http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.kr/2008/09/1905-june-3-japanese-magazine.html
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.kr/
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=26948035&postID=8738577190506980915&page =1&token=1352897855959
Post a Comment On: Dokdo-or-Takeshima?
"1952 - Dec. 4 - “American Embassy’s Note Verbale No.187” - U.S. iterates Rusk Note to ROK."
28 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse comments
1 ? 28 of 28
Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by the author.
15/8/11 10:01
Blogger jk6411 said...
Here are the facts:
1. Korea claimed Dokdo first.
2. Korea currently controls Dokdo.
Korea claimed Dokdo 1500 years ago. (yes, that's one-five-zero-zero years ago.) Dokdo has appeared in Korean maps for many centuries.
The only time when Korea didn't have strong ownership of Dokdo was the period from late-19th to the first half of 20th Century, when Korea was weak and in a state of disarray, under Japanese colonial repression, and going through the devastating Korean War from 1950 to 1953.
But as soon as Korea regained its footing, it regained control of Dokdo and hasn't let go ever since.
Japan only became interested in Dokdo starting in the age of its imperialist aggression, in the beginning of the 20th Century. Before then, it had absolutely no interest in Dokdo. (Japan annexed Dokdo in 1905. The simple fact that it had to "annex" Dokdo from Korea proves that before then it didn't consider Dokdo its territory.) The San Francisco Peace Treaty, which the Japanese love to use as evidence supporting their claim to Dokdo, in fact makes absolutely no mention of Dokdo. The treaty orders Japan to "recognize the independence of Korea" and "renounce all right, title and claim to Korea". (Interestingly, the San Francisco Treaty does state that Japan renounces all claim to the Kurile Islands. But recently Japan has been trying to take the Kuril Islands back from Russia, which currently controls them. So, the Japanese are trying to use the San Francisco Treaty to support their claim to Dokdo, but they want to completely ignore it as it applies to the Kuril Islands. This is hyporcrisy.)
In short, Dokdo has been Korean territory since the beginning of history.
But Japan used deceptive means to annex Dokdo (and the rest of Korea) during the period of its imperialist expansion. It then tried to solidify its claim on Dokdo, opportunistically, in the years when Korea was in turmoil due to the Korean War and its aftermath.
But Korea took back effective control of Dokdo as soon as it could.
Dokdo is, and shall remain, Korean territory forever.
15/8/11 10:09
Blogger Kaneganese said...
jk6411,
"Here are the facts:
1. Korea claimed Dokdo first.
2. Korea currently controls Dokdo.
Korea claimed Dokdo 1500 years ago. (yes, that's one-five-zero-zero years ago.) Dokdo has appeared in Korean maps for many centuries." jk, no, they are not "fact", since there is no single concrete evidence to support them. They are the lies ROK government fabricated to trick you into in 1954. In fact, there are no single old Korean map which described Dokdo. Korean Academics already admitted it.
2010 - Dokdo Institute of Yeungnam University admits Usando in Choson's official map of Ulleungdo(鬱陵島圖形) in 1711 is Jukdo, not Dokdo/Takeshima.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2010/06/2010-dokdo-institute-of-yeungnam.html
It seems you don't have any basic knowledge of the issue. I recommend you to read the posts below first.
Q1: Has Dokdo been a part of Korea since the sixth century?
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/q1-has-dokdo-been-part-of-korea-since.html
Q 2: What is Ulleungdo's largest neighboring island?
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/q-2-what-is-ulleungdos-largest.html
Q 3: Why did old Korean maps show Ulleungdo as two islands?
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/q-3-why-did-old-korean-maps-show.html
Q 4: Did King Sejong's geography text mention Dokdo?
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/q-4-did-king-sejongs-geography-text.html
Q 5: Did Korea's 1530 "Sinjeung Dongguk Yeoji Seungram" mention Dokdo?
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/08/q-5-did-koreas-1530-sinjeung-dongguk.html
15/8/11 11:22
Blogger jk6411 said...
Kaneganese,
Please see my response to Gerry Bevers here:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/donggyeong-san-cheon-paldo-jido.html
don't know if it will convince you.
But I hope it will encourage you to take a closer look at these ancient Korean maps.
15/8/11 12:12
Blogger Kaneganese said...
jk,
I asked you to bring concrete evidence, not explanation, which we have already heard so many times. You may have noticed, but what you tried to explain was not supported by any concrete evidence, unfortunately. Your logic simply depend on the hypothesis, or prejudice imprinted by your own government, I'd have to say, that Ulleungdo and Dokdo are close enough. But the truth is, the close island to Ulleungdo is Jukdo, not Dokdo/Takeshima, the islets which consist of two rocks and locate 90km far. This is supported by many Korean old maps such as Map of Ulleungdo(鬱陵島圖形) which has "海長竹田" label on Usando. As you know, there is no bamboo on Dokdo. It is definitely Jukdo.
1711 - Bak Seok-chang''s (朴錫昌) Map of Ulleungdo
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/1711-bak-seok-changs-map-of-ulleungdo.html
Moreover, Korean old maps which has scales, such as 조선지도(朝鮮地圖)(奎16030) (1750-1768) clearly depicted Usando as Jukdo.
2010 - Dokdo Institute of Yeungnam University admits Usando in Choson's official map of Ulleungdo(鬱陵島圖形) in 1711 is Jukdo, not Dokdo/Takeshima.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2010/06/2010-dokdo-institute-of-yeungnam.html
Read the comment by Kyujanggak, Korean Seoul National University, researcher below.
