竹島問題の歴史

14.8.12

2006 Email Informing Me My Teaching Contract Would Not Be Renewed Because of Dokdo Postings

The screenshot to the left is of a December 22, 2006 Email I received from the English Department Head at Gachon University in Incheon, South Korea, where I worked as an English instructor for six years. The email informed me that my employment contract with the school would not be renewed for the 2007 school year. The Department Head believed it was because of my Dokdo postings on the Internet. She wrote: "I think there is little doubt that the school made this decision because of the Dokdo problem."

I am posting it because Robert Koehler of The Marmot's Hole has questioned HERE whether the refusal to renew my employment contract was really due to my Dokdo postings. Here is my translation of the Email I received from my department head at Gachon University:
Teacher Gerry, 
Yesterday, I called again to the Dean of Academic Affairs and urged him to quickly make a decision on your contract problem. This morning, at a meeting attended by the president and the deans of the school, your contract problem was discussed, and it was decided that your contract would not be renewed. I was informed by the Dean of Academic Affairs at about 11 a.m. At the time I was on a train to Daejeon to attend an academic meeting, so I could not contact you right away. I am contacting you now after having arrived home just a little while ago. I think there is little doubt that the school made this decision because of the Dokdo problem. It also hurts me to have to relay this news.
The English Department at the school had two Korean professors and two foreign instructors, including me. In addition to getting the above Email from the Korean professor who was the department head, I also secretly recorded the other Korean professor telling me in both Korean and English that she was in the room arguing that my contract be renewed when the Dean of Planning told her "The Dokdo problem is just too big" to renew my contract. The Dean of Planning had told me just a month or two earlier that I did not have to worry about not being rehired.

Soon after I posted the news on the Internet, I got a call from a Korea Times reporter asking to interview me. I agreed and met her at the McDonalds at the Sinchon Rotary subway entrance. She asked me to bring the secret recording and the copy of the Email I received. The article she wrote about the interview can be read HERE.

Judge for yourselves.

37 comments:

  1. Fascinating, as usual. You know so much about Korea, and I about Japan. It'd be interesting to sit down and have beers sometime ^_^

    Just wondering, are you going to make a post on the President Lee Myung-bak Dokdo visit?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Gerry, it's been a long-time since I posted the last posting but I keep concerning about you and the Dokdo issue too. It's a pity that you were not rehired by the university but in a sense you got a free pen now that you are free from the Dokdo religion in Korea.

    As Mr. Peter in Japan wrote , please refer to the President Lee's Dokdo visit too.
    Keep up the good work.

    Pacifist (in Japan)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Apart from your view on Dokdo, by having this floor open for discussion, you truely do contribute to better the relationship of the two countries. I hope your former employers will see this someday and hope you won't give up your good intentions behind this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I now live in Texas, Peter, so it would be a pretty expensive beer. I just put up a comical post on the Korean president's visit to "Dokdo" to allow people to comment on it, but I have not really thought about posting my own thoughts. I would, however, be interested to hear what the Japanese are saying about it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is really good to hear from you, Pacifist. I was worried that something might have happened to you.

    I am no longer bothered about not being rehired at that Korean university. I simply put this post up to prove to a guy that runs another blog that it really did happen the way I said it happened.

    The only thing that still bothers me about that incident is how fast my Korean colleagues at the university turned on me simply because I had discussed the "Dokdo" dispute on the Internet. I did not discuss it with my students or with the Korean professors at my school, not because I feared their reaction but because it never came up in conversation.

    I had lived in Korea for about 25 years and had never realized how sensitive and closed-minded Koreans were when it came to Dokdo. And the most astonishing thing was that the Korean professors were the most closed-minded. I was really shocked and disillusioned.

    One day the school administration seemed to really like me and frequently praised my teaching skills; the next day everyone was avoiding me and talking behind my back.

    The only Korean professors who continued to support me were the two professors in the English Department. I believe they really did do all they could do to try to get the school to rehire me.

