|
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 |
bluelake
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
So Takeshima, which is 2 small islets the same size as my apartment are actually very large and oval shaped?
No, I don't think so. You're not convincing anyone.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Pojogae wrote: |
| I think any reasonable person can accept Korea's claim (without really caring one way or another) due to the island's far greater proximity to Korea and that it was never populated by anyone. I don't see how drawing something on a map earlier than someone else inevitably makes it yours... |
Indeed. But the key words here are "reasonable person". |
This is horsesh-t. There's nothing whatsoever reasonable about SK obtained those islets: by military conquest. And they did so at a time when Japan was defenseless, having been thoroughly crushed by the USA a few years prior.
SK deserves nothing. Takeshima is legitimately Japan's alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ilsanman wrote: |
So Takeshima, which is 2 small islets the same size as my apartment are actually very large and oval shaped?
No, I don't think so. You're not convincing anyone.
|
Yeah, in terms of historical investigation, the Korean "experts" are the most embarrassingly inept and dishonest pack of morons I've ever seen. The best they can come up with are grotesque thousand year-old maps depicting Ulleungdo alongside Jukdo, many centuries before the name "Dokdo" was even contrived. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
santafly
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe someone complained about eating beaver....although, korean girls don't like to shave......
ever been to Wet Beaver Canyon? one of the most beautiful places in Arizona |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bluelake
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ilsanman wrote: |
So Takeshima, which is 2 small islets the same size as my apartment are actually very large and oval shaped?
No, I don't think so. You're not convincing anyone.
|
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. The question was asked to produce a Korean map, pre-1905, which shows Dokdo as being Korean. You have to remember--Joseon satellites are much older now... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You were asked to provide an ACCURATE map.
| bluelake wrote: |
| Ilsanman wrote: |
So Takeshima, which is 2 small islets the same size as my apartment are actually very large and oval shaped?
No, I don't think so. You're not convincing anyone.
|
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. The question was asked to produce a Korean map, pre-1905, which shows Dokdo as being Korean. You have to remember--Joseon satellites are much older now... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bluelake
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ilsanman wrote: |
You were asked to provide an ACCURATE map.
| bluelake wrote: |
| Ilsanman wrote: |
So Takeshima, which is 2 small islets the same size as my apartment are actually very large and oval shaped?
No, I don't think so. You're not convincing anyone.
|
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. The question was asked to produce a Korean map, pre-1905, which shows Dokdo as being Korean. You have to remember--Joseon satellites are much older now... |
|
As mentioned, it's as accurate as the cartography of the day. You probably didn't get the comment I made at the end of my reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bluelake wrote: |
| Ilsanman wrote: |
You were asked to provide an ACCURATE map.
| bluelake wrote: |
| Ilsanman wrote: |
So Takeshima, which is 2 small islets the same size as my apartment are actually very large and oval shaped?
No, I don't think so. You're not convincing anyone.
|
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. The question was asked to produce a Korean map, pre-1905, which shows Dokdo as being Korean. You have to remember--Joseon satellites are much older now... |
|
As mentioned, it's as accurate as the cartography of the day. You probably didn't get the comment I made at the end of my reply. |
You do realise you're citing from blatant propaganda right? I'm certainly not the established authority on the subject, but I've read a lot on it, and I can assure you that nobody who knows anything considers 'Usando' on those old decrepit maps to be Dokdo. 'Usando' is Jukdo, plain and simple (hence why you'll never see those old maps with BOTH Jukdo and 'Usando' together, even though the former is much closer to Ulleungdo).
Those old map makers simply had no idea 'Dokdo' (a name totally unknown to any Korean until very recent times) even existed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iknownothing
Joined: 14 May 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| oh boy here we go with the esl doctorates discussing politics again |
This is a little ironic coming from someone who can't use punctuation and capitalization properly. At least you are consistent with your user name.  |
you've gotta be kidding me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bluelake
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| bluelake wrote: |
| Ilsanman wrote: |
You were asked to provide an ACCURATE map.
| bluelake wrote: |
| Ilsanman wrote: |
So Takeshima, which is 2 small islets the same size as my apartment are actually very large and oval shaped?
No, I don't think so. You're not convincing anyone.
|
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. The question was asked to produce a Korean map, pre-1905, which shows Dokdo as being Korean. You have to remember--Joseon satellites are much older now... |
|
As mentioned, it's as accurate as the cartography of the day. You probably didn't get the comment I made at the end of my reply. |
You do realise you're citing from blatant propaganda right? I'm certainly not the established authority on the subject, but I've read a lot on it, and I can assure you that nobody who knows anything considers 'Usando' on those old decrepit maps to be Dokdo. 'Usando' is Jukdo, plain and simple (hence why you'll never see those old maps with BOTH Jukdo and 'Usando' together, even though the former is much closer to Ulleungdo).
Those old map makers simply had no idea 'Dokdo' (a name totally unknown to any Korean until very recent times) even existed. |
To be honest, I really don't care much about the controversy. A request was made to find a map that (at least supposedly) shows Dokdo; it's up to others to decide if it really is or not. I think a counter-request could equally be made to produce a Japanese map, of equal age, that supports their claim.
It doesn't really matter how much the pseudo-historians on Dave's argue the point, either way, as it won't change a thing in the real world.
FWIW |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bluelake wrote: |
To be honest, I really don't care much about the controversy. A request was made to find a map that (at least supposedly) shows Dokdo; it's up to others to decide if it really is or not. I think a counter-request could equally be made to produce a Japanese map, of equal age, that supports their claim.