"However, there is fairly large island Jukdo on the east side of Ulleungdo, and Usan(do) depicted right side of the map is considered to be it(Jukdo). (Lee Ki-bong)
---------------------------------------
다만 울릉도 동쪽에 현재 죽도(댓섬)라는 제법 큰 섬이 있는데, 지도 오른쪽의 于山(島)이 그것을 가리키는 것이 아닌가 생각된다.(이기봉)"
On top of that, the official Map of Korea made by the Ministry of Education of the Imperial Korea both depicted Usando as Jukdo, not Dokdo.
1899 - Korean Map: "Daehanjeondo" (大韓全圖) (玄采 大韓地誌)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/1899-korean-map-daehanjeondo.html
1901 - "Daehanjiji" (大韓地誌) Map of Korea's Gangwon Province (玄采)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/1901-daehanjiji-map-of-gangwondo.html
Both has meridian and parallels on it. The map was made before and after 1900, the year Imperial Edict No.41 was issued. This means Korean claim that the "seokdo" in the Edict was not Dokdo, apparently.
Are there any Korean official doc-ument which record the Joseon Inspector to Ulleungdo went to Dokdo?
---NO.
Are there any Korean old maps/doc-uments which has correct distance between Ulleungdo and Dokdo?
---NO.
Are there any Korean old maps/doc-uments which depicted Usando as two islets?
---NO.
On the contrary, there are so many maps/doc-uments which depicted Takeshima(Matsushima in Edo era) as two islets with exact direction and distance.
See the video below. It was once deleted because of Korean claim, but it is a fine video.
http://www.youtube.com/user/GloriousJapanForever
15/8/11 14:25
Blogger Chaamiey said...
8.15 特集③
「興奮せずに根?を提示すべき」
在日?島?究者朴炳?氏「日本と?島の?史討論を避けてはいけない」
ソウル新聞 2011-08-14
http://www.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20110814800017&spage=1
?島に?する??向けの?究や主張はあふれるほど多いが、?際的に通じるかは疑問です。?島を日本との領土協議の?象としてはいけないが、?史討論まで避けてはいけないでしょう。」在日同胞二世の朴炳?（パク?ビョンソプ 69)氏は、日本で?社員生活をしながらパソコン通信で日本軍慰安婦など?史問題に?する文を?載する仕事をしており、約10年前から?島に本格的に?心を持ち始めた。2003年から?門?究者として認められて?連論文を?表し、2007年には?藤正中島根大?名??授とともに『?島＝竹島論?』という本を出した。この本はその年、日本?書館協?の選定?書に選ばれた。このように?心を深めた理由は、?島問題が見た目より「?が深かったため」という.「?島を無?件に守るというのではなく、まず事?を究明しようという姿勢に立ちました。」
彼が下した暫定結論は、古文?に現れる「于山島」の表記を根?に?島を私たちの土地だと主張すれば逆襲に遭いかねないということだ。「于山島の表記は、時代によっていろいろ?わったことが問題でしょう。日本側は鬱陵島のすぐ傍らにある竹島（チュクト）を于山島と表記したものなどを?げて、「韓?は?島を認識したことがなく、他の島を自分の島だと考えた、と主張していますね。」朴氏は、むしろ、鬱陵島と?島(外一島）が日本の土地でないと確認した1877年の明治政府の指令や、鬱陵島と竹島（チュクト）、石島(?島)を鬱陵郡に含ませた1900年大韓帝?勅令を?調する必要があると語った.「?島が私たちの土地である根?は、朝鮮と日本が鬱陵島と付?島嶼である?島がどこの?に?するのか相?期間の論議を行ったあげく、17世紀に入って朝鮮の領土と結論を下し、1877年に明治政府が、1900年に大韓帝?がこれを再確認した点でしょう。」日本で?島を守ろうと努めて?た朴氏に?島問題と?連して韓?の弱点を訊ねると、すぐに予想通り「感情的に興奮して抗議するのに終わるだけで、基礎?究を充?して?際的に通用する論理を開?しようとする努力が弱いようだ。」という返事が返ってきた。「2007～2009年の第二次韓日?史共同?究の?時、?島を共同?究主題から除外したのは理解できません。日本と政治的に?島領土問題を協議する必要はないが、?究レベルの?話さえ拒否してはいけません。」日本人を?得して?島問題を解決することはできないが、日本人を?得できるほどに私たちの論理を整え弱点を補完してこそ?際的に通用するだろうというわけだ.「?島が日本の領土だと主張する日本の動きに感情的に興奮して抗議し非難するよりは、具?的な根?を提示する必要があります。??を出しさえすれば別に?得する必要も無いですから。」日本極右派の威?を考慮して??を載せないで欲しいと依?した在日同胞の老?究者の呼び掛けには興奮は全く混じっておらず、深い響きがあった。
15/8/11 19:55
Blogger jk6411 said...
Kaneganese,
I find it regrettable that over-zealous Korean scholars have claimed that on every ancient close-up map of Ulleungdo, the island labeled as Usando is Dokdo. I must disagree with them. On some of those maps, Usando is Dokdo, but in others, it is Jukdo. The unfortunate fact that both Dokdo and Jukdo were called Usando in the past have caused much confusion, but it can be resolved.
Take a look at these three close-up maps of Ulleungdo.
"Cheonggudo" (靑邱圖) Atlas (1860 - 1872)
"Dong Yeodo" (東輿圖) Atlas (1795 - 1800)
"Haedong Yeojido" (海東輿地圖) Atlas (1776 - 1795)
On these maps, Usando resembles Jukdo. It is elongated north-to-south, just like real-life Jukdo, and it is drawn very close to Ulleungdo.
