The Textbook Issue
IKEI Masaru / Professor at Aoyama Gakuin University
August 2, 2001
China, South Korea, Taiwan and North Korea have demanded further revisions in a Japanese history textbook that has already passed the official inspection process. South Korea, both its government and mass media, has been especially vehement in the tone of its protest.
As is widely known, textbooks used in most countries of the world may be classified into the following categories: state-designated textbooks where the state selects a textbook which is then used throughout the country; unrestricted textbooks that are the opposite case where no limitations are imposed in writing, publishing and adopting a textbook; and officially inspected textbooks that are the intermediary case where a public organization checks the content and expressions prior to publication, and only those that pass the inspection process can be used. Before and during World War II, Japan used state-designated textbooks aimed at unifying public opinion, and it wasn't until 1949 that it adopted the official inspection system.
Since then, a legal case filed by Professor Ienaga Saburo of former Tokyo University of Education (present-day Tsukuba University), charging that official inspection of textbooks violates academic freedom and freedom of publication, and amounted to censorship prohibited by the Constitution, became the focus of national attention. Views are divided on this issue, as evidenced by a ruling in July 1970 that stated that official inspections were "unconstitutional because the right to education rests with the people," followed by another ruling in July 1974 which stated that "the right to education rests with the state" and approved state intervention in the content of education.
Also, describing history, especially regarding modern history when Japan was engaged in aggressive overseas expansion, is difficult. Should description be centered on past glory, or on the pains of the past? Should it emphasize actions by the rulers, or stress the plight of the victims? Should it express patriotism and dwell on contributions to national development, or be concerned mainly about resistance against authority and the establishment of individual rights?
In the past, Japan's history textbooks have met with "external pressures" on three occasions. The first was in June 1982, when newspapers reported that the country's social studies textbooks had been revised to replace "invasion" with "advance" in the official inspection process. This resulted in protests by China and South Korea, to which the then Chief Cabinet Secretary Miyazawa Kiichi responded by commenting that "the government will exercise its responsibility and make corrections," thus putting a diplomatic end to the issue. Later, it became apparent that news reports concerning the replacement of "invasion" by "advance" had been erroneous, but an article stipulating that Japan should be "sensitive towards neighboring countries" was added to the inspection standards, then onwards imposing a certain limit on the process.
The second occurred in 1986, when China and South Korea protested that the "New Edition Japanese History" textbook for high schools was reactionary, that it "distorts history" and "beautifies the war of invasion." As a result, the textbook underwent three stages of supra-legal revisions after passing the official inspection.
And the third occasion is the current one, centered on a history textbook submitted by the "Society to Make New History Textbooks," which was approved by the Ministry of Science and Education after the authors agreed to comply with 137 revisions ordered by the ministry. China and South Korea have demanded that this textbook and seven others be revised even further. The Sankei newspaper group, which published the textbook through an affiliated publisher, has been apparently conducting a campaign in the hopes of getting as many schools to adopt the textbook. Meanwhile, the Asahi newspaper group has taken the stance of criticizing such a move. Influenced in part by this rivalry, national opinion has been divided into two camps either advocating or opposing the textbook. And persistent demands from China and South Korea have invited a backlash among the Japanese, who criticize their move as intervention in internal affairs. Ironically, the "New History Textbook" has become a bestseller with 500,000 copies sold.
How should we deal with this issue? We need not respond to demands for further revisions. Rather, we should do our best to explain to China and South Korea the circumstances surrounding the official inspection system, while at the same time to patiently assure them that few schools would adopt the "New History Textbook," which is found somewhat wanting in terms of balance, and that they can count on the conscience of the Japanese people.
The writer is an Professor at Aoyama Gakuin University
As is widely known, textbooks used in most countries of the world may be classified into the following categories: state-designated textbooks where the state selects a textbook which is then used throughout the country; unrestricted textbooks that are the opposite case where no limitations are imposed in writing, publishing and adopting a textbook; and officially inspected textbooks that are the intermediary case where a public organization checks the content and expressions prior to publication, and only those that pass the inspection process can be used. Before and during World War II, Japan used state-designated textbooks aimed at unifying public opinion, and it wasn't until 1949 that it adopted the official inspection system.
