Today a friend gave me a newspaper clipping of a February 23th Joongang Daily article, in which the foreign writer talks about censorship at Arirang TV. The writer was a regular guest on an Arirang program called “Korea Today.” The following is an excerpt from the article:

We could say whatever we wanted, and we could disagree with each other.

All went well for some time. Then, last spring, we were discussing, for the umpteenth time, Korea’s favorite gripe ― Japan’s attempt to sanitize its history. In planning my script, I decided to get real about this issue ― Japan is not the only guilty party. But I know that this is a touchy issue, so I planned my script to lay some groundwork before coming to the point.

As disgraceful as Japan’s whitewash is, Japan is not alone in perfuming its history. American history is taught entirely differently today than when I was in school. For example, the treatment of the American Indians by the European settlers used to be glossed over as the advance of a superior civilization.

And even in Korea, controversial textbooks exist. But when the American ambassador protested to the Education Ministry about a school curriculum containing alleged anti-American distortions, he was brushed off with the explanation that Korea’s sacred allegiance to the “freedom of the classroom” forbids the government from imposing correct doctrine on what teachers should teach. I mildly concluded: Does the “freedom of the classroom” apply in Korea, but not in Japan?

When I showed up for the Friday afternoon taping, I was told that I could not say that. I could say that Japanese textbooks were distorted, and that American textbooks used to be distorted. But the fact that anyone had questioned the truth of Korean textbooks was unmentionable.

Link to the full article

Posted by Gerry-Bevers, filed under Uncategorized. Date: February 28, 2007, 1:47 am | 43 Comments »

There was one other article about Gerry in the San-In Chuo Shinpou that appeared in the print version of the newspaper, but not online. The text of the print article was kindly sent by a reader in Japan.

反日宣伝拡大阻止を
ビーバーズ氏「竹島の日」寄稿

韓国で竹島問題を研究する米国人英語教師のゲーリービーバー氏が山陰中央新報社へ寄せた投稿文には、韓国側の主張を覆す古地図のほか、反日感情が浸透する韓国の現状を懸念する内容も盛り込まれていた。22日の島根県の「竹島の日」を契機に竹島に関する真実を発信するように、日本側に呼びかけている。(以下投稿文の要約)

島根県が「竹島の日」を定めたことは、その島は独島と呼ばれる韓国領である」と主張してきた韓国で猛烈な抗議を引き起こす結果となったが、韓国の主張にはおかしな点がある。歴史的文書や地図から根拠が見いだせないからだ。

竹島は隠岐島から北西157キロ、韓国 欝陵島の南東92キロの日本海に突き出た形の二つの岩からなる小島だ。周囲の海域は豊かな漁場で、だからこそ、この小島が日韓両国の漁民にとって重要になっている。
 
日本はこの小島のことを認識していて、1905年に公式に日本領とした。だが現在は韓国海上警察派遣隊が占拠し、50年代から常駐部隊を配置している。
 
日本では日韓両国の小島をめぐる紛争を国民が知らないか、無関心であるようだが、韓国では紛争のことはほぼ全国民が熟知し、韓国の訴えの正当性を擁護している。日本は対抗策を講じるべきだ。

問題の本質は韓国が日本領をと日本の漁場を占拠していることではない。韓国政府やメディア、教育システムが小島をめぐる紛争を利用し、韓国内ばかりか世界中に反日感情を蔓延させていることにある。
にほんがその島の領有権を要求するのは再び韓国領をかすめとろうと画策しているからだ、と韓国の人々は世界の国々に向かって宣伝している。

日本の人たちに理解してほしいのは、日本側が韓国主張に強く反論していかないことをいいことに、反日団体が韓国側のプロパガンダ(宣伝)を広めている事実だ。

歴史的な証拠を見る限り圧倒的に日本側の主張に軍配があがる。韓国が独島のことを言う干山島が竹島でないことは、韓国の地図が証明している。日本側が証拠を勉強し絵真実を世界に伝えれば、反日プロパガンダの広がりを阻止できる。

私は日本の皆さんが竹島独島紛争にもっと興味を寄せることを願っている。知識を得て、広めていくことがあふれ出している反日プロパガンダを押しとどめる手段になるからだ。 どうか島根県の「竹島の日」を大切にしてほしい。竹島に関する真実を世界に向かって伝えることができる絶好の機会なのだから

Here is the text in English –

Stop spreading anti-Japanese propaganda
Mr. Bevers’s article on “takeshima day”

