Home » Archives » KoreanStudies » Tokto
| Tokto [message #12880] |
Wed, 10 October 2012 16:38  |
Gari Keith Ledyard
Messages: 124
Registered: September 1999
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12881 is a reply to message #12880] |
Wed, 10 October 2012 22:16  |
J.Scott Burgeson
Messages: 120
Registered: January 2002
|
Senior Member |
|
|
--- On Wed, 10/10/12, gkl1@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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12882 is a reply to message #12880] |
Thu, 11 October 2012 08:41 |
David Richard McCann
Messages: 103
Registered: August 1998
|
Senior Member |
|
|
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@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
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12884 is a reply to message #12882] |
Thu, 11 October 2012 10:24 |
King, Ross
Messages: 2
Registered: September 2012
|
Junior Member |
|
|
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 "toksŏm" "Rock Island" (which it also is), subsequently hanja-ified by translating sŏm 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@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
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12885 is a reply to message #12881] |
Thu, 11 October 2012 11:54 |
don kirk
Messages: 100
Registered: June 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for that reality check. I too was a little surprised to see such quick endorsement of an ad on the Senkaku/Diaoyu question. Should Japan also be taking out a full-page ad?
If we accept the Chinese view, would we go from there to acceptance of the view, already expressed in China, of China's sovereignty over Okinawa? Another complication is that Taipei and Beijing won't be thinking as one on Diaoyu if the question comes up as to who's in charge. Would the islands go to the closest Taiwan county? What would Beijijng say/do then -- send "fishing" boats to challenge Taiwan control?
Don Kirk
From: J.Scott Burgeson
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
--- On Wed, 10/10/12, gkl1@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
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12887 is a reply to message #12884] |
Thu, 11 October 2012 14:44 |
David Richard McCann
Messages: 103
Registered: August 1998
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Saa. That proves it! But then if we go to as meaning 'only,' which would be in word-initial position, then equal linguistic claim is established, Korean and Japanese.
So back to Square One, namely--so to speak-- that lonely, non-bamboo-istic set of rocks out there in the waters.
DM
On Oct 11, 2012, at 10:24 AM, King, Ross wrote:
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 "toksŏm" "Rock Island" (which it also is), subsequently hanja-ified by translating sŏm 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@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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12888 is a reply to message #12885] |
Thu, 11 October 2012 13:19 |
Mark R. Harris
Messages: 2
Registered: October 2012
|
Junior Member |
|
|
I have a little chart of East Asian island disputes. Are there any missing
from this list, or any inaccuracies as to claimants or anything else?
Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks)
Korea/Japan/North
Korea
Kuril Islands
Japan/Russia
Macclesfield Bank
China/Taiwan/Philippines
Matsu Islands
China/Taiwan
Paracel Islands
China/Vietnam/Taiwan
Pedra Branca/Middle Rocks/South Ledge Malaysia/Singapore
Pratas Islands
China/Taiwan
Quemoy (Kinmen)
China/Taiwan
Ryukyu Islands
Japan/China/Taiwan
Scarborough Shoal
China/Taiwan/Philippines
Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands)
Taiwan/Japan/China
Socotra Rock (Ioedo)
Korea/China
Spratly Islands
China/Taiwan/Malaysia/Philippines/Vietnam/Brunei
Mark R. Harris
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:54 AM, don kirk wrote:
> Thanks for that reality check. I too was a little surprised to see such
> quick endorsement of an ad on the Senkaku/Diaoyu question. Should Japan
> also be taking out a full-page ad?
> If we accept the Chinese view, would we go from there to acceptance of
> the view, already expressed in China, of China's sovereignty over Okinawa?
> Another complication is that Taipei and Beijing won't be thinking as one
> on Diaoyu if the question comes up as to who's in charge. Would the islands
> go to the closest Taiwan county? What would Beijijng say/do then -- send
> "fishing" boats to challenge Taiwan control?
