A Single Word Can Destroy a Nation: "Japanese Occupation" vs. "Japanese Governance"

A Single Word Can Destroy a Nation: "Japanese Occupation" vs. "Japanese Governance"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
July 18, 2013 

Summary: Leave aside any elevated debates about "Chinese History" or "Republic of China history." The fact is the Textbook Committee members are championing Pan Green Taiwan independence pseudo-history, rather than a true and honest history of Taiwan. A single word can destroy a nation. The facts of history must not be misrepresented.

Full text below:

Three publishing houses have prepared three versions of a high school history textbook. The Ministry of Education Textbook Committee has forbidden their publication. It has ordered them "reedited" because they include the term "Japanese occupation" instead of "Japanese governance" or "Japanese rule." 

This is a long-standing controversy. In order to sell books, publishers have previously kowtowed to the Textbook Committee's authority. But in this instance, the authors and publishers have refused to allow history textbooks to misrepresent the nation's constitution and the nation's history, They have complained to the Control Yuan. They have refused to yield to political pressure. They have refused to teach pseudo-history

The dispute over "Japanese occupation" vs. "Japanese governance" has enormous symbolic significance. As the expression goes, "A single word can destroy a nation." From the perspective of Republic of China national history and the Republic of China Constitution, there can be no doubt. The correct term is "Japanese occupation." If the Textbook Committee wants publishers to use the the term "rule" or "governance," it should ask them to use the term "Japanese colonial rule," rather than "Japanese governance," especially not in textbooks. In particular, the Textbook Committee must not compel the use of the term "Japanese rule," even as it prohibits the use of the term "Japanese occupation."

Those who demand the use of "Japanese rule" argue that in 1895, when the Qing dynasty was defeated, it ceded Taiwan to Japan. Therefore Japan did not forcibly occupy Taiwan. Therefore Japan's actions should not be referred to as "Japanese occupation." But how can a naked war of aggression, initiated by Japan, that imposes an unequal treaty and occupies another nation's territory, be termed anything but a "Japanese occupation?" When, since the dawn of recorded history, have there been "historians" of this ilk, who fawn over their own oppressors?

Particularly perplexing is how those currently demanding the use of "Japanese governance," previously used the term "Japanese occupation" in their own master works. Now however, on their own initiative, they have concocted the term "Japanese governance." Now however, they have the effrontery to forbid others from using the term "Japanese occupation." Their chutzpah does not end here.

The fact is, the controversy over the term "Japanese occupation" and "Japanese governance" represents the conflict between the real history of the Republic of China and Taiwan independence pseudo-history. The history of the Republic of China records that during the First and Second Sino-Japanese Wars, Japan was the invading nation and China was the invaded nation. Hence the terms "Japanese occupation" and "Taiwan retrocession." Taiwan independence pseudo-history attempts to prettify Japanese colonial rule. Therefore it refers to the Republic of China as a "foreign regime." It euphemistically refers to Japanese occupation as "Japanese governance" and "Japanese surrender" as the "Conclusion of the War." This is plain and simple "History for Japanese Imperial Subjects." This is not Chinese History. This is not Republic of China History.

According to Taiwan independence pseudo-history, "Chinese history" and "Taiwanese history" are different. This has led to the so-called "Ming Zheng" controversy. The Ming dynasty was a Chinese dynasty. Taiwan independence pseudo-history yearns to sever the historical umbilical cord linking Taiwan to the Chinese mainland. Therefore it yearns to sever the relationship between the Ming dynasty and Zheng Chenggong, aka, Koxinga. Therefore it has banned the term "Ming Zheng." Instead, it mandates the term "era of Zheng rule." But even Japanese author Yomono Akara, in his eulogy to Zheng Chenggong wrote, "Zheng's loyalty was for naught. China eventually fell to the Tartars." As we can clearly see, Zheng's mission to "defeat the Qin and restore the Ming" was a defense of China, specifically Ming dynasty China. Moreover, Zheng represented Chinese orthodoxy. Taiwan independence pseudo-history would thoroughly "de-Sinicize" Zheng Chenggong. But what is that, other than blanking out the memory of one's ancestors?

The history of the Republic of China notes that in 1894, Japan launched a war of aggression against China. In 1945, China prevailed, and Japan retroceded Taiwan to China. Hence the intervening 50 years are referred to as the "era of Japanese occupation." The Constitution of the Republic of China is a "one China constitution." As Frank Hsieh proclaimed, Chinese people on both sides of the Strait share the same language. The terms "Chinese history," "Republic of China history," and "Taiwanese history," all refer to the history of a single country -- China. The terms "Chinese history" and "Taiwanese history" cannot be viewed as separate categories. Therefore, Zheng Chenggong "Ming Zheng." The Sino-Japanese War was a "war of aggression." Japanese aggression was followed by "Japanese occupation." Taiwan's eventual restoration to China was "Taiwan retrocession." The Chinese Civil War led to "cross-Strait divided rule." From beginning to end, "Chinese history" and "Taiwanese history" have been one and the same. They have been aspects of a single, indivisible nation's history. Therefore let us hear no more of "Japanese governance" pseudo-history, which would have us believe that Japan did not forcibly occupy Taiwan.

Taiwan independence pseudo-history and Taiwan independence spin control regarding the ROC Constitution, attempts to depict the Mainland and Taiwan as separate. But no one can turn back the clock. Realistically, the demands of Taiwan's survival make Taiwan independence impossible. Taiwan can survive only if it acknowledges China and the Republic of China. It can survive only if it acknowledges Chinese history and Republic of China history. Do Taiwan independence advocates really think they can rescue Taiwan independence from the ashes by banning the term "Japanese occupation?"

