The Nanjing Massacre (南京大屠殺)(伍)

In my view, the Nanjing Massacre is an important historical event not due to its high death toll. Rather, it is the shocking nature of the atrocity that carries a special meaning in the conscious of political leaders in both China and Japan. In Japan in early 1980s, Japan's economic power was in the ascendancy and therefore its image became a national concern. Right-wing Japanese politicians were eager to erase the negative past record of their nation by down playing the Massacre in textbooks. In mainland China historical events are often used to serve political needs. The Nanjing Massacre is a good tool for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to arouse patriotism and rally the mass under its leadership (note the lyric of its national anthem). Often in China the same historical event can, in different period or different political climate, be re-interpreted by the government depending on needs. Individuals might also do the same. One example is the Boxer Uprising (庚子拳亂) of 1900. In the first decade of the 1900s, the general consensus in China was to see Boxers' acts of occupying Beijing; burning foreign buildings and churches; and killing Chinese Christians as the result of Chinese ignorance. Scholars such as Chan Duxiu (陳獨秀) in 1918 regarded the Boxers as the product of superstition.1 But he changed his attitude in 1924. He began to perceive Boxers as nationalistic and patriotic peasants, probably because he had just jointed the CCP.2 In the late 1960s during the Cultural Revolution, Chinese leaders reconstructed the meaning of the Boxers in order to meet contemporary political needs: Boxers were a symbol of nationalism and patriotism.3 In those days, mainland China saw foreigners with suspicion and regarded the US as the number one enemy.


Notes
1. Cohen, Paul. History in Three Keys: the Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth. NY: Columbia University Press, 1997, pg 228.
2. Ibid., pg. 244
3. Ibid., pg. 264-5