Now take a look at these other close-up maps of Ulleungdo.
Samcheok & Ulleungdo (1884 - 1894)
"Gwandong Bangyeo" (關東方輿) - late 1800s?)
"Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖) Atlas (1750 - 1768)
On these three maps, Usando looks quite different - it looks nothing like real-life Jukdo. You see that Ulleungdo is drawn as a large mountainous island, and Usando is drawn as a small, jagged-looking island with seemingly two mountainous parts. (just like Dokdo) Also on these maps, Usando is drawn a lot farther from Ulleungdo than on the previous three maps. Especially on the "Gwandong Bangyeo" (關東方輿) map, Usando is drawn as far away from Ulleungdo as possible. You can also see that Ulleungo and its nearby islets are surrounded by blue water, but Usando is surrounded by blue water all by itself, to emphasize that is not near Ulleungdo. So, Usando on these three maps is Dokdo. As for the grid lines on these maps denoting distances, you can't take them too seriously. Old Korean maps did not have the distances between the Korean islands, or the distances between the islands and the Korean mainland, very exact. The distances were all over the place, to be honest. Ulleungdo and Dokdo were always drawn much too close together, and often the two islands were drawn much closer to the Korean mainland than they are in real-life. But that was due to the culture and Koreans' mentality at the time. You can't compare old Korean maps and old Japanese maps using the same standards. The two countries, while geographically close together, are very different, especially in terms of history. While Japan welcomed contact with the West and by the late 19th Century became a thoroughly modern country, Korea remained closed off to the outside world and had almost no contact with the West until the 20th Century. The two countries' maps reflect this. By the late 19th Century, Japanese maps were pretty accurate, and had the distances about right. But Koreans were still drawing maps in the old ways. (Koreans’ knowledge of the outside world was very limited, as I said in my other long post. All they knew was Korea and the immediate neighborhood, China and Japan. All they knew was that east of Korea there were two islands, Ulleungdo and Dokdo, and beyond that there was Japan, and beyond that was unknown. So, they probably didn't see a need to get the distances between the two islands exactly right. Unlike the southern and western coasts of Korea, where there are countless small islands, off the east coast of Korea there are only two, Ulleungdo and Dokdo, and there was absolutely no mistaking them..) I know that the rationale is difficult to comprehend, in this ultra-modern age we're living in, but you really have to try to put yourself in the shoes of the men who drew these maps; it was a very different age and culture back then.
16/8/11 11:09
Blogger jk6411 said...
Take a look at this map:
1894 - "Jissoku Chosen Zenzu" (實側朝鮮全圖) by So Mokan (宗孟寬)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1894-jissoku-chosen-zenzu-by-so-mokan.html
This is a Japanese map of Korea made in 1894. Although the distances in this map are more accurate than in Korean maps of the time, they are not exactly right. Even in this map, Ulleungdo and Dokdo ("Takeshima" and "Matsushima") are drawn closer to Korea than they are in real-life. Dokdo, in particular, is drawn much closer to Korea than it should be. In real-life, Dokdo is about equidistant from Korea and Japan, but on this map Dokdo is twice closer to Korea than Japan. This indicates that this map-maker considered both islands not Japanese but Korean territory. (If you look at old Korean maps, the mapmakers often drew Ulleungdo and Dokdo closer to Korea than they actually are, and Tsushima farther from Korea than it actually is. This was to indicate that the former two are Korean territory, and the latter is Japanese territory. * It is human nature to keep one's possessions close to oneself and others' possessions farther away. * Korean mapmakers sometimes even drew Dokdo closer to Korea than Ulleungdo (so that Dokdo appeared west of Ulleungdo), to emphasize Korea's ownership of Dokdo.)
1875 - "Chosen Yochi Zenzu" by Sekiguchi Bisyo (關口備正)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1875-chosen-yoshi-zenzu-sekiguchi-bisyo.html
This is another Japanese map of Korea. Here too, Ulleungdo and Dokdo are closer to Korea than they are in real-life, and Dokdo is drawn very very faraway from Japan.
1882 - Shinsen Chosen Yochi Zenzu (新撰朝鮮輿地全圖) by Wakabayashi Tokushaburo (若林篤三郞)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1882-shinsen-chosen-yochi-zenzu-by.html
You see the same thing here. Regarding the last two maps, Gerry Bevers alleges that the island labeled as "Takeshima" (Ulleungdo) in these maps is actually the non-existent island of "Argonaut" and the island labeled "Matsushima" (Dokdo) is actually Ulleungdo. However, this is irrelevant. The important thing is that Japanese mapmakers drew these maps of Korea, and they drew Ulleungdo and Dokdo where they thought they were. They drew the two islands as they, Japanese, perceived them.
Also, I would like to point out that in these maps Ulleungdo is drawn with the small islet of Usando (Jukdo) drawn WEST of it instead of to the east, which is incorrect. Also, the shape of Dokdo (“Matsushima”) is inconsistent in these maps. (not only is the shape inconsistent, it is never drawn as two islets, the way it is in real-life.) This means that, as modern as Japan had become by the late 19th Century, Japanese still didn't know too much about Ulleungdo and Dokdo. They didn't know exactly where these islands were, or what these islands looked like. They didn’t know, and they didn't care, probably because they didn't consider the two islands Japanese territory.
16/8/11 11:10
Blogger jk6411 said...
