Latest 15 of 140 Total Comments Show All

• 

  bibric at 08:07 AM JST - 26th July

  imagawa

  Apology for your feeling insulted on any point in what I have said. We're just individuals having no such a influential power on the Government power. Have a pleasant weekend!

• 

  bibric at 08:23 AM JST - 26th July

  Again, let's see the historical context. Koreans and other your neighboring countries see this issue as a "Japanese colonial legacy".

  Everybody in the current generation may think along with "rationality", "interest", "reasoning", "international law", "shared principles", "norms", and "common sense".

  Those values are really important criteria to judge what the right and wrong are.

  Yet, those are just a blind eye unless those values are based on "identity", our root of being human derived from consistency on our historical past.

  Today, the South Korean government turned out to be really ridiculous on dealing with the international issue. it's too myopic.
  Cons in any country do not have any human face idea and ideology. I know that Japan has made the same mistake as well.

  I hope "nanko10" could go fishing in Dokdo someday and I could visit the tempel in Tsushima and Oki to pray for the world peace. Just put all things down and suit yourself.

• 

  hermitage at 11:10 AM JST - 26th July

  Biblic,

  Conflicts are unavoidable between two adjacent nations. I think Korea has had conflicts not only with Japan but with China, Russia, North Korea, etc. Japan has not only been a violent colonialist against Asian countries, but has had other conflicts and battles with the U.S., Russia and other Western countries since the middle of the 19th century.

  And today in our East Asian region, it's not sensible to fight each other. It's a waste of life, money and time. Japan has learned that war costs too much, though it may bring a short-time wealth and fragile leadership. Did Japan moved its navy ships to "Dokdo"? No, she just wrote her opinion that has long been told to the Korean government since the 1950s. I know the historical context that you mean. Japan has annexed Korea and exploited her people before and during WWII.

  But the sixty years of our history after WWII are also Japan's history. Whyd don't you look at it? Japan has not only nasty and dark history, but at least peaceful, if not better, history as well. As S. Korean people tend to ignore this simple historical fact after WWII, they look emotionally over-reacting to any trifle behaviors of Japan.

  But you are right. We should go to mountains in Korea or Japan, and along the river, sing songs, dance, enjoy drinking! Isn't it the ideal scene that Chinese, Korean and Japanese people have dreamed for more than one thousand centuries?

  Let's do it, everywhere. That's far better than your/our getting angry with fierce faces.

  Have a good weekend.

• 

  Rekishika at 06:35 PM JST - 26th July

  A difficult one. There are always some unclarities over borders and territory. Where there's also bitterness over the mutual past, these can quickly erupt into bitter disputes. In this case, one government is in denial over the past and goes to great lengths trying to teach it's people to be in denial too (in many ways less than successful though). The other people find it difficult to forgive. Both tendencies constantly add fuel to the fire on both sides. But from the outside, the sad feeling is that both sides are wrong and no one is right. These kinds of conflict are pointless. Perhaps there is some value to the islands. But there is more value for both sides in harmony, harmony being something different than 'friendship on our/their terms'. I hope both sides find a way out of this. There won't be war over this, but it's not even worth sacrificing what hope of friendship there may be...

• 

  hermitage at 07:11 PM JST - 26th July

  One idealistic solution is that both Japan and Korea will form a new nation called "Take-Dok Island Republic" which is a special free-trade district with facilities for fishing, tourism and gambling. Fifty percents of the Diet members are Korean or Japanese, and vice versa. :-)

• 

  Seiharinokaze at 07:33 PM JST - 26th July

  bibric

  Again, let's see the historical context. Koreans and other your neighboring countries see this issue as a "Japanese colonial legacy".

  Takeshima issue is not a colonial legacy. No country ever occupied or ruled the islets before 1905.

  According to Mr. Gerry Bevers http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=670

  In 1946, one year after Korea was liberated from Japan, Korean geographer and historian Choi Nam-seon wrote a book entitled, “Common Questions and Answers about Joseon” (朝鮮常識問答), which was designed to teach newly liberated Koreans various facts about their country, including its history, culture, and geography. In the geography section of the book, Mr Choi wrote the following:

  Question: Where are the farthest north, south, east, west boundaries of our country?”

  Answer: “If islands are included, the fartest eastern point is Jukdo, in Ulleung County of North Gyeongsang Province.

  Two years later he published another book entitled, “General Knowledge about Joseon” (朝鮮常識), in which he also said that Korea’s easternmost boundary was at an east longitude of 130 degrees, 56 minutes, 23 seconds and that Ulleungdo’s neighboring island of Jukdo was Korea’s easternmost point. Again, even in 1948, Korean geography books were saying that Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) was outside Korea’s territorial boundary since Dokdo was located much farther east at a longitude of 131 degrees, 52 minutes.

  Wherever the islet called Seokdo 石島 that was mentioned in the Korean Imperial Edict of 1900 was meant to be located, it does not seem the islet was Dokdo, since there should be no Korean territories to the east of Jukdo. So it's not a legacy of annexation but a dispute over the determination of territories in a modern sense that started after the WW2, most probably in 1950's. Will Korea ever recognize this fact? The real historical contex. Otherwise no solution to the issue will be possibly realized.

• 

  bibric at 02:05 AM JST - 27th July

  Seiharinokaze Thank you for your detailed information. Yet, Jukdo that Choi mentioned indicates "Dokdo" as of the current years. The maps was made by Japan, in 1930. http://enjoyjapan.naver.com/tbbs/read.php?board_id=phistory&nid=108084

  Bring a Japanese Academic historian's argument! Do not bring some rumors or allegation!

