The R*pe of Nanking vs. the incident of Nanking.
The Rape of Nanking
vs. the incident of Nanking: a Literature ReviewAbstractThe Nanking Massacre has become deeply ingrained in the cultural history of both the Chinese and theJapanese; however it has taken on two perhaps contradictory narratives in each of those communities.
Man 3the two works are Iris Chang’s The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War IIand Higashinakano Shudo’s The Nanking Massacre: Fact Versus Fiction. An Overview of the Chinese Perspective One historian has estimated that if the dead from Nanking were to link hands, they would stretch from Nanking to the city of Hangchow, spanning a distance of some two hundred miles.
Their blood would weigh twelve hundred tons, and their bodies would fill twenty-five hundred railroad cars. Stacked on top of each other, these bodies would reach the height of a seventy-four story building. - Iris Chang, Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II In general, this is representative of the Chinese perception on the happenings at Nanking. Iris Chang states in her novel that “experts at the International Military Tribunal of the Far East (IMTFE) estimated that more than 260,000 noncombatants died at the hands of Japanese soldiers at Nanking in late 1937 and early 1938” (Chang 1997: 4).
Though she cites primary evidence from the Red Swastika Society, this figure is a source of contention. Furthermore, Chang uses photo evidence, like the one below, in order to illustrate the barbaric atrocities that the Japanese had inflicted upon the Chinese. 3Man: The Rape of Nanking vs. the incident of Nanking: a Literature RevPublished by ScholarlyCommons, 2012
Man 5above. In his novel, he declares “20 days before and immediately prior to the fall of Nanking, the city’s population was 200,000, according to Europeans and Americans who were there at the time. Eight days after the fall and on Christmas Eve, it was still 200,000” (Shudo 2005: ii). This means that according to Shudo, no significant massacre even occurred. The Japanese, of course, generally favor Shudo’s account of the events.
Not only does his version of the story of Nanking acquit the Japanese from accusations, but it also paints the Japanese as a kind of generous patron-like figure toward the Chinese. In fact, his novel briefly mentions how the Japanese soldiers transported displaced civilians back to their own cities. As a history professor, Shudo makes use of many primary documents such as war journals and official orders.
In contrast to Chang’s book, which makes use of photo evidence and anecdotes in order to evoke horror and outrage, Shudo’ novel relies less on heated pathos and more on a calm logos. His main purpose in writing the novel, it appears, is to discredit the Nanking advocators and prove that the Nanking massacre was a hoax. Also, having written his novel after Chang’s novel, he has the advantage in that he can rebut the claims made in Chang’s novel. Already on the first page of his novel, he writes, “the western world is beginning to realize that Chang’s book relies on faked photographs and hugely exaggerated accounts” (Shudo 2005: i).
In reading both of these novels, I find that there exist a couple parallel elements and themes that both authors discuss with different spins. The rest of this paper will be devoted toward the analysis of these themes in the context of Nanking and the evaluation of why each author decided to present each concept in a different light.
The four themes that will be discussed are the dehumanization of the enemy, the breakdown of rationality under stress, the Lucifer effect and the tendency toward victimization post-conflict. These elements will be presented in 5Man: The Rape of Nanking vs. the incident of Nanking: a Literature RevPublished by ScholarlyCommons, 2012
Man 6the aforementioned order because they represent roughly the chronological order of occurrence during Nanking. Dehumanization of the Enemy By dehumanizing enemies, animal metaphors reduced the sense of guilt about killing human beings in battle. The “lower” the phylum, the lower the sense of guilt, and few phyla ranked lower than insects - Edmund P. Russell III, Speaking of Annihilation: Mobilizing for War Against Human and Insect Enemies Throughout the history of warfare, dehumanization or demonization of the enemy has been a major technique utilized, and Nanking is no exception.
In her novel The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II, Iris Chang cites the diary entry of a Japanese soldier named Azuma Shiro. In it, Shiro describes his observation of the captured Chinese soldiers: “They all walked in droves, like ants crawling on the ground. They looked like a bunch of homeless people, with ignorant expressions on their faces. A herd of ignorant sheep, with no rule or order, marched on in the darkness, whispering to each other” (Chang 1997: 44). This clearly demonstrates how at least one of the Japanese soldiers believed that the Chinese forces were subhuman. Chang attributes this mindset to environmental factors such as the Japanese education system.
