Japan and Korea's compeating claims to Dokdo/Takeshima Part Two: Korea's historical claim

(WARNING:  This is going to be a long one.  I don't expect many people to read it all.  I just want it up for the record.)

On March 18, I went over Japan's claim to Dokdo/Takeshima.  After going over their position, this is what I had to say:

So, considering that the nearest landfall to Takeshima is Korea's Utsuryo (Ulleungdo in Korean), Japan's claim to Takeshima can only be considered valid if it has a stronger historical claim than Korea does.  Based upon the evidence that I have seen, Japan's historical claim can not be dismissed.  measure to reform the traditional administrative system. This Decree placed Dokdo under the jurisdiction of the Ulleungdo County office. The Decree stipulates: "…the Headman of Uldo [a newly designated County of Ulleungdo] shall have jurisdiction over Ulleungdo, Jukdo and Seokdo [Dokdo]…"
Therefor, I will have to do some research on Korea's claim before coming to my own conclusion.

So now I will go over Korea's claim.

(Note: To make it easier on myself, I'm going to refer to Dokdo/Takeshima as Dokdo for the rest of this piece.  I referred to it as Takeshima while examining the Japanese claim.)

While I have not been able to find a short enough succinct statement of Korea's claim to Dokdo, I have come across a couple of documents from the Dokdo page at Korea.net.   Korea.net is run by 'the Korean Overseas Information Service (KOIS) of the Government Information Agency.'  This seems official enough to me to be considered the word on Korea's claim.  Because of the length of the documents involved, I'm going to interlace my comments with the material from the KOIS).  Items from the KOIS pages are in green.

The Korean argument can be broken down into three sections:  First, that Dokdo is historically Korean.  Second, that Korea regained sovereignty over Dokdo after the allied defeat of Japan in 1945.  Third, that Korea has exercised effective control over Dokdo since the foundation of the Republic in 1948.  I will deal with the first claim in this post, the second in the third post and deal with the third claim in the forth and (mercifully) last post of this series.

KOREA'S HISTORICAL CLAIM TO DOKDO

Korea traces its claim back to 512, when the Shilla Kingdom conquered that small island-nation of Usanguk on Ulleungdo.  As you seen in the first paragraph of the section below, Koreans tend to tie Dokdo's fate with Ulleungdo (more on that later).

Consolidation of Korean Sovereignty over Dokdo
In 512 A.D., the Silla Kingdom conquered Usan‐guk (Usan State), of which the main part was Ulleungdo. Since then, the Korean people have considered Dokdo to be a part of Ulleungdo.

I am personally a little leery of the 512 date because there is some evidence that Korea lost sovereignty of the island to the Jerchun in the 9th century (sorry, no link for that one) but regained it soon after.  Also, with the exception of Israel, such really old claims aren't used to successfully lay claim to a piece of territory.  Otherwise, we could have Korea claiming half of Manchuria and China asserting that it owns the northern half of Vietnam.  A lot can change over 1500 years.  Also, as you will see below, the 512 date is from a history book written in 1145, over 600 years later.

Whatever the true date of Korea's claim to Dokdo begins, it is a pretty safe bet that it predates Japan's 1618 claim (see below).

The subsequent Korean states, namely the Goryeo Dynasty (918~1392), the Joseon Dynasty (1392~1897), the Daehan (or Korean) Empire (1897~1910) and the Republic of Korea (since 1948), have exercised sovereignty over Dokdo.

Historical Documents Proving Korea's Sovereignty over Dokdo
Among the numerous historical documents showing that Dokdo has been an integral part of Korea since ancient times, the following are the most important official documents:

Samguksagi (History of the Three Kingdoms) is an official history book written in 1145 A.D. on the Three Kingdoms of Korea, namely the Silla (57 B.C. to 935 A.D.), Goguryeo (37 B.C. to 668 A.D.), and Baekje (18 B.C. to 660 A.D.) kingdoms. This book, edited by Kim Bu‐sik, a historian and the then prime minister of the Goryeo Kingdom, contains the story of the conquest of Usan‐guk in 512 A.D. by Isabu, a general of the Silla Dynasty under the reign of King Jijeung.

* Sillok, which is mentioned in the following references, means annals, or historical records, compiled and published by the government throughout the time of the Joseon Dynasty. Each king's name was added before the word sillok, in order to indicate that it covered the history of the Dynasty during the reign of that king.

Sejong Sillok Jiriji was compiled as part of the Annals of King Sejong (1418‐1450) of the Joseon Dynasty. The Jiriji (geography book) contains a variety of information needed to govern the country, such as the administrative history of each local government, the topographical features of administrative units, their populations, and roads. The book refers to Dokdo and Ulleungdo as follows: "Usan [Dokdo] and Mureung [a former name of Ulleungdo] are located in the middle of the sea, due east of this Prefecture. These two islands can be seen from each other in good weather, as they are not far apart."

Note here that Usando was the name of Ulleungdo during the Shilla dynasty.  This has lead some Japanese to claim that references to Usando were in fact talking about Ulleungdo rather than Dokdo (see comments section of my previous post on the subject).  Koreans counter that both islands have had many names over the centuries and that the name Usando was transferred to Dokdo:

The Japanese claim that Ullung and Usan both refer to Ulleungdo, but Korea already knew of Ullungdo and Dokdo in the 17th century.  The precise location of Ullungdo and Usando are shown in the (Dongkuk Geography) by Jung Sangik in the 18th century.  In maps from the end of the Chosun Period, Usando is always shown next to Ulleungdo.  (YANGBAN NOTE:  You can click on the map for a slightly larger image.  I think that is the right map but there were several on the page.

According to Seongjong Sillok, the Annals of King Seongjong (1469‐1494), an official investigative team sailed for Sambongdo (Dokdo) and reported to the royal court as follows: "We dropped anchor at seven or eight li [about three kilometers; one li equals 400 meters] west of the island… We drew a picture of the island and came back."

(NOTE:  It would be very helpful if the Korean government could produce that picture.)

Sinjeung Donggukyeojiseungnam (The Revised and Augmented Version of the Survey of the National Geography of Korea) was published in 1531 as an enlarged edition of the 1481 Donggukyeojiseungnam (Survey of the National Geography of Korea), which dealt with Korea’s cultural geography, such as historical figures associated with different areas and poetical works inspired by the local scenery. As in the above‐mentioned excerpt from Sejong Sillok Jiriji, this book describes Dokdo and Ulleungdo as part of the Korean territory in the East Sea, and states: "The two islands are located in the middle of the sea, due east."

According to Sukjong Sillok, the Annals of King Sukjong (1674‐1720), Ahn Yong‐bok rebuked some Japanese fishermen for staying at Ulleungdo and Dokdo and warned them against returning to these islands in the future. Sukjong Sillok further records that Ahn Yong‐bok went twice to Japan in order to protest against Japanese nationals trespassing into Korean territory. He asked the Japanese authorities to recognize Korea's sovereignty over these islands and to forbid Japanese nationals to sail to these islands. Consequently, the Japanese Government prohibited its nationals from sailing to the Ulleungdo region.

Jeongjo Sillok, the Annals of Jeongjo (1776‐1800), reports that, following Ahn Yong‐bok’s actions, inspectors were dispatched every three years by the Government to Ulleungdo and Gajido (Dokdo).

Imperial Decree No. 41 was issued in 1900 by Emperor Gojong (1864‐1907) of the Daehan Empire as a measure to reform the traditional administrative system. This Decree placed Dokdo under the jurisdiction of the Ulleungdo County office. The Decree stipulates: "…the Headman of Uldo [a newly designated County of Ulleungdo] shall have jurisdiction over Ulleungdo, Jukdo and Seokdo [Dokdo]…"

Tying the fate of Dokdo to Ulleungdo

One thing that jumps out at me as I read the excerpts above is how Korea ties the fate of Dokdo to Ulleungdo.  That is not surprising since both Japanese and Korean documents acknowledge Ulleungdo as Korean.  For further evidence of this, check out this bit from a report on Koryo Dynasty (918-1392) policy towards the islands:

It is also evident from this description that the Japanese knew that the islands of "Uruma" (Ulleungdo -Yangban) belonged to Silla before Koryo.  Although these first Japanese documents do not mention Tokdo or Usan'guk, they clearly recorded that Ullngdo belonged to Shilla first and then to Koryo.

However, as Tokdo was appended to Ullngdo, was associated with it and constitured part of Usan'guk, the documents reveal that the Japanese involved were cognizant that Usan'guk, comprising Ullngdo and Tokdo, belonged to Silla and then to Koryo.

Here is the logic at work in the Korean position: (1) Ulleungdo is acknowledge by Japan as Korean territory and (2) the fate of Dokdo is tied to the fate of Ulleungdo, therefore (3) Japan should acknowledge that Dokdo is Korean. 

But there is a problem with part two.  The Japanese do not see the fate of Dokdo as being tied to that of Ulleungdo.  The Japanese position is that Ulleungdo and Dokdo are two different issues.  Take a look at this excerpt from a press release from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

In 1696, as a result of negotiations between Japan and Korea concerning fishing in the vicinity of Utsuryo Island the Shogunate prohibited passage of vessels to Utsuryo (Takeshima Ikken), but did not prohibit passage to Takeshima.

So Korea's ownership of Ulleungdo does not automatically end the dispute over ownership of Dokdo.  The claim to Dokdo will have to stand on its own merits.

Even the famed case of An Yong-bok leaves some questions (taken from historical section above): Ahn Yong‐bok rebuked some Japanese fishermen for staying at Ulleungdo and Dokdo and warned them against returning to these islands in the future. Sukjong Sillok further records that Ahn Yong‐bok went twice to Japan in order to protest against Japanese nationals trespassing into Korean territory. He asked the Japanese authorities to recognize Korea's sovereignty over these islands and to forbid Japanese nationals to sail to these islands. Consequently, the Japanese Government prohibited its nationals from sailing to the Ulleungdo region.

Note that the last sentence says that Japan prohibited its subjects from going to the Ulleungdo region.  The Japanese Foreign Ministry release says that its subjects were prohibited from going to Ulleungdo island.  Furthermore, the incident that sparked Ahn's protest was a Japanese violation of Korean territory on Ulleungdo (hat tip to Robert at the Marmot's Hole):

In 1696, the 22nd year under King Sukjong's reign, 16 fishermen, including An Yong-bok of Dongrae, went to Ulleungdo island. When Mr. An saw Japanese fishermen and fishing boats, he rebuked them as to why they were on Korean soil. The Japanese responded that they were residents of Takeshima and came to Ulleungdo island for fishing. They claimed that Tokto was a part of Japanese territory.

Had the Japanese not told Ahn that they were based out of Dokdo, he might not have even known that they were there.

The Japanese decoupling of of Ulleungdo and Dokdo does not by itself undermine Korea's claim to the later islands, but it does mean that Korean arguments based on the assumption that what goes for Ulleungdo also goes for Dokdo do little to put the issue to rest.

Is is Dokdo, Sokdo, Jukdo or Gwaneumdo (or Takeshima or Ulleungdo)?

To further muddy the waters, some Japanese claim that some of the old references that Koreans claim are to Dokdo are actually to Jukdo and Gwaneumdo, two islands just off of Ulleungdo.  99% of the web page is in Japanese but here is a summary of that position from a comment in the first post of this series:

You will see that three islands comprise Ullungdo, the main island and the much smaller Kwanundo and Chukdo to the east. Japan has always contended that the three islands in Ordinance 41 points to these three islands, not to present-day Takeshima. Note that both Chukto and Takeshima are written as "bamboo island" in Chinese characters. It seems a far more natural interpretation than the Korean claim that the latter two are present-day Takeshima, two pieces of rocks located 80 km away. I think it is the Koreans who are choosing to ignore the fact that another island named "Takeshima (bamboo island)" exists in the extreme vicinity of Ullungdo.

There may be some validity to the claim that Chukdo (Jukdo) is a reference to the island much nearer Ulleungdo.  However, I see no reason to believe that the reference to Seokdo actually means Gwaneumdo.  While Chukdo is at least some distance from Ulleungdo, Gwaneumdo is little more than an extension of Ulleungdo's north-eastern corner separated by a small channel (see map here).  There would be little more reason to mention it separately than the several other small islands just off Ulleungdo's coast.  Also, Koreans say that the term Sokdo (Seokdo) resulted from differences in regional Korean dialects and the practice at the time of writing official documents in Chinese characters: 

Article (1) of the ordinance designated Taehadong as the kun office venue and defined the jurisdiction of the Uldo country magistrate as extending over the whole of Ullungdo, Chukto, and Sokto. Here Chukto refers to Chuksodo, a rocky islet adjoining Ullungdo that was confirmed by Yi Kyu-won in his diary during an inspection trip there. Sokto is Tokdo. 

A majority of the people who settled on Ullungdo were from Chollado. In the dialect of that region tol (石 in Chinese character) is prnounced as tok, thus tol-som (rocky island) becomes tok-som. As a result the government registered the island as Sokto or 石島 in the Chinese writing system -- the preferred literati-official (as was Latin under Roman occuption and French after the Norman conquest in Great Britain) even after the creation of han'gul as the indigenous alphabet in 1447.

A plethora of similar cases can be found not only in the names of islands but also those of valleys. This is especially true for the southern regions of Korea. In some cases tok-som is pronounced tok-to and is written with the Chinese characters 獨島. The sound tok or tol is the Chinese character 獨, and 島 is the Chinese character for island -- namely, som or to.

Although the government adopted the name of Sokto for Tokdo when the ordinance came into effect, the residents of Ullungdo called the island either Sokto or Tokdo.

That is not just a Korean problem.  The Japanese name for Dokdo (Takeshima) was once their term for Ulleungdo.

(UPDATE:  For another view on this, see Gerry Beaver's comment below.)

What do I make of all this

Much of the Korean historically-based claims to Dokdo seem to be based on the problomatic assumption that references to Ulleungdo automatically also refer to Dokdo.  As the Japanese claims separate Dokdo from Ulleungdo, the Korean side needs to prove that Dokdo's fate is tied to that of Ulleungdo rather than assuming it.  As they rarely rise to that challenge, much of the 'proof' of their historical claims seems to fall short. 

On the other hand, if the Korean side had always assumed that Ulleungdo and Dokdo were part of the same claim, then there would have been little reason for them to mention the islands individually.  When Americans say that we own Alaska, we don't feel the need to separately mention all of Alaska's outlining islands such as Little Diomede.  It is certainly possible that the same would apply to some of the Korean historical references.  In other words, the failure to mention Dokdo separately from Ulleungdo does not necessarily mean that Korean's didn't in fact assume that Dokdo was theirs.

The Korean side does have some separate references to Dokdo, most notably Imperial Ordinance Number 41.  While these do not disprove Japan's claims, they clearly show that Korea had their own claims to the island.  So, I would say that Korea's claim to Dokdo prior to the 1905 annexation is as least as strong as Japan's.

One more thing

Time for an honest admission.  With all the renaming and misnaming of the islands in the area, it is difficult to for me to determine which references are to Dokdo and which may be to something else.  While I am doing my best here, what is really needed is a much more detailed study by a historian who is well versed in old-style Chinese writing who is neither Japanese, Korean or Chinese.  If anyone out there knows someone who fits the bill, point him in the right direction and tell him to get to work.

Comments

[Elysion]

Dokdo is corean territory in the east sea ^^;;

love your extraordinary work which is so much more elaborate than the screaming of right-wing japanese dumbasses and korean nationalistic cabbage heads :D

the most interesting part, of course, will be the question what happenened 1905, 1945 and 1948....i'm looking forward to read your answer :D

[Plunge]

Excellent, excellent post! Keep it up. I'm bookmarking this as a reference on this issue.

[passerby]

Actually, I'm more interested on what the basis for this conclusion was.
On August 10, 1951, Dean Rusk, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, replies in writing that "Based on the information we have, the U.S. concludes that at no time in history has the Liancourt Rocks ever been a territory of Korea."

What amuses me is that, whenever a Korean presents a map showing Dokdo as evidence, the map never says the East Sea (to their horror, it usually says the Sea of Japan), and whenever they present a map with the East Sea, it never depicts Dokto as their territory.

[Plunge]

Based on the information we have, the U.S. concludes that at no time in history has the Liancourt Rocks ever been a territory of Korea.

Where did you get this quote?

[Gerry Bevers]

Yangban: "Whatever the true date of Korea's claim to Dokdo begins, it is a pretty safe bet that it predates Japan's 1618 claim (see below)."

Gerry: That is not a safe bet at all. To begin with, the document referring to the 512 A.D incident said very clearly that Usan-guk and Ullungdo were the same place. In other words, the document said that the island of Ullungdo was once called Usan-guk, "the Country of Usan." There is no mention whatever of Tokdo or any other island. Koreans just assume that a "country" would include surrounding islands, including a group of barren rocks 92 kilometers away. Here is what was said in the Samguksagi:

우산국은 명주(溟州)의 정동쪽 바다에 있는 섬으로 혹은 울릉도(鬱陵島)라고도 한다.

Usan-guk, also called Ulleungdo, is an island in the ocean, directly east of Myeongju."

You can go here to read the Chinese character version.

Not only does the quote refer to Usan-guk as "an island," not "islands," it very clearly says that it is also called "Ullungdo."

Based on the above leap in logic, Korean historians have created a whole history for Tokdo, an group of barren rocks that is not shown on any Korean map before 1905, the year Japan incorporated them.

Yangban: "There may be some validity to the claim that Chukdo (Jukdo) is a reference to the island much nearer Ulleungdo. However, I see no reason to believe that the reference to Seokdo actually means Gwaneumdo. While Chukdo is at least some distance from Ulleungdo, Gwaneumdo is little more than an extension of Ulleungdo's north-eastern corner separated by a small channel (see map here)."

Gerry: Ullung-do has two islands just off its shore, Chukdo and Gwanundo. Here is a picture of the two islands seen together.

It seems obvious to me that the "Seokdo" mentioned in Ordinance 41 (1900) was referring to Gwanundo, not Tokdo. Why would the ordinance specifically mention Ulleungdo and Chukdo, but not Gwanundo? Because Gwanundo is nearer to the shore of the main island? I think it is much more "unlikely" that Seokdo was referring to Tokdo, since Tokdo is 92 kilometers away and out of sight at sea level. If the ordinance were referring to Tokdo, I think it would have, at least, mentioned Tokdo's direction and distance since it was not in the immediate vicinity of Ulleungdo, the island the ordinance was describing.

Also, a 1899 document describes Korea's eastern-most boundary as a longitude that includes Ulleungdo, but not Tokdo. A 1906 revision of the document also fails to include Tokdo within Korea's eastern-most boundary.

Also, even acknowledging that Seokdo could be pronounced as "Dokto" in the Cholla province, which is on the other side of the Korean pennisula, the explanation for the Chinese character change from "Rock Island" to "Lonely Island" is very, very labored.

Plunge to Passerby: "Where did you get this quote?"

Gerry: Here, in footnote 3.

[anon]

It seems to me that the biggest reason for all this Dokdo-Takeshima nonsense is because it is almost a neologism to apply modern ideas of sovereignity to a (usually) uninhabited island in the middle of the sea. It's not like people could hop on a ferry and have a picnic there. There weren't spy planes keeping an eye on the place. Pirates were a fairly constant problem. Fishing waters were full back then, and no one was thinking about controlling natural gas reserves that might (or might not) be there.

[John Kim]

Takeshima belongs to Japan. It is in the internation accord in 1945.

[oranckay]

Plunge to Passerby: "Where did you get this quote?"
Gerry: Here, in footnote 3.

Thanks, Mr. Bevers, for your tireless effort searching subdomains of a site either by or about Shintaro Ishihara titled "Declaration of War."

[Kimbob]

"Thanks, Mr. Bevers, for your tireless effort searching subdomains of a site either by or about Shintaro Ishihara titled "Declaration of War." "

Now why doesn't that surprise me?

[Gerry Bevers]

Oranckay,

It was no great effort to find the passage. Fortunately for us, Mr. Ishihara seems to believe in supporting his arguments with source material. At any rate, it was quite enlightening to read that the Ameicans, who had just recently fought a bitter war with Japan, agreed with Japan's claims on Tokdo:

Mr Rusk continued: "As regards the island of Dokdo ... 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."

[Dingles]

Good points mr Beavers. When ever I see your name, lots and lots of koreans seem to insult you. You however never seem to have anything negative to say back.

I share your opinion about the island Takeshima. It seems that if you try and be reasonable you may be attaced in KOrea. So I suggest you be careful.

[Andy (AKA: The Yangban)]

Uhhhh.... 'Dingles' said 'Beavers.' Huh, uh, huh, huh.

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Bonus points for anyone who gets the reference.)

[jtb-in-texas]

I really think any Japanese territorial clams after 1593 need to be taken with a grain or three of salt...

But my opinion doesn't count anyway...

BTW, does anyone think the current Lee Sun Shin drama is only a coincidence?

Time to bring back the Ko-buk=san, eh wot?

[Gerry Bevers]

In case anyone is interested, the following is a reply to a post at Oranckay's site. In the post, I try to show that Dokdo is actually Chukdo, the small island just off the east coast of Ullungdo. Here is the post:

Oranckay: "...sneaky slight of hand..."?

Gerry: Actually, Oranckay, you seem to be the one trying to divert people's attention away from the fact that the Korean map shows Usan-do (i.e. Dokdo) direct to the west of Ullungdo instead of to southeast. I linked to the blowup so that people could read the names of the islands, not to divert their attention or attempt any "sneaky slight of hand."

Oranckay: "So, the reason one of the two on that particular map is probably not one of the tiny little sub-islets a few hundred meters off Ulleungdo is because none of the other islands in the *whole* map have their sub-islets drawn next to them."

Gerry: Whether the map fails to show other small islands around the Korean pennisula does not change the fact that it does show Usand-do and Ullung-do right next to each other, and one of those islands has to be relatively small since there is no other large islands in the vicinity. Here are Korean maps showing Usan-do and Ullungdo next to each other:

Usan-do just to the west of Ullungdo (1530)

an island just to the east of Ullungdo

Usan-do just to the east of Ullungdo (1899)

The last map, make in 1899, not only shows Usando in the exact same place as Chukdo (see Chukdo on this map), but the textbook it is printed in says that the Ullung administrative district extended east to a longitude of 130 degrees, 35 miniutes. That longitude includes Ullungdo and its surrounding islands, but not Dokdo/Takeshima, which is farther southeast at a east longitude of 131 degrees 55 minutes. Then one year later, in 1900, the Chosun Empire's Imperial Ordinance 41 placed Ullung-do, Chuk-do, and Seokdo under Ullung County administration. Chuk-do is the small island just on the east coast of Ullung-do, but the name Seok-do appears for the first time. Koreans claim that Seokdo is a reference to Dokdo/Takeshima, but I believe it is a referrence to Kwanundo, another island just off the east coast of Ullungdo (See this map). Also, here is a picture that shows all three islands: Kwanun-do, Chuk-do, and an arm of Ullungdo.

Finally, a 1946 Korean book seems to fill in the last piece of the puzzle. The book says that Korea's eastern most island is "Chuk-do[Dokdo], which is part of the Ullung administrative district of North Gyeongsang Province." As you may remember, Chukdo was the island east of Ullungdo in Ullung administrative district. The same document also says that "including islands" Korea extends east to 130 degrees, 56 minutes, 23 seconds. That is far enough east to include Ullungdo and her surrounding islands, but not Dokdo/Takeshima. Here is the Korean:

II 지리

문; 우리나라의 지도상의 위치는 어떠합니까.
반도만으로는 동경 130 도 41 분 22 초로부터 124 도 18 분 35 초까지
북위 34 도 17 분 16 초로부터 43 도 0 분 36 초까지요,
도서(島嶼; 섬 서, 작은 섬)를 넣으면
동경 130 도 56 분 23 초로부터 124 도 11 분 00 초까지
북위 33 도 6 분 40 초로부터 43 도 0 분 36 초까지입니다.

....

문; 우리나라의 동서남북 극단은 어디입니까?
반도에서는 극동은 함경북도 경흥군 노서면, 극서는 평안북도 용천군 용천면, 극남은 전라남도 해남군 송지면, 극북은 함경북도 은성군 유포면이요,
도서를 넣어서는 극동은 경상북도 울릉군 죽도[독도], 극서는 평안북도 용천군 신도면 마안리, 극남은 전라남도 제주도 대정면 마라도, 극북은 극북은 함경북도 은성군 유포면입니다.
[임성삼의 주(註); 현재의 행정구역과는 약간 다르다.]

Here is the link to the above quotes.

Oranckay, you seem to have a little trouble with math, so I will do it for you.

1) In 1145, Korea's "Samguksagi" said that Usan-guk and Ullung-do were the same island (See here)
+
2) Korean maps show Ullung-do and Usan-do next to each other (1530 Map, 1899 Map
+
3) 1899 map shows Usan-do in the exact location of present-day Chuk-do, and even includes latitude and longitude lines.
+
The Chosun Empire's Imperial Ordinance 41 says that Ullung-do, Chuk-do, and Seok-do are under the Ullung administrative district.
+
4) A 1946 Korean book says that "Chuk-do [Dokdo]," an island that belongs to the Ullung administrative district," is Korea's eastern-most island, and that Korean territory, including islands, extends east to a longitude of 130 degrees 56 minutes, 23 seconds. That longitude is far enough east to include Ullung-do and its surrounding islands, but not far enough to include Dokdo/Takeshima, which is at a longitude of 131 degrees, 55 minutes.
=
"Dokdo" is Chuk-do (Usan-do), which is a small Korean island just east of Ullungdo. It is not Takeshima, which means that Korea is illegally occupying Japanese territory.

[sid]

Do you have any links without the words takeshima in them gerrysan ?

[jtb-in-texas]

Maybe "the Beve" is looking to impress a Japanese girl at his high school?

[dingles]

would that refrence be for bevers and butthead?

By the way Mr beavers, Brilliant truely Brilliant commentary. Its sad that everytime you post logical and polite commentary those people who have already steaked out their side on the issue resort to name calling. In fact they are acting shamefully in their stubborness and closemindedness.

Mr Beavers, I can only say that in the 1930s in Germany there were a few people who went against the Govt and so many of the peop le in their opinions. Like you they felt the wrath of so many people and were attacked and attacked. Like you they calmly evenly and logicaly spoke their minds. Yes many of these people were eventually murdered or expelled from Germany. But now we know that theirs was the message of truth.

Keep up the fight Mr Bearver! Dont be afraid to be calm, rational, logical, and try and discuss the issues without anger or hatred.

The name Shindler comes to mind Mr Beaver. Many many other, Mr Ornicky, are like the those bad bad camp guards who never stop attacking you Mr Beavers. They attack truth, justice and freedom. Others, Mr Yanbang, are like the happpy go lucky baker who look the other way. Simple minded people.

But what about Dingles. I am nobody.

[wedgie]

Gerry, if you are going to post maps please post ones that prove something instead of something a Japanese 3rd grader could have made.

This official Japanese map of Chosun clearly shows Ulleungo and Dokdo inside the border and is labelled as Map of Chosun (korea). If Dokdo was part of Japan (or not part of Korea)it would have been drawn outside the boundary. It was made in the 19th century before the 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion.
[url]http://www.truthofdokdo.or.kr/kor/html/dataroom_text_map06.html[/url]

[wedgie]

Try the link to this old Japanese Tokdo map as mentioned it shows Dokdo cleary inside the boundary.

This old military map from 1936 shows that Dokdo was still under Chosun or Korean jurisdiction despite military occupation of the peninsula. map showing Dokdo under Korean jurisdiction This map is also Japanese.

This Japanese map shows Dokdo was under the administraion of the Kyeongsang Province in July of 1945 July 1945 Korean map

Korea doesn't have to show ownership of Dokdo by using ancient records. Japanese documents verify it for them.

[wedgie]

In this Japanese map of Korea. The Japanese cartographer drew Korea and included Ulleungdo and Dokto. Notice he even included great detail of the islands. Also note Japan is not included on the map.

"http://kr.img.blog.yahoo.com/ybi/1/86/03/shinh_k2002/folder/9/img_9_212_2?ext=.jpg">Japanese map

[wedgie]

Try link again
In this Japanese map of Korea. The Japanese cartographer drew Korea and included Ulleungdo and Dokto. Notice he even included great detail of the islands. Also note Japan is not included on the map.
Japanese map
Another Japanese map of Korea has a closeup of the island to prove they are well inside the boundary showing Dokdo as Chosun or Korea.
Japanese map of Chosun
French map shows part of Ulleungdo and Usando as part of Korean Land. You can see the French cartographer like the Koreans called Dokdo Usando (in French).
French map of Chosun
A Russian Navy map of Korea also includes Dokdo Island as part of Korea and well within the boundary of the map.
Russian map of Chosun Korea

[passerby]

Gerry,
Thanks for providing the follow-up info.

Wedgie,
1) Old Japanese Tokdo Map
ttp://www.truthofdokdo.or.kr/kor/html/dataroom_text_map06.html
Now let’s see.
Since the meridian skimming the west coast of the Korean peninsula is 125 deg, and that between the two islands (which you seem to think are Ullungdo and Tokdo), are 130 deg, you find that the meridians are drawn at 1 deg intervals. So are the parallels. This means that the island on the left of the 130th meridian is located between E129-130 deg. long. and N37-38 deg. lat, and the island to the right is located between E130-131 deg. long. and N37-38 deg. lat. Since this map was created during the period of the two-Ullungdo confusion (Dagelet and Argonaut), I think a natural conclusion as to the identity of the two islands is: left = Argonaut and right = Dagelet.
Liancourt Rock (= present-day Takeshima) is located near the 132th meridian.
See Arrow Smith map 1811 & James Wyld map 1868
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/4westmap.html

2) Map showing Dokdo under Korean jurisdiction
ttp://kr.blog.yahoo.com/realtimejr/1461189.html
This is not a map showing the administrative jurisdiction, but is a map showing the Japanese Army jurisdiction. Since Takeshima was closer to Ullungdo, Takeshima was covered by the same unit. Remember, all of Korea was a part of Imperial Japan at the time, Just like Okinawa is presently a part of Japan. For example, even if the same Self Defense Force unit were to cover Okinawa and Amami-Oshima (a part of Kagoshima), Amami would still be a part of the Kagoshima prefecture. I have telephoned the Shimane prefecture to ask whether Takeshima had ever been removed from its administrative jurisdiction during the annexation, and the answer was NO.

3) July 1945 Korean Map
ttp://news.kbs.co.kr/news.php?id=715651&kind=c
I don’t know what this implies, since the Chinese character written on the triangular island on the left says Utu-to (the first of the two characters in Ullung + island), and seems irrelevant. Furthermore, from its triangular shape, I'd say this is Chukto (bamboo island) adjacent to Ullungdo. If this were Dokto, there would be two islands drawn.

4) Japanese map – Can’t seem to view this.

5) Japanese map of Chosun
ttp://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/exh/exh1_1_10.html
Same as (1).
Note that Takeshima is the island CLOSER to the Korean peninsula. This is the non-existent Argonaut Island. It wasn't until after 1880 when the navy vessel Amagi was dispatched by the Japanese government that the Japanese government formally acknowledged that Argonaut (then called Takeshima) was non-existent, Dagelet (then called Matsushima) was Ullungdo, and the Liancourt rocks (then called Rianko-jima) was what had formerly been known to the Japanese as Matsushima Island. Note that both the coordinates and the shape of the Matsushima Island in this map correspond to Ullungdo. Takeshima is drawn as a simple bubble, probably due to the fact that its shape couldn’t be confirmed, for obvious reasons.

6) French map
ttp://www.dokdomuseum.go.kr/en/exh/exh1_1_02.html
Though Koreans claim that Usan = Dokto = Takeshima, I do not find their line of logic convincing, because in Korean historical records (San-guk ki), it says that there was a permanent settlement of 86 people (15 houses and farmland) on Usan. The description simply does not fit Takeshima. I think the two islands depicted here are Dagelet Island (Ullungdo) and either Boussole Rock or Seal Island. Besides, it wasn't until 1849 that Liancourt Rocks were “discovered” by westerners.

7) Russian map
I don't know what you want (or the person of this website wants) to point out using this map, as it only shows Ullungdo. This map contains no borders, colors, etc. indicating that the Russians were not even minutely concerned with who owned the islands or the peninsula. Instead, the Russian painstakingly map out islands in the sea and the coastline, which indicate to me that they are preparing for an invasion southward. The original map was made by the Russian navy in 1857, immediately after the Russian loss of the Crimean War, in which the Russian hope for reaching open waters on its western side was crushed. It seems they promptly turned their eyes to the east. On May 15, 1861, the Russians occupied Tsushima by force, and refused to leave until the Japanese government gave a written lease of Tsushima to Russia. (Thanks to the British, the Russians were driven away on this attempt.) Mapmaking is not a simple pastime for a nation. Even today, charting of seafloor is of national importance, and that is why you see Chinese subs entering Japanese waters. The fact that the Chosun dynasty allowed the Russians to map their shores in detail shows how woefully unaware they were of the danger.

This map shows the situation of the Argonaut, Dagelet, and Liancourt as acknowledged by Japan and the world at 1872, before it was finalized that Argonaut was non-existent (and was the result of poor measurements by a British man, James Colnett back in 1789).
ttp://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/t-weller1872.jpg

[wedgie]

passerby you can't be serious!!

You critize and scrutinize the maps posted and then you post those scrawlings (that look like a neanderthal did them) as gospel.

You've got a serious case of "Gerry Bevers" syndrome.

[passerby]

Wedgie,
You can ignore the "neanederthal" drawings, my logic is still valid without them. I gave the link to the "neanederthal" drawings as schematic illustrations to show the coordinates and names of the islands since the other elaborate antique maps need more magnification than the images offered on the web to see the names, etc. You're not going to say that the last map I gave is a neanderthal drawing, now are you?

I do not take the illustrations as gospel. For that matter, I do not trust wholeheartedly any information presented on the web. However, after making independent searches through online collections of 19th century antique maps, I have reached the conclusion that this drawing correctly illustrates the situation back then. At least, I do not take as gospel colorful elaborate maps that does not even contain Tokto or Takeshima and try to convince others that they do. You, wedgie, seem to be the one with the blind faith.

BTW, the 1945 Korean map in your link does seem to be a map of Ullungdo. The Korean government renamed 鬱陵島 to 鬱島 in Ordinace 41. The map on the right-hand side, I guess, is the main island of Ullungdo.

>You've got a serious case of "Gerry Bevers" syndrome.
Why thank you. I'll take that as a compliment any time.

[wedgie]

The Japanese forgot something on this map.
The Japanese forgot something on this map

The Japanese also argue that Korea didn't dispute the illegal incorporation of Tokdo into Shimane Prefecture or even know Dokdo existed. Apparently the govenor of Ulluengdo was pissed enough to raise the Korean flag in defiance in 1906.
Angry Hangooks
I think it's absolutely hilarious you call the Shimane Prefecture office for their opinion on the matter!! Everyone knows the terra nullius claim of Dokdo was a sham. The Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was declared dead by the signing of the SCAP agreement. If the Shimane Prefecture office wants to live in denial that's their perogative I guess.

[wedgie]

Records show America felt Dokdo was Korean territory in 1951.America Consults Korea Regarding Dokdo

[wedgie]

Try link again America Consults Korea on Dokto

[wedgie]

You are right about the map being an army map however. When Japan Surrendered, SCAP GHQ used these maps in defining Japanese territory. Dokdo is not included as Japanese territory on this map.

[wedgie]

The best way to clarify the Dokdo dispute is through using genuine documents and authentic maps. This 1870 Japanese agreement clearly states Chosun controls both Jukdo (Ulluengdo) and Songdo (Dokdo) Here is the document. (Scroll down to the third image.)
1870 document
The writings at that time started from the top right and worked down. We can read the Chinese characters 竹島松島朝鮮附屬. Broken down this means 竹島(Jukdo)松島 (Songdo=Dokdo)朝鮮(Chosun/Korea) 附屬 (Part of included or together). Jukdo and Songdo are said to be part of Chosun in this Japanese document.

The next area of contention is. What defines Dokdo in the 19th century? Songdo is the old Japanese name for Dokdo. The Japanese Takeshima websites reference irrelevant foreign maps made by Europeans and inaccurate maps that show Jukdo and Dokdo in different positions and "phantom islands" but what is Dokdo and what is Jukdo had long before already been established.
The best historical Japananese map collection from the 19th century online can be found at Japanese maps click on the insight browser and you will access many maps from this era. Some maps from even the 1700s show Jukdo and Songdo in quite accurate position. Here is a list of useful maps.
1783 Nagakubo Sekisai
1835 Matsumoto Yasuoki
1837 Matsumura Kyube
1843 Kikuchi Toramatsu
1847 Seiki Shujin
Older maps show the position of Jukdo and Songdo changed. At this point the names and identity of the isles had already been determined.
1876 Kashihara Yoshihara
1877 Hirosawa Nobufusa
1879 Tanaka Kuzutomo
1872 Uchida Shinsai 1872. Shows Ulleungdo and Songdo same color as Korea.
1885 Shimiza Akira

Remember Japanese maps at this time called Ulleungdo=竹島 and Dokdo=松島.

[TE]

Dokdo is currently Korean territory. To say that Japan should take it means that you're against Koreans way too much. So I don't see why Koreans have to agree to any of the anti-Koreans here.

[pacifist]

Dear wedgie,

You wrote about the document 竹島松島朝鮮附屬.
It needs some explanations.

Actually the document clearly says that both Takeshima and Matsushima belong to Korea. But does this "Takeshima" or "Matsushima" really mean Takeshima/Dokdo today?

The answer is no.
Because Takeshima/Dokdo was called as Liancourt rocks or Ryanko-to in these days.

Please look at the map (1867):
http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/hennyu/sada.html

There are three islands seen, from left to right, "Takeshima", "Matsushima-Hourilu Rokku (Holly rocks)", and "Rienkouto rokksu (Liancourt rocks)".

"Takeshima" in this map is Argonaut island in the western maps, it was later recognised as an error and vanished from the maps after this era.

"Matsushima" in this map is Ulleungdo.
And "Liancourt rocks" are today's Takeshima/Dokdo.
In these years, the names of Takeshima and Matsushima were mixed up because of influence of western maps.

So the two islands related in the 1870 document didn't include Takeshima/Dokdo.

Did you understand?

The Meiji government didn't have clear information about these two islands - Takeshima and Matsushima (or Argonauto island and Dagelet island), so they needed to survey the area around Ulleungdo. They surveyed the area in 1880 and got clear information.

[wedgie]

Pacifist. The 187O clearly says the island of Jukdo (竹島) is the island disputed during the Genroku era this means Ulleungdo. Therefore the island next to or neighbour island would be Songdo/Takeshima (松島) (Dokdo).
Some Japanese contend that the Songdo in this document is a different island next to Ulleungdo and I would love to see verifiably genuine maps to prove this. In addition as you've shown the Japanese had long since mapped Ulleungdo's nieghbour islands as Bousolle Rocks and Seal Point. This is because the Japanese used British navy maps as reference.
The three island map you've linked to shows Ulleungdo as Songdo (松島) so we can not use these maps for reference because they don't agree with the historical context of the 1870 document.(Genroku era)
In addition, if you look closely at the island of Jukdo (竹島) on the map you've linked to we can see the outline is very vague. This is because it is drawn in the position of the fictitious "Argonaut" island. The existence of this island was unconfirmed or doubtful at the time.
The Japanese were by and large using old documents and recent European maps for reference and they learned Argonaut did not exist for more than a decade before the 1870 document was written.
You shouldn't go to radical Japanese websites like toron pepper or tananka for good information.

[wedgie]

Here are some more maps that we should use for reference because they (like the 1870 Secret Report on Chosun) show Ulleungdo as (竹島). We can see the island to the East is Dokdo (松島). remember some Japanese maps continued to map Liancourt Rocks well after the Europeans discovered Liancourt Rocks. For example the Uchida Shinai 1872 and Kashihara Yoshinaga map 1876.

accurate map 1
accurate map 2
accurate map 3

So you see, the Japanese had mapped and recorded accurately Ulleungdo (竹島) and Dokdo (松島) for at least 150 years before the document was written.

Now you understand that the 1870 Secret Report on Chosun proves to us that the Meiji Government considered Ulleungdo and Dokdo Chosun possession.

If you have verifiably authentic maps from a reuptable museum or university website that show Uleungdo (竹島) with a neighbor island called Songdo (松島) along with Liancourt Rocks this could very well prove your point. Otherwise this theory is a just plain false.

[wedgie]

Try these links. Just cut and paste

http://ddb.libnet.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/exhibit/maps/map029/image/1/n1006004.html

http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/directory/sumita/00025231/page3.html

http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/temp17.html

map 1
map 2
map 3

[pacifist]

wedgie,

As to the 1870 document, the sentence "此儀ハ 松島ハ竹島ノ隣島ニシテ松島ノ儀ニ付、是迄掲載セシ書留モ無之、" Matsushima is the neighboring island to Takeshima (Ulleungdo), and there has been no documents about Matsushima" explains this "Matsushima" is different from Takeshima/Dokdo because there were numerous documents about that Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo) and the island 92 km far away is not a neighboring island.

Although Japan and Korea had a dispute concerning Ulleungdo in the late 17th century, there had never been a dispute concerning Takashima/Dokdo and there had never been records that it was put into Korean territory. So there is no reason to write about Takeshima/Dokdo here, if this "Matsushima" was Takeshima/Dokdo.

