Occidentalism

Two Cents !
한글 독해가 가능한지 모르겠네요.
그래도 설명해 놓겠습니다.

일본정부가 1877document에서 2섬(竹島와 松島)에 대한 정보를 취한 것은
Simane縣으로부터 입니다. Simane縣은 일본내에서 2섬에 대한 가장 정확한 정보를 가지고 있었죠.

그런데, 長崎 사람 下材輪人郞이란 자가 1878년 8월 블라디보스톡으로 항해하다가 松島 근방에서 섬 가득하게 수목이 울창한 것을 보고, 齊藤七郞兵衛와 언명으로 ‘松島開招願’을 무역사무관에게 제출합니다.

이섬은 松島가 아니라 본래 竹島라는 이름의 울릉도였죠.
이때부터 일본 정부내에서 두 섬에 대한 명칭의 혼동이 시작되죠.
그런데, 막상 實査하는 과정에서 Amagi艦의 어처구니없는 조사로 Ulleungdo에 松島라는 명칭이 붙여진 거죠. 竹島는 Ulleungdo 북쪽의 작은 암석이라는 결론을 내리고요. 이때부터 Ulleungdo를 松島로 부르기로 결정합니다. 따라서 Ulleungdo가 松島로 이름이 바뀐 것은 어디까지나 Amagi艦의 Miura소위의 실수입니다.
여기서 당시 일본정부의 1878년 전후의 2섬에 대한 분명한 인식을 엿볼 수 있게 됩니다.

1878년 이전의 인식을 대표하는 것이 바로
1869~70년 竹島松島朝鮮附屬ニ相成候始末과 1877년 태정관 지령서입니다. 이때 태정관이 취한 정보가 竹島 1件에 대한 한일간 외교문서와 Simane縣의 정확한 정보를 토대로 했다는 점을 미루어, 2섬이 울릉도와 독도임은 분명합니다. 아울러, 과거 竹島 1件에 竹島뿐 아니라 松島까지 포함돼 있었음을 일본 최고 의결기관에서 인정을 한 것이죠.

일본정부는 1877년 이전과 이후의 인식이 분명했던 거죠.
이전은 Dokdo를 松島로, Ulleungdo를 竹島로 호칭했고, 이후는 Ulleungdo를 松島로 Dokdo를 Liancourt Rocks로 호칭합니다.

그러나, 일본인은 그 이전부터 東海에 있는 2섬을 竹島와 松島라는 이름으로
불렀기에 竹島와 松島 2명칭은 그후로도 계속 나타납니다.

심지어 1894년의 지도에도 울릉도를 竹島라고 표기한 지도가 상당수 존재합니다.
개정 실측조선전도(實測朝鮮全圖, 1894)
이건 명확하게 서양지도의 Argonaut를 Ulleungdo로 착각한 경우입니다. 이때까지도 Ulleungdo를 竹島로 호칭하고 있죠.

일본의 독도명칭의 혼동에는 그 공식이 따로 존재하지 않습니다.
너무도 혼란스럽죠. 그러나, 일본정부의 경우, 제가 설명한 하나의 공식이 존재하죠. 물론, 일본정부내에서도 울릉도와 독도를 竹島와 松島라는 이름으로 표기한 지도가 아예 없는 것은 아닙니다.
그러나 대개의 경우는 1880년을 전후해서 일본정부내에서의 명칭이 분명하게 바뀝니다.

일본정부는 1878년 松島開招願이 나오기 이전에는 두 섬에 대한 명칭 혼동은 없었습니다. 이점을 분명하게 이해하시기 바랍니다. 따라서 그 이후의 자료를 근거로 태정관 지령서를 부정하는 것은 이치에 맞지 않게되는 거죠.

그리고, 그 이후 Liancourt Rocks라는 이름으로도 한국영토에 포함을 시킨 중요한 일본정부의 자료가 바로 조선수로지입니다.

pacifist씨 오셨군요.
토론에 참여한 사람을 나가라고 하는 것은 예의가 아니죠.
여하튼 기다리고 있었습니다.
뭐, 기분 상하셨다면 사과드리죠.
그리고 안녕히 주무십시요.

hanmaumy,

It is troublesome to translate hanglu into Japanese and then write a reply in English.

Please write your opinions in English, or translate them into Japanese yourself. (There is a internet translater anywhere.)

나가라는 소리가 아니었군요. 여하튼 안녕히 주무십시요.
pacifist씨가 또 무슨 소리를 하는지 궁금해서 한번 더 들르고 잡니다.

pacifist!
일본인이라면 거의 정확하게 한국어로 번역이 되죠?
그리고 Gerry Bevers, Matt, toadface 모두 한글을 알고 있습니다.
뭐, 여하튼 그부분은 pacifist씨께 죄송하군요.

hanmaumy,

I don’t want you to go out, I welcome you of course, but I hope you will write in English or translate your posting into Japanese, thank you.

Good night 안녕히 주무세요

지금 졸려서 한글도 자꾸 오타가 나네요
pacifist씨. 정말 사과하기위해서 기다리고 있었습니다.
Dokdo는 한국인에게 너무도 민감한 문제죠. 조금만 이해를 바랍니다.

내일부터는 이 토론에서는 빠집니다. 열심히 왜곡하세요~

Pacifist, Kuoki’s view was an opinion not national policy and if you have ANY map to show this I again ask you (for about the millionth time) to present a map to support this outrageous claim of your that Dokdo was part of Japan at this time.
I have been most generous to you and posted Japanese maps that show Dokdo as Korean.
Ok I’ll post the maps to refresh your memory.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japan-world-map-songdo.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seitailen-1835-songdo.jpg

Can’t you show me a map prior the annexation of Dokdo that shows the island as Japanese?? I’m still waiting

Yes, I’ve been away. I’m tearing down Japan’s 1905 military land grab of Dokdo. It’s two pages and first one is almost done. This will show the world the truth behind Japan’s reasons for annexing Dokdo. I can only hope you can learn the history of your own country Pacifist.

http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ulsan-tsushima.html

BTW what kind of name is “Pacifist” for a Japanese Right Winger who feels a colonialist military land grab is legitimate ??

BTW what kind of name is “Pacifist” for a Japanese Right Winger who feels a colonialist military land grab is legitimate ??

