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

There’s a great article on-line about Lee Soo Im:

Koreans’ struggle casts fresh light on Japanese immigration debate

Here are few select quotes:

A third-generation ethnic Korean, Lee was born in 1953 in Osaka Prefecture. Like hundreds of thousands of their compatriots, Lee’s grandparents emigrated to Japan in 1921 after losing their farmlands following Japan’s colonization of Korea in 1910.

So due to the colonization they lost what they had but were given a chance to work in Japan.

Her maternal grandfather had a job in Tokyo, but never returned after the massive 1923 Kanto Earthquake. Through various contacts, the family learned that he was among about 6,000 Koreans killed by vigilantes acting on rumors that Koreans were planning a riot.

How tragic. Information on the massacre of 6000 Koreans can be found here:

The Great Kanto Earthquake Massacre
Behind the Accounts of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923

For a few years after 1945, Koreans in Japan were still considered Japanese citizens. But their citizenship was revoked abruptly in 1952 as Japan regained independence that year.

So while Japan was still under the occupation, Koreans were able to maintain their citizenship? Clearly given the time frame the Korean War must have complicated the entire situation.

While Japan’s ratification of the 1982 refugee recognition treaty, which barred nationality-based discrimination, improved the situation to some extent, unspoken discrimination in jobs, bank loans, housing and marriages persisted.

What exactly does this mean? So by applying this treaty, gaikokusekijin were able to get more rights for themselves? Did this apply strictly those with a special residence status? If so, why?

Back in Japan, Lee decided to apply for Japanese citizenship to safeguard her family’s visa status. But the immigration office was not convinced that she would become the ”head of a family” under Japan’s quintessentially paternal family registry system.  ”They didn’t even give me an application form,” Lee said. . .  Regaining her confidence, Lee went back to the immigration office in 1999 to apply for citizenship. The office was initially reluctant, but gave in after she threatened legal action, Lee said.

Wow. She told them to give her citizenship or face legal action. Incredible. Way to go!

 Lee became a Japanese citizen in 2002. Unlike most Koreans who naturalize, however, she decided to retain her Korean name, a decision questioned by an official in the process.

Good for her!

Lee, who recently co-edited ”Japan’s Diversity Dilemmas: Ethnicity, Citizenship, and Education” to highlight issues surrounding the country’s immigrant population, says there are no such thing as pure Japanese. A homogenous Japan is a myth built upon foreigners forced to live ”invisibly,” she says.

Right on! I have the book above in PDF format, but am ashamed to say I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. Looking forward to it now!

While the Japanese perception toward Koreans got a lift in recent years thanks largely to the Korean pop culture, there is a backlash by nationalists, in addition to a move to reinstate patriotic education, a trend she is particularly concerned about. Lee forecasts that the Japanese attitude toward immigrants will not change unless the situation ”really hits the bottom.” But she believes Japan can no longer expect foreigners to choose between assimilation and exclusion under the forces of globalization. ”I love Japan and fighting against the system is my way of showing patriotism to my country,” Lee said.

Let’s put that in block letters:

“I LOVE JAPAN AND FIGHTING AGAINST THE SYSTEM IS MY WAY OF SHOWING PATRIOTISM TO MY COUNTRY.” — Lee Soo Im

Make sure to read the entire article!

Lee’s classes:
Great page with a list of publications by Lee Soo Im, and information on the classes she teaches. Makes sure to check it out after you read the article!

Directory Database of Research and Development Activities: Lee Soo Im

Who’s who: Lee Soo Im (in Japanese)

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)

The Yomiuri has been doing a series on the comfort women. They are defending Abe’s view, at least it’s seems that way. There have been three articles:

1. Comfort station originated in govt-regulated ‘civilian prostitution’

2. No hard evidence of coercion in recruitment of comfort women

3. Kono’s statement on ‘comfort women’ created misunderstanding

Here’s a quote from the second one:

The government has admitted the Imperial Japanese Army’s involvement in brothels, saying that “the then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of the comfort stations and the transfer of comfort women.” The “involvement” refers to giving the green light to opening a brothel, building facilities, setting regulations regarding brothels, such as fees and opening hours, and conducting inspections by army doctors. However, the government has denied that the Japanese military forcibly recruited women. On March 18, 1997, a Cabinet Secretariat official said in the Diet, “There is no evidence in public documents that clearly shows there were any forcible actions [in recruiting comfort women].” No further evidence that could disprove this statement has been found.

