Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Usando Map & Article No. 1 “Best Issue” at DreamWiz News

February 22nd, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers

News about the article in the Japanese newspaper, “San-in Chuo Shimpo,” to which I submitted a Usando map debunking Korea’s claim on “Dokdo” (see a post on the article here), has found its way to “DreamWiz News,” a Korean news site. If you would like to read what “some” of Korea’s “netizens” are saying about it, you can find their comments at the following link:

미국 교수, 독도가 일본땅이라는 증거 지도를 제보 (2C)

Many of the comments are hateful comments against the Japanese and me, and almost all of them are negative and show an extreme degree of ignorance of the facts surrounding the Dokdo/Takeshima debate. However, there were a few comments from people who showed surprise at and interest in the map, though not many. Judging from the comments, it seems obvious to me that the Korean education system and the Korean media are doing a terrible job of explaining the geographical and historical facts of the debate.


65 Responses to “Usando Map & Article No. 1 “Best Issue” at DreamWiz News”

  1. comment number 1 by: Kaneganese

    Toadface, it was you who said I was ignoring documents like Daehanjiji (大韓地誌), not me. And nobody is questioning about Seokdo. It is definately inconclusive and you cannot definately conclude that it is Takeshima/Dokdo at all. I cannot agree more. Now you are admitting that you cannot say that 石島(Seokdo) is not Takeshima/Dokdo even you had all the evidence on the table.

  2. comment number 2 by: ponta

    toadface
    Are you reading what I am saying?.
    The motive is irrelevant in particular when Korea know nothing about Dokdo and dokdo was not Korean territory in the first place.
    And Potsdam declaration adopted Cairo conference, and SF treaty specify the territory , and the best interpretation was given by Pacifist.

  3. comment number 3 by: Kaneganese

    Toadface,
    Do you know that Korean army have been attacking Japanese fishermen and killed almost 27? And more died while they were detained by Korean authority? Japanese incorporated peacefully. No one was harmed.

    source 全日本海員組合 All Japan Seaman’s Union

    According to Japan-Korea fishery council, around the Lee sun-man ‘s line was declared, 328 Japanese fishery boats was captured and 3,929 Japanese fishermen was detained by Korean forces and 44 were killed or seriously injured.

    The attacks by Korean authority which ended the loss of Japanese lives.
    1949 23th Jan. Japanese fishing boat “第12万栄丸(daijuuni-maneimaru)” was attacked with firearms by Korean ships. One crew died.
    1st Feb. Japanese fishing boat “第6・第8ゆたか丸(dairoku daihachi-yutakamaru)” was attacked with firearms by Korean ships. One crew died.
    4th May. Japanese fishing boat “大繁丸(ooshigemaru)” was attacked with firearms by Korean ships. One crew died.
    1952 11th Feb. Japanese fishing boat “第3石宝丸(daisan-sekihoumaru)” was attacked with firearms by Korean ships. One crew died.
    1953 4th Feb. Japanese fishing boat “第1大邦丸(daiichi-daihoumaru)” and “第2大邦丸(daiini-daihoumaru)”was attacked with firearms by Korean military. A chief fisherman Mr. Juushirou (or Juujirou) Seto died.
    1955 14th Feb. Japanese fishing boat “第6あけぼの丸(dairoku-akebonomaru)” was attacked and intentionally collided by Korean warship and sunk out at the sea of 生月島(ikitsuki-island). 21 crew died.
    While detained by Korean authority, considerable number of Japanese fishermen died. The number of those who lost their lives are unknown.

  4. comment number 4 by: toadface

    Ponta you omitted the relevant part of the Cairo Convention. “Japan will be expelled from all OTHER territories she has taken by violence or greed…” Now that I have proven that Japan annexed Dokdo for military control of Korea we can see that the issue of Japanese expansionism and Dokdo are inseparable.

