Student textbooks under fire

教科書検定と国際共存

    Two things are particularly notable with regard to neighboring Asian nations such as South Korea and China. First, descriptions of Japan's wartime actions have been simplified or softened. Second, the government's views are reflected in censors' explanatory references to territorial issues.

    History textbooks no longer mention ianfu (comfort women) — a controversial term that refers to women who were forced to provide sex for Japanese soldiers during World War II. Some texts use roundabout expressions, such as "those who were sent to comfort facilities."

    Indirect expressions are used to describe Koreans who were forced to work in Japan during the war. The word "kyousei" (forced) is nowhere to be found. Texts that refer to those Koreans say that they were "brought to Japan."

    On the issues of colonial rule and war, censors offer much the same opinion as before. Referring to the original text edited by a nationalist-minded publisher, whose history textbooks have drawn sharp reactions from South Korea, they maintain that descriptions about wartime colonies "might create misunderstandings" and that the text "describes only the damage suffered by Japanese."

    The screening system is designed to check privately edited textbooks on the basis of commonly accepted academic views. Since views such as those on the colonization of Korea and other wartime activities remain essentially unchanged, censors' opinions should remain unchanged.

    Yet screening officials took a different approach to territorial issues. They altered a reference to the Takeshima (Tokdo in Korean) islets to reflect a government view. That publisher's text on civics said "there is confrontation between South Korea and Japan over the territorial rights involving the Takeshima (Tokdo) islets."

    The official comment was that the statement "might cause misunderstandings." So it was rephrased as: "Although Takeshima is an integral part of Japanese territory, it is unlawfully occupied by South Korea."

    A similar change was made in references to the Senkaku (Diaoyu in Chinese) Islands, which are claimed by Japan, China and Taiwan. The corrected passages say the islands are "an integral part of Japanese territory."

    These new versions are likely to provoke further reactions from South Korea and other Asian nations because they are based on the government's views. The government must be careful not to bring territorial disputes into the classroom. These problems should be resolved by the government. Politicians, not teachers, should work out solutions.

    One wonders whether Education Minister Nariaki Nakayama and other ministry officials are trying seriously enough to improve relations with our Asian neighbors. Their comments, which often seem more provocative than conciliatory, could not make things any worse. In November last year, Mr. Nakayama said, "It is really good that there are fewer references (in textbooks) to juugun ianfu (comfort women for soldiers) and kyousei renkou (being taken away for forced labor)." He later said he was expressing his personal view. More recently, he said the ministry's curriculum guidelines should state clearly that Takeshima and Senkaku belong to Japan.

    Textbook screening must be neutral. This is ensured by officials making decisions in accordance with academics' objective views. If textbooks are politicized, confidence in the screening system will be lost.

    It is certainly important to teach children about history, but a first essential step in history education is to make them think about how Japan should live peacefully with neighboring nations.

    If state censorship of textbooks is contributing to frictions between nations, it should be abolished. That is not an impossible proposition. In fact, most Western nations do not have a censorship system.

    The importance of "living together," of respecting each other, cannot be overemphasized in the increasingly interdependent world in which we live. That should be the central message of history and civics textbooks.

The Japan Times Weekly
April 16, 2005
(C) All rights reserved

      検定に合格した歴史教科書では、戦時中の日本の朝鮮半島、中国における行動に関する記述が簡略化された。公民教科書では、領土問題に関する政府の見解が教科用図書検定調査審議会の意見に反映された。

      歴史教科書は従軍慰安婦に関する記述を省略し、朝鮮人の「強制労働」に関する記述を間接表現でぼかしている。

      審議会は、申請本の朝鮮植民地支配についての記述は誤解の原因になる部分があり、日本人の被害のみを扱っているとの意見を付けた。

      公民教科書では、竹島に関して「韓国とわが国で領有権をめぐって対立している」という原文に、審議会が「領有権について誤解するおそれがある」との意見を付け、結局「わが国固有の領土であるが、韓国が不法占拠している」と修正された。

      日本、中国、台湾が領有権を争っている尖閣諸島についての記述にも同様の変更がなされ、諸島は「日本固有の領土」と明記された。

      修正された教科書は、韓国などの近隣諸国から強い反発を招くだろう。政府は領土紛争を教室に持ち込まず、外交交渉で決着させるべきだ。

      文部科学省は、真剣に近隣諸国との関係改善を図っているとは思えない。中山文科相は昨年11月、教科書に従軍慰安婦、強制労働に関する記述が減っているのは良いことだと述べた。また氏は、文科省の学習指導要綱は、竹島、尖閣は日本の領土であることを明示すべきだとも述べている。

      教科書検定制度は中立でなければならない。教科書検定が政治問題化すれば、制度に対する信頼が失われる。

      教科書検定制度が国際紛争の原因になるのであれば廃止すべきである。国際共存は相互依存性を強めている世界で最重要問題であり、それが歴史、公民教科書の中心的思想であるべきだ。