Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Korean History Group Responds to Japanese Article on Usando

February 24th, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers

In an article entitled, “Absurb Report on Old Maps Related to Dokdo,” CBS Nocutnews reports on a rebuttal from Korea’s Northeast Asian History Foundation concerning the article in the Japanese newspaper, “San-in Chuo Shimpo,” which I posted on here.

The following is my translation of the reported rebuttal:

[CBS Cultural Section Information Report]

* Northeast Asian History Foundation Rebuttal to Japanese Newspaper’s report on Dokdo

On February 22, Japanese media, including “San-in Chuo Shimpo” and “Kyoto News” reported on their Web sites that old maps had been discovered that undermind Korean claims in regard to the Dokdo problem.

They presented two of three old maps that they claimed was discovered by an American residing in Korea, and claimed that the Usando Korea refers to was not “Dokdo,” but “Jukdo” (Dae Seom), a neighboring island of Ulleungdo.

* Rebuttal of the Japanese newspaper article

1) Concerning the undated map of Ulleungdo

— First, the undated map was drawn in 1711 by Samcheok Commander Bak Seok-chang, who was an Ulleungdo inspector.

  • The part that says, “The so-called Usando” is just written on the outline of an island, similar to four islands to the south, which is different from islets like Samseon Rocks and Elephant Rock on the north side of the island. Actually, there are no islands to the south of Ulleungdo. It is assumed that the map was not made from an actual survey, but was made based on hearsay.
      
  • Concerning “haejangjukjeon, the so-called Usando,” it is believed that the inspector did not conduct a “concrete” investigation, but just followed the coastline and drew Jukdo (Bamboo Island), with its tall bamboo, and Usando (Dokdo), which was determined clearly at that time by the activities of An Yong-bok.

Notice that Korea’s Northeast Asia History Foundation mistranslated haejangjuk, which is not “tall bamboo” along the coastline, but is a unique kind of bamboo.

* At the time, our country clearly recognized the existence of Dokdo (Usando). 

  • We can know clearly that Bak Seok-chang’s inspection of Ulleungdo was a direct result of An Yong-bok’s activities. Recently (2005), an inspection report of An Yong-bok’s second visit to Japan was found in on Japan’s Oki Island. In the report, An Yong-bok stated precisely the distances between Joseon and Ulleungdo and between Ulleungdo and Dokdo. In Japan it is recorded that Jukdo (Takeshima) and Songdo (Matsushima) were Ulleungdo and Jasando and were a part of Chosun’s Gangwon Province.
     
  • That is, it clearly shows again that the Jasando (Usando) here is not the Jukdo next to Ulleungdo, which clearly proves our country’s territorial consciousness of Dokdo.

2) Concerning the 1834 Map

* Second, the 1834 map is the “Cheonggudo,” drawn by Kim Jeong-ho in 1834. This map also has five islands drawn to the south, but, actually, there are no islands to the south of Ulleungdo. According to Japanese claims, there should be five islands four kilometers or less to the south, but in reality there is not even one. Except for Jukdo, Gwaneumdo is the only island that can always be seen from Ulleungdo, and its distance from the edge of Ulleungdo is only 100 meters.

* At the time that Kim Jeong-ho’s “Jeonggudo” was drawn, Dokdo (Usando) was clearly recognized at our country’s territory. If you look at the military version of the “Mangiyoram” (1808), which was edicted (compiled) about 1834, it says that Ulleungdo and Usando were both a part of Usanguk (Country of Usan). It is clearly recorded there that Usando was what Japan called “Songdo” (Matsushima).

3) The Above Maps Were Already Known

* The two maps presented by the Japanese side was not only already known in Korea, but Japan’s Takeshima Conflict Research Committee also knew of them. They were presented as if they were newly discovered, and the dates they were made were vaguely discribed as being “unknown” even though the dates clearly appear in maps and documents.

* Moreover, since they did not show Bak Seok-chang’s and Kim Jeong-ho’s complete maps, but only magnified sections of them, we can only assume they were trying to excite Japanese citizens on Takeshima Day (February 22) and distort Dokdo history.

4) Japan’s Meiji Government also Recognized Dokdo as Korean territory

* There is numerous evidence that clearly shows that Japan’s Meiji government recognized Dokdo, together with Ulleungdo, as Joseon territory.

* References: “This Is How Japan Stole Dokdo,” (available on the Northeast Asian History Foundatioin’s Web site — http://www.historyfoundation.or.kr/)

Notice how the group essentially ignores the fact that there is an old Korean map with an island next to Ulleungdo labeled as “The so-called Usando, Fields of haejang bamboo” by quickly changing the subject.

The following is my response to the foundation’s comments about the maps and the article.

First, the undated map was drawn in 1711 by Samcheok Commander Bak Seok-chang, who was an Ulleungdo inspector.

Seoul National University’s Gyujanggak, where the maps are located, says that the date of the map that mentions haejang bamboo on Usando is unknown. Here is what Gyujanggak’s Web site says about the map:

墨筆로 그린 鬱陵島의 寫形圖로서 東西간 거리와 南北간 거리의 里數가 표시되어 있으며 주변에 乾‚ 坤‚ 艮‚ 巽의 방위와 연안 네 곳에는 船舶待風所‚ 民人可居處라고 쓰여져 있고‚ 하단에는 <海長竹田所謂于山島>라고 기입된 작은 섬이 나타나 있다. 여기 于山島라 기입한 섬이 바로 獨島를 지칭하는 듯하다. 책 끄트머리에는 辛卯五月十四日自倭舡倉移舟待風所拙書 一句以標日後(刻立卯岩木於方上)萬里滄溟外將軍駕桂舟平生伏忠信履險自無漫搜討官折衡將軍三陟營將兼水軍僉節制使朴昌錫軍官折衡朴省三金壽元倭學朴命逸 이라고 로 기록되어 있다. 지도 뒷면에 營將朴昌錫所作 鬱陵島地圖라 기재되어 있고 上記한 乾拓에 朴昌錫 朴省三 金壽元 등의 이름이 보이나 이들이 어느때 인물인지 알기 어려우며‚ <辛卯>의 年紀도 미상이다. <備邊司>印이 찍혀 있는데 製作者가 營將이었던 朴昌錫이라는 점에서 볼때 이것이 군사적인 목적에서 작성된 것임을 짐작할 수 있다. LINK

The above describes the map and says that the Chinese characters, which I have indicated in red, appeared in the back of the book the map was in, and it said that the Chinese characters, which I have indicated in blue, appeared on the back of the map, itself. The writing talks about Bak Seok-chang and his position and title and gives an incomplete date (辛卯五月十四日) of when the map was made. However, the site says that Bak Seok-chang is an otherwise unknown character in history, and, therefore, the exact date of the map cannot be determined. 1711, 1771, 1831, and 1891 were all 辛卯 years, so pick one you like, which is what I think the people at Korea’s Northeast Asian History Foundation did. Actually, I think they probably picked the right date, but they are only guessing, unless they know something that the people at Gyujanggak do not know. 

The part that says, “The so-called Usando” is just written on the outline of an island, similar to four islands to the south, which is different from islets like Samseon Rocks and Elephant Rock on the north side of the island. Actually, there are no islands to the south of Ulleungdo. It is assumed that the map was not made from an actual survey, but was made based on hearsay.

Almost all of Korea’s area maps of Ulleungdo show what appear to be islands to the south, but the islands to the south are never labeled, which suggests they were just rocks, maybe even rocks just below the surface of the water, if not sticking out of the water. That information might be pretty handy if you were a sailor wanting to know where your ship might run aground. Usando, on the other hand, was always labeled.

On the map in question, which you can see here, Usando and the large rocky islets clearly visible off the north shore are labeled. Usando is, of course, labeled as “Usando,” and the rocky islets off the north shore of Ulleungdo are simply labeled as “stone peaks” (石峯), which suggests that that those rocks were clearly sticking out of the water. That is why I think the unamed “islands” to the south of Ulleungdo were just rock formations near the surface of the water, which may have been mapped because they could have been a danger to ships. A study of the waters off the southern shore of Ulleungdo would probably reveal the truth. Therefore, I think the suggestion that the map was not made from an actual survey is a groundless supposition, especially since Usando and the islets off the northern shore are drawn quite accurately.

Anyway, let’s suppose the map was made from hearsay, as the good people at Korea’s Northeast Asian History Foundation would have you believe. That would mean that the hearsay was that Usando was a small island just off the east coast of Ulleungdo that had fields of haejang bamboo, which is bamboo that can grow twenty feet high.

Concerning the “So-called Usando, Haejang Bamboo Fields,” it is presumed that the inspector did not actually investigate, but just followed the coastline and drew Jukdo ,with its long bamboo, and Usando (Dokdo), of which An Yong-bok described the precise distances from the Chosun mainland to Ulleungdo and from Ulleungdo to Dokdo. In Japan it is recorded that Jukdo (Takeshima) and Songdo (Matsushima) are Ulleungdo and Jasando, which are a part of Chosun’s Gangwon Province.

The above comment says, “An Yong-bok described the precise distances from the Chosun mainland to Ulleungdo and from Ulleungdo to Dokdo,” but that is not true because An Yong-bok said that Ulleungdo was closer to the Korean mainland than it was to Dokdo. The Korean mainland is about 140 kilometers from Ulleungdo, but Dokdo is only 92.

As for Japan’s recording that Takeshima and Songdo were part of Korea’s Gangwon Province, I think that was based on the testimony of An Yong-bok, who said that the Japanese referred to Usando as “Matsushima” However, as the above linked map shows, Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which means that Mr. An was actually saying that Japanese were referring to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo as Matsushima (Songdo).

Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo seems to have had several names over time. For example, in a conversation between King Kojong and Lee Gyu-won in 1882, which you can see here, King Kojong said that Ulleungdo had two neighboring islands, “Usando” and “Songjukdo” while Lee said there was only one island named “Songjukdo.” The king then said that it was called either Usando or Songjukdo, and that other names included Songdo and Jukdo.  