Since then, a legal case filed by Professor Ienaga Saburo of former Tokyo University of Education (present-day Tsukuba University), charging that official inspection of textbooks violates academic freedom and freedom of publication, and amounted to censorship prohibited by the Constitution, became the focus of national attention. Views are divided on this issue, as evidenced by a ruling in July 1970 that stated that official inspections were "unconstitutional because the right to education rests with the people," followed by another ruling in July 1974 which stated that "the right to education rests with the state" and approved state intervention in the content of education.
Also, describing history, especially regarding modern history when Japan was engaged in aggressive overseas expansion, is difficult. Should description be centered on past glory, or on the pains of the past? Should it emphasize actions by the rulers, or stress the plight of the victims? Should it express patriotism and dwell on contributions to national development, or be concerned mainly about resistance against authority and the establishment of individual rights?
In the past, Japan's history textbooks have met with "external pressures" on three occasions. The first was in June 1982, when newspapers reported that the country's social studies textbooks had been revised to replace "invasion" with "advance" in the official inspection process. This resulted in protests by China and South Korea, to which the then Chief Cabinet Secretary Miyazawa Kiichi responded by commenting that "the government will exercise its responsibility and make corrections," thus putting a diplomatic end to the issue. Later, it became apparent that news reports concerning the replacement of "invasion" by "advance" had been erroneous, but an article stipulating that Japan should be "sensitive towards neighboring countries" was added to the inspection standards, then onwards imposing a certain limit on the process.
The second occurred in 1986, when China and South Korea protested that the "New Edition Japanese History" textbook for high schools was reactionary, that it "distorts history" and "beautifies the war of invasion." As a result, the textbook underwent three stages of supra-legal revisions after passing the official inspection.
And the third occasion is the current one, centered on a history textbook submitted by the "Society to Make New History Textbooks," which was approved by the Ministry of Science and Education after the authors agreed to comply with 137 revisions ordered by the ministry. China and South Korea have demanded that this textbook and seven others be revised even further. The Sankei newspaper group, which published the textbook through an affiliated publisher, has been apparently conducting a campaign in the hopes of getting as many schools to adopt the textbook. Meanwhile, the Asahi newspaper group has taken the stance of criticizing such a move. Influenced in part by this rivalry, national opinion has been divided into two camps either advocating or opposing the textbook. And persistent demands from China and South Korea have invited a backlash among the Japanese, who criticize their move as intervention in internal affairs. Ironically, the "New History Textbook" has become a bestseller with 500,000 copies sold.
