Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 8
The following Korean map is from the Bibyeonsa Inbanganjido (備邊司*方眼地圖), which was a book of maps made sometime around 1750. The map below is a map of the Uljin (蔚珍) district, which was the district in which Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) was included. Ulleungdo can be seen in the lower right-hand corner of the map.
The following is a close-up view of the Ulleungdo section of the map. Notice that it shows Ulleungdo with three peaks, which may have been because the island had three prominent peaks. In the past the island has also been known as “Sambongdo” (三峯島), which means “Island of Three Peaks.”
The following section of the map gave important details of the Uljin district. One of the details was that the district included one island, which was called “Ulleungdo.” Ulleungdo’s circumference was also given.
Koreans claim that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) was also part of the Uljin district and was called, “Usando,” but since the above map said that Uljin district had only one island, it seems that Usando was just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). In fact, old Korean maps of Ulleungdo show quite clearly that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島), which is only 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. If Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) had really been part of the Uljin district, then the map would have included it as a second island since it is ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo. Since the map did not mention a second island, we can safely assume that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) was not considered part of Uljin district in 1750.
Japanese Translation provided by Kaneganese
(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)
次の韓国の地図は、備邊司方眼地圖という1750年頃に作成された地図帳の一部です。下の図は鬱陵島が所属する蔚珍郡のものです。鬱陵島は下部右端に描かれています。
地図1：備邊司方眼地圖(1750年頃) 蔚珍
次は鬱陵島付近の拡大図です。鬱陵島に3つの峰が描かれています。おそらく、鬱陵島に主要な峰が三つあるためだと思われます。この島は、過去に”三峯島”と言う名前でも知られています。
地図2：備邊司方眼地圖(1750年頃) 蔚珍 鬱陵島付近拡大図
次は蔚珍郡の重要な詳細を記述している部分を拡大しました。そこに蔚珍郡に”鬱陵島”という名の一島を含んでいるとあります。鬱陵島の周囲の長さも記載されています。
図1：備邊司方眼地圖(1750年頃) 蔚珍 説明箇所拡大図
韓国人はLiancourt Rocks (竹島/Dokdo)も蔚珍郡の一部で、”于山島”と呼ばれていたと主張しますが、上掲の蔚珍郡の地図には一つの島しか描かれておらず、于山島は単なる鬱陵島の隣接島であったと言えるでしょう。事実、韓国の古地図においてはかなり明確に、于山島は鬱陵島の東沖2.2kmに浮かぶ竹嶼として描かれています。もしLiancourt Rocks (竹島/Dokdo)が当時本当に蔚珍郡の一部であったなら、南東92ｋｍも離れたこの島を第2の島として含めていたはずです。しかしこの地図には第2の島についての記述はありません。従って、1750年頃にはLiancourt Rocks (竹島/Dokdo)は蔚珍郡の一部であるとは見なされていなかった、と考えるのが妥当でしょう。
Links to More Posts on Takeshima/Dokdo (With Japanese translations)
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 1
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4 Supplement
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 5
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 7
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 8
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 1
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Supplement
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 3
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 5
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 6
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 8
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 9
Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 10
Again you are wrong Gerry. The first quote I gave you above is just from one part of this report where he quotes his opinion from an old Korean historical record. Now you are asserting this man didn’t even know which side of Ulleungdo Matsushima was on. You base this flimsy theory without reading the document in its entirety!! Unbelievable….
Gerry, it’s clear you were wrong in your translation. My translation stands as it concurs with the published works of respected authors on the subject. I can’t believe you post ten Kanji characters and cite it as what Tanabe Taiichi said when I hotlinked you to the original document and gave a translation…don’t be so shoddy Gerry
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/Takeshima-report3.jpg
Tanabe Taiichi gave his opinions on his own knowledge of the region. He and others were consulted by the Japanese government to use their expertise on the history and geography of the area to determine territorial ownership of Songdo. In fact not only was against developing Matushima, he was against developing uninhabited islands in the South and subrogate the Ryukyu Islands.
Watanbe’s letter showed nothing other than he was one of the least competent men involved in the Takeshima Report. He blindly followed inaccurate foreign maps and led the Japanese Imperical Navy on a needless wild goose chase. He did no historical study of the islands like his peers and he made incorrect territorial assumptions without even consulting the prefectures involved. It was his high position in office that gave him the leverage to instigate a survey of the region Gerry. Moreover, it’s clear after the survey his assumption that Liancourt Rocks was Japanese territory was dead wrong as the Japanese didn’t annex the island until 25 years later.
The Japanese decision not to abandon Matsushima in 1877!!?? Is that some kind of joke?? The Japanese excluded Ulleungdo and “another island” from their territory. No maps of Shimane show Liancourt Rocks after 1877 Gerry until they annexed the island in 1905
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html
Toadface,
I responded to the quote you posted, and that quote said that Usando was to the west of Ulleungdo, something that Taiichi did not dispute.
Your second quote was from Tanabe Taiichi’s summary of the different opinions in the Foreign Ministry concerning Matsushima. The opinion you quoted was only one of three he explained, which was that Matsushima was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Usando. Korean maps show that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, and the Japanese record you quoted said that it was west of Ulleungdo. Just because Taiichi explained the opinion does not necessarily mean he agreed with it. He also explained two other opinions.
The quote I gave you came from a book entitled 獨島와 竹島, which your friend Hanmaumy also quotes from. The quote came from Page 174 of the book. Here it is again:
Based on the Korean translation in the book, I think my translation is correct since “Usando” was not mentioned in the quote. Actually, since the verb following 울릉도로 was abridged, we cannot be sure if Taiichi was saying that Matsushima “was Ulleungdo” or “was part of Ulleungdo,” but it seems unlikely that “Usando” would be abridged if he thought Matsushima was referring to it. I think he was just playing it safe by essentially saying that whether its Ulleungdo or Usando, it is not our territory. Regardless, Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).
Yes, the Japanese government received Taiichi’s opinion, but then they rejected it in favor of Watanabe’s, which was that the area should be surveyed before making a decision. That was a good decision because the survey determined that the Matsushima in question was actually referring to Ulleungdo.
