Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Tsushima is not Korean territory, declares city of Tsushima

September 28th, 2006 . by Matt

Tsushima
A map of Tsushima

Japan Probe has linked a Japan Times article in which the city of Tsushima has rejected the Korean municipality of Masan’s claim of sovereignty over Tsushima.

NAGASAKI (Kyodo) The city assembly of Tsushima, Nagasaki Prefecture, adopted a unanimous resolution Thursday demanding the South Korean city of Masan repeal its ordinance that claims Japan’s Tsushima Islands as South Korean territory.

In March 2005, the municipal assembly of Masan in South Gyeongsang Province designated June 19 as “Daemado Day,” commemorating the dispatch of Korean forces to Tsushima on that day in 1419. The Japanese islands lying between the two countries are known as Daemado in Korean.

Although Tsushima has stayed silent over the matter, some assembly members have begun voicing their concerns amid strained bilateral ties between Japan and South Korea in part over former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s visits to the war-linked Yasukuni Shrine, assembly members said.

The article continues –

Some Tsushima assembly members have been cautious about their resolution, however, hoping it will not further complicate bilateral strains, they said.

The Masan ordinance says it is designed to have people at home and abroad recognize that Tsushima is South Korean territory with common historic and cultural backgrounds and hence a territorial right, but the Japanese city sees no historical grounds in the claim, city officials said.

The Tsushima resolution says the claim in the Masan ordinance is groundless and an imprudent view.

One city official expressed concern that the assembly’s move may have a negative impact on tourism to the islands.

I think that city official is foolish. It is important for Korean tourists to know that Tsushima is not rightfully a part of Korea. If they wrongly believe it is part of Korea controlled by Japan, then that false belief will eventually damage relations between Korea and Japan.


49 Responses to “Tsushima is not Korean territory, declares city of Tsushima”

  1. comment number 1 by: tomato

    Sometimes, Japan fights back…only sometimes.

  2. comment number 2 by: sqz

    FRUS 1951 volume 6 page 1202, 1203

    SF講和条約において、韓国は主張を取り下げたのです。
    In SF peace treaty, Korea withdrew a claim that Tsushima is a Korean territory.
    それなのに返還を要求します。
    However, now, Korea demands return of Tsushima.
    韓国の領土的野心は、世界平和を乱します。
    Ambition of a Korean territory disturbs world peace.

  3. comment number 3 by: pacifist

    Korean people should know that Tsushima was the place where Koreans killed Japanese olds and women and kidnapped children in the 13th century, before Hideyoshi’s Korean invasion.

    The Mongol Invasion was suggested by a Korean.
    “Kublai Khan’s interest in Japan was aroused in 1265 when Cho Yi (조이), a Koryo courtesan, informed him that Japan could be subdued easily”.

    And there were thousands of Koreans in the invaders.

    “The Mongol army was joined by a Koryo army of 5,000 commanded by Kim Bang-gyong (김방경 – 金方慶). The allied army left Masan in an armada of 900 ships manned by 6,700 Koryo sailors on 3 October, 1274”. “Two days later, the Koryo army stormed Tsushima and occupied the island and the Mongols occupied Iki island (壹岐島)”.

    “In 1281, the Khan formed two mighty armies: the Eastern Route Army (東路軍) of 30,000 led by Hong Da-gu, a Mongol general, augmented by a Koryo army of 10,000 commanded by Kim Bang-gyong”

    And they slaughtered many islanders…..

    “Koryosa, a historian of the Goryeo dynasty, mentions that in 1274, an army of Mongol troops that included many Korean soldiers killed a great number of people on the islands”. (Wikipedia)

    http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/mongol-koryo-japan.htm

  4. comment number 4 by: GarlicBreath

    The kind people of Tsushima have to live with Korean walking around disturbing their beautiful island. Its only natural that in time they will be fed up with the koreans. THe Koreans are ruining Tsushima. I predict that in 1 year the Japanese will try and stop all the korean tourists from visiting.

    That would be the smart thing to do.

  5. comment number 5 by: ponta

    The Masan ordinance says it is designed to have people at home and abroad recognize that Tsushima is South Korean territory with common historic and cultural backgrounds and hence a territorial right

    This ordinance just weaken Korea’s claim to Dokdo further.
    Because it show how irrational Korean claims are.

    So I think the best thing Tsushima people should do is to ignore it.

  6. comment number 6 by: YoungRocco

    Pacifist:

    How are you doing?

    Korean people should know that Tsushima was the place where Koreans killed Japanese olds and women and kidnapped children in the 13th century, before Hideyoshi’s Korean invasion.

    Pacifist, the events you describe happened over 700 years ago. There is no need to continue to gripe about it. The Japanese people should get over the past, and look forward to a bright future.

  7. comment number 7 by: pacifist

    YoungRocco,

    I only said that Korean people cant’t have the island where they slaughtered Japanese islanders 700 hundred years ago.
    Japanese people were living in this island for thousands of years (gold was sent to Japanese government at that time in 701 which became the name of the era “Taiho (big treasure)”)….

    We Japanese usually don’t blame Koreans for invading Japan 700 years ago but Korenas blame Japan for the Hideyoshi’s invasion 500 years ago. Do you know why? It’s because of the anti-Japan propaganda in Korea.

    It is Korean people who should look forward to future.

  8. comment number 8 by: YoungRocco

    Ponta:

    How has your day been?

    Because it show how irrational Korean claims are.

    False.

    1. The government of Korea has not issued a formal claim to the island. So there are not any official “Korean” claims to the island.

    2. The Masan city council is making the claims to Tsushima island and these claims have a historical basis:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsushima_Island

    Therefore, the claims are not “irrational.”

  9. comment number 9 by: YoungRocco

    Pacifist:

    Thanks for the post.

    This is a highly intriguing statement:

    I only said that Korean people cant’t have the island where they slaughtered Japanese islanders 700 hundred years ago.

    On what grounds do you make this assertion? You seem to be suggesting that conquest or war make territorial claims illegal? If this is the case, then Japan “can’t have” the island of Hokkaido.

    Re-assess your ideas.

  10. comment number 10 by: pacifist

    YoungRocco,

    You are a swindler or something? You are good at deceiving people who don’t know well about the topic.

    I say there were Japanese people living for thousands of years and Koreans invaded 700 hundred years ago but they were DEFEATED, since then Japanese people lived there in peace.
    How can Koreans claim Tsushima? Are they robberies?

    I just made Korean people remind of the historical event that their ancestors did in Tsushima, as these historical facts have not been intentionally omitted in Korean textbooks.

  11. comment number 11 by: YoungRocco

    Pacifist:

    Thanks for the post.

    Your view of the island’s history are a bit myopic.

    Let me help you in gaining a more comprehensive view:

    References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsushima_Island

    As you can see, Koreans have also been living on the island for thousands of years. Indeed, Koreans have used the island as a colony from time to time.

    Glad I could be of assisstance.

  12. comment number 12 by: ponta

    YoungRocco Said:

    Ponta:

    How has your day been?

    Because it show how irrational Korean claims are.

    False.

    1. The government of Korea has not issued a formal claim to the island. So there are not any official “Korean” claims to the island.

    Oh my , How have you been?
    it seems you have learned nothing from the past.
    Is that the way average Korean people are? i hope not.
    And it seems you lack conscience to criticize your own country.
    Or is it that you will be ostracized in Korean society if you criticize Korea?
    Tell us the real situation in South Korea? A German doctor who knows both North Korea and South Korea said South Korea is no different from North Korea.Is that so bad that you can not say what you think is right? Tell us, I
    am curious. I think this blog is free from the attack from Korean government.