Yeah, so how is that you make arguments? So typical of Koreans to call anyone who do not acceot their nation-building myth and Japan-hate a “right-winger”. What a way to convince people. The nationalist is actually you, if you ever noticed it.

It’s the S Koreans who made the military grab after WWII. Don’t spread that myth about the Japanese military grab of Liancourt around. You don’t have any proof to substantiate it. It’s basically nonsense and the usual Japan-hate garbage created by ultranationalists like you.

It was declared Japanese territory because Japan recognized it as no-man’s land and Japanese fishermen wanted to secure their fisning rights, if you ever knew.

There is no myth about Japan’s motives for grabbing Dokdo, Tomato.

Japan was fighting a war when the annexed Dokdo. They didn’t gave a damn about fishing.

Crack a history book.

Toadface,

You’re blurting out nonsense again. Just show us one Japanese document back in 1905 that states that claiming Liancourt was for some aggressive intent. Don’t give us that crap you Koreans (or those who somehow agree with the Korean view) deduce out of circumstantial evidence.

It’s amazing how you guys can indulge in the Dokdo cult.

Tomato.

You must study the Dokdo issue more. When we look at this problem especially the 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion it is not propaganda nor rhetoric to inlcude the political circumstances surrounding why Japan chose the height of the Russo~Japan War to annex Dokdo.

On the page I gave you are the details of how and why Japan annexed Dokdo. Your silly reasoning is the Japanese wanted to fish/club seals near Dokdo while the nation was at war. Japan had already signed fishing “treaties” with Korea before this. They already had control of Ulleungdo and the Korean mainland through the Japan~Korea Protocol of February 23, 1904.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-historical-perspective.html

The Japanese finalized plans for Dokdo three days after slaughtering 6000 Russians off the shores of Korea~Japan. Is that agressive enough for you?

Relevant historical context is NOT propaganda Tomato.

Steve Barber.
I am busy now, so I can not respond to your comment one by one.

But there is one thing you and a Korean guy has been avoiding.

You haven’t been avoiding facing the fact Korea has no evidence that Korea had effective control and Korea was cognizant of Dokdo
Japan
Japan was cognizant of Dokdo during Edo.
→　Discovery
Japan gave the permit to sail to Dokdo during Edo
→　effective control
Japan officially incorporated takeshima 1905 and since the until Korea illegally began to occupy takeshima/Dokdo、
→　Japan had effective control.
Korea
Korea has no evidence, maps or document that referred to Dokdo that leave
no doubt as to its reference.
Korea has no evidence to show she had effective control.
∴
Japanese 1905 incorporation alone is sufficient to show that Takeshima is integral part of Korea.

The readers who support Korea are eager to see you show that Korea has its own evidence.

toadface,

> BTW what kind of name is “Pacifist” for a Japanese Right Winger who feels a colonialist military land grab is legitimate ??

I’m not a right winger, I am an ordinary citizen. I rather hate the right wingers. (What about your name toadface?)

I haven’t written that colonialist military land grab is good. I don’t praise the annexation of Korea but you should remember that Korea was fragile and was facing corruption without aides from outer world. If Japan didn’t give her a hand, Russia or China would occupied it. The world saw Japan as the appropriate to give her a hand because Japan had just enjoyed the success of the Meiji Restoration and she was the first modern country in asia. The western world didn’t want Russia to occupy Chosun.

If Korean democratic patriots could gain power the history would be changed, but unfortunately they were killed by the traditional power.

a big mistkae
You have been avoiding facing the fact Korea has no evidence that Korea had effective control and Korea was cognizant of Dokdo. Unless you show such evidences, your nitpicking of some Japanese maps and documents are useless.
For
Japan
Japan was cognizant of Dokdo during Edo.
→　Discovery
Japan gave the permit to sail to Dokdo during Edo
→　effective control
Japan officially incorporated takeshima 1905 and since the until Korea illegally began to occupy takeshima/Dokdo、
→　Japan had effective control.

I am looking forward to seeing you next time on this blog.
But be polite. Thanks.

toadface,

> Pacifist, Kuoki’s view was an opinion not national policy and if you have ANY map to show this I again ask you (for about the millionth time) to present a map to support this outrageous claim of your that Dokdo was part of Japan at this time.

Kouki’s proposition was adopted by the cabinet in the end so they did a search by Amagi in 1880.

toadface, maps are not essential for territorial claim, especially in the era before western territorial idea came in.

But maps may show that they knew it – Japan knew takeshima/Dokdo but Korea has no maps of the island at all – it indicated that Korea didn’t know the island.

toadface, I repeatedly ask you (I asked you this a billion times!) to bring the evidence to show that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo, used it or owned it before 1905.

YOU HAVEN’T SUCCEEDED IN IT AT ALL.

The following is evident from the Japanese documents available for the 1870-1880 period.
1) Japanese government was aware that there are 3 islands mapped in the Sea of Japan in western maps, while Japanese historical records present only two.
2) 1877: Check out Takeshima. Takeshima is Ulleungdo, and Edo period records say that its effective control was GIVEN UP PEACEFULLY by the Shogunate after examination of historical records, even though they could have kept it if the Shoguante had so wished to. Thus, Takeshima and one other island are concluded as Korea’s.
3) 1878: Next, check out Matsushima. Does it even exist? Should we carry out an inspection? After listening to pro and con opinions, inspection carried out. Conclusion: It is Ulleungdo and thus Korean territory.
4) Liancourt Rocks. Formerly Japanese Matsushima. We think it’s ours, western countries also recognize it as ours, thus a non-issue.

What the Koreans are claiming by bringing up only one side of the opinions submitted during the debate on Matsushima/Dagelet in 1878 is analogous to this situation.
Bush administration obtains information that NK is about to export WMD. Bush is faced with the question, should all ships around NK be forcefully stopped and inspected?
Mr. Aide A: No Sir, we don’t have enough evidence and it would provoke war.
Mr. Aide B: Definitely yes, we have enough evidence, and we must stop it.
Bush decides to give the go ahead for inspections.
Now, is it fair for historians to later use the opinion of Mr. Aide A and conclude that the Bush went ahead with the inspection and needlessly provoked a war regardless of the fact that there was insufficient evidence? The fact is, Mr. Aide B’s opinion was concluded to be the wiser and so accepted.

