[KS] tokto
Kevin Shepard
kevin_shepard at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 12 19:34:27 EDT 2012
"Now wouldn't it be great for morale on both sides of the DMZ and/or
the East China Sea and for all us in the Korean and China fields if
they joined in giving a unified, world-wide plea on the issue?"
No. Because I, and I hope others, in the Korean and China fields are in these fields as neutral, critical scholars, rather than cheerleaders who need a morale boost through an act that would further, unnecessarily, undermine regional cooperation. Please don't speak for others - at least, don't speak for me.
Kevin Shepard, Ph.D.
Strategist
UNC/CFC/USFK
--- On Thu, 10/11/12, koreanstudies-request at koreaweb.ws <koreanstudies-request at koreaweb.ws> wrote:
From: koreanstudies-request at koreaweb.ws <koreanstudies-request at koreaweb.ws>
Subject: Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 112, Issue 11
To: koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2012, 12:00 PM
Send Koreanstudies mailing list submissions to
koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://koreaweb.ws/mailman/listinfo/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
koreanstudies-request at koreaweb.ws
You can reach the person managing the list at
koreanstudies-owner at koreaweb.ws
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Koreanstudies digest..."
<<------------ KoreanStudies mailing list DIGEST ------------>>
Today's Topics:
1. Tokto (gkl1 at columbia.edu)
2. Re: Tokto (J.Scott Burgeson)
3. Re: Tokto (McCann, David)
4. Seminar on the Zainichi Author Lee Hoe-sung at Australian
National University (Frank Joseph Shulman)
5. Re: Tokto (King, Ross)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:38:35 -0400
From: gkl1 at columbia.edu
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
Subject: [KS] Tokto
Message-ID: <20121010163835.tzlwf6b4pw0ow8os at cubmail.cc.columbia.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed"
Thanks to Yoo Kwang-On, we get frequent updates on the Tokto
situation. Seoul keeps hitting the issue, and in P'yongyang they've
also been pushing in their own famous style. A week or so ago the NY
Times (finally!) had a piece on the island squabble, but it wasn't
anywhere near as good as the one the Washington Post put out a day or
two ago.
Now wouldn't it be great for morale on both sides of the DMZ and/or
the East China Sea and for all us in the Korean and China fields if
they joined in giving a unified, world-wide plea on the issue? The
basic facts are held in common.
Today, the Republic of China (Taiwan) bought a full page add in the
New York Times on the Diaoyu problem, laying out a well produced and
documented statement with an excellent, convincing mix of historical
and legal facts. On Sept. 28, the PRC had bought a TWO-page add in the
Times with pretty much the same facts but without the sophistication
and clarity of the Taiwan presentation, which did not mention that
both Taiwan and the PRC claimed the island. It's great, because
whatever happens in the future between the two Chinese republics, the
Daiyu islands will end up in China.
Now, if the ROK and the DPRK could put together on Tokto a cogent
statement with the presentational excellence of the Taiwan display,
and buy a Times page or two, wouldn't that wake up a lot of folks in
the Korean peninsula and around the world! The fact is, the USA was
involved in both the Diaoyutai and Tokto issues after the Pacific War
and are not without some responsibility for the tragic mis-allocation
of these islands. Americans in general should be made more aware of
the facts. And yet, the US government keeps hiding behind a so-called
neutral stance.
Gari Ledyard
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 19:16:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "J.Scott Burgeson" <jsburgeson at yahoo.com>
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
Message-ID:
<1349921813.22421.YahooMailClassic at web39404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
--- On?Wed, 10/10/12,?gkl1 at columbia.edu?<gkl1 at columbia.edu>?wrote:
It's great, because whatever happens in the future between the two Chinese republics, the Daiyu islands will end up in China.
