学校教育の場における「ヒロシマ・ナガサキ」の記憶の形成

抄録

This article aims to examine as to how the public memory of “Hiroshima and Nagasaki” has been formed in the school education system and disseminated through history and sociology textbooks.

In the immediate postwar era, “Hiroshima and Nagasaki” was articulated as both the symbol of the unprecedented suffering endured by the Japanese people and their final defeat. This perspective, combined with many emotional stories of survival, appeared in numerous textbooks and museum exhibitions, resulting in the typical Japanese view that “Hiroshima and Nagasaki” was the nations’supreme sacrifice to end the war and thereby“making peace”. This view, in turn, brought us the conviction that as the only nation to have experienced a nuclear attack, Japanese people have the obligation and the right to pursue the world peace through the abolition of nuclear weapons.

This view, however, began to change in the 1980’s. The “history textbook issue” revealed their lack of awareness as the aggressor, resulting in fierce criticism from neighbor countries. In response to this criticism, the narrative in textbooks began to change and improved as outlined below.

Firstly, detailed descriptions of atrocities committed by the Japanese military increased remarkably, weakening the perception that “Hiroshima and Nagasaki” was a unique symbol of Japanese sacrifice. Secondly, vivid descriptions of the Great Tokyo Air Raids and the Battle of Okinawa also increased, further diminishing the tendency to particularize the damage of “Hiroshima and Nagasaki”. Thirdly, as textbooks began to present data quantifying war victims from around the world, the “mega-death” of A-bombs looked less remarkable. Lastly, the practice and theory of“Atomic Diplomacy” and “indiscriminate air raids” brought them the perspective that the A-bomb attack was not a disaster but the result of US wartime strategy.

While these changes in viewpoint came much too slowly and are still largely insufficient, the result is that “Hiroshima and Nagasaki” is now narrated more objectively and relatively in textbooks. These changes, however, while laudable, if taken too far, could cause a gradual decline in its presence and meaning.