And Japan surveyed the area around Ulleungdo in 1880 and found that Takeshima (Argonaut island) was nothing and Matsushima (Daleget island) was Ulleungdo, reversley, they didn't have exact knowledge about whether Takeshima was Ulleungdo or Matsushima was ulleungdo before the survey. And further more, in the 1883 document depicted Ulleungdo as "日本称竹島或は松島朝鮮称蔚陵島" (In Japan Takeshima or Matsushima, and in Korea Ulleungdo).

You know, as I wrote before, in the late 19th century there were confusion about the names of Takeshima and Matsushima. But usually in the late 19th century Takeshima/Dokdo was called as Ryanko-to or Liancourt rocks as the 1867 map indicated.

In the 1867 map, three islands can be seen - from left (west) to right (east), Takeshima, Matsushima (Houriru rokku = Holly rocks?) and Liancourt rocks. The 1870 document may have mentioned these two islands - Takeshima and Matsushima, not Liancourt rocks. Or simply it may have meant Ulleungdo and Jukdo.

P.S. I couldn't see the maps you wrote. Please show me the maps again.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

I could see the maps but these maps have been used as a proof that Japan knew Takeshima/Dokdo, contrary to your intention.

The origina map of 日本輿地路程全圖 was made in the 1700's and it had revised sometimes after the years. So the island Matsushima in the map is definitely Takeshima/Dokdo but it's a different island from the 1870 document.

BTW, the writing on the map says "見高麗猶望雲州隠州", the meaning is "Like seeing Izumo county (Japan mainland) from Oki county (Oki island), you can see Korea (from here)" and the sentence was almost similar to the document in the 17th century, which says "Ulleungdo is Japanese boundary."

P.S. You used Melvo's site but his interpretation of the document is wrong. There is no doubt that the author wrote that Ulleungdo was the boundary, as you already know.

[pacifist]

It is true that there was confusion about the names of Takeshima and Matsushima in the newly established Meiji government.

The Ministry of the Interior called Ulleungdo as "Takeshima" while the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs called it as "Matsushima".
Heigaku Muto proposed the latter a plan to reclaim Matsushima - Ulleungdo (松島開拓之議), he thought this plan because he was told from an American in Russia that "Matsushima is Japan's territory". This Matsushima of course meant Takeshima/Dokdo but Muto thought it was Ulleungdo.
(Anyway, this episode is one of the proof that Takeshima/Dokdo was internationally recognised as Japan's territory.)

So Japan had to survey the area around Ulleungdo to clear the mystery concerning the two names in 1880.

One reason of the confusion of the names is a map made by a famous German medical officer Siebold (Philipp Franz Balthasar von Siebold; 1796～1866), which he brought back to Europe. In his map, Ulleungdo was called as Matsushima.

[wedgie]

I'm sorry but your theory is wrong.

The 1870 document says Takeshima (竹島) is Ulleungdo and refers to the dispute during the Genroku era. Thus we know (竹島) Jukdo is Ulleungdo. So the 1876 map is irrelevant because it shows Ulleungdo as (松島) so it is clear they document did not reference maps of this nature.

So that leaves the question. What is Songdo in this document? Well I gave you maps to show that Dokdo is Songdo. Dokdo (matsushima) was mapped for well over a 150 years before this

The mapping era made by Seibold was simply Ulleungdo mapped twice in two locations and then labeled Takeshima and Matsushima. However, all this did was create a Westward mapping positional error of the islands. You can see in many maps that the Japanese simply mapped the islands in many different locations.

On three-island maps Ulleungdo is mapped as Songdo and because we can see Bosoulle Rocks and Seal Point labelled on both. So obviously this document was not referring to those maps.

The secret file by these men in 1870 was done during the formative years of the Meiji government when they were establishing diplomatic relations with Chosun. That's why they lacked documents regarding the status of Songdo (Dokdo)

I have seen hundreds of maps of Ulleungdo-Dokdo-Liancourt Rocks. There are no maps that show Ulleungdo with a tiny neighbour island called Songdo with Liancourt Rocks.

If the Japanese Foreign Ministry came under the impression that there was a tiny island next to Ulleungdo called Songdo there must be many maps to prove this. Right?

Therefore please give a link to an original map with date and cartographer from a respected university or museum to prove this theory. Not homemade maps by Mr Tanaka or Toron Pepper please.

Otherwise this theory is dead.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

As I've shown you, the Meiji government had just been established in 1868 so they lacked various information the Shogunate had for many years. And there were confusion concerning the names of the islands.

The point is that in 1870 they had not clear information about Takeshima and Matshushima. And the 1870 document was a kind of the internal document, not to be declared internationally. It was attached in the various documents after investigation of Chosun. It merely ratified after the fact that Ulleungdo and an island neighboring Ulleungdo belonged to Korea.

The neighboring island can't be Takeshima/Dokdo because it had not ever claimed by Korea.

As a proof of this, you can see the investigation of Ulleungdo by Korean officer 李奎遠 in 1882. His party found no islands viewing from the top of the mountain, except 竹嶼 (=Jukdo) and 島項（=観音島）.
And they reported that Songjukdo 松竹島 (竹嶼) lied just beside Ulleungdo (= today's Jukdo) and its distance from Ulleungdo was 三数十里, that was 1.2~4km, which fit the location of today's Jukdo. They also reported that Usando was Ulleungdo. And they didn't mention Takeshima/Dokdo, they didn't know about the island or they knew it was Japan's territory. Anyway, if japan said that Takeshima/Dokdo was Korean territory in 1880, why didn't 李奎遠 refer to the island in 1882?

It is apparent that Takeshima/Dokdo was Japan's territory and Korea had never ever calimed for Dokdo until 1952.

[pacifist]

Correction:

Korea had never ever calimed for Dokdo until 1952.
SHOULD BE:
Korea had never ever claimed for Dokdo until 1952.

(Sorry)

[pacifist]

dear wedgie,

BTW, if Korea really thinks Dokdo is Koreans, you should show clear evidences here to show that Korea had known Dokdo before Japan knew and used it in the 17th century.
But unfortunately for you, I'm afraid that there were no documents or maps to prove that Korea knew Dokdo.

It is essential to show your evidences before you accuse of Japan's weak point, that is confusion after the establishment of new government of Meiji.

[wedgie]

Never once did I say this report was a international declaration that Dokdo was Chosun. I say it is better than that. Because this document is internal it shows true intent of the government. In addition it shows Dokdo was not terra nullius before the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of 1905.

For over a century and a half prior to 1870 document the Japanese mapped Ulleungdo as (竹島) and Dokdo as (松島). Now this document shows Ulleungdo as (竹島) and you say (松島) is referring to some "other neighbour island"

You can't start renaming islands and redrawing maps of 19th century Northeast Asia based on:
1. What you feel defines the phrase "neighbor island"
2. What information the Japanese Foreign Ministry/Shoganate did or did not have on file or available on Dokdo at this time in history.

The foreign ministry was obviously citing maps of the region before reaching a determination that both Ulleungdo (竹島) and (松島) were Chosun territory. So as I mentioned the maps they were using would have to be considered standard or accurate for the time. Therefore it should be very easy for you to find maps with Ulleungdo mapped as (竹島) with a neighbor island mapped as (松島) along with Liancourt Rocks.............Right?

I've asked you to cite verifiably accurate maps from reputable sources such as universities and museums with dates and cartographers names (as I have) a few times to support this (松島) as neighbor island theory but you still haven't. I think it's a reasonable request.

You can do a search under davidrumsey.com/japan as I mentioned above. It is one of the best digital Japanese map collections in the world.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

I have many Japanese maps but you should be careful if you talk about something you should use the map of almost the same year, because the names of places used to be changed in decades.

As to the 1870 document, the map the most near to the year 1870 should be the 1867 map by Katsu Kaisyu - the map I mentioned before. Katsu Kaisyu was the Shogunate's magistrate concerning navy and he was the first Japanese who sailed a ship Rinkanmaru to the USA. In this map, Takeshima/Dokdo is described as Ryankoto rokku (Liancourt rocks), not Matsushima, although the map was made in the last year of the Shogunate era - not the Meiji era.

After the Meiji era, 大日本籌海全圖 was published in 1868 but unfortunately I couldn't find Takeshima/Dokdo and Oki island in it as far as I searched on internet. 大日本全図復原(1877) didn't seem to include Takeshima/Dokdo. 日本総部（海図等128号）(1882) looks to include Takeshima/Dokdo but details are not readable because the map can't be magnified on internet:
http://www.gsi.go.jp/MAP/KOTIZU/h045.html

So I can't prove here that what they call Takeshima/Dokdo around 1870, but usually it is believed that Matsushima was an old name of Takeshima/Dokdo in the 17th - 18th century. They seem to have forgotten the name of Matsushima in the late 19th century to 20th century, for example, Yozaburo Nakai's document in 1904 wrote it as "Ryanko-to".

As to the 1870 document, you insisted that it was not an internal document, but it WAS.
Sata (佐田白茅) of the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs visited Chosun and made a report which was named "朝鮮国交際始末内探書" (A report of the investigations on details of associations with Chosun country). Sata and two Japanese Moriyama (森山茂) and Saito (斎藤栄) went to Busan in December 1869 to investigate secretly about Chosun and one of the 14 items they investigated was about Takeshima/Matsushima.

As I mentioned before, the report was made to give various information especially the status quo of Chosun to the Meiji government, it was not meant to publish openly. And I suppose that they didn't go to Takeshima/Dokdo or Ulleungdo themselves. They only confirmed that Japan (in the Shogunate era) and Korea had an agreement on the sovereignty over Ulleungdo in the late 17th century.

So you can't claim for Dokdo for this document. It was merely a report inside the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs. Of course I admit that there were confusion in the Minsitry, in the Meiji government.

But anyway, they thought they needed a survey and did the survey in 1880. It was as simple as that. You can't claim for Dokdo for this, you need to show your evidence to prove that Korea really knew Takeshima/Dokdo but you haven't shown anything yet - I suppose there were none because Koreans came to know the island for the first time in 1903 or 1904.

[wedgie]

Read my post again Pacifist. I said the 1870 was not an "international" document meaning an external agreement between the countries. But that doesn't mean it is irrelevant. It proves Dokdo was considered Chosun territory and not terra nullius as the Japanese claimed in 1905.

Regarding the 1867 map by Katsu Kaisy. First of all he was not a cartographer, Second this 1867 map was a duplicate of an 1863 British Navy map. Even on the 1863 British version Argonaut is listed as or doubtful. At this point in time the Japanese Navy obtained their maps of the East Sea via the British Royal Navy.

It is historical fact that the Russian ship Pallada confirmed Argonaut did not exist in 1854 and British ship Actaeon discovered that Argonaut Island did not exist June or 1859. We also have records by the French corvette Capriciuese that passed Argonaut's position twice and didn't report any land back in 1852.

Taht being said, we know through records the Japanese followed closely the mapping trends of the Europeans so it is clear they were at least as cognizant Argonauts was doubtful. Thus, it is improbable the powers that be in Japan wrote documents declaring the ownership of islands listed as doubtful and confirmed as non-existent.

The theory that one of the tiny islands next to Ulleungdo was called Songdo is simply not true. Shimane Prefectures maps of Ulleungdo show no such island every Japanese maps of enough scale shows the tiny islet of Jukdo as Boussole Rock and the southern each as Seeru Jaki or Seal Point.

What can be said is this. There were people who were less informed who were hopeful there might be another island in the region for which to develop.

[pacifist]

Sorry wedgie,

As for the "internal" document, it was my mistake, but it is true that it was made to know the status quo about Chosun.

The Meiji government had a few information because they took over the Shogunate, it was a kind of a revolution. So there was no continuity from the Shogunate era in every aspect including diplomacy. The Shogunate hid every important document and funds before the new government's army came into Tokyo.

I don't have maps or documents to show you how they called the small island beside Ulleungdo in the 1870's but there is still a possibility that they called it Matsushima because, as you know, Take (竹〉 and Matsu 〈松〉 were auspicious words in Japan and I suppose it was true in Korea too.

They used to name something with the words including 松 (pine) , 竹 (bamboo), 梅 (plum or Japanese apricot) and usually if there were two things, they used the words　松 and 竹.

And one more thing, in the document about the 1882 survey by 李奎遠 they called today's Jukdo as 松竹島(Songjukdo). It may mean the island was called sometime as 松島 (Songdo) and called sometime as 竹島 (Jukdo).　

[wedgie]

Pacifist, Leekyuwon did his survey of Ulleungdo in 1882. In his report he visited the islet next to Ulleungdo on May 9th and referred to it as 竹島. Later he mapped it as 竹島 as well. However we aren't talking about perceptions of the Koreans here but rather how the Japanese mapped and referred to the islands in the region.

Kashihara Yoshinaga's 1877 map of Korea-Japan showed Ulleungdo. It labelled it as Songdo with Bousolle Rock and Seal point the same as previous Japanese Navy maps.

As you well know very early maps drawn by Japanese also show no neighbor island of Ulleungdo as Songdo. In addition Shimane Prefectures maps of Ulleungdo show no neighbor island listed as Songdo.

Without the maps or docs to support this wild theory you might as well say Hawaii is 松島. Cleary in the 1870 document 松島 refers to Dokdo.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

I just said about one possibility, wedgie.

The names of islands vary in different times and in different countries. The small island beside Ulleungdo, Jukdo, was once called as Usando, or some different names in Korea, it was called as Igashima in Japan in the 18th century but nobody knows what they call it in the late 19th century in Japan.

And if the author wrote something different from the truth as you insisted, so what? This was a report inside the Mnistry of the Foreign Affairs. You can't claim for Dokdo for this.

And the document didn't say the definite location.

For example, the following document concerning the sovereignty of Ulleungdo was from 1883, it clearly wrote the location of the island.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
北緯37度30分東経130度49分ノ洋中二位スル
一ノ島嶼即チ日本称竹島或ハ松島朝鮮称蔚陵島ノ儀ハ
往古孰レノ所領タル確定セスト雖モ我慶長年間宋対馬守ヨリ朝鮮政府二照会シ所属論ヲ提出シタレトモ論旨徹セズ
Concerning one island in the ocean at NL 37° 30′, Long 130° 49′E, Japanese name is Takeshima or Matsushima, Korean name is Ulleungdo, we hadn’t decided for long where it belonged since old times and So of Tsushima inquired Chosun government in the years of Keicho (1596~1614) and he sent the documents to show where it should belong but point was not focused.

其後元禄6年ヨリ同12年二至ル迄7年間数回ノ往復ヲ経テ
遂二両政府にニオイテ其所属論ヲ確定シタルコトハ別冊竹島版図所蔵考記載ノ通リナリ
After that, in the seven years from the 6th year until the 12th year of Genroku (1693-1699) through several communications, the two governmenrts decided where it belonged and it can be seen in the separate book 竹島版図所蔵考.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[pacifist]

wedgie,

How brazen-faced Koreans are, usisng other contry's internal document and claiming for another country's island!!!

You should prove by yourself if you insist that Dokdo is Koreans'. But I'm afaraid that there is NO document or maps to prove it.

[wedgie]

Paicifist, what difference does it make where the documents come from? As long as they are accurate.

The Japanese are claiming that Dokdo is inherently part of Japanese territory. But here we have the 1870 document that proves otherwise.

In addition the 1877 inquiry about the status of Ulluengdo and Dokdo also states that Japan had nothing to do with the islands. This document places the islands in exact location with perfect description and naming.

The most important aspect of this document was the fact it was issued by the Dajokan the highest authority in Japan at the time.
This is truly representative of the policy of the Meiji government at the time. Not obscure reports by some foreign ministry officials who were less informed.

1877 Inquiry about Ulleungdo and Dokdo

Years befofe 1883 this region was accurately mapped.

In addition far too many Japanese maps exclude Dokdo for it to have considered an inherent part of Japanese territory.

[wedgie]

Pacifist, here is a page to help you understand the mapping confusion (or not) of the 19th Century.
I hope this helps.

The truth about Dokdo mapping confusion

[pacifist]

wedgie,

You shouldn't use Mark Lovmo's site because it was full of lies. It is a famous pro-Korean site and he distorted every document to favor Korean side.

The 1877 document said only that Ulleungdo and one island belong to Korea. One island can't be Takeshima/Dokdo, you should read the attached document in exact (not distorted) translation to understand the truth.

The following text is one that I posted the other day to another site:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
and the attched document says;

Isotakeshima is called as Takeshima.
It located at 120-ri northwest of Oki island and its circumfernce is about 10-ri.

There are steep mountains with scarce level land, three rivers and a cascade.

Deep valleys seem to be a jungle of trees and bamboos.

唯眼に觸れ其多き者植物には五（りょう）松 紫稱檀 黄蘗 椿 樫 桐 雁皮
栂 竹　まの竹 胡蘿 蔔 蒜 款冬 ○荷　獨活 百合 牛房 茱萸 覆盆子虎杖 アラキパ
動物には 海鹿 猫 鼠 山雀 鳩 鴨 ○ 鳧 鵜 燕 鷲 鵰 鷹 ナヂコアナ
鳥 四十雀の類 其他 辰砂 岩緑青あるを見る
魚貝は枚挙に暇あらす　就中 海鹿 鮑を物産の最とす
鮑を獲るに夕に竹を海に投し 朝にこれを上れは 鮑 枝葉に
着くもの夥し　其味絶倫なりと　又海鹿一頭 能く 數斗の油を得へし。
(I can’t translate all but these sentences say there are lots of trees, vegetables, birds and animals, shellfish and fish, sea-lions etc…)

Next, there is one island called Matsushima.

Its circumference is 30-cho and it’s on the same line as Takeshima and is 80-ri distant from Oki.

Trees and bamboos are scarce but it produces fish and animal.

In the time of Eiroku, Hoki-koku, Aimi-gun (county)Yonago’s merchant Jinkichi Oya drifted after suffering from typhoon on the way home from Echigo (Niigata prefecture)and reached this land.

He examined the whole land and got to know that it is rich in fish and shellfish.

On the day he returned home, he asked government official Shiro-goro Abe, who was staying at Yonago castle on business, permission to take ferequent voyages to the island.

Mr. Abe introduced this request to Edo and got the document of permission. It was 16th May the 4th year of Genwa (1618).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There is apparently an inconsistency. The document reffers to Matsushima where Oya reached after typhoon, but the island Oya reached was Ulleungdo (Takeshima at that time).

This document explains how the Meiji government was in confusion about Takeshima and Matsushima. It wrote one island as two different islands, but Takeshima and Matsushima were both Ulleungdo in this document in 1877. It only mentioned that the two island (that means Ulleungdo itself) belong to Korea.

The culprit may be confusion of the names of the islands. So they needed to survey the area 3 years later.

[wedgie]

There is no inconsistency Pacifist. The author is not talking about Dokdo in the last portion but rather Ulleungdo. It reads he reached "this land".Only if you wrongly assume he is talking about Dokdo in the last part is there an inconsistency We and the Japanese of this time know the writing is about Ulleungdo.

The last portion gives a historical background about the discovery of this region in the early 1600s.

The distances given earlier on show there is no doubt the islands are accurately positioned and they are described perfectly in all aspects. However Mr Lovmo wrongly translated part of the text. It should say "Ulleungdo is 10 ri around not 90 miles. I think I should tell him. You can see this Japanese document is very accurate.

You should also read Marks page about the secret deal Japan had with Roosevelt that gave Japan permission to take over Korea. It is very interesting and historically true.
the secret deal

Did you know that in 1905 Japan signed four treaties allowing them to take over Korea?
1. First the 1905 Taft-Katsura agreement was American permission for Japan to control Korea.
2. The Portsmouth Treaty was Russia's acknowledging Japan's right to take over Korea.
3. The Anglo-Japan Treaties of 1902-1905 had articles showing England accepting Japan's right to control and take over Korea.
4. The coerced Protectorate Treaty of 1905 in which Japanese forced Korea to sign under duress.

That's why Japan didn't tell Korea about the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion until much later. The Korean foreign ministry was then dismantled and all of Japan's allies wouldn't help Korea. This is historically true.

You shouldn't say Marks website is lies just because his translations aren't the same as what the Japanese say.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

The deal with Tuft is no secret. It was usual things in the colonial times. In those years it was a natural thought internationally that the Great Powers should take undeveloped countries and civilized them. So when Japan annexed Korea in 1905 no other Great Powers countries made a protest.

As to the 1877 document, there is apparently an inconsistency wedgie.

"Next, there is one island called Matsushima.
Its circumference is 30-cho and it’s on the same line as Takeshima and is 80-ri distant from Oki.
Trees and bamboos are scarce but it produces fish and animal.
In the time of Eiroku, Hoki-koku, Aimi-gun (county)Yonago’s merchant Jinkichi Oya drifted after suffering from typhoon on the way home from Echigo (Niigata prefecture)and reached this land".
(樹竹稀なり 亦魚獣を産す
永禄中 伯耆國 會見郡 米子町商 大屋[後 大谷と改む]
甚吉 越後より歸り 颶風に遇ふて 此地に漂流す)

These are all descriptions about "Matsushima" but it's a story of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) not Takeshima/Dokdo.
It only shows the confusion in the Meiji government.

So wedgie, you can't claim for Dokdo for this.
I repeat, wedgie, Koreans need to prove that they knew Dokdo before Japan knew and used it in the 17th century but you haven't shown anything yet.

As you know, Koreans didn't know Dokdo until the early 20th century. But you don't want to admit it because you are brainwashed by your government who made their people believe "Dokdo is ours" but wedgie, there is NO ground to show that is true.

The brainwash in Korea looks like similar to one that Japan used to do in the 1940's. The government, mass media, school teachers, books etc say all the same thing - propaganda. But the people didn't know it was a propaganada. They all believed it.

[wedgie]

I repeat myself Pacifict. The author says he reached "this land". It doesn't say he reached "Matsushima" You are using assumptions to create inconsistency where none exist.
The rest of the description says "After returning home, (he) asked the Investigator, Abe Shirogoro who was staying in Yonago Castle by order of Shogunate, to allow him to visit there. Abe asked it to Edo, and received a letter of permission on May 16 of the 元和 4 year (1618)."
We can see he is talking about Takeshima (Ulleungdo) NOT Dokdo at the end of the description.
I don't understand why you work so hard to create confusion.......

Also you say " In those years it was a natural thought internationally that the Great Powers should take undeveloped countries and civilized them. So when Japan annexed Korea in 1905 no other Great Powers countries made a protest."

We know longer live "in those years" Pacifist. We can't re-use Japan's illegal annexing of Dokdo as a basis for claiming the island a hundred years later.
I don't use the Japanese information to claim Dokdo. The Koreans already have. I say this. There is enough evidence to show:
1, Historically Dokdo was not considered part of Japan by the Japanese.
2. The Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was done illegally.
Those two facts make Japans claim to Dokdo invalid.

We can see why the Japanese took Dokdo on this page,
Why Japan stole Dokdo

You must remember in 1905 the Japanese did not claim Dokdo on the basis that the island was "inherently/historically part of Japanese territory as they try to do today. They claimed it was terra nullius (no-man's land) which through maps and documents we can see this is not true.
Too many Japanese maps do not have Dokdo on them for this territory to be an inherent part of Japanese territory.
No Dokdo Maps

You say "my goverrnment" has brainwashed me. You must understand I'm not Korean and I don't believe everything the Korean government says. I'm not Japanese either so through all of the information we can see the Japanse claim to Dokdo is not valid.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

If you are not a Korean, then you must be Mark Lovmo himself, aren't you?

I once warned you that his website is full of lies favoring Korean side. But you used it again. The two maps you mentioned only indicated that from the island you can see Chosun and that means the island is the Japanese boundary (but Mark intentionally distorted the interpretation).

Your thoery is just the same as Mark's, and if you are not a Korean, you are definitely Mark himself.

As to the 1877 document,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
次に一島あり 松島と呼ふ周回三十町許 竹島と同一線路に在り 隠岐を距る八拾里許 樹竹稀なり 亦魚獣を産す
永禄中 伯耆國 會見郡 米子町商 大屋[後 大谷と改む]
甚吉 越後より歸り 颶風に遇ふて 此地に漂流す

Next, there is one island called Matsushima.
Its circumference is 30-cho and it’s on the same line as Takeshima and is 80-ri distant from Oki.
Trees and bamboos are scarce but it produces fish and animal.
In the time of Eiroku, Hoki-koku, Aimi-gun (county)Yonago’s merchant Jinkichi Oya drifted after suffering from typhoon on the way home from Echigo (Niigata prefecture)and reached this land.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The word 此地, this place or this land, indicated the place the author had written just before, that means Matsushima, not Takeshima. This is a grammatical rule.

Mark, do you want to distort the document again? No more!!

They were in confusion about the names of Takeshima and Matsushima, so Koki Watanabe had to propose to survey them in 1878 (松島之議) and they surveyed the area in 1880. You should see the history as a whole, not deceiving people by distorted interpretations.

In 1894, the waterway section of Japan published a book "朝鮮水路誌" (Chosun Waterway Magazine) and it says that Korean east boundary is Ulleungdo.
If you want to see, you can see it yourself on internet (National Diet Library) here:
http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/BIBibDetail.php

朝鮮国は亜細亜の東部にあり 其地勢たる狭長なる一大半島を成し 数多の島嶼 之を圍繞す 其位置は北緯三三度一五分より同四二度二五分 東経一二四度三〇分より同一三〇度三五分に至る
The country of Chosun locates at east asia and it consists of a long and narrow but a big penninsula and various islands. Its location is from NL 33°15' to 42°25', Long 124°30' to 130°35' E.

Liancourt rocks' location is written as
北緯37度14分、東経131度55分 (NL 37°14', Long 131°55'E), this was apparently out of the Korean territory as above mentioned.

Ulleungdo (Utsuryo-jima or Matsushima)'s location is written as 北緯37度30分東経130度53分 (NL 37°30', Long 130°53')....although I'm not sure, does this location mean that Ulleungdo was out of Korean territory??? Or merely a misprinting? I don't know.

But anyway, this book was written on the basis of the close survey of the warship Amagi in 1880. And they didn't think that Liancourt rocks were in Korean territory at all.

As to the circumstances about the war with Russia, they used Takeshima/Dokdo, of course, why not? The island was not a Korean territory, it was natural to use it to win the war.
But it is not related with the Takeshima/Dokdo issue, although Korean government wants to make it related to deceive Korean people.

P.S. Gerry made a superb comment. Please see this:
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=319#comment-6867

[wedgie]

Here is a news flash for you Pacifist. There are other people in this world who are neither Korean or Japanese who believe Dokdo is Korean besides Mark Lovmo. Mark is American I am not.
Pacifist you also say:
"As to the circumstances about the war with Russia, they used Takeshima/Dokdo, of course, why not? The island was not a Korean territory, it was natural to use it to win the war.
Under International law acquisition of territory must be a natural peaceful process. The aquisition of land for military purposes would fall under the category of lands taken by "violence or greed" under the Cairo Convention. You can't use military occupation as a basis for a land grab.
As you mention the author says he strayed to "this place" meaning this area or region. He is giving a historical background to the discovery of the Ulleungdo-Dokdo region by (Ohya Jinkichi) You can see that the author starts a new subject later in after word "During the "..." period......
This is the translation of the one attatchment of 1877 document.磯竹島 (Isotakeshima or Isotakejima) has another name, 竹島 (Takeshima). It is north-west of Oki province (隱岐國) and the distance from Oki is 120 Ri (里). The circumference is 10Ri (里). There is a steep mountain and flat fields are rare. It has three streams and there is a fall also. But, starting points of the streams cannot be seen since valleys are so deep and forest of trees and bamboos are so dense. Plants which catch one's eye are goryo pines, rose wood, amur cork tree, camellia, oak, paulownia, Wikstroemia sikokiana, southern Japanese hemlock, bamboo, mano bamboo, wild carrot, longstamen onion, Japanese butterbur, Japanese ginger, udo, lily, edible burdock, cherry elaeagnus, raspberry, giant knotweed, Japanese aucuba. Animals are sea lion, cat, rat, varied tit, pigeon, wild duck, brown-eared bulbul, oriental greenfinch, wild duck, cormoant, swallow, golden eagle, eagle, hawk, nadikoana(?) bird, great tit, and so on. Also found are cinnabar and malachite. Fishes and shellfishes are too many to enumera. (The island) yields sea lions and ear shells. To catch ear shells, in the evening, input bamboo into the sea, and in the morning, ear shells are on the leaves of the bamboo. It is said that the taste is very good. And (we can) obtain several 斗's(unit of the volume) oils from a sea-lion. Next, there is an island called 松島 (Matsushima). The circumference is 30 Jung(町), It is on the way to 竹島 (Takeshima). The distance from Oki is 80 Ri(里). Trees and a bamboos are rare. (The island) yields fishes and sea lions, too.
During 永? period, a merchant, 大屋甚吉 (Ohya Jinkichi) [Later, he changed his name to 大谷], who lived in 伯耆國 會見郡 米子町 (present Yonago city in Tottori prefecture) was hit by typhoon on the way back from 越後 (Echigo; Niigata prefecture), and drifted to this place. (He) investigated the whole island and noticed that there are a lot of fishes and shellfishes. After returning home, (he) asked the Investigator, Abe Shirogoro who was staying in Yonago Castle by order of Shogunate, to allow him to visit there. Abe asked it to Edo, and received a letter of permission on May 16 of the 元和 4 year (1618).
Pacifist there is no confusion as to the position, size, and naming of the islands in the 1878 document. Period. The only confusion is between your ears.
Gerry is great at going over ancient ambiguous documents and finding where the Koreans did cross their t's and dot their i's but how does the ambiguity of Korea's historical claim to Dokdo strengthen Japan's?

[pacifist]

Hey wedgie,

If you are not Mark, then you must be a Korean in the disguse of a foreigner, aren't you? They say that Korean people are sometimes disguising as other country's citizens, especailly when they do something wrong.

Anyway wedgie, there is no need to show your translation. You can't distort the grammatical rule, "此地" only indicated the place the author had written just before and it can't be Takeshima.

Your translation was made to disguise as if the author began on a new line but the original text didn't do so. You can't distort the document.

[wedgie]

Pacifist. In the 17th Century quote by Saito Hosen he states.

These two islands are uninhabited and getting a sight from Koryo is like viewing Oki from Onshu. Thus "these/this islands" are the Northwest boundary of Oki.

So you see according to your "grammatical rule" this island must be Oki because the islands mentioned "just before" "these islands" was Oki. However on another thread you contradicted what you just said.

Pacifist Breaks Grammar Rules

When you tell so many lies Pacifist they come back to haunt you. It's a bullshit argument apparently even you don't believe. Making this silly argument about "these islands" makes you look very silly.

The 1877 document gives perfect naming, distance, size and description of Ulleungdo and Dokdo. More importantly the attached document confirms the other island is Dokdo and that the Meiji government had nothing to do with them. Like the 1870 it not a basis for Korea to claim the islands today but it just another piece of evidence that proves Japan's claim that Dokdo "was inherently part of Japan" is nonsense. So before evenone at "occidentalism" bashes Korea they should realize the Japan Foriegn Affairs Office is guilty of the same.

Pacifist, Mark is from Minnesota and I'm from Canada. I have lived in Korea for around 10 years. I'm not Korean for the last time. I'm also not that crazy about life in Korea and am looking forward to getting out of here.

That being said, I've been very interested in the Dokdo problem and I truly feel that if the manner and timing in which Japan had claimed Dokdo were different I would support Japan's claim.

Pacifist, you have to learn to see the Japan's acquisition of Dokdo for it was. Japan seized Dokdo while colonizing Korea for military purposes. In addition there are no records of Japan claiming Dokdo before the illegal Shimane Prefecture.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

As you've referred to, I once translated the following:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
此二島無人之地、見高麗如自雲州望隠州、然則日本之乾地、以此州為限矣

These two islands are uninhibited,
(you can ) view Korea (from here) just like you can view Onshu (隠州; Oki island area) from Unshu (雲州; Izumo area, east part of Shimane).
So then, the northwest of Japan,
this area was decided as the boundary.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Saito Hosen wrote that this place (Ulleungdo) is Japanese boundary because he could see Chosun from there just like you see Oki island from mainland of Japan.
The key word is "然則（shikaraba sunawachi)". It emphasizes the sentence just before (you can see Chosun from the place) and as a result of the former sentence, he thought that "this is the boundary of Japan".

You know, Mark's interpretation is intentionally distorted.
Oki was the main place (capitol) of the Oki county. Why Saito Hosen should describe that Oki was the boundary after going to Ulleungdo and seeing Chosun from there? 　
You should notice this absurdness.　

Gerry gave you a detailed teaching in another site (I suppose you've seen it already), so I won't say further any more. But you should notice the big lies what Korean government kept supplying.

[wedgie]

Pacifist I think you mean uninhabited.

Unihibited means not afraid to do anything or free from inhibitions.

Pacifist I don't have time to squabble with Gerry about his loose interpretations of 600 year old ambiguous Chosun documents. In addtion I think you are either ignorant or lying because of the inconsistencies of you posts.

Saito Hosen said Ulleungdo and Dokdo region were the boundary because he was using visibility as a method of determining ownership of land.

You also made another false statement on that thread you said "

The Hosen Sito’s report is about Ulleungdo and surroundings, not about Oki because they already knew every inch of Oki and no need to report about Oki.

The name of the Saito Hosen's report was called "Onshu shicho Goki" (Records and Observations on Oki)

Pacifist lies

I'm sorry Pacifist but I don't believe anything you say.......

[pacifist]

wedgie,

You can't see Korea from Takeshima/Dokdo but you can from Ulleungdo. So although Hosen wrote about the area including Ulleungdo and Takeshima/Dokdo, the reason he thought to be boundary should be "seeing Chosun from there" - so the place he thought to be boundary was no place other than Ulleungdo.

Saito Hosen's report is titled as "Onsyu Shicho Goki" which means the book of gathered various information which (I've) seen or heard (in/about) Onsyu". So it was not only a report of Ulleungdo but about Onsyu including Ulleungdo and Takeshima/Dokdo. It may mean that he thought those islands to be a part of Onsyu.

[pacifist]

wedgie or toadface or frogmouth or whoever,

I don't know why you stick to Hosen's report. It is well-known that Japan (the Shogunate) thought that Uleungdo was Japanese territory until the dispute occured in the late 17th century, as you can see on various other documents.

You seem to be trying to throw cold water on Japanese evidences but it's useless. toadface (wedgie), you are the lier, not me.

[wedgie]

Pacifist you said on Occidentalism and I quote.

First you said this.

"It shouldn’t mean that Oki is the boundary, because Oki is the cardinal point of this report. There is no need to report about the stories of northwest islands if he meant to say that Oki is the boundary.
bullshit1

They you said this.
"The Hosen Sito’s report is about Ulleungdo and surroundings, not about Oki because they already knew every inch of Oki and no need to report about Oki."

You can read the quote right here.
bullshit2

It's clear you are very deceptive Pacifist.

[pacifist]

wedgie, or toadface,

It is still exact what I wrote; " because Oki is the cardinal point of this report",..... this is about the report about the circumference of Oki, I didn't mention the whole book here.

This part began with several directions viewed from Oki - at first he looked at south, then south east, and south west, then north to east, and then north west (Takeshima/Dokdo and Ulleungdo are there).
At the end of the sentence, you read "this land at north west of Japan, this is the boundary". You have to notice that what lies at "north west" of Japan, and north west of Oki too.

And about the next text which I wrote;
"The Hosen Saito’s report is about Ulleungdo and surroundings, not about Oki because they already knew every inch of Oki and no need to report about Oki."
I may mentioned too far, I admit, but the part in problem is about Ulleungdo and surroundings, although whole the book is about what the author had seen or heard on Onshu. But anyway, it is absurd to say that Oki is the boundary because Oki is the main island of the Oki county (Onshu).

toadface, all you can do is to dig up somebody's old postings? What a miserable man!

[wedgie]

Nice try Pacifist.

Caught in your lies. I posted the links to prove you are a deceptive doubletalker.

Is this how the Japanese plan to prove Dokdo is Japanese territory. By deceit....?

Shameful.

[pacifist]

wedgie or toadface,

What are you talking about?
Let's talk about Takeshima/Dokdo, without barking like a dog.

If you still believe that Dokdo belongs to Korea, please show me the evidence that Korea knew or used it before the 17th century. If you can't show the evidence, then you have to admit that Korea has no right to claim Dokdo.

It has not been known to Korea until early 20th century, wedgie or toadface. You have to be open-minded to receive the truth.

[wedgie]

Pacifist, you have to be truthful to open my mind. But I have shown you are not.

The Dokdo issue is more than a historical claims issue. The Japanese didn't annex Dokdo in 1905 as a historical land claim.

Japan has to prove the 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was legitimate if not Korea's claim is valid.
Japans claim of Dokdo is flawed for a few reasons.
1. The announcement made was internal and made by a regional branch of government. Local government announcements cannot be seen as intent of a state's will.
2. The Japanese annexed Dokdo for the purpose of installing military watchtowers during the Russo-Japanese War. Military acquistions are not legal basis for acquiring land.
3. Korea had already incorporated Dokdo in 1900.
4. Upon hearing Dokdo was annexed Korea contested the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion but the Korean Foreign Affairs Office was under the control of the Japanese. Effective control of acquired land must be uncontested.
5. Dokdo was not "terra nullius" as the Japanese say. There are documents proving the Koreans were cognizant and involved in the island prior to the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

I have been out for a holiday, sorry for the delay in answering.

But you are still saying all the same things although you had to learn something from what we have argued. (sigh)

1. (The announcement made was internal and made by a regional branch of government. Local government announcements cannot be seen as intent of a state's will.)

You lack proper understanding.
The incorporation of Takeshima (Dokdo) was decided by the Cabinet meeting on 28th January 1905. The Minister of the Interior gave instructions to Shimane prefecture to make a public announcement. It was not done by a local government.
And the incorporation of Takeshima was openly announced in newspapers.

Koreans used to say that it was not informed to Korea so that it was not efficient, but it was not true. Under the international laws, there is not always a duty to inform the incorporation to surrounding countries. More important thing is to practically control the island. It was controlled practically by Japan. So there is no right for Korea to claim the island.

2. (The Japanese annexed Dokdo for the purpose of installing military watchtowers during the Russo-Japanese War. Military acquistions are not legal basis for acquiring land.)

It was true that there was a menace of Russia at that time, but the incorporation was not made for this reason. It was discussed because of Yozaburo Nakai's plea. Once it was announced to be Japan's territory, it's no wonder they used it for the Russo-Japanese war as well as other Japanese islands.

I can't understand why you stick to this matter. Russo-Japanese war (and the former war with China) were fought not only for Japan but also for Korean people. You must keep this in your mind.

3. (Korea had already incorporated Dokdo in 1900.)

Do you still believe this big lie? It only said that Sokdo was under control of a county of Korea. Nobody proved that Sokdo was Dokdo. It has been said that Sokdo is one of the small islands around Ulleungdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo.

4. (Upon hearing Dokdo was annexed Korea contested the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion but the Korean Foreign Affairs Office was under the control of the Japanese. Effective control of acquired land must be uncontested.)

No, it was not true.
In 1905 the Great Empire of Korea was still an independent country although Japan had some effects on them. They could resist if they felt that they should do so, but there was no trace of their refutations. It was because they thought the island was Japan's territory.

5. (Dokdo was not "terra nullius" as the Japanese say. There are documents proving the Koreans were cognizant and involved in the island prior to the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion.)

There was no documents, wedgie. You should show them here if you believe so.

[manchu]

Pacifist,

You must be a typical Japanese who knows nothing but telling lies or completely insane.

You wrote "in 1905 the Great Empire of Korea was still an independent country although Japan had some effects on them. They could resist if they felt that they should do so, but there was no trace of their refutations. It was because they thought the island was Japan's territory."

Few years before 1905, the Korean Queen was brutally murdered by a group of Japanese, but the Korean government at the time was not able to protest against the Japanese. By 1905, virtually all Korean government affairs were under the control of Japan and the Koreans were in no position to protest anything the Japanese did.

Go ahead and be proud of the country that steals Korean and Chinese islands, that denies Nanking massacre and killing millions of Chinese, that teaches its children Japan was tricked into attacking the U.S., and that Japan is a victim not an aggressor of the war, that lies about everything and knows nothing of the value of truth.

However, you should know that we, Chinese (there are 1.2 billions of us and has the fastest growing economy) are just waiting until we are strong enough to eliminate your disgusting Japanese race from the face of the earth. So enjoy and lie away while you can. I think that you only have another 30 years.

[pacifist]

Manchu,

You must study hard about true history, although unfortunately Chinese people hadn't been given historical truth.

Do you know Mao killed 10 or 20 millions of Chinese people during the cultural revolution? The victims were far larger than victims killed by Japanese army during the WWII.

You Chinese must reconsider that there has been no democracy in China, they have been taught distorted history. And they haven't been taught some truths that were disadvantages to China.

Do you know Japan has a peaceful consitution and she never used military power for 60 years after WWII, while China invaded Tibet and slaughtered thousands of Tibetan people under the name of "liberation of Tibet"? And do you know about China's invasion to Vietnam?
Who is the military country, Japan or China?

You must behave yourself, Chinese people. Your country is full of lies and deceptions. And your country has a big problem - it's a discrepancy of urban rich people and poor peasants in the country, the latter is majority in number. It will shake the whole country in the near future. China is no longer a communist country without equality of income, and is not a democratic country without freedom of press, freedom of speech etc and without proper information.

If China will become a true great country in the world, it will occur after a collapse of the social system just like Soviet Union or East European countries.

