初心者のための竹島の歴史入門
초심자를 위한 독도 역사 입문
..
(1) 日本の観点から：
일본의 관점으로부터：
..
竹島は17世紀から永く「松島」の名で呼ばれていました。欝陵島は「竹島」または「磯竹島」と呼ばれていました。
독도는 17 세기부터 영원하고 「개섬」(마츠시마)로 불리고 있었습니다.
울능도는 「독도」(타케시마) 또는 「해변 독도」(기타케시마)로 불리고 있었습니다.
..
しかし、18世紀後半～19世紀前半に西洋の地図に日本海に浮かぶ2つの島、Argonaut島（欝陵島を測量ミスのためにミスマッピングした実在しない島）とDagelet島（欝陵島）が描かれてから島名に混乱が生じました。
그러나, 18 세기 후반 19 세기 전반에 서양의 지도에 일본해에 떠오르는 두 개의 섬, Argonaut섬（울능도를 측량 미스 해 그린 실재하지 않는 섬）과 Dagelet섬（울능도）이그려지고 나서 시마나에 혼란이 생겼습니다.
..
日本人はArgonaut島が竹島で、Dagelet島が松島だと思ってしまったのです。
일본인은 Argonaut섬이 「타케시마」(독도)로, Dagelet섬이 「마츠시마」(개섬)이라고 생각해 버렸습니다.
..
それ以来混乱が生じました。この時点では「松島」がDagelet島、つまり欝陵島になってしまったのですから。
그 이후로, 혼란이 생겼습니다. 이 시점에서는 「개섬」(마츠시마)이 Dagelet섬, 즉 울능도가 되어 버렸으니까.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/1817-aaron-arrowsmiths-map-of-japan-and.html
..
西洋の国々が19世紀にLiancourt Rocks（イギリスではHornet Rocks、現在の竹島）を発見すると、この島に新しい名前が必要になりました。そこでリヤンコルド岩、リャンコ島、ヤンコ島、などLiancourt Rocksを日本風に変えた名で呼ばれることになりました。中井養三郎が明治政府に竹島編入を嘆願した時もその名はリャンコ島でした。
서양의 나라들이 19 세기에 Liancourt Rocks(현재의 독도)를 발견하면, 이 섬에 새로운 이름이 필요하게 되었습니다. 거기서, 「Riyankorudo-iwa」, 「Ryanko island응개섬」, 「Yanko island개섬」등과 Liancourt Rocks를 일본풍으로 바꾼 이름이 사용되게 되었습니다. 나카이양사부로가 메이지 정부에 탄원 했을 때도 섬의 이름은 Ryanko island였습니다.
..
ですから日本ではLiancourt Rocksに関して300年間にわたって名前があった（松島、リヤンコルド岩、リャンコ島、ヤンコ島）ことになり、最後に1905年に新たに竹島と命名されることになります。この竹島という歴史ある名前は元は欝陵島を指していたのですがArgonaut島と共に消えてしまっていたからです。
그러니까, 일본에서는 Liancourt Rocks에는 300년간에 걸치고 이름이 있던 것이 됩니다.마지막에 1905년에 명명된 것이 타케시마(타케시마)입니다. 이 「타케시마」라고 하는 역사적인 이름은 원래는 울능도를 가리키고 있었습니다만, Argonaut섬과 함께 사라져 버렸으므로, 이렇게 이름이 붙여졌습니다.
..
(2) 韓国の観点から：
한국의 관점으로부터：
..
韓国の論理：「韓国は独島／竹島である于山島を古代から知っているので、独島は韓国の領土だ。日本が1905年に奪ったものだ。」「独島には于山島、三峰島、石島など様々な呼び名がある。」
한국의 논리：「한국은, 독도인于山島(Usando)를 고대부터 알고 있으므로, 독도는 한국의 영토이다.일본이 이것을 1905년에 빼앗았던 것이다.」、「독도에는于山島(Usando), 三峰島(Sambongdo), 石島(Seokdo)등의 부르는 법이 있다.」
..
a) 于山島はLiancourt Rocksなのか？
于山島（Usando）는 Liancourt Rocks인가?
..
韓国は西暦500年代からLiancourt Rocksを知っていると主張しています。しかし、その根拠は薄弱です。彼らは于山島がLiancourt Rocks（現在の竹島）であり、于山島に関する文書もあると言います。しかし、于山島はLiancourt Rocksではなかったのです。韓国の学者も最近はそれを認め始めています。
한국은 서기 500년대부터 Liancourt Rocks를 알고 있다고 주장하고 있습니다. 그러나, 그 근거는 박약입니다. 그들은于山島(Usando)가 Liancourt Rocks이며, 于山島(Usando)에 관한 문서도 있다고 합니다. 그러나, Usando는 Liancourt Rocks는 아니었습니다.최근에는 한국의 학자도 그것을 인정하기 시작하고 있습니다.
http://idaegu.com/index_sub.html?load=su&bcode=AIAA&no=10584
..
これをご覧ください：
이것을 봐 주세요.：
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/where-have-all-usandos-gone.html
..
韓国の地図で于山島がLiancourt Rocksと形が違うことも確かめてください：
한국의 지도에서于山島(Usando)가 Linacourt Rocks와 형태가 다른 일도 확인해 주세요.
http://gerrybevers.googlepages.com/Ulleungdodohyeong1711.jpg
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/05/cheonggudo-1834-by-kim-jong-ho.html
..
b) 三峰島はLiancourt Rocksなのか？
三峰島(Sambongdo)는 Liancourt Rocks인가?
