The Meiji Restoration led Japan to establish an emperor-oriented governing system in 1868, under which its emperors were held up as living gods, and pushed for national and ethnic chauvinism, based on the belief, “Under the rule of the Emperor, Japan is the world’s greatest nation.” This strongly reflects the idea of “one pure Imperial line,” which states that a descendant of Amaterasu Omikami, the mythical ancestral god of Japanese emperors, founded Japan and took the throne as Emperor Jimmu, after which his descendants have continued to inherit ruling power from generation to generation.

The Meiji period indoctrinated education and the military through the Imperial Rescript on Education and the Imperial Rescript to Soldiers and Sailors, emphasizing unconditional loyalty to the Emperor. History textbooks and history education in Japan have since been based on these ideas and used as a means to enlighten the public by materializing the idea of “being loyal to the Emperor and loving the kingdom,” through state-led public education.

During the U.S. military occupation, following Japan’s surrender in World War II, the U.S. Education Delegation suggested that the Japanese government abolish its regulations on the publication and selection of textbooks. The Delegation anticipated textbooks that geared away from the “Empire-centered view of history” and reflected the ideology of liberal democracy. Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), however, introduced a textbook screening system as well as guidelines on teaching and textbook writing to control what was written in textbooks and taught in school.

When the U.S. military supervision ended in 1952, Japan adopted a policy that criticized democratic education. Instead of focusing on reflecting and self-examining its history of military aggression, Japan as a post-war democracy embarked on a thorough screening of history textbooks to establish the Japanese identity based on the Empire-centered view of history. This was the so-called “textbook attacks.”

The right wing launched their first textbook attack in 1955, taking issue with the way the topic of “aggression” is approached in history textbooks. MEXT came up with the “textbook examiner system” to reinforce the screening process which enabled them to reject the textbooks in question and cover up Japan’s offences. In response, Professor Saburo Ienaga, one of the textbook writers, raised criticism and filed two lawsuits which were ruled partially in his favor.

When the Nanjing Massacre was depicted in textbooks as a consequence of the normalization of diplomatic relations between China and Japan in 1972, the right wing launched their second attack and MEXT acted in concert. It was later revealed that the Ministry ordered the word “invade” to be changed to “advance,” which in turn caused diplomatic conflicts with South Korea and other neighboring countries in 1982.

Facing strong criticism from its neighboring countries, Japan added to its textbook screening criteria a provision called “Provision on Friendship with Other Countries,” citing the need for consideration of international understanding and cooperation in its accounts of modern and contemporary history. This can be understood as its “commitment” to refraining from making any statements in textbooks that undermine friendly ties with its neighboring countries.

In the 1990s, with the Japan society leaning further towards the right, the Liberal Democratic Party argued that it was necessary to amend the constitutional law to allow the Japan Self-Defense Forces to be transformed into a military that was “capable of warfare.” In order to push ahead with the amendment, they needed to change the public’s view of history. The “History Examination Committee” was set up to this end, and attempted the third textbook attack, demanding a revision of existing textbooks in order to rationalize Japan’s history of aggression.

The Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, a group that claimed to advocate a so-called “liberal” view of history, was founded in January 1997 by right wing activists who saw the existing view of history as “masochistic.” The group compiled the New History Textbook and MEXT approved its publication by Fusosha in 2001. The textbook was thoroughly based on the empire-centered view of history, which denies Japan’s history of aggression and excludes accounts of comfort women during World War II in order to glorify and justify the history of aggression. This right-wing textbook was qualified again in 2005 with partial revision, but its overall historical view remained unchanged.

As a result of pan-Asian campaigns to stop the adoption of the textbook, organized by neighboring countries and civic groups, the 2005 edition of the New History Book was chosen by a meager 0.39% of Japanese schools, and this led the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform to split into two. Those who left the Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform launched the Organization for Revitalization of Japanese Education in October 2006, which stressed patriotism, morals and tradition, and organized the Group for Textbook Reform as its vanguard. This group, which can be viewed as a second Japanese Society for History Textbook Reform, aims to publish textbooks based on the Basic Act on School Education, which was revised in October 2006 to put greater emphasis on promotion of “patriotism.”

The remainder of the group broke their ties with Fusosha and teamed up with Jiyusha to apply for government authorization on its history textbook for middle school. In April 2009, MEXT announced the Jiyusha textbook passed the screening process. The textbook is a mere reproduction of the Fusosha textbook in terms of structure and content. As a result, now there are two middle school history textbooks in Japan that distort history and glorify wars of aggression.

The Korean government responded to this series of historical distortions for the first time in 1982 after the second textbook attack was launched. Anti-Japanese sentiment spread across Korea and “overcoming Japan” developed into a nationwide agenda, resulting in the building of the Independence Hall of Korea, a museum that was made possible by a massive fund-raising campaign.

It was after Japan approved the revised textbook in 2001, however, that Korea began making committed public effort to refute Japan’s claims. The government established a task force, and after carrying out a thorough and specialized analysis, requested the correction of distorted accounts. Korea’s National Assembly and civic groups launched a campaign against adopting the revised textbook. Academic circles and civic groups in Japan also raised concerned criticism on the new textbook, which helped keep the textbook outside the classrooms: In the end, a mere 0.039 percent of Japanese schools chose the book for classroom use.

This led to an agreement at the Korea-Japan summit meeting on October 2001 on joint research on history-related issues, and the South Korea-Japan Joint History Research Committee was launched. After three years of extensive research, the committee did release its first report, but the gap in historical views between the two countries has yet to be narrowed.

In 2005, a new edition of New History Textbook, still containing the same distorted material, was again authorized for publication, and the South Korean government, academic circles and civic organizations publicly expressed much concern and disappointment. To address the issue from a scholarly approach, Korean academics launched the Council of History Research Organizations in Korea, comprising 48 history research organizations; non-governmental organizations also started a joint campaign with their Japanese counterparts, against the adoption of the revised textbook in Japanese classrooms. In addition, the Korean government took up the issue at the Korea-Japan summit in June 2005, and the two countries reached an agreement to embark on the second South Korea-Japan Joint History Research Committee. In September, 2006, the Korean government established the Northeast Asian History Foundation for a consistent and systematic research and response to a wide range of issues on Northeast Asian history, including Japan’s history textbooks.

In order to better respond to the issue of historical distortion in Japanese textbooks, we need to pay attention to the “tips on learning guidance” and the “interpretations of tips on learning guidance” as well as to the textbooks themselves. The diplomatic tension between Korea and Japan intensified when MEXT added Dokdo-related accounts to the interpretations of tips on learning guidance for middle school released in July 2008, and this problem may repeat itself anytime in the future. The Northeast Asian History Foundation has been committed to building research capabilities and developing collaborative systems, with an aim of maintaining forward-looking friendly ties between the two countries and achieving historical reconciliation and peace in Northeast Asia. For instance, in an endeavor to develop a common history material for Northeast Asia as a whole, it has translated and released the common history textbook in Europe and sought to draw lessons from Europe’s example.

It is difficult to pursue healthy, future-oriented relations between nations without confronting and addressing historical wrongs. Without a fundamental shift in historical views, whatever agreements the two states reach can always end up back where they started. The following is a list of tasks that should be carried out in order to solve the problems related to historical distortion and awareness:

First, it is necessary to carry out thorough research into the distorted historical interpretations. Academic circles should come up with achievements that could overwhelm the findings and the logic of their Japanese counterparts.

Second, it is hard to expect peaceful coexistence in Northeast Asia in the 21st century when the offender still holds onto a historical view that justifies war. Therefore, it is necessary to take issue with Japan’s incorrect historical view to set it right. Continued communication and persuasion are also needed in this regard.

Third, the government, academic circles and civic groups should fulfill their individual roles and create a joint organization for seamless cooperation in addressing the issue of historical distortion.

Fourth, we must build a global network that connects not only the scholars and civic groups in Japan critical of the Japanese right wing’s view of history, but also international academic organizations and groups as well.

Fifth, the reinforcement of history education will help South Koreans preserve their national identity, and cultivate the characters needed for our changing global world.