|
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 |
Young FRANKenstein
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Location: Castle Frankenstein (that's FRONKensteen)
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| contrarian wrote: |
| It would be called, quite properly, the East Sea. |
No, it would be the Pacific Ocean. Look at a map. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimchi Cha Cha wrote: |
In regards to the 'Sea of Japan' the only compromise I can see that would be suitable for both countries would be calling the body of water, the' East Asia Sea'.
Though, personally in regards to the East Sea/Sea of Japan storm in a teacup, I think Korea needs to grow up, brush the chip off its shoulder and accept that in the English language the body of water is called the 'Sea of Japan'. It doesn't mean it's Japanese water, it doesn't diminish their claims to Dokdo by having the sea called the Sea of Japan and Korea can still call it 동해 in their own language but accept that English speakers call it the Sea of Japan.
Does France get prissy because La Manche is called the English Channel in the English-speaking world? No. Doe the US get uppity because of the body of water to the south is called the Gulf of Mexico, not the Gulf of the United States of America? No. Does Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines get pissed over the South China Sea? No
It is interesting however that Korea making all this fuss over the Sea of Japan but not over the East China Sea/남해. I guess they know better than piss off China over petty disputes like this.
Korea really needs to grow up over this Sea of Japan/East Sea nonsense. During a UN session, the chairman of the session stated that "individual countries could not impose specific names on the international community and standardization could only be promoted when a consensus existed". Case closed on this one Korea. I'm sorry but it's called the Sea of Japan in English, live with it and move on. |
No compromise necessary. Japan calls it 'nihonkai' (日本海) meaning 'Sea of Japan'. The West also calls it the 'Sea of Japan', which is what we choose to call it, and will not change. Korea can call it whatever the hell they want -- nobody cares. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ever hear of Kadiz=Korea Air Defense Identification Zone? This was established by the U.S Air force's Asia Pacific Command in 1951 and Dokdo is included in said Zone. Japan's Jadiz (replace Korea with Japan) is about 23 kilometers away from Dokdo.
According to the JoongAng Daily:
"All aircraft are required to obtain approval from the Korean Air Force at least 24 hours before crossing the Kadiz line. To date, Japan is known to have filed no complaints about the U.S. Kadiz line"
Hmm, wonder why? One would think that if their claims held up, they'd be protesting...but nary a peep.
Either they know they are wrong, or the government...despite all the Japan apologists and the netizens...just doesn't care. It makes a few token gestures to placate these fringe groups ( textbooks, anyone) but makes no meaningful moves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Ever hear of Kadiz=Korea Air Defense Identification Zone? This was established by the U.S Air force's Asia Pacific Command in 1951 and Dokdo is included in said Zone. Japan's Jadiz (replace Korea with Japan) is about 23 kilometers away from Dokdo.
According to the JoongAng Daily:
"All aircraft are required to obtain approval from the Korean Air Force at least 24 hours before crossing the Kadiz line. To date, Japan is known to have filed no complaints about the U.S. Kadiz line"
Hmm, wonder why? One would think that if their claims held up, they'd be protesting...but nary a peep.
Either they know they are wrong, or the government...despite all the Japan apologists and the netizens...just doesn't care. It makes a few token gestures to placate these fringe groups ( textbooks, anyone) but makes no meaningful moves. |
This Japanese map says you're wrong: http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9933/ryoukuu8ew.jpg
Another: http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9929/japanclaimedeez4pg8fo.jpg
As for Japan not complaining so much, it's because it's not nearly as insecure a nation as Korea is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is no mystery here. Visitorq and I are different people. I am not a sock or we do not share accounts etc,
What we do share is respect for rational thinking and common sense. We also both believe in examining evidence and intellectual integrity.
Frankly though, Trevor, that's none of your business. However, if you have no life (which I strongly suspect is the case) why don't you ask the mods if we are one and the same person?
Now Trevor...Did you do your homework? Did you find that pre-1905 Korean map depicting Dokdo accurately? Didn't think so. So stop b*tching and start presenting a reasonable case with factual, verifiable evidence.
Thanks
GG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
No, I won that argument most decisively and the mods asked you to quit instigating it further. Sorry. (see the following for details, last page):
http://forums.eslcafe.com/korea/viewtopic.php?p=1744736&highlight=#1744736)
Also, that was Visitorq that asked me to find maps, not Guriguy. You're confusing yourself and forgetting whcih one of your Monikers asked for what Wink .
