|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
It wasn't seized since Korea never owned it in the first place.
It was officially incorporated into Japan in 1905. It had unofficially been theirs
for hundreds of years...
GG |
Then why don't Japanese maps from before that period support that theory? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Guri Guy wrote: |
It wasn't seized since Korea never owned it in the first place.
It was officially incorporated into Japan in 1905. It had unofficially been theirs
for hundreds of years...
GG |
Then why don't Japanese maps from before that period support that theory? |
Exactly. Just because Korean political life is tantrum-based doesn't mean that sometimes they don't have some valid points. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| amilin90 wrote: |
The singer is actually a pretty damn cool guy, minus his used-to-be purple hair. He's a guy who's well-known to give lots of money to charity, continuously. Several thousand dollars a month or so. and he doesn't even own his own home..
Garnering popularity maybe?
I obviously side with him, but do wonder about the effectiveness of the ad. Sure, it's meant to be informative. Lots read the NYT, perhaps a couple million people will learn that Dokdo does belong to Korea. What difference is that supposed to make?
Perhaps, in the international trial that I think either or both countries are preparing for, having more people know the truth might be helpful.. |
Takeshima is a Japanese island that was taken over by Korea at gunpoint. Learn the facts, stooge. |
If it was a Japanese island, why did it have to be seized by the Japanese in 1905? |
What Guri Guy said. The Koreans are so full of sh*t they don't even have a map before 1905 with the name Dokdo on it. Simple as that. |
Who needs Korean maps? Let's use Japanese ones.
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200807/200807160020.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html |
Total nonsense. The map in the first link uses only Chinese characters, and there is no sounds for either "Jakreung" or "Uellung" in Japanese. If you, or the author of that blatant Korean propaganda piece had even the slightest knowledge of Japanese, you'd know that kanji have no fixed pronunciations (can have either on-yomi or kun-yomi, often quite random esp. in names). There is no furigana to clarify, but the kanji sure as hell doesn't say "Dokdo", nor does it say Takeshima (which has completely different kanji). Completely bogus.
The second link is also totally irrelevant, since the omission of Takeshima on old maps is not the issue because it became formally Japanese after 1905. Korea has no maps with the name Dokdo on it prior to that time, therefore they've got nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Guri Guy wrote: |
It wasn't seized since Korea never owned it in the first place.
It was officially incorporated into Japan in 1905. It had unofficially been theirs
for hundreds of years...
GG |
Then why don't Japanese maps from before that period support that theory? |
Exactly. Just because Korean political life is tantrum-based doesn't mean that sometimes they don't have some valid points. |
Japanese claimed Takeshima under terra nullius. Therefore, the only thing that matters is if Korea can prove "Dokdo" was formally theirs before that time, which they can't do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| amilin90 wrote: |
The singer is actually a pretty damn cool guy, minus his used-to-be purple hair. He's a guy who's well-known to give lots of money to charity, continuously. Several thousand dollars a month or so. and he doesn't even own his own home..
Garnering popularity maybe?
I obviously side with him, but do wonder about the effectiveness of the ad. Sure, it's meant to be informative. Lots read the NYT, perhaps a couple million people will learn that Dokdo does belong to Korea. What difference is that supposed to make?
Perhaps, in the international trial that I think either or both countries are preparing for, having more people know the truth might be helpful.. |
Takeshima is a Japanese island that was taken over by Korea at gunpoint. Learn the facts, stooge. |
If it was a Japanese island, why did it have to be seized by the Japanese in 1905? |
What Guri Guy said. The Koreans are so full of sh*t they don't even have a map before 1905 with the name Dokdo on it. Simple as that. |
Who needs Korean maps? Let's use Japanese ones.
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200807/200807160020.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html |
Total nonsense. The map in the first link uses only Chinese characters, and there is no sounds for either "Jakreung" or "Uellung" in Japanese. If you, or the author of that blatant Korean propaganda piece had even the slightest knowledge of Japanese, you'd know that kanji have no fixed pronunciations (can have either on-yomi or kun-yomi, often quite random esp. in names). There is no furigana to clarify, but the kanji sure as hell doesn't say "Dokdo", nor does it say Takeshima (which has completely different kanji). Completely bogus.
The second link is also totally irrelevant, since the omission of Takeshima on old maps is not the issue because it became formally Japanese after 1905. Korea has no maps with the name Dokdo on it prior to that time, therefore they've got nothing. |
If this is all you have, then one could say that Japan has got no maps with the name Takeshima on it prior to 1905 therefore they have nothing.
The maps clearly show that Japan considered Dokdo to be part of Korea. Simply because they seized it later does not give them the right to occupy it.
At the end of the war, they were told to surrender ALL overseas possessions INCLUDING Dokdo. The surrender of Dokdo simply did not make it into the final draft of the treaty, which is the ONLY claim the Japanese have on Dokdo.
Regardless it's a moot point. The Koreans occupy it, it is considered to be part of Korea, and it is under Korean rule.
And best of all, the Japanese will do nothing about it, but whine and protest and write it down as Japanese territory in their biased textbooks. Go ahead fellas see where it gets you. At the end of the day Dokdo is still Korean, regardless of all the Japan apologists' wet dreams. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Japan has had maps including Takeshima since the 17th century.