By the way, Watanabe did not make any assumptions, he said the evidence was “inconclusive” and wanted to do a survey to determine the truth. He did say, however, that Liancourt Rocks was Japanese territory.
Yes, Japan excluded “Ulleungdo and another island” from their territory, but that other island turned out to be Ulluengdo.
Liancourt Rocks was not incorporated into Shimane Prefecture until 1905, but the Japanese still considered the rocks to be in their territory, as the Watanabe letter clearly indicated.
Japan had maps of Liancourt Rocks, and Watanabe said that Liancourt Rocks was Japanese territory, but Korea had no maps of Liancourt Rocks nor had any idea where the islands were, as Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 report of his survey of Ulluengdo clearly showed.
Gerry it’s clear you are scrambling to keep up on this. Just a little while ago you were calling me confused and a liar about what I said. Now you slyly state Tanabe Taiichi did have other views on the Songdo matter.
On Tanabe Taichi’s report he did not only say Usando was attached to Ulleungdo Gerry, he said it equated to what Japanese called Matsushima (Dokdo) not a “very close neighbour island” this shows some Japanese considered Usando as Dokdo. Notice Tanebe said “it is said” meaning it was a territorial perception of some people and not just his personal view.
Tanabe Taiichi definitely had a hands-off policy regarding the uninhabited islands surrounding Japan. His views are totally opposed those of Watanabe Kuoki showing again there was no concensus by Japan as a nation that Dokdo was “under Japan’s shpere of infuence” as you’ve been maintaining.
Gerry, the reason I post those quotes was simple. You wrongfully Watanebe Kuoki’s opinions on “Songdo” as proof that Japan as a nation considered Dokdo under “Japan’s shpere of infleunce” It’s clear you were making false assumptions. Japan did not accepti Kuoki’s opinions he simply had the political clout to instigate a survey. Rather, the Japanese government accepted Tanabe Taiichi’s views by maintaining a hand-off policy on Dokdo for at least 25 years until the military annexed the island in 1905
Again, you are drawing incorrect conclusions. In the report on Takeshima the writer says Usando is Matsushima. Nowhere does the writer say he thought Matsushima was on the West side. His is simply drawing conclusions that Usando was Dokdo from an ancient Korean historical document. He was simply saying what some Korean historians assert over a century later.
Here is a summary of the points you’ve been wrong about lately.
1. The Hanja character for nieghbour “” does not necessarily mean “right beside” it means “next to” or “adjacent to” it is used to give a relative reference point and does not denote distance. As the Koreans say Japan is a neighbour country to Korea.
2. In the 1870 Report on Chosun you have falsely asserted the Japan were told by the Koreans that there was an island “right beside” Ulleungdo called Songdo. This is totally unfounded Gerry. The report simply said there was an island called Songdo adjacent to Ulleungdo.
3. There were no files on Songdo so this “Songdo” must be a different island. Again wrong. The Japanese had no file on the Dokdo because they had no file. That’s all. Songdo (Matsushima) was a collection of rocks next to Ulleungdo, there was no reason to keep records on this island.
The last point you been asserting is that Japan as a nation though Dokdo was part of Japan. This is where you have blown a gasket Gerry. First Watanbe Kuoki only said “Foreign maps showed Hornet Rocks as Japan’s” Second others in the same document expressed opposing views. Next all Japanese national maps of this era fail to show Dokdo as part of Japan, in fact some show it as Korean territory. All prefecture maps of Japan show Dokdo as NOT part of Japan. You can see the maps here Gerry.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-2.html
or Here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html
Gerry, it is bad history to present one snippet from a hundred page document and then make broad statements regarding the territorial perceptions of Japan as a nation. It is also bad history when you play connect-the-dots with other ambiguous historical data of questionable relevance. If you truly believe Japan considered an island directly beside Ulleungdo to be “Songdo” you must show some maps. If you sincerely believe Japan considered Dokdo as part of Japan before 1905 you must show some maps as well.
Toadface,
Tanabe Taiichi did NOT “have other views on the Songdo matter.” He wrote a document that summaried the different views in the Japanese foreign ministry. The quote I gave you was his opinion on the matter.
Where did Taiichi say that Matsushima was Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo)? He did not say that. In his summary of the different opinions, he said one opinion was that “Matsushima was Ulleungdo’s Usando,” which was not Liancourt Rocks. Even the quote you posted said that Usando was to the west of Ulleungdo, which means it could not have been Liancourt Rocks if that is what the Japanese believed at the time. Here is the quote you posted:
The above quote shows that the Japanese did not consider Usando to be Liancourt Rocks since it was said to be west of Ulleungdo, and since Liancourt Rocks are east of Ulleungdo. All the Japanese knew was the Japanese name for Usando was supposedly “Matsushima,” which was also the name used for Liancourt Rocks. That kind of confusion is what started the investigation in the first place. As Watanabe said, “…if the “Matsushima” being talked about here is Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it belongs to them. If the Matsushima is not Takeshima, then it must belong to Japan.”
As I said, the Japanese did adopt Watanabe Kuoki’s opinion, which was to do a survey to find out the truth about Matsushima. The opinion they rejected was the one that said a survey should not be done. The survey determined that Matsushima was, in fact, Ulleungdo. The Japanese never adopted a hands-off policy on Liancourt Rocks; in fact, Japanese fishermen continued to go to Ulleungdo, which they believed to be Matsushima. You can check that fact in Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 inspection report of Ulleungdo.
1) Your hanja character theory is ridiculous. Even Koreans translate it as “neighboring island.”
2) In 1870, the Japanese who traveled to Korea to get information on the country reported that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Matsushima” (Songdo). They also said that they had no record of such an island, which means the Koreans had to tell them that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Songdo.” In 1882, even King Kojong said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island called “Songdo.”
3) The Japanese did have files and maps of their Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks), as Watanabe’s letter clearly stated.
Watanbe Kuoki not only said that“Foreign maps showed Hornet Rocks (Liancourt Rocks) as Japan’s”; he also say, “If the Matsushima is not Takeshima (Ulleungdo), then it must belong to Japan.”
Japanese maps at the time did show Liancourt Rocks, which is something Korean maps never did.
