The case for Korean ownership of Dokdo

Dokdo is Korean Territory. But perhaps not for any of the reasons you would think.

I have to admit, this is a post that I have been avoiding for quite a long time. When I was the Seoul Searcher, basically a mouthpiece for a Korean governmental organization, I decided it would be best to avoid the subject entirely because the point of the project I was involved in was not to stir up controversy regarding Korea’s international relations. You can see that starting in 2011, this blog went through a drastic change and I started to write about what I like, mainly complaining about things and discussing nerdy things that I like.

That said, I wrote a post criticizing several videos that were meant to promote the idea that Dokdo belongs to Korea, and it proved to be a hit with several people on the Japanese side of the argument, including a Japanese nationalist website that linked to me. One of the people who visited my blog asked me to present my case for Korean ownership of Dokdo.

I’d like to know why you believe Dokdo is Korean territory. Korean government has been fabricating evidences from the beginning and brainwashing their people with nationalistic song while Japan has established evidences like documents, archaic maps, official statement and international treaty.

I am an admin on the facebook group “Dokdo Belongs to Korea.” When I first joined the group, it was very disorganized, and although its stated purpose was to encourage discussion and debate about Dokdo, it appeared to be overrun with people who just wanted to shout that Dokdo is Korean, or who thought it was a place that racism towards Japanese was appropriate.  Since becoming an admin, I and the other admins have done our part to try to clean it up and to encourage actual debate.  One of the reasons I wanted to do this is because there are far too many people on the Korean side of the argument who don’t even really know why Dokdo belongs to Korea.  You’ll find reasons ranging from

“It’s Korea’s because it’s Korea’s.”

“It’s Korea’s because the Japanese did so many evil things to us when we were their colony.”

“It’s Korea’s because the Japanese call it Takeshima which means bamboo island and there is no bamboo there!”

“It’s Korea’s because the US Army said it was after World War II”

or my favorite

“Shut up, I don’t have to prove anything to you because you are not Korean and can’t understand Korean feeling.  You should stop bothering us.”

So, I am writing this post because I want to lead by example.  I will attempt to analyze the government sponsored Japanese arguments for Japanese ownership, then state my case for Korean ownership.  I want this area to be used for constructive debate on the subject.  I would hope that anyone who chooses to comment on this post be respectful to other commenters, myself, and to refrain from racist remarks.

And to the Japanese following that I seem to have amassed in the past few days:


I am sure there are a few errors up there, but I’ve not used Japanese in quite a while, so sorry for that.

At any rate, I’ll get started on presenting the case after the jump.

All right, well you made it this far. I will start by assuming that if you don’t know about the Dokdo Takeshima dispute, then you will probably be lost in the rest of this post. Please read the wikipedia article for some background information. (The article is always changing so take almost everything that asserts a claim for either side with a grain of salt.)

I want to make this as simple and concise as possible. Both sides, Korea and Japan have government sanctioned arguments, and both arguments are mostly filled with facts that are largely irrelevant. In today’s world, all that matters is international law. It is for this reason that the following ways to prove ownership over the land are irrelevant.

1. Old maps of either Korea or Japan that purport to depict Dokdo- A map by itself is no way to prove sovereignty.

2. Old documents that purport to prove a claim of sovereignty – these are okay, but on both sides, the documents seldom make it clear as to which island they are discussing and can be interpreted differently. The document must be clear that it discusses Dokdo by itself, or by comparing it with other contemporary documents or maps.

3. Claims in ancient history – These are largely irrelevant because the state (if you can call it that) that claimed it may no longer exist, or may have lost the territory since. For example, simply because Koguryo once controlled territory in what is now Manchuria, it does not prove that Manchuria is the rightful territory of North Korea.

With that, I will start presenting the case.

From the cover of the PDF file hosted on the MOFA website

First, I will examine the Japanese argument as presented on the website of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.The website contains a PDF called “10 Issues of Takeshima.” I will go through all of the 10 issues.

Issue 1 – Japan has long recognized the existence of Takeshima.
Does recognition of existence prove ownership? No. The United States recognizes the existence of Japan. Does that mean it is American? No. All it means is that they know it exists. This point is therefore irrelevant. Of special note in this section is Japan’s assertion that the former name of what is now Takeshima was once known as “Matsushima”. Why is this important? I’ll show you later.

Issue 2 – There is no evidence that Korea has long recognized the existence of Takeshima.
This is an attempt to assert that “We (Japan) knew about it first, therefore it is ours.” As shown above though, this is irrelevant, if not false.

This section of the pamphlet attacks the Korean argument pointing out faults in Korean maps and historical documents. It is my belief that these attacks are logical and this is probably the weakest part of the Korean argument. On maps that Korea claims to show Dokdo, it is often too big, in the wrong location, or both.

This section also attacks Korea’s assertion that the name of Dokdo was Usando. It is well known that Usando was a poetic name for Ulleungdo, and that there was a time when people thought that there were two Ulleungdo sized islands in the East Sea (This is the first time I have used that term. There is another raging debate over the name of the sea. I won’t cover any of that argument here.) There is no evidence that Dokdo was ever called Usando, so in this respect the Japanese argment is doing well by pointing out holes in the Korean argument.

Even so, the claim that Koreans did not know about Dokdo in the past is ludicrous.

Under certain weather conditions, Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo.

Dokdo can be seen from certain high points of Ulleungdo with the naked eye when the weather conditions are ideal. The Korean argument loves to overemphasize this because it basically tears a huge gaping hole in Japan’s argument. The Japanese side comes back with the relatively weak counter that the point at which Dokdo is observable from Ulleungdo was once covered in thick vegetation and requires binoculars or zoom lenses to be seen clearly, and that to be able to see it with the naked eye, one would have to be looking for it. Even if that is true, (which it isn’t) the idea that Koreans can be aware of Ulleungdo without knowing of the existence of Dokdo is silly.

Come on Japan, you can do better than that. You mean to tell me that the Koreans who got on boats from the Korean peninsula, traveled all the way to Ulleungdo, subdued and conquered the kingdom on Ulleungdo (meaning their sailing skills were enough to transport a sizable army), continued to sail back and forth from Ulleungdo, and engaged in economic activities (such as fishing) around Ulleungdo, but they were incapable of finding Dokdo?

What, were there magical tsunamis preventing them from sailing further east to investigate the land seaworthy people should be able to stumble upon by accident? Did they just decide to stop at Ulleungdo and not investigate any further? To claim that they were incapable of knowing its existence is ridiculous.

Even though that’s faulty logic on Japan’s side, let’s say I concede the point. Even if I agree, this point is irrelevant because as stated above, knowing of the existence of something does not prove ownership.

Issues 3, and 4 try to show Japan’s declaration of sovereignty as early as the 17th century, by showing in point 3 that several Japanese clans asked permission from the Shogunate to travel to Ulleungdo, using Dokdo as a stopover point. Point 4 shows that the Shogunate recognized Korean ownership of Ulleungdo, preventing its people from traveling there, but mentions that Dokdo was not mentioned in these negotiations.

Again, besides all of this being irrelevant, as using it as a stopover point to a territory that isn’t yours does not prove ownership, it is disingenuous to suggest that simply because Dokdo was not mentioned in the treaty that it is a declaration that the territory is Japanese. What happened is that the families who used Dokdo as a stopover were more interested in the fishing areas around Ulleungdo. After this treaty affirmed Korean ownership of Ulleungdo, their business collapsed, meaning they found no use for Dokdo itself other than as a road to Ulleungdo, which was clearly not Japanese.

Issue 5 details the Ahn Young Bok incident. Korea uses this to prove that Dokdo was theirs relying on Ahn’s testimony and confusion over the names of islands. Korea naturally interprets these in a manner that is advantageous to the Korean position. Japan asserts that Korea is misinterpreting what Ahn said. Even if Japan is right, this does not prove that Japan owns Dokdo. It only proves that there are holes in the Korean argument caused by ambiguity (which there are).

Issue 6 is important, and very very relevant, however, the way it is presented here is revisionist history. It says that “Japan reaffirmed its intention to claim sovereignty over Takeshima by incorporating Takeshima into Shimane Prefecture in 1905.”

A cruicial piece of missing info from this is the name of the document that is pictured on the pamphlet and what it says. Don’t worry Japan, I’ll do your work for you. Here is a synopsis of what that document says, from a Japanese Harvard graduate’s and journalist’s academic paper.

The second fact, and Japan’s fundamental legal claim to Takeshima/Dokdo, stems from
February 22, 1905, when the government of Shimane Prefecture issued Notification Decree
Number 40, which renamed the Liancourt Rocks as Takeshima and placed them under the
administrative control of the local authorities in the Oki Islands. The Prefecture’s decree was
based on the January 28, 1905 Decision of Parliament concerning the territorial incorporation of
Liancourt Island, which was claimed to be res nullius, uninhabited land exhibiting no evidence
of being in the possession of any other country.
The Japanese government claims that the Korean
government did not oppose the incorporation at that time.

This is the the reason Japan claims that Takeshima belongs to Japan on the basis of international law. Japan believed it was uninhabited land that did not belong to another country, and Japan now claims that the Korean government did not oppose the incorporation.

The first point, that the Japanese claim that it is uninhabited land only establishes that Japan did not consider Dokdo part of its territory before 1905. This makes issue 3 and 4 of this pamphlet, any other claim that precedes 1905, or any attempt to construe usage of Dokdo by Japanese people as an establishment of sovereignty, irrelevant. In addition, they are clearly lies, as Japan can’t claim they established sovereignty in the 17th century AND that it was unclaimed land in 1905.

The second point, that the Korean government did not oppose the incorporation… ha, I can only laugh.

First of all, nowhere does it say that the Japanese government informed the Korean government, so it is very possible that this unilateral action was not even known in Korea.

Second, something else very important was happening in Korea in 1905. This is the year that the Eulsa treaty, making Korea a protectorate of Japan and depriving Korea of self determination was signed. While it is true that this treaty was signed 10 months after Notification Decree #40, Japan had a strong presence in Korea during and after the Russo-Japanese war (Feb 1904 – Sep 1905). Even if Notification Decree #40 had been reported directly to the Korean government, Korea was in no position to oppose, as it was in effect under Japanese control. To say that the Korean government did not protest is insulting.

To use an analogy, if I hold a gun to your head and say that your car belongs to me, can I use that as a legal basis for ownership of your car? No. The idea makes no sense.

All that aside, Japan needs to prove that Korea did not claim Dokdo as its territory before 1905 if Japan wants to use this point. I will revisit this claim later.

Issue 7 claims that the US rejected Korea’s request to include Dokdo as Korean territory under the terms of the San Francisco peace treaty. The treaty reads as follows:

The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed in September 1951, stipulates that “Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart , Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

(Quelpart is Jejudo, Port Hamilton is Geomundo, and Dagelet is Ulleungdo)

Edit: Yes, you nationalists, I am aware that Korea tried to petition the U.S. to include Dokdo in its definition of territory in the San Francisco treaty and that the U.S. refused, saying that they thought it had been administered by Japan since 1905. Hoping that Japan and Korea could resolve the issue themselves, the US decided not to mention Dokdo at all, and to this day takes no official position on the issue. Back to the argument over the wording of the treaty….

This proves nothing other than the U.S. view that Dokdo was insignificant. If in fact it can be proven that Korea claimed Dokdo before 1905 (which it can), then Japan, per this treaty must relinquish its claim as it is covered by the statement ““Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea.” Simply because Dokdo is not mentioned does not mean that it is still Japanese territory. There is also no mention of Jindo, Wolmido, Kanghwado or any of the other 3000 islands surrounding the Korean peninsula.

Furthermore, Japan should be careful when deferring to the US. Let’s look at the following map:

One can see that this map, made by SCAP clearly has Dokdo in the zone of jurisdiction of the US Army in Korea. Also of note is that the Ryukyu islands are not within Japanese territory, nor are the Northern Territories. Japan claims that this SCAP map can’t be relied upon to establish national boundaries, as a map does not constitute a peace treaty. I’d like to take that one step further. The U.S. should have no determination over Japan’s borders whatsoever. Those should be defined by Japan and whatever parties lie on the other side of its borders.

But if Japan wants to use the argument of U.S. support after WWII, then they should also include those U.S. policy decisions that appear to support Korean ownership as well. One cannot show only the pro-Japanese US decisions while hiding all the pro-Korean ones. In other words, Japan can not use the wording of the treaty to suggest U.S. support while not talking about the map I have shown and other documents.

Furthermore, as the U.S. takes no official position on the Dokdo dispute, we can only assume that any previous American support for either side is irrelevant.

Issue 8 is another attempt at suggesting that the U.S. recognizes that Dokdo belongs to Japan by showing that the U.S. asked Japan permission to use Dokdo as a bombing range. Several Koreans who were not given warning ended up dying in the training exercises, which indicates that the Korean government was not consulted, thereby showing that the U.S. thought of Dokdo as a Japanese posession.

Omitted is the fact that the U.S. also asked Korea for permission to do the same thing at later dates.

Even so, as stated previously, the U.S. takes no official position, so this issue is irrelevant. Also it bolsters the claim for Korean ownership because the Koreans who were killed thought it was part of their own country that they could use for fishing purposes.

Issue 9 says that Korea is illegally occupying Dokdo. This isn’t evidence but restating of Japan’s position. (What I mean is that there is nothing to refute. There was a Rhee line, and Japanese fishermen beyond the Rhee line were detained.)

Issue 10 criticizes Korea for not willing to take the issue to the ICJ. Simply because Korea does not want to go to the ICJ is not proof that Japan owns Dokdo, or that Korea believes that they will lose any such case. Korea does not need to go because it has its military there and has built lots of stuff there and posession is 9/10 of the law.

Also, what does Korea have to gain by going to court? Nothing. Korea already holds Dokdo. What does Japan have to gain? Dokdo! Japan currently does not have Dokdo.

Similarly we can ask what the risk of going to court for both countries is. What do they have to lose?
Japan has nothing to lose, as if the court rules in Korea’s favor, the status quo remains. Korea on the other hand has Dokdo to lose.

To use another analogy, if you try to take me to court to prove that my car is yours, but I have the means to prevent you from taking my car, and going to court is voluntary on my part, why would I go to court? I already have my car! Why would I risk losing it if I can easily keep you away?

I think Korea could win in court if Korea ever decides to take it to the ICJ, but why bother? Going to court is an admission that there is a possibility that Japan is right.

So, in summary, the only relevant issue of these 10 is issue 6. Japan only needs to prove that Korea did not consider Dokdo as Korean territory before 1905, and Korea only needs to prove that it did.

I will not examine the Korean government’s counter pamphlet on Dokdo because they are equally filled with a lot of irrelevant information. (Although I must say that I am impressed with the updated version of it, as what they were trotting out before touted maps and documents as the main pieces of evidence without fully explaining other possible interpretations.) Futhermore, I think it is much more effective to prove Korean ownership of Dokdo using only Japanese sources, which I will do below.

The Korean case for ownership of Dokdo

There is a huge problem in the Korean side, that is, there is no consensus as to what the points of argument are, often facts are either false, misconstrued, or misinterpreted, and there is far too much emotion and not enough logic. However, it is possible to prove that Korea did consider Dokdo part of its territory before 1905, making Japan’s argument that it established ownership of Dokdo in 1905 false.

Japan in 1905 claimed that Notification Decree Number 40 incorporated Dokdo, a res nullius into Shimane prefecture. (See issue 6)

The former Japanese name for Dokdo is Matsushima (See issue 1).

This document, a report made by the Japanese Dajoukan, made in 1877, states that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Matsushima (Dokdo) are the territory of Korea.

A translation of these documents can be found here.

The documents show that
A. Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and another island are Korean territory.
B. The other island is Matsushima.
C. The detailed location of Matsushima cooresponds with Dokdo’s location.

A common Japanese rebuttal of this evidence is that the Matsushima listed in the document is not in fact Dokdo, but a phantom Ulleungdo, as there was a prevailing belief that two Ulleungdo sized islands were in the East Sea due to some cartographic errors made by Western mappers.

An 1870 Japanese map that shows Takeshima (phantom Ulleungdo), Matsushima (real Ulleungdo) and Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo)

But, as established before in issue 1 of Japan’s 10 issues, Dokdo was once called Matsushima. While there is still room for confusion due to this evidence of mistaken names and map errors, the 1877 document describes Matsushima in the accurate location of Dokdo.

Even if we omit this overwhelming evidence, we need clear evidence that Japan in 1877 called Dokdo “Matsushima”. That evidence also exists, in a Japanese map created in 1877, 磯竹島略圖.

磯竹島略圖 made in 1877 clearly shows Ulleungdo labeled as Takeshima and Dokdo labeled as Matsushima.

(I realize that it my image file may be difficult to read. A larger size PDF of this image can be found here.)

So, it is clear that Japan itself considered Dokdo as Korean territory in 1877. It was therefore already claimed by Korea in 1905, when Japan in Notification Decree #40 stated that it was uninhabited land and that no evidence existed to suggest that it belonged to another country. As it belonged to Korea before 1905, Notification Decree #40, which is the basis of Japan’s claim, is false.

This is why I believe Dokdo belongs to Korea. Naysayers can trot out any map or document from ages past or try to establish ownership through usage before 1905, or cite the opinion of the post war U.S. As demonstrated, all are irrelevant.

And now for some criticism of Korea. Get your argument straight. Find the flaw in Japan’s argument and go for the jugular. Don’t use emotional sentiment, or shady map evidence in your argument. I have established what you need to do (prove Korean ownership before 1905). Do it! Teach it to children in your schools instead of teaching them that ridiculous Dokdo Song. If you continue to react irrationally towards a problem that requires logical understanding, then nobody will take you seriously. You are doing your people a disservice by not correctly teaching the way to argue for Korean sovereignty. Japanese people who argue for Japanese ownership of Takeshima are almost always armed with a logical argument, as most Japanese are apathetic about it, but the ones who care actually research the problem. Koreans on the other hand all care about it, but few can explain clearly why they think it belongs to Korea.

