Occidentalism

I wish you find a much better job and just compensation from your old employer.

Hey, Matt, Shadkt of Occ, why don’t you also write about this Japanese US citizen’s patriotism?

That Watada dude rocks, though I thought wjk’s link would have something to do with Dokdo.

This entry is great. Clearest summary of Gerry’s reasoning on Dokdo? Or is one of the others better?

Watada’s mother is Chinese. What is wjk’s point? The USA doesn’t frown on interracial relationships?

Very clear summary by Gerry. Not sure it will get him a job though. Maybe a guest spot on Oprah. She’s always looking for interethnic conflict stories.

Another great entry, Gerry!

Hi. Gerry.
It seems to me that you imply you are free now to say about Dokdo and you want to reset or restart your claims.
And, there will be more pupils than before.

I am not happy to visit, read or write here, but okay.

Happy new year

C U

Great post, Gerry! I’m glad you decided to continue your writings online on this subject. Now, wouldn’t it just be great if someone could translate your research into Korean so Koreans would have access to the OTHER side of the argument.

Anyhow, I’m certain you’ll gain better employment after all this. Best of luck to you!

myCoree
Feel free to comment on Dokdo.
We need opposing views to balance.
It was through discussion with wedgie=toadface with the help of Gerry that I learned the issue of Dokdo.

(I knew little about it. In general Japanese are not crazy about Dokdo and wonder why many Korean go crazy when the truth about Dokdo is told to them, when they are told that Korea government didn’t know Dokdo before 1905—it has nothing to do with Japan invading Korea again).

Dear Mr. Gerry

Hello. I am Hyun-jeong Hwang, an intern journalist of Joongang Daily.
I want to conduct an interview with you regarding that the University had dismissed you for Dokdo problem. I can be reached to the e-mail below.
I look forward to an early reply.
hwanghelen@korea.com

I smell BS. If this is real, great. Be careful.

Sounds pretty dangerous. There is definately a chance that the reporter could be looking to twist whatever Gerry says and create an article condemning him, which could make it harder for Gerry to take legal action regarding his case, should he want to.

Frogmouth’s comment on Marmot
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/12/31/foreign-teacher-sacrificed-to-the-dokdo-gods/#comment-61296
These Korean maps show, contrary to his intention, that Korean geographers were nor familiar with the geography of Ulleungdo at all.

In contrast, Japanese are familiar with Dokdo/Takeshima.
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/t-takeshima.gif

Yes, in 19 century, Japan was confused about islands in that some people consider it Ulleungdo, others jukudo, still others Dokdo, but finally reconfirmed that Dokdo belongs to Japan and reconfirmed it is Japanese territory in 1905.

It might be true that both countries lacked th modern concept of territory, but the difference in perception is obiovious,

Korea was not cognizant of Dokdo.
Japan was cognizant of Dokdo.
In modern days, when Korea and Japan tried to make the territory clear,
—-for instance, Korea announced Sekto is under Ulleungdo’s jurisdiction in 1900—-Korea was not cognizant of Dokdo and Japanese government included Dokdo.

wedgie(Steve Barber)씨의 독도 홈페이지는 아래 주소입니다
http://dokdo.naezip.net/Dokdo/DokdoWedgie03.htm

why don’t you ask them to give you a good idea about Korean claim. Do they not worth listening to? Is their idea so useless you are ashamed of publising it in English?

Fromouth at Marmot

.Why?
It’s simple, the Japanese only visited Dokdo as a stop-over enroute to Ulleungdo there are no records that Japanese visited Dokdo as a sole destination and with the loss of their claim to Ulleungdo Japan’s use for Dokdo was lost.

This is not true.
Even after Japan forbade to sail to Ulleungdo, there is no record Japan forbade to sail to Dokdo.
For instance, there is a record in 1886 the Japanese man called Yauemon was sentenced dead by the government official because “he sailed to Ulleungdo, saying he would sail to Dokdo.”
toron
What does it mean?

It means
1) Japanese were allowed to sail if its destination was Dokdo.
And it is most likely that
2) Japanese fishermen in fact often sailed to dokdo by getting a permission to sail to Dokdo.

Moreover, the Japanese maps of Dokdo was getting more and more accurate after Japan ceding Ulleungodo. That also shows Japanese visited Dodko after the cession.

What is crucial here is Korea has absolutely no map of Dokdo while Japan has the detailed map of Dokdo.

And you can not regard Dokdo as belonging to Ulleungdo.

1) Historically there is no record Korea was cognizant of Dokdo

2) Legally

CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN（ICJ)
The Court further recalls that it stated above that the words “the islets belonging thereto” can only be interpreted as referring to the small islands lying in the immediate vicinity of the three islands which are mentioned by name, and not to islands which are located at a distance of more than 40 nautical miles. The Court therefore cannot accept Indonesia’s contention that it inherited title to the disputed islands from the Netherlands through these contracts, which stated that the Sultanate of Bulungan as described in the contracts formed part of the Netherlands Indies.

Even islands at a distance of 40 nautical miles (75km) can not be interpreted at belonging to the main island. The distance between Dodko and Ulleungdo is 92 km.
oppekepe

To sum up,
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.
Unfortunately Gerry debunked the myth that Korea was cognizant of Dokdo before 1905 What is more unfortunate is that Gerry is about to be substantially expelled from Korea because he debunked the myth.

And since Korea can not show Korean positive evidence of the claim to Dokdo, Korea is trying to win the territory which had never belonged to Dokdo by appealing to her victim-hood during the colonization.
You might want to read Frogmouth’s comment from this view point.

History distortion is Korean culture:-P

(Japanese translation for Gerry’s post)
(Gerryの投稿の日本語訳です。)

Liancourt Rocksは、第一に日本海の真ん中に位置する二つの岩で構成されており、合わせて約330mの幅があります。東経131度52分に位置し、韓国の鬱陵島から南東へ92km、日本の隠岐島から北西へ157kmの距離です。韓国と日本の双方がその領有権を主張しています。

日本は1905年にLiancourt Rocks（日本語で“竹島”、韓国語で“独島”）の領有権を公布し、領土に編入しましたが、1950年代に韓国軍が上陸して占拠し、今もその状態が続いています。

韓国人は西暦512年から“独島”の存在を知っていた、といいますが、(李朝）朝鮮王朝やその前の時代を含めた時代から、その地図上には、日本海の海中に“独島”と名のつく島が一つも無く、それどころか1906年以前にこの島に言及した文献さえ、全く存在しないのです。しかし、鬱陵島と、その隣にある“于山島”という名の島をを描いた地図はいくつか残っています。韓国人は、于山島が“独島”の古称で、日本人は于山島は鬱陵島の隣にある竹島のことだ、それぞれ主張しています。

ここにあるのは、現在の鬱陵島、竹島(Chukudo)、そして独島(Liancourt Rocks)の地図です。独島の位置と鬱陵島からの距離がお分かりでしょうか。

　地図1：鬱陵島、竹島(Chukudo)、Liancourt Rocks(竹島／独島)

次に揚げるのは、現在の鬱陵島の地図です。竹島(Chukudo)が鬱陵島のすぐ東隣にあるのがお分かりでしょうか。

　地図2：鬱陵島

以下に示すのは、全て韓国の古地図で、于山島が現在の竹島(Chukudo)の位置と同じ、鬱陵島のすぐ東に描かれているものです。それにも関わらず、韓国人はいまだに地図上の于山島は,現在の独島だと主張するのです。

　地図3：韓国古地図集

韓国人は、1899年の韓国の地理の教科書に載っている次の地図を見ても、ここに描かれた于山島が、独島だと言い張ります。地図の経線からすれば、それはありえないのに、です。

　地図4:大韓全図（1899）

最後に、下の地図は 1874年発行の“韓国カトリック教会の歴史(Histoire de l’Eglise de Coree)”という本からの抜粋です。この地図では、鬱陵島は“ウルルント(ul-leng-to)” 、その隣の竹島(Chukudo)は“ウサン(u-san) ”と記載されています。この地図には経度と緯度が明記されていて、“ウサン(u-san) ”がLiancourt Rocks (竹島／独島)では有り得ないことがお分かりでしょう。

　地図5：“韓国カトリック教会の歴史(Histoire de l’Eglise de Coree)” （1874）より

于山島は、現在の“独島”ではありません。それは、鬱陵島の北東沖約2.2kmというすぐ隣にある竹島(Chukudo)です。1905年以前の韓国側の文献や地図で、彼らがLiancourt Rocks (竹島／独島)を、韓国領として考えたていたことはおろか、その存在を知っていた、ということすら示すものは一つも存在しないのです。

Gerry,

It was Kaneganese who translated the text, not wjk.

Gerry,

Sorry for my misunderstanding.

BTW, do you understand the meaning of the name Kaneganese?
It may sounds like English or French like Japanese, Chinese, –nese…but it means “I have no money” in Japanese (Kane ga Neze). It’s a joke. I laughed when I saw the name at first.

Kaneganese, am I right?

You are right!! Pacifist.
I’m really happy that you understood my joke.
It does have one more personal meaning, but I leave it there.

And Gerry, you don’t have to thank me at all. It is nothing compared to what you are doing.

By the way, I changed the spelling of modern name of Chukudo from 竹嶼 to 竹島 after I ralised it’s 竹島 that is on the modern Korean map.