Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

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

April 26th, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers

The following is a map of Korea from the 1890s. The author of the map is unknown, but the map is called “Daejoseonguk Jeondo” (大朝鮮國全圖).

The map shows an island just off the east coast of Ulleungdo labeled as Usan (于山), which was almost certainly referring to Ulleungdo’s present-day neighboring island of Jukdo.

 

The following is a map of Gangwon Province, which was also made in the 1890s. In fact, judging from the shapes of Ulleungdo, Usando, and other features , the map seems to have been made by the same person who made the above map of Korea. However, the waves are shaped slightly differently.

 

Notice on the map below that Usan (于山) is shown as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, just off its east shore.

 

Both of the above maps show Usando (于山) as Ulleungdo’s only neighboring island. And the text on the Joseon map saying, “Japan Archipelago in the East Sea,” seems to suggest that the islands east of Ulleungdo are part of Japan.

Earlier maps of Ulleungdo show very clearly that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, and Korean maps in the 1890s seem to have been saying the same thing.

Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese

(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

下の図は1890年代の韓国の地図です。作成者は不明ですが、大朝鮮國全図と言う名称です。

地図1:大朝鮮國全図(1890年代)

この地図でも于山と名付けられた島が鬱陵島のすぐ東沖に浮かんでいるのを確認出来ます。おそらく、これも現在の鬱陵島の隣接島である竹嶼であることはほぼ確実です。

地図2:大朝鮮國全図(1890年代) 鬱陵島付近拡大図

次の地図も、1890年代に作成された江原道の地図です。実をいうと、鬱陵島の形から考えると、上の地図と同じ人物によって作成されたのではないかと思われます。ただし、波の形が多少異なっています。

地図3:江原道地図(1890年代)

下の拡大図でもやはり、于山(島)が鬱陵島の隣接島として描かれていますね?

地図4:江原道地図(1890年代) 鬱陵島付近拡大図

どちらの地図も、于山を単なる鬱陵島の隣接島として描いています。しかも、この朝鮮時代の地図には、”東洋中日本諸島”という但し書きがあり、鬱陵島の東側は日本領であることを示していると思われます。

これ以前の鬱陵島の地図は、于山島が鬱陵島の隣接島の竹嶼である事を明確に示していましたが、1890年代の韓国の地図でも、同じ事を私達に教えてくれているようです。

Links to More Posts on Takeshima/Dokdo (With Japanese translations)

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 1

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 4 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 5

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 6

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 7

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 8

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 10

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

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 1

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 2 Supplement

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 3

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 4

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 5

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 6

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 7

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 8

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 9

Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 10

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

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


40 Responses to “Lies, Half-truths, & Dokdo Video, Maps 11”

  1. comment number 1 by: pacifist

    Interesting map.
    BTW, there is a word on Ulleungdo but it’s hard to read. Maybe 中峯 (middle peak)?

  2. comment number 2 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Pacifist,

    Yes, the word is 中峯 (Central Peak), which is a reference to Ulleungdo’s central, highest peak. It appears on almost all Korean maps of Ulleungdo.

    The two maps are not very clear because they are scanned copies. If anyone can find better copies on the Internet, please let me know.

  3. comment number 3 by: General Tiger

    BTW, there is a word on Ulleungdo but it’s hard to read. Maybe 中峯 (middle peak)?

    Yes, that right.

    However, I do have to disagree with the idea that Usan in this case is Jukdo: Jukdo has always been considered a part of Ulleungdo, and there was was never seperately drawn. Just my thought, I’m open to interperations.

  4. comment number 4 by: Gerry-Bevers

    General Tiger wrote:

    However, I do have to disagree with the idea that Usan in this case is Jukdo: Jukdo has always been considered a part of Ulleungdo, and there was was never seperately drawn. Just my thought, I’m open to interperations.

