Talk:Japanese history textbook controversies

Rewrite

I have wholly rewritten the article as announced earlier so that the title "Japanese history textbook controversies" correctly reflects the content now. The old content was moved to Anti-Japanese demonstrations, 2005 because it was almost exclusively on the anti-Japan protests of the last year (April 2005) and was way too lengthy to be included in an article on "Japanese history textbooks controversy" in general. Japanese history textbooks controversy is a much larger issue that spans more than 40 years than the 2005 protest (see Examining the Japanese History Textbook Controversies). Hermeneus (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I haven't checked this article in a while, and I must say this has become a whole lot more objective and informative than before. My compliments to Hermeneus. One small error though. "Despite the scale of the controversies, the New History Textbook was adopted by only 0.039% of junior high schools in Japan as of August 15, 2001." should read "0.039% of junior high school students ". If I recall correctly, the book reached about 300 students total. Much fewer than the allegedly "banned" Ienaga textbooks reached. 219.163.12.72 06:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Oscar_the_Grouch

One more comment. Maybe it should be written somewhere that inspite of the hoopla, among the eight textbooks authorized by the Japanese government, liberal textbooks (with emphasis on Korean and Chinese POV) still outsell conservative textbooks by a large margin.219.163.12.72 07:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Oscar_the_Grouch

---

I've attended a lecture on a related topic: the Japanese denial of responsibility for thier barbarism towards other nationalities during WW2. One point of interest was a comparison of post-war-Germany with post-war-Japan. The Germans accepted responsibility for their actions while the Japanese have evaded all responsibility, consistantly denied any involvement, and have activly covered up their crimes by refusing to even teach the truth in their textbooks. One 'reason' that was given during the lecture is the 'cultural differences'. Chrisitan/European Germany has a 'confessional' culture (as in the Christian sacrament of 'confession'). Japanese society has a 'culture of shame' that internalizes their 'guilt'. Personally, I don't buy it. From my experience, the Japanese are a *very* racist society who look down on other cultures as inferior to their own. Trying to foist off racism as a 'cultural difference' is a pretty shabby excuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you're right. If "Christian confessional culture" were behind it, then Italian revisionism would also not be happening, yet it does, and in no small measure. I think it's more to do with post-war geopolitical conditions and the amount of guilt that countries could safely shrug off in these same geopolitical conditions. Who gave the lecture, BTW? I mean, was it a Japanese or a non-Japanese? If it was a Japanese, than the given "reason" smacks of (intentional or unintentional) Nihonjinron... TomorrowTime (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No mention of abuse of Koreans after Great Kantō earthquake

This article has nothing in it about how Japanese history textbooks have also white washed the atrocities committed against ethnic Koreans living in Japan at the time of the 1923 Great Kantō earthquake. BillyTFried (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this information must be mentioned at the article too.--Korsentry 03:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

that is simply not true: take Alexander Bukh, 2007, on the books in the 80's (quote: All of the texts also cite the killing by Japanese mobs of several thousand Korean residents after the Great Kant earthquake in 1923 and trace the incident to the widespread discrimination against Koreans among the Japanese population)89.43.195.27 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article shows that these are some examples of the controversies in the textbooks, not all of them. If more examples can be found, one should feel free to include them in the article if it adds to the value of the article.Traveling matt (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Struggling with the Examples?

Having only taken a recent interest in modern history (for some reason I was not interested one bit when I was at school) I am not very up to speed with my facts. I'm struggling with the examples section. As it would appear that the Japanese still took the time and choice words to sound impartial and factual on those examples given I cannot find very many problems with those statements, which I'd imagine was the original intention. Although I know of the Nanking Massacre I was educated in England and therefore was spoon-fed only the relations between England and Germany so I am struggling crossreferencing those quotes to the other related articles and trying to find out what is wrong with them. I'm assuming the "Sino-JapaneseWar" Example is to do with the figures and victims, how they have included the agreeable figure of 200,000 but implied that they were mostly armed soldiers? Would it be an idea to state with each why it is a notable example? TheTragicUglyDuckling (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This might help. Oda Mari (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese teacher's union

Considering how intervened the question of the struggle between the ministry of education and the teacher's union is in this question I hope some more knowledgeable person than me could add a section on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.162.43 (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Misleading about current textbooks?

I am not sure that the Neighboring Countries Clause did not have any impact on history textbooks writing. The author of the article is neither up-to-date, nor really knowlegeable. Also, the number of "conservative" books, a la Tsukuru Kai, which are actually in use, is really very low.... 89.43.195.27 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A casual reader of this article would get the idea that the history that’s generally taught in schools in Japan today is distorted, and whitewashes Japanese actions in WWII, and so on.

You have to read quite carefully to find that the current history book that causes controversy is used by only 0.039% of junior high schools. There are quite a few different textbooks used in different areas, but I’ve just been reading a study supplement book for junior high schools that aims to cover the major points for all the major textbooks (part of the くもんの中学基礎がため１００％ series).

