Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

November 29th, 2005

Tags

Comments

127 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The Controversial Textbook, Translated

Sun Bin is is saying that the controversial “Tsukurukai” textbook, which is responsible for much ill will towards Japan from South Korea and China, states that the Nanjing Massacre never happened. I wasn’t sure what the text said, but the Tsukurukai web site makes about half the textbook available online. So I went to the World War II section and found the exact text. Translation follows the original:

Ã¥Â?Œå¹´ï¼˜æœˆï¼Œå¤”“Ã¥”ºÂ½Ã£Â?®æ¨©ç”ºÅ Ã£Â?Ύ”º” Ã¤Â¸Â­Ã£Â?™ã”š”¹Ã¤Â¸Å Ã¦ÂµÂ·Ã£Â?§ï¼ŒäºŒäººãÂ?®æ—¥æœ¬äººå°” Ã¥”¦ÂµÃ£Â?Œå°”žÃ¦Â®ÂºÃ£Â?”¢Ã£”šÅ’㔚”¹Ã¤Âº”¹Ã¤Â»Â¶Ã£Â?΋Â?ŠãÂ?“㔚Šï¼ŒãÂ?“㔚Œ㔚’ãÂ?Â?ãÂ?£ãÂ?”¹Ã£Â?”˜Ã£Â?«æ—¥ä¸­é”““ãÂ?®å”¦Â¨Ã©Â?¢æˆ¦äº”°Ã£Â?Œå§”¹Ã£Â?¾ãÂ?£ãÂ?Ÿã€”šÃ¦—¥æœ¬è»Â?ãÂ?¯å”ºÂ½Ã¦Â°”˜Ã¥”¦Å¡Ã¦”?¿åºœãÂ?®é¦”“都åÂ?—京㔚’èÂ?½ãÂ?¨ãÂ?”ºÃ£Â?°è’”¹Ã¤Â»”¹Ã§Å¸Â³Ã£Â?¯é™Â?ä¼Â?ãÂ?™ã”š”¹Ã£Â?¨è€ƒãÂ?ˆï¼Œ12月，åÂ?—京㔚’Ã¥Â? é ˜ãÂ?—ãÂ?Ÿï¼ˆãÂ?“ãÂ?®ãÂ?¨ãÂ?Â?，日本è»Â?ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£Â?£ãÂ?¦æ°”˜Ã¨Â¡” Ã£Â?«ã”š”šÃ¥Â¤Å¡Ã¦”¢Â°Ã£Â?®æ­»å”šÂ·Ã¨â‚¬”¦Ã£Â?Å’Ã¥”¡ÂºÃ£Â?Ÿã€”šÃ¥Â?—京五¹Ã¤Â»Â¶Ã¯Â¼”°Ã£â‚¬”šÃ£Â?—ãÂ?”¹Ã£Â?—，è’”¹Ã¤Â»”¹Ã§Å¸Â³Ã£Â?¯é”¡Â?攦¶ãÂ?«é¦”“都㔚’移ãÂ?—，抗戦㔚’続ãÂ?”˜Ã£Â?Ÿã€”š

In August of the same year [1937], a shooting incident left two Japanese solders dead in Shanghai, a city where foreign interests were concentrated. It was with this event that sparked total war between China and Japan. The Japanese military believed Chiang Kai-Shek would surrender if they captured the Nationalist government capital of Nanjing, and occupied the city in December. (At this time the Japanese military killed many, including civilians; it is known as the Nanjing Incident.) However, Chiang Kai-Shek moved the capital to Jukei and the war continued.

Debate about the validity of the Tsukurukai Textbook is fine, but don’t spread disinformation. The textbook does not say the “incident” never happened. (And without digging out my high school US history book, I can tell you that I never learned about the real causes of the Spanish-American War when I was 16. Or this, for that matter.) Speaking of which, could any enterprising readers who received their education in China tell us what their school texts say about the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and Tiananmen Square? Or the 1962 war with India or the 1979 war with Vietnam?

(If anyone is interested in other portions of the Tsukurukai text, let me know and I’ll translate them if the spirit moves me.)

UPDATE: And to emphasize again, this “controversial” textbook is used by very, very few schools (exact numbers for this year not known, but it’s less than 1%).

Comments to this entry

Dan
November 29, 2005
2:21 am
Very good post. A useful resource to some of the anti-Japanese hysteria you see here and there.
Joe
November 29, 2005
2:52 am
Jukei = Chungking.
Curzon
November 29, 2005
3:43 am
Chongqing? (Where, incidentally, I'll be spending Christmas.)
adamu
November 29, 2005
3:47 am
Sun Bin isn't totally off base. The biggest controversy over the Tsukuru-kai textbooks is the change in wording from "Nanjing Massacre" to "Nanjing Incident." Consider the difference between telling children that their country perpetrated a "massacre" to the relatively innocuous-sounding "incident." Hell, I consider the time when I trashed my house after getting drunk at my own party my "pre-Japan incident." Nobody was killed and I look back fondly on the memory (or lack thereof).

In other words, "incident" is a much less descriptive way of depicting what happened in Nanjing and therefore deprives educators of the chance to instill the shame that certain elements would like to have instilled in Japanese youth.

Anyway, this has been evident since the beginning of this scandal. The English translation is just a gesture toward the outside world to show people that, for the most part, these textbooks are every bit as boring as most middle school textbooks are.
Simon
November 29, 2005
3:55 am
Wihtout wanting to immediately invoke WW2 or compare disasters, let me try another example that might give you an idea why Chinese people feel so strongly about this: if discussing the progress of the Nazis across Europe, it was mentioned in a brief parenthesis that they were also responsible for the death of millions of civilians, it could be taken as a deliberate downplaying of what happened. The text might reflect the facts, but only tangentially and in passing.

That said, these days it often seems Nanjing and similar incidents are used to stir up nationalistic anti-Japan sentiment as much as to reach historical truth (if there is such a thing).
Pavlov3
November 29, 2005
4:22 am
I don't know why Curzon's education did not include US Imperialism and detailed accounts about slavery, but even my Junior HS was very good at pointing out bad things in US history. I do not remember much about what I read related to the Spanish American War, but I clearly remember reading a lot on cheating the Indians, the horrors of Slavery along with violent post war period, the KKK, the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII etc etc etc. I think on a whole the US is very good about confessing to dark parts of its history.
---
Heck, I even learned that Charles Lindberg was pretty impressed by the Nazis, as were many societies in the US prior to WWII.
---
To be honest, many bad parts were only a paragraph or two(so were good parts), but as always real research begins in the library and HS books cannot be too thick. I never had a problem finding detailed accounts in even my HS library.
---
Just some thoughts.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
4:48 am
i would attempt to translate,
Ã¥Â?—京㔚'Ã¥Â? é ˜ãÂ?—ãÂ?Ÿï¼ˆãÂ?“ãÂ?®ãÂ?¨ãÂ?Â?，日本è»Â?ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£Â?£ãÂ?¦æ°”˜Ã¨Â¡” Ã£Â?«ã”š”šÃ¥Â¤Å¡Ã¦”¢Â°Ã£Â?®æ­»å”šÂ·Ã¨â‚¬”¦Ã£Â?Å’Ã¥”¡ÂºÃ£Â?Ÿã€”šÃ¥Â?—京五¹Ã¤Â»Â¶ "during the time when nanking was occupied/taken, A lot of Japanese soldiers and also many civilians were among the casulties [or wounded or died] - the nanjing incidence)

it is quite different from saying "Japanese military killed many, including civilians".
such description is also not too different from re-defining nanjing massacre (and renaming it), which is a week + of killing fest after the city fell, and city was already under occupation.

i probably mis-quoted some other ring wing saying about it 'never happened', but the redefining of what actually happen does not make much difference, does it?

btw, how about doing a satire, which is your favorite these days, "during the occupation of poland, many german soldiers, together with some jewish civilians, were among the casualties (/ wounded or died). one of these was called the auschwitz incidence" the textbook was taught in 1% of german schools.

so, talking about spreading disinformation, you decide who did.

---
now about great leap forward/etc. yes, i believe it was taught.
the indian invasion in 1962 was actually not mentioned, perhaps fearing of hurting hte bilateral relationship, because indiia was clearly at fault and china did not want to 'promote hatred' to india.
so why japan but not india? india did not commit war crime, and china does not feel intimidated by india's navy and airforce.

treatment of 1989 was as bad as the japanese. but can your lie be justified if someone else also lied? is this how you learned in your school?
Yago
November 29, 2005
5:08 am
sunbin, where did you learn japanese? It says 日本è»Â?ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£Â?£ãÂ?¦ (because of, by), not 'and'. It states clearly that the æ°”˜Ã¨Â¡”  died BECAUSE of the japanese army, not alongside it. Of course the phrasing is quite impersonal ("casualties surfaced"), doesn't use the transitive verb to kill, but of course it's a fact is nobody in Japan believes there was a conscious and ordered effort to kill civilians in Nanjing. One could say that's the whole point of the discussion.

But please don't spread lies. And I really wonder what is taught about the Great Leap Forward. "Tens of millions of peasants and workers died because the boreaucracy was afraid of telling Mao that he was nuts"? Ten to one kids are told it was all because of 'natural disasters'. Yeah right.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
5:09 am
"this link is form china's ppeople.com.cn":http://japan.people.com.cn/GB/35464/35488/3135337.html

it clearly acknoeledge tsukurukai is only one among the 8 publisher and that many japanese textbooks tried to tell the facts.
it titled the article as a 'struggle/competition' between 2 schools in japan.
it also mentioned than Japan Ministry of Education deleted the mention of Nanjing Massacre and reflection about teh war in the 1950s. this was reversed when a Japanese historian 家永且°Ã©Æ’Ž sued the ministry and won in 1997.

again, does this mean fanning blind hatred to all japanese, or acknowledging there are 2 schools of thought in Japan? you judge.
Curzon
November 29, 2005
5:10 am
Sun Bin: I was right the first time.

æ°”˜Ã¨Â¡” Ã£Â?«ã”š”šÃ¥Â¤Å¡Ã¦”¢Â°Ã£Â?®æ­»å”šÂ·Ã¨â‚¬”¦
"many, including civilians" -- my original translation was correct.

日本è»Â?ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£Â?£ãÂ?¦
means, literally, "according to the Japanese military." If you like, please see "this dictionary entry.":http://www2.alc.co.jp/ejr/index.php?word_in=%82%C9%82%E6%82%C1%82%C4&word_in2=%82%A0%82%A2%82%A4%82%A6%82%A8&word_in3=PVawEWi72JXCKoa0Je

You are right that "wounded and dead" is a more appropriate translation; my perversion of that line came from turning the noun into a verb for the purposes of a cleaner English sentence. On that account I stand corrected, although it is not a substantial deviation of the meaning of the text.

I would like to see the actual text of whatever books you used -- owning as I do an "official" Chinese university book of US and UK history, both of which are breathtakingly anti-US/British in the Marxist rhetoric. Basically, all the US and UK did were to screw 1.) the working class and 2.) China. For about 400 pages.