    It was only when I started talking about filing a complaint with the Labor Ministry that the Department Head suddenly changed her story and said it was not because of Dokdo. However, the other Korean professor had already told me the details of what had happened at the meeting and that it was because of my Dokdo writing that I was not being rehired. When I told the Department Head that the other professor had already told me the details of what happened at the meeting, she was dumbstruck because she knew I had caught her in a lie.

    That was really disappointing for me because I had worked with that professor for six years, and we always got along well together. When she needed something, I was always there to help her. However, when I really needed her, she not there for me.

    Anyway, Pacifist, I hope you are doing well, and I hope you start posting again. Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sincerely, I'm sorry to know what happened to Gerry Bevers.

    If the school decided not to renew the contract with Mr. Bevers simply because of his Dokdo comments on Internet, it's just wrong and I hate it.

    But what if his view was seriously biased and distorted from the school's point of view? What if the students and parents felt uneasy about his view on Dokdo no matter what the reason was? What if his view was too extreme for the school to be ok? I just suppose it and I don't know the answers, but there's one thing I'm sure that Gerry Bevers' view on Dokdo is severly one-sided in favor of Japanese claim.

    The title of his blog is "Dokdo- or- Takeshima?", which sounds very neutral, but there's no any single posting in favor of Korean stance. All postings here he and the Japanese posters put represent Japanese claims mostly denying Korean stances. He bashed almost every insistence by Korean commentors. (It seems he doesn't recently. And I always appreciate he allows me to repute Japanese claims in his blog.) Besides, some of his postings show distorted views, not just different ones.

    I read Gerry Bevers wrote on Internet in Nov. 2006 "The president suggested that if I have strong opinions on the subject, I should write about it in an academic paper or hold a seminar rather than broadcasting it over the Internet." It seems the president tried to respect his views on Dokdo.

    I'm not saying he deserves not to be rehired.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr.Bevers,

    Your contract refusal case was reported with a Japanese newspaper five years ago. Most of Japanese who were interested in Takeshima issue must have worried about you. In addition, I suppose they would have recognized over again that Korea was the country in which freedom of speech is not guaranteed.

    Anyway, now I wish you to live peacefully in Texas, handling this blog which searches the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. He is just a anti-Korean American. School and students wouldn't be happy with such a teacher.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That is a travesty of justice.
    He behaves like this weblog simply because he is concerned about Koreans.
    It is truly noble action.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've been writing about the issues as seen from Japan, although trying to not get too carried away as the average person doesn't care that much ^^ Here are two posts:

    http://www.peterpayne.net/2012/09/diplomatic-crisis-in-asia.html

    and an earlier post

    http://www.peterpayne.net/2012/08/japanese-territorial-issues-and-cat.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mr. Bevers:
    This is mickster from MH.
    I do not know how to change my public name here so it shows whatever the system decides. 梵 is my dog's name.

    I was wondering what drove you against Korea so much ... until I read this post. I am sorry about what happened to you. You must have felt betrayed.

    Over there at MH, you are being treated as an unwelcome Japanophile and some comments here censure Korea as not allowing freedom of speech.

    But I sensed something dreadfully Japanese about the insincere way some folks at the Korean university treated you: hiding real awkward reasons, coming up with untrue, face-saving ones.

    It was Dokdo in Korea. It would be the emperor in Japan. You would not lose you position in Japan for arguing that Takeshima belonged to Korea, but if you started expressing views on Hirohito's war responsibility, I suspect something similar would happen. I harbor similar negative feelings toward Korea and my own country.

    Anyway, it is good to get to know you better, the way people treat you at MH notwithstanding. And my belated apology for misspelling your name at the other blog.

    Best regards

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mickster, thanks for writing.

    First, I am not against Korea. I only dispute its claims to Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima / Dokdo)and question its claims on a few other historical issues, as well.

