Guess who else is re-writing their history books....

No, I asked you a very simple question which is very simple to answer.

You see, even in your original article, which despite its usual anti-China spin, stated that:

"They do not so much rewrite history as diminish it."

Rather blunt don't you think? So I am asking very simiply, where you went from this line to that China is re-writing history. What was your thought process and IF there were ANYTHING in the article that made you think the way that you do. Because after we clarified this little, um, minor technicality, we can have a debate on the issue.

It's a funny thing really, because I believe I saw FranchaiseBlade try to address this question whereas you, the original poster, did not and chose instead to run for the hills when it was asked. Rather ironic considering that you were given plenty of opportunities to do so.

And this is an important little detail isn't it, considering that it's actually on topic instead of your usual "China invaded Tibet, India, Vietnam and will invade Taiwan" crap you'd like to pull hmmm?

Of course, you could simply admit that you are full of **** and/or incapable of reading because that would explain the situation even better.

 

Then explain to me the correlation between China and Japan, which actually is re-writing history. That's the point of this flamebait thread of yours isn't it?

 

MFW, don't bother. He'll start his usual spin of good intention or bad intention, of course based on the absolute universal standard - his opinion.

 

Btw, here is a quote of your post #31 back on page 2:

"I notice rblh was the only one who stood against this maintaining a consistent application of not rewriting history."

So I see that whatever your initial intentions were (and I don't really give a rats ass what they were), they were um, subsequently lost in the piles of bullsh1t you tried to spin. But then again, that tends to happen when you bullsh1t.

 

real_egal, thank you for your concern. Don't worry about me though. I derive a sick pleasure in torturing borderline braindead. I'm having a blast here.

 

having read the thread, but i for one think the changes are pretty nice!

gotta give em credit when they do right!

understanding and multiculturalism is the first step to mutual respect between races and moving past racism/ethnocentrism.

but yes, newyorker and the article has a point when they point out the Chinese reluctance to highlight the darker parts of China's past. but then again, wasn't it the entire point of our last thread? That it is logical and reasonable for a nation to see things their own way, and that we should learn to respect differences rather than breed animosity from them?

 

Woohoo. We could have saved a lot of spaces/posts.

Take this as an honest question if you will, where in the article do you see it "clearly stated" that "minimize and white-wash the bad stuff it has done"? Take notice that I don't say it does or does not.

Is it the boxer line? Is it the lack of presence of Mao in senior high's textbook? Is it TAM square that's not mentioned in the article?


Anyway, it's all apples and oranges to me. If you say they are fruits, fine.

I'll just take your word for it:

You are capable, you just need a little cajole.

 

Funny. Once again, I'm giving you the opportunity to prove where in that article you reached the conclusion that China is "manipulating history to serve its political interest."

Because you see, from what I read, they are not omitting either the bad or the good, they are just de-emphathizing on history (ie. not teaching it as much as they did), which I think is just outright wrong, but totally different than your little rant isn't it? I mean, you'd have so much more of a case if your OWN article didn't state that they are dropping the good along with the bad about China.

Oh, and just to clarify again, which are we debating again? China re-writing their history books or China re-writing history?

 

So by de-emphasizing, I'm guessing that you are suggesting that Tiannamen Square EVER WAS included in the history books?

It's pretty funny really, out of all the possible reasons a government could chose to modify textbooks, most of which aren't so dark, you picked to "re-write history" when there is no evidence supporting it plenty to the contrary.

This is what one would call an "agenda."

 

You should start to think about backing yourself up with some facts, every once in a while. I know my English knowledge is poor, so please forgive and correct me if I am wrong. "De-emphasize" starts from "emphasize". World history books in Chinese high schools don't include events in the past 20 years or so. 6.4. was never included in history books, and there was no "re-writting books" here, not yet. If someday in the future, they decide to include that event, it will be technically a "re-writting history books", but not "re-writting history".

 

Couple questions:

1. How do you know? Do you read Chinese history textbooks, or do you read it in the article? Loose with facts again?

2. Although I don't know if it's in the history books, I'm pretty sure it's covered under other subjects. Does it bother you so much that certain subjects has to be covered under history?

 

So at the end of the day, Boxer Rebellion, a rebellion against foreign intervention, or the lack of highlighing its violent nature is all you have to "whitewash bad stuff China has done" and all that BS? Anyone takes "boxers" as non-violent?