I stubled across a really distorted version of American history this morning.

The Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform has been causing controversy in Japan since its inception. They’ve continuously tried to rewrite the national narrative to one that they find fairer and less masochistic. In particular they feel that the negative aspects of Japanese Imperialism are exaggerated and given too much emphasis. Certainly, the society has both been influenced by and has had an influence on Shinzo Abe, who once led the group. The recent controversy over Okinawan history can probably also be traced back to the group as well. So while the activities of the group have been played down because the textbooks issued by the group were rejected by most schools in Japan, I still think they are influential.

This morning researching a different topic, quite by accident, I came across the Yamagata Prefecture chapter of The Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform. There, they feature a lecture by Shouji Takahashi, which was given December 8 on the sixtieth anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack.

Allow me to translate two of the opening paragraphs:

今日は十二月八日、六十年前の大東亜戦争勃発の日でございますから、まず最初に、なぜ大東亜戦争が起こったのかという事を一通りお話を申し上げたいと思います。大東亜戦争は、真珠湾の奇襲から始まったかの如くお考えの方もおありでしょうけれども、その辺からお話を申し上げたいんです。大東亜戦争の始まりは、決して真珠湾の、いわゆる騙し討ちじゃないんです。もうそれからずーーっと昔から、この宿命が仕組まれておりました。端的に言いますと､アメリカの謀略です。アメリカの謀略によって大東亜戦争が起こったのだと、いう結論から先に申し上げておきましょう。

Rough translation:
Today is December 8. This is the day that the Greater East Asian War began sixty year ago, and so first of all, I’d like to talk briefly about that. There are those who think something like this, that the Greater East Asian War began with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. I would like to talk about that. The beginning of the Greater East Asian war was not at all the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. From long, long ago the contrivances of fate had been at work. To speak plainly, it was an American plot [contrivance/strategy]. Because of American strategies, the Greater East Asian war began. It is this conclusion I wish to talk with you about.

それにはまず、アメリカという国がどうやって興ったのかということから始めます。
アメリカの国は､今からたった二百数年前に出来たのです。日本は二千六百六十二年になりますが、アメリカができたのは二百年余り前です。イギリスのピルグリムファーザーズという宗教団体のいわゆる清教徒が、アメリカの国をつくったんです。どうやってつくったかといいますとまずひとつは、インディアンを一万名以上も殺した上、残ったインディアンは荒廃した土地に追っ払っちゃった。第二番目は、アフリカから約一万名以上の奴隷をね､お金で買ってきてその労務に服させた。これで出来たのがアメリカの国なんです。それが歴代の大統領は聖書の上に手を置いてね、「我がアメリカは神の創り賜うた国である」、こう言うとるんですよ（笑）。これが神様が創った国ですか？

Rough translation:
First let’s look at how the country called America came into being. America was done up about 200 years ago. Japan came into being 2662 years ago, America was done up a little over 200 years ago. The English pilgrims, who were a religious group made up of Puritans, made America. So if we talk about how they did this, first they killed well over ten thousand Indians, then they ruined the rest by running them off their land. Next, they bought well over ten thousand Africans and forced them into labor. That’s how America was made. And generation after generation the American President puts his hand on the bible and says, “Our country was fashioned by God.” They actually say that! (Laughter) Is that really a country made by God?

After these two paragraphs the talk moves on to discuss basically American domination in Mexico, Hawaii, Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines. We then get a discussion of sinister American Machiavellian mechanisms throughout the Japanese modern period, ranging from the gun boat diplomacy of Commodore Perry to Theodore Roosevelt’s Portsmouth Peace Conference. When we get to Pearl Harbor we learn that, indeed, this was basically just one more culminating step from a long history American Machiavellian maneuvering, and that Roosevelt basically set up Pearl Harbor to be a catastrophe so he could dupe America into war.

What’s fascinating here, is that so much of this history is probably borrowed from America. I have heard similar things put forth by leftists and some libertarians in America, and in Japan the right will freely borrow from this at its convenience to manufacture a history that is suitable to its needs. The message inherent in the American view is watch out for the government. Transferred to Japan the message becomes watch out for the Americans.

I freely admit that America in the past has followed policies that were often wrong and selfish. However how about Japan? For the far right, anything that might cause one to look with less than favorable views of Japan is played down and relativized. Numbers of victims are revised down and we’re told that based on current mores, such activities just weren’t so bad. Japan was just trying to help other countries and protect itself from evil Imperialists like America. And, when we review American history, only the most notorious aspects are brought to the forefront, and they make up that history. Often in a distorted way that doesn’t represent at all what happened. Americans are slaughterers, slavers, and Imperialists and nothing but.

Anyway, to get back to the idea that America actually caused Japan to attack the US (and therefore perhaps America should as a consequence apologize for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) is patently absurd. It assigns almost god-like powers to FDR in his ability to be able to determine what the Japanese were going to do. I know some people in America take this view seriously and at some point I should probably review their arguments here in this blog, but I strongly disagree with what they suggest.

I agree with what a recent editorial stated in the WSJ:

Yes, the U.S. had intelligence that Pearl Harbor was a potential Japanese target. But other intelligence suggested Siberia could be a target, or the Panama Canal, or the Philippines. Previous indications of an impending attack had served, like so many false alarms, to lower America’s guard. And American planners had trouble believing the Japanese would launch a war against the United States that they couldn’t possibly hope to win.

Again, Roosevelt simply was not capable of pulling off such a massive duping of everyone related to the event. Moreover, this view makes Japanese out to be silly dupes, sadly misguided into helping Asia, then being punished for it, then being forced to attack America, then being punished by the worst war crime every perpetrated against any country ever, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Here again, the far right borrow American views and argue the atomic bombs were completely unnecessary and basically a kind of scientific experiment.)

Anyway, who is responsible for this stuff? Shinzo Abe supports the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform. He was their leader. This is what people are allowed to say when they deliver lectures at local chapters. Thank you Shinzo Abe.

Some how, I feel saddened that history can be made into such a battleground where all that matters in determining the facts is whether or not they suit one’s particular ideology or not. The truth is determined before hand, and then the facts gathered and fitted together accordingly. Not even a pretense of self-criticism.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

More related links:

• New history, old wounds: As the 70th anniversary of The Rape of Nanking approaches, China and Japan are trying to mend historical fences [Boston Globe]
• Japanese history textbook controversies
• Examining the Japanese History Textbook Controversies
• International Scholars’ Appeal Concerning the New Japanese History Textbook (Inaugurated on July 10, 2001)
• Wikipedia: Saburo Ienaga
• Japanese History Textbooks (2005 edition)
• Japan’s Right-wing textbook is teaching material by negative example: Comment
• Stop the fascists textbooks
• Japanese history textbook provokes sharp controversy

The Japan Times has weighed in on the debate about the Battle of Okinawa and what can be acceptably taught in schools:

EDITORIAL
Battle for textbook accuracy
-
The education ministry has publicized the screening results for new textbooks, most of which are scheduled for use at junior and senior high schools starting in April 2008. Conspicuous is the government’s efforts to impose its historical view of the mass suicides among Okinawan residents during the Battle of Okinawa.
-
Screeners told the authors of history textbooks aimed at senior high-school students to remove phrases that originally said, in effect, that the Imperial Japanese Army forced the suicides on local residents. As a result, phrases referring to coercion by Japanese forces have disappeared. Through last year, screeners had not objected to such phrases.
.
.
.
The education ministry admits that the existence of coercion by Japanese forces is a commonly accepted view among historians. Still, it justifies the screening process on the strength of theories that the existence of direct military orders for mass suicide has not been proven. It also cites a pending libel lawsuit filed by a former commander of an army unit on Zamami Island of the Kerama Islands against an author and a publishing house for printing books stating that he issued an order telling local residents to kill themselves. (On Kerama Island, 553 people are reported to have died in mass suicides, including 171 on Zamami.)
-
The ministry should heed what historians like professor Hirofumi Hayashi at Kanto Gakuin University have to say: that many pieces of testimony indicate that Japanese forces distributed hand grenades to local residents, strictly ordered them not to be captured by U.S. forces and told them to kill themselves when the moment arrived. He points out that irrespective of whether army unit commanders issued suicide orders, the situation as a whole clearly shows that Japanese forces applied coercion.
-
In this year’s textbook screenings, the ministry had all references to such coercion deleted, while it admitted that the existence of coercion remains a commonly accepted view among historians. This is illogical and contradictory.