They have been aware of them, fished around them and even used them
as habitation from time to time. They exerted effective control over them
first. Case closed.
To suggest that Korea has any case when they don't even have a Korean
map with "Dokdo" on it before 1905 is laughable.
However, if Korea really thinks they have a valid case they should take it
to the ICJ and settle it once and for all. They don't have the balls to do it
though. It's too good a political safety valve for them. Worked for their
reviled and hated President 2MB just now didn't it? That and the total
lack of evidence in their case would lead to a shattering of the fragile
Korean psyche when they lost.
It's better to keep the hate fires burning and teach the young to hate
Japan. Pathetic...
Nut up or shut up Korea,
GG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHANE02
Joined: 04 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Arguing Over A Rock: The game everyone can (obviously) play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| amilin90 wrote: |
The singer is actually a pretty damn cool guy, minus his used-to-be purple hair. He's a guy who's well-known to give lots of money to charity, continuously. Several thousand dollars a month or so. and he doesn't even own his own home..
Garnering popularity maybe?
I obviously side with him, but do wonder about the effectiveness of the ad. Sure, it's meant to be informative. Lots read the NYT, perhaps a couple million people will learn that Dokdo does belong to Korea. What difference is that supposed to make?
Perhaps, in the international trial that I think either or both countries are preparing for, having more people know the truth might be helpful.. |
Takeshima is a Japanese island that was taken over by Korea at gunpoint. Learn the facts, stooge. |
If it was a Japanese island, why did it have to be seized by the Japanese in 1905? |
What Guri Guy said. The Koreans are so full of sh*t they don't even have a map before 1905 with the name Dokdo on it. Simple as that. |
Who needs Korean maps? Let's use Japanese ones.
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200807/200807160020.html
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-shimane.html |
Total nonsense. The map in the first link uses only Chinese characters, and there is no sounds for either "Jakreung" or "Uellung" in Japanese. If you, or the author of that blatant Korean propaganda piece had even the slightest knowledge of Japanese, you'd know that kanji have no fixed pronunciations (can have either on-yomi or kun-yomi, often quite random esp. in names). There is no furigana to clarify, but the kanji sure as hell doesn't say "Dokdo", nor does it say Takeshima (which has completely different kanji). Completely bogus.
The second link is also totally irrelevant, since the omission of Takeshima on old maps is not the issue because it became formally Japanese after 1905. Korea has no maps with the name Dokdo on it prior to that time, therefore they've got nothing. |
If this is all you have, then one could say that Japan has got no maps with the name Takeshima on it prior to 1905 therefore they have nothing. |
Wow, you're quite thick aren't you... IT DOESN'T MATTER IF JAPAN HAS MAPS WITH TAKESHIMA BEFORE 1905! Japan's claim is based on terra nulius. Look up what that means.
| Quote: |
| The maps clearly show that Japan considered Dokdo to be part of Korea. Simply because they seized it later does not give them the right to occupy it. |
No, the maps don't clearly show that at all. At least not that map you provided in your link. The kanji used on that island does not say "Dokdo", or "Takeshima", or "Jakreung", or "Uellung". So what's the clear indication then? Please, do tell me.
Christ, it's not even drawn on the map as two islands, it's just one big one. If you actually buy such obvious propaganda, then you really need to check your head.
| Quote: |
| At the end of the war, they were told to surrender ALL overseas possessions INCLUDING Dokdo. The surrender of Dokdo simply did not make it into the final draft of the treaty, which is the ONLY claim the Japanese have on Dokdo. |
It didn't make it into the final draft of the treaty, as you plainly admit, THEREFORE it is irrelevant and non-binding. Do you understand (it's quite easy).
| Quote: |
| Regardless it's a moot point. The Koreans occupy it, it is considered to be part of Korea, and it is under Korean rule. |
Forcefully occupy it you mean, but not legally. So Japan is just as entitled to take it back using force (I for one can't wait).
| Quote: |
| And best of all, the Japanese will do nothing about it, but whine and protest and write it down as Japanese territory in their biased textbooks. Go ahead fellas see where it gets you. At the end of the day Dokdo is still Korean, regardless of all the Japan apologists' wet dreams. |
Oh, the Japanese are the ones who are whining?? Get real. We'll see how smug you are when Japan takes it by force.  I'm guessing a decade or less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
To suggest that Korea has any case when they don't even have a Korean
map with "Dokdo" on it before 1905 is laughable. |
Exactly, period, point blank.
But you'll still get whack-jobs like the 'professor' in urbanmyth's link claiming that a random map with only kanji on it, presumed to say "jasendo" (whatever the hell that means) -- supposedly ancient Chinese slang for "Dokdo" -- gives proof to Korea's claim. Laughable is the right word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting article here with a video afterwards. If you want well informed, logical arguments about Dokdo/Takeshima check out this website. Gerry Bevers has done an
excellent job. There are links to pro-Korean and pro-Japanese sites as well. One can judge for themselves...
