Author: jr

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.  

1. Shin, Gi-Wook and Sneider, Daniel C., History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia: divided memories, p.25 [↩]

Throughout China’s long history, the country has had to deal with numerous repeated attacks from those they call barbarians. For the most part, these barbarians have come from the North, and this has created a duality between the North and South of China. This duality can be clearly seen in the historiography of China, and it is a cornerstone of Shiratori’s argument about the evolution of Confucianism in China and Japan, and how, because of this dualism and conflict, the Confucian beliefs of China were inferior to those of Japan, thus justifying Japanese superiority, at least in terms of Confucius history as it applies to the ideal of toyo. This post will discuss this North-South duality that Shiratori discusses, first by discussing his viewpoint on China’s Confucian growth, then Japan’s, all of which will be from Shiratori’s perspective.  

First, we must discuss Shiratori’s perspective of Confucian growth in China throughout the country’s history. Shiratori describes that, as a result of the constant attacks from the North (discussed above) the Chinese needed to do something to better live as a society.((Tanaka, Steven, Japan’s Orient: Rendering the past as history, 1993, p.116)) They turned to Confucianism as a system of values that might provide social cohesion.¹ However, it was this very belief that led to their corruption. Shiratori claims that, as the values of Confucianism became more and more institutionalized in China, then the Confucian ideals lost their substance and value, instead becoming a prop used by the nation.² Because of this, the nation and its Confucian ideals were unable to progress, a failure to change that Shiratori uses to justify the “decline of China”. ((Ibid, p.116)

Shiratori contrasts this with the evolution of Confucianism in Japan. Due to Japan being an island, it did not have to deal with constant barbarian encounters like the Chinese did. ((Ibid, p.116) This was the nail that separated Japan and China and said nail that allowed for the nation of Japan to grow. Shiratori describes this growth as progressive in nature, as it allowed for the acceptance of ideas and objects from other cultures. ((Ibid, p.116) Shiratori claims that it is this ideal that allowed for the separation of Japanese Confucianism and Chinese Confucianism, which was central to his own ideas about the superiority of Japan. ((Ibid, p.116)

In conclusion, Shiratori’s analysis of Confucianism for China and Japan centers on the idea that, despite the similarities between the two, they operated quite differently. The main cause for this difference was the North-South dualism in China, caused by numerous barbarian invasions, which corrupted their Confucian ideals and caused them to stagnate, while Japan did not have this issue, and thus was progressive.  

1. Tanaka, Japan’s Orient, p.116 [↩]
2. Ibid, p.116 [↩]

In the twentieth century, the study of history in China began to move in a new direction. This movement was seen by Chinese historian Liang Qichao, who perceived the spatial change in the world, which was brought up by the arrival of Western powers and the rise of Japan¹. Liang began his change by attacking the traditional style of Chinese historiography, not only because it was an ill-conceived spatial arrangement of the world, in which all continents in the world outside of Asia were ignored, but also because it failed to acknowledge the idea of anachronism – the concept of historical time that differentiated the past and the present, and therefore, the need to update one’s knowledge of history². This post will discuss the idea of the Chinese nationalist historiography, that is, paradoxically, also transnational.  

Liang’s new history would have to address the nationalist concerns of a trans-nationalist age. Liang recognized that his country was, for lack of a better word, weak – or, just as likely, he perceived a weakness in his country in the modern age that needed to be fixed³. While Liang was going to somewhat continue with the ways of traditional historiography, he also needed to update the formula, so to say. This update came in the form of the inclusion of the “other” – that is, other countries that were not a part of Asia, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and others³. This also extended to Japan, which traditionally had been ignored Chinese historiography. In other words, this new Chinese historiography would have to include ideas and concepts of transnationalism³. This is shown in Liang’s enthusiasm for Western and Japanese historiographical work and techniques, which he incorporated into his own works, before passing those techniques down to his students³.  

Like all forms of nationalist ideologies, Chinese nationalism has some distinctive features that they share with others, while also having some features that are unique to them alone⁴. These features arose due to Chinese national historiography rising at the same time as global capitalism³. Chinese nationalist historiography is characterized by its intense radicalism. It is also colored by Liang’s fondness for Western and Japanese historiography, the techniques of which are spread throughout Liang’s work.  

The primary way in which this is shown is through Liang – and by extension his students like Hu Shi – is through his fascination with looking through Chinese history and tradition for Western scientific practices⁵. This was actually carried out, mostly, by Hu Shi. Hu was inspired by Liang’s work, and while he studied at Cornell, began to delve into furthering Liang’s theories⁵. In Hu’s early life, his education was populated by a study of the Classics, and it was here that he looked for how his theory could be proven. Hu looked throughout Chinese history and tradition for examples of the universality of the scientific method, as per Dewey’s scientific theory, which he believed was transnational⁶.  

What Hu found was nothing short of a confirmation of his beliefs. In 1921, Hu wrote on the evidential scholarship of Qing scholars whilst exposing his belief that the scientific method was not confined to any one nation or region of the world⁷. His study confirmed this belief, thus validating his and, by extension, Liang’s work⁷. By proving that the scientific method was universal and thus, transcended nations, Hu was able to boost the national standing of China, bringing it onto a similar playing field as the West and Japan.  

In conclusion, the revision of Chinese historiography, an effort started by Liang Qichao and carried out by Hu Shi and others, was able to strengthen the national standing of China, as it showed that certain ideals held by civilized society were transnational ideas.  

1. Wang, Edward Q., Inventing China Through History: The May Fourth Approach to Historiography, (2001), p.51 [↩]
2. Wang, Inventing China, pp.51-52 [↩]
3. Ibid, pp.51-52. [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
4. Ibid, pp.52-53. [↩]
5. Ibid, pp.52-54. [↩] [↩]
6. Ibid, pp.54-55. [↩]
7. Ibid, pp.55-56. [↩] [↩]

The Three Kingdoms period of China is one of the most heavily discussed and talked about periods of Chinese history for historians. It is also an area in time in which little accurate historical information exists. The greatest source of information on this period comes from the work Records of the Three Kingdoms by Chen Shou. But how does this source operate? Does the source do a good job in describing the Three Kingdoms period in an accurate and informational manner. This post will look at two things – the first is who Chen Shou was and the second is how Records of the Three Kingdoms tells the story of the Three Kingdoms, before using that to answer the above questions.  

First, who was Chen Shou. Chen Shou was a historian and transcriber during the later period of the Three Kingdoms and then onto the Jin Dynasty that followed. [[ West, Stephen H., and Idema, Wilt L., Records of the Three Kingdoms in Plain Language (Introduction), 2016, p. xv. ]]  He first worked for Shu Han, one faction of the Three Kingdoms period that ruled over the southwest portion of China from its (Shu Han’s) capital of Chengdu. [[ West and Wilt, Records in Plain Language, p.xv. ]] This gave Chen Shou firsthand viewings to the workings of Shu Han and its officers, as well as some information on the other kingdoms of Wei and Wu. After the fall of Shu Han, Chen Shou was able to find work in the kingdom that conquered it – Wei. [[ Ibid, p.xv ]] This would give him further information on the officers of Wei. After the collapse and integration of Wu and the deposition of the last Wei Emperor by Sima Yan, Chen Shou found himself working for the newly established Jin Dynasty, and it was during this time that Chen Shou wrote Records of the Three Kingdoms. [[ Ibid, p.xv ]] Chen Shou died in the year 297. This leads us into the second talking point – how Records of the Three Kingdoms is written.  

Records of the Three Kingdoms (Sanguozhi) is divided into three books and contains sixty-five volumes. The books are called The Book of Wei, The Book of Shu, and The Book of Wu, and each gives information on the various individuals of renown in the style of a biographical text. [[ Ibid, p.xv ]] Chen Shou also grouped some of the biographies together while writing others on their own. For example, one chapter is the biography of Liu Bei, a major player in the Three Kingdoms period and the founder of Shu Han. [[ Ibid, p.xv ]] Yet, the biographies of the five generals of Shu – Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, Ma Chao, Zhao Yun, and Huang Zhong – are all grouped together. [[ Ibid, p.xv ]] Chen Shou acquired the information for his work quite easily. For The Book of Shu, due to his role in Shu Han, Chen Shou simply relied on his memory to provide the proper information, and most likely supplemented it with surviving accounts and records. And while he worked for the Jin Dynasty, Chen Shou had access to the records of the Wei and Wu officials from the time period. Now that this has been established, the above asked questions can be answered, with how Records of the Three Kingdoms operates being the first.  

First, some clarification – when thinking of the word ‘operate’ it would be best if, due to the context, one interprets it as ‘how does Chen Shou use his work to inform others of the Three Kingdoms period?’. With that in mind the question ‘how does this source operate?’ can now be answered. Chen Shou’s style of writing – the biographies of the officials of note of the Three Kingdoms period – does not provide a proper narrative structure. [[ Ibid, p.xv ]] Yet, that was not his intention. Chen Shou’s writing contains sparse language, a prose style that isn’t flowery and wordy, meaning his goal was to deliver information, not tell a story. [[ Ibid, p.xv ]] Along with that, Chen Shou’s works often have his own moral evaluations of the characters, criticizing or praising them for their deeds. [[ Ibid, p.xv ]] Thus, instead of a narrative, Records of the Three Kingdoms operates as a book on historical figures, imparting their deeds on the next generation, while also giving critics of their moral character, thus operating as a guide on morality.  

With this established, one can finally answer the question ‘does Records of the Three Kingdoms do a good job in describing the Three Kingdoms period in an accurate and informational manner?’. The answer for that is, quite simply, yes, it does. The goal, as derived from Chen Shou’s use of sparse prose and his moral evolutions, was not to tell a grand epic – this would be the Romance of the Three Kingdoms – but rather, to teach. Chen Shou wanted to teach to others about this period, informing them in the simplest of ways about the officials and leaders of this period, while offering his own judgements on their actions and character. While some may claim that his work may contain bias – if not from him working for Shu Han first, then from him working for the Jin Dynasty – it cannot be said that Records of the Three Kingdoms does not deliver information on the Three Kingdoms period in an accurate and informational manner. As such, despite its unusually way of presenting information, Records of the Three Kingdoms does indeed deliver information in a way that is both accurate and informational. This would only grow as, throughout the years, others would make annotations and commentaries on Records of the Three Kingdoms.