Here is another silly article on Dokdo from the Korea Times entitled "Three Faults of Japan's Claim to Dokdo." Here is an excerpt from the article:An ethnic Japanese Korean expert on Dokdo has said that the Japanese government has officially denied its sovereignty over Dokdo three times in the past.
"The top Japanese authorities made the denials back in 1695, 1870 and 1877, while the Korean government has never denied its sovereignty over Dokdo, which proves the islets in the East Sea are part of Korean territory in history,'' Professor Hosaka Yuji at Sejong University's College of Liberal Arts said in a recent interview with The Korea Times.
First, the reason Korea never denied its sovereignty over Dokdo was that it never claimed sovereignty over Dokdo. That statement is just plain silly.
Second, Japan did not deny its sovereignty over "Dokdo" during any of the dates mentioned. In 1695, only Ulleungdo was recognized as Korean territory.That can be proven by the fact that travel to Matsushima (Dokdo) was not banned until 1836, and the ban was not because Japan recognized it as Korean territory. In 1870, the Matsushima referred to then was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Japan's Matsushima (Dokdo), which was proven by the fact that the Japanese said they had no record of Ulleungdo having a neighboring island named Matsushima. In 1877, Japan denied sovereignty over "Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and one other island." Nothing was said about Matsushima (Dokdo). Japan used the phrase "one other island" because they were unsure of where the island was. Later, they found out that the Matsushima that had been referred to in petitions had actually been Korea's Ulleungdo, not Japan's Matsushima (Dokdo). See the following links for an explanation of the confusion at the time:
- 1877 - Different Japanese Views on Matsushima
- 1878 - Watanabe Says Liancourt Rocks are Japanese
- Unfinished Translation of an 1878? Document
- 1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.
- 1881 - Kitazawa Masanari(北澤正誠), a official of MOFA concluded that "Takeshima" is Jukdo in "A Study of Takeshima (Takeshima Kosho 竹島考証) ".
Dear Gerry Beavers,
ReplyDelete처음에 당신이 한국어를 배울 때에는, 한국을 좋아했던 것 같습니다.
하지만, 한국의 역사와 국민 감정에 대해서 잘 몰랐던 것 같군요.
독도 문제로 인하여 교사직에서 짤렸다는 글을 봤습니다. 그 일에 대해서는 유감으로 생각합니다. 당신을 비난할 의도는 없습니다.
하지만, 독도에 대한 거짓된 주장을 계속하는 당신은 보면서, 왜 아직도 한국에 머무르고 있는지 궁금해졌습니다.
일본에서 일본 우익을 위해서 활동하면, 한국에 있을 때 보다 더 많은 수익을 얻을 수 있을 것 같군요.
당신의 거짓 주장이 더 많은 사람들에게 알려졌을 때, 당신은 한국에서 교사 생활을 영원히 할 수 없을 것 입니다.
일본으로 가셔서 일본인에게 영어를 가르칠 것을 진심으로 바라며 이 글을 씁니다.
I don't want to take any sides... but honestly, I think the title is a bit rude.
ReplyDeleteLord,
ReplyDelete거짓된 주장을 싫어하니까 이 blog를 쓰기 시작한 것입니다. 한국에서든 미국에서든 거짓말을 하는 사람만큼 미운 것이 거의 없습니다.
Hosaka is right and I've seen nothing here or any other Takeshima lobbyist forum to refute what he says. Just a few wacky theories that are totally unsubstantiated by Japanese right wing extremists.
ReplyDeleteHere are a rundown of the documents that show Japan long excluded Ulleungdo and Dokdo from their territory.
Dokdo-Is-Korean1
Dokdo-Is-Korean2
Dokdo-Is-Korean3
Gerry, for a man who has openly admitted he's not a historian it's indeed "rude" for you to refer to someone else's views as "ridiculous". If you think your lack of respect gives you more credibility you are dead wrong.
I've noticed on this forum the more convincing someone is, the more abrasive and obnoxious their rebuttals are. Perhaps to hide the fact they have no defense. Well it's not working.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteStop using these insulting words - Japanese right wing extremists. It is not fair, we are just ordinary citizens not right or left.
And stop propagating the same wrong theories;
As I already showed you, your website is full of lies.
Dear readrs, please compare his website and our blog:
(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 Gerry Beavers,
ReplyDelete거짓말을 싫어하는 분이라니 그래도 다행이군요.
"가쓰라-태프트 밀약"에 대해서 아시는지 궁금합니다.
미국이 독도 문제에 있어서, 겉으로는 중립적 입장을 취하면서, 속으로는 일본편을 들고 있는지 아시게 되실 것 입니다.
