korea or a Korean citizen, I strongly suggest you cease and desist.

    …if you know what I mean.

  • tinyflowers

    I guess this is your way of ducking out of the debate. If you feel your position has been misrepresented, quit crying about it and blame yourself for being incoherent and illogical.

    No one cares about who you are or your “reputation”. Get over yourself.

    I strongly suggest you cease and desist

    I strongly suggest you go fuck yourself.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    Thats not very ladylike, tinyflowers.

  • Arghaeri

    Should the US go to court and risk losing Hawaii when it already owns it? Nope, the US would be stupid to do it.

    Actually, JK the analogy is weak as the reason the US would be stupid to go to the ICJ would be that it has no legimate title, the territory having been seized by american immigrants. If the Hawaian people went to the ICJ they would win in about 30 seconds.

  • Arghaeri

    sent huge groups of female sex volunteers to show their willingness, right?

    Happens to me all the time :-)

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #243 Arghaeri: “Should the US go to court and risk losing Hawaii when it already owns it? Nope, the US would be stupid to do it.

    Actually, JK the analogy is weak as the reason the US would be stupid to go to the ICJ would be that it has no legimate title, the territory having been seized by american immigrants. If the Hawaian people went to the ICJ they would win in about 30 seconds.

    Except the people of Hawaii voted on and consented to becoming an American state.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #241 tinyflowers: “I guess this is your way of ducking out of the debate.”

    No, my way of ducking out of the debate is to state the obvious: this is no debate. You are intellectually dishonest, and I hope purposefully obstinate because the alternative is that you are just a plain ol’ garden variety fool.

    Anyone else who thinks he’s up to honest discourse on this issue, I’d like to hear your best.

    In summary, I hope that Korea is able to settle this “territorial issue” (see Q, #226) by presenting “the most sound (meaning) …the Korean argument” (see JK, #229) before the International Court of Justice, which can force the international community of countries, especially Japan, to recognize Korea’s rightful claim to Dokdo.

  • Arghaeri

    1) Are Koreans happy to have had the 3.1 movement? — Yes

    I would like to have some examples of major opposition activities which occurred in Korea in the process.

    You seem somewhat confused Providence!

  • tinyflowers

    which can force the international community of countries, especially Japan, to recognize Korea’s rightful claim to Dokdo.

    What you are forgetting is that Korea doesn’t have a “claim” on Dokdo, it has de facto ownership of Dokdo, and is under no threat of losing it. Japan is the one with a dubious “claim” here. Your argument is a non-starter since you can’t even get the facts straight (or you’re willfully misrepresenting it). Again, for the umpteenth time, the question is: Why go to court to determine ownership of something you already possess?

    You seem to have trouble wrapping your head around this very simple concept.

  • Q

    Happens to me all the time :-)

    Even after belatedly realizing you’re abducting them to prostitution?

  • Arghaeri

    Except the people of Hawaii voted on and consented to becoming an American state.

    The vote you refer to was between remaining a territory or becoming a state. Not between statehood and independance.

    This was an easy choice since statehood rectified the situation of taxation without representation.

    Also interesting factoids, only 25% were registered as voters, and 90% of those were US Citizens.

    So did native Hawaiians actually have a choice in the matter?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Generally speaking, de facto possession is not necessarily ownership. I have de facto possession of my apartment in Korea. I refer to it as “my apartment” and “my home”. I control who may enter and can even prevent the person who holds the cheonse from entering my apartment. I doubt that I will prevail that my de facto possession of “my apartment” will be recognized as ownership in a Korean court of law.

    In terms of what appears to be “de facto ownership” as you put it, I know that who appears to be the de facto owner is not necessarily such. Using your “house” or “real property” analogy, I know from personal and professional experience of people who purchased a general warranty deed in good faith from sellers who acting in good faith conveyed a general warranty deed. Both buyers and sellers acted in good faith, and there was no fraud (as in intent) in the chain of title. A party (whom the law deemed had a legitimate claim on the property, and clearly would win in court) staked their claim. Some might thank God (I thank title insurance companies) for title insurance. The situation is not uncommon in real estate law.

  • Q

    Japan’s strategy is simply to make up the lack of scholarship with adroit political and diplomatic maneuver. Japan, show me authoritative scholar who support your claim that I could read and take it seriously. This stirring up ICJ sh*t is simply a farce.

  • Q

    Hey, Joe, why not go to Japan Probe and persuade them to go to ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    “This was an easy choice since statehood rectified the situation of taxation without representation.”

    I don’t know that people in U.S. territories are taxed by the U.S. gov’t, at least in terms of federal income tax. Personally I’d prefer to live in a U.S. territory.

    The analogy is getting a bit thin. The fact of the matter with Hawaii is that no one with standing wants to take a claim to the ICJ.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #253 Q: “Hey, Joe, why not go to Japan Probe and persuade them to go to ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?”

    Absolutely. Japan, go to the International Court of Justice

    (PS: you’ve gotten too familiar with your address to me.)

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #252 Q: “Japan’s strategy is simply to make up the lack of scholarship with adroit political and diplomatic maneuver. Japan, show me authoritative scholar who support your claim that I could read and take it seriously. This stirring up ICJ sh*t is simply a farce.

    Absolutely. Japan, however, is winning in the international court of public opinion.

    If some right wing Japanese asshats stage a landing on Dokdo and the Korean military takes action, how do you think sympathies will side in the international community?

  • Arghaeri

    Lovely sidestep, ignore the part about the native population never being given the option of independence, and focus on “I don’t know about taxation”. You do of course realise that “your knowledge” was not at the forefront of voters minds in 1959.

    As to analogy getting thin, I thought you already said it was weak, and I also asserted that it was weak, so why the repetition?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Because you keep bringing it up.

    OK, then we agree. Let’s be done with it.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #253 Q: “Hey, Joe, why not go to Japan Probe and persuade them to go to ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?”

    Q, I answered your question: I absolutely agree that Japan should go to the International Court of Justice for Senkaku and Kuril.

    Q, are you prepared to answer your own question: Do you think that Japan should go to the ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?

  • Q

    It’s never be late for Korea to see how Japan plays tricks at ICJ over Senkaku and Kuril. Most importantly, Japan’s lack of scholarship only shows the necessity for the joint study on Dokdo. When there is a peaceful and reasonable way of resolving this, why bother go to ICJ?

  • tinyflowers

    I have de facto possession of my apartment in Korea

    I said de facto owndership. Why did you alter my words to make your point? In any case, the reality is you don’t actually have possession, ownership, or even a remote claim of ownership on your apartment. You know that.

    Previously you said:

    You are arguing by analogy, and your analogy is weak.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself. First you alter my words to make your analogy fit, then you draw all the wrong conclusions. You’re basically arguing that Korea’s ownership of Dokdo is analogous to someone renting an apartment. Great logic there.

    Using your “house” or “real property” analogy

    I think you are confused here, and maybe a little flustered. I made no such analogy, you did. Right after arguing with JK that it was a flawed analogy, and if it was so flawed, why do you insist on using it? And all this just to avoid answering a direct question, yet again.

  • Arghaeri

    The fact of the matter with Hawaii is that no one with standing wants to take a claim to the ICJ.

    Um, yes since only states can have standing and Hawaii has been subsumed into the US, then obviously no state exists to have standing in the matter.

    Now taking your logic,

    The fact is that no one with standing wants to take the matter of Dokdo to the ICJ.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #260 Q: “It’s never be late for Korea to see how Japan plays tricks at ICJ over Senkaku and Kuril. Most importantly, Japan’s lack of scholarship only shows the necessity for the joint study on Dokdo. When there is a peaceful and reasonable way of resolving this, why bother go to ICJ?”

    I don’t understand whether you answered your own question. (Anyway, what tricks?)

    Q, I answered your question: I absolutely agree that Japan should go to the International Court of Justice for Senkaku and Kuril.

    Q, now you need to answer your own question: Do you think that Japan should go to the ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    “Now taking your logic,

    The fact is that no one with standing wants to take the matter of Dokdo to the ICJ.”

    Japan has standing.

    (I suggest that you look up the meaning of standing as in “legal standing.”)

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #261 tinyflowers:

    I have de facto possession of my apartment in Korea

    I said de facto owndership. Why did you alter my words to make your point?

    Precisely to make the point that possession does not mean ownership.

    In any case, the reality is you don’t actually have possession, ownership, or even a remote claim of ownership on your apartment. You know that.

    What do you mean I don’t have possession? I’m sitting her right now, possessing this apartment. If the owner, as in the person who has legal title to this apartment, knocks on the door and asks me for my permission for him to enter, I can say ‘no’.

    I also have a legal claim on this apartment. In real estate law, I have what’s called a lease. With my leasehold, I can dispose of the apartment as I wish subject to law and the terms of the lease.

    Class dismissed.

  • Arghaeri

    Japan has standing.

    (I suggest that you look up the meaning of standing as in “legal standing.”)

    No need, I know the meaning, I suggest you look up the rules of the ICJ.

    Japan only has standing to bring the case before the ICJ if Korea consents to it.

  • Q

    After so many years of claim on Dokdo, does Japan has Gerry Bevers for the most authoritative person who support Japan’s claim? It’s just ridiculous. Before urging SK to to go ICJ, Japan should seriously study this issue on the academic and scholarly level. Without that effort, this would only prove to be an epic political farce of Japan.

  • Q

    I absolutely agree that Japan should go to the International Court of Justice for Senkaku and Kuril.

    Your opinion well taken. Now shut the f*ck up, troll.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #267 Q: “After so many years of claim on Dokdo, does Japan has Gerry Bevers for the most authoritative person who support Japan’s claim? It’s just ridiculous. “

    No. I doubt Japan even knows of Gerry Bevers.

    Before urging SK to to go ICJ, Japan should seriously study this issue on the academic and scholarly level. Without that effort, this would only prove to be an epic political farce of Japan.

    Exactly. And Japan does not get a do-over for not going prepared before the ICJ. Let Japan be exposed in their epic political farce.

    Now, Q, how about answering your own question? I absolutely agree that Japan should go to the International Court of Justice for Senkaku and Kuril.

    Do you think that Japan should go to the ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?

  • Arghaeri

    Because you keep bringing it up.

    Nope, I brought it up once, and then expressly in response to JK. You are the one who then brought it up again.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #268 Q:

    Anonymous_Joe wrote: “I absolutely agree that Japan should go to the International Court of Justice for Senkaku and Kuril.”

    Your opinion well taken. Now shut the f*ck up, troll.

    Ahhh… the “troll” epithet: Last refuge of an internet scoundrel.

    Q, you asked the “troll” question. I answered unequivocally. Why don’t you answer your own question: Do you think that Japan should go to the ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?

  • Q

    Joe, Everybody know your opinion, it’s redundant and boring, yawn. Okay I will yell for you “GO TO ICJ!!!!!!!!!” Satisfied? It’s time to kill this thread.

  • tinyflowers

    First of all, you’re dodging the question, again.

    Precisely to make the point that possession does not mean ownership.

    Well there goes Japan’s case in the ICJ. Their entire argument to the claim of ownership of Dokdo is that they once possessed it. Your point is moot anyway since we’re not talking about real estate here, we’re talking about national borders and territory, and in international law, possession and control of territory actually holds a lot of weight.

    I’m sitting her right now, possessing this apartment.

    Now you’ve been reduced to playing silly word games. Try this: You possess a key, which permits you access and use of someone else’s legal possession. You don’t possess the apartment itself, you possess a legal right to it, as spelled out in the rental agreement.

    I also have a legal claim on this apartment

    I said that you have no legal claim of ownership on the apartment. Re-read what you quoted.

    In any case, you are arguing by analogy and your analogy is weak. It’s a good bit of misdirection though. I’m starting to think you don’t have an answer to my question.

  • Q

    I absolutely agree that Japan should go to the International Court of Justice for Senkaku and Kuril.

    Joe, go to Japan Probe and relentlessly admonish them that Japan should go to ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril, then I will believe you are serious about that.

  • tinyflowers

    I doubt Japan even knows of Gerry Bevers.

    Are you kidding? He is Japan’s foremost English speaking authority on the subject of Dokdo/Takeshima. Think about that one.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #272 Q: “Okay I will yell for you “GO TO ICJ!!!!!!!!!” Satisfied? It’s time to kill this thread.”

    …ah, but will you yell for Korea or at least Japan to go to the ICJ?

    You asked the question, Q (see #253): “Do you think that Japan should go to the ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?”

    This is a simple yes or no question (and one that YOU originally asked), Q: make a standalone one sentence post with Yes, I think that Japan should go to the ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril or No, I don’t think that Japan should go to the ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #275 tinyflowers:

    I doubt Japan even knows of Gerry Bevers.

    Are you kidding? He is Japan’s foremost English speaking authority on the subject of Dokdo/Takeshima. Think about that one.

    You made a claim. Please cite your source.

    Then if true, I’m feeling even more certain about Korea’s claim of ownership for Dokdo. As Q, tinyflowers, JK, et. al. are merely Korea’s minor league bench players, and were so thoroughly able to devastate his arguments.

    You do realize that Dokdo’s ICJ case will likely be heard in English, and Japan will use the research and testimony of Japan’s foremost English speaking authority on Dokdo? Now you think about that one.

  • Q

    He is Japan’s foremost English speaking authority on the subject of Dokdo/Takeshima.

    Don’t forget he is also the chair of department of prostitutology and whore studies at Liancourt sh*t rocks campus.

  • Q

    Since Joe does not stop whining about ICJ, I’d like to try to soothe him. “GO GO ICJ! GO TO ICJ! GO TO ICJ!”

    Is it not enough, man? Aren’t you dead bored?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    @Q #274: you are once again too familiar in your address to me.

    Let me go straight to the heart. You stepped all over it with your post (#253 Q): “Hey, Joe, why not go to Japan Probe and persuade them to go to ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?”

    You really should have thought that one through a bit better. If you answer “yes” you’re screwed on Dokdo. If you answer ‘no’, you support Japan. Your torn between your love for Dokdo and your blind hatred for Japan.

    For me, it’s easy. I love Korea, and I don’t hate Japan. I hope Korea prevails in its claim for Dokdo, gets the world to recognize Dokdo as Korean territory so its bronze medal soccer players can wave “독도는 우리 땅” banners at the Olympics without it being a political statement, Apple Maps displays Dokdo’s correct name all over the world, and Korea can focus on more important than wag-the-dog issues.

  • tinyflowers

    You made a claim. Please cite your source.

    Anonymous, my post is what is known as a *joke*. Sheesh you’re thick. I was making fun of gbevers.

    Anyway, if you want the source of that joke, it comes from gbevers himself. When DLB asked for the best scholarly paper written in English supporting Japan’s position. Gbevers referred him to his own propoganda website. So at least in his mind, gbevers considers himself the leading expert.

    But seeing as how no one has actually been able to come up with any scholarly work in the English speaking world supporting Japan’s position, maybe it’s not much of a joke. Maybe this guy who is neither a scholar nor a historian really is Japan’s leading English speaking expert on the matter? How pathetic would that be.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Q whom do you implore, “GO GO ICJ! GO TO ICJ! GO TO ICJ!”?

    Come on, say it. …say it …say it…

    …you can do it buddy.

  • Q

    Hey, please tell Japan to bring up scholarly studies on Dokdo. Who is their best? Gerry Bevers, the chair or whore studies! This is sheer political farce of Japan! :)

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

    Q wrote (#283):

    Hey, please tell Japan to bring up scholarly studies on Dokdo. Who is their best? Gerry Bevers, the chair or whore studies! This is sheer political farce of Japan!

    You are dumber than I thought if you think Japan has no scholarly studies on Takeshima (Dokdo). The Takeshima Research Center, for example, does very detailed research on the issue. The reason you probably don’t know anything about it is that they publish very little into English.

    It is an insult to researchers to describe what Koreans do on Dokdo as “research.” Better descriptions of it would be “lies,” “half-truths,” and “propaganda.”

    Q, if you want an example of “farce,” just by conincidence, I received another E-mail yesterday from the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK) concerning my Dokdo/Takeshima Web site. The writer of the E-mail suggested I visit THIS SITE to learn “the truth among Dokdo, East Sea, and the history of Korea.”

    Here is the E-mail in full:

    To Whom It May Concern

    (I believe, Mr. Bevers)

    Firstly, I would like to show my respect for your managing this valuable website. My name is Kim Hyeon Jong. I am a student and a member of the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK) in Korea. VANK is a non-government, volunteer organization, composed of students ranging from elementary school to college and adults who wish to tell correct information about Korea to foreign textbooks and publishing companies.

    I would like to inform you that your website includes information that seriously distort image of Korea and that could develop into diplomatic problem between Korea and Japan. We Koreans were surprised to see that your website was publishing Dokdo as Takeshima and also trying to post on your blog about Dokdo and East Sea area as a disputable area. Please refer to this link of your website:

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/

    Now, you might wonder why Korea is so sensitive about the correct name of Dokdo.

    Dokdo is one of the most loved islands in Korea and is Korea’s one of major fishing grounds. In addition, Ulleungdo near Dokdo is the global tourist site. For instance, in 2010, , world famous travel magazine, announced that Korea’s Ulleungdo is one of the best recreational site chosen by world’s tourists. According to this magazine, Ulleungdo offers spectacular scenery, preserving the nature from ancient times, and has abundant source of water unlike other islands; neighboring waters, with Dokdo, is the biggest fishing ground in the East Sea. On clear days, Dokdo can be seen from Ulleungdo with naked eye. Historically, for 1500 years, Ulleungdo and Dokdo were referred to as the island of mother and son, which indicates its important close relationship.

    As a member of VANK, I would like to inform you the truth among Dokdo, East Sea, and the history of Korea.

    Please visit this website :

    http://korea.prkorea.com/wordpress/english/2012/03/23/discover-dokdo-and-east-sea/

    We know that your website is trying to be obvious on the dispute over Dokdo and East Sea. We hope that you listen to our request kindly that Dokdo and East Sea is not the matter of dispute.

    Sincerely,

    VANK member, ***

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

    I just noticed that I forgot to delete the name of the person who sent me the letter in Comment #284. I deleted one reference to it, but I forgot to delete the other. I didn’t mean to publish her name.

  • Stereo

    >Q November 8, 2012 at 6:51 am #234
    >And please present the most authoritative scholarly articles that support Japan’s claim on Dokdo.

    OK. Who is the “most authoritative” on this matter, which is predominantly a matter of international law? There are hundreds of university professors but is any of them more authoritative than the State Department of the US Government?

    Here you are. The opinion of the State Department.
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rusk_note_of_1951

    Come on, Q. Bring here a more authoritative opinion than this.
    Of course, I would accept the court opinion of ICJ more authoritative.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Q, JK, tinyflowers, et. al.,

    Your unprovoked ad hominem attacks on posters in general and one specifically, your mocking and joking claims as a way out when you get called on your dubious claims of fact, sloppy references and citations that are yet more mistakes, quotations out of context, misrepresentations of others’ positions, diversions and detours, intellectual dishonesty, … give a poor impression of yourselves specifically and leaves a negative feeling about the ability of netizens in general to inform and debate any opinion on issues outside the only and eternally true answer that Koreans wave banners, create holidays, sing songs, make children’s story books, whip school children into a frenzy, threaten the livelihoods of coworkers who dare question the party line….

    When I was a university student, we openly debated controversial issues about America, its history, and its current events. We often held a diversity of opinion, and when we didn’t we considered the devil’s advocate position. We respected honest discourse even from those who were less knowledgeable or perspicacious in their natural ability to reason. We honed our skills against the whetstone of the other and sharpened the one real tool of the trade.

    I wish you well in your attempt to convince the rest of the world when your arguments sound weak to the members of the foreign community who, literally by the shared blood that courses through their children, are connected to Korea.

    Always, in the name that I hope you know me by,
    Anonymous_Joe

  • Stereo

    >Anonymous_Joe November 8, 2012 at 11:40 pm #287

    Q, JK or tinyflowers cannot understand the value of a neutral opinion, just like creatures in lower dimension cannot understand objects in higher dimensions. As a Japanese proverb goes, foolishness is incurable.

  • Q

    Mr. Bevers, other than the jalapagosian website in Japanese language, could you bring any authoritative scholarly article written in English? Again, are you going to recommend your own collection of scribbles and Japanese MOFA?

