"Comfort" Women During WW2 Then, Sex Trafficking Now

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Revising (Distorting) Japanese History Textbooks

THE TEXTBOOK CONTROVERSY
Charles Cummins , December 2001, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY (St. Louis)

Dating back to the 8^th Century in Japan with the Kojiki and the Nihongi, historical compilations have been a controversial issue in Japanese society for their alleged distortions of history. Controversy existed not only in the way these texts alter public perceptions of history, but also in a larger question of how they affect the construction and identification of Japanese nationalism. This continuing debate regarding the portrayal of Japanese history has culminated in the current debate over Japanese textbooks, specifically, in their treatment of events leading up to World War II.
These include Japan’s presence in China in the 1930’s, the Nanjing Massacre, the use of biological warfare by Unit 731, and the role of “comfort women” in Japan’s military, all of which are disreputable acts.

One side in the debate argues for the exclusion from, or “watering down” of these incidents in Japanese history textbooks. The argument claims that the purpose of history is to bolster pride in and increase feelings of nationalism for one’s nation. The counter argument pushes for an objective treatment of history, and the inclusion of these events, therefore giving students greater freedom in the formation of deductions from the text, and avoiding the perception of a censored history.

Since the late 19^th century, all Japanese textbooks have been subject to screening for approval of content, vocabulary, and expression by the Ministry of Education. The screenings were an attempt on behalf of the Ministry to represent Japan positively in history and increase Japanese nationalistic fervor. However, after the defeat of Japan in World War II and the ensuing American occupation, the distribution of textbooks was liberalized. No longer were historical facts purposely excluded from texts, giving students a broader, less subjective, vision of history.

Yet, Japanese administrative officials continued with textbook inspections in order to maintain Japan’s high educational standard.This period of liberalization in Japan halted during the Cold War, when democratic reform and disarmament were halted in favor of remilitarization so that America could have a strategic ally in the Far East.As conservative forces, specifically the LDP, reasserted their influence over government policy, texts were recompiled with the exclusion of events deemed detrimental to the Japanese national identity. However, as a result of the conclusion of the Cold War, Japan was faced with an ambiguous national and international identity because of the Americanization of its history, which asserted that Axis powers were “wrong” in World War II, and the Allied powers were “right.”

Henceforth, Japan sought to reinvigorate nationalism among the youth by reassessing the events of World War II, so as to create a sense of moral behavior on behalf of Japan.Thus, one returns to the debate as to whether Japanese history textbooks should be screened and molded so as to allow students to feel a sense of pride about Japan, or should be freely published allowing a less biased form of history to be propagated. This debate elucidates the manner in which Japanese texts create the narratives and identities of history that ultimately construct Japanese nationalism.

In order to understand the debate over the portrayal of history in textbooks, one must first be clear of the influence of education, textbooks, history, and politics over nationalism. Education functions as a method for the propagation and molding of the past, for it is “one of the most effective ways to promote a national narrative and to make and remake certain identities into the national identity. ”Bringing “official” interpretations of the past to the student, “textbooks typically function as nationalist primers that selectively highlight elements of the past to limn an ‘official’ story and etch the lineages and myths of contemporary patriotism.”

Textbooks have become a tangible manner for the creation of the “identities” and “narratives” that inspire nationalism. In their discussion on Japanese education and nationalism, Nozaki Yoshiko and Inokuchi Hiromitsu state history is composed of “narratives of ‘nation’ and a nation’s past are powerful tools that can involve people in a shared sense of identity, clarifying who ‘we’ are and where ‘we’ come from.”

History works as a unifying force amongst the masses to create nationalism. Finally, political forces have manipulated historical texts and created a “public perception that textbooks are authoritative statements of national policy and ideology.”Textbooks then play the role, according to political forces, of molding the behavior of the citizens into a “single, conformist mind-set.”Hence, the content of textbooks has become a central issue in the efforts of conservative Japanese to reinvigorate “ultra-nationalist” values.

