Tuesday, July 14, 2009

2007 - "The analysis of the western maps" by Funasugi Rikinobu

This is from the Final report by Takeshima Research Center, 2007 (竹島研究会最終報告書 2007)

"Takeshima in Illustrative Maps and Maps Vol.II " (絵図・地図からみる竹島(II)) 


2. The analysis of western made maps( 2. 西欧製地図の分析)

by Associate Professor Funasugi Rikinobu (Shimane University)
(舩杉力修 島根大学法文学部・歴史地理学)


2. The analysis of the western maps
(Overview)

Western maps have been the object of the study in Takeshima-issue. According to Kawashima(1966), the map of Korea in "the collection of Chinese maps "by D'Anville (1779) have the two islands, "Tchiang-chan-tao"(west side) and " Fanling-tao"(East side) , the former being Usando the latter being Ullenungo in Chinese pronunciation, but these were just a copy of Korean old document. without investigation. This map had a great influence over European maps thereafter.

In 1787, when Dagelet found Ulleungdo, it was named after him, and the name "Dagelet" started to appear on the maps. In 1789 Argonaut found the Ulleungdo, named the island after it, but he failed to measure it exactly and spotted it on the map in the northwest of the real island; consequently , two islands for the one island, Ulleungdo, began to appear on the western maps.Arter that, Siebold compared the Japanese maps with European maps, and he mistakenly identified "Argonaut" with "Takeshima"(Ulleungdo) and "Dagelet" with "Matsuhima"(Takeshima/Dokdo);as a result, the map thereafter had been wrongly drawn under this misperception .

In 1849 French ship found Takeshima/Dokdo and named it Liancourt after its name, now the maps have three islands, "Argoaut"("takeshima"), "Daglet"("Matsuhima"), and Linocourt. But later it was found out that there was no island corresponding to "Argonot", so in 1900's the maps began to list only two islands, Daglet and Liancourt. The confusions were due to Siebold's misidentification. Korea claims that even western maps prove Dokdo was Korean territory just because D'ANVIL map has two islands, "Tchiang-chan-tao" and "Fanling-tao".

This paper will examine as many western maps as possible and investigate how these islands referred above appeared in the western maps. However, since the number of western maps is enormous and since it is difficult to systematically check them all, I took the following measures.

I have examined "the collection of classic maps of Japan" and "the compilation of old Japanese maps" among Akiyama Takeshiro's collection, and I also used the Internet western old maps on the website of Kansai University. In total, I examined 74 Japanese and Asian maps by European people which had Oki islands, Ulleungdo, and Taekshima/Dokdo. The times of the maps examined is from the middle of 16 century when Oki islands appeared for the first time in the western maps to the late 19 century when the boarder is not drawn as clearly as now. I summed up the result in figure 2 on another sheet.

① Until the middle of 18century
Only Oki islands were spotted on the western maps. That means westerns had no cognition of the western part of Japan Sea other than Oki islands. Oki islands appeared on almost all the western maps after the middle of 18 century. Some of the maps of Japan were made based on Japanese maps such as "map of Japan on a folding screen" (日本図屏風), which was probably made in the late 16 century in Joutoku temple of Fukui Prefecture(福井県), "South barbarian map on a folding screen(南蛮屏風), which belonged to the same family tree to the map just mentioned , "new anthology of maps about great Japan "(新撰大日本図鑑)(1678), "the map of Japan's mountains and sea(日本海山潮陸図)(1691)by Ishikawa Tomonobu (石川流宣). "Map of Japan on a folding screen" and "Southern Barbarian map on a folding screen" has Ulleungdo as Isotake between Oki and Goryeo but western maps based on them didn't list it for some reason. As a side, "new anthology of maps of great Japan" and "the map of Japan's mountains and sea does not have "Takeshima"(Ulleungdo) and "Matsuhima"(Takeshima/Dokdo) on them.

② From the middle of 18 century to the early 19 century
From the middle of 18 century, Tchiang-chan-tao(Usan) and Fanling-tao(Ulleungdo) began to appear on western maps. It might be that the map was made based on 1530 Korean map " "Map of the Eight Provinces (八道總圖 - 팔도총도)" in the middle of 16 century because the islands were spotted on the east of Korea and Usan is in the west, Ulleungdo in the east. As Kawakami points out, it seems these maps were under the influence of D'Anville.

D'Anville, Jean Baptiste Bourguignon(1697~1782)
was a French geographer and published "new map of China" in 1737 (Left : from the site of Hokkaido University Library) based on the1735 map made by missionaries who stayed in China. Thereafter, this 1737 map had been the standard map of China, This map included the map of Korea, which had Tchiang-chan-tao、Fanling-tafor on it. (The national museum of Korea printed it in its leaflet.) Almost all the maps with these two islands locate Usan in the west, Ulleungdo in the east. "The map oft Japan" in 1750 located them similarly. It follows that Usan is not Takeshima/Dokdo.

Besides, this map is not a territorial map: it was just made based on "Map of the Eight Provinces" (1530) and Japanese maps of the middle of Edo era, so it had nothing to do with territorial boundary.

③ The early 19 century
In the early 19 century, maps with "Argonaut" and " Dagelet" came to existence besides the maps with "Tchiang-chan-tao" in the west and " Fanling-tao " in the east. These are all the name for Ulleungdo. In other words, four islands were drawn on the western maps in this period. "Argonaut" and "Dagelet" was "discovered " due to the developed technology of measurement at the time. "Dagelet" was discovered by French in 1787, "Argonaut" in 1789 by Britain. Since these islands were not colored on the map, they were recognized as no man's island. In this period, maps were made based both on traditional Korean maps and on western technology of measurements.

④From the middle of 19 century to the late 19 century
In the middle of 19 century, "Tchiang-chan-tao" and "Fanling-tao" gradually began to disappear from the maps. In some maps like the British map of "Japan and Korea" , 68th map on another sheet, only "Tchiang-chan-tao" disappeared and Fanling-tao、Argonaut、Dagelet remained. Incidenally, the maps were colored and Fanling-tao and Argonaut were colored yellow and Dagelet colorless, indicating tha Fanling-tao and Argonaut belongs to Korea and Dagelet belongs to no country. But since the maps were confused as to the existence and location of the islands, it has little significance. (By 1865 Argonaut finally disappeared from the map. * )

In 1840, Siebold mistakenly identified Argonaut with Takeshima and Dagelet with Matsuhima after he compared Japanese maps with western maps. Thereafter, however, his notation became a standard for western maps.
Takeshima/Dokdo notated as Linacourt began to appear on the western maps about this time. It was named after the French whaling ship Liancourt which discovered the island. (British map notated it as Hornet. I , though) Finally the maps began to depict Dagelet and Liancourt island accurately.

In the German map of Korean and Japan in 1870, (right / 72th map on another sheet), the present Ulleugdo was notated as Matsushima(Dagelet.) and in the south-east of it , you can see Liancourt.R(Hornet.I), Takeshima/Dokdo. Judging from longitude and latitude、they are accurately depicted. Interestingly note the boader line was drawn in the west of Matsuhima (Ulleungdo). The map showed the cognition that . the west of Ulleungdo was the boundary between Korea and Japan.

Incidentally Korean newspaper, Chosun Ilbo on 15 January 2004, reported that they discovered the French map in 1894 which indicated that Dokdo belongs to Korea. The map was in French daily newspaper Le Petit Journal in 1894 and the title was "the map of Korea, Japan, East China." They say that the map has the boundary between Korea and Japan, and Ulleungdo and Dokdo were on the map, Dokdo noted as I.Ouen-Sa (Usando).

The Prof. of Hanyang University, Shin yon-ha said that it was the first time that the map with territorial boarderline was publicized and he concluded that Dokdo was internationally considered as Korean territory. However, examining the map closely, you'll find no Ulleungdo on the map which he claims to be drawn as Ulleungdo. Besides, I.Ouen-Sa(Usando), which he claims to be Dokdo, is Ulleungdo judging from longitude and latitude.:It is not Dokdo. And the present Takeshima/Doko is not depicted. This map is not the type based on the developed technology of measurement and belongs to the classic type of the map.

The wrong conclusion seems to be due to the error in the elementary method he employed: there is strong basis that Usando is Dokdo, the study is not based on the history of western maps and geography, even the longitude and latitude are not checked, which is very basic in reading maps.

In conclusion, western maps only recognized Oki Islans until 18 century. In the middle of the century Western maps were made based on 1530 Korean map "(八道総図), but since Usando was in the east, it follows that Takeshima/Dokdo was not recognized while Ulleungdo was during this period.

