The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 3 | Issue 7 | Article ID 2063 | Jul 06, 2005

1

The "Comfort Women" Controversy: History and Testimony

Yoshiko Nozaki

The “Comfort Women” Controversy:History and Testimony*

By Yoshiko Nozaki

[A] conference of historians, psychoanalysts,and artists, gathered to reflect on the relationof education to the Holocaust, watched thevideotaped testimony of the woman in anattempt to better understand the era. A livelydebate ensued. The testimony was notaccurate, historians claimed. The number ofchimneys was misrepresented. Historically,only one chimney was blown up, not all four.Since the memory of the testifying womanturned out to be, in this way, fallible, one couldnot accept--nor give credence to--her accountof the events. It was utterly important toremain accurate, [lest] the revisionists inhistory discredit everything. A psychoanalyst . .. profoundly disagreed. “The woman wastestifying,” he insisted, “not to the number ofthe chimneys blown up, but to something else,more radical, more crucial: the reality of anunimaginable occurrence.”--Dori Laub[1]

Introduction

In recent years, women’s testimonies haveprovided crucial evidence for challengingnormative views of history. Testimony as suchhas been “an act of memory situated in time,”“vital” to historical knowledge, as i t“dislocate[d] established frameworks andshift[ed] paradigms” of the discipline.[2] The

power of words has also been evident incurrent educational practices. Teachersworking at different levels of education--from aclassroom where twelfth grade students read I,Rigoberta Menchu[3] to a classroom at Yalewhere college students watched films ofHolocaust survivors[4]-- have reported that thetest imonial narrat ives of previouslymarg ina l i zed vo ices have power fu ltransformative effects upon the consciousnessand actions of students.

The use of testimony in history, however, oftenbrings with it tension, uncertainty, and conflict--be it epistemological, methodological, ethical,or otherwise--with respect to research andteaching practices. As one critic observes, I,Rigoberta Menchu “played a conspicuous rolein the ideological conflicts that burst out in thefield of education in the United States” in thelate 1980s and early 1990s.[5] Clearly, historyinvolves social and cultural struggles overinterpretations of the past. Feminist historianJoan Scott has called this the “politics ofhistory,” as historical interpretations are “notfixed . . . but are rather dynamic, always influx.” It is important that historians to attend tothe “conflictual processes that establishmeanings . . . [and] the play of force involved inany society’s construction and implementationof meanings.”[6]

This article examines the Japanese controversyover the “comfort women” (ianfu) systemduring Japan’s Asia-Pacific War (1931-1945)and attempts to include that history in schooltextbooks.[7] The testimonies given by formercomfort women in the 1990s forever changedthe paradigm of historical research on thesubject and became the focus of charged

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

2

debate among intellectuals of differentdisciplinary and ideological backgrounds, aswell as the target of Japanese neonationalistattacks.[8]

The existence of comfort women wasubiquitous knowledge in Japan from the late1930s, despite censorship. In the 1990s,feminist movements inside and outside Japan,and above all the victims who broke silence andgave testimonies,[9] showed the direct role ofthe Japanese state and military in creating andmaintaining a system of forced prostitution andsystematic rape of women from colonized andoccupied territories. When the voices of victimswere reinforced by the research findings ofJapanese scholars who unearthed documentsproving the role of the Japanese military inmaintaining the system, official denials meltedaway. By examining the process, through whichthe challenges to the normative interpretationwere posed and the ways they were countered,this article provides a comparative perspectivefor understanding contemporary controversiesover women’s voices, testimony, and historygenerally.[10]

Challenges to the Meaning of ComfortWomen in Postwar Japan

A number of reports, diaries, and memoirspublished in Japan during and after World WarII mentioned military comfort facilities onvarious war fronts and throughout territoriesoccupied by Japanese imperial forces.[11] Inthese writings, the term ianfu (comfort women)was a euphemism for prostitutes who providedsex to men in service. Although the story hadno place in Japan’s official war history, it wastold and retold privately as a nostalgic (andsometimes romantic) episode in men’s memoirsand novels.

In the 1970s and 1980s, several publicationsappeared that took somewhat more criticalviews of the comfort women issue. One of thefirst was a book written by the non-fiction

writer Senda Kako in 1973.[12] Senda, aformer journalist, conducted extensive researchand interviews, and from these he concludedthat the women's situations had been“pitiful.”[13] Senda's work was based almostwholly on sources and recollections of Japanesemen who had served in the war--only a fewJapanese former comfort women spoke of theirexperiences, and the two Korean formercomfort women he interviewed remained silent.Senda’s book became a best seller. The term heused for the women jugun-ianfu (comfortwomen serving in the war), would later becomecontentious, came to have a wide circulation.

Feminist approaches began to appear after theJapanese journalist and feminist Matsui Yayori(1934-2003) took up the issue. In 1984, Matsuipublished a short article in Asahi Shinbun,which marked the first time for any majornewspaper to address the issue. Matsui’sinterviewee, a former comfort woman whosename was not disclosed, was a Korean living inThailand. She spoke of her experience this way:

The life of comfort women was this--during theday doing laundry of soldiers’ clothes, cleaningthe barracks, and some heavy labor such ascarrying ammunition, and at night being theplaything for the soldiers. There were dayswhen I was made to serve scores of menbeginning in the morning. When I resisted--even just a l itt le--I was beaten by thesupervisor, pulled by my hair, and draggedaround half-naked. It was a subhuman life.[14]

Matsui’s article triggered no significant publicreaction. It was only after the successes ofSouth Korean democratic and feministmovements in the late 1980s, freeing formercomfort women to speak of their experiencesfor the first time, that the issue becameinternational, forcing the Japanese governmentto recognize the comfort women as asignificant part of Japan’s unresolved warissues. Yun Chung-ok, a professor at Korea'sEwha Womans University, was an important

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

3

catalyst in this development. In the late 1980'sshe met with Matsui to exchange informationabout the comfort women, and in 1990 shewrote a series of reports on the issue for aKorean newspaper.[15] Yun’s reports ignitedand enraged the South Korean public,prompting calls for redress from the Japanesegovernment. They also catalyzed Japanesewomen’s groups and political parties, many ofwhich began to call for a governmental inquiryinto the issue as a war atrocity.

