Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion

That would settle it since Korea doesn't have the balls to argue their master, China. 中華思想 at work here. East China Sea is a good example.[:D]

one korean family lives there and now the japanse are taking the food kimchi
www.american.edu/TED/kimchi.htm

I really don't care if it's East Sea or Sea of Japan. However, many Koreans do care. In my view, Japan was the dominant power of Asia at the time the oceans were being made, and thus, because Japan was a victor, it got to name stuffs just like the European immigrants came to call their North American colony "United States of America" instead of "properly" naming it like a "United Federation of Native American Territories." History is made by the victors, and the maps are named by the victors as well. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but that that's just the way things happen.

But, still, i do not think bringing in the subject of how "Korea is basically a slave nation to China" or talking about random personal hatred of Koreans and other races are really productive.

I seriously think many people in this forum have really had some bad personal experiences with our fellow Koreans... Well, so much for improving our national image in the eyes of the foreigners...
Some day, some day, i hope Korea receives the same respect from foreigners as Japan does. Now whether that will be through changing our "habits" or something, i will leave it up for you to decide.

PS:
sejong will probably brand this another urinara-manse nationlist post, so i will answer for him beforehand.

I am not a nationalist.
I just love my country as billions of other people in the world do and would like its image to be bettered.
Personally, I'm trying always to be calm and never to be really angry with anyone. YOu can make fun of me all you want, but that's just it.

Listen , Korean.

Takeshima is historically Japanese territory.The South Korea government ran away when Japanese Government was about to enter suit in court in an international court. The South Korea government knows no win by the trial.

The Sea of Japan is what the majority of the world's people call the sea.
Countries may call the sea whatever they want. Korea can call it the East Sea, others will call it the Sea of Japan or Japan Sea. Why is it so important for Koreans to call it the "East Sea"? What does it achieve? Shouldn't Koreans concentrate on other things? Is it the acknowledgement and attention of "white people" that Koreans crave?[:)]

I hate when people make trouble about Dock-Do.

KT and his countrymen can call "it" whatever they wanted to call it in their country, Korea. However, it still does not change the fact that it is still called the Sea of Japan.

I see what you are saying. And I have no question about that because it is called Sea of Japan by most of the world ppl. But, I worry about that Japan uses the name of the sea to prove that Dokdo is thier territory becasue it is in the Sea of Japan. I hope there will be no more wacky logic like that....

I think you should go and live on Dokto/Takeshima if you care so greatly about the islands. Have a good life there.

The site you referenced is laughable.

Let's start with the annuls of three kingdoms in 512 A.D.

于山国征服、歳以土宜為貢、于山国、在溟州東海島、或名鬱陵島、地方一百里、恃嶮不服、伊喰異斯夫、為何琵羅州軍主、謂于山人愚悍、難以威来

于山国＝Usan State. State? A small islet no bigger than Hibiya Park is a state??
于山人=Usan people?



Again. How do you claim something when the Koreans and her ancestors haven't shown any record of existence of Takeshima? The Koreans have insisted that the current Takeshima was called (于山,Usan). If this is the case, why are all the maps showing Usan reside right next to Ullung??

www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takesh ... hongdo.jpg

www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/kaisa.jpg

www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takesh ... -korea.jpg
(****=g*e*o*c*i*t*i*e*s)

The above indicates that the Koreans couldn't even describe Ullung island and her six nearby islands. These maps clearly state that 于山,Usan they claim is one of the nearby sister islands outside Ulluong, not the 92KM apart Takeshima.

All three maps on the site indicate Korean's soverignty over Ulleung/Usan, and not Dokdo/Takeshima

Based on evidence Usan in no shape, way, or form equal Takeshima.