Rebuttals of this argument are welcome, but I must reiterate that I want healthy debate, not shouting or racist attacks.

This work may be used as a source, but I want to be notified by people who decide to use it.

Thanks to all who read it all the way through.

208 Responses to “The case for Korean ownership of Dokdo”

  1. very comprehensive and well-written. I have been aware of your perspectives for a while, but I’d never seen them all organized in one place like this.

  2. Thanks for taking the time to research and put this together. Fascinating stuff. It’s good to hear a reasoned and rational approach to the Dokdo/Takeshima argument.

  3. Awesome fourth last paragraph. Awesome.

  4. Japanese and Korean patriot Says:

    あなたは国際司法裁判所の裁判官がハーバード大学院生より劣ると考えているのですか? 呆れる。




    Edit: by yujinishuge This comment comes from a naver e-mail address, meaning that the sender is most likely a Korean because to join naver easily, one must have a citizen’s registratio number. I am having a bit of trouble understanding the comment completely, but it appears that he is suggesting that Korea wanted Japan to take over so that they could push the Russians back, and that they believed they were one people who bravely fought of American aggression in WWII side by side until the Americans came along and ruined bilateral relations between Korea and Japan, as they have been doing ever since the end of WWII (in his opinion). Also America has a history of slavery but Japan does not. And he finds my linking to the paper of a Harvard graduate weak compared to the ICJ.

    Then at the end he trolls me for being a gamer who can’t understand that the type of brutality that I as an American from the culture of slavery am used to, is not an innate element of East Asian culture, (which I assume he means was pure before America came along). My understanding of this reply might be flawed, so hold back until I actually have time to read it and translate it all. Anyone who reads better Japanese than I do is more than welcome to help me out.)

    • 読んでいる人々のため、英語で書いてくれませんか? 日本語で話したいなら、僕はまず翻訳をして、返事は出来るけど、時間かかりますよ。答えがほしいなら、英語で書きなさい。

      For the people who are reading this blog, can you please write in English? If you want to write in Japanese, I will first have to translate it. I can reply but it will take some time. If you want an answer, won’t you please write in English?

      (That’s a translation of what I wrote so that’s why it sounds funny.)

    • hanbonman Says:

      Japanese and Korean patriotさん、とても興味深く拝読いたしました。勉強になりました。ありがとうございます。


      Translation by yujinishuge: Mr. Japanese and Korean Patriot, that was very fascinating read. I learned a lot! Thanks! Can you please tell me more in detail about the “Secret treaty between Korean and the US?” If you don’t mind telling me, what is the source? Best Regards!

  5. Japanese and Korean patriot Says:


    (Translation by yujinishuge: If you want to know what I said, put forth some effort and translate the Japanese. If you want to talk about the political problems of both countries, it is fundamental that you understand the language of both countries. (Unlike you) I am not writing for the purpose of changing the minds of Anglophones)

  6. Japanese and Korean patriot Says:

    まず、このブログ主のyujinishuge さん、翻訳お疲れ様。そして冷静な対応をどうもありがとう。ここへは英語で書くこと、という約束があるので、これ以上日本語だけの発言をすることはyujinishuge さんにも負担をかけてしまうので、この返事を最後に私は遠目から暖かく見ることにする。私の発言は抽象的なようだが、少なくとも30枚以上のレポートを少しでも要点だけ表現したかったので雑な文章になってしまったが、相手を打ち負かしたい、勝ち誇りたいという動機ではなく、完全自主防衛組織を持たぬ捕らわれの身の日本と韓国で、不毛な罵り合いをせず、お互いに100歩譲り国際司法裁判所の審判を受けることが韓国と日本両国にとって最善でありこれ以上不幸を生まないことだと確信する。だからゲーム感覚でいてもらっては困ると罵倒した。ご質問の『韓国とアメリカの密約』については、密約がなかったら成立しない過程について説明しよう。有名なラスク文書(Rusk Document)では、サンフランシスコ講和条約後の1951年、韓国政府は米国政府へ、竹島と波浪島(実在しない架空の島)を日本の放棄領土とすることを要望するが、同年8月10日、米国政府は、国務次官補ディーン・ラスクより、竹島は日本領であることを韓国政府に最終的な回答として提示した。しかし、翌1952年1月18日に韓国が李承晩ラインを一方的に宣言を行った。連合国の抗議にもかかわらず軍事的不法占拠を始めた。1952年12月4日に釜山の米大使館は「アメリカの竹島の地位に関する認識はラスク書簡のとおりである」と韓国外交部に再度通知を行った。しかし、1955年に韓国外交部が作成した「獨島問題概論」では、このラスク書簡に触れた部分を「etc.」で省略したアメリカ大使館の書簡を掲載したことが確認されている。また、韓国の国際法学者である金明基は、この韓国政府によって隠滅されたアメリカ大使館の書簡によってアメリカの意思が「獨島は韓国の領土」と変更されたものとし、ラスク書簡が無効との論拠としている。つまり、アメリカはラスク書簡を2度も出し、韓国は無視したにもかかわらずアメリカ自身が武力で鎮圧することもなく野放しにしているのである。この間の出来事を米韓の密約と称している。密約だから表には出ていない。1954年と1962年日本政府は領有問題を国際司法裁判所に付託することを韓国側に提案したが、韓国政府は拒否。1965年の日韓基本条約締結までに日本の領海だと知らされている漁民が、突然武装した韓国軍にラインを越えたことを理由に日本漁船328隻が拿捕され、日本人44人が殺傷され、3,929人が抑留された。海上保安庁巡視船への銃撃等の事件は15件におよび16隻が攻撃されている。







  7. あれ?Kenさんの投稿が消えてる。
    Why did you delet Mr.Ken’s post ?
    Hello,Mr.Ken. Will you post it again?

    • Hey hanbonman,

      I deleted that post because Ken contacted me asking that I don’t post his e-mail and he would rather have discussed it with me in private rather than making it public. I wrongfully assumed that it would be okay to post them to my blog and discuss here. But even so, I welcome anyone else who wants to post dissenting opinion on the comments section.

  8. This issue is very simple and plain.

    1. Korea never had stated or proclaimed her dominion of Dokdo before 1905. (not even had her own maps depicting Dokdo)

    2. Japan declared her dominium of Takeshima officially and publicly in accordance with international law in 1905.

    3. SF Treaty concluded Takeshima should remain as Japanese territory with Allies’ approval in 1951.

    4. Korea’s protest about Dokdo was rejected by U.S. gov. (Rusk documents 1951, Kenneth T. Young documents 1952)

    5. Syngman Rhee(이승만) selfishly broke the international law and began illegal occupy since 1952.

    Since then, over 4000 Japanese fishermen had been detained and 44 Japanese had been killed by Koreans at Takeshima.

    • Real Asian Says:

      Ken, fuck you, you’re a fucking idiot. Dokdo is Korea’s because its ours motherfucker, try and take it and ass raped by sharks. You and your fucking jerpo friends can suck it because it’s ours…

      Eugene is tiny asshole is still not gonna be Korean for this, but he says kills your shitty theory. King Jijung of Shilla claimed Dokdo when he took over Ulleungdo back in 2000 bc! Stop trying to lie and stort all the real facts. You Japalenos are nto REAL Asians.

      • Haruka Suzuki Says:

        Real Asian, you must mature. Talking with your heart and not your mind makes one say not smart.

        • EvenRealerAsian Says:

          Real Asian, even though I am true Korean, even though I changed my legal address to state that I live on Dokdo (it’s wrecked my credit rating: all my bills get sent there), even though I have personally hand-copied ancient maps and manuscripts that prove Korean ownership of Dokdo…

          I am embarrassed to be on the same side as you of this issue.

    • Ken… good to have you back! I want to thank you for being civil throughout this entire discussion. I would like to answer you argument, however.

      1. Korea never stated or proclaimed dominion of Dokdo before 1905…. This appears to be true, but you could also argue that Korea never stated or proclaimed dominion over other islands in Korea as well. Times were very different back then, and the concept of states and land claims had not made its way into Asia yet. The fact that there are Japanese maps and documents that state that Dokdo is Korean (see my post above for details), however, proves that the Japanese considered Dokdo to be Korean before 1905 (and by default we have to assume Korea did too.). Because of this, Japan’s 1905 claim that Dokdo has no evidence of belonging to another country is false. The 1905 claim is invalidated by Japanese evidence.

      2. See 1, this claim is invalid.

      3. There is no mention of Dokdo in SF treaty. The Allies left it that way specifically because after serious review, first siding with Korea, then siding with Japan, they decided that it would be better if Korea and Japan could work the issue out themselves, thus taking no official position on the issue. As Dokdo was part of Korea before 1905, by the SF treaty, Dokdo should have reverted back to U.S. ownership.

      4. The U.S. officially takes no position on the issue, so this is irrelevant.

      5. Syngman Rhee only broke the law if it is proven that Dokdo is Japan’s, so this is a matter of opinion that only people who believe that Dokdo is Japan’s can have. That said, as Japan acknowledged that Dokdo was Korean in 1877, it is very clear that Dokdo was Korean in 1952, thus no illegal action was taken.

      It is very unfortunate that people have died or been jailed over this issue. I am never going to be happy about that. I hope that they who were detained are all okay now.

      • 1. Dominion of Islands especially uninhabitable islet like Takeshima has to be proclaimed publicly by country concerned because they both may be using the islet at the same time without knowing. Actually in 1692 J/K fishermen conflicted at Ullengdo and discussed about dominion.(Unless this incident happened, Ullengdo also might be not Korean’s now).If Korea considered Dokdo as Korean territory, why didn’t she protest to Japan in 1905 when Japan declared her Takeshima dominion? Japan had become modernized and advanced far ahead of Korea at the era and already been aware of international rules like territorial issue.

        Japan never proclaimed Takeshima belonged to Korea.
        As for Dajoukan(1877),there is a continuation of this. Since 1877, Japanese battlecruiser Amagi had investigated around Ullengdo and identified those islands and re-named them. Before this, JPN gov. had had vague interpretation of their names because of western-made maps. That’s why they began investigating. After finishing that, JPN gov(MOFA) conclusively named
        1.’Jukdo’ to (formerly-called) Takeshima
        2.’Ullengdo’ to (formerly-called) Matsushima[Dagelet]
        3.’Takeshima’ to (formerly-called) Liancourt Rocks.
        Dajoukan(1877) was not the ultimate article. In fact,one postscript of correction “One another island is Matsushima(Ullengdo, after renamed)” was added to Dajoukan in 29,Nov,1881*.
        Until the end of 19c, JPN gov could clearly recognize Ullengdo & Jukdo belonged to Korea and Takeshima belonged to Japan because of the investigation.

        *Source:外務省記録8324「内務書記官 西村捨三の外務省書記官宛照会」

        • The document in question gives the accurate location of Dokdo when talking about Matsushima, and there can be no question from the map, and Japan’s 10 issues pamphlet that Dokdo was called Matsushima at that time.

          Shimane’s Decree #40 is not an international announcement, and most certainly the Korean government was not consulted. Also Korea was heavily under Japan’s influence. Also proving that Japan did not consider Dokdo part of her territory before 1905, and there is plenty of evidence (such as usage, visibility from Ulleungdo) that Koreans considered it part of her territory.

          The J/K fisherment incident in the 17th century was resolved by treaty, as Ulleungdo became off limits to Japanese, and all usefulness of Dokdo to Japanese (as a stopover point to go to Ulleungdo) ceased.

          • You don’t get the point. MOFA doesn’t say that they once called Takeshima “Matsushima” AT THE TIME OF DAJOUKAN. MOFA refers Eo era before Dajoukan. Amagi’s investigation was very important turning point because it leaded to the conclusion of territorial issue. As I said before, Dajoukan had been corrected due to its investigation before 1905.
            -Transition of Takeshima’s name/Ullengdo’s name-
            1667~ Matsushima / Takeshima or Isotakeshima
            1850~1880 Liancourt / Matsushima or Dagelet
            1880~1905 Liancourt / Matsushima,Dagelet or Ullengdo
            1905~ Takeshima / Ullengdo

            You can claim your dominion because you can see the island?(I didn’t see the evidence of usage by Korean. Could you give me that?). This is absurd. Since 18c,International law requires direct evidences for territorial argument.

            —-1953 ICJ, “Minquiers and Ecrehos” precedent—-
            -What is of decisive importance, in the opinion of the Court, is not indirect presumptions deduced from events in the Middle Ages, but the evidence which relates directly to the possession of the Ecrehos and Minquiers groups.-

            —-2002 ICJ, “Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan” precendent—-
            -The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such.-

          • “MOFA doesn’t say that they once called Takeshima “Matsushima” AT THE TIME OF DAJOUKAN.”
            Maybe not directly, but the dajoukan document itself says that, even giving the correct distance of both islands from Oki. Also the map from the same year as the dajoukan document shows clearly that at that time Dokdo was called Matsushima.

            “You can claim your dominion because you can see the island?(I didn’t see the evidence of usage by Korean. Could you give me that?). “

            No, I said you can know of its existence by seeing it. You’re now trying to argue that they saw it, but never went there? Come on, Ken!

            As far as evidence for Koran usage, you yourself have given that as you state… there were clashes in the area in 1692. Anyway, histoical usage does not prove anything for either side. All that really needs to be proven for the Korean claim to be valid is ownership before 1905. The the Dajoukan proves this, and so does the map. If you want more proof, here’s ANOTHER Japanese document that affirms Korean ownership.

            I’ve given you direct evidence from Japanese sources.

            “—-1953 ICJ, “Minquiers and Ecrehos” precedent—-
            -What is of decisive importance, in the opinion of the Court, is not indirect presumptions deduced from events in the Middle Ages, but the evidence which relates directly to the possession of the Ecrehos and Minquiers groups.-

            Great, care to tell me why Japan is trying to speculate about its activity there in the middle ages?

            “—-2002 ICJ, “Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan” precendent—-
            -The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such.-

            You might have something there… I’m not going to trot out ambiguous Imperial Ordinance 41. However, isn’t it enough that there is clear evidence that Japan considered it Korean land?

          • >>Also Korea was heavily under Japan’s influence.

            It’s not true. There’s no description that Japan deprives the autonomy of Korea in 1905 Eulsa Treaty even though Japan was given Korea’s diplomatic right to other foreign countries. Since Takeshima was very domestic issue between only J/K, Korea could protested her territories to Japan because she had had the right of self-government yet.

            For example
            1. In Oct.1905, Korean ambassador 박제순 protested to Japanese minister in Korea Kensuke Hayashi about the treatment of Korea’s status in the Anglo-Japan Alliance(1905) and sent a letter of protest to English minister.
            2. A government-general was settled in Korea in Feb 1906. Since 3rd Mar 1907, “Council about Korean administration” had been held every Tuesday where Korean ministers and Japanese general Hirobumi Ito and Japanese advisers had deliberated issues between J/K.
            3. This is very similar to Takeshima issue.李明来(Korean) protested to JPN gov against one Japanese man’s(Department of Navy) transaction of Korean territory 竹邊浦(울진군) and succeeded to prevent him buying it with 박제순’s help.
            **「内部来去案」26th Feb.1906
            Even Dokdo-ist scholar 慎鏞廈 had mentioned about this incident.

            If Korea really regarded Dokdo as her territory at the point, she had many many opportunities to protest even during protectorate period.

          • “If Korea really regarded Dokdo as her territory at the point, she had many many opportunities to protest even during protectorate period.”
            Actually, you might not be aware, but Korea did protest, upon learning about the results of Shimane Decree #40 in 1906. Some Japanese from Shimane traveled to Ulleungdo via Dokdo and told the magistrate of Ulleundo, Shim Heung Taek that Dokdo had been incorporated into Japan. He quickly protested to Lee Myeong Rae, governor of Gangwon, who then formally protested to the Korean government in a document. EVEN Japanese staff in the government general were surprised by Dokdo’s incorporation into Shimane, as it deprived them of resources to use within the colony!

      • 3~5. International treaty like SF Peace Treaty must be observed by countries literally ‘internationally’. SFPT mentioned which territory should be back to where it used to belong to before WW1&2. Thus, Korea has to prove she used to occupy Takeshima before the war began. The fact Japan already declared her dominion before WW1&2 unlike Korea cannot be changed.

        If Korea knew U.S. took no position on this issue, why did Korean ambassador 梁裕燦 protest to U.S. gov?? I bet, if Rusk proclaimed with his letter that Dokdo belonged to Korea, Korea’s going to start claiming her dominion by that.
        He did the right thing as an independent democratic country in modern society. When you can’t be satisfied with treaty about issue which you’re involved in, you have to protest in accordance with international law. Since Korea keeps refusing to have trial and conference with Japan, it is called illegal occupy. Korea selfishly started taking action at exact same timing as SFPT conclusion because Korea herself knew more than any other countries, that SFPT has absolute power.

        • 3-5, already there is proof that Korea considered Dokdo a part of its territory before 1905, as shown above. Try again. Also Korea was somehow not signatory to SF Treaty, and Dokdo was left out of SF Treaty on purpose, because Allies wanted Japan and Korea to solve it by themselves, showing that they have no opinion on the issue.

          The Korean ambassador protested to the U.S. government because he was acting out of the national interest of his country. I’ve already shown above that U.S. postwar opinion on the matter doesn’t count as proof for anything as the U.S. takes no position.