Germany and Japan are frequently compared because they were allies during the war; however, a more appropriate comparison for Tojo's Japan would be Mussolini's Italy, both of which were fascist states that invaded their neighbors. Unlike Nazi Germany, Japan did not commit genocide. "Unit 731,":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 while appalling, should not be compared to Auschwitz; it was not designed to eliminate the Manchurian people and left 3,000 people dead, not 1.5 million.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
5:24 am
yago, thanks for the correction of ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£Â?£ãÂ?¦

as i said, what we are seeking is truth.

as for great leap forward. there are many fault you can find in CCP, including the coal mine fiasco which goes on today. some due to incompetence, some due to bad leadership or general negligence of life.
i am as disturbed as you are about these. (see my new "post":http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/11/coal-mine-accidents-in-properous.html

but i would not say the japanese should kill civilians in china, korea and SE Asia. because some other crimes were commited somewhere else as well.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
5:33 am
about great leap forward, the explanation was even worse before Deng came to power.
the story goes (i heard), "we had to give all our food and money to pay back the russian (for the factories they built for us), this compounded with natural diasters, therefore there was 3 years of famine"
after 1980, the official story was, "mistake in policy casued famine, millions died" something like that.
Yago
November 29, 2005
5:42 am
Doesn't ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£Â?£ãÂ?¦ also imply a casual link? I'd say when quoting someone you'd use ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£”š”¹Ã£Â?¨ã€”š

Yeah, I also heard about having to pay back the russians.
About the Nanjing massacre, I read (long time ago, don't remember well) that Chiang just let the city undefended, and the japanese quite weared out from fighting guerrillas just finded easy to go berserk.
darn
November 29, 2005
5:46 am
I agree with your translation 100%. I think you do well to point out that the text book in question does not say it never happened, but in fact doesn't go into extreme detail. I think you also make a good point by saying the textbook is used by less then 1% of the schools. I believe the last official count showed the published had hoped to make a 3% niche in the market to cover it's printing costs, but in fact had only managed to take 0.1% -- fortunetly for the publisher, this book infuriated so many people that they rushed to by it, making it a top seller, and the published became profitable.
Something that I think many people have not mentioned is that this is a middle school book. 1) these children may be just a bit to young to learn the extreme gruesome details 2) they'll get that in high school anyways. I can also vouch from 1st hand experience that the issue is extremely well covered in college as well.
I have not been through the Chinese education system, but from conversation with people who have, it seems as though the millions of deaths due to starvation as well as many other subjects are not covered. I also noticed that there is a major difference from Beijing/Shanghai/the rest. Education is Beijing seems to be very censored, while in Shanghai, much more complete and closer to the international consensus (I do not attempt to believe that everything I learnt in America is 100% true, so in order to determine a international consensus, I compared the "facts" with the "facts" learnt by other international students in their home countries.) Lastly, the rest : "Education? What's education? The governments plan for us is to move to the new cities and sweep the streets for them, that's why we're in Japan!"
sun bin
November 29, 2005
5:56 am
about nanjing, what i heard was, it was pretty tough resistance in nanjing. i think the siege took a couple month (or sth like that). KMT army then retreated and abandoned the city, many surrendered (they were killed after taken prisoner).
japanese general wanted to 'shock and awe' and destroy the morale of the KMT army and Chinese civilians, and decided to 'teach them a lesson'.

no one was able to prove that there was a systematic order to kill.
but in the tribune it was concluded that no general did anything to stop the astrocity for a couple weeks. this was clearly viewed as an encouragement to kill, esp japanese soldiers were well trained and ordered. it would be extremely unlikely that the soldiers of the imperial army would disobey order.

there was no notable guerilla resistance yet, that would come about 6-12 months later. but yes, the japanese army were quite weared out in the siege.
darin
November 29, 2005
6:12 am
Yago:
I wouldn't say ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£Â?£ãÂ?¦ is a casual link because it is different from ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£”š”¹ that you're referring to. The ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£”š”¹Ã£Â?¨ for repeating something or using it as a source is ã€Â?攺°ãÂ?Â?〔š This ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£Â?£ãÂ?¦ is showing a cause/reasonã€Â?原唺 ã€”š 㔚¨ãƒ”¡Ã£”šÂ£Ã£”šÂ½Ã£Æ’³ï¼ˆç™ºæ˜ŽçŽ”¹Ã¯Â¼”°Ã£Â?«ã”šË†Ã£Â?£ãÂ?¦ã€Â?◯◯ãÂ?¯ç™ºæ˜ŽãÂ?”¢Ã£”šÅ’ãÂ?Ÿã€”š blah blah was invented by Edison .　ãÂ?“ãÂ?®æ”¢â„¢Ã§Â§”˜Ã¦”ºÂ¸Ã£Â?«ã”šË†Ã£Â?£ãÂ?¦ã€Â?（ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£”šÅ’ãÂ?°ã€Â?ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£”š”¹Ã£Â?¨ã€Â?攺°ãÂ?Â?ã€Â?ãÂ?§ãÂ?¯ãƒ»ãƒ»ãƒ»ï¼”°Ã£”šÂ¨Ã£Æ’”¡Ã£”šÂ£Ã£”šÂ½Ã£Æ’³ï¼ˆç™ºæ˜ŽçŽ”¹Ã¯Â¼”°Ã£Â?¯äººè¦”¹Ã§Å¸Â¥Ã£”šÅ Ã£”š'ãÂ?™ã”š”¹Ã¥”šÂ¾Ã¥Â?”˜Ã£Â?΋Â?”šÃ£Â?£ãÂ?Ÿã”šË†Ã£Â?” Ã£Â?§ãÂ?™ã€”šaccording to this textbook, it seems that Edison had a tendency to be shy.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
6:48 am
so it is "According to the Japanese Army, many, including also the civilians, were among the wounded and dead"?

---
Great Leap Forward,
i think the number of death is not written in textbook. but it is no taboo any more.
In a Chinese (PRC) demography journal published Jan/2005, non-natural death was estimated to be 32.5M from 1959-1962, of which most are assumed to be due to famine. see this "link":http://beforestforever.blogspot.com/2005/09/1959-1961.html
sun bin
November 29, 2005
6:57 am
(the CCP official admitted number was 15M, which is the lower bound. this might have to change due to the new research publication.)

note also that non-natural death includes those who die od illness, accidence, and illness related to famine. but it is probably not too far awy to assume 80%-90% of the death are related to the famine. that makes it 25-30M.

it was not intentional. but it does not make mao less guilty.
Curzon
November 29, 2005
7:08 am
"According" is the literal translation, and it certainly does not mean "according to what the Japanese army said." (See that link I provided.) Another way to say it would be, "through the Japanese army; because of the Japanese army." I disagree with Darin's second comment, it is a causal link. There is no other way to slice it: the so-called controversial textbook says that the Japanese army killed lots of civilians -- an admission by Japan's far-right wing on scale you would never see in any Chinese government-issued textbook. (i.e. "CCP policies resulted in the starvation of tens of millions Chinese people.")

Speaking of which, journals read by a few cloistered academics are a different topic. It's China's school textbooks I want to see, which will never say anything bad about a government -- unless it's American, British, Japanese, Russian, or capitalist.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
7:35 am
ok, now, we have the translation agreed (btw, google translated ãÂ?«ã”šË†Ã£Â?£ãÂ?¦ as 'due to').

1. does it change the fact that this is a lot different form estimating the number of death? (back to Dan's comment above 'your side in the other post, to which i was speechless.)
2. does it change the fact that the war was started in Lugouqiao near Beijing on july 7th, instead of "2 japanese soldiers killed in shanghai in August" as claimed by tsukurukai?
3. would these lies be justified if CCP also lied about its own history?
4. is it unfair to say these japanese soldiers did something terrible because the Nazi did something even worse?
5. teaching your children about something horrible happened in the past and that such crime should not be commited by them or by us. is this wrong? is this fanninf hatred?
sun bin
November 29, 2005
7:38 am
...and i assume everyone here is well educated in a civilized country. why do i need to raise such simple questions?
Yago
November 29, 2005
7:58 am
Absolutely agreed that saying the war was ignited by any particular incident (and not a set policy by the japanese government) is a blatant lie.

But that's normally how history is told. Little things 'spark' wars. Roosevelt wanted war with Japan way before Pearl Harbor, yet you won't read that on US history books. And Hitler planned from the beginning to invade the USSR, while Stalin had also plans to invade Germany, but history books just tell that Hitler "unexpectedly" invaded.
Curzon
November 29, 2005
7:59 am
...and i assume everyone here is well educated in a civilized country. why do i need to raise such simple questions?


You don't.

1. does it change the fact that this is a lot different form estimating the number of death?


I don't believe I understand the question, please rephrase.

2. does it change the fact that the war was started in Lugouqiao near Beijing on july 7th, instead of "2 japanese soldiers killed in shanghai in August"Â? as claimed by tsukurukai?


I am not qualified to comment. Japan was itching for a fight and probably started the war.

3. would these lies be justified if CCP also lied about its own history?


This is operating on the assumption that 2. is a lie, to which I cannot comment. But no, two wrongs don't make a right, and a lie is not justified because your opponent lies.

4. is it unfair to say these japanese soldiers did something terrible because the Nazi did something even worse?


No. But war is not genocide and fascist Japan was not Nazi Germany.

5. teaching your children about something horrible happened in the past and that such crime should not be commited by them or by us. is this wrong? is this fanninf hatred?


This is the crux of the issue. Education about one's nation during childhood should be based on a reasonable amount of national pride not based on resentment of other cultures or countries. America has this balance just about perfect. Germany and Japan don't have enough national pride, a result of their recent history, which is dehabilitating to the national psyche. China and South Korea may have appropriate amounts of pride, but it is based on resentment of other powers and toxic to the civic culture.

On that point, I'll ask again: what do CCP textbooks to say about the wars with India and Vietnam, the Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen, etc etc etc etc? (And I know the answer, so my participation in this conversation is over.) If they could just muster a one-sentence, "The Great Leap Forward was well-intentioned but failed to balance industrial and agricultural infrastructure and resulted in the starvation of many civilians," it would be a start to me paying attention to criticism of the Tsukurukai textbook. But they can't. Nor will they.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
8:07 am
rephrase:

dan/tdaxp said in the other post,
"It is convenient that when "your side"Â? mistates facts, it is merely a dispute of facts, yet when another's does, it is lies."

a) dispute about whether the death estimate is 100k or 300k. it is disputed estimate. it is not "mis-state", and CCP's side is not my side.
b) dis-information as in this textbook.

there is fundamental different between differing in # estimate, versus whether killing innocent is wrong or how it happened.

without his allegation i won't have mixed up about the right-wing lies and the tetbook lies, thoght they both are lies. my name won't be called into this post :) and i won't have to explain about these simple facts.
Dusty
November 29, 2005
8:09 am
Sun Bin, you say:

"... note also that non-natural death includes those who die od illness, accidence, and illness related to famine. but it is probably not too far awy to assume 80%-90% of the death are related to the famine. that makes it 25-30M.

it was not intentional. but it does not make mao less guilty."

Do I presume correctly that you mean the 80%-90% deaths that were famine related were not intentional? If so, on what do you base the assertion that the famine wasn't intentional?

Just curious.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
8:18 am
"No. But war is not genocide and fascist Japan was not Nazi Germany."

well...killing civilian with no weapon and no will to resist is war crime. the line between mass killing and genocide is ...

all china asked was for japan to face the facts squarely (they even asked W bush to "mediate":http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/11/to-dispel-another-myth-china-finding.html ) so that this terrible things won't happen again.
it established a museum so that people will remember.

i found it offensing you compared the Nanjing Museum to the Notorious Textbook. What the children learned from visiting the Musuem may well be, "war is terrible, they are terrible people, but we are not going to be as low as them!"
sun bin
November 29, 2005
8:20 am
dusty,

the original intention was to boost industrial and agriculture production. it failed miserably and became a disaster.
this is not planned murder.

but again, this does not reduce the guilt. as one should be judged by the results,even though the original intention may be benign.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
8:25 am
why it wasn't intentional? this is how the famine happened.

1. people were involved in a competition of lies. putting the crops of 20-50 fields into one. to report a high yield/acre.
and these crops died.
this is a result of competition for production growth. Mao didn't not forsee this and did not plan this (but some argued that he didnt not correct the mistake promptly -- so it was a passive misstake)
2. many trees, metals were melted to boost production of steel in the villages. this hurted agricultural production and contributed to the famine. again, this was not planned and was some adverse effect Mao did not foresee.
darin
November 29, 2005
8:27 am
sun bin:

so it is "According to the Japanese Army, many, including also the civilians, were among the wounded and dead"Â??.

No, I tried to explain that the according to and the by 㔚ˆãÂ?£ãÂ?¦ are different by giving an example of both meanings with the accompanying translations. My explanation may not have been the best.

Cuzon:

I disagree with Darin's second comment, it is a causal link. There is no other way to slice it: the so-called controversial textbook says that the Japanese army killed lots of civilians"”?an admission by Japan's far-right wing on scale you would never see in any Chinese government-issued textbook. (i.e. "CCP policies resulted in the starvation of tens of millions Chinese people."Â?)

Umm"¦ I think we're thinking of casual with two different meanings. The way I look at it, the text book says that many casualties, including civilians where because of the Japanese military. I don't think that to be a casual statement, but instead a very strong statement.

"Â?I am not qualified to comment. Japan was itching for a fight and probably started the war."Â?