In this book, it describes the Nanjing Massacre, “The Japanese army invaded China’s capital and massacred a large number of Chinese people, including women and children”. Admittedly, there is no number given, but this is hardly a whitewash. The word “虐殺” is used.

It talks about Japan advocating independence for Asian colonies, and then not allowing it after invasion, and the seizure of resources, and forced labour and again “虐殺” of citizens.

The same word is used when talking about killings of socialists and Koreans after the Kanto earthquake.

There is not a great deal about comfort women, but they are briefly mentioned.

I have the strong impression that most Japanese textbooks are far more liberal (today) than they are represented as being in this article, and that as it stands the article is quite misleading. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? --Rsm77 (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that it is certainly misleading. As an American student myself, my knowledge of current Japanese education is naturally limited, and when I found this page I did not realize that such textbooks were in the minority. I think it makes sense that the article should be modified slightly to indicate more strongly that such revisionism is uncommon.204.119.140.66 (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I changed the lead paragraph again. I find it interesting that I've been able to use the same source as a previous user had used selectively in the lead to give a quite different impression. The source is balanced, but the lead paragraph wasn't when I first read it.--Rsm77 (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

While it might be misleading to some, but this is still an article on namely, controversies, which my definition are things that happen on a small scale. Wide spread controversies are not controversies, they are now an societal issue. That's my point of view. For example, a teacher in Alberta, Canada might have only taught a few thousands students in his career, a minimal impact on a already small Canadian population, but it still doesn't make the issue any less significant. Misleading? Sure, I've heard so much about it already, netizens, especially Chinese and Korean netizens went berserk over it. And it's alright I say, those anger and just fine, it shows that people still care about their history.Gw2005 (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

When I read this article, it seemed clear to me looking over the historical background at the top of the page what the "controversies" are, but looking at the examples from Japanese textbooks, it seemed difficult to understand what the controversy is... I mean, the examples show some of the things that are written in some textbooks in Japan, but do not explain what the opposing viewpoint or believed error in the textbook data is. Traveling matt (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Examples

Another user has deleted the examples from the New History textbook, which I agree with, though maybe because it's an unnecessary level of detail more than because it's giving undue weight to the textbook - after all this is a textbook that caused some controversy. (Possibly I've misinterpreted the editor's reason, but in any case I agree.)

However, this deletion has highlighted how unnecessary the other textbook examples are, being generally non-controversial internationally, and their significance not really being very clear in any case to readers not familiar with the subject. There is plenty of talk about specific controversies earlier in the article.

Accordingly, I have deleted the examples section.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually perhaps my comment about them being non-controversial internationally is irrelevant. But the reason for their inclusion was extremely unclear, which is more than enough reason for deleting huge chunks of undigested primary material.--Rsm77 (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

日本史B, which was quoted, is a standard and very widely used textbook, but I agree that this breaks the narrative flow of the article. Shii (tock) 12:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my sentence was also unclear! I meant that the reason for the selection of the individual examples was not highlighted clearly. The reader wouldn't know what exactly was controversial about each one, and who would find it controversial, unless they knew about the subject already, or went back and puzzled it out based on earlier statements, which is not really what readers should be expected to do.--Rsm77 (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

3.3 nneigboring countries clause

if the conclusion of this paragraph holds true, that the whole thing was just a media frenzy, then that should be stated clearly in the first paragraph. if i had just read the first paragraph and skipped on to the next section, i would be under the assumption that the japenese educational board are caniving villians, when in fact they are not. -nobody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.75.162 (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

is this related article worth keeping?

Market share of government-approved Japanese history textbooks is up for deletion. Is there any possible reason to keep it? Would that information be valuable to understand this issue? Someone familiar with the topic please comment. Dream Focus 13:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Should the textbooks be based on the FACTS?

Korea as of 1895

It is often said that Korea was far from modernized even in Seoul as referred, for example, at http://hurriphoon.blog89.fc2.com/blog-entry-1375.html. This site provides the pictures before and after the colonization of Korea by Japan, to state that Japanese government modernized Korea. The opposite opinions, however, are shown only by recent drawings. I would not say this is the only fact and true. Instead, I would like to learn different view with appropriate evidence without emotion.

Korea as of 1950

The following site shows Korean women around 1950: http://jeogori.web.fc2.com/ . The site explains that a woman at the time could expose their breasts if she had a boy. Now you may consider those officially breast-exposing women are abnormal, but the custom was just different at the time in 1950 in Korea, right after WW II, when Japan was much more modern like many Western countries. I would not say this is the only fact and true. Instead, I would like to learn different view with appropriate evidence without emotion.