  • Q

    I wish you well in your attempt to convince the rest of the world when your arguments sound weak to the members of the foreign community

    Don’t forget Gerry Bevers, a random blogger, represent the best of Japanese claim on Dokdo and how ridiculous it looks to the international community.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    @284 gbevers, I will say this for the author, that is the way to supplicate.

    I’m going to take up the author’s request to read up at the recommended site.

    @286 Stereo:

    #234, Q:

    “And please present the most authoritative scholarly articles that support Japan’s claim on Dokdo.

    Here you are. The opinion of the State Department.
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Rusk_note_of_1951

    Come on, Q. Bring here a more authoritative opinion than this.
    Of course, I would accept the court opinion of ICJ more authoritative.

    I hope that Korea does indeed have something more authoritative.

    //*************************************

  • Q

    Joe, is Rusk letter the most authoritative scholarly article in English? LOL. The ridiculousness gets more layers.

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

    Q wrote (#288):

    Mr. Bevers, other than the jalapagosian website in Japanese language, could you bring any authoritative scholarly article written in English? Again, are you going to recommend your own collection of scribbles and Japanese MOFA?

    I have a better idea, Q. You post a link to any Korean “authoritative scholarly research” on Korea’s historical claim to Dokdo,” and I will tell you why it is a piece of crap.

  • Q

    Mr. Bevers, this is English blog. You should bring up English scholarly articles that support Japan’s claim on Dokdo. The truth is Japan has Mr. Bevers for the best to support their claim. How pathetic it is! Japan, wake up. How come after decades of claim and massive international diplomacy on Takeshima, Japan could not find any serious scholars who support their claim?

  • JK

    How about this: 1) Korea owns Dokdo. And it will keep Dokdo. And either 2) Dokdo was historically Korea’s before 1905 and thus Korea rightfully took back what was its own territory or 3) Korea took Dokdo from Japan as a war reparation (because when you start a war and lose it, you tend to lose territory, be it to a foe you had defeated years prior or did not defeat, like Germany did to France, Poland, and the USSR). 4) Regardless of if it was #2 or #3 (meaning Dokdo belonged historically to Korea or Dokdo belonged historically to Japan), Korea should never go to the ICJ to discuss the matter of Dokdo. Ever.

  • Q

    I guess it’s time to kill this thread. :)

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

    Q wrote (#294):

    Mr. Bevers, this is English blog. You should bring up English scholarly articles that support Japan’s claim on Dokdo.

    Okay, so post an English version of a Korean scholarly article on Korea’s historical claim to Dokdo, and I will tell you why it is a piece of crap.

  • Q

    Here is a solution for Japan. Invite Mr. Bevers to History Department of Tokyo University and award him PhD. degree for his exhaustive comments on Liancourt sh*t rocks and prostitutology at the MH and his blog. Then advertise that Mr. Bevers as the Tokyo University doctorate scholar!

  • JK

    Anonymous,

    In reply to #287, let me say that you are really not one to talk about making personal comments about other posters. You’ve made comments about ‘Koreans’ (as if all Koreans think alike) and “waegukin in korea” (as if all foreigners in Korea think alike). You have presented an argument that Korea should go to the ICJ to settle the matter of Dokdo, and when anyone questions the logic behind doing so (since there IS no logic to do this), you mock them.

    But after starting sh*t and people throw back the same kind of mocking humor back at you, you act like a little kid whose feelings have been hurt. But you don’t even realize that you first provoked it.

    As for the arguments themselves, it still is not sinking in that the owner of a territory should never gamble with it in front of a court if it already owns the territory. I’m surprised this is not getting through to you, but I would never advocate Korea going to the ICJ to settle the Dokdo issue, regardess of WHO is right, because why should Korea never gamble away what it already has. That’s logic 101, Anonymous.

    If you wish to discuss this civilly without the personal attacks on on a commenter specifically or on ‘Koreans’ as a whole, then I am game.

    BTW, do you REALLY think you could discuss anything in America’s history without getting many Americans ready to tear your head off? Try talking about the hypothesis, popular among many Japanese, that President FDR supposedly knew in advance that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and used the soldiers and sailors there as sitting ducks to families of servicemen who died there.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #292 Q: “Joe, is Rusk letter the most authoritative scholarly article in English? LOL. The ridiculousness gets more layers.”

    I don’t know. Absent any other evidence, though, I will say the letter is compelling and certainly supports the idea that Dokdo is an “issue”. I wouldn’t call the Rusk letter a scholarly article, I’d call it raw evidence. “LOL” on such a compelling piece of evidence diminishes you more than the letter.

    Q, you can see that I openly acknowledge that I don’t know. Despite you and your cohorts attempts to ridicule my sincere attempts to understand by asking meaningful, well-reasoned questions and providing logically consistent answers to yours, I honestly think that Korea’s arguments for their case for not going to the ICJ for Dokdo fall flat in the foreign community.

    Westerners don’t respond to “we say so, end of story” or “Dokdo is Korea’s land, there is no dispute” when a credible, responsible member in the world community (note: I am keenly aware of Japan’s past in Asia in general and Korea in particular) says, “let’s go to an objective arbitrator, the ICJ.” Korea will lose the battle for public opinion in the international community when the issue comes to a head because westerners believe in discourse and debate.

    More so, we respond negatively to unreasoned dismissals, unrelated attacks against the source, or failure to acknowledge the existence of a line of argument that your thesis might not have a good or even any answer for.

    Life is complicated. The existence of some evidence that indicates that Japan might have a claim on Dokdo does not mean that the preponderance of evidence goes against Korea’s claim. For Koreans to deny the existence of evidence and to expect that the waegukin community not to view the denial as the fatal flaw in the argument may be yet another of those ubiquitous cultural differences. It’s a cultural difference that university students should cure in freshman composition.

    You, tinyflowers, JK, have problems in your arguments, and that’s the reason you can’t answer some questions, even questions that you posed yourselves. Ridicule, mockery, and name calling are how you know you need to rethink your positions. You’ve done well in convincing yourselves that I am an illogical, unthinking, uncommunicative fool. How are you going to convince yourselves that the rest of the international community, whose recognition you want in this issue, is?

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

    Q wrote (#298):

    Here is a solution for Japan. Invite Mr. Bevers to History Department of Tokyo University and award him PhD. degree for his exhaustive comments on Liancourt sh*t rocks and prostitutology at the MH and his blog. Then advertise that Mr. Bevers as the Tokyo University doctorate scholar!

    Where is the scholarly Korean research, Q? I gave you an opportunity to post it, but you have refused and are trying to switch the topic to prostitution. Why? Because even you know Korean scholarly research on Korea’s historical claims to Dokdo is crap.

  • Q

    Where is the scholarly Korean research, Q?

    I remember you said wow about this:

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/legal-study-of-the-dokdo-issue-i.html

  • Q

    I remember you said wow about this

    I’m sorry I was talking about Joe.

    Now Mr. Bevers, show me any serious scholarly articles that support Japan’s claim. :)

  • Anonymous_Joe

    299 JK : “BTW, do you REALLY think you could discuss anything in America’s history without getting many Americans ready to tear your head off? Try talking about the hypothesis, popular among many Japanese, that President FDR supposedly knew in advance that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and used the soldiers and sailors there as sitting ducks to families of servicemen who died there.”

    Did it in high school.

    At university and beyond, I’d say the only matter we don’t debate and are unanimous on is that Hitler was bad.

    JK, I’m done with you. I find your posts intellectually dishonest. No longer address me because I will only answer that I find you intellectually dishonest and post for you to answer yes or no questions.

  • Q

    Where is most authoritative article in English that support Japan’s claim on Dokdo. The dishonest or silly Joe brought up Rusk letter. What a farce! :)

  • JK

    “Westerners don’t respond to ‘we say so, end of story’ or ‘Dokdo is Korea’s land, there is no dispute’…”

    More generalizing. First your statement implies that the Korean argument is merely “Dokdo is Korea’s land, there is no dispute” even though there are plenty of documents and links that say FAR more than that. You make ‘Koreans’ sound like that’s the only argument they have, which is not true at all. Then you attempt to speak for all Westerners and how they respond to what you imply is the ONLY argument ‘Koreans’ (there we go with that generalizing statement) make, “Dokdo is Korea’s land, ther is no dispute.”

    You don’t seem to understand that to state or imply that the Korean side has no other argument (have you really been following the back and forth arguments regarding Dokdo on this blog?) other than what you claim it is is factually incorrect on your part. Hence how ‘Westerners’ (again with the generalizing) respond is a moot point since the Korean argument is backed up with statements and arguments beyond the simple caveman-like claim of “Dokdo is ours!” that you so claim Koreans make.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #303 Q :
    I remember you said wow about this

    I’m sorry I was talking about Joe.

    I’m sorry, but I don’t recall. I will spend some time trying to learn more about the actual merits of Korea’s and Japan’s arguments for Dokdo.

    Again, I just keeping asking, “if the case is so strong that there is no dispute, that is that Korea’s claim is indisputable, then get the declaration in court and be done with it.”

    This is the same simple idea that I use for the Obama birth certificate issue. If there is this big conspiracy to cover up so much indisputable evidence, why can’t Fox News, Trump, the Republicans, and every news organization in the world find it? The birthers keep pushing me to go to this site and to look at these articles, but Fox News, Trump, and everyone else who wants to get Obama don’t use those sources.

    One poster in this thread goes on about how Korea will never go to the world court to prove its obvious and overwhelming claim, regardless of who is right. Yeah, that makes me really think the evidence is really strong. Good luck in convincing the world.

  • frogmouth

    Anonymous Joe, the Rusk memorandums have been beaten to death. With historical context included they represent nothing more than America’s confidential and temporary support for Japan’s claim to Takeshima.

    America’s official policy about Dokdo Takeshima was spoken by John Foster Dulles in San Francisco at the time the Japan Peace Treaty was being signed. Remember Dulles drafted and signed the Japan Peace Treaty. He said the issue was unresolved and had to be worked out by Korean and Japan through other solvents.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-japan-peace-treaty-and-dokdo.html

    Mr Bevers, I think Q has a valid point.

    If Japan has a real case for Dokdo (Takeshima) where are the foreign experts that support Japan? Recently I’ve noticed more and more news articles on Korean newspapers where foreigners support Korea. Many of those who support Korea don’t even get into the controversial translation of historical records.

    Where are the pro-Takeshima foreigners Mr Bevers?

  • JK

    Anonymous,
    Again, try making that argument to families of servicepeople who died at Pearl Harbor. Yeah, I’m SURE those Americans won’t want to tear your eyes out. *Rolling eyes*

    You claim there are holes in the arguments made by myself, Yuna, and Q, but then you do not make a successful defense of this claim, only that you’re right and that everyone else is wrong. What kind of a way to argue is that? And then when people point out the holes in your OWN arguments you either don’t respond (which may be smart of you since it’s best to keep quiet if you don’t know what youre talking about) or insist you’re right without any logic to your argument.

    It seems you’re as stubborn and unreasonable on this issue as you claim ‘Koreans’ to be.

  • Q

    Joe wrote:

    I’m sorry, but I don’t recall.

    http://www.rjkoehler.com/2012/11/06/palisades-park-comfort-woman-statue-vandalism-a-hate-crime-really/#comment-505740

    The moment SK goes to ICJ, SK would be joining in the ridiculous farce of Japanese politics that promote Mr. Bevers for the best who represent Japanese scholarship on Dokdo. Let Japan stay alone in silliness and shame.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    JK, is Korea’s claim for Dokdo indisputable?

  • Q

    The thing is clear via Mr. Bevers that this Japanese confusion has been caused by the vast lack of scholarship of Japan on Dokdo. The cause of problem is revealed. The solution is self-evident. Have joint scholarly study on Dokdo and find consensus on it. That’s the most peaceful and reasonable approach to this.

  • JK

    Anonymous,

    I think so. Korea does seem to have the better argument for historical claim. But as I’ve said many times, I don’t care if Korea or Japan has a better claim to Dokdo as long as Korea continues to hold it. If it was historically Korean territory, then Korea merely took back its own territory in 1951. If it was historically Japanese territory, then Korea rightfully took the island as a reparation for Japan’s wrongful colonization.

    Either way, why go to the ICJ?

    And I don’t speak for ‘Koreans’, Anonymous, only myself here.

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

    Q wrote (#302):

    I remember you said wow about this:

    Choose the article you want me to trash. Choose one that talks about Korea’s “historical claims to Dokdo,” not International Law, because I’m no lawyer or International Law expert.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Q, when I said ‘wow’, you quoted me way out of context. Here is the full post:

    Q, Wow!!! That’s amazing stuff. Run it over to the International Court of Justice.

    Again I don’t know whether you are intellectually dishonest or, well, ya know…

    I think the salient part of that quote was “Run it over to the International Court of Justice.”

    Q, I think that I am also now done with you. Anytime you address me, I’m going to ask you to answer your own question: Do you think that Japan should go to the ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?

    (BTW, the hit-and-run you’re attempting on GB, is at best distracting. It certainly detracts from any credence I might give your posts.)

  • tinyflowers

    When I was a university student, we openly debated controversial issues about America, its history, and its current events… We respected honest discourse

    I’ve never seen anyone pay so much lip service to “honest, rational debate” while completely and utterly failing to demonstrate his ability to do so. You can’t even answer a simple question to move the debate forward, all the while engaging in misdirection, obfuscation, poor analogies, specious word games, anything to avoid the real issue.

    You say Korea should go to the ICJ to resolve the Dokdo issue. Several people have given you very sound, logical reasons for why this does not make sense for Korea. You’ve consistently and repeatedly failed to respond to any of them, yet you keep repeating your “Go to the ICJ!” mantra. It’s clear that you’re not actually interested in debating this issue.

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#308):

    Recently I’ve noticed more and more news articles on Korean newspapers where foreigners support Korea. Many of those who support Korea don’t even get into the controversial translation of historical records.

    If the foreigners cannot read the “historical records,” then that means they are simply relaying on Korean propaganda to make their silly claims. What a joke!

  • Q

    Choose the article you want me to trash.

    Mr. Bevers, don’t change subject. You are just a random blogger or commenter. Show me the most authoritative English articles that support Japan’s claim.

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

    Q wrote (#318):

    Mr. Bevers, don’t change subject. You are just a random blogger or commenter. Show me the most authoritative English articles that support Japan’s claim.

    What are you afraid of Q? Choose a “scholarly Korean article on Korea’s historical claims to Dokdo,” so that I can show the people here that you and the article are both full of crap.

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

    Afterall, I’m just “a random blogger,” Q. What are you afraid of?

  • Q

    I had enough of you, Mr. Bevers. I do not think of you that seriously. Mr. Bevers, you are just a random guy. I only would like to see any authoritative scholarly articles in English that support Japan’s claim. Reading them would bring more productive understanding.

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

    Q wrote (#321):

    I had enough of you, Mr. Bevers. I do not think of you that seriously. Mr. Bevers, you are just a random guy. I only would like to see any authoritative scholarly articles in English that support Japan’s claim. Reading them would bring more productive understanding.

    How did I know you were once again going to avoid giving me an example of “scholarly Korean research on Korea’s historical claims to Dokdo”? My sixth-sense ablities amaze even me.

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

    Q wrote (#321):

    I had enough of you, Mr. Bevers. I do not think of you that seriously. Mr. Bevers, you are just a random guy.

    Have I lost my charm? You usually follow me around like a little puppy, posting some ridiculously long cut-and-paste article after anything I post.

  • Q

    I’m done with Mr. Bevers. I’m only amazed by that there are no other authoritative academic articles in English other than Mr. Bevers’ scribbles that support Japan’s claim. It’s pathetic, Japan, pathetic.

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

    Q wrote (#324):

    I’m done with Mr. Bevers.

    Right now I am looking up toward Heaven and saying, “Thank you, Lord.”

    Too bad that I didn’t realize sooner that all I had to do was just push back on your silly claims, rather than ignore you.

  • JK

    Bevers, filibustering and being stubborn and trying to get the last word in when one is wrong does not through sheer force make one right. You should have learned from Strom Thurmond after he did his 24-hour filibuster to protest the Civil Rights bill.

    But I’ll be here to keep you in line Bevers and correct you when you’re wrong. You can be assured of that.

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

    JK wrote (#326):

    But I’ll be here to keep you in line Bevers and correct you when you’re wrong. You can be assured of that.

    I’m sure everyone here at the Marmot’s Hole is now breathing a sigh of relief.

  • CactusMcHarris

    Sigh? Hell, I’ve got a heaving of relief here, Gerry. And don’t worry about losing that charm – it’s with you like a rocky islet or two.

  • provIdence

    I can’t think of any most authoritative English articles that support Japan’s claim other than the SF Peace Treaty.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #305 Q: “Where is most authoritative article in English that support Japan’s claim on Dokdo. The dishonest or silly Joe brought up Rusk letter. What a farce! “

    Yet more intellectual dishonesty, misrepresentation, and name calling.

    Q, you asked the “troll” question. I answered your quexition unequivocally. Why don’t you answer your own question: Do you think that Japan should go to the ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?

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

    Cactus wrote (#328):

    Sigh? Hell, I’ve got a heaving of relief here, Gerry. And don’t worry about losing that charm – it’s with you like a rocky islet or two.

    Thank you, Cactus. It’s because I believe in the old Korean saying:

    With writing we gather friends; with friends we promote kindness.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #311 Anonymous_Joe: “JK, is Korea’s claim for Dokdo indisputable?”

    #313 JK: “I think so. Korea does seem to have the better argument for historical claim.

    I asked whether Korea’s claim for Dokdo was indisputable. You certainly imply your “yes or no” answer, but you don’t directly say it. You can put it in one sentence: “Yes, Korea’s claim for Dokdo is indisbutable” or “No, Korea’s claim for Dokdo is not indisbutable.”

    But as I’ve said many times, I don’t care if Korea or Japan has a better claim to Dokdo as long as Korea continues to hold it. If it was historically Korean territory, then Korea merely took back its own territory in 1951. If it was historically Japanese territory, then Korea rightfully took the island as a reparation for Japan’s wrongful colonization.

    Try claiming dominion because “Korea rightfully took the island as a reparation for Japan’s wrongful colonization” anywhere outside of Korea.

    JK, is Korea’s claim for Dokdo indisputable?

  • Q

    Japan has no other authoritative scholarship to support their claim in English other than Gerry Bevers’ scribbling random comments at blogs! This Takeshima sh*t proves to be an epic farce of Japan. :)

  • Anonymous_Joe

    An “epic farce of Japan” should be easily shot down in flames for the international community.

    Do you understand that the more the bluster, the bigger seems to be the bluff?
    ***********************************
    Q, you asked the “troll” question. I answered your question unequivocally. Why don’t you answer your own question: Do you think that Japan should go to the ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?

  • Q

    The best “scholarly articles” they recommended to read are Rusk letter and SF Peace Treaty? eh? Could they be called “scholarly articles”? LOL.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    335 Q: “The best “scholarly articles” they recommended to read are Rusk letter and SF Peace Treaty? eh? Could they be called “scholarly articles”? LOL.”

    No, they are primary sources, which scholarly articles are based on.

    LOL.

    LOL indeed.
    ***********************************
    Q, you asked the “troll” question. I answered your question unequivocally. Why don’t you answer your own question: Do you think that Japan should go to the ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?

  • Q

    I expect 50 years later everywhere in Japan would build shinto shrines to worship Mr. Bevers’ divine scholarship which is glorified at his blog and random comment boxes. The shrine must have a solemn statue, Gerry the Liancourt Magnus(I) enthroned at the top of the sh*t rocks!

  • CactusMcHarris

    It should also have a tokonoma for a first edition of Speak Korean Better than Koreans.

  • JK

    To Anonymous @332:

    Once again, I think so. The Korean argument is stronger.

    By as I said already, it doesn’t matter to me WHOSE claim is stronger; Korea owns it. I believe truly that Korea merely took back its own territory when it took Dokdo in 1951, but if there is even the remote chance that Korea took legitimate Japanese territory, I say Korea should still keep it as a reparation.

    And going to the ICJ would be stupid regardless of WHOSE historical claim to the island is stronger because Korea OWNS the rocks.

  • Q

    In honor of his prostitutology and whore studies, genitalia Matsuri would be solemnly celebrated every year at the yard of the shrine. The admission to the holy ritual is restricted to the the whores licensed by the government of Nippon. Violation would be severely punished according to the statutes of Korean Grammar & Dictionary promulgated by Gerry the Liancourt Magnus (I).

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #339 JK: “To Anonymous @332: Once again, I think so. The Korean argument is stronger.

