Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Why is ignorance so arrogant?

January 27th, 2007 . by Gerry-Bevers

An Ewha Womans University professor named Susan Oak arrogantly shows her ignorance of Korea-Japan issues in “A Reader’s View” letter in The Korea Heald entitled, “Japan must make amends.” After starting her letter by saying that Korea and Japan must settle their disputes over the Dokdo islets and the naming of the Sea of Japan diplomatically, she goes on a very undiplomatic rant that shows not only her ignorance of the issues but also her ignorance of making a logical argument. I was going to highlight only the most ridiculous parts of her letter, but the whole thing is ridiculous, so here it is:

Japan must make amends

The disputes over the Dokdo Islets and the naming of the Sea of Japan must be settled diplomatically by Korea and Japan to remove the dark shadow that hangs over the two countries and prevents them from forging long lasting ties. 

When a country is subjugated by another (as Korea was by Japan from 1910-1945) its culture is more than undermined, it is wiped out. This is achieved by promoting the farcical notion that the subjugator’s culture is superior. They don’t impose it with flowers but rather with cruelty. They stamp out the language, persecute the opposition, and confiscate the land. They take pride in the cultural unraveling of the subjugated people. They have their own code of honor: Resist and we’ll bury you, cooperate and we’ll allow you the status of the living dead. They divide up the spoils of the occupation. This is the collective behavior and ruthless practice of colonizers.

Korean culture was not “wiped out,” the Japanese did not “stamp out” the Korean language, and there were no “living dead.” Where did Ewha find this woman?

As part of the cultural unraveling, their aim is to undermine by degree the core values of the subjugated-the things with which they identify deeply and emotionally. They know what cripples and they use the supreme power of suppression to achieve their goals.

The East Sea is on the east side of the Korean Peninsula; wherein lies its historical significance to the Korean people. In 1929, the Japanese named the sea, the Sea of Japan. In 1905, while preparing to annex Korea, the Japanese secretly claimed the Dokdo Islets, which are located in the East Sea, and incorporated them into imperial Japan. The Korean people could do nothing about these changes, at the time. But they understood the ramifications. The sea had been named the Sea of Japan because the East Sea had lost its significance now that the Korean people all used Japanese names and Korea was a Japanese colony.

What is historically significant about the East Sea lying on the east side of the Korean Pennisula? Wouldn’t that mean every sea in the world is historically significant? If the Japanese named the sea the “Sea of Japan” in 1929, then what were the Japanese calling it before 1929? If the Japanese secretly incorporated “Dokdo,” then why was there a public notice, and why did the Japanese tell the Koreans about it in 1906? Takeshima (Dokdo) was incorporated in 1905, and Korea become a Japanese colony in 1910, so Korea had time to protest, but there is no evidence that she did.

Many people say that Japan “got a free ride” during the signing of the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty in which it renounced all claims to Korea and its islands large and small, but nevertheless held onto some of the spoils of occupation. Still others say that “Japan has a double standard: apologizing for its atrocious behavior while defending its right to Dokdo and the naming of the Sea of Japan.”

But there is no such thing as a free ride. As Goethe said, “Behavior is the mirror in which everyone shows their image.” Japan is a country that still reflects the image of a colonizer because it never completely settles the score. It never disentangles itself from its calibrated image.

Who says Japan got a free ride? What spoils of occupation did Japan get to keep? The Japanese lost all of their investments in Korea, and Dokdo was not a spoil of occupation if that is what the goofball writer is trying to imply.

The Korean people, once so annihilated under Japanese colonization, are finally holding Japan to account. In the new climate, an apology isn’t enough. Goethe said too, “Study the past, if you would divine the future.” Japan is hiding behind its past and is still intruding on Korea’s cultural and sovereign domain by its unwillingness to make amends.

Surely the writer is not an English teacher since she does not seem to know the meaning of the word “annihilate.” And how is Japan hiding behind its past? Japan is not hiding behind its past; on the contrary, Japan is trying to put its past behind her. It is Korea that is trying to use the past for political purposes.

Japan “made amends” is 1965, and it is Korea who is intruding on Japan’s cultural and sovereign domain by trying to tell Japan how to write her history books and where Japanese can or cannot pray.

In a diplomatic gesture, by dropping its claim to the Dokdo Islets and the Sea of Japan for the more neutral name, East Sea, Japan would help lift a century’s dark shadow and restore Korea’s full sovereign rights. As Confucius said, “Faced with what is right, to leave it undone shows a lack of courage.”

Susan Oak is a professor at Ewha Womans University. – Ed.

2007.01.27

What is neutral about the “East Sea,” considering that the sea is west of Japan? Renaming the Sea of Japan the “East Sea” and giving Korea territory that is historically Japan’s will “restore Korea’s full sovereign rights”?

Man, I feel sorry for those Ewha students.


133 Responses to “Why is ignorance so arrogant?”

  1. comment number 1 by: empraptor

    tomato,

    There is nothing evil about military use of land. Building a watch tower on a terra nullius would be a valid reason for annexing it in my opinion. It seems to me that building an outpost on Dokdo would have been the more important than fishing or hunting.

    If I misunderstood your point, I will read your post again. I had been in a hurry.