Hmmm... |
Myself and Visitorq both asked you for those maps. Just because you can't wrap what you call a mind around the fact that perhaps more than one person doesn't buy into the Dodko myth is not my problem.
Your debating style leaves much to be desired. In other words, no style and no substance.
If you can't come up with credible, verifiable evidence, just admit it. There's no shame in that. Hell, you'd be doing South Korea a tremendous favor by not perpetuating the Dokdo myth. That's exactly what South Korea needs. Someone to tell the emperor that he has no clothes.
Do South Korea a favor. Don't perpetuate the Dodko myth.
GG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Ever hear of Kadiz=Korea Air Defense Identification Zone? This was established by the U.S Air force's Asia Pacific Command in 1951 and Dokdo is included in said Zone. Japan's Jadiz (replace Korea with Japan) is about 23 kilometers away from Dokdo.
According to the JoongAng Daily:
"All aircraft are required to obtain approval from the Korean Air Force at least 24 hours before crossing the Kadiz line. To date, Japan is known to have filed no complaints about the U.S. Kadiz line"
Hmm, wonder why? One would think that if their claims held up, they'd be protesting...but nary a peep.
Either they know they are wrong, or the government...despite all the Japan apologists and the netizens...just doesn't care. It makes a few token gestures to placate these fringe groups ( textbooks, anyone) but makes no meaningful moves. |
This Japanese map says you're wrong: http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9933/ryoukuu8ew.jpg
Another: http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9929/japanclaimedeez4pg8fo.jpg
As for Japan not complaining so much, it's because it's not nearly as insecure a nation as Korea is. |
Hmm...what am I going to believe? The U.S air force or Japanese maps? Considering that some of their textbooks are factually wrong, it doesn't say much for their maps... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Ever hear of Kadiz=Korea Air Defense Identification Zone? This was established by the U.S Air force's Asia Pacific Command in 1951 and Dokdo is included in said Zone. Japan's Jadiz (replace Korea with Japan) is about 23 kilometers away from Dokdo.
According to the JoongAng Daily:
"All aircraft are required to obtain approval from the Korean Air Force at least 24 hours before crossing the Kadiz line. To date, Japan is known to have filed no complaints about the U.S. Kadiz line"
Hmm, wonder why? One would think that if their claims held up, they'd be protesting...but nary a peep.
Either they know they are wrong, or the government...despite all the Japan apologists and the netizens...just doesn't care. It makes a few token gestures to placate these fringe groups ( textbooks, anyone) but makes no meaningful moves. |
This Japanese map says you're wrong: http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9933/ryoukuu8ew.jpg
Another: http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9929/japanclaimedeez4pg8fo.jpg
As for Japan not complaining so much, it's because it's not nearly as insecure a nation as Korea is. |
Hmm...what am I going to believe? The U.S air force or Japanese maps? Considering that some of their textbooks are factually wrong, it doesn't say much for their maps... |
Okay, fair enough. But at least produce us this map you talk of.
And don't just requote a Korean source. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Ever hear of Kadiz=Korea Air Defense Identification Zone? This was established by the U.S Air force's Asia Pacific Command in 1951 and Dokdo is included in said Zone. Japan's Jadiz (replace Korea with Japan) is about 23 kilometers away from Dokdo.
According to the JoongAng Daily:
"All aircraft are required to obtain approval from the Korean Air Force at least 24 hours before crossing the Kadiz line. To date, Japan is known to have filed no complaints about the U.S. Kadiz line"
Hmm, wonder why? One would think that if their claims held up, they'd be protesting...but nary a peep.
Either they know they are wrong, or the government...despite all the Japan apologists and the netizens...just doesn't care. It makes a few token gestures to placate these fringe groups ( textbooks, anyone) but makes no meaningful moves. |
This Japanese map says you're wrong: http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9933/ryoukuu8ew.jpg
Another: http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9929/japanclaimedeez4pg8fo.jpg
As for Japan not complaining so much, it's because it's not nearly as insecure a nation as Korea is. |
Hmm...what am I going to believe? The U.S air force or Japanese maps? Considering that some of their textbooks are factually wrong, it doesn't say much for their maps... |
Okay, fair enough. But at least produce us this map you talk of.
And don't just requote a Korean source. |
Well I never said anything about a map in those quotes above...other than doubting the authenticity of the Japanese ones...but here you go.
