Search

In 1968, the conservative Japanese government of Prime Minister Satō Eisaku mounted a year-long celebration of the 100th anniversary of the 1868 'Meiji Restoration' that had launched Japan's modern era. Although the government took pains to make the commemoration seem non-political, the centennial aroused fierce opposition among those on the left, who feared it represented an effort to revive aspects of pre-World War II militarism. The resistance was led by Japanese historians, who felt the view of the previous 100 years promoted by the government clashed with an alternative understanding of Japan's history indicated by their professional research and training. This article examines the nature and scope of the 1968 Meiji centennial, elucidates why historians in particular were so opposed to it, and investigates the real aims for the celebration on the part of the conservative Satō government, as revealed in the private minutes of the government's planning committee. Ultimately, the historians' fears were partially justified: the government did intend the centennial to revive Japanese nationalism and patriotism along pre-war lines, as shown by their close modeling of the main ceremony on an earlier fascist ceremony - the 1940 celebration of the 2600th anniversary of Imperial rule. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers a critical appraisal of the Abe Cabinet's plans to orchestrate a national celebration of the 150th anniversary of Meiji in 2018, following the example of the Meiji Centennial celebrations of 1968. The article begins by introducing some of the criticisms voiced at the time of the 1968 Centennial by prominent Japanese historians such as Tōyama Shigeki and Yamaguchi Keiji, who saw clear links between the post-war celebration of Meiji and broader efforts to revive Japanese nationalism and promote the long-term goal of re-militarization. It goes on to consider some of the public statements that have been made by Prime Minister Abe regarding 'Meiji 150ʹ and explores the significant gap between the government's vision of the significance of Meiji and the perspectives that emerge from scholarship on the Restoration period produced in recent decades by historians in both Japan and the English-speaking world. It concludes with a brief consideration of the divide that separated Japan's post-war historians from some of their American colleagues in the 1960s, and the role that scholars today have to play in combating the manipulation of the past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]