    One of the reasons I question Korea's claims on some other historical issues is that I have seen for myself that her claims to Liancourt Rocks are totally bogus, which now makes me suspicious of other Korean historical claims involving Japan.

    Second, it did not really bother me when the president of the Korean university called me into his office and very nicely asked me not to write anymore about "Dokdo" on the Internet since he explained that he had gotten a complaint and that it could possibly hurt the reputation of the school. I understood that and agreed not to write anymore about it on the Internet.

    What did bother me, however, was the school's not renewing my contract a month or so later and then lying about the reason for not doing so. That did not turn me against Korea; it turned me against that school.

    The Korean friends I had then are still my friends. And I still like Korea, but I no longer trust Korea to tell a fair and honest version of its history with Japan.

    As for the people at the Marmot's Hole, all I can say is that they do not really know me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Bevers,
    Thank you for your response.
    I now understand your stances toward Korea for one and and its historical claims for another.
    I will be around here and there at MH.
    I wish you well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Gerry Bevers said "i still like Korea." I doubt about it. Reading this blog, he seems to trust Japanese side 100% and Korean side 0%. Is it possible even though he dislies Korea? It doesn't matter he likes Korea or not to me, but I just don't trust what he says.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anti-Japan sentiment of Koreans
    is greatly influenced by the false history that Korean Gov. educated to the people through the historical textbooks.
    Koreans should know it.

    국사 교과서에 그려진 일제의 수탈상과 그 신화성(国史教科書に書かれた日帝の収奪性とその神話性)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Would love to see a new post by Gerry about the "pre-colonial Japanese textbooks show Dokdo as Korean territory."

    ReplyDelete
  17. Peter in Japan,

    I'm not sure about "pre-colonial" textbook. But if you are talking about 『日本歴史地図』in 1924, I'd like to post the public comment released by Shimane Prefecture with their permission. I hope you translate it for us.

    Honestly, it's sort of a waste of time to take up his story seriously, though. His name is 金文吉.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think he(Peter in Japan) referred to the map 「新撰地誌」 made by 岡村増太郎.↓
    http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/549221.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks, Kumabear

    Peter,

    Apparently, they are Argonaut and Dagelet(Ulleungdo), not Ulleungdo and Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks) from their location.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kaneganese,

    Do you still try to mislead the readers by insisting "They are Argonaut and Dagelet(Ulleungdo), not Ulleungdo and Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks) from their location."?

    Can you answer why Okamuru drew Argonaut which was non-existent ghost island in the textbook? And why did he miss Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks) which the Japanese had drawn consistently since 1779? I’m sure you can’t answer,

    The reason Dokdo(Takeshima) and Ulleongdo(Matsushima)were drawn at the wrong location is here. If the link doesn’t work, go to http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.kr/#!/2012/04/how-did-siebolds-mapping-error.html.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Argonaut-Dagelet-Liancourt Rocks-Oki

    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru02/ru02_00002/ru02_00002_0001/ru02_00002_0001_p0028.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  22. この地図は、非常に面白いですね。

    早稲田大学図書館
    http://www.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kotenseki/html/ru02/ru02_00002/

    新撰地誌. 巻之1-4 / 岡村増太郎 編纂

    出版書写事項:明治20[1887] 文学社, 東京府
    形態:4冊 ; 23cm
    巻之3,4:明治20年6月17日 文部省検定済 小学校教科用書
    明治19年刊の訂正再板
    一部色刷 一部銅版
    和装
    附録:日本之部第1-3表,万国之部第1-3表
    巻之1: 総論. 日本誌. 巻之2: 日本誌続. 巻之3: 万国誌. 巻之4: 万国誌続

    画像をクリックすると、4巻全部見えます。
    1巻の28コマ目が、該当の「日本総図」です。

    海に引かれた横線が「領土」をあらわすのかどうかは不明ですが、
    拡大してみると、隠岐は日本の横線の中に、アルゴノートとダジュレーは朝鮮の横線の中にあります。面白いことに、リアンクール・ロックスは、ちょうど中間にあって「無主地」に見えます。

