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

It is different in the sense that Chinese are shifting their focus to world stage but they are not teaching lies to their kids. Japanese are teaching lies, lies about atrocity they committed, to their kids by revising textbooks.

 

Chinese, in their attempt to conform to the west, does sometimes overdo. I just don't know enough to say if that's the case here.

 

The Chinese are also omitting unfavorable parts of their history. It is a less than honest history.

It isn't exactly the same as what Japan is doing. But the shift is still more than just focusing on a world wide perspective. It is whitewashing misdeeds of the past.

 

somebody should be re-writting your spelling book. I call for a writ of prohibition against sloppy thread titles.

 

It is telling if you read the article and get to the conclusion that is an attempt to omit "unfavorable parts of their history". That, is if you read the article at all.

 

Not really. That wasn't the only conclusion I was able to draw from the article.

I merely stated that was a fact of what was happening in China, according to the article.

Is that not happening, according to the article?

 

No, They are shortening the teaching in favor of that Fernand Braudel's style. I don't see "omitting unfavorable parts of their history" anywhere in the article. Qin Shihuang, Wen Tianxiang, etc are not exactly "unfavorable parts of their history".

 

Chinese dropped parts that glorified themselves not the opposite. If you think the parts they dropped were not quite honest to start with, doesn't dropping them appear to a step to the right direction?

And in any case, whatever China dropped did not include occuping other countries for half a century and killing tens of millions of foreign innocent lives during the process.

 

Men only see what they want to see. What is that term in "da vinci's code"?

 

oh really?

I understand the focus is shifting, and the reasoning for that. I am not denying that. But only mentioning Mao once in a lesson about manners isn't ommitting things which are inconvenient? I am not saying it is even anything that huge, or different from what textbooks in the U.S. do. But to pretend like it isn't happening or discussed in the article doesn't make sense.

"ommitting unfavorable parts..." wasn't mentioned, but I am allowed to read and draw conclusions, paraphrase etc. Not everything in my post has to be a direct quotation of the article.

 

Students now study Mao — still officially revered as the founding father of modern China but no longer regularly promoted as an influence on policy — only in junior high.

Mao is still in Junior high, just not much in senior high. Please get your facts straight or enhance your reading comprehension skills.

 

I am not saying their ommissions are the same as Japan's! Stop implying that is what I am trying to say.

Micheon, Canoner, and WNES are incredibly defensive and quick to see insult when none is there.

whatever else China dropped, they did drop parts that were unfavorable to them. I'm sorry if you don't want to accept that, but no matter what else is true, that is also true about the changes in the text books.

 

Man, you really need to drop this defensive crap when you can't even get your facts straight, same goes to NewYorker. It doesn't reflect well on you as a person.

Please refer to my earlier post as to my own thoughts about this textbook experiment.

 

In all fairness, I think this article paint a very negative picture of what China is trying to do. On top of that, the title of the thread is clearly trying to frame the readers to view China in a more negative light (seems like New Yorkers has a personal beef with some Chinese posters here, or maybe all Chinese posters here).

One really has to read the positives from between the lines.

By the way, I love what China is doing. A positive forward looking history. A history that emphasizes on the culture, technology and common man rather than war, weapons and Emperors (Presidents).

I think US shall take a cue from that. My kids is going to learn history soon, sure hope this is the way to go in the future.

 

My facts and reading comprehension skills are correct.

Do you deny the changes I mentioned happened?

 

Totally, that's why I said the writing of the article sometimes got me confused. If someone was to just read the title, or scan through it, he would probably think Chinese history book totally drops Mao, just like some "I'm so right and you are so defensive" crowd did here.

 

From the article in the OP

 

Mr. I'm in no position to help your reading comprehension, but once again your claim:

But only mentioning Mao once in a lesson about manners isn't ommitting things which are inconvenient?

is wrong.

Mao is still studies in Junior high. He is not featured in senior high except being "mentioned fleetingly as part of a lesson on the custom of lowering flags to half-staff at state funerals".

How much you want your students to study Mao, I guess, is a matter of taste. Sorry, Chinese doesn't accomodate you. But, seriously, get down from your high horse and look inside yourself.

 

You have yet to show any facts that I have gotten wrong. I will drop the defensive act when people drop their defensiveness.

I have not equated China's revisions as being the same Japan's, though people still brought it up. I have not said there were legitimate reasons for much of the changes made in the textbooks, though some have been quick to try and argue that with me as if it was a point I was trying to make. I never was.

Yet despite this you are the one talking about my reading comprehension. You tell me to get my facts straight.

When that kind of defensiveness stops, I will stop calling people defensive.