    Back to the topic.

    It is Massan assembly, local government , who declared the ordinance..
    It is not unreasonable to say how irrational “Korean” claim is.

    And as you know very well, the fact many Korean people is living in Tokyo
    does not prove anything about the Korea’s title to Tokyo. Likewise the fact that some time in history some Korean people were living at Tsushima does not mean Korea has a title to Tsushima.
    This is different from Simane Assembly case in that
    (1) Japan had effective control over Dokdo
    (2) The central government has been protesting against Korea ‘s illegal occupation of Dokdo.

    Japan has had effective control over Tsushima for hundreds years.
    Korea has never protested.
    It is evident that Korea has no title to Tsushima;nonetheless, Korean local government declared the ordiance. That is just stupid, irrational.
    I thought Korean people would feel ashamed to hear the news, but I AM surprised to see your reaction.But it is good for japanese side to show how some Koreans can be irrational about the territory.So i bookmarked your comment to use when talking about Dokdo. Thanks a lot.

  13. comment number 13 by: pacifist

    YoungRocco,

    You wrote;
    “Koreans have used the island as a colony from time to time”.

    But theer is no evidence to prove your theory. It may be true that Koreans sometimes came to this island, there may have been some kind of trades in the ancient times but that doesn’t mean Tsushima was a colony of Korea.

    If your theory is right, then Japan can claim the southern part of Korea because there were lands that Japanese occupied in the ancient times (although this fact has not been taught in Korean schools because Japan should have been inferior to Korea).

    http://www.geocities.jp/bxninjin2004/data_room/13/Gwanggaeto.html

  14. comment number 14 by: YoungRocco

    Ponta:

    Oh my , How have you been?

    I’m fine, thank you. How about you?

    And it seems you lack conscience to criticize your own country.

    Not at all. Criticism of one’s society is often the launch-pad for change and development. Every society can stand a healthy dose of criticism now and then, including Korea.

    I’ll give you an example.

    Throught the 70’s and 80’s Korean electronics companies were not innovators but instead were fast followers. Companies like Samsung even copied Japanese electronics–which in many cases were themselves duplicates of American products. However, Samsung executives recognized that merely imitating was not right. New developments took shape, and now Samsung surpasses even Sony on a range of products–especially LCDs.

    I’ll let you in on a little secret:

    I used to criticize Samsung electronics all the time!

    But now I don’t have to.

    And as you know very well, the fact many Korean people is living in Tokyodoes not prove anything about the Korea’s title to Tokyo.

    Indeed. Thanks for telling me what I already know.

    (1) Japan had effective control over Dokdo

    Yes. But Korea also had effective control over Tsushima:

    On June 19, 1419, the recently-abdicated King Taejong of Joseon ordered his trusted general Yi Jong Mu to clear the island of the Wokou pirates, using a fleet of 227 vessels and 17,000 soldiers. With the Wokou gone from the island, Tsushima came under the Joseon Dynasty’s sphere of influence.

    (2) The central government has been protesting against Korea ’s illegal occupation of Dokdo.

    First, of all Korea’s residency on Dokdo is not illegal. Gerry hasn’t proved that. The only thing Gerry has tried to show is that Korean maps don’t mark Dokdo as Korean territory.

    However, Joseon maps of Korea clearly mark Tsushima as Korean territory.

    See, Ponta this is where you and many other on this board are markedly inconsistent:

    Ponta et al on Dokdo:

    So what if Korea currently has effective control? History is the crucial factor in territorial disputes. Since Korean maps don’t show Dokdo maps as part of its territory,Dokdo is Japan’s.

    Ponta et all on Tsushima:

    So what if Korean maps show Tsushima as part of its historic territory? Effective control is the crucial factor in territorial disputes. Since Koreans don’t have effective control of Tsushima, Tsushima is Japan’s.

    You need to be more consistent in your arguments, my friend.

    .So i bookmarked your comment to use when talking about Dokdo. Thanks a lot.

    You’re welcome. Don’t mention it.

    Have a wonderful day.

  15. comment number 15 by: Mika

    YoungRocco,

    Are you a typical Korean who is willing to ignore the treaty/ international law when it doesn’t suit their need? US rejected the Korean Government’s request that Takeshima and Tsusihima be included among the islands named in the SF Peace Treaty. Whether Koreans like it or not, the treaty is valid and as a developed country they should follow the international rule.

  16. comment number 16 by: ponta

    YoungRocco
    Thanks.

    So tell me if you think Korea has title to Tsushima and tell me if you think Korean local government declaration is stupid and irrational or not.
    You wrote

    Since Koreans don’t have effective control of Tsushima, Tsushima is Japan’s.

    So after all you think it is Japan’s and yet the local government claim to the contrary, don’t you think it is irrational and stupid?
    ……………………………………………………………………………

    I am glad to hear you can criticize Korean society.
    But it seems you lacks knowledge about territory.
    What Gerry showed is that Korea had no knowledge about Dokdo, contrary to Korea’s claim.
    So Korea has shown no evidence it had effective control over Dokdo.
    Hence it is most reasonable to believe that Korea had no effective control over Dokdo.
    On the other hand, Japan had effective control therefore it has the title to Dokdo; hence, Korea’s present occupation is illegal.

    So what if Korea currently has effective control?

    It is illegal occupation.

  17. comment number 17 by: YoungRocco

    Pacifist:

    Don’t be so hasty to post a rebuttal that you forget to read my post:

    But theer is no evidence to prove your theory

    Pacifist, read my post again. In it you’ll read a link I posted to you. Read the contents of the linked page carefully. Once you do, you’ll see that Korea’s colonization of Tsushima is not theory but fact.

    I’ll post the link again for your benefit:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsushima_Island

    There you have it.

  18. comment number 18 by: ponta

    After the dynasty came to power, Korea began colonization of the islands and strongly asserted its claims to them. Some believe that the ancient Korean kingdom of Silla took Tsushima as a dependency, though it is not known whether actual control was exerted over the island.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsushima_Island

  19. comment number 19 by: Mika

    Anyone can edit wikipedia articles anyway…..

    Fact is that there is no international law/treaty that supports Korean’s claim.

  20. comment number 20 by: YoungRocco

    Ponta:

    You’re cute.

    But don’t be so desperate to prove a point that you take my statements out of context.

    Take this for example:

    You wrote

    Since Koreans don’t have effective control of Tsushima, Tsushima is Japan’s.

    Ponta, what I wrote above was a summary of your statements, not mine.

    So after all you think it is Japan’s and yet the local government claim to the contrary, don’t you think it is irrational and stupid?

    Not at all. Korea had effective control over Tsushima in the past and If historical control is a basis for modern claims, then Masan’s claims over Tsushima are rational.

    Any other questions?

    Just send me a post.

  21. comment number 21 by: YoungRocco

    Mika:

    What’s the word, homeskillet?

    Let’s see what you got for me.

    Anyone can edit wikipedia articles anyway…..

    False. Wikipedia has quality control standards. A number of articles are subject to review and articles that come under repeat attacks limit access to registered users.

    But I digress. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, the article under question is valid.

    Fact is that there is no international law/treaty that supports Korean’s claim.

    False. After Japan’s defeat in the second World War, Japan’s sovereignty over Tsushima was to be determined by the allied powers.

