tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post1651535642872927284..comments2024-01-26T17:48:29.804+09:00Comments on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?: 1870 - "How Takeshima & Matsushima Became Part of Joseon"Gerry Bevershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-24803836882928425222014-12-28T04:03:24.625+09:002014-12-28T04:03:24.625+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16988690181062644560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-3886862402999023162013-07-11T22:55:04.615+09:002013-07-11T22:55:04.615+09:00I don't mean to be ignorant but would someone ...I don't mean to be ignorant but would someone please help me with the pronunciation of Dokdo, Takeshim, and Liancourt. Thanks!JLucashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02160867068348777251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-23004650746316353032012-05-20T22:10:25.477+09:002012-05-20T22:10:25.477+09:00Reading this post again, I can't help laughing...Reading this post again, I can't help laughing at the way pacifist tried to make Matsushima in this record as other islands than Dokdo.<br /><br />The truth about Japanese mission report of 1870 is <a href="http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/the-japanese-1870-report-on-chosun" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-56794423330010120622011-12-04T21:30:22.004+09:002011-12-04T21:30:22.004+09:00Chaamiey
I don't need to explain it again.
It...Chaamiey<br /><br />I don't need to explain it again.<br />It's your will whether you accept the fact I explained or not.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-64561170587964976842011-12-04T20:50:50.874+09:002011-12-04T20:50:50.874+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-80787826547817233222011-12-03T21:11:26.269+09:002011-12-03T21:11:26.269+09:00Sloww,
There is no need to accept the fact that i...Sloww,<br /><br />There is no need to accept the fact that is not proved. There is no explanation in your comments above to prove the fact that 4 MOFA officials were certainly using the name "Matsushima" for Liancourt Rocks at that time.<br /><br />It is not my turn to prove Matsushima is Jukdo because I have not said Matsushima in the report is Jukdo. But you wrote " Both Matsushimas in Meiji Government's order and Sada Hakubo's report indicate Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo)". So, you should show the evidence, using the maps or documents used in that time. What you are doing is only saying " Matsushima in the report is Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo)".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-59727384227384449612011-12-03T11:05:11.156+09:002011-12-03T11:05:11.156+09:00Chaamiey,
I think I already proved what you asked...Chaamiey,<br /><br />I think I already proved what you asked. It seems you just don't want to accept what I said.<br />The report(朝鮮國交際始末內探書) had not said Matsushima is Jukdo.<br />Now it's your turn to prove Matsushima is Jukdo in 朝鮮國交際始末內探書.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-84187820969384220162011-12-03T11:02:17.279+09:002011-12-03T11:02:17.279+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-546805911264086852011-12-02T20:17:30.069+09:002011-12-02T20:17:30.069+09:00Sloww,
The report(朝鮮國交際始末內探書) had not said Matsu...Sloww,<br /><br /><br />The report(朝鮮國交際始末內探書) had not said Matsushima is Liancourt Rocks.<br /><br />You should prove, based on the maps or documents used in that time, the fact that 4 MOFA officials considered Matsushima was Liancourt Rocks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-81908442486792520812011-12-01T16:05:34.988+09:002011-12-01T16:05:34.988+09:00Pacifist,
If you acknowledged Sada Habuko's ...Pacifist,<br /><br /><br />If you acknowledged Sada Habuko's report (本內探書=朝鮮國交際始末內探書) was 復命書 to the investigation list (調査事項) ordered by Dajokan(太政官) , you wouldn't ask me that. "復命書" means document reporting the result of mission assigned, as you may know.<br /><br />Refer to the Japanese Diplomatic Note(日本外交文書 第2-3冊, document No. 574, No.87) which was published in 1930s, then you can find the record about 太政官 調査事項指令 and "竹島松島朝鮮部屬ニ相成候始末". This is the evidence 4 MOFA officials already knew Matsushima(松島) was Liancourt Rocks before leaving for Korea.<br /><br />If you believe 4 Japanese MOFA officials were using the name "Matsushima" for Jukdo, can you answer to the question "Why did they investigate and make the report about Jukdo?" and " Can you present any evidence they were using the name "Matsushima" for Jukdo?"slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-25972380668041162832011-11-29T22:14:19.821+09:002011-11-29T22:14:19.821+09:00Sloww,