    なお、2巻の26コマ目に「山陰山陽及南海道」の地図があり、隠岐が描かれていますが、現竹島はありません。
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru02/ru02_00002/ru02_00002_0002/ru02_00002_0002_p0026.jpg

    この時期、島根県には編入されていないのだから、当然です。

    「日本総図」に島名の記載はありませんが、明治19年(初版)、20年(再版)の段階で、日本としては、リアンクール・ロックスについて非常に正確な知見を持っていたことがわかります。

    日本と朝鮮の国境は下図にあります。ここには隠岐はありますが、アルゴノート、ダジュレー、リアンクール・ロックスは描かれていません。
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru02/ru02_00002/ru02_00002_0003/ru02_00002_0003_p0021.jpg


    4巻の巻末奥付
    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru02/ru02_00002/ru02_00002_0004/ru02_00002_0004_p0072.jpg

    編纂人 東京府平民 岡村増太郎 東京神田区松永町19番地
    明治19年5月初版出版
    巻1、2 明治20年1月21日訂正再板御届
    巻3、4 明治20年5月30日訂正再板御届


    岡村増太郎さんは、いろんな教科書を書いているようです。
    http://wine.wul.waseda.ac.jp/search*jpn/a?%e5%b2%a1%e6%9d%91+%e5%a2%97%e5%a4%aa%e9%83%8e

    http://www.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kotenseki/html/bunko03a/bunko03a_00189/index.html

    https://ndlopac.ndl.go.jp/F/DSHM54MPU6QFJRQ26H8U4M5V4RVH8XC81ERYA1AABSYHH9NQA2-46604?func=find-b&request=%E5%B2%A1%E6%9D%91%E5%A2%97%E5%A4%AA%E9%83%8E&find_code=WRD&adjacent=N&filter_code_4=WSL&filter_request_4=&x=68&y=9


    なお、この英文記事は「オカムラ, マスタロウ」をOkamuru Matsudaroと誤って記述しています。
    http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/549221.html

    「日本海」と「対馬」の韓国側の自爆については、以下のサイトの指摘通りです。
    http://windows2012.bakufu.org/okamura_masutaro_shinsen_chishi.htm

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Kaneganese,

    I just laughed at your desperate trying to mislead the readers again.
    You said they were Argonaut and Dagelet(Ulleungdo) the other day without mentioning there was Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo). Today, you insist a dot to the west of Oki island is Dokdo. Don’t make Okamuru a fool to falsely justify you are right. It’s very disgraceful. Okamuru had no reason to draw non-existent ghost island Argonaut in the map included in the textbook.

    The Japanese clearly knew there were only 3 islands -Ulleongdo, Dokdo and Oki Island- in East Sea(Sea of Japan), thus there are no Japanese maps which drew 4 islands in East Sea(Sea of Japan) including Argonaut. If any, show me. Look at this picture. There are only 3 islands – Ulleongdo, Dokdo and Oki Island. The dot to the west of Oki island is not an island. It’s just a dot.

    ReplyDelete
  25. >The Japanese clearly knew there were only 3 islands -Ulleongdo, Dokdo and Oki Island
    If Japan made only '3-islands' maps, your argument sounds convincing. But as you know, the '4-islands-maps'(Takeshima, Matsushima, Liancourt Rocks, and Oki) existed as well.
    1867年大日本沿海略図Map of Sea along the Coast of Japan
    1870年大日本四神全図Hashimoto Gyokuran's map
    1876年朝鮮東海岸図 海軍水路寮Map of East Coast of Chosun
    Some maps indicated Takeshima was a ghost island.
    1875年朝鮮全図 陸軍参謀局Whole Chosun map
    1876年朝鮮全図 陸軍参謀局Whole Chosun map
    1877年日本全図Whole Japan map
    Could you explain to me the reason why the Japanese drew Takeshima with a dotted line? Are you insisting they doubted the existence of "ULLEUNGDO"?