  2. comment number 2 by: pacifist

    wedgie or toadface,

    当時は日露戦争の最中で「外交上領土編入はその時期にあらず」と内務省から退けられたが、あきらめ切れず外務省幹部に相談すると「岩石編入のごとき小事件。領土編入は大いに利益あり」との援護を受け、竹島編入が実現した、と記載している。
    http://www.sanin-chuo.co.jp/news/modules/news/article.php?storyid=334672006

    Hekiun Okuhara (1873-1935) interviewed Yozaburo Nakai in March 1906 and wrote a document. The interview with Nakai took place during their voyage to Takeshima/Dokdo. The document was found by Hekiun’s 94-year-old son Hideo Okuhara.

    It says that Nakai’s plea was rejected at first by the Department of Interior, the reason of the rejection was that it was not an adequate time to incorporate a land as Russia and Japan was at war each other.
    But Nakai couldn’t give up the idea and consulted with executives of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said to him, “It’s a small thing to incorporate a rock, and that will be profitable”. So Nakai realized his plea with their support.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    So Japan didn’t have intention to incorporate the island in order to use it for a military reason.

    wedgie, you seem to think all the Japan did were wrong just as Korean people think, but it’s not right.

    Japan didn’t think of annexation at first. She had an intention to protect Korea and tried to make her independent from China and Russia. So your theory that Japan incorporated Takeshima/Dokdo as the first step of annexation of Korea is nonsense.

  3. comment number 3 by: pacifist

    wedgie or toadface,

    Did you know that the annexation of Korea was supported by many countries?
    It was not aimed by a “malicious country” from the beginning.

    Before the annexation, Japan had to fight with Qing and Russia to prevent Russian occupation of Korea.
    With the victory over Russia, Japan could expel Russian influence from Korea and made her a protectorate. To protect does not mean to reign or to occupy or to annex the country. The big powers in the world willingly agreed with the protection by Japan.

    Japan used to think that the protection was a transient step and would make Korea restore her sovereignty shortly. Especially Hirobumi Itoh had strong will to do so.

    However, Itoh was assasinated by the terrorist Ahn JoonGoon in October 1909, which made many Japanese people angry. Korean people were afarid of Japan’s anger and the biggest political party in Korea 一進会 proposed the annexation themselves.

    But Japan paid respect to the public opinion in the World, and asked USA and UK about this matter. The American president agreed saying “Korean peninsula belongs to Japan” and UK’s Minster of Foreign Affairs gave a welcome statement. Japan also asked France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Qing.
    The annexation was not intended at first, so it had nothing to do with the incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo in 1905, wedgie or toadface.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    BTW, the same kind of annexation occured in the late 19th century. I mean it was Hawaii. After the USA adopted a policy to protect Hawaii, she got a right from the Hawaiian Queen to make a naval base at Pearl harbor in 1887. In 1893, the Revolution occured in Hawaii and the palace was surrounded by the revolutionary army, the main power in which was Americans including sailors. The Queen abdicated the throne. The revolutionary government requested the USA to annex Hawaii.
    The then US president Cleeveland rejected the request at first but the public opinion favored the annexation. It was annexed in the end in 1897. Doesn’t this history of Hawaii look almost similar to the history of Korea?

    Korean people used to sing a Dokdo’s song, which includes a phrase “Hawaii belongs to USA”. Yes, it’s true but didn’t they know the history of Hawaii?

  4. comment number 4 by: toadface

    Ponta, I don’t need your or Opp’s twisted interpretations of the relevent laws regarding Dokdo. The Cairo Convention states “Japan will be expelled from all territories taken by violence and greed…..” The issue of whether or not Korea was cognizant or incorporated Dokdo are moot. I told you that before. Military land acquisitions are not a legal basis for terra nullius land claims and Japan is bound by treaties to abandon militarily acquired lands, period.

    Pacifist, the interview was long after the incorporaton of Dokdo. As you know Nakai was guided by the Foreign Ministry on how to maneuver to incorporate Dokdo. In fact it was the Hydrographic Minister of the Japanese Navy who helped Nakai through the process……go figure.

    Nakai’s personal quote was “Undaunted, I rushed to the Foreign Ministry to discuss the matter in detail with the then Political Affairs Bureau Director Yamaza Enjiro. He said the incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to construct watchtowers and install wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on the hostile warships…” The historical documents I’ve posted verify this.

    You and the Japanese Foreign Ministry must think the public are very naive to think during the one of the biggest wars of the day the Japanese government needed to incorporate Dokdo. This was coincidentally before the Battle of Tsushima when the Japanese knew the Baltic Fleet was about to confront them in the East Sea.

    It was big international news at this time that the Russian Fleet was coming and that there were only three possible routes to Vladivostok. The straights of Tsushima was the only real logical route because if the Russians took the East coast of Japan it would require their fleet to dangerously recoal their ships in Japanese waters. Thus the Japanese knew the most decisive naval battle of the war would take place in the waters surrounding Tsushima~Ulleungdo~Dokdo around May. And it did.

