Occidentalism

Gerry:

There was an article about Dokdo on Aljazeera the other day. It quotes a South Korean professor:

But according to Lee Seokwoo, a professor at Incheon’s Inha University in South Korea and an authority on territorial disputes, that does not change the fact that Korea has exercised sovereignty over Dokdo since 512 BCE - interrupted only by the 1910-1945 period of Japan’s colonial occupation.

It’s the first time I’ve heard the claim that Korea actually knew about Dokdo in 512 B.C., which sounds pretty ridiculous. The article doesn’t mention any evidence for this claim. Have you come across any ‘evidence’ of Korean claims to Dokdo dating from 2500 years ago?

Gerry>

Note that the Korean claim in 512 AD is actually based on records dating in the 15th century…where the heck is the original document? (actually, I know this answer because the oldest Korean records are not old at all compared to Chinese and Japanese historical documents…so I don’t think it’s a wild guess that the Koreans made many stories up based on scant evidence).

In fact, Koreans refute Japanese control over the southern part of the peninsula in the 4th-6th century based on ZERO documentary evidence (because there are NO Korean text coming from that period of time), whereas the Chinese and Japanese chronicals at that time cleary indicates Japanese influence or control in that area (there is archaeological evidence, too- Japanese style burial mounds are to be found in that area coming from that age). Well, there is actually a memorial set up by a Koguryo king Gwanggaeto that says that the Japanese crossed the sea and subjugated Shila and Paekche but was ousted by Koguryo in 400 AD. This is refuted by the Koreans who cannot accept any control by the Japanese (Koreans think the Japanese being inferior) in their beloved penninsula, but this Korean view is not accepted by anyone else, even by the Chinese historians (who can read the text, which is in Chinese). All of this sound all too familiar compared to the so-called Dok-do issue… I guess if they can’t stop lying once they started it, it may only end when their regime falls…which seems typical of many authoritarian regimes who boast their legitimacy and greatness…

How will they be exposed? There may well be Korean historians who realise its all lies but will they come forth and expose it? Not a chance, they would seriously be afriad of getting beaten or worse. And if a foreigner exposes it then the foreigner will be a “racist” or just some barbarian in the eyes of Koreans. Who can expose this problem? I sure hope there is some way it will happen.

Travolta,

Time and interest will expose the lies. Believe it or not, Roh Mu-hyeon has played a big part in exposing the lies. By making so much noise about “Dokdo,” he has motivated people, including me, to take a closer look at the history surrounding the islets. And once people start looking closely at the history, the Korean lies about Dokdo just jump out at you. Before long, even Koreans will not be able to deny Japan’s claim, at least, not with a straight face.

I believe that the Korean argument will soon stop focusing so much on the history and will start focusing more on Korea’s right to take over the islets as some kind of compensation for Japan’s “past evils.” Even the Dokdo video I linked to in my first post spends a great deal of time trying to convince people that Japan was evil, and still is, rather than focusing on hard evidence that “Dokdo” was historically Korean territory. Even the evidence that the video does present as evidence of Korea’s claim is either half-truths or blantant lies. For example, the video says that King Kojong’s 1900 proclamation claimed Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and “Dokdo” as Korean territories. That is a blantant lie.

The proclamation actually claimed Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and an island named “Seokdo.” There is no evidence that Seokdo was Dokdo. It is much more likely that Seokdo was another name for Gwaneumdo, which is one of Ulleungdo’s two neighboring islands. You can see it on the Ulleungdo map here. If it was not Gwaneumdo, then we would have to ask ourselves why Gwaneumdo was left off the list of islands in the 1900 proclamation? “Dokdo” was not a neighboring island of Ulleungdo, given that it is ninety-two kilometers southeast of Ulleungdo.

Anyway, even if Koreans do try to close their eyes to the truth, the lies will, at least, be exposed to the rest of the world.

>Gerry

I think the Korean historians have always lost their credibility with regards to how it is taken in Japan, when you see them lying about almost anything related to Japan…not just Dok-do but other things, like the Japanese influence in ancient times (according to them, Japan was a colony of Korea?), talks about the Korean influence on Japanese culture (Japan copied everything, right?), the Korean campaign by Toyotomi Hideyoshi in the 16th Century (did the Koreans score any significant victory?…Japanese records state no), the Japanese administration of Korea in the 20th Century (just how bad was it?)…but now that Roh has made Dok-do an international issue, people other than Japan are getting to know about Korean history distortions…may the truth finally come out!

