Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

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

May 1st, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers

Location of Usando Unknown in 1903 and 1913

The following article was printed in the Korean newspaper, Maeil Shinbo (每日新報), on June 22, 1913:

鬱島郡 西面居 金元俊은 鬱島 東北方 4, 50里에 位置하는 于山嶋(無人島)에 移住코자 移住民을 募集하고 探索키로 決定하였으나 10數年前 同地 韓國人이 聯合 探索하였어도 發見치 못하고 海圖에도 없으며 現時 航海路가 頻繁한데도 이를 現認하였다는 일이 없다하여 中止하다.

每日申報 1913.6.22

Kim Won-jun, a resident of Seo-myeon (西面) in Uldo County (鬱島郡), wanted to gather people to migrate to Usando (an uninhabited island), which is located forty to fifty ri northeast of Uldo, and decided to search for the island. However, he said that Koreans on the island (Ulleungdo) had tried conducting a joint search for the island (Usando) ten or more years earlier, but were unable to find it. He also said that the island was uncharted, and that even after several trips in search of it, it could not be found, so he has given up.

Maeil Sinbo, June 22, 1913

Notice that the article said that an Uldo (Ulleungdo) resident named Kim Won-jun tried to find Usando in 1913, but was unable to do so. Notice also that the article said a group of Uldo residents had tried to find Usando ten or more years earlier (1903), but also failed. Kim claimed that Usando was supposedly forty to fifty ri northeast of Ulleungdo, but there are no islands in that area, which would explain why he and the other Koreans had failed to find it.

Korean maps tell us that Usando was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, which is located about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo’s northeast shore. (See maps here, here, here, and here.) In 1903, two kilometers was equal to five Korean ri, so it seems very likely that the island that was supposedly 40 to 50 ri northeast of Ulleungdo was actually 4 to 5 ri northeast of Ulleungdo. Usando was simply an old name for Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, but was apparently no longer being used by Ulleungdo residents in 1903 and 1913.

In 1899, the Korean newspaper, Hwangseong Shinmun, said that “Usando/Jukdo” was Ulleungdo’s most prominent neighboring island. Here is the relevant section of the 1899 article:

In the sea east of Uljin is an island named Ulleung. Of its six, small neighboring islands, Usando/Jukdo (于山島竹圖) are/is the most prominent (崔著者). The Daehanjiji says that Ulleungdo is the old Country of Usan. It has an area of 100 ri. Three peaks stand out (律兀).

By 1903, just four years after the above article, had Ulleungdo’s most prominent neighboring island disappeared or had the name “Usando” simply been replaced by the name “Jukdo”?

The 1913 article shows us that Koreans living on Ulleungdo at the time did not consider “Usando” to be Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) since they most certainly would have known of the rocks by then and since they believed Usando to be forty to fifty ri northeast of Ulleungdo, not ninty-two kilometers to the southeast, which is where Liancourt Rocks are. The above 1913 article also tells us that Koreans living on Ulleungdo in 1903 did not know where Usando was, so that means that even if they did know of Liancourt Rocks at the time, they did not consider them to be Usando.

For an explanation of how the names “Usando” and “Jukdo” came to be used to refer to the same island, click HERE.

Japanese Translation Provided by Kaneganese

(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

1903年と1913年、于山島の位置は不明だった。

次の記事は1913年6月22日付の韓国の毎日新報に掲載されたものです。

“鬱島郡西面在住の金元俊さんが、鬱島(=鬱陵島)東北40-50里の位置にある無人島の于山島へ移住するために移住民を募集して、その島を探すことにしました。しかし、彼によると鬱陵島の島民が、10数年前にその于山島を共同で探索しようとしたものの、発見できなかったということです。また、その島は海図に記されておらず、何度か探索船を出したものの発見できず、中止したそうです。 每日申報 1913.6.22”

記事によると鬱島郡の金元俊氏が1913年に于山島を見つけようとしたけれど、発見できなかったということですよね?また、10数年前(1903年頃)にも鬱島(=鬱陵島)の住民が于山島を発見できなかった事も伝えています。金氏は于山島が鬱陵島の北東40から50里にあるはずなのに、その場所では島が発見できなかったと述べていますが、そのことから何故彼やそのほかの韓国人達が于山島を見つけられなかったかが説明がつくのです。