It will be necessary for you to prove tha...Sloww,<br /><br /><br />It will be necessary for you to prove that 4 MOFA officials were certainly using the name "Matsushima" for Liancourt Rocks at that time, being based on the maps or documents used in that time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-21201461185159229032011-11-29T16:21:35.119+09:002011-11-29T16:21:35.119+09:00Gerry Bevers
Sada Hakubo said Japanese had no rec...Gerry Bevers<br /><br />Sada Hakubo said Japanese had no record of the "Matsushima". This just means he didn't investigate about Matsushima throughly, because Japan had records of Matsushima as you said. When considering his main concern was the conquest of Chosun, this is quite possible.<br /><br /><br />When the investigating assignment of ""How Takeshima & Matsushima Became Part of Joseon" was given to Sada Hakubo and 3 other Japanese by the Meiji government , how couldn't they know Matsushima was Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo)? If you say they didn't know what the Matusushima was referring to, it would be nonsense. They were MOFA officials and clearly Japan was using the name "Matsushima" for Liancourt Rocks at that time. <br /><br />Some Korean maybe knew Dokdo was called as Matsushima in Japan at that time, but there's no record Korean people called Jukdo as Songdo(Matsushima). Although we suppose that Korean people called Jukdo as Songdo(Matsushima) at that time as you claim, there's no difference, because 4 MOFA officials definitely knew Matsushima indicates Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo). <br /><br />King Kojong didn't confirm Jukdo was also called as Songdo. Even though his knowledge about islands around Ulleungdo was not perfect, Kojong recognized Songdo and Jukdo as two different islands, which means Songdo(Matsushima) was Dokdo. I'll agrue about this later. Even though you claim Kojong thought Jukdo was also called as Songdo, there's no difference, either, because the 4 Japanese didn't ask Kojong about Matsushima (Dokdo).<br /><br />Sada Hakubo and 3 Japanese were in Korea in 1870, and Kojong had conversation with Lee Gyuwon in 1882. It's very unreasonable to say the Korean people in Busan called Jukdo also as Songdo(Matsushima) in 1870 by the influence of Kojong. <br /><br />So Matsushima in Sada Hakubo's report can't be Jukdo.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-27400802390296078152011-11-29T07:41:49.169+09:002011-11-29T07:41:49.169+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.jk6411https://www.blogger.com/profile/14972447436200812058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-47655005273407646072011-11-28T05:00:23.658+09:002011-11-28T05:00:23.658+09:00Sloww,
King Kojong confirmed in 1882 that Ulleung...Sloww,<br /><br />King Kojong confirmed in 1882 that Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도) was also called "Songdo" (松島 - 송도), which in Japanese is pronounced "Matsushima." Jukdo is just 2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore. <br /><br />The Matsushima in the 1870 Japanese report was referring to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, not to Dokdo. Notice that the report said the Japanese had no record of the "Matsushima" to which was being referred. That means it could not have been "Dokdo" because the Japanese did have records of their "Matsushima" (Dokdo).Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-66703870520529491732011-11-27T19:28:36.994+09:002011-11-27T19:28:36.994+09:00The Japanese 1870 Secret Report on Chosun (朝鮮國交際始末...The Japanese 1870 Secret Report on Chosun (朝鮮國交際始末內探書) is a very important document proving the Japanese Meiji Government considered Dokdo Island as part of Chosun(Korea) . <br /><br />This post skipped very crucial fact about Japanese 1870 report.