Mr. Gerry bevers,. an English teacher in Korea who studies the issue of Takeshima, sent an article to us at the San-In Chuo Shinpou , and in the article in which he included maps that refute the Korean claims, he expressed the concern about the rampant anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. He calls on Japan to propagate facts about Takeshima by making full use of the opportunity provided by Takeshima day. (The following is an summary of what he wrote)

When the assembly of Shimane Prefecture established “Takeshima Day,” this act by Shimane Prefecture set off a firestorm of protest in South Korea , whose government and people claim the islets are Korean territory and are called “Dokdo.” The problem with Korea ’s claim on the islets, however, is that Korean historical documents and maps do not support it.

Takeshima is essentially two large rocky islets jutting out of the Sea of Japan 157 kilometers northwest of Shimane Prefecture ’s Oki Island and ninety-two kilometers southeast of Korea ’s Ulleung Island (Ulleungdo). The surrounding waters are rich fishing grounds, which is why the islets are important to both Korean and Japanese fishermen. Japan has known about the islets since the 1600s and officially made them a part of Japanese territory in 1905. Today, however, a small detachment of South Korean maritime police occupy the islets and have been there since the 1950s. In Japan , most people seem unaware of or unconcerned with the Japanese-Korean dispute over the islets, but in Korea almost everyone knows about the dispute and passionately defends Korea ’s claim. That Korean passion is creating a problem that I think Japan needs to deal with.

The real problem is not that South Korea is occupying Japanese territory and fishing Japanese waters, but that the Korean government, media, and education system is using the dispute over the islets to foster anti-Japanese feelings not only in South Korea but also in other countries around the world.

The historical evidence overwhelmingly supports Japan ’s claim to the islets. Japanese need to study that evidence, so that they can help tell the world the truth of Takeshima and stop the spread of anti-Japanese propaganda

I hope the Japanese people start showing more interest in the Takeshima-Dokdo dispute because knowledge and education can help stop the anti-Japanese propaganda coming out of Korea . Please do not ignore Takeshima Day. It is an opportunity to tell the world the truth about Takeshima.

Good job, Gerry! The article with the maps sent by Gerry to the San-In Chuo Shinpou seems to be the most popular one on their site with 47283 views and counting.

Posted by Matt, filed under diplomacy, Verus Historia. Date: February 27, 2007, 4:27 pm | 31 Comments »

JapanProbe made a great find with these English subtitled Japanese videos about Korea and its relations with other countries. Some of them I have posted before, but without the English Subtitles.

South Korean Anti Japanese Education

Colonial period and comfort women

Takeshima/Dokdo

Korean historical perceptions VS China

Posted by Matt, filed under diplomacy. Date: February 26, 2007, 6:36 pm | 31 Comments »

The government of China has decided that the Chinese people are too rude, and are socially engineering for better manners lest China lose face at the 2008 Olympics.

The manners of people in Beijing have improved following a campaign to end anti-social behaviour ahead of next year’s Olympics, researchers have said.

A People’s University of China study found rates of spitting, queue-jumping and littering had all fallen since the end of 2005, Xinhua news agency said.

But the study’s author said Beijing still had plenty of room for improvement ahead of the Olympics.

The city has already sent letters on etiquette to four million residents.

The authorities have also held campaigns encouraging people to smile and wait in line.

These efforts will continue right up to August 2008 when one-and-a-half million visitors are expected to attend the Olympic Games.

‘A lot to do’

The study said a “civic index” measuring good behaviour had improved by 3.85 points and now stood at 69.06. The authorities have set a target of 72-78 points to be reached by the games.

“The government and citizens still have a lot of things to do to improve their public behaviour,” Xinhua quoted Professor Sha Lianxiang, who headed the study, as saying.

A campaign against queue-jumping was launched on 11 February in the city, under the slogan: “It’s civilised to queue, it’s glorious to be polite.”

Thousands of volunteers went out on the streets to try to persuade people to wait in line in order to present a better image to visitors.

Hundreds of people gave clenched fist salutes to pledge their allegiance to the campaign.

I didn’t even know you could measure things like this with a points system.

Posted by Matt, filed under diplomacy. Date: February 26, 2007, 4:51 pm | 19 Comments »

I wonder if this kind of thing is legal. From The Australian

A CHINESE businessman has advertised on the internet for a stand-in mistress to be beaten up by his wife to vent her anger and to protect his real mistress, Chinese media reported today.

