Japan is facing a growing crisis about its collective memory of the Second World War. According to The Guardian there is a conflict between those on the political right who are attempting to remove from the historical record acknowledgements of certain atrocities committed by the Japanese government and/or its military.

I am just as skeptical of attempts to sanitize history as I am of claims that there is an absolute truth in the past to be discovered. However, it is troubling to think of the government modifying history textbooks to suit a certain political ideology or to serve a politically charged purpose. Hopefully the Japanese government will decide to leave textbooks and education in the hands of scholars and authors.

This year the education ministry ordered publishers of seven high-school textbooks to be introduced next April to remove references to the forced suicides. The ministry said “it was not clear there were military orders [to commit suicide]” and that “recent studies suggest there were no such orders”.

The demand is part of a growing movement to sanitise - or simply ignore - the darkest episodes in modern Japanese history, which have gathered pace under one of the most conservative governments of recent decades, led by the hawkish prime minister, Shinzo Abe.

A long simmering row over the 1937 massacre of tens of thousands of Chinese civilians in Nanking by Japanese forces has been reignited by renewed efforts to play down the carnage. Last month about 130 Japanese MPs denounced the massacre as a Chinese fabrication and claimed the death toll was nearer 20,000. Several films marking the 70th anniversary are due for release this year, including one by the rightwing director Satoru Mizushima which describes the episode as a myth.

Other attempts by the Japanese right to rectify Japan’s “masochistic” view of its own history have set it on a diplomatic collision course with its closest ally, the United States.

The complete article from The Guardian: “Told to commit suicide, survivors now face elimination from history “

Philip Johnson’s legendary Glass House, along with a number of other structures on his estate, is now open for public tours. I’m definitely adding this to the places I would like to go and see! Of course, according to the article, the tours are sold out for the next year or more already.

Also of note is the fact that the museum curators made extensive use of Apple products for the design of informative exhibits. The Apple Pro page contains a profile showcasing the technology that is used at the Glass House.

The New York Times features a review of the architecture of the Glass House as well as a brief over view of Philip Johnson’s relationship to the architectural movements of the twentieth century.

It is unlikely that any single person will ever hold so much sway over the profession again, but we are beginning to view his legacy with a bit more clarity.

Nowhere is this more evident than at the 47-acre estate that Johnson built for himself here over a span of nearly 50 years and that opened to the public last month. A collection of 14 structures that includes the legendary Glass House, completed in 1949; a guesthouse; an art gallery; and a sculpture pavilion, the complex survives as an enticing voyage through the ups and downs of late-20th-century architecture set in a dreamy landscape of rolling lawns and maple trees.

But as imposing as it is as a historical landmark, it is as telling about his weaknesses as a designer as about his influence as an advocate for architecture. Its uneven collection of architectural follies is an expression of a man more notable for a restless imagination and insatiable cultural appetites than for his gifts as an architect.

Take the Glass House. For all its fame, the house is an imperfect work. A simple glass box supported by slender steel pillars, it was once one of the most famous houses in the United States. To sit here with Johnson was to enter the heart of the American cultural establishment, and its celebrity may have done more to make Modernism palatable to the country’s social elites than any other structure of the 20th century.

It is also a legitimate aesthetic triumph. On a gorgeous New England day, the play of its glass surfaces creates a layering of images, from reflections of the surrounding trees to the shadowy silhouettes of people walking around inside. And the classical references alluded to by its thin brick base and the symmetrical proportions of its frame demonstrate the range of Johnson’s historical knowledge.

Yet it is also easy to see why Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, a pillar of early Modernism and Johnson’s mentor, stormed out in a huff when he saw it. The house was famously influenced by Mies’s Farnsworth House, which was designed before Johnson’s Glass House but built, in Illinois, several years later, leaving the impression that the student had leapfrogged over his master. More important, Johnson’s vision lacked the intellectual rigor and exquisite detailing that were so critical to Mies’s genius. The steel I-beams that mark the corners of the Glass House are clumsily detailed — especially disconcerting in a work of such purity.