    ReplyDelete
  26. おやおや、島に見えましたが、「しま」ではなく「しみ」だったのでしょうか。

    でも、この時期は、リアンクール・ロックスは日本の視界から一時的に消えていた時期なので、なくても不思議はありません。

    小野英之助(明治25年)の地図に似ていると思います。

    ReplyDelete
  27. あら、しみでした? 

    ReplyDelete
  28. Kumabear,

    I expected someone would bring those maps after I wrote this comment and Mr. Kumabear did it.

    Drawing 3 islands was typical and drawing 4 islands as in "大日本沿海略図" was exceptional. The maps with 4 islands in East Sea(Sea of Japan) Mr. Kumabear showed don’t support the map of "新撰地誌" drew 4 islands (Argonaut-Dagelet-Liancourt Rocks-Oki) as Kaneganese insisted. Anyway, thank you show me the maps with 4 islands.

    As for "大日本沿海略図(1867)", it was the copy of the British Navy’s chart "Japan Nipon Kiusiu & Sikok Korea"(1863) which was influenced by Siebold’s map. When this map was made, the Japanese were calling Ulleongdo Takeshima. Thus, it can’t be said Takeshima in this map was Argonaut for sure. The Japanese at that time call Dokdo Matsushima. Then why Matsushima was in the shape of Ulleongdo and why Liancourt Rocks was drawn in this map? It was because this map was the copy of western map which had errors. The Argonaut was the non-existent island in the western map, but the Japanese didn’t generally draw the Argonaut in the map. It was typical Japanese recognition there were 3 islands in East Sea(Sea of Japan).

    “大日本四神全図” was based on the “大日本沿海略図”(1867). There’s no Oki Island in "朝鮮東海岸圖"(1876) by Japanese Navy Waterways Bureau which was a copy of Russian Chart.

    Kumabear wrote "Some maps indicated Takeshima was a ghost island." This comment also doesn’t support Okamuru drew 4 islands (Argonaut-Dagelet-Liancourt Rocks-Oki) as Kaneganese insisted. In the map of "新撰地誌", there are only 3 islands.

    Mr. Kumabear asked "Could you explain to me the reason why the Japanese drew Takeshima with a dotted line? Are you insisting they doubted the existence of "ULLEUNGDO"?” Could you make clear the point you want to ask me?

    ReplyDelete
  29. 「日本總圖」は隠岐西北に二島しか描いていないようです。

    Only two islands are drawn northwest of Oki in 「日本總圖」 “Entire Territory Map of Japan” of 『新編地理書』 “Newly-compiled Textbook of Japanese Geography” edited by KOBAYASHI Yoshinori in January 1887. This map is exactly the same as that of 『新撰地誌』 “Newly-selected Geography Textbook” edited by OKAMURA Masutarou and published by KOBAYASHI Yoshinori in May 1887, reserved in Waseda University Library.

    Kaneganese 様とmatsu様は、早稲田大学所蔵『新撰地誌』の「日本總圖」は、隠岐の西北に三つの島、即ちアルゴノートとダジュレーとリアンクール・ロックスを描いていると見做しました。一方、sloww様は、隠岐近くのdotは島ではなく、“just a dot” と書きました。

    小林義則編『新編地理書』文學社 (1887) にも、岡村増太郎編『新撰地誌』文學社 (1887) と全く同様な「日本總圖」が載せられていますが、それには隠岐近くのdotはありません。

    1876年10月島根県は、江戸時代初期、鳥取藩の商人達がしばしば渡航して産物を持ち帰っていた竹島(鬱陵島)を島根県に編入しようとしました。しかし、明治政府は1877年3月「竹島外一島之儀本邦関係無之」と決定しました。そのため極めて僅かな例外を除いて、1880年代以降の日本の地理書や地図に、竹島(鬱陵島)や松島(現竹島)が、日本領として記されることは無くなりました。「日本總圖」はそのような地図の一つでしょう。

    ReplyDelete
  30. arare様 

    小林義則版、どこかに映像はありますか?

