Moving on after gross affronts, even at the personal level, can often be very difficult; many of us hope to achieve some retribution by insisting upon a ritual humiliation of our opponents. I share with the Koreans a concern that sometimes people will say “sorry” merely to move on, rather than to show any remorse. But merely repeating the apology will never solve this issue. The only way forward is to look at actions that follow the apology; is the offense repeated, or has there been a change of heart? From where I sit it looks as though Japan has very thoroughly given up its past territorial ambitions, and so I give added weight to their apologies.

And also from where I sit it seems that this issue has long-outlived any purpose other than as a roadblock to making progress.

In response to Plunge, Muninn, and other recent commenters:

1.) Sources. Indeed, any Department of “Ethnic Studies” is a bad source.

2.) Details. Many historians, activists, and policymakers still debate the history. Japan does say sorry for the war. They don’t say sorry for other alleged wrongdoings such as comfort women (private organizations), the claimed extent of Nanjing (massively distorted).

They say the comfort women were organized by private business (do we sue the US government for the abominable practices of Virginia slave plantations?). Perhaps that’s a weak argument, but its affirmed by the courts.

3.) “Sorry” They haven’t actually used the word “sorry”! Right. So? See my point and the Marmot’s on “Winner’s Justice.”

4.) Individual v.s. National: Many protesting Korea(ns) and China(ese) ignore apologies made by national leaders but protest in the streets when Koizumi goes to Yasukuni. Consider this: Koizumi’s visits are NOT endorsed by the Diet and thus NOT national statements. When he says sorry, he’s ignored. When he visits Yasukuni, nutty people cut off their fingers, immolate themselves, throw rocks, beat up Japanese nationals, etc etc etc ad absurdum

5.) “Alternate history war books where Japan is the victor are hugely popular, millions of these types of books have been sold. While this isn’t as extreme and might just be considered flights of fancy, it is a trend towards glorifying the past.”: True, but the target of these books is typically America, not China or Korea, and the format is overwhelmingly Manga…

6.) I strongly, strongly disagree with Plunge that “kids can can handle the past. It is time they learn the truth, plain, unvarnished and without equivocation.” You say you had two weeks and videos on Nazi concentration camps in high school in Arizona: yes, but notice you were watching a video about a.) genocide, not war, and b.) not carried out by your own country. A large majority of Americans are unaware of the slaughter, concentration camps, germ warfare, deportation, and dispossession of about 25 million Native Americans over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries. (Note: for those of you who disagree with the factual events of the small pox blankets and TB —which I’ll admit isn’t ironclad—rest assured that there is plenty of other undeniable nasty stuff: Trail of Tears, Tippecanoe, western expansion, etc etc etc.) America is an open country and you can learn about this if you look it up, and we “recognize” our past if not apologize for this history (now, more than 100 years after the fact when all the people directly affected by it are long gone.) But we’ve never said sorry and it’s only briefly touched upon in school. The reason? It leaves children with the impression that their country is bad. Both Japan and the US have enough anti-patriotic college kids and get enough of that from leftist professors and don’t need more of that in high school. If anyone needs lessons that their national shit doesn’t stink, it’s Korea and China, not Japan or the US (who both have public dissidents and anti-patriots in a nauseous supply).

When Arizona high schools dedicate two weeks to the displacement and eradication of the Navaho and Apache, with videos and presentations by natives from the miniscule reservations from the state’s northeast, then we’ll have a moral equivalent.

My, what a pithy way to begin the discussion.

My source is the Asian American Studies, Department of Ethnic Studies, University of California, Berkeley. They held a symposium on the subject of Japan and the war. But, of course, they are a horrible source.

Muninn lays down the law”¦

He certainly laid down something… but I digress.

Let’s take a look at this ‘apology’ from the Diet.

You are right, there was a statement that was finally agreed upon, but that is about it.

In 1994, it was announced that for the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, there would be a resolution passed by the Diet and a statement given on the wrongs that had been committed. This resolution from the Diet was considered essential, especially in Korea, as any resolution NOT coming from the Diet was NOT considered to be reflective of the government or the people of Japan. Every ‘apology’ to this point had been made by INDIVIDUALS, like the Emporer and various Prime Ministers. To reiterate, it was NOT considered coming from the government or the people unless it came from the Diet, preferably a unanimous vote.