    Japan’s occupation of Korea was deemed illegal by the international communitry. Japan’s acquisition of Dokdo was an instrumental part of Japan’s control over Korea during the Russo~Japanese war. That being so, Japan’s annexation can’t be seen as legal.

    Published in a newspaper? I took out a bigger ad when I sold my mountainbike in high-school. By the way, I posted the newspaper article. Does it mention Liancourt Rocks or Matsushima? I’m not sure.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/sanin-3.jpg
    Anyway, who are you to say if what measures of announcement are open and public enough?

    Ponta, Do you honestly think a two inch ad, in a local newspaper on the second page is an appropriate forum to announce the extension of your international territorial limits an additional 160kms within visual distance of a neighbouring country? If you do, it shows you have a serious lack of common sense.

    Ponta, not only did Korea protest, they sincerely insisted that Dokdo was already part of Korea before the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion. As this was an internal document we know Koreans legitimately considered Dokdo part of Korea at this time. I told you already, Korea had lost the ability to file state-to-state complaints when their foreign ministry was dismantled. Even so, do think the issue of a couple of rocks was of paramount importance when the entire nation was losing her sovereignty? Don’t be a silly sausage Ponta!!

    The Japanese are hard pressing Koreans for accurate docs and maps but are throwing common sense out the window. Around 1900 a survey of Ulleungdo put the population of the island at around 2000 people. Of those, 50 percent were fishermen. Dokdo is visible from sea-level from about two`three hours sailing from the eastern port of Dodong Harbor. Dispite the fact Koreans sailed two-days at will to Ulleungdo, Japanes assert they couldn’t manage the three hours sail to within visual proximity of Dokdo. To think the Koreans weren’t cognizant is utter rubbish.

    This is proven by the logbooks of the warship Niitaka and the Black Dragon Fishing manual. Isn’t it funny how so much of Japanese information about Ulleungdo and Dokdo came from the Japanese Navy Ponta?

  5. comment number 5 by: toadface

    Kanganese, the point of your post seems to be stay the hell out of Korean waters. It only shows the Koreans are dead serious about maintaining the integrity of their territorial boundaries and aren’t to be toyed with on this issue. Didn’t the Japanese try to use fishing vessels to regain Dokdo one time?

    Regarding the Daehanji my point is even a elementary school student can look at this map and see the positions of latitude and longitude are off, so we can’t use this map as an accurate method of territorial boundaries.

    Ponta, I don’t need Pacifists or your translation of either the Cairo Convention or the Postdam Declaration. They are here.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ww2.html
    Pacifist gives the best translation of International Legal docs? I didn’t know he was a big-shot international lawyer………

  6. comment number 6 by: Kaneganese

    Toadface,
    No, the point of my post is, lots of Japanese civilian were killed by Korean authorities without legal right. I know that Korean are serious. But you have to realize that Japanese are also dead serious and seriously angry with the situation. So the only solution is to bring the issue to the ICJ and follow the international rules to avoid any more militaly conflict in the future.
    But you have to collect the concrete evidence which show Korean had effective control over Takeshima/Dokdo in the first place.

    Now let’s go back to the topic.
    Do you know about 國史編纂委員會編 “邊例集要 권17 雜條 附 鬱陵島, 蔚陵島事蹟” by any chance?

  7. comment number 7 by: ponta

    Ponta you omitted the relevant part of the Cairo Convention

    I didn’t omit anything from Cairo convention. For that matter, I didn’t cite any part of Cairo convention at all. Stop telling a story in a misleading way.
    The point is Potsdam presuppose Cairo conference, and SF treaty specified the territory, and the best interpretation was given , and according to the best interpretation, Dokdo was not given to Korea at all.

    Japan’s occupation of Korea was deemed illegal by the international community

    Not really at the time when it was annexed.
    On the contrary it was applauded at first.