Now compare this with a quote from Yoshiaki Yoshimi, author of Comfort Women.

The fact is, if you can’t use anything except official documents, history itself is impossible to elucidate.

This is from an recent New York Times article by Norimitsu Onishi:

In Japan, a Historian Stands by Proof of Wartime Sex Slavery

The third Yomiuri article states the following:

… observers have pointed out, and The Yomiuri Shimbun reported on the morning edition of March 16, that there are certain factors regarding Honda’s electoral district–such an increase in the number of residents of Chinese or South Korean origins, while the number of Japanese-origin residents has decreased–that may be behind why the Japanese-American lawmaker of California is leading such an initiative.

Are the esteemed editors for real?

Links:
Experts to counter atrocity deniers

Kono: Denying the ‘comfort women’ issue is ‘intellectually insincere

Who Loves Japan More?
Honda’s approach does more to enhance country’s status than Abe’s does

Beyond apology, moral clarity

N. Korea scores on Japan in sex

Comfort Women: A Web Reference

Francis Fukuyama has an interesting editorial on-line, The trouble with Japanese nationalism. Here is a small selection:

My exposure to the Japanese right came in the early 1990s, when I was on a couple of panels in Japan with Watanabe Soichi, who was selected by my Japanese publisher (unbeknownst to me) to translate my book “The End of History and the Last Man” into Japanese. Watanabe, a professor at Sophia University, was a collaborator of Shintaro Ishihara, the nationalist politician who wrote “The Japan That Can Say No” and is now the governor of Tokyo. In the course of a couple of encounters, I heard him explain in front of public audiences how the people of Manchuria had tears in their eyes when the occupying Kwantung Army left China, so grateful were they to Japan. According to Watanabe, the Pacific War boiled down to race, as the US was determined to keep a non-white people down. Watanabe is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier, but, unlike his German counterparts, he draws large and sympathetic audiences. (I am regularly sent books by Japanese writers that “explain” how the Nanjing Massacre was a big fraud.)

We must also not forget the following far right facts:

1. Japan had no choice in colonizing parts of Asia, but had to do so to protect the relevant countries from the evil European/American colonizers.

2. When it finally came to war, this was a result of conspiratorial maneuverings by FDR to force Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Japan is not responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR is.

3. Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent the most heinous war crime enacted upon humanity ever, period. All other tragedies pale in comparison. Only through such an evil act of terrorism was America able to defeat Japan.

4. The reason for increased crime in Japan today is the educational system that Japan was forced to accept under the occupational powers, which emphasizes individual rights over public morality. The result has been gradual degradation of morals. Evil men such as Takafumi Horie are primes examples of this.

5. The reason for Japan’s long economic stagnation is, in fact, the economic system forced upon Japan by American New Dealers, which though it worked at first …

etc, etc …

WHAT MASSACRE?
LDP, DPJ ranks hear Nanjing denial lecture
By JUN HONGO
About 30 lawmakers from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of Japan gathered Tuesday to hear a controversial historian talk about why he figures the Nanjing Massacre is a “complete fabrication.”
-snip-
Shudo Higashinakano, a history professor at Asia University in Tokyo, told the small group that the Nanjing Massacre was simply Chinese government propaganda.
-snip-
The professor was invited by a group of 16 lawmakers who already agree with him, including Toru Toida and Tomomi Inada of the LDP, and Jin Matsubara and Shu Watanabe of the DPJ, the main opposition force.
Higashinakano is a well-known public figure. Last year the Nanjing City Intermediate People’s Court ordered him and another historian to pay 23 million yen in compensation to a Chinese woman for alleging in a publication that she had lied about having witnessed the massacre. Historians worldwide generally agree that the Imperial Japanese Army killed at least 150,000 civilians and raped thousands of women and girls during its occupation of the former capital of China in 1937 and 1938.
-snip-
Higashinakano told the group there was no organized rape or murder, and individual soldiers caught raping women were severely punished by their superiors.
-snip-
The group applauded Higashinakano at the end of his 90-minute talk and Matsubara said, “I’m convinced now that the Nanjing Massacre never took place.”
-snip-
According to the organizer, the lectures are to counter several films being made outside of Japan and will be released this year to mark the 70th anniversary of the massacre.