In a Diet session in June 1991, the Japanesegovernment denied the involvement of thewartime state and its military in the matter--further enraging South Koreans. Formercomfort woman Kim Hak-soon was so angrythat she decided to “come out” as a way offorcing the Japanese government to confrontthe issue. She was the first Korean womanresiding in South Korea to reveal herself inpublic as a former comfort woman.[16] In thefall of 1991, Kim testified before the Japanesepublic. Her testimony, translated, recorded,and later published, began with her halfcentury of silence and the decision eventuallyto break that silence:

For these fifty years, I have lived, by bearingand again bearing [the unbearable]. For fiftyyears, I have had a heavy, painful feeling, butkept thinking in my heart about telling myexperience some day. . . As I try to speak now,my heart pounds against my chest, becausewhat happened in the past was somethingextremely unconscionable . . . Why does [theJapanese government] tell such a lie [to denyits knowledge of comfort women system]?Actually, I was made into a comfort woman,and I’m here alive.[17]

Kim’s testimony was the most significant eventin establishing a new interpretation of thecomfort women system. Hearing her story onJapanese television, historian Yoshimi Yoshiakiwent straight to the archives of the Self-Defense Agency (Boeicho), where he found

evidence that conclusively demonstrated theinvolvement of the Japanese Imperial Army inorganizing the comfort women system for itssoldiers (though the nature of the comfortwomen system and the state/mil itaryinvolvement, including the use of force andcoercion, still required further study). In 1992,he published his findings in major Japanesenewspapers. Faced with documentary evidencefrom i ts own archives , the Japanesegovernment had no choice but to acknowledgemilitary involvement, and Prime MinisterMiyazawa Kiichi officially apologized to SouthKorea.

In 1993, a Japanese government hearing forfifteen former comfort women in Seoulrevealed that many women had been made toserve as comfort women involuntarily. Laterthat year, Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yoheimade an official statement (danwa), essentiallyadmitting that the Japanese Imperial Army hadbeen directly and indirectly involved in theestablishment and administration of comfortfacilities. The government also acknowledgedthat coercion had been used in the recruitmentand retention of the women, and called forhistorical research and education aimed atremembering the fact. The Kono statementbecame the basis for addressing the issue ofcomfort women in education, and by 1997almost all school history textbooks and those inrelated subjects included a brief reference tocomfort women.[18] One history textbook forjunior high school read, “[M]any women, suchas Korean women, were sent to the front ascomfort women serving in the war.”[19] Suchstatements, however bland, served as alegitimate window through which teachers andstudents could address the issue in classrooms.

Subsequent historical research has uncoveredmore disturbing details about the comfortwomen system.[20] Scholars estimate thatbetween fifty thousand and two hundredthousand women were enslaved to providesexual service to Japanese officers and soldiers.

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

4

The majority of these women were Korean andChinese (there were also some Japanese), butthey included women from many othercountries, including Thailand, Taiwan,Indonesia, East Timor, Malaya, and Holland.Many non-Japanese women were minors,rounded up by deception or under conditions ofdebt slavery, and some were violentlyabducted.[21]

Prostitution for military personnel in war zonesand occupied territories was widely practicedduring and prior to World War II,[22] butJapan’s comfort women system was unusual inthe extreme forms of coercion and oppressionimposed on women, including teenage girlsbrought from Korea and Taiwan. The evidencereveals that state and military authorities at thehighest levels were extensively involved in thepolicymaking, establishment, and maintenanceof the system, and in recrui t ing andtransporting women across internationalborders.[23]

One result of both the Japanese government'sapologies and of recent scholarship on comfortwomen was backlash from neonationalistgroups. In particular, neonationalists objectedstrongly to both the government’s admission ofstate involvement in the matter and to theinclusion of the issue in school textbooks. Theyhave attacked politicians who support thegovernment’s apologies as well as historians'findings about comfort women. They have alsotargeted contradictions in the testimonies ofcomfort women in an effort to discredit theiraccounts.

Historical Debates:

Neonationalists vs. Progressive andFeminist Historians

Making and keeping the issue of comfortwomen controversial has been one of the mosteffective strategies pursued by neonationalists.In particular, they have focused on minor or

technical details of the facts presented bywomen’s testimonies and historical research,pointing out errors and the impossibility ofverification.[24] For example, in the early1990s, some school textbooks referred to thewomen in question as jugun-ianfu (comfortwomen serving in the war). Neonationalists,however, argued that jugun-ianfu was not the“historical term,” meaning that it was not theterm that was used officially (and unofficially)during the war. Therefore, they have insisted,the term must be deleted from schooltextbooks.[25]

There is a modicum of truth in the nationalistclaim: the term jugun-ianfu was a postwarinvention, gaining a wide currency withSenda’s work. During the war, the militaryofficially called the comfort facilities ianjo orianshisetsu (ian means “comfort”), designatingfor the most part the military comfort facilitiesbut sometimes referring to private brothels.For example, one of the key documents Yoshimidiscovered in 1991 (one that led to PrimeMinister Miyazawa’s official apology in 1992)was subject indexed as “Gun Ianjo Jugyofu-toBoshu ni kansuru Ken” (Matters concerning therecruitment of women to work in militarycomfort stations).[26] The women werevariously called as ianfu (comfort women),shugyofu (women of indecent occupation),shakufu (women serving sake), and tokushu-ianfu (special kind of comfort women), but notjugun-ianfu.[27]

Semantic issues aside, however, neonationalistefforts to undermine the history of the comfortwomen--and to erase it from school textbooks--seem manipulative at best. They argue, forexample, that the term jugun, as part of acompound noun (e.g., jugun-kisha, the term forwar correspondents; and jugun-kangofu, theterm for war nurses), indicates the status ofgunzoku, or civilian war workers (thoseofficially on the payroll of the army and/ornavy). The comfort women, they argue, werenot in that category. Historians such as Yoshimi

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

5

have refuted this argument by pointing out thatthe term jugun was (and is) commonly used tomean “going to the front,” or “serving in thewar,” and as such it was not used in the sameway as gunzoku. For example, most warcorrespondents were not employed by theJapanese military (the army only came to haveits own correspondents after 1942), butregardless of their employment status, theywere (and are) usually called jugun-kisha.

