Pub Date : 2018-11-15DOI: 10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0006
Jennifer M. Dixon
This chapter begins with an overview of the history of the Nanjing Massacre and the Second Sino-Japanese War, followed by a discussion of contested elements of this history. The second part of the chapter outlines the factors that influenced the establishment of the official narrative in the wake of World War II, and the themes that emerged in the Occupation period and in the first few years after the end of the occupation. These early themes included a neglect of Asian victims, an emphasis on Japanese victimhood, and the contention that a small group of military leaders was responsible for the war. The last part of the chapter traces the trajectory of the narrative over the past sixty years, and concludes with a discussion of how the book’s argument accounts for changes and continuities in Japan’s narrative.
{"title":"The Nanjing Massacre and the Second Sino-Japanese War","authors":"Jennifer M. Dixon","doi":"10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter begins with an overview of the history of the Nanjing Massacre and the Second Sino-Japanese War, followed by a discussion of contested elements of this history. The second part of the chapter outlines the factors that influenced the establishment of the official narrative in the wake of World War II, and the themes that emerged in the Occupation period and in the first few years after the end of the occupation. These early themes included a neglect of Asian victims, an emphasis on Japanese victimhood, and the contention that a small group of military leaders was responsible for the war. The last part of the chapter traces the trajectory of the narrative over the past sixty years, and concludes with a discussion of how the book’s argument accounts for changes and continuities in Japan’s narrative.","PeriodicalId":292609,"journal":{"name":"Dark Pasts","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128973913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-11-15DOI: 10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0009
Jennifer M. Dixon
This chapter reviews the book’s argument, assesses divergences in the two narratives’ trajectories, analyzes the effects of international norms, and discusses the implications of this research. The first part of the chapter argues that the greater degree of domestic contestation and differences in the nature of international pressures help account for the greater changes in Japan’s narrative, while the intensity of Turkish officials’ concerns about territory, compensation, legitimacy, and identity account for stronger continuities in Turkey’s narrative. The chapter then unpacks the ways in which international norms – of truth-telling and accountability and against genocide – have influenced the politics of memory, underscoring norms’ complex and multivalent effects. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the ways in which the book moves beyond prevailing approaches to memory and transitional justice, illuminating the politics inherent in official historiography and the ways in which historical accounts – as instantiated in official narratives – themselves affect politics.
{"title":"The Politics of Dark Pasts","authors":"Jennifer M. Dixon","doi":"10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0009","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter reviews the book’s argument, assesses divergences in the two narratives’ trajectories, analyzes the effects of international norms, and discusses the implications of this research. The first part of the chapter argues that the greater degree of domestic contestation and differences in the nature of international pressures help account for the greater changes in Japan’s narrative, while the intensity of Turkish officials’ concerns about territory, compensation, legitimacy, and identity account for stronger continuities in Turkey’s narrative. The chapter then unpacks the ways in which international norms – of truth-telling and accountability and against genocide – have influenced the politics of memory, underscoring norms’ complex and multivalent effects. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the ways in which the book moves beyond prevailing approaches to memory and transitional justice, illuminating the politics inherent in official historiography and the ways in which historical accounts – as instantiated in official narratives – themselves affect politics.","PeriodicalId":292609,"journal":{"name":"Dark Pasts","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122487275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-11-15DOI: 10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0002
Jennifer M. Dixon
This chapter introduces a conceptual framework with which to analyze official narratives of dark pasts, fleshes out the argument introduced in the previous chapter, and discusses the nature of change in states’ narratives. The conceptual framework consists of eight steps, ranging from silencing and denial to acknowledgment and on to commemoration, each of which captures a possible element of an official narrative. The core argument is that international pressures increase the likelihood of change in official narratives of dark pasts, while domestic considerations determine the content of such change. In particular, decisions about whether and how to respond to international pressures are contingent on four types of domestic considerations: material concerns, legitimacy and identity concerns, electoral-political concerns, and domestic contestation. Finally, the nature of change in states’ narratives is characterized by feedback effects and layering, and is typically incremental, multifaceted, and multivalent.