The hate-Japan policy of the Koreas (yes, North and South) remind me of the antisemitism in Nazi Germany…portraying that some nation is evil…really terrifying just to think about its consequences…

Correction:

sire → site

Sorry!

Thank you, Travolta and Pacifist.

I enjoy researching this subject, so it is my pleasure to read and write about it. I learn a lot by doing it. My Korean language skills are pretty good for a non-native, and I can read a thousand or so Chinese characters, which with a Chinese character dictionary and other reference material, seem to be enough to do the research. I only wish that I could read Japanese, so that I would not have to depend on translations. Maybe, someday I will take the time to learn.

Even with my limited language skills, it is pretty easy to spot the lies and inconsistencies in Korea’s territorial claims on Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo/Takeshima). That means that native Korean historians must obviously know about them, yet choose to remain silent. The fact that they remain silent on the issue, or even support the lies, is a big stain on the integrity of Korean scholarship. Now, I cannot read a modern history of Korea without wondering how much of it is BS.

No, I do not generally talk to Koreans about “Dokdo” because it would be like telling a Christian that God does not exist. I think the best thing to do it present the evidence and give peope time to consider it and achieve enlightenment on their own.

I think that most people who support the Korean claim, including non-Koreans, simply do not know the facts. Koreans have been actively speading their propaganda for a long time while the Japanese have remained pretty much quiet and indifferent. People have only heard the Korean lies and assumed them to be true since the Japanese have not really bothered to refute them, at least not in the English language.

In the foreign blogging community, I think there are people who are starting to realize that they have been lied to in regard to “Dokdo,” but because they have supported Korea’s claims in the past, I think they find it difficult to shallow their pride and admit they were wrong. A few people in this category that come to mind are Oranckay, Richardson, the mysterious Kushibo, and, of course, silly Mark Lovmo, who is a special case. Oranckay, Richardson, and Kushibo, at least, have the good sense now to keep their mouths shut on the issue, but Mark Lovmo continues to spread lies and half-truths, making me wonder whether or not he has any integrity, at all.

Then there are the “chicken” bloggers, like the Marmot, who seem afraid to tackle the subject for fear of offending Koreans. The Marmot seems to be afraid to even link to this blog, choosing instead to post on frivolous topics or on topics that have, at least, some division in Korean society. He seems to be afraid to even use “Sea of Japan” in his posts. That is why I respect people like Matt, who has the balls to tell things as he sees them.

By the way, I appreciate Matt’s letting me post on his blog.

Ponta>

I saw that site once, but the level of the post was so low, it was just laughable…like Gerry said, the Korean claim on so-called Dokdo uses logic that defies most logical people…NO, it is not logic…it is the almost religious belief that the Koreans have always been victimized by Japan and so-called Dokdo is theirs.

Will the Koreans ever “catch-up” with Japan or other developed countries?-this should mean economically, but I would also have to say “socially” looking at all these ultra-nationalistic disease. In order to advance, you have to be able to self-reflect. So far, I don’t see any amount of self-reflection among the Korean government or the media. They always blame their woes on Japan and the U.S. They are always the victim, and they see nothing wrong with ultranationalism…if this represent the general Korean mind, I don’t think they never will catch-up…unless some silly Japanese gives away valuable blueprints of their technological expertise believing it will forward Korean relations…

Tomato
I agree with you,
I think Korea has a potentially great power. Look at their energy they give to anti-Japanism, anti-Americanism.Their energy is overwhelming; they put their energy in the wrong place.

The problem with some of English speaking K bloggers/commenters, if I am allowed to speak, is that they don’t check the facts the Koreans say,they just pick up Korean anti-Japanism without criticism.
Some of them even use racial slur against Japanese and others leave them at that.

Occidentalism was sometimes criticised for some commenters using racial slur and Matt has tackled the issue and warned the commenter and deleted inadequate comments.Other K blogs has the similar problems but none criticized them—strange.

It is sometimes said that the older native Koreans who directly experienced Japanese rule are less anti-Japanese than younger people.—–strange.

Tomato, you say “They always blame their woes on Japan and the U.S. They are always the victim, and they see nothing wrong with ultra-nationalism…” I agree but I think what they are now are invented through educations at home and at school.I hope English speaking K bloggers who loves Koreans to help realise that.

USA is the most bashed country in the world, not because it is bad but because it is most open society in the world.Japan is also bashed from inside, from outside, Japan is more open society than people think. I think criticism vitalize the society. I think Korea needs this kind of vitality.

Toadface,

If Korea has no maps showing “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks) or documents mentioning it before 1905, then how can you say, “there is a valid claim for the Koreans for Dokdo”?

