Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Topic: East Sea or Sea of Japan!!?? Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 18:44 |
The name of the sea separating Korea and Japan has been contested feverishly by Koreans and Japanese. Koreans still insist that the sea should be called the East Sea, and majority of the maps made and used in Korea are printed this way. However, majority of the maps around the world uses the term, Sea of Japan.
While I don't really care what it is called, I feel that it should be called East Sea. After receving barrage of critics, I will post my reasons and so forth...
|
Join us.
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Jan-2008 at 18:51 |
Sea of Japan doesn't mean it belongs to Japan, it means it goes there, and that's pretty accurate.
Same as the English Channel, goes to England and the Irish sea goes to Ireland. It doesn't imply ownership.
In a few decades when the waters rise and Korea is an island. You get top call the sea that seperates you from China, the Korean Sea.
Edited by Paul - 09-Jan-2008 at 18:53
|
|
|
jiangweibaoye
Consul
Joined: 25-Mar-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 360
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 03:43 |
Pekau,
What was the body of water called in Korea & Japan in the 16 century?
Paul,
The name does not imply ownership, but it implies which country is more "dominant". Like why is it called North America and South America? Or even Latin America. Why America?
Jiangwei
|
Economic success breeds aggorance.
|
|
snowybeagle
Baron
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 08:06 |
The English Channel is named as "La Manche" in French maps, which translated literally to "the sleeve".
I believe the Koreans term the body of water East(ern) Sea in their own language.
The only issue is what to call it in the English language.
Do Koreans have the right to demand that Japan changes what they call it in their own language?
Or that English-speaking nations change what they choose to call it in their own language?
Or how it is translated to what different countries call it in their own respective languages?
In the Vietnamese language, the term Biển Đng (literally Eastern Sea) refers to what is termed as South China Sea in English language maps.
The Danish term stersen, the Dutch term Oostzee, the German term Ostsee, the Norwegian term stersjen, and the Swedish term stersjn as well as Old English term Osts, all literally mean Eastern Sea, but they all refer to the Baltic Sea.
Even the calqued Finnish-Swedish term Itmeri, which translate to Eastern Sea, refers to the Baltic Sea, despite the fact that the body of water is west of Finland.
The same body of water is referred to as Lnemeri in Estonian, which means Western Sea, which is geographically accurate with reference to Estonia.
Incidentally, the Latin term Mare Orientale (Eastern Sea) refers to a location on the Moon.
Since the term Eastern Sea is generic in nature and geographically relative, it is not reasonable for Korea to demand that other countries refer to what it also calls Sea of Korea as East(ern) Sea in their own languages.
What would not be unreasonable is for Korea to dispute the name Sea of Japan and advocate it be called Sea of Korea.
Compared to this body of water, there are many more countries that is geographically connected to another certain body of water, but there is no dispute in calling it Gulf of Mexico.
Think about it.
Edited by snowybeagle - 10-Jan-2008 at 08:09
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 11:30 |
As said above, East Sea is our name for the Baltic (and is naturally what you can read on maps, etc). It would be ridiculous to try to make everyone in the world accept that name - and the same goes for the Sea of Japan. To me, Sea of Japan is a much more logical name looking at the geography.
Originally posted by jiangweibaoye
The name does not imply ownership, but it implies which country is more "dominant". Like why is it called North America and South America? Or even Latin America. Why America?
Jiangwei
|
Not at all. Back to the Baltic sea example again: of all countries around that sea, the Baltic countries are the ones that never were dominant on or around it.
Edited by Styrbiorn - 10-Jan-2008 at 11:37
|
|
Suren
Arch Duke
Chieftain
Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1673
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 11:41 |
Which one is the original name for the Sea?
|
|
Roberts
Chieftain
aka axeman
Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 11:49 |
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
As said above, East Sea is our name for the Baltic (and is naturally what you can read on maps, etc). It would be ridiculous to try to make everyone in the world accept that name - and the same goes for the Sea of Japan.
Not at all. Back to the Baltic sea example again: of all countries around that sea, the Baltic countries are the ones that never were dominant on or around it.
|
The term "Baltic" originated from " Mare Balticum" - the name given by eleventh century German chronicler Adam of Bremen. The exact origin is still unknown, but probably have nothing to do with current territory or people of modern Baltic states. The name Baltic Sea started to dominate only after 16th century. Usage of Baltic and similar terms to denote the region east from the sea and the Indo-European language group of Latvians and Lithuanians started only in 19th century. Or maybe the only time we were dominant in history was in 11th century...
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 12:42 |
Originally posted by axeman
The term "Baltic" originated from "Mare Balticum" - the name given by eleventh century German chronicler Adam of Bremen. The exact origin is still unknown, but probably have nothing to do with current territory or people of modern Baltic states. The name Baltic Sea started to dominate only after 16th century. Usage of Baltic and similar terms to denote the region east from the sea and the Indo-European language group of Latvians and Lithuanians started only in 19th century.
Or maybe the only time we were dominant in history was in 11th century...
|
Well, the etymology is totally different - the comparison ends there. Personally I suspect it is directly related to the Belts, the straits that separate the Baltic sea from the North sea (that area is actually called "Blt Sea" in Swedish).
|
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 14:44 |
Hello to you all
Since nobody own the damn sea then each country names it as wants, I never heard the French threatening the boycott the London olympics just because in English maps it's the "English Channel" not the "Manche" like the Iranians did when they threatened to boycott the Asian games just because Qatar said it was the "Arabia Gulf" in Arabic maps only, the rest of the maps said it was the Persian gulf. Such stupid sensitivies are just that, stupid. It is a damn name thats all, no soverignty no nothing.
Al-Jassas
|
|
snowybeagle
Baron
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 16:08 |
Originally posted by axeman
The term "Baltic" originated from "Mare Balticum" - the name given by eleventh century German chronicler Adam of Bremen. The exact origin is still unknown, but probably have nothing to do with current territory or people of modern Baltic states. |
I think the Baltic states got its name from the sea, not the other way around.
|
|
snowybeagle
Baron
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Jan-2008 at 16:18 |
Originally posted by Al Jassas
Such stupid sensitivies are just that, stupid. It is a damn name thats all, no soverignty no nothing. |
The sensitivities are symptoms of unresolved underlying issues.
Even in the same country of USA, some southerners still use the term Battle of Manassas to refer to what is more widely referred to as Battle of Bull Run.
Some things like these may not have a resolution.
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jan-2008 at 18:32 |
Originally posted by Al Jassas
Hello to you all
Since nobody own the damn sea then each country names it as wants, I never heard the French threatening the boycott the London olympics just because in English maps it's the "English Channel" not the "Manche" like the Iranians did when they threatened to boycott the Asian games just because Qatar said it was the "Arabia Gulf" in Arabic maps only, the rest of the maps said it was the Persian gulf. Such stupid sensitivies are just that, stupid. It is a damn name thats all, no soverignty no nothing.
Al-Jassas |
That may be true, but the situation is little more complex in the sea between Korea and Japan. France and England will not go into conflict (As if they need any more conflicts) just for English Channel. But the fishing industries in East Sea is becoming increasingly competitive, especially due to the popularity of sea-food like sushi. Government of Japan and South Korea are debating over the sovereign rights over the sea even more intensely, especially when the geologists have a small suspecion that East Sea may have some oil reserves. The border issue is becoming complicated as well, especially due to potential threat and kidnappings from North Korea. As a matter of fact, Japan addressed this issue to UN some time ago. I bet British and French didn't do that. I believe French adn British killed enough people to solve the English Channel issue long before WWI began.
|
Join us.
|
|
snowybeagle
Baron
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jan-2008 at 02:09 |
Originally posted by pekau
But the fishing industries in East Sea is becoming increasingly competitive, especially due to the popularity of sea-food like sushi. Government of Japan and South Korea are debating over the sovereign rights over the sea even more intensely, especially when the geologists have a small suspecion that East Sea may have some oil reserves. The border issue is becoming complicated as well, especially due to potential threat and kidnappings from North Korea. As a matter of fact, Japan addressed this issue to UN some time ago. I bet British and French didn't do that. I believe French adn British killed enough people to solve the English Channel issue long before WWI began. |
The French and the Brits had been killing each other a long time before WW1, but it wasn't over the naming of the English Channel.
As for sovereignity, or maritime territorial limit, it doesn't depend on the naming of the body of water.
Nobody would think that the whole Indian Ocean belongs to India!
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 22:04 |
Sorry Pekau, but in this case i think that the position of koreans here is matter of a complex, it's very easy understand that the general use of "Sea of Japan" is dominant because is more concrete for the rest of the world than the more generic "East Sea". The korean insistence in this question only damage the external view of koreans. I don't understand your argument about the future importance of the sea and the natural resources, no relation here with the question of the name of a sea wich is very important today because those natural resources and because is the sea of at least two so great peoples.
|
|
Siege Tower
Colonel
Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Location: Edmonton,Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 580
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 01:54 |
it's very easy understand that the general use of "Sea of Japan" is
dominant because is more concrete for the rest of the world than the
more generic "East Sea
continue calling it "Japanese sea" would only deepen the quarrel between China/Korea and Japan, it should be called eastern sea, there are no questions about it
|
|
|
LuckyNomad
Knight
Joined: 02-May-2007
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 68
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 02:50 |
By calling it the Eastern Sea, it would imply that the Sea is being named in orientation to Korea's geography. The Sea is West of Japan.
Anyway, the name of the Sea is not really an important issue. It's just part of Korea's national inferiority complex which has developed after spending all those centuries being overshadowed by powerful neighbors. Korea never got revenge for the Japanese Pirate raids, The Imjin War, or the Japanese Colonization Period, and Korea will never fully get out from China's shadow, so this is sort of nationalism is a key part of Korea's culture.
|
|
snowybeagle
Baron
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Singapore
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 474
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 07:09 |
Perhaps East Asian Sea might be an acceptable middle ground - it does reflect the geographical location of the body of water being *east* of the Asian continent ...
|
|
Siege Tower
Colonel
Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Location: Edmonton,Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 580
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 21:12 |
nice suggestion, since it was shared by all three countries of far east, it would be wrong to call it by the name of one specific country.
Edited by Siege Tower - 29-Feb-2008 at 21:17
|
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 21:32 |
Originally posted by Siege Tower
it's very easy understand that the general use of "Sea of Japan" is dominant because is more concrete for the rest of the world than the more generic "East Sea
continue calling it "Japanese sea" would only deepen the quarrel between China/Korea and Japan, it should be called eastern sea, there are no questions about it |
The name is not important, the important is the division. Solve the confflict and you will not have the problem of the name, Gulf of Mxico is a good example.
In the same way, why should have the sea one and only one name? The English Channel is english for a group of countries, french and spanish call it Channel of La Manche and anybody worry about this.
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 08:35 |
Well, considering the Japanese name for Japan is not Japan. This is even less of a useful discussion. Maybe the Islands were named after the sea?
|
|