竹島問題の歴史

5.6.08

The 9th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

Below is a translation of The 9th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

"Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

In April 16, Dokdo Research Center under the Korea Maritime Institute(韓国海洋水産開発院) has released a document entitled “Does Dokdo Really Belong to Japan? - Refutation against the Japanese MOFA's claims." ("The Analysis of the Pending Problem of the Maritime Fishery") This refutation itself, however, turned out to be the valuable evidence that Korean themselves proved "Dokdo" was not Korean territory. Because, in the last part of the document, the Dokdo Research Center said, “Japan’s move is tantamount to denying Korea’s complete liberation and independence and justifying its colonialist acts.”, and this comment in fact is the biggest fabrication of all.

Japanese territories such as Kuril Islands, South Karafuto(Sakhalin) and Northern Territories were deprived by the Soviet Union, and Takeshima by South Korea after the end of World War II. In 1952, South Korea drew illegal "Lee Sung-man Line" and nearly 3,000 innocent Japanese fishermen were seized and detained. South Korea used those civilian hostages as a diplomatic card for achieving relinquishment of the Japanese property claim in Korea and legal status of the Korean residents in Japan forcefully admitted from Japan in the process of normalization talks between two parties. Those historical facts are literally concealed in Korea and every time Takeshima issue comes up, Korean brings up "colonial rule before WWII" and try to justify their own act of territorial aggression against Japan. On the contrary, Korea's territorial ambition doesn't stop in Takeshima, but even go further for Japanese historical sovereign island Tsushima(対馬) and northeastern part of China(間島 : Koryo history issue). “Northeast Asian History Foundation" had lead this territorial aggression in the former President Noh's era and this time, "Korea Maritime Institute" took over the role in the new administration.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan made a issue of the fact that Korea has no historic title nor original title for Takeshima/Dokdo. They pointed out the notation(分註) "Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima (輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也 )" from "Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo(東国文献備考・與地考)"(1770) which quoted "Dongguk Yojiji(東国輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won(柳馨遠). (See here.) Korean has been used this notation as a basis for their claim that Usando is Takeshima/Dokdo and is a part of Ulleundo. However, the sentences in original document, which were found recently, turned out in fact, to actually be stating "It is said that Usan and Ulleung were originally one island (一説干山 鬱陵 本一島)", thus Korean logic has completely collapsed.

Dokdo Research Center refuted that Usando and Ulleundo are considered to be different islands in "Dongguk Yojiji". However, that is a makeshift for covering up the collapse of the basis for their claim that Takeshima/Dokdo is Usando and it is Ulleundo's adjacent island. The real point is the fact that the compiler of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo" quoted only one sentence "It is said that Usan and Ulleung were originally one island(一説干山 鬱陵 本一島)" from Yojiji and inserted "Usando is so-called Japanese Matsushima(于山則倭所謂松島也)" to alter the text. Then why do Korean persist in this apparently fabricated notation?

The reason is, this altered part of notation was based on the testimony by Ahn Young-bok(安龍福 ). Pak(朴錫昌) annotated this as "so-called Usando(所謂于山島)" on the map "欝陵島図形" in 1711, and 鄭尚驥, 金正浩 and others all followed this labelling and made the island Usando. Thus, Korean side has been claiming this island as today's Dokdo. However, "so-called Usando" is not Takeshima/Dokdo in the first place. The "so-called Usando" is Jukdo(竹島 in Korean, 竹嶼 in Japanese) which Kitazawa Masanari (北沢正誠) identified as "Takeshima(竹島)" in his book "A Study of Historical Evidence of Takeshima (竹島考証)(1881) and Lee Gyu-won labelled as "竹島". In other words, Takeshima/Dokdo was put outside of Choson (Korean) territory.

Against all those negative facts, Korean still claims "Seokdo(石島)" in Korean Imperial Ordinance No.41 in 1900 as Takeshima/Dokdo without any reliable basis. The name "Dokdo" was started to be used by Korean residents on Ulleundo who were hired by Japanese to go hunting on today's Takeshima around 1904. Before that, it was called as Japanese name "Ryanko (Yanko) = Liancourt". The name "独島" that was just started to be called in 1904 cannot be the root of the name of the island which was defined as "石島" in 1900. Dokdo Research Center apparently shot their own foot, since "Ryanko-to" was placed outside of Korean territory even at the point of 1900.