          Again, Dokdo is NOT MENTIONED in SF Treaty, so by the SF Treaty, Dokdo reverts to Korean ownership if one can prove that it was Korean territory before 1905, as I have done above.

          Thanks again.

          • You can’t ignore Rusk document and Young document.
            If U.S. really took no position on this issue, Rusk and Young would have notified this by their respond letters. However, they clearly mentioned their position on Takeshima issue in letters.

            1. SFPT describes “islands that Japan has to give back to Korea”, not “Japanese territory”.
            →No Takeshima description in Treaty doesn’t mean Allies left it out of Treaty.
            2. Actually, until ’50’s draft of Treaty, it clearly described Takeshima as renounced territory because of lack of their knowledge.(You ignore these facts). But after JPN’s PROTESTING, they excluded Takeshima’s name from have-to-renounce territories’ list.
            →No Takeshima description in ultimate Treaty article proves Allies noticed it should remain to Japan, not they withdrew from this issue.


          • The U.S. takes no position!

            MR. TONER: That’s right. Okay. Well, you know, probably, that – already that we don’t take, as a government, a position regarding the sovereignty of the Liancourt Rocks. We do recognize this is a longstanding dispute between the two countries. And thus far, it’s an issue that’s been handled with restraint. We would hope that such restraint would continue to be exercised and that they would work – both South Korea and Japan – work peacefully and diplomatically to find a mutually acceptable solution.

            Drop the point!, U.S. postwar support for EITHER side makes no difference as today they take no position. It’s like you are arguing that the U.S. supports slavery because they once thought slavery was ok.

  9. As for Shim Heung Taek’s incident (26 Mar 1906), their protest didn’t even reach JPN gov. It faded out on the way of inquiry and reporting.
    Mar.28 Shim Heung Taek reported it to Lee Myeong Rae
    Apr.29 Lee reported to minister 박제순
    May.20 박제순 commanded Lee to investigate it
    That’s all. They didn’t protest to “JPN government”.

    There’re 2 possible reasons.
    1. JPN put Korea under her pressures to prevent her protests
    2. KOR realized she had no evidence of effective control or found suspiciousness in her 1900’s “the Ordinance NO.41”.

    →1.As I said before, Korea protested her territory 竹邊浦 to “JPN gov” and succeeded at exact same month (May 1906). She could do for Dokdo too if she wanted.

    At any rate, Korea didn’t protest to JPN gov.

    • Ken, you’re very good at this.

      The two cases you mention are very different. I am not entirely familiar with 竹邊浦 (Jukbyeonpo?) was an area on the mainland, and the reasons for this person’s protest was because the people living there would be forced off the land, or because it would restrict the access to that land, hindering the livelihood of people who had been using it.

      Also the case is different as it is a Japanese citizen, not the Japanese government that is trying to control the land, so such a protest would not be seen as anti-Japanese, but merely a protest over the usage of an area by people in that area. When corporations or companies, for example, buy people’s homes to demolish them and make mines… the people protest. That’s not a protest against the country’s dominion over an area, it is a protest over land rights on the personal level.

      Dokdo, even if administered by Shimane, would have no persons living on it, and access to it from people living on Ulleungdo would not be restricted.

      By late 1906 it was probably already apparent that Korea and Japan were going to be parts of the same country, so there was really no need to protest (sovereignty of Dokdo) by that point. Why bother when your whole country is going to be part of the claiming country? It’s really just a matter of technicality between it being under the jurisdiction of Gangwon or Shimane. Eventually all that were in higher positions in the government had to either get in line with Japan or lose their jobs, and bickering over something like this would be seen as Korean nationalism at a time when Japan was trying to suppress Korean nationalism. If the people of Ulleungdo can still go there and continue their lives as they always had, then what is the point of putting your career at risk by protesting?

      What you are suggesting is something like Saitama prefecture protesting if Soka were to be annexed by Tokyo…

      • I can only say “so what?”. It was Korea’s decision.
        Japan didn’t make Korea protectorate forcibly with threat or military force. Korea became a protectorate legally with her signature to Eulsa Treaty. She could do what she could do, she couldn’t do what she couldn’t do,in accordance with this treaty.
        Whatever the reason is,Korea quit protesting while recognizing Takeshima had been incorporated into Shimane.
        >>Eventually all that………………… risk by protesting?
        So blame them choosing their careers over Dokdo.
        Besides,unless there’s evidence someone actually lost his job because of protesting, you’re talking just probability.
        JPN gov received Jukbyeonpo’s protest immediately and peacefully.

        I don’t know why Koreans are always ignoring historical facts (such as ‘no protest to JPN’ or ‘Rusk doc.’) while they’re persistently pointing out Dajoukan as a historical fact.

        • Ken… up until this point you were a formidable opponent in this argument. Now I’m starting to think otherwise.

          “Japan didn’t make Korea protectorate forcibly with threat or military force. Korea became a protectorate legally with her signature to Eulsa Treaty.”
          The Korean Imperial palace was under occupation by Japanese troops, and the Imperial Japanese Army was stationed at strategic locations throughout Korea. Therefore, the Korean side was at a distinct disadvantage in the discussions.

          If you really honestly think that the Eulsa treaty was not signed under duress and was not an unequal treaty (不平等条約) then I can’t continue to have this conversation with you. If this is indeed your opinion, then you need to go back and study history a lot more than you need to study English.

          Korea as a protectorate was under the heavy influence of Japan. This lack of protest argument is ridiculous and laughable.

          I have not ignored any facts.
          1. There was no protest filed with the Japanese government because Korea did not learn about the incorporation into Shimane until a year later. The fact that the magistrate of Ulleungdo wrote to the governor of Gangwon-do to do something about it proves that he thought it was under his jurisdiction regardless of whether they protested directly to Japan. The point is… it was not “terra nullius” or “res nullius” in 1905 when Shimane incorporated it, therefore the statement “there is no evidence that it belongs to another country” is false. Korea obviously considered it part of Korean territory before then, otherwise why would there be any need for the Magistrate to complain to his superior. The fact that they did not protest to Japan directly proves nothing other than that they in protectorate Korea for one reason or another felt it was not a good idea to protest. The point is, Korea thought Dokdo was Korean land before 1905.

          2. The Rusk documents… I didn’t ignore them either. The U.S. takes no position on the issue. At first they sided with Korea, later they sided with Japan, at the time of the signing of SF treaty they left Dokdo out of the wording of the treaty not as a declaration of support for the Japanese side, just with the idea that it is an issue that Korea and Japan ought to settle themselves. The U.S. does however support Japan in the Northern Territory dispute with Russia.

          So, please stop repeating these things, as you are arguing irrelevant points. I’ve already admitted that a lot of Korean maps and are ambiguous and irrelevant. I’ve even mentioned the belief that there were two Ulleungdos. Usually people who argue for Korean side do ignore these facts. I have decided not to use ambiguous evidence in my argument.

          So, what I did use is that Daijoukan, which calls Dokdo as Matsushima, and places it in the correct location, and that other map which shows Dokdo as Matsushima. These prove that the Japanese (at least) thought that Dokdo was Korean in 1877. Therefore in 1905, it could not have been “res nullius” or “terra nullius”, thereby voiding Shimane’s decree #40.

          Your mission is to prove that my interpretation of these two particular documents is in error. If you can do that, then do it. If not, the case is closed.

          • First of all,I apologize for my over-the-top nationalistic comment. I correct them(about Eulsa treaty). But watch out if you study Korean history with books written by Korean, they’re calmly distorting their historical facts or at least exaggerating negative things.
            Please don’t forget the fact there was a protest from Japan about Takeshima (Jun.1947 Doc.「Small islands on the Pacific ocean and the Sea of Japan」) . That’s the reason U.S. corrected it in ultimate SFPT. Thus U.S. didn’t leave it out of SFPT, but just left its name out of renounce territories.

            You seem to not be familiar with Amagi’s investigations after Dajoukan(1877). Once again, until end of 19c, Dajoukan was corrected and JPN gov settled the confusion about islands’ names.
            If you can read difficult Kanji and old Japanese, I can give you these sources.

          • Most of my study of Korean history has been done using sources that are neither Korean nor Japanese.

            That said, if you are going to claim that Koreans distort history, take the plank out of Japan’s eye first. (Matthew 7:5) I used to teach in a Japanese high school, so I know what some Japanese history books are like. The one my school was using condensed WWII into about three pages, and this is one of the better books.

            Amagi’s corrections may have streamlined the naming of the islands, but the fact remains, that the Dajoukan (1877) was talking about Dokdo as it mentions Dokdo and gives its accurate distance from Oki. Any ammendments to it only prove that names were changed later. I don’t think anyone is arguing about that.

  10. >>The U.S. takes no position!
    Of course U.S. can’t clarify her position on not even this issue, but any other territorial issues now. It’s internationally common sense that those have to be solved by 2 countries concerned. That’s why even ICJ always suggests them to solve by themselves first.

    from WIKI LEAKS
    —(Apr 20 2006)The Ambassador(Thomas Shieffer) stated the United States understands that Japan is within its rights under international law. The Koreans are behaving irrationally, and the United States is concerned that they may do something crazy, causing a major problem. Everyone needs to back off, he stressed, to enable the matter to be resolved peacefully. We do not want our two allies shooting at each other, he asserted. The Ambassador advised that he might get in touch with FM Aso later in the day.—

    If we bring this issue to international trial, 50 countries including U.S. have to be on Japan’s side unless they abrogate SFPT and burn out Rusk & Young documents.

    • Us supports Japan’s claim to the Northern Territories openly.

      Regarding what the Ambassador to Japan said… that’s not declaration of U.S. support. It is his individual opinion.

      What do you think the Ambassador to Korea would say?

  11. Can really Korea claim her dominion while she has to rely on foreign-made maps and Japanese documents?
    You seem to be obsessed with Dajoukan, but your logic is something like “That bicycle is mine! Because he said it’s not his!”
    It can’t be yours until you claim your ownership from your mouth and get the approval.

    Do you realize your contradiction? You once said
    >>Shimane’s Decree #40 is not an international announcement, and most certainly the Korean government was not consulted.<<
    So, when did Korea hear about Dajoukan? When was Korea consulted about Dajoukan? Was it international announcement?

    Koreans' claim
    "Dokdo is mine because he said so somewhere I don't know"(1877)
    "Takeshima is not his because he said somewhere I don't know"(1905)
    How selfish and childish….

    • … Your argument is getting weaker and weaker …

      You are saying that Korea cannot make a historical claim using a Japanese source that shows Japan did not consider it part of her territory? If Japan did not consider it part of her territory, the implication is that it is Korea’s.

      I’ll at least humor you, but by going for this faulty logic route you are admitting to the truth of what Dajoukan (1877) says.

      So, let’s pretend (PRETEND) that you are right, and Dajoukan only says that Japan does not consider Dokdo a part of Japan, not specifically that it belongs to Korea. If that is true then:
      A) Everything in “10 issues of Takeshima” including parts of issue #6 is a lie.
      B) Shimane’s Decree #40 said that there is no evidence that it belongs to anyone else, even though there was (as shown when Ulleungdo magistrate protested). Therefore Shimane’s Decree #40 is false.
      C) Shimane’s Decree #40 is the basis for the Japanese claim.
      D) Japan’s claim is false.

      As for the second part which you labeled “Koreans’ claim”, I don’t understand what you mean by “I don’t know” I’ve given clear reasons for my belief, based on these sources. If it is your assertion that my logic is “selfish and childish” then you are arguing with your own emotion and disdain for Koreans….

      I’m willing to look past what you said about the Eulsa Treaty, but at this point, you are grasping at straws. (溺れる者は、わらをもつかむ。)
      You are trying to sidestep clear evidence by saying “So what if Japan said that it did not belong to Japan! Show me where Korea said that it belonged to Korea!” for an island that is visible from Korean land, was used by Koreans, and was protested over by a local magistrate when Japan incorporated it. Alone, these do not prove Korean ownership, but together, we can assume by default, that Korea considered Dokdo a part of her territory, and Japan recognized this as early as 1877.

      • >If Japan did not consider it part of her territory, the implication is that it is Korea’s.<

        It's called 他力本願 (Relying upon others)

        Effective control is proclaiming 'dominion' from his mouth, not 'waiting' for someone gives it to him.

        • Ok, stop waiting and give up then. 🙂

          Ken, stop asking me for sources about Korea claiming Dokdo.

          You’ve already admitted that Japanese sources which basically say that Dokdo is Korea’s are truthful, therefore, I don’t need to. If you want, I’ll trot out imperial notice 41, but then we’d be arguing about ambiguous definitions of what is an island, how to transliterate dialects using chinese characters, etc… do you really want to do that?

          I admit that the argument used by the Korean government has holes. Japan’s is much worse, as I have demonstrated. But thank you for exposing a point that I need to fix, that I need to find a Korean source for something, because you don’t believe what Japanese sources indicate.

          • Sorry for late, I’m too busy with my work to respond everyday.

            When did I admit Japanese sources said Dokdo is Korea?
            How many times should I say that Dajoukan’s map (1877) was in conflict with gov’s recognition at that time and corrected them shortly after? If JPN gov called Takeshima “Matsushima” at the time when Dajoukan was made, they certainly wouldn’t mention Matsushima’s name as renounced territory.

            You know the island in imperial notice 41 was Sokdo, not Dokdo.

          • The fact that the government corrected the Dajoukan after the fact proves nothing. What is known is that Matsushima was indeed a name for Dokdo in 1877 (see the map I provided). The Dajoukan gave the accurate distance from Oki regarding the “another island” which it called Matsushima in the original document. Call it by something else and still Dajoukan is talking about Dokdo.

            I purposefully did not try to use imperial notice 41 specifically because Sokdo is ambiguous. But it is not as cut and dry as you think. Koreans say Sokdo is Dokdo, and Japanese say it is Jukdo. But if Ulleungdo is Korean, why would there be any reason to have to write about Jukdo, which would be a part of Ulleungdo if the sea were like 2 m lower? If Sokdo is not Jukdo, then WTF is it? It more than likely is Dokdo, but since we can’t know for sure I’ve decided not to use this source.

          • Most Japanese scholars think Sokdo is 観音島관음도

            From 동아일보(東亜日報)08,Sep,1928
            Article about 관음도.
            “This island is called 관음도(Guanyin island) because there are some stones that shape Budda’s appearance”
            Sokdo means “stone island”.

          • That is increasingly unlikely, as there would be no need to declare dominion over Gwaneumdo if one has already declared dominion over Ulleungdo and not mentioned Jukdo. Gwaneumdo is smaller.

            I’ll admit there is room for speculation though, which is why I didn’t want to use Imperial notice 41 in the first place.

  12. I think I repeated this many times but, at Dajoukan, JPN gov’s recognition of Matsushima and Matsushima in attached map didn’t match and they noticed their ambiguity immediately, that’s why they re-identified and CORRECTED them. Korea seems just want to pick holes in one JPN documents, but ignore 日本海内松島開墾之儀ニ付伺(29. Nov 1881)(it said Matsushima is Ullengdo) deliberately.

    >B) Shimane’s Decree #40………….
    Wasn’t protest by Ullengdo magistrate after Shimane’s Decree #40?

    Could you list the evidences once again, that prove Korea recognized, used Dokdo or proclaimed her dominion before 1905?

  13. There’re many Korean documents (19th century) describing Ullengdo specifically, but no references about Dokdo as far as I know.

    For example:
    In 13 May 1882 after the investigation of Ullengdo, Lee kyu-won reported to 고종
    “Matsu,Take,and Usando are all small islets next to Ullengdo. I climbed on the mountain and gazed into distance on sunny day,but I could find nothing one thousand Ri ahead. To call Ullengdo “Usan” is same as to call 제주도 “탐라국” “.

    ************Takeshima: 37°14’N , 131°52’E************

    1899 「大韓地誌Dae han ji ji」(The first Korean geography textbook written by 현채)
    “Korean territory is from 33°15’N to 42°15’N and from 124°35’E to 130°35’E.”
    (BTW, there is a word ‘Japan Sea’ in this book too)

    1907 「初等大韓地誌」written by안종화
    Korean territory limit : 130°58’E

    1907 「大韓新地誌」written by장지연
    Korean territory limit : 130°35’E

    1909「韓国水産誌」edited by Korean gov department of fisheries
    Korean territory limit : 130°42’E

    1947「朝鮮常識問答」written by 최남선
    Korean territory limit : 130°56’23E

    1948「朝鮮常識」written by 최남선
    “Eastest Korean territory is Jukdo 130°56’23E ”

    May I ask one simple question?
    What did Koreans call (today’s) Dokdo before 1904 ?
    With visible evidence, please?

    • I forgot 3 books.

      Isabella Lucy Bird (British woman who traveled Korea & Japan, Author of “Korea and Her Neighbors”1894-1897)
      “Korean territory limit is 130°33’E(Ullengdo)”

      1909「最新高等大韓地誌」written by정인호
      Korean territory limit : 130°35’E

      1936「朝鮮現勢便覧」written by Korean government-general
      “Korea locates in a big peninsula locates in East-South Asia………long 124°11’E to130°56’23E, lat 33°6’40N to 43°36’N”

      Japanese people always keep the international law in their minds.
      As past ICJ’s precedents show, what is priority and importance on territorial issue is solid evidences of 1 effective control, 2 usage and 3 recognition(description and depiction). (1>2>3)

      Korea herself has no evidence describing her usage, dominion statement in her documents or drawing Dokdo on her maps as far as I know. If you have some, could you show me please?

      • I don’t know why you are quoting sources made after 1905.

        Anyway if you are arguing that effective control is more important than the use and recognition, then Korea has it all in spades. Who do you think is there now asserting affective control, and at what point in history has Japan done the same thing?

