In the Japan Times, essayist Hiroaki Sato pens a provocative look at the manner in which South Korea and China manipulate the history issue in the name of political expediency:
China’s overt hostility to Japan is as contrived as its “smile diplomacy” once was. South Korea’s increasing stridency toward Japan may be equally contrived, but at least, as analyzed by the Kansai report, South Korea has a reason for which I have much sympathy: a desire for unification with its severed northern half. That, according to one of the scholars cited in the Kansai report, compels it to turn against Japan and, of course, against the United States.
Such political expediencies are part and parcel of history, any history. And, as everyone knows, the history of relations between Japan, China and Korea is long and complex. I, for one, don’t need to be told by the Kansai report that Korea’s irrepressible resentment of Japan may be derived from its view of itself as the legitimate avatar of China, cultural values and all, while Japan is considered no more than one of the Middle Kingdom’s outer tributaries.
I fondly remember reading a report from a Korean embassy in the mid-Edo Period (1600-1868) that graphically describes utter Korean disdain for Japan and, I must add, the Japanese willingness to go along with it. And the outlier dared trample upon the rightful heir — not just once, but twice, three times!
When it comes to Japan’s alleged historical revisionism or recalcitrancy, for which The New York Times, for one, loves to take Japan to task, one can only say: Everything is relative. China’s history textbooks are so one-sided that the Wall Street Journal once felt compelled to do a front-page article on the matter. South Korea apparently is not far behind.
In this regard, the Kansai report’s citing Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy of history — that only with the “spirit” can a historian construct a history of his nation — may backfire. Historians of China and Korea do just that, albeit in somewhat outlandish ways.
Most of what Sato points out is true, of course. Korea’s resentment of Japan is natural—nations generally do not enjoy being invaded and colonized by other nations, particularly their neighbors (ask the Irish)—but the ill-will is heightened by the fact that for so long, Korea considered itself vastly superior to “semi-barbarian” Japan (whether or not that was actually the case is another question). I can also speculate that some may be fanning the flames of anti-Japanese sentiment as a way of finding commonality with the North, which will never be accused of being soft on Tokyo.
And it goes without saying, of course, that China’s right to complain about Japanese historical distortions is somewhat compromised by the nature of its own textbooks.
Now, having said that all, none of it would excuses a Japanese attempt to rewrite its own history in a way that whitewashes its colonial past or its wartime aggression. Just because China and Korea—and the West, for that matter (see here and here)—would be better served concentrating their efforts confronting their own historical myths rather than complaining about Japan’s doesn’t mean its OK for Japan to cover up its own history. After all, do the Japanese really want to benchmark the PRC model of historical and educational honesty?
Japan would be well within its rights to ignore Chinese, Korean and Western complaints about its textbooks, but it should want to tell future generations of Japanese the truth of its past for its own sake.
19 Comments
Robert Wrote:
Where did that conclusion come from, Robert? The article was not suggesting that Japan is within its right to whitewash its own history. You seem to have pulled that out of the clear, blue sky.
I do not understand the point you are trying to make, Robert? Are you trying to say that since the writer is Japanese, he has no right to critize Korean and Japanese history textbooks and education since the Japanese also whitewash their own history?
Robert wrote:
A stupid and pointless question.
Robert wrote:
Instead of dealing with the subject of the article, Robert, you seem to be trying to sidetrack it. If you want to talk about Japanese textbook distortions, then talk about them, but please provide some examples instead of vague, unsupported accusations.
I think you, Robert, along with many others, have been so conditioned by the media and academia in Korea that you just assume Japanese textbooks are distorted without really knowing a damn thing about them.
Correction: “he has no right to critize Korean and Chinese history textbooks and education…?
Read the end of the piece, Gerry. BTW, wasn’t it kind of cute that he chalked up Korean resentment to traditional Korean scorn for Japan? I guess three decades of imperial rule had nothing to do with it.
