05:52 pm - Wednesday 21 April 2021

經濟學人 來堂歷史課吧 Textbook cases, Chapter 10 談東亞各國教科書

週一 2014年07月07日, 2:25 下午【點此取得本文短網址】

  • 0 Comments
  • 1092 views
  • Print Print
文章來源

文章來源:mlkj24的Blog

Economist Jul 5th 2014

東亞各國的教科書是民族主義的氣壓計,而針對教科書的爭議也只是各國交鋒的藉口罷了。所以當東亞地區 — 在東海跟南海都有領土爭議的此刻 — 為了新一章的教科書要如何教一事又起爭議,並不太令人訝異。這次雖然看到中國、日本之間又家常便飯地起了爭執,除了兩國在國際間所代表的意義外,教科書爭議也在國內寫下強力的一章。

新的一回合爭議是由日本先產生 — 帶來1945年戰敗的日本帝國侵略主義,無可避免地是爭議的開端。自民黨在2012年競選宣言中,說他們會恢復教育中「愛國者」的價值觀,並說現行的教科書是「出於自虐史觀做出價值偏差的敘述」。許多學者、教師對此感到不安。

獲得壓倒性勝選後,安倍首相成立專門小組要來改寫教科書,補齊缺少歷史詮釋的地方 — 研究亞洲教科書戰爭的史丹佛大學教授Daniel Sneider說,「想用某種方法來限制教科書提到日本的侵略」。教科書小組還說他們要排除所謂「鄰國條款」— 意指在書寫教科書時,採用自我否認的角度,指示歷史學家考慮鄰國(也就是中國跟南韓)的情感。為了加強政治對教育的控制,日本政府希望讓市長可以決定教科書,且曾下命令給一個地區,要求該地區換成政府偏好的教科書。這樣的行為滿足了長久的野心:安倍所屬的國會黨團,在這幾年來,努力想壓制日本戰時犯行的敘述。

鄰國也如預期地暴怒。當日本打算在教科書內,放入尖閣諸島屬於日本領土的內容時,中國(稱該島群為釣魚島,並挑戰日本的控制權)要求日本「正視史實」(而正好無法確認中國對釣魚島的宣示)。當日本打算教學生說竹島是日本的,同時控制部分島嶼,並稱之為獨島的南韓,說這「偽歷史」將會埋下敵意及衝突的種子。中國跟南韓,對日本要去除鄰國條款一事滿臉鐵青。

歷史爭議在日本延燒,也蔓延到南韓跟台灣。韓國的國史編纂委員會,負責彙整歷史教科書中有爭議的部分,去年同意出版一冊由「新右派」學者所寫的高中課本,該學者對南韓軍事獨裁時期的成就抱持正面態度。而執政黨也提案,要求所有的學校只能使用國家審核同意的教科書,而不是像現在一樣,學校可以自己選擇各個私人出版社(由國史編纂委員會同意過後)的課本。跟日本一樣,這樣的舉動會加深政治對教科書使用的控制。

而在台灣,教育部也在今年宣布高中教科書台要採取新綱要。這些教科書會在2015年8月生效(跟南韓一樣,台灣的教科書也需要通過綱要審查)。台灣政府宣稱,他們只是把一些用字改成國際慣例,改正對日治時期偏頗且懷舊的看法(台灣曾經是日本的殖民地,長達50年,直到1945年)。比如說,台灣政府想將中性字眼的「日治」,改成「日本殖民時代」。

這樣的舉動正在改變亞洲教科書戰爭的面貌。傳統上,這樣的戰爭被放在外交政策的鏡頭下檢視。比如說,中國在校推行愛國教育,淡化或掩蓋了毛澤東時代的階級鬥爭、大飢荒及暴力,偏向形容中國是外國侵略的受害者。這樣的敘述支持中國領導人所說的,中國只是要恢復其在世界上適當的位置。與此類似,日本的文部科學大臣下村博文也說,日本政府只是在修訂教學大綱,讓孩子可以「適當地」習得國家領土議題,並了解到尖閣諸島並沒有所謂領土爭議(因為它們是日本的)。

但新一波的教科書戰爭也有在國內掀起戰火的味道。教科書爭議不只是國家間的,同時也存在國家內部。日本的該項提案,反映了在教育上的一場明爭暗鬥:執政黨說他們希望終結60年來學校的「左翼控制」。而在南韓事情也複雜化,一些新的右翼學者確實美化了日本在南韓的殖民統治,而一般認為南韓政府不會容許這樣的觀點。