Moreover, Yoshimi and others have pointed outthe obvious fact that terms used in historicalresearch (and education) are not necessarilythe precise terms that were used during theperiod under study. (For example, people in themedieval period never called their timemedieval.) In their view, the real problem withthe use of the term jugun-ianfu in schooltextbooks is not that it was not officially used inwartime since the term became commonplacein recent years. Rather it that it is euphemistic.“Comfort” (ian) hardly convey a situation of thewomen that was, in fact, enslavement. Thepoint is well taken. Although many scholars atpresent prefer using the term gun-ianfu(military comfort women) or Nihongun-ianfu(Japanese military comfort women) for itspreciseness, what is critical, whatever term isused, is that explanation be provided.[28]

Another point of dispute has been over thetypes, agents, and extent of coercion.Neonationalists have made an issue of the termkyosei-renko (taking by force), a compoundnoun commonly used to refer to the Korean andChinese men brought to Japan to labor inplaces such as coalmines and factories duringthe war. Neonationlists has made an issue of itsince attacking the 1997 edition junior highschool textbooks for their use of the termkyosei-renko in relation to the comfort women.By defining the term as an act of “somethinglike slave hunting by the military and /orgovernment authorities” (a narrower definitionthan most historians’ usage signifying theinvoluntary nature on the part of the workers),

they argue that no (documentary) evidence hasbeen found to suggest that kyosei-renko tookplace in recruiting comfort women. They alsoargue that official documents indicate that themilitary and police instructed traffickers tofollow the law and regulations in theirrecruitment of comfort women (procuringwomen for prostitution was legal, butregulated), and that the testimony of YoshidaSe i j i , the on ly person who pub l i c lyacknowledged the violent means he and his co-workers used to recruit comfort women, lackscredibility in several key issues such as datesand places.[29]

The neonationalist arguments were (and are)misleading. First, no 1997 edition junior highhistory textbooks used the term kyosei-renko indescribing the comfort women. The termkyoseiteki (forcibly) appeared in one text andthe term renkoshite (took) appeared in another,but not kyosei-renko.[30]

Second, it is a illogical to suggest that no stateor military force was used because no writtenofficial order has been discovered. Whileadmitting that they have found no officialdocuments that ordered the use of military orpolice force for the recruitment of women--inparticular, in colonized regions such as Koreaand Taiwan--Yoshimi and others emphasize thefact that many wartime official records weredestroyed by the military at Japan’s surrender.Besides, the state and its military had no needto use so explicit a language as “use force toround up women and send them to comfortfacilities” to achieve its goals.[31]

In the absence of official document(s)sanctioning the use of force, progressive andfeminist historians have presented otherevidence to document the fact that the militaryand government authorities were directlyinvolved in the procurement, shipping, andmanagement of the comfort women, and wereaware of traffickers’ use of violence anddeceptive tactics. Overwhelmng evidence

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

6

shows that colonial authorities in essencecondoned such traffickers’ behavior as well astheir trading very young girls in Korea andTaiwan.

In addition, detailed testimonies by formercomfort women document cases in occupiedterritories, such as China and Southeast Asia,where government and military authoritiesthemselves took women by force. Finally,coercion was widespread not only in therecruitment of women, but also in forcing themto stay and work in the comfort facilities.[32]Yoshimi and others suggest that theneonationalist focus on the term kyosei-renko issimply a smokescreen to divert (public)attention from the main issue: the coercivenature of the military comfort women system.

Progressive and feminist historians seem to bewinning the empirical and analytical debate.But if the neonationalists have lost manypoints, they continue to circulate their viewsnot only through that part of the media thatthey dominate such as the Sankei Shimbun, butthroughout the mainstream mass media. And ifprogressive and feminist historians dominatethe discuss ion in h istor ical c irc les ,neonationalists exhibit formidable strength inthe popular arena where the controversy hasattracted a large audience. For example,Kobayashi Yoshinori, a popular cartoonist whohad once fought on behalf of some AIDSvictims, has published a series of best-sellingcomics in magazines and volumes, promotingneonationalist arguments on the war. Theability of neonationalists to keep the issuecontroversial has led the public to feel that theissues remain unresolved.

Right-wing political pressures led a number oftextbook publishers to remove references tocomfort women from their 2002 edition juniorhigh history textbooks. Out of eight texts, onlyone included the phrase comfort women (ianfu)and two others included the phrase comfortfacility (ianshisetsu).[33] This trend continues

as none of the 2006 edition textbook draftsrefers to comfort women. One text mentionsthe issue, but only in a footnote touching on therecent development by which the unresolvedissues of war have been brought to theJapanese court.[34]

A “Poststructuralist” Feminist Critique of“Positivism” in History

In the battles between neo nationalists andprogressive/feminist historians, some criticshave looked to “postmodern” approaches toreplace empirical approaches to the issue ofcomfort women. In a provocative essay, notedJapanese feminist Ueno Chizuko criticizes as“positivist” (jissho-shugi) the arguments of bothneonationalists and progressive/feministhistorians.[35] Citing “poststructuralist”theories, Ueno maintains that the issue ofcomfort women is linked to fundamentalquestions about the methodology of historicalstudies. She asks: “[I]s a historical ‘fact’ such asimple thing that it looks the same to whoeverlooks at it?”[36]

According to Ueno, the positivist approachaccepts written documents as the first and onlylegitimate source for the study of history(bunshoshiryo shijo-shugi). This has allowedneonationalists to discredit the testimonies offormer comfort women on the grounds that noofficial documents have been found showingthat the state and the military took women byforce. In her view, progressive and feministhistorians have erred in attempting to refutethe nationalists by advancing the positiviststudy of history. Commenting on a televiseddebate on the issue, Ueno charges that:

Yoshimi Yoshiaki, a conscientious historian whohas contributed most vigorously in discoveringthe historical materials concerning the issue ofcomfort women, driven into a corner by thequestioning of nationalists such as KobayashiYoshinori, finally admitted that no writtenhistorical materials exist that prove in due form

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

7

the involvement of the Japanese military. If onestands on the doctrine of the written historicalmaterial as the first and only source, one hasno choice but to admit “no.” It became more orless a shared understanding that thedocuments Yoshimi found and reported in 1992can be indirect evidence for kyosei-renko(taking by force), but not the historical sourcethat substantiates it as a fact.[37]

At the heart of Ueno's interpretation is thesuggestion that positivism “denies the‘evidentiary power’ of the victims’ testimonies,”and, thus, discredits “the ‘reality’ [experiencedand told by] the victims.” Ueno holds that tonegate the testimonies of the former comfortwomen is to trample their dignity underfoot.Instead, she argues for the importance ofrecognizing “a variety of histories,” or“pluralistic histories,” which would representhistory from individuals' differing realities. Thismeans that there is no necessity to choose justone history from the variety.[38]