So, you can see that even Japanese maps of Korea didn't depict Ulleungdo and Dokdo accurately. Most notably, they depicted Ulleungdo and Dokdo much closer to Korea than they are in real-life. If the Japanese mapmakers really considered Dokdo their territory, they would have drawn it closer to Japan (or at least equidistant from Korea and Japan, the way it is in real-life). But they drew it much much closer to Korea than Japan.
1899 Korean Map: "Daehanjeondo" (大韓全圖)
You mentioned this map and said that the island labeled "Usan" can't be Dokdo because it's much too close to Ulleungdo. But once again, you can't take the distances too seriously. If you'll take a closer look at this map, you'll notice something interesting: Ulleungdo is drawn closer to Korea than Tsushima. In reality, Tsushima is 50km away from Korea and Ulleungdo is 120km away from Korea, so Ulleungdo should have been drawn more than twice as far from Korea as Tsushima, but that's not the case! The Korean mapmaker drew Ulleungdo and Usando (Dokdo) much closer to Korea, to emphasize Korea's ownership of the two islands. And the two islands were drawn right next to each other, because they were considered one inseparable group.
Now, look at this map: Donggyeong San Cheon (東京山川) - Paldo Jido (八道地圖)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/12/donggyeong-san-cheon-paldo-jido.html
This map is very important and informative. On the national map of Korea, you see Ulleungdo and Usando next to each other. Ulleungdo is depicted as a large mountainous island, and Usando is depicted as a small, jagged, very mountainous island with seemingly two peaks (just like Dokdo). There is no way this Usando can be Jukdo, because Jukdo is a flat tabletop of an island. But if you scroll down to the close-up map of Gangwon province and Ulleungdo, you'll see that on this close-up map, Usando looks very different. It is depicted as a flat island (no mountain markings), and it is elongated north-to-south; it looks like Jukdo. So, even within this same atlas, you can see that Usando can be either Dokdo or Jukdo, depending on how it is depicted. On the national map, it is Dokdo, and in the close-up map, it is Jukdo. (For more of my observations on this map, please refer to my response to Gerry Bevers.) So with old Korean close-up maps of Ulleungdo, there is some room for confusion because sometimes the Usando on the map resembles Jukdo and sometimes it resembles Dokdo. But with large national maps of Korea, there is no confusion. If you see Ulleungdo and Usando side-by-side on a national map of Korea, it's Ulleungdo and Dokdo. (It can't be Ulleungdo and Jukdo, because Jukdo is simply too insignificant. Jukdo is a tiny 50-acre island that is dwarfed by Ulleungdo which is only 2km away from it, and for all practical purposes it's been considered a part of Ulleungdo throughout history; hence, it deserves no place on a national map of Korea. Dokdo, on the other hand, has every right to be on a national map right next to Ulleungdo, because it is the easternmost island in the Korean territory.)
16/8/11 11:11
Blogger Kaneganese said...
jk,
Yes, Kim Jong-ho(金正浩) finally reached to the conclusion that Usando and Ulleungdo are same island. That is the reason 東輿圖 and 大東輿地圖 doesn't have Usando. This is very important fact for Takeshima Issue. At least I'm glad you admit it. Anyway, before you claim your countries top brains as "over-zealous Korean scholars ", you'd better read their academic journals. If you think their recognition is not true, tell them so. 奎章閣 published a good series of books on old maps, such as "鄭?驥의《東國地圖》 : 原本系統의筆寫本". They are well written. You'll be ashamed of yourself if you read them. Others like ??學 and 金基赫, they are also not bad. But if you keep reading things written by 李相泰, an old master who label every single Usando as Dokdo automatically, you'll get brainwashed.
As they say, Korean information on Ulleungdo developed dramatically since 1694, the year Joseon dynasty started to send Inspectors every three years. That is the reason Usando, which was a kind of imaginary island locate west to Ulleungdo switched to the east and described as one island with bamboo field near Ulleugdo, Jukdo. The officials made maps of Joseon and 6 of them were left today. None of them depict Dokdo. And as for "Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖) , I believe it was made around 1770, and "Gwandong Bangyeo" (關東方輿) - late 1800s?), they have ２０方里 grids on Ulleungdo map. That makes Usando locates approximately 8-12km away from Ulleugdo, meaning it is Jukdo, not Dokdo. The latter is apparently a copy of the former. You can check how far real Dokdo is when you compare those old maps with real location. You can see how close real Jukdo and Usando in 朝鮮地圖 are. See opp's site below.
http://takeshima.cafe.coocan.jp/wp/?page_id=170
The former, "Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖) is very important in Korean history of Geography since it has 備?司 stamp on it. In other words, it is the official map of Joseon. According to 奎章閣's researcher and others, it is made by 申景濬, or the copy of the map he made. As you know, he is the author of『東?文?備考』. So this Usando=Jukdo perception makes Usando and Matsushima in the phrase「于山則 倭所謂 松島也」 of the book is actually Jukdo. Korean old maps with grids are very accurate, or at least it shows their recognition of their country, in short, it shows how the Korean geographer saw the geography of Korea and Usando is not Dokdo, at the time. In conclusion, Usando changes from imaginary island(before 1694), Jukdo(1694-), dissapear(1856-the end of 1800s) and goes back to Jukdo around 1900. Claiming Usando was an old name of Dokdo was the most stupid mistake ROK government made. Do yourself a favour and stick to Seokdo, if you don't want to lose Dokdo. As Mr. Park, a radical Dokdo activist of Zainichi says. (Thanks chaamiey, for translating interesting news.)
서울新聞 2011-08-14
http://www.seoul.co.kr/news/newsView.php?id=20110814800017&spage=1
16/8/11 14:18
Blogger Kaneganese said...
