The posters for the 2012 Yeosu Expo also have the "Sea of Japan." Here's one hanging at school:
As I've argued before, the name "Sea of Japan" is and ought to remain the English name for the body of water. Some 95% of Koreans, according to a survey last year, believe the name should be the "East Sea." Koreans do, of course, call it 동해 in Korean, and nobody is suggesting it be changed to 일본해 in Korean. However, the established and accepted English name is Sea of Japan, and Koreans shouldn't stick their noses into other people's languages. Moreover, and what realy induces eye rolls and forehead slaps is that people are advocating replacing the Sea of Japan because it supposedly reflects Japanese imperialism and is a product of, so they say, aggressive lobbying by Japanese politicians. The alternate name suggested, though, is even more disgustingly ethnocentric and nationalistic because the sea is, after all, to the immediate east of Korea.
I know my page has been linked to Korean forums like "History Guardian" whenever I've posted on Korea's territorial disputes, and I'm sure pictures of the Yeosu poster will make their way there sooner or later If any of those readers are able, I'd like to invite them to give well-reasoned opinions as to why it should be called the East Sea in English. Things like "Japan was bad" won't cut it, nor will saying Koreans have been calling it "East Sea" for 2,000 years---because they haven't been using English that long---nor will references to a minority of old maps that label it the East Sea. You can't pick and choose which maps you trust, especially when they're inaccurate in so many other ways.
If you're so ambitious and want to "correct" English, start with your Top 40 music, with copyeditors who don't seem to know how to punctuate or capitalize a goddamn thing, and what passes for English teachers these days. Otherwise back the fuck off, k thx.
22 comments:
Perhaps nothing demonstrates the blind ethnocentrism of Koreans more than the push for "East Sea", a name that tells people in the rest of the world exactly nothing. "Sea of Korea," that I could understand. At least I'd know where in the world we are talking about. The Persian Gulf is referred to by the Arabs as the Arabian Gulf; is it not? No problem either way. But asking people in Europe, Africa, and the Americas to say "East Sea" is not sparkling.
Why not "Dokdo Sea"? (Do you know?)
I find that the logic behind "East Sea" is often undone by Korean references to "The Yellow Sea". Surely it's the "West Sea" using that logic?
See here:
http://web.utk.edu/~hchoo/personal/korea2001.jpg
and here:
http://www.perfect-products.net/south-korean-maps/images/South-Korea-Map.jpg
Oh and where's the hub-bub over The South Sea? (East China Sea?)
http://www.hunt-fish-camp.us/korea-map.gif
While I'm loathe to jump in here, you DID ask for legitimate reasons:
First, the sea is in fact to the east of something; mainly, the majority of Asia, similar to how the North Sea in Europe still manages to be east of some countries and west of others. We don't call it the British Sea even though the British Isles take up a chunk of what borders the sea.
Second, although there is some controversy over exactly when the English name "East Sea" first appeared, certainly it's first appearance in the IHO maps were in fact directly resulting from the colonial state of many of the nations involved.
Of course, maps not being completely standardized, you can make the argument that the Korean case for "East Sea" is weak because there's a plurality of maps of various accuracy with myriad other names. Just because other regional groups share a similar name (it is similarly "East Sea" in Chinese, for example) doesn't make for a perfect case. Of course, this also means that ALL arguments based on maps for naming conventions are suspect, and that Sea of Japan is equally incorrect.
I understand that for many foreigners, hearing and reading these arguments gets tiresome and old, but lets not say that there is no force whatsoever to them.
Fair enough, Gomushin Girl. Not necessarily watertight, ffnar, but not bad, and certainly not totally without reason.
In addition, the argument, "This is what we do in our language (English), but feel free to call it what you want in yours," might sound ok-ish to you, but English is the international language of, well, almost everything, and it is tremendously and uncomfortably colonial to start going around brooking no argument about the names of things just because "it's my language."
I've been meaning to write a post on this for sometime. I'm no protector of sacred cows, as one can see by my all-time most widely read post ever (though this one is seriously catching up, because of the woman with the freaky shark tattoo), but I agree with Gomushin Girl that there is some there there, and the IHO regulations back up Korea's side.
