Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

MOFA makes Sea of Japan videos

July 14th, 2006 . by Matt

The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has produced a video about Korea trying to change the name of the Sea of Japan to the East Sea. The video completely debunks the Korean case, and it is in English. Japan Probe got the scoop on this one – well done, James! Be sure to look at Japan Probe’s take on the video. The video is below in three parts.

Trying to change the name from the Sea of Japan to something else is just pure anti-Japanese sentiment. Koreans do not realize how foolish this make them look to people overseas.


5 Responses to “MOFA makes Sea of Japan videos”

  1. comment number 1 by: T_K

    Just a minor note…
    The first video noted that the Baltic is called “East Sea” in Germany. The term is also in use here in Finland (even though the sea is actually to the west). It’s just another reason for me to hold on to using the name Sea of Japan – having two “East Seas” on the map would be very confusing.

    I wonder, what would nationalist Koreans recommend we Finns and Germans do about it? Should we think of another name for the Baltic in order to comply with their agenda?

  2. comment number 2 by: Darin

    Nah nah T_K, they’ve got that all figured out. Today it’s the ‘East Sea’, but if people start to budge on the issue, they’ll whip out the ‘Sea of Korea’ — no confusion with anything in Europe that way…

    The existence of two groups in Korea pushing for two different names makes me think that the Sea of Japan issue is not about the ‘correct’ name not being Sea of Japan, but the people just want to cause trouble for Japan in any way possible because they feel they are superior and can do that sort of thing. (In most East Asian countries, there are levels inside the society, Korea is no exception to the rule — the problem is when people apply this logic to the international society.)

  3. comment number 3 by: bad_moon_rising

    In addition to the videos above, there is also an article at Wikipedia concerning the Sea of Japan dispute,Sea of Japan naming dispute, and a discussion of the article in Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute. Some of the arguments put forward by East Sea supporters are simply absurd and illogical.

    Think of this. One day there was Sea of the US. Then, the next day it changed to the Sea of Taliban. How offended would you be if that sea had been named that way for more than last 100 years? Same applies to Japan. Also Korea. If East Sea was the most dominant name used & Koreans dislike Japan because of what they did in 1900s are equivalent to that of the holocaust by the Germans (I wonder why the Jews get so much attention with their holocaust, but half the world doesn’t know about Korean holocaust), how frustrated would Koreans feel & by how much they would be urged to change the name to anything BUT Sea of Japan.

    Korea = US. Japan = Taliban. Why didn’t I see that before? Brilliant analogy! But on a positive note, we do get a glimpse at the irrational thought processes behind some of these “East Sea” supporters.

  4. comment number 4 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Matt,

    I have been trying to post to the Dokdo/Takeshima post, but have been unable to, probably because the comments section is so long. When I click on it, I can only get comments up to the first part of July, and then it cuts off on me. I wonder if you could start a new post dealing with the Dokdo/Takeshima issue, so that we can continue our discussion?

    I am on vacation now and do not have much access to a computer, but I can check every once in a while. Anyway, I have brought a book me that deals with Dokdo/Takeshima. While reading the book I found a reference to a 1724 Japanese document that seems to be a summary of a 1692 meeting between Japanese and Korean fishermen off the coast of Ulleungdo. I found the document interesting because of the following passage:

    三月二廿四日に隠岐国より出舟仕 同廿六日之朝、五つ時に竹嶋之内いか嶋と申所へ着舟仕 様子見申候 得者鮑大分取上け申様に 相見へ不審に奉存

    Notice that it mentions that the Japanese anchored their boat off of Ulleungdo at a place called いか嶋. That placename reminded me of イガ島 (Iga Island), which was a small island just off the coast of Ulleungdo on this 1724 Japanese map, so I am wondering if it could be the same place? If it is the same place, then it looks like it might have been referring to present-day Jukdo, just off the coast of Ulleungdo.

    I notice that Toron Talker mentions the document here, which makes me curious about what he has to say about it. I am hoping that Ponta, Aki, or Pacifist might give me a summary of what Toron Talker says and their opinions.

    Ponta, Aki, Pacifist,

    Do you think the いか嶋 in the following document could be the same place as イガ島 (Iga Island) on the 1724 map? Also, what do you think of the other placenames mentioned in the document?

    I look forward to hearing your opinions

    ——–

    作恐口上之覚

    一、
    (元禄五、壬申年)二月十一日、爰元出船仕同晦日に隠岐国之福浦へ着舟仕

    三月二廿四日に隠岐国より出舟仕 同廿六日之朝、五つ時に竹嶋之内いか嶋と申所へ着舟仕 様子見申候 得者鮑大分取上け申様に 相見へ不審に奉存

    同廿七日之朝 浜田浦へ参申内に 唐船弐艘相見へ申候 
    内壱艘はすへ舟壱艘ハうき舟にて居申候 唐人三拾人斗見へ申候 
    其内弐人残し置 残り之者とも右之うき舟に乗り 此方之船より八九間程沖を通り 大阪浦と申所へ廻り申候 右之弐人残り申 
    内壱人は通しニテ 弐人共ニともども船に乗り 此方之舟へ参申候故乗せ申候 
    而何国之者と相尋申候へ ちやうせんかわてん国村之者と申候故 
    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
    左候は丶此嶋を早々に罷立候様にと申候へ 共舟も少損じ候故 造作仕調次第に出舟可仕候間 私共船をすへ候様にと申に付 岡へ上り兼て拵置候 諸道具改見申へは舟八艘 其外諸道具見へ不申候付 通辞へ此由尋候へは 浦々へ廻し遣し候と申候
    先此方之舟すへ候へと申候へ共唐人は大勢此方は纔に 弐十一人にて御座候に付 無心元奉存、
    竹嶋より三月廿七日之七つ時分より 出舟仕申候
    然共何にても印無之御座候では如何と奉存 唐人の拵置候 串鮑少々笠壱つ網頭巾壱つかうじ壱つ取致出舟
    四月朔日に石州浜田浦へ着舟仕夫より当月四日に雲州雲津浦迄参翌五日之七つ時分に米子に入津仕候

    村川市兵衛舟頭 平兵衛
      同        黒兵衛

    「元禄六年酉四月朝鮮人召つれ参候時諸事控」(大谷家文書)

  5. comment number 5 by: Matt

    Gerry, go ahead and make the topic yourself. You have full administrative priviliges. You certainly seem to have struck a chord.