It should surprise no one that different countries have different perspectives on historical events – particularly their own history. This can be due to several factors, ranging from wanting to whitewash their history (making it seem more pleasing towards their side) to making them seem like the victim of a particular tragedy to flat out acceptance of any blame in the event. This post will look at two historical events and the points of view adopted by three major countries – China, Korea, and Japan – in their history textbooks, before stating an overall opinion on the altering of one’s history.
The first historical event to look at is the Nanking Massacre, which was committed in 1937, during the Second World War. The Chinese textbooks tell of a rampant Japanese force, one that pillaged and looted with no consideration for the people they murdered and mistreated. The 2004 copy of Chinese World History goes so far as to state that “they carried out a well-organized and planned six-week long slaughter of the innocent residents and Chinese troops who had already put aside their weapons. The victims numbered more than 3000.”1 As for the Korean textbooks, their account is brief, only mentioning it within the bounds of Japanese imperialism, thus showing the disconnect from the event. It did not concern them, directly, and as such, they did not place as much emphasis as the Chinese. The true surprise comes from the Japanese textbooks. One would think, given the described horrors from the Chinese texts, that the Japanese texts would flat-out omit the Nanking Massacre. Yet, the Japanese have several textbooks that not only mention this, but fully admit to the actions described above, as well as others not mention, such as numerous cases of rape, biochemical warfare, and other such atrocities. This admittance is not a problem, but that is only the case in one textbook. There is another, the Yamakawa Japanese History B, that does not even bring up the massacre or other terrible actions. ((Shin and Sneider, History Textbooks, p.29)) It only mentions Nanking as a place that the Imperial Army operated for a time. This is a problem that will be explored later.
The second event that warrants mention is the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Due to the fallout – both radioactive and other – the Japanese textbooks make frequent mention of this event. Aside from detailing the deaths and destruction caused by the bombs, the textbooks also point the finger at the United States and the Soviet Union, believing them to be the primary aggressors, with each seeking to gain a foot up in the upcoming Cold War. ((Ibid, pp.33-35)) This point of view is more detailed than the Chinese perspective, which only details the bombings as a result of Japan failing to surrender following the Potsdam Proclamation, not very much going into detail about the aftermath. ((Ibid, pp.32-33)) They do mention, that as a result of Japan ignoring the proclamation, the Soviet forces fought Japanese ground troops within Northern China. (Ibid, pp.32-33)) Finally, the Korean textbooks examined do not bring up the atomic bombing. ((Ibid, p.35)) This is most likely due to it not being affected by anything as a result of the bombing, though this is rather confusing, as they do become affected by it in the years after the Second World War.
After demonstrating these examples, it can be said that nations change or omit their history – or the history of the world – for various reasons. Yet, the question remains: is this justified? Do any reasons justify the removal or omissions of atrocities in history? A conclusion can be drawn from the Japanese example – their history textbook makes mention of the Nanking Massacre, even stating that Japan was in the wrong by admitting to the horrific actions that the Japanese troops undertook. They took responsibility for their part in the atrocities and have ensured that their people are taught this. Therefore, one can say that the altering and revision of one’s history to make oneself look better is a practice that needs to be stopped.
- Shin, Gi-Wook and Sneider, Daniel C., History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia: divided memories, p.25 [↩]