竹島問題の歴史

2.7.08

1877 Jpn Map of Ulleungdo

Below is a cutout of an 1877 Japanese map of Ulleungdo that shows Ulleungdo with two neighboring islands. The one island off the east shore is obviously present-day Jukdo (竹島), but the other island off the southern tip of Ulleungdo is unnamed. Is there a translation somewhere of the placenames and distances shown on this map? I would especially like to know what is written at the southern tip of Ulleungdo.

I think it is interesting that this map showed the islet off the southern tip of Ulleungdo as a neighboring islet rather than Gwaneumdo (觀音島) or any of the northern rocks. Western maps also seemed to emphasize the islet off Ulleungdo's southern-most tip, which was labeled as "Seal Point" on Western maps. Maybe this islet was more significant than people today realize? I wonder if it is still there, or has it been incorporated into some kind of breakwater? Someday I would like to get to Ulleungdo and check out this area of the island.

The cutout came from THIS MAP, which, itself, is a cutout.


169 comments:

  1. Gerry,

    It is "唐舟が鼻(Chinese or Korean Ship Cape)" Japanese usually called sothern tip of Ulleungdo as this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Gerry,

    You should have uploaded the entire map instead of its cutout.

    It might give a wrong inpression.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And at the left side (western point) theer is a place Take-no-ura (or Take-ga-ura?), the right side point is Hamada-ura. Ura means inlet. And there is a writing between them "壱里半" (1.5-ri).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whole "磯竹島略図" is always posted on pro-Korean site as if there is no "マノ島" drawn on it. If it is posted like this, everyone can see "the other island" in Japanese document doesn't always mean Matsushima, but possibly マノ島.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you, Kaneganese. That is a strange name for a cape, isn't it? Why was the が added?

    Hi Raquel,

    I posted a cutout of the map because I wanted to make it large enough that the islet on the southern tip could be seen. I was not trying to give a wrong impression, which was why I explained it was a cutout.

    However, I had intended to post a link to the original map, but I forgot to do it. I have posted the link now.

    Thanks, Pacifist. Does the character 壱 mean "one"?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gerry,

    I'm not sure why it was added, but I guess it was the name Murakawa and Ohya clan were calling. Even if there is no "が", it means same. In this sentence, it means "of" or "something's", so it literally means "The tip(nose) OF Chinese ship ", wihch is same as "Chinese ship cape". ”唐” means China, but it seems Japanese in Edo era sometimes called Choson people and even westerners "唐人". I think the sothern tip was prominent and used as a landmark for landing. And for Japanese, it must have looked like Chinese Junk, I guess.

    And "壱" means one, as yo suggested. We still use those old characters for numbers to clarify the amount of huge some of money, and so on.

    This map is a copy of Kotani Ihei (小谷伊兵衛)'s map. I'm in the middle of preparing to post Asso, Prof. Funasugi's analysis of Japanese maps. He studied Japanese sentences on the maps in detail. If you compare it with those maps, it clarifys a lot more.

    ReplyDelete
  7. By the way, ~鼻(nose) is a common name for a tiny cape in Japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Gerry,

    That's nice.

    By the way, since my Korean is not good enough to translate the following article in the Donga Ilbo from May 30, 2008, could you tell me what Prof. Yi Sang-myeon of the Seoul National Univ. Law School is saying in it?

    www.donga.com/fbin/output?f=g_s&n=200805300165

    It looks like the respectable professor is saying a very out-of-place thing on "Jukdo Seokdo" in the Imperial Edict No. 41 in the seemingly serious conference held here.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It seems that he also thinks that the "Jukdo Seokdo" is one island, but he is probably saying that it is Dokdo. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. dokdo-takeshima.com3/7/08 23:17

    Raquel if you can read Korean.

    Try these websites.

    DokdoWebsite1

    Or Mr Cho's website.

    DokdoWebsite2

    ReplyDelete
  11. Raquel,

    I had just finished translating that stupid Dong-a Ilbo article and was trying to format it when I acccidentally deleted it. Man, I'm pissed.

    Anyway, yes, you are right. At a forum on Dokdo, the Seoul National University Law professor said that he suspected that the names "Jukdo" (竹島) and "Seokdo" (石島) in the 1900 Korean edict were both referring to Dokdo. He said that he thinks the name Jukdo was used beside Seokdo to help avoid confusion. Here is my translation of his exact words:

    .... In this situation, the government at the time made the edict to correct the local situation, so I suspect that "Jukdo" was also used because it was thought that using only "Seokdo" would cause confusion.

    In other words, this law professor from Korea's top university thinks that Koreans in 1900 used the Japanese name for Liancourt Rocks (竹島 - Takeshima) together with the Korean name (石島 - Seokdo) to help clarify which island was being talked about?

    Well, I think that is the dumbest among all the dumb theories that I have ever heard Koreans try to use to claim Dokdo. There are a number of problems with that theory, but one of the most obvious is that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island named "Jukdo" (竹島). The second most obvious reason it is a dumb theory is that Japan did not start using the name "Takeshima" (竹島 - Jukdo) to refer to Liancourt Rocks until 1905, so the "Jukdo" (竹島 - Takeshima) in the 1900 edict could not have been referring to Dokdo.

    Koreans should be embarrassed the so-called scholars who made such stupid comments at that stupid forum. Based on the article, their arguments are just silly and ridiculous.

    Thanks for showing me that article, even though is depresses me to know that these so-called scholars are teaching at some of Korea's top universities.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Gerry,

    Thank you for the translation.

    Even though Prof. Yi's presumption is wrong, I'm still glad that "one-island theory" had come out from the Korean side as well.

    ".... In this situation, the government at the time made the edict to correct the local situation, so I suspect that "Jukdo" was also used because it was thought that using only "Seokdo" would cause confusion."

    As in many Korean documents before the Imperial Edict No. 41, when there were two names or more for one place, it was a common practice to write them on a row.

    Therefore, so was the case of the "Jukdo Seokdo" in the Edict No. 41 no matter what the historical background for the Edict had been.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you, for the translation, Gerry.

    ".... In this situation, the government at the time made the edict to correct the local situation, so I suspect that "Jukdo" was also used because it was thought that using only "Seokdo" would cause confusion."

    In other words, it is possible that "Seokdo" was also used for Jukdo because it was thought that using only "Jukdo", which Japanese used to call Ulleungdo, would cause confusion. Since "竹島" cannot be today's Takeshima in 1900, as Gerry pointed out that Japanese never had called it as 竹島 before 1905.

    raquel,

    "As in many Korean documents before the Imperial Edict No. 41, when there were two names or more for one place, it was a common practice to write them on a row."

    Collect evidences and please share with us. Sounds very interesting.

    Anyway, good job !!

    ReplyDelete
  14. dokdo-takeshima.com4/7/08 13:56

    Raquel, Jukdo island had never once been referred to as Seokdo.

    Jukdo Islet's name had been consistently used by Koreans for over a century before this.

    Jukdo1794

    It was written in far too many documents to have been the source of name confusion. Every report on Ulleungdo that talks about the islet refers to it as Jukdo.

    ReplyDelete
  15. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    You have to remember that there were newly arriving people from the Korean mainland on Ulleungdo before 1900.

    I have a feeling that some of them started to call Jukdo "Dolseom" or "Dokseom" because it really looks a "rock island".

    ReplyDelete
  16. One more thing.

    The Ulleungdo residents today call the island "Jukdo" and "Daeseom", both of which mean "bamboo island".

    And, my feeling is that it was once referred as "Seokdo" or "Dolseom (Dokseom)" as well.

    ReplyDelete
  17. requel,

    Your words "rock iland" reminded me of "Ayers Rock" in Australia - it looks like Jukdo, isn't it?
    It is no wonder if someone called Jukdo as "rock island".

    ReplyDelete
  18. pacifist,

    Good point.

    I wouldn't be surprised even if somebody called Ayers Rock "Red Rock" because it is a "red rock". :-)

    ReplyDelete
  19. There is no evidence that Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島) had ever been called Seokdo (石島 - Rock Island) by either the Koreans or the Japanese, though Westerners did refer to it as "Boussole Rock." Therefore, the theory that the "Seokdo" in the 1900 Korean edict was another name Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo is essentiall just wishful thinking, just as it was wishful thinking for the Seoul National University law professor to suggest that the Jukdo in the edict was referring to Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Gerry,

    You are right that there is no evidence, that is, until we will have found one.

    Till then, you can call it a wishful thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Gerry,

    I agree with you, there is no evidence. But we have to explore every possible theory.

    I think your theory that Seokdo may mean several rock islets has strong possiblity of course (I think it's the strongest possiblity), but there maybe another possibility. We cannot exclude any possibilities.

    raquel's theory that 竹島石島 may mean one island of Jukdo-Seokdo has some possibility, I think. If it means "The county includes Ulleungdo and Jukdo that is a rock island", it makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Gerry,

    raquel did say "This is my pure imagination without any field works" here and I think it is totally acceptable as long as he recognizes it is just a theory and does not claim as if it is the fact, as Prof. Shin had been doing. Besides, he is not a University professor or anything. Don't you think he/she has every single right to explore the possibility of his theory? I'm really enjoying his logics, though I'm keep telling him that he needs to collect evidences. But when it comes to Seokdo in Imperial Edict no.41, there are no corroborative evidence at all. All the theory including yours so far has only circumstantial evidences after all. As long as there is no corroborative evidences, we should consider every possibilities. Quite honestly, I think there can be more theories other than we had so far.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Pacifist wrote:

    raquel's theory that 竹島石島 may mean one island of Jukdo-Seokdo has some possibility, I think. If it means "The county includes Ulleungdo and Jukdo that is a rock island", it makes sense.

    So is it a "Bamboo Island," a "Rock Island," or a Bamboo Rock Island? Anyway, if they had meant to used 石島 as an adjective, then I think it would have been written something like 石島稱 竹島, or something like that, to avoid any confusion.

    Also, remember that the July 13, 1906 Korean newspaper article said that the Japanese Resident General had asked the Korean Interior Ministry to confirm Ulleungdo's neighboring islands. If the two names had been referring to just one island, then I think the Korean interior ministry would have made that more clear to avoid confusion

    Kaneganese,

    To corroborate Raquel's theory, a map or something is needed to show or say that Jukdo (竹島) was also called "Seokdo" (石島), but my theory is corroborated by the fact that there are no maps or documents showing or saying that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island named "Seokdo" since I am saying that Seokdo was used as a catchall word to include all the other "rocky islets" around Ulleungdo. In fact, if there were a Korean map or documents showing or saying that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island named "Seokdo," then my theory would be proven wrong.

