竹島問題の歴史

12.8.12

Korean Soccer Player Denied Medal After Displaying "Dokdo" Sign

According to a New York Times article entitled "South Korean Denied Medal After Political Statement," South Korean soccer player Park Jong-soo was barred from receiving his bronze medal at the London Olympics on Saturday for displaying a Korean sign that read "Dokdo Is Our Land" (독도는 우리 땅). Mr. Park was not on the podium with his teammates at the medal ceremony.

Mr. Park held up the sign after South Korea's 2-0 victory over the Japanese soccer team.

The article said that Mr. Park faces investigations by both the International Olympic Committee and FIFA, soccer's governing body, because both organizations strictly enforce rules forbidding athletes from making political statements on the field.

Link to Yahoo! News, Canada Article

215 comments:

  1. Koreans insist, in many places of the world, that Dokdo/Takeshima belongs to Korean territory.
    However, there is one place where they can not state that claim. It is International Court of Justice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think so...Chaamiey.
      Mr.Park's ceremony is not political statement. If David Becham held up the sign after international game as following sentence "London is our land".
      Is it political????

      Delete
    2. Sorry for my.poor.english
      i agree.with yoon also.some.korean people.live.in.dokdo so.dokdo is completely korean territory

      Delete
  2. Do you know why? ICJ deals the dispute cases only, but Dokdo has not been disptuted between two countries, Korea and Japan. There is just unilateral claims from Japan, which never gives up to insist its territorial sovereignty to China and Russia. Among the defeated countries of the Second World War, Japan is the only nation which never recognize its wrongdoing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The victim wants to solve the problem at the court. The assailant wants to make some excuses and escape from the trial.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Japan is not victim. Japan was assailant and the justice made Japan paid the price. But Japan now shamelessly behaves as if she is a victim.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The player park didn't intention to hold that sign at first. I mean he got it from audience. But is this a really a big deal? As much as he couldn't earn the medal? Was there some scheme? I don't understand. Did they just don't want to let Koreans fully celebrate their victory? They want to make people's attention to this dispute? The decision of IOC is very disappointing. I won't mention how ridiculous Japan has been behaving over Tokdo. So greedy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The player park didn't intention to hold that sign at first. I mean he got it from audience. But is this a really a big deal? As much as he couldn't earn the medal? Was there some scheme? I don't understand. Did they just don't want to let Koreans fully celebrate their victory? They want to make people's attention to this dispute? The decision of IOC is very disappointing. I won't mention how ridiculous Japan has been behaving over Tokdo. So greedy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is basically like a chinese player holding up a sign saying "TAIWAN IS CHINA". Of course this is wrong. Especially in Olympics of all places. And I heard the Korean player would have been drafted to the army if they lost. Whats up with that

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course it would be wrong to hold up 'China is Taiwan' because Taiwan ISN'T Chinese territory. Taiwan is a country who received independence long time ago btw. But this is different. Dokdo is Korean territory. It is Korean Island. Its a fact.

      Delete
    2. Of course it would be wrong to hold up 'China is Taiwan' because Taiwan ISN'T Chinese territory. Taiwan is a country who received independence long time ago btw. But this is different. Dokdo is Korean territory. It is Korean Island. Its a fact.

      Delete
  8. Dokdo is Korean territory. The Korean soccer player was telling the truth. You Japanese are just jealous that Korea beat you 2-0. So there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. These type of people are the ones who make the world a horrible place. This is a sporting event, not a propaganda stage. The people of Japan aren't as aggressive as the people of Korea who's got tremendous hatred for them. All player that creates that kind of spark which leads to chaos shouldn't be allowed to act or take part in any sports. Irresponsible jerks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How familiar are you with the history of your motherland, crimes occurred during the period of Japanese imperialism, and chronic denial of Japanese authorities when it comes to apology and repentance for their wrongdoings at a humanitarian level before international community? We all love our country, however, we cannot be blind to the absolute flaws of our country, especially as flaws amounted to brutalization of innocent victims including my own great grand father.

      Delete
  10. And just for zyour nfo JAPAN BEAT KOREA IN VOLLEYBALL U LOSER

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you are.monkies.arent.you? it is not.good.news.for.korea but actually.soccer.is more popular than.volley ball?? You lose 2-0 yellow monkies.haha

      Delete
  11. Michael,

    It's very inappropriate to compare "Dokdo is our land." with "Tawain is China. The sign didn't say "Japane is our land." Dokdo is not Japanese land. The statement on the sign just confirms Dokdo is Korean land.

    Dokdo as an inherent territory of Korea has been under effective control of Korea since Japan defeated in the WW2. Dokdo is the small, uninhabited island which Imperial Japan illegally incorporated into Japanese land in 1905. After Japan lost the WW2, Dodko was returned to Korea according to SF Treaty because it was the land Japan took from Korea by greed and violation.

    Dokdo is just a part of Korea which Korean peoples are living. Japanese claiming "Dokdo(Takeshima) is Japanese land." is like Japanese claiming "Korea is Japanese land because we colonized it before." "Korea is Japanese land." sounds very nonsense, doesn't it? Claiming "Dokdo(Takeshima) is Japanese land." is nonsense as much as "Korea is Japanese land."

    I hope you understand the real situation related on Dokdo.

    For your information, every Korean young men should do the military service for about 2 years. There are some cases they can be exempted from military duties. The athletes can get exemption when they do outstanding performance at the international tournament. Only 4 weeks military training is required for them and their career s players replace their military duties. Korean soccer players didn't play for not going to the army. Exemption from military service by winning a bronze medal at the London Olympic was a wonderful bonus for them. The most important motive for their great performance at the match with Japan was their love for Korea and Korean people.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yoon,

    I am not criticizing Park's action, but pointing out the fact that Korea can not have the argument about the issue of Takeshima/Dokdo fairly in the International Court of Justice.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If Koreans truly believed Dokto had been belonged to them, it is perfectly unnecessary to appeal in the Olympic soccer game.
    Now Koreans own Dokto, it is unprofitable to admit there is border dispute.
    The more they appeal it, the more world doubt the legitimacy.
    Japan have similar dispute between China, but we will not appeal it because we know there is literally “no” problem.

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

    ReplyDelete
  15. Do you know the fact that Korean inhabitants are actually living in Dokdo, guided by Korean marine police? The island has never been dominated or inhabited by Japan in its long history. It has always been a territorial part of Korea, but suddenly Japan started to claim its sovereignty after WW2. This is the fact, not a claim from anyone.

    So, no, this is more like an American player holding up "HAWAII IS AMERICA," with anger toward a shameless neighbor. I don't think doing this kind of action at the sport event was appropriate, either. However, the content of the sign is true, and the fact is far away from what you know now.

    ReplyDelete

  16. Nozomu Yoshida,


    Yes, Park Jong-woo's behavior was kind of childish claiming what is rightfully ours as ours even though it was not preplanned intentional ceremony. I'm sorry he didn't give more thoughts on his ceremony.

    I'm not supporting his emotional behavior, but I'd like to say many Koreans are so frustrated with Japanese shameless claiming on Dokdo and Park's behavior reflected Korean resent sentiment on Japanese repeated sovereignty claim to Dokdo.

    It has been Korean mainstream position that we don't need to respond to Japanese claim on Dokdo because Dokdo is indigenous Korean territory, but in recent years Japan has taken increasingly shameless moves to assert its ownership of Dokdo. Last month, Japan renewed its claims over Dokdo in its 2012 edition of the defense white paper. Last year, Japanese government approved new school textbooks offering a distorted account of the facts about Dokdo. I wonder if the Japanese have ever imagined the future of Japanese young generation who grow up learning "Korea is illegally occupying Takeshim(Dokdo) which is Japanese intrinsic land." Teaching the distorted version of history would result in the great misfortune for the future of Japanese young generation because Japan can never have Dokdo as Japanese land.

    Korean government has long pursued a so-called “quiet diplomacy” over the Dokdo issue restraining in responding to Japan’s provocations on the grounds that overreaction would only serve Japan’s intention to escalate the dispute over Dokdo. But it's time for Korea to change this approach because no matter how Korean govenment makes efforts, Japanese government will continually pursue to make Dokdo as international disputed land. Korea is realizing passive attitude on Japanese provocation is not working and taking a more active stance to appeal to the world is needed to stop Japanese reckless claim.

    Park's incidence is something like that shouldn't had happened, but I hope it works as an opportunity for the world to know about Japanese attempt to legitimize past imperialist territorial greed for Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Everyone has opinions, that's fine. But do Koreans realize (in addition to whatever real validity your claim is), you are regularly being used as tools by politicians who whip you up in nationalistic fervor every time their popularity drops a little?

    Americans are often very nationalistic, but many of us are thoughtful and intelligent enough to debate our own history critically, e.g. Jefferson was a great American and a real hero for the U.S., though in reality he was a slave owner who fathered children through his black slave mistress. Often the pattern is, we have political views that are kind of 1-dimensional, but when we attend university we realize how much of our own history is not that clear-cut. Also there are "national lies" that we believe, like George Washington throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River, which never happened.

    Korea (the "nice" one ^_^) is a great country, and you've done fabulously, but you guys need to mature more to really debate topics openly and freely, not just from the side of Korea vs. Japan. This is part of the maturation process of any country. Based on the ability to be self-critical, I can't rank South Korea that highly, to be honest.

    Let's say absolute evidence were found proving Takeshima/Dokdo was Japanese territory, somehow. Evidence from your own side of the Sea of Japan/East Sea. Would you ever be convinced, under any circumstances, or would you refute the evidence, beat on your chest and perhaps stick a knife 2 cm into your stomach to protest? I know the answer to this question, and thus this isn't an intelligent debate.

    (In case anyone is angered, I believe Dokdo is Korean territory mainly because you possessed it for 50+ years after WWII. Though the evidence isn't very clear as the islands were specifically left out of the treaties after WWII, so your hands are not perfectly "clean" on the issue. But Japan should recognise the actual situation as it stands now.)

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

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree Peter.

    Japanese government’s attitude toward Dokto has not changed after 50’s ; they always have been claiming the possession.
    Problem is, Japan have found many detailed evidence of old maps and governmental documents, which shows Japan had owned Dokto for long time before the Japan's Annexation of Korea. They had begun to appeal them through Internet recently. While, Koreans had found only few doubtful evidence.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2007/05/japanese-document-and-map-links.html
     That is the main motivation for Japan to bring this dispute to the international court of Justice and maybe the main reason why Koreans stlongly refuse the suing.
    But anyway, Koreans have owned Dokto for almost 50 years, personally I think the situation will not change in future regardless this historical debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dont be pathetic to
      hog the.dokdo haha
      there.are.some.korean.people.who.live.in.dokdo i dont know deeply but it.is.true.that. Dokdo is.not yours.but.korean.territory and i want.japan.to apologize like.german for.the killing koreans,..

      Delete
  20. The following is Msn Japan publishes report.

    http://photo.sankei.jp.msn.com/essay/data/2012/08/0811korea/

    In the South Korean reason, Mr. Paku player gathered the placard thrown in the pitch and performed the demonstration.
    However, Mr. Paku player extended the hand himself, and has looked at and received the side of placard written in Korean.
    Mr. Paku player should have refused what is received if it is a political message.
    This will not have apologetic room, either.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Koreans live in dokdo. And in japan, some of japanese and celebrities move there address to dokdo but in real they don't live in dokdo. Also any korean can visit dokdo if they want. But in the case if japanese,they need passport and permission.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Peter living in Japan,

    I wonder what made you think Koreans are being used as tools by politicans who whip them up in nationalistic fervor every time their popularity drops a little? Your comment reminds me of the Japanese stupid saying "Koreans are brainwashed by Korean government." How is it possible for a government brainwash its people in the democratic nation?

    I think probably you are talking about the President Lee's visit to Dokdo. In every country, some politicians do things just for their popularity. Not all Koreans are for his visit to Dokdo. There are many, probably more, people and politicians who are against it. Korean people are intelligent enough to know and criticize what is wrong and right on what their government or the politicians do. If you know the Korean language and read the Korean newspaper or any articles on different opinions on issues in Korea, you'll find what you believe is not true.

    Then, why do Korean make one voice for Dokdo? It's because it's an absolute truth. We can't help it. But there are some people against it even though they are very few.

    Many Koreans are thoughtful, intelligent and mature enough to debate topics openly and freely like Americans do. Different and opposed opinions on whatever are allowed in Korea. If you believe Koreans can't debate topics openly and freely, it means you are ignorant on Korea and Koran people.

    ReplyDelete
  23. なかなかしゅん,

    http://imgmmw.mbn.co.kr/storage/news/2012/08/11/E7B04A04-E707-40E7-AA0C-2C6E7081471E.jpg

    韓国チームみんなで、規則に違反して、巨大な国旗に政治的看板を載せて練り歩いたのです。
    S. Korean team paraded the contrary of a rule with a political signboard on the huge national flag.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFuAkNrN7c

    ReplyDelete
  24. This blog is also the same.
    In the blog in South Korea, it is as follows.

    "Motiving performance for Mr. Paku player at the match with Japan was their love for Korea and Korean people."
    "Can't it be claimed that Dokdo is our territory?"

    In a Japanese blog, it is as follows.

    "If this player's action is allowed, the meaning which holds the Olympic Games will be asked from now on."
    "The difference in the respect level to the Olympic Games of Japanese and South Koreans clarifies, and South Koreans are looking down upon the Olympic Games."
    "Did Argentina claim "Faukland is our territory" in Britain?"
    "The difference in the respect level to the Olympic Games of Japanese and South Koreans clarifies, and South Koreans are looking down upon the Olympic Games."

    In a high-school baseball convention of Japan, if a player causes a scandal also one person, joint liability will be imposed on an entire team and it will decline participation of a convention.
    In the case of the heaviest responsibility, participation of a convention is declined even if someone of school students cause a scandal.
    This much, the level of the consciousness to a sport of Japan is high.

    It is thought that the level of the consciousness for a South Korean sport is low.
    It is thought that only show is thought.

    This is the difference between Japan and South Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nozomu Yoshida,

    You can't find the real truth about Dokdo issue in this blog. This blog is seriously distorted and one-sided in favor of Japanese claim.

    The numbers of old Japanese maps which depicted Dokdo can't prove Japanese ownership of Dokdo. The problem is there's no Japanese old maps , if any, showing Dokdo as Japanese land.

    As to the Japanese documents, there are 3 decisive evidence the Japanese government excluded Dokdo as Japanese land.

    1. Matsushima(Dokdo) was not an island belong to any province of Japan (1695)
    2.
    How Takeshima & Matsushima(Dokdo) Became Part of Joseon(朝鮮国交際始末内探書, 1870)

    3.
    Japan has nothing to do with Takeshima and another island(Dokdo).(太政官指令,1877)




    It's so absurd to ask Korea to go to ICJ because Korea has no problem with its ownership of Dokdo. Why should Korea ask ICJ to judge if Korea or Japan is the real owner? Japan is claiming its territorial sovereignty to Kuril island which is under the effective control of Russia. Why doesn't Japan ask Russia to go to ICJ?

    Nozomu Yoshida said "Koreans have owned Dokto for almost 50 years, personally I think the situation will not change in future regardless this historical debate." It's my personal wish Japanese people like you urge the Japanese government to stop sovereignty claiming to Dokdo for the future of the relationship between Korea and Japan because the situation of Dokdo ownership would never be reversed.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sloww,

    Amen-ing to every byte of your text.


    And to all Pro-Takeshimas,

    Y'all need to first realize how "justful" ICJ really is, and what position it helds in terms of humanity and global society.

    Before adding any more ignorance to your already ignorant image, please do study the material before coming to the class. No "debate" is possible with someone who doesnt have the knowledge to base his thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 小嶋日向守,

    援護射撃ありがとうです。

    >S. Korean team paraded the contrary of a rule with a political signboard on the huge national flag.

    ->Not only Mr. Paku player but the entire team committed violation of the Olympic Charter.

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

    ReplyDelete
  29. If these South Korean soccer players' political behavior is allowed, the Olympic Games will tolerate becoming a place of an appeal battle of the race and border dispute of every corner on the world.
    Through Munich, Mexico, Moscow, and Los Angeles Olympics, It tried hard that IOC separates a sport from politics.

    Activity of the former of IOC will be denied.
    South Koreans do not understand the importance of things.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It is better not to hold the South Korean Olympic Games for the time being, unless this political behavior is corrected.

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

    ReplyDelete
  32. Does South Korea call Mr. Paku player a hero also this?

    I also regard as influential that the South Korean President visited Takeshima.


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

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mr. Sloww you must be very intelligent and knowledgeable, I am sorry that I ‘m not.

    Because the location and the name of Dokdo were historically very confusing among both Japanese and Koreans, and some evidences are clearly questionable by many reasons, (especially for opponent countries) ,so it needs some calm, academic, synthetic dispute.
    It is not necessary to be in the international court, but fair Internet argument could work ,I believe.
    Most Japanese still believes to have strong confidence and evidence which shows we had recognized and possessed the islands very long before 1905, as Japan diplomat had pointed as:
    http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/pamphlet_k.pdf
    If possible, I want to know Korean government’s official counterargument about their recognization and possession of Dokdo before the Japan's Annexation of Korea.
    The facts are sometimes very cold compared to opinion, aren’t they?

    ReplyDelete
  35. The question why Japan does not ask Russia to go to ICJ about territorial dispute is;
    I suppose we have not yet settled territorial problems. USR had not signed the Treaty of Peace with Japan at San Francisco, so we are still negotiating territorial problems now.Before the settlement, we can not go to the international court of justice, I suppose.

    As far as I know, under the Treaty of Peace with Japan, Korean and US diplomat had negotiated about the possession of Dokdo,

    Korean’s ambassador letter; http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima/pdfs/g_sfjoyaku02.pdf

    Rusk’s answer; http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima/pdfs/g_sfjoyaku03.pdf

    American ambassador’s answer;
    http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/takeshima/pdfs/g_sfjoyaku04.pdf

    These facts are the basics of Japan diplomat’s opinion about Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Kyungsun Kim
    >I mean he got it from audience. But is this a really a big deal?

    [IOC's Olympic Charter]
    "50-3. No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas."

    J.S.Yoon
    >If David Becham held up the sign after international game as following sentence "London is our land

    Do you know why Beckham does't do such a thing? Because he doesn't have to. Why do you think are Koreans shouting "Dokdo is Korean" everywhere? Because they are insecure and know that Dokdo is current disputed territory better than anyone. If Koreans really think "Dokdo performance" has not political meaning, why did they perform ONLY at the Japan/Korea match? They didn't do that at games against Brazil or U.K.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Nozomu Yoshida,

    I appreciate your willingness to know about the Korean stance. I'm regularly writing reputing comments on the postings on this blog. It seems to be a long way to go for me, but I'll continue as long as I feel it's necessary. I have a strong confidence to prove Japanese logic is very flawed.

    As to Korean counterargument on MOFA's "10 Issues of Takeshima", I tried to link to "Northeast Asian History Foundation", but it doesn't work for some reasons. So I give you a link to the private blog including Korean counterargument by "Northeast Asian History Foundation".

    http://ds5ean.byus.net/bbs/zboard.php?id=sasu&page=1&page_num=20&select_arrange=headnum&desc=&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&keyword=&no=25/&category=1

    You can read my comments at http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.kr/2008/03/2008-10-issues-of-takeshima-by-mofa.html

    -----------------------------------

    You said "under the Treaty of Peace with Japan, Korean and US diplomat had negotiated about the possession of Dokdo," Are you talking about Rusk Note? Japan uses Rusk Note as evidence U.S. supporting Japanese claim to Dokdo, but it's not true. Rusk Note was a confidential memorandums sent only to Korean government. It means Rusk’s opinions weren't made public and conveyed to the Japanese government or allied nations. In fact, it was made public decades later. The Treaty of Peace was not treaty between Japan and US. It was the allied nations including US which designated Japanese territory according to Postsdam Declaration. Mr. Dulles never mentioned anything related to Rusk Note said in his speech at SF Treaty Conference.