    The survey map I’ve posted was not a public Japanese map. It was found in the Archives of the Japanese Navy and predates Shimane Prefecture’s Inclusion of Dokdo. The map of the survey also shows the range of ocean visibility from given points. This proves the survey was undertaken for the purpose of establishing military surveillance on Dokdo. I think this was the map by the Japanese battleship Tsushima.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-Dokdo-map.jpg

    I also posted the map proving the Japanese did indeed follow through with the militarization of Dokdo as we have seen in the telegraph wire map made in the fall of 1905 that linked Matsue~Dokdo~Ulleungdo~Hoeryeong North Korea about 200 miles South of Vladivostok.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/wonson-telegraph-line4.jpg

    To summarize, Korean assertions that the Japanese acquired Dokdo for military purposes are not a nationalist rant with the agenda of playing the victim. Japanese historical documents from there own military archives prove this to be true. This information is being gathered and will be posted in the future on my website so the public can make their own judgement based on all of the available facts.

    Pacifist, the Japanese occupation WAS supported by world powers. This was in exchange for territorial concessions elsewhere. For example America allowed Japan a free hand in Korea for unchallenged interests in the Philippines. Britain allowed Japan a free hand in Korea for her interests in India and Burma. However few would ague this was either legal or moral to this day. Secondly Japan’s occupation of Korea was deemed illegal years later. You can’t use these colonial ambitions as a legal foundation for much of anything in this day and age when the territoriall land claims of this era are under continuous criticism.

  5. comment number 5 by: ponta

    Toadface
    Thanks

    Ponta, I don’t need your or Opp’s twisted interpretations of the relevant laws regarding Dokdo.

    The point is you need to prove my interpretation is twisted. You shouting out does not make my interpretation twisted. Rather I am afraid it helps to make you look twisted.

    “Japan will be expelled from all territories taken by violence and greed…..”

    But you can not take by violence and greed what didn’t belong to Korea from Korea.
    And it is evident you have failed to show Korea had effective control and/or Korea knew
    Dokdo before 1905.
    It is crucial and essential for Korea to show
    it, and yet surprisingly you have failed to show it. And interestingly almost all
    the documents and maps you have showed are made in Japan. That is telling and that will only strengthen the belief among people; Korea knew nothing about Dokdo.
    Steve Barber, I am afraid you are cornered, the best thing for you to do is to tell Korean people the truth you have had to admit
    after the reseach into this issue. That is love, Mr. Steve Barber. Giving whatever they want however irrational is not love, Mr.Steve Barber.
    In my opinion Japan is willing to concede on this matter if and only if the truth is told to Korean people.
    Sincerely
    Ponta

  6. comment number 6 by: ponta

    Toadface,
    In case you don’t understand….

    K J stole my purse and my hat.
    P what was your purse like? K.
    K Ah….I didn’t have any purse with me …. but you know J deprived me of my hat by greed and violence, you know, J is evil and everyone know I am a victim and a victim deserves atonement.
    P ………..
    J Ah, ….I gave her her hat back, and I apologized and compensated. But the purse was mine in the first place. She stole it from me while I was in detention.
    K Oh greedy J. I can’t believe it!!! How can
    you claim the thing our race feels so dear? Nanjing massacre 731 troop, Kanto earthquake atrocity in Russo-Japan war
    don’t you know that? J is truly evil!!!
    I am a victim, I deserve sympathy, I deserve the purse.

    Which is using twisted logic, K or J?

  7. comment number 7 by: pacifist

    wedgie or toadface,

    I don’t understand why you insist that Japan’s use of the island for the Russo-Japanese war was to be criticized. It is natural to use all the lands to fight with Russia, the then one of the biggest powers in the world. And the island belonged to Japan…what’s wrong? What is your point?

    As I’ve shown you, the incorpopration of Takeshima/Dokdo was not a beginning of the annexation of Korea. And the island was not owned by Korea. She didn’t know about it at all.

    So wedgie or toadface, all you have to do is, as ponta pointed out, to show the evidence that Korea knew the island before 1905 but youi failed. You have to admit that you lost in the debate.

  8. comment number 8 by: pacifist

    wedgie or toadface,

    You wrote “Pacifist, the interview was long after the incorporaton of Dokdo”.

    The interview took place in 1906, just one year after the incorporation, not a long time after the incorporation.

  9. comment number 9 by: toadface

    Ponta, I’m goint to say this one more time. Japan cannot use her military annexation of Dokdo as legal foundation to lay claim. Usage of the land is one thing, however incorporation for military purposes is another issue. I see Korea’s claim as a separate issue.

    Ponta you are injecting the extreme radical views of some Koreans into this discussion. (731, Nanjing etc.,) I have not mentioned any unrelated materials into this debate. Historians both Korean and Japanese agree the Russo~Japanese War was instrumental in the 1905 annexation of Dokdo.

    I have used the materials from Japan’s only historical archives to prove their motives for the incorporation of Dokdo were of military in nature. In short, I have destroyed Japans 1905 Prefecture Inclusion and look forward to updating my website with these resources so the public can read them and see the truth.

    My next page will be about the Japanese Military Appropration of Korean Land and Dokdo. It will be an ongoing page as I uncover more documents. I hope you enjoy it.