Liancourt Rocks was considered to be Japanese territory even though was not officially made part of Japan until 1905. Think of Hawaii, which did not become a US state until 1959.
The following 1895 Japanese map shows Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, near where Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo is today. So if the Japanese considered Matsushima (Songdo) to be Usando, then here is the map of Songdo (Matsushima) you requested.
Japanese Map Showing Ulleungdo & Usando
Now it is your turn, Toadface. If you truly believe that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) was Korean territory, then show me a Korean map, just one, that shows Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).
Gerry, you are talking through your hat. It’s clear you haven’t done your homework on this one.
The first quote regarding Usando wasn’t even from Tanabe Taiichi it was from the beginning of the Takeshima Report. That was why I posted it, to show you Gerry that Watanbe Kuoki’s views were not representative of the overall opinions the Japanese officials had. The report on Takeshima has three parts and the first document I gave you was from a different Japanese official. His name was “Gitajawa Saesae” He used a lot of Chosun documents to come to his conclusion Usando was Dokdo (Matushima) Here again is the document.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/Takeshima-report1.jpg
As you said, Tanabe Taiichi’s report had the opinions on the matter of various experts on the issue of “Songdo’s” identity. Citing their views Tanabe Taiichi twice quoted Usando was what Japanese called Matsushima (Dokdo)
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Takeshima-report2.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Takeshima-report3.jpg
At the end of his report Tanabe Taiichi gave his views and made it clear he felt that they should not survey the region without just cause and taking over territories attached to Ulleungdo was like stealing someone’s treasure Gerry. He disagreed as did others with Watanabe Kuoki.
So there you have at least three opinions apart from Watanabe Kuoki’s that show his opinion was of the minority. As I’ve said before, Kuoki had the political position to demand a survey but his views were not the norm among those consulted on the Songdo issue. Thus we know Japan as a nation did not consider Dokdo “under their sphere of influence Gerry.
Yes Gerry, Koreans do say neighbour island. However the term “neighbour” doesn’t explicitly have the meaning “directly next to” Gerry as you are trying to mislead us to believe. It means adjacent to, like Japan is a neighbour country to Korea. That’s all.
Gerry, what the Hell does a 1895 map have to do with the territorial perceptions of Japanese in 1877 Gerry? That map is obviously a copy of an old Korean map. Stop trying to inject irrelevant material into the fray. You are also cross-referencing the 1870 Report with the 1877 Inquiry of Takeshima made years later. Shabby.
This is the classic Gerry Bevers recipe to make historical theory..
First, gather assorted unrelated documents from different sources. Next mix and stir them up vigorously until you have a flaky basis for a theory. (Don’t be afraid to add fudge) Cook it up overnight and dish it out or spoon-feed to those netizens gullible enough to consume. Caution: Often very hard to swallow or digest.
Toadface wrote:
You are using strawman arguments again. I did not say your first quote was from Tanabe Taiichi. I said that the first quote showed that the Japanese did not consider Usando to be Liancourt Rocks since they believed that Usando was to the west of Ulleungdo. Liancourt Rocks are to the east of Ulleungdo. That means that Japanese were using Matsushima to refer to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Usando, which was not Liancourt Rocks.
Toadface wrote:
Yes, Tanabe Taiichi’s report said that there were people who thought that Matsushima was Ulleungdo’s neigboring island of Usando, and, therefore, Japan should not survey them because Usando was Korean territory. However, the Japanese at the time believed that Usando was to the west of Ulleungdo, which means they did not consider Usando to be Liancourt Rocks.
At the time, the name “Matsushima” was being used to refer to two different islands. One Matsushima was being used to refer to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Usando, which the Japanese believed to be off Ulleungdo’s west coast, and the other Matsushima was being used to refer to Japan’s Liancourt Rocks. You are intentional confusing the two names to try to deceive people.
Toadface wrote:
It was not two against one, Toadface. It was just three separate views on how to deal with Matsushima, and Watanabe’s view, which was to survey the area before making a decision, was the one the Japanese government adopted.
Toadface wrote:
Stop being silly, Toadface.
Toadface wrote:
If you do not like the 1895 Japanese map that shows Usando as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, then how about this 1873 map that shows Usando (于山島) to the west of Ulleungdo (蔚島):
1873 Japanese Map
If you do not like the 1873 map, then how about this 1882 Japanese map that also shows Usando (于山島) to the west of Ulleungdo (蔚島).
1882 Japanese map
Again, at the time, the Japanese believed Usando to be west of Ulleungdo, which means they did not believe it to be Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) since Liancourt Rocks are east of Ulleungdo.
You are the one trying to deceive, Toadface, not me.
By the way, I notice that you could not produce a Korean map that showed Liancourt Rocks.
Toadface. I’ll give you homework. Just study Japanese so that you may not be deceived by Korean scholars.
Your first link says Matsusima is what 興地誌 called Matsushima. That means it was probably jukdo.
And there was no Kitajawa, but there is a person called kitazawa masanari who wrote on 「竹島考証」/北沢正誠
He says, there used to be theories of Matsuhima; one is that “Matsushima” and “takeshima” is two names of the same island, another is that Takeshima is different island from Matushima. After Amagi investigation,
it was made clear that Matsushima was Ulleungdo, and Takeshima was one rock.
According to your second and third links. Tanabe thougt Matsushima was Usando・干山、which belonged to Korea. And Usando, as many
Korean people are beginning to recognize thanks to Gerry’s article , is not Liancourt Rocks
Make sure you study Japanese, or just ask Korea scholars of your friends not to mistranslate to deceived you.
Wrong again Gerry. The Japanese say “Usando is what we call Matsushima” Again you are making suppositions from maps that are not related to the text of the report on Takeshima Gerry.
The 1882 map shows Usando and “울도“ about one third the size. The other map shows Usando again West of Ulleungdo. These maps are of course copies made from old Chosun maps. We know this because in the 19th Century Usando was located on the East of Ulleungdo. One again Gerry digs up the most inaccurate maps of the era to baffle us with B.S.
The truth is the Japanese compared their maps that showed Takeshima with an island next called Matsushima.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext1.jpg
And then they compared these to Korean maps which showed Usando next to Ulleungdo.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/old_korea41.jpg
From their they made the only conclusion a rational person would (not Gerry or Ponta). The arrived at the theroy right or wrong that Usando equated Matsushima (Dokdo) Because of this the Takeshima study stated Matsushima was Usando an island attached to Ulleungdo and not part of Chosun.