而朴槿惠的保守派政府,想重寫教科書的努力,也引起了政治上的反彈。6月初期的地方選舉,17席地區級的教育監,「進步派」拿下了13席 — 2010年的選舉時,他們才拿下6席,這次可謂了不起的結果。進步派說如果政府繼續執意推行單一教科書(本月結果會出爐),他們將會提出新方案並推行 — 執政黨必須要認真看待,因為教育監控制了大筆的教育預算。這樣的反彈,是南韓民主派(這派人協助結束軍人專政,而軍人專政就是由朴槿惠父親朴正熙開啟)跟保守派戰爭的部分延伸。而現在,跟獨裁者的戰爭已經勝利,民主派將注意力轉向歷史事件。

而針對政府的教科書提案,台灣也有類似的政治反彈;台灣的例子,是由反對黨民進黨領導此波教科書修訂。反對黨控制的縣市,打算拒絕使用根據新大綱所編撰的教科書。而在台灣,國內爭議也有國際色彩,因為中國跟日本在台灣政治中各有角色。

1949年當共產黨打敗國民黨,從大陸飛到台灣的外省人認為,歷史課本就應該專注在中國歷史上;有些外省人討厭日本人的理由跟中國人還有南韓人一樣。而相對的,有些在1949年前就住在台灣的本省人 — 尤其是支持獨立的台灣人 — 對日本統治有矛盾的情感。有些人感佩日本讓台灣島現代化,而跟國民黨在1940年晚期開始、造成成千上萬台灣人喪命的的白色恐怖比起來,日本的壓迫似乎是小菜一碟。反對黨跟支持的學者希望教科書能少寫一些有關中國的事情,著重在台灣的本地族群,以及荷蘭跟日本殖民統治下的歷史。親中的報紙,指控這些人想掩蓋日本人的暴行。

東亞一帶,許多明智的學者及政策制定者,了解到煽動學童民族主義的風險。在實施此種政策的中國,有位學者說,給予學童這種超級民族主義跟排外主義的教科書,他擔心學生會是 「喝狼奶」長大的。要讓這樣的叫囂冷靜下來,一些國家設置了由學者組成的專門小組來討論教科書爭議。日本跟南韓在2002年成立;中國跟日本也在2006年跟進。這樣的衝動並不沒有完全結束:南韓總統最近提案說南韓、中國、日本一同撰寫東北亞的教科書。但4年前中國跟日本的教授,放棄了得以統一詮釋過去的機會,而最近的爭執讓兩國的小組更無效率了。且新一波的教科書爭議,戰爭不僅跟國際上的對手打,也是國內政爭的一環。

未來幾十年內,亞洲的教科書戰爭毫無疑問地會變成歷史課本的一章。按照現在的形式看來,有爭議的這幾方,不太可能對如何形容過去的事情達成共識。

Jul 06 Sun 2014 21:20

原文:

IN EAST ASIA history textbooks are barometers of nationalism, and arguments over them are proxies for disputes between states. So it is hardly surprising—at a time when territorial disagreements are breaking out all round the South China Sea and East China Sea—that the region is seeing a new chapter in a long-running argument over how history is taught. This time, though, the bickering has spread beyond Japan and China, its usual homes. And, in addition to their international implications, the textbook disputes have taken on a strong domestic character.

The new round begins in Japan—inevitably since Japan’s imperial aggression leading to its defeat in 1945 has long provided the starting point for disputes. In its manifesto for the election of December 2012 the Liberal Democratic Party promised to restore “patriotic” values to education and called current textbooks “ideologically prejudiced expressions based on self-torturing views of history.” Many academics and teachers were disturbed.

On winning by a landslide, the prime minister, Shinzo Abe, set up a panel to rewrite textbooks to make clear where there is lack of agreement on historical interpretation—“a backdoor way of limiting references to Japanese aggression”, says Daniel Sneider, at Stanford University, who studies Asia’s textbook battles. The panel also says it wants to get rid of Japan’s “neighbouring-country clause”—a sort of self-denying ordinance which instructs historians to take into account the sentiments of neighbours (meaning China and South Korea) when writing textbooks. To increase political control over education, the government wants to put mayors in charge of local school districts and it has ordered one district to switch to a textbook that the government prefers. Such actions fulfil a long-held ambition: Mr Abe belongs to a parliamentary group that has worked for years to limit historical references to Japanese wartime atrocities.

Neighbouring countries reacted with predictable outrage. When Japan proposed teaching that the Senkaku islands are part of its territory, China (which claims them as the Diaoyu islands and is challenging Japanese control) urged Japan to “respect historical facts” (which happen not to confirm the Chinese claim). When Japan decided to teach that Takeshima belongs to Japan, South Korea, which controls the group of islets and calls them Dokdo, called this “false history [which] plants enmity and seeds of conflict”. China and South Korea are livid about Japan’s scrapping the neighbouring-country clause.