{"title":"Changing the State’s Story","authors":"Jennifer M. Dixon","doi":"10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter introduces a conceptual framework with which to analyze official narratives of dark pasts, fleshes out the argument introduced in the previous chapter, and discusses the nature of change in states’ narratives. The conceptual framework consists of eight steps, ranging from silencing and denial to acknowledgment and on to commemoration, each of which captures a possible element of an official narrative. The core argument is that international pressures increase the likelihood of change in official narratives of dark pasts, while domestic considerations determine the content of such change. In particular, decisions about whether and how to respond to international pressures are contingent on four types of domestic considerations: material concerns, legitimacy and identity concerns, electoral-political concerns, and domestic contestation. Finally, the nature of change in states’ narratives is characterized by feedback effects and layering, and is typically incremental, multifaceted, and multivalent.","PeriodicalId":292609,"journal":{"name":"Dark Pasts","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127923912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-11-15DOI: 10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0003
Jennifer M. Dixon
This chapter reviews the history and historiography of the Armenian Genocide, and outlines the trajectory of Turkey’s narrative of the “Armenian question” since its initial formulation in the wake of the genocide. Over time, Turkey has experienced sustained international pressures to acknowledge the organized and intentional nature of this violence. Since the early 1990s, domestic contestation from within Turkish society has also challenged the legitimacy of the state’s narrative. While Turkish officials have resisted acknowledging the genocidal nature of this violence, elements of Turkey’s narrative have changed. Specifically, the narrative has changed three times since 1950, each time after international pressures had heightened scrutiny of the state’s position. Crucially, however, when and how officials responded to accumulated pressures were shaped by concerns about threats to territorial integrity and national identity, and feedback effects from institutionalized power bases within Turkey.
{"title":"The Armenian Genocide and its Aftermath","authors":"Jennifer M. Dixon","doi":"10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter reviews the history and historiography of the Armenian Genocide, and outlines the trajectory of Turkey’s narrative of the “Armenian question” since its initial formulation in the wake of the genocide. Over time, Turkey has experienced sustained international pressures to acknowledge the organized and intentional nature of this violence. Since the early 1990s, domestic contestation from within Turkish society has also challenged the legitimacy of the state’s narrative. While Turkish officials have resisted acknowledging the genocidal nature of this violence, elements of Turkey’s narrative have changed. Specifically, the narrative has changed three times since 1950, each time after international pressures had heightened scrutiny of the state’s position. Crucially, however, when and how officials responded to accumulated pressures were shaped by concerns about threats to territorial integrity and national identity, and feedback effects from institutionalized power bases within Turkey.","PeriodicalId":292609,"journal":{"name":"Dark Pasts","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129446602","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-11-15DOI: 10.7591/cornell/9781501730245.003.0008
Jennifer M. Dixon
This chapter analyzes Japan’s narrative of the Nanjing Massacre between 1990 and 2008. Over this period, the official narrative came to include admissions of responsibility and apologies, and then backtracked to resume mythmaking and relativizing (while continuing to apologize.) Pressures from China and Korea, along with transnational activism, contributed to the shift to apologizing and deepening acknowledgment. At the same time, domestic political considerations in Japan – most notably, domestic contestation, party politics and electoral concerns, and concerns about compensation claims – frequently shaped the content and extent of changes in the state’s narrative. In particular, deepening revisionism in Japan, including high-profile “gaffes” related to “history issues” and official visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine, both fed and served as markers of the backtracking.