Progressive Historians’ Reply to Ueno

Ueno’s argument created a stir amongprogressive and feminist historians. Forexample, Yoshimi responded that no seriousJapanese historian today holds that writtenhistorical material is the first and only sourcefor the study of history, still less that officialstate documents are the only legitimatehistorical sources. He also noted that it iscommon sense among historians that “thepicture of history is not unitary even in caseswhere [historians] address the same object.”Yoshimi cited the difference between twoversions of a life history told by the sameformer comfort woman (a Resident Koreanliving in Okinawa). That difference, hesuggested, is based on the differences betweenthe interviewers’ social locations and positions--one a Japanese feminist, and the other aKorean support group.[39]

Yoshimi maintains that historical facts need to

be reconstructed utilizing diverse sources suchas off icial and unoff icial documents,testimonies, and other kinds of evidence; andthat theories and methods of history are toolsfor historical analysis and reconstruction. In hisview, a reconstructed history needs to beevaluated in terms of its persuasiveness andlogica l coherence- -which for h im is“verification.”[40] Yoshimi questions whetherUeno’s position that there are no “facts” or“truths” in history, only “realities reconstructedfrom given perspectives” ultimately suggeststhat one’s viewpoint is the only thing thatmatters in studies of history. This, for Yoshimi,is highly problematic. As he puts it:

If so, . . . which “reality” to choose would bedecided by determining which [viewpoint] tochoose from the [various] “viewpoints” thatconstruct it [history]. This would result ineither agnosticism, or the situation of [choosingbased on] beliefs and tastes, i.e., whichviewpoint one believes or prefers.[41]

“At least, if it’s scholarship,” Yoshimi argues,“it should be questioned which reality, fromamong various ‘realities’ reconstructed, haspersuasive power and which has a basis.”

Yoshimi rejects Ueno’s view that pointing outthe exaggerations and mistakes in the victims’testimonies is to deny the power of testimonialevidence. It is natural that mistakes orinconsistencies occur in testimony concerningevents half a century earlier, just as mistakesand inconsistencies, not to mention deliberatefalsehoods and obfuscation sometimes found inofficial war documents, may be found indocumentary evidence. For example, a womantestified that she had been forced to work in amilitary comfort facility in the late 1930s inJapan, but since no military comfort facilitiesare known to have existed inside Japan at thattime, Yoshimi holds that it is difficult to takethis particular testimony at face value.[42] Inanother example, a former comfort womangave contradictory accounts—on one occasion,

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

8

she stated that she had been taken by force,but on another occasion, she stated she hadaccepted the job to earn money. Yoshimireminds us that the fact that the womanconsented to be sent to the front (in this caseBurma) does not absolve the military fromresponsibility for its brutal treatment of herwithin the comfort women system, leading herto attempt to commit suicide by drowning. Hestates, “I would like [Ueno] to consider thiskind of effort [required] for the reconstructionof the reality.”[43]

Yoshimi’s point highlights the fact that oralhistory involves careful piecing together andassessment of information given in multipletestimonies. This is all the more true when theevidence pertains to events of half a centuryearlier. While Yoshimi acknowledges thepossibility of a (postmodernist) examination oftestimonies as (contemporary) discursivepractices, he insists that the currentcontroversy over the comfort women issue isprincipally over the historical facts. Therefore,his efforts have been geared towards thereconstruction of those facts.

Other historians have joined the debate. Iwould like to consider the insights of one ofthem, Yasumaru Yoshio, a specialist on thehistory of Japanese thought. While finding somevalue in Ueno’s argument, Yasumaru disagreeswith her assessment of Yoshimi as a positivist.Yasumaru points out that Yoshimi began hisstudy because he was deeply moved by thetestimony of Kim Hak-soon, meaning that at theheart of his study are his sensibility and ethics.Having taken up the subject, Yoshimi hasbrought to bears his skills and knowledge as anhistorian.[44]

One important issue to Yasumaru is theactivities of traffickers in the colonies whowere active agents and mediators between thewomen and the military, and who played amajor part in the everyday violence, includingtaking women by force or kidnapping them.

Without their existence and systematicoperations, Yasumaru argues, it would havebeen impossible for the state to collect such alarge number of women. Extending Yasumaru’sarguments, it is clear that historians andeducators need to examine critically not onlythe direct role of the imperial state and militarybut also the dynamics of class, gender, race,and ethnicity that shaped the ideologies andpraxis of colonial relations in order to grasp themilieu within which the traffickers committedeveryday violence.

The Nationalist Appropriation ofPostmodern Vocabulary

While the debate over the appropriateparadigm for historical research has continuedwithin the progressive/feminist camp, someneonationalists have begun to speak a kind ofpostmodern discourse, with their ownparticular twist. They are calling for theconstruction of a Japanese history from “theJapanese perspective,” stressing unity andcoherence.

For example, Sakamoto Takao, a historian ofJapanese political thought, has argued that noeducation is value-neutral and that the purposeof education, especially history education, is tofoster “national consciousness.” In his view,“history is a story,” and the Japanese historytaught in schools should be “a story of theformation of a nation, a people,” which aims atthe construction of a sense of nationalunity.[45]

Sakamoto here employs the discourse of anational history that is not necessarily based onverified facts drawn from studies of history, butone in which facts are “fittingly woven into thestory” in order to enhance its reality. InSakamoto’s view, concepts such as “state” and“nation” are, in some sense, f ictions.“However,” he contends, human beings “cannotlive without fictions,” and “efforts” by humanbeings “to maintain the fictions” are needed.

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

9

The vocabulary used here may have beenborrowed from recent postmodern literature,but it curiously (and ironically) servesmodernist ends, specifically the construction ofa national unity by [re]instituting andprivileging national history.[46]

Sakamoto's neonationalist postmoderndiscourse finds echoes among those in massmedia and on the lecture circuit, indicating thatit has gained some currency in the publicarena. In the fall of 1996, for example, SakuraiYoshiko, a former television news anchorwoman and current freelance journalist, gave alecture at an in-service teacher trainingprogram held by the Yokohama EducationBoard for the promotion of internationalunderstanding.[47] Sakurai spoke on thecomfort women issue and textbook questions.She began by stating that “all the textbooks . . .assume ‘taken by force’ as a major premise;however, . . it is my conviction that [thewomen] were not ‘taken by force.’”[48]

The problem, in her view, was the “structure ofthe Japanese psyche,” which was “self-tormenting.” She then proceeded to argue forthe concept of history as a story (monogatari)of a nation.

