|
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 |
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
True, but it could also be seen that way by someone who doesn't favour either Korea or Japan against each other.
Anyone who does any thorough historical research would favour Japan. They have a much stronger case.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Exactly. Oh well at least it provides us some amusement as the pro-japanese people in this board engage in their little fantasies of Japan taking it back one day.
|
Is that how it is?
Dukdo is Japanese territory = Pro-Japanese people on this board |
Actually this is how it is. If you provide any information that shows Korea having Dokdo before Japan on their maps it's called propaganda by the pro-Japanese people. Mind you, they never show any proof for their position. |
This is idiotic. It is a complicated historical question without a clear answer. I'm going henceforth call you SarahPalin. |
What are you on about? You asked a question and I answered it. Dokdo is seen as Japanese territory by the pro-Japanese people on this board. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Exactly. Oh well at least it provides us some amusement as the pro-japanese people in this board engage in their little fantasies of Japan taking it back one day.
|
Is that how it is?
Dukdo is Japanese territory = Pro-Japanese people on this board |
Actually this is how it is. If you provide any information that shows Korea having Dokdo before Japan on their maps it's called propaganda by the pro-Japanese people. Mind you, they never show any proof for their position. |
This is idiotic. It is a complicated historical question without a clear answer. I'm going henceforth call you SarahPalin. |
What are you on about? You asked a question and I answered it. Dokdo is seen as Japanese territory by the pro-Japanese people on this board. |
Why in the hell would a bunch of Occidentals be "pro-Japanese" or etc? Maybe they like Japan better than Korea? I don't if ergo they take Japans side on historical disputes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just judging the evidence from an objective point of view will show you that Japan has a much, much stronger case. One doesn't have to be a Japan lover or a Korean hater to see this.
Is it any wonder that South Korea won't take the case to the ICJ? They know they will get their asses handed to them by a neutral panel of logical thinking individuals. Furthermore, there couldn't be a better time for South Korea with a South Korean as the UN Secretary General. So what are they afraid of? (HINT: The answer is they have very little evidence at all.)
Just so you know, I am well aware that Japan has other territorial disputes with Russia and Taiwan notably and won't take them to the ICJ. I can't say I agree with that either.
Anyway, Dodko is too valuable a political football for South Korea to give up now. Heck, if they lost Dodko they'd have to look inward and they probably wouldn't like what they see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
Just judging the evidence from an objective point of view will show you that Japan has a much, much stronger case. One doesn't have to be a Japan lover or a Korean hater to see this.
Is it any wonder that South Korea won't take the case to the ICJ?
. |
No wonder at all. And as I pointed out before it has nothing to do with knowing they know they will lose. And saying from an objective point of view that Japan has a stronger case, is laughable as you certainly do not have an objective point of view nor are you stating this claim from one.
Japan has nothing to lose as if it loses the case, it is not a whit worse off then it was before. But Korea has something to lose, whereas if they don't take the case to the ICJ they don't.
Faced with a situation of giving up something you don't want to give up would one pick a 50% chance of keeping it or 100% chance of keeping it?
Most of us would pick the 100% chance...and so would/is South Korea.
Anyway it doesn't matter now. Korea has it so it is Korea's. Just as your hometown once was the Native Americans' terrority, so now it is yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
So according to you, Korea has a better case? Why not enlighten us 'Japanophiles'?
Korea's case:
1. They occupy it now.
2. They shout and whine louder.
Japan's case:
1. They occupied it first.
2. Korea took it by force.
3. Korea can not prove they even knew about it before Japan took it.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Guri Guy wrote: |
Just judging the evidence from an objective point of view will show you that Japan has a much, much stronger case. One doesn't have to be a Japan lover or a Korean hater to see this.
Is it any wonder that South Korea won't take the case to the ICJ?
. |
No wonder at all. And as I pointed out before it has nothing to do with knowing they know they will lose. And saying from an objective point of view that Japan has a stronger case, is laughable as you certainly do not have an objective point of view nor are you stating this claim from one.
Japan has nothing to lose as if it loses the case, it is not a whit worse off then it was before. But Korea has something to lose, whereas if they don't take the case to the ICJ they don't.
Faced with a situation of giving up something you don't want to give up would one pick a 50% chance of keeping it or 100% chance of keeping it?
Most of us would pick the 100% chance...and so would/is South Korea.
Anyway it doesn't matter now. Korea has it so it is Korea's. Just as your hometown once was the Native Americans' terrority, so now it is yours. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ilsanman wrote: |
So according to you, Korea has a better case? Why not enlighten us 'Japanophiles'?
