When reading about the tensions across Eastern Asia concerning historical textbooks and narratives, I was intrigued by how discussing and interpreting what happened in the past is still an incredibly sensitive issue. In Eastern Asia specifically there are many disputes over historical remembrance, with countries unable to reconcile their differing interpretations of the past. Whilst there is acknowledgment of the need for reconciliation in order to resolve disagreements over past historical events, there are fundamental obstacles to achieving a resolution. Within this blogpost I will focus on the central issues of national identity and the impact of nationalistic politics on history writing, which highlights why textbooks are such a fragile issue across Eastern Asia.
Since history textbooks were created around two centuries ago, they have been shaped to cultivate a sense of national identity and nationalistic sentiment. Therefore, textbooks have become central in battle of historical remembrance, as are historical museums, statues, memorials and military cemeteries. 1 Peter Duus writes that within East Asian countries it is not administratively achievable to have a common and agreed historical narrative, because “the teaching of history in many East Asian countries is clearly tied to building and strengthening national identity”. 2 This is a central obstacle amongst efforts for reconciliation, as each nation’s perception of the past is embedded in the public’s consciousness, as nations have worked to forge particular historical narratives, and these memories have come to heavily impact national identities. Consequently, there have been issues amongst these nations in their efforts to come to terms with their common histories. These tensions over historical remembrance and the writing of history textbooks highlight an important aspect of modern history writing, as this “underlines how profoundly historical writing and especially writing history texts is affected by nationalistic politics”. 3 Therefore, when discussing the centrality of nationalism to ‘history wars’ in East Asia, it is vital to recognise that history textbooks have come not just to involve the past but also the future, impacting the ability to write a common history.
The heavy involvement of the state within history textbook writing and in deciding the content of textbooks also highlights the issues with reconciliation over historical events. This level of administrative oversight has resulted in textbooks becoming a legitimate source of debate, as the contents are debated amongst the “competing forces within a nation and among nation states”. 4 For instance, in Japan, South Korea and China, the Ministry of Education has a direct impact over the writing of textbooks, and have the authority to alter and veto any undesirable elements. In China and Taiwan textbooks must concur with the key policies of the government to reinforce a singular historical narrative, as they must assist particular governmental and pedological aims. 5 This state influence is telling of the importance placed on historical narratives, and consequentially history textbooks have easily become diplomatic issues. Daniel Sneider supports this argument, as he argues that “textbooks are imbued with a powerful role, partly symbolic, in creating what some scholars have called the “master narrative” that defines a nation’s identity”. 6
In conclusion, history textbooks have become a contentious issue, with national and nationalistic politics becoming interwoven within the writing of historical narratives. This has hindered the ability of nations to write a common history, as nations are divided in their perceptions of past events and these disagreements have resulted in diplomatic tensions because history textbooks are seen to define and impact national identity. Therefore, the textbook is recognised as heavily influencing which historical events are remembered and how they are remembered, allowing nationalistic politics to dominate and consistently have influence over their writing.
- Gi-Wook Shin, “History Textbooks, Divided Memories, and Reconciliation” in Gi-Wook Shin and Daniel Sneider (Eds.) History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia: Divided Memories (London, 2011), p.4 [↩]
- Peter Duus, “War Stories” in Gi-Wook Shin and Daniel Sneider (Eds.) History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia: Divided Memories (London, 2011), p.101 [↩]
- Gi-Wook Shin, “History Textbooks, Divided Memories, and Reconciliation” in Gi-Wook Shin and Daniel Sneider (Eds.) History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia: Divided Memories (London, 2011), p.7 [↩]
- Daniel Sneider, “The War Over Words: History Textbooks and International Relations in Northeast Asia” in in Gi-Wook Shin and Daniel Sneider (Eds.) History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia: Divided Memories (London, 2011), p.246-7 [↩]
- Shin, “History Textbooks, Divided Memories, and Reconciliation”, p.7 [↩]
- Daniel Sneider, “The War Over Words: History Textbooks and International Relations in Northeast Asia” in in Gi-Wook Shin and Daniel Sneider (Eds.) History Textbooks and the Wars in Asia: Divided Memories (London, 2011), p.246 [↩]