Naming "Ryanko-to" as "Takeshima" and incorporating the island which there were no trace of occupied by other countries(無主の地), into Japanese territory is absolutely no aggression at all. However, the Korean government's activity of keeping illegal invade and occupation of Takeshima, the Japanese territory, since 1954 is the one which should be called as "a territorial aggression", apparently.

“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第9回 韓国独島研究センター批判 下條正男


Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.


Other Column of the Series:

The 24th column “South Korean Government dug their own grave by publishing the English version of "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy" by Prof. Emeritus Naito Seichu and Mr. Park Byeong-seop.”


The 23rd column " Refutation against the report of South Korean Yonhap News Agency which misread the Mori Kohan(森幸安)'s "The Map of Tsushima(對馬輿地図)"


The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”

The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

The 19th column “"Korea Maritime Institute(KMI : 韓国海洋水産開発院), who lacks ability to read their own historical documents, criticized on Shimane Prefecture. "”

The 18th columnAbsurd and Peculiar Theory of Prof. Hosaka, plus the "Children and textbook nationwide net 21" and others' Getting "Out of Control.”

The 17th column “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).

The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."

The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"

The 14th column “A reckless Courage of the Professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University(東京学芸大学).

The 13th column “Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文).

The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”

The 11th column “South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”

The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “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)"

The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"

The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

14 comments:

  1. dokdo-takeshima.com5/6/08 23:45

    Did you notice, Pro Shimojo made not one mention of Japan's historical title at all? This is great news. Japan's claim has dwindled to the point they still think their military annexation of Liancourt Rocks is still valid. What a comedy. I almost feel sorry for this guy.

    Professor Shimojo states Anyongbok's Usando must be Jukdo Islet, yet he conveniently forgets to mention Anyongbok said Usando was 50ri from Ulleungdo not one half of a ri. Bad Mojo!!

    I wonder what limp excuse our honourable Professor has for this map.
    DokdoIsKorean

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am sorry, but I have a hard time understanding the point that Professor Shimojo Masao wants to make in this article. The title is "Criticism of Dokdo Research Center," but that is too broad to really help, and the first paragraph does not really help to introduce the topic, either.

    Here is the first paragraph:

    In April 16, Dokdo Research Center under the Korea Maritime Institute(韓国海洋水産開発院) has released a document entitled “Does Dokdo Really Belong to Japan? - Refutation against the Japanese MOFA's claims." ("The Analysis of the Pending Problem of the Maritime Fishery") This refutation itself, however, turned out to be the valuable evidence that Korean themselves proved "Dokdo" was not Korean territory. Because, in the last part of the document, the Dokdo Research Center said, “Japan’s move is tantamount to denying Korea’s complete liberation and independence and justifying its colonialist acts.”, and this comment in fact is the biggest fabrication of all.

    First, I do not understand how the Korean statement, "Japan’s move is tantamount to denying Korea’s complete liberation and independence and justifying its colonialist acts" is "valuable evidence" proving that Dokdo was not Korean territory" since Professor Shimojo does not really explain it.

    Second, the first paragraph does a poor job of introducing the rest of the article. That is, I am having trouble finding the topic sentence in the first paragraph. My guess would be that the topic is supposed to be "Dokdo is not Korean territory," but if that is the topic, then it is a very broad topic for such a short article.

    Third, there is too much half-explained information in the article, which means that this article is not for a general audience. Professor Shimojo mentions the northern territories, the kidnapping of Japanese fishermen, Korea's territorial ambitions for Tsushima and the northeastern part of China, the "Dongguk Munheon Bigo," the "Dongguk Yojiji," Ahn Yong-bok, the 1711 map, a book by Kitazawa Mansanari, Lee Gyu-won, and Seokdo, which require much more explanation than Professor Shimojo gave.

    I think I agree with everything that Professor Shimojo is trying to say, but his premise is too board, which makes his argument difficult to follow. If this article was meant for a general newspaper audience, then I think the professor failed to communicate his message well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve Barber (Dokdo-Takeshima),

    You are being silly, again.

    Yes, An Yong-bok said that Usando was 50 ri (200 kilometers) from Ulleungdo, but he also said that the Korean mainland was 30 ri (120 kilometers) from Ulleungdo. Though the Korean mainland is, indeed, about 120 kilometers (actually 134 kilometers) from Ulleungdo, Liancourt Rocks is only ninety-two kilometers from Ulleungdo, not 200, which tells us that An Yong-bok's Usando was not Liancourt Rocks.

    After the An Yong-bok incident, Korean inspectors were sent to Ulleundgo to confirm An's testimony, and they determined that Usando was actually Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is only about 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. Evidence for this is Ulleungdo Inspector Bak Chang-seok's 1711 map of Ulleungdo.