The complete article from The New York Times: “Through a Glass, Clearly, a Modernist’s Questing Spirit”

The BBC reports that Britain’s National Archives is in the midst of grappling with the problem of preserving obsolete digital file formats.

The growing problem of accessing old digital file formats is a “ticking time bomb”, the chief executive of the UK National Archives has warned.

Natalie Ceeney said society faced the possibility of “losing years of critical knowledge” because modern PCs could not always open old file formats.

Anyone who has tried to open archived digital files knows the sort of problem that the National Archives faces, although theirs is of course on a much more immense scale than individuals or even businesses. Paper, it turns out, is much more reliable.

Ms Ceeney said: “If you put paper on shelves, it’s pretty certain it is going to be there in a hundred years.

“If you stored something on a floppy disc just three or four years ago, you’d have a hard time finding a modern computer capable of opening it.”

“Digital information is in fact inherently far more ephemeral than paper,” warned Ms Ceeney.

This is a very real problem and it is something that will be of tremendous concern to future generations of historians and scholars who want to study our time. However, I expect that part of the ephemeral nature of certain digital technology will be solved (although it may end up being very expensive and/or labor intensive).

My faith is in technology itself to provide the tools necessary to fix this dilemma. I think the clearest example of a possible route to “fixing” the problem of digital permanence is emulation software. Because computer speeds continue to increase pretty much in line with Moore’s Law it is possible for a present-day (or future) system to allocate a portion of it memory, hard drive, processor, etc. to create an older machine virtually. VMWare is the company that first comes to mind with this sort of software.

The point is for some place like the National Archives (or even an individual or a business) that the answer may not be to keep converting documents to “universal” file formats but instead to ensure that tools exist to ensure that the data can be accessed in a roughly similar context to how it was originally created. If you have a file created using an obsolete program that was written for Windows 95, fire up a VMWare emulator and run a virtual Windows 95 system on a computer, install the appropriate program, access the file, etc.

Of course, this is much more difficult when the added variable of obsolete physical formats is thrown into the mix. If the data that the Windows 95 programs needs is on a 3 1/2″ floppy diskette and the computer running the emulator doesn’t have a drive that will read these disks, there’s still a problem.

Yet, the same principle behind software emulation could apply to solve these sorts of hardware problems. It can’t be too difficult of an engineering problem to build a disk drive to read an antiquated disk (after all, people built them 10-15 years or more ago!). It is probably more a question of money and resources than anything else. I suspect that in the next few decades libraries, companies, and even individuals may end up creating a market for new “old” computer hardware.

The complete article from BBC News: “Warning of data ticking time bomb”

Gordon Brown decided to back off from his idea to revise the Act of Settlement 1701 to exclude its discrimination against Catholics holding public office. The Act fixed the line of succession to the English throne, and ensured that it would be forever “English” and Protestant.

It was necessary in order to pass the English throne to Sophia of Hanover, a Protestant, who was a granddaughter of James I. It explicitly provided that only Sophia’s heirs could claim the throne, and that they must be Protestant.

And it was thereby further enacted, that all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same: and in all and every such case and cases the people of these realms shall be and are thereby absolved of their allegiance: and that the said Crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons, so reconciled, holding communion, professing or marrying, as aforesaid, were naturally dead.

Although this language, and most of the Act itself, seems very antiquated and hardly seems like it could be relevant in the twenty first century, there are real consequences for Britain so long as it retains the monarchy and the monarch serves as the head of the Church of England. Edward VIII’s abdication in the early twentieth century triggered provisions of the Act, and more recently Prince Michael of Kent’s marriage in 1978 to a Catholic removed him from the line of succession.

Repealing the Act, or modifying its anti-Catholic provisions has been the subject of political debate on and off in Britain over the years. Gordon Brown’s proposals for a Bill of Rights that would enshrine religious toleration seemed like the closest the nation has come to an outright repeal. As today’s Telegraph indicates, Brown is dropping any revision of the Act:

Gordon Brown has been attacked by leading Catholics for his decision to abandon a plan to end discrimination against the faith in his white paper on constitutional change.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien, archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh, said he was “deeply disappointed” in the Prime Minister.