“When the woman found out her husband had a mistress, she insisted on beating her up,” the Beijing Youth Daily said, citing the advertisement posted on a popular online jobs forum on sina.com.

More than 10 people had applied for the job, the newspaper said. The “successful” candidate would be 35 and originally from northeastern China and would be paid 3000 yuan ($505) per 10 minutes, it said.

Posted by Matt, filed under Funny, Random, Scams. Date: February 26, 2007, 4:47 pm | 2 Comments »

Today Israeli newspaper Haaretz has a strange story about Jewish immigrants using the Law of Return to emigrate to Israel, and then become neo-nazi’s. It is a bizarre case of Jewish antisemitism against their fellow Jews.

Dr. Elana Gomel, chair of the English Department at Tel Aviv University and author of “Atem ve’anachnu” (“You and Us”), a book on being Russian in Israel, agrees that there is anti-Semitism in Israel. “After the collapse of Communism,” she says, “states that were part of the Soviet Union licked their wounds and looked for ways to make up for the downfall, and it came in the form of reinforcing their nationalism. The vacuum left by Communism was filled by fascism and Nazism,” Gomel says.

“Their message is, ‘if I’m not accepted here as a Jew, then I’ll remain Russian,'” Gomel said. “The enormous gap in mentality between the cultures of the Sabras and the immigrants doesn’t help their absorption into society and they develop antagonism to Israeli society. The absurdity,” Gomel adds, “is that even if the anti-Semitic nationalists return to Russia, the Russian anti-Semites won’t accept them and will persecute them just as people of Jewish extraction in the Wehrmacht during the Nazi regime were persecuted. The phenomenon is sick because it is a form of self-flagellation that cannot be stopped,” Gomel said.

Some more –

Hitler youth
Irina, 18, lives in central Israel. She belonged to a group of young people, “Nazi skinheads,” that terrorized the ultra-Orthodox residents of a central-Israel city. “I was a ‘skin girl,'” relates Irina, whose was the girlfriend of the group’s leader, Leonid [a pseudonym – M.K.]. Leonid, who is now about 19, immigrated at age 10 from Azerbaijan on the Law of Return. The only Jew in his family was one of his grandfathers.

Irina says that Leonid’s downslide began in the ninth grade. He felt alienated from Israeli society and decided to join up with a Nazi skinhead group. “We were a bunch of Russian new immigrants, boys and girls,” Irina relates. “Most of the boys had shaved heads and wore army pants.”

A group of about 15 teens who believed in the Nazi ideology coalesced around Leonid. One of their favorite activities, Irina says, was attacking Haredi. “Nazi skinheads hate the religious, especially Haredim, for them the Haredim are the ugly Jews … On weekends we’d meet in the parks, drinking and smoking and listening to Nazi music,” and then they would go out in search of dossim [a derogatory Hebrew term for religious Jews], Irina related. “On Hitler’s birthday we’d met at a cemetery and celebrate,” she said.

I guess for people that feel estranged from the mainstream society in Israel, becoming a neo-nazi is the ultimate way of attacking mainstream society, and causing shock (although converting to Islam might be another). Read the rest of this peculiar story for yourself.

Posted by Matt, filed under Racist Industrial Complex. Date: February 25, 2007, 4:59 am | 6 Comments »

Something has to be done to stop this horrible historical distortion. Now claims coming out of Korea say that the ancient kingdom of Shilla (a predecessor state to Korea) controlled Okinawa from 513 AD to the 12th century, for a period of 670 years. The quote is below.

신라시대 우산국(지금의 울릉도) 주민 1천여명이 서기 513-514년께 일본 남단 오키나와 섬에 정착, 12세기 말까지 25대에 걸쳐 왕위를 유지했다는 주장이 제기됐다.

This is being quite widely reported. Here, and here, for example. A google search of 오키나와는 신라 reveals a lot of articles and discussion about it.

Of course, Dokdo is involved in this, with the “Origins of Dokdo Sovereignty Research” thesis claiming that it had found evidence that Okinawa had been established by Korean emigrants from Ulleungdo.

지난해 `독도 영토권원 연구’ 논문으로 성균관대 박사 학위를 받은 선우영준 수도권대기환경청장은 일본 고문헌 조사와 3차례에 걸친 오키나와 현지 답사를 통해 오키나와의 전신인 류구국(琉球國)이 고대 울릉도 주민들의 이주로 세워진 나라라는 사실을 뒷받침하는 증거를 찾았다고 21일 밝혔다.