Some pro-Korean lines up Japanese old maps which lacks Takeshima to try to claim Japan didn't recognize Takeshima. However, the point is, Japan does has many maps which accurately depicted Takeshima with correct direction and distance and they in fact have old history doc-uments which prove they are hunting sealions or used the islets as a stopover place to Ulleungdo, while Korea has absolutely none. Mid 17th century - Illustrative Map of Matsushima (松嶋??) by Murakawa Clan
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/mid-17th-century-illustrative-maps-of.html
1696c.a. - "Illustrative Map of Takeshima submitted by Kotani Ihei(小谷伊兵衛より差出候竹嶋之??)"
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/07/1696-illustrative-map-of-takeshima.html
Other pro-Korean shows many Meiji maps which has Argonaut(Takeshima) and Dagelet(Matsushima) and claim that Japanese recognized Matsushima as Korean, but it is not Dokdo/Takeshima, but Ulleungdo.
And you should know though Lee Dynasty failed to modernize their country fast enough, Koreans already started to open its country at the end of 19C and learned geography and western style maps making through Japan and other western countries such as America. Ministry of Education(?部) of Joseon/Korea made western style map such as 大韓全圖.
However, the official Map of Korea made by the Ministry of Education of the Imperial Korea both depicted Usando as Jukdo, not Dokdo.
1899 - Korean Map: "Daehanjeondo" (大韓全圖) (玄采 大韓地誌)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/1899-korean-map-daehanjeondo.html
1901 - "Daehanjiji" (大韓地誌) Map of Korea's Gangwon Province (玄采)
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/10/1901-daehanjiji-map-of-gangwondo.html
Both has meridian and parallels on it. The map was made before and after 1900, the year Imperial Edict No.41 was issued. This means Korean claim that the "seokdo" in the Edict was not Dokdo, apparently.
Moreover, Geography text books made by Korean government also tells that Dokdo was outside of the Korea.
紇法（J.Hulbert)『士民必知』 (Knowledge Necessary for All translationa by Kim Taegyon金澤榮)(1895)
東?線一百二十三度至一百三十一度
其島南曰濟洲東曰鬱陵西南曰江華
『大韓地誌』(1899)
東?１３０度３５分
Apparently, not only Korea's old maps, but also geography texts say Takeshima was not Korean territory.
16/8/11 14:35
Blogger jk6411 said...
Kaneganese,
You misread my comments.
The three "pro-Korean" comments were in fact one long comment by me separated into 3 sections.
Please go back and read it over again.
By the way, I never admitted that Usando is Ulleungdo. That is ludicrous.
Ulleungdo is Ulleungdo. Usando is either Dokdo or Jukdo, depending on what scale of map it is on and how it is depicted.
17/8/11 03:52
Blogger Gerry Bevers said...
Jk6411,
There are NO old Korean maps that show "Dokdo" by any name, including the name "Usando." NONE. Not even one.
In Korean history, Koreans have used "Usando" (于山島 - 우산도) to refer to either Ulleungdo or to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is about 2 km offshore of Ulleungdo. That is all.
If you, Jk6411, could find even one old Korean map that showed Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), by any name, you would be a hero in Korea because Koreans have been looking for one for decades, but have been unable to find one.
I will give you some hints. 1) Dokdo is no west of Ulleungdo. 2) It's not right next to Ulleungdo. 3) And it is, at least, two islets, not one.
Koreans used to point to any island labeled as "Usando" on Korean maps and say it was "Dokdo," but now some of the more rational Koreans have come to realize that such claims are outrageous and makes Koreans look foolish in the eyes of the world, so the Korean media have stopped focusing on Korean maps and even their claimed history of Dokdo. Now, the news coverage is on Dokdo festivals and art contests.
The reason the Korean government is pushing "quiet diplomacy" in regard to Dokdo is that it knows that Dokdo was not a part of Korean history and, therefore, does not want to talk about the history. Instead, the Korean government simply says, "Japanese claims are absurd," and foolishly hopes the world will accept that.
The genie is out of the bottle, and Koreans cannot put it back in, again.
17/8/11 07:50
Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by the author.
18/8/11 07:30
Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by the author.
18/8/11 07:34
Blogger jk6411 said...
Gerry, let’s not politicize the issue too much. Let’s just try to find out the truth.
I guess you’re still not convinced that Usando is Dokdo.
In old national maps of Korea, Usando is always Dokdo.
This is clearest in maps such as “Donggyeong San Cheon (東京山川) - Paldo Jido (八道地圖)” and "Dae Joseonguk Jeondo (大朝鮮國全圖)”. In both of these maps, Usando is depicted as a small, very mountainous island. (This is what Dokdo looks like in real-life. Jukdo does not at all look like this.)
Now, you might have a problem with the shape of Usando, because it’s not drawn as two islets. But look at every other island in these two maps. None of the islands’ shapes are depicted accurately; they are all drawn as circles. (Look at Tsushima, for example. Tsushima is depicted as a circular island in both of these maps. But in reality, Tsushima is very elongated north-to-south.)
So, you can’t take the islands’ shapes too literally. From looking at these maps, about all you can tell about the islands are their relative sizes and whether they are mountainous or not.
Also, you can’t take the distances on these maps too literally. In the above two maps, you see that the Japanese island of Tsushima is drawn at the same distance from Korea or farther from Korea than Ulleungdo. This is obviously incorrect. (In reality, Tsushima is only 50km from Korea, and Ulleungdo is 120km from Korea, much farther.) The mapmaker simply drew Ulleungdo closer to Korea to emphasize that it’s Korean territory, and drew Tsushima farther from Korea to emphasize that it’s not Korean territory.
