  Controversial history textbook that goes against truth and peace -- Akahata editorial, April 9, 2005The Fundamental Law of Education states, "We shall esteem individual dignity and endeavor to create people who love truth and peace." This accords with the wish of the general public. However, the Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Ministry approved a school textbook that distorts history to justify the Japanese war of aggression and colonization. The history textbook in question was authored by Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform members who praise the Japanese war of aggression and call for an adverse constitutional revision. It will be published by Fusosha, a Fuji-Sankei group company. In violation of textbook examination rules, Fusosha carried out sales promotion activities even before its textbook passed the examination. The ministry gave a stern warning to the publisher. Deep-seated justification of aggression The biggest problem with this Fusosha textbook is that it praises the Japanese war of aggression. In the section entitled "The Greater East Asia War (the Pacific War)," it states: "Japan declared war against the United States and Britain, proclaiming that the war was for survival and self-defense. The Japanese government named the war the Greater East Asia War." This is no more than a description of the argument the government maintained at the time, but it clearly accepts the logic of the imperial government as valid. The textbook uses the term the "Greater East Asia War" because the authors believe that the war served the purposes of "survival and self-defense" as well as the establishment of a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" that the imperial government promoted. The textbook further states that Japan's aggression against the Southeast Asian countries helped these countries achieve independence from Western colonial powers. The Japanese imperial government's war of aggression against South-east Asia was not only aimed at plundering resources but at expanding its "territory." It sought to replace the Western powers as the ruler of the area. Arguing that Japan contributed to Asian countries' independence is tantamount to glorifying the war of aggression. While pretending to be objective, the textbook contains a number of descriptions that justify the imperial government's logic. Concerning Japan's "annexation of Korea" in 1910, the textbook states, "The Japanese government believed that annexation of Korea was necessary for Japan's security and its interests in Manchuria (Northeast China)." Although it acknowledges that the annexation was carried out "using armed forces," it writes that there was no major international criticism of this, as if the Japanese government's "plan" was accepted internationally. The textbook actually asserts that "annexing Korea" was inevitable. As regards the so-called "Manchurian incident" of 1931, which marked the start of Japan's invasion of Northeast China, the textbook asserts that the Kanto Army was mainly responsible for this and mentions nothing about Emperor Showa's responsibility for commending the aggression and even encouraging the army. Praising the Japanese puppet regime of "Manchukuo," which represented Japan's colonization, it states that "Manchukuo" achieved remarkable economic growth with the help of Japanese heavy industries making inroads under the slogans of "co-existence of the five nationals (Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, Manchurians, and Mongolians)" aimed at constructing a land of "rule of virtue and paradise." Thus the textbook is consistent in praising the war of aggression and Japan's colonial rule in Asia. This is the reason why it does not mention the historical facts of the wartime sex slaves and the Nanjing Massacre which reveal the extreme inhumane nature of the Japanese Imperial Army. Japan can only create friendly relations with Asia and the rest of the world when it expresses remorse for its war of aggression and its colonial rule of Asia and firmly resolves that it will never repeat the same mistake. The textbook does the opposite. This is why we need to criticize such an attempt at distortion, using historic facts and reason. (end) |