Chapter 1: Education of the National History and Globalization

   In school textbooks, history is often conveyed as "truth." The information provided is on "matters that have already occurred," and is elaborately systematized beforehand to enable us to understand streams of serial events. As a result, individuals consider history as an external and complete concept. But when we look at a textbook used in a period different from our own school days, we can see that what was considered "truth" in those days is substantially different from what we recognize as true. Since a textbook itself is a social product, the information that it contains and the way that the history is narrated are always influenced by the political and social context in which the sources are written.

   In this report, the alteration of data in the history textbooks of the latter half of the 20th century, concerning national unification, will be examined. The content and narration of these textbooks will be considered, and the impact of the social forces of the times will be studied. Particularly, we focus on the influence of so-called globalization on the styles of history education in the United States and Japan. This approach will help us to understand the consequences of globalization underlying modern societies. In other words, this report deals with the impact of the globalization of societies as the major force influencing the presentation of information about national unification in history textbooks.

   Before starting this study, we would like to refer to the opinion of Benedict Anderson who recognizes the "nation" as an "imagined community."1 According to Anderson, the band of human beings called the "nation" is not a long-standing phenomenon in the history of mankind but one newly established by modern cultural apparatuses. Before the modern ages, people were separated too far geographically to recognize others as being members of the same group. They could not grasp the idea that they belonged to the same nation as each other until modern information media such as newspapers and other publications became available to them. This idea was then further purported by the uniformity and hierarchy of the modern school education system which provided the national basis for people's understanding of history. Standard textbooks and other educational materials led people to mutual conclusions as to what sorts of information they should recognize as "history" in the first place and how should it be systematized. Strict regulations were established with regard to the curricula for various age groups which made the latitude and pace of historical study more uniform in nature. In this way, it became possible for individuals to distinguish the history of their nation from those of other nations, and to imagine that the borders and sovereignty of their own countries had existed since ancient times. The "nation," in Anderson's view, materializes as a result of interaction among individuals. Therefore, we can say that the study of history in modern education has its foundation in a national history that conveys the logic of national unification.

   However, "nation" itself is an outgrowth of modern technology, and is usually influenced by its relation to its environment. As Anderson pointed out, "What made the new communities imaginable was a half fortuitous, but explosive, interaction between a system of production and productive relations (capitalism), a technology of communications (print), and the fatality of human linguistic diversity,"2 so we can assume that there will be further changes in our concept of "nation" when, for example, there are significant changes in communication technology.

   Here is an important reason to address the impact of globalization on the way in which national unification is presented in history textbooks. In the modern era, we have seen steady diversification, speed-ups and subdivisions in the means for migration, transportation and communication. Especially in the latter half of the 20th century, human beings were given remarkable new potential for spreading their social ideas and activities beyond national borders. This means that a different environment for the principle of nation was established as a result of "production and productive relations, and a technology of communications;" and this report will examine how data related to national unification is presented in such an environment.

   Furthermore, this report deals with human migration and media activity across borders as the concrete and major examples of "globalization" phenomena. According to Jan Aart Scholte, who attempts theoretical systematization of "globalization,"3 we have to recognize "deterritorialization" as the first characteristic of "globalization." It is true that implications of "liberation," "universalization," and "westernization (Americanization)" do exist in the ordinary concept of "globalization" which can be expressed with these other words; but "globalization" is selected as the most appropriate term to use here as it more stably supports these implications because the social ideas and activities of human beings provide people with the momentum necessary to liberate themselves from the constraints of geographical resources and limitations. This report will clarify specific features of historical narratives in the age of globalization from this angle.

Chapter 2: Two Different Visions of National Identity

   As previously described, it is the basic premise of this report that the "continuity and identity between the nation and self" or the shared identity, recognized by individuals through cultural apparatuses, enabled the band of "nation" to emerge. Based on this idea, we shall consider possible directivity for the future, under globalization, with regard to national identity, particularly as seen through the study of history textbooks as one such cultural apparatus. There are two opposing visions of future national identity to be found in the field of social science. We want to set an axis of analysis for this report at the point at which the two diverge.

   The first vision suggests the possibility of a community that transcends the state; the validity of the state joined with the principle of nation ― a nation-state ― is being lost. Anderson's theory that the band of "nation" is a product of modernity originated from the assertions made by Ellie Kedourie and Ernest Gellner in the 1960s, and there existed not a little passion to pursue communality of human beings beyond the principle of nation. Gellner's theory of nation is based on cosmopolitanism, the idea that more autonomous solidarity becomes possible by relativizing the importance of the principle of nation, and that the political community that transcends the conventional nation-state can be established.4 According to the theory on cosmopolitan governance by David Held who succeeded Gellner,5 under the present circumstance where human activities are globalized, the pressure is becoming higher to establish rights of citizenship that are applicable worldwide in accordance with the framework of international law. This is not enough, though, because the existence of law needs a political community to create and maintain it. Therefore, it is necessary to apply the principles of cosmopolitan democratic law within existing political frameworks such as cities, states and nations as well as practicing the principles of community that transcend the state. Held talks about the idea of a "Cosmopolitan Democratic Community" existing more actively than the "United Nations" but not as absolutely as a "World State," and he insists that global-scale political orders are both necessary and possible. According to this assumption, it is necessary for the communality of human beings to create the post-national identity that transcends the conventional principles of nation, and history education must "transcend the framework of narrow minded ‘History of Our Nation' ― the National History."6

   In contrast, the second vision makes much of the multiplicity of identity of people in this globalized age. For example, John Tomlinson7 insists that it is more important to contemplate the cultural aspect that individuals are experiencing every day than to consider the possibility of political community and political system that transcend nationality, which Held adopted as a pending question. Being a cosmopolitan is "having a cultural disposition which is not limited to the concerns of the immediate locality, but which recognizes global belonging, involvement and responsibility and can integrate these broader concerns into everyday life practices,"8 says Tomlinson. Thus, cosmopolitanism means that we must let our sense of belonging and duty to communality have different phases that co-exist simultaneously in daily life and create our own identity from the complexity of such things.