I hope that Koreans are going to reject this. Then again if they can believe Dokdo/Takeshima is historically a part of Korea without even a single map or document for evidence, then there is no reason why they should not accept this claim either.

Posted by Matt, filed under diplomacy, finger chopping wacky, Racist Industrial Complex. Date: February 25, 2007, 12:44 am | 34 Comments »

From the Yomiuri Shinbun.

A 44-year-old South Korean woman who was deported last spring for illegally entering the country was found to have reentered Japan twice in a year by changing her name, although the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Law does not permit deportees to reenter Japan for five years, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned.

The woman was issued a passport under the new name and came to Japan in August 2006, three months after she was deported, and again in January.

Because of a South Korean Supreme Court decision in November 2005 facilitating name changes, similar illegal entries into Japan by South Koreans reportedly have been increasing. Immigration authorities have strengthened their measures to halt illegal entries in the country through such ruses.

The Osaka Regional Immigration Bureau and the Osaka prefectural police said the woman, Choe Mi Gyon, was arrested in April last year, when she was working as a hostess in a bar in Kita Ward, Osaka, on suspicion of violating the immigration law as she had no passport. She was subsequently deported.

She changed her name to Choe Yoon Yong and was issued a visa to reenter Japan in July and worked for two months at the bar where she had previously worked. She returned home temporarily in October, reentered Japan in January and worked again at the same bar.

Following a tip-off, she was arrested again on Feb. 1 by the regional immigration bureau and the police. She currently is detained at an immigration facility in Osaka Prefecture.

The woman said she changed her name because she was deported.

The South Korean top court ruling says name changes are permissible as long as they are not made for criminal purposes. The number of name change cases in South Korea rose nearly 100 percent in the year after the ruling.

After the implementation of the revised immigration law in autumn this year, fingerprinting and photographic identification systems will be introduced at international airports and seaports, making it harder for illegal entries of the latest kind to be reported to be made.

The same thing is happening in Australia. I have met a Korean woman (friend of a friend) that mysteriously had a new name after having been deported for visa violations. She was also working as a hostess in Sydney. Somehow the system needs to be tightened. Retina scans offer the best way of dealing with this. People entering the country need only take a few seconds to have their retina scanned.

retina scan
A retina scan

Posted by Matt, filed under diplomacy, Scams. Date: February 24, 2007, 10:06 pm | 13 Comments »

In an article entitled, “Absurb Report on Old Maps Related to Dokdo,” CBS Nocutnews reports on a rebuttal from Korea’s Northeast Asian History Foundation concerning the article in the Japanese newspaper, “San-in Chuo Shimpo,” which I posted on here.

The following is my translation of the reported rebuttal:

[CBS Cultural Section Information Report]

* Northeast Asian History Foundation Rebuttal to Japanese Newspaper’s report on Dokdo

On February 22, Japanese media, including “San-in Chuo Shimpo” and “Kyoto News” reported on their Web sites that old maps had been discovered that undermind Korean claims in regard to the Dokdo problem.

They presented two of three old maps that they claimed was discovered by an American residing in Korea, and claimed that the Usando Korea refers to was not “Dokdo,” but “Jukdo” (Dae Seom), a neighboring island of Ulleungdo.

* Rebuttal of the Japanese newspaper article

1) Concerning the undated map of Ulleungdo

— First, the undated map was drawn in 1711 by Samcheok Commander Bak Seok-chang, who was an Ulleungdo inspector.

  • The part that says, “The so-called Usando” is just written on the outline of an island, similar to four islands to the south, which is different from islets like Samseon Rocks and Elephant Rock on the north side of the island. Actually, there are no islands to the south of Ulleungdo. It is assumed that the map was not made from an actual survey, but was made based on hearsay.
      
  • Concerning “haejangjukjeon, the so-called Usando,” it is believed that the inspector did not conduct a “concrete” investigation, but just followed the coastline and drew Jukdo (Bamboo Island), with its tall bamboo, and Usando (Dokdo), which was determined clearly at that time by the activities of An Yong-bok.

Notice that Korea’s Northeast Asia History Foundation mistranslated haejangjuk, which is not “tall bamboo” along the coastline, but is a unique kind of bamboo.

* At the time, our country clearly recognized the existence of Dokdo (Usando). 