Back to Korea, your opinion is not true. Korean diplomacy was alive in the time when Japan incorporated Takeshima (Dokdo) in January 1905. It was deprived on 17th November 1905, with the second Japan-Korean agreement (第二次日韓協約・乙巳条約).

And you should learn why this agreement was needed. It was because Korean Emperor sent a confidential letter to Russia during Japan and Russia had been in the war. It would not be wonder if Japan declared war against Korea (but she didn't).

[manchu]

Pacifist,
Unlike you, a typical Japanese who has no respect for truth, I can agree with you in regard to China because what you say is true. I am fully aware of the problems China faces.
And another thing, I’m a Chinese-American, and educated in the states so don’t give me crap about the idea that I was brainwashed by the Chinese school system. My knowledge of history is from what I learned in school in the U.S., and from my grandfather who experienced the Japanese atrocity when he lived in China.
China is in a period of transition. It is true that China has been acting irresponsibly recently; however I firmly believe that this period will be short and China will transform itself in the next generation into a fully functioning democracy. It will use its economic and military power responsibly as it has done for thousands of years. A careful study in Chinese and East Asian history indicates that a strong China always was a source of stability and prosperity in the region, quite unlike a strong Japan which was a source of wars, instability, and misery in the region. Can you recall a person named Hideyoshi who invaded Korea and China from your history class?
Japan, even after 60 years of so called democracy and the peace constitution, is unable to come to terms with the true history of atrocity and misery they caused to their neighbors and to some extent to themselves. Japan is like an insecure and immature 10 year-old boy who is unable and unwilling to admit he did something wrong, and tries to find every conceivable reason to justify his actions. The Japanese simply don’t understand that a mature person or a nation does admit mistakes because this is a sign of maturity and honor. Why is it that everybody knows this except the Japanese? And this why you have to say a lie like “Korean diplomacy was alive in the time when Japan incorporated Takeshima (Dokdo) in January 1905. It was deprived on 17th November 1905, with the second Japan-Korean agreement”. It might have been existed officially, but it, along with most of government affairs, was name only and under the control of Japan and was in no position to protest against the Japanese. If you cannot admit this, you are simply proving my point that Japanese are genetically incapable of knowing truth.
Get the hell out of Diaoyu Islands, stop claiming Dokto belongs to Japan, and stop demanding Russia return Kurile Islands. Is it any wonder why a selfish country like Japan is in a territory dispute with all its neighboring countries?

[pacifist]

Dear Manchu,

You said, "I firmly believe that this period will be short and China will transform itself in the next generation into a fully functioning democracy".

I think it's a very optimistic view. They won't let their people know the very truth because if the Chinese people would know the truth, the politicians have to go out of the power and the Communist Party will have to break up. And there will be independent movement from Tibet, Inner Mongolia etc as like Soviet Union once experienced.

You also stated, "It will use its economic and military power responsibly as it has done for thousands of years".

But history of China is the history of wars and invasions. There were Warring States Periods repeatedly for thousands of years. The People's Republic of China is only one of them. (Unfortunately Japan had once been one of them too but now Japan and China were reconciled in early seventies.)

We should aware of China's expansive military power. She is always making trouble with surrounding nations, such as India, Russia and Japan. According to the Shinocentric thought, China recognised its surrounding countries, tributaries in old days, as parts of China. Korea was a tributary, and Ryukyu (Okinawa) of Japan was once a tributary too. They naturally thought Tibet was their territory. So surrounding countries should be aware of China's expansionism.

They naturally think they would get these countries or places by military force in the future. The issue of the islands 尖閣諸島　（Chinese name: 釣魚台) is on the same line of troubles. China hasn't got interested in the islands until 1971 when the underground resources in this area were found, while Japan used the islands from the 1880's. But now they insist it's theirs without firm grounds, except one thing - that it's near to their former tributary, Ryukyu.

This is a copy of a letter of thanks by the Republic of China when Chinese fishermen were rescued by Japanese islanders in 1920. There is a name of the islands, which was written as Japanese island. http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/senkaku/testimonial1920.jpg

You insisted that strong China will stabilize Asia but it's a dangerous thought.

As you know, Japan is the first country in Asia who developed westernized democracy at the Meiji Restoration in the late 19th century and there were many Chinese students who learned democracy in Japan in that era. But China is still out of the circle of democratic countries.

In regard of Korea, I think your thought is unreasonable but even if you are right and Korea wanted to object at that time, still they can't claim Dokdo because there is no ground that they knew and owned Dokdo before Japan knew it and used it.

[pacifist]

addendum:

Here is the explanation about "Senkaku" islands by Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands

From 1885 on, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had been thoroughly made by the Government of Japan through the agencies of Okinawa Prefecture and by way of other methods. Through these surveys, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been uninhabited and showed no trace of having been under the control of China. Based on this confirmation, the Government of Japan made a Cabinet Decision on 14 January 1895 to erect a marker on the Islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan.

Since then, the Senkaku Islands have continuously remained as an integral part of the Nansei Shoto Islands which are the territory of Japan. These islands were neither part of Taiwan nor part of the Pescadores Islands which were ceded to Japan from the Qing Dynasty of China in accordance with Article II of the Treaty of Shimonoseki which came into effect in May of 1895.

Accordingly, the Senkaku Islands are not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article II of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The Senkaku Islands have been placed under the administration of the United States of America as part of the Nansei Shoto Islands, in accordance with Article III of the said treaty, and are included in the area, the administrative rights over which were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands signed on 17 June 1971. The facts outlined herein clearly indicate the status of the Senkaku Islands being part of the territory of Japan.

The fact that China expressed no objection to the status of the Islands being under the administration of the United States under Article III of the San Francisco Peace Treaty clearly indicates that China did not consider the Senkaku Islands as part of Taiwan. It was not until the latter half of 1970, when the question of the development of petroleum resources on the continental shelf of the East China Sea came to the surface, that the Government of China and Taiwan authorities began to raise questions regarding the Senkaku Islands.

Furthermore, none of the points raised by the Government of China as "historic, geographic or geological" evidence provide valid grounds, in light of international law, to support China's arguments regarding the Senkaku Islands.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[wedgie]

Pacifist. There is nobody West of Oki Island who believes the rubbish you are putting down. You may have been on vacation but you are “out to lunch” about the Dokdo Issue.

The Japanese announcement of the incorporation of Dokdo was made by a regional branch of government. Regional governments have no power to declare lands on behalf of the state in the international forum of political affairs. The issue of giving notification as not being necessary is the Japanese Governments opinion. It is based on the Palmas Islands case but the Japanese Government fails to go into detail as the differences between Palmas Islands and Dokdo. They are not the same cases at all. The Shimane Prefecture notice was made in a local newspaper with an ad about the size of a postage stamp When Japan acquired the Bonin Island they notified the British and the Americans numerous times.

When the Japanese told the Koreans that they had annexed Dokdo both the Ulleungdo Governor and the Domestic Affairs Office and stated Dokdo was part of Uldo country. Two national newspapers the Daehan Ilbo and the Hwaseongshinmun also contested the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion. Judge Max Huber once commented that to acquire land under terra nullius the land must be “uncontested” Dokdo was contested on both definitions of the word. In the legal-formal definition Dokdo was contested as shown in the document sent from Uldo Governor Shim Heung Daek and by the reponse of the Domestic Affairs Office. Dokdo was also contested in that the aforementioned references prove Korea was using the island and thus vying for ownership.

Korea protested the inclusion with what governmental organizations were still intact. Korea could not make an international state-to-state protest because their foreign affairs office had been dismantled upon signing article 2 of the coerced 1904 Protectorate Treaty as mentioned by Manchu.

There are documents that show Koreans used the island before Japan incorporated Dokdo. One is of course the logbooks of the warship Niitaka. Another is the Fishing Manual of the Black Dragon Organization. The testimony of Nikai Yozuburo also shows us that the Japanese were aware the Koreans were using the island and even thought that Dokdo was Korean territory. Are you trying to tell me in the midst of the Russo-Japanese war the Japanese felt an urgent need to incorporate Dokdo because they were in desperate need of seal oil….? That’s funny Pacifist.

Sokdo equals Dokdo can be debated forever but I haven’t seen any proof otherwise except for some shabby old Japanese Navy survey map where they try to tell us they used Kanji to represent the Korean So-koudo pronunciation. This is lame.

There is a big lie about Dokdo and it comes from the Japanese Foreign Ministry. They try to tell us Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan when almost all maps of Japan pre-1905 (and many after) exclude Dokdo from Japanese territory. Dokdo historically was seen as an appended island of Ulluengdo by Japanese. There is no Japanese document or map that separates Dokdo from Ulleungdo.

You shouldn’t treat readers on this forum like fools Pacifist everyone knows the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion is a relic from the colonial era. There is no separation between the issue of Dokdo and Japanese expansionism in Northeast Asia during the late 1800s and early 20th century. The colonial era is dead Pacifist and with it the land

Look at the anger and animosity by the post of Manchu. Don’t’ try to slough off his statement as being radical or off-the-wall. I’ve lived long enough in Asia to know how much Chinese Koreans and most other nations still harbor a deep hatred of Japanese. Ask yourself why.

There isn’t a chance in Hell Japan will ever own Dokdo Island. Korea will never give up the island. Never. So, why don’t the Japnese just accept this fact and simply make a big public show out of dropping their claim. It would set Japanese-Korean relations on the right track

[pacifist]

wedgie,

Didn't you read my posting on the September 7th?

I repeat here:
"The incorporation of Takeshima (Dokdo) was decided by the Cabinet meeting on 28th January 1905. The Minister of the Interior gave instructions to Shimane prefecture to make a public announcement. It was not done by a local government.
And the incorporation of Takeshima was openly announced in newspapers.

Koreans used to say that it was not informed to Korea so that it was not efficient, but it was not true. Under the international laws, there is not always a duty to inform the incorporation to surrounding countries. More important thing is to practically control the island. It was controlled practically by Japan. So there is no right for Korea to claim the island".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You insist that when the Japanese told the Koreans that they had annexed Dokdo both the Ulleungdo Governor and the Domestic Affairs Office and stated Dokdo was part of Uldo country.
But then, why didn't they know the exact location of the island?

If they truly owned the island they should have known the exact location. The fact they didn't know it shows that they only pretended as if they have known it or simply they may have mistaken it for another island.

You also wrote "There are documents that show Koreans used the island before Japan incorporated Dokdo". But your understanding is very poor. The ground of your theory you mentioned, the records of Niitaka and the Black Dragon organisation, didn't say that Takeshima/Dokdo was Korean territory.

wedgie, why do you Koreans always use Japanese documents to prove that Korea owned Dokdo? It is simply because they don't have any evidence to show that Korea owned the island. Agree?

Why do not Korean documents say the exact location of Dokdo? Why do not Korean maps depict exact shape of Dokdo?
It's because they didn't know the island until they were hired as fishermen by Japanese in the early 20th centry.

If you still want to grasp at a straw, you should show the clear evidence that Korea knew the island.

[wegie]

Pacifist the Minister of the Interior is not a state-to-state external organ of government and thus not the proper channel of government to announce a national land acquisition that would affect neighboring countries. When Japan acquired the Bonin Islands they notified the Americans and the Brits numerous times.

It’s clear why the Japanese clandestinely incorporated Dokdo. All through the 19th century foreign powers were trying to gain an upper hand in controlling Korea. Japan was worried there would be foreign intervention in Korea if they found out Japan was grabbing land in the region. Upon signing several treaties after the Russo-Japanese war with Russia, England and the Taft-Katsura agreement. Japan realized that she had a free hand in Korea and was now a continental power.

Putting an ad the size of a postage stamp in the Shimane local newspaper is not the proper channel to announce publicly to the world that you have decided to extend the international boundary of your country. This is why people outside of Japan will never accept Japan’s claim to Dokdo. Even if Japan acquires the best lawyers in the world the public can read between the lines and understand exactly what Japanese Imperialist were doing in Asia at the time. Japanese were emulating Western colonial nations and they were using international “law” to grab land from poorer nations. This mode of thinking is long since dead Pacifist. The methods the Japanese used to acquire land in Asia is just as illegal as what the colonial Europeans did in Africa. However, most of the Europeans have grown up and realized what they did was wrong. Japan hasn’t…….

Whether or not the location of Dokdo given by the Ulleungdo governor is moot. The Koreans contested the inclusion. If you want to complain about the location, well the Japanese also misplaced Dokdo on the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion documents. The governor of Uldo was not a cartographer.

First the Japanese Foreign Ministry asserts that Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan and at the same time they say it was terra nullius. Can you see how they contradict themselves? It’s no wonder they craftily dropped the terra nullius part of their claim.

The ambiguity of Chosun’s documents isn’t Japan’s strength. Every time Japanese are pushed into a corner about how weak THEIR claim is they automatically point to the crude nature of Chosun maps and documents.

Look, Korea has Dokdo Island. They have managed the island now for far longer than the Japanese. If they Japanese want Dokdo they have to put forward something better than the shabby colonial relic Shimane Prefecture Inclusion. This is a piece of crap document drawn up a whole year after Japanese troops landed in Incheon Harbor after attacking the Russian fleet. Korea was essentially an occupied country at this time.

Get out of the colonial era Pacifist.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

You seemed to have brainwashed to believe every lies Korean government gave.

Korea didn't contest becauase everybody knew that the island belonged to Japan. They claimed for it for the first time during the SF peace talk.

Japan knew the island and used it since the 17th century (while Korea didn't know the island and didn't use it) but the new Meiji government didn't have exact knowledge so Yozaburo Nakai asked their government whether it belonged to Japan or not. The Japanese government incorporated it as a re-confirmation of Japanese territory because it was left unclear during the 19th century.

Of course, there was a menace of Russia and it was a time for the world to make their boundaries clear, so it was natural to reconfirm the territory.

Anyway, the island had not been known to Koreans and not been used by Koreans until they were hired by Japanese in the 20th century. There is no way for Korea to claim for it as Rusk's document clearly says.

[pacifist]

Correction:
(Sorry, there were some mistakes as it was written in a short time.)

The corrected posting:

wedgie,

You seemed to have been brainwashed to believe every lie Korean government gave.

Korea didn't contest because everybody knew that the island belonged to Japan. They claimed for it for the first time during the SF peace talk.

Japan knew the island and used it since the 17th century (while Korea didn't know the island and didn't use it) but the new Meiji government didn't have exact knowledge so Yozaburo Nakai asked their government whether it belonged to Japan or not. The Japanese government incorporated it as a re-confirmation of Japanese territory because it was left unclear during the 19th century.

Of course, there was a menace of Russia and it was a time for the world to make their boundaries clear, so it was natural to reconfirm the territory.

Anyway, the island had not been known to Koreans and not been used by Koreans until they were hired by Japanese in the 20th century. There is no way for Korea to claim for it as Rusk's document clearly says.

[JK]

wedgie and manchu,

Well done! Keep showing the idiotic right-wing Japanese nationalists, like pacifist, how wrong they are. The idiots like pacifist refuse to see the truth.

[pacifist]

Hey JK,

What are you talking about?
I am not a right wing nationalist, I am a ordinary and normal Japanese.

You, JK and wedgie, were brainwahed by Korean government and you were made to believe that Dokdo was yours, but look around the world!

There is no evidence that Korea owned the island. If you believe an idea without evidence and if it is not correctable with reasonable persuasions, it is called as "delusion" in the psychological field - you should have been made to do so by someone without noticing it.

You have to notice yourself about the brainwashing policy by the Korean government.

[Andy]

JK,
Welcome to my Jeongja.

I have stayed out of this arguement because it has been heated but pretty interesting. Please try to refrain from calling other commenters idiots as it tends to raise heat without raising light.

[JK]

Andy,

I will respect your request.

But pacifist, wedgie and manchu HAVE presented evidence. Others have at other pages as well. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this. Why?

[Andy]

I admit that it may be a fine line between saying someone 'has been brainwashed' and someone 'is an idiot' but that is were I draw the line. Otherwise, this has been a pretty interesting argument.

I have no problem with y'all going at it a few more rounds, just please refrain from personal insults.

[JK]

Miscommunication, Andy. My first paragraph in previous comment was to you. The second paragraph was addressed to pacifist, the brainwashed right-wing Japanese. :)

[Andy]

OK

[pacifist]

JK,

Both wedgie and manchu haven't presented evidence. What are you calling evidence?

There is NO EVIDENCE to show that Korea knew the island and used it before the 20th century.

The name of an island, Usando, that Korean government used to identify as Dokdo was not Dokdo because the depiction that people were cultivating and living there was not fit to the rock formation.
Also there is no proof to identify Seokdo as Dokdo.

There has NEVER been a map of Dokdo with the unique shape of two rock islets in Korea (though there were several accurate maps in Japan in the 17th century).

So how do you prove that Korea knew the island before Japan knew and used it since 17th century?

Brainwashing education was actually put into effect in the 1940's in Japan but no such education has not been adopted since 1945 in Japan.
But in Korea, the war condition has been continued and it is widely known that they are still doing the brainwashing education.

Look at the site below. You can understand what I am talking about, if you have normal mind. http://www.geocities.jp/bxninjin2004/data_room/05/cache/01/indexphp.htm

[JK]

Pacifist,

*sigh* Wedgie and manchu HAVE presented evidence that shows that Korea had dominion over Korea long ago. You are just being pig-headed and insulting and acting like a brainwashed product of the Japanese educational system that is denial of Japan's historical wrongdoings.

You are so quick to say Koreans are brainwashed yet you deny that Japanese are when they so clearly are. I have seen your comments on various posts and when someone gives a sound logical argument that Korea rightfully owns Dokdo, you insult the person and generalize the person as a "brainwashed Korean."

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. My personal belief is that Dokdo always did belong to Korea and that EVEN IF Japan has a legitimate claim to it (which it doesn't), Korea owns it now. One could view it as a war reparation for the crimes that Japan committed between 1895-1945.

[pacifist]

JK,

I haven't insulted anyone before, but I think that someone who insists "Dokdo is ours (Koreans')" without gound evidence should reconsiderate.

You haven't shown clear evidence but only speculations, they won't persuade the world.

If you refute, please show here the evidence, not speculations.

[JK]

The evidence has already been shown time and time again, among them JAPANESE maps. It is YOU who have not shown any evidence. Please do so.

Until then, Korea will continue to control Dokdo. :)

[JK]

And yes, you have insulted, pacifist. On more than one occasion you have insulted ANYONE who made good arguments that Korea is the rightful owner of DOkdo. You have done so for me. You have done so for toadface. You have done so and said we are all brain-washed. It is YOU who are brainwashed and rrfuse to see the truth.

[JP]

It is very interesting how all the arguments are presented. It seems though there are wealth of documents from Japan that points that they were very confused about where Dokdo/Takeshima belonged. But documents from Korea, although lacking in number, they are consistant in their claim. One thing we have to remember that many Korean historical documents are destroyed during the annexation of korea for 36 years. It was documented by diary of a japanese official in Korea, "In first two weeks of August in 1945 when defeat of war was evident, we were ordered to destroy documents after documents..."
Who knows what was destroyed or stolen during those 36 brutal years.

[wedgie]

Is this thread still alive??

Anyway I've been gathering data for my website these days and there seems to be documented evidence from Korean and Japanese sources that says Usando=Matsushima=Dokdo.

Usando

Japanese maps did not show Dokdo as Japanese

Japnese national maps

Japanese prefecuture maps did not show Dokdo as Japanese.

Shimane Prefecuture Maps

Dokdo's inclusion was contested by the Koreans

Korean Contentions

Korea was under Japanese protectorate control as of February 1904 and could not launch a state to state objection

Korean historical backrgound

I've been working on my website lately so I might not be back for a while...cheers!!

[JK]

Wedgie, good links! Thanks. Now we know the truth, which is that Japan took Korean territory against Koreans' will and that Japan is now lying about having some sort of legitimate claim to Dokdo Island.

[JK]

I wonder what nonsense pacifist, Gerry Bevers, and Matt have to make against your truthful statements, Wedgie.

[wedgie]

Gerry has some valid points however, it seems he focuses on maps that usually have glaring errors and then fills in the blanks with his own interpretations. You will often see words like "this suggests", "I think" or "this is most likely..." etc on his posts. What I'm trying to do with my website is present documents and maps that are clear and not as open to so many interpretations.

The most serious flaw in the Pro-Takeshima side is the complete lack of historical context with regard to the 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion. That is why I posted the page regarding Japan's activities in Korea/Asia even decades prior to their annexation of Dokdo.
dokdo perspective

I was pretty surprised to see one of the documents that claimed Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean territories also included plans for the invasion of Korea. This document would foreshadow the Japanese warship Unyo's "attack" at Gangwahdo five years later.
1870document

The Japanese had over 250 years to incorporate Dokdo yet they waited until the height of the Russo~Japanese war when they had already bullied Korea into signing the 1904 Protectorate Treaty. Japanese colonial ambitions in Asia and Dokdo are not separable.

[JK]

Excellent analysis, wedgie. I like reading analyses like yours that are objective and don't involve too much negative emotions, as exhibited by people like Gerry, Matt, and Pacifist.

[pacifist]

Wedgie,

I have not been able to post my comments for unknown technical reasons but it recovered thanks to Andy.

Now let’s see your opinions:
> Usando=Matsushima=Dokdo.
>Usando

This only shows how Koreans were confused about Ulleungdo and Usando. You can’t say that Usando was Takeshima/Dokdo with these inaccurate maps. At least, it is clear that Koreans didn’t know the exact shape and exact location of Takeshima/Dokdo.

> Japanese maps did not show Dokdo as Japanese

For your convenience, here are the sites of the old maps in Japan. All of them have the figure of Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo).
1701:
http://www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08330001/CJA08330001-7.html

The 1724 map of Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo):
http://groups.msn.com/LiancourtRocksDokdoorTakeshima/
oldjapanesemaps.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=32

1783 map of Japan (to magnify, click + and click the map):
http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/sumita/map/5C278java.html

1791:
http://www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08343001/CJA08343001-5.html
1811:
http://www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08344001/CJA08344001-7.html

1833:
http://www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08345001/CJA08345001-7.html

1837 (to magnify click +):
http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/sumita/map/5C015java.html

1843 (to magnify click +):
http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/sumita/map/5C082java.html

1849:
http://www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08299001/CJA08299001-5.html

1853:
http://www2.library.tohoku.ac.jp/kano/kochizu/CJA08291001/CJA08291001-4.html
Many maps after the 17th century featured the island called Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo), while no depiction of the island in Korean maps.

> I was pretty surprised to see one of the documents that claimed Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean territories also included plans for the invasion of Korea. This document would foreshadow the Japanese warship Unyo's "attack" at Gangwahdo five years later.
> 1870document

I saw your site and I was pretty surprised to see how you distorted the document. This famous Japanese document only says “Takeshima-Matsushima belong to Chosun” (Matsushima in this document doesn’t mean the old Matsushima in the Edo period, it may mean another island beside Ulleungdo because the document clearly says Matsushima as “the neighboring island of Ulleungdo” (the island 92km far away is not a neighbor) and also says that “there has been no records concerning Matsushima” while there have been various documents concerning the old Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo).

Looking back at the 1867 map by Kaisyu Katsu, there were three islands in the sea, Takeshima (Ulleungdo), Matsushima or Holly rock (ghost island, later recodnized as nothing) and Liancourt rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo). So there is a possibility that the island Matsushima in the 1870 doc indicated the Matsushima (Holly rock) in the 1867 map.
Anyway, the new Meiji government had only vague information about the islands in the area, so they investigated later year and found the trueth. So wedgie, you can’t use this doc as an “evidence” to prove that Takeshima/Dokdo was Korean territory.

[wedgie]

Pacifist, if you have a theory as to which territory was Jukdo in the 1870 document please produce a map to buttress you argument and then stick with it instead of playing the "Takeshima Island Shell Game"

The 1870 document clearly states that Jukdo Island was the island disputed during the Genrukdo era. Thus Jukdo is Ulleungdo. The Japanese could not have been describing Argonaut as it did not exist. There is absolutely NO maps that show a nieghbour island of Ulleungdo named Songdo. Maybe Songdo is Hawaii but if you have no historical maps or documents on which to base your theory you are dead wrong. Period.

What we do with maps is analyse as many maps as possible and then make a conclusion based on the total information at hand. These three island maps you cite are as rare as hen's teeth. There are probably hundreds of Japanese maps that show Ulleungdo and Dokdo in Westerly locations and about half a dozen that show three. This is not a trend and can't be said as an accurate representation of Japanese perceptions of the time.

Pacifist I don't usually cite Chosun maps as accurate for position of Usando because the maps are too inconsistent to base a theory on. I use both Japanese and Korean historical documents that clearly state "Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima..." These references are black and white and very clear. If you wish to take the stance that Usando is a neighbour island of Ulleungdo you must give clear documents or accurate maps.

Usando is Dokdo

There are maps that show an island called Usando positioned next to Ulleungdo but all the other islands on these maps are on the wrong side. In addition we can't be sure Chosun cartographers didn't move Usando closer to Ulleungdo to denote ownership which was a common mapping practice during this era. Also, if you look at these Ulleungdo-Usando maps you see the same glaring errors with regard to island positons proving these maps were copied through the ages all the way down to the Daehanjiji of 1899.

You post these Japanese maps with Ulleungdo and Dokdo all of the time. These maps show only the Japanese knew of Ulleungdo and Dokdo. This proves cognizance not ownership. Nobody dares argue that the Japanese weren't aware of Dokdo. What I have told you a thousand times is none of these maps can be construed as ownership of Dokdo. Ulleungdo is included on these maps and we all know Ulleungdo was undisputed Chosun land from at least 1696.

The truth is Dokdo belongs to Ulleungdo. There is not one historical record prior to the illegal Shimane Prefecture Inclusion that separates Ulleungdo from Dokdo. Not one. There is not one document showing Japanese visited Dokdo as a sole destination. Ulleungdo was the big prize in the East Sea. When the Ulleungdo issue was resolved the Japanese had no reason to travel five days return to a rock with little fresh water and poor fishing.

Dokdo belongs to Ulleungdo. Ulleungdo belongs to Korea

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> The 1870 document clearly states that Jukdo Island was the island disputed during the Genrukdo era.

I repeatedly say that the 1870 document was only an internal document inside the new Meiji government (the new government didn't receive records and documents from the Edo Shogunate) and the document only reconfirmed the treaty between the Japanese Shogunate and Chosun that was concluded in the late 17th century.

In the 17th century, Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was given to Korea as a favor and the Shogunate ordered not to tresspass the island but the Shogunate didn't prohibit to go to Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo and liancourt rocks in the 19th century) because it was thought to be Japanese territory.

So when Meiji government re-confirmed the treaty of the late 17th century, it can't include Takeshima/Dokdo (Liancourt rocks at that time).
Even if the Meiji government took a mistake to interpret the treaty and wrote mistakenly that Takeshima/Dokdo (Liancourt rocks) to be Korean territory, Korea can't claim for the island because it was merely a mistake and not a historical truth. How can Korea claim for Takeshima/Dokdo while she didn't knew the island before the early 20th century?

Korea didn't know about Takeshima/Dokdo until the early 20th century and its popularity spread after the Rhee line was set after the WWII. There was no name for the island until the 20th century.

Japan has evidences to show that they knew and used the island from the early 17th century. There are documents and maps to show it. But Korea has not. If Korea knew the island, please show here the evidence.

Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo, as you already know. The old Korean books say that there were people living and cultivating in Usando but you can't live and cultivate on rock formation like Takeshima/Dokdo.
If you still insist that Usando was Dokdo, you have to show clear evidence but you have none.

You wrote "Dokdo belongs to Ulleungdo" but there is no evidence to show it. Generally speaking, a small island 92km away is not to be thought as a same group, especially in the old times when the sailing was more dangerous than today and a ship needed one day to reach Takeshima/Dokdo.

Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo, it was highly possibly Jukdo where people could live as old Korean books say and it was thought to be a group with Ulleungdo.
It is natural to think so.

If you still insist that Takeshima/Dokdo belongs to Ulleungdo, you have to show the evidence here but you can't, because there is no Korean name to indicate Takeshima/Dokdo in those days.

[wedgie]

Pacifist. Koreans knew of Dokdo/Usando/Matsushima and this was confirmed during the Anyongbok incident. Both Korean and Japanese records of this incident confirm this. The Anyongbok incident dispute was about Jukdo and Songdo. This is recorded in Japanese documents as well.

You can see Jukdo and Songdo under Kangwando Province when Anyongbok wrote the eight provinces of Korea on this Japanese transcript found in 2005 in Shimane Prefecture.

Anyongbok Document

To say Koreans weren't aware of Matsushima is a Japanese lie. The 1808 Korean Yojiji Gazette clearly clearly states. Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima. This was prior to any mapping confusion from Seibold. Anyongbok also stated Usando was Matsushima he quoted a distance much to far for Usando to have been any other island than Dokdo. Even Shimane newspapers such as the Sanin Chuo Shimpo reported it appears that Anyongbok's dispute involved Dokdo when the family documents were uncovered in 2005.

Anyongbok Japanese documents

I'm getting sick of this lame excuse by Takeshima advocates that Songdo refers to some "other island" in the 1870 document. Obviously when the Japanese drew up this document they were referring to some maps. That being said, please put your money where your mouth is and show me one map Pacifist to support this theory that Songdo is another island other than Dokdo. We know that for 150 years prior to this document Japanese labelled Dokdo as Songdo. It is your bizarre idea Pacifist so it is up to you to back up your ideas with some maps to prove it. Otherwise quit making a fool of yourself by posting rubbish.

Whether the 1870 document is internal or external is moot. It shoots big holes in the ridiculous assertions of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's claims that Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan from ancient times. What a crock!! There are no Japanese maps that prove Dokdo was part of Japanese territory prior to their military annexation of Dokdo. NOT ONE.
However some Japanese maps prove Dokdo is Korean
Dokdo as Chosun Land
Dokdo as Chosun territory
This maps show typical positioning of Ulleungdo and Dokdo as all Japanese maps of the era. It is not Ulleungdo double-mapped as the Japanese Takeshima advocates would like us to believe because there are no other islands present on these maps. If these maps were double-mapping Ulleungdo there would be three islands in the East Sea. The Japanese had been mapping Ulleungdo as 竹島 and Dokdo as 松島 for over a 150 years prior to these maps.

Japanese used Dokdo only as a passage to Ulleungdo. They visited Ulleungdo clandestinely and illegally even after the Shogunate reconfirmed Ulluengdo and Dokdo as Korean territory. It doesn't mean they considered either territory as theirs.

I gave you several historical documents that clearly state Usando is Matsushima if you can't read or you don't believe them that is your problem. Both Korean and Japanese documents say Usando is Dokdo. Deal with it, or find CLEAR documents (as I have) to prove your point instead of picking out minute inconsistencies from the ambiguous 300 year old documents.
Historical documents say Usando is Dokdo

[JK]

Well stated, Wedgie! Keep speaking the truth and back it up with proof and people will know that you are right....even people like Pacifist who is brainwashed to the extent that he cannot see the truth if it were to hit him in the face.

[pacifist]

Thanks wedgie, yes! - Ahn Yong-Bok was the key person (I agree with you) but I mean he was the culprit to make Korean people believe the myth of Usando.
Ahn was a hero in Korea but for Japan he was a poacher and was a criminal who smuggled himself into Japan. There was a completely different evaluation about him.

It is a long story, so I would like to divide into three parts.

(1) Before Ahn Yong-Bok (1692)
In the 17th century (while Chosun enforced “empty island” policy), Ulleungdo was thought to be Japanese territory for at least 80 years from the early 17th century until the dispute began.
In 1692, Japanese fishermen found Korean fishermen gathering seaweed (Wakame) and abalones in Ulleungdo, which was, by the way, an illegal thing for Koreans because of the “empty island” policy. (See the details below)

On March 26th 1692, when the fishermen from the Murakawas reached Igashima （伊賀島; Jukdo in Korea）and saw Ulleungdo, they noticed that something was wrong. Many abalones were dried under the sun. There was somebody gathering abalones and fishing. Next day (27th) they went to Ulleungdo and saw two strange ships. One ship with about 30 people went by Murakawa’s ship. There were two foreigners on a boat offshore, so Murakawas called them and asked them, “Where did you come from?”. One of the fishermen said that they came from “Kawatenkawagu” of Chosun. One of Murakawas said to them, “This island belongs to Japan” and told them not to come here again. The Korean explained, “We didn’t have intention to gather abalones here from the beginning, we used to go to a different northern island every three years by order of our king but we met a storm this year and we drifted ashore”.
When Murakawas reached Ulleungdo, they discovered that their fishing gears and eight fishing boats were gone. Asked about this, the Koreans disclosed that their people used them without notice. The fishermen from the Murakawas took home some abalones on a skewer, a sedge hat and a net ball as evidences of violation of territory and reported it to the local government. The local government thought that it was a grave thing and brought this report to the Shogunate. The Shogunate decided not to make it a political issue as they took an optimistic view and thought the Koreans would leave the island after they mended their ships.

This episode may show that in those days Ulleungdo (Takeshima) was believed to be Japanese territory, even Korean fishermen thought so.

[pacifist]

No.2 of the posting:

(2) Ahn Yong-Bok’s first trip to Japan (1693):

According to the Oya family’s private documents ”元禄六年酉四月朝鮮人召つれ参候時諸事控 (A note about various things when we brought Koreans in April 1693)” and “元禄六年竹島より伯州に朝鮮人連帰候趣大谷九衛門船頭口上覚(Captain Kyuemon Oya’s statements about bringing back Koreans from Takeshima to Hakusyu)”, Ahn Yong-Bok was captured as one of the intruders to Japanese territory. (See the details below)

On April 17th 1693 when the fishermen from the Oyas reached Ulleungdo and moored the ship at the “唐船ヶ崎(Tosen-ga-saki)”, they found a pair of Korean straw sandals. On the next day they searched the island and saw a Korean ship at the north. There was a hut which was full with abalones and a Korean who could not speak Japanese, Park Otton. When they went to 天狗嶋 (Tengu shima), they saw 10 Korean fishermen working. One of them could speaka little Japanese, who was Ahn Yong-Bok. Japanese asked Ahn and he answered that they came here on April 2nd with 3 ships and 42 fishermen. They took the two Koreans, Park Otton and Ahn Yong-Bok, as living evidence of violation of territorial waters. They arrived at Fukuura of Oki island on April 20th and arrived at Yonago on 27th.

(To follow is a summary from various official documents):
The chief retainer of Yonago, Shuri Arao, reported this to the local government, which asked the Shogunate of Edo how to do with these captives. Until the order from the Shogunate came, the two Koreans were kept in Kyuemon Oya’s house. On May 26th, an express messenger from Edo came. The Shogunate ordered the local government to transport the two Koreans under guard to Nagasaki and they were handed over to the Nagasaki magistrate on July 1st. After that, they were brought to Tsushima on September 3rd. The lord of Tsushima, So Tsushima-no-kami, and the negotiator Yozaemon Tada went to Busan with the two captives. They deported them and gave a notice to Chosun to ban Korean fishermen to come to Takeshima (Ulleungdo). The Chosun government promised to punish Ahn Yong-Bok and Park Otton severely.

BTW, Ahn Yong-Bok mentioned in a Korean book that he saw Usando, which looked larger than Ulleungdo, during the tour. The only island he saw and the only island larger than Ulleungdo was Oki island, he may have misunderstood or simply told a lie.

[pacifist]

the 3rd part of the posting:

(3) Ahn Yong-Bok’s second trip to Japan (1696):
Chosun’s former government (南人派政権) collapsed and negotiation between Chosun and the Shogunate reached a deadlock. After all, the Shogunate decided to give up Takeshima (Ulleungdo) as a favor to Chosun (but did not give Matsushima) in January 1696. (It was conveyed to Chosun in autumn that year.)

And it was a such period when Ahn Yong-Bok smuggled himself into Japan. Ahn should have been punished by the former government but thanks to the collapse of the government, he was not punished to death. The new government (小論派) favored Ahn, so he could smuggled into Japan with other 10 Koreans.
He intended to make Japanese Shogunate admit “the larger island than Ulleungdo (Usando as he believed)” to be Korean territory, but his request was not only heard by the Shogunate, but also he was deported.

He later told Korean government that he successfully persuaded Shogunate and made them admit that “Usando” was Korean territory. But there is no records at all concerning his insistence in Japan. It is apparent that he told a lie to save his own life, because his trespass into Ulleungdo during the empty policy could worth death penalty.

To follow is excerpts from various official documents in Japan:
●(池田文書: Ikeda document) “元禄九年六月隠岐国江船一艘着岸、御代官後藤覚右衛門殿手代中瀬弾右衛門、山本清右衛門様子相尋候処、今度朝鮮人船三十二艘竹島え渡海使候内壱艘人数十一人罷在候、是は伯耆国へ願の儀有之渡海仕旨申すに付いて右両人より以飛脚右の趣申越云々” (June 1696, one ship with 11 people came to Oki, they wanted to request something to Hoki county (Tottori prefecture), so a messenger was sent.”

●After all, Hoki county made a statement and reported it to the Shogunate.
To follow is the statement.

口上書

朝鮮之船壱艘五月廿日隠岐国江着岸、依之御代官後藤角右衛門手代中瀬弾右衛門山本清右衛門様子相尋候処、今度朝鮮船三十二艘竹島江渡海仕候、其内一艘人数十壱人罷有候、是者伯耆国江願之儀有之渡海仕旨申付而、右両人より飛脚を以、右之趣今月二日国元家来迄申越候、同四日伯州赤崎と申浦辺江、右朝鮮船着申候、則番人等申付置候、委細承追而注進可仕候、従国元今日飛脚を以申越候付先御届申上置候　　　以上

六月十三日
The statement

A Korean ship reached Oki’s coast on May 20th. The Deputy Offical Kakuemon Goto’s assistants Zenemon Nakase and Seiemon Yamamoto questioned them and found that one ship, out of the 32 Korean ships who went to Takeshima this time, came here with 11 people. These people crossed the sea as they had some request to Hoki county. An express messenger was hired by the two assistants and it was reported to the local government on 2nd this month. The Korean ship reached Akasaki of Hakushu on the 4th this month, so we placed watchmen. The details will be followed. We send this by an express messenger.

June 13th

●A superintendent officer Kinzaemon Hirai questioned them but he could not understand what they said because of different language. A Confucian scholar, Gon-no-jo Tsuji was invited and he asked two Koreans including Ahn Yong-Bok by way of writing Chinese characters but failed. (According to a book “御在府日記” )

● On June 22nd, the Shogunate ordered So of Tsushima to dispatch a interpreter to Inaba (Hoki county). And they also ordered the local government of Inaba to persuade the Koreans that Tottori prefecture is not a place to hear foreigners’ request and that they should go to Nagasaki or go back to Korea. (According to a document “竹島紀事”)

● Tsushima county decide to send Gonbei Suzuki, Sobei Abiru, and the interpreter Sukezaemon Oka. But Tsushima county was afraid if this would be a precedent, the role of Tsushima county to exclusively communicate with Chosun would be destroyed. So, Yoshimasa So sent Gonpachi Kashima to Edo and told their opinions to the Shogunate. After this, the Shogunate cancelled the order to question Koreans in Nagasaki and decided to send them back soon. This was conveyed to the lord of Hoki county on July 24th.

To follow is an official notice from the Shogunate to local government.
一筆令啓達候、先頃因州え参候朝鮮人宗次郎方より通詞参候はば、相談長崎え被越候様にと申達候へとも、惣而朝鮮国よりの通用は宗刑部大輔方え申筈に従前被仰付置儀に候間、其元にて通詞に様子相尋させ候儀、并長崎え遣に不及、対州之外にては朝鮮国之儀、取次不申御大法に候間、刑部大輔え被相達候、此段も如何と被存候は、帰国候様に申含可被追返候、右之段各申談如此御座候、恐惶謹言

七月二十四日　　　　　　　大久保加賀守

松平伯耆守殿

● Tottori prefecture decided to deport them soon. “Then, this ship was deported at Karonada (加露灘)” (According to a document “因府年表”)

● According to Shogunate document (「通航一覧」巻之百三十七、朝鮮国部百十三「竹島」)reads: “此年（元禄九年）夏、朝鮮人十一人因幡州に来り、事を東武に以てせしに、鈞命して是を遂回されし事あり”
In the summer of the year 1696, 11 Koreans came to Inaba aiming to request something to Shogun, but they were expelled from Japan by the order of Shogunate.

So wedgie, Ahn Yong-Bok was a liar, his statement was nothing. Usando he saw was Oki island and it was no relation to Takeshima/Dokdo.

[ponta]

Hi
What is the point of the dispute?
Ahn yonbok?

For Korea to claim the title to the territory, you need the state's effective control.
Ahn is an private citizen. It does not constitute the Korean title to Dokdo.
Besides,he said he (and others) were living at Matsushima, that means the island he was talking about is not Dokdo.
Hence it is least likely that he knew Dokdo.
今当還往本所、松島即子山島、此亦我國地、汝敢住此耶、遂拾良翌暁沱舟入子山島、
倭等方列釜煮魚膏、渠以杖撞破、大言叱之

粛宗実録　巻三〇　二十二年九月戊寅

Korea's nitpicking Japanese documents and maps is useless unless Korea shows Korea had an effective control over Dokdo.
Korean has none.

Thanks.

[pacifist]

Thanks a lot ponta for your comment!

I asked wedgie to give the evidence to show that Takeshima/Dokdo belonged to Korea before the 17th century. He gave nothing but irrational maps and the old story of Ahn Yong-Bok. But these are not evidences.