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page9.html
As regards the link, it seems that the Americans were playing some sort of double game seeming to prefer Korea's claims early on (See the SCAPIN articles mentioned such as forbidding Japan to approach within 12 miles) and then appearing to tilt towards Japan when they wanted to use Dokdo as a bombing range. Presumably since the Koreans used Dokdo as a fishing range at the time, the Americans knew they likely wouldn't get permission from the ROK government.
Here's a larger one ( a Japanese one)
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page27.html
And it doesn't matter what claims Japan had on what countries or territories prior to WWII. They were beaten and their territorial claims were decided FOR THEM by the Allies. As the link states, Dokdo was excluded from Japan's territory for the entire occupation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Ever hear of Kadiz=Korea Air Defense Identification Zone? This was established by the U.S Air force's Asia Pacific Command in 1951 and Dokdo is included in said Zone. Japan's Jadiz (replace Korea with Japan) is about 23 kilometers away from Dokdo.
According to the JoongAng Daily:
"All aircraft are required to obtain approval from the Korean Air Force at least 24 hours before crossing the Kadiz line. To date, Japan is known to have filed no complaints about the U.S. Kadiz line"
Hmm, wonder why? One would think that if their claims held up, they'd be protesting...but nary a peep.
Either they know they are wrong, or the government...despite all the Japan apologists and the netizens...just doesn't care. It makes a few token gestures to placate these fringe groups ( textbooks, anyone) but makes no meaningful moves. |
This Japanese map says you're wrong: http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9933/ryoukuu8ew.jpg
Another: http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9929/japanclaimedeez4pg8fo.jpg
As for Japan not complaining so much, it's because it's not nearly as insecure a nation as Korea is. |
Hmm...what am I going to believe? The U.S air force or Japanese maps? Considering that some of their textbooks are factually wrong, it doesn't say much for their maps... |
It doesn't matter what you believe. Nor does it matter what the US says on this specific topic because it is Japanese airspace. They decide for themselves as a sovereign nation (I don't see the US disputing it, because Japan is a staunch ally). Is that so hard for you to understand? You're really clasping at straws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Japanese deserve to lose whatever claim the might have to Dokdo. This claim includes fishing rights and mineral rights. Let them demand from the Chinese and the Russians. Their claim is now marginal and this is right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| endo wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Ever hear of Kadiz=Korea Air Defense Identification Zone? This was established by the U.S Air force's Asia Pacific Command in 1951 and Dokdo is included in said Zone. Japan's Jadiz (replace Korea with Japan) is about 23 kilometers away from Dokdo.
According to the JoongAng Daily:
"All aircraft are required to obtain approval from the Korean Air Force at least 24 hours before crossing the Kadiz line. To date, Japan is known to have filed no complaints about the U.S. Kadiz line"
Hmm, wonder why? One would think that if their claims held up, they'd be protesting...but nary a peep.
Either they know they are wrong, or the government...despite all the Japan apologists and the netizens...just doesn't care. It makes a few token gestures to placate these fringe groups ( textbooks, anyone) but makes no meaningful moves. |
This Japanese map says you're wrong: http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9933/ryoukuu8ew.jpg
Another: http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9929/japanclaimedeez4pg8fo.jpg
As for Japan not complaining so much, it's because it's not nearly as insecure a nation as Korea is. |
Hmm...what am I going to believe? The U.S air force or Japanese maps? Considering that some of their textbooks are factually wrong, it doesn't say much for their maps... |
Okay, fair enough. But at least produce us this map you talk of.
And don't just requote a Korean source. |
Well I never said anything about a map in those quotes above...other than doubting the authenticity of the Japanese ones...but here you go.
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page9.html
As regards the link, it seems that the Americans were playing some sort of double game seeming to prefer Korea's claims early on (See the SCAPIN articles mentioned such as forbidding Japan to approach within 12 miles) and then appearing to tilt towards Japan when they wanted to use Dokdo as a bombing range. Presumably since the Koreans used Dokdo as a fishing range at the time, the Americans knew they likely wouldn't get permission from the ROK government. |
All you do is speculate. The US took everything from Japan after the war, but its old territory (surrounding islands) reverted back, including Okinawa etc. The US never wrote in the final treaty that Takeshima was Korean. Therefore any point you may have been aiming at is non-existent.
| Quote: |
Here's a larger one ( a Japanese one)
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page27.html
And it doesn't matter what claims Japan had on what countries or territories prior to WWII. They were beaten and their territorial claims were decided FOR THEM by the Allies. As the link states, Dokdo was excluded from Japan's territory for the entire occupation. |
What a load of bull. The map is too small to read (regarding its function), but there's no way in hell the Japanese military would have marked Takeshima down as a part of Korea, especially not in 1936 when they had already formally claimed it as Japanese territory in 1905 (before the annexation of Korea).