  • We can know clearly that Bak Seok-chang’s inspection of Ulleungdo was a direct result of An Yong-bok’s activities. Recently (2005), an inspection report of An Yong-bok’s second visit to Japan was found in on Japan’s Oki Island. In the report, An Yong-bok stated precisely the distances between Joseon and Ulleungdo and between Ulleungdo and Dokdo. In Japan it is recorded that Jukdo (Takeshima) and Songdo (Matsushima) were Ulleungdo and Jasando and were a part of Chosun’s Gangwon Province.
     
  • That is, it clearly shows again that the Jasando (Usando) here is not the Jukdo next to Ulleungdo, which clearly proves our country’s territorial consciousness of Dokdo.

2) Concerning the 1834 Map

* Second, the 1834 map is the “Cheonggudo,” drawn by Kim Jeong-ho in 1834. This map also has five islands drawn to the south, but, actually, there are no islands to the south of Ulleungdo. According to Japanese claims, there should be five islands four kilometers or less to the south, but in reality there is not even one. Except for Jukdo, Gwaneumdo is the only island that can always be seen from Ulleungdo, and its distance from the edge of Ulleungdo is only 100 meters.

* At the time that Kim Jeong-ho’s “Jeonggudo” was drawn, Dokdo (Usando) was clearly recognized at our country’s territory. If you look at the military version of the “Mangiyoram” (1808), which was edicted (compiled) about 1834, it says that Ulleungdo and Usando were both a part of Usanguk (Country of Usan). It is clearly recorded there that Usando was what Japan called “Songdo” (Matsushima).

3) The Above Maps Were Already Known

* The two maps presented by the Japanese side was not only already known in Korea, but Japan’s Takeshima Conflict Research Committee also knew of them. They were presented as if they were newly discovered, and the dates they were made were vaguely discribed as being “unknown” even though the dates clearly appear in maps and documents.

* Moreover, since they did not show Bak Seok-chang’s and Kim Jeong-ho’s complete maps, but only magnified sections of them, we can only assume they were trying to excite Japanese citizens on Takeshima Day (February 22) and distort Dokdo history.

4) Japan’s Meiji Government also Recognized Dokdo as Korean territory

* There is numerous evidence that clearly shows that Japan’s Meiji government recognized Dokdo, together with Ulleungdo, as Joseon territory.

* References: “This Is How Japan Stole Dokdo,” (available on the Northeast Asian History Foundatioin’s Web site — http://www.historyfoundation.or.kr/)

Notice how the group essentially ignores the fact that there is an old Korean map with an island next to Ulleungdo labeled as “The so-called Usando, Fields of haejang bamboo” by quickly changing the subject.

The following is my response to the foundation’s comments about the maps and the article.

First, the undated map was drawn in 1711 by Samcheok Commander Bak Seok-chang, who was an Ulleungdo inspector.

Seoul National University’s Gyujanggak, where the maps are located, says that the date of the map that mentions haejang bamboo on Usando is unknown. Here is what Gyujanggak’s Web site says about the map:

墨筆로 그린 鬱陵島의 寫形圖로서 東西간 거리와 南北간 거리의 里數가 표시되어 있으며 주변에 乾‚ 坤‚ 艮‚ 巽의 방위와 연안 네 곳에는 船舶待風所‚ 民人可居處라고 쓰여져 있고‚ 하단에는 <海長竹田所謂于山島>라고 기입된 작은 섬이 나타나 있다. 여기 于山島라 기입한 섬이 바로 獨島를 지칭하는 듯하다. 책 끄트머리에는 辛卯五月十四日自倭舡倉移舟待風所拙書 一句以標日後(刻立卯岩木於方上)萬里滄溟外將軍駕桂舟平生伏忠信履險自無漫搜討官折衡將軍三陟營將兼水軍僉節制使朴昌錫軍官折衡朴省三金壽元倭學朴命逸 이라고 로 기록되어 있다. 지도 뒷면에 營將朴昌錫所作 鬱陵島地圖라 기재되어 있고 上記한 乾拓에 朴昌錫 朴省三 金壽元 등의 이름이 보이나 이들이 어느때 인물인지 알기 어려우며‚ <辛卯>의 年紀도 미상이다. <備邊司>印이 찍혀 있는데 製作者가 營將이었던 朴昌錫이라는 점에서 볼때 이것이 군사적인 목적에서 작성된 것임을 짐작할 수 있다. LINK