In the 1878, Watanabe’s opinion was accepted, and Tanabe’s was dropped. As for the Korean belief that Matsushima is Usan and thus Korean territory described in Tanabe’s opinion stems from the An Yong-bok incident. An Yong-bok testified to the Chosun court that he had the Tsushima lord cede Matsushima/Usan to Chosun. However, this incident is analogous to this.
1) Mr. Kim from Korea, who is not an official envoy, illegally enters Hawaii demanding to meet the governor.
2) Mr. Kim is subsequently kicked out of Hawaii back to Korea, where he is arrested.
3) Mr. Kim claims the Hawaiian governor had ceded Kauai to Korea, and that the governor asked him not to tell Bush that he had, since Bush would surely kill his son.
4) Korean government writes down his statement in records.

Now, does this mean that the US actually ceded Kauai to Korea? No, it does not, because the Hawaiian governor does not have the right to cede territories. Furthermore, the Korean government did not notify the US to establish its official claim on Kauai. It was the same with An’s case. The Tsushima lord does not have the right to cede territories, only the Shogunate does. The Chosun government and the Shoguante traded correspondence regarding the ownership of Ulleungdo, but never Matsushima, although An brought it up and so they clearly knew of it. What is more hilarious in An’s case is that:
1) An didn’t get to see the Lord of Tsushima, as he was away in Edo. (LIE #1)
2) The Lord of Tsushima had no (or no longer had a) son, so he would not beg An to keep the transaction secret to the Shogunate to save his son’s life. (LIE #2)
3) An claimed that Matsushima was an island larger than Ulleungdo and located to the northeast. (LIE #3)

But the Koreans blindly believe that An’s unilateral claim on Matsushima based on a bunch of lies is valid historical basis for including Matsushima in Korean territory.

These are the facts.
I. Usan of 512 AD is clearly NOT the Liancourt Rocks, which is not habitable by over 80 people.
II. An Yong-bok in the 17th century, DID NOT KNOW where or what Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) was.
III. Lee Gyu-won, the official mapmaker appointed by the king, DID NOT INCLUDE the Liancourt Rocks in his map in 1882.
IV. Korean geographers NEVER INCLUDED the Liancourt Rocks in its eastern territorial limit, neither before the annexation nor after liberation, even though it’s coordinates were common knowledge by then.
V. The Korean press, loudly complaining in 1906 about the Takeshima incorporation by Japan, apparently thought that Japan incorporated an INHABITED ISLAND.

And all the Japanese side is asking for is a map or document showing that Koreans knew that Usan, an inherent part of Ulleungdo according to the Koreans, was none other than the Liancourt Rocks, two little pieces of rock sticking out in the middle of the sea, 92 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.

Two cents you are spinning your tires on an issues that are best resoloved by using maps of the era.

There are 2 kinds of maps from Japan at this time. About 99 percent of the maps from Japan during this era showed Jukdo (Ulleungdo) and Songdo (Dokdo) mapped in more Westerly (Seibiold’s positions. Takeshima “experts” would like us to believe that Japanese cartographers were double-mapping Ulleungdo. They also would like us to believe at the same time Japanese mappers simultaneously suddenly started omitting Dokdo.

A more plausible theory is that Japanese cartographers simply mapped Ulleungdo and Dokdo in more Westerly locations. Historically cartographers were not surveyors. Cartographers usually copied maps made by predecessors. This can be seen when you view 19th Century European maps and then compare the two. For example compare the shape and form of Ulleungdo and Dokdo of these two maps.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Marzollabendetto1847.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/uchidaspanningtext2.jpg

On the last map made by the Japanese cartographer can be seen the text from Saito Hosen’s Oki Report in 1667.There are no other islands in the East Sea in this map.
Here is another picture showing the same characters from before Seibold’s error days.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext1.jpg

This map shows Seibold’s error as well and clearly states “Korean name Ulleungdo Japanese name Takeshima. So this clearly shows Ulleungdo more West. Jukdo is not a ghost island on these 2 island maps.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kashihara1876-2.jpg

The logical conclusion is that on Japanese national maps showing 2 islands Jukdo is Ulleungdo and Songdo(松島) is Dokdo. It is not reasonable to assume, as some Japanese do, that Japan was knowingly double mapping Ulleungdo and omitting Dokdo. That is complete rubbish.

The 1870 Report on Chosun cites Ulleungdo as Jukdo which NO three island maps do. These nasty maps always show Ulleungdo as Songdo and thus can not be used as reference on documents that cite Ulleungdo as Jukdo (竹島). Watanbe’s report was accepted?? His belief that foreign proved Dokdo was Japan’s is not supported by either national or prefecture maps of the 19th century even up to 1904.

Watanabe’s request to survey Ulleungdo was and what did Japan do after they surveyed Dokdo? Did they incorporate Dokdo? No they didn’t. Not until they needed to install military submarine cables in the Russo~Japanese War about a quarter of a century later.

Two Cents all the Korean side is asking the Japanese to show proof of ownership prior to militarily annexing Dokdo in 1905. Korea claimed Dokdo before the Japanese this is shown by their contesting the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion in 1906.

Two Cents.
Part one.
The Japanese government had not concluded there were three islands in the East Sea. Even Watanbe Kuoki stated. Jukdo was Argonaut and didn’t exist, the current Songdo was formerly Jukdo, and that Liancourt Rock was former Songdo. He was hopeful there was another island in the region to plunder but to say that Japan was planning there foreign policy on ghost islands is wrong. His view was not shared by others.
Part Two.
The identity of this “other island” is moot. All maps of Shimane pre-annexation show no other islands than Oki Island and Mishima. Period. Dokdo was not part of Japan at this time.
Part three. Ulleungdo is Matsushima. This is no big revelation. This is a confirmation of what they had already suspected and Watanbe probably got a cuff in the head for being such a dumb ass.
Part four. There are no other islands to plunder in the East Sea and thus we need not worry about establishing any presence to protect or guard. The issue of Songdo’s development requests is dropped and no maps of Japan show Dokdo as part of Japan.

Lastly, what does this confusion say about the territorial perceptions of Japan at this late point in time. If Dokdo was an inherent part of Japan as they say how could they forget where it was?

toadface,

To follow is a list of some Japanese maps in the 19th century to early 20th century. After the 1867 (Katsu Kaisyu’s map), Takeshima moved to place of the ghost island (Argonaut) and Matsushima went to the place of Ulleungdo. Katsu precisely wrote Liancourt rocks but many Japanese were in confusion, “where is the old Matsushima?”….

