There have been accusations that Japanese textbooks contain historical inaccuracies and propaganda, particularly regarding Japan’s role in World War II. These accusations have been made by both Japanese and foreign scholars, and they have been the subject of much debate.
Some of the specific criticisms of Japanese textbooks include:
​
* They downplay Japan’s aggression in World War II.
* They fail to adequately address the issue of Japanese war crimes.
* They promote a view of Japan as a victim of war, rather than a perpetrator.
The Japanese government has responded to these criticisms by arguing that its textbooks are accurate and that they do not promote propaganda. However, the debate over Japanese textbooks continues, and it is likely to remain a contentious issue for many years to come.
Here are some specific examples of how Japanese textbooks have been accused of containing propaganda:
​
* **The Nanjing Massacre:** Japanese textbooks often downplay the scale of the Nanjing Massacre, in which Japanese troops killed and raped an estimated 300,000 Chinese civilians. Some textbooks even refer to the massacre as a “misunderstanding.”
* **The comfort women:** Japanese textbooks often fail to mention the issue of comfort women, who were forced to work as sex slaves for Japanese soldiers during World War II.
* **The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:** Japanese textbooks often downplay the impact of the atomic bombings, and they sometimes refer to them as “strategic bombing.”
It is important to note that not all Japanese textbooks contain historical inaccuracies or propaganda. However, there is a perception that some textbooks do, and this perception has led to calls for reform. In recent years, the Japanese government has made some changes to its textbook approval process in an effort to address these concerns. However, it remains to be seen whether these changes will be enough to satisfy critics.
​
Have you observed blatant propaganda when reading Japanese text books?
13 comments
Nagasaki was strategic bombing. The invasion of the Japanese mainland was to be at Nagasaki. Six more bombs were ordered for the landings.
“This subreddit is a place to discuss the various aspects related to teaching strategies in Japan. The main focus on this sub is to provide space for teachers to discuss various aspects of their jobs and industry in greater depth than other forums provide. All are welcome to participate, and we hope to be a great resource for teachers new and experienced.”
So… you might want to post this elsewhere…
They don’t want the students to feel bad about their home country. I don’t remember my history classes in America being especially critical of America either. Do you?
IMO, it exists in pretty much all textbooks, in pretty much all countries. It’s a tale as old as time, and isn’t unique to Japan. It’s just humans, being human.
Are you new here? Welcome to Earth 2023. I hope you enjoy your stay.
All history is story-telling. The Japanese history textbooks are engaged in a classical model of history; China and Korea are pissed that the pro-Japanese story doesn’t emphasize bad things that happened to them. Classical history is where your country tells its story about how great it is.
Classical history is actually pretty useful for creating a coherent society. (e.g., if Interac ran its ALT meetings by saying “Interac is a piece of trash company that does nothing useful for students or the people it brings” vs “Interac is a community that helps Japanese students connect with the world and provides respectable jobs”).
Western world is pissed for different reasons. History (the academic discipline) in the West is about “critical narratives” and “marginal voices” (here, quotes — not scare quotes). These people aren’t happy that anyone is writing classical history.
All classical history is propaganda. But so is critical history. The only other option is a bland listing of facts with no structure.
I don’t know much about the contents of textbooks, but my Japanese ex was adamant that the Nanjing Massacre is a lie made up by China and it never happened.
My current partner (non-Japanese) also dated a Japanese woman who said the same thing.
Both are between 30 and 40 years old.
I’m not sure if they’ve learned this from textbooks directly or from other sources.
These issues are certainly downplayed here. One result is that young people go out into the world expecting that everyone will be excited to talk to them about anime and Nintendo, and are a bit taken aback when people want to know about war crimes. I do remember that when I was teaching in JHS, the English textbooks had plenty about the A Bomb but nothing about the war.
I’m from Wales, and if it weren’t for our Welsh history component (and my parents) I wouldn’t have heard too much at school about the numerous bad things Britain has done through history. Our course on parliamentary reform ended with the “Great Reform Act” of 1832 (thank goodness everything’s gone smoothly since then). We studied European Fascism without ever going into Oswald Moseley, the suggestion that Edward VIII was a fascist sympathiser, or the racist violence we saw at the hands of the British National Party, National Front, etc.
Dunkirk was an example of plucky can-do spirit, rather than a devastating military rout in which tens of thousands died and we left all our equipment behind.
If slavery was mentioned at all, we focused on its abolition in Britain rather than our previous enthusiastic participation.
Coming back to that Welsh history component, it turns out that England trialled quite a lot of its colonial tactics across the border in Wales. I remember even this level of scrutiny being quite uncomfortable for my (English) history teacher.
I don’t use too many of these textbooks myself, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see a little bias. It’s easier to point fingers at others than yourself.
I think consideration to what age the students are is important as well. You wouldn’t go into details of Nanking in elementary grade 2, but might introduce it in HS1.
So the textbooks get more in depth and become more grim the older students get.
I have an old co-worker who used to teach in Hiroshima. The amount of harassment during August he would receive because he is American was ridiculous.
He got tired of the endless speeches and reports done by students painting the city as the victim.
[This is one of OP’s posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/japanlife/comments/149izyx/weekly_complaint_thread_15_june_2023/jobhuyg/?context=3) from three weeks ago.
Every country’s got its spin on stuff. I get what OP’s saying but wars are always sensitive. No curriculum’s gonna focus on teaching kids that they’re from a bad country, with micro-analysis of a single war.
I only saw a couple of English textbooks which I don’t think I would really judge as the benchmark of what kids learn in terms of history. I actually asked my wife about this the other day though and she said she did learn about the Nanjing thing and the thing she can remember about the coverage of the war was that the world should aim to be peaceful. She did say they didn’t particularly glorify Japan’s actions around the time and that the rulers were nuts. I don’t know how great her memory is.
I remember someone posting about it quite recently on a Japan sub saying that they had studied it, but that history was basically just another class where you studied to pass an exam. Most of them didn’t really care about it all.
Unless someone has seen the actual texts used for all this though it must be difficult to say.
I don’t know which world you live in, but a countries’ own war crimes is not usually something that is taught in schools of a country, except Germany.
I doubt children from the USA are taught about their war crimes, and I know for fact that children in China, Russia or Ukraine don’t learn about the genocides their countries are responsible for.