Does Hate Education Really Exist?

Yesterday, I listened to a space discussing the murder of Japanese schoolchildren in Shenzhen and the topic of hate education. A middle-aged man came up and said, you always talk about hate education, do we have hate education? We are just stating the crimes of the Japanese invading army as they are; does that count as hate education?

Of course, it does not. A nation has its own historical narrative. Before modern times, the Chinese did not have a concept of a nation-state; the average Chinese person would only travel as far as the county seat in their lifetime, spending most of their time farming at home. Historically, "China" has always been a cultural concept, with an openness to the transformation between the barbarian and the Chinese: "If the vassals use barbarian rites, they are barbarian; if they advance into China, they are Chinese." It was a series of foreign invasions in modern times that led to the formation of the concept of the Chinese nation. The emergence of the other allows one to recognize oneself. During the Japanese invasion of China, a book was published (I forgot the title) that examined the historical instances of China being ruled by foreign powers, attempting to prove that it was not unreasonable for Japan to rule China as well. The reason the Chinese resisted to the end this time was that since the late Qing Dynasty, China had already become a nation-state, and would never accept foreign rule. Of course, the formation of the Chinese national consciousness also has a process, such as Sun Yat-sen's evolution from the early "Expel the Tartars and Restore China" to the later "Five Races Under One Union." The war of invasion greatly promoted the formation of the concept of the Chinese nation. "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" argues that the biggest difference between humans and animals is that humans can imagine things that do not exist, constructing imagined communities that make large-scale cooperation across regions possible. For example, nations, currencies, legal entities, and ethnicities are all imagined constructs. Therefore, teaching the historical narrative of one's own nation is quite important. If the history of the Japanese invasion of China is not taught, it can be said that the concept of the Chinese nation could not be constructed.

— The problem is that there is a lot of room for interpretation in the causal relationships of historical events. For example, when teachers teach students about Japan's motives for launching the invasion of China, will they introduce the ideological changes in Japan since the Meiji era? The handling of the samurai class? How fascist thought was formed? Will they discuss how Japan's failure in institutional design led to the military's rampage and control of the state? Will they mention the fate of Japan's moderate prime minister who resisted?

Or will they simply summarize it with a simple statement: "Japan has always been prone to earthquakes, so they always want to expand; whenever there is an opportunity, they invade" and "Japanese people are bad, inherently evil, so they do such things"?

— The question is, after teaching the historical facts, how should we interpret them? This is also very subjective. After recounting history, should we be vigilant against fascism in any country in the world (including our own), promoting Sino-Japanese friendship and everlasting peace; or should we grit our teeth, endure, seek revenge, and one day demand blood for blood?

To illustrate with my own experience, I attended the best school in the province, bar none. When the history teacher taught this part of history, she clearly stated that blood debts will one day be repaid in blood. My classmates all looked serious and gritted their teeth. I don't know if the teacher sensed something was off with this atmosphere, so she hurriedly added that we should still get along with the Japanese people today. This female history teacher was the head of the liberal arts class back then, usually kind and amiable, encouraging students to express their views, often siding with students in conflicts with parents. Looking back, I have a very good impression of her. At least she could say the latter part about getting along with the Japanese today. However, her first statement about blood debts being repaid in blood, I believe, if that is not hate education, then nothing is hate education.

To summarize my point: merely stating the crimes of the Japanese invading army does not count as hate education; it is even an important narrative for constructing the Chinese national community. However, hate education does indeed exist, primarily reflected in the interpretation of historical events and the selective presentation of facts.

This article focuses solely on whether "hate education" truly exists, without discussing the various selective facts in Chinese history textbooks.

This article does not discuss whether hate education directly led to the murder of schoolchildren in Shenzhen.

This article dismisses various forms of whataboutism.