    ReplyDelete
  31. matsu様

    小林義則編『新編地理書』文學社 (1887) の映像は私の調べた限りでは無いようです。
    私は数年前、明治期の地理書を見て楽しんでいた時、偶然見つけました。副題は日本地誌となっており、表紙裏に「日本總圖」が折込図として綴じられていました。
    なお、東京学芸大学図書館から1881年版が『小學日本地誌』として映像化されていますが、地図はありません。最初の文章は『新編地理書』と全く同じです。そのURLは次の通りです。
    http://hdl.handle.net/2309/120179

    カーリルで調べたところ、愛知県津島市立図書館が『新編地理書』を所蔵していました。

    同じくカーリルによると、『新撰地誌』全四巻を次の図書館が所蔵していました:三重県・兵庫県・愛媛県。何れも県立図書館ですが、映像化はされていないようです。
    なお、山形県立博物館は『新撰地誌』巻之一を8部ほど所持しています。
    http://db.yamagata-museum.jp/muse/education/search.php

    ReplyDelete
  32. My bad. It looks like Argonaut and Dagelet. No Liancourt Rocks.

    You can check it out on GTMOR's site.

    https://sites.google.com/site/takeshimaliancourt/Home/Korean-media-black-propaganda/20120828

    ReplyDelete
  33. Arareさん、ありがとうございました。

    日本には、幕末から明治初期にかけて、竹島・松島(鬱陵島と現竹島)をともに日本領と認識している長久保赤水系の地図がいくつかあります。
    一方で、明治維新後、伊能忠敬系の日本地図が解禁されて出回ると、竹島・松島をまったく表示しない日本全図がむしろ一般的になります。
    その後、朝鮮半島と日本列島がともに表示される地図が出てくると、日本海にアルゴノートとダジュレーを描いた地図が出てきます。それぞれ「竹島」「松島」と書いてあることもあります。リアンクール・ロックス(現竹島)は表示されていないものがほとんどです。

    こうした流れで見ると、岡村増太郎の『新撰地誌』も、リアンクール・ロックス(現竹島)は描いていない、と考える方が良いと思います。

    Kaneganeseさんの紹介した画像で見ると、ちょうどリアンクール・ロックス(現竹島)の位置に「点」が見えます。

    http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru02/ru02_00002/ru02_00002_0001/ru02_00002_0001_p0028.jpg


    この画像を見て、「ああ、現竹島を描く地図が、この時期にもあるんだ」と感動して、上のコメントを書きました。
    しかし、よく見ると、日本列島の東方海上にも似たような点があります。これは、やはり「しみ」と見たほうが良いと思います。もちろん、現物をじっくり見ないと確実なことは言えませんが。

    ただし、朝鮮半島から東に張り出した横線のなかに描かれた2島は、位置から見て明らかにアルゴノートとダジュレーであり、この地図をもって、当時、日本がリアンクール・ロックス(現竹島)を朝鮮領と見ていた、という韓国側の説は成立しないと思います。

    ReplyDelete
  34. I’m glad Kaneganese admitted what was wrong with her claim and I hope no more Japanese would insist Argonaut-Dagelet-Liancourt Rocks-Oki were drawn in『新撰地誌』 afterwards.

    However, this time Kaneganese brought the Japanese funny and childish attempt to compare the geographically inaccurate old maps with the modern satellite maps to deny the 19th century Japanese cartographers perceived Dokdo as Korean land.

    Kaneganese or anyone, can you explain why GTMOR's site supports your claim that the two islands are Argonaut and Ulleongdo near Korea and there’s no Dokdo in 『新撰地誌』? To me, that site is tactfully misleading the ignorant readers.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete