With regards to the above question, the tree obviously makes a sound – but if that sound is not perceived by anyone did it really happen? Isn’t an unobserved event the same as an event that didn’t happen at all? Does it even matter?
This philosophical thought experiment is just that – an impossibly difficult question meant to provoke rumination and speculation on the very nature of perception and reality. While it is a major subject within philosophy – philosophers, buddhist monks, and everyday citizens have spent the last three hundred years trying to answer this question – it is relevant to historiography and historians as well. For historians, it is important to distinguish between what actually happened – the reality – and what was recorded – the perceived. Thus, recorded history is not actual history; it is skewed – perhaps even slightly – by the recorder’s own, limited perspective, their education, their writing style, etc.
This disparity is glaring in the various accounts of the Nanjing Massacre. The Nanjing Massacre – or the Rape of Nanking – refers to the boundless murder, rape, theft, and arson committed by Japanese troops on Chinese civilians and prisoners of war following the Japanese Imperial Army’s capture of Nanjing in December 1937. While the exact numbers and extent of these crimes is unknown (and controversially disputed), Iris Chang, a Chinese-American author and historian, writes that between 260,000 and 350,000 Chinese non-combatants were killed by Japanese troops between the fall of Nanjing and 1938 (Chang 4). On the other hand, Masaaki Tanaka, a Japanese author, claims that the events were entirely fabricated by the Allied Nations and, due to the American occupation of Japan as well as the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, the Japanese were unable to dispute the allegations (Tanaka vii).
Unlike lawyers or medical professionals, historians have no obligation to remain entirely objective in their reporting of the narrative. Thus, many historians – such as Chang and Tanaka – use their status and their voice to advocate for public- and private-sector policy changes, influence political decisions, or manipulate a society’s thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. In my opinion, this decision should be accompanied with a loss of status as a “historian.” In short, I think that historians should report the facts as they understand them and – if they do decide to use their voice to impart change – do it in a work that is separate from their “historical” writing. Thus, I think being a historian requires an ability to dissociate your personal identity and background from your work.
With respect to the Nanjing massacre, I find that the extreme nature of their arguments actually discredits their respective authors. With respect to Tanaka, I struggle to believe that the Japanese invaders were just and moral conquerors who committed no crimes against the Chinese. With respect to Chang, I fully believe that the Japanese committed war crimes, but I also understand that – given the silence of the victims and the delay with which the events were reported and recorded – her report represents a historical account, not actual history.
In summary, I think that both Chang and Tanaka got so caught up in their own agendas that they ultimately failed to deliver a completely accurate version of history. Thus, what really happened in Nanjing can only be known by those who were there; our understanding of the history has been tainted by this disparity and controversy. In the end, this case shows that history is not written by the victors – it is written by historians.
I think it is an interesting thought that the Nanking Massacre was possibly faked. We grew up learning about the massacre in our history classes, and we’ve studied it a little in our college courses, so the fact that it could be faked seems strange.
I really like that you made the historiography of this issue, and even the nature of historiography itself, the central focus of your blog because, in an issue as controversial as this one, I think that it really helps clarify our understanding of these differing accounts. I also like your title because I often feel like whenever we talk about an issue and all the varying accounts and interpretations that are placed on it, it seems as though there is no longer any objective truth. However, I think that you did a good job of synthesizing all of this information from these varying accounts and really making something meaningful out of it. Reading history is often more about learning what people think/thought of historical events/people rather than what actually happened and I think that that is an important distinction to make.
Great post! Happy you went outside the box with this. I think this was very important. It was so clear to see the bias in each with Chang hearing about this from her parents and Masaaki serving under a military officer. It seemed that every whole in the history was stretched out by hidden biases. It could have been overlooked in history because of lack of detail and do you think the real story behind Nanking rest in the somewhere between these stories?
I agree with you about saying that both authors got caught up in their own agendas. Chang put facts in her article but a majority of the reading was about censorship. Tanaka took a totally different perspective by saying certain photos were faked. It was interesting to see both sides and you did a good job of bring that out in your article.
I would argue that historians do have an obligation to strive for objectivity in their histories, but you make a good point with respect to the lack of any kind of legal compulsion for historians to try to do good history. Do you think that there would be any practicality in a law that prohibited publishing demonstrably false history and if so what do you think the implications of such a law would be on society?