    I think it is good to have theories, but I also think you need, at least, as little something to back them up, besides just "a feeling."

    Also, there is a danger in presenting wild theories because you could easily be ridiculed by Korean historians, which could cause people to start ignoring even your more reasonable theories. For example, I am not interested in hearing anymore of what that Seoul National University Law professor has to say after he suggested that the Jukdo (竹島) in the 1900 Korean edict was Liancourt Rocks. That was all I needed to read to determine that he is a goofball and that I should, therefore, avoid wasting my time reading anything else he might write or say in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi everybody,

    A theory is just a theory until it has been proven true.

    Lately I have been more concerned by the fact that Korea had made up a new word in the Korean language which is "Doldo".

    And, Korea is now claiming that "Doldo" had become "Dokdo" in the Gyeongsangdo dialect.

    Can anyone here confirm that 石島 can be "Doldo" in the Korean language?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gerry,

    The good point of your theory, 石島 (Seokdo) may mean plural rock islets, is that you noticed that the name 石島 may be a common noun, not always a proper noun.

    From this point of view, raquel's theory seems to be slightly resembles yours - if 竹島 (Jukdo) was a proper noun and 石島 (Seokdo) was a common noun.

    Just like "Tom (proper noun) - a boy (common noun)", "Jukdo-a stone island" may be a possibility. Lassie- a collie, Bush - a US President, Seoul- a Capitol, etc etc...

    The problem is whether this kind of writing was usual in Korean documents or not. I've heard that two nouns are sometimes written succesively to show one object but how about the combination of a proper noun and a common noun?

    In Japanese language, they are written in order of "a common noun" - "a proper noun", just like 古都鎌倉 (old Capitol Kamakura). So if one wants to write "Jukdo, a stone island", one should write as "石島竹島". But how in Korea?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't know if it's coincident, but the word "Doldo" also appears
    in the two books written by two Japanese-born scholars and a Korean activist:

    1. "Ilbon Kojido-edo Dokdo Eopda" by Prof. Hosaka Yuji, 2005

    2. "Takeshima = Dokdo Ronso" by Prof. Naito Seichu & Park Byeong-seop, 2007

    ReplyDelete
  27. raquel,

    I've got second book(Japanese). It says 方鍾鉉 of 京城大学 and 宗炳基(1999) mentioned about Korean call Dol-do as well.

    By the way, what does it mean the "外国語学校와医学校와中学校" in 勅令40号? Does this Hangul "와" mean "and"?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi kanaeganese,

    Yes, it means "and".

    Regarding the Japanese book "Takeshima - Dokdo Verbal Dispute", I'm, by the way, reading it with the help of my Korean friend from Japan, and it doesn't give any new insight for the dispute.

    Anyway, I see that one of the authors, the Japanese-born Korean activist is very good at interpreting things in order to promote his pro-Dokdo-anti-Takeshima Korean interests in Japan. Therefore, he should not be trusted at all.

    Anyway, I must check if the late Prof. Bang Jong-hyeon of the Keijo Imperial University really used the word.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thanks, raquel

    Prof. Emeritus Naito Seichu(内藤正中) is a pro-Korean and is considered to be a follower of 主体思想 by Kim Il-son. There are so many socialsts and communists in academic arena in Japan. Mr. Pak Byon-sok(朴炳渉) is a anti-Japan speaker who's been spreading lies and half-truth about Japan-Korea history on the web under the name of half-moon castle(半月城). (Everyone calls him "半ケツ", meaning "Mr. half-ass" ...) He started to write articles and books, and now he is a consultative committee member of Dokdo research center and received much money to study Dokdo in Japan. In other word, he is a Korean agent. Prof. Shimojo write about him here. (The 8th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”) If you have basic knowledge, you will notice what's wrong with his logic instantly. But even if you don't, everyone must notice his rhetoric has something fatally wrong. He always jump to conclusion without any logical reasoning. He is the one who made me started to think some Zainichi Korean are dangerous for Japan.

    Anyway, if "와" means "and", and Imperial no.40 in 1900 actually used 와 to connect three different word "外国語学校", "医学校" and "中学校", then why they didn't use it for 竹島石島? Like 竹島와石島? Moreover, they did it again in 1906 newspaper article. Mmmm... It's really interesting. I'm really interested in what other 勅令 and 官報 by Imperial Korea write,

    ReplyDelete
  30. Gerry,

    Though not crucial, there is a mistranslation of the name of the Korean resident activist in Japan. 박병섭(朴炳渉) should be written as Park Byeong-seop.

    ReplyDelete
  31. kanaeganese,

    Welcome to the "one-island theory" club. :-)

    I think Korea will eventually come to find it gramatically impossible to disprove the "one-island theory".

    ReplyDelete
  32. Also for the Gerry's theory to be true, there remains the question of the "와" omission in the Imperial Edict No. 41.

    ReplyDelete
  33. ...not to mention the Korean "Seokdo=Dokdo theory". :-)

    ReplyDelete
  34. As for "Dokseom", please look at this document:
    前有三島, 在北曰防牌島, 在中曰竹島, 在東曰瓮島。 三島相距, 不過百餘步, 島之周回, 各爲數十把, 險巖嵂屼, 難以登覽, 仍爲止宿。(正祖実録 巻40)

    瓮 is same as 甕 (pot), which was pronounced as "dok" in old Korean language. So pro-Korean people insists that the 瓮島 should be Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks).

    Here is Gerry's comment about this.
    "The island off the east shore of present-day Ulleungdo is Jukdo (竹島), but it is possible that in the past Kwaneumdo (觀音島) was called Jukdo, and present-day Jukdo was called Ongdo (瓮島). If this were the case, then it would explain a great deal because the pure Korean name for Ongdo (瓮島) is "Dokseom" (독섬), which means "pot island." If you combine the pure Korean name for pot, Dok (독), and the Sino-Korean name for island, Do (島-도), you get Dokdo (독도). That would describe present-day Jukdo very well since it looks like a half-buried pot. Present-day Dokdo/Takeshima, on the other hand, does not look at all like a pot".

    http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-is-history-of-ulleungdo-ch-12.html

    I'm totally agree with Gerry's opinion. Today's Jukdo looks like Ayers Rock in Australia, or just like a pot (or stew kettle) that was put upside down. When I saw the picture of Jukdo, my first impression was its strange shape.

    On the other hand, Jukdo means the person who named this was impressed by its bamboo plant. Bamboo was rich in Ulleungdo, so it was not unusual thing unless bamboo was found at unusual place - such as a small island. I wonder whether bamboo was found on Kwaneumdo (観音島) or not.

    At the same time I wonder how the "shield" island (防牌島) looked like - did the island have a steep and board-like cliff? Aren't there steep rock isltes along the north coast of Ulleungdo?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi pacifist,

    We must remember that they were watching Ulleungdo from its far north sea.

    So, they could see the only SHAPES of the islets around Ulleungdo.

    My feeling :-) is that the "Jukdo" in "Jeongjo Shilrok" refers to the "Samseonam" of today, which does have shapes of "bamboo trees". It might include one more sharp-shaped rock near the "Samseonam".

    And, the "Ongdo" refers to the "Jukdo" of today from its shape.

    Obviously, they could not see that the "Gwaneumdo" was separated from the main island from where they are looking.

    So, the document is a good proof for my theory.

    We can claim now that Today's Jukdo was once called "Dokseom".

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hi raquel,

    The original text says, "There are three islands. 防牌島 (shield island) at north, 瓮島(pot island) at east, and 竹島 (bamboo island) at the middle."

    If the island "pot island" is today's Jukdo, it is reasonable because it is located at east of Ulleungdo.

    How about the shield island (or rock with a shield shape?) and "Samseonam"? Are there shield-shaped rock at north and "samseonam" at the middle?
    Please tell me if you know.

    Anyway, this "pot island" is definitely not Liancourt Rocks - because the text says the three islands are not far each other, within 100 steps.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Pacifist,

    "防牌島" should be the "Gongam" near the "Samsenam" because it does have the shape of an elephant. :-)

    So, they described the islets in the following order from west to east:

    Gongam - Samseonam - Jukdo (Ongdo)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Now, we need to explain how "Dokseom" had become "Seokdo".

    As you see, on the contrary to the Korean claim, it is not that "Seokdo" or "Doldo" had become "Dokdo".

    ReplyDelete
  39. Pacifist,

    If you didn't realize yet, the "Gongam" is located in the north of Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Here is a picture of Samseonam:

    http://boomfiles.naver.net/data15/gallery/2004-08/18/50/26m9720m0.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  41. By the way, my basis for refering "防牌島" as the "Gongam" is the "卑" part in the Chinese character "牌" because it does resemble the elephant-lke Gongam. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  42. dokdo-takeshima.com5/7/08 23:12

    Pacifist, the document you refer to was n 1794. Shim Jin Hyeong describes the three islands as such...

    "...After cutting the larger of them, we headed toward the southeast for Jeo-Jeong-Dong. From the bottom of the valley to the middle peak, which was tens of ri, lay three spacious lots which were utilized as dozens of rice fields. And to the front are three islands, Bang-Pae Do in the North, Jukdo in the middle and Ongdo in the East.  The distance between these is only 100 paces each and the circumference of them is tens of pa each. However, these rocks were jagged and steep and looked very difficult to climb...."

    To know which islands Shim Jin Hyeon was talking about we need to know where he was. He gives us the location Jeo-Jeong Dong (著f田洞) also called Jeojeon Po. This is today's Nae-su-Jeon just a shade North of Jeodong. I think it was also called So (little) Jeo Dong

    Read here.
    Naesujeon저전동

    Here is a map showing Naesujeon.

    Naesujeon저전동2

    Knowing he was a little North of Jeodong it seems he saw Gwaneumdo to the North, Jukdo in the middle and Bukjeo Rock in front of him.

    Here is a picture I took from Naesujeon. You can see the tip of Gwaneum and Jukdo. Just to the right was Bukjeo Rock (Ongdo) It was take from the cove of Naesu Beach, a little further South in from of Bukjeo Rock you can see Gwaneumdo much better.