• 

  nipponlove at 08:26 AM JST - 27th July

  Seihrinokaze, if you are in the same shoes of SK. How would you react to Japan's claim on Dokdo in their textbook fabrication? I would like to hear your unbias answer to this question.

• 

  imagawa at 08:40 AM JST - 27th July

  Bibric.

  Thank you for the apology. I'm sorry that I over reacted in relation to you personally. I found that I was being deleted so often that I was losing track of what I had & hadn't said. T

  I still believe that you are avoiding a simple way of dealing with the island problem, if you are as confident of your position as you say then you have no reason for not going before an international court. Your arguements against this are so thin that I have to believe that you are not confident or that you have some other not stated reasons for avoiding court. I am not Japanese as I have already told you, but I openly admit that I do side with Japan on this issue because all historical evidence points to Japan being in the right. This is not because I am being anti-Korean, because I am not anti-Korean. If I believed you were in the right I would back you that.

  Perhaps what is more important here is something that Rekishika touched on above. Whatever the value to anybody of these islands a fight over them between Japan & Korea is really stupid, for both of them. So much more is going to be lost & for so little. There is so much that the two countries share & so much more that they could go on to share & all this stands to be lost over these islands. They are not worth that to either country. Outsiders like Rekishika & myself, plus many others can see this, you are holding your national pride too close & losing sight of what you stand to lose. The very idea that your two countries could come to blows over these islands is madness. Would you personally be comfortable with the idea that people, Japanese or Korean, might die for these islands?

• 

  hermitage at 08:54 AM JST - 27th July

  Hi all, btw, how long are you going to discuss this issue. It's clear that the Japanese and Korean governments have different views to this issue. The important point is that the dispute is just that. No war is approaching at all. No real menace exists. Also, in spite of the different government policies. People in both countries don't have to support their government policies. Why do they? I intended to make it clear just that the difference exists and that S. Koreans reactions are excessive. However, I never let everyone to support the Japanese policy. It's your freedom whether you follow which policy. Also, you don't need to follow any of the two government policies. You should have your own.

  My point of insisting on the necessity of everyone's calming down is not just based on my subjective view from Japan, but on the fact that we should be free in supporting which standpoints on the issue.

  Nationalism is, however reasonable in the relations between nations, not necessary and necessarily desirable, in the contexts of each individual's decisions and judgements about issues, including this.

  It's nonsense to criticize each other, representing one's nation. It's the governement's business, not yours.

• 

  imagawa at 09:01 AM JST - 27th July

  Hermitage.

  you are an idealist living in a black & white world & I sort of respect you that. But I do think you are setting your self up for disapointments. Getting any Japanese & Korean to agree about anything is beginning to feel as though it might be impossible. And that is so sad.

• 

  hermitage at 11:35 AM JST - 27th July

  Imagawa-san,

  There are many other issues with which both Koreans and Japaneses can agree. But there are many other conflicting issues. But it's natural. One thing important is that we should not unnecessarily make it over-heated. I wish Korean people to calm down, and trying to closely, objectively, looking at historical facts, not biased by ready-made prejudices and propaganda. I wish Japanese people to have a good balance in evaluating and criticizing what Japan has done in the past. Trying to extract good things only, or bad things only from her history will fail, and lead to a misconception that mislead opinions.

• 

  Seiharinokaze at 03:03 PM JST - 27th July

  bibric

  What kind of relation did Choi Nam-seon's book have with the map at all? Why are they displayed together again?

  The map on enjoyjapan.naver.com was probably not the one drawn up or reflecting the situation around 1930. Please look at the wording on the right side of the map that reads 明治三十七八年戦役 meaning the war of 1904-5. Perhaps it's a map prepared for military use at the time of the Russo-Japanese War or some other purpose to explain the war. The war broke out in February 1904 and Takeshima was incorporated into Shimane prefecture one year later in January 1905. So nothing wrong with the islets not being shown yet as part of Japanese territory. Besides how could Japan have made a map in 1930 that showed the islets not belonging to Japan when it had been administratively incorporated into Shimane for decades? Do you seriously pick up the map as any counter evidence?

  As for the description in Choi's book 朝鮮常識問答 :

  極東　東経一三〇度 五六分 二三秒 慶尚北道　鬱陵島　竹島

  It describes the easternmost boundary of Korea. It is at an east longitude of 130 degrees, 56 minutes, 23 seconds and it is Jukdo, the neighboring island of Ulleungdo. Jukdo described as 竹島 in there is not Takeshima as you might insinuate because it's written in the same Kanji in Japanese. It's Jukdo, the nearby islet to the east of Ulleungdo at the above location. Takeshima/Dokdo is located much farther east at a longitude of 131 degrees, 52 minutes, which of course the author didn't mention in his book because the islet was not considered as part of Korean territories.

  nipponlove:

  Your question is incomprehensible. Let me know how Japan's claim on Takeshima could be a textbook fabrication?

• 

  Blue_Tiger at 06:09 AM JST - 28th July

  Good for South Korea. If Japan's going to up the ante, why not reciprocate???

• 

  nipponlove at 07:56 AM JST - 28th July

  Korea just discovers a Japanese old document(朝鮮國略圖)from 19th century depicting Dokdo belonging to Korea.

Register or login to add a comment!