And for what it's worth, while "East Sea" and "Sea of Korea/Corea/Corée" all have some historical backing, Korea's official drive to go with East Sea rather than Sea of Korea actually represents a compromise.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at with that last paragraph, Chris. English is an international language, and "Sea of Japan" probably represents to Koreans Japan asserting itself on the world stage. But the thing about this "it's not your language, it's OUR language" argument is:
(1) that certainly wouldn't fly in Korean or many other languages, and
(2) it forgets that people actually use English as more than just a lingua franca, that there is history, traditions, culture, conventions, meanings behind it that aren't shared across the board. You can't, as I've said in a lot of "lost in translation" or "Bad English posts" simply use English without regard to the meaning its actual speakers attribute to it.
Yeah, it's a philosophical debate that could go either way, but still.
Fair enough, Gomushin Girl, you actually provided real reasons. I haven't been swayed, but you did the assignment properly.
Kushibo, it doesn't really matter that "Sea of Corea" has had some official backing in the past, it's waying that backing against the "Sea of Japan" backing and against what English speakers decide to name it. It's ridiculous to think Sea of Korea is any less objectionable than Sea of Japan, so Koreans aren't being lenient by not pushing THAT issue.
And as I've written in an earlier post---can't dig it up now, I linked to it up there---you can't really accuse Japan of being aggressive diplomatically, of pushing its naming conventions on others, when Korea is the one with the most visibility from those efforts. I was reminded by that as I looked at the ads on the side: certainly nothing like "Do you know SEA OF JAPAN?" or "Takeshima is our land, the Korean government must acknowledge this fact."
Yes, but thanks to an (echem!) agressive push some hundred-odd years ago, they don't need to push for the name to be "Sea of Japan"
I agree that the Korean efforts have been ham-handed, and really wish that groups like VANK would eat a nice healthy serving of crow. But I really don't see this as a major case of linguistic oppression for English speakers. Call it what we will, we can hardly expect Koreans (and Chinese) to be thrilled with the idea of everyone using a name that does nothing but rub upleasant history in their faces.
Exactly how does it rub unpleasant history in your faces? It's just a name in a different language.
In Korean, terms like "미국" and "호주" are widely used, but I've never heard these terms outside the peninsula. Americans and Australians have never tried to change "incorrect Korean." Please try to understand our unique culture and naming customs.
Thank you for reading my post.
@ Chris
"English is the international language of, well, almost everything, and it is tremendously and uncomfortably colonial to start going around brooking no argument about the names of things just because "it's my language.""
Exactly how is this different from demanding we change the name of something in our language? I find it tremendously and uncomfortably ethnocentric to demand changes in someone else's language.
[Yes, but thanks to an (echem!) agressive push some hundred-odd years ago, they don't need to push for the name to be "Sea of Japan"]
False. The name "Sea of Japan" was the de facto standard name on Western maps long before Japan had modernized and became a colonial power. Almost 100% of early 19th century English language maps use the name "Sea of Japan."
The thought that Japan used its power to "push" English-speakers into using the name "Sea of Japan" is a wild delusion.
On an earlier post I said that if they're going to change the name, change it to "East Asian Sea." East Sea is ridiculous, and Sea of Korea is superultraridiculous, but East Asian Sea is neutral and geographically significant. Koreans can call it East Sea in Korean, and Japanese can call it "Sea of Japan"---or whatever they call it, I don't know, in Japanese---and English-speakers and those working in the language will have a name that reflects where it is on the map.
Now, of course I'm not going to start advocating a name change. When these VANKers start in by going after US politicians, I have half a mind to write them myself. (VANKers just have half a mind. *zing*) And the enthusiasm I have for Korea's side of things decreases as their effort to push the English-speaking community around increases.
Here's where I school all of you "East Sea" supporters:
You're wrong. 100% - no 'if' 'ands' or 'buts' - wrong about this issue. In fact, its a complete NON-issue, and the fact that there even IS an issue just proves how unbelievably stupid this argument is and how nescient its supporters are. Anyone who even tries to legitimize the argument needs to simply stop talking right now and listen up:
- Let's start with this:
"Koreans do, of course, call it 동해 in Korean, and nobody is suggesting it be changed to 일본해 in Korean."This is from Brian's post and this is the only point with which I disagree with him. Assuming that 일본해 is Korean for "Sea of Japan" than I ABSOLUTELY and FUNDAMENTALLY believe Korea should be calling it 일본해.