I’ve never studied the issue of the Nanjing Massacre, so can’t comment on it. However, what gets me here is Jin Matsubara’s comment. He’s convinced *now* after seeing the 90 minute lecture that the massacre didn’t take place?

There’s so much controversy here that it would seem prudent at least to subject one’s opinion to as much scrutiny as possible before offering it. Just hearing a 90 minute lecture is enough to convince Matsubara the Nanjing Massacre didn’t happen?

What’s also worthy of note here is that this issue seems to have crossed the aisle here. So is the Democratic Party really so different from the LDP? Is it possible for a Japanese voter to vote for a major party that doesn’t have nationalists in it?

[This entry needs more work. I would have preferred to not post it yet, but given the timeliness of the topic will post it as is, and if possible add revisions to it later. Corrections are welcome …]

Asahi Shinbun wrote an editorial regarding Abe’s comments. It was on-line for perhaps a day or so, and now can only be found in Google’s Cache.

I want to repost the article here because I think it’s important.

Trying to do a proper translation would be too difficult, so my goal is only as follows:

1. To impart as fully as possible the same content as the original (There will be errors!)
2. To be as neutral as possible in doing so.

I will number each line, so if someone wishes to comment, it should be easy for them to reference each line. (Corrections would be great!)

1.「強制性」解釈のズレ、波紋　慰安婦問題、首相の発言　対米韓で危機感も

This is the headline. It states that a translation gap (or miss) of the prime minister’s words creates broad ripples creating a sense of crisis with America and Korea

2.　従軍慰安婦に対する日本政府の姿勢に改めて関心が集まっている。

There has been renewed interest in the stance of the Japanese government in regards to the army’s comfort women.

3.１日の安倍首相の発言が海外で波紋を広げているほか、米下院では慰安婦問題で首相の公式謝罪を求める決議案採択の動きもある。

Prime Minister Abe’s statements on March 1st, in regards to this issue, have created strong ripples overseas. That’s not all, they have also had an impact in the American Congress where currently a bill is being put forth asking that Japan apologize for the comfort women.

4.　首相は軍当局の関与と「強制性」を認めた河野官房長官談話を引き継ぐ立場を変えていないが、談話が示す「強制性」の定義をめぐる解釈のズレも、様々なあつれきを生む背景にあるようだ。（藤田直央、ワシントン＝小村田義之）

The Prime Minister (and the army authorities) intention was to indicate they will continue with the Kono statement without any change of stance. However, there was translation gap (miss) when the conversation turned to the definition of coercion. This was the background in which a lot of discord came about.

5. 　首相が河野談話継承を表明したのは、中韓両国訪問を控えた昨年１０月上旬の衆院予算委員会だ。

Last, October when answering questions questions about the budget in the House of Councilors this topic came up when Prime Minister Abe was answering questions about his trip to South Korean and China. At that time he gave his opinion about the Kono statement.

6.　この時、首相は「家に乗り込んで連れて行った」ことを「狭義の強制性」とし、「行きたくないが、そういう環境の中にあった」ことを「広義の強制性」と説明。

The Prime Minister said that the narrow definition of coercion would be going into people’s houses and taking the girls by force. However, the wide definition of force would be those who didn’t really want to go but were in an environment that compelled them to go.

[Here are Abe’s exact words as translated by the Communist Party of Japan:
“The question should be whether the women were taken out of their houses forcibly, or they wanted to choose to not go but they were in an environment that compelled them to go in the end. The latter can be regarded as a case of coercion in he broad sense of the word.”]