<br /><br />Meiji Government sent 4 Japanese officials from MOFA including Sada Hakubo to Korea with a secret mission. The purpose of their mission was to gather some information about Korea for establishing new diplomatic relations with Chosun and checking the possibility of conquering Korea.<br /><br />The secret mission included several specific instructions for investigation. One of them was to investigate how Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo) became Chosun Possessions, which proves Japanese government recognized Dokdo as Korean territory. Sada Hakubo's report regarding how Ulleungdo and Dokdo became Chosun Possessions was in response to Meiji Government's order. So, it's misleading pacifist says Matsushima in this report is not Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo) because he gathered the information about Takeshima and Matsushima in Korea. <br /><br />As you guessed,probably, Japanese officials gathered the information just by hearing from Koreans, but this doesn't prove he didn't know what Matsushima in his report was referring to.<br /><br />Even though Sada Hakubo had no interest in the Takeshima and Matsushima issue , his investigation was conducted on the condition that Takeshima and Matsushima are Korean territory as Meiji Government acknowledged. <br /><br />Japanese government referred to Matsushima as Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo) and Sada Hakubo referred to Matshshima as Jukdo? Does it make sense to you? Both Matsushimas in Meiji Government's order and Sada Hakubo's report indicate Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo). <br /><br />Japan had very clear knowledge about the Matsushima until 1880.<br />There's no doubt Matsushima in his report is Dokdo. <br /><br />Sada's report was just reconfirming the Meiji Government's recognition of Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean territory and it was reaffirmed again in 1877 through Dajokan‘s document.<br /><br />I know Japanese are trying to make excuses to make this document as incorrect one, but this document is a historical truth that you can't deny.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-82390821450271079762011-11-27T19:23:35.224+09:002011-11-27T19:23:35.224+09:00This comment has been removed by the author.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01523416862007638345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-65895807188508225942007-06-20T14:57:00.000+09:002007-06-20T14:57:00.000+09:00Thank you, Gerry.Thank you, Gerry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-20470220632952710942007-06-20T11:43:00.000+09:002007-06-20T11:43:00.000+09:00Gerry,The documents you indicated are about "Takes...Gerry,<BR/><BR/>The documents you indicated are about "Takeshima and another island in the Sea of Japan", and some of the report included that Oya drifted ashore to "Matsushima", not Takeshima.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I am planning to translate some important documents during 1870-1880, the "Lost Weekend" period for Japan. <BR/>During the period, Japan was in confusion concerning Takeshima and Matsushima. The 1870 document, which I posted the other day, was the beginning of the confusion. The report itself was not always wrong but the old "Matsushima" was gone somewhere and confusion began....pacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-89193726136951469772007-06-20T10:01:00.000+09:002007-06-20T10:01:00.000+09:00Thank you, Pacifist.By the way, have you read thro...Thank you, Pacifist.<BR/><BR/>By the way, have you read through the following document?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/2a9dai318/" REL="nofollow">太政類典 - 1867年~1881年</A>Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-58678017959585114082007-06-20T09:53:00.000+09:002007-06-20T09:53:00.000+09:00Ponta,The title of post that taking about the 1905...Ponta,<BR/><BR/>The title of post that taking about the 1905 document is misleading because it says, "Japan Seizes Dokdo," but the document, itself, has nothing to do with Dokdo. I think the reason they gave the post that title, was because the document is talking about Japan's taking over Korea's communication and diplomatic responsibilities.<BR/><BR/>I'm at school right now, so I cannot translate the 1905 document, but I am also wondering if it really needs translating. The document seems to be talking about the transfer of duties, but I do not think the transfer had taken place, yet.