    The San Francisco Treaty awarded Tsushima to Japan.

    However, because China, a victorious power in the Second World War, was not invited to the conference, the validity of the treaty could be considered questionable.

    If the San Francisco treaty was signed without participation by China, then it s declarations could be considered as questionable, including the provision that awards Tsushima to Japan.

    Therefore, there is a pact of international law that support Masan’s claim.

  22. comment number 22 by: YoungRocco

    Ponta:

    You’re committing a number of very simple mistakes.

    Relax and review what you’ve written to me.

    After the dynasty came to power, Korea began colonization of the islands and strongly asserted its claims to them. Some believe that the ancient Korean kingdom of Silla took Tsushima as a dependency, though it is not known whether actual control was exerted over the island.

    The dynasty referred to in the first sentence is the Joseon dynasty, not the kingdom of Silla. Historical claims over Tsushima rest on Joseon’s, not Silla’s, colonization of the island and Joseon’s colonization of the island has already been proven.

    Go get em, Tiger.

  23. comment number 23 by: Mika

    YoungRocco,

    Now, you are claiming that The San Francisco treaty is null and void? I’ve asked this question in other topic. Do you also claim that Korea’s independence from China in 1895 was null and void because the treaty of shimonoseki was not signed by Korea? Then, China can just say that Korea was part of some ancient Chinese kingdom or whatever and that gives them the right to do whatever they want, because it is an internal matter. Afterall, it was the same justification used by China to sending troops to crush and subjugate formally independent Tibet.

  24. comment number 24 by: pacifist

    YoungRocco,

    Here is a text about So clan from your favorite wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_clan

    “Being based on the mountainous island, the So clan heavily relied on trade with Korea. Fortunately, the So clan shared mutual interests with the Joseon Dynasty. The So were required to greatly reduce the number of pirate attacks on Korea, and in return would be granted a virtual monopoly on trade with their neighbors on the peninsula”.

    You don’t know what is the evidence. You should study hard in school, YoungRocco. So clan were Japanese people and they only had previledges to trade with Korea.

    And what about the case I wrote before? Do you then admit that Japan can claim south part of Korea, where once Japan occupied in the ancient times? If you admit Masan’s claim, why can’t we claim south part of Korea?

  25. comment number 25 by: sqz

    FRUS 1951 volume 6 page 1202, 1203

    韓国大使は、SF講和条約に対馬とDokdo(竹島)を記述するよう要求しました。
    Korean ambassador demanded that Tsushima and Dokdo(Takeshima) were written in SF peace treaty.
    しかし、記述されませんでした。
    But, they were not written in SF peace treaty.
    よって、対馬も竹島も日本の領土です。
    Therefore, Tsushima and Takeshima are Japanese territory.

    False. After Japan’s defeat in the second World War, Japan’s sovereignty over Tsushima was to be determined by the allied powers.

    The San Francisco Treaty awarded Tsushima to Japan.

    However, because China, a victorious power in the Second World War, was not invited to the conference, the validity of the treaty could be considered questionable.

    If the San Francisco treaty was signed without participation by China, then it s declarations could be considered as questionable, including the provision that awards Tsushima to Japan.

    Therefore, there is a pact of international law that support Masan’s claim.

    韓国は、中国の領土なのですか?
    Is Korea a Chinese territory?

  26. comment number 26 by: pacifist

    sqz,

    The comment “Is Korea a Chinese territory?” is funny but it’s a good point!

    YoungRocco doesn’t know why Communist China was not invited to the SF peace talk.

    Korea was not invited too because Korea was in the Japan’s side, not allied nations’ side. Korea was not a victorious nation, then why do they always want Japan’s territory, such as Takeshima/Dokdo? It’s a mystery.

  27. comment number 27 by: ponta

    Youngrocco

    So after all you think it is Japan’s and yet the local government claim to the contrary, don’t you think it is irrational and stupid?

    Not at all. Korea had effective control over Tsushima in the past and If historical control is a basis for modern claims, then Masan’s claims over Tsushima are rationa

    This is exactly what I wanted. Thanks.This goes to show how irrational Koreans can be about their claim to the territory.
    …………………………………………………………………………………………
    You have not shown that Josen had effective control nor does wiki show it.

    On June 19, 1419, the recently-abdicated King Taejong of Joseon ordered his trusted general Yi Jong Mu to clear the island of the Wokou pirates, using a fleet of 227 vessels and 17,000 soldiers. With the Wokou gone from the island, Tsushima came under the Joseon Dynasty’s sphere of influence.

    Owing to food shortages on the islands in 1436, the local So clan requested help from King Sejong of Korea. In response, the king formally colonised Tsushima and made it part of Gyeongsang province, although Japan maintained claims to the island.[5] However, under the agreement of the Gyehae treaty of 1443, the Koreans limited the amount of rice per ship and the trade to fifty ships per year.

    Following this, the Joseon Dynasty, through the Kakitsu Treaty, gave the So clan a privileged position in trading with Korea. By the end of the 16th century, the So clan monopolized trade with Korea.

    In 1510, Japanese traders initiated an uprising against Joseon’s stricter policies on Japanese traders from Tsushima and Iki coming to Pusan, Ulsan and Jinhae to trade. The So Clan supported the uprising, but it was soon crushed. The uprising was later came to be known as the “Three-Ports incident” (三浦の乱). Trade resumed under the direction of King Jungjong in 1512, but only under strictly limited terms, and only twenty-five ships were allowed to visit Joseon annually. [6]

    As you know the effective control is valid and legal only if there is no protest. Even wiki mentions that it was challenged by Japan with a reason. Thereofore it is illegal.

    During the Edo period, Japanese rule was slowly re-established, as the Joseon Dynasty did not intend to colonize the island with its own people, following its policy of leaving islands uninhabited. However, the Joseon government did not recognize the Japanese claim to Tsushima, and continued printing official maps with Tsushima as part of its own territory until 1860.[7] In the late 19th century, the Meiji government officially incorporated the island under Japanese rule.

    Korea has not protested for more than 50 years, hence even based on your favorite wiki , Japan has the title.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………

    Wow I knew Korea invaded Tsushima when she suggested Mongol to invade it but I did not know Korea was so aggressive that Korea on its own will tried to colonize Tsushima!! And now the Korean local government is again trying to invade Tsushima.

    I think Asian people should know the fact Korea has been trying to invade Japan again and again, along with the facts more than 300000 Korean young men had shown their will to be voluntarily involved in Japanese side in WWⅡ, Korean guards were known as more cruel than Japanese , and the Korea invaded Vietnam after WWⅡ, massacred Vietnam’s citizens, never apologized for it , whitewashing history (read the Korean history textbook if you doubt it)  and she is illegally occupying Dokdo , has been rejecting peaceful settlement Japan offered while Japan has been peaceful after WWⅡand apologized for the atrocity she committed during WWⅡ, gave the
    compensation for the colonized Korea, which no other colonized nations has received.

    And now the city Masan is claiming to the title of Tsushima, which all the facts indicates belongs to Japan historically and legally.. What’s more, here is a Korean person who thinks it is rational.
    Regrettably, all these facts indicate that South Korea is not self-corrective.

  28. comment number 28 by: bad_moon_rising

    Historical claims over Tsushima rest on Joseon’s, not Silla’s, colonization of the island and Joseon’s colonization of the island has already been proven.