As for the map wedgie gave, it is merely a map to show that Takeshima=Argonaut island (fabled Ulleungdo) and Matsushima=Dagelet island (Ulleungdo). Please take a look at the map here:
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/index.html

wedgie, everybody knows that there is no evidence for Korea to show that she knew Takeshima/Dokdo before the 17th century.

JK, my old friend, the day we will toast (Konbei!) with soju is coming!

[wedgie]

Pacifist, I don't make such a bold claim that Anyongbok had the right to claim Dokdo.

As I mentioned the Shimane Prefecture newspaper article agreed with many Japanese and Korean scholars on the fact that in 1696 the dispute involved Dokdo and Ulleungdo. Thus to say the Koreans weren't cognizant of Dokdo is rediculous. Don't forget, Anyongbok did not protest alone he was with many others. The 2005 discovery of this document makes clear, Usando is Matsushima and it is no coincident that is concurs with the Korean historical records.

The article is here and the translation in English if forthcoming.
Jasando=Dokdo

It wasn't just Koreans who stated Usando was Matsushima Japanese historians even a 150 years ago concluded that Usando was Matsushima and that it was an islands appended to Ulleungdo. It seems both of you are ignoring these documents and just repeating the same rubbish over and over without any historical proof. Usando is on hundreds of maps both Korean and Japanese to say it is fictitious is not an option here guys. Here are documents that clearly state what Usando is. If you have any clear proof (not backwards maps)otherwise please state.
Usando is Matsushima>

Maps showing two islands in the East Sea are simply Ulleungdo and Dokdo mapped in more Westerly locations. By your theory the Japanese ommitted Dokdo on all of those maps and double-mappaed Ulleungdo. This is wrong because we know the Japanese had mapped Dokdo as Songdo for 150 years prior.
Here is a real explanation instead of an excuse.
The truth of Mapping Errors

Pacifist, it is clear you are using the same old tired arguments regarding the mapping confusion and you haven't done your homework. You are cross-referencing maps that don't jibe with the information given in the 1870 document.

The 1870 document not only contains historical reference Pacifist it also gives a detailed physical description of Ulleungdo describing the vegetation. How could they describe an island (Argonaut)that did not exist?? Your theory is dead wrong.

The Japanese mapped Ulleungdo and Dokdo in Seibold's positioning and this can be verified in the attached map of the Kobunruko documents.

Kobunruko docmap

Pacifist and Ponta there is no evidence Japan claimed Dokdo before the military occupation of the island in 1905. An inclusion that was contested the moment the Koreans were informed. Before you harp on the distance given on Shim Heung Taeks report please remember Japanese maps of the region always give inaccurate distances between Ulleungdo and Dokdo as almost double the actual distance.

Pacifist, the Koreans aren't nitpicking Japanese documents. Nitpicking involves searching for irrelvent information and overemphasizing its importance.

The Koreans have found Japanese documents that clearly state Ulleungdo and Dokdo are Chosun Territory.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

As to the newspaper article you mentioned, please give us the original article in Japanese. I can't read hanglu and the English translated version may have been distorted because of double translation (Japanese-hanglu-then, English). I saw the homepage of the newspaper 山陰中央日報 but it didn't say about it. I will try to ask them about it later. So I can't comment on the article now.

But as to your theory about the maps and your site concerning the maps, I would say that they include half-truths and lies.

> "During the early years of the Meiji Era the Japanese Government released documents claiming Ulleungdo and Dokdo were Korean territory".

wedgie, this sentence at the top of the site is not true. Japanese government has NEVER ever said Dokdo was Korean territory.

And in your site, the Japanese names of Ulleungdo and Takeshima/Dokdo in Chinese letter look very wierd. The right letter should be 竹島 for Ulleungdo and 松島 for Takeshima/Dokdo.

As to the 1876 map (by Kashihara Yoshinaga)in your site, you wrote; "However they are named as Seibold did with Takeshima (Ulleungdo) on the left and Matsushima (Dokdo) on the right". But the island wrote as 松島 (Matsushima) was not Takeshima/Dokdo. Look at the 1877 map in your site drawn by the same man. Can you read Katakana at the island 松島 (Matsushima)? It says "ホウリルロック Hourilu rock (or Holly rock)" and "マニル崎(Maniru-saki or Manyl horn). The name of the same horn can be seen in the 1876 map.

Then look at the 1876 Japanese Navy map (just above the 1877 map). You can see the name of "ホウリルロック or Holly rock" at the 松島 which you introduced as "new Ulleungdo". Then, you can see the truth.

In the 17th century Takeshima/Dokdo had been called as Matsushima but in the 19th century Matsushima meant Ulleungdo and the name of Takeshima disappeared.

So you must re-write your site. Matsushima was not Takeshima/Dokdo in the maps made in the 19th century. You can't claim for Dokdo using confusion of the names in the new Meiji government era.

Don't act like a thief at a fire, you must show your evidence.
If Korea truly knew the island Takeshima/Dokdo before the 17th century, there should have been a Korean name (you know Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo). Please tell us the name of the island.

[wedgie]

Pacifist you are comparing apples and oranges. You must judge each map on its own merits and positions instead of just making generalizations.

Kashiharas map of 1876 shows Seibolds postitioning and double-labels Ulleungdo as Ullueungdo in Korean and Takeshima in Japanese. Dokdo is labelled as Songdo and there are no other islands in the East Sea. There is no Liancourt Rocks.

Kashihara's 1877 map does not show Ulleungdo in Seibold's position but rather correctly and much more Easterly. If you had seen the entire map you would have known that. It can be seen at David Rumsey Japanese map collection online. In this map Argonaut (Jukdo) was not drawn and Dokdo has adopted the name of Liancourt Rocks.

Because of the inclusion of Boussole Rock and Seal Point on Japanese maps we can conclude Songdo is Ulleungdo here. By the way, I think the Japanese text you say is Holly Rock is in actuality Katakana for "Hole Rock" which the British Admiralty descirbed in his hyrdrographic report in 1863. The other writing is Seal Point also on British maps. The writing on Kashihara's 1876 map is not the same.

The maps showing Songdo as Ulleungdo show correct positioning and the manner in which Jukdo (Argonaut) Island is drawn shows its existence was doubtful or unconfirmed.

How can you say the name of Songdo disappeared in the 19th Century? The Europeans didn't even use the name until it's discovery in 1849. We can see the Japanese used Songdo to denote Dokdo even in 1877 with the Kobunruko Document maps. See here.
Songdo is Dokdo Here
This is the map that proved Ulleungdo and Dokdo were the islands in question in the 1877 document. Do you remember last summer when both you and Pacifist argued that the document was referring to other islands?

[ponta]

As for 1877 document, we have already discussed it, right?
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/index.html
BBS #15/20/16 wedgie/opp/ponta
In conclusion, it does not affect Japanese claim to the title of Dokdo/Takeshima

Japan has evidence that Japan had effective control over Dokdo.

Before 1905
Togugwa government issued a permit to sail to Ulleungo.After the agreement with Chosun,
Tokugawa sentenced the man who sailed to Ullengdo.There is a document of the judgement to the effect it was okay to sail to Dokdo/takeshima but it was not okay to sail to Ulleungdo.

After 1905
Japan confirmed the title to Dokdo/Takeshima

Korea has none.
Rather it is even possible to interpret the "empty island policy over Ulleungo" Chosun government abandoned even Ulleungdo, because
it abandoned the administration over Ulleungo.

Before Korea "nitpicks" Japanese documents
and maps, Korea has to show Korea had effective control. And this is crucial.

The point is, supposing for the sake of argument that as Korea said, Japan recognized Dokdo as Korean territory before 1905, it does not follow Korea had effective control over Dokdo;hence, it does not follow Korea has title.

What Korea desperately needs is the evidence Korean government, local or central, exercised governmental control over Dokdo.
Korea has none.
And
Korea has no "satisfactory" historical document and maps even to show Korea recognized Dokdo.

[wedgie]

Ponta we discussed the 1877 document and it turns out you guys fought tooth and nail to disprove this document and create confusion by nitpicking over the documents content. Pacifist even tried to hide behind the Japanese "grammar'

Well it turned out you were both wrong when the map was released in September showing indeed the Japanese were NOT confused about the islands in this document.

I disagree that the 1877 paper is not important. I'll tell you why. Why did the Japanese have this inquiry to begin with? At this time the Japanese were planning to map Japan and they needed to know which territories were included within each prefecture. So Shimane asked the Domestic Affairs Office about the status of adjacent territories of this district.

There are only two outcomes with regard to Dokdo and its relationship with Shimane at this time regardless of what this "other island" may have been.
a) Dokdo is included.
b) Dokdo is not included.
Afterward Shimane released maps of Shimane Prefecture and Oki Kun this is what they showed.
Shimane1878
Shimane1891
Shimane1895
The clear and only conclusion is that Shimane did not consider Dokdo as part of this prefecture. This is not debateable.

Ponta, you must listen to your own Foreign Affairs Office they are saying that Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan from ancient times. This is so wrong. It is impossible that the Japanese would exclude a territory they considered "an inherent part" on almost all of their national maps.

It's clear that prior to 1905 Japan did not consider Dokdo part of Japanese territory. It's clear that the Japanese incorporated Dokdo as part of a military occupation during the Russo-Japanese War. It's clear the Koreans contested the annexation of Dokdo the moment they were notified and that they considered Dokdo part of Korea in 1906.

Japan cannot muster any international (especially regionally) support for their claim to Dokdo because the historical and political circumstances surrounding the annexation of Dokdo at the time of their only claim show it was not a legitimate acquisition. Ponta, you are trying to make a "legal" case for Dokdo.

But what is what was legal in 1905 legal today? When Japan annexed Korea around 1907 the world declared it was legal. When the Korean's tried to seek help at the Hague the western powers wouldn't give the Koreans the time of day. If Japan must rely on the colonial laws of 1905 during the height of Japanese expansionism in Northeast Asia to claim Dokdo they are dead in the water. Ponta you are trying to retroactively apply archaic laws to a the modern world.

Korea should never take this case to the ICJ because there can be no guarantee the Westerners will take into consideration the nature of Japanese expansionism during this time. How many Westerners know of the history in Korea during this era? To westerners the issue of Japanese agression mean Pearl Harbor or Okinawa but to others in Northeast Asia it means something totally different.
That is why we should read the history of Korea and Japan's involvement there at this time.
Dokdo and Japanese Expansionism

Japanese Professor of Tokyo University Wada Haruki specializing in Korean Russian History said it best.
"It was during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 that Japan gave the name of Takeshima to the islands an this became one link in the process by which all Korea was controlled turned into a protectorate and then assimilated......."

This is so true.

[wedgie]

BTW I've posted several times now and I don't what part of these clear documents you guys don't understand. But I'll do it again.

Korea has long said Usando is Dokdo and historical documents back up this claim. They clearly state "Usando is what the Japanese call Matsushima" These documents prove Usando is Dokdo if you don't believe it that's too bad. It is certainly enough historical documentation to support Korean claims

Usando=Matsushima=Dokdo=Korea's Island

[pacifist]

wedgie,

Haruki Wada is the leftist scholar in Japan, he is always insisting from Russian and North Korean side. There are wide range of scholars in Japan, which may be hard to understand for you (In SK, there are always SK side scholars only...).

Are you still saying that Usando was Takeshima/Dokdo? How do you explain the depiction that there were people living and cultivating in Usando? Do you really believe that people were living in Takeshima/Dokdo, the rock formation without soil?

You can't persuade the world without evidence. Were there any traces of human living in Takeshima/Dokdo before Japan used it in the 17th century?

[wedgie]

Paicifist. I've given you clear documents staing Usando is Dokdo.

Are there some that are confusing? Yes.

Unclear documents don't negate clear ones.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

You don't know the meaning of "evidence", do you?

Evidence:
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

If Usando is Takeshima/Dokdo, you should explain why old Korean books stated that people cultivated and lived on the rock formation, which was impossible.

Also you should say the firm reasons why you think Usando is Takeshima/Dokdo. Why do you believe so without exact maps and documents to confirm the location of the island?

Were there graffiti written by ancient Koreans that says "Usando" on the wall of rocks of Takeshima/Dokdo? (Ha ha)

Your posting is only a "belief" without "proof". Groundless belief is not an evidence and you can't make people believe it forever.

[ponta]

wedgie
Could you give us the original text of sanin chouo shipou and the date it is published.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-anyongbok-2.html
This might be very important document I have never seen.

Did you fabricate the article? If not, please give us the original text.

[ponta]

1 "Early Chosun maps of Ulleungdo and Usando (Dokdo) place this island in just about every possible position relative to Ulleungdo one could imagine."

This is hardly an evidence.

2 1690s.
"The An-Yong-Bok Incident and Usando-Dokdo"

An YongBok did not refer to Takeshima/Dokdo
by "Matushima" as I showed you.

3 1808
"Ulleung and Usando all belonged to Usan¨guk land and Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima....."

Since An didn't refer to takeshima/Dokdo, and there is no other mention of Matsuhima by Koreans, "Matsuhima" does not refer to takeshima/Dokdo.

(For details see http://koreanlanguagenotes.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-is-history-of-ulleungdo-ch-4.html#c115131050307883076

Hence Korea has no evidence to show Korea recoginized Takeshima/Dokdo and Korea had effective control over it

The empty island policy was crucial.

[wedgie]

Pacifist, I don't consider every historical record of Usando evidence of its identity. I say there is enough clear information to develop a plausible belief. Of course some maps and documents are ambiguous. But that doesn't negate those that are clear. To ignore historical information without alternative ideas because they don't suit you political agenda is not a productive academic approach to history.

Ponta the idea that Jasando was Matsushima was formed during the Anyongbok Incident in 1696 in both Korean and Japanese records of the day. You posted the idea first came to be in 1770 in that post on Korean Language Notes this is wrong.
Here is the Korean statement from September 25th 1696.
Jasando is Matsushima
The Japanese documents also record the same statement however as you know the Japanese version of the incident gives us a distance of 50ri. This is much too far to be any other island. The location of Usando is given on subsequent versions of the Daehanjiji as being southeast of Ulleungdo
Usando is Southeast of Ulleungdo

You are trying to present an argument that Koreans assertions that Usando was Matsushima are some bizarre theory. However lets not forget when the Japanese historians did a study on Ulleungdo in the 19th century they too concluded that Usando was they called Matsushima. Of course they would know better than anyone today, they were there.
Usando is Matsushima
It's not good history for you to attempt to ascertain what lead them to come to this conclusion. The fact is, different documents from different countries and hundreds of years apart all concluded Usando was Matsushima (Dokdo) It is not some wacky theory concocted by Koreans to dupe Japan out of Dokdo.

Usando is on literally hundreds of maps. Usando is not fictitious. If you have some theory as to what Usando was please present clear accurate documents. Maps are not of much help on this issue as you know. It's not good enough to say what Usando isn't...... You must gather data and then arrive at a plausible explanation instead of having a belief and trying to drag others forcibly to it.

The empty island policy was not "abandonment" either. The Koreans continued to conduct inspections of the island throughout this era. The fact that the Koreans even maintained a management policy over Ulleungdo is proof of management over the island.

Everytime I prove that Japanese historical claims to Dokdo are invalid Japanese always shift the focus of the discussion back to ambiguous docments of the Korean side. The Japanese claims of Dokdo being an inherent possession of Japan must stand on their own Ponta.

As I've shown, Japanese claims that Dokdo was an inherent part of Japan are unfounded as you can see in Japanese maps throughout history.
Japanese Maps excluded Dokdo
Japanese Maps excluded Dokdo 2
Of course there are some Japanese maps that show Dokdo. However these maps always included Ulleungdo which was deemed unquestionably Korean land. Thus no Japanese maps show Dokdo as Japanese territory prior to the military annexation of Dokdo.

[ponta]

"I say there is enough clear information to develop a plausible belief."

Specifically which one is that?
The one in which An said An used to live there?
The one in which the author said you can see the sandy beach from there?

And I ask you again to give us the original text of Sanin chuou shinpou. is there anything wrong with revealing the aticle just as toadface tried to hide the fact about prangdo, non-existing island?

[ponta]

I might add
"Ponta the idea that Jasando was Matsushima was formed during the Anyongbok Incident in 1696"
Keep in mind, An's Matushima is the island where people could live, which proves that Matsuhima Koreans was talking about was not Dokdo/Takeshima

"However lets not forget when the Japanese historians did a study on Ulleungdo in the 19th century they too concluded that Usando was they called Matsushima."

Let's not forget this document was written when Japan was confused about islands. And other scholars thought either Matsushima belonged to no country, or it belonged to Japan.

"The Koreans continued to conduct inspections of the island throughout this era. "
And yet Korea has no clear map of Dokdo/takeshima. That reinforces the fact Korea didn't recognize Dokdo/takeshima.

"Japanese claims that Dokdo was an inherent part of Japan are unfounded as you can see in Japanese maps throughout history."

I said again and again.
There are Japanese Maps that excluded Dokdo, and there are Japanese Mapas that clearly have Dokdo on them. However,
There are no Korean Maps that clearly have Dokdo on them.

I still want you to present Korea government,
local or central, had effective control over
Dokdo.

You see, in truth, both Korea and Japan had no modern concept of territory until 19 century. Japan started modernization around
that time, and recognized the importance of the territory, and she started the business
of making the territory clear so as to meet the modern international law.

Probably the great Korea too recognized it, that might be why she declared Soekdo, (Kwanoundo or Jukudo) was under jurisdiction of Chosun. But sadly Korean government had never recognized Dokdo/Takeshima. After knowing the name of Dokdo, though she didn't know the location of it, the government still didn't protest Japan's inclusion.

[wedgie]

Ponta. I've given you enough historical references that say Usando is Matsushima and I couldn't care less if you believe it or not. I'm not here to convert you into a believer. What I'm saying is Korean and Japanese documents separate from the Anyongbok incident concluded that Usando was Matsushima. That's all.

You say there are no Korean maps that have Dokdo but you base this on your denial of clear historical documents that state Usando is Matsushima. If you combine historical records of Koreans and Japanese we can ascertain the direction from Ulleungdo, the approximate distance and identity.

The Japanese text of the Anyongbok gave the distance of Usando/Matsushima as much too far to be any other island than Dokdo. He also clearly stated in Korean and Japanese documents that Usando was Matshushima. You are also forgetting he was not alone in these statements. He and his crew were interrogated by both sides.

Therefore Koreans and Japanese concluded that Usando/Matsushima was attached to Ulleungdo and thus Korean territory.

Also Japanese claims that they thought Ulleungdo was theirs are not true. The Koreans clearly denied Japan the right to visit Jukdo/Ulleungdo in 1614. The Shogunate knowingly granted passage to the Oyas and Murakawas because he knew Chosun had a vacant island policy. That's why the Japanese wanted to cover up the Anyongbok incident from reaching higher authorities.

Here is the text of the 1614 document.
Koreans Informed Japanese about Ulleungdo in 1614

Again and again I've shown you through Japanese maps do not show Dokdo as Japanese territory. Japan's only claim to Dokdo is a 1905 land grab that was a illegal military acquistion. Whether the distance ShimHeugTaek reported was wrong is irrelevent. Japanese maps consistently show wrong locations and this does not negate their proof of cognizence. The document in 1906 is clear proof the Koreans considered Dokdo theirs and that the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was contested.
Korean Objections

Who are you to decide whether Chosun's objections are valid or not?
Stop pretending to be a lawyer, judge and jury on legal matters regarding Dokdo Ponta.

[ponta]

I've found Ahn's record, I see why you didn't show us the document.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pref.shimane.lg.jp%2Fsoumu%2Ftakesima%2Fchukanhoukoku%2Findex.data%2Foboe-yomikudasi.pdf&ei=VMF7Rf3pMpWMsALr0rCZAQ&usg=__87h8e_c61NN1dxbOl3zeT6KSNUg=&sig2=WYl7w_Jr_8FJWKjt9mdyOg
because it is clear evidence that Ahn's Matushima = Usando is not Dokdo.
He says, "It is 30 ri from Chosun to Takeshima
and it is 50 ri from Takeshima to Matsushima."
Of course, the distance from chosun to takeshima is longer than the distance from takeshima to matsuhima.
Ahn says in other place, Matsushima is pretty big island.
From this it is safe to say that Ahn mistook
Oki for Matsushima.(the relative distance from Chosun to Ulleungdo to Oki just fit well with what Ahn said.)
So,
(1) Ahn did not recognize Dokdo/takeshima.
(2) Ahn's claim that matsushima=Oki belongs to Korea has nothing to do with Korean claim to the title of dokdo.
If I say Ulleungdo belongs to Japan, and Korean government recorded what I said. does that make Ulleungdo belong to Japan---no.

"I've given you enough historical references that say Usando is Matsushima"

I am asking which one.
All the maps you showed are like the followings.
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/BF_17C/img/flying_usando.gif
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/AF_17C/img/18C-m.gif
And all the description you showed were the description to the effect you can see the sandy beach of Dokdo from Ulleungdo, or you could live on Dokdo.
But clearly these are not description of Dokdo.
So with respect, I am asking, specifically which document are you talking about that clearly shows Korea recognized Dokdo ?

"Japan's only claim to Dokdo is a 1905 land grab that was a illegal military acquistion. Whether the distance ShimHeugTaek reported was wrong is irrelevent. Japanese maps consistently show wrong locations and this does not negate their proof of cognizence. The document in 1906 is clear proof the Koreans considered Dokdo theirs and that the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was contested."

1)Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 record clearly show Korean government did not recognize Dokdo/takeshima.

2)This is the report to the government and what was reaction? ("no Chief, you are dumb, that is not Korean territory, look at Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 map", it is not in there. is that the government reaction to him?)

3)Supposing this is an objection, what is the ground? You haven't shown Korea government exercised the governmental power over Dokdo before. No there is no Korean effective control before because Korea had empty policy.

I'll ask you again.
Specifically which document are you talking about when you said Korea had effective control before 1905.?
You can specify which one for the reader, (not for me)can't you?

[pacifist]

wedgie,

"Usando is Matsushima": If it is right, then the "Matsushima" is not always Takeshima/Dokdo.

Do you remember that Gerry once proved that Korean people called today's Jukdo sometimes as "Songdo" or "Songjukdo". And even Japanese sometimes called Ulleungdo as Matsushima (Songdo) in the 19th century.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?cat=4

"In 1882, when King Gojong was giving Lee Gyu-won instructions for carrying out his survey of Ulleungdo, the king mentioned that Ulleungdo had two neighboring islands called “Songjukdo” and “Usando.” He also said that Songjukdo was sometimes called “Songdo” and sometimes called “Jukdo.” He even seemed to say that it was also sometimes called “Usando.” Lee Gyu-won, however, told the king that Usando was just another name for Ulleungdo, and that Ulleungdo had only one neighboring island named “Songjukdo.” Lee added that Songjukdo was also sometimes called “Songdo” and sometimes called “Jukdo.”

[pacifist]

wedgie,

The Japanese maps you showed were not official maps to show the territory. The map of Shimane, as you insisted, is just a map of 山陰道 (the road of San-in) and 山陽道 (the road of San-yo), not showing Shimane's territory.

As ponta already said, not all the Japanese maps included Takeshima/Dokdo but it didn't mean that the island belonged to Korea. There are many Japanese maps which included the island, with one of them clearly depicted the right shape of two rock formation, these are clear evidences that Japan knew the island, while Korea didn't know the island.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

"Here is the text of the 1614 document.
Koreans Informed Japanese about Ulleungdo in 1614"

I suppose that you can't read both of Chinese letters and Japanese letetrs. In the site you mentioned above, there is a Japanese sentence "竹島一款、先太守、使をしで論談せしむるもの今洙に三年なり、彼國固く竹島を以て其國の地なりとして、終に我に聽く事なし、如何といふを以てせらる、"

"About Takeshima (Ulleungdo), the former lord has argued through messengers for three years. That country never listen to us, stubbornly insisting that Takeshima is their territory. How can we do..."

The documents in the site show that there was a dispute concerning Matsushima (Ulleungdo) between Japan and Chosun. Both of the countries believed to be their own territory. These are not "evidences" to show that Ulleungdo belonged to Korea all through the history.

[wedgie]

The first document I gave you was the 1870 document. You or Pacifist have given no concrete proof that the Songdo in this document was an islands other than dokdo. Absolutely nothing, you just ramble that the Japanese were confused. Then I gave you both Japanese National and Prefecture maps that showed Dokdo was not Japanese territory. You have presented nothing to contradict this. Thus we both know the Japanese Foreign Ministry's claims are a wrong.

Anyongbok quoted 50 ri from Ulleungdo. So what? The Japanese quoted 40 ri on their maps. He said he sailed to Songdo the next day and kicked over their kettle. Oki Island is almost 4 days travel. There is no way he confused Oki for Dokdo that is laughable.

Those Ulleungdo maps showing Usando don't prove much of anything. First all of the islands groups surrounding Ulleungdo are on the wrong side. Second we can't be sure that Usando wasn't positioned closer to Ulleungdo to denote ownership of the land like many cartographers did during that period. We can also see the errors of these maps were consistent so these maps are essentially one incorrect map copied through the ages.
Posting this map and cross-referencing it with google earth and GPS co-ordinates is probably some of the worst examples I've seen of attempting to do historical study on the history of the region. You shouldn't take obviously inaccurate maps and then superimpose accurate maps of this era Ponta. That's so wrong and misleading. Simple minded people would like us to believe that there is one map or document that can resolve this issue. But to ascertain to truth we have to combine all materials that are clear and come to a conclusion.

Even a version of this map was used in the 1899 Daehanjiji, however the text of this publication quotes Usando as being southeast of Ulleungdo. There are no other islands southeast of Ulleungdo except Dokdo (Usando)
Usando is Southeast of Ulleungdo
Other editions of the Daehanjiji say the same.
Usando is Southeast of Ulleungdo2

Leekyuwon didn't find Usando because he never left the vicinity of Ulluengdo. If Usando was Jukdo island as you say he would have found it and labelled it as such on his map. We know that Usando is not Jukdo because of the Hwangseong Shinmun article shows these islands are not the same land mass.

Ponta, it is easy to scoff at one's person belief and then present unclear materials to the contrary ancient Korean Japanes documents can be very ambiguous sometimes and open to many interpretations. However, you haven't presented any plausible theories of your own as to what Usando is besides citing inaccurate maps this isn't good enough. You have to present a positive convincing argument of your own. Which you haven't.

ShimHuengTaek said Dokdo was Korean land and this is not debatable whether you like it or not Ponta. The Governor also stated the same and the DeahanIlbo Newspaper also reported this. Korea contested the inclusion and who are you to quantify if they did to your satisfaction.....?

Korea was being stripped of her sovereignty at this time as you know Ponta. Remember? The Japanese had already controlled the foreign affairs office, the postal system, the railway, telephone/telegraph systems, and financial affairs. To whom was Korea to object, and how? What did they teach you about Japanese history and expansionism in school Ponta?

I suggest you read one of the books I used for my website. It is called "The Abacus and the Sword" by Peter Duus. The other book I used was called "Japan's colonization of Korea Power and Discourse" The last book details how the Japanese used (or abused) the international legal system to annex territory. They are both niether pro or against Japan/Korea.

You see Ponta, with the regard to Japanese Colonialism And Expansionism you seem to lack either the moral fiber or education to distinguish between what was legal in the eyes of the international community in 1905 and what is acceptable today.

The Colonial Era is over Ponta and Japan's Claim to Dokdo Died with it.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> The first document I gave you was the 1870 document.

As I showed you before, Matsushima in the 19th century is not Takeshima/Dokdo. Meiji government recognised Takeshima/Dokdo as Liancourt rocks.
So the "Matsushima" in the 1870 doc is not always Takeshima/Dokdo, although it's true there were confusion about the names of the islands in 1870.
But they investigated the islands and confirmed the truth later, so it is no problem. Korea can't claim Dokdo for this.

> Oki Island is almost 4 days travel.

As I showed you before, when Ahn Yong-Bok was arrested and brought to Japan, it took 2 days from Ulleungdo to Oki island.
("They arrived at Fukuura of Oki island on April 20th")

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> Then I gave you both Japanese National and Prefecture maps that showed Dokdo was not Japanese territory.

As I already wrote above, you can't claim an island for some maps didn't depict it. If your claim is right, I can claim any small islands of Korea that some Korean maps didn't depict? Your claim is childish.

You should show here clear evidence that Korea knew and used Takeshima/Dokdo before the 17th century. How many times should I write the same sentence?

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> He said he sailed to Songdo the next day and kicked over their kettle. Oki Island is almost 4 days travel. There is no way he confused Oki for Dokdo that is laughable.

First, you should know that Ahn Yong-Bok was lying about his achievement in Japan. As I showed you before, he didn't do anything but was just deported. So we must be careful to read what he had said.

If the island "Songdo" in his remark was Takeshima/Dokdo, it's inconsistent because the Japanese said that they were living in Songdo (you know, no one couldn't live in the rock formation without soils and water.)

And if the "Songdo" in the remark was Takeshima/Dokdo, Ahn couldn't go back and forth to Ulleungdo on the same day. (It took one day to Takeshima/Dokdo at that time so he should have spent 2 days if he went there and went back to Ulleungdo.)

But again if the "Songdo" in his remark was today's Jukdo, it seems to be consistent.
People can live there, Ahn Yong-Bok could go back and forth in one day and the island was near to Japan, actually the text I posted before said that Japanese fishermen reached the island before approaching Ulleungdo.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

Colonial era is not related to this topic.

Look at the 1882 map of Ulleungdo. Can you see the island very next to Ulleungdo with the name "Usan"?
No one can say this island just next to Ulleungdo is Takeshima/Dokdo, 92 km far away.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?cat=4

[JK]

As I've always stated time and time again, Dokdo historically has belonged to Korea, as confirmed by the evidence presented by Wedgie. Ponta writes nonsense like:
"What Korea desperately needs is the evidence Korean government, local or central, exercised governmental control over Dokdo. Korea has none.
And Korea has no 'satisfactory' historical document and maps even to show Korea recognized Dokdo."

Actually, Korea DOES have "satisfactory" historical documents and maps. ponta. Does Japan????

But my final point is that EVEN IF Japan had a legitimate historical claim to Dodko (which it doesn't), the island is rightfully owned by Korea and one could view it as a war reparation from Japan for its unjustified colonization of Korea.

But again, it is obvious when looking at all the evidence that Dokdo has always belonged to Korea. And if Japan wants to take it by force (again like in 1905), that nation of brain-washed people is welcome to try.

[ponta]

wedgie
I hope you understand the point of the dispute.
You don't have make it look as if you won the argument here, but you need to show your argument is convinsing to the professional lawyers and historians.

Just show us the evidence that Korea had effective control before 1905

"You have to present a positive convincing argument of your own"

Local government Shinmane confirming that Dokdo/takeshima belongs to Japan.
http://ameblo.jp/user_images/89/88/10000645925_s.jpg
http://ameblo.jp/user_images/65/56/10000576111.jpg
....
The noman's land which located at Lat. 37 degrees N 9 minutes 30 seconds long. 131 degrees E 55 minutes is under jurisdction of Simane.

.................................................
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
"LIGITAN AND SIPADAN case (ICJ 2002)
“The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such. "
................................................
Japan's effective control

February 22
The Governor of Shimane Prefecture announces the naming of Takeshima and the office of its jurisdiction in the 40th Shimane Prefecture Report.

May 17
Takeshima, Shimane Prefecture, is entered in the State Land Register for Oki-no-kuni, District 4.

June 5
The Governor of Shimane Prefecture grants approval for Yozaburo Nakai and three other people to hunt sea lions.

July 22
Thirty-eight naval workers land on Takeshima and construct a large temporary signpost for passing ships.

August 19
Bukichi Matsunaga, the Governor of Shimane Prefecture and three aids inspect Takeshima aboard the naval vessel Kyoto Maru.

March 1906
Yoshitaro Kaminishi, the Director of Shimane Prefecture, Division 3, and 43 staff members implement a survey of conditions on Takeshima.

April 24, 1939
The decision to incorporate Takeshima under the jurisdiction of Goka Village is made by the Goka Village Assembly in Oki-gun, Shimane Prefecture.

August 17, 1940
Public use of Takeshima, Shimane Prefecture, is terminated and designated for naval use under the name of Maizuru Naval Station.

November 1, 1945
Takeshima falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance after the elimination of the Naval Ministry.

January 18, 1952
President Lee Seung-man of South Korea declares unilateral ocean rights and announces that Takeshima is included within the Lee Line (the Lee Seung-man Line Declaration).

June 27, 1953
Shimane Prefecture and the Japan Coast Guard carry out an inspection of Takeshima, order six South Koreans to leave the island, and erect a wooden territorial signpost.
http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/takesima_eng/take6.html
..................................................
Just show us Korea had effective control satisfing the international law.

I think even JK has come to feel that Korea's argument is pretty weak.
"But my final point is that EVEN IF Japan had a legitimate historical claim to Dodko (which it doesn't), the island is rightfully owned by Korea and one could view it as a war reparation from Japan for its unjustified colonization of Korea."

So JK and you have to say, Japan's colonization was wrong so Japan has no title to Dokdo.
But to say that Dokdo was taken away by Japanese colonization, you have to show Korea had effective control over Dokdo

I asked you many times, you couldn't show any so far.
The reader might wonder why.

By the way the books you mentioned is relatively good, much better than myths Korean historians made up,(though I guess the second book was written by ethnic Korean)

[ponta]

"ShimHuengTaek said Dokdo was Korean land and this is not debatable whether you like it or not Ponta"
Right, but it is debatable what he referred to by Dokdo.
Korea has no consistent explanation why and how the name of Dokdo/takeshima has changed

"Korea was being stripped of her sovereignty at this time as you know Ponta."
Korea has protested on other matters in many occassions.

[pacifist]

JK,

> "As I've always stated time and time again"

Even if you stated the same thing thousand times, Korea can't claim for the island without the evidences to show they knew and used it before Japan did so (before the 17th century).

JK, we've argued many times and you must have learned that there were evidences to show Japan knew and used the island since the early 17th century, while Korea didn't.

If you think Korea did, why don't you show us the evidences here? I (and ponta) have repeated the same question for many times but we have no answer yet.

[JK]

Ponta wrote:
"I think even JK has come to feel that Korea's argument is pretty weak."

No, you are wrong again, Ponta, as usual. Quit trying to be so deceptive, like the typical brainwashed Japanese who forgets his own country's history and who Pearl Harbors its enemies.

I read over the arguments that you AND wedgie made, and I see that only Wedgie has presented any legitimate arguments backed up with evidence. I believe wholeheartedly that Dokdo always belonged to Korea after reading all the evidence presented by Wedgie.

Having said that, my typical deceptive Japanese friend, I say that EVEN IF Japan had some sort of legitimate historical claim on Dokdo (which it doesn't) I say that even under such fantastic situation that Dokdo STILL rightfully belongs to Korea as a war reparation.

Ponta, don't you and Pacifist, get tired of coming up with deceptive arguments??? You totally ignore the evidence that Wedgie presents, and you continue to argue your straw arguments that somehow Korea STOLE Dokdo. You are wasting your time. Number one, your arguments are hollow, and number two, Korea will never give up Dokdo. Just accept it. You waste SOOOO many hours online to argue a point that is totally wrong.

Do you think you are gaining something for Japan by doing this?

[JK]

Pacifist, read wedgie's evidences that Korea owned Dokdo.

Can you present evidence that Japan owned Dokdo prior to forcing colonization on Korea? I didn't think so.

[pacifist]

JK,

I know you understand what I had shown you thousands of times before.

There are evidences that Japan knew and used Takeshima/Dokdo (there are many documents that two families were gave permission to fish in Ulleungdo by the Shogunate and accurate maps of Takeshima/Dokdo) but there is NO evidence to show that Korea knew and used the island.

Even if Japan didn't know and didn't use it in the 17th century, the 1905 incorporation of the island is legitimate as Korea didn't know and didn't use it at all.

The Korean government keeps insisting that Usando was Takeshima/Dokdo without firm gounds. Besides, Usando has been proved not to be Takeshima/Dokdo nowadays. It is　more likely Jukdo, the neighboring island to Ulleungdo.

[pacifist]

(Correction) - sorry!

JK,

I know you understand what I had shown you thousands of times before.

There are evidences that Japan knew and used Takeshima/Dokdo (there are many documents that two families were given exclusive permission to fish in Ulleungdo by the Shogunate, and they stopped at Takeshima/Dokdo when they went fishing to Ulleungdo and accurate maps of Takeshima/Dokdo) but there is NO evidence to show that Korea knew and used the island.

Even if Japan didn't know and didn't use it in the 17th century, the 1905 incorporation of the island is legitimate as Korea didn't know and didn't use it at all.

The Korean government keeps insisting that Usando was Takeshima/Dokdo without firm gounds. Besides, Usando has been proved not to be Takeshima/Dokdo nowadays. It is　more likely Jukdo, the neighboring island of Ulleungdo.

[ponta]

JK
Hi! JK How are you doing?
I think wedgie appreciates your cheerleading. And I appreciate your effort.

(What is interesting is that we've been talking about Dokdo/Takeshima for so long a time, and yet you have never presented your own argument. Anyway, good job,Cheerleader must be necessary for the shabby arguments for Korean claim.)

[JK]

Ponta, you call it cheerleading. Yet you yourself have presented NO argument except the kind worthy of Hans Christian Andersen on Yukio Mishima. Come up with a legitimate argument, ponta! Do something productive for once rather than come up with a fairy tale for an argument. Then you won't be wasting your life like you have online.

[JK]

Pacifist, THIS is your argument????:
"Besides, Usando has been proved not to be Takeshima/Dokdo nowadays. It is　more likely Jukdo, the neighboring island of Ulleungdo."

It is MORE LIKELY???? What kind of argument is that?? So now you admit it is only your guess.

I know you love Japan. We all love Japan and want to see it do well. But Japan and the Japanese people must learn to stop lying about its own history.

Saying that the incorporation of Dokdo (and the rest of Korea) by Japan in 1905 is legitimate is like saying Germany's incorporation of Austria in 1938 was legitimate or or that Germany's incorporation of Poland in 1939 was legitimate or that Germany's incorporation of France in 1940 was legitimate; none of these countries really had a say in the matter even they they appealed to the world for international help. Likewise, Korea had its land stolen by the Japanese, and that land included Dokdo. Anything Japan did from 1898-1945 to Japan, Korea, the rest of Asia, and to Western countries like the US was basically a crime, which is why Japan is viewed by all countries with suspicion to this day. After all, will Japan next claim the Philippines because it took those islands in 1941?

No, Japan has NO claim on the island. Just accept it, pacifist. You will be a happier person, I promise you.

[JK]

BTW, ponta and pacifist, as someone who lives in the US, I can tell you that many Americans view Japan's actions against other countries from 1895-1945 as basically crimes and that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified. I agree with these Americans. It was a necessary evil to control a monster known as imperial Japan. If you can accept this truth, we can then continue our discussion about why Dokdo belongs to Korea.

[wedgie]

Ponta I don't think you understand the 1614 document. I say it is clear proof that Japan knew Korea had a valid claim to Ulleungdo and had no right (even though this is not proven) to "bestow" lands to them. This explains why the local Japanese leaders went into damage control mode and acquiesced to Koreas demands during the Anyongbok Incident. The Japanese who gave permission to Oyas and Murakawas knew they'd face punishment for allowing permission to voyage there when it was clear Chosun prohibited it.

I've said a dozen times Usando is Matsushima and was considered as part of Korea form ancient times and thus was under Korea's effective control. Then I gave you documents that prove that. Can you read Ponta? Scroll back and read my posts. If you don't believe the documents that's too bad. It's clear with all of the historical references Korean assertions that Usando (aka Matsushima) is Dokdo are not irrational or unfounded.

The Japanese Foriegn Ministry tries to play this game that the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion followed protocol of the day when it incorporated Dokdo. But as I said, is what was legal acceptable today?

The Japanese say the incorporation was public. But how public is public? What standard constitutes an open and public display. Japanese say that publishing an newspaper article is public enough. From what I understand this is the only truly "public" notification that the Japanese gave to only local residents. It looks to be a couple inches in size
Notification.....?
Notification Enlarged
I took out a larger ad in the newspaper when I sold my mountain bike back in high school Ponta. I wonder how many Koreans (the most proximate country to Dokdo) have a subscription to the Sanin Shimbun....?

Indeed if the Japanese thought Matsushima was theirs from ancient times why didn't they just announce it publicly and internationally like they did when they acquired the Bonin Islands? (They contacted the Americans and British numerous times)
You and I know why Ponta. The Japanese didn't want to appear to use heavy-handed tactics in Korea. When the foreign powers intervened after the Sino-Japanese War the Western powers took back the land Japan had won (called The Triple Intervention) Japan didn't want other countries to be involved in Korea they wanted Korea for themselves so they incorporated Dokdo sub rosa. The Japanese did a few token gestures to give the appearance the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion was "legal". But history books and documents that have surfaced over the years tell us better.

[wedgie]

Japanese Takeshima websites always mislead us by claiming the Dokdo dispute started after WWII. The reality is this dispute started when the Koreans found out Japan stole Dokdo in 1906. We also know Anyongbok declared Songdo as Korean land in the 17th Century.

Ponta don't make a fool out of yourself by ignoring Japan's reasons for incoporating Dokdo in 1905. Japan desparately needed the island to control and monitor the region with submarine telegraph lines during the Russo~Japanese War. They had 250 years to take Dokdo. Are you trying to tell me the Japanese Government suddently felt a sense of urgency to enter the lucrative sealing industry during the height of the Russo~Japanese War.