   Tomlinson's thinking reflects the satellization of local values dangling around such concepts as "worldwide citizenship rights" which, he maintains, subtly includes social perspectives such as "Europe at the center" or "Men at the center." Instead, what is required for cosmopolitan democracy is suspending belief in the idea that people's identities are based on the binary opposition between the global and the local, and admitting that people compositely integrate the values of both aspects into their identities. Therefore, Tomlinson does not find the "World State" to be necessary, and concludes that there are few signs of such a system being created. This does not mean that only the identity relying on the principle of nation particularly loses significance; rather, in its different phases, the communality can negotiate several identities. Under this assumption, history textbooks to aim at creating such identity must have a viewpoint from which to recognize diversity in the national society and a means of overcoming a centralization of values.

   In the following study, we will consider which of the communalities in this globalized age presented by these two visions ― one being the formation of communality that transcends the nation-state, and the other being the complexity of one or more communality each having different phases ― will, in the content of history textbooks of the United States of America and Japan in the latter half of the 20th century, make greater impact.9

Chapter 3: American History Textbooks in the Latter Half of the 20th Century

The Impact of Social Changes

   It might be assumed that, in the United States, education in history would include content that encourages multi-faceted understandings of historical events because the country is a multiracial nation-state. However, in history education in the United States, a clear and monistic national identity was expressed as the dominating concept for more than half of the 20th century. The years of 1919 to 1950, in fact, are considered to be an age of very strict nativism in public education in the United States. It has only been since the 1960s that a view of history based on so-called multiculturalism secured a certain place in public education in America.

   Francis FitzGerald's study,10 the largest analysis of content of American history textbooks and central accomplishment of the field, supports this claim. In her work, FitzGerald analyzed textbooks published from the 19th century through 1970 and discussed the changes she found in the dominant senses of values throughout this time. She remarked that the textbooks of the 1940s, for example, placed their accents on political history and governmental activity, pointing out that words like "We" and "Our" frequently emerged in the textbooks. "We" in these textbooks meant white males belonging to the middle or higher classes, while African Americans, Native Americans and immigrants were considered "Them" or those who needed to assimilate with those on "Our" side. "Their" history, status and contributions were rarely mentioned in textbooks; thus, these volumes played a significant role in the process of conveying the idea that white males, who made up the central part or majority of the society, were of greatest value and virtue. This trend continued in the textbooks of the 1950s, and FitzGerald expressed: "Ideologically speaking, the histories of the fifties were implacable, seamless... These texts appeared permanent just because they were so self-contained. Their orthodoxy, it seemed, left no handholds for attack, no lodging for decay."11

   But at the end of the 1950s, there was a drastic change in the world of education led by those whose eyes were increasingly turned on the content and publication process of textbooks. The first indication that this change was imminent is seen in the campaign of criticism on history textbooks by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People held in 1962 in Detroit during the Civil Rights Movement. At this event, it was pointed out that a textbook published by Laidlaw Brothers described the institution of slavery in positive ways and demanded that the municipal Board of Education recall the textbooks from the schools in Detroit. "For the first time in publishing history, large-scale protests came from the left and from non-white people."12 Accordingly, the Detroit Board of Education decided to recall the textbooks and started to inspect all the history textbooks in use to determine whether they included similar examples of racial prejudice.

   This sort of action and administrative response rapidly extended to other metropolises, and it is important to note that also it was accelerated by further social changes taking place after the 1960s. Of particular significance was the amendment to the Immigration Act of 1965 that abolished the quota system allocated to each country of origin and enlarged the country's overall immigration allowance to a rough maximum of 120,000 from the Western Hemisphere and 170,000 from the Eastern Hemisphere including Asia. In addition, preferential rights were given to the family members of persons already staying in America, and persons with specific skills such as doctors and technicians. Separate acceptance allowances were made for refugees, and, as a result, the numbers of immigrants from Latin America and Asian countries have rapidly grown ever since.

   This change in the structure of population flow had direct impact on the adoption of textbooks. In the United States, textbooks are freely published, but their adoption is determined in a variety of ways. In about twenty states the lists of "Proper Textbooks" are made at the state level. In other regions, these decisions are made by each local school district. It is impossible for textbook publishers to produce boundless numbers of versions in order to accommodate all regional situations, and so, their strategy is aimed at the states with relatively big markets. They prepare content that conforms to the specifications of these particular states and is saleable in other regions in the United States at the same time. There, the de-facto education standard is established. In America, the national consensus on the content of school materials was brought about in this way. California, Texas and Florida adopt their textbooks at the state level. These three states alone constitute 25% of the entire textbook market in the United States.13 So, it has been pointed out that there are "Californian effects" and "Texan effects" in the content of a significant number of textbooks. This means that the social status and public opinions expressed by those living in these states are apt to be reflected in the content of education. As such a large percentage of the country's immigrants from Asia and Latin America live in these states, multiculturalization and cultural changes in society after the amendments to the Immigration Act of 1965 in these states are reflected in data obtained from textbooks through the "Californian effects" and "Texan effects."14