The above describes the map and says that the Chinese characters, which I have indicated in red, appeared in the back of the book the map was in, and it said that the Chinese characters, which I have indicated in blue, appeared on the back of the map, itself. The writing talks about Bak Seok-chang and his position and title and gives an incomplete date (辛卯五月十四日) of when the map was made. However, the site says that Bak Seok-chang is an otherwise unknown character in history, and, therefore, the exact date of the map cannot be determined. 1711, 1771, 1831, and 1891 were all 辛卯 years, so pick one you like, which is what I think the people at Korea’s Northeast Asian History Foundation did. Actually, I think they probably picked the right date, but they are only guessing, unless they know something that the people at Gyujanggak do not know. 

The part that says, “The so-called Usando” is just written on the outline of an island, similar to four islands to the south, which is different from islets like Samseon Rocks and Elephant Rock on the north side of the island. Actually, there are no islands to the south of Ulleungdo. It is assumed that the map was not made from an actual survey, but was made based on hearsay.

Almost all of Korea’s area maps of Ulleungdo show what appear to be islands to the south, but the islands to the south are never labeled, which suggests they were just rocks, maybe even rocks just below the surface of the water, if not sticking out of the water. That information might be pretty handy if you were a sailor wanting to know where your ship might run aground. Usando, on the other hand, was always labeled.

On the map in question, which you can see here, Usando and the large rocky islets clearly visible off the north shore are labeled. Usando is, of course, labeled as “Usando,” and the rocky islets off the north shore of Ulleungdo are simply labeled as “stone peaks” (石峯), which suggests that that those rocks were clearly sticking out of the water. That is why I think the unamed “islands” to the south of Ulleungdo were just rock formations near the surface of the water, which may have been mapped because they could have been a danger to ships. A study of the waters off the southern shore of Ulleungdo would probably reveal the truth. Therefore, I think the suggestion that the map was not made from an actual survey is a groundless supposition, especially since Usando and the islets off the northern shore are drawn quite accurately.

Anyway, let’s suppose the map was made from hearsay, as the good people at Korea’s Northeast Asian History Foundation would have you believe. That would mean that the hearsay was that Usando was a small island just off the east coast of Ulleungdo that had fields of haejang bamboo, which is bamboo that can grow twenty feet high.

Concerning the “So-called Usando, Haejang Bamboo Fields,” it is presumed that the inspector did not actually investigate, but just followed the coastline and drew Jukdo ,with its long bamboo, and Usando (Dokdo), of which An Yong-bok described the precise distances from the Chosun mainland to Ulleungdo and from Ulleungdo to Dokdo. In Japan it is recorded that Jukdo (Takeshima) and Songdo (Matsushima) are Ulleungdo and Jasando, which are a part of Chosun’s Gangwon Province.

The above comment says, “An Yong-bok described the precise distances from the Chosun mainland to Ulleungdo and from Ulleungdo to Dokdo,” but that is not true because An Yong-bok said that Ulleungdo was closer to the Korean mainland than it was to Dokdo. The Korean mainland is about 140 kilometers from Ulleungdo, but Dokdo is only 92.

As for Japan’s recording that Takeshima and Songdo were part of Korea’s Gangwon Province, I think that was based on the testimony of An Yong-bok, who said that the Japanese referred to Usando as “Matsushima” However, as the above linked map shows, Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which means that Mr. An was actually saying that Japanese were referring to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo as Matsushima (Songdo).

Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo seems to have had several names over time. For example, in a conversation between King Kojong and Lee Gyu-won in 1882, which you can see here, King Kojong said that Ulleungdo had two neighboring islands, “Usando” and “Songjukdo” while Lee said there was only one island named “Songjukdo.” The king then said that it was called either Usando or Songjukdo, and that other names included Songdo and Jukdo.  

I think all of the above names were referring to the same island. For example, Songjukdo is just a combination of Songdo (Matsushima) and Jukdo (Takeshima). Also, Korean maps show Usando in almost the exact same location as Ulleungdo’s present-day neighboring island of Jukdo. In fact, Lee’s 1882 map showed an island labeled as Jukdo in a location where Usando had been on previous maps.

That is, it clearly shows again that the Jasando (Usando) here is not the Jukdo next to Ulleungdo, which clearly proves our country’s territorial consciousness of Dokdo.

I do not understand the above statement, but I have not seen anything that proves the “territorial consciousness” that the sentence is talking about.

