Gerry Bevers newspaper interview
Zero posted this interview with Gerry Bevers, which appeared on February 7th, 2008. Below is Zero’s translation, slightly edited by me.
The excessive anti-Japan movement that took place on March 2005 in Korea has died down now. Shimane prefecture established “the day of Takeshima that year. Mr. Gerry Beaver, a teacher of English at the University near Seoul, who studies the history of Takeshima analyzes the change as follows.
“I think part of the reason for that is that many Koreans have turned their attention toward China and the historical disagreements that exist between China and Korea, but I also think that the Korean government has realized that talking about the history of Takeshima (Dokdo) has done more harm than good since the history supports Japan’s claims on Takeshima.”
He posted articles on the Internet about the Korean old documents and maps that were not in favor of Korean claim, which led him to get fired from the university last year.
” I now have a teaching job at another Korean university that I am very satisfied with. I enjoy living in Korea because Koreans are very friendly people, but the problem is that Koreans seem to think that anyone who disagrees with them on Dokdo (Takeshima) are anti-Korean. That is simply not true.”
Lee Myung-bak will take office as new President on 25th of the next February. He will place more importance upon the relation with Japan.
“I think Lee Myung-bak is a pragmatic politician that wants to improve relations with Japan, and will, therefore, try to avoid making Takeshima (Dokdo) an issue by continuing to pretend that there is no dispute with Japan over the islets. However, there are still anti-Japanese groups in Korea that he may sometimes have to appease in someway, so the issue may still come up.”
While anti-Japan movement has died down, Korea still seems to assert her claims on Takeshima by doing such things as setting up polling booths, the Japanese government hasn’t done anything to speak of.
“There are hardcore anti-Japan advocates in Korea.
Old documents and maps clearly support Japan’s historical claims on Takeshima, so the Japanese government needs to stop being so passive about this issue and start translating and writing the books and brochures that will prove their claims to the world because I am almost positive that Korean historians will continue to distort the facts to support their false claims. However, telling the truth about the history and settling the dispute are two different things.”
Gerry has studied the history of takehsima for 3 years since he felt something wrong with anti-Japan sentiments in Korea. He is confident that there is no evidence that Takeshima is Korean territory.
“I have pretty much answered all the questions I had about the Takeshima-Dokdo issue, so I am not really doing any new research right now. What I want to do now is to review and organize the information I do have because I am thinking about writing a book. I think I have learned the truth about Takeshima, and I want others to know it, too. “
Click here for full sized image
You’re too focused on 2chan. The Japanese media and YouTube are where you should be very concerned. The media like to pick up these kinds of stories and their reporting of events is questionable at best. YouTube, which is not some kind of underground web site, is FULL of terribly racist videos that actually often get featured because they’re getting multiple views by users of 2chan. But when videos on YouTube get featured their easily visible by EVERYONE using the service. So the only impression people are getting of Japan is a not so positive one. I don’t have to go digging for these videos either. Usually they’re on the most viewed page.
As much as you’ll probably disagree with this, Ishihara has everything to do with Takeshima. He is the face of Tokyo, very much the face of Japan, and he makes openly xenophobic statements on a regular basis. Illogical or not, people take his voice and use that to form their first impression of Japan and Japanese politics. This is then reinforced by issues like Yasukuni. Even if they’re all unrelated factually, they’re all related emotionally and this is the root of the hatred.
As I said I rarely visit 2channel. You mentioned 2 chan.
As for Japanese media, yes. And which articles are you talking about?
As for Youtube, I don’t watch so often. Do people take the comment section seriously?
This guy says Japanese commenters are polite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz_49X9ppJ8&eurl=http://propaganda-buster.blogspot.com/
Right I disagree. You talked about Ishihara visiting Yasukuni but you have never mention him talking about Takeshima. Could you cite his statement about Takeshima that he uses for generating the hatred?
Or are we going to talk about Yasukuni and Ishihara
and Japanese xenophobia in general?
Gerbilbastard
Did you read some of the article from that I suggested? The main reason you are still ignorant of what’s going on in Korea and China in terms of anti-Japanese movement is you don’t even read you should read and try to understand what’s really going on and too much focus on the emotional sentiment on 2chan or Youtube. As I said, you should study more.
Show me the evidence that I generated “anger” on both side, thanks. You are talking too much from speculation. Study hard.
.
Long before Christ the Phoenician or Assyrian words for east (asu meaning sunrise) and west (Europe which is either a Phoenician princess abducted to the west or sunrise) existed.
.
The Greek-Persian Wars were fought by a military confederation of Greek states against a unitary state of Persia.
.
Cooperation by European peoples, epitomised by Themistocles call to build ships as wooden cities, versus oppression by a single people (Persians) that considered themselves superior to other peoples.
.
Western/European concepts of equality, cooperation, egalite, fraternity, democracy, union and free will don’t really have a place in Eastern predeterminist philosophies of hierarchy and order such as Buddhism and Confucianism.
.
OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!
.
If Asia wants unity all it has to look to is Manmohan Singh.
I think I’m going to stop here. I don’t think I’m writing my posts clearly enough because the same topics are coming back over and over.
I’ll try to sum up my position one last time;
Japan has a claim to Takeshima.
Korea has a claim to Dokdo.
Both sides believe they are right.
Both sides present evidence that supposedly proves their point.
Emotions run high on both sides when this topic is brought up.
It’s important to do as much research as possible to further discussion and strive for an amiable compromise.
However, even by proving your claim to the island with 100% verifiable, historical information the other side will never abandon their attachment to the island simply on a matter of pride. Conservatives in both countries will in particular make sure that the issue never dies.
Thus, there is no reason to continue to make claims on the island. Further facts made in support of your claim only serve to inflame the other side even more and as a result, hateful, openly racist comments penetrate the mainstream media of each respective country.
These openly negative comments will create a vicious cycle of retaliation (physical or verbal), and in the end both sides still have feelings of anger and only serve to portray themselves in a negative way to third parties. The internet, with sites such as YouTube, will only increase the speed of this very phenomenon.
There is no possible solution to this problem unless both sides completely remove their sole claim to the island and agree to share it or abandon it completely. Facts will never repair relations between the countries and are actually directly related to the extent of anger from the country. Foreign relations in the modern era are about compromise, not forcing a point.
Gerbilbastard
Speculation. So, did you read any article on our site? Do you claim this based on the fact you found on our site? If so, what article exactly you think created anger to whom? Do you have enough fact to support your claim? I will never ever buy anything from you as long as you are speaking of what you are speculating.
I’m not sure if it’s a good example or not, but I’ll try. If you are on a vacation, and you came back to find that neighbours are living in your house which you and your ancesters have posessed more than 300 years, claiming that it was theirs since 512 A.D. and you are the one who invaded in the first place, presenting fabricated documents, what are you going to do? You collect the evidences which proves that it was officially yours and try to debunk the claim by the intruders and go to the court, right? Or are you going to shut up after several attempt to talk calmly, only because it makes intruders get angry? How about your family? Are they going to get angry if you keep finding the truth about this to bring the justice? Or Are they going to get angry if you give up even before go to court?
Speculation. But it is much better than they do based on distortion. But honestly, what are you actually talking about? Did I find any fact that are going to be used by Uyoku? What are you thinking we are doing? It seems to me you are delusional. You don’t even know what we have found, right? When did it become that we can’t say things we want? Do we have to stop telling the truth out of fear that media’s going to pick up? You are surely not talking about Japan, are you?
Truth hurts, but innocent Korean need to know the truth that their own government and schools are telling lies and driving them to hate Japan. I think this is the only way to reduce hatred and anger between both country. We have learned that silence makes the situation worse from the last year’s Ianhu thing. If we allow Korean lobbists’ distortions anymore, it aggravate the problem. Look at the naming of Sea of Japan. What is next? It’ll never end. Korean government needs it. Not Japanese government who always try to avoid solving the those kind of issue. You should learn more about Korean. I don’t think “compromise” is in their dictionary, unfortunately.
.
ㅎㅎ 한국에 환영합니다.
.
Compromise means a meeting of equals. There are no equals in Korean society. 선배/후배, 연장자/연하가, 남강자/여약자, 남자친구/임자있는여자 ad infinitum.
.
Or as you prefer in aeternum.
This reminded me of a comment that toadface made previously.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=234#comment-5068
One of the islands in the toadface’s link is labeled as Dokdo (독도). However, the very island is labeled as Ulleungdo (欝陵島) in the original map, 大東輿地全圖 (대동여지도). He labels any island in maps and documents as “Dokdo” when it is convenient for his argument. Perhaps the poor puppy is being staggered by the [I don't know what word I should put here] of the other puppy.
The protest by Korean side are actually getting cooled down every year. There was no more emotional “finger chopping” or “harakiri” type of protest this year. And Korean government only expressed ” strong regrets” to Shimane Prefecture’s “Takeshima’s day” event today. Some Korean including Seoul National University’s started to openly admit that Usando in the Korean old maps are Jukdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo. Most Korean doesn’t even know about Japanese claims, and they have no occasion to see them even on the homepage since Korean government blocks them. I think our strategy is very effective and it’s definately working. It actually creating the mutual understanding each other in some way. We actually have a Korean commentator on our site who can debate very logically. And we enjoy solving problems and find the truth together even though we don’t share same opinion.
“下條教授は昨秋、韓国の国際法関係者と話したとき、新政権誕生を控えた韓国の竹島問題研究に、変化の兆しを感じたという。「韓国の国史以外は誤り」とする韓国の研究者が、「この問題については歴史的事実を明らかにする必要がある」として「日本の主張をもっと知りたい」と話したのだ。2月22日23時44分配信 産経新聞(Sankei News)“
Gerbilbastard,
I know you stopped there, but let me tell this last time since I think it will calm down your excessive anxiety.
It looks like nothing you have worried about (retaliation (physical or verbal)) had happened in real world of both country. It proves that you were delusional. All I hope is you would just read what it is written on our site and look more into the issue before you make hasty judgement about East-Asian based on your prejudice, belief or speculation. If you keep that attitude, you will definately contribute to reduce so-called xenophobia you believe prevailing in Japan, if it really exists, I guess.
Aki, I don’t need to falsely label any maps. There are plenty of maps that show Dokdo as Korean land.
Did you see the map by Japanese Professor Hosaka released to the public today? This was a Japanese map of Korea. It shows Ulleungdo (竹島) and Dokdo (松島) in accurate locations and coloured the same as the Korean peninsula.
http://kr.news.yahoo.com/service/news/shellview.htm?linkid=12&articleid=2008022205433332319&newssetid=82
Here are the images of the map.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hosaka-map1.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hosaka-map2.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hosaka-map3.jpg
In the year 1890 Japan mapped her country prefecture by prefecture. All of Japan’s outlying islands, tiny Minoshima, Rykyus, Kuriles and even the Bonin Islands, (Ogasawaras) around 1000 clicks away. All of Japan’s outlying islands are included, Ulleungdo and Dokdo are included on the overall map but no prefectures show Takeshima as part of any prefecture in this publication. Here is the map book.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1890-japanese-limit.html
Later editions in 1895 show newly seized Taiwan (Sino-Japanese War Prize) and again all very tiny distant outlying islands but again Takeshima is not included. This page is in the works but images are ready.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1895-japanese-limit.html
So you see Aki not only do Japanese maps fail to show Dokdo as part of Japan. They frequently show it as part of Korea. Double burn.
I think Japan should admit that she had not been regarding Takeshima as part of her territory prior to the declaration in 1905.
And that is the case with Korea, too.
It is obvious that Japan has a strong case over this issue just considering 1905 declaration of integration and SF Treaty alone, while the legitimacy of Korean claim is either based upon Japanese old maps which tell “Takeshima was not regarded as ours” or meaningless historical evidences which only prove the sovereignty of an island which is hardly believed to be Dokdo today.
toadface, I don’t understand why you don’t cast doubt on the arguement that the island on which people were living since 512 is Dokdo.
Mudboots, my point with the 512 A.D. Usanguk reference is as follows. Korea has something Japan doesn’t. That is a historically verified ancient claim to Ulleungdo Island going back over 1,500 years. That means during the dark ages Koreans were living within visual proximity of Dokdo at least a millenium before Japanese even showed up in the region. I never said the 512 A.D. reference was claim to Dokdo itself. The point is there is not one historical document by the Japanese regarding Takeshima itself. They are all through Japanese involvement on Ulleungdo. Period.
Regarding the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Madboots I’m sorry but you’ve been lied to on by the Japanese on this one as well.
Sean Fern makes a good summary of the S.F. Treaty.
“…The negotiations involving the fate of former Japanese territories was a long, drawn-out process. The first five and seventh drafts of the treaty provided that Liancourt be given to Korea by including the islets in the Article 2(a) list. The sixth, eighth, ninth, and fourteenth drafts explicitly stated that the territory of Japan included Dokdo Takeshima. The tenth through thirteenth and fifteenth through eighteenth drafts, like the final draft, were silent on the status of Dokdo Takeshima…” In the end there was no mention of Liancourt Rocks in the S.F. Peace Treaty at all.
But more importantly is this. Were the negotiations of territorial dispositions a process based on historical ownership of the territory? The answer to this is no and it is shown by some of the papers during the negotiation process. First, some Americans such as Steeves believed although Korea had a stronger historical claim the islands, the Takeshima should be given to the Japanese for joint U.S. Japanese military reasons.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/d95m.jpg
A classic example of the decision process was further illustrated by the British with regard to Korea’s Quelpart (Cheju) Island. Here again the allies were considering giving Chejudo to Japan because you must remember this was during the Korean war and the allies were very concerned Korea would be overrun by communist Chinese. Cheju is indisputably ancient Korean territory but if you read this document you can see, it was under consideration to give it to Japan as well. Read the second paragraph.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/sf-treaty-doc3.jpg
I’ve seen the Japanese and Gerry Bevers post the infamous Rusk papers and VanFleet report around as proof of Japan’s claim but let’s remember a few things. First these were confidential memorandums and none of these conversations ever saw the hollowed text of the S.F. Treaty.
Next consider the fact these were the views of America only. There were other countries involved (47 I think) some didn’t concur with U.S. policy. For example we know the British were in favour of maintaining a linear boundary between Oki Islands and Takeshima granting Liancourt to Korea.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/sf-eng4.jpg
At this point in time there was “commie fever” in the West and nobody was more of a commie-buster than Dean Rusk. He was an ex-military man and partly responsible for getting Uncle Sam mired in Vietnam. Very early on in the Post WWII peace negotiations the Americans envisioned joint US-Japan surveillance installations on Takeshima, I think in 1949.
The last point on the S.F. Peace Treaty involved a comparison. In the year 1898 Japan annexed Marcus Island in much the same she seized Takeshima. There was little notification and it caused a major row between the U.S. and Japan because an American resident had already claimed the island. At any rate the U.S. decided to back down and Japan maintained sovereignty over Marcus Island.
However after WWII America did not return Marcus Island and the papers involved show why. America did not grant sovereignty to Japan because she wanted to establish naval bases on Marcus Island. So you see the disposition of territory in the S.F. Peace Treaty was tainted by American military agenda. Please read.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/marcus-island-doc1.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/marcus-island-doc2.jpg
Mudboots Japan’s 1905 incorporation is by no means a strong card at all.
Japan is stuck on many points.
Pointing out Japan’s military involvement is not for ratcheting up tension or a moral issue as Ponta has assumed above. It has grave legal implications for Japan’s case. Max Huber (ICJ) has clearly stated that new territory acquisitions must be both peaceful and natural. In other words, you don’t send in the boys and whop up a base on an island. It doesn’t work that way. Establishing effective control of land is not a gimmie is does have conditions.
Japan is in a bind in another legal aspect that it the issue of her claim being open and public. When you incorporate land there has to be a public notification. Now, the Japanese want us to believe printing an article the size of a personal ad in the classified section on the second page of a local rag is “public” but that is pretty lame. Territorial public announcements should be public enough that any other competing sovereign in the region should be aware to enough to contest. This is especially true when we are talking about uninhabited islands that are remote. Look at the Marcus Island fiasco.
Japan has a big problem with the governmental procedure with Takeshima. That is there was no governmental announcement of her intent to incorporate the island in the forum of international politics. Shimanes (prefectural) declaration of intent to incorporate Takeshima is not a valid government organ to make claims at the international level. In short Florida can’t declare Cuba as part of America.
In fact, if you read Shimane “announcement” they don’t even mention the name Liancourt Rocks or Matsushima at all.
Japan’s secret seizure of Takeshima all stems from Komura Jutaro’s fear that if he appeared too aggressive in Korea, Europeans would intervene like they did when Japan defeated the Chinese in 1895. (Triple Intervention)
mudboots2008,
Maybe, it is a bit different from the concept from we have now for the territory, but Japanese did have considered Ulleundo and Takeshima/Dokdo within Japanese territory in Edo era. The point is, it was feudal system, and each Han(藩) held autonomy in Japan, plus there were many domains which was directly administrated by Shogunate, or shrines, temples, and very rarely, wealthy merchants. I had studied hundreds of old Japanese documents, and it seems that the belonging of the Takeshima to which party within Japan was not perfectly clear, nor there were united accordance of belonging. However, it is clear that Japanese including Tokugawa Shogunate apparently considered Takeshima as their territory. If they really think it was outside the territory, it was impossible to issue the liicence to develop those islands nor allow civilian merchant to voyage there. Moreover, it is true that Meiji government got confused about whereabout of old Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo) due to the confusion of the radical reformation and the error of western maps which put non-existant Arganaut near Choson peninsula. But Japanese never considered it to be Korean territory.
Please see following page I am in the middle of writing. Is you find any mistake, please let me know.
The Historical documents and maps which prove Japanese sovereignty.
Kanganese, even Japan’s MOFA has the common sense to drop the false assertions of the 17th Century management over Takeshima 竹島 (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima 松島 (Dokdo) You shoud too because it’s a dead claim.
The Shogunate did issue passes to go to other lands outside of Japan. This was the case with Takeshima and Matsushima. Voyage passes were given to those going to China etc.
As your first post shows, Kaneganese. The only families granted permission to voyage to Takeshima and Matsushima were from Yonago. Thus if these islands were said to be “bestowed” upon anyone they would have governed by Hoki or Inbashu from which these activities originated. However, the 1695 Dottori~Shoogunate documents show this is false.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-tottori.html
I see you’ve got Saito Hosen’s 1667 report on Oki as proof of Japanese territorial claim. The Japanese translation of Saito Hosen’s report is wrong, this is been stated by many historians both Korean and Japanese, I could site at least three or four published writers Korean or Japanese. Any references you’ve made citing Saito Hosen’s report as evidence of Japanese sovereignty are totally unfounded.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html
Kangenese, you have some historical materials on you page that are post 1696 and still you say Japan thought Ulleungdo as part of Japan? Posting this nonsense totally destroys any credibility you might have had.
Kaneganese there are so many dubious claims on that page. Seriously man I don’t even know where to start….
toadface (#62),
As you know, the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima) are two rocks as drawn at the lower right of the inset in this map.
-
The Liancourt Rocks are not drawn in the map you linked. If you compare the position of the islands in your link relative to Kyushu, it is obvious that the position of the right-side island corresponds to that of Ulleungdo shown at the top center of this google map.
-
Small islands and rocks are not necessarily included in maps. For example, there are small islands at the center of this google map. (You can confirm it by enlarging the map with the the sliding bar.)
These islands are not drawn in the maps you linked, but it does not mean that they are Korean islands. They have been Japanese islands. It depends on the purpose of the map whther rocks and small islands are drawn in a map.
-
I commented the same thing previously, but you are repeating the same thing ignoring what I and others said. I think what you should do is to recommend Korean government to go to the ICJ rather than repeating the same thing.
Aki, the map you linked to is Japanese Naval map. It is a copy of this previous British Naval map drawn in 1863. The Japanese and English were allies at the time. The Japanese sourced their maps from them. Please check the map below.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Britishnavy1863.jpg
If you notice beside Takeshima-Argonaut you will see letters “P.D”. This means the existence of the island is “doubtful” In fact, by 1863, the British had confirmed Argonaut Island was non-existent. Notice the perimeter of 竹島 is vaguely outlined in a dotted line.
We all know of Seibold’s error and incorrect labelling of Takeshima and Dagelet. Aki what you and Japanese Takeshima lobbyists are trying to tell us is quite silly. What you are trying to say is Japanese cartographers eliminated an island which they had included for 150 years (Matsushima-Dokdo) and added a fictitious one. Your theory is convenient for your cause but not very plausible to us who have studied 19th Century Asian maps in detail.
The reality is Japanese cartographers had long known two islands existed in the Sea of Japan. They just followed the European lead of Seibold mapped them more Westerly and labelled Argonaut as 竹島 and Dagelet as 松島.
As Yoshinaga Kashihara’s map shows in 1876, although 竹島 is more West is was still regarded as Korean name Ulleungdo. Even the abbreviation of Saito Hosen’s “viewing Korea is the same as Onshu” can be seen on the outline of 松島. “Viewing point” Note Ulleungdo’s position around 130 degrees longitude.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kashihara1876-2.jpg
Uchida’s map in 1872 also showed Seibold’s error and beside it again was Saito Hosen’s “viewing Korea is the same as Onshu” as maps did next to Ulleungdo for over a century before. Again Ulleungdo on this map is at 130 degrees like Seibold.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/uchida.jpg
When Europeans added Liancourt Rocks to their maps the was a brief confusion but the Japanese were by no means under Seibolds spell. Most three island maps I’ve seen show with the addition of Liancourt, the existence of Argonaut became almost immediately doubtful.
Aki (Opp?) Hosaka’s map really damages Japan’s claim. I haven’t seen a map that so clearly hurts Takeshima lobbyists, let me explain why.
First the date is at least a decade after the Japanese warship Amagi had put the issue of Argonaut Island to rest. Second, the position of 竹島 (Takeshima~Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) are accurate showing Seibold’s error had no part in this chart.
Finally the color coding of the maps shows both islands as possession of Chosun leaving no doubt about who owned the islands.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hosaka-map1.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hosaka-map2.jpg
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/hosaka-map3.jpg
Toadface, I’d elaborate only on the Hosaka’s map, since other subjects have been discussed in other threads by many people and since you just repeat the same thing as before.
-
The map that you call “Hosaka’s map” is 新選朝鮮国全図 (Newly Made Whole Map of Chosun Country) published in 1894. You can find the map in the follwoing link page in dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/05/japanese-document-and-map-links.html
-
Notice that the lines in the 新選朝鮮国全図 (Newly Made Whole Map of Chosun Country) are neither latitude nor longitude. In this map, vertical lines are numbered, from right to left, as 8, 9, 10, 11,… in Chinese characters (八, 九, 十, 十一,…), and horizontal lines are numbered, from bottom to top, as 32, 33, 34, 35,… (三十二, 三十三, 三十四, 三十五,…). Since lines are drawn in equal spacing for both vertical lines and horizontal lines, the grids form squares in this map. The positions of the lines correspond to neither longitude nor latitude used in canonical maps.
-
In contrast, see the whole Chosun Map (朝鮮全図) by Tokyo Earth Science Association in the above mentioned link page. This map that was published in the same year as the Hosaka’s map is a canonical map showing canonical latitude and longitude. Notice that the grids in this map form rectangles since the lines are drawn as canonical longitude and latitude. In this map, Ulleungdo labeled as 欝陵島 (松島) locate to the right north of the Kanmon Strait between Kyushu and Honshu of Japan.
In the Hosaka’s map (新選朝鮮国全図), the eastern island labeled as Matsushima (松島) locate at the same postion as Ulleungdo (欝陵島 (松島)) in the whole Chosun Map (朝鮮全図) by the Tokyo Earth Science Association.
-
By the way, I am not Opp. I have never used other name in English-language websites.
Aki, whatever the cartographer used to designate positions on the map there is no way this map shows the positional errors influenced by Seibold’s error. Thus the lame-duck assertions by Takeshima lobbyists that this chart shows Ulleungdo as Argonaut is simply false. Look at the distance from Jukdo (Ulleundo) from the Korean coastline and then onward. Argonaut is a non-issue on this map.
-
I’ve seen hundreds of maps of the Sea of Japan and I would estimate the location of Ulleungdo (竹島) is accurate and 松島 (Dokdo) to be a little too Westerly.
-
Aki the map you have posted below from Tanaka’s website show Ulleungdo Island and has no island drawn in Liancourt Rocks position. It does show lines of latitude and longitude and in Liancourt Rocks position there is nothing. This map is unrelated and did not influence the map in question.
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/tokyo-1894/index1.html
-
Cartographers are rarely original, and maps of this era are not flawless but the map Hosaka has posted is very supportive of Korea’s claim. During the late 19th Century the Japanese used the names Takeshima and Matsushima interchangeably for Ulleungdo and Matsushima~Liancourt Rocks for Dokdo.
-
Aki, in 1890 this map was used as an overall map of Japan and Asia in mapbook showing all of Japan.
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/tokyo-1894/index1.html
-
Here is the map of Shimane Prefecture that accompanied the book. You can see tiny Mishima was drawn but Liancourt Rocks was clearly excluded from Japan.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1890-japan12.jpg
-
Here is the entire mapbook.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1890-japanese-limit.html
-
Aki, Japanese historical maps repeatedly show the Okinoshima’s as Japan’s western limit this is the rule 99.9% of the time. On top of that there are Japanese maps and some documents that show Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean land.
Aki, I see you dodged my explanation regarding the mapping confusion of the 19th Century.
-
When we look at these maps we must make a case by case analysis of each chart and determine what each island is represented and the preceding maps may have influenced it.
-
Japan’s Takeshima lobbyists are trying to lump together all maps of the late 20th Century and chuck them all by insisting no maps beyond the year 1870 show Dokdo. They are trying to say all of these maps that show Ulleungdo at the 130 degree of longitude show a fictitious island and omitted Dokdo. This is a bogus assumption to disallow all of the damaging documents and maps out there.
-
Since around 1780 Japanese map makers drew Ulleungdo and Dokdo in various positions in the Sea of Japan but they almost religiously followed the rule of 2 islands in the Sea of Japan Takeshima~Ulluengdo and Matsushima~Dokdo. You can see the islands were drawn much too far East in the beginning.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/brochure1.jpg
-
In any map or document that it can be confirmed 竹島 (Takeshima) is Ulleungdo we can surely conclude that 松島 Matsushima is Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks). This is the case especially in the 1870 Report on Chosun. In this document the Takeshima of the Makbu era was Ulleungdo and the Matsushima was Dokdo.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1870doc.html
Thank you, Aki.
Your explanation for the map called 「新撰朝鮮全図」 is very interesting. Can I use this in my post? Sometimes, it is really hard to teach someone who has no sence of geography. I realized that for some people, it looks like extremely hard to understand reading maps.
It is really sad to see Korean who can’t really read Chinese are so easily tricked by the naturalized Korean Prof. Hosaka, ex “deccendant of villanious Imperial Japanese”. Anyone who can see where is Tsushima should in the map instantly notice these grid lines are not latitude nor longitude. I uploaded maps on my post over Dokdo-or-Takeshima? below so that no more innocent Korean are not fooled by him and won’t be embarassed by anyone in the real international academic arena in the future.
.
Surely you are joking, Prof. Hosaka ! （ご冗談でしょう、保坂先生
.
The “Matsushima” on the map, Prof. Hosaka falesly claim to be Takeshima is on the line from Tomangan River(豆満江) to Kokura (Kitakyushu 小倉・
北九州) just like today’s Ulleundo. It is definately Ulleundo=Daglet. The maps is showing Japanese still thinks there is non-existant Arganaut and the mapmaker excluded Takeshima/Dokdo from the Whole Choson Map.
Kaneganese, I see you added some maps and I don’t get where you are going.
This is a map of Korea first NOT Japan. The positions of 竹島 (Ulleungdo) is accurate. Ulleungdo island is located at about the same degree of latitude as the Northeastern tip of what is now North Korea at around 131 degrees latitude. Even your appended map below confirms this. Matsushima~Dokdo 松島 is located at about 131.5 degrees latitude.
What you are showing is that Japan’s coast is located too far East, that all. I think the cartographer simply traced the coastline of Japan onto this map for general reference. As I’ve said before Kaneganese, Ulleungdo and Dokdo are located quite accurately relative to the coast of Korea proving this map has nothing to do with Argonaut Island at all and 竹島 is Ulleungdo.
Argonaut Island is located at around 129.5 degrees latitude and around 38 degrees longitude. Here is Seibold’s original map.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seilbold1840.jpg
Here are some examples of islands in Argonaut Island location, note the degrees of location and how close Argonaut is to the Korean mainland.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/uchida.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kashihara1876-2.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Marzollabendetto1847.jpg
So Kaneganese, what you have is a map showing poor location of Japan’s coast, but a map showing reasonably good locations of Ulleungdo and Dokdo adn both marked as Chosun land.
On one more point.
-
Kaneganese, you automatically assume that all maps that show 竹島 in Argonaut’s position as actually being a “ghost island”. This is not an academic way to study these maps, you must make determinations based on a case by case basis.
-
Again, the map below shows 竹島 island in Argonaut’s position. Can you read what it says beside the island? it says “日本竹島-朝鮮鬱陵島“ This means Japanese name Takeshima Korean name Ulleungdo. In other words on maps 竹島 (Takeshima) can often be confirmed as Ulleungdo NOT Argonaut. Thus the 松島 to the west is not Ulleungdo but Dokdo the name Liancourt was not adopted overnight and the island wasn’t simply erased when Seibold’s error appeared.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/kashihara1876-2.jpg
-
To Japanese mapmakers, Seibold’s position an error of location not island identity. Cartographers simply traced Seibold’s map and lablelled them similarly. They had no idea of the real shape or form of the islands, they were not surveyors. They were oblivious to the fact he had double mapped Ulleungdo.
-
Of course on some maps 竹島 can be confirmed as non-existent especially those that show the perimeter drawn in dotted lines with three islands present. However, Japanese cartographers almost exclusively followed the rule “two islands in the Sea of Japan” for over a century regardless of the appellation.
-
Similarly Japanese historians would study Chosun maps and documents in the late 19th Century and conclude “…Ulleungdo was Takeshima and Usando was what we call Matsushima…”
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Usando-songdo-doc.jpg
Kaneganese,
Yes, please.
むこうにも何か書こうと思ったのですが、時間がとれなくて、どうしようかと思っていたところでした。Kaneganese さんに書いていただけたら、ありがたいです。
Aki,
Thanks. I’ll put your explanation in my post. Sometimes, it is not easy to explain what is too obvious at a glance. たまには遊びに来て下さいね～。
.
Anyway, you know the news about 皇城新聞’s article in 1906 which says Korean government officially sent a letter to Japanese Resident-General that they omitted Takeshima/Dokdo from Uldo County, don’t you? It looks like they sent an official letter in reply to Resident-General’s official inquiry. The Great Korean Empire government was wise enough to understand that they had been confused Usando with “so-called Japanese Matsushima” in 1906 after investigation.
.
I hope Korean government 100 years later also will have a guts to admit that it was only Jukdo as it is accurately described in Korean old maps after 1700’s.
Kaneganese, the post regarding your link is wrong on two points we’ve discussed this.
First, the identity of Seokdo in the correspondence is never confirmed.
Second the 200ri circumference is an old quote from Chosun maps citing the size of Ulleungdo NOT the dimensions of Uldo County.
Geez, you’ve got balls for bashing Professor Hosaka Kaneganese….
Geez, you’ve got balls for telling a Japanese woman that she’s got balls, Toadface.
As for the link, you were there, and you were defeated, did you forget?
Erm, Balls=nerve Ponta.
-
Ponta, here is the link.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=26948035&postID=8981027758974779956
-
Defeated?? The first part the discussion was what the 200ri referred to in the article. The other part was why Chosun continually gave such as large circumference for Ulleungdo, that’s all.
-
It can determined from ancient maps that the 200ri dimensions in this document referred to the circumference of Ulleungdo NOT the perimeter of Uldo County.
-
See this old map of Ulleungdo. Note the same quote on the map of Ulleungdo. 東西六十餘里南北四十餘里周二百餘里
-
http://www16.tok2.com/home/otakeshimaoxdokdox/TempPost/1861-63.JPG
toadface
What you showed is EITHER Korean geographers were desparately ignorant of the geography of this area, in which case it is most likely Korea knew nothing about Dokdo, OR Sugino’s explanation is right.
In either case, Korea didn’t know Dokdo.
Thanks.
So Have you got balls to stop linking to your site and start admitting that Korea has no historical maps and documents about Dokdo?
(^^)
Ponta, you say Koreans have no records of Takeshima because you refuse to accept the truth that Anyongbok’s Jasando was Dokdo. I say it was. With that in mind there are plenty of records that support Korea’s claim.
-
As far as the 20th Century, the Takeshima lobbyists have been claiming Koreans did not know about Takeshima before the Japanese annexed the island in 1905 but we know this is false by the 1901 edition of the “Black Dragon Fishing Manual” This would verify Korean cognizance before Japan seized Liancourt Rocks. This is also supported by the Japanese warship Niitaka’s logbooks of 1904.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-20cent.html
-
Kaneganese is digging her own grave. If she concedes that Hosaka’s map shows the islands in the map above are indeed Ulleungdo and Dokdo, she supports Korean assertions. If she continues play the island shell game and make these silly every island=Argonaut, she is admitting the Japanese didn’t had seriously flawed territorial perceptions of the Sea of Japan at that time. Thus, either way, by her own admission, Japan had no claim to Dokdo even as late as 1895. She has swallowed the grape Kool-Aid.
-
There is no magic map in this dispute. But the hundreds of Japanese national maps we see all lead us to the same conclusion. Japan, through the ages, considered the Okinoshima’s as their Westernmost boundary. This is a fact.
-
Knowing this, there is not a snowball’s chance in Hell Korea will (or should) cede Takeshima on the ground the Japanese Navy annexed the island during the Russo Japanese War in 1905. Forget it.
Toadface
What you keep hiding is that we discussed An again and again: people know that An said Jasando was Matsushima and also know that Jasando he meant was not Dokdo/takeshima and Matshusima he meant was not Dokdo/Takeshima.
I agree. And Korea has no maps of Dokdo,Does that tell you something?
In a nutshell, toadface.
There are Japanese maps which does not have Dokdo on it.
There are Japanaese maps which have Dokdo on it.
There is a Japanese document in which a verdict implied Dokdo/Takeshima belonged to Japan.
There are no Japanese documents which denied the claim to Dokdo/takeshima.
There are no Korean maps which have Dokdo on it.
There are no Korean historical records that mention
Dokdo/takeshima.
The conclusion is obvious.
I support Japan’s historical claim on Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), but I think I may disagree with many in Japan on how to solve the dispute with Korea.
Yes, Takeshima is historically Japanese territory and Korea is illegally occupying Takeshima, but Korea is getting little or no benefit from its occupation, except for using it to fuel Korean nationalism. Likewise, as long as Korea refuses to give up the islets, the Japanese are not benefiting, either. Therefore, I think compromise is the only practical way to solve the dispute since Korea is unlikely to let the International Court decide it.
The Japanese newspaper did not print all of my answers to their questions, maybe because of space concerns or maybe because they did not agree with all that I had to say. For example, I suggested that both Korean and Japan give up their claims to Takeshima and make into a neutral santuary for birds and sea life. The two countries would then use Korea’s Ulleungdo and Japan’s Oki Island to determine sea boundries. Afterall, I do not think Takeshima qualifies as territory to determine sea boundaries, anyway. That would mean that the rocks would be returned to the sea birds and sea lions, which would then allow Koreans and Japanese to start working on being good neighbors.
I am now visiting the US with limited access to the Internet, which is why I have not be participating in the debate lately.
The following were my answers to the questions from the newspaper. Please ignore the grammatical errors:
1 Three years have passed since the establishment of Takeshima day of Shimane prefecture. On the one hand, it seems anti-Japan sentiment has died down more than before; on the other hand, a polling box was installed at Dokdo in Presidential election, trying to demonstrate that Dokdo is Korean territory. What changes as for Takeshima-dokdo issue do you sense have happened in Korea ?
I have also noticed that anti-Japanese sentiment has died down in Korea . I think part of the reason for that is that many Koreans have turned their attention toward China and the historical disagreements that exist between China and Korea , but I also think that the Korean government has realized that talking about the history of Takeshima (Dokdo) has done more harm than good since the history supports Japan’s claims on Takeshima.
While the Korean government seems to have decided that it is better not to talk about the history of Takeshima, she still seems to assert her claims on Takeshima by doing such silly things as sitting up polling booths, mailboxes, and designating as village leader one of the two civilian residents on the islets.
2. Lee Myung-bak will take office as new President next February, it seems he will place more importance upon the relation with Japan . What changes do you think will happen regarding Korean policy on Takeshima-Dokdo?
I think Lee Myung-bak is a pragmatic politician that wants to improve relations with Japan , and will, therefore, try to avoid making Takeshima (Dokdo) an issue by continuing to pretend that there is no dispute with Japan over the islets. However, there are still anti-Japanese groups in Korea that he may sometimes have to appease in someway, so the issue may still come up.
3 The interchange between Gangwon-do and Shimane prefecture reopened last November after it was stopped because of the Takishima-dokdo issue. How do the Korean people look at the reopening of the communication between the local communities?
I have a sense that Koreans, in general, support the reestablishment of exchanges between Gangwon Province and Shimane Prefecture because if they did not support it, I do not think it would have happened. There are hardcore Dokdo advocates in Korea, however, who did not want exchanges to be reestablished, and I suspect the reason had more to do with being anti-Japanese than being Dokdo advocates.
4. How do you evaluate Japan ’s response to the Takeshima issue?
I think Japan has done a terrible job of countering Korea’s historical claims not only on Takeshima, but also on other historical issues, such as the “comfort women.” In principle, I think governments should focus on the future and avoid getting dragged into historical debates, but anti-Japanese forces in Korea and China are real and have been distorting and exaggerating history to try to stir up anti-Japanese feelings. They will not go away by ignoring them; they will only go away by exposing their lies and distortions.
5. What do you think Japan should do to deal with this issue?
Old documents and maps clearly support Japan’s historical claims on Takeshima, so the Japanese government needs to stop being so passive about this issue and start translating and writing the books and brochures that will prove their claims to the world because I am almost positive that Korean historians will continue to distort the facts to support their false claims. However, telling the truth about the history and settling the dispute are two different things.
I think both Japan and Korea need to compromise and negotiate a treaty that will finally end this dispute because it is not helping anyone. I would suggest that Takeshima be made into a neutral sanctuary for birds and sea life, which would mean the baselines for Japan’s and Korea’s exclusive economic zones would be Oki Island and Ulleungdo, respectively. After all, I do not think international law would support Takeshima as a baseline.
6. You were fired from university (most likely) because you posted your research on the Internet. How is your life now?
I was not really fired from my job at the university in Incheon; my contract was just not renewed, which could be considered the same thing. I now have a teaching job at another Korean university that I am very satisfied with. I enjoy living in Korea because Koreans are very friendly people, but the problem is that Koreans seem to think that anyone who disagrees with them on Dokdo (Takeshima) are anti-Korean. That is simply not true.
7. Could you tell us your how the newest research on Takeshima-Dokdo issue is going on.
I have pretty much answered all the questions I had about the Takeshima-Dokdo issue, so I am not really doing any new research right now. What I want to do now is to review and organize the information I do have because I am thinking about writing a book. I think I have learned the truth about Takeshima, and I want others to know it, too.
Hi Gerry,
.
I’ve sent you an e-mail concerning possible virus mail. please check my last mail first.
.
As for sanctuary idea, do you know any similar case in reality? Otherwise, I think it will only sow another seeds of discord of the Sea of Japan and instable Choson peninsula. Remember, North Korea is also claiming it’s sovereignty. Plus, we have Russia next to us, who invaded northen territories of Japan after the end of WWII. As long as it stays between South Korea and Japan, we can avoid immediate military conflict at least. As I said to bonesdog before, it will only bring us back to 103 years ago. I’m sorry, but I’d have to say that it is not practical. Having said that, I understand it is your ideal, and many Japanese, including Asahi newspaper actually share the same opinion with you on this point, but I don’t think Korean will never agree with you, unfortunately. And I still think it is very important for Korean to notice that their government have been fooling them.
.
Anyway, we’ll see what’s going to happen in Korea from today.
Gerry, both Ulleungdo and Oki are large enough to generate EEZ which as Sean Fern suggested should allow an equidistant line to be drawn between the 2 islets. Maintaining the boundary as it is should be a reasonable solution using this law. Using any kind of geographical determination to settle this problem definitely puts Takeshima as Korean territory. Even if an equidistant line was drawn between mainland Korea and Japan it would favour Korea’s claim.
-
Japan would neve accept any proposal short of just getting back Takeshima. Why? Because they are greedy when it comes to grabbing ocean waters. Japan claims hunreds of thousands of square kilometers of EEZs around any minor outcropping of rock for example Marcus Islands and the Okinotoroshima’s. In fact some Japanese politicians have even hinted they would like to do the same with Takeshima if they were ever to retain sovereignty.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane-case.html
-
As far as old documents supporting Japan’s claim. Please read above. Even the map presented by Professor Hosaka shows Japan either considered the rocks as part of Korea or had seriously flawed territorial perceptions of the Sea of Japan just a decade before Takeshima was annexed. In other words Gerry, just saying documents support Japan’s claim is not enough. Ponta above keeps ranting Japan has maps of Takeshima, this is true. But as even as mudboots pointed out above, Japan has no claim prior to 1905.
-
Ponta there are documents which deny Japan’s claim to Takeshima. The first was the 1695 Dottori papers in which the Shogunate excluded Takeshima and Matsushima from Hoki and Imbashu.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-tottori.html
-
In 1870 Japan’s report on Chosun explained how Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) belonged to Korea.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1870doc.html
-
Again in 1877 the Kobunruko documents prove Japan has no historical claim.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-1877-doc.html
-
Japan’s only claim is a 1905 annexation. This was instigated by a man who was an illegal fisherman squatting on Korea’s Ulleungdo Island. His application was forwarded to Komura Jutaro (among others,) the same man who was instrumental in the 1910 annexation of Korea.
-
From Yamaza Enjiro, (who was basically a Yakusa) to Kiyourga Kiego (Right-wing Yamagata faction groupie) to Komura Jutaro, (land-grabber) the Japanese politicians involved in Shimane Prefectures “incorporation” of Takeshima reads like a who’s who of Japanese expansionists. Shimane’s incorporation was/is rotten to the core.
-
This is just the political circumstances.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-expansionism-politics.html
-
Never mind the military circumstances.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html
Toad
You should realize the only person who has enough free time to respond to your comment is only Ponta.
Why? because the rest of people are sick and tired of repeating the old discussions in which you were defeated.
You are just trying to impress people who are new to the discussion that Korea has a little reason to the claim though there is no Korean maps and documents on Dokdo.
But a good try. I applaud you. I think that is as much as Korea can do.(Welland yes, calling Japan greedy is emotional;it’ll work for emotional people,yes)
Meanwhile Japanese side needs more simplified version of the explanation so that everyone can see
clearly and distinctively Korea’s claim is way unreasonable.
Toad
You should realize the only person who has enough free time to respond to your comment is only Ponta.
Why? because the rest of people are sick and tired of repeating the old discussions in which you were defeated.
You are just trying to impress people who are new to the discussion that Korea has a little reason to the claim though there is no Korean maps and documents on Dokdo.
But a good try. I applaud you. I think that is as much as Korea can do.(Welland yes, calling Japan greedy is emotional;it’ll work for emotional people, yes, good job)
Meanwhile Japanese side needs more simplified version of the explanation so that everyone can see
clearly and distinctively Korea’s claim is way unreasonable.
Kaneganese,
Yes, I got your email.
Aren’t the northern islands bigger than Takeshima? If they are, couldn’t they be handled differently? For example, Takeshima and a ten or more kilometer radius around the islets could be declared a nature reserve, where no development would be allowed by any country. That could be done without either country giving up its territorial claim. That would mean that Koreans staying on the islets would have to leave, which would be better than the situation now.
Anyway, I will be back in Korea in about a week and will try to catch up on things then.
Ponta, what do you think? Is is logical for Japan to claim 400,000 square kms of ocean resources around a rock the size of a bedroom at high tide? That is exactly what they do around Okinotoroshima’s. Marcus Island is much the same. I say it’s greedy for any nation to do such not just Japan. I think America also supports this selfish law.
-
On top of that I’ve also read Japan’s government has been dumping tons of cement and trying to grow coral around these outcroppings to ensure they don’t lose these them and the thousands of square kms of water around them. There is nothing saying the Japanese won’t do the same on Takeshima.
-
Ponta, it is you who is emotional here. I am entering the historical, political and military circumstances of Japan’s incorporation and you just blather this is not an emotional issue and I agree. You are trying to say I’m vilifying the Japanese but I’m not. I say you are ignorant and are trying whitewash Japan’s past by denying some very relevant data in this dispute. So your simplistic view of the Takeshima problem doesn’t wash.
-
When I glean over the 19th Century documents from Japan’s historical archives it becomes clear the huge disparity of education and development between Japan and Chosun. Take Komura Jutaro for example, he was pretty much the kingpin in the annexation. He was a brilliant man, a Harvard Grad. I don’t like what he did but you’ve got to admire him. Check out his level of English and handwriting on this old correspondence when they disputed Marcus Island. Pretty impressive. This was a century ago.
http://dokdo-takeshima.com/komura-doc.jpg
-
Ponta, nobody can argue Korean documents lack the clarity of Japan ones but I think this comes from a number of factors.
-
First, was the relationship between the permanent residents of Ulleungdo and the Chosun government. With the vacant island policy on Ulleungdo Koreans who lived on the island avoided Chosun inspectors who visited every two or three years. Upon seeing Chosun officials arriving to inspect Ulleungdo Koreans would flee into the hills to avoid being punished. Apparently Chosun never physically enforced the ban and it was considered somewhat of a joke in 1880. So really there was sparse if any contact between Ulleungdo residents and the administrative organs that governed them.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/oppert1.jpg
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/oppert3.jpg
-
Next was the relation of Korean transient fishermen and boatbuilders who voyaged to Ulleungdo from the Korean southern coastal islands in the spring. These people sailed over 500kms every spring and harvested Ulleungdo’s marine resources in much the same way Japanese did. They hunted seals and gathered abalone and seaweed. Some others gathered medicinal herbs. The first Europeans to find Ulleungdo found Koreans building boats on Ulleungdo around 1786. There are no first hand records of those who voyaged to Ulleungdo from Geomundo or Chodo here is how far they journeyed each year.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/korean-peninsula-route.jpg
-
Ponta, around the year 1875 pictures were taken on Port Hamilton (Geomundo) of the Korean fishermen. These are the same people who voyaged 500 kms to Ulleungdo each year. Do they look like the kind of people who drew maps or kept records?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/geumundo-1875.jpg
-
Proximity played a role. Koreans who resided on Ulleungdo had no need to draw maps to Dokdo. They could simply sail East, within about three hours they’d be within visual proximity of Takeshima and never lose sight of Ulleungdo once.
-
We know Koreans lived within visual distance for one thousand years before Japan came into the picture. However, finding title from these ancient people is like expecting a deed of land ownership by the aborigines for Ayer’s Rock.
-
Korea (or any other nation) should never let any foreign organization dictate the boundaries of her territory. She was burned by the West when they allowed Japan to colonize her and she was almost burned in 1951 by the Americans in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Did you know the allies (America) were considering giving Cheju Island to the Japanese. Read here.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/japanese-cheju.jpg
-
ICJ? I don’t think so.
It could be happier for Cheju islanders.lol
Do you know thousands of Cheju islanders stowed away to Japan during the red purge?
Most Koreans who live in Ikuno are those refugees (and their children).
I forgot to wish everyone a “HAPPY TAKESHIMA DAY”.
They will soon be claiming they were kidnapped and used for slave labor/ prostitution etc. Also, the Corean government will blame the USA for the red purge.
The Korea Liberator is gone. Check the link.
Yes Garlicbreath.
“Happy Dokdo Day!!”
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-takeshima-day.html
Hi Gerry,
Suppose Japan and Korea declare Takeshima a nature reserve like Shiretoko, Hokkaido, do you believe that the korean government and people will respect the treaty?
Over the years Korea consciously invaded Japan’s EEZs. Korea has been dumping a great amount of her garbage on Japan’s side despite repeated protest by the Japanese government.
Recently Japanese beaches on the Sea of Japan were awash by waves of hundreds of thousands of plastic bottles that contained highly toxic acidic chemicals. The coastal community governments had to release urgent danger warnings to the residents, particularly elders and children not to walk on the beaches. The bottles had labels with hanguels printed on them. I have not seen that serious problems ever made headlines in the Peninsular. Anyone please enlighten me if they did.
Korean fishermen habitually cross the sea borders to the Japan’s EEZs. They use illegal type of fishing equipment and overfish at prohibited seasons. When they see the Japanese Coast Guard vessels coming, they cut off the fishing net, dump tools and run away as quick as possible. One more garbage left in the sea.
When the Korean fishermen are caught by the Japanese maritime duty officers the Koreans often go berserk as if Heaven mandated them to do so. The Korean media cheers their countrymen’s rogue behavior if the incident goes public. The Korean fishermen, Korean medea and people are Birds of a feather flock together.
Japan and Korea already have a treaty on Takeshima. It is about shared fishing at Takeshima Waters. However, the Korean government lied and has been excluding Japanese fishermen by using brutal armed forces. Many Japanese fishermen were murdered or wounded.
Yet another treaty with the Korean government on Takeshima? A nature reserve on Takeshima with the Koreans? I appreciate Gerry’s sincerity when he proposes a J-K-governments’ joint declaration to designate Takeshima as a World’s Nature Reserve. What a great idea if it only works. Gosh, I am so negative. I should be more future oriented and hopeful.
But there is no ‘Dokto Day’.
Silly Coreans, always copy Japan.
Gerry,
Topic about Takeshima is not to be seen lately so that let me ask a question here.
The island which Koreans are claiming that Japan acknowledged Korean ownership in the map of following site is not Takeshima, is it?
http://japanese.yonhapnews.co.kr/relation/2008/05/02/0400000000AJP20080502003400882.HTML
It seems this site have become one which Gerry of Takeshima-reseacher does not visit.