    Ulleungdo Inspector Lee Gyu-won drew “Jukdo” (竹島) as a neighboring island of Ulleungdo in 1882. Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 Map

    Also, this 1834 map shows Usando as an island about four kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore. We know it is about four kilometers offshore because the grid along the edge of the map is marked at 10 ri intervals. One Korean ri equaled 400 meters (0.4 kilometer), so that means that ten Korean ri was four kilometers. Since the map shows Usando about one grid segment off Ulleungdo’s east shore, that means the map showed Usando being about four kilometers offshore. Today’s maps show Jukdo about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s east shore, so the Usando on the 1834 map was almost certainly Jukdo.

    I suggest you look at some of the other Korean maps presented in the links above before again using the word “never.”

  5. comment number 5 by: General Tiger

    Gerry-Bevers

    Thanks for the links, I should remind myself to never say never (something I should have learned when coming here…. dealing with idiots seems to have radicalized me)
    Just a question: do you think the maps were made by actually going to such places?

  6. comment number 6 by: Gerry-Bevers

    General Tiger,

    Korean records describe several inspections of Ulleungdo, and Lee Gyu-won’s diary and map describe in great detail what he saw and experienced on Ulleungdo, so, yes, I think the maps were made from people actually going there or were drawn from sketched maps of people who actually went there.

  7. comment number 7 by: Kaneganese

    Gerry,

    The name of the first map 大朝鮮國全”島” shouldn’t be 大朝鮮國全”図”? I can’t see it clearly, but it seems not “島” to me.

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

    下の図は1890年代の韓国の地図です。作成者は不明ですが、大朝鮮國全図と言う名称です。

    地図1:大朝鮮國全図(1890年代)

    この地図でも于山と名付けられた島が鬱陵島のすぐ東沖に浮かんでいるのを確認出来ます。おそらく、これも現在の鬱陵島の隣接島である竹嶼であることはほぼ確実です。

    地図2:大朝鮮國全図(1890年代) 鬱陵島付近拡大図

    次の地図も、1890年代に作成された江原道の地図です。実をいうと、鬱陵島の形から考えると、上の地図と同じ人物によって作成されたのではないかと思われます。ただし、波の形が多少異なっています。

    地図3:江原道地図(1890年代)

    下の拡大図でもやはり、于山(島)が鬱陵島の隣接島として描かれていますね?

    地図4:江原道地図(1890年代) 鬱陵島付近拡大図

    どちらの地図も、于山を単なる鬱陵島の隣接島として描いています。しかも、この朝鮮時代の地図には、”東洋中日本諸島”という但し書きがあり、鬱陵島の東側は日本領であることを示していると思われます。

    これ以前の鬱陵島の地図は、于山島が鬱陵島の隣接島の竹嶼である事を明確に示していましたが、1890年代の韓国の地図でも、同じ事を私達に教えてくれているようです。

  8. comment number 8 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Thank you, Kaneganese.

    I think the reason I keep making that mistake is that the character 島 and the character 圖 are right next to each other on my Chinese character input system. I guess I just get in too much of a rush. Fortunately, you are around to keep me honest.

  9. comment number 9 by: toadface

    The map you are showing is obviously not to scale Gerry. You are looking at the distance between Usando and Ulleungdo and saying Usando is directly beside Ulleungdo. What you are forgetting is Ulleungdo is 130kms away from Korea but it is almost touching the Korean peninsula on the map.

    Gerry, the 1834 map you are referring to was not based on a survey but has an appended map of Ulleungdo. If you look at the size of Ulleungdo it is way off you can also see 5 islands off of Ulleungdo’s shore that simply do not exist. Thus we know this map is a copy of a very old Chosun map that was appended to the 1834 compilation of maps.

    Gerry, you should post some of the documents that clearly show Usando is not Jukdo Islet. Reports from surveys prove Usando is not Jukdo Islet.

    Do you remember this document Gerry?
    https://www.occidentalism.org/?p=592#comment-20276
    You posted it on here about 2 weeks ago trying to get a translation. However when you realized it showed contrary evidence you buried it!! I saw it on Hamaumy’s website. Why don’t you give a balanced review of all related material?