Second, the 1834 map is the “Cheonggudo,” drawn by Kim Jeong-ho in 1834. This map also has five islands drawn to the south, but, actually, there are no islands to the south of Ulleungdo. According to Japanese claims, there should be five islands four kilometers or less to the south, but in reality there is not even one. Except for Jukdo, Gwaneumdo is the only island that can always be seen from Ulleungdo, and its distance from the edge of Ulleungdo is only 100 meters.

Again, the supposed islands off the south shore of Ulleungdo are unlabeled, which suggest to me that they were not islands, but dangerous rocks just above or below the surface of the water. I think they were drawn to warn sailors to be careful.

At the time that Kim Jeong-ho’s “Jeonggudo” was drawn, Dokdo (Usando) was clearly recognized at our country’s territory. If you look at the military version of the “Mangiyoram” (1808), which was edicted (compiled) about 1834, it says that Ulleungdo and Usando were both a part of Usanguk (Country of Usan). It is clearly recorded there that Usando was what Japan called “Songdo” (Matsushima).

The Mangiyoram was written from old records, including the testimony of An Yong-bok. Again, when An Yong-bok said that Songdo was Usando, he was most likely referring to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. In addition, I think it was the Mangiyoram that said that An Yong-bok saw a Japanese ship coming from the east, and when he stopped the ship and asked where the Japanese were going, the Japanese responded that they were headed to Songdo. If the Japanese were coming toward Ulleungdo from the east and said they were headed toward “Matsushima” (Songdo), then the Matsushima they were talking about could not have been Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) since “coming from the east” means they would have been traveling away from the rocks not going toward them. Therefore, the Japanese must have either been heading toward Ulleungdo or Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo.

The two maps presented by the Japanese side was not only already known in Korea, but Japan’s Takeshima Conflict Research Committee also knew of them. They were presented as if they were newly discovered, and the dates they were made were vaguely discribed as being “unknown,” even though the dates clearly appear in maps and documents.

I have no doubt that Koreans knew about the Ulleungdo map with Usando marked as having fields of haejang bamboo on it, but my question is why isn’t that map shown on any of Korea’s Dokdo Web sites or in any of the books that Koreans have written about Dokdo? If I were a suspicious person, I would probably think they were trying to hide something. In fact, in the three of four Korean news articles I have seen talking about the Japanese article and the maps, I have not seen any that showed either of the maps that was posted with the Japanese article. Maybe, they are afraid of the old saying, “A picture is worth a thousand words”?

Also, the Japanese article mentioned the date of the 1834 map, but as I explained above, the date of the other map is still not completely certain, so I think it is wrong for the people at the Northeast Asian History Foundation to speak as if it is. I think they are only guessing.

Moreover, since they did not show Bak Seok-chang’s and Kim Jeong-ho’s complete maps, but only magnified sections of them, we can only assume they were trying to excite Japanese citizens on Takeshima Day (February 22) and distort Dokdo history.

The above comment is just ridiculous. If complete maps had been used in the article, then people would not have been able to see any of the detail that was important to understanding the maps. If anyone wants to see the full maps, then they can look at them here and here on Occidentalism. And if not showing a “complete map” is an attempt to distort history, then what does that say about the Korean articles that do not include any map?

There is numerous evidence that clearly shows that Japan’s Meiji government recognized Dokdo, together with Ulleungdo, as Joseon territory.

Japan has never recognized “Dokdo” as Korean territory.

Here is a link to the original Korean language article on CBS’s Nocut News Web site, but I am copying and pasting the text below for posterity sake.

[CBS문화부 정보보고]

▣ 일본 언론의 독도 관련 보도에 대한 동북아역사재단의 반박문

일본 산음중앙신문 교도통신 등이 ‘독도문제에서 한국측 주장을 뒤엎을 수 있는 고지도가 발견되었다’ 라는 기사 게재(2월 22일자 인터넷판)

그 증거자료로 한국 거주의 한 미국인이 서울대 규장각에서 발견했다고 하는 고지도 3장 중 2장을 거론하며, 한국이 말하는 ‘우산도가 독도가 아닌 울릉도 주변의 죽도(대섬)’라고 주장