Korea doesn't have to cater to your definiton of effective control Ponta. Korea had effectively controlled Dokdo for much longer that Japan. If Japan wants to muster international support for their claim to Dokdo they need to present a stronger case that the shabby 1905 Shimane Prefecture Land Grab. Thanks to these links we can see that......

1. Japan's Incorporation was contested.
Objections
2. Japan's motives for incorporating Dokdo were military thus falling under the Cairo Conventions lands seized by violence and greed.
National Maps
National Maps
Shimane Maps

Ponta I dont' know if JK is a Dokdo expert but you don't need to be a history professor to see that the Japanese claim to Dokdo is a colonial relic.

[pacifist]

JK,

> "It is MORE LIKELY???? What kind of argument is that?? "

You don't know the scientific way of expression, do you JK?
If there is a firm evidence, you can say it "definitely". In this case, "Matsushima" is not Takeshima/Dokdo (this can be said "definitely not") while the firm evidence to say this "Matsushima" is "Jukdo" is still not present. But if you eliminate the candidates (Takeshima/Dokdo, 観音島...), you will reach to Jukdo. Jukdo has possibility to be Matsushima, and the 1882 record of Lee Gyu-won support this theory (They called today's Jukdo as Songdo or Songjukdo in the 19th century). In such case, you can say "possibly" or "likely (more likely, highly likely)" etc.
It indicates levels of evidence.

> "like saying Germany's incorporation of Austria in 1938"

JK, you can't mix stories of apples and oranges. In Austria or France there were Austrians or Frenchmen living before German came. But Korea didn't know Takeshima/Dokdo before Japan incorporated it in 1905.

JK, why don't you show your evidence? It has been your homework for months but you can't show it yet.

> "as someone who lives in the US, I can tell you that many Americans view Japan's actions against other countries from 1895-1945 as basically crimes"

JK, I don't deny war crimes Japan did in the war time (I always feel it was bad thing) but it is not related to Takeshima/Dokdo.
JK, you must show your evidence, or nobody trust you.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> "I've said a dozen times Usando is Matsushima"

But you didn't prove that Matsushima in the 19th century was Takeshima/Dokdo.

You can say anything about the 1905 incorporation but before you say it, you have to show clear evidences that Korea had effectively controlled the island before 1905 but you couldn't.

Korea didn't know Takeshima/Dokdo before the 20th century. Truth is that they came to know the island after they were hired as sealion hunters by Japanese.
If you would like to refute, why don't you show the evidence?

[JK]

Pacifist, *sigh* wedgie has presented his arguments again and again yet you deny the proof. You say you presented evidence but even you admitted it was all conjecture.

What is the point of your arguments if you have no good arguments? You have not done your homework, pacifist. Either do your homework or stop with this whining. The Japanese people need to do this because we love Japanese and want to see them do well.

[pacifist]

JK,

You still don't understand what evidence is. Scroll back and read my posting.

[pacifist]

JK,

I will talk to you in easy way that even children can understand.

1) If Korea wants to say that they knew Takeshima/Dokdo, they have to show that old Korean documents that say "Chosun owned Dokdo" or old maps which say "Dokdo" but this is impossible because the name "Dokdo" is new, it appeared only in the 20th century.

2)So you have to find another old name of Takeshima/Dokdo if it existed.

3) Luckily, Koreans found the name Usando. Its name can be found in old books. But how can you say that Usando was Takeshima/Dokdo?

4) You have to find exact depiction of the island, especially unique to Takeshima/Dokdo under the name of Usando. (Such as two rock formation etc...but no such records.)

5) Instead, there were depictions not fit to Takeshima/Dokdo (such as people living and cultivating, you can see sandbeach etc...)

6) So you have to find another books which may show Usando had the same characteristics as Takeshima/Dokdo...but...

So JK, you have to read old books. There is no time left, hurry up JK!

[JK]

Why is there a need to hurry to do anything, pacifist? After all, Dokdo belongs to Korea now as it did in the old days. And it will stay within Korea's possession forever. :)

As for the arguments about who legitimately owns Dokdo, read wedgie's arguments.

Now YOU hurry, pacifist, because the longer that Dokdo stays in the possession of South Korea, the weaker is Japan's claim to the island (not that Japan ever HAD a legitimate claim to Dokdo).

[pacifist]

JK,

> "as it did in the old days"

But you didn't show the evidence if it was so in the old days.

[wedgie]

Pretty funny eh JK!!??

Korea has the island and Pacifist it trying to tell them what they have to do.....

Japanese and Korean documents say Usando=Matsushima therefore Usando is Dokdo Pacifist.

Accept it........

I found two more Japanese maps without Dokdo today Pacifist. How many do I need before you will realize the Japanese did not consider Dokdo part of Japan before they illegally annexed it?

Dokdo is not inherently part of Japan

[JK]

Wedgie,

Yes. LOL! I did get a chuckle out of pacifist's orders and commands about what Korea has to do with its own possessions. :)

[ponta]

"Japanese and Korean documents say Usando=Matsushima therefore Usando is Dokdo Pacifist"

You are in stalemate
which one are you talking about? Show us that Korea had effective control over Dokdo/takeshima before 1905

Ahn said Usando is Matsushima.But
" * Usan-do(Matsushima) is drawn in the Korean map (八道之図).（Documents of House of Murakami）
((In the map of Korea at this age, Usan-do is drawn in the west of Ulleng-do or the north. Takeshima/Dokdo is a direction in the southeast.)
* Usan-do is a big island in the northeast of Ullengdo. (Takeshima-kiji　compiled by Tsushima clan)
(Takeshima/Dokdo is a direction in the southeast and the area of Takeshima/Dokdo is 1/40 of Ulleng-do.)
* Usan-do is bigger than Ulleng-do (Henreisyuyou:辺例集要)
(The area of Takeshima/Dokdo is 1/40 of Ulleng-do.)
* The distance between Takeshima(Ulleng-do) and Chosun is 30ri(120km), and between Takeshima(Ulleng-do) and Matsushima is 50ri(200km).
(The distance of a Korean peninsula and Ulleng-do is 130km, and his distance is accurate. But the distance between Takeshima/Dokdo and Ulleng-do is 92km.)
* It is possible to go from Ulleng-do (Takeshima) to Usan-do (Matsushima) in 4 or 5 hours. （Documents of House of Murakami+Records of King Sukjong:肅宗）
(It is written that he arrived at Usan-do on the same day from Ullengdo in the Murakami document, and is written he arrived at Usan-do at the daybreak in Records of king sukjong: 肅宗.) "
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/index.html

You can't live on Dokdo, but he said he and other Korean used to live on Mautsuhima.

Hence,Ahn's Usando=Masushima is not Dokdo/Takeshima.

Besides.
If I go to Ulleungdo, and Ulleungdo belongs to Japan, and the government kept the record of it, it does not make Ulleungdo belong to Japan.

Moreover that there was some Japanese people who was confused about islands does not mean
Korea had effective control over Dokdo.

Show us Korea had an effective control before 1905. You failed to show any

JK
You must be pretty happy. wedgie seems to be
pleased with your cheer-leading.

I didn't get chuckle out of command to act based on justice, but wedgie and jk did.That is really telling.

[JK]

After Japan's illegal snatching of Dokdo in 1905, and then the rest of Korea in 1910, the Japanese are the LAST people to be talking about no justice from Koreans.

[ponta]

"the Japanese are the LAST people to be talking about no justice from Koreans."

Hmmm,For Koreans, does justice changes depending on who is talking about it ?

Takeshima rightly belongs to Japan.
Korea illegally occupies it.
Justice demands that Korea return it.

Whoever said it, it does not change the truth value of the proposition.

JK and wedgie think the demand to act on justice is pretty funny.

I appreciate JK's cheer-leading. Wedgie must be so happy.

[JK]

Aww....Ponta's getting testy because he knows he is losing the debate. Such anger!

So Korea should give land that has always belonged to it because Ponta says so? And as I have always stated EVEN IF one could argue that Dokdo belonged to Japan prior to 1905 (which it didn't) I would then view Dokdo as a war reparation for its wrongful colonization of Korea. THAT is justice.

The bottom line is Korea will always own Dokdo. And there is nothing you can do about it, ponta. :) Your cries for "justice" are about as justified (no pun intended) as a smaller weaker person who has gotten unjustifiably beaten by a bigger stronger person who strikes the bigger person back. Why should the smaller weaker person be sorry that it hurt the bigger, stronger person who provoked the fight?

Leave it alone, ponta. Dokdo belongs to Korea and it always has. Leave it alone.

[ponta]

JK
Korea has already got the reparation.
1)Korean got the property Japanese left in the peninsula.
2)Korean got money when Japan and Korea made a peace treaty.

Dokdo is the islet Korea took away when Japan was occupied and could do nothing about it.

To take the territory as a reparation that is not agreed between the countries is unjust, against international law.

But JK demands it.
And JK got chuckle out of the demand to act on justice.
That is telling.

But I like you anyway.
See you !!!

[pacifist]

JK,

> "I would then view Dokdo as a war reparation"

It was not accepted internationally. If you snatched it (as Syngman Rhee
did), it is illegal.

Read the Rusk's document:
Liancourt Rocks are territory of Japan.
E
xcerpt: "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."

The final treaty did not address Dokdo. Because Rusk rejected the South Korean request that Japan should renounce islands of Dokdo and Parangdo (an imaginary island) by as a consequence of the peace treaty.

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

[ponta]

"Korea doesn't have to cater to your definiton of effective control Ponta. Korea had effectively controlled Dokdo for much longer that Japan."

Wedgie,
Korea has to. The effective control is not my definition ,but it is defined by textbooks of international law, and precedence at ICJ.

Just show us the evidence Korea had effective control over Dokdo before 1905

[pacifist]

wedgie,

If you post Japanese maps without takeshima/Dokdo, it is not an evidence to show Korea knew the island.

wedgie, you should show the evidence.
All the readers can see the truth even if you dodge the point.

[JK]

Ponta,

Did Japan have "effective" control over Dokdo before it took it by force in 1905? I don't think so.

And meanwhile as the seconds tick on the clock, the possession of Dokdo remains in Korean hands, as it should be. :) And ponta and pacifist are still wasting their time arguing about it online. Hey ponta and pacifist, you're probably better off arguing that Germany rightfully owns Poland because of what happened in 1939.

[JK]

Pacifist, I looked at your link and at the top it says, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I don't want to hear people's biased opinions, I want to hear FACTS. Can you present them? Hurry and do your homework, pacifist, because Korean ownership of Dokdo is continuing. :)

Meanwhile, you forgot to quote the US Embassy Political Minister from your very link:

The current position of the U.S. government on the dispute is "does not take a position".

"U.S. policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Island issue has been and continues to be that the United States does not take a position on either Korea's claim or Japan's claim to the island. Our hope is that the two countries will resolve the issue amicably." (Joseph Yun, U.S. Embassy Political Minister-Counselor in Seoul comments on March 16, 2005)

The end. Just accept that everything is the way it should be, pacifist.

[wedgie]

Pacifist I post the Japanese Maps because they totally destroy their Foreign Ministry's assertions that Dokdo/Takeshima was part of Japan from ancient times. Then all that Japan is left with is a shabby colonial land grab in 1905. An inclusion that was contested and a military acquisition falling under lands grabbed by violence and greed. So the Japanese claim is not valid when you look at it closely.

First of all it is only reasonable to understand the 1877 Inquiry Regarding Ulleungdo and "the other island" concluded that Dokdo was not part of Japan. The purpose of the inquiry was to clarify territorial boundaries of each prefecture prior to mapping. Afterwards maps of Shimane and Oki Gun excluded Dokdo.

The next document was the 1870 Secret Report on Chosun which declared Jukdo (Ulleungdo) and Songdo (Dokdo) as Chosun Land. You could present no maps that showed a neighbour island of Ulleungdo called Songdo. Your assertions that all maps of the 19th Century show two Ulleungdo's and exclude Dokdo (liancourt rocks) are rediculous. Even Watanabe Kuokis minority view that there might be another island was not supported by other Japanese officials at the time. He also quoted in this document that "what we call Songdo, Westerners call Hornet Rocks...." in 1877. Historical reference and physical description on the document confirm Jukdo is Ulleungdo.

Effective Control is but only one way to acquire teritory. So are historical land claims. Korea's and Japanese historical references to Usando are a legitimate basis to claim Dokdo as they prove that Usandol/Dokdo was part of Korea from ancient times. They don't prove it to you because you are in a state of denial Ponta.

Ponta, Anyongbok's reference to Usando is but one reference that says Usando is Matushiima. I‘ve given you both Japanese and Korean references even the Daehanjiji which gives the correct location. The unclear documents don't negate the clear ones. Japanese references also say Usando was Matsushima and these are not related to Anyongbok. In addition the (八道之図) map you quote is only one map there are Korean maps of the 17th Century that show Usando on the East of Ulleungdo.

Ponta and Pacifist before you rely too much on Dean Rusk's decision on Dokdo you must consider his policy on Asia and communism. First, Dean Rusk was not an expert on Chosun or Asian history. Second we know Mr Rusk was a hawkish anti-communist who believed in military action to combat communism. He was firm supporter of the Korean War and America's involvement in Viet Nam. In short, Dean Rusk's decisions on Dokdo were only related to what US military benefits could be gained by allocating territories to which ally.

Post World War II claims with regard to Dokdo mean nothing and I don't why people make such an issue of it. First we know America was favoring Japan because they knew Japan would allow better access to the East Sea. America and the West were posturing for the Cold War with Russia. The allies are not the "Boss" of Korea. These same "allies" gave Korea to Japan on a silver platter in 1905 and Korea was supposed to bow to their territorial definitions after the war?? I don't think so...

There comes a time when a country must have the intestinal fortitude to go against some of the "world leaders" if they feel that they are getting a raw deal. This does not make them a country of criminals. South Korea's refusal to go the ICJ does not make them a "rogue state" it simply means they are rightfully concerned the ICJ will not consider the historical events surrounding Japan's activities in 1905 when they annexed Dokdo.

[pacifist]

JK,

Rusk's document is FACT.

Look at the following site for the REAL document:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rusk2.jpg

You can magnify if you clicks.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> "I post the Japanese Maps because they totally destroy their Foreign Ministry's assertions that Dokdo/Takeshima was part of Japan from ancient times"

You can't say anything even if those maps didn't depict Takeshima/Dokdo. Small islands were not depicted sometimes, but if not depicted, it doesn't mean anything.

> "Historical reference and physical description on the document confirm Jukdo is Ulleungdo".

Yes you are right, wedgie. In the early years of Meiji era, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Interior had different recognition about Ulleungdo; one believed "Matsushima" to be Ulleungdo, another believed "Takeshima" to be Ulleungdo.

So there were confusion in the documents in those days. But after the investigation by Amagi in 1880, they found the truth (Matsushima was Ulleungdo) and confusion disppeared.

> "reasonable to understand the 1877 Inquiry Regarding Ulleungdo and "the other island" concluded that Dokdo was not part of Japan".

The 1877 document by Koki Watanabe was not a inquiry. It was a proposal of the investigation around Ulleungdo to resolve the mystery of the confused names.

Also it referred to the Hornet Rocks (=Liancourt Rocks), it said "而テ此ホルネットロックスノ我国ニ属スルハ各国ノ地図皆然リ(The Hornet Rocks belong to our country, as every foreign map indicated)".

> "The next document was the 1870 Secret Report on Chosun which declared Jukdo (Ulleungdo) and Songdo (Dokdo) as Chosun Land".

The names of the islands in the brackets are only your speculation, wedgie. It only stated that Matsushima and another island belong to Chosun (as the Shogunate and Chosun concluded in 1696). Takeshima/Dokdo was not included in the treaty in 1696, so this document concerning the old treaty doesn't mean "Dokdo is Koreans", wedgie. Please don't fabricate story.

> "Second we know Mr Rusk was a hawkish anti-communist who believed in military action to combat communism".

And did you forget those hawkish Americans rescued South Korea in the 1950's? Are you a pawn of KJI?

[JK]

Pacifist, DID WEDGIE SAY THAT BECAUSE HE DISAGREED WITH RUSK THAT SOMEHOW HE WAS A SUPPORTER OF KJI????? What kind of sick logic is that on your part, pacifist?

Just face it, you got schooled, pacifist. Leave it alone.

[ponta]

Wedgie
Again, You have not shown us that Korea had effective control over Dokdo before 1905 because Korea didn't even recoginize it.

The Ulleungdo County Head said that "Dokdo" was 40 kilometers east of Ulleungdo, which is not even half the distance to Takeshima (Dokdo).

The fact that the County Head's superiors and the Korean newspapers did not notice the mistake shows that they did not know where "Dokdo" was, either

Koreans claim that "Dokdo" was a Cholla Province pronunciation for "Seokdo," which was named in the 1900 proclamation as one of three islands making up Uldo (Ulleungdo) County. If that were true, then why didn't the Korean County Head use the official name for the island in his letter to his superiors, instead of its supposed nickname? And if Dokdo were an alternative name for Seokdo, shouldn't the letter have at least mentioned that fact? Even if local residents did refer to Seokdo as "Dokdo," why would officials in Seoul refer to it by that name, instead of its official name?

And I think the reason that Koreans did not officially protest the Japanese incorporation of Takeshima was that when the Ulleungdo County head rechecked the location of the island, as he was instructed to do by his superiors, he found that Takeshima was actually 92 kilometers away from Ulleungdo, not 40.

Why why does your Web site not mention the fact that the Uldo (Ulleungdo) County Head did not know the location of Dokdo in 1906. Why did the County Head give its distance as 100 "ri" instead of its actual distance of more than 200 ri?

"Ponta, Anyongbok's reference to Usando is but one reference that says Usando is Matushiima. I‘ve given you both Japanese and Korean references even the Daehanjiji which gives the correct location"
Do you mean this one?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/jiji-20.jpg
Does that say "Usan is productve island"?
Dokdo/takeshima is not, as you know.

Or you mean this?
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200605/18/52/f0091252_1452197.gif
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200605/18/52/f0091252_613332.jpg
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200605/18/52/f0091252_6143145.jpg
This is the textbook that excluded Dokdo as a Korean territory.

And your claim that Korea knew Dokdo/Takeshima is ungrounded.
1)Every ancient Korean document does not refer to "DoKdo"
Korean has no consistent explanation why the name of the islat has changed
2)Korea has no clear map of Dokdo
3)Every document which Korea says referred to Dokdo contains the description inconsistent with the description of Dokdo such as you can see the sandy beach of it, you can live there etc.
What Korea is just regarding Jukudo
or Ullengdo as Dokdo by these ancient document because she wants Japanese territory illegally.

Japan has had effective control over Dokdo/Takeshima.
Korea had none.
Just show us that Korea had
effective control over Dokdo before
1905. Despite this long discussion,
you haven't shown any.
Your claim that Japan invaded Dokdo
during the colonial period holds only if you can prove it. Sadly you have been avoiding it.

[JK]

Japan had effective control over the Korean peninsula, another possession of the Korean people's. Are Koreans supposed to give the Korean peninsula to Japan because Japan claimed effective control over it also in 1910?

As I have said, after reading over the evidence it is very clear that Dokdo has always belonged to Korea....but EVEN IF Japan's claim to the island was stronger (which it isn't) Japan lost any rights to complain about land supposedly being "stolen" by Korea. Heck, after the US took Okinawa from Japan, I say the US should have never given the island back to Japan in 1972. I hope our American troops never leave there.

That's how I feel about Dokdo.....but even THEN, the case for Koreans keeping Dokdo is especially strong in light of the fact that the historical arguments favor Korea's side that it always owned Dokdo in this debate. If Japan's historical claim to the island were stronger than Korea's, I say Korea should keep it the way the US kept Okinawa as a punishment to Japan for its past evil ways. But add in the fact that Korea always had a stronger legitimate claim to Dokdo, and I say with full conviction and knowledge....that Korea must never give up Dokdo any more than it would give up the city of Seoul again to the Japanese.

[pacifist]

JK,

> "the case for Koreans keeping Dokdo is especially strong"

I know it, everybody knows it, but everybody wonders why it's so strong at the same time.

It originated from education in Korea.

They even didn't know about Dokdo until Syngman Rhee declared the Rhee line, but the Korean governments kept nationalistic education using Takeshima/Dokdo issue since then until today, which was a wise way because every Korean people were now made to believe that Takeshima/Dokdo was related to the colonial policy.

They were taught that Takeshima/Dokdo was stolen by Japanese from Kindergarten days and there is a popular song to advertise the propaganda.

(But it's funny that the lyric of song mentions "Hawaii belongs to USA", do you know Hawaii has the same kind of history as Chosun's Li Dynasty? It may sound to old Hawaians just like you singing "Colonial Chosun belongs to Japan"...)

But this belief is groundless and the people of the world can't understand it.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> "As to the newspaper article you mentioned, please give us the original article in Japanese. I can't read hanglu and the English translated version may have been distorted because of double translation (Japanese-hanglu-then, English). I saw the homepage of the newspaper 山陰中央日報 but it didn't say about it. I will try to ask them about it later. So I can't comment on the article now".

As to the article I mentioned above, one of the stuff of the newspaper gave me information about the article.

It was the article on May 17th 2005.
The title of the article was 「海士の旧家から供述文書発見－江戸中期、鳥取藩に渡航した安龍福」(A deposition found at a house of the old fishing family - Ahn Yong-bok who came to Tottori-han in mid Edo era).

As the title shows, it was a deposition of Ahn who testified in Tottori. The newspaper stuff will send me a copy of the article. I will then relate to this article again after I read the details.
But whatever Ahn testified, his insistence doesn't have grave meaning, as it was not reported to the Shogunate and he was deported.

[pacifist]

(correction)

stuff → staff

sorry.

[wedgie]

Seems to me that all of those who publish legal writing about the Dokdo Takeshima dispute favour the Korean side.

Korea's claim is stronger
Korea's claim is stronger2

Have you got a degree in International Law Ponta? If so did you go to Stanford, Harvard or Yale?

[ponta]

Let's examine each paper.

Korea's claim is stronger

"85 The south Korean claim is based on earlier....."
The author presupose Korea's claim is correct, but his presuposition is wrong.
87 Linacourt's history, however appear to show
that island initially belong to Korea.

Now this supposition is wrong.

88 Assuming that Korea originally possesed....

This is the very supposition Wedgie has completely failed to show.

Korea's claim is stronger2

"-
international law no longer recognizes the
legitimacy of the acquisition of territory through force.6"
wow this means Korea's illegal occupation can not be approved.

"The tribunals almost always emphasize
recent effective displays of sovereignty as the most important factor, but the historical
evidence can also be important."

Wow, this is exactly wedgie has failed to show.

". In most of these incidents, Tok-Do
was viewed by the Korean authorities as a part of or an appendage to Ullung-Do, and
they were administered together."

Wow, this is exact what Korea has to prove.

"was not in a position to exercise control during
the first part of the twentieth century, because it had been annexed by Japan, but as
soon as it regained its independence it asserted control over the islets, and has continued to exercise sovereignty over them since then."
But Korea had never exercised soverignty before.The authour might want to ask wedgie to show Korea had asserted control over the islets. He has failed to show it.

"Korean scholars contend that
this conquest included Tok-Do as well. The early records are confused and difficult to
interpret, in part, because the names of these islands appear to have changed during the
years. As for the Korean appellation, Todko was originally called Usando, implying its
derivation from Usan'guk.27 Although the records regarding activity connected with
these islands during this early period are very limited as far as Ullungdo is concerned,
there is evidence that Koreans lived there and the government attempted to control it
politically."
Sadly the author was deceived by Korean historians.

And the article continue with flawed history of Dokdo.....

"Land is in a state of terra nullius and thus subject to acquisition by discovery and
occupation if it is not under any sovereignty at the moment of occupation,49 or, in
another phrasing, immediately before acquisition, belonged to no state."
Wow since Korea didn't recoginized Dokdo before, the definition just fits.

"Tok-Do/Takeshima was not mentioned in the Treaty."
This is important, considering the process of concluding the treaty.

Japan's protests appear to have been sufficient to overcome a presumption of acquiescence, and thus if Korea's claim were based solely on
its occupation of the islets since World War II, these protests could be seen as adequate
to block a claim based on prescription. And Korea's claim is solely based on its illegal occupation since world war Ⅱ,because Wedgie has failed to show
Korea had effective control over Dokdo before 1905.

"the occasional visits by Korean fishers served as adequate evidence of occupation."
But sadly there is no evidence korean fishers went to Dokdo, on the contrary, there is an evidence Japanese fishermen went fishing to Dokdo. Thanks Wedgie for the valuable imformation!!

In a word, both articles based on the false assumption that Korea had effective control over Dokdo or Korean government knew Dokdo before 1905. But that is exactly what wedgie has failed to show. I'll ask you again, show us that Korea had effective control over Dokdo before 1905.

[ponta]

I recommend the reader to read the two article s wedgie provided. The reader will understand why Korea rejected sending the issue to ICJ.
The both article presuppose everything historiacal claim Korea claims is correct, And that is what Gerry has refuted completely.(and
he was banned to speak about Dokdo on the ineternet.) And Wedgie has failed to prove what the authours of the two article presupposed in their papers.

[wedgie]

Sorry Ponta a Stanford Article on Dokdo's International Law takes precedent on your Japanese Right Wing blathering. And he says Korea has a better case.

Go to school and get a Law degree then maybe people will listen to your ranting.

The author also makes a valid claim that an equidistant line between the furthermost lands would still grant Dokdo to Korea. This has nothing to do with historical claims.

Ponta let's make sure we are on the same page here. Are you telling me that on all Japanese maps of the 19th century Songdo is not Dokdo? If that is the case then how do you feel that strengthens Japanese claims to Dokdo? What you are then basiclly saying is that 99.9% of all Japanese maps do not show Dokdo. Japanese maps that show Dokdo as Liancourt Rocks are very rare. Second we know that the Japanese were still refering to Dokdo as Songdo because this map identifies Dokdo/Songdo by name and shape.

Japanese maps continued to show Dokdo as Songdo for decades after the Amagi survey. Secondly this Amagi survey is overrated. Only a few Japanese believed there was another Ulleungdo. The Japanese used foreign maps such as this one for years before the Amagi survey.
Japanese/Russian Navy Map
To paint this picture of mass confusion by the Japanese is rubbish.

The fact that Watanbe Kuoki used foreign maps to ascertain Dokdo as Japanese at this time shows they had not included the islands yet. I've proven through many maps the Japanese did not include Dokdo so don't even attempt to go there Pacifist. I've sunk that theory a hundred times over and I continue to find more maps always.

Pacifist you continually harp on on effective control I've told you, effective control is one of many ways to acquire territory. Historical background is another way and I gave you documents saying Usando is Matsushima separate from the Anyongbok incident from Japanese and Korean sources so stop your incessant blubbering and accept the facts.

I dealt with Shimheungtaeks incorrect distance on this thread already. Please read before you post. Japanese maps place Dokdo about 160kms from Ulleungdo which is about double the distance. Why do you hold the Koreans to higher standards of accuracy than the maps you cite as evidence of Japanese coginizance Pacifist? The point is the 1906 document kills Japanese claims to Dokdo because it shows Koreans had already considered Dokdo Korean land before Japan. It also kills Japanese terra nullius claims because it is proof the Koreans contested. Terra nullius claims must be uncontested as you know. In addition I think this document is damning for Japan because it is internal thus we know the Koreans were sincere in their claim. This government file was not fabricated for publicity it can be seen as a true representation of Korea's policy on the island in 1905~1906.

The Daehianjij gives incorrect locations with regard to latitude and longitude so it should not be cross reference with todays accurate maps Pacifist you can look at the map at a glance and see that. Also the Daehanjiji is not a Korean map. It was based on Japanese Sealane maps with the same incorrect locations of Ulleungdo Island. Usando location given on the text does not jibe with the map. Usando is not productive, they why did they fish there?

Who cares why the islands name changed? What does that have to do with anything?

The fact that you refer to Anyongboks testimony as not having "grave meaning" means you are not in a sincere search for the truth but rather a Japanese right wing acitivist trying desparately to cling on to a territory to which you have none. Hou could a historical fact revealed be grave news? The Tottori information was buried because as Anyongbok mentioned they were scared they would be punished by Shogunate for messing around in a territory they were forbade to visit.

I haven't been avoiding the issue of colialism and Dokdo. We know the Japanese were surveying the island for preparations of building a watchtower well before the Shimane Prefecture Inclusion.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-navy.html

I'd like to hear your shabby explanation as to why Japan waited until the Russo~Japanese War to take the island. And why they built a watchtower on it with submarine telegraph cables only months after.....

This should be good for a laugh.....

[wedgie]

Who is the hack who runs this website and who gave them the permission to pilfer images from my website.

Can't they do their own research?

Anyway whoever it is says on this map Songdo is dokdo!!

Japanese Bullshitter Busted!!

Is that you Ponta ???

Shame shame shame......

The interpretation of this map shows whoever wrote it either doesn't know their history or is full of shit.

We know Ulleungdo was long deemed Chosun territory so this map showing both Ulleungdo and Songdo (that's right Dokdo) can't be said to interpret Dokdo as Japanese Territory.

Do you take credit for this site Ponta!!?

[pacifist]

wedgie,

Sean Fern's paper has been available from Wikipedia and I have read it before. The author has been famous as one of "pro-Korean" scholars.

The paper was also introduced in Japanese site "toron":

http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/law/stanford01.html

It mentions "it only quoted from Korean documents and theories. As to Japanese oipinions, it only took from Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA)'s site".

His thought about historical and political consideration seems to be prejudiced.

The author of "toron" mentions "At the beginning he used the name Liancourt rocks, but in the latter half he repeated Tokdo, Tokdo...is this man, Sean Fern, man of Korean ancestry?"

Anyway, it's his opinion. Not an important one.

[pacifist]

I got the Sanin Chuo Shinpo's article at last. It is slightly long, so I can't write all the article here.

Excerpt: Sukekurou Murakami, 65, found an old document at his storehouse. It was a report based on the questioning of Ahn Yong-Bok in 1696. In the report, Ahn told that he brought a complaint to Hoki-no-kami (director of Hoki district). Ahn thought Ulleungdo was Japan's Takeshima. According to the depiction '30-ri between Takeshima and Chosun, 50-ri between Takeshima and Matsushima', he seems to have thought today's Takeshima as Josando, Korean territory.

The article also included a comment by Prof. Masao Shimojo: "This document provides information that Ahn was positive that Josando was Matsushima. The important thing is that it showed that he had a 'plea' to Tottori-han (Tottri county). It didn't refer to a territory issue."

But this only shows that Ahn misunderstood that Matsushima was Josando. There is still an inconsistency, because he once mentioned that Japanese lived in Matsushima (he dismissed them) where nobody could live.

Anyway, his story may include some lies, as he once told a lie about his achievement in Japan.

[wedgie]

The quote Anyongbok said was "The Japanese replied "We live on Matsushima and came here, (Ulleungdo) fishing by chance..." Anyongbok then replied "Matsushima is Jasando and that too is Chosun land how dare you live there.

Anyongbok was quoting the Japanese he did not say Japanese lived there. The Japanese said that. Maybe they lied.

Anyongbok wasn't confused about Jasando his and other references said Jasando was Matsushima Pacifist.

Everybody is confused about Dokdo and Usando. Except for Ponta, Pacifist and the Japanese Foreign Ministry........hilarious

[pacifist]

wedgie,

Isn't there a possibility that the "Matsushima" those Japanese meant was not the same island Ahn thought?

BTW, didn't he kicked a kettle or something when Japanese were boiling water or soup for breakfast on the island? And on the same day he went back and ran around Ulleungdo, was it possible when they needed one day (two days for return trip) from takeshima/Dokdo to Ulleungdo?

[ponta]

Wedgie
You are cornered.

The authors of the papers you provided lacks
historical knowledge.

1) Korean historican claim that he acquired Dokdo is groundless.
a) There is no map depicting Dokdo on it
b) There is no description that fit with physical character of Dokdo.

(Do you really believe the Korean ancient maps and documents can convince international community?)

It is just that Korea intentinally misinterpret old maps and docuemtns so that Korea can illegally occupy Dokdo.
The two papers presuppose Korean historical claim is correct, but that is what is in question .

2)Japanese ceded Ulleungodo to Korea.
It means either Ulleungdo was coownership of Japan and Korea or Japan totally gave up Ulleungdo.But that does not mean Korea has the title to Dokdo. On the contrary, when Korea was not coginzant of Dokdo, and when Japan didn't punish the fisherman sailing to Dokdo while punishing the man sailing to Ulleungod, it is most likely Japan still hold Dokdo as territoty.

3)Another way for Korea to acquire Dokdo is
to have effective control over Dokdo.But,
Wedgie failed to show Korea had effective cotrol over Dokdo

From your comment above and the papers you provided. I conclude that you and the author s of the paper admitted that Korea had no effective control over Dokdo

Now the point of the disupute will shift to the ancient Korean document. That is quite easy.
Gerry has already written about it on his blog.
Ahn is also quite easy, because What Ahn said about Matsuhima does not fit with the description of Dokdo.

This tread was valuable in that the specialist like wedgie couldn't show convincing argument for Korea.

[JK]

You are so pathetic, ponta. The truth hits you in the face but you don't want to admit that Dokdo is in the right hands. And you complain about Korea stealing from Japan (talk about irony).

Give it up, ponta. Give it up.

[ponta]

JK
I think wedgie really appreciate your effort.

[wedgie]

Face the truth gentlemen there is no other islands around Ulleungdo that could be Usando Matsushima.

First, the distance given is on the Japanese document is too far. The only other island that could be "lived on" is Jukdo which is about 2kms away. Why would Anyongbok wait until the next day to confront them and better yet why would the Japanese fishermen clamour onto a 300ft wall of a island to camp when Ulleungdo's best mooring is ten minutes away? Ullengdo's other islands are simply rocks a few meters away from the island.

Pacifist/Ponta. I've told you three times now. Effective control is only one of many ways to claim land to a territory. It is seen as a strong method of aquisition but it is not the only method. History, geography, treaty, economy, and Uti Possidetis (post colonial boundary limts) are also a basis for claiming land. Effective control is not the end-all in settling land disputes.

Don't quote Gerry Bevers information as much of anything here Ponta. He is the first to admit he is not a historian so again you enter the realm of opinion.

Lastly Ponta is that your website that uses my material and quotes songdo as dokdo? I think it is clear it is.

Ponta's doubletalk revealed

[ponta]

Wedgie
" Effective control is only one of many ways to claim land to a territory. It is seen as a strong method of acquisition but it is not the only method"
Okay, so you admit that Korea had no effective control over Dokdo. Am I right?

Then the story is much easier.

1)Ancient Korean document does not mention Dokdo at all.

2)The description of Usan and Mullungdo does
not fit with physical character of Dokdo at all. For instance, You can not see the sandy beach nor the tree of Dokdo from Chosun , even from Ulleungdo.

3) Ahn's "Matsushima" is not Dokodo at all.
"Matsushima" Ahn was talking about is the Matushima where people were living, but you can not live on Dokdo.(note that whether Japanese were lying or not---what is the point of lying anyway?----Ahn was talking about Matsuhima where people were living.)

4)There is another place "Matsushima " was mentioned in Korean document, i.e., 1808 document
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-usando.html

"Ulleung and Usando all belonged to Usan¨guk land and Usando is what Japanese call Matsushima..."

a)this does not mention where Matsuhima is.

b)Korean reference to Matushima comes after Ahn's incident. hence, it is reasonable to assume that the information about "Matsushima comes only from Ahn's incident. But Ahn's "Matsuhima" is not Dokdo, hence, it is safe to say that "matsuhima" in this document is not Dokdo at all.

(Wedgie try to confuse the reader by not putting the facts chronologically. Keep in mind, all the reference to "Matsuhima" comes after Ahn's incident, and Ahn's "Matsushima"is not Dokdo at all.

Therefore all the Korean historical records fail to show that Korea was cognizant of Dokdo/Takeshima.
And as Wedigie and other scholars have admitted, Korea had no effective control over Dokdo.

In conclusion, Korea's claim For Dokdo is not valid at all.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> "History, geography, treaty, economy, and Uti Possidetis (post colonial boundary limts) are also a basis for claiming land."

History: no ground for Korea
geography: no ground for Korea
economy: no ground for Korea
post colonial boundary limits: no ground for Korea

wedgie, do you think if one robbed somebody of something and he keeps it for years...then can he claim ownership of it?
Korea is doing the samething.

[JK]

wedgie wrote:
"Lastly Ponta is that your website that uses my material and quotes songdo as dokdo? I think it is clear it is."

Guess we know what the answer is, wedgie. Ponta is deceptive and lives up to the stereotype held by many people in this world that is unfortunately associated with the Japanese.

[wedgie]

History: Usando=Matsushima=Dokdo. There was no other island called Matsushima in 1808. Seibold's error didn't occur until 30 years later. Show me a map to prove there is another Matsushima in 1808. Anyongbok didn't say Japanese lived on Matsushima....the Japanese he rebuked said that. Not all references that say Usando is Matsushima cite the Anyongbok incident.

Geography. Drawing an equidistant line between the outermost territories of Oki and Ulleungdo places Dokdo as Korean territory.

Economy: The residents of Ulleungdo are deeply dependent on the waters surrounding Dokdo for their livelihood for the fishing grounds.

Post colonial grounds: Dokdo Island was annexed by Japan at the height of the Russo~Japanese War for the military purpose of installing submarine telegraph lines. Thus the Cairo Convention declares lands siezed by Japan by violence or greed must be forfeited.

Ponta I can't believe you still have the nerve to post here after you been exposed as a double-talking Japanese right wing activist. You've been insisting Songdo (松島) is not Dokdo on this blog and then you post on your blog Songdo is Dokdo. Why should we believe anything you post when it is obvious even you don't?
Proof of Double Talk

Then you scam images from my website without my consent and hotlink link my site without asking me.

It's clear you have zero credibility here Ponta. It's also clear by your website you will do anything to promote Japanese right wing politcal causes ranging from the Nanjing Massacre, the Korean comfort woment issue to border disputes with China. What is even more hilarious is that you have the gall to brand REAL historians such as Professor of Japanese~Russian History Wada Haruki as biased.

Pacifist, even on this thread you were caught bullshitting. You tried to say Japanese grammar rules proved the 1877 Kobunruko Documents were not referring to Ulleungdo. Let me refresh your memory here is the quote from above.
"The word 此地, this place or this land, indicated the place the author had written just before, that means Matsushima, not Takeshima. This is a grammatical rule.
Pacifist busted
Later the Kobunruko Map was released (after 150 years) and it was now clear that Pacifist was wrong. Maybe somebody should have taught the Japanese Meiji Goverment not to "break grammar rules" eh Pacifist.....?
My point is Ponta and Pacifist have been shown to lack credibility and integrity on this issue. They are simply not honest. It's too bad.

[ponta]

Wedgie
I told you beofore you nitpick Japanese documents and maps, you have to show Korea had the title to Dokdo.

Ahn's Matsushima is not Dokdo.
If you are not satisfied with my argument, I let you remind Gerry's argument?
(He knew the truth, that is why he was banned from talking the truth on the internet).

In 1696, Ahn Yong-bok said that "Matsushima" was "Usando," but Korean maps during that time show that Usando was to the west of Ulleungdo, not the east. For example, consider the following Korean map that was made sometime in the late 1600s, which was at the time of the Ahn Yong-bok incident:

Paldo Chongdo (八都總圖)

Notice on the map that the two islands are actually touching each other, and that the one on the left is labeled 于山島 (Usando), though it is very faint, and the one on the right is labelled 蔚陵島 (Ulleungdo), which is also very faint. That suggests that Usando was actually a referrence to Ulleungdo, which would explain how Japanese could have been living on the island. Even after the Ahn Yong-bok incident, Korean maps continued to show Usando west of Ulleungdo, as can be seen from the following 1710 Korean map:

Dongguk Yoji Jido (1710)

The above 1710 map helps reconfirm that Ahn's reference to Usando was not a reference to Dokdo/Takeshima. The 1710 map even shows that both Usando and Ulleungdo was 2-days sailing time from the Korean mainland, which suggests the islands were right beside each other. If either island had been "Dodko," it would have required another day of travel time.
The Ahn Yong-bok incident does NOT "prove" that Japan recognized Takeshima (Dokdo) as Korean territory;Korean maps during that time clearly show that Usando was to the west of Ulleungdo, not the east, which means that Usando was not "Dokdo.On the contrary,
it suggests that the Japanese fisherman was using "Matsushima" to refer to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, but all the evidence shows pretty clearly to me that it was definitely not a reference to "Dokdo."

Hence Korea's claim to Dokdo is not valid:Korea was not coginizant of Dokdo at all.
On the other hand Japan had effective control since Edo period or at the latest since Meiji.

Therefore Korea's occupation is illegal.

p.s.
The slander about me by JK,and wedgie is a sign that they were cornered.
But anyway I thank wedgie and jk for deeping the understandig of issue and of the way Korean side argue.

[ponta]

BTW I think it is clear by now why you have to show Korea had effective control of solid historical ground for Dokdo before you nitpick Japanese documents and maps.

1)The papers you privided concerning legal status presuppose what you have failed to show, i.e, Korea has historical ground for Dokdo.

2)So-called Korean protest and Korean claim that Japanese invade Korea presupose what you have failed to show, i.e. Korea has a solid historical ground for Dokdo and Korea had effective control over Dokdo.