Monday, July 21, 2008
Japanese Video Disputing Korean Claim Usando Was "Dokdo"
There were no islands in the Sea of Japan named "Dokdo" (獨島 - 독도) on old Korean maps, so many Korean scholars claim that an island labeled as "Usando" (于山島 - 우산도) on old Korean maps was today's "Dokdo" (Liancourt Rocks), even though the island was drawn as one island, not two, and even though it was drawn just offshore of Ulleungdo in a location very near to where Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo (竹島 - 죽도) is today. Jukdo is a small island about 2.2 kilometers off Ulleungdo's east shore.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/
Enjoy,
GG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Btw, I forgot to point to out the other glaring flaw on the ridiculous map article provided by urbanmyth: the location of "Dokdo" (presumed to be called "Jasando" on the map, which isn't even a Japanese word) is north-west of the island labeled as Ulleungdo - when (if you check on a modern map) Dokdo (Takeshima) is actually very far to Ulleungdo's south-east, on the opposite side
Plus, as already mentioned, it's drawn as only one big island, even larger than the island labeled 'Ulleungdo' (when in fact both islets are only a fraction the size). In other words it's so obviously not Dokdo, that only someone with no clue at all what he/she is talking about would ever fall for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
4 months left
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SHANE02 wrote: |
| Arguing Over A Rock: The game everyone can (obviously) play. |
It's the supposed oil/gas nearby is what they are fighting about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Technically there shouldn't be a fight over the resources.
Japan and South Korea signed a resource sharing agreement 10 years ago.
However, when it was discovered that there might be natural gas around
Dokdo/Takeshima, South Korea is now trying to weasel out of the deal.
Sounds like a typical hagwan owner to me...
Nut up Korea,
GG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doggyji
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Location: Toronto - Hamilton - Vineland - St. Catherines
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Total nonsense. The map in the first link uses only Chinese characters, and there is no sounds for either "Jakreung" or "Uellung" in Japanese. If you, or the author of that blatant Korean propaganda piece had even the slightest knowledge of Japanese, you'd know that kanji have no fixed pronunciations (can have either on-yomi or kun-yomi, often quite random esp. in names). There is no furigana to clarify, but the kanji sure as hell doesn't say "Dokdo", nor does it say Takeshima (which has completely different kanji). Completely bogus. |
I don't understand your point. If you take a look at the map, there are whole lot of names for different places. How did the map maker get all that name for each place in the Korean peninsula? From what Koreans call(write) them, no? It is a foreign country's map and you would follow what the locals call each little place, right? If the Japanese map maker was making a map of Russia, he would have to use Katakana as that's the only way. But if he's working on a map of Korea or China, he would simply use the Chinese characters that are used by Koreans or the Chinese to denote each place, right? The professor is talking about the confusion between two Chinese characters (spelling). It has nothing to do with the sound. Jakreung or Ulleung is just the way Koreans read those Chinese characters. The fact that there's no sound like Jakreung or Ulleung in Japanese has a zero point, of course. Isn't this part too obvious? I'm quite surprised that for a person who seems to say things so decisively (as long as they are in favor of Japan?), you don't understand that. The only matter here is whether Jasando was one of the old Korean names for the isletes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| doggyji wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Total nonsense. The map in the first link uses only Chinese characters, and there is no sounds for either "Jakreung" or "Uellung" in Japanese. If you, or the author of that blatant Korean propaganda piece had even the slightest knowledge of Japanese, you'd know that kanji have no fixed pronunciations (can have either on-yomi or kun-yomi, often quite random esp. in names). There is no furigana to clarify, but the kanji sure as hell doesn't say "Dokdo", nor does it say Takeshima (which has completely different kanji). Completely bogus. |
I don't understand your point. If you take a look at the map, there are whole lot of names for different places. How did the map maker get all that name for each place in the Korean peninsula? From what Koreans call(write) them, no? It is a foreign country's map and you would follow what the locals call each little place, right? The professor is talking about the confusion between two Chinese characters (spelling). It has nothing to do with the sound. Jakreung or Ulleung is just the way Koreans read those Chinese characters. The fact that there's no sound like Jakreung or Ulleung in Japanese has a zero point. Isn't this part too obvious? I'm quite surprised that for a person who seems to say things so decisively (as long as they are in favor of Japan?), you don't understand that. The only matter here is whether Jasando was one of the old Korean names for the isletes. |
It still makes no sense. Even if the kanji come from the original Korean names (assuming Koreans used those same hanja for their place names) it does not follow that the map maker was referring to Dokdo. If he was basing the map on Korean hanja probably he would have just copied the map directly from a Korean source in that case, but then why the so-called mis-spelling? Or maybe he copied it from a Chinese source, which has a different Japanese reading when read aloud? This is not specified.
The point, as you mentioned, is that there is no evidence that the island the professor is calling "Jasando" is Dokdo (and the pronunciation does matter in the sense that he is saying the map has miss-spellings, and even that Jasando is an old slang word for Dokdo, yet he doesn't go into to any detail at all). Combined with the fact that it's in the totally wrong location on the map, and is only 1 island (not two islets) gives it zero credibility at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