And the Allies never decided that Takeshima was Korea's, so what was your point? Was that yet more propaganda from you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is nice to see some plausible attempts being made again by the Dokdo Apologist Foreign Teachers. (DAFT for short)
Here is an article discussing the situation. The Chosun Ilbo is up to it's usual tricks. No journalistic integrity whatsoever.
Article on the Syngman Rhee Line: Lies, lies, lies.
Below is a link to a June 25 Chosun Ilbo article talking about the "Syngman Rhee Line" or the so-called "Peace Line." The article is full of lies, but I will let people find them for themselves.
"60 Years of the Republic: The Syngman Rhee Line"
Update:
The following is a paragraph from the article that contains at least three lies, one of which was pointed out by one of our commenters, who writes under the id of "Opp."
| Quote: |
| The Dokdo Islets, which had been part of Korean territory since the sixth century, were illegally occupied by Japan during the colonial period but returned to Korea under the Directive SCAPIN-677 issued by the General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers on Jan. 29, 1946, which specifically excluded Dokdo from Japanese territory. However, Japan continued to trespass into waters near Dokdo, marking it as Japanese. |
The first lie in the paragraph is the claim that the "Dokdo Islets,...has been part of Korean territory since the sixth century," which is a lie because Korea has no maps or documents to back up that claim. The second lie is that Japan illegally occupied "Dokdo" during the colonial period, but, in fact, Japan legally incorporated Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) in 1905 without any opposition from any country, including Korea, and 1905 was before Korea became a colony of Japan.
Finally, the third lie, as pointed out by commenter Opp, is the statement that the "Dokdo Islets... was returned to Korea under the Directive SCAPIN-677, which was issued by the General Headquarters Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers." That is easily proven to be a lie by the following US document, dated November 5, 1952:
Official - Informal
Confidential Security Information
Dear Al;
I have read both Tokyo's despatch No.659 of 3, 1952,of October 15, 1952, entitled, "Use of Disputed Territory (Tokto Island) as Live Bombing Area" enclosed in your letter of October 16, 1952 to Ambassador Murphy.
It appears that the Department has taken the position that these rocks belong to Japan and has so informed the Korean Ambassador in Washington. During the course of drafting the Japanese Peace Treaty the Republic of Korea's views were solicited, in consequense of which, the Korean Ambassador requested the Secretary of State in a
letter of July 19, 1951 to amend Article2 (a) of the draft treaty so as to include the islands of Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) and Parangdo as well as Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet among those islands over which Japan would renounce right, title and claim by virtue of recognizing Korea's independence. In his reply to the Korean Ambassador the Secretary stated in a letter dated August 10, 1951 that the United states could not concur in the proposed amendment as it applied to the Liancourt Rocks since according to his information the Liancourt Rocks had never been treated as a part of Korea, they had been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Japan's Shimane Prefecture since 1905 and it did not appear that they had over before been claimed by Korea. As a result Article2 (a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan makes no mention of the Liancourt Rocks;
"Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title, and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet."
E. Allan Lightner, Esquire
Charge D'affaires, a.i.,
American Embassy
,Pusan, Korea. page2
Official - Informal
Confidential Security Information
The action of the United States-Japan Joint Committee in designating these rocks as a facility of the Japanese Government is therefore justified. The Korean claim, based on SCAPIN677 of January 29, 1946, which suspended Japanese administration of various island areas, including Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks), did not preclude Japan from exercising sovereignty over this area permanently. A later SCAPIN, No.1778 of September 16, 1947 designated the islets as a bombing range for the Far East Air Force and further provided that use of the range would be made only after notification through Japanese civil authorities to the inhabitants of the Oki Islands and certain ports on Western Honbu.
Sincerely yours,
Kenneth T. Young, Jr.,
Director
Office of Northeast Asian Affairs,
To view the original letter, click HERE.
In 1954, after returning from a mission to the Far East, US Special Mission Ambassador James Van Fleet wrote the following about Liancourt Rocks in a secret report:
The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu (131.80E, 36.20N). This Island is, in fact, only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.
