Notes
Japan’s history textbooks had already been the subject of controversy during the lawsuits filed by Ienaga, but these controversies were confined to Japan. It was following the Ministry of Education’s refusal to authorise a textbook he had written that the historian Ienaga Saburō 家永三郎filed several suits against the Japanese government between 1965 and 1993. His central claim concerning the unconstitutional nature of the textbook authorisation system was rejected. However, several of the court rulings, notably that of 1970 (Sugimoto hanketsu 杉本判決), judged the ban on Ienaga’s textbook to be illegal and unconstitutional. This led the Ministry of Education to gradually relax its criteria for authorisation throughout the 1970s.
Although use of the second edition Tsukuru‑kai textbook (2005) increased significantly compared to the firstedition (2001), it remains below 0.5%. “Heisei 17 nendo rekishi kōmin kyōkasho no saitaku ni tsuite no ‘Tsukuru‑kai’ seimei” 平成17年度歴史・公民教科書の採択結果についての「つくる会」声明 (Statement by the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform on the adoption of history and civics textbooks for 2005): http://www.tsukurukai.com/02_about_us/05_adopt.html (23 October 2008).
Officially entitled “Ilbon chunghakkyo kyogwasŏ Han’guk kwallyŏn naeyong sujŏng yogu charyo” 일본 중학교 교과서 한국 관련 내용 수정 요구 자료 (Document demanding the modification of Korea‑related content in junior high school history textbooks), the South Korean government’s request, made to the Japanese ambassador in Seoul on 8 May 2001, concerned 25 passages in the Tsukuru‑kai textbook in addition to 10 passages from seven other textbooks. China, for its part, merely demanded the modification of eight passages from the Tsukuru‑kai text.
Yi Wŏnsun 이원순 and Chŏng Chaejŏng 정재정 (eds.), Ilbon yŏksa kyogwasŏ muŏt i munje inga 일본역사교과서 무엇이 문제인가 (The Problems with Japanese History Textbooks), Seoul, Tongbang Midiŏ 동방미디어, 2002, pp. 332‑333.
Statement made on 15 August 1995 to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, in which Murayama Tomiichi apologised (“o wabi no kimochi o hyōmei suru” おわびの気持ちを表明する) for the damage and suffering inflicted on Asian countries subjected to Japanese colonial rule and aggression.
Joint Korean and Japanese statement (Nikkan kyōdō seimei 日韓共同声明) from 8 October 1998 in which the South Korean President Kim Taejung, who was visiting Japan, and the Japanese Prime Minister Obuchi Keizō expressed their shared belief in the “importance of deepening the historical consciousness of the two peoples, particularly that of the younger generations”.
See Ilbon kyogwasŏ paro chapki undong ponbu 일본 교과서 바로 잡기 운동 본부 (ed.), Mundap ŭro ingnŭn Ilbon kyogwasŏ yŏksa waegok 문답으로 읽는 일본 교과서 역사왜곡 (Questions and Answers on the Distortion of History by Japanese Textbooks), Seoul, Yŏksa Pip’yŏngsa 역사 비평사, 2001, p. 123.
Pierre Lavelle, « la Société pour la rédaction de nouveaux manuels d’histoire : Renouveau ou déclin du nationalisme ? » (The Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform: Revival or Decline of Nationalism?), Cipango no. 10, 2003, p. 14.
Arnaud Nanta, « l’Actualité du révisionnisme historique au Japon » (Historical Revisionism in Japan Today), Ebisu no. 26 (pp. 127‑153), no. 27 (pp. 129‑138), no. 28 (pp. 185‑195), from 2001 to 2002. From the same author, see also « Le débat sur l’enseignement de l’histoire au Japon » (The Debate on History Education in Japan), Matériaux pour l’histoire de notre temps, BDIC, no. 88, 2007, pp. 13‑19.
Sven Saaler, Politics, Memory and Public Opinion: The History Textbook Controversy and Japanese Society, Munich, Iudicium, 2005.
Nohira Shunsui 野平俊水, Kankokujin no nihon gishi 韓国人の日本偽史 (Japanese History Falsified by the Koreans), Tokyo, Shōgakukan 小学館, 2002, p. 6.