It doesn't really matter how much the pseudo-historians on Dave's argue the point, either way, as it won't change a thing in the real world.
FWIW |
Well the problem is you want to add your two bits (fine I suppose) but you haven't looked into it on your own... for starters, no the Japanese do not need to provide a map of their own with Takeshima as their territory before 1905, because their claim stems from that date, based on terra nullius (unclaimed land). Japan was the FIRST to make this claim (and this was before Japan annexed Korea btw), therefore the onus is on any other country that wants to dispute it to provide an earlier map.
As explained, the map your provided (nothing new in the debate btw, there are countless others just like it) is definitely not of 'Dokdo'. How could there be a map of Ulleungdo with 'Dokdo' without Jukdo?? None of those maps claiming 'Usando' is 'Dokdo' ever include Jukdo, even though Jukdo is a mere 2km away and much larger than 'Dokdo'!! It's totally absurd (bcz of course 'Usando' is Jukdo, not 'Dokdo'), please don't allow yourself to be fooled by the demonstrable bullsh-t propogated by Korean nationalists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bluelake
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| bluelake wrote: |
To be honest, I really don't care much about the controversy. A request was made to find a map that (at least supposedly) shows Dokdo; it's up to others to decide if it really is or not. I think a counter-request could equally be made to produce a Japanese map, of equal age, that supports their claim.
It doesn't really matter how much the pseudo-historians on Dave's argue the point, either way, as it won't change a thing in the real world.
FWIW |
Well the problem is you want to add your two bits (fine I suppose) but you haven't looked into it on your own... for starters, no the Japanese do not need to provide a map of their own with Takeshima as their territory before 1905, because their claim stems from that date, based on terra nullius (unclaimed land). Japan was the FIRST to make this claim (and this was before Japan annexed Korea btw), therefore the onus is on any other country that wants to dispute it to provide an earlier map.
As explained, the map your provided (nothing new in the debate btw, there are countless others just like it) is definitely not of 'Dokdo'. How could there be a map of Ulleungdo with 'Dokdo' without Jukdo?? None of those maps claiming 'Usando' is 'Dokdo' ever include Jukdo, even though Jukdo is a mere 2km away and much larger than 'Dokdo'!! It's totally absurd (bcz of course 'Usando' is Jukdo, not 'Dokdo'), please don't allow yourself to be fooled by the demonstrable bullsh-t propogated by Korean nationalists. |
Actually, I have looked into it on my own. I even personally know people who are key players in the issue. It just doesn't particularly excite me one way or the other. It's an issue that will probably go on and on, ad infinitum, as there will probably never be a legal, international conclusion to the whole thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bluelake wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| bluelake wrote: |
To be honest, I really don't care much about the controversy. A request was made to find a map that (at least supposedly) shows Dokdo; it's up to others to decide if it really is or not. I think a counter-request could equally be made to produce a Japanese map, of equal age, that supports their claim.
It doesn't really matter how much the pseudo-historians on Dave's argue the point, either way, as it won't change a thing in the real world.
FWIW |
Well the problem is you want to add your two bits (fine I suppose) but you haven't looked into it on your own... for starters, no the Japanese do not need to provide a map of their own with Takeshima as their territory before 1905, because their claim stems from that date, based on terra nullius (unclaimed land). Japan was the FIRST to make this claim (and this was before Japan annexed Korea btw), therefore the onus is on any other country that wants to dispute it to provide an earlier map.
As explained, the map your provided (nothing new in the debate btw, there are countless others just like it) is definitely not of 'Dokdo'. How could there be a map of Ulleungdo with 'Dokdo' without Jukdo?? None of those maps claiming 'Usando' is 'Dokdo' ever include Jukdo, even though Jukdo is a mere 2km away and much larger than 'Dokdo'!! It's totally absurd (bcz of course 'Usando' is Jukdo, not 'Dokdo'), please don't allow yourself to be fooled by the demonstrable bullsh-t propogated by Korean nationalists. |
Actually, I have looked into it on my own. I even personally know people who are key players in the issue. It just doesn't particularly excite me one way or the other. It's an issue that will probably go on and on, ad infinitum, as there will probably never be a legal, international conclusion to the whole thing. |
Oh yeah, who do you know? As for a 'conclusion', Korea won't take it to the international court (because they will lose for certain), but anyway the Japanese will just bide their time and take it back eventually  by force if necessary, not that it matters since it's legally Japan's, and because Korea can't do anything about it. It might take awhile, but someday. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pojogae
Joined: 30 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't believe I've allowed myself to be pulled into a debate about Dokdo. But anyway...
It seems to me that neither country has any real historical or legitimate claim to the place as it was never populated by anyone (that's why the best either party can do is rummage around in basements for old maps), so by default geographical proximity should seal the issue; and seeing how much closer they are to a Korean centre of population (Ulleungdo) than a Japanese one, I think K has the superior claim. Added to this is the fact that they are already there, guns trained on every seagull that glides overhead, and have therefore become the first people to actually settle the dump, even if it is just a military base.
I don't think we should indulge either plaintiffs constant map weilding, as I hardly see how it is relevant who drew the f**king place in an approximate position first, and anyway the scholarship is so subjective and self-serving as to not warrant attention. I mean can you image the Choson Ilbo leading with a story tomorrow declaring: Top Korean Historian Produces Evidence Showing Dokdo Was Never Actually Under the Administration of Korea? |
|
| 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