    Naesujeon저전동2

    Raquel you really need to study both the topography, geography and history of Ulleungdo before you make such rash conclusions. You should understand Ulleungdo Island is simply a mountain surrounded by water. You can't just look from point a to point b. It is very difficult to stand on Ulleungdo's shore, see rice fields and these three islands. One of these few places would be Jeojeon Dong.

    Also I've seen on this forum people tend to work backwards. They name islands based on what suits their theory rather than working from things we already know.

    ReplyDelete
  43. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    You are shooting in your own foot again:

    "They name islands based on what suits their theory rather than working from things we already know."

    Replace "They" with "Koreans". :-)

    ReplyDelete
  44. Steve,

    Thanks for showing us the photo, but I couldn't find Bukjeo Rock (Ongdo) in the picture...where is it?

    And Jukdo seems to be just in front of you...isn't this "east"?
    And the shape of this island looks like a pot, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  45. raquel,

    "박병섭(朴炳渉) should be written as Park Byeong-seop."

    Thanks. It's my mistake. I'll correct my post.

    ReplyDelete
  46. There is a photo in the "韓国水産誌” which was made by 韓国農商工部(1909). The title of the photo is "欝陵島芋洞より竹島を望む(viewing Jukdo from Ulleungdo's 芋洞").

    In the photo, Jukdo can be seen in front of you and a steep rock islet on the right, but no 観音島.
    Are you telling us that this steep rock is a pot island? It dosen't seem to be a pot to me.

    Steve, anyway thanks for your help - BTW your seggested that this "pot island" can't be Liancourt Rocks, am I right? So you too think that "Dokseom" can't be Dokdo, don't you? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  47. you can see the photo here:
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka41/koreanfisheries-1909/b08.jpg

    The photo at bottom is the one I mentioned.

    Also please look at this photo:
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka41/koreanfisheries-1909/b09.jpg

    Please look at the right side photo. It was taken at 芋洞 too. This rock islet has very steep cliffs, but is this a pot shape?

    ReplyDelete
  48. dokdo-takeshima.com6/7/08 01:09

    Pacifist, I believe Seokdo is Dokdo.

    Why? Because the whole reason the Koreans declared Ordinance 41 was an attempt to stem the invasion of the Ulleungdo area around the turn of the century. I think the inspectors of the region were newbies and lacked a clear standardized name for Dokdo at this time. It was a time of great change and upheaval in Korea and on Ulleungdo.

    Regarding Naesujeon and Gwaneumdo. Here is a picture I took from the South side of Jeodong. You can see Jukdo to the Northeast, Gwaneumdo to the far left and Bukjeobawi in front of Jukdo.

    JukdoNorth

    I don't think Jukdo Islet looks like a pot either. But deciding whether or not an island looks like a pot is a pretty shaky way to solving historical records.

    Most of the names in the aforementioned record can be verified by historical records and facts Gwaneumdo was called BangBaedo, Jukdo was called Jukdo, Jeodong area was called Jeojeondong in other records. The name Ongdo I've never seen before.

    By the way. The name Jeojeonpo was given to the Jeodong area in Pak's map of 1711 you can see "所謂佇田洞“ on his map North of where he placed his stone marker at what was later found out to be Dodong Harbour.

    1711MapOfUlleungdo

    Which Japanese Professor published this article on Pak's 1711 map? Whoever it was, they were dead wrong because they too worked ass backwards.

    Whoever wrote this article worked from some twisted agenda driven perspective the "所謂于山島“ was Jukdo and then just assumed that Dodong was far to the South. This was of course proven wrong by the recent data that we've all come to learn. Pak Seok Chang placed his stone marker at Dodong, nowhere even remotely close to Jukdo and not even within visual proximity of the islet. This is just propaganda and considering whoever wrote it had some knowledge of Chinese characters they were simply lying. Pretty sad.

    ShameOnShimane

    Pacifist, don't try to paint me into a corner or place me in someone's camp. I like to look at each record on its own merits. I don't have to agree with everything Koreans say to supoort their claim. On top of that I believe they also have a hands-down superior claim outside of the historical issues aspect of this dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  49. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    You better shut up. Keeping your mouth shut will do a much better job for Korea. :-)

    ___________________________________

    "I think the inspectors of the region were newbies and lacked a clear standardized name for Dokdo at this time."

    ReplyDelete
  50. Good morning,

    I see the name changes for "Seokdo" as follows:

    瓮島(Ongdo) -> Dokseom -> Dolseom -> 石島(Seokdo)

    ReplyDelete
  51. Gerry,

    Here is another Chosun Ilbo article claiming "Usando" is Dokdo:

    www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2007/12/04/2007120400027.html

    ReplyDelete
  52. /12/04/2007120400027.html

    What is missing in the link is here.

    ReplyDelete
  53. 120400027.html

    Sorry, here is the right one.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Going back to the "Jeongjo Shilrok", I think "Jeojeongdong" might be "Nari-dong" of today in Bukmyeon:

    http://dicimg.naver.com/100/800/73/93173.jpg

    If we assume that they landed in today's Hyeonpo area, it makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  55. dokdo-takeshima.com6/7/08 14:25

    Raquel, I don't know what you are talking about. But you should stop renaming parts of Ulleungdo Island without permission from the regional government. I think you are pissing in the wind here.

    Naridong is a very high basin surrounded by mountains. You can't see anything from there let alone Ulleungdo's surrounding waters,

    Jeojeondong was also called Jeojeonpo. Po "浦" means the opening of a river, cove, inlet or bay. We can see Pak's map showed Jeojeondong (佇田洞) as an inlet with a river opening. Lee Gyuwon also refered to this area as 저전포.

    Actually, Raquel, when I think about it. Ongdo could be Dokdo as well. I was thinking that Shim Jin Hyeong was standing right next to the shore.

    If inspector Shim Jin Hyeong had been standing at the top of Naesujeon Observation Point on Ulleungdo's East side. The manner he described the islands infront of him would be exactly the same!! This is quite plausible.

    I remember standing at Naesujeon Observation Point, (내수전전망대) it gives you a full view of the ocean, surrounding east islands and fields in front of you.

    Raquel, The identity of Usando was stated clearly by Anyongbok in 1696. Usando is what Japanese called Matsushima. He said Usando was distant (50ri) as well.

    Anyongbok stated 竹島 (Ulleungdo) 松島 (Matsushima-Dokdo) were part of Korea's Kangwando Province (江原道). He presented this to the Japanese in the document below.

    Anyongbok'sClaim

    From this claim the Japanese did not contest Anyongbok's claim. From Anyongbok's 1696 claim many documents were based.

    Raquel, Did you tell me to "shut up"?
    It's O.K. to disagree but you shouldn't be so mannerless :-(

    ReplyDelete
  56. Good evening,

    Here is an evidence that "Jeojeondong 楮田洞" was located in the northern part of Ulleungdo according to the "Jeoson-do 朝鮮圖" which is thought to be made between 1800 and 1822.

    http://toron.chu.jp/take/map/utsu6a.gif

    So, my theory seems to be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  57. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    Look at your mirror and think who is talking of manner, baboya.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Steve,

    Don't believe Ahn Yong-bok's statements.
    The writing you introduced is merely a note which Japanese officials wrote down what Ahn deposed while he was questioned by the officials.

    Please read all of the following:
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/04/1696-ahns-so-called-matsushimausando.html

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/08/1692-and-1693-incidents-ahn-yong-boks.html

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/09/1696-ahn-yong-boks-second-visit-to.html

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/09/1696-ahn-yong-boks-second-visit-to_19.html

    ReplyDelete
  59. pacifist,

    You must have realized by now, but my following statement is false. Please ignore it. I had been mixed up with another document.

    __________________________________

    "We must remember that they were watching Ulleungdo from its far north sea.

    So, they could see the only SHAPES of the islets around Ulleungdo."

    ReplyDelete
  60. dokdo-takeshima.com6/7/08 23:16

    Raquel, you've got a lot of "research" to do before you even consider writing anything. And your cheezy Hangul 101 comebacks do little to hide your incompetence.

    Look at the map you are citing. Do you see the five islands to the south? These islands don't exist. Most if not all Chosun maps of Ulleungdo have these errors because almost all of them were not based on surveys and/or incorporated many features from predecessors. Inspectors were often expected to adhere to past surveys or could be suspected of not doing a good job or questioning authorities.

    Look again at the map you linked to do you see Elephant Rock? (孔岩) You can see how over time this map lost much of the accuracy from the original survey. Gong Am is drawn as part of Ulleungdo's mainland on this map. You can also see "waiting winds place" (待風所) Normally on Ulleungdo's northwest has been drawn on the southwest side. Never use these maps as geographically accurate unless you can verify them with what can be confirmed as true. And certainly never start naming parts of Ulleungdo just to suit a theory.

    As I've said Jeojeondong is today's Jeodong~Naesujeon area. I think Naesujeon was also called little SoJeoPo (小苧浦) and Jeodong was called 大苧浦. You can also read here by this Korean blog that Jeojeonpo (저전포) is today's Jeodong.

    JeojeonpoIsJeodong

    Raquel I've think I've helped you quite well. If you have come here to do research you should be thanking me for pointing out your errors.

    Pacifist I've read your propaganda already. We don't read to reams of your distortions. All your Anyongbok article does is nitpick on inconsistencies and ignore the facts of the data. You make no academic conclusions about this important historical information but instead throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pretty sad.

    ReplyDelete
  61. And, I have another corrections.

    In my new opinion, three islands that appear on April 25th in the "Jeongjo Shilrok Vol. 40" are:

    防牌島 = 孔巌(Gongam)

    竹島 = 竹巌(Jukam)

    瓮島 = 大巌(Daeam)

    瓮島(Ongdo, Dokseom) can't be today's Jukdo nor Gwaneumdo just because both are too big.

    I think 可支島(Gajido) is today's Jukdo.

    Anyway, because 瓮島(Ongdo, Dokseom) is mentioned as located in the east of Ulleungdo in the "Jeongjo Shilrok", I suppose it got somehow mixed up with today's Jukdo which is indeed located in the east of Ulleungdo.

    That's how today's Jukdo was once referred as "Dokseom".

    So I think. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  62. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    I will be most grateful if you can show me even a Jeoson map with Dokdo in it. I won't ask a Silla map with Dokdo any more. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Also, in the "Jeongjo Shilrok Vol. 40", there is a hint for the "Jukdo-Seokdo" writing in the Imperial Edict No. 41.