    Ponta, I’m not preaching love or hate. I’m giving historical context to a territorial land dispute. This is not an emotional, patriotic nor nationalist issue for me. In fact it angers me that in a few a hours I could dig up very critical Japanese documents that none of the Korean Dokdo websites have posted. It shows the Koreans themselves are doing a very poor job of presenting their argument on this subject.

    Pacifist regarding the date of the 1906 document. What I mean is the historical documents prior to the incorporation of Dokdo predate the event whereas the interview you talk of is long after and second hand heresay.

  10. comment number 10 by: pacifist

    wedgie or toadface,

    > “Historians both Korean and Japanese agree the Russo~Japanese War was instrumental in the 1905 annexation of Dokdo”.

    What kind of historians do you mean? I’ve never heard or read such theory in Japan.
    It is a crystal-clear fact that Yozaburo Nakai asked Japanese government to incorporate the island and lend him the island for ten years. (You must admit this, wedgie.)

    And after the cabinet meeting it was approved. (You also must admit this, wedgie.)

    The military use was after the incorporation. (You must admit this, wedgie.)

    So what is the problem, wedgie?

    And you must admit that Korea had nothing to do with Takeshima/Dokdo, they just stole it after the WWII.

    If your theory to use an incorporated island as military purpose, why don’t you blame Korea?
    They stole it brutally and still occupied it with armed guards. They even shot dead some Japanese fishermen and captured many Japanese fishboats. Why don’t you blmae these unlawful deeds?

  11. comment number 11 by: pacifist

    correction:

    Why don’t you blmae these unlawful deeds?

    SHOULD BE

    why don’t you blame these unlawful deeds?

    (sorry)

  12. comment number 12 by: ponta

    toadface
    Thanks

    Japan cannot use her military annexation of Dokdo as legal foundation to lay claim.

    1. In view of international law, the motive is irrelevant in particular because Korea had no effective control over Dokdo and/or Korean
    government did not know Dokdo before 1905
    2 In fact, the documents of Blackdragon, and
    nakai yosaburou, which you kindly presented,, show that the islets were made clear to be integral part of Japan (at least in part) because they were interested in economic use of it.

    I have not mentioned any unrelated materials into this debate.

    You did. Did you forget

    I’m giving historical context to a territorial land dispute.

    I am glad to hear it. So please concentrate on the subject so that you won’t join the game of insulting Gerry again, making the fake story about him.(if you want to the link, let me know)

    After all, where is your Korean evidence that Korea had effective control over Dokdo or Korea knew Dokdo?
    Let’s examine it because that is the foremost important issue.

  13. comment number 13 by: toadface

    Ponta don’t cite international law as a general guiding principal in the Dokdo dispute. The Dokdo case distinguishes itself from other precedents in that Japan signed terms of surrender that stipulate Japan accept the terms of the Cairo Convention and be expelled from all lands seized by violence and greed. Military land grabs fall into this category.

    Now that we’ve confirmed that Japan used Dokdo in a military capacity during the Russo~Japanese War you are shamelessly trying to convince those foolish enough to believe you that the Japanese Government felt an urgent need to hunt seals as the Russian Baltic Fleet steamed toward Japan.

    Fact: The Japanese Navy mapped Dokdo for the purpose of installing watchtowers months before the island was incoporated.

    Fact: Nakai Yozaburos dairy confirmed that Political Affairs Bureau Director Yamaza Enjiro said “The incorporation was urgent particularly under the present situation, and it is absolutely necessary and advisable to construct watchtowers and install wireless or submarine cable and keep watch on the hostile warships. (Russian)

    Fact: Naval watchtowers and telegraph lines were planned and installed immediately after the Battle of Tsushima in 1905. These lines were linked with those on Korea and mainland Japan to monitor the East Sea.

    There is no doubt Japan annexed Dokdo for military purposes just as they appropriated Korean land for the same reason. BTW I will continue to find and post related Japanese war materials from this time era in the coming months.

  14. comment number 14 by: ponta

    toadface
    Thanks

    you are shamelessly trying to convince those foolish enough to believe you that the Japanese Government felt an urgent need to hunt seals as the Russian Baltic Fleet steamed toward Japan.

    Could you be more polite? You compared me with a dog, (if you want to the link, let me know) and now you are telling some of people who are interested in the issue foolish. I thought you said you were just interested in historical and legal aspect of the issue.
    The more you use this kind of tactics, I am afraid ,the more you look twisted.

    Now, you documents themselves confirmed that Japanese motive for dokdo was (at least in part) economic use. And historical documents confirms that Dokdo was (at least in part) used for hunting sea lion.
    You are trying to ignore this point.(Why ?is n’t it because in reality you are not interested in historical and legal issue of Dokdo.?)
    But that is not the point.

    You have been avoiding the question whether Korea had effective control over Dokdo and/or Korea knew Dokdo before 1905 because Korea has no evidence for it and that is crucial for this issue.

    My argument is that considering SF treaty and other relevant treaties and legal precedences, , in terms of international law, Korea has no title to Dokdo because Korea had no effective
    control and Korean government didn’t know Dokdo before 1905.

    I can’t deprive you of something that
    is not yours.

