The Rape of Nanjing: Is an Unbiased Representation Possible?
Thesis by Heather M. Downing, 2011. Materials by her will be in italics.
In the present day, the evidence and the different testimonies of what may have happened in Nanjing have become so convoluted that it would be impossible to come up with a purely factual, unbiased historical account of the events in Nanjing during the Japanese invasion on December 13, 1937 and the weeks leading up to and following that invasion.
One of the problems, of course, is that much of what happened is being re-constructed many years later from people who are rather old and their memories may be questionable. There is, however, no doubt that there is also film from the actual time that exists along with various documents and personal memoirs that exist. The problem is that no matter what is discovered about what happened there will always people who believe that the material is made up or faked. Remember that there are people today who seriously believe that the United States never landed anyone on the moon. They say the footage was all done like a movie film and was made somewhere in Nevada. How they explain the photos taken by satellites going around the moon that have photographed the landing sites and the materials is something that might be hard to explain or they just might say the photos are faked.
The matter of proof is always difficult. I, for example, have never been to St. Louis. Thus, I have no actual 'proof' that there is actually such a place like St. Louis. The photos and movies could all be faked. They could be taken in some other place. The materials written about St. Louis could all be made up.
See what I mean? At some time a person simply has to believe that such-and-such exists and is real based on the preponderance of evidence. It's the same thing with Nanjing. Based on the preponderance of evidence, there is no doubt that there was an event that was called the Rape of Nanjing (Nanking) and that the Japanese soldiers behaved in an atrocious manner.
What I discovered instead of proof was a convoluted history and historiography of the alleged “Nanjing Massacre” or “Rape of Nanjing,” as it has come to be known. I found discrepancies in numbers, which placed the death toll in Nanjing somewhere between 5,000 and 300,000. I found accounts of the “massacre” that painted the Japanese soldiers involved as pure evil, nothing but devils sent to destroy the Chinese race in a systematic genocide. At the same time, I found other accounts claiming that the entire “massacre” had been blown wildly out of proportion; some even claimed that it had been fabricated entirely, a mere story told by the Chinese to garner sympathy from the Western world.
There is another atrocity that took place that has similar technical problems. During the witch hunt period in Europe, many people, 85% of them women, were convicted for being witches and were either hung or burned at the stake. The exact number is not known. I've read quite a bit about what happened and the numbers killed range from an absolute low of around 10,000 up to a high of some 9,000,000 people. Just as with the events in Nanjing, the exact numbers differ but, again, the preponderance of evidence is that there was a witch hunt and thousands upon thousands of innocent people were killed, just as in Nanjing.
Then she talks about the situation where many factual pieces exist, but the person writing something about an event will have their own personal (recognized or unrecognized) bias in their writing and how they interpret the facts will depend on their personal view. That's something that is quite understandable and it's easy to see how a 'purely unbiased' writing of some major event would be something that would be almost virtually impossible.
Thus, she concludes that ...there is no objective history of the Nanjing massacre. In other words, whoever is writing about the event is writing to prove a point; it existed and was as bad as it's generally agreed; it happened but wasn't anywhere as bad as is assumed, or it was completely faked and never really happened at all or was a very, very minor incident.
So many conflicting points of view have been promoted and published that it has become difficult to determine what is hard fact, what has been exaggerated, and what is simply false.
Let's take another example. Imagine a book about Native Americans. There is no doubt they existed. There is no doubt they were here thousands of years before white people arrived. There is general understanding about their culture and how it differed from tribe to tribe. Yet how they are written about varies greatly. There are accounts of the 'savage heathen' that massacred innocent white settlers. There are also writings about the 'noble savage' that was treated horribly by white people. It all depends on the personal view of the writer (and, in this case, the time of the writing).
During the war, Japanese newspapers and media outlets carefully chose to publish only material that cast the Japanese as righteous victors. Anything that could be considered critical of the Japanese military or of the war itself would have been censored as unpatriotic, including accounts of Nanjing war crimes.
Which, if it did, could have resulted in the writer(s) being killed. The Japanese secret police and the government had excessively strong censorship going and even if some people knew the truth they were risking their lives by saying or printing anything about it.
