History does not speak. It comes to us through people, in voices fragile or fierce, recorded, retold, remoulded or silenced. Which voices are amplified, which are suppressed, and which are discredited shapes what we call truth. Few issues illustrate this more starkly than the testimony of the women known as “comfort women.”
Testimony, Power, and the Shape of History
During World War II, tens of thousands of women from Korea, China, the Philippines, and beyond were drawn into a system of Japanese military brothels. Some were deceived by brokers, others coerced outright, some joined to escape worse conditions. Their story has never faded, not only because of the trauma itself but because of how those voices continue to be used. As evidence, as symbols, and as weapons.
Two works press this point: Yuha’s Comfort Women of the Japanese Empire highlights the complexity of their experiences and warns against flattening them into a single political story. Ramseyer and Morgan’s The Comfort Women Hoax challenges the reliability of many survivor accounts, claiming they were shaped by activists or outside forces. Both met controversy, but together they expose how testimony itself has become a battlefield.
The First Voice That Changed Everything
In August 1991, Kim Hak-sun stepped before journalists in Seoul. “I am not ashamed anymore,” she declared, breaking nearly half a century of silence. Her testimony, the first public account by a Korean survivor, opened floodgates: lawsuits, weekly demonstrations in front of the Japanese embassy, and a global movement demanding redress.
Her courage showed how one person’s words can shift national consciousness. It also set the stage for how later testimonies would be received, sifted, and contested.
Archives and the Politics of Curation
Institutions soon took on the role of guardians of memory. The Asian Women’s Fund digital museum collected testimonies from Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, and elsewhere. The War & Women’s Human Rights Archives in Seoul preserved thousands of documents from survivors and activists.
These archives safeguard history, but they also filter it. Decisions about which stories are translated, which are showcased, and which fade into obscurity shape public understanding. Park Yuha argued that testimonies reflecting complex or ambivalent experiences, such as women who spoke of mixed feelings toward soldiers, were often sidelined. In her view, politics rewarded a single, unbending narrative.
Testimony in the Halls of Power
Survivor voices carry moral weight in courts and parliaments. In 2007, Lee Yong-soo told the U.S. Congress, “I was dragged away at the age of 14. My cries for help went unheard.” Dutch survivor Jan Ruff O’Herne added her own story of being forced into a brothel in Java. Their statements underpinned House Resolution 121, urging Japan to acknowledge its wartime system.
A decade earlier, the UN’s Special Rapporteur Radhika Coomaraswamy concluded that the system amounted to sexual slavery (UN Digital Library). Testimony, once intimate memory, had become the foundation for international law.
When Falsehood Clouds the Record
In 2014, the Asahi Shimbun retracted articles that had relied on fabricated accounts by Seiji Yoshida. The paper admitted it had failed in vetting his claims (Asahi AJW). Critics used the episode to cast doubt on the broader comfort women issue, though a third-party review emphasized that Yoshida’s testimony had never been central to the historical consensus (Nippon.com). The damage was lasting: one falsehood gave skeptics a weapon against genuine survivors.
Scholars as Witnesses to Testimony
Academics have taken on the role of interpreters, and sometimes proponents, of testimony. Park Yuha’s work, stressing witness diversity of experience, led to criminal charges in South Korea. The fact she was prosecuted at all speaks to how far the government was willing to go to enforce a single narrative for political ends. When the Supreme Court acquitted her in 2023, the decision not only defended academic freedom but revealed how contested the politics of memory remain (Japan Forward). In effect, Park became a witness herself: her ordeal stood as evidence of how power can shape which testimonies are allowed to stand, the diverging paths to either reconciliation or animus.
Ramseyer and Morgan’s claims have been more controversial. They argue that many testimonies were shaped by activists or foreign interests, recasting survivors as manipulated witnesses. Their critics accuse them of distorting evidence. Their work forced an intense round of peer scrutiny, reminding us that even academia is a stage where testimony is weighed, defended, or dismissed (New Yorker). Ramseyer’s argument intersects with Park’s ordeal: both point to a South Korean government unwilling to reconcile even after reparations and formal apologies, preferring to perpetuate distrust and ill will.
The Ethics of Listening
What can we do to help prevent the weaponization of testimony?
First, transparency: testimony archives should disclose how accounts are chosen, translated, and framed.
Second, independence: international bodies or academic consortia should preserve records outside the control of any single state, in free and open inquiry.
Third, safeguards: survivors should be protected from coercion by NGOs or government influence.
Finally, education: presenting multiple strands of testimony side by side encourages students and readers to see memory as layered rather than monolithic.
Survivor accounts are the lifeblood of history, but they are never free from context. Listening widely, without silencing voices we dislike or sanctifying those we prefer, is the only path to an honest reckoning.
Why It Matters
The comfort women controversy is not only about events of the 1940s. It also is about our collective memory, the shape of its narrative. It is about how testimony lives on: in courtrooms, parliaments, archives, newspapers, and lecture halls. Park Yuha urges us to preserve nuance. Ramseyer and Morgan remind us that evidence must be tested. Together they underscore a hard truth: history’s authority rests not just on what happened, but on who is heard, who is silenced, and who decides.