] |
I would, but I doubt I would be heard over the "Japanophiles" sticking their fingers in their ears and going "nah,nah, nah I can't hear you."
Been there, done that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Try me.
I am not a Japanophile. In fact, I refuse to ever travel to Japan again in my life.
If you can show me clear evidence of Korea's knowledge of Takeshima before 1905, I will concede the point.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Ilsanman wrote: |
So according to you, Korea has a better case? Why not enlighten us 'Japanophiles'?
] |
I would, but I doubt I would be heard over the "Japanophiles" sticking their fingers in their ears and going "nah,nah, nah I can't hear you."
Been there, done that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jake.K
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| it is possible to see dokdo from ullengdo with naked eyes. Wouldn't that be one logical reason to support Korea's knowledge of the island before 1905? What does it take to prove the knowledge? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Click on the link and follow the link to watch a video on the subject.
| Quote: |
Can you see �Dokdo� from Ulleungdo?
Author: Gerry-Bevers // Category: Uncategorized
Below is a link to a good video of Ulleungdo. Also, at 9 minutes and 22 seconds (9:22) into the video, you can see a view of �Dokdo� (Liancourt Rocks) far off in the distance from Ulleungdo. However, what is interesting about this view of �Dokdo� is that �Dokdo� disappears from view as the camera pulls back from its magnified view to a normal one. Another interesting thing is that Dokdo appears right above the point of a peak, which may be a landmark to help tourists with binoculars and telephoto lens find the island.
I think this video is evidence of just how difficult it is to see �Dokdo� (Liancourt Rocks) from Ulleungdo. I doubt that fishermen and farmers travelling to Ulleungdo during Korea�s Joseon period had binoculars or an observation point on top of a mountain with a sign and arrow pointing you in the direction of �Dokdo.� This video is also evidence that most, if not all, of the photos on the Web taken of �Dokdo� from Ulleungdo are magnified.
The people who post these magnified photos on the Web are often trying to deceive people into believing that �Dokdo� is closer to Ulleungdo than it really is, in an attempt to convince people that it was considered a neighboring island of Ulleungdo during Korea�s Joseon period. However, it is obvious from this video that �Dokdo� (Liancourt Rocks) would not have been considered a neighboring island of Ulleungdo by any reasonable standard, which is almost certainly why Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) never appeared on any old Korean map. |
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=792 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
Click on the link and follow the link to watch a video on the subject.
| Quote: |
Can you see �Dokdo� from Ulleungdo?
Author: Gerry-Bevers // Category: Uncategorized
Below is a link to a good video of Ulleungdo. Also, at 9 minutes and 22 seconds (9:22) into the video, you can see a view of �Dokdo� (Liancourt Rocks) far off in the distance from Ulleungdo. However, what is interesting about this view of �Dokdo� is that �Dokdo� disappears from view as the camera pulls back from its magnified view to a normal one. Another interesting thing is that Dokdo appears right above the point of a peak, which may be a landmark to help tourists with binoculars and telephoto lens find the island.
I think this video is evidence of just how difficult it is to see �Dokdo� (Liancourt Rocks) from Ulleungdo. I doubt that fishermen and farmers travelling to Ulleungdo during Korea�s Joseon period had binoculars or an observation point on top of a mountain with a sign and arrow pointing you in the direction of �Dokdo.� This video is also evidence that most, if not all, of the photos on the Web taken of �Dokdo� from Ulleungdo are magnified.
The people who post these magnified photos on the Web are often trying to deceive people into believing that �Dokdo� is closer to Ulleungdo than it really is, in an attempt to convince people that it was considered a neighboring island of Ulleungdo during Korea�s Joseon period. However, it is obvious from this video that �Dokdo� (Liancourt Rocks) would not have been considered a neighboring island of Ulleungdo by any reasonable standard, which is almost certainly why Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) never appeared on any old Korean map. |
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=792 |
Gerry Bevers. That would be the guy who is well known on several discussion forums to hate Koreans and use discredited sources like Bruce Cumings to make his point.
Speaking of Cumings http://hnn.us/articles/2742.html
I would say anyone who uses this guy as a source is not someone to take seriously |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, absolutely UrMy. Anyone who disagrees with the Korean version of history must hate all things Korean. 
Gerry Bevers has provided a wealth of information on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue. Just because you don't agree with him is no reason to throw insults around and demonize him. It seems a little infantile to me and not befitting of you.
I certainly don't agree with everything Bruce Cumings has written but he is spot on for some things.
These two responses sum up my opinion nicely. Questioning history and not toeing the party line is not wrong or Anti-American. When Lewis does his own research and writes his own book on the subject and stops taking potshots without backing them up, I'll take him more seriously.
| Quote: |
Lewis does not attend to the issues brought up in this book. (#27727)
by Mark on January 4, 2004 at 6:26 PM
Anders Lewis (like others) simply attacks Cumings' polimic arguments and says that Cumings knows nothing about 'communism'. Cumings could say the similar things about Lewis, too, I suppose. More importantly, however, his review does not address the central arguments of the book, but just dismisses Cumings' points off-handedly.
I have also read the book, and once you get past the fact that Cumings will not spend half of the book talking about how bad North Korea is (that's what Lewis Anders and the rest of the media is for), or that he conducts personal attacks on U.S. leaders (which is rather galling to the "red-blooded" among us), you find the arguments he makes to be rather insightful and challenging. I do not always agree with Cumings on many issues, but his work always challenges me, and that's what good scholarly work should occasionally do. Lewis IS very correct in pointing out the grammatical and spelling errors in NORTH KOREA: ANOTHER COUNTRY. These kind of things are huge pet peeves of mine. Cumings should have definitely thought about revision before publication, no matter how "timely" he wanted his book to be on this issue. Overall, Lewis is just delivering a blistering attack on Cumings for his polemics. See other reviews of the book. They sure don't sound like Lewis'!
What is more telling about scholars like Lewis is that the "red-blooded" Americans like him have yet produce a response (in the form of a well-researched book, and not book-review attacks) to Cumings' two-volume work, THE ORIGINS OF THE KOREAN WAR. I suppose there never will be a conservative response, which is a shame, because I would really like to see what conservative American historians would do with the same breadth of information that Cumings had researched for ORIGINS OF THE KOREAN WAR. |
| Quote: |
Re: Lewis does not attend to the issues brought up in this book. (#28367)
by Red Dog on January 11, 2004 at 3:27 PM
Mark:
Thanks for bringing this discussion back to its starting point. I too have read Cummings numerous well-researched books and articles on Korea. I do not agree with everything that he says, but he does present a point of view that is very different from the official view that comes from Washington.
I always thought the point of writing history was to take and defend different points of view. I do not consider that exercise to be Un-American. On the contratry, debate over past and present wars could not be more American. Cumming's critics should do their own research and write their own books. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say I'm more of a Japanophile than a koreaophile but I reckon the Japanese gov should cede the rocks (they ain't islands) to Korea.
I've read about the historical stuff and reckon Japan has a strong case but thing is, unlike the falklands the place is uninhabited so there's no human interest involved.
So Dokdo is of huge emotional importance to 99% of Koreans I've drank with yet 0% of Japanese I've drank with have expressed an opinion on the matter.
In the interests of wa the Japanese should lock away their old maps and stuff and let Korea have it as a gesture of goodwill to improve relations between them.
This could work out well for Japan, Japan and Korea have a lot of common interests (a shared enermy in NK, China being the new superpower in the region means they are going to have to work together) so making such a huge gesture as saying 'you have them rocks' might help Koreans forget/forgive the stuff of 60/70 years ago (at last!!!) and build an era of co-operation which both countries need. If it means upsetting the nationalist twats in their stupid vans screaming "banzai" when I'm trying to do my shopping, then so be it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, it'd be nice if they did, but they have no obligation to do so.
Korea would not see it as a favour or kindness. They'd see it as 'we were right all the time', or as a sign of weakness.
I say continue to fight for them. One day, the world'll wake up.
| Neil wrote: |
I'd say I'm more of a Japanophile than a koreaophile but I reckon the Japanese gov should cede the rocks (they ain't islands) to Korea.
I've read about the historical stuff and reckon Japan has a strong case but thing is, unlike the falklands the place is uninhabited so there's no human interest involved.
So Dokdo is of huge emotional importance to 99% of Koreans I've drank with yet 0% of Japanese I've drank with have expressed an opinion on the matter.
In the interests of wa the Japanese should lock away their old maps and stuff and let Korea have it as a gesture of goodwill to improve relations between them.
This could work out well for Japan, Japan and Korea have a lot of common interests (a shared enermy in NK, China being the new superpower in the region means they are going to have to work together) so making such a huge gesture as saying 'you have them rocks' might help Koreans forget/forgive the stuff of 60/70 years ago (at last!!!) and build an era of co-operation which both countries need. If it means upsetting the nationalist twats in their stupid vans screaming "banzai" when I'm trying to do my shopping, then so be it! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
Oh, absolutely UrMy. Anyone who disagrees with the Korean version of history must hate all things Korean.