    It is because there is another "Jukdo" already mentioned in the "Jeongjo Shilrok". :-)

    ReplyDelete
  64. dokdo-takeshima.com7/7/08 01:21

    Raquel, are interested in knowing the true historical facts of the Dokdo issue of are you a lobbyist.? If you a real "researcher" as you've have stated (which I seriously doubt) quit scurrying back to your patented "show me a Chosun map" phrase and observe the facts.

    We know Chosun was cognizant of Dokdo. We know the Koreans considered the islet theirs when they contested Japan's annexation of the islet. This was done through government documents and also recorded in two Korean newspapers of the day.

    Whatever the source of data Korea has maps and records that show she had a stronger historical title to both the region and Dokdo itself. Japan ceded the islands to Korea numerous time in history. If they want Dokdo they have to put forth a valid historical claim of their own instead of dumping on Korea's claim.

    Korea was a politically backward, squalid, underdeveloped nation when Japan seized Dokdo. Chosun was incapable of even managing her own affairs let alone adequately govern over Ulleungdo and Dokdo while Japan invaded the region. Only five years before Japan annexed Dokdo. Chosun had used it's first map using lines of latitude and longitude and even this map was a crude copy of a Japanese map with an appended ancient map of Ulleungdo added on.

    Now you have a "new theory" sigh.. A whopping two weeks of Dokdo research to your credit and you've got new theory. Wow..

    By the way when are you going back to school? That was in Cincinnati wasn't it? You didn't mention your program yet? Or campus..or teacher...

    Seriously, what's the big secret? "Raquel" What are you hiding?

    ReplyDelete
  65. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    Stay calm, baboya. You people get excited and provocated too easily.

    Look at the BSE fever in Korea.

    Korea has not changed for the last 100 years. She has stayed with the same backward mentality (with a tendency to lie).

    ReplyDelete
  66. Steve,

    You wrote;
    "Pacifist I've read your propaganda already. We don't read to reams of your distortions. All your Anyongbok article does is nitpick on inconsistencies and ignore the facts of the data. You make no academic conclusions about this important historical information but instead throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pretty sad".

    As to the statements concerning Ahn Yong-bok, we have to read both of the documents, Korean documents and Japanese documents. We showed the inconsistency in Ahn's statements. One sided view like yours is just a propaganda, Steve.

    Please remember that he was a criminal who porched in Ulleungdo at first while Korea adopted "Empty island" policy and who later smuggled himself into neighboring country (Japan) and assumed an official title spuriously. He was a criminal who was twice deported from Japan. He was not a reliable person.

    ReplyDelete
  67. dokdo-takeshima.com7/7/08 14:10

    Pacifist, when we take historical data we gather it, compare it and then try to find a plausible explanation for it. Japanese Takeshima lobbyists like yourself want to chuck it out because it seriously damages your agenda and because you can't dispute it.

    Inconsistencies exist in much historical data but that doesn't mean we discard them.

    Now you can play your little game "Anyongbok was a liar and a poacher yadda yadda.." But the truth is he voyaged to Japan and protested their trespassing on Ulleungdo. Anyongbok clearly stated Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were part of Chosun's Gangwando Province.

    AnyongbokDoc

    So what was Japan's reaction to Anyongbok's claims? Nothing. They raised no objection. Why not?

    Because earlier that year the Japanese government already inquired as to the status Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) and concluded Takeshima and MATSUSHIMA were not part of Japan.

    DottoriDocuments

    This was reaffirmed in 1837 during the Takeshima trespass incident.

    TakeshimaIncident

    Raquel, verify who you are or get lost you big phony!! "Student in Cincinnati" yeah right....

    Don't e-mail me again you big fake!!

    ReplyDelete
  68. Steve,

    "Anyongbok clearly stated Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) were part of Chosun's Gangwando Province".

    If a fisherman who porched at Ulleungdo, which was a crime in those days in Korea, said so... do you believe what he said was true without any evidences? You are a very naive man, Steve.

    At least he lied that he made Japanese shogunate admit that the islands were Korean territory, the truth was that he couldn't see any high-rank officials in Japan because he was a criminal, not a Korean official although he tried to disguise as so. He was deported through Ngasaki and Tsushima as a criminal.

    He had to lie because if he told the truth (he smuggled himself but he couldn't see high-rank officials in Japan), he was sentenced to death penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  69. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    Can you answer why there is no "와" between "竹島" and "石島" in the Imperial Edict No. 41 if it meant two separate islands?

    ReplyDelete
  70. The question is why the Imperial Edict No. 41 wrote as follows:

    "郡廳位置는台霞洞으로定하고區域은鬱陵全島와竹島石島를管轄할事"

    and not as follows if 竹島 and 石島 were two separate islands:

    "郡廳位置는台霞洞으로定하고區域은鬱陵全島와竹島와石島를管轄할事"

    ReplyDelete
  71. dokdo-takeshima.com8/7/08 00:00

    Raquel, today I ate cereal and toast and coffee and a sandwich and some rice and.. and and... Koreans use 와 in much the same way we use "and". They don't insert it between every object when the rattle off a list, it's uncomfortable and repetitive.

    Pacifist, I believe Anyongbok may have lied about some of testimony. But really the things he may have lied about aren't the facts that kill Japan's claim to Dokdo and support Korea's.

    First the distance he quoted (50ri) was much too far to be Jukdo Islet as some have wrongfully asserted on this forum. Anyongbok had no reason to lie about the distance. It's also not a reasonable assumption he pulled the name "Matsushima" out of his ass and there so happened to be an island the Japanese called as such next to Ulleungdo.

    Second as I've repeatedly stated here. If Japan truly considered Matsushima as their land they would have protested and explicitly stated to Chosun that Anyongbok's assertions were false. Of course they didn't.

    BTW, Mr Cho has also written and interesting article on the Takeshima incident of 1836. You can read it here. It's pretty clear from this record the Shogunates travel ban extended over both Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

    TakeshimaIncident

    ReplyDelete
  72. dokdo-takeshima.com8/7/08 00:03

    Try this link to Mr Cho's website instead.

    TakeshimaIncidentII

    ReplyDelete
  73. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    So, why do you think it is that, in the Imperial Edict No.40, "外國語學校와醫學校와中學校" are written with "와"?

    http://blogfiles13.naver.net/data18/2006/6/8/92/41a-cms1530.jpg

    They don't seem to use much the same way that we use "and".

    ___________________________________

    Koreans use 와 in much the same way we use "and".

    ReplyDelete
  74. Steve,

    "Pacifist, I believe Anyongbok may have lied about some of testimony. But really the things he may have lied about aren't the facts that kill Japan's claim to Dokdo and support Korea's".

    Ahn didn't reach Liancourt Rocks. There are no such records. And as you admitted he lied sometimes.
    And you do believe what he said even he didn't saw the island himself? Oh how naive you are!

    ReplyDelete
  75. pacifist,

    The Korean claim is very simple:

    Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks) = Usando = Dokdo

    Unfortunately for Korea, no matter how hard Korea tries to claim that "Usando" is Liancourt Rocks, all the Korean documents show that "Usando" is not Liancourt Rocks. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  76. raquel,

    Yes, very simple and they are trying to get a straw before drowning.

    Now that Usando, Sambongdo, Seokdo and Ongdo are not Liancourt Rcoks, they have no bunch of straw at all.

    ReplyDelete
  77. So, Korea wishes to make themselves believe that An Yong-buk found their long-missing "Usando" in the Japanese name of "Matsushima".
    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  78. Now, Korea has to prove that the "Jukdo-Seokdo" in the 1900 Imperial Edict No. 41 is Dokdo. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  79. So, it is a good sign that there is already one in the name of Professor Yi Sang-myeon of the Seoul National University who is claiming that "Jukdo-Seokdo" is Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  80. raquel,

    It is a silly theory because Liancourt Rocks have never ever been called as Jukdo or Seokdo in the history. Japan named it Takeshima (Jukdo) in 1905 but before that it was Yanko or Ryanko or Matsushima. (And there was no name for it in Korea.)

    ReplyDelete
  81. As I read through the old Korean newspapers and documents, I see that the Waseda-educated historian Choi Nam-seon was primarily responsible for making and fixing the Korean general public's idea on Dokdo.

    This is interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  82. pacifist,

    His presumption and conclusion are silly.

    But, his reaching to suppose that "Jukdo Seokdo" is one island is a good sign.

    ReplyDelete
  83. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    Where is your so-called Hangeul competancy?

    Dokdo is on your narrow shoulder now, baboya. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  84. raquel,

    If Jukdo-seokdo was one island, then does it mean that it was sometimes called as Jukdo and sometimes called as Seokdo?

    Or as I suggested before, one of the names was a common noun?
    If this is the case, which is a common noun and which is a proper noun?

    Seokdo, that is an island of bamboo?
    Or Jukdo, that is a stone island?

    ReplyDelete
  85. I forgot when it was posted about It is just a presumption that Seokdo could be Jukdo, maybe few months ago I posted before.
    July 1906, Korea Omits Dokdo from Uldo County

    竹島-Daetsom-てっせみ-Bossoule Rock-(トツセム-石島?)

    ReplyDelete
  86. pacifist,

    Do you know that Gwaneumdo has another name? It is called also
    "Kkaksaeseom" neaning "bird island".

    So, the way that its name should be written is "Gwaneumdo-Kkaksaeseom" if we follow the method used in the Edict No. 41.

    Also, having seen that the neighboring Gwaneumdo has two names at least, I would not be surprised if the present-day Jukdo had two names or more including "Dokseom".

    ReplyDelete
  87. gtomr,

    Oh, I see that you also thought so.

    The difference is that my theory is based on the Imperial Edict No. 41 itself.

    My theory is that the Edict No. 41 does not grammatically mention that "Jukdo Seokdo" or "Daeseom Dokseom" are two separate islands.

    ReplyDelete
  88. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  89. The difference is that my theory is based on the Imperial Edict No. 41 itself.

    It is also same when I checked Imperial edict 41 ,but I just hadn't wrote in the link which makes me so. same theory when I found 于山島竹島 is one island twin names in 皇城新聞.

    Now Im under re-construction all the data on my PC about Liancourt Rocks to find new result so I forgot where it was, but I posted it also before about edict 41 twin name..

    ReplyDelete
  90. gtomr,

    That's fine. I don't put importance on who found the theory.