    Professor Treat comments,”…..every step in the process was ‘correct’ diplomatically, and the final annexation was consummated by….treaty , not proclamation.”As a matter of record, Japan’s annexation of Korea had considerably more “legal” documentation than most of the empire-building of the Western Powers

    page 196 Mirror for Americans
    And you know other countries accepted it.
    It was after Japan went into the war that western powers started blaming it.

    Ponta, Do you honestly think a two inch ad, in a local newspaper on the second page is an appropriate forum to announce the extension of your international territorial limits an additional 160kms within visual distance of a neighbouring country?

    what size of font are you using to read the page on the computer? 1 meter?
    Dokod/Takeshima is small rocks and there was no controversy : it is only natural that they “publicized” it on the newspaper.

    they sincerely insisted that Dokdo was already part of Korea before the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion

    So how can Korean people sincerely insist that dokdo was part of Korea when they didn’t
    know Dokdo, they didn’t know where it was?
    And you haven’t shown any evidence despite many people are urging you to present it.

    Don’t be a silly sausage Ponta!!


    Thank you. Mr. Steve Barber.

    To think the Koreans weren’t cognizant is utter rubbish

    Finally is this your “proof”?

    Isn’t it funny how so much of Japanese information about Ulleungdo and Dokdo came from the Japanese Navy Ponta?

    Considering it was the safe and technologically developed ship that the then government owned, nothing is funny.

    Regarding the Daehanji my point is even a elementary school student can look at this map and see the positions of latitude and longitude are off, so we can’t use this map as an accurate method of territorial boundaries.

    Well so after all there is no Korean document s and maps that leaves no doubt as to the reference. Sorry, that means you lost.Is that
    okay?

    Pacifist gives the best translation of International Legal docs? I didn’t know he was a big-shot international lawyer…

    May I suggest, you need to learn how to argue and how to criticize argument.
    Suppose Pacifists is the authority of the law, just because of that, do you believe him?. Suppose Steve Barber turns out to have IQ 90, just because of that shouldn’t I believe you?
    Steve, the argument, thesis with reason, and evidence is all you need. Whatever you maybe, I’ll give you credit, if you make a sound argument. But as long as you keep shouting,

    Don’t be a silly sausage Ponta!!


    people will start doubting your intelligence.
    Thank you Steve Barber.

  8. comment number 8 by: ponta

    Toadface
    You must know 國史編纂委員會編 “邊例集要 권17 雜條 附 鬱陵島, 蔚陵島事蹟
    You know a lot of Japnese maps and things related to dokdo.
    Could you tell kaneganese where he can find it?
    If you don’t know, don’t be afraid of saying so, just say you don’t know. Even if that might be the case, I wouldn’t consider you hiding the document favorable to Japan nor do I consider you an ignorant expert. It often happens. After all I know just a little about Dokdo/takeshima, in comparison with opp, Gerry, Pacifist and Stever Barver etc.

  9. comment number 9 by: nighthawk

    toadface,

    I have a question. I don’t know much about this issue and my question is not rhetorical.

    I’ll cite from here:
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ww2.html

    Paragraph 2 of Cairo Declaration:
    (paragraph 2)”The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China(1). Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed(2). The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.

    Based on the above, you argue:

    It is clear that the basic Allied policy was to return the Japanese territory to the status prevailing before the Sino-Japanese War and Japan’s acquisition of Tokdo was by “violence and greed” as defined in the Cairo Declaration.

    The Cairo Declaration sounds (to me) like the Allied powers considered the beginning of Japan’s unjustifiable expansion by “violence and greed” as “the beginning of the first World War in 1914.” And it seems like Korea’s future independence was then added because they observed Koreans were in the state of enslavement. It doesn’t sound, again to me, like Allied powers were problematizing the annexation of Korea in 1910 itself, though they were problematizing the way Koreans were treated under Japanese rule as of 1943.

    Are there any specific reasons for you to consider “the status prevailing before the Sino-Japanese War” to be the Cairo Declaration’s reference point?