    You just contradicted yourself: 1) You think that Korea’s claim is indisputable and 2) The Korean argument is stronger. If the Korean argument is stronger than the Japanese argument, then the Japanese argument is not so strong as the Korean argument. An argument that is not so strong still makes the argument disputable. You’ve contradicted yourself in the space of 10 words.

    “…it doesn’t matter to me WHOSE claim is stronger; Korea owns it.”

    It matters to the party who has the stronger claim.

    I believe truly that Korea merely took back its own territory when it took Dokdo in 1951,…

    I do not doubt your sincerity or passion. I believe so also and hope that your statement is indeed true.

    “…but if there is even the remote chance that Korea took legitimate Japanese territory, I say Korea should still keep it as a reparation.

    Unfortunately, Korea does not get to unilaterally decide its reparation, much less do you get to decide Korea’s reparation.

    And going to the ICJ would be stupid regardless of WHOSE historical claim to the island is stronger because Korea OWNS the rocks.

    You need to look up the meaning of the words “own” and “ownership” and contrast them with “possess” and “possession”.

  • JK

    Anonymous, now you’re just being silly. You asked me if the Korean claim was indisputable. I said I THINK so. You’re trying to argue semantics with me, as if that will somehow take away Korea’s legitimacy with Dokdo.

    Is this your attempt to dodge the fact that you are continually suggesting that Korea do something stupid like go to the ICJ even though all logic says it should not do so? Your intentions are all too clear.

  • JK

    My thinking the Korean claim is indisputable and saying the Korean argument is stronger than the Japanese argument are not two contradictory statements.

    I own my house. That fact is indisputable. I think that my claim to my house is stronger than someone else’s claim that he/she owns my house. These two statements do not contradict each other.

    English 101, Anonymous…

    Nice try at a dodge, though.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    @340 Q:

    You really should cease and desist destroying posters’ reputations. Korea has strong laws protecting individual rights to reputation, and the right is in fact enshrined in Korea’s Constitution. If you are in Korea or a Korean citizen you are subject to Korean laws.

    This blog is also hosted in Korea. Korea has much stricter laws regarding the liability of blog hosts than other countries. If you cannot find it within yourself to cease the personal attacks in the name of honest discourse or for the possibility of incurring criminal or civil liability for yourself, then at least consider the blog’s host, who kindly provides you this forum.

  • Q

    Takeshima is a real embarrassing claim of Japan. They do not have any authoritative academic basis in their assertion. Why Korea bother to go to ICJ joining the shameless political farce of Japan?

  • Q

    This blog is also hosted in Korea. Korea has much stricter laws regarding the liability of blog hosts than other countries.

    Korean government would arrest Mr. Bevers of defaming Korean women. Anyhow he is not a Korean citizen and not living in Korea. So they might have to wait for him to attempt to enter into Korea via Incheon International Airport.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #343 JK: “My thinking the Korean claim is indisputable and saying the Korean argument is stronger than the Japanese argument are not two contradictory statements.

    I own my house. That fact is indisputable. I think that my claim to my house is stronger than someone else’s claim that he/she owns my house. These two statements do not contradict each other.”

    You really should stop with the “house analogy”. I cannot speak about Korea, though I would guess Korea has a similar concept, but the U.S. public records are littered with lis pendens notices.

    Lis pendens is Latin for “suit pending.” This may refer to any pending lawsuit or to a specific situation with a public notice of litigation that has been recorded in the same location where the title of real property has been recorded. This notice secures a plaintiff’s claim on the property so that the sale, mortgage, or encumbrance of the property will not diminish plaintiff’s rights to the property, should the plaintiff prevail in its case.

    English 101, Anonymous…

    Nice try at a dodge, though.

    …and your posts are littered with non sequiters, intellectual dishonesty, misquotations, and misinterpretations.

  • JK

    “…and your posts are littered with non sequiters, intellectual dishonesty, misquotations, and misinterpretations.”

    If you’re going to make a statement like that, back it up with evidence. When have I been dishonest and when have I misquoted or misintrepreted anything, pray tell? And please point out my non sequiters.

    And quit dodging when I correct you like I did in 343 after you stated (incorrectly) in 341 that I supposedly contradicted myself. Just admit you’re wrong…or don’t say anything at all.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #346 Q: “Korean government would arrest Mr. Bevers of defaming Korean women. Anyhow he is not a Korean citizen and not living in Korea.”

    Two things: 1) Korean law does not cover “defaming” groups of people as ideas, and 2) Korean law does not extend jurisdiction to non-citizens outside the borders of Korea. So, even without 1) he can’t be prosecuted for 2).

    You, however, are screwed. Even if your personal attacks on GB are true, truth is not necessarily a defense, and in this case most certainly would not be, in impugning a right to reputation. Now K law might not apply to you (I don’t know) in this case because GB is outside of Korea, but you are screwing ol’ Uncle Marmot.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    You really should stop with the “house analogy”.

    And you really should stop pretending that ICJ is like any other court. This conversation would end then.

  • Q

    When have I been dishonest and when have I misquoted or misintrepreted anything, pray tell? And please point out my non sequiters.

    Actually, Joe’s sentences are full of quotations and italicization. He could not write any paragraph without them.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Korean law does not cover “defaming” groups of people as ideas

    It does. Look up 강용석 and 아나운서 in Supreme Court precedents.

  • Q

    This thread could have been killed long time ago.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #352 thekorean: “Korean law does not cover “defaming” groups of people as ideas

    It does. Look up 강용석 and 아나운서 in Supreme Court precedents.”

    Of course it does, I was unintentionally ambiguous. I meant groups as abstractions.

    Regardless, I have read Q’s attacks on GB that seem actionable. I understand that you’re a moderator, the vicious, savage, personal attacks on his reputation must be making you at least uncomfortable. Many of his posts have no other purpose than to savage (and not in a joking, giving the guy a noogie way) individual posters.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #351 Q: “Actually, Joe’s sentences are full of quotations and italicization. He could not write any paragraph without them.”

    Thank you for noticing. It’s called sourcing. The quotations provide both context and evidence. If you notice, I also provide the post number and poster’s ID. I don’t hide my ideas.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    I understand that you’re a moderator, the vicious, savage, personal attacks on his reputation must be making you at least uncomfortable.

    I defer to my host on how comment threads are run. Suffice to say that if I had it my way, this blog will look very different.

  • Q

    the vicious, savage, personal attacks on his reputation must be making you at least uncomfortable.

    Mr. Bevers was “vicious, savage, personal attacks on” Korean women.

    After I indicating that Joe uses quotation and italicization in every paragraph, suddenly they disappeared. :)

    I think there is a tendency that blog posts that embarrass Japan has more number of comments than other threads, unnecessarily.

  • Q

    The moderation should have to be applied to Mr. Bevers’ repeated insult to Korean women. It’s been many years.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    I think there is a tendency that blog posts that embarrass Japan has more number of comments than other threads, unnecessarily.

    There is a tendency that any thread you participate in has more number of comments than other threads.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #357 Q : “Mr. Bevers was “vicious, savage, personal attacks on” Korean women.

    After I indicating that Joe uses quotation and italicization in every paragraph, suddenly they disappeared. “

    Except that I included a quote in the post that you cited. Q is that more intellectual dishonesty or just sloppiness?

    Please provide references for your statement: ” ‘Mr. Bevers was ‘vicious, savage, personal attacks on’ Korean women.”

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

    Q wrote (#357):

    Mr. Bevers was “vicious, savage, personal attacks on” Korean women.

    Yes, Q, please link to some of the “vicious, savage, personal attacks on Korean women” for which you have accused me.

  • Q

    1. Look in the mirror
    2. Review your posting history
    3. It will become as clear to you as it is to us

    (H/T slim)

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

    Q wrote (#362):

    1. Look in the mirror
    2. Review your posting history
    3. It will become as clear to you as it is to us

    This is just weird. My sixth sense is amazing.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    TK,

    suffice it to say you have no power here. We can see how you would run this blog, we can just look at your blog: the horrible design is just the cherry on the boredom-sundae that is your blog.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    We can see how you would run this blog, we can just look at your blog: the horrible design is just the cherry on the boredom-sundae that is your blog.

    Considering the thousands of people who visit my blog every day, I really couldn’t care less about what you think.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    @#362, Q: You make posts like that in response to someone calling you out to provide references for libelous statements that you make. Further personal attacks and innuendo do not strengthen your credibility, they weaken it.

    Provide your references or retract.

  • SalarymaninSeoul

    TK,

    you cared enough to post a rebuttal. Your blog is horrible. Writing in the 3rd person makes you a wanker. And you’re a lawyer on top of it. Go shoot yourself.

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

    Cactus wrote (#338):

    It should also have a tokonoma for a first edition of Speak Korean Better than Koreans.

    That’s a good title. I may use it someday. Not that I speak better than Koreans, but I have noticed that Koreans frequently make mistakes when using their language. For example, I noticed today that Koreans mistranslate the following expression, which is found in the Korean text 사자소학.

    就必有德 (취필유덕)

  • provIdence

    Arghaeri at #247; “You seem somewhat confused Providence!”

    I appreciate your comment on me, but, to my regret, I can’t get where you found my confusion. I assure you that I won’t bark or bite at you whatever you may say, so be easy, and let me know about my confusion as much as you can.

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

    Good morning.

    Wow! I am surprised no one challenged my claim in Comment #368 that Koreans mistranslate 취필유덕. Finally, a little respect.

  • frogmouth

    As you can see even Japanese favor Korea’s claim to Dokdo, Mr Bevers.

    http://www.japanfocus.org/-Wada-Haruki/1547

    http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/559255.html

    Wada Haruki is one of the few out there who are seeking a reasonable resolution to the Dokdo Takeshima.

    I suggest you read his articles Mr Bevers.

    Oh BTW have you found any articles written by foreign experts who support Japan’s claim to Dokdo (Takeshima) Mr Bevers?

    All of us are still waiting!

  • Q

    I suggest you read his articles Mr Bevers.

    His selective intellect would not do it. Even though he reads it, his intellectual dishonesty would ignore it.

    Oh BTW have you found any articles written by foreign experts who support Japan’s claim to Dokdo (Takeshima) Mr Bevers?

    None. I assume conscientious scholars who seriously studied this issue could not support Japan’s claim. So we have only Mr. Bevers and his friend Texas Daddy who support Japan’s assertion. Pathetic…

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #371 frogmouth: “As you can see even Japanese favor Korea’s claim to Dokdo, Mr Bevers. …Wada Haruki is one of the few out there who are seeking a reasonable resolution to the Dokdo Takeshima.
    and

    #372 Q: “…have you found any articles written by foreign experts who support Japan’s claim to Dokdo (Takeshima) Mr Bevers?

    None. I assume conscientious scholars who seriously studied this issue could not support Japan’s claim. So we have only Mr. Bevers and his friend Texas Daddy who support Japan’s assertion. Pathetic…

    Wow!!! Even the Japanese support Korea’s claim to Dokdo and “conscientious scholars who seriously studied this issue could not support Japan’s claim,” only GB and his friend.

    Can you “assume” they have “any conscientious scholars” at the ICJ?
    ///////////////////////////////////
    Q, you asked (see Q, @253) the “troll” question. I answered unequivocally. Why don’t you answer your own question: Do you think that Japan should go to the ICJ for Senkaku and Kuril?

  • CactusMcHarris

    #368,

    I find some of your opinions and attitudes loathsome, but I am among your top admirers for your study of Hanmun for Non-Asians and for having the balls / gall to challenge Koreans with their own language.

    So, would you do me the favour of translating 취필 – I got the 유덕 part of it.

    Please feel free to use the title suggestion, my election gift to you.

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

    Cactus wrote (#374):

    So, would you do me the favour of translating 취필 – I got the 유덕 part of it.

    Why should I? Anyway, I’ll tell you the easy part, which is 필유덕 (必有德):

    “~ must (必) have (有) virtue (德)

    I am not going to tell you my translation of the complete sentence until there is a debate going and people are arguing for the Korean translation.

  • frogmouth

    Anon-Joe..

    What are you jabbering on about?

    My point is, just because Korea doesn’t want to risk going to the ICJ doesn’t mean their claim doesn’t have merit.

    Quite the contrary.

    Why is there is a glaring absence of scholars who support Japan’s case? The only conclusion is Japan’s MOFA and Shimane Prefecture have no claim to Dokdo (Takeshima) They have virtually zero support outside of their right wing lunatic fringe (ie you-know-who)

    No respected academic in the field of territorial issues would put their head a noose for Japan’s wacky Takeshima lobby groups. That’s why these snakes always remain anonymous and lurk on channel2.

    Try reading this article. BTW he cites my website….(blush)

    http://www.japanfocus.org/-mark-selden/3520

    I’m still waiting for any publication by an foreign expert who supports Japan case for Takeshima…

    Didn’t think so..

  • tinyflowers

    Hey Joe, when will it get through to you that the merits of Korea’s case for ownership of Dokdo (which is very strong btw) has nothing to do why it has refused to submit to a trial at the ICJ. There are far more obvious and logical reasons for that. I would explain it all to you again, but by now it’s clear that you’re not interested in hearing anything that conflicts with your “go to the ICJ” mantra.

  • tinyflowers

    Besides the fact that Japan’s case for Dokdo is actually very weak, another reason they have little support outside their country is that no academic of any standing will ever want to be associated with apologists for war criminals and rapists. As long as Takeshima lobbyists continue to be in league with the rabid right wing nationalists of Japan, they will have no support outside their country, aside from the odd Japanophile or Korea hater with an axe to grind.

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

    Well, I noticed that no one took up my challenge in Comment #368, which I find interesting since there is nothing wrong with the Korean translation. Of course, the Koreans on the blog obviously didn’t see the comment, right?

    Anyway, I just wanted to try a little experiment since I was translating the expression when I saw Cactus’ comment. The expression comes from a Korean text that was once used to teach Korean children. It is a shame that many Koreans have forgotten how to read and understand <hanmun.

    Here is the full translation of the moral lesson:

    blockquote>近墨者黑(근묵자흑)
    People (者) near (近) ink sticks (墨) become black (黑).

    近朱者赤(근주자적)
    People (者) near (近) cinnabar (朱) become red (赤).

    居必擇隣(거필택린)
    When one takes up residence (居), one must (必) select (擇) neighbors (隣).

    就必有德(취필유덕)
    If one approaches them (就) , they must (必) have (有) virtue (德).

  • Q

    IMHO, 居必擇隣 就必有德 is a pair of sentences which advise being judicious in having relation with people. Basically, it says that when you take residence, be selective in neighbors and when you go out, go to those who have virtue (有德者). 者 could be considered deleted to conform the 4 letters style. So I would not find any problem with the Korean translation. (나아갈 때에는 반드시 덕이 있는 이에게 나아가라.)

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

    Q wrote (#380):

    Basically, it says that when you take residence, be selective in neighbors and when you go out, go to those who have virtue (有德者).

    Finally! Hello, little fishy.

    IMHO, Koreans have mistranslated 就(취). It should be translated as “That is,” so the full translation would be as follows:

    近墨者黑(근묵자흑)
    People (者) near (近) ink sticks (墨) become black (黑).

    近朱者赤(근주자적)
    People (者) near (近) cinnabar (朱) become red (赤).

    居必擇隣(거필택린)
    When one takes up residence (居), one must (必) select (擇) neighbors (隣).

    就必有德(취필유덕)
    That is (就) , they must (必) have (有) virtue (德).

  • Anonymous_Joe

    In today’s Korea Herald: VANK to take on Apple, Google over Dokdo

    Voluntary Agency Network of Korea, a nongovernmental cyber diplomatic organization, is organizing a protest movement to pressure Apple and Google to label Dokdo and the East Sea on their maps.

    Apple Inc. has recently decided to use both Korean, Japanese and Franco-English names for the nation’s easternmost islets in its new English map service running on the iOS 6 mobile operating software. An updated Google Maps has also replaced the name Dokdo with the islets’ Franco-English name ― the Liancourt Rocks ― while removing the Korean address.

    “Dokdo is our territory that symbolically marks South Korean sovereignty,” said Park Gi-tae, the director of VANK, at a press conference held at the former legation of the Korean Empire (1897-1910) in Washington D.C. on Wednesday.

    “Even if Google and Apple have digital power, (the issue of map labels) is something that cannot be decided based on economic interests, and the labels cannot be deliberately altered or deleted.”

    VANK plans to mobilize its 10,000 members to send letters of protest to the CEOs of the two Silicon Valley companies every day of the year and also campaign on Facebook, Twitter and other social network services.

    Earlier this month, members of VANK protested with picket signs in front of Google and Apple headquarters in California over the lack of clear labels, Dokdo and East Sea, in the maps operated by the two companies, as part of a project called “21st Century New Hague Envoy.”
    ….
    “This movement of ‘anti-digital imperialism’ is in line with the trend of information power going digital,” added Park.

    If only there were a way to force Google and Apple to recognize and publish the correct names on their maps for Dokdo and the East Sea, hic et ubique.

    …if only, if only….

    Any suggestions, anyone?

  • JK

    “IMHO, Koreans have mistranslated…”

    Gerry Bevers, without knowing if what you say is true but based on your poor track record of supposedly translating Korean, I think I’ll take what you say with a HUGE grain of salt.

    But if you wish to keep looking like an idiot to people on this blog (both Korean and non-Korean) by all means, knock yourself out.

  • JK

    Anonymous_Joe, you have opinionated groups everywhere, in Korea, in Japan, in the US… I say, let them have their opinions and leave it at that. What harm is it doing them besides grabbing your attention and taking you away from something more constructive?

  • JK

    Q, thanks for the translation. Sounds like a good proverb to live by.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #384 JK: “Anonymous_Joe, you have opinionated groups everywhere, in Korea, in Japan, in the US… I say, let them have their opinions and leave it at that. What harm is it doing them besides grabbing your attention and taking you away from something more constructive?”

    I can very easily agree with that. Can you?

    The opinionated groups in Korea, with facts and scholarly opinion on their side, say Dokdo and the East Sea.

    The opinionated groups in Japan say Takeshima and the Sea of Japan.

    The non-opinionated groups in Europe, North America, and nearly everywhere else call them Liancourt Rocks and the Sea of Japan.

    The non-opinionated groups at Apple, Google, Wikipaedia call them Dokdo and the East Sea in Korea, Takeshima and Sea of Japan in Japan, and Liancourt Rocks and the Sea of Japan everywhere else.

    The article that I excerpted from stated that “VANK plans to mobilize its 10,000 members to send letters of protest to the CEOs…. every day of the year and also campaign on Facebook, Twitter and other social network services. …(and) members of VANK protested with picket signs in front of Google and Apple headquarters in California….”

    JK, I wholeheartedly agree that Korea and Koreans have more constructive needs for their time. I hope that Korea can resolve this in its favor. Until then, when Koreans say they want to engage in honest debate, I want to be able to be honest and without fear.

  • JK

    Actually, Anonymous, that was aimed at you. Why waste YOUR time reading about some VANK group or whatever? They’re not gonna change their minds any sooner than you will yours about this issue (“ICJ! ICJ!”).

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

    Anonymous_Joe wrote (#386):

    Until then, when Koreans say they want to engage in honest debate, I want to be able to be honest and without fear.

    Don’t fall for it, Joe. There is no “honest debate” in Korea in regard to Dokdo. It is either their way or the highway.

    I would advise you not to discuss it while staying in Korea and to refuse to discuss it if the subject is brought up. Koreans are very irrational on the subject of Dokdo because the historical facts are not on their side. For many Koreans, honest debate on Dokdo is who can yell loudest and longest.

    Talk about obnoxious cab drivers, corruption in government, or anything but Dokdo.

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

    JK wrote (#383):

    Gerry Bevers, without knowing if what you say is true,…

    You never know what I say is true because you don’t know the Korean language. You just comment to comment.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    JK, you don’t even understand my real point. I hold a heretical view in Korea: Dokdo is not an important issue for me personally. (I will survive and not go into mourning however the Dokdo issue is ultimately resolved.)

    My point to Koreans, in their sincere interest to hear my honest opinion, about Dokdo is if Korea’s claim and supporting evidence for its claim on Dokdo are so strong as to be indisputable, then Korea should go to the ICJ and get a ruling. Their stated reasons for not going to the ICJ sound weak to western ears.

    To summarize my position, I don’t care whether Korea goes to the ICJ. However, I don’t want to be forced to swallow Korea’s positions that there is no dispute or that Korea’s claim and evidence are indisputable or that someone deserves to lose his job for expressing an other than Korean orthodox view on this matter.