Gerry, I see you take the time to visit Hanmauy’s website. He has set aside a place and dedicated a few pages to debunk your nonsence. Why don’t you debate him on his message board?
Ponta, the information I gave you was to show Japanese perceived Usando as Matsushima (Dokdo) Gerry is still trying to play this game that Japanese called Jukdo Islet 2.2kms from Ulleungdo Matsushima. He has been saying this for well over a year now I haven’t seen one shred of clear evidence of this. All I’ve seen is a shabby interpretation of the character (이웃린), false assumptions the Koreans told the Japanese delegation there was a neighbour island called Songdo, and the confused pre-survey conversation by Leekyuwon and King Gojong.
The link I gave you is proof that in 1877 there was a common belief that Japan’s Matsushima was called Usando and it was attached to Ulleungdo. This fact shows Japan did not consider Dokdo as under Japan’s jurisdiction Ponta.
If you think Japanese called Jukdo Islet “Matsushima” then I advise you to put your money where your mouth is and show me a Japanese map of Ulleungdo with a nieghbour island called “Matsushima” Otherwise you can join Chef Gerry’s Gourmet club and cook up some more crazy theories.
What do you mean Matsushima wasn’t Liancourt Rocks? Watanabe Kuoki said in the same document ..”So what we call Matsushima is called Hornet Rocks (Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo) Of course the Usando/ Matsushima attached to Ulleungdo is Dokdo.
There was a Japanese who percieved Usando as Matsuhima but Usando is not Dokdo, as even Korean people admit.
And according to kitazawa, it was found out that Matsuhima was Ulleungdo and takeshima(竹島）was Jukdo(竹島）
According to tanabe, “Matsushima” is Usando that belongs to Ulleungdo which is Korean territory.
I think Gerry is talking about this.
And Usando is most likely to be Jukdo.
But anyway, Usando is not Dokdo.
According to Watanabe, “Matsuhima” is used in
two senses.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=592#comment-20114
Matushima-1 is Ulleungdo, which was traditionally called Takeshima, and Matushiama-2 is Linocourt Rocks, which was traditionally called “Matushima”
So in one sense, matushima is Ulleungdo, in another sense, Matsushima is Liancourt rocks.
Does that make you clear?
If you still have a question, tell me which sentence you are not clear about. Okay?
So study very carefully the theories by the three Japanese above.
None of them thought Liancourt rocks belongs to Korea. None of them thought Matushima=Usando(Tanabe)/Matushima=Ulleungdo(Kitazawa)/Matushima-1=Ulleungdo(watanabe)
was Liancourt rocks.
Ponta yes there are two Matsushima’s mentioned in Kuoki’s document. Unfortunately for you and Gerry there is no Matsushima described as Jukdo Islet next to Ullengdo. Stop inventing islands because that theory is dead. You can see in 1883 Ulleundo’s neighbour island was called Jukdo Islet.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-ulleungdo1.jpg
Tanebe’s documents both state..”It is said Matsushima was named by us Japanese..” This means the Matsushima was an island they were familiar with Ponta not some fictitious island they were taking a guess about by citing Korean maps. They also say it was attached to Ulleungdo. It was Dokdo Ponta, get over it.
A number of records have stated that “Argonaut” which is a Western name for Jukdo (Ulleungdo) does not exist and that “Dagelet” referring to Songdo, is Jukdo aka Ulluengdo. So what we call Songdo, (Dokdo) is called Hornet Rocks by Westerners.
There are two islands the Japanese referred to as Matsushima Ponta. One was Ulleungdo. Tanabe’s Matsushima was attached to Ulleungdo. So are you telling me there was an island called Matsushima with a Matsushima attached to it?? That is funny Ponta!! Give your head a shake ol’ man!!
Let me know when you find a Japanese map with Jukdo Islet labelled as Matsushima Ponta. I’ve waited for you and Gerry to present one for over a year now, I’ve got time….
Toadface wrote:
The Japanese were supposedly calling Usando “Matsushima,” and Japanese maps of Korea at the time were showing Usando to be west of Ulluengdo. The Japanese were also calling Liancourt Rocks “Matsushima,” which is what caused the confusion in the first place. Added to that, some Japanese were also referring to Ulleungdo as “Matsushima. That is why Watanabe wanted the area surveyed before making a decision about “Matsushima” (Songdo).
Toadface wrote:
That’s the point, Toadface. The Japanese did not know where Usando was because they were using old maps of Ulleungdo. As you said, Korean maps in the 1800s were already showing Usando to be Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. Regardless, Usando was not Liancourt Rocks, which are 92 kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.
Toadface wrote:
As I have said repeatedly, the Japanese were supposedly calling Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Usando “Matsushima,” and they were also calling Liancourt Rocks “Matsushima. And Japanese maps at the time were showing Usando to be west of Ulleungo. Moreover, the Japanese passage you posted also said Usando was west of Ulleungdo. Therefore, the Japanese at the time believed that Usando was west of Ulleungdo, which means they did not consider it to be Liancourt Rocks, which are east of Ulleungdo.
Toadface wrote:
If Hanmauy wants to debate, he can come here and debate. If he wants to debunk my “nonsense,” shouldn’t he come here and do it since this is where I am writing it?
Toadface wrote:
The map you linked to did not show Usando to be Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). It fact, the map you linked to did not even show “Usando.” It only showed that the Japanese were calling Liancourt Rocks “Matsushima.” As I’ve said, Japanese maps showed Usando to the west of Ulleungdo, which means it was not Liancourt Rocks.
Records show that some Japanese believed Matsushima to be Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Usando, and both (Korean maps) and Japanese maps showed Usando to be Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is 2.2 kilometers off Ullengdo’s east shore.
Toadface wrote:
“Usando” did not appear on the map you linked to. Your map showed Liancount Rocks, which the Japanese also called “Matsushima” (松島). However, my Japanese maps did show Usando, and they showed it to the west of Ulleungdo. And Watanabe’s letter says very clearly that the Japanese considered Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory. Here is what Watanabe said:
Toadface wrote:
Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, and since the Japanese were supposedly calling Usando “Matsushima,” that means they were calling Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo “Matsushima.” In fact, King Kojong and Lee Gyu-won said that Songdo (Matsushima) was another name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore.