    What is important now is find the proofs for the theory.

    ReplyDelete
  91. gtomr,

    "Tessem(i)" is clearly "Daeseom"

    If it was "Tossem(i)", it could be an evidence for "Dokseom".

    ReplyDelete
  92. Going back to the Japanese map, I think I found where "Mano" written
    in Katakana for the present-day Jukdo:

    http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/image/bessis.jpg

    You can find "Mano竹" in the document.

    ReplyDelete
  93. raquel,

    We've already talked about "Mano" Take:

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/08/blog-post.html
    (Sorry, this was written in Japanese by Kaneganese)

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-do-have-in-common.html
    (by Gerry)

    ReplyDelete
  94. dokdo-takeshima.com8/7/08 23:34

    Raquel, my Korean is not great. But my Korean wife's is fine. So it seems as usual you are the one who is an amateur on this thread.

    It's too bad Japan has to take shots at Korea's historical claim. It seems the Japanese already gave Matsushima to Korea when they "ceded" Ulleungdo.....

    Whatever bizarre theories they dream up, it'll never help their own non-existent title anyway!!

    JapanGaveUpMatsushima

    ReplyDelete
  95. pacifist,

    I know that.

    In the document that I have shown, the word "マノ竹" is mentioned.

    Anyway, it's not important. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  96. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    Since your Korean is not competent enough, I changed as follows:

    "鬱陵全島 and 竹島 石島"

    "外國語學校 and 醫學校 and 中學校"

    Now answer my question.

    ReplyDelete
  97. dokdo-takeshima.com9/7/08 00:05

    Raquel, I gave you a perfectly logical explanation why the Korean edict stated the way they did. As you've mentioned, your Korean is not good so you just have to suck on it like the rest of your lobbyists on this forum. My wife is perfectly fluent in Korean and English.

    BTW, even my Korean wife has noticed some of your English errors "Raquel" She also pointed out as I've suggested, you are not a University student from America.

    We suggest you brush up on your article usage as well as count/non-counts. Keep on typing Raquel, your English says more than you know. You are not as good as you think......

    ReplyDelete
  98. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    By the way, ask your wife to read the following article:

    http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?n=200805300165

    and report, if you can, her opinion on Prof. Yi's idea of "Jukdo Seokdo" as one island.

    ReplyDelete
  99. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    If you can answer my question so that everybody here will be able to understand your logical answer after consulting your Korean wife, I won't ask for even a Joseon map with Dokdo in it any more. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  100. dokdo-takeshima.com9/7/08 00:53

    Ha ha ha!!!
    Busted, yokahama mama!!

    Don't waste my time....

    Fake.

    ReplyDelete
  101. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    No maps. No straight answers.

    You are doing a great job for Japan, baboya. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  102. dokdo-takeshima9/7/08 01:12

    BTW, Raquel Koreans use the term "일명", "즉", "소위" or "또는" to specify something has another name similar to we would say A.K.A.

    Obviously in such an Ordinance 41 the Koreans would have specfied such an important detail.

    There is no more a hard and fast rule with the Korean word "와".

    I don't need a map Yoko, documents prove Korean cognizance years before the Japanese annexed Takeshima.

    KoreanCognizanceofDokdo1900

    Keep practicing your English Yoko.

    ReplyDelete
  103. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    Do you think that everybody will understand your answer as a reply to my question?

    My question is, if the Imperial Edict No. 41 meant two separate islands, why there is no "와" between "竹島" and "石島" in such an important announcement as the Edict No. 41.

    Please prove to us that your English comprehension is not as bad as your Korean. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  104. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    By the way, I'm glad that you wrote "It seems", which shows that you still have a healthy part in your rotten brain.

    Do you agree that, if Japan had "ceded" an island along with Ulleungdo, Korea is supposed to have known the whereabouts of the ceded island at the time?

    Answer yes or no.

    __________________________________

    It seems the Japanese already gave Matsushima to Korea when they "ceded" Ulleungdo.

    ReplyDelete
  105. dokdo-takeshima.com9/7/08 12:33

    Yawn.....I told you before Yoko. I'll type it slowly for you this time

    Today I ate cereal and toast and coffee and a sandwich and some rice and.. and and... Koreans use 와 in much the same way we use "and". They don't insert it between every object when the rattle off a list, it's uncomfortable and repetitive.

    Why didn't the Korean writer insert "와“ between 竹島石島? Because he didn't want to. Is there anything grammatically wrong with this or anything strange about it?

    No.

    Yes Japan did give up both Takeshima and Matsushima after the Anyoyongbok incident. The documents I've cited are not very well known but it's good to see Japan's claim bite the dust. Hopefully now they will stop harassing the Koreans.

    Yoko, whether Korea proves her title or proof comes forward that Japan either omitted the islands or stated they were Korean, it is still a means to and end. Korean cognizance of Matsushima is moot. We can be 100% sure Japan has no claim to Dokdo.

    So you can only lose.

    ReplyDelete
  106. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    Forget the first question. You are not the competent person for the grammatical question.

    So, are you saying that Korea did not know the whereabouts of the ceded island when Japan ceded it along with Ulleungdo?

    Answer yes or no.

    ___________________________________

    Do you agree that, if Japan had "ceded" an island along with Ulleungdo, Korea is supposed to have known the whereabouts of the ceded island at the time?

    Your answer: no

    ReplyDelete
  107. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    So, are you saying that Korea did not know the whereabouts of the ceded island when Japan ceded it along with Ulleungdo?

    Answer yes or no.

    ReplyDelete
  108. dokdo-takeshima.com9/7/08 23:55

    This is funny!! You are hilarious "Raquel" !!

    Am I under oath here?

    So you agree Japan ceded Matsushima to the Koreans Yoko?

    Yes or No?

    ReplyDelete
  109. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    First, answer yes or no to my question.

    Then, I will answer yes or no to your question.

    Fair enough, baboya? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  110. dokdo-takeshima.com10/7/08 00:55

    No you answer my question first.

    O.K. ?

    ReplyDelete
  111. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    Thank you for your co-operation.

    I just wanted to prove to the people here that you would not answer to my question.

    We all know why now.

    ReplyDelete
  112. dokdo-takeshima.com10/7/08 01:57

    Ah but did you answer my question.

    No you didn't

    We all know why.......yoko

    ReplyDelete
  113. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    As I told you before, your keeping your mouth shut will do a much better job for Korea.

    Good night, michingae. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  114. Sorry but both of you look like doing "漫才 - manzai (a comic dialogue by two comedians)"...:)

    ReplyDelete
  115. dokdo-takeshima.com10/7/08 14:16

    hey yoko!!

    Do you still insist you are an American student from Cincinatti?

    Maybe I could point out the 100+ errors in your English above.

    Fake.

    ReplyDelete
  116. pacifist,

    The point is that dokdo-takeshima.com, as I have proven here, deliberately did not answer my question of "So, are you saying that Korea did not know the whereabouts of the ceded island when Japan ceded it along with Ulleungdo?".

    By not answering my question, dokdo-takeshima.com unwillingly admitted that Korea did NOT know the whereabouts of the ceded island when Japan ceded it along with Ulleungdo whether it was "Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks)" or not.

    This is one of the crucial points in the Liancourt Rocks dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  117. dokdo-takeshima.com,

    Where did I say that I'm an American student?

    Are all students at an American college considerred American in your rotten brain, babogae? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  118. raquel,

    You are right. Steve always dodges questions like that and start a new topic to divert your attention.

    Or he suddenly runs away and won't answer disadvantageous questions.

    He has run away from my questions for hundred times, hasn't you Steve?

    ReplyDelete
  119. pacifist,

    Sorry, but you've missed the whole point.

    It was a very important question, and dokdo-takeshima.com unwillingly admitted a crucial fact by deliberately not answering it.

    ReplyDelete
  120. raquel,

    I intended to mean it, he always dodges disadvantageous questions...that means he don't want to answer them, he unintetionally says "No" to these questions.

    ReplyDelete
  121. pacifist,

    Can you see that dokdo-takeshima.com unwillingly admitted that "Korea did NOT know the whereabouts of the ceded island when Japan ceded it along with Ulleungdo"?

    ReplyDelete
  122. raquel,

    Yes, I think so.

    But please be careful, he is always going to start another story (or sometimes the same old story) suddenly as if he didn't talk about it before in order to mystify you.

    ReplyDelete
  123. pacifist,

    He is just doing "his job" paid or not paid, and that's fine with me. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  124. dokdo-takeshima.com11/7/08 00:21

    Raquel, I'm not here to field your questions and this isn't meet the press. I'm not your bitch. In addition you continually dodged my question so stop being such a hypocrite.

    If you are going to be so slimy and e-mail me saying you are a student and yet refuse to say which school, which program, and professor why the hell should I even give you the time of day? You big fake.

    I've proven to you numerous times on this thread Korea knew where Dokdo was at the time of Ordnance 41. Anyongbok clearly knew where the Matsushima (Dokdo) was, he sailed right within a few kilometers of Dokdo en route to Oki Island.

    In 1694 the Ulleung Shillok also described an island 300ri to the East of Ulleungdo
    DokdoShillok

    In 1714 it was recorded the even the common Korean coastal residents of Pyeonghae and Uljin knew of the island to the East of Ulleungdo. They too considered Dokdo outside of Japan's border.

    DokdoOutsideOf Japan


    You and the Takeshima lobbyist are putting the carriage before the horse here. Korea has Dokdo and has effectively governed over the islet for over 50 years. If Japan wants to drag this issue to the ICJ they have to put forth a stronger historical claim to the islets to warrant such actions.

    The trouble is Japan can't. As I've pointed out, there are two kinds of Japanese documents or maps involved here. Japanese maps and docs that exclude the islets or those that show the islets as Korean. So whether a Japanese document (like Hachiemon's testimonial records) clearly shows both Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) as Korean territory any true historian would conclude this is clear evidence that Japan did not think Dokdo was their territory.

    Whether it's a Korean map or Japanese document. The important thing here is to weigh the evidence and go from there. You can see Pacifist has even resorted to posting incorrect American maps in a feeble attempt to say foreign maps and documents should be cited instead of Japan's own maps. This is pretty ridiculous.