I think all of the above names were referring to the same island. For example, Songjukdo is just a combination of Songdo (Matsushima) and Jukdo (Takeshima). Also, Korean maps show Usando in almost the exact same location as Ulleungdo’s present-day neighboring island of Jukdo. In fact, Lee’s 1882 map showed an island labeled as Jukdo in a location where Usando had been on previous maps.

That is, it clearly shows again that the Jasando (Usando) here is not the Jukdo next to Ulleungdo, which clearly proves our country’s territorial consciousness of Dokdo.

I do not understand the above statement, but I have not seen anything that proves the “territorial consciousness” that the sentence is talking about.

Second, the 1834 map is the “Cheonggudo,” drawn by Kim Jeong-ho in 1834. This map also has five islands drawn to the south, but, actually, there are no islands to the south of Ulleungdo. According to Japanese claims, there should be five islands four kilometers or less to the south, but in reality there is not even one. Except for Jukdo, Gwaneumdo is the only island that can always be seen from Ulleungdo, and its distance from the edge of Ulleungdo is only 100 meters.

Again, the supposed islands off the south shore of Ulleungdo are unlabeled, which suggest to me that they were not islands, but dangerous rocks just above or below the surface of the water. I think they were drawn to warn sailors to be careful.

At the time that Kim Jeong-ho’s “Jeonggudo” was drawn, Dokdo (Usando) was clearly recognized at our country’s territory. If you look at the military version of the “Mangiyoram” (1808), which was edicted (compiled) about 1834, it says that Ulleungdo and Usando were both a part of Usanguk (Country of Usan). It is clearly recorded there that Usando was what Japan called “Songdo” (Matsushima).

The Mangiyoram was written from old records, including the testimony of An Yong-bok. Again, when An Yong-bok said that Songdo was Usando, he was most likely referring to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo. In addition, I think it was the Mangiyoram that said that An Yong-bok saw a Japanese ship coming from the east, and when he stopped the ship and asked where the Japanese were going, the Japanese responded that they were headed to Songdo. If the Japanese were coming toward Ulleungdo from the east and said they were headed toward “Matsushima” (Songdo), then the Matsushima they were talking about could not have been Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) since “coming from the east” means they would have been traveling away from the rocks not going toward them. Therefore, the Japanese must have either been heading toward Ulleungdo or Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo.

The two maps presented by the Japanese side was not only already known in Korea, but Japan’s Takeshima Conflict Research Committee also knew of them. They were presented as if they were newly discovered, and the dates they were made were vaguely discribed as being “unknown,” even though the dates clearly appear in maps and documents.

I have no doubt that Koreans knew about the Ulleungdo map with Usando marked as having fields of haejang bamboo on it, but my question is why isn’t that map shown on any of Korea’s Dokdo Web sites or in any of the books that Koreans have written about Dokdo? If I were a suspicious person, I would probably think they were trying to hide something. In fact, in the three of four Korean news articles I have seen talking about the Japanese article and the maps, I have not seen any that showed either of the maps that was posted with the Japanese article. Maybe, they are afraid of the old saying, “A picture is worth a thousand words”?

Also, the Japanese article mentioned the date of the 1834 map, but as I explained above, the date of the other map is still not completely certain, so I think it is wrong for the people at the Northeast Asian History Foundation to speak as if it is. I think they are only guessing.

Moreover, since they did not show Bak Seok-chang’s and Kim Jeong-ho’s complete maps, but only magnified sections of them, we can only assume they were trying to excite Japanese citizens on Takeshima Day (February 22) and distort Dokdo history.

The above comment is just ridiculous. If complete maps had been used in the article, then people would not have been able to see any of the detail that was important to understanding the maps. If anyone wants to see the full maps, then they can look at them here and here on Occidentalism. And if not showing a “complete map” is an attempt to distort history, then what does that say about the Korean articles that do not include any map?

There is numerous evidence that clearly shows that Japan’s Meiji government recognized Dokdo, together with Ulleungdo, as Joseon territory.

Japan has never recognized “Dokdo” as Korean territory.

Here is a link to the original Korean language article on CBS’s Nocut News Web site, but I am copying and pasting the text below for posterity sake.

[CBS문화부 정보보고]

▣ 일본 언론의 독도 관련 보도에 대한 동북아역사재단의 반박문

일본 산음중앙신문 교도통신 등이 ‘독도문제에서 한국측 주장을 뒤엎을 수 있는 고지도가 발견되었다’ 라는 기사 게재(2월 22일자 인터넷판)

그 증거자료로 한국 거주의 한 미국인이 서울대 규장각에서 발견했다고 하는 고지도 3장 중 2장을 거론하며, 한국이 말하는 ‘우산도가 독도가 아닌 울릉도 주변의 죽도(대섬)’라고 주장

◈ 일본 신문기사에 대한 반박

1) ‘연대미상 울릉도 지도’에 대하여

▲ 첫 번째 연대미상이라고 한 지도는 1711년에 울릉도 수토관이었던 삼척영장 박석창이가 그린 지도

– “소위 우산도”라고 하는 부분은 울릉도 북쪽에 있는 오늘날의 삼선암, 코끼리바위 등과 달리 울릉도의 남쪽에 4개의 도서와 같이 윤곽만 표시 – 그런데 실제 울릉도의 남쪽에는 지도에 나와 있는 섬들에 해당되는 섬이 없으며, 이는 수토과정에서 구체적인 관찰로 그려진 것이라 보다는 전해 들은 이야기를 토대로 그린 것으로 추정

– “해장죽전(海長竹田) 소위 우산도”는 수토관이 구체적으로 조사하지 않고 해안을 따라 길게 대나무가 있는 죽도(대섬)와 당시 안용복의 활동을 통해 분명히 드러난 우산도(독도)를 그린 것으로 추정

▲ 당시 우리나라는 독도(우산도)의 존재를 분명히 인식하고 있었음

– 이는 1711년 박석창의 울릉도 수토의 직접적 계기가 된 안용복의 활동을 통해 분명히 알 수 있음 – 최근(2005년) 안용복의 2차 도일활동에 관한 조사보고서가 일본의 오키섬에서 발견되었는데, 그 문서에는 안용복이 조선과 울릉도, 울릉도와 독도의 거리를 명확히 진술하며, 일본에서 ‘죽도, 송도’라고 하는 섬이 조선국 강원도에 부속된 ‘울릉도, 자산도’라고 기록

– 즉 여기서 자산도(우산도)가 울릉도 옆에 있는 죽도가 아님을 다시 한번 명확히 함으로써 우리나라의 독도에 대한 영토의식을 분명히 입증

2) ‘1834년 지도’에 대하여

▲ 두 번째 1834년 지도는 1834년 김정호가 그린 ‘청구도’ – 이 역시 남쪽에 5개의 섬이 그려져 있는데, 실제 울릉도의 남쪽에는 도서가 없으며, 일본측 주장대로라면 남쪽의 4km이내에 5개의 섬이 있어야 하는데 실제는 하나의 섬도 존재하지 않음 – 울릉도에서 늘상 보이는 섬으로는 죽도(대섬) 이외에 관음도가 있는데, 그 거리는 울릉도 주변에서 고작 100m 내에 있을 뿐임

▲ 김정호의 청구도가 그려진 당시에도 독도(우산도)가 우리나라의 영토임을 분명히 인식 – 이는 1834년 무렵에 편찬된 만기요람(1808년) 군정편을 보면 울릉도와 우산도는 모두 우산국의 땅이라고 하며, 여기서 우산도가 일본이 말하는 송도(松島)라고 분명히 기록

3) 상기 지도는 이미 알려진 내용

▲ 일본측이 제시한 위 2개의 지도는 이미 국내적으로 알려져 있을 뿐만 아니라 일본의 죽도문제연구회 연구자들도 알고 있는 내용 – 이를 마치 처음으로 발견된 것인냥 하고, 또한 지도나 문헌에 정확히 제작연대가 드러나 있는 것을 연대미상이라고 모호하게 기술하고 한 것은,

▲ 또한 박석창이나 김정호의 지도 전체를 보여주지 않고 일부만을 가지고 확대하여 보여줌으로써, – 2.22일 죽도의 날을 맞아 한건을 터트려 일본 국민을 자극하고 독도역사를 왜곡하려는 의도라고 밖에 볼 수 없음

4) 일본 메이지 정부도 독도를 한국땅으로 인정

▲ 독도를 침탈하려한 일본의 메이지 정부 스스로가 독도를 울릉도와 함께 조선의 영토라고 인정하는 등 무수히 많은 증거들이 조선의 영토임을 분명히 밝히고 있음

※ 참고자료 : ‘일본은 이렇게 독도를 침탈했다’. (동북아역사재단 홈페이지(www.historyfoundation.or.kr 게재)


100 Responses to “Korean History Group Responds to Japanese Article on Usando”

  1. comment number 1 by: toadface

    Errol you asked for what resources. Japan and other powers were consistently trying to get mining, forestry and fishing rights for Korea for decades before Japan’s establishing a protectorate in Korea. The Japanese were also trying to buy up and settle Korean land for farming and constantly trying to expand these land purchases outside of port designated areas.

    A classic example of Japanese attempt to “tap” into Korea’s resources is the constant problems on Ulleungdo Island in the late 1800s. These forestry concessions were finally given to the Russians for while. The Russians were also granted forestry concession in the Yalu Basin. Mining concessions were given for Pyongan and Hamgyong to the Russians, British and Germans at different times. You should understand we are talking about North and South Korea at this time.

    Part 6 of the Japan Korea protocol of Feburary 1904 called for opening of Korean land for cultivation and settling Japanese people on these lands, as mentioned they wished to extend land possession of Japanese citizens beyond previous treaty limits. This coerced treaty also demanded Russia’s foreign timber concessions to be turned over to Japanese nationals and new mining surveys would be undertaken to find promising sites for Japanese concessionaries. Also the Japan Korea Protocol demanded Japanese coastal rights should be extended to Korea’s three northern provinces. So you see resources did play a role in Japan’s agenda to annex Korea.

    James what I meant by my “moot” quote is this. Pacifist and Ponta say because Dokdo was not part of Korea the time, Japan’s acquisition of Dokdo can’t be construed as being as act of “violence and greed”. In short, they think that the issue of Japanese expansionism and Japan’s annexation of Dokdo are two totally separate issues. Japan’s only documented claim to Dokdo was in 1905.

    You have to understand that Japan’s land claim is different that other precedents because Japan is obligated to be expelled from territories acquired for military purposes. Whether you think it is morally right or wrong isn’t important here. The Cairo Convention (Potsdam Declaration) says it is. Japanese cognizance of Dokdo is not a valid premise to claim the island. Not one map or document I’ve seen is hard proof of Japan’s claim. Yet literally dozens of maps on my website show Dokdo was not considered part of Japan. In fact more Japanese maps show it as Korean territory.

    Through historical context and the Japanese Naval records of the day during the Japan~Russo War it is clear that Japan methodically mapped surveyed all strategic areas of around Korea and then annexed Dokdo. Check the naval survey maps and ask yourself what is the difference between how the Japanese Navy appropriated Korean land and how the surveyed and seized Dokdo. Remember the Japanese battleship conducted a topographical survey of Dokdo and reported it was possible to construct watchtowers there months before Dokdo was annexed.

    Japan’s only documented claim to Dokdo was in 1905. Given the fact it is inherently flawed in itself why should we even entertain Japan’s flimsy historical claims? That’s why I say Japan shouldn’t have their day in ICJ until they can show a strong historical claim prior to 1905.

    Korea has done an absolutely shabby job in proving their claims that Dokdo was a military annexation other than just bluster. That’s why I dedicated lots of resources on my website to the historical context surrounding Japan’s 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion.

    You can see the topographical survey Dokdo map done by the Japanese Navy on this page it also has the maps showing how the Japanese heavily mined Wonsan Harbor.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations2.html

    This page has the position of Japanese Naval observation towers around Korea~Japan during the Russo~Japanese War, it also has a survey map of Dokdo for watchtower installation. All maps have the field of view highlighted in green.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations3.html

    Ponta, how convenient of you to assert that we don’t have to delve into the issue of the annexation of Korea is relation to Dokdo!! Some Japanese and Korean scholars disagree. What do you say wel let the public see the documents above and they can decide for themselves…. OK?

  2. comment number 2 by: pacifist

    wedgie,

    Yet literally dozens of maps on my website show Dokdo was not considered part of Japan. In fact more Japanese maps show it as Korean territory.

    Your maps don’t prove anything.
    wedgie, look at the Korean maps – they clearly show that Korea didn’t know Takeshima/Dokdo – its location and the shape and the great Korean Empire didn’t think Takeshima/Dokdo as their territiry.

    Check the naval survey maps and ask yourself what is the difference between how the Japanese Navy appropriated Korean land and how the surveyed and seized Dokdo.

    wedgie, navy and the Minstry of Foreign Affairs are different organisations. Navy investigated the place adequate for the watchtowers – they searched for 15 places in Qing and several places in Korea including Busan. But asked about this, Qing and Korea rejected the proposition.
    Of course, Takeshima/Dokdo was investigated by Navy – it’s natural because the Navy investigated every island in the Sea of Japan, why not the island that was not belonged to any countries?

  3. comment number 3 by: Mika

    Any sovereign state, no matter how squalid, backward or underdeveloped has the basic right to decide her own political fate. Anyone on this or any other forum who
    implies that Japan or any other country has the right to occupy another state is mistaken.

    Do you recognize how Korea could become an independent nation state? Koreans were not the ones who signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Article 1 states;

    “China recognises definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, and, in consequence, the payment
    of tribute and the performance of ceremonies and formalities by Korea to China, in derogation of such independence and autonomy, shall wholly cease for the future.”
    Do you claim Korea was still a vassal state of China after Sino-Japanese war?

  4. comment number 4 by: chul_soo

    Toadface,
    I admire that you could keep on arguing even though you are pretty much talking to a wall. It appears that you and Gerry have vast knowledge in this whole Tokdo/Takeshima issue. I think it will be interesting if You and Gerry debate on this issue. Matt or gerry should create a post where only Gerry and Toadface could debate on this issue.

  5. comment number 5 by: Kaneganese

    chul_soo,
    I think it is pointless. Because Gerry focus on the Korean maps and documents. On the other hand, Toadface literally ignores Korean maps and documents by saying those are not accurate and only concentrate on Japanese documents and maps claiming Japanese evidence are the one we can count on because they are accurate and hence credible though he cannot read the language properly. And I think we should really avoid the militaly confflict and hold a more civilized bilateral relationship. Considering NK’s situation, Chinese military growth, and Mr.Ban’s becoming UN Secretary-General, I think this is a good chance for both of us to settle it peacefully.
    Anyway, If Toadface want to discuss it with only Gerry, he can do that by setting BBS on his website. That is what he basically should have done as everyone says in the first place. I think his main agenda for coming here is not to discuss with others but to advertise his site.
    Please read carefully and see how he keeps silence on what he does’t want to mention. You will understand who is a real “wall”

    OK, back to the topic again. I did further research on 「欝陵島事蹟」 , and those are what I found so far. (In case there are anyone who are interested in.)
    1. Basically, what Mr.half-moon said was a copy and paste from Dr.宋炳基’s book 『欝陵島と(and)獨島』(韓国語)檀國大学校出版部 1999. (That’s why what he said didn’t make sence to me perfectly.)
    2. According to Dr.宋炳基’s article 宋炳基 “朝鮮後期の鬱陵島経営”北東アジア文化研究第10号,1999,pp.70-91,10, 「鬱陵島・独島学術調査団」 retrieved 「鬱陵島事蹟」 in Ulleundo in 1978 and it is owned by 国史編纂委員会. This document was arranged(整理) by his grandson 申光璞. In other word, it may not be “original” original.
    3. Dr.宋炳基 claims the sentence “東方五里許有一小島不甚高大海長竹叢生於一面…東望海中有一島 杳在辰方 而其大末満蔚島三分之一不過三百余里 ” is from 「鬱陵島事蹟」 by 張漢相(or grandson’s version) in the article above.
    4. Apparently, there is another version of 「鬱陵島事蹟」. It is 邊例集要 권17 雜條 附 鬱陵島, 蔚陵島事蹟. The transcription was owned by 奎章閣.
    5.Last one is 國史編纂委員會編 邊例集要 권17 雜條 附 鬱陵島, 蔚陵島事蹟. I found the Liblary in Tokyo owns the book, so I am going to check it in a few days.
    6. I checked all 肅宗実録, but I couldn’t find the sentences in question. So it must be in 「鬱陵島事蹟」. The problem is, Dr.宋炳基 didn’t show the picture of pages of 「鬱陵島事蹟」 he reffered.
    7. I am really curious where the first page of Mr, half-moon’s pdf file was copied from, He claimed that p1 is a quoted from 『獨島研究文獻輯』. I googled the book and I got this one. 梁泰鎮『独島研究文献輯』(雲梁泰鎮研究叢書;第 21 輯)景仁文化社 1998.

  6. comment number 6 by: ponta

    Toadface

    Ponta, how convenient of you to assert that we don’t have to delve into the issue of the annexation of Korea is relation to Dokdo!! Some Japanese and Korean scholars disagree.

    what I showed is their argument is flawed.

    What do you say wel let the public see the documents above and they can decide for themselves…. OK?

    Sure. if you can not give further argument, what else can we do?.

    chul_soo said:

    Toadface,
    I admire that you could keep on arguing even though you are pretty much talking to a wall.

    chul_soo
    A wall can not discuss and argue on its own. It just echos. I have met a lot of Koreans who echo with Toadface, but like a wall, they couldn’t argue and discuss on their own. They sometimes have done something more than a wall can do:They cheer-leaded by shouting, just leaving insulting comments about the opponents without arguments.

    Why don’t you join and discuss on your own rather than let Steve Barber repeat his old refuted claim again and again?

  7. comment number 7 by: ponta

    addition

    Ponta, how convenient of you to assert that we don’t have to delve into the issue of the annexation of Korea is relation to Dokdo!! Some Japanese and Korean scholars disagree

    →Steve Barber, how inconvenient of you to face the truth that the nature of the annexation has nothing to do with the issue of Dokdo when Korea had no title to the territory in the first place. Your project to get sympathy by demonizing then Japan has failed.
    what I showed is their argument is flawed………

  8. comment number 8 by: myCoree

    Is this true?

    Japan has never recognized “Dokdo” as Korean territory.

    Not true.
    1. They are skipping many firm evidences that Japan had been regarded Dokdo as Korean Territory for hundreds of years. Gerry (including ponta and some of yours) is saying a half-truth almost the same as a lie. I will say : “Hello, Japanese, please be honest.”
    2. And, you are denying the fact that Dokdo had been an island of ancient Korea Chosun for more than hundreds of years (This denial is a kind of half-truth which some Japanese are saying, too.). I will say : “Dear Japanese, don’t be so greedy.”

  9. comment number 9 by: pacifist

    myCoree,

    Evidences:
    1) Japan recognised Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and Takeshima/Dokdo (Matsushima) as Japanese territory in the Edo period until the dispute began. After the negotiation, Shogunate banned to go to Ulleungdo in 1696 but to go to Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo) was not banned. So Takeshima/Dokdo remained in Japanese territory.

    2) Japanese fishermen used Takeshima/Dokdo since the 17th century, there are many documents and precise maps to prove that.

    3) It was Japanese who first engaged in sealion hunting in the late 19th century.

    While, there are no evidences to show that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo in the ancient times.

    Dokdo had been an island of ancient Korea Chosun for more than hundreds of years

    This is a lie. Korean government used to insist that Usando was Takeshima/Dokdo, so that they knew Takeshima/Dokdo since the ancient times. But there are evidences to show that Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo.
    (I won’t mention fully about them here but you should read all the arguments in the Occidentalism)

    myCoree, you should show the evidence here if you say Korea knew the island before Japan owned it in the 17th century.

  10. comment number 10 by: ponta

    myCoree

    apan had been regarded Dokdo as Korean Territory for hundreds of years. Gerry (including ponta and some of yours) is saying a half-truth almost the same as a lie.

    Maybe you are being deceived by Korean sites on Dokdo. I am glad to clarify.
    Could you give your argument?.
    Gerry is right, Japan has never recognized Dokdo as Korean territory.

    Dokdo had been an island of ancient Korea Chosun for more than hundreds of years

    Again could you give your argument?.
    Have you read Gerry’s article on this blog or
    or his blog?

  11. comment number 11 by: toadface

    Chulsoo, Gerry and I have different approaches to the issue.

    Gerry attempts to discredit Korean historians through ancient Chosun maps and documents. This is almost impossible due the ambiguous nature and crudeness of Chousn cartography techniques.

    My focus is on what is clear, which is why I usually cite Japanese maps and documents. Some documents Japanese and Korean are clear on what Usando was. However what Ponta and Pacifist do is inject inconsistencies in Anyongbok’s testimony and only state what think Usando isn’t. Niether of them can build any plausible theory as to what Jasando was base in this information.

    Kanganese, over a year I criticized the manner in which Gerry and the Japanese Takeshima lobbyists took ancient maps and then put their own spin on them. Not coincidentally, when the Korean Historical Dept responded to the map Gerry posted the stated the exact same thing I’ve been saying all along. This shows this manner of analysing ancient maps is not a scholarly approach. I had to laugh when I saw websites that superimposed high-tech Google-earth GPS driven technology superimposed onto ancient Chousn maps. This is rubbish.

    Ponta, you have presented absolutely nothing to counter the reams of Japanese Naval maps that prove Japan as a nation only saw Dokdo as a military acquisition. You have craftily tried to separate the issue of Japanese expansionism and conquest from the Dokdo issue but I don’t see any proof to refute what I’ve said.

    Ponta, please enlighten as to why Japan felt the urge to incorporate Dokdo at the height of the Russo~Japanese War?

    Look at the following map. This map was drawn in the 38th Year of Meiji in January (1905) Port Arthur had just fallen to the Japanese that month and already the Japanese had installed underwater telegraph lines.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/overall-telegraph-map-1905-1.jpg
    The Japanese were agressively taking over territory across Northeast Asia at this time.

    Pacifist there are no maps that can conclusively prove that Usando was Jukdo Islet. However, there are documents that clearly state that Usando was what Japanese call Matsushima. Now, you have been saying that all of these references were based on Anyongboks records but this is not entirely true. When the Japanese investigated the history of Ulleungdo they used all historical information they could gather and came to the conclusion that Usando was Matsushima.

    More importantly, some viewed Matsushima as attached to Ulleungdo and thus part of Chosun. There are no Japanese documents or maps that mention Dokdo in itself. All Japanese maps and documents of Dokdo prior to 1905 relate to Ulleungdo. In short, Dokdo was always seen as part of Ulleungdo. The Japanese never ventured to Dokdo as a sole destination but only to trespass on Ulleungdo. As I’ve mentioned here before. Traditionally, to Japan, Dokdo has always belonged to Ulleungdo and Ulleungdo belongs to KoreaWhile the Japanese did not explicity ban passage to Matsushima after ceding Ulleungdo to Korea it is clear they did not consider it part of Japan by the dozens of maps here.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-2.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-3.html

  12. comment number 12 by: toadface

    It should be noted that Japanese Prefecture maps prior to 1905 DO NOT include Dokdo dispite the fact that minor islands such as Minoshima are included.

    Thus on both a national and regional level the Japanese didn’t consider Dokdo part of Japan up to the military annexation of Dokdo in 1905.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html

    Kanganese, this is why I use Japanese maps for determining if Japan thought Dokdo was part of Japan. They are so numberous, accurate and consistent that we can draw definite conclusions from them free of bias. You can see Japan was NOT part of Dokdo.

  13. comment number 13 by: toadface

    Erm….make that numerous!!

  14. comment number 14 by: pacifist

    wedgie,

    when the Korean Historical Dept responded to the map Gerry posted the stated the exact same thing I’ve been saying all along.

    It’s because your theory is nothing else but the Korean government’s propaganda itself.

    However, there are documents that clearly state that Usando was what Japanese call Matsushima.

    wedgie, it attributed to Ahn YongBok’s lies. He lied “Matsushima was Usando”. And his lies were written in a book without verification. It influenced other Korean books revised after Ahn’s era. Many old Korean books you read now are these revised books, which means that you can’t easily believe it if a book stated “Usando is Matsushima”.

    More importantly, some viewed Matsushima as attached to Ulleungdo and thus part of Chosun.

    If this is true, Matsushima is not Takeshima/Dokdo but today’s Jukdo. You can’t call an island located at one day voyage distance as “attached” island.
    wedgie, the old Korean books was saying that Jukdo (Usando) was attached to Ulleungdo.

    The Japanese never ventured to Dokdo as a sole destination but only to trespass on Ulleungdo.

    wedgie, Japanese used Takeshima/Dokdo en route to Ulleungdo. They took a rest or prepared for fishing etc there. The island of rocks was familiar to Japanese fishermen.
    Korean fishermen went to Ulleungdo too but, on the contary, they didn’t need to go far more one day voyage to Takeshima/Dokdo.
    It was the era of the empty island policy in fear of pirates. How could they dare to go east without any crops?

  15. comment number 15 by: ponta

    Toadface

    Ponta, please enlighten as to why Japan felt the urge to incorporate Dokdo at the height of the Russo~Japanese War?

    That is interesting subject, Steve Barber, maybe
    there are many motivation behind it.But the point, I repeat, is that
    the motivation has nothing to do with the title to the territory.
    Read again what I wrote about Cairo conference, Potsdam declaration, and SF treaty.

    And Keep in mind that
    that there are Japanese maps that lack Dokdo on them does not prove Korea knew Dokdo nor does it show Japan did not know Dokdo
    Japan knew, and had effective control over dokdo,and we have evidences. Other inaccurate
    maps are irrelevant.
    But sadly all you can do is to repeat your old refuted claim about Ahn.
    Read again what I wrote about Ahn.
    Thank you.

  16. comment number 16 by: Kaneganese

    Hi ! myCoree,
    Welcome back!!!
    I have been waiting for you. In case you didn’t notice my question on other thread, I reiterate that here.
    I realized you have mentioned about “邊例集要 권17 雜條 附 鬱陵島, 蔚陵島事蹟” before. Where did you get it from? If you know the site, could you give me the link to the site? Thank you!

  17. comment number 17 by: Kaneganese

    Toadface,
    According to your logic, we cannot adopt the documents nor maps with inconsistancy as a evidence, right? Then, as Pacifist says, Korean cannot rely on most of their own books after Ahn’s testimony since they are all based on his word. I feel so sorry for Korean. But Korean still firmly believe that they have “numerous” proofs that show Usand was Takeshima/Dokdo. I think you should convince them that their so-called evidences are too inaccurate to show as a proof and talk them into trying to find a NEW evidence. Maybe you are the only one who can do this. They might listen to you.
    Still, it is meaningless to try to prove that Takeshima/Dokdo had been Korean territory before 1905 unless there is Korean evidence not Japanese, though.
    It is not a constructive discussion, because you ignore all the Korean documents. But honestly, it is really fun to discuss with you, Toadface. But the longer you claim, the more you contradict yourself. You are so predictable. But at least it is really good that you are trying to defend Korean since it looks like not so many Korean does’t have enough knowledge other than their Government’s propaganda. Of course I have to tell you that I feel very offended that you are trying to depict Japanese in Meiji era as evil presence which are beyond overstated.
    By the way, I am still waiting for your word if you know about 蔚陵島事蹟 and if you do, what you think of that document which seems to be the only possible evidence that Korean hold. I sincerely hope that you would look into Korean documents more. Why there are so many discrepansy and inconsistancy?

  18. comment number 18 by: myCoree

    pacifist

    Japan recognised Ulleungdo (Takeshima) and Takeshima/Dokdo (Matsushima) as Japanese territory in the Edo period until the dispute began.

    It is a natural result from your ancestor’s illegal fishing and felling to Ulleungdo..

    After the negotiation, Shogunate banned to go to Ulleungdo in 1696 but to go to Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo) was not banned. So Takeshima/Dokdo remained in Japanese territory.

    Japanese at that time regarded that Dokdo and Ulleungdo were one subject.

    Japanese fishermen used Takeshima/Dokdo since the 17th century, there are many documents and precise maps to prove that. It was Japanese who first engaged in sealion hunting in the late 19th century.

    Even if you have some precise maps about Dokdo and go there more than Chosun fishermen, it is nothing but a foreign island and their act was to go to foreign island illegally.

    While, there are no evidences to show that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo in the ancient times.

    I think no need for evidence because it had been belonging to Korea for a long time. Now I can know why you Japanese are so upset about Dokdo. The islet which has been Korean territory for hundreds of years cannot be under your territory again. Tsushima will be the same case though it is very bad for Korea.
    .
    .
    ponta, pacifist.
    And, I read Gerry’s claim – English version of Takeshima Bible. But, to your disappointment, I couldn’t have your “religion”. I’d rather read Christian Bible.
    .
    Kaneganese
    I don’t know what you want. I got the PDF from Banwolsong(already you’ve got it) and the word from “naver killjap cafe”. Sorry.

  19. comment number 19 by: Kaneganese

    myCoree
    Thank you !! I think you are a very honest person.
    Yes, I already got a pdf file from Mr. Banwolsong’s site. But as I said, it seems there are few versions of 「蔚陵島事蹟 」. I want to know what version you quoted from and what the Korean says about it on the site. And I am also curious why Korean keep ignoring the part of description of the island which seems to be today’s Jukdo. How can I access to the thread of “Naver killjap cafe” you mentioned? By the way, it’s a good name that cafe….

  20. comment number 20 by: ponta

    MyCoree
    Thanks

    Japanese at that time regarded that Dokdo and Ulleungdo were one subject.

    This is not argument. The argument has got to have reasons. You need to supply reason why this is the case.

    Even if you have some precise maps about Dokdo and go there more than Chosun fishermen, it is nothing but a foreign island and their act was to go to foreign island illegally.

    It was illegal to visit Ulleungdo, but it was
    legal to visit Dokdo. The judgment at the time make that clear.
    A man was sentenced death penalty because he sailed to Ulleungdo, saying he would visit Dokdo. In other words, visiting Dokdo was not
    forbidden.

    I think no need for evidence because it had been belonging to Korea for a long time.

    That is exactly what you have to prove and that is what toadface has failed to show.
    Look at his argument, Toadface gave up proving it by Korean old maps, because Korean old maps were so inaccurate and flimsy and crazy that he insisted that nobody should rely on it.

    Instead his target is the way Japan expanded herself. He want to use the term “by greed and force.”of Cairo conference”
    (He wants to say , “look Japan was greed!!!”

    (1)Japan exapaned by greed and force,
    (2)Dokdo was stolen from Korea by greed and force.
    (3)Japan ought to comply with the Cairo conference.
    (4)Therefore, Japan should return Dokdo to Korea.
    Suppose for the sake of argument that (1) is true, but it does not means (4) follows.

    (a)Dokdo didn’t belong to Korea so (2) does not hold.
    (a)’Dokod was not taken by force, it was taken over peacefully.In this sense too, Doko
    was not taken by force, and “greed” is such an ambiguous words it does not function as a clear norm.

    (b)(3) was achieved by concluding SF treaty, and SF treaty , with other documents make it clear that the parties didn’t intend to include Dokod as “such minor islands”in Potsdam declaration which cited Cairo conference.
    (Some people argue Cairo communique is useless because nobody singed and there is no original texts, but I don’t think we don’t have to argue that far)

    As a side note, I think Toadface again misunderstands Kanegane’s logic, and Gerry’s article.
    Suppose Korean old maps are relatively accurate, then as Gerry shows, they prove that Usando is not Dokdo. And Gerry’s articles were so clear and hence influential for English speaking people. So Toadface does not want that. So, he says we should not rely on the old Korean maps Gerry presupposed.

    Suppose Korea old maps are not accurate and hence that we should not refer to them as evidence for or against Korean claim, as Toadface claims, again Korea have no evidence
    to claim Korea’s title to the territory.
    In either case, Korea has no evidence for itself and hence Korea will lose.
    (His only breakthrough was stick to the term of Cairo conference but as we have seen, his project has failed.)

    And, I read Gerry’s claim – English version of Takeshima Bible. But, to your disappointment, I couldn’t have your “religion”. I’d rather read Christian Bible.

    Mycorree.
    Gerry’s articles are arguments, with evidence
    and reasoning and interpretation. They are not religion. Now if even Mycorre can not tell religion from scientific articles, no wonder many Korean have no trouble in just holdoing faith in Dokdo.
    But I still hope you will give us reason why you disagree with Gerry. Calling it religion is not argument, Mycoree.

    Thank you.

  21. comment number 21 by: pacifist

    myCoree,
    .
    Thanks a lot for your laughable response.
    .

    I think no need for evidence because it had been belonging to Korea for a long time.

    Funny, isn’t it? Are you joking?
    But it is not “no need”, you only “can’t” show evidence because Koreans didn’t know Takeshima/Dokdo until the 20th century.
    .
    .

    It is a natural result from your ancestor’s illegal fishing and felling to Ulleungdo..

    .
    Ulleungdo was Japanese territory in the 17th century as “Oki Shichou Gouki” indicated (Ulleungdo was Japanese boundary).
    So it was not illegal for Japanese fishermen to fish in Ulleungdo.
    When Japanese fishermen found Koreans stealing their boats and fishing, Japanese warned them that “This land is Japanese territroy”, and the Korean fishermen answered as excuse saying “We didn’t mean to come here, just drifted ashore”.
    So in those days, Korean fishermen too thought it was Japanese territory.
    .

    Even if you have some precise maps about Dokdo and go there more than Chosun fishermen

    .
    .
    Japan has precise maps and Korea has not at all, why? Because Koreans didn’t come to Takeshima/Dokdo. They didn’t have information about the island. It’s simple as that.
    .
    myCoree, there is no records of Korean fishermen came to Takeshima/Dokdo in the ancient times. The first record that men reached the island was Japanese record, it was in the early 17th century.

    .
    So, you know, it is legitimate to say that Japanese DISCOVERED the isalnd for the first time, unless you can’t find the Korean record that Koreans reached the island before the 17th century.
    .
    But there is NO Korean record. Even there was no Korean name for the island. Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo, Sambongdo was not Takeshima/Dokdo,…how can you prove that Koreans knew the island without name?

  22. comment number 22 by: toadface

    Ponta, I don’t say Korean maps aren’t respresentation of what deemed Chosun territory. Don’t put words in my mouth. I say Chosun maps didn’t employ advanced cartography techniques such as appended maps or accurate scale. We can also verify they were often copies so we must be careful how we use them for reference. The maps Gerry was using for reference had inherent flaws that showed there were both copies of predecessors and inaccurate by simply having islands that didn’t exist.

    What I mean is don’t hold these maps to today’s standards and also do not cite them without historical references of that era.

    Pacifist are you still trying to sell that nonsense that Ulleungdo was deemed the boundary of Japan in 1667? Listen, I’m tired of telling you how flawed your reasoning is. I’ve told you a dozen times now and even Mycoree can see both you and Ponta are like talking to a brick wall. The report on Oki stated “these islands” are the boundary of Japan these islands or this area meant Oki NOT Ulleungdo

    Your interpretation of the reports of Oki does not jibe with Japanese Prefectural and National maps of the day as you can see on this link a more reasonable interpretation that agrees with Japanese maps is here.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-saitohosen.html

    Hamamy’s website has even a better interpretation and if Mycoree wishes to see the Korean interpretation he will also see how wrong you are.
    http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/Dokdo14Eun.htm

    Japanese maps of the 17th Century do not include Dokdo Pacifist and I can’t believe after the hundreds of times I’ve shot you down you still try to present Saito Hosen’s report as such.

    Ponta I don’t just say Japan was greedy. I say they were greedy and then I show the maps that prove they were militarily occupying all adjacent areas including parts of China at the same time they annexed Dokdo. This is not propaganda but fact. Why can’t you accept that.

    Gerry’s arguments are not fact. They are interpretations from sources of questionable accuracy that even a 6th grader could see are not accurate renderings of the areas they represent. I have no axe to grind with Gerry but when you read his posts you will frequently see the words “this suggests” or “I think” “this is probably because”… This should set off a red light that when you read his posts you are not hearing fact but opinion. There is nothing wrong with that in itself but don’t insult our intelligence by saying what he is says is fact. O.K.?

  23. comment number 23 by: Matt

    Gerry’s arguments are not fact. They are interpretations from sources of questionable accuracy that even a 6th grader could see are not accurate renderings of the areas they represent. I have no axe to grind with Gerry but when you read his posts you will frequently see the words “this suggests” or “I think” “this is probably because”… This should set off a red light that when you read his posts you are not hearing fact but opinion. There is nothing wrong with that in itself but don’t insult our intelligence by saying what he is says is fact. O.K.?

    Toadface, any kind of comment about Korean maps before 1905 that are reputed to show Dokdo/Takeshima is going to be conjecture. I have seen countless maps presented, usually small image files that you cannot really see in detail, and they say “look, its Dokdo!”. When I get a decent sized version of the map and I see the island is not in the right position for Dokdo/Takeshima, or is in the position of another island that a reasonable person would not take to be Dokdo/Takeshima.

    While Gerry does use conjecture, he gives his reasons for it, which are quite reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than “look, its Dokdo!”. It is inevitable when dealing with maps that purport to have Dokdo/Takeshima in them, but objectively do not.

    Unless Korea can present an unambiguous map or document, then Korea cannot even prove they even knew of the existence of the island. Add to all this the fact that the empty island policy of the Korean government of the time meant that they were not even well aware of circumstances in Ulleungdo, it is hard to believe that they would have been cognizant of or had sovereignty over Dokdo/Takeshima (a concept that was literally foreign to both the Japanese and Koreans at the time).

    As far as I can see Koreans are claiming to have sovereignty over Dokdo/Takeshima since 512 AD, which by now I guess you give no credence to. On the other hand, Japanese have clear documentation showing they knew about the island for several hundred years, and by 1779 in the Revised Complete Map of Japanese Lands and Roads (Kaisei Nippon Yochi Rotei Zenzu) had accurately mapped Dokdo/Takeshima in its correct location.

    There is an absolutely huge documentation gap between Korea and Japan on this issue. Korea has no documentation at all, which I why I see you have switched strategies and are now trying to tie the Dokdo/Takeshima issue to Japans wartime conduct in WW2. It is an interesting strategy, and I am sure it will gain some sympathy from some people, but even if Dokdo/Takeshima would have to be taken from Japan, it does not follow that Dokdo/Takeshima should be taken by Korea, particularly since the circumstances in which Dokdo/Takeshima was taken by Korea was those of “greed and violence”, the very thing you say disqualifies Japan from sovereignty over Dokdo/Takeshima.

    Korea’s seizure of Dokdo/Takeshima has to be seen in the context of Korea’s post war land grab of territories that they knew full well were not historically Korean land. For example, Korea tried to get the US to give them the Japanese island of Tsushima, claiming that it was historically Korean land. They even tried to land grab some islands that did not even exist (but which Korea thought exists). The US rejected Korea’s claim on both Tsushima and Dokdo/Takeshima, noting that they were not historically Korean lands.

    It seems like new claims about Dokdo/Takeshima are emerging from Korea almost every day. It looks to me like Koreans are trying hard to convince themselves of the righteousness of their position. I think a few years down the track most Koreans will realise that Korea does not have a right to Dokdo/Takeshima based on historical affinity, but will still claim Dokdo/Takeshima as “compensation” for the Japanese “occupation” of Korea.

  24. comment number 24 by: Kaneganese

    Toadface,
    If you say “Chosun maps didn’t employ advanced cartography techniques such as appended maps or accurate scale. We can also verify they were often copies so we must be careful how we use them for reference”, then you must choose Japanese maps that employ same standards as well. It should be…
    1. no disfigured shapes.
    2. clearly showing both of the Ulleundo AND Takeshima and other islands in a proper place with accurate altitudes.
    3. should not appear any islands which wrongfully placed in the map. No phantom islands.
    4. shouldn’t be copied or reffered by any preceeding maps. They are not reliable.
    Others are off the table.

    Though it has nothing to do with Korean’s claim, I checked Japanese maps on your site.
    “A Japanese Map of the World drawn around the year 1835″→Disfigured, Both islands are not inproper place.
    “Saito Hosen in 1667″→No Ulleundo, No Takeshima.
    “The last 3-D map1667″→No Ulleundo, No Takeshima.
    They are absolutely beautiful. Itmakes me proud of myself that our ancestor were so competent. But unfortunately, according to you, they should be off the table and should be removed as a evidence to prove …something you are trying to. By the way, you need to apply the permission from the libraly and show the permission if you continue to put them on your site. You should know the rule if you are law professional as you say.

    If you exclude Choson maps, you need to apply same standards to Japanese maps too. You should now realize you are shooting your own foot by saying Choson maps are not reliable. Your logic contains fatal contradiction.

  25. comment number 25 by: ponta

    Toadface

    This should set off a red light that when you read his posts you are not hearing fact but opinion. There is nothing wrong with that in itself but don’t insult our intelligence by saying what he is says is fact. O.K.?

    I am not insulting your intelligence.
    Sure Gerry’s posts are his opinion. But his opinion and interpretation is much better than your misinterpretation and opinion. That
    is what I am saying. I am saying not that you r intelligence is horrible, but that your interpretation is horrible.(The latter does not always means the former.)
    For instance, why are you still using misleading translation of Onsyushiki?
    We have already discussed it.
    ttp://www.occidentalism.org/?p=285#comment-6095

    The maps Gerry was using for reference had inherent flaws that showed there were both copies of predecessors and inaccurate by simply having islands that didn’t exist.

    That means Koreans have little concern and knowledge about this area, doesn’t it?.
    And Keep in mind you wrote before

    Gerry attempts to discredit Korean historians through ancient Chosun maps and documents. This is almost impossible due the ambiguous nature and crudeness of Chousn cartography techniques.

    This shows this manner of analysing ancient maps is not a scholarly approach

    So why did you give up approaching it in scholarly way? Isn’t that because it is impossible for English speaking intelligence to interpret the Korean map in favor of Korea without revealing that Korean interpretation is twisted ?

    Ponta I don’t just say Japan was greedy. I say they were greedy and then I show the maps that prove they were militarily occupying all adjacent areas including parts of China at the same time they annexed Dokdo. This is not propaganda but fact.

    Supposing this is fact, what does that have to do with the title to Dokdo?
    Korea didn’t know Dokdo, she didn’t have effective control over Dokdo. I can not take away a thing which is not yours.
    .And your reference to Cairo communique is pointless, because it is absorbed in the Potsdam declaration. The minor islands which was mentioned in Potsdam declaration were specified by SF treaty by defining islands that should be returned to Korea. And Dokdo is not included in it.

    Steve Barber, I believe you have a good intelligence, I just doubt your sincerity when you keep presenting misleading translation, one sided interpretation, dodging the questions that would damage Korean claims, repeating old refuted claims without counter arguing while you claim you just want the truth.

  26. comment number 26 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    There is a phrase in Japan, “pees on frog’s face” which means insolence even when he/she faced troubles. toadface, I would say your posting seems to be just like “pees on toadface”.
    But actually you are cornered, toadface.
    .
    .

    Pacifist are you still trying to sell that nonsense that Ulleungdo was deemed the boundary of Japan in 1667?

    .
    As I’ve told you hundreds times, Hosen wrote that Ulleungdo was the boundary because he could see Chosun from there. You can’t view Chosun from Takeshima/Dokdo, or Oki. Oki is the central place of Oki county, not the boundary.
    .

    The report on Oki stated “these islands” are the boundary of Japan these islands or this area meant Oki NOT Ulleungdo

    .
    So you must rewright the text in your site that Ulleungdo was the boundary. It is a shame for you to keep showing your mistranslation on your site.
    .
    There are other evidences to show that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory in the 17th century. One example was, as I wrote before, when Japanese fishermen found Korean fishermen at Ulleungdo they warned “This is Japanese territory” and Koreans excused as they were not meant to be there.
    And another example was from the next year of the incident above, Japanese fishermen caught two Koreans in Ulleungdo as criminals of border violation. One of the Koreans was Ahn YongBok. They were brought back as living evidence of border violation, which means Ulleungdo was Japanese territory then. The Shogunate warned Chosun not to make their people trespass on Takeshima (Ulleungdo).

  27. comment number 27 by: toadface

    Matt. Look it’s Dokdo!!!!
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japan-world-map-songdo.jpg

    Matt. Look it’s Dokdo!!!
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/seitailen-1835-songdo.jpg

    I come up with maps that clearly show the Japanese considered Dokdo part of Korea and all of these Japanese Right-winger scoff and say they “arent official maps??”

    Gerry finds an oddball map with some bamboo on it and declares Dokdo was not Korean.

    Pacifist, who do you think you are kidding? I know the Anyongbok incident all too well and your spin on it is dead wrong.
    The Japanese knew full well Ulleungdo wasn’t theirs.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-anyongbok.html

    Kanganese, in the 1835 map both islands are clearly labelled and not that much out of place at all. They are also color coded as Korean territory.

    Inn addition, I’ve already posted around 50 maps from Japan that clearly show Japan did not consider Dokdo part of Japan.

    So I must rewrite my definition of the Oki report Pacifist. You must tell some of the other Japanese who also agree with the translation I’ve given too!!

  28. comment number 28 by: toadface

    Kanganese almost all of these are great Japanese maps. They are very accurate and there are no phantom islands. Obviously whoever drew them knew the East Sea and Japan’s territorial boundaries well…..right?

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-2.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-japan-national-3.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html

    So do you want to explain to us where Dokdo is???

  29. comment number 29 by: toadface

    We have a saying in English Pacifist.

    Don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining.

    Don’t think for one minute that anyone West of Oki (Japan’s boundary) beleives the rubbish you are putting down.

    Cornered….?
    Who’s got Dokdo?

  30. comment number 30 by: ponta

    Who’s got Dokdo?

    Korea has got Dokdo illegally

  31. comment number 31 by: Kaneganese

    Toadface,
    Weel, NOT RIGHT. That’s not enogh. Give us a definition, please. Precise, academic, legal and international definition of ACCURATE maps enough to adopt as a evidence to to ICJ. Not your unprofessional definition. “Look! this is accurate!” doesn’t mean accurate to everyone except you. Give us the definition, them we will apply same standards to Koeran maps later on. Agreed? Precise, academic, legal and international definition.

  32. comment number 32 by: Kaneganese

    Correction
    Weel, NOT RIGHT. That’s not enogh.

    Well, NOT RIGHT. That’s not enough.

  33. comment number 33 by: Kaneganese

    “not that much out of place at all”
    So you are admitting they are not accurate. Then it’s off the table.

  34. comment number 34 by: ponta

    toadface
    The point is
    Japanese inaccurate maps do not show Korea knew Dokdo, nor do they show Japan was not cognizant of Dokdo accurately, but the exisitence of Japanese maps sufficiently accurate to identify Dokdo show Japan was very aware of Dokdo.
    And other documents show that Japan had effective control over Dokdo.

    And we have already discussed the map you listed.
    ttp://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japan-world-map-songdo.jpg
    (1)Who is the map maker? Was it drawn by government official. When was the map drawn?
    You have never answered.
    (2)It does not say Dokdo, it says “Matsuhima”
    And what does “Matsushima” on this map refer to? Judging from location, it is likely that
    it was Jukdo.
    And still another point is,
    that Japan was sometimes confused and mistaken about the islands does not show Korea had the title to the territory
    All you need to show is the positive evidence
    for Korean claim, which through all youre discussion is what you have failed to show.

    Thanks.

  35. comment number 35 by: myCoree

    Kaneganese

    I remember that you borrowed a book about 「蔚陵島事蹟 」 from the library. How enthusiastic ! I also borrowed one of the same kind of books which very difficult one written in Chinese and no book translated in Korean – (frustrating !). But, the content which I had found is not the same as I introduced here. I just want to know why.
    As far as I know, there are two 「蔚陵島事蹟 」. The PDF file was indicated that the book is being possessed by Dokdo Museum in Ulleungdo.

    Here is the link you wanted to me. But, it’s open only to the café member.
    I am very sorry about the name of the café. You will understand that the name has no relation with me. In fact, I don’t have so bad feeling about Japan and her people.
    Sorry not to answer to the other persons.
    I will be at Dokdo this time tomorrow. ^ ^
    See you later.

  36. comment number 36 by: Kaneganese

    Thank you myCoree!! I really appreciate your honesty.
    I don’t think that you want to kill japanese or anything because of the name of the site at all. But so disappointing that I couldn’t access to the site.
    The book you borrowed, do you remember the name of the book or the author?
    Yes, I believe there are several versions of 「蔚陵島事蹟」 and I believe it is different from original version of 張漢相. Someone at sometime must have put the sentences, I guess. Dr.宗’s articles which was translated in Japanese are available on the net. It is provided by Mr.ban. I believe there are many articles of Dr.宗 in Korean if you are interested in.

    Have a nice trip and return safely myCoree!!

  37. comment number 37 by: Kaneganese

    Toadface,
    This is getting silly, but I compared Japanese maps on your site and the maps of the Junior high school geography text book(東京書籍) of my daughter. For example, I looked for the Aishima(相島) island and other 4 islands(尾島、肥島、羽島、鯖島) of Yamaguchi prefecture off shore of Hagi city. Aishima is 2.48 km2 big and others are almost as same as Takeshima (about 0.25km2). I coudn’t find any maps which show all 5 islands precisely and accurately on your site. Those islands are just a few kilometers off the mainland of Japan, and still it does not appear accurately. Then, again all of the maps which seems to be accurate are not really “accurate” apperantely. Then they are off the table. As Ponta said, we have hundreds reason to debunk your “Japanese gave Dokdo to Korea” theory, and it goes on and on forever. Not only that, but also showing Japanese maps’ lacking to locate Takeshima or colouring in other colour does’t mean Korea knew the island.
    Look, Toadface. I’m not trying to show that Japanese maps are not accurate or anything. I am trying to say that every maps of Choson has its meaning and the map maker tried to put something important or information when they lived. We should respect those who did their best hundreads years ago. You cant judge if they are accurate or not from modern knowledge of the geography. It is very important for modern Korean to analyze what their ancester’s life was like what they were thinking. And I also think it is very important for KOREAN to know that they should keep precise records and not to put any false information to prove something they want to have.

    Anyway, please stop saying it is meaningless to study Korean maps and join the discussion of analyzing them constructively.

  38. comment number 38 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    To follow is a part of the document concerning the 1692 incident of Koreans’ violation of territory:

    此嶋之儀公方様より拝領仕 毎年渡海いたし候 嶋にて候所に 何とて参候やと尋候へは
    此嶋より北に当り嶋有之三年に一度宛国主之用にて 鮑取に参候
    国元は二月廿一日に類舟十一艘出舟いたし 難風に逢五艘に以上五拾三人乗し此嶋へ三月廿三日に漂着、
    此嶋之様子見申候へは 鮑有之候間 致逗留 鮑取上けしと申候

    The Murakawa’s fishermen said “This island was given (Hairyo拝領) by the Shogun and we come here every year.” And he asked Korean fisherman, “Why are you here?”. The fisherman answered, “There is another island at north. We go there to catch abalones every 3 years by the order of our lord. We departed on 21st February with 11 ships but we met strong winds and we, 53 people on 5 ships, drifted ashore on 23rd March. When we look at this island, we noticed there are lots of abalones, so we stayed and caught them”.

    The Murakawa’s fishermen said that Ulleungdo was given by the Shogun, which means the island belonged to the Shogunate.

    To follow is a text by So to claim about the territorial violation in 1693:

    貴城瀕海漁民、此年行舟於本国竹島、竊為漁採、極是不可到之地也、以故士官詳論国禁、固告不可再、乃使渠輩尽退還矣、然今春亦復不顧国禁、漁氓四十余口、往入竹島、雑然漁採、由是士官拘留其漁氓二人、而為質、於州司以為一時証、故我国因幡州牧速以前後事情、馳啓東部、蒙令彼漁氓附与弊邑、以還本土、自今而後決莫容漁船於彼島、不侫今奉東都之命、以報知貴国 云々

    I won’t translate word by word but it mentions that the Koreans came again although Japan warned them not to come the year before, so they captured two of them as evidence. They told Chosun government that they should bann their people to come to the island.

    You know, Japan (the Shogunate) recognised Ulleungdo as Japanese territory in the 17th century. This is a fact. If they didn’t think so, the dispute didn’t occur.

    toadface, pee shower is pouring onto your face… you should do something..

  39. comment number 39 by: ponta

    There is an end to everything.
    It seems Toadface’s discussion is coming close to the end.

    As for Korean maps, he says Korean cartography techniques were so bad we can not used them for and against Korean claims.

    Korean has no evidence based on maps for Korean claim.

    As for Korean documents, Korean claims Usando
    is Dokdo, but the documents make it clear that Usando is the island, e.g.,where you could see sandy beach from Ulleungdo. Hence that is not Dokdo;for the reference of the proper name must be determined by the description associated with it.

    Hence, Korean documents themselves refute Korean claim.

    As for Ahn’s statement that Matsuhima is Usando, he says that proves Korea recognized Dokdo as Korean territory because “Matsushima “is Dokdo/takeshima and Ahn said that was Korean territory.

    It is not clear at all Usando that Ahn referred to is Dokdo:for, as discussed above, based on Korean maps and documents, there is no way to know Usando is Dokdo. Rather it is most likely Usando is not Dokdo;Gerry’s arguments are convincing.
    Again, the reference of the proper name must be determined by the description associated with it. Ahn talked of Matsuhima as the island where people were able to live, where people can get there in a short time (at least less than a half day) from Ulleungdo, where more than 20 people….this is confirmed by Japanese records: more than 20 people were there,…..could cook and fight each other( and Ahn himself said Korean people were not himself alone). But Dokdo is not such a place.

    Ahn at another time said, according to Japanese record, Matsuhima is 50 Korean ri (200km) from Ulleungdo. Ulleungdo to Dokdo is 92 km and 50 Korean ri from Ulleungdo is much
    closer to Oki island.

    In either case, Ahn’s Usando=Matsuhima is not
    Dokdo.

    As for Japanese maps, he claims there are many Japanese maps that lacks Dokdo on them and that Japan was confused about islands at a specific time. But the fact that there are such maps by itself does not show Japan was not cognizant of Dokdo:for, Japan has maps accurately enough to identify Dokdo.

    He also claim that Japan recognized Dokdo as Korean territory. Again the reference of the proper name on the map must be determined by the description associated with it. In case of the maps, the location of the islands on the map associated with the proper name must be major determinant as to the reference.
    Judging from the location, all the Japanese maps Korea claims show Japan recognized Dokdo as Korean territory turned out they have either non-existent islands or Jukdo near Ulleungdo, mislead by Korean or western maps.

    Japan DOES have maps and documents that show Japan was cognizant of Dokdo and Japan had effective control over Dokdo.
    (Look at opp’s site and Tanaka’s site)
    And that justifies Japanese claim to Dokdo.

    Realizing Korea had no historical evidence, Toadface has taken another strategy.

    Since Cairo communique declared that Japan should return the islands which she took by greed and force, and since Dokdo, he claims, was taken away by force and greed, Japan has no title to the title.
    But his reference to Cairo communique is pointless, because it is absorbed in the Potsdam declaration. The minor islands which was mentioned in Potsdam declaration were specified by SF treaty by defining islands that should be returned to Korea. And Dokdo is not included in it.
    Note also Korean government had not discovered nor had effective control over Dokdo before 1905.
    Hence, Korea is in no way a position to claim the title to Dokdo, nor was she in a position to protest against Japanese incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo.

    Therefore his attempt to connect Japanese expansionism at the time with Japanese validity of the title to Dokdo has failed.

    Feel free to criticize.

    But let’s keep paying attention from now on when he comments on this issue, whether he is making new arguments, or he is just repeating his old refuted claim so as to mislead people who are not familiar with the subject.

  40. comment number 40 by: toadface

    Kanganese, I’m going to repeat what I’ve said earlier because you are having trouble reading.

    Chosun maps are did not employ the same modern cartography techniques so we must be careful how we interpret them. In fact early Japanese maps were equally as crude as Korean ones for example. Here is an early map of Ulleungdo and Usando from a Japanese cartographer.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/asia-map-usando.jpg
    It is clearly not an accurate, to-scale representation of Ulleungdo’s location. But we can be sure of which island is represented.

    Chosun maps often positioned island masses closer to territories to which they belonged. For example Chosun cartographers were well aware that Ulleungdo was over two days travel but where did they draw Ulleungdo on these maps? Does the position of Ulleungdo look 103kms away on these maps?
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/usando-6.jpg
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Usando-4.jpg

    What I will say it that the Japanese Takeshima advocates are too hung up on island shapes and locations. Very few maps either Japanese or Korean show Ulleungdo and Dokdo in consistent locations. Very few maps show Ulleungdo and dokdo in correct form. Throughout the ages of Japanese maps Ulleungdo and Dokdo have moved from being too far East, to being too far West to finally being accurately positioned. However, the islands were named long before.

    Japanese harp on the great attention to detail of their master cartographers and then disregard those that clearly show Dokdo as Korean territory because of the position of the islands is wrong.

    Ponta you say Ahn and crew’s Jasando was not Dokdo but I have yet to hear one plausible island it could be. So that being said I guess you are simply admitting you don’t know. That’s OK!! There seems to be many things you don’t know on this subject.

    Japan had documents saying it was cognizant of Dokdo. However, as I’ve mentioned none of those documents are any indication that Japan as a nation considered the island Japanese territory. In fact, there are some that haven’t been conclusively refuted that cleary state that Japan considered the island Chosun territory and another that can be proven to claim that Japan had nothing to do with Dokdo.

    In other words, Japan wants to drag Korea to the ICJ for claim to Dokdo on the basis of cognizance. However cognizant Japan was of Dokdo they never once claimed the islands until they annexed it for military purposes in 1905.

    Of course we know that in order to claim an island effective control must be part of a “natural peaceful” process right Ponta? We also know it must be “open and public” right Ponta? We also know it must be “uncontested” right Ponta? We also know that Japan must be expelled from lands being taken by “greed and violence” right Ponta?

    Japan can’t have her day in court because she can’t justify the inherently rotten 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion.

    If Japan was cognizant of Dokdo since 1618 why did wait until the height of the Japan~Russo War 1904~1905 to annex Dokdo? This is three about three hundred years later!!

    If the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was “open and public” why wasn’t it announced at a central government level? Why wasn’t it announced in the governments official gazette? Why did they only take out a minuscule ad on the second page of a local newspaper that didn’t even mention the name Liancourt Rocks or Matsushima. There wasn’t even a mention of the islands name! Why didn’t they simply go international like when they acquired the Bonin Islands?

    If Japan’s acquisition of Dokdo was “natural and peaceful” why was the island surveyed by the Japanese Navy for watchtowers and telegraph systems months before? Why did the diary of Nakai Yozaburo also record the statement of Yamaza Enjiro who also said it was urgent to install these systems on Dokdo? This was back in September of 1904, way before Dokdo was annexed.

    Japan’s only true claim to Dokdo was in 1905. As shown above the Shimane Prefecute Inclusion was a shabby military land grab that can be seen as colonial relic. Koreans are not being ultra-nationalistic when they are offended that Japan still is trying to encroach on Korean territory by using twisted interpretations of centuries old colonial “international law” at a time when Japan had just seized Port Arthur and numerous other territories in Asia (claimed or not).

  41. comment number 41 by: toadface

    Pacifist, thank you for helping me point something out.

    The Murakawa’s belief that Dokdo was given to them doesn’t jibe with the Dajokan’s report on Ulleungdo and Dokdo in 1877. Here is the last line of the report on Matsushima (Dokdo). If the Murakawa’s thought they owned Dokdo it was not what the Japanese government believed. The 1877 Kobunruko documents say…

    “During 永? period, a merchant, 大屋甚吉 (Ohya Jinkichi) [Later, he changed his name to 大谷], who lived in 伯耆國 會見郡 米子町 (present Yonago city in Tottori prefecture) was hit by typhoon on the way back from 越後 (Echigo; Niigata prefecture), and drifted to this place. (He) investigated the whole island and noticed that there are a lot of fishes and shellfishes. Afterreturning home, (he) asked the Investigator, Abe Shirogoro who was staying in Yonago Castle by order of Shogunate, to allow him to visit there. Abe asked it to Edo, and received a letter of permission on May 16 of the 元和 4 year (1618)…..” So you see it was just permission to voyage.

    Why do keep repeating the same nonsense again and again. Do you have Alzheimers disease? I’ve told you on just about every forum the Japanese Takeshima advocates define “hairyo” as to bestow land. This wasn’t a bestowal of territory it was bestowal of privileges to voyage to lands not considered part of Japan. This was an honor to receive as the Shogunate had an isolationist policy at the time. Even some Japanese historians don’t agree with your translation.

    To support this we can see that Japanese Prefecture maps and national maps of the 17th Century do not included Dokdo or Ulleungdo.
    Here are Shimane Prefecture and Oki Prefecture.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/old-shimane-map.jpg
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/old-oki-map.jpg

    Here is a Japanese national map of the same era of course Ulleungdo and Dokdo are not included.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1654-Japanese-map-border.jpg

    Do you want more maps??

  42. comment number 42 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    How many times should I repeat the same thing?
    The Japanese text I quoated is what Murakawa’s family wrote and it clearly wrote “Hairyo (拝領)”.
    toadface, this is not my translation. the word “Hairyo” is in the original text.
    .
    And the word “Hairyo” means bestowment as you say, in this case it meant bestowment of the right to fish/hunt around Shogunate’s island – Ulleungdo. Bestowment means the Shogunate owned it. He can’t bestow it if it belongs to others.
    .
    And it is different from the permission to go abroad.
    .
    And as seen in the dispute in the late 17th century, Japan recognised Ulleungdo (Takeshima) as Japanese territory.
    .
    Hence, it is a fact that Japan (the Shogunate) recognised Ulleungdo (Takesghima) as Japanese territory in the 17th century. toadface, no maps need for this argument.

  43. comment number 43 by: pacifist

    wedgie,

    In other words, Japan wants to drag Korea to the ICJ for claim to Dokdo on the basis of cognizance.

    .
    Not only cognizance, Japanese sealion hunters built huts on Takeshima/Dokdo in the late 19th century to early 20th century.
    .

    why was the island surveyed by the Japanese Navy for watchtowers and telegraph systems months before?

    .
    It has nothing to do with the incorporation, toadface. And what’s wrong to use nobody’s island?
    You should prove that Korea owned it before Japan did but you keep failing, don’t you?

  44. comment number 44 by: toadface

    Pacifist read my quote above again.

    The Shogunate cannot bestow lands that are not part of his territory. No Japanese prefecture or national maps of this era show Dokdo or Ulleungdo as part of Japan.

    I am not the only one who disagrees with your definition of “hairyo” other Japanese disagree as well.

    There is no proof Japan considered Dokdo as part of their territory. Just voyage passes.

  45. comment number 45 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    The Shogunate cannot bestow lands that are not part of his territory.

    As long as you believe that Ulleungdo was not Japanese territory, it would be hard for you to understand it.
    But the fact is that Japan (the Shogunate) recognised it as Japanese territory so that he could bestow the island for the two families.
    .
    And the word “Hairyo” is not the word I translated, it was written in the old documents.
    .
    toadface, this is a fact if you believe it or not.
    .

    Just voyage passes

    .
    No, it’s different from the usual voyage pass.

    「御公儀へ貢物上納は仕らずと雖も、誠に空居の島を甚吉相顕し、日本の土地を広め御式頂戴の段抜群の功と御賞賛、公方様へ独礼 御目見仰付けられ、其の上御紋御時服御熨斗目拝領、竹島渡海の船へは御紋舟印等拝領仰付けられ、冥加の至りなり」 (「竹島由来記抜書控」109頁)

    .
    This Japanese text mentions Jinkichi Oya was praised by the Shogunate because he found a uninhibited island (Takeshima=Ulleungdo) and made it Japanese land. The Shogunate gave him the permission in recognition of his achievement.
    .
    If it was a usual voyage pass to abroad, the Oya’s and the Murakawa’s families should have made a voyage in route of Tsushima. It was a rule in the Edo period. But they could go to Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo) and Takeshima (Ulleungdo) directly. That proves that they received was not a usual voyage pass to abroad.
    .
    As for the maps, as somebody (Kaneganese?) already wrote, not all the maps always show its territory.
    .
    toadface, now forget about the maps and you should behave yourself as you are a big boy now.

  46. comment number 46 by: toadface

    Pacifist, I chose not to believe it because I don’t buy someone posting garbled Japanese text as proof of anything.

    I’ll take the word of another Japanese man who has written articles on the matter.

    Professor Hideki Kajimura states;

    “The two families of Otani anf Murakawa oftern expressed that the Shogunate government bestowed Matsushima and also Takeshima to them but in reality the government only issued a permit of voyages to the islands and did not give these islands to them. Apparently the two are stretching the interpretation to their favor. To be exact, it should be construed as a permit of voyage.

    So you see, Pacifist you are very confused. I hope this clears things up for you!!

    Have a nice day.

  47. comment number 47 by: ponta

    infimum said
    today’s (March 7, 2007) paper version of the San-In Chuo Simpo has a follow-up article to the Takeshima article published on Takeshima Day. There is really nothing new, but the most interesting part is where the author implies that he was requested by the Korean side to refrain from taking up the Takeshima issue any more. Anyway, here is the article.

    竹島めぐる「古地図」報道
    本社報道部・松村健次

    二年目を迎えた二月二十二日の島根県の「竹島の日」から、二週間が経過した。二十四日に記念行事を終え、竹島(韓国名・独島)をめぐる動きは沈静化したように見えるが、インターネット上では、依然として激しい論争が続いている。発端は竹島の日に本紙が掲載した「韓国主張覆す古地図見つかる」の記事。韓国の研究機関がすかさず反論したのに対し、古地図の発見者も応酬して、論戦はヒートアップの様相を呈す。
    「あっけない日本メディアの独島関連古地図報道」-。竹島の日から二日後の二十四日、韓国のインターネットニュースは、韓国の北東アジア歴史財団の反論を基に、二十二日の本紙記事を否定的に報じた。

    記事は、韓国で竹島問題を研究する米国人英語教師のゲーリー・ビーバーズ氏が、歴史的な証拠から領有権問題では日本側の主張に軍配が上がるとして、本紙に投稿した研究成果を基に構成した。
    ビーバーズ氏の研究は、日本政府が竹島を島根県に編入した一九〇五年以前、韓国の文書や地図に独島の表記がなく、韓国側が、独島の古名は古文献や古地図に記されている干山島としていることに注目したもの。
    韓国側の主張を覆す資料として、竹島から九十二キロ離れた韓国・鬱陵島と近くに小島を描いたソウル大学奎章閣所蔵 の古地図を提示。小島には「干山島」と、竹の種類と見られる「海長竹田」の表記があり、干山島は竹が生えない岩の塊の独島ではないとした。

    竹島が韓国領であるという主張に覆された格好の北東アジア歴史財団はまず、地図は一七一一年に鬱陵島捜討官の朴錫昌が描いたものである指摘した。
    その上で、鬱陵島の近くには、地図に描かれたような島々に相当する島がないとした上で、捜査の過程で観察により描かれたというより、伝え聞いた話を基に描いたと推定されるとし、地図の信ぴょう性を否定することで反論した。
    反論を受けたビーバーズ氏は早速、「財団は、問題の地図に干山島が竹が成長する島と記載されていることを無視して、論点をすりかえている」と自らのホームページで批判した。
    財団の反論が「あっけない」と受け取られても仕方がない迫力不足な内容であることは確かで、島根県の竹島問題研究会の杉原隆副座長も「論点のかみ合わない的はずれな反論だ」と酷評する。

    ネット上で論戦が繰り広げられるさなか、取材相手の韓国関係者から暗にではあるが、日韓の両国民の感情を刺激しないためにも、竹島の日の記念行事が終わったのを機に、竹島報道を慎んでほしいと要請を受けた。
    さらに、記念行事の取材で松江市を訪れた韓国紙の貴社からは「竹島問題を取り上げることが日韓両国の関係悪化につながりかねず、扱い方が難しい」という悩みも聞いた。
    竹島をめぐって敵対感情が優先しがちな現状を踏まえれば、もっともな面もある意見だが、問題そのものに目を背けていては、解決に向けた糸口を手繰り寄せることはできない。
    今回の古地図の記事は、本紙のホームページでのアクセス数が他の記事を圧倒的に上回る五万一千件。竹島の日の掲載で注目を集めたこともあるが、国内外で竹島問題への関心が高まっていることを裏付けた数字だ。
    日韓両国の専門家が、互いの主張をぶつけ合うことは、竹島の日条例の制定で高まった国内の関心を維持する上でも歓迎されること。ただし、感情的にならず、冷静に論点を整理した上での論戦であることが前提だ。
    Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    https://www.occidentalism.org/?p=537#comment-15743


  48. […] “Korean History Group Responds to Japanese Article on Usando” […]


  49. […] Concerning this, the Northeast Asian History Foundation submitted a statement that refuted the claims item by item. [You can see my post on their so-called “refutation” here.] […]


  50. […] Hanmaumy was not the only one to made the translation error; Korea’s almighty “Northeast Asian History Foundation” made a similar error. In fact, I think Hanmaumy may have gotten his translation from the foundation. Here is what Korea’s “Northeast Asian History Foundation” had to say about haejangjukjeon (See my post here): “해장죽전(海長竹田) 소위 우산도”는 수토관이 구체적으로 조사하지 않고 해안을 따라 길게 대나무가 있는 죽도(대섬)와 당시 안용복의 활동을 통해 분명히 드러난 우산도(독도)를 그린 것으로 추정 […]