  • JK

    Well, Gerry, after you’ve been shown to be wrong so many times before regarding most anything written in the Korean language, not only by native Koreans and Westerners like Oranckay on this blog but also including native Koreans I know in person who saw some of the things you wrote (who, btw, say you really don’t know Korean), you can understand why I don’t view you as a credible source.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #388 gbevers: “Talk about obnoxious cab drivers, corruption in government, or anything but Dokdo.”

    The one place that I have had very good experiences in Korea is with taxi drivers.

    Otherwise, I understand your point.

  • JK

    Geez, Anonymous, who is stopping you from expressing your opinion? You seem to have no problems expressing your sentiments about Dokdo and ‘Koreans’ (the whole lot of them as if they’re all in one category) on this blog.

    As for your opinion that Korea should go to the ICJ, as I’ve pointed out to you several times, to do so would be stupid. Why go let a third party decide if you get to hold on to territory that you already own? And even WITH an ICJ ruling in favor of Korea, do you think 1) the right-wing Japanese are going to stop making a stink? and 2) do you think overly zealous Koreans will suddenly stop being angry and annoyed with those right-wing Japanese? In your view, and ICJ ruling is a cure-all, but it’s more like a band-aid on a shotgun wound.

    AND ONCE AGAIN, Korea should never let a third party decide if it is allowed to hold territory that it already has. Makes no logical sense whatsoever.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    JK, I have no problem expressing my opinion on an anonymous blog. I will never again express my opinion honestly when asked by a Korean. The heretical view that I hold is not even that Korea does not have a legitimate claim on Dokdo; my heresy is that if Korea’s claim is so strong, why don’t they go to the ICJ?

    Now to address your points in order:

    “Why go let a third party decide if you get to hold on to territory that you already own? “

    To get, in the terminology of the real estate metaphor, “clear title” to the property. With clear title, the rest of the world would defend Korea’s claim to Dokdo. Apple, Google, and Wikipedia would correctly label Dokdo, “독도는 우리 땅” would no longer be a political statement and be a statement of fact, ….

    “And even WITH an ICJ ruling in favor of Korea, do you think 1) the right-wing Japanese are going to stop making a stink? and 2) do you think overly zealous Koreans will suddenly stop being angry and annoyed with those right-wing Japanese?

    1) Whether the right-wing Japanese continue to make a stink would become irrelevant and easily ignored. The Japanese government would be forced to officially recognize Korea’s claim to Dokdo.

    2) Koreans would no longer need to be angry and annoyed with those right-wing Japanese any more than Americans need be angry and annoyed by the Russian asshat who shows a map of Russia that includes Alaska.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    To get, in the terminology of the real estate metaphor, “clear title” to the property.

    Why do you continue to insist on the false real estate metaphor?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    The metaphor was not originally mine. Others in this thread keep using the property terminology. I’ve argued all along that the property analogy was weak. Others in this thread insisted that the analogy was spot-on.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Counselor, see the following:

    #171 JK: “Say I own my house. You come and claim it’s yours. Your argument is ridiculous, but you stick to your guns. I know that the truth supports my side. You want to take this to the ICJ as you would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by having the ICJ arbitrate this case while I have everything to lose and nothing to gain in doing so.”

    and JK’s reply when I call his analogy weak:

    #185 JK: To Anonmous Joe @74:

    “You are arguing by analogy, and your analogy is weak. ”

    No, it’s not.

    I repeatedly reject the analogy because the analogy is weak for support of his argument. See my attempts to get JK to dismiss the analogy throughout this thread.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    JK, do you accept the opinion of theKorean, who is an attorney, that the property metaphor is weak?

    (theKorean, where have you been for the past week?)

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    I’ve argued all along that the property analogy was weak.

    Then stop using the analogy.

    Joe, what you are missing is this: ICJ is not a real court. It has no compulsory jurisdiction. It has no ability to execute its judgment. Accordingly, relative to national courts, it has very tenuous legitimacy.

    What you are saying is, essentially, that a favorable ICJ decision would confer additional legitimacy to Korea’s claim over its territory. But so what? Whatever additional legitimacy ICJ can confer is minimal, and it does not make a difference one way or the other to the fact that Dokdo is effectively Korea’s territory.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    I repeatedly reject the analogy because the analogy is weak for support of his argument.

    The property analogy has two components:

    1. Dokdo is like a piece of property.
    2. ICJ is like a national court in which one can enforce one’s rights over a piece of property.

    Both components of the analogy are false. You might have been rejecting (1), but your entire thesis revolves around (2).

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #399 thekorean:

    I’ve argued all along that the property analogy was weak.

    Then stop using the analogy.

    Don’t saddle me with the false analogy. JK insisted that the analogy was perfect. I argued within his framework because he kept insisting that it was a “get out of jail free” card.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Don’t saddle me with the false analogy.

    Ok. Sounds like in your mind, you are terming only component (1) from my comment @400 as “property analogy.” That’s fine. But regardless of what you are calling it, I would like to hear what you have to say about component (2).

  • JK

    Um, Anonymous (and thekorean), property or no property analogy, I still say Korea should never gamble with its territory, Dokdo, and let a third party decide if it gets to keep the rocks…when it already has them.

    And as thekorean said, how important is an ICJ decision to the issue anyway? People on both sides of the East Sea will be still grumbling loudly. It won’t solve a damn thing. And it’s definitely not enforceable.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #399 thekorean: “ICJ is not a real court. It has no compulsory jurisdiction. It has no ability to execute its judgment. ”
    That’s a backhanded way to delegitimize the court. True, the ICJ cannot produce compulsory orders for nations to appear. Still, “In contentious cases, the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court.

    Now because of your post, I will have to argue “real court” like it’s a papal dispensation. I wish you did a little homework before posting your bull**
    /////////////////////////////////
    ** “bull“, get it? Papal bull and, well, you know….

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    I still say Korea should never gamble with its territory, Dokdo, and let a third party decide if it gets to keep the rocks…when it already has them.

    I agree. All I’m saying is that your house analogy is not helpful, because it is vulnerable to Joe’s line of attack.

  • JK

    Anonymous, I can already predict this likely won’t sink in, but let me try this anyway:

    What exactly does Korea get if it goes to the ICJ? Either 1) it gets to keep what it already was in no danger of losing anyway without any reduction in noise from both the right-wing Japanese and the overly zealous Koreans or 2) it loses islands that it should have never gambled with in the first place in front of the ICJ.

    So why would Korea go to the ICJ?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #403 JK: “And as thekorean said, how important is an ICJ decision to the issue anyway? ….It won’t solve a damn thing. And it’s definitely not enforceable.”

    Geez, that was fast. See my post @404:

    “In contentious cases, the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court.”

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #405 thekorean: “All I’m saying is that your house analogy is not helpful, because it is vulnerable to Joe’s line of attack.”

    I prefer to think of it as “JK should drop the analogy because of Anonymous_Joe’s helpful suggestion from the very beginning that the analogy was weak and detrimental to JK’s position.”

    We have a difference in goals in this “debate”: You (second person, plural) are trying to win at all and any cost. I’m trying to get at the truth.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    I wish you did a little homework before posting your bull**

    For two years, I represented a sovereign nation before the ICJ. Does that count?

    Consider this hypothetical: suppose the two states do voluntarily submit their case to the ICJ, and the ICJ rules in favor of Korea with respect to the Dokdo issue, and issues inter alia an injunction specifically prohibiting the Japanese government from claiming Dokdo as its territory. Yet the Japanese government continues to proclaim Dokdo as its territory, for god-knows-what-reasons. Under this situation:

    (1) What can ICJ do, against this flagrant disrespect of its authority?
    (2) What can Korea do with the ICJ ruling to stop the Japanese government from making this proclamation? (In other words, what is the value that the hypothetical ICJ ruling added?)

    I would say the answers are: (1) nothing and (2) nothing. If you think otherwise, I would love to hear why.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Your hypothetical is that, a hypothetical. As you know, in court itself I would be foolish to argue your hypothetical because it is that and counter to the agreement that member nations submit to in taking their cases to the ICJ. In reality, Japan is a responsible state and a respected member in the world community. Japan signs on to treaties and agreements, and Japan honors those treaties and agreements.

    Nonetheless, in the interest of debate and discourse, I will answer your questions. (Please take note, tinyflowers, JK, Q, and the rest: In the name of discourse and debate, I will give an intellectually honest answer. I won’t evade, obfuscate, or belittle.)

    If “the Japanese government continues to proclaim Dokdo as its territory, for god-knows-what-reasons. Under this situation…”

    “(1) What can ICJ do, against this flagrant disrespect of its authority?”
    You smartly put it in terms of what can the ICJ do rather than the ramifications of the decision in the world community. For Japan to inexplicably keep making the claim internally, well, let them masturbate on it all they want. If Japan makes any claim outside Japan, particularly by landing on Dokdo itself, then Korea has a binding judgment that Dokdo is Korean territory. An invasion of Dokdo would be seen as an invasion of Korea by the world community. Any country that lost a judgment at the ICJ to Japan would be as justified as Japan in ignoring the ICJ’s decision. Japan would never again be able to use the ICJ. The list goes on and on …for a hypothetical that will never happen. (Japan ain’t the Norks.)

    “(2) What can Korea do with the ICJ ruling to stop the Japanese government from making this proclamation? (In other words, what is the value that the hypothetical ICJ ruling added?)” This one is easy. Do you think that Apple, Google, Wikipedia, and the rest of the world will view Korea’s claim as disputed? Name one country, outside of the hypothetical Japan that you set forth, that would not view Dokdo as Korean territory.

    I will tell you that if Japan “invaded” Dokdo by landing some politician there today, I would not think that the U.S. or the other members of the U.N. should come to the defense of Korea. With an ICJ judgment, the world community must view Japan’s landing as invasion and an act of war.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #409 thekorean: “For two years, I represented a sovereign nation before the ICJ. Does that count?”

    Not if your appeal to expertise and experience did not show knowledge that “in contentious cases, the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court.”.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    (1)

    For Japan to inexplicably keep making the claim internally, well, let them masturbate on it all they want.

    It sounds like you agree that the ICJ decision will have zero effect within Japan. Ok, we are halfway there.

    If Japan makes any claim outside Japan, particularly by landing on Dokdo itself, then Korea has a binding judgment that Dokdo is Korean territory.

    You already admitted that nothing could stop the Japanese government from internally proclaiming Dokdo to be its own territory, although that would be a flagrant violation of the judgment. If nothing can be done to address the violation of the judgment, in what sense is the judgment “binding”?

    Any country that lost a judgment at the ICJ to Japan would be as justified as Japan in ignoring the ICJ’s decision. Japan would never again be able to use the ICJ.

    Not so. Just to give one example to the contrary — a lot of recent treaties have a mandatory referral clause to the ICJ, by which the parties agree that they will “domesticate” the ICJ decision as if it were a judgment from a national court, which is truly binding upon the national government. The fact that Japan ignored ICJ’s ruling in its dispute with Korea does not allow, say, Indonesia to ignore its own treaty with Japan, because doing so would result in the government of Indonesia ignoring its own courts.

    Trust me on this point — states violate ICJ orders all the freakin’ time. If what you said were true, ICJ would go from nearly useless to completely useless.

    So, having said that, is there anything else that the ICJ (or the “world community,” for that matter) can do to stop Japan from flagrantly ignoring ICJ’s orders?

    (2)

    Do you think that Apple, Google, Wikipedia, and the rest of the world will view Korea’s claim as disputed?

    Yes. I believe this is how the description will run: “Korea won a judgment from the ICJ. However, Japan continues to dispute Korea’s ownership of Dokdo.” This description is ostensibly a statement of fact, yet it continues to acknowledge that there exists a dispute. Why? Because nothing in the world could stop Japan from raising the dispute, with or without the ICJ judgment.

    I will tell you that if Japan “invaded” Dokdo by landing some politician there today, I would not think that the U.S. or the other members of the U.N. should come to the defense of Korea. With an ICJ judgment, the world community must view Japan’s landing as invasion and an act of war.

    Now you are flying into fantasy land.

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    Not if your appeal to expertise and experience did not show knowledge that “in contentious cases, the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court.”.

    Oh wow, you can quote from Wikipedia! I’m soooo impressed.

    I’ll give you a hint here: “binding” in that sentence does not mean what you think it means. Beyond that, I will have to get into a long exposition of what “binding” means as a legal term of art. I have been down that road recently with another knucklehead, who never ended up grasping it. So I’ll pass on this front.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #412 thekorean:

    (1) For Japan to inexplicably keep making the claim internally, well, let them masturbate on it all they want.

    It sounds like you agree that the ICJ decision will have zero effect within Japan. Ok, we are halfway there.

    That was your hypothetical, and I already rejected the conditional. I don’t particularly care what Japanese think within Japan, but they would have to think it with an ICJ judgment and the rest of the world ignoring whatever the Japanese think.

    When I wrote, “Japan would never again be able to use the ICJ”, I really meant effectively in the sense that other countries would honor the ICJ’s judgment for Japan against them.

    (2) Do you think that Apple, Google, Wikipedia, and the rest of the world will view Korea’s claim as disputed?

    Yes. I believe this is how the description will run: “Korea won a judgment from the ICJ. However, Japan continues to dispute Korea’s ownership of Dokdo.”

    Yeah, Google is gonna put that on a map. Graspin’ at straws, counselor?

    This description is ostensibly a statement of fact, yet it continues to acknowledge that there exists a dispute. Why? Because nothing in the world could stop Japan from raising the dispute, with or without the ICJ judgment.

    Raising a dispute isn’t the same as acknowledging a dispute.

    I will tell you that if Japan “invaded” Dokdo by landing some politician there today, I would not think that the U.S. or the other members of the U.N. should come to the defense of Korea. With an ICJ judgment, the world community must view Japan’s landing as invasion and an act of war.

    Now you are flying into fantasy land.

    Are you saying that the UN does not recognize internationally recognized borders? Did the UN do anything when Iraq invaded Province 19, I mean Kuwait in 1990?

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    When I wrote, “Japan would never again be able to use the ICJ”, I really meant effectively in the sense that other countries would honor the ICJ’s judgment for Japan against them.

    I don’t understand this sentence. Is there a “not” missing somewhere?

    Raising a dispute isn’t the same as acknowledging a dispute.

    What’s the point of this? Of course they are not the same.

    Are you saying that the UN does not recognize internationally recognized borders?

    I am saying that UN does not recognize a visit of a politician to a foreign country to be an act of war, even if the visit is not authorized. If you think otherwise, you are truly living in the fantasy land.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #413 thekorean:

    Not if your appeal to expertise and experience did not show knowledge that “in contentious cases, the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court.”.

    Oh wow, you can quote from Wikipedia! I’m soooo impressed.

    I’m unimpressed that you did not even read Wikipedia before you represented your client for two years before the ICJ. I provided sources for my statements. Does the ICJ page state differently? Is the information not valid? (BTW, is sarcasm the best you got, counselor?)

    I’ll give you a hint here: “binding” in that sentence does not mean what you think it means. Beyond that, I will have to get into a long exposition of what “binding” means as a legal term of art. I have been down that road recently with another knucklehead, who never ended up grasping it. So I’ll pass on this front.

    So now I’m a knucklehead because….

    …and the evidence that I lack the capacity to grasp this devastating concept is….

    As I have posted, I am interested in truth. You’re interested in winning. Calling me knucklehead and insinuating that I lack the capacity to understand some concept, is that your get out of jail free card?

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    I’m unimpressed that you did not even read Wikipedia before you represented your client for two years before the ICJ.

    I seriously laughed out loud on that one. I guess I should call my malpractice carrier or something.

    As I have posted, I am interested in truth.

    ok, then let’s hear it out. What do you think the term “binding ruling” means in the sentence you quoted from Wikipedia?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Ah, a true attorney. You enjoy the small quibble, don’t you?

    #415 thekorean:
    When I wrote, “Japan would never again be able to use the ICJ”, I really meant effectively in the sense that other countries would honor the ICJ’s judgment for Japan against them.

    I don’t understand this sentence. Is there a “not” missing somewhere?

    I apologize for the ambiguity counselor, and I will agree to your “not”. I was really thinking “never effectively”.

    Raising a dispute isn’t the same as acknowledging a dispute.
    What’s the point of this? Of course they are not the same.
    Again, my apologies counselor. Japan can claim “a dispute”. Apple, Google, and everyone else on the planet should not feel compelled to acknowledge Japan’s claim of dispute.

    Are you saying that the UN does not recognize internationally recognized borders?

    I am saying that UN does not recognize a visit of a politician to a foreign country to be an act of war, even if the visit is not authorized. If you think otherwise, you are truly living in the fantasy land.

    It’s nearly 4:00 a.m. here, and I am tired. Change it to military invasion force.

  • JK

    Anonymous, you’re getting your butt handed to you in your little back-and-forth with thekorean, so you might want to stop before you look even more ridiculous.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #417 thekorean: I seriously laughed out loud on that one. I guess I should call my malpractice carrier or something.

    I’m glad you laughed. I wrote it in jest obviously.

    My point was that if it’s on Wikipedia or the ICJ webpage, then it should be considered common knowledge to anyone dealing with the ICJ. If I were to present before the ICJ, I would start with some primer.

    ok, then let’s hear it out. What do you think the term “binding ruling” means in the sentence you quoted from Wikipedia?

    I will tell you counselor. First consider whether you think that I am being intellectually dishonest, disingenuous in my posts, or insulting (except in response to your insults)?

    OK, then. I don’t know how the ICJ defines “binding ruling”. I think the definition is that both parties agree to be bound by the decision of the ICJ. That’s the definition that I assumed when I read the statement, “In contentious cases, the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court.”

  • Anonymous_Joe

    BTW, the OK then should really be written this way:

    I will tell you counselor. First consider whether you think that I am being intellectually dishonest, disingenuous in my posts, or insulting (except in response to your insults)?

    OK, then.

    I don’t know how the ICJ defines “binding ruling”. I think the definition is that both parties agree to be bound by the decision of the ICJ. That’s the definition that I assumed when I read the statement, “In contentious cases, the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court.”

  • Anonymous_Joe

    BTW, the OK then should really be written this way:

    I will tell you counselor. First consider whether you think that I am being intellectually dishonest, disingenuous in my posts, or insulting (except in response to your insults)?

    OK, then.

    I don’t know how the ICJ defines “binding ruling”. I think the definition is that both parties agree to be bound by the decision of the ICJ. That’s the definition that I assumed when I read the statement, “In contentious cases, the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court.”

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #419 JK: Anonymous, you’re getting your butt handed to you in your little back-and-forth with thekorean, so you might want to stop before you look even more ridiculous.

    Tell me more about how the “house analogy” is perfect. I wrote to you for a week that the analogy was weak and detrimental to your argument.

    The problem of course is that you were focused on winning, while I was focused on learning.

    If he makes me look ridiculous, maybe I will really learn something. So far, I’ve only learned that no argument, reason, or logic will dissuade you from your lack thereof.

    JK, why do you, Q, tinyflowers…. keep wanting me to stop? Are my posts really dangerous? I’m providing the opportunity for the Dokdo advocates to demonstrate their strong argument. And when you think about it, I’m just a knucklehead and all the other names you (second person, plural) have called me on this and the other thread. What will happen when it hits the fan, and you face real major league pitching?

  • tinyflowers

    Looks like we have ourselves a freshly minted Dokdo troll.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Ah, yes. Yet another epithet. tinyflowers, why don’t you check what the mod said about you on the other thread.

    I’ve provided thoughtful, intellectually honest answers to questions, and I have been genuine in my posts. I have avoided name calling each night until I get the slam post put on me.

    I have found that there is a Dokdo contingent that is like a school of piranha. They are more interested in shouting down, misrepresenting, misquoting, and ridiculing than providing thoughtful, logical, and reasoned replies.

    (theKorean, I understand that you are busy, but I hope that you will provide me with a short, sourced explanation of what “binding ruling” means in the context of the ICJ.)

  • http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

    (theKorean, I understand that you are busy, but I hope that you will provide me with a short, sourced explanation of what “binding ruling” means in the context of the ICJ.)

    I had a relatively leisurely day so far, but just got served with a brief. I’ll address this point when I can — probably later tonight.

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

    The Korean wrote (#395):

    Why do you continue to insist on the false real estate metaphor?

