2009 - Oct. 25 - 日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク (Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - Sovereignty of Japan that keeps being violated-")
UPDATE
ご報告です。
当日参加してきましたので簡単ですがご報告いたします。
前半は学生中心でしたが、後半に自民党衆議院議員新藤義孝氏、島根県議上代義郎氏、県土竹島を守る会の方々が登壇され、大変興味深いものとなりました。新藤先生は竹島の歴史について正確な知識をお持ちのようで、韓国の主張、特に于山島が現竹島であるなどという説が、如何に歴史的事実に反する妄言であるかをお話していました。韓国側、日本の外務省にも働きかけを行っているようですから、私も一国民として応援していこうと思いました。上代先生と守る会の方々のお話からは、島根県が国内からの様々な逆風に耐えて筋を通し竹島の日を制定したそのご苦労、そしてなかなか国が動かない、国民レベルの運動に広がらないといった焦りが窺えました。
実は今回学生以外にも、明らかに右翼と分かる方々も沢山登壇されました。下條先生が2月の竹島の日記念式典で野次を飛ばした右翼団体の方々に「こんなところで騒ぐくらいならもっときちんとした場所で主張してみよ」と発言の機会を与えた、と聞き及んでいます。正直私としては大いに違和感を感じるものでしたが、普段街宣車に耳を塞いできた自分にとっては、ある意味で勉強になったことも多々ありました。
竹島は我が国固有の領土であることは、3年以上この問題の歴史的背景を独自に学んできた私としては、ゆるぎなき事実であるとの認識です。領土・領空・領海を守ることは、国民として当然のことで、それはなんら隣国に対して脅威をもたらすものではありません。しかし竹島は韓国に不法占拠されている状態が続いており、韓国政府に対して各方面から強く要求し続ける必要があります。その思いを前提として今回の経験をまとめるならば、島根の関係者の方々、右翼も含めた真に国の行く末を案じる方々が孤立しないよう、そして特に先鋭化しないで良い方向に向かっていくよう、自分なりの方法で側面支援していこう、との思いを新たにする良い機会になった、と言うことです。
歴史的資料の発掘、韓国側重要書類の入手、「竹島問題に関する国際法論文選」出版プロジェクト2009、ブログでの研究成果の出版、韓国人の若者との対話の機会を設ける、ネットで活動している竹島研究家の方々や学生たちとの研究ネットワーク作り、竹島みやげの開発、等等沢山アイデアがありますが、こうした考えを一つ一つ実現して行きたいと思っていますので、是非皆様のご協力をお願いしたいと存じます。
(追記、ここまで)
１０月２５日、韓国の「独島の日」にあわせて拓殖大学下條教授と有志の方々が以下のイベントを開催します。学生さんたちが中心に、島根県議なども参加されるようですので、ご興味のある方は是非ご参加下さい。
Marathon talk "For Reconciliation and Friendship of Japan-South Korea - Sovereignty of Japan that keeps being violated-" to be held in Takushoku University on Sat Oct. 25 at 13:00
日韓の和解と友好を考えるマラソントーク ― 侵され続ける日本の主権 ―
●日時
１０月２５日（日）１３：００～１６：００（１２：３０～受付開始）
●場所
拓殖大学文京キャンパスＳ館４階４０１教室（東京メトロ丸の内線「茗荷谷」下車）
●登壇予定者
拓殖大学、早稲田大学、慶応大学学生及び大学院生。島根県議ほか。
●会場整理費
一般 ５００円
学生 無料
●主催
拓殖大学下條研究室
●後援
特定非営利活動法人日本領土領海戦略会議
23.10.09
21.10.09
The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 2
Below is the second part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr.Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 2"(1) Takeshima and Matsushima in the Government Compilation Geography Books
Mr. Park enumerated the article "Oki(隠岐)" of 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo, vol.50 (Japanese topography summary : 日本地誌提要)", which is compiled by the government, as grounds to which the Meiji era government made Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks) "Outside the territory in Japan." In the article of "Islands" of the same book, following "Shimazushima(島津島)" and "Matsushima(松島)", "the adjacent islands/dependencies of Oki" are enumerated as follows.Ohmori island(大森島). It belongs to Tsuto village of Ochi Town. Twenty-cho north of Matsushima. The circumference is 25-cho and 57-ken. From east to west, it is 7-cho. South to north, 7-cho. ○ The dependency of "This Country(Honshu : 本州)". Chibu town, 45. Ama town, 16. Suki town, 75. Ochi Town, 43. 179 in total. Those are called Oki's small islands, in general. ○ And there are 2 islands, Matsushima and Takeshima, to north-west. According to the local's information passed down, people sail to Matsushima from Fukuura harbour. About 69-ri 35-cho in sea route. (From Oki's Fukuura) To Takeshima. About 100-ri and 4-cho. To Joseon. About 136-ri 30 cho in sea route.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
「大森島。穏地郡津戸村に属す。松島の北弐拾町。周回弐拾五町五拾七間。東西七町。南北五町。○本州の属島。知夫郡四拾五。海士郡壱拾六。周吉郡七拾五。穏地郡四拾三。合計壱百七拾九。之を総称して隠岐の小島と云。○又西北に方りて松島竹島の二島あり。土俗相伝えて云ふ。穏地郡福浦港より松島に至る。海路凡六拾九里参拾五町。竹島に至る。海路凡百里四町余。朝鮮に至る海路凡百三十六里参拾町」Mr. Park derived the following conclusions from the description of this 'Japanese topography summary'.