    Japan will lose her bid for Dokdo. Why? Because they can't give one logical reason why we should draw the border back to the colonial era. Even when Japan seized Dokdo in 1905 there was no definitive border between Japan~Korea. There has to be one now, between Ulleungdo and Dokdo ain't gonna happen kids.
    Raquel (whoever) this forum is for those who have studied the Dokdo issue in detail. You don't belong here unless you have something of any value to contribute. I haven't seen anything from you at all besides childish name calling and wacky theories.

    BTW, here is a new document. This record shows America dropped her support for Japan's claim to Takeshima after the San Fran Peace Treaty.

    AmericaDropsSupport

    ReplyDelete
  125. dogdo-takeshima.com,

    Pacifist was right. Do you wish to start all over again, babogae?

    You're dismissed. You can go home now, michingae. :-)

    ___________________________________

    Korea knew where Dokdo was at the time of Ordnance 41.

    ReplyDelete
  126. The document Steve brought in dosen't seem that USA "drop" the Takeshima issue.

    It says basically USA recognises Takeshima to be Japanese territory, it only says that USA won't interfere in the dispute between Japan and Korea, or Japan and Russia.

    It also says that the dispute shuld be brought to ICJ. (But Korea rejected it.)

    Steve shot his own foot again.

    ReplyDelete
  127. dokdo-takeshima.com11/7/08 01:24

    Pacifist, this is your blog and you are accountable for its content. Do you support this "Raquel" or are going to pull the plug on this foul-mouthed little girl? Is O.K. for posters on this forum to call someone "Crazy Son-of-Bitch"? After all your welcome blog states "foul language is unwelcome here..."

    Is this the policy of your blog Pacifist? To allow your creepy supporters to curse in Korean and make a joke out of your blog? Because that is what's happening here.


    Raquel (yoko) do you kiss your mother with that garbage mouth?

    If you think you are going to goad me into a name calling tirade you are sadly mistaken kid. You are such an amateur yoko!! Sweet.........

    ReplyDelete
  128. dogdo-takeshima.com,

    You are a defeated dog.

    We all know who you are now. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  129. dokdo-takeshima.com11/7/08 01:42

    Pacifist you are wrong. Read again.

    The document states "America is just one of many signatories of the treaty..." This means the U.S. is acknowledging America's opinion on the matter carries no more weight than any of the other nations involved. It also shows that America's support for Japan is simply America's interpretation and not law. In other words the U.S. was not in a position to enforce its view on the matter any more than other countries. As I've stated before on this forum.

    On top of that Dulles says Article 22 is used for resolving territorial disputes after this treaty. This is a clear admission that the Japan Peace Treaty did not give Takeshima to Japan at all but rather was a matter that could be brought up for the ICJ

    Pacifist, Korea is not obligated to go to the ICJ. Remember, Japan refuses to go to the ICJ on other territorial disputes. Please don't be such a hypocrite. Ooops you shot your foot Pacifist!!

    I'm sorry yoko did you say something or are you still playing with yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  130. Steve,

    At first, this is not my blog. This is Gerry's. I'm just doing a little help for him.

    You wrote;
    "This is a clear admission that the Japan Peace Treaty did not give Takeshima to Japan at all but rather was a matter that could be brought up for the ICJ"?

    It doesn't say "did not give Takeshima to Japan", Steve.

    The document clearly says "Despite US view peace treaty a determination under terms Potsdam Declaration and that treaty leaves Takeshima to Japan,...."

    Takeshima was left to Japan, Steve.

    But it also says that they will not always help Japan in the international disputes between Japan and other countries. In the 1950's the world was in the cold war, USA should stand against communists from NK, and Soviet Russia too but they had to avoid nuclear war. So they couldn't face Soviet to give Habomai islands back to Japan. They also couldn't say SK to give Takeshima back to Japan before the menace of NK.

    Steve, read between the lines. Aren't you a teacher or something?

    ReplyDelete
  131. Steve,

    Read the document here:
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memorandum_in_regard_to_the_Liancourt_Rocks_%28Takeshima_Island%29_controversy

    It was sent in November 1953, just one month before the document you introduced.

    The document says "The Liancourt Rocks case appears to have aspects in common with that of Shikotan Island, off the coast of Hokkaido, which was occupied by Soviet troops in 1945. We have publicly declared our view that this Island belongs to Japan, but no one in Japan or elsewhere seriously expects us to take military action under the Security Treaty to reclaim this Island for Japan".

    USA recognised Habomais and Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory. But they won't fight with USSR - (because they didn't want nuclear war), they left the disputes to Japan.

    In the document they also said, "Remind the ROK of our previous statement of view (the Rusk letter); express strong hope that settlement can be reached with the Japanese; state that the United States seeksto avoid any form of intervention in this matter but if clashes continue to occure we may be forced to give publicity to the Rusk letter and to reiterate the view expressed therein; suggest that if the ROK can not accept the view expressed in the Rusk letter, it take steps toward arbitration or appeal the matter to the ICJ".

    If you don't know Rusk's letter Steve, you should begin your study all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  132. dogdo-takeshima.com,

    Defeated dogs howls from far.
    That's what you are doing now by changing a subject.

    You already unwillingly admitted:

    "Korea did NOT know the whereabouts of the ceded island when Japan ceded it along with Ulleungdo whether it was "Matsushima(Liancourt Rocks)" or not."

    ReplyDelete
  133. dogdo-takeshima,

    If you are so confident that Korea will prevail at ICJ, why don't you agree that Korea and Japan will go to ICJ instead of howling like a defeated dog?

    ReplyDelete
  134. dokdo-takeshima.com11/7/08 12:32

    Pretty funny Pacifist, the document states things clearly.

    You forgot to finish your quote you sneaky little devil. "Despite US view peace treaty a determination under terms Potsdam Declaration and that treaty leaves Takeshima to Japan...."The U.S. view is one of many signatories of the treaty..." It shows America's views on the disposition of territory carried no more weight than the other nations involved in drafting the Japan Peace Treaty.

    1. "America is just one country signatory to the treaty". Thus it's clear the American's knew the San Francisco Peace Treaty could not grant title to Japan without the consent of the other 47 countries were participated in the Japan Peace Treaty.

    2. "Despite U.S. view that Takeshima is left to Japan." Pacifist, this shows America's stance was on her own interpretation of whether or not the Potsdam Declaration defined Takeshima as part of Japan or not. However, we know other countries such as Canada and Russia believed the Japan Peace Treaty should follow the spirit of Potsdam etc to the letter. This would have put Takeshima outside of Japanese territory.

    Canada'sPositionOnTakeshima

    So whatever Dean Rusk said, it never translated into U.S. Government policy Pacifist. In fact, the Japanese weren't even told about the Rusk papers. They were confidential memorandums and never once saw any part of the Japan Peace Treaty. Nobody but the ghost of Dean Rusk himself knew about these papers until 50 years later when they were declassified.

    Takeshima was not left to Japan. The Americans dropped support for the Japanese like shit from a tall cow and told them to refer to Article 22. It's clearly in black and white Pacifist, no reading between the lines necessary at all.

    Hi Raquel!! (yoko)

    ReplyDelete
  135. dogdo-takeshima,

    How is your "sneaky little devil" wife?

    You don't want your own wife to be called the same way, do you? So, stop behaving like a defeated dog howling from far. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  136. It seems that US is passively supporting the Japan's claim to the Liancourt Rocks.

    For an example, the CIA homepage that the Koreans are so fond of shows only "Liancourt Rocks" and "Sea of Japan" by refusing the countless official and unofficial Korean requests to replace them with "Dokdo" and "East Sea".

    ReplyDelete
  137. dokdo-takeshima.com11/7/08 13:58

    Raquel, (yoko) it is the Japanese who are wrong on their interpretations of the Japan Peace Treaty you should understand.

    There were many things said by all nations during the negotiations. As the Americans conceded in the 1953 document I presented, their view was just one of many countries. On top of that their views were interpretive of wartime agreements the Allies had drawn up years before.

    The Americans had decided that treaties such as the Cairo Convention and the Postdam Declaration had little bearing on the Japan Peace Treaty. This was partly because it worked against America's own plans to have joint trustee arrangements on many of "Japan's" outlying islands for military bases. However, as I've said, other countries didn't agree with America's interpretation and placed great importance on both the Cairo Convention and Potsdam.

    PostdamAndCairo

    PostWWIIDokdo

    In addition, America favoured Japan's claim to Liancourt Rock because the island was of strategic value. Korea was engaged in the Korean war and the allies were concerned the entire Korean peninsula would become communists so naturally the Americans were reluctant to support Korea.

    So why did American drop her support for Japan's claim to Liancourt Rocks?

    By 1953 the Korean war was over and the armistice was signed on July 27, 1953. At this point the situation was stable and U.S. & R.O.K. had formed an alliance so America was assured she could maintain a footprint on the Asian mainland. At this point ownership of Liancourt Rocks didn't matter much at all so the U.S. distanced herself from the dispute.

    "Howling from afar like a defeated dog..." You are hilarious Yoko!! It sounds like something said by Osama bid Laden in a Taliban video press release....

    You are so cute!!

    ReplyDelete
  138. dogdo-takeshima,

    Stop bla bla bla. All you say is just the howling of a defeated dog.

    Say all you say is right and Japan is wrong, do you agree that Korea will prevail against Japan at ICJ?

    Yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  139. Let's wait and see if dogdo-takeshima again deliberately does not answer my question or not. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  140. dokdo-takeshima.com11/7/08 15:11

    Raquel, I'm not an international lawyer and neither are you. But I'll bite.

    First, don't bash Korea for going to the ICJ. Japan does the same thing on her territorial disputes. That's a lame assertion.

    I think Korea would prevail for numerous reasons.

    Remember Dokdo Takeshima is more than just an island. It will determine the international boundaries between Korea and Japan.

    Korea has administered over Dokdo for a long time so it's pretty unlikely the ICJ would tear apart the region and draw a line between Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Especially when we consider that historically both countries considered the two islands as one. There is no historical evidence that separates Ulleungdo from Dokdo at all. Also drawing the boundary between Ulleungdo and Dokdo wouldn't put an end to naval clashes or border problems. If the ICJ rules for this boundary and more problems arise, they'd be held accountable.

    The ICJ considers more than just historical background when the reach a judgement.

    The ICJ considers such things as geography and potential EEZs. In this case Korea has Japan beat hands down. Ulleungdo is within visual proximity and is capable of generating and EEZ (200miles) and Ulleungdo is much closer than Oki Islands. In 1905 when Japan annexed Takeshima they only considered a baseline measurement from Japan's maniland for determining the island was hers. This is not acceptable by today's standards.

