- 17 Jan 2007
- 93
- 2
Historical reasons
South Korea and Japan use selective samples of old European maps to support their claim. South Korea point to maps that show "Sea of Korea" or "East Sea", whereas the Japan point to maps that show "Sea of Japan" to argue that the name was in use before the rise of Japanese imperialism. Many old maps are ambiguous and some even do not include Korea or Japan.[8][9]
Part of the dispute boils down to the disagreement over when "Sea of Japan" became the de facto standard. Japan claims that the term "Sea of Japan" was originally named by Westerners and became the de facto standard before Japan gained commercial and political influence over other nations.[12] Japan claims dates in the early 19th century,[8][9] whereas Korea claims Japan promoted the "Sea of Japan" name in the early 20th century when Korea was colonized by Japan.[3]
Korea's argument for "East Sea" stems from their claim that the term was used in European maps before the 20th century[14]. Japan counters by saying "there was no map that used only the name 'East Sea' by itself.[15]"
South Korea pointed out that a few 19th-century Japanese maps even referred to the sea as the "Sea of Joseon (Korea)",[16] including the 1855 Matsuda Ryokuzan's (ﾂ渉ｼ窶彡窶氾芝ｽR) Chikyubankoku zenzu (窶冢窶ｹ窶ｦ窶毒毒｡ﾂ?窶牢ﾂ図), and the 1870 Meiji kaitei bankoku yochibunzu (窶督ｾﾅｽﾂ｡窶ｰﾃｼ窶凖ｹ窶毒毒｡ﾂ?窶覗窶冢窶｢ﾂｪﾂ図). [17] Additionally, in several Japanese maps, the Pacific Ocean was called Dainihon kai "窶佚･窶愿ｺ窶怒ﾅ?C" (the Great Sea of Japan), and the Korean Peninsula side of the Sea of Japan was called Chōsen-kai "窶卍ｩ窶朗ﾅ?C" (Sea of Korea).[18]
From Wikipedia.
My person thought is that Korea should let the matter go. The world is already calling it the Sea of Japan, so there is no need to roughen up everybody's life.
However, as Wikipedia shows, Sea of Japan for the Japanese was the pacific ocean, and more often than not, in the area, east sea or sea of chosun was used to call the sea of japan. I believe Korea has the historical advantage.
But like i said, i think language should put emphasis on meaning than its derivative, and i disagree against changing the name.
South Korea and Japan use selective samples of old European maps to support their claim. South Korea point to maps that show "Sea of Korea" or "East Sea", whereas the Japan point to maps that show "Sea of Japan" to argue that the name was in use before the rise of Japanese imperialism. Many old maps are ambiguous and some even do not include Korea or Japan.[8][9]
Part of the dispute boils down to the disagreement over when "Sea of Japan" became the de facto standard. Japan claims that the term "Sea of Japan" was originally named by Westerners and became the de facto standard before Japan gained commercial and political influence over other nations.[12] Japan claims dates in the early 19th century,[8][9] whereas Korea claims Japan promoted the "Sea of Japan" name in the early 20th century when Korea was colonized by Japan.[3]
Korea's argument for "East Sea" stems from their claim that the term was used in European maps before the 20th century[14]. Japan counters by saying "there was no map that used only the name 'East Sea' by itself.[15]"
South Korea pointed out that a few 19th-century Japanese maps even referred to the sea as the "Sea of Joseon (Korea)",[16] including the 1855 Matsuda Ryokuzan's (ﾂ渉ｼ窶彡窶氾芝ｽR) Chikyubankoku zenzu (窶冢窶ｹ窶ｦ窶毒毒｡ﾂ?窶牢ﾂ図), and the 1870 Meiji kaitei bankoku yochibunzu (窶督ｾﾅｽﾂ｡窶ｰﾃｼ窶凖ｹ窶毒毒｡ﾂ?窶覗窶冢窶｢ﾂｪﾂ図). [17] Additionally, in several Japanese maps, the Pacific Ocean was called Dainihon kai "窶佚･窶愿ｺ窶怒ﾅ?C" (the Great Sea of Japan), and the Korean Peninsula side of the Sea of Japan was called Chōsen-kai "窶卍ｩ窶朗ﾅ?C" (Sea of Korea).[18]
From Wikipedia.
My person thought is that Korea should let the matter go. The world is already calling it the Sea of Japan, so there is no need to roughen up everybody's life.
However, as Wikipedia shows, Sea of Japan for the Japanese was the pacific ocean, and more often than not, in the area, east sea or sea of chosun was used to call the sea of japan. I believe Korea has the historical advantage.
But like i said, i think language should put emphasis on meaning than its derivative, and i disagree against changing the name.
