Tag Archives: Yujiro Taniyama

History

What is “comfort women” denialism? Holocaust denial and “comfort women” denial

1 Comment

When confronted, “comfort women” deniers like Tony Marano often attempt to deflect the label “denier” by arguing that they do not “deny the existence of comfort women.”

But like “Holocaust denial,” the phrase “comfort women denial” refers not just to the complete denial of the existence of “comfort women” altogether, but also to the denial of important aspects of the historical events that are established as facts. A casual look at the claims made by known Holocaust deniers reveal eerie similarities between Holocaust denial and “comfort women” denial (and this comparison between denialisms stands even if, as some contend, two atrocities themselves should not be compared to each other).

Mark Weber, the long-time director of the Holocaust denial organization Institute for Historical Review has said in a 1992 interview:

If by “holocaust” you mean the political persecution of Jews, some scattered killings, if yo mean a cruel thing that happened, no one denies that. But if one says that the “holocaust” means the systematic extermination of six to eight million Jews in concentration camps, that’s what we think there’s no evidence for.”

The IHR also posted on its website the following until at least 2009:

The Institute does not “deny the Holocaust.” Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II. All the same, the IHR has published detailed books and numerous probing essays that call into question aspects of the orthodox Holocaust extermination story, and highlight specific Holocaust exaggerations and falsehoods. IHR publications have devoted considerable attention to this issue because it plays an enormously significant role in the cultural and political life of America and much of the world. As a number of Jewish scholars have acknowledged, the “Holocaust” campaign is a major weapon in the Jewish-Zionist arsenal. It is used to justify otherwise unjustifiable Israeli policies, and to extort enormous sums of money, especially from European countries and companies.

Another denier, Christian pastor Herman Otten wrote in an IHR publication:

There is no dispute over the fact that large numbers of Jews were deported to concentration camps and ghettos, or that many Jews died or were killed during World War II. Revisionist scholars have presented evidence, which “exterminationists” have not been able to refute, showing that there was no German program to exterminate Europe’s Jews, and that the estimate of six million Jewish wartime dead is an irresponsible exaggeration.

“Comfort women” deniers frequently make similar arguments denying important aspects of the historical consensus.

The author does not deny the occurrence of isolated cases such as the Semarang Incident in the Dutch East Indies in which Ms. Jan Ruff O’Herne was involved. It was an apparent “war crime” in Indonesia committed by military personnel. […] However, this was an isolated case and should not be used to characterize or to generalize the state-managed Comfort Women System.
– Hiromichi Moteki, Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (Source)

It is more than funny how some strident activists in the US are depicting me as “Comfort girls denier”. That’s hilarious. Nobody in Japan denies them OMG! (((o(*ﾟ▽ﾟ*)o))) Neither do I.
– Yujiro Taniyama, film producer of Scottsboro Girls (Source)

These guys on the photo are saying “there was no “military” comfort women forced by Japanese army but not denying the existence of the comfort women.
– Shunichi Fujiki, Texas Daddy Japan Secretariat (using pseudonym, Source)

I am labeled “comfort women denier,” but it should be “comfort women = sex slaves” denier to be accurate. Language must be used precisely. False premises lead to confused arguments.
– Kiyoshi Hosoya, Japan Family Values Society (translated from Japanese, Source)

Similarities between Holocaust denial and “comfort women” denial do not end here. For example, they both often promote conspiracy theories that those who are preserving historical memory are operating under nefarious geopolitical or financial motives:

As a number of Jewish scholars have acknowledged, the “Holocaust” campaign is a major weapon in the Jewish-Zionist arsenal. It is used to justify otherwise unjustifiable Israeli policies, and to extort enormous sums of money, especially from European countries and companies.
– Institute for Historical Review (Source)

It’s important to note that the countries that are making a big fuss over this are China and South Korea […] This is not about human rights or sex-slavery. This is about politics, money, and racism towards Japanese. In other words, this issue is a geopolitical tool that China uses to attack Japan.
– Michael Yon, “journalist” (Source)

The Comfort Women Mafia has been successful in placing plaques and a statue memorializing their version of the Comfort Women story in communities all across the United States. Why? […] Very simple: The Comfort Women Mafia’s one area of motivation is to bash Japan. Their goal is to tarnish the image of Japan among the populace in the USA.
– Tony Marano, video blogger (Source)

There are many other similarities, but that is not really the point here. The point we are trying to make is that “comfort women” deniers are those who deny important aspects of established historical facts about the Japanese military “comfort women” system, just like Holocaust deniers are those who deny important aspects of established historical facts about the Holocaust, whether or not they concede that the Holocaust may have taen place in some form.