Countries that call it "East Sea": 1
Countries that call it "Sea of Japan": Everyone else.
Korea is behind the times refusing to call it the Sea of Japan. We have globally standardized names of a reason and running against the grain is not only frustrating, it causes problems. NO ONE will know what you're talking about if you call it the East Sea in English. Standardized test will mark it incorrect if you use East Sea. It is equivalent to calling Russia "U.S.S.R." in this day and age.
Government bodies have standardized the name Russia and people who call it the "U.S.S.R." indicates that they haven't attended a geography class since 1991. NO ONE calls Russia "U.S.S.R." anymore because it's no longer a United Soviet country. In the same way, NO ONE is calling all the new countries that emerged from U.S.S.R.'s dissolution "U.S.S.R." because that's not THEIR names.
Governing bodies got together, established a prescient and went from there. Calling these countries "U.S.S.R." today would not only confuse people, it would make you look like an idiot.
Same thing for the Sea of Japan. The name is established... IN EVERY COUNTRY. It doesn't matter what you used to call it, what your language calls/called it, or what you think it should be called. We're not in 1991 anymore, likewise, Korea is not in the 1870s.
Korea SHOULD be calling it 일본해 or "Sea of Japan".
- Someone mentioned the "North Sea". The North Sea was probably named so because it is NORTH of European countries which, you know, were the ones who actually started expeditions to discover the new world. Back then, I'm sure creativity of sea naming wasn't high on the agenda. That said, it is NOT named the "Frisian Sea", "German Ocean", "German Sea" or "Germanic Sea" because we STANDARDIZED the name NORTH SEA. This is why people today call it the North Sea even though its to the East or West of other countries.
Now, let's look at the bias of calling the Sea of Japan "East Sea": The Sea of Japan may be East of China and Korea but it is WEST of Japan, SOUTH of Russia (and China) and NORTH of the Philippines. So, in fact, its only an "East" Sea if you are located in, you know, Korea (or China). Yeah, totally neutral.
This MIGHT be a legitimate argument (like North Sea) if other countries SURROUNDING the Sea of Japan called it East Sea. But as far as I know, and as far as Google says: Countries calling it "East Sea": One. Countries calling it "Sea of Japan": Everyone else.
Here's where I give ex-president Roh Moo-hyun some credit: "Sea of Peace" was a valiant effort to remain more neutral than the current ridiculousness that is "East Sea".
- Japanese bias: This argument MIGHT - huge MIGHT - have some merit if Koreans were actively pursuing a changing of the naming for the Korean Straight. It has the name Korea in it: It shows bias to one country over another. But, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think I've heard any naming controversy over the Korean Straight. Hmm. Interesting.
I absolutely love hypocrites.
What does this mean? It means the only reason this is even an issue for Koreans is because it is called the Sea of WAE PIRATES. If it were called the Sea of Korea, I'd bet you everything I own we wouldn't be hearing a peep out of Koreans today.
- Lastly, I agree with Brian here: It is COMPLETELY disrespectful for Korea(ns) to tell English countries/speakers (or any other country for that matter) what to call a geographic location in their native language.
Korea, as I understand, is called/pronounced Dae-Han-Min-Guk in Korean. Now, maybe its just me, but that doesn't look or sound at all like "ko-re-ah". Would it be right of us English speakers/countries to force Korea to change the naming of its country IN KOREAN to "Ko-Re-Ah" (because that's its name for thousands of years and the Korean governement must acknowledge this fact)?
Of course not. Don't be stupid. Korean is not our language and we're not going around telling Koreans to call Dae-Han-Min-Guk "Korea" in Korean. Or Japanese to call Nihhon "Japan" in Japanese.
So Koreans should 100% STOP telling English speakers what to call the Sea of Japan to English speakers. Its name is "Sea of Japan". If, one day, they are able to convince the global population to rename the sea the East Sea IN ENGLISH (by, say, a UN resolution), then we should all follow suit. Until then, if Koreans want to continue to call it "East Sea" IN KOREAN, then hey: More power to you. Way to keep your people completely uneducated.