    This report listed Ulleungdo’s “neighbour islands” Notice that Usando and Jukdo are not the same. In fact Usando is called “Matsushima(Dokdo)” in Japanese. Below Jukdo Islet is listed thus this document clearly showed Jukdo Islet and Usando are not the same island.

    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Matsushima-Usandodoc1.jpg

    The Hwaseong Shinmun article on the report of Ulleungdo also listed Jukdo and Usando as different islands.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Hwangseong-close.jpg

    As did this Japanese document
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Matsushima-Usandodoc2.jpg

  10. comment number 10 by: toadface

    You can also see the map you posted shows Usando southeast of Ulleungdo. Of course Jukdo Islet is Northeast of Ulleungdo.

    Korea’s Daehanjiji also shows Usando to be southeast of Ulleungdo on various editions.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/jiji-20.jpg

  11. comment number 11 by: GTOMR

    toadface wrote;#10

    You can also see the map you posted shows Usando southeast of Ulleungdo. Of course Jukdo Islet is Northeast of Ulleungdo.

    Korea’s Daehanjiji also shows Usando to be southeast of Ulleungdo on various editions.

    .
    This “Usando于山嶋 on South-east南東” is Jukdo竹島 in the north-east北東 of Ullungdo鬱陵島 because of misunderstandings direction by Korean.
    .
    Turn the 大韓全図 90 degree to CCW(left),suppliment map of 大韓地誌, you can got to know the map is same design with 鬱陵島外図 by 李奎遠in 1882.
    https://www.occidentalism.org/?p=583
    .
    But ,in the 啓本草 date on 9 May,there is false discription about Jukdo竹島 and Donahg島項 are located in the south of the 船板邱尾area becausse of direction misunderstandings.
    「又有一浦 名船板邱尾 南邊洋中 有二小島 形如臥牛 而左右回旋 勢若相抱 一曰竹島 一曰島項 只有叢竹而已 日暮 下陸」
    (It is correct that Jukdo竹島 and Dohang島項 are located in the north east of 船板邱尾area.)
    This is because they misunderstanding the islands location and direction.Turn the 鬱陵島外図 by Lee,90 degree to the clockwise, you can see Jukdo竹島 and Dohang島項 in the fake-south(downside) of 船板邱尾area.
    .
    (For Japanese)
    .
    So,the discription on 大韓地誌 about “于山嶋 in the south-east” also same wrong direction error simiar with 啓本草 date on 9 May.SO,the 于山嶋 on 大韓地誌 is Jukdo.
    .
    (I guess because of the sutrong current confuse them the direction when checking the geography,or low technology of map-making. This strange island location on the maps are shown in many map by Korean ,they wrote the islands and 芋洞area in south even though it locates in the east part of Ullungdo).
    .
    In addition,there is the discription about
    territory of korea in 大韓地誌.
    http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/hennyu/taikantisi.html
    It is match the location of Ullungdo and Jukdo in 大韓全図 that territory of Korea is from 124’30E to 130’35Ein 大韓地誌.(Liancourt Rks in 131.52E)
    And 大韓全図 in 新大韓地誌 has only Ullungdo and Jukdo.

  12. comment number 12 by: toadface

    Gmtor.

    I don’t understand what you are talking about. The map attached to the Daehanjiji is simply an appended map from previous maps of Ulleungdo drawn incorrectly for centuries with 5 islands mapped to the south that don’t exist. Look south of Ulleungdo in the Daehanjiji’s map of Usando and you can see the 5 islands.

    Then compare with this map. You can see the same ghost islands.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Ulleungdo-map-2.jpg
    Look on this map made centuries before you can see the 5 ghost islands as well.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Ulluengdo-map3.jpg
    This map has the ghost islands as well.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Ulluengdo-map4.jpg

    It’s clear Chosun cartographers continually copied these maps of Ulleungdo and appended them onto national maps because the same mistakes exist. There are no prominent inslands on the South shore of Ulleungdo yet all of these maps show the same glaring errors. Even Gerry’s notorious map with the dreaded bamboo on the island labelled Usando has the phantom 5. Thus these maps can’t be held to very high standards of accuracy.