(Argonaut I.) (Dagelet I.) (Liancourt R.)
1849 – – Matsushima
1867 Takeshima Matsushima Ryamkoutorokku
1875 Takeshima Matsushima –
1898 Matsushima Takeshima –
1909 – (Matshishima) Takeshima

The 1849 map, it depicted two rock shape.
http://www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08299001/CJA08299001-5.html

Anyway, Matsushima in the old maps older this period were Takeshima/Dokdo. The confusion just took place in the 19th century when new Meiji government welcomed western information.

But toadface, Korea can’t claim Takeshima/Dokdo for the confusion. Korea didn’t know the island until early 20th century anyway.

Gerry,

You are right.
> “therefore, why does Japan have to prove ownership before 1905?”

toadface, it is Korea who should prove ownership before 1905.
You have not succeeded in proving it yet at all. Please don’t dodge the point.
Can you hear me?

toadface,

I looked at your site, which only made me laugh. Just as I pointed out, you have failed to prove anything about the Japanese intent regarding Liancourt around 1905. Just the point of your view that Japan has always been a greedy aggressor, and that the Liancourtts must have been take in that context. You’re really stretching it, and the level of your argument is so low that it just amazes me. The propaganda posters that you put up there looks no better than the propagand posters that N Korea makes today. I don’t know where your Japan-hate comes from, but basically, you have no understanding of Japan and her history at all. And you dare make comments about Japanese history, just out of Japan-hate you picked up in S Korea. You’re one sorry man, toadface.

The 1870 Secret Mission Report on Chosun (Korea)

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/pangul/clip_image061.png[/IMG][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/pangul/clip_image062.png[/IMG]

Boxed text on the right images has the title that states 竹島松島朝鮮附屬 (How Ulluengdo and Dokdo became Chosun possessions).

During the formative years of the Meiji Government, Japan actively began to develop new diplomatic relations with Chosun. This first diplomatic mission included Moriyama Sigeru, Sada Hakubo and Saito Ei. This mission was to gather information for a few purposes such as 1. Finding out why the relationship between Japan and Chosun has deteriorated 2. Discontinue Tsushima´s payment of tributes to Chosun. 3. Investigate Chosun´s relationship with China. 4. Sending warships to Busan when the emperor dispatches his emissary to Chosun. 5. Find out if Chosun is being influenced by shrewd Russian diplomats. 6. Find out the strengths and weaknesses of the Chosun´s weaponry and navy. 7. Verify intelligence concerning the political situation of the Korean king and members of the Chosun court. 8. Potential trade with Chosun. 9. Investigate the customs and systems of Chosun.

It is interesting that these instructions indicate the ambition and assertiveness of the Japanese politicians of the day. We can see the report is made from an unfriendly point of view. So what did the study mission report to the Foreign Ministry? The officials stayed in Korea from February 22, 1870 through early March and made their report in April. First, the report states that Chosun does not maintain a tributary relationship with Japan. Second, Tsushima is apparently a vassal in the Korean system and has received copper seals (tosa, tosho) from Korea. Third, regarding the question of China, the Japanese mission reports that Chosun is operating independently of China.

At the end of the report there is a detailed history of the annexation of Ulleungdo and Dokdo by Chosun. It states:

“How Ulleungdo and Dokdo became Korean Possessions: Dokdo is a neighbor island of Ulleungdo and there is no document on file by the shogunate concerning this (these) island(s). 2. The island of Ulleungdo was settled by the Korean people after the 1690s (During the reign of King Sukjong) but it now has become uninhabited”

Here, in this historical document, is clear proof that Japan recognized Dokdo along with Ulleungdo as territories of Chosun. Japan used the expression “how Uleungdo and Dokdo became possessions of Chosun”. It is also clear that Japan believed Dokdo was associated with Ulleungdo and that there was an agreement during the 1690s which affirmed the two islands belonged to Chosun.

Article ・ of the ordinance designated Taehadong as the kun office venue and defined the jurisdiction of the Uldo country magistrate as extending over the whole of Ullungdo, Chukto, and Sokto. Here Chukto refers to Chuksodo, a rocky islet adjoining Ullungdo that was confirmed by Yi Kyu-won in his diary during an inspection trip there. Sokto is Tokdo.
A majority of the people who settled on Ullungdo were from Chollado. In the dialect of that region tol (石 in Chinese character) is prnounced as tok, thus tol-som (rocky island) becomes tok-som. As a result the government registered the island as Sokto or 石島 in the Chinese writing system — the preferred literati-official (as was Latin under Roman occuption and French after the Norman conquest in Great Britain) even after the creation of han’gul as the indigenous alphabet in 1447.

A plethora of similar cases can be found not only in the names of islands but also those of valleys. This is especially true for the southern regions of Korea. In some cases tok-som is pronounced tok-to and is written with the Chinese characters 獨島. The sound tok or tol is the Chinese character 獨, and 島 is the Chinese character for island — namely, som or to.

Although the government adopted the name of Sokto for Tokdo when the ordinance came into effect, the residents of Ullungdo called the island either Sokto or Tokdo.

The Japanese first referred to this island as Tokdo in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese war when the Japanese warship Niitakago was sent to Ullungdo to investigate the area in preparation for the building of a watchtower on Tokdo. An entry in the report dated September 25, 1904 reads:

The Liancourt Rocks are called Tokdo by the Koreans and are referred to as that by the Korean government which has exercised sovereignty over Tokdo (Sokto) since1900 by promulgation of Imperial Ordinance No.41 and the appointment of the country magistrate.

Toadface,

All maps of Shimane pre-annexation show no other islands than Oki Island and Mishima. Period. Dokdo was not part of Japan at this time.

It depends on the purpose of the map whether rocks are shown in a map. For example, there are small islands at the center of the following map.

http://map.yahoo.co.jp/pl?lat=32%2F14%2F34.84&lon=128%2F5%2F47.731&layer=1&p=%B8%DE%C5%E7&mode=map&size=s&pointer=on&sc=10
(You can see the islands by cricking the link, “1/75000″, above the map.)

These islands have always been Japan’s islands. Are these islands described in the maps that you linked? Do you insist that these islands are Korea’s islands since they are not described in old Japanese maps?