In Chang’s opinion, Japanese schools “operated like miniature military units” (Chang 1997: 30). Textbooks functioned as military propaganda and teachers as military recruits. One particular textbook uses the shape of Japan as justification of Japanese superiority: “We appear to be standing in the vanguard of Asia, advancing bravely into the Pacific. At the same time we appear ready to defend the Asian continent from outside attack” (Chang 1997: 30).
Man 7Chang, it was this flaw in the education system of Japan that facilitated a superiority complex among the Japanese people, justifying mistreatment of the Chinese. Furthermore, Japanese schoolteachers also blatantly promoted hatred of the Chinese. Yelling at one of his students for refusing to dissect a frog, a teacher exclaimed, “Why are you crying over one lousy frog? When you grow up you’ll have to kill one hundred, two hundred chinks!” (Chang 1997: 30). Not only does the term Chink degrade human life, but it also trains the Japanese to feel less guilt at taking human life.
In an equal and opposite manner, by describing Japanese dehumanization techniques, Chang dehumanizes the Japanese, likening them to killing machines. Shuda counters this himself by demonizing the Chinese. He cites ancient Chinese historical literature to support the notion that barbarity also courses through Chinese veins: “the Empress Dowager cut off Madame Qi’s arms and legs, put out her eyes, burned off her ears, forced her to drink a potion that made her deaf, caged her in a tiny room, and named her the ‘human pig’” (Shuda 2005: 8).
Again, animal imagery is used, which demonstrates how savagery and dehumanization techniques are not unique to the Japanese. He provides a further example of dehumanization when he explains how Chinese soldiers treated each other: “According to Nanking Incident Source Material, Vol. 1: American References, Durdin recanted, admitting that there was a confrontation at Yijiang Gate between Chinese soldiers attempting to escape. Some of them were trampled to death” (Shudo 2005: 56). In using the adjective trampled, Shudo likens the Chinese to a herd of cattle, not much different to how the Japanese soldier called the Chinese “a herd of ignorant sheep”.Clearly, dehumanization played a large role in promoting the events that occurred in Nanking.
According to Chang, the Japanese labeled the Chinese as subhuman due to their belief in their own superiority. This notion of superiority the Japanese acquired through propaganda, 7Man: The Rape of Nanking vs. the incident of Nanking: a Literature RevPublished by ScholarlyCommons, 2012
Man 8received through the medium of school. In his novel, Shuda himself demonstrates the continuation of this trend by demonizing and degrading the Chinese. Breakdown of Rationality Dehumanization of the enemy happened before the war. The breakdown of rationality occurred in Chiang Kai Chek’s decision to defend Nanking “to the last man”, but first the event that started the war must be discussed in order to fill in the gap between these two themes.
Between the two authors, there exists extensive disagreement. Chang states in her novel that the war started with Japan when “the Japanese army blew up the tracks of a Japanese-owned railway in Southern Manchuria...and fabricated a story for the world press about Chinese saboteurs” (Chang 1997: 29), giving the Japanese an excuse to invade Manchuria. This incident, which occurred on September 18, 1931, is commonly referred to as “The 9.18 Incident”. According to Chang, it was this unjust event that led to the unlawful occupation of China by Japan, which later escalated up to war. Of course, Shudo does not place the start of the war at this point.
Instead, he suggests that the war began on July 7, 1937 (just five months before Nanking) with The Marco Polo Bridge Incident. During this conflict, Japanese soldiers were engaging in final maneuvers, practicing with blanks, when they “were attacked without warning by Chinese troops, who were using live ammunition” (Shudo 2005: 2).This places the blame on the Chinese for the start of the war. Though the two novelists disagree on this point, they seem to agree that Nanking was an untenable situation.
The overall sentiment expressed by the narration suggests desperation in face of chaotic management and overwhelming enemy power. Chang herself even gives credit to the massive disparity in the technological capabilities of both nations by mentioning the Meiji Restoration in which Japan transformed into a military nation: “Schools were not run for the 8Momentum, Vol. 1 [2012], Iss. 1, Art.