..
次の記事をご覧ください。三峰島は欝陵島の別名であり、Liancourt Rocksではなかったことは明らかです。
다음의 기사를 봐 주세요. 三峰島(Sambongdo)는 울능도의 별명이며, Liancourt Rocks는 아니었던 (일)것은 분명합니다.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/04/1470-sambongdo-was-another-name-of.html
..
c) 石島はLiancourt Rocksなのか?
石島(Seokdo)는 Liancourt Rocks인가?
..
石島とは1900年の大韓勅令に出てくる名前です。
石島(Seokdo)와는 1900년의 대한제국령에 나오는 이름입니다.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/11/1900-imperial-edict-makes-ulleungdo.html
..
この勅令では欝陵島全島と竹島石島を欝島郡の管轄とするとしてあります。ここでいう竹島は竹嶼という名の欝陵島付属の小島です。韓国側の学者は石島（ソクド）がある地方の方言で「ドクド」と訛ることがあることから独島（ドクド）だと信じて疑いません。
이 칙령에서는 울능도의 전부와 竹島石島Jukdo-Seokdo를 欝島(Uldo)군이 관할한다고 하고 있습니다. 여기서 말하는 竹島(Jukdo)는 울능도부속의 코지마입니다. 한국측의 학자는 石島(Seokdo)가 혹지역의 방언으로 Dokdo와 와일로부터 独島(Dokdo)라고 믿어 의심하지 않습니다.
..
しかし、1900年には韓国で独島という固有名詞が使われていたとする文献はどこにもありません。彼らは日本の漁民式にヤンコ島とかリャンコ島と呼んでいたのです。ですから、韓国側の学者の説は容易には信じられません。事実に基づいたものではなく、想像の産物だからです。
그러나, 1900년에 한국에서 Dokdo라고 하는 고유 명사가 사용되고 있었다고 하는 문헌은 어디에도 없습니다. 그들은 일본식에 Ryanko island라든지 Yanko island라고 부르고 있었습니다. 그러니까, 한국의 학자의 설은 용이하게는 믿을 수 없습니다. 사실에 근거한 것이 아니고, 상상의 산물이기 때문입니다.
..
1900年直前のこれらの島を取り巻く環境を眺めてみましょう。様々な地理学書が竹島を韓国の領土外としています。韓国の国境の東端は欝陵島だったのです。
1900년 직전의, 이러한 섬을 둘러싸는 환경을 바라봅시다. 여러가지 지리학서가독도를 한국의 영토외라고 쓰고 있습니다. 한국의 국경의 동단은 울능도였습니다.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/korean-eastern-limits-described-in.html
..
同時期の西洋の地図も竹島を韓国の領土外に描いています。（多くは日本の領土としているのです。）
동시기의 서양의 지도도 독도를 한국의 영토외에 그리고 있습니다.(많게는 일본의 영토로 하고 있습니다.)
..
1891 & 1894 (American map):
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/1891-1894-american-maps-of-japan.html
1891 (American map):
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/1891-american-map-of-japan.html
1891-1899 (German, British and American maps):
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/1891-1899-four-maps-from-map-library-of.html
1892 (German map):
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/1892-german-made-map-of-east-asia.html
1894 (German map):
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/1897-german-made-map-of-japan-and-korea.html
1894 (British map):
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/1894-british-map-of-japan-and-korea.html
1894 (British map):
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/1894-british-map-of-japan.html
1897 (American map):
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/1897-american-map-of-japan-and-korea.html
1897 (German map):
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/1897-german-map.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ですから、1900年の勅令に出てくる石島がLiancourt Rocksである可能性は極めて薄いと考えられます。
그러니까, 1900년의 칙령에 나오는 Seokdo가 독도일 가능성은 지극히 얇다고 생각할 수 있습니다.
..
つまり、韓国にはLiancourt Rocksに名前がなかったことになります。于山島もLiancourt Rocksではなく、三峰島もLiancourt Rocksではなく、石島もLiancourt Rocksではなかったのですから。
즉, 한국에는 Liancourt Rocks에 이름이 없었던 것이 됩니다. 于山島(Usando)는 Liancourt Rocks가 아니고, 三峰島(Sambongdo)도 Liancourt Rocks가 아니고, 石島(Seokdo)도 Liancourt Rocks는 아니었습니까들.
Thanks, pacifist
ReplyDeleteI think both Korean and Japanese kids should learn each other's claim.
By the way, it's really annoying "recent comment" doesn't show up, isn't it?
Most of all, Korean must learn japanese ancestors betray their words and Japanese are all liar.
ReplyDelete---------------------
Japan‘s Shogunate declared Takeshima-Ulleungdo (竹シマ) as Korean land in 1696.
Japan's Shogunate again declared Takeshima-Ulleungdo (竹シマ) as Korean land in 1837 and executed Japanese for trespassing on Ulleungdo.
Japan Meiji Govern,ment once again declared Takeshima Ulleungdo (竹シマ) as Chosun land in 1883 and forcibly removed the Japanese trespassers on Ulleungdo.
---------------------------
Stop lying.
Japanese government is faking maps and cheating peoples.
ReplyDeleteStop brain-washing things.
http://news.kbs.co.kr/exec/program/prog_main.php?broad_id=33528
6. ‘고지도’로 살펴본 독도 영유권 [VOD]
p.s if you can not read korean, just go to "6" and "VOD". You can find it in the middle of page.
And Click [VOD], you can see the truth.
Japanese lies and Korean true history.