Japanese documents and maps, on the other hand, do mention and show Liancourt Rocks. Japanese documents show that the Japanese considered them part of their territory. And Japanese documents very clearly show that the Japanese officially and legally incorporated the islands in 1905. Even the United States and her allies in World War II recognized that fact. By the way, why isn’t that mentioned on Mark Lovmo’s site?

The exchange of documents among the Japanese ministries in the 1870s show that the Japanese were confused about Matsushima (Songdo). Japanese officials speculated that there were two islands in the Sea of Japan named Matsushima (Songdo), which turned out to be correct. One Japanese official said that if the Matsushima in question were Ulleungdo, it would be Korean territory, if not, it should be Japanese. That shows that the Japanese consided Liancourt Rocks as Japanese territory in the 1870s.

To clear up the confusion, the Japanese sent a naval warship to survey the area in 1880. The ship’s captain reported that Matsushima was actually Ulleungdo and that a neighboring island to the north of Ulleungdo was called Takeshima (Jukdo). By the way, concerning this discovery, the Japanese captain said, “In one morning, we have cleared up a long-held suspicion.”

Because of this discovery, the Japanese had to rename Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks. Ulleungdo was renamed Matsushima (Songdo), which up until then had been used for Liancourt Rocks. And since the Japanese discovered an island next to Ulleungdo already called Takeshima (Jukdo), the Japanese decided to use the Western name, “Liancourt Rocks,” to refer to Liancourt Rocks. Afterall, the rocks were officially still not a part of Japan at the time, and I assume that at the time the Japanese did not consider it worthwhile to make them a part of Japan. The rocks had no soil, little water, and no one living there to pay taxes, so why bother?

It was not until just before 1905 that the Japanese began to see value in the islands, thanks to a Japanese businessman who wanted to monopolize the sea hunting on the islets. The request of the businessman was the main reason Japan ended up incorporating the islets in 1905. The Japanese did not do it to build a watch tower there because they could have done that without incorporating the rocks. Afterall, the Japanese had built a watch tower on Ulleungdo without incorporating it. The simple fact is that the Japanese saw the importance of officially and legally incorporating the islets before others did.

Mark Lovmo’s Web site is full of lies and half-truths, so I see no problem with not only calling him a liar, but a very biased liar. It is not a translation error when you omit important parts of a record and add words that were not in the original and then make claims based on them. That is why I call Mark Lovmo dishonest and a liar.

As for Korean maps, except for Lee Gyu-won’s map of Ulleungdo in 1882, they show only Ulleungdo and Usando. Koreans say that Usando is “Dokdo” (Liancourt Rocks), but it was actually just a neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Korean maps show that, and Korean documents say that, so why do Koreans claim it is Dokdo? Because if they did not claim it was “Dokdo,” then they would have nothing to show that they even knew about Liancourt Rocks before 1905, much less considered them Korean territory. It is a big lie Koreans use to try to justify their illegal occupation of Liancourt Rocks. It is shameful.

I am anxious to post something very interesting in regard to Korean maps, but I want I to first post something on “Sambongdo” and An Yong-bok so that I can keep my posts in relatively chronological order. However, I will say a little about Korean maps in this comment.

Why do many Korean maps show rocks or small islands off the southern shore of Ulleungdo when they are actually off the northern shore? I think that happened when the island of Usando switched from the west coast of Ulleungdo to the east. Consider the following:

This famous 1530 map shows Usando off the west coast of Ulleungdo. Most maps up until the middle of the 1700s show about the same thing, including this 1710 map. Notice that the 1710 map still shows Usando not only west of Ulleungdo, but also shows it to be about the same size as Ulleungdo. However, that changed sometime in the 1750s as you can see from the Daedongchongdo map, which was made sometime in the early 1750s. As you can see, the map shows Usando (于山島) as a “small,” neighboring island off the west coast of Ulleungdo, not an island of equal size. It also shows a small island to the north of Usando and four small islands to the northeast. So, by the 1750s, Usando was finally being recognized as a small, neighboring island of Ulleungdo, but the problem was that Usando was still on the wrong side of Ulleungdo.

Now here is my theory about what happened next:

I think a mapmaker finally heard that Usando was on the east coast of Ulleungdo, not the west. He may have thought that the island was described to him upside down, with north and south turned around. To solve the problem, all he would have to do is turn the map upside down. (Did anyone see the movie, “Independence Day”?) That would put Usando on the east side of Ulleungdo and the small northeastern islets on the southwest. Look at the following map of Ulleungdo, which was made about the same time as the Daedongchongdo map.

Ulleungdo from the Haedongjido (circa. 1750s)

Notice on the Ulleungdo map linked just above that Usando is now on the east coast of Ulleungdo and that the islands that had been on the north-eastern coast on the previous map are now on the south. It is almost as if the map were turned upside down. In fact, if you look at the center of the island, you will notice that the Chinese characters 中奉 (which mean “central peak”) are written upside down, which seems a little strange to me. If you were to take the map and turn it upside down, those characters would be right-side up, Usando would be back on the west coast, and those southern islets would be on the northern coast. Here is the map turned up-side down:

1750 Ulleungdo turned up-side down

Anyway, that upside down stuff is just a theory. It does not change the fact that all the islands on the Ulleungdo map (whether they are north, south,east, or west) are referring to neighboring rocks, islets, or islands of Ulleungdo. None of them are referring to rocks ninety-two kilometers away.

By the way, look at the 1750s Daedongchongdo map again and notice what is written next to the island of Usando.

Daedongchongdo map

The writing next to Usando says 倭船倉可居, which I would translate as “place for storing Japanese ships.” I think that shows that Usando was being used as a kind of base for Japanese visiting Ulleungdo. Now look what Korean records said about An Yong-bok’s encounter with Japanese fishermen in 1796.

Korean records describe two versions of An Yong-bok’s encounter with the Japanese fisherman 1796. In one version An Yong-bok says that the Japanese told him they lived on Matsushima, which An said was the Korean island of Jasando (Usando). However, in the Jeungbomunheonbigo version, An said he said he saw “a Japanese ship coming from the east” (倭船自東至). When he stopped the ship and asked why they were invading Korean territory, “the Japanese replied, ‘We are on our way to Matsushima, so we have to go this way’” (倭對曰 本向松島 固當去也). An then told the Japanese that Matsushima was Jasando (Usando).

If the above is accurate, then it is further proof that the Matsushima mentioned in the Ah “saga” was not Liancourt Rocks. Notice that Ah said that the Japanese ship was “coming from the east,” and that when he stopped the ship and demanded to know why the Japanese were encroaching on Korean territory, the Japanese answered, “We are going to Matsushima, so we have to go this way.” Since the Japanese were coming from the east, they were not headed to Liancourt Rocks, but in the opposite direction toward Ulleungdo or one of its neighboring islands. That means that the Jasando (Usando) An referred to was not Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).

I am not sure but as for 倭船倉可居, it this “place for storing Japanese ship” or it it ” the permitted （可）　place for Japanese ships to be docked?

As for 1877 document, the readers might be interested in the following comments I wrote on this blog..
linklinklink

Anyway.
Japanese government was confused about islands during this period because of the western maps and because Japan was in the process of changing from Shougunate government to totally new Meiji government. Korea has no concept about Dokdo during this period.Of course Korea was not confused because Korea did not even know Dokdo!!

Japan was confused.and in terms of international law, to acquire and abandon the territory, the reference must be clear so as not to leave any doubt, 1877 document is confused as to the name, location, and description.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Japan gave up the territory, but
Japan announced inclusion of Dokdo later and Japan had effective control and since Korea had had no effective control over Dokdo at the time, Japan acquire it legitimately.

In either case, Japan acquired it legitimately .

As I told Toadface many times, what is essential is not whether some Japanese documents says Japan abandoned the territory or not, but that Korea shows Korea recognized Dokdo, Korea had effective control over Dokdo..
Toadface, or Mark failed to show it.

Thanks.

HanComplex,

No, I am not studying this issue as part of any academic program. It is just a hobby. Anyway, thank you for expressing your appreciation.

Ponta,

I did not see your post until tonight, which is why I did not respond sooner.

Yes, the 可 in the phrase 倭船倉可居 could mean “permitted” or it could mean “possible.” I think here it means “possible” because the Japanese were not permitted to visit Ulleungdo at the time. More specifically, I think it means “a place where Japanese boats can dock” or “a place where Japanese boats dock.”

Actually, I think the phrase means “a place where Japanese boats dock,” as in “a place where Japanese boats have been seen or known to dock.” The reason I say that is because any boat should structurally “be able to” dock there, whether Japanese or Korean, so I think “Japanese boats” were specifically mentioned to show that it was the traditional docking place for them.

By the way, it is possible that the Usando in the Daedongchongdo map was still referring to Ulleungdo, even though the island was drawn smaller on the map.I say this for two reaons. One reason is that Usando is still being drawn to the west of Ulleungdo on the map, which is where present-day Ulleungdo is. The other reason is that on Lee Gyu-won’s 1882 map of Ulleungdo, the characters 倭船艙, which means “Japanese boat pier, appears on the main island of Ulleungdo, not on Jukdo (Usando). You can see it on the map here.

Notice that in the 1882 map there is no mention of “permitted” or “possible” in the wording, so I think it just referred to a place where Japanese boats traditionally docked. The Japanese and the Koreans living on Ulleungdo at the time may have had a spoken or unspoken agreement on which parts of the island each would occupy. Anyway, I find it interesting that the maps specifically mention places where Japanese boats docked.

Toadface,

“Sabang” (四方) was used to refer to an area, not a distance. The sabang of Ulleungdo was commonly described as 100 ri, which was the sum of the east-west and north-south measurements of the island. That is, the distance from the east coast to the west coast of Ulleungdo has been described as 40 ri, and the distrance from the northern coast to the southern coast has been discribed as 60 ri. Add those two distances together and you get the sabang, or area, of Ulleungdo. By the way, the two distances have also been described as 50 and 50, which also add up to 100.

The writing between Usando and Ulleungdo on the 1710 Korean map you linked to is 四方百里, which means “an area of 100 ri.” That is not referring to the distance between the two islands; it is referring to the area of Ulleungdo, which is mentioned many times in old Korean documents. The characters were written between the two islands because they could not fit on the island, itself. I also think it was written there because the mapmaker was not sure which of the two islands it was referring to.

 I think I explained sabang to you almost a year ago, Toadface, so I am surprised that you are still skeptical.

When Lee Gyu-won went to Ulleungdo in 1882, the people living there were obviously using the name ”Jukdo,” instead of Usando, to refer to Ulleungdo’s neighboring island.

By the way, during the Korea-Japan territorial dispute over Ulleungdo in the 1690s, the Koreans said that another name for Ulleungdo was “Jukdo.” At the time of the dispute, Korean maps were still showing Ulleungdo east of Usando, which may explain why the small island off the each coast of Ulleungdo came to be called “Jukdo.” Also, in the 1690s, the Japanese were referring to Ulleungdo as Takeshima, which is pronounced as “Jukdo” in Korean. However, when the Japanese surveyed Ulleungdo in 1880, they found that Ulleungdo was actually Matsushima (Songdo) and that one of Ulleungdo’s neighboring islands was named Takeshima (Jukdo). In 1882, Lee Gyu-won confirmed the 1880 Japanese survey report when he said that Ulleungdo had a neighboring island named Jukdo.

Toadface,

I was not denying Japanese trespassing. I was not even talking about it. I simply pointed out that Korean maps labeled areas on both Usando and Ulleungdo as places that Japanese boats docked. If you do not believe me, look at the maps yourself.

Lee Gyu-won did not go up onto Jukdo because he said it looked “too dangerous,” not because he couldn’t. Because he did not go up onto the island, he would not have known if people were living on the island or not. In fact, he even mentioned in his diary that he could not report on Jukdo because he did not go up onto the island. By the way, steep cliffs did not surround Jukdo on all sides. On the west side of Jukdo there was a place to dock and a trail that led up onto the island. You can see it in the following picture:

Trail leading onto Jukdo

By the way, here is a link to more pictures that show the landscape of Jukdo.

Landscape of Jukdo

Regardless of what other meanings “sabang” may have, Toadface, in regard to Ulleungdo, it means “land area.”

I find a kind of racism on Gerry’s cause.
He wants only to say Korea is a barbarian country, making advantage of Japanese recennt rightist sentiments on internet forums like 2 Channel.
Gerry insists there is little freedom of speech in Korea.
May be he was not treated specially as he had expected for a White teacer.

However, in fact, the authentic Reporters without Border has already proved Korea has much more freedom of press than Japan does.its Index of pressfreedom shows Korea is at 30th while Japan at 46th. That means Koreans enjoy much more freedom of speech and study than Japanese do.

Now whiteys envy and start to bash excellent koreans all over the world.I cannot but think this Gerrys intended attempt is just a kind of white racism against excellent Asians because it is no use for American whether Dokto belong to Korean or Japan.

correction

“世祖実録　巻第7　1457年4月16日　（世祖三年丁丑四月） p56
→
“世祖実録　巻第7　1457年4月16日　（世祖三年丁丑四月）

Thank you !!

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 [...]

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 [...]

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 [...]

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 [...]

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 [...]

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 [...]

[...] Lies, Half-truths, and Dokdo Video, Part 2 [...]