Toriumi Yasushi 鳥海靖, Nichūkanror Rekishi kyōkasho wa konna ni chigau 日中韓露歴史教科書はこんなに違う (The Huge Divergences between Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Russian History Textbooks), Tokyo, Fusōsha 扶桑社, 2005, p. 83.
Yokota Yasuji 横田安治, “Kankoku no rekishi kyōkasho ni waikyoku wa nai to iwaretara” 韓国の歴史教科書に歪曲はないと言われたら (To Those Who Claim There Are No Distortions in Korean History Textbooks), in Chŏng Taegyun 鄭大均 and Furuta Hiroshi 古田博司 (eds.), Kankoku, Kita chōsen no uso o miyaburu: kingendai‑shi no sōten 30 韓国・北朝鮮の嘘を見破る―近現代史の争点30 (The Lies of South and North Korea Revealed: Thirty Contentious Issues in Modern and Contemporary History), Tokyo, Bungei Shunjū 文藝春秋, 2006, p. 292.
Chŏng Taegyun 鄭大均, Kankoku no nashonarizumu 韓国のナショナリズム (Korean Nationalism), Tokyo, Iwanami Shoten 岩波書店, 2003, p. 192. See also Takazaki Sōji 高崎宗司, Han‑Nichi kanjō: Kankoku‑Chōsenjin to nihonjin 反日感情―韓国・朝鮮人と日本人 (Anti‑Japanese Sentiment: Koreans and Japanese), Tokyo, Kōdansha 講談社, 1993, p. 14.
Katsuoka Kanji 勝岡寛次, Kankoku, chūgoku “rekishi kyōkasho” o tettei hihan suru: waikyoku sareta tai‑nichi kankei‑shi 韓国・中国「歴史教科書」を徹底批判する―歪曲された対日関係史 (Radical Criticism of Chinese and Korean “History Textbooks”: A Distorted History of Relations with Japan), Tokyo Shōgakukan 小学館, 2001.
For example, of the four examiners responsible for Japanese history textbooks, two are former students of Itō Takashi 伊藤隆, a professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo and writer and editor‑in‑chief for the Tsukuru‑kai textbook. See Asahi Shinbun (17 January 2008). I would like to thank Lionel Babicz for bringing this issue to my attention.
These establishments account for less than 10% of Japanese junior high school students. Liu Jie 劉傑, Mitani Hiroshi 三谷博, Yang Daqing 楊大慶 (eds.), Kokkyō o koeru rekishi ninshiki: nitchū taiwa no kokoromi 国境を越える歴史認識 日中対話の試み (Cross‑Border Historical Consciousness: An Attempt at Sino‑Japanese Dialogue), Tōkyō Daigaku Shuppan 東京大学出版, 2006, p. 210.
These selection areas, which numbered 591 in 2008, generally consist of two cities (shi 市) or districts (gun 郡). See “Kyōkasho seido no gaiyō” 教科書制度の概要 (Overview of the School Textbook System), http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/ shotou/kyoukasho/gaiyou/04060901/006.htm (25 May 2008).
Chang Sin 장신, “Ilbon ŭi kyogwasŏ chedo wa munjechŏm” 일본의 교과서 제도와 문제점 (The Problem with Japan’s Textbook System), in Mundap ŭro ingnŭn Ilbon kyogwasŏ yŏksa waegok, op. cit., p. 33.
Kim Hanjong 김한종, Yŏksa kyoyuk kwajŏng kwa kyogwasŏ yŏngu 역사교육과정과 교과서연구 (Textbook Research and the Process of Teaching History), Seoul, Sŏn’in 선인, 2005, pp. 42‑43.
The six publishers are: Kŭmsŏng Ch’ulp’ansa 金星出版社, Taehan Kyogwasŏ 大韓教科書, Pŏmmunsa 法文社, Ch’ŏnjae Kyoyuk 天才教育, Chung’ang Kyoyuk Chin’ŭng Yŏnguso 中央教育振興研究所, and Tusan Kyogwasŏ斗山教科書.
Chunghakkyo Kuksa 중학교 국사 (National History, Junior High), Seoul, Kyohaksa 교학사, 2006. Kodŭnghakkyo Kuksa 고등학교 국사 (National History, Senior High), Seoul, Kyohaksa 교학사, 2006.
Katsuoka Kanji, op. cit., p. 43.
Song Kiho 송기호, Tongasia ŭi yŏksa punjaeng 동아시아의 역사 분쟁 (Historical Disputes in East Asia), Seoul, Sol 솔, 2007, p. 41.
For example, the Tsukuru‑kai textbook claimed that “the Yamato army came to the aid of Paekche and Silla and waged violent battles against Koguryŏ” (p. 38), whereas in reality the Koguryŏ army drove back the Japanese at the request of Silla. Consequently, this passage was modified in the following edition (2006) to read: “the Yamato army came to Paekche’s aid and waged violent battles against Koguryŏ” (p. 32).
Robert A. Fish, “A Call for Outrage? A Victory for Freedom? The Annexation of Korea and Japanese Participation in World War I as Portrayed in the Atarashii Rekishi Kyokasho and Competing Japanese Junior High School History Textbooks”, Studies on Asia, series iii, vol. 1, no. 1, 2004, p. 32.
Atarashii rekishi kyōkasho, op. cit., 2001, p. 240. The underlined passage was removed from the second edition (2006). The passage in italics was modified as follows: “the Western powers recognised Japan’s annexation of Korea in exchange for Japanese recognition of their colonial hold over India for Great Britain, Indochina for France, the Philippines for the United States and Outer Mongolia for Russia” (p. 170). For a discussion of the issues surrounding this passage, see the article by A. Nanta, “Les débats au xxe siècle sur la légalité de l'annexion de la Corée par le Japon : histoire et légitimité” (20th‑Century Debates on the Legality of Japan’s Annexation of Korea: History and Legitimacy), Cipango, no. 19, 2012, pp. 75‑110.
In 2002 the usage rates for these junior high school textbooks were as follows: Tōkyō Shoseki 東京書籍 (51.2%), Ōsaka Shoseki 大阪書籍 (14%), Kyōiku Shuppan 教育出版 (13%), Teikoku Shoin 帝国書院 (10.9%), Nihon Shoseki Shinsha 日本書籍新社 (5.9%), Shimizu Shoin 清水書院 (2.5%), Nihon Bunkyō Shuppan 日本文教出版 (2.3%).
Atarashii shakai, Rekishi 新しい社会 歴史 (New Society, History), Tōkyō Shoseki, 2006, p. 160; Rekishiteki bun’ya 歴史的分野 (The Historical Domain), Ōsaka Shoseki, 2006, p. 160.
This does not mean that this episode in the two countries’ shared history is not a controversial subject. The question of the legality of the annexation treaties is, as Arnaud Nanta has pointed out, a divisive subject for Japanese and Korean historians.
Yi Wŏnsun and Chŏng Chaejŏng (eds.), op. cit., p. 367.
Atarashii rekishi kyōkasho, op. cit., 2001, p. 97 and 106. This passage was modified in the second edition (2006) to read: “Around the middle of the sixteenth century, when the tally trade was suspended [teishi 停止]…” (p. 79).
Kim Urim 김우림, Tŏrŏun yŏksa kyogwasŏ 더러운 역사 교과서 (A Vile History Textbook), Seoul, Lux Media 럭스미디어, 2001, p. 251.
Atarashii shakai rekishi, op. cit., p. 65.
Rekishiteki bun’ya, op. cit., p. 62.
Saeki Kōji 佐伯弘次, “Kaizoku‑ron” 海賊論 (On Piracy), in Arano Yasunori 荒野泰典, Ishii Masatoshi 石井正敏 and Murai Shōsuke 村井章介, Ajia no naka no nihon‑shi iii アジアのなかの日本史iii (The History of Japan in Asia, vol. 3), Tōkyō Daigaku Shuppan‑kai 東京大学出版会, 1992, p. 45.
