Jiandao

Last updated

  1. 李花子 (2017). "试析1907—1909年日本界定的"间岛"地理范围". 近代史研究 (in Chinese).
  2. "Jiandao Incident 间岛事件始末". Archived from the original on 2012-03-17. Retrieved 2011-06-22.
  3. "[2030세상읽기]한국엔 왜 파시즘 정당이 없을까". 7 August 2012.
  4. "Korea China text book argument".
  5. "Information on Jiandao". Archived from the original on 2008-05-04.
  6. 1 2 "한국사데이터베이스". db.history.go.kr. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
  7. Records of the Japanese Embassy in Korea. "(357) [間島 재주 한국인의 재판관할 청국 측 관행에 관한 報告]". db.history.go.kr. Retrieved 2022-07-16.
  8. "세계한민족문화대전". www.okpedia.kr. Retrieved 2022-05-30.
  9. "이범윤(李範允)". Encyclopedia of Korean Culture . Retrieved 2022-07-16.
  10. Records of the Japanese Embassy in Korea. "(20) [間島 문제에 관한 淸國 주재 內田 公使의 보고서 사본 轉送 件]". db.history.go.kr. Retrieved 2022-07-16.
  11. Erik W. Esselstrom (2000). "Rethinking the Colonial Conquest of Manchuria: The Japanese Consular Police in Jiandao, 1909–1937". Modern Asian Studies. 39 (1): 39–75. doi:10.1017/S0026749X04001398. S2CID   145309281.
  12. "Jiandao Incident and Jiandao Convention 间岛事件和间岛协约". Archived from the original on 2011-07-08.
  13. "AAS Annual Meeting".
  14. Philip S. Jowett (2004). Rays of the Rising Sun. West Midlands: Helion & Company Limited. p. 34.
  15. Schmid, pg. 226-227 The border did not become a bone of contention again until almost 150 years later—the second moment pointed out in Chang Chiyon’s work. In the 1870s Qing authorities began to open Manchuria, shut off from Han migration since the earliest years of the dynasty. In various stages between 1878 and 1906 the entire expanse of Manchuria opened to settlement; the Tumen River valley received its first legal Han settlers in 1881. When these Qing settlers arrived, however, they quickly discovered that many more Koreans had already begun farming much of the best land. By 1882 the presence of large Korean communities in the region came to the attention of the general of Jilin, Ming An, who proceeded to lodge a protest with the Choson court, laying down a number of conditions: so long as these Koreans paid taxes to the court, registered their households with local authorities, recognized the legal jurisdiction of the Jilin authorities, and shaved their heads in the Manchu style—in short, become Qing subjects—they were welcome to stay; otherwise they should return to Choson territory. Seoul responded by urging Ming An not to register their subjects, for within one year they would all be returned home—an agreement that seemed to accept Qing land claims. For the farmers themselves—people who had fled famine conditions and labored for more than ten years to bring land under cultivation—a move off the lands hardly proved a favorable scenario. Few left. By April of the following year the head of the Huichun Resettlement Bureau had again demanded of local Choson authorities that by the conclusion of the fall harvest the farmers be returned to the other side of the river.
  16. Schmid, pg. 227 Their position centered on an interpretation of the stele erected by Mukedeng more than two centuries earlier. The farmers contended that they had never crossed any boundary and were in fact within Choson territory. Their argument skillfully played off the ambiguity surrounding the character engraved on the stele to represent the first syllable in the name of the Tumen River. They argued that Qing officials had failed to distinguish between two different rivers, both called something like Tumen but written with a different character signifying the first syllable. One, the character on the stele, indicated earth; the second, a character not on the stele, signified what today is considered the tu for Tumen River, meaning diagram. The river behind which the Qing officials demanded the farmers withdraw was the latter. As argued by the farmers, though the pronunciation was nearly identical, the different characters signified two distinct rivers. The first Tumen River delineated the northernmost extreme of Choson jurisdiction, while a second Tumen River flowed within Choson territory. Qing authorities mistakenly believed the two rivers were one and the same, the petition suggested, only because Chinese settlers had falsely accused the Korean farmers of crossing the border. In fact their homes were between the two rivers, meaning that they lived inside Choson boundaries. The way to substantiate their claims, they urged, was to conduct a survey of the Mt. Paektu stele, for in their opinion the stele alone could determine the boundary.
  17. Schmid, pg. 227-228 At this time O Yunjung, who later became a famous reform official, was appointed as a special inspector for the Northwest. Upon receiving his appointment, O informed the king in wonderful Confucian rhetoric that the farmers would “naturally return” as they learned of the king’s sagely virtue, but when he arrived at the frontier, he quickly learned sagely virtue was no match for land. He immediately heard the complaints of the farmers. In response, O undertook two investigations, the first to verify the position and text of the Mt. Paektu stele, the second to ascertain the sources of the river. The results of these efforts sufficiently confirmed the position of the farmers, and O, in an audience at court, confidently eased the king’s doubt about their claim to these lands. “That these lands are not the lands of China,” he stated, “is most clear.” From this point what had been a view circulating only at the local level among residents developed into official policy. By 1885 and 1887, when Choson and Qing delegates met along the border to survey the local topography with the hope of ending the disagreement, the Choson negotiators had adopted the interpretation of the stele as the basis of their negotiating stance. Start at the stele, they told their Qing counterparts, and trace the river downward from this point. The Qing side rejected this emphasis on the stele. Instead, the opposite method of locating the border was suggested: start at the mouth of the Tumen River and trace the river upstream, regardless of the positioning of the stele. A number of surveys were conducted, but more accurate information on the local topography did little to soften the opposing positions on determining the boundary.

Sources

Notes

  1. Conservatives in South Korea are less interested in Jiandao than liberals and leftists, which has something to do with anti-North sentiment (반북). This is because if the area is attributed to Korea, it is likely to be attributed to North Korea, not South Korea. [3]
Jiandao
Chinese name
Traditional Chinese 間島
Simplified Chinese 间岛