> Don Kirk
>
> *From:* J.Scott Burgeson
> *To:* Korean Studies Discussion List
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:16 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [KS] Tokto
> **
> --- On *Wed, 10/10/12, gkl1@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 *
> ****
>
--
Mark R. Harris
Profesor de humanidades
Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Sinaloa
Blvd. Pedro Infante 3773
Culiacan, CP 80100, Sinaloa, Mexico
+52 (667) 759-1600
mark_r_harris@yahoo.com
brokerharris@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12889 is a reply to message #12888] |
Thu, 11 October 2012 23:01 |
don kirk
Messages: 100
Registered: June 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You might consider including those islands, held by South Korea, off North Korea's southwestern coast -- at least five of them, including Yeonpyeong, shelled by NKorea in November 2010. NKorea may not be claiming the islands as such but challenges the Northern Limit Line between the islands and the coast -- and at some stage may claim them as well.
Don Kirk
From: Mark R. Harris
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:19 AM
Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
I have a little chart of East Asian island disputes. Are there any missing from this list, or any inaccuracies as to claimants or anything else?
Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) Korea/Japan/North Korea
Kuril Islands Japan/Russia
Macclesfield Bank China/Taiwan/Philippines
Matsu Islands China/Taiwan
Paracel Islands China/Vietnam/Taiwan
Pedra Branca/Middle Rocks/South Ledge Malaysia/Singapore
Pratas Islands China/Taiwan
Quemoy (Kinmen) China/Taiwan
Ryukyu Islands Japan/China/Taiwan
Scarborough Shoal China/Taiwan/Philippines
Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands) Taiwan/Japan/China
Socotra Rock (Ioedo) Korea/ChinaSpratly Islands China/Taiwan/Malaysia/Philippines/Vietnam/Brunei
Mark R. Harris
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:54 AM, don kirk wrote:
Thanks for that reality check. I too was a little surprised to see such quick endorsement of an ad on the Senkaku/Diaoyu question. Should Japan also be taking out a full-page ad?
>If we accept the Chinese view, would we go from there to acceptance of the view, already expressed in China, of China's sovereignty over Okinawa? Another complication is that Taipei and Beijing won't be thinking as one on Diaoyu if the question comes up as to who's in charge. Would the islands go to the closest Taiwan county? What would Beijijng say/do then -- send "fishing" boats to challenge Taiwan control?
>Don Kirk
>
>
>From: J.Scott Burgeson
>To: Korean Studies Discussion List
>Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:16 AM
>Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
>
>--- On Wed, 10/10/12, gkl1@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 --
Mark R. Harris
Profesor de humanidades
Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Sinaloa
Blvd. Pedro Infante 3773
Culiacan, CP 80100, Sinaloa, Mexico
+52 (667) 759-1600mark_r_harris@yahoo.combrokerharris@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12890 is a reply to message #12881] |
Thu, 11 October 2012 22:51 |
Balazs Szalontai
Messages: 54
Registered: September 2002
|
Member |
|
|
"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."
No matter whether one considers Chinese/Taiwanese claims for the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands more justified than Japanese claims for Tok-do/Takeshima or vice versa, it is a significant difference between Chinese/Taiwanese and Japanese attitudes that up to now, Japan had not challenged Korean control over Tok-do/Takeshima in such ways as Chinese and Taiwanese activists, ships, and patrol boats occasionally challenged Japanese control over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands (and as the People's Liberation Navy had confronted Saigon and Hanoi over the Paracel and Spratly Islands in 1974 and 1988, respectively). The implication for Korea is that such Chinese/Taiwanese actions potentially create a precedent for a similar Japanese challenge to Korean control over Tok-do/Takeshima, and thus they might be more counterproductive than advantageous to Korean interests.
Balazs Szalontai
Kwangwoon University, Seoul
>________________________________
>
>--- On Wed, 10/10/12, gkl1@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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12891 is a reply to message #12890] |
Fri, 12 October 2012 02:13 |
Frank_Hoffmann
Messages: 245
Registered: May 2013
|
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
What I find so interesting here is how Tokto relates to globalization
and the current state of capitalism in Korea and the world as such. I
think the most common understanding of globalization is based on a
revised Marxist approach, especially if talking about nation-states
with mostly commercial globalization ('trade globalization') like
Korea, where globalization is intentionally being build-up as a tool to
strengthen capitalist competition with other nation-states. Now, (a)
the revised Marxist understanding of globalization has it that it is
the stage of (our current) development where corporations are fighting
on a global level, where they compete globally for higher growth rates
and higher capital gains, and these corporations are then supported by
'their' nation-states. In Korea, this also seems the prevalent view.