Description of Comfort Woman

Japanese culture undoubtedly possessed prostitute system since Edo era at the latest. At the time of WW II, the Japanese Army officially took comfort women and prohibited raping the women on site. They pay a lot to the women. The following website tells the contradiction of a Korean ex-comfort woman insisting forced engagement: http://makizushi33.ninja-web.net/ The site says:

• those women are applied by themselves for the job to get extremely high payment.
• the statement of forced-engagement seems contradicted based on the mismatched time periods.

I would not say this is the only fact and true. Instead, I would like to learn different view with appropriate evidence without emotion.

Because, textbooks should be written based on FACTS, not emotion. --Timeofglacier (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please read what the government of Japan has officially admitted about the issue. http://www.us.emb-japan.go.jp/english/html/cw1.htm I don't see as how much of what you are saying has to do with this issue. Dream Focus 08:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias?

Why is there a page only for Japanese history textbook contreversies and not for America, China, Russia, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presentime (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Because for the last 40 years, Chinese nationalists have used it as a stick to beat Japan. No reparations or apologies matter to them. A few words in a textbook used in a handful of schools and they are demonstrating in the streets about how evil Japan is. Meanwhile Chinese textbooks tell complete fictions about the glories of the CCP, Mao, how evil foreigners raped China, etc, etc. Nothing about what China did to Tibet, Xinjiang. Nothing about tens of millions killed by Mao's insane policies and purges. China is innocent; Japan is evil. 202.81.248.169 (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

whataboutism toobigtokale (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

well.. "because the others did it" isnt really a good excuse? be better, strive to be better. Being open about one's own failures or even here about the failures of one's country is the first necessary step to avoid repeating it. Even if it is uncomfortable. I mean its not like you did it- yeah, it may be hard and uncomfortable seeing maybe your own grandpa with new eyes.. (I know ere that was problems, there was even a book titled "grandpa was no nazi" I know my one grandma was one, always the conformist. That's what it is. pointing fingers at other still means you are pointing more fingers at yourself. If You want you could look up whether there were controversies over those book and do an article about that? 2A02:8109:1A40:24D0:926:2189:D0D8:225A (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of Minor Changes

I have changed the sentence which read: "Saburo Ienaga was a Japanese historian infamous for controversies regarding school history textbooks" to "Saburo Ienaga was a Japanese historian known partly for his involvement in controversies regarding school history textbooks."

The reason for the change, I assume all agree, is obvious: "Infamous" is defined as "well known for some bad quality or deed," "wicked, abominable," etc. I think perhaps the writer means to say "famous," but even this is inappropriate, I think, as it is generally used in a different context.

On another point, I sympathize with the 26 May 2013 comment above about the lopsided focus on historical revisionism by misguided nationalists in Japan when it is most certainly carried out, often more vigorously or insidiously, by misguided nationalists in many other countries. Perhaps everyone interested in contributing this subject might take the time first to consider how this more general issue can be presented on Wikipedia on a way that does not seem to single out one country.--Gunnermanz (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Stephen E. Ambrose

I wonder if this sentence should really belong as it is:

" Reflecting Japanese tendency towards self-favoring historical revisionism, historian Stephen E. Ambrose noted that "The Japanese presentation of the war to its children runs something like this: 'One day, for no reason we ever understood, the Americans started dropping atomic bombs on us.'" "

Looking at the entry for Ambrose, it seems that not only are his methods pretty controversial (accusations of plagiarism and inventing stories), but he seems like a pretty big nationalist himself. Perhaps he doesn't belong on this page, or perhaps at least he should be qualified with a description longer than simply "historian."126.6.212.130 (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Japanese history textbook controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200512/200512130027.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213055240/http://www.chosunonline.com/article/20060115000017 to http://www.chosunonline.com/article/20060115000017
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327074602/http://www.usip.org/events/2007/kasahara.pdf to http://www.usip.org/events/2007/kasahara.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050906080746/http://www.tsukurukai.com/05_rekisi_text/rekishi_English/English.pdf to http://www.tsukurukai.com/05_rekisi_text/rekishi_English/English.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Japanese history textbook controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060404232631/http://www.mext.go.jp/english/org/formal/16.htm to http://www.mext.go.jp/english/org/formal/16.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050220025012/http://www.usjp.org/jpeducation/TextbookAuthorizationSystem.htm to http://www.usjp.org/jpeducation/TextbookAuthorizationSystem.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427061043/http://www.jkcf.or.jp/history/ to http://www.jkcf.or.jp/history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Japanese history textbook controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041210140041/http://web12.cri.com.cn/english/2001/Apr/13714.htm to http://web12.cri.com.cn/english/2001/Apr/13714.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509043351/http://www.jkcf.or.jp/history/all_k.pdf to http://www.jkcf.or.jp/history/all_k.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225181009/http://iis-db.stanford.edu/res/2260/Divided-Memory_In-house_2008.pdf to http://iis-db.stanford.edu/res/2260/Divided-Memory_In-house_2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

"Textbook Scandal" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Textbook Scandal and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#Textbook Scandal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)