For example compare the shape and form of Ulleungdo and Dokdo of these two maps.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Marzollabendetto1847.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/uchidaspanningtext2.jpg

Where is Dokdo in the maps? The two islands in the first map are labeled as Argonaut and Dagelet. Both of them are Ulleungdo. In the second map, the shapes of the islands are similar to the Argonaut and Dagelet in the first map. In the Siebold’s map, these islands are labeled as Takeshima/Argonaut and Matsushima/Dagelet. Where is Dokdo in the maps?

You seem to be able to see Dokdo anywhere you want.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=234#comment-5100

Aki Said:
June 9, 2006 at 8:41 am
toadface,

The Japanese puppy is so sad. Poor puppy…..
I think you look like the poor puppy Ponta!!
Please don’t cry…..
Poor Puppy Ponta!!

Do you call Ulleungdo 독도 (Dokdo)?
See the enlarged photo of the map, 大東輿地全圖 (대동여지도). The island is labeled as 鬱陵島 (Ulleungdo).

Gerry, Japanese maps of both Ulleungdo and Dokdo even in the 19th Century often show the distance to be way off. Stop holding the Koreans to high standards of accuracy when Japanese maps also show the same errors.

The fact that Shim HeungTaek reported that Dokdo was part of his county is proof positive that Koreans sincerely considered the islands part of Korean territory. The fact that you and those on this forum still insist that he should have done more shows how little you have studied the political situation in Korea at this time. Japan already had controlled Korea for 2 years by the time Dokdo’s inclusion was made known to him.

Tomato, there are no propaganda posters on my website. All of the images are Japanese drawings and they are included to show the political attitudes of Japanese during the expansionist era. There are from books written by credited authors of the subject of Japanese expansionism in Korea.

This picture is a Japanese cartoon showing how they viewed the world in around 1878. I don’t think it offensive, it is a historical perception by Japanese artist.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/maru-maru.jpg
The other image is also Japanese and shows how the West accepted Japan as one of the boys and now a colonial power after the Russo~Japanese War of 1904~1905..
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/colonial-acceptance.jpg

The other image also from the Tokyo Puck depicts Koreans as dwelling in a cave and the Japanese General enlightening them as they bow in respect.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/abacus-cover.jpg

You find the images offensive and so do I but these were the impressions of Japanese at this time.

Dokdo and the issue of Japanse expansionism are inseparable. What happened in Korea was happening all over Northeast Asia. To ignore what Japan was doing in Korea at the time of the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion would be bad history.

Whether you like it or not, the historical and political circumstances surrounding Korea and Japan are related to why Japan annexed Dokdo. Japan has to deal with these issues instead of trying to bury them.

toadface,

> “Whether you like it or not, the historical and political circumstances surrounding Korea and Japan are related to why Japan annexed Dokdo.”

You HAVE TO prove that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo before 1905 if you insist so. If you can’t, your opinion above is nothing.

Nobody can claim even if Japan incorporated an island for a special reason as you insist while it didn’t belong to Korea, so the first thing you have to do is show us the evidence that Korea had effective control over it, but you can’t. Then you lose…

You HAVE TO prove that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo before 1905 if you insist so. If you can’t, your opinion above is nothing.

pacifist read my post please

paul89,

> “Boxed text on the right images has the title that states 竹島松島朝鮮附屬 (How Ulluengdo and Dokdo became Chosun possessions).”

The words in the parentheses are wrong, it must be (Takeshima and Matsushima belong to Chosun), not Dokdo.

The original text (1870) reads;

此儀ハ 松島ハ竹島ノ隣島ニシテ松島ノ儀ニ付、
是迄掲載セシ書留モ無之、
This Matsushima is a neighboring island to Takeshima (Ulleungdo), and there have never been reports about it.

It says clearly that Matsushima is neighboring island of Ulleungdo, you know Takeshima/Dokdo is 92km away and not a neighbor. And there are numerous documents about the old Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo)but the above says “never”. So apparently this is not Takeshima/Dokdo.

There is a possibility that it is a small island beside Ulleungdo, Jukdo. The report by 李奎遠 in 1882 mentioned today’s Jukdo was called Songjukdo or Songdo or Jukdo in those days. You know that Japanese name for Songdo is Matsushima.

So you should rewrite the line above as (Ulleungdo and Jukdo belong to Chosun).

Paul89,

> “there was an agreement during the 1690s which affirmed the two islands belonged to Chosun.”

No this is not true.

The original declaration reads;

先年松平新太郎因州伯州領知之節相窺之伯州米子之町人村川市兵衛大屋甚吉
竹嶋江渡海至爾今雖致漁候向後竹島江渡海之儀制禁可申付旨被仰出之候間可被存其趣候　　
恐々謹言

正月廿八日
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　土屋相模守
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　阿部豊後守
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　大久保加賀守
松平伯善守殿
右御奉書之趣村川大屋両人江　申聞竹島渡海相止候事

I won’t translate all but you can see the declaration only says 竹島(Takeshima) and not 松島 (Matsushima).
Actually as I posted somewhere, going to Takeshima/Dokdo was not banned.

paul89,

>　”Sokto is Tokdo.”

This is merely a speculation, without evidence.
There is also a theory that Seokdo was Soko-to as Gerry indicated before. (Soko-to is 観音島)

The Korean Empire didn’t recognise Takeshima/Dokdo as their territory in 1899 as you can see in “大韓全図”, so it is unreasonable that Korean Empire suddenly include the island one year later.

フィリピンには、カミギン島が2または3個ほどあります。
In Philippines, there is 2 or 3 Camiguin island.
インド洋と太平洋のそれぞれにクリスマス島があります。
There is Christmas Island in both the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean.
ただ名前が似ているという理由だけでは、同じ島であるとの証明になりません。
Only as for the reason of a similar name, it is not proved same island.

そもそも、石島の位置データが、何処にも書いてありません。
Important; place position data of Sokto(石島) are written nowhere.
east? west? north? south?
How long distance?

“unreasonable”, “Gerry’s theory”, “There is a possibility”…., i offered a valid japanese document, which clearly proves Dokto was accepted as part of Chosun by the Japanese and what you do is “speculate” that it is “perhaps” a different island. I rest my case.

Paul89,

The second theory for the 竹島松島朝鮮附屬 is as follows:

The below shows how Japanese maps changed the location of Takeshima and Matsushima in the 19th centuyr.

——–(Argonaut I.) (Dagelet I.) (Liancourt R.)
1849 – - (None)——(None)—-Matsushima
1867 —-Takeshima -Matsushima-Ryamkoutorokku
1875 —-Takeshima –Matsushima -(None)—
1898 —-Matsushima –Takeshima -(None)—-
1909 – –(None)—–(Matshishima) –Takeshima

You will notice that in the 1870 when the document of 竹島松島朝鮮附屬was made, Argonaut island was renamed as Takeshima and Dagelet island (Ulleungdo) was renamed as Matsushima. And Matsushima is located next to Takeshima so two islands in 竹島松島朝鮮附屬 were Ulleungdo and the ghost Ulleungdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo.

Paul89,

> “which clearly proves Dokto was accepted as part of Chosun by the Japanese”

I’m afraid that it is a typical reaction of Korean people. They were educated in school so, I’m sorry but it’s not true.

Japan has never ever recognised Takeshima/Dokdo as Korean territory.
So Paul89, you have to find the evidence for Korea that she had effective control over the island, but in reality it is hard. Truth is that they didn’t know even the presence of the island.

Paul89,

> “which clearly proves Dokto was accepted as part of Chosun by the Japanese”

BTW, when do you think the name of “Dokdo” appeared in Korean documents? You will be surprised but it’s in the 20th century.

It has been said that Korean fishermen, who were hired by Japanese and engaged in sealion hunting at Takeshima/Dokdo, first called the island “Dokdo” (lonely island).
Until then, there was no name for the island in Korea that means they didn’t know it or didn’t have attention.

I’m sorry that I made you surprised but this is true. If you can find old document that mentioned “Dokdo”, please show us. If you find out such a document, I’m sure it will be a big discovery.

Aki, the Japanese mapped Dokdo long before the mapping errors by Seibold. Do these look like the shape and form of Dokdo to you?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext2.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext1.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japan-world-map-songdo.jpg

Early cartographers were not surveyors and most of their information was second-hand. Just because the shape and form was wrong means nothing. No national maps of Japan from this era show Matsushima in its correct form. The Japanese knew and drew two islands in the East Sea one was Takeshima and the other was Matsushima, they knew not the shape and form of these islands. So they blindly just traced earlier maps and labelled them.

The 1870 document clearly states Takeshima as Ulleungdo by giving historical reference. In addition, the document gives a description of Ulleungdo so we know that the Takeshima in this document is not an island they were unsure of so it’s clear the document refers to Ulluengdo. Why there were no documents on Songdo is because the Meiji government was new and just established.

Pacifist are you still trying to the lame excuse that the second the Japanese mapped Ulleungdo in Seibolds position they suddenly eliminated Dokdo? That is a rubbish theory. Do you see how others aren’t buying your argument….?

In the 1870 document Ulleungdo is located in the position of Argonaut and Dokdo is located in the position of Ulleungdo. The Japanese traced European maps both the position and form, then they labelled them as Seibold did giving Argonaut the name of Takeshima and Dagelet the name of Matsushima.

I repeat, the Japanese did not double map Ulleungdo and omit Dokdo. Don’t treat your readers like fools Pacifist because as you see, they don’t believe you..

Here is a link about the mapping confusion for you Pacifist. Read and learn.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-mapping-errors.html

The 1906 complaint by the Koreans show that Koreans did not think that Dokto were just two barren pieces of rock (Liancourt Rocks).

1) Shin’s written complaint to the Korean government states that Dokto was located 100 ris from Ulleungdo. Although he did get the distace to the Liancourt Rocks wrong, this is an indication that the island he was talking about was indeed the Liancourt Rocks.
2) Reading Shin’s complaint, the government asks for more information on Dokto (島形便) and what the Japanese are doing, so the government does not seem to know that Shin is talking about the Liancourt Rocks.
3) Newspapers report the incident, expressing outrage at the Japanese incorporation, but from reading the articles, you find that they assume that the Japanese inspection asking about the population, crops, etc. in Shin’s report is about Dokto and not Ulleungdo. (The Japanese inspectors during their stay in Ulleungdo asked for such information about Ulleungdo and not Dokto, since Japan was fully aware that the Liancourt Rocks were uninhabited.) Thus, the newspapers are expressing outrage over the Japanese incorporation of a inhabited island, which clearly shows that generally, they are clueless about Dokto.
4) Since no documents of what followed have been found, nothing conclusive may be said about what the offical stand of the Korean government was on the issue.
5) However, geography books released in Korea at the time all show that the eastern limit of Korea does not include the Liancourt Rocks, and so that shoud give you an idea on how the Koreans regarded it.

The local dialect claim falls flat on its face, since in all other names on Ulleungdo containing the “rock　石,” the letter is pronounced “sok”.

toad,
I have tried to see things from the Korean perspective (since that is how anyone should appraoch a subject – seeing things from both sides), and that is why I have reached the conclusion that their claim has no substance unless Koreans can prove that they knew the Liancourt Rocks. You, on the other hand, only see things from the “imperialist Japanese greedily gobbling up land of their helpless neighbor” perspective, and refuse to even digest the information people are giving you here. And you claim that I’m the one spinning the tires.

toadface,

> “In the 1870 document Ulleungdo is located in the position of Argonaut and Dokdo is located in the position of Ulleungdo.”

No, it’s not true. Ulleungso (Matsushima) is located in the position of Dagelet island and the ghost island (Takeshima) appeared in the position of Argonaut island. (You know, Ulleungdo became Matsushima in around 1870 as I showed the list of maps before.)

You know this is the reason why Kouki Watanabe wrote in the document “Ｍａｔｓｕｓｈｉｍａ　ｎｏ　Ｇｉ” (1878) – he argued mainly about Ulleungdo (Matsushima):
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
我松嶋ナル者ハ洋名ホルネットロックスナルカ如シ
然ルヲ洋客竹嶋ヲ認テ松嶋ト為シ更ニ竹嶋ナル者ヲ想起セシ者ノ如シ而テ此ホルネットロックスノ我国ニ属スルハ各国ノ地図皆然リ

A western name of OUR Matsushima seems to be “Hornet Rocks”. While western people named Takeshima as Matsushima and further they seem to imagine (new) Takeshima. However this Hornet rocks belong to our country, it is shown in every country’s map.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

He wrote, “..further they seem to imagine (new) Takeshima” (更ニ竹嶋ナル者ヲ想起セシ者ノ如シ）. This new Takeshima was Argonaut island.