    The ICJ also takes into consideration the economy of the region. Knowing that Ulleungdo is a fishing island and that Dokdo is so close to Ulleungdo again it's doubtful they would rule against Korea. Also the Koreans have built a bustling tourist business around Dokdo so I can't see the ICJ taking that away from Korea. It's pretty doubtful Japan could run a successful tourist business to Dokdo from Oki Islands which is 160 clicks away in heavy seas.

    Japan's historical claim had taken a real beating since I started my website. There is nothing left of her historical claim prior to 1905. Their whole claim lies in their 1905 annexation of the islets. I think the ICJ will be reluctant to remap Northeast Asia based on a mere 40 year historical period in which Japan was colonizing Asia. It's a pretty poor foundation.

    Korea shouldn't let the ICJ make a ruling on Dokdo Takeshima now. They should wait until more Asian countries wield enough power in the organization to ensure the judgement is in Asia's best interest. A ruling on Dokdo Takeshima's sovereignty should be handed down by Asian countries who best understand the situation when Japan annexed Takeshima. Not by a bunch of old white men.

    Japan's supports the ancient concept of Western colonial law because she was the only Asian country blessed with the luxury of being in the ol' boys club at the turn of the 20th Century. Japan wants to use colonial law in 2008 but colonial law isn't a plausible solution of this problem this day. Korea's economic and political prowess in 2008 now rivals the Europeans who once colonized Asian continent during the 19th Century.

    You can't shackle modern Korea to 100 year old colonial law.

    ReplyDelete
  141. dogdo,

    So, what is your answer? Yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  142. dogdo,

    This is my question:

    "Say all you say is right and Japan is wrong, do you agree that Korea will prevail against Japan at ICJ?"

    Yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  143. So far, I heard only the howling of a defeated dog. :-)

    Babogae, yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Steve Barber,

    I am astonished by your poor ability of interpretation. Are you really a teacher?

    You wrore;
    "Takeshima was not left to Japan. The Americans dropped support for the Japanese like shit from a tall cow and told them to refer to Article 22. It's clearly in black and white Pacifist, no reading between the lines necessary at all".

    USA didn't dropped support for Japan. The document I showed you clearly said that USA believed Takeshima to be Japan's territory.

    As I've told you USA didn't want to fight against Russia or SK. If USA attacked SK, NK would invade south again.

    In addition, do you know about the Article 22?
    It is about the settlement of dispute.

    "Article 22

    If in the opinion of any Party to the present Treaty there has arisen a dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled by reference to a special claims tribunal or by other agreed means, the dispute shall, at the request of any party thereto, be referred for decision to the International Court of Justice. Japan and those Allied Powers which are not already parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice will deposit with the Registrar of the Court, at the time of their respective ratifications of the present Treaty, and in conformity with the resolution of the United Nations Security Council, dated 15 October 1946, a general declaration accepting the jurisdiction, without special agreement, of the Court generally in respect to all disputes of the character referred to in this Article".

    So USA recognised that it was a dispute between two countries although SK denied and didn't admit it was a dispute. USA encouraged SK to go to ICJ but SK rejected the proposal.

    USA couldn't attack SK militarily so they hoped the two countries should talk and return Takeshima to Japan peacefully but SK rejected it.

    Again, are you really a teacher???

    ReplyDelete
  145. dogdo-takeshima.com,

    Again, you could not give a straight answer to my question.

    It only shows, no matter what you write in length here, you are NOT 100% certain of your rightness in the eyes of others.

    And, I totally agree with you.

    It is not for nothing that the CIA homepage continues to show the rocks just as "Liancourt Rocks" in its map of Korea in spite of the countless Korean protests.

    Even the CIA is aware of the unlawfulness of South Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  146. dokdo-takeshima.com11/7/08 22:56

    Pacifist, article 22 simply states if Japan has a problem with the treaty she has the option to submit her greivances to the ICJ.

    Korea is in no way obligated to go the ICJ. First of all Korea is not signatory to the Japan Peace Treaty. On top of that, as I've said, Japan also refuses to go the ICJ on her disputes. So quit your blubbering about Korea's refusal to do the same, you big hyprocrite. The Japan Peace Treaty is not legally binding on Korea at all.

    America stated clearly her interpretations of Potsdam and Cairo was only hers. Other nations disagreed as I've shown. The San Francisco peace treaty needed the consent of all signatory nations to make decisions on the disposition of former Japanese territories. This didn't happen with Takeshima, so the American's concluded sovereignty of Takeshima was left undecided and a resolution would have to be achieved outside of the framework of the Japan peace treaty.

    Too bad for Japan, Korea now has Dokdo and there isn't thing one Japan can do about it. Life's a bitch, get over it.

    Rachel (yoko) I answered your question above. Keep arguing Rachel, why you fritter away your time childishly name-calling. I'm translating historical documents and creating pages that show the truth about what Japan did when they annexed Dokdo.

    Japan'sCivilianInvasionOfUlleungdo

    ReplyDelete
  147. dogdo-takeshima,

    Find a story of the Koreans who went to hunt sea lions on the Liancourt Rocks before 1900 and translate it.

    It would be much more convincing than badmouthing about the Japanese
    for the Liancourt Rocks dispute.

    By the way, how much are you getting paid for the translation, babogae? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  148. Steve Barber,

    You always interpret anything advantageous for your theory with your great imagination, but your theory is dead wrong.

    I repeat the following from the 1953 November document;

    "The Liancourt Rocks case appears to have aspects in common with that of Shikotan Island, off the coast of Hokkaido, which was occupied by Soviet troops in 1945".

    This text means Liancourt Rocks were occupied by SK troops just like Shikotan Island was occupied by Soviet troops.

    The document continues;

    "We have publicly declared our view that this Island belongs to Japan, but no one in Japan or elsewhere seriously expects us to take military action under the Security Treaty to reclaim this Island for Japan".

    Also this text means that USA is viewing Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) to be Japanese territory just like viewing Shikotan to be Japanese territory but USA can't take military action.

    Steve, it is free for you to imagine whatever but please don't scatter the distorted story.

    Steve, are you really a teacher???
    I hope you are not a teacher of history.

    ReplyDelete
  149. dogdo,

    If you can find such a story, you will be a national hero in Korea.

    Good luck, michingae. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  150. dokdo-takeshima.com12/7/08 00:38

    Pacifist, I don't know what you are ranting about. In the document America states its view is just one of many. The Americans conceded their view can't be said to be representative of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

    The Liancourt Rocks dispute was handled differently than the Habomais. The Americans publicly supported Japan's claim to these islands. Never once did America publicly support Japan's claim to Liancourt Rocks. In fact never did they even convey their secret support to Japan!!

    Pacifist, you have to get it through your head. America was only one of 48 countries involved in drafting the Japan Peace Treaty. America could not unilaterally make any decision regarding disposition of former Japanese territories without a collective agreement of the other signatory nations.

    Even America conceded this in the memorandum I cited. Too bad for you.

    AmericaDropsSupportForJapan

    On top of this the U.S. Embassy released the following statement on March 16, 2005.

    U.S. policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Island dispute has been and continues to be that the United States does not take a position on either Korea's claim or Japan's claim to the island. Our hope is that the two countries will resolve the issue amicably

    Official-U.S.-Dokdo-Policy

    Pacifist, you can see the U.S. Government's official statement is that America had never supported neither Japan nor Korea in the past and now. There is no need to resort to your shabby self-serving interpretations when we have an actual statement from the U.S. Government. We know your claims are unsubstantiated propaganda.

    Raquel, are you swearing in Korean again? That really helps bolster your argument !! (lol) Keep it up.

    ReplyDelete
  151. dogdo-takeshima,

    Don't shoot in your foot again.

    How much are you getting paid for the translation?

    ReplyDelete
  152. dogdo-takeshima,

    You seem to be getting paid for your propaganda.

    Anyway, in your propaganda, you claim that Japan "annexed" the Liancourt Rocks in 1905.

    Do you agree that, for you to claim that it was "annexation", you have to prove that the Liancourt Rocks had been under the Korean control before the "annexation"?

    Yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  153. Steve Barber,

    You should remember that USA was trying to make US-ROK defence treaty in 1953, which was to be concluded next year. So USA had to avoid friction with ROK.

    American diplomats supported the Japanese position on Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) until the mid-1950s. However, upon realizing that the Takeshima issue was a potential tinderbox that was capable of disrupting Korea-Japan, Korea-U.S., and Japan-U.S. relations, Washington began to feign a neutral position on this issue.

    This is unfortunately a fact, but this doesn't mean USA supports Korea's claim to Liancourt Rocks.
    They had to pretend to be neutral in order to avoid battles between US-ROK and/or US-Japan.

    In other words, true solution of the dispute was postponed on account of USA's situation that they had to fight against communists.

    But now in the 21st century, we have to resolve the dispute in order to make a true friendship between Korea and Japan. Korea should admit the hisorical facts - Usando was not Liancourt Rocks, Sambongdo was not Liancourt Rocks, Seokdo was not Liancourt Rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  154. dokdo-takeshima.com12/7/08 01:36

    No I disagree, Raquel, an annexation is to take control an area next to your country.

    The issue of prior ownership is moot. Max Huber (ICJ) stated new territorial acquisitions must be part of a natural peaceful process. The Japanese Imperial Navy systematically mapped, planned and then built watchtowers on Liancourt Rocks for the express purpose of defeating Russia in a war while in the process of colonizing the Korean peninsula.

    Japan'sShamefulPast

    This is not a natural or peaceful method to incorporate territory Raquel. So the issue of Korean ownership is separate. Japan's method of incorporation is rotten to the core even when we exclude the issue of Dokdo's murky history altogether.

    Raquel if have any questions just visit my website instead of acting like I owe you answers.

    ReadAndLearnYoko

    Pacifist, stop blabbering and read the U.S. Governments official statement.

    U.S. policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Island dispute has been and continues to be that the United States does not take a position on either Korea's claim or Japan's claim to the island. Our hope is that the two countries will resolve the issue amicably

    U.S.-Governments-Statement

    Pacifist, now that we are in the 21 Century we have to base territorial ownership on the premise Japan and Korea are equals not on a 100 year old colonial annexation made while Japan was in the process of colonizing Asia.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Steve,

    Yes, Japan and Korea are equal so that Korea shouldn't think that they don't need to obey the international law. They have to be independent now as a nation.