    The Joseon nation no longer exists. South Korea refers to itself as Han Guk. Many South Koreans find the term “chosenjin” (Joseon person) to be offensive. It is rather ironic then that we find Koreans attempting to justify their land grab by referring to a defunct nation Koreans would rather not have Japan associate them with.

    Tsushima is recognized as Japanese territory. The very fact that it is known as Tsushima and not by a Korean name speaks volumes. If one were to use a Korean name to refer to it, no one outside of Korea would know what island you were referring to.

    Speaking of defunct nations, it wouldn’t be too hard to set up a Paekche (Baekche) government in exile within Japan. Koreans have done most of the hard work in establishing that Paekche refugees arrived in Japan. If the Jews can demand the “right of return” after thousands of years, I don’t see why the descendants of the Paekche nation couldn’t do the same. The Paekche claim is even stronger than the Israeli claim in some ways because it is the Koreans that have done so much of the work in establishing the Paekche claim. If that sounds strange to Koreans, well you now know how strange the Korean claim to Tsushima sounds to the rest of the world. So how about that “right of return”? Can’t wait to see the southwest portion of Korea liberated from the Silla.

  29. comment number 29 by: YoungRocco

    Mika:

    How are you doing, guy?

    Let’s see what you’ve got for me today.

    Now, you are claiming that The San Francisco treaty is null and void?

    Not at all. My claim is that some parties could consider the treaty void in certain regards, and that if these parties claims are valid, than Japan’s claim to Tsushima is not indisputable.

    Do you also claim that Korea’s independence from China in 1895 was null and void because the treaty of shimonoseki was not signed by Korea

    Your statement “Indepdendence from China” is misleading. Korea was never a colony of China.

    Secondly, the Treaty of Shimonoseki did not give Korea independence. After the war’s conclusion, Korea came under the control of Japan. Korea was less independent under Japanese influence than it was under the tributary relationship with China.

    Afterall, it was the same justification used by China to sending troops to crush and subjugate formally independent Tibet.

    You’re merely speculating here. You have no evidence to support your assumption that China will invade the Korean peninsula.

    Mika, my colleague.

    Our discussions will be much more fruitful if you take the time to do your homework.

    Have an enjoyable morning.

  30. comment number 30 by: YoungRocco

    Ponta:

    How are you doing?

    I’m pleased to continue working with you.

    As you know the effective control is valid and legal only if there is no protest. Even wiki mentions that it was challenged by Japan with a reason. Thereofore it is illegal.

    Well, in that case, since Masan protests Japan’s claim over Tsushima, it would appear that Japan’s claims to Tsushima are not valid.

    Korea has not protested for more than 50 years, hence even based on your favorite wiki , Japan has the title.

    False. Protracted lack of protest by one party does not definitely constitute ownership by another. In legal parlance I’ll state it thusly: There is no statute of limitations on territorial claims.

    Furthermore, there are other considerations that can take precedence over historical reticence:

    Poltical Changes.
    Irridentism.
    Continental Shelf Extension.
    Historical Possession.

    I will admit that Korea’s reticence in the Tsuhima dispute makes a strong case for Japan, but this does not mean that Japan’s claim is airtight.

    These are Korea’s main grounds for claiming Tsuhima:

    Irredentism: Koreans have historical relations with the island and have a long history of colonizing and military occupation. Tsushima could be claimed on the grounds of irredentism.

    Geographical Proximity: Tsuhima is closer to the Korean mainland than it is to Japan.

    Historical Control: Tsushima was under Korea’s sphere of influence.

    San Francisco Treaty: After Japan’s was defeated in the Second World War, Tsushima’s fate was to be determined the victorious allied powers. China, as one of the allied powers, was not invited to take part in the treaty ratification process. When you take into account that China could have protested against Japan’s possession of Tsushima, the legality of awarding Tsuhima to Japan becomes questionable.

    Ponta, your argument is interesting, but too often you jump to conclusions. For example, your statement that Korea’s silence on the Tsushima issue automatically “gives Japan the title.” I would advise you to be more careful in the future in the way you frame your arguments. Back off from normative claims and assumptions.

    For example, you can say that Japan has a stronger claim to Tsushima, instead of saying that Korean claims are–as you eloquently put it–“stupid.”

    Just helping you out, Bro.

    Take Care

  31. comment number 31 by: ponta

    My claim is that some parties could consider the treaty void in certain regards, and that if these parties claims are valid, than Japan’s claim to Tsushima is not indisputable.

    If some parties consider the treaty which were concluded legally void, it means that party has no respect for international law and it may be deserved to be called rogue nation”, Which country is lawless enough to disregard the treaty?

    Your statement “Independence from China” is misleading.

    It is not misleading at all.

    Article 1

    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.

    (simonoseki treaty)

    How many times do I have to quote this treaty?

    Korea came under the control of Japan. Korea was less independent under Japanese influence than it was under the tributary relationship with China.

    Oh I am glad to see you have improved a bit. Here you use the word “less” which implies that Korea was not independent of China after all.
    Under Chinese influence, Yangbangs who passed the Chinese style of the examination “squeezed” Korean people to such an extent that people did not want to work for fear that they would be squeezed by Yangbang. and the country was corrupt, In particular, Min
    was an icon of the corruption. People tried to kill Min, her father in law tried to kill Min, young revolutionary intellectuals tried to kill Min.( and she is now called the mother of the country. ??????)

    Korea came under the control of Japan in broad sense and yet, it is also a fact that large part of Koreans supported Japan.
    (I don’t understand why Koreans want to paint themselves victims. do they want to be victim?)
    And it is also a fact that under KIng Kojong the rules was arbitrary and was subject to change for backward and have Bishop Isabella say

    The reform are not hopeless, if carried out under firm and capable foreign supervision, is shown by what has been accomplished in the Treasury Department in one year. No Korean office was in a more chaotic and corrupt condition, and the ramifications of its corruption were spread all through the Provinces, page448

    There were slaves before but they were liberated under Japanese rule.
    The farmers had no land, but they were given lands under Japanese rule.
    The merchant was free to step up the social ladder, and they did become rich under Japanese rule.
    The Koreans had right to become congressman, and they did become congressman under Japanese rule.
    The Koreans had right to become the governors with Korean names and had Japanese clerks work under him, they did not have to kowtow to Japanese clerk but instead Japanese clerk bowed to Korean boss under Japanese rule.
    Koreans became policemen and Kenpei(military police) and sadly they tortured their own people under Japanese rule.(this is a sad aspect of Japanese rule and yet , Koreans kept the museum to show how Japanese Kenpei were cruel, hey that wax figure IS Korean)

    The survivors say that Lee Hong Gyu was more cruel and barbaric to his fellow countrymen than his Japanese masters.link

    But reading Youngrocco,’s comment I realized Chinese influence over Korea was so huge that hundreds of years cruel rule by China made Korean people insensitive to Chinese rule.
    That is the difference between Korea and Japan. Japan also had huge influence from China but Japanese prince (574-622) was more impudent than Youongrocco. In a letter to Chinese emperor

    “The Emperor of the land where Sun rises (nihon/hi iduru) sends a letter to the Emperor of the land where Sun sets. How are you doing?”link

    That is huge difference from the king kowtowing to Chinese.
    This is huge difference from South Korean government supporting the dictator.
    This is huge difference from youngrocco silent about the wrongs of Koreans and Korean government.

    Well sooner or later Chinese influence will come over Korea again.
    Have enjoyable years under Chinese influence!!!

