[KS] Library of Congress Korean Controversy - The Stone Marker
paulmshepherd at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 23 10:40:31 EDT 2008
If you look at the ninth image on this website, it has an image of a Korean man (it would be interesting if someone could identify him) placing a stone market marked "독도 [Hanja for 독도] Liancourt Rocks". The photo appears to have been taken in the 1950s. In other words, the name "Liancourt Rocks" was recognized as the English name of the island by the Korean government when it came into possession.
Here is the website:
I imagine that the same stone marker still exists there.
In that case, I think we can at the very least excuse the Library of Congress for at least considering using the name "Liancourt Rocks" since that name itself appears to have been recognized by the Republic of Korea in the 1950s - based on the photographic evidence on the above website.
Of course, I am assuming that the stone marker was placed there under the auspices of the Korean government. I think that is a fairly safe assumption.
Does anyone have any more information about this stone marker, and the man placing it.
Perhaps a librarian or achivist might know? Given the immense interest shown by Koreanists in this issue, how can we access this photo?
"All truths are not meant for all ears; not all lies can be recognized as such by pious spirits."===============================================Paul ShepherdPh.D CandidateGraduate School of The College of Law, Seoul National University**NEW** Mobile: (ROK) 010-7668-7675===============================================> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:05:36 +0100> From: D.Scofield at sheffield.ac.uk> To: jsburgeson at yahoo.com; koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws> Subject: Re: [KS] Library of Congress Korean Controversy> > Scott has made some excellent points here (I think nationalistic spam sums the> original post quite well), and his queries (posted below) cut to the heart of> the dispute. > > I'm surprised there are no responses to his core questions... > > "> 1. It is frequently claimed that Japan "stole" the Dokto-Takeshima islets in> 1905, but from my understanding they were unoccupied at the time and thus Japan> invoked the principle of "terra nullius" in justifying its claim to them. Is it> too much of stretch, then, to claim that their occupation was quite separate> from Japan's subsequent colonization of Korea?> > 2. The islets were not covered in the Treaty of San Francisco, so from a> strictly legal standpoint wouldn't the islands legally still belong to Japan if> sovereignty over them was not legally and formally handed back to the ROK in> 1952? Historical arguments aside, is not this lack of legal clarity sufficient> proof for the existence of a "dispute" which many on the Korean side claim does> not exist?> "> > > David> > > Quoting "J.Scott Burgeson" <jsburgeson at yahoo.com>:> > > Gene, all I will say is that I retracted the term "spam" (even though a> > certain someone has clearly avoided my request for dialogue on this issue),> > and I wonder if I really seem to think that Dokdo-Takeshima is a "non-issue"?> > "Neutral" is a loaded term now? What's next, being "fair" and "objective"? As> > for "lobbying" for a foreign government, Hana Kim is not a US citizen so what> > is a better term for me to have used in her case? > > > > Around and around and around in circles we go!> > > > --Scott Bug> > > > > > > > --- On Tue, 7/22/08, Eugene Y. Park <eugene.y.park at uci.edu> wrote:> > > > > From: Eugene Y. Park <eugene.y.park at uci.edu>> > > Subject: Re: [KS] Library of Congress Korean Controversy> > > To: "Korean Studies Discussion List" <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>> > > Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 4:58 PM> > > Dear Scott,> > > > > > I appreciate the spirit of your suggestions, but some of> > > the "incidental> > > rhetorical terms" that have been> > > used--"lobbying" and "neutral," for> > > example--seem pretty loaded to me. And didn't this> > > whole discussion get> > > started on the questions about "nationalistic> > > spamming" over "non-issues"> > > and "lobbying?" Again I do not know Hana Kim, but> > > to suggest, for example,> > > that the hapless librarian was lobbying for a foreign> > > government seems> > > like a serious charge to me. What do you think?> > > > > > Of course, there's the islet question itself, on which> > > I think we've> > > already had plenty of discussions here in the past, if> > > I'm not mistaken. > > > In this light, each of the two statements that you make> > > (below) seem to> > > oversimplify the frustratingly complex situation.> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Meet singles near you. Try ninemsn dating now!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Koreanstudies