Global Education Conference Room 132

Speaker: Nayun Eom

Topic: One Truth and a Million Truths: Teaching History in a Globalizing World
Nayun Eom was Korean but grew up in Japan until she was 12 and for the rest of her life, she
grew up in California.
The main emphasis of this presentation was to show just how different each country (Korea, China,
Japan, USA) teaches about its respective history during WWII and around that time frame today.
For example, Japanese textbooks today talk about the invasion and occupation of China (including
the Nanjing massacre) as just another military event where around 200,000 soldiers and people
were killed. However, in Chinese textbooks, this historical event is very negatively and
emotionally described as 300,000 innocent residents and soldiers without weapons who were
slaughtered by the barbarian Japanese troops. Clearly the tone and choice of words as well as
numbers of people killed is very divergent from the Japanese perspective.
The Chinese textbook also asks its textbook readers (students) what they think about the ultimate
act of human cruelty during the Japanese invasion of China Clearly this is an emotionally
charged narrative. I can relate to what Nayun is saying because I lived in Japan for many years
and have seen many instances where there are significant public protests in China that show still
today how upset many Chinese are with how Japan is handling diplomacy with regard to its
Imperial history during WWII.
Similarly, the Korean occupation by the Japanese imperial forces during WWII is described in
Korean textbooks and in the public eye very negatively using context of problems such as comfort
women. The Korean narrative describes resistance to the occupation in detail using domestic
episodes, but the Japanese perspective in textbooks in Japan even today only gives a toned down,
concise, chronological list in the context of international war.
Nayun goes on to state that Japanese people have no full understanding of the collective anger in
China and Korea about the historic past surrounding their expansion and occupation in China and
Korea that continues today.
Nayun also compares the events of the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in terms of how these events are explained in schools in Japan and the USA.
Here yet again the victim Japan, in its modern school textbooks gives a very dry and
straightforward/logical explanation of the events. But yet the US textbook version talks about
the event as it was a good war, that Japan was aggressor and they put them in their place with
superior firepower and technology. Furthermore, the US textbooks have an underlying
patriotic undertone of an awakening superpower, while the Japanese narrative is falls back to
nationalism and subtle language.
She gives a great example of her own personal experience learning about war in grade 4 in Japan.
In Japan all students learn about the atomic bombing and then go to the Hiroshima to visit the
Atomic bomb museum. She indicates that Japanese students learn all about how the Japanese
suffered as a result of the Atomic bomb, but never about how the imperial Japanese army were
responsible for equal atrocities in Asia and in the battle of the Pacific etc.
She also goes in to talk about her learning as a student in the united states in high school how the
bombing of Japan was justified from the American narrative.
In conclusion she says that every country has a strong bias on their narrative in war and how we
can balance facts and history in a global perspective that removes bias.
She brings up the idea of Balancing Multiple Perspectives to create opportunities for
discussions and to address biases.
She introduces the resource: www.Thehistory-project.org that foster critical thinking self
awareness and empathy.
I think this is a great way to engage students in a discussion about bias and involving critical
thinking. I am most certainly would include this in my classroom (social studies) as a student
activity.
Japans problem from her point of view was that educational history in Japan about the war places
overemphasis on facts rather than emotions.
At the same time, Korean and China, must reduce the emotionally charged narrative of their
perspective to focus on peace education that gives a better balance of logic and emotion.
The main conclusion actually ends up being how do we teach sensitive issues that are subject to
different interpretations in a globally responsible manner ?
Tims question.
How can you teach history to shape global citizens ? How can you teach social studies to shape
global citizens ? I believe these two areas can actually be combined. Using her Historyproject
resource, I think it would be great to have students learn about bias and then reflect upon how
history can be interpreted differently depending on bias.