   Consequently, the eyes turned on the process of textbook publication were increasingly pluralized after the 1970s, and the textbooks gradually began to prepare viewpoints recognizing the pluralistic reality of the culture. Analysis of the content of the history textbooks of the 1970s conducted by Nathan Glazer and Reed Ueda described the narrative viewpoint of history textbooks of this period:
The new treatment of ethnicity in current textbooks changes a text from one with a single and simple national perspective to one that incorporates a variety of group perspectives. History can no longer be written from a single and unchallenged national point of view ? the common stance of the past ? when the histories of different ethnic groups become a major thread of historical narrative.15
Nationalization of "Special Existence," and Movement towards Integration with Universal Concept

   As time passed through the 1970s, the monistic viewpoint prevalent in history textbooks until the 1950s changed into a pantoscopic viewpoint that could recognize diverse groups. We can clearly see this change by looking at how data concerning the history of Japanese Americans in the United States has been presented. In the 1960s, a few textbooks included discussion of the Japanese American experience in America; these textbooks had a tendency, though, to place white people at the center of their descriptions, emphasizing the differences between them and members of the Asian minority. For example, San Francisco's school order of 1906 which separated children of yellow skinned races from white children in the city's schools; while some textbooks published in 1964 did, at least, include the act, they explained that "the special working ethos of the people from Japan" was the reason for this isolation of Japanese children.
Some Californians had become alarmed over the number of Japanese immigrants in their state. It was argued that the Japanese immigrants worked for very low wages and were therefore taking jobs away from native-born American workmen.16
   In this context, the trend of Japanese Americans working tirelessly for low wages was presented as a "specialty" of the members of this culture. In addition, the "fact" that they pressed whites ? agricultural workers in particular ? was glossed over as its result. The text goes on to mention that whites were forced, by fear, to support the establishment of the law. This narrative viewpoint draws a line between whites positioned at the center of national society and Japanese Americans positioned at its circumference, suggesting that each had a different working ethos and explaining the social consequence of this difference only from the standpoint of whites. Also, with regard to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, a textbook of the 1960s describes persecution against Japanese Americans as a "special occurrence."
There was only one important occasion when the normal rights of civilians were violated in the interest of national safety. In the excitement following the attack on Pearl Harbor, over a hundred thousand Japanese-Americans were removed from their homes along the Pacific Coast and herded into camps run by the army.17
   This text seems to imply that the attack on Pearl Harbor was the sole reason for internment, which would have never happened without the attack. It never indicated that the Army and the Government formed the nucleus of the occurrence, and that it was on the extension line of ejection that had been made on a day-to-day basis since the prewar period.

   In the 1970s, Japanese Americans engaged in an organized campaign to demand the recovery of their liberty and dignity that had been violated by the internment. This movement was certainly in keeping with the tide of public opinion favoring Ethnic Revival that occurred after the Civil Rights Movement and the passage of amendments to the Immigration Act of 1965. This movement was determined to prevent a relapse of the large-scale violation of human rights symbolized by the Japanese American relocation camps, and stressed its inclusion in the field of education apart from the acquisition of monetary compensation. The campaign bore fruit in the form of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which was established after the public hearings of 1981 held by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians instituted by the Congress. Accordingly, descriptions of the experience of Japanese Americans during the World War II showed rapid increase in textbooks after 1980 or so.

   At this point, there was a strong tendency on the part of these textbooks to treat second generation Japanese Americans as full members of this nation with sovereignty equal to the majority of American society. Until the 1970s, members of both the first and second generations had been altogether ejected from the definition of the nation simply because they were people of Japanese ancestry. But in the textbooks of the 1980s, a line was drawn between the first and second generations; for example, "Two thirds of these people forced to move were American citizens. They became prisoners in their own country."18 Many textbooks emphasized the ideas that the second generation had citizenship, spoke English and had even never seen Japan etc. The heterogeneity between the first and second generations was repeated. The textbooks of the 1980s also selected individual Japanese American members of the nation and emphasized their patriotism. They introduced specific command names like the "442nd Regimental Combat Team" and the "100th Infantry Battalion," commenting that: "The members of this combat team fought with a bravery and reckless heroism that was summed up in their battle cry, ‘Go for Broke.' They took heavy casualties: more than 1,700 killed and nearly 5,000 wounded. They were also among the most decorated units in the United States Army."19 Japanese Americans who had once been cut off from adequate preservation of rights were positioned inside the American nation for the first time in textbooks of the 1980s when their loyalty and boldness were emphasized in text materials. Loyalty and boldness, of course, link directly to national interest.

   But on the other hand, this change in national concept in textbooks of the 1980s was linked to the establishment of a viewpoint that emphasized equality of civil society and criticized past acts of discrimination. This became even more evident in the language used in textbooks of the 1990s. It was not national interest but civil justice that was considered as the grounds for historical narrative at that time. At this point, textbooks began to describe internment in this way: "Japanese and Japanese-American had long faced discrimination on the West Coast. After Pearl Harbor their situation became much worse."20 In the textbooks of the 1990s, this experience of Japanese Americans was positioned alongside descriptions of discrimination against Asian Americans, African Americans and Latin Americans. Furthermore, this wartime discrimination was presented as having originated during times of peace. This seems to suggest, then, that the nucleus of those urging internment was found not in the army or government but among ordinary citizens who created social pressure.

