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

Right. so it was omitted from the highschool textbooks. It isn't a matter of how much I want or don't want Mao studied. It is a matter of the facts concerning the texts.

I'm not passing judgement good or bad on the decisions to omit certain things from the textbooks, so I am not on a highhorse to get off of. That is exactly what I mean by you being defensive.

 

facts?

Read the post above yours. Read it again if your brain still hurts. I'm through with you if you still can't see that since there's no way to reason with anyone who doesn't face the facts.

 

I've read what you wrote, and haven't argued that it is there. You however, read the quote from the article I provided, and have ignored it.

It doesn't bother me that you won't recognize it, but don't expect me to not bring it up.

 

Hahahahahahah.

Only you would equate Mao in grade 7-9, but not much in 9-12 as "omitting". What? China can't choose how things being taught in sequence now?

It's quite clear who's being defensive.

Maybe that writing style of the article is actually taylored for you.

 

michecon,

If one just glance though the article, one will get the impression that China is whitewashing her history. Just from the title of the article "Where’s Mao? Chinese Revise History Books" coupled with the title of this thread "Guess who else is re-writting their history books....China, what a shocker!?!?!"

It is very easy for casual readers to get a negative impression of what China is trying to do.

That is just too bad. I actually think this subject (how history shall be taught) is worthy of discussion. It is just too bad this thread is going to pro- vs. anti-China direction.

 

FB, I personally favor a more balanced history book, not so much only focus on war history, but also not a version as the article suggested to make Bill Gates more important than Mao in Chinese history. The reason for taking out all the focus of Mao, was not just as you and some others believe to avoid "unfavorable parts". It's rather a mentality change. Mao is viewed differently in China than in US. Mao is never viewed all bad in China. The official line was "70% good and 30% bad". Among lots of average educated Chinese, he was "50/50". If the book took him out in GLF and CR, but kept him in leading red army, founding PRC, rejecting pressure to become a puppet government, or land-reforming, then you can conclude that they revising it to avoid some unfavorable parts. Do Chinese history books do that? Absolutely, so as other countries. But it's not a conclusion you can draw from the quotes you just mentioned.

I would like to offer a little background, why I said that it's a mentality swift, rather than "white-washing history". China never lacks of debaters, and you can easily see that in D&D as well. When Deng started his economic reform, the debates went forever. He had a famous quote "It doesn't matter whether it's a black cat or white cat, if it can catch a mouse, it's a good cat", which ended the intense debate whether the policy is socialism or capitalism. The focus is to do something, instead of sitting there and arguing. Chinese modern history, especially the one under CCP government, without a true opposition party, it's hard to have a full clear picture. Therefore, the notion right now is, future generation will be able to judge them. For now, let's put it aside, and move on to develop the country first. That's why the drop of mentioning of Mao, once for all, simply to put disputes aside for a while.

I don't necessarily agree with that approach, but I can't conclude from that move, that they are doing that to drop unfavorable parts.

 

The article makes it clear that it was there more in 9-12, and is now there less.

Omitting means leaving something out that was once there. Was it there before? yes.

Is it there now? no

 

Yup. The thread was actually going well until non-factual claims. I actually think history should be taught between a balance of "showing facts" (the old approach) and "showing ideas" (what they are trying to do). So, we as students of history can best evaluate ideas with historical knowledge on our hand.

 

omit:
1 : to leave out or leave unmentioned

Fact, Chinese history textbooks still have Mao. That makes your claim

Untrue. It would be slightly different if you said the "chinese senior high textbook". I don't think reasonable person cares though.

But, you know, I can't be your teacher forever. So, you say or believe whatever. To further argue with you on this is an insult to my intelligence.

 

I don't want to single anyone out but these Chinese debates are getting really childish,on all sides.

Can we all tone it down a little?

 

I don't understand it. What parts they dropped were unfavorable to them? Can you be a bit specific? Does asking this question appear to be defensive too?