    • It does not really matter what it was called, but names such as Seokdo, Dokdo, Doldo, and Soldo have been suggested, along with Usando, although the name Usando has been used for Ulluengdo itself as well. Not really sure what the point of the question is, as it does not prove that Korea did not claim before 1905.

      • It sure DOESN’T matter what Koreans called the island.
        What I want to see is the evidences that prove Koreans had used, called, recognized Dokdo and proclaimed their dominion before 1904. Documents, maps or anything is OK. But they have to be made by Koreans themselves.

        Foreign made maps and foreign gov’s proclaim have nothing to do with Korea’s dominion unless she “herself” has evidences.

        Since territorial issue is not the internal but the cross-national problem, it requires agreement by two countries concerned or international agreement.
        Korea didn’t even see Dajoukan, but knew Shimane’s incorporation.
        However they didn’t protest it, which means they agreed.

        • Okay so basically you are saying the following:

          1. Japan did not proclaim dominion before 1905. (I agree)
          2. It is perfectly okay to ignore Japanese sources that say Dokdo is Korean territorry. (I disagree)
          3. Even though Dokdo is visible from Ulleungdo and Korean people used boats and went fishing, there was this magic mirror that made it invisible to them (I disagree).
          4. Even though Dokdo’s only use to Japanese was as a stopping point en route to Ulleungdo, somehow the proof that they used it in this manner outweighs any conjecture that Koreans were using the area. (I disagree)

          Show me some evidence that Native Americans owned anything in North America. Can we postulate from conjecture that they were using the land there even if the only thing that exists today are myths or oral traditions. Use your brain, Ken.

          • If Koreans really had used Dokdo, its proof must have been kept in either Korean or Japanese documents. Japanese ones describes so many about Ulleungdo, Korean fishermen, and incidents and conflicts that happened in Ulleungdo. However they never describes Koreans sailing around Takeshima. Do Korean ones describe their usage?
            Native Americans were found ‘living there’ by Europeans.
            But no Koreans were found around Takeshima while Japanese fishermen had been stopping by the island on a regular basis.
            If you compare 2 countries of dominion on territorial issue, descriptions in documents are very valid evidences. Think about international law and precedents.

          • “Native Americans were found ‘living there’ by Europeans”

            So who is to say that they were living there before that period? Is there any historical evidence that they were not magically created by the wind at the instant that Columbus set foot on the isle of Hispanola? As there is no Native American written source of their existence prior to 1492, they must have just suddenly appeared by magic!

            Or do you want me to defer to common sense? My guess is that you do. I would ask that you also defer to common sense.

          • If you find somebody LIVING there with no protest by anyone, you can’t rob his place without permission. This IS commonsense. “Living in the place” is the solid proof they existed there. Or do you justify Europeans killed thousands of Native Americans and robbed their territories?
            When Japan told Korea that she had proclaimed the dominion of Takeshima, no Korean was found using the island and Korean gov. didn’t protest to Japan.
            BTW,when did Korea proclaim her dominion of Dokdo publicly??

  14. “Korea became a protectorate legally with her signature to Eulsa Treaty. She could do what she could do, she couldn’t do what she couldn’t do,in accordance with this treaty. Whatever the reason is,Korea quit protesting while recognizing Takeshima had been incorporated into Shimane.”

    Here, we have a clear picture of why Koreans get so upset about Dokdo. Any justification for the Japanese case eventually must resort to this point — that in the early 20th century, Koreans simply decided to hand their country over to Japan, voluntarily and without protest.

    • Wow.. is it really you?

      I thought you went by The Korean…..

      Great to have a first comment from you finally.

      • Yup, it’s me.

        And lookie here. Tokyo-to Teachers’ Union announced that there is no basis to believe that Dokdo is Japanese territory.

        • This is a nice development, where they acknowledged that this dispute is different from the one over the Northern Territories and Senkakus.. I’m glad to see that each case is being viewed differently in the educational system. Huge win for Japan.

        • Hint: So many Korean-Japanese become teacher in Japan.
          And notorious 日教組 (who are anti-Japan).

          • What are Korean-Japanese? Japanese citizens of Korean descent? If you are talking about Zainichi, then the term Zainichi or “Overseas Koreans in Japan”
            Are there a lot of Zainichi teachers? I had no idea that there was this secret Korean plan to infiltrate the schools and make Japanese hate themselves. No, the truth of the matter is that there is generally a strong divide between social studies/history teachers and politicians and boards of education. The former wants to teach the truth, while the latter wants to make people proud to be Japanese. I am convinced that both can be done, and trying to accomplish the second without the first would be impossible.

  15. Do squatters rights work internationally? v_v

  16. Here is my assumption.
    By 1906, Korea didn’t know Dokdo
    (Maybe some Koreans might recognized Dokdo though there’s no evidence. But KOR gov. didn’t know about Dokdo at least.)
    → When Korean fishermen was told about Takeshima incorporation, they had no idea what Dokdo was, nevertheless they tried to protest for the moment.
    →They reported and protest to their gov.
    →Government researched about Dokdo but couldn’t find any proofs they recognized Dokdo.
    →KOR gov. didn’t (couldn’t) protest to JPN gov.

    They had right to protest their territory to JPN gov. They could do if they wanted to.(as shown above: Jukbyeonpo protest. As I said before, Eulsa Treaty was concluded by their agreement, neither by military power nor by Japan’s threat like pointing a gun at his head. Some of their rights were still protected). The reason they had to withdraw from Dokdo protest is the clear proof that they didn’t know about Dokdo by 1906.

    • Okay Ken, we’re done. If you don’t see the Eulsa treaty as unequal and you think it is “concluded by their agreement” then you’re simply deluded. I don’t know what has happened that has made you so anti-Korea, but you need to open your heart and mind. I have no problem with you having the opinion that Dokdo is Japanese, but this is the second time you’ve talked about the Eulsa treaty being fair, and for that reason, I think you have some kind of hatred somewhere for some reason. This isn’t just about islands for you… and that’s a sign that we need to stop our conversation here.

      • I DON’T say Eulsa Treaty was fair. The contents in Eulsa Treaty themselves sure were unfair for Korea.

        But please see the world situation of that time more objectively. In the time of the war and colonialism, Korea had already been under the threat of Russian invasion and couldn’t stand on her own feet financially and militarily, although she had been an independent country which was acknowledged by China and Japan in 1895. Korea divided pro-Russia and pro-Japan.Even though some pro-Independence groups existed, Korea seemed to give up sheer independence already. Thus it’s easy to imagine statesmen in Korea decided which country they would follow after considering the result of the Russo-Japan war(1904). What makes the problem complicated is internal strife in Korea and Gojong’s caprice.
        Japanese military proposition were allowed by former J/K treaties. Military deployed around the imperial palace was Korean Army hired by Korean gov. ,not the Japanese one. Since security in Korea was deteriorating at the time, such as arson and terrorism, J/K gov. had to deploy military all over Korea in order to maintain safety. Is it really military threat?

        Once again, Eulsa Treaty itself was unfair,I admit it. But there was no choice for Korea to protect herself other than that. Korea decided the way on her own and you can’t deny it.
        Besides this has nothing to do with Takeshima issue.

        • “Besides this has nothing to do with Takeshima issue.”

          Well you’re the one who brought it up! If it has nothing to do with Dokdo then why did you mention it?

          Now about this part:
          “Eulsa Treaty itself was unfair,I admit it. But there was no choice for Korea to protect herself other than that. ”

          I think your definition of “protect” is different than mine.

          Basically you are saying that Japan is not at fault because Korea had no other choice. What caused Korea to have no other choice? As you may be aware, Korea had survived up until then by playing foreign powers off against each other. These powers were the U.S., China, Japan, and Russia. Japan concluded the Taft-Katsura pact with the U.S. which ended all American interest in Korea. Japan then fought wars with China and Russia. Why was there no other choice for Korea again? Because Japan eliminated the competition. That’s hardly an argument to suggest that Japan was not a military threat.

        • Wow, there’s another classic — if Japan did not take over Korea, Russia would have. So Japanese annexation was justified.

          By that logic, I can indiscriminately rob people in a high-crime area, and say: “if I didn’t rob them, someone else would have. Therefore, my robbery was justified.”

          Give me a fucking break.

          • Why do you guys always look at only results and blame other people? “Japan did that”, “America did that!” yada yada yada.
            Korea had no choice at the time? There was most important choice remained “Keep the Independence”. Since Japan liberated Korea from China and approved her independence in 1895, Korea had to fight for keeping her independence all the time. If they really felt threats from Japan, why didn’t they fight against Japan? Contrarily,they celebrated Japan’s coming by building welcome gate in front of Namdaemun. Are you saying Japanese forced them to build this?

            Japan didn’t intend to “invade” or “colonize” Korea. They were not enemies but companies that had to fight together against western’s invasion. Think the meaning of “protect-orate”.Don’t look at only negative things. Please look at positive things too, like population grew twice, GDP grew twice, the life span grew twice,literacy of Hungul grew fifteen times,rice yield grew three-fold, abolition of slavery and human trafficking and girls’ prostitution, improvement of women’s rights, a mass of infrastructure, and so on, during annexation.

  17. Haruka Suzuki Says:

    To Ken – You are not a good arguer because you are repetitious in your argue and contradicting yourself.

    First you say that 1905 Simane can claim alone, later you say that Takesima must claim by agree of 2 countries.

    Next you complain that there isn’t Korean claim, so 1905 Simane claim is true. But since 1877 Japan said Matusima is Korea’s and that Matusima is called the Takesima today so 1905 Simane claim is untrue because Japan thinks it is belong to Korea.

    We can see Korea’s 1952 as late as the possible claim even if it is clearly that Korea probably claim before 1905. Japan didn’t claim before 1952 except untrue 1905, so even the Korea map and document can’t use, 1952 is before all legal Japan claim.

  18. I have looked Online quite a bit, and although I must admit that I may not have found unbiased sources, I want to comment on something that may or may not be pertinent. In Roman Catholicism, sins may occur by commission or omission. Sometimes things that are NOT present are as telling as what is actually there. In all the Japanese-produced maps I have seen, going into the 1930’s when Korea was occupied by Japan, I have noticed several distinct realities – of what is NOT there:

    1. None of the maps show Dokdo as belonging to Japan. Some show Dokdo, but they do not color it in as they do other small islands that clearly do belong to Japan. Why include it on the map and not color it in like the rest of Japanese territory if it was Japanese?

    2. Some of these maps do not depict Dokdo at all, even when there was clearly room to do so. Occasionally, these maps even have graphic illustrations where Dokdo would be geographically located if it was there.

    3. Some (whether Dokdo is included or not) clearly have a northwestern-most boundary depicted showing Oki as the outermost Japanese possession, with Dokdo either not shown or shown well outside that clearly defined boundary.

    4. Some Japanese-produced maps show Dokdo actually as part of Korea and NOT Japan. One Japanese map, produced by the Japanese Army in 1936 – three decades after Japan took over Korea – shows Dokdo in the region of Korea, and not part of the Japanese Islands.

    It can be debated until the cows come home who claimed Dokdo first. One can even go back and re-write or re-interpret historical discourse on this subject. But one cannot deny that until the 1940’s and beyond, Japan clearly never cartographically recognized Dokdo as part of Japanese territory on Japanese-produced maps.

    That omission alone is compelling enough to dismiss Japanese arguments that their national government ever truly claimed Dokdo, at least not until 1905, if even then.

  19. Lee a korean Says:

    First, I want to excuse my poor english level for ppl who read my comment. Im learning english now ;). i just figured out, from the certain point Mr. ken lost his nonbiased point of view. until then it was quite interesting discussion though. maybe he lost his temper as a patriot. im not claiming japanese are all bad or something but because he’s japanese, he cant stand for utter neutriality. he seemed hes on the middle, but its acutally hard to be.

    • Hi,thank you for your comment. My English is worse >_<
      I don't know the definition of patriot precisely,but being neutral doesn't mean accepting unconditionally opponent's biased argument,IMO. If you call it nationalism, I might be a nationalist.
      I'm rather trying to stand away from both Japan & Korea and overlook world history with a wide view. I hope you understand that.

      • Yi a tresspassing Korean Says:

        No, it seemed you were trying to, and i respect all your efforts of keeping yourself away from both side.(japan and korea) but being a japanese won’t give you either of a neutral position and a neutral point of view. you are standing for japan. From the certain point, (like removal of Dokdo in SF treaty doesnt prove that Japan’s ownership towards Dokdo) Mr.Ken you started to be biased. you are stuck on it. if you dont acknowledge the fact, how can this dicussion go on.

        • Even if I stood in the Korean position, I couldn’t prove Dokdo is Korean territory, sorry. I may look not be neutral from you, but it’s because you’re standing on the Korean side. I’ve collected objective evidences as much as possible and just given them to you.
          Please take international laws and overall world history into consideration.

  20. What is the ground of Korea’s argument? I still can’t find any Korean side’s sources.
    It doesn’t matter what it is as far as it was made by Korea herself, please show me some evidences like maps, files, documents, declaration and proclaim, except foreign-made stuffs.

    Japan has all, plus SF Treaty and documents which prove Korea relinquishing Dokdo.

    • Nobody can answer my question above↑?
      Koreans are only claiming illegality of 1905’s annexation, description about renunciation of “Matsushima and one other island” in 1877’s Dajoukan, and invalidity of SF Treaty.
      No matter how many times you claim those, you can’t even stand on the start line to have a discussion with us unless you bring us evidences witch prove Korea herself had proclaimed dominion of Dokdo. Without them, your claims have no meanings.Because I think territory is not a present given by other people,but the thing you obtain by yourself.

      Don’t say Dokdo has belonged to Korea because it has always been able to be seen from Korean territory.

      • SF treaty is valid. Korean dominion over Dokdo is established in 1900 and again in 1906 when ulleungdo magistrate protested. Why are you not willing to accept Japanese sources in Korean claims? That is incredibly convenient. If there existed a Korean document that said Dokdo is Japan’s you would be all over that.

  21. Ken, the Japan Peace Treaty makes no mention of Dokdo (Takeshima) Korea was not participatory nor signatory and thus the Japan Peace Treaty has zero to do with sovereignty over Dokdo.

    • Did you read all of my comments above?
      Yes. SF Treaty didn’t “mention” the name Takeshima(Dokdo) because it didn’t belong to islands which Japan had to resign.
      (After Japan’s protect, U.S. eliminated the name “Takeshima” from SF Treaty which had named Takeshima with other islands until the draft No.5 (Nov.1949))
      You claim invalidity of the Treaty on the grounds of Korea’s nonattendance, but if it is invalid, Korea’s independence also becomes invalid. I don’t think it’s OK for you.

      • Ken, AGAIN removal of Takeshima from the SF treaty is not support for Japanese ownership. It is merely due to the desire of the Allies to leave the issue for Japan and Korea to resolve by themselves.

        I don’t think anyone is claiming that the SF treaty is invalid, only that it does not pertain to Dokdo.

        • If so, Korea should (had to) begin direct negotiation with Japan immediately, not only sending a protest letter to U.S.A., because Korea obviously knew Japan had regarded Takeshima as Japanese territory. Syngman Rhee Line just broke the international law, which is very barbaric and not what civilized country does.
          Having said that, to send a protest letter to Rusk proves Korea understood better than anyone, that SF Treaty concluded Takeshima had belonged to Japan. Evidences cannot be erased.

          • Yi a tresspassing Korean Says:

            hmm. I personally think invading other country and raping innocent women, slaughtering more than a million ppl are more likey to barbaric. and concealing all the faults that once the country did is beyond the meaning of barbaric. isn’t it eh? all you talking about is called situaltional evidence, which can be a proof somehow, but doesnt precede the concrete evidence. Dokdo is under korera’s effective control and korea basically doesn’t regard this as a international conflict.

          • Mr. Yi,

            I agree with your opinions, but you need to separate Dokdo from those other issues if you want to be seen as arguing from a logical standpoint. Please talk only about Dokdo here. Jeongshindae and the Rape of Nanking has no reason for discussion on this particular thread.

          • Yi a tresspassing Korean Says:

            ah… i was just out of my mind because i saw the word barbaric. Definitely it has nothing to do with Dokdo. Sorry;(

          • Eugene, please, please, please let me take this opportunity to remove Yi’s (and every Koreans’) misunderstandings about Japan,even if it’s off-topic. Because I think his (and their) argument of Dokdo is based on anti-Japan feeling.

            Mr.Yi. I have to admit Japan did many bad things in past. Crossing the borders, fighting against some countries, bombing etc… Japan has to apologize and actually did many times. But I can’t let you say ‘slaughtering’ and ‘raping’. Because it’s not true,but just a fabrication.
            I’m strongly convinced that Nanking Massacre never happened. You might not believe that,actually I used to believe the massacre until I research evidences and history by myself. But now,I have enough evidences to convince you. (cont)

          • I can’t change the mind of every Korean. What must happen is that Japan must apologize… I mean really apologize. Take action, not just say sorry. I don’t want to go into what that action is, because I want to keep this page about Dokdo.

            The Nanking Massacre happened. There is more than enough evidence to support this, and I hope you go on claiming that it never happened, because it will weaken your side on the Dokdo issue. People will see that you are motivated by nationalism to the point that you are willfully ignorant, and it makes your opposition look better. Denial of Nanking is simply WRONG, and there are plenty of sources, Japanese, Chinese, and also Western that corroborate this. In addition you can dig up the areas around Nanjing and find the bodies. What more evidence do you need? The only thing that is ambiguous is the exact number, and if you want to say 50,000 is not a massacre and 300,000 is, then you’re simply not a moral person.