Wow. Is this a forum for objective scholarly debate, or unabashed agitprop? I am sure that any disinterested historian recognizes that the Senkaku/Diaoyu issue in particular is hardly?cut-and-dried. Before leaping to any conclusions, it would be nice to see what sorts of evidence and/or arguments form the basis for the above assertion, which strikes this reader as an implicit endorsement of Chinese territorial aggression.
Paid newspaper advertisements and government announcements are all fine and well, but certainly not sufficient, especially on a forum such as this one.
--Scott Bug?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/attachments/20121010/3accaad3/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:41:02 -0400
From: "McCann, David" <dmccann at fas.harvard.edu>
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
Message-ID: <2479C22B-3722-48B3-8E54-E28F91B6F5B4 at fas.harvard.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
While they are at it, let's hope somebody thinks to point out the difference in the names for the place. Korean Tokdo means "Lone Island," which it is. Takeshima, which means "bamboo Island," and which it is not, would suggest no one had been there from Japan, or knew what it looked like.
David McCann
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:42 PM, "gkl1 at columbia.edu" <gkl1 at columbia.edu> wrote:
> Thanks to Yoo Kwang-On, we get frequent updates on the Tokto
> situation. Seoul keeps hitting the issue, and in P'yongyang they've
> also been pushing in their own famous style. A week or so ago the NY
> Times (finally!) had a piece on the island squabble, but it wasn't
> anywhere near as good as the one the Washington Post put out a day or
> two ago.
>
> Now wouldn't it be great for morale on both sides of the DMZ and/or
> the East China Sea and for all us in the Korean and China fields if
> they joined in giving a unified, world-wide plea on the issue? The
> basic facts are held in common.
>
> Today, the Republic of China (Taiwan) bought a full page add in the
> New York Times on the Diaoyu problem, laying out a well produced and
> documented statement with an excellent, convincing mix of historical
> and legal facts. On Sept. 28, the PRC had bought a TWO-page add in the
> Times with pretty much the same facts but without the sophistication
> and clarity of the Taiwan presentation, which did not mention that
> both Taiwan and the PRC claimed the island. It's great, because
> whatever happens in the future between the two Chinese republics, the
> Daiyu islands will end up in China.
>
> Now, if the ROK and the DPRK could put together on Tokto a cogent
> statement with the presentational excellence of the Taiwan display,
> and buy a Times page or two, wouldn't that wake up a lot of folks in
> the Korean peninsula and around the world! The fact is, the USA was
> involved in both the Diaoyutai and Tokto issues after the Pacific War
> and are not without some responsibility for the tragic mis-allocation
> of these islands. Americans in general should be made more aware of
> the facts. And yet, the US government keeps hiding behind a so-called
> neutral stance.
>
> Gari Ledyard
>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:28:38 +0000
From: Frank Joseph Shulman <fshulman at umd.edu>
To: "koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws" <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
Subject: [KS] Seminar on the Zainichi Author Lee Hoe-sung at
Australian National University
Message-ID:
<3303FA2CA465CB42860222667662D01103C5DE at OITMX1008.AD.UMD.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: asia_news-bounces at anu.edu.au [asia_news-bounces at anu.edu.au] on behalf of Duck-Young Lee [Duck.Lee at anu.edu.au]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:18 AM
Subject: [Asia_news] Reminder - Japanese Studies Seminar Series, Tomorrow 12:30 Friday 12 Oct
----------------------
A seminar in the Japanese Studies Seminar Series
by Matthew Todd
12:30pm - 01:30pm
12 October 2012
Seminar Room E3.43; 3F, BPB (Build #110)
"The Repatriation Boat: the personal and the political in the early work of Lee Hoe-sung"
In 1971, Lee Hoe-sung (1935-) became the first ethnically non-Japanese author to win the coveted Akutagawa Prize. His win marked a shift in the Japanese literary canon, seeing the creation of a space allowing the exploration of postcolonial identity in post-war Japan. ?e Kenzabur?, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, once described him as ?a writer who expresses the experiences and thoughts of the Koreans in the Japanese language?.