    Also look at the scale of Ulleungdo on the Daehanjiji, the island size is about 2 to 3 times to big. If you look at the lines of longitude and latitude Ulleungdo’s position is far East so this map and attached document should not be used for locaitonal reference either. Even Ulleungdo is located to the West of these limits.

    Lee Kyuwon’s map has little in common with the Daehanjiji of 1899. Also many maps of Usando~Ulleungdo in the late 19th Century began to show Usando to the southeast of Ulleungdo

    Few of these maps were based on surveys but rather through historical records and by copying Ulleungdo maps through the ages.

  13. comment number 13 by: pacifist

    toadface,
    .
    You look disgraceful. As we’ve already pointed out, 大韓帝国 (Great Korean Empire) knew that their territory excluded takeshima/Dokdo and its boundary was Ullengdo.
    .
    The extent of the territory had not changed all through the revised editions of 大韓地誌 Daehanjiji.
    .
    toadface, don’t deceive people any more.
    All you have to do is find an evidence that Koreans knew Takeshima/Dokdo before 1905, but you keep failing.

  14. comment number 14 by: toadface

    Pacifist, all you have to do is prove Japan’s 1905 military annexation was legal. Unfortunately for you Japanese docs prove otherwise.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations2.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations3.html

    The Daehanjiji’s measurements of latitude and longitude even excluded Ulleungdo Pacifist. I suppose you think the Japanese should have it too….it wouldn’t surprise me. What’s truly shameful is Japanese right-wing extremist like yourself trying to claim an island they annexed over a hundred years ago while colonizing Korea.

  15. comment number 15 by: GTOMR

    Tordface wrote on 12;

    It’s clear Chosun cartographers continually copied these maps of Ulleungdo and appended them onto national maps because the same mistakes exist.

    what I meant to say is,
    1.”The discription of Usando于山嶋 in the south east“is Jukdo in the north east of Ullungdo.
    2.大韓全図 was refered from 鬱陵島図形 by 李奎遠 in 1882, not copied from the 3 Maps you post on No12.
    .
    The local maps of Ullungdo has roughly three main design.
    .
    One is the desin that toadface’s link No.2 and 3..Those maps has discription about so-called Usando所謂于山島 just east of circle-shape Ullungdo.
    and strange 5 ghost island on the south.(It is hard to tell what is these five island.)
    1.Name and year unknown post by toadface.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Ulluengdo-map3.jpg
    2.Name and year unknow post by toadface
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Ulluengdo-map4.jpg
    3.輿地圖 c.a. 1730
    4.海東地圖 c.a.Early 1750s
    5.地乘 c.a.After 1776
    Map3-5,see,Mr Gerry’s old post
    .
    Second pattern is bit different from type-1they wrote “Usan于山” just east of ellipse shape of Ullungdo(see type 1;they wrote”so-called Usando所謂于山島”),there are five strange islands on the south.
    1.name and year unknown posted by toadface
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Ulleungdo-map-2.jpg
    2.朝鮮地圖 c.a.1750-1768(with scale)
    3.靑邱圖 1834(with scale)
    4.大東興地図 1861
    Map2-4,see Gary’s old post
    .
    Third one ,is completely different design from type 1 and 2 , because they wrote the islands more details and discription. Mostly,the design of Ullungdo are rectancular shapes. Because Lee directly had surveyed Ululngdo, not copied with type 1 and two.
    The name of Usan has disappear,and usan renamed Jukdo竹島.
    And the “Ghost 5 island” turned to be appear paticular name like Lee’s map on 1882.Ofcourse there is nothing discription of Liancourt Rocks.
    1.鬱陵島図形 by 李 1882 there is the name with five rocks in the east.This map seems to be main map of type-3 category.
    Even though,this map has correct 4 direction, 啓本草 date on 9 May,there is false discription about Jukdo竹島 and Donahg島項, are located in the south of the 船板邱尾area becausse of direction misunderstandings.They wrote Jukdo on the south.
    「又有一浦 名船板邱尾 南邊洋中 有二小島 形如臥牛 而左右回旋 勢若相抱 一曰竹島 一曰島項 只有叢竹而已 日暮 下陸」
    .
    2.Map no.4 in 1886 by Japanese report of Ullungdo. 
    (地図第四号「朝鮮国蔚陵島出張檜垣内務少書記官復命ノ件」p11、p12)
    http://f48.aaa.livedoor.jp/~adsawada/siryou/060/resi039.html
    Jukdo竹島 and 観音崎 and many rocks.
    3.文鳳堂雑纂 – Late of 19C by Japanese.
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka4/05.jpg
    The don’t record of the rock’s name,but they record the size.
    .
    4.大韓地誌 in 1899(It can assumed that copied from Lee’s map on 1882 because same design ,turn the map to the counter clockwise direction, 90’angles).Only Usan’s name.So it has same direction error same with Lee’s map and report.”Usando in South east of”,is “jukdo,in north east of Ullungdo”
    .
    And those map never includes Liancourt Rocks,that consist from two main pinnacle and many rocks on the shore.Type one maps has so-called Usando所為于山島 there is 5 ri east of Ullungdo and has bamboo that Mr,Gerry manytimes explains.This ”So called Usando became 于山Usan,then chaning to Jukdo竹島.
    .
    And It is crucial that the discription of 大韓地誌 said that teritory of Korean empire is
    from 124′30E to 130′35,that matchs thhose korean’s map.(Liancourt Rks are 131.55E)