The facts of history must not be misrepresented. The United States and Japan have already substituted the term "sex slaves" for the euphemism "comfort women." They have replaced the terminology of the invaders with the terminology of those invaded. Yet some on Taiwan are demanding that "Japanese occupation" be changed to "Japanese governance." They are attempting to forbid any reference to "Japanese occupation" in the history texts. They are attempting to teach the official history of the aggressor nation, Japan. They are attempting to help the aggressor nation whitewash its aggression by means of pseudo-history. . Does the Textbook Committee include Shintaro Ishihara and Toru Hashimoto among its members?

The Textbook Committee argues that Chen family corruption has yet to be proven, therefore the Red Shirt movement must not be included in the history books. The Ministry of Education Textbook Committee may wish to conclude that Chen is not guilty by virtue of the fourth trial. But can it really use this as a pretext to censor the history of the Red Shirts? Leave aside any elevated debates about "Chinese History" or "Republic of China history." The fact is the Textbook Committee members are championing Pan Green Taiwan independence pseudo-history, rather than a true and honest history of Taiwan.

A single word can destroy a nation. The facts of history must not be misrepresented.

一字喪邦：「日據」與「日治」之正辨
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.07.18 04:35 am

三家出版社編寫了三個版本的高中歷史教科書，教育部的教科書審定委員會以書中稱「日據」而不稱「日治」等理由，命其「重編」，不准出版。

這已是一個爭吵多年的題目，前已有版本迫於審定委員會的權威，為了賣書而屈從；但此次編寫者及出版者認為不能在歷史教科書中扭曲憲法及篡改歷史，一狀告到監察院，拒絕在政治壓迫下用教科書傳授偽史。

「日據」與「日治」之爭，涉及「一字喪邦」的微言大義。我們的看法是：站在中華民國的「本國史」立場上，也站在中華民國憲法的立場上，毫無疑問應當用「日據」。若用「日治」，則應言明是「日本殖民統治」的簡稱，唯不宜在教科書中逕用「日治」。尤其不可強制規定只准用「日治」，而不可用「日據」。

「日治派」認為，一八九五年清帝國戰敗，而割讓台灣給日本，所以日本並非莫名強據，因此不可稱「日據」。但用侵略戰爭以不平等的勒索條款佔據他國領土，尚不准謂其為「日據」，請問：人類自有歷史以來，有幾個如此諂媚侵略者的「歷史學家」？

尤其莫名其妙的是，這些「日治派」自己在過去的宏文巨著中，皆稱「日據」，如今卻無端炮製出「日治」一詞，且竟不再准他人使用「日據」。斯文掃地，莫甚於此。

「日據觀」與「日治觀」的爭論，其實根本是「中華民國史觀」與「台獨史觀」的分辨。中華民國史觀，將甲午戰爭至八年抗日戰爭，皆視作日本為侵略國而中國為被侵略國的關係，因此稱「日據」與「光復」。台獨史觀則欲美化日本的殖民統治，且將之與「中華民國」同等視為「外來政權」，因此美稱為「日治」與「終戰」。但這根本是日本皇民的日本史觀，而不是中國史觀，也不是中華民國史觀。

在這一套台獨史觀之下，「中國」（中國史）與「台灣」（台灣史）被分割為兩個體系，因此教科書又有可否稱作「明鄭」的爭論。明代為中國正統，台獨史觀欲切斷台灣與中國的歷史臍帶，於是欲將鄭成功與明代的關係切斷，因此不准稱「明鄭」，而強定只准稱「鄭氏統治時期」。但是，連日人四方赤良給鄭成功的悼詞亦曰「忠義空傳國姓爺，終看韃靼奪中華」；可見，以「反清復明」自期的鄭成功，非但代表「中國」（明），且是「中國」的正統。台獨史觀如此清洗鄭成功，豈不是數典忘祖？

從中華民國的「本國史」史觀言，一八九四年的甲午戰爭是日本侵略中國的戰爭，而在一九四五年抗日戰爭勝利則「光復」了台灣；因此，這個五十年為「日據時期」。再就中華民國憲法的「憲法一中」言，中國史或中華民國史與台灣史，本是「同源共文」（謝長廷語）的「本國史」，而不能分割成「中國史」與「台灣史」兩個體系；因此，鄭成功為「明鄭」，甲午是「侵略戰爭」，於是有了「日據」，又有了「光復」，又有了「兩岸分治」。自始至終，「中國史」與「台灣史」仍在同一體系中，皆是「本國史」；於是，就不會出現「日治」（謂日本並非強據台灣）的史識、史觀與史德。

台獨史觀欲在歷史淵源及國憲論述上，將中國與台灣切開。但姑且莫說，誰也不可能倒撥時鐘或命時鐘停止；即使以台灣在現實上的生存戰略言，台獨已經顯然絕無可能，台灣唯有在「中國／中華民國」及「中國史／中華民國史」上，始可能尋求生路。如今，難道僅憑「日『據』」一個字，就欲使「台獨」從灰燼中重燃？

春秋之筆，不可荒唐。美國與日本已將「慰安婦」改稱「性奴」，這或許是將侵略者的用詞，改為被侵略者的語彙；台灣卻吵著欲將「日據」改稱「日治」，竟不准「日據」入史，這卻是將被侵略者的正史，篡改成了為侵略者粉飾的偽史。難道教科書審定委員會中也有石原慎太郎與橋下徹？

審定委員會又說，扁家貪汙尚未定案，因此不可在歷史課本寫紅衫軍運動。但即使教育部教科書審定委員會是判決陳水扁無罪的第四審，也不能在歷史上抹去紅衫軍。由此可見，暫且不說到「中國史」或「中華民國史」的那種高度，審定委員會主張的根本是綠色的台獨史觀，而絕非真實無欺的台灣史。

一字喪邦。春秋之筆，不可荒唐。