The Asahi shimbun echoes these comments in their editorial:

EDITORIAL/ Okinawa’s forced suicides
-
The government has instructed publishers of many high school history textbooks to alter descriptions of mass suicide incidents during the World War II battle in Okinawa. In latest textbook screening, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology told the publishers to eliminate all references to the Japanese military’s direct role in these tragedies.
The ministry criticized descriptions that said civilians were forced by the Japanese Imperial Army to commit mass suicide. The government says it is not clear the military issued such orders. Many publishers complied, and their textbooks now state vaguely that civilians were “driven into mass suicide,” instead of that the people were “forced by the Japanese military to commit mass suicide.”
-
The tragic mutual killings of civilians took place in the Kerama islands, where invading U.S. forces landed first in the Battle of Okinawa. Several hundred islanders killed themselves and their families in mass suicides.
-
By removing references to the Japanese military’s direct involvement in these acts, the government obscures the abnormal nature of Japan’s militarism. The military did not want to allow Okinawans to be captured by American soldiers and so it forced them to commit suicide. Isn’t this move to rewrite textbooks an attempt to distort history?
-
The education ministry’s textbook screening raises very troubling questions.
-
One disturbing question is why the ministry is today ordering removal of references to the Japanese military’s involvement in these events.
.
.
.
A nation must face up to the facts of history, no matter how painful. Educators must teach that to the children who will shape the nation’s future.

The Yomiuri also has their take on this, which is fairly predictable:

Textbook change raises questions / Battle of Okinawa puts interpretation of history in crosshairs
-
The results of a survey released Friday of history textbooks show once again the difficulties of teaching war history while survivors of that time are still alive and still carry deep traumas from their experiences.
-
After the screening of middle and high school history texts, the Education, Science and Technology Ministry asked for the description of the Battle of Okinawa to be modified, taking issue with the inclusion in accounts of the 1945 battle that “the Imperial Japanese Army forced local residents to commit mass suicide during the battle.”
-
Historians say the ministry’s change in policy is a reflection of the latest academic theories. But the sentiments of people in Okinawa Prefecture who were affected by the events of the time are complicated.
.
.
.
A ministry official said regarding the reasons for the changes, that “in recent years, there have been theories that reject the existence of orders from the Japanese Army” for people to commit mass suicide.
-
The official also cited court testimonies by a former army major and others concerned from a lawsuit at the Osaka District Court in which they demanded compensation.
-
The plaintiffs filed a defamation lawsuit, seeking compensation from Iwanami Shoten Publishers and writer Kenzaburo Oe because it stated the former major ordered locals to commit mass suicide during the battle.
-
Regarding whether the suicides were forced by the army, historian Ikuhiko Hata said, “The consensus of historians has been established that there were no such orders from the Imperial Japanese Army.”
-
.
.
.
“In Okinawa Prefecture, no mass suicide occurred on remote islands where army soldiers weren’t stationed. The link between the Japanese Army and mass suicide can’t be denied,” said Tsunehiko Miyagi, 73, who attempted but failed to commit suicide in Zamami Island.
-
“Because I was a primary school student [at the time], I didn’t know of such an order,” Miyagi added. “But residents who transported hand grenades from an army depot were told, ‘If the worst happens, kill yourselves.’ This can be interpreted as an order.”
-
He also expressed worry about how students may feel after reading the new passages in the textbooks. “The description, ‘They were forced to commit mass suicide,’ lacks a ‘by whom.’ I fear students may be unable to understand the link to the army.”
-
House of Councillors member and former Okinawa Gov. Masahide Ota also has weighed in on the issue. “The reality of the Battle of Okinawa is not understood at all. If residents’ mass suicides weren’t forced by the army, the ministry should show how it can be proved from evidence. If ambiguous descriptions are in textbooks, the reality of the Battle of Okinawa will be wrongly passed to future generations.”
-
Writer Kazutoshi Hando said regarding the sentiment of residents in the prefecture that: “Even if the event only happened once, it varies among those who experienced it how they recognize it. It’s a difficult question how to teach modern history while those who experienced it are still alive.”
.
.
.

Just reading the editorials it seems probable that the citizens were basically told to commit suicide and under the coercive influence of the military, did so. However, I would guess there were no official papers documenting this, nor perhaps was there any official order. So because there is no “official” document or order then, the suicides had nothing to do with the military? Give me a break.

Anyway, note that ALL three editorials are MISSING two vital points.

1. Why must only one version of history be taught?
2. Why should a central authority have ultimate say in what will or won’t be taught in EVERY school throughout Japan?

I realize that saying this is perhaps impolite given Japan’s history, but I can’t help but think, Dark Empire.

Highschool students are quite capable of taking the information presented in each of the editorials above, then weighing it, then forming an opinion. That’s what education should be about.

So, and I’m sorry for shouting, but:

WHAT’S THE @#$%ING PROBLEM?

Okay, I’ll calm down.

But really, why not just explain the controversy to the children? Would that be subversive in some way? Sorry, kids, not everyone agrees about this, here are some of the commonly held views.

Gee, maybe the teachers could even ask the children to try and form an independent opinion. Let the children go home and talk about this issue with their parents or relatives or friends, and then report back to the class about it.

Obviously education should not be like feeding a baby small spoonfuls of easy to digest purée.

It should be about disturbing people and upsetting them. It should be about stimulating someone to the point they’re excited about learning and want to learn more.

The real problem here, which is indeed the same problem as the controversy over the comfort women, and the same problem with singing of “Kimi Ga Yo”, is the idea that one size fits all. We’ve all got to get into this lockstep and learn the same thing.

While Japan is not homogeneous, and never will be, the clear goal is not a homogenous Japan but a homogenized Japan.

Right?

Previous related blog entries:
Kimi ga Yo, national anthem controversy

Playing “Kimi ga Yo” just another gig?

The emerging educational divide: good or bad?

Boost state’s education role

News Article Links:
Japan’s Textbooks Reflect Revised History by Norimitsu Onishi

Japan orders history books to change passages on forced World War II suicides (AP)

Texts stop saying army forced Okinawa suicides (Japan Times)

Okinawa battle played down for 1st time in textbook screening (JapanToday)

Nobel laureate Oe blasts Japan over textbook revisions (Channel News Asia)

Japan to Revise Books on WWII Suicides (The Guardian)

Background Links:
The Okinawan Election and Resistance to Japan’s Military First Politics

GlobalSecurity.org: Battle of Okinawa

1945 suicide order still a trauma on Okinawa

Wikipedia: Battle of Okinawa

Wikipedia: Okinawa

Wikipedia: History of Ryukyu Islands

Free Okinawa
Okinawa has suffered long enough. To join this group is a pledge of your support for the people of Okinawa. A people that have lost their true freedom since the Japanese invasion and the forced denouncement of the rightful King in 1897. To know the modern history of this land is to know the horror of war, deceit and suppression. This group is dedicated to supporting Okinawa with their horrible burden of American military occupation and Japanese indifference. FREE OKINAWA!