   We can say that universal human rights seem to be of greater value than rights of American citizenship in the critical descriptions of past acts in the textbooks of the 1990s. In the textbooks of the 1980s, the actual conditions of relocation camps were described in somewhat general terms. "In relocation camps, Japanese Americans had to live behind barbed wire. Housing was poor."21 The narrative viewpoint that focused upon Japanese Americans being deprived of rights of citizenship required little more, particularly since many of these people, the first generation, were not citizens. The textbooks of the 1990s, though, tend to present internment as an egregious act of social injustice focusing on the deprivation of fundamental human rights that the people, including the first generation, sustained. Therefore, more detailed description of daily life in the camps is provided. For example, a textbook published in 1999 includes a description of the forced removal: "Tags with numbers were issued to every family to tie to luggage and coats ? no names, only numbers. ‘From then on,' wrote one woman, ‘we were known as family #10710.' Going to the camp, she had lost her identity, dignity, and privacy."22

What the Redefinition of "Nation" Means

   The above-mentioned change affected other groups as well. For example, textbooks of the 1980s frequently mentioned Crispus Attucks who was shot to death by British soldiers in the Boston Massacre when commenting on the contributions of blacks during the American Revolution. While the texts do at least mention Attucks, a black man, focusing on the death of a particular soldier as constituting the bulk of African American contributions to the fight for independence is to provide what is still a lightweight version of the "History of Whites."23 Thus, we can point out another change in the textbooks of the 1990s.

   In the textbooks of the 1990s, the contributions of blacks to the fight for independence are mentioned as a matter of course. Crispus Attucks was generally introduced as "a sailor of African and Native American ancestry"24 in the description of his death in Boston. It was also mentioned that James Armistead Lafayette, a Virginia slave who conducted espionage activity against the British Army, was given his freedom in recognition of his "services" by the State Congress.25 The boldness of black soldiers in the battles at Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill is mentioned as outstanding,26 and the fact that "In Rhode Island, African Americans formed a black regiment"27 was also emphasized. The existence of the blacks in the War of Independence permeated the narration of the American Revolution in that way. What makes the textbooks of the 1990s distinctive is that they also provide some indication of the viewpoint and judgment of African Americans themselves with regard to the premises mentioned above.
Slaves faced a dilemma at the beginning of the Revolution: how could they best pursue their goal of escaping perpetual servitude? Should they fight with or against their white masters? With no correct choice immediately apparent, African-Americans made different decisions.28
   In this context, there is a clear change from the earlier monistic view of the past from the standpoint of the people positioned at the center of this nation's society. Textbook narration begins to deviate from reflecting a hierarchical view of world of whites that subordinates the existence of blacks by presenting the circumstances of black people in the United States. This change is evident in the way that textbooks of the 1990s described the actions of blacks who made other decisions during the American Revolution.

   During this time, many textbooks mentioned African Americans who did not participate in the battles and who helped the British Army. For example, a textbook published in 1994 mentions, "When the war ended, the new state governments granted freedom to most slaves who had fought in the Continental Army. Yet most African Americans had not taken part in the fighting. Thus, most African Americans still were slaves when the war ended."29 Concerning the variations of behavior that African Americans selected, these texts mention the relationship between members of the British Army and blacks, the existence and the fate of the autonomous regions in Canada and Western Africa that were constructed after the war by the blacks who joined with the British Army, as well as the blacks who were merged into the tribes of Native Americans in Southern and Western America.30 In this context, the activities developed in and out of the States by the people categorized as African Americans are described based on their own viewpoint and judgment.
For African Americans, the rallying call of liberty was familiar long before the Revolution began. Decades of slave resistance and rebellion demonstrated that black colonists did not need the impassioned language of a Patrick Henry or a Samuel Adams to remind them of the value of freedom. Instead, many slaves viewed the Revolution as they viewed epidemics and imperial warfare: as a potential opportunity to gain their own liberty. In the same way, free blacks saw the Revolution as a possible opportunity to win civil rights they had been denied before 1776. African Americans pointed out the inconsistencies of the radical position even before the Declaration of Independence.31
   The inclusion of the viewpoint of African Americans made the vision of the American Revolution presented in the textbooks a multi-faceted one that can be perceived from multiple points of view. Thus, the concept of what America was or is as a nation was redefined, and came to have more abundant meanings. At the same time, these textbooks brought out the thoughts of blacks that could not have been perceived by the monistic vision of history adopting the whites' viewpoint only. In most of the textbooks of the 1990s, a critical attitude was adopted against the contradiction between the actual order that whites established on the continent and the idea of justice that whites advocated at the time of the Revolutionary War.

   As explained above, the more pantoscopic viewpoint of textbooks of the 1990s provided a view of history that more widely presented the mental and physical activities of members of various cultures in the United States. Narrating history by relying on a national framework does broaden the implication of "America" itself, but, at same time, we need to note that the style of reviewing the past definition of nation from the pluralistic viewpoint became clearer in textbooks written during the 1990s.

Chapter 4: Japanese History Textbooks in the Latter Half of the 20th Century

From National Society to International Society

   Although the change may not be as radical as shown in the amendment to the Immigration Act of 1965 in the United States, phenomena corresponding to "deterritorialization" such as the increase of population inflow and the international solidarity of the media also arose in Japan in the 1980s. Japan's efforts to normalize its international status after World War II through the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with its neighboring countries became the important factors that increased social and political activities beyond the country's borders. These changes also resulted in greater focus on the content and publication process of history textbooks in Japan.

   The educative administration of Japan in the latter half of the 20th century started from a review of the policies of postwar disposition by the General Headquarters of the Supreme Commander for Allied Powers, and moved to re-establishing autonomy in determining the content of school curricula. Therefore, when it came to the content of education in history, aims were set toward re-establishing narratives relying on the national society. After the Peace Conference in San Francisco and the establishment of the 1955 Setup, a screening of textbooks by the Ministry of Education32 in 1957 resulted in the announcement that the aim of education in history was "to recognize the efforts of ancestors, enhance self-consciousness as Japanese and cultivate abundant affection in the race."33 Soon after, in the 1960s, it became clear that what was wished was "textbooks that enable [the students] to learn precisely about the autonomous position of the State and its nation."34 Under such administrative guidance, a textbook, for example, revised its description of "unconditional surrender" to "surrender," deleted such expressions as "the arbitrary decision and execution by the military," and included more explicit statements such as, "Iturup and Kunashir essentially belong to the territory of Japan." In this way, by the 1960s, history textbooks came to fulfill the requirements of conveying the continuity of sovereignty, conformity of the nation, and legitimacy of the borderlines.35

   Using historical narratives that rely on such a principle of nation helps people to recognize themselves as members of a nation distinct from others, and to admire its development. In textbooks of the 1960s and 1970s, descriptions of the act of war as "invasion" were revised. In addition, descriptions of the "tyranny and incompetence" of the Japanese military's administration office in Southeast Asia was withdrawn. Referring to the nation's "reckless" rush into the Pacific War was also eliminated. Instead, texts began to mention that the victory in the Russo-Japanese War "gave a great influence to Asian countries where the colonization prevailed, and it played a role to grow the racial sentiment of Asia," and that "Japanese soldiers showed the greatest activity" in the Boxer Rebellion.36 We can say that textbooks of this period had quite an effective and consistent framework of explanation in terms of protection and admiration of the nation.

   However, in Japan in the latter half of the 20th century, a situation came about that did not allow the history textbooks to get rid of social surveillance altogether. A controversy erupted over the legitimacy of the textbook screening system in 1965. This controversy was launched by lawsuits brought by Saburo Ienaga, a historian and a professor at Tokyo University of Education. The manuscript of Ienaga's own textbook was disqualified by screening in 1957 and 1963 and was given only a conditional judgment of acceptance in 1964, on the grounds that it did not meet the views of the Ministry of Education. In his suits, Ienaga called for the national indemnity and withdrawal of the administrative decision on the grounds of the unconstitutionality of textbook screening and the illegality of its decisions. The so-called "Textbook Trial" of 1965 fired a controversy on the vision and content of education in Japan, which raged for 32 years until the close of the third lawsuit in the Supreme Court in 1997. Although Ienaga did not win favorable decisions, the trials themselves played a socially significant role, because the standard of judgment and internal regulation of the screening process, which had not been public until that time, was opened up to scrutiny.

   Furthermore, it became clear that it was necessary to adopt new viewpoints in historical narrative, as Japan re-established relations with other Southeast Asian countries. Negotiations on compensation since the 1950s and the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and Korea as well as the Joint Communiqu? between Japan and China normalized national friendships with Korea and China, respectively. In light of this new viewpoint, concepts and items became grouped in ways that would be in keeping with the activity of the Japanese nation that tightened its links with countries located overseas. From the middle of 1970s through the beginning of the 1980s, a scheme existed through which the authors and publishers of textbooks began to present new terminology, but the screening by the Ministry of Education re-emphasized the need to use a framework relying on the principle of nation and subverted their efforts. For example, with regard to the description of "HongKyong-nae" in Korean history and "PhanBoi Chau" in Vietnamese history, the opinion for improvement was presented as "unnecessary."37 It was decided, in fact, that "it is better not to put in anything new."38 And on the "Nanking Massacre," they commented that "It reads like the Army conducted the massacre in an organized manner. The time of occurrence and systemicity can not be concluded."39 In addition, they instructed that a description of the "Forced Mobilization" be changed, making the comment that: "We should write about the Korean and Chinese separately. Korea belonged to Japanese territory at that time, and the National Requisition Ordinance was applied to them, so it can not be said that they were forced, in case of Korean."40

   However, these processes became exposed to the eyes of society that had been aroused by Ienaga's trials, and around 1980, a situation arose which drew their focus from outside the borders due to the media intervention. In 1982, a Japanese newspaper reported on the requirement by the screening that textbooks reword "Japan's ‘invasion' of the Asian continent" to "advancement." When these stories were reported in the Chinese and Korean media too, textbook screening in Japan became an international issue. As a result, the Ministry of Education released some of the results of screening opinions in 1983. Furthermore, in correspondence with it, the authors of history textbooks began to report examples of the screening process, in order to publicize the facts on the screening of textbooks. Thus, a push for change began. Nobuyoshi Takashima outlined the situation at that time as follows:
Before, the Ministry somewhat overlooked just in case Mr. Ienaga were to release the concrete situation of screening. But from that time, the situation changed to forbidding the Ministry of Education to interfere even if many authors of social studies textbooks were to open up concrete examples one after another, which has continued being the case until today... Not only the authors and editors as the parties concerned, but ordinary people, sometimes the parties in the industrial community and the parties concerned about the social problems related to the descriptive content, and the people abroad if the issue includes international interest, gave their diverse opinions during the process of screening, which had the effect of checking excessive screening.41
The History being Elaborated