ReplyDeleteKorean Language
http://issue.media.daum.net/politics/0714_dokdo/view.html?issueid=3355&newsid=20080719024706735&cp=hankooki
anonymous,
ReplyDeletePlease be calm and read all of the documents I posted. Please don't believe the theory without evidences, just judge yourself.
How can i believe the faked map?
ReplyDeleteWhere is the truth on the cheated history?
Please stop lying!
Pacifist and Kaneganese!!
ReplyDeleteHere is a map that shows the current 12 nautical mile boundary Korea has around Dokdo. Take a look at the distances from Korean/Japanese islands and nearest landfalls
CurrentJapan-KoreaBoundary
With the current boundary Korea gets 235 kms from her mainland, Japan gets 195 kms.
With the current boundary Korea's Ulleungdo gets 110 kms and Japan's Oki gets 140 kms.
Any normal person would agree this boundary is fair......except for land hungry Japan.
Now take a look at what the greedy Japanese have been trying to ram down Korea's throat for the last 50 years. Does this look like a fair Japan/Korea boundary to you?
What-Greedy-Japan-Wants
Japan selfish demands are;
Korea gets only 180 kms from her mainland, and Japan gets 245 kms !!!
Korea's Ulleungdo Island only gets 45 kms, and Japan's Oki Islands get 205 kms !!
Japan is still a greedy land-grabbing nation that is going to cause a major war unless she starts acting like a civilized mature nation instead of an expansionist colonial power.
Greedy Japan!!!
Shame on you!!!
Japanese ancestors are betrayers and liars and cheaters.
ReplyDeleteBecause they had betrayed their words with korea.
-->
Japan's Shogunate declared Dokdo(Takeshima)-Ulleungdo (竹シマ) as Korean land in 1696.
Japan's Shogunate again declared Dokdo(Takeshima)-Ulleungdo (竹シマ) as Korean land in 1837 and executed Japanese for trespassing on Ulleungdo.
Japan Meiji Government once again declared Dokdo(Takeshima)-Ulleungdo (竹シマ) as Chosun land in 1883 and forcibly removed the Japanese trespassers on Ulleungdo.
<--
These words are written in the japanese great national history books.
And The national history books are in the japanese national library.
If these words are not true,
the japanese great national history book were faked by japanese themselves.
So we can not trust the japan history. It means all are filled with lies.
Therefore, How can we believe in the japanese maps and the falsehood insistences.
If these words are true, japanese are betrayers.
Because they cheated korea with faked maps.
And they have been making faked maps actually for a long time.
And japan do advertise it as real history.
If these words are true, Their descendants are also betrayers.
Because they are still using the cheated and faked maps.
Because they are still doing falsehood insistences.
As a conclusion, "Dokdo islands belongs to Korea territories"
======================
Japanese government have been making faked maps and cheating peoples and making peoples brain-washed.
The korean public TV news shows it.
There exist the exactly same pairs maps except dokdo island.
Japanese cheat the original maps as dokdo was theirs.
And they insist falsehoods with faked dokdo island maps.
http://news.kbs.co.kr/exec/program/prog_main.php?broad_id=33528
6. ‘고지도’로 살펴본 독도 영유권 [VOD]
If you can not read korean, just go to "6" and "VOD".
You can find it in the middle of page.
And Click [VOD], you can see the truth.
Japanese government makes faked maps and cheats peoples.
And advertise falsehood informations as real history to the whole world.
Just watch the TV News.
Please Japanese, Stop lying and cheating the true and real history.
It's historically ture, "Dokdo islands belongs to Korea territories"
anonymous and Steve,
ReplyDeletewe have to talk with firm evidences, please do not tell your imagination.
There have been NO single evidence that Korea knew and used Liqancourt Rocks until Japanese hired Korean fishermen in the early 20th century.
If you have an evidence, please show us all.
anonymous, if Japan made fake maps as you told (although it is a propaganda of Korean side), but even if so - still you have no right to claim for Liancourt Rocks because there is no evidence that Korea knew and used or controlled the island before 1905.
So all you have to do (and all we want most) is to find the evidence without shouting propaganda. Evidence is the most important thing in the international society.
If you keep insisting your theory without evidences, you won't be relied in the world.
Dear pacifist, stop lying.
ReplyDeleteYour ancestors already admit Dokdo island belongs to korea.
Please, stop denying your great history books, or you'd better denying your faked maps.
You're fisherman theory is no more useless.
ReplyDeleteYou're ancestors already admit Dokdo island belongs to korea.
Or, burn your national history books.
Or, admit your national history books are all faked.
anonymous,
ReplyDelete"Your ancestors already admit Dokdo island belongs to korea".
This is a Korean propaganda which Steve always say, but this is not true.
Please read:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/instant-history-of-liancourt-rocks-for.html
(3) Arguments:
Pro-Korean scholars insist that Japan admitted that Dokdo belonged to Korea but, it is not true. Japan never ever admitted Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) belong to other countries.
...
a) Pro-Korean scholars used to say Japan admitted “Takeshima” (Ulleungdo) and “Matshushima” (Liancourt Rocks) belonged to Korea in 1870 showing the document “How Takeshima and Matsushima became part of Joseon” (below) but the “Matsushima” in the document is not always indicating Liancourt Rocks:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1870-report-how-tamkshima-matsushima.html
The Meiji government investigated Ulleungdo to resolve the name confusion and found the truth in 1880:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1881-kitazawa-masanobu-official-of-mofa.html
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1880-japanese-warship-amagi-surveys.html
b) Pro-Korean people used to show the map 新撰朝鮮国全図 to insist that Japan admitted Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory. But it is not true. Please read the following articles:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/02/surely-you-are-joking-prof-hosaka.html
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/1899-american-map-of-japan-and-1894.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Please think by yourself, not believing hearsay in Korea.