It is important that this geography book, compiled by government, described Takeshima and Matsushima separately from the belonging island in the Mainland(本州). If two islands are not dependency of mainland, naturally, they are neither the dependency of Kyushu nor Hokkaido, thus it is understood that both islands were treated as outside of Japanese territory. (p34)Mr. Park literally interpreted "belonging island in the Honshu(本州)" of the text here as the "Mainland (of Japan)", not "This Country(=Oki)", and interpreted Takeshima and was Matsushima of the following sentence, "○ And there are 2 islands, Matsushima and Takeshima、 to north-west." , are not dependency of Honshu(mainland).
However, "Belonging island in the Honshu" said by "Oki" of 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo' means "Belonging island in Oki Country(=Hon-shu : this country) ". That is apparent since in the article of Oki's "Situation" and "Government", all the word "州" are used for Oki itself, not a mainland of Japan(本州 : Honshu).Besides, this book enumerates Shimazushima(島津島)", "Matsushima(松島)" and "Ohmori shima(大森島)" followed by the sentence "The dependency of "This Country(=Oki)" because the author meant that "Oki" has 179 tiny islets along with Shimazushima or Ohmorishima and there are two more islands "Takeshima and Matsushima" to the north-west. Thus, there is no trace, as Mr. Park claims, that "Takeshima and Matsushima were separately from the adjacent island in the Honshu(本州). " It is twisting an argument for him to insist that "If two islands are not dependency of mainland, naturally, they are neither the dependency of Kyushu nor Hokkaido, thus it is understood that both islands were treated as outside of Japanese territory."
In addition, in the article of "Oki" of this book, it say "From Takeshima(Ulleungdo) of the two islands to Joseon, it is about 136-ris and 30 cho by the sea." That is the concrete evidence the author of the book considered Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japanese territory, or he wouldn't have written the distance from Takeshima to Joseon.
Mr. Park ignored this fact and concluded that both islands were treated as the outside of Japanese territory based on this article of "Oki" of this book. He even cited Tanaka Akamaro(田中阿歌麻呂)'s "Old record of Takeshima of Oki Country"(Journal of Geography, Vol. 17, No. 8, 1905), and claimed that "Tanaka, the geographer of Meiji period, also considered as it was (outside of Japanese territory)"."In the first year of the Meiji era(1968), the geography division of central government( 正院地誌課) denied Japan's sovereignty of "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)" and it led the maps published afterward showed the existence of "that" . Miyamoto Sanpei(宮本三平)'s "The map of Japanese Empire", published by the Ministry of Education, depicted it but didn't color it putting outside of the territory of the empire." (p34)
However, notably, Mr. Park used trick into the quote here. He inserted the note "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)" in Tanaka's article and claimed that Tanaka also considered Takeshima=Dokdo as outside of Japanese territory.
But, it totally disobeys the intention of Tanaka Akamaro. Because Tanaka soon corrected that "Takeshima of Oki" in the former article was not today's Takeshima ,as Mr. Park noted, in the very opening of "Additional remark" in the end of a book, in which he worte the article titled "The geography knowledge of Takeshima of Oki Country"(Journal of Geography, Vol. 18, No. 6, 1906) next year.
According to the article mentioned above, the article "Old record of Takeshima of Oki Country" in the no.200, 201 and 202 of the journal was not about Takeshima, but Ulleungdo. (p419)
------------------------------------------------------------
「以上の記事によれば本誌第二百号二百一号及び二百二号に掲げたる「隠岐国竹島に関する旧記」の記事は全く竹島の記事に非ずして欝陵島の記事なるが如し」（419頁）As it is clear, Tanaka voluntarily corrected his own mistake of having confused Takeshima with Ulleungdo next year, and corrected in the additional remark. For all the fact, Mr. Park intentionally inserted the deceiving note "that(Takeshima=Dokdo, noted by Mr. Park)". Mr. Park, who twisted the "Oki" 'Nihon Chishi Teiyo' even dishonestly altered the article of Tanaka Akamaro so that he can use it as a logical base for him to claim that Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(today's Takeshima) was made outside of Japanese territory.