          • (cont) Mr.Yi. I really hate to brag my country, but I have to do to clear up your misinterpretation of Japan. You may not know Japan had done following…..

            1.Saved thousands of Jewish people’s lives.
            Everybody think Japan was a gang of Nazi because Japan allied with Germany. It’s not true, Japan was totally against Nazism and racism. Google “Sugihara Chiune” “Higuchi Kiichiro / Otpor”

            2. Helped and fought for independence of India,Burma,and Indonesia
            Japan didn’t try to “invade” other countries,although I don’t deny it was for fuels for Japan and some exploitation existed. If Japan had an intention to invade them, why did she approve their independence after driving England and Holland away from them, instead of colonizing? Japan trained their ‘independence army’. Google “Chondro Boshu” “Aung San” “Imamura Hitoshi” People in these countries still sing songs praising Japanese army and Indonesians wear Japanese army’s uniform on Independence day every year.

          • 1. I am familiar with both of those stories. They are isolated incidents and in both cases the persons in question were reprimanded for doing the morally correct thing. The truth is that Japan was allied with Nazi Germany, and was NOT against Nazism and racism as a whole, though there were certainly Japanese individuals who were against it.

            2. India did not achieve independence until after WWII through the efforts of Mohandas Ghandi. Burma and Indonesia were “liberated” from Western control by the Japanese army, but soon after they needed to be re-liberated by the US. That is, they did not gain true independence until Japan lost WWII.

          • (cont)
            3. Bond with Black community
            Japan was the least racist country in the world in the era. Dubois had surprising experience in Japan,he got equal hospitality as white people everywhere in japan which was the first time for him. Japan helped Ethiopia’s resistance against Italy’s invasion(1936). Google “W.E.B DuBois”. Read Reginald Kearney’s book.

            4.Proposed “Racial Equality” at Paris Peace Conference in 1919
            Baron Makino Nobuaki was the first person in the world, who gave “Racial Equality Proposal”.

            I have more more examples which can prove Japan was trying hard alone to create the world with racial equality. Japan is one of few countries that never had racism, slavery and genocide in its history.Do you still think Japan was barbaric criminal? You were brainwashed by school and gvt. Please wake up!

            Sorry Eugene. I can’t help saying them.
            Koreans still seem to have biases unfortunately.

          • 3&4. Don’t make me laugh. I lived in Japan, remember, and I can see through this bullshit. Blacks in Japan are the sum of their stereotypes, even more so than in the U.S. In Japan, blacks are the personification of what everyone thinks hip-hop culture is, and otherwise they feel unsafe around them. Of course I am not talking about all people, but you’re trying to pass Japan off as a colorblind society when it CLEARLY is not. I’d be willing to say that it is slightly more open-minded than Korea is, but to suggest that it is race free utopia is ridiculous.

            “never had racism”

            Come on KEN COME ON! There’s no racism against Zainichi, Chinese, Gaijin, Kokujin, hell, even Burakumin in Japan? REALLY? People don’t see a middle eastern person and immediately think “Terrorist”? It’s just about as racist as anywhere else is, though I will admit that some places are slightly worse (including Korea).

          • Hmmm. You seem a little bit lack knowledge about Japan and Japanese history and missed my point.

            1.It was not only individuals,but Government already rejected Nazism,offered by Germany, adamantly when they had allied (clarified by investigating diplomatic documents) and supported Higuchi and Sugihara. People misunderstand it. They are not Japanese Oscar Schindler because they just acted upon Japan’s consensus.

            2.Japan actually approved their independence. As soon as Japan lost the war, Europeans invaded those countries again, but remained Japanese soldiers and independence troops trained by Japanese fought together against them.
            Besides, how they actually could become independent is not the point here. I just wanted to let Koreans know that Japan had no intention to slaughter or invade Asian countries.

          • 1. The two clearly went against orders and risked their careers.

            2. If Japan had no intention to slaughter or invade, then why did Japan slaughter and invade?

          • 3&4. I wasn’t talking about current Japan. Until the WW2 era, Japan had no discrimination against foreigners even though they faced racism by westerners at every occasion. It proves Japan didn’t intend to subjugate Asian people as most Koreans believe.

            Could you tell me specific examples of racism towards Kokujin in Japan? Are they thrown stones by Japanese? Are they hated to be seated next to in public transport by Japanese? Are they called derogatory name by Japanese? (These are what many Asians experience in western countries.) I admit some kind of xenophobia exist in Japan. But it’s because Japanese are generally too too shy and can’t be friendly to strangers immediately(even to Japanese),and feel inferiority complex about their physics and lack of English skills, not because of hating, prejudice or discrimination. As for Zainichi, it has a looonng history. I can’t tell it here, but we think we have righteous excuse for discriminating them.(I hope you’ll do more research about them)

          • Oh, so Japan was a racial utopia until it lost the war? And THEN Japanese learned to be racist? Listen to yourself, man.

            “Could you tell me specific examples of racism towards Kokujin in Japan?”

            You have a righteous excuse to discriminate against Zainichi? WTF Ken, LISTEN TO YOURSELF!

          • >1. The two clearly went against orders and risked their careers.
            Not accurate. The risk came from the pressure that Nazis put on Japanese government. JPN govt itself took a risk to betray Nazis and support Higuchi and Sugihara.(Nazis actually protested against JPN govt’s treatment of Jewish exile.)

            I don’t know about you Eugene, but Japanese never think black skin color and thick lips are either strange or ugly. If they thought so,those plushes couldn’t be made. Or you believe Japanese made them on purpose to insult black people? Do you know the protest against those plushes came from ‘white’ Americans? If Asians feel offended when they see their slant eyes depiction(you remember what Miley Cyrus did),THEY have inferiority complex about their eyes, not that whites and blacks say big round eyes are superior based on absolute aesthetic standards (except when they intend to insult Asians). People who have racist minds see everything racist.You know what I’m talking about.
            BTW, that plush(doll) was very popular and loved in Japan(2.4 million sold. I had one too as a kid and loved it). You might think Japanese love them because they are racist. LOL

            Sorry for my poor English. I hope you guys can understand my comments. I’ll do my best.

          • Okay Ken why don’t you ask any black person how they feel about those plushes. I don’t think you have the right to say what people think is racist except for when Japanese are the target. I will accept that the maker may not have had racist intent but that is due to ignorance, and that’s not any kind of defense.

          • As for Zainichi issue, it’s like a chicken and egg paradox. Japanese discriminate Zainichi first without a cause? or Zainichi act what Japanese hate first? I’m for the latter based on what I’ve heard and studied.
            It is well known that Koreans’ crime rate has been extremely high since long ago. Some documents in Edo era already described Korean emissaries had committed looting in Japan. News papers in Taisho era reported tons of atrocious crimes committed by Korean rioters. Right after lost of WW2, many Koreans illegally stayed in Japan and started unlawful occupation of important area against the order that they had to go back to their home country. You may be surprised what Korean schools in Japan have been teaching to their students. They are still distorting facts on history book and planting anti-Japanese sentiment in students’ minds thorough the classes. So are their parents. You can easily imagine how they would behave when they actually get to meet Japanese face to face(while Japanese have no prejudice towards Korean). Here is an excerpt from the speech spoken by the head of Korean Residents Association.”Japanese are so naive that they easily give us whatever we want if we cry out loud about discrimination (hehe)” Like he said, they’ve got many preferential treatments since ’50s,such as tax immunity and permission of use of fake name.I assume they tend to put a blame on discrimination too quickly when they are disliked by Japanese ‘individually’.
            How can you accept their behaviors? Are African Americans still whimpering about the past history and planning revenge? Are Mexicans flooding into U.S.A with insulting star spangled banners?

            Korean-Japanese footballer Tadanari Lee faced discrimination in Korea.This made him decide to join Japanese national team.

          • 1. After the Kanto Earthquake, Japanese citizens were rounding up and lynching Korean residents. Somehow they thought that Koreans were to blame for the earthquake.

            2. “You can easily imagine how they would behave when they actually get to meet Japanese face to face(while Japanese have no prejudice towards Korean)”

            Ha! Zainichi meet Japanese EVERY DAY and most don’t think anything when meeting them… it’s a normal thing. YOU are prejudiced against Koreans, and Even I have been discriminated against for being partially Korean in Japan, so to say that Japanese are not prejudiced against Koreans is HIGHLY ignorant.

            3. Permission to use a fake name? Zainichi until recently were not allowed to naturalize and received a lot of discrimination because their names are basically the only things that give them away as Korean. When you can’t rent a house or get a job because of your name, then obviously they will use a fake one. The real injustice is that they would have to resort to something like that just to live normally. Shouldn’t they be able to use their own names and live in peace? But they can’t because of discrimination, which you say does not exist, even though you are defending discrimination. Your arguments are very very weak.

            4. As for Tadanari Lee, Akiyama Yoshihiro (Chu Seong Hun), and Jong Tae-se and others like them have undoubtedly faced discrimination from fellow Koreans. I will not dispute that. Koreans are notorious for discrimination against Koreans from China, North Koreans, Korean-Americans, and Zainichi, and this is something Korea needs to fix in itself. It is unfortunate.

            5. “Are African Americans still whimpering about the past history and planning revenge? Are Mexicans flooding into U.S.A with insulting star spangled banners?”

            Yes, some do and yes, some do. But most Americans don’t really care about that, because we have freedom of speech in the US and most of us have learned to tolerate opinions we disagree with. The only ones who feel threatened by African American historical grievances or Mexican-American nationalism tend to be older racist white Americans, so I would similarly say that those Japanese who feel threatened by Korea, Koreans, or Zainichi also tend to be racist older Japanese.

            I’d like to limit discussion on this article to Dokdo, so, while Zainichi are a perfectly valid discussion that I am very interested in, I would ask that any Zainichi discussion be put under this article as it is more relevant.

          • I had no idea you’re part Korean until now.
            Now I can understand why you are on Korean side about this issue. I’d always wondered why a smart American guy like you thought Takeshima/Dokdo belonged to Korea. Anyway,thank you for clarifying.

            As for Zainichi issue, watch this video. It was not about only after the war, but since Edo era.

            Please think why only Koreans have this issue. Even Chinese in Japan use their real name and adapt (blend in?) to Japanese well. I always wonder if Koreans in Japan are really willing to get along with Japanese? Do they really not have discrimination against Japanese? I often hear they were raised by parents hearing how hateful Japanese are, since they were born. But I’ve never heard of Japanese being raised by parents to be anti-Korean.

          • One more thing. About Kanto earthquake(1.Sep.Taisho12).
            Most of victims are not killed by earthquake itself, but by fire.
            Newspaper all over the country reported same thing.

            「Koreans gathered all together to commit arson with oil and bombs」(Otaru, 3.Sep.12)
            「Ten thousands of Korean started riot all the place」(Otaru,3.Sep.12)
            「Korean set fire on houses through Yokohama to Ouji」(Osaka asahi, 3.Sep.12)
            「Korean,bomb,arson and confronted Army in Yokohama」(Sounai simpo,3.Sep.12)
            「Korean set a fire on roof to roof, raped women and looting」(Sin-Aichi,4.Sep.12)
            「Korean was arrested for arson and catering bombs in Takasaki and Urawa and confessed a train explosion crime」(Nagoya.4.Sep.12)
            「Korean slaughtered many Japanese, threw bombs at a running train」(Fukuoka.4.Sep.12)
            「Korean. Bombing,looting and murdering with a gun」(Otaru.4.Sep.12)
            「Caught Koreans for the bomb-catering crime」(Kyushu Nippo.4.Sep.12)
            「Completely controlled outrages committed by Koreans」(Osaka Mainichi,4.Sep.12)

            Hmmmm. I don’t know if you did know this fact. It’s the true Zainichi history.

          • >The Nanking Massacre happened. There is more than enough evidence to support this, Denial of Nanking is simply WRONG I hope you go on claiming that it never happened, because it will weaken your side on the Dokdo issue.if you want to say 50,000 is not a massacre and 300,000 is, then you’re simply not a moral person.<
            -No, number is important. Otherwise China didn't need to raise victim's number in recent year(LOL). Can you accept the punishment for 10-people-murder crime when you killed just one person?

            American journalists already admitted they wrote whatever favorable articles for publishers who was inciting anti-Japanese propaganda(such as LIFE magazine),even if they didn't witness them actually. What they actually saw was 200 captives' execution and some lootings only. 20,000 bodies killed by massacre they reported was just their speculations, but in fact, those bodies were victims of massacre caused by Chinese Kuomintang troops. Kuomintang murdered their nation(communists and civilians) indiscriminately and they added those bodies to victims of Nanking massacre afterwards. How coward!
            If you want the truth. Please watch this.

          • Why do Zainichis not go back to their home country if they really feel discrimination from Japanese? After the war,they had to go back to Korea but they refused it and started UNLAWFUL occupation of the middle of big important cities. Over 90% of Zainichis are ILLEGAL immigrants who willingly came to Japan AFTER the war.
            Don’t fall for their tricks. As I said before, they’ve been getting everything they wanted(laws of favorable treatment) by complaining about racism vociferously. Japan reluctantly gave it to them because she was afraid of their rebellion with violence. Literally violence.

            In contrast to Japanese who have made an effort to forget and forgive about them↑ and treat them equally, Korean schools and parents are still seeding anti-Japan racism on their children. Which is racist? Don’t fall for them.

          • Why don’t they go back? Are you serious? They have lived on Japan ALL their lives and Korea might as well be a foreign country to them.

            Japan is FORGIVING them? Man, Ken. You’ve got some nerve!

        • >Even I have been discriminated against for being partially Korean in Japan<

          I highly doubt that really happened to you.
          You faced discrimination by Japanese because you are part Korean?? I don't think there's Japanese doing stupid thing like that for such a stupid reason. As I said before, Koreans seem to like to label Japanese as racist. When we accuse their lies, they call us "Racist!". When J&K scholars discuss about history and JPN scholar points out KOR's mistakes(distortions), they call him "Stop discriminating!". When KOR boy was teased by JPN boy 'individually', he would think he was teased because of being Korean.
          Learn more Zainichi history,please.

          (But, if, if you really had the experience you said above in Japan, I really feel sorry and ashamed. I want to punch in his/her face right now,if you tell me his/her name.)

          • Simply because you don’t see discrimination against Koreans with your own eyes or don’t (knowingly) participate it in yourself, you cannot deny that it happens.

            I’m not going to name any names, but specifically what I heard was… I hate Koreans because they smell like garlic and I wish they would just sink to the bottom of the sea. Also when I was watching a soccer game, some Japanese fans threw bottles at us. It ended with the guy who got hit with the bottle had to be taken to jail. How is that at all fair?

            There are many more, but I have to admit that this is not even scratching the surface, because I don’t really look Korean so if anything there were too many Japanese “worshiping” me because I look White. If anything, you should be more concerned with that inferiority that many Japanese feel towards white people instead of worrying about how Koreans feel towards Japanese. That might actually be a Japanese nationalist movement I would get behind… (as long as it served only to de-mystify white people instead of countering that with hatred for whites..)

        • >The Nanking Massacre happened. There is more than enough evidence to support this, Denial of Nanking is simply WRONGI hope you go on claiming that it never happened, because it will weaken your side on the Dokdo issue.<
          -Maybe. But I'm glad if someone who read my comment gets interested in history, researches by himself and will find the truth of Nanking incident.

          • If you want the truth, please watch these.
            The Fake of Nanking Massacre-3 Population

            The Fake of Nanking Massacre-5 Dead Bodies

            The Fake of Nanking Massacre-1

            I hope everyone will wake up.

          • I have researched the Nanking massacre myself and I realize that the number is not exact. Japan claims it is on the low end. China claims it is on the high end. I would tend to believe it is somewhere in the middle. And yes, the number is important, but what that means is you’re saying “We didn’t kill 300,000 people in Nanking! We only killed 20,000” as if that somehow makes the event morally correct. Yes, China is exaggerating. That doesn’t mean Japan has no responsibility.

          • >Somewhere in the middle
            Hmmm. I’m convinced you’ve not research enough.
            >That doesn’t mean Japan has no responsibility
            Again? When did I say Japan had no guilty? I’ve seen many times Chinese using this tactics, which is to justify their distortions and blaming Japanese morality by saying like ‘number is not important!’
            If you read every single evidences, you’ll find out there were only legal executions of captives and some looting in Nanking which is clarified, and other than that is not confirmed so far. If Japanese really committed atrocious crimes there, why did Nanking population increase and did Chinese soldiers have to put up a poster on the wall notifying to kill Hanjians(Nanking citizens who betrayed and got along with Japanese).

          • Since when is the execution of civilians legal?

          • You have a weak tactic of pointing out the faults of that country’s own government to support your argument when that isn’t substantial proof that Japan did not commit war crimes. You’re saying basically “the bullet wounds he suffered aren’t because of being shot because he was also stabbed.” I grow tired of arguing this in circles. Nanjing happened. Most of the world acknowledges this. Denial should be a crime but it appears Japan was not subject to the same standard as Germany was.

            If you really want to believe that Japan has no racists and that Korea and China have nothing to complain about then our discussion won’t change that. If you can provide me of evidence that says most of the people in Nanjing died because the Chinese killed them then show it. Otherwise you are merely spitting in the wind.

  22. South Korea claims it as Korean territory from records that date back to the sixth century during the Unified Shilla period and on the 1900 Korean Empire ordinance officially incorporating three islands into modern Ulleung County. ( see link ) Japanese claims come from seventeenth century records ( see link ), as well as a “terra nullius” incorporation in 1905. ( see link ) Today, South Korea classifies the islets as a part of Ulleung County, North Gyeongsan Province, while Japan classifies them as part of Okinoshima, in Oki District, Shimane Prefecture.