Pacifist and Kaneganese!!
ReplyDeleteHere is a map that shows the current 12 nautical mile boundary Korea has around Dokdo. Take a look at the distances from Korean/Japanese islands and nearest landfalls
CurrentJapan-KoreaBoundary
With the current boundary Korea gets 235 kms from her mainland, Japan gets 195 kms.
With the current boundary Korea's Ulleungdo gets 110 kms and Japan's Oki gets 140 kms.
Any normal person would agree this boundary is fair......except for land hungry Japan.
Now take a look at what the greedy Japanese have been trying to ram down Korea's throat for the last 50 years. Does this look like a fair Japan/Korea boundary to you?
What-Greedy-Japan-Wants
Pacifist, do you really think what Japan wants is reasonable? Look at the maps I've made to point out the greed of your own government. Aren't you ashamed to lobby night and day to cheat Korea out of her fair amount of ocean?
Shame on you Pacifist.
dokdo-takeshima.com,
ReplyDeleteWhy not stop discussing territorial dispute on the ground of distance. You should know how silly it is. What about Saint Pierre and Miquelon? According to your argument, Saint Pierre and Miquelon should belong to Canada. But in reality, they are still French territories.
Do you even know how Japan took over Korea including Dokdo in early 20th century? Japan took Korean right of diplomat in 1904 without approval of the Korean Emperor. So this treaty has no legal power.
ReplyDeleteDuring a war between Russia and Japan(1904~1905), Japan realized a military importance of Dokdo to win Russia and become dominent country in conquering northeast Asian continent, including China. From then, Japan began claiming publically and strongly that Dokdo is Japanese territory. After Japan won the war, Japan concluded a treaty with Russia. The treaty says that Dokdo is Japanese territory. In short Japan exercised Korean diplomatic right instead of Korea itself, based on the treaty of 1904, which is illegal, because it wasn't permitted by Korean emperor and it was concluded by military force of Japan. And, in 1952, Korean president acclaimed that Dokdo is Korean territory internationally, so Dokdo is Korean territory, of course.
And do not say that I should calm down and read all the documents you've posted, because I read them all and only 2~3 sentences of your articles are claiming that Dokdo is Korean island. Almost every part of your articles claim that Korean historians' opinions are groundless. How can you be so sure that you have a detached view? After reading your article, anyone would think that Dokdo is Japanese territory, if he or she has no background information about this issue. You make me suspect you as an extreme right-winger Japanese. This article is totally groundless.
And fuck the damn title-History of Dokdo for "BEGINNERS"!!!
Clod aka (raquel whatever)
ReplyDeleteGround distance is what modern nations do to arrive at equitable answers to solving problems involving territorial disputes. In fact when Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks they too used geographic measurements to justify their annexation. The problem is, the laws Japan used in 1905 have been replaced by a more fair system such as EEZs and laws that prevent "encroachment"
Clod, the problem stems from Japan's flawed 1905 incorporation. When the Japanese Navy's Hydrographic Director Admiral Kimotsuki decided Japan should annex Liancourt Rocks he simply used a linear measurement from both Japan's and Korea's mainlands to determine the islets should be Japan's. That is, he thought because Liancourt Rocks was a few clicks closer to Japan's mainland, there was no reason Japan shouldn't take the islets. No consideration was given to Korea's Ulleungdo at all.
The reason Adimiral Kimotsuki didn't consider Ulleungdo was by 1905 Ulleungdo was for all purposes a Japanese Island and Korea was well on her way to being a protectorate of Japan. Ulleungdo island was militarily occupied, Japanese police were stationed there, hundreds of Japanese squatters were living there and Japan was only months away from securing unlimited access to Korea's inland and coastal waters.
Please read:
JapneseInvadeUlleungdo
In 1905 when Japan annexed Dokdo Takeshima there was no definitive border between Japan and Korea. Knowing this how can we possibly use the historical circumstances of 1905 to redraw the boundary in 2008? Remember Dokdo Takeshima is more than some rocks, these islands will determine the boundary of Japan and Korea.
Again here is the current boundary.
CurrentJapanKoreaLimit
And here are Japan's unfair territorial demands.
WhatGreedyJapanWants
So Clod. Japan's claim to Dokdo is not based on "modern" international law. It's based on 19th Century Colonial law.
Aside from the historical debate going on, Japan's demands are simply outrageous and unfair.
Many historical things are disputed in the Dokdo Takeshima issue and many different historical records are interpreted differently. There isn't a single adjudicator alive capable of a 100% accurate decision on many of the records disputed. Why should Korea leave the integrity of her territorial boundary to be determined by anyone knowing the historical records are open to possible erroneous interpretations.
However, throughout history some facts remain constant. Ulleungdo island, Dokdo's most proximal island was indisputably Chosun land and Japan's Oki Islands were Japan's westernmost limit.
Japan and Korea should work on a fair boundary based on the modern principles outlined above not a 100 year-old military expansionist land grab.
anonymous (at 12:00AM),
ReplyDeleteYou wrote,
"Do you even know how Japan took over Korea including Dokdo in early 20th century?"