    I'll comment on why Japanese proposal on going to ICJ is not valid later.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dr. Sloww

    I just glanced the site of “Northwest Asian history foundation.” which you mentioned before.
    http://historyfoundation.or.kr/
    I felt, the mood of the site is to say, very old fashioned of ideology, maybe left, dogmatic, and opinionated.(from ordinary Japanese view point.)

    I saw “3rd international Dokdo essay contest” .
    The theme was “Why was Dokdo omitted in the final version of San Francisco Peace Treaty?” in 800 words.
    Unfortunately, I could not find the prized article.
    But, I totally did not understand the meaning.
    Why is contest? Why is essay? Why in 800 words for the theme?
    There should be nonprofit at least 8000 words professional research paper.

    In Japan, we cannot do this. Intellectually it is totally intolerable and extinct.
    I want to read more official, cool, non-opinionated, professional argument, if possible.

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

    ReplyDelete
  40. ozomu Yoshida,

    Don't call me Dr., I'm not.

    You are just like the other pro-Japanese people who blindly criticize the Korean materials, which may be natural for them.

    Did you read Korean counterargument on MOFA's claims? If possible, please tell me about it, not about the mood of the site. And please comment on Rusk Note, too.

    I didn't ask you to read the essay. (what's wrong with the length of essay? It's just essay by an individual, not research paper by a professional.)

    It seems you don't know much about the real facts on Dokdo. Then, how can you distinguish official, cool, non-opinionated, professional argument? To me, Japanse views are just distortion of historical facts.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Mr. sloww 
    First of all, I'm a Japanese male who's been watching your debate with much interest. Thanx for your sincere opinions.
    On this issue, I've not been making decision on my stand point so far, so I'd like to ask a favor to show me an official counterargument to Japanese MOFA's statement for my better understanding. Cuz MOFA delivers official claim to public, I presume there would be something against it from Korean authority.

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

    ReplyDelete
  43. Mr. whitebeck,

    Thanks for your favorable comment.

    You can read the Korean counteraugument here . I welcome your any question.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 東北アジア歴史財団独島研究所の主張は何ら根拠のないことばかりで、まあブロパガンダと言っていいでしょう。
    島根県WEB竹島研究所が現在、韓国が知らない10の独島の虚偽、と題してその間違いを指摘中。まだ10項目のうち6項目までですけど。

    ReplyDelete
  45. From an international bystander's point of view, whether Dokdo is Korean territory or Japanese territory is not of our concern. The concern is that the soccer player Park Jong-Soo first and foremost breach the spirit of the Olympics, which was nations coming together to compete in a friendly manner, by displaying the audience made sign. He should never have displayed it in the first place even if the audience threw it to him. The Olympics is not a place to make a political statement but to build friendlier ties.

    Disregard the ICJ and whatever historical what-nots...the root of the problem is as simple as that. He should not have done what he did. Whether he should be denied a medal or not is none of our concern and is to be decided by the Olympic committee. The only thing I know is he made a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The conversation I am seeing above has nth to do with the soccer player but degraded into an argument between countries.

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

    ReplyDelete
  48. Mr (or might be Ms, LOL) Sloww

    I read the Korean authority's counter argument that you told very carefully. My impression is it's very decisive & concrete, while Japanese MOFA's statement is somehow abstract. That might be because that Korean one provided as answers to Japanese claims, answers are alway more concrete than prior statement, you know? Japanese government should make counter-counter argument to it but I know they won't cuz that won't do any good to our better relationship. Anyway most of all, answer #5 & #7 are very new to me. Then I'd like to ask you to show me concrete evidence to it if you don't mind.

    & Mr (Ms?) unknown

    I'm afraid our debate are drifting away from the Olympic football but things drift. We're talking about more important issue & what the player did was just a youthful folly, isn't it? I just don't blame him cuz he's just a young guy & can start it all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Unkown,

    Of all the team members, he did not alone make a bad showing.
    http://imgmmw.mbn.co.kr/storage/news/2012/08/11/E7B04A04-E707-40E7-AA0C-2C6E7081471E.jpg
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFuAkNrN7c

    ReplyDelete
  50. Also, I want to hear Korean Government's official ,responsible argument about their historical reorganization and evidences of legal possession of Dokdo. Not by non-authorized third opinion party, not counter-respond to Japanese diplomat argument, but self-standing.
    It is very strange,and cowardly.., that there is not such clear argument.
    Then Japanese diplomat will give some counterargument, so the discussion will be mutual and deeper.
    Korean Government totally need not go to the international court of Justice, because it is not profitable.
    But they should present this argument to get aprove of global opinion market, which they tried to get through the Olympic soccer event.

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

    ReplyDelete
  52. About #5 , “postwar measurement taken by aliens”, I understand that Korean’s argument is basically based on Directive SCAPIN-677 by The General Headquarters of the Allied Powers.
    This directive excluded dokdo and also Okinawa and Ogasawara Islands from Japan's governmental or administrative authority.
    (the map there seems it had excluded not only Dokdo but also Okinawa and Ogasawara.)
    But now Okinawa and Ogasawara is Japan. Why?
    Simply saying, the occupation directive in 1946 was replaced by the peace treaty in 1951.
    I will show some evidences and details.

    1.SCAPIN-677;

    1) The Imperial Japanese Government is directed to cease exercising, or attempting to exercise, governmental or administrative authority over any area outside of Japan, or over any government officials and employees or any over persons within such areas.
    2) Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration.

    2. U.S. Army Military Government – South Korea: Interim Government Activities, No.1, and August 1947

    Representatives of the Fisheries Bureau and Korea History and Geography Association left for Ulleung-do and Tok-to on 16August. The letter, two small islands about 40 miles southeast of Ullueng-do, is and excellent base for extend fishing operation.Formerly belonging to Japan, a recent occupation directive which drew an arbitrary line demarcating Japanese and Korean fishing waters placed Tok-to within the Korean zone. Final disposition of the islands’ jurisdiction awaits the peace treaty.

    3. The letter from American ambassador in Korea said;.

    The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN 677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No. 1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honsu.)

    4. The peace treaty was;
    Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

    It means Japan’s renunciation of all right for Korea was in 1951 not in 1946 or 1945.

    5. Korean government had wanted the directive in 1946 would not be replaced;

    My Government requests that the word “renounces” in Paragraph a, Article Number 2, should be replaced by “confirms that it renounced on August 9,1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the island Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo.”

    6. The answer by Mr. Dulles was;
    Ambassador’s communication, Mr. Dulles discussed the three points contained therein. With regard to the first point, Mr. Dulles was in doubt that the formula confirming Japan’s renunciation of certain territorial claims to Korea, could be included in the treaty in the form suggested by the ROK. He explained that the terms of the Japanese surrender instrument of August 9, 1945 did not, of themselves, technically constitute a formal and final determination of this question. He added, however, that the Department would consider including in the treaty a clause giving retroactive effect to the Japanese renunciation of territorial claims to August 9, 1945.

    It was well balanced comment but actually there were no retroactive effects in the treaty.

    Anyway, now we can find many evidences, and discuss deeply.
    And both specialists are needed for further discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dear. whitebeck
    I highly doubt you're Japanese, but it makes no difference to me whether you are or not. Korean side's counterarguments to Japanese MOFA were already refuted on this blog. If you have time, please search and read every article here referring to the grounds of Korean counterarguments.

    I wonder why no other teammates got blamed as well. Even though Park was only one held up the sign, no one stopped him and even they looked accepting him or rather collaborative.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dALjObnm2tQ

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

    ReplyDelete
  55. Nozomu Yoshida,

    I'm sorry to use this expression, but I feel you are very arrogant and rude.

    What's wrong with “Northwest Asian history foundation"? It's Korean government's authorized organization. If you don't like the mood of the site at a glance, you treat it as a garbage? Did you sincerely read the Korean counterargument? It seems you didn't. Does your MOFA's site suit to your taste? At a first look, MOFA's site on Dokdo is neat, but actually it is full of distortions.

    You asked me counterargument to Japanese MOFA's. That's why I gave that source. But without mentioning about the contents, you now ask "not a counter-respond to Japanese diplomat argument". What's the matter with you?

    You said "It is very strange, and cowardly.., that there is not such clear argument." If you are ready to discuss, you should present the reason.

    Do you think Japanese MOFA didn't give the counterargument to Korean counterargument because it is strange, cowardly and unclear? Japanese Takeshima Research Center has it. I hope you like the mood of that site.

    Go here. It's the site of Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and you can find the Korean governments general position on Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Mr.Sloww

    I was very sorry to use bad, uncomfortable, harsh words, and it was very inappropriate attitude to make good argument.
    You taught me kindly, so even our opinions are different, I should have paid proper respect…gomennasai.

    I read Korean Government argment picisely, and it helped me to make better understanding.
    I found some Japanese specialist ditailed argument, which is if anything in favor of Koreans side, the author criticized strongly MOFA’s argument.

    I will read them, and will write about that.

    ReplyDelete
  57. What an intriging blog.

    I'm a Korean living overseas, but I just wanted to mention to all other fellow Koreans... Please let's try and have some critical thinking behind the arguments rather than being so emotionally driven,

    Yes, Japan, unlike Germany, have not made a sincere apology to the current generations. But they did help out the Koreans with infrastrature after the war in means of saying "sorry". I do get angered by the fact that they are trying to delete the memories of all the rape, toture, murder, slavery and all the wrongdoings. However, these are nothing to do with the dokdo / takeshima debate and it should not be the source of the passion/anger to fuel the debate.


    The only way to get to any resolution is to discuss it rationally put aside emotions. Japanese seems to be doing a lot of critical thinking backed up by fair bit of evidence. What about us? Most of people who speak out so loudly dont even know what we use as evidence of ownership. This is pathetic, really. Some even going to a stage where they argue that the Japanese created those historical evidence for their use. Please find me an evidence that the documents are fraud, then I will believe you.


    Anyhow, at the moment, we are administering the islands. So I do think in that sense it is ours. I dont think history matters at the current stage otherwise the argument will never stop. It may even go so far ahead that we should really all unite and name our country as Mongolia. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hi, first time I spotted the news, I thought he is pleased with a win of the match, the Dokdo possession and qualification for military services. But, it's not. It looks like the government is removing him from serving in the army, which patriots always desire to contribute to. Can you give me an answer why he looks so pleased with the exemption from military service and the Dokdo possession at the same time?

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

    ReplyDelete
  60. Sorry for long comment. As an amateur, my first impression is; MOFA’s argument of the occupation in early modern times has some weakness.

    I felt, the concept of territory in pre-modern era was very much different from today in both countries, they might find no meaning to assert right on empty small islands. We must consider Japan had adapted isolation policy during Edo Era (250 years), when Korean had adopted empty islands policy for almost 400 years. Their basic policy had been to keep their people separated not be influenced by opposite, than to possess negligible islands. Maybe they had been much more burden than gift.

    Historically so many Japanese fishermen and traders, or pirates might have landed Dokdo, and we have clear documents of some Japanese (Ohtani and Murakami family) got closing sea license for trading in early 17th. Precise map of Dokdo was found recently, and there also are evidence of activity, hunting on sea lion, and abalone. (I found no similar evidence of activity by Koreans in Dokdo.) If it were now, government must support them, but Edo Government policy was very unclear, and double sided. They once had gave license and then prohibited landing. Anyway, Japan seems to have some advantage of substantial effective control on Dokdo.
    Japan had clearly denied the possession of Ulleungdo twice; the first was in 1695 by Shimae-han. (The second was in 1877 by Meiji Government).
    One of the biggest arguments seems here. Many Japanese scholars are insisting these statements were not including Dokdo, only about Ulleungdo. It could be but a little bit self-righteous and improvable for me. Truth is, Dokdo was negligible for the government and there was no idea to mention it, no intention to make it clear, I supposed. It had been a kind of Japanese historical tradition that, government’s control was something fictional, real control was entrusted to understructure, local governments or families.

    Of course it does not mean Korea had possession or occupation of Dokdo in pre modern times, at all. It seems that Korean Government was more uncertain, and confusing about the geographical knowledge of this area. It was very natural from their distance, governmental system, and empty island policy.
    Many Japanese scholars (and of course Mr. Garry Bevers) doubt that Koreans old maps and governmental documents had misunderstood Jukdo as Usan-do, including An Yong-bok’s testimony. There was no evidence that An Yong-bok’ had landed “Usan-do” actually. Usan-do had been often imaginary and miss-understandable. Sometimes Usan-do was another name of Ulleungdo, or the location was often described very near from Ulleungdo, then the direction was often described at west side of Ulleungdo, the size was sometimes as big as Ulleungdo, and the state was often described, as there were bamboos, field. and people.
    So the reorganization of Dokdo might have transmitted from Japan to Korean Government through An Yong-bok. After the fact, it seemed they began thinking Usan-do as Dokdo. It is understandable for me.

    So Japan might have some advantages of substantial effective control, but it could not say that Japan have had clear occupation of Dokdo in today’s meaning. And also Korea could not say that at all, I felt.

    It is also the argument about credibility of historical evidence, distinction of fact and opinion, and also political neutrality of academic. Japan has some problems, and Korea has too. We need very long time to solve this and I do not know how to do it. My honest impression is; many evidences in Japan seem original and well keeping. Maybe our government was decentralized, so local government had precise legal, historical docments. Also private family were continuous, they still keep some historical documents. They are so fragmented and of course some are disadvantageous for Japan. On the other side, Korean’s evidences seem to be much centralized, descriptive, edited, or if I could say, a little bit opinionated.

    ReplyDelete

  61. Mr.whitebeck

    I'm ready to give you my answer to your request for the evidence on #5. Because it's somewhat lengthy, I put it on my site here. I have some problems with editing on google blog, so that my post doesn't look neat.

    Even though Ahn Yong-bok's testimony was flawed in some parts, the important point of Ahn's incident is he perceived Jasando(Dokdo) is Japanese Matsushima and he declared it as Korean land in Japan.

    There's no doubt Ahn's incident led to Takeshima Incident which ended in Japanese recognition of Ulleongdo as Korean land and the Shogunate's voyage ban to Ulleongdo and Dokdo.

    For #7, I'd like to introduce you this link. It's from pro-Korean site but I think you can get some help in understanding the details of SF Treaty on Dokdo.


    ReplyDelete
  62. About #7, Thanks for the detailed site about SF peace treaty.

    These details –there were so many drafts, and difference of opinions among allied nations- are also known in Japan. There must be hard lobbying and The Korean war should have very strong influent on it.
    In Japan, it is believed that Mr. William J. Sebald had helped Japan so much, who was an agent of General Douglass MacArthur, and actual ambassador of Japan under occupation.

    As far as I researched;

    1947 3.19 Draft: Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo were included in Korea

    1947.12.29 Draft: Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet were included in Korea, Dokdo specified to remain in Japan

    1951.6.14 Draft: Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, were included in Korea, No comment about Dokdo.

    1952.7.19 : Korean diplomat claimed Dokdo and Parangdo (disputed reef in the East China Sea) should be specified to be included in Korea

    1951. 8.10 U.S. officially rejected the claim; it is known as “Rusk note of 1951

    1951. 9.8 The last version of SF peace treaty:
    a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

    I will not say much but from the view point of International law,
    1) Directive SCAPIN-677 by The General Headquarters of the Allied Powers was replaced by SF peace treaty.
    2) This is the final conclusion of territory, which means Dokdo still remains in Japan under SF peace treaty, though it might be in some passive way.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Sloww

    You forget (or intentionally omit?) the last sentence in "Tottori Han's reply to Edo Bakufu's inquiry"(Jan.25.1696)

    「尤出雲国・隠岐国之者は米子之者と同船ニて参候事」
    "But people in Izummo province and Oki province sail to Matsushima with Yonago people."

    This reply doesn't say Matsushima didn't belong to any province "in Japan", but says "in Tottori Han" only. Ironically it becomes a solid evidence that Japanese people (Shimane prefecture) were sailing to Matsushima daily.

    ReplyDelete

  64. Kumabear,

    I intentionally omitted that sentence. So what's the big deal?

    I found it was not necessary to add the last sentence because there's a sentence 松島へ猟に行っているというのは、竹島へ渡海する時の道筋であるためで、立ち寄って猟をしています。他領(松江藩、浜田藩など)から猟に行っているということは聞いておりません。", which clearly means the Japanese fishermen went to Matsushima for fishing.

    You wrote "This reply doesn't say Matsushima didn't belong to any province .". Then do you mean 'Matsushima' belong to any province?

    You also wrote "Ironically it becomes a solid evidence that Japanese people (Shimane prefecture) were sailing to Matsushima daily." It was right for you not to write "Ironically it becomes a solid evidence that Japanese people (Shimane prefecture) considered Matsushima as Japanese land because they were sailing to Matsushima daily."

    Unfortunately for Japan, the Japanese fishermen's going to Matsushima on the way to Ulleongdo just for a stopover isn't a proof of Japanese effective control of the land. Japanese fishermen's fishing activity in foreign land has nothing to do with effective control over the land. The Japanese government proved it by prohibiting the Japanese fishermen to go to Ulleongdo and Dokdo in spite of their fishing activity in those islands. To Edo Bakufu, Ulleongdo and Dokdo were obviously foreign land.

    I thought the whole translation was not necessary because this post was mainly for Mr.Whitebeck who is Japanese and I was proving Edo Bakufu's prohibiting to Ulleongdo incuded Dokdo. Anyway, I'll rewrite it to prevent the same misunderstanding from the Japanese.

    ReplyDelete

  65. Nozomu Yoshida,

    OK! Let's suppose none of Korea and Japan had the right to Dokdo before the 20 century. Then which country incorporated Dokdo first in the early 20the century? It's Korea.

    In 1900, the Korean government promulgated Imperial Ordinance No. 41 on October 25 1900 which upgraded Ulleungdo Uldo County and put Seokdo(Dokdo) under the jurisdiction of the Uldo County along with Ulleongdo and Chukdo

    Judging from your comment, I assume you would not insist Sokdo is not Dokdo just because they are different names as the pro-Japanese people do. (I hope my assumption is right.)

    Korean Imperial Ordinance No.41

    Japan incorporated Dokdo in 1905, 4years after Korean incorporation of Dokdo. The base for Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was "There were no traces of occupation by any other countries" Of course, there were lots of traces of occupying Dokdo by Korea.

    Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was illegal as proved by documents and maps. That's why Japan had to renounce Dokdo after losing the WW2 because Dokdo was the land acquired by greed and violation(Violation doesn't necessary mean using the arms). It's a simple fact.

    ReplyDelete
  66. There is no one yet who proved, quoting maps or documents, that Seokdo(石島) in the Imperial ordinance No.41 is Dokdo/Takeshima.

    In addition, the petition of the Ordinance did not include Dokdo/Takeshima.
    1900勅令41号請議書

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

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

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  71. I could not find any clear evidence, which help me to identify “Sokto” as Dokdo, geographically. If there were, I am very pleased to know.

    Most Japanese scholar seems to doubt Sokto(石島) were 観音島, which is very near from Ulleungdo, made of Rocks as same as Dokdo. The only evidence they have about Sokto is a newspaper(皇城新聞) article in 1906. This article mentioned the scope of Ulleungdo province, it was relatively very small to include Dokdo and 観音島 seems to be more provable from it.

    I’ve heard Korean insist that there was some similarity of pronunciation , 石 is toku? in Hangeul of Jeolla Province, and the pronunciation of 独 is doku in Chinese pronunciation, so it had changed later.
    Japanese scholar seem thinking it is far-fetched and unprovable.
    At first, there seems to be no evidence how Ulleungdo residents had called Dokdo.
    Secondary, because Joseon Dynasty had prohibited using Hangeul in official documents before 1897, they do not seem to find similar case of local land name in Hangeul had phonetic transferred in Chinese and adapted.