See the recent short notes on this list about "nation branding" as an
expression of that, and how South Korea has officially made that a
policy since just a few years. In the neo-Marxist understanding
nation-states as such have little to no role in this, they just support
the real players, the corporations. (b) An alternative view, though,
would be that the actual players are not the corporations but the
nation-states and their governments and organizations (and those are
not necessarily equivalents of a country's corporations).
The question as regards to this island, big enough for some birds to
shit on but otherwise hardly of any economic importance--and therefore
at first sight only being in the way of accumulating capital and
streamlined global trade operations, in other words, anti-capitalist
and backward in character--well, the question is then how that goes
together with what we perceive as the hyper-capitalist logic of
commercial globalization? Obviously, national territory and territorial
units have not been touched in any way by globalization. I then start
to wonder if maybe what (especially in South Korea) is seen as a
national support system for its corporations (e.g. culture as support
system *for* corporations, see again the "nation branding" campaign) is
actually not what it is, if maybe it is in fact the nation-states and
their political institutions in Asia that are the actual movers and
shakers. I can't imagine that Samsung or Kia would get any profit from
the kind of campaigns you now see in Korea. Maybe the economists on the
list have some input?
Best,
Frank Hoffmann
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12892 is a reply to message #12885] |
Thu, 11 October 2012 22:13 |
yonokchang
Messages: 4
Registered: April 2011
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Greetings to list members,
I have been a good Korean until lately, but realizing how greedy the Chinese government and its people are regarding claming over the islands currently belonging to Korea and Japan, I find myself becoming a little distanced from the country.
Would the current surge of Chinese confidence, by any chance, be related to the discovery of the terracota army that was buried with the ancient Emperor of the Chin dynasty?
Yeonok Jang
--- 12/10/12 (금)에 don kirk 님이 쓰신 메시지:
보낸 사람: don kirk
제목: Re: [KS] Tokto
받는 사람: "Korean Studies Discussion List"
날짜: 2012년 10월 12일 (금요일) 오전 12:54
Thanks for that reality check. I too was a little surprised to see such quick endorsement of an ad on the Senkaku/Diaoyu question. Should Japan also be taking out a full-page ad?
If we accept the Chinese view, would we go from there to acceptance of the view, already expressed in China, of China's sovereignty over Okinawa? Another complication is that Taipei and Beijing won't be thinking as one on Diaoyu if the question comes up as to who's in charge. Would the islands go to the closest Taiwan county? What would Beijijng say/do then -- send "fishing" boats to challenge Taiwan control?
Don Kirk
From: J.Scott Burgeson
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
--- On Wed, 10/10/12, gkl1@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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12893 is a reply to message #12891] |
Fri, 12 October 2012 09:51 |
J.Scott Burgeson
Messages: 120
Registered: January 2002
|
Senior Member |
|
|
--- On Fri, 10/12/12, Frank Hoffmann wrote:
I then start to wonder if maybe what (especially in South Korea) is seen as a national support system for its corporations (e.g. culture as support system *for* corporations, see again the "nation branding" campaign) is actually not what it is, if maybe it is in fact the nation-states and their political institutions in Asia that are the actual movers and shakers. I can't imagine that Samsung or Kia would get any profit from the kind of campaigns you now see in Korea. Maybe the economists on the list have some input?
Naive musings of a non-economist: This sounds rather like mercantilism or neomercantilism to me, which is certainly strong to varying degrees in Japan, South Korea and China. And if protectionism is a key feature of mercantilism, "protection" of territorial boundaries would mesh quite easily with such economic nationalism, would it not? Indeed, the struggle for control of resources and shipping routes seems to be the driving force for most of the island disputes in this part of the world. And at a somewhat deeper level, for instance, one wonders if China's current snubbing of the IMF meeting in Tokyo, ostensibly because of the spat over the Diaoyus, might in fact be a way for it to subvert or undermine the influence of the IMF, an institution of "globalization" par excellence, in favor of its own long-game national interests? Which is to say, playing the "nationalist crazy" card in the most rational manner?
--Scott Bug
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12894 is a reply to message #12893] |
Fri, 12 October 2012 16:35 |
Frank_Hoffmann
Messages: 245
Registered: May 2013
|
Senior Member
Administrator |
|
|
Yes, neomercantilism--that sure makes sense as a partial explanation of
this phenomenon.