Events

Central Washington University community responds to “comfort women” denier event on campus

1 Comment

Members of Central Washington University community are outraged about the upcoming film screening and lecture later this month on campus by a professional Japanese “comfort women” denier and a failed 2011 candidate for the governorship of Tokyo receiving 0.2% of the votes, Mr. Yujiro Taniyama. At the invitation of Japanese language instructor Ms. Mariko Okada-Collins, Mr. Taniyama will show his fauxcumentary “Scottsboro Girls” on April 28th and 29th at CWU, located in Ellensburg, Washington.

While Taniyama claims to introduce a new perspective that “challenges the conventional wisdom” regarding the “comfort women,” his film seems, based on the trailer posted on YouTube, to recycle the same old revisionist talking points that have been thoroughly debunked, including the oft-misrepresented 1944 U.S. military report.

In response to the upcoming events, anthropologist Dr. Mark Auslander and others have organized an academic panel to discuss the true history of “comfort women,” featuring specialists from CWU community as well as from other universities. In addition, performance arts students are putting on a public reading of the testimonies of former “comfort women” on campus to raise awareness of the issue. (Download the PDF flier of the event here.)

Mr. Taniyama and Ms. Okada-Collins insist that they are simply trying to uncover truth or to present an alternative perspective on the topic, but their reliance on misrepresentations of historical documents and contemporary scholarly works (mainly those of Korean scholars Ahn Byong Jik and Park Yuha, neither of whom actually agree with Mr. Taniyama’s or Ms. Okada-Collins’ views) prove the fundamental dishonesty of their historical revisionist project.

In recent years, Japanese far-right nationalists have declared the U.S. to be the “shusenjo,” or the main battleground, in their “history war” on “comfort women.” Their goal is to recruit as many politicians, journalists, opinion leaders, and scholars as possible to question the orthodox narrative of “comfort women” as the victims of a system of enforced military prostitution. The CWU events are a significant development in their campaign because it is the first time that a U.S. college or university allowed itself to play host to the Japanese equivalent of neo-Nazis on its campus.

The problem with giving an academic platform to historical deniers, whether they are denying crimes of the Holocaust or those of “comfort women,” is that they do not have to prove their points or convince us of their propaganda in order for them to win. They can claim victory simply by introducing enough doubt in the legitimate history; they can win simply by projecting an impression that legitimate historians might be on both sides of controversy regarding the historical crime they are denying, or by making others accept their premise that they are seeking the truth. Anything short of recognizing them as fundamentally dishonest and unscholarly political campaign is a victory for them.

There can certainly be legitimate disagreements about the exact number of “comfort women” (i.e. whether there were tens or hundreds of thousands) or the extent to which Japanese military was directly involved in the trafficking and exploitation of women in the system, but there is no disagreement among the academic community that Japanese military established, maintained, and managed a system of enforced military prostitution that relied on force, fraud, or coercion against women of its colonies and occupied territories.

We are also concerned that in a letter published on Mr. Taniyama’s website, Ms. Okada-Collins admits to teaching her version of “truth” of modern East Asian history in her classes, which includes denial of Nanjing massacre (the “Rape of Nanjing”) and “comfort women.” In the letter, she explains her belief that teaching of language must include “instructions” on culture and history, and states that she uses every opportunity in her classroom to discuss “China-centrism, colonial policy, and recent history between Japan and China/Korea.”

“Some of my students are not Americans, but Koreans, Chinese, or Taiwanese who may reject my views at first, but most of them eventually agree with me,” Ms. Okada-Collins writes. She further explains that some students have complained in the student evaluations that she is unfit as an instructor and should be fired by the university for denying historical atrocities such as the Nanjing massacre and the sexual enslavement of Korean “comfort women.”

We may or may not agree about whether or not the academic freedom protects the rights of historical revisionists to air their views on campus, but we don’t think that there is any doubt that language instructors should not be forcing her repulsive racist, sexist, revisionist views on their students, especially those who are Korean, Chinese, or Taiwanese. In fact, it may constitute a violation of students’ civil right to be free from racist and sexist practices in classrooms.

We are further alarmed that Ms. Okada-Collins have persisted in this practice despite the fact that students have formally complained about her abuse of the position. Is it a stretch to suggest that the university’s earlier failure to act on that knowledge resulted in the full-fledged historical denier event being planned on campus? We are not suggesting that Ms. Okada-Collins should be immediately fired, but we believe that she needs to be instructed to change her behavior in her classroom. Students deserve better, especially Asian and Asian American students who are directly harmed by her unprofessional behavior.

(P.S. – Can we also comment how offensive that Taniyama’s denier film’s title appropriates the case of Scottsboro Boys, the nine young Black men who were unjustly charged with raping white women in 1931 by the racist police/prosecutors and an all-white jury?)