    Japan returned everything that belonged to Korea, and in addition, Japan compensated, and have kept helping Korea.
    But please give Japan back takeshima, which has been integral part of Japan and had never belonged to Korea. That is the point.
    Thanks Mr. Steve Barber.

  15. comment number 15 by: pacifist

    wedgie,

    Yozaburo Nakai actually asked Japanese government to incorporate Takeshima/Dokdo and let him use it for 10 years, but his first plea was rejected as he recalled one year later (1906). This is a fact.

    And he tried the plea once again with the support of Minstry of Foreign Affairs.

    So Nakai’s plea had nothing to do with the survey of Japanese navy. Japanese navy (and army too) were busy in gathering information to prepare for the future wars against great powers, but it had no relation to the incorporation of Takeshima/Dokdo.

    Even if they used Takeshima/Dokdo for military reason, it won’t hurt Japan’s ownership of Takeshima/Dokdo.
    The incorporation was done peacefully (because Korea didn’t own it).

    But the occupation by Korea took place by violence. Approaching Japanese fishermen were shot dead. wedgie, this is the real problem.

  16. comment number 16 by: toadface

    Ponta are you still blubbering like a baby about the “poor puppy Ponta” poster I linked to about 8 monts ago? Quit your crying you big baby.

    If you try to treat those who read your posts as fools then don’t be surprised if you get laughed at. Even empraptor above agrees that it is unlikely Japan as a nation had any interest in wacking seals during a major war.

    All of these post WWII conditions SCAP etc mean nothing bacause Japan has failed to separate her military domination of Korea from the acquisition of Dokdo in 1904. In Japanese Navy records it shows how Japan methodically surveyed all of Korea’s islands and coastal areas for the purpose of wireless and telegraph communications.

    In other words, as I’ve mentioned lands taken by military means are not deemed acquisitions as part of a normal peaceful process Pacifist. The Cairo Convention clearly stipultes Japan must be expelled From all lands taken by greed or force

    Pacifist I Nakai’s diary also proves his application was guided by Japan’s Naval Dept for military purposes an I’ve given you the quote above that shows this to be true. Nakai’s application didn’t drive Shimane to incorporate Dokdo. The Navy Dept lobbied the other governmental offices to force it through and it was passed.

    So the military activities before, during and after the Shimane Prefecture are very important.

    How much will the international public support Japan’s claim to Dokdo when they see all of the Japanese Naval documents that prove they were involved militarily on the island when they “incorporated” it.

    Not many……….

  17. comment number 17 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    I don’t think Takeshima/Dokdo was incorporated because of military reason, but even if your theory was true, why do you criticize it?
    It was Nobody’s land, at least Korea didn’t own it and Russia didn’t own it. And the incorporation was done peacefully, without arms.

    But Korean occupation was done forcefully. And they killed 40 and more Japanese fishermen and still they haven’t compensate for it. Don’t you think the occupation by Korea was a problem?

  18. comment number 18 by: ponta

    Toadface

    Ponta are you still blubbering like a baby about the “poor puppy Ponta” poster I linked to about 8 monts ago? Quit your crying you big baby

    How many times do I have to tell you:behave yourself for the sake of Korea.

    If you try to treat those who read your posts as fools then don’t be surprised if you get laughed at.

    Very poor argument Steve Barber.

    Even empraptor above agrees that it is unlikely Japan as a nation had any interest in wacking seals during a major war.

    My interpretation of his comment is different.
    His argument is even if Japan had military purpose, it has nothing to do with the title.

    The Cairo Convention clearly stipultes Japan must be expelled From all lands taken by greed or force

    First SF treaty presupposes Cairo Convention and the best interpretation was presented by Pacifist.
    Second, Japan did not use any force in order to take over Dokdo/Takeshima.( Korea did use force, and injured/detained/killed Japanese fishermen.) Hence taking Cairo convention alone for consideration, Japan has no obligation to return it anyone..

    I Nakai’s diary also proves his application was guided by Japan’s Naval Dept

    Here you said, “also
    Nakai’s main intention was to hunt the seal lion, and his application was guided by Japan’s
    Naval Dept. Isn’t that what you want to say?
    If so, why do you keep hiding the fact above despite the fact that you said you just wanted to know historical, legal truth about Dokdo?

    How much will the international public support Japan’s claim to Dokdo when they see all of the Japanese Naval documents that prove they were involved militarily on the island when they “incorporated” it.

    Unless you can not show that Korea had effective control or Korean government know Dokdo before 1905, many countries will support Japan. And because you can not show it, Korea just can not leave it to ICJ;for ICJ, as well as international community will judge in favor of Japan.
    Thanks.Steve Barvber.

  19. comment number 19 by: empraptor

    I meant both that Dokdo was annexed by Japan mainly for military reason and that this does not bear on the issue of rightful ownership.

    If you look at the purpose of Dokdo’s incorporation separately, that in itself is an intersting topic. It seems to me that Dokdo would have had more value to the Navy than to fishermen at that point in history.

    But the only relevant issue to rightful ownership is whether Korea had knoweledge and control of Dokdo before 1905.

    If Dokdo did belong to Korea before 1905, it does not matter that fishing/hunting was one of the reasons for annexation.

    If Dokdo belonged to no nation before 1905, it does not matter that a military watchtower was built.

    Even if some law or another dictated that Japan hand over Dokdo to the previous owner because of the watchtower, who does it go to if no nation can show it was theirs?

    So I think that would be the thing to debate – whether Dokdo belonged to Korea before 1905 – as Gerry-Bevers has been doing.

  20. comment number 20 by: Sonagi

    Ponta asked,

    Could anybody explain Frick and Frack?

    Frick and Frack are slang names for two people who are always together like twins. It is an informal expression that could be considered neutral or at worst slightly negative. I wouldn’t object or take offense if someone used the term towards me.

  21. comment number 21 by: ponta

    empraptor
    Thanks
    Clear as usual.

    If Dokdo belonged to no nation before 1905, it does not matter that a military watchtower was built.

    I would add an minor change.
    If Dokdo belonged to no nation before 1905, and/or if Dokdo belonged to Japan before 1905, it does not…..

    who does it go to if no nation can show it was theirs?

    So I think that would be the thing to debate – whether Dokdo belonged to Korea before 1905

    That is what I have been asking Mr Steve Barber to do, but he has failed to do so.

    Sonagi
    Thanks
    I won’t take offence. I just want him to behave himself if he really wants to defend Korea’s claim. It is regrettable, for Korea’s sake, that he is the type who compared me with a dog, and say “are you still blubbering like a baby about the poor puppy Ponta” .

  22. comment number 22 by: Sonagi

    @Ponta:

    Calling you “Frick and Frack” was not offensive but calling you a “blubbering baby” was:

    are you still blubbering like a baby about the poor puppy Ponta

    But how can you expect any maturity and rationality from a commenter who changes his socks so often it’s impossible to keep track of his latest username?

  23. comment number 23 by: kjeff

    LOL, All of these for small islets. It’s mine…No! It’s mine! No!!! It’s mine!!! Ponta, you want it so much? Come and get it! Don’t forget to bring your guns though.

    Ponta(I single you out because you sure were busy) and like-minded bloggers:
    I’m trying to summarize your points(not limited to the above topic, but to Korea-Japan in general). I hope I got them right. The invasion is wrong, but bla, bla, bla… The invasion is wrong, but bla, bla, bla… The invasion is wrong, but bla, bla, bla… I know it’s politically incorrect, but come on, say it with me, “The invasion is goooddd!!!”
    You know, I could argue ‘this’ and you’d argue ‘that’, then I’d argue these and you’d argue those, and so on. It’s endless. You and ‘nationalist'(ultra seems a bit much) like me would be there with a set of beliefs. That’s what history is for me, beliefs, because all we know is such and such happened, if even that. I’m not willing to give mine up, would you? All I know is if someone ask me who I’d rather be in early 20th century Korea, I wouldn’t want to be Korean, would you? And now, put your bla, bla, bla in that context, and get back to me.

  24. comment number 24 by: Sonagi

    kjeff asks:

    All I know is if someone ask me who I’d rather be in early 20th century Korea, I wouldn’t want to be Korean, would you?

    No, I wouldn’t want to be Korean since some Korean women and girls still didn’t even have names.

  25. comment number 25 by: kjeff

    Sonagi,

    I mean in comparison to being Japanese. No wait, I mean Japanese in the context of the invasion. I’m confused. LOL No wait, I think you knew these already.

  26. comment number 26 by: toadface

    Empraptor, the issue of Japan’s militarization of Korea and the East Sea are of a major issue with regard Dokdo’s ownership.

    First, Japan’s only real concrete claim to Dokdo was made in 1905 at the height of the Japanese~Russo War.

    At this time the Japanese Navy surveyed not just Dokdo for naval watchtowers and telegraph wires but also these areas. Wonson, Ulleungdo, Ulsan, Chejudo, Udo, Geomudo, and other surrounding islets on the West Coast of Korea.

    All of these surveys recorded the topography of the islands to find the best location for these facilities.

    All of these surveys were conducted by the same light destroyers (Tsushima, Niitaka and Hashitade) that would deep six the Russian Navy in the East Sea in May of 1905.

    All of these surveys Dokdo etc., were recorded in the same file of the same archives. In other words the military activites of Japan’s Navy in Korea were inseparable in all aspects from what they we doing on Dokdo.

    The issue people are fixated on here is whether or not the invasion of Korea by Japan was good. But with regard to Dokdo, the true crux of the argument is “Were Japan’s motives for seizing Dokdo in 1905 legal?”

    When we dig deeply into the Japanese Navy’s historical archives it becomes clear the Japanese took Dokdo for military reasons. The terms of Japan’s surrender make it clear that Japan must be expelled by lands taken by greed or force. Military acquisitions fall into this category.

    Ponta, empraptor. The issue of Usando, Anyongbok, Jukdo Islets, Seokdo have been discussed ad nauseum on many forums. All that has been and can be accomplished is casting doubt on Korea’s claim. Many of these historical documents and maps are subject to numerous interpretations. The Koreans have their interpretations and the Japanese have theirs.

    The bottom line is Korea has Dokdo and Japan has no claim prior to the 1905 annexation and this was clearly illegal under the terms of the Cairo Convention.