    Japan had change the name of Dokdo=Takeshima, but there were complex and clear reasons. Japan had never lost the geographical identification and recognition when she changed the name.
    French explorer had found “Dagelet” in 1789; England explorer had found “Argonaut” in 1797. Later it became clear that they were the same Island “Ulleungdo”, but “Argonaut” location was mistaken as far west side of Ulleungdo.
    When Dr. Philipp Siebold, German natural historian made map of Japan, he had already known there were Takeshima= Ulleungdo (west side), and Matsushima= Dokdo (east side), from old maps and documents. So he had naturally thought “Argonaut” was Takeshima, and “Dagelet” was Matsushima. Later, it became clear that “Argonaut” was not existed, but the understanding of Ulleungdo as Matsushima (as “Dagelet”) was widely spread in western countries. Meiji Government had made research in 1880; they clearly understood the mistake above. When Meiji Government was in need to name Dokdo in 1905, because they could not use Matsushima, (already used as Ulleungdo), so they decided to rename Dokdo as Takeshima, because it had been well known to the world as “Argonaut”.
    (I do not think it was a good decision because it had produced many misunderstanding.)

    Anyway, I think occupation of land in modern civilization have to include 1) precise geographical identifications 2) research of land as proof 3) declaration to the world, and 4) process of recognition. I doubt the Korean Imperial Ordinance No. 41 in 1900 could have satisfied these conditions, because it was adequately already in modern times, and Japan did them in 1905.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Nozomu Yoshida said:

    "The only evidence they have about Sokto is a newspaper(皇城新聞) article in 1906. This article mentioned the scope of Ulleungdo province, it was relatively very small to include Dokdo and 観音島 seems to be more provable from it."

    It said that the dimensions of Uldo County were 60 RI east-to-west and 40 RI north-to-south.
    But these weren't the dimensions of Uldo County including Dokdo. These were simply the dimensions of Ulleungdo island.
    See here: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/korean-objections-to-japans-1905-claim
    Look at the two maps of Ulleungdo at the bottom of the page. Both maps say that Ulleungdo’s dimensions are ’60 RI by 40 RI’.

    (It would have been impossible for Koreans to measure the exact dimensions of the entire sea area encompassed by Uldo County, including Dokdo, back in 1900. Back in 1900, Korea was still pretty much pre-modern.
    They didn’t have steam ships or the technology necessary to measure long distances at sea accurately.
    Koreans' best guess as to the distance from Ulleungdo to Dokdo was 100 RI.)


    "At first, there seems to be no evidence how Ulleungdo residents had called Dokdo."

    Actually, there is.
    The logbook of the Japanese warship Niitaka from September 25th, 1904 clearly says that Koreans on Ulleungdo called Liancourt Rocks "Dokdo".
    It says that Koreans called the rocks "Dokdo" while Japanese fishermen called then "Riangko".
    (http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-in-the-early-20th-century
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-i)

    ReplyDelete
  73. (cont’d)

    As for the 1900 edict, 石島, and 獨島..

    In the late 1800s, most residents of Ulleungdo were from Cheolla Province.
    They most likely named the Rocks "Dokdo".
    (In Cheolla dialect, they pronounce "dol" (which means "rock" in standard Korean) as "dok". So Dokdo meant "rock island".)

    Off the southern coast of Korea, there are many small, rocky, uninhabited islands named 독섬 or 독도 (Dok-Seom or Dok-Do). Some are written in Chinese characters as 石島, some as 獨島.
    (石島 to emphasize the meaning "rock island", 獨島 to emphasize the pronunciation "Dok-Do". since 獨 is the Chinese character that is actually pronounced as "dok")

    In the 1900 imperial edict, the name of Liancourt Rocks was written as 石島.
    But since then, there was one other instance where it was written as 石島.
    In all other instances, it has been written as 獨島.

    For instance, the Ulleungdo County magistrate Shim Heung-Taek, when he found out in 1906 that Dokdo had been incorporated into Japan, wrote an urgent letter to the Korean king that "Dokdo", belonging to Uldo County, 100 Ri away from Ulleungdo, had been incorporated into Japan. He wrote the name of the island as 獨島.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/korean-objections-to-japans-1905-claim


    The Korean king responded to Shim.
    "[The Japanese’] word that Dokdo has become Japanese territory is a totally unfounded allegation, recheck the island and actions of the Japanese people."

    來報閱悉이고 獨島領地之說은 全屬無根하나, 該島 形便과 日人 如何行動을 更爲査報 할 사.

    Here too, the name of the island was written as 獨島.


    Also, a 1906 Korean Interior Ministry record regarding the annexation of Dokdo says, "The fact Dokdo has been incorporated into Japan is surprising and confounding. We cannot understand the reason for it."

    內部大臣의 指令文, 1906.
    "遊覽道次에 地界戶口之錄去? 容或無怪어니와 獨島之稱云日本屬地는 必無其理니 今此所報가 甚涉訝然이라."

    Here too, the name of the island was written as 獨島.


    So, the changing of the name of Liancourt Rocks from Usando to Dokdo was a natural process.
    In 1900, Korean govt changed the jurisdiction of Ulleungdo island and neighboring islands.
    They changed Usando to Dokdo.
    But in the official edict they took the meaning of the name Dokdo ("rock island") and wrote it as 石島.

    But 石島 soon changed to 獨島, because that's the way the locals on Ulleungdo wrote it.
    As I mentioned before, the Japanese warship Niitaka found out in 1904 that Koreans on Ulleungdo called Liancourt Rocks "Dokdo" (獨島).
    Also, the Uldo County magistrate Shim, in his 1906 letter to the king, wrote Liancourt Rocks as 獨島.

    Since the locals wrote it as 獨島, I think that this caught on, and it's been 獨島 ever since.

    ReplyDelete
  74. For Joseon Dynasty, historicalness or continuity should have been be very important.
    So my question is; if government and people had acknowledged Usan-do was Dokdo, and the island they mentioned as Sokto in Ordinance No. 41 was Dokdo, as Korean insists, why did not they simply write Usan-do instead of Sokto?

    ReplyDelete
  75. jk6411
    Can I ask you one question? Why neither the Imperial Edict nor newspaper皇城新聞 explained about Dokdo(Seokdo)? If you incorporate such a far distant isolated island like Dokdo, will it be needed to note detailed explanation about the island, such as direction, location, form, and environment, more than any islands to let everyone who have no knowledge about Sea of Japan know about the island? They never explained how far Seokdo existed or it was twin islets, while they wrote specific number of distance of Ulleungdo. I'd like to hear your opinion.

    By the way, the petition about Uldo county submitted by the Minister of Interior Lee Geon-ha the day before the Imperial Edict says "the area of the island in concern(Ulleungdo, Jukdo,and Seokdo) should be 80 ris(32km) in length and 50 ris(20km) in the width", which obviously excluded Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Regarding Rusk Note

    The Japanese believe the Peace Treaty gave them Dokdo because of Rusk Note. Rusk Note is nothing but a US secret position regarding Dokdo in favor of Japan's claim during the peace treaty negotiations.

    No matter what the reasons were, it was true US strongly supported Japan's claim on Dokdo. It's also true Rusk Note has a critical weakness for Japan to use as a strong base for claiming Dokdo was given to Japan in the SF Treaty.

    Rusk Note was a US confidential memorandum sent only to Korea. Peace Treaty is about the agreement between Japan and the Allied Powers, not between Japan and US. It wasn't delivered either to Japan or to the Allied Powers.

    There are evidence Rusk Note was a confidential memorandum which was never open to the public.


    1. Even the US Embassy in Korea didn't know about Rusk Note.

    On Oct. 1952, E. Allan Lightener at the U.S. Embassy in Pusan sent a letter to the US Ambassador to Japan concerning accidental bombing incident on Dokdo. In this letter, he wrote Dokdo was Korean land until Japan's incorporation of Dokdo in 1905. He continued that Japan assumed that its sovereignty still extended over Dokdo because the drafters of the treaty did not include Dokdo within the area to be renounced. (Details is here and here.) In response to this letter, the US Department of State wrote him about the Rusk Note. After being informed of the Rusk Note, Mr. Lightener Jr. sent a letter saying "The information you gave us had never been previously available to the Embassy. We had never heard of Dean Rusk’s letter to the Korean Ambassador in which the Department took a definite stand on this question."(Details is here and here.)



    2. Rusk Note was not delivered to Japan.

    L. Burmaster of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs of U.S. State Department wrote Robert J. G. MaClukin, of the same Office that American position in supporting Japanese claim on Dokdo had never been formally communicated to the Japanese Government. (Details is here and here.)


    3. Rusk Note was never made public.

    Van Fleet(a US special mission ambassador) wrote in his report to the President Eisenhower in 1954 "The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public." His report clearly proves Rusk Not wasn't made public. (Details is here and here.)

    The documents above prove Rusk Note was never openly, officially supported Japan's claim to Dokdo, naturally even not in SF Treaty. Rusk Note symbolizes US foreign policy based on its interest at the beginning of the cold war-era.
    I don’t deny the Rusk Note, but it is not valid as an evidence supporting Japan’s claim Dokdo still remains in Japan under SF peace treaty.


    ReplyDelete
  77. >1. Even the US Embassy in Korea didn't know about Rusk Note.
    >2. Rusk Note was not delivered to Japan.
    >3. Rusk Note was never made public.

    Rusk documents is not a treaty. It is a supplementary means for the interruption of S.F. peace treaty.
    International law never demand these situations for the supplementary means of interpretation.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
    Article 32
    Supplementary means of interpretation
    Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:
    (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
    (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.

    Korean always make her original and selfish rule which was violate the international law for their selfish desire.

    ReplyDelete
  78. >In Cheolla dialect, they pronounce "dol" (which means "rock" in standard Korean) as "dok". So Dokdo meant "rock island".

    Most Ulreung Do residents about 1900 years ware from Gangwon-dialect. This is the list of names of the Ulreung Do migrant in 1883. There are no people from Cheolla dialect. The pronounciation of the 石 by the Gangwon-dialect is "DOL"
    http://outdoor.geocities.jp/yabutarou01/meibo.gif

    Moreover there is a directory evidence of the pronunciation of the 石 by the Ulreung Do residents at that time.

    http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/wp/wp-content/gallery/jpn_20c_maps/jpn_1906_map_okuhara.gif

    The pronunciation of "亭石浦" by the Ulreung Do residents was "Chon-Dolo-po". This proves that the pronunciation of "石" by Ulreung Do residents was "DOL"

    ReplyDelete
  79. opp,

    What is the evidence Rusk Note is a supplementary document?

    Does an international law allow the secret document as a supplementary means?

    ReplyDelete
  80. >Does an international law allow the secret document as a supplementary means?

    Of course.
    Do you know the treaty which opened a the preparatory work of the treaty?
    Even the 金明基 who is a international scholar and fabricated the duty of notification admitted the rusk document as a supplementary means according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 32

    ReplyDelete
  81. >1. Even the US Embassy in Korea didn't know about Rusk Note.
    >2. Rusk Note was not delivered to Japan.
    >3. Rusk Note was never made public.


    The scholar who fabricates such a foolish rule is only Professor Hosaka. His specialty is engineering.
    If a scholar knows international law, they can't claim these foolish rule. Even the scholar is Korean.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Nozomu Yoshida said:

    "So my question is; if government and people had acknowledged Usan-do was Dokdo, and the island they mentioned as Sokto in Ordinance No. 41 was Dokdo, as Korean insists, why did not they simply write Usan-do instead of Sokto?"

    The name Usando was an ancient name.
    Originally, Ulleungdo and Dokdo were Usanguk ("Kingdom of Usan"). The name Usando probably dates back to back then.
    Usanguk was conquered by Korea's Shilla kingdom in 512 AD.
    They sent tributes every year to Korea's capital.

    However, Usanguk did not last.
    In the 11th century, Usanguk was devastated by Jurchen raids. The population declined sharply.
    Then, at the end of 14th century (end of Koryo), Japanese pirates started raiding Ulleungdo.
    In the 15th century, the Korean government instituted a "vacant island" policy for Ulleungdo and Dokdo, because of constant raids from Japanese pirates.
    This "vacant island" policy lasted until the end of 19th century.

    Since Usanguk declined and disappeared, and the island was vacated for many centuries, the name "Usanguk" no longer made sense. It just became Ulleungdo island.
    The name "Usan-do" also lost its relevance, and what was once Usando just came to be called "Dokdo" ("rock island") by the local people.

    So, Dokdo became the new name of the island.
    But in the 1900 edict, they took the meaning of the name Dokdo ("rock island") and wrote it as 石島 (standard Korean).


    kumabear said:

    "Why neither the Imperial Edict nor newspaper皇城新聞 explained about Dokdo(Seokdo)? If you incorporate such a far distant isolated island like Dokdo, will it be needed to note detailed explanation about the island, such as direction, location, form, and environment, more than any islands to let everyone who have no knowledge about Sea of Japan know about the island?"

    Korea did not incorporate Dokdo for the first time in 1900.
    The 1900 edict just changed the jurisdiction of Ulleungdo and neighboring islands to an independent County.
    Dokdo had long been acknowledged as Korean territory since long ago.
    Both old Korean and Japanese documents, and old Korean and Japanese maps, said that Dokdo (Usando/Matsushima) was Korea's.

    As I've said, the name “Usando” was an ancient name, which was linked to the ancient kingdom of “Usanguk”.

    ReplyDelete
  83. opp,

    There are so many islands in Korea named 독섬 (Dok-Seom). All of them are small, rocky, uninhabited islands.
    Here are just a few of them:

    `독섬; 경남 통영군 사량면 돈지리 (South Gyongsang)
    `독섬; 경남 통영군 용남면 화삼리 (South Gyongsang)
    `독섬; 경북 선산군 선산읍 독동리 (North Gyongsang)
    `독섬; 경북 안동군 남후면 검암리 (North Gyongsang)
    `독섬; 전남 고흥군 과역면 연등리 (South Cheolla)
    `독섬; 전남 고흥군 금산면 오천리 (South Cheolla)
    `독섬; 전남 고흥군 도화면 지죽리 (South Cheolla)
    `독섬; 전남 고흥군 동강면 장덕리 (South Cheolla)
    `독섬; 전남 고흥군 봉래면 사양리 (S. Cheolla)
    `독섬; 전남 담양군 금성면 봉서리 (S. Cheolla)
    `독섬; 전남 보성군 벌교면 대포리 (S. Cheolla)
    `독섬; 전남 신안군 비금면 수치리 (S. Cheolla)
    `독섬; 전남 해남군 산이면 금호리 (S. Cheolla)
    `독섬; 전남 해남군 화원면 산호리 (S. Cheolla)
    `독섬; 전북 부안군 변산면 마포리 (North Cheolla)
    `독섬; 전북 옥구군 옥도면 비안도리 (N. Cheolla)
    `독섬; 충남 태안군 근흥면 가의도리 (S. Chungcheong)

    As you can see, there are some in Gyongsang Province as well as Cheolla province. There's one in Chungcheong province as well.
    So, calling small, rocky islands Dok-Seom has been a common dialect in the southern part of Korea, not just Cheolla province.


    In 1882, Korean govt sent an inspector to Ulleungdo, who found 82% of Korean dwellers there were from Cheolla province.
    In 1883, the Korean govt abolished the "vacant island" policy and started resettling Ulleungdo.

    "Under the leadership of Kim Ok-kyun, the redevelopment project was actively carried forth. First, seven to eight families from Kangwon province and ten families from Kyeongsang province were settled on Ulleungdo. This was followed by 16 families of 54 people from Cheolla province and others on two occasions in April 1883." (http://www.dokdoinkorea.com/)

    You see? The new settlers came from Gangwon, Gyongsang, and Cheolla provinces.
    It doesn't matter that the new settlers from Gangwon pronounced 石 as "dol". They're not the ones who named Dokdo.
    The original dwellers on Ulleungdo were predominantly from Cheolla province, and they named Liancourt Rocks "Dokdo".

    ReplyDelete
  84. >There are so many islands in Korea named 독섬 (Dok-Seom). All of them are small, rocky, uninhabited islands. Here are just a few of them:

    I already pointed out these records support Japanese insistence before. These records shows that the Chinese character didn't change, though pronunciation is alike. It is contradictory to the Korean essay which dreams that the character changed by pronunciation.
    Moreover I already proved the directory evidence of the pronunciation of the Ulreung Do residents. And most of the Ulreung Do residents ware from Gangwon-dialect in 1900.

    ReplyDelete
  85. >In 1882, Korean govt sent an inspector to Ulleungdo, who found 82% of Korean dwellers there were from Cheolla province.
    In 1883, the Korean govt abolished the "vacant island" policy and started resettling Ulleungdo.

    Till 1882, a seasonal laborer come from Cheolla province. But they didn't settle the island and they came back to Cheolla province every year. There no permanent resident from Cheolla province in 1883.

    This is the list of names and native place of the Ulreung Do migrant in 1883.

    http://outdoor.geocities.jp/yabutarou01/meibo.gif

    Can you see?

    ReplyDelete
  86. In 1883, the Korean govt started resettling Ulleungdo.
    The settlers came from many provinces in Korea, including Gyongsang and Cheolla provinces.
    The migration continued, as the govt offered the settlers incentives, such as exemption from taxes for 5 years.
    By 1897, the population of Ulleungdo had grown to more than 1,100.

    "[Ulleungdo's] population totalled 1,134 (662 males and 472 females) in 397 houses in 12 tong (tong: block of a town or city) and ri (villages) as of March 1897. The land under cultivation totalled 4,775 turak."
    (http://plaza1.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/10-library.htm#chap7)

    It wasn't the new settlers who named Dokdo.
    It was the old residents of Ulleungdo, mostly from Cheolla, who named Dokdo.
    It doesn't matter whether they were part-time residents or full-time residents.
    The new residents learned the name Dokdo from the old residents.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Sloww
    First of all, what we can understand by reading this reply document is Japanese people were using Matsushima (as a stopover) even though it didn't belong to Inaba-no-kuni, Hoki-no kuni, Matsue Han, or Hamada Han. No one said it didn't belong to Japan in this document.

    Second, I found your incorrect translation on your blog. The sentence in the “Eight provinces of Chosun”, “Takeshima and Matsushima are in the province” should be corrected as “Takeshima and Matsushima are on the way to Kangwan province”. Please look up Japanese word 道中 in your dictionary.

    You said
    >Japanese fishermen's fishing activity in foreign land has nothing to do with effective control over the land>>
    Wait a minute, it was before the second Ahn Yong-bok's incident and Bakufu's prohibition order. Please show me the evidence Matsushima was Korean and Japanese considered it as such at the time.
    You wrote
    >If Japan claims the Edo Bakufu didn't prohibit the Japanese to go to Dokdo, Japan should show the evidence the Edo Bakufu specifically allowed the Japanese to go to Dokdo. >>
    I think it's opposite. YOU have to show us the evidential specific description prohibited voyages to Matsushima. Unless you can find it, it is merely your assumption. It's more absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  88. jk6411
    I'm not talking about Japanese documents. Whichever the edict was incorporation or reorganization of administrative districts, it doesn't change the fact Korea NEVER had even a single precise map or a document that described Dokdo in detail. You can't even find descriptions in Korean documents like this: "There is a twin islet far to the southeastward from Ulleungdo".
    How do you explain for that?

    ReplyDelete
  89. >In 1883, the Korean govt started resettling Ulleungdo. The settlers came from many provinces in Korea, including Gyongsang and Cheolla provinces.

    Then, this is the list of names and native place of the Ulreung Do migrant in 1883(江原道鬱陵島新入民戸人口姓名年歳及田土起墾數爻成冊
    ).
    http://outdoor.geocities.jp/yabutarou01/meibo.gif

    Can you see? There are no people from Cheolla province.


    >By 1897, the population of Ulleungdo had grown to more than 1,100.