What I’d like to say is that history is a story…Itis a story of individuals, and at the same time itshould be a story of the respective nation.Therefore, … it should be natural that Japanhas its own way of viewing [history]. It isnatural that . . . China has its own view andKorea has its own view, and it is natural andreasonable that all three are separate [anddifferent].[49]

For Sakurai, Japan’s (hi)story needs to be toldfrom the Japanese perspective, that is, aperspective through which the youngergeneration come to love the nation.

The new postmodern line put forth by thenationalists also seems to blur the line between

“fact” and “fiction.” In fact, Fujioka Nobukatsu,an educational scholar and long a central figurein the neonationalist attack on historytextbooks, has even argued that the inclusion of“lies” in history books (and, by implication,textbooks) is acceptable for certain purposes,for instance, to make the story “colorful.”Fujioka has disclosed that in the 1990s, whenhe was involved in authoring TakasugiShinsaku, a series of history books for children(intended to aid their understanding of historylessons in schools),[50] he included somefictitious stories. As he puts it:

To write [a history] based only on verifiedhistorical truths makes . . . [it] insipid and dry. Ichanged my pol icy for the lack of analternative--I had no choice but to write frommy own imagination to a great extent.[51]

It seems that neonationalists are in the processof reformulating their discursive strategy toappropriate (selectively) certain postmodernconcepts such as “history as story” to serve thepurpose of creating an idealized history of apure Japanese nation. It is a project thatresonates with dominant wartime ideologies ofempire.

As we have seen, one of the primary nationaliststrategies has been to focus on the details ofhistorical findings on comfort women, to pointout errors or the impossibility of verifyingcertain claims, and on that basis suggest theimpossibility of verifying any part of the historyof comfort women. At the same time, they seekto relativize the epistemological status of anyclaim concerning historical facts and argue fora choice of stories from any number of “equallyvalid” stories. The notion of “history as story”serves as a license to construct any kind ofstory as history, including fictive stories withreal names. This is a clever move forneonationalists, one that is worrisome forprogressive/feminist historians. For, ifneonationalists are unable to win the battleover empirical research and testimony, perhaps

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

10

they can win with fictional narratives appealingto the national pride and patriotic spirit.

Conclusion

The testimonies of former comfort women thatappeared in the early 1990s spurred intensecontroversy over the representation of wartimeJapan's military comfort women system. Thecontroversy has been intense and prolonged,not only because it reflects the political andideological struggle(s) between progressivesand neonationalists in Japan and the geopoliticsand diplomacy involving Japan and itsneighbors,[52] but also because of theintellectual and moral challenges posed to thesocieties involved in general, and historiansand educators specifically.[53]

In the conventional legal context, “testimony isprovided, and is called for, when the facts uponwhich justice must pronounce its verdict arenot clear, when historical accuracy is in doubt,and when both the truth and its supportingelements of evidence are cal led intoquestion.”[54] In other words, it settles thedispute. In contemporary society, testimonygiven by victims and the oppressed has beenused in research and education to providecrucial evidence to document traumatic events,including the Second World War, theHolocaust, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, anddiverse war atrocities. In so doing, it hasacquired another function—unsettling the(dominant, normative) truth.

Indeed, the testimonies of former comfortwomen have changed the interpretiveframework for research on the issue and forwhat counts as truth. As a result, a muchr icher , de ta i l ed , and more cr i t i ca lunderstanding of the events and processes thatdefined the comfort women system becomespossible. At the same time, however, theemphasis placed by some proponents of thecomfort women on the truth of theirtest imonies has backf ired. Japanese

neonationalists, by focusing on minor detailsand contradictions, have effectively made (andkept) controversial both the women'stestimonies and historians’ findings that drawboth on testimonies and archival research.Progressive and feminist historians have foughtback and won a number of empirical debates onthe bas i s o f exper t knowledge , bu tneonationalists have succeeded in confusingpublic audiences, including many schoolteachers.

How should historians and educators use thevoices and testimonies of comfort women, aswell as those of other marginalized groups? Itseems to me that we should strive for asensitive, sensible, and critical approach tothem. First, we should understand that oraltestimony is an important and unique source ofinformation, one that is particularly importantif we are to gain access to the experience ofvictims, but that it is only one of many types ofsources that historians and educators shouldconsult. Like any other source, its value needsto be assessed rigorously, its internalconsistency examined closely, and, when usedas part of the factual narratives that historiansconstruct, it should be used in conjunction withm u l t i p l e o f f i c i a l a n d u n o f f i c i a ldocuments—print or otherwise—to create awider and deeper understanding of complexphenomena of the past. The testimony of thecomfort women, where it can be verified andreinforced, is among the most compelling andimportant kinds of evidence available fordocumenting the women’s experience and theinterplay between official policies and thepeoples of colonized and occupied territoriesunder wartime conditions.

Second, gender is a critically importantcategory for understanding what took placemore than half a century ago and for graspinghow it has been represented since.[55] In myview, the foremost significance of testimonylies in its power to provide a lived perspective,a lens through which historians and educators

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

11

can (and should) reexamine and reinterpretevery historical source available. We shouldlook at history of the war through the eyes ofcomfort women.[56] It can change themeanings and interpretations of events byshedding a different light on other historicalmaterials, and so it can yield new knowledge.In this case, the research illuminates howgender relations and ideology, embedded innationalism, militarism, colonialism, andethnocentrism, shaped history, and how statistand male perspectives on that history can bechallenged. The women’s testimonies helpvisualize a new, counter history of war andcolonialism, providing rare insight into a rangeof issues as experienced and remembered by animportant group of women whose voices hadbeen silenced for more than half a century.

Third, we should not conflate the problem ofmethod with that of perspective. The evidenceproduced by a testimony, while often powerfuland compelling, is by its nature partial andlimited.[57] It is the historians’ task to probethe relationship between “fragmentaryevidence” and the lived perspective (or “holistictruth”) to comprehend the full experience ofcomfort women and the role of the state incrafting the comfort women system.[58] To besure, some testimony is difficult--or virtuallyimpossible--to verify given the fact that theJapanese government and military deliberatelydestroyed the key documents at Japan’sdefeat.[59] However, the value of theperspective is not undermined by discrepanciesand inconsistencies in individual accounts.Rather, taken as a group, the testimonies ofcomfort women from many countries constitutea powerful and coherent set of lenses toexamine the nature of the comfort womensystem and the war. Incorporating theperspective(s) of the victims into historicalresearch and education is not only a profoundlyimportant intellectual act, it is also among themost important ethical and pol i t icalresponsibilities of historians and educators.