  32. comment number 32 by: YoungRocco

    Pacifist:

    How are you doing?

    I write posts to you guys because I enjoy seeing your minds develop. I enjoy watching you guys improve and shore up your statements. You, Ponta, SQZ, Darin and Matthew have improved tremendously under my tutelage.

    As much as I enjoy refuting your arguments though, I don’t point out every flaw that I see in your statements.

    This is perhaps a failing of mine. Sometimes you make statements that are so far off the mark, that I brush them off as jokes. At other times, I simply rely on the faith that you will eventually, in your future studies, come to see the light.

    I’ll give you an example of a gross error you committed that I previously decided to disregard:

    And what about the case I wrote before? Do you then admit that Japan can claim south part of Korea, where once Japan occupied in the ancient times? If you admit Masan’s claim, why can’t we claim south part of Korea?
    Reference: http://www.geocities.jp/bxninjin2004/data_room/13/Gwanggaeto.html

    Now, in this instance I disregarded your statement in order to help you save face. However, you seem particularly interested in my thoughts on the matter, so I’ll point out your errors presently.

    Your first error is fairly obvious. During the time period you mention there was no state known as Japan. Rather, Japan was a loose collection of warring states. With the strongest one, Yamamoto, eventually coming to rule most of Japan.

    The second error you made is located in the source you used to back your argument. I’ll excerpt key passages below:

    The inscription on this stele says:

    “Since 391, Wa(Japan) crossed sea and defeated Baekje, ?? and Silla and made them subjects.”

    False. The inscription on the Stele actually says:

    而 倭 以 辛 卯 年 來 渡 海 破 百 殘 X X [X斤 (新)] 羅 以 爲 臣 民

    (With X designating characters that are illegible.)

    There are a number of factual errors on the website you’ve referenced.

    1. The subjects Baekje and Silla are not recognizably mentioned in the passage; only the first character for “Baekje” (百) is noted

    2. the supposed first character of Silla is not complete (only 斤 as opposed to 新)

    3. The term Wa at the time the stele was made did not solely refer to people from Japan but could also refer to the people from southern Korean, particularly from the Gaya Confederacy.

    4. If we take into account only what is literally known, The Stele reads thusly:

    And in the sinmyo year the Wa (Japanese) crossed the sea. (Abbreviation of someone’s title) made (?) subjects of (?)

    These are just the main errors on the Steele itself. Historical evidence also pours cold water on your claim:

    1. Baekje, Silla, and Goguryeo were all centralized states by the time of the stele’s inscription with experienced armies, exemplified by Baekje’s defeat of the Goguryeo army in 371 while the fledgling Japanese Yamato state was just consolidating its new territory in the Kinki region of Japan around the period mentioned by the sinmyo passage.

    2. Archaeological evidence of an invasion by Yamato Japan has never been found.

    3. The relationship between Gaya and Yamato Japan is recognized today to have been centered on trade, or more specifically the Japanese importation of Gaya iron-working techniques and iron crafts.

    4. The Samguk Sagi does not mention conquest of any of the three kingdom by a Yamato state.

    References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwanggaeto_Stele

    So you, see, the idea of Japan claiming parts of southern Korea based on inscriptions of the Gwangegaeto Stele is tenuous at best.

    Pacifist: If you’re going to ask me questions, you’ve got to do your homework first. Don’t rely solely on interest groups or biased information for your sources.

    Be more critical in your thinking and examine the issues more thoroughly.

    Enjoy your morning.

  33. comment number 33 by: ponta

    False. Protracted lack of protest by one party does not definitely constitute ownership by another. In legal parlance I’ll state it thusly: There is no statute of limitations on territorial claims.

    False, if your claim is correct, then the part of Korea belongs to China and Japan, if China and Japan protested, but that is absurd.

    I will admit that Korea’s reticence in the Tsuhima dispute makes a strong case for Japan, but this does not mean that Japan’s claim is airtight.

    These are Korea’s main grounds for claiming Tsuhima:

    Admitting that it is true that Korea colonized Tsuhima for some time in the past, as wiki says Japan also claimed the title at the time and later Korea did not claim, that settled the issue.
    Geographical Proximity is nothing to do with the title.

    Tsushima was under Korea’s sphere of influence.

    Korea was under China’s sphere of influence for longer time. and was next to China therefore Korea belongs to China, which is absurd.
    Likewise your claim is absurd.(Note that I am not saying that your are absurd)

    San Francisco Treaty: After Japan’s was defeated in the Second World War, Tsushima’s fate was to be determined the victorious allied powers. China, as one of the allied powers, was not invited to take part in the treaty ratification process. When you take into account that China could have protested against Japan’s possession of Tsushima, the legality of awarding Tsuhima to Japan becomes questionable.

    Not at all. The treaty was between Japan and the allies. Both nations agreed, internationally all the nations including China and Korea admit that Tsushima belongs to Japan. It is totally absurd claim that you are defending.

    For example, your statement that Korea’s silence on the Tsushima issue automatically “gives Japan the title.” I would advise you to be more careful in the future in the way you frame your arguments. Back off from normative claims and assumptions.

    Not at all. But sorry I presupposed the elementary knowledge of international law and knowledge that junior high school students would know.

    Japan had effective control over Tsushima for hundreds years.
    Korea has not protested since japan took effective control.
    All the nations l over the world including China and Korea admit it belongs to Japan
    That constitutes the Japanese title to Tsushima.

    It is Masan city and youngrocco who do make the “unique” claim.
    .

    For example, you can say that Japan has a stronger claim to Tsushima, instead of saying that Korean claims are–as you eloquently put it–”stupid.”

    I say Japanese claim is stronger and I also call it stupid to claim against this obvious claim based on solid evidences.

    stupid

    • adjective (stupider, stupidest) 1 lacking intelligence or common sense.

    Is that Tsuhima belongs to Japan not common sense? Does Korean map in elementary school show it belongs to Korea? Is it not lack of intelligence that you claim against all the clear and apparent evidence to the contrary without little basis?

    What other good words can you think of? mad? crazy?

  34. comment number 34 by: YoungRocco

    Ponta:

    You’re losing your cool.

    You’re doing alot of ranting and raving on topics that you have not taken the time or effort to research.

    For example, take what you’ve written below:

    False, if your claim is correct, then the part of Korea belongs to China and Japan, if China and Japan protested, but that is absurd.

    Not absurd at all.

    Irredentism is often a tactic used by powers to gain land from others. During Japan’s annexation of Korea, this tactic was used to great effect. Falsified passages from the Nihon Shoki and the Gwanggaeto Steele were cited in order to legitimize Japan’s rule. Japanese Emperors even claimed ancestry to ancient Silla Princesses in order to disguise annexation as rightful return.

    Korea was under China’s sphere of influence for longer time. and was next to China therefore Korea belongs to China, which is absurd.

    You are right, your specualtion is absurd.

    But not because of “sphere of influence.” but rather because Korea was never a colony of China.

    On the other hand Tsushima was a colony of Joseon.

    But your speculations are irrelevant, China has not made a claim of title to the Korean peninsula.

    In fact, just the opposite. After Japan’s defeat in World War II Jillin autonomous region was given as a gift in return for Koreans joining with China in order to help defeat Japan.

    It is totally absurd claim that you are defending.

    Not at all. Most of Tsushima’s history, has it involved in a Korean sphere of influence, so history is on the side of Masan in the dispute.

    Secondly, Joseon never formally approved of Japan’s incorporation of Tsushima into its land. Therefore, the initial incorporation of Tsushima into Japan is open to dispute.

    Thirdly, Lee Syngman disputed Tsushima being granted to Japan.

    Fourthly, the San Francisco Treaty ratification process did not include East Asia’s victorious power–China.

    Not at all. But sorry I presupposed the elementary knowledge of international law and knowledge that junior high school students would know.

    Here you are appealing to authority that you have not earned. Ponta, you are in no position to decide international law.

    Furtheremore, you’v cited no sources for your alleged knowledge of international law.

    You’ve cited no treaties concerning the issue.
    You’ve cited no customs concerning the issue.
    You’ve cited no articles under the UN charter on territorial disptes concerning the issue.

    Ponta, you have alot of homework to do.

    Answer these two questions, and then we’ll talk further.

    1. What precedence can you cite that supports your claim?

    2. Where is it written in international law that there is a statute of limitations on making a territorial claim?

    Have a great morning.

  35. comment number 35 by: YoungRocco

    Ponta:

    I suppose we could go on in a semantics war, but eventually you must face the truth of your error.

    You keep on claiming that the treaty of Shimonoseki gave Korea independence. When the facts on the ground prove otherwise.

    Furtheremore, you continue to disingenuously cite an unequal treaty–the Treaty of Shimonoseki–as proof of your claim that Japan “liberated” Korea.

    1. Japan did not liberate Korea. Japan killed Korea’s Queen for
    working with Russia to expel Japanese influence. Japan also
    stationed troops in Korea for 50 years after Queen Min’s
    assassination.
    2. The treaty of Shimonoseki was drafted by Japan after China’s military
    defeat. China did not have the power at the time to dispute the
    language or terms of the treaty.

    Just helping you out, bro.

    Sweet Dreams.

  36. comment number 36 by: ponta

    It was in contact with Chinese rulers, exchanged diplomatic envoys with several of the kingdoms on the Korean peninsula, and was even strong enough to have sent an army against the powerful state of Koguryo, which then dominated the peninsula. Yamato was most closely associated with the southeastern kingdom of Paekche, whence came the “seven-pronged sword.” Contact with the mainland, although involving conflict, also encouraged a marked rise in standards of living in the archipelago, as many of the fruits of advanced Chinese civilization reached Japan via people from the peninsula. Weavers, smiths, and irrigation experts migrated to Japan, and the Chinese ideographic script also was introduced at that time, together with Confucian works written in this script. Claims by historians prior to World War II that Paekche paid “tribute” to Japan, and that Japan conquered the southern tip of the peninsula where it established a “colony” called Mimana have since been largely discounted by historians in both Japan and Korea.link

    A Korean inscription of 391 indicates the presence of Japanese armies. From this time considerable Japanese influence in the Korean state of Kaya can be dated, but recent archaeological research indicates that Japan was probably not receiving tribute from Kaya. Japanese influence in the state of Paekche also was growing. With the emerging strength of Silla, Japanese clout on the Korean Peninsula was on the wane. Via these Korean contacts, Japan opened her doors to continental culture and Chinese civilization.link

    Thanks Chinese and Thanks for Koreans passing Chinese culture to Japan.
    It seems that Japan did not receive the tribute from Kaya, but ,

    There are no Chinese records on Japan from 266-413. The 4th-century Korean records, though, tell of considerable interaction between the Korean kingdoms and Wa, and of Wa’s military intervention on the peninsula. link

    Their territories were always in flux. The three major kingdoms — Koguryo in the north, Paekche in the southwest, and Silla in the southeast — evolved out of the preceding “Three Han” cultures, mostly in the 2nd to 4th centuries, around the beginning of the Kofun Period in Japan. The kingdom of Kaya, in the south between Paekche and Silla, certainly existed, but what exactly this entity was is still controversial. The unification of Korea under Silla in 676 followed the conquest of Paekche in 663 and Koguryo in 668, near the close of the Kofun Period in Japan.link

    alternative words: Kaya
    keywords: korea, state
    related topics: Yamataikoku , Silla
    related web sites: http://www.din.or.jp/~tommy/Kaya.htm
    explanation: Southern extremity of Korean peninsula had been inhabited by Japanese. It appeared in the 3th century as one of states composing Yamataikoku with the name of “Kuyakankoku”. Due to its strategic position and iron mine, Japan had extended this zone during 4th century then it began to shrink and disappeared in 562: because of an appearance of horse riding battles in Korean peninsula, it became more and more difficult to keep this zone for Japanese. Kaya is the Korean name of Minama.link

    That there was a Japanese territory in Korea is suffient enough to establish the claim as strong as Masan City’s Maybe it is stronger, because for Tsushima to pay tribute to Korea presuppose that Tsuhima stood on its own in the same sense that Korea was Korea regardless of the fact that she paid tribute to China. In case of Kaya, it seems Kaya did not pay tribute to other nations and did not depend on other nations but stood on its own by Japanese.
    In any case , the point is to show that Masan’s claim is as stupid as the claim that Japan still have the title to the part of Korea because of the these
    facts.
    You can not miss this point .

  37. comment number 37 by: ponta

    Irredentism is often a tactic used by powers to gain land from others.

    We are talking about the title of Tsushima.
    What counts is whether one contry has had effective control uncontested for more than 50 years.

    Japanese Emperors even claimed ancestry to ancient Silla Princesses in order to disguise annexation as rightful return.

    And now some Koreans are claiming that Japanese emperor has korean blood.

    Not at all. Most of Tsushima’s history, has it involved in a Korean sphere of influence, so history is on the side of Masan in the dispute.

    Sphere of influence has nothing to do with title to the territorry.

    Secondly, Joseon never formally approved of Japan’s incorporation of Tsushima into its land. Therefore, the initial incorporation of Tsushima into Japan is open to dispute.

    Thirdly, Lee Syngman disputed Tsushima being granted to Japan.

    Fourthly, the San Francisco Treaty ratification process did not include East Asia’s victorious power–China.

    And yet Korean government as of present admit that Tsushima belongs to Japan.

    you are in no position to decide international law.

    I am not in the position but that is international law.

    The acquisition of sovereignty over territory

    The exercise of effective control—occupation and perscription.

    The control of territory and the peaceful and effective excercise of the functions of a sate theren is the primary means of acquiring title to territory in international law.They can be subdivided into two lasses.When the exercise of authority takes place in a territory which does not belong to any other state8terra mullius)we may say that title is based on effective “occupation”. When the excercise of authority takes place in a territory which formally belongs to another state, we may say that title is bsed on ‘prescription.However the differece between these two concept is only one of degree and the essentail elelment of both is the exercise of state function.page 144

    Youngrocco wrote
    Don’t blame your ignorance on others.

    SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN (ICJ 2002)

    The Court moreover cannot disregard the fact that at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest.

    [EFFECTIVE CONTROL]

    PALMAS CASE (P.C.I.J. 1928)
    “He growing insistence with which international law, ever since the middle of the 18th century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not equally for the maintenance of the right.”
    “Territorial sovereignty, as has already been said, involves the exclusive right to display activities of a state. This right has corollary a duty: the obligation to protect within the territory the rights of other States, in particular their right to integrity and inviolability in peace and in war, together with the rights which each State may claim for its nationals in foreign territory. Without manifesting its its territorial sovereignty in a manner corresponding to circumstance, the State cannot fulfill this duty.”
    “An inchoate title could not prevail over the continuous and peaceful display of authority by another State; for such display may prevail even over a prior, definitive title put forward by another State.

    EASTEN GREENLAND CASE( P.C.I.J. 1933)
    “Even little effective control can assume title of the territory in the uninhabited island. However, clear evidence without the doubt is requested also in the uninhabited island.It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of the actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.”

    LIGITAN AND SIPADAN CASE(ICJ)
    Effectivités generally scarce in the case of very small islands which are uninhabited or not permanently inhabited, like Ligitan and Sipadan–Court primarily to analyse the effectivités which date from the period before 1969, the year in which the Parties asserted conflicting claims to Ligitan and Sipadan — Nature of the activities to be taken into account by the Court in the present case.
    Effectivités relied on by Indonesia — Activities which do not constitute acts à titre de souverain reflecting the intention and will to act in that capacity.
    Effectivités relied on by Malaysia — Activities modest in number but diverse in character, covering a considerable period of time and revealing an intention to exercise State functions inrespect of the two islands ¾ Neither the Netherlands nor Indonesia ever expressed its disagreement or protest at the time when these activities were carried out — Malaysia has title to Ligitan and Sipadan on the basis of the effectivités thus mentioned.

    JUDGMENT
    In the case concerning sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan,
    between
    the Republic of Indones

    PALMAS CASE
    “An inchoate title could not prevail over the continuous and peaceful display of authority by another State; for such display may prevail even over a prior, definitive title put forward by another State. ”

    Now it is your turn to cite precedence where “Poltical Changes.
    Irridentism.Continental Shelf Extension.Historical Possession.” count as the title to the territory in terms of internationl law.

    young rocco wrote

    You keep on claiming that the treaty of Shimonoseki gave Korea independence. When the facts on the ground prove otherwise.

    But the treaty says

    China recognises definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea,

    It is not matter of semantics, it is just looking the word written in the treaty.

    1. Japan did not liberate Korea. Japan killed Korea’s Queen for
    working with Russia to expel Japanese influence. Japan also
    stationed troops in Korea for 50 years after Queen Min’s
    assassination.

    False
    Miura and Koreans killed Min and Miura and her father in law plotted it.
    Japan liberated nobi,(slave) butchers, and others who otherwise could not step up the social ladder in Korea.
    But I admit that Koreans were under control of Japanese regime.

    2. The treaty of Shimonoseki was drafted by Japan after China’s military
    defeat. China did not have the power at the time to dispute the
    language or terms of the treaty.

    So is any uneqaul treaty with the western nations at the time, for that matter, Japan had no power at the time to dispute SF treaty, but once concluded, the nation has obligation to keep it.

    Just helping you out, bro.

  38. comment number 38 by: pacifist

    YoungRocco,

    You wrote “The treaty of Shimonoseki was drafted by Japan after China’s military defeat. China did not have the power at the time to dispute the language or terms of the treaty”.

    False! The treaty was concluded after the negotiation between eleven representatives from both countries including PM Hirobumi Ito & Minister of Foreign Affairs Munemitsu Mutsu (from Japan) and Qing’s ambassador plenipotentiary Li Hongzhang (李鴻章).

    The peace talk began on 20th March at a famous Japanese restaurant “Shunpanro(春帆楼) in Shimonoseki and the final treaty was concluded on 17th April.

    It was concluded in the normal process from the international point of view. So other countries recognised it as legitimate.

    YoungRocco, you should study hard or you will fail the examinations.

  39. comment number 39 by: pacifist

    YoungRocco,

    I haven’t heard from you that you could see that Korea had been a tributary to China for 500 years…
    I hope you are studying hard.

    Here is an interesting text for you from a Korean site:

    “Catholicism first came to Korea as a western scholarly pursuit. Korean tributary missions to the imperial court of China took an interest in Jesuit missionary books and brought them back to Korea. In 1784 the first Korean was baptized in Beijing and returned to Korea to set up a house of worship”

    http://english.tour2korea.com/01TripPlanner/KoreaInBrief/religion.asp?kosm=m1_1&konum=6

    ——————————————————
    And the next text maybe good for your study:
    http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~kaplan/eas201/201-19.pdf

    (excerpts)
    In Korea, once the Koryo kings were back in nominal control, they accepted tributary status vis a vis the Mongols. ……
    They demanded substantial tribute in goods and even in women, believing Korean women to be the prettiest in their domain. Supposedly in reaction to this, at least according to traditional accounts, the Koreans put their women into a far more secluded position than before, establishing a tradition of female subordination, the vestiges of which still remain visible. ………..

    Because he was a prudent politician, Yi turned his army around and marched back to Kaesong. There he wiped up the floor with the doves, faced down his fellow hawks, and proclaimed the Yi Dynasty.
    Eventually he embraced a tributary relationship with the Ming Dynasty.

    Yet another barrier to reform was the fact that Korea was still a tributary dependency of China, and China was not yet prepared to either set an example for such fundamental reform or willingly turn
    loose its Korean tributary to make such innovations via borrowing from the West.

    Japan finally drove the Chinese from their traditional position as overlords of Korea via their victory in the first Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95, though they soon were (or appeared to be) displaced
    by the Russians as the new tributary overlords of the Korean court.

  40. comment number 40 by: YoungRocco

    Ponta:

    How are you doing?

    First of all, let me just say that you’ve done a great job compiling all of those links.

    However, they don’t do much for your argument.

    First of all, one of the sites you’ve linked comes under the entry “Japanese Historical Mythology.” You’ll excuse me if I choose to disregard what is written under that post.

    Secondly, the link you show which claims Kaya as being a “Japanese State” is not an entry in a dictionary, encyclopedia or any other source subject to peer review, but is instead a person’s opinion on their own website.

    Furthermore, you confuse the idea of military intervention with the establishment of a colony or state in the Korean peninsula.

    Finally, none of the sources you include cite or even reference primary sources. My entry, on the other hand, cites the Gwanggaeto Stele.

    Ponta, please do a better job next time. May I suggest stronger sources? Perhaps Wikipedia or Answers.com may be of some assisstance to you in the future. You should not rely too much on personal blogs for unbiased information.

    Take Care, Buddy.

    And remember, I am always in your corner.

  41. comment number 41 by: Matt

    YoungRocco,

    Look man, you are making a hostile environment around here, so I would like to politely ask you to drop the sarcasm when writing your comments. Now other posters are starting to emulate your sarcasm, and I am beginning to worry it is so heavy that it is driving away potential commenters.

    What I mean is things like this –

    You’re cute.

    Go get em, Tiger.

    To a woman –

    How are you doing, guy?

    Our discussions will be much more fruitful if you take the time to do your homework.

    Have an enjoyable morning.

    I’m pleased to continue working with you.

    Just helping you out, Bro.

    Take Care

    You, Ponta, SQZ, Darin and Matthew have improved tremendously under my tutelage.

    Have a great morning.

    Sweet Dreams.

    If you need any more assisstance in firming up your argument, feel free to send me another post. My door is always open.

    I’ll tread lightly while I pick apart the flaws in your statement.

    Anytime you need more guidance, just send me a note.

    Glad I could help a valued friend.

    Enjoy the rest of your day.

    OK, there is a lot more but surely you can see what I am getting at. I see Ponta, Pacifist and others getting in on the act in response to you, and the environment is getting more and more agressive. I am hoping for a site where people can exchange ideas, and if people read your angry sarcasm, I think that Occidentalism may have trouble attracting new commenters, particularly if current commenters follow suit in response to you.

    Sarcasm is a difficult thing. Sarcasm is best delivered subtly, while yours is about as subtle as a sledgehammer. Sarcasm is also best delivered in small doses, not showered out like you do. I know it is difficult for Koreans to grasp the mechanics of correctly used sarcasm. We learn sarcasm within the family, and its correct use. On the other hand, Koreans such as yourself only seem to manage to use sarcasm in its most extreme and absurd manifestations.

    No one is telling you not to comment, but I am sure you are able to do it without writing the kind of stuff that I pasted above. Sorry man, but you just come off as very, very angry, and not clever at all.

    Thanking you in advance for your co-operation in making the comments section a place that can be enjoyed by everyone.

  42. comment number 42 by: ponta

    YoungRocco
    How are you doing?First of all, let me just say that you’ve done a great job trying to reason like adults.
    However, they don’t do much for your argument.

    First of all, one of the sites you’ve linked comes under the entry “Japanese Historical Mythology.” You’ll excuse me if I choose to disregard what is written under that post.

    Just read it and on what historical document the author based.In a way the ancient document, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, are mythology. Historians job is to search the consistency in different documents, and archaeological facts help support their claims.

    Secondly, the link you show which claims Kaya as being a “Japanese State” is not an entry in a dictionary, encyclopedia or any other source subject to peer review, but is instead a person’s opinion on their own website.

    Wiki is also a person’s opinion. You might have already noticed that the article about Korea is radically different from other encyclopedia, and other
    specialists on Korea.

    Furthermore, you confuse the idea of military intervention with the establishment of a colony or state in the Korean peninsula.

    Not at all.

    Finally, none of the sources you include cite or even reference primary sources. My entry, on the other hand, cites the Gwanggaeto Stele.

    Sure enough
    Chinese primary source
    『魏志東夷伝 弁辰諸国条 it is said 弥烏邪馬 is the former state of Kaya
    宋書the word 弁辰 disappeared and in 438年条 任那 was written.and and in 451年条任那
    is written along with 加羅 .The same pattern follow in the 南斉書
    In 梁書, Kaya was written as 任那、伽羅
    In 翰苑, the 任那 it is written that 任那、伽羅 were destroyed by silla but the relevant places are still here and there at the south of Silla city.
    Japanese primary sources.
    肥前風土記(713AD)松浦郡条 任那 is described.、
    日本書紀(720年AD)崇神天皇条~天武天皇条 任那 is mentioned many times.
    新撰姓氏録(815年AD) 任那 is written as 弥麻那,三間名
    Rocco’s favorite wiki

    Chinese version is very kind, it sums up Chinese primary source.

    任那(みまな”mimana”、にんな”ninna”369—562年)是古代被認為存在了的朝鮮半島的地域。三韓中的弁辰,弁韓的地相當於。以前被認為在倭的任那日本府統治下

    Translation

    Mimana/ninnama(369-562) is the place that existed in Korean peninsula in ancient times.It is equal to 弁辰,弁韓 among 三韓. It is thought that it was under Japanese Mimana rule

    從這些中國史料中的「任那」可以總結出、
    三國時代(220-280年)該地是「弁辰」在、
    在宋(420-479年)時該國已經成立、
    450年左右,加羅從任那分立。
    任那,梁代(502年-557年),特別525年以前被新羅毀滅了。
    有關任那的已故地的記載到唐的高宗(649年-683年)時代仍殘留著。

    Translation
    We can pick up Kaya out of these chinese souces
    In the time of 三国(220-280), 弁辰
    In 宋, this state had already exsited.
    Kaya(任那,梁代) was destroyed by silla.

    Korean versionBut for some reason , does not mention Chinese primary source and just says there are various theories.Hmmmmm.The reader must realize what it means.(^_-)

    youngrocco, please do a better job next time. May I suggest stronger sources? Wiki is not good and answer coms is often quote from wiki. You might find the better English book in the book store. But Wikipedia was of great assistance this time. As is evident from this article about kaya too, you should not rely too much on Korean wiki and wiki article about Korea for unbiased information.

    Take Care, Buddy.

    And remember, I am always in your corner.

    p.s. Do you remember the topic? The point was whether Masan city’s claim was valid or not, and Mimana/Kaya was brought up so that Masan’s claim was as weak as the claim that the south part of Korea belongs to Japan based on the Japanese occupation of Kaya.

    I am waiting for your citations of precedences to support Masan’s claim.

  43. comment number 43 by: pacifist

    YoungRocco,

    Here is a text from your favorite answer.com:

    http://www.answers.com/topic/korean-empire

    It says about the Shimonoseki treaty. “more importantly to Korea, scrapped the centuries-old tributary relationship between Joseon and the mainland”. I think you should admit that your understandins was incomplete.

    P.S. Thanks Matt, but he/she must know the truth.

  44. comment number 44 by: Occidentalism » Fan mail

    […] That email seems to be in response to my request to YoungRocco to tone down his angry, sarcastic comments. Considering the “How are you doing”, and the “Enjoy the rest of your day” bit, it seems that the mail came from YoungRocco. […]

  45. comment number 45 by: Aki

    Is the following page relevant to the discussion in this thread?
    http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200401/200401260030.html

    Right panel of the second figure shows the national flag of Goryo (=Korea) described in a diplomatic document of Qing Dynasty in 1883. Chinese writings above the flag say “大清國属 高麗國旗”, which mean “Flag of Goryo (=Korea) belonging to Great Qing.”

    The same page says that oldest version of Korean flag was found in “Flags of Maritime Nations” issued by the U.S. Navy Department’s Bureau of Navigation in July 1882. This book listed color pictures of flags from 49 nations in alphabetical order. Korean flag was listed in a column to the right of Qing China’s flag in a column titled “Corea”. Thus, “Corea” was listed with the Qing China, when other independent countries were listed in alphabetical order. This indicate that “Corea” was internationally recognized as a country belonging to Qing China in late 19th century.

  46. comment number 46 by: kojibomb

    tsushima is Japanese land. Korean people only made tsushima day because Japan takeshima day. I don’t think any Koreans really thing tsushima is theirs!

  47. comment number 47 by: tomato

    I don’t think any Koreans really thing tsushima is theirs!

    A lie becomes true whane repeated 100 times.

    …so the old saying goes. Just look at so-called “Dok-do” and “Historic Korean Kingdoms of Koguryo and Pohai”, etc.

  48. comment number 48 by: tomato

    OOps!

    A lie becomes true when repeated 100 times.

  49. comment number 49 by: kojibomb

    pacifist,
    http://www.geocities.jp/bxninjin2004/data_room/13/Gwanggaeto.html
    I was very interested in that article and searched more on web. I figured out that that gwanggaeto thing is very controversial. Different scholars from Japan and Korea translated it differently. Some say
    (百殘新羅舊是時屬民由來朝貢、而倭以辛卯年來渡海破百殘□□□新羅以爲臣民) Japanese came and attacked BaekJae so colonized southern part of Korean peninsula and called that region mimana(GAYA in Korean), but some say it was goguryo who attacked BaekJae. Even Nihonshoki claims that Gaya was a colony or tributary of Wa, but most scholars rejected this because none of Korean records back this up.So now most of them think the relationship between Gaya and Wa was close, but not colonial.