    By the way, I would also like to hear an explanation of the map you linked to. Do you have an image of the text that came with the map, as in the text around the map HERE? You did not bother to supply even a "limp" explanation of the map.

    I wish some of Japan's professors would take the time to translate the full text of some of these old maps and documents instead of just explaining them to us, so that people like Steve Barber cannot just point to maps and make insinuations about them without really knowing the facts behind them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, Gerry

    One of the reason why it is difficult to understand is my poor English apparently. And the point he wanted to emphasize in this column was Korean's constant claim that it was Imperial Japan who took Takeshima from Korea in 1905 is a distortion to cover up the fact that it was actually Korea who invaded Takeshima which they don't have any historical title in 1954 and it was done far from peacefully at all. Rest of them, are basically reiteration what has already been said in many places. But he is trying to explain the issue in more broad context, like bilateral politics. history, Korean political situation etc. I think if you want to solve Takeshima issue, you need to understand those complex issues entangled. The issues like communism, socialism, nationalism, racialism, Zainichi Korean and Choson, abduction of Japanese by North Korea, so-called comfort women, Yasukuni, 間島, Takeshima etc are closely related each other. I understand that you think they are difficult to understand and seem not to be irrelevant at first site. But the fact is they are closely related.

    And no, this is not writtten for general audience as you have noticed. The column are available only on the Shimane site and it is directed mainly to Dokdo Center herself, this time and the visitors to the Shimane site who are interested in Takeshima issue and supposed to have basic knowledge about the issue. I do hope that Korean government and academics stop at least distorting those historical facts and we don't have to waste our precious time for writing such a obvious thing again and again and again in the near future. But I personally believe that in order to build a "mature relationship" with Korea, Japanese have to stop ignoring Korean distortions of history. That's why I think we need to do this unfortunately. By the way, Prof. has written many articles in published journals you might be interested in and they are available on Web Takeshima Recearch Center. But unfortuanately, they are too long and precise for me to translate all of them. Besides, they are published and sold by prestigeous publishers and I don't think I am the right person to translate. But most Korean researchers on this issue can read them if they really want to.

    "I wish some of Japan's professors would take the time to translate the full text of some of these old maps and documents instead of just explaining them to us, so that people like Steve Barber cannot just point to maps and make insinuations about them without really knowing the facts behind them."

    I'll start to post Asso. Professor Funasugi's article as soon as I finished translating, or I may post them soon. Last time, I posted them from the end, then it seemed somehow difficult for you to follow. This time, I'll do that from the start. They are relly good, but too informative, so it takes extraordinary time for me. But I don't think Japanese decent scholar take that kind of person seriously and rebuke each of his distortions. So if you have anything you want to know about Japanese map, you can tell me which one you want to know. Then I can send an e-mail to WTRC in Japanese. But what I have to make it clear is none of the Japanese scholar are making any decent money what they deserve and doing those research full time at all and it is impossible for them to take time to explain all Japanese documents since there are enormous of them. Unlike Korea, we have less tha 1/100 budget Korean spend on this.

    Anyway, I'm extremely busy for a while and not to be able to start new research for a few weeks, so I have to post what I don't have to translate or I had already translated one by one. Some of them might seem to be not timely, but bear with me. But if you have any perticular question about Japanese, Japanese documents or maps, please let me know, I'll try to explain or get some help for what you want to know.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kaneganese,

    If Professor Shimojo is writing these articles for the benefit of the "Dokdo Center," then I think he is wasting his time because they will not listen, anyway. Besides, they already know this stuff.

    If I were Professor Shimojo, I would be writing articles in a way that would help the Japanese public understand the issues, which means he would need to explain things better and break it down into smaller, bite-size pieces. He should also have illustrations. When it comes to explaining this issue, a picture or map is worth a thousand words.

    Does the Takeshima Research Center or Professor Shimojo not already have a translation of the text written on THIS MAP?

    Yes, I understand that people are busy, but that is precisely why I do not understand why they waste their time responding to the ridiculous claims coming out of Dokdo Center. If the professor is worried about the Japanese people being deceived by Dokdo Center, then he should write his article in a way that the Japanese people can understand, not the people at Dokdo Center.

    Maybe the reason the Japanese public has not shown much interest in the Takeshima issue is that no one has taken the time to try to explain it to them?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kaneganese, Pacifist, GTOMR, or anyone else:

    Among the Korean maps of Ulleungdo that we have seen, which one do you think was the last one made before Imperial Edict 41 in 1900?

    I will give you a hint. It was not Lee Gyu-won's 1882 "Ullengdo-woido" (鬱陵島外島).

    I have some evidence that I think will redate one of our non-inspector maps of Ulleungdo, unless it has already been done.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As far as I know, the most nearest published map on 1900, is
    Japanese map
    On 1900, 赤坂正輔's detail map of ullunegdo with Jukdo and Gwaneumdo.Hole rock.

    Talking about Korean map there are two in 1898.
    Korean map
    On 1898.朝鮮地圖, same Ulleungdo design with 大韓全圖
    Around 1898-1900, 大韓與地圖 ,also same Ulleungdo design with 大韓全圖

    I guess you mean will redate 東京山川八道地図, I guess?
    This map emphasis on harbour on southeast, that is to say, Dodon

    ReplyDelete
  8. In addition, there are some record that they made detail map of Ulluengdo around 1895. I got some text copy of 江原道關草(1886-1895)but there are no attached map.

    1892.07.10 Ulluengdo report failed.
    越松萬戶가 이르기를‚ 鬱陵島搜討使가 馳報하였는데‚ 島內의 新舊戶와 남녀인구 및 墾田의 斗落 成冊이 모두 漂失되어 修上할 수 없어 惶悚하오며‚ 進上物種도 올해는 封進할 수 없다는 報告.

    1893.03.10 Ulluengdo inspection prepare again.
    鬱陵島를 搜討할 때 船隻과 格軍은 慶尙道 남해안의 각읍에 卜定하고 都會는 寧海府에서 專管하여 거행해왔으므로‚ 선척과 격군을 며칠 안으로 갖추어 보내라고 寧海府에 관칙하여 國役을 奉行하게 해달라는 報告.

    1893.03.12 They ordered Ulluengdo inspection to 趙鐘成.
    上諭를 받들어 平海郡守 趙鐘成으로 하여금 鬱陵島로 가서 情形을 檢察하게 하였으니 越松萬戶가 섬에 들어가서 搜討하는 일은 그만두는 것이 사리에 합당하므로‚ 關飭이 도착하는 즉시 越松萬戶에게 飛飭하여 疊派하지 않게 하라는 關文.

    1893.09.20 They reported the result of Ulluengdo inspection and bring local products and maps.
    平海에서 鬱陵島를 搜討한 후 바친 圖形 1本과 紫檀香 元封 2吐‚ 加封 10吐‚ 靑竹 3介‚ 石間朱 6升‚ 可支魚皮 2領을 監封하여 內務府에 上送하였고‚ 民戶 및 墾田의 成冊도 수정하여 올려보낸다는 報告.

    ReplyDelete
  9. gtomr,

    THIS MAP of Ulleungdo & Usando was made sometime between 1888 and 1895, which makes it the last known map of Ulleungdo made before Ulleungdo became a county in 1900.

    The map clearly shows "Usan" (于山) as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, as can be determined my the gridlines.

    So it seems the last known map of Ulleungdo before 1900 showed Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo labeled as "Usan." And since this was during the time that Ulleungdo was opened for settlement, the map should have more importance.

    I am working on a post right now.

    ReplyDelete
  10. dokdo-takeshima.com7/6/08 00:27

    Gerry, An Yongbok's distance is from Ulleungdo to Dokdo is off. As was the distance by the Japanese who voyaged (illegally) to Ulleungdo and Dokdo. From Anyongbok's distance we know he was not referring to Jukdo Islet that is 100 percent for sure. Anyongbok said Jasando was 50ri the Japanese said it was 40ri. They were both wrong. We cannot dismiss Anyongbok's testimony on this distance error

    I have no problem saying I think Professor Shimojo is full of baloney and I don't say that very often. Professor Shimojo is clearly a lobbyist.

    You can see in his above article he tries to dismiss the attached map to 1877 Shimane Inquiry as not related when in fact the map was attached and thus was used for reference. Instead Professor Shimojo tries to baffle us with bullshit by insisting the Dajokan used maps was that we can't even be sure were involved.

    The 1711 map you refer to is a combination of an on-site survey of Ulleungdo by Bak Chang Seok and the records of Jang Han San. In Bak Chang Seok's map he drew Gongam, Three Angels Rocks and two other prominent towering rocks off of Ulleungdo's northeastern shore. One of these is no doubt Cheot-dae Bawi near Jeodong Harbour. The other could be Jang Am or maybe Bukjeo Bawi. Both of these towers are far to the South of Jukdo Islet however, this "So-Called Usando" is way to the South of these massive boulders. In front of the "So-Called Usando is large bay, probably today's Jeodong or Dodong Harbors. There are no bays (harbors, inlets) in front of Jukdo Island Gerry.

    The shores of Ulleungdo Island in front of Jukdo Islet are high cliffs. The nearest landing from Jukdo would be Naesujeon Beach about 2kms to the South. So why does Bak Chang Seok's map show this "So-Called Usando" so far South, when in fact Jukdo Islet is far to the north of these harbors?

    Plese see this photo of Jukdo Islet from Jeodong Harbor. Notice by the shadows it was taken in the morning. We can see Jukdo Islet is far to the North NOT to the East of Jeodong, Dodong or Sadong Harbors.

    JukdoNorth

    In other words, there is no way Bak Chang's "So-Called Usando" was Jukdo Islet as drawn from his on-site survey. Notice this other feature of the map. Gong-Am, The Three Angels Rocks, and the two towers are drawn on dark with rough textures added to their surface. However, the "So-Called-Usando" like the phantom five non-existent islands are not coloured in and are just outlined.

    Anyongbok's perceptions of the region are a huge departure from what the Bak thought. Also we know Anyongbok's claims that Matsushima was Chosun territory brought no opposition from the Japanese at all. So clearly they didn't think Matsushima (Dokdo) was theirs.

    Ulleungdo1711

    Gerry the map you posted is simply an outdated copy of predecessors. Note the five huge islands to the south that don't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gerry,

    The map seems a bit old for me, but I'm looking forward to reading what you have found.

    As for the map you linked a few comments above, it is from Kawakami's book. According to him, it is a property of the shrine(早稲田穴八幡神社) in Shinjuku, Tokyo. The inscription are hard to read, but it seems same with some sentences from Hachiemon's testimony. Middle part of them are typed in his book.

    The first 3 lines seem to be the explanation of this map.
    "This map is drawn from the Hachiemon's testimony who was executed in 1836." (←rough translation)

    Middle part is,
    "Historically, this island (Ulleungdo) is about 100 ris north northeast from the coast of Iwami, and it is also called Ulleungdo. It is vacant, thus trees and weeds are thick It seems abalones and many kinds of fishes gather here.
    (元来右嶋石見國海岸より亥子之方ニ當海上百里余も相隔一名鬱陵嶋とも相唱候空嶋に而草木致繁茂地先には鮑其他魚類夥敷寄集居候様子に見請候(中略))

    Other than Takeshima, there is a tiny island which is called Matsushima, and it is 7-80 ris apart from the coast of Iwami. Both islands seem to be all vavant.
    (竹嶋の外に松嶋と唱石見国海岸より七八拾里斗相隔候小嶋有之右松竹両嶋とも全空嶋と相見え候(中略))

    From Fukuura in Oki Country, sailing to north lead near Matsushima, but seeing from ship, it looked like that is a small island and not many trees are expected, thus we didn't land on it. I changed direction to north-west and reached to Takeshima.
    (隠岐国福浦より順風に随子方へ沖走いたし松嶋地先をも罷通り候節船中より見受候處果而小嶋ニて樹木等も無数更ニ見込無之場所ニ付態々不致上陸其儘乾之方へ乘廻竹嶋へ着船仕候)"

    There are 5 more sentences, and it seems to be saying about what can seen from Ulleungdo including Choson. But I can't read them clearly and it is not typed in the book. Please give me more time to read them. I think there are typed text of Hachiemon's testimony.


    "Besides, they already know this stuff."

    Exactly. That's why I have to do this openly, especially in English. Then we can unmask how stupid Dokdo center, an Korean governmental organ is especially when it comes to Takeshima/Dokdo and what they are doing is not academic research but just a propaganda, to the world, hopefully. I don't think it's Prof.'s job in the first place, but unfortunately, there is no one who does except for him in my country sadly. None of decent Japanese academics except for socialistic sympasizer had taken Korean propaganda seriously, but what happend? I've learned too much last year.

    "Maybe the reason the Japanese public has not shown much interest in the Takeshima issue is that no one has taken the time to try to explain it to them?"

    I don't think so. But it is understandable that you think what they are doing is not enough because they are not available in English at all. However, ordinary Japanese are far from nationalistic unlike majority of Korean and not interested in nor react to territorial issue usually even though they understand the issue. They only react to the fierce reaction by Dokdo- fanatic Korean against Japan. But I saw some TV programme reported that 70-80 % Japanese thinks Takeshima is Japanese territory. Though most Japanese, including government, think it is our territory, they just ignore Korean hyper-reaction since they are annoying and avoid doing nuisance. The real problem is, Japanese' being silent had sent wrong messages to Korean, but now is a good time to change the attitude so that we can have more healthy relationship. That's why I strongly support what Prof. Shimojo is doing. ( Writing one page or two column in a month is not such a heavy duty for him, I think. By the way, latest one (No.11) was really interesting to read. I'll translate it as soon as possible.)

    Anyway, I think the study of Japanese documents are basically done and finished pretty much, though they are written in Japanese only. FYI, there are some empirically analyzed books like 田村清三郎『島根県竹島の新研究』(1965), 川上健三『竹島の歴史地理学的研究』(1966),  大熊良一『竹島史稿』(1968). Kawakami, a MOFA official and a historical geography scholar, 's book is especially important and many historical documents are typed.

    In these days, Shimane prefecture set Takeshima Day, and research staff published final report last year plus MOFA did released phamphlet in three languages in Feb. Many important historical documents are newly translated into modern Japanese. See here. Every year, Prof. Shimojo's writing some articles on「正論」 (90,000 copies per issue) 「諸君」, (80,000 copies per issue), monthly opinion magazines which are widely sold in every bookstores in Japan and read by ordinary Japanese. Just yeterday, his newest article was printed and sold in July edition of 「正論」. And other Takeshima Research center staff and member are writing articles time to time as well. You can read their articles here. Shimane prefecture started to make sub-text on Takeshima for primary schools and Junior high schools to be widely used which I am looking forward to very much. Shimane prefecture started monthly lectures for general public from this month. They started fundraising to publish more copies of the final report and distribute more places in Japan. They are continuously urging government to take responsible role for territorial dispute. You can read news here. I'll translate the news and add them to the "news and article post. In my opinion, Shimane prefecture is doing what they can do within tight budget and limited schedule. They are on the next step now, which is saying "no" to each Korean official propaganda and making the issue more public in Japan and pushing goverenment to do their job.

    Having said that, it is true that Japanese are not good at dealing with information warfare, and this is my belief that Pacific war between our countries opened since Japan lost to the information war against China. In that sence, it's really interesting to hear what you think about Japanese public information activities on Takeshima issue and I appreciate your opinion. Honestly, I think some of what you have said is really true, but some of them are not because of misunderstandings. From now on, I'll try to post more informations of Japanese trends in English so that English only readers can know how and what Japanese concerned are working on. (I wish you could read Japanese, though. It's going to be a great help.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. By the way, I just found Bill (Ampontan : * Not Ponta) posted about Porf. Shiomjo's book. here.

    I haven't read all of them, but I'll read tomorrow when I have more time.

    And this book seems very interesting. If you have chance to read it, you will understand what kind of people like 梶村秀樹 and 内藤正中 are.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Gerry,
    I think it is difficult to judge the published year of the 地圖 which you mentioned to say.

    Only the discription just a Usan instead of Usando, it is difficult to conclude the map is around 1890's.IN addition.Those Usan northeast ,there are other map like 朝鮮地圖 1750's and so on.

    Usually, the way to judge the year is, to check all the place of name then check the place name and year on the map.

    So only the discription of the map, we cannot conclude the year 地圖(江原道)be published.

    The reason why I guess 東京山川八道地図 is,
    1. Whole the map, they draws the symplified Ullengdo and Usan e.g. 大朝鮮国全圖 on 1890.
    2. Detail map of Ulluengdo on 江原道圖、they use 朝鮮地圖, which is same design with 大韓全圖-Usan with small five adjunctive island.
    Especially, five small adjunctive island locates bit southeast position which seems similar position with 大東輿地図.

    3.They emphasiss on 道洞 as 船舶処 on southeast of Ulluengdo.

    4. They discribes 三0六 instead of 三百六. It means maybe new writing system?

    5.The map name is 八道地図, and I guess 東京山川 is not map name but publisher name.This name is bit strange for typical korean map name.

    Those reason why I guess 東京山川八道地圖 seems to be new more than we thought.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kaneganese,

    I did not mean to suggest that Professor Shimojo was not an expert on the Takeshima issue, because he obviously is. I was only suggesting that he reconsider this audience.

    I am pretty tired right now, so we can talk more about this tomorrow if you like.

    Good night, Kaneganese, GTOMR, and, of course, Steve.

    ReplyDelete