The official statement I saw in my Japanese textbooks was it's not known for certain who fired first, but regardless a great tragedy that took place over many years ensued. The general consensus amongst the students and the instructor was that Japan probably fired the first shot.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
8:27 am
so...a more accurate description is perhaps
'negligence', or 'mis-management'....at an enormous scale.
and then 'cover-up' which probably exacerbated the disaster.
Grendel
November 29, 2005
10:48 am
Education about one's nation during childhood should be based on a reasonable amount of national pride not based on resentment of other cultures or countries. America has this balance just about perfect. Germany and Japan don't have enough national pride, a result of their recent history, which is dehabilitating to the national psyche.

I beg to differ. You're most probably wrong in respect to the 'amount' of national pride in respect to America, but certainly in respect to Germany. Not surprising, I felt this feeling or the comfortable lack of it (most of the time, if you exclude Yasukuni, the black vans before elections etc.) to be a similarity with my home country. What makes you think America has this balance just about perfect? How can you be sure the American public is not blinded at times by this unneccessary emotion? What's (national) pride even good for?? You're talking about countries as if they were persons, which they are not. I think you're way off here...

On another note, I read the article at Marmot's about the U.S. comfort women and found your comment at the end of the page. You might be right that Japan could deal with its history and the errors made in the far future, America needed time with the slave issue just the same. You might be wrong, I don't know, but I hope you're right. Nevertheless, this is no 'comfort' for the people who suffered under those errors and had to live with it without proper compensation. That's what happens right now with thousands of Korean comfort women and it should be corrected as soon as possible.
shakuhachi
November 29, 2005
1:13 pm
There will always be problems of history between Korea + China and Japan. How is Japan supposed to fess up to 'massacre' in which anywhere from a few thousand to three hundred thousand were supposedly killed? Is Japan expected to make its textbooks align with the history taught in China?

These textbooks will be published in English, but the people that complain about them wont bother to read them anyway.
darin
November 29, 2005
1:40 pm
shakuhachi: I think you make a good point. Who decides what counts as fessing up? Koizumi alone has apologized 6 times for what Imperial Japan did during WW2. Does that count? Apparently not. Many people in China and Korea still say that Japan has never acknowledged or apologized. Does money given after the war count? Apparently not. How about money currently given as aid? Nope, that doesn't either.
It's also hard when there is no exact number. If a textbook says three thousand deaths, then China will complain and say it's 300,000. If the textbook says estimates range from 3,000 to 300,000, China will still complain because it says the number is only 300,000 not a single less, not a single more. The victim doesn't get to just say what goes and the other side has to go along with it. Also, the aggressor can't say that the victim is just throwing out as big of numbers as possible because it wants sympathy/more aid money that it can deny every receiving and then ask for more. I think both sides need to work together and try and figure this out, because right now there are too many individual groups working on their own, all finding different "truths". Japan and Korea are talking about working together to research the "truth" and work on writing a textbook together; I think this is a great step, and I wish China would participate too, rather then just not showing up to meetings or canceling hours before after making the appointment months in advance.
I heard that there is one official text book for every subject in Korea. Can anyone confirm if this is true or not? If that's the case, I can see why pointing out that a textbook is used by less then 0.1% of a population wouldn't mean anything when ones comprehension of a textbook being approved for use means it because the official textbook of the country.
Dan
November 29, 2005
1:41 pm
there is fundamental different between differing in # estimate, versus whether killing innocent is wrong or how it happened.


Where does the textbook say killing civilians is not wrong?

Sun Bin, you have a pattern of exaggeration and mis-statements. Perhaps it is because your understanding of English is limited. If so, it may be wise to stop jumping to conclusions.
Curzon
November 29, 2005
2:04 pm
Grendel: If Frankfurt had been the target of two suicide jetliners on 9/11, the country would not have been able to rally the nation and send a force to topple the Taliban. Unfortunately, the same is true of today's Japan regarding possible future attacks from one of its neighbors. See also "this.":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/05/11/curzons-living-will/

Darin: sorry to misquote you. Are you referring to high school texts or college ones?

Adamu: I should note that the only massacre Americans study in their textbooks was the Boston Massacre, which resulted in the deaths of five people. Of course, the name "Boston Massacre" was entirely a propaganda tool on the American part, and many more of our "incidents" with the natives would bear that moniker more appropriately.
ckrisz
November 29, 2005
4:03 pm
Just a quick historical correction:

Unit 731 and the other Japanese biowarfare units are responsible for far more deaths than just the 3,000 killed as a result of the human experimentation (this is generally the reason, I always believed, that it was called the Japanese "Auschwitz" --- not so much for the number of deaths but the use of human beings as test subjects in horrific experiments analogous to Mengele's). The Japanese used their biological weapons in sustained campaigns against the civilian populations in Yunnan and Zhejiang provinces --- thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, were killed as a result. The attacks in Zhejiang backfired when Japanese troops overran Chinese villages and caught their own diseases --- 1,700 Japanese soldiers were killed by their own country's atrocity.
Grendel
November 29, 2005
4:44 pm
Curzon, if a highly hypothetical scenario is the only answer you can come up with, then I see my point and the opinion I expressed through my three questions quite affirmed. I understand what you're hinting at with the living will article, but you still owe me an answer for the above mentioned...
Dusty
November 29, 2005
5:17 pm
All in all, I find it sad that the study of history by school children is concentrated so heavily on the course textbook they are given.

I know the reason and that's too bad, too. I do remember though that my son's textbook had a further reading list of books at the end of each chapter. Curzon, is that approach prevalent in Japanese textbooks? If so, it would be nice to know.
Dusty
November 29, 2005
5:18 pm
Oh yeah, thanks for responding, Sun Bin.
Curzon
November 29, 2005
5:28 pm
Grendal: You've heard my answer, and "as is not unusual,":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/06/25/to-grendel-love-curzon/ we disagree.

Dusty: my high school textbook in Japan did not include additional recommended reading.
The Marmot's Hole
November 29, 2005
5:32 pm
Japanese textbook discussion at Coming Anarchy

Over at Coming Anarchy, Curzon translates the section of Japan's controversial Tsukurukai textbook mentioning the Nanjing Massacre/Nanjing Incident/Rape of Nanjing. What you really want to read, however, is the dialog in the comment section that follo...
sun bin
November 29, 2005
6:05 pm
shakuhach and darin,

China does not complain about the other 7 textbook publishers.
please do not try to find excuse for the far right bigots, unless you plan to join them.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
6:09 pm
dan,

"to the textbook, and to the right wings, and to you,
wars and killing are incidence. neutral events, nothing wrong or right. they happened, accept them. they will happen again, accept them as well."
this is what you tried to say.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
6:15 pm
"If Frankfurt had been the target of two suicide jetliners on 9/11, the country would not have been able to rally the nation and send a force to topple the Taliban. Unfortunately, the same is true of today's Japan regarding possible future attacks from one of its neighbors."

If Seoul/Peongyang had been the target of two suicide jetliners on 9/11, the country would not have been able to rally the nation and send a force to topple the Taliban. Unfortunately, the same is true of today's Korea regarding possible future attacks from the Japanese Imperialist.
So both Koreas should get nukes
Dan tdaxp
November 29, 2005
6:21 pm
Sun Bin,

I am saddened, if no longer surprised, by your inability to maintain a coherent argument. When you are criticized for your mistatements, you do not even bother to defend them or to apologize -- instead, you leap to charge me as an amoral fatalist.
Gerry Bevers
November 29, 2005
6:35 pm
Have I missed something? That textbook and the others have already been translated in English here.
Gerry Bevers
November 29, 2005
6:43 pm
Here is another English translation of relevant chapters.
sun bin
November 29, 2005
7:16 pm
argue for what?

this is my original comment in the other thread,
"One is based on facts, the only dispute is the actually number of victim (100k or 300k).
The other is outright lying. (better comparison to US is probably the Unintelligent desgin controversy.)"

to which you said,
"It is convenient that when "your side"Â? mistates facts, it is merely a dispute of facts, yet when another's does, it is lies."

i said you were wrong in a few counts,
1. i do not take CCP's side, i do not know what side you tried to take? the japanese people? or japanese far right.
2. 100k or 300k is a result of different estimates. it is not mis-stated facts. no one knows the real number, and we have to rely on estimates. either number does not really change the fact that civilians who begged for their lives were massacred.
3. the textbook lied, about the invasion (call it war), about the massacre (called it incidence), and there is no dispute that saying 'many were killed due to the army' is quite different from killing civilians who begged for their lives, whether the number killed is 1 or 100k or 300k.
4. it is not merely a dispute of facts, it is about what actually happened. and more importantly, will this happen again in future given such value about war and life.
Dan tdaxp
November 29, 2005
9:25 pm
Sun Bin,

War is definitely more likely if your rhetoric is an indication of what propaganda the People's Republic is pushing down student's throats. China, because of her irredentism on Taiwan, is the only country that might start a major war. Backwards, Arab- or Serb- style complaints about the past behavior of now-peaceable democracies are rarely a sign of a mature populace.

When you say

it is not merely a dispute of facts, it is about what actually happened.


Sounds like "I voted for the war, before I voted against it." Perfect meaninglessness.
davesgonechina
November 30, 2005
12:05 am
War is definitely more likely if your rhetoric is an indication of what propaganda the People's Republic is pushing down student's throats. China, because of her irredentism on Taiwan, is the only country that might start a major war. Backwards, Arab- or Serb- style complaints about the past behavior of now-peaceable democracies are rarely a sign of a mature populace.


No, actually, the past behavior of now-peaceable democracies is highly relevant when we're discussing the writing of history textbooks dealing with international events. Past behavior is exactly what you put in history books.

But you have to be extremely careful. Comparisons of one nations bad behavior to another sometimes leads to some kind of justification e.g. Other nations achieved power through brutality, so why can't we? and it's corollary, dismissing critics as hypocrites, e.g. You cannot criticize our bloodbath because you have committed the same - you are in no position to talk!.

The crux of the issue here is moral condemnation. World history cannot avoid making ethical judgments about these events, that gassing Kurds, wiping out American Indians or any of the innumerable other tragedies to befall everyone. But once you start writing about the moral crimes of civilizations, then suddenly you can be attacked for the sin of omission - What about the Armenians, some cry out. But then there's also the sins of emphasis - the Holocaust only received 1 page, but the Nanjing Massacre got 10.

That means that how historians treat the past behavior of now-peaceable democracies, as tdaxp calls them, has legitimacy when trying to determine how one writes history. But it does not mean saying that one side cannot speak because of their hypocrisy. That's the flaw. Just because China has brainwashing textbooks, doesn't mean they have no valid point about Japans. It does mean, however, that they better be ready to take it just like they can dish it out. They can't, and they don't, but that does solve any problems except granting us some small meaningless rhetorical victory over a Chinese government that can and will simply ignore us. And if we engage in "I know you are but what am I" tactics, then China will most likely use them back at us when they decide to put their money where their mouth is on some issue of importance (instead of just complaining).

On a final note, Sun Bin is no CCP stooge. He's been an intelligent commenter on this site and others, and to confuse him with the brainwashed trolls that occasionally grace China related blogs is to do yourself a disservice. He's an informed and reasonable debater and should be given an ear. From what I've read above, the major problem seems to be that Curzon originally posted on a single point: that the book in fact mentions the words "Nanjing Incident". Sun Bin's point, which I think is really the important issue, is that mentioning something and giving it the weight and due it deserves are two completely different things. I would point out, however, Sun Bin, this is a middle school textbook, and I personally don't think genocide, torture, rape or similar issues should be addressed before high school, when students are better equipped to start learning about the horrors of war.
sunbin
November 30, 2005
1:31 am
dave,

i agree with what you said, and also about the middle school point with small reservation (this probably runs in parallel to another broad debate of "what is the age for us to drink alcohol, get sex education, or watch porn"? when i was young, i tend to think i am the one to decide).
but there is also the valid question of "how much materials can we cram into a middle school"?

but my poinst are quite simple.
1) there are 7 publishers in japan that CCP has no problem with, which were taught in, as Curzon said, 99% of the school. this one is controversial and not entirely honest, and let's agree that this is controversial, and not entirely honest. i just failed to understand why people rush to defend the revisionists in japan.
2) about the 'never happen' comment. i already said above i probably mixed it up with some other right-wing announcement in Japan. and adam pointed out one of the problems with the textbook.
3) in the previous post, the fact that Nanjing Musuem was shown to middle school children was blamed as "hatred breeding", and compared with Tsukurukai, which IMHO is totally insane and unfair.
While I can partly agree with Dave's point about 'suitable' age to be exposed to gruesome facts, I believe (and mentioned above) there is also a positive aspect of showing them the tragedy. No one responded to this point, so I would assume no one objects.
sun bin
November 30, 2005
3:49 am
Curzon

What is the relation between Tsukurukai and Fusosha? are we talking about the same publisher? or the same edition?