Yi Yŏng 이영, “Waegu ŭi chuch’e” 왜구의 주체 (The Main Constituent of Wakō), in Waegu wisa munje wa Han‑Il kwan’gye 왜구・위사 문제와 한일관계 (Japan‑Korea Relations and the Issue of Wakō and the Pseudo‑Embassies), Seoul, Kyŏng’in Munwhasa 景仁文化社, 2005, p. 192.
Nam Kihak 남기학, “Chungse Koryŏ Ilbon kwan’gye ŭi chaengchŏm: Monggol ŭi Ilbon ch’imnyak kwa Waegu” 중세 고려・일본 관계의 쟁점 : 몽골의 일본 침략과 왜구, in Yi Kyehwang 이계황 et al., Kiŏk ŭi chŏnjaeng : Hyŏndae Ilbon ŭi yŏksa insik kwa Han‑Il kwan’gye 기억의 전쟁 현대 일본의 역사인식과 한일관계, Seoul, Ihwa Yŏja Taehakkyo Ch’ulp’anbu 이화여자대학교출판부, 2003, p. 163; Chang Tŭkjin 장득진, “Waegu nŭn Ilbonin in’ga Hangugin in’ga” 왜구는 일본인인가 한국인인가 (Were Wakō Korean or Japanese?), in Han‑Il kuangye sahakhoe 한일관계사학회, Hanguk kwa Ilbon: waegok kwa k’omp’ŭlleksŭ ŭi yŏksa 한국과 일본, 왜곡과 콤플렉스의 역사 (Korea and Japan: A History of Distortions and Complexes), vol. 1, Seoul, Chajangnamu 자작나무, 1999, pp. 77 and 80.
Chunghakkyo Kuksa, op. cit., p. 130.
Han Yŏng’u 한영우, Tasi ch’annŭn Uri yŏksa 다시 찾는 우리역사, vol. 2, Seoul, Kyŏngsewŏn 경세원, 2005, p. 72.; Han Ugŭn 한우근, Kaejŏngp’an Hanguk t’ongsa 改訂版 韓國通史, Seoul, Ŭryu Munhwasa 乙酉文化社, 2001, p. 282 (this author mentions however the presence of Chinese among 16th‑century Wakō); Carter J. Eckert et al., Korea Old and New, A History, Harvard UP, 1990, p. 100; Michael J. Seth, op. cit., pp. 138‑139; Takeda Yukio 武田幸男 (ed.), Chōsen‑shi 朝鮮史, Yamakawa Shuppan 山川出版, 1993, pp. 141‑146; Chōsen‑shi Kenkyū‑kai 朝鮮史研究会 (ed.), Chōsen no rekishi 朝鮮の歴史, Sansei‑dō 三省堂, 1995, pp. 150‑151. Western specialists researching the issue believe that while the majority of fourteenth‑century Wakō were Japanese from Kyūshū, the phenomenon took on an international dimension in the mid‑fifteenth century, notably through the arrival of pirates originating from Cheju, and that in the sixteenth century Wakō pirates were as “Chinese” as they were “Japanese”. See, for example, Roderich Ptak, Die maritime Seidenstrasse: Küstenräume, Seefahrt und Handel in vorkolonialer Zeit, Munich, Beck, 2007, pp. 213, 278.
The Korean government sees the word “shuppei” as an attempt to conceal the fact that this was a unilateral act of aggression by Japan. Kim Urim, op. cit., p. 251.
Atarashii rekishi kyōkasho, op. cit., 2001, p. 121. In the second edition the term “consumed” was replaced by the following phrase: “Hideyoshi came to nurture an excessive desire to…” [motsu ni itatta 持つにいたった] (p. 97).
The term “shinryaku” is also used by the Ōsaka Shoseki (p. 91) and Kyōiku Shuppan (p. 79) textbooks.
Atarashii shakai rekishi, op. cit., p. 87.
The Korean textbook provides a more detailed list of the damage: two thirds of arable land destroyed, tens of thousands of prisoners taken to Japan, temples and archives burnt, cultural objects (books, pottery, scroll paintings, etc.) pillaged. See Chunghakkyo Kuksa, op. cit., p. 149.
Chunghakkyo Kuksa, op. cit., p. 147.
