By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum is facing accusations of “rewriting history” due to proposed exhibit changes, most notably replacing the term “Nanking massacre” with “incident.” This decision has drawn significant criticism and revived anger over Japan’s wartime aggression, particularly concerning its assault on China, which will now be described as an “invasion” and characterized by “aggression.” The museum’s shift comes after pressure from a civic group, a departure from its previous stance against revisionist attempts.
Read the original article here
A museum in Japan is finding itself in hot water, facing accusations of “rewriting history” by referring to the Nanking Massacre as the “Nanking Incident.” This subtle linguistic shift has sparked outrage and reignited old wounds concerning Japan’s wartime actions and its historical accountability.
The crux of the controversy lies in the museum’s decision to replace the term “massacre” with “incident,” a move that many view as an attempt to downplay the horrific scale of violence and atrocities committed against Chinese civilians. This change in terminology is not an isolated event; it’s part of a broader pattern that some have observed in Japanese institutions and educational materials.
For decades, a consistent observation has been that Japanese museums and textbooks often present World War II from a perspective that minimizes Japan’s own aggressive actions. The narrative frequently focuses on what happened to Japan, such as the atomic bombings, while conspicuously omitting or downplaying the nation’s own perpetration of war crimes and aggressions across Asia.
This tendency to frame Japan as a victim of circumstances, rather than an aggressor, is a recurring theme. The use of the term “incident” itself isn’t entirely new, with some noting that it’s been a familiar linguistic tool in Japanese discourse regarding historical events for some time. School textbooks have been criticized for similar euphemistic language for years, a practice that has been a subject of study within historiography.
Critics argue that this deliberate sanitization of history is particularly troubling given Japan’s contemporary geopolitical context, especially as accusations of rising militarism emerge. Such actions are seen as a self-inflicted wound that undermines any efforts to foster trust and transparency with neighboring countries.
The historical record, as documented by Japanese newspapers themselves, includes chilling accounts of the brutality during the Nanking events, with some reports detailing competitions for bayonetting victims. The notion that this was anything less than a massacre is met with disbelief and anger by those who are aware of the historical facts.
The move by the museum is being characterized by some as “pathetic nationalist revisionism.” It’s a disappointing trend, especially when considering Japan as a mature and modern nation. The underlying motivation behind such historical revisionism remains a subject of speculation, but some suggest it might be an attempt to normalize military buildup by obscuring past transgressions.
Comparisons are frequently drawn to Germany’s approach to its World War II history, which is widely seen as more transparent and remorseful. Germany has made a concerted effort to confront its past and learn from it, a stark contrast to what many perceive as Japan’s tendency to deny or downplay its wartime atrocities.
The debate also touches upon the nuance of the Japanese word “jiken” (事件), which can translate to “incident.” While it can indeed refer to a significant historical event, critics argue that its application to the Nanking Massacre is a deliberate attempt to soften the gravity of the events. The term “massacre” itself, particularly when referring to Nanking, is seen as a more accurate and less palatable descriptor than “incident.”
However, there is also a perspective that questions the extent of “rewriting history” and suggests that the change in language is more a toning down of terms rather than a complete fabrication. Some also point to instances where news outlets, like the South China Morning Post, might be leveraging these controversies for their own agendas, particularly when China faces domestic troubles.
Regardless of the specific intent or the precise linguistic interpretation, the core issue remains: the perceived attempt to obscure or minimize a deeply painful and well-documented chapter of history. For many, the Nanking Massacre was far more than just an “incident”; it was a horrific event that demands full acknowledgement and remembrance, not euphemistic reinterpretation.