韓国の地図をみれば、于山島が鬱陵島の北東沖2.2kmに浮かぶ隣接島の竹嶼である事が分かります。(各地図へのリンク)1903年時点では、2kmが韓国の5里に相当しますので、鬱陵島北東40から50里の場所にあるはずの島は、実際には北東沖4-5里の場所にあった可能性が高いのです。于山島は鬱陵島の隣接島である竹嶼の古名ですが、1903年と1913年における鬱陵島の住民は明らかに、この于山島という名称を使っていなかったようです。

1899年の韓国の皇城新聞は、”于山島竹島”が鬱陵島の最も主要な隣接島であると記述しています。その記事の関連部分をここに掲載しました。〈リンク〉

“蔚珍の東方沖の海中に、鬱陵と言う名の島がある。その島には6つの隣接した小さな島嶼があり、それらのうち于山島竹島がもっとも主要な島である。大韓地誌には、鬱陵島は昔の于山国ことで面積は100里ある、と載っている。3つの峰がそびえている。”

この記事の経った4年後の1903年に鬱陵島の最も主要な隣接島が消えてしまった、もしくは于山島と言う名前が”竹島(=竹嶼)”と言う名称にとって変わったのでしょうか?

1913年の新聞記事によれば、当時の鬱陵島の韓国人達は”于山島”をLiancourt Rocks(竹島/Dokdo) であるとは考えていなかったことが分かります。というのも、その年までには鬱陵島の住民はLiancourt Rocks(竹島/Dokdo)の事を明らかに知っていたはずだし、彼等は于山島が鬱陵島の南東92kmではなく、東北40-50里沖にあると考えていたのですから。この1913年の記事はまた、1903年当時の鬱陵島に住む韓国人は于山島がどこにあるのか分かっていなかった事を伝えています。つまり、その当時例え彼等がLiancourt Rocks(竹島/Dokdo)の事を知っていたとしてもそれを于山島とはみなしてはいなかった事を意味するのです。

“于山島”と”竹島(=竹嶼)”の名称がどちらも一つの島を指すようになった経緯をここで説明しています。〈リンク〉

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


70 Responses to “Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9”

  1. comment number 1 by: toadface

    What a laugh riot you are Gerry.

    Time after time you have been wrong on key issues of your posts. The trouble is Gerry you’ve aligned yourself with a crew of right-wing Japanese Takeshima lobbyists without the balls or integrity to tell you when you are wrong.

    Yes let’t talk piece of crap Gerry.

    Your last 2 posts are simplistic attempts to show that Koreans were not cognizant of Dokdo well after 1905 when these documents below show you are dead wrong Gerry.

    Both the records of the Japanese battle cruiser Niitaka (1904) and the Black Dragon Fishing manual of 1903 show the Koreans were both cognizant and involved on Dokdo Island before the Japanese annexed it. These papers have been posted here before so whose really playing dumb here Gerry? Or is your memory getting bad in your old age?
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/niitakadoc2.jpg
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-black-dragon.html

    Gerry, look at what most people including authors of books have said about this forum of which you have chosen to vent your distorted views and then we’ll you can decide who has dug a hole. It’s obvious you post here because you can’t stand up to the critical eye of those who know the Dokdo issue well and don’t mindlessly parrot the POV of Japan’s MOFA like frick and frack (Ponta and Pacifist) You’ve surrounded yourself with your brigade of Takeshima “yes men” whose heads bob up and down and murmur “yes Gerry” at every pile of shite you toss to them. Pretty sad, remember when you used to post on the Korean Herald Gerry? What happened to you?

    Hanmaumy’s invitation to debate you still stands Gerry.

    I will continue to post all Japanese military documents related to Dokdo especially from the 1904~1905 Russo~Japanese War. We know Japan’s historical claim is a sham and the terra nullius claim is bogus too. When all of the Japanese Naval Archives related material are on the table it will put a stake in the heart of Japan’s silly assertions they wanted to hunt seals in 1905.

  2. comment number 2 by: ponta

    Mr Toadface

    Both the records of the Japanese battle cruiser Niitaka (1904) and the Black Dragon Fishing manual of 1903 show the Koreans were both cognizant and involved on Dokdo Island before the Japanese annexed it.

    Where the hell is the Korean document that show Korean government was cognizant of Dokdo.

    The trouble is Gerry you’ve aligned yourself with a crew of right-wing Japanese Takeshima lobbyists

    It is ironical that you aligned yourself with
    Japanese imperialist(Niitaka) and Japanese rightist(blackdragon) without the integrity to tell when you are wrong.

    Japanese documents show Koreans were employed by Japanese agents to hunt sea lion. No wonder there were some Koreans who were cognizant of Dokdo. But that does not show Korean government nor Korean Journalism nor Korea in general was cognizant of Dokdo.

  3. comment number 3 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Toadface,

    You are using strawman arguments again, Toadface. My last two posts were trying to show that “Usando” was not Dokdo, and I think they succeeded.

    Hanmaumy now admits that the Usando next to Ulleungdo on Korean maps was Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). Moreover, even the director of the Dokdo Museum now admits it. By admitting that Usando was just Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo, Koreans have essentially admitted that they have no old maps showing Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo). Are you now man enough to admit that, too, Toadface?

    The only connection that Korea had with Liancourt Rocks before the Japanese annexed them in 1905 was the Korean fishermen who were hired to work on Japanese boats fishing around Liancourt Rocks. There is little or no evidence that Korea knew about the rocks before then. And even in 1906, one year after Japan annexed the rocks, the county head of Ulleungdo still did not know where the rocks were.

    I have eight Korean books on “Dokdo” and probably 90 percent of the content in six of them is nothing but crap, so who are these authors of books you talk about? Maybe, I know them.

  4. comment number 4 by: GTOMR

    toadface said #51

    Both the records of the Japanese battle cruiser Niitaka (1904) and the Black Dragon Fishing manual of 1903 show the Koreans were both cognizant and involved on Dokdo Island before the Japanese annexed 

    It can assumed the fishing activities in Liancourt Rock had started from 1903.Korean had cognizant of Liancourt Rock around 1903 because Japan’s fishing company started to hire korean brought into Liancourt Rocks.
    .
    In addition,both Japanese and Korean didn’t call it Usando于山島 and 石島.
    .
    On 1902, it can assumed that fishing activities in Liancourt Rocks hadn’t goes on. The report of Ullungdo by Ministery of Foreign affairs Commerce Office on 1902  ,Japanese call it “Liyanco-island”,but nothing mentioned about “how korean call it Liancourt ROcks” and nothing report about fishing activities like seals huntings or fishing.

  5. comment number 5 by: GTOMR

    Sorry for double post;
    Does anyone know which is this Chong-Sokdo(Rocky island)in Kang-won Province? 江原道▲石島 on Japan Imperial Chosun Photo collection(大日本帝国朝鮮写真帖)on 1910.Because of unclear photo and letter,I cannot tell what it is.
    http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/BIImgFrame.php?JP_NUM=40010279&VOL_NUM=00000&KOMA=118&ITYPE=0
    There was many easy-name of Sokdo石島 in Korea.I think it is not 観音島 or Liancourt Rocks.

  6. comment number 6 by: goda

    Sorry for intervene.

    Toadface,

    You are very interesting man.
    But I think, it is an opportunity of withdrawal for you.

    You are mistaking the way from the starting point.

    In my perception, it is essentially irrelevant whether there was an intention of the invasion in Japan.

    Evidence that show Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks was South Korea territory, is all.

    1. at that time, had South Korea actually own Takeshima?
    2. or had South Korea insited Takeshima as her territory at that time?
    3. and Japan had admitted it at the time?

    This is all.

    Your concept, suffering/victimized thought or plot theory, is completely nonsense.
    And also tjis is the most weak point of your Blog.

    This is an idea with universality of modern people.

  7. comment number 7 by: goda

    “At the time” means when both Japan and South Korea correctly recognized existence of Liancourt Rocks.

    It’s about or before 1905.

  8. comment number 8 by: goda

    correct to “At that time “, sorry.

  9. comment number 9 by: pacifist

    My dear toadface,
    .

    Pacifist, I’ve mentioned to you numerous times.

    .
    Yes, you have and I’ve answered to you numerous times too. I won’t say the same things again here.
    .
    Just hold up and get out of the hole toadface.

  10. comment number 10 by: toadface

    First, Korea owns Dokdo and has effectively managed the island for much longer than Japan.

    Japan wants to drag this issue to the ICJ on grounds that first the have a historical claim that is stronger than that of Korea’s and second that their 1905 claim was valid.

    First there is not one shred of evidence that Japan historical claim to Dokdo goes back prior to the military annexation of Dokdo. So all that leaves us with is their 1905 claim to Dokdo.

    In 1905 Japan claimed Dokdo on 2 legal theories. One is that the island was terra nullius, however Japan no longer makes this claim. So really all Japan has is their 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion.

    In 1904~1905 Japan surveyed, zoned and annexed Dokdo for military purposes. This was for Japan to assert military control over the region to defeat Russia in the Russo~Japanese War. This is not a legal method to acquire land under both international law and by the terms of peace treaties Japan was subject to in 1945 (Cairo Convention).

    Even if Japan could put forth a strong argument that in 1905 military annexations were legal, who is willing to entertain the idea that Japan should be given territories she stole during the height of a major war?

    Goda, I’m not trying to create false sympathy for Korea here. I’m gathering the military records related to Takeshima from Japan’s own naval archives to prove a theory long asserted by both Korean and some Japanese scholars. The theory that Japan’s annexation of Dokdo was purely a military move has long been proven. I’m just putting out the actual records and translating them.

    If Japan wants to drag this case to the ICJ they need to do better. First they must prove title to Takeshima prior to the 1905 annexation of the island. They must show stronger historical title NOT just cognizance. They must find a rational way to explain documents and maps of theirs the show Dokdo as Korean land without wild theories and mystery island shell games.

    From what I’ve seen Japan has failed on all of these points. No ICJ.

  11. comment number 11 by: pacifist

    toadface,
    .

    First, Korea owns Dokdo and has effectively managed the island for much longer than Japan.

    .
    Korea doesn’t own it, she just occupies it. even if she holds it for many years, the ownership won’t change.
    .
    Suppose toadface, you takes my fountain pen away and I claim that it is mine. If you hold it for 10 years or 50 years or more, I have a right to say “Hey return it to me!”
    You don’t have a right to own it until I give it to you.
    .

    the military annexation of Dokd

    In 1904~1905 Japan surveyed, zoned and annexed Dokdo for military purposes.

    Even if you repeated it hundreds times, the history won’t change. There was no military annexation of the island until SK did it in 1950’s.
    .

    This is not a legal method to acquire land under both international law and by the terms of peace treaties Japan was subject to in 1945 (Cairo Convention).

    Although it was not a military incorporation, you can’t decide one thing happened in 1905 with the 1945 declaration.
    .

    This was for Japan to assert military control over the region to defeat Russia in the Russo~Japanese War.

    It was not militarily controlled, just used for a radio. And as I repeated many times it was not Korean land so that Koreans can’t complain if Japanese Navy used it.
    .

    she stole during the height of a major war?

    Stole???
    From who???
    .
    Rather you should say SK stole it from Japan in 1950’s as you stole my fountain pen(the latter is fictitious of course), as it was already under Japan’s control.
    .
    But in 1905, it didn’t belong to any countries including Korea.
    .
    toadface, game is over.

  12. comment number 12 by: madboots

    How long are you planning to continue such meaningless arguments, toadface?

    I admit Japan’s terra nullius theory was next to nonsense, but your illegal integration theory was also absurd and will be hardly understood by the public.
    All your aruguments are fundamentally based on the assumption that Korea had already been cognizant and had proclaimed of the island at the time of Japan’s integration.
    And this is what we are supposed to be discussing in this thread.
    Besides, what Gerry has been striven for is just revelation about lies seen in Korean researchers’ arguments and her goverment’s official statements and at last, consequent corrections by themselves, I think it is highly unlikely to happen, though. He might be anti-Korean debater, but it does not mean he is a pro-Japanese activist.

  13. comment number 13 by: nigelboy

    If Japan wants to drag this case to the ICJ they need to do better. First they must prove title to Takeshima prior to the 1905 annexation of the island. They must show stronger historical title NOT just cognizance. They must find a rational way to explain documents and maps of theirs the show Dokdo as Korean land without wild theories and mystery island shell games.

    From what I’ve seen Japan has failed on all of these points. No ICJ.

    Yes toadface. Go to ICJ now because Japan’s claim is weak. Stick it to Japan at the world stage. Prove to the world that Korea was right and Japan was wrong the whole time.

  14. comment number 14 by: helical

    If Japan wants to drag this case to the ICJ they need to do better.

    From what I’ve seen Japan has failed on all of these points. No ICJ.

    Whoa, that almost sounds like you don’t want Korea and Japan to go to the ICJ. That couldn’t possibly be the case, could it? After all, if Korea is so sure it has irrefutable evidence that it is the rightful owner of Dokdo, she wouldn’t have any reason to not take it to court and have the ownership recognized by the international community once and for all, no?
    So strange.

    Oh that’s right, Korea thinks Japan is going to mount a military attack once the court rules in favor or Korea and Japan is not happy with the ruling.
    Sorry, but not as many people in the world share those standards of behavior as one in Korea might imagine.

  15. comment number 15 by: goda

    Retroactive of the law is prohibited since it is modern.
    South Korea is an exception. They are still alive in pre-modern ages.

    At that time, the vessel from many foreign countries came and went to the Sea of Japan and ther informations caused confusion on Ulleungdo and Matsushima (Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks ), and receiving this chaos, Japan ousted to be have necessity to clarify the political slant internationally, and investigated islands.

    Takeshima was not very worthy before except the local residents in Shimane Pref.

    But Takeshima’s military importance increased in the rise of an international military tension, and Japan used this island naturally before long.
    In the world at that time, it’s the course of nature.
    Anything doesn’t change still now basically.

    You seems to prove the specific historical view that may be described as the invasional historical view of The Imperial Japan, and try to tie to the profit of South Korea this of the Takeshima problem.

    If my view is right, I think it is foolish.
    After all, the historical view is only a one of many point, one of the cuts or phase of the history. Thing can be seen as one want to see. and there are neither value of devotion nor a actual profit, moreover it, to persist it, seems only to disgrace your evaluation.

    >First, Korea owns Dokdo and has effectively managed the island for much longer than Japan.

    It is clearly an illegal occupancy by South Korea on International Law.

    I recommend you to value an academic attitude more. Behaving politically and foolish doesn’t come recommended.

  16. comment number 16 by: toadface

    Goda, I suggest you read the terms of the Cairo Convention and the Potsdam Declaration. (Greed and violence) Also read Max Hubers ruling regarding the principle elements of a legitimate land claim (see continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty)

    Here is a question. If the Japanese Navy was not involved with the process of annexation, then why do some naval documents use the name Takeshima before the actual annexation?

    It seems very odd that some Japanese documents used the term Takeshima before the Shimane government formally announced it. This document was dated about a month before, yet you can read Takeshima (now or namely Liancourt Rocks) it date January 1st. Strange.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/warzonetext2.jpg

    Goda all Japanese Naval documents and maps show Dokdo’s appropriation was no different or inseparable in any way from the lands she was occupying on Korean land.

    This is typical of the Japanese mindset. They shamelessly try to apply colonial era international law on land claims from their expansionist era and then scratch their heads wondering why all of their neighbours loathe them. Time to move on boys, there isn’t snowball’s chance in Hell Japan will ever own Dokdo.

  17. comment number 17 by: pacifist

    toadface,
    .
    Stop murmuring around. Your theory is nothing until you prove that Korea owned takeshima/Dokdo before 1905.
    It was not Korean land as every evidence shows, nor Russian land. So it is unlawful thing to use it, incorporate it and name it whatever.

  18. comment number 18 by: goda

    I’ve read these documents except Max Huber’s.
    So, what do you want to saying about?
    An international law has been maintained little by little since end of the World War I.
    However, it is after the end of the World War II that it came to be worthy to evaluate its actual effect or legitimacy.
    I am not interested in the dream.

    I feel strange on that You feel strange.
    Japan had investigated in 1880, 25 years before the Cabinet decision about name of the Takeshima.
    Do you want to insist obstinately that the name of Takeshima falls from the heaven without any details and was decided suddenly at the cabinet decision?

    The Oki island suggested of Takeshima naming to the Japanese Government on November 30, 1904.

    Moreover, I’ll never be surprized if Japanese Navel used “Takeshima” some years before the Cabinet conclusion.

    >This is typical of the Japanese mindset.

    You have already known the fact of what you said it as “strange or typical”.
    I recommend you to throws sterore-typed way of thought, caught in the prediction, away.
    It’s tedious.
    I’m saying this with my kindness for you.

  19. comment number 19 by: pacifist

    Sorry, correction:
    .

    So it is unlawful thing to use it,

    SHOULD BE:
    So it is NOT unlawful thing to use it,….


  20. […] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 9 […]