◈ 일본 신문기사에 대한 반박

1) ‘연대미상 울릉도 지도’에 대하여

▲ 첫 번째 연대미상이라고 한 지도는 1711년에 울릉도 수토관이었던 삼척영장 박석창이가 그린 지도

– “소위 우산도”라고 하는 부분은 울릉도 북쪽에 있는 오늘날의 삼선암, 코끼리바위 등과 달리 울릉도의 남쪽에 4개의 도서와 같이 윤곽만 표시 – 그런데 실제 울릉도의 남쪽에는 지도에 나와 있는 섬들에 해당되는 섬이 없으며, 이는 수토과정에서 구체적인 관찰로 그려진 것이라 보다는 전해 들은 이야기를 토대로 그린 것으로 추정

– “해장죽전(海長竹田) 소위 우산도”는 수토관이 구체적으로 조사하지 않고 해안을 따라 길게 대나무가 있는 죽도(대섬)와 당시 안용복의 활동을 통해 분명히 드러난 우산도(독도)를 그린 것으로 추정

▲ 당시 우리나라는 독도(우산도)의 존재를 분명히 인식하고 있었음

– 이는 1711년 박석창의 울릉도 수토의 직접적 계기가 된 안용복의 활동을 통해 분명히 알 수 있음 – 최근(2005년) 안용복의 2차 도일활동에 관한 조사보고서가 일본의 오키섬에서 발견되었는데, 그 문서에는 안용복이 조선과 울릉도, 울릉도와 독도의 거리를 명확히 진술하며, 일본에서 ‘죽도, 송도’라고 하는 섬이 조선국 강원도에 부속된 ‘울릉도, 자산도’라고 기록

– 즉 여기서 자산도(우산도)가 울릉도 옆에 있는 죽도가 아님을 다시 한번 명확히 함으로써 우리나라의 독도에 대한 영토의식을 분명히 입증

2) ‘1834년 지도’에 대하여

▲ 두 번째 1834년 지도는 1834년 김정호가 그린 ‘청구도’ – 이 역시 남쪽에 5개의 섬이 그려져 있는데, 실제 울릉도의 남쪽에는 도서가 없으며, 일본측 주장대로라면 남쪽의 4km이내에 5개의 섬이 있어야 하는데 실제는 하나의 섬도 존재하지 않음 – 울릉도에서 늘상 보이는 섬으로는 죽도(대섬) 이외에 관음도가 있는데, 그 거리는 울릉도 주변에서 고작 100m 내에 있을 뿐임

▲ 김정호의 청구도가 그려진 당시에도 독도(우산도)가 우리나라의 영토임을 분명히 인식 – 이는 1834년 무렵에 편찬된 만기요람(1808년) 군정편을 보면 울릉도와 우산도는 모두 우산국의 땅이라고 하며, 여기서 우산도가 일본이 말하는 송도(松島)라고 분명히 기록

3) 상기 지도는 이미 알려진 내용

▲ 일본측이 제시한 위 2개의 지도는 이미 국내적으로 알려져 있을 뿐만 아니라 일본의 죽도문제연구회 연구자들도 알고 있는 내용 – 이를 마치 처음으로 발견된 것인냥 하고, 또한 지도나 문헌에 정확히 제작연대가 드러나 있는 것을 연대미상이라고 모호하게 기술하고 한 것은,

▲ 또한 박석창이나 김정호의 지도 전체를 보여주지 않고 일부만을 가지고 확대하여 보여줌으로써, – 2.22일 죽도의 날을 맞아 한건을 터트려 일본 국민을 자극하고 독도역사를 왜곡하려는 의도라고 밖에 볼 수 없음

4) 일본 메이지 정부도 독도를 한국땅으로 인정

▲ 독도를 침탈하려한 일본의 메이지 정부 스스로가 독도를 울릉도와 함께 조선의 영토라고 인정하는 등 무수히 많은 증거들이 조선의 영토임을 분명히 밝히고 있음

※ 참고자료 : ‘일본은 이렇게 독도를 침탈했다’. (동북아역사재단 홈페이지(www.historyfoundation.or.kr 게재)

Posted by Gerry-Bevers, filed under Verus Historia. Date: February 24, 2007, 11:05 am | 100 Comments »

Here are some North Korean cartoons and propaganda films, via Ampontan. Apparently the cartoons are designed to instill patriotism and hatred of the enemy. They are in the North Korean dialect.

The cartoons

The propaganda films

You can find more on youtube.

Posted by Matt, filed under finger chopping wacky, Racist Industrial Complex. Date: February 23, 2007, 10:37 pm | 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries