Nevertheless, that entire site reeks of nationalism, even when it tries to specifically distance itself.

Agreed, and I don’t see a purpose served.

How do they know that this is the “Japanese” perspective? Did everyone in Japan go to the polls and vote on this perspective?

I guess they forgot to tell you! ha…But really, such phrases are totally devoid of meaning. Super-radical leftists are speaking with a “Japanese” perspective. I guess all you have to be is on a koseki and you can claim that. It’s actually kind of sad when someone needs to support what they think by saying, “It’s a [adjectival form of country’s name] perspective.” It’s just an excuse for not having to do any real thinking.

I have to wonder about Takahsahi. How far out is he in terms of the other members?

Let me make a guess. He’s far enough away from the center of the organization (basically at the periphery) such that he can speak more plainly and directly than the rest. But he’s their bread and butter. He’s who they talk about over beer and yakitori.

My sense is that, as always, this is an example of a nationalist pandering to people’s sentiments as opposed to arguing from clear principles.

Check out this link:
ABC of Modern Japanese History

More specifically, check out this page:
Racial Discrimination in the USA Led to Mounting Anti-US Sentiment in Japan

Everything on that page is true enough, and Americans should at times be given a hard look at that as a reminder. Nevertheless, that entire site reeks of nationalism, even when it tries to specifically distance itself.

The site’s administrators state:
“They [the articles] are written from the Japanese perspective and we believe they are written with a cool, objective perspective as well.”

How do they know that this is the “Japanese” perspective? Did everyone in Japan go to the polls and vote on this perspective? Of course not. So this is a misleading claim.

What you have are individual people defending Japan to the best of their ability. Why? Because they view themselves as Japanese. That’s nationalism in its most refined form.

As far as “a cool and objective perspective” this belies the false belief that so long as we are cool and calm we will view things through the true eye of seeing. The site administrator’s specifically state that they are being unbiased. A dangerous belief in and of itself.

First, the textbook is terribly skewed and obviously flawed.

To David’s comment: “to deny that these two facts played a major role in the creation of the USA would be wrong.”

Absolutely…but certainly not only in the US. Slave labor played a (varying) role in the economic development of every major powerful modern nation. This is known to all who study economics. The estimated value of slave labor is astonishing…

And in the buildup of ancient empires: Egypt, Greece, Rome. Again, slave labor providing massive economic benefits to expansionist policies.

Japan has benefited as well.

I have to wonder about Takahsahi. How far out is he in terms of the other members?

For what it’s worth, I would just like to add a couple of things…

“America founded on Indian slaughter and black slave labor”

I wouldn’t say that this is an entirely accurate statement, but to deny that these two facts played a major role in the creation of the USA would be wrong. This type of thinking is not new, and as Matt@occidentalism noted, “would not be controversial on any US campus”, or anywhere else. I would argue that this view is generally accepted across America.

In regards to America being responsible for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor… That is just plain dumb.

People who think this way also think the US was responsible for 9/11.

The Japanese were not “silly dupes”, they executed a very well planned surprise attack against the US. Period.

Finally, I know Japan takes a lot of abuse for attempting to revise its history (as it relates to its imperial past), but let’s not forget that (and I’m sure everyone realizes this) every country is guilty of the same. Both the winners and the losers.

In my opinion, it’s seldom a simple case of good guy vs bad guy.

Regards,

It’s a bit hyperbolic to assign blame for comments given at a local chapter of tsukurukai to the Prime Minister of Japan. Being allowed to say something is not the same as agreeing with it.

“It’s a bit hyperbolic to assign blame for comments given at a local chapter of tsukurukai to the Prime Minister of Japan.”

The lecture is an example of intolerance. The chapter apparently was so thrilled with the lecture they’ve posted it on the Internet to share with everyone. This is an example of the type of intolerance that guides chapter members of an organization Shinzo Abe once led and still endorses.

“Being allowed to say something is not the same as agreeing with it.”

Allowing someone to say something is called tolerance. The lecture was not about tolerance, and you can rest assured that that Yamagata chapter of the Japanese Society for Textbook Reform will not be posting to their Internet site lectures by zainichi Koreans any time soon. That is a given.

It’s a bit hyperbolic to assign blame for comments given at a local chapter of tsukurukai to the Prime Minister of Japan. Being allowed to say something is not the same as agreeing with it. Nitpicking aside…

As you pointed out, this American history is not Japanese revisionism, but American revisionism. It looks like a combination of revisionism of the IHR, black nationalism, and white privilege theory. While the former is not really given forum in American academia, the latter two are taught in American universities. Saying that “America founded on Indian slaughter and black slave labor” would not be controversial on any US campus, I suspect.