How should we deal with this issue? We need not respond to demands for further revisions. Rather, we should do our best to explain to China and South Korea the circumstances surrounding the official inspection system, while at the same time to patiently assure them that few schools would adopt the "New History Textbook," which is found somewhat wanting in terms of balance, and that they can count on the conscience of the Japanese people.
The writer is an Professor at Aoyama Gakuin University
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
教科書問題
池井 優 / 青山学院大学教授
2001年 8月 2日
検定を合格した日本の歴史教科書について、中国、韓国、台湾、北朝鮮が再修正を求めてきた。特に韓国は激しい調子で政府、マスコミをあげて激しい抗議を行っている。
周知のように、教科書には、国が決めたものを全国一斉に使用する国定、その反対に執筆、発行、採用に全く制限のない自由、そしてその中間に発行以前に公的機関が内容、表現などをチェックし、それにパスしたもののみ許される検定の三種類がある。戦前、戦中の日本は国論の統一をはかるため、国定であり、検定制度が採用されたのは１９４９年のことであった。
以後、国内では教科書検定が執筆者の学問の自由、出版の自由を侵害し、憲法の禁止する検閲に該当すると東京教育大学の家永三郎教授が提起した裁判が注目を集めた。「教育権は国民にあり、違憲」とする判決（１９７０年７月）が出たかと思えば、「教育権は国家にある」として教科書の記述など教育内容への国家の介入を容認した判決（１９７４年７月）が出るなど、見解は分かれている。
また記述の方法にしても、過去の栄光を中心に描くのか、過去の苦痛を中心とするか、統治者の行為を強調するのか、それとも被害者の立場に力点を置くのか、愛国心、国力発展への貢献を示すのか、あるいは権威への抵抗、個人の権利の確立を主に取り上げるのか、歴史、特に日本が積極的に対外進出を行っていた近現代史の書き方は難しい。
これまで日本の歴史教科書は三回に及ぶ"外圧"を経験した。第一回は１９８２年６月、日本の社会科教科書が検定によって「侵略」が「進出」に書き改められたことを新聞が報道し、中国、韓国の抗議により宮沢官房長官が「政府の責任において是正する」との談話を出し、外交的決着をみた。この「侵略」→「進出」書き換えは後に誤報と判明したが、「近隣諸国に配慮する」との一項が検定基準に加えられ、以後一定の制約が加わることになった。
第ニ回目は１９８６年、高校用の『新編日本史』が復古調であり、「歴史のわい曲」「侵略戦争美化」との中韓の抗議に、合格後三次にわたる超法規的な修正が加えられた。
そして今回の新しい教科書をつくる会の中学用歴史教科書が、文部科学省の１３７ヶ所に及ぶ修正要求に執筆者が応じて合格したものの、中国、韓国が他の７社を含む８社の教科書に再修正を求めてきたものである。自社の所有する出版社から発行し、なるべく多くの学校に採用させたい産経新聞のキャンペーンと、それに批判的な朝日新聞の動きもあって、日本国内は支持派と反対派に二分された。中国、韓国の執拗な要求は「内政干渉ではないか」と日本国民の反発を招き、市販された「新しい歴史教科書」は皮肉にも５０万部におよぶベストセラーとなった。
どう対応すればいいのか。これ以上再修正に応ずる必要はない。むしろ中国、韓国に向かって日本の検定の事情をよく説明すると同時に、「新しい歴史教科書」のようなややバランスを欠いたものを採用する学校は少ない、日本人の良識に期待して欲しいと静かに説得すること以外に方法はない。
（筆者は青山学院大学教授。専門は日本外交史。）
周知のように、教科書には、国が決めたものを全国一斉に使用する国定、その反対に執筆、発行、採用に全く制限のない自由、そしてその中間に発行以前に公的機関が内容、表現などをチェックし、それにパスしたもののみ許される検定の三種類がある。戦前、戦中の日本は国論の統一をはかるため、国定であり、検定制度が採用されたのは１９４９年のことであった。
以後、国内では教科書検定が執筆者の学問の自由、出版の自由を侵害し、憲法の禁止する検閲に該当すると東京教育大学の家永三郎教授が提起した裁判が注目を集めた。「教育権は国民にあり、違憲」とする判決（１９７０年７月）が出たかと思えば、「教育権は国家にある」として教科書の記述など教育内容への国家の介入を容認した判決（１９７４年７月）が出るなど、見解は分かれている。
また記述の方法にしても、過去の栄光を中心に描くのか、過去の苦痛を中心とするか、統治者の行為を強調するのか、それとも被害者の立場に力点を置くのか、愛国心、国力発展への貢献を示すのか、あるいは権威への抵抗、個人の権利の確立を主に取り上げるのか、歴史、特に日本が積極的に対外進出を行っていた近現代史の書き方は難しい。
これまで日本の歴史教科書は三回に及ぶ"外圧"を経験した。第一回は１９８２年６月、日本の社会科教科書が検定によって「侵略」が「進出」に書き改められたことを新聞が報道し、中国、韓国の抗議により宮沢官房長官が「政府の責任において是正する」との談話を出し、外交的決着をみた。この「侵略」→「進出」書き換えは後に誤報と判明したが、「近隣諸国に配慮する」との一項が検定基準に加えられ、以後一定の制約が加わることになった。
第ニ回目は１９８６年、高校用の『新編日本史』が復古調であり、「歴史のわい曲」「侵略戦争美化」との中韓の抗議に、合格後三次にわたる超法規的な修正が加えられた。
そして今回の新しい教科書をつくる会の中学用歴史教科書が、文部科学省の１３７ヶ所に及ぶ修正要求に執筆者が応じて合格したものの、中国、韓国が他の７社を含む８社の教科書に再修正を求めてきたものである。自社の所有する出版社から発行し、なるべく多くの学校に採用させたい産経新聞のキャンペーンと、それに批判的な朝日新聞の動きもあって、日本国内は支持派と反対派に二分された。中国、韓国の執拗な要求は「内政干渉ではないか」と日本国民の反発を招き、市販された「新しい歴史教科書」は皮肉にも５０万部におよぶベストセラーとなった。
どう対応すればいいのか。これ以上再修正に応ずる必要はない。むしろ中国、韓国に向かって日本の検定の事情をよく説明すると同時に、「新しい歴史教科書」のようなややバランスを欠いたものを採用する学校は少ない、日本人の良識に期待して欲しいと静かに説得すること以外に方法はない。
（筆者は青山学院大学教授。専門は日本外交史。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