This is from Gerry's link (click the Fusosha book)

pdf pp9 and pp10
"the japanese army believed they could make CKS surrender by taking KMT capital of Nanjing. In Dec, they occupied Nanjing, but CKS transferred ther capital inland to Chongqing and continued to resist."

No mention of even an "incident" or anyone died or wounded.

So I did not spread disinformation. A textbook in Japan lied and whitewashed the astrocity.

--
I am glad you brought this up though. and thanks to Gerry for the link.
sun bin
November 30, 2005
3:57 am
do you need more lies from Fusosha?

Marco Polo Bridge Incident pp9
"a shot was fired against a japanese army unit that was on exercise at the MArco Polo Bridge outside Beijing. This resulted in military engagement with the Chinese army the following day"

I guess we could probably say "a shot was fired at a Japapanese sub near pearl harbor Dec7, 1941 as well".
sun bin
November 30, 2005
4:02 am
and this one is great. pp14

"Hope for independence spreading thr' asia
japan's early military vicotries nurtured dreams and courage of the independence for the people of SE Asia and India. The Japanese military's unopposed advance into SE Asia was possible because of cop from locals. the indian national army was established by british indian soldiers who had become prisoners of the japanese army. they cooperated with the japanese military in their advance toward india. the japanese military also directed the establishment of a military in indonesia and burma"

i should add that there is also 'cooperators' in china and korea as well, though i am not sure if those in korea (or anywhere else) anticipate 'independence'.
Curzon
November 30, 2005
4:17 am
Tsukurukai is the organization; Fusosha is the publisher.

Regarding the other seven publishers and the link provided by Gerry, here is one excerpt:

The army occupied the capital, Nanjing, in December, and killed many of the city's residents, including women and children (the Nanjing Incident). [ft: The facts regarding the Nanjing Incident were not made public in Japan. It was not until after the war that the scale of the incident and the facst about the victims came to light. Although a number of investigations and studies have been carried out, the total number of victims has never firmly been established.


That's one of the textbooks you claim to have no problem with. I don't see much difference.

Now, for the gazillionth time, what do Chinese textbooks say?
G Travan
November 30, 2005
4:20 am
Are the Japanese happy that their education system is compared so often to that of Communist China? The Communists in China are probably bested only by the North Koreans in their benightedness and hypernationalism.

All these discussions about the Nanjing Massacre and textbooks are a smokescreen anyways. Either one is reasonable and sees the brutal, vicious campaign of agression started in the Meiji, or one denies it. Just as one either recognizes German militarism in the early 20th century, or one is a Nazi sympathiser. Even Nazi sympathisers today are too smart to shout "Sieg Heil" from the rooftops, so they snipe at statistics and bring up moral relativism to prepare the ground for their revival.

All those who are sympathetic towards Japan and its culture should stop paying attention to its right-wing, which is the scum of Japanese society. Emperor Akihito, who represents the cream of Japan, is conveniently ignored by the Japanese miltarists and their Western apologists. Akihito represents a humane, cultured and neighborly Japan, and that is why his actions and words are so troubling to the right-wing LDP rulers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,625427,00.html
sun bin
November 30, 2005
4:41 am
I thought we were talking about the "controversial textbook". i.e. tghe Fusosha version. which publisher is this? is this the one that is read by 1% students you were referring to?

were you misled by Tsukurukai or you tried to mislead us, by presenting the non-controversial version?

difference?
1. no mention of civilian casualty
2. no mention of nanjing 'incident'

go back to look at your first sentence in this post. and think about if you owe me an apology for accusing me of spreading disinformation.

if you insist there is no difference between the fusosha textbook with the other 7. then say it loud and clear. i am sure the readers can read and decide by themselves.
Curzon
November 30, 2005
5:08 am
SB: I was misled by no one and have no intention to mislead. You said the CCP has "no problem" with the other seven publishers. Gerry provided us English material from all textbook publishers in the link above. I quote, at random, one of the books of the "acceptable seven." I do not see a substantial difference between that and the Tsukurukai textbook. Both call the event the "Nanjing Incident." Both say many civilians died.

Fushosha is the publisher, Tsukurukai is the organization, but it is the same thing. It's like

Like Dave, I welcome your contributions to this debate and do not intend to offend you personally. However, the inspiration from this post came from your previous comment, linked in the post, that those textbook said "it [Nanjing] NEVER happened."Â? That remains an incorrect statement.
Curzon
November 30, 2005
5:11 am
Ahha! Problem solved!

Gerry's link is to the OLD version of the textbook.

My translation is of the NEW (2005) version of the textbook.

The old version was, as noted elsewhere on this blog, used by just one school in Ehime for mentally handicapped children. Seeking to expand the books appeal, the publishers edited it in 2005 to include additional information, of which the Nanjing Incident is one section that has been expanded. The book has since been adopted by "a few schools,":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/07/13/japanese-textbooks-again/ but still less than one percent.
Kushibo
November 30, 2005
5:27 am
Very interesting discussion. Thanks to Curzon, Gerry Bevers, and whoever else provided the always useful English-language links.

My limited contribution will be to provide links to TIME magazine articles about "Nanking" from 1937 and 1938.

October 4, 1937
January 17, 1938
February 14, 1938
April 18, 1938
sun bin
November 30, 2005
5:33 am
No, they are not the same. And no, your problem remains unsovled.

your link is the old version (the japanese version is for heisei 4-17. i.e. 1992-2005).
Gerry's is for the revised version done in Heisei 17
see this 2nd "link":http://www.tsukurukai.com/05_rekisi_text/rekishi_English/English.pdf

pp1. 2005 version! and it is from tsukurukai.com!
pp52. same text, now revised. there is no nanjing 'incident' to be found.

So Fusosha edited the text in 2005, which triggered thge protests in Korea and China.

----
and what you did wrong?

you used the "good textbook" and told us it was the "controversial textbook". i foolishly believed you.
i prefer to think that you were mislead by cunning tsukurukai.

but if you believe they are the same, why was a totally different book be presented?
sun bin
November 30, 2005
5:43 am
中学社会　攓°ãÂ?—ãÂ?”žÃ¦Â­Â´Ã¥Â?²æ”¢â„¢Ã§Â§”˜Ã¦”ºÂ¸Ã£â‚¬â‚¬Ã¯Â¼Ë†Ã¥Â¹Â³Ã¦Ë†Â?14～17年度 使ç”?¨ç”°Ë†Ã¯Â¼”°
this is from your link.

---
Gerry's link is published in 2005 (heisei 17?). in case you are still confused
sun bin
November 30, 2005
5:51 am
let me try to tie the tsukurukai story for you -- assuming they were not being malicious.

the japanese version is for sales (and for profit) so they would not put it on web until it expires.
whereas the english version has no real commercial value, so they published it on web.

you made a mistake of using the wrong version.

i made a mistake of mixing up the quote of textbook from some other righ-wing'er. but what i said was not accurate, but not disinformation, as you can read from the new version, they didn't deny it, they just erased it totally.

the fact is, this new version is full of lies, which is indisputable.
and by erasing the words, it is hard not to believe it was not whitewashing.

---
as for Chinese textbook, i don't have one handy. but Travan;s words are good.
Yago
November 30, 2005
5:56 am
WTF? The link Gerry gives has a * mark, wich leads to:


Note*At this time, many Chinese soldiers and civilians were killed or wounded by Japanese troops (th
Nanking Incident). Documentary evidence has raised doubts about the actual number of victims claimed
by the incident. The debate continues even today.
Curzon
November 30, 2005
5:56 am
I spoke too soon -- Sun Bin, your comment here:

pdf pp9 and pp10
"the japanese army believed they could make CKS surrender by taking KMT capital of Nanjing. In Dec, they occupied Nanjing, but CKS transferred ther capital inland to Chongqing and continued to resist."Â?


... was incomplete: you did not include the footnote, which is where the Nanjing Incident is mentioned. I was misled by foolishy believing you! And I thought you were sincere!

But seriously, once you include the my translation is the same as the je-kaleidoscope translation. Both Tsukurkai and JE Kalaediscope use the latest (2005) version.

Of course you think Travan's point is good, he thinks Japan should be held to standard and China shouldn't.
Curzon
November 30, 2005
6:02 am
Conclusion: my Tsukurukai translation and the JEK translaiton are the same because we're translating the same portion of the same book; the footnote threw us both off.

I now return to my previous point: I do not see a substantial difference between the Tsukurukai textbook and the other publishers.
sun bin
November 30, 2005
6:14 am
so the revision hides part of "your old version quote" into the footnote, clever.

but the it does not change the fact the textbooked lied about Marco Polo Bridge incidence "someone fired at the Japanese Army unit, the following day they were engaged"...perahps i missed some footnote as well.

---
to answer your own question of chinese books.
i would just quote yourself, since that is the only words you would take. which you answered before you raised the question again,
"But no, two wrongs don't make a right, and a lie is not justified because your opponent lies."
i thought your poijnt was good as well.
Curzon
November 30, 2005
6:25 am
Thanks. I also believe that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. There is a good reason we don't want Iran and Sudan chairing the UNHRC, and China is the last country to be talking about textbook accuracy. Why does China only care about the death of Chinese people if they're killed by foreigners? Speaking of which, "look what article came out today.":http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47616

My old version/new version conclusion was a mistaken one which I came to while reading about the project on other websites. JEK is also encouraging misunderstanding by not including the original Japanese texts, making us rely on their translations, and by using PDFs where footnotes are hard to spot unless you print the document.
xiwangmu
November 30, 2005
6:30 am
that 1% includes a school that Reuters - in a report at the height of the April row - says has produced Japan's leaders since the meiji restoration, that is, the people who shape and guide the national policy and concensus.
at the end of the intvu, the school head insists:`` just as strongly as they believe we are wrong, we believe we are RIGHT.'' In waging war?
Of course China sd be held to standards, just as Japan. But the debate isn't about `if Japan is bad, China is worse'.
Of course China has committed huge mistakes during national consolidation under Communism, just as Japan has a bloody internal record during its rise as a modern power.
These are surely separate arguments from the issue of Japan's war of aggression against its neighbours,which its rightists continue to challenge, eg, it was a war of `self-defence'.
sun bin
November 30, 2005
6:53 am
the original japanese text is also in footnote, i believe. it is not JEK's fault. and as i speculated, the omission of japanese text is probably due to commercial reason.

chinese textbook is honest about chinese killing chinese, from Qin dynasty to Qing dynasty. the manchure killed manyh thousands in a few cities as well in 17th centuries.
but chinese history classes sort of stopped in 1949 (or became extremely brief) -- as you know, views have been revised and people do not want to get into trouble. But the academic research is very open about Great Leap Forward, as indicated above.

the issue is not whether glasshouse stone. verbal triumph is not what i care about. i am genuinely concerned about re-militarization of japan. by supporting the ring wing in japan, one is doing the japanese people disservice.

p.s. it was widely agreed by historians that Jung Chang is not credible. rummel made a clear mistake of taking jung chang as a source. but as i said before, this doesn't change the fact that Mao indirectly led to these many death.
Kushibo
November 30, 2005
7:21 am
I'm having fun looking at these two translations side by side. I wonder what meaning, if any, there is from different words or phrasing. For example:

Let's look at a map of East Asia. Japan is an island nation in the ocean, set apart slightly from the Eurasian Mainland. The Korean Peninsula reaches out of the mainland toward these islands of Japan like a human arm. This geographical relationship between the two countries has played an important role in Japan's long history.

If you look at a map of East Asia, you'll see that Japan is a group of islands situated a short distance from the coast of the Eurasian mainland. The Korean peninsula resembles an arm jutting out of Asia. The geographic proximity between the two countries has had great significance throughout history.

The first one, the government Ministry's website, says that the "this geographical relationship between the two countries has played an important role in Japan's long history." The second one, however, simply mentions "great significance throughout history" (i.e., not specifically Japan's history. A minor point perhaps, depending on what the original Japanese says, but the different nuance could be very telling.
Kushibo
November 30, 2005
7:38 am
Her'es a nice little innocuous description of the deaths of hundreds of people:

In Japanese-controlled Korea, mourners at a funeral service in Seoul for the former king held on March 1, 1919, staged a demonstration at which Korean independence was declared and marchers shouted, "Independence for Korea!"Â? This movement soon spread throughout Korea (the March First Movement). At the time, the Government-General of Korea used military force to subdue the demonstrators, but later shifted to more benign methods.
G Travan
November 30, 2005
8:53 am
Curzon writes:
"Of course you think Travan's point is good, he thinks Japan should be held to standard and China shouldn't."

China should be held to account. Its textbooks are awful. But China is a Communist dictatorship, not a democracy, as Japan claims to be. But China hasn't started a world war to enslave all of Asia in the recent past. It is obvious that China's government is one of the worst in the world. Still, how many Japanese war crimes does this justify?

I remind you that Poland and the USSR were both run by abysmal dictatorships when the Nazis began exterminating their people, and for decades afterwards. Did you ever hear German scholars pointing to the USSR's or Communist Poland's textbooks to justify denials of the Holocaust. In fact, massive Soviet war crimes were downplayed by German scholars because of their own deep shame. A stark contrast to the situation in Japan, where prominent people like Tojo's granddaughter still claim that Unit 731 was designed to protect Japanese soldiers from Chinese cannibals (see http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/GK12Dh04.html).

Finally, Japan's invasion ensured Communist victory in China. The Communists, on the verge of destruction in the 1930's, were revived by the second world war and the takeover of Soviet-occupied areas of China. China's terrible present state can be laid at the feet of both Mao and the Meiji thugs who the Japanese right worship as gods and heroes.

Again, I reiterate that all this nitpicking over fine details of textbooks is childish. The issue is totally stark. Disputing details of textbooks only serves the purposes of the Japanese right. While China and Korea dispute shrine visits and textbooks, Japan is rapidly reverting to its Meiji militarism. The army and government elite are already totally controlled by right-wing apologists. The generation of leaders waiting in the wings behing Koizumi, like deputy prime minister Abe and Tokyo governor Ishihara, are even more frightening.

The Japanese right is unapologetic in its worship of Hirohito and the project to enslave all of Asia during the Meiji. They deny the basic fact that Japan aggressively invaded nearly every nation it could.

The Japanese rightists' main regret is to have been humiliated and conquered by the United States. Therefore, like the cowards they are, the rightists now lick the US's boots while stirring up hatred towards fellow Asians.

Curzon, and other pro-Japan people are really wrong to support this shameful part of Japanese culture. You will find few educated Americans to support the KKK's extreme views, and few educated Germans supporting the Neo-Nazis views. Sadly, so many educated Japanese, and a very surprising number of bedazzled Westerners, continue to support the Japanese right.

If you admire Japan so much, why do you ignore the words of its Emperor? The Japanese right is so crazy that they actually fault and dismiss Emperor Akihito, their object of blind worship. Why? Because Akihito refuses to give even a nod to these frothing madmen, and continues to speak for peace, friendship and reason.
Yago
November 30, 2005
11:47 am
Who says Jung Chang is not credible? I mean CCP historians aside.

Look, I find the history book to be quite inocuous. And I believe all the fuss made by the CCP and ROK is pure propaganda rubbish. Almost equally filthy, which is remarkable as the ROK is supposed to behave in another way.

But anyway, I was to Yasukuni Shrine last month... and yeah, that's extreme. The annex museum is just... amazing. There they talk about Korean winning independence (from China) thanks to Japan. And well, never saw such blatant fascist propaganda in my whole european life. Nor I believe there's nothing similar nowadays anywhere in the world.

But truth may be said, that textbook doesn't deserve the fuss. Yasukuni does. Ishihara does. But not that damn book.
G Travan
November 30, 2005
12:10 pm
Yago wrote:
"But truth may be said, that textbook doesn't deserve the fuss. Yasukuni does. Ishihara does. But not that damn book."

The textbooks are just one aspect of the rightist campaign in Japan to restore militarism, hypernationalism and the perversion of Shinto that is embodied at Yasukuni. You cannot separate the textbook issue from Yasukuni, Hirohito Day, or Japan's remilitarization. Just imagine, if a prominent Nazi had been Germany's symbolic leader for decades, and then had a day named after him! Can you even imagine a 'Hitler Day' or a 'Goebbels Day'? It is so mad and evil that no one but neo-Nazis would pause to be physically revolted. But why do we not see any of the same reaction towards Japan's actions? (Perhaps you believe that Hirohito was a nice guy or something.)

The ROK and Chinese governments may be abusing anti-Japanese emotion for their own ends, but that does not make Korean and Chinese sensitivity to Japan's right-wing all "pure propaganda rubbish". Many Chinese and Koreans today were enslaved, raped and mutilated by the parents and grandparents of the Japanese right-wing. In particular, the "comfort women" and their families are not "pure propaganda rubbish". Imagine if yourself, your mother, or grandmother were forced to be prostitutes for a foreign army. One can't help but sympathize with these victims when Japan's leaders all worship the those who ordered these vile acts. Or do you believe the Japanese right-wing, who claim that the "comfort women" were eager to sell their bodies to superior Japanese "freedom fighters"?
darin
November 30, 2005
12:30 pm
People often speak of these rightist groups in Japan, and how they will soon overthrow the Japanese government and once again try and take over the world. Does anyone have any evidence for this claim? And I don't mean that when Koizumi picks his left nostril it signals that he hates the left, I mean some physical hard evidence.
After you find that (because I'm sure you will, there's bound to be a loony bin or a few thousand in every country), can you find some numbers for me too? Then can you prove that those numbers are enough to control the government, and are enough to overthrow it in the next say, 100 years (that's really not a long time, two, maybe three generations)?
Right now, that claim seems about as based on fact as this claim I'm about to make: In ancient rome (a now non-existant government mind you, similar to the Imperial Japanese government's non-existance) many intellectuals had young boys with them that they would receive pleasure from. They also maintained Greek slaves. (This is a fact just as throughout history people from Japan commit some awful crimes is a fact, now, the claim:) The modern Italian people are all raging homosexuals who have a deep rooted hatred for Greek people and are all planing to one day overthrow the most glorious nation of people this world has ever seen, Korea... I mean Greece. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Switch Japan/Italy Korea/Greece, and it sounds like an argument I've heard before.
Maybe I'm just so dumb that I don't see it, but if one's argument was so solid, even a complete moron such as myself would be able to understand.
Yago
November 30, 2005
3:05 pm
Tell me what about those textbooks is even remotely similar to Ishihara saying Chinese have a criminal DNA or Korean slave prostitutes willingly submitting themselves. I just don't see the relationship. As I don't see it between that and Japan expanding its military. Unless you think that the government is owned by those far-right folk, of course. Agree with darin in that you're being a bit paranoid. Specially because this people have been active for decades, and nothing's substantially changed.

Comparing Hiro-Hito to Hitler/Goebbels is very, and I mean very out of range. Nobody with even a shallow knowledge of Japan's post Meiji political system would say that ultimate decisional power was on the emperor. That was a religious cover, from the very beginning.

The bit about "imagine if yourself or your mother..." wasn't necessary. We are all informed (ones more, ones less) adults here, no need to use primary school teaching tactics.
Kushibo
November 30, 2005
3:17 pm
As I don't see it between that and Japan expanding its military. Unless you think that the government is owned by those far-right folk, of course. Agree with darin in that you're being a bit paranoid.

Where have I heard that before? Oh,yeah: here.

Dear America! What a naughty boy you are growing to be! Prosperity has spoiled you; you have grown too fat to retain your tender sensibilities. You are too active, and have got out of control. ... You don't mean to be bad, after all, and you were born a good child. I love you all the same. But nevertheless you are too arrogant. . . . You are giving military drill to your girls. Shame! You are making military preparations day and night. Against whom? Whom are you afraid of? Of Japan? . . .

That's right. In 1924, there was NOTHING to fear from Japan.
darin
November 30, 2005
4:24 pm
There is one difference between 1924 and present I would like to point out. Technology. Technology has given us things such as the internet, this is the information age. But more importantly, SATELLITE SURVEILLANCE. The moment anyone tries to do anything fishy, someone's spy satellite sees and and the whole world knows about it (except people in N. Korea and China where news is a small section in the bigger daily comics). The world ignored the calls for help from people in China when the Japanese attacked, the whole world made a mistake. The world has learnt that humans surprisingly enough, aren't human. The world has learnt not to trust people, that's why we have spy satellites all over, and essentially, that's why Korea/China are so upset about about this textbook; they don't trust the Japanese people when they say, "Look!! Look! in the textbook yourself and you'll see that it DOES talk about the issue, LOOK!!!" and they continue not to look. However, this (particular) issue isn't about trusting someone, it's about what is and what isn't said in a textbook. If you don't trust someone, then build up your defenses, that's what EVERYONE in Asia and the rest of the world is doing, but don't claim that something isn't in a textbook when it is right there for anyone to see if they'd just bother actually checking.
I remember seeing a picture taken by a Korean man living in Japan where he found the textbook in a book store. He pulled it out, got a picture of it next to other books to prove he was in Japan and found the book in Japan, and then you know what he did? He put it back on the shelf, not even bothering to look inside the actual book himself. Now, Curzon was kind enough to take the quote out of the book in question, translate it and also give us the original Japanese incase we *don't trust* his translation. Now, forced to face the fact that it is actually in the book, the conspiracy theorists are really in a pinch, but they don't give up, "Curzon clearly inserted that part in himself and it's not actually in the real textbook! I don't actually speak Japanese myself, but I know a guy who once dated a Japanese girl, and he translated it to say that 'Japanese people killed many ghost in sacrifice to the god of killing innocent civilians'. HAHA, now I've got them this time for sure!" Now I know thats very extreme and sarcastic, and I also know that many people here on both sides speak and understand Japanese at a very high level, so go download the pdf's of the book or purchase it yourself (and give the publisher more money, and more incentive to create a more controversial book while you're at it) and then go read it for yourselves. It's there. There are about 50 pages of comments here, but the the end is the same as the start, it's there.
Kushibo
November 30, 2005
5:01 pm
Darin, I'm about to go to bed, but just a couple thoughts before that.

First, I think you're too eager to let this book off the hook. The excerpt I presented about the "March First" movement (Samil Undong, 씚¼ìÂ?¼ìš´ëÂ?â„¢, 且°Ã¤Â¸â‚¬Ã©Â?”¹Ã¥”¹”¢) is a drastically watered-down description of what some would call a slaughter or massacre:

In Japanese-controlled Korea, mourners at a funeral service in Seoul for the former king held on March 1, 1919, staged a demonstration at which Korean independence was declared and marchers shouted, "Independence for Korea!"Â? This movement soon spread throughout Korea (the March First Movement). At the time, the Government-General of Korea used military force to subdue the demonstrators, but later shifted to more benign methods.

Subdue = kill hundreds or thousands, imprison and beat thousands more. That's euphemistic and obfuscatory, that's for sure.

I'm also not so sure what they're getting at about "shifting to more benign methods." Maybe they just mean that eventually the killing stopped. Maybe they mean that Admiral SaitÃ…Â?, as the new Governor-General in response to the Samil Undong, heralded a much less brutal administration, but the English grammar wouldn't really suggest that's what he means. I wonder what the Japanese says. Maybe I should go read the Korean text.

Second, complaints from the Chinese, the Koreans, and the Japanese opposed to the historical whitewash found in parts of these far-right textbooks are the ones responsible for proper revisions having been made. In other words, their complaints have been worthwhile. Had no complaints been made in 2001, the books would have been different; nationalistic historical revisionists in the Japanese right-wing, like their counterparts in the Korean left-wing, should not so easily be allowed to sneak their "we were not so bad" propaganda into students' curriculum.

By the way, does anyone have a link to the before-and-after of the 2001 books? I had them on an older laptop, but it was stolen.

Finally, the Chinese and Korean side should not be lumped together, even if they are complaining about the same things. There are a number of differences. First, Korea textbooks are generally more forthcoming about past bad behavior on the part of Korean regimes, from Rhee all the way up to Chun Doohwan (and maybe Roh Taewoo), than Chinese textbooks appear to be about the same from past communist regimes.

If anything, the danger among leftist chinbo "progressive" groups is going too far in this matter. The textbook on "modern Korean history," an elective course most students (?) don't take, is especially bad in this regard, since it seeks to lay out what is wrong with past ROK regimes and US sponsors (fair enough, it needs to be said) and Japanese colonialists, while actively downplaying far more serious wrongdoing by North Korea that would at least provide proper context for the other material.

English-language history textbooks published in Korea mention that King Kojong had Koreans involved in his wife's murder, but I'm not sure (I have to look) if Korean-language middle school or high school textbooks refer only to the Japanese architects of the assassination or if they mention Koreans who helped. Andrew C. Nahm's widely read history is fairly objective, and would serve as a good model of what Korean students ought to learn about their own leaders' shortcomings and transgressions, prior to and after colonization by Japan.

But even if Chinese and Korean textbooks fall short of ideal, that is not an excuse for Japanese textbooks to do the same. Even in Japan, people complain that these apologist textbooks violate Japan's Good Neighbors Policy.

Japan and Korea both, as democracies, should be making sure that their history books are as objective and agenda-free as possible. I would like for China to do the same, but since China can't even keep from crushing human rights of PRC and DPRK citizens, that's too tall an order to fill for now.
darin
November 30, 2005
5:08 pm
Kushibo, yea I hear you on that one, 2AM is a bit much, but I'm such a news addict I can't stop reading.
I'll check your post first thing after school tomorrow. But first, I'll throw a free-be out for your guys' side that there is a great underground rightist movement in Japan.

A family firm linked to Japan's new Foreign Minister Taro Aso is under scrutiny over allegations it used Korean labour during colonial rule.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4484806.stm

Hot off the press! :)

"The list includes Aso Mining, which was owned by relatives of Mr Aso, and is suspected of using thousands of Koreans as forced labourers."
""All we can say is that everybody employed forced labour during the war. There must have been a dozen mining companies in Kyushu at the time, and they all used forced labour. So it wasn't a practice limited to Aso Mining," "

So, Mr. Aso's dead relatives used forced labor during WW2, is that today's Mr. Aso's fault, is he responsible? This is a tough one for me too, as it's different from saying just every person in Japan, but actually finding evidence to say who on a personal level. But at the same time he didn't actually do anything himself, but at the same time depending on how distant the relative is, he may be living off of money made with slave labor, which if it that were the case, I would be inclined to say the his family (as well as all the other families proven to have used forced labor) would be in the right to donate money to a fund of some sort for that type of thing, many have been created all around the world, including in Japan.
However, there is this too to make it even more complicated, ""We couldn't investigate into the history of Aso Mining even if we wanted to, because records just aren't available from so long ago," Akira Fujimoto was quoted as saying by the Associated Press."
Curzon
November 30, 2005
5:14 pm
Actually Darin, the Aso zaibatsu story is old news.

Taking a page from DavedoesChina and Darin's comments, I think Japan's textbooks are acceptable -- in fact, if anyone needs to work on education reform, "it ain't Japan.":http://aog.2y.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1558 And Kushibo, I know you say this is an isolated incident. "It's not":http://www.isp.msu.edu/studiesonasia/archive/glade.korea.6.0.pdf (pdf). I would also maintain that Japan takes a closer look at its wartime history than the vast majority of nations, America included.
darin
November 30, 2005
5:20 pm
Actually, I just read your statement again now and rather then going through and commenting on each point peace by peace in 12 hours, I'm just going to sum it all up right now. Unless I'm going crazy, I think I agree with every point you just made. Some ones that stood out to me are:
*Finally, the Chinese and Korean side should not be lumped together, even if they are complaining about the same things.
*But even if Chinese and Korean textbooks fall short of ideal, that is not an excuse for Japanese textbooks to do the same.
*Japan and Korea both, as democracies, should be making sure that their history books are as objective and agenda-free as possible. I would like for China to do the same, but since China can't even keep from crushing human rights of PRC and DPRK citizens, that's too tall an order to fill for now -- Yea, I mentioned before I think, that Japan and Korea will be researching together to find out the "truth" and then working together to produce a textbook. This would be great if China would play along too, but that's some extreme wishful thinking.
sun bin
November 30, 2005
6:20 pm
1. the textbook has been revised a few time, precisely under pressure from China and Korea. it was much worse in the early 1980s. the new version improved a bit, but there are still some outrageous lies.

2. there is no way to constrain an individual, like ishihara or private institution, like yushokan. freedom of speech.
so China and Korea focus only on government endorsed activities
a) yasukuni visit by PM is viewed as such, though not all courts agree
b) textbook endorsed by ministry of education
sun bin
November 30, 2005
6:37 pm
3. ultra-right is a small %, i believe. they are not going to over-rum japan right now. there are still sane voice and many decent people (e.g. the tokyo teachers and some historians).
but why is this troubling?
a) koizume/abe/aso represents a more and more aggressive trend, they go to yasukuni for both their own believe and also for VOTES this action can attract
b) Ishihara is popularly elected as Tokyo governor. you can say this is local politics. But you cannot ignore a significant percentage who voted for him knowing (or even because of) his international view.

now, if ishihara can be popularly elected in tokyo. would an 'ishihara' become PM some day? perhaps not today. but with the continuing encouragement (and diverting the blame to korea/china) by the US, and education, popular culture endorsing reviionism or even fascism, can we say for sure about 10-20 years later?
if such probability is 10% or even 1%, should we try to prevent it or should we encourage it? (I am saying some in US, and some who comes to this blog, is not just ignoring, but actaully encouraging the right wing by trying to justify what they do.)

now, from US's perspective. working japan agaisnt china has plus and minus.
plus: 'contain' a china, which may or may not become hostile to US; save some cost and have japan share the burden.
minus: the risk as discussed above, and it could backfire to US itself.
the alternative is to continue the US presence in Okinawa and Yosuka, trust only yourself, more costly, but less risk.
this is for politicians in US to think through very carefully.
Curzon
November 30, 2005
8:14 pm
"The ultra right is a small percentage but are going to overrun Japan" is a baseless claim that is yet another reason to not take these criticisms seriously. Japan has a variety of opinion, from the self-loathing left to the fanatical right, and everything in-between. This is what you get from having a good sixty years of freedom of expression.

The US is happy that Japan is taking a more active role in its own defense and is continuing, but reducing, its presence in Okinawa. China could stop this instantly -- stop buying our treasury bonds.
Sonagi
November 30, 2005
8:48 pm
The ultraright used to be a small percentage in the pluralistic US, too, but they have control of the executive branch and exercise strong influence in the legislative and judicial branches of the US government, with disastrous consequences domestically and internationally. Don't write off the far right in Japan just because their numbers are small now, and don't put too much faith in so-called freedom of expression. The average citizen in the US ingests a few minutes of soundbites and headlines from the mainstream media, does not get information from alternative sources, and thus, is not well-informed about complex political issues. I have not lived in Japan, but I would guess the same might be true about its people.
sun bin
December 1, 2005
12:00 am
i said, "ultra-right is a small %, i believe. they are NOT going to over-rum japan right now. "
sun bin
December 1, 2005
12:03 am
so, i don't disagree with you. and you mis-quoted me :)
Kushibo
December 1, 2005
12:20 am
Curzon wrote:
"The ultra right is a small percentage but are going to overrun Japan"Â? is a baseless claim

Wait a minute. That's not what Sun Bin said. He said:
ultra-right is a small %, i believe. they are not going to over-rum japan right now. there are still sane voice and many decent people (e.g. the tokyo teachers and some historians).
but why is this troubling? ... now, if ishihara can be popularly elected in tokyo. would an "Ëœishihara' become PM some day? perhaps not today. but with the continuing encouragement (and diverting the blame to korea/china) by the US, and education, popular culture endorsing reviionism or even fascism, can we say for sure about 10-20 years later?

There is a huge gap between what you quoted and what he said. I'm not Sun bin, but since I see his point and I think it should be considered.

By way of analogy, the jingoistic right-wing in Japan is trying to sneak their agenda into the mainstream -- through legitimization of what had been taboo things, by pushing the envelope on established guidelines in textbooks -- in much the same way that the jingoistic left-wing is in Korea. Or, for that matter the Religious Right in America attempting to dismantle the separation of church and state (Tom Delay stating he doesn't believe there is a separation of church and state, only that there will not be a government church, while seeking to establish the United States as "a Christian nation").

This post illustrates how some Japanese were broadsided to the dangerous rise of militarism in Japan that was going on.

Someone (Darin?) said he have satellites to know when build-ups are starting to occur, but I think to some degree that's a security blanket. Sure, a massive build-up like in December 1941 a ways from Hawaii or in June 1950 along the 38th Parallel would be detected today, but what about orchestration of a shooting incident, which would require little more than a few planes and a handful of personnel, nothing more than would look suspicious.

Look at how the Hainan Island incident could have played out. Now imagine a Japanese plane as the American plane going out of control on routine surveillance missions in international airspace. Or switch it to the Chinese doing this over the Ryukyu Islands. Now, with Japan as a "normal country" with a powerful military paid for by 2.5% (like South Korea or Taiwan), would China and Japan behave nice and easy and not go to blows if one of them had done that to the other?

I'm not so optimistic. Look at how many of the major wars here started over "incidents" (Marco Polo, Tonkin Gulf, etc.). December 1941 and June 1950 are not the only way things start. An unfortunate incident -- unplanned or otherwise -- sparked in a room full of militarist sentiment in China and rightist sentiment in Japan, and BOOM, Sino-Japanese War what-version-are-we-up-to-now?

I'm a supporter of the status quo. Part of the status quo is a Japan that has made efforts in its textbooks to 'fess up and teach what horrors were done in Japan's name less than a lifetime ago. Undermining that by right-wing agenda creeping in (e.g., downplaying atrocities or seeking to justify them) is another step down a dangerous path. As much as allowing a left-wing textbook in Korea that does the same of North Korean atrocities.
Curzon
December 1, 2005
12:39 am
Sun Bin, I stand corrected! Stupid small print... sincere apologies.
Kushibo
December 1, 2005
12:47 am
Curzon wrote:
Taking a page from DavedoesChina and Darin's comments, I think Japan's textbooks are acceptable"”?in fact, if anyone needs to work on education reform, it ain't Japan.

When Japan follows its own Good Neighbors Policy (am I getting the name right?), I think the textbooks are quite good, better than Korea's, though Korea has far less to be repentant about. What has people concerned is when right-wing groups with an agenda are nudging things away from that, as was happening in 2001 and, to a lesser degree, may be happening in 2005. As Sun bin pointed out, people aren't complaining about all the textbooks, just two (?) in 2001 and one now.

And Kushibo, I know you say this is an isolated incident.

About that incident. First, what gets lost in the discussion of how it exemplifies Korean racism toward Japan, is that the "exhibition" was taken down early due to local complaints about the content. Second, Gord's descriptions of "fuck Japan" in some of the cases were exaggerated the actual sentiment of each, though a non-speaker of Korean wouldn't know that. Third, this type of public display was actually very rare. In that time period, in the many subway stations I travel through, I saw displays on preventing child abuse, the dangers of smoking, and something encouraging people to volunteer to help the mentally and physically disabled. The only public display about Tokto/Takeshima I personally saw was a big banner over a church in Ch'Ã…Â?ngju stating that God had given Tokto to Korea so it was "our land."

It's not (pdf). I would also maintain that Japan takes a closer look at its wartime history than the vast majority of nations, America included.

Yes, though it's probably because of the spotlight of all the nations that were victims of their aggression. This is why China, Korea, and occasionally other countries such as Britain, complain about whitewashing.

About the .pdf file you sent, I found it wanting. The descriptions of the textbooks wasn't very specific about which ones, how much they did this, and a few other things. It was very light on actual examples related to textbooks but had a number of descriptions of the paper's author instead.

He did go into considerable detail about three novels from or related to the time period. But that would be like using the recent Geisha book/movie or "Last Samurai" as examples of what American textbooks teach about Japan.

He makes the point about a binary relationship regarding Japan's colonization that bemoans the point that Korea does not talk enough about collaborators. Setting aside for a moment whether this is an accurate portrayal (how much is enough? which textbooks is he referring to? what would he consider an appropriate dealing with this?), let's analyze that.

Are the two things equivalent, as you seem to be implying, Curzon (correct me if I'm wrong). Japanese downplaying an eagerly expanding militaristic Japan's atrocities, or Koreans downplaying an occupied and subjugated Korean populace's business or political collaboration with the colonizers... they're not the same. To do the former is far more egregious than the latter (though the latter is not excusable).

What the author also fails to consider is that a similar treatment is given for other parts of history: incidents rather than moods and attitudes. The erstwhile-illegal leftist teachers union is trying to change this, but sadly, their history is so agenda-driven that it is not only useless, it is dangerous.

I do not have my Korean history textbooks with me, so I can't really say for sure how accurate his portrayal is. But next to me is Andrew C. Nahm's 1988 work "A History of the Korean People: Korea: Tradition & Transformation," published by Hollym, which means that it cannot have gotten accepted without government approval in the 1980s. It is an English-language book, though, so it would not be part of what the .pdf author says.

Nevertheless, it is useful because it points to what the government approved at the time. And it does the things that the .pdf author says Korean textbooks generally don't.

Back to the notion of whether it is remiss to not "play up" collaboration with the Japanese. One thing that I do think is very irresponsible, almost as irresponsible as the "subdued" paragraph I cited above or the attempts to downplay or remove "Comfort Women" references, is a lack of reference in Korean history books to the Wanpaoshan (?) incident. Koreans who had gone to Manchuria and Japan because of poor economic opportunity in Korea took advantage of their position as Japanese citizens and engaged in farming in Manchuria. Japanese citizens of all kinds were given preferential treatment over the local Chinese, and problems erupted over an incident. Back in Seoul, there was an anti-Chinese riot because of something happening to Koreans in Manchuria, and a number of Chinese here in Seoul were killed. That kind of thing SHOULD be in the textbooks; it is a proper illustration of a number of things, including collaboration.

I have to go now, so my description of the above incident may be lacking in proper detail.
Yago
December 1, 2005
2:05 am
But, hell, you're comparing Japan now to Japan in 1924. Do you honestly think that Japan is gonna become agressive in, say, 20 years? That they're going to invade again? You have to be out of your mind. As has been said earlier the only danger for the region is China's irredentism. That's fact.
G Travan
December 1, 2005
2:57 am
Tell me what about those textbooks is even remotely similar to Ishihara saying Chinese have a criminal DNA or Korean slave prostitutes willingly submitting themselves. I just don't see the relationship.


Please look at the program of the Japanese right-wing groups. Textbook alteration, Yasukuni visits, Hirohito Day, remilitarization, and denial of all Japanese war crimes are specific goals they have been pursuing for decades.


Comparing Hiro-Hito to Hitler/Goebbels is very, and I mean very out of range


No, no. If you don't see that the entire Meiji movement was militaristic, brutal and driven by emperor-worship, then you are making an error. I suppose the contrast between Akihito's behavior and Hirohito's is too subtle, but it is very revealing. Akihito does all he can to prevent the state-sponsored Shinto madness from gaining foothold again, while Hirohito revelled in it.

Read the new book about Hirohito called
"Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan by Herbert Bix".

I can't believe someone could strain so hard to whitewash the Japanese right. War criminals continued to be prime ministers and top army generals in Japan after 1948. The decision was made by the US in 1948 to empower the war criminals. This was done to fight communism, which was seen as more important of a priority. The legacy is that the war criminal's descendants run present-day Japan.


As has been said earlier the only danger for the region is China's irredentism. That's fact.


What territorial claims is China making? There's only Taiwan, as far as I know. Why do you call Chinese claims "irredentist" when Japan has territorial disputes with every single neighbor nation?

Let's settle the China issue once and for all. China's government is quite dismal. Mao was evil. Japan's government is morally, worse, and Hirohito was more evil than Mao. No matter how much you lambast Stalin, it doesn't make Hitler a nice guy!

In any case, no one would have predicted that Taiwan and Korea would become a democracy before Japan, and they did. Similarly, no one can predict future war scenarios. The Japanese right have ensured a one-party state with total callousness towards war crimes. This is a specter hanging over all of Asia. I imagine Communist China will reform and improve long before Japan is cured of the right-wing disease gripping the levers of power.
Curzon
December 1, 2005
3:27 am
Please look at the program of the Japanese right-wing groups. Textbook alteration, Yasukuni visits, Hirohito Day, remilitarization, and denial of all Japanese war crimes are specific goals they have been pursuing for decades.


I support all of those save denying war crimes, based on a rational analysis of current threats facing Japan and China, the most important of which is making the Japanese public realize the dangers arrayed against Japan: North Korea and China.

No, no. If you don't see that the entire Meiji movement was militaristic, brutal and driven by emperor-worship, then you are making an error.


You're insane. The Meiji reform was driven by an urgent need to modernize the country to save the country from European colonization.

War criminals continued to be prime ministers and top army generals in Japan after 1948.


Keeping low-level generals and members of the old regime is key to keeping the system together. Same happened in Germany and Austria. The Prime Minister of Cambodia was in the Khmer Rouge. The initial de-Baathification in Iraq is widely considered to be a failure.

What territorial claims is China making? There's only Taiwan, as far as I know.


Then you're ignorant. They claim "much of the South China Sea":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/11/23/greedy-china/ and chunks of the East China Sea including the Japan-administered Senkaku Islands. That's officially. I've heard Chinese gripe about Mongolia is part of China: "you can tell, it looks like a big bite out of China."

In any case, no one would have predicted that Taiwan and Korea would become a democracy before Japan, and they did.


Wrong again -- but your anti-Japanese bigotry is no secret no, so I'm not surprised.

I imagine Communist China will reform and improve long before Japan is cured of the right-wing disease gripping the levers of power.


"Post-communist China will be extraordinarily dangerous.":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/04/11/weve-created-a-monster/ -- the authoritarian regime will no longer be able to keep its beligerent populace in check.
Sonagi
December 1, 2005
3:51 am
"Then you're ignorant. They claim much of the South China Sea "

They claim MOST of the South China Sea. The maritime boundary that appears on every single Chinese map goes right up to the edge of the Philippines and the Island of Borneo.
Bergmann
December 1, 2005
5:07 am
"Then you're ignorant. They claim much of the South China Sea "Â?

So did Taiwan, if it's a country by itself. Taiwan claims many tiny reefs right off Indonesia, and the ROC had claimed most of the South China Sea before 1949.

"That's officially. I've heard Chinese gripe about Mongolia is part of China"

That is Taiwan's claim, not the mainland China. The ROC did not admit that Mongolia as a separate country.
Yago
December 1, 2005
5:51 am
I'm tired of hearing Chinese people claiming (falsely) that all the Russian Far East was stolen by the Tsar to the weak Qing.
About the Meiji Curzon has answered you enough.

Look, the actual level of personal responsibility of Hiro-Hito in all his government did is, at least, doubtful. The fact is we'll never know. But Japanese imperialism began quite before Hiro-Hito. I really don't see him raping 13 year-old virgins and starving purposely his population, as Mao did. He didn't conduct a war personally, Mao did.
You really must be insane to compare them, let alone put Mao morally on top.

And what crap is that Taiwan and Korea being democracies before Japan? huh?
sun bin
December 1, 2005
6:25 am
Curzon said, 'I've heard Chinese gripe about Mongolia is part of China: "you can tell, it looks like a big bite out of China."Â?'

what are your trying to say here, curzon? you intend that some chinese gripe as an evidence for what?
just to clear any dis-information. border with mongolia was settled long, long ago. and china and mongolia have formal diplomaticv relationships.
and china has reached treaty with almost all its land neighbor in the past 15 years. this is major achievement and should be praised and encouraged. this is what zoellick called "stakeholder".
Curzon
December 1, 2005
6:40 am
It's anecdotal evidence of personal Chinese views towards Mongolia I've heard it on two occasions, which is evidence of personal attitudes towards Mongolia, "as is this":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/11/21/bush-in-mongolia-ii/#comment-49846 , not government policy. Of course, I am very happy that China and Mongolia have friendly relations, good trade, and a demarcated border.
Bergmann
December 1, 2005
10:09 am
Yago said, "I'm tired of hearing Chinese people claiming (falsely) that all the Russian Far East was stolen by the Tsar to the weak Qing."

The keyword to the above misstatement is oen word, "all." I am curious to know where does Yago keep hearing voices of the above misstatement from the Chinese people? I've never heard of such claim.

BTW, the "weak Qing" actually defeated the invading Russians numerous times before the signing of the unequal treaties following the second Opium War in 1860.
xiwangmu
December 1, 2005
11:25 am
``The level of Hirohito's personal responsibility will never be known.''

Not of course when records were destroyed before the advancing American troops, and the myths created around him carefully preserved.
On the other hand, Mao couldn't root out his enemies completely,so the history of his excesses are more widely known.
note the difference between a ``transparent'' one-party democratic country and an authoritarian one where people are all brainwashed and browbeaten into a single concensus.
Yago
December 1, 2005
11:47 am
That's the problem with new formed states, were the balance of power and alloyances is not yet well defined, and long-standing governments.
I'd like to stress the fact that there is a fundamental moral difference between someone who invades and savages a foreign country (as blameworthy as it is) and someone who terrorizes and savages its own people.
Sonagi
December 1, 2005
12:18 pm
"I'd like to stress the fact that there is a fundamental moral difference between someone who invades and savages a foreign country (as blameworthy as it is) and someone who terrorizes and savages its own people."

What is that difference?
Sonagi
December 1, 2005
12:22 pm
"So did Taiwan, if it's a country by itself. Taiwan claims many tiny reefs right off Indonesia, and the ROC had claimed most of the South China Sea before 1949."

Well, that shows that Chinese territorial claims predate 1949. As far as I know, Taiwan has not used force to stake its claims, but the PRC snatched the Paracels from Vietnam in 1979.
G Travan
December 1, 2005
4:24 pm
I'd like to categorically deny that I am "an anti-Japanese bigot", as Curzon wrote.

I have studied Japan and its culture for many years. I have deep admiration for Japanese culture. Being against Nazis doesn't make somebody an "anti-German bigot". And if you believe Japan is a democracy, please look up the definition of "one-party state".


Post-communist China will be extraordinarily dangerous."”?the authoritarian regime will no longer be able to keep its beligerent populace in check.


It seems obvious from his choice of name and his attitude, that Curzon is bigoted against the "uppity" nations of the world, like China and India, who have smashed colonialism. But this statement takes this neo-imperialism to new racist heights.

China is a vast country with a vast culture. It will recover from the ravages of its tragic modern history. You cannot doom the Chinese people to a future of darkness just because of a few street protests and hooliganism. Taiwan shows that the Chinese people can govern themselves democratically.

To Sun bin, kushibo and others trying to argue here: just give it up. The pro-Meiji apologists are in a fantasy-land custom made for them by the Japanese right. They'll have to find their own way out.
Curzon
December 1, 2005
4:29 pm
Your unexplained Meiji apologist rant is amusing, if confusing. But don't take it too seriously:

!http://www.cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/old_uploads/arguing.jpg!
davesgonechina
December 1, 2005
6:36 pm
"Taking a page from DavedoesChina and Darin's comments, I think Japan's textbooks are acceptable"”?in fact, if anyone needs to work on education reform, it ain't Japan."

Hang on Curzon, that wasn't what my comments were about. My point was that responding to Chinese criticisms of Japanese textbooks by pointing to the shortcomings of Chinese textbooks is pointless. Same for the Korean childrens drawings you linked to. Look, I had a 7 seven year old Chinese student idly telling her friend that foreigners belong in the trash. I asked her nicely to repeat that and she corrected herself - all Japanese belong in the trash, not the nice American teacher. Then she and her friend explained that Japanese people are evil warmongers, etc. etc.

I have more stories like that. But that's irrelevant to a discussion of what should be in Japanese textbooks. These are two separate issues. Is there hypocrisy and irony involved? Hell yes. But that doesn't mean that Chinese people can't have a valid point. One can be a massive hypocrite and still be factually correct about something or someone else.

To engage in that sort of refutation is to not respond to the criticism directly, but really to engage in a sort of ad hominem attack, since it calls character into question without examining the facts.

The textbook, to me, doesn't look very damning in and of itself. This is, however, in the eye of the beholder. Like I said before, people can criticize your book for not emphasizing things according to their moral scale. One persons scale will say Mao was more heinous because he hurt his own people. Another person would say that is less heinous than invasion because at least it stays in the family (weird to me, but some people really believe that). There will always people with different weights and balances on these issues, and textbooks will always be subject to this sort of criticism. Some times it will be egregious enough to warrant changes, some times not. That's a group compromise.

However, when a textbook doesn't engage in strong moral condemnation in a context where the Yasukuni museum ends with a big portrait of Justice Radhabinod Pal, who claimed Japan was innocent and the real criminals were British and American imperialists, in a context where public political figures have underplayed and even denied some of the atrocities, where Tojo's granddaughter is actually listened to when she tries to justify Unit 731; when a textbook is does not engage in condemnation in this context of other messages in the same society about the same topic, then it does become more worrisome.

Curzon, I also think you need to be more precise when talking about China. Too often you seem to lump together the Chinese people and the Chinese government. Just as you would seek for people not to stereotype Japan, you should make sure you don't open yourself to the same criticism because you weren't precise.

And it's davesgonechina, not davedoeschina, which is my porn name.
Curzon
December 1, 2005
7:29 pm
Sorry to muddle your name -- and by taking a page, I meant agreeing with your comments "here,":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/11/29/the-controversial-textbook-translated/#comment-51972 not indicating our agreement.
Sonagi
December 1, 2005
10:24 pm
From Davesgonechina Dec. 1, 6:36 PM:

"But that doesn't mean that Chinese people can't have a valid point. One can be a massive hypocrite and still be factually correct about something or someone else."

Yes, but sayings like "the pot calling the kettle black" illustrate that people will not listen to or take seriously someone who complains about something they themselves are guilty of.

Chinese textbooks are written by the state authorities. and Chinese people have no control over the content. Individual Chinese have a right to express opinions about the Japanese textbooks, but the Chinese government does not. Well, it can express an opinion if it wants, but an appropriate Japanese response would be to take a page out of the CCP international diplomacy playbook, "Quit interfering in our internal affairs."
Kushibo
December 1, 2005
10:56 pm
Sonagi wrote:
Yes, but sayings like "the pot calling the kettle black"Â? illustrate that people will not listen to or take seriously someone who complains about something they themselves are guilty of.

I think this is a very valid point. What I would like to see from this is that China becomes infected with a sense that textbooks, and not just Japanese textbooks, should be written as objectively and agenda-free as possible.

Having said that, I would also like to point out that it's rather interesting that defenders of the right-wing positions point so heavily to the absence of Chinese contrition about Chinese atrocities against Chinese people to counter criticism about an alleged lack of Japanese contrition (in these textbooks) about Japanese atrocities against people in other countries.

Lack of proper behavior on Beijing's part does not justify lack of proper behavior on the Japanese side. But even if it did, remove the PRC completely from the picture and would this 'argument' hold up against South Korea?

The post-military era, especially since Kim Daejung, has led to a major overhaul of certain topics, especially those involving Korean atrocities against Koreans (e.g., Cheju in 1948, Kwangju in 1980, handling of student protests and the democracy movement, and summary executions of suspected Communists during and after the Korean War).

South Korea has far, far less than the PRC to be contrite about, but it has dealt with this. Korea textbooks are no model of virtue, but unlke Chinese textbooks, at least they deal with nasty shit Koreans did to Koreans just as they deal with nasty shit Japanese did to Koreans.

In other words, with China out of the picture, defenders of the Japanese right-wing would have no more "Why complain that we killed millions of people when you won't admit that you killed millions of people?" argument.

The complaint that Koreans don't talk enough about being collaborators, while a defensible position, is like comparing shoplifting a candy bar to Enron-levels of wrongdoing.

By the way, have there been any significant Taiwanese complaints about the textbooks this year?
Kushibo
December 1, 2005
10:58 pm
About the "retarded" comment. In certain forums, I don't mind getting engaged in a good, healthy argument. This helps me hone my ability to present both sides when I do news-related programming.

And some forums, such as Marmot's, are widely read by some influential people here in Korea, so there is a chance to influence other people's thinking, as much as to be influenced by people you should pay attention to. Although maybe I should just get back to writing more op-ed pieces, though.
Kushibo
December 1, 2005
11:02 pm
To Sun bin, kushibo and others trying to argue here: just give it up. The pro-Meiji apologists are in a fantasy-land custom made for them by the Japanese right. They'll have to find their own way out.

I asked at Japundit.com if the Big Brother-esque smart cards designed to keep an eye on the crime-prone gaijin has given any of the supporters of right-wing Japan any cause for concern, since they seem now to be targeted.
Kushibo
December 2, 2005
2:08 am
But, hell, you're comparing Japan now to Japan in 1924. Do you honestly think that Japan is gonna become agressive in, say, 20 years?

If Japan's collective mindset shifts from being a model pacifist nation to being one where past aggressions and atrocities are downplayed, justified as necessary for Japanese security, or not learned, while shedding the pacifist constitution in favor of being a "normal country," then I think it's highly possible.

I worry that the right-wing is seeking to strip away, slowly but deliberately, what has made Japan a model nation (and a very good neighbor, for the most part) that is not a threat to its neighbors.

That they're going to invade again? You have to be out of your mind.

I think it's a real possibility that an erstwhile "pacifist" Japan that has turned itself into what is being touted as a "normal country" (i.e., re-militarized country) could be involved in something that sparks into a wider conflict. Do I think they're going to invade Seoul again? No. One of the several disputed areas, if a newly empowered militarist-minded government thinks they have the decisive upper hand? Yes.

Mind you, a militarist Japan in the future is not my only concern. China of now and probably for the foreseeable future is a bigger worry, to Korea, to Taiwan, to its southern neighbors, and to Japan (one of the reasons why Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea all need to maintain a strong alliance with the U.S.).

As has been said earlier the only danger for the region is China's irredentism. That's fact.

Right now? Yes. As the 1924 piece demonstrates, things can change.
Sonagi
December 2, 2005
2:44 am
This has nothing to do with the thread, but check out the last paragraph from this Taipei Times editorial on cross-straits relations. The top ten things not to say to Chinese tourists. It's funny! I appreciate humorous barbs aimed at any country, including my own, the US.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2005/11/24/2003281531
Kushibo
December 2, 2005
5:30 am
Sonagi... you're everywhere! A woman after my own heart.
Sonagi
December 2, 2005
12:38 pm
I'm chasing you around the blogsphere, Kushibo. ; )
ooo
December 20, 2005
8:38 am
Read what other history textbooks have got to say on Nanking Massacre at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excerpts_from_government-approved_Japanese_history_textbooks
voice from the heaven
December 29, 2005
4:18 am
Hey, Curzon,
If Sonagi, Kushibo, and Sun Bin are from Chinese or Korean oriented, what do you expect the aftermath of this discussion? What is all about the fairness ? They are rather mild and logical, though.

The fact that these discussions about Japan are always crowded means there you can find some who can't help being obsessed by the harsh memory they learned in youth.

As you say, take it easy and find out the truth.
Sonagi
December 30, 2005
1:46 am
I am European-American; I guess that's why my opinions are "mild and logical." Are you Japanese? No person can look at their own country's history objectively, especially dark and shameful events.
heirabbit
December 30, 2005
2:55 am
It's amazing how people without philosophy can blather endlessly about global history and politics. If there's a knife that can cut through all this cheese it's the axiom: "Hate the crime, not the criminal." Is there anybody here who could stop seeing this thing as a soccer game between "team china" and "team japan", and see that imperialism and worship of violence is the culprit here? If we see that people are motivated by ideas, not their racial makeup, we'd begin to criticize ALL those who promote violence...ALL those who belittle its effects. To use past crimes as an excuse for racism and therefore a pretext for future crimes - well that's a crime in itself! The minute people think of this as a zero-sum game, they're already far enough removed from reality. In the real world it's not one team that wins and the other that loses, but both groups winning (e.g. through trade, travel and cultural exchange) or both groups losing (e.g. through war).

The history of 1937 Nanjing has been skewed by Chinese government control of history books and their promotion of the Massacre Museum, which is a travesty filled with fake photos and individual (and uncorroborated) accounts. History isn't printed in a book, but is the truthful and objective result of open scrutiny and debate. And when it comes to this time in history, there is a dearth of hard evidence. People didn't have ID cards then. There weren't people sneaking shots with digital cameras. To piece together an objective and clear history from the leftover scraps of such a backward and confusing period would be near impossible.

In the end it's all about ideology. Having been to Japan for six weeks, I can attest that the mainstream of Japanese society does not worship violence. Having lived in Nanjing for five years, I cannot say as much about China. I am concerned about militarism here, and that's not just from a political angle or what I see on the news. I think the Chinese and Japanese (to a lesser extent) could do more to root violence out of its culture. Let's get China and Japan working together economically, making individual friendships, studying each others' cultural greatness. In just a couple generations this whole "history" thing would just be blood under the bridge.
Vani
February 6, 2006
6:35 pm
Hmmm... To Heirabbit, I wonder why you say that the museum is fulll of fake photos and uncorroborated accounts. Have you visited it? And if so, have you researched and verified the validity of the diverse elements on display? Regardless of whether you support the Chinese state, you should honor those people who were killed in such sick brutal ways. How shameful! Six weeks of unbridled carnage - and you still suppport this demented, unremorseful society withunqualified fervor. Be careful or you will be as implicated in this drama as were all those who took part in these acts. How can anyone even consider these facts without wanted to vomit, let alone tolerate an unremorseful attitude on the part of the perpetrating society? Watch out. You are taking your infatuation with the language too far.
Curzon
February 7, 2006
2:11 pm
Curzon says: see Heirabbit's first sentence in penultimate comment.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Textbook Changes
March 30, 2006
5:15 am
[...] The Controversial Textbook, TranslatedJapan’s Netizens Speak OutKoizumi’s Unintentional IronyJapanese Textbooks, AgainScary China, Part 2: Rationality will not save us [...]
snow
March 30, 2006
8:14 am
I know it's too bad that textbooks for schools often gloss over issues (in whatever country you choose), but I find it much more comforting to know that open democracies have a huge amount of material available if one is interested in digging deeper. I can't say how in-depth the history education is in the States and I'm not sure if was especially detailed in Canada, but I was able to find out almost anything I wanted back in high school in the '70s. The information was there for those who cared to dig.

Unfortunately, places like China and other non-democratic states don't allow this freedom of information. Is it restricted in Japan? I doubt it, though there may not be alot of material written in Japanese, I'm not sure.

Next to having textbooks that are fair, balanced and relativley objective, I think the best scenario for a history education in any country is one in which a wide variety of materials are freely and widely available-one of the great things about the internet. I highly doubt this is the case in China and I'm not even sure if it's true in Korea (which seems to be over-run with leftist slants on history-in the present times anyway, and as students are regularly taught (brainwashed) in school by the far leftist teachers unions).

It is often claimed that the US ignores the bad things it has done, but if one wants to find information, there's a hell of alot out there covering the gamut of political opinions.
darin
March 30, 2006
12:44 pm
...though there may not be alot of material written in Japanese, I'm not sure.

Actually you'll be happy to know that there has been more written about the issue in Japanese alone then in all other languages in combined. If anything, the Japanese are the most educated people in the world on this issue.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Pulp fiction
November 17, 2006
2:59 am
[...] The battle over history may be coming to an end with China and Japan setting up a joint study on bilateral history to “promote mutual understanding based on objective historical awareness.” This doesn’t look related to the attempt at reconciliation made by bloggers earlier this year, but is one more step in the Abe administration’s journey to a better relationship with China. Is this the beginning of a new era, or picking at old, unhealed wounds? Anonymous once said, “The only lesson history has taught us is that man has not yet learned anything from history.” What say you? [...]