East Sea and New Amsterdam

By Andrew Salmon

According to reports, a handful of U.S. states are changing references in their school text books to the body of water between Korea and Japan from “Sea of Japan” to “Sea of Japan/East Sea.”

The latter is the term Koreans prefer, and Korean-Americans have been agitating for the change, lobbying local politicians who need to win the vote of this important demographic.

Very good. This is democracy in action; representatives acting in response to demands from voters.

The name dispute has long been an issue for Koreans. Why are they, and more latterly, Korean-Americans, pushing for this change?

After all, nobody is suggesting that Koreans ― on their own maps and/or in their own language ― must call the body of water “The Sea of Japan.”

“Koreans are welcome to use whatever terms they like for this geographical feature (i.e. “Donghae” or “East Sea”).

Similarly, Britons call the body of water separating their island from the European continent “The English Channel;” Frenchmen call it “La Manche.”

But the British do not demand that French-speaking nations include the English term on their maps, nor do the French demand that English-speaking countries use the French term on their maps.

This presents a problem for the Korean argument. Korea is calling on the world to change maps to accommodate a uniquely Korean demand: No other nation is asking for these alterations. (Including North Korea, which does not favor “East Sea;” it prefers “East Sea of Korea.”)

Still, East Sea lobbyists insist that there are historical and emotive issues at stake.

First: The term “East Sea” was used on many maps prior to Japan’s rise as a colonial power. (Perhaps. But even Seoul’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs notes, in the first line of its information leaflet on the issue, that the term “East Sea” was used “on Korean maps” for 2,000 years. On international maps, the ministry concedes that various terms were used. )

Second: Koreans (and Korean-Americans) are irked when they read/hear the term “Sea of Japan” because it reminds them of the colonial past.

Issues stand in the way of these arguments.

Today’s international nomenclature is in use because it represents present not historical usage. And should all names on all maps be changed to accommodate the emotions of all peoples?

Take New York, one of the polities coming under pressure to make the change. The settlement known as “New York” was originally dubbed “New Amsterdam” by Dutch colonists. I would hope that politicians representing this city and state would not want to hurt the feelings of Dutch citizens when reviewing their map policy?

There’s more. The Dutch were not the original owners of the land, so should we not also add the native American term for the geography? That would be “Manna-hatta.” (“Island of Many Hills” in the Lappant language. It has since been bastardized, in English, to “Manhattan.”)

Ergo ― if we are to accept the principals of returning to historical names and ensuring that no ethnic sensitivities are injured ― the city should henceforth be “New York/New Amsterdam/Manna-hata.” (Perhaps we could settle for “Manhattan” in the third place).

If we follow this precedent, there would be no room on maps for all the extra wordage. The names on today’s maps are how things are known to us today, superseding names that have passed into history.

This principal persists in Korea. I have never heard a South Korean insisting that “Dae Han Min Guk” (“Republic of Korea” ― named after the “Dae Han Empire”) should be renamed (say) Shilla, the first dynasty to unify this peninsula, simply on the basis of it being an older name. (The name “Korea,” incidentally, is a foreign bastardization of “Goryeo,” the dynasty that succeeded Shilla. North Korea still names itself “Joseon,” after the last of this peninsula’s royal dynasties.)

Moreover, if we are to restore names that have fallen out of use, thorny political issues arise. Should Israel be renamed Palestine? Should Kaliningrad revert to Konisburg?

I question why this issue is so important to Korean-American lobbyists. There are countless local and international issues they could lobby for or against. For example: Are they demanding that their political representatives pressure China not to forcibly repatriate North Korean refugees?

My personal guess is that Korean-American efforts to reintroduce an out-of-date geographic name that is favored only among ethnic Koreans has no rational or objective basis. What this is really about, I suspect, is simple national pride ― and I am not talking about US national pride.

There again, if the U.S.A. is the land of interest group politics ― well, carry on, carry on...

Andrew Salmon is a Seoul-based reporter and author. Reach him at andrewcsalmon@yahoo.co.uk.