Kim Munja 김문자, “Chŏnjaeng kwa p’yŏnghwa ŭi kŭnse Han‑Il kwan’gye: Imjin Waeran kwa t’ongsinsa” 전쟁과 평화의 근세 한일 관계: 임진돼란과 통신사 (War and Peace in Early‑modern Relations Between Japan and Korea: Hideyoshi’s Invasions and the Communication Envoys) in Yi Kyehwang 이계황 et al., op. cit., p. 182. This idea is echoed by many Korean historians: Han Yŏng’u, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 154; Yi Kibaek 이기백, Hanguksa sillon 한국사신론 (New History of Korea), Ilchogak 일조각, 1990, p. 232). On the other hand, Han Ugŭn (op. cit., p. 283) is far more factual than the Korean textbook and devotes little space to Hideyoshi’s unknown motives. He simply points out that Hideyoshi requested permission from the Yi Dynasty to transit through Korea in order to invade China. Korea refused and for some time feared a retaliatory attack from the Japanese.
According to Korean specialists, another example of this idea is the “Debate over an Expedition to Korea” (Seikanron 征韓論) during the early Meiji era. See Han‑Il kwan’gye sahakhoe 한일관계사학회, Hanguk kwa Ilbon: waegok kwa k’omp’ŭlleksŭ ŭi yŏksa 한국과 일본, 왜곡과 콤플렉스의 역사 (Korea and Japan: A History of Distortions and Complexes), Seoul, Chajangnamu 자작나무, 1999, p. 165.
On this subject see the article and translation by Vincent Grépinet, Cipango no. 17.
Atarashii rekishi kyōkasho, op. cit., 2001, p. 131. Two details were modified in the second edition (2006): “maintained relations” was replaced by “established relations”; “between 400 and” was removed (p. 106).
Kim Urim, op. cit., p. 252.
Atarashii shakai rekishi, op. cit., p. 97, Rekishiteki bun’ya, op. cit., p. 99.
Chunghakkyo Kuksa, op. cit., p. 150.
Chunghakkyo Kuksa (ha), 2001, p. 192.
See Kim Munja, op. cit., pp. 193‑194; Chang Sunsun 장순순, “Chosŏn sidae t’ongsinsa yŏngu ŭi hyŏnguang kwa kwaje” 朝鮮時代 通信使 研究의 現況과 課題 (Research Themes and Current State of Research on the Chosŏn‑Period Communication Envoys) in T’ongsinsa, Waegwan kwa Han‑Il kwan’gye 통신사・왜관과 한일관계 (Communication Envoys, Japanese Embassy and Japan‑Korea Relations), Seoul, Kyŏng’in Munhwasa 景仁文化社, 2005, p. 8.
Nakao Hiroshi 仲尾宏, Chōsen tsūshinshi 朝鮮通信使 (The Korean Embassies), Iwanami Shoten 岩波書店, 2007, p. iii.
Miyake Hidetoshi 三宅英利, Kinsei nihon to Chōsen 近世日本と朝鮮 (Japan and Korea in the Early Modern Era), Kōdansha 講談社, 2006, p. 162.
Atarashii rekishi kyōkasho, op. cit., 2001, pp. 202‑203.
Kim Urim, op. cit., p. 253.
Atarashii shakai rekishi, op. cit., p. 148.
Rekishiteki bun’ya, op. cit., p. 144.
See earlier on in this article.
On the Seikan‑ron and its treatment in Japanese textbooks, see Noriko Berlinguez‑Kōno, “l’Asiatisme au prisme de la mémoire et de l’histoire : le cas de Saigō Takamori entre bellicisme et pacifisme” (Asianism Through the Prism of Memory and History: the Case of Saigō Takamori, from Warmongering to Pacifism), in Japon Pluriel 7, Actes du septième colloque de la Société française des études japonaises (Proceedings from the Seventh SFEJ Symposium), Arles, Picquier, 2007.
Chunghakkyo Kuksa, op. cit., p. 194. Note that a different explanation was given in the previous edition (Chunghakkyo Kuksa (ha), 2001, p. 66): “Since the Meiji Restoration, Japan had put in place a new political regime and in order to increase its influence had requested that Korea enter into negotiations. This was refused by the Korean government, which believed that establishing diplomatic relations with Japan would automatically lead to Western interference.”
Han Ugŭn, op. cit., p. 391.
Kim Kihyŏk 김기혁, Kŭndae Han‑Chung‑Il kwan’gyesa 근대 한중일관계사 (History of Modern Relations: Korea, China and Japan), Seoul, Yŏnse Taehakkyo Ch’ulp’anbu 연세대학교 출판부, 2007 (1955), p. 79.
Han‑Il kwan’gyesa hakhwoe 한일관계사학회 (ed.), Han‑Il kwan’gye 2 ch’ŏn nyŏn (kŭn hyŏndae) 한일관계 2천년 (근현대) (Two Thousand Years of Japan‑Korea Relations: Modern and Contemporary Eras), Seoul, Kyŏng’in Munhwasa 景仁文化社, 2006, p. 13.
Hyŏn Myŏngch’ŏl 현명철, “Chŏnghannon ŭn wae saenggyŏnna” 정한론은 왜 생겨났나 (Why the Debate over the Korean Expedition?), in Hanguk kwa Ilbon: waegok kwa…, vol. 1, op. cit., p. 165. It should be noted, however, that some Korean researchers, while still in the minority, suggest placing the Seikan‑ron in a wider context and seeing it as the result of the Meiji government’s policy aimed at reorganising the Asian order by establishing unequal relations with China and Korea, as evidenced by the treaties signed with these two countries; Ch’oe Sŏgwan 최석완, Pip’aengch’ang juŭiron ŭi hwaksan kwa munjechŏm: Chŏnghannon kwa Ch’ŏng‑Il chŏnjaeng ŭl parabonŭn sigak 비팽창주의론의 확산과 문제점 : 정한론과 청일전쟁을 바라보는 시각 (The Dissemination of Anti‑Expansionist Discourses and Problems: Opinions on the Seikanron and the Sino‑Japanese War) in Yi Kyehwang et al., op. cit., p. 213.
See Awaya Ken’ichi 粟谷憲一, “Kindai gaikō taisei no sōshutsu: Chōsen no baai o chūshin ni” 近代外交体制の創出―朝鮮の場合を中心に (Creation of the Modern Diplomatic System: the Case of Korea), in Arano Yasunori, Ishii Masatoshi and Murai Shōsuke (eds.), Ajia no naka no nihon‑shi, op. cit., ii, 1992, p. 233.
Yoshino Makoto 吉野誠, Higashi ajia‑shi no naka no nihon to chōsen 東アジア史のなかの日本と朝鮮 (Japan and Korea in East Asian History), Akashi Shoten 明石書店, 2004, p. 212.
Okamoto Kōji 岡本幸治, Kindai nihon no ajia‑kan 近代日本のアジア観 (Perceptions of Asia in Modern Japan), Minerva Shobō ミネルヴァ書房, 1998, pp. 107‑108.
Kim Urim, op. cit., p. 256. Although the term comfort women has practically disappeared from junior high school textbooks, it still appears in the majority of senior high school books: Nihon‑shi B 日本史B (Japanese History, Level B), Tōkyō Shoseki, 2006, p. 348; Nihon‑shi B, Sanseidō, 2006, p. 330; Nihon‑shi B, Jikkyō Shuppan, 2006, p. 209; Shin Nihon‑shi B 新日本史B (New Japanese History, Level B), Yamakawa Shuppan, 2006, p. 356; Nihon‑shi B, Shimizu Shoin, 2006.
Yoshimi Yoshiaki 吉見義明, Jūgun ianfu 従軍慰安婦 (Army Comfort Women), Iwanami Shoten 岩波書店, 1995, p. 43.
Atarashii shakai, Rekishi, 2002, p. 263.
Atarashii shakai, Rekishi, op. cit., pp. 192‑193.
