Misrepresenting of Japanese War Memories - Essay Example

Seaton's Japan War Memory Introduction The stories of World War II remain more alive and widely argued about in Japan than any other of the nations that was a major combatant in the war. Seaton focused on the time between 1972 and 2005 when Japan held the 60th anniversary commemorations. He outlined that Western media generally addressed this issue in an “orthodox” manner as they criticize Japan and the Japanese for “addressing the past inadequately.” He claims that “ignorance,” “denial,” and “amnesia” were widely referenced. But the views of the Japanese people were mainly based on family and personal experiences other than what was said by the media, politicians, or textbooks (Seaton 2). The orthodoxy is viewed as not being an investigation of Japanese views but a toll in the power relations between Japan and the English speaking world. Japanese War Memories are contested It is a basic dissertation that Japanese remembrances on the war remain contested. This contest has resulted in a critique of the orthodoxy about Japanese war memories especially in the English speaking media. The criticism agrees with the large evidence of Japanese atrocities and aggression when fighting in World War II. The criticism does not look down upon the efforts that victims are making towards seeking justice either. In fact, this orthodoxy does more harm than good as far as the search for justice is concerned (6). The criticism rather focuses on highlighting three matters concerning the war. Firstly, the critiques outline the magnitude to which Japanese war memories have been fundamentally laid off as “inadequate” instead of being analysed for the discernments they can provide into the processes of remembering the war. Secondly, the critiques highlight how Japanese memories have been signified in largely stereotypical, often inaccurate and politically self-serving expressions. Finally, the critiques have also outlined the magnitude to which attitudes and government policies in the previous Allied nations have paid to Japan’s struggles to reconcile with its past. There are still many war discussions in modern-day Japan. Sixty years down the line since Japan surrendered, the war still holds a strong grip to the Japanese spirit. Expert observing the Japanese progress on the issue often declare the end of the post-war. But sooner or later, new controversies or revelations emerge and the painful memories and mutual accusations about the past come to life again (6). As a result, the story of war in Japan has not yet been committed to history. It still rests as a “current affairs” issue. The war is still fresh in the memories of the Japanese, and they apparently seem as if unable to let it go. Accusations of “Amnesia” against the Japanese Amnesia is a term used to refer to complete or partial loss of memory (according to the Oxford English Dictionary). The western world accuses Japan of “amnesia” due to the features in the majority of Japanese war memories and also the way the subject of history is being taught in Japanese schools. Nonetheless, the word “amnesia” is a blunt term that does not tell between the complex disparities in interpretation, ranking of particular issues in terms of their importance, approach procedure and the governmental uses of history that reinforce contending cultural reminiscences of the war (135). Recalling war history at the national level grants an uncomfortable contrast concerning what “Japan” did to others versus what others did to “Japan.” There are many war memorial sites in Japan that attract lots of local tourists and school children. The problem that the western world has with these sites are allegations that they kind of justify that Japan was merely protecting itself, and that it had no other option than to go to war. As such, these sites split into two kinds: sites exalting or commemorating the military such as Chiran, Tachiarai, and Yasukumi, and others commemorate Japanese victimhood such as Okinawa, Tichiarai, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima (4). The features in these sites exemplify the orthodoxy that Japanese people preserve their actions or remember with the past through “victim mentality.” Unexpectedly, there are no sites demonstrating Japanese contrition or apology, even though they do exist (such as the progressive municipal “peace museums” in Osaka, Kawasaki and other cities). On the other hand, the Japanese indeed remember different aspects of the war. These aspects of war history can be categorized into three main types. The first type are the main battlegrounds for the ideological poles (such as Nanking or the “comfort women,” acknowledged or emphatically denied as severe war crimes by progressives and nationalists respectively). Secondly, there are stories that are treated largely across the field (the sufferings of soldiers, the A-bombs, and Siberian internment). Lastly, the third types are stories favored by a specific ideological camp (for instance, kamikaze stories have little to offer a progressive view of history but are rich in themes of sacrifice and patriotism for conservatives, while Unit 731’s human experiments confirm the depravity of militarism for progressives but are avoided by nationalists because they do nothing for affirmative versions of the war). Another accusation of “amnesia” against the Japanese concerns with the way history is taught and tested in schools. To begin with, Japanese textbooks are alleged to be one of the key ideological battlegrounds in Japanese war debates and have laid massive amounts of media responsiveness and scholarly research. These writings (and specifically coverage in the international media) have tended to focus their attention on textbook controversies. However, the main issue in Japanese war memories is the content that is taught to Japanese children and not simply what is in their history textbooks. There has been a need to identify the way textbooks are used, and to what degree teachers go beyond these text books and also emphasis that pupils should develop a critical approach to the study of history because the content of most history textbooks tend to be either conservative or nationalistic (40). History textbooks in Japan are specifically targeted negatively. They are blamed for teaching children about such contentious issues as “comfort women” (128). The books created in the children’s mentality, the conception of a national history to be proud of’ because it apparently became like a “game” about who was more patriotic than the others. By insinuation, those who agree to take the darker sides of Japanese history were considered “unpatriotic.” Selective Historical Gaze The role of belief system or ideology is important for understanding contested war memories in Japan. Different aspects of war history provide themselves to particular systems of belief. Ideology, therefore, works on two precise levels. First, ideology provides a basis for how to understand, accept or discard historical evidence. Secondly, ideology guides people’s gazes towards those issues that most affirm the ideology. As such, people tend to identify themselves with the ideologies that favor their interest in social, economic, and political arenas. The Japanese people in this case tend to think or remember the war in a way that will give them psychological comfort depending on the different ideologies they believe in. The link between ideology and the selective historical gaze is demonstrated through the topics of war-related essays. The levels of war interest and topics treated in opinion magazines illustrate which aspects of war history are featured most prominently within each ideology. Progressives’ publications tend to focus on Japanese atrocities and war responsibility issues while Japanese victimhood is related back to Japanese war responsibility. On the other hand, publications by Conservatives and Nationalists direct their effort more toward heroic actions by the Japanese military and treat Japanese suffering more as the result of Allied crimes (123). Conclusion In conclusion, the “Japanese war memories as seismic ongoing action’ metaphor depicts Japanese war reminiscences and commemoration as an extremely complex phenomenon. Nevertheless, the seismic metaphor brings to attention the memory fissures deep beneath the surface of Japanese civilisation. The key to understanding the complex Japanese war memories is not judging what Japanese people “are aware of” or “do not know,” but rather identifying the theoretical frames they use to assess war-related matters when they come across them in their daily life endeavors. It is also evident that the current generation of the Japanese society is not to blame for the “fresh” contested war memories. Rather, this notion has been as a result of negative publicity by the western world in addition to internal conflicting ideologies in conservatisms and nationalism. Works Cited Seaton, P. Japan's Contested War Memories: The "Memory Rifts" in Historical Consciousness of World War II . New York: Routledge, 2007. Print. Read More