뉴스레터

Event Pamphlet

Around mid-March of last year, a Japanese colleague asked me to participate in an academic project comparing the history education of Korea, China, and Japan in order to shed light on the question "Why do East Asian nations still remain at odds and fail to trust each other?" In 2005, History to Open the Future was published simultaneously in China, Japan and Korea. This publication was significant in that it was the first the first time East Asia modern history was jointly written by scholars from all three nations. The participants of the project wanted to see how the contents in this book differed from those in the history textbooks used in each nation.

The participants initially intended for the scope of comparison to be the entire modern history of East Asia. However, during the preliminary consultation stage, we came to home in on the differing perspectives on the damages inflicted by Imperial Japan.

With the help of the Weatherhead East Asian Institute, the workshop was held on April 16, 2009 at Columbia University, with Park Sun-won, a history professor at George Mason University, serving as the moderator. Perhaps because East Asia is an emerging region of interest in the study of international relations, the attendance was much higher than expected.

A Japanese presenter introduced the various textbook related issues, especially those related to the controversial right-wing Japanese textbooks. He assessed that most Japanese textbooks minimize, obscure, or even omit Japan's history of imperial aggression recorded in the textbooks of other nations. The presenter went on to note that such actions by Japan have been a source of misunderstanding among the East Asian nations. However, the presenter also pointed out that right-wing textbooks have a very low adoption rate. He explained that Japan guarantees the autonomy of individual publishers, which is not the case in South Korea where the government has a monopoly over the publication of national history textbooks or other countries where governments exert strong control over the publication of national history textbooks. These facts, according to the presenter, indicate that Japan has striven to advance a sound history education.

The Chinese presenter noted that History to Open the Future provides a more detailed account of issues such as the civilian bombings, the atrocities of the 731 unit, and "comfort women" than Chinese textbooks. The presenter also pointed out that a notable characteristic of History to Open the Future is that it details not only the widely known Nanjing Massacre but also the lesser known Pingdingshan Massacre. While History to Open the Future includes the struggle of the Chinese Communist Party (albeit very briefly), current Chinese textbooks generally place greater emphasis on the history after that period. Another notable point is that Chinese textbooks make no mention of the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party)'s influential role in the anti-Japanese struggle and only focus on the activities of the Chinese Communist Party.

The Taiwanese presenter stated that while the History to Open the Future provides a detailed historical account of issues such as Japan's imperialist aggression and economic exploitation, new Taiwanese textbooks include the positive aspects of Japanese colonization such the modernization through the strengthening of various infrastructures and the political system. The Taiwanese presenter pointed out that Taiwanese textbooks provide a much more detailed account of some aspects of the "comfort women" issue and the Nanjing Massacre. The presenter also lamented the omission of the Taiwanese perspective in the History to Open the Future and other such efforts to establish a shared East Asian history.

The Korean presenters took a slightly different approach. This was because the History to Open the Future and Korean textbooks provide similar accounts of the atrocities inflicted by Imperial Japan, Korea's independence movement, and the Japanese Imperial Army's war crimes. This consistency had been discussed during the preliminary consultations for the event, and the participants decided to make the assumption that all nations have a certain level of bias, albeit with different shades and degrees, in recording their national histories. We had a hard time coming to terms with this, as we had been accustomed to taking issue with the historical narratives of Japan and other nations and never our own.

Therefore, we selected the following three themes based on our comparative analysis between History to Open the Future and six Korean history textbooks: 1. History to Open the Future discusses the illegality of Japanese annexation of Korea and explains the disparate national perspectives on this issue; 2. History to Open the Future provides an account of Japanese nationals who cooperated with the Koreans in their struggle against Imperial Japan. 3. History to Open the Future details postwar measures and their limitations.

After the presentation, the panel and the audience engaged in an active exchange of opinions. A few Chinese students made a very impressive argument, claiming that we must seek an end to turning political issues into instruments for domestic political needs. Taiwanese students noted that a key factor impeding academic research is the government's unwillingness to disclose certain history -elated documents due to political reasons. Korean and Japanese students, on the other hand, focused on the private sector's role.

During the preliminary consultations, the Japanese participants asserted that a more balanced and sound historical narrative is possible in Japan because Japan makes a conscious effort to minimize government intervention and promote constructive competition among independent publishers in the compilation of history textbooks. I remember how I heatedly refuted the assertion, only to calm down when a Japanese student offered a thorough explanation of the situation in Japan right after the Pacific War. The Japanese public, including the scholarly community, believed that the government had used history political tool to manipulate and mobilize its citizens for the war. Hence, the Japanese people had worked to do away with state intervention in matters related to history. Left-wing educators, who have led this movement since the end of World War II, exercise a commanding influence in textbook-related issues and enjoy public support.

From the above exchange, I came to realization that even on an issue which I had very little factual knowledge, I had harbored unfounded animosity based on emotional biases. Such unproductive misunderstandings and hostilities erupt among East Asian nations on a daily basis. East Asian nations react with emotional outbursts various conflict situations—e.g., the incident between Korean and Taiwanese media outlets involving fabricated articles, the anti-Korean sentiments manifested during the Beijing Olympic, the dispute between China and Japan on the issue of substandard food stuff. Such a response comes from the lack of mutual understanding engendered by disparate historical perceptions.

The Joint Korea-China-Japan History Compilation Committee has stated that it will continue its joint compilation of history. Furthermore, a similar movement is materializing among certain scholars in the United States. I sincerely hope that these efforts continue to contribute to enhancing cooperation and stability in East Asia, a region that had been plagued with perennial strife and tension.