Ch’oe Pyŏnghŏn 崔柄憲, “Nihon no rekishi kyōkasho no waikyoku to rekishi ninshiki no mondai‑ten” 日本の歴史教科書の歪曲と歴史認識の問題点 (The Distortions of Japanese History Textbooks and Problems of Historical Consciousness), Rekishigaku kenkyū 歴史学研究, no. 767, October 2002, p. 23.
See Kang Chŏngsuk 姜貞淑, “Ilbon‑gun ‘wianbu’ munje ŭi ponjil kwa Hangugin ŭi insik” 일본군 ‘위안부’ 문제의 본질과 한국인의 인식 (The Nature of the Japanese Army “Comfort Women” Issue and Korean Consciousness), in Hanguk Yŏksa Kyogwasŏ Yŏnguhoe 한국역사교과서연구회 and Ilbon Yŏksa Kyoyuk Yŏnguhoe 일본역사교육연구회 (eds.), Yŏksa kyogwasŏ sok ŭi Hanguk kwa Ilbon 역사교과서 속의 한국과 일본 (Korea and Japan in the History Textbooks), Seoul, Hyean 혜안, 2000, p. 386.
Chunghakkyo Kuksa (ha), op. cit., p. 151.
Chunghakkyo Kuksa, op. cit., p. 262.
This statement was made in August 1993 by Kōno Yōhei, the Miyazaki administration’s Chief Cabinet Secretary, concerning the result of an investigation undertaken by the Japanese government on this issue; “Ianfu kankei chōsa kekka happyō ni kan suru Kōnō naikaku kanbō‑chōkan danwa” 慰安婦関係調査結果発表に関する河野内閣官房長官談話 (Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Kōnō Regarding the Announced Results of the Comfort Women Investigation), http://www.mofa.go.jp/MOFAJ/area/taisen/kono.html (25 October 2008).
While Japanese specialists now seem to agree that the Nihon‑fu was not an instrument for Yamato’s colonial domination of Kaya, opinions differ as to the nature of this organ: diplomatic delegation, trading post, embassies, etc. The same variety of opinions can be found in Korea, in addition to a few more original theories: these include Kim Sŏkhyŏng, who in the 1960s claimed that the Nihon‑fu was located in Japan and not on the Korean peninsula, or Ch’ŏn Kwanu and Kim Hyŏngu, for whom this organ was a sort of headquarters of the Paekche army stationed in Kaya. Nonetheless, all Korean scholars, both past and present, categorically refute the idea that Yamato in any way ruled Kaya. See Na Haengju 나행주, “6 segi Han‑Il kwangwe ŭi yŏngu‑sajŏk kŏmt’o” 6세기 한일관계의 연구사적 검토 (An Examination of the History of Research into Japan‑Korea Relations in the 6th Century), in Imna munje wa Han‑Il kwan’gye 임나 문제와 한일관계 (Imna and Japan‑Korea Relations), Seoul, Kyŏng’in Munwhasa 景仁文化社, 2005, pp. 30‑44.
The Korean government sees the use of phrases such as “Yamato lost its influence over the Korean peninsula” (Tōkyō Shoseki) or “subsequently, the influence [of Yamato] over the Korean peninsula waned” (Ōsaka Shoseki) to describe relations between Japan and Korea during the 6th century as unacceptable, for they are based on the “erroneous” idea that Yamato ruled Kaya as of the 4th century. See Yi Wŏnsun and Chŏng Chaejŏng (eds.), op. cit., p. 358.
In 451, Sei of the Wa is said to have obtained Chinese recognition of his role as protector of the Mimana region. Francine Hérail, Histoire du Japon des origines à Meiji (History of Japan, from its Origins to the Meiji Era), POF, 1986, p. 47.
Chūgaku shakai, Rekishiteki bun’ya, Ōsaka Shoseki, 2006, p. 25.
Michael J. Seth, A Concise History of Korea, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2006, p. 32.
Chunghakkyo Kuksa (sang) 중학교 국사 (상), Seoul, Kyohaksa 교학사, 2001, pp. 62‑63.
Katsuoka Kanji, op. cit., p. 53.
Tei and Furuta (eds.), op. cit., p. 292.
Chunghakkyo Kuksa 중학교 국사, Seoul, Kyohaksa 교학사, 2006, pp. 42, 51.
