And what do you have to say about Dokdo Museum’s Director admitting that the maps showed Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, not Dokdo? It seems that even the head of Korea’s Dokdo Museum has enough sense to admit the obvious. Why can’t you?

I do not follow your logic, Toadface. Don’t you first have to prove that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) was Korean territory before trying to make the argument that Japan stole them from Korea to install telegraph lines? Actually, your maps are evidence against your argument since they show that Japan did not have to incorporate territory to install telegraph lines or watch towers. Ulleungdo is just one example.

Liancourt Rocks were not incorporated to install watch towers or telegraph lines; it was incorporated because it was ownerless.

The truth about Japan’s colonial past should be brought to light. Especially with regard to the Dokdo issue. That’s why I’ve made these pages especially for this purpose.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations2.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations3.html

Yes……let’s all be honest!!

More translations coming!!

I was surprised and upset by not being rehired at my old school, but I do not think I wanted revenge; I just wanted justice.

Strangely enough, justice came indirectly. My not being rehired by my old school got me unexpected media attention, which also ended up getting more attention for my views on Dokdo/Takeshima, something I do not think the Dokdo nationalists who called my school expected or wanted. Maybe that will make the Dokdo nationalists think twice about using similar tactics in the future.

My not being rehired has ended up being a good thing for me since not only have my views on Dokdo/Takeshima gotten more media attention, but my new salary is about 50 percent higher than my old salary. In such a situation, I have no reason or desire to hold a grudge against my old school, which has given me good recommendations. As far as I am concerned, the matter is finished. However, that does not mean that I will stop writing about Dokdo/Takeshima.

Koreans need to know the truth about Dokdo/Takeshima and learn to accept the fact that the islets were not historically Korean territory. If Korean historians want to keep the trust of not only the peoples of other countries but also of fellow Koreans, then they must start being honest about Dokdo/Takeshima. The Internet and increasing interest in Korea will make it almost impossible for Korean historians to continue to hide the truth about the islets. For the same reasons, Korean historians also need to start being more honest about Korea’s colonial past.

If you ever wanted revenge for having your contract not renewed (and I’m not saying you were seeking revenge) – but if you ever just kind of wanted some pay back…

…I would say the Japanese politicans and newspapers carrying your stuff would do that.

I just hope you get out of Korea in one piece….(only an 80% wisecrack in that with 20% serious worry…)

Although other Japanese maps of Ullungdo or Liancourt rocks　are quite precise geography figure discriptions,this map is so poor geography shapes,bcoz this map is refered from Korean style map like 李圭遠　in 1882 and 鬱陵島圖形 by 朴昌錫 c.a.1711.The purpose of visiting Ullungdo wasn’t for geography survey,but for capture to send back Japanese residents in Ullungdo to Japan.

In this Japanese map,they use “島項”,the korean style name,about the discription the rockly coast.
But they call the strait or cape or island as
観音崎,which is japanese style name.

All I know is Japanese map「鬱陵島地図」 in 1886. I downloaded it before, but I forgot where it from. Anyway, it says
【三仙岩】?
【観音島】観音崎　島項
It is a good idea to arrange those findings chronologically. Thank you. By the way, as for 『鬱陵島圖形』by 朴昌錫, Prof. Shiojou said it might be made in 1711 in the article of Saninchuoushinpou. Maybe it is safe for us to say 1711c.a. now, I guess?

I agree, there is a possiblity that 石島 were rock islets. I hope there will be other documents which would support this theory, such as a newspaper article which used the word as rock islets.

Except for the 1900 Imperial Edict’s mentioning of “Seokdo” (石島), there were no Korean maps or documents that mentioned either a “Seokdo” (石島) or “Dokdo” (獨島) around Ulleungdo, which suggests that there was no such island and that the 竹島石島 (Jukdo/Seokdo) reference in the 1900 edict should be translated as “Jukdo and other rocky islets.”

Also, there is this 1899 Korean newspaper article on Ulleungdo to consider. Here is a translation of the first sentence in the article:

Situation on Ulleungdo

In the sea east of Uljin is an island named Ulleung. Of its six, small neighboring islands, Usando/Jukdo are/is the most prominent (崔著者).

Notice that the article mentioned “six, small neighboring islands,” of which Usando/Jukdo was the most prominent. Since Usando/Jukdo was almost certainly just two names for the same island, then why were the other five smaller islands not mentioned in the 1900 Imperial Edict? Well, I think they were mentioned with the general term, Seokdo (石島 – rocky islets).