On 7/8/2003 10:43 PM, Eric Takabayashi wrote:

> Scott Reynolds wrote:
> 
>>On 7/8/2003 10:16 PM, Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>
>>>Why is it not simple for a textbook to give a factual account of what happened in Asia at the
>>>hands of the Japanese? Why can they simply not acknowledge the existence of the comfort women or
>>>atrocities committed, even if say, they cannot find an acceptable figure?
>>
>>I thought that stuff was mentioned
> 
> "Some" of that stuff if any.

So in that case it's not being ignored.

>>in (some of) the textbooks. So what's
>>the problem?
> 
> More is necessary. And the teachers also need to actually present it in class so the children know.

How much would satisfy you? If the Japanese history textbook devotes, 
say, six pages to WW2, how many should be reserved for talking about the 
Rape of Nanking, the comfort women, the Bataan Death March, the Rape of 
Manila, the Sacking of Singapore, the Bridge on the River Kwai, the 
Mistreatment of Okinawan Civilians, and how generally badly Japan 
behaved more than half a century ago? Three pages? Five? Five and a half?

The fact is that such classes do not go into much detail about *any* 
period of Japanese history. Why should they suddenly zero in on WW2 in 
order to give the kids a politically motivated guilt trip?

-- 
_______________________________________________________________
Scott Reynolds                                      sar@gol.com