   Before, the monistic screening filter used by Japan's Ministry of Education officially regulated the perspective of history textbooks, but in the 1980s, that filter became a more pluralistic one.42 Of course, those critics and reviewers who were looking at these texts from both inside and outside of Japan represented the interest of their respective national principle and national culture. But, as a result of the confrontation of the different assertions, a tendency to elaborate upon the quality and increase the quantity of the information about certain historical events emerged. Under such circumstances, it became extremely difficult to officially regulate the core value of nation. The change in descriptions of the relationship between Korea and Japan serves as a clear example. When Japan tried, as a modern state, to enter into diplomatic relations with other countries, it chose to focus its efforts on the Korean Peninsula as the first counterpart that was closest to Japan. Thus, Japan's diplomatic history with Korea is described just after a discussion of the Meiji Restoration. At some point in the 1950s, the standard textbook description was quite simple:
Since the Meiji Restoration, Japan kept demanding that Korea open its country. Considering the risk of subordinating Korea under the rule of a weakened China against the Southing of Russia, Japan concluded the Chemulpo Treaty [sic] with Korea in 1876, and forced it to promise its independence and opening of the port of Pusan. Ever since, Japan took steps to monopolize the Korean trade market. Public opinion in China strongly demanded the recovery of the Korean market and suzerainty, and, as the struggle inside the royal family of Korea was entwined in that situation, the commercial power of Japan was finally expelled from Korea. Worried, Japan opened hostilities against China taking advantage of the Tong-hak Rebellion. As the Chinese military revealed weakness in front of Japan's forces and its more modern equipment, China ceded the Liaotung Peninsula and Taiwan to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki and approved the independence of Korea. Soon, Korea became a Japanese protectorate, then a part of the Japanese Empire, and was ruled by Japan until 1945.43
   This is the full extent of the discussion of modern Korea in the textbook The World History of 1951. Here, Korea is only accessorily mentioned as part of a description of the relations between Japan and China. The diplomatic history from the Meiji Restoration until 1945 is simply summed up in general terms, and no detailed information is given as to what steps were taken in Japan's expansion of power into the Korean Peninsula. Hereafter and until the edition of the 1970s, recognition of Korea, a country neighboring Japan, stays basically in this status.

   It was after the 1980s that information on the diplomatic history of Japan and Korea showed an increase with accelerated velocity, which is affinitive with the process in which Japan deepened its relations with Korea. The closer the present relations between Japan and Korea became, the more detailed the narratives of their past. During this time, the word "advancement" was increasingly used. In this sense, it is quite natural that an appeal against the use of the term "advancement" from Korea was made in 1982. In the consecutive edition of 1983, the phrase "invasion to the mainland" was adopted. Its description of the diplomatic history of Japan and Korea is given the headings, "The Opening of Korea and the Sino-Japanese War" and "The Russo-Japanese War and Japan's Annexation of Korea." Concerning the Ganghwa Island Incident, this textbook emphasized the action from Japan, mentioning that "War ships of Japan made drills alongside the coast of Korea."44 On the "3.1 Movement," the first photograph of the event was provided, and the information was given from a different viewpoint from the conventional one protecting and admiring the nation, mentioning "Got crackdown by Japanese military and the police authorities and there was a large number of deaths and wounded."45

   These descriptions were continued all through the 1980s, although some changes in inscription and expression were added to the edition of 1987. In the edition of 1989, items such as "Daeweon-gun" and "The Min Family" and others were added.46 The description of the 3.1 Movement that resulted in independence was given the heading, "The 3.1 Movement of Korea,"47 and the internal events in Korea were explained in greater detail. Information on the "Korea-Japanese Treaty" and the "Volunteer Movement against Japan" were added,48 which provided a clearer understanding of the developments of events.

   The increase in information was much accelerated in the 1990s, and the description of the history of Japan-Korea relations became about five times longer than that of the edition of the 1950s. The description of the "HongKyong-nae Rebellion" that had been judged as "unnecessary" in the screenings of the 1970s was now mentioned in detail. The details about the "Daeweon-gun" and "The Min Family" were increased, and the internal situation in Korea in the 19th century was mentioned in correlation with the expansion of Japan's power.49 The "Annexation of Korea by Japan" had been mentioned in the past primarily only in relation to the Russo-Japanese War. During this time, though, it became a more independent discussion, and the separate description of the "Koreo-Japanese Treaties" helped to make the process of Japan's conquest of Korea much clearer. The excerpt below serves as a fine example. When comparing the description below with of the single line found in the textbooks of the 1950s ? "Soon, Korea became a Japanese protectorate, then a part of the Japanese Empire, and was ruled by Japan until 1945", we can begin to see how the elaboration of information progressed.
During the Russo-Japanese War, Japan concluded the Koreo-Japanese Treaty on three occasions (1904, 05 and 07) and intensified its interference against Korea. The second treaty gave Japan the opportunity to establish a Resident-General* who would stay permanently in Seoul to supervise diplomatic activity and represent the Japanese government. The third treaty gave Japan an opportunity to interfere in Korea's domestic politics and dissolved the Korean Army. Against such interference by Japan, the people of Korea developed an intense voluntary struggle against Japan, but Japan cracked it down with armed force, annexing the country in 1910 (the Annexation of Korea) and governing it through the Government-general of Korea.