I write this for the sake of the reader.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

History: No ground for Korea (as ponta already showed)

Geography: No ground for Korea (as ponta already showed)

Economy: Your theory ("The residents of Ulleungdo are deeply dependent on the waters surrounding Dokdo for their livelihood for the fishing grounds") should be a new one but it is no ground.
Generally speaking, Korean fisheries in those day are inshore fisheries such as abalones, seaweeds etc. So it is no ground that they went to far from Ulleungdo (Takeshima/Dokdo is 92 km far away!).

Post colonial limits: As I repeatedly wrote, it was a time to be facing Russia, so it was no wonder if Japan used her islands. But you shouldn't take results for causes.

[JK]

Ponta, I didn't slander you, so be quiet. After all you are the person who stated on another blog (I read over it today) that my relatives were collaborators with the Japanese because they learned Japanese in school through compulsory education. That shows how desperate YOU were and are. And sneaky, living up to the unfortunate image that many people have of Japanese.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

The grammer of Japanese language is not changed, wedgie.
I don't know what are you talking about. Please let me see the map you mentioned.

[JK]

BTW, ponta, regarding Gerry Bevers being banned from spreading more lies about Dokdo: Just because you are banned from posting something does not mean that what you were posting was truth. In America, public school teachers are not allowed to teach that the Holocaust in Europe by Germany was a myth. Imagine if an American teacher taught that and got banned from teaching that. Just because he gets banned from teaching that the Holocaust was a myth or writing about it on the Internet, even if he believes it to be true with all his sick heart, does not mean that what he was saying is true.

Same with Gerry Bevers. Got it, Ponta?

[ponta]

JK
Thanks

BTW
It seems Wedgie does not know what he is saying about Anyonbok.

"“Ulleungdo is our territory. How dare you trespass ? You deserve to be arrested.” “We originally lived on Matsushima . We happened to come here while fishing, but we will surely return there.” “Matsushima is Jasando, and it is also our territory. How dare you say you live there?” Next morning on sailing to usando(干山）,Japanese were boiling fish(oil) with big pots lined up."

"Matsuhima" Ahn was talking about is the island where Japanese said people were living and where people were cooking with big pots lined up.
But At Dokdo, you can not do that.

Hence, whatever Japanese say about Matsuhima, "Matsuhima" An and Koreans were talking about, coupled with the contemporary Korean maps and Ahn's other description of Matsuhima, is not Dokdo.

[pacifist]

wedgie and JK,

Please don't change the subject.
You should show the evidence, but you have not shown it yet.

As to Gerry, he is a victim of Korean nationalism. This is not a site to talk about him.

[pacifist]

wedgie and JK,

太宗實錄 卷33(1417):
按撫使金麟雨， 還自于山島。 獻土產大竹、水牛皮、生苧、綿子、檢樸木等物， 且率居人三名以來。 其島戶凡十五口， 男女並八十六， 麟雨之往還也， 再逢颶風， 僅得其生

This document mentions that there were 15 houses and 86 people living in Usando. They produced big bamboos, taros (or yams) etc...isn't this Ulleungdo or Jukdo?

wedgie and JK, are you still insisting that Usando was takeshima/Dokdo?

It's your turn to show the evidence, wedgie and JK.

[pacifist]

wedgie and JK,

太宗實錄 卷32 (太宗16年（1416年）)

庚寅， 以金麟雨為武陵等處安撫使， 戶曹參判朴習啟：臣嘗為江原道都觀察使， 聞武陵島周回七息， 旁有小島， 其田可五十餘結， 所入之路， 纔通一人， 不可並行。 昔有方之用者， 率十五家入居， 或時假倭為寇

This document, which was written one year earlier than the document above, mentions an interesting topic.

It stated that there is a small island beside Ulleungdo, although the author didn't write the name of the island, where 15 households lived.

This small island seems to be today's Jukdo. Doesn't it sound as the same island that was mentioned above? There were the same number of houses there...don't you think this island (Jukdo) is Usando in the 1417 document?

wedgie and JK, why are you keeping silent?

[wedgie]

Pacifist, I've said a hundred times. Not are historical references prove Usando is Dokdo but I've given you some that do. There are maps of the 17th Century that show Usando on the East side as well so don't get excited ol' man. Of course some references to Usando are confusing. But I gave you ones that are clear. That's why I only cite clear references on my blog.

Even the newspaper article you tried to discredit agree with most scholars that the Anyongbok Incident clearly involved Dokdo and Ulluengdo. Ponta, why couldn't you boil pots on Dokdo?? That is the most ridiculous basis for an argument I've ever heard!!

Pacifist you stated.... "This document explains how the Meiji government was in confusion about Takeshima and Matsushima. It wrote one island as two different islands, but Takeshima and Matsushima were both Ulleungdo in this document in 1877. It only mentioned that the two island (that means Ulleungdo itself) belong to Korea.....? See post.
Don't believe Pacifist

Here is the map attached to the 1877 document that proved Jukdo was Ulleungdo and Songdo was Dokdo.
Kobunruko Map

Pacifist I've proven you were wrong or lying. Either one destroys your crediblity on this subject.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why Ponta says Songdo is not Dokdo on this thread but then says Songdo is Dokdo on his blog. I'd also like to know why he is stealing images from my website.

Ponta I think you owe everyone here an explanation.

[ponta]

Wedgie wrote
"
Not are historical references prove Usando is Dokdo but I've given you some that do. There are maps of the 17th Century that show Usando on the East side as well"

Which one?

(1)Which historical reference proves Usando is Dokdo?
(2)Which maps of 17th century show Usand is Dokdo?

Please be specific. This is very important. The reader is all ears.

With all respects, I'll ask you to answer 1)and 2) and specify which evidence clearly show Usando is Dokdo?

"In the summer month of June in the 13th year (512 A.D.), Usan-guk surrendered and began paying tributes in local products. Usan-guk is a island in the sea east of Myeongju, and it is also called Ulleungdo.."
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-early-records.html
Is this the one?
First this is not about Dokdo , but it is about Usando.

It seems that your argument amounts to this;since
(1)Ahn and the later document say Usando is "Matsuhima-1", and
2)Dokdo was called Matsuhima-2
by Japanese. Therefore
(3)Usando from 533 AD is Dokdo.

(1) is true
(2) is true,
but it does not follow (3) is
true. Why?
Because
A) "Matsuhima-1" Ahn was talking about is not the Matsuhima-2 Japanese was talking about.
I have already argued.
http://gopkorea.blogs.com/flyingyangban/2005/04/warningnbsp_thi.html#comment-26544123
B) Usando Ahn and the other Korean document referred to was least likely to be Dokdo.
I have already argued.
http://gopkorea.blogs.com/flyingyangban/2005/04/warningnbsp_thi.html#comment-26569884
(So it is true that Usando is not Matsuhima-2 at the same time Masushima-2 is Dokdo/takeshima)

If I am mistaken about your argument please let me know, and please specify which Korean document proves Usand
is Dokdo.

[ponta]

As for the map, is this the maps?
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-ulleungdo.html
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/BF_17C/img/flying_usando.gif
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/AF_17C/img/1838.gif
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/AF_17C/img/19C.gif

Wedgie

I regret to say again that the slander and changing subject is a sign that you are cornered.
(Is toadface wedgie?)

[pacifist]

wedgie,

I can't understand what you are saying. The map you attached was already shown in another site you participated.

The map only shows there is a small island beside Ulleungdo (Ulleungdo and another one island). Takeshima/Dokdo is drawn apart from Ulleungdo and it comprises two islands (two rocks).

To follow is from my posting on the site:

"The map seems to have been attached to the 1877 document “Takeshima and another one island (竹島外一島）”.

It seems that Japan in the late 19th century used the name of Matshushima sometimes for Ulleungdo, sometimes for Takeshima/Dokdo.

BTW, in the 1877 document, there are two documents - one is an inquiry from officer in the Ministry of the Interior to a Minister in the Cabinet and another is a reply to the inquiry. The map seems to have been attached to the former document. It reads;

則元禄十二年ニ至リ 夫々往復相濟 本邦関係無之相聞候得共版圖ノ取捨ハ重大之事件ニ付別紙書類相添為念此段相伺候也
I’ve heard that after communications with each other, Japan admitted to have no relationship with this (Takeshima and one island) in 1699, but to get or give up the territory is very serious event so I will humbly inquire about this matter just to make sure , as I attach another document (this map?) herewith.

As opp indicated, the “another one island” seems to be “Manoshima” in the map, because if they meant Takeshima/Dokdo, they should have written “Matsushima” as the map shows."

[JK]

Wedgie wrote:
"I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why Ponta says Songdo is not Dokdo on this thread but then says Songdo is Dokdo on his blog. I'd also like to know why he is stealing images from my website. "

Ponta wrote:
"I regret to say again that the slander and changing subject is a sign that you are cornered."

Wedgie is not cornered, ponta. He presents facts and truth. And he asked why you stole something from his site and were deceptive. You have yet to have answered. Is this typical of your countrymen?

[pacifist]

wedgie,

Don't dodge the point.
You haven't shown the evidence.

As I proved, Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo.

You have to find another island in old Korean books if you still insist that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo before Japan knew it and used it.

Or every reader of this blog will not believe you, wedgie.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

To follow is the official document (dated March 17th 1877) from the Minister of Interior to the Minister in the Cabinet.

日本海内竹島外一島地籍編纂方伺
竹島所轄之儀ニ付 島根縣ヨリ別紙伺出取調候處 該島之儀ハ元禄五年 朝鮮人入島以来 別紙書類ニ摘採スル如ク 元禄九年正月 第一号 旧政府評議之旨意ニ依リ 二号 譯官ヘ達書 三号 該國来柬 四号 本邦回答及ヒ口上書等之如ク 則元禄十二年ニ至リ 夫々往復相濟 本邦関係無之相聞候得共版圖ノ取捨ハ重大之事件ニ付別紙書類相添為念此段相伺候也
明治十年三月十七日

This document only mentioned the island (Ulleungdo) and not referred to another island, although the title of the document included "another one island".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To follow is also an official document in the archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

一号
丙子 元禄九年正月二十八日
天龍院公 御登城御暇御拝領被遊候上 於御白書院御老中御四人御列座ニテ戸田山城守様 竹島ノ儀ニ付御覺書一通御渡被成 先年以来 伯州米子ノ町人両人竹島ヘ罷越致漁候處 朝鮮人モ彼島ヘ参致漁 日本人入交リ無益ノ事ニ候間 向後米子ノ町人渡海ノ儀 被差留トノ御儀被仰渡候也 同是ヨリ前正月九日 三澤吉左衛門方ヨリ直右衛門御用ニ付罷出候様ニトノ儀ニ付参上仕候處 豊後守様御逢被成 御直ニ被仰聞候ハ竹島ノ儀 中間衆出羽守殿右京太夫殿ヘモ遂内談候 竹島元シカト不相知事ニ候 伯耆ヨリ渡リ漁イタシ来リ候由ニ付 松平伯耆守殿ヘ相尋候處因幡伯耆ヘ附属ト申ニテモ無之候 米子町人両人先年ノ通リ船相渡度ノ由 願出候故 其時ノ領主松平新太郎殿ヨリ按内有之如以前渡海仕候様ニ新太郎殿ヘ以奉書申遣候 酒井雅楽頭殿 土井大炊頭殿 井上主計頭殿 永井信濃守殿連判ニ候故 考見候ヘハ大形台徳院様御代ニテモ可有之哉ト存候 先年ト有之候ヘトモ年數ハ不相知候 　右ノ首尾ニテ罷渡リ 漁仕来候マテニテ朝鮮ノ島ヲ日本ヘ取候ト申ニテモ無之 日本人居住不仕候 道程ノ儀相尋候ヘハ伯耆ヨリハ百六十里程有之 朝鮮ヘハ四十里程有之由ニ候 然ハ朝鮮國ノ蔚陵島ニテモ可有之候哉 　夫トモニ日本人居住仕候カ此方ヘ取候島ニ候ハハ今更遣シカタキ事ニ候ヘトモ左様ノ証據等モ無之候間此方ヨリ構不申候様ニ被成如何可有之哉 　又ハ對島守殿ヨリ蔚陵島ト書入候儀 差除返簡仕候様被仰遣 返事無之内對島守殿死去ニ候故右ノ返簡彼國ヘ差置タル由ニ候左候ヘハ刑部殿ヨリ蔚陵島ノ儀被仰越候ニ及ヒ申間敷カ 又ハ 兎角竹島ノ儀ニ付 一通リ刑部殿ヨリ書翰ニテモ可被差越ト思召候哉 　右三様ノ御了簡被成思召寄委可被仰聞候 蚫取ニ参リ候迄ニテ無益島ニ候處此儀ムスホホレ年来ノ通交絶申候モ如何ニ候 御威光或ハ武威ヲ以テ申勝ニイタシ候テモ筋モナキ事申募リ候儀ハ不入事ニ候　竹島ノ儀元シカト不仕事ニ候 例年不参候 異国人罷渡候故 重テ不罷越候様ニ被申渡候様ニト相模守殿ヨリ被申渡候元バットイタシタル事ニ候 無益ノ儀ニ事オモクレ候テモ如何ニ存候 刑部殿ニハ御律儀ニ候間 始如此申置候處 今更ケ様ニハ被申間敷トノ御遠慮モ可有之カト存候 其段ハ少モ不苦候 我等宜敷様ニ了簡可仕候間 思召ノ通リ無遠慮可被仰聞候 其方達モ存寄リ無遠慮可被申候 同シ事ヲ幾度モ申進候段クドキ様に存候エトモ異国ヘ申遣候事ニ候故 度々存寄申遣候間思召寄幾度被仰聞候様ニト存候 御事繁内ニ候故今少シ筋道ヲモ付候上ニテ達上聞可申ト存候 右申渡候口上ノ趣 其方覺ノ為ニ書付遣候トノ御事ニテ御覺書御直ニ御渡被成候故 受取拝見仕候ト只今ノ御意ノ趣 有増落着申候様ニ奉存候 左候ハハ以来日本人ハ彼島ヘ御渡被遊間敷トノ思召ニ候哉ト伺申候ヘハ 如何ニモ其通ニ候 重テ日本人不罷渡候様ニト思召候由御意被成候故 竹島ノ儀返被遣候ト申手ニ葉ニテモ無御坐候哉ト申上候ヘハ其段モ其通リニ候島ニテモ無之候上ハ返シ候ト申筋ニテモ無之候此方ヨリ構不申以前ニ候 此方ヨリ誤リニテ候共不被申事ニ候奉存候 左候ハハ以来日本人ハ彼島ヘ御渡被遊間敷トノ思召ニ候哉ト伺申候ヘハ 如何ニモ其通ニ候 重テ日本人不罷渡候様ニト思召候由御意被成候故 竹島ノ儀返被遣候ト申手ニ葉ニテモ無御坐候哉ト申上候ヘハ其段モ其通リニ候島ニテモ無之候上ハ返シ候ト申筋ニテモ無之候此方ヨリ構不申以前ニ候 此方ヨリ誤リニテ候共不被申事ニ候 右被仰遣候趣トハ少シクイ違ヒ候ヘトモ事オモクレ可申ヨリ少ハクヒ違候トモ軽ク相濟申候方宜敷候間此段御了簡被成候様ニトノ御事故トクト落着申候罷歸リ刑部大輔ヘ可申聞ヨシ申上候テ退坐仕ル

This is a long document. (I can't translate all of the document because it will take time.) It mentions the history of Ulleungdo and the dispute with Chosun. It only mentioned Ulleungdo, but not Takeshima/Dokdo (Matsushima in the disputed period).

If Japan intended to give Takeshima/Dokdo to Chosun as wedgie insisted, she would definitely wrote the name of Matsushima and its history in this long document.

So scholars think the "another one island" was an island with no name, which was attached to Ulleungdo as the map showed.

The map is only a proof that Japan never gave Takeshima/Dokdo to Chosun.

[wedgie]

Pacifist don't play stupid with me. You and Ponta have repeatedly asserted the 1877 document did not refer to Ulleungdo and Dokdo in the appended text on this thread. You quoted These are all descriptions about "Matsushima" but it's a story of Takeshima (Ulleungdo) not Takeshima/Dokdo.Of course Matsushima is Dokdo in the 1877 attached map to the Kobunruko Documents
Pacifist Quote
Ponta do you remember when we talked about the 1877 document last summer? Let me refresh your memory you said. In any case it is clear that ”matsushima” in 1877 attatched document did not refer to Takeshima/Dokdo.
Here is the link.
Ponta and Pacifist wrong again

Well the map attached to the document proved you and Pacifist were both wrong.
You can see Dokdo is (松島) here.
Ulleungdo is (磯竹島) and Dokdo is (松島)

I've given the link to my Usando=Matsushima historical documents before. If you wish to dispute them I don't really care because you've lost all credibility here anyway.
Usando=Matushima=Dokdo

JK is dead right on this. Ponta has been shown to be decietful and dishonest by stealing from my website without my permission. Why should we trust anything you guys say when you've been proven both wrong and dishonest?

[pacifist]

wedgie,

As I have shown above, "another one island" was not Takeshima/Dokdo.

And as I mentioned in the past posting (I quoted myself above), the name "Matsushima" meant sometimes Ulleungdo, sometimes Takeshima/Dokdo. And in this map it meant Takeshima/Dokdo but not "another one island".

So wedgie, you didn't show any evidence that Korea knew and used the island before Japan did.

Don't doge the point, wedgie.
All you have to do is to show the evidence.
You have not shown it yet at all.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

The Great Korean Empire didn't recognise Takeshima/Dokdo as Korean territory.

As you know (but intentionally silent), the Great Korean Geography Book (1899) mentioned the territory of Ulleung-county as east 130°35-45" while Takeshima/Dokdo locates out of the territory (131°55").

The Great Korea Map (大韓全図) depicted "Usan" clearly, just beside Ulleungdo. And its location in the map seems to be east 130°37.5" which is almost same as today's Ulleungdo - Jukdo.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries Korean Empire recognised "Usan" as a small island attached to Ulleungdo (today's Jukdo) and didn't think Takeshima/Dokdo as Korean territory.

BTW, this geography book and the map were once used in the schools in the Great Korean Empire.

wedgie, are you denying these facts?

[wedgie]

Pacifist do you have a reading disability? I'm not arguing about the identity of the "other island" in the attached 1877 document. I'm saying you were wrong when you said the document didn't refer to Ulleungdo and Dokdo read my links again.

You and Ponta were wrong. There was no confusion as to which island was Jukdo and Matsushima when you cite the attached map with the appended text.

[wedgie]

Here is proof Ponta has been pilfering from my website.

Here are some images I obtained from my blog that I received from a friend (with his consent)
Shimane1
Shimane2

Next thing I know Ponta scams them and puts them on this blog.
Shameless Ponta

Here is another image from my website that I altered by putting coloured borders around the Korean text to highlight. Scroll down to see the document.
My website image

Be Honest Ponta

Pacifist and Ponta the issue here is honesty and it is related to this discussion. When you post on the internet there are rules such as not lying, stealing or being dishonest. Somebody's blog and imges are property and taking images without consent or credit is shabby and amounts to stealing.

You guys clearly have no integrity....

[pacifist]

wedgie,

You are the guy with reading disability, not me.
The map you showed only proves that the name of "Matsushima" was used sometimes for Takeshima/Dokdo still in the 19th century. It didn't prove anything otherwise, it didn't prove that Usando was Matsushima.

On the contrary, as I proved, Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo.

So then how do you prove that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo before Japan knew it?

If you repeatedly attack us saying "You and Ponta were wrong", the readers of this blog can't be deceived.
You must show the evidence if you believe that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo before Japan knew it.

The fact is that Korea didn't know the island or didn't recognise as Korean territory until the late 19th century to the early 20th century as I showed you.

So the "Seokdo" myth in 1900 was a lie, and they didn't know about the island when Japan incorporated the island in 1905.

If you refute, please show us the evidence.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

I don't know about the blog, I don't know whether "Zero" in the blog is ponta or not.

But this problem is another thing, not for this thread.

BTW, the article in the site mentions the news that Takeshima was incorporated officially in Oki of Shimane, Japan with the exact location clearly written.

There was NO document of Takeshima/Dokdo in Korea with such clearly written location. The Great Korean Empire precisely depicted its territory in modern way but it excluded Takeshima/Dokdo.

So wedgie, all you have to do is show the evidence. There is NO evidence to show that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo.

[wedgie]

Pacifist just admit it. You messed up. You argued until you were blue in the face on occidentalism and here that the 1877 document wasn't referring to Ulluengdo and Dokdo. Who would have thought the map would come out later and prove how wrong you were??

However, when the map came out in September you now realize you put your foot in your big mouth (so did Ponta) Do you want me to post your quotes again with the map?

No wait I'll just link you to my post above.
Ponta and Pacifist Goofed

Looks good on you Pacifist. You are blabbering away just like you did when you argued about the 1877 document. You were wrong then, why should I believe anything you say now??

[pacifist]

wedgie,

I always say the same thing. The "another one island" in the 1877 document is a small island attched to Ulleungdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo, as the 1877 map shows.

The documents in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicate that they argued in the cabinet and in the Ministry all about Ulleungdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo.

Look back at the history, the treaty between Chosun and the Shogunate only mentioned Ulleungdo (Takeshima in Japan), not Takeshima/Dokdo. So when the Meiji government reconfirmed the treaty in the late 17th century, they only confirmed that Ulleungdo was given to Chosun.

If the government decided to give takeshima/Dokdo, they should have written the name "Matsushima" or Liancourt rocks, but they didn't. And they didn't argue about Takeshima/Dokodo inside the Ministry.

There is no way to assume the "another one island" to be Takeshima/Dokdo. "Ulleungdo and one another island" only meant Ulleungdo and its small attached island (as the map shows).

wedgie, so don't dodge the point.
You have to find the evidence in Korea to prove that Korea knew the island before Japan did, not sniffing around other country's documents.

[ponta]

Wedgie.
You are in stalemate.
So wedgie was toadface.You admitted it.
The way he argue and the way you argue is exactly same. When cornered, used ad hominem attacks. Wedgie, that is not wise way to argue.

Anyway I am glad to find which part was hard for you to understand.
You are talking about 1877 document. But we've discussed it already. And you forgot it.
"In 1876 document, Internal affair office asked Shimane prefecture about the island 100 ri or so off Oki in the North Sea.This is not about Dokdo because Dokdo is located 80 ri off Oki. This island is probably Ulleungodo or Gwanundo.
In respond to the request, Shimane answered this issue should be sent to Dajoukan with the attached 1877 document.
Let's examine the attached document.
(1)If we focus on the distance in the document and the distance on the map attached. it surely looks as if Matsushima is Dokdo.
(2)However, if we focus on other parts of document describing Matsushima and the Gwanundo on the map it agree with the descriptions of Ulleungdo (or Gwanundo)
The ambiguity remains.
Next let's examine Dajoukan's document. It says Japan has nothing to do with Takeshima and another island.
Takeshima refers to Ulleungdo.The problem is what the "another island" refers to.
The same ambiguity remains.
(a) It might refer to dokdo according to the first interpretation (1)
(b) it might refer to Ulleugdo or Gwanundo according to the second interpretation(2).Moreover if we assume Japan knew the name of Dokdo as Matushima, and yet , she did not use that name "Matsushima" to refer to another land, then it is probable that she did not mean Dokdo by "another island .In addition, considering the fact that Dajoukan made a statement in respond to Shimane and 1876 document above which talked only about the island 100 ri or so off Oki, another island is less likely to be Dokdo.
In any case,

A The ambiguity remains.
B This is internal documents, It does not admit Korea had effective control and Korea did not recognize Dokdo at this time anyway. So it does not affect Japanese title to Dokdo.
C Japan included Dokdo in 1905 when Korea had no effective control over Dokdo before .So this document itself has nothing to do with the title to Dokdo after all"
(BBS #15/20/16 wedgie/opp/ponta at opp's home page)

So let me clarify our argument so far.

Korea claims that from ancient times, Usando is Dokdo.
But in ancient document there is no mention of Dokdo, and physical character of Usand does not fit with Dokdo.
So far Usando is not Dokdo

Ahn and the later document say that Usando is Matsuhima.

It is true that Japanese used "Matsuhima" to refer to Dokdo/Takeshima and it is also true that Japanese used "Matushima" to refer to Jukudo.or Kwanundo or some other island.

But it does not follow that Ahn's "Matsuhima " is Dokdo/Takeshima.

In fact,
But Ahn's "Matsuhima" is not Dokdo/Takehisma; The property of Ahn's Matushima does not fit with the physical character of Dokdo/Takeshima and Korean contemporary maps confirms Usand is not Dokdo/Takeshima.

So far Usando is not Dokdo

And Wedgie has not refuted counterargument to his argument on his site. OPP's verification of the maps clearly show that wedgie's maps are useless.

Hence Wedgie has failed to show Korea has title to Dokdo.

Korea's claim that Japan invaded dokdo and so-called Korea's protest and the papers concerning legal status of Dokdo wedgie provided presuppose what Wedgie has failed to show. i.e. Korea has historical ground for Dokdo or Korea had effective control over Dokdo before 1905.

But Japan has a strong case for Japan's effective control over Dokdo since Edo period , or it is clear that she had it since Meiji period at the latest.

Therefore Japan has the title to Dokdo, And Korea's occupation is illegal.

Thanks.

p.s.
I enjoy your speculation about my identity.
But why don't you comment on Zero's blog about your complaint? It is irrelevant to this discussion here.

[wedgie]

So let me get this straight Ponta. I post images from my blog here on December 11, 2006 right after I make them.
Image 1
Next thing I know my images are on this right-wing Japanese (YOUR) blog on the same day!!? This ZERO blog is also the blog you link to on occidentalism.
Image 2
Who do you think you are kidding? Is this the way you guys hope to win support for your claim to Dokdo, by stealing images from others websites and lying? You guys are really slimy.....
Both of you are doing a serious disservice to those Japanese who support Japan's claim to Takeshima in an honest sincere and academic fashion.

Ponta I've dealt with the 1877 document on this thread before. The identity of the other island is not important. Shimane Prefecture maps do not include Ulleungdo and Dokdo in the 19th Century.
Here is my quote.
1877 document
At any rate, it is clear both you and Pacifist were wrong when you insisted Ulleungdo and Dokdo couldn't be the islands in the appended text. Why don't you stand up straight like men and admit it??

BTW Pacifist, I've dealt with the Daehanjiji on this page.
Deahanjiji

[pacifist]

Summary:

To follow is the list of the evidences (facts) that wedgie couldn't refute:

(1) Usando in the 太宗實錄 (15th century) was not Takeshima/Dokdo. (Usando was highly likely Jukdo.)

(2)The Great Korean Empire (1897-1910)didn't recognise Takeshima/Dokdo as their territory. (The Great Korean Geography Book "1899" - it didn't include Takeshima/Dokdo in the Ulleung-county.)

(3)The Great Korean Empire (1897-1910) recognised "Usan" as the attached island to Ulleungdo, today's Jukdo. (The Great Korea Map (1899) featured "Usan" just next to Ulleungdo, at East 130°37.5")

wedgie, please give us the evidence if you refute. All the readers look at you.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

Thanks for your refutation. Your refutation is welcome.

You wrote that the range of the Korean territory was written from Japanese records, so it was erroneous, ...right? You always see Japanese things wrong, don't you?

> "Then we must ask ourselves what Japanese records were used to define Korea's borders?"

Japanese records were used simply because in those days Korea couldn't have westernized technique in surveying their own country.

But anyway, they used the records and they used the geography book as an official textbook all through the country.

If they found erroneous depiction, why didn't they correct it? The "error" has not been corrected all through the Great Korean Empire era including the 1907 and 1908 editions.

You couldn't state why you decided that it was an "error". All through the Great Korean Empire era it was not corrected and you say in 2006 that it was an error?

The readers of this blog will decide which says right thing.

BTW, "Usan" in the map lies just the location of Jukdo. You can easily see that it lies far from true Takeshima/Dokdo if you visit this site:

http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/index.html

[ponta]

Wedgie
Thanks

"Ponta I've dealt with the 1877 document on this thread before. The identity of the other island is not important. Shimane Prefecture maps do not include Ulleungdo and Dokdo in the 19th Century.
Here is my quote.
"I disagree that the 1877 paper is not important. I'll tell you why. Why did the Japanese have this inquiry to begin with? At this time the Japanese were planning to map Japan and they needed to know which territories were included within each prefecture. So Shimane asked the Domestic Affairs Office about the status of adjacent territories of this district.

There are only two outcomes with regard to Dokdo and its relationship with Shimane at this time regardless of what this "other island" may have been.
a) Dokdo is included.
b) Dokdo is not included.
Afterward Shimane released maps of Shimane Prefecture and Oki Kun this is what they showed.
Shimane1878
Shimane1891
Shimane1895
The clear and only conclusion is that Shimane did not consider Dokdo as part of this prefecture. This is not debateable."

1877 document is important in that it shows Japan was confused. However, it does not show Japan recognized Dokdo as Korean territory. We have already discussed it.
http://gopkorea.blogs.com/flyingyangban/2005/04/warningnbsp_thi.html#comment-26612882
You haven't refuted it.

Besides,　do not forget 1833 document we discussed at occidentalism.
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=234#comment-5593
It clearly shows by "Matsuhima, Japanese government meant Ullengdo.

So,

1) There is no Korean ancient document mentioning Dokdo

2) Usando which Koreans insist to be Dokdo has no physical, geographical property that Dokdo has.

3)Ahn's "Matsuhima which he claimed to be Usando is not Dokdo.
a)His Matsuhima is the island where you can live, but you can not live at Dokdo.
b)The contemporary maps reconfirm that Usando is not Dokdo.

Korean claim that Korea protested or Japan invade Dokdo presuppose ⅰ）Korea had historical records, or　ⅱ） Korea had effective control before 1905.

You admitted ⅱ）is not the case.
You have failed to show ⅰ）is the case.

On the other hand, Japan had effective control Ⅰ）since Edo period or Ⅱ）since Meiji period.
a)There are records that Japanese fishermen were hunting and fishing at Dokdo since Edo period.
b)Shimane prefecture reconfirmed that takeshima/Dokdo is Japanese territory.

Therefore Korea's occupation is illegal.

I am willing to see new argument and new evidence. For the clearer discussion, please be clear about what you are arguing for or against.(it might be a good idea to make it clear e.g., you are arguing for 1) against Ⅰ）
Thanks.
..............................................
p.s.
"Who do you think you are kidding? Is this the way you guys hope to win support for your claim to Dokdo, by stealing images from others websites and lying? You guys are really slimy.....
Both of you are doing a serious disservice to those Japanese who support Japan's claim to Takeshima in an honest sincere and academic fashion."
If you want to keep complaining, please file a complaint on Zero. It is messing up the discussion.

[wedgie]

The map is wrong because the text on the Deahanjiij document says Usando is Southeast. This is in all editions of the Daehanjiji Pacifist even others that don't use the same map of the 1899 edition.

The Daehanjiji uses the same incorrect maps of Ulleungdo that show all of Ulleungdo's neighbour islands on the wrong side of Ulleungdo. If you look closely at the map of Ulleungdo on the Daehanjiji you can see islands south of Ulleungdo that simply don't exist.
Look at the map of the Daehanjiji. First Ulleungdo is too far East. Secondly Ulleungdo is about three times it's real size.
Jiji
It's clear the map on the 1899 Deahanjiji simply added previous incorrect maps of Ulleungdo from the past that have the same neighbour island errors. The map below has the same neighbouring island erros.
Incorrect Ulleungdo map
All of Ulleungdo's neighbour islands are on the Northeast of Ulleungdo. However the maps you cite have the islands on the South. In short, Pacifist you use one part of a map as evidence and then ignore the glaring erros of the rest, especially with regard to island positions. I've said this many times, Chosun maps are notorious for positioning islands almost arbitrarily.

There is not one clear historical reference that states Usando is Jukdo Islet next to Ulleungdo. I've given you many that say Usando is Matsushima. If you don't believe Usando is Dokdo then the onus is on you to clearly prove with accurate maps and clear historical documents what Usando really is instead of blubbering what Usando isn't.

Again just saying what Usando isn't or can't be is not good enough here. You must present a convincing case as to what Usando is. So far you have failed. This is not occidentalism Pacifist.....people expect more here.

[ponta]

"Chosun maps are notorious for positioning islands almost arbitrarily."
In other words, it is hard to prove that Korea was cognizant of Dokdo/Takeshima.

And If Korea copied Japanese geography and if it excluded Dokdo as Korean territory, it proves Japan recognized Dokdo as Japanese territory.

" I've given you many that say Usando is Matsushima"

But you failed to show Ahn's Matsuhima is Dokdo, and you failed to show Usando is Dokdo. On the contrary every evidence show otherwise, and you have not refuted it.

"Again just saying what Usando isn't or can't be is not good enough here. You must present a convincing case as to what Usando is. So far you have failed."

The burden of proof is on you, wedgie.
You have to show Usand is Dokdo.
All we have to show is Usando is not Dokdo, because that is sufficient enough to prove that Korea's claim is wrong.

Thanks.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> "You must present a convincing case as to what Usando is."

wedgie, YOU MUST do it, as we've proved that Usando in the old Korena books from the 15th century was not Takeshima/Dokdo but you still insist that it was Takeshima/Dokdo.

Or will you admit that Usando written in the books in the 15th century was NOT Takeshima/Dokdo?

[wedgie]

Ponta and Pacifist, I don't like to pull out the trump card here but Korea has Dokdo Island so the burden of presenting a clear case that Dokdo is inherently Japanese territory is upon you. I mean why don't you put your money where your Foreign Ministry's big mouth is and prove Dokdo is an inhereent part of Japan? It should be easy right? You've got all of these great maps and historical files right?

The fact is you have presented nothing on this thread to prove Dokdo is inherently part of Japan. All you've done is posted shabby attempts to discredit Koreans historical records but where is your evidence that Dokdo is Japanese...? Scroll up this thread yourself. I don't see anything!!

Pacifist, I've found documents that state Usando is Matsushima. Now we know Usando Island is something it is on too many maps to fictitious. You have presented a theory that Usando is Jukdo Islet. Therefore you are obligated to prove Usando is Jukdo to dispute Korean scholars assertions. All I see you have shown is backward maps of Ulluengdo with all the islands on the wrong side.

In if you want to use inaccurate maps to prove a point why not this one?
Usando is not Jukdo
We can see that there are islands on the Northeast of Ulleungdo. I say one of them is Jukdo Islet. I'll bet if I superimposed a real map of Ulleungdo with Google Earth, Jukdo Islet would be in one of the locations. That is your silly approach to history. Usando could not be Jukdo Islet here because there is Japanese writing stating boats moored on Usando. Jukdo Islet has no mooring and is very dangerous. Also why would Japanese moor a boat in this area when Ulleungdo was 2kms away?

You both have also wrongly cross-referenced the 1710 (after the incident)map of Chosun in an attempt to build a case that Anyongbok didn't know the difference between Ulleungdo and Dokdo because Usando was on the wrong side. However, we know some maps of this era show Usando on the East.
Like here
1644 Usando East

I'm not so bold to claim that all historical references to Usando are proof of the islands identity as you say. However, the documents you use to discredit Korean's scholars claims that Usando is Dokdo also prove that the island referred to not Jukdo Islet. In other words you are both presenting a negative argument that leads nowhere and proves nothing.

Here are my historical references both Korean and Japanese that say Usando=Matsushima=Dokdo.
Usando is Dokdo
I am waiting for your clear documents and maps that proove Usando is Jukdo.

[wedgie]

Here is the map in question to the above quote showing Usando is not Jukdo.

Usando is Not Jukdo Islet

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> "Here is the map in question to the above quote showing Usando is not Jukdo."

The map you showed was not written in modern way. The top is not north-oriented in this map, wedgie.

Look at the map in the 1750's here;
http://www.occidentalism.org/?cat=4

There is a Chinese character "倭船艙可居" as the same words written in the map you showed, which may mean Japanese ships can stay here, just beside a small island which reads "所謂于山島(so-called Usando)".

So the map you showed should be rotated for about 180°, wedgie.

Look at the map in the 1750's again, wedgie. Which side can you see Usando was drawn? Where is Jukdo in the map?

It is apparent that Usando was Jukdo in the 18th century too, and there was a place for Japanese ships to stay at the island.
In the 1750's map, there is also a word "刻石立標(carved standing stone sign) with the 倭船艙可居, so there may have been a sign set on Jukdo which says "Japanese ships can stay here". Jukdo may have been an entrance to some Japanese in those days.

Anyway, your theory is again crushed. wedgie, you have to show clear evidence if you still insist that Usando was Takeshima/Dokdo but you have nothing.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> "the burden of presenting a clear case that Dokdo is inherently Japanese territory is upon you"

wedgie, we have already shown you the evidences to show that Japan knew it, owned it and used it since the early 17th century.

As the evidences, (1) there were miscellaneous documents to prove two families were given exclusive permission from the Shogunate to go to Ulleungdo (Takeshima) through Takeshima/Dokdo (Matsushima),
(2)also there were some maps, especially the 1724 map precisely depicted unique shape of Takeshima/Dokdo, two rocky islets, while no Korean map didn't show such two islets shape - all the "Usando" in Korean maps look like a one round shape. (The original map of the 1724 map was from the 1696 map.)
(3) and there was a dispute between the Shogunate and Chosun in the late 17th century, it means that both of the Shogunate and Chosun believed Takeshima(Ulleungdo) to be their own land until the late 17th century.
At last the Shogunate gave Ulleungdo to Chosun to maintain the frindship but they didn't gave Takeshima/Dokdo, so Takeshima/Dokdo remained in Japanese territory.

wedgie, those are evidences (proved facts). There were documents and maps to prove them.

---------------------------
On the contrary, you Korean side has no evidence to show that Korea knew it, owned it or used it.

The Korean government used to say that Usando was Dokdo and they knew it from ancient times.
But there is no ground for this theory.

As I proved, (1) Usando in the books in the 15th century was not Takeshima/Dokdo (as wedgie too admitted it, right?)
(2) Usando in the maps made in the 18th century is not Takeshima/Dokdo.

So wedgie, you have to show clear evidence (fact) here. You have shown nothing yet.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You must admit that Uasando was not Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo). It is widely believed in Japanese scholars that Ahn Yong-Bok misunderstood about Usando, he had a fancy that Usando was a large island, and it was the beginning of the distortted theory "Usando is Dokdo".

[JK]

Pacifist, you have shown NO evidence that Dokdo belongs to Japan. Wedgie is right. Let it die. Dokdo is in Korean hands the way it should be. Let it be.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

Ahn Yong-Bok's story was first written in the book 粛宗実録 but it was 32 years after the real event occured (It was published in 1728).

The book stated that Ahn made Japanese Shogunate admit that Usando was Korean territory. But this was proved to be his lie, as Japanese records show, he was just deported.

So the episode that Ahn expelled Japanese fishermen should be doubtful. At least, "Matsushima" (which Ahn believed to be Usando) in the episode was not Takeshima/Dokdo.
reasons: (1) In the episode, Japanese said that they lived in Matsushima but Takeshima/Dokdo is a rocky island and nobody could live there.
(2) there is a sentence "仮称欝陵子山兩島監税" in the book, which means "both Ulleungdo and Usando were imposed tax". This means there were people to pay tax living in Usando, but again you can't live in Takeshima/Dokdo.

So there were lies but anyway Ahn's insistency "Usando is Matsushima" was recorded in the official Korean book, and the misunderstanding was transmitted to the later books "東国文献備考(1770)", "萬機要覧(1808)" and "増補文献備考(1908)".

[wedgie]

Pacifist squawks!!!

wedgie, we have already shown you the evidences to show that Japan knew it, owned it and used it since the early 17th century..

Ha ha ha!! where?

Here?

Here?

Or Here??

I don't see any Dokdo Ponta and Pacifist.

JK is right Korea owns Dokdo and none of Japanese maps or documents prior to the military occupation of Korea and the annexation of the islands prove ownership.

Sorry........

[maemi30@hotmail.com]

The map you showed was not written in modern way. The top is not north-oriented in this map, wedgie.

Look at the map in the 1750's here;
http://www.occidentalism.org/?cat=4

There is a Chinese character "倭船艙可居" as the same words written in the map you showed, which may mean Japanese ships can stay here, just beside a small island which reads "所謂于山島(so-called Usando)".

So the map you showed should be rotated for about 180°, wedgie.

That's hilarious Pacifist, so the cartographer wrote the characters upside down and stood on his head when he read the map!!

Jesus.....

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> "I don't see any Dokdo Ponta and Pacifist."

Of course you can't see Dokdo because Dokdo was not present in those days. (Dokdo is quite a new concept.)

There was "Matsushima", here you can see the exact map;
http://homepage1.nifty.com/sira/takeshima/1724Takeshima_map.html

wedgie, as I repeatedly wrote, not all the maps depicted Takeshima/Dokdo and the maps you showed were not important for the discussion.

Apparently, wedgie, you are dodging the point. Don't sneak away, wedgie.

You should show your evidence in KOREA to show that KOREA knew it, owned it, or used it.
At first, you have to show Usando was Takeshima/Dokdo, or you should find some other islands in the old books which were consistent to takeshima/Dokdo.

But you have not shown any evidences, only changing subject and dodging...

[maemi30@hotmail.com]

Pacifist quotes.

