Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Foreign students visit Dokdo

August 3rd, 2008 . by Matt

Some foreign students visited the Liancourt Rocks and were told by their Korean hosts that the islets belong to Korea.

Foreign students in Busan have paid a visit to Dokdo, amid renewed diplomatic activity to head off challenges to Korea’s sovereignty over its easternmost islets.

Some 60 students from nine countries including China and India who are attending universities in the southeastern port city were invited to the islets in the East Sea to inform them of Korea’s sovereignty over the islets. The trip was organized by the Dokdo School established in 1994.

Students spent most of it on a ship watching a dance performance on Dokdo and listening to lectures about the sovereignty issue that focused on international law and ancient maps.

I wonder if the maps shown were like the photoshopped maps at the Dokdo Museum. They would have to be since Korea does not have any maps before the 20th century, much less “ancient maps”, of the Liancourt Rocks.

Why not give students both sides of the story and letting them decide for themselves whether the Liancourt Rocks should belong to Korea, Japan, or neither country?

Thanks to James for the link.


6 Responses to “Foreign students visit Dokdo”

  1. comment number 1 by: toadface

    If the kids want both sides they sure as Hell won’t get it here.

    Matt why don’t YOU tell both sides? Why don’t you tell the truth of Japan’s Military annexation of Liancourt Rocks or how Japan’s annexation was an integral part of the colonization of Korea? How ballsy of you to bash the Korean government’s position when you parrot Japan’s MOFA and Gerry Bevers like a broken record.

    Greedy Japan the worlds second richest nation has the world‘s fifth largest EEZ (4,500,000 sq kms) compared to Korea’s 300,000kms. The current boundary between Japan and Korea is more than fair. But yet that is not enough for Japan’s MOFA and “poor little Shimane Prefecture..”, they have to chisel every inch she can out of Japan’s neighbours.

    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-not-japanese-2.html

  2. comment number 2 by: ponta.

    toadface=Steve Barber

    how Japan’s annexation was an integral part of the colonization of Korea?

    How could the annexation of Liancourt Rocksbe an integral part of the colonization of Korea when Dokdo was not a part of Korea?
    Gerry is telling the both side of the story.

    Korean side of the story:
    1)Liancourt Rocks had been an part of Korea.
    2)The Japan annexation of Liancourt Rocks was an integral part of the colonization of Korea.

    Japanese side of the story
    3) 1) is false
    therefore
    4) 2) is also false.

    Gerry
    3) is true. 1) is false.
    therefore
    4) is true , 2)is false
    2) is a fake story to deceive people.

  3. comment number 3 by: Matt

    If the kids want both sides they sure as Hell won’t get it here.

    Matt why don’t YOU tell both sides? Why don’t you tell the truth of Japan’s Military annexation of Liancourt Rocks or how Japan’s annexation was an integral part of the colonization of Korea? How ballsy of you to bash the Korean government’s position when you parrot Japan’s MOFA and Gerry Bevers like a broken record.

    Greedy Japan the worlds second richest nation has the world‘s fifth largest EEZ (4,500,000 sq kms) compared to Korea’s 300,000kms. The current boundary between Japan and Korea is more than fair. But yet that is not enough for Japan’s MOFA and “poor little Shimane Prefecture..”, they have to chisel every inch she can out of Japan’s neighbours.

    Steve, as you know I am more than happy to have you come and denounce me or say I am wrong or whatever. Considering that I could delete whoever criticizes me (which I never do), I would say both sides do get a hearing.

    I know you expound a theory that the incorporation of the Liancourt Rocks into Shimane Prefecture is part and parcel of Japan’s later domination of the Korean peninsula, but I disagree with it. If you care to trust me, I will give my thoughts on your thesis at a later date, time permitting. In the meantime, as always, feel free to add add your opinions or ideas in comments. Believe it or not, I appreciate your comments as they provide good points of discussion.

  4. comment number 4 by: Errol

    Henny Savenjie (Robert Neff’s mate) has an 1843 map on his site showing Takasima.

    Click on Takasima 1843.

  5. comment number 5 by: toadface

    Matt, I know you promote the Japanese right wing extremist views that the colonization of Korea was a good thing. Given that, how much credibility should we assume you have on your interpretation of Japanese Korean history?

    If you want to put forth some theory as to why Japan annexed Liancourt Rocks during the largest war of the day, while Russia’s Baltic Fleet was steaming to engage Admiral Togo in Korea’s coastal waters I’d love to hear it Matt. Bring it on, I could use a good laugh.

    Oh yeah, Japan’s MOFA says they incorporated the rocks so a grubby squatter on Korea’s Ulleungdo could wack seals. I expect you’ll same the same.

    Ponta, the issue of prior occupation and whether Japan’s acquisition was peaceful (legal) are separate issues altogether. Japan’s claim has to stand on its own before the Japanese should consider taking potshots at Korea’s.

    We all know Japan’s 1905 annexation of Dokdo has little relevence today. We also know Japan used a geographically flawed approach when they seized the islets. First Admiral Kimotsuki (Japanese Navy Matt) drew baseline measurements from both Japan’s and Korea’s mainland to claim Liancourt Rocks. How can a fair modern boundary between Japan and Korea be based on such ridiculous reasoning?

    For political, military, legal, and geographical reasons Japan’s 1905 incorporation of Liancourt Rocks was rotten to the core.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-x-files2.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-not-japanese.html
    http://dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-not-japanese-2.html

    Errol the map you posted shows Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) Seibold had copied Japanese maps and labelled Argonaut as Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) as Dagelet.

  6. comment number 6 by: Errol

    The map came from Henny Savenjie’s site. Savenjie is on record as supporting the Korean claim on Liancourt Rocks.

    Note on these linked sentences, “He (Hendrick Hamel) also uses native resources when he mentions the distances from Pusan (sic) to Shimonoseki (which has been read by his publishers for a long time as Osaka), but also the length and width of Korea. He uses the “dietse mijl” (Dutch mile) which caused a lot of confusion in translations in later times, since they were translated as German miles, leagues and other contemporary distance measurements. Using these contemporary measures, Dutch cartographers could make accurate measurements.”