When the United States occupied Japan after the war the conditions changed and information about things that had happened became available (although there is no doubt that much of it had been destroyed before the Americans managed to get many troops there.)
Then there was also American censorship:
The Allies prohibited any publications that promoted militarism, arms and defense, extreme patriotism, or criticism of the Allied occupation.
During that time, she writes, the blame for what happened during the war was shifted from Japan itself to the Japanese military in specific.
...it was important that the Japanese not feel resentful or that they were being blamed; it was equally important for the United States to ease the animosity of the average American toward the Japanese. After years of being fed propaganda that demonized the other side, both countries needed to learn to see each other not as enemies, but as people. The mass media would be responsible for this.
Here's one major problem with propaganda. It's used in the case of World War II to build up hate for the enemy. The enemy is pictured as ruthless, perhaps subhuman in nature, vicious and a personal danger to every single person in that country. Once that kind of hatred is built up in the media and absorbed by the people than how do you suddenly, when the war is over, change the way people think over to a more tolerant view? I remember watching the Amazing Race recently and there was one young Army captain, I think, that spoke a few words but they were backed by his emotion, referring to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Then there's still the controversy over just how much Hirohito himself had to do with the war and how America never put him on trial for any perceived or actual war crimes.
Then, with the growing United States/ Soviet animosity, it became necessary to change the picture of Japan again, making it less negative so they could fit better in as an ally of the United States. In China, the Chinese Communists took over and they charged that Americans and other foreigners living in Nanjing conspired with the Japanese soldiers. The Chinese view of the Japanese got worse, showing their 'spiritual pollution' by being allied with the United States.
So there grew to be a wide diversity of opinions ranging from ultra-nationalist Japanese deniers of the event through ultra-extremist Chinese views about the horrors of Japan and the West. She also talks about how books about the event have been called into question.
She then has a chapter analyzing Iris Chang's book The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II which is one of the most important books on the subject. It's also subject to considerable variation of opinions as to its accuracy. However, keep in mind that it's easy to say a book is inaccurate or badly biased. Proving that, though, is another matter entirely. Denying something is easy; proving it's wrong is another matter entirely.
Understanding the events that occurred in the Asian theater of World War II is essential to comprehending the current cultural identities of the nations involved, as well as the tensions between Japan and the nations it occupied during the war.
There is no question at all about her statement here. The past always has an influence on the future. Sometimes that influence can last decades or even hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. If we are going to understand a particular situation we need to know how that situation came about.
In reference to the book she says:
...Chang’s personal bias in the subject matter continues to shine through her narrative. It is apparent in both her use of language and her choice of content. She also takes an accusatory stance toward the Japanese, promoting the concept of a conspiracy among the Japanese to cover up or manipulate the events at Nanjing. While her account of the events at Nanjing itself may be largely accurate, it also paints a very emotional picture that leaves little gray area when portraying the Chinese as victims and the Japanese as villains, by leaving out testimonies from other perspectives (though she does include a brief explanation of the political and social temperament in Japan in the years leading up the invasion of China).
This, then, brings up the central question of the thesis. If someone writes a book and they have a personal bias can they possibly write a book that is truly objective and accurate?
I'll add something here, though, and that is the issue of time. When something is written is also quite important a new knowledge about different things can be uncovered which could provided support for the writing or refute it entirely. For example, for decades if not over a hundred years it was taught that Christopher Columbus 'discovered' America. There's enough strong evidence now, though, to show that the Norsemen were settled in North America for a while and there seemed to have been visits from The Chinese and maybe even the Phoenicians. None of them, though, managed to found colonies that continued so they may have been here first but they didn't last.
In the fourth chapter, entitled “Six Weeks of Horror,” Chang goes into greater detail about the events that occurred at Nanjing, including methods of killing, the numerous rapes, and the death toll. Once again, her language shows her sympathy toward the Chinese victims, while condemning the Japanese. She uses words such as “grisly,” “gruesome,” “brutal,” and “repulsive.” At one point she says, “The torture that the Japanese inflicted upon the native population at Nanking almost surpasses human comprehension” (Chang 87). Later, she writes, “There seemed to be no limit to the Japanese capacity for human degradation and sexual perversion in Nanking”
This is an important thing to keep in mind and that's the use of specific words to describe something. Saying, for example, that 'ten-thousand people died' and using no descriptive terms would be one way to achieve objectivity but it would result in almost a clinically cold book to read. Changing two words can change the way the thing comes across. Saying 'ten-thousand people were murdered' presents a totally different people, establishing those doing the killing as murderers, with all the negative implications that brings along.