Ambassador Van Fleet also wrote the following about Korea's so-called "Peace Line":
The position of the Republic of Korea Government has been to insist on the recognition of the agreed "Peace Line." The United States Government has consistently taken the position that the unilateral proclamation of sovereignty over the seas is illegal, without wanting to upset any of the two respective nations and that the fisheries dispute between Japan and Korea should be settled on the basis of a fisheries conservation agreement that would protect the interests of both countries. The chronology and other aspects of the fisheries is discussed in more detail in Enclosure No. 1.
LINK
People should be aware that the Korean media regularly reports false claims about Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo).
Posted by Gerry Bevers at 8:10 PM
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/06/article-on-syngman-rhee-line-lies-lies.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Figure this one out DAFT.
Korean Eastern limits described in various books world wide exclude Takeshima/Dokdo from Korean Territory
Below is a list of old Japanese, British, French and even Korean books and documents that clearly excluded Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo (131� 52'E longitude) from Korean territory. There is no single, concrete document or map, whatsoever, that shows Korea had ever recognized the disputed island to be within their territory before Japan officially incorporated it into Shimane Prefecture in 1905.
Especially interesting among the books in the list is Choi Nam-seon's (崔南善) 1948 book, "Common Knowledge of Joseon" (朝鮮常識), which specifically says that Korea's easternmost island was Ulleungdo's "Jukdo" in North Gyeongsan Province (慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島). Jukdo is a small island located about two kilometers off Ulleungdo's eastern shore, which matches up with old Korean maps and documents that showed Usando (于山島) to be Korea's eastern most island. Though Koreans claim Usando was Korea's old name for "Dokdo," Korea's old maps and documents show that Usando was actually Ulleungdo's neighboring island of Jukdo, which is at an east longitude of approximately 130� 56' 23." Again, that longitude essentially matches up with longitudes mentioned in the documents below.
As we have seen, many western and Japanese maps around 1900 clearly depicted Takeshima(on-existant Argonaut), which is nearest to peninsula to be Korean, but other islands, "Matsushima(which is actually today's Ulleungdo)" and Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, to be Japanese territory. It matchs with a fact that so many documents described Korean eastern limit as 130� 35' - 130� 50' which exclude whole or part of Ulleungdo.
1874 "Histoire de L'Eglise de Cor�e (History of the Korean Catholic Church) by Claude-Charles Dallet
130� 50' E. longitude (東経１３０度50分)
1876 "Keirinjiryaku(鶏林事略)" by Sewaki Hisato (瀬脇寿人）
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1880 "朝鮮地誌" by 坂根達郎
130� 45' E. longitude (東経１３０度４５分)
1882 "The Joseon Situation" (朝鮮事情) by Enomoto Takeaki(榎本武揚) (Originally published in 1876-77)
130� 50' E. longitude (東経１３０度50分)
1887 "朝鮮八道誌" by 小松運
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1890 "外国地理" by 高木怡荘
130� E. longitude (東経１３０度)
1891 "受験応用万国小地誌" by 谷口流鶯
130� E. longitude (東経１３０度)
1894 "新撰朝鮮地理誌" by 大田才次郎
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1894 "朝鮮志" by 足立栗園
130� 36' E. longitude (東経１３０度３6分）
1894 Jun. "朝鮮地理圖" by 岩崎茂吉
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1894 Jun "朝鮮地誌要略" by 松本仁吉
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1894 Jun. "新撰朝鮮国地図" by 林正
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1894 Nov. "朝鮮水路誌" by Waterway Section of Japanese Navy (海軍水路部)
130� 35' E.longitude (東経１３０度３５分) (序 : 肝付兼行 海軍省水路部長 Preface by Kimotsuki)
1894～1897 "Korea and Her Neighbours" by Isabella Lucy Bird
130� 33' E. longitude (東経１３０度３３分)
1895 "外国地誌" by 秋山四郎
130� 40' E. longitude (東経１３０度40分)
1899 "大韓地誌" by 玄采 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1899 "新式万国地理" by 岩崎重三
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1900 "新撰大地誌 前編（世界之部）" by 山上万次郎