As the evidences, (1) there were miscellaneous documents to prove two families were given exclusive permission from the Shogunate to go to Ulleungdo (Takeshima) through Takeshima/Dokdo (Matsushima),
(2)also there were some maps, especially the 1724 map precisely depicted unique shape of Takeshima/Dokdo, two rocky islets, while no Korean map didn't show such two islets shape - all the "Usando" in Korean maps look like a one round shape. (The original map of the 1724 map was from the 1696 map.)
(3) and there was a dispute between the Shogunate and Chosun in the late 17th century, it means that both of the Shogunate and Chosun believed Takeshima(Ulleungdo) to be their own land until the late 17th century.
At last the Shogunate gave Ulleungdo to Chosun to maintain the frindship but they didn't gave Takeshima/Dokdo, so Takeshima/Dokdo remained in Japanese territory.

These families were issued voyage passes to Ulleungdo and Dokdo and they were not bestowals of land at all Pacifist. Even Japanese scholars dispute the claims of the Oya's and Murakawa's exagerrated claims.

The Shimane families rely on the incorrect translation of the term "hairyo" to claim these island but this is unfounded.

This 1724 map is not a proof of ownership. It shows the Japanese were still voyaging to Ulleungdo even though in 1696 they were forbidden passage there. The 1724 map is really clear evidence of Japanese trespassing on Ulleungdo it is not any proof of ownership or claim to either Dokdo or Ulleungdo at all...
Japanese Trespassers

This is a real Japanese national map made in the 17th century. It is a government map not a family guide to trespassing.
1691 Map

This is another map made in 1654 at a time when you assert the Japanese thought Ulleungdo and Dokdo were part of Japan.
1654 Japanese Map

There are more maps from this era at Hanmaumy's website. Maybe he can teach you more about Dokdo.
17th Century maps

So you see the Japanese didn't really claim Ulleungdo or Dokdo during the 17th Century. The maps they used were for personal use and the voyage passes were issued to them so that they could gather products for the Shogunate. Chosun had denied them passage to visit the region in 1614. That is why the Japanese were afraid of Anyongbok escalating the conflict.

BTW Ponta and Pacifist. I'm not going to cut and paste your links anymore. Don't be so lazy and hotlink them like I do or I simply won't view them.

[maemi30@hotmail.com]

Pacifist. What a pile of rubbish. Dokdo was a new concept.

The Japanese had mapped Dokdo in the East Sea long before the Europeans discovered Liancourt. The Japanese knew there were two islands in the East Sea.

You have this shabby theory that in the 19th Century the Japanese mappers suddenly stopped mapping Dokdo and double-mapped Ulleungdo.

There is no historical proof of this. It this was true every map of this era would have three islands in the East Sea. In reality there are only a few of them. The vast majority of maps only show two islands.

It is only logical to understand that the Japanese followed Seibolds lead and copied both the names and positions of his maps made from around 1840.

At any rate, if you wish to assume that all maps of the 19th Century that only show two islands are omitting Dokdo you are saying that in 99.9% of all Japanese maps there is no Dokdo. This is an admission on your behalf that for about 100 years the Japanese forgot about Dokdo. What does this say about Japanese cognizence about dokdo??

Either way Pacifist your lame argument that dokdo is an inherent part of Japan despite the fact the forgot the Hell where it was and omitted it on almost every map they made in the 19th century doesn't hold water.

You don't omit or forget the location of a territory that you consider and inherent intregral part of you nation Pacifist.

Dokdo was and is Korean land and Japanese maps and docs prove the Japanese did not consider it part of Japan since ancient times. If so, why would Japan claim Dokdo under terra nullius Pacifist.... I mean how can a territory be no man's land and an inherent part of your territory????

[wedgie]

Let's make sure we are one the same page here Ponta. What is not important here is both your and Ponta's claim but rather the view of Japan's Foreign Ministry.

In order for the Japanese to garner international support for their claim to Dokdo they must put forth a positive argument that Dokdo is/has always been part of Japan because that is the posture they have taken on this dispute.

The maps I've posted totally destroy Japan's claim Dokdo is/has always been part of Japan. I am finding more every day.
Japan maps1
Japan maps2

This map was from before the Anyongbok Incident and shows that as a nation Japan did not claim Dokdo in the late 17th Century.
1691 Map

Japan's only claim was done after Korea had become a protectorate as of February 28th 1904. Thus Korea's 1906 documented contentions were oppressed. The 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion is a colonial write-off. Had Japan incorporated Dokdo much earlier their claim would be very strong I feel. However, anyone who has any knowledge of Northeastern Asian History from this era knows Japan's 1905 claim is a sham.

Korea has Dokdo and has managed the island for much longer than Japan and every day Korea's claim is getting stronger as they install more and more facilities on the island. Right or wrong Korea's occupation and long-term acts of sovereignty are in big favour of Korea.

[wedgie]

Japan's only claim was done after Korea had become a protectorate as of February 28th 1904. Thus Korea's 1906 documented contentions were oppressed. The 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion is a colonial write-off. Had Japan incorporated Dokdo much earlier their claim would be very strong I feel. However, anyone who has any knowledge of Northeastern Asian History from this era knows Japan's 1905 claim is a sham.

Korea has Dokdo and has managed the island for much longer than Japan and every day Korea's claim is getting stronger as they install more and more facilities on the island. Right or wrong Korea's occupation and long-term acts of sovereignty are in big favour of Korea.

Japan has taken such a bold stance that they are now obligated to present an iron-clad rock-solid case that Dokdo is Japanese since ancient times and this is what has killed them. Japan has created a contradictory claim to the island since they annexed it in 1905. At this time in an flimsy attempt to cover all bases, the Japanese government claimed Dokdo citing both terra nullius (no-man's land) and inherent territory through history. It is impossible for Dokdo to both ownerless and inherently Japanese territory.

Japan's claim has to stand on its own but if you dissect it, we can see their only documented act of incorporation was a seriously flawed colonial land grab for naval supremecy during the Russo~Japanese War. In fact even many Japanese scholars agree with this view.
Japanese Professor1
Japanese Professor2
Japanese Professor3

In conclusion, from all of the related historical material gathered Japan's claim to Dokdo is very weak because they can't establish clear effective control prior to the military occupation of Korea starting from February 1904. The attention to detail of Japan's own maps and documents from the Makbu to Meiji Era's are in actuality her biggest enemy because they more often than not contradict the Japanese Foreign Ministry's current stance on Dokdo.

[pacifist]

maemi,

Your theory is wrong, so why was there a dispute between the Shogunate and Chosun in 1690's (1693-1696)?

It occured at first as Korean people's border violation at Takeshima (Ulleungdo). The Japanese fishermen family arrested two Koreans, including Ahn Yong-Bok, and brought them back as a living proof of violation.

The Shogunate protested against the violation of territory and made a strong protest not to make Korean fishermen come to Takeshima (Ulleungdo) again.

The protest was made through Tsushima, the only window to Korea from Japan, and the Chosun government at the time once promised that they would inflict severe punishment on the two Koreans, including Ahn Yong-Bok.

But through the years, the negotiation reached a deadlock because Chosun's government was changed and the negotiator in Japan (Tsushima) died. So the Shogunate gave up Ulleungdo in the end but there were various objections in the Shogunate concerning the result.

So it is apparent fact that at that period in the 17th century, Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was considered to be Japanese territory in Japan, at least until the treaty was concluded in 1696.

And Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo) had been used as a stop en route to Ulleungdo. There were records that Japanese fishermen used the island but there is no chance for Koreans to use the island, because it was 92 km far (nearer to Japan) in the times of "Empty island policy" which was set in fear of attacks of pirates.

And the treaty in 1696 didn't refer to Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo), so naturally it remained in Japan's territory.

Anyway, it was merely a rock formation which men couldn't live. It is hard to believe that Koreans came to Takeshima/Dokdo in those days when going to Ulleungdo was not an easy trip.

Anyway, there were no traces there to show Koreans reached the island in those years. If you have something to refute, please show us here.

[pacifist]

maemi,

> "Pacifist. What a pile of rubbish. Dokdo was a new concept."

Dokdo is a new name that was created in early 20th century. It was recorded first in Chosun waterway magazine or something (I'm not sure).

Anyway, it was called by Korean fishermen hired by Japanese as sealion hunters in 1903 or 1904. The Korean fishermen were from Ulleungdo and they called it as "lonely island" because it was a lone island far from their home in Ulleungdo.

If you refute, you have to show us some maps or documents, printed or written before the 20th century, which say "Dokdo".
Nobody found such records, if you found one of them you are a hero!

[pacifist]

wedgie,

I repeatedly say that the maps you showed are no proof for Korea to say "Dokdo is ours".

You are dodging the point intetionally or you are totally **** to understand the scientific way of arguments.

The evidences I posted are facts, if you refute you have to show evidences to prove your theory is right but you have not shown them yet.
(wedgie, do you understand the word evidence?)

And still you have not shown the evidence to show Korea knew it, owned it or used it before Japan did.

All the readers look at you, wedgie.

[ponta]

maemi and wedgie
So have you guys given up presenting evidence for Korean claim that Usando is Dokdo?
If so, Japan's claim win, because Korea's claim that Korea protested, Korea was a protectorate as of February 28th 1904. Japan invaded Dokdo etc. presupposes it.
But I am still waiting for your response.
............................................
As for Japanese claim, according to MOFA, it is this:
"1. Japan's Consistent Position

(1) Based on historical facts and international law, it is apparent that Takeshima is an integral part of Japan's sovereign territory.

(2) The occupation of Takeshima by the Republic of Korea is an illegal occupation undertaken with absolutely no basis whatsoever in international law. Any measures taken with regard to Takeshima by the Republic of Korea based on such an illegal occupation have no legal justification."
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html

maemi30@hotmail.com wrote;
"It shows the Japanese were still voyaging to Ulleungdo even though in 1696 they were forbidden passage there. The 1724 map is really clear evidence of Japanese trespassing on Ulleungdo it is not any proof of ownership or claim to either Dokdo or Ulleungdo at all...
But
"Because the islets were remote, access was difficult, and, above
all, [they] were uninhabitable,104 constant physical occupation was not required,105 and
the occasional visits by Korean fishers served as adequate evidence of occupation."page 25
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1-cms1530.pdf
Korea has no record of Koreans fishing and hunting at Dokdo, Japan has.

Wedgie wrote:
"Korea has Dokdo and has managed the island for much longer than Japan and every day Korea's claim is getting stronger as they install more and more facilities on the island. Right or wrong Korea's occupation and long-term acts of sovereignty are in big favour of Korea."

But
"Japan's protests appear to have been sufficient to overcome a presumption of acquiescence, and thus if Korea's claim were based solely on
its occupation of the islets since World War II, these protests could be seen as adequate to block a claim based on prescription. "(page 22)
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1-cms1530.pdf

And Wedgie has failed to show a historical ground, hence it is based solely on its occumapation. Therefore, Japanese protese is valid.

Wedgie wrote:
"The maps I've posted totally destroy Japan's claim Dokdo is/has always been part of Japan. I am finding more every day"

However many you find Japanese maps that lack Dokdo on them, it does not prove that Japan was not coginzant of Dokdo, because there are maps that have an accurate picture of Dokdo.
..........................................

Wedgie, your fans are waiting for your historical proof that Usando was Dokdo. Don't disappoint your fans.

[wedgie]

Pacifist you said that Dokdo was a new concept in those days but if you read your own quote up above you claim the Japanese were mapping Dokdo as early as 1783 on Japanese government maps. See quote here.
Pacifist Quote

I agree with your original quote and scoff at your assertions that the Japanese stopped mapping Dokdo during the Meiji Era. You can't crow on one quote how clearly the Japanese mapped Dokdo and then whine they were confused the next. This is a hopeless attempt by Japanese pro-Takeshima "experts" to disregard relevant documents that prove Japan didn't include Dokdo as part of Japan in the 19th Century.

You and Pacifist have spent all of this time scouring the archives of the Koreans for ambiguities or inconsistencies in centuries old documents from languages that are quote often very unclear. Japanese and Korean language to this day are not very precise languages and have multiple interpretations. But in your attempt to discredit the Koreans you have forgotten about the buttressing the Japanese claim to Dokdo. That being, where are the maps and records that show Dokdo is an inherent part of Japan? I'm not talking about amateurish family scrawlings or fishing maps on cocktail napkins but clear government sanctioned documents or maps that detail Takeshima's inclusion as part of Japan. You know there are none.

Usando is Matsuhima is Dokdo. These records stand and all of the nitpicking you've done in an attempt to discredit them means nothing as they are hundreds of years apart and from different sources.
Usando historical references

Korea owns Dokdo. Korea has managed the island for much longer than Japan and if you think you are going get your day in the sacred halls of the ICJ based on a century-old military land grab you have got to be out of your mind.

In short Japan is screwed because they have no proof of effective control prior to the annexation of the island and military control over Korea.

[wedgie]

Pacifist says

"So it is apparent fact that at that period in the 17th century, Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was considered to be Japanese territory in Japan, at least until the treaty was concluded in 1696...."

Where is Dokdo and Ulluengdo on theese maps of the 1600s Pacifist??

Japanese map

Japanese map2

More 17th Century Maps

Do you think eveyone believes everything you say just because you say it?? Just prove it.

You also say that the Anyongbok incident was recorded in 1724. where did you get that information. Check the korean archives of the Shillok. Better yet check the date on the documents themselves.

You can see the 22nd year of Sukjong written on the side of the original document on the left side.

Anyongbokdoc

[ponta]

Wedgie
Checkmate?

Wedgie
"Usando is Matsuhima is Dokdo. These records stand and all of the nitpicking you've done in an attempt to discredit them means nothing as they are hundreds of years apart and from different sources.
Usando historical references"

Korean maps
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/BF_17C/img/flying_usando.gif
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/AF_17C/img/19C.gif

Korean documents
Korean document does not mention dokdo at all.

Usando
512AD
Samguksagi(三国史記)"
In the summer month of June in the 13th year (512 A.D.), Usan-state surrendered and began paying tributes in local products. Usan-state is an island in the sea east of Myeongju, and is also called Ulleungdo.

And other document does not fit with Dokdo.

Ahn yonbok
Usan-do is bigger than Ulleng-do (Henreisyuyou:辺例集要
Ahn said Usando was Matsushima but Matsuhima
he was talking about the island where Japanese said they were living. Matsuhima ahn was talking about is not Dokdo.

In conclusion, Usando, Muleung-island or whatever Korean claims to be Dokdo is not Dokdo.

Wedgie wrote
"Japan? I'm not talking about amateurish family scrawlings or fishing maps on cocktail napkins but clear government sanctioned documents or maps that detail Takeshima's inclusion as part of Japan"

The paper wedgie provided says;

"Because the islets were remote, access was difficult, and, above
all, [they] were uninhabitable,104 constant physical occupation was not required,105 and
the occasional visits by Korean fishers served as adequate evidence of occupation."page 25
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1-cms1530.pdf
Let's replace Korean fishers by Japanese fishers. We got what Japanese needed. "family scrawlings or fishing maps" proves the visits by Japanese fishers, and it serves as adequeate evidence of occupation.
(Thank you for providing us the precious paper)
And keep in mind Korea has no record Korean fishers visited Dokdo during this period.

Wedgie wrote
" Korea has managed the island for much longer than Japan and if you think you are going get your day in the sacred halls of the ICJ based on a century-old military land grab you have got to be out of your mind."

The paper you provided says.
""Japan's protests appear to have been sufficient to overcome a presumption of acquiescence, and thus if Korea's claim were based solely on
its occupation of the islets since World War II, these protests could be seen as adequate to block a claim based on prescription. "(page 22)
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo1-cms1530.pdf

And Wedgie has failed to show a historical ground, hence it is based solely on its occumapation after WWw. Therefore, Japanese protese is valid.

And Korea had not owned Dokdo, hence, it has nothing to do with Japanese military grab.

Wedgie wrote
"Where is Dokdo and Ulluengdo on theese maps of the 1600s "
That there are Japanese maps that lacks Dokdo on them does not show Japan was not cognizant of Dokdo.
There are Japanese maps that depict accurate Dokdo. Hence Japan was cognizant of
Dokdo.
On the other hand, Korea had no map that has
Dokdo on it. It is quite reasonable to assume Korea was not cognizant of dokdo.
Besides, as you say," "Chosun maps are notorious for positioning islands almost arbitrarily." It means it is most likely that Korea was not cognizant of Dokdo and geography of the area.
From all of the related historical document,
Korea was not cognizant of Dokdo.

On the other hand,

Japan's claim is,

"Based on historical facts and international law, it is apparent that Takeshima is an integral part of Japan's sovereign territory."

Japan had effective control over Dokdo since
Edo period, or since Meiji period at the latst.
Japan discoverd Dokdo when Korea was not cognizant of Dokdo.
Japanese fisers visited Dokdo since then.

Hence Japan's claim is valid.

............................................
What you need to show is that Usando is Dokdo, or Korea had effective control.

You have failed to show either case.

you are not presenting any new argument.
You might want to rewrite your site.
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-usando.html

Give yourself time, and find new documents to show Usand is Dokdo. Korea's claim really depends on it.

...........................................

[wedgie]

The document says....

"It is said that Matsushima was named by us Japanese, but the truth is, the real name of this island is Usan which is part of (attached to) Ulleungdo of Chosun (Korea). During our 舊정부 (government) era it was proven through an exchange of documents that Ulleungdo belonged to Chosun and we confirmed that Ulleungdo was not Japanese territory, which is stated in both of our countries' historical records...."

This is both an admission that Japan had nothing to do with Dokdo and Ulleungdo and that Matsushima was attached to Ulleungdo and thus an intergral part of Korea.

I don't care if you agree with the historical documets one bit Ponta. Why should I review my site. So you can continue to shamelessly steal images from it?

Dokdo is Usando 'cause the Japanese told me!!

There are no Japanese documents or maps that prove ownership of Dokdo prior to the military occupation of the islands and annexation of Korea.

[wedgie]

Ponta the man who wrote the article is a lega expert. You are not.

Japan loses legal battle for Dokdo

Ponta says....

Let's replace Korean fishers by Japanese fishers. We got what Japanese needed. "family scrawlings or fishing maps" proves the visits by Japanese fishers, and it serves as adequeate evidence of occupation.

Atta boy Ponta. Sounds about right, steal edit and lie.

Take a qualified legal experts published material and then shamelessly edit key parts of the text to prove your point.

thanks for revealing your methods.

The final quote says it all. "If rational
decision making is in play, this issue will be solved when one of the two (probably Japan) throws in the towel..."

Take a hint Ponta and Pacifist...throw in the towel.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

Nitpicking is not an evidence for Korea.

You always use a small part of a document and tried to deceive the people.

But you should see whole the history around the document. The document you nitpicked was "松嶋巡視要否の議" (an argument whether inspection of Matsushima is needed or not)in 1878.
In the same year, the famous document "松島の議" (an argument around Matsushima), which was a proposal of the investigation around Ulleungdo in order to clarify the mystery of the names of the islands.

As I repeatedly wrote, the new Meiji government had no clear information about Takeshima and Matsushima at the time.
So after all, they decided to investigate around the Ulleungdo and investigated them actually in 1880. The investigation by warship Amagi in 1880 confirmed the truth.

So the inside document to show confusion inside the Meiji government is not an evidence for you.

You should find YOUR evidence in KOREA.
You haven't suceeded in finding evidence yet and you are trying to grasp a straw but all the readers are wise enough to know that you are going to lose.

[ponta]

Wedgie.
Thanks.

Wedgie wrote:
"Dokdo is Usando 'cause the Japanese told me!!"

1) The Japanese internal document does prove that Korea had effective control, or Korea had historical document that Usando was Dokdo.

2) You forget 1883 Japanese document.

"The island that Japan call Matushima or Takeshima and that Korea call Ulleungodo,located at Lat. 37 degrees N 30 minutes long. 130 degrees E 49 minutes, is the island that Japan and Korea had an document of agreement that Japanese should not sail to nor land the island without reason.We hereby notify this fact to the director of each local government so that there should be no confusion about it.
March 3 1883"

Hence there was a time when Japan was confused about the island, it is clear as of 1883 for Japan that Masuhima is not Dokdo.

Does that make you clear?

Wedgie wrote.
"There are no Japanese documents or maps that prove ownership of Dokdo prior to the military occupation of the islands and annexation of Korea."

Yes there are.
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/index.html
(Japan Edo period)

And keep in mind, because the islets were remote, access was difficult, and, above
all, [they] were uninhabitable, constant physical occupation was not required, and
the occasional visits by Japanese fishers served as adequate evidence of occupation.

The legal expert you provided presented an excellent logic.

Wedgie wrote
"Ponta the man who wrote the article is a legal expert. You are not."
This legal expert presupposes what you have failed to prove, i.e., Korea had effective control or Korea had a historical ground for
Dokdo.
You showed your site, but it has been refuted. And you have avoided giving new evidence and document to counter-argue.
I know why. Because ancient document is limited. Probable Korea has given out everything there are as for Usando There is not a single document about Dokdo.
There are many Ahn's documents but all they prove is Ahn's "Matsuhima is not Dokdo.
The only way for Korea to show its validity is to show Korea had effective control, but because of the vacant policy, it is hard if not impossible to find an evidence.

Just give us the new argument and evidence other than your refuted site that Korea has a historical ground for the Dokdo.

"Atta boy Ponta. Sounds about right, steal edit and lie."
I am using the logic the legal expert was using. It is not a lie. It is called application to the new case.

A
1) Korea had no historical evidence that Usand or whatever Korea claim to be Dokdo is
Dokdo.

2)Ahn's Matsuhima is not Dokdo.

3)Korea continued to place Dokdo outside of Korean territory even in 1948 (常識問答,Korean common sense)
http://bbs.enjoykorea.jp/tbbs/read.php?board_id=thistory&page=6&nid=1784897

If you have an objection, please show us.

B
1) Japan used to have effective control over Ulleungdo.

2)After Japan ceded Ulleungdo, Japanese fisher were allowed to visit Dokdo/Takeshima
while there is no record at this period, Korea fishermen visited Dokdo/Takeshima

3)Though there was a time when Japanese were
confused about the islands, as of 1883 Japan
was clear that matsushima they were sometimes talking about was Ulleungdo.

4) Japan confirmed that Dokdo/Takeshima is the integral part of Japan in 1905

Wedgie the final quote, if he know Korean has failed to prove what he presupposed in his paper, would be;

If rational decision making is in play, this issue will be solved when Korea and wedgie learn to argue without immature ad hominen attack, and see the truth, throwing in the towel

Thanks.

[ponta]

I might add

1) The Japanese internal document does prove that Korea had effective control, or Korea had historical document that Usando was Dokdo.
Besides, since it is clear that this Japanese internal document was written when Japan was confused about the islands.
Korea has to present positive, concrete evidence to show Korea had the title.
But Korea has none.

[ponta]

In case Wedgie do not understand what the legal expert are doing...
Basically it is easy.

He applies the law or precedence to the facts, and draw the conclusion.
For instance, suppose there is a law saying (L) American can not enter this room and everyone else can enter this room.
(F) Wedgie is an American.
(C) Wedgie can not enter this room.

So far so good.
But if (F) is wrong, then we have to draw another conclusion.
(F') Wedgie is an Canadian.
Hence,
(C')Wedgie can enter this room.

In case of Dokdo, the legal experts presuppose what Korea has failed to prove.
Therefore, on other facts that Korea had no
historical documents mentioning Dokdo, what ever Korea claims to be Dokdo is not Dokdo, Korea had no effective control, but Japan had, it is easy to see another conclusion will follow.

Notice in passing,that Wedgie has been avoiding discussing the matter concerning historical ground. From the experience in talking with him, this is most likely to be case he has no further argument, he is cornered. But I might be mistaken, I'll leave the judgment to the reader.

Thanks.

[wedgie]

Pacifist as I said. The Japanese document clearly states not only was Matsushima considered Usando it tells us other things read again.

"It is said that Matsushima was named by us Japanese, but the truth is, the real name of this island is Usan which is part of (attached to) Ulleungdo of Chosun (Korea). During our 舊정부 (government) era it was proven through an exchange of documents that Ulleungdo belonged to Chosun and we confirmed that Ulleungdo was not Japanese territory, which is stated in both of our countries' historical records...."
Usando is Matsushima
I'm not presenting any new argument because I don't have to. The above document tells us first that the Japanese called Usando - Matsushima. More importantly Ulluengdo is referred to in its Korean name so we know the Songdo here is not another Ulleungdo. Most importantly Matsushima is referred to as attached to Ulleungdo.

Ponta states:
As I repeatedly wrote, the new Meiji government had no clear information about Takeshima and Matsushima at the time. So after all, they decided to investigate around the Ulleungdo and investigated them actually in 1880. The investigation by warship Amagi in 1880 confirmed the truth.

If the Japanese had no information about Matsushima and Takeshima in 1880 then their claim that Dokdo was inherently Japanese territory is not valid because it is proof that even 25 years prior to the islands annexation the Japanese didn't have a damn clue where Dokdo was. In addition even after the Amagi survey Dokdo does not appear on 99.9% of Japanese maps.

Do you understand where I'm coming from Ponta? You can't claim Japanese records as proof of cognizence and then disregard those that prove otherwise.

Let's get something else clear. The Amagi survey's results were not this huge revelation. Even the quote of the captain was simply "We had confirmed a long held suspicion...." The Japanese Navy had maps that were accurate enough such as the Russian 1857 map. See here.
Russo~Japanese Map

The 17th Century Japanese maps you posted are not proof of ownership at all. First they were both made after Japan had clearly ceded Ulleungdo to Chosun. Thus because both islands are included they can't be interpreted as anything more that proof of illegal clandestine trespassing on Ulleungdo.

One map you posted was made in 1696 and the other in 1724. By this time the Shogunate had banned passage to Ulleungdo. In reality as I've mentioned earlier these maps are proof of the Oyas and Murakawas illegal and deliberate violations of territorial travel restirctions imposed by their own government.

Chosun's common sense was a private book written by a person. It is not representive of the Korean governments or other historicans stance on Dokdo. There are also private Japanese books that state Dokdo was Korea but these references are a waste of time and prove nothing.....

[pacifist]

wedgie,

Don't dodge the point.
The confusion in the early Meiji era won't prove anything.

After the 1880 investigation, it was confirmed that the "Matsushima" in those days was Ulleungdo. And the old Matsushima (Takeshima/Dokdo) was confirmed to be Liancourt rocks.

And as ponta has already pointed out, the following document clearly says that the Meiji government admitted that they gave up ONLY Ulleungdo.

内達案
北緯三十七度三十分東経百三十度四十九分二位スル日本称松島一名竹島朝鮮称鬱陵島ノ儀ハ従前彼我政府ノ議定ノ儀モ有之日本人妄リニ渡航上陸不相成候條心得違ノ者無之様各地方長官に於テ諭達此旨及内達候也
明治十六年「三月一日」

This document clearly mentioned the location of Ulleungdo, which was Takeshima or Matsushima in Japan.

Japan has never ever given Takeshima/Dokdo to any country.

> "The 17th Century Japanese maps you posted are not proof of ownership at all."

wedgie, even if it was not a proof of ownership, the map is definitely an evidence that Jpanese people knew Takeshima/Dokdo in those days in the 17th century.

But there is NO evidence to show Korean people knew it AT ALL. There is NO map in Korea to show the two islets shape of Takeshima/Dokdo.

Do you agree? (I suppose you have to agree.)

You have to show the evidence if you believe Korean people knew the island before. But you couldn't show anything.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

So Japan knew Takeshima/Dokdo since the 17th century (while Korea has no evidence to show that they knew it).

And Japan owned it (the treaty between Chosun and the Shogunate only mentioned Ulleungdo in the 1696 and the Meiji government reconfirmed it in the 19th century), while Korea has no evidence to show that they owned it.

wedgie, these are facts.

You have to show the evidence. But you can't still show them at all.

[wedgie]

Pacifist says...

So Japan knew Takeshima/Dokdo since the 17th century (while Korea has no evidence to show that they knew it).

But then the Japanese forgot for 100 years in the 19th Century right...?

You are contraditing yourself Pacifist.

I've given you documents proving that both Japanese and Koreans called Usando-Matsushima fellahs. Deal with it.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

After the 1696 treaty, Japanese fishermen couldn't go to Ulleungdo, so Takeshima/Dokdo was half-forgotten because it had been a stop for voyage to Ulleungdo.

But there were quite a few Japanese people kept visiting Ulleungdo (it has been said that they went to take big bamboos when the Shogunate went weak in the end of the Edo era), so Takeshima/Dokdo was known to specified people in Japan but not all the Japanese - many Japanese may haven't taken care of the small rock islets.
But Takashima/Dokdo was under Japan's control. There is no trace of Koreans there during the period.

Considering the 1750's map of Ulleungdo carried the words "倭船艙可居" (Japanese ships can stay here), Japanese people sometimes may have visited Ulleungdo, if not so frequent, in the 18th century.

The half-forgotten island was suddenly in the limelight in the late 19th century. In 1897, islanders in Oki found a herd of sealions at Takeshima/Dokdo and sealion hunting started. Yozaburo Nakai asked the Meiji government about it in 1904 (in those days, you know, the Meiji government already recognised it as Liancourt rocks), and finally it was investigated and incorporated in 1905.

wedgie, while the above were going on, Korea didn't know it and didn't reach it. Now you understand that Korea has no right to claim Takeshima/Dokdo.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> "I've given you documents proving that both Japanese and Koreans called Usando-Matsushima fellahs."

As I repeatedly wrote, the document in 1878 was internal document argueing about Takeshima and Matsushima in cofusion. You can't claim Takeshima/Dokdo for the neigoring country's internal document.

After the arguments, the Meiji government decided to investigate it and finally confirmed the truth in 1880 - Matsushima (aka Takeshima) was Ulleungdo, new Takeshima was nothing (Argonaut island), and the old Matsushima was Liancourt rocks.

wedgie, you have to find your evidence. Now all the readers know that you can't find any evidence to show that Korea knew it, owned it or used it before the 20th century.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

To follow is the list of the evidences we confirmed (and you couldn't refute):

(1) Usando in the Korean books in the 15th century was not Takeshima/Dokdo.

(2) Japan knew Takeshima/Dokdo, owned it and used it in the 17th century.

(3) The Great Korean Empire (1897-1910)didn't recognise Takeshima/Dokdo as their territory. (The Great Korean Geography Book excluded Takeshima/Dokdo from Korean territory and it continued in the 1907 and 1908 editions.)

(4) Usan in the 1750' Ulleungdo map was not Takeshima/Dokdo.

-------------------------------------------
Well, (1) and (4) prove that there is no ground for Korean government's insistence and (3) means Korea didn't think that Takeshima/Dokdo was Korean territory until the 20th century when Syngman Rhee draw the line in the 1950's.

[ponta]

Wedgie
Thanks.
Wedgie wrote
"Ponta states:
As I repeatedly wrote, the new Meiji government had no clear information about Takeshima and Matsushima at the time. So after all, they decided to investigate around the Ulleungdo and investigated them actually in 1880. The investigation by warship Amagi in 1880 confirmed the truth."
So after all Meiji government was clear that
Masuhima was not Dokdo, that debunk your argument that because Japan said Matsuhima was Dodko, Dokdo = Matsuhima = Usando.

I think you provided a good paper.
"because the islets were remote, access was difficult, and, above
all, [they] were uninhabitable, constant physical occupation was not required, and
the occasional visits by Japanese fishers served as adequate evidence of occupation."
He was talking about Korea, because of the vacant poicy, the occasional visit was sufficient. But unfortunateley there is no record Korean fisher visited Dokdo.
On the other hand, though Ulleungdo was forbidded to sail, Japanese fisher occasionally visitted Dokdo.
That should be an adequate evidence of occupation.

Wedgie wrote
"I'm not presenting any new argument because I don't have to. The above document tells us first that the Japanese called Usando - Matsushima. More importantly Ulluengdo is referred to in its Korean name so we know the Songdo here is not another Ulleungdo. Most importantly Matsushima is referred to as attached to Ulleungdo."
Oh you have to because as you said, Japan was clear after all that Matsuhima was not Dokdo.

Ask your Korean friends to give you new evidence. I'll be waiting.

[ponta]

Korea has no evidence that Korea has a historical ground.

1) Korean document has no mention of Dokdo.

2) Usando or whatever Korea claims to be Dokdo is not Dokdo.
Physical and geographycal property does not fit with the description of Dokdo.

3)An's "Matsuhima" is not Dokdo: physical and geographycal property does not fit with
Dokdo and the contemporary maps confirms that Usando is not Dokdo.

4)Korea continued to place Dokdo as outside of Korean territory.

As of 1899, the newpaper mention Ulleung.

In the sea east of Uljin is an island named Ulleung. Of its six, small neighboring islands, Usando and Jukdo are the most prominent (崔著者). The Daehanjiji says that Ulleungdo is the old Country of Usan. It has an area of 100 ri. Three peaks stand out (律兀). Its products are ….. In the past, “water animals” (水獸) that looked like “cows without horns” (牛形無角) lived there and were called “gaji” (可之).

First, notice that Usando and Jukdo were described as Ulleungdo’s most prominent islands, which was almost certainly a reference to present-day Gwaneumdo (觀音島) and Jukdo (竹島). Many Koreans may stubbornly claim that Usando was a reference to “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), but the article seems to have poured cold water on that claim when it talked about “gaji.”

The “gaji” in the above article was a reference to sea lions. Notice that the article said that sea lions “used to live” on Ulleungdo, which meant they no longer lived there. That means that Usando and Jukdo, which the article described as neighboring islands of Ulleungdo, could not have been “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks) since there were still sea lions on “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks) at the time."Gerry/Occ

Even as of 1948, Korean book placed Dokdo as the outside of Korean territory.

There is no way to prove that Korea has a historical ground for Dokdo.
And,
Wedgie gave up giving new evidences and document.

And Japanese consistent position is
1. Japan's Consistent Position

Based on historical facts and international law, it is apparent that Takeshima is an integral part of Japan's sovereign territory.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/takeshima/position.html

Even after Japan farbade sailing to Ulleungdo, Japanese fisher occasionally visited Dokdo, which, according to the legal expert wedgie kindly provided, serves as an adequate evidence for the occupation. (A historical ground, and/or the effective control)

In 1905 Japam made it clear that Dokdo is Japanese territory.

Since then Japan had had effective control until Korea started illegally occupying Dokdo.

Japanese protest is valid since Korea had no
historical ground, and Wedgie shows no futher evidence for it .

Thanks.

[pacifist]

Dear ponta,

Lots of thanks for your great postings!

wedgie and JK,

If you can't refute, why don't you help us and correct the distorted descriptions of Dokdo Museum and Korean government's propaganda?
You should do something.

And it will bring us true friendship in the near future. Thanks.

[JK]

Sorry, been busy. But I know how important this whole online discussion is to the fate of Dokdo. After all, our discussion on this blog, or any other one, will determine who gets Dokdo. Yeah, right......

Haha.

BTW, ponta, I wonder when you will acknowledge that you stole maps from wedgie's site. Or will you avoid admitting your guilt the way the Japanese avoid mentioning how they stole Dokdo in 1906?

[pacifist]

JK,

The country who stole Takeshima/Dokdo was...you know the right answer.

So JK, we have to be reconciled with each other, and you should correct the wrong information in Korea.

Then we will be true friends.

[JK]

Pacifist wrote:
"The country who stole Takeshima/Dokdo was...you know the right answer."

Yes. Japan stole it in 1906 from Korea. Korea took it back. Japan b*tches and whines about this. The end.

Meanwhile, pacifist and ponta while whine on the Internet for years about it to no avail.

[ponta]

Well
I am grateful to Pacifist, Wedgie, JK for giving me an opportunity to join the discussion. In particular I am grateful to Gerry,who is unfortunately being banned from speaking on the net about Dokdo by the pressure of Korean nationalists, I learned the history and the points of the disputes concerning the Dokdo/Takeshima through his post and I am impressed by his Judo stye of debating.

p.s.
I hope you the best wish JK.

[JK]

Whether Gerry was banned or not....it doesn't change the fact that he was wrong about Dokdo. If someone was banned for making statements like the Holocaust in Europe didn't happen, that would still mean the person was wrong.

It would be like if Ponta was banned for saying he didn't steal wedgie's maps and other things he created from wedgie's page. Ponta would still be saying a lie even if he was banned.

[pacifist]

JK,

Thanks. The truth may have been hard for you to receive but thanks for admitting the evidences ponta and I showed.

Once you realized the truth, we hope you will correct the distorted information in Korea. Thanks a lot. See you.

[JK]

Pacifist,

Thanks for admitting you were wrong about Dokdo.

[pacifist]

JK,

As long as you admitted the evidences we showed, you seemed to be our colleague to correct the distorted information about Dokdo in Korea. Thanks for your help.

[wedgie]

HanDang

[JK]

Well done, wedgie! But I doubt ANY evidence will keep ponta and pacifist quiet.

Pacifist, study the evidence. Understand that Dokdo is rightfully in Korean hands. Accept it. Live in peace.

[pacifist]

JK and wedgie,

Didn't you realize the truth?

You couldn't refute the evidences ponta and I showed. Couldn't you realize that Korea has no right to claim Takeshima/Dokdo?

Korea has not ever known the Takshima/Dokdo, has not owned it and has not used it before the 20th century.
We proved them and you couldn't say anything. Did you forget it?

[Yurisakami]

"Korea has not ever known the Takshima/Dokdo, has not owned it and has not used it before the 20th century.
We proved them and you couldn't say anything. Did you forget it?"

I think we will have have someone say same thing in Nihon for next 200 years. It's theirs,period. I don't see anyone who cares about it. It would be only few Nihonjin...in 21, 22 century...ne.

[wedgie]

韓唐 Means Korean Land

[pacifist]

Yurisakami,

I know you are pretending a Japanese but actually a Korean because your name seems like Japanese at a glance but not a Japanese one actually. I've heard that Korean people sometimes pretend to be foreigners especially when they are doing wrong things.

Anyway Korean people, please think rationally. Examine yourself whether what the Korean government used to say "Usando was Dokdo, Dokdo is ours" is really true or not.
Please have scientific eys and brain, not emotional ones.

We want to be your friends, we should be friends ...but the propaganda by the Korean government is an obstacle.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

About the map you showed, it was a laugh for Japanese schclars.

Please see the following text (I translated it) from the "toron talker"
http://toron.pepper.jp/jp/take/jpn/katou.html

○　先ずは、韓国メディアに提示してあった画像に一言二言。

First, I would like to say a word or two about the picture that was mentioned in a Korean media.

向かって左端には「朝鮮國」が配置されているのに、省いてあるのは何故でしょう。

At the left, there is Chosun country lies but it was abbreviated in this picture, why?

また、「韓唐」の隣には、「此國不有人形」と書いてあるのに、その文句も見せていませんね。
意識的に、トリミングしていると言われても仕方ない（笑）

And beside "韓唐", there is a Chinese letter saying "此國不有人形" but they didn't show it. If someone says "They intentioanlly trimmed it out", they can't refute it.

○ 釜山大学の金・教授は、
「韓唐」とは「鬱陵島と独島を合して描いた島」と言っていますが、
鬱陵島と竹島（独島）の間は、90km以上も距離が離れているわけで、
合わせた島と解釈するのに無理があるし、合わせて一つに描く理由も無い。。。

Prof.Kim from Busan Univ. said "The island unified Ulleungdo and Dokdo", but it is hard to think as united island as there is a 92 km distance between the islands and there is no reason to draw them as one.

何故、鬱陵島と竹島（独島）を合わせて「韓唐」として描いたと推測したのか？説明して欲しいですね。

I would like to ask him the explanation why he thought that they wrote "韓唐" uniting Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

「韓唐」という地域には、「此國不有人形」と書いてあります。

There is a Chinese sentence "此國不有人形" at the area "韓唐".

つまり、この国には、「人というものがいない」、、、、と説明しています。

It expalins that there is no human beings.

また、「韓唐」を国としているわけで、「韓唐」は島ではありません。

And the map meant "韓唐" as a country, not an island.

また、韓唐は、北にある国です。

And 韓唐 is a north country.

隠岐島の右側 に描かれています。

It was drawn just right side of Oki.

しかし、竹島（独島）と鬱陵島は、隠岐島の西、韓国と隠岐の中間に
位置している島であり、本来ならば、韓唐は隠岐島の左側に描かれなければならない。

But Takeshima/Dokdo and Ulleungdo lie the west side of Oki, so it should have been drawn between Chosun and Oki, it should have been drawn left side of Oki.

○そして、「韓唐」の説明に「此国不有人形」（此国人の形ち有さず）と書かれています。

And you should think about the Chinese sentence written at 韓唐, "ther is no human beings".

この注記は１４世紀初期に描かれた「日本図」（金沢文庫蔵）、１５９８年（慶長３）の南贍部州大日本国正統図（東大蔵）、１６６２年（寛文２）扶桑国之図、等にも同様の説明がなされており、「韓唐」は「雁道」→「がんだう」→「韓唐」と音に当てる漢字が変化したものであり、秀吉時代の「韓」や「唐」などの実在の国を示すものでではないのが明白です。

This explanation came from the "日本図" (Map of Japan) in the early 14th century, "南贍部州大日本国正統図" (1598) and "扶桑国之図" (1662). 韓唐(Kantou) derived from "雁道(Gandou: a way of wild goose), it changed to "gandau" and then "韓唐". So it is apparent that it didn't indicate real countries such as China (唐) or Chosun （韓).