Unfortunately Korea didn't own Liancourt Rocks before 1905. Japanese records say that some Japanese from Oki islands began sealion hunting in the 1880's or 1890's and hired Korean fishermen in the early 20th century. Japanese fishermen called it Yanko or Ryanko after the western name Liancourt Rocks.
Records say that Korean fishermen also called the island Yanko as Japanese called it, which means Korean people didn't find the island themselves but hired and brought by Japanese ships.
So before 1905 it was not owned by any other countries (including Korea). It can be understandable when you see that the geographic books before 1905 clearly mentioned Korean eastern limit was Ulleungdo. (Please read the article in this blog yourself.)
If you still believe that "Japan took over Dokdo", you must show the evidence that Korea really found it and used it before Japanese came.
However, unfortunately to you, nobody was successfull in this - even Steve Barber couldn't find the evidence.
"During a war between Russia and Japan(1904~1905), Japan realized a military importance of Dokdo to win Russia and become dominent country in conquering northeast Asian continent, including China".
Yes, it was an important battle. Japan should win by all the means - if Japan lost she was in danger and Korea would be included in Russia. It was a fact, and Japan won the battle in the end. A famous battle took place at the sea just the next to Liancourt Rocks.
But if you want to mention about the watchtowers at Liancourt Rocks, please think it calmly. This is just Steve's propaganda. Japan could install watchtowers even in Korean lands including Ulleungdo already in 1904 (before the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks)- why did they need to incorporate the ownerless island to install the watchtowers? Don't believe Steve's propaganda.
pacifist,
ReplyDeleteStop lying.
Your ancestors were cheaters.
I know what you say.
The evidances that you want are not translated into english.
I want to blame korean goverment.
Even though you can not find, it exists in korea.
Your fucking brain is washed.
Please, blame your own country.
Now, a lot of korean peoples are working for dokdo problems.
Sooner or later, you'll know whta the truth is.
Pacifist, are you calling my website "propaganda"
ReplyDeleteLook pal, all of my information was gathered from Japan's JACAR website. If it makes your ancestors look bad or damages Japan's claim to Dokdo Takeshima that's your problem. But if there is anything false about the data I have regading Japan's military involvement on Dokdo Takeshima please put your money where your big mouth is and prove it!!
Japan'sMilitaryOnDokdo
Pacifist, whether Korea owned Dokdo Takeshima before 1905 is a separate issue. Territorial land acquisitions must be natural and peaceful process (Max Huber ICJ) Unfortunately for you, annexing an islands at the height of the largest war of the day to colonize Korea is not natural nor peaceful.
In addition everyone here now knows that Japan's involvement on Liancourt Rocks was only through Japanese trespassers illegal activity on Korea's Ulleungdo. A Japanese squatter on Korea's Ulleungdo was Japan's whole "legal" reason for the incorporation. Nakai Yozaburo a Japanese trespasser on Ulleungdo stated he was living on Liancourt Rocks in his applciation to lease the island. In reality he was trespassing and poaching on Ulleungdo.
Here is an article about Japan's civilian invasion of Ulleungdo. Did you know the man who refused to remove Japanese trespassers from Ulleungdo was the same man who coerced the Koreans into signing the Japan Korea protocol and the Japan Korea Protectorate Treaty??
It's true his name was Hayashi Gonsuke. Read here.
JapansInvasionOfUlleungdo
Do you know which Japanese Politicians were involved with the incorporation of Liancourt Rocks? You will be very shocked to know their political backgrounds!!
You can read about them here:
JapaneseExpansionists
Pacifist, study the history of your own country before you accuse anyone of "propaganda" please.
Anonymous (at 1:00AM),
ReplyDeleteI can understnad why you are so upset, I know you were taught so in school. I know that you were a clever boy in school, I don't want to blame you but I want to blame Rhee Syngmann and his surroundings.
Rhee Syngmann's theory was that Takeshima/Dokdo must be Korean territory - it was robbed by Japan's imperialism (it's the same as Steve's propaganda!). As you know, he was an anti-Japan acitivist outside Korea in the 1940's. So he thought Korea would take everything Japan left in Korea including private properties. He want to get many islands inluding Takeshima/Dokdo but when San Francisco Peace Treaty excluded Takeshima/Dokdo from Korean territory and the Treaty was to be concluded in April 1952, he had anxiety - it has been said that he thought if the Treaty was concluded as planned, Takeshima/Dokdo was recognised as Japan's territory and his insistency, that Takeshima/Dokdo was robbed by Japan's imperialism, would be denied. Then he would be called as a lier and his government would be in danger. So he made the line hastily three months before the conclusion of the Treaty.
He then began national "Dokdo is ours" propaganda strongly. The governments after Rhee Syngmann kept the same position because if someone stopped the position bravely, he would be called as jin-il pa. Even the new president Lee Myung-bak, who showed friendly gesture to Japan after the election, had to make anti-Japan posture concerning the Takeshima issue recently because the percentage of those supporting his cabinet has fallen under 30%.
But please think it over again, apart from these politics, you have to find the truth by yourself.
"Even though you can not find, it exists in korea".
I'm glad that you have it! Please show it to us all. We have been waiting for that kind of things. If it truly exists in Korea, you should show it - unless the world won't believe Korea's insistency forever.
This is a map of Syngman Rhee's Peace Line.
ReplyDeleteRheeLineIsFair
This is a map of the boundary of Japan-Korea made during earlier drafts of the Japan Peace Treaty. It excludes Takeshima from Japan
SameAsRheeLine
This is another map of the boundary proposed during the Japan Peace Treaty. It also excludes Dokdo Takeshima from Japan's territory.