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分 : 図満江〔註：豆満江） 教師用参考書)
1901 "大韓地誌" by 玄采 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1901 "朝鮮開化史" by 恒屋盛服
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1902 "高等地理学講義" by 永田健助編
131� E. longitude (東経１３1度)
1902 "新撰世界地理問答" by 武田鶯塘
130� 40' E. longitude (東経１３０度40分)
1903 "韓海通漁指針" by 東京 黒龍会 葛生修吉
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)(序 : 牧朴真 農商務省水産局長 Preface by Maki)
1904 "韓国地理" by 矢津昌永
130� 58' E. longitude (東経１３０度５８分)
1904 "最新韓国実業指針" by 岩永重華
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)(序 : 山座円次郎 外務省政務局長 Preface by Yamaza)
1904 "朝鮮移住案内" by 山本庫太郎
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1905 "日本民族の新發展場萬韓露領地誌" by 岡部福蔵
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1905 "韓国新地理" by 博文館
130� 58' E. longitude (東経１３０度５８分)
1906 "大韓地誌" by 玄采 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度3５分)
1906 "韓国水産業調査報告" by 農商務省水産局
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1907 "初等大韓地誌" by 安鍾和 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130� 58' E. longitude (東経１３０度５８分)
1907 "大韓新地志" by 張志淵 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130� 58' E. longitude (東経１３０度５８分)
1907 "外国地理表解" by 小林杖吉
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度35分)
1908 "初等大韓地誌" by 安鍾和 柳柳瑾 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130� 58' E. longitude (東経１３０度５８分)
1909 "最新高等大韓地誌" by 鄭寅琥 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度3５分 慶尚南道鬱島郡鬱陵島 : Ulleundo, Ulleudo County)
1909 "韓国水産誌" by 統監府農商工部水産局
130� 42' E. longitude (東経１３０度４２分)
1909 Mar. "大韓協会会報第12号 地誌" (Korean Geography journal) cache
130� 35' E. longitude (東経１３０度３５分)
1910 Feb. "朝鮮新地誌" by 足立栗園
130� 58' E. longitude (東経１３０度58分)
1911 "朝鮮及南満洲地理教授備考" by 亀井忠一
130� 54' E. longitude (東経１３０度５４分 極東 鬱陵島東端 : Easternmost of Ulleundo)
1911 "最新日本地理資料" by 井原儀
130� 54' E. longitude (東経１３０度５４分 極東 鬱陵島（松島）の東端 : Easternmost of Ulleundo(=Matsushima))
1911 Apr. "大日本地理集成" by 矢津昌永等
130� 58 E. longitude (東経１３０度58分 豆門江の江口)
1911 "韓国通覧" by 統監府農商工部
130� 54' E. longitude (東経１３０度５４分 鬱陵島東端 : Easternmost of Ulleundo)
1912 "最近朝鮮事情要覧" by 朝鮮総督府 ２版渡辺為蔵
130� 54' E. longitude (東経１３０度５４分)
1912 "小学地理教材" by 北垣恭次郎
130� 54' E. longitude (東経１３０度５４分 鬱陵島の東端 : Easternmost of Ulleundo)
1912 "最新 朝鮮地誌" by 日韓書房編集部
130� 54' E. longitude (東経１３０度５４分 鬱陵島東端 : Easternmost of Ulleundo)
1936 "朝鮮現勢便覧" by 朝鮮総督府
130� 56' 23" E. longitude (東経１３０度５６分２３秒)
1947 "朝鮮常識問答" (Qs & As for General Knowledge of Joseon) by 崔南善 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130� 56' 23" E. longitude (東経１３０度５６分２３秒 )
1948 "朝鮮常識" (General Knowledge of Joseon)" by 崔南善 (Korean Geography Textbook)
130� 56' 23" E. longitude (東経１３０度５６分２３秒 慶尚北道鬱陵島竹島 : Jukdo of Ulleundo, (*not Japanese Takeshima)
This is a revised version of Korean Eastern limits described in various books exclude Takeshima/Dokdo from Korean Territory, which is a re-revised version of "1894-1948 Korean territory (Revised version)," by Pacifist. As we can see, the oldest document now dates back to 1874 now. The newly added documents are marked red in their published year.
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/search/label/Docs%3A%20Korean |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
korian
Joined: 26 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
in response to the urban myth's argument about dokdo and the source he used
http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page9.html
it is a site created and maintained by an elementary school teacher in minnesota. geocities is just free webspace provided by yahoo that anyone can use to create their own site.
a quick search of his name on google (mark lovmo) shows quite a few hits saying he's very much biased towards korea. he has also published in korean journals.......
a good site here
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/docs/147/disputes.pdf
it discusses japan's territorial claims. in the excerpt about dokdo/takeshima it notes that lovmo's site is notably biased towards korea. i haven't the time nor inclination to search further as i don't care enough about the issue but less subjective links would be nice on both sides. |
|
| 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