    Because it is a good metaphor, analogy, or whatever you want to call it.

    Territorial disputes have been settled in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the dispute between Korea and Japan can be settled there, too. Korea and Japan simply have to sign and ratify a treaty agreement to take their “real estate” dispute to the ICJ and to abide by the court’s decision.

    If the ICJ rules in favor of Korea, the international community, including the United States, would recognize Korean sovereignty over Dokdo, and would even start using the name “Dokdo” on their maps. That means Korea would no longer have to spend millions of dollars in real and political capital trying convince the world that Dokdo is Korean territory. So the Korean claim that there would be no benefit to going to the ICJ is untrue.

    The real reason Korea does not want to take the dispute to the ICJ is that Korea has nothing to support its historical claim to Dokdo. US Secretary of State Dean Rusk stated the facts correctly in his August 10, 1951 letter to the Korean ambassador:

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

    Dean Rusk’s conclusion in 1951 is will almost certainly be the same conclusion the ICJ reaches if the dispute is taken to the Court. That’s the real reason Korea does not take the dispute to the ICJ.

  • JK

    Gbevers wrote:
    “The real reason Korea does not want to take the dispute to the ICJ is that Korea has nothing to support its historical claim to Dokdo.”

    HAH! I see. So that’s the REAL reason. Oh boy….

    Gerry, Korea has nothing to gain by going to the ICJ. Right now, it owns Dokdo because it took it i 1951. I have been eagerly awaiting you to give a legitimate argument that Korea took legitimate Japanese territory when it took Dokdo as a war reparation. Alas, you’ve failed me in that endeavor over the years. So the facts point to Korea merely having taken its own territory back when it took Dokdo. Sigh. Oh well.

    REGARDLESS of the historical arguments, why would Korea go to the ICJ when there’s even the smallest potential that Korea could lose Dokdo? Makes no freakin’ sense.

  • JK

    Anonymous,

    I wrote a long comment, but it got lost when I hit the submit button. The highlights of what I wrote are:

    1. You and thekorean did not find my house analogy appropriate. You are both welcome to your opinions. The important thing ultimately is the conclusion (house analogy or not): Dokdo is under the ownership and possession of South Korea. Period. To go to the ICJ and risk (however minimal the risk may be) losing what it already possesses defies all logic.

    2. You’ve been pretty offensive yourself to myself and other commenters as well as to ‘Koreans’ as if the entire population all think and act alike. I’d hate to hear your opinion on ‘Muslims.’ And you claim you are an objective person seeking the truth. But what you really want is to win the argument, not seek the truth. And your main point seems to be “go to the ICJ” even at the risk of Korea losing the case, which I do not understand why Korea would follow your advice.

    3. As for the “truth”, I’ll give you my truth (since you claim I and others like Yuna and Q are not seeking truth): I would like for Korea to be able to say it took Japanese territory right under the nose of the Japanese people as a war reparation. I want Gerry Bevers to show that Korea took legitimate Japanese territory so that Korea can thumb its nose at Japan. But Gerry Bevers has FAILED in that endeavor over the years; the arguments favor Korea, and Korea likely took back legitimate KOREAN territory when it took Dokdo in 1951.

    Regardless, I still say it’s stupid for Korea to go to the ICJ and risk even minimally losing any part of its current territory.

  • JK

    Anonymous wrote to me:
    “I find your posts intellectually dishonest.”

    Pray tell how I was ever dishonest? And please provide the comment that shows I was “intellectually dishonest.” Otherwise, keep your insults and false accusations to yourself, Anonymous.

  • tinyflowers

    The house analogy works just fine when it’s used to illustrate the simple logical principle that you do not volunteer to go to court to determine ownership of something you already own. It only starts to break down when you start introducing real estate and property laws into the mix.

    It could have been the horse analogy for all I care, the principle would still be the same (but Joe would probably miss the point entirely and start talking about livestock law).

  • JK

    To tinyflowers @431: LOL!!!

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

    JK wrote (#43):

    Anonymous wrote to me: “I find your posts intellectually dishonest.”

    I have to disagree with Anonymous. How can JK be intellectually dishonest when he has no intellect?

  • Charles Tilly

    How can JK be intellectually dishonest when he has no intellect?

    Hate to say it, but the imbecile asks a good question.

  • JK

    Coming from Gbevers who feels he has to correct Koreans’ usage of the Korean language (and who has consistently been proven to be wrong by native Koreans), that’s rich.

    But DO let me know when you can present a legitimate argument that Dokdo is historically Japan’s so that I can celebrate the Korean seizure of Japanese territory. Still waiting after all these years….

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

    JK wrote (#435):

    But DO let me know when you can present a legitimate argument that Dokdo is historically Japan’s so that I can celebrate the Korean seizure of Japanese territory. Still waiting after all these years….

    See what I mean? The intellectual capacity of an aborted baby.

  • JK

    Oh yeah, I keep forgetting your anti-choice (even in cases of rape and incest).

    The fact is, Gerry, you have never EVER presented a solid case that Dokdo was historically and legitimately Japan’s territory. You did all that arguing and mistranslating and posting over the years and even lost a job over it. Twice.

    So with such a waste of a life and with the terrible consequences that it entailed for you, you are hardly one to question anyone’s intellect.

  • JK

    Oh yeah, I keep forgetting you’re anti-choice (even in cases of rape and incest).

    The fact is, Gerry, you have never EVER presented a solid case that Dokdo was historically and legitimately Japan’s territory. You did all that arguing and mistranslating and posting over the years and even lost a job over it. Twice.

    So with such a waste of a life, as well as such shoddy research, and with the terrible consequences that it entailed for you, you are hardly one to question anyone’s intellect.

  • dogbertt

    What do you have against aborted babies, Gerry?

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

    JK wrote (#437):

    Oh yeah, I keep forgetting your anti-choice (even in cases of rape and incest).

    No, I would support a woman’s choice to have an abortion within the first trimester. A person should be able to tell if they are pregnant within that time period and take action.

    I would not support abortion in the second and third trimesters, even in the case of rape or incest, because I would worry about the baby’s being sentient. If a baby is kicking in a woman’s stomach, it is doing it for a reason.

    Life should not be determined by whether a fetus can survive outside the womb. If a baby is alive inside the womb, eating and breathing with the help of its mother, that is still life.

    Obama supports all forms of abortion, including partial birth abortion in the third trimester, which really turns my stomach.

    People need to watch THIS VIDEO.

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

    Could someone please let my post out of Moderation jail? I screwed up and used the word “pregnant” in my post.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #426 thekorean:

    “(…I understand that you are busy, but I hope that you will provide me with a short, sourced explanation of what “binding ruling” means in the context of the ICJ.)

    I had a relatively leisurely day so far, but just got served with a brief. I’ll address this point when I can — probably later tonight.

    I understand.

    You can assume that I can read definitions and understand their meaning. If words or terms are used differently from their usage in common English, please explain preemptively. I appreciate authoritative sources. You can assume that I have basic legal understanding through training, education, expertise, or experience not related to the ICJ.

    I assure you that I will be respectful in this discussion so long as you are respectful (and intellectually honest, which I hope will not be a problem). Arguments such as “you wouldn’t understand”, “if you don’t understand, I can’t explain it to you”, “just forget about it because you have better things to do”, “it’s time to end this thread”, and other non-sequiters are automatic losers.

    I also note that you were able to squelch the mob’s at-best fallacious arguments by simply stating the arguments were fallacious. I couldn’t stop their clinging to their fallacies and fantasies even with reasons, valid arguments, and by pointing out that the fallacies were injurious to their argument. Perhaps we can clear up other misconceptions.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    I will soon be through addressing JK, tinyflowers, Q, and others on this issue.

    #431 tinyflowers: “The house analogy works just fine when it’s used to illustrate the simple logical principle that you do not volunteer to go to court to determine ownership of something you already own. It only starts to break down when you start introducing real estate and property laws into the mix.

    theKorean already dismissed your argument, and I’ve tried to explain that the argument is detrimental to your argument.

    You seem to lack the capacity to grasp that argument by analogy is valid only so much as the situations are similar. “”The house analogy works just fine when it’s used to illustrate the simple logical principle that you do not volunteer to go to court to determine ownership of something you already own. It only starts to break down when you start introducing real estate and property laws into the mix.” You just explained it to yourself.

    It could have been the horse analogy for all I care, the principle would still be the same (but Joe would probably miss the point entirely and start talking about livestock law).

    The horse analogy is even weaker, but I agree that your implied principle is still the same: Whoever is the current rider is the owner. Well, right now, the U.S. is riding Korea. Is that your argument?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #429 JK:
    3. As for the “truth”, I’ll give you my truth (since you claim I and others like Yuna and Q are not seeking truth):

    Are you on a recruiting drive? I never mentioned Yuna.

    I would like for Korea to be able to say it took Japanese territory right under the nose of the Japanese people as a war reparation. …the arguments favor Korea, and Korea likely took back legitimate KOREAN territory when it took Dokdo in 1951.

    Normally, I think that I should be able to argue against the legitimacy of Korea’s claim on Dokdo as a unilateral war reparation. Perhaps theKorean will state the same reason, so we can be done with it.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #427 gbevers November 15, 2012 at 5:29 am
    The Korean wrote (#395):

    Why do you continue to insist on the false real estate metaphor?

    Because it is a good metaphor, analogy, or whatever you want to call it.

    Territorial disputes have been settled in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the dispute between Korea and Japan can be settled there, too. Korea and Japan simply have to sign and ratify a treaty agreement to take their “real estate” dispute to the ICJ and to abide by the court’s decision.

    If the ICJ rules in favor of Korea, the international community, including the United States, would recognize Korean sovereignty over Dokdo, and would even start using the name “Dokdo” on their maps. That means Korea would no longer have to spend millions of dollars in real and political capital trying convince the world that Dokdo is Korean territory.

    theKorean, do you agree that GB is essentially correct in his reasoning?

    (JK, I tried to dissuade from the real property argument.)

  • Q

    Most foreigners ain’t sh*t care about Liancourt. Only trolls make noise… ICJ… blah blah blah.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #437 JK: “Oh yeah, I keep forgetting your anti-choice (even in cases of rape and incest).

    The fact is, Gerry, you have never EVER presented a solid case that Dokdo was historically and legitimately Japan’s territory.

    Is your line of argument is that GB has an opinion that is different from yours on an unrelated issue, therefore he is wrong on this issue?

    Besides, your wrong.

    (Warning: do not infer anything about my opinion on this issue.) I do not know that you (JK) have the capacity to reason through the position (“your anti-choice (even in cases of rape and incest)”) you attribute to GB. I know that sounds like a slam, but I mean it more as an observation.

    If GB is starting from the premise that I think he is (and is the premise of well-over half the world on this issue), then the position that you attribute to GB is philosophically consistent. I figured it out at 15 and still cringe when I hear “anti-choice” politicians say “except in the case of rape and incest.”

  • JK

    Anonymous,

    You’re playing a nice dodge game (though we can all see through it) of “the house analogy doesn’t work and thekorean agrees with me” to avoid the main point of this discussion: Why Korea should or should not take the Dokdo issue to the ICJ.

    House or no house analogy, the Korean government should never go to the ICJ and gamble with its own territory with a third party and hope and pray that the decision goes its way and that the ICJ can see through the flawed arguments and mistranslations by Gerry Bevers and the right-wing Japanese. Korea already OWNS Dokdo.

    THAT was the point of this whole discussion. You’re using a red herring by coming back to the house analogy. The point of this whole discussion is, should Korea go to the ICJ and gamble with territory it already owns and risk losing it, no matter what the odds are of that happening just to appease Anonymous_Joe?

  • CactusMcHarris

    JK,

    In an effort to (1) learn something about it from a Korean perspective and (2) help make this the longest thread ever, if a country takes out international advertisements stating that such-and-such a place is its land, and not some other country’s, and Country A believes so fervently in its claim that it sacrifices doves and fingers, what’s it got to fear from an international court’s decision? If anything, the court could legitimize Country A’s claim that the place is Country A’s, not Country B’s. And there would be no more need for Country A to take out said advertisements, which leave most people scratching their collective heads.

  • Q

    Joe guy probably get some stipend from Japanese asshats for his trolling. Gerry Bevers has done sh*tty job at TMH and they possibly hired another.

  • CactusMcHarris

    #448

    You sure you don’t mean ‘enslaved another’, do you, because you know how good those people are at enslaving.

    Gerry’s done a good job, but since both parties see that he doesn’t have a dog in the fight, he’s not taken seriously. Gerry’s made some sacrifices for his stand, but most would call that (accidental) self-wounding.

  • Q

    Probably paid sacrifice… I would say.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #447 JK: …the Korean government should never go to the ICJ and gamble with its own territory with a third party and hope and pray that the decision goes its way and that the ICJ can see through the flawed arguments and mistranslations by Gerry Bevers and the right-wing Japanese. Korea already OWNS Dokdo.

    Your argument is that the ICJ might not “see through the flawed arguments and mistranslations by Gerry Bevers and the right-wing Japanese”?

    THAT was the point of this whole discussion. You’re using a red herring by coming back to the house analogy.

    I didn’t. You did.

    The point of this whole discussion is, should Korea go to the ICJ and gamble with territory it already owns and risk losing it, no matter what the odds are of that happening just to appease Anonymous_Joe?

    No. One specific Anonymous_Joe should not be a consideration in Korea’s calculus at all. A compelling reason for Korea to go to the ICJ is to appease Apple, Google, France, England, the U.S., all the other Anonymous_Joe’s in the case that Dokdo is militarily invaded, the Korean school children who will no longer have to sing songs, the U.S. ambassador who will not have to field questions from singing Korean school children…

    What if Japan were to (for lack of a better term) invade Dokdo and reassert its claim? Would you then argue that Japan by its de facto possession “owns” Dokdo?

    Are you confident in Korea’s ability to militarily defend Dokdo against Japan, which has 2 1/2 times the population and over 5 times the GDP of Korea?

    In the case of a Japanese invasion of Dokdo, do you think that the U.S. would defend Korea’s claim to Dokdo? Do you think that all the American Anonymous G.I. Joe’s and their families will make a sacrifice for Korea’s claim to Dokdo?

    Do you think that Korea will be able to get a declaration at the U.N. condemning Japan’s (from Korea’s perspective) invasion of Dokdo?

    …and Korea is risking all this while it sits on evidence and arguments that are indisputable.

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

    Annonymous Joe wrote (#445):

    theKorean, do you agree that GB is essentially correct in his reasoning?

    What a silly question! Of course, he agrees with me. My reasoning is flawless.

  • Q

    WHERE ARE SCHOLARLY ARTICLES THAT SUPPORT JAPAN’S CLAIM ON DOKDO?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #449 Q: Joe guy probably get some stipend from Japanese asshats for his trolling. Gerry Bevers has done sh*tty job at TMH and they possibly hired another.

    Q, you are going farther afield. Stipend? Really?

    Trolling? I’ve posited very good questions. Your (second person, plural, possessive) epithets and charges of trolling weaken your position.

    You have an attorney. Let him do your talking.

  • Q

    I will keep asking the question. Rusk letter is not scholarly article, nor the San Francisco Peace Treaty is. Only we can see are 2 channelish right wing asshats and the like (in English version).

  • Q

    Okay, here is the deal. Joe, you troll with ICJ, I will go by scholarly articles. That would make even.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #453 gbevers:

    Annonymous Joe wrote (#445):
    theKorean, do you agree that GB is essentially correct in his reasoning?

    What a silly question! Of course, he agrees with me. My reasoning is flawless.

    GB, I asked him; let him answer for himself.

    (BTW, I wrote a post about in response to JK’s @436 post. Once it clears “moderation”, it will appear @446)

    #454 Q: WHERE ARE SCHOLARLY ARTICLES THAT SUPPORT JAPAN’S CLAIM ON DOKDO?

    Repetition, bold, and ALL CAPS. That must be one strong argument in favor of Korea’s indisputable claim to Dokdo. Submit it at the ICJ subject to a binding ruling that by truce both Korea and Japan agree to abide by.

    Q, the merits of the Korea’s and Japan’s claims on Dokdo are not my point in this argument. Let your lawyer speak for you.

  • Q

    My point of argument is that is it worth to react to a claim that has zero support of academic studies? It’s just a waste of time. It’s a bullsh*t and stupid farce. Reacting to bullsh*t make the part reacting look bullsh*t.

  • Wedge

    Holy dead horse, Batman! You guys need to shoot for 600 comments–you can do it!

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #457 Q: I will keep asking the question. Rusk letter is not scholarly article, nor the San Francisco Peace Treaty is. Only we can see are 2 channelish right wing asshats and the like (in English version).

    The Rusk Letter and San Francisco Peace Treaty are primary sources. I really never heard of either before I entered this debate, but treaties and primary sources are more definitive than the scholarly articles written about them.

    Epithet to punctuate your tenuous point makes the point all the weaker.

  • Q

    Where are academic studies that support Japan’s claim on Dokdo? It is the best for Korea not to react to bullsh*t propaganda that does not have any scholarly support.

  • Q

    You call it debate, I call it beating the dead horse.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #460 Q: My point of argument is that is it worth to react to a claim that has zero support of academic studies?

    Not necessarily, but it is worth reacting to a claim by a sovereign nation that has standing in this dispute.

    It’s just a waste of time. It’s a bullsh*t and stupid farce. Reacting to bullsh*t make the part reacting look bullsh*t.

    Dismissing the claim of a sovereign nation and responsible member nation in the world community with “stupid farce” and “bullsh*t” when there is some evidence (again, I make no judgment of the relative merits) sounds weak.

    Q, let theKorean do the talking for you. As JK noted @419, he’s handing me my ass and is up to the task.

    (theKorean, I don’t want you to see that as a slight on you. I just want them to let you handle it.)

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #464 Q: You call it debate, I call it beating the dead horse.

    Let the Korean be your jockey. He’s trained, and he’s ridden before.

    And as you have implied by your post, you think the debate is beating a dead horse. It’s time for you to dismount and step back.

  • Q

    Where are authoritative academic support to Japan’s claim on Dokdo? This is an issue that does not need to go to ICJ. Lack of scholarship of Japan is the cause of their bullsh*t claim.

  • Q

    This is an issue that does not need to go to ICJ. Lack of scholarship of Japan is the cause of their bullsh*t claim.

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

    Anonymous Joe wrote (462):

    The Rusk Letter and San Francisco Peace Treaty are primary sources. I really never heard of either before I entered this debate, but treaties and primary sources are more definitive than the scholarly articles written about them.

    Have you heard of the 1954 Van Fleet Mission Report?

    Between April 26 and August 7, 1954, retired 4-star General James Alward Van Fleet traveled to Asia as a Special Ambassador for US President Dwight D. Eisenhower to chronicle a survey of the United States Military Assistence Programs in the Far East. He and his team conducted surveys of the military, economic, and political situation in the region. The report was submitted to the US President on October 4, 1954.

    In his post-mission report Ambassador Van Fleet discribed the dispute over the ownership of “Dokto Island” as follows:

    4. Ownership of Dokto Island

    The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu (131.80E, 36.20N). This Island is, in fact, only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.

    The Mission was advised by Republic of Korea that:

    “What is still worse is that Japan now claims the possession of the little islet of Dokto known Liancourt Rocks near the Woolnungdo known as Dagelet. Japanese officials are making frequent visits to the islet with armed vessels molesting Korean fishermen there. They set up posts here and there in the islet with description declaring as if it were Japanese territory. Throughout our history and knowledge up to the very moment of the declaration of sovereignty over adjacent seas (Rhee Line), Korea’s sovereignty over it has never been contended by any country, as it has long been an immovably established fact that the islet, Dokto, has been historically as well as legally a part of Woolnungdo (Dagelet) Korean territory.”

  • Anonymous_Joe

    I will take your word for it that there is a “lack of scholarship” to support Japan’s claim. (I really don’t know.) Nonetheless, evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

    Now, what if those “sneaky Japanese” commissioned scholars to write scholarly papers? What if there are scholarly papers that you don’t know of? What if scholars decide to write scholarly papers that conclude with support for Japan’s claim? Would any of those change the validity of your reason?

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

    Okay, Japan has Gerry Bevers, Japanese MOFA, Rusk letter, SF Peace Treaty and Van Fleet Report for their best. Are they serious scholarly articles? Where are academic studies that support Japanese claim on Dokdo?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    @469 gbevers,

    The Rusk Letter, San Francisco Peace Treaty, and now the 1954 Van Fleet Mission Report are all documents that I had never heard of before.

