竹島問題の歴史

5.7.09

The 20th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”

Below is a translation of The 20th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao


Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"

Korea's "Dokdo Center" of Northeast Asian History Foundation held a exhibition called "Dokdo island viewed from Ulleungdo" in the Diet member hall and the National Diet Library from May 18, 2009 to the 29th. The Center have researched how many days they can view Japanese territory Takeshima from their Ulleungdo as a project "Visible days of Dokdo investigation" in fiscal year 2008. The 30 or so photos of exhibition was taken while this investigation, and "Dokto territory protection measures special committee" of the South Korea Diet backed this up.

However, even if Takeshima in a Japanese territory is seen from Ulleungdo of the South Korea territory, you cannot expect the effect of " ultimately refuting the fabrication of Japan's claim which denies Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo as being Korea's inherent territory, and informing inside and outside the country of it universally".

That is because Japanese Government had already named Liancourt Islands,
that was terra nullius in 1905 based on International Law, Takeshima and incorporated into Japanese territory. Naturally, South Korea have no qualification to insists on Takeshima as her inherent territory. The concept "Inherent territory" represents the territory which had not been ruled by any other foreign country ever, while Takeshima was actually under the effect rule of Japan since 1905. Apparently, Japan who had Incorporated terra nullius has the qualification to assert Takeshima as his inherent territory, while Korea doesn't.

Besides, it doesn't make "Visibility of Dokdo from Ulleungdo" thorough this exhibition empirically proves the records of historical documents, such as the geography text of Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄 地理志). " as they explain.

Korean have been translating Usando which appered in the paragraph of Uljin Province in geography text of Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄 地理志 蔚珍県条) as today's Takeshima unilaterally, and they mistranslate the sentence "風日清明則可望見(they are visible on a clear, windy day.)" as "Takeshima is visible from Ulleungdo". However, "可望見(they are visible)"in the geography text of Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄 地理志is a description which describes Ulleungdo as can be seen from Choson peninsula, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Takeshima. This is crystal clear if you read a paragraph of Uljin Province in Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽 蔚珍県条), which has similar description. Following "風日清明則(On clear, windy days, )", it reads as "峯頭樹木及山根
沙渚歴々可見(
the trees on the summits and the sandy beaches at the base of the mountains are clearly visible.)", namely, the situation of Ulleungdo seen from Choson peninsula.

The island "the trees on the summits and the sandy beaches at the base of the mountains are clearly visible." cannot be today's Takeshima which consists of two barren rocks. That is because on Takeshima, there is no trees nor sandy beaches. Accordingly, Korean afforests to little land in
the rock,
destroying the nature system of Takeshima even now in order to make it fit to the description believing
there should have been a trees.
This is an outrageous act of violence that stems from lack of ability to understand their own historical documents.

As long as Takeshima issue is a historical issue, we have responsibility to present the documented historical evidences and prove them empirically. From that point of view, the fact that both sentences
"可望見(they are visible)” in the geography text of Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄 地理志 and "歴々可見(clearly visible)" in Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽) refer to Ulleungdo, as is seen from Choson peninsula, is empirically proved by the historical facts.

At the end of 17th century, when Korean fought over the belongings of Ulleungdo with Japan, Korean did used this a paragraph of Uljin Province in Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽 蔚珍県条) as their evidence and they translated correctly as Ulleungdo is
visible from Choson peninsula in order to claim Ulleungdo as their
territory.

And Many others, like Park (朴世堂) who wrote "Ulleundo(欝陵島)" based on a pharagraoh of Uljin Province in Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽 蔚珍県条), or Kim Jeong-ho(金正浩) who also wrote "自本縣天晴而登高望見則如雲氣(From this province, on a clear day, if you climb high and see, then it looks like the look of the sky.)" in "Daedongjiji" ( 大東地志 ), they confirmed that it was Ulleungdo which is visible from Choson peninsula.

Then, why did Korea become to stretch their interpretation of meanings of ""可望見(they are visible)" and "歴々可見(clearly visible)" to the visibility of Takeshima (Dokdo) from Ulleungdo? It was caused by Mr. Kawakami Kenzo(川上健三)'s remark that Takeshima (Dokdo) can't be seen from Ulleungdo unless they climb a mountain, which was calculated by using a formula to prove about the visibility written in the geography text of Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄 地理志 or Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽). Perhaps Mr. Kawakami wanted to object to the Korean interpretation that "visibility" written in "世宗実録地理志" and "東国輿地勝覧" meant visibility of Takeshima from Ulleungdo. However, if Mr. Kawakami Kenzo criticized the reports concerning "世宗実録地理志" and "東国輿地勝覧" from the beginning, it wouldn't make Korean side to go this far recklessly. 