Still another thing to consider is the purpose someone writes a book. As far as I know almost all books written are written because the writer is interested in the subject matter in some way (or just wants to make a quick buck.) Many books are written because people feel passionate about something and that passion will show in how the book is written and the types of words that are used. To write a book simply to write a book, uncaring about what is discussed in the book is something rather hard to imagine thus establishing that almost no book is totally and absolutely 'objective' in nature.
Another thing that can give a bias to a book, she notes, is the use of photographs. In almost any event that has photographs involved those photographs will have a range of the 'gruesome factor,' so to speak. A photograph can show a dead body with the face unseen. It could show the body with the face showing. It can show the dead body with the internal organs having out of a huge hole in the abdomen. The photo chosen to use can add another level of bias to a book.
She says that Chang's book pushes the reader towards certain conclusions which, as far as I see, almost any book covering a controversial subject will do.
The next chapter is an analysis of a film, a documentary by Rhawn Joseph, on the subject of Nanking and what happened there.
According to the description of the documentary, “the purpose of this film is educational, and to explain the mind-set that led to a horrible crime: the torture and murder of 280,000 civilians by Japanese soldiers who took great pleasure in raping, bayoneting, beheading and burning people alive” (“Rape of Nanking”).
There is no doubt that such a description comes straight out showing the bias of the movie. The terms 'crime,' 'torture' and 'murder' establish that what happened was truly horrible. Noting that the Japanese soldiers 'took great pleasure' in what they do paints them as some kind of monsters.
Again, the case with movies that are documentaries and many that aren't are the same as with books; to get the viewer or reader to believe something about something that had happened.
The content of Joseph’s film is very similar to that of Iris Chang’s book. It includes a chronological history of the march on Nanjing and the fall of the city. It also includes, much like Chang’s book, detailed accounts of the many methods used by the Japanese to kill Chinese civilians and soldiers alike. He also goes to great length to discuss the numerous rapes of women in Nanjing, noting that those raped ranged from small children, as young as two or three years old, to elderly women who were grandmothers or even great-grandmothers. Like Chang, he discusses the incredibly poor treatment of female captives, and the mutilation they endured both before and after death.
He also includes how the Japanese soldiers were trained which helps somewhat to explain their brutality.
Here's another major question to consider; if something is not totally objective than does that make it worthless or of little value? Does a book or movie have to be objective at all (assuming it is not being used for propaganda purposes?)
The author notes one truly major difference between books and films and that is the audio element. In a film you can actually see and listen to people talk about what happened or hear the sounds of gunshots as you watch people fall to the ground. This makes the movie have quite an impact on the viewer (if the movie is done well, of course.) Like books, of course, movies are generally made to make money so this means the movie needs to be interesting and not just a dry listing of particular facts, so movies dealing with history, in particular, are also going to have a built-in bias.
She brings up another important point, especially in the film this chapter is examining, and that is what sources did people use who made a particular film or wrote a particular book. Are the sources reliable?
It is also important to note that Joseph’s sources for these documentaries are not always the most reliable. He claims that they were the product of twenty years of research, but where did he conduct this research? What sources did he use? From which archives did he allegedly take his photographs and film clips? For the most part, these questions go unanswered within the documentaries. The only times that Joseph gives any attributions for his facts are when he uses direct quotes, which are written out on the screen with the source noted at the end.
Just because something is written or spoken does not mean it is necessarily true. She compares Joseph's unnamed sources to Chang's careful use of attributing x, y or z to a particular source. That source, of course, can then be looked up by the reader and the reader can determine if the source is probably reliable or not.
He also made a film on Unit 731.