  16. comment number 16 by: GTOMR

    Sry for double post.
    Type 1 are for local maps
    Type 2 seems to be local maps combined from type 1 of “So-called Usando所謂于山島” and “whole map of Chosun dynasty,”Usan,the old country name of Usan and another Ullungdo’name of “Usan”.
    Type-3 are local maps that is the result of the survery.
    .
    I forgot to explain,there has type-4,more accurate map by the Japan’s modern geography mapping technology.
    1)鬱陵島見取図 in 1905
    2)大韓全図 of 大韓新地誌 in 1907
    3)鬱陵島全圖of 韓国水産誌 in 1909

    Maps quote from Toron-and so on.

  17. comment number 17 by: Apr26

    Hello, toadface. What is the name of the document in your comment 9?
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Matsushima-Usandodoc1.jpg
    It is not so clear from this document that Jukdo and Usando are not the same island.
    大小六島アリ其中著名ナルヲ于山島(日本人ハ松嶋ト名ク)竹島ト云フ
    大小六島アリ means “There are 6 islands, big and small.” But it is not clear if Ulleungdo is included in the 6 islands. I think Ulleungdo is included as the big island.
    其中著名ナルヲ于山島(日本人ハ松嶋ト名ク)竹島ト云フ
    could mean;
    (1) Among them are well-known islands called Usando (which Japanese call Matsushima) and Jukdo.
    (2) Among them is the well-known island called Usando (which Japanese call Matsushima) or Jukdo.
    If Ulleungdo is included in the 6 islands, Usando should mean Ulleungdo not Dokdo in case (1).
    If it means “Usando and Jukdo”, it should have been punctuated like “其中著名ナルヲ于山島(日本人ハ松嶋ト名ク)、竹島ト云フ”.

    I also want to mention the use of parenthesis in this manner is very unusual.

    The newspaper article is very similar to the document above.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Hwangseong-close.jpg
    What is the relationship between these two?
    Did the document in Japanese copy the newspaper?
    Did the newspaper copy the document in Japanese? or
    Did both of them copy the same unknown document?
    The newspaper says there are 6 small islands excluding Ulluengdo. So the number of islands is different.
    It says either;
    The most well-known island is Usando’s Jukdo. or
    The most well-known islands are Usando and Jukdo.

    If it means “Usando and Jukdo”, it should have written “于山島、竹島” rather than “于山島竹島”. Compare with “柴胡、藁本、石楠、藤草、香木、槻木、蘆竹” later in the article.

    And if the most well-known is Usando, why did they fail to mention Usando in the Korean Imperial Edict 41 in 1900?