    • Unfortunately all records that you cite are ambiguous. 6th century onwards, Koreans claim that Dokdo is Usando, but that’s another name for Ulleungdo. Also 1900 Empire ordinance talks of Seokdo… which could be Dokdo, and most likely is, but because there is no concrete evidence that it absolutely is, it is hard to use that as evidence. Japan did consider Dokdo as part of Korean territory in 1887 though, and as of now, this is the best piece of evidence the Korean side has.

      • “Happy Takeshima Day…?”

        January 2nd 1905 – Port Arthur (Lushun) is Captured by Japan’s Second ArmyAbout three weeks before Japan’s cabinet decided to “incorporate” Takeshima, the Japanese Second Army captured Port Arthur and ousted the Russian Pacific Naval Fleet and Army. The Siege of Port Arthur (Japanese: Ryojun Koisen), 1 August 1904 – 2 January 1905, the deep-water port and Russian naval base at the tip of the Liaotung Peninsula in Manchuria, was the longest and most vicious land battle of the Russo-Japanese War.

        • Freetop, why exactly is this relevant?

          I guess you could suggest that since Port Arthur was to be given back, and it preceded Japan’s claim to Dokdo, Dokdo also should be given back, but otherwise I don’t see the point. Please elaborate your reasoning for writing about the Russo-Japanese war in a thread that argues about Dokdo.


          • The Japan~Korea Protocol of February 1904 and Subsequent Amendments

            “..When did Japanese military aggression against Korea really begin..?”

            A falsehood perpetuated by Japan’s MOFA is that Takeshima was incorporated peacefully, before Japanese aggression toward Korea had started. In reality, by the time Japan’s military annexed Takeshima in 1905, Japanese had already made serious inroads towards colonizing Korea. Much of Chosun’s independence had already been seriously degraded. As shown by U.S. Foreign Affairs records, Korea became militarily occupied by Japanese forces in Feburary 1904 and lost the ability to conduct foreign relations indepently in August of the same year.

          • Okay, thanks for clarifying. Definitely a good point.

          • The Russo-Japanese War begins: On the night of February 8th 1904, the Japanese fleet under Admiral Heihachiro Togo opened the Russo-Japanese War with a surprise topedo attack on the Russian ships at Port Arthur and badly damaged two battleships. On the same day cheering Japanese residents watched a Japanese Naval squadron-one armored cruiser, five light cruisers, and eight torpedo boats-bombard two Russian warships off Palmido Island at the mouth of Incheon Harbor in Korea.

          • 이제 한국언어로
            대한민국 노무현대통령께서 독도는 영토문제 이전에
            역사와 주권 문제라고 했습니다.

            일본인들이 왜 나쁜 놈들인줄 말해주는 것이 독도라고 할 수 있다
            강제침략과 민간인 학살이 합법인양 교육화 시킨다는 것입니다.
            그리고 독도라는 한국의 동쪽 작은 섬에 짐착 한다는 것이죠
            근거라 할 수 없는 허무맹랑한 침략한 섬이 자기영토라고 떠듣는것이 챙피하지 않습니까..?

            난 당신들 역관광 시킬 많은 독도 관련 자료를 가지고 있습니다.
            일본의 최고의 역사 학자와 독도와 관련 설전은 한다고 했도

            논리적인 자료로 100% 이길 수 있답니다

            왜 국제 분쟁 안가냐면
            우리땅인데 갈필요가 없고
            진짜이유는 장신간 독도문제를 가지고 일본 군국주의를 세계에
            널리 알려줄 필요가 있기 때문입니다.

            Edit: Translation by Eugene (Things I am not sure about in parenthesis, but there could be errors elsewhere)

            Now I will write in Korean.
            Former President of Korea Noh Moo Hyun said before Dokdo was a territorial issue, it was a historical and sovereignty issue.

            How can Japanese (say the words given to them by evil people about Dokdo?) Because they want to legitimize their imperialistic aggression and slaughter of innocent civilians through education. In addition, What Dokdo is, is a small island to the east of Korea (of no real significance) right? Isn’t it shameful to invade, then spread groundless rumors that it is your territory after the fact?

            (Rough 10 second translation: I wanted to share a lot of materials related to Dokdo that Japanese historians might not be aware of with you all)

            Logic can prevail 100% of the time.

            (If we don’t go as far as international dispute, it is because we don’t need to, because it is our land.)
            (Real reason that Dokdo is so important is because we need tell the world of Japan’s militarism.)

          • Even though I agree that Japan needs to take responsibility for its past, I don’t think it is appropriate to mix the two issues together in discussion about Dokdo. Dokdo needs to be argued only from the standpoint of logic and international law. Therefore, the only thing that needs to be done to prove that it belongs to Korea is to prove that it was considered Korean land before 1905. The Japanese, in several records, have affirmed this, and it is quite possible that the Koreans did too (depending on how one interprets certain Korean sources). Please focus on this and leave other issues with Japan to their respective arenas.

          • これもね、黄色のが朝鮮のものだけど、竹島って書いているのは鬱陵島だよ、とも。。。小さいその近くに見える島はチュックドだと思うよ。

          • ちょっと、韓半島と近くない? それは独島じゃないね。

          • 1897年に出版された日本の地理の教科書です。





          • このニュースで嬉しかった。日本の教育には悪いものいるけど、いい人もいっぱいいるよ。

          • 일본인 습성이 나오시네요
            링크 싸이트 2ch에 올려서 블럭시켜네요
            일본 속담 처럼 10번 우기면 진실이 된다..?

            아무리 우기고 해킹 해도 독도관련 자료는 막을 수 없답니다.
            침략에 대해서는 사죄할 수 있지만 독도는 포기 못 한다고요
            그래서 링크 싸이트 2ch올려서 공격 하셔나요..?

            역시 그내들은 어쩔 수 없는 일본인

  23. Korea’s Ordinance 41 from 1900 and Dokdo Island
    Korea Incorporates Dokdo Into Uldo County, October 25th 1900

    see link

    • Unreflecting Japan Says:

      맞아요. 국제 재판 은 이미 일본인 2 명이 있죠

      • Translation: Yes, there are 2 Japanese justices in the ICJ, right?

        This shouldn’t matter. The judges on the ICJ are supposed to be impartial. Who is to say that they don’t favor Korea’s side? Have a little faith in an international organization for once.

        This justification for not taking the case to the ICJ is weak sauce, because there was plenty of opportunity to take it there in the past, when the ICJ had no Japanese.

    • The island (Seokdo) written in the Imperial Ordinance #41(1900.10.25) was not Dokdo, sorry.

      An petition for the govt about Ulleungdo(1900.10.22) written by a Korean minister of interior Lee Geon-ha described “the area of the island in concern(Uldo county) should be 80ri(32km) in length and 50ri(20km) in the width” and govt responded to it, “Uldo county will have jurisdiction over the whole island of Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and Seokdo”(the IO#41)

      It means Seokdo located within 32x20km perimeter of Ulleungdo.
      In reality, actual Dokdo is 92km away from Ulleungdo.

      Thus, Seokdo (officially incorporated in Korea in 1900) was NOT Dokdo, but GwanEumDo.

  24. Japanese Earliest Records of Dokdo II
    Saito Hosen’s 1667 “Onshu Shicho Goki” (Report on Oki Island) – Japan’s Incorrect Translation.

    see link

    • How could it be Japan’s incorrect translation, since it was written in Japanese(Chinese)?
      I (and we) can read Chinese and Japanese letters correctly, and I can say with full of confidence that Onshu Sicho Goki said “Matshushima(today’s Ulleungdo) is the boundary of Japan”.
      I highly doubt Koreans can read Chinese letters correctly,sorry,no offence.

  25. Japan’s Illegal 1905 Annexation of Dokdo Island
    An Insight Into Meiji Japan’s Politics of Expansionism
    Facts Japan’s MOFA doesn’t want you to know about Japan’s 1905 Annexation of Dokdo Island!

    see link

    • I have to admit Japan’s expansionism reached Ulleungdo (it might be almost reckless outrage action). But Takeshima annexation had nothing to do with neither Russo-Japanese war nor expansionism. It was a part of process of administrative reform in Meiji Restoration. Since the govt began to abolish Han system and create Ken(prefecture) system, Shimane needed to determine the prefecture border line. That’s why.

      If Korea had a proof she’d incorporated Dokdo before 1905, Japan’s annexation become illegal. But she had never ever declared Dokdo had been Korean territory.

  26. Unreflecting Japan Says:

    안녕하세요. i think yujinishuge is very smart i respect you 😀

    일본이 자꾸 독도가 자기네들 땅이라고 우기는데 일본은 간사하고 치밀해서 항상 반도로 올라올려고 치밀하게 계획을 다 짜놨죠 그리고 세뇌 교육을 엄청 당해서 전혀 반성 할 줄도 모르고 천황이 죽어야 정신 차릴려나 제국주의 에 쩌든 ㅄ같은 일본 우익들 2ch같은 쓰래기들때문에 문제지. 제발 반성좀 해라 아니면 그냥 열도에 가만히 있다가 서서히 가라앉아서 익사나해라 곱게 죽어라 지진도 좀 많이 좀 더 나고 방사능 과 세슘에 오염된 쓰래기들 이번엔 도쿄에 강진이 생겼으면 좋겠네 ㅋㅋ

    Translation: Eugene
    “이번엔 도쿄에 강진이 생겼으면 좋겠네 ㅋㅋ”
    I hope that next time the earthquake hits Tokyo, LOL!

    • I only translated the last part of what was said above because the rest of it really doesn’t say much of anything at all.

      I totally disagree with this kind of mentality. Hating the Japanese government or Japanese politicians, or even some really irritating Japanese individuals is perfectly okay if one has a reason. Furthermore, wishing for natural disasters to hit Japan is just stupid and in poor taste. I really appreciate that you enjoy my blog, but I can not support this mentality.

  27. Wow! I was so surprised! Most of Koreans don’t know detailed informations.. I am korean, but I just learned the little reason that Koreans can insist “Dokdo is our territory”. I hope that Koreans can learn so much knowledges and insist the truth logically.
    (Sorry, I am beginner in writing English, so I hope If it can be porformed, please you point out my wrong English.)

  28. Coffee Achiever Says:

    Ken, you just got TOLD! OMG those pictures look good for you?

  29. […] shamelessly lifted from Nerdesque I’ve crossed over! You may recall that post I did a few months ago that argued for Korean ownership of Dokdo? This was as a response to some Japanese nationalists who had gotten wind of my criticism for one […]

  30. […] The Case for Korean Ownership of Dokdo 2. Almost all of TV is the imagined universe of an autistic child 3. The Creation of an Asian Major […]

  31. i cannot speak English well kk
    i have seen many japanese who don’t know that japanese history
    was manupulated, so they insist korean history was manupulated.
    then, i wanna know if most japanese believe thier history.

    • Specifically what do you believe has been manipulated in Japanese history? Do you believe that Korean history has NOT been manipulated?

      • my English is too poor to explain what i really wanna say…
        한글로쓸께요 “; 1.한국에서는 고대에 한반도에서 사람들이 일본으로 대거 이동했다고하는데 일본에서는 그런일없었고 뭐 풍요로워서 인구가 자생적으로 늘었다고 하더군요. 그런데 그당시에
        인구수와 기술로 봤을 때 이주민이 없다면 절대 불가능한 인구수
        라고 하더군요. 고대역사부터 오류가 발생했고 2.한국에서는 일본에 통신사를 파견하여 문물을 전수했다고 써있지만 일본에서는
        아니라고 하고.. 칠지도도 일본왕에게 바친칼이라고하고.. 뭐
        이런것들이요. 과학은 거짓을 말하지 않기에(유물 유적
        반감기를 이용한?연대추정등)
        한국에서 가르치는 역사가 맞다고 생각되거든요.
        마지막으로 조선시대때 늙은부모를 지게로 옮겨 산에다
        버렸다고 어렸을때 배웠는데. 도굴을 합법적으로 하기위해
        일본이 만든역사라더군요. 이런걸 종합적으로 봤을 때
        일본역사를 믿을수가 없더라구요. 그런데 이런 내용들을
        일본인들은 대다수가 일본역사가 맞다고 생각하는지

  32. korean boy Says:

    안녕하세요. Mr. yujinishuge.
    전 한국에 살고 있는 소년입니다.
    yujinishuge 씨가 독도는 분명히 한국의 땅이라고
    말하시는 게 매우 고맙고, 훌룡하다고 생각합니다. yujinishuge 씨
    일본인들이 독도는 일본땅이라고 우겨도 전 yujinishuge 씨가 꼭
    해낼거라 믿고 있습니다. yujinishuge 씨 힘내시고 쪽바리들에게 큰
    승리를 거두시길 바랍니다. yujinishuge 씨 화이팅!

    Hello Mr. yujinishuge.
    I live in South Korea is a boy.
    Mr. yujinishuge Dokdo in South Korea land clearly
    Very thank you for telling us something, to think hulryong. Mr. yujinishuge
    Insisting that Dokdo is Japanese even before ilbonttang yujinishuge sure Mr.
    I believe you can do it. Come on Mr. Big to JAP yujinishuge sigo
    We hope you win. yujinishuge Mr. Ted!

    (Google translate into a lot of typos, so you can write.)

    • korean boy Says:


    • Translation

      Hello yujinishuge. I am young man living in Korea. I am really thankful that you have laid out the case that Dokdo belongs to Korea and I think it is [홀룡?] amazing. Even if Japanese people believe the ridiculousness that Dokdo is Japan’s territory, you are able to prove it to them otherwise. Please exert your effort and win a huge victory against the Japs. Yujinishuge FIGHTING!

      I cannot accept support from someone who uses racial epithets.

      인종 차별적인 욕설하는 사람한테 지원을 받지못합니다.

      • korean boy Says:

        죄송해요, 구글번역으로 쓰더니 오히려 오해만 샀네요 하하..
        오타와 실수 양해드립니다.

        I don’t speak English very well. So sorry

  33. First I’m not familiar with English announces.
    So Article written by Google Translate.
    I saw some of your impressive.
    And was ashamed. I am a student in the Department of History.
    I want to become famous for your posts in S.korea.
    And thank you by giving attention to Dokdo.

  34. Im happy To find your cite… are right

    Our korean have recognized that dokdo is koreas territory. But we dont know why…
    We must learn the why not the songs…

    Im korean but i have not know than you;;it…shy haha;;

    Forgive my bad english i am just highschool student;;

    Have a nice year~

    • Thank you for your support. There is plenty of information about Dokdo on the internet, but please be aware of Japan’s point of view. That will be the key for winning an argument successfully.

      • How did you interested in dokdo…?

        I think no one are interested in dokdo exept korean and Japanese ….

        Yeh…I wanna be a friend Japanese…because korea and japan is in north east asia…

        But they have distorted our history and they didnt apologized 36 years colony…sorry poor english….

        • When I was in college studying Japanese, I learned about Dokdo for the first time. At first I thought it was stupid. When I moved to Japan I made many Korean friends who felt very strongly about it, but I still thought it was stupid. Then one day at work, I was asked to teach a class about that, so I thought it would be wise to study about that. In my study, I read arguments and realized that Korea’s claim was a little bit better. After I taught the class most japanese students agreed with me. Later when I moved to Korea to go to Yonsei Graduate school my classmates sometimes asked me what I think about Dokdo, and keep trying to convince me about it, even though I already agreed. I was surprised though at how little they knew about it and how illogical they were. So, I made it a personal mission of mine to teach people how to argue about Dokdo….

          • I think you are better than koreas politicians…even president….

            It was rumer that when japans minister talked about dokdo president said “just moment…”
            Just rumer…but he is president! !

            Mr.roh ex president said if japans science ship invade our ocean territory (dokdo) shoot them…

            I dont wanna war…but his crime about history is good….

            Poor English.sorry if you want i would use google translate. Kkk

          • So you taught Takeshima/Dokdo is Korean to Japanese students in Japan? Wow. I’m just speechless.You should be thankful for Japan having democracy and freedom of speech. If you did opposite thing in Korea, you might be fired like Gerry Bevers. Haha,Just kidding.

  35. Sorry. Mistake not crime yes creed kk


    Wow, I feel ashame myself with my knowledge of Dokdo.
    Dear Mr Eugene, I don’t know how you had interest or involved with Dokdo problem(not even your native country) I think you are very admirable person for Korean.

    I’ll let people around me know this blog as many as I can.
    I appreciate your effort and concern.

  37. Wiki Leaks exposed the evidence that Korean president Lee MyunBak had offered Japanese PM Fukuda to “put off” making textbooks describing Takeshima belongs to Japan, which Korean govt has kept denying.

    Successive Korean presidents and govt, since Syngman Rhee, have been knowing Takeshima is Japanese territory but deceiving and brainwashing whole nation. Please wake up and face the truth, Korean people!

  38. Koreans’ arguments
    1. Silla incorporated Usanguk in AD.512.

    →→→Usanguk was not Dokdo. 「Samguk Sagi」 describes “Usanguk alias Ulleungdo”. 「Annals of Joseon Dynasty」(1412&1417) describes “the island(Usando) had plants,animals,houses and inhabitants”.

    2. Ahn YongBok made Japan accept Matsushima(Dokdo) had been Korean territory in 1696.

    →→→He said Usando has existed in NORTHWEST from Ulleungdo first. He began to claim Usando has been Matsushima(today’s takeshima) and a Korean territory “after” Japanese informed him about the existence of Matsushima. Moreover, he lied so many many times that even Korean officer 동래부convicted him of perjury. Plus, just after Ahn YongBok incident, in 1711, Bak Seok-chang made a Map of Ulleungdo depicted Usando on just east side of Ulleungdo with description “the small island as having groves of haejang bamboo”. This means Korea didn’t even recognized what Matsushima(Dokdo) was.

