竹島問題の歴史

4.9.08

The 12th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)”

Below is a translation of The 12th column “Seeking Truth Based Solely on Facts(実事求是)” by Prof. Shimojo Masao

" Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs published pamphlet "10 Issues of Takeshima", and pointed out the fact that there is no historical proof for South Korea to be able to insist on the sovereignty over Dokdo/Takeshima in February, 2008. Although South Korean authority such as "Northeast Asian History Foundation" and "Dokdo Research Center under the Korea Maritime Institute(韓国海洋水産開発院)" did rebutted against it, they didn't succeed in refuting the opinion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs afterall. There is an important meaning in this. It did succeed in proving the fact the current situation that South Korea is occupying the island illegally, contrary to their intention.

South Korea has been claimed the island have been Korean territory since 6th century, on the basis of the annotation of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo(東国文献備考・與地考)"(1770) which says "Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima (輿地志云 鬱陵 于山 皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也).

However, the phamphlet mentioned that the annotation was the fabrication after ages and debunked the South Korea's historical basis for their territorial claim. Korean should have had rebutted the annotation of with supporting evidences thorough philological study. On the contrary, Korean side avoided this important point of issue and made their own unrelated point, calling it a rebuttal, even their own basis for territorial claim was refuted.

Northeast Asian History Foundation claims that Dokdo/Takeshima is Korean territory since it can be seen from Ulleungdo. However, that is an arbitrary interpretation of the sentence "The two islands of Usan (于山) and Muleung (武陵) are in the sea due east of this hyeon. The distance between the two islands is close enough that they can be seen on a clear day when the wind is blowing. (于山武陵二島 在縣正東海中 二島相去不遠 風日清明 則可望見)" from "geography section of the Annals of King Sejong(世宗実録地理志 蔚珍県条)". They simply misread the sentence that Dokdo/Takeshima can be seen from Ulleungdo. In fact, it can be confirmed in "Sinjeung Donggukyeojiseungnam(新増東国輿地勝覧)", which described the corresponding part of "Geography section of the Annals of King Sejong(世宗実録地理志)" in detail. In "Sinjeung Donggukyeojiseungnam(新増東国輿地勝覧)", it is clearly written that it is Ulleungdo's trees on the peaks of the mountains and the sand at their feet which can be seen from Uljin(蔚珍), which administrates Ulleungdo. The interpretation is consistent with "輿地図書" in mid 18th century and 金正浩's "大東地志", etc. What is the point for Northeast Asian History Foundation to intentionally misinterpretate the sentence as it is Dokdo/Takeshima which can be seen from Ulleungdo? Despite the scholars in Choson dynasty interpreted the sentence that it is Ullgungdo which can be seen from Uljin. The rebuttal by Foundation is nothing but just a political propaganda which is went far off the normal course of historical study.

Dokdo Research Center is this kind in the point of misinterpretation of historical documents. In case of the Dokdo Center, they interprete the documents on the basis of the sentence of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo(東国文献備考・與地考)", on the assumption that Usando is Dokdo/Takeshima. However, they need to prove that Usando was today's Dokdo/Takeshima empirically in the first place, otherwise, their counterargument is nothing but just a thoughtless words(妄言).

Interestingly, the opinion of Korean "Tokto Protection Morale(独島守護士気)", which is shown on the net reveals this fact point-blank. It introduces the Japanese claim and says that "Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo(東国文献備考・與地考)", which Korean had used as a basis of their claim, is written based on 申景濬's "彊界誌", and "彊界誌" itself was plagiarized from 李孟休's "春官志". Besides, 柳馨遠's "東国輿地志", which was quoted in the annotation of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo(東国文献備考・與地考)" actually says that "It is said that Usan and Ulleung were originally one island (一説干山 鬱陵 本一島)", but it doesn't say that "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima (于山則倭所謂松島也). It is apparent that 申景濬, the writer of "東国文献備考" fabricated the annotation in the process of compiling the document.

Sadly, however, it looks like that Korean, who only has historical recognition that "Dokdo/Takeshima is Korean territory", doesn't understand how important it is to read the documents like 申景濬's "彊界誌" and 李孟休's "春官志" critically. The reason Japan keep insisting it's sovereignty over their inherent part of territory, Takeshima is because of Korean illegal occupation over Takeshima without the reasonable historical evidence whatsoever.

Reference ;

1656 - "Yojiji (輿地志)" by Ryu Hyung-won (柳馨遠) didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima."

“実事求是 〜日韓のトゲ、竹島問題を考える〜 第12回 「東北アジア歴史財団」と「韓国海洋水産開発院」の誤解 下條正男


Courtesy of Web Takeshima Research Center.


Other Column of the Series:


The 24th column “South Korean Government dug their own grave by publishing the English version of "The Dokdo/Takeshima Controversy" by Prof. Emeritus Naito Seichu and Mr. Park Byeong-seop.”


The 23rd column " Refutation against the report of South Korean Yonhap News Agency which misread the Mori Kohan(森幸安)'s "The Map of Tsushima(對馬輿地図)"


The 22th column “ Refutation against "The Meiji Government's recognition of Takeshima=Dokdo" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)””, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

The 21st column " Refutation against "Analysis of Shimojo Masao's Editorials" by Mr. Park Byeong-seop(朴炳渉)”

The 20th column “Act of Folly by "Northeast Asian History Foundation"”

The 19th column “"Korea Maritime Institute(KMI : 韓国海洋水産開発院), who lacks ability to read their own historical documents, criticized on Shimane Prefecture. "”

The 18th columnAbsurd and Peculiar Theory of Prof. Hosaka, plus the "Children and textbook nationwide net 21" and others' Getting "Out of Control.”

The 17th column “The Ordinance of Prime Minister and Cabinet Office, No.24 and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance, No.4 in 1951(昭和26年).

The 16th column ""Dokdo Month" without any historical grounds."

The 15th column " South Korea's Groundless Claim of "Inherent Part of (Korean) Territory"

The 14th column “A reckless Courage of the Professor Kimishima Kazuhiko(君島和彦) of Tokyo Gakugei University(東京学芸大学).

The 13th column “Sins of Asahi Shimbun and Mr. Wakamiya Yoshibumi(若宮啓文).

The 12th column “Northeast Asian History Foundation and Dokdo Research Center's Misunderstanding”

The 11th column “South Korea's Misunderstanding of 'A Map of Three Adjoining Countries (Sangoku Setsujozu 三国接壌図)' by Hayashi Shihei(林子平)”

The 10th column " A Blunder of Sokdo(石島) = Dokto(独島) Theory

The 9th column "Criticism on Dokdo Research Center”

The 8th column “The Historical Facts" The 6th column “Onshu-shicho-goki (隠州視聴合記)" and the "Nihon Yochi Totei Zenzu (日本輿地路程全図)" by Nagakubo Sekisui(長久保赤水)"

The 5th column “South Korea’s erroneous interpretation of the document 'Takeshima and Another Island are Unrelated to Japan"

The 4th column “Errors in Educational Video Produced by the Northeast Asian History Foundation (東北アジア歴史財団)."

10 comments:

  1. Bravo Kaneganese, great job!

    I hope all the pro-Korean people, including myCoree, will read this and understand the situation objectively.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another sad attempt by Japan to try and make a case for Takeshima. When I read "Professor Shimojo's" articles there is nothing new or original about any of it. He's just a parrot.

    There are many documents both Japanese and Korea that say Usando (Matsushima) is what (we) Japanese call Matsushima (Dokdo)

    There is no doubt these documents were derived from the 1696 Anyongbok incident. In this record is was stated Usando (Matsushima 松島) was 50 ri from Ulleungdo. Much too far to be any other island than Dokdo. It was also recorded that Matsushima was part of Korea's Gangwan Province.

    Sometimes what people don't say is as important than what they do say. For example, if you read Japan's explanation of the Anyongbok Incident it gives absolutely no mention of Japan's own 2005 Murakawa records. It only mentions the documents held by ROK.

    Here is their brochure that talks about the Anyongbok Incident.
    Japan's-Sneaky_MOFA

    In other words Japan has eliminated very critical data that lends credibility to the Japanese and Korean records that say Matsushima was in reality, Usando.

    Anyongbok-Incident


    After reading some of the articles from "Professor" Shimojo it's clear this guy has no credibility He's just a lackey for Shimane Prefecture. In fact, wasn't Shimane's foolish policy on Takeshima the brainstorm of this man?

    ReplyDelete
  3. So you admitted it was derived from Ahn Yong-bok's statement.

    You denied the Korean scholars' insistency that it was derived from older documents than Ahn Yong-bok's incident. This is a progress. Really a progress.

    And you know well about Ahn Yong-bok was a reliable person or not.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/09/1696-ahn-yong-boks-second-visit-to_19.html

    So all the insistency of Korea originated from the unreliable person's statement. Was this the evidence to show sovereignty of Liancourt Rocks? Oh no...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks, pacifist

    My additional notes to Professor's article...

    South Korea has been claimed the island have been Korean territory since 6th century, on the basis of the annotation of "Dongguk Munheon Bigo Yojigo(東国文献備考・與地考)"(1770) which says "Yojiji says that Ulleun and Usan are all Usanguk. Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima (輿地志云 鬱陵 于山皆于山國地 于山則倭所謂松島也). However, the annotation was the fabrication after ages and debunked the South Korea's historical basis for their territoral claim.

    1656 - The basis for Korean territorial claim, "Yojiji (輿地志)", actually didn't say "Usan is so-called Japanese Matsushima." It was fabrication after ages. The concept "Usando is Japanese Matsushima" was started by Ahn Yong-bok, who was a criminal, and his inconsistant and unreliable testimony.

    However, his testimony from various documents actually proved that Ahn's Usando cannot be today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks, but imaginary island or Jukdo atthe utmost if it is really exist.

    1696 - Ahn's so-called Matsushima/Usando was Jukdo, afterall.

    There is no single concrete evidence that Korean Usando was today's Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks at all. Rather, all the Korean documents and maps shows that after the end of 1600s, Usando had been recognized as Jukdo, or sometimes just an imaginary fertile island near Ulleungdo, but never today's Takeshima.

    "Where have all the Usandos gone?"

    1694 report "鬱陵島事蹟" and 1711 map of Ulleungdo "鬱陵島圖形" prove Usando was Jukdo, not today's Takeshima/Dokdo.

    In 1807 May 12, Inspector Lee Tae-gun (李泰根) reported Usando was on the North of Ulleungdo, which proves Usando was Jukdo, not Takeshima/Dokdo of today.

    Korean scholars started to admit this reality partially and gradually.

    Korean Scholar Says "Usando" Was Ulleungdo's "Jukdo"

    The Korean rumor of "Usando was Japanese Matsushima(= today's Takeshima)" was initially started by the inconsistant testimony by criminal Ahn, but as long as Usando cannot be proved as today's Takeshima, it is just a wishful thinking without any proof.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kaneganese, the 1711 map you referred to did not show Jukdo Islet as Usando based on the survey of the island. The island Japanese Takeshima lobbyists say was Jukdo Islet was drawn in front of Dodong Harbor where inspector Pak Cheong Seok put his stone marker.

    So why would Pak draw this "So-Called Usando" 4 kms South of it's real location, in front of a Dodong from which Jukdo Islet is not even visible? It's simple. Because he copied the text of the Ulleungdo Shillok which stated the island had "Haejang Bamboo" on one side and that it was due East of Seonginbong Mountain. The map also shows five island which don't exist.

    Kaneganese, you said in a previous post that inspector Pak moored their boat near Waldari near Jukdo but this was dead wrong. They moored south of Jeodong on Ulleungdo's Dodong Harbour.

    You have to tell Gerry, and professor Fusunagi that their interpretation of Pak's 1711 map was wrong. The So-called Usando on this map was NOT Jukdo Islet. The position is too far off relative to all other parts that Pak clearly labelled such as Jeojeon Dong (Jeodong) Three Angels Rocks, and Dodong.

    Shabby-Japanese-"Historians"

    In other words, Pak's map is the source of the Usando confusion. Pak's map is one man's perceptions of Usando, not even based on the geography of the region but rather a previous inspection that didn't name Jukdo as Usando.

    Anyongbok's perceptions carry just as much weight, in fact more. He frequented the region more and had voyaged to Japan twice. Anyongbok said Usando was far from Ulleungdo (50ri) thus anyone who states Anyongbok's Usando Jukdo must be, pardon the expression, full of shit. Even some Japanese of the day regarded Dokdo as Usando and thus attached to Korea's Ulleungdo

    So Pacifist and Kaneganese as long as Japanese lobbyists cannot conclusively say Anyongbok's Usando was NOT Dokdo I guess you are pretty much screwed....what a shame.