Lee was born on the island of Sakhalin in 1935. His early life is notable for its constant movement - Sakhalin was returned to the USSR in 1945, forcing Lee and his family to be moved to Hakodate, and later, Sapporo. Entering university, Lee became a part of the Korean student activist movement that advocated the return to North Korea for all Koreans living in Japan after the Pacific War. His work draws heavily on these personal experiences, telling the Korean story as a counter to the Japanese grand narrative.
In this seminar, I will explore several early works by Lee, examining the ways in which he constructs a subaltern identity through his work- a postcolonial, minority identity in the face of the Japanese norm. I will focus particularly on the ways in which Lee hijacks traditional Japanese literary forms to create a hybrid literature that occupies a unique space in the Japanese canon.
Works discussed in detail will include: "Towards our youth" (??????????: 1969); "Things left behind by the dead" (????????: 1970); and For Kayako (???????: 1970).
-----------------------
Duck-Young Lee, PhD
Japan & Linguistics
Building #110
School of Culture, History and Language
College of Asia and the Pacific Studies
Australian National University
Canberra, ACT 0200
Phone: +61 2 6125 3205
Email: Duck.Lee at anu.edu.au
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:24:27 +0000
From: "King, Ross" <Ross.King at ubc.ca>
To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
Message-ID:
<75AD59D95E4B5F468773766F4EF07BFE35E6FB29 at S-ITSV-MBX02P.ead.ubc.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It is indeed a 'Lone Island', but etymologically the "tok" is a native Korean dialect version of the word for 'rock' (tol)--the "tok" shape shows up in various Korean dialects.
So originally this was almost certainly just "toks?m" "Rock Island" (which it also is), subsequently hanja-ified by translating s?m to Sino-Korean TO and leaving "tok" as a phonogram with a hanja with suitable semantics.
Ross King
While they are at it, let's hope somebody thinks to point out the difference in the names for the place. Korean Tokdo means "Lone Island," which it is. Takeshima, which means "bamboo Island," and which it is not, would suggest no one had been there from Japan, or knew what it looked like.
David McCann
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 10, 2012, at 8:42 PM, "gkl1 at columbia.edu" <gkl1 at columbia.edu> wrote:
> Thanks to Yoo Kwang-On, we get frequent updates on the Tokto
> situation. Seoul keeps hitting the issue, and in P'yongyang they've
> also been pushing in their own famous style. A week or so ago the NY
> Times (finally!) had a piece on the island squabble, but it wasn't
> anywhere near as good as the one the Washington Post put out a day or
> two ago.
>
> Now wouldn't it be great for morale on both sides of the DMZ and/or
> the East China Sea and for all us in the Korean and China fields if
> they joined in giving a unified, world-wide plea on the issue? The
> basic facts are held in common.
>
> Today, the Republic of China (Taiwan) bought a full page add in the
> New York Times on the Diaoyu problem, laying out a well produced and
> documented statement with an excellent, convincing mix of historical
> and legal facts. On Sept. 28, the PRC had bought a TWO-page add in the
> Times with pretty much the same facts but without the sophistication
> and clarity of the Taiwan presentation, which did not mention that
> both Taiwan and the PRC claimed the island. It's great, because
> whatever happens in the future between the two Chinese republics, the
> Daiyu islands will end up in China.
>
> Now, if the ROK and the DPRK could put together on Tokto a cogent
> statement with the presentational excellence of the Taiwan display,
> and buy a Times page or two, wouldn't that wake up a lot of folks in
> the Korean peninsula and around the world! The fact is, the USA was
> involved in both the Diaoyutai and Tokto issues after the Pacific War
> and are not without some responsibility for the tragic mis-allocation
> of these islands. Americans in general should be made more aware of
> the facts. And yet, the US government keeps hiding behind a so-called
> neutral stance.
>
> Gari Ledyard
>
>
>
End of Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 112, Issue 11
**********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20121012/956db70d/attachment.html>
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list