History In The Eye of the Beholder

As historians, it is our mission to correctly interpret the past so that others may learn and know what their ancestors and past cultures did and did not do. The problem comes when people try to miss-use facts or ignore them in order to push their own ideas and forces other historians to rewrite the fake into the truth. This becomes almost impossible as more and more people are influenced by others to agree with them, be it to save face or to push a common belief. With the assigned readings, we can see how this can play out in the worse of scenarios. I will begin by saying that I myself have minimal knowledge of both tellings of the atrocities that happened in Nanking. In the readings by Iris Changing, author of The Rape of Nanking, and Tanaka Masaaki, author of What Really Happened in Nanking both look at this disaster that had terrorized the region long after the actions took place. But, with all that happened there, it amazes me that so many people could tell such a gruesome story, be provided facts to both support and dismiss these ideas, and still be able to fight for so long without knowing the truth of what had happened in this small section of China. Even today, there are still speculations on the people who believe innocents died while others still condone that the majority of deaths were from battles and the people who were killed were not innocent at all. The question I propose: Does Japan deserve this idea of hatred for what they did in Nanking? Should they show, as a country, that yes, they committed these acts or is the world being forced to believe these ideas as true fact?

Iris Chang shows nothing but content for the actions of the Japanese soldiers in China as they press forward with their elitist attitude to control Asia (pg. 3-4). She refers to this as terrible and unimaginable events throughout this early time through the war, but it was not until they reached Nanking that she refers to the actions as a Rape (pg. 4). This strong language helps show her idea of just how terrible their actions would be to the small city, especially when the reader understands that the writer is a woman who tells, in her own words, what happened. She goes further, saying that most of the people who know the true story were already dead, were the perpetrators (Japanese) or were people outside the events such as forgiveness (pg.5) With this use of strong language and the citing of people who were involved, both inside and outside the events, she sets up the reader to understand that what she says is truth. Her retelling of these events with this first had testimony pressures the reader to not only totally believe in all these events, but to also agree with her in that Japan should do its best to rectify this wrong.

However, through Tanaka Masaaki’s eyes, there was no true massacre at all and most of the deaths that happened was due to war, not a civilian massacre.  He starts his book with a section on the word “massacre,” calling it “the unlawful, premeditated, methodical killing of large numbers of innocent people” (pg. 7). He continues that the battles that resulted in so much death of enemy soldiers would not meet the criteria for a massacre because both sides were not innocent in the killing of each other. This look at massacre allows Masaaki to construe the evidence of the mass amount of Chinese as “war dead” from the battles and resulting fears of reprisals, giving him a different perspective to explain the death of so many. He also cites many photographs and photographic journals who used pictures that he claims are faked or used to push the idea that many people were falsely killed in the wake of the Japanese in Nanking (pg. 112-116), going as far to provide evidence to how they were faked. He also shows proof that not only were there foreigner watching and reporting on the battles and their aftermath, but there were Japanese reporters who were there, too. He uses some of their materials to show that Nanking was peaceful and that Japan was treating the people of Nanking as respectful as they could an occupied nation (pg. 118-127). With these sources, he attempts to show that the world has pushed its ideas of what has happened to such an existent that Japan should not be seen as the ultimate evil, that they followed the rules of war.

With both sides of this argument stated, we begin to see the rift between the ideas of historians. It is the idea of giving in, as a country, to the idea that their ancestors committed such horrors in their name. This is not the first time something of this scale has happened. Many countries around the world for as long as civilizations have existed try to cover up their misdeeds or try to get others to recognize their own. For Japan’s sake, this is a more modern time with evidence with technology and other ways that allowed the world to condone them. This lead to Japan to allow itself to govern its own history through censorship and other means so that this would not come out of light (Takashi Yoshida). However, with pressure, more and more people are beginning to find the truth between the lines of history and a deeper understanding of the goals of writers. In doing this, the idea of hiding the truth is becoming less and less within the academic world, followed by the rest of the world. With Masaaki and Chang writings, we can see just how much an event may change due to the people who write it and their reasons to write. In the end, it all comes down to facts, and although Masaaki trying desperately to retell the story of Nanking in a better light for those who lived in these times, it is Chang we will mostly remember for her uses of the outside forces and trials that were given to the criminals, forcing Japan into a difficult spot when it comes to its modern history. But, like most things within the timeline of history, it will always be written by the victor. However, it is the historian who has the final say in face of facts and evidence.