Notwithstanding the results of the historic Sino-Japanese joint research that began in
2006, Japanese and Chinese interpretations of historical “facts” and reconstructions
(manifestations) of those facts in the modern and contemporary periods differ greatly.
As E. H. Carr points out, “[History] is a continuous process of interaction between the historian
and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past”.2 Differences between
historians can be attributed to each historian’s values, the society in which he or she lives,
and the values and norms of the era. However, a growing number of historical research
papers and writings in the guise of empirical research are lending legitimacy to political
objectives and messages given priority by the Chinese in “historical research” papers. This
raises questions about the content of their historical narratives and doubts about Chinese
researchers’ attitude to employing the historical positivism approach.
This paper takes as an example the history of Ryukyu/Okinawa, currently an area
where geopolitical tensions are growing due to differences in historical perception
between Japan and China. By contrasting and examining these differences, this paper
focuses on Chinese academics’ tendency to construct selective historical narratives
primally along ideological lines. For this, it is necessary to apply critical source analysis
of references cited in the narratives and bring facts that have been shielded or suppressed
to light. To evaluate the influence of Chinese narratives in Okinawa and respect the
self-determination principle of the residents, I also apply the outcomes of the public
survey in Okinawa in a multi-disciplinal manner. The goal of this analysis is not to make
a dualistic good/bad judgment or to pursue individual responsibility but to understand
these differences in perception and the political intent behind them. At present, no
country officially objects to Okinawa belonging to Japan