Until then, the naming argument has no merit, basis in fact or reality, and should be dropped from so-called "debates". END OF STORY.
This is me posting: Yes, yes, yes. Refuse to pander to Koreans. Couldn't have said it better. Take a bow.
"Japanese can call it "Sea of Japan"---or whatever they call it, I don't know, in Japanese---"
In Japanese, it is in fact called the Sea of Japan, just as in English.
[In Japanese, it is in fact called the Sea of Japan, just as in English.]
Indeed they do. But they didn't start using that name for the sea until the country modernized in the late 19th century.
Older Japanese maps actually called labeled the Pacific Ocean as the "Sea of Japan," while the Sea of Japan was sometimes labeled as the "Korea Sea." The Japanese saw that their Japan-centric names for the seas were out of step with the west, so all future Japanese maps used translations of the names modernized countries were already using for the sea.
@thisismeposting:
"Assuming that 일본해 is Korean for "Sea of Japan" than I ABSOLUTELY and FUNDAMENTALLY believe Korea should be calling it 일본해."
"It is COMPLETELY disrespectful for Korea(ns) to tell English countries/speakers (or any other country for that matter) what to call a geographic location in their native language."
"I absolutely love hypocrites."
me too.
Personally I couldn't care less what the East/Japan Sea is called so I have no axe to grind here, but I stumbled across the "This is Me Posting" comment and I just couldn't NOT say something. I found some of your arguments amazing in their absurdity ...and yet you are pretty confident in them (to put it mildly). Let's examine just a few...
You said it is "COMPLETELY disrespectful for Korea(ns) to tell English countries/speakers (or any other country for that matter) what to call a geographic location in their native language", and at the same time say "I ABSOLUTELY and FUNDAMENTALLY believe Korea should be calling it 일본해". Amazing.
You say the dispute is "a complete NON-issue, and the fact that there even IS an issue just proves how unbelievably stupid this argument is". Huh? I've read this quote several times and I still can't pull any real logic out of it. It seems like you're saying "you're wrong, and the fact the don't know it, proves you're wrong". I give you props for having the temerity to try to slip in unnoticed some circular logic.
You say that Koreans shouldn't tell English speakers what to call the sea. This argument seems to have support from others. But why? I gather that many Koreans take offense to it being called "Sea of Japan", and that this is due, in part, to their perception of Japan's imperialism and past wrongs associated with this. Given this, is it not reasonable that they don't want you to call it "Sea of Japan". I suggest that if Japan called the U.S.A. a Japanese word meaning "Land of Japan" there would be a lot of Americans who would want them to use another label.
Your argument about why Koreans shouldn't call it "East Sea" seems to boil down to - it causes confusion, and you give the following example: "standardized test will mark it incorrect if you use East Sea". Is this really where all your passion stems from? Is your world constantly being turned upside down when people call it "East Sea". I think your passion on the subject stems from something else. I reckon I could take an educated guess on what fuels it....
You know what's even MORE awesome than hypocrites? People who don't read full arguments. I think that's awesome.
I seriously hope Chris and Rowena and J aren't English teachers, 'cause man, you two should be fired. Like, immediately.
If both of you kept reading (which apparently is really hard for you to do) you would have noticed this part of my argument: "If, one day, they are able to convince the global population to rename the sea the East Sea IN ENGLISH (by, say, a UN resolution), then we should all follow suit. Until then, if Koreans want to continue to call it "East Sea" IN KOREAN, then hey: More power to you."See, if I was going around trying to tell Koreans to call it 일본해 instead of 동해, then you might have a point. If I was spending money on campaigning and/or starting organizations for Koreans to call it 일본해, then you might have a point. But instead, I'm pretty sure all I was doing was expressing an opinion. Neither C&M nor J asked me what I would call the Sea of Japan if I were to learn Korean. If I insisted on calling it 일본해 when I spoke Korean, then C&M and J would have a point. When in Rome, however, do what Romans do: I would, therefore, obviously call it 동해 if I was in Korea, or learning Korean.
See, the more I look at my argument, the more I notice that I end it with: "[..]if Koreans want to continue to call it "East Sea" IN KOREAN, then hey: More power to you." Now, I don't know what that looks like for C&M and J, but to me - and probably to most other people who speak and read English well - its EXACTLY in line with what I said in previous paragraphs. I personally, absolutely and fundamentally don't agree with Korea's point of view, but I'm not telling them what to call it, unlike Korea(ns). I believe they should call it the "Sea of Japan," but I specifically state that if they want to call it "East Sea;" MORE POWER TO THEM. Its stupid and ignorant, much like C&M and J's posts, but if Korea(ns) want to keep their people dumb, that's their prerogative. In debates, this is what we call a CONCLUSION; a "closing argument," if you will. It happens at the end of any point of contention and summarizes the speaker's POINT OF VIEW.
English comprehension, ftw.
Once again, (now pay attention C&M, 'cause you apparently missed a lot of this) my POINTS (plural) were that calling it the "East Sea" instead of "Sea of Japan" is outdated (similar to calling Russia "U.S.S.R."), causes confusion (Korea is the ONLY country in the world that uses "East Sea") and is ethno-centric ("East Sea" is only East of Korea). Furthermore, as has ALREADY BEEN POINTED OUT in the other comments in this thread (but again, that requires reading... not your strongest suit), the naming of the Sea of Japan didn't come from Japan itself (in fact, Japan used to call the PACIFIC OCEAN the Sea of Japan). Nor was it enforced by Japan when Korea was under Japanese imperial rule. In this case, both Sea of Korea and Sea of Japan were used BEFORE Japanese imperial rule, however, even before that time and before Japan had the global political influence it has today, most other countries standardized Sea of Japan, meaning that the name was established OUTSIDE of Korean/Japanese feuding. Since today it is a global standard, Korea should be the one adapting to the name, not the rest of the freakin' world to Korea's whim. Japan, after all, does not continue to call the Pacific Ocean "Sea of Japan," as it did, because that is not its standardized name. If Japan were to insist that the REST OF THE WORLD should call the Pacific Ocean the "Sea of Japan" then I'd have the same beef with Japan as I do with Korea's current nonsense. Your argument about Japan renaming USA "Land of Japan," by the way, is neither here nor there, because (A) That would be a case of another country renaming a land over which someone has claimed OWNERSHIP of (your example would fit better if Japan had tried to rename the country of Korea itself) and (B) As was already pointed out, the naming of the Sea of Japan was NOT due to Japan's imperial rule of Korea.
Lastly, where does my passion stem from, C&M? It stems from the same place that this response to you and J stemmed from: My utter disdain for stupidity. The "East Sea" argument IS a non-issue because there is zero merit to the argument and it doesn't make sense. It is rooted in Korea's racism against Japan and nothing more. As an example of counterpoint, regardless of my personal beliefs and opinions about the Liancourt Rocks, I can understand why there is an argument and why and how both sides can argue a valid stance on why the islands belong to their respective side. The "East Sea" argument has no merit, does not have any legitimate foundation in facts for why it should be called "East Sea" and is ultimately rooted in racism. My opening statement was a roundabout way of me saying: "I can't believe this is even an issue."
So, C&M, you can "reckon" on your "educated guesses" all you want, the bottom line is that its a dumb argument, much like your "counter point" and J's puerile quote mining. Next time either you or J feel like taking a crack at me, make sure both of you know what you're talking about, 'cause you obviously don't and J's quote mining just makes him look like a dick. If you kids can't do something as basic as reading - and at least attempting to use a little bit of that grey matter you got up there - don't come at me at all, capisci?
Now, if you can point out why any of my arguments lack merit for their content, then we'll talk. Should the rest of the world adapt to Korea's whim? Why? What for? If we do rename the Sea of Japan, should this open the flood gates (no pun intended) to rename other seas, like the North Sea? How about maintaining U.S.S.R. as Russia's current name? What about renaming the Korean Straight? Obviously an ethno-centric name, should it keep its name if we rename the Sea of Japan to "East Sea"? Perhaps the "East Sea Straight"? How about enforcing that Asian countries call their countries by their English names in their languages, such as "Ko-Re-Ah" instead of "Dae-Han-Min-Guk" for no other reason then that's what we've been calling it for thousands of years (and the Korean government must acknowledge this fact)?
I look forward to your responses to these questions soon.
Re: This Is Me Posting's last post.
First of all let's lift the tone a little. There's no need to call people "stupid", "kids", "a dick", etc., and suggest they should be fired. Okay now that I've secured the moral high ground...
Where to begin...
Let's remind ourselves of that piece of gross hypocrisy. You said it is "COMPLETELY disrespectful for Korea(ns) to tell English countries/speakers (or any other country for that matter) what to call a geographic location in their native language", and at the same time stated "I ABSOLUTELY and FUNDAMENTALLY believe Korea should be calling it 일본해". I don't believe that, because you contradicted yourself (albeit with lip service) in a concluding statement, we should ignore your previous statements. Furthermore, (poorly and condescendingly) defining what a "conclusion" is does not somehow magically explain away your hypocrisy.
You can not wriggle your way out by trying to create a distinction between what you do and what those from the "East Sea" camp do. When you publicly post comments such as, "I ABSOLUTELY and FUNDAMENTALLY believe Korea should be calling it 일본해" clearly you ARE telling people what to do and you are, in a sense, "campaigning". The fact that you are not spending money campaigning and starting organizations is not all that relevant. Obviously most Koreans are not spending money and starting organizations, yet if they think it should be called East Sea in other languages (and it seems their own) you so vehemently disagree.
Please stop repeating the U.S.S.R./Russia - East/Japan Sea analogy. They are not analogous and I cringe reading it. Russia and former Soviet nations are no longer called U.S.S.R. because to do so would inaccurately DESCRIBE so much about those countries. They are no longer United Soviet Socialist Republics. They are no longer "united", no longer "Soviet", no longer "socialist". THAT is why calling them U.S.S.R. would be stupid. On the other hand we have the East/Japan Sea. "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan" are not (at least on the surface) inaccurate descriptions. However, I imagine many Koreans would say that "Sea of Japan" implies it is Japan's Sea, and that this is not just inaccurate but unfair. I would agree that "East Sea" is not a completely neutral label either because, although it is east of many Asian nations, it is directly east of Korea. In the interest of fairness and peace, a completely neutral label would be best; perhaps Roh Moo-hyun's "Sea of Peace".
I would also agree that many proponents of the label "East Sea" are motivated by nationalism and ethnocentrism. But unlike you, I concede that many of their opponents in Japan have the same motivations. If those in Japan are less vocal it is largely because they have already "won". Whether other countries starting calling the sea "Sea of Japan" first or not is not all that relevant. If everyone suddenly started calling it "East Sea" or "Korean Sea" it would be fair to assume there'd be instant, strong opposition. On the topic of motivations, I believe that many "Sea of Japan" expats living in Korea are motivated by bitterness and resentment towards Korea. If, This Is Me Posting, you are one such person, I hope that you may one day develop the insight to see as much. And, if I may patronize you a little further, I hope that MY posts aid you on that journey of self-reflection.
The point I was trying to make with the "Land of Japan" analogy in my previous comment was that the language itself is not the main issue, its the meaning the words carry. If I insult a Spaniard in English it's still an insult. I don't get to say "how dare you tell me what I can say in my own language". This is a very simple concept so I can only assume that you are feigning ignorance. You suggested that Koreans telling people to call the sea "East Sea" is the same as English speakers telling Koreans to call their country "Ko-Re-Ah" instead of "Dae-Han-Min-Guk". I disagree. I would think that Koreans have their own term for "East Sea" (ie same meaning, different word/pronunciation), just as the Japanese have their own for "Sea of Japan". "Ko-Re-Ah" and "Dae-Han-Min-Guk" basically have the same meaning. "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan" have very different meanings and clearly they have become very loaded terms. To reiterate, it is the MEANING that is important, not the language. Furthermore, I don't even know if you can "own" a language. Even if you could, it doesn't necessarily give you the moral right to use it to piss people off.
Please, if you are going to respond to this I encourage you to think carefully first. My silly pride means that I am almost certain to respond to your response and I would much prefer to do so to a considered, well structured rebuttal.
P.S. I actually had more to say but had to cut this short because Rowena is calling me out for a coffee. Which reminds me, I'm Chris. If/when responding direct all your questions/statements/insults to me, not Rowena. Cheers.
Just in case you haven't seen it:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/maritime/japan/pamph0903.pdf
Post a Comment