SameAsRheeLine
This is the boundary to this day.
Today's-Boundary-Is-Fair
And this is what right wing Japanese Takeshima lobbyists like Pacifist and Kaneganese want the border to be.
Japan-Is-Land-Hungry
These Takeshima lobbyists call President Rhee "a theif" However compare the maps above and look at the amount of ocean greedy Japan wants. Then ask yourself "who is the real theif?"
All Rhee did was solidify a fair boundary already proposed numerous times by Allied nations.
Sorry is the map of the early draft of the Japan Peace Treaty again.
ReplyDeleteAlliedBoundary
제발 부탁인데, 무조건 적인 '일본의 발언은 거짓말이다.'라는 생각은 집어치워라. 보기흉하고 한국인인게 졸라게 부끄러워진다.
ReplyDelete그런 사고방식 꼬라지로는 절대 한국은 일본을 이길 수 없다.
정말 자기 땅이란 확고한 자신이 있다면, 일본에게도 정당한 주장이 있다는 것을 인정하고, 이런 부류의 문제는 어디까지나 상대적(相対的)인 문제라는 자각을 가져야만 한다.
문제의 본질을 파악하지 못하고 상대방에 대한 기본적인 존중을 무시한채 계속 이런식으로 독선적인 태도를 보였다가는 누워서 침 뱉기를 떠나 그냥 자기얼굴에 똥칠하는 결과가 돌아오게된다.
진정 이 문제를 해결하고싶다면 한국측은 좀 더 '어른'이 되어야만 한다.
물론 한국과 같이 '추한 꼴'을 보이고있는 일본의 극우단체들 또한 마찬가지 이야기이다.
자신의 주장을 말하면서도
상대방의 의견을 진지하게 들어주고,존중할줄아는 태도...
그리고 이 문제는 절대적인 정답은 있을 수 없는 '상대적'문제라는 자각.
토론이란 플레이에 있어 이것은 필수예의가 아닌가 싶다.
I'm sorry. I can not English.
http://www.excite.co.jp/world/korean/
To korean.
ReplyDelete---------------------------
http://news.kbs.co.kr/exec/program/prog_main.php?broad_id=33528
6. ‘고지도’로 살펴본 독도 영유권 [VOD]
---
내가 이글 올렸더니, pacifist가 뉴스에 나오는 똑 같은 지도를 가지고 글 올렸었지...
그러다가 조금 지나니까 글 삭제하더라...
지도까지 조작하며 거짓 주장을 하는데, 너무 뭐가 창피하니?
난 네가 더 부끄럽다.
여기 일본 사람들도 가끔 일본어로 글 쓴다. 매너 없어 보이기는 해도 그렇게 까지 사과 안해도 된다.
独島にしばらく立ち寄った行ったと言って自分たちの領土になるか。韓国を無力で強制侵略した日本、それでは韓国も日本領土か。 一部誤れた歴史観を持った日本人のため韓日関係がもっと悪くなっている。歴史を忘れた民族は必ずその歴史を繰り返すようになっている。政府が先立って誤った歴史観を日本、自ら恥ずかしい事なのを自覚してほしい。
ReplyDelete>'난 네가 더 부끄럽다.'
ReplyDelete야 너 계속 누워서 침뱉을래?
그런 유치한 말을 하는 시점에서 넌 졸라 감정적인거다.
좀 상대적이자 이성적이 되도록 노력을 해봐.
무조건 적인 자기방어와 자기정당화는 집어치우라고. 상대방을 '나쁜놈'이라 생각하는 순간부터 '토론'을 할 자격은 박탈당하는거다.
'옳고(선) 그르고(악)'은 없다는걸 기본적으로 알아둬.
토론이란 자리의 본질부터 재고찰하고 다시 와라.
거짓말을 하는 생대와 침착하게 대화기는 쉽지가 않습니다. 그렇다 하더라도 이성적으로 대처하시기를 바랍니다.
ReplyDeletemany anonymous people,
ReplyDeletePlease post your opinion in English and use ID.
I hope all of you can understand what this post is saying. Please give your opinion, not emotional words, hopefully with evidence to prove your insistency.
Especially we want the evidence to show that Korea really knew, used and controlled Liancourt Rocks before Japanese did. Please find the evidence and let us know. Thank you.
독도는 17 세기부터 영원하고 「개섬」(마츠시마)로 불리고 있었습니다.
ReplyDelete<--- '영원하고'는 '오래도록'이라고 번력하는 것이 자연스럽습니다. 짬나면 번역 좀 살펴보도록 하지요.
오타네요. 번력 -> 번역 어떻게 하면 코멘트를 지울 수 있죠? 별 걸 다 묻는다고 하시겠지만......
ReplyDelete1.
ReplyDeletemany anonymous people,
Please post your opinion in English and use ID.
<--- 어떤 언어든 상관없다는 블로그 안내를 보고 글을 남기는데, 위의 요구는 좀 무리네요. 아이디는 없거나 사용하지 않기 때문이기도 하니 무리하게 요구하시는 것도 곤란하다는 생각이 듭니다.
2. 이른바 논리적 근거를 밝히는 것과 논리적 타당성을 갖추는 것은 좀 다른 차원의 문제이기도 합니다. 논리적 근거라고 볼 수 있는 각종 고문헌이나 고지도도 문헌 비판을 하지 않으면 그 타당성을 따지기에는 무리지요. 문헌학이나 고지도학을 공부한 사람이 아닌 이상 문헌이나 고지도의 실물을 보지 않고도 진품으로 여기고 논의를 펼 수 있는지요? 그리고 고문헌이든 고지도이든 부정확성할 수도 있는데 고문헌과 고지도에 적혀 있거나 기록되어 있다는 것만으로 신뢰하기에는 무리가 따릅니다. 전문가들의 의견이라는 것도 가치관과 입장에 따라 얼마든지 사실을 왜곡할 수 있는 측면도 있고요. 익명의 한국인들이 기본적인 자기주장만 할 뿐 근거 제시에 약하다는 점은 인정한다고 치더라도, 논리성을 내세우면서 다른 쪽 자료나 주장에 대해 배척하기만 하는 태도도 그리 논리적이지 않을 수 있다는 점을 지적하고 싶습니다. 오류 중에 자기에게 유리한 증거만 찾아다니는 오류라는 것도 있다고 하네요. 사실 저도 그럴 때가 있고 그러지 않으려고 애는 쓰지만 쉽지는 않습니다.
Dear Guebal-gebal,
ReplyDelete당신은 이론적인 사람같네요.한국의 주장에 논리적 근거도 타당성도 없는 것이 현상입니다.논리적 근거, 논리적 타당성을 부디 제시해 주세요.
Dear Guebal-gebal,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote;
"문헌학이나 고지도학을 공부한 사람이 아닌 이상 문헌이나 고지도의 실물을 보지 않고도 진품으로 여기고 논의를 펼 수 있는지요? "
여기에는 여러가지 전문가가 모여 있기 때문에 오픈에 논의하면 괜찮습니다.문헌의 이름과 보관 장소(대학명이나 도서관명)를 알면 검색할 수 있습니다.
You also wrote;
"그리고 고문헌이든 고지도이든 부정확성할 수도 있는데 고문헌과 고지도에 적혀 있거나 기록되어 있다는 것만으로 신뢰하기에는 무리가 따릅니다."
문헌명과 보관처가 명시되면, 부정하게 수정해도 곧바로 부정은 밝혀집니다.
You also wrote;
"전문가들의 의견이라는 것도 가치관과 입장에 따라 얼마든지 사실을 왜곡할 수 있는 측면도 있고요".
Yes, that's the problem and that is the reason why we have to talk about the evidence openly.
그러니까야말로, 이러한 개방적인 장소에서 논의하는 것에 의의가 있습니다.
You wrote;
"익명의 한국인들이 기본적인 자기주장만 할 뿐 근거 제시에 약하다는 점은 인정한다고 치더라도, 논리성을 내세우면서 다른 쪽 자료나 주장에 대해 배척하기만 하는 태도도 그리 논리적이지 않을 수 있다는 점을 지적하고 싶습니다".
We are open to hear Korean people's opinion but not dirty emotional words. Unfortunately they haven't shown the evidence such as documents, maps etc until now. If you have some evidences please show them to us.
제대로 한 문헌이나 자료에 뒷받침된 의견이라면 많이 (듣)묻고 싶습니다.부디 공개해 주세요.
You wrote finally;
"오류 중에 자기에게 유리한 증거만 찾아다니는 오류라는 것도 있다고 하네요. 사실 저도 그럴 때가 있고 그러지 않으려고 애는 쓰지만 쉽지는 않습니다".
It is another reason to discuss the issue openly at this blog. If one saw a document in a one-sided view, another one can point out the mistake. So please don't hesitate to show us the evidence.
그러한 폐해를 잃기 위해서도, 이 장소에서 오픈에 논의해야 합니다.
여기까지 쓰는데 자동번역기를 사용해 상당히 시간이 걸렸습니다.그렇지만 다소나마 의사의 소통이 되어있어서 샀다입니다.
Dear pacifist,
ReplyDelete오 대단하시군요. 한글로 글을 쓰시다니.
당신의 논리가 처음부터 모두 거짓이었다는 신문기사가 나왔습니다. 답변 부탁드리겠습니다.
http://issue.media.daum.net/politics/0714_dokdo/view.html?issueid=3355&newsid=20080721095104612&cp=hani
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI wrote the text in hanglu using the translator, so it takes time.
영어로 씁니다만 용서해 주십시오.
The newspaper article you introduced seems to be about viewing Liancourt Rocks from Ullengdo. But whether it could be viewed from Ullengdo or not is not a problem.
It can be seen from the highest point of Ulleungdo on very fine day, as a Korean already wrote in the 17th century. But the problem is that he didn't go to Liancourt Rocks, he didn't know about the exact location and shape of Liancourt Rocks. Only viewing is not the ground of ownership.
And the one more thing about the viewing, the Korean document 高麗史 (Vol.58, 地理 geography 3; 1451) mentioned as followed;
一云 干山武陵 本二島 相距不遠 風日清明則可望見
[According to one theory, these two islands Usan and Mulleung (武陵) are not so distant and they are easily visible on fine days.]
Korean government and pro-Korean scholars keep insisting that Usan in the sentence is Liancourt Rocks, and the text means Liancourt Rocks could be seen from Mulleung (Ulleungdo) on fine days.
On the other hand, Japanese scholars have an opinion that it meant these two islands could be seen from Korean peninsula on fine days. They think that Usan in the text is not Liancourt Rocks.
We introduced the document to support the latter here;
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/ulleungdo-and-usan-were-visible-from.html
Some of shcolars are making simulated photos of Ulleungdo viewed from Korean penninsula, which looks as if there are two or three islands from the distance because Ulleungdo have three peaks.