The Liancourt rocks were once mapped in the 1867 map but the name was not familar to Japanese who knew the name of Matsushima. And the confusion about the names of Takeshima and Matsushima began. The rest is the history.

Two-Cents, the fact that the Koreans contested the inclusion shows that Japan’s only documented claim to Dokdo is not valid. Land acquisition by law has to be uncontested before effective control can be established.

The trouble with Japan’s claims against Korea’s background is the best they can do is cast doubt on Korea’s assertions that Seokdo is Dokdo. BTW, the Koreans foreign ministry didn’t dream up this theory, it has been a claim they have steadfastly asserted and maintained for more than half a century.

Gerry Bevers can pull out every ass backward map that “proves” Usando is a neighbour island of Ulleungdo. But the problem is that on two different inspections of Ulleungdo by Leekyuwon 1882 and Shim Jinhyeon in 1794 this island was referred to as Jukdo and NOT Usando. The distance quoted by Anyongbok to Jasando was 50 ri this is much too far. The Daehanjiji says Usando was Southeast of Ulleungdo where no other islands than Dokdo exist. Again the best Japanese can do is cast doubt. No slam dunk. This is not good enough to redraw maps of Asia.

I don’t believe everything the Koreans say that’s for sure. However Japan’s claims that Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan can be said to be 100% false by the scores and maps that are out there. So in a sense, the ambiguity of Korea’s crude cartography and sparse documents are both a blessing and curse. Japan’s documents are killing their claim in that no Japanese maps or documents prior to 1905 are proof of territorial land claim. In any document that do give an indication of ownership of Dokdo (especially from the Meiji era) prove Korea has title or Japan didn’t.

Also as I’ve mentioned Japan’s motives for annexing Dokdo can be confirmed through their own documents as military. Lands annexed for this purpose fall under the category of violence and greed under the Cairo Convention. This also nullifies Japan’s claim.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ulsan-tsushima.html
The issue of whether or not Japan’s Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was public enough is also questionable. Japan’s only public notice regarding Dokdo’s aquistion was an article about 2 inches big on the second page of a local newspaper. Local government notices are not the correct method for declarations of land acquisitions in the forum of international politics. This method of announcement also goes against Japan’s other land claim in which Japan notified America and Britain numerous time (ie Bonin Islands/Ogasawara)
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/sanin-1.jpg

,b>Two Cents with all respect to the Japanese around the years 1870~1905 Japan WAS a greedy country gobbling up her neighbours as were other colonial powers such as Russia, Britain, France, and America. I’m NOT singling out Japan at all. I call in question the whole system of land acquisition methods by ALL of the colonial powers of the world during this era.

What the Japanese and Russians did to the indigenous peoples of Hokkaido is really not much different from what the Australians did to the Aborigines. That is displacing, interning and assimilating the indigenous residents of these lands. So when Japan tries to retroactively apply the 1905 “valid” international legal system as a basis for laying claim to Dokdo we have to understand that rules of territorial land claim back then were very much “stronger eats weaker”(Darwinism).

Look at a map of East Sea (Sea of Japan) Look at the position of Ulleungdo-Dokdo and the Okinoshimas. It makes no sense from a modern territorial land claim that Japan would be granted Dokdo. A basis for determining such land disputes is to draw an equidistant line between the furthestmost territory of each country. Dokdo is about 90kms from Ulleungdo and almost double the distance from Oki Islands.

Let me make something else clear. I made sure when I sourced information I stayed clear of Korean resources. I made sure the information was only from the same historical time location, or subject no rape of Nanjing comfort women Queen Min etc., The information about the military activites on Dokdo were written by a Japanese man (Professor Kazuo Hori)

Japan never said that Takeshima was an inherent part of Japan. The Japanese government is laying claim to Takeshima based on its 1905 incorporation of an unowned island. The complaint you are citing as evidence is only an internal document. Unless the Korean government made an official complaint to Japan in response to receiving Shin’s report, it would be meaningless. The very fact that it did not indicates that the Korean government did not consider the Liancourt Rocks to be a part of its territory.

I made sure when I sourced information I stayed clear of Korean resources.

That is a smart choice, as using them would instantly shatter your claim that Dokto was an indivisible part of Ulleungdo or Korean territory.

The trouble with Japan’s claims against Korea’s background is the best they can do is cast doubt on Korea’s assertions that Seokdo is Dokdo. BTW, the Koreans foreign ministry didn’t dream up this theory, it has been a claim they have steadfastly asserted and maintained for more than half a century.

I believe about a half a century ago, Lee Syungman forcelly took over Takeshima and was in need of an excuse to justify his aggression against a neighboring country who was incapalbe of defending her territory by military means.

Paficist ALL Japanese maps that refer to Ulleugdo as Jukdo show the position of Argonaut. Maps after 187O still show Ulleungdo/Jukdo at Seibold’s position. I’ll show you the map again Pacifist.
Kashihara Yoshinaga 1876 clearly shows Ulleungdo as Jukdo in Seibolds postion and Songdo (Dokdo) to the East.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kashihara1876-2.jpg
Uchida Shinsai 1872 also shows Ulleungdo/Jukdo in Seibold’s position and Songdo (Dokdo) to the East. No other islands exist on either map.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/uchidaspanningtext2.jpg
Both of these maps make it clear that the island on the left is Ulleungdo NOT a ghost islandPacifist, the 1870 document called Ulleungdo Jukdo by description and historical references (1696 Genruko Era)

Only in maps showing three islands does Jukdo become a “phantom” island. This is shown by the unclear outline of “jukdo” on these maps. As I told you Watanabe quoted “Foreign maps show this Jukdo to be the non-existent island called Argonaut”
Look how the Japanese mapped Ulleungdo. Does that look like the shape of Ulleungdo? Why is the islands surrounded by dotted lines now? Because as the British did, they doubted the existence of this island. Compare the maps.
Japanese.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanesenavymap.jpg
British
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Britishnavy1863.jpg

The fact that the 1870 document refers to Ulleungdo as Jukdo and gives historical reference and a physical description rules out the possibility that the Japanese were using these nasty three island maps. Two island maps despite showing Seibold’s positioning still show Ulleungdo and Dokdo. Even though the form was wrong it is not possible that Japanese cartographers double-mapped Ulleungdo and then eliminated Dokdo Pacifist. It is a bizarre theory indeed

Two Cents, Korea didn’t need to take over Dokdo forcefully. Japan lost effective control through the terms of surrender in WWII. Japan was bound by these terms. Korea is not. At any rate I don’t put much merit in the judgement of the allies regarding Dokdo anyway. The West is not the boss of Korea, and to this day America wisely maintains a neutral stance on the Dokdo issue.

