This was a News Post on soc.culture.japan.
Though I see no reason to do so, I replace the first name of the posters
by FIRSTNAME. And email account by EMAIL.
Xref: news6.cis.umn.edu soc.culture.japan:99014
Path: umn.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!usc!chi-news.cic.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!gol2!gol1!usenet
From: EMAIL@gol.com (FIRSTNAME_2 Friedman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan
Subject: FIRSTNAM_1 Debunked: Japan's Denials
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 1995 08:52:07 GMT
Organization: Global OnLine Japan (+81-3-5330-9385)
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <4785ki$iso@gol1.gol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp52-154.gol.com
tanaka@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (FIRSTNAME_1 Tomoyuki) wrote:
>you seem to be suffering from a common American misconception,
>that "Japan sweeps history under the carpet."
>here's a section from a FAQ file:
>(revised for the next version.)
> US media is trying to spread these notions:
> (i) the Japanese government is trying to distort its history
> regarding its invasions in the WW2.
> (ii) Japan is trying to make its young ignorant of its shameful
> past or to impart to them a distorted version of history.
My response to FIRSTNAM_1 will follow the paths of two recent events, the
Diet "apology" and controversy over Japan's annexation of Korea in
1910. To immediately debunk his theory that the U.S. media is
spreading these notions, I used Japanese sources wherever possible.
The non-Japanese source which I did use is highly respected and
verifiable from Japanese sources. FIRSTNAM_1 has propounded that the
Japanese government doesn't sweep history under the rug, doesn't deny
or distort history, and doesn't try to impart these beliefs upon young
Japanese. He argues that these beliefs are "misconceptions" created
by a biased U.S. media. In addition he has stated that Prime Minister
Murayama's apology over Japan's actions in World War II was
"uniformly" accepted.
First we must realize that there are two Murayama "apologies," the
first was the resolution which was passed by the Diet on June 9, 1995,
and the second in a personal speech made by Murayama on August 15,
1995. We know these are both Murayama's handiwork because Murayama
made a public commitment to pass a Diet resolution, and, from a
wording and phraseology standpoint, there are a number of similarities
between the two. By taking a look at the controversy over the
passage of Murayama's first "apology," we can see that there is less
than "uniform" acceptance, as well as proof of distortions/denials of
history.
A resolution entitled "A motion on a Renewed Resolve for Peace Founded
on the Lessons of History" was passed on the night of June 9, 1995.
This was a watershed event, but it failed to clearly acknowledge
Japan's guilt, its key sentence "Recalling many acts of aggression and
colonial rule in modern world history, we recognize and express deep
remorse for these kinds of actions carried out by our country in the
past." If there was "uniform" acceptance than why did The Daily
Yomiuri report "Major opposition party Shinshinto (New Frontier
Party) submitted a no-confidence motion against the Cabinet of Prime
Minister Tomiichi Murayama to protest the ruling coalition's passage
last Friday of a Diet resolution marking the end of World War II."
(The Daily Yomiuri, Tuesday, June 13, 1995, p.1) The day before
"...some LDP and Shinshinto groups which oppose the Diet resolution
held meetings Wednesday to confirm their position. An association of
Shinshinto Diet members headed by Tatsuo Ozawa adopted a statement
saying its members ‘strongly oppose' the resolution..." (The Daily
Yomiuri, Thursday June 8, 1995, p.1) According to The Daily Yomiuri
the purpose of the "apology" was "...simply to protect their
[politicians] position, without heeding reactions at home and overseas
or looking into the significance of historical facts." (The Daily
Yomiuri, Friday, June 9, 1995, p.13) This is slightly less than
"uniform."
One gets a clear view of the tendency of Japan's leaders to deny, or
at least distort, history when the situation surrounding the
annexation of Korea in 1910 is examined. On October 5 Prime Minister
Murayama said: "In form, the treaty [Korean Annexation Treaty] existed
LAWFULLY, (emphasis added). He then when on to say that "I don't have
enough material (evidence) to say whether there was threat and
intimidation (by Japan against Korea) at that time." (Japan Times,
Saturday, October 14, 1995, p.1) On June 3 the late LDP bigwig and
former Foreign Minister Michio Watanabe set off a firestorm by
declaring Japan's annexation of Korea "peaceful." He later clarified
his position, stating "The 1910 treaty of annexation with Korea was
concluded under the historical conditions of the time, including
international relationships and the like." (The Daily Yomiuri,
Wednesday, June 7, 1995, p.1) These two examples show that two
politicians, from opposite side of the political spectrum, hold the
same warped sense of history.
The truth is that the treaty might have been legal in the strictest
interpretation, but that doesn't change the fact that it was virtually
imposed at gunpoint, and there is no lack of evidence to show this to
be true. Under those circumstances the treaty WOULD NOT have been
valid, as coercion was used to gain its "approval." Korea lost all
semblance of an independent country on February 23, 1904, fully 6
years before the "official" annexation. According to W.G. Beasly in
Japanese Imperialism, 1894-1945, "Against a background of substantial
Japanese troop movements northward from the Korean capital...[Japan]
secured an agreement on 23 February 1904 by which the Korean
government promised to place ‘full confidence' in that of Japan; to
accept advice concerning administrative reform; to afford facilities
for any action Japan found it necessary to take to protect Korea from
external attack or ‘internal disturbances'; and to authorize Japanese
occupation of ‘such places as may be necessary from strategical points
of view.' In return, Japan guaranteed Korea's independence and
territorial integrity (presumably against everyone else)." p. 86
These examples show clearly, once again, that FIRSTNAM_1 is dangerous,
opinionated, arrogant, and just plain incorrect. So, it is very clear
that denial/ distortion of history is, and has been, taking place.
These things are not being manufactured by the "anti-Japanese" U.S.
media, they are being created by Japanese. A final thought... What
about the comfort woman issue? The Japanese government refused to
admit to its existence for many years, only admitting it when old
Imperial Government records were leaked to outside researchers. Would
anyone catagorize this as the honest dissemination, acknowledgment, or
evaluation of historical information?
FIRSTNAME_2 Friedman
EMAIL@gol.com
HTTP://www2.gol.com/users/EMAIL