in article 2tc49qF1u2dvgU1@uni-berlin.de, Hibijibi at km34@columbia.edu
wrote on 10/16/04 5:26 PM:

>> m.yoshida pointed out...
>>> As an interesting perspective, see this:
>>> http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/Askew.html
> 
> That's a great article.  How Mr. Schaal could interpret the author's purpose
> as being "obviously" politically-motivated is beyond my comprehension. If
> you think *that* is biased...

I made the interpretation based upon the language used and the arguments
made. It was clear to me from the article that the author thought the topic
was important because of the political effects it was having in
Sino-Japanese relations. The general tone of the article was that the
Chinese were the only ones unreasonable and emotional about the topic.
 
> "Ernest Schaal" replied...
>> I checked out the article, which discusses the history of research in the
>> Rape of Nanking. While obviously written to discount the Chinese version of
>> the Rape of Nanking, it does not do a convincing job of supporting the
>> Japanese Right Wing version either. It discusses the Chinese politics that
>> taints the Chinese version, but is almost silent on the corresponding
>> Japanese politics that taints the Japanese version. It clearly does not
>> support the position of Kaz et al. that "the Japanese were gentle in China."
> 
> The problem is there is no critical thinking or discourse in China with
> respect to politics.  Japanese scholars are also politically biased in one
> way or other, but to go against the political status quo in China is to risk
> everything; a fact which must be accounted for in comparing historical
> interpretations.

While I would agree with you that discourse in China is biased by political
mandate, the same is also occurring in Japan.

>> At the end of the article, he made four conclusions. The first is that the
>> topic is a controversial one. The second is that too many Japanese
>> researchers are too ignorant of the facts. The third is that historians have
>> an obligation to examine the calmly. The fourth is that a dialogue between
>> historians working on the "Nanjing Incident" needs to be promoted. It clearly
>> does not support the position of Kaz et al. that "the Japanese were gentle in
>> China."
> 
> The second conclusion was not that Japanese researchers are ignorant of the
> facts, but rather, that too many Japanese researchers were not aware just
> how important a role the Nanking Massacre plays in Chinese national
> identity.  Just as archeologists need to show respect for the dead when
> uncovering a burial ground, historians need to show respect for China's
> fallen (because if they don't, they won't even be able to study it).

As the author stated, "Indeed, I strongly believe that human beings have to
come to  terms with the 'real' past and accept it, and that it is more
dangerous (at least in the long term) to found national identity on a lie
than to discover the truth and  live with it." That statement could
accurately describe the situation both in Japan and in China.
 
>> I must admit to reservations about the author (a gaijin scholar working in a
>> Japanese university) since he parrots the language of Japanese "scholars,"
>> who call it an "incident" instead of a "rape". I also have reservations about
>> the focus on how the Chinese are emotional about the topic while conveniently
>> ignoring Japanese emotional blinders in place.
>> 
>> Frankly, I don't see the situation getting any better.
> 
> If this kind of referenced, scholarly article is commonly seen as some sort
> of stealthy political diatribe, yeah, then we've got a long way to go.

I didn't say it was a "stealthy political diatribe." I said I had certain
reservations about the author, and told you what those reservations were,
because it showed his particular bias. Note that the author admits that the
discussion can be biased by your definition of terms. By calling the crimes
in Nanking an "incident" rather than a "rape" he is desensitizing the issue.
The article only discussed the body count of the "Rape of Nanking," as if
there were no accompanying atrocities. The term "Rape of Nanking" was coined
because rape was a major feature of that "incident." By only commenting on
the emotions and biases of the Chinese, while ignoring the emotions and
biases of the Japanese, and only focusing on the question of how many died,
he is showing his own bias in this area.

You are right that we have got a long way to go, because neither the Chinese
historians nor the Japanese historians appear ready to determine the "truth"
of what occurred.