Yang Migang 양미강, “Hanguk ŭi kyogwasŏ undong kŭ sŏngkwa wa kwaje” 한국의 교과서운동 그 성과와 과제 (The Textbook Movement in Korea: Results and Objectives), in Ilbon kyogwasŏ paro chapki undong ponbu 일본교과서바로잡기운동본부 (ed.), Han‑Chung‑Il yŏksa insik kwa Ilbon kyokwasŏ 한중일 역사인식과 일본교과서 (Korean, Chinese and Japanese Conceptions of History and Japanese Textbooks), Seoul, Yŏksa Pip’yŏngsa역사 비평사, 2002, p. 209.
Kim Hanjong 김한종, Yŏksa kyoyuk kwajŏng kwa kyokwasŏ yŏngu 역사교육과정과 교과서연구 (The History Teaching Process and Research on Textbooks), Seoul, Sŏn’in 선인, 2005, p. 877.
Im Chihyŏn 임지현, “Kuksa ŭi an kwa pakk: hegemoni wa kuksa ŭi taeyŏnsoae” 국사의 안과 밖‑ 헤게모니와 국사의 대연쇄 (National History Inside and Out: Hegemony and the Great Chain of National History), in Im Chihyŏn 임지현and Yi Sŏngsi 이성시 (eds.), Kuksa ŭi sinhwa rŭl nŏmŏsŏ 국사의 신화를 넘어서 (Going Beyond the Myth of National History), Hyumŏnisŭtŭ 휴머니스트, Seoul, 2004, p. 29.
Chosŏn ilbo, 10 April 2002.
Only 10% considered these demands justified. http://www.tv‑asahi.co.jp/asanama/video/0105/mail/index.html#goiken (10 November 2009).
These two research groups have jointly published a certain number of works in both languages, in particular a book designed to be a history textbook: Han‑Il yŏksa kongt’ong kyoje Han‑Il kyoryu ŭi yŏksa: sŏnsa but’ŏ hyŏndae kkaji 한일공통교재 한일 교류의 역사: 선사부터 현대까지 (Shared Japanese‑Korean Teaching Materials: the History of Japan‑Korea Relations from their Origins to Modern Times), Seoul, Hyean 혜안, 2007; Nikkan rekishi kyōtsū kyōzai. Nikkan kōryū no rekishi: senshi kara gendai made 日韓歴史共通教材 日韓交流の歴史―先史から現代まで, Akashi Shoten 明石書店, 2007.
This book was the fruit of a joint effort between Chinese, Japanese and Korean scholars and teachers who met in Nanking in 2002 at the first Forum for Historical Consciousness and Peace in East Asia, in response to the Tsukuru‑kai textbook’s approval in 2001. Unlike the joint history textbook used by French and German senior high school students since 2006, none of the three countries has adopted this book as a textbook. Nevertheless, this project is a tangible sign of the efforts undertaken in the three countries to move beyond the overly simplistic framework of “national histories”. For a detailed examination of the joint initiatives designed to defuse the history‑related controversies in East Asia, see L. Babicz, “Japon, Chine, Corée : vers une conscience historique commune ?” (Japan, China, Korea: Towards a Shared Historical Consciousness?), Ebisu, no. 37, Spring‑Summer 2007, pp. 19‑43.
Chŏng Chaejŏng 鄭在貞, “Chaengchŏm kwa kwaje: Hanguk kwa Ilbon ŭi yŏksa kyoyuk” 쟁점과 과제 : 한국과 일본의 역사 교육 (Points of Contention and Objectives: History Education in Korea and Japan), in Yŏksa kyogwasŏ sok ŭi Hanguk kwa Ilbon, op. cit., p. 43.
Soh Chunghee Sarah, “Politics of the Victim/Victor Complex: Interpreting South Korea’s National Furor over Japanese History Textbooks”, American Asian Review, 21‑4, Winter 2003, p. 176.
Kimura Kan 木村幹, Chōsen hantō o dō miru ka 朝鮮半島をどう見るか (How Should We View the Korean Peninsula?), Shūei‑sha 集英社, 2004, p. 130.
Top of page