Toadface, why don’t you put your money where you mouth is and show us just one Korean map that shows Liancourt Rocks? How can you claim that Liancourt Rocks was Korean territory when Korea did not even have a map of the rocks?
Watanabe’s letter tells us that Japanese considered Liancourt rocks to be Japanese territory. It also says that some people believed there were two Matsushimas. The Matsushima that was supposed to be Usando was not Liancourt Rocks. Stop playing dumb, Toadface. Again, here is the 1877 Watanabe letter:
Gerry, you are assuming the Japnanese were calling Ulleungdo’s nieghbour island (Jukdo Islet) Matsushima with absolutely no basis whatsoever. Again you are playing connect the dots with your assumptions. So shabby!!
The Japanese might not have been sure about Usando’s exact location Gerry, however they knew which island was named Matsushima a long time ago. That island was Dokdo.
You are working ass-backwards Gerry. You are renaming islands to and renaming islands to forcibly come to a conclusion without one map to buttress your argument. Please Gerry, is is too much to ask you to show a Japanese map that shows Jukdo Islet labelled as Matsushima, cause I’m getting sick of hearing you blather the same rubbish without any tangible proof.
The Japanese called Dokdo Matsushima here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext2.jpg
And here you can see Ulleungdo labelled as Takeshima with “Songdo” next to it. Does this island look like Jukdo Islet Gerry?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/uchidaspanningtext2.jpg
Here is another map of Ulluengdo (Jukdo) with Songdo (Matsushima) beside it Gerry does this look like Jukdo Islet?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/spanningtext1.jpg
Here is another map of 1876 Gerry does this Songdo look like Jukdo Islet 2.2kms away from Ulleungdo?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kashihara1876-2.jpg
Here is another 1877 Japanese map Gerry. Does this Songdo (matsushima) look like Jukdo Islet 2.2kms from Ulleungdo?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1877-docmap-2.jpg
What about this map Gerry it’s from 1843 too. Does this Songdo (Matsushima) look like Jukdo Islet 2.2kms from Ulleungdo?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1843-extreme-closeup.jpg
Here’s one from 1877 with Ulleungdo and an island called Songdo next to it Gerry. Does this Songdo (matsushima) look like Jukdo Islet?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Mori-kinseki3.jpg
This map shows an island next to Ulleungdo called Songdo (matsushima) do you think this island is Jukdo Rock 2.2kms away too Gerry?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/matsumoto.jpg
On the other side we can see that in the Japanese Korean docs and maps around the 19th Century Ulleungdo’s neighbour island was called Jukdo. This is recorded in this document. And in Leekyuwon’s survey.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1794-report.html
And also in these maps.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-ulleungdo1.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Amagi-Ulleungdo-2.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/ulleungdo-survey.jpg
Look Gerry, I’ve given you verifiably genuine Japanese maps that clearly show Matsushima was NOT Ulleungdo’s neighbour island but rather Jukdo Islet. I’ve also given you multiple maps that show Japan’s Matsushima was not “directly next to” Ulleungdo as you’ve been blathering. There is no Jukdo Islet~Matsushima Gerry.
Cough up some clear maps or docs or give it up.
Maps talk, bullshit walks Gerry.
toadface,
I like how you turn the scans to put the Matsushimas in the position you want. That’s so cute. It’s so obvious that no one can accuse you of trying to decieve anyone.
btw, what your maps show me is that Japan new exactly where Matsushima/Dokdo was… and there is no way they would have misplaced it to the west of Ulleungdo. I think it strengthens Gerry’s argument.
Toadface,
None of the Japanese maps you linked to showed “Usando.” Your maps only showed Liancourt Rocks, which Japanese called “Matsushima,” and which Watanabe said was Japanese territory. The Japanese already knew that. The question they wanted answered in the 1870s was, “Is there another Matsushima?”
Some Japanese said that “Matsushima” was Usando, but Japanese maps at the time showed “Usando” west of Ulleungdo, which means they did not consider it to be Liancourt Rocks. I linked to three Japanese maps that showed “Usando” was not Liancourt Rocks. You have yet to link to any Japanese map of “Usando,” much less to one that shows “Usando” as Liancourt Rocks. Likewise, you have yet to link to even one Korean map showing Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) under any name.
Stop talking crap, Toadface. Link to “just one” Japanese map that shows “Usando” as Liancourt Rocks, or link to “just one” Korean map that shows Liancourt Rocks under any name. You can’t do it, can you? That is why you keep talking crap.
Toadface
Either you are desperately confused about three different theories by different people or you are desperately trying to confuse the reader.
But basically it is quite simple.
Watanabe’s theroy
Matsuhima-1 a.k.a Daglet is Ulleungdo,which Japanese used to call Takeshima.
Matsuhima-2 a.k.a hornet rocks is Liancourt rocks, which Japanese used to call Matsuhima.
Tanabe’s theory
Matsushima is Usando, which belong to Ulleungdo, Korean territory.
Kitazawa’s theory and summary
Either Matsushima is takeshima, or Matsuhima is different from Takeshima. It was found out that Matushima is Ulleungdo, and takeshima is
one rocks just near Ulleungdo.
I am not stating speculation but just what they said.
Now, you mistakenly infer that
since Matushima is Usando(Tanabe), and Matsuhima-2 is Liancourt rocks(Watanabe), Matsuhima is Lincourt rocks.
But you are confused about two theories by two different people.
Matsuhima Tanabe is talking about is not the same as Matsuhima-2 Watanabe is talking about.
Get this: Usando is not Liancourt rocks.
Hence, Matsuhima Tanabe was talking about is not Liancourt rocks. (I think Tanabe was not aware of the existence of Liancourt rocks at this time.)
If you have any question, feel free to ask.
