뉴스레터

Tokyo Shoseki 《New Social Studies》 Textbook(2012)

This year marks the 94th year since the March 1st Movement. As we celebrate this meaningful day, I think that it might be worthwhile to examine how the March 1st Movement is described in Japan's middle school textbooks. First of all, all history textbooks used in Japan's middle schools today are the ones that have been approved in 2011 by Japan's Ministry of Education (MEXT). Since Japan's controversial distortion of history remains unresolved, we are naturally curious about the adoption rates of Japan's history textbooks. The highest adoption rate of 52.8 percent went to New Social Studies: History by Tokyo Shoseki, with 679,9038 copies in use. The runner-up is Kyoiku-Shuppan (14.6%), followed by Teikoku-Shoin (14.1%) and Nihon Bunkyou Shuppan (12.6%). And the fifth place went to the textbook by the affiliate of 'Japan Society for History Textbook Reform,' that is Middle School Social Studies: A New History of Japan by Ikuhosha Publishing (育鵬社, Fuji Sankei Group) with the adoption rate of 3.7 percent or 47,812 copies in use, a six-fold increase from 2009 and 38-fold increase from 2001 when the adoption rate stood at 0.097 percent. Ikuhosha's textbook has made such a leap because it has been adopted for exclusive use in Kanagawa (神奈川) Prefecture near Tokyo. Currently, it is used by 170 schools in this prefecture. The sixth place went to History: Japanese History and the World by Shimizu (靑水) Shoin, with the adoption rate of 2.1 percent or 27,248 copies in use.

Apparent Intention of Downplaying the March 1st Movement and its Significance

What are the natures of these textbooks? I'd like to note that when the textbook approval decision was about to be made in 2011, Ikuhosha urged the decision board to "make sure that especially the books by Tokyo Shoseki and Shimizu Shoin would not be adopted." Ikuhosah criticized these two textbooks, claiming that they had a strong bias toward the history of anachronistic class struggle. Keeping that in mind, let us examine how those textbooks described the March 1st Movement.

Tokyo Shoseki
《New Social Studies》
Textbook(2012)

First, Tokyo Shoseki's New Social Studies:
History described it as follows: In Korea (Joseon) under Japan's colonial rule, on March 1, 1919 independent-minded intellectuals and students issued a statement declaring national independence from Japan and people marched on streets shouting 'Independence.' This independence movement was inspiring and spread across the country within a short period of time (March 1st Independence Movement). While suppressing the movement by force, the Governor General of Korea adopted the policy of easing their past practice of oppressive rule. This stimulated the demand for modernizing Korea. Also, the independence movement continued afterward.

Shimizu Shoin's
textbook

In Shimizu Shoin's textbook, lagging behind Ikuhosha's in adoption rate, the 'March 1st Movement' is placed under the section titled "The Elevation of Nationalist Movement," described as follows.
In Korea (Joseon), a colony of Japan, freedom of the speech, assembly and association was extremely restricted, and people carried on with their resistance against the oppressive rule. On March 1st, 1919, in a park downtown Seoul (Gyeongseong), the declaration of independence was recited, and there were mass demonstrations with the people crying 'independence.' The public alleys or demonstrations demanding Korea's independence spread throughout the country, clashing with the police and military all across the nation (March 1st Independence Movement). In the process, some nonresistant Korean people were either killed or brutally tortured.

It is noted that this textbook, of all the others in Japan, has a description of the March 1st Movement that is the closest to the truth. And it also has the Learning Objectives, "What movements were there in regions under prolonged colonial rule? Let us take note of the people's demand," encouraging the students to try thinking from the viewpoint of people under control rule. It is also noted that the authors of this textbook include Mitani Hiroshi (三谷博, Japanese history) of the University of Tokeyo and the professor Tonomura Masaru (外村大) who studies the forced taking of Koreans. But supplementary materials have been reduced dramatically from the old to new editions. For example, the 2006 edition had the Japan's Colonial Rule section, under which the photograph of militias taken by McKinsey, the Korean map marked with the regions where the March 1st Movement occurred, and a reference to the building of Oriental Development Company, and the March 1st Movement relief in Pagoda Park were inserted. But inserted in the 2012 edition were only a photograph of the octagonal pavilion in Pagoda Park (Tapgol Park) where the declaration of independence was read, and a reference to the March 1st Movement relief.

We Need to Do Something to Revamp Japan's Textbook Descriptions Related to Colonial Rule

Ikuhosha's textbook

On the other hand, in Ikuhosha's textbook, the March 1st Movement is described in 'Nationalist Movements in Asia' under the section titled "The Treaty of Versailles and Trends in International Cooperation." But as the description of the March 1st Movement comes after that of the May 4th Movement, it could mislead the students to think that the March 1st Movement occurred after the May 4th Movement. The description of the March 1st Movement is very brief: "Also in Korea, mass demonstrations demanding the nation's independence from Japan occurred in Seoul and spread throughout the country (March 1st Independence Movement). The Government-General of Korea suppressed the movement by military power, but later revised the way of oppressive rule resorting to force." A picture of a girl student participating in one of the demonstrations during the March 1st Movement was inserted. Apparently, the textbook has the intention of downplaying the March 1st Movement and its significance.
Even in the textbook by Tokyo Shoseki with the highest adoption rate, the description of the March 1st Movement appears to try to gloss over the brutal nature of colonial rule through Yanagi Muneyoshi's activities rather than describing exactly what happened. This makes me wonder why Ikushosha thinks of this textbook as radical. I am concerned that Shimizu Shoin's textbook also tends to reduce related descriptions, and that it has even been overtaken by the rightist textbook. I think that it's time for the Korean authorities to start doing something about it.