Cardinal O’Brien has campaigned along with Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond, for a repeal of the 1701 Act of Settlement, which enshrines the link between the Church of England and the roles of monarch and prime minister.

Mr Brown had planned to end the link by creating a written Bill of Rights which would have said for the first time that people holding public office could be of any faith.

“I remain deeply concerned that the Act of Settlement will continue to exist and believe it constitutes state-sponsored sectarianism,” Cardinal O’Brien said.

Although it seems to those outside of England (as well as many English) that the Act is blatantly discriminatory as well as unnecessary in an age when the political power of the monarchy is minimal, the Act has its staunch supporters. Some believe in it not just because it represents tradition and an abstract notion of English Protestant identity, but also because they fervently believe in the principle of a Protestant monarchy.

Adrian Hilton, writing in support of the Act in The Spectator in 2003, (“The Price of Liberty”, The Spectator, November 8, 2003) elaborated a number of reasons why its repeal or revision would be unwise. Apart from the legal difficulties it would create in terms of the new laws necessary to counter-act it in Britain, amending the Act would open a legal can of worms in every Commonwealth nation with the Queen as Head of State because they are currently subject to its terms and would need to pass their own succession laws if it was repealed.

Hilton’s most interesting point is his assertion, “Parliament went to great lengths to make the Act foundational because the nation had learnt that when a Roman Catholic monarch is upon the throne, religious and civil liberty is lost.” Even at a time when Christian religion is on a decline in Britain and Church of England membership is at a low, English identity, rights and liberties are still tied to its Protestantism and its history.

The complete article from The Daily Telegraph: “Catholics attack Brown over discrimination law”

The new British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is planned some fairly dramatic overhauling of the constitution. Two of the rumored items stand out the most: the change in the Prime Minister’s power to declare war and the creation of a British Bill of Rights. The article makes no mention of what the process would be for declaring war. It would certainly be interesting if this power was given back to the sovereign, but most likely it would end up requiring a full Parliamentary vote.

Gordon Brown will this week propose surrendering historic powers delegated to previous prime ministers by the monarch as part of a wide-ranging programme of constitutional reform.

The reforms are expected to involve Mr Brown giving up royal prerogatives traditionally exercised by the prime minister, such as the power to declare war without parliamentary approval or to appoint bishops to the Church of England.

If that is the case, it becomes something of a distinction without much of a difference, because presumably the Prime Minister has the confidence of the majority in the House of Commons, and if s/he proposed a declaration of war, it is likely that a majority would de-facto agree. Of course this became a bit more complication with the Iraq war when growing number of Labour MPs disagreed with Prime Minister Blair’s decision to go to war and to continue the war. It seems like Brown’s move would be more designed to signal his own MPs that he learned a lesson from Blair’s Iraq experience.

The article also suggests that Brown is considering a Bill of Rights:

The House of Commons will be given new powers, including the right for MPs to recall Parliament during a recess if there is a national emergency, to hold American-style confirmation hearings for appointees to key public posts and to ratify international treaties.

In the longer term, Mr Brown is considering a British Bill of Rights, enshrining the civil liberties of citizens currently set out in the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights, to give a greater sense of what it means to be a British citizen.

Without yet knowing the details of the proposal it is difficult to think about what consequences this might have for Britain. But, it would certainly be historic, considering how Britain has never had an official, inviolable Bill of Rights before. It will be interesting to see how such a document is crafted and what procedures are implemented for amending it (a Parliamentary super-majority? nationwide referendum? etc.)

Although the article frames it as an issue of British citizenship and defining the legal meaning of British-ness, there is also the suggestion of the link with the European human rights conventions. With this Bill of Rights, Brown might be trying to pre-empt some of the remaining differences between British laws and EU ones by crafting a document that nullifies a bunch of other laws that might contradict EU regulations.

A lot of speculation on my part, but it seems that there is more than just legal reforms going on here. It will be interesting to see what proposals Brown eventually puts forward as well as how they are received in Britain.

The complete article from The Daily Telegraph: “Brown gives up the power to declare war”