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.
The link above to the 21th collumn instead of 22th one.....
ReplyDeleteThanks, GTOMR
ReplyDelete半月城こと朴炳渉氏は竹島が日本領でないことを示そうとしているが、本当に必要なのは日本が国際法に則って編入した1905年以前に朝鮮が竹島を支配した証拠(事実)を示すことではなかろうか。それが示せたならこの問題は簡単に解決するし、朴炳渉氏自身も韓国の英雄として称賛されることだろう。韓国の国情を考えると名声だけでなく富も手にすることができるはずだ。なのにそれをしようとしないのはなぜなのか。何か不都合なことでもあるのだろうか。
ReplyDelete韓国側がしなければいけない事は、
ReplyDelete石島が独島であることを証明することのできる、「石島」の場所や形状を特定できるだけの記録、または地図などが必要ですね。 方言変化仮説ではなくて。
一番怪しいのが、禹用鼎が鬱陵記を書いたと時にひょっとすると添付地図があったのではないかと思うのです。（現状確認されていない。）しかし、赤塚正輔の地図は残っています。1882年の李圭遠の調査のときに、李圭遠、桧垣両方の鬱陵島地図が残っているように、禹用鼎の時の調査も、赤塚だけでなく、禹用鼎も簡単な地図を書いていたのではないか? と根拠もなく推測します。なぜならあの文章を添付地図なしに読んだとき、彼からの報告を聞く側にいる人が、添付地図なしに鬱陵島の事を想起できるのか、疑問です。地勢の報告をする際には詳細地図を添付するのが普通だと思うのです。
関係ないですが、独島プロパガンダ博物館にて、完文と捜討説目が臨時展示されていたので、見せてもらうよう頼んでみましたが、拒否されましたw。おそらく竹島の話など書いていないので嘘がまたバレるからでしょうか。
北沢は、細かいのですが、竹島考証第二十四號で、非常に重要なことをきちんと記載しているのです。
ReplyDeleteそれは、戦艦天城の調査によって、
「於是竹島松島一島兩名、或ハ別ニ二島アルノ說紛、紜決セス」とあります。
つまり、それ以前までは、「說紛、紜決セス」では無かったことが読み取れます。
また、版図外としたのは、はっきりと、「今日ノ松島ハ卽チ元錄十二年稱スル所ノ竹島ニシテ、古來我版圖外ノ地タルヤ知ルヘシ」と書いてあります。
磯竹島略図には、江戸時代の松島が出てきますが、これはおそらく開拓願いや瀬脇他などの報告で聞いているような、彼らが当時認識していた明治時代の松島Dageletとは全く違う島だったので、巡視の必要性が唱えられ居るものの、確認できないので外一島としたのではないかと推測します。
細かいことですが、「於是竹島松島一島兩名、或ハ別ニ二島アルノ說紛、紜決セス」でなくて「於是竹島松島一島兩名、或ハ別ニ二島アルノ說紛紜、決セス」ではないでしょうか。「紛紜（ふんうん）」とは乱れた様を表す言葉です。するとこの文は「ここにおいて1つの島に竹島松島という2つ名があるとも、あるいは別の島につけられたものだという説が入り乱れていてはっきりしない」と読み下せます。
ReplyDelete「今日ノ松島ハ卽チ元錄十二年稱スル所ノ竹島ニシテ、古來我版圖外ノ地タルヤ知ルヘシ」との記述があるのなら、太政官が版図外とした「他一島」は今日の竹島でなく、「幻の鬱陵島」と理解した方が良さそうですね。
仮に今日の竹島を版図外としたとしても1905年の編入の効力には何ら影響を与えないでしょう。なぜなら朝鮮側の資料で韓国領だと裏付けられていないのですから。日本領でなければ自動的に朝鮮領になるものでもないでしょう。そこを間違えている人たちがいるんですよね。困ったものだ……。
22nd? maybe
ReplyDeleteid say twenty tooth fairies r a bit too many
Dokebi
ReplyDeleteWelcome to our blog.
If you are interested in Takeshima/Dokdo Dispute, start with Questions and Answers (Q&A) or ”Recommended Articles (English)”on 日本語インデックス (Japanese Index).
I honestly hope to hear logical opinion from Korean.
Prof. Shimojo wrote:
ReplyDelete"......his conclusion was the Meiji government's opinion. "Another island = Matsushima" in 1877's Dajokan instruction was confirmed that it was Ulleungdo in 1881, resulting that "today's Takeshima/Dokdo has nothing to do with Dajokan's instruction," actually."
Don't the pro-Japanese people feel guilty with his statement?
He is lying in spite of the so clear evidence that an "another island" was described concretely as Matsushima in the attached map and document to Dajokan Order. I think the pro-Japanese people know how, but if you want to reconfirm, see Attached Document and Attached Map.
He is connecting two documents totally unrelated each other. Kitazawa Masanari's conclusion has nothing to do with Daokan Order.
Park Byeong-seop is absolutely right, Prof. Shimojo's definition of "another island" in Dajonkan Order is changing for his unstable logic.
His lie is very childish. It's surprising he teaches college students in Japan. He must be a lobbyist rather than a scholar. Is Japan going to teach Japanese middle and high students his false theory? I'm ready to tell them the truth.