|
Regarding
East Sea-the sea of Japan, both Korea and Japan reveal different points
of view.
Japan takes a position of being ignorant toward the Korea¡¯s claim,
judging that her aggressive reactions toward the Korea¡¯s raising the
problem against the naming of the Sea of Japan which is internationally
used would rather highlight the Korea¡¯s position. On the other hand,
the Korean side raises an objection the naming of the Sea of Japan
on the basis that domestic or foreign historical material¡ªmainly old
maps¡ªthat indicate the sea as East Sea.
Consequently, one side seems to be trying to protect the naming which
is internationally known and the other trying to actively let the
people in and outside the country know the unreasonableness of naming
of the Sea of Japan.
Although the materials presented by both sides differ, the way they
attempt to present their arguments is the same. That is, in a word,
the way to justify each side only by the results presented in old
maps.
On the Japanese side, they claim that they maintained a superior position
in numbers of the Sea of Japan naming in western old maps during the
18th century to the early 19th century, admitting the superiority
in numbers of East Sea naming until the late 18th century.
However, not until recently have the questions been brought up or
gone over from either side, such as why the naming have been given,
why the changes in naming the sea have occurred, and how we are to
understand the meaning of naming.
|