    Anyongbok was a criminal? Why because he kicked out Japanese trespassers from an island that was Korean since the 6th Century? Kaneganese get your facts straight. Your rising flag headband must be cutting off the circulation to your brain. tora tora tora!!!

    Korean's were gazing Eastward and saw their island Dokdo practically before Japanese could make fire!!

    Ancient-Koreans-Dokdo-Region

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Why because he kicked out Japanese trespassers from an island that was Korean since the 6th Century?"

    He was a criminal because he was a poacher and an illegal entrant at the first incident. He was transported under guard as a proof of the crime to Japan and in the end he was deported to Chosun as a criminal. He was a criminal in Chosun too because he violated prohibition (to go to Ulleungdo was prohibited by Chosun government in those days).

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/08/1692-and-1693-incidents-ahn-yong-boks.html

    On the second incident, he was a criminal again because he smuggled himself into Japan and assumed an official title. He was in the end deported again.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/09/1696-ahn-yong-boks-second-visit-to.html

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/09/1696-ahn-yong-boks-second-visit-to_19.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kaneganese,

    Just a little note to let you know a mistyping - "phamphret" must be "pamphlet" (it's on the 13th line).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pacifist, Anongbok did the dirty work of the incompetent Chosun government.

    Ulleungdo was indisputably Korean land and the Chosun government was poorly managing the island so Anyongbok did the right thing to tell these Japanese poachers to get the hell off of Ulleungdo and stay off. Because of Anyongbok Korea began to more closely monitor Ulleungdo Island.

    Don't you get the simple principle that Ulleungdo was always Korean land since at least 512 A.D.? The real trespassers on Ulleungdo were the Japanese. Even after the Shogunate forbade Japanese voyages there, the Oya's and Murakawas continued to illegally voyage there.

    Even right up to the time the Japanese annexed Liancourt Rocks the Japanese were swarming Ulleungdo Island en masse

    Japanese-Trespassers


    Maybe you should read this page again.
    Ancient-Koreans

    Sometimes brave people have to break the rules to get justice. In retrospect Anyongbok was a true hero whose activities 300 years ago are strong evidence of Korea's title to Ulleungdo and Dokdo.

    Your personal attacks and smear tactics have nothing to do with an academic approach to determining true historical sovereignty of Dokdo. It seems a pattern of those on this forum whenever compelling historical data is presented they result to personal attacks toward either the poster or the people involved with the actual data. This is not right.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "so Anyongbok did the right thing to tell these Japanese poachers to get the hell off of Ulleungdo and stay off"

    Are you still blindly believing such a boast?

    He may have bravely told to the Korean inspector but it was in order to avoid penalty - in those days violation of prohibition meant death penalty.

    He said that he met Japanese at Ulleungdo in May 1696 and scolded them. But in reality, the shogunate banned Japanese fishermen to go to Ulleungdo in January the same year and it is apparent from the record that there were no Japanese fishermen who went there in 1696. So this part of his story seems to be a made-up story to impress Korean officials who investigated him.

    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2007/09/1696-ahn-yong-boks-second-visit-to.html

    "Don't you get the simple principle that Ulleungdo was always Korean land since at least 512 A.D.?"

    I agree, Ulleungdo was Korean land in the 6th century, but after a while Chosun government ordered to withdraw from the island and it was left uninhabited for quite a long time. It was a policy in fear of pirates called 倭寇 (Japanese pirates), actually the pirates had some bases in Ulleungdo in those days.

    It was the uninhabited era when Japanese found the island and engaged in fishery for 80 years.

    Considering today's international law, abandoned vacant island without control may be recognised as ownerless island.

    When Japanese fishermen drifted ashore to Korean peninsula and they told the officials that they went to Ulleungdo for fishery, they didn't claim and treated them as guests, which mean Korean officials didn't think that fishery at Ulleungdo for Japanese was a crime. So some Japanese scholars in Edo period insisted that Ulleungdo was Japanese territory and that it was a fault by the Shogunate to have given up the island.

    ReplyDelete