So, you can’t take the distances too literally. Ulleungdo and Usando may have been drawn right next to each other on the map, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they were actually that close together. The two islands were perceived as one group, “Usanguk”, and that’s why they were drawn right next to each other. (In fact, in very old Korean maps, Usanguk was drawn as one island, not two. So it’s not surprising that in later maps, when they were drawn as two separate islands, they remained very close to each other.)
With close-up maps of Ulleungdo, there can be confusion because sometimes Usando looks like Jukdo and sometimes it looks like Dokdo.
As I said in my previous comment, in these three maps of Ulleungdo, Usando looks very much like Jukdo:
"Cheonggudo" (靑邱圖) Atlas (1860 - 1872)
"Dong Yeodo" (東輿圖) Atlas (1795 - 1800)
"Haedong Yeojido" (海東輿地圖) Atlas (1776 - 1795)
For the sake of convenience, I’ll just call them Ulleungdo maps #1, #2, and #3.
But in these other maps of Ulleungdo, Usando looks very much like Dokdo.
Samcheok & Ulleungdo (1884 - 1894)
"Gwandong Bangyeo" (關東方輿) - late 1800s?)
"Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖) Atlas (1750 - 1768)
For the sake of convenience, I’ll call them Ulleungdo maps #4, #5, and #6.
(cont’d)
18/8/11 07:45
Comment deleted
This comment has been removed by the author.
18/8/11 07:45
Blogger jk6411 said...
As I said before, in maps #1, #2, and #3, Usando very much resembles Jukdo, and it is drawn right next to Ulleungdo as it should be. But in maps #4, #5, and #6, Usando doesn’t resemble Jukdo at all ? Usando is depicted as a jagged looking island with two mountainous halves, and it is drawn much farther from Ulleungdo. This has to be Dokdo.
Regarding map #5 “Gwandong Bangyeo" (關 東方輿) and map #6 "Joseon Jido" (朝鮮地圖), blogger Kaneganese said that Usando, as it is drawn in these maps, is 8-12km away from Ulleungdo, and therefore it is Jukdo. (??) If Usando is depicted 8-12km away from Ulleungdo, how could it possibly be Jukdo? Jukdo is only 2km away from Ulleungdo. There is no way that the mapmaker could have been off by that much. (If Usando was Jukdo, he would have drawn it very close to Ulleungdo.)
In fact, there is no island 8-12km east of Ulleungdo. The mapmaker just drew Usando as far from Ulleungdo as possible, to indicate that it is far away. This, and the fact that Usando is depicted very similar to actual Dokdo, means that this Usando is Dokdo.
It couldn’t possibly be Jukdo. (Dokdo is a jagged mountainous island, while Jukdo is a flat island.)
Also, Kenaganese said that map #6 “Joseon Jido” (朝鮮地圖) is “very important in Korean history of Geography since it has 備?司 stamp on it. In other words, it is the official map of Joseon.”
WELL… IF THIS OFFICIAL MAP HAS USANDO DRAWN AS DOKDO, THEN USANDO REALLY MUST BE DOKDO.
Also, I have noticed something else.
Maps #1, #2, and #3 show Usando drawn similar to Jukdo, and maps #4, #5, and #6 show Usando drawn very similar to Dokdo.
However, maps #4, #5, and #6 also seem to show Jukdo on them. You can see it immediately to the lower-right of Ulleungdo. (This island looks very similar to Jukdo in map #1. It has to be Jukdo, because it’s depicted as the biggest of Ulleungdo’s islets. Maps #4, #5, and #6 all have it, while maps #1, #2, and #3 don’t.) Apparently, the mapmaker considered Jukdo so insignificant that he didn’t bother to depict it in its correct location; he just drew it underneath Ulleungdo with all the other little imaginary islets of Ulleungdo; also, he didn’t bother to give it a name.
Again, this is on the official Joseon map of Ulleungdo.
And one more thing.
In all these close-up maps of Ulleungdo, Ulleungdo is drawn with five little islets underneath it. But are there really five islets just off the south shore of Ulleungdo? No. There are around five islets to the north of Ulleungdo, and two to the east (Jukdo being the largest of them). But there are no islets south of Ulleungdo. So, these five islets were placed there simply because this was the style of drawing Ulleungdo.
As I’ve said many times, you can’t interpret these old Korean maps literally. These maps weren’t 100% maps: they were part maps and part works of art. That’s the way maps were drawn in olden times. So, you can’t scrutinize them as fastidiously as you would modern maps.
Just because Dokdo wasn’t depicted accurately in old Korean maps, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.
Especially in national maps of Korea, if you see Usando next to Ulleungdo, it’s Dokdo, not Jukdo. Jukdo is just one of the little islets off the coast of Ulleungdo ? it’s of no import. (As we’ve seen, in some close-up maps of Ulleungdo, Jukdo isn’t even given a name.) Dokdo, on the other hand, is the easternmost island in Korea and therefore very significant. Ulleungdo and Dokdo were considered “sister islands” in the vast sea, and that’s why they were drawn so close together.
18/8/11 07:56
Blogger Gerry Bevers said...
Jk6411,
I am not politicizing anything. I am an American, not Japanese. I am just tired of you and Koreans lying about their maps and history.
So, according to you, the clearest Korean map to show that Usando (于山島) was Dokdo was the “Donggyeong San Cheon (東京山川) - Paldo Jido (八道地圖)”?
Well, here is a link to the “Donggyeong San Cheon (東京山川) - Paldo Jido (八道地圖)”, which shows Usando (于山도) as a single island just off Ulleungdo's (鬱陵島) east shore.
1) If the Usando on the map is Dokdo, then why does the map show it as single island instead of two? Dokdo is makeup of essentially two islets, not one. See HERE.
2) If the Usando on the map is Dokdo, then why does he map show it just off the east shore of Ulleungdo instead of 90 km southeast of Ulleungdo?
3) If the Usando on the map is Dokdo, then where is Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is just 2 km off Ulleungdo's east shore? See HERE.
4) If the Usando on the map is Dokdo, then why does the writing on the map mention only Ulleungdo as being 2 days away from Uljin by sea? If the Usando on the map were Dokdo, then wouldn't it have mentioned that it would take, at least, extra day to get to it, considering that it is 90 kilometers beyong Ulleungdo?
If that is the clearest map of Dokdo that Koreans have, then they have nothing.
Click HERE to see comparisons of the Usando on Korea's old maps to Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島) and Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks).
In 1694, Jang Han-sang (張漢相) was sent to Ulleungdo to inspect the island. In his inspection report, he wrote that there was a small island 2 kilometers on the east shore of Ulleungdo that had haejang bamboo growing on one side. Here is what he wrote in his report, translated into Korean and English:
--------------
東方五里許 有一小島 不甚高大 海長竹叢生於一面
동쪽으로 5리 (2킬로) 쯤에 한 작은 섬이 있는데, 고대(高大)하지 않으며 해장죽 (海長竹)이 한쪽면에 무더기로 자라고 있다.
About five ri (2 km) to the east (of Ulleungdo) is one small island. It is not very big or very high, and it has a grove of haejang bamboo (海長竹) growing on one side.
----------------
In 1711, Ulleungdo Inspector Bak Seok-chang (朴錫昌) drew a map of Ulleungdo that showed a small island just off the east shore of Ulleundo labeled "the so-called Usando" (所謂 于山島 - 소위 우산도). Also, written on the island was "field of haejang bamboo" (海長竹田), which means that the island on the map was almost certain the island described as being 2 km offshore in Jang Han-sang's inspection report. See HERE.
Haejang bamboo can grow up to seven meters tall, and there is still haejang bamboo on Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도 - Bamboo Island), which, again, is a small island just 2 km off Ulleungdo's east shore. The bamboo does not grow on Dokdo because it does not have the soil.
The following video compares old Japanese and Korean maps. The Japanese knew about Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), which that called "Takeshima." They traveled to Liancourt Rocks and they mapped Liancourt Rocks. Koreans never mapped Liancourt Rocks never traveled there until the Japanese starting taking them there as deckhands on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s.
Link to Video
18/8/11 12:57
Blogger 이신호 said...
In 1900, under the reign of Emperor Kojong, the Great Han Empire of Korea issued the Korean Imperial Edict No. 41, placing then-Seokdo (Dokdo) under the jurisdiction of Uldo-gun (Ulleungdo). In 1906, Sim Heung-taek, Uldo-gun County Chief, was notified that the eastern islands of Korea had been incorporated into Japan by a survey team from Japan's Shimane Prefecture. Sim right after submitted a report to the Governor of the Gangwon-do (province) in ways to counter the ridiculous and self-contradictory act. In 1900 (in 37th year of the emperor Ko-Jong), the Korean Empire had promulgated the Korean Empire edict 41 in an official gazette of the Korean Empire with the purpose of administering and ruling suitably Ulleungdo and Seokdo (or Dokdo in Korea and Takeshima in Japan). The Korean imperial edict 41 in an official gazette of the Korean Empire had issued as "The Korean Empire in 1900(in 37th year of the emperor Ko-Jong) rename Ulleungdo island together with Seokdo islet (Dokdo islets) and Jukdo islet(竹島) as Uldo county“, and then had specified, as "designate the sphere of it's jurisdiction as the whole Ulleungdo island and both Jukdo(竹島) islet and Seokdo islet(石島)."
Footnote: Originally Liancourt Rock, or Seokdo islet(石島) was called as "Seokdo islet(石島)" in 1900s, but People of Cheollado who had emigrated from Cheollado in Korea to "Seokdo islet(石島)" had pronounced and called so "Seokdo islet(石島)" as "Dokseom(獨섬) in dialect of Cheollado, that is to say, 獨島(독도) in Chinese characters). Japan in Meiji era had disseized illegally Dokdo (Takeshima) by force of arms and bayonets with the purpose of constructing a military base of the great Japanese Empire shortly after Russia- Japan war. That is to say, the then government office of Shimane prefecture had promulgated Shimane Prefecture notification No. 40 in Feb. 1905 according to the enacted ordinance of Shimane prefecture of Japan, called as "Takeshima(竹島) was annexed to Shimaneken. On the basis of this fact, today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan has asserted Dokdo (takeshima) as "Japan's territory". Truly truly if this Dokdo islet (Takeshima) had been a inherent territory of Japan, Intentionally has Japan been necessary to promulgate Shimane prefecture notification No. 40 that is called as "Takeshima(竹島) was annexed to Shimanek prefecture of Japan." in Feb. 1905? This Shimane prefecture notification No. 40, that is to say, is only a official forcible doc-ument that had disproved the fact that Japan in Meiji era had plundered Dokdo (Takeshima) from the great Korean Empire by force of arms and bayonets.
Writer: Sung Keong Hee
Translator: Shin Ho Lee
14/11/12 21:57
Blogger 이신호 said...
Japan in Meiji era had disseized illegally Dokdo (Takeshima) by force of arms and bayonets with the purpose of constructing a military base of the great Japanese Empire shortly after Russia- Japan war. That is to say, the then government office of Shimane prefecture had promulgated Shimane Prefecture notification No. 40 in Feb. 1905 according to the enacted ordinance of Shimane prefecture of Japan, called as "Takeshima(竹島) was annexed to Shimaneken. On the basis of this fact, today, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan has asserted Dokdo (takeshima) as "Japan's territory". Truly truly if this Dokdo islet (Takeshima) had been a inherent territory of Japan, Intentionally has Japan been necessary to promulgate Shimane prefecture notification No. 40 that is called as "Takeshima(竹島) was annexed to Shimanek prefecture of Japan." in Feb. 1905? This Shimane prefecture notification No. 40, that is to say, is only a official forcible doc-ument that had disproved the fact that Japan in Meiji era had plundered Dokdo (Takeshima) from the great Korean Empire by force of arms and bayonets.
However, The then Japan that had devised a plot in collusion with the United States of America had changed stealthily a territorial right of Korea about Dokdo (Takeshima) in a draft for the San Francisco Peace Treaty in to Japan. Shortly after that, because most of the allied powers including the Great British Empire had refused to change stealthily a territorial right of Korea about Dokdo (Takeshima) in a draft into Japan, Japan in accordance with a secret talks with a American official had excluded Dokdo (Takeshima) issue in a draft from 7th., San francisco peace talk for concluding San Francisco Peace Treaty on August 7th., 1950. At last, the final draft for Peace Treaty had been finalized on August 13th., 1951 and since then, 49 nations including the United States of America had concluded San Francisco peace Treaty with Japan on September 8th., 1951.
Chapter II, Article 2, (a) of the San Francisco Peace treaty is stipulated as "Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.". On the basis of Chapter II, Article 2, (a) of the San Francisco Peace treaty, Japan
insist on Japan's own way employing Machiavellian tactics that Dokdo (Takeshima) is a Japan's territory, because "Dokdo" is not only excluded in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, but also Dokdo is not a territory that shall be redelivered to Korea. If so, where is the basis that Dokdo is a territory of Japan, because Dokdo had been omitted in the San Francisco Peace Treaty? In general, it will be valid that Dokdo (Takeshima) is not only located on more nearer to Ulleungdo (Dagelet) than O-ki island in Shimane prefecture of Japan, but also Dokdo interpret as a territory of Korea, because Ulleungdo (Dagelet) can be interpreted to include all of large and small islands and islets in the vicinity of Ulleungdo.
Writer: Seong Kyeong Hee
Translator: Lee Shin Ho
15/11/12 14:42
Blogger Chaamiey said...
이신호 씨,
Many Japanese know that most Koreans cannot read the San Francisco Peace Treaty correctly. You had added a good example of it through your comment above.
16/11/12 19:01
Blogger sloww said...
PART 1
Who cares about American secret and selfish policy over Dokdo based on American interests? SF Peace Treaty was between Japan and the Allied Powers, not America. American government pretended to support Japanese claim over Dokdo through Rusk Note, but Rusk Note was a American confidential doc-ument conveyed only to Korea. The Japanese believe the Peace Treaty gave them Dokdo because of Rusk Note. Rusk Note was nothing but a US secret position regarding Dokdo in favor of Japan's claim during the peace treaty negotiations.
Rusk Note was never made public.
If America truly supported Japan's territorial claim over Dokdo, why didn't America officially support Japanese claim over Dokdo?
Why didn't America let Japan know she supported Japanese claim over Dokdo through Rusk Note?
Why didn't America let the Allied Powers know she supported Japanese claim over Dokdo by making it public?
Why didn't America let the SF Peace Treaty final draft stipulate Dokdo as Japanese land if she truly supported Japan's claim over Dokdo?
Has Dokdo formally left to Japan by San Francisco Peace Treaty?
Who said so? There's no any mention of Dokdo in SF Peace Treaty draft.
As to the Rhee line, it was a legitimate measures taken to proclaim the right over territorial waters to protect fishery and other natural resources within its adjacent waters and to maintain peace between South Korea and Japan. Rhee's Declaration of "Sovereignty Over Neighboring Seas" was an affirmative action he took as a president of sovereign state and an independent state. President Rhee did the best for his country in the matter of Dokdo.
In part 2, I'll reveal what Japan's MOFA doesn't like to tell about the designation of Dokdo as a US bombing range.
17/11/12 09:42
Blogger 이신호 said...
Reply for the new inquiries of sloww
In the drafts of the Sanfrancisco peace treaty of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth preliminary talk, Dokdo (Takeshima) is clearly inscribed as "Korean territory" as “Japan hereby renounces all rights and titles to Korea and all minor offshore Korean islands, including Quelpart Island, Port Hamilton, Dagelet Island (Utsuryo) Island and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima).” In spite of that, before concluding completely the Sanfrancisco peace treaty I know that Syngman Rhee Government had received reply of dean Rusk Note. That is why after talking in secret meeting between the United States and Japan Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima) was completely excluded from the Sanfrancisco peace treaty such as "Chapter II. Territory - Article 2 (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet." By the way, You had asked, as "Who cares about American secret and selfish policy over Dokdo based on American interests?“
Shortly after a secret meeting between the U. S. and Japan, Dokdo islet that in a draft for San Francisco Peace Dokdo was included, but in the final San Francisco peace treaty, Dokdo islet was deleted as a Korean territory. In a draft for the San Francisco peace treaty that was written on March 19th., 1947, Dokdo islet was included : Japan hereby renounces all rights
제목
이전글 : 
다음글 : 