The maps indicating the exact location (longitude/latitude) made by Japan during the Edo period are as follows:

1724 「竹島松島之図」

www.g*e*o*c*i*t*i*e*s.jp/tanaka_kunitak ... eshima.gif

1779 日本輿地路程全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08342001/CJA08342001-P1.html

1791 日本輿地路程全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08343001/CJA08343001-P1.html

1811 日本輿地路程全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08344001/CJA08344001-P1.html

1833 日本輿地路程全圖


www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08335001/img/CJA08335001-1.jpg

1837 日本輿地路程全圖


www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08345001/CJA08345001-P1.html

1844 日本輿地路程全圖


www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08346001/CJA08346001-P1.html

1849 永新増 大日本國郡輿地全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08299001/CJA08299001-P1.html

1853 大日本海岸全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08291001/CJA08291001-P1.html

1862 日本郡國一覽

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08328001/CJA08328001-P1.html

1864 日本輿地全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08341001/CJA08341001-P1.html

1865 大日本程路全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08313001/CJA08313001-P1.html


For the record, there are no accurate maps made by Koreans pin pointing the exact location of Dokdo/Takeshima prior to the 20th century.

SCAPIN #677 states
"6. Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. "

SCAPIN #1033 which created the MacArthur line states

"5. The present authorization is not an expression of allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries or fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area."

The line was established as purely "admistrative" for the Allied.[:D]

Case in point, Okinawa and Ogasawara islands, which were not included under Japanese "administrative line" were both subsequently returned to Japan.

In regards to Korea's laughable 1900 Ordinance...

"It is difficult to believe that Sokdo is Kwanumdo, based on Kwanumdo's history, appearance, and topography and as "Dokdo" and "Sokdo" essentially mean the same thing: "rock island". As the text of the ordinance was written in Sino-Korean (Chinese) characters, the name appears as "Sok", and not the dialectal pure Korean, "Dok".

Kwanumdo's history, appearance and topography?? What history? The appearance of Kwanumdo is much like what it is, a "rock island". And why would the ordinance leave out Kwanumdo and include a 92 km apart Takeshima? It doesn't make sense.[:D]

Shimane Council incorporated the islets in February of 1905. The Eulsa "Protectorate" Treaty was signed November of 1905. There were no complaints by Korea in regards Takeshima after both dates. In fact, the first dispute of Takeshima itself arose as a result of "Rhee line" in the 1950's. If you could find this phantom complaint which Korea spoke in 1906, I'd like to see it. [:D]

Do you have a mind of your own or do you need to paste sites???[:D]

Let's look at the 1432 record.

"于山·武陵二島 在縣正東海中 二島相距不遠 風日淸明 則可望見 新羅時 稱于山國"

But, " 二島相距不遠"??? It's 92 km away.

The below map clearly indicates an example of " 二島相距不遠" Hence, the "point of reference" the excerpt was referring to was from the mainland.

www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takesh ... hongdo.jpg

Also, I might add that the Koreans use the same text against Japan when they were disputing the rights of Ullueng. That time, Koreans argument was that they could see the islands from 蔚珍(Ulchin, mainland). How convenient.





First of all, Takeshima/Dokdo is approximately 90km away from Ulluengdo, not 730 miles.
Second, Takeshima/Dokdo is not "not next Ullungdo". It's 92 km away. Hence, the conclusion should be that Usan is Chukdo, a nearby islet east of Ullungdo less than 5 km away. Thirdly, Dongkuk Geography by Jung Sangik in the 18th century map indicates an island situated right next to Ullungdo which is applicable to Chukdo. Comparing to the Japanese maps from the Edo period I cited previous, the accuracy is laughable. And in regards to the fishing dispute, the area in question was without ambiguity, Ullungdo.



You need to point out which is fabricated.

First and foremost, the link I posted, best to my recollection are maps from Japanese sites. If you're going to debate, please counter with your own arguments instead of using "help mommy" tacts pasting weak-a$$ sites which has been easily put down previously.

Samguk Sagi only mentions an island state of Usan-guk, which is located on the island in the sea right the east from Myeongju, namely Ulleung-do; not two islets of Ulleung-do and Usan-do the latter of which is alleged by some Koreans to correspond to Takeshima/Dokdo: 于山國在溟州正東海島 或名鬱陵島 地方一百里 恃　 不服 伊　異斯夫 爲何瑟羅州軍主 謂于山人 愚悍難以威來 可以計服 乃多造木偶師子 分載戰船　其國海岸 　告曰 汝若不服 則放此猛獸踏殺之 國人恐懼則降. The hanja "do" (島) refers to island, whereas "guk" (國) refers to state/nation. Korean maps of the period such as 八道總圖 (팔도총도, 1530) also writes Usan-do to the west of Ulleung-do, the opposite of the current location of Takeshima/Dokdo.