  39. Koreans’ arguments
    3. Edo Bakufu prohibited their nation to go fishing to Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo) in 28.Jan.1696.

    →→→Not to Matsushima, but only to Takeshima. Koreans often cite Otani’s documents to claim Matsushima was affiliated with Takeshima. But neither Tottori people(Otani) nor Edo Bakufu recognized like that.

    4. Japanese Dajoukan wrote both Takeshima and Matsushima had been excluded from Japan in 1877.

    →→→Why did Dajoukan give a title “Takeshima and one another island” while Japanese was calling today’s Takeshima/Dokdo “Liancourd Rocks”? Govt(Dajoukan) had never known the name of islands next to Ulleungdo until they wrote Dajouruiten. Attached map was just a copy of 磯竹島略図 Shimane had made,not the one govt had made, and it showed Shimane people called Takeshima “Matsushima” unlike their govt who called Takeshima “Liancourt Rocks” and Ulleungdo “Matsushima” or “Takeshima”. (cont)

  40. (cont)
    It means govt(Dajoukan) referred neither today’s Takeshima nor Matsushima in the attached map when it mentioned Matsushima in Dajoukan, but Ulleungdo. Yes, I have to admit this was a Japan’s casual mistake(fault) which causes controversy. But,as a proof (that govt didn’t see the attached map), in 1877 the ministry of education of Japan made a map depicting Matsushima as Ulleungdo and Takeshima as fictitious island(Argonaut).

    And govt ordered the battlecruiser Amagi to investigate Japan Sea to identify those islands and names, and as a result……
    1881.11.2 The inquiry about passage to Ulleungdo said “Takeshima alias Matsushima”
    1881.11.29. A postscript was added to Dajoukan, which said “one another island is Matsushima”
    1881.11.31. 11.30. Japanese Ministry of foreign affairs said “Korean territory Ulleungdo as known as Takeshima alias Matsushima”
    1882.2.16. Minister Inoue said to Dajoukan “Korean territory Ulleungdo (we Japanese call Takeshima or Matsushima)”

  41. (cont)
    1882.Sep. Japanese MOFA wrote “At lat 37°30’N, long 130°49’E the islands Japanese call Takeshima and Matsushima, Koreans call Ulleungdo.”
    To sum up, JPN govt (Dajoukan 1877) didn’t eliminate Takeshima.

    5. Korea officially incorporated Dokdo by the Imperial Ordinance #41 statement in 1900.

    →→→Seokdo was not Dokdo, but GwanEumdo. The petition for the govt about Ulleungdo(1900.10.22) written by a Korean minister of interior Lee Geon-ha wrote “the area of the island in concern(Uldo county) should be 80ri(32km) in length and 50ri(20km) in the width” and govt responded to it, “Uldo county will have jurisdiction over the whole island of Ulleungdo, Jukdo, and Seokdo”(the IO#41). It means Seokdo must locate within 32x20km perimeter of Ulleungdo. In reality, actual Dokdo is 92km away from Ulleungdo.
    Moreover, Korean newspaper Donga-Ilbo(1928.9.8) explained GwanEumdo(観音島) had been named after the “石仏”=”Buddha(観音) shaped rocks” which could often be seen in GwanEumdo. In the IO#41, Ulleungdo(鬱陵島) was written as 鬱島.
    鬱陵島→鬱島, 石仏島→石島 It makes sense!!

  42. 6. Shimane’s annexation in 1905 was illegal invasion by Imperialism.

    →→→It had nothing to do with Japan’s occupation of Korea. It was a part of an administrative reform of Meiji Restoration. Japan legally annexed Takeshima conforming to international law “Terra nullius”. (She had not publicly announced her annexation until 1904). Japan did know absolute ZERO record(docs,maps,declaration) proved Korea had owned Takeshima before 1905.

    7. Korea couldn’t protest against annexation because of deprivation of the diplomatic right(Eulsa Treaty) and tyranny by Japanese govt.

    →→→Not true. Domestic territorial issue between J&K has nothing to do with the diplomatic right. In fact,1905.Oct, Korean minister Park Che-Soon protested against “England” for the treatment of Korea in The Anglo-Japanese Alliance. In 14.Mar.1906. Korean government protested about land transaction by Japanese in Jukbyeon coast and succeeded to take it back.
    Actually, in 28.Mar.1906, after Korean imperial govt got an inquiry letter about Takeshima from the Uldo county magistrate Shim Heun-Taek who had heard about annexation, P.M Park Che-Soon and Minister of Interior Lee Jee-yong ordered Chunchon county magistrate Lee Myun-Rae to investigate Takeshima.

  43. (cont)
    However Korean govt didn’t protest or report to Japan about Takeshima though they finished investigating. Contrary to protesting, Korea officially omitted Dokdo from Uldo county. Hwangseong Shinmun(13.Jul.1906) reported that the Japanese Resident-General asked the Korean Ministry of Interior to clarify what neighboring islands were part of of Ulleungdo. The Korean ministry replied that the county was established on October 25, 1900, and that the neighboring islands were Jukdo and Seokdo. The Korean ministry also gave the dimensions of Ulleungdo as sixty ri(24km) from east to west and forty ri(16km) from north to south for a total of 200 ri(80km). It’s obvious it doesn’t include Dokdo.

    8. The SF Treaty didn’t even mention Takeshima/Dokdo. U.S. govt is taking a neutral stand.

    →→→Takeshima was not mentioned in “renounced territories” of Japan. As a matter of fact, until the draft #4, it had had Takeshima’s name in renounced territories’ list. But receiving a protest from Japan, U.S. decided to eliminate Takeshima from SF Treaty.
    「Willam J. Sebald’s telegram : History of San Francisco Peace Treaty #4」(14.Nov.1949) Article 6: “Recommend reconsideration Liancourt Rocks(Takeshima). Japan’s claim to these islands is old and appears valid.”

  44. (cont)
    「U.S. govt Memorandum by Robert A. Fearey of the Office of Northeast Asian Affairs (answering to questions submitted by the Australian govt)(1950) : “It is thought that the islands of the Inland Sea, Oki Retto, Sado, Okujiri, Rebun, Riishiri, Tsushima, TAKESHIMA, the Goto Archipelago, the northern most Ryukyus, and the Izus, all long recognised as Japanese, would be retained by Japan.”

    ++++after Korea protested against the ultimate SF Treaty++++

    「U.S. govt Memorandum」(3.Aug.1951) : “Mr. Boggs states that although he has
    ‘tried all resources in Washington’ he has been unable to identify
    Dokdo and Parangdo, mentioned in the Korean Embassy’s note.”

    「Rusk letter to Korean Ambassador You-Chan Yang」(1951) : “As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea. It is understood that the Korean Government’s request that “Parangdo” be included among the islands named in the treaty as having been renounced by Japan has been withdrawn.”

  45. (cont)
    The conference between U.K/U.S.A held in Washington(May.1951) concluded to destroy U.K.’s draft which eliminated Takeshima from Japanese territory, and pick U.S.’s draft which clarified Takeshima was NOT a renounced territory.

    In short, the SF Treaty(Takeshima is Japanese) was approved not only by U.S, but by all of signing 49 countries with their acceptances and with their recognition Korea had never owned Dokdo unlike Japan. Since those documents mentioned above are official archives, U.S can’t stand on Korean side when in the ICJ, even though she must be “showing” her neutral standpoint due to “political tactics” today, unless every 49 countries destroy the Treaty. If they do so, Korea will no longer be an independence country.

    BTW, I wonder how many Koreans notice 1&2&5 makes contradiction. Why did Korea have to incorporate Dokdo so many times?? lol

    • I appreciate it but I addressed all these points before. The most convincing evidence you use is the kanji contraction relating uldo and seokdo but that is still based on an assumption so it isn’t any more than a theory. Do you mind addressing the part of Dajoukan document which lists the location and direction of Matsushima and Takeshima? You have remained very silent about it.

      • My Seokdo theory sure is assumption, but the possibility is 99.9%.
        Koreans can’t explain why the govt all of sudden used Gangwon dialect for the IO#41, how and why they changed the name Usando→Seokdo→Dokdo, and why they had NEVER made maps depicting Dokdo or Seokdo themselves.

        How was I silent about Dajoukan? Dajoukan(ministers) themselves didn’t draw the map. Shimane prefecture submitted the inquiry to the govt with the map they drew. Granted it was an accidental mistake, it is irrelevant to this issue, since it was a domestic document (determined not national territory, but the border line of prefecture), Korea didn’t even know about it at the time, and it didn’t have as same quality(character?) as ‘Shimane notice #40 in 1905’.

        I know why Koreans are so eager to find faults with Japanese docs & maps. Because they know they don’t have any their own evidences back up their argument.

        • You are repeating yourself. I will agree that IO 40 is vague and that’s why I didn’t use it before.

          Shimane decree 40 cannot be used as evidence as I stated above. Especially since Dajoukan predates it, and talks about Dokdo in specific location, accurate direction, distance, and there is no doubt when accompanied by a contemporary map that Japan thought at that time that it was Korean land.

          Have fun trotting out the same arguments again and again?

          • >Have fun trotting out the same arguments again and again?
            If you bravely admit your argument was already disproved, I can quit trotting out same thing. You seem not to notice you were already refuted. Dajoukan! Dajoukan! Dajoukan!

          • Care to show me where you refuted that?

          • This Dokdo/Takeshima issue is very simple.

            Whatever Koreans and Japanese had done long time ago, Japan legally annexed Takeshima in accordance with international law in 1905.
            If Korea can show the proof she dominated Dokdo before 1905, Japanese side’s argument will collapse.
            (Granted the incorporation was military purpose and some maps were vague or have mistake by confusion, Takeshima became Japanese territory in 1905 legally.)

            Usanguk is Ulleungdo.
            Usando is Ulleungdo and Jukdo.
            Sambongdo is Ulleungdo.
            Yusangukdo is Ulleungdo.
            Seokdo is Gwaneumdo.
            There is no map depicting Dokdo.
            There is no document describing voyages to Dokdo.
            Korean textbook excluded Dokdo before 1905.
            Ahn Yong-bok couldn’t explain Usando after all.

            Please show me the evidence, if I’m missing, that has not been refuted yet if you know.

            I repeat again, NOT Japanese evidence, but KOREAN evidence that proves Korea took Dokdo before 1905.

          • Again, you’re saying that Japanese sources are untrustworthy by not accepting Japanese sources.

            If that’s your assertation, GAME OVER!

          • So, you admit you can’t provide the evidences without relying on Japanese sources again.

            Go back to this basic principle of territorial dominion that you have to show the evidence of “effective control” when you claim the dominion, which is required by International Laws.

          • Why are Japanese sources not valid as evidence?

  46. Long time no see.
    (A little bit off-topic)

    A Korean football player and Korean supporters propagated “Dokdo is Korean territory” at the Olympic stadium.

    ****The Olymic Charter****
    51-3. “No kind of demonstration or political, religious propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.”

    I lost my respect and congratulatory feeling for Korea when I saw this. Seriously, why are they acting the child everywhere? Didn’t they learn manners at school and home or society? I remember, at the world cup 2002, Koreans insulted Italian and German team, disturbed Polish and American team, and of course wore Dokdo Tshirts.
    Insulting Japanese by mimicking Monkey at Soccer Asia Cup, violence and childish boycott at Seoul Olympic, sticking Korean flag on the mound at the WBC, waving a flag saying “We celebrate the earthquake in Japan” at the soccer friendship game in Japan, killing living birds in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, and shouting “Dokdo!” everywhere inappropriate.

    • Something tells me you never had any respect or congratulatory feeling in the first place.

      There are some people who do unfortunate things, such as the monkey thing, or the celebrating the earthquake thing. Please don’t let that be representative of Koreans, and it is unfair to suggest that most Koreans feel this way. Shall I equate all Japanese with those crazy right wingers?

      • One thing I don’t understand is that no Korean blames others’ thoughtless words and behaviors even though they say not everyone thinks like that. Of course I know there are many Koreans who don’t hate Japan and don’t get insane at anywhere,anytime. But never heard of voices of feeling shame, guilty or apology from Koreans.

         I have once commented on “Pizza is Korean?” in this blog, about the culture plagiarism issue in Korea. All I’ve heard from Koreans about the issue so far is excuse or denial or blaming Japanese(WTH?), but no shame or guilty. Even you said “Get over it”. If some Japanese claim Japan invented soccer or act thoughtless behavior in public, other Japanese blame and stop them immediately. I assume not only Japanese will do.

         If, as you said, not everyone is like that, why nobody stopped their political action on the Olympic field, or went to Japan Expo in Paris to stop their fabrication? When will the self-cleansing action work?

         I NEVER justify Japanese racism and their remarks towards Korean. But public expression and private expression (f.e. anonymous board on the net) are totally different. 2chan,4chan, Korean websites,and any other websites tolerate racism. But when you tweet racist slurs on your twitter, your account will get banned, especially when you’re public figure like Voula Papachristo and Michel Morganella did at this Olympic.

         I don’t blame Korean’s racism against Japan here. I’m questioning their manners in public.

        Sorry for the long comment.

        • 1. Apology for what?

          2. The Pizza is Korean thing was a joke.

          3. I imagine that insane level anti-Japanese sentiment will be squashed once Japan actually takes responsibility for its past transgressions, but since we are talking about Dokdo here, I don’t want to expand the conversation to talk about that.

          4. See #3.

  47. Lee Myung-bak landed Takeshima yesterday.

    Most Japanese including me are about to explode our dissatisfaction and anger at our weak-kneed government. I don’t mind Japan and Korea make a war. At least J/K should break off our diplomatic relations if Korea keep harassing Japan,like accusing about comfort woman by lies and distortion, East sea claim, and digging up the pasts which have been already solved long time ago.

    Would you (any Koreans) answer my questions?
    +If you’re really convinced that Takeshima is Korean, why are you still doing Dokdo campaign? Are you shouting “Seoul is Korean territory!” overseas as well?
    +If you want to convince people around the world that Takeshima is Korean, why do you keep refusing to go to the best place to do it, “The International Court of Justice in Hague”?
    +You guys always claim and accuse Japan robbed Takeshima by force. But Japan didn’t harm any Korean people when she took Takeshima in 1905. How do you feel about killing 44 Japanese and capturing 3929 Japanese to rob Takeshima?
    +You always claim Japan robbed and burned out many Korean documents about Dokdo. If so, you should be able to tell what document was robbed by who and when specifically.
    +(I noticed something when I surfed many websites about Dokdo/Takeshima.) Why do you think do every pro-Korean websites omit unfavorable evidences, while pro-Japan websites show every document and map found?

    Thank you very much.

  48. Hello. I’m a Korean student.
    It’s a very interesting, logical writing.
    Could I use this writing as an resource for discussion/education(informal)?

  49. (Part1) I’m going to explain because you seem desperately hang on Dajoukan. (In other words, Korean has nothing to support their argument other than it.)

    ****Around the time when Dajoukan[1877] was issued…****
    Tottori people’s recognition:
    Ulleungdo=Takeshima, Takeshima=Matsushima
    (Proof:「The map of Isotakeshima」made by Tottori prefecture[1877]

    The government’s recognition:
    Argonaut=Takeshima, Ulleungdo=(Iso)Takeshima or Matsushima, and Takeshima=Liancourt Rocks.
    (Proof #1:「The whole Japan map」made by The Ministry of Education[1877]
    (Proof #2:「The map of the east coast of Chosen」made by JPN Navy[1876]
    (Proof #3:「The whole Chosen map」made by JPN Army[1876]
    (Proof #4:「The map of eastern Asia」made by JPN Army[1875]
    (Proof #5:「The whole Chosen map」made by JPN Navy[1875]

    The reason Dajoukan avoided stating specific name of the island and wrote “one other island” instead is because the government knew there was confusion over those names and had an information from Korea about Usando(existence doubtful) near Ulleungdo. They didn’t refer to that attached map that was made by Tottori people.

    To solve this name problem, Japan started investigation of islands in the sea of Japan……(cont)

    • (Part2) After the battleship Amagi investigated Islands, Matsushima has been identified as Ulleungdo formally.
      (Proof #1:「Official record by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs」[Feb.16.1882]
      “#272 Korean territory Ulleungdo (Japanese call it Takeshima or Matsushima)” )
      (Proof #2:「Dajoukan Ordinance: Inquiry about reclamation of Matsushima」[Nov.29.1885]
      “木材伐採ノ為=to cut down trees (on Matsushima)” “其景況東西凡四五里南北三里余周廻十五六里=Matsushima is 16~20km in width, 12km in length, and 60~64km in circumference”
      (Proof #3:「Official Notice (to all prefectures) about prohibiting Japanese from sailing to Ulleungdo」[Sep.1883]
      “Lat 37°30’N, long 130°49’E, Japanese name Takeshima or Matsushima which is Korean territory Ulleungdo…”)
      (Proof #4: 「The condition of investigating forests in Ulleungdo」[Jun.12.1900]
      “鬱陵島(Ulleungdo)는 韓國(Korea)의 강원도에 속한 도서로 松島(Matsushima) 또는 竹島(Takeshima)라고도 칭한다. (동경 130度 8分 2厘, 북위 37度 5分)” )

      Before 1905, Japan has already recognized Matsushima was Ulleungdo firmly. That’s why Japan annexed Takeshima after Dajoukan.

      • You’re grasping at straws, and I actually DID show some Korean evidence but you said that that also was not acceptable. I’m really done talking about it.

        You have not addressed how the Japanese evidence talks about Matsushima in Dokdo’s position based on distance. Why do you avoid that point?