7.　そのうえで「今に至っても、この狭義の強制性については事実を裏付けるものは出てきていなかったのではないか」と指摘し、「広義の強制性」を認めた河野談話を引き継ぐという考え方を強調した。

At that time the Prime Minister pointed out, “Up until now, there has been nothing to substantiate the fact of coercion in the narrow sense of the word.” However, as far as taking “coercion in the wide sense” the Prime Minister noted that he would continue to recognize the Kono statement.

8.　河野氏は９７年の朝日新聞のインタビューで「『政府が法律的な手続きを踏み、暴力的に女性を駆り出した』と書かれた文書があったかと言えば、そういうことを示す文書はなかった。

In an 1997 editorial in the Asahi Newspaper, Kono stated that “as far as documents that would implicate the government in establishing formal procedures for the use of violence to round up women, there are no such documents …

9.　けれども、本人の意思に反して集められたことを強制性と定義すれば、強制性のケースが数多くあったことは明らかだった」と語っている。
(Kono continues)… However, if you define coercion as women being rounded up against there will then there are clearly many cases in which that happened.”

10.　首相が１日、記者団とのやりとりで「当初、定義されていた強制性」について「裏付けるものはなかった」と語ったのも同じ趣旨だ。
In the the Prime Minsiter’s (Abe’s) exchange with the reporters, when he stated as far as “coercion as initially defined, there is nothing to substantiate it.” he meant the same thing as Kono had.

[i.e. Prime Minister Abe thinks, that when talking about coercion in the narrow sense, Kono’s statement doesn’t admit there was any.]

11. だが、この発言には韓国外交通商相が不快感を示し、米国の主要メディアも河野談話見直しと関連づけて報じた。

However, in regards to the Prime Minister’s statement, South Korean Foreign Minister expressed displeasure, and the media in America interpreted as perhaps a revision of the Kono statement.

12. 首相が、強制性自体を否定したととらえられたためだ。

The statement was taken as a complete refutation of coercion altogether.

13.　ただ、日本国内には河野談話そのものを見直す動きもある。

There was also an impact in the country regarding revising the Kono statement.

14.　自民党の有志議員でつくる「日本の前途と歴史教育を考える議員の会」小委員会は「史実を踏まえ、より実証的な表現に修正すべきだ」との提言をまとめる方向で検討を進め、近く首相に申し入れる予定だ。

The current chairman of the “committee for the consideration of what Japanese history education should be”, stated, “we should not step on historical fact, rather we have an obligation to fix previous statements so they reflect the truth.”

15.　首相自身がかつて同会の事務局長を務めており、首相に近い下村博文官房副長官は先月２８日、「本来の安倍首相を支持してくれている保守派の人たちの期待感を裏切るような豹変（ひょうへん）を首相はしていない」と言及。

Prime Minister Abe was in fact, the original chairman of the “committee for the consideration of what Japanese education should be”, and a person close to the Prime Minister, the vice-chief secretariat, Hakubun Shimamura stated on the 28th of February, “It is not the Prime Ministers intention to betray those in the conservative faction that have supported him.”

16. 海外の反応は、こうした国内の動きへの懸念の表れとも言える。

So we can say that the Prime Minister’s statement had an affect inside and outside Japan.

17.　一方、首相発言をきっかけに、１月末に米下院に提出された従軍慰安婦問題をめぐる決議案にも注目が集まり始めた。

Meanwhile the American Congress is debating a bill which asks the Japanese government to apologize for the comfort women. This has gotten more attention because of the Prime Minster’s statement.

18. 同様の決議案はこれまでもあったが、日本政府が共和党の下院議長らに働きかけて本会議採択を回避してきた。

Previously the bill could not get out of committee because of the Republican controlled congress.

19.　ところが、昨秋の中間選挙で多数派となった民主党のペロシ氏が下院議長に就任。

However, the democrats led by Pelosi won control of congress in last Autumn’s election

20. 下院外交委員長も人権派として知られる同党議員になり、今回は採択の可能性があると見られている。

(…) and now there is a real possibility it the resolution will get passed.

21.　４月下旬に首相の初めての訪米を控える時期でもあり、加藤良三駐米大使は「日本政府はすでに謝罪している」と主張。

The Prime Minister will be making his first trip to America at the end of April. The Japanese Ambassador in America has stated emphatically, “The Japanese government has already apologized.”

22. 首相側近の世耕弘成首相補佐官も２月下旬に訪米して米政府関係者に首相の意図を説明した。

An close aide to the Prime Minister went to America to explain Abe’s intentions (aims).

23. ただ、こうした動きが逆に謝罪を拒否しているように映り、「火に油を注ぐ」（日本政府関係者）状況にもなっている。

[Hard to understand but maybe] However, if the prime minister refuses to apologize, it will be like pouring oil onto a fire.

24.　日本政府としては安倍政権が河野談話を継承していることに理解を求めるしか打つ手が無いが、外務省からは「この問題に触ればアジアと米国を敵に回すことになりかねず、外交的には静かにやり過ごすのが得策」（幹部）との声も出ている。

[Hard to understand but maybe] Abe has no intention to change the Kono statement which he inherited. The Foreign Minister of Japan stated, “we will have to be careful not to create animosity with China and America over this. A quiet course would be best.”

There seems to be a big brouhaha over the New York Times report by Nori Onishi entitled, Abe Rejects Japan’s Files on War Sex. The story concerned some recent remarks by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe about comfort women.

At least part of the problem is that Onishi reported the following:

“There is no evidence to prove there was coercion, nothing to support it,” Mr. Abe told reporters. “So, in respect to this declaration, you have to keep in mind that things have changed greatly.”

Is this quote wrong?

It’s hard to say.

Let’s look at what Abe stated:

1.a「強制性を証明する証言や裏付けるものはなかった。
1b. だからその定義については大きく変わったということを前提に考えなければならない」

Source: Sankei Shinbun’s Iza website:
http://www.iza.ne.jp/news/newsarticle/politics/41472/

My translation:
1 a “As far as coercion, there was no proof or testimony to substantiate it happened.
1. b “That’s why I’m telling you, we need to take into consideration that the definition was greatly changed.”

My translation skills are limited, but I think that anyone with reasonable Japanese skills will see the New York Time’s translation, while not that good, is passable.

Note the Japanese Chosun Shinbun, which I take to be a zainichi Korean newspaper, also reported a quote, nearly the same as the one above. See here.

So why do Occidentalism and JapanProbe accuse the NYT of mistranslation, when perhaps the translation is fairly passable; because, as best I can tell, they compare different quotes.

I’m am not sure in what context Abe made these comments. But he did not make them in isolation. He clearly said more than one thing. He was quoted selectively both in the Japanese press and in the English press. Occidentalism and Japan Probe possibly took one thing Abe said as reported in the Japanese press and compared it something *different* that Abe said as reported in the English Press. (I think.)

It was reported by some in the Japanese press that Abe stated:

2a「強制性については従来から議論があったところだ。
2b 当初、定義されていた強制性を裏付けるものがなかったのは事実ではないか」

Source: Nikkei
(I can not provide a direct link to this article at the Nikkei shinbun because it seems to no longer exists, however many blogs reported the article, and these can be found using a Google search. Click here.)

Now I translate the above statements as follows:

2a. As far as coercion this was previously debated.
2b. At first, using the original definition we had of coercion, there was no way to substantiate any coercion, and that is a fact, is it not?

Now the idea of mistranslation seems to have originated specifically from a single comment made by “Matt” who I take to be a leading contributor to the Occidentalism site. He stated:

Ponta, Pacifist, Kaneganese, Mika, Two Cents, should there be any revisions to my translation? I have changed the translation to past tense to reflect the past tense in the Japanese. A whole lot of different translations have appeared in English, all of them wrong, I believe.
「当初定義されていた強制性を裏付ける証拠がなかったのは事実だ」
“It is a fact there was no proof to support coercion as it was initially defined”
「定義が大きく変わったことを前提に考えなければならない」
“We must premise it [the kono statement about comfort women] on the thought that the definition of it [coercion] had been greatly changed from its [initial] definition”

But are these the exact quotes that correspond with the NYT quote?

The first one here corresponds roughly with with my 2b, as reported in the Nikkei Shinbun. The second quote corresponds roughly with my 1b as reported in the Iza website.

So perhaps that NYT’s quote was not so bad.

Now let’s look at the AP quote:

“The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion,” Abe said.
Abe’s remarks contradicted evidence in Japanese documents found in 1992 that historians said showed military authorities had a direct role in working with contractors to forcibly procure women for brothels.

Note that this quote taken in the context of the “direct role” of “military authorities” is not deceptive. That is just what Abe is saying. So this quote is not so bad, I think. Moreover, it can be read to roughly correspond with my 1a above.

If one views an NHK report of this at YouTube, one sees that NHK reported the story in a similar way. So I don’t think the AP was so far off here. Will people also want to accuse NHK of not reporting the story correctly?

While JapanProbe has argued that this is not really news, this may be incorrect as well. That is Abe here was at least *less* equivocal than in his previous statements. He clearly does not see any coercion as far as government invovlement is concerned. Previously, his statements were harder to interpret.

The Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, is reported as saying, Thursday of this week, the following:

There has been debate over the question of whether there was coercion . . . but the fact is, there was no evidence to prove there was coercion as initially suggested. That largely changes what constitutes the definition of coercion, and we have to take it from there.

Compare this to Jan Ruff O’Herne’s testimony before the Committee of Foreign Affairs at the U.S. House of Representatives:

We were a very innocent generation. I knew nothing about sex. The horrific memories of “opening night” of the brothel have tortured my mind all my life. We were told to go to the dining room, and we huddled together in fear, as we saw the house filling up with military. I got out my prayer book, and led the girls in prayer, in the hope that this would help us. Then they started to drag us away, one by one. I could hear the screaming coming from the bedrooms. I hid under the table, but was soon found. I fought him. I kicked him with all my might. The Japanese officer became very angry because I would not give myself to him. He took his sword out of its scabbard and pointed it at me, threatening me with it, that he would kill me if I did not give into him. I curled myself into a corner, like a hunted animal that could not escape. I made him understand that I was not afraid to die. I pleaded with him to allow me to say some prayers. While I was praying he started to undress himself. He had no intention of killing me. I would have been no good to him dead.
 
He then threw me on the bed and ripped off all my clothes. He ran his sword all over my naked body, and played with me as a cat would with a mouse. I still tried to fight him, but he thrust himself on top of me, pinning me down under his heavy body. The tears were streaming down my face as he raped me in a most brutal way. I thought he would never stop.

Well, someone’s certainly wrong.

Here are some more links to some the other testimonies made before the the Committee of Foreign Affairs at the U.S. House of Representatives, recently.

http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/hon021507.htm
http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/lee021507.htm
http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/kim021507.htm
http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/kot021507.htm
http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/soh021507.htm

[Initially I stated I would revise this entry. I wanted to word myself more carefully and concisely. However, as this is a blog, I’m going to just leave this entry alone. As far as what Ibuki stated, I’ve more clearly presented his comments here.]

Bunmei Ibuki’s comments were *worse* than I realized. If this isn’t big news, in my opinion, it *should* be. If I have time I will blog on this tomorrow. I hope others do as well.

The Japan Times articles did *not* report on other comments that *did* get reported in the Japanese press. Searching around I did find that some of these comments got reported in at least one English newspaper, the Telegraph.

Ibuki makes comments that show on a fundamental basis he misunderstands constitutional government.

He seems to view rights as entitlements sort of handed out by the government. However, these rights can be overemphasized and to the detriment of the minzoku.

Minzoku translates as folk, but it’s code words for *race*, as in Yamato Minzoku.

Ibuki’s opinion is that rights should not be overemphasized at the expense of the minzoku. And he explicitly identifies the Yamato Minzoku.

This is the *same* minzoku that so many Japanese lost their lives over during WWII.

This is sort of like saying, yes, it’s nice to have rights, but don’t forget that the heart and soul of Japan is the Yamato minzoku, our homogenous race heritage.

This is really unbelievable and stunning. The fact that Abe does not see a problem with these comments is also political miscalculation he hopefully will suffer for.

Ibuki should resign and Abe should profusely apologize.

Because of the importance with which I see this issue, I’m posting the entire Telegraph article:

Minister’s human rights rant shocks Japan
By Colin Joyce in Tokyo
Last Updated: 6:39am GMT 27/02/2007
Japan’s education minister has stunned the country with a gaffe-strewn speech in which he claimed that too much emphasis has been put on human rights.

Bunmei Ibuki, 69, also said that Western-style individualism is damaging Japan, while he praised Japan’s racial homogeneity and appeared to denigrate minorities.

Japanese newspapers reported yesterday that Mr Ibuki, a veteran politician who worked at the Japanese embassy in London for four years in the 1960s, implied in his speech in Nagasaki that problems with Japan’s education policy stemmed from the fact that it was imposed by the US occupation authorities after the Second World War.

“Japan has stressed the individual point of view too much,” he said. He also argued that a society gorged on human rights was like a person with an obesity-related illness.

“If you eat butter everyday you get metabolic syndrome. Human rights are important but a society that over indulges in them will get ‘human rights metabolic syndrome’,” he said.

The speech raises questions about Tokyo’s commitment to concepts such as human rights and democracy, which Japanese commentators note were brought to Japan by defeat in the war rather than created independently by domestic reforms.

It is unclear whether Mr Ibuki’s choice of the word “butter” was intentional or unfortunate, but it echoes an old disparaging Japanese expression for Western ideas: “stinking of butter”.

The term came about because Westerners traditionally had a far higher dairy content in their diet than Japanese and hence were thought to smell of butter.
Link(cut and paste):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/27/wjapan27.xml

Here is a link to his comments in Japanese:
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20070226-00000022-mai-pol

Some of his comments:
1. 人権だけを食べ過ぎれば、日本社会は人権メタボリック症候群になる
jinken dake wo tabesugireba, nihonshakai wa ninken metaborikku shoukougun
“If we (eat) partake too much of human rights, our society will degrade as the human body does when it partakes of unhealthy food.”

2. 権利と自由だけを振り回している社会はいずれだめになる。これが今回の教育基本法改正の一番のポイント
kenri to jiyuu dake wo furimawashite iru shakai wa irzure dame ni naru. kore ga konnkai no kyouiku kihonn houkaisei no ichiban no pointo
“If we only brandish our desire for freedom and rights, then society becomes useless. That is the number one point of our educational reforms.”

The idea that there is some kind of trade off between rights and a “good” society is completely misconstrued. A good society is one where people have rights and those rights are protected, period.

If we allow that rights can be curbed at the needs of *society* we introduce a random variable that can be interpreted however one wants to interpret it. We *all* have different views on what a *good* society would be. This is why we have democracy.

Moreover, Ibuki doesn’t seem to grasp that freedom in a political sense *only* means freedom from (physical) coercion. The government cannot grant freedom in any other sense of the word. We accept that the government will have to use a limited amount of (physical) coercion to carry out its job, this is why we recognized the fundamental danger inherent in governmental power.

Shall we allow more government physical coercion in in order to support the Yamato minzoku. This is absurd. And its coming from the minister of education!

The primary function of government is not to create a utopian society, be it the Yamato minzoku, or some extreme form of Islam or Christianity. The *fundamental* function of government is to *protect* our rights. Through the exercise of those rights, we might be able to help society, physical coercion should not shape those decisions.

I’ll note that at least one politician has a nice come back to Ibuki. Kiyomi Tsujimoto stated:
「日本は人権意識が足りない国だと国際的に見られている。メタボリックどころか栄養不足だ」
nihon wa jinken ishiki ga tarinai kuni da to kokusaiteki ni mirarete iru. metaborikku dokoro ka eiyou busoku da.
“As from an international perspective Japan does not have enough of a human rights sense of consciousness, I’d say as far as human rights rather than having a human rights syndrome, we’re undernourished.”

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20070227-00000046-mai-pol