從自主選用的「日治」到定為一尊的「日據」－－以《公論報》、《台灣新生報》以及《中央日報》的刊載演變（1945-1951）為例

台灣近幾年對於日本殖民統治台灣五十年的「歷史分期」一向以擁護「日治」及「日據」者最多，僵持不讓的程度儼然已發展成社會內部的某種「敵我」之爭。2013年7月22日當天，行政院卻突然正式宣告將要求此後公文書必須使用「日據」用語，以「維護中華民國國家主權及民族尊嚴」。事實上無獨有偶，1951年11月15日出版的《台灣省政府公報》也曾以國家公權力介入要求《公論報》等特定報刊須將「日治時代」矯正為「日據時期」，所持理由如出一轍。筆者擬在如今沸沸揚揚的聲鬧中，試著回到當時幾份各具官、民代表性的報刊及作家作品，踏查戰後初期社會各界究竟是如何看待和使用這段時日的「歷史分期」，讓長期被遮掩的歷史脈絡和生猛活跳的史料站出來發聲，藉此嘗試找出戰後初期民間、學界、報社與國府等對「日治」與「日據」這兩個各執一端的彼此認知之落差與差異，探究在「國族神話」形成的過程中國家機器是如何以政治的手段輕易又粗暴地介入主導？政治力所扭曲的歷史詮釋到底產生了何種重大影響？也一併回應學者周婉窈、張亞中以及《聯合報》的若干論點。。

關鍵字

日治；日據；《公論報》；楊雲萍；歷史分期；國族神話

並列摘要

In the last few years, most people in Taiwan considered the ＂historical stage＂ of 50-year colonial rule of Japan over Taiwan as ＂Japanese Rule＂ or ＂Japanese Occupation＂, and the deadlock has almost turned into a ＂friend or foe＂ situation inside the society. Nevertheless, the Executive Yuan, all of a sudden, officially declared on July 22, 2013 that all official documents made thereafter have to employ the wording ＂Japanese Occupation＂ so as to ＂defend the national sovereignty and national dignity of the Republic of China.＂ Coincidentally, the Taiwan Provincial Government Gazette published on November 15, 1951, by dint of state power, required such newspapers as the Taiwan Tribune to change the wording from ＂Era of Japanese Rule＂ to ＂Period of Japanese Occupation＂ for exactly the same reason. In view of the noisy argument, the Author tries to look back at the official and privately-run newspapers and the works published by some writers in those times, probes into how all circles of the society viewed and used that ＂historical stage＂ in early post-war period, uncovers the long concealed historical context and vivid historical data, thereby figuring out the gap and difference between the common people, the academic community, the press and the government etc. in early post-war period in terms of the understanding of ＂Japanese Rule＂ and ＂Japanese Occupation＂, researching the way in which the state apparatus readily and overbearingly took action and dominated by political means during the formation of ＂National Myth＂, as well as the material impact of historical interpretation twisted by political power. Furthermore, the Author also responds to some arguments of scholars Wan-Yao Chou and Ya-Chung Chang, as well as the United Daily News.