Finally, it is urgent to educate students and thepublic about the complex issues involved in therelationship between history and testimony, sothat they can meet the intellectual and moralchallenges that the history of comfort womenand other sensitive historical issues pose forlater generations. Postmodern debates can helpto sensitize students and the public to becomeinformed listeners and readers of testimoniesand to effectively engage the controversiessurrounding them. Those who hold classic,commonsensical notions of historicalobjectivity, and who emphasize teaching only“the facts”, may remain vulnerable incontemporary debates over history andtestimony, if only because they are lessequipped to deal with attacks employingpostmodern language as in the case of “historyas story.” Today’s effective citizenship requiresunderstanding of the nature, power, and limitsof testimonies in constructing historicalknowledge, as such knowledge is a majorsource of national identity.

*I would like to thank Hiro Inokuchi, RichardMinear, and Mark Selden for comments andsuggestions.

Yoshiko Nozaki is an associate professor in theDepartment of Educational Leadership &Policy, the University at Buffalo (SUNY-Buffalo)and an Asia-Pacific Journal Associate. She isthe author of War Memory, Nationalism, andEducation in Postwar Japan, 1945-2007: TheJapanese history textbook controversy andI e n a g a S a b u r o ’ s c o u r t c h a l l e n g e s(http://www.amazon.com/dp/0415371473/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20) and numerous works oneducation and historical memory. She is co-author with Hiromitsu Inokuchi of What U.S.Middle School Students Bring to GlobalEducation: Discourses on Japan, Formation ofAmerican Identities, and the Sociology ofK n o w l e d g e a n d C u r r i c u l u m(http://www.amazon.com/dp/9460913091/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20).

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

12

Notes

[1] Dori Laub, “Bearing Witness, or theVicissitudes of Listening,” in Shoshana Felmanand Dori Laub, Testimony: Crises of Witnessingin Literature, Psychoanalysis, and History(London: Routledge, 1992), 59-60.[2] Allen Carey-Webb, "Transformative Voices,"in Allen Carey-Webb and Stephen Benz, eds.,Teaching and testimony: Rigoberta Menchuand the North American Classroom (Albany:State University of New York Press, 1996), 7.[3] See, for example, June Kuzmeskus, "WritingTheir Way to Compassionate Citizenship:Rigoberta Menchu and Activating High SchoolLearners," in Carey-Webb and Benz, Teachingand Testimony, 123-131.[4] Shoshana Felman, "Education and Crisis, Orthe Vicissitudes of Teaching," in Felman andLaub, Testimony, 1-56.[5] Mary Louise Pratt, “I, Rigoberta Menshuand the ‘Culture Wars,’” in Arturo Arias, ed.The Rigoberta Menchu Controversy(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,2001), 30.[6] Joan Scott, Gender and the Politics ofHistory (NY: Columbia University Press, 1988),5.[7] In this article, I employ the term “comfortwomen” (hereafter without quotation marks)because it has been the term most widely used,though I am aware that the term was (and is) aeuphemism. Scores of volumes and articles onthe topic (written in Japanese, Korean, andEnglish) have been published since the early1990s. This article discusses the mostimportant works comprising that literature.[8] Historical controversy is not new in Japan.Since 1945, Japan has been the setting of ahard-fought struggle over the official history ofWorld War II. See Yoshiko Nozaki andHiromitsu Inokuchi, "Japanese Education,Nationalism, and Ienaga Saburo’s TextbookLawsuits," in Laura Hein and Mark Selden,eds., Censoring History: Citizenship andMemory in Japan, Germany, and the UnitedStates (Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 2000), 96-126;

and Yoshiko Nozaki, “Japanese Politics and theHistory Textbook Controversy, 1945-2001,” inEdward Vickers and Alisa Jones, eds., HistoryEducation and National Identity in East Asia(London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2005), 275-305.[9] For testimonies and accounts by formercomfort women, see, for example, Maria RosaHenson, A Filipina’s Story of Prostitution andSlavery under the Japanese Military (Lanham:Rowan & Littlefield, 1999); and Korean Councilfor Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slaveryby Japan, True Stories of the Korean ComfortWomen, ed. Keith Howard (London: CassellAcademic, 1996).[10] For other aspects of the controversy, seeYoshiko Nozaki, "Feminism, Nationalism, andthe Japanese Textbook Controversy over'Comfort Women,'" in France Winddance Twineand Kathleen M. Blee, eds., Feminism &Antiracism: International Struggles for Justice(NY: New York University Press, 2001),170-189. See also Laura Hein, "Savage Irony:The Imaginative Power of the 'Military ComfortWomen'" in the 1990s, Gender & History(1999), 11(2): 336-372.[11] See, for example, Hyakusatsu ga Kataru“Ianjyo” Otoko no Honne: Ajia-zeniki ni“Inanjyo” ga Atta [The “comfort facility” andmen’s confessions told in one hundred books:There were “comfort facilities” all over Asia],ed. Takasaki Ryuji (Tokyo: Nashinokisha,1994). Takasaki finds approximately onehundred diaries and memoirs that referred tohaving directly witnessed the comfort facilitiesand/or comfort women. Those published duringthe war were censored so that their referenceswere oblique.[12] Japanese and Korean names in this articlefollow East Asian name order (except authorinformation for English publications).[13] The first writer to take up the issue wasSenda Kako, who published Jugun Ianfu[Military comfort women] (Tokyo: Futabasha,1973). Senda also wrote several bestsellers onthe topic in the 1970s. In Korea, severalpublications appeared in the 1970s. For furtherdiscussion, see Takasaki Soji, Hannichi Kanjyo