    I am getting quite the education and would be willing to read intellectually honest excerpts from documents that Q, JK, and even tinyflowers suggest, particularly if they cut-and-paste and post the relevant info.

  • Q

    Bring the ICJ the claim that “US, not Japan, was the Aggressor.”

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #472 Q November 15, 2012 at 1:13 pm
    Okay, Japan has Gerry Bevers, Japanese MOFA, Rusk letter, SF Peace Treaty and Van Fleet Report for their best. Are they serious scholarly articles? Where are academic studies that support Japanese claim on Dokdo?

    Q, I don’t know, but if the scholarly articles do not address and convincingly refute those primary sources with something better, I will question their scholarly authority.

  • Q

    Bring ICJ the Japanese claim that the US should apologize for atomic bomb on Japan.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #474 Q: Bring the ICJ the claim that “US, not Japan, was the Aggressor.”

    Non-sequiter, and you sound desperate.

    Nonetheless, suppose that the ICJ were to determine that the U.S. was the aggressor, would that strengthen Korea’s claims on Dokdo?

    Wouldn’t the determination in fact weaken JK’s claim of reparations against Japan?

    Do you really want to argue that? Why don’t you let the lawyer talk for you?

  • Q

    Bring ICJ that Japan owns all the Asia before being defeated by the Allies. Bring ICJ that enforced sexual slavery was simply voluntary whores that were willing to donate their virginity to about 50 soldiers per day.

  • Q

    Bring ICJ the claim that the tsunami was created by artificial earthquake from the US.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #476 Q: Bring ICJ the Japanese claim that the US should apologize for atomic bomb on Japan.

    Eau de desperation.

    (copy-and paste @477 here)

    Q, your posts are counterproductive to your cause. The more you continue, the more of a visceral reaction I have against your true thesis. I am trying to let my brain overcome my stomach’s messages.

    Please let theKorean do your bidding.

  • Q

    Bring ICJ that Japan has to recover entire Asia under her rule as before the war.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #479 Q: Bring ICJ the claim that the tsunami was created by artificial earthquake from the US.

    Wow. …Just wow.

    At this point your theKorean might quit your case.

  • Q

    Where are scholarly support to Japan about Dokdo? Why so much silence of intellect about that, whist only trolls speak for Japan.

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

    Q wrote (372):

    Okay, Japan has Gerry Bevers, Japanese MOFA, Rusk letter, SF Peace Treaty and Van Fleet Report for their best.

    Yes, Japan has all of that, pluse old maps showing Liancourt Rocks, old documents describing the Rocks, old documents claiming the Rocks as Japanese territory, a petition to incorporate the Rocks into Japan territory, a 1905 government document incorporating the Rocks into Japanese territory, and newspaper articles reporting the incorporation of the Rocks.

    And what does Korea have? Nothing.

    Korea has no old maps showing the Rocks and no documents showing that Koreans ever travelled to the Rocks before the Japanese started carrying them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. In fact, the only two references to the Rocks in all of Korean history before the 1900s described the Rocks as unnamed Japanese territory or suggested they were Japanese territory.

    The evidence supporting Japan’s claim to Liancourt Rocks is overwhelming.

  • Q

    If Japan’s claim to Liancourt Rocks is so overwhelming, why are there zero scholarly support to the claim? The fact is that the claim is only promoted by Gerry Bevers and trolls.

  • Q

    Why Korea bother to go to ICJ to react to Japan of no serious support from academic studies? Why Korea react to bullsh*t claim only promoted by Gerry Bevers and the like?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    @485 Q,

    All you are giving me is name calling.

    To the moderators: at this point and on another thread, you should open a debate about free speech, TOS, and users’ agreement. Are spamming and name calling free speech or within the TOS? Are deliberate attempts to derail a debate with non-sequiters free speech or within the TOS?

    Are spamming, intellectual dishonesty, ad hominems, deliberate diversions a form of censorship?

    Aren’t these the digital age equivalent of shouting above a speaker so that he can’t be heard (while somehow thinking, “he’s speaking”)?

  • Q

    No way Korea go to ICJ for the matter that is only promoted by paid trolls. That would make Korea really ridiculous.

  • Q

    Those who are interested in reading “scholarly articles” on Dokdo, here is the link:

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/legal-study-of-the-dokdo-issue-i.html

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #488 Q: No way Korea go to ICJ for the matter that is only promoted by paid trolls. That would make Korea really ridiculous.

    I’m not a troll, paid or otherwise, and my main thesis is not that Korea should go to the ICJ. Let theKorean take up the issue for you.

    #489 Q: Those who are interested in reading “scholarly articles” on Dokdo, here is the link: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/legal-study-of-the-dokdo-issue-i.html

    Q, give me your best one, and I’ll read it. Please make your suggested selection reasonable in length and provide some excerpts so that I know what I’m getting into.

  • Q

    Korea ain’t go to ICJ for the Japanese claim only propagandized by Gerry Bevers and the imbeciles. The anonymous guy’s REDUNDANT agenda of ICJ would meet with the best interest of Japan.

  • Q

    Let’s not forget that the Joe guy’s ICJ agenda is also promoted by Japanese right wing politicians.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Q, you stopped making even specious arguments long ago. Now your just slinging as much sh!t in hopes of burying the debate.

    I wrote to you @490 (you know, the one before the post you just slung more sh!t) that I would read your best article. I wrote, “give me your best one, and I’ll read it. Please make your suggested selection reasonable in length and provide some excerpts so that I know what I’m getting into.”

    You can’t even do that. (I just keep thinking, weak, weak, weak, weak, weak….)

  • Q

    Where are scholarly support for Japan’s claim on Dokdo? Why does it have only ridiculous Gerry Bevers and trolls? The problem started from the lack of scholarship of Japan. So there you go. Japan needs conscientious academic studies on Dokdo.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #492 Q: “Let’s not forget that the Joe guy’s ICJ agenda is also promoted by Japanese right wing politicians.”

    Moderation, please.

    Let’s not forget that Anonymous_Joe doesn’t smoke cigarettes and thinks it’s a filthy habit. Didn’t the Nazis promote the same? hmmmm….

    Uncle Marmot, theKorean, and others will need to think about what kind of boards they want. Do they support free speech or mob noise? Do they support discourse or distraction?

    Q’s tactic looks like it’s taken out of the AstroTurf guide book to digital disruption.

  • Q

    The Rusk Letter, San Francisco Peace Treaty, and now the 1954 Van Fleet Mission Report are all documents that I had never heard of before.

    There we go. The Joe guy’s lack of study also resulted in his autistic repetition of ICJ. For the same reason Japan got cranky. So why Korea react to a demand that comes out of deficient understanding of random anonymous guy?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    Does anyone know any sites that legitimately debate the issue?

    Are there any sites that give legitimate answers to legitimate questions?

    I hope theKorean returns and finishes where he wanted to go with his “binding ruling” explanation.

  • tinyflowers

    #443,

    theKorean already dismissed your argument, and I’ve tried to explain that the argument is detrimental to your argument.

    I think you’re a little confused here Joe, I never used the analogy. JK used it to make a simple and limited point (which wasn’t really an analogy in the first place), but you ran with it, introducing real estate and property law into the debate and further confusing the issue. I’ve already explained to you way back in #273 why your analogy is invalid.

    You seem to lack the capacity to grasp that argument by analogy is valid only so much as the situations are similar

    Then why did you continue to use the analogy while adding elements what make the situations even more dissimliar?

  • tinyflowers

    Does anyone know any sites that legitimately debate the issue?

    Are there any sites that give legitimate answers to legitimate questions?

    Here is a list of scholarly articles written on the subject if you are truly interested in learning about this issue:

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/legal-study-of-the-dokdo-issue-i.html

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #499 tinyflowers: Here is a list of scholarly articles written on the subject if you are truly interested in learning about this issue:

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/legal-study-of-the-dokdo-issue-i.html

    Q @489 posted that link. I replied @490 (and again @493 when he resulted to name calling),

    Q, give me your best one, and I’ll read it. Please make your suggested selection reasonable in length and provide some excerpts so that I know what I’m getting into.

    So, I’ll make you the same offer: tinyflowers, give me your best one, and I’ll read it. Please make your suggested selection reasonable in length and provide some excerpts so that I know what I’m getting into.

    *********************
    As for your other post, let the lawyer handle the argument.

  • tinyflowers

    I realize that he already posted it. Your response is a nice cop out.

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

    Anonymous Joe wrote (#490):

    Q, give me your best one, and I’ll read it. Please make your suggested selection reasonable in length and provide some excerpts so that I know what I’m getting into.

    I guess you have noticed, Joe, that Q refuses to select a “scholarly article” for you to read. Have you asked yourself why he refuses to do so?

    Well, it is possible that he has not even read the articles, but I think the real reason is that he knows that no matter which article he chooses, Korea’s historical claims to Dokdo can easily be debunked.

    Link to one of your “scholarly articles,” Q, the one you think best argues Korea’s historical claim to Dokdo, and I will read it and tell you and Anonymous Joe why the scholarship is full of crap. It is that simple.

  • tinyflowers

    Gerry, why have you never published your findings in a peer reviewed scholarly journal?

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #501 tinyflowers: I realize that he already posted it. Your response is a nice cop out.

    Cop out???

    …and you realized he posted the link already? Did you also “realize” that I had specifically offered twice to read any article that he suggested?

    *******
    To GB @502, I scanned one of the articles (I won’t say which one), and I noticed some issues that the author failed to address. I am highly suspicious and suspect that the author purposefully omitted the issue because it was a fatal flaw.
    *******
    On a general note, this attempt to get to the bottom of Korea’s reason for refusal to go to the ICJ (not of the relative merits of Japan’s and Korea’s claim on Dokdo) has made me suspect the netizenry’s understanding of everything.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #503 tinyflowers: Gerry, why have you never published your findings in a peer reviewed scholarly journal?

    That’s the ticket! I’ll read whichever article that you suggest and was published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal.

    Make your suggestion, tinyflowers.

  • JK

    Anonymous, please explain. You said, “Does anyone know any sites that legitimately debate the issue?” Someone gave you a link. Again, you ask if anyone has any sites that legitimately debate the issue. Have you bothered to read any of the articles at that link?

  • JK

    Read that link, Anonymous. Then read Gerry’s arguments. (BTW, his “striking” island as in “striking in appearance” that he mistranslated based on how he viewed the word “to strike” as in “hit” still amuses me.)

    The articles are out there, Anonymous.

  • tinyflowers

    I scanned one of the articles (I won’t say which one), and I noticed some issues that the author failed to address. I am highly suspicious and suspect that the author purposefully omitted the issue because it was a fatal flaw.

    Well that’s convincing. You “scanned” one article, which one you won’t say, and noticed some unknown issues that this unknown author failed to address. You suspect this unknown author purposefully omitted this unknown issue because it was an unknown fatal flaw. I’m sold.

  • frogmouth

    Here’s a good article!

    http://www.japanfocus.org/-mark-selden/3520

    Mark Seldon supports Korea’s claim to Dokdo (Takeshima)

    Jump to: navigation, search

    Mark Selden (born 1938) is a Coordinator of the open access journal The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, a Senior Research Associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University,[1] and Bartle Professor of History and Sociology at Binghamton University.[2] He graduated from Amherst College with a major in American Studies and completed a Ph.D. at Yale University in modern Chinese history.[3] He was a founding member of the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars in the 1960s and for more than thirty years served on the board of editors of The Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars (later Critical Asian Studies). He is also the editor of book series at Rowman & Littlefield, Routledge, and M.E. Sharpe publishers.

  • JK

    Cactus @449 wrote:
    “In an effort to (1) learn something about it from a Korean perspective and (2) help make this the longest thread ever, if a country takes out international advertisements stating that such-and-such a place is its land, and not some other country’s, and Country A believes so fervently in its claim that it sacrifices doves and fingers, what’s it got to fear from an international court’s decision? If anything, the court could legitimize Country A’s claim that the place is Country A’s, not Country B’s. And there would be no more need for Country A to take out said advertisements, which leave most people scratching their collective heads.”

    A couple of things, Cactus. How some fanatics who may agree with the correct side of the argument show their, um, enthusiasm does not take away from the legitimacy of the original argument (that Dokdo was historically Korea’s). For example, I supported Obama for President in 2012. If some Americans, for whatever reason, decided to cut off their thumbs or kill doves or whatever in their zeal for Obama, I’d…keep my distance from them, view them as a little TOO enthusiastic in their support of him, but still support Obama. Now if some conservative Republican said, “Look at all these Obama supporters cutting off their thumbs and killing doves and such! We Republicans are more reasonable” I’d say, “And your point is? I don’t cut my thumbs or kill doves or whatever. So should I change my vote simply because of several fanatics who, in their own way, seem to have the same political views as me?”

    Furthermore, Cactus, respected international bodies have been known to make grievous decisions throughout their history. The League of Nations recognized Japan’s control over Korea as did Presidents of the US from Theodore Roosevelt to Woodrow Wilson. Didn’t make it right, though. With this kind of history, if you were Korea, would you REALLY be willing to go up against Japan in a territory dispute in front of an “international” body such as the ICJ simply because Japan claims Dokdo as its own?

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers, please stop your patented Texas two-step.

    Before making demands to present academic articles supporting Korea’s claim why not present one non-Japanese article that supports Japan?

    We’ve been waiting for over a week now!

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

    Tinyflowers asked (#503):

    Gerry, why have you never published your findings in a peer reviewed scholarly journal?

    First, I can post online and easily get my “findings” reviewed, so why post in a journal?

    Second, I find journals to be pretentious and exclusive, designed as a forum for academics to be pretentious and exclusive. However, I do like the relatively new idea of “open-access journals,” which allows anyone with Internet to read articles for free.

    Finally, if I have a blog where I can publish what I want, anytime I want, why bother with an academic journal, especially when I am not under any pressure to publish in such journals? Afterall, I’m not in academia.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    OK, I’m taking a break from reading one of the articles (a Michael Crighton thriller it is not) in-depth. I’m almost finished with it.

    Back to my fan mail:

    @506 JK# Anonymous, please explain. You said, “Does anyone know any sites that legitimately debate the issue?” Someone gave you a link. Again, you ask if anyone has any sites that legitimately debate the issue. Have you bothered to read any of the articles at that link?

    As I stated above, I scanned one and am hip-deep in another. Still, I wanted discussion as in I get to ask a few questions.

    Also, I asked both Q and tinyflowers for their best suggestion. (They call me funny names and hurt my feelings.)

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #508 tinyflowers: You “scanned” one article, which one you won’t say, and noticed some unknown issues that this unknown author failed to address. You suspect this unknown author purposefully omitted this unknown issue because it was an unknown fatal flaw. I’m sold.

    I offered you the opportunity to give me your best article. You called me names :-(

    I didn’t want to say which one so that you could change your suggestion, which you never made.

    As I stated above, I’m slugging through one and am on break.

  • JK

    I’ve also been reading articles at the site. I am currently reading the article by Professor Hosaka Yuji.

    The man doesn’t go that easy on the South Korean gov’t and feels that it could have done, but failed to do, something more constructive to diffuse the situation (and no, he does not mean go to the ICJ).

    His arguments in relation to the San Francisco Treaty and the Peace Line were especially effective.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #509 frogmouth: Here’s a good article!

    http://www.japanfocus.org/-mark-selden/3520

    frogmouth, if you treat me with respect, respect that I am making sincere inquiries, and respect my questions, I will respect your suggestion and promise to look into it.

    I cannot promise that I will read it tonight, but I will by the weekend.

    I hope that you can see that I am trying not to let my distaste for the way Q, JK, and tinyflowers want to bully and ridicule me into abandoning rational thought. (Do they realize that they are pushing me in the opposite direction from theirs?)

  • JK

    I’m sure you’ll have a ready response, Anonymous, but Tinyflowers did have a legit point in 508.

    You accused a writer of purposefully omitting information. I genuinely am curious as to how you came to that conclusion AND furthermore which article it was.

    After you read the articles, please read Gerry Bevers’. This is ONE time that Gerry and I can agree: After reading the articles at the link Q provided, read Gerry’s. Be objective. Then decide for yourself.

    Regardless, and this is my personal opinion only, of WHICH country has the supposed greater claim on Dokdo, I still say Korea should never go to the ICJ and risk losing territory it currently holds.

    But after doing your reading, Anonymous, I really want to know your thoughts on legitimate historical claim of Dokdo.

  • JK

    “I hope that you can see that I am trying not to let my distaste for the way Q, JK, and tinyflowers want to bully and ridicule me into abandoning rational thought. (Do they realize that they are pushing me in the opposite direction from theirs?)”

    First of all, Anonymous, you were first in mocking ‘Koreans’ (again, that generalizing term) and how they respond to the Dokdo issue. You’ve made the comment that I am “intellectually dishonest” without once having shown how I deserved this label. Now you’re complaining like a kindergarten student that you’re being “bullied” and insulted. Aww… Dude, if you want a civil discussion then don’t be mocking and insulting others to begin with!

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #517 JK: I’m sure you’ll have a ready response, Anonymous, but Tinyflowers did have a legit point in 508.

    You accused a writer of purposefully omitting information. I genuinely am curious as to how you came to that conclusion AND furthermore which article it was.

    I already gave my “ready response”, but I will expand on it. I scanned the article because I hoped he would address a question I wanted answered.

    After you read the articles, please read Gerry Bevers’. This is ONE time that Gerry and I can agree: After reading the articles at the link Q provided, read Gerry’s. Be objective. Then decide for yourself.

    I’m not going to set off on some dissertation level study into Dokdo. Man up and suggest one like frogmouth. After I am finished reading it prepare to answer some questions as in a discussion.

    Regardless, and this is my personal opinion only, of WHICH country has the supposed greater claim on Dokdo, I still say Korea should never go to the ICJ and risk losing territory it currently holds.

    That is a point for international law. I take your point, but there is rule of law.

    But after doing your reading, Anonymous, I really want to know your thoughts on legitimate historical claim of Dokdo.

  • JK

    “I’m not going to set off on some dissertation level study into Dokdo. Man up and suggest one like frogmouth. ”

    Whew! So I should “man up” and select one article because you don’t want to read all of them? Dude, you remind me this guy I knew in college; he was struggling in basic micro-economics, and I was giving him some help. As I’d help him with his homework and he still didn’t get it, I’d say to him, “Just read this page. It covers it.” He said, “Read all of this?!? Can’t you recommend a section?!”

    So I bracketed and highlighted a paragraph to help him answer one of his homework questions. I then bracketed and highlighted another paragraph to answer another one of the questions. I guess you might say I was “manning up” by highlighting a paragraph or a sentence here and there that would answer the corresponding homework questions. To him, my reply that he should just read the whole page as it would answer all his questions did not make him happy.

    But I’ll tell you what, Anonymous, as I wrote in 515, I read a great article by the Japanese professor that does NOT go easy on the South Korean gov’t. It addresses the San Francisco Treaty and such. It’s also easy reading.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    JK, maybe it’s not your intellectual dishonesty, perhaps you just have a genuine problem with argument by analogies (see above) Also see house analogy, Hawaii analogy. I just assumed to cling so stubbornly to demonstrated weak at best analogies that were detrimental to your thesis that you must have been intellectually dishonest. I apologize.

    Also, my statements on Koreans in waegukin were made based on my experience. In fact, one guy gave as his reason that “all Koreans claim Dokdo for Korea while some Japanese think Dokdo is Korea’s” for Korean’s strong claim on Dokdo.

    Also, for the purpose of this board and ease of typing, making statements like basketball players are tall, Koreans don’t have blue eyes, college girls are hot, without specifically qualifying with some, most, many, a few, is a bit laborious. Nonetheless, I shall endeavor to be careful in the future and retract those statements for proper qualification.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    @518 JK, just suggest one. I am making a sincere effort, but I’m not going to move a mountain. In reality, I already know much more about the merits than the vast majority of Koreans. (You see, I’m really trying :) )

    I suggest that you read “Report of the Van Fleet Mission to the Far East”.

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#509):

    Here’s a good article!

    http://www.japanfocus.org/-mark-selden/3520

    Mark Seldon supports Korea’s claim to Dokdo (Takeshima)

    Ok, let’s look at Mark Seldon’s article, which Frogmouth describes as a “good article.”