QUOTE from a 2012 UCLA dissertation abstract:
"By adopting a new trade policy of FTAs, the Korean state appeared to
shift from protectionism to liberalization, as expected by
international society in the post-1997 crisis period. However, the
adoption of the FTA policy did not signify a genuine neoliberal
transformation but the introduction of a new mechanism to continue the
practices of the old developmental state, or strategic intervention of
the state in the economy, if not as absolutely as in the past."
(http://gradworks.umi.com/35/23/3523544.html)
The issue as I see it is much larger through, or much more complex, if
you want. Although saying that some issue is "complex" mostly just
points to an inability to properly explain it. But you point to a very
important direction there: saying that things are not as they appear to
be--that neoliberalism in Korea is in fact not really neoliberalism but
rather the old developmental state that Park once created, dressed up
in a neoliberal costume. Now, what makes all this so fascinating for
someone following up on "culture" is that these issues seemingly about
economy or history again connect to the redefinition of all the
essential terms, such as "culture" and cultural production itself. I
would suggest to possibly revise all the definitions of the main
elements involved: nation-state, globalization, culture, nationalism.
"Culture," for example, is in a globalized, post-political world with
hyper-communication tools and practices in trade globalized countries
*not* anymore a "cumulative deposit of knowledge, experience, beliefs,
values, (…) shared by a relatively large group of people," e.g. by the
inhabitants of a country or region, but it is a commercial *product*
that can be ordered, produced, and delivered to your door steps or your
computer or cell phone hard drives. I'll be happy to take your orders
for any culture package, and those come with a free add-on package of
5,000 facebook followers on top of that--and you tell me what you want
exactly, which and how much nationalism and/or local identity. Missing
an actual historical growth (or development) process, a grouping
process, local identity? No problem, this is not needed anymore. Just
search, point, and click to order. When I was 17 an American GI I was
hitchhiking with from Frankfurt to Heidelberg told me in his car that
he believes all those old houses and castles in and around Heidelberg
were from plastic, just as in Disneyland. I then thought that this guy
must be a little dumb to say so. Years later I understood it was a very
witty remark. Now I see that it was just the simple factual truth. Even
the Silla tombs are just from plastic, designed by the Samsung Museum
of Art Corporation. Trust me, I have a degree in art history. ($100 and
I tell you where to order one.)
So, what about the other key elements?
culture = commercial product (completely globalized, resulting
products independent from location of producer)
nationalism (resp. national sentiment) = ?
I see no quick and easy answer to this. But we for sure might want to
have an eye on how the general context is changing. If the context AND
purpose (!) of e.g. our communication, consumption, and production is
changing as dramatically as it is, then "nationalism," even if we
define the term as we always defined it, cannot be the same anymore as
it was e.g. in the 1980s. It could well have become something
essentially different--it would not be the first time in history that
the general awareness of such major paradigm shifts lacks decades
behind. That is, we still have not realized, have no appropriate
terminology yet for what is already taking place. People still think
they are actually looking at Silla tombs or walk through Venice
palaces, or that some rocky island might have something to do with
actual history or national interests, while none of those places might
even exist anymore other than as silicon replacements or digitized
images that Google and I are happy to sell you.
Best,
Frank
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:51:41 -0700 (PDT), J.Scott Burgeson wrote:
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, Frank Hoffmann wrote:
>
> I then start to wonder if maybe what (especially in South Korea) is
> seen as a national support system for its corporations (e.g. culture
> as support system *for* corporations, see again the "nation branding"
> campaign) is actually not what it is, if maybe it is in fact the
> nation-states and their political institutions in Asia that are the
> actual movers and shakers. I can't imagine that Samsung or Kia would
> get any profit from the kind of campaigns you now see in Korea. Maybe
> the economists on the list have some input?
