 |
|
Dialogues@RU is published
annually
by the
Writing Program at
Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey
Volume Two
Spring 2003
Rape of Nanking -
Page 3
by Jennifer Butt
Although since the 1980s Japanese textbooks have begun to include a few sentences regarding the Rape of Nanking, this inclusion can hardly be deemed an improvement. On closer inspection such passages reveal a consistent pattern of grammar and language that isolate knowledge of the Rape from Japan and the Japanese people, resulting in the inability of Japanese youth to "critically respond in an informed manner to denials within modern Japanese society that this atrocity took place" (Barnard 519). In a study which examines eighty-eight history textbooks approved by the Japanese Ministry of Education and subsequently implemented in Japanese high schools in 1995, Barnard analyzes the textbooks' systemic grammatical usage and concludes that "the historiography of the textbooks tells far less than the frank truth" and that "what we see in the language of the textbooks is a reluctant telling of what has to be told" (527). Specifically, Barnard's analysis finds that the isolation of knowledge of the Rape from Japan and Japanese people is implemented through three tactics: the manipulation of language to create a clear disparity between the portrayals of victims and perpetrators, the deflection of criticism away from the perpetrators, and the creation of a distinction of the Japanese army from the Japanese people. The portrayal of the victims and perpetrators is consistent throughout Japanese textbooks in that "the victims are present at an individual human level, but the perpetrators are present only at an organisational level" (Barnard 523), as seen in the following example, translated from a Japanese textbook: "The Japanese army, having occupied Nanking in December at the conclusion of fierce fighting, slaughtered a large number of Chinese civilians" (Barnard 523). This example represents passages common throughout Japanese textbooks in that the author injects a certain amount of ambiguity and vagueness about the perpetrators of the Rape by labeling them as "the Japanese army" rather than "the Japanese people." Barnard notes that "in the whole corpus of 88 textbooks, there is only one textbook that ascribes the killing to the 'soldiers' of the Japanese Army, i. e., Japanese 'people'" (523). While supporters of such textbooks might consider noting the absence of the phrase "the Japanese people" in textbooks as overcritical, such an analysis is warranted because the "Japanese people not being at Nanking is but part of a pattern of ignoring Japanese involvement in the Rape of Nanking . . . [and] one major result of this pattern is that the links between the events at Nanking and Japanese society at the time, as well as the links between the Japan of 1937-38 and of today, are severed" (Barnard 524). Such language usage also raises questions about why students are given a grammatically manipulated historical account of the Rape, and if they can or will identify what is not in the texts, given the extent of revisionists' vehement campaigns of denial. The prevailing notion present in textbooks-that the Japanese army as an organization, rather than Japanese soldiers, were at Nanking-lays the groundwork for deflecting criticism away from Japanese soldiers and individuals. If the Japanese army is solely responsible for the Rape of Nanking, criticism, therefore, can only be directed towards the army and the incident, as seen in the following example translated from a Japanese textbook:
The Japanese army, during a period of several weeks, inside and outside the city of Nanking killed a large number of Chinese people, including women. That number, including prisoners of war, is estimated to be one hundred and some tens of thousands. This incident, known as the Nanking Massacre, was the focus of criticism from a number of foreign countries, but the Japanese people were not informed of the fact. (Barnard 525)
In this passage, the authors accomplish two things in the last sentence, the first being to draw a distinction between the Japanese army and the Japanese people. It is illogical to say that the Japanese people were not informed of the Rape when those who led and carried out the atrocities of the Rape were themselves Japanese people. There ought to be, therefore, no distinction made between the Japanese army and Japanese people, for the mere presence of such a distinction suggests the desire to place blame upon an isolated group or organization, rather than on actual people. The second implication of this example is that Japan was a victim-as the target of an international attack about an incident that the Japanese people had no knowledge of, and which was discussed in the international community among foreigners who were, presumably, anti-Japanese (Barnard 527). Such a portrayal of Japan is consistent with the revisionist belief that Japan was the target of injustice and fabricated stories "by the Allies, which was a part of their administration of 'victors' justice' to the Japanese" (527). Barnard concludes his study with the claim that "the question[ing] [of] the brutality of Japanese aggression, together with the teaching of a type of history that shies away from pinning down the responsibility for the atrocity, creates a climate of opinion that allows the historical fact of the Rape of Nanking to be either held up to questioning, or at least its magnitude to be doubted" (527).