Jiriji (地理志, Geographical Record) from Sejong Sillok (世宗實錄; Chronicle of King Sejong) written in 1432, mentions Usan-do. On the third line of the fiftieth page, the chronicle says "于山武陵二島在縣正東海中二島相去不遠 風日淸明 則可望見". Some Koreans interpret the text as "Usan-do (于山) and Mulung-do (武陵, refers to Ulleung-do), located in the sea east of the [Uljin] Prefecture, are not that far each other so that under a clear weather an island comes into view [from another]," and consider it as the evidence that Usan-do exactly refers to Takeshima/Dokdo.

However, other scholars interpret the text as "Usan-do and Mulung-do, located in the sea east of the [Uljin] Prefecture, are not that far each other so that under a clear weather the two islands come into view [from the mainland, i.e. the Korean peninsula]." Usan-do does not refer to Takeshima/Dokdo but Juk-do, another island which is located 4 km east from Ulleung-do and is so close to the main island that it does not have to be clear to view each other. They also point out that this is the interpretation that was officially taken by the Korean government in the Ahn's dispute.

That's right, and I don't know neighter it is Juk-do or Dok do. However, Juk-do is not located the west of Ulung-Do, It is east of Ulung-do. More over, all of the other islands in the mapa are also switched and mismarked the locations. The map 八道總圖 is the first map of Korea which was published in 1530, so it could not be pinpointed to show all of the islands and the locations correctly. And more, Juk-do was not called Usan-do, it was called Juk-do.



Dok-do comes into view under clear weather actually. You can take a picture the shape of Dok-do if you go to Ulung-do without any difficulty. It's well known fact. That's why the Korean fishermen discovered the islands that long time ago, and went to there for fishing.



You are right, it's not 730 miles far from Ullueng-do. It's 87.4km

Thanks for the correction.



Japan is next Korea in the world map no matter how it is far from Korea. Dok-do is only about 90km far from Ulung-do, and it is viewable at Ulung-do. Your point is moot.



You are talking about the map Pal do chong do(八道總圖), so please read the beginning ot this post.

Now, I can show you more things about Do-do, and tell you the reasons why it belongs to Korea.


1785: Map
This map published in Japan (author identified as Hayashi) shows Takeshima (Dokdo) as Korean territory.

Btw check this bellow, the maps are showing that where Dok-do is and why it is historically a part of Korea.


1870: Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs document
Officials returning from a visit to Korea file a report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs outlining why Matsushima (Ulleungdo) and Takeshima (Dokdo) belong to Korea

1877: Japanese Prime Ministerial instructions
A prime ministerial instruction document clearly states that Takeshima (Dokdo) is not Japanese territory.

1882: Map
A map published in Japan (author identified as Kimura) identifies Takeshima (Dokdo) as Korean. (Japanese territory in colored in red, Korean territory in white).

1903: Japanese Fishing Manual
The Japanese Fishing Manual, published by Heuknyonghoe (Blue Dragon Association), a fishing association, says: "Takeshima (Dokdo) is located 30 li (120 km) from Ulleungdo. It can be seen from the peak of Ulleungdo in good weather. It was called Yanggo (Liancourt) by Korean and Japanese fishermen."

1907: Japanese Navy report
The Korea Marine Route Report, published by the Marine Division of the Japanese Imperial Navy, includes information about the Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), which it describes as Korean territory.

1917: Map of Shimane Prefecture
In contradiction to the claim that Takeshima was incorporated into Shimane Prefecture in 1905, this official map fails to include the islands as Japanese territory.

www.koreaaward.com/korea/Dokdo_09.htm

That's beside the point. Sejong Sillok (世宗実録) says that the two islands are visible from Kangwon-do (江原道), from the the Korean peninsula, not that they are visible from each other.


Hayashi's 三国通覧図説 was created in 1785 and back then Takeshima was not called "Takeshima" in Japan. Therefore, the island named "Takeshima" on the map can't possibly refer to today's Takeshima/Dokdo.


"Takeshima" is an old name of Uturyouto/Ulleungdo (鬱陵島) and does not refer to Takeshima (/Dokdo) today. Matsushima (松島) mentioned in this document (朝鮮国交際始末内探書) refers to Jukdo (竹嶼).