One of the most ludicrous clips used in the film on Unit 731 is a reenactment of prisoners suffering from burns in which Joseph himself (he is recognizable if one compares the film to the pictures of him found on his website) appears on camera with his face covered in fake blood, feigning the agony of victims of Japanese medical experiments (“Unit 731”).
When you have something like this, of course, it calls into serious question the reliability of this film itself and it also causes a person to have some doubts about the reliability of any other film he has produced.
She notes that the films have been used by high school teachers and colleges.
The fourth chapter examines a book, Masahiro Yamamoto's Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity. (I have not read the book but I just ordered it via Amazon. I have read Iris Chang's book and I have a review of that here.
...he asserts that the massacre did in fact occur and did in fact include the unlawful killing of many Chinese soldiers and civilians. However, for numerous reasons, he refutes the idea that what occurred in Nanjing was in any way comparable to the Nazi Holocaust in World War II Europe. He claims that the truth of what happened in Nanjing has been blown out of proportion in modern times, due to a lack of in depth research using primary sources, as opposed to secondary sources.
In other words, it happened but wasn't as bad as is commonly claimed.
He points to figures indicating that the vast majority of those killed at Nanjing were adult males (although other texts often put emphasis on women, children, and the elderly being victimized at Nanjing). Yamamoto says the reason for this killing was obvious—the Japanese wanted to kill any remaining soldiers, including those who had changed into civilian clothing in order to escape.
Here is another point to consider. What is not presented can be just as important as what is presented. For example, notice the above quote. It seems Yamamoto wanted to emphasize the possibility that the Japanese soldiers were killing potential actual enemies, namely Chinese soldiers who had thrown away their uniforms. This would make the killings seem at least slightly understandable. Yet he ignores other evidence (about the women and children being killed) and thus establishes a personal bias in his writing.
Then he tries another method to take some of the blame off the Japanese soldiers.
After the long, difficult battle in Shanghai, and the arduous march to Nanjing, the Japanese were in much the same spirits as ancient soldiers who had endured a long siege (Yamamoto 53-54). In other words, Yamamoto is arguing that the behavior of Japanese soldiers at Nanjing was in no way unique to the Japanese. They acted, he argues, in the same way that any other soldiers would act, if put in the same situation. In this way, he seeks to defend the behavior of the Japanese, insofar as their actions should not be demonized as they often are in other historical studies of Nanjing.
The thing that overlooks is the training of the soldiers. The Japanese soldiers were trained in a brutal fashion, without doubt. It is not surprising that that type of training resulted in them being brutal. Plus, there was the aspect of Emperor worship and the propaganda behind that. Thus, dying in the war would be an honor and doing really bad things to other people was understandable because they were not as good as the Japanese.
She points out that Yamamoto's book has no photographs or other images. He believes that Japan should issue an apology but not do any compensation and that the most popular books on the subject have not been scrutinized enough.
His work suffers most from what he has left out of his book.
Yamamoto seems to disregard the many testimonies of violent and cruel deaths meted out by the Japanese soldiers at Nanjing. He seems to disregard the photographic evidence provided at the International Military Tribunal of the Far East, in Chang’s book, and in Joseph’s documentary that Japanese soldiers did engage in brutal acts, such as beheadings, live burials, and bayoneting. He makes no mention of these testimonies and sticks to the numbers he has so carefully crunched for the writing of this book.
Thus, as I noted earlier, sometimes what you leave out is just as important if not more so than what you actually put into the book. He also, she notes, ignores other signs of cruelty by the Japanese in other places in Asia.
In her conclusion she notes the differences in some opinions are due to the lack of '...hard, agreed upon facts and statistics' involving what happened. She says the lowest estimates of the number killed in Nanking are ...usually the result of Japanese historians, particularly ultranationists.' Iris Chang provides various sources for her numbers, whereas Joseph's film provides no actually source for his number of 280,000 civilians killed. She also notes that something some revisionists do is to narrow the actual physical area under consideration, which makes the numbers much lower; some others widen the area which thus increases the numbers killed.
The author has done a good job showing how difficult it is to get an exact, totally accurate report of what happened and how personal bias, in one way or another, slants any work issued.
Main Index
Japan main page
Japanese-American Internment Camps index page
Japan and World War II index page
|