No. What I argued was that just because Koreans, Chinese and the West lie about their own histories wouldn’t make it OK for Japan to do it.
Was it, Gerry?
I didn’t say Japan was. I just said it shouldn’t —and yes, with the Prime Minister visiting the Yasukuni Shrine, education ministers spouting off things like this, Taro Aso as foreign minister and Shinzo Abe as a potential replacement for Koizumi, there’s room for concern. I also wanted to make it clear what I thought about “China and Korea do it” arguments.
If you say so, Gerry.
So, if it had not been for those three decades of administration, Korea would have abandoned its centuries-long scorn and resentment of Japan?
With the exception of his stated agreement to Chalmers Johnson’s anti-US military view, this may be the closest I’ve come to agreement with an essay on the NE Asian political climate. First of all I don’t think it’s possible for Japan to entreat its neighbors effectively; they simply will not be moved. Second, contrary to Huntington’s belief that Japan is Sino-cultural in nature and must inevitably side with their cultural parent, I think Japan is one of the most practical, independent-minded centers of thought on the globe. Fundamentally, I would put them closer culturally to the US than any other place. Japan will do what needs to be done for Japan. (As anti-profound as it seems many other Asians nations won’t do the same).
If Sato was building up to a way of taking pressure off of Japan for its historical revision, I didn’t see it. In fact, the implication I saw in his writing was that he fully accepts that Japanese revisionism exists and is a problem but he sees it as 1. a natural phenomenon in no greater proportion than anywhere else in the world, 2. existing in response to a precursor source of revision originating in China, mainly, and Korea, and 3. with that natural phenomenon accepted as is its presence in Japan is being unduly highlighted by more guilty parties (concerning revisionism) and that hypocrisy is the true cause of political instability in the region not the alleged revisionism of Japan.
The point Sato makes concerning Yasukuni, I think, is a critical one. Keying in on the supposed “legality” of the Tokyo Trials, as if to say other acts of war not bound by that ex post facto authority are not to be judged by the same standard, shows how much of a hypocrisy the Yasukuni charges really are. I was in Yasukuni back in ‘98 and I think Kushibo has done a really great job on his site of detailing a lot of the real meanings behind some of the memorials there; however, to throw the entire Shinto religion into the cultural dumpster based on a mistaken (IMHO) reverence/fear of these war criminals’ spirits is a terrible mistake. To put Koizumi and Taro Aso in the same grouping too is a mistake, I believe. A critical mind would notice that Koizumi has never made the same inflammatory remarks, doesn’t have the past of the other, and accepts his visits to Yasukuni as recognizing both the good and bad in his nation’s history. Personally, I think Koizumi’s perspective on history is the single healthiest I have seen out of an Asian leader other than Aung San Suu Kyi. Its dramatic contrariness to other Asian leaders leads them to misunderstand, perhaps willingly, his intentions.
To sum up, I believe that pre-Meiji Chinese and Korean views of Japan are responsible for Chinese and Korean ideas towards Japan today. In that I fully agree with Sato. Its colonial activities, whatever the truth might be there, are merely scapegoats for a pre-existing hatred born of elitism. To have good relations with Japan those culturally inborn prejudices must be “educated” out of the respective societies of Japan’s neighbors. There is very little Japan can do to further that process, it lies within the responsibility of Korean and Chinese societies.
The problem is Koreans(and Chinese) are simply afraid of people who are different and get angry when people have different view than their own. People like Han Seung-jo and Cho Yeong-nam who express pro-Japanese views generally get ostracized and even have to quit their jobs. They just don’t seem to understand that people have the right to present a dissenting viewpoint and that intellectual freedom is a very important part of any advanced society. Taiwan was ruled by Japan for 50years but young Taiwanese people are not going around hating Japan because history textbook teach students objectively to understand the good side and bad side of the history.