This refers to Ulleung-do and not Takeshima/Dokdo as noted on the page 434-435 of the very document (大日本地名辞書).


The island that 朝鮮水路誌 mentions refers to Jukdo (竹嶼), not Takeshima/Dokdo/Liancourt Rocks.


It won't serve as much of an evidence if you can't even tell the name and the author of it.

What reference do you have that Jukdo has always been called Jukdo? It appears that the Koreans couldn't get Ulleung and her nearby islets identified correctly and yet you assume Usan=Dokdo which is almost 90km away?



Only after you go up nearly 200M in elevation through rather harsh conditions (bushy forest). But as Hermeneus stated, Sejong Sillok of 1432 is more applicable to the reference point of 蔚珍(Ulchin)





I don't think so. The article you mentioned the Dongkuk Geography of the 18th century. Based on that map, it's clearly evident that it's referring to Ulleungdo and Jukdo. gopkorea.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/history_02map_2.jpg

The point is, Ulleungdo and Dokdo/Takeshima are not "right next to each other". The only island which can be construed under any of the Korean published maps are Jukdo.




For the 1785 Map, and 1870/1877 government documents, it's referring to Ulluengdo. Before the Shimane incorporation of 1905, Dokdo/Takeshima was called "松島” while Ulluengdo was called "竹島”　　

In regards to the 1882 map, who is Kimura? Is he of any importance other than the fact that he was Japanese?
The problem with Korean side of evidence is that they dig through archives and find some ameatuer maps and consider it "evidence". The fact that you ignore the these maps I posted which were constructed before Kimura's map tells me that you are in no mind to debate this objectively.

Please check the shape/size/formation and the accuracy of longitude/latitude. If you can find anything remotely close made by Koreans before their Ordinance, then you may have a point.

1724 「竹島松島之図」

www.g*e*o*c*i*t*i*e*s.jp/tanaka_kunitak ... eshima.gif

1779 日本輿地路程全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08342001/CJA08342001-P1.html

1791 日本輿地路程全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08343001/CJA08343001-P1.html

1811 日本輿地路程全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08344001/CJA08344001-P1.html

1833 日本輿地路程全圖


www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08335001/img/CJA08335001-1.jpg

1837 日本輿地路程全圖


www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08345001/CJA08345001-P1.html

1844 日本輿地路程全圖


www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08346001/CJA08346001-P1.html

1849 永新増 大日本國郡輿地全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08299001/CJA08299001-P1.html

1853 大日本海岸全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08291001/CJA08291001-P1.html

1862 日本郡國一覽

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08328001/CJA08328001-P1.html

1864 日本輿地全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08341001/CJA08341001-P1.html

1865 大日本程路全圖

www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08313001/CJA08313001-P1.

why do you care about tiny stuffs like the Sea of japan. GOSH! ITS JUST A SEA! What You should really care about is protecting the 38th parelle. Dokdo? wow... a arguement on a very tiny island. What next? the fight on The korean strait? .......... seriously.

also even if im korean...... i understand that many koreans are racist but that doesnt mean i am too. also the koreans in U.S.A are not racist as well.

http://www.occidentalism.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/koreaair.JPG


Via Korean Air.

I give up.

As I pointed out earlier, Koreans can call Sea of Japan any way they wanted in Korea. However, I believe the PRC is laughing all the way to the bank because Chinese would like to call it "East Sea" for their own good.

[:-] Stay out of the trap, Korea! [:-]

There is no single Pine Stree in 松島 either. What is your point? 松島(current Takeshima/Dokdo) is specifically defined in the map I cited above. Majority of the Japanese names have very little to do with description of environment. I'm sorry but I fail to see your point.



Irrelevant. The mere fact that the international guidelines in regards to soverignty over no-man's land was never set prior to Kimura's map tells you that he was expressing his own opinion of soverignty over the matter. In Korea's case, it was not done until 1900 Imperial Ordinance #41. In Japan's case, it was Shimane's in 1905.



You on the other hand have not shown any "concrete" not "logical" evidence showing that Usan indicated on that map is Dokdo/Takeshima. My "logic" is simple. The map is situated right next to Ulleungdo. What is situated right next to Ulleungdo? Furthermore, you also indicated on numerous occasions that Koreans had made a mistake on which island is situated on which side. This only supports the fact that Koreans themselves were basically clueless about location/area/#'s islands around the Ulleungdo area.