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

13

[Anti-Japanese sentiments] (Tokyo: Kodansha,1993), 128-129; and Kasahara Tokushi et al.eds. Rekishi no Jijitsu o do Ninteishi doOshieruka [How to verify and teach thehistorical facts] (Tokyo: Kyoiku Shuppankai,1997), 160-161.[14] Matsui Yayori, "Kankoku-fujin no IkitaMichi" [The road a Korean woman took to live],Asahi Shinbun, evening edition (November 2,1984), 5. At the time of Matsui’s interview, thewoman lived in Thailand. The article included aphoto of her visiting her family in Korea in1984, but did not mention her name.[15] For Yun’s activities, see George Hicks, TheComfort Women: Japan’s Brutal Regime ofEnforced Prostitution in the Second World War(NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994),173-178.[16] In the next few years, approximately twohundred Korean former comfort womenfollowed in Kim’s footsteps.[17] Kaiho Shuppansha ed., Kim Hakusun-sanno Shogen: “Jugun Ianfu Mondai” o Tou [Thetestimony of Kim Hak-soon: An inquiry into theissue of military comfort women] (Osaka: KaihoShuppansha, 1993), 3-4.[18] For further discussion, see Nozaki,"Feminism, Nationalism, and the JapaneseTextbook Controversy over 'Comfort Women.'"[19] Haruo Sasayama et al., Chugaku Shakai:Rekishi [Junior High School Social Studies:History] (Tokyo: Kyoikushuppan, 1997), 261.[20] Two excellent book length historicalstudies on comfort women have been publishedin English: Yoshimi Yoshiaki, Comfort Women:Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military duringWorld War II, S. O’Brien, Translator (NY:Columbia University Press, 2000) (Originalwork published 1995); and Yuki Tanaka,Japan’s Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery andProstitution during World War II and the USOccupation (London: Routledge, 2002).[21] Yoshimi, Comfort Women, 29. Nodocuments discovered to date reveal theproportions of nationalities or ethnic groupsamong comfort women.[22] See, for example, Louise White,

"Prostitution in Nairobi during World War II,1939-45," in The Comforts of Home:Prostitution in Colonial Nairobi (Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press, 1990), 147-184.See also Tanaka, Japan’s Comfort Women,84-132.[23] Tanaka, Japan’s Comfort Women, 180-181.[24] In several cases, their criticisms ofhistorical research turned out to be flawed dueto their own lack of expert knowledge. Right-wing nationalists published numerous volumesand articles on the comfort women issue in the1990s. For example, Uesugi Chitoshi, Kensho“Jugun Ianfu”: Jugun Ianfu Mondai Nyumon[The verification of the “military comfortwomen”: Introduction to the issue of militarycomfort women], revised and enlarged edition(Tokyo: Zenbosha, 1996).[25] Neonationalists continue to employ thisdiscourse. For example, in June 2005, Ministerof Education and Science Nakayama Nariakistated that the term jugun-ianfu did not exist atthe time of the war, so it was good to see theschool textbooks have eliminated the term.[26] For the translation of the document, seeYoshimi, Comfort Women, 58.[27] For the issue of the terms, see alsoYoshiaki Yoshimi and Hiroshi Hayashi (eds.)Kyodo Kenkyu Nihongun-Ianfu [Joint researchon Japanese military comfort women] (Tokyo:Otsukishoten, 1995).[28] Yoshimi Yoshiaki and Kawada Fumiko,eds.,“Jugun ianfu” o meguru sanju no uso toshinjitsu [Thirty lies and truths surrounding“military comfort women”] (Tokyo: OtsukiShoten, 1997), 9-10.[29] For example, Yoshida Seiji, ChosenjinIanfu to Nihonjin: Moto Shimonoseki RohodoinBucho no Shuki [Korean comfort women andthe Japanese: Former Shimonoseki laborconscription manager’s memoir] (Tokyo: ShinJinbutsu Oraisha, 1977) and Watashi no SensoHanzai: Chosenjin Kyosei Renko [My warcrimes: Taking Koreans by force] (Tokyo:San’ichi Shobo, 1983). In these volumes,Yoshida described his use of deception andcoercion in recruitment of Korean women for

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

14

the comfort system as an officer at anemployment bureau in Shimonoseki, Japan.Employment bureau offices during the warwere involved in local labor conscription.[30] Hiroshi Tanabe, Shinpen Atarashii Shakai:Rekishi [New social studies new edition:History] (Tokyo: Tokyoshoseki, 1997), 263; andKo Atsuta et al., Chugaku Shakai: RekishitekiBunya [Junior high social studies: Hisoricalarea] (Osaka: Osakashosei, 1997), 261. SeealsoYoshimi and Kawada, "Jugun ianfu," 63-65.Some high school textbooks published inprevious years used the term in describing thecomfort women; it appears that neonationaliststargeted the junior high texts without readingthem closely. See, for example, ShozoSakamoto et al., Koto Gakko Nihonshi: B[Senior high Japanese history: B] (Tokyo:Daiichigakushusha, 1995), 322.[31] Yoshimi and Kawada, "Jugun ianfu," 22-24.Yoshimi notes that some non-Japanese officialdocuments (the U.S. military documents in thecase of Korea and the Dutch mil i tarydocuments in the case of Indonesia) refer to thefact that the women were taken forcibly by theJapanese authorities. See Yoshimi Yoshiaki,"'Jyugun Ianfu' Mondai to Rekishizo: UenoChizuko-shi ni Kotaeru” [The issue of “comfortwomen” and the view on history: Responding toUeno Chizuko], in Nihon no Senso SekininShiryo Senta, Simpozium Nashonarizumu, 125.[32] Yoshimi and Kawada, "Jugun ianfu," 20-31.[33] Kota Kodama et al., Watashitachi noChugakushakai: Rekishiteki Bunya [Our socialstudies: historical area] (Tokyo: Nihonshoseki,2002), 180; Hideo Kuroda et al., ShakaikaChugakko no Rekishi: Nihon no Ayumi to Sekaino Ugoki [Social studies history: Japan’s stepsand the world currents] (Tokyo: Teikokushoin,2002), 221; and Yujiro Oguchi et al., ShinChugakko Rekishi: Nihon no Rekishi to Sekai[New junior high history: Japanese history andthe world] (Tokyo: Shimizushoin, 2002), 189.The textbooks also eliminated references toother Japanese war atrocities. See Nozaki,“Japanese Politics and History TextbookControversy,” 295.