I think it is a possibility that they thought two or three isalnds could be seen from Korean mainland and heard that there is a small island beside Ullengdo (today's Jukdo) so they may have misunderstood that they could see both of Ullengdo and Jukdo from Korean peninsula. This is only a possibility, of course.
Dear pacifist,
ReplyDelete우선, 답변에 감사드립니다.
번역기를 사용하시느라 고생 많으셨습니다.
당신의 주장은 한국의 입장에서는 근거가 없는 내용입니다. 일본은 처음에 독도가 울릉도에서 보이지 않는다고 했습니다. 이제 한국도 많은 준비를 하고 있습니다. 더 많은 증거가 필요하겠죠. 감사합니다.
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDelete(답례)답장을 감사합니다.한국측도 설득력이 있는 자료, 확고한 증거가 되는 자료를 준비해야 합니다.
현재는 한국의 사람들이 고대부터 Liancourt Rocks를 알고 있고, 실제로 거기에 갔다고 하는 기록은 전무입니다.
만약 그러면, 현재의 상황은 「불법 점거」가 되는군요.그렇지 않다고 하기 위해는, 한국은 1905년보다 전에 실제로 이 섬을 지배하고 있었다고 하는 기록을 제출하지 않으면 안됩니다.
그것을 할 수 없으면, 국제법에 준거해 세계를 설득할 수 없습니다.
부디 그러한 자료를 찾고, 제시해 주시길 바란다고 생각합니다.잘 부탁드리겠습니다.
Dear pacifist,
ReplyDelete주장에는 설득력있는 논리와 확실한 증거가 있어야 있어야 한다는 것에 전적으로 동의합니다.
한국에도 드러나지 않은 많은 증거 자료가 있습니다. 또한, 많은 사람들이 노력하고 있습니다.
한국어로 답변해주신 것에 대하여, 다시 한번 감사드립니다.
dear Anonymous,
ReplyDelete부디 그러한 증거를 제출해 주세요.부탁드리겠습니다.냉정하게 의견을 받음 감사합니다.
pacifist,
ReplyDeleteYou are keep saying dokdo-takeshima.com is liar, but he is providing documents. I have not observed you making good or convincing argument indicating your claim. Please no more statements like "Steve is liar". It makes you look bad when you cannot make convincing argument.
anonymous,
ReplyDelete(Please make a google acount and come back again to make your next posting.)
As to Steve's site, I repeatedly ask the readers to compare it with our site. Don't believe the shallow interpretation of him.
To follow is an example I posted somewhere else in this blog recently. I hope all of you can compare his site with our site.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You should compare Steve's site with our site reading each of the corresponding topics.
Please read all of the following and think yourself, which is telling the truth.
(1)About 公文録 (Kobunroku)
Steve's site:
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1877-doc.html
Our site:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/argument-about-another-island-details.html
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve only showed the first document and jumped to the conclusion. We read all of the documents and considered what the "another island" means.
(2)About "Onshu Shicho Gouki"
Steve's site:
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html
Our site:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/onshu-shicho-goki-different.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We once taught Steve his gramatical error in this article and he once said that he would correct it but...
(3) About "How Takeshima and Matsushima became part of Joseon":
Steve's site:
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1870doc.html
Our site:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/06/1870-report-how-tamkshima-matsushima.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Again he only showed the first part of the documents without considering what the document meant.
(4) About Prof. Hosaka's map:
Steve's site:
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-professor-hosaka.html
Our site:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/1899-american-map-of-japan-and-1894.html
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/02/surely-you-are-joking-prof-hosaka.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Persons who know how to read longitudes can understand how Steve is misleading the readers...
Dear intelligent Korean people, please compare the sites without prejudices. Then you will find the truth.
Your article about 'the viewpoint of Korea to Dok-do' is not the exact viewpoint of Korea at all. You are cheatting people who visit your blog.
ReplyDeleteYou know there is not bamboo in that island. Japanese call Dok-do as dakesima(竹島) because of lack of their pronunciation Dok-do. Dok-do(獨島) means isolated island. You better to make an apology to people.
If not, You will get troubles.
터돌이의 항해,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote;
"Japanese call Dok-do as dakesima(竹島) because of lack of their pronunciation Dok-do".
But I can't understand what you are trying to say.
As I wrote in the article, Japanese called Liancourt Rocks as "Matsushima" in the beginning, not "Takeshima".
"Takeshima"(竹島, Bamboo island) was the name for Ulleungdo in the beginning. As you can see, the name came from bamboo of Ulleungdo.
But after the confusion of names due to the western maps (Argonaut and Dagelet islands), Ulleungdo was re-named as "Matshushima" and Liancourt Rcoks lost its original name - so that they began to call Liancourt Rocks as "Ryanko island" or "Yanko island".
And after the decision of the incorporation of the island into Japan, the isalnd was officially named as "Takeshima" in 1905.
And the name of "Dokdo" appeared first in the early 20th century in Korea. It may have been a name among the fishermen who were hired by Japanese to catch sealions there. Until then, the name of "Dokdo" was not recorded in any documents in Korea.
automatically translated
ReplyDeleteUntil I read this and know what it was that Japan's claim. "Japan is accidentally marked the map and knew the Takeshima island does not exist" is called because it belongs to Japan called Takeshima does not make sense.
and i'm hungry
Hey! Please Read This Site : http://www.truthofdokdo.com/nowlive?lang=jp
ReplyDeleteDokdo is Not Japan.
Dokdo is korea!
We Have a many Documentation!