또한, 미국은 러시아를 견제하기 위하여, 일본에게 현재 물가로 계산하여 19조원 정도의 전쟁비용을 일본에게 지원했습니다. 그로 인하여, 조선이 일본의 식민지가 됐습니다. 이 내용은 몇년전에 미국의 극비문서에서 해제되어, 책으로도 출판되었고, 신문에 크게 다루어지지는 않았지만, 저자가 한국에 사과를 했습니다.
그때 미국이 묵인하지만 않았어도, 한국은 식민지가 돼지 않았을 것 입니다.
당신이 진정으로 진실이 무엇인지를 알기를 바랍니다.
이미 당신은 감정적으로 치우쳐있습니다. 더 이상 중립적이라고 하지는 마시기 바랍니다.
Pacifist, you've repeated two views numerous times that show you are a right wing Japanese extremist.
ReplyDeleteFirst you've stated that Japan's 1904~1905 War against Russia was a "just" war and what Japan did was right. Second, you've stated Japan's colonization of Korea was legal. Again this is extremely right wing view that only someone with a severely distorted view of history would concur with.
Despite the fact you post reams of data in an attempt to mislead your readers, your tactics are clearly to baffle us with B.S. My grammitical error? How about the mistranslation of your 1877 article. I've repeatedly told you to correct that and you haven't fixed that error at all.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI warn you repeatedly - stop using dirty words like "right wing Japanese extremist". You call everybody who is against you "rightest" or "extremist" but your such a behavior only shows your thoughtlessness.
All the readers now recognise what you really are like.
"Pacifist, you've repeated two views numerous times"
Don't you realize? I pasted it because you are repeating old propaganda again and again. It's your fault.
Steve, stop resorting to makeshifts. Play fair and bring your Korean evidence that she had controlled Liancourt Rocks before Japan did. If you can't, why don't you surrender?
Pacifist.
ReplyDeleteDid you say Japan's war against Russia was "just"? Yes or No?
Did you say Japan's colonization of Korea was "legal" Yes or No?
If you said "yes" to any of the above you have taken a stance that only one with very extreme radical right wing pro-Japanese views would support.
So Pacifist, if you feel the term right wing radical is offensive I feel sorry for you, but don't blame the messager.
You have damaged your what little credibility you may have had by taking an offensive, distorted view of Japanese-Korean history.
Because of this, nobody should trust anything you say Pacifist...
whatever, you both sound like right wing extremist.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteDon't change the subject. It is your usual practice - the old trick.
I say again, play fair and bring the Korean evidence to show Korea had really controlled the Rocks before Japan did.
tue,
ReplyDeleteWhat is the definition of your "right wing"? I'm not related with right wing activists and I don't praise them, rather I hate them. I think myself as an ordinary citizen.
I just want the truth and I feel Korean governments (and Steve too)have hidden the truth from Korean people since the government of Rhee Syngman.
I hope all you readers will soon notice what I mean as you read every article in this blog one by one.
Steve
ReplyDeleteConcentrate on the argument.
Whether you are a supporter of Korean ultra-nationalism has nothing to do with your argument.
And stop linking your own site;we all know where you are from.
Just start arguing.
"the reason Korea never denied its sovereignty over Dokdo was that it never claimed sovereignty over Dokdo"
Isn't it ridiculous? if not argue.
Sorry to say this, but looking at the Dokdo issue, I really doubt if there are intellectuals in Korea.
Ponta and Pacifist (aka Itchy and Scratchy)
ReplyDeleteI don't have to prove my credibility to a couple of anonymous Japanese lobbyists who don't even have the integrity to post who they are. Why should anyone trust phantom posters?
Pacifist, I,m sorry but you are less than an ordinary citizen because you hide under the guise of anonymity. Because of this facade are not accountable for what you say and have absolutely zero credibility.
Please Ponta and Pacifist, tell us who you are so we can trust what you say!! Otherwise you are just creepy lobbyists.....
BTW, in case you don't know, My name is Steve Barber and I run a .com called dokdo-takeshima.com
The-Truth-Of-Dokdo
Who are you guys and why should anyone believe anything that comes off of your forked tongues?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou are dodgeing the subject again.
Steve, this is a blog to discuss the Liancourt Rocks issue.
If you can't bring your evidence and only boast yourself, please go away.
We need scientific proof that Korea really controlled Liancourt Rocks before 1905.
No Pacifist, what you and your Takeshima lobbyists need is justification as to why we should draw a boundary between Japan and Korea based on the colonial era.
ReplyDeleteMy website has destroyed the Japanese myth that Japan has any historical claim to Dokdo prior to 1905.
My website has also revealed Japan's only claim was a military annexation, an act of aggression undertaken during the largest war of the day while Japan was fighting to colonize Korea.