Ryukyu Cultural Archives

The Complex Character of Ryukyuan Culture

Discussion and Blogs:
Irish Times: “Abe unleashes the deniers of history”, NYT on textbook revisionism (debito.org)

Americans Told Okinawans to Commit Suicide (Normadic Purview)

JAPAN TO REVISE TEXTBOOKS: “Japanese Soldiers Did NOT Force Okinawa Civilians Into Suicide in WWII” (Free Republic)

Japanese Literature Nobel Laureate Blasts Japan Over Textbook Revisions (The Malaysian)

Japanese revision of History textbooks AGAIN a.k.a THIS IS BULLSH*T (Live Journal)

And Japan Fakes Its Past History. 1984, Anyone? (Pen Raker)

RSS link to discussion at JapanToday

OKINAWA SUICIDES DURING WAR DOWNPLAYED IN TEXT BOOKS? (Japundit)

Japan’s Textbooks Reflect Revised History (The China Desk)

Japan Orders Rewrite of History (Rising Sun of Nihon)

I want to sort of think aloud about an article that appeared in the Japan Times, entitled Bullying caused boy’s suicide, high court rules

Bullying caused boy’s suicide, high court rules
–
By JUN HONGO
Staff writer
–
The Tokyo High Court on Wednesday expanded a lower court ruling and ordered Tochigi Prefecture and the city of Kanuma to pay a combined 8.6 million yen in compensation to the parents of a 15-year-old boy who committed suicide after being bullied at school.

That’s the equivalent of about $73,000.

It is the first time a court has acknowledged that depression caused by bullying resulted in suicide, according to the lawyers for Katsuji and Haruyo Usui.
The Utsunomiya District Court ruled in September 2005 that Takehito Usui was bullied at school and ordered Kanuma’s board of education, Tochigi Prefecture and the victim’s classmates to pay a combined 2.4 million yen in compensation.

So the lower court stated that there should be compensation for the bullying. They ordered compensation by the school district *and* the victim’s classmates because of the bullying. The amount was about $20,000.

But the district court did not agree that the bullying was the cause of the November 1999 suicide.

Why is it the courts job to determine why the boy committed suicide? Note, motivation is important in murder cases, because it helps establish blame, but we know who is to blame for the boy’s suicide in a literal sense. The boy is. Trying to look at various factors that influenced the boy’s decision and assign blame there is similar to saying criminals commit crimes because they were brought up poorly and are therefore not responsible.

The law isn’t suppose to work this way nor should it.

This prompted the parents to appeal.
The parents claimed the board of education and the prefecture could have prevented the suicide, which they say was directly caused by the bullying in class and had asked for 110 million yen from the two defendants for not doing their duty to protect their son.

I’m sorry, but the parents are simply wrong here. The bullying that took place at the school was wrong. There are not ifs, buts or ands about it, it was horrendously wrong. But to the extent that human beings are legally responsible for their own actions, it does not make sense to assign the blame for the suicide on anyone else but the boy.

Saying the bullying caused the suicide is saying something along these lines:

1. The boy was a machine, such that when certain things happened, suicide became inevitable. The people who set off this chain of events was the school board, therefore they are responsible.
-or-
2. Suicide was the only solution available to the boy for the problem of bullying. That is, when school boards fail to act against bullies, such as those involved here, students have no recourse but to take their own lives.

Presiding Judge Hiromu Emi said Usui’s suicide was caused by the bullying, and agreed the boy had been bullied in class and “the teachers did not provide the required protection for Takehito.” He said the boy was harassed for a long time, causing him to become depressed.

There is no known medical (physical) test for depression. It’s true that some people can take certain popular drugs and these drugs make some feel better. Prozac for example. If people wish to do this, then that seems fine to me. For some it might even be a good idea. However, just because a drug made someone feel better, can we really say they were diseased in the absence of any hard criteria?

Note, we have to be very clear here. The claim of depression is not being used in a passing way, they are claiming the boy had a (mental) disease. They are saying he had a disease and that this disease was caused by the school board. And they want the court to legally acknowledge this. But then why not say that the parents failed because they did not get the boy medicine for his disease?

The parents said they were satisfied that Wednesday’s verdict included the acknowledgment that the bullying was the direct cause of the suicide…

Sorry to be so coarse here, but the direct cause of the suicide was the decision of the boy to take his own life. To argue otherwise is to argue against the notion that humans are responsible for their own actions.

… but said they would appeal the case to the Supreme Court because the high court did not hold the board of education directly responsible for the suicide — only for the bullying — ruling there was insufficient evidence to support the claim.
“The court ruled that bullying caused the suicide but denied that the school was responsible for what happened on its property. It doesn’t make sense,” Katsuji Usui, 54, told reporters.

This just sounds confused to me. The bullying was responsible for the suicide, but the board of education was not responsible for the bullying? It should be just the opposite.

According to the court, Usui’s classmates began harassing him autumn 1998 when he was an eighth-grader at Kitainukai Junior High School. The other children physically attacked him, forced him to expose his genitals in the classroom and stole his belongings.

School is compulsory. You are legally obligated to go. So the boy was legally obligated to go to a place where he was forced to show his genitals and physically attacked. There should be criminal charges here. For the minors, I would suggest they be treated however the law treats minors. For the school officials involved, they should be arrested for negligence. But apparently none of this has happened.

Instead, we have the parents wanting to say the school board caused the death of the boy by not correcting his tormentors, who by tormenting the boy gave him a sort of terminal disease.

The problem is clearly that the law is lax, and the parents *correctly* feel justice has not been served. They are looking for some way to show the suffering brought upon their son by the bullying that took place, and have for various reason latched on to the idea that the suicide was caused by the school board in some scientific sense.

While causality might be easy to establish for a physical law of science, even attempting to establish the same for human behavior undermines the notion of human responsibility, which is necessary if the legal system is to work at all. Here I’m basically a student of Thomas Szasz.

He began refusing to go to school in November 1999 and was found hanged at his home on Nov. 26.
The suit was originally filed in July 2001 against Kanuma and Tochigi Prefecture and two of Usui’s classmates, who cannot be named because they are minors.
The two classmates and their parents reached an out-of-court settlement last July for 1.2 million yen each and an apology to Katsuji and Haruyo Usui for having bullied their son.
Kanuma and the prefecture have continued to fight the lawsuit.

The two boys should have been criminally charged, at least in so much as a minor can be criminally charged, or at the very minimum they should have been given a stern warning by the police the first time an incident like this arose.

What would have happened if all those involved had been adults and the incident had happened at a major Japanese company? Would there have been speedier intervention by the relevant authorities? Are children less important in some way?

Recently the The Supreme Court of Japan ruled that a piano teacher had to play Kimi ga Yo during school ceremonies. (Link to Japan Times article about this.) This is a very controversial issue.

The editors of Yomiuri Shimbun endorsed the decision saying:

Tuesday’s ruling found the order in question constitutional, stating that the woman had an obligation to abide by the order issued by her superior as a government employee, and that the Education, Science and Technology Ministry’s curriculum guidelines and other school-related regulations require teachers to provide students proper education about the national flag and anthem. We find the ruling reasonable.

The Asahi Shimbun voiced concerns stating:

One of the five justices of the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court, which heard the case, voiced a dissenting opinion. “Coercing a person to cooperate with the singing of ‘Kimigayo’ at a public ceremony constitutes direct oppression against the person’s belief and creed,” the justice said. There must be many people who support this opinion.
The ruling is worrisome because it could be interpreted by the education ministry and the education board that the Supreme Court supports forced singing of “Kimigayo” and the hoisting of the Hinomaru national flag at school ceremonies. What needs to be made clear is that its decision only concerns piano accompaniment. It says nothing about the constitutionality of compelling teachers and children to stand up and look in the direction of the national flag and sing the song.

The Japan Times spoke out against the decision:

The ruling fails to properly consider the teacher’s spiritual pain caused by the principal’s order. It may lead many boards of education to think that they have a free hand in controlling school teachers who express dissenting views against singing Kimigayo while facing the “Hinomaru” national flag at school ceremonies …In refusing to obey the principal’s order to play the piano for Kimigayo, the Hino music teacher said the anthem is linked to Japan’s aggression in the past against other Asian countries; therefore, she would not sing it or play the piano accompaniment. She also said she could not let children sing the anthem without teaching them the history behind it … Clearly the top court gives priority to maintaining traditional custom and public order at school as embodied in the entrance ceremony. But it fails to consider whether forcing a form of expression — even if it is not verbal — on a person is tantamount to imposing related thoughts or ideas on that person.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Tokiyasu Fujita correctly pointed out that the piano accompaniment caused extreme pain to the teacher in light of her own beliefs and that the main point of the lawsuit should be whether coercion should be allowed in spite of such pain.
With the help of the recorded tape, the ceremony proceeded without a hitch, although some parents may have been displeased with the absence of a piano accompaniment. This prompts us to question why the education board was so intent on punishing the teacher even after the principal learned of her view on Kimigayo.