I know this is horribly anecdotal: But I spent a few weeks of May in Japan visiting friends. And the “mood on the ground” towards Korea and China was getting less and less accomidating. In fact, it was getting down-right… um… Well, you know the level of hate and bile that right-wingers tend to spew out towards other nations that don’t step in line like France, Germany, Canada and the like? It was that level of negativity. I figure that the next generation of Japanese govenrment is going to start taking hardline stances towards their neighbors.
Which seems like the intent of China and the two Koreas: Don’t got an enemy to unify your people with? Make one! (Neo-Cons have taught the world much)
William_G, that’s exactly the sort of thing I’m afraid of. I don’t see how a de-militarized, pacifist country can watch its neighbors grow increasingly militant, fanning their nationalism, and not do something about it. I fear an irrational, albeit defenseive, response by the younger Japanese generations to the hatred they perceive in their neighbors. You are right that Korean and China are doing a fantastic job of making an enemy out one that wasn’t there to begin with.
dogbertt,
Yes. Robert is correct.
Without Japanese occupation, Koreans may feel resentment about Japan’s invasions in 18th century but those could have been forgotten. However, Japan’s evil occupation of Korea from 1910-1945 and ensuing irradication of Korean culture, identy and dignity cannot be forgotten or forgiven. The evil act came with horrible racial oppression against Koreans.
About the Japanese masterbation (the article quoted), I feel sad. This is 21st century and all three countries, CJK, are stuck somewhere in the 18th century. All three hate the other two and cannot tolerate them. Horribly backward in their thinking, the only outcome is a war.
In the future, after the devastation of the war, Northeast Asians will suddenly realize they had been childrens; they were busy measuring their penis sizes when more important things like cultural exchanges, tolerance and honesty were pushed aside. They had been fools!
There are some lessons only wars can teach. Ergo, the wind of war is blowing in Northeast Asia.
The Chinese are old-fashioned and stuborn people. Very difficult to change. Most concerned with getting next meal (they are into eating- ultimate value system in their minds) and low value placed on education, they are slow and stupid people.
The Japanese are into “killing the competition”. The small island culture made them into vicious people who like to subjugate others by force. Survival of the fittest. Always eager to show that they are the best. Very difficult people to get along, unless you have the upper hand. If they see you are stronger, they will bend over backward and be your servants.
Koreans are just clueless. Stuck between two idiots, they vacillate between them. In the position to take advantage of the best characteristics of two countries, it always ends up learning the worst ones. Just another village idiot.
These three deserve the others. China, Japan, Korea. The parade of fools. Soon to suffer the worst war (the first nuclear war) in human history.
So… hows the lottery predictions coming along?
Baduk,
What 18th-century invasions are you talking about? The Tokugawa bakufu actually took care to profusely apologize to Korea for Hideyoshi’s misdeeds and not to further offend Korean sensibilities?
is anyone surprised that the expat, so full of charisma, tries to excuse japanese behavior?
Korea the legitimate avatar of China? That is brutal.
is anyone surprised that the expat, so full of charisma, tries to excuse japanese behavior?
It’s true! It’s true!
And if Korean porn would get as good as the Japanese stuff, we’d be more than happy to support Korea in everything it does.
Is anyone surprised that unfounded Korean arrogance has been the root of problems for centuries?
Sorry, Robert. I was in a foul mood when I wrote my post above. Nevertheless, you seemed to be reading more into the article than was there.
Over the past six or seven years, Koreans seem to have taken almost every opportunity to try to piss off Japan and the US. Why? Do they do it as a way to win favors with China and North Korea? Do they do it because they lack confidence and such actions give them some? Or have they become so overconfident and cocky that they feel they can say “screw you” without suffering any bad reprecussions? Or is it just some kind of “yangban complex” that makes them so arrogant?
I am not sure what it was like in Korea in the late 1890s and early 1900s, but I have witnessed many things in Korea since the late 1990s that me wonder if Koreans, themselves, have not been responsible for much of their suffering over the centuries.