        I have resolved that I won’t be able to convince you because you want to creatively interpret facts and hold steadfast to your unreasonable claim.

        Furthermore you said you wouldn’t be opposed to war with Korea, which makes me believe that you are out of touch with reality and you should be thankful that I think you are not representative of the Japanese people, because the sense I got from Japan was that people are peaceful and will avoid war at all costs.

      • (Part3) If Japan really renounced Takeshima/Dokdo at Dajoukan,
        1.They would have corrected Dajoukan with changing from “Matsushima” to “Liancourt Rocks” because Matsushima had been re-identified as Ulleungdo by their investigation.
        2.When they incorporated Takeshima in 1905, someone in Japan would have become aware of the violation of former ordinance (Dajoukan) and objected against it. (Many politicians participated with both Dajoukan and the incorporation.)
        But neither of 1,2 happened.

        Korea excluded (rather didn’t know the existence of) Dokdo until Japanese informed them about it.
        Proof #1: 「The diary of the investigator of Ulleungdo, Lee Kyu-won, sent by Joseon dynasty」[May.4.1882]. “峰名聖人 不知幾萬層幾萬丈也 登第一層 四望 海中都無一點島嶼之見形矣 = I viewed around from the highest mountain on Ulleungdo but I couldn’t find any islands ahead in the sea (other than Jukdo and Gwaneumdo)”
        Proof #2:
        1899 「大韓地誌Dae han ji ji」(The first Korean geography textbook written by 현채)
        “Korean territory is from 124°35′E to 130°35′E.”
        1907 「初等大韓地誌」written by안종화
        “Korean territory limit : 130°58′E”
        1907 「大韓新地誌」written by장지연
        “Korean territory limit : 130°35′E”
        1909「韓国水産誌」edited by Korean gov department of fisheries
        “Korean territory limit : 130°42′E”
        1947「朝鮮常識問答」written by 최남선
        “Korean territory limit : 130°56’23E”
        1948「朝鮮常識」written by 최남선
        “Eastest Korean territory is Jukdo 130°56’23E ”


  50. Hello

    I’m impressed that you know more about Dodko than most Koreans… I know Koreans angrily claim that it is theirs (there’s a song about Dodko that everyone knows lol) but they can’t reason out why. I didn’t know Japansese side of argument before so I’m glad I came by this post.

    And to ken… Koreans are avoiding taking this to International Court of Justice in Hague because Korea don’t see a reason to take it there. Also, I believe either country can ignore the decision made by ICJ so there really is no point. Also, Japan has advantages in front of ICJ… as seen by past judgements made. Like Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (1953). Since it is Korea’s island, Korea can simply claim that the island is not uner dispute and avoid ICJ. If island was actually Japanese, they would not want to take it to ICJ either… but they are trying so hard to take it there which makes one think that they are simply trying to take something that’s not theirs… they have nothing to lose even if they take it to ICJ. I don’t want to argue with every other point but I read that question so I felt inclined to answer you.

    And thank you yujinishuge for putting together this post!

    • Actually, in most cases over territory that have been decided by ICJ both parties have adhered to the ruling. It would probably be a huge shame in international relations if Korea were to disobey ICJ if ICJ actually ruled in favor of Japan.

      But you are right… Korea has everything to lose, and Japan nothing to lose by going there.

      I really wish this issue was settled though. It is high time that Japan and Korea put the past behind them.

      Oh and can people please stop saying that they are impressed that I know this stuff more than Koreans like that is something amazing? I’ve studied it extensively. That’s not amazing. It’s as if people think that it’s something that all Koreans should know, when most Koreans don’t study it extensively.

      Put it this way. Let’s say a Brazilian trained for 30 years in Taekwondo. Would you say to him.. wow you know Taekwondo better than most Koreans! Probably not, because most Koreans don’t study Taekwondo for 30 years.

      Likewise, most Koreans don’t even try to understand Japan’s argument, and that is the crux of the problem!

    • Hello, Elina. Thanks for your comment.

      >Since it is Korea’s island
      It’s only Korea’s argument. The SF Treaty 49 countries signed determined that Takeshima has remained to be Japanese territory as it used to be.
      The U.S. ambassador Douglas McArthur II said on 27 Oct. 1960 “While Rhee regime violated most basic tenets of democracy in authoritarian police rule imposed on Korean people, it has also in past done violence to most fundamental principles of international conduct and morality by committing acts of piracy on high seas around Rhee Line and then imprisoning and holding as political hostages Japanese fishermen and by seizing and holding non-Korean territory by force……Rhee regime also seized by force and is holding illegally Takeshima Island which has always been considered as Japanese territory.”

      Today, Korea takes the seat of the Secretary-General of the U.N. and will be seated as a non-permanent member at the U.N. next year. Since the ICJ was made by the U.N. and for the U.N., Korea has the duty to accept fellow members’ offers. That’s the international manner.
      >that the island is not under dispute
      If so, why did Park have to hold up the sign “Dokdo is our land” in Olympic? Why are Koreans advertising Dokdo around the world like everyday? They know it’s disputed land better than anyone. If they feel insecurity, why don’t you leave it for the judge to decide?

      Korea seems to have dug her own grave. She invited foreign medias to Dokdo last month, but contrary to her plan, they reported Dokdo as “disputed islands”.

    • >there’s a song about Dodko that everyone knows lol
      Are there any Koreans who have had a doubt about the song? Why are they forced to sing Dokdo is “OUR” land?

      Koreans’ claim 1: “Korea rejected the ICJ in 1956 and 1962 because she had not joined the U.N. yet at that time.”
      Then, she has no longer any reasons to refuse Japan’s offer now.

      Koreans’ claim 2: “Japan has an advantage at the ICJ because current head judge is Japanese.”
      If the ICJ depends on judges’ favoritism or arbitrary, it must have lost its credibility already.
      [The Statue of the ICJ] Article31. 2. ‘If the Court includes upon the Bench a judge of the nationality of one of the parties, any other party may choose a person to sit as judge. Such person shall be chosen preferably from among those persons who have been nominated as candidates as provided in Articles 4 and 5.’

      Koreans’ claim 3: “If some country tries to bring a case to the ICJ, of like Tsushima, Okinawa etc, Japan would refuse it too.”
      No. Japan would accept any territorial cases.

      Koreans’ claim 4: “Japan is too coward to bring the case of Senkaku islands to the ICJ against China.”
      Japan takes effective control over Senkaku now, so we don’t need to do it. But if China suggest the ICJ, Japan would willingly accept it and if China took it by force, Japan would bring it to the ICJ (or dispatch the army to there).

  51. Thanks Eugene for putting this together and sticking with it. You do a better job than the Dokdo museum in Uleung-do! =)

  52. There are other good reasons that Korea shouldn’t take the Tokto issue to the

  53. Wow, I read through all of this, including everyone’s comments. It was a lot to take in but I read all of it! As a Korean-American born and raised in the US, I feel ashamed that I don’t know much on Korea’s history. While I know a general overview (i.e., the Korean War, Japan’s annexation of Korea, North Korea, Kim Jong Il, etc.), I don’t know the specific details behind all these topics. When it comes to Dokdo, (to be honest) I have to admit that I am one of those people who just blurt out that Dokdo is Korea’s without truly knowing the facts/evidence behind this opinion. I guess this nationalistic pride comes from just being Korean. Growing up, I have had negative feelings toward Japan due to in part of what I would hear from my parents. They are very traditional people especially my father as he grew up in Seoul during the time Korea was under Japanese rule. He was given a Japanese name, taught the Japanese language along with the Korean language and was almost forcibly sent to Japan with his family. He’s had bad experiences with the Japanese but at the same time good ones as well. He grew fond of Japanese food and to this day, still understands Japanese to a small extent. He still has this innate hatred towards Japan but not at the people but at the government. I am learning Japanese at the moment because I love the language and culture and really have no beef with the country per say. But behind the whole Dokdo and comfort women issues, there is a reason why Korea gets all riled up. After reading Eugene’s thorough explanation on his perspective of the Dokdo issue, it has given me that extra umph to really do some extensive research from the Korean, Japanese and American sides. Hopefully, I can come back to these issues with more knowledge and insight. Thanks Eugene!

    • Hello, superjh. I’m glad to hear Korean American’s perspective.
      Sorry this is off topic, but I want to ask you something. What did your father say about “given Japanese name” and “being almost forcibly sent to Japan”? How was he given the name, why did he have to go to Japan? I want to know because I have to study about history of Japanese annexation era. Thank you.

    • No response? OK. I don’t know what your father told you, but if he said he was FORCED to have Japanese name, he is wrong. It was not coercion.

      First of all, it was Koreans who wanted to have Japanese name first. When Japanese Family Registration Law applied to Korean right after Japan annexed Korea, there were many Korean applicants to register as Japanese name.
      Having Japanese name, namely, being Japanese was the advantage for Koreans who worked in Manchuria and were discriminated by Chinese people there.
      For example, a Korean personage Cho Youl described about the discrimination Koreans have faced in China in his articles on 「大満蒙新聞」「全満朝鮮人民連合会会報」(No.16 Aug.1933).
      (If you want to know about the conflict between Korean and Chinese, please read this.
      Upon strong request by Koreans to have Japanese name, Japanese government had to issue the order to prohibit Koreans from changing their names to Japanese.
      [The Order of the Governor General of Korea No.124 「The issue regarding Koreans’ renaming」(Nov.1.1911) prohibited “内地人ニ紛ハシキ姓名The name that is confused with Japanese”
      Japan opposed it at first.

      In 1940, the Governor General of Korea finally established the law Soushi-Kaimei (changing Japanese name).
      It was application system, not compulsion.

      This article↓ says “To have Japanese name is voluntary. Don’t misunderstand it as coercion”
      Those who have registered by the deadline could name themselves Japanese family name. But the names of people who didn’t register automatically became their new family names remaining as it were.
      Changing first name was more strict system.
      The applicants had to pay a fee and needed permission to be given Japanese first name.
      This article↓ reported that the office in Seoul was crowded with Korean applicants who came to register as Japanese name

      In any cases, their original names remained on the census registers, not were robbed.

      Actually, there were many Koreans who kept naming themselves Korean name until the war ended. For example, members of Congress 尹徳栄,朴泳孝,韓相龍,李埼鎔,朴春琴, lieutenants in the army 洪思翊,白洪錫, general 金錫源, dancer 崔承喜etc. They were all promoted and succeeded in their works while remaining their original names. It wouldn’t be possible if Japan FORCIBLY gave them Japanese names as Koreans claim today.

  54. Ken, the truth is somewhere in between on this one. Specifically there was no legal coercion as you say, but the advantages of changing made it such that it was pretty much mandatory. In a truly equal society with no second class citizens, it shouldn’t matter the origin of anyone’s name.

    It’s simply a way to avoid discrimination from Japanese… but don’t you think that there’s something wrong with society when Kim Min Su gets shit on by everyone around him, but suddenly changes his name to Yamada Akihiro, and suddenly he’s respected, because Japanese can’t readily know he’s Korean?

    It shouldn’t matter that he is, if Koreans were supposed to have been equal to Japanese in the colonial society.

    It just proves the point that Koreans were 2nd class citizens.

    • It’s true there was and still is discrimination in Japan towards Korean. But what made Koreans want to have Japanese name first was discrimination they have faced in China, not in Japan. Koreans living in Korea asked for it. That’s what I wanted to clarify.
      (Can the 2nd class citizens be politicians and enter the Parliament of the suzerain? Can the 2nd class citizens join the army and command the 1st class citizens as lieutenants or generals? Koreans misunderstand(brainwashed?) that Japan prohibited or robbed Korean language. That is not true. Unlike Western countries, Japan made it spread widely by building schools, publishing newspaper in Hangul etc, although Japan forced them to study Japanese too concurrently. These facts prove there had been less discrimination towards Koreans and Korean than they claim today.)
      What I don’t understand most is why Chinese and Koreans like to change their names when emigrating into western countries. Japan is not the only case(BTW, Chinese living in Japan don’t use fake names. They live in Japan with Chinese names without discrimination.). They don’t hesitate to change them to English names while they’re still blaming Japan for depriving their national pride by robbing their Korean names in the past.
      Is it because of ongoing discrimination against Asians in Western nations? Japanese immigrants have faced much worse racial discrimination in foreign countries throughout history, but few of them changed their names.
      It smells hypocrite. If they claim the original Korean name is one of the paramount national prides, why do they throw them so easily? I have heard some Koreans claiming it’s totally different between coercion and voluntary act. But I can’t agree with that. If you look at today’s Korean, it’s easy to imagine that they ‘willingly’ threw their original names to become Japanese during the occupation period. Same with Comfort Women.

      • Article from 경향신문Kyunghyang Shinmun(Oct.2.1968)

        “일제때는 망명항일투사나 극소수의 인사만이 창씨개명을 거부했고 많은 한국민이 자진해서 신사참배에 나섰다.”
        “Under the Japanese rule, exiled anti-Japan combatants and only a few people refused ‘Soushi-kaimei(changing name)’ and many Koreans willingly worshiped at (Shinto) shrine.”

        An addition.
        Korean applicants for volunteer soldier in Japanese army.[1]
        Year Applicants #Accepted Rate
        1938 2,946 406 16.2%
        1939 12,348 613 4.9%
        1940 84,443 3,060 3.6%
        1941 144,743 3,208 2.2%
        1942 254,273 4,077 1.6%
        1943 303,394 6,000 1.9%
        1944 Conscription system applied to Koreans[2]

        [1]JACAR(Japan Center for Asian Historical Records)
        Ref.B02031284700 “1.朝鮮及台湾ノ現状/1 朝鮮及台湾ノ現況 1”p.17
        [2]When the conscription finally applied to Koreans too, they celebrated it by marching in front of the Imperial Palace and shouting BANZAI!
        Osaka Asahi News: west Korea edition(May.23.1942)

        • A column on a Korean newspaper published in 1946.

          Many Koreans wanted to have Japanese name. The fact they called each other with Japanese names and used Japanese language even after the liberation proves it.

      • >It just proves the point that Koreans were 2nd class citizens.
        Yes,they were. But not in Japan. They were discriminated by Chinese in Manchuria. That’s why they wanted to change their names to Japanese ones already in 1930’s.
        In 3 years after the WWII ended, over 10,000 Koreans have been killed and assaulted by Chinese in Manchuria.
        Chinese derogatory terms towards Koreans “高麗棒子(Gaoli bangzi/고려봉자)” and 二鬼子(얼구이쯔) were made during the occupation era. They both mean “brutal Koreans”.
        Do you know why?
        Koreans who used to be discriminated in Manchuria and other area of China turned into bullies right after they got Japanese names. They were domineering over Chinese people with Japanese names and under the Japanese flag.
        If it were Japanese who were domineering in Manchuria, they must have been targeted of genocide by Chinese after the war, not Koreans.
        If Koreans were discriminated by Japanese in Manchuria, they were sympathized by Chinese, not grudged.
        I know and actually have met many many Manchurian who like Japan or have some respect towards Japanese. Some of Japanese were helped by Manchurian to go back home.
        It’s the truth of history that Koreans today never be taught. Don’t fabricate history!

    • BTW, if you want to know how violently Koreans in Japan got their rights by force after the war when Japan was unarmed and powerless under the GHQ’s control, please read “The Korean minority in Japan, 1904-1950” written by Edward W. Wagner.

      They raided public offices, unlawfully occupied the best districts of the towns by force, committed robbery, raped women etc. Just like when Kanto Great Earthquake occurred, Koreans committed every kind of atrocity such as bombing, raping, looting, arson, murder, assault, etc.

      And most of them were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS of post war period. But now they are lying they were forcibly dragged into Japan. Even during annexation period, there were tons of illegal immigrants flooded to Japan. Countless Korean stowaways were arrested at the Japanese ports.

    • Koreans should stop lies and fabrications.
      Are you seriously saying Japanese occupation was an Asian Holocaust?
      Last year, a 95 year-old Korean guy was killed by a young man because he just told him Japanese occupation period has been a good time.

      A huge number of Koreans voluntarily immigrated into JAPAN even in illegally ways during and after the annexation period, while Jewish people defected to foreign countries from Germany.
      More than 300,000 Korean men voluntarily joined Japanese army, while only less than 500 Koreans joined the Liberation army.

      Japan banned Korean language?
      No. Opposite. Japan built over 5000 schools including university and TAUGHT Korean. Lots of Korean movies, novels, records were made by both Japanese and Koreans during annexation era.

      Japan destroyed the nature in Korea?
      No. Opposite. Japan planted 600 million trees on bald mountains in Korea.

      Japan destroyed Korean history?
      No. Opposite. Japan excavated Korean historical documents and remains, systematized Korean history and taught it to Koreans in schools.

      Japan abolished Korean cultures?
      No. If you watch the films or photos of the period, you can find a lot of Korean clothes, arts, dance, foods, customs etc.

      Japan killed innocent Koreans ruthlessly?
      No. Opposite. Japan improved environmental hygiene in Korea by building over 100 hospitals all over the peninsula and bringing modern western medicine. Thanks to their efforts, the average life span of Korea increased almost double.

      Japan exploited Koreans?
      No. Opposite. Most of the cost for improvement of Korea were paid by Japanese tax. Japan was in deficit. Korea’s GDP was highest in the world at that time. Koreans’ saving drastically increased.

      Japan raped Asian women?
      Why there’s no record of pregnant, abortion, and no fatherless
      Japanese-mixed children found in any Asian countries so far? Google “Amerasian” or “Lai Dai Han”.
      Physical evidence must have remained if mass-scale rape happened.

  55. BlindJapan Says:

    Ken seems to know much but understands very little about history. That’s the real tragedy here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: