Koreans have made a propaganda video claiming that Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) is historically Korean territory and that Japan’s territorial claims on the rocks are illegitimate, but that is simply not true. The video is full of lies, half-truths, and red-herring arguments, which I began pointing out in my first post on the issue here: Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1, where you can also watch the video.

In my first post on the issue, I used maps and quotes from Korean historical documents to show that the island Koreans are using to base their claim on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) was actually just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Korea’s own historical documents say that the island, “Usando,” was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. They say that it was fertile, had trees and various plant life, and had people living on it. That is proof that Usando could not have been Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) since Liancourt Rocks is just barren rocks with no trees, soil, or water to support a settlement.

To further emphasize the fact that Usando could not have been Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), here is a Korean record from the Annals of King Sejo:

April 16, 1457, “Annals of King Sejo,” Vol. 7

First, former Jungchuwon Busa Yu Su-gang, wrote, “I will respectfully tell you what I saw and heard while I was the Gangneung Busa….”

1. “The people in Gangneung said, ‘The islands of Usando and Muleungdo are both suitable for settlements. There are an abundance of products that can be used for many things. There is nothing they do not have, including paper mulberry trees, mulberry, ramie, large bamboo, zither stick, “fish glue” trees, camellia, pine nut trees, pear trees, persimmons, Asiatic sparrow hawks, black sparrow hawks, laver, globefish, octopus, and sea otters.'”

“‘The land is so fertile that it produces ten times more grains than other regions. The distances from north-to-south and east-to-west are both about 50 ri, so people can settle there. The four sides of the island are rugged with cliffs that stand 1,000 gil high, but there are places for boats to anchor. If there is a wind blowing directly out of the west, you can leave Samcheok at between 1:30 and 2:30 a.m. and arrive at the island between 9:30 and 10:30 p.m., but if you use your oars with a light wind, then it will take one day and one night to arrive. If you use your oars with no wind, you can still get there in two days and one night.'”

“I prostrate myself and beg you to establish settlements and choose people to protect them.”

The king ordered the Byeongjo (council) to discuss the matter. The Byeongjo answered as follows:

Article 4: “Establishing settlements on the two islands of Usando and Muleungdo would be difficult because the sea route is dangerous and travel to and from there would be very difficult. Moveover, it would be very difficult to protect them because it is an isolated island.”

“For the above reasons and others, please do not issue an order (to establish settlements). Instead, since there are people from the province who travel to the island and temporarily live there, we request that we wait for calm winds and then send an official there to forcefully evict them. Please tell the inspector for that province to find other places to anchor the military vessels stuck in inlets clogged with sand and move them there.”      
      

The king followed the advice, but did not forcefully evict the people travelling to and temporarily living on the two islands.
      

Notice that the record says that both Usando and Muleungdo (Ulleungdo) were suitable for settlements and that the islands had an abundance of plant and animal life, which included various kinds of trees. That means that Usando could not have been Liancourt Rocks because there is no soil for plants and trees, which makes it unsuitable for a settlement. Also, notice that the record again says that it was two days travel time to the two islands, just as the Chinese characters say on the bottom line connecting the two islands to the mainland on this 1710 Korean map. The above record is not unique, but one of many that show that Usando could not have been Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).

The reason Koreans claim that Usando was Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) is that without making such a claim, Korea would have no record or map before 1905 showing that she even knew about the rocks, much less claimed them. The problem is that there is nothing mentioned about Usando in Korean historical documents that would even suggest that Usando was Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).  On the contrary, all the evidence suggest that Usando was a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, most likely Jukdo, which is a small island less than four kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east coast. 
Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese

 

(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)韓国は、”独島” (Liancourt Rocks)が歴史的に韓国の領土であり、日本の竹島(Liancourt Rocks)領有権の主張は、違法である、と主張するプロパガンダビデオを作製しました。しかし、この韓国の主張は、端的に言って正しくありません。このビデオは嘘、欺瞞に満ちた半面の真理、そして人の注意をそらすような実の無い議論に満ち満ちています。私は最初の投稿“ Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1”で、こうした点を指摘し始めました。ビデオもその中で視聴できます。        

前回は韓国の歴史文献から地図や引用をもってきて、韓国人が”独島” (Liancourt Rocks)の領有権を主張する際の根拠とする島が、実は単に、鬱陵島に隣接する島に過ぎないことを示しました。“于山島”というその島が、鬱陵島の付属島であるということ、を韓国自身の歴史文献が明らかにしているのです。その文献によると、問題の島はとても肥沃で沢山の木や植物が生えており、人が住んでいる、となっています。これは于山島が”独島” (Liancourt Rocks)では無い確固たる証拠です。Liancourt Rocksは木や土、水などの動植物が生息できる条件が全く無いただの岩で出来た島に過ぎないからです。

さらに于山島が”Liancourt Rocks” (独島)ではありえないことをさらに強調するために、韓国側の記録である世宗実録を紹介したいと思います。

“世祖実録 巻第7 1457年4月16日 (世祖三年丁丑四月
まず初めに、中枢院副使の柳守剛がこのように記述致します。‘江陵府で任務に当たっていた時の事を申し上げます…
一 江陵の人々は、牛山(于山)と茂陵(武陵)の両島はどちらも村を作り住民を住まわせることが可能です。土地の産物は多様な用途のものがたいそう豊富で、以下のようなものが採れます。こうぞ、苧(麻の一種)、桑、大竹、海竹、魚膠木、冬栢木(椿)、柏、梨、柿、鴉(カラス)、鶻(はやぶさ)、真っ黒な山鳩、海苔、サメ(もしくはアワビ)、蛸、ラッコなどです。’‘その土地は大変肥沃で、他の土地に比べ、10倍の収穫があります。東西、南北の距離はそれぞれ50里ほどで、人が住むことが可能です。四方は険阻な壁のような崖でなっており、1000仭もの高さがありますが、船を停泊できる場所はあります。西風が直接吹きつければ、三陟を丑の刻(午前1:30から2:30の間)に発てば、亥の刻(午後9:30から10:30の間)に着きます。もし微風の中、櫓を使って漕いでいくなら、一昼夜かかるが、無風で櫓を漕いで行けば、二日間かかります。村を設置し、選任した者を守護に付けることを伏せて望むものです。’‘第四条 牛山(于山)と茂陵(武陵)の両島に村を設置することについて、両島は航路が大変危険でまた遠いため、往来が甚だしく困難です。さらに、海中の孤島であることから、村を維持、保護することもまた困難です。そうした事を踏まえ、この件に関して実行することは無いように願います。但し、我が県の人民が両島に流れ着いて住むこともあるため、穏やかな風を待って官吏を派遣し、兵船が出入りできるか海岸を調べることがよいでしょう。王はこれに従った。両島の流民を強制的に召還することは無かった。”

記録では、牛山(于山)と茂陵(武陵)の両島はどちらも村を作り住民を住まわせることが可能で、島には豊富な動植物の産物があることが分かります。このことから、于山島がLiancourt Rocksでは有得ないことが分かります。Liancourt Rocksには土が無く植物が生えないため、居住不能だからです。さらに、この両島へは2日かかると記述されていることに注目して下さい。これは、1710年の韓国の古地図〈リンク〉において、2島と本土をつなぐ線の下に併記されていた文とちょうど同じ内容です。この記録自体は、特別なものではありませんが、于山島がLiancourt Rocks (独島)ではありえないことを示している、沢山の証拠の中の一つなのです。

韓国側が于山島がLiancourt Rocks (独島)であるなどと主張するのは、そうでも言わなければ韓国側には1905年以前に領有権を主張したどころか、その島の存在すら知っていたかどうかを示すものは、記録も、地図も存在しないのです。問題は、韓国の歴史文献には、于山島がLiancourt Rocks (独島)であることをにおわせるような文章さえ、何も無いのです。それどころか、全ての証拠が、于山島は、鬱陵島の隣にある島、ほぼ確実に鬱陵島の東沖4km以内に浮かぶ小さな島、竹嶼/竹島(Jukdo)である事を示しているのです。    

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: August 23, 2006, 9:33 pm | 43 Comments »

43 Responses

  1. James Says:

    Gerry:

    There was an article about Dokdo on Aljazeera the other day. It quotes a South Korean professor:

    But according to Lee Seokwoo, a professor at Incheon’s Inha University in South Korea and an authority on territorial disputes, that does not change the fact that Korea has exercised sovereignty over Dokdo since 512 BCE – interrupted only by the 1910-1945 period of Japan’s colonial occupation.

    It’s the first time I’ve heard the claim that Korea actually knew about Dokdo in 512 B.C., which sounds pretty ridiculous. The article doesn’t mention any evidence for this claim. Have you come across any ‘evidence’ of Korean claims to Dokdo dating from 2500 years ago?

  2. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    James,

    That was a mistake. I am sure the professor meant to say 512 A.D., which is the standard Korean claim. Actually, the island being talked about was Ulleungdo, not Dokdo. The reason Koreans say that it was a reference to “Dokdo” is that the name “Usanguk” appeared in the record. However, the record, itself, specifically said that Usanguk was just another name for Ulleungdo and even gave dimensions for the island that match those of Ulleungdo.

    So how do Koreans dismiss the fact that the 512 reference said that Usanguk was just another name for Ulleungdo? Well, they say that Usanguk means “the country of Usan,” and that “a country” could have borders that stretch beyond the main island. They say that the borders of Usanguk could have included a small patch of barren rocks that were ninety-two kilometers southeast of it.

    That’s it. That is their only basis for claiming that “Usanguk” was the first reference to “Dokdo” in Korean documents. It is a far-fetched theory, and it is shameful that Korean historians are using it to claim that it was the first reference to “Dokdo.”

  3. tomato Says:

    Gerry>

    Note that the Korean claim in 512 AD is actually based on records dating in the 15th century…where the heck is the original document? (actually, I know this answer because the oldest Korean records are not old at all compared to Chinese and Japanese historical documents…so I don’t think it’s a wild guess that the Koreans made many stories up based on scant evidence).

    In fact, Koreans refute Japanese control over the southern part of the peninsula in the 4th-6th century based on ZERO documentary evidence (because there are NO Korean text coming from that period of time), whereas the Chinese and Japanese chronicals at that time cleary indicates Japanese influence or control in that area (there is archaeological evidence, too- Japanese style burial mounds are to be found in that area coming from that age). Well, there is actually a memorial set up by a Koguryo king Gwanggaeto that says that the Japanese crossed the sea and subjugated Shila and Paekche but was ousted by Koguryo in 400 AD. This is refuted by the Koreans who cannot accept any control by the Japanese (Koreans think the Japanese being inferior) in their beloved penninsula, but this Korean view is not accepted by anyone else, even by the Chinese historians (who can read the text, which is in Chinese). All of this sound all too familiar compared to the so-called Dok-do issue… I guess if they can’t stop lying once they started it, it may only end when their regime falls…which seems typical of many authoritarian regimes who boast their legitimacy and greatness…

  4. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Tomato,

    Actually, I think the reference to the 512 A.D. incident appeared in a twelfth century record, not a fifthteenth century.

    Yes, Korean historians are digging themselves into a hole by blatantly lying about “Dokdo.” People will reason that if Korean historians can lie so blantantly about Dokdo, then how many other lies have they told?

    Once the Korean lies about Dokdo are exposed, the credibility of Korean historians will go farther down the drain. Will it really be worth it?

  5. Travolta Says:

    How will they be exposed? There may well be Korean historians who realise its all lies but will they come forth and expose it? Not a chance, they would seriously be afriad of getting beaten or worse. And if a foreigner exposes it then the foreigner will be a “racist” or just some barbarian in the eyes of Koreans. Who can expose this problem? I sure hope there is some way it will happen.

  6. James Says:

    Travolta:

    How about spamming the mailbox of every Korean with messages that contain the evidence that exposes this? Some Korean groups seem to think that’s the best way to educate people about the Dokdo issue. Why not use their own annoyingly stupid tactic against them?

  7. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Travolta,

    Time and interest will expose the lies. Believe it or not, Roh Mu-hyeon has played a big part in exposing the lies. By making so much noise about “Dokdo,” he has motivated people, including me, to take a closer look at the history surrounding the islets. And once people start looking closely at the history, the Korean lies about Dokdo just jump out at you. Before long, even Koreans will not be able to deny Japan’s claim, at least, not with a straight face.

    I believe that the Korean argument will soon stop focusing so much on the history and will start focusing more on Korea’s right to take over the islets as some kind of compensation for Japan’s “past evils.” Even the Dokdo video I linked to in my first post spends a great deal of time trying to convince people that Japan was evil, and still is, rather than focusing on hard evidence that “Dokdo” was historically Korean territory. Even the evidence that the video does present as evidence of Korea’s claim is either half-truths or blantant lies. For example, the video says that King Kojong’s 1900 proclamation claimed Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and “Dokdo” as Korean territories. That is a blantant lie.

    The proclamation actually claimed Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and an island named “Seokdo.” There is no evidence that Seokdo was Dokdo. It is much more likely that Seokdo was another name for Gwaneumdo, which is one of Ulleungdo’s two neighboring islands. You can see it on the Ulleungdo map here. If it was not Gwaneumdo, then we would have to ask ourselves why Gwaneumdo was left off the list of islands in the 1900 proclamation? “Dokdo” was not a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, given that it is ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.

    Anyway, even if Koreans do try to close their eyes to the truth, the lies will, at least, be exposed to the rest of the world.

  8. pacifist Says:

    Gerry,

    Thank you for your endeavor.

    Please sincere Korean people who read this thread, act in good faith and make a protest against the government’s distorted propaganda.
    It is only you, Korean people, who can put right Korean government’s corruption.

  9. tomato Says:

    >Gerry

    I think the Korean historians have always lost their credibility with regards to how it is taken in Japan, when you see them lying about almost anything related to Japan…not just Dok-do but other things, like the Japanese influence in ancient times (according to them, Japan was a colony of Korea?), talks about the Korean influence on Japanese culture (Japan copied everything, right?), the Korean campaign by Toyotomi Hideyoshi in the 16th Century (did the Koreans score any significant victory?…Japanese records state no), the Japanese administration of Korea in the 20th Century (just how bad was it?)…but now that Roh has made Dok-do an international issue, people other than Japan are getting to know about Korean history distortions…may the truth finally come out!

    The hate-Japan policy of the Koreas (yes, North and South) remind me of the antisemitism in Nazi Germany…portraying that some nation is evil…really terrifying just to think about its consequences…

  10. pacifist Says:

    Yes, tomato is right.

    Korean textbook didn’t state that Japan once invaded (or made an advance to?) Korea in the ancient times, that is a famous event which every Japanese textbook has menntioned. But Korean textbook didn’t mention it, maybe due to their pride.

    Please read the following sire for details:
    http://www.geocities.jp/bxninjin2004/data_room/13/Gwanggaeto.html

  11. pacifist Says:

    Correction:

    sire → site

    Sorry!

  12. Travolta Says:

    Gerry,

    You obviously have great interest in this issue and it seems you have great language skills, you have uncovered a heap of lies about Dokdo. Have you managed to convince any Koreans yet? I think youre right about the lies coming out eventually. But after living in Korea and seeing what happened with Hwang Woo Sok, i think it will take a long time for most Koreans to accept the truth about Dokdo. As im sure you all know, a range of excuses were made on behalf of Hwan Woo Sok in the media and by netizens. People were claiming it was a CIA conspiricy to steal his technology. Other people placed the blame on Shatton the American working with Hwang. Eventually people accepted that he was indeed a fraud. There are still those, who due to intense nationalistic brainwashing believe that Hwang is actually innocent even after he came out and admitted to everything.

    Dokdo on the other hand has been build up SOOO much by the korean government and media, I would guess 10 times more built up than Hwang and it has the anti-japanese angle also with appeals to so many Koreans. Therefore I think it will be very hard to shake the lies out of peoples minds about the Dokdo issue. Even if you put the evidence right infront of them 99% of Koreans would not accept it. This isn’t because they are stupid, it’s because they have been taught to be mindless nationalists since an early age. I think even if presented with your excellent research on the issue, most Koreans would dismiss it, saying youre nothing but a foreigner who doesn’t understand, your language skills would be called into question, you would be labeled a racist and Jap lover. People would probalby start pointing fingers at you for all kinds of stupid things not even related with Dokdo in an attempt to ruin your reputation. That is exactly what happened with Hwang and the SBS or MBC (who was it now i forget..) programme managers who aired the report on Hwang.

    I wish you and your excellent research the best of luck however. I don’t really care who ends up with the islands. I just want the Korean government and Korean historians to stop lying to people. I think Korea has great potential as a country, but that potential can not be reached until this rediculous nationalism is cleared away and the media and government become at least somewhat ethical.

  13. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Thank you, Travolta and Pacifist.

    I enjoy researching this subject, so it is my pleasure to read and write about it. I learn a lot by doing it. My Korean language skills are pretty good for a non-native, and I can read a thousand or so Chinese characters, which with a Chinese character dictionary and other reference material, seem to be enough to do the research. I only wish that I could read Japanese, so that I would not have to depend on translations. Maybe, someday I will take the time to learn.

    Even with my limited language skills, it is pretty easy to spot the lies and inconsistencies in Korea’s territorial claims on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). That means that native Korean historians must obviously know about them, yet choose to remain silent. The fact that they remain silent on the issue, or even support the lies, is a big stain on the integrity of Korean scholarship. Now, I cannot read a modern history of Korea without wondering how much of it is BS.

    No, I do not generally talk to Koreans about “Dokdo” because it would be like telling a Christian that God does not exist. I think the best thing to do it present the evidence and give peope time to consider it and achieve enlightenment on their own.

    I think that most people who support the Korean claim, including non-Koreans, simply do not know the facts. Koreans have been actively speading their propaganda for a long time while the Japanese have remained pretty much quiet and indifferent. People have only heard the Korean lies and assumed them to be true since the Japanese have not really bothered to refute them, at least not in the English language.

    In the foreign blogging community, I think there are people who are starting to realize that they have been lied to in regard to “Dokdo,” but because they have supported Korea’s claims in the past, I think they find it difficult to shallow their pride and admit they were wrong. A few people in this category that come to mind are Oranckay, Richardson, the mysterious Kushibo, and, of course, silly Mark Lovmo, who is a special case. Oranckay, Richardson, and Kushibo, at least, have the good sense now to keep their mouths shut on the issue, but Mark Lovmo continues to spread lies and half-truths, making me wonder whether or not he has any integrity, at all.

    Then there are the “chicken” bloggers, like the Marmot, who seem afraid to tackle the subject for fear of offending Koreans. The Marmot seems to be afraid to even link to this blog, choosing instead to post on frivolous topics or on topics that have, at least, some division in Korean society. He seems to be afraid to even use “Sea of Japan” in his posts. That is why I respect people like Matt, who has the balls to tell things as he sees them.

    By the way, I appreciate Matt’s letting me post on his blog.

  14. ponta Says:

    Pacifist
    this is an interesting link. I have seen it for the first time. And I have seen the comment sectionin FY for the first time. You have been doing good job.

    Gerry
    You are setting a good example for Japanese and non-Koreans in Korea.
    I respect your style of argument, the argument without emotionally responding to emotional comments. .I learn a lot from it .I think you are setting an good example for non-Koreans in Korea. You can be a lover of Korea without anti-Japanese. It is beautiful that non-Koreans love Korea, but it is sad you pick up Korea attitudes when you love Korea.
    BTW what does Ishihara have to do with you?What does Oranky talking about?

  15. tomato Says:

    Ponta>

    I saw that site once, but the level of the post was so low, it was just laughable…like Gerry said, the Korean claim on so-called Dokdo uses logic that defies most logical people…NO, it is not logic…it is the almost religious belief that the Koreans have always been victimized by Japan and so-called Dokdo is theirs.

    Will the Koreans ever “catch-up” with Japan or other developed countries?-this should mean economically, but I would also have to say “socially” looking at all these ultra-nationalistic disease. In order to advance, you have to be able to self-reflect. So far, I don’t see any amount of self-reflection among the Korean government or the media. They always blame their woes on Japan and the U.S. They are always the victim, and they see nothing wrong with ultranationalism…if this represent the general Korean mind, I don’t think they never will catch-up…unless some silly Japanese gives away valuable blueprints of their technological expertise believing it will forward Korean relations…

  16. toadface Says:

    There is valid claim for the Koreans for Dokdo. But I don’t think it lies in going through 600 years old documents and backward maps for either side.

    That is why we must rely on the most accurate consisitent information of the era in question and that comes from the Japanese side.

    We can see Dokdo is excluded on almost all maps of Japan from the late 1800’s. We know Japan was cognizant of the islands so Japanese ommission is solid proof of Japan not considering Dokdo as a historically inherent part of Japan as they claim.

    We can see documents from the Meiji era that show Japan has no interest in the islands from both 1870 and 1877. I’m still waiting for maps or documents to prove these papers invalid but haven’t seen anything other than “the Japanese were confused”

    We can see the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion has serious procedural flaws such as basis for land acquisition and lack of external notification.

    Gerry, Marks webiste is the only website that provides historcial information and background to the Japane annexing of Dokdo. If you don’t agree with his translation that’s fine but calling someone a liar is going a bit too far.

    Let me explain.
    You’ve been posting this Ulleungdo map around the internet trying to prove that Usando is the Jukdo Island but there are problems with this map.
    First of all, this map shows all major islands on the South side of Ulleungdo something which is terribly amiss. Most ,if not all islets surrounding Ulleungdo are on the North and East sides of Ulluengdo. It’s clear these inaccurate maps of Ulleungdo were also used on the 1899 Daehanjiji map you seem to swear by. If you look closely at Ulleungdo on that map you can see islets surrounding Ulleungdo that simply don’t exist.
    Second as I’ve explained many maps of this era move islands closer to other lands to denote ownership.
    Do I agree with your translation? No. Am I going to so far as to call you a liar. No.

    So ratcheting up the rhetoric doesn’t really help your argument.

  17. ponta Says:

    Tomato
    I agree with you,
    I think Korea has a potentially great power. Look at their energy they give to anti-Japanism, anti-Americanism.Their energy is overwhelming; they put their energy in the wrong place.

    The problem with some of English speaking K bloggers/commenters, if I am allowed to speak, is that they don’t check the facts the Koreans say,they just pick up Korean anti-Japanism without criticism.
    Some of them even use racial slur against Japanese and others leave them at that.

    Occidentalism was sometimes criticised for some commenters using racial slur and Matt has tackled the issue and warned the commenter and deleted inadequate comments.Other K blogs has the similar problems but none criticized them—strange.

    It is sometimes said that the older native Koreans who directly experienced Japanese rule are less anti-Japanese than younger people.—–strange.

    Tomato, you say “They always blame their woes on Japan and the U.S. They are always the victim, and they see nothing wrong with ultra-nationalism…” I agree but I think what they are now are invented through educations at home and at school.I hope English speaking K bloggers who loves Koreans to help realise that.

    USA is the most bashed country in the world, not because it is bad but because it is most open society in the world.Japan is also bashed from inside, from outside, Japan is more open society than people think. I think criticism vitalize the society. I think Korea needs this kind of vitality.

  18. ponta Says:

    Toadface

    There is valid claim for the Koreans for Dokdo. But I don’t think it lies in going through 600 years old documents and backward maps for either side.

    For Korean claim to be valid,
    legally it must be proved that Korea had effective control over Dokdo before 1945,
    historically it must be proved by documents and maps that Korea recognized dokdo
    You have shown none. If you have, show it here for the readers who are new to this issue.

    All you are saying is that some Japanese maps lacks dokdo on them.
    It does not follow that Japan had no effective control over it, nor does it follow Japan did not recognized dokdo.
    During the period you mentioned, or any period you like, show the reader Korean maps with Dokdo on them.

    Please don’t confuse the readers.
    Yes, some Japanese maps lacks dokdo on them but there are no Korean map that has dokdo on it. There are Japanese documents mentioning dokdo, there is no Korean document mentioning Dokdo, there is Korean documents which locate Dokdo outside Korean territory.

    Which country is more likely to have recognized Dokdo?—-The answer is obvious and it is most likely that Korea did not even recognized Dokdo.

    Thank you.

  19. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Toadface,

    If Korea has no maps showing “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks) or documents mentioning it before 1905, then how can you say, “there is a valid claim for the Koreans for Dokdo”?

    Japanese documents and maps, on the other hand, do mention and show Liancourt Rocks. Japanese documents show that the Japanese considered them part of their territory. And Japanese documents very clearly show that the Japanese officially and legally incorporated the islands in 1905. Even the United States and her allies in World War II recognized that fact. By the way, why isn’t that mentioned on Mark Lovmo’s site?

    The exchange of documents among the Japanese ministries in the 1870s show that the Japanese were confused about Matsushima (Songdo). Japanese officials speculated that there were two islands in the Sea of Japan named Matsushima (Songdo), which turned out to be correct. One Japanese official said that if the Matsushima in question were Ulleungdo, it would be Korean territory, if not, it should be Japanese. That shows that the Japanese consided Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory in the 1870s.

    To clear up the confusion, the Japanese sent a naval warship to survey the area in 1880. The ship’s captain reported that Matsushima was actually Ulleungdo and that a neighboring island to the north of Ulleungdo was called Takeshima (Jukdo). By the way, concerning this discovery, the Japanese captain said, “In one morning, we have cleared up a long-held suspicion.”

    Because of this discovery, the Japanese had to rename Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks. Ulleungdo was renamed Matsushima (Songdo), which up until then had been used for Liancourt Rocks. And since the Japanese discovered an island next to Ulleungdo already called Takeshima (Jukdo), the Japanese decided to use the Western name, “Liancourt Rocks,” to refer to Liancourt Rocks. Afterall, the rocks were officially still not a part of Japan at the time, and I assume that at the time the Japanese did not consider it worthwhile to make them a part of Japan. The rocks had no soil, little water, and no one living there to pay taxes, so why bother?

    It was not until just before 1905 that the Japanese began to see value in the islands, thanks to a Japanese businessman who wanted to monopolize the sea hunting on the islets. The request of the businessman was the main reason Japan ended up incorporating the islets in 1905. The Japanese did not do it to build a watch tower there because they could have done that without incorporating the rocks. Afterall, the Japanese had built a watch tower on Ulleungdo without incorporating it. The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the importance of officially and legally incorporating the islets before others did.

    Mark Lovmo’s Web site is full of lies and half-truths, so I see no problem with not only calling him a liar, but a very biased liar. It is not a translation error when you omit important parts of a record and add words that were not in the original and then make claims based on them. That is why I call Mark Lovmo dishonest and a liar.

    As for Korean maps, except for Lee Gyu-won’s map of Ulleungdo in 1882, they show only Ulleungdo and Usando. Koreans say that Usando is “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), but it was actually just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Korean maps show that, and Korean documents say that, so why do Koreans claim it is Dokdo? Because if they did not claim it was “Dokdo,” then they would have nothing to show that they even knew about Liancourt Rocks before 1905, much less considered them Korean territory. It is a big lie Koreans use to try to justify their illegal occupation of Liancourt Rocks. It is shameful.

    I am anxious to post something very interesting in regard to Korean maps, but I want I to first post something on “Sambongdo” and An Yong-bok so that I can keep my posts in relatively chronological order. However, I will say a little about Korean maps in this comment.

    Why do many Korean maps show rocks or small islands off the southern shore of Ulleungdo when they are actually off the northern shore? I think that happened when the island of Usando switched from the west coast of Ulleungdo to the east. Consider the following:

    This famous 1530 map shows Usando off the west coast of Ulleungdo. Most maps up until the middle of the 1700s show about the same thing, including this 1710 map. Notice that the 1710 map still shows Usando not only west of Ulleungdo, but also shows it to be about the same size as Ulleungdo. However, that changed sometime in the 1750s as you can see from the Daedongchongdo map, which was made sometime in the early 1750s. As you can see, the map shows Usando (于山島) as a “small,” neighboring island off the west coast of Ulleungdo, not an island of equal size. It also shows a small island to the north of Usando and four small islands to the northeast. So, by the 1750s, Usando was finally being recognized as a small, neighboring island of Ulleungdo, but the problem was that Usando was still on the wrong side of Ulleungdo.

    Now here is my theory about what happened next:

    I think a mapmaker finally heard that Usando was on the east coast of Ulleungdo, not the west. He may have thought that the island was described to him upside down, with north and south turned around. To solve the problem, all he would have to do is turn the map upside down. (Did anyone see the movie, “Independence Day”?) That would put Usando on the east side of Ulleungdo and the small northeastern islets on the southwest. Look at the following map of Ulleungdo, which was made about the same time as the Daedongchongdo map.

    Ulleungdo from the Haedongjido (circa. 1750s)

    Notice on the Ulleungdo map linked just above that Usando is now on the east coast of Ulleungdo and that the islands that had been on the north-eastern coast on the previous map are now on the south. It is almost as if the map were turned upside down. In fact, if you look at the center of the island, you will notice that the Chinese characters 中奉 (which mean “central peak”) are written upside down, which seems a little strange to me. If you were to take the map and turn it upside down, those characters would be right-side up, Usando would be back on the west coast, and those southern islets would be on the northern coast. Here is the map turned up-side down:

    1750 Ulleungdo turned up-side down

    Anyway, that upside down stuff is just a theory. It does not change the fact that all the islands on the Ulleungdo map (whether they are north, south,east, or west) are referring to neighboring rocks, islets, or islands of Ulleungdo. None of them are referring to rocks ninety-two kilometers away.

    By the way, look at the 1750s Daedongchongdo map again and notice what is written next to the island of Usando.

    Daedongchongdo map

    The writing next to Usando says 倭船倉可居, which I would translate as “place for storing Japanese ships.” I think that shows that Usando was being used as a kind of base for Japanese visiting Ulleungdo. Now look what Korean records said about An Yong-bok’s encounter with Japanese fishermen in 1796.

    Korean records describe two versions of An Yong-bok’s encounter with the Japanese fisherman 1796. In one version An Yong-bok says that the Japanese told him they lived on Matsushima, which An said was the Korean island of Jasando (Usando). However, in the Jeungbomunheonbigo version, An said he said he saw “a Japanese ship coming from the east” (倭船自東至). When he stopped the ship and asked why they were invading Korean territory, “the Japanese replied, ‘We are on our way to Matsushima, so we have to go this way'” (倭對曰 本向松島 固當去也). An then told the Japanese that Matsushima was Jasando (Usando).

    If the above is accurate, then it is further proof that the Matsushima mentioned in the Ah “saga” was not Liancourt Rocks. Notice that Ah said that the Japanese ship was “coming from the east,” and that when he stopped the ship and demanded to know why the Japanese were encroaching on Korean territory, the Japanese answered, “We are going to Matsushima, so we have to go this way.” Since the Japanese were coming from the east, they were not headed to Liancourt Rocks, but in the opposite direction toward Ulleungdo or one of its neighboring islands. That means that the Jasando (Usando) An referred to was not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).

  20. toadface Says:

    Gerry if Jukdo was a place for storing ships they’d be smashed to smitherines on a mild spring day. There is very poor if any mooring as you know Jukdo Islet is basically a brick wall. In addition this map is further proof that Usando is Dokdo because it is common knowledge that Japanese stopped over at Dokdo en route to Ulleungdo.
    Also we know that Dokdo does have some mooring and a little fresh water which Jukdo does not. I don’t buy for a second that even the dizziest of sailors would consistently map an island 2.2kms away from Ulleungdo on the wrong side.

    Gerry if you want half-truths how about this.
    The 1877 document from the Dajokan describes Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima Dokdo in correct name, size, and distance with historical reference and you try to sell this rubbish that the Japanese were confused which island is which.
    You have posted maps that clearly have positional errors due to Seibolds error and then tried to cross-reference them with todays accurate co-ordinates. You’ve been fudging ad nauseum the distance between Jukdo Islet and Ulleungdo as well. 2.2kms Gerry get it straight ol’ man.

    The positioning of the islets on these Ulleungdo maps is very important and shouldn’t be dismissed or overlooked like you have done. You post these maps as accurate embellished with funky flashing effects but disregard the glaring errors elsewhere. It’s not just the positioning the islets that is off it is what isn’t there.

    Gerry says:
    It was not until just before 1905 that the Japanese began to see value in the islands, thanks to a Japanese businessman who wanted to monopolize the sea hunting on the islets. The request of the businessman was the main reason Japan ended up incorporating the islets in 1905. The Japanese did not do it to build a watch tower there because they could have done that without incorporating the rocks. Afterall, the Japanese had built a watch tower on Ulleungdo without incorporating it. The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the importance of officially and legally incorporating the islets before others did.
    What a laugh riot Gerry !! The Japanese government was getting involved with the lucrative seal hunting industry. Gerry it’s no wonder you have slowly sunk to level of posting on a pro-Japanese website. If you tried to post that nonsense on any other forum they’d tear you a new ass so big you could shit a Volvo….

    I’ve got a theory too Gerry. I think some Koreans through historical reference really thought that Usando/Dokdo was 100 ri away from Ulleungdo. If you look at this map you can see Sabang 100 ri. It is drawn between Ulleungdo and Usando.
    http://www.occidentalism.org/pic/usandoullegundo.jpg
    You explain away the governor’s mentioning that Dokdo is 100ri by saying he just pulled this arbitrary figure off the top of his head but I disagree.

    If Usando is Jukdo why didn’t LeeKyuwon simply name and map it so?
    There are hundreds of maps that show Usando beside Ulleungdo Gerry if you think you can prove on every map that Usando is Jukdo Islet then you have got your work cut out for you.

  21. ponta Says:

    I am not sure but as for 倭船倉可居, it this “place for storing Japanese ship” or it it ” the permitted (可) place for Japanese ships to be docked?

    As for 1877 document, the readers might be interested in the following comments I wrote on this blog..
    linklinklink

    Anyway.
    Japanese government was confused about islands during this period because of the western maps and because Japan was in the process of changing from Shougunate government to totally new Meiji government. Korea has no concept about Dokdo during this period.Of course Korea was not confused because Korea did not even know Dokdo!!

    Japan was confused.and in terms of international law, to acquire and abandon the territory, the reference must be clear so as not to leave any doubt, 1877 document is confused as to the name, location, and description.

    Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Japan gave up the territory, but
    Japan announced inclusion of Dokdo later and Japan had effective control and since Korea had had no effective control over Dokdo at the time, Japan acquire it legitimately.

    In either case, Japan acquired it legitimately .

    As I told Toadface many times, what is essential is not whether some Japanese documents says Japan abandoned the territory or not, but that Korea shows Korea recognized Dokdo, Korea had effective control over Dokdo..
    Toadface, or Mark failed to show it.

    Thanks.

  22. HanComplex Says:

    Gerry-Bevers, just want to say I appreciate all the in-depth research you’ve undertaken regarding the Dokdo issue. To be honest I didn’t know much about the issue before, and one of my first “sources” was Mark’s site. I’ve been following this discussion regularly, and all the evidence you (as well as Ponta and others) have presented so far have been convincing. Are you doing a doctoral dissertation on the subject? I think you have already plenty of material for the topic. Anyhow, will be looking forward to your future posts, when you find time during your busy schoolwork.

  23. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    HanComplex,

    No, I am not studying this issue as part of any academic program. It is just a hobby. Anyway, thank you for expressing your appreciation.

    Ponta,

    I did not see your post until tonight, which is why I did not respond sooner.

    Yes, the 可 in the phrase 倭船倉可居 could mean “permitted” or it could mean “possible.” I think here it means “possible” because the Japanese were not permitted to visit Ulleungdo at the time. More specifically, I think it means “a place where Japanese boats can dock” or “a place where Japanese boats dock.”

    Actually, I think the phrase means “a place where Japanese boats dock,” as in “a place where Japanese boats have been seen or known to dock.” The reason I say that is because any boat should structurally “be able to” dock there, whether Japanese or Korean, so I think “Japanese boats” were specifically mentioned to show that it was the traditional docking place for them.

    By the way, it is possible that the Usando in the Daedongchongdo map was still referring to Ulleungdo, even though the island was drawn smaller on the map.I say this for two reaons. One reason is that Usando is still being drawn to the west of Ulleungdo on the map, which is where present-day Ulleungdo is. The other reason is that on Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 map of Ulleungdo, the characters 倭船艙, which means “Japanese boat pier, appears on the main island of Ulleungdo, not on Jukdo (Usando). You can see it on the map here.

    Notice that in the 1882 map there is no mention of “permitted” or “possible” in the wording, so I think it just referred to a place where Japanese boats traditionally docked. The Japanese and the Koreans living on Ulleungdo at the time may have had a spoken or unspoken agreement on which parts of the island each would occupy. Anyway, I find it interesting that the maps specifically mention places where Japanese boats docked.

    Toadface,

    “Sabang” (四方) was used to refer to an area, not a distance. The sabang of Ulleungdo was commonly described as 100 ri, which was the sum of the east-west and north-south measurements of the island. That is, the distance from the east coast to the west coast of Ulleungdo has been described as 40 ri, and the distrance from the northern coast to the southern coast has been discribed as 60 ri. Add those two distances together and you get the sabang, or area, of Ulleungdo. By the way, the two distances have also been described as 50 and 50, which also add up to 100.

    The writing between Usando and Ulleungdo on the 1710 Korean map you linked to is 四方百里, which means “an area of 100 ri.” That is not referring to the distance between the two islands; it is referring to the area of Ulleungdo, which is mentioned many times in old Korean documents. The characters were written between the two islands because they could not fit on the island, itself. I also think it was written there because the mapmaker was not sure which of the two islands it was referring to.

     I think I explained sabang to you almost a year ago, Toadface, so I am surprised that you are still skeptical.

    When Lee Gyu-won went to Ulleungdo in 1882, the people living there were obviously using the name “Jukdo,” instead of Usando, to refer to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island.

    By the way, during the Korea-Japan territorial dispute over Ulleungdo in the 1690s, the Koreans said that another name for Ulleungdo was “Jukdo.” At the time of the dispute, Korean maps were still showing Ulleungdo east of Usando, which may explain why the small island off the each coast of Ulleungdo came to be called “Jukdo.” Also, in the 1690s, the Japanese were referring to Ulleungdo as Takeshima, which is pronounced as “Jukdo” in Korean. However, when the Japanese surveyed Ulleungdo in 1880, they found that Ulleungdo was actually Matsushima (Songdo) and that one of Ulleungdo’s neighboring islands was named Takeshima (Jukdo). In 1882, Lee Gyu-won confirmed the 1880 Japanese survey report when he said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island named Jukdo.

  24. toadface Says:

    The Japanese were not allowed to be near Ulleungdo Island and would be punished severly as there was just a decision made by both sides Ulleungdo was definitely Chosun territory. If Usando is Jukdo and is about 2.2kms offshore from Ulleungdo this would not be tolerated.

    This it is not likely for this island to be Jukdo Islet because.
    1. There is no mooring for boats there Jukdo Islet has 100 meter cliff and is very rough nearby.
    2. Japanese were definitely not permitted in the region. Were the Koreans offering valet parking for Japanese who visited Ulleungdo. Better yet Gerry, why would Japanese moor boats in such a treacherous location when the best landing area on Ulleungdo is literally 10 minutes rowing distance?

    This mapping confusion has been used for an excuse by Japanese for sometime but Marks website explains it nicely using both European and Japanese maps. The mapping confusion does not negate Meiji documents that claim Ulleungdo and Dokdo are not Japanese territory.

    http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp23.html

    We can see that the Japanese did not consider Ulleungdo and Dokdo as part of Japan on these pages.

    http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp24.html

    http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp14.html

    It’s no secret the Japanese were trespassing on Ulluengdo Gerry. It’s one of the reasons why Leekyuwon went to Ulleungdo to begin with. You may notice there is no mention of anyone living on Jukdo Islet. You may also remember Leekyuwons report mentioned nothing of any residents living on Jukdo. His report states he couldn’t climb the 100 meter walls and the area was very dangerous and rough.

    Sabang ri can mean two things Gerry it can mean in all directions or on all sides. It’s not just an increment used to measure land but can be a linear measurement radiating in all directions from a central point. Some early Chosun records of the area use the Hanja characters Jibang baek ri. The term Ji-bang can also mean a region or province and this may be where the confusion came to be regarding the measurements of 100ri.

  25. Gerry-Bevers Says:

    Toadface,

    I was not denying Japanese trespassing. I was not even talking about it. I simply pointed out that Korean maps labeled areas on both Usando and Ulleungdo as places that Japanese boats docked. If you do not believe me, look at the maps yourself.

    Lee Gyu-won did not go up onto Jukdo because he said it looked “too dangerous,” not because he couldn’t. Because he did not go up onto the island, he would not have known if people were living on the island or not. In fact, he even mentioned in his diary that he could not report on Jukdo because he did not go up onto the island. By the way, steep cliffs did not surround Jukdo on all sides. On the west side of Jukdo there was a place to dock and a trail that led up onto the island. You can see it in the following picture:

    Trail leading onto Jukdo

    By the way, here is a link to more pictures that show the landscape of Jukdo.

    Landscape of Jukdo

    Regardless of what other meanings “sabang” may have, Toadface, in regard to Ulleungdo, it means “land area.”

  26. ponta Says:

    Gerry
    Thanks
    Yes 可 means possible or permitted in Egnlish.
    I think it is significant that Korean map put the phrase on the map.
    Whether 可 means possible or permit, it means Korea tacitly approved Japenese ship docking there.

  27. xoBrian Says:

    I find a kind of racism on Gerry’s cause.
    He wants only to say Korea is a barbarian country, making advantage of Japanese recennt rightist sentiments on internet forums like 2 Channel.
    Gerry insists there is little freedom of speech in Korea.
    May be he was not treated specially as he had expected for a White teacer.

    However, in fact, the authentic Reporters without Border has already proved Korea has much more freedom of press than Japan does.its Index of pressfreedom shows Korea is at 30th while Japan at 46th. That means Koreans enjoy much more freedom of speech and study than Japanese do.

    Now whiteys envy and start to bash excellent koreans all over the world.I cannot but think this Gerrys intended attempt is just a kind of white racism against excellent Asians because it is no use for American whether Dokto belong to Korean or Japan.

  28. Kaneganese Says:

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

    韓国は、”独島” (Liancourt Rocks)が歴史的に韓国の領土であり、日本の竹島(Liancourt Rocks)領有権の主張は、違法である、と主張するプロパガンダビデオを作製しました。しかし、この韓国の主張は、端的に言って正しくありません。このビデオは嘘、欺瞞に満ちた半面の真理、そして人の注意をそらすような実の無い議論に満ち満ちています。私は最初の投稿“ Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 1”で、こうした点を指摘し始めました。ビデオもその中で視聴できます。

    前回は韓国の歴史文献から地図や引用をもってきて、韓国人が”独島” (Liancourt Rocks)の領有権を主張する際の根拠とする島が、実は単に、鬱陵島に隣接する島に過ぎないことを示しました。“于山島”というその島が、鬱陵島の付属島であるということ、を韓国自身の歴史文献が明らかにしているのです。その文献によると、問題の島はとても肥沃で沢山の木や植物が生えており、人が住んでいる、となっています。これは于山島が”独島” (Liancourt Rocks)では無い確固たる証拠です。Liancourt Rocksは木や土、水などの動植物が生息できる条件が全く無いただの岩で出来た島に過ぎないからです。

    さらに于山島が”Liancourt Rocks” (独島)ではありえないことをさらに強調するために、韓国側の記録である世宗実録を紹介したいと思います。

    “世祖実録 巻第7 1457年4月16日 (世祖三年丁丑四月) p56
    まず初めに、中枢院副使の柳守剛がこのように記述致します。‘江陵府で任務に当たっていた時の事を申し上げます…
    一 江陵の人々は、牛山(于山)と茂陵(武陵)の両島はどちらも村を作り住民を住まわせることが可能です。土地の産物は多様な用途のものがたいそう豊富で、以下のようなものが採れます。こうぞ、苧(麻の一種)、桑、大竹、海竹、魚膠木、冬栢木(椿)、柏、梨、柿、鴉(カラス)、鶻(はやぶさ)、真っ黒な山鳩、海苔、サメ(もしくはアワビ)、蛸、ラッコなどです。’‘その土地は大変肥沃で、他の土地に比べ、10倍の収穫があります。東西、南北の距離はそれぞれ50里ほどで、人が住むことが可能です。四方は険阻な壁のような崖でなっており、1000仭もの高さがありますが、船を停泊できる場所はあります。西風が直接吹きつければ、三陟を丑の刻(午前1:30から2:30の間)に発てば、亥の刻(午後9:30から10:30の間)に着きます。もし微風の中、櫓を使って漕いでいくなら、一昼夜かかるが、無風で櫓を漕いで行けば、二日間かかります。村を設置し、選任した者を守護に付けることを伏せて望むものです。’‘第四条 牛山(于山)と茂陵(武陵)の両島に村を設置することについて、両島は航路が大変危険でまた遠いため、往来が甚だしく困難です。さらに、海中の孤島であることから、村を維持、保護することもまた困難です。そうした事を踏まえ、この件に関して実行することは無いように願います。但し、我が県の人民が両島に流れ着いて住むこともあるため、穏やかな風を待って官吏を派遣し、兵船が出入りできるか海岸を調べることがよいでしょう。王はこれに従った。両島の流民を強制的に召還することは無かった。”

    記録では、牛山(于山)と茂陵(武陵)の両島はどちらも村を作り住民を住まわせることが可能で、島には豊富な動植物の産物があることが分かります。このことから、于山島がLiancourt Rocksでは有得ないことが分かります。Liancourt Rocksには土が無く植物が生えないため、居住不能だからです。さらに、この両島へは2日かかると記述されていることに注目して下さい。これは、1710年の韓国の古地図〈リンク〉において、2島と本土をつなぐ線の下に併記されていた文とちょうど同じ内容です。この記録自体は、特別なものではありませんが、于山島がLiancourt Rocks (独島)ではありえないことを示している、沢山の証拠の中の一つなのです。

    韓国側が于山島がLiancourt Rocks (独島)であるなどと主張するのは、そうでも言わなければ韓国側には1905年以前に領有権を主張したどころか、その島の存在すら知っていたかどうかを示すものは、記録も、地図も存在しないのです。問題は、韓国の歴史文献には、于山島がLiancourt Rocks (独島)であることをにおわせるような文章さえ、何も無いのです。それどころか、全ての証拠が、于山島は、鬱陵島の隣にある島、ほぼ確実に鬱陵島の東沖4km以内に浮かぶ小さな島、竹嶼/竹島(Jukdo)である事を示しているのです。

  29. Kaneganese Says:

    correction

    “世祖実録 巻第7 1457年4月16日 (世祖三年丁丑四月) p56

    “世祖実録 巻第7 1457年4月16日 (世祖三年丁丑四月)

    Thank you !!

  30. New Takeshima (Dokdo) Article in Japanese Newspaper » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

  31. Dokdo Museum Head Admits Maps Show “Jukdo, not Dokdo” » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

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

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

  33. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 8 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

  34. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 9 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

  35. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 10 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

  36. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 11 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

  37. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 12 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

  38. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 9 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

  39. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 10 » Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

  40. Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Part 11 · Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

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

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

  42. Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 | Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]

  43. Absurd claims - Korea Times | Occidentalism Says:

    […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 […]