In 1899, Korean historian Hyun Chae (玄采) published a geography text entitled, Daehanjiji (大韓地誌), which means “Geography of the Korean Empire.” In the text, he included the following map, which was made by what was considered to be Korea’s Education Ministry (學部).

The above map was one of the first Korean maps to show lines of latitude and longitude. If you look at a larger view of the map HERE, you will see more clearly that Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) and Usan (于山) were situated just past the 130 (三十) degree line of longitude. Farther to the right, at the edge of the map, would be the 131 degree line of longitude. Here is a cutout of the map showing Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) and Usan (于山):

The distance between the 130 and 131 degree lines is divided into sixty minutes. Since the map shows Ulleungdo and its neighboring island of Usando to be just to the west of the halfway point between the two lines, that means that the map shows the two islands to be just to the west of the 130 degree, 30 minute line. According to the geography text that the map appeared in, the easternmost boundary of Korea was 130 degrees, 35 minutes, which means that the map showed Ulleungdo and Usando to be inside Korean terroritory. We know that Usando was not Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) since Dokdo is located at an east longitude of 131 degrees 52 minutes. (Link to the original Korean text)

Usando was the old name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo (Chukdo), which you can see on the following modern map of Ulleungdo:

Today we know that the easternmost boundary of Ulleungdo and its neighboring island of Jukdo is actually at about 130 degrees 56 minutes, which means that the 1899 geography book was off by about 21 minutes since it said that Korea’s easternmost boundary was 130 degrees 35 minutes. However, in 1907, an updated version of the geography book seemed to have corrected the mistake since it said that Korea’s easternmost boundary was 130 degrees 58 minutes. Again, Dokdo is located at 131 degrees 52 minutes, which means that it was still way outside the eastern boundary that Korea claimed for herself in 1907. (Link to the Korean text)

The 1907 geography text also changed the name of Ulleungdo’s neighboring island from “Usando” (于山島) to its current name of “Jukdo” (竹島). You can see the name change on the following map, which was included in the 1907 textbook.

An enlargement of Ulleungdo (鬱島) is shown in the lower left-hand corner of the above map, which shows Jukdo (竹島) just off the northeast shore of Ulleungdo and labeled with the abbreviated name of “Juk” (竹). Notice that there is no mention of “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks).

In 1946, one year after Korea was liberated from Japan, Korean geographer and historian Choi Nam-seon wrote a book entitled, “Common Questions and Answers about Joseon” (朝鮮常識問答), which was designed to teach newly liberated Koreans various facts about their country, including its history, culture, and geography. In the geography section of the book, Mr Choi wrote the following:

“Question: Where is our country located on a map?”

“Answer: The pennisula, itself, is located from an east longitude of 130 degrees, 41 minutes, 22 seconds to 124 degress, 18 minutes, 35 seconds, and from a north latitude of 34 degrees, 14 minutes, 16 seconds to 43 degrees, 0 minutes, 36 seconds. If islands (large and small) are included, east longitude is from 130 degrees, 56 minutes, 23 seconds to 124 degrees, 11 minutes, 00 seconds, and north latitude is from 33 degrees, 6 minutes, 40 seconds to 43 degrees, 0 minutes, 36 seconds.”

Notice that Mr. Choi wrote that Korea’s easternmost boundary, including islands, was at an east longitude of 130 degrees, 56 minutes, 23 seconds, which is the exact location of Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. In fact, Mr. Choi also wrote the following in his 1946 book:

“Question: Where are the farthest north, south, east, west boundaries of our country?”

“Answer: On the pennisula, the farthest eastern point is Noseo-myeon, in Gyeongheun County of North Hamgyeong Province. The fartest western point is Yongcheon-myeon, in Yongcheon Country of North Pyeongan Province. The farthest southern point is Songji-myeon, in Haenam County of South Jeolla Province. The farthest northern point is Yupo-myeon, in Eunseong County of North Hamgyeong Province.”

“If islands are included, the fartest eastern point is Jukdo, in Ulleung County of North Gyeongsang Province. The farthest western point is Ma-an-ri, Sindo-myeon, in Yongcheon County of North Pyeongan Province. The farthest southern point is Marado, Daejeong-myeon, in Jejudo of South Jeolla Province. The farthest northern point is Yupo-myeon, in Eunseong County of North Hamgyeong Province.”

Notice that Mr. Choi said that Korea’s fartest eastern point was “Jukdo, in Ulleung County of North Gyeongsang Province.” As can be seen on the modern map of Ulleungdo above, Jukdo is a small island about two kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore.

In 1948, Choi Nam-seon published another book entitled, “General Knowledge about Joseon” (朝鮮常識), in which he also said that Korea’s easternmost boundary was at an east longitude of 130 degrees, 56 minutes, 23 seconds and that Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo was Korea’s easternmost point. Again, even in 1948, Korean geography books were saying that Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) was outside Korea’s territorial boundary since Dokdo was located much farther east at a longitude of 131 degrees, 52 minutes.

Today, Koreans claim that “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks) is Korea’s easternmost boundary, but Korean maps and geography books up until 1948 all told a different story.

Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese

(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

1899年、韓国の地理学者である玄采は、大韓地誌(”大韓帝国の地理”の意味)と言う地理の教科書を出版しました。彼は、大韓帝国学部(教育庁)によって作成されたと思われる次の地図をその中に載せました。

 地図1: 大韓全図(1899)

上掲の地図は、緯度と経度の記載が始めてなされた韓国作成の地図のうちの一つです。より大きなもの〈リンク〉を見ると、鬱陵島と于山が東経130度の線をちょっとだけ過ぎた場所にあることがはっきりと分かります。そこからさらに右にゆくと、地図の端になっており、そこが東経131度の線に当たります。下に、鬱陵島と于山の部分を拡大したものを載せます。

 地図2: 大韓全図(1899) 鬱陵島付近拡大図

東経130度と131度の経線の間は60分になります。この地図では鬱陵島とその隣接島である于山島が二つの経線のちょうど真ん中のすぐ西に描かれています。つまり、この地図は二つの島が130度30分のすぐ西側にあるとしている訳です。この地図が掲載されている大韓地誌によると、韓国(大韓帝国)の東端は東経130度35分となっており、つまりこの地図の二つの島は韓国の領土内であることを示しているわけです。〈リンク〉

于山島は、下の現代の地図にも表されている鬱陵島の隣接島の竹嶼(韓国名竹島)の古名なのです。

 地図3: 鬱陵島地図(現代)

現在では、鬱陵島とその隣接島である竹嶼の東端は、実際には130度56分であることが分かっています。つまり、1899年の大韓地誌では、領土の東端が東経130度35分であると述べていることから、21分程の誤差があることが分かります。しかしながら、1907年に改定された「大韓新地誌」では、その間違いが修正され、大韓帝国領土の東端は東経130度58分とされています。しかし、竹島/独島は131度52分に位置していることから、またしても1907年においても、韓国が自国領土の東端としている場所から、今だはるか離れた場所にあることがわかります。〈リンク〉

1907年の「大韓新地誌」ではまた、鬱陵島の隣接島の名称を”于山島”から現在の名称である”竹島(日本名竹嶼)”と修正しています。1907年の「大韓新地誌」に掲載された次の地図で、名称の変遷を確認出来ます。

 地図4:大韓新地誌(1907)

鬱島の拡大図が地図の左下部に描かれています。その拡大図には竹島(日本名竹嶼)が鬱陵島のすぐ北東沖に描かれており、”竹”と頭文字が記されています。独島(Liancourt Rocks)に付いて何も言及していません。

日本による併合から解放された一年後の1946年、韓国の地理学者であり、歴史学者でもあった崔南善は「朝鮮常識問答」という本を著します。その本は、解放された韓国人に歴史や文化、そして地理といった、自らの国について教えるために書かれた物です。その本の地理の項において崔南善は、次のように記しています。

“”問:我が国は地図上においてどの位置にあるか?”
 ”答:朝鮮半島自体は東経130度41分22秒から124度18分35秒、北緯34度14分16秒から43度0分36秒の間にある。大小の島を含めれば、東経130度56分23秒から124度11分00秒、北緯33度6分40秒から43度0分36秒の間にある。””

崔南善氏が韓国の東端が島々をあわせても130度56分23秒であると記してあることにお気づきでしょうか。それはまさに、鬱陵島の隣接島である竹嶼の位置なのです。事実、崔南善はこの1946年の本の中で次のようにも記しています。

“”問;我が国の最北端、最南端、最東端そして最西端はどこですか?”
 ”答:最東端は咸鏡北道慶興郡蘆西面、最西端は平安北道龍川郡龍川面、最南端は全羅南道海南郡松旨面、最北端は咸鏡北道穏城郡柔浦面である”
“島嶼部を含むならば、最東端は慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島、最西端は平安北道龍川郡薪島面馬鞍島、最南端は済州道大静面馬羅島、最北端は咸鏡北道穏城郡柔浦面である””

崔南善氏が韓国の最東端は慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島(日本名竹嶼)であると明確に記していることが分かります。上にあげた現代の地図で分かるように、竹嶼(韓国名竹島)は、鬱陵島の東沖2.2kmにある島です。

1948年、崔南善は「朝鮮常識」という本を出版しました。その中でも彼は韓国の東端が130度56分23秒であり、鬱陵島の隣接島である竹嶼(韓国名竹島)が韓国領土の東端であると記しています。またしても、1948年においてさえ、韓国の地理の教科書は”竹島/独島(Liancourt Rocks)” が韓国の領土外であると明記している訳です。何故なら竹島/独島(Liancourt Rocks)”は、それよりずっと東の、東経131度52分の位置にあるのですから。

現在韓国人は、東経131度52分に位置する”竹島/独島(Liancourt Rocks)” が韓国領土の東端であると主張していますが、1948年までの全ての韓国の地図や地理の本は、それとは全く異なった事実を伝えているのです。

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

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 12

Posted by Gerry-Bevers, filed under Verus Historia. Date: May 23, 2007, 9:49 am | 88 Comments »

88 Responses

  1. GTOMR Says:

    The Usan in the 大韓全図 in1899 turned to be JUKDO竹嶼 on the map in 大韓新地誌 in 1907.This map also crutial.
    .
    Also the map has latitude n longtitude.
    Zoom
    http://stat.ameba.jp/user_images/78/fc/10017834370.jpg
    Whole Map
    http://stat.ameba.jp/user_images/9f/1d/10017833798_s.jpg
    .
    National history of Junior high school(中等国史) on 1947 ,they had not recognized that Liancourt Rocks is her own territory.
    http://stat.ameba.jp/user_images/aa/3d/10021862570_s.jpg
    .
    Quote from;Nidanosuke page.
    http://ameblo.jp/nidanosuke/theme-10003268652.html

  2. pacifist Says:

    That’s true.
    And toadface and his friend once let me know that every revised version of the 大韓地誌 which was published in early 20th century also mention the same thing.
    .
    By the way, I can’t see the first two maps in the above post somehow.

  3. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Pacifist,

    Yes, for some reason I do not understand, the maps sometimes appear and sometimes don’t appear.

    Matt,

    Could you upload the above maps to your server to help ensure they will be visible in the future?

  4. pacifist Says:

    Gerry,
    .
    Thanks.
    .
    All the revised version of the same book indicated that Great Korean Empire recognised Liancourt rock to be out of their territory.
    pro-Korean peple insist that the book was copied from Japanese books, but if the first edition was so, why didn’t they change in the revised version?
    It clearly indicates that Korea didn’t recognise Liancourt rocks to be Korean territory.
    .
    And the important thing is that the ordinance concerning Seokdo was promulgated during the Great Korean Empire era, which means Seokdo can’t be Dokdo (Liancourt rocks).

  5. pacifist Says:

    Summary:
    The evidence concerning Korea and Dokdo:
    .
    1) Usando in the old documents was not Dokdo. (Usando was a habitable island with soils)
    .
    2) Usan or Usnado in the old Korean maps was not Dokdo.
    (Shapes and location were different from Dokdo, and Usando in some maps had bamboos which were not present in Dokdo.)
    .
    3) The Great Korean Empire recognised that Liancourt rocks (Dokdo) to be out of their territory.
    .
    4) Seokdo in the ordinance was not Dokdo.
    .
    There is no evidence that Korea owned the island. And Korea is still occupying the island which had not been their land. Isn’t this an invasion, toadface?

  6. pacifist Says:

    BTW, the two maps suddenly became visible on my computer. Thanks Matt.

  7. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Pacifist,

    Matt has still not uploaded the maps, and I do not know how to do it, so the maps will probably continue to appear and disappear until it is done. Currently, the maps do not show up on my view of Occidentalism.

  8. Matt Says:

    Pacifist,

    Matt has still not uploaded the maps, and I do not know how to do it, so the maps will probably continue to appear and disappear until it is done. Currently, the maps do not show up on my view of Occidentalism.

    Is there a problem with the maps on this thread? I see them just fine…

  9. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Matt,

    Yes, there is a problem. They are not loading up on my computer here in Korea, except only occasionally. For example, I cannot see them now.

    I think the problem would be solved if you uploaded them to your server because I can see the modern map of Ulleungdo, which is on your server.

    Thanks.

  10. ponta Says:

    Firefox ○
    IE ×
    opera ×

  11. Matt Says:

    Matt,

    Yes, there is a problem. They are not loading up on my computer here in Korea, except only occasionally. For example, I cannot see them now.

    I think the problem would be solved if you uploaded them to your server because I can see the modern map of Ulleungdo, which is on your server.

    Thanks.

    OK, I have uploaded it but you really need to learn to use FTP. I will teach you how to use it when we are both online. In the meantime, please DL this -

    Filezilla

  12. pacifist Says:

    kaneganese,
    .
    I think it’s better to translate “Education Ministry” as 教育庁 or 教育省, one of the national organizations. (But I always respect your works, thanks.)

  13. pacifist Says:

    GTOMR,
    .
    Thanks for your posting. The map in 1907 was new to me.
    Anyway, all of these maps and books indicate that Korea (Great Korean Empire) hadn’t recognised Liancourt rocks as their territory and it means they didn’t think it was theirs when Japan incorporated Takeshima/Dokdo into Shimane prefecture.
    .
    toadface,
    why are you keeping silent?
    May I think that you admitted that Korea hadn’t owned Takeshima/Dokdo?

  14. Kaneganese Says:

    Thank you, pacifist

    I really appreciate your opinion. I wasn’t 100% sure how to translate the word.
    I first translated as “教育省”, then I noticed Shimane prefectual Takeshima brochure says “1899年 大韓帝国・学部編輯局が「大韓全図」を刊行 “. So I changed it to “大韓帝国学部”. I just guessed that “学部”means “教育省 or 庁”. What do you think?

  15. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Kaneganese,

    You are right. In his 1948 book, “General Knowledge about Joseon” (朝鮮常識), Choi Nam-seon also gave the same eastern longitude he gave in his 1946 book. He also said that Jukdo was Korea’s easternmost island. I will add that to my post.

    In 1946, Choi Nam-seon published the first volume (正編) of “Common Questions and Answers about Joseon” (朝鮮常識問答), which dealt with subjects that included history and geography. In 1947, he published the second volume (續編) of “Common Questions and Answers about Joseon,” which dealt with subjects that included science and literature. In 1948, he published “General Knowledge about Joseon” (朝鮮常識) as a three volume set. One of the volumes dealt with geography.

    Anyway, in 1946 and 1948, Choi Nam-seon gave Korea’s easternmost boundary as 130 degrees, 56 minutes, 23 seconds, and said that Ulleungdo’s Jukdo was Korea’s easternmost point. Even as late as 1948, he did not consider “Dokdo” to be part of Korea.

  16. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    I do not remember if I have asked this before, but could someone please tell me what the name of the following island is?

    ヲツセミ島

    It appears in this 1902 Japanese document just in from of the name 臥達里 (Wadalri), which is a place on the east shore of Ulleungdo just in front of Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo.

    By the way, has the above document already been translated by someone?

  17. myCoree Says:

    http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/Dokdo2-1.htm

    日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌, 寶文館, 罔部福藏 著, 1905

    てっせみ島ハ臥達里ノ前洋ニアリ本邦人之ヲ竹島ト稱ス周回三十町餘たふ女竹繁茂スト雖モ飮料水乏シキヲテ以移住スルモノナシ。しきをて

    뎃세미島는 와달리(臥達里)의 앞바다에 있다. 본방인(일본인)은 이 섬을 竹島라 칭한다. 주회가 30여 정(丁) 이며 타부여죽이 무성하나 누구도 음료수가 모자라 그곳으로 이주하는 자가 없다.

    竹島ハ明治三十八年二月日本新領土トナリ隱岐島司ノ管下ニ歸ス
    竹島는 명치38년(1905) 2월 일본의 새 영토가 되어 오키도사의 소관이 되었다.
    ヲツセミ島
    テツセミ島
    てっせみ島, Tesemi. 댓섬.

    Can you see ? That implies that Japan regarded Dokdo as having been Korean Territory. I will be back some days later.

    Bye.

  18. Kaneganese Says:

    Gerry,

    I didn’t know Mr. Cho wrote 續編 of 朝鮮常識問答 in 1947. It cleared my confusion. Thank you.
    So maybe the sentence “Mr. Choi also wrote the following in his 1946 book:” should be “1947 book?”

    I will rewrite the added part later.

  19. pacifist Says:

    Kaneganese,
    .
    Thank you for your reply. I agree, the word 学部 may mean 庁 or 省 and Gerry’s English text (Korea’s Education Minstry) is 教育庁 or 教育省. How about to write 大韓帝国学部(教育庁)?

  20. pacifist Says:

    MyCoree,
    .

    てっせみ島ハ臥達里ノ前洋ニアリ本邦人之ヲ竹島ト稱ス周回三十町餘たふ女竹繁茂スト雖モ飮料水乏シキヲテ以移住スルモノナシ

    It says that “Tessemi” island is located in front of 臥達里 and our countrymen call this as Takeshima. Its circumstance is about 30-cho. Although it is full of bamboos, there is no one living because of lack in drinking water.
    .
    This island seems to be different from Takeshima/Dokdo. Japanese didn’t call Dokdo as Takeshima until the incorporation in 1905 and there was no bamboos in Takeshima/Dokdo.
    Japanese used to call Ulleungdo Takeshima and later they may have called Jukdo Takeshima.
    .
    Is there someone who knows the name 臥達里?

  21. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    My Coree,

    No, I am afraid I cannot see.

    The island is front of Wadalri (와달리 – 臥達里) is Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, not Dokdo. Also, notice that it said the island was was covered in bamboo, which is more evidence it was not referring to Dokdo. In other words, that passage is not talkng about Dokdo.

    If ヲツセミ島 or テツセミ島 is pronounced as “Tesemi” and is supposed to be the Japanese pronunciation for Daetseom (댓섬), which is the pure Korean word for “bamboo island” (竹島 – Jukdo), then that is also more evidence that the island being referred to was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo.

    Anyway, thank you for the response and the link.

  22. toadface Says:

    First, Gerry, Mr Choi was not a government official. You can’t impose the territorial perceptions of post WWII civilian authors on the pre-colonial era Chosun Government. By 1948 the Japanese had long since annexed Dokdo what is at issue here are Korean perceptions before 1905.

    In 1906 The Koreans governor insisted the Dokdo was part of Uldo Country when the Japanese informed him in 1906 that they had annexed the island.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Objections.html

    Shim Heung Taek cleary stated Tokdo belonging to this county is located in the sea 100 ri from this county. A Japanese steamship moored at Todongp’o in Udo on the 4th day of the month about 8:00 a.m and a group of Japanese Officials came to my office and said, “We came to inspect Tokdo since it is now Japanese territory…”

    This proves first that Chosun officials did not consider Jukdo Islet as the Easternmost limit of Korea at this time. Second it shows Koreans were cognizant and involved on Dokdo economically before Japanese incorporated. Unlike Japan’s involvement it was purely economic (fishing) and not of militaristic nature. This can be seen through the Niitaka’s logbooks of November 1904.

    Now I know Gerry, you are going to blather the distance Shim Heung Taek stated was wrong. But we know Governor Shim Heung Taek became the first govenor of Uldo county since the announcenment of Ordinance 41 in 1900. That means that he was situated on Ulleungdo for about six years before the Japanese informed him. To think Shim Heung Taek and Koreans weren’t cognizant of Dokdo is simply not true.

    The Black Dragon Fishing Manual of January 1903 is proof positive Koreans were involved on Dokdo independent of Japanese seal hunters years before the Japanese Navy manoeuvred the Japanese Government into annexing Dokdo in 1905. It’s documented proof of Korean cognizance and involvement on Dokdo since at least 1902. Furthermore, common sense tells us their fishing activities would have started well before this time.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-black-dragon.html

  23. toadface Says:

    Gerry, you’ve posted this same rubbish countless times and it’s not working. If you want to bolster Japan’s claim to Dokdo you must prove their claim is valid outside of the 1905 military annexation.

    Here is the text of the warship Tsushima’s orders to survey Dokdo for building watchtowers and install telegraph lines on Dokdo. It’s dated November 13th 1904 well before the island was annexed.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/tsushimadoc6.jpg
    Here is the Japanese Imperial Navy’s report on Dokdo for construction on the island from January 5th 1904, again before the annexation of Dokdo.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-report5.jpg
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-report6.jpg
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-report7.jpg

    Japan is demanding that the international community reward their military annexation of Dokdo in 1905 which is not going to happen. Especially now that the Japanese Imperial Navy’s records regarding Dokdo are becoming common public knowledge

  24. pacifist Says:

    GTOMR already referred to 臥達里:
    http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=617

  25. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Pacifist,

    Wadalri (臥達里) is the place on the east shore of Ulleungdo that is the closest point from Ulleungdo to its neighboring island of Jukdo. It is a placename, not a person’s name.

  26. pacifist Says:

    toadface,
    .
    Welcome back! We are waiting for you. Runaway victory is not fun. :)
    .
    You seem to overestimate Shim Heung Taek. If your theory is right, why didn’t he remember the exact location of the island? It was not 100-ri from Ulleungdo. And as you examined yourself, the Great Korean Empire didn’t recognise Liancourt rocks to be their territory. Why this man didn’t know it? Could not read a texbook of geography?
    .

    The Black Dragon Fishing Manual of January 1903 is proof positive Koreans were involved on Dokdo independent of Japanese seal hunters

    The Black Dragon Fishing Manual simply meant that Koreans who were hired by Japanese were calling Liancourt rocks as Dokdo. Dokdo means lonely island far from their home island.
    .
    toadface, don’t deceive people with such lies.
    Where did they write as “Koreans were involved on Dokdo independent of japanese seal hunters”? Show us exactly.

  27. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Kaneganese,

    Mr. Choi wrote “Common Question and Answers about Joseon” (朝鮮常識問答) in two volumes. The first volume (正編) was written in 1946, and the second volume (續編) was written in 1947. Each volume dealt with different subjects, and it was the 1946 volume that talked about the geography.

    In 1948, Mr. Choi wrote a separate book entitled, “General Knowledge about Joseon” (朝鮮常識), which he wrote in three volumes. One of the volumes dealt with geography, in which he wrote about Korea’s eastern boundary and Jukdo.

    It is confusing because the name and subject matter of this 1948 book was very similar to that of the 1946 and 1947 books. The difference was that the 1946 and 1947 books were written in a “question and answer” style, at least, that is how I understand it.

    Therefore, I think 1946 and 1948 are correct.

  28. pacifist Says:

    Gerry,
    .
    Thanks. I thought it was a place name, of course. So the island Tessemi (or Wotsusemi?) is Jukdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo. Another Korean lie is brought to light.

  29. Kaneganese Says:

    MyCoree,

    Thank you, the book gave me an answer. In 「満韓露領地誌 日本民族の新発展場 」岡部福蔵著 says, the Ministry of Education was actually called 学部.

    I the same book, in p1 says “韓国ハアジア州東部ニ位セル半島国ニシテ…東経125度5分ヨリ極東豆満江口ノ地?ナル東経130度58分ニ至リ” It means the eastern limit of Choson is 130 degree 58minutes. And the description of the テッセミ島 apparently suggest the island is Chukdo.
    myCoree, If you really want to study the issue, you should not too much rely on that site. Read original document or you will make fool out of yourself.
    The url of the book is http://www.dap.ndl.go.jp/home/modules/dasearch/dirsearch.php?id=oai%3Akindai.ndl.go.jp%3A40010538-00000&cc=02_09_02&keyword=&and_or=AND

  30. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    GTOMR,

    The map you linked to here is not a blowup of the map you linked to here.

    From what I understand, the first map is a 1907 Japanese map of Korea, isn’t it?

  31. pacifist Says:

    Kaneganese,
    .

    the Ministry of Education was actually called 学部

    The word 学 means learning (education) and 部 means department, so my tentative translation of this word would be 教育部 (education department). It seems to me that the word 教育庁 (education ministry) is not bad.

  32. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Toadface,

    The Ulleungdo County head said that “Dokdo” was 100 ri away from Ulleungdo, which means he did not know where Dokdo was, since Dokdo is actually more than twice that distance from Ulleungdo. I think the guy just repeated the distance the Japanese told him, not realizing that the Japanese used a different measure of ri than Koreans did. He probably just asssumed that it would be Korean territory since 100 “Korean” ri would be only 40 kilometers from Ulleungdo. Of course, as you know, Dokdo is actually 92 kilometers from Ulleungdo. The most likely reason that Koreans did not follow up on the information they got from the Japanese is that they later realized their mistake.

    Isn’t it strange that it is only after the Japanese tell Koreans about “Dokdo” in 1906 that it is finally mentioned in a Korean document?

  33. Kaneganese Says:

    Pacifist,

    Sorry, I overlooked your previous comment. Yes, I agree 大韓帝国学部(教育庁)is much better. It describes what the Ministry was actually called at that time and what it means in modern Japanese. I will add that later, Thank you again. (I know your translation is much better than mine because I saw your translation of Gerry’s post to the newspaper, but I am doing this only because it helps understand the issue more. So, I really appreciate your suggestion especially!!)

  34. Kaneganese Says:

    Gerry,

    Now I got the whole picture. Thank you very much.

  35. Kaneganese Says:

    Gerry, the map GTOMR showed first was cited from the part of 慶尚道 in 大韓新地誌. The 「大韓新地誌附図」 is also from the same book. It looks like there were maps of each 道 in 1907 edition of 大韓新地誌. Mr. Nidanosuke explaind here.

  36. pacifist Says:

    from 竹島渡航日誌 (1906)- 28th March
    .

    午前十時神西部長以下十数名は通訳を従えて郡守を訪問す。
    日本人の部落を過ぎて上ること数町「欝島衙門」と扁額せる政庁の門を入り、刺を通じて郡守沈興沢に面会す。
    郡守は京城の人、年齢五十二寛裕の相を備へ、座布団の上に跪坐し、白衣を着し冠をつけ、長烟咸臨丸携え、傍なる机上に数部の簿冊あるのみ、簡単素朴頗る太古の風あり。
    神西部長は訪問の由来を述べ竹島にて捕獲せし一頭を贈る。
    郡守は遠来の労を謝し、贈物に対して謝辞を述ぶ。
    辞令頗る巧なり

    At 10am director Kanzai and 14-5 people, with an interpreter, visited the chief of the county.
    After walking several cho-s passing through a Japanese village, (we) entered the gate that has a board “Uldo office gate” and met with the chief Shim Heung Taek. He was a man from Seoul, age 52, with a generous face, was sitting on a mat, wearing white clothes and a crown, with 長烟咸臨丸 (I can’t understnad this, 咸臨丸 was the name of Japanese ship that went to USA for the first time). There were only several notes on the desk beside. Simple and plain, he looked as a man from old times. The director Kanzai explained the reason why they visited the island and gave him a sealion that was caught at Takeshima (Dokdo) as a present. The chief thanked for coming from such a far place and thanked for the present. He seemed to be very polite.
    .
    To follow is from San-in Shimbun (1st April 1906)

    神西部長は欝陵島に到り郡守を訪ふて
    「余は大日本帝国島根県の勧業に従事する役員なり 
    貴島と我が管轄に係る竹島は接近せり 又貴島に我が邦人の滞留するもの多し 万事につき懇情を望む

    又貴島を視察するの予定なれば
    何か進呈すべきものを携帯すべかりしを
    今回避難の為め偶然にも貴島せし訳にして何も増訂するものなし
    幸に茲に(ここに)竹島に於て海驢を獲たれば贈呈せんとす受納あらば幸甚」と、

    郡守答へて曰く
    「然り滞留の貴邦人に就いては余に於て充分保護すべし
    又海驢の贈呈を受く 若し海驢にして味美なりせば贈与を望む」云々

    The director Kanzai went to Ulleungdo and visited the chief of the county and said, “I am an officer working for Shimane Prefecture of the Great Japanese Empire. Your island and the island under our jurisdiction are close. And there are many Japanese people staying in your island. Please treat them well. Because we are planning to inspect your island, we should have brought something for you as a gift, but as we happened to be here for a refuge we couldn’t bring anything. As fortunately we have a sealion here that we caught at Takeshima, we would like to give it to you as a gift. We are happy if you take it”. The chief replied, “Yes, we will protect Japanese people staying here. Thank you for the sealion, if it is delicious I would like to take it”.
    .
    After this encounter with the Japanese officers, Shim informed it to the local government 江原道府.
    The report was sent to the central government on 7th May.
    A minster 李齋純 ordered 李明来 to investigate and report about the shape and location (形便) of the island and what Japanese did (in Ulleungdo).
    However, after this order, they didn’t do anything. They didn’t claim to Japanese government. Why? It is simple, they must had found that the island was out of their territory, as clearly written in several books we discussed.  

  37. pacifist Says:

    Kaneganese,
    .
    Thanks for your effort, and thanks for the compliment. :)

  38. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Wow, thank you, Kaneganese. All this time I had that 1907 map listed under Japanese maps. Now, I think I will to try to make that map a part of the post. :)

  39. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Sorry, Kaneganese. I have just seen that you have retranslated my post. Should I go ahead and add the map?

  40. Kaneganese Says:

    Gerry,

    I will re-re-translate after you add the map.
    By the way, do you have access to the 1907 version of 大韓新地誌? I think we should make sure if that is true.

  41. toadface Says:

    Gerry, Shim Heung Taek was a governor not a surveyor. He distinctly said Dokdo was part of his county. He should know he was the first governor since 1900. He presided over Ulleungdo (and resided there) during the era in which the aforementioned documents confirmed Korean activities on Dokdo.

    Japanese maps of Dokdo show the distance at 160kms more than double the distance. Are you saying they didn’t know where Dokdo was either? I’ve told you before, don’t hold the Koreans to higher standards of accuracy than the Japanese.

    What difference does it make which side proof of Korean cognizance of Dokdo comes from Gerry? This is more attributable to Japan’s developed governmental, military, and media infrastructure than anything else.

    The reason Koreans didn’t follow up on the Japanese annexation is because their country was an occupied nation in the midst of losing their sovereignty. Gerry have you ever done even a rudimentary study of the historical situation in Korea at this time? I have to laugh when you say Koreans could have contested the Japanese annexation of Dokdo. Chosun had bigger fish to fry than gripe about a couple of remote rocks in the spring of 1906!!

    Pacifist, where does it say the Koreans were hired by the Japanese in the Black Dragon Fishing manual? One more thing although this document was printed in 1903, I can see citations of some of the information dates back to the 33rd year of Meiji, three years earlier. I’m trying to place a date on the Ullunengdo info.

    Let’s get one thing straight. I’m not running away from anyone on this issue. It’s Gerry who still hasn’t come to Hanmauy’s site to debate about Dokdo. Translations of all Japanese military documents related to Japan’s annexation of Dokdo will be presented in the next two weeks on my site.
    This will include.
    1. The Niitaka logbooks.
    2. The Tsushima logbooks and Japanese Navy Dokdo construction survey report.
    (The first two predate Japan’s annexation of Dokdo)
    3. The Hashidate logbooks.

    BTW here is the request from the Japanese Army stationed in Wonsan Korea requesting that Dokdo be linked to the Army as well. This shows not only the Navy was involved in Japan annexation but also the Army.
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/wonsan-doc3.jpg
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/wonsan-doc2.jpg

    One thing is for sure, fishing activities on Dokdo were conducted via Ulleungdo Island regardless of the nationality of these people, this shows the territorial bond of Korea was much stronger than Japan’s.

    Pacifist, don’t blame the Koreans for not contesting the annexation of Dokdo on Ulleungdo on March 28th 1906. There were scores of Japanese military personnel stationed on Ulleuengdo at the time. Here a pic of some of the Japanese stationed on Ulleungdo at the time.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/ulleungdo-police.jpg

  42. GTOMR Says:

    myCoree Says:on May 24th, 2007 at 6:47 am

    That implies that Japan regarded Dokdo as having been Korean Territory.

    The original text in 日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌in 1905 was ,quote from 外務省通商局編纂 通商彙纂 in 1902.
    Ministery of Foreign Affairs Commerce Office,Trade Doccuments(From MR.Tanaka’s site)

    Japan’s recognization of ”竹島”in the articles above is Jukdo.Not Liancourt Rocks.
    1.There was bamboo
    2.The 竹島 is in front of
    3.all the records that Japan’s recognization of Liancourt Rocks ,they discribe “The rocks consist from two main pinnacle with many small rocks.Not single island.If the discription above were Lianoucrt Rocks, they would write “Two main pinnacle”.
    See this map in 1905 of Outline Map of Ulleungdo
    鬱陵島見取図(from toron talker)
    It is cleart that the island of Jukdo.Anyway thanks for correct my misunderstanding of Wotsusemi to Tessemi.
    http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=377#comment-16342
    .
    To Mr,Gerry
    Sorry for late reply,but already Kaneganese answered all.Thx.

  43. pacifist Says:

    toadface,
    .

    Translations of all Japanese military documents related to Japan’s annexation of Dokdo will be presented in the next two weeks on my site.

    Please present them after you study hard about Japanese language, not a double translations from Japanese to Korean, then Korean to English, as your former translations were full of mistakes.
    .
    Then if Japan had some effects on Korean government as you say, why could the minister 李齋純 order to investigate the shape and location of the island and what Japanese officers did in Ulleungdo? If they were controlled by Japanese government and could do nothing concerning Japan, they should have restrained from making such an order.
    .
    The order itself means that they didn’t know about Takeshima/Dokdo. It’s natural because they really didn’t know about it, no documents, no maps.
    .
    And why didn’t they do anything after this order? Have you ever read the report by 李明来?
    Nothing after the order means the result was not significant. They noticed that they had done for nothing – they must had noticed that it didn’t belong to Korea.

  44. GTOMR Says:

    SRY for double post This is just my presuming,not based on any evidence or fact.
    Tessemi means “toksom石島?
    Im not sure the local dialect of “Sokdo”pronunsation.
    Toksom>tossom>tessomi>tessemi?
    Cf:
    18990923皇城新聞 / 最著者X干山島竹島
    (Not 于山島、竹島)
    19001022大韓勅令41/鬱陵全島와 竹島石島 管轄
    Not 竹島、石島)

  45. pacifist Says:

    toadface,
    .

    Pacifist, where does it say the Koreans were hired by the Japanese in the Black Dragon Fishing manual?

    It’s simply because there are some documents in Japan that show Japanese began sealion hunting in late 19th century (1890′s) and began to hire Korean fishermen in early 20th century (1902? or 1903?).
    .
    Before you asking this, you must answer my question. Don’t run away toadface.
    My question was:

    Where did they write as “Koreans were involved on Dokdo independent of japanese seal hunters”? Show us exactly.

  46. Kaneganese Says:

    Gerry, I hope you would delete my previous 2 translations, so that nobody get confused and make the thread shorter.

    (Japanese translation for Gerry’s post)
    (Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

    1899年、韓国の地理学者である玄采は、大韓地誌(“大韓帝国の地理”の意味)と言う地理の教科書を出版しました。彼は、大韓帝国学部(教育庁)によって作成されたと思われる次の地図をその中に載せました。

     地図1: 大韓全図(1899)

    上掲の地図は、緯度と経度の記載が始めてなされた韓国作成の地図のうちの一つです。より大きなもの〈リンク〉を見ると、鬱陵島と于山が東経130度の線をちょっとだけ過ぎた場所にあることがはっきりと分かります。そこからさらに右にゆくと、地図の端になっており、そこが東経131度の線に当たります。下に、鬱陵島と于山の部分を拡大したものを載せます。

     地図2: 大韓全図(1899) 鬱陵島付近拡大図

    東経130度と131度の経線の間は60分になります。この地図では鬱陵島とその隣接島である于山島が二つの経線のちょうど真ん中のすぐ西に描かれています。つまり、この地図は二つの島が130度30分のすぐ西側にあるとしている訳です。この地図が掲載されている大韓地誌によると、韓国(大韓帝国)の東端は東経130度35分となっており、つまりこの地図の二つの島は韓国の領土内であることを示しているわけです。〈リンク〉

    于山島は、下の現代の地図にも表されている鬱陵島の隣接島の竹嶼(韓国名竹島)の古名なのです。

     地図3: 鬱陵島地図(現代)

    現在では、鬱陵島とその隣接島である竹嶼の東端は、実際には130度56分であることが分かっています。つまり、1899年の大韓地誌では、領土の東端が東経130度35分であると述べていることから、21分程の誤差があることが分かります。しかしながら、1907年に改定された「大韓新地誌」では、その間違いが修正され、大韓帝国領土の東端は東経130度58分とされています。しかし、竹島/独島は131度52分に位置していることから、またしても1907年においても、韓国が自国領土の東端としている場所から、今だはるか離れた場所にあることがわかります。〈リンク〉

    1907年の「大韓新地誌」ではまた、鬱陵島の隣接島の名称を”于山島”から現在の名称である”竹島(日本名竹嶼)”と修正しています。1907年の「大韓新地誌」に掲載された次の地図で、名称の変遷を確認出来ます。

     地図4:大韓新地誌(1907)

    鬱島の拡大図が地図の左下部に描かれています。その拡大図には竹島(日本名竹嶼)が鬱陵島のすぐ北東沖に描かれており、”竹”と頭文字が記されています。独島(Liancourt Rocks)に付いて何も言及していません。

    日本による併合から解放された一年後の1946年、韓国の地理学者であり、歴史学者でもあった崔南善は「朝鮮常識問答」という本を著します。その本は、解放された韓国人に歴史や文化、そして地理といった、自らの国について教えるために書かれた物です。その本の地理の項において崔南善は、次のように記しています。

    “”問:我が国は地図上においてどの位置にあるか?”
     ”答:朝鮮半島自体は東経130度41分22秒から124度18分35秒、北緯34度14分16秒から43度0分36秒の間にある。大小の島を含めれば、東経130度56分23秒から124度11分00秒、北緯33度6分40秒から43度0分36秒の間にある。””

    崔南善氏が韓国の東端が島々をあわせても130度56分23秒であると記してあることにお気づきでしょうか。それはまさに、鬱陵島の隣接島である竹嶼の位置なのです。事実、崔南善はこの1946年の本の中で次のようにも記しています。

    “”問;我が国の最北端、最南端、最東端そして最西端はどこですか?”
     ”答:最東端は咸鏡北道慶興郡蘆西面、最西端は平安北道龍川郡龍川面、最南端は全羅南道海南郡松旨面、最北端は咸鏡北道穏城郡柔浦面である”
    “島嶼部を含むならば、最東端は慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島、最西端は平安北道龍川郡薪島面馬鞍島、最南端は済州道大静面馬羅島、最北端は咸鏡北道穏城郡柔浦面である””

    崔南善氏が韓国の最東端は慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島(日本名竹嶼)であると明確に記していることが分かります。上にあげた現代の地図で分かるように、竹嶼(韓国名竹島)は、鬱陵島の東沖2.2kmにある島です。

    1948年、崔南善は「朝鮮常識」という本を出版しました。その中でも彼は韓国の東端が130度56分23秒であり、鬱陵島の隣接島である竹嶼(韓国名竹島)が韓国領土の東端であると記しています。またしても、1948年においてさえ、韓国の地理の教科書は”竹島/独島(Liancourt Rocks)” が韓国の領土外であると明記している訳です。何故なら竹島/独島(Liancourt Rocks)”は、それよりずっと東の、東経131度52分の位置にあるのですから。

    現在韓国人は、東経131度52分に位置する”竹島/独島(Liancourt Rocks)” が韓国領土の東端であると主張していますが、1948年までの全ての韓国の地図や地理の本は、それとは全く異なった事実を伝えているのです。

  47. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Kaneganese,

    Thank you for translating my revised post. As you requested, I deleted your previous translations to avoid confusion.

    I hope you have a nice day.

  48. ponta Says:

    It’s Gerry who still hasn’t come to Hanmauy’s site to debate about Dokdo.

    Very nice way to re-framing the fact that he run away.
    Well after all everything is relative, when he is running away from Gerry, from his view point, Gerry is running away.
    That angry Korean gentleman was here on
    Occidentalism, but for some reason he disappeared.
    Mr. Toadface, why don’t you help him with his
    English and invite him here; it is miserable that Dokdo is Korean in only Korean.

  49. pacifist Says:

    This site of Shimane prefecture mentions about “Chosen Gensei Benran” (A Handbook of Today’s Choson, 1935). According to the site, it says that the eastern limit of Korean territory was Ulleungdo’s Jukdo (130 degree 56 minutes east longitude). It is identical to that given in Joseon Sangshik Mundam (1948) written by a historian Choe Nam-seon.
    http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/takesima_eng/take7.data/p7_8.pdf
    .
    This site also shows an interesting photo of the Japanese party who went to Ulleungdo in 1906.

  50. myCoree Says:

    I said :

    http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/Dokdo2-1.htm

    日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌, 寶文館, 罔部福藏 著, 1905

    てっせみ島ハ臥達里ノ前洋ニアリ本邦人之ヲ竹島ト稱ス周回三十町餘たふ女竹繁茂スト雖モ飮料水乏シキヲテ以移住スルモノナシ。しきをて

    뎃세미島는 와달리(臥達里)의 앞바다에 있다. 본방인(일본인)은 이 섬을 竹島라 칭한다. 주회가 30여 정(丁) 이며 타부여죽이 무성하나 누구도 음료수가 모자라 그곳으로 이주하는 자가 없다.

    “Tessemi” island is located in front of 臥達里 and our countrymen call this as Takeshima. Its circumstance is about 30-cho. Although it is full of bamboos, there is no one living because of lack in drinking water
    [註]
    竹島ハ明治三十八年二月日本新領土トナリ隱岐島司ノ管下ニ歸ス
    竹島는 명치38년(1905) 2월 일본의 새 영토가 되어 오키도사의 소관이 되었다.
    竹島 became a new territory of Japan and entered under the control of Oki island governor on February in 1905.

    ヲツセミ島
    テツセミ島 = てっせみ島 = Tesemi = 댓섬.

    Can you see [註] ? That implies that Japan regarded Dokdo as having been Korean Territory.

    I used some other brackets “>. Then, the result gulped the word “註” and made you all not be able to know what the keypoint is.
    Anyway, go ahead. I will be here some days hours later.

  51. pacifist Says:

    myCoree,
    .
    Your “註” seem to be added later. The original textbook dosen’t have that kind of annotations.
    (If you click the photo of the textbook in the site you mentioned, you can read it at a large size.)
    .
    The original text is apparently about Jukdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo. But the annotation you wrote is about Takeshima/Dokdo. It seems to me that someone intentionally created it mixing two sources together in order to deceive people.

  52. GTOMR Says:

    The discription on 1905 were quoted from the text below.Tessemi island is suerly JUKDO,even though I readI read “註”you mentioned to say.I
    Japanese recognization of Tessemi island from original doccument is;
    (Doccument Collection of Ministery of Foreign affairs,Commerce office in 1902)
    ヲツセミ島ハ臥達里ノ前洋ニ在リ本邦人之ヲ竹島と俗称ス周回三拾X余「タブ」女竹繁スト雖トモ飲料水ナキヲ以テ移住スル モノナシト云フ、又亭石浦ノ海上ニ雙燭石及島牧ノ島xアリ周回二十丁本邦人之ヲ観音島と称し其岬ヲ観音岬と云ヒ其ヲ観音ノ瀬戸ト呼ヘリ、又雙燭石ハ三岩高 ク樹立スルニヨリ三本ノ名アリ、其他 周園ノ海岸ニx筒ノ峻巖アリシモ一モ名称ナク唯タ光岸ノ前面ニ俵島アレトモ至ヲ小島ナリトス 

    1.There is “Tab”Female bamboo(Liancourt Rocks have no bamboo.But there are many records that there was Female Bamboo on JUKDO.This record explain about the neighbor islands and rock of Ulleungdo e.g. Jukdo,Gwamnundo and Samseon Rocks.Hole rocks and so on.Ofcourse Japanese already recognized so much about the existence of Liancourt Rocks as”Lianco-do or Liancord rocks” but they didn’t mention about it in this record also,that consit from two main pinnacle with small rocks.
    2.In front of Wadari臥達里
    臥達里 and 竹嶼 on 1905
    Liancourt Rocks=Liyanco-do are 89km away from Ulleungdo.If the island(S)is Liancourt Rocks, they would wrote “Far Away”遥方.
    In addition,all the Japanese record about Liancourt Rocks have discription that the rocks consist from two main pinnacle with many small rocks,So “Tessemi” is not Liancourt Rocks.
    Actually,there was confusion of the island name for the writers in the period.

  53. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    MyCoree,

    The document does not “imply that Japan regarded Dokdo as having been Korean territory”; it shows that the person who made the 1905 document got Ulleungdo’s “Jukdo” (竹島) confused with Japan’s “Takeshima” (竹島).

    The 1905 document seems to have referenced the 1902 document I originally asked about, which was before Japan incorporated Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks). Both documents said that Jukdo (竹島) was in front of Wadalri (臥達里), which is a place on the east shore of Ulleungdo just opposite Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. That fact and the fact that both documents said that Jukdo (竹島) was covered with bamboo should have been enough to convince “a reasonable person” that the Jukdo (竹島) being talked about was not Dokdo.

    Think about it, MyCoree. If the writer had been talking about Dokdo, he would have said that “Jukdo” was near Ulleungdo, not near Wadalri (臥達里), which is just one small place on Ulleungdo. Waldalri (臥達里) is the closest point on the main island of Ulleungdo to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is why it was mentioned.

    I don’t know if you are intentionally trying to deceive people, MyCoree, but if you are going to reference Hanmaumy’s site, you should know that he seems to be trying to deceive people with lies and half-truths about Ulleungdo and Dokdo. For example, I have told Hanmaumy several times that I believe “Usando” was the the old name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, but he continues to write on his site that I believe “Usando” was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Gwaneumdo, which is a lie.

    Anyway, I hope you keep writing here because debate encourages learning. I have learned something from this little debate, and, hopefully, you have, too.

  54. pacifist Says:

    I tried to post the following but failed somehow. So I tried once again:
    .

    報告書號外
    鬱島郡守 沈興澤報告書 內開에 本郡所屬 獨島가 在於 外洋 百餘里 外이살더니 本月 初四日 辰時量에 輪船一雙이 來泊 于郡內道洞浦 而日本官人一行이 到于官舍하야 自云 獨島가 今爲日本領地故로 視察次來到이다 이온바 其一行 則日本島根懸 隱岐島司 東文輔 及事務官 神西田太郞 稅務監督局長 吉田平吾 分署長 警部 影山巖八郞 巡査一人會議一人 醫師 技手 各一人 其外 隨員 十餘人이 先問 戶摠 人口 土地 生産 多少하고 且問 人員 及 經費 幾許 諸般事務를 以調査樣으로 錄去압 기 玆에 報告하오니 熙亮하시믈 伏望等 因으로 准此 報告하오니 照亮하시믈 伏望
    光武十年 四月二十九日
    江原道觀察使暑痢 春川郡守 李明來
    議政府參政大臣 閣下

    .
    The document above is about the Japanese officers’ visit to Ulleungdo. It was a report from the local government to the central government. The problem is that it said that Japanese asked about population, numbers of houses, productivity etc of Ulleungdo.
    .
    This must be the beginning of the misunderstanding. Japanese asked these things as a kind of greetings. But Korean people seem to have received it as a kind of examination or inspection of Ulleungdo.
    .
    In previous year 1905, there were arguments about the ownership of Ulleungdo. In 大東新報, a pro-Japanese newspaper in Korea, reported in September 1905 that prosperity of today’s Ulleungdo owed to Japanese people and that it was originally Japanese island. Another Korean newspaper refuted to the report and there were turmoil cocerning Ulleungdo that year.
    In these background, the report to inform that “Japanese officers inspected Ulleungo” may have been shocking to Korean people.
    .
    If you read the article of 大韓毎日新聞 (1/May/1906) closely, you may notice that they mentions that Japanese claimed that Dokdo, which belonged to this county, was Japanese territory and that they examined population and numbers of houses (of Dokdo)”.
    (Of course there was nobody living in Dokdo, so no population or numbers of houses were needed, but Korean people didn’t know well about Dokdo in those days.)
    .
    Many Koreans didn’t know what Dokdo was, but they may have felt that Japanese got an island near Ulleungdo and they were aiming at Ulleungdo. But as you know, this was totally misunderstanding.
    .
    The local government officer 李明来, who reported the document above was later ordered to investigate the shape and location of the island (Takeshima/Dokdo) but there are no records afterwards. It is highly likely that they found that Takeshima/Dokdo was not Korean territory.

  55. toadface Says:

    Pacifist, the debate that Koreans weren’t involved or cognizant of Dokdo prior to the Japanese annexation is dead and gone. I’ve proven with two documents that Koreans were using Dokdo at this time.

    That being the case how does Dokdo become terra nullius? BTW the term terra nullius is a legal catch-all phrase used by colonial powers of the 19th Century that didn’t even have a clear legal definition until the 1970s. Terra nullius is under fire all across the world and carries little weight.

    Another fact proven is all of these fishing activities on Dokdo were done via Korean territory (Ulleungdo). These acivities can be seen from 2 aspects. First those Japanese livng on Ulleungdo had become Korean residents and thus their activities were on behalf of Korea. Or the more likely scenario is these fishermen were illegally squatting on Ulleungdo. If that is the case these illicit activities are not a sound basis to incorporate Dokdo.

    Japanese fishing on Dokdo from Ulleungdo is nothing more than proof of the territorial bond between Korea’s Ulleungdo and Dokdo. In 1905 it was not practical to fish 160kms or more from your home port and then return.

    The inspection team picture you linked to shows one more fact. Japanese Shimane Prefecture Officials hadn’t even visited Dokdo until 1906. By this time the Japanese had long since mapped, surveyed and built watchtowers and telegraph installations on Dokdo. Thus there is no doubt, Japanese incorporation of Dokdo was nothing more than a military annexation, not part of a natural peaceful process which territorial acquisitions must be, to be considered legal.

    Here are some more maps from the Japanese Imperial Navy’s archives. They detail the completion of the underwater telegraph lines constructed before, during and shortly after the Russo~Japanese War of 1904~1905. These military docs were drawn well before Shimane Prefecture Officials had even seen Dokdo.
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-wire.jpg
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-wire2.jpg
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-wire3.jpg

  56. toadface Says:

    Pacifist the Officials who visited Ulleungdo in 1906 did a survey of Ulleungdo NOT Dokdo….what are you talking about???

  57. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Toadface,

    The Japanese officials in 1906 surveyed Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) before going to Ulleungdo. Where do you think they killed the sea lion? According to what I have read, they had not originally intended to go to Ulleungdo, but were forced there by a storm.

  58. toadface Says:

    Gerry, what’s your point? Shim Heung Taek did not say they did a household count on Dokdo that was Pacifist’s little alteration (note his brackets). It could be they did a brief survey of Ulleungdo as well. It’s not likely they “happened upon Ulleungdo”… 90kms is a long way to go. They also arrived in the morning showing it was an intended destination not just a brief stopover.

    If Shim Heung Taek was referring to the inspection of Dokdo he was merely parroting what the Japanese told him the purpose of the Takeshima Inspection was. For example Shim Heung Taek said. “The Japanese came for the purpose of finding out the number of households, expenditure, population etc…” This could be a sign of Japanese ignorance of the situation on Dokdo as well. In fact there were doctors and tax officials included with the tour group. Why would the Japanese need doctors to inspect an island they “knew” was uninhabited..?

    The 1906 survey of Dokdo from what I understand the first official survey of Dokdo undertaken by any civilian governmental organ. If you look on my site you can see reams of information related to Dokdo. All of it military

    It’s time the Japanese Takeshima lobbyists stood up straight and admitted Japan has zero historical claim to Dokdo. The next step for Japan is to finally admit the annexation of Dokdo was an inseparable part of Japanese military aggression during the largest war of the day. All the Japanese Navy records on Dokdo are numbered and dated in the same files that detail the appropriation of Korean land in 1904~1905. They are also closely linked to the seizure of the Liandong Peninsula (Port Arthur/Dalian) China.

    To honour Japan’s 1905 claim to Dokdo is to reward Japan for her past colonial military land grabs of the Russo~Japanese War……Let’s not

  59. pacifist Says:

    toadface,
    .

    Pacifist, the debate that Koreans weren’t involved or cognizant of Dokdo prior to the Japanese annexation is dead and gone. I’ve proven with two documents that Koreans were using Dokdo at this time.

    What you’ve proven? What documents you are talking about?
    I repeat my question:

    Where did they write as “Koreans were involved on Dokdo independent of japanese seal hunters”? Show us exactly.

    .
    You’ve written the following:

    The Black Dragon Fishing Manual of January 1903 is proof positive Koreans were involved on Dokdo independent of Japanese seal hunters years before the Japanese Navy manoeuvred the Japanese Government into annexing Dokdo in 1905.

    Please show us exactly the part of the text in the Black Dragon Fishing Manual here. Or were you telling a lie?
    .

    Here are some more maps from the Japanese Imperial Navy’s archives.

    toadface, don’t dodge the point. Maps are not related with the topic.
    .

    Pacifist the Officials who visited Ulleungdo in 1906 did a survey of Ulleungdo NOT Dokdo….what are you talking about???

    Didn’t you know that?
    As Gerry explained, they visited Takeshima/Dokdo and caught two sealions for investigation and after that they took a refuge for a bad weather at Ulleungdo. So as I showed you, they met with Shim Heung Taek though it was not an expected meeting so they gave one of the two sealions as an instant gift. (One more sealion was brought back for examination.)
    .
    So Japanese didn’t mean to inspect Ulleungdo but as a greeting, the Japanese officer asked Shim about population of Ulleungdo etc. And Shim reported the meeting to the local governemnt. That was the beginning of the misunderstanding as I showed you.
    .
    One more thing,

    The inspection team picture you linked to shows one more fact. Japanese Shimane Prefecture Officials hadn’t even visited Dokdo until 1906.

    How did you know from the photo that they didn’t inspect Takeshima/Dokdo before 1906?
    Truth is that the governor of Shimane Prefecture inspected in August 1905. Your imagination is not the truth, toadface.

  60. ponta Says:

    Mr. Todaface
    It is time for you to show that Korea recognized Dokdo before 1905.
    As for Japanese cognizance of Dokdo before 1905.
    Why do you keep telling a false story?
    You know that:
    Japanese was cognizant of Dokdo and Ulleungdo.
    Japanese ceded Ulleungdo to Korea.
    But even after that,
    Japan forbade Japanese fisher men to sail to Ulleungdo but allowed them to go to Dokdo,

    On the other hand, Korea in effect had been of the opinion until 1948 that Ulleungdo and Jukdo was the eastern limit of Korean territory as this post shows.
    .

  61. pacifist Says:

    toadface,
    To follow is a part of my posting above (translated text of an article from Japanese newsopaper)
    .

    Because we are planning to inspect your island, we should have brought something for you as a gift, but as we happened to be here for a refuge we couldn’t bring anything. As fortunately we have a sealion here that we caught at Takeshima, we would like to give it to you as a gift. We are happy if you take it”. The chief replied, “Yes, we will protect Japanese people staying here. Thank you for the sealion, if it is delicious I would like to take it”.

    .
    They inspected Ulleungdo but it was not a planned one. As he said in the text they took a refuge for a while at Ulleungdo so they wanted to see the situation of the island.

  62. pacifist Says:

    The Japanese party’s itinerary was as follows:
    .
    22nd March: They left Matsue (mainland of Japan)
    26th March: They left Saigo (of Oki island)
    27th March: They arrived at Takeshima/Dokdo. They examined the island (specialists of agriculture and fishery were in the party) and then planted a pinewood tree. But weather turned worse, so they tooka refuge at 道洞 of Ulleungdo.
    28th March: They left Ulleungdo.
    30th March: They arrived at Matsue.
    .
    So they only stayed one night at Ulleungdo.

  63. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 10 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  64. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 12 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  65. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 9 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  66. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 8 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  67. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 7 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  68. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 6 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  69. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 5 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  70. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 4 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  71. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 3 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  72. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 2 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  73. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 1 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  74. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 10 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  75. myCoree Says:

    pacifist.

    It seems to me that someone intentionally created it mixing two sources together in order to deceive people.

    Your response is a little bewildering and interesting me. Examine it again and you will not find any ‘intentional deceiving’.
    .
    Gerry.

    I don’t know if you are intentionally trying to deceive people, MyCoree, but if you are going to reference Hanmaumy’s site, you should know that he seems to be trying to deceive people with lies and half-truths about Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

    I know nowadays you frequently quot his blog and link your argument to his website. I just linked once to my comment. I don’t have any special reason or plot in linking my comments to his website – you will be the same as my case.
    If you don’t like the Hanmaumy’s blog, you may visit another guy’s blog.
    http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10016188531
    .
    .
    And, my point is :

    日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌, 寶文館, 罔部福藏 著, 1905
    [Geographical book on the territory of Manchuria, Korea and Russia - the new developing ground of Japanese Race, 1905]

    How imperialistic and nationalistic !

    竹島ハ明治三十八年二月日本新領土トナリ隱岐島司ノ管下ニ歸ス
    竹島는 명치38년(1905) 2월 일본의 새 영토가 되어 오키도사의 소관이 되었다.
    竹島 became a new territory of Japan and entered under the control of Oki island governor on February in 1905.

    Question : Which do you think 竹島 is today, Dokdo? Chukdo?
    Answer 1: Dokdo ⇒ Why do you think that sentence “popped up” while describing Korean territory?
    a) just because it’s near Ullungdo.
    b) so that others might not misunderstand the territory.
    c) because that island had been Korean territory.

    Answer 2 : Chukdo ⇒ Do you really think the てっせみ島 only approx. 2km from main island Ullungdo can be recognized as annexed to Japan? If you are resonable, can you easily say ” the person who made the 1905 document got Ulleungdo’s “Jukdo” (竹島) confused with Japan’s “Takeshima” (竹島).”?
    .
    .
    Think about it. Good night.

  76. GTOMR Says:

    In the article that he wrote 竹島 added the top is about Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima/Dokdo).
    .
    Butthe discription of Tessemi island in 1905 quoted from the doccument in 1902.Reading full text on 1902 it can shows clealy this Tessemi island is Jukdo.
    He just confuse and wrote the discription add on the top.
    .
    Read the original quoted text in the doccument of 1902,they cleary distinguished Jukdo竹島 and Lyanco island(Liancourt Rocks).The discription on 1902,is for the explanation of neighbor islands and rocks in Ulleungdo.But they clearly distinguish Tessemi island and Jukdo.

    Original text that you post ,was quoted from the doccument collection of 1902 by ministery of Foreign Affairs,Office of Commerce.
    They cleary distinguished Tessemi(竹島Jukdo) and Lyanco island(Liancourt Rocks/Matsushima)
    テツセミ島ハ臥達里ノ前洋ニ在リ本邦人之ヲ竹島と俗称ス周回三拾X余「タブ」女竹繁スト雖トモ飲料水ナキヲ以テ移住スル モノナシト云フ、又亭石浦ノ海上ニ雙燭石及島牧ノ島xアリ周回二十丁本邦人之ヲ観音島と称し其岬ヲ観音岬と云ヒ其ヲ観音ノ瀬戸ト呼ヘリ、又雙燭石ハ三岩高 ク樹立スルニヨリ三本ノ名アリ、其他 周園ノ海岸ニx筒ノ峻巖アリシモ一モ名称ナク唯タ光岸ノ前面ニ俵島アレトモ至ヲ小島ナリトス……………本島の正東約五十海里に三小島あり。之をリヤンコ島と云い本邦人は松島と称す。同所に多少の鮑を産するを以って本島より出漁するものあり。然れども同島に飲料水乏しきにより、永らく出漁すること能はさるを以って、四五日間を経ては本島に帰航せり。
    Cf:Wadari臥達里 on 鬱陵島見取図
    1.Tessemi island has “Tab”Female bamboo
    2.In front of Wadari臥達里 (Explanation of Liancourt Rocks,nothing records discribes the rocks in front of Wadari)
    3.iancourt Rocks located in 50seamiles away from Ulleungdo.
    .
    Japan already cleary recognization of existence of Liancourt Rocks,consist from two main pinnacle with small rocks.In addition,they knew the correct location and shapes.But around 1905,after shimane ‘s incorporation,there was confusion of the name of Takeshima by some arthor like the arthor of the books in 1905.He just confuse 竹島Takeshima(Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo)and 竹島/竹嶼Jukdo

  77. GTOMR Says:

    Sorry for double post and I make fixture the mistakes of my post above.
    .
    Read the original quoted text in the doccument of 1902,they cleary distinguished Jukdo竹島 and Lyanco island(Liancourt Rocks).The discription on 1902,is for the explanation of neighbor islands and rocks in Ulleungdo.But they clearly distinguish Tessemi island andJukdo.and Liancourt Rocks.

    Original text that you post ,was quoted from the doccument collection of 1902 by ministery of Foreign Affairs,Office of Commerce.
    They cleary distinguished Tessemi(竹島Jukdo) and Lyanco island(Liancourt Rocks/Matsushima)

  78. myCoree Says:

    GTOMR
    .
    Thank you for your good information.
    Can you guide me to access the data you showed us :

    “the doccument collection of 1902 by ministery of Foreign Affairs,Office of Commerce”

    外務省通商局編纂 通商彙纂 in 1902

    including リヤンコ島(Liancourt Rocks)

    It seems that the pages have been contained in 國立國會圖書館 NDLデジタルアーカイブポータルhttp://www.dap.ndl.go.jp. But I can’t find them.
    Or, can you give a concrete information about that page including リヤンコ島(Liancourt Rocks)
    .
    Thanks.

  79. pacifist Says:

    myCoree,
    .

    Your response is a little bewildering and interesting me. Examine it again and you will not find any ‘intentional deceiving’.
    .

    .
    You couldn’t find out what I meant?
    .

    http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/Dokdo2-1.htm

    日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌, 寶文館, 罔部福藏 著, 1905

    てっせみ島ハ臥達里ノ前洋ニアリ本邦人之ヲ竹島ト稱ス周回三十町餘たふ女竹繁茂スト雖モ飮料水乏シキヲテ以移住スルモノナシ。しきをて

    뎃세미島는 와달리(臥達里)의 앞바다에 있다. 본방인(일본인)은 이 섬을 竹島라 칭한다. 주회가 30여 정(丁) 이며 타부여죽이 무성하나 누구도 음료수가 모자라 그곳으로 이주하는 자가 없다.

    “Tessemi” island is located in front of 臥達里 and our countrymen call this as Takeshima. Its circumstance is about 30-cho. Although it is full of bamboos, there is no one living because of lack in drinking water
    [註]
    竹島ハ明治三十八年二月日本新領土トナリ隱岐島司ノ管下ニ歸ス
    竹島는 명치38년(1905) 2월 일본의 새 영토가 되어 오키도사의 소관이 되었다.
    竹島 became a new territory of Japan and entered under the control of Oki island governor on February in 1905.
    ヲツセミ島
    テツセミ島 = てっせみ島 = Tesemi = 댓섬.

    In the above post you wrote, the first part is included in the book 日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌 but the sentence in the [註] is not.
    You can read the original book and make it sure yourself. Visit the site you wrote and double click the photo of the book then you can see it yourself.
    .
    Takeshima in the original book is about Jukdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo (please read the discussions in this thread for deatils), while the sentence after [註] is Takeshima/Dokdo. The former is before 1905 and the latter after 1905.
    .
    So your posting above included a big mistake. If the writer of your posting didn’t know about the mistake, he is an amateur whom you shouldn’t rely on this matter. And if he made it intentionally, it is a malicious distortion to deceive people.
    .
    myCoree, did you understand?

  80. myCoree Says:

    pacifist.

    So your posting above included a big mistake. If the writer of your posting didn’t know about the mistake, he is an amateur whom you shouldn’t rely on this matter. And if he made it intentionally, it is a malicious distortion to deceive people.

    I will show it to you. It’s writtten at the upper part of that page.

    HERE(temporary) of here.
    .
    HERE
    and HERE page : 60/168

    The former is before 1905 and the latter after 1905.

    Dokdo annexation by Japan is on February, 1905.
    This book is printed on August 5th, 1905, and piblished on August 11th, 1905.

    What’s wrong?

    One more thing. I did quot the original without change. But, I changed the translation as I thought. That’s all.
    .
    Have a good day.

  81. GTOMR Says:

    To My coffee

    SRY for inconvinience,I forgot to attach the link about Lyanco-do on the doccument correction of Ministery of Foreign Affairs Commerce Office in 1902.Report of Ulleungdo.
    About Tessemi(P43)
    http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=670
    .
    About Lyanco-do.P46
    .
    Best n regards.

  82. pacifist Says:

    myCoree,
    .
    All of the sites you wrote have the picture of the book, and it doesn’t include the annotation in your posting “[註]竹島ハ明治三十八年二月日本新領土トナリ隱岐島司ノ管下ニ歸ス
    竹島는 명치38년(1905) 2월 일본의 새 영토가 되어 오키도사의 소관이 되었다.
    竹島 became a new territory of Japan and entered under the control of Oki island governor on February in 1905.”
    .
    So I want to say this annotation is misleading. Someone added this annotation in the site you mentioned:
    http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/Dokdo2-1.htm
    .
    I wanted to say that you’d better take care if you read this site. The writer of the site may have little knowledge about the matter, or unless he/she may have malicious intention.
    I hope you will understand what I meant.

  83. pacifist Says:

    myCoree,
    .

    This book is printed on August 5th, 1905, and piblished on August 11th, 1905.

    What’s wrong?

    .
    The sentence in the book 日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌 – “てっせみ島ハ臥達里ノ前洋ニアリ本邦人之ヲ竹島ト稱ス周回三十町餘たふ女竹繁茂スト雖モ飮料水乏シキヲテ以移住スルモノナシ” – is quoted from another book GTOMR mentioned (1902) and in those days (before 1905) Takeshima didn’t mean Takeshima/Dokdo today because the latter was named in 1905. Tessemi island in the sentence is apparently indicates Jukdo.
    .
    While the annotation in the site you mentioned, “註]竹島ハ明治三十八年二月日本新領土トナリ隱岐島司ノ管下ニ歸ス”, is about the incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo. So the same name “Takeshima” was used to indicate different islands. The “Takeshima” in the book 日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌 is Jukdo (= Korean land) while the “Takeshima” in the annotation is Takeshima/Dokdo (Liancourt rocks= not Korean land).
    .
    I suspect that the writer of the site may have known all these facts and made up the site to make Korean people believe that Takeshima/Dokdo belonged to Korea before the incorporation in 1905, mixing two different texts.
    But as you may notice now, this is not a fact. Please look at the truth. Don’t believe the fabricated site.

  84. myCoree Says:

    Hi, GTMOR
    I’m sorry for my late reply.
    Thank you very much for your honest guide without much hesitation.
    I like coffee very much – you are the same.
    You may call me “myCoffee” if you like it.
    .
    pacifist
    Thanks. you said what I was trying to say about 竹島 instead of me.

    I wanted to say that you’d better take care if you read this site. The writer of the site may have little knowledge about the matter, or unless he/she may have malicious intention.
    I hope you will understand what I meant.

    We all here are not children nor childish. Don’t worry. For example, I didn’t bring his translation, you know. And, I confirmed his mistranslation about 竹島.

    I suspect that the writer of the site may have known all these facts and made up the site to make Korean people believe that Takeshima/Dokdo belonged to Korea before the incorporation in 1905, mixing two different texts.

    If Hanmaumy comes to know this fact, he will make his claim much more stronger.
    .
    Truth? What’s it? Let’s think about it together.
    .
    Have a good evening.

  85. pacifist Says:

    myCoree,
    .
    Thanks for understanding,
    but great apology….
    .
    I re-read the original text and found the annotation at the upper margin of the text.
    So It was not a malicious will by the write of the site. It was a mistake of the writer of the book “日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌”, Fukuzo Okabe.
    .
    I’m sorry. I didn’t notice it.
    .
    Okabe may have quoted the part of the Tessemi island/Takeshima from the 1902 book without knowing the Takeshima in the text is different from the “Takeshima” which Japan incorporated in 1905.
    .
    Anyway, if this was a mistake by the author, it has no significant meaning concerning the ownership of Takeshima/Dokdo.
    .
    myCoree, I agree with you, the title of the book is unbelievable.
    Have a good weekend.

  86. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 12 · Occidentalism Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  87. Occidentalism » Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 6 Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]

  88. Occidentalism » Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 8 Says:

    [...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 11 [...]