I’ve been aware of the Kimi ga Yo issue for quite some time. However, I wasn’t aware of the details of the recent ruling until the issue came up in NBR’s Japan forum recently. A poster there argued that if one viewed the situation with the eyes of an employer one had to admit the problematic nature of an employee voicing issues of conscience and then not doing their job. If the Supreme Court were to allow an employee to be exempt from some portion of their work due to an issue of conscience, this would be like opening Pandora’s proverbial box.

My response was to state the following:

I think one aspect of this that needs to be considered is that we are talking about teachers at public institutions of education. We aren’t talking about professional piano players.
–
There is a very similar comparison that can be made with “the pledge of allegiance” in America. The pledge contains the phrase, “one nation under god”. Some teachers might feel it is a betrayal of their own moral system to say these words.
–
Why should teachers be asked to betray their own moral system in front of their students? For the good of the nation? Aren’t the teachers guaranteed the right of having their own religious view?
–
Some teachers are being asked to play an accompaniment, others are being asked to sing and look at the Japanese flag. Many of those who would prefer not to perform these acts, are suffering greatly. Here’s a link to a recent article in the Japan Times:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070118f2.html
–
While I am on this topic, another issue of comparison with America would be evolution versus creationism in school. Should a science teacher have to teach “intelligent design” even if he thinks the theory is obviously false and merely an attempt to inject a religious agenda into school? Or worse, should a science teacher have to teach about “creationism”, especially in the case where he rejects it?
–
This can be compared with the issues in Japan regarding Japan’s history. Should the comfort women issue be taught about in history class? How about the Nanjing massacre?
–
I don’t think it should be so simple as to tell the teachers to follow one policy or else face the consequences. Teachers need to be able to have some freedom to exercise their conscience.
–
At least one solution is to decentralize the authority to choose a curriculum. Instead of deciding these issues at the national level, how about asking teachers and parents to decide about them on a local level. As I understand this, at least some decentralization has been suggested, and Education (MEXT) Minister Bunmei Ibuki is against such policies.
–
I really don’t want to run on here, but consider the case of sex education? No doubt there are many views on this, even in Japan. Or on a less serious note, how about school uniforms? Should girls have to wear skirts in school? I’m sure if we were to dwell on this no number of controversies would come up.
–
Would it be so bad to encourage the local community to debate and decide about these issues, themselves? The result of course would be an increase of diversity in Japan as each local community came up with different decisions. Certainly something anathema to those government officials who lean towards the right.
–
So I think the idea of a kihan-ishiki or normative consciousness, in which Japanese are suppose to all share certain common virtues is one that glosses over a lot that shouldn’t be glossed over. But as I understand it, at least some of these supposedly common virtues have been written into the recent revision of the Fundamental Law of Education.

Anyway, I think this is an important issue, and I am sorry to see that the Supreme Court of Japan feels a piano teacher can be coerced by threat of job security and income into playing piano accompaniment to song that once was written for a living god.

I was looking into issue of singing Kimigayo at public schools and came across a really good editorial.

There were two highlights:

1. The author’s suggestion that Koizumi (and now Abe) while striving to bring back conservative values, which presumably would include harmony, are actually causing larger rifts among the voting electorate. By taking a strong conservative stance, they are drawing a stark contrast to those who would oppose their views, and this is helping to polarize the issues. While the author below does not appear happy about this, I think it’s potentially a good thing. I have to admit that even if you disagree with Abe’s policies, he lays them out for the most part clearly. He has two books Utsukushii Kuni e and Kono Kuni wo Mamoru Ketsui, which spell out his basic philosophy. This means he’s putting his philosophy out in a coherent manner so it can be criticized and debated. That is a good thing.

2. A major revelation for me, it appears that the national government is cutting funding for local education. This is potentially hazardous. As some local governments have more money than others, this might create a rift in education quality. However, it is also potentially very positive. If local governments are responsible for paying for their schools, they will get more say in what is taught in those schools. The government can pass whatever patriotic laws they want, but how do they intend to enforce these laws if they have no financial leverage to exercise on the schools. Short of actually arresting school officials, the less money the national government gives to the local schools, the less influence they’ll have. What does this mean? More diversity in education at a local level. More on this later when I can get more information on it.

Danger of education divide
By TAKAMITSU SAWA

During its five-year rule, the administration of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has completed a number of structural reforms, including the privatization of the postal service. To that extent, the administration deserves high praise.

From the public’s perspective, some of the reforms are good, but not all. Among the bad ones is the cutback in expenditures from national coffers for compulsory education in exchange for the transfer of some tax-revenue sources (as part of the national income tax) to local governments (as part of the local residential tax).

The government had originally planned to abolish those expenditures, but amid strong resistance from the education ministry, it reduced the national funding share for teachers’ salaries from one-half to one-third. The difference was made up by shifting some tax revenue sources to local governments.
On the other hand, recently announced 2006 government guidelines for economic and fiscal management call for abolishing tax-money allocations from the central government to local governments. Therefore, national expenditures for compulsory education appear set to be abolished altogether eventually.

Comment:
This may actually be good. As local governments are footing the bill, they will probably demand more of a say in what is being taught. So while even now the government is pushing for more control, this may just be a stop gap measure. Perhaps they realize without financial control, they will be losing their influence.

Japanese education policy traditionally has been based on the idea of eliminating regional differences in compulsory education and pursuing balanced development of national land. This policy enabled Japan to achieve fast postwar reconstruction from 1945 to 1955, stage amazing economic growth from 1958 to 1973, overcome problems from the 1973 global oil crisis, and dominate the global electronics market in subsequent years by developing an array of electronic devices and high-tech products.

Comment:
First, this is a bad policy. The more localized education is the better. Why do we need a lockstep nation? The falacy involved here is in thinking we all need to learn the same fundamental things, we don’t. And setting up an educational system for a country of 120 million people with its control at the center should be enough to cause concern for any parent who wants more control over their child’s education.

Second, I’m not convinced that the educational system is responsible for Japan’s postwar growth. This is something that I hope I can address in the future.

At the National People’s Congress last March, Chinese President Hu Jintao announced a new national policy of establishing harmony between urban and rural areas, between coastal and inland regions, between manufacturing and agriculture, between man and nature, and between the development of China and that of the world (especially Asia).

For China, Japan, once the role model for high economic growth, apparently has now become a good example of a harmonious society, as China emphasizes removing the economic and educational gaps between urban and rural areas.

Ironically, though, Koizumi’s reform drive has undermined Japanese-style harmony developed in the postwar years. Social divides have become a serious issue in various contexts, contradicting the so-called pursuit of harmony.

Comment:
I can hardly see social divides as a problem, but instead view them as part of a healthy democracy. People in different local areas have different needs, can’t education reflect that? I do agree that public education is a great equalizer in the sense it’s suppose to give everyone a chance to make it. This is something that needs to be looked at.

Opinion is divided on what the central government should and should not do. Very few would argue that compulsory education should be excluded from the government’s responsibilities.

The government has long established a basic framework for compulsory education and made substantial financial contributions, including paying one-half of teachers’ salaries at public schools. Meanwhile, local governments have paid most of the cost of establishing and managing public schools.
At issue is how far the government should remain involved in compulsory education. So far, the government has subsidized local governments specifically to eliminate regional education gaps. But these subsidies have been criticized for allowing the central government to exert too much control over compulsory education.

Comment:
Right. We don’t need a lockstep nation.

For example, disputes have arisen over education ministry directives on raising the national flag and singing the national anthem “Kimigayo” at school ceremonies and over the ministry’s method of screening school textbooks.
Local governments should be given more opportunity and power to implement their own initiatives. But this will require substantial fiscal expenditures that could create educational gaps between rich and poor communities — a possibility that cannot be ignored.

All children, regardless of family and regional backgrounds, must be given the educational opportunities necessary to nurture their abilities to enjoy a rich social and occupational life in the future. Preventing the waste of human resources in this way will also contribute to the revitalization and the sustainable development of the economy.

The government should guarantee basic standards of education. It should publicize examples of successful reform in compulsory education at the local level. While taking into account cost-effectiveness, the government should implement the budgetary measures necessary to spread such reform across the nation.

Comment:
As long as there are national tests, students will not study to learn, but to pass the tests. There is a different between being educated and being good at taking tests. Docile members of society are often good at passing tests with clear criteria (multiple choice math or kanji tests, for example). Independent thinkers, rebels, poets, instigators, entrepreneurs, and creators often are not.

Amid tight finances these days, my proposal may seem like a dream. But education must be part of a long-range plan for the nation. Improving the scholastic levels of 18-year-olds so that they will develop sound attitudes as citizens are essential for sustaining the further development of society.

Comment:
What if I were to say a good citizen is one who wants the government to get off his back and let him live his own life. The point being, do we really need central control over what will be considered a good citizen. For the State, a person who docilely accepts control by the State, therefore maintaining it, is always a good citizen.

Children born in the low-income Hokkaido and Okinawa prefectures are not naturally less gifted than those born in high-income metropolitan Tokyo, Aichi and the Kyoto-Osaka-Kobe regions. Yet, if the central government continues to push a policy of eventually abolishing its expenditures for compulsory education in exchange for a shift of tax-revenue sources to local governments, we will face a dire situation in which place of birth will determine the quality of education one receives. That would lead to a great national loss.

Comment:
I agree this is a problem. I think one needs to balance the need for local funding from the national government with the drawback of government interference. Interestingly, Hokkaido and and Okinawa are mentioned in this contexts. Can we expect the national government to properly educated people about Ainu and Ryukyuan cultural heritage? These are things that probably should be taught in Hokkaido and Okinawa, are they?

Takamitsu Sawa is a professor at Ritsumeikan University’s Graduate School of Policy Science and a specially appointed professor at Kyoto University’s Institute of Economic Research.

Comment:
Excellent editorial even if one holds a contrary opinion.

A well-respected author and blogger, Shigenobu Tamura (田村重信), reports in his blog that last year the monthly magazine Chichi (致知) featured an article in its April issue in which Bunmei Ibuki, the MEXT Minister, gave his opinion on the Koizumi reforms and education. I’m not clear on whether this was an interview with Ibuki or opinion piece by Ibuki. However, here is my translation of Ibuki’s statements as presented to us in Mr. Tamura’s blog (see below for notes on translation):

If we take the esteemed Ainu and the zainichi people [and so on] as exceptions [i.e. EXCLUDE them], we see that fundamentally Japan is one ethnos, one ethnic ruler-ship, one language, one belief system (a gentle multifaceted belief system); in this world a rare country [a country without precedent]. This is different from an artificial country like America, which is made up of a conglomeration of ethnicities with different languages and different values; without even writing it into law, people in Japan have a tacit understanding which establishes us [as a country]. Under this special environment, our forefathers, for more than a thousand years, through trial and error, again and again, by shaving off the bad, and letting the good remain, have passed down to us, societal norms.
:
Not so long ago, we used to say the following words; ” [Even if no one else sees the bad things you do] the Sun is watching”, “Don’t [become ashamed] to show your face to the World.” Illuminated by these traditional norms, Japanese of their own accord judged their behavior. [i.e. they didn’t need laws.] Based on generations of experience, the old mercantile houses formed norms, house constitutions — house precepts, and if they strayed from that path to pursue only profit by not fulfilling their obligations to the customer or by bullying their subcontractors, then they were sternly admonished. Yet the more our country has grown wealthy and abundant, the more our spirit of reverence has grown impoverished. While well clothed and well fed [we may be], from the viewpoint of ethics and morals, you hear “So long as its not illegal, it’s not a problem” “So long as you don’t get caught, it’s okay.” Unethical business dealings and deplorable scandals have become frequent occurrences.
:
The postwar educational system has had a big influence here. Take a person who has received this post-war education that gives priority to rights not duty, that puts the private above the public, when this person reaches adulthood, when that child who has been influenced [by this education] becomes an adult, then as a result, they won’t even understand it when they are admonished by saying “[Even if no one else sees the bad things you do] the Sun is watching”, “Don’t [become ashamed] to show your face to the World.”
:
[cut]
:
In order to get back the traditional societal norms Japanese have lost, the LDP will, with the same fervor with which the postal system was reformed, strive to revise the constitution and to revise the fundamental law of education, (to make) the educational (system) … what it should be.

I think these statements speak for themselves. Japanese aren’t suppose to argue with one another or disagree because they are all suppose be the same in some essential sense. Of course, this is useful for politicians who don’t want the public to eye them too critically. But this is not what is most troubling about these statements.

Note, that Ibuki’s entire line of argument is focused on revising the Constitution of Japan and the Fundamental Law of Education. He clearly states here and in other places that these important documents need to be reformed to reflect the values of the Japanese ethnos. He has specifically said these values are not universal, but special values of the Japanese ethnos. So these values, of course, are not those of the Ainu or those of zainichi people.

Is this internationalization? Is it even Constitutionalism? Probably not.

:
:
:

Notes on the above translation:

What follows are the original Japanese quotes as presented on Mr. Tamura’s blog page followed by my translation. CAUTION: I have removed ellipses in Mr. Tamura’s quoted text which shows where cuts were made. On Mr. Tamura’s page these were marked with the Chinese character “略”. This may cause confusion if you don’t first view the text as presented on Mr. Tamura’s blog.

Criticism of my translation will be readily accepted.

1.　日本は、アイヌや在日の方などの例外はあるが、基本的に一民族、一民族支配、一言語、同一の信仰（穏やかな多信仰）で成り立つ世界でも稀有（けう）な国である。

If we take the esteemed Ainu and the zainichi people [and so on] as exceptions [i.e. EXCLUDE them], we see that fundamentally Japan is one ethnos, one ethnic ruler-ship, one language, one belief system (a gentle multifaceted belief system); in this world a rare country [a country without precedent].

2.　人工的に移民でつくられたアメリカのように、言語も価値観も異なる人々の集合体である多民族国家と異なり、日本では法に書かれざる“暗黙の了解”が比較的成立しやすかった。

This is different from an artificial country like America, which is made up of a conglomeration of ethnicities with different languages and different values; without writing it in law, people in Japan have a tacit understanding which establishes us [as a country].

3.この特別な環境下で、われわれの祖先は、千年以上もの長きにわたって試行錯誤を繰り返し、上手（うま）くいかないことは削り落とし、よいと思われることを残して、社会規範として伝えてきた。

Under this special environment, our forefathers, for more than thousand years, through trial and error, again and again, by shaving off the bad, and letting the good remain, have passed down to us, societal norms.

4.少し前までは、「お天道様が見ている」、「世間様に顔向けできない」という言葉がよく使われていた。

Not so long ago, we used to say the following words; “the esteemed Sun is watching”, “Don’t [become ashamed] to show your face the honorable World.”

5.日本人は、そういう伝統的社会規範に照らして自らの行動を律してきたのである。

Illuminated by these these traditional norms, Japanese of their own accord judged their behavior. [i.e. they didn’t need laws.]

6.古い商家には、代々の体験にもとづいてつくられた家憲・家訓という規範があり、例えば、ただ利を追求するだけでなく、お得意様に不義理をしたり、お仕入れ先や下職（したしょく）の人をいじめるなど、道に外れたやり方で利を上げることを固く戒めてきた。

Based on generations of experience, the old mercantile houses formed norms, house constitutions — house precepts, and if they strayed this path [as established by the norms] to pursue only profit by not fulfilling their obligations to the customer or by bullying their subcontractors, then they were sternly admonished.

7.　ところが、そうした日本人の尊い精神は、国が豊かになるにつれ次第に希薄になってきている。

Yet the more our country has grown wealthy and abundant, the more our spirit of reverence has grown impoverished.

8.暖衣飽食の中で倫理観、道徳観は薄れ、「法に触れなければ問題ない」、「バレなければ何をやってもいい」と、悪徳商法や不祥事が頻発するようになった。

While well clothed and well fed [we may be], from the viewpoint of ethics and morals, you hear “So long as its not illegal it’s not a problem” “So long as you don’t get caught, it’s okay.” Unethical business dealings, deplorable scandals have become frequent occurrences.

9.戦後の教育の影響も大きい。

The postwar educational system has had a big influence here.

10.義務よりも権利、「公」よりも「私」を優先する戦後教育を受けた人が大人になり、さらにその影響を受けた子どもたちが大人になることによって、「お天道様が見ている」、「世間様に顔向けできない」という戒めが通用しない世の中になっている。

Take a person who has received this post-war education that gives priority to rights not duty, that puts the private above the public, when this person reaches adulthood, when that child who has been influenced [by this education] becomes an adult, then as a result, they won’t even understand it when they are admonished by saying “[Even if no one else sees the bad things you do] the Sun is watching”, “Don’t [become ashamed] to show your face to the World.”

10.　チャーチルも「民主主義は最悪の政治であるが、いままで存在したいかなる政治制度よりましである」と、その欠点を認めている。

Churchill’s quote that “democracy is the worst [form of] government but it’s better than all other government systems that have existed.” recognizes this defect.

11.賢人支配の独裁制に戻したほうがいいかといえば、独裁者がいつも賢人である保証はない。

Even if you were to say we should return to a despotism of ruler-ship by a wise man, there would be no guarantee that the despot would continue to be a wise man.

12.中小企業がやっとの思いで納めた十万円に価値を認めるのが政治である。

(Not clear without context.)

13.　保守主義の根本理念の一つは謙虚さである。

The main idea of conservatism is humbleness

14.　決断に際して最も信頼できる拠り所となるのは、先人が残してくれた伝統的な社会規範、すなわち「お天道様」であり「世間様」である。

The best foundation for making decisions is by looking at the normative consciousness that our forefathers have left to us. In other words “The Sun” and “the World”.

15.　日本人が失われつつある伝統的な社会規範を取り戻すためにも、自民党政治は、郵政改革と同様の情熱で、憲法改正、教育基本法の改正に取り組み、教育や相続制度のあり方、そして家業、家族をどう維持するかに答えを出さねばならないと思う。

In order to get back the traditional societal norms Japanese have lost, the LDP will, with the same fervor with which the postal system was reformed, strive to revise the constitution and to revise the fundamental law of education, (to make) the educational (system) and the inheritance system what it should be. And we must answer the question of how to support families and family businesses.

16.　伝統的な社会規範、人間の力を尊重し、それを取り戻す手を打つことによって、小泉改革に初めて車の両輪が揃（そろ）い、日本の将来に資する真の改革になると私は考える。

I think that depending on how well we can return to our traditional societal norms respect for human ability, then we will be able to move forward the reforms started by Koizumi.

You may not have known it, but the Japanese government has its own internet media web site. It’s called seifu kouhou onrain (政府公報オンライン), which roughly translates as government publicity online. There, they have a wide range of media, including audio and video programs on various government policies and issues.

Early this year, a popular Japanese tarento, Yuuki Maomi sat down with Bunmei Ibuki, current head of the MEXT (Education) Ministry, to discuss his policies. This was on January 29, 2006. Here, too, he discusses “rights metabolic syndrome“. He specifies human rights and rights of the individual as being at least some of the rights he is talking about. He thinks that rights need to be balanced against koueki (公益), the public good.

To see a video of the first half of the interview, click here.

To read a transcript of the first half of the interview, click here.

I have below, put the first half of the interview in blockquotes and then followed them with my own English translations. Please help me to improve these translations by offering comments.

Interview begins here:

○優木まおみ氏
　では、伊吹文明文部科学大臣にお話を伺います。失礼します。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
Okay then, Education Minister Ibuki I want to humbly ask you my questions. Please forgive my rudeness.

○伊吹大臣
　いらっしゃい。

Minister Ibuki:
Go right ahead.

○優木まおみ氏
　私、実は大学で教育を学んでいまして、小学校教員の免許を持っているんです。だから、今日は本当に教育というのは他人事ではない感じで、すごく楽しみにしてきました。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
Well, in fact, I actually went to the university and studied education, and I have received certification as an elementary school teacher. That’s why, today when we talk about education, I don’t at all feel like an outsider to the topic. I’ve been really looking forward to this.

○伊吹大臣
　教育というのは、だれでも話せることだからね。その代わり、だれでも理想の日本人像を持っていますから、なかなかまとまった議論にするというのは難しいんですね。

　どうぞおかけください。レディーファーストで。

Minister Ibuki:
When it comes to education, it is something we can all talk about. All Japanese have impressions about the ideal education. Despite this, it’s very hard to bring about agreement in a debate about the topic.

Please have a seat. It’s lady’s first.

○優木まおみ氏
　ありがとうございます。
　こんにちは、政府インターネットテレビ『大臣のほんね』。今日は伊吹文明文部科学大臣にお話を伺います。大臣、今日はよろしくお願いいたします。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
Thank you. [pause in program] Hello (directed at viewers), this is government internet TV, and this program is “The Minister’s real views” [honne views as opposed to tatemae views.] Today I will humbly ask questions of MEXT Minister Bunmei Ibuki. Minister, please look favorably upon me.

○伊吹大臣
　こちらこそ。

Minister Ibuki:
It’s indeed here. [i.e.You should not have to ask me to look favorably upon you, instead I should have to ask you to look favorably upon me.]

○優木まおみ氏
　伊吹さんが文部科学大臣に就任されて、およそ３か月が過ぎたわけですけれども、就任してからの感想というのを、まずお聞かせいただけますか。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
Mr. Ibuki, it has been about three months since you first took on the job of MEXT Minister, so first I’d humbly like to ask you what your impressions have been so far.

○伊吹大臣
　安倍内閣ができまして、安倍さんが小泉さん時代の忘れ物というんでしょうか。小泉さんは経済を立て直すために大変な御努力をなすって、その成果が随分いろいろなところへ出てきたわけですけれども、ライブドアの問題、村上ファンドの問題とか、格差による、勝った者の傲慢さ、負けた者の無気力というようなことが出てきていますから、そこを埋めようとして、教育再生を自分の最優先課題にされたと思うんです。

　教育再生の基本は今の教育基本法をなおすというところから始めないといけないので、安倍内閣の教育再生会議、文部科学省でお願いしている中央教育審議会。こういうところで広く国民の意見を聞いて、やっていきたいと思います。

Minister Ibuki:
The Abe cabinet has been completed, and Mr. Abe has spoken of what we must call Mr. Koizumi’s forgotten items. Mr. Koizumi put forth a great effort to fix up the economy, and there have been various successes, but we’ve had the Livedoor problem, and the Murakami fund problem, then resulting from (income) disparities you’ve had the insolence of winners and the apathy of losers; so these are gaps that need to be filled, and that’s why, for me, resuscitating education is a top priority.

○優木まおみ氏
　今お話にも出ましたけれども、平成18年12月に新しい教育基本法が成立しました。12月22日に公布・施行されたわけですけれども、今回の教育基本法改正のねらいというのは一体何なんでしょうか。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
Well, now that you’ve humbly mentioned it, in December 2006, a new Fundamental Law of Education was established. This was officially announced and set forth on December 22, but as far as the goal of revising the Fundamental Law of Education, what is this all about?

○伊吹大臣
　なおす前の教育基本法も大変よくできている法律なんです。例えば権利の大切さとかね、そのことはもう何ら間違いはないし、正しいこと。

　戦争に負けたときに、私は小学校の１年生だったんだけれども、これぐらいのバターの小さな１センチぐらいの塊はとても貴重なもので、栄養が随分あるものなんです。バターはいろんな栄養があるんです。だけれども、今はバターはそう貴重なものではなくて、幾らでも食べられるようになってしまったから、余り食べ過ぎるとメタボリック症候群になりますからね。そういうときは少しバターを控えて、そして、野菜も食べて、健康に暮らしていくというふうに時代が変わってきているわけです。

　だから、人権というのも個人の権利というのも大切なんだけれども、余り使い過ぎると権利メタボリック症候群になるので、家族あるいは会社、地域社会、そして日本の国の一員であるという公共の精神というんですか。自分の乗っている船のために努力をすることによって、自分の権利も主張できる。大切な自由にはやはり規律があるということを中心に法律が改正されたというふうに理解してもらったらいいと思うんです。

Minister Ibuki:
As far as the law is concerned, the previous Fundamental Law of Education was really well done. For example, the importance of rights and so on, no mistaking it, that was the correct thing.

At the time of being defeated in the war — by the way, I was an elementary school student , a first grader — this much butter, this little bit, about a 1 centimeter lump was a precious thing, it had a lot of nourishment. Butter has after all various aspects of nutrition. However, these days butter is not a precious thing anymore, we can eat all we like of it, and so if we eat too much of it we’ll get a metabolic syndrome, right? So we say in a time like this, we need to refrain a little bit, eat some more vegetables, that’s to say we live in a time where we’ve got to really watch our health.

That’s why I say, when we talk about human rights, when we talk about the rights of individuals, they’re important, but if used too much you’ll get a rights metabolic syndrome; there’s family or say the company, there’s local society, and then shall we say, (there’s you as) a member of the country of Japan, sharing the same spirit (mind/psychology).

Depending on how much effort you put forth for the boat you’re aboard, you can also emphasize your own rights. The main thing I want to ask you to understand is that freedom is important, but of course we’ve got to center our revisions of the law around the idea of order (discipline/rules).

○優木まおみ氏
　具体的には、どのように取り組んでいくというか、伝えていく形になるんでしょうか。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
Perhaps you could give a concrete idea about how you will proceed?

○伊吹大臣
　今、学校の先生というのは非常にお気の毒だと思うんです。それは三世代一緒じゃないから、おじいちゃん、おばあちゃんもいない。だから、御家庭で教えていたことや地域社会で教えていたことが、みんな学校の先生におぶさっているという感じがあって大変なんだけれども、それに負けてもらっては先生方もよくないので、待遇は十分考えながら、教員免許も何年かに一度は時代に合うように一度研修を受けてチェックをさせてもらいたいとか、教える内容も今お話ししたように、少しずつ権利と公益のバランスを取るように教えていくとか、地域の教育力を高めていくとか、そういう具体策をこれから教員基本法に沿って始めるということですね。

Minister Ibuki:
These days, if we speak of the teachers, I think we really have to feel sorry for them right now. This is because we don’t have three generations (of family) (living) together (these days), grandpa and grandma aren’t there (in the home) (anymore). Therefore, the stuff that used to get taught in the homes, the regional society stuff that used to get taught, isn’t taught in the homes anymore. It’s felt that the school teacher has to teach all this, which is very rough. But to receive defeat is no good, so while trying to treat teachers considerately, we’ve got to make sure that every so many years, they get a teaching certification that matches the age they are in. (We) want to give the teachers a training course, then check them, things like that. Then as far as that goes, there’s the course content, which little by little we’ve got to (increase) the balance between rights and public good and so on. We want to raise the educational power in the regions (of Japan) and so on. These are concrete things that (we) will follow along with as we revise the Fundamental Law of Education.

○優木まおみ氏
　お話は尽きませんが、後半ではさらに伊吹大臣の素顔に迫っていきたいと思います。お楽しみに。

Ms. Yuuki Maomi:
I’ve exhausted this topic, so for the second half of our talk we’ll ask Minister Ibuki to show his honest face. Let’s look forward to it …

Interview excerpt ends here.

There is a second part of this interview in which, Ibuki notes that Japanese style kaare (カーレ) or curry, and Japanese style potato salad can only be found in Japan. These are among his favorite foods. The second part of the interview is more about Ibuki’s personality than policy.

To see a video of the second part of the interview, click here.

To read a transcript of the second part of the interview click here.

To see videos of other ministers, click here.

To read transcripts of other ministers, click here.

Here’s something interesting. When discussing revisions to the Fundamental Law of Education in the Diet last November, Furumoto Shinichiro had a chance to question Bunmei Ibuki about his policies.

As I understand it, Furumoto is pushing Ibuki for specifics on what he wants changed in the schools as far as morals. In this context, Ibuki takes some time to explain what he means by kihan-ishiki or “normative” consciousness (規範意識).

Ibuki states:

この規範というのは、教育論がだれにでもできるというのは、まさにこういうところにかかっているんですが、何が人間社会のために必要なのかというのは、その人の人生観、価値観によってみんな違ってきますが、かなり共通のものがあるわけですね。各国共通のものがあります。各国共通のものは今の教育基本法にしっかりと書かれていると私は思います。

　しかし、日本独自のものがあるわけですよ。日本には日本の規範意識というものがあります。これは、日本の長い歴史の中でビンテージを持って醸成されてきた日本特有の文化の結晶のようなものですね。アメリカという国は、各国の規範意識を背負ってきた人が移民をもってつくった人工的な国ですから、一つの規範でなかなかやはり割り切りにくい国であるから、法律が社会の秩序の根幹に入っている。日本はやはりそうじゃない。そういうものは今回の教育基本法の中にかなり色濃く書かれているわけですね。

　ですから、当然、この法案が国会でお認めいただければ、学習指導要領等を含めて、何を教えるんだ、先生のお言葉で言えば道徳について、もう少し指導の範囲、あるいは教えるべきことを書き直すような御提案を中教審等からいただいてつくっていく、こういうことです。

Now let me take this apart, sentence by sentence and paraphrase what is being stated, note this is not an exact translation where I try to capture the style and organization of the words. I am trying as neutrally as possible merely to give a clear statement of their content. Corrections and help here would be very welcome, but here’s a translation as best I can do it:

1.　この規範というのは、教育論がだれにでもできるというのは、まさにこういうところにかかっているんですが、何が人間社会のために必要なのかというのは、その人の人生観、価値観によってみんな違ってきますが、かなり共通のものがあるわけですね。

Okay, as far as normative consciousness, let me explain about it. We can all debate about education. Further, we can get caught up on the issue of of just what is needed for people to live in society in terms of values. Certainly what a person thinks is needed will be a reflection of their life’s viewpoint, and their own value system. Each person will be different. However, there is a lot we all have in common, isn’t there?

2. 各国共通のものがあります。

There are values (moralities) which each and every country share.

3. 各国共通のものは今の教育基本法にしっかりと書かれていると私は思います。

As far as those values, I think they have been very well written into the Fundamental Law of Education as it is now.

4. しかし、日本独自のものがあるわけですよ。

However, let me tell you, Japan has it’s own special characteristics (in terms of morals/values) as well.

5. 日本には日本の規範意識というものがあります。

Japan has what we can call a Japanese normative consciousness.

6. これは、日本の長い歴史の中でビンテージを持って醸成されてきた日本特有の文化の結晶のようなものですね。

What is it (normative consciousness)? Japan throughout Japan’s long history has naturally engendered, like a wine of great vintage, a special characteristic culture that has crystalized.

7.　アメリカという国は、各国の規範意識を背負ってきた人が移民をもってつくった人工的な国ですから、一つの規範でなかなかやはり割り切りにくい国であるから、法律が社会の秩序の根幹に入っている。

Let’s take America as an example, it is a created, artificial country made up of migrants each carrying their own “normative consciousness” from their respective countries. That’s why it’s so very hard to find a single, clear-cut, norm for that country. This is why the societal system in America is based on law.

[In other words, because America is made up of migrants, there can’t be a kihan-ishiki, so it is a society focused on law (rights and so on). ]

8. 日本はやはりそうじゃない。

But just as you and I know it, that’s not Japan.

9. そういうものは今回の教育基本法の中にかなり色濃く書かれているわけですね。

That’s why I say, for this revision of the Fundamental Law of Education, we’ve got to write in the morality (values) that represent Japan.

10.　ですから、当然、この法案が国会でお認めいただければ、学習指導要領等を含めて、何を教えるんだ、先生のお言葉で言えば道徳について、もう少し指導の範囲、あるいは教えるべきことを書き直すような御提案を中教審等からいただいてつくっていく、こういうことです。

[This is a long, run-on sentence and hard to follow, basically I think he is saying something like: ] Therefore, as a matter of course, I want the Diet to approve this bill (the revision). It includes guidance for teachers concerning what morals need to be taught in school.

[I have modified this entry slightly and hope to revise more fully soon. It needs some cleaning up. I have continued to look into Ibuki in general and have a better idea now of what he is saying. 3-6-2007.]

I have several entries I want to make in regards to Bunmei Ibuki’s controversial comments. This will be the first of them.

I am calling it the Ibuki manifesto because I think people would be surprised to see what is on the Education Minister’s official home page.

Of especial interest is this page, which is very helpful in putting Ibuki’s recent remark into some kind of context.

What I will do is to summarize and paraphrase the more important aspects of this page. If you find that I’ve been unfaithful to the original, please comment!

Basically, the page discusses how Ibuki feels the Koizumi revolution (reformation) can be completed.

First thing Ibuki notes is that that “Ibuki-faction” supported Abe in the recent LDP leadership election.

So Ibuki is not only part of a faction, but leader of a faction. Now if the Wikipedia entry on the Liberal Democratic Party can be trusted, then as it turns out, this is the faction of Shizuka Kamei. And according to Wikipedia, the Ibuki-faction is: “considered by many to be the most right-wing grouping among the major factions.”

Okay, so Ibuki is probably right wing. No surprise there given his recent comments. Now, let’s look at some more of his manifesto.

Ibuki’s says, basically, that Koizumi’s reformation was only “half done” (中途半端) and that Ibuki now has “sense of impending disaster.” (危機感) .

Why? Well, you see, Ibuki has special insight into capitalism and free competition that Koizumi didn’t. Ibuki notes that there will be arrogant winners (勝者の傲慢) and apathetic losers (敗者の無気力) and that this will create a heavy burden on society.

He notes that while Koizumi’s reforms were okay, they weren’t enough. While it’s true that self-reliance (自助努力) and self-responsibility (自己責任) are good things, they are not the main things. By pushing things in the direction Koizumi pushed them, there will now be side-effects (副作用) that Ibuki and Abe will now have to manage.

Before going into detail, Ibuki digresses into another issue, the Koizumi Reform’s forgotten item (小泉改革の忘れ物), taxes. Ibuki says the govenrment will need more money to handle programs regarding health, nursing the old, and pensions. So it is urgent that we reform the tax system (税制改正). It’s time to think about raising more money for the government. (I take this to mean Japan should increase the sales tax.)

After this digression into taxes, Ibuki gets back to talking about the dangerous side-effects of a competitive capitalist system with is focus on self-reliance and self-responsibility.

Of course, the main side-effect, as Ibuki noted will be those winners and losers and the great gaps (格差) this creates in society between them. So the main way this will be fixed will be via education.

Now what sort of education system will we be needed? Well, not too many specifics are given, but first and foremost we are asked to accept the following unquestionable facts:

Although there are exceptions basically –
– Japan is one race (一民族).
– Ruled by one race (一民族の統治).
– A country of one language (一言語)
– A country without religious strife. (宗教的対立のない国)
– As we look out at the world we see how *rare* Japan is. (日本は、世界でも珍しい国)
– Throughout history, the work of (Japan’s) ancestors was to form a tacit set of normative consicousness went *beyond* the law. (?) (悠久の歴史のなかでの祖先の営みは、法律以上に強い暗黙の約束ごと、規範意識を形成してきました。)
– For just one sole time, following World War II, Japan was ruled by an occupation army, and for just under ten years Japanese culture stopped. (唯一度だけ、第二次世界大戦後に、日本の統治権は占領軍に移り、約十年弱の間、日本の文化は途絶しました。)
–It was during that very period when a the Fundamental Law of Education was passed creating the current educational system, an educational system that has gone on for 60 years, an educational system nearly all Japanese have passed through. (日本の統治権は占領軍に移り、約十年弱の間、日本の文化は途絶しました。この間に作られた教育基本法と教育制度は約六十年間続き、この制度で教育を受けた日本人が、人口のほとんどを占めています。)
–And now as we see the (undesirable?) results, it is time to resuscitate the educational system for the next one hundred years. (教育の効果は五十年後に現れ、その再生は百年の計。)

After this Ibuki talks about how the LDP will have to win the next upper house election and so on and so forth.

And that is, in short, the Ibuki manifesto.

So does this mean we can expect Ibuki to find a solution to the growing number of international children who aren’t receiving an education? Perhaps not.

However, when we put his manifesto together with his comments from last week-end we see just how distorted a world view Ibuki has.

He sees the Fundamental Law of Education, which de-emphasized national spirit and emphasized human rights as a Western perversion of the what real Japanese education should be. While we don’t have any specifics to go on here, he clearly wants to return to some form the pre-WWII educational system in Japan, where rights are de-emphasized and national unity emphasized.

Specifically he wants people to learn his version of what virtue is, which for him is probably some type of far right ideology.

I will continue to look into this, and report more here later.

Guess it’s not just bath houses any more …

Here’s a nice editorial. It was published a couple of weeks ago and only now have I come across it.

Title:
Fundamental flaw remains in education law

Author:
Daisuke Onuki

Link:
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200702120089.html

Excerpts:
The people shall all be given equal opportunities of receiving education according to their ability, and they shall not be subject to educational discrimination on account of race, creed, sex, social status, economic position, or family origin. Thus, the Fundamental Law of Education guarantees the equal opportunity of education to all people of Japan.

However, it is necessary to note that the word “people” is the translation of the word “kokumin,” which literally means “nationals.”

Currently, the most important law on education in Japan, as well as the very Constitution, does not guarantee the right to education for children with foreign nationalities.

Our eldest daughter, who has only Brazilian nationality, was once denied entrance to a public junior high school in Setagaya Ward, Tokyo, when trying to transfer from a school in Brazil at the age 15 in the ninth grade.

…

Two years ago, when the population of Japan started to decrease, the number of foreign nationals registered here surpassed 2 million. More than half are so-called newcomers who stay in Japan for the purpose of work. The number of people from Brazil, the country of origin of my wife and daughters, now exceeds 300,000.

…

A survey six years ago estimated that 3,000 Brazilian children between 6 and 15 in Japan had never been enrolled in school. More recent estimates indicate that more than 10,000 Brazilian children never entered school or dropped out.

Somewhere between 20 and 40 percent of Brazilian children are currently out of primary education. These figures do not include the 25 percent of children who go to expensive Brazilian schools that are not officially recognized as “schools” by the Japanese government.

…

In recent years, many European countries have seen a rise in extreme rightist movements. Our country should not wait for that to happen before taking serious actions.

Guaranteeing foreign children’s right to education in other education-related laws to be revised in the following years will be important steps to take. It has been 16 years since this problem started in Japan’s Brazilian community.

Another year lost in the childhoods of tens of thousands of immigrant children will require an incredible amount of work in the future to undo the damage done to the children, society–and the hopes to build a healthy internationalist Japan.

Comment:

Don’t worry, I’m sure Education Minister Bunmei Ibuki is hard at work on the problem …