Gerry Bevers has provided a wealth of information on the Dokdo/Takeshima issue. Just because you don't agree with him is no reason to throw insults around and demonize him. It seems a little infantile to me and not befitting of you.
Insults? What are you talking about? Please find where I insulted him or demonized him. Here I'll help you out. I mentioned how he was seen on several internet discussion boards. I never insulted him, I said that he used questionable sources therefore anything he says based on those sources can not be taken seriously.[ And while we are on the topic please don't put words into my mouth and make up allegations about what I said. Thank you
I certainly don't agree with everything Bruce Cumings has written but he is spot on for some things.
If you throw enough darts at a dartboard, you should hit the bullseye some times. Cumings glosses over the appalling human rights abuses in North Korea, over the cult of personality worship, over the mass starvations and over their attempts to gain nuclear weapons for blackmail of the international community. That is why he is not taken seriously.
These two responses sum up my opinion nicely. Questioning history and not toeing the party line is not wrong or Anti-American. When Lewis does his own research and writes his own book on the subject and stops taking potshots without backing them up, I'll take him more seriously.
| Quote: |
Lewis does not attend to the issues brought up in this book. (#27727)
by Mark on January 4, 2004 at 6:26 PM
Anders Lewis (like others) simply attacks Cumings' polimic arguments and says that Cumings knows nothing about 'communism'. Cumings could say the similar things about Lewis, too, I suppose. More importantly, however, his review does not address the central arguments of the book, but just dismisses Cumings' points off-handedly.
I have also read the book, and once you get past the fact that Cumings will not spend half of the book talking about how bad North Korea is (that's what Lewis Anders and the rest of the media is for), or that he conducts personal attacks on U.S. leaders (which is rather galling to the "red-blooded" among us), you find the arguments he makes to be rather insightful and challenging. I do not always agree with Cumings on many issues, but his work always challenges me, and that's what good scholarly work should occasionally do. Lewis IS very correct in pointing out the grammatical and spelling errors in NORTH KOREA: ANOTHER COUNTRY. These kind of things are huge pet peeves of mine. Cumings should have definitely thought about revision before publication, no matter how "timely" he wanted his book to be on this issue. Overall, Lewis is just delivering a blistering attack on Cumings for his polemics. See other reviews of the book. They sure don't sound like Lewis'!
What is more telling about scholars like Lewis is that the "red-blooded" Americans like him have yet produce a response (in the form of a well-researched book, and not book-review attacks) to Cumings' two-volume work, THE ORIGINS OF THE KOREAN WAR. I suppose there never will be a conservative response, which is a shame, because I would really like to see what conservative American historians would do with the same breadth of information that Cumings had researched for ORIGINS OF THE KOREAN WAR. |
| Quote: |
Re: Lewis does not attend to the issues brought up in this book. (#28367)
by Red Dog on January 11, 2004 at 3:27 PM
Mark:
Thanks for bringing this discussion back to its starting point. I too have read Cummings numerous well-researched books and articles on Korea. I do not agree with everything that he says, but he does present a point of view that is very different from the official view that comes from Washington.
I always thought the point of writing history was to take and defend different points of view. I do not consider that exercise to be Un-American. On the contratry, debate over past and present wars could not be more American. Cumming's critics should do their own research and write their own books. |
|
So a couple of people give their opinions on a online forum (under screen names) and you think that's the be-all and end-all of the discussion? At least Lewis gave his real name. And since he has his PhD I'd say he's qualified to give his views on the subject. I'll take his view over those of a couple of people on the internet who offer no credentials of their own and no scholarship just their vague and unsupported opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| samd wrote: |
Bottom Line:
Japan got smashed in WWII and Korean jumped in and seized Dokdo. It doesn't really matter who owned it beforehand, because Korea owns it now. They took it - just like almost every other country in the world was taken by someone or another at some time.
Japan lost it, which they deserved, and Dokdo is now Korean. Those Japanese who care about the issue have some nerve asking for it back. |
If nothing else Japan will just take them back by force in due time, there's nothing Korea, or the pitiful pro-Korean whiners on here like you can do about it. Japan is simply a better, more powerful and more important country, period. It is Korea that's had a lot of nerve overstepping their boundaries all this time, the notion that they'd be able to get away with it is laughable. And besides, he who laughs last...  |
|
| 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