Fujioka Nobukatsu champions the conservative, exclusionary side of the debate, claiming that representations of history should increase a citizen’s pride in the nation.
A member of the “Liberal View of History Study Group,” Fujioka promotes rightist, nationalist views disguised as“liberal” so as to influence students, teachers, and academics.Fujioka does not believe history should be subject to interpretation; instead history is “subject to the ultimate moral imperative of whether or not it serves to inculcate a sense of pride in being Japanese.” Fujioka believes that history makes no distinction between the truth and conjecture, thus necessitating a “censoring” in historical texts.

Slanderous, uncensored, textbooks simply have no worth, according to Fujioka, for they only serve to provide a “self tormenting historical perspective,” and does not allow Japanese children to foster a sense of nationalism because of a lack of pride in their own nation’s history.Critics, such as Aaron Gerow, suggest that Nobukatsu’s views are masochistic, for he enjoys “making oneself the victim of injustice so as to justify one’s own existence.Fujioka favors the denial of the truth over the inclusion of shameful facts because of the detrimental affect of the truth on the Japanese sense of nationalism.

While seeking specifically to eliminate all references to “comfort women” in history texts, Fujioka in a general sense seeks a complete reappraisal of Japanese history. The inclusion of “comfort women”, he argues, would cause a reevaluation of one’s relation to the state and a reexamination of gender relations within Japan. Yet, in order to understand the magnitude of this debate, one must consider the ramifications of exclusion of facts and alteration of historical texts.

These ramifications can best be understood in an international context. First, as many of these “comfort women” were Korean, deletion of their presence would serve to further “violate” an already “scarred” group. Further, Korean scholars claim this historical exclusion would indicate a return to the “emperor centered view of history,” in which one denies the existence of another, and the “colonialist view of history.”In this case Japan denies that Korea was civilized, legitimizing the “rape” of Korean women, and through the elimination of all wrongdoing, Japan asserts that its annexation of Korea contributed to Korea’s “autonomous modernization.” Exclusion of these facts would serve to sour relations between Japan and Korea.

Similarly, emperor centered and colonialist views of history in regard to the Japanese presence in China would negatively affect on relations between the two countries. Ignoring the slaughter of over 300,000 Chinese by Japan during the Nanjing Massacre of 1937 and Unit 731’s experimentation with biological warfare products on Chinese subjects would deny the existence of China and the occurrences of these horrendous injustices.Fujioka contests that acknowledgement of these atrocities would in historical terms “render Japan weak.” In considering Fujioka’s argument, one must determine the justifiability of the alteration of historical texts and the transmission to students of a biased education as means of fortifying Japanese nationalism.

Historian Ienaga Saburo has pioneered the argument for the inclusion of Japanese historical transgressions in textbooks. Challenging the constitutionality of historical censorship in textbooks, Ienaga explained that the exclusion of certain events in texts was a “violation of the freedom of expression and scholarship and contrary to the Fundamental Law of Education,” for it was a “violation of the principle safeguarding education from no improper control.” Ienaga challenged the Ministry of Education on the characterization of issues ranging from the nature of Japan’s presence in China, including the Nanjing Massacre and the criminal behavior of Unit 731, to Japan’s colonization of Korea. Ienaga even attacked the characterizations of the imperial family in the Kojiki and Nihongi as illegitimate representations.Ienaga created his own history textbook, the Shin Nihonshi which was inclusive of all historical occurrences, thus reflecting his view “that education should be based on verifiable facts, and should convey democratic values and the desire for peace.”,In his efforts for the exposition of historical truths, Ienaga also revealed the “undemocratic nature” and the “abuses of power” ubiquitous in the text screening process.Although the argument for inclusion seems the more just cause, it is important to be aware of the ramifications in the revelation of previously undisclosed historical truths.

While the exclusion of historical facts would be harmful to Japan’s relations with many of its Asian neighbors, inclusion of these facts would put Japan in a subordinate role to in relation both China and Korea and arouse confusion among students unclear of Japan’s national identity.Inclusion of any of the atrocities committed by Japan would also counteract the untarnished, “historically privileged” identity Japan diligently seeks to expound.The concern is that inclusion of events such as the Nanjing Massacre or the acts of Unit 731 would sully this “privileged” historical nature, and lead to confusion in regard to the depiction of the national identity.Thus one returns to Fujioka’s belief that inclusion of shameful transgressions in Japanese history texts would negatively impact Japanese nationalism. An inclusive history would force Japanese students to conceive of Japan’s national identity in an international context, and would allow for an understanding of Japan’s interrelationships with its Asian neighbors.