The debate about history raging in Japan is echoed in South Korea and Taiwan. Last year, the National Institute of Korean History (NIKH), a state-run body which oversees the compilation of the country’s history textbooks, approved for publication a new high-school textbook written by “new right” scholars, who are sympathetic to the achievements of South Korea’s military dictatorships. The ruling party has also proposed that all schools should be required to use a single state-approved textbook rather than (as now) be able to choose among private publishers’ texts, subject to NIKH approval. As in Japan, such a move would extend political control over textbook use.

In Taiwan the education ministry also announced new guidelines for high-school textbooks this year. They are due to come into effect in August 2015 (as in Korea, Taiwanese textbooks must conform to guidelines). The government claims its changes merely bring the books into line with international norms and correct inaccurate and nostalgic views of Japanese rule (Taiwan was a Japanese colony for 50 years, until 1945). They would, for example, replace the neutral term “Japanese rule” with “Japanese colonial rule”.

Such actions are changing the character of Asia’s textbook wars. Traditionally, they have been seen through a foreign-policy lens. China’s campaign to teach patriotism at school, for example, downplays or conceals the class struggles, famine and violence of the Mao era in favour of presenting the country as a victim of foreign aggression. Such a narrative supports its leaders’ claim that China is merely resuming its proper place in the world. In a similar vein, Japan’s education minister, Hakubun Shimomura, says his government is revising history-teaching manuals so children can learn “properly” about national territory and can understand that there is no real dispute over the Senkaku islands (as they are Japanese).

But the new textbook wars also have a domestic flavour. They are disputes within countries as well as between them. The proposals in Japan reflect a tussle over education: the ruling party says its wants to end 60 years of “left-wing control” over schools. And to complicate matters in South Korea, some new-right scholars are actually sympathetic to Japan’s colonial rule in Korea, a view the government cannot possibly be seen to be condoning.

Efforts by the conservative government of Park Geun-hye to rewrite textbooks in South Korea have triggered a political backlash. In regional elections in early June, 13 of the 17 superintendents of education up for grabs were won by “progressives”—a remarkable result considering this group won only six seats in the previous election, in 2010. They declared that if the government goes ahead with its plan for a single approved textbook (the decision is due this month), they would write an alternative and promote that—a threat which has to be taken seriously since superintendents control big education budgets. The backlash is part of a broader battle between conservatives and South Korea’s democracy movement, a group which helped end military rule (imposed by Ms Park’s father, the late Park Chung-hee). Now that the fight against dictatorship has been won, the movement has turned its attention to historical matters.

In Taiwan there has been a comparable backlash against the government’s textbook proposals, in this case led by the main opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party. Opposition-controlled counties and cities are refusing to abide by the new high-school guidelines. In Taiwan, though, the domestic debate also has an international flavour because China and Japan also feature in island politics.

Mainlanders from China who fled to Taiwan as the Communists defeated the Kuomintang (KMT) in 1949 tend to think history books should concentrate mostly on Chinese history; some loathe Japan for the same reasons that people in China and South Korea do. In contrast, some descendants of people who lived on Taiwan before 1949—especially those who support independence—are ambivalent about Japanese rule. Some respect Japan for having modernised the island, while Japanese repression seemed a tea party compared to the KMT’s “white terror” from the late 1940s, in which tens of thousands of Taiwanese were killed. The opposition and sympathetic academics want textbooks to write less about China and more about the island’s aboriginal groups and about its colonial history under the Dutch and Japanese. Newspapers that support closer ties with China accuse these people of glossing over Japanese atrocities.

Around East Asia, more sensible academics and policymakers recognise the risks of inflaming nationalist sentiment among schoolchildren. In China, where the practice is embedded, one scholar says that, given his country’s hyper-nationalist and xenophobic textbooks, he fears students growing up “drinking wolves’ milk”. To quieten down the howling, countries set up panels of academics to discuss the controversies. Japan and South Korea did so in 2002; China and Japan followed suit in 2006. The impulse is not dead: South Korea’s president recently proposed that her country, China and Japan write a joint textbook on the history of North-East Asia. But four years ago Chinese and Japanese professors abandoned attempts to come up with a unified interpretation of the past, and the recent spats are likely to make cross-country academic panels even less effective. And the new textbook conflicts are proxies for domestic political battles as much as for international rivalry.

In a few decades Asia’s textbooks wars will doubtless themselves become subjects for the history books. On current form, it seems unlikely that the disputants will then be able to agree on how to describe what was going on.

From the print edition: Asia

  • 0 Comments
  • 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
    Loading...
  • 1092 views

Leave a Reply