Japan's-Military
My website also reveals how military expansionists in Japan's government maneuvered Naki Yozaburo's application to lease Liancourt rocks for military purposes. This is not a valid method to acquire land as it was not natural nor peaceful.
Japan's-Politics
But what's more importand, in a more modern context, my website proves why in modern times Japan's greedy MOFA wants to grab land. It shows how Japan is not reasonable and how selfish the Japanese government is. You can also see how Japan craftily makes false maps to brainwash her own netizens.
Pacifist, did you know Japan already has the worlds fifth largest EEZ in the world? That's right, their EEZ is more than 4,500,000 square kms!! That's 15 times more than Korea's. In fact the EEZ Japan claims around Marcus Island is bigger than Korea's entire EEZ.
Japan's-Greedy-MOFA
Pacifist, don't tell me what Korea needs to do. What Japan needs to do is convince the world her 4,500,000 square km EEZ should be made even bigger. Japan's greed never stops and you should be ashamed to be part of her selfish attempt to re-annex part of the East Sea (Sea of Japan)
Have you no shame Pacifist?
lord, I will write in English - I hope you will understand it.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that you are saying that people that think that Japan's case is stronger than Korea's concerning the Liancourt Rocks is a Japanese right wing extremist and biased, while people that think that the Korean case is stronger are neutral (and presumably without political affiliation). Do you really believe this?
By the way, it is NOT America's fault that Korea became dominated by Japan (and if it wasn't Japan it would have been another country). Korea has to be the defender of Korean liberty, not the USA. Blaming the US or any other country (including Japan) for the situation Korea found itself in the early 20th century is a distortion of history. Koreans need to take responsibility for their history rather than blaming others.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI repeat, don't change the subject and run away. We are discussing about the Liancourt Rocks issue, not EEZ.
Don't repeat old propaganda things - the readers now notice your intention.
If you can't prove that Korea had really controlled Liancourt Rocks before 1905, you must go away and hide behind your website.
I have to agree with pacifist a bit. "who we really are," "EEZ," and the greediness of the japanese government has very little to do with the legal ownership of the liancourt rocks.
ReplyDeleteSteve
ReplyDeleteI love your silly comment because I can show them to the world how Korean nationalism deformed the discussion into childlike talks.
Pacifist and Ponta (Itchy and Scratchy)
ReplyDeleteJapan's EEZ has everything to do with Dokdo Takeshima. What we have here is more than an island dispute. We have a problem that involves ultimately defining the boundary between Japan and Korea. Japan is insisting we cite the 1905 colonial era as the basis for arriving at a boundary between Korea and Japan and this is not an equitable solution for resolving the issue. Korea should not be blamed for refusing to allow Japan to do this.
Now we know that Japan's geographic basis for annexing Liancourt Rocks was to simply mearsure from the Japanese mainland and the Korean mainland. This baseline approach has nothing to do with how modern maritime boundaries are drawn in the modern age. It is not a fair basis to resolve this issue.
Tue, Japan's greed has everything to do with this dispute. Japan's whole 1905 incorporation was based on a military land grab. This is not legal Max Huber of the ICJ and many other legal precedents clearly state land acquisitions have to be part of a peaceful and natural process. You can see by this link Japan's land grab of 1905 was not peaceful nor natural at all. So really whether Korea controlled the islets or not before Japan's 1905 annexation is moot. Japan's claim doesn't stand on its own.
Japan's-Military-In-Dokdo
Pacifist, the Koreans assert they incorporated the Liancourt Rocks before the Japanese in 1900. I've seen nothing to prove otherwise on this forum just some unsubstantiated theories.
From all standpoints using Japan's 1905 incorporation to arrive at a modern solution to the Dokdo Takeshima problem can't work. Why?
The political relationship between Japan and Korea are worlds apart from 1905. The demographics of the Dokdo Takeshima region are totally different from 1905. The economics of the Dokdo Takeshima region have changed too much. The geographic reasoning behind Japan's annexation of Liancourt Rocks was seriously flawed. Finally Japan's who bases for annexing (political-military) Liancourt Rocks were rotten to the core.
Japanese Takeshima lobbyists childishily scream "It's ours because we took it in 1905!" This means nothing to the free world in 2008 Pacifist. What Japan's need is valid reasons in 2008 as to why Japan should be allowed to extend her boundary 160kms toward Korea.
You guys shouldn`t forget that until 1890, Korea wasn`t open to western influence. So there was no need for Korea to maintain a claim against anybody.
ReplyDeleteI find it ridiculous that Japan clearly incorporated as TERRA NULLIUS, again. Which means they officially denied that Dokdo belonged to Japan. They even called it Liancourt rocks. What a silly discussion.
ponta, the only pointless silly talk is yours.
ReplyDelete