韓国側が、この地図を根拠にするのは苦しいでしょう。

It seems to be hard for Korea to assume this map to be a ground for their claim.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

Stop ugly struggle. You have to behave yourself, as you couldn't refute the evidences to show Korea didn't know Takeshima/Dokdo.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

As to Gandou (雁道), the origin of Kandou (韓唐), you can read the details here (written in Japanese):

http://www.lib.meiji.ac.jp/ashida/articles/report-2000/saeki/saeki-2.html

It says that Gandou was an imaginary land, a north land from where wild geese come. And they said that there were monsters （異形の者), not human beings, living. It expalins the Chinese sentence beside 韓唐 in the map.

You should see the whole map in the site I showed in the above posting. You may also notice that there is an island "竹島 (Takeshima)" drawn between Tsushima and Kyusyu. But I won't say that this was Ulleungdo and that it is a proof of Ulleungdo belonged to Japan, I'm not so impudent as you, wedgie.

But please study well before you post something.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

This map issue explains how Korean scholars are lying about Dokdo. They only flatter the government, they don't seem academic, do they?

Dear Korean people, please notice about absurdness of non-academic theories of Dokdo in Korea.

[wedgie]

Ulleungdo and Dokdo are Northwest of Oki. Not on the Japanese map at all and the map I gave you clearly shows Northwest territory as Handang. Han is Korean land.
Toron talker? You must be joking.

Look at this map again. Just look and tell me where Ulleungdo and Dokdo are. They are Northwest of Oki and in the location of Korean land. Wild goose land??!! What a laugh riot Pacifist!! At any rate, there is no possible way Ulleungdo and Dokdo are part of Japan on any of these maps. Period.
Ishikawa Map1
The same cartographer who made that map also made this world map that also shows Oki as the limit of Japan. Ishikawa Yusen was one of Japan's most famous map makers. There is no Ullengdo or Dokdo as part of Japan here it's from around the year 1700.
Ishikawa Map2

You can see Kangwando in pink, Handang in blue, and Oki in red. Handang 韓唐 in this map obviously covers the area of Ulleungdo and Dokdo and is appended to the Korean mainland namely the province of Kangwando. It is north and west of Japan and NOT part of Japan.
Handang Part of Korea

Each map I find that shows Japan had no claim to Dokdo is another nail in their coffin and we can rest this issue once and for all. All of your irrelevant ranting can't be heard because you are buried under the pile of evidence I have presented.
Here is a cool map too!!
Ulleungdo and Dokdo Part of Korea

[pacifist]

wedgie,

Why didn't you see the original map I mentioned? It's from Japanese public library.

http://www.gsi.go.jp/MAP/KOTIZU/h288.html

Look at this for close-up:

http://www.lib.meiji.ac.jp/ashida/display/each/09/09-101/09-101-0-0.lib00.006-l.jpg

You can see Chosun country at the left side of the map. And the imaginary land 韓唐 lies at the right side of the map.

If you want to see Chosun country closely, look at this:

http://www.lib.meiji.ac.jp/ashida/display/each/09/09-101/09-101-0-1.lib00.006-m.jpg

This shows how you are brainwashed by the flattering Korean scholars who are pawns of Korean government. How absurd.

Dear wise Korean people, please notice about this kind of disinformation. You have to see only the truth.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

This is from Enjoy Korea:

http://bbs.enjoykorea.jp/tbbs/read.php?board_id=phistory&nid=65863

You can read in hanglu if you clicks.

[JK]

Pacifist, using a blog that's based in Japan (even if it's called "enjoykorea") is NOT a credible source. After all, much of the world knows that Japan lies about its past.

[wedgie]

Pacifist, you are missing the point.

I'm telling you Ulleungdo and Dokdo were not considered part of Japan by the highest authorities in Japan prior to the Anyongbok Incident and that the Murakawas etc were just visiting the islands in a clandestine manner.

Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean land

[pacifist]

wedgie,

What do you mean by the word "the highest authorities"?

You should show the evidence that Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo, owned it or used it.
If you can't (you have not successed), it is meaningless if you write various maps or documents here.

Korea didn't know Takeshima/Dokdo until 20th century. So how Korea can claim the island?

[wedgie]

Korea doesn't need to claim the island Pacifist.......they have it. Remember???

Japan has to prove they have a valid dispute to warrant a day in the halls of the ICJ.

I've given you reams of information that show Japan didn't claim Dokdo prior to militarily occupying it.

Ulleungdo and Dokdo as Korean land

[ponta]

Japanese administration
extended over Ulleungdo.
That is why Korea protested, and Japan ceded.
But even after Japanese were not allowed to sail to Ulleungdo,

1)Japanese fishemen sailed to Dokdo.
(evidence for occupation)

2)Japanese government allowed fisher to sail to Dokdo/takeshima.
(Evidence for effective control)

Hence, there are evidences that show

A Japan has a historical ground for the occupation or effective control at Dokdo.

Besides,

B Japan confirmed that
Dokdo was Japanese territory in 1905

On the other hand,

C Korea has no historical ground.
(Wedgie has failed to show it)
All Kora has is the fact she started occupying it illegally after WW2, despite the warning from USA to send it to ICJ, despite Japan's protest. Since then, Japan has been protesting.

Hence Japan has a valid dispute for the issue to be settled at ICJ.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

If you have some other guy's watch without notice, you are a thief.
Even if you have it for 40 or 50 years, then it won't be your possesion as long as the owner of the watch keep claiming for it.

Korea is doing this kind of thing.
USA advised to go to the ICJ but she refused.

[JK]

Merry Christmas, everyone!

For the day forget dokdo, please. After all, what's the point of even discussing it since Korea owns it (and did so before 1906, as confirmed by the Tokugawa and Meiji regimes)?

Season's greetings!

[wedgie]

Ponta said "Japanese administration extended over Ulleungdo.That is why Korea protested, and Japan ceded.But even after Japanese were not allowed to sail to Ulleungdo......"

Illegal fishing (trespassing) by a few local fishermen with voyage passes is not administration. That's why I posted maps of this era drawn by prominent Japanese cartographers.

My point being the territorial maps drawn by renowned mapmakers are more representative of Japan's territorial limits than the scrawlings of the Otani and Murakawa families who illegally fished on Ulluengdo even after the territory was claimed as Chosun land and deemed off limits. I have recently found maps of both Oki and Shimane Prefectures from the 17th Century both not having Ulleungdo or Dokdo.

Ulleungdo and Dokdo are Korean Land

Ulleungdo and Dokdo are Korean Land 2

Japanese maps prove Japan did not include Ulleungdo and Dokdo as hers. They also prove that Korea owned Ulleungdo and Dokdo

[pacifist]

JK,

Merry Christmas

> "since Korea owns it"

No, Korea occupied it but doesn't own it.

She has not known it, owned it and used it before the 20th century while Japan had effectively controlled it until 1945.

She can't rob ownership of it, she must apologize and return it in the future.

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> "drawn by prominent Japanese cartographers. "

The maps you mentioned that depicted "韓唐" was drawn originally by Ryusen Ishikawa. He was not a cartographer but a "ukiyoe" maker. As you know, ukiyoe was a popular woodblock lithograph which depicted famous actors, sumo wrestlers, sceneries, etc and most famous for erotic drawings.

wedgie, it is time for you to give up. The maps you stated are not evidences for Korea to claim Takeshima/Dokdo.

All the readers now noticed that Korea has no right to claim for Takeshima/Dokdo (as all of you agreed), so that it is appropriate to say that Korea is illegally occupying Takeshima/Dokdo.

[ponta]

"Illegal fishing (trespassing) by a few local fishermen with voyage passes is not administration"
Sailing to Ulleungdo was not illegal until Japan forbade the fishermen to sail there.

(In passing, We should note, when talking with Korea, Korea argued that it is because Ulleungdo can be seen from the peninsular that Ulleungod belog to Korea and that is written in the old Korean document. )

"My point being the territorial maps drawn by renowned mapmakers are more representative of Japan's territorial limits than the scrawlings of the Otani and Murakawa families who illegally fished on Ulluengdo even after the territory was claimed as Chosun land and deemed off limits."
In addition to Pacifist's point, everyone can see the differece between Oya's map and the map you picked up. Oya's map is much more accurate. 5 year old boy could drwaw the map you uploaded.

Wedige
A
1) Japan has historical evidences.
2) Japan had effective control.

B Korea has none, but she is illegally occupying it while Japan has been protesting.

There is a dispute here.

Let's finish it at ICJ, and let's give Korean people an opportunity to act on justice.

If you really love Korea, just explain Korean weak points concerning Dokdo issue.
Korea banned Gerry. Korea banned pro-Japanese site that explains Japanese stance about Dokdo.
Korean people are in disadvantage because they don't know how the opponent is arguing. She is like the emperor in " The Emperor's New Clothes" Tell them the truth, tell them their weak points, for Korea's sake.

[wedgie]

Pacifist and Ponta.

I've given you maps that show Ulluengdo and Dokdo mapped as Korean land.

I've given you maps that show Ulleungdo and Dokdo were excluded from Japanese land.

I'm going to continue to post them on my website and no matter how much you cry everyone will see the truth.

Historically Japanese maps and documents excluded both Dokdo and Ulluengdo from Japanese territory for centuries before they annexed the island illegally in 1905.

You need to find a new hobby because you are banging your heads against a cement wall Ponta and Pacifist!!

Japanese maps kills Ponta
Japanese maps kill Pacifist too!!

[JK]

Pacifist wrote"
"No, Korea occupied it but doesn't own it."

Uh yes, Korea does own it.

"She has not known it, owned it and used it before the 20th century while Japan had effectively controlled it until 1945."

Uh yes, Korea knew about Dokdo and has owned it in the past. Even the Tokugawa and Meiji regimes acknowledged as much.

"She can't rob ownership of it, she must apologize and return it in the future."

"She has not known it, owned it and used it before the 20th century while Japan had effectively controlled it until 1945."

Korea DID know about it. Japan effectively controlled Dokdo until 1945? Japan also effectively controlled other Korean territory such as the city of Seoul. What, are you demanding that Korea also give other Korean territory like Seoul to Japan? Silly argument, pacifist. Should the Philippines give their islands to Japan since Japan had effective control of the Philippine Islands until 1945?

Korea took what rightfully belonged to Korea. That is not robbing. The end.

Live with it.

[ponta]

"I'm going to continue to post them on my website"
That means you are going tell the emperor, "how splendid are the Emperor's new clothes"

Go ahead make Korea look greater, if that is what you want.

[ponta]

A
1) Japan has historical evidences.
2) Japan had effective control.

B Korea has none.
Korea has no map that has dokdo on it.
Korea has no document in which Dokdo is mentioned.

* The fact that there are inaccurate Japanese maps to indicate misleadingly Matsuhima as Korean territory does not show Korea was coginizant of Dokdo just as your drawing the map in which Ulleungod belong to
Japan does not show it belongs to Korea.

And Wedgie has failed to show after the long
discussion,the Korean evidence Korea was cognizant of Dokdo.

Korea is illegally occupying it while Japan has been protesting.

There is a dispute here.

Let's finish it at ICJ, and let's give Korean people an opportunity to act not on emotion, not on deception but on justice

[pacifist]

wedgie and JK,

All of the readers noticed that Korea has no right to claim Takeshima/Dokdo.

JK, what you are saying has no evidence at all. If Korea knew Takeshima/Dokdo before the 20th century, you should have shown it but you couldn't.

You can say anything without evidences but it will only show the world that you lose the arguments.

[pacifist]

It is sad to know that there is still no real democracy in Korea.

In the democratic countries, you can read and hear every different opinions. You can decide yourself which opinion is right.

But unfortunately there is always one-sided information in Korea, they can't make correct decisions. They can't say anything which is different from the government's view.

We hope Korea will grow as a democratic country. It is up to you, dear Korean people. You can improve it.

[Where_is_Little_JK]

JK, I see you are back posting your hatred on the Metro:

http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/2006/12/the_best_americ.html

You sure hate Japanese and Austrailian. I guess some J-girls gave you the boot huh? I suppose the A-girls would not give a angry litte kyopo like you the time of day? Well too bad. kakakakkakakka

[wedgie]

Ponta quotes...
1) Japan has historical evidences.
This is not proof of ownership. For example you cite the voyages of the Murakawa's and Otani's as "ownership of management" and that these lands were "bestowed upon" by the shogunate. However Japanese maps both national and prefecture proved the islands had not been in any way incorporated as part of Japan. Here are the maps from the mid 17th Century.
Oki Map
Shimane Map
West Japan1
West Japan2

In conclusion, all government sanctioned maps of the 17th Century both prefectural and national show that Japan did not "administer" over Ulleungdo or Dokdo during this era or even later until the annexation of Dokdo in 1905.

Japan never had "effective control" of Dokdo because the legal definition of "effective control" must be uncontested. As I've shown here Korea contested Japan's annexation of Dokdo in 1906 when they were informed.

The 1905 Shimane Prefecture inclusion was Illegal

[ponta]

wedgie

Your argument is pretty weak.

The maps are drawn for many purposes.
The map for the sailor is for them to sail safely. The map for kids is for kids to understand what the island is like.
The fact that there are some inaccurate Japanese maps does not show Japan was not cognizant of Dokdo.
Why? because there is maps and documents that describe Dokdo.

On the other hand, Korea has absolutely no maps that has dokdo on them. Korea has absolutelyl no document that describe Dokdo.
In conclusion Korea was not cognizant of Dokdo.

One thing you should notice is that Japanese
administratio extended over Ulleungdo. That is why Korea at the time protested to Japanese government and Japan
forbade Japanese fishermen to sail there.

But even after the incident, Japanese fishermen visited Dokdo. According to the legal expert you kindly provided, occasional visit is sufficient to establish the occupation.
Besides,, Japanese fishermen were not punished for visiting Dokdo while they were punished for visiting Dokdo----Japanese fishermen were allowed to visit dokdo.

These fact establishes that Japan occupied and/or had effective control over Dokdo.

And 1905 inclusion is legal because no country other than Japan occupied Dokdo.

(Besides,Korea was not cognizant of Dokdo.
Korea did not protest though she did protest
on other matters.)

And Wedgie has failed to show any evidence that Korea was cognizant of Dokdo. Or did you find new evidence?

[ponta]

Japanese fishermen were not punished for visiting Dokdo while they were punished for visiting Ulleungodo

((Besides,Korea was not cognizant of Dokdo.
Korea did not protest though she did protest
on other matters, either because Korea was not cognizant of Dokdo or Korea conluded on eariler reseach of the region that it did not belong to Korea)

[wedgie]

Ponta says....
"According to the legal expert you kindly provided, occasional visit is sufficient to establish the occupation..."

He didn't say Japanese fishermen again you are making up lies, Ponta.

Japanese maps that show they fished on Ulleungdo after the island(s) were deemed Korean land are nothing more than proof of trespassing.

Just because you assert Koreans weren't cognizant of Dokdo doesn't make it so, Ponta. I've given you documents that state Usando is Matsushima. You've given unclear, confused historical references that do NOT negate these documents....Sorry.

If you don't wish to believe them fine. However, your argument has entered the realm of opinion of which I have no interest.

Proof Dokdo is Korean
More Proof

[wedgie]

BTW, Ponta.

There is not one historical reference showing Japanese visted Dokdo as a sole destination.

Ulleungdo and Dokdo can be proven to be historically inseparable by all maps, docs and historical records.

Give me one map or document that proves otherwise prior to the Japanese annexation of the island..

[pacifist]

wedgie,

> "Ulleungdo and Dokdo can be proven to be historically inseparable by all maps, docs and historical records".

It is your misunderstanding, wedgie.
You have to say that Ulleungdo and Usando can be proven to be historically insepable by all maps.

And you can't say that Usando was Dokdo, as we've proved in the arguments and you couldn't refute. Usando was not Takeshima/Dokdo because its nature in the old books is differnt from one of Takeshima/Dokdo.

wedgie, Ahn Yong-Bok misunderstood Matsushima = Usando and the misunderstanding affected the Korean books after that. As I wrote in the former posting, Ahn Yong-Bok was the culprit to make Korean people believe that Usando was Dokdo but it had no ground because it derived from his misunderstanding.

And wedgie, maps don't depict all the islands and the colour of the islands doesn't always mean territory.

The maps you showed were no evidence to say "Dokdo is Korean territory". You have to show the evidence but you couldn't.

Don't you still understand after we repeatedly show you that Japan had evidences to show that she knew it, owned it and used it, while Korea didn't know it at all until the 20th century. You couldn't show any evidences here to refute the above.

[ponta]

"He didn't say Japanese fishermen again you are making up lies, Ponta."
He didn't say Japanese fisherman, but he did say occasional visit is sufficient enough to establishe the occupation.

Calling a person a liar by misinterpreting him is not wise way to win the argument, wedgie.

Japanese maps that show they fished on Ulleungdo after the island(s) were deemed Korean land are nothing more than proof of trespassing.
http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/index.html

And there is a record that Japanese person was punished for tresspassing, but not punished for sailing to Dokdo.

" I've given you documents that state Usando is Matsushima."

And Ahn's Matushima proved to be not Dokdo.
Japanese Matsuhima proved to be ambivalent.
Since then you have not given any counter-argument.

"However, your argument has entered the realm of opinion of which I have no interest"

Yes, I can understand the feeling. my argument has entered the realm where you can not refute, largely due to your chracter, it might be reasonable you lost the interest.

"Ulleungdo and Dokdo can be proven to be historically inseparable by all maps, docs and historical records."

http://homepage2.nifty.com/oppekepe/takeshima/eng/korea/AF_17C/img/18C-m.gif
It takes a lot of imagination to believe lik e you.

"Give me one map or document that proves otherwise prior to the Japanese annexation of the island.."
For instance,

http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=234#comment-5675
http://japanese.chosun.com/site/data/img_dir/2006/11/03/200611030000052insert_2.jpg
t is most reasonable to understand that at the time sailing to Ulleungdo was prohibited but sailing to Dokdo was permitted. If that is the case, it just goes to show that at the time Dokdo/Takehima was recognized as Japanese territory by Japan where it is permited to sail around.

Anyway, it is notable that during this long discussion, you failed to show Korea was cognizant of Dokdo. The viewer might wonder why.

[JK]

Interesting. I CAN'T post at the site of the crazy Australian who is STILL hurt that he got rejected by Korea's fine women back in the nineties, so who said I'm posting there?

Aww...poor Matt. He has to use his little bitty blog to get over his memories of rejection. I'm sure he's surely getting back at them Korean girls who turned him down so many years ago.

Heh heh, NOT!

[JK]

Amazing. Ponta still avoids the question if he stole wedgie's maps and he avoids facing the charge that he lied about the Japanese fishermen.

And despite all the evidence wedgie has provided, he is DETERMINED to pretend to be blind to the truth....that Japan illegally took Dokdo in 1906 from Korea.

[JK]

Amazing. Ponta still avoids the question if he stole wedgie's maps and he avoids facing the charge that he lied about the Japanese fishermen.

And despite all the evidence wedgie has provided, he is DETERMINED to pretend to be blind to the truth....that Japan illegally took Dokdo in 1906 from Korea.

[ponta]

JK
God loves you whether you realise it or not.
I pray for your health, especially mental health.

[JK]

And once again ponta STILL refuses to admit he stole maps from wedgie and that he lied about the fishermen. Haha. Thanks for amusing me with your deliberate deception, ponta.

[jeo]

Ponta, if you have Wedgies maps at your house please return them to JK. Otherwise JK will never stop talking about Matt and how many fine Korean women Matt has sex with.

[Andy]

OK folks, I think this debate has just about played itself out.

BTW, I hope to finally do part four when I get back from America in March.

[pacifist]

Andy,

Lots of thanks for providing such a useful site. I'm looking forward to reading the part four in March.

I hope all of the readers can read all the arguments and decide which side is more honest and proper. Thanks.

[The_winner]

After reading all the posts, I want to make some comments.

JK makes mostly childish off topic comments, with a strange undercurrent of homosexuality twards Steve Barber.

Steve Barber (wedgie) seems to focus on half truths and ignore other information

Ponta is polite and makes good arguements

Pacifist is also very polite and uses logic and fact to support his thougts.

The Winner is Ponta and Pacifist. Takeshima island is Japanese and the Korean squatters should be kicked off.

Thank you.

[wedgie]

Thanks for putting up with us for so long Andy!!

I'm always sourcing new maps and documents on the Dokdo-Takeshima dispute for my website so I hope anyone who reads this thread drops by. I try to update it every day!

The historical facts of the Dokdo-Takeshima border dispute

Merry Chistmas !!

[JK]

jeo wrote:
"Ponta, if you have Wedgies maps at your house please return them to JK. Otherwise JK will never stop talking about Matt and how many fine Korean women Matt has sex with."

Jeo, you would need only one hand to keep count of that. Then again, you would need only one hand for a lot of stuff you normally do by yourself.

[JK]

jeo wrote:
"Ponta, if you have Wedgies maps at your house please return them to JK. Otherwise JK will never stop talking about Matt and how many fine Korean women Matt has sex with."

Jeo, you would need only one hand to keep count of that. Then again, you would need only one hand for a lot of stuff you normally do by yourself.

[JK]

To the_winner,

The Japanese won, huh? They won nothing. And dokdo shall remain in Korea's hands as they should be.

Why don't you go and worry about southerh Sakhalin, another island territory illegally taken by Japan that Japan is trying to reclaim from its original owner?

And don't get caught with Matt under the mistletoe! Gerry might get jealous.

[JK]

Ponta,

I read over your exchanges with wjk at Matt's sick site. He basically told you the truth, and apparently it hurt you. Among other small points he made:

He said he doesn't watch Japanese porn.

You said it's too bad that all he cares about is Japanese porn. I was like "WTH??? Ponta, is STILL being intentionally deceptive, and, as wjk said, putting words into other people's mouths." Are you SOOO desperate that you have to lie about what other people said, ponta? Then you said I (yes, you mentioned me) am one of those people who argue through my hate while you yourself argue through your love for Koreans. What a laugh!

Pathetic.

[JK]

Wedgie, I love you. Someday we will be married on DOKDO.

The world will BOW before the GREATNESS of DOKDO!!! DOKDO IS THE POWER OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE EVIL JAPS WILL NEVER STEAL IT.

[ponta]

I want to thank Andy to have given us an opportunity to discuss this important issue.

Let me give the reader my final words.
In view of international law, to acquire the sovereignty over territory, roughly you need
1) effective control or
2) discovery, or
3) cession by treaty

I realised after the long discussion that what is crucial in this debate is the examination of Korean positive, concrete evidence that Korea was cognizant of Dokdo;for it is relatively clear that Japanese was cognizant of Dokdo/Takeshima during Edo period.

Suppose for the sake of argument that Korean so called protest in 1906 was valid.(or suppose she couldn't protest at the time of
the inclusion). Then that day of the protest is the critical date
at which the dispute between the two parties becomes crystallized and after which no acts can be taken into account in determining sovereignty.

Korea held the empty island policy over Ulleungdo, so there is little evidence, if at all, that Korea had effective occupation over Dokdo.
The only evidence available for Korea is probably the discovery.(But note that even the discovery must be reinforced by the effective control)
If it is proved that Korea was not cognizant of Dokdo before so called protest, it is most likely that the case favors Japan.

So it is crucial for Korea at least to show Korea was cognizant of Dokdo positively and affirmatively before 1905.

I want the reader to keep this point in mind
when reading various sources.

Thank you very much.

[JK]

The last comment by the supposed "JK" is in fact NOT me.

[JK]

Hm. Gerry Bevers got fired. He spoke his mind about Dokdo and the Japanese colonization of Korea. Okay, fine. And there are people like the president of Iran who say that the Holocaust that exterminated Jews in WWII didn't happen (which in my book puts Bevers in the same category of telling historical lies).

Now I am all for free speech and all....but imagine if this were America and an Iranian (or Korean or Japanese) schoolteacher started posting on and on about how the Holocaust was supposedly "not that bad" for Jews, the way Bevers said the colonization was not that bad for Koreans. On top of that let's say he questioned the legitimacy of reports by Jewish women served to be sex slaves to German soldiers (the way Gerry Bevers questions the legitimacy of claims by Korean comfort women forced to serve Japanese troops). Or let's say this Japanese professor in the US says that the Japanese had the right to attack Pearl Harbor because historically, it once belonged to Japan (based on some flimsy old maps of no credibility that the professor looked at from his own narrow viewpoint and based on his own faulty assumptions).

Then let's say this Iranian (or Japanese or Korean) professor in the US says the Americans are the most corrupt, racist people who lie and that the state of Delaware really belongs to Canada (or something ridiculous like that). And let's say the Iranian (or Japanese or Korean) professor continues to post online and in his classrooms that the attack on NY on 9/11/01 was justified.

Then imagine this professor gets fired because of complaints by American students.

Are we to feel sorry for this guy???? Not only were his arguments about history wrong....but even if he was right, why would he go out of his way to p*ss off every American in his new home of America (or in Gerry's case, every Korean in his new home of Korea)??

Doesn't make sense to me. What I do know is that I shed not a tear for him. Anyone who goes out of his way to p*ss off the people of his new country will get what he is seeking ultimately. But he also has to pay the cost. And it doesn't matter WHAT country that this were to take place.

[pacifist]

JK,

This is not a site to argue about Gerry.

And you are stating different stories mixing up, it's a waste of time.

[JK]

pacifist,

both you and ponta have mentioned Bevers being prohibited from talking about dokdo online, so it was you guys who have brought him into the discussion (and his banning) many times to support your arguments. I am merely addressing this (and recent events surrounding his situation) since somehow you feel the need to make a martyr out of him. But he is no martyr, just stupid to sacrifice his career for the sake of BLOGGING.

[JK]

The very naive commented, USinkorea, at Australian Matt's site made a mistake in his arguments that what I said about a Gerry Bevers-like non-American guy teaching in a university in America and saying things like America "deserving" the attack on 9/11/01 is that controversial professors like Chomsky and Edward Said are tenured....while Gerry Bevers was not; instead Bevers was working on a yearly contract basis and was told that after making ridiculous Chomsky-like remarks about Korea's history in public blogs for years that he was not going to have his contract renewed. BIG difference, Mr. USinkorea.

I know of PLENTY of professors in the US (American as well as non-American) who have been asked to leave a school....due to whatever reason, be it a personality issue, being bad for a school image, lack of research work, or whatever....but mainly because they weren't tenured. What kind of foreign idiot who ISN'T tenured at a university (third-class one at that) in America would go OUT OF HIS WAY to make comments that, in addition to being historically wrong, would be calling his host country a country of liars? So understand that this is not unique to Korea. It would happen ANYWHERE.

People like Errol, GarlicBreath, uninkorea, ponta, pacifist, and matt are not doing Bevers any favors when they keep egging him on to speak his lies about Dokdo. Did any of them lose their jobs as a result of egging Bevers on? Nope. Only Bevers did. Are any of them giving him financial support now? Nope.

I leave you all with this example to make you understand the mess Bevers got himself into:

Let's say there is an American teacher who goes to teach English at a third-class university in Israel. For YEARS, even almost a whole decade, this American teacher, because he had some personal conflicts with Jews both in America and in Israel, writes post after post about how Jews are corrupt, liars, racists, and such. He also questions Israel's grabbing land that it believes once historically belonged to it but that was taken by Germany. Germany protests this land-grab. Yes, this is the SAME Germany that took so many other countries' territories in WWII, so it does seem a wee bit hypocritical no? Anyway, this American instructor also questions the Jewish Holocaust and even questions if the Jews really had it that bad under the Germans in WWII. He even says Jews were allies of Nazi Germany in WWII.

Now let's say that online, this controversial American teacher gets support from new young neo-Nazis in Germany, who have a distorted view of their country's past, as well as some Americans who also have had unpleasant interactions with Jews. This American instructor has no problems making negative generalizations about the entire Jewish population in the world and how they are racist, shallow, etc. These new neo-Nazis as well as the Americans who had troubles with Jews thank this American teacher for supposedly "speaking the truth." Meanwhile, not surprisingly, many Jews are offended by the historical distortions made by this American instructor.

Okay, now back in Israel, this American teacher's contract is coming up for renewal by his university. What this teacher has written online under his own name has offended Jews throughout the world, which seems to have been what the American teacher wanted all along, as well as the Jewish students that study at this particular university in Israel.

This American instructor does not have his contract renewed.

Is anyone surprised by the conclusion in my hypothetical example? Is this American teacher at the university in Israel some sort of martyr?

Or is he just plain stupid?

Now you know what I think about Gerry Bevers' situation.

[pacifist]

JK,

You seem to have posted these jargons at a wrong place, maybe these jargons were written for Occidentalism.

JK, are you still drunk?

[JK]

Pacifist, no, I'm not drunk. Are you? I didn't post at the wrong place. But the point is you DO read what I write. :)

[JK]

Pacifist has stupidly forgotten that Matt banned people who disagreed with his racist posts about Koreans. But it seems everyone from Matt's site reads this blog. lol

[pacifist]

JK,

So you were banned by Occidentalism, and you posted the jargons at this site instead?

I think you are fooling Andy and the readers of this site.

[JK]

A LOT of legitimate posters were banned from occidentalism because they spoke the truth about Matt's lies.

Anyway, let's stick to the topic about Dokdo. It was, is, and always will belong to Korea. And rightfully so.

As for Gerry, he argued and argued and thought he was right about the subject - even though he wasn't. And after going out of his way to poke his hosts in the eye and describing the entire Korean population as corrupt liars who can't think logically, he didn't have his teaching contract at his university renewed. I know university instructors in the US who did far less offense yet who were asked by the university to leave. So don't make Gerry a martyr.

[pacifist]

JK,

Your insistence has no ground, as every reader knows it.

You always repeat the same incantation but thousands of incantation won't become truth if there is NO evidence.

As we have proved, Korea didn't know Takeshima/Dokdo, didn't own it and didn't use it, while Japan knew it, owned it and used it.

[Runx]

Pacifist,

Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the topic. Takeshima Island is Japanese and it has been proven time and time again.

JK has been thrown off a few blogs because of his unhealty stalking and fixation with the male blogger Matt. Some people have pointed out the homosexual undertone of his comments/fixation for his banning on a few blogs. Its very boring to have him talk about Matt over and over when the topic is about Takeshima island and the Korean that have illegaly occupied it.

JK please seek help. It seems clear that you don't believe in GOD, but may GOD help you. May god help your pathetic soul.

Back to the topic. Takeshima is Japanese.

[JK]

Runx (Matt), haha. Thanks for amusing me.

[wedgie]

Hello!!

Made you look.....

[JK]

Ah, ponta, ponta. You are still deceptively name-dropping me on other blogs and saying that I am a racist when indeed it is you who are the racist (and it is obvious to so many readers). So sad, you are, ponta. And deceptive. You live up to the (unfortunate) stereotype that people around the world have of the Japanese.

[JK]

Hm. It isn't the first time Gerry Bevers didn't have his contract renewed. Rather than blame the lack of free speech as the reason for his not being rehired, perhaps he should take a look at himself.

I know of university instructors in the US who were asked to leave the university where they were teaching because of personality problems (as perceived by those more senior) or because the person didn't look right (weird as that sounds). In other words the reasons for not having their contracts renewed in the US were so very fickle.

Now you take a guy working on a year-to-year university contract in Korea who touches on a very sensitive topic as it relates to Korea, and he decides to do his own so-called "analysis", which in itself is total BS.

Now if university lecturers without tenure in the US have such instability at THEIR jobs and can lose their positions at the drop of a pin.....why is Korea so much a worse country because they let go of Gerry Bevers for spreading his usual anti-Korea lies and biased reports? I would think an Iranian instructor working on a year-to-year contract at Hebrew University in Israel would endure the same fate if he presented a biased report that used questionable sources and left out more reliable resources that contradicted his preconceived conclusions that said the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and that the problem was that Jews were too xenophobic and whined too much and were liars.

Bevers is allowed to have whatever opinions he wants. He is allowed to do whatever "research" he wants. He is even allowed to use sources like Bruce Cumings (the writer who once said the US and South Korea started the Korean War by invading North Korea). But when ANYTHING like not smiling the right way or whatever can prohibit university lecturers from continuing to work at their schools in the US, Gerry was stupid to spread his lies in Korea about Dokdo and other Korean issues like the colonization by Japan or the comfort women forced to serve Japanese soldiers just to take a poke at Koreans, who he obviously has an extreme bias against.

[JK]

Hm. It isn't the first time Gerry Bevers didn't have his contract renewed. Rather than blame the lack of free speech as the reason for his not being rehired, perhaps he should take a look at himself.

I know of university instructors in the US who were asked to leave the university where they were teaching because of personality problems (as perceived by those more senior) or because the person didn't look right (weird as that sounds). In other words the reasons for not having their contracts renewed in the US were so very fickle.

Now you take a guy working on a year-to-year university contract in Korea who touches on a very sensitive topic as it relates to Korea, and he decides to do his own so-called "analysis", which in itself is total BS.

Now if university lecturers without tenure in the US have such instability at THEIR jobs and can lose their positions at the drop of a pin.....why is Korea so much a worse country because they let go of Gerry Bevers for spreading his usual anti-Korea lies and biased reports? I would think an Iranian instructor working on a year-to-year contract at Hebrew University in Israel would endure the same fate if he presented a biased report that used questionable sources and left out more reliable resources that contradicted his preconceived conclusions that said the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and that the problem was that Jews were too xenophobic and whined too much and were liars.

Bevers is allowed to have whatever opinions he wants. He is allowed to do whatever "research" he wants. He is even allowed to use sources like Bruce Cumings (the writer who once said the US and South Korea started the Korean War by invading North Korea). But when ANYTHING like not smiling the right way or whatever can prohibit university lecturers from continuing to work at their schools in the US, Gerry was stupid to spread his lies in Korea about Dokdo and other Korean issues like the colonization by Japan or the comfort women forced to serve Japanese soldiers just to take a poke at Koreans, who he obviously has an extreme bias against.

[JK]

Hm. It isn't the first time Gerry Bevers didn't have his contract renewed. Rather than blame the lack of free speech as the reason for his not being rehired, perhaps he should take a look at himself.

I know of university instructors in the US who were asked to leave the university where they were teaching because of personality problems (as perceived by those more senior) or because the person didn't look right (weird as that sounds). In other words the reasons for not having their contracts renewed in the US were so very fickle.

Now you take a guy working on a year-to-year university contract in Korea who touches on a very sensitive topic as it relates to Korea, and he decides to do his own so-called "analysis", which in itself is total BS.

Now if university lecturers without tenure in the US have such instability at THEIR jobs and can lose their positions at the drop of a pin.....why is Korea so much a worse country because they let go of Gerry Bevers for spreading his usual anti-Korea lies and biased reports? I would think an Iranian instructor working on a year-to-year contract at Hebrew University in Israel would endure the same fate if he presented a biased report that used questionable sources and left out more reliable resources that contradicted his preconceived conclusions that said the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and that the problem was that Jews were too xenophobic and whined too much and were liars.

Bevers is allowed to have whatever opinions he wants. He is allowed to do whatever "research" he wants. He is even allowed to use sources like Bruce Cumings (the writer who once said the US and South Korea started the Korean War by invading North Korea). But when ANYTHING like not smiling the right way or whatever can prohibit university lecturers from continuing to work at their schools in the US, Gerry was stupid to spread his lies in Korea about Dokdo and other Korean issues like the colonization by Japan or the comfort women forced to serve Japanese soldiers just to take a poke at Koreans, who he obviously has an extreme bias against.

[pacifist]

Andy,

Please stop JK's abuse of this site. He is discharging unrelated topics onto this important site to hide the truth about Takeshima/Dokdo or he is simply drunken.

[JK]

Pacifist,

WHAT abuse??? The topic is Dokdo.

You and ponta have tried to present Gerry Bevers as this Dokdo martyr or something, when he is nothing more than an anti-Korean who claims to be doing "objective" analysis yet who in reality is a guy who merely uses the topic as a way to take a poke at Koreans.

Remember, YOU guys brought him into the discussion, I didn't.

There is no abuse. Stop your nonsense, pacifist.

JK

P.S. You guys THINK you are helping Bevers, but when you kept egging him on to present his one-sided view of the situation (Bevers over the years consistently looks at historical situations from the viewpoint that Koreans are always in the wrong) you encourage him to do reckless things that endanger his job. Don't you feel bad about this? You guys have jobs. Right now he doesn't. Yet you keep egging him on to continue his "analysis" and now present him as a victim. How about telling him to smarten up so he WON'T get fired?? Then you would be helping him. Right now you are NOT helping him. If anything, you have helped him to harm himself.

[pacifist]

JK,

You misunderstood Gerry. He is a Korea lover as well as I and ponta.

But anyway, the situation about Gerry has nothing to do with the topic of Takeshima/Dokdo.

JK, you should write about Takeshima/Dokdo. You have not suceeded yet in showing the evidence that Korea's propaganda "Dokdo is ours" has some grounds.

[JK]

Pacifist,

Korea owns and occupies Dokdo. The burden of proof is on you and the other right-wing Japanese to prove that Japan once legally owned Dokdo PRIOR to Koreans owning it. So far you have presented flimsy evidence.

I hope Japan does well. I love Japanese and want them to face the truth of their past. Then Japanese can live with the rest of the world in peace. Then the rest of the world will not think of the Japanese as sneaky people who deny their country's war crimes.

Don't encourage Gerry Bevers to do more stupid things to get fired. I mention Gerry Bevers because YOU and Ponta have tried to tie him into this Dokdo discussion by presenting him as a martyr. He is not a martyr, only stupid.

[pacifist]

JK,

Occupying and owning is another thing. If you snacth some other one's fountain pen, can you claim it's yours? If you want to own it truely, you should explain why it belongs to you. But you can't because there is no evidence to prove that pen is yours. You just wanted some other's pen. After you snatched it, you only saying "this is mine" without showing no evidence to prove that is really yours.

Takeshima/Dokdo is in the same situation, actually Korea didn't know Takeshima/Dokdo until recently. They can't claim for it but occupying brutally and didn't hear other opinions.

As we repeatedly wtote, you should show the evidence that Korea knew it, own it and use it but you failed. JK, every reader knows now the truth.

[JK]

Again, pacifist, the burden of proof is on YOU to show that Dokdo legitimately belongs to Japan. Until then, Korea will continue to hold onto Dokdo.

And quit encouraging Gerry Bevers to get himself fired! Encourage him to be at peace with his home (Korea). You're egging him on to conduct his so-called "objective" analysis of Korea in order to take pot shots at the Korean population is NOT helping him when it comes to keeping his jobs.

[pacifist]

JK,

We have already shown the evidences to show that Japan knew it, owned it and used it.
You can't deceive all the readers of this blog.

The occupying country should explain why it belongs to them. But they may know in the depth of their heart that it didn't belong to them, it was a kind of catharsis for them. They snatched Japanese island and felt good. They know that it was unlawful thing so that they refused to go to ICJ and educated their people that "Dokdo is ours".

If you want to refute, you should show that Korea knew it, owned it and used it but you can't because there is no such things.

[JK]

Pacifist,

You have shown no evidence except that Japan illegally snatched Dokdo from Korea in 1906. I have seen no legitimate proof from you that Dokdo rightfully belongs to Japan.

And quit encouraging Gerry Bevers to get himself fired! Encourage him to be at peace with his home (Korea). You're egging him on to conduct his so-called "objective" analysis of Korea in order to take pot shots at the Korean population is NOT helping him when it comes to keeping his jobs.

[pacifist]

JK,

You should read all the postings above. If after reading all and you still unable to understand what I wrote, then you are unable to discuss anything with others. If you don't have logical mind, you can't debate with someone else.

All the readers know the truth, JK.

[JK]

Indeed all readers know the truth, pacifist - that Korea is the legitimate owner of Dokdo and that Japan stole it in 1906. Read over Wedgie's arguments and supporting links and documents.

And quit encouraging Gerry Bevers to get himself fired! Encourage him to be at peace with his home (Korea). You're egging him on to conduct his so-called "objective" analysis of Korea in order to take pot shots at the Korean population is NOT helping him when it comes to keeping his jobs.

[pacifist]

JK,

I am disappointed with you. Why do you refuse to be logical?

[JK]

Pacifist,

It is YOU who are choosing to not be logical - and you are doing so intentionally.

Japan has NO legitimate grounds to claim Dokdo.

Accept it, Pacifist.

And quick egging Gerry Bevers to conduct his so-called "analysis." He doesn't have a job now - you do. Pretty selfish of you, pacifist, but so typical of so many Japanese.

JK

[Andy]

OK folks, this has gotten silly. We have certainly gone into 'all heat and no light' country and I think it might be best if everyone step back for a while. This will be the last comment on this post and the other two Dokdo/Takashime posts (I will delete any more that come up). That way, nobody can claim victory by getting in the last word.

Just to make everyone angry, I will state what have said in the posts: Neither country seems to have a slam dunk case for its historical claim to Dokdo. If Korea's case were as strong as some people here claim, then it would have nothing to lose in taking the case for international arbitration (it would actually stand to gain some more exclusive fishing areas.). On the other hand, I believe Japan's desire to settle the dispute internationally reflects more a willingness to roll the dice than a firm believe that they are right.

I plan to do some more research on that and hope to do a final Dokdo post in March. Hopefully, I will be able to come to some kind of conclution then.

JK,
Style suggestion: While the other three main commenters have been rude to each other at times, they have generally also made some contribution to the debate (at least until things completely broke down a few weeks ago). I did a quick scan and the same could not be said of the bulk of your comments. As a rule of thumb, I would suggest that you try to have at least 75% of a comment directed towards arguments or refutations.