    Seldon wrote:

    … what is critical for understanding and assessing competing claims in the new millennium is that Japanese forces seized Dokdo in January 1905, the very year in which Japan compelled Korea at gunpoint to accept a treaty that made it a protectorate. Control of Dokdo and nearby Ulleungdo Island played important roles in Japan’s decisive defeat of the Russian navy.

    First, notice that Seldon chose to use the Korean name for the island (Dokdo) in his article, which shows his prejudice. Why didn’t he use the more neutral name “Liancourt Rocks”?

    Second, Seldon starts his “scholarly article” by creating a false premise, which he said “is critical for understanding and assessing competing claims.” He described Japan’s incorporation” of Liancourt Rocks by saying that ” that Japanese forces seized Dokdo in January 1905,” which suggests that the Japanese military forcefully took the Rocks from Korea. However, there was no one on “Dokdo” from whom to take the Rocks, except maybe Japansese Fishermen, and there were no “Japanese forces” involved in the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks.

    Below is a link to Nakai Yozaburo’s September 29, 1904 Letter of Petition, in which he asked the Japanese government to incorporate “Ryanko-to” (Liancourt Rocks), which he described as an “uninhabited island,” so that he could safely operate a sea lion harvesting business there. Did “Japanese forces” sieze the Rocks from the sea lions or sea gulls?

    “Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) Petition to Incorporate Ryanko-to (Liancourt Rocks)”

    Third, Selden described Japan’s control of Ulleungdo and “Dokdo” as having “played important roles in Japan’s decisive defeat of the Russian navy.” What does he base that claim on? Old Japanese military documents? Old Japanese and Western newspaper articles?

    No, he bases it on a 2007 book entitled History of Dokdo., which was published by Korea’s Northeast Asia History Foundation The Northeast Asia History Foundation is a propaganda arm of the South Korean government. Is that really considered “scholarly research”?

    So Mark Selden starts his “scholarly article” by first creating a false premise based on claims in a 2007 book published by a South Korean government propaganda agency. This is why I have so little respect for “Dokdo” scholars.

    Anyway, I have to stop here for now because my uncle just called me and asked me to come pick him up at the Veteran’s Home and take him out for a cup of coffee. I will finish debunking Selden’s “scholarly article” later.

  • frogmouth

    Anonymous when you analyse articles by foreign experts regarding the Dokdo Takeshima issue, take note as to how they study the issue within a broad context. This contrasts the “research” by Mr Bevers whose one dimensional approach totally neglects to scrutinize Japan’s MOFA’s claims to Takeshima.

    Another Japanese expert of the Dokdo (Takeshima) dispute is Wada Haruki. There is a short article where he supports Korea also here at Japan Times.

    http://www.japanfocus.org/-Wada-Haruki/1547

    Mr Bevers, Japan’s military annexation of Dokdo is a historical fact. I can post numerous articles that support Seldon’s claims. Now can you post an article by a non-Japanese scholar that says Japan’s annexation was peaceful and natural?

    In other words, Mr Bevers your denial doesn’t amount to an effective rebuttal.

    Mr Bevers can you please post an academic article written by someone who doesn’t drive a black van with a rising sun sticker on the side?

  • Q

    Who would care what opinions Gerry Bevers and Joe the Anonymous have? Let them keep scribbling at comment boxes. They are random guys with zero academic credibility.

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers again regurgitates a turd straight from the arse of his bosses at Shimane Prefecture and states…

    Did “Japanese forces” sieze the Rocks from the sea lions or sea gulls?

    Everyone knows the Japanese military systematically surveyed and annexed the rocks during the largest war to the day to colonize Korea.

    Mr Bevers, Are you still trying to tell us while almost a million Russians and Japanese were fighting hand to hand combat in the trenches of Port Arthur, the Japanese Government had an urgent need to help a grubby squatter from Yonago to wack seals?

    Thanks for proving my above point. You are totally ignorant of Japanese Korean history.

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

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

  • Anonymous_Joe

    OK, I’ve read two, scanned one, and read three primary sources.

    I know I’ll really piss people off if I write what I really think, and then I’ll have to hear “you read two articles and scanned one, and now you have an ‘authoritative’ opinion? Who are you to say anything? Let’s all listen to AJ!!! He’s read two articles and scanned one! AJ is just some anonymous joe posting on the web” All these criticisms are valid. There is no need to go on about them. I’ve stipulated to them.

    Please note that I didn’t tip which way I lean either way.

    My question that caused such a stir here and in conversation was “If Korea’s claim on Dokdo is so strong as to be indisputable, then why not go to the ICJ and be done with it?” I talked about the benefits of gaining international recognition (Google Maps, international recognition, etc.), the false excuses not to go (SK has no time, Japanese dirty tricks, etc.), the social benefits (athletes waving Olympic banners “독도는 우리 땅”, school children can learn new songs, etc.), the financial benefits (Korea would not have to spend so much defending Dokdo, exclusive fishing rights, etc.), and the list goes on.

    Based on what I have learned, I will say that I really do not have a strong opinion which way the ICJ would rule. That said, I agree with JK that going to the ICJ is not in Korea’s best interests based on the level of risk even for all the above benefits. Simply, Korea has a claim, but the claim is much more tenuous than in the “there’s a small chance that Korea could lose” category because “of Japan’s dirty tricks”.

    JK appears to be very right in what he wants to call “owning it” (I won’t quibble here about “owning” vs. “possessing”). Real estate law uses “adverse possession”, which I am very familiar with, and the international analog seems to be “prescription”. Adverse possession (often thought of as “squatters’ rights”) is more easily understood because the states (at least those in which I’ve had experience) define the terms (time, “open and hostile”, etc.) for adverse possession by statute and there is so much case law. The international analog possession seems much less certain. (BTW, JK you are very wrong if you rely on unilateral taking for war reparations. That would get shot down faster than a waegukin hitting on a Wonder Girl)

    Sorry for the stream of consciousness, but I’m tired. I spent way too much time and have been up way too late recently honestly trying to understand.

    I’ll listen to, read, and consider more tomorrow. I”ll also post my thoughts, FWIW, on the social implications wrapped up in Dokdo.

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

    Continued on from my Comment #527:

    Mark Selden’s article, which Frogmouth recommended, starts out by creating a false premise, which was that “Japanese forces siezed” Dokdo” from Korea for military purposes. However, instead of providing any evidence to support the claim, he simply cites a book entitled “History of Dokdo,” published in 2007 by a South Korean government propaganda organization called the Northeast Asia History Foundation.

    Selden does not bother trying to prove that Dokdo was ever part of Korean territory or even that Koreans ever travelled there before the Japanese started taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s; he just expects you to accept his premise that Japan seized Dokdo from Korea for military purposes.

    However, such a premise begs the question, “Why would ‘Japanese forces seize’ a small cluster of barren, rocky islets with little or not strategic value instead of seizing Ulleungo, which had forrests, water, and much more strategic value? If the Japanese were going to seize Korean territory, why would they choose to “seize” rocks instead of a real island?

    The answer, of course, is that they wouldn’t. The Japanese incorporated Liancourt Rocks because they received a petition to do so from a Japanese businessman who was hunting seal lions there, and that reason was stated when the decision to incorporate the Rocks was made by the Japanese Cabinet on January 28, 1905. See HERE.

    28th January 1905 (the 38th year of Meiji)

    We have examined the proposal by the Secretary of the State for Home Affairs, concerning an uninhabited island. As to the uninhabited island at 37º 9′ 30″ N and, 131º 55′ E. and 85 nautical miles northwest of Oki Island, there were no traces of occupation by any other countries , and since a Japanese named Nakai Yozaburo recently petitoned to incorporate the island and then lend it to him since he began sea lion hunting at the island two years ago in the 36th year (of Meiji, 1903), built a hut for fishery, tranferred laborers, and got proper fishing gear, we need to clarify the prefecture to which it will belong and the name of the island.

    The proposal suggested that the island be named Takeshima and put under the jurisdiction of the local government of Oki Island of Shimane Prefecture from now on. We have examined the matter and found that there is, in fact, occupation under international law, as it is clear from related documents that Nakai Yozaburo moved to the island in the 36th year of Meiji (1903) and has been engaging in fishery there; therefore, we think we can incorporate the island into Japanese territory and put it under the jurisdiction of the local government of Oki Island in Shimane Prefecture. Therefore, we submit that it is reasonable to allow the Cabinet to carry out the decision as proposed.

    When Japan incorporated Liancourt Rocks in 1905, the Rocks had not claimed by any country, including Korea, so since the rest of Mark Selden’s article is based on that one false premise and since he does not bother to argue Korea’s historical claim to the Rocks, there is really not much more to say about his article, except this:

    Selden wrote:

    By the time the Treaty was signed in September 1951, specification of the precise borders and disposition of all of the above-mentioned territories had given way to vague formulations that left their precise disposition unresolved and opened the way for potential discord between Japan and her neighbors. Indeed, the treaty was silent on the question of Dokdo.

    The reason the treaty was silent on Dokdo is that Dokdo was not included among the islands Japan renounced claim.

    Article 2 of the Peace Treaty dealt with territory to which Japan renounced its claim, and Article 2a dealt with the Korean territory to which Japan renounced its claim:

    Article 2

    (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

    Secretary Dean Rusk had already told the Korean ambassador a month earlier (Aug. 10) that the United States did not recognize Korea’s claim to “Dokdo.”

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

    In his 1954 post-mission report, said that “Dokto” was not included in the 1951 treaty because Japan retained ownership of the islets.

    4. Ownership of Dokto Island

    The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu (131.80E, 36.20N). This Island is, in fact, only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.

    So, now you know why “scholarly papers” supporting Korea’s historical claim to Dokdo are a bunch of crap.

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers, by 1905, Japan had already effectively seized Ulleungdo already. In fact by then they already had three military watchtowers on the Ulleungdo’s Northwest, Northeast and East Shores.

    Also, Japan had already placed strategic military posts all of Korea’s coastal areas.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-military-land-appropriation-dokdo-i.html

    Dokdo was the last place left where Japan needed military installations. Japan was spurred into action because in July Russian ships were seen around Dokdo as reported in the logbooks of the Japanese warship Niitaka.

    In the Japanese were to place a watchtower on Dokdo the approacing Russian Baltic Fleet would be less likely to slip between Ulleungdo and the Okinoshimas and reach Vladivostok.

    Mr Bevers we’ve read your nonsense post about the Japan Peace Treaty. Everyone now knows that although America supported Japan it has absolutely no relevence or legal implication with regard to Japan’s claim to Takeshima (Dokdo) so please give it up.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-japan-peace-treaty-and-dokdo.html

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#529):

    Mr Bevers, by 1905, Japan had already effectively seized Ulleungdo already. In fact by then they already had three military watchtowers on the Ulleungdo’s Northwest, Northeast and East Shores.

    So if Japan ‘had already effectively seized Ulleungdo” by 1905, why wasn’t Ulleungdo incoporated along with Liancourt Rocks were?

    Frogmouth wrote:

    Mr Bevers we’ve read your nonsense post about the Japan Peace Treaty.

    My “nonsense” is the Preace Treaty, itself; an Aug. 1951 letter from the US Asst. Secretary of State rejecting Korea’s claim; and a 1954 post-mission report written by Adm. James Van Fleet, who wsa President Eisenhower’s Special Ambassador to the Far East.

    I have already wasted enough time arguing this issue with you, and I am not going to waste anymore because I have other things to do. I gave Q an opportunity to link to an article he felt best supported Korea’s claim, but he refused to do it, so I accept your article recommendation, even though I already knew it was a piece of crap.

    Korea has no old maps showing Liancourt Rocks under any name, no documents showing that Koreans ever traveled to the Rocks before the Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s, and no documents showing that the Rocks were ever a part of Korean terroritory.

    Sorry, Frogmouth, but those are the facts. Bye

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers if Dokdo had no strategic value then why did Japan’s Navy specifically survey the islands for military watchtowers and telegraph lines only two months before the seized the rocks and only two weeks after they deemed Dokdo ideal for a military post?

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

    Better yet, why did Yamaza Enjiro state it was necessary to incorporate the rocks to keep watch on Russian warships as stated in Nakai Yozaburo’s own diary?

    Your own translated article of the Japan’s 1905 incorporation stated Nakai Yozaburo had moved to Dokdo. This was false. Nobody could “live” on Dokdo. There was no occupation by Japan at this time. There wasn’t even any structure. The Japanese warship Tsushima has suveyed Dokdo in November and said only remains of a shack were there.

    Nakai Yozaburo was a grubby fisherman who was squatting on Korea’s Ulleungdo. The seals that were being caught on Dokdo were regisitered as exports from Korea’s Ulleungdo Island before 1905. In fact any records be it Japanese fishing records, government exports and business guides show Dokdo as part of Gangwan Province!

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

    BTW Mr Bevers, if Japan publicly annexed a large piece of Korean land at that time (early 1905) there may have been backlash from other nations who had not decided which nation to back. (Russia or Japan)

    Remember, Japan did not get the nod from the other powers until later in 1905. That is why Japan silently annexed Dokdo without any public notification. They were still wary after the Triple Intervention.

    About your American documents you refer to, These are all confidential memorandums. None of these documents ever materialized into public support for Japan’s claim to Takeshima (Dokdo)

    The Americans themselves stated they were only one of many nations signatory to the Japan Peace Treaty and could not unilaterally make decisions on behalf of Allied Command.

    Mr Seldon’s article holds water when we study the issue and objectively analyse all of the data. You may notice he cited my website for historical context (ie Russo Japanese War)

    So, no Mr Bevers, Mr Seldon’s article is not crap at all.

  • JK

    Anonymous, I never doubted that you were seriously on the fence and trying to be fair as to which country had the better historical claim on Dokdo. It seems, though, that you got jaded by too many Koreans’ emotional reactions to this discussion, and it may have clouded your views on this. Correct me if I’m wrong in this assessment.

    As I’ve said many times (but I feel it necessary again to state it as a disclaimer), I WANT the right-wing Japanese and Bevers to prove that Dokdo is rightfully Japan’s so that it’ll stick in the craw of the Japanese gov’t and right-wingers that this former aggressive colonizer that took territory from Korea, China, Russia, etc. from 1895-1945 finally is tasting its own medicine with loss of its own territory to the country from which it took the most (Korea). Truly, nothing would make my day more then if they could prove Japan’s supposed stronger claim to Dokdo.

    So at first, with a bit of an expectant eye, I followed the arguments the best I could expecting Bevers and Co. to present an open-and-shut case in favor of Japan. I never got it, though I craved it like I would a Thanksgiving dinner on Thanksgiving Day after a two-day fast.

    It seems that you and I have two slightly different mindsets, though with the same conclusion: Korea should not take it to the ICJ. Your argument for this is that Korea’s arguments are not as foolproof as many Koreans believe it is, thus it would be too risky to do so. I still disagree that as to the weakness of Korea’s side of the debate…but for me, ultimately, it still does not matter as gambling for me in any way when there seems to be no serious material gain in terms of territory but with the possibility of great loss in territory is something that Korea should avoid.

    But as an intellectual exercise and in terms of light reading, it is, occasionally, a pleasant distraction from the daily grind of work. I’ll also keep up my reading of the articles on the link as I’m learning also.

    Cheers,
    JK

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

    By the way, Anonymous Joe, I forgot to mention another document you might be interested in. It is a April 27, 1960 telegram from the US Ambassador to Japan, Douglas MacArthur II, to J. Graham Parsons, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Aisian and Pacific Affairs , in which the Ambassador wrote the following:

    In addition to seizing Japanese boats on high seas and practicing hostage diplomacy, Rhee regime also seized by force and is holding illegally Takeshima Island which has always been considered as Japanese territory. This is very serious and permanent irritant in Japan-ROK relations and there can be no over-all ROK-Japan settlement until this Japanese island is returned to Japan.

    Here is the full telegram:

    For Ass’t Sec’y Parsons from MacArthur
    Seoul for Ambassador McConaughy

    Now that we have prospect of new and democratic regime in Korea I strongly recommend that as soon as possible we seize opportunity to try to bring about durable solution to ROK-Japan dispute. As long as Rhee held power there seemed little chance of any solution but now we have entirely new situation which could lead to liquidation of ROK-Japan controversy. Implications of ROK-Japan dispute are not just bilateral between GOJ and ROK but deeply and directly involve US and our inescapable solution is to be found it will be produced only by our good offices and working closely with both ROK and GOJ. It is of utmost importance that we identify and be prepared to move swiftly for solution those specific ROK-GOJ problems which prevented progress toward basic settlement this festering dispute. We do not know what response Communists may make to new ROK regime and it is vital we try to put ROK-GOJ house in order as soon as possible.

    While Rhee regime violated most basic tenets of democracy in authoritarian police rule imposed on Korean people, it has also in past done violence to most fundamental principles of international conduct and morality by committing acts of piracy on high seas around Rhee Line and then imprisoning and holding as political hostages Japanese fishermen and by seizing and holding non-Korean territory by force. The uncivilized practice of hostage diplomacy is one of our serious charges against Communist China and if continued by ROK it will be a great liability to a new democratic ROK regime.

    I therefore recommend strongly that as soon as new regime is in control in Korea (whether or noti it be of interim character) we use all our influence to persuade it (1) to release and return to Japan all repeat all Japanese fishermen hostages (including those who have not completed their sentences) who have suffered so cruelly from Rhee’s uncivilized and oppressive acts and (2) to cease practice of seizing Japanese fishing vessels on high seas. This would not only rid new ROK reegime of liability of practicing hostage diplomacy but also more than anything else would lay foundation in Japan for really fruitful negotiations. At same time I would be prepared to press Kishi and GOJ most strongly that in return for repatriation of all fishermen, Japanese would exercise self-restraint in their fishing operations in Korean Straits until reasonable opportunity had been given for negotiation of mutually agreed ROK-Japan fishing conservation agreement.

    In addition to seizing Japanese boats on high seas and practicing hostage diplomacy, Rhee regime also seized by force and is holding illegally Takeshima Island which has always been considered as Japanese territory. This is very serious and permanent irritant in Japan-ROK relations and there can be no over-all ROK-Japan settlement until this Japanese island is returned to Japan. Therefore we should also press new ROK regime to return Takeshima to Japan. If it is unwilling to do so pending satisfactory conclusion of over-all ROK-Japan negotiations, new regime should at least signify a willingness to withdraw from Takeshima as part of mutually satisfactory settlement of other outstanding issues between two countries. While we should press strongly for return of Takeshima to Japan, if by any chance new regime were unwilling to do so we should, as very minimum, insist that they agree to submit matter to International Court of Justice for arbitration.

    Finally, we should inform new regime very clearly that it must be prepared to adjust its relations with Japan on terms of reciprocity, in such matters as diplomatic missions, visits by businessmen and journalists, commercial trade. Japanese have suffered Rhee’s occupation-minded approach for eight years and will be unwilling to accept such indefensible treatment from his successor. In its own interests, new regime should start with conformity with normal international standards of conduct, and could most usefully begin (in terms of Japanese and other free world opinion) by permitting Japanese diplomatic mission to enter and function in ROK on same terms ROK Embassy operates here.

    If we now move swiftly with new ROK regime which should generally be receptive to our views because of our helpfulness, we may have initial opportunity, which may never reoccur, to influence its position on Japan-ROK problem. Japanese would certainly welcome warmly and reciprocate fully, measures indicating new ROK regime willing take “new look” at Japan.

    MacArthur

    LINK

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#531):

    Mr Seldon’s article holds water when we study the issue and objectively analyse all of the data. You may notice he cited my website for historical context (ie Russo Japanese War)

    So Mr. Seldon cited the Web site of someone who cannot speak Japanese, can barely speak Korean, has a BA degree in Don’t-Know-Much-of-Anything, and who runs a Web site full of ridiculous pro-Korean propaganda?

    Well, we certainly need more scholars like Mark Selden, don’t we?

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

    CORRECTION TO #534: “…who runs a Web site full of ridiculous anti-Japanese propaganda?

  • JK

    Gerry, does a private telegram from the US Ambassador to Japan to the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs dictate US policy as it relates to Dokdo? I dunno, they both seem kind of low on the totem pole to be speaking for the President and Congress.

    Furthermore, say the US gov’t, going all the way to the top, sided with Japan in its dispute with Korea over Dokdo. So what? Is it the US’s call?

    The fact remains, though, that the US position, as presented by the President and Congress, shows no preference for the Japanese side.

    So your link is useless.

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

    Can Mr. Koehler do us all a favor and just close this thread to further comments?