  10. comment number 10 by: hana

    Hello everyone!

    I think everybody here already knows about the
    Cairo Communique, which is only a pless release. It is not the International Law.
    Nobody signed.
    There is no document in the USA,UK,and China.
    Just the record of press release.

  11. comment number 11 by: ponta

    hana

    Cairo Communique, which is only a pless release. It is not the International Law.
    Nobody signed.
    There is no document in the USA,UK,and China.
    Just the record of press release

    Yes good point.
    But I think we don’t have to let Steve Barber mislead people.
    Whatever the nature of Cairo Communique is, whatever it says,
    The Potsdam Declaration says,

    (8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

    ttp://www.ioc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~worldjpn/documents/texts/docs/19450726.D1E.html

    San Francisco Peace Treaty in turn specifies ” such minor islands.”

    CHAPTER II

    TERRITORY

    Article 2

    (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

    Dokdo is not mentioned.
    And the best interpretaion of it was given by Pacifist.
    ttp://www.occidentalism.org/?p=425#comment-9913

  12. comment number 12 by: ponta

    Yes good point.
    But I think we don’t have to let Steve Barber mislead people
    →Yes good point.In addition to that, I think we
    donn’t have to …..

  13. comment number 13 by: hana

    ponta san.
    It seems to me that I did not follow well because of my English reading ability.
    sorry.
    I really appreciate you and your effort of
    seeking truth. Thank you!

  14. comment number 14 by: toadface

    Ponta, where have I misled people? The documents I have posted are from the Japanese archives showing the manner and purpose in which Japan annexed both Korea and Dokdo were identical and thus inseparable from Japanese control over Korea.

    Again view the maps and documents of the Japanese Navy’s suveys of Korean strategic areas and then the maps of Dokdo’s survey and tell me how they differ.
    1. The same warships surveyed Dokdo as Korea.
    2. They were done at the same time.
    3. They were mapped for the same purpose.
    4. They recorded and filed within pages of each other in Japanese Navy archives detailing the correct manner to install telegraph and wireless systems and watchtower locations for surveillance of Korea’s coast

    In fact, the survey done by the warship Tsushima was done months before the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of February 1905. It is clear Japan as a nation only valued Dokdo as a military outpost and claimed under this logic. Two words “Greed and violence”

    The terms of the Cairo Convention were inclusive under Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration which is binding upon Japan. It states, that the terms of the Cairo Convention must be carried out, in other words Japan is obligated to be expelled from all territories taken by force or greed.

    Japan is making an international embarrassment of herself by failing to admit the truth about her only documented claim to Dokdo. Why can’t Japan just admit she took Dokdo to militarily control the East Sea and Korea? I’ve found the maps and documents that clearly show this. The more Japan (and Ponta et al) deny this, the more foolish they look.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations.html
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations2.html

    I’ve also found the maps of Japanese military watchtowers during the Russo~Japanese War.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-territory-annexations3.html

    Yet, Japanese Takeshima activities try to shamelessly hide behing 100 year old colonial laws that state Japan didn’t have to notify Korea about seizing Dokdo. Where has common sense gone with Japan’s claim? Claiming a territory 160kms toward Korea and within visual distance of Ulleungdo and they didn’t breathe a word of it to anyone but printed a minuscule ad on the second page of a local rag with arguably a little more that a hundred readers…… Not open and public at all and certainly not the correct manner to announce extending your international boundary.

  15. comment number 15 by: Kaneganese

    Toadface,
    國史編纂委員會編 “邊例集要 권17 雜條 附 鬱陵島, 蔚陵島事蹟
    Do you know about the document? If you do, what do you think of this?

    I know that you ignore all the Korean maps by saying that they are drawn by hearsay or copied by another maps so that you don’t value them as a evidence. OK then, please give me the one KOREAN document which clearly shows the effective control over Takeshima/Dokdo before 1905. Not a JAPANESE document which apparently you cannot even read properly.