In the early 19 century, reflecting the advanced technology of measurement as well as traditional cognition of geography, there were several Ulleungdos on maps. In the middle of 19 century, finally some maps began to reflect the actual geography. In a nutshell, in western maps, Takeshima/Doko appeared only after the middle of 19 century after the advancement of measurement technology and before that, there was no map with Takeshima/Dokodo on it.

Hence, what was written as "Usando", as was the case with Korean maps, did not refer to the present Takeshima/Dokdo. In no western map was depicted Takeshima/Dokdo as Korean territory.

(* notes by translater : Japanese government seems not to have dropped Argonaut until 1878 when British Royale Navy dropped it from the chart in 1876 version)

(There is a list of the maps he studied in the original Japanese version.)
Translated by Ponta.

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

Other Article by Associate Professor Funasugi from the Final report by Takeshima Research Center, 2007 (竹島研究会最終報告書 2007) and the report of the Research on Takeshima Issue by Web Takeshima Research Center, 2007 (Web 竹島問題研究所 「竹島問題に関する調査研究報告書」平成19年度) posted are as follows:

"Takeshima in the Korean official map"
1530 - (1) 「八道総図」 in 『新増東国輿地勝覧』
1711 - (2)「欝陵島図形」

1770 -
(3) 「欝陵島図 in'『朝鮮地図』
1882 - (4) 『鬱陵島外図』
1899 - (5) 『大韓全図』(1899) , 『大韓輿地図』(1900 c.a.
2007 - Supplement

"Takeshima in Japanese map (1)"
1849 - (1) 「嘉永新増 大日本国郡輿地全図」

References;
1752 - Fang-ling-tau means Ulleungdo

1894 - Carte De La Coree from "Le Petit Journal"

Monday, July 13, 2009

"Lesson Learned From Dokdo," by Tong Kim

Tong Kim is supposedly a research professor with the Ilmin Institute of International Relations at Korea University and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), yet, his July 12 Korea Times article, "Lessons Learned From Dokdo," seems to be more evidence that when it comes to "Dokdo," Korean professors seem more than willing to throw integrity and objectivity right out the window.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

1798 The old chart of Dagelet

Although this is not directly related to Liancourt Rocks, I've obtained a part of old chart of Dagelet island (Ulleungdo) recently and I think many readers of this blog may be interested in it. It is a part of a British chart book which was published in 1798 , as there is a writing at the bottom of this sheet of charts that reads "Published as the Act directs Novr. 1st. 1798 by G.G.& J. Robinson Paternoster Row". This sheet of charts seems to be a copy of a French chart as it was all written in French. [Click the map to enlarge]

There is a chart of L'ile Dagelet (The Isle of Dagelet) in the sheet of charts and the French note says that "Discovered by the French frigates la Boussole and l'Astrolabe. The 27th May 1787. " with the exact location of the island. [Click the map to enlarge]
Another four charts depicted other islands - "a part of the isle of Quelpaert (Chejudo)", "the isle of Hoapinsu", "a part of the isle of Botol", and "the isle of Kumi". All of these islands were only "vue" (that means "seen"), not discovered. The dates depicted in these charts may illustrate how the French frigates navigated - they saw a part of the isle of Botol on 3rd May 1787, then the isle of Kumi on 5th May, the isle of Hoapinsu on 7th May, a part of the isle of Qeulpaert on 21st May and lastly they discovered Dagelet on 27th May.

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

1945-1953 Map of Korea and Japan (USA)


This is the "Map of Korea and Japan" which was published by Military Sea Transportation Service, Department of Navy, USA. The map of Korea was made by Geographia map Co., INC in New York. The exact year of the publication is not clear but it may have been published during the years after the WWII (1945) until 1953 when the Military Demarcation Line was drawn. This map of Korea is almost similar to the map "Large Scale Map of Korea" by the same mapmaker that I already posted here; http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2009/03/late-1940s-to-early-1950s-map-of-korea.html




The map shows Ulleungdo (as ULLUNG DO) but not Liancourt Rocks. [Click the left map to enlarge]






The flip side of it is a map of Japan made by the same mapmaker, Geographia Map Co. INC. There are islands in the Sea of Japan - Matsu Shima, Liancourt Rocks and Oki Shima. [Click the left map to enlarge]
They mistakenly depicted Ulleungdo (MatsuShima, Dagelet) as a Japan's island while they drew Ullun Do (Ulleungdo) as a Korean island in the map other side. There seems to have been a confusion concerning Matsushima and Ullun Do because of turmoils after the war and wrong information from the pre-war era.




But anyway, it seems to have been a firm belief for the mapmaker (and USA Navy) that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea. The rocks had been usually depicted as Japan's territory in various western maps - at least they were drawn as being out of Korean territory because Korean eastern limit had been widely believed to be Ulleungdo.

It was Rhee Syngman who broke the international rule and took the rocks by force.

It was the beginning of the Takeshima/Dokdo dispute. The issue only happened in 1952, not in 1905 when Japan incorporated the island because in those days it was a common sense that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea.

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

1896 Maps by J.G. Bartholomew (UK)

John George Bartholomew or J.G. Bartholomew (22 March 1860 - 14 April 1920) was a Scottish cartographer and geographer. As a holder of a royal warrant, he used the title "Cartographer to the King"; for this reason he was sometimes known by the epithet "the Prince of Cartography".Bartholomew came from a celebrated line of map-makers: he was the son of John Bartholomew Junior, and the grandson of the founder of John Bartholomew and Son Ltd.

These two maps were made by J.G. Bartholomew in 1896 for the Handy Reference Atlas of The World (John Walker & Co. Ltd. UK).

The first map is "JAPAN AND KOREA". [Click the map to enlarge] As it was just after the Shimonoseki Treaty (1895), Taiwan (Formosa) is shown as Japanese territory. You may notice that the national border can be seen as broken line, which shows that Japanese territory included Taiwan (Formosa), Ryukyu (Liu Kiu) islands, Tsushima and Dagelet island (Matsu-sima). Although the map didn't show Liancourt Rocks, it is obvious that Bartholomew knew that the rocks to be Japanese territory.

Please take a look at the 2nd map: "CENTRAL JAPAN". [Click the map to enlarge] It depicted literally the central Japan, mainly Honshu (mainland) with Shikoku. Please look at the islands in the Sea of Japan. The great cartographer precisely drew Liancourt Rocks (Hornet island) in this map of Japan. It is obvious that Liancourt Rocks were generally thought to be Japan's rocks, nobody believed that they were Korean territory in those days. It was a kind of common sense until Rhee Syngman stole the rocks in 1952.

Monday, July 06, 2009

Mark Selden seems ignorant of Dokdo/Takeshima history



Cornell University Professor Mark Selden attended a 2-day symposium on Dokdo at the Yeongnam University Dokdo Research Center in Korea from May 13 to 14. On his way home, he apparently stopped in Tokyo where he had THIS INTERVIEW with a JPNews reporter. According to the Korean translation of the interview, Professor Selden said that Japan's sovereignty claim on "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima) was "shabby" and "based on violence and aggression."

Such comments suggest that Professor Mark Selden is either ignorant of the history of Liancourt Rocks or is pretending ignorance, which is disturbing since he is a Senior Research Associate in the East Asia Program at Cornell University and a Coordinator of The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus.

The following is my translation of Professor Selden's response when asked his opinion of Japan's sovereignty claim on "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima). Remember that this is a translation and may not be Professor Selden's exact words:

What do you think of Japan’s sovereignty claim on Dokdo?

.

This is my personal opinion, but Japan’s claim of sovereignty is very shabby. The one in the favorable position now is Korea. The reason is that Korea now occupies Dokdo. That is, Korea is currently in control of Dokdo. Japan, of course, wants this control, but for a number of reasons is unable to exercise it. Therefore, related to this, Korea is in the position of having several advantages.

.

First is the fact that Korea has control of Dokdo. Second is because Japan’s claim of ownership is based on its 1905 invasion of the Korean peninsula. Essentially, it can be said that Japan’s occupation of Dokdo was the first step of the invasion.

.

Therefore, I can understand why Korea is taking such a hard-line attitude and why it has to show such an attitude. The Japanese claim is built on violence and aggression, which is why it can be said to be weaker than Korea’s.

.

However, even though Japan's claim is shabby and weak, these days, a time after its colony, the problem should be viewed more broadmindedly and understood from a broad standpoint and discussed.

.

- 일본의 독도 소유권 주장을 어떻게 생각하시는지요?

"개인적인 생각이지만, 일본의 소유권에 대한 주장은 매우 허술합니다. 현재 유리한 입장에 있는것은 한국인데, 그 이유는 한국이 현재 독도를 점거하고 있다는 것입니다. 즉 독도의 현 지배권이 한국에 있다는 것이지요. 일본 역시 이 지배권을 원하지만 여러가지 이유 때문에 행동으로 옮기진 못하고 있고, 그렇기 때문에 한국은 이건에 관련해선 여러가지 유리한 입장에 서있습니다.

일단 첫번째는 현재 독도의 지배권을 가지고 있다는 사실이고, 두번째는 일본의 독도 소유권에 대한 주장은 1905년의 한반도 침략에 기반되어 있기 때문입니다. 실질적으로 독도의 점령은 침략의 제 1보라고 할수 있었죠.

그렇기 때문에 한국이 이 문제에 대해 왜 이렇게 강경한 태도를 보이고 있는지, 또한 이런 태도를 보여야만 하는지도 알수 있습니다. 일본의 주장은 폭력과 침략을 기반으로 만들어져 있으며 그렇기에 한국의 주장보다 약하다고 할수 있습니다.

하지만 일본이 주장이 허술하고 약하다고 해도 오늘날의 식민지 이후의 시대에선 조금 더 관대로운 시선으로 문제를 바라보며 더 넓은 관점에서 이해하며 토론해야 한다고 생각합니다."

Japan's incorporation of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) was not based on violence and aggression. Liancourt Rocks was never Korean territory, nor anyone else's territory in 1905, and Koreans did not even know about the incorporation until the Japanese mentioned it to the Ulleungdo county magistrate a year after it happened, so how can the professor say it was based on violence and aggression?

Professor Selden also said the following:

In 1905, Japan and the United States made the Katsura-Taft Agreement, where they agreed to Japan's occupying Korea and the United States' the Philippines. Also, in 1945, the United States hinted that it was of their opinion that Dokdo was Korean territory. However, at the time of the San Francisco Treaty (1951), its previous opinion changed and it took a vague, neutral position on which country's territory it was and on where the boundaries of each country ended.

"1905년 일본과 미국은 가츠라 태프트 조약을 맺어, 일본은 한국을, 그리고 미국은 필리핀의 점령에 동의하였습니다. 그리고 1945년 미합중국은 독도가 한국의 영토라는 의견을 내비쳤습니다. 그러나 샌프란시스코 조약(1951) 때는 전의 의견과는 달리 독도가 어느 나라의 영토인지, 각 나라의 경계선이 어디서 끝나는지 확실히 하지 않는 등 중립적인 입장을 유지하였습니다.

Again, judging from the above comment, Professor Selden seems to be ignorant of the history because the United States made it very clear, at least to the Koreans, that Liancourt Rocks was Japanese territory. This is what Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk wrote to the Korean ambassador to the United States in an August 10, 1951 letter:
"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 of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea...."
In a November 14, 1952 letter to E. Allan Lightener Jr., the Charge d'affaires at the American Embassy in Pusan, Kenneth Young, the Director of Northeast Asian Affairs at the US State Department, wrote the following:

It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington. During the course of drafting the Japanese Peace Treaty the Republic of Korea's views were solicited, in consequence of which, the Korean Ambassador requested the Secretary of State in a letter of July 19, 1951 to amend Article 2(a) of the draft treaty so as to include the islands of Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) and Parangdo as well as Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet among those islands over which Japan would renounce right, title and claim by virtue of recognizing Korea's independence. In his reply to the Korean Ambassador the Secretary stated in a letter dated August 10, 1951 that the United States could not concur in the proposed amendment as it applied to the Liancourt Rocks since according to his information the Liancourt Rocks had never been treated as a part of Korea, they had been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Japan's Shimane Prefecture since 1905 and it did not appear that they had ever before been claimed by Korea. As a result Article 2(a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan makes no mention of the Liancourt Rocks:

"Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all
right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port
Hamilton and Dagelet."
The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore justified. The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN 677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No. 1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honsu.
In response to the above letter, E. Allan Lightner, Jr. wrote the following in a December 4, 1952 letter.
I much appreciate your letter of November 14 in regard to the status of the Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks). The information you gave us had never been previously available to the Embassy. We had never heard of Dean Rusk’s letter to the Korean Ambassador in which the Department took a definite stand on this question. We of course knew of the ROK Government’s desire to have Article 2(a) of the Peace Treaty amended to include Dokdo and Parangdo and conveyed that request in a telegram to the Department at that time, along with other ROK suggestions for amendments to the draft treaty. We were subsequently made aware of the fact that Article 2(a) was not to be amended but had no inkling that that decision constituted a rejection of the Korean claim. Well, now we know and we are very glad to have the information as we have been operating on the basis of wrong assumption for a long time.

I am sending with a transmitting despatch, a copy of the note that we have just sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which includes as a final paragraph the wording suggested in the Department’s telegram no.365 of November 27 and which refers to Dean Rusk’s note to Ambassador Yang of August 10, 1951.

In a July 22, 1953 letter to E. Allan Lightner of the American Embassy in Pusan, entitled "Possible methods of Resolving Liancourt Rocks Dispute Between Japan and the Republic of Korea," L. Burmaster of the Office of U.S. Northeast Asian Affairs wrote the following:
With regard to the question of who has sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks (which are also known in Japanese as Takeshima, and in Korean as Dokdo), it may be of interest to recall that the United States position, contained in a note to the Republic of Korea's Ambassador dated August 10, 1951 reads in part:
"....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......"

(This position has never been formally communicated to the Japanese Government but might well come to light were this dispute ever submitted to mediation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement.)

Since sending the August 10, 1951 note to the ROK Government, the United States Government has sent only one additional communication on the subject. This was done in response to the ROK protest of the alleged bombing of Dokdo Island by a United States military plane. The United States note of December 4, 1952 states:

"The Embassy has taken note of the statement contained in the Ministry's Note that 'Dokdo Island (Liancourt Rocks) .....is a part of the territory of the Republic of Korea.' The United States Government's understanding of the territorial status of this island was stated in Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk's note to the Korean Ambassador in Washington dated August 10,1951."

At the same time this note was sent it was hoped that this mere reiteration of our previously expressed views would withdraw us from the dispute and might discourage the Republic of Korea from "intruding a gratuitous issue in the already difficult Japan-Korean negotiations." Apparently our efforts to date have not had the desired effect.

In his "Van Fleet Mission" report, which was a report of his mission to the Far East between April 26 and August 7, 1954, Special Ambassador James A. Van Fleet wrote the following:
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.

Does Professor Selden not know about the above letters, or is he choosing to ignore them for some unknown reason? Regardless of his reasons, his comments in the interview are, at the very least, surprising and disappointing, considering his status as a professor at Cornell University.

UPDATE: In an April 21, 2006 Yonhap News Korean article entitled, "'Survey of Dokdo's Neighboring Waters' is a Domestic Issue in Japan," Professor Selden said the following
Professor Selden said, "According to the historical record I have read, Korea's Dokdo sovereignty claim has a very strong basis, but Japan's claim is provocative." Then he said, "Korea not only has a strong historical basis for sovereignty since Silla times, but it also has occupanied Dokdo since independence."

셀든 교수는 "내가 읽은 역사적 기록에 따르면 독도에 대한 한국의 영유권 주장은 매우 근거가 강하지만 일본의 주장은 도발"이라면서 "한국은 신라시대부터 독도 영유권에 대한 강한 역사적 근거를 갖고 있을 뿐만아니라 독립이후 현재까지 독도를 점유해왔다"고 말했다.
The above statements are more evidence of just how one-sided and shallow Professor Selden's understanding of the history is. There is no evidence that Koreans ever traveled to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) before Japanese fishing boats started taking them there in the early 1900s, and the islets do not appear on any of Korea's old maps by any name. Professor Selden seems to be a victim of Korean propaganda. He also seems to be too busy or lazy to do adequate, independent research, which is surprising considering his being so outspoken on the issue.

Sunday, July 05, 2009

The 20th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”

Below is a translation of The 20th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao


Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"

Korea's "Dokdo Center" of Northeast Asian History Foundation held a exhibition called "Dokdo island viewed from Ulleungdo" in the Diet member hall and the National Diet Library from May 18, 2009 to the 29th. The Center have researched how many days they can view Japanese territory Takeshima from their Ulleungdo as a project "Visible days of Dokdo investigation" in fiscal year 2008. The 30 or so photos of exhibition was taken while this investigation, and "Dokto territory protection measures special committee" of the South Korea Diet backed this up.

However, even if Takeshima in a Japanese territory is seen from Ulleungdo of the South Korea territory, you cannot expect the effect of " ultimately refuting the fabrication of Japan's claim which denies Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo as being Korea's inherent territory, and informing inside and outside the country of it universally".

That is because Japanese Government had already named Liancourt Islands,
that was terra nullius in 1905 based on International Law, Takeshima and incorporated into Japanese territory. Naturally, South Korea have no qualification to insists on Takeshima as her inherent territory. The concept "Inherent territory" represents the territory which had not been ruled by any other foreign country ever, while Takeshima was actually under the effect rule of Japan since 1905. Apparently, Japan who had Incorporated terra nullius has the qualification to assert Takeshima as his inherent territory, while Korea doesn't.

Besides, it doesn't make "Visibility of Dokdo from Ulleungdo" thorough this exhibition empirically proves the records of historical documents, such as the geography text of Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄 地理志). " as they explain.

Korean have been translating Usando which appered in the paragraph of Uljin Province in geography text of Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄 地理志 蔚珍県条) as today's Takeshima unilaterally, and they mistranslate the sentence "風日清明則可望見(they are visible on a clear, windy day.)" as "Takeshima is visible from Ulleungdo". However, "可望見(they are visible)"in the geography text of Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄 地理志is a description which describes Ulleungdo as can be seen from Choson peninsula, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Takeshima. This is crystal clear if you read a paragraph of Uljin Province in Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽 蔚珍県条), which has similar description. Following "風日清明則(On clear, windy days, )", it reads as "峯頭樹木及山根
沙渚歴々可見(
the trees on the summits and the sandy beaches at the base of the mountains are clearly visible.)", namely, the situation of Ulleungdo seen from Choson peninsula.

The island "the trees on the summits and the sandy beaches at the base of the mountains are clearly visible." cannot be today's Takeshima which consists of two barren rocks. That is because on Takeshima, there is no trees nor sandy beaches. Accordingly, Korean afforests to little land in
the rock,
destroying the nature system of Takeshima even now in order to make it fit to the description believing
there should have been a trees.
This is an outrageous act of violence that stems from lack of ability to understand their own historical documents.

As long as Takeshima issue is a historical issue, we have responsibility to present the documented historical evidences and prove them empirically. From that point of view, the fact that both sentences
"可望見(they are visible)” in the geography text of Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄 地理志 and "歴々可見(clearly visible)" in Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽) refer to Ulleungdo, as is seen from Choson peninsula, is empirically proved by the historical facts.

At the end of 17th century, when Korean fought over the belongings of Ulleungdo with Japan, Korean did used this a paragraph of Uljin Province in Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽 蔚珍県条) as their evidence and they translated correctly as Ulleungdo is
visible from Choson peninsula in order to claim Ulleungdo as their
territory.

And Many others, like Park (朴世堂) who wrote "Ulleundo(欝陵島)" based on a pharagraoh of Uljin Province in Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽 蔚珍県条), or Kim Jeong-ho(金正浩) who also wrote "自本縣天晴而登高望見則如雲氣(From this province, on a clear day, if you climb high and see, then it looks like the look of the sky.)" in "Daedongjiji" ( 大東地志 ), they confirmed that it was Ulleungdo which is visible from Choson peninsula.

Then, why did Korea become to stretch their interpretation of meanings of ""可望見(they are visible)" and "歴々可見(clearly visible)" to the visibility of Takeshima (Dokdo) from Ulleungdo? It was caused by Mr. Kawakami Kenzo(川上健三)'s remark that Takeshima (Dokdo) can't be seen from Ulleungdo unless they climb a mountain, which was calculated by using a formula to prove about the visibility written in the geography text of Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄 地理志 or Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽). Perhaps Mr. Kawakami wanted to object to the Korean interpretation that "visibility" written in "世宗実録地理志" and "東国輿地勝覧" meant visibility of Takeshima from Ulleungdo. However, if Mr. Kawakami Kenzo criticized the reports concerning "世宗実録地理志" and "東国輿地勝覧" from the beginning, it wouldn't make Korean side to go this far recklessly. 

On the other hand, Korean side, who repelled against Kawakami's opinion and interpreted the discriptions in "世宗実録地理志" and "東国輿地勝覧" arbitrarily, came to expose the limitation of their history studying. It is not unrelated to the fact that Korean history studying has a feature to disregard critical examinations and to show a strong tendency to interpret the documents with a preconception that "Takeshima (Dokdo) is Korean territory". Actually, it has been proved that Usando in "世宗実録地理志" and "東国輿地勝覧" had nothing to do with today's Takeshima (Dokdo). It has been confirmed that the annotation written in Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo(東国文献備考・與地考), "According to Yojiji(輿地志), Ulleoun and Usan are all the land of Usanguk (Usan country). Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima", was a fabrication in the later years, which made the premise for the Korean side to think Usando as today's Takeshima (Dokdo) totally collapse.

It is necessary for South Korea to excavates a document
that states Usando as today's Takeshima
other than Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo(東国文献備考・與地考), or they never would be able to escape from a historical reality of their own act of invasion of Japanese land. Korean never stops interpreting the historical documents arbitrary though there are no historical grounds, and keep slandering Japan, who claim the sovereignty of their stolen island Takeshima of their own, by calling him "territorial ambitious". That is a shameless behaviour and outrage against "Human race's universal value" that Korean themselves recites.

Northeast Asian History Foundation that held groundless exhibition called "Dokdo island viewed from Ulleungdo" fabricated the history of false again, and cheated
the international society, again.


“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第20回 「東北アジア歴史財団」の愚挙 下條正男”


Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.



No.19 Korea Maritime Institute(KMI : 韓国海洋水産開発院), who lacks ability to read their own historical documents, cirticized on Shimane Prefecture. "

No.18 Absurd and Peculiar Theory of Prof. Hosaka, plus the "Children and textbook
nationwide net 21" and others' Getting "Out of Control.”

No.17 "The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).
No.16 ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
No.15 " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
No.14 " A Reckless Courage of the professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University(東京学芸大学).
No.13 "Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文)”
No.12 " Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding
No.11
“South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three
Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”
No.10
"
A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory

No.9 "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
No.8 "The Historical Facts"
No.6
"Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)."
No.5
"South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan'"
No.4
"Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

References :

Q1: Has Dokdo been a part of Korea since the sixth century?
Q 2: What is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island?
Q 3: Why did old Korean maps show Ulleungdo as two islands?
Q 4: Did King Sejong's geography text mention Dokdo?
Q 5: Did Korea's 1530 "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" mention Dokdo?

1656 - "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima."

1863 - Description of Ulleungdo from Kim Jeong-ho's "Daedongjiji" (金正浩 大東地志 )

Friday, July 03, 2009

1895 Map of Japan: The TIMES Atlas

The 1900 Times map, which I already posted before, was very accurately drawn, with Matsu Island (Dagelet, Ulleungdo) as Korean territory and Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory:

This map of Japan was published about five years earlier than the above map in 1895 with the TIMES Atlas.
It doesn't contain Taiwan which was given to Japan on April 17th 1895 according to the Treaty of Shimonoseki, so the original map may have been drawn before this date.

Anyway, in this earlier map, Ulleungdo was labeled as "Matsu Shima (Dagelet)" and painted in the same colour as Japan.
[Click the left map to enlarge]
So this earlier map has the same characteristic as many other western maps from the 19th century that Matsu Shima (Matsushima, Dagelet, or Ulleungdo) was drawn as Japan's island whilst Take Shima (Takeshima, Argonaut, or phantom island) was drawn as Korean territory (although Take Shima or Argonaut island was not drawn in this map).
This thought was derived from the maps made by Philpp Franz von Siebold.

The old Takeshima (originally indicated Ulleungdo) went to Korea after the Takeshima dispute in the late 17th century (1696) while the old Matsushima (originally indicated Liancourt Rocks) remained in Japanese territory.

So von Siebold misunderstood that Argonaut island was Takeshima which was Korean territory and Dagelet island was Matsushima which was Japanese territory. Liancourt Rocks were not yet discovered at that time. This thought remained in the maps in the late 19th century even after Argonaut island was recognised as a phantom and Liancourt Rocks were discovered in 1849. This map is just one of them - with Matsu Shima (Dagelet) as Japan's island.

In the earlier years, old Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) was recognised as Japan's island and in later years after Liancourt Rocks were discovered in 1849 Liancourt Rocks were thought to be out of Korean territory because it located more eastern than new Matsushima or Ulleungdo. It seems clear that Liancourt Rocks (old Matsushima, or later Liancourt Rocks which were located more eastern than new Matsushima = Ulleungdo) had never ever been thougt to be in the Korean territory.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

1904 Hammond's Atlas of the World

I already posted "1904 Hammond map of Japan, Korea and Manchuria" here:

Argonaut island (phantom island), Dagelet island (Ulleungdo) and Hornet island (Liancourt Rocks) in the map were not coloured.

But I recently found another version of the same map. It was from "Hammond's Atlas of The World" (C.S. Hammond & Co. N.Y. 1904).
(Please look at the left map) [Click the map to enlarge]
In this version, Dagelet island was painted in the same colour (pink) as Japanese land although Argonaut and Hornet islands (Liancourt Rocks) were not coloured. This may mean that the mapmaker believed that Dagelet island (Ulleungdo) was Japanese Matsushima while Argonaut island (phantom island) was Takeshima which was given to Korea in the late 17th century.



Please take a look at another map from the same atlas, the map of "China, Japan and Korea". (Please look at the left map) [Click the map to enlarge]
Argonaut island was not coloured again but both of Dagelet island and Hornet island (Liancourt Rocks) were painted in the same colour (pink) as Japan. And you may notice that there is a writing beside Argonaut island - "(Tako-simo)" which means Takeshima.
So the theory above may be right.




By the way, the subtitle of the atlas reads "A New Series of Physical, Political and Historical Maps Compiled from Government Surveys and Exhibiting the Latest Results of Geographical Research - Accompanied by an Index-Gazetteer of the Principal Towns of the World".
It is clear that the mapmaker of the authoritative atlas believed after the research that Liancourt Rocks didn't belong to Korea in 1904, four years after the Korean Edict #41 and one year before Japan's incorporation of the rocks (Takeshima).

Sunday, June 28, 2009

"Dokdo Humor," by Gerry Bevers

  • 독도가슴 (Dokdo breasts) – jagged, uneven breasts covered with bird droppings
    새똥으로 덮인 들죽날죽하고 울퉁불퉁한 가슴

    .
  • 독도광대 (Dokdo clowns) - clowns who use the stage name "Steve"
    "Steve"이라는 예명을 쓰는 광대들
    .
  • 독도교육 (Dokdo education) - studying the lyrics to a 1982 Bak In-ho song
    1982년에 나온 박인호 노래 가사를 공부하는 것
    .
  • 독도구이 (Dokdo roasted meat) – meat roasted while chanting “It’s our meat,” It’s our meat,” “It’s our meat”
    "우리 고기," "우리 고기," 우리 고기"라고 염불처럼 계속 말하면서 구운 고기
    .
  • 독도논리 (Dokdo reasoning) – reasoning that begins with a false premise, proceeds with wild assumptions, and ends with “Therefore, it’s our land”
    잘못된 전제로 시작하고 터무니없는 가정을 하는 끝에 "그러니까 우리 땅이다"라는 결론을 하는 논리
    .
  • 독도놀이 (Dokdo outing) – an outing that causes a lot of puking
    구토 많이 하게 하는 여행
    .
  • 독도두통 (Dokdo headache) – intense head pain caused by a fruitless search for a small group of rock islets on old Korean maps
    옛 한국지도에서 작은 돌섬 군도을 성과없이 찾느라고 난 심한 두통
    .
  • 독도망신 (Dokdo shame) – the shame felt from learning that one’s real parents are Japanese
    진짜 부모가 일본 사람인 것을 알게 될때 나는 망신
    .
  • 독도망언 (Dokdo abusive language) – a truth charm that causes Koreans to go red in the face
    한국 사람을 붉히는 사실의 마술주문
    .
  • 독도미인 (a Dokdo beauty) – an ugly girl whom people imagine to be beautiful
    상상속 미인이 된 못생긴 여자
    .
  • 독도복시 (Dokdo double vision) - a disorder of vision that causes people to see one island on old Korean maps as two. The disorder is believed to be caused by reading too much historical fiction.
    옛 한국지도에서 나온 섬이 하나인데 두 개로 보이게 하는 시각 기관이 혼란하게 하는 눈병. 그 원인는 역사 소설을 너무 많이 봤나는 추측이 있다.

    .
  • 독도 상대성 원리 (Dokdo Theory of Relativity) - a theory that states when a group of people are subjected to a constant barrage of propaganda, their ability to reason will appear to decrease relative to that of the rest of the world
    어떤 사람들이 흑색 선전을 빗발 같이 겪으면 그들은 조리있게 생각할 수 있는 능력이 남들의 거에 비해서 떨어지게 된다는 원리
    .
  • 독도섹스 (Dokdo Sex) – four and a half hours of foreplay followed by 15 minutes of boring sex
    네 시간 반 동안 한 애무 끝에 15분 동안 지루한 성교 (독도 여행을)
    .
  • 독도역사 (Dokdo history) – a form of creative writing
    창작의 한 종류
    .
  • 독도외교 (Dokdo diplomacy) – diplomacy designed to discredit one's own country
    자기가 자기 나라 신용을 손상하는 외교
    .
  • 독도작업 (Dokdo seduction) – seduction that begins by stating support for your partner’s territorial claims
    상대의 영토 주장에 동의한다고 일단 발표하는 유혹
    .
  • 독도주장 (Dokdo claim) – a hamburger that Americans call “a whopper”
    "A whopper"라고 미국 사람들이 부르는 햄버거 (사전에서 "whopper"를)

    .
  • 독도학 (Dokdo Studies) – the study of promoting territorial claims through song, dance, and animal sacrifice
    노래, 춤, 동물 제물로 영토 주장을 선전하는 학술
    .
  • 독도학자 (Dokdo scholar) – a scholar who can look at old maps and documents and see things that are not there
    옛 지도, 문서에 없는 것을 볼 수 있는 학자

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Dokdo Museum Exhibition Focuses on Modern History

Dokdo Museum is hosting an exhibition of thirty historical articles related to Ulleungdo and "Dokdo" from June 22 to the end of August. The articles are from relatively recent history and include articles from the Jeju National Museum and from Uljin County's "Daepungheon" (待風軒) in Gusan-ri, where Ulleungdo inspectors in the 1800s would wait for favorable winds to travel to the island. There are also twelve photographs taken in 1917 by a Japanese national on Ulleungdo.

The document shown above is from the Daepungheon, where many more Ulleungdo historical documents were stored until Korean government officials allegedly came to the place several years ago and burned most of them. This was reported in a 2006 KBS interview with the man in charge of the place. I wrote about this back in 2007 HERE. The video used to be at the following address, but now it seems to have been deleted:

http://pohang.kbs.co.kr/asx.php?title=KBS포항&url=tv$special$ulleungdo_061103_300k

The man who made the claim about the documents being burned in the KBS interview looked very similar to the the man who appears in the picture of the Daepungheon to the left.

What is ironic is that the picture to the left is of a ceremony commemorating a effort to protect the historic site and the documents housed in it from fire. Notice the fire extinguishers in the background.

I think this is an example of the barn door being fixed after the cow has already run away. We will probably never know what documents were destroyed those many years ago.

By the way, the following painting was supposedly donated to the the Daepungheon by a Japanese national who visited the place sometime in the past. LINK

Monday, June 22, 2009

"Seoul Podcast" Discusses Dokdo

"Seoul Podcast" is a podcast Web site that does podcasts by and for foreigners living in Korea. The most recent podcast is an interesting one on Dokdo entitled "Seoul Podcast #59: Wagugin Parade on Dokdo," in which one speaker answers questions about his recent Korean government-sponsored trip to Ulleungdo and Dokdo. ("Wagugin" means "foreigner.") It is a long Podcast that includes other topics, so you have to wait awhile to get to the part on Dokdo, but, fortunately, the podcast up to the Dokdo portion is entertaining.

The people in the discussion group seem quite intelligent, but they also seem pretty ignorant on Korean history and Korea-Japan relations. For example, one of the members of the group claimed, among other things, that Japan never compensated Korea for Korea's colonial period and has never apoligized to Korea for the colonial period and the comfort women, nor has it apologized to other nations for the war.

They do not seem to know that Korea has a bad habit of demanding apologies that they then ignore or forget about after they get them. When someone points to the past apologies as evidence that Japan has apologized, Koreans usually say something like, "Oh, well, that was not a 'sincere' apology." That is why Japan is asked for a new apology everytime Korea gets a new president, even when the new president had said he would not ask for an apology.

Nevertheless, I still recommend that people listen to the podcast. It is entertaining.

Another EPIK-sponsored Dokdo Brainwashing

Tonight, I came across a blog entitled, "Not Another Tourist," which had an interesting post on the blogger's recent trip to Ulleungdo and "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks) entitled "16 June 09- Everyone Loves a Field Trip!" It was an EPIK-sponsored trip, which means she and the other foreign English teachers on the trip had to go through the Dokdo brainwashing lectures. Since she has not been in Korea that long and does not seem to know much about the history, she seems to have been an easy victim, which may be one reason why they target the EPIK teachers.

I left a comment on her site with a summary of my views on the subject and an invitation to visit this site, but she moderates her comments section, so I do not know if she will post it or not.
She posted a link to a bunch of pictures of Ulleungdo, but, strangely, there were no pictures of Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which sticks out like a sore thumb if you are on the right side of the island. It makes me wonder if the foreign teachers were intentionally taken only to places where Jukdo was not visible. Jukdo is only about two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore and was the island that appeared on old Korean maps as "Usando."
Among the pictures posted was a picture of the infamous replica of the first Korea map to show Ulleungdo and Usando. The original map shows Usando (于山島) to the west of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) instead of the east, but the Dokdo Museum has switched the locations of the two islands on the replica.
A few years ago, a Japanese newspaper reporter asked the people at the museum why they switched the locations of Ulleungdo and Usando on the replica and suggested that by doing so they were being dishonest. The man at the museum told the reporter that they switched the locations to make it easier for Korean children to understand. In other words, it is more difficult to brainwash Korean children into believing Usando was Dokdo when Korea's old maps show Usando west of Ulleungdo instead of east. When the reporter replied that that would still not justify their falsifying the map, the man at the museum told her that they were planning to correct the mistake; however, two and a half years later, they appear to still be showing the altered replica.
Compare the original map with the altered replica in the Dokdo Museum. Notice that the locations of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도) and Usando (于山島 - 우산도) are switched and moved farther apart.
The Original Map



The Altered Replica in the Dokdo Museum (Notice that the islands have been switched)



Sunday, June 21, 2009

Nakai Yozaburo Exhibition Mentioned in San-in Chuo Shinopo

The Japanese newspaper San-in Chuo Shinopo(山陰中央新報)seems to have a short article on the Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) exhibition being held from June 13 to 28 at the Oki Island Cultural Center (隱岐島文化會館). I have already mentioned the exhibition HERE. You can find the June 18, San-in Chuo Shinopo article at the link below.

Friday, June 19, 2009

Jukdo (竹島) Missing from Daum's Satellite Photo of Ulleungdo

The Korean Web site "Daum Map" has really great satellite photos of Ulleungdo, except that Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도) is mysteriously missing. Jukdo is a small 51-acre island located two kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore, but it is not so small that you cannot see it.


It appears on the following satellite photo of Ulleungdo, so why not Daum's photo?



Jukdo also appears on Google's map of Ulleungdo below.



One strange thing is that the Daum map of Ulleungdo shows Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도), but not the Daum satellite photo. I wonder if it was judged to be too sensitive to show so detailed a photo?



Jukdo is the island that Koreans during the Joseon period called "Usando" (于山島 - 우산도). Many Koreans today claim that Usando was the old Korean name for Liancourt Rocks, which Koreans call "Dokdo" (獨島 - 독도) and Japanese call "Takeshima" (竹島), but Korea's old maps and documents show that Usando was Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo.

A suspicious person might think that Jukdo was deliberately removed from the Korean satellite photo to keep Koreans from suspecting the Korean claim that Usando was Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks).

Also, why does "Sea Lion Rock" (가재바위) not appear off the southern tip of Ulleungdo in the satellite photo? The name is there, but I do not see a rock. "Gajae" (가재) is the name for "sea lion" (gangchi - 강치) in the Ulleungdo dialect and was written as "Gaji" (可支 - 가지) during Korea's Joseon period. Japanese maps from the early 1900s HERE showed the rock, and a Western document from the 1800s described it. Here is a reference to the rock from the 1864 Bristish publiction "China Pilot":
MATSUSIMA, or Dagelet island, is a collection of sharp conical hills, well clothed with wood, supporting an imposing peak in the centre, in lat. 37°30′N., long. 130°53′E. It is 18 miles in circumference, and in shape approximates a semicircle, the northern side, its diameter, running nearly E. by N. and W. by S. 6.25 miles. From each end the coast trends rather abruptly to the southward, curving gradually to the east and west, with several slight sinuosities until meeting at Seal Point, the south extreme of the island, off which is a small rock.
What's really strange is that the rock appears on the Daum map of "Seal Point," but not on the satellite photo.



Again, a suspicious person might think the rock was destroyed because someone was afraid that some Koreans might suspect it to be the place referred to as "Gajido" (可支島 - 가지도) in some inspection reports of Ulleungdo in the 1700s. Some Koreans claim that Gajido was an old name for Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima), rather than a place around Ulleungdo, but they have no documents or maps to support their claim.

KBS NEWS: "Dokdo Protector 'An Yong-bok Foundation' Sets Sail"

In a June 19 broadcast HERE, KBS News has reported on the launching of a new Dokdo related foundation entitled, "The An Yong-bok Foundation," of which its chief goal is to defend Dokdo.

Is anyone keeping count of how many Dokdo-related foundations Korea has so far?

Here is a video of the event from "Paran News":



By the way, the huge banner over the stage reads "Your love of Dokdo is making history" (당신의 독도 사랑이 역사를 만듭니다). I found that sentence quite appropriate since Koreans have been "making" Dokdo history since the 1950s.

Ulleungdo's Neighboring Island of Jukdo (죽도 - 竹島)

Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도) is a small 51-acre island about two kilometers off the east shore of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도). During Korea's Joseon period, it was referred to as Usando (于山島 - 우산도). Many people, including Koreans, are confused by the fact that the Chinese characters used for "Jukdo" (竹島) are the same as those used for the Japanese island of "Takeshima" (竹島), which Koreans call "Dokdo" (獨島 - 독도) and people in the West call "Liancourt Rocks." The names are different because the characters are pronounced differently in the two languages. Koreans claim that Usando (우산도 - 于山島) was the old Korean name for "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks / Takeshima), but Korea's old maps show that Usando was simply Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks, which are about ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.

Ulleungdo (울릉도 - 鬱陵島)

Ulleungdo's Northeast Shore (울릉도 동북 지역) & Jukdo (죽도 - 竹島)

Ulleungdo's Neighboring Island of Jukdo (죽도 - 竹島)

On Jukdo (죽도 - 竹島) looking toward the south (Ohmynews)


On Jukdo (죽도 - 竹島) looking toward Ulleungdo to the west (Ohmynews)
Compare the shape and location of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도) from Google's satellite photo with the shape and location of the neighboring island labeled as "Usan" (于山 - 우산) on some of Korea's old maps of Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도):
"Haedong Yeojido" (海東輿地圖) - Ulleungdo (울릉도 - 鬱陵島) ca. 1776 - 1795

"Dong Yeodo" (東輿圖) - Ulleungdo (울릉도 - 鬱陵島), 1795 - 1800
"Joseon-do" (朝鮮圖) - Ulleungdo (울릉도 - 鬱陵島), 1800 - 1822
Cheonggu-do (靑邱圖) - Ulleungdo (鬱陵島 - 울릉도) 1834
On the above Cheonggu-do (靑邱圖) map of Ulleungdo, the hash marks along the edge of the map represented distances of 10 ri, which was four kilometers and sometimes seem to have represented two kilometers. Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo is about two kilometers off its east shore. Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima), on the other hand, is about 92 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo, which means the neighboring island labeled as "Usan" (于山 - 우산) on the above maps could not have been Dokdo (獨島 - 독도).
The following is the satellite photo of Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo overlayed with an image of the island labeled as "Usan" (于山) on the 1834 Cheonggu-do (靑邱圖) map.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Foreign English Teachers Used for Dokdo Propaganda

"Brian in Jeollanam-do" has posted an article entitled, "Teachers back from Dokdo," which talks about a program in the Korean province of North Gyeongsang that takes foreign English teachers to Ulleungdo and Dokdo and teaches them the Korean version of Dokdo history, while taking pictures of them to be used for Dokdo propaganda. The group this year set sail on June 7th and returned on the 9th.

The following is part of what one of the foreign teachers wrote about the trip (LINK):
On a side note I feel that I should mention that many of us did question the lecturers about how Korea acts towards Dokdo and how it basically presents itslef. They took our criticisms and answered our questions to the best they could. One of the speakers presented us with a booklet about the debate and was terribly biased. He argued that Japan's aspiration for Dokdo is to reconquer the Korean Peninsula. He didn't answer my question when I asked for empirical evidence.
"Japan's aspiration for Dokdo is to reconquer the Korean peninsula"? What a stupid thing to say! Such ridiculous claims may work on rabid, anti-Japanese Koreans, but it does not work on the average foreigner. I would have thought that Koreans would be worldly enough to know that by now, but I guess not.

By the way, below is a link to a very funny account of last year's disasterous attempt to take foreign English teachers to Dokdo. The weather was so bad that they had to turn back after the trip turned into a vomit fest. They tried to go in November, which from what I understand, is one of the worst months of the year to go, weather-wise. Anyway, here is part of what one of the foreign English teachers wrote about the very beginning of the trip.

After claiming our spots and mingling in the hallway while a few were interviewed on camera (What do you think about Dok-do island? Do you think you will have a good visit to Dok-do? Do you feel Dok-do is an important issue?) we were called on deck for the funniest part of the trip…little did I know it was to be one of the last times we’d smile on board this ship. They gave us name tags with the now famous motto: Dok-do is Korean territory, and a picture of our flag so we could all see what country we were from, and then we were rounded up in front of the giant Dok-do banner (it travels) and instructed to wave our flags and say, in Korean, that Dok-do is Korean territory. Are you picking up on the theme? They were going to air this footage on t.v and we were all reasonably sure that we would be forever banned from entering the country of Japan after this little display went public.


Here is the link: "Dok-do, wait...Dok-DON'T island"

New Survey: Is the Korean government telling its people the truth about Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo)?

I have posted a new survey question that reads as follows:

Is the Korean government telling its people the truth about Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo)?

A) Yes

B) No

C) I don't know

If you would like to vote in this survey, you can find the survey question on the right side of the blog.

Survey: Int'l Court Should Settle Dokdo-Takeshima Dispute

According to our online blog survey, seventy-one percent of those polled believe the territorial dispute between Korea and Japan over Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima) should be settled by the International Court of Justice.
Among the 979 votes cast, 71% (703) have voted to let the International Court of Justice settle the dispute while 17% voted to make the rocks a neutral nature preserve administered by both Korea and Japan. Ten percent (103) chose neither option.
In the past, Japan asked Korea to take the dispute to the International Court of Justice, but Korea refused.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

A Sea Lion Cave

Korean historical documents talk about sea lion caves on Ulleungdo. The following is a video of a sea lion cave in Oregon, which should give people an idea of what one looks like.



The following are Korean historical references to Ulleungdo's sea lion caves and sea lions:

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

The 19th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”

Below is a translation of The 19th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao(下條正男)
"Korea Maritime Institute(KMI : 韓国海洋水産開発院), who lacks ability to read their own historical documents, cirticized on Shimane Prefecture. "

On April 27, 2009, KMI issued the article "Shimane Prefecture of Japan intensify the publicity of "Takeshima/Dokdo"only by advantageous historical resources"(Dokdo and oceanic territory briefing" No.09-60), claiming Shimane Prefecture is working on a biased information activities regarding Takeshima Issue. According to KMI's claim, the homepage of Shimane Prefecture "distorts the historical records" by "intentionally dismissing the official documents, such as the passage ban in 1696 or the Dajokan Order(太政官指令) in 1877, which, according to KMI, admitted (!?) that Ulleungdo and Dokto are the Joseon territories", and "especially, presenting 1846 edition of "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)",dismissing the first edition, which, according to KMI again, notes Dokdo as Korean territory (!?)."

However, this KMI's claim is nothing but merely a sophistry for concealing Korea's own acts of invasion, who keeps occupying Takeshima unlawfully. Because the final report of Shimane Prefecture's Takeshima Research Center's "Surveillance study on the Takeshima Issue" and the pamphlet by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan "10 Issues of Takeshima" both empirically proved the fact that Takeshima/Dokdo had never been a territory of Korean before 1905, when Takeshima is incorporated into Shimane Prefecture.

Japan named the Liancourt Rocks, the uninhabited island that was terra nullius as Takeshima on January 28, 1905, and "make it control under the jurisdiction of the local government of Oki island of Shimane prefecture from now on (本邦所属)" based on International Law. On the other hand, South Korea somehow automatically replace all "Usando(于山島)" in the historical documents and maps into Dokdo when they read them and claim Takeshima/Dokdo as their territory while distorting historical records. Because of this distortion, Dokdo/Takeshima was said to have been Korean territory since 6th century(!?) and wrongfully "identified" Usandos even in "Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄)" and "Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽)" as today's Takeshima.

However, Korea's logical basis, notation of 東国文献備考, had been already exposed as falsification during the process of compilation of the book, and SK had already lost its grounds of an argument in order to claim the sovereignty of Takeshima/Dokdo. What South Korea had to do by all means was to prove the fact Takeshima/Dokdo was a South Korean territory without the notation("輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 (Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima. )") of 東国文献備考, which had been exposed as alternation already.

Nevertheless, KMI dodged the controversy which would be fatal for them, taking up "the passage ban in 1696, "the Dajoukan Order(太政官指令) in 1877 and first edition of "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)(1779)", and quibbled "Shimane Prefecture is working on a biased information activities regarding Takeshima Issue."

However, since Takeshima/Dokdo had nothing to do with Korean territory, therefore, the Japanese decision of Takeshima has absolutely nothing to do with Korea naturally. But KMI only argued about the colouration of Ulleungdo and Takeshima/Dokdo on the map and misconstrued/distorted that" Takeshima/Dokdo was described as Korean territory" if it was not coloured. But, the point for interpretation of "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)" is not the colouring but the appendix noted next to Ulleungdo(Takeshima).

This additional remark "見高麗猶雲州望隠州" was cited from the "Chronicle of the country (国代記)" in " Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)" compiled by Saito Hosen in 1667(寛文七年), and it states Ulleungdo was Japanese territory. The meaning of this remark is " (These two are uninhibited islands(此二嶋無人之地).) From there(Ulleungdo) you can view Korea, it is just like you view Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu (east of Shimane prefecture, mainland of Japan)(見高麗如自雲州望隠州)." And it is followed by the sentence"So then, the northwest of Japan, we make this island (Ulleungdo) (note : 州 means the island, state, province) to be the boundary(然則日本乾地以此州為限矣)." in Saito's book.

In South Korea, "此州" is interpreted as the Oki islands. Korean translate "" as Oki islands, However, most importantly, this sentence has important and necessary condition that from "this island/state/province", Choson (Korea) can be seen. It is impossible for us to see even Ulleungdo, not to mention Joseon from Oki. Naturally, "此州" should be interpreted as Ulleungdo.

That is easily proven to be true because in Kanbun(寛文 ; 1661-1672) years, when Saito Hosen compiled " Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)", Japanese then did have a recognition of Ulleungdo as Japanese territory, and in fact, Saito himself reported the cases of voyage to Ulleungdo in his book. Besides, in 1666( 寛文六年), a year before Saito compiled the book, 21 fishermen of the Ohyas(大谷家) from Yonago of Tottori clan, who left for fishing to Ulleungdo, drifted to Janggi(長鬐) in Choson. Edo Bakufu, Japanese government at that time, who was consenting to the seclusion policy, indeed acknowledged this shipwreck incident and Ohya family's Ulleungdo fishing activity as well.

Therefore, the fact there is notation on "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo cited from Chronicle of the country (国代記)" in " Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)", is the concrete proof that Nagakubo followed geographic recognition of Saito, who reported Ulleungdo as "the northwestern boundary of Japan", and considered Ulleungdo as Japanese territory.

Nonetheless, KMI disregarded this necessary notation and claimed Shimane Prefecture "dismissed the first edition of "Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)", which specially notes Dokdo as Korean territory (!?)". They are apparently racking their brains to manipulate public opinion in order to give people the impression as if Shimane prefecture is doing some kind of document manipulation.

However, what is indispensable for historical study is the existence of the document which can be grounds of an argument. In Saito's "Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)", he stated Ulleungdo as the northeastern limit of Japan, and Nagakubo's"Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads( 改定日本輿地路程全図)" followed him and clearly noted Ulleungdo as the northeastern limit of Japan. Daring to read Ulleungdo in stead of Oki island is only the act of camouflage which try to conceal the fact Takeshima couldn't be Korean territory.

As for this kind of deceptive/fraudulent document manipulation by KMI, it is demonstrated satisfactorily for the interpretation of "passage ban in 1696 and Dajokan instruction in 1877". KMI's interpretation that in those two documents, Japan "admitted that Ulleungdo and Takeshima/Dokto were the Korean territories" is also the malignant/tinpot "Distortion of historical materials".

As a matter of fact, the passage ban in 1696 by Edo Bakufu in concern was for ceding the permission to voyage to Ulleungdo which Edo Bakufu had been giving to Ohya and Murakawa family, thus it has nothing to do with today's Takeshima. The fact that Tsushima clan fought over Ulleungdo, not today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, against Joseon government also contributes to consolidate Japanese claim. Again it is clear that it was Ulleungdo alone that Edo Bakufu, the government, prohibited to voyage, while Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks was not even hinted in the ban.

The reason KMI insists obstinately, against all the confronting evidences, saying that "It was admitted as Korean territory" is because Tottori clan answered that "Takeshima(Ulleungdo) doesn't belong to Inaba nor Hohki(因幡伯耆)" and "There are no islands as Takeshima, Matsushima and others attached to both (Inaba and Hohki) countries."when Edo Bakufu made inquiry to Tottori clan regarding the title to Takeshima(Ulleungdo). However, the licence to Ulleungdo Voyage was issued to The Ohyas and Murakawas by Edo Bakufu, not to Tottori clan, thus it has nothing to do with Tottori clan in the first place. Consequently, it is natural for Tottori clan to answer "Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) don't belong to Inaba nor Hohki ". KMI's streaching this as " was admitted they are Korean territory" is an unenlightened remarks by the person who are utterly ignorant of the historical distinguish Japanese feudality system from Joseon's commandery/district system in heavily-centralized nation.

Same goes to the distorting interpretation of 1877's Dajokan instruction, which the Cabinet said that "Takeshima and the other island has nothing to do with our country." Korean assumes this "other island" as today's Takeshima and made it as a basis for the claim that Japanese government decided Takeshima was not Japanese territory. Only because "The rough sketch of Isotakeshima (磯竹島略図)" which Shimane prefecture submitted to the government in 1876, described Isotakeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Takeshima) and both islands are mentioned in the documents submitted, Korean declared Matsushima or "the other island"as today's Takeshima. (* to the left is a cutout from "The rough sketch of Isotakeshima (磯竹島略図)".)

However, the document/text criticism is indispensable for this 1977 Dajokan instruction as well , since the name of Takeshima and Matsushima were already conveyed to the West by means of Siebold's "Map of Japan" in 1840 and those two islands were wrongfully plotted in the western sea-charts and maps at that time. In Siebold's "Map of Japan", Argonaut, which later declined its existence, was depicted as Takeshima and Matsushima was Dagelet(Ulleungdo). This made maps and sea-charts that had been circulated in Japan depict Ulleungdo as Matsushima. In results, Matsushima, "the other island" in Dajokan instruction meant Ulleungdo(Dagelet), not today's Takeshima.

On the other hand, the existence of Liancourt Rock, which was renamed as "Takeshima" and incorporated into Shimane in 1905, was ascertained by Le Liancourt, the French whaling ship, in 1849. Accordingly, 1864 edition of British Royal Navy's Sea-chart described Liancourt Rocks(today's Takeshima) along with Takeshima(Argonaut) and Matsushima(Ulleungdo). Among those three islands, Takeshima(Argonaut), which couldn't be identified, disappeared from 1876 edition of British Navy Sea-chart, and since then, Matsushima(Ulleungdo) and Liancourt Rocks were described on the sea-charts. In results, the maps produced referring to the chart prior to 1876 version didn't describe today's Takeshima.

This fact leads the same conclusion that Matsushima(Dagelet island), "Takeshima the other island has nothing to do with Japan" in 1877 Dajokan instruction meant Ulleungdo(Dagelet), not today's Takeshima. This was officially confirmed by the Warship Amagi's surveillance on Ulleungdo. The Amagi confirmed not only Matsushima being Ulleungdo but also "Jukdo(竹嶼/ Korea's 竹島)" which locates 2km away from Ulleungdo. This surveillance record was adopted by Kitazawa Masanari, a MOFA employee, in his book "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho:竹島考証) " and "A Study of the Territorial Sovereignty on Takeshima (Takeshima Hanto Shozoku Koh : 竹島版図所属考)". And this Japanese decision led 竹嶼/Jukdo written as 竹島/Jukdo in place of their current/old name of Usando(于山島) in Korea.

As has been seen, the Meiji government confirmed that "Matsushima" was in fact a Ulleungdo, not old Matsushma/today's Takeshima based on Kiatazawa's book "A Study of the Territorial Sovereignty on Takeshima (Takeshima Hanto Shozoku Koh : 竹島版図所属考)". On the other hand, KMI, ingoring this historical fact, distorted and got it into their head that Dajokan, the top policymaking group in Japan, said today's Takeshima was unrelated to Japanese territory,
  
The territorial issue of Japan-South Korea would never be solved as long as South Korea neglects the document criticism and moreover, in Korea, propaganda and the historical study are not distinguished. The South Korea's KMI made a wild and wrong guess, criticizing the homepage of Shimane Prefecture as " Strengthen the publicity of "Takeshima/Dokdo"only by advantageous historical resources", and it stems from their lack of ability of historical resources. Keeping cheating the international society as South Korea's repeating "Misinterpretation of historical materials" remarkably ruins the national interest of South Korea herself. What KMI should do is not to fabricate a groundless history nor to continue spreading the propaganda to criticize Japan, like they are doing up to now. What they are required to do is to demonstrate the validity of their claim, if Takeshima really was their territory, by the evidence of historical documentation.

“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第19回 文献が読めない韓国海洋水産開発院の島根県批判について 下條正男”

Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.

No.18 Absurd and Peculiar Theory of Prof. Hosaka, plus the "Children and textbook
nationwide net 21" and others' Getting "Out of Control.”

No.17 "The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).
No.16 ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
No.15 " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
No.14 " A Reckless Courage of the professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University(東京学芸大学).
No.13 "Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文)”
No.12
" Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding
No.11 “South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”
No.10
"
A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory

No.9 "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”
No.8 "The Historical Facts"
No.6 "Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)."
No.5
"South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan'"
No.4
"Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

References :
Shimane Prefecture (Eng. Jap. & Kor.)
Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Eng.)
1696 - Ordinance Prohibiting Voyages to Takeshima (幕府 渡航禁制令)
1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)

Q1: Has Dokdo been a part of Korea since the sixth century?
Q 2: What is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island?
Q 3: Why did old Korean maps show Ulleungdo as two islands?
Q 4: Did King Sejong's geography text mention Dokdo?
Q 5: Did Korea's 1530 "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" mention Dokdo?

1656 - "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima."
1667 - Onshu Shicho Goki (隠州視聴合記)
1667 - "Onshu Shicho Goki(隠州視聴合記)" - The different translations
1905 - January 28th: the decision to incorporate Takeshima in to Shimane by a Cabinet meeting公文類集第29編 竹島編入閣議決定)
1881- Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA concluded that "Takeshima" is Jukdo in "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho 竹島考証) "
1882 April 7 - King Kojong says Usando Neighboring Island of Ulleungdo
(高宗実録 19卷, 19年 4月 7日 壬戌)

Monday, June 15, 2009

Steve Barber & his "Academic" Site in Korean News

The Korea Herald has a new article on Steve Barber entitled, "Seeking to covey the truth about Dokdo."



In the article, Steve describes his Web site as "a forum through which Koreans may convey their messages about Dokdo to the world." However, Steve's site is not a "forum." Google Dictionary defines "forum" as follows:
A forum is a place, situation, or group in which people exchange ideas
and discuss issues, especially important public issues.
There is no discussion or exchange of ideas on Steve's site, and he does not seem interested in conveying truth. Steve's site has no discussion forums, which would give people an opportunity to refute his silly claims. It is just a Dokdo propaganda site operated by a man who used to go around to different Web sites promoting Korea's Dokdo claims using multiple, anonymous IDs until his identity was finally exposed.

Here is another quote from the article.

Some Japanese claim that he is taking side with Korea, his wife's homeland and that his arguments are largely biased, he said.

"I, however, see myself as an academically devoted person to this specific historical issue," he said.

If anyone is interested in seeing just how unbiased and academic Steve is, you can go read the posts on his site at the following address: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/

Sunday, June 14, 2009

2009 June. 13 - Former Shimane Gov. Sumita Nobuyoshi (澄田 信義) passed away.

Former Shimane Gov. Sumita Nobuyoshi (澄田 信義) passed away yesterday.

According to the San-in Chuo Shinpo's artice, in 1957, he started working for former Japan National Railways after he graduated from Shimane's Izumo High and Department of Law at The University of Tokyo. He was in charge of division and privatization of the former Japan National Railways as a standing director after seving as a vice-chief of the Shinkansen bureau and the general manager of Wakayama prefectural police. He aimed at the early establishment of the dominium of Takeshima, and "Takeshima Day" was enacted in 05. At the same time, he was zealous about international exchanges, including a sister tie-up with South Korea's Gyeongsang Province (慶尚北道).

May his noble soul Rest in Peace.

References:

Shimane touts 'Takeshima Day'(Japan Times) - March 17, 2005 (cache)
'Takeshima Day,' rhetoric just Shimane affair (Japan Times)- Feb. 23, 2006 (cache)

Exhibition on Nakai Yozaburo in Oki from 6/13 - 6/28

.
.
.
.A special exhibition on Nakai Yozaburo (中井養三郞) is being held at the Oki Island Cultural Center (隱岐島文化會館) from June 13 to June 28. Mr. Nakai was the man who petitioned the Japanese government in September 1904 to formally incorporate Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima / Dokdo). You can read his petition HERE.

Link to Japanese Announcement of the Exhibition