>
> Naive musings of a non-economist: This sounds rather like
> mercantilism or neomercantilism to me, which is certainly strong to
> varying degrees in Japan, South Korea and China. And if protectionism
> is a key feature of mercantilism, "protection" of territorial
> boundaries would mesh quite easily with such economic nationalism,
> would it not? Indeed, the struggle for control of resources and
> shipping routes seems to be the driving force for most of the island
> disputes in this part of the world. And at a somewhat deeper level,
> for instance, one wonders if China's current snubbing of the IMF
> meeting in Tokyo, ostensibly because of the spat over the Diaoyus,
> might in fact be a way for it to subvert or undermine the influence
> of the IMF, an institution of "globalization" par excellence, in
> favor of its own long-game national interests? Which is to say,
> playing the "nationalist crazy" card in the most rational manner?
>
> --Scott Bug
--------------------------------------
Frank Hoffmann
http://koreaweb.ws
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: tokto [message #12896 is a reply to message #12880] |
Fri, 12 October 2012 19:34 |
Kevin Shepard
Messages: 9
Registered: September 2003
|
Junior Member |
|
|
"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@koreaweb.ws wrote:
From: koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws
Subject: Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 112, Issue 11
To: koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2012, 12:00 PM
Send Koreanstudies mailing list submissions to
koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://koreaweb.ws/mailman/listinfo/koreanstudies_koreaweb.w s
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws
You can reach the person managing the list at
koreanstudies-owner@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@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@columbia.edu
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Subject: [KS] Tokto
Message-ID: <20121010163835.tzlwf6b4pw0ow8os@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"
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
Message-ID:
<1349921813.22421.YahooMailClassic@web39404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
--- On?Wed, 10/10/12,?gkl1@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:
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:41:02 -0400
From: "McCann, David"
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
Message-ID: <2479C22B-3722-48B3-8E54-E28F91B6F5B4@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@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
To: "koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws"
Subject: [KS] Seminar on the Zainichi Author Lee Hoe-sung at
Australian National University
Message-ID:
<3303FA2CA465CB42860222667662D01103C5DE@OITMX1008.AD.UMD.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: asia_news-bounces@anu.edu.au [asia_news-bounces@anu.edu.au] on behalf of Duck-Young Lee [Duck.Lee@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@anu.edu.au
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:24:27 +0000
From: "King, Ross"
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
Message-ID:
<75AD59D95E4B5F468773766F4EF07BFE35E6FB29@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@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
**********************************************
|
|
|
|
| Re: tokto [message #12897 is a reply to message #12896] |
Fri, 12 October 2012 22:02 |
Yoo Kwang-On
Messages: 26
Registered: June 2012
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Dear Dr. Kevin Shepard,
Thank you for speaking out.
I wonder if you can still maintain your neutrality after reading these,
both published by the U.S. Government, your employer.
1.
Asiatic Pilot: East coast of Siberia, Sakhalin Island and Korea United
States Hydrographic Office under the authority of the secretary of the Navy
Washington, Government Printing Office, 1909
2.
SOURCE: U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
http://www.geographic.org/geographic_names/name.php?uni=-995 298&fid=3444&c=south_korea
Yoo Kwang-On
Shep wrote:
> "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@koreaweb.ws <
> koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws>* wrote:
>
>
> From: koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws
> >
> Subject: Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 112, Issue 11
> To: koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
> Date: Thursday, October 11, 2012, 12:00 PM
>
> Send Koreanstudies mailing list submissions to
> koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://koreaweb.ws/mailman/listinfo/koreanstudies_koreaweb.w s
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> koreanstudies-owner@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@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@columbia.edu
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List
> >
> Subject: [KS] Tokto
> Message-ID: <20121010163835.tzlwf6b4pw0ow8os@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"
> >
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List
> >
> Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
> Message-ID:
> <1349921813.22421.YahooMailClassic@web39404.mail.mud.yahoo.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> --- On?Wed, 10/10/12,?gkl1@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/attac hments/20121010/3accaad3/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:41:02 -0400
> From: "McCann, David"
> >
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List
> >
> Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
> Message-ID: <2479C22B-3722-48B3-8E54-E28F91B6F5B4@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@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
> >
> To: "koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws"
>
> >
> Subject: [KS] Seminar on the Zainichi Author Lee Hoe-sung at
> Australian National University
> Message-ID:
> <3303FA2CA465CB42860222667662D01103C5DE@OITMX1008.AD.UMD.EDU
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> From: asia_news-bounces@anu.edu.au[
> asia_news-bounces@anu.edu.au]
> on behalf of Duck-Young Lee [Duck.Lee@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@anu.edu.au
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:24:27 +0000
> From: "King, Ross"
> >
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List
> >
> Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
> Message-ID:
> <75AD59D95E4B5F468773766F4EF07BFE35E6FB29@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@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
> **********************************************
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: tokto [message #12898 is a reply to message #12896] |
Fri, 12 October 2012 22:21 |
don kirk
Messages: 100
Registered: June 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm with you on that one. This "wouldn't-it-be-great" plea takes into account one side of the equation. The Senkakus/Diaoiyutai standoff is not so easily defined, and it's surprising to see supposedly dispassionate scholars placing such credence in newspaper ads, whether one or two pages. As for Dokdo/Takeshima, that need not be such a huge issue. The Koreans hold the islets, and the Japanese are not going to challenge their control militarily. The rest is all talk. Incidentally, re the view that they're somehow only of symbolic importance, no. As one listee has noted, they're in a potentially rich area whose resources are little known and barely tapped.