On the other hand, Korean side, who repelled against Kawakami's opinion and interpreted the discriptions in "世宗実録地理志" and "東国輿地勝覧" arbitrarily, came to expose the limitation of their history studying. It is not unrelated to the fact that Korean history studying has a feature to disregard critical examinations and to show a strong tendency to interpret the documents with a preconception that "Takeshima (Dokdo) is Korean territory". Actually, it has been proved that Usando in "世宗実録地理志" and "東国輿地勝覧" had nothing to do with today's Takeshima (Dokdo). It has been confirmed that the annotation written in Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo(東国文献備考・與地考), "According to Yojiji(輿地志), Ulleoun and Usan are all the land of Usanguk (Usan country). Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima", was a fabrication in the later years, which made the premise for the Korean side to think Usando as today's Takeshima (Dokdo) totally collapse.

It is necessary for South Korea to excavates a document
that states Usando as today's Takeshima
other than Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo(東国文献備考・與地考), or they never would be able to escape from a historical reality of their own act of invasion of Japanese land. Korean never stops interpreting the historical documents arbitrary though there are no historical grounds, and keep slandering Japan, who claim the sovereignty of their stolen island Takeshima of their own, by calling him "territorial ambitious". That is a shameless behaviour and outrage against "Human race's universal value" that Korean themselves recites.

Northeast Asian History Foundation that held groundless exhibition called "Dokdo island viewed from Ulleungdo" fabricated the history of false again, and cheated
the international society, again.


“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第20回 「東北アジア歴史財団」の愚挙 下條正男”


Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

The 17th column “The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"

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

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

References :

Q1: Has Dokdo been a part of Korea since the sixth century?
Q 2: What is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island?
Q 3: Why did old Korean maps show Ulleungdo as two islands?
Q 4: Did King Sejong's geography text mention Dokdo?
Q 5: Did Korea's 1530 "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" mention Dokdo?

1656 - "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima."

1863 - Description of Ulleungdo from Kim Jeong-ho's "Daedongjiji" (金正浩 大東地志 )

4 comments:

  1. Hi Kaneganese,

    Lots of thanks for the excellent job!!

    I hope some of intelligent Koreans will notice that Korean government has been cheating not only Japan but also their own people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, pacifist

    At least Korean should read Kawakami's book before they claim "Kawakami said Takeshima is not viewable from Ulleungdo." He only said in the context of visibility from sealevel, not high level. He wrote we need to climb 130m higher place on Ulleungdo.

    This Korean calculated it was 92m, but he, at least, understands what Kawakami said, unlike other fanatic Korean academics.

    ReplyDelete

  3. Another distortion by Prof.Shimojo !

    Prof. Shimojo wrote:

    "Korean have been translating Usando which appered in the paragraph of Uljin Province in geography text of Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄 地理志 蔚珍県条) as today's Takeshima unilaterally, and they mistranslate the sentence "風日清明則可望見(they are visible on a clear, windy day.)" as "Takeshima is visible from Ulleungdo". However, "可望見(they are visible)"in the geography text of Annals of King Sejong (世宗莊憲大王實錄 地理志) is a description which describes Ulleungdo as can be seen from Choson peninsula, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Takeshima."

    There’s nothing wrong with Korean translation of geography text of Annals of King Sejong. It’s Prof. Shimojo who shamelessly mistranslates it. Why does he skip the word "二島(two islands)”. The text in question is "于山武陵二島 在縣正東海中 二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見" which means "Usan and Mulleung(=Ulleongdo) are two islands in the due east sea of (Uljin) hyeon and these two islands are not far from each other and are visible from each other on a clear windy day.”

    The text clearly described the two islands are visible on a clear windy day. Dokdo is the only island seen from Ulleongdo on a clear windy island. It doesn’t make sense to interpret two islands are Ulleongdo and Korean peninsula. It’s obvious he intentionally skipped "二島(two islands)" to mislead.

    He also states :
    "This is crystal clear if you read a paragraph of Uljin Province in Dongguk Yeoji Seungram (東國輿地勝覽 蔚珍県条), which has similar description."

    He cunningly cites a similar description of different document published 50 years later. Is nothing but a similar description. He writes as if only he knows "Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" described Ulleongdo can be seen from Korean peninsula, but Koreans know it. "Annals of King Sejong" recorded Dokdo is seen from Ulleongdo and "Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" recorded Ulleongdo is seen from Korean peninsula. His distortion only serves to prove "Annals of King Sejong" is a very important Korean document Japan should desperately distort because it is a strong evidence Korea in ancient times recognized the existence of Dokdo.

    He shamelessly added "This is an outrageous act of violence that stems from lack of ability to understand their own historical documents." Does he think he is smart enough to deceive the people?

    If Prof. Shimojo is right, Korean act of violence should naturally appear on the pamphlet "10 Issues of Takeshima” by MOFA(Ministry of Foreign Affairs) of Japan refuting Korean claims on Dokdo. But MOFA doesn’t mention "Annals of King Sejong" a very strong evidence in favor of Korean claim, which means MOFA of Japan finds nothing wrong with Korean translation of geography text of "Annals of King Sejong".

    Japanese people should know Prof. Shimojo is dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought that way, too, at first. However, I had to end up with this:

    http://blog.naver.com/isoword/220565001807

    ReplyDelete