 

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

I think China is doing much more with this than just an attempt to whitewash their history. However, I think some things were done to whitewash their history. We know from the article that the highschool textbooks were changed. You could very well be correct in saying that it was an attempt to put disputes aside for awhile. But I am not sure why that is the job of a textbook.

I don't think whitewashing is the main reason for the changes they are making, or that they are lying about their history like Japan. I started off by saying that another poster was showing that like Japan, China was revising it's history texts.

I am not a big fan of the Cultural revolution, but I don't think Mao was all bad, either. I remember story about his son basically complaining that a teacher wasn't being fair to him. It was as if the son expected Mao to have a talk with the teacher, but Mao's advice to his son was, to tell him that he should start a revolution at the school. I thought that was pretty cool.

Anyway I appreciate your response.

 

No it is not defensive at all. It was just defensive when people were acusing me of arguing positions that I wasn't arguing.

The parts that would be unfavorable that was left out was study of Mao and the cultural revolution.

 

I do feel the decision to leave out things like Qin Shihuang's burn books and kill scholars campaign (Feng Shu Kang Ru) deplorablely mistaken. It's actually an important lesson. For one, Mao's Cultural Revolution is in some way similar to that episode in supressing the opposition voices. In a sense, Mao, being a very good Chinese history scholar, took a page there. History repeats itself.

Although, I do understand, with a history as long as China has, History might be a heavy burden for students in a test-based education system.

 

C'mon FB, you are chasing windmill here. The only thing I did (to you) was asking you to clarify your misleading/confusing statement in post #10.

From what I have read so far, the Chinese posters are not exactly in favor of PRC diminishing/minimizing the history altogether, which was also pointed out by the critics in the article, rather, we (the Chinese posters) think the best approach would be to present the history to students in a more comprehesive and balanced way. Nobody is suggesting to teach favorable part of the history only.

I don't understand what the "defensive" part is all about.

 

You are absolutely right. That's why I don't think it is a good idea to teach a highly "condensed" version of Chinese history. The kids in China today need to learn more, not less, about their own history.

 

Personally, I think it's a big step forward for CCP, from blatantly lying from history, to putting it aside, and let the next generation to judge. Over the years, you could see history version changes gradually. From the beginning to credit CCP only for the vitory over Japan, to a much closer to reality version, that KMT army actually did the majority of fighting. Similarily for GLF and CR, from pure propaganda to criticize the process and result of the whole thing, is an encouraging step. About 6.4., I believe there will be a re-evaluation soon. I still remember, on June 5th, when Zhu Rongji asked Shanghai people to calm down, and do not go on the streets any more, he said that history will judge the whole thing. Lots of people in government knew what happened, to protect themselves, many of them kept quiet. But when it's time, a clear version will be presented.

Originally, this was something worth talking about. Before the other threads totally cool down, a misleading title by New Yorker, insinuating similar actions as denying war crimes, could upset lots of people. Therefore, the heated talk about not so sensitive topic. Let's all calm down a little. But thanks to the discussion itself, some posters here got to know a little bit more about Chinese history, from both Chinese version or Western version. It also benefits Chinese posters to clear thoughts and come to know more about views from others. So, discussion is healthy.

 

No I didn't, but you are not FB, are you?

 

Yes, some of the history texts do still have Mao. I never argued that he was completely erased.

I thought that sense you read the article, and seem to have a favorable opinion of your own reading comprehension that I wouldn't have to mention the part of the article that deals with the high school history texts. I haven't seen any mention that college texts were edited either, so I wasn't addressing those. I was only talking about texts where ommissions occurred. Otherwise I would have no reason to bring it up.

You continue to argue that I am making assertions I am not making.

I merely posted something regarding the article, and made no judgement that it was great or bad, or all for one reason. And before you long, you started calling me names. I am happy to discuss things with anyone, any time, but there is no need to start insulting. It was your initiation of personal insults that lead me to feel you were defensive.