The debate regarding either the inclusion or exclusion in historical textbooks of Japan’s pre-World War II criminal behavior is an element of the larger debate concerning the presence and typology of Japanese nationalism. It is apparent that nationalism is an unstable entity, easily manipulated by the dominant ruling power, and that textbooks serve as the dominant fashion in which to propagate this ever-changing sense of national identity. Historical exclusionists, such as Fujioka Nobukatsu, seek to create a history that will ultimately bolster Japanese feelings of nationalism. Yet, this approach isolates Japan from China, Korea, and even the world because of its attempt to deny the existence of the “other.” In contrast, those seeking an inclusive textual representation of history, such as Ienaga Saburo, not only want to convey the truth, but also believe students will be able to interpret the morality of Japanese actions. However, this type of presentation could cause “confusion” among students as they try to reinterpret Japan’s national and international identities, ultimately acting as a detriment to Japanese nationalism. Thus, in seeking resolution, one must determine the validity of a nationalism constructed on half-truths.

Bibliography

Gerow, Aaron. “Consuming Asia, Consuming Japan: The New Neonationalist Revisionism in Japan.”Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 30, no. 2 (1998):30-36.

Hein, Laura and Selden, Mark.“Learning Citizenship from the Past: Textbook

Nationalism, Global Context, and Social Change.”Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 30, no. 2 (1998): 3-15.

Hiromitsu, Inokuchi and Yoshiko, Nozaki.“Japanese Education, Nationalism, and

Ienaga Saburo’s Court Challenges.” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 30, no. 2 (1998): 37-46.

Kazuhiko, Kimijima.“The Japan-South Korea Joint Study Group on History Textbooks

and the Continuing Legacy of Japanese Colonialism.” Translated by Inokuchi Hiromitsu.Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 30, no. 2 (1998): 47-52.

Masanori, Nakamura.“The History Textbook Controversy and Nationalism.”Translated

by Kristine Dennehy. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 30, no. 2 (1998): 24-29.

Masato, Yamazaki.“History Textbooks that provoke an Asian Outcry.”Japan Quarterly34 no. 1 (1987): 51-55.

McCormack, Gavan.“The Japanese Movement to ‘Correct’ History.” Bulletin of

Concerned Asian Scholars 30, no. 2 (1998): 16-23.

Yamazaki Masato, “History Textbooks That Provoke an Asian Outcry,” Japan Quarterly 34, no.1 (1987): 51.

Masato, 53.

Nakamura Masanori, “The History Textbook Controversy and Nationalism,” trans, Kristine Dennehy, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 30, no. 2 (1998): 25.

Aaron Gerow, “Consuming Asia, Consuming Japan: The New Neonationalist Revisionism in Japan,” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 30, no. 2 (1998): 32.

Yoshiko and Hiromitsu, 37.

Laura Hein and Mark Selden, “Learning Citizenship from the Past: Textbook Nationalism, Global Context, and Social Change,” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 30, no. 2 (1998): 3.

Nozaki Yoshiko and Inokuchi Hiromitsu, “Japanese Education, Nationalism, and Ienaga Saburo’s Court Challenges,” ,” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 30, no. 2 (1998): 44.

Hein and Selden, 5.

Masato, 52.

Gavan McCormack, “The Japanese Movement to ‘Correct’ History,” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 30, no. 2 (1998): 17.

McCormack, 18.

Masanori, 24.

Gerow, 31.

McCormack, 17

Hein and Selden, 10.

Gerow, 34.

Kimijima Kazuhiko, “The Japan-South Korea Joint Study Group on History Textbooks and the Continuing Legacy of Japanese Colonialism,” trans. Inokuchi Hiromitsu Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 30, no. 2 (1998): 51.

Kazuhiko, 51.

Gerow, 31.

Yoshiko, 40.

Yoshiko, 41.

Yoshiko, 38

Yoshiko, 42.

McCormack, 22.

Source: http://artsci.wustl.edu/~copeland/textbook.htm

Second (Third?) Invasion - Japan in the Philippines

WHAT WE FILIPINOS SHOULD KNOW: In 1979, the late Professor Renato Constantino wrote a pamphlet entitled "The Second Invasion - Japan in the Philippines." He warned that increased Japanese presence should be a cause for concern.

Thanks to the Marcos Dictatorship which in 1973 signed the "Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation" with Japan, Japanese businesses/transnationals have gained a strong foothold in our country. This treaty has efffectively and efficiently converted our homeland into Japan's garden (cheap agricultural products, fisheries and minerals, etc.) and R&R destination (sports and sexual entertainments); all at the expense of our native agriculture and industries; and thus livelihood of the natives.


With the exception of the late President Carlos P. Garcia who is known for his "Filipino First Policy," and shortening the Bases Agreement from 99 years to 25 years, all previous regimes since our "independence," have sold out to foreigners and thus continue to negate the long-term economic development, i.e. agricultural and industrial, of the homeland.
As mentioned in the following IBON article, Japan is bolstering its entrenchment in the homeland via the JPEPA.
The Japanese invasion is back again, getting much without firing a shot and at bargain basement price or "fire sale" for them and at a tremendous long-term cost to old and young Filipinos. All these, courtesy of mendicants and traitors --among the Filipino leadership-- to future generations of native Malay Filipinos.
"If the people are not completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own." - George Washington, shortly after the end of the American Revolution
“There is no literate population in the world that is poor; there is no illiterate population that is anything but poor.” – John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006)
“Nations, whose NATIONALISM is destroyed, are subject to ruin.” - Colonel Muhammar Qaddafi, 1942-, Libyan Political and Military Leader
"Upang maitindig natin ang bantayog ng ating lipunan, kailangang radikal nating baguhin hindi lamang ang ating mga institusyon kundi maging ang ating pag-iisip at pamumuhay. Kailangan ang rebolusyon, hindi lamang sa panlabas, kundi lalo na sa panloob!" --Apolinario Mabini, La Revolucion Filipina (1898)
*********************************************************

Japan-RP Economic Pact Brings Dubious Gain

The agreement is biased towards the more powerful Japanese economic interests, so how can JPEPA be positive for the Philippines in terms of trade and investment?

BY SONNY AFRICA
IBON Features
Posted by Bulatlat

After negotiating away from public scrutiny for four years, the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) was signed at the Asia-Europe Meeting in Helsinki, Finland on Sept. 10, 2006.

Officials provide few details but it is reported that the agreement will cut import tariffs on industrial goods by 90 percent within 10 years and provide concessions for Japanese direct investment in the domestic automobile and electronics industries.

The Philippines will abolish tariffs on at least 60 percent of its steel imports from Japan. Tariffs on Japan-made cars will also be fully eliminated in 2010. In exchange, Japan will lower tariffs on Philippine bananas and pineapples, while the Philippines removes tariffs on Japanese grapes and pears. Japan will also supposedly allow a year-on-year quota of an unspecified number of Filipino nurses and caregivers. It had also been reported that the JPEPA would remove mutual restrictions on Japanese and Philippine investors, as well as prohibit performance requirements.

Both governments have already said that the agreement will be positive for both the Philippines and Japan in terms of trade and investment. But the pact is biased for the more powerful Japanese economic interests. Being an unequal agreement between unequal parties, the JPEPA will bring dubious gain to the local economy while severely limiting government's policy options to develop domestic industries.

Compromising economic protection
The biggest gainers of the JPEPA are Japanese investors who will keep setting up export enclaves in the Philippines that are not integrated with the domestic economy. They will continue to import most of their inputs and components, exploit fiscal incentives, stifle workers' rights to organize, and hire labor as cheap as they can get. The Philippines will also be foregoing millions in dollars in tariff revenues from Japanese imports.

Japan and the Philippines are such grossly unequal economies that nominally equal terms can never mean a "level playing field". The Japanese economy (US$4.4-trillion gross national income in 2004) is 50 times larger than the Philippines' and its gross domestic product per capita is 35 times larger. Japan accounts for some one-third of foreign investments (with a cumulative US$3.5 billion in Japanese investments 2003) in the Philippines and one-fifth of its external trade (with US$14.2 billion in total Japan-Philippines trade in 2004). And yet, for instance, the country's domestic industrial base has continued to deteriorate despite the majority of Japanese investments being in the manufacturing sector.

The Philippine government is compromising policy tools under the JPEPA that, ironically, Japan itself used heavily. The Japanese government greatly protected its domestic industries from the late 19th century until the early 1980s. Japan's industrial might in cars, trucks, shipbuilding, computers and consumer electronics was built up in through almost a century of sustained intervention and protection, especially in their early stages. Average weighted industrial tariffs reached as high as 30-40 percent. The Japanese government required technology transfers from U.S., French and UK investors, or brazenly pirated technology through so-called "reverse engineering." Government agencies were obliged to procure goods and services strictly from Japanese firms. Japanese technological and productive capacity would not have developed if not for these many decades of active state support.

In contrast, the Philippines does not even have a national industrial program that it can use to negotiate over its industrial trade policy. Like the past administrations, the Arroyo government cannot expect to achieve a level playing field with only a foreign investments-driven medium term plan that targets tourism and business process outsourcing projects as sources of "economic growth."

Dangerous step
The far-reaching JPEPA is also the dangerous first step towards complete government renunciation of developing the Philippine economy. What little public information there is about JPEPA indicates about a dozen areas for liberalization that collectively go far beyond anything proposed even in the currently dormant World Trade Organization (WTO). These include: the elimination or reduction of tariffs on industrial products and agriculture, forestry and fishery products; liberalization of services sectors such as construction, outsourcing, air transport, health-related and social services, tourism and travel-related services, maritime transport services, telecommunications and banking; national treatment, Most Favored Nation treatment and performance requirement prohibitions; and supposedly easier entry of qualified Filipino nurses and certified caregivers.

The JPEPA also includes various provisions on: Government Procurement, Competition Policy, Intellectual Property, Dispute Avoidance and Settlement, Improvement of the Business Environment, Mutual Recognition and Bilateral Cooperation.

As the country's first full-fledged bilateral free trade agreement (FTA), the benchmark it sets for liberalization will determine the shape of all FTAs to come, including the continuation of the stalled WTO talks. If the Philippine government sets high trade and investment liberalization standards in JPEPA then it will be obliged to also give these to partners in subsequent FTAs lest it be accused of discrimination. The country's negotiating position in all subsequent trade and investment agreements will be gravely undermined. The end result of the JPEPA and other such agreements will be to shut the door to real domestic industrial growth and economic progress.

The government is also treating our health professionals and caregivers as mere commodities when it touts the "quotas" supposedly being given by Japan for these jobs as a good thing. The reality is that these mostly women health workers and caregivers will bear the burden of overcoming formidable language, certification and even racist and patriarchal barriers-- considering that Japan's young population have already expressed concerns over their government's offer to open up sectors for foreign employment. Because of its desperation for quick sources of foreign exchange, the Philippine government is placing the burden on the cheap export of skilled Filipinos. It should instead focus on creating the strong domestic economy that will create opportunities for Filipinos at home.

The Philippine government affirms its commitment to the destructive policies of neoliberal globalization. Instead of using the collapse of the WTO Doha Round talks as an opportunity to rethink its commitment to neoliberal globalization, it is giving up its sovereignty piecemeal on a country-by-country basis through bilateral and regional economic agreements.

Japan, on the other hand, makes further headway in consolidating Southeast Asia as a source of cheap agricultural, mineral and other raw materials for Japan as well as a captive market for Japanese industrial goods. Aside from the Philippines, Japan has already signed or is negotiating FTAs with Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Vietnam.

IBON Features / Posted by Bulatlat


© 2006 Bulatlat ■ Alipato Media Center
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.

Source: http://www.bulatlat.com/news/6-35/6-35-japan.htm


Technorati tags: JPEPA sellout, bilateral agreements