Don Kirk
--- On Fri, 10/12/12, Kevin Shepard wrote:
From: Kevin Shepard
Subject: Re: [KS] tokto
To: koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
Date: Friday, October 12, 2012, 7:34 PM
"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@koreaweb.ws wrote:
From: koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws
Subject: Koreanstudies Digest, Vol 112, Issue 11
To: koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2012, 12:00 PM
Send Koreanstudies mailing list submissions to
koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://koreaweb.ws/mailman/listinfo/koreanstudies_koreaweb.w s
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
koreanstudies-request@koreaweb.ws
You can reach the person managing the list at
koreanstudies-owner@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@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@columbia.edu
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Subject: [KS] Tokto
Message-ID: <20121010163835.tzlwf6b4pw0ow8os@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"
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
Message-ID:
<1349921813.22421.YahooMailClassic@web39404.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
--- On?Wed, 10/10/12,?gkl1@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:
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:41:02 -0400
From: "McCann, David"
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
Message-ID: <2479C22B-3722-48B3-8E54-E28F91B6F5B4@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@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
To: "koreanstudies@koreaweb.ws"
Subject: [KS] Seminar on the Zainichi Author Lee Hoe-sung at
Australian National University
Message-ID:
<3303FA2CA465CB42860222667662D01103C5DE@OITMX1008.AD.UMD.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: asia_news-bounces@anu.edu.au [asia_news-bounces@anu.edu.au] on behalf of Duck-Young Lee [Duck.Lee@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@anu.edu.au
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:24:27 +0000
From: "King, Ross"
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Subject: Re: [KS] Tokto
Message-ID:
<75AD59D95E4B5F468773766F4EF07BFE35E6FB29@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@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
**********************************************
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Tokto [message #12902 is a reply to message #12899] |
Sun, 14 October 2012 15:09 |
Yoo Kwang-On
Messages: 26
Registered: June 2012
|
Junior Member |
|
|
This is how the Google Maps show Dokdo:
1. Open Google Map Link below than type in Dokdo-ri
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=ml
or
2. Open Google Earth Satellite Map below
http://en.mapatlas.org/South_Korea/Islands/Hornet_Islands/92 258/3D_earth_map
Over the map, Japanese government filed a complaint against Google in June.
Yoo Kwang-On
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Ruediger Frank
> wrote:
> Dera all,
> in fact, the nation branding campaign bears strong resemblances of the
> developmental state strategy. One of my MA students (Ms. Alena Schmuck) has
> written a thesis on that; it was actually mentioned on this list in late
> September of this year. You find it here:
> Alena Schmuck: ‘Nation Branding in South Korea: A Modern Continuation of
> the Developmental State?’ In the Korea Yearbook: Korea 2011 – Politics,
> Economy and Society Published by Brill.
> Best,
> Rudiger Frank
> (he is a friend of mine, but as there was some confusion in the past:
> please note that I am *not* Frank Hoffmann) ;-)
>
>
> on Freitag, 12. Oktober 2012 at 22:35 you wrote:
>
> *> ... -that neoliberalism in Korea is in fact not really neoliberalism
> but
>
> > rather the old developmental state that Park once created, dressed up
> > in a neoliberal costume. ...
> >
>
> *
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 22 02:39:13 EDT 2013
|
Korean Studies Discussion List
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