I do not know if Japan and Korea will someday come to blows, as many Koreans believe, but I do think the anti-Japanese actions and attitudes in both Koreas are largely responsible for Japan’s moving away from its peace constitution. If someday there is a war between Japan and the two Koreas, I wonder if Korean history books 100 years from now will remember to mention the part that Korea played in creating the atmosphere for it?
Hiroaki Sato seems to be suggesting that Korea’s long-time animosity toward Japan is contrived, arising in part because Korea has long considered itself superior to Japan. An example of this is given when he tells us that even 400 years ago, there was disdain toward Japan:
He doesn’t give a specific date for this report he “fondly remembers,” but much of the first half of the “mid-Edo Period” would be within the memory of living witnesses of the so-called Imjin Waeran, a seven-year Japanese invasion of Korea that devasted the peninsula with massive loss of life and destruction (not to mention that the military and financial failure led to the takeover by Tokugawa) or their children and grandchildren who would have heard stories directly from survivors.
In other words, citing a report of Korean disdain toward Japan from that period would hardly be an example of a natural Korean dislike for Japan based merely on Korea feeling it was Japan’s “senior” in the Sinocentric world order.
Chalmers Johnson — author of “MITI and the Japanese Miracle” and, more recently, “Blowback” and “The Sorrows of Empire” — urges, for the stability of East Asia, that Japan abandon its military alliance with the U.S. and strengthen its ties to South Korea and China.I agree with him. But as long as the “unfriendly” stance toward Japan remains the national policy of those two countries, the efforts the two proposals suggest for Japan, such as promoting people’s diplomacy, are unlikely to do much “Toward Better Japanese-Chinese and Japanese-Korean Relations,” as the Kansai report’s subtitle advocates.
I read this essay as a foreign policy recommendation. Sato is arguing, that historical revisionism favoring nationalistic interpretations is hampering East Asian diplomatic unity. From an IR perspective, the status of domestic factors, like history, in understanding alliances is disputed. IR Liberals would accept debates such as Sato’s at face value, as would Constructivists. But, as a Realist, it’s merely an effect of a deeper cause. I’m more concerned about developing universal theories of alliance-building, for which often cultural and historical arguments are a red herring. There are numerous proposals for East Asian alliances, and all of them have cultural and hisotrical support. Culture and history are completely unhelpful to a lasting solution to East Asia’s destiny.
I’ll just mention two other proposals to supplement the Johnson recommendation. There’s Brzezinski’s in The Grand Chessboard arguing that the US recognize Beijing’s regional hegemony and give Tokyo a global role, including a normal military one, commensurate to its economic heft. And, there’s also Cha’s quasi-alliance proposal, that recommends an explicit triangular alliance between the US, Japan, and ROK to replace the current Us-Japan and US-ROK treaties.
I also would point out, that DPRK, ROK, and PRC criticism of Japan did not start until the 80s notably with PM Nakasone’s search for normality. Before that, Japan, and the rest of NE Asia, were content with the Yoshida Doctrine, streessing economic diplomacy and US hegemony. Irredentist claims, with the exception of the Kuriles dispute between Moscow and Tokyo, to Takeshima/Dokdo and Senkaku/Daioyu also started quite recently.
The historical alarm was the end of the Cold War, and the problems that end pose for East Asia. Europe can point to the end of Yalta when the Berlin Wall fell, but East Asian diplomacy was covered under the 1951 San Fransisco Treaty. Interestingly, that treaty postponed every island claim now back up for grabs, including the Spratleys, Dokdo/Takeshima, Senkaku/Daioyu, Kuriles, and Taiwan to a future date. It’s now the future! The problem is not history, but the 1951 Treaty. As in Europe with Yalta, San Fransisco must end. That means the signatories to SF, which excluded PRC and Russia, must reconvene and revisit all the points the Korean War made too controversial for them to deal with.
Short of that, it’s just a bite here and there out of the 1951 treaty by anyone with a gun for as long as it takes for one country to establish military hegemony in the region. History is fascinating, but it also is manipulable. It also is not as important as power.