Picard, I didn’t put the Matsushima’s where I wanted them. The Japanese who reviewed both Korean documents and maps and compared them with their own concluded Usando was Matsushima (Dokdo)
When the Japanese reviewed the Korean documents they read there were two islands in the Gangwan Sea one of which was Ulleungdo and the other Usan. Japanese maps also show two islands and they all agreed Ulleungdo=Takeshima. So, naturally they concluded the Usando-Songdo Island was one in the same. They concluded what Korean historians still assert a century and a half later.
It is Gerry and Ponta who are placing Matsushima in Usando’s position. When the 19th Century Japanese did the Takeshima Report they quoted “Usando is what we Japanese called Matsushima….” Gerry is twisting their quote to mean “Matsushima is what Koreans call Usando….” This is ass-backwards.
Essentially what Gerry and Ponta are doing is inventing an imaginary Matsushima to the West of Ulleungdo. There are no Japanese maps/documents that cite or show 19th Century Japanese percieved a Matsushima Island as West of Ulleungdo. This is just Chef Gerry cooking up a new gourmet delight of a theory to dazzle our intellectual palettes.
The first document that gives us the position of Usando as West of Ulleungdo from the Korean document is totally unrelated to Tanabe Taiichi report made years before that also came to the same conclusions.
I have shown repeatedly what the Japanese called Matsushima through the numerous maps above. Remember the Japanese who did these studies reviewed more that the one quote from the Korean document above. They even cited ancient Chinese records.
Gerry, you are placing Watanbe Kuoki’s assumption on the shoulders of Tanabe Taiichi. Nowhere in his report did he mention another “Songdo”
I’ve told you three times now. Watanbe Kuoki said “Forieign maps showed Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory…” He didn’t say Liancourt Rocks was such. Maps Japanese and Korean showed Usando in many different positions. This Japanese map shows Usando south of Ulluengdo.
http://kr.img.blog.yahoo.com/ybi/1/86/03/shinh_k2002/folder/19/img_19_212_1?1145465678.jpg
As does this Japanese map of Matsushima (Dokdo)
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/ulleungdo-dokdomap-1870.jpg
And this one.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1853-color-coded.jpg
Gerry, you are so caught up in your own confusion. Now you say Japanese drew Usando on the West side when not even two days ago you posted a Japanese map with Usando on the East Side. Remember? You should write these down.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=592#comment-20510
Toadface,
You are doing exactly what Picard said you were doing. The first map you linked to is an 1874 map that shows “Usando” (于山島) just to the south of Ulleungdo. The other two maps you linked to do not show “Usando”; they show Matsushima (松島 – Liancourt Rocks). Also, the last two maps do not show Matsushima south of Ulleungdo; they show it to the east. The maps are turned so that Japan is on the south instead of the east, which makes it look like Matsushima is to the south of Ulleungdo.
As I told you, Toadface, in the 1870s the Japanese considered Usando to be a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks.
Yes, my 1895 the Japanese realized that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, but in the early 1870s, some Japanese still believed that Usando was to the west of Ulleungdo. At any rate, there is no Japanese map that shows Usando as Liancourts. They all show it as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo,
By 1877, some Japanese had come to realize that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo.
Toadface,
It seems you still do not get the picture.
That is okay. Take your time.
It is true that Japanese used to call Ulleungdo Takeshima, it is also true that generally Japanese used to call Liancourt rocks Matsuhima.
But when the government had transformed itself from Shogunate to Meiji, coupled with confusion by western maps that depicted imaginary island Argnout, and probably Korean fancy maps, Japanese government was not sure which island “Matsuhima” and “Takshima” was referring to.
That is why there are many theories about it.
That is why Amagi was sent to investigate,
Any question so far?
Watanabe was aware of the fact that Japanese used to call Ulleungdo Takeshima, and Liancourt rocks Matsuhima. So he had no doubt
about Liancourt rocks being Japanese territory.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=592#comment-20801
It is likely Tanabe was not aware of Liancourt rocks.
Tanabe is not talking about Liancout rocks.
Here is your translation.
He is talking about Usando. You said he studied Korean maps,(thank you you for the information) And Usando, according to Korean maps, as Gerry clearly show on his articles on this blog, is not Liancourt rocks, but probably it is Jukdo.
But here it is not important which islet attached to Ulleungdo Usando referred to, but the essential fact is it didn’t refer to Liancourt rocks.
Kitazawa knew many theories, one is that matushima is Ulleungdo, but after the investigation by Amagi, he concluded Matsuhima was Ulleungdo, takeshima was just one rock attached to Ulleungdo. It is most likely by one rock, he meant Jukdo because the map made after Amagi investigation referred to it.
Notice at the time of Amagi investigation, Liancourt rocks are not reported.
It must be admitted that many of Japanese at this time except some people like Watanabe were not aware of Liancourt rocks.
But conversely that shows Japanese government
didn’t consider Liancourt rocks Korean territory: it does not make sense to view what she is not aware of as Korean territory, and it fits nicely with the fact that Japanese later considered it owner-less islands.
If you have further questions, just ask.
I’ll be glad to help you.
Ponta, notice after the Amagi Investigation Liancourt is not drawn on any Shimane Prefecture maps. You can see here that after the Japanese satisfied the Foreign Ministry’s curiousity and no other “Matsushima” was found the issue of Liancourt was dropped.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html
Ponta, you can ramble all you want but until you can present some data to support your theory there was an island directly beside Ulleungdo called Matsushima you are toast. Matsushima was Dokdo, and Matsushima was Ulleungdo at one point or another. However, Japanese never called any other islands Matsushima directly next to Ulleungdo here is some more data.
First, Gerry presented this document a little while ago.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Matsushima-Usandodoc1.jpg
In my opinion this document really shows that Usando was Matsushima (Dokdo) You can see it says Usando (Japanese name Matsushima) you can also see Jukdo Islet is written below. This shows that Usando did not refer to Jukdo Islet. This document also talks about the 6 islands of Ulleungdo like the article below.
The document above buttresses the article in the 1899 Hwaseongshimun that also lists Usando and Jukdo Islands. Gerry was saying before this article describes the islands as one. However, usually when old Chosun/Japanese documents do this they bracket the a.k.a portion or use characters to say “another name of…”
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Hwangseong-close.jpg
These documents are also related to a Japanese document called the 新撰朝鮮地理誌 which was written in 1894.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Matsushima-Usandodoc2.jpg
Again we can see Usando and Jukdo are written as separate islands on this document. Thus Usando was not Jukdo Islet here either.
You should know Ponta that Japanese had referred to Usando as Matsushima long before the Takeshima Report of 1878~81.
Koreans recorded this fact first in 18th Century, you can see an example in this document from 1780.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1780-korean-usando-doc.jpg
It was recorded in 1808 in the Yojiji Gazetter so we know that Japanese called Usando long before the Takeshima Investigation of late 19th Century.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1808-usando.jpg
Ponta at the time of the Takeshima Investigation there were two kinds of maps the Japanese were referring to. There were maps showing 2 islands (Takeshima=Ulleungdo, Matsushima=Dokdo) and there were maps showing 3 islands (Argonaut=nill, Matsushima=Ulleungdo, Liancourt=Dokdo)
Being a Foreign Affairs official Watanbe Kuoki used maps from western countries. Some of these maps had three islands on them, this mislead Watanbe Kuoki into the false belief there might exist another island in the East Sea.
However, there is no evidence others in the investigation were under the spell of Seibold’s error. They viewed maps that showed 2 islands in the East Sea and simply reasoned Jukdo was Ulleungdo and Usando was Matsushima (Dokdo). They did not collectively assume Usando was on the West of Ulleungdo as you and Gerry imply. The Japanese/Korea maps and docs that showed Ulleungdo all over the damn place like the ones I posted above.
Many Japanese like Tanabe Taiichi drew the logical conclusion when they saw Korean maps Ulleungdo=Takeshima/Usando=Matsushima(Dokdo).
Hahaha………
As a student majoirng in Asian History Studies,
I cannot diagree with you guys more,
and this site is DEFINITELY and COMPLETELY biased!
First of all, let me tell you I am neither a korean or japanese.
However, I’m pretty sure and confident that I have a quite knowledge in these issues.
As I have already mentioned earlier, my major Asian History Studies, and I personally have had some big conversations about this “Dokdo” problem with quite many people.
Firstly, (and let me tell you “personally,”) my first reaction when I just heard about this (without any details), I thoght there would be some great reasons behind these Japanese people all of sudden claiming this Korean islet “Dokdo” as THEIR islet, “Takeshima.” I definitely thought there would be some reasons behind, otherwise why “are” they claiming Korean’s land as “theirs”?
Japan is a wealthy, powerful, and independent country.
No doubt for that.
However, “not so many” (close to almost none) media is taking Japan’s side for this huge issue.
After researching, and gathering information for months (probably more) by myself and with many other students’ and professors’ helps, I now have enough information to take one’s side, KOREAN’S SIDE.
In fact, Japan cannot EVEN claim a word about this “Dokdo” as theirs. Korean historical proofs go all the way back to the 6th century, and there are hundreds of proofs that anyone cannot even say a word about this islet is Japan’s, after seeing all these proofs. These proofs are self-explanatory. Many of their evidences are actually Japan’s historical remains as well. Such as one Japanese historical map around the 17th century, done by very famous historical Japanese person, who has a very high reputation; it clearly distinguishes a line between Korean’s lands and their lands. AND, this “Dokdo” is clearly stated as KOREAN’S TERRITORY.
On the contrary, Japan’s evidences are very limited and they only go back to the 17th century.
I know many people have great fantasies about Japan (myself included as well..but not about this “Dokdo problem”!!!!), and the people just might take Japan’s side, without ACTUALLY knowing anything.
As having a great interest in Asian History, (you can tell by my major..haha) I have been had some chances to travel around South Korea and Japan. Both are AMAZING countries, FAR more than you can imagine!! What I found interesting was that South Korea and Japan are very similar.. I cannot not say one country is better. Honestly, both are very good.
ANYWAYS, going back to my point,!!!!
I personally love Japan(it’s a great country) as well as I love South Korea, however, I know when I have to take a RIGHT side.
I’m not trying to judge here by any means, but it is a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-Cressy Chetur, Massachusetts, the U.S.
Hahaha………
As a student majoirng in Asian History Studies,
I cannot diagree with you guys more,
and this site is DEFINITELY and COMPLETELY biased!
First of all, let me tell you I am neither a korean or japanese.
However, I’m pretty sure and confident that I have a quite knowledge in these issues.
As I have already mentioned earlier, my major Asian History Studies, and I personally have had some big conversations about this “Dokdo” problem with quite many people.
Firstly, (and let me tell you “personally,”) my first reaction when I just heard about this (without any details), I thoght there would be some great reasons behind these Japanese people all of sudden claiming this Korean islet “Dokdo” as THEIR islet, “Takeshima.” I definitely thought there would be some reasons behind, otherwise why “are” they claiming Korean’s land as “theirs”?
Japan is a wealthy, powerful, and independent country.
No doubt for that.
However, “not so many” (close to almost none) media is taking Japan’s side for this huge issue.
After researching, and gathering information for months (probably more) by myself and with many other students’ and professors’ helps, I now have enough information to take one’s side, KOREAN’S SIDE.
In fact, Japan cannot EVEN claim a word about this “Dokdo” as theirs. Korean historical proofs go all the way back to the 6th century, and there are hundreds of proofs that anyone cannot even say a word about this islet is Japan’s, after seeing all these proofs. These proofs are self-explanatory. Many of their evidences are actually Japan’s historical remains as well. Such as one Japanese historical map around the 17th century, done by very famous historical Japanese person, who has a very high reputation; it clearly distinguishes a line between Korean’s lands and their lands. AND, this “Dokdo” is clearly stated as KOREAN’S TERRITORY.
On the contrary, Japan’s evidences are very limited and they only go back to the 17th century.
I know many people have great fantasies about Japan (myself included as well..but not about this “Dokdo problem”!!!!), and the people just might take Japan’s side, without ACTUALLY knowing anything.
As having a great interest in Asian History, (you can tell by my major..haha) I have been had some chances to travel around South Korea and Japan. Both are AMAZING countries, FAR more than you can imagine!! What I found interesting was that South Korea and Japan are very similar.. I cannot not say one country is better. Honestly, both are very good.