    This is the record of the Ulreung Do investigation by Shimane Prefecture in 1906.(竹島及鬱陵島)
    「在島韓人は、主として、江原道慶尚道地方より移住せしものなり。(Korean Ulreung Do residents mainly came from Kangwon-do)」

    Search record of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1902.(通商彙纂)
    「廿一年前江原道より裴季周、金大木、下(?)敬云、田士日の四名来航し同行者は協力以って山間を開拓し、畠地を作りて農耕を業とせり、然るに其翌年に至り江原道江陵地方より黄鐘海、崔島守、田士雲、金花淑、洪奉堯、李孫八及全羅道地名不詳張敬移の七名来島」
    Although 11 migrants are recorded, people from the from Cheolla is only one.

    Books about the Korea in 1911(朝鮮誌)
    「朝鮮人たる住民は江原道沿岸及び慶尚北道の移住者大部分を占め(Korean Ulreung Do residents mainly came from Kangwon Province and North Gyeongsang Province)」

    These records proves that the most of the Ulreung Do residents came from Kangwon Province and Gyeongsang Province.
    Moreover directory evidence of the pronunciation of "石" by Ulreung Do residents recorded as "DOL".

    ReplyDelete
  90. jk6411 said
    >>So, calling small, rocky islands Dok-Seom has been a common dialect in the southern part of Korea, not just Cheolla province.>>

    This,your claim confused me more(and made your argument weaker). If it's true, how can you identify(specify?) Dokdo as Seokdo when many other small islands actually exist around Ulleungdo. How can you NOT say Seokdo was neighboring islets of Ulleungdo? Why do you think they completely ignored all of them and drug out a distant island without any explanations?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Kumabear,

    The 1900 edict mentioned Ulleungdo and the two largest islands in the viscinity, Jukdo and 石島(Dokdo).

    I think anyone who traveled to Ulleungdo and Dokdo would know which island was "Rock Island".
    Dokdo is the rockiest island by far.

    For instance, French named the island "Liancourt Rocks".
    English named the island "Hornet Rocks".
    Russians named the island "Menalai and Olivutsa Rocks".

    See? They all named the island "ROCKS".
    So 石島 makes perfect sense.


    Again, the 1900 edict was not an announcement to the world that Korea was incorporating Dokdo.
    It was an internal decree. Koreans knew what Dokdo was, so the edict did not describe it in detail.

    ReplyDelete
  92. There is no evidence to support the claim that "Seokdo" (石島) was a reference to "Dokdo" (獨島). There is no reference to its location or anything.

    Moreover, the Korean Ministry of Interior defined the dimensions Uldo (Ulleungdo) County as being 24km from east to west and 16km from north to south. That would exclude "Dokdo," which is about 90km southeast of Ulleungdo. And that would mean that the "Seokdo" in the 1900 edict was not a reference to "Dokdo."

    "Seokdo" (石島) means "rocky islets," which suggests that the "Seokdo" in the 1900 edict was a catchall phrase used to include all the neighboring, rocky islets around Ulleungdo.

    Article 2 of the 1900 Edict read as follows:

    ARTICLE 2: The county office will be located at Taehadong (太霞洞), and will have jurisdiction over the whole island of Ulleungdo (鬱陵全島), Jukdo (竹島), and the rock islets (石島).

    If "Seokdo" was not a reference to the "rocky islets" around Ulleungdo, then one would have to explain why Ulleungdo's second largest neighboring island, Gwaneumdo (觀音島), was not mentioned mentioned as being a part of the county.

    Also, a September 23, 1899 Korean newspaper article described Ulleungdo as having six small neighboring islands, including Jukdo (Usando). If "rocky islets" (石島) was not a catchall phrase, then why wasn't the other five neighboring islands mentioned in the edict?

    Here is a translation of the relevant sentences from the 1899 Korean newspaper article:

    There is an island in the sea east of Uljin called "Ulleung." Among its six, small neighboring islands, the most prominent one is Usando/Jukdo.

    Usando was the old name for Jukdo, which is why they were listed together. The Korean government choose to the name Jukdo in the 1900 edict, which was why Usando was not mentioned in the edict.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Kumabear,

    No one said it didn't belong to Japan in this document.
    --> Tottori Han answered it was told Dokdo is not the island belonging to any province of Japan. (松島は、何れかの国に附属する島ではないと聞いています。)


    Please look up Japanese word 道中 in your dictionary.
    ---> "道" also means "province" in Korea. Look at the picture of “朝鮮之八道”.

    it was before the second Ahn Yong-bok's incident and Bakufu's prohibition order.
    --> What I meant was Edo Bakufu didn't consider Japanese fishermen's fishing activity in Ulleongdo and Dokdo as an effective control over the land because Edo Bakufu prohibited the Japanese to Ulleongdo and Dokdo. Edo Bakufu‘s inquiry of Dokdo happened after the Ahn's first incident.

    Please show me the evidence Matsushima was Korean and Japanese considered it as such at the time.
    --> Why did Edo Bakufu ask the Tottori Han about the ownership of the islands? It was because of the territorial dispute over Ulleogndo between Korea and Japan. If they were not Japanese land, they were Korean land.

    My assumption was based on the fact. There was no permit for going to Dokdo, accordingly there was no prohibition for going to Dokdo. Japanese fishermen could go to Dokdo because of permit to Ulleongdo and couldn't go to Dokdo because of prohibition to Ulleongdo.

    ReplyDelete
  94. >Tottori Han answered it was told Dokdo is not the island belonging to any province of Japan.

    Tottori Han answered it was told Takeshima is not the island belonging to Inaba and Houki province of Japan.(Never say any province of Japan)

    >Edo Bakufu prohibited the Japanese to Ulleongdo and Dokdo

    Bakufu prohibited the Japanese to only Takeshima(present Ulleungdo). (Never say Matsushima(presenta Takeshima))

    > If they were not Japanese land, they were Korean land.

    Study Pedra Branca Case. Renunciation doesn't prove the sovereignty of another country. Moreover Bakufu didn't prohibit to the Matsuhima. International law demand the distinct description for renunciation.

    >My assumption was based on the fact.

    Your essay was based on the distortion and your original rule.

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

    ReplyDelete
  96. Gerry Bevers,

    If "Seokdo" is a catchall phrase for all the neighboring, rocky islets around Ulleungdo, why do you think Jukdo was mentioned in Korean Edict 41? Jukdo is also a neighboring , rocky islets around Ulleungdo.

    Does this catchall phrase include Dokdo? You should answer "Yes", right?

    If your answer is "No", you should be able to give an answer to "How come Uldo County Governor Shim Heung Taek reported to Korean government Dokdo became Japanese land right after the Japanese from Shimane prefecture told him about Japanese incorporation of Dokdo?

    Even though you make Seokdo as a catchall phrase, Dokdo is proved to be a part of Uldo County.

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

    ReplyDelete
  98. mr. jk6411

    >For instance, French named the island "Liancourt Rocks".
    >English named the island "Hornet Rocks".
    >Dokdo is the rockiest island by far.
    >See? See? They all named the island "ROCKS".
    So 石島 makes perfect sense.

    If there were many dogs, you call all of them as “Doggy”.
    So in this situation, you(not only you but whole your country) are saying this;

    “French had described the dog as “Chien-Chien”. (French Doggy)
    English had described the dog as “Doggy”
    They all described the dog as "doggy".
    Because the dog was the doggiest dog by far.
    So we identified this dog was the “Doggy”.”

    I t seems to be a kind of national intellectual bankruptcy,
    and it is not our turn but your turn to prove “Sokto” as “Dokto”.
    Japan can not deny it, because it is “Proof by devil”. It could be, but it could not be provably, forever.

    if Korean hope “Korean Imperial Ordinance No.41” could be enough proof of their occupation or legitimacy, some more evidences are needed.
    As opp had mentioned, they are a single precise map or a document that described of Sokto as “Dokdo” in detail, by Korean Government.
    (If you do not hope that, of couse you need not prove that.)

    ReplyDelete
  99. Mr. Yoshida said:

    "if Korean hope “Korean Imperial Ordinance No.41” could be enough proof of their occupation or legitimacy, some more evidences are needed.
    As opp had mentioned, they are a single precise map or a document that described of Sokto as “Dokdo” in detail, by Korean Government."

    It was customary for the Korean central govt to use standard Korean in edicts.
    Since 'Dok-Seom' or 'Dok-Do' was a regional dialect, they took the meaning of the name, "rock island", and wrote it as 石島.

    I wish there was an extant map which labeled Dokdo as 石島.
    But Dokdo was written as 石島 only once or twice, and only in Korean central govt's documents.
    Koreans on Ulleungdo wrote Dokdo as 獨島, so it's been 獨島 ever since.


    If Koreans had known beforehand that Japan would secretly annex Dokdo in 1905, they would surely have prepared indisputable evidence proving that 石島 in the 1900 edict was Dokdo.
    But Koreans were taken completely off guard by the 1905 annexation.
    Even after Korea found out about the annexation (by sheer chance) in 1906, Korea's Interior Ministry was "confounded" as to why Japan would annex a tiny rock island like Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Please forgive me for my poor English.

    Sloww

    何れかの国=either Hoki or Inaba. This was the answer from Tottori(local Han) to Bakufu(central government)'s inquiry. How could Han know about whole Japan when Bakufu didn't know, in the first place?
    Have you ever studied Japanese? 道中 means "on the way to ~". Japanese don't say 道中 when meaning "inside 道(the province)".
    You wrote >>because Edo Bakufu prohibited the Japanese to Ulleongdo and Dokdo. Edo Bakufu's inquiry of Dokdo happened after the Ahn's first incident.>>
    Again, you seem already concluded Bakufu prohibited voyages to Matsushima in your mind. But you shouldn't fill in the blanks with assumption.This inquiry was submitted at the stage when Bakufu were still negotiating with Korea. They asked about not only Takeshima, but also Matsushima separately. However, they didn't mention Matsushima at the prohibition order. Because it wasn't reported Matsushima itself has been used by Korean, unlike Takeshima.
    Even if Bakufu included Matsushima when they mentioned "Takeshima" as you claim, it's still just possibility or probability unless you find the word 'Matsushima' in it. We can't concluded it by them. We've never found either permission order or prohibition order on Matsushima so far. But evidences of the usage by Japanese are found. That' all we know so far.

    ReplyDelete
  101. jk6411

    You are only talking possibility that nothing supports.
    1. You haven't answered my question yet. Where is detailed explanation about Seokdo which is needed when you mention about geographically special island like Dokdo? When you explain about Dokdo to others, how can you forget mentioning its direction, location or feature?
    2. 石=Dol 島=Seom are both Korean reading. Nothing unusual about it. 獨=Dok 島=Do are both Chinese reading. Nothing wrong with it,too. However your theory: Dol-Seom(Koeran-Korean)→Dok-Seom(Korean&Cholla dialect-Korean)→Dok-do(Chinese-Chinese) doesn't make any sense. That's why this theory is unacceptable for Japanese who are all understand Kanji.
    3. Mr.Bevers is right. Koreans had named rock islets “石島” collectively. Here is the proof.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2007/11/1900-imperial-edict-makes-ulleungdo.html
    The last picture (the map of Pyeongan Province) shows small rock islets were lumped together and called “石島”. Ulleungdo has several small rocky neighboring islets like 북저바위 구멍바위 코끼리바위 딴바위.
    4. Korean document "独島問題概論"(Instruction to Dokdo issue) written by Korean Office of Foreign Affairs in 1955 clearly says "Korea has no official record Dokdo had been incorporated into any administrative districts". It means Seokdo which was mentioned in the Edict #41 is not Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Kumabear,

    Your English has no problem.

    You insist what the typical pro-Japanese stubbornly do.

    How could Han know about whole Japan when Bakufu didn't know, in the first place?
    --> Are you going to say the Japanese from other Hans such as 福岡藩 went to Ulleongdo? Why didn't Edo Bakufu ask other Hans?

    Have you ever studied Japanese? 道中 means "on the way to ~".
    --> Ahn was talking about the provinces(道) of Korea. The Oki official wrote what Ahn said. Takeshima and Matsushima are also on the way to other provinces, too.

    Edo Bakufu's inquiry of Dokdo happened after the Ahn's first incident
    --> This is not from my head. It's the fact. Takeshima Incident started in Nov. 1963 when the official of Tsushima Han sent a letter to Chosun on the way Ahn back to Korea. In Jan. 1696, Edo Bakuhu asked about Matsushima, and in Jan. 28, 1696, Edo Bakufu prohibited voyage to Ulleongdo concluding Ulleongdo was Korean land. That's the end of Takeshima Incident.

    However, they didn't mention Matsushima at the prohibition order.
    ---> If you insist so, Is there any map including Matsushima as Japanese land? Does the 伊能忠敬's map include Dokdo as Korean land?

    But evidences of the usage by Japanese are found.
    --> Nobody denies the Japanese went to Matsushim on the way to Takeshima. Going to Masushima and using it don't means Dokdo was Japanese land as Tottori Han said "Matsushima doesn't belong to any province of Japan."

    ReplyDelete
  103. Sloww:Are you going to say the Japanese from other Hans such as 福岡藩 went to Ulleongdo? Why didn't Edo Bakufu ask other Hans?

    ?Bakufu asked Matsue Han too. Do you think Tottori Han went to Ulleungdo? Bakufu permit only Murakawa and Ooya to go Ulleongdo through Tottori Han. Tottir Han didn’t get any rights about Ulleongdo. Bakufu would forget this permission. But Tottori Han answered this permission.
    For this reason, Bakufu knew that the Ulleungdo and Takeshima could be treated only by herself without coordination with other Hans.
    Sloww:1696, Edo Bakufu prohibited voyage to Ulleongdo concluding Ulleongdo was Korean land.

    You know Bukufu prohibite voyage to only Ulleongdo.

    Sloww:Ahn was talking about the provinces(道) of Korea. The Oki official wrote what Ahn said. Takeshima and Matsushima are also on the way to other provinces, too.

    Does a sinner's statement have value? International law doesn’t admit personal activity as the evidence of sovereignty.

    Sloww:If you insist so, Is there any map including Matsushima as Japanese land? Does the 伊能忠敬's map include Dokdo as Korean land?

    ?伊能忠敬's map didn’t draw Takeshima. And he didn’t describe Amami which was ceded in 1613 too. Did you want to say that Amami wasn’t Japanese territory because Japanese maps didn’t draw the island? Singapore Government didn’t publish maps which include Pedra Branca till 1995. But ICJ admitted that Singapore acquired her sovereignty by 1980. Maps do not become in evidence of sovereignty.

    ReplyDelete
  104. opp,

    Bakufu asked Matsue Han too.
    --> If so, I wonder what Matsu Han replied to the Bakufu's question about Matsushima. Did it answer Matsushima belongs to Matsu Han?

    Bakufu knew that the Ulleungdo and Takeshima could be treated only by herself without coordination with other Hans.
    --> ?

    International law doesn’t admit personal activity as the evidence of sovereignty.
    --> I didn't say anything like that Ahn's activity was the evidence of sovereignty according to international law.

    And he(伊能忠敬) didn’t describe Amami which was ceded in 1613 too.
    --> What is Amami? Then, why did 長久保赤 exclude Dokdo as Japanese land in the "改正日本輿地路程全図" published in 1779, not 1846.

    ReplyDelete
  105. >The name Usando was an ancient name.
    >The name "Usan-do" also lost its relevance.

    We understand this.
    We have had similar dispute. We do not yet know where had been “Yamataikoku”, the ancient dynasty in the 3th century. This argument has been continuing more than 300 years. Radiocarbon dating technology is bringing some epoch-making evidence now, but the argument is not over yet. This argument itself constructs one wide field of philology.

    Back to the Usando, your very traditional Joseon Dynasty, which had respected origin and history, had lost the relevancy of Usando and Dokto’s totally, not only at 1900, but also whole through her 500 years history.
    Then some Korean peoples after 1945 until now had found and constructed this relevancy of Usando and Dokto. 

    So there should have been very active arguments if they were true or not, ordinarily, academically. Some should have been approval, some should not be.
    These rediscovering in history is very rare case and important in every country, so the process of the arguments themselves should be very important philology, in our understanding.

    So could I know the detailed history of Korean’s rediscovering process, when and how, which evidence and argument point, or who were approvable and who were no.

    If these things were known openly, the world opinion would more convince that relevancy.

    (As you know, Japanese are very sensitive about transparency of the arguments. Maybe without this, we believe we cannot insist our opinion to the world. Truth is truth at last, and if it is disadvantageous, we have to adopt it. So we will disclose evidences, even they could be negative for us.)

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

    ReplyDelete
  107. Kumabear said:

    "Where is detailed explanation about Seokdo which is needed when you mention about geographically special island like Dokdo? When you explain about Dokdo to others, how can you forget mentioning its direction, location or feature?"

    As I've said, Korea did not incorporate Dokdo for the first time in 1900.
    The 1900 edict did not need to specifically mention the island's location or direction, because Dokdo is actually visible from Ulleungdo. It's visible from Ulleungdo when the weather is very clear.


    About Dok-Seom and 獨島:
    What doesn't make sense?
    Are you confused how Dok-Seom (Cheolla dialect Korean) could be written as 獨島?

    This may be difficult to understand for non-Koreans, but here goes..
    Back in the past, Koreans didn't use the Korean alphabet. They wrote using Chinese characters.
    So often, especially when writing Korean place names, they had to write them using the Chinese characters whose pronunciations most closely matched the Korean name.

    For example:
    When you look at old maps of Ulleungdo, you see the same place name written in different ways.
    In old maps, 저전동 (Jeo-Jeon-Dong), which is current-day city of 저동 (Jeo-Dong), is written in a number of different ways: 佇田洞, 苧田洞, 楮田洞.
    This is puzzling, because the characters 佇, 苧, and 楮 all mean different things.
    The only thing they have in common is their Korean pronunciation; they are pronounced '저' (Jeo).
    I don't know which of these three spellings was the oldest or original one.
    But Koreans chose to write the name Jeo-Jeon-Dong using these characters not because of their meanings, but their Korean pronunciation.


    So, with Dok-Seom, they chose to write 'Dok' ("rock", in Cheolla dialect) as 獨 (which doesn't mean "rock", but is pronounced 'Dok') in order to emphasize the pronunciation of the name.

    But in some cases, Dok-Seom was written as 石島, because Dok-Seom means "rock island".

    Along the southern coast of Korea, there are many small rock islands named Dok-Seom.
    Some of them are written as 獨島, and some are written as 石島.



    >"The last picture (the map of Pyeongan Province) shows small rock islets were lumped together and called “石島”."

    Well, in Pyeongan Province there may be a cluster of rock islets in real life.
    But at Ulleungdo, the rock islets are not clustered together.
    See map of Ulleungdo here:
    http://pds15.egloos.com/pds/200906/19/75/a0103575_4a3b00ad34679.jpg

    The rock islets are located in various locations around the island.
    All the individual rocks have their own names. They have never been lumped together and labelled 石島.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Mr. Yoshida,

    >(As you know, Japanese are very sensitive about transparency of the arguments. Maybe without this, we believe we cannot insist our opinion to the world. Truth is truth at last, and if it is disadvantageous, we have to adopt it. So we will disclose evidences, even they could be negative for us.)

    I wish Japan could be completely transparent about the circumstances under which she annexed Dokdo.

    Please read these comments I previously wrote about Japan's annexation of Dokdo.
    (By the way, please disregard the tone of the comments, and just focus on the content.)

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2012/04/1893-empire-of-japan-from-new-world.html?showComment=1334825360878#c5385724737254339306
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2012/04/1893-empire-of-japan-from-new-world.html?showComment=1334983079978#c1265044561950965219
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2012/04/1893-empire-of-japan-from-new-world.html?showComment=1334983189735#c1611075223856888247
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2012/04/1893-empire-of-japan-from-new-world.html?showComment=1334983288371#c1558346144718967340

    ReplyDelete

  109. Mr. Yoshida

    I feel you believe your country "Japan" is perfect and Korea is otherwise on Dokdo argument, which may be natural to you but looks to be arrogant to me.
    (I hope my belief is not right.)

    I'd like to ask you why MOFA's Takeshima pamphlet doesn't mention the critically disadvantageous documents to Japan such as "朝鮮国交際始末内探書(1870)" and "太政官指令(1877)".


    How Takeshima & Matsushima Became Part of Joseon


    Japan has nothing to do with Takeshima and another island.
    .

    If the Japan is transparent as you believe, MOFA's Takeshima pamphlet should include these documents, so that not only the Japanese people but also people from all over the world can be aware of how Japanese ancestors perceived Dokdo. Of course, I'm not saying MOFA should include every piece of document in its pamphlet on Dokdo, but these two documents are decisively important to understand the Dokdo issue between Korea and Japan. If Japan is ready to adopt the truth no matter what it is favorable or not to Japan, MOFA should disclose those two documents.

    It seems you consider the numbers of documents and maps Japan has as the evidence supporting Japanese claim on Dokdo, but unfortunately for you, most of them are proving Dokdo as Korean land.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  112. We all know 朝鮮国交際始末内探書(1870)" and "太政官指令(1877).
    As far as I know, they both are in the National Archives of Japan.
    太政官指令(1877) was found by the Kyoto University’s reputational historian of Korea,“Dr. Hori Kazuo”in 1987.

    We know that sometimes our government calculates political advantage, and do not disclose or publish them, especially when it is official. But there are many scholars in Japan, who are independent from the government and freely accessible to both original documents and the world. Some are very opposite to the government’s policy of Dokto, and they get also good reputation by writing books or reports just like Dr. Hori. They could never suffer social disadvantage by their opinion, like Mr. Gerry Bevers have experienced. So in this situation, we cannot hide disadvantageous evidences even for a while and you will soon know them, as in these cases.

    I have a question.
    Mr. Jk6411 had kindly showed me the Korean map.
    동국지도-동국전도(東國地圖-東國全圖), 19세기 전기" (early 19th C)


    There seems to able reading 干島、is it not the于山島=Usan-do?
    I misunderstood that Joseon Dynasty had lost the relevancy of Usan-do as Dokto for long time ago as Mr. Jk6411 had mentioned before, but it seems that Korean government in early 19th had recognized that there was at least one island named“Usan-do.”It had confused me.
    (If I am misunderstanding again, I am very sorry and teach me)

    So if they had known Usan-do were anywhere around there, and especially if they had recognized Dokto was the island, why they could not find the clear relevancy and name Dokto as Usan-do instead of Sokto?
    Logically, there seems to be any reason:
    1) If Usan-do was Dokdo, as you say, Sokto was a different Island.
    2) If Sokto was Dokto, as you say, they had thought Usan-do was not Dokto but another island.
    3) Both Usan-do and Sokto was not Dokto (or very confusing about geography) as we supposed.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I have searched 朝鮮国交際始末内探書(1870)" and "太政官指令(1877) at the National Archive of Japan.
    http://www.digital.archives.go.jp/
    You can read them through Internet.

    朝鮮国交際始末内探書 is easy to find by name search and they are digitized. I am not sure the address would work,
    http://www.jacar.go.jp/DAS/meta/listPhoto?REFCODE=A03023620400&IS_STYLE=default&image_num=35

    太政官指令 which was called太政類典 officially were so enormous, so there seems to be another top page.
    http://www.digital.archives.go.jp/dajou/index.html
    The document is in “第二類, 第九十六巻” I believe. This is digitized also.

    http://www.digital.archives.go.jp/DAS/meta/listPhoto?KEYWORD=&LANG=default&BID=F0000000000000000443&ID=&TYPE=&NO=

    We do not say we are one-sided right. But this is the way, how we had treated historical official documents, and this kind of transparency would be a good base of fair argument, I hope.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Mr. Yoshida,

    I didn't mean you and all Japanese don't know about those documents. It's not about how many Japanese know those documents or not. What I meant was if the Japanese are transparent enough to adopt any truth about arguments as you believe, Japanese government should include at least those documents in its MOFA's Takehsim pamphlet because it should be about the truth. I didn't say the Japanese government prevents the Japanese from accessing to those documents. Honestly, I don't blame that Japanese government doesn't mention those documents on Takeshima pamphlet because it is for enhancing Japanese claim on Dokdo. I just don't agree with your saying "Japanese are very sensitive about transparency of the arguments."

    If you are trying to say Japan is transparent because documents are open to the public while Korea is not, you are very wrong and that's why I said you are arrogant. (Sorry if you were offended by this word.) Korea is as transparent as Japan. If Korea is not, how could Gerry Bevers find documents and maps which are disadvantageous to Korean claim?

    My opinion about Gerry Bevers is that I'm sorry about what he got through very much, but he was not socially disadvantaged because of his research on Dokdo as you define. Everyday, lots of people in the world fail to renewing their contracts in their workplaces no matter what the reasons. It's their employers who decide their contracts should be renewed or not based on their evaluation. He was not fired. The school just decided not to renew the contract with him no matter what the reasons were, which is normal. I think the members of rehiring committee of school had their own reasons for not renewing his contract. I'm sure his writing on Dokdo involves a lot of complicate things such as complaints from students and parents and the anti-Korean nature of the site he wrote on. As I wrote somewhere, he wrote "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." This proves his different views on Dokdo isn't the whole reason of school's decision.

    He wrote the dean of planning of the university gave him reason of the school's decision:
    “Although we like Gerry very much, there were so many other good teachers who applied for the position. We made a decision based on objective evaluation on his teaching skills. As our school expanded, we thought it was time for a change."


    As for Dr. Hori, he is not working by contract with school. Don't misunderstand the universities in Korea can expel the professors because of their different opinions on the social issues, It's against the law. Isn't it same as in Japan? You compared Dr. Hori and Gerry Bevers inappropriately.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Mr.Sloww

    As you know, we have very many scholars and doctors who are opposite to the government policy on Dokto. We have active arguments inside Japan.
    It is very natural and reasonable, because these arguments are so complex, there are obviously many doubtful evidences, and big difficulty lies to prove ancient reorganization on both sides.
    Nevertheless, who else in Korea except Mr. Gerry Bevers, whose opinion is opposite to the government policy? If there were not except Mr. Gerry Bevers, you cannot say if it could cause social disadvantage, or if he might become expelled from university. For me, the fear for this substantial disadvantage and pressure in Korean society seem to be the main reason why there is totally no opposite opinion and arguments.
    (As if you were in North Korea)

    ReplyDelete
  116. Mr. Yoshida said:

    "I misunderstood that Joseon Dynasty had lost the relevancy of Usan-do as Dokto for long time ago as Mr. Jk6411 had mentioned before, but it seems that Korean government in early 19th had recognized that there was at least one island named“Usan-do.”It had confused me."


    In the 11th Century, Usanguk was wiped out by Jurchen invasion.
    Between 14th Century and end of 19th Century, Ulleungdo remained vacated.
    So, the name "Usando" indeed lost its relevance, but it remained the official name for Dokdo.

    Ulleungdo and Usando continued to appear in maps as they had in the past.

    But at the end of 19th Century, Korean govt abolished "vacant island" policy and started resettling Ulleungdo.

    In the 1900 edict, Korean govt upgraded the jurisdiction of Ulleungdo and nearby islands, and they decided to rename Usando to Dokdo. (because the name "Usan-do" no longer made sense, as Usan-guk was long gone)

    But they wrote the name "Dokdo" (Cheolla regional dialect) in standard Korean, and wrote it as 石島.


    BTW, this 1890 Korean map clearly shows that Usando is Dokdo.
    http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=cms1530&logNo=10033261020

    ReplyDelete
  117. Jk6411 wrote:

    BTW, this 1890 Korean map clearly shows that Usando is Dokdo.

    No, the map clearly shows Usando was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo and that it was one island, not two. Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) is about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo and is comprised essentially of two islands.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Sloww wrote:

    I'm sure his writing on Dokdo involves a lot of complicate things such as complaints from students and parents and the anti-Korean nature of the site he wrote on. As I wrote somewhere, he wrote "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." This proves his different views on Dokdo isn't the whole reason of school's decision.

    He wrote the dean of planning of the university gave him reason of the school's decision:
    “Although we like Gerry very much, there were so many other good teachers who applied for the position. We made a decision based on objective evaluation on his teaching skills. As our school expanded, we thought it was time for a change."


    As for Dr. Hori, he is not working by contract with school. Don't misunderstand the universities in Korea can expel the professors because of their different opinions on the social issues, It's against the law. Isn't it same as in Japan? You compared Dr. Hori and Gerry Bevers inappropriately.


    There were no complaints from the students or parents. I did not talk about my views in class and I wrote about them in English, not Korean. The president of the university called me to his office told me "he got a call from someone who complained about my writings on the Internet." The person said that since one of the motto's of the school was "patriotism," the school shouldn't have someone working there who supported Korea's claim to "Dokdo."

    The president of the university asked me to stop writing about Dokdo, and I agreed. Then about a month or two later I was told that my contract would not be renewed and that it was because of my writings on Dokdo. That was when I started writing on Dokdo, again.

    Just before the Dean of Planning had heard about my Dokdo writings she had told me that I didn't have to worry about my job because I was such a good teacher and well liked. It was the other foreign instructor who was at risk of losing his job for a number of reasons.

    The Dean of Planning did not give me the reason for the school's not rehiring me; both the Head of the English Department and the other Korean instructor in the department told me in was because of my Dokdo writings. They told me that they had tried to get the school to rehire me, but that the Dean of Planning told them that "the Dokdo problem was just too big."

    The comment by the Dean of Planning was made to the Korea Times reporter after the reporter had heard for herself the recording of the Korean professor telling me that she was in the room when the Dean of Planning told her that the school could not rehire me because "the Dokdo problem was too big."

    Either the Korean professor was lying or the Dean of Planning was.

    By the way, the husband of the Dean of Planning was a doctor at Gil Hospital in Incheon. When all of this happened, I had been tutoring him in English over the telephone at the request of the Dean of Planning, who told me that her husband really liked studying with me.

    I had always gotten good evaluations from my students, my Korean supervisors liked me and argued that the school keep me, and the Dean of Planning had even asked me to tutor her husband. So I still wonder what "objective evaluations" were used to determine that my teaching skills were not up to par?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Mr. Yoshida,

    It's no wonder you as Japanese believes what Gerry Bevers is doing is righteous, probably mainly because he is extremely favorable to Japanese claim and I don't blame it.

    Do you know what Korean government's policy on Dokdo? I don't know. My knowledge on Dokdo is from the researches by scholars not from government.

    I'm afraid how much you know about Gerry Bevers. I don't know much. But what I 'm so sure is he is never a fair person when it comes to Dokdo. He objects almost every Korean claim mostly with his own logic and agrees with almost every Japanese claim without any critical approach. Is it the right attitude for finding the truth? I don't want to say more about him with him.

    For me, the fear for this substantial disadvantage and pressure in Korean society seem to be the main reason why there is totally no opposite opinion and arguments. (As if you were in North Korea)
    ---> How dare can you say so? It's hard for me to tolerate, but I forgive it because you seem to be just ignorant about Korean society. Japanese enjoy belittling Korea.

    I think the reason there are many opposite opinions on Dokdo in Japan (if your statement is true) is Japanese logic has a lot of flaws which can't get to the agreement. There are flaws in Korean Dokdo logic, too, but these flaws are covered by Japanese documents and maps.

    If there were not except Mr. Gerry Bevers, you cannot say if it could cause social disadvantage, or if he might become expelled from university.--> ?

    ReplyDelete
  120. sloww

    >>How dare can you say so? It's hard for me to tolerate>>
    Unfortunately it seems Mr.Yoshida was right on this Korean society issue. I found articles on JoongAng Ilbo(Mar.17.2005) and Maeil Business(Mar.14.2006) reported many pro-Japanese website made by Korean like "Dokdo is Japanese land" got banned by the Internet Ethics Committee arbitrarily.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Sloww: If so, I wonder what Matsu Han replied to the Bakufu's question about Matsushima. Did it answer Matsushima belongs to Matsu Han?
    This is the answer.
    一 同年正月二十六日 松平出羽守留守居召寄 相尋候趣、書付を以 返答申来
     口上書                   松平出羽守
    一 雲州隠州之者 為自分働磯竹江渡海候之儀 不及承候 乍然隠州近年之様子不存候
    一 伯州米子町人 村川市兵衛 大屋九右衛門 雲州雲津浦より直ニ磯竹江者不致渡海 隠岐國迄乗舩 彼地より磯竹江渡海仕候由承候
    一 竹嶋之儀 雲州ニ而者 磯竹と申候事
    一 雲州隠州より磯竹江海路ニ而候故 右両國之者 米子之者ニ同舩仕参候儀望不申候得共 市兵衛 九右衛門 舩子共年々雇申候付罷越候事
    一 右之通候故 自分として磯竹江渡海之義 決而無之候 乍然隠州之儀者近年御代官所ニ成候故 委細不存候事 一 委細之儀 御尋被遊者 國元江申遣 吟味可仕候 已上
    正月二十六日                  松平出羽守

    Sloww: Bakufu knew that the Ulleungdo and Takeshima could be treated only by herself without coordination with other Hans.
    --> ?

    You do not know the Bakufu’s land system at all. Bakufu is one of lords. And Bakufu also has her land and was managing for the tax only from her land. Oki where is the nearest island from Ulleungdo is Bakufu’s land. If Bakufu permitted the self-government once to the other Han, She cannot take away the permission without reason. If Bakufu do so, her authority will be ruined and her governance will be collapsed. Then Bakufu understood that he hasn’t permitted Takeshima and Matsushima to other Han by Matsue and Tottori Han’s answers, she can decide the disposal about two islands by herself. Her disposal is prohibit the voyage to only Ulleungdo.

    Sloww: What is Amami?
    Here
    Area is the same as Ulleung Do.

    Sloww: Then, why did 長久保赤 exclude Dokdo as Japanese land in the "改正日本輿地路程全図" published in 1779, not 1846.
    I don’t know and there is no evidence about the 長久保赤’s thought. But it does not affect sovereignty. See Pedra Branca CASE by ICJ.
    "改正日本輿地路程全図" didn’t draw the Amami too. Do you say that Amami was not Japanese territory at that time?

    ReplyDelete
  122. Gerry said:

    "No, the map clearly shows Usando was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo and that it was one island, not two. Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) is about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo and is comprised essentially of two islands."

    Why don't you also say that Jejudo on this map can't be Jejudo because it's too close to the southern coast of Korea, and Tsushima on this map can't be Tsushima because it doesn't look like the real thing, etc, etc.

    Give me a break. It's an old map.
    Stop taking cheap shots, Gerry.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Sloww wrote:

    I'm afraid how much you know about Gerry Bevers. I don't know much. But what I 'm so sure is he is never a fair person when it comes to Dokdo. He objects almost every Korean claim mostly with his own logic and agrees with almost every Japanese claim without any critical approach. Is it the right attitude for finding the truth?

    I have looked at all of Korea's claims and they are all false. And, of course, I am going to reject false claims.

    Korean has no maps showing Liancourt Rocks and no documents showing that Koreans ever traveled there before the Japanese started taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s.

    I have simply come to the same conclusion as the US State Department in 1951, which was as follows:

    As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  124. JK6411 wrote:

    Give me a break. It's an old map.

    It's an old map, but it is not an old map of Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). The Usando on that map is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island of Jukdo, which is only 2km off Ulleungdo's east shore. Usando was the old Korean name for Jukdo.

    If the island on the map is "Dokdo," why isn't it drawn as two islands. If it is "Dokdo", why is it drawn as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, instead of 90km away? If it is Dokdo, then where is Jukdo, Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island?

    ReplyDelete
  125. jk6411 wrote
    >>Korea did not incorporate Dokdo for the first time in 1900.>>
    But she NEVER recorded the details about Dokdo on any documents or maps in history while she investigated Ulleungdo many times and recorded about Ulleungdo in detail on many docs & maps. How could Koreans in mainland learn of Dokdo by only one clue “it's visible when the whether is fine” to identify?
    >>It's visible from Ulleungdo when the weather is very clear.>>
    If they'd always known Dokdo was visible from Ulleungdo, why Ulleungdo inspector Lee Gyu-won found only Jukdo and Gwaneumdo and didn't even search Dokdo until he found it, in 1882? He identified Ulleungdo as Usando instead. Isn't it so weird if all of sudden she annexed the island which has had no record being found at least for 18 years since then?
    An article about Uldo county posted on Newspaper皇城新聞(Jul.13.1906) described only Jukdo and SEOKDO as attached islands of Ulleungdo, even though only 2 months ago(May.9.1906) the same newspaper reported DOKDO was robbed by Japan. If Dokdo is Seokdo, why was July's article as if nothing happened to Seokdo? And it's hard to think Shim Heung-taek didn't know Imperial Edict#41 because he was assigned to the Ullengdo governor by the edict. But he used the word DOKDO instead of Seokdo in 1906.
    >Could you provide a link? 
    Please see the link Mr. Chaamiey provides(Thank you, Chaamiey). It says “島根縣領으로 編入함에 始한 것이니 이렇게 되기 以前에 欝陵島의 行政区割에 編入된 明示된 公的記録이 없다고 해서”

    ReplyDelete
  126. Gerry Bevers,

    To the response to 23/8/12 05:20

    I'd like to believe you didn't talk about your view in class. But I assume students could read your writings on notorious anti-Korean site.

    You wrote on Internet on 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 at least the president had no objection to your views on Dokdo. Besides, it seems there were people who thought they had no problem with your view on Dokdo. It is the members of committee who decide about rehiring the teachers. They must have had their own reasons.

    You said Choi Mi-ri, the dean of planning of the university, said that his view on Dokdo was not the reason the school refused to rehire you at an interview with "The Korea Times". This is what Mrs. Choi told you according to your interview.

    “Although we like Gerry very much, there were so many other good teachers who applied for the position. We made a decision based on objective evaluation on his teaching skills. As our school expanded, we thought it was time for a change’’

    I fully understand how you might had felt about the school and I'm sure you were a good teacher. And I don't think school's decision was completely free of your writing because it led the school to rethink about you, but I can't agree your are completely innocent victim because of literally "your views on Dokdo."

    It seems you were favorable to Korea, but judging from what your writings so far, you are just opposite now. I think Korea lost a good friend, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Kumabear,

    You wrote "Unfortunately it seems Mr.Yoshida was right on this Korean society issue. I found articles on JoongAng Ilbo(Mar.17.2005) and Maeil Business(Mar.14.2006) reported many pro-Japanese website made by Korean like "Dokdo is Japanese land" got banned by the Internet Ethics Committee arbitrarily."


    There are a lot of sites which oppose to Korean claims and follow the Japanese claims? Some of them are run by Japanese in Korean.

    Look who did ban the sites. It's the Internet Ethics Committee arbitrarily.

    That committee has a right to block any site which did unlawful things such as libel(名譽毁損) by the request of netizens after deliberation.

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

    ReplyDelete
  129. Mr.jk6411

    I am sorry I cannot understand at all what you have said.

    You said before;
    > The name "Usan-do" also lost its relevance, and what was once Usando just came to be called "Dokdo" ("rock island") by the local people.

    This time;
    >So, the name "Usando" indeed lost its relevance, but it remained the official name for Dokdo.

    Which is right? Both? Did "Usando" still remain the official name for Dokto, or not?

    >the name "Usando" indeed lost its relevance

    What kind of relevance do you mean in this? Was it possible to remain the official name for Dokto, without relevancy?

    ReplyDelete
  130. opp,

    Response to 23/8/12 07:31

    Wow! You are so stubborn.

    So what is your point? Bakufu considered Matsushima(Dokdo) as Japanese land or not? The answer is it didn't because Bakufu was told "Matsushima doesn't belong to any province (of Japan).

    It's no wonder 伊能忠敬 couldn't include Amami such a small islet far, far away from mainland Japan. Dokdo is also very small and not close to Japan, but there's a good reason he had to include Dokdo in the map of Japan which Japan is very proud of partly because of its exactness if he truly believed Dokdo was Japanese land. You may know the reason. Ask me the answer if you don't know. I'm tired of explaining things which don't need explanations.

    If you don't know, let me tell you why 長久保赤 didn't mark Ulleongdo and Dokdo as Japanese land. He exactly knew Dokdo was not Japanese land as Bakufu did and the phrase "見高麗猶雲州望隠州" from "隱州視聽合紀" reinforces his belief Dokdo along with Ulleongdo was not Japanese land

    ReplyDelete
  131. Gerry Bevers,

    Response to 23/8/12 09:27

    OK. Let's discuss about this matter point by point in your blog. I have a confidence to refute your and pro-Japanese claims.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Sloww wrote:

    You said Choi Mi-ri, the dean of planning of the university, said that his view on Dokdo was not the reason the school refused to rehire you at an interview with "The Korea Times". This is what Mrs. Choi told you according to your interview.

    No, I did not talk with Ms. Choi after I was told by my department head that I would not be rehired because of my Dokdo writings. The reporter talked with her sometime after the reporter's interview with me. Ms. Choi made her comments to the reporter, not to me. I read her comments for the first time in the Korea Times article.

    ReplyDelete
  133. jk6411

    Is it just me, or is there a contradiction in Koreans' claim? They said
    "Local people called the island 'Dok-seom' in their dialect, which means 'rocky island'"
    This means, I don't know whether those local people could write Chinese character or not, but if they could, they would have written 岩島 (or 石島). Not 獨島. Am I right? But you said
    >>But 石島 soon changed to 獨島, because that's the way the locals on Ulleungdo WROTE it.>>
    I'm sorry,I don't get it. If local people wrote 「獨島」 from the beginning, where did 石島 and their dialect come from?

    ReplyDelete
  134. Mr.Sloww

    You said to me;
    >he(Mr.Gerry) was not socially disadvantaged because of his research on Dokdo as you define.

    Then you said to Mr.Gerry
    >I don't think school's decision was completely free of your writing because it led the school to rethink about you

    So which do you want to mean finally?
    (These kind of tolerance to inconsistency, is something like your national custom of argument?)

    ReplyDelete
  135. Gerry Bevers,

    I understood.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Mr. Yoshida,

    You wrote " These kind of tolerance to inconsistency, is something like your national custom of argument?"


    It's hard for me to tolerate your comment again, but I forgive it because you are just one of the very arrogant people who think theirs are perfect. Maybe I need to know more about what kind of country Japan is to reveal ugly things about Japan. But it's not likely for me to do so because it is mean thing to do.

    I didn't write " I don't think school's decision was completely free of your writing because it led the school not to rehire you."



    ReplyDelete
  137. Mr. Sloww

    >I didn't write " I don't think school's decision was completely free of your writing because it led the school not to rehire you."

    You wrote” I don't think school's decision was completely free of your writing because it led the school to rethink about you”

    So my Question is again: Doesn’t your comment above mean “Mr. Gerry got social disadvantage by his opinion”?

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

    ReplyDelete
  139. Today, I saw TV news. In this, K-pop group “Kara” was interviewed by reporter, “How will you answer if you were asked about Dokdo in japan?” Kara did not answer directly, but began to talk something, which was not concerned about Dokdo. Like,” We had left Korea for a while, and we were loved by Japanese fans very much, so we are very thankful for that…”

    There was nothing for early 20’s girls who had been only in music industry in their life, but they had to talk like that. They would be patriots, but they have many fans in both countries, they are having shows and much more CD sales in Japan, and they just do not want both people to get angry. So maybe managers in their company had directed them to talk like that.
    Then, I saw some news, which reported Kara had criticized by many people, especially by net users, because they evaded from the territorial question and did not answer directly in this interview.
    Seeing this, I felt “we can not do this.” It was really a mean, embarrassing, and childish question. We might ask same question to Japanese politicians, who are responsible to answer to territorial questions, but we don't dare to ask this for people like “Kara” We know they cannot answer this. So, I really hope Japanese reporters would not ask this question to K-pop stars, which happened to visit Japan.

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

    ReplyDelete
  141. Sloww: Bakufu considered Matsushima(Dokdo) as Japanese land or not? The answer is it didn't because Bakufu was told "Matsushima doesn't belong to any province (of Japan).
    Bakufu didn't refer Matsuhima. Your this tranceration is correct
    Sloww:1696, Edo Bakufu prohibited voyage to Ulleongdo.

    Eastern Greenland Case
    As regards voluntary abandonment, there is nothing to show any definite renunciation on the part of the kings of Norway or Denmark. During the first two centuries or so after the settlements perished, there seems to have been no intercourse with Greenland, and knowledge of it diminished; but the tradition of the King's rights lived on, and in the early part of the XVIIth century a revival of interest in Greenland on the part both of the King and of his people took place.

    Another case: Britain who governed Singapore sent a letter. Britain wrote that we will not clam the sovereignty of the Pedra Branka in the letter. The court judged that this letter was not applied to the middle which is only several miles away from Pedra Branca.

    Sloww: but there's a good reason he had to include Dokdo in the map of Japan which Japan is very proud of partly because of its exactness if he truly believed Dokdo was Japanese land.
    Why can’t you understand the International law and repeat your selfish rule? Singapore Government didn’t publish maps which include Pedra Branca till 1995. Malaysia claimed that Singapore didn’t get sovereignty of the island because Singapore didn’t the island in her maps. But ICJ denied Malaysia’s claim and admitted that Singapore acquired her sovereignty by 1980.

    Sloww: Ask me the answer if you don't know.
    Read judicial precedents, if you don’t know the international law and world standard about the rule of the sovereignty.

    Sloww: He exactly knew Dokdo was not Japanese land [SNIP]
    Your historical essay without the evidence is fun. But the map is meaningless for the sovereignty.
    Palmas Case
    Anyhow, a map affords only an indication—and that a very indirect one—and, except when annexed to a legal instrument, has not the value of such an instrument, involving recognition or abandonment of rights.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Kumabear said:

    "But she NEVER recorded the details about Dokdo on any documents or maps in history while she investigated Ulleungdo many times and recorded about Ulleungdo in detail on many docs & maps. How could Koreans in mainland learn of Dokdo by only one clue “it's visible when the whether is fine” to identify?"

    Ulleungdo and Dokdo have always been considered a pair, "sister islands" if you will.
    Unlike Korea's southern and western coasts (where there are innumerable islands), off Korea's east coast, there are only two islands, Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

    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 新羅時 稱于山國 一云鬱陵島 地方百里 恃險不服 智證王十 二年 異斯夫爲何瑟羅州軍主 謂于山人愚悍 難以威來 可以計服 乃多以木造猛獸 分載戰舡 抵其國誑之曰 汝若不服則即放此 獸 國人懼來降

    Sejong-Sillok 世宗實錄 (1432, recompiled 1454) says that Usando and Mulleung (Ulleungdo) are both in the middle of East Sea, and that the two islands are not far from each other and are visible from each other on a clear day.

    輿地志云, 鬱陵于山皆于山國地于山則倭所謂松島也

    ManGi-YoRam 萬機要覽 (1808) clearly says that Ulleungdo and Usando are both parts of Usanguk, and that Usando is what the Japanese call Matsushima.


    "If they'd always known Dokdo was visible from Ulleungdo, why Ulleungdo inspector Lee Gyu-won found only Jukdo and Gwaneumdo and didn't even search Dokdo until he found it, in 1882? He identified Ulleungdo as Usando instead."

    Dokdo isn't always visible from Ulleungdo. It's visible about 3-4 times a month.


    "An article about Uldo county posted on Newspaper皇城新聞(Jul.13.1906) described only Jukdo and SEOKDO as attached islands of Ulleungdo, even though only 2 months ago(May.9.1906) the same newspaper reported DOKDO was robbed by Japan."

    The July 1906 article was simply quoting the 1900 imperial edict, which said that the attached islands of Ulleungdo were 'Jukdo' and 'Seokdo'.


    "I'm sorry,I don't get it. If local people wrote 「獨島」 from the beginning, where did 石島 and their dialect come from?"

    Sorry for the confusion.
    Along southern coast of Korea, there are many small rock islands which are called 독섬 (Dok-Seom).
    Sometimes they are written as 獨島 to emphasize the pronunciation 'dok'. (because the character 獨 is pronounced 'dok' in Korean). Sometimes they are written as 石島 to emphasize the meaning "rock island".
    石島 is proper Korean, and 獨島 is a regional dialect.

    Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks was written as 獨島 by Ulleungdo locals.

    But in the 1900 edict, the central govt used standard Korean and wrote Dokdo as 石島.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Mr. Yoshida said:

    ">the name "Usando" indeed lost its relevance
    What kind of relevance do you mean in this? Was it possible to remain the official name for Dokto, without relevancy?"

    What I mean by "losing its relevance" is that the name Usan-Do didn't make sense any more, because the ancient state of Usan-guk was long gone.
    But Usando remained the official name of the island.


    "So, I really hope Japanese reporters would not ask this question to K-pop stars, which happened to visit Japan."

    Unfortunately, Japanese reporters have asked visiting Korean entertainers about Dokdo.

    In 2009, when Korean actor 허준호 (Huh Joon-Ho) was visiting Japan to promote a musical, he was asked by a Japanese reporter about Dokdo.
    The response he gave at that time is still famous in Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Mr.jk6411

    >Unfortunately, Japanese reporters have asked visiting Korean entertainers about Dokdo.

    I am sorry to hear about that. I am a huge fan of IU; she is coming Japan in next month, so I really hope Japanese reporters would not do that to IU.

    >But Usando remained the official name of the island.

    I am also very sorry that I cannot get the meaning again.

    What does "official name" mean?
    Had Korea government at 1900 recognized Dokdo as Usando?
    Or had they forgotten that Dokdo had been Usando at 1900?

    ReplyDelete
  145. 「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」 Correct translation is “Usando and Mulleungdo are not far from each other and both of them are visible from 'ULJIN'.......”
    「太宗実録」described Usando as「還自于山島 献土産大竹 水牛皮 生苧 綿子 検樸木 等物 且率居人三名以来 其島戸凡十五口男女并八十六」「男女共六十余 今移居本島」「唯種豆一斗出二十石或三十石 麦一石出五十余石 竹如大椽海錯果木皆在」If my memory serves me correctly, Dokdo doesn't have animals, plants and such a big number of inhabitants.
    「春官史Chungwanji」(1744) says「以産竹故謂竹島有三峯故謂三峰島于山羽陵蔚陵武陵蟻竹皆音訛而然也」“Jukdo, Sambongdo, USAN, Uleung, Ulleung, Mulleung, Wuijuk are all mispronunciations.”
    Usando=Dokdo theory was already refuted by Korean documents themselves.

    >>Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks was written as 獨島 by Ulleungdo locals.
    So, you are saying they sometimes wrote 獨島 even though they represented “rock island”, and Lee Geon-ha chose to use石島 knowing what they represented. OK. Could you give me some examples 'rock island' was written as 獨島?
    >>The July 1906 article was simply quoting the 1900 imperial edict>>
    No need to mention Seokdo was taken by Japan only 2 months ago?
    >>But in the 1900 edict, the central govt used standard Korean and wrote Dokdo as 石島. >>
    If so, what made “central govt's” mind changed to suddenly use non-standard Korean 獨島 instead of 石島 after Shim's report?

    ReplyDelete
  146. JK6411 wrote:

    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 新羅時 稱于山國 一云鬱陵島 地方百里 恃險不服 智證王十 二年 異斯夫爲何瑟羅州軍主 謂于山人愚悍 難以威來 可以計服 乃多以木造猛獸 分載戰舡 抵其國誑之曰 汝若不服則即放此 獸 國人懼來降

    Sejong-Sillok 世宗實錄 (1432, recompiled 1454) says that Usando and Mulleung (Ulleungdo) are both in the middle of East Sea, and that the two islands are not far from each other and are visible from each other on a clear day.


    That's a deliberate mistranslation. Here is the correct translation:

    The two islands of Usan and Mu-leung are in the sea due east of the present "hyeon" (Uljin), and the distance to them is close enough that they are visible on a clear, windy day. In the time of Silla, they were called Unsan-guk or Ulleungdo. It has an area of 100 ri.

    The passage was referring to the distance from the Korean coastal town of Uljin to the two islands, not the distance between the two islands.

    Notice that the passage said the two islands were due east of Uljin. That means that Usando was not "Dokdo" since it is about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Therefore, how can both Ulleungdo and "Dokdo" be due east of Uljin?

    Also, it said that the two islands were also referred to as "Muleungdo," which was an old name for Ulleungdo. That also means that Usando was not "Dokdo," especially since only the area for Ulleungdo was given.

    At the time, Koreans knew that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island (Jukdo), but they were confused about whether "Usando" was referring to the main island of Ulleungdo or to Ulleungdo's neighboring island. Notice that the passage mentioned "Usan" before "Muleung," where suggests Koreans believed Usan to be the larger island.

    This confusion came about in 1412 when 60 men and women from Usanguk-do drifted into a Korean port. They said that Usanguk was the "main island" and Muleung was a neighboring island, where the sixty families had grown up. That means that the neighboring island could not have been "Dokdo" since Dokdo has no food or water to support 60 people. That leaves Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which in only 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore.

    THIS KOREAN ATLAS shows a map of Gangwon Provice, which includes the island of Ulleungdo, and a closeup map of Ulleungdo itself. One the Gangwondo Provincial map, it shows Ulluengdo as one island labeled as "The two islands of Ulleung/Usan" (鬱陵干山两島). And on the Ulleungdo map, it shows Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo labeled as "the so-called Usando" (所謂 干山島). 干山島 was a common misspelling of 于山島.


    The above Korean atlas is evidence that the two islands visible to due east of the coastal town of Uljin was actually Ulleungdo and its neigboring island of Jukdo, which is only 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore.

    Another Korean atlas showing the same thing can be found HERE.

    The Japanese descriptions of the two atlases can be found HERE and HERE

    ReplyDelete
  147. To jk6411

    >>The July 1906 article was simply quoting the 1900 imperial edict,>>
    I don't agree with you. It was the article of the reply from the Ministry of Interior to the Resident-General's inquiry;what islands were under Uldo county. Only 2 months ago, the same newspaper says "DOKDO under Uldo county got robbed by Japan".
    Moreover, on Jun.1.1905, the same newspaper reported about Russo-Japan war by using the name지은고루도巌(Liancourt Rock), not Seokdo or Dokdo. If Seokdo is Takeshima, why didn't it use Seokdo then (5 years after the Edict#41) ?

    ReplyDelete
  148. Mr.sloww

    >>Some of them are run by Japanese in Korean>>
    I doubt Japanese in Korea are operating them. If you have an evidence, please show me. And most of them had over thousand regular readers before getting banned. Japan also has numerous pro-Korean websites but none of them is banned by others.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Mr. Kumabear,

    If you are anxious to see, go to http://onsoku.blog.me/40156296064 and enjoy how it is full of lies in favor of Japanese false claim. If you want more, find yourself.

    I told you there must have been proper reasons those sites were closed. Don't tackle me anymore about this matter. You and I have more important things to do, right?

    ReplyDelete
  150. jk6411,

    Would you please to mail me if you don't mind? I'm so glad to meet Korean in this blog.

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

    ReplyDelete
  152. Mr. Yoshida wrote:

    I felt “we can not do this.” It was really a mean, embarrassing, and childish question. We might ask same question to Japanese politicians, who are responsible to answer to territorial questions, but we don't dare to ask this for people like “Kara”

    What do you think about the followings happened recently in Japan?

    1. The Japanese hold a big demonstration against Korean actress because she attended a Dokdo campaign in Switzerland. in 2005.

    Anti-Kim Tae-hee demonstration at http://my.mgoon.com/s/flyingdogs/4755060

    2. A Japanese fan asked a Japanese-born Korean fighter,秋山成勲, who is working both in Korea and Japan a question “Whose territory do you think Takeshima(Dokdo) is, Japan or Korea?"

    秋山成勲's tweet

    3. Korean actor, Song il-guk, joined the Dokdo crossing project by swimming. For this reason, his drama was rejected to be aired in Japan.

    4. A Japanese lawmaker (國會議員) did the false tweet that "Girls' Generation shouted in Japanese "Dokdo is Our land." in their concert.

    Japanese lawmaker's tweet

    Actually I don't want your answer. I understand those kind of things can happen in any country no matter what it is advanced or not.

    ReplyDelete
  153. If you do not want, I will answer you (*^_^*)
    I am entertainment maniac (than historic) and I know these cases, maybe better than you.

    Actually, I am an eager fan of K-pop, so I hope we Japanese will not do this for innocent K-pop stars. But as you said, poor Japanese reporters might ask them such questions, so I apology in advance.

    But, if he or she joined or was used in national territorial campaign, organizations or something, he might determine to be blamed or to lose market of opposite, so some criticism will not be avoided.
    (Kim Tae-hee, Song il-guk’ case)

    Girls generation was a little bit unfortunate to be YouTubed these:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohxik4bIAqY&feature=related
    But most of fans here seem to be understanding the situation and supporting them as usual, except some mad net nerds.

    Akiyama’s case was a little bit special. He once had became very notorious, because he wrapped his body with slippery lotion, and won with knockout against a legend of K1, Kazushi Sakuraba. What was worse, Akiyama had tried to excuse because of his incredible excessive perspiration, but he was disqualified. (fine powder is more suitable for perspiration)
    So there was a big bashing against him in Japan, this is some aftereffect of it.

    ReplyDelete
  154. sloww

    >>If you are anxious to see, go to http://onsoku.blog.me/40156296064 and enjoy how it is full of lies in favor of Japanese false claim.>>
    What? I'm talking about the people who had been organizing pro-Japan community on the portal site DAUM, which was already banned 4 years ago. I know some Japanese are running pro-Japan website in Korean like his website you provided the link.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Mr. Yoshida:

    >"What does "official name" mean?
    Had Korea government at 1900 recognized Dokdo as Usando?
    Or had they forgotten that Dokdo had been Usando at 1900?"

    By "official name", I mean that Dokdo was called "Usando" in government records and maps.
    After 1900, Dokdo was no longer called "Usando".

    ReplyDelete
  156. Kumabear said:

    >"「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」 Correct translation is “Usando and Mulleungdo are not far from each other and both of them are visible from 'ULJIN'.......”

    Ulleungdo and Dokdo are never visible from the Korean mainland. Never.
    Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo when the weather is very clear.


    >"So, you are saying they sometimes wrote 獨島 even though they represented “rock island”, and Lee Geon-ha chose to use 石島 knowing what they represented. OK. Could you give me some examples 'rock island' was written as 獨島?"

    See my post here.


    >"If so, what made “central govt's” mind changed to suddenly use non-standard Korean 獨島 instead of 石島 after Shim's report?"

    I guess it was just more convenient to call it 獨島, because that's what the locals called it.


    ">>The July 1906 article was simply quoting the 1900 imperial edict,>>
    I don't agree with you. It was the article of the reply from the Ministry of Interior to the Resident-General's inquiry;what islands were under Uldo county. Only 2 months ago, the same newspaper says "DOKDO under Uldo county got robbed by Japan"."

    The article was simply reporting that Korea's Interior Ministry sent a reply to Resident General regarding which islands were under Uldo County.

    What probably happened was this: After Korea found out that Japan had annexed Dokdo, Korea protested to the Japanese Resident General. And the Resident General asked the Korean Interior Ministry which islands belonged to Uldo County.

    The Korean Interior Ministry replied that "the post of Ulleungdo Administrator was established on May 20, 1898, and then on October 25, 1900, the government decided to post a county magistrate with the county office being at Daehadong (台霞洞). It said the islands under the authority of the said county were Jukdo (竹島) and Seokdo (石島).."

    This is exactly what the 1900 edict said.


    >"Moreover, on Jun.1.1905, the same newspaper reported about Russo-Japan war by using the name지은고루도巌(Liancourt Rock), not Seokdo or Dokdo. If Seokdo is Takeshima, why didn't it use Seokdo then (5 years after the Edict#41) ?

    The newspaper was reporting that Japan defeated the Russian Navy near Liancourt Rocks.

    The newspaper probably referenced Japanese newspapers, which reported on May 30-31 that the Russian Navy had been defeated near "Liancourt Rocks".

    ReplyDelete
  157. Gerry said:

    >"Notice that the passage said the two islands were due east of Uljin. That means that Usando was not "Dokdo" since it is about 90 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Therefore, how can both Ulleungdo and "Dokdo" be due east of Uljin?"

    You're kidding me, right?
    In ancient times, Korea didn't have the benefit of aerial photography or satellite imagery.
    There was no way for them to know the exact compass heading from Uljin to Dokdo.
    All they knew was that if you sailed east from Uljin, you would reach Ulleungdo in 2 days. And if you sailed east from Ulleungdo, you reached Dokdo in 1 day.

    (BTW, Ulleungdo is actually east-northeast from Uljin; Dokdo is due east from Uljin.)


    On a side-note,
    I think one of the reasons why ancient Korean mapmakers drew Ulleungdo and Dokdo close to Korea was that Koreans could sail relatively quickly to Ulleungdo/Dokdo, due to favorable winds and ocean currents.

    In the Korea/East Sea region, the prevailing winds blow from west to east.
    The ocean currents also aided the Korean sailors. (proof: http://www.newdaily.co.kr/news/article.html?no=60322)
    This meant that from Korea, Koreans could sail pretty quickly to Ulleungdo/Dokdo.
    Perhaps this is why Koreans perceived the two islands to be closer to Korea than they are in real-life.

    As for the distance from Ulleungdo to Dokdo, in the olden days Koreans thought Dokdo was 100 RI (42km) from Ulleungdo, but in reality the two islands are 87km apart.
    So, they underestimated Dokdo's distance from Ulleungdo as well.

    The actual distance from Korea to Ulleungdo is 130km, and from Ulleungdo to Dokdo is ~90km.
    But in the olden days, it usually took 2 days to sail from Korea to Ulleungdo, but only 1 day from Ulleungdo to Dokdo.
    So perhaps that's why they underestimated the distance from Ulleungdo to Dokdo.

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

    ReplyDelete
  159. Mr. Yoshida,

    Response to 24/8/12 22:32

    I already know what you said. I know those cases as well as you. It's simple to understand.

    You seem not to know why I showed you those cases or you pretend not to. I wanted to let you remind there are lots of Japanese who do mean, embarrassing, and childish things in associated with Dokdo issue.

    As for Kim Tae-hee and Song il-guk,I understand how the Japanese feel about them, but demonstration and banning his movie are childish from your point of view, aren't they?

    As for 秋山成勲's case, I hope you are not meaning he deserves such a question. No matter who he is, the Japanese fan shouldn't have asked that question. Is this what you wanted to say to the Korean reporter?

    I know about Japanese bashing on Girl's generation for their singing Dokdo song, I I just couldn't find the video. I know there are some mad net nerds everywhere in every country. It's no wonder Japan has that kind of persons, isn't it?

    Today, I read a news Japanese vice Minister of Foreign Affairs(外務次官) told Song il-guk couldn't come to Japan because of his crossing Dokdo by swimming. Isn't this Japanese politician's statement really mean, embarrassing and childish?

    I asked you several questions, but I didn't mean you should answer. you don't need to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Kumabear,

    I wrote "There are a lot of sites which oppose to Korean claims and follow the Japanese claims? Some of them are run by Japanese in Korean."

    You wrote I doubt Japanese in Korea are operating them. If you have an evidence, please show me.

    So I showed the site. And I gave you my possible reason for the sites blocked?
    Then, what are you talking about now?

    It seems you and I misunderstood each other. It's cleared up, right? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  161. sloww

    My bad, I thought you were referring to the website owners who got banned by the committee 4 years ago. Sorry. But I still believe most of them and regular readers were Korean in Korea. In any case, they seem to have no freedom to study history by their own. They should be able to watch whatever they want on the net. How come "telling the historical facts" becomes libel or injurious?

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

    ReplyDelete
  163. Mr. jk6411

    >By "official name", I mean that Dokdo was called "Usando" in government records and maps.
    >After 1900, Dokdo was no longer called "Usando".

    Oh, knowing my question, you would never answer me.

    My question is: Just before 1900, for example in 1899.

    1) Had your government recognized “Usando” was Dokdo in 1899?

    2) Had not your government recognized “Usando” was Dokdo in 1899?

    3) Or. Is it difficult to know whether your government had recognized “Usando” was Dokdo in 1899 or not, by evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  164. Actually, I do not understand at all why such many social and emotional “Dokdo” Campaigns involving young talents or musicians or songs, are necessary. (The Olympic Soccer game flag accident was very same patterned, mentally.)
    General Korean seems well enough enthusiastic and collective, (possibly not knowing historical facts or logic) so it is something dangerous. Fact based (with open database and foreign views), cool, history education will be more adequate, domestically.
    Japanese are not enthusiastic for now, but not sure in near future, so it is also same for us.

    Internationally, it would have, if anything the opposite effect, because influential people are very uncomfortable with any emotional patriotic campaigns (see International Olympic Committee). They would welcome only specialists like politicians, diplomats, scholars, and international lawyer’s concern. So they might interpret these national movements, as if there were some hidden weakness of legitimacy or historical evidences. So here also, logical, objective, open-minded arguments will work much more effectively for Korea and also for Japan.

    At last, Japanese don’t like artists or musicians to be involved in nationalistic Campaign, (of course even Japanese one) basically. We love them because their talents are free from fixed opinion, and we don’t want to see them forced to appeal anything by authorities. So these political involvements will hurt their image badly, no matter which their opinions are.
    They are only Korean artists who have difficulty to be asked their opinions and concerns of Dokdo, or, have to compare their “national duty” to “foreign fans.” Japanese artists will not be blamed socially at all, if they don’t answer for some spiteful questions. They would only say “I don’t know these historical difficult matter, so please ask for some politician ” and it will work very well.
    So I really felt sorry for Korean artists like KARA.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Mr. Yoshida:

    "1) Had your government recognized “Usando” was Dokdo in 1899?"

    Probably.
    (I don't have evidence to prove this. But it's highly likely, since by this time there were many Koreans living on Ulleungdo, and any confusion that may have existed in the past, during the "vacant island" period, regarding Usando/Dokdo will have been cleared up.

    Koreans always knew there was a small island named Usando near Ulleungdo. It's just that they were sometimes confused about exactly where it was. This is not surprising, since in the 2nd millennium AD, post-Usanguk, Ulleungdo was either sparsely populated or deserted.)

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

    ReplyDelete
  167. Mr Jk6411

    Thank you very much for your honest answer and I had appreciated it very much.
    (And I felt you are very modest and stoical person.)

    Very sorry for troubling you,
    I have a next question but you need not answer it, I will think of it myself, if possible.

    “If your very conventional Joseon Dynasty had recognized “Usando” was Dokdo in 1899, probably, so why they named this island as “Sokto”, which was unconventional, commoner, and rare name in after history.
    Is this a common case, or the very unique case in Joseon Dynasty’s history, to change and rename of her local district, like this way?”

    ReplyDelete
  168. jk6411

    >>Ulleungdo and Dokdo are never visible from the Korean mainland>>
    I didn't say Dokdo. I said Usando.

    Do you realize you are only talking about 'possibilities' which are favorable for you? Certainly, they can't be denied, but can't be proven by objective evidences either. F.e, some other examples of 石島=独島 you'd showed me haven't denied a possibility of Seokdo=Gwaneumdo or haven't proven that the minister went to meet locals and picked up the name 石島from their dialect (In fact, the edict was made based on only U Yong-jeong's report and Ulleungdo locals called “Yanko” in 1901, neither Dol-seom nor Dok-seom 「韓海通漁指針」) yet. It's called “Devil's proof”.

    First of all, visibility has nothing to do with sovereignty of territory.
    Second, you said
    >>Koreans could sail relatively quickly to Ulleungdo/Dokdo >>
    You seem to assume they could sail but we haven't found records they actually did so far. In contrast to your assumption, many documents written around 1900 such as 「朝鮮開化史」「韓国鬱陵島事情」「韓海通漁指針」 said most of Koreans in Ulleungdo were farmers and didn't have ships to go fishing(look at the fishery boats North Korean still use today). Even though some people did fishery, they were fishing only seaweed and abalone along the coasts at the farthest. They said Koreans didn't sail to Dokdo by themselves without Japanese's help. They began deep-sea fishery after they learned it from Japanese in 1908 and making Japanese style ships since then. Let's think about probability, not possibility. I think they would have made at least one precise map of Dokdo, if they really sailed to Dokdo. But there is NO Korean map drawing Usando (or Seokdo) as "TWIN ISLETS". It wasn't until 1948 they made a precise Dokdo map (twin islet: the most significant feature of Dokdo).

    >>Dokdo isn't always visible from Ulleungdo. It's visible about 3-4 times a month.>>
    You are saying Koreans didn't even know where Usando(Dokdo) existed unless it could be seen? Isn't it the proof Koreans never sailed to Dokdo? The King Gojong knew Usando existed near Ulleungdo within range of vision (that was only clue about Usando Korea had at the time) and ordered the inspector Lee to find it. But Lee didn't even sail to seek Usando and finally reported to the king Usando was Ulleungdo and 松竹島 was Jukdo. And he made a map that completely OMITS Usando. Even in 1900 right before the edict was issued, an another inspector U Yong-jeong didn't report about Dokdo either because he couldn't find it. As I said before, the edict was made only because of his suggestion (promoting Ulleungdo to Uldo county). Nobody reported about Dokdo to the government or the king for 20 years at least. You have to find the evidence Lee Geon-ha found Dokdo by himself or was informed by locals directly, otherwise you can't conclude Seokdo is Dokdo.
    I think it's much more natural to assume Seokdo was one of the “neighboring” islands of Ulleungdo when considering probability, not possibility. Don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  169. Kumabear said:

    >But there is NO Korean map drawing Usando (or Seokdo) as "TWIN ISLETS".

    Look at these four maps of Ulleungdo and Usando.

    "Gwandong Bangyeo" (關東方輿) - late 1800s?)
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3400/3580734537_275bdfeabd_b.jpg

    "Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖) Atlas (1750 - 1768)
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2108/1825468597_cc82dbf8b6_o.jpg

    "Samcheok & Ulleungdo" (1884 - 1894)
    http://blog.naver.com/storyphoto/viewer.html?src=http%3A%2F%2Fblogfiles8.naver.net%2Fdata33%2F2008%2F7%2F19%2F263%2F0008_1800m_cms1530.jpg

    1893 Map of Samcheok (三陟) and Ulleungdo (鬱陵島)
    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/5129810742_c9c646c2a6_b.jpg

    (The second map, "Joseon Jido", has the seal of the 'Official Map of Joseon'.)

    On these four maps, Usando is clearly drawn as an island with two mountainous halves.

    As for why Dokdo was drawn as one island..
    Dokdo's two islets are separated by a shallow reef. This reef is only 1-1.5m deep, and below that depth Dokdo is one island.
    There are many rocks sticking out of the water between the two islets.
    Perhaps that's why Korean mapmakers decided to depict Dokdo as one island with two mountainous halves.

    http://blog.daum.net/_blog/photoImage.do?blogid=0IQjd&imgurl=http://cfile201.uf.daum.net/original/120AC6434D1A5F5523127B

    This is a replica of Dokdo island.
    As you can see, Dokdo is made up of the East Islet, West Islet, and a number of small rocks.
    You can tell from looking at the replica that the water between the two islets is quite shallow; there are rocks sticking out of the water.

    If you had to draw Dokdo as one island, it would look exactly like the Usando in the 4 maps of Ulleungdo that I mentioned above.
    It would be one longish island with two mountainous halves.

    http://thumb.egloos.net/460x0/http://pds13.egloos.com/pds/200904/18/91/a0101091_49e9d0b7714a9.jpg

    This is an underwater topographical map of Dokdo. The light-colored area immediately surrounding Dokdo is very shallow.
    Dokdo as seen here looks very similar to the Usando in the 4 maps of Ulleungdo I mentioned above.

    http://web.hallym.ac.kr/~physics/course/a2u/eyeview/img/dokdomap.jpg

    This a nautical chart of Dokdo that was made in 2001.
    The water between and immediately surrounding the two islets is 0m to 2m deep.
    (Between the two islets, it says 0-9. This means 0 meter and 9 decimeters, or 0.9m.)

    http://cfile5.uf.tistory.com/image/192946104A66AD8A03D344

    This is a photograph of Dokdo Island. Here, Dokdo looks very similar to the Usando in the four maps of Ulleungdo above.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8brHK7Shaw

    Here, you can see a 360-degree boat tour of Dokdo Island.
    (From 5:00 to 5:30, and from 6:20 to 6:40 you can see that between the two main islets there are many rocks.)
    (Dokdo is made up of two main islets and many smaller rocks.)

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

    ReplyDelete
  171. Mr. Yoshida,

    You’re welcome.


    >“If your very conventional Joseon Dynasty had recognized “Usando” was Dokdo in 1899, probably, so why they named this island as “Sokto”, which was unconventional, commoner, and rare name in after history.
    Is this a common case, or the very unique case in Joseon Dynasty’s history, to change and rename of her local district, like this way?”

    The whole reason the Korean govt changed the jurisdiction of Ulleungdo and neighboring islands in 1900 was to counter the Japanese' illegal encroachment into Ulleungdo.
    In the late 19th Century, there were many Japanese on Ulleungdo illegally fishing and cutting down trees.
    The Korean govt repeatedly protested to Japan, but nothing was done.

    So in 1883, Korea abolished the "vacant island" policy and started resettling Ulleungdo.
    Then the Japanese govt withdrew all Japanese from Ulleungdo.
    But eventually the Japanese came back, and the situation became worse than before.

    The island administrator did not have the authority to take sufficient measures against the Japanese encroachment.
    So in 1900 the Korean govt upgraded Ulleungdo and nearby islands to an independent County, and upgraded the title of island superintendent to county magistrate.

    In the process, they changed the name of Usando (a very old name which no longer made sense) to Dokdo ("rock island", which made much more sense).


    However, this re-jurisdiction did not have much effect in deterring the Japanese.
    So Korea kept protesting to Japan about the Japanese trespassing on Ulleungdo, but Japan turned a deaf ear.
    Instead, the Japanese built a school in Ulleungdo in Feb. 1901.
    This aroused the antagonism of Koreans on Ulleungdo, and led to clashes between Koreans and Japanese.
    At the end of 1901, Japan posted police officers on Ulleungdo, under the pretext of protecting the Japanese residents.

    (http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/10-library.htm#chap8)

    "In January 1902, after the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was signed, Japan adopted a policy of setting up a Japanese settlement on Ulleungdo, and went on to station in Ulleungdo one police inspector and three policemen from the Japanese consulate in Pusan in March of that year."

    In April 1903, the Korean government appointed Shim Heung-Taek magistrate of Uldo County. Upon his arrival there, Shim issued an order strictly banning any lumbering by the Japanese, but this gave rise to disturbances among the discontented Japanese. Shim asked the government for the dispatch of two police officers to deal with them, and for a strongly-worded protest to be lodged with the Japanese minister in Seoul and for the withdrawl of the Japanese from Ulleungdo.

    "Magistrate Shim demanded time and again that the Japanese police control illegal lumbering by Japanese, but they turned down his protests on the grounds that Japanese lumbering had been carried out for ten-odd years. They overbearingly countered the magistrate by telling him to contact the Japanese legation in Seoul if Korea really meant to end the lumbering."

    On receiving the report, the Korean government summoned the Japanese minister in Seoul and handed him a strong protest against the Japanese police for their abusive language and demanded their outright withdrawal from Ulleungdo, which was not a port opened to Japan under the Korea-Japan Treaty of Friendship (also called Treaty of Kanghwado) signed in 1876. Under the treaty, the three ports of Pusan, Wonsan and Incheon were opened to Japan.

    The Japanese minister ignored all the protests by the Korean government, and forcibly implemented the building of a Japanese fishing village on Ulleungdo. When the year of 1904 dawned, Japan was still intent on its encroachment on Ulleungdo, but it showed no sign of aggressive design on Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  172. (cont’d)

    In Feb. 1904, Japan started the Russo-Japanese War. (partly over control of Korea)

    Anticipating a war between Japan and Russia, the Korean government officially proclaimed its neutrality in January 1904, but no sooner had Japan declared war on Russia than it sent its troops en masse to Korea and occupied Seoul.

    “By threat of force, Japan compelled Korea to sign the first protocol agreement with six articles. One of them recognized Japan's use of strategic points throughout Korea during the war. Japan reserved one division from its troops, landed in Korea, as a garrison force in Korea, without committing it to the war against Russia. Soon it was increased to two divisions buttressed by thousands of additional gendarmes. It was clearly designed to bring Korea under its control.”

    Then on May 18, 1904 Japan coerced Korea into scrapping all the treaties it had concluded with Russia, including the one granting timber rights to Russia on the Yalu and Tumen river basins and on Ulleungdo.
    (During the war, Japan fully utilized Ulleungdo for military purposes.)

    Further, on June 4, 1904, Japan took by force the fishing rights not only in the East Sea (Sea of Japan), but also in the West Sea (Yellow Sea) off Chungcheong, Hwanghae and Pyongan provinces.
    On June 6 in the same year, Japan demanded, through Minister Hayashi Gonsuke in Seoul, that the Korean government entrust it with full powers to develop uncultivated lands throughout the country. Japan's scheme to grab the land of Korea thus became even more undisguised.

    This naturally met with resistance from the people and government of Korea, and Japan, on July 20 of the year, reinforced its gendarmeries in Seoul and the outlying areas, placed the northern province of Hamgyong under military government, and notified the Korean government that the Japanese troops would be responsible for the maintenance of public peace and order.

    In this way, the Japanese troops enforced a military government, and began to censor the newspapers, magazines and other publications from around the end of July 1904 and to try and punish Korean people by the Japanese courts-martial in Korea. Korea was under Japanese military government from this time to September 1905 when the Portsmouth Treaty was concluded to end the Russo-Japanese War.

    Then, Japan forced upon Korea the Protectorate Treaty on November 17, 1905.
    “Therefore, all the Korea-Japan treaties, concessions, and lands the Japanese obtained between February 8, 1904 and August 29, 1910, when Korea was annexed by Japan, were concluded or grabbed by "violence" and "greed."”

    (http://plaza.snu.ac.kr/~bigbear1/10-library.htm#chap9)

    ReplyDelete
  173. (cont’d)

    On February 8, 1904 the Japanese navy launched surprise attacks on the Russian warships at anchor at lncheon and Port Arthur and sank two warships at each port.
    Japan commanded the West Sea, but on the East Sea, the Russian Vladivostok Fleet had naval supremacy, and on June 15 of the year it sank two Japanese army transports in the Tsushima straits.

    All the Japanese warships were equipped with wireless communication apparatus and kept watch on the movements of the Russian fleet.
    On June 21, 1904, the order was given to build observation posts with radio communication facilities at Chukpyeon in Uljin county along the eastern coast of Korea and at other strategic sites.

    Under these circumstances, Japan came to notice Dokdo's strategic importance.

    The Japanese navy began constructing an observation tower at Chukpyeon in Uljin county, and at the northwest and southeast ends of Ulleungdo island.
    Chukpyeon and Ulleungdo were to be connected by undersea cable.

    The construction at Chukpyeon began on June 27, 1904 and was completed on July 22 and began operation from August 10 of the year.