[34] Controversy has erupted since mid 2004over the 2006 edition textbooks to be publishedin the spring of 2006. For a brief report on thedrafts, see Ishii Tateo, “Subete no Kyokashokara ‘Ianfu’ ga Kieta [Comfort womendisappeared from all the textbooks], ShukanKinyobi, (April 22, 2005), 554: 12-13.[35] Ueno Chizuko, “Kioku no Seijigaku:Kokumin, Kojin, Watashi” [The politics ofmemory: Nation, individuals, and I], Impaction,(1997), 103: 154-174. In Japan, jissho-shugi is ahistorical research paradigm that stressesverification by empirical evidence (historicalsources), which may not be exactly the samething as positivism in Western historicalstudies. The article is one of Ueno's first on thetopic. In my view, while Ueno has a point, hercharacterization of progressive/feministhistorians as bunshoshiryo shijo-shugi here iswrong, since they also stress the legitimacy andimportance of oral testimony. In subsequentpublications on the same topic, Ueno revisedher description of the progressive and feministhistorians slightly to present them in a morepositive light. See also Chizuko Ueno,Nationalism and Gender, Beverley Yamamoto,Translator (Sydney: Trans Pacific Press, 2005).[36] Ueno "Kioku no Seijigaku,” 159.[37] Ueno, "Kioku no Seijigaku," 159. Ueno'scommentary lacks the precise knowledgeexemplified by Yoshimi’s research that proved“military involvement,” but not “kyosei-renko”(taking by force). The issue of militaryinvolvement cannot be reduced to the questionof kyosei-renko.[38] Ueno, "Kioku no Seijigaku," 159-166. UenoChizuko, "Jenda-shi to Rekishigaku no Hoho"[Gender history and the methods of history], inNihon no Senso Sekinin Shiryo Senta, ed.,Simpozium Nashonarizumu to “Ianfu” Mondai(Tokyo: Aoki Shoten, 1998), 30.[39] Yoshimi, "'Jyugun Ianfu' Mondai," 128-130.[40] Ibid., 130.[41] Ibid., 131.[42] The first Japanese military comfort facilitywas built in Shanghai in 1931. The numberincreased after 1937 as the Japanese invasion

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

15

expanded to other areas. Comfort facilitiesinside Japan developed in places such asOkinawa and Hokkaido in later years. SeeYoshimi, Comfort Women, 44-57, 88-91.[43] Yoshimi, "'Jyugun Ianfu' Mondai," 133.[44] Yasumaru Yoshio, "'Ianfu' mondai torekishigaku: Yasumaru Yoshio ni kiku” [Theissue of “comfort women” and the studies ofhistory: Interview with Yoshio Yasumaru], inNihon no Senso Sekinin Shiryo Senta,Simpozium Nashonarizumu, 209.[45] Sakamoto Takao, "Rekishi Kyokasho waIkani Kakarerubekika” [How should historytextbooks be written?], Seiron (1997), 297:50.The nationalist effort to produce and sell theirown history textbook to high schools wasunsuccessful in the 1980s, but it wasintensified in the 1990s. Sakamoto’s argumentwas made in the context of the debates amongneonationalists over their history textbookproject of the 1990s. Against some prominentnationalists who argued that history teaching inschools should be abolished altogether since itcannot be neutral, Sakamoto rearticulated theneed for (nationalist) history with postmoderndiscourses.[46] For a good analysis of Sakamoto’sargument, see Iwasaki Minoru "Bokyaku notameno 'kokumin no monogatari': 'Rairekiron'no raireki o kangaeru" [“A story for a nation”for the purpose of oblivion: Thoughts on theorigin of the “origin” theory], in Komori Yoichiand Takahashi Tetsuya, eds., NashonaruHisutori o Koete (Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai,1998), 175-193.[47] Sakurai, who was previously involved insome progressive causes, has positionedherself in the neonationalist camp in thecomfort women v.[48] Sakurai Yoshiko, "Janarisuto SakuraiYoshiko ga Mita Nihon, Gakko, Kodomo"[Japan, schools and children in the eyes ofjournalist Yoshiko Sakurai], lecture given at theHeisei 8-nendo Kyoiku Kadai Kenshukai, theYokohama City School Board (October 3, 1996).[49] Ibid., 13.[50] The book title is the name of a Japanese

samurai hero in the Meiji Restoration of 1968.[51] See also Shinji Takashima, “KingendaishiKyoiku ‘Kaikaku’ Undo no Mondaiten 4 [Theproblems of the ‘reform’ movement of teachingmodern and contemporary history], SensoSekinin Kenkyu, (1998), 19: 92. Fujioka arguesthat the “lies” should be within a limit of“common sense.” It follows that the realquestion might be what kinds of “lies” areactually inserted. Interestingly, one lie heincluded was very phallocentric. The (hi)storystates that when the hero was born, his parentsand grandparents were extremely happy to seethe baby was a boy, a successor of the family,and included the line that “[his father] madereal ly sure that the baby in the bathwater…had a penis.” See Fujioka Nobukatsu,"Ronso kingendaishi kyoiku no kaikaku, 21:Rekishi jinbutsu shirizu ‘Takasugi Shinsaku’ okaite, Meiji-ishin to buhsi 2" [The debate on thereform of modern and contemporary historyeducation, no. 21: On writing about ‘TakasugiShinsaku’ for the historical figure series, theMeiji Restoration and samurai, no. 2], GendaiKyoiku Kagaku (1997), 494: 112-113. For adiscussion of masculinist tendency of Fujiokaand his followers, see also Hein, "SavageIrony," 360-364.[52] For analysis of the politics of thecontroversy, see Nozaki, "Feminism,Nationalism, and the Japanese TextbookControversy over 'Comfort Women'"; andNozaki, “Japanese politics and the historytextbook controversy, 1945-2001.”[53] See also Daqing Yang, “The Challenges ofthe Nanjing Massacre: Reflections on HistoricalInquiry,” in Joshua A. Fogel, ed., The NanjingMassacre in History and Historiography,133-179.[54] Felman, "Education and Crisis," 6.[55] See also Scott, Gender and the Politics ofHistory, 28-50.[56] Long ago, feminist historian Gerda Lernerasserted that “The central question raised bywomen’s history is: what would history be likeif it were seen through the eyes of women andordered by values they define?” Lerner, The

APJ | JF 3 | 7 | 0

16

Majority Finds Its Past: Placing Women inHistory, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1979), 162.[57] See Elizabeth Ellsworth, TeachingPositions: Difference, Pedagogy, and the Powerof Address (New York: Teachers College Press,1997). It is also important to understand thatthe victims themselves may have difficulties

making sense of what happened to them. SeeLawrence L. Langer, Holocaust Testimonies:The Ruins of Memory, (New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1991).[58] Yang, “The Challenges of the NanjingMassacre,” 144.[59] In addition, the Japanese government hasnot yet declassified a large volume of wartimedocuments.

Click a cover to order.

(http://www.amazon.com/dp/9460913091/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20)

(http://www.amazon.com/dp/0415371473/?tag=theasipacjo0b-20)

Click a cover to order.