Two Cents quotes That is a smart choice, as using them would instantly shatter your claim that Dokto was an indivisible part of Ulleungdo or Korean territory.
Two Cents it is not MY claim alone Dokdo is an indivisible part of Ulleungdo. It is through every Japanese map of Dokdo and every Japanese historical reference of Dokdo that can be seen Ulleungdo and Dokdo are attached. There are no records by Japanese that show they visited Dokdo as a sole destination. There are no Japanese pre-1905 maps of only Dokdo without Ulleungdo.
Please show me one historical reference by Japan before the annexation of Dokdo that separates the issue of Dokdo from Ulleungdo.
Look at these maps does Dokdo seem separate form Ulleungdo to you?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext2.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext1.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1853-color-coded.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-kinseki.html

Two Cents even the sloppy maps made by the Murakawa’s during their clandestine (illegal) voyages to Ulleungdo prove that the only need Japanese had for Dokdo was when they visted Ulleungdo. In 1696 it was declared illegal for Japanese to voyage to Ulleungdo. As this 1724 map shows Japanese were trespassing on Ulleungdo and using Dokdo as a stopover. Japanese would not travel 5 days return to a rock that had a serious lack of fresh water. Thus is it not possible Japanese considered Dokdo part of their territory after having lost the right to fish near Ulleungdo. It is not plausible they considered a couple rocks within visible proximity to a forbidden land as thiers.

Here is a trespassers tour map of Ulleungdo.

http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/old-japanese-ulleungdo-dokdo.jpg

Japanese maps that lack Dokddo on them does not show Japanese are not cognizant of Dokdo.
Japanese maps that are inaccurate just show that Japan was confused when Japanese government was changing entirely from the old regime to new regime.

Korean nitpicking Japanese maps are useless because there are Japanese maps showing Dokdo.

http://servi.lib.meiji.ac.jp/lizardtech/iserv/getimage?cat=Ashida&item=009/009-019-00-00.sid&wid=950&hei=700&rgn=0.1307018611
http://ch.kanagawa-museum.jp/dm/kotizu/nihonzu/d_nihonzu13_zoom.html
http://www.lib.meiji.ac.jp/ashida/display/each/09/09-074/09-074-0-0.03.040-l.jpg
http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/directory/sumita/orgdata/00025412/P0001.jpg
(provided by opp)

On the other hand,
Korea has no historical maps and documents hat referred to Dokdo.If there is any, Just show us

Korea didn’t need to take over Dokdo forcefully. Japan lost effective control through the terms of surrender in WWII. Japan was bound by these terms. Korea is not.

This is not valid claim at all.
Japan had effective control and hence, Japan had the title, while Korea had absolutely no effective control over Dokdo since ancient times.
Japan protested when Korea illegally began to occupy.
Hence, Korea’s occupation is just illegal.

(Keep in mind, yes Korea did use the force. Korea killed and wounded many Japanese fishermen.

it is not MY claim alone Dokdo is an indivisible part of Ulleungdo.It is through every Japanese map of Dokdo and every Japanese historical reference of Dokdo that can be seen Ulleungdo and Dokdo are attached.

Interesting. since Japan recognized both Dokdo and Ulleungdo, Japan has maps of both just as Japan has maps of Korea and China that sits next to each other.
However, what is important is Korea has no map of Dokdo though Dokdo is neighboring islands of Ulleungdo. It just goes to show Korea is only aware of Ulleungdo. Dokdo and jukudo was the limit of Korea’s cognition.You can not consider a island as an indivisible part of Ulleungdo if you are rarely if at all cognizant of the island. Korea has no clear evidence that she was aware of Dokdo.

Besides, legally,

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN（ICJ)
The Court further recalls that it stated above that the words “the islets belonging thereto” can only be interpreted as referring to the small islands lying in the immediate vicinity of the three islands which are mentioned by name, and not to islands which are located at a distance of more than 40 nautical miles. The Court therefore cannot accept Indonesia’s contention that it inherited title to the disputed islands from the Netherlands through these contracts, which stated that the Sultanate of Bulungan as described in the contracts formed part of the Netherlands Indies.

40miles is about 74km. And Dokdo is 92km away from Ulleungdo. Legally there is no groud for claiming that dokdo is an indivisible part of Ulleungdo

Steve Barber, Just show us the evidences that Korea was cognizant of dokdo, and Korea had effective control of Dokdo, which is necessary requirement for Korean claim. You have shown none, despite the fact without it, Korea’s claim is noting but lie, half-truth
Gerry won, you lost, is that it?

toadface

I show the list here again.

–——–(Argonaut I.) -(Dagelet I.)- (Liancourt R.)
1849 – - (None)——-(None)——-Matsushima
1867 —-Takeshima -Matsushima-Ryamkoutorokku
1875 —-Takeshima –Matsushima -(None)—
1898 —-Matsushima –Takeshima -(None)—-
1909 – –(None)—––(Matshishima) –Takeshima

You will notice that in 1870 when the document of 竹島松島朝鮮附屬was made, Argonaut island was renamed as Takeshima and Dagelet island (Ulleungdo) was renamed as Matsushima. And Matsushima is located next to Takeshima so two islands in 竹島松島朝鮮附屬 were Ulleungdo and the ghost Ulleungdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo.

toadface, Matsushima was Ulleungdo in the 1870 document.

> “Why is the islands surrounded by dotted lines now?”
Because it (Takeshima) was Argonaut island, a phantom of Ulleungdo while Matsushima was Dagelet island (Ulleungdo) as I told above.

toadface,

Did you forget what you have to do?

You should show the evidence that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo. You have no right to blame Japan’s incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo in 1905 if Korea didn’t know the presence of the island.

I’m quite doubtful about Korea’s cognizance of the island. There is no evidence. They didn’t have Korean name until the 20th century. No documents, no maps.

toadface, can you hear me?