The following is a Japanese documentary on the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute. The documentary is already a couple of years old, but it seems to be quite informative and balanced, though I do not know for sure since I do not understand Japanese.
I am posting the videos again for Japanese visitors to the blog who may be new to the issue, but also because I am would like to know more about the people in the videos and what they are saying. For example, is the man speaking at the beginning of the second video Japanese or Korean? Also, who are the other people in the video?
Anyway, if you have any thoughts on the videos, feel free to express them.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Gerry,
ReplyDeleteThe person in the second video is a Korean scholar, Che Changun (I'm not sure this spelling is right) of Degu univ, and is speaking in Japanese.
The man speaking at the beginning of the second video says as follows,
ReplyDelete고문헌과 지도들을 보면, 독도는 한국 영토라고 해석하는 것이 보통이다. 그러나, Shimojo 선생님은, Takeshima가 일본의 영토인 것을 전제로 조사하고 있다. 그는, Takeshima가 일본의 영토이다 는 시점으로, 문헌도 반대로 해석하고 있다.
이번 조사도, Takeshima가 일본의 영토이다 는 논리를 만들기 위해 왔던 것이라고 생각한다.
古文献と地図を見れば、独島は韓国領土と解釈するのが普通である。しかし、下條先生は、竹島が日本の領土であることを前提にして調査している。彼は、竹島が日本の領土であるという視点から、文献も反対に解釈している。今回の調査も、竹島が日本の領土であるという論理を作るために来たのだと思う。
About the 3rd video:
ReplyDelete0'0" - prof. Shimojo (talking that he would like to have a talk with Korean scholars in order to recognise how different the thoughts of two countries concerning the history are.)
As to the meeting, Korean scholars wanted to make it "unofficial". The narration explained how severe the Korean circumstances are. If people of Korea knew that they met with Japanese scholars, they will be blamed...
0'59" - a member from the Korean Dokdo protection party (saying that the person who knew about Dokdo was Nakai Yozaburo and that he thought that Dokdo belonged to Korea)
Other Korean people (narration is saying that Nakai knew that Dokdo was Korean territory, and that Japan robbed Dokdo from Korea.)
2'35" The narration says about "中井養三郎氏立志伝" (the Success Story of Mr.Nakai Yozaburo) written by Okuhara Hekiun.
An old man is Okuhara's 3rd son, Okuhara Hideo. He says, "In this book how Takeshima became Japan's territory was written". Okuhara Hekiun wrote the book after interviewing Nakai himself. And in the book, it mentioned that Nakai believed Takeshima to be Korean territory because he saw a chart （海図）.
4'00" - prof. Fuasugi (舩杉力修) from Shimane University. (He expalins why Nakai misunderstood.)
5'00" - the chart "朝鮮全岸" (all the coasts of Chosun) appears on the screen, which was made by Japan navy (actually by Kimotsuki). In the chart Liancourt rocks were written as リアンコールド列岩(Riankorudo-retsugan, Riankorudo rocks).
Prof. Funasugi explains that the Riankorudo rocks were drawn for safe voyage, not appealing territories.
6'30" - Prof. Funasugi explains how Kimotsuki (although the professor pronounced Kinetsuki, not Kimotsuki) told Nakai that Liancourt rocks didn't belong to any countries.
Thank you, Chaamiey and Pacifist.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Shimojo impressed me as being quite calm and dignified, but I felt like the Korean professor from Daegu University needs to learn to control his emotions better. For example, the Korean professor seemed to be expecially loud and obnoxious in the Dokdo Museum. What was he so excited about in the museum, anyway?
Also, it seemed strange that KBS News would be doing an interview in a hotel bedroom. Aren't there better facilities on the island for doing an interview than in a hotel bedroom?
Chaamiey,
Did you translate the Japanese into Korean, yourself, or did you get it from somewhere else? I am asking because it looks like well written Korean. Here is my English translation of what the Korean professor said:
If you look at old documents and maps, interpreting Dokdo as being Korean territory is normal. However, Mr. Shimojo is doing his research based on the premise that Takeshima is Japanese territory. By viewing Takeshima as Japanese territory, he is interpreting the documents in the opposition way. I think this survey is also being done to build a logical agrument for Takeshima being Japanese territory.
Am I the only one who thinks the above statement was pretty silly? Not only is it not normal to interpret Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) as being Korean territory from old documents and maps, it takes a leap of faith with your eyes closed to do so. Also, what does it matter from which premise Professor Shimojo was doing his research as long as he is able to prove his premise?
The title of the document is
ReplyDeleteTSKスーパーニューススペシャル「鬱陵島で見た！～竹島・溝は埋まったか～」
（San-in TV's supernews special "Witnessed on Ulleungdo! -Takeshima / Did the gap get filled ?-"）
▽放送日 11月25日(土)11:00～11:45 (Aired on 25 Nov. (2006) Sat. just 11:00-11:45)
▽放送局 山陰中央テレビ（TSK） ( San-in Chuo Television Broadcasting Co.,Ltd. (TSK))
▽内容 竹島問題のキーポイントのひとつ鬱陵島。その鬱陵島に、島根県の竹島
問題研究会が現地を調査した。今回の調査で、改めて浮き彫りとなった竹島問題
を巡る日韓のギャップ。今回の調査を通し見えてきた問題点を検証します。
(Ulleungdo is one of the key point for Takeshima Issue. Shimane Prefecture's Takeshima Research Group did on-site survey. The gap between Japan and Korea is again stood out in relief by this survey. We are going to check the points at issue which became clear through this survey. )
In the first video, Associate Prof.Funasugi of Shimane Uni says that Usando in Korean maps are definately Jukdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo, and both local geography and map exactly confirm that. The researchers are comparing Lee's 1882 map and old Japanese maps which described Ulleungdo. Lee, didn't go nor investigated today's Takeshima. The rocks around Ulleungdo were accurately described.
In the second video, Mr. Che, lecturer from Daegu University . continued (after chaamiey translated) that there is a sentence that "there are two islands in the East Sea and on the clear day, two islands are seen from each other in Korean old document (I guess it's King Seojon's Annals geography text )". And "There are so many islets around Ulleungdo, and Jukdo and Kwaneundo are only one of them. Thus it is impossible to compare tiny Jukdo with Ulleungdo as an island, so Usando must be Takeshima/Dokdo, not Jukdo."
Mr. Che was invited to Shimane Prefecture's research group to lecture Korean claim before. He came to Japan to know Japanese claim and the real issue of Takeshima dispute.
Mr. Che is continuously criticizing Prof. Shimojo that he is distorting fact. In Dokdo Museum, Prof. Shimojo says that he is only presenting historical facts, but it is Korean side who is distorting them. He pointed out that Japanese Samurais in Kimono figures among Japanese in Ahn's diorama who were forced out from Ulleungdo is not true, for example. It is impossible that Samurai came to Ulleungdo nor there is no evidence that they were on Ulleungdo in Edo era. But Mr. Che rebuked, "How do you know there are none of them (Samurais) on Ulleungdo? Did you witnessed? Were you there?" (← It was pretty funny. He sounds like kids. It is Korean's responsibility if the diorama is based on historical facts or not. Or, it is merely historical distortion and definately a Propaganda.)
Thank you, Kaneganese.
ReplyDeleteMr.Bevers,
ReplyDeleteThe computer software program did the most of that translation. I only checked it and revised it a few.
The opinion of that Korean professor is the same as other Korean’s. And many Japanese, me too, will think it being much strange.
From the viewpoint of a person who interprets documents in the opposition way, a rational interpretation will look like opposite one.