    They should look at the historical evidences, not shouting propaganda, if they are now a democratic country.

    ReplyDelete
  156. dogdo-takeshima,

    "No" is a good straight answer.

    So, in your propaganda, are you purposely using the word "annexation" in your attempt to show Japan in a more negative light?

    Yes or no?

    ___________________________________

    No I disagree, Raquel, an annexation is to take control an area next to your country.

    ReplyDelete
  157. dokdo-takeshima.com12/7/08 13:15

    No Raquel, I'm not using the word annexation to show Japan in a negative light. There is no "negative light" if we cite our beliefs with the original primary records to bolster our theories. Look at the military records I've posted here to show the involvement of Japan's Imperial Navy on Liancourt Rocks before they annexed the island.

    I'm using the historical context surrounding Japan's "incorporation" of Liancourt Rocks to reveal Japan's motivations for "annexing" the island in 1905.

    Raquel, Japan's MOFA says that when Japan incorporated Liancourt Rocks in 1905 it was for the purpose of sea hunting. However, if we look at what was happening in the Japan Korea region in February of 1905 we can see Japan's assertions are nonsense.

    In the spring of 1905, 500,000 Russian and Japanese soldiers massed in Mukden (Shenyang) China for the largest land battle of the day. The city of Port Arthur (the first Pearl Habour) had been surrounded by the Japanese and it had just fallen to the Japanese. At this time the Japanese Imperial Navy was stationed in the Korean port of Chinhae.

    Admiral Togo was mapping and planning for Russia's Baltic Fleet which had sailed half way around the world to help Port Arthur which had now fallen. The Japanese Navy seized Liancourt Rocks to construct watch towers on Liancourt Rocks to help engage the Russian Navy. This is historical fact and even a key political figure of the Japanese government stated this in the diary of Nakai Yozaburo.

    Raquel, I spent a great deal of time detailing Japan's Military Involvement in Korea and in the waters surrounding Liancourt Rocks. Take the time to read the facts.

    JapanDokdoMilitary1
    JapanDokdoMilitary2
    JapanDokdoMilitary3
    JapanDokdoMilitary4

    Japan's annexation of Liancourt Rocks is an inseparable part of Japanese expansionism and the colonization of Korea. Japan's claim to Liancourt Rocks was a direct result of the invasion of Ulleungdo.

    Japan's invasion of the region took three forms in my opinion. The invasion started as a illegal civilian invasion of Ulleungdo. Although Japanese had trespassed on Ulleungdo for centuries before, the Japanese began to swarm the island en masse and settle there around the mid 1800s. The second form of the invasion was political where Japan through intimidation and coercion forced Korea to sign unfair agreements that would allow concessions to Japan. This included rights to access to Korean waters. Finally came the outright military occupation of Korea and the Dokdo region starting in 1904 after the Japan Korea Protocol was signed.

    Raquel, the reason I cite the historical truth about Japan's colonial, military, and expansionist past when I talk about Dokdo is simple. Knowing the historical circumstances surrounding Japan's annexation of Liancourt Rocks, we can see it is not possible to revisit this era to resolve the problem. We can see Korea's anger is justified when Japan insists their 1905 annexation is legal grounds to claim the island in 2008. Japan has zero claim to Liancourt Rocks prior to 1905 in fact even Japanese officials declared the island "ownerless" months before their claim. Of course, they never consulted Korea on the matter before they seized Liancourt Rocks.

    Look at the reality on Dokdo's closest island around 1902. There were up to 1000 Japanese living on Ulleungdo at the time. The Koreans demanded the Japanese remove these ignorant violent trespassers and Japan's Foreign Minister Hayashi said "No" Instead, even though he admitted it was illegal, he installed Japanese Police on Ulleungdo without Korean consent. When the Koreans demanded the Japanese stop cutting down trees on Ulleungdo Hayashi stated that Korea grant the Japanese logging concessions even though Russia already had the legal right to do so. One of these greasy squatters on Ulleungdo Nakai Yozaburo became the whole "legal" basis for Japan's incorporation of Liancourt Rocks.

    When Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks in 1905 there was no definitive border between Japan and Korea. The Japanese military was occupying Korea. Japanese had recently secured almost unlimited access to Korean coastal areas and Ulleungdo was for all purposes a Japanese island. How can we seriously consider redrawing this non-existent boundary...? It is not a practical method to define Japan Korea's border.

    ReplyDelete
  158. dogdo-takeshima,

    From what I see, you seem to be getting paid for your propaganda.

    Is it your job?

    Yes or no?

    Of course, you don't have to answer this question if you choose not to.

    But, I think that your continuous attempts to show Japan in a negative light are not effective at all. Because they will be automatically seen as propagandas even if some of what you say are correct.

    As I already said, find a TRUE story of the Koreans who sailed on their own to the Liancourt Rocks to hunt sea lions before 1900.

    If you can find such a story, it will be worth 1,000 times more than your hate-driven ethnocentric propagandas.

    Will there be such a story to show us, dogdo? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  159. dokdo-takeshima.com12/7/08 15:13

    Paid! I wish.

    Quite the opposite is true. I've actually had to pay out of my own pocket for the translations of some older historical records. Fortunately in Korea this is not that expensive. Although, I must admit I was proud when Gyeongsan Province requested to link to my page about six monts ago.

    I frequently hear Japanese Takeshima lobbyists use the term "propaganda" when they are confronted with historical truths. I take great offense when somebody calls the data I've slaved to gather as "propaganda". If you are going to run off at the mouth with such wild accusations then I suggest you put your money where your big mouth is and do some your own original research to prove what I say is false or irrelevant.

    Raquel, if you find one shred of historical data that is inaccurate from any of my pages please feel free to point it out and I'll gladly change it in a heartbeat. Where do I say I hate Japan? I don't hate Japan at all. I don't intend to show Japan in a negative light, my criticisms of Japanese only relate to the Dokdo Takeshima problem.

    The Japan of today, much like Korea is worlds apart from 1905. Only a few desperate radical right wingers cling to Japan's colonial annexation of Takeshima. These people are crippling Japan by dragging the Koreans back the painful colonial era when they say Takeshima was incorporated legally. What's worse is when Japan cites this annexation, they have the brass balls to say Koreans always complain about the colonial era and refuse to acknowledge the situation surrounding the incorporation!!

    Your reply is pretty typical of a pro-Japanese Takeshima lobbyist. Whenever the historical circumstances are presented even with the primary historical documents to verify it, you merely dismiss it as hate-driven propaganda. Then you try to run back to the colonial era and demand Koreans to prove an island they currently administer is theirs. This is ass backwards.

    Anyway, I don't show the historical truths of Japan's military-political involvement for my own political, or emotional reasons or to vilify Japan. I'm neither Korean nor Japanese. I use the historical context to show Japan's 1905 incorporation was illegal under this "international law" they hide behind. I also show the historical circumstances to explain how Japan's motivations and methodologies of Japan's 1905 incorporation cannot be used anymore. If Japan is going to use their 1905 annexation as the foundation to the claim, it's only fitting the facts surrounding it are presented.

    Raquel, if Japan can show solid historical evidence the owned Liancourt Rocks before they annexed the island in 1905 they'd have a chance.

    But they can't. :-(

    ReplyDelete
  160. dogdo-takeshima,

    So, let me see:

    Can you claim that "Sambongdo" is Dokdo" in your propaganda?

    Yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  161. dogdo-takeshima.com,

    Your integrity is at stake now.

    Yes or no?

    ReplyDelete
  162. dogdo,

    Just to check if I have read what you wrote correctly or not. Are you saying that "Japan has to show solid historical evidence that she had owned the Liancourt Rocks before she annexed the Rocks in 1905"?

    A common sense is that you don't annex what you already own, though.

    ___________________________________

    if Japan can show solid historical evidence the owned Liancourt Rocks before they annexed the island in 1905 they'd have a chance.

    But they can't. :-(

    ReplyDelete
  163. dogdo-takeshima.com,

    The following distorted writing or, to be more precise, a lie was found in your site.

    If it is not a propaganda, tell us what it is, dogdo. :-)


    "Tokdo consists of two main islets, East and West, and numerous reefs around them; its total area is 186,121m²; and the highest peak is 174m on the West Islet. Southeast of the East Islet stands a high rocky islet soaring into the sky like a steeple or a candlestick. This makes Tokdo look like an island with three high peaks when viewed from a distance. Therefore, it was called Sambongdo (an island of three peaks) during the reign of King Songjo (1469-94), the 9th monarch of the Choson dynasty."

    ___________________________________

    I frequently hear Japanese Takeshima lobbyists use the term "propaganda" when they are confronted with historical truths. I take great offense when somebody calls the data I've slaved to gather as "propaganda". If you are going to run off at the mouth with such wild accusations then I suggest you put your money where your big mouth is and do some your own original research to prove what I say is false or irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  164. dogdo-takeshima.com,

    "Sambongdo" is the present-day Ulleungdo.

    Are you spreading lies through your propagandas, dogdo?

    ReplyDelete
  165. raquel,

    As you see now, Steve's site is full of lies but he won't ever correct them at all.

    We've repeated this kind of unproductive arguments for years since the time he called himself frogmouth, toadface etc, but in the end he flees away and after a while he begins the same old story again.

    As you noticed, he began the "Japanese military annexed Tokdo" story again, which was already proved to be untrue.
    So I think you'd better ignore what he said.

    ReplyDelete
  166. dogdo-takeshima.com,

    So, you have proved yourself to be a Korea-centric propagandist who is spreading misleading lies about the Liancourt Rocks and Japan through your homepage (dokdo-takeshima.com) and through your postings.

    You can NOT keep hold of Dokdo with lies, michingae.

    ReplyDelete
  167. pacifist,

    A defeated dog also has to continue to eat one way or another.

    That's what dogdo is doing. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  168. Is anyone here in touch with Gerry?

    I know that he has been being under the constant surveillance of the Korean National Intelligence Service(國家情報院) agents, and I'm bit worried about him.

    ReplyDelete
  169. raquel,

    Yes, I'm worrying about him too. He didn't say a word for a quite long time.

    But he may be staying in some foreign countries where internet access is not good, just like last year... I don't know but I hope he will come back soon.

    ReplyDelete