ANYWAYS, going back to my point,!!!!
I personally love Japan(it’s a great country) as well as I love South Korea, however, I know when I have to take a RIGHT side.
I’m not trying to judge here by any means, but it is a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-Sincerely,
-Cressy Chetur, Massachusetts, the U.S.
Hahaha………
As a student majoirng in Asian History Studies,
I cannot diagree with you guys more,
and this site is DEFINITELY and COMPLETELY biased!
First of all, let me tell you I am neither a korean or japanese.
However, I’m pretty sure and confident that I have a quite knowledge in these issues.
As I have already mentioned earlier, my major Asian History Studies, and I personally have had some big conversations about this “Dokdo” problem with quite many people.
Firstly, (and let me tell you “personally,”) my first reaction when I just heard about this (without any details), I thoght there would be some great reasons behind these Japanese people all of sudden claiming this Korean islet “Dokdo” as THEIR islet, “Takeshima.” I definitely thought there would be some reasons behind, otherwise why “are” they claiming Korean’s land as “theirs”?
Japan is a wealthy, powerful, and independent country.
No doubt for that.
However, “not so many” (close to almost none) media is taking Japan’s side for this huge issue.
After researching, and gathering information for months (probably more) by myself and with many other students’ and professors’ helps, I now have enough information to take one’s side, KOREAN’S SIDE.
In fact, Japan cannot EVEN claim a word about this “Dokdo” as theirs. Korean historical proofs go all the way back to the 6th century, and there are hundreds of proofs that anyone cannot even say a word about this islet is Japan’s, after seeing all these proofs. These proofs are self-explanatory. Many of their evidences are actually Japan’s historical remains as well. Such as one Japanese historical map around the 17th century, done by very famous historical Japanese person, who has a very high reputation; it clearly distinguishes a line between Korean’s lands and their lands. AND, this “Dokdo” is clearly stated as KOREAN’S TERRITORY.
On the contrary, Japan’s evidences are very limited and they only go back to the 17th century.
I know many people have great fantasies about Japan (myself included as well..but not about this “Dokdo problem”!!!!), and the people just might take Japan’s side, without ACTUALLY knowing anything.
As having a great interest in Asian History, (you can tell by my major..haha) I have been had some chances to travel around South Korea and Japan. Both are AMAZING countries, FAR more than you can imagine!! What I found interesting was that South Korea and Japan are very similar.. I cannot not say one country is better. Honestly, both are very good.
ANYWAYS, going back to my point,!!!!
I personally love Japan(it’s a great country) as well as I love South Korea, however, I know when I have to take a RIGHT side.
I’m not trying to judge here by any means, but it is a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-Cressy Chetur, Massachusetts, the U.S.
.
Hahaha………
As a student majoirng in Asian History Studies,
I cannot diagree with you guys more,
and this site is DEFINITELY and COMPLETELY biased!
First of all, let me tell you I am neither a korean or japanese.
However, I’m pretty sure and confident that I have a quite knowledge in these issues.
As I have already mentioned earlier, my major Asian History Studies, and I personally have had some big conversations about this “Dokdo” problem with quite many people.
Firstly, (and let me tell you “personally,”) my first reaction when I just heard about this (without any details), I thoght there would be some great reasons behind these Japanese people all of sudden claiming this Korean islet “Dokdo” as THEIR islet, “Takeshima.” I definitely thought there would be some reasons behind, otherwise why “are” they claiming Korean’s land as “theirs”?
Japan is a wealthy, powerful, and independent country.
No doubt for that.
However, “not so many” (close to almost none) media is taking Japan’s side for this huge issue.
After researching, and gathering information for months (probably more) by myself and with many other students’ and professors’ helps, I now have enough information to take one’s side, KOREAN’S SIDE.
In fact, Japan cannot EVEN claim a word about this “Dokdo” as theirs. Korean historical proofs go all the way back to the 6th century, and there are hundreds of proofs that anyone cannot even say a word about this islet is Japan’s, after seeing all these proofs. These proofs are self-explanatory. Many of their evidences are actually Japan’s historical remains as well. Such as one Japanese historical map around the 17th century, done by very famous historical Japanese person, who has a very high reputation; it clearly distinguishes a line between Korean’s lands and their lands. AND, this “Dokdo” is clearly stated as KOREAN’S TERRITORY.
On the contrary, Japan’s evidences are very limited and they only go back to the 17th century.
I know many people have great fantasies about Japan (myself included as well..but not about this “Dokdo problem”!!!!), and the people just might take Japan’s side, without ACTUALLY knowing anything.
As having a great interest in Asian History, (you can tell by my major..haha) I have been had some chances to travel around South Korea and Japan. Both are AMAZING countries, FAR more than you can imagine!! What I found interesting was that South Korea and Japan are very similar.. I cannot not say one country is better. Honestly, both are very good.
ANYWAYS, going back to my point,!!!!
I personally love Japan(it’s a great country) as well as I love South Korea, however, I know when I have to take a RIGHT side.
I’m not trying to judge here by any means, but it is a FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-Cressy Chetur, Massachusetts, the U.S.
Toadface
What is crucial is this;
Is “Matsuhima” each of Japanese was referring to Liancourt Rocks or not.”
There were many theories about “Matsuhima” at the time, you can not confuse one theory with another.
All you have done so far is just sneakily put the bracket after “Matsuhima”, “Dokdo” in the bracket, such as “In my opinion this document really shows that Usando was Matsushima (Dokdo)”
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=592#comment-20914
What you have to prove is (1)Usando is Liancourt rocks, (2) Matsuhima the Japanese in question was talking about was Liancourt Rocks.
Good luck to you.
Ponta I’m afraid you are wrong.
The Japanese called Ulleungdo Matsushima.
The Japanese caled Dokdo Matsushima.
1877 the Japanese Takeshima Report quoted “Matsushima was Usando and attached to Ulleungdo”
Thus, you have to prove this Matsushima was not Dokdo because it is historical fact the Japanese called it as such for almost 200 years prior. To prove a this bizarre theory there was a mystery Songdo (Matsushima) you must provide maps and documents as I’ve given above instead of just repeating unfounded ideas.
Good luck to you Ponta…….you’re gonna need it.