    Sonagi, who needs to know who I am….?

  27. comment number 27 by: ponta

    Toadface

    But with regard to Dokdo, the true crux of the argument is “Were Japan’s motives for seizing Dokdo in 1905 legal?”

    What you have not shown is the motive is legally relevant.
    In order to claim the territory, you need a peaceful display of effective control.
    (textbook on International law 5th edition/Martin Dixon)
    Here by peaceful, they mean it is not challenged by other states. And
    1) it was not challenged.
    2)suppose it was challenged then the date is the critical date, Japan knew, and had effective control before, Korea had none.

    The issue of Usando, Anyongbok, Jukdo Islets, Seokdo have been discussed ad nauseum on many forums. All that has been and can be accomplished is casting doubt on Korea’s claim. Many of these historical documents and maps are subject to numerous interpretations

    Surely the maps and documents are subject to numerous interpretation. But there is from twisted interpretation to better, more reasonable interpretation.
    Usando is not Dokdo, because descriptions in Korean documents associated with Usando does not fit Dokdo.
    Usando is not Dokdo, because geographical location of Usand on Korean maps is far from the actual location of Dokdo.
    An said “Usando is Matushima.”
    But Usando is not Dokdo.
    And Matsushima he described does not fit geographical properties of Dokdo.
    Thus Korea had no evidence that show they know Dokdo, with reasons.
    Korea had empty island policy until 1883 by which people were punished by just sailing Ulleungdo.It is not surprising Korean government knew little about Ulleungdo, much less Dokdo.

    Steve Barber, you were able to talk, behaving yourself this time. I’ll praise you.
    Thank you.

  28. comment number 28 by: Gerry-Bevers

    Toadface wrote:

    The terms of Japan’s surrender make it clear that Japan must be expelled by lands taken by greed or force. Military acquisitions fall into this category.

    Secretary of State Dean Rusk disagreed with that logic, Toadface. Here is what he wrote to the Korean Ambassador in 1951:

    With respect to request of the Korean Government that Article 2(a) of the draft be revised to provide that Japan “confirms that it renounced on August 9, 1945, all right, title and claim to Korea and the islands which were part of Korea prior to its annexation by Japan, including the islands Quelpart, Port Hamilton, Dagelet, Dokdo and Parangdo,” the United States Government regrets that it is unable to concur in this proposed amendment. The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan’s acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration. As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. Link to Dean Rusk Letter

    And Dean Rusk was correct in saying that “Dokdo” had never before been claimed by Korea.

    No one needs to know who you are, Toadface, but why do you post on this subject under four or five fake names? So you can hide after making childish comments? I think that is the point Sonagi was trying to make.

  29. comment number 29 by: pacifist

    toadface,

    As for the telegraph system, it was a new technique which world navies have not used yet. Japan made it developed and made it practically useful, actually it worked well for the battle in the Sea of Japan.

    Before the wire was put, Japan asked Qing and Chosun to give them permission to put the wire. But Qing rejected the proposal and Chosun also rejected. Japan repeatedly asked Chosun about the wire in Busan but it was rejected too. So Japan put the wire at islands in the Sea of Japan and some other Japanese territories.

    I don’t understand why do you stick to this matter wedgie/toadface, as far as Takeshima/Dokdo was not Korean territory you can’t say it’s illegal.
    You should show that Korea owned the island before 1905 but you failed.

    Think it again, if Japan lost in the war, Chosun should have been occupied by Russia – this is true because the Russian Emperor was intending to get Chosun as some documents show. The Russo-Japanese war was in a sense, a war to protect Chosun from Russian invasion.

  30. comment number 30 by: toadface

    Gerry after what you’ve been through I can’t believe you would question why anyone would want to remain anonymous on the net. At this point, I don’t really care.

    In fact, Ponta’s constant posting of my name on other websites is giving me more hits these days. I thinking of making him my personal assistant, maybe you can ask him if he does windows.

    Dean Rusk reflects America’s position on Dokdo is does not define the interpretation of treaties drafted up by all of the alles. In other words, Dean Rusk is not the boss of Korea. More importantly he is not an authority on Chosun history. He was a hard-ass anti commie who was one of the driving forces behind getting the States mired in Vietnam. This shows his gross incompetence in dealing with Asia.

    Rusk also uses wishy washy posturing such as “the United States does not feel… and “should not” and “to our knowledge…”
    I’ve pointed out about a dozen times to you Dean Rusk was a rabid anti-Communist who was helping America to posture for the upcoming Cold War and wanted the States to have more access to the East Sea (Sea of Japan)America had zero interest in trying to impartially decide who owned Dokdo.

    BTW what is America’s stance now?

  31. comment number 31 by: toadface

    Pacifist, Japan didn’t ask Korea to install these wires. Their navy stormed into Chemulpo hours after declaring war, attacked the Russian boats Variag and Korietz and then marched into Seoul and after weeks of coercian and threats forced the Koreans into the Japan Korea Protocol allowing Japan to militarily occupy Korea.