*Hirobumi Itoh, the first Resident-General (1841-1909) who propelled the annexation of Korea, was assassinated by An Jung-gun in Harbin in 1909.50
   Textbooks began to describe the status of Japan's ruling system, focusing especially on the "Volunteers' Struggle against Japan." Photographs were inserted that carried the explanation: "In Korea, people voluntarily rose up calling for an anti-Japan movement."51 In addition, the "Soshi kaimei" (forcible imposition of Japanese names on Koreans) was described for the first time, and there was more information about the status of colonial rule including such statements as, "After or around the Sino-Japanese War, Japan strengthened its rule of Korea and proceeded with assimilation policies like ‘Soshi kaimei.' In order to deal with a shortage of labor in Japan, a forced mobilization effort was conducted in Korea, and the conscription system was also applied at the end of the War."52

   The increase in this sort of information indicates that the education in history is moving away from viewpoints expressing the naive protection of the orthodoxy of the nation. And yet, the national history focus itself is maintained here too. In the first place, even though the screenings until the early 1980s specified that "We should write about the Koreans and Chinese separately"53 due to the fact that Korea belonged to the territory of Japan from 1910 through 1945, no information was given about the concrete process that Japan had employed to annex the nation into the territory of Japan. Although the 1994 edition deals directly with the occupation of Korea and the nationalization of the country through the "Cultural Policy" and "Soshi kaimei" by the state of Japan, it is nothing but the detailed expression of the status of society from the viewpoint based on the framework of national history. It can be said that information perceived to be both objective and critical of one's own nation has become more apparent as part of the phenomena mentioned above. The elaboration of information on the diplomatic history between Japan and Korea in the 1994 edition is an example of the fact that the framework of national history is maintained but the values dealt with in it are becoming pluralized.

The Framework of National History, and the Universal Value

   Objective and critical historical narrative is not necessarily made only on one's own country. That can be well understood when we look at the description of the relation between Japan and World War II's victorious nations. For example, concerning the "damage from the atomic bomb," the 1951 edition only made the brief comment, "On August 6th, [the United States] dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. On August 9th, the American Military again dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki..."54 In the 1957 edition, a photograph of an atomic bomb mushroom cloud was inserted for the first time, but the comment was not changed. More comments were added in the 1964 edition, but no concrete information on the damage was given until the edition of 1973. However, the trend of elaboration of description since the edition of 1983 corresponds to this matter too as shown in the following examples:
On August 6th, the United States dropped atomic bomb on Hiroshima...

On 9th, the American Military again dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki...

[Photo] The horrible spectacle of Ground Zero. During the five years after the attack until 1950, two hundred thousand people were killed in Hiroshima, and one hundred forty thousand people died in Nagasaki; even today, many people are suffering from the bomb's after-effects. Hundreds of thousands of people were victimized as well in the air raids on other cities.55
   The 1983 edition carried concrete information on the number of victims for the first time and reported the status of damages lasting till today. In correspondence with this trend, the screening opinion that "it needs verified data on the number"56 was released many times in the 1980s, but as a result of repeated verification, the information became more detailed as shown in the following description from the 1994 edition. Further, the photograph showing the scene of A-Bomb Dome and its surroundings was attached to this description since the 1983 edition. The picture convinces the readers that the condition of the city was truly disastrous, and clearly shows that the viewpoint of victims has been adopted.
The United States dropped its new weapon, the A-bomb, on Hiroshima on August 6th and on Nagasaki on the 9th to ruin the cities*...

*During the five years after the attack by an atomic bomb until 1950, two hundred thousand people were killed in Hiroshima and one hundred forty thousand people perished in Nagasaki. Even now, hundreds of thousands are suffering from its aftereffects.

[Photo] The vicinity of Ground Zero in Hiroshima. The death of so many thousands of ordinary people by the A-bomb coupled with the post-blast radioactive dangers remaining active after the war created a major international humanitarian issue after the war. The photo shows the Center for the Promotion of Prefectural Industry (A-Bomb Dome) taken from The Chamber of Commerce of Hiroshima. (Photographed by U.S. military, November 1945).57
   Detail about the relations between Japan and Soviet Russia at the end of World War II increased during this time period as well. In the 1983 edition, it was indicated that, "After the war, Soviet Russia detained many Japanese prisoners of war, forced them into labor and caused a large number of deaths."58 In the 1994 edition, the description was more specific: "After the war, Soviet Russia detained six hundred thousand Japanese prisoners of war in Siberia and European Russia for a long time, engaged them in forced labor and caused a large number of deaths."59

   As is clear in these examples, the information elaborated in textbook editions after that of 1983 used narratives that described the damage harms to Japan in greater detail. Using expressions such as the "multicide of ordinary people by the A-bomb," "a major international humanitarian issue" and "engaged them into forced labor and caused a large number of deaths" indicates that the events like "damage by A-bomb" and "forced detention in Siberia" have become recognized as the oppression of humanity itself. Therefore, it can be said that the effect of further elaborating data in textbooks not only increases the amount of information presented that could be critical to some specific human bands, but also provides a viewpoint that helps people to recognize values that apply universally to people in general.