<BR/><BR/>I will translate the other document when I get home tonight.Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-27696764875456061632007-06-20T02:24:00.000+09:002007-06-20T02:24:00.000+09:00# Apr26 Says:June 19th, 2007 at 8:29 amGerry-Beve...# Apr26 Says:<BR/>June 19th, 2007 at 8:29 am<BR/><BR/>Gerry-Bevers said, “Korean historical documents show that Korea was told about the annexation in 1906.”<BR/>Would anyone translate this Korean document dated feb.22, 1905, the same day as Shimane prefecture declared Takeshima its territory.<BR/>http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=gj_006_1905_02_22_0040<BR/><BR/>It seems Korean Government knew the declaration of territorial title of Liancourt Rocks by the Japanese Government on the same day.<BR/><BR/>Also, would anyone translate the “directive #3″ of this Korean document into English?<BR/>http://www.history.go.kr/openUrl.jsp?ID=mk_002_001_000_0560<BR/><BR/>(Occidentalism)...................................<BR/>I don't know what they say, I pose it here, because they might be important docuemts and people do not notice the comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-4206654793901608982007-06-19T18:02:00.000+09:002007-06-19T18:02:00.000+09:00Gerry,I couldn't find the 朝鮮事件 (Chosun incident) i...Gerry,<BR/><BR/>I couldn't find the 朝鮮事件 (Chosun incident) in Mr.Tanaka's site but the year 1868 is the first year of Meiji and they sent the soverign letter to Chosun for the first time, but they rejected to receive it because the letter included the character of 皇 (emperor). <BR/><BR/>Korean people were only use the charcter for Chinese emperor and they used 王 for their king. So they couldn't receive it from the country inferior to them. (Sino centrism) But Japan was not under Chinese control so it was a false accusation for Japan.<BR/><BR/>But anyway, this problem is the origin of the 1870 investigation and further 征韓論 (seikanron; argument to conqur Korea) later.pacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-52573418276934334722007-06-19T16:18:00.000+09:002007-06-19T16:18:00.000+09:00Thank you, Pacifist.I did not even notice that it ...Thank you, Pacifist.<BR/><BR/>I did not even notice that it was the same document because I was so focused on the date, 1868. Pretty stupid of me. By the way, do you know why Mr. Tanaka listed that document under 1868? Did something happen in 1868?<BR/><BR/>The title of the 1870 document is "How Takeshima & Matsushima Became Part of Joseon," which suggests that there was a question about Matsushima and Ulleungdo before the mission went to Korea in 1870. Was the 1870 document supposed to be the answer to a previous question? Do you know if there is anything in the 朝鮮事件 book that talks about something previous to 1870? <BR/><BR/>I will delete the post, so I have recopied your answer to me below. Thanks, again.<BR/><BR/>Gerry,<BR/><BR/><BR/>The first part is the same text as the 1870 and the last part is Mr.Tanaka's thought. It says:<BR/><BR/>「この儀は、松島は竹島の隣島」とあるが、現在の竹島(旧松島)を鬱陵島の隣島というには距離があり過ぎる。<BR/>It says "As to this matter, Mastushima is a neighboring island to Takeshima" but it is too distant to say that Liancourt rocks (Takeshima, the old Matsushima) is the neighbor of Ulleungdo.<BR/><BR/>また「これまで掲載セシ書き留めも無く」とあるが、松島(現竹島)は『隠州視聴合記』や『竹島松島之図』など様々な歴史資料があるので、この「朝鮮国交際始末内探書」でいう松島は現在の竹島とは違う島であることが分かる。<BR/>And it says "we have nio previous records", but there are various documents such as "Onshu Shochou Gouki" and "Takeshima-Matshima no zu". So it is clear that "Matsushima" in this report in the "朝鮮国交際始末内探書" is different from today's Takeshima (Liancourt rocks).Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-30051243087289190412007-06-19T08:58:00.000+09:002007-06-19T08:58:00.000+09:00Gerry,Thanks a lot for your help.Gerry,<BR/><BR/>Thanks a lot for your help.pacifisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14100903035796287895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-89368364518674398912007-06-19T08:12:00.000+09:002007-06-19T08:12:00.000+09:00Thank you, Pacifist. If I can find a good, clear m...Thank you, Pacifist. If I can find a good, clear map, I will link it to the post.Gerry Bevershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.com