So what maps could you cite that shows "bamboo forest" or 한대밭?? Is there any texts that shows such thing?



Again, please refer to Hemaneus post as well as mine in regards to Sejong Sillok and 三国史。 It appears you skipped over or fail to use "common sense" in this matter. (Hint: Naming a uninhabited rock as 国 (state) seem odd to you? )

Furthermore, what records do you have in regards to fishing in Dokdo/Takeshima? This, I would like to see.



Again, it only proves that Koreans couldn't even get the formation of Ulluengdo area correct. It's "moot" in a sense that the map itself is a joke. Next!!!



It's stretching at best. First an foremost, calling a no man's island as a base to name a state is far fetched. If anything, Ulluengo-guk would have been appropriate.



OK. Show me.






OK. Where is ”松島”　in that text???

日本輿地路程全図 of 1775 does not say that "Takeshima and Matushima belongs to Korea." It only does not paint the islands with the same color as the color painted on the Japanese mainland. This does not follow that the islands were not considered Japanese territories because there are other islands on the map that were not painted the same color and yet were clearly stated as Japanese territories such as 沖永良部島. Also the revised edition of the map 増訂大日本国郡輿地路程全図 does paint Takeshima, Matsushima and the rest with the same color as the mailand.


Matsushima (松島) mentioned in 朝鮮国交際始末内探書 does not refer to Takeshima/Dokdo because "Matsushima" (松島) around this time does not refer to Takeshima/Dokdo as shown in 大日本沿海略図, a map created in 1867:
[center][/center]
The Liancourt rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo), Matsushima, and "Takeshima" (possibly reffering to either Argonaut or Jukdo, another island near Ulungdo) from right to left.


Nowhere in the document does it say "Takeshima (竹島 Ulrung-Do) and Matushima (松島Dok-do) do not belong to Japan isalnds." It only mentions Takeshima (Ulrung-Do) and "another island" ("竹島外一島").

It drew in Usando (Dokdo) closer to the Korean peninsula , indicating strong belief in Korea's ownership of the island.

This map drew in Usando (Dokdo) and Ullungdo closer to the east sea of Korea, making it clearer that Dokdo was a territory of Korea.

Although Takeshima (Dokdo) located southeast of Ullungdo, these maps drew in Usando (Dokdo?) between the Korean peninsula and Ullundgo in order to make it clearer that Dokdo was a territory of Korea.

Is that logical in Korea?

Your map indicates Usando is Ullungdo.

This is where Takeshima(Dokdo) is.

YOU ARE WRONG !

Korean govement insisted that it was Sea of Korea in the world map before 19th Century.
They told us they examined all maps. But it was a lie.
Japanese gaverment did it again and they found that of the maps published in the 19th century, 82.4%, or 1,059 maps, bear the name as "Sea of Japan."


Here you go.www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/nihonkai_k/us ... aplist.pdf
Japanese Government recorded that in detail.
www.mofa.go.jp/policy/maritime/japan/study-3.html

Do not fabricate the fact.

I forgot to talk about Takeshima.

www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html
Read it. Takeshima is 100% Japanese territory.

Japanese Government proposed to bring a case to an international
court to the South Korea government many times.
Why does the South Korea government keep running away from this
proposal?

Because they know Japan wins if becoming a trial.

Come to the court if you say that Takeshima is a South Korea territory.
We have a lot of documentary evidences more than Korean .

Hey I got an Idea...lets just call it the Sea of Pie...Everyone loves Pie...then the next time you think about "The sea of Pie" You will smile and remember the last time you ate some

Because they really don't have anything better to do. It's sad, and I do feel sorry for them.
I think it's a result of not being properly breastfed as a child.

When I studied East Asian History in UK,
I never heard of Takeshima, but heard East Sea.
Obviously Takeshima is a Japanese language, but originally it is a Korena Territory.


<JT Moderation>
Off-topic comments removed.

Oh ! Then of course; you mean that 広島 (Hiroshima) is a wide Island ! And 島根 (Shimane) is a rooted Island ! That really makes sense !
Names have nothing to do with environment.