Chapter 5: Plurality of Narrative Viewpoints, and Elaborated Description

   When we compared historical narratives in the United States and Japan, both of which changed as mentioned above, we see one thing common to both. The eyes of society were turned on the textbook publication process at the very time when the movement contesting education in history being based on monistic viewpoints overlapped with the "deterritorialization" of human activities ― an interaction of a plurality of people with different national or ethnic roots and the various efforts made to transmit that interaction in broad ways. First, in the case of the United States, there existed a movement, as part of the Civil Rights Movement, that demanded a change in the education in history based on the hierarchical difference between the groups constituting nationhood. What contributed to the movement's development in the whole country and resulted in rectification of the content of history education was the change of the structure of population inflow as directed by an amendment to the Immigration Act of 1965 and the Ethnic Revival trend that it spurred. In Japan, the publishers were encouraged to deal with historical data on its relations with Asian countries in keeping with the increase in exchange of people and goods after the re-establishment of interaction with the countries in the region. The Ministry of Education controlled this movement by means of screening, but Ienaga's trial forced them to open the screening process to scrutiny by members of the public. The international solidarity of the mass media further enhanced the probability of opening the process up to the public.

   As a result of these movements, the data provided in history education was increased, more fully elaborated and reflected a change in viewpoint. It is recognized by Anthony Smith that national unification is accomplished by transmitting the myths, symbols, values and memory of the people who make up the "Core" of a nation's society to other people who end up sharing them.60 The media certainly played a role in transmitting and sharing conventional education in history. But in the increasingly globalized age dealt with in this report, the textbook publication process came within the purview of people beyond the "core" of society. The historical narratives executed in this changed environment began to adopt pantoscopic viewpoints that more fully recognize the positions and experiences of people and complexity of events. Monistic explanations which had served to protect and promote admiration of the core members of national society were relativized, and the information included in textbooks began to be more fully elaborated in both quantity and quality in order to point out that the components of each nation were diverse in the first place. We can point out the steps of the process through which the "deterritorialization" of human activities influenced textbook narrative styles in both Japan and the United States.

   However, it is also important to keep in mind that the narrative frameworks of national history as seen in "A History of the United States" and "A History of Japan" have not been abandoned. Including the activities of African Americans during the Revolutionary War and the experiences of Japanese Americans during World War II in American textbooks meant an expansion of the connotation of "the United States" as an entity. The same thing was true of Japan when textbooks began to discuss the annexation and colonial rule of Korea by "Japan" in greater detail. In order to realize the cosmopolitanism advocated by David Held introduced in Chapter 2 of this report, it is necessary to consider identity as transcending geographic borders, and in order to do so, we have to prevent history from being territorialized on the grounds of nationality. On the other hand, history education in both Japan and the United States has been nothing but "national history" at all times, and if the concept that brings the framework relying on the principle of nation to naught is called "post-national history," history education of Japan and the United States does not belong to that category even in the 1990s.

   But when we observe the transmission of values actually inherent in the system of "national history," it is obvious that the values disseminated through the history textbooks of the 1990s are not applied only to the specific nation-states or human bands involved. When we look at the elaborated descriptions of, for example, "the life of Japanese Americans in the relocation camps" and the "multicide of ordinary people by A-bomb," we see basic human values at work. In the textbooks of the 1990s, the universal dignity of human beings is considered within the framework of national history. The story is established at the point at which the contexts of individuals, nations and universal values overlap each other. In this sense, the significance of the framework relying on the principle of nation presented in history textbooks of the 1990s is relativized. We can say that the most significant feature of the narration of history in this globalized age is that the textbooks began to adopt a narrative approach through which events could be understood from a position of communality different from that of the principle of nation, even though they follow the traditional form of education of national history.

Chapter 6: The Changing Face of the National History and the Logic of National Unification

   Then, how did globalization affect national history education with regard to the logic of national unification represented in the history textbooks after the turning point? In order to examine this question, we pointed out two different future visions ? the first a cosmopolitanistic vision suggesting that the future shape of human bands known as "nations" would take a unified, communal form like a World State, and the second a vision of the co-existence of plural communalities having different phases. We then set the framework of this study at point at which these visions confront each other, considering the question of which direction history textbooks should take as the apparatus bearing much of the burden of elaborating the advancement of nations.

   As we already summed up, history textbooks have come to include a plurality of narrative viewpoints in this age of globalization. The traditional narrative approach which tended to protect and promote admiration of the particular human bands at the "core" of society is being dismissed, but the form of national history education was maintained. Based on such a form, however, the textbooks began to provide more detail about more groups of people and the values that apply to entities larger than the national society. It is important for our study on the future of the social system known as the nation-state to understand that such styles of narration were extended in the education in history in both of the United States and Japan at the end of the 20th century. That is because such possibilities are suggested here that the communality relying on the principle of nation coexists with multiple communalities having different phases inside individuals, and that the identities of those individuals are formed from the complexity of the senses of belonging and responsibility. Therefore, this report concludes that the reasoning underlying the vision of cosmopolitanism without a cosmopolis, as presented by John Tomlinson, is most probable at this point.

   Of course, the work in this report involved a study limited to the field of education in history. Considering that there are a boundless number of factors that converge to determine the shape of bands known as "nations," there is a logical risk in emphasizing a particular vision on the directivity of the future. But as Anderson has pointed out, as mentioned in Chapter 1, the history textbook is a significant medium through which members of a nation are led to maintain and continue the nation-state. Therefore, we believe that the change in the content elaborated in history textbooks indicates the future direction of the nation and the state. This proof should be appropriate at least to the same extent as this medium has contributed to the reproduction of nation. In other words, when we made a decision in this way upon the alteration in style of narration in the history textbooks of the latter half of the 20th century, we also decided upon the basis for our assumption about the works as the next challenge for conducting total analysis of the diverse factors that determine what human bands will be.