Mr. Park has preoccupying opinion that "The Meiji government consistently held fast to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory of Japan until the "the incorporation of Ryanko-to(Takeshima=Dokdo)" in 1905", and this biased preconception made him arbitrarily interpret and even fabricates the factious history.
However, there were certain recognition that Takeshima and Matsushima were Japanese territory in the Meiji era. It stems from "Records on Observations in Oki Province (Onshu-shicho-goki : 隠州視聴合記)", which wrote Takeshima and Matsushima are the northwest limit of Japan (note 1), and Ohtsuki Shuhei(大槻修平)'s 'Saikoku Nihon Chishi Yoryaku (Revised Summary of Japanese Topography)' (1875) also follows it.(note 2) Mr. Park's claim, "it is not too much to say that all the governmental organization which has strong relation to Takeshima and Matsushima considered Dokdo to be Joseon territory(p46)", is totally groundless, since it turns out that Matsushima of the "Takeshima and the other island" in the 1877's Dajokan instruction was actually Ulleungdo, not today's Takeshia and this order, "Takeshima and the other island has nothing to do with our country.", didn't include today's Takeshima.(note 1) Refer to colum no. 6 & 7
(note 2) In "Oki" articles of Otsuki Shuhei(大 槻修平)'s "Revised Japanese topography summary' (vol. 5) , it is recorded as follows. "To begin with, this country is the westernmost and is solitary island in Sea of Japan, and to the northwest sea, it exists both Matsushima Takeshima. It is said that both of them are close to Joseon area, but there are no inhabitants nor government for belonging and people from each area made it as a hunting grounds where they often came to hunt sealions.
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
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 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”
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)."
Reference :
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 2/2) (島根県 (竹島の)由来の概略)
1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)
1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.
13.10.09
中央日報「独島を守ろう」と作った教科書に誤り１５カ所
中央日報：
http://japanese.joins.com/article/article.php?aid=121457&servcode=400§code=400
独島（トクト、日本名・竹島）をめぐり、昨年日本の外務省が「竹島は日本の領土」だという内容のハングル広報資料を出すと、韓国の中央政府・地方政府は先を争って独島守護対策をまとめた。しかし国務総理室や文化財庁などが１１日にハンナラ党の李性憲（イ・ソンホン）、韓善教（ハン・ソンギョ）議員に提出した国政監査資料によると、各機関の対策に一貫性がないことが明らかになった。
外交通商部は４月に慶尚北道（キョンサンブクド）教育庁に「小学校の独島教科書の内容に誤りがある」として検討するよう要請した。２月に発行された独島教科書のうち、▽１８８２年に倭寇が鬱陵島（ウルルンド）で略奪をする部分▽独島という名前が１９０６年に初めて使われたという部分などが歴史的事実と異なると外交通商部は指摘した。１８８２年には略奪したのではなく伐木をしたもので、独島の名前が初めて使われたのは１９０４年というものだ。また太宗（テジョン）実録の「于山島」（ウサンド）に言及した部分については、「日本側の批判を受けた部分だ」として削除を要請した。
このように外交通商部が修正または削除を勧めた部分は１５カ所に上る。外交通商部側は「教科書を３月に入手し内容を検討した。今後教科書を改訂したり類似した教科書政策を進める場合、総理室や外交通商部と協議してほしい」と要請した。「独島守護」の次元から作られた教科書が充分な関係官庁の協議を経ずに製作されていたのだ。
特に総理室は３月に各官庁に宛てた公文で「独島関連広報が機関別に個別・分散的に進められることで、広報引用資料が一致せず、広報論理の統一性が欠如した」と指摘したことが明らかになった。
韓善教議員は「独島問題が起きると各種の対策を浴びせながらしっかりと推進もできない問題が繰り返されている。各政府機関が事前調整なく拙速に事業を進めればむしろ逆効果になる」と主張した。
http://japanese.joins.com/article/article.php?aid=121457&servcode=400§code=400
独島（トクト、日本名・竹島）をめぐり、昨年日本の外務省が「竹島は日本の領土」だという内容のハングル広報資料を出すと、韓国の中央政府・地方政府は先を争って独島守護対策をまとめた。しかし国務総理室や文化財庁などが１１日にハンナラ党の李性憲（イ・ソンホン）、韓善教（ハン・ソンギョ）議員に提出した国政監査資料によると、各機関の対策に一貫性がないことが明らかになった。
外交通商部は４月に慶尚北道（キョンサンブクド）教育庁に「小学校の独島教科書の内容に誤りがある」として検討するよう要請した。２月に発行された独島教科書のうち、▽１８８２年に倭寇が鬱陵島（ウルルンド）で略奪をする部分▽独島という名前が１９０６年に初めて使われたという部分などが歴史的事実と異なると外交通商部は指摘した。１８８２年には略奪したのではなく伐木をしたもので、独島の名前が初めて使われたのは１９０４年というものだ。また太宗（テジョン）実録の「于山島」（ウサンド）に言及した部分については、「日本側の批判を受けた部分だ」として削除を要請した。
このように外交通商部が修正または削除を勧めた部分は１５カ所に上る。外交通商部側は「教科書を３月に入手し内容を検討した。今後教科書を改訂したり類似した教科書政策を進める場合、総理室や外交通商部と協議してほしい」と要請した。「独島守護」の次元から作られた教科書が充分な関係官庁の協議を経ずに製作されていたのだ。
特に総理室は３月に各官庁に宛てた公文で「独島関連広報が機関別に個別・分散的に進められることで、広報引用資料が一致せず、広報論理の統一性が欠如した」と指摘したことが明らかになった。
韓善教議員は「独島問題が起きると各種の対策を浴びせながらしっかりと推進もできない問題が繰り返されている。各政府機関が事前調整なく拙速に事業を進めればむしろ逆効果になる」と主張した。
2.10.09
The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”, Part 1
Below is a first part of the translation of The 22nd column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao
" Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)” - Part 1Last time, I clarified the fact that Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)'s article " Refutation against "Analysys of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" (Dokdo Research, No. 4) was just an groundless false description. In the article, he failed to prove his claim that "there was neither "Fabrication" nor Falsification" of the historiography that Masao Shimojo claimed " to be true.
His false claim lead me taking up his another article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) for discussion this time. Although he claims that "Meiji government recognized Takeshima and Matsushima as outside of territory", he again avoids and refrains from the historical facts which are definitely disadvantageous for him.
According to him, "the Meiji government consistently held to the policy of making Takeshima and Matsushima outside the territory in Japan until incorporation in 1905" (p36), but "the territory incorporation was decided in the Cabinet Council "since it was a pressing need under the difficult situation" in the middle of Russo-Japanese War, defining Takeshima=Dokdo as "Terra nullius." (p49)"
In his article, he wrote, "Shimojo Masao's opinion, which is extremely uncommon, on the definition of "Takeshima and another island" has been
changing every year. (p37)", while he tried to stress how much his claim is genuine. He denounced my opinion that "he changed his own opinion(p37)", "he changed his own opinion again (p38)" or "uncommon opinion(p38)".Then, what is the "the opinion on the definition of "Takeshima and another island"" Mr. Park mentions? It is, in October of 1876, Shimane Prefecture 's inquiry about the inclusion of Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan" submitted to Minister of Interior And Dajokan, the highest governmental organ of Japan, responded that "Takeshima and another island, it is understood that our country has nothing to do with them" next year.
This fact collapses Mr. Park's claim that "the related organs, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Army, Navy and Dajokan considered the island as Joseon territory(p48), thus Japanese inclusion of Takeshima into Shimane was invasion." Maybe, Mr. Park niggled over my opinion so that he may able to conceal this fact. In the last summary, he concluded as follows." Afterwards, Japan that developed as an imperialism nation decided the territory incorporation of Takeshima = Dokdo by a Cabinet Council in the middle of Russo-Japanese War from the judgment with "the incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation." Japan’s claim was based on terra nullius (meaning unclaimed land). It is needless to say that this is contradictory to "Takeshima as Inherent territory" theory on which present Japanese Government insists. (p49)"However, it was not true. I am going to point out the problems in his article "The Meiji Government's Recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" (Studies of the cultures in Northeast Asia, no.28, 2008, pp.33-49.) now.
(to be continued to the part 2, 3, and 4)
“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第２２回 朴炳渉氏の「明治政府の竹島＝独島認識」（「北東アジア文化研究」第２８号）を駁す 下條正男”
Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.
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 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."
The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"
The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”
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)."
Reference :
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 1/2) (島根県 渡航禁止のいきさつ)
1876 - Shimane prefecture explains the history of Takeshima in 1876 (Part 2/2) (島根県 (竹島の)由来の概略)
1877 - Argument about "another island": details of the compiled official documents (公文禄) of the Ministry of the Interior (太政官指令)1880 - Japanese Warship "Amagi" (軍艦天城) Surveys Ulleungdo and finds "Takeshima" is Jukdo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)