  • JK

    Those who don’t want to read the comments on this thread don’t have to read it.

  • Charles Tilly

    Those who don’t want to read the comments on this thread don’t have to read it.

    Those who do want to read the comments should take them and go fuck off elsewhere.

    We get it: You’re all pathetic and retarded. That much was obvious and made clearly known at around comment #200.

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers that’s a very nice document.

    However you need to wrap you head around this..

    The Japan Peace Treaty was not an agreement between Japan and America. It was a multinational peace treaty.

    America could not unilaterally make decisions on the disposition of former “Japanese” territories without the consent of ALL nations (I think there were over 40 countries.

    You may also note the document states CONFIDENTIAL at the top.

    Thus your record has Sweet FA to do with America’s public stance on the issue of Dokdo (Takeshima) John Foster Dulles publicly told Japan to seek other solvents on the issue in San Francision at the time of the signing of the Japan Peace Treaty Dulles drafted and signed the peace treaty.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-japan-peace-treaty-and-dokdo.html

    So, it looks like Seldon is right and you are wrong.

  • JK

    See Anonymous? Everytime I think Bevers is about to make a strong argument, others like Frogmouth show those aren’t very good ones after all.

    Thus I see that Korea merely took back its own territory when it took Dokdo in 1951. Ho hum.

  • provIdence

    That could have been so only if, at least, every new map in the world depicted the islets as Dokdo, not as Liancourt Rocks or Takeshima. Jia yo’u VANK! Paitin VANK!

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#540):

    The Japan Peace Treaty was not an agreement between Japan and America. It was a multinational peace treaty.

    Yes, forty-eight nations signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan, which did not exclude Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) from Japanese territory. It was the US and the UK were the nations who drafted the treaty, which the other nations signed.

    Mark Selden wrote:

    Early drafts of the San Francisco Treaty, which was to end the allied occupation of Japan and serve as a peace treaty for Japan and its former enemies, envisaged the return of Dokdo to Korea. From 1949, with US tensions with the Soviet Union and China growing, however, successive drafts recognized Dokdo as Japanese territory.

    The reason the early drafts “envisaged the return of Dokdo to Korea” was that the drafts simply reflected the Korean nationalists’ claim that Dokdo was Korean territory (5Aug1948 – Patriotic Old Men’s Association), without the drafters of the treaty knowing the facts. That begin to change on September 14, 1949, when the Acting US Political Advisor in Japan, William Sebald, wrote the following to the US Secretray of State:

    Recommend reconsideration Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima). Japan’s claim to these islands is old and appears valid. Security considerations might conceivably envisage weather and radar stations thereon.

    That is evidence that the US recognized Japan’s claim to Liancourt Rocks for historical and legal reasons, not for security reasons.

    More evidence that “US tensions with the Soviet Union and China” was not the reason for the US’s recognizing Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory is also found in the transcript of the meeting between the Korean Ambassador and Ambassador John Foster Dulles on July 19, 1951, just two months before the signing of the treaty.

    Mr. Dulles noted that paragraph 1 of the Korean Ambassador’s communication made no reference to the Island of Tsushima and the Korean Ambassador agreed that this had been omitted. Mr. Dulles then inquired as to the location of the two islands, Dokdo and Parangdo. Mr. Han stated that these were two small islands lying in the Sea of Japan, he believed in the general vicinity of Ullungdo. Mr. Dulles asked whether these islands had been Korean before the Japanese annexation, which the Ambassador replied in the affirmative. If that were the case, Mr. Dulles saw no particular broblem in including these islands in the pertinent part of the treaty which related to the renunciation of Japanese territorial claims to Korean territory.

    Notice that just two months before the signing of the treaty, Ambassador Dulles was willing to include “Dokdo” in the “part of the treaty which related to the renunciation of Japanese claims to Korean territory, as long as the Korean claim was true.

    However, the Korean claim to “Dokdo” was not true, which was why Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk told the Korean Ambassador in an August 10, 1951 letter the following:

    The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan’s acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formalor final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration. As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. It is understood that the Korean Government’s request that “Parangdo” be included among the islands named in the treaty as having been renounced by Japan has been withdrawn.

    By the way, the reason Korean withdrawn its request to include Parangdo among the islands Japan was to renounce was that Korean could not find Parangdo.

    Frogmouth wrote (#540):

    You may also note the document states CONFIDENTIAL at the top.

    It is in the SECRET and CONFIDENTIAL documents that we find the truth.

  • frogmouth

    Yes, Mr Bevers, we find the truth with secret memorandums. I’m not denying America (secretly-temporarily) supported Japan. I think I’ve told you this about 1000 times. Only Allied Command with the consent with all participatory nations could make decisions on the dispositions of former Japanese territories Mr Bevers.

    That means only a clear explicit amendment to the Potsdam Declaration granting Japan Dokdo/Takeshima would have legal effect. This is not my opinion but the PUBLIC statement by John Foster Dulles himself in San Francisco. Simply put, ommission doesn’t amount to Japanese possession.

    Another issue is…

    Do your confidential memorandums represent America’s official/public position or were they just pillow talk?

    Well why don’t we simply check the official quote by the U.S. Government from the U.S. Embassy in Seoul?

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/US-Position-RE-Dokdo.jpg

    U.S. Policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Issue HAS BEEN and CONTINUES TO BE that the United States does not take a position on either Korea’s claim or Japan’s claim to the island. Our hope is that the two countries will resolve the issue amicably..”

    Decades old confidential memorandums have zero legal effect and relevance regarding ownership over Dokdo/ Takeshima Island.

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#544):

    Do your confidential memorandums represent America’s official/public position or were they just pillow talk?

    The letters and memorandums were between US officals and between US and Korean officials, not between the US and Japan. Therefore, I do not understand how you can describe them as “pillow talk,” unless you are referring to the letters between the US and Korea.

    Liancourt Rocks were never part of Korea. The letter from US Secretary of State Dean Rusk to the Korean ambassador, just one month before the treaty was to be signed, rejected the Korean request to have Liancourt Rocks included among the territory Japan was to renounce. It also gave Korea the reason for their no being included. Therefore, there should be no confusion about the meaning of the Treaty on Korea’s part.

    The Treaty Liancourt Rocks as territory Japan. The 1954 Van Fleet Mission report and the 1960 MacArthur letter confirm this.

    Korea has no documents or maps to prove that Liancourt Rocks were ever a part of Korea. Koreans did not even have a name for the Rocks until 1904, after Japanese fishermen started taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats.

    As Ambassador MacArthur wrote in his “CONFIDENTAL” 1960 telegram to US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, since the 1950s the “Rhee regime also seized by force and is holding illegally Takeshima Island which has always been considered as Japanese territory.”

  • Q

    Read, Japan, the difference between the truly civilized European nation and the fungus-smelling Japan of outdated imperialistic mentality.

    http://news.yahoo.com/germany-expanding-compensation-nazi-victims-100038111.html

  • provIdence

    Japan has nothing to do with Holocaust. I wish any of you who have even the slightest Jewish trait and who have such relatives or friends may as well read the following Wiki entry, and think twice on matters between Japan and Korea and especially the claims made by Koreans.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiune_Sugihara

  • Anonymous_Joe

    (I have stayed away from MH in general and this thread specifically because I needed a break from the toxic buildup)

    Providence, I don’t think that Q is citing the Japanese and comparing them to the Germans because the Japanese had a hand in the Jewish Holocaust. I think Q (look at me giving Q understanding) posted the article to show the Germans genuine acceptance of and contrition for the role Germany played in the Holocaust.

    Germany does not deny its role, and the younger generation has had to come to terms with the Germany of their grandfathers. I think Q needs not only the formal apology from Japan but also the sincere act of contrition from Japanese.

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers, your points are moot.

    First, what authority does America have to define the limits of Korea.? Did the ROK sign a treaty or grant America the right to create her nation limit… NO.

    Japanese territory aside the Japan Peace Treaty has zero to do with Korea. They were not involved in the negotiation process nor even signatory.

    As Dulles pointed out regardless of America’s views the U.S. could not grant former territories to Japan on it’s own. This had to be agreed by all 48 participatory nations. Potsdam’s Definition of Japan stands until ratified and agreed upon by Allied Nations.

    Dulles stated the DESPITE America’s views Article 22 was Japan’s route to seeking satisfaction in the Dokdo Takeshima dispute. He notes it was the U.S.’s opinion but Japan had to negotiate bilaterally or through ICJ.

    So once again Mr Bevers for the 1001 time now. Yes America supported Japan but this means diddly point squat regarding territorial ownership over Dokdo (Takeshima)

  • provIdence

    I enjoyed your debate in this thread, only to the extent I understood though, and admired the American middle- to high-school education which emphasizes small-group discussion in many courses as represented by the Exeter School someone referred here in the MH.

    It is a little bit of a surprise for me, however, to know that you think of something the Japanese government did on Koreans anything which is comparable to the Holocaust.

    I asked Koreans at Comment #138 in this thread (Please read the comment.), and I have gotten no plausible answers. Answers I got included 3.1 and Independence Army. The presence of the Independence Army has been denied by General Paik recently. Although I tried to study the 3.1 movement, it appeared rather too complicated to discuss. I hear that even the Kent State movement has not completely been understood yet.

    I wonder what incident you have in mind at your preceding comment.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    I just watched Korean news, and they reported from the Advanced Institute for Dokdo Studies (or something like that) symposium held tonight. In addition to the usual “need to educate that Dokdo is Korean territory”, the reporter said something interesting: “Koreans needs to understand the reasons for Japan’s claim to Dokdo so that Koreans can respond to Tokyo with reason rather than emotion.”

    (All quotes are approximate. It’s late, and I’m tired.)

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

    Frogmouth wrote (#549):

    First, what authority does America have to define the limits of Korea.?

    What authority? Really? The authority of the Victor in War. The United States and her allies defeated the Japanese Empire, of which Koreans were a part, and then divided up that empire, allowing Koreans to keep the Korean peninsula and other islands designated by the victors.

    Frogmouth wrote:

    Did the ROK sign a treaty or grant America the right to create her nation limit… NO.

    There was no ROK at the end of the war, only the defeated peoples of the Japanese Empire. The authorities of the Japanese Empire signed the treaty on behalf of its subjects, which included Koreans. The empire was divided up among the Japanese, the Chinese, the Russians, the Koreans and others.

    Frogmouth wrote (#549):

    Japanese territory aside the Japan Peace Treaty has zero to do with Korea.

    Through the Treaty Japan formally renounced its claim to the Korean peninsula and the islands designated in Article 2. Owership of assets in both countries was also decided.

    Frogmouth wrote:

    As Dulles pointed out regardless of America’s views the U.S. could not grant former territories to Japan on it’s own. This had to be agreed by all 48 participatory nations.

    It was agreeed to by the 48 signatories to the Treaty.

    Dulles stated the DESPITE America’s views Article 22 was Japan’s route to seeking satisfaction in the Dokdo Takeshima dispute. He notes it was the U.S.’s opinion but Japan had to negotiate bilaterally or through ICJ.

    Yes, after South Korea illegally seized Takeshima, Japan had three choices: Forcefully take it back, negotiate bilaterally with Korea, or take the dispute to the ICJ. Japan chose to negotiate and is still negotiating.

    Frogmouth wrote:

    Yes America supported Japan but this means diddly point squat regarding territorial ownership over Dokdo (Takeshima).

    “Diddly point squat”? If true, then why did South Korea try so hard to get America to accept her claim?

  • JK

    Yes, Gbevers, when countries typically start a war and then LOSE it, they tend to lose territory. In this case, Japan lost the lands it conquered between 1895-1945, but lucky for Japan, it got to keep all territory of Japan Proper. Korea, which was forcefully colonized by Japan, merely took back what was historically its own, and Dulles’ opinion doesn’t amonut to “diddly point squat.” Got it?

    By fighting for Dokdo, Japan is fighting for what comprised Greater Japan. What next in the fight for Greater Japan, Manchuria (Manchukuo)? Malaysia? the entire Korean peninsula?

    And no more of this “Korea fought on the side of Japan in WWII” nonsense. Next, you’ll argue the Philippines, parts of China, and Indo-China all fought for the Japanese since they were conquered by Japan.

  • frogmouth

    Mr Bevers writes..

    What authority? Really? The authority of the Victor in War. The United States and her allies defeated the Japanese Empire, of which Koreans were a part, and then divided up that empire, allowing Koreans to keep the Korean peninsula and other islands designated by the victors.

    WTF? Now you are drafting new “Victor of War” laws?

    O.K. I’ll bite. Even by your warped theory the U.S. was just one of these “victors” For example, the Russians also didn’t sign the Japan Peace Treaty and thus it also has no effect on them as well. Right or wrong historically working within the legal power of the Japan Peace Treaty, it again doesn’t obligate Russia to anything because as they say “It don’t’ mean nothing ‘till you sign it on the dotted line.

    Mr Bevers writes..

    There was no ROK at the end of the war, only the defeated peoples of the Japanese Empire. The authorities of the Japanese Empire signed the treaty on behalf of its subjects, which included Koreans. The empire was divided up among the Japanese, the Chinese, the Russians, the Koreans and others.

    The nation of Korea was formed before the Japan Peace Treaty. The ROK drew her border before the Japan Peace Treaty came into effect. Rhee simply enforced the MacArthur Line, a border defined by Allied Command. It is a fair boundary and if Korea hadn’t cemented it we’d be debating over Ulleungdo Island right now.

    The Japan Peace treaty places no legal obligations on Korea. The territorial clauses outline what was Japan was obligated to renounce. The Potsdam Declaration, (which Japan agreed to) legally excluded Takeshima from Japan and there were no further directives issued meaning Japan was not granted ownership by Allied Command.

    Mr Bever’s bluffs..

    It was agreed to by the 48 signatories to the Treaty!!

    Really, please show me where the Allies agreed this on the text of the Japan Peace Treaty? The entire text is at this link

    http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sanfrancisco01.htm

    Korea wanted the U.S. to honor her claim in hopes the Americans would enforce the ROK’s border. It’s the same thing the Japanese wanted. It probably wouldn’t have helped, the greedy Japanese fishermen didn’t even respect Allied Commands MacArthur Line.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/japanese-violate-macline-1.jpg

    Mr Bevers, keep putting your head in a noose for Japan’s MOFA and I’ll be happy to kick the chair out from under you.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    #532 JK: “Anonymous, I never doubted that you were seriously on the fence and trying to be fair as to which country had the better historical claim on Dokdo. It seems, though, that you got jaded by too many Koreans’ emotional reactions to this discussion, and it may have clouded your views on this. Correct me if I’m wrong in this assessment.”

    JK, that’s a good summary. I have noted that I was aware that the negative emotion could affect my judgment on this issue and made a conscious effort to not allow that to happen.

    I also now believe that you believe everything you wrote. When I wrote that you were intellectually dishonest, I genuinely thought that you must have been purposefully feigning your support for what I knew to be an obviously weak argument. (I’ve tried to word that last sentence better, and my sentiment isn’t the way that one could interpret it.)

  • Anonymous_Joe

    “U.S. Policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Issue has been and continues to be that the United States does not take a position on either Korea’s claim or Japan’s claim to the island. Our hope is that the two countries will resolve the issue amicably…”

    A corollary to that statement would then be that the U.S.’s policy is to call the island Dokdo in Korea and Takeshima in Japan or both in both places. Korea and Koreans should not be surprised that American companies follow the same policy or that those companies would be coerced into adopting a less than neutral policy. Should VANK then expect its protests to work?

  • provIdence

    I went to Yasukuni the other day, and visited, for the first time, the YuShuKan (遊就館, pronounced like You Shoe Kan) Museum attached to the shrine. A leaflet I got there says that its name (遊就) is derived from words of an ancient Chinese scholar (荀子 313?-238 bc).

    The words are 君子 居必択郷 遊必就士. The meaning is close to that given by Q at his comment #380.

    It appears to be a good idea to visit that place or Korean and American counterparts to associate with a huge number of men of virtue to thank them and pray for world peace.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    News article in the Chosun Ilbo:
    Japan Can’t Push Dokdo Suit at Int’l Court This Year

    Japan will not get a chance to take its flimsy colonial claim to Korea’s Dokdo Islets to the International Court of Justice on its own this year.

    “The Obama administration dissuaded Tokyo from bringing the matter to the ICJ for fear of aggravating anti-Japanese feelings in Korea and hurting trilateral cooperation between Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo,” a diplomatic source in Seoul said.

    “It has become virtually impossible for Japan to bring the question of Dokdo to the ICJ this year, as Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has pledged to dissolve parliament soon and call general elections next month,” another source said.

    The Noda administration has seen its approval rating plummet because Japan’s conflict with China over the Senkaku or Diaoyou Islands has come into sharper relief.

    In any territorial dispute, both sides must agree to take the matter to the ICJ, but Tokyo was apparently hoping to generate publicity for its claim if it went ahead on its own.

    James Steinberg, a former deputy secretary of state who was on a visit to Seoul early this week, criticized Japan’s idea of bringing its territorial claims to the ICJ, saying that would be “the wrong way.”

    In the first line, the news article describes Japan’s claim as “flimsy”. I wonder what journalistic standards are in Korea or whether this is a government order to describe Japan’s claim as such.

    Also, the three word direct quote of James in the following sentence,

    James Steinberg, a former deputy secretary of state who was on a visit to Seoul early this week, criticized Japan’s idea of bringing its territorial claims to the ICJ, saying that would be “the wrong way.”

    lacks context. Did he say, “Going to the ICJ is the wrong way to resolve the issue without the consent of Korea?” Did the former deputy secretary of state, who obviously no longer speaks for the U.S., offer the opinion up freely or was he asked a question? In what capacity was the former deputy secretary of state in Seoul? Was he visiting a classroom in an outreach program and was he asked by a student?

    (Note: this is a criticism of Korean journalistic standards post.)

  • JK

    @557:

    That’s interesting. So Q was right with the translation while Gerry Bevers was wrong….again. Thanks for the heads up.

  • Anonymous_Joe

    JK, good to see you again. I hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving.

    In fairness to GB, if you read @557, he references Q’s translation @380, which is in reply to GB’s translation challenge. GB enthusiastically congratulated Q in the immediately following post, @381.

    I understand there is a lot of bad blood toward GB, and after coming to understand your pain about the real issue that permeates this thread, I understand your difficulty in separating GB from his opinions. Speaking as an American, I don’t know that Americans have so much encompassed in what appears to outsiders as a mere surface issue. I don’t think that GB has been intellectually dishonest in any way, and in many ways he has been much more forthcoming than I would ever be on oh, so many threads.

    After all this I harbor no ill will toward you and think of you positively because you were able to realize my real motives even in your greatest anger.

    I hope you enjoy your holiday season,

  • JK

    Happy Thanksgiving to you as well, Anonymous.

    Having said that, I ask that you read over Bevers’ many comments over the years here and at Occidentalism, not just about Dokdo, but about the Comfort Women, the Colonization, and how Korea was a fourth member of the Axis Powers (along with Germany, Italy, and Japan) in WWII.

    As for anger, believe me or not, I truly did not have any (well, maybe minor annoyance). Reading and commenting at the Marmot’s Hole for me ranges from the constructive (to where I learn about things happening in Korea and the US and elsewhere in the world) to the (seemingly) confrontational with other commenters but is ultimately a way for me to take a break from work in a healthier fashion than, say, getting a smoke outside.

    Cheers!

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

    Providence wrote (#557):

    The words are 君子 居必択郷 遊必就士. The meaning is close to that given by Q at his comment #380.

    I think you are right, Providence. I guess I was wrong.

  • provIdence

    I only wrote a story I found in visiting Yasukuni and its YuShuKan museum, and it is my pleasure if it helped your understanding.

    The sentences you showed appear to have very real repercussions on modern China and Korea. It can be thought in a sense that the new (S.) Korea, for example, is trying to prove that they are 有德 and old rulers (Japanese) are 不德 at all cost (often in wrong manners) to justify their ruling.

  • Q

    Japan rape victims ‘asking for it’:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3042316.stm

    Japanese Lawmaker sees gang rapists as `close to normal’:

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/06/28/2003057205

  • hardyandtiny

    Is it possible to see Dokdo from Ulleungdo?

  • Wedge

    You guys haven’t made 600 comments yet. Don’t make me come back here.

  • TheKorean2

    Japan as an state didn’t exist from 1945 to 1955 which was ruled by separate Allied powers, headed by US. South and North Korea became a state in 1948.

  • Q