Below is a translation of The 14th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" A Reckless Courage of the professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University（東京学芸大学）. ”
Chosun Ilbo dated July 25 praised Professor Kimishima Kazuhiko of Tokyo Gakugei University as "He is a man of "Courage" who claimed Takeshima/Dokdo as historically Korean territory". 3 days after Mr. Wakamiya of Asahi Shimbun obscured the real image of the Takeshima issue based on baseless claim by Mr. Naito Seichu in its column "風考計", Professor Kimishima restrained Japanese Government not to force the issue to the classroom.
However, there is a huge gap between the speech/behaviour of Mr. Kimishima reported in Chosun Ilbo with the ones in Asahi Shimbun. In Asahi article, he claimed "Do not bring Takeshima Issue, which has not reached to the definite conclusion, into Education." But surprisingly, Chosun Ilbo reported that Mr. Kimishima claimed that "Although I'm not a specialist on the Takeshima Issue nor ever have studied the primary historical resources at all, I agree with Professor Emeritus Naito's opinion. I think the claim that Takeshima is Korean territory, because the claim which oppose his opinion is not persuasive."
Two problems lurk here. First of all, the fact he, the professor of the University blindly followed the baseless theory of Mr. Naito without any criticism required.
Moreover, professor Kimishima have been co-studied History Textbook with Korean side since about 10 years ago and even published the book "History of Japan-South Korea exchange (日韓交流の歴史)". In other word, he is supposed to have enough knowledge of the situation of Education in Korea, in which History textbook have been teaching kids that "Japan had incorporated Takeshima/Dokdo into its territory without consent" from 1/4 century ago. Now Korean side, who had been refusing even conversation against Japanese protests, finally admitted the existence of territorial issue. Then, do they, who have been bringing Takeshima/Dokdo issue into Education, really have any rights to require Japanese government to withdraw from mentioning Takeshima in the teacher's guidebook ? On what basis? The reason of this Korea and Professor Kimishima's illogical and one-sided attitudes is they are seeing the history from the biased and prejudiced historical recognition that "Takeshima cannot be Japanese territory."
Both of these are based on Mr. Kimishima's erroneous findings of fact. Up to now, though Mr. Naito has been openly critical to the opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he has never officially declared that Takeshima is a South Korean territory. And Korean side has been used the part of criticism against MOFA of his distorted logic to reinforce their own view. One of his distorted interpretation is the sentence of "Takeshima and another island has nothing to do with Japan.（「竹島外一島之儀、本邦関係之なし」）" in Dajoukan Order(太政官指令) in 1877 . "Another island" which Mr. Naito misinterpreted as today's Takeshima, was actually confirmed to be Ulleungdo by Japanese Navy and MOFA later, in 1880. Because of this fact, Mr. Naito has recently started illogical claim that Japanese defined Takeshima as Korean territory before the incorporation of Yanko-to(Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima) into Shimane in 1905. The grounds of his recent claim are "The Fishery Guide of Sea around Korea(韓海通漁指針)"（1903） and "The New Guidebook for the business in South Korea (最新韓国実業指針)"（1904）, in which Yanko-to(Liancourt Rocks/Takeshima) were mentioned under the section of Kangwon Province(江原道). However, both books clearly described eastern boundaries of Korea as "130°35" east", hence naturally, they exclude Takeshima/Dokdo from Korean territory. In addition, "The Geography of the Great Korea(大韓地誌)", the geography textbook which Korean Empire published in 1899, also defines the eastern limit of Korea as "130°35" east" as well.
Though Professor Kimishima proudly admits that he has never studied primary historical materials, it was actually Mr. Naito Seichu, who has never studied primary historical materials carefully, every time, as always. In spite of Mr. Naito's claim without proper study of primary historical materials, Professor Kimishima somehow decided that " I agree with Professor Emeritus Naito's opinion. I think the claim that Takeshima is Korean territory, because the claim which oppose his opinion is not persuasive." It is their own claims which are not persuasive at all.
For the historical study, the document criticism and the appropriate operation of historical materials are indispensable. Professor Kimishima neglects those appropriate procedures and blindly follows Mr.Naito's groundless theory. What is his secret agenda to insist "not to bring Takeshima Issue into Education" while doing an advantageous remark to Korea based on this absurd claims? This is exactly the act what we call "a prostitution of learning(曲学阿世)".Reference :
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
Other Column of the Series:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”
The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"
The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"
The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."