    The construction of the posts on Ulleungdo was commenced on August 3 and completed on September 1 of the year, beginning its operation on the following day. The laying of the undersea cables began on September 8 and was completed by the end of the month.

    In addition, the Japanese navy erected a total of 20 watchtowers on Wonsan, Cheju, Ulsan, Chulyungdo, Komundo, Hongdo, Udo, all along the Korean coasts.

    (The following pages provide details on Japans' Military Land Appropriation in Korea and Dokdo during 1904-1905:
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-military-land-appropriation-dokdo-i.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-military-land-appropriation-dokdo-2.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-military-land-appropriation-dokdo-3.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-russo-japanese-war-dokdo-i.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-russo-japanese-war-dokdo-ii.html)

    By the way, the one in charge of building these watchtowers and communications facilities throughout Korea's coasts and Ulleungdo was Admiral Kimotsuki, Director of the Japanese Navy's Hydrography Department.
    He's the one who persuaded Nakai Yozaburo to ask the Japanese govt to outright incorporate Dokdo.

    (Nakai initially believed that Dokdo was Korean territory, and went to Tokyo to file an application to the Korean government to lease Dokdo. But he changed his plan after conferring with high-ranking Japanese government officials, and submitted an application to the Japanese government for Dokdo's incorporation into Japan's territory and its lease to him.
    Admiral Kimotsuki was instrumental in convincing Nakai that Dokdo was "ownerless".)


    ReplyDelete
  174. (cont’d)

    After Ulleungdo, came Dokdo.
    The Japanese navy ordered the warship Niitaka (which was at the time building military communications facilities on Ulleungdo) to conduct a survey of Dokdo.

    In the report dated September 25, 1904 the captain of the Niitaka reported:
    (1) Dokdo is suitable for construction of a watchtower;
    (2) On June 17, three Russian warships appeared near Dokdo, came to anchor there for a while and departed in the direction of northwest.

    The Japanese navy took notice of this fact and issued an order on November 13, 1904 to the warship Tsushima to survey Liancourt Rocks for possible construction of a watchtower and telegraph station.
    (Dokdo station was to be linked to Korea’s Ulleungdo Island and Matsue, Japan in Shimane Prefecture.)

    The Tsushima arrived at Dokdo on November 20, 1904, and carried out a detailed survey of Dokdo.

    (Detailed logs of the warships Niitaka and Tsushima pertinent to Dokdo can be found here:
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-i.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japans-takeshima-x-files-ii.html)

    On Jan. 5, 1905, the captain of warship Tsushima submitted the feasibility report for construction of naval watchtowers on Dokdo to Japanese Navy's Hydrographic Director Kimotsuki.

    On Feb. 22, 1905, Japan annexed Dokdo.


    All in all, Japan annexed Dokdo purely for military reasons.
    (Nakai Yozaburo's request to lease Dokdo just happened to come at a really opportune time, for the Japanese govt.)

    Japan's annexation of Dokdo was simply one step in Japan's military takeover of Korea.

    First, Japan took over Korea and Ulleungdo, using the Russo-Japanese War as an excuse to station troops and build military facilities everywhere.
    Then, it annexed Dokdo in Feb. 1905.
    Then it made Korea its protectorate in Nov. 1905.
    Then it annexed the whole of Korea in 1910.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Mr. Yoshida,

    It's natural you as a Japanese don't understand why there are many “Dokdo” Campaigns in Korea because the Japanese have never experienced their land deprived by other country.

    For Koreans, Dokdo is much more than a small islets in the middle of the East Sea. Dokdo symbolizes a will to defend a national sovereignty that was once lost to Japanese colonization. Japanese continuing aggresssion on Dokdo is the main motive contributed to Koreans' passion for Dokdo. Japanese aggression on Dokdo reminds of Imperial Japanese who deprived Korean land by greed and violence.

    No matter who they are, Korean musicians or actors, their country is their top priority. They are individuals who worry about the future of their country. And public figures have a right to be an advocate of whatever they choose. Nobody can prevent such a inborn right. They can't help staying quite about Japanese continuing provocation to deprive Korea of Dokdo.

    Thus, as long as the Japanese territorial provocation on Dokdo continues, Korean passion for Dokdo will continue. It's not likely Japan give up her absurd claim on Dokdo, so it's not likely Koreans passion for Dokdo to disappears.

    You wrote "General Korean seems well enough enthusiastic and collective, (possibly not knowing historical facts or logic) so it is something dangerous. " You like most Japanese have illusion Japanese or Japan is ok and Korea or Koreans is not. This is very dangerous for the future of Japan, I think. Aren't the Japanese famous for collectivism and groupism? I admit Koreans are collectivism and groupism when it comes to Dokdo and I told you the reason for this.

    You also wrote "They are only Korean artists who have difficulty to be asked their opinions and concerns of Dokdo, or, have to compare their “national duty” to “foreign fans.” It's your interpretation based on your bias against Korea. Most Korean public figures including entertainers have no difficulty in being asked about their opinions and concerns of Dokdo. They proudly tell "Dokdo is Korean land." It's not a national duty as you wrongly described. Maybe, some Korean entertainers having a big Japanese fan may have difficulty. But most Korean reports are considerate enough not to ask such a question. There are some nerds such as a reporter who asked KARA such inconsiderate question, but you said there were some nerds in Japan, too. Besides, don't judge all Koreans by a small number of Korean people who criticized KARA's reponse. I didn't blame KARA and no one around me did.

    You said "Japanese artists will not be blamed socially at all, if they don’t answer for some spiteful questions. Do you think so? I highly doubt about it. I'm sorry I have no evidence to show you right away, but I'll if I can find.

    I hope my comment helps you to understand why Koreans have many social and emotional “Dokdo” Campaigns.

    ReplyDelete

  176. Kumabear wrote:

    But I still believe most of them and regular readers were Korean in Korea. In any case, they seem to have no freedom to study history by their own. They should be able to watch whatever they want on the net. How come "telling the historical facts" becomes libel or injurious?


    Believe whatever you want based on your bias or ignorance about Korea. I told you there are sites who are against Korean claim on Dokdo, too in Korea. You are stubbornly disregard what I say pretending you know everything about Korea. Finding the truth on Dokdo requires discarding the bias against the counterpart country.


    ReplyDelete
  177. Mr. Sloww

    Thank you very much for suggestion.
    But you had just explained, “Why Koreans want and excite in these campaigns.”
    Without explanation, I already understand this emotion very well.

    And I also suppose there are some economical reasons, like financial support from Korea government of their governmental organization.
    Japan government will not spend big money to Takeshima campaign. As electors, we will oppose if our government try to spend our tax for such things.
    Because, we know, inciting of national emotion or enthusiasm by government, will never help to solve territorial problems, or, to get international (especially among advanced countries) goodwill.

    So I have just wondered how these campaigns would help Korea to acquire better international approval or goodwill, remembering the Olympic soccer flag accident.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Mr. Yoshida


    I think I gave you the most precise explanation for the Korean Dokdo campaign. It's the matter of defending our land from the Japanese aggression on Dokdo.

    It's understandable the Japanese tax payers are not happy with spending their money for supporting Takeshima campaign because assumably they don't regard Takeshima as the land Japan can or has to deprive from Korea.

    As far as I know the Japanese government is spending a great deal of money for Takeshim campaing including the global promotion on "Takeshima is Japanese land." I'm sorry I can't give you the evidence right now and I feel like finding some detailed information about this. Besides, Japan government already incited the Japanese by allowing the school to teach the young students "Takeshima is Japanese land."


    How the Korean people's campaigns would help Korea to acquire better international approval or goodwill? There would be positive and negative answers depending how the people perceive them. At any rate, who can stop Korean passion to defend Dokdo from Japanese aggression?


    ReplyDelete
  179. > As far as I know the Japanese government is spending a great deal of money for Takeshim campaing including the global promotion on "Takeshima is Japanese land." I'm sorry I can't give you the evidence right now and I feel like finding some detailed information about this.

    No! You need not feel sorry, I will easily show, how much MOFA are spending for Takeshima territorial issue.
    http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/yosan/24/pdfs/h24_saisyutsu_gy.pdf
    They were 18.5 million yen in 2011, and they are demanding 22.3million yen in 2012 for the activity. (At p.64)
    They don’t include travel, stay, and labor cost of MOFA, of course.
    Government auditor strictly checks them.

    If your government had the similar transparency on budget, and if by any chance you can find domestic data, will you please show it?

    ReplyDelete
  180. Mr.jk6411

    Is it allowed in Korea to use “probably” ,”perhaps” or “I guess” when you study history? As I said before, you are only talking about your assumption made of your wish.
    >>If you had to draw Dokdo as one island, it would look exactly like the Usando in the 4 maps of Ulleungdo>>
    To begin with, why do you have to draw as one island? There remain many Japanese maps depicting Takeshima as twin islets from 17c.
    1656「松島絵図」
    1696「小谷伊兵衛より差出候竹嶋之絵図」
    1724 「竹嶋図」
    1724「小谷伊兵衛ニ所持被成候竹嶋絵図之写 」
    http://www16.tok2.com/home/otakeshimaoxdokdox/Japan.ArgonautDageletLiancourtRocksMapGallary/EdoUlleungdoLiacnorutOkimap.htm
    There's no record the rock surface between two islets has appeared above sea-level.
    And Koreans made many maps precisely depicting Ulleungdo in detail at that time. I can't find the reason they drew Dokdo as one island.
    You always make excuse for old Korean maps' inaccuracy and pervert them, but on the other hand, you require accuracy of Japanese maps and persistently point out trivial details on them.
    By the way, I've never heard your explanation about 独島問題概論 yet, which says Korea has no record she formally annexed Dokdo before 1905.“島根縣領으로 編入함에 始한 것이니 이렇게 되기 以前에 欝陵島의 行政区割에 編入된 明示된 公的記録이 없다고 해서” And about the fact every books and textbooks written by foreigners and Korean themselves without exception always excluded Dokdo from Korean territory.
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2007/12/1894-1948.html
    This is a solid evidence Koreans had never recognized Dokdo even after the war ended.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Mr. Yoshimda

    You didn't have to do that. You know that's not what I wanted. As I told you before, why do you doubt Korean government is not transparent while Japan is?

    You were so rude to ask me Korean government's transparency on budget. Transparency on budget is a matter of course in the democratic countries, isn't it?
    Korea is a democratic country.

    Go to http://www.mosf.go.kr/_upload/bbs/76/attach/20120706142517946.pdf
    for what you want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Mr. Sloww

    Thank you very much to notice me.
    I just want to know how much your government is spending on Dokdo campaign, compare to Japan.

    Can you please read it from here?

    ReplyDelete
  183. sloww

    I have no idea why you think 隠州視聴合記 excluded Takeshima and Matsushima. Please reread all sentences. This document explains geography “around Oki islands”. Going up to northwest, the author finally reached the place(Ulleungdo) where he could see nothing but Korea in a northwestern direction. That's why he thought Ulleungdo was the limit of Japanese territory. He couldn't find either any other islands which seemed uninhabited or Japanese territory anymore from Ulleungdo, or foreigners actually using the island. If he regarded Takeshima as Korean territory, why did he mention the details of Ulleungdo? What made him convince that “an UNINHABITED island” was an other country's territory?
    As I mentioned above, he began explaining geography from 'OKI ISLANDS(Onshu)' not from Shimane(Unshu) as a starting point, and then he said “'THIS' is the boundary of 'NORTHWEST' of Japanese territory” when he arrived at Ulleungdo. How could NOT 'this' be Ulleungdo? You can translate it more simply, “Ulleungdo is the northwestern-most as seen from Oki islands”

    As for Nagakubo's map, there are some districts(provinces) in Japanese mainland aren't colored either, like Tosa, Higo and northern Japan. And some very important Japanese islands like Amami, Hachijojima (they are big and inhabited unlike Ulleungdo or Takeshima) were omitted there. Allow me to use my assumption(not the fact), he probably didn't know the degree of those two islands. As you can see, even the distance between them are inaccurate compared to other places' accuracy. If he thought they were Korean, he would not have drawn them on the map in the first place or simply have written 朝鮮領'Korean territory'.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Kumabear,

    The main point of "隠州視聴合記" is the sentence "此二島 無人之地 見高麗如 雲州望隱州 然則 日本之乾地 以 此州 爲限矣". Korea and Japan interpret "此州" differently. Kore interprets "此州" is Oki Island, which excludes Dokdo as Japanese land. Japan interprets it is Ulleongdo which includes Dokdo as Japanese land.

    Thus, I used Nakagubo's map of 1779 to prove "隠州視聴合記" excluded Ulleongdo and Dokdo as Japanese land and included them as Korean land.

    In Nakagubo's map of 1779, Ulleongdo and Dokdo are uncolored same as mainland Korea and outside the grid of Japan’s longitudinal and latitudinal lines, which means he perceived those two islands as Korean land. And he added the phrase ""見高麗猶雲州望隠州 (Viewing Koryo (Korea) is the same as viewing Onshu (Oki island) from Unshu)" from "隠州視聴合記", which means he understood "隠州視聴合記" said the northwest boundary of Japan was Oki land.

    改正日本輿地路程全図(1779) 1 2

    You wrote "for Nagakubo's map, there are some districts(provinces) in Japanese mainland aren't colored either."

    Where are Tosa, Higo and Hachijojima? I already know where Amamai is. It's very small island. Anyway, these island are different from Ulleongdo and Dokdo to the Japanese. Ulleongdo and Dokdo had never been considered as Japanese land. And the Japanese fishermen did go to those islands for long time for fishing. You may not deny Nakagubo must have referenced the old Japanese maps and documents to make his own map. Is there any Japanese old official map depicted those two islands as Japanese land before 1779? Do you think Nakagubo didn't know about the Edo Bakufu's voyage ban to Ulleongdo? If Nagakubo understood "隠州視聴合記" said the Ulleongdo and Dokdo were Japanese land, he had no reason not to color those two islands same as Oki lsland and write the phrase from "隠州視聴合記".

    Do you know Prof. Ikeuchi Satoshi (池内敏)'s 「大君外交と武威」? He explains well what "此州" in "隠州視聴合記" indicates. His point is in favor of Korean claim, but it would help you to figure out what "此州" is no matter what you agree with him or not.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Mr. Sloww

    In pre-modern world before Western Imperialism, maps or records of travel had never been purposed for showing Sovereignty.
    So there are no case in international law’s history, which gave testify to pre-modern description of maps, or records or anything.
    (For example, Marco Polo had never contributed any sovereignty of Venetia, but some intellectual fame. Or, if China possessed an old map, which had happened to color Dokdo as same as their mainland or anything, it never became the evidence of Dodo’s belonging to China, did they?)

    In Edo era in the 18th century, publishing maps were privatized (before Mamiya RInzo in 19th, facing the threat of western powers), the purpose of maps and records had many varieties, mainly for satisfying people’s curiosity to know civilized area, or sometimes researching, exploring and navigation of unknown area.

    Edo-bakufu had given license for any publishing include maps, but when she had allowed, she let them distributed as described, and didn't unified or controlled them.
    So naturally, we found any consistency or unification by authority, though it was certain that private mapmakers would have strongly referred old records or maps, as far as they had known.

    As you said, Japan had never acquired the sovereignty of Dokdo before 1905.
    We never say it : we are only saying, "precise maps inside the land or maps which showed the clear identification of location, visiting, navigating, hunting records, showed national peoples activity on the land, so they could be some historical legitimacy, not sovereignty". And while Japan have many clear evidences; Korea seems to have nothing clear of these.

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

    ReplyDelete
  187. Mr.sloww

    >>Where are Tosa, Higo and Hachijojima?>>
    Look at the main island of Japan. It was painted with red, yellow, blue and 'uncolored'. Aren't uncolored provinces Japanese territory?
    >>I already know where Amamai is. It's very small island.>>
    I hope you're kidding.
    >>which means he understood "隠州視聴合記" said the northwest boundary of Japan was Oki land.>>
    I don't think people at the time have read the document(隠州視聴合記) since it was written one century ago. I wonder how many people out of who saw Nagakubo's map could actually understand what he meant by only that phrase (even IF Nagakubo actually read the phrase as you do and wanted to clarify that those islands were Korean territory to everyone)?. Why didn't he simply write 'Korean territory' or put the following phrases 日本之乾地、以此州為限矣 on the Oki islands?
    Your translating must be “Viewing Korea from Ulleungdo is the same as viewing Onshu from Unshu. So then, Onshu is the boundary of Japan in the northwest.”
    But where has MATSUSHIMA gone? Why was Matsushima passed unmentioned?

    ReplyDelete
  188. ➢ I don't think people at the time have read the document(隠州視聴合記) since it was written one century ago.

    I totally agree with Kumabear.
    隠州視聴合記 had not printed but manuscript copied. It weren’t circulated nationally, they had been found only in very near area inside Shimane. It is a very good geography but it is also hearsay, not by research of author himself, who was no-named in Matsue-han. Edo-bakufu would have neither reorganized nor approved it. If so, there should kept named author and the evidence within them, they were so recording maniac, as we know.
    So, 長久保赤水, who was a lecturer from Mito-han, would not have read 隠州視聴合記. Moreover, if he had read this by any chance, he would not found the controversial , delicate comprehension of Dokdo’s belonging in隠州視聴合記, as Kumabear had said. Because he, his government, his era did not care at all for the belonging of small no-mans island.

    So, important thing is, he had known and could have located the island precisely, and had given name it as “Matushima”.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Mr. Kumabear,

    Where are Tosa, Higo and Hachijojima?>>
    Look at the main island of Japan. It was painted with red, yellow, blue and 'uncolored'. Aren't uncolored provinces Japanese territory?
    --> I don't understand what you mean. They are painted with with red, yellow, blue and 'uncolored'?


    >>I already know where Amamai is. It's very small island.>>
    I hope you're kidding.
    --> What do you mean?

    I don't think people at the time have read the document(隠州視聴合記) since it was written one century ago.
    --> If he didn't read "隠州視聴合記", where do you think he get the phrase "見高麗猶雲州望隠州"?

    Why didn't he simply write 'Korean territory' or put the following phrases 日本之乾地、以此州為限矣 on the Oki islands?
    --> Who knows?

    But where has MATSUSHIMA gone? Why was Matsushima passed unmentioned?
    --> Why should Matsushima be necessarily mentioned? He said Oki Island is the northwest boundary of Japan. Isn't it enough?

    Mr. Yoshida,

    So, 長久保赤水, who was a lecturer from Mito-han, would not have read 隠州視聴合記.
    --> If he didn't read "隠州視聴合記", where do you think he get the phrase ""見高麗猶雲州望隠州"?

    ReplyDelete
  190. Mr.sloww

    >>They are painted with with red, yellow, blue and 'uncolored'?
    What color do you think is the east side of northern Japan painted with?
    >>What do you mean?>>
    Amami is the one of the most significant and important islands among Japanese islands.You must be unfamiliar with Japanese geography.
    >>If he didn't read "隠州視聴合記", where do you think he get the phrase "見高麗猶雲州望隠州"?>>
    I didn't say Nagakubo didn't. I'm sure he did. I said people who saw his map must have not read. How could they think Ulleungdo was Korean territory by only one sentense 見高麗猶雲州望隠州?
    >>Why should Matsushima be necessarily mentioned?
    He mentioned Matsuhima prior to Takeshima"戍亥間行二日一夜有松島". According to your claim, he skipped Matsushima and went back to Onshu"此州" right after describing Takeshima"見高麗猶雲州望隠州". It doesn't make any sense. The readers must be confused "what about Matsushima?" Moreover, he wrote 然即日本之乾地、此州.....  Please consider the reason why he wrote "NORTHWEST of Japan" carefully. Prior to this phrase, he said only in southern direction from Onshu had shu(雲州/伯州/石州) and in northeastern direction from Onshu had nothing could be seen.

    ReplyDelete