  18. comment number 18 by: hanmaumy

    Gerry-Bevers!
    I made out my criticism on your this writings today. I want you to read it certainly.^^;;
    http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/DokdoWedgie03-2.htm

  19. comment number 19 by: pacifist

    toadface,
    .

    Pacifist, all you have to do is prove Japan’s 1905 military annexation was legal.

    .
    It is only you who are saying “military annexation”, which is your distorted thought.
    .
    toadface, you didn’t answer my question. How do you think the USA annexed Hawaii during the war with Spain in Cuba and the Phillipines? You insist that the annexation of Hawaii was “military annexation”?
    If so why don’t you insist before the Takeshima things that the annexation was illegal and USA should give up Hawaii?
    .
    I haven’t heard that USA did the “military annexation” – do you think this the world standard?

  20. comment number 20 by: madboots

    toadface,
    If you want to have the proof of legal basis for Japan’s annexation,
    you should check out old articles on a conference held at Harvard University in Novermber 2001. The theme of the conference was on “reconsideration of the Japanese annexation from historical and international law perspectives.”

  21. comment number 21 by: madboots

    Oh, Sorry.
    The conference was on the 1910 annexation.
    Forget it.

  22. comment number 22 by: toadface

    Apr26, The Japanese never refer to Ulleungdo as Usando. They refer to Ulleungdo as either Takeshima (pre-mapping era confusion 1840~?) or Matsushima. But at no point in history did Japanese call Ulleungdo/Usando.

    There are numerous Japanese and Korean that say “Usando is what Japanese (or we) call Matsushima. that is attached to Ulleungdo

    Such as the report on Takeshima (Ulleungdo) in 1878.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Takeshima-report3.jpg

    Korea’s Yojiji Gazette 1808
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/1808-usando.jpg

    You are hung up on the way the documents are written and not applying historical reference or other related documents.

    This document also lists Usando and Jukdo as separate using commas.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Matsushima-Usandodoc2.jpg

    Madboots, I think that the world has changed and many of the former colonial powers have lost their stranglehold on what were once considered 3rd World countries. The world has to re-evaluate how “international law” of the 19th Century applies today.

    In 1910, the world declared the word “Korea” illegal. Japan “legally” annexed Korea in the eyes of world community. When the Koreans tried to bypass the puppet foreign ministry installed in Seoul and beg for help at the Hague in 1907 the world basically laughed at the Koreans and declared then unfit to manage their own affairs. But I don’t think these colonial laws such as “terra nullius” (the law Japan used) carry as much weight as they did.

    The old laws that were used as “legal” land grabs are under constant attack these days especially in regions of the world where colonial powers oppressed aboriginals. Australia is a classic example of terra nullius under fire.

    People on this forum often draw the comparison between Hawaii and Dokdo. Somewhere they have drawn the conclusion that I’m in favour of what America did in Hawaii but this is wrong.

    First, I’m not American. Second I don’t agree with what America did in Hawaii, it is very similar to what Japan did in some of her surrounding territories. This was a policy of overwhelming a territory’s indigenous peoples by allowing immigration and then gradual displacement of the native population. Japan’s Hawaii could be said to be Hokkaido where they too overwhelmed the local populaton (Ainu)

    However, Pacifist, Unlike Hawaii, Dokdo was first uninhabited and remote which means Japan should have made the acquisition “open and public” which they did not. The incorporation was not announced at a central government level.

    Unlike Hawaii, Japan surveyed, occupied and built facilities on Dokdo for none other than military activities at the height of the largest war of the day (Russo~Japanese War 1904~1905)

    Pacifist, I’ve shown you the entry of Nakai Yozaburo’s diary that shows the Japanese Imperial Navy wanted to install military facilities on since at least September of 1904.

    I’ve also shown you the documents and maps that prove Japan explicitly surveyed, mapped and zoned both Dokdo and her surrounding waters for military purposes before, during and after the Japanese annexed the island.

    If you feel military annexation is legal, I can live with that. But don’t make an ass out of yourself by insisting the Japanese Government decided they wanted incorporate Dokdo to go seal hunting as Russia’s Baltic Fleet was steaming toward Tsushima.