I’ll skip over what I posted earlier, which happened on May 29, 1995 and move on. No need to repeat it. I’ll also skip over most of the infighting, the deplorable statements by Watanabe Michio, Koreans calling for him to die by seppuku, and other ridiculousness and go directly to June 9th. Your description of what happened is a bit misleading.

Wording for the resolution could not be agreed upon, so an executive committee came up with the wording to be voted on by the 9th of June. So, with that, let’s look at the wording of the official apology, the one asked for specifically by South Korea so as to be representative of the government and the people. Oh, my translation of it comes from a book, not the web. It is supposedly the official translation given at that time, but it is different from the one linked above. Anyway…

This Diet, in the fiftieth year since the war, offers its sincere tribute to the memory of the war dead throughout the world and victims who have suffered because of war and other deeds.

Recalling the many instances of colonial rule and acts of aggression in the modern history of the world, we recognize those acts which our country carried out and the unbearable suffering inflicted on the people of other countries, particularly the nations of Asia, and express deep remorse.

Transcending differences in historical view of the past war, we must humbly learn the lessons of history and build a peaceful international community.

This Diet links hands with the countries of the world under the doctrine lasting peace enshrined in the Constitution of Japan and expresses its determination to open up a future of coexistence for humankind.

We affirm the above.

This wording infuriated many members of the Diet. Unfortunately, some were upset because they felt it went too far. Of the Diet, the ENTIRE NFP boycotted the vote. 55 LDP members refused to vote, they felt it went too far. 14 Socialists and 4 Harbingers didn’t vote as well.

So, what were some of the things that went on in the background? Well, only the Socialists in their draft called the actual use of the word, ‘apology.’ They were also the only ones that wanted to specifically mention Korea, comfort women and forced labor. The LDP wanted more focus on those that died on behalf of Japan.

So, the ‘official’ apology was a bust.

Yes, Prime Minister Murayama made an apology far different, yet still weak, from the Diet resolution. But, like those from the Emperor and PMs before, it was considered an individual apology and rightly so. It was the Diet resolution that stood for the government and the people. If the Prime Minister’s statement was the ‘official’ statement, there would have been no reason for the one from the Diet. Beyond that, it was the ‘apology’ from the Diet that had been requested by South Korea.

Needless to say, it didn’t go over well with South Korea. Demonstrators threw eggs at the embassy and again called for Watanabe’s execution.

Please”¦let us all help move the debate away from apologies”¦national statements of regret or apology are really a minor issue in all of this.

Minor to the Japanese maybe, not to others though. Besides, it seems to brought up in every discussion of Japan and the war. Notice that in Curzon’s original post it was #2.

It is understandable that despite official statements (yes, hotly contested by conservatives) Japanese are exhausted by demands for apology when they see the dozens of statements over the last few decades.

Being exhausted over a subject doesn’t mean it is resolved. Whether tired of it or not, it will continue to be a major bone of contention between Japan its neighbors as Japan seems less than sincere with its efforts so far.

You are turning away the majority in Japan who are genuinely against the revisionists.

The more I read, the more I wonder just how turned off by revisionists the average Japanese citizen is. I mentioned best selling books before, above and far beyond the controversial history. There are others as well. Alternate history war books where Japan is the victor are hugely popular, millions of these types of books have been sold. While this isn’t as extreme and might just be considered flights of fancy, it is a trend towards glorifying the past.

Focus your efforts elsewhere on the issues that matter and have wider appeal ““ the issue of how to best tell the darker moments of shame in a nation’s history to the children of that nation ““ a question which we all should consider.

There are good reasons to be concerned with the revisionist historical narrative that is slowly gaining grown in Japan and I would join with everyone else expressing their anger and making an effort to make the most to post-national histories in our textbooks which are frank and honest about the darker side of history.

I agree with this. These things really shouldn’t be sugarcoated. In 3rd grade in Phoenix AZ we had a 2 week course on the holocaust. We saw the worst of what happened, film from concentration camps, ovens and other atrocities. These kids can handle the past. It is time they learn the truth, plain, unvarnished and without equivocation.

It is understandable that despite official statements (yes, hotly contested by conservatives) Japanese are exhausted by demands for apology when they see the dozens of statements over the last few decades. You are turning away the majority in Japan who are genuinely against the revisionists. Focus your efforts elsewhere on the issues that matter and have wider appeal – the issue of how to best tell the darker moments of shame in a nation’s history to the children of that nation – a question which we all should consider.

There are good reasons to be concerned with the revisionist historical narrative that is slowly gaining grown in Japan and I would join with everyone else expressing their anger and making an effort to make the most to post-national histories in our textbooks which are frank and honest about the darker side of history.

The Diet resolution apologizing did pass on the 9th of June, 1995 after being watered down, 230 vs. 21 (14 of the opposing votes were Communists who wanted a stronger statement) Diet Statement

I’ll be blogging on this later but there are actually 2 apologies from 1995 on the 50th anniversary BOTH of which are OFFICIAL apologies. One is the “Diet” statement, and the second is the Prime Minister’s statement. Their content is not the same.

There are good reasons to be unhappy with the Diet statement as it was seriously watered down and only about half of the Diet was even present to vote on the resolution.

However, the Prime Minister’s statement, which has the full weight of legitimacy for the government, is the statement which is consistently referred to by the Foreign Ministry since. It was also watered down under pressure from the Diet in the debate the preceded it but it is still very strong wording. Murayama Statement This is an important statement and should not be dismissed…it is consistently referred to by all Japanese government statements on historical wartime responsibility and is thus accepted by the Japanese people and the governing bureaucracy as a national statement of apology.

There is a difference here that needs to be explored. When a leader speaks about actions to be taken, treaties signed, trade agreements and the like, he is speaking for his nation and people. These words are then followed by actions which bring meaning to the words. The above isn’t in the same catagory. It is merely words that, at present, are devoid of action, in fact, there are current actions which make the words ring even more hollow. The words also ring hollow as being the same ones, spoken every year at the same ceremony. If there were sincere meaning to these words, there would be actions behind them and you wouldn’t have the textbook issue or war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni. The comfort women would actually be listened to and their grievences addressed instead of dismissed with another ‘apology’.

In Koizumi’s apology to the comfort women he said, “We must not evade the weight of the past, nor should we evade our responsibilities for the future. I believe that our country, painfully aware of its moral responsibilities, with feelings of apology and remorse, should face up squarely to its past history and accurately convey it to future generations.” How can these words mean anything when there are no actions behind them and when it is allowed, however small a percentage that it is, for students to be mislead about it? How does this apology represent the Japanese people when over a million copies of books calling the comfort women issue a fallacy are purchased in Japan?

I think it goes back to what I wrote before, Germany focused on guilt, Japan focused on shame. Without fully acknowledging the guilt, the apologies are just words, especially when spoken by a Prime Minister like Koizumi who shows them to be false with his actions. If his personal action show the lie, how can it be expected to be representative of the people? Should we take his actions to be representative of the people as well?

Thank you for the respectful reply Saru, I hope you take mine in the same light.

Dave, I see what you’re talking about with my Chinese students all the time. When I assign them to write pro/con essays they often, against my advisement, choose controversial topics like Taiwan unification or the war in Iraq , then when I tell them they should include both sides (it’s pro/con after all), they stammer and assert that there is no other side to consider. Thanks to the Party’s manipulation of the education system, the idea that there could be an alternate point of view on a host of key issues is considered morally repugnant and unworthy of academic inquiry.

P.S. Muninn, I actually read your 2009 review last night after reading your excellent compilation of Japanese apologies. I was struck by two things when watching the film myself. Firstly, I agree with you that there’s a tremendous lack of imagination—sometimes bordering on racism—in the film’s depiction of how the Japanese would have changed history. Secondly, the people with the biggest stake in creating an alternate history of Asia are not Koreans, or Japanese, but the Chinese. Making the story into a binary contest between Korea and Japan completely ignores the Chinese point of view.

The average person listens to the radio for about 17 minutes.
The average Stern fan listens for about 1 hour, 15 minutes. Most given reason why: “I want to hear what he’ll say next.”
The average Stern hater listens for about 2 hours, 45 minutes! Most given answer why: “I want to hear what he’ll say next.”

In a free speech environment, it’s pretty much a given that unpopular speech will be quite popular to consume. In China there seems to be a sort of “you are what you read” mentality – many of my students have written about books and the internet saying that the government should prevent people from reading “bad” books or webpages, because it will “harm their mental health”. The idea reading something precisely because you disagree with it and wish to become acquainted with it (or don’t agree or disagree yet, but want to make your own informed judgment) seems an alien idea to most students I know.

I have to disagree here. No, “Japan”Â? has not apologized. Individual leaders in their respective positions have apologized. They have done this on a personal basis. But an all encompassing, government wide and approved apology? Hasn’t happened.

No doubt I will be branded by some as a Japan apologist for what I am about to say, but those of you who know me personally will know that this is not the case. I have stated on numerous occasions my objection to the approval of the problematic textbook, and quite frankly find laughable the arguments of people like Kobayashi Yoshinori and Fujioka Nobukatsu. Rather, I am disturbed by argumentation on all sides that is often equally divorced from fact.

Thus, I offer the following dissenting opinion in the hope of clarification, and under no pretext of defending Japan.

First, for argument’s sake, if we accept that the apologies issued so far have all been from individual leaders in their respective positions, on a personal basis, and not a government wide and approved apology, then we must also accept that the visit to Yasukuni by many of these very same leaders is not representative of “Japan.”

If on the other hand, personal visits by individual leaders are taken to be representive of “Japan,” then must we not also accept their apologies in the same respect? To cite one specific and recent example, Prime Minister Koizumi, stated in an August 15, 2004 Address at the 59th Memorial Ceremony for the War Dead that: “During the war, Japan caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations. On behalf of the people of Japan, I hereby express my profound remose together with my sincere mourning for the victims.”

Pluge, I mean this in no way to be an ill-intentioned attack on your argument, but as it stands in the above post, there seems to be a large flaw in the logic. I realize that my own objection appears to contradict itself, but am hoping we can reach an understanding through any additional comments you care to make.

Best,
Saru

Previous coverage of the anti-Japan riots: April 11th and April 12th. My own thoughts: There is a clear disconnect in understanding on both sides. Many Japanese cannot understand the depth of feeling by China. Most Chinese cannot understand why Japan c…

Of course not. But it does show a disturbing pattern in current Korean thought.

Just because I’ve been a bear about Japan lately doesn’t mean I think Korea is blameless in all things, far from it. I find it greatly disturbing that such books and movies have become bestsellers. I’ve read some of the books myself and am disgusted that people would believe such claptrap.

You have a generation in Korea that is extremely ungrateful to the US and feels that the US is responsible for much of their woes. The popularity of such books is just another acknowledgement of this mindset. So, while I don’t think that all Koreans are ignorant of their history, I do think that as time goes on you are getting a very distorted view of history being taught and taken for granted in Korea that is becoming more and more accepted.

I haven’t seen the movie you mentioned though, I’ll have to find it and watch it.

That makes perfect sense, but how does that explain the 1997 bestseller History Not Taught in Textbooks, or Kobayashi Yoshinori’s bestselling ‘serious’ manjas that dismiss comfort women, Nanjing and glorify the military of that period?

Exactly. All that “fuss” is part of the reason why, thank the lord, this book has come to be rejected by the wider school community. See? Our protests do serve a good purpose.

This isn’t all that simple as you make it out to be, and I have to say, the explanation you give in defense of “democratic” motives Japan’s gov’t may have is an ugly cop-out. (Please also note that that is speculation on your part and nothing more)

When all is said and done, you cannot fault Koreans and Chinese for protesting distorted textbooks of an ugly history that has Japan as its origin, just as you wouldn’t fault blacks for getting outraged if American textbooks tried to whitewash slavery history, no matter what legitimate policy motives may have been behind it.

I see that Curzon is making many of the same arguments I’ve made earlier (see the comments) about the pointless and unappeasable nature of the anti-Japanese hatemongering currently festering in China and South Korea, and in addition, he makes one

It may be unlikely but it is not left out of the strategic calculations of all regional powers, including the US. Most literature on unification at least mentions this concern.

Nice mention of the movie, I actually wrote a review of 2009: Lost Memories recently that you might find interesting.

They didn’t even have “official” relations until 1965, and this was only accomplished by the near suicidal efforts by Korea’s dictator Park. It was followed by massive protests and a rocky relationship that held together much thanks to Cold War considerations.

But this is a minor point…I would contrast it though with the relatively warm relations of Japan and China in the immediate aftermath of normalization in the ‘70s and up to around 1982.

The only way for the Japanese government to absolve itself completely of the textbook issue is complete privatization of the education system, with no state standards at all. That’s a position I doubt any country would take. If the government feels that state intervention is needed to maintain education standards in the country, then those standards and how they’re implemented should be an acceptable topic of debate.