    Here’s they way they “asked” to come into Incheon.
    http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/Japanese-ultimatum2.jpg

    There are the kind of telegraph systems needed for infrastructure and then there is the kind the Japanese installed in 1904~1905. These were only for military control of the region and these were the kind installed on Dokdo. Japan’s acquisition of Dokdo was for the purpose of installing these systems and whether we believe it moral or not means nothing. Japan’s terms of surrender state these acquisitions are not legal.

    Pacifist, I think you are confused between wireless communications and telegraph. The Russo~Japanese War saw the first use of wireless radio in warfare. Japan didn’t invent or develop these systems, they adopted them. You also might be surprised to find out how many of the Japanese Navy ships of this era were built by Europeans as well.

    You must be joking when you try to sell this rubbish that Japan had Korea’s best interests in mind when they annexed Korea. Japan had two interests in the Korea problem. First was military control of the region as a armed buffer against agression from the mainland. Second was economic domination of Korea. Japan came to realize the second couldn’t happen without the first.

  32. comment number 32 by: ponta

    Toadface

    I thinking of making him my personal assistant, maybe you can ask him if he does windows.

    Childish.

    The Rusk document is important in that it shows the direction as to how SF treaty should be interpreted. and it should be read with Pacifist ‘s comment on SF treaty.
    Whatever Rusk’s further aim is, that is irrelevant.

    There are the kind of telegraph systems needed for infrastructure

    So after all it was for infrastructure.
    And any infrastructure can be used for military purpose. Japan still has a lot of telegraph systems:some may be used for military purpose, others are not.
    And Nakai and Black Dragon emphasized its economic utility. Besides you know there were
    a lot of illegal Japanese at Ulleungdo, don’t you. They were out their for economic purpose.
    And what is crucial is that the motivation is
    irrelevant for the acquisition of the territory.
    Can you cite the case where the territory was
    denied because of the motivation? That is what you need to show.
    Thanks, Steve Barber.

  33. comment number 33 by: tonton

    初めまして。
    ブログの最初から読んで、やっとここまで来ました。
    (と言っても機械翻訳なんですけど…)
    日本語で申し訳ないのですが、ちょっとだけ付け加えさせてください。

    ハワイ国のカラカウア国王はアメリカ人の随行員をまいて単身、明治天皇に会見なさったことがあられます。
    そのときのことが明治天皇紀に記されています。

    「アメリカはわが国を占有し、太平洋上の拠点にしようという野心を抱いている」

    「アジア諸国は列強の支配を受けながら、互いに孤立を深め無策である。この状況を抜け出すためには各国が一致団結し欧米に対峙する必要がある」

    「今や列強諸国は利己主義に走り、アジア諸国の不利や困難をかえりみることをしません。」
    「アジアの急務は、連合同盟して列強諸国に対峙することです」
    「もしこの連合が実現すれば、列強諸国に治外法権を認めさせることができるはずです」

    「どうか協力してアジア諸国連合を結び、その盟主となっていただきたい。そうなれば私は陛下を支え、大いに力をお貸ししましょう」

    天皇陛下は随分お考えになったようですが、ハワイに帰国されたカラカウア国王へのご返事は、
    「東洋諸国が互いに協力して欧米列強と対峙することは確かに急務です」
    「しかしこの問題はあまりに遠大で到底簡単には運びません」
    「この計画の実現は現段階では不可能であると考えます」
    (ハワイ州立公文書館に保管されている明治天皇のカラカウア国王への回答文(英語)の意訳)

    カラカウア国王からは、姪のカイウラニ王女との縁談のお申し出もあり、うまく行くかと思われましたが、ご存知の通り、皇女はお亡くなりになりました。

    カラカウア国王の日本での行動はアメリカで問題になりました。日本は力になることができませんでした。

    日本は食料の供給に比べて人口が増えすぎて、移住先を必要としていました。
    ハワイは日本人をたくさん受け入れてくれました。
    ハワイではアメリカによって持ち込まれた伝染病に免疫を持たなかったために多くが亡くなり、人口が減っていたため、日本からの移民が一時4割にも上ったそうです。
    そのことはアメリカの疑念を招いたかも知れません。
    アメリカは日本人のアメリカへの移民を禁止し、ハワイへの移民も禁止し、土地を取り上げ、学校を別にしました。
    カリフォルニアの大地震に際しての日本の寄付は国費の数パーセントに当たる額で他国の寄付金を合わせたものよりも大きな額だったそうです。貧乏だった頃の日本にしてみれば、日本人を公平に扱って欲しいという願いのこもった寄付だったのでしょうが、わずかに小学校が例外にしてもらえたのみだったようです。

    もうここまで書いたので、ついでに書いてしまいますが、
    WW2の頃、世界の陸地の85%までもが欧米の所有だったのに、日本が世界支配を目論んだというのは、おかしいと思いませんか?その時代に日本が公正な裁きを受けられたと思いますか?
    当時、東京裁判で裁かれ、戦犯として刑の執行が済んでいるにも関わらず、日本が裁かれ続けるのはおかしいと思いませんか?
    現在の日本を、過去の東京裁判のように、日本側の主張も証拠も検証も無視して裁くのであれば、他の国も同じように裁かれるべきではありませんか?

    と、残虐な日本人がこっそり書いてみました。(´▽`*)ゝ

    皆さんの議論を楽しみにしています。では。