{"title":"Unfreezing the Question of History (1998–2008)","authors":"Jennifer M. Dixon","doi":"10.7591/cornell/9781501730245.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501730245.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyzes Japan’s narrative of the Nanjing Massacre between 1990 and 2008. Over this period, the official narrative came to include admissions of responsibility and apologies, and then backtracked to resume mythmaking and relativizing (while continuing to apologize.) Pressures from China and Korea, along with transnational activism, contributed to the shift to apologizing and deepening acknowledgment. At the same time, domestic political considerations in Japan – most notably, domestic contestation, party politics and electoral concerns, and concerns about compensation claims – frequently shaped the content and extent of changes in the state’s narrative. In particular, deepening revisionism in Japan, including high-profile “gaffes” related to “history issues” and official visits to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine, both fed and served as markers of the backtracking.","PeriodicalId":292609,"journal":{"name":"Dark Pasts","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122435800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-11-15DOI: 10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0004
Jennifer M. Dixon
This chapter analyzes the content of, and changes and continuities in, Turkey’s narrative of the Armenian Genocide between 1950 and the early 1990s. While the genocide was silenced in the decades after World War II, the silence came under increasing international pressure in the 1970s. Armenian terrorism, combined with increased international recognition of the genocide, eventually led Turkish officials to end the silence about the genocide. Starting in 1981, the state’s narrative shifted from silencing and denying the genocide to an actively defended and articulated position that relativized the violence and presented an alternative account of what had happened. This shift also involved substantial continuity, particularly in the denial of official responsibility for the deaths of Armenians. The net effect of these changes involved the strengthening of official denial of the genocide, alongside a limited acknowledgment that something had happened to Ottoman Armenians.
{"title":"From Silencing to Mythmaking (1950–Early 1990s)","authors":"Jennifer M. Dixon","doi":"10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7591/CORNELL/9781501730245.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter analyzes the content of, and changes and continuities in, Turkey’s narrative of the Armenian Genocide between 1950 and the early 1990s. While the genocide was silenced in the decades after World War II, the silence came under increasing international pressure in the 1970s. Armenian terrorism, combined with increased international recognition of the genocide, eventually led Turkish officials to end the silence about the genocide. Starting in 1981, the state’s narrative shifted from silencing and denying the genocide to an actively defended and articulated position that relativized the violence and presented an alternative account of what had happened. This shift also involved substantial continuity, particularly in the denial of official responsibility for the deaths of Armenians. The net effect of these changes involved the strengthening of official denial of the genocide, alongside a limited acknowledgment that something had happened to Ottoman Armenians.","PeriodicalId":292609,"journal":{"name":"Dark Pasts","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123199200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-04-16DOI: 10.7591/cornell/9781501730245.003.0001
Jennifer M. Dixon
This chapter introduces the book’s core questions, summarizes the stakes of inquiry, introduces the two narratives analyzed in the book, outlines the central argument, and situates this study in relation to existing scholarship on memory, transitional justice, and international norms. Given the challenges of reckoning with the past, what are the sources of continuity in states’ narratives of dark pasts, and when and why do states choose to change such narratives? To answer these questions, this book analyzes the trajectories over the past sixty years of Turkey’s narrative of the Armenian Genocide and Japan’s narrative of the Nanjing Massacre and the Second Sino-Japanese War. Extrapolating from this analysis, the book argues that international pressures increase the likelihood of change in official narratives of dark pasts, while domestic considerations determine the content of such change.
{"title":"Coming to Terms with Dark Pasts?","authors":"Jennifer M. Dixon","doi":"10.7591/cornell/9781501730245.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501730245.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter introduces the book’s core questions, summarizes the stakes of inquiry, introduces the two narratives analyzed in the book, outlines the central argument, and situates this study in relation to existing scholarship on memory, transitional justice, and international norms. Given the challenges of reckoning with the past, what are the sources of continuity in states’ narratives of dark pasts, and when and why do states choose to change such narratives? To answer these questions, this book analyzes the trajectories over the past sixty years of Turkey’s narrative of the Armenian Genocide and Japan’s narrative of the Nanjing Massacre and the Second Sino-Japanese War. Extrapolating from this analysis, the book argues that international pressures increase the likelihood of change in official narratives of dark pasts, while domestic considerations determine the content of such change.","PeriodicalId":292609,"journal":{"name":"Dark Pasts","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133234220","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：