  23. comment number 23 by: ponta

    toadface
    Don’t make a mistake.
    Annexation has nothing to do with the issue of Dokdo.
    Why ?
    Because Dokdo had never belonged to Korea before Japan had effective control of it.

    Why am I so confident?
    Because there is no Korean maps, no Korean documents of Dokdo.
    All there is is the testimony of Ahn, a criminal, that “Matsuhima” where people lived, belongs to Korea. And in general, Japanese used to call Liancourt rocks Matsuhima.

    But, in addition to his statement inconsistent with the fact that nobody could live on Liancourt rocks, since there is no Korean maps and no Korean documents of Dokdo, it is least likely that Ahn was referring to Liancourt Rocks.
    (Oh I forgot to mention your speculation that
    since Ahn went to Japan, he must have seen Dokdo, but does it deserve mentioning?)

  24. comment number 24 by: toadface

    Ponta I’ve dealt with you nonsensical theory that Japanese could not have lived on Dokdo on this thread.
    https://www.occidentalism.org/?p=622#comment-21525

    Regarding annexation, Aquiring territory (ownerless or not) must be part of a natural peaceful process military annexations don’t fall into this category Ponta.

    Effective control is not a “gimmie” Effective control of a newly acquired territory is conditional on a few points.
    1. It must be a peaceful and natural (not military)
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations2.html
    2. It must be uncontested.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Objections.html
    3. It must be open an public.

    On all three of these points Japan’s “claim” to Dokdo is seriously flawed.

    Remember in 1905 Japan claimed Dokdo on 2 premises. First they said it was “terra nullius” (ownerless)e Strangely, the Japanese Foreign Ministry doesn’t mention this anymore. The other claim the Japanese made in 1905 was that Dokdo was “inherently part of Japanese territory” But there are no Japanese documents that prove this at all!!

    Over the years the Japanese claim to Dokdo has gone from terra nullius, to historical to trying to rely on a colonial annexation and taking shots at Korea’s claim. In other words, Japan wants to try the Dokdo case all over again at the ICJ using a totally different basis from which they first “acquired” the island in 1905!!

    Rubbish, Japan lost this “effective control” under the terms of surrender in 1945.

  25. comment number 25 by: Apr26

    Hello, Toadface.
    Would you please indicate the names of these two documents?
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Matsushima-Usandodoc1.jpg
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Matsushima-Usandodoc2.jpg
    They look like translation of some Korean document.
    As to
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Takeshima-report3.jpg

    聞ク松島ハ我邦人ノ名セル名ニ〆其実ハ朝鮮蔚陵島ニ属スル于山ナリト

    means

    I heard “Matsushima is a name named by our nationals, which is, in fact, Usan that belongs to Korean Ulleungdo.”

    The document goes on to say, 4th line from left,

    今果シテ聞クノ如クナランニハ断然松島ヲ開クベカラズ

    meaning,

    If, in fact, what I heard is correct, we should never open Matsushima.

    So, the writer, who is a Japanese government official Mr. Tanabe, is not sure if Matsushima is or is not Usando.

    By the way, I thought the point here was if Usando is Jukdo or not.

  26. comment number 26 by: toadface

    Apr26 The last document is from the 1878 Report of Takeshima and it part of Tanebe Taichi’s summary of the Ulleungdo Investigation on Ulleungdo. It was one of two experts on the consulted on the Takeshima problem to give their opinion on the matter who both agreed Usando was Matsushima of Ulleungdo (Dokdo)

    I post this information to show that whatever Usando may or may not have been some high ranking Japanse of this era considered Usando to be Matsushima (Dokdo) attached to Ulleungdo and that it wasn’t considered part of Japan during the late 19th Century.

    All maps made by Japan national and provincial show that Japan did not consider Dokdo as part of Japan.
    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-shimane.html

    If you want to see the best collection of Dokdo related material check out Hanmaumy’s website. He’s the king!! Some docs I gathered were initially from him but I’m not sure which page I got the documents you are talking about from but you’ll find it here. He also debunks Gerry there.
    http://dokdo.naezip.net/

  27. comment number 27 by: toadface

    By the way. The issue of what Usando is or was, can be really difficult and will be debated forever. I doubt there will ever be a “slam dunk” on this matter because there is a lot of contradictory material.

    However, as I read the text from the Japanese description of the Anyongbok Incident of 1696 it’s clear that Jasando of this confrontation was Dokdo. It could definitely NOT be Jukdo Islet as Gerry has mislead the readers on this forum to believe.

  28. comment number 28 by: ponta

    Ponta I’ve dealt with you nonsensical theory that Japanese could not have lived on Dokdo on this thread.

    And I replied to your “nonessential” theory.

    Effective control is not a “gimmie” Effective control of a newly acquired territory is conditional on a few points.

    (1) It was not contested.
    (2) It was open.
    Hence it was valid.
    BTW, opp debunked your theory of notification. Did you read that?
    But anyway there is no maps and no documents to show it belonged to Korea, so these conditions do not really matter.

    Rubbish, Japan lost this “effective control” under the terms of surrender in 1945.

    First you are so sure, why doesn’t Korea bring it to ICJ?
    Second, notice you are saying that Japanese effective control was valid until 1945;in other words, you admit it was valid.
    Third, if it was valid, Korean occupation is illegal, because there is no treaty between Japan and Korea, for that matter, any countries, to give the territory to Korea.

    I love you, Toadface.

  29. comment number 29 by: toadface

    Ponta, Korea contested to the best of her ability considering she was already an occupied territory by the time she was aware of Japan’s annexation.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-Objections.html

    If Japan’s annexation of Dokdo was “open and public” then why didn’t the Koreans know about it until 1906? Not open and public Ponta. A two inch ad on the second page of a local newspaper that makes no mention of the island name (Liancourt or Matsushima) and an internal announcement by a prefecture government is not the correct organ of government to announce extending your territorial boundary 157kms within visual proximity of you neighbour.

    Don’t put words in my mouth Ponta. I said Japan had effective control, I never said it was legal “effective control”

    Why should Korea go to ICJ Ponta? Look at the boundary between Japan and Korea as it is now. Dokdo stands at almost midway between the Japanese and Korean mainland, in fact if Dokdo Island didn’t exist it would be a perfect place to draw an international boundary line.

    But this isn’t good enough for the land hungry Japanese, they want to control almost the entire East Sea, they want to extend their national borders to within visual proximity of Ulleungdo, a territory of Korea since the 5th Century.

    Drawing a equidistant line between the Okinoshimas and Ulleungdo clearly puts Dokdo in Korean territory. The territorial limits of Japan and Korea are not unfair as it is.

    The Koreans should tell the Japanese to shut up and drop their claim or else Korea will upgrade Dokdo, mke it classed as “habitable” and then extend their limits 80 kms more. From what I understand Japan has been building up (making) islands to extend her territory in other regions.

    Ponta, you love me??
    Sorry Skippy, I don’t “roll that way…”

  30. comment number 30 by: Apr26

    Hello, Toadface.
    Please remember Japanese gevernment official Mr. Tanabe wrote “If (Matsushima is Usando)”. He did not write “Matsushima
    is Usando.”

    The page you mentioned above shows a interesting report in 1906 (光武10) by Korean county chief.
    The report says “Dokdo (独島) which belong to our county”.
    When did Dokdo begin belonging to Ulleungdo county?
    The Korean Imperial Edict 41 in 1900 says in its article 2 that the area of Ulleungdo (Uldo) county is Ulleungdo, Jukdo and Seokdo. It did not mention Dokdo. Why did Korean Government fail to mention Dokdo in its edict in 1900, whereas such name is commomly used in 1906, unless it had no intention to possess Liancourt Rocks?


  31. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11 […]


  32. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11 […]


  33. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11 […]


  34. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11 […]


  35. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11 […]


  36. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11 […]


  37. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11 […]


  38. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11 […]


  39. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11 […]


  40. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Maps 11 […]