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

When I went to high school (20 years ago), I was definitely not taught that our founding fathers were slave owners, or we purposely give diseased blankets to the Indians, etc. I was taught of Monroe Doctrine. But the Monroe doctrine was taught as a part as what other European powers were doing at the same time. I seriously doubt that the Monroe doctrine will be taught the same way in Central or South America.

But I am fine with that. I think 15 or 16 years old are a little bit too young to have emotional baggages. It is ok that some history be omitted in junior or senior high school, as long as they are not out-right lies.

But I remember that the history was written to be dominated by wars. How the war came about, why did the war came about, where were the major battles fought, the effect of each major battles, and the social/political effect after the war.... All legitmate topics.

If they would just discuss one or two important wars like that, it would be ok. But they discuss all war in such details. The result is a history consists of mostly war and peace and history main actors are mostly presidents and generals.

I don't think history shall be taught that way.

 

If it was your intent to gain clarification rather than assume I was arguing a position I wasn't arguing, then I apologize.

 

This shows a general trend of something that China has been doing since the reform: The government basically tells people that the bad things that happened in the past (like the Mao years and Tianmen Square) should be forgotten and hidden under a doormat and instead they focus on the future and how great it will be. That is essentially the same thing that Japan has been doing--they also argue that the past should be forgotten and buried. This is not the right attitude toward history. One should learn from history about past mistakes and avoid making them again in the future.

 

I would prefer as much of the information as possible to be taught. I understand that some things are going to have to be left out. But when the only parts that are left out are the parts about founding fathers owning slaves or intentionally sending disease ridden blankets to various tribes to try and wipe them out, then that kind of omission has another motive.

 

OK. So answer this question: was Mao portaited in an unfavorable way in the old textbook? I don't think so. My impression is Mao was always portraited in a very favorable way in the classrooms of Chinese. So now they've gone from glorifing Mao blindly to not glorifing him blindly. Isn't that one step to the right direction? Isn't it only natural to assume that given time they will address Mao's mistake more openly? To me that seems where this is leading to.

That is why I say men only see things they want to see. Even when things are going your way, you see the opposite.

 

I think something are just too heavy for the junior or senior high school students. They are not adult yet and don't have the emotional maturity. As long as there is no government sensorship of what happens, they will learn about it after they grow up.

 

I'm not arguing with you on the subject. But please do tell me where "personal insult" is other than you calling not only me, but a bunch of others defensive.

If you think the word "telling" is insulting, I'm sorry it's laugable. Your initial claim:

If you can read out all that from that article, it is telling of your pre-disposed position, right or wrong. And I still think it's telling.

Don't just spin, face up to yourself.

 

The trend is this: the government stopping presenting the bad things in good way, they also discourage blindly idolize individuals such as Mao. That is moving not so honest approach to more nutrual approach.

 

I think it may has something to do with United States' relatively short history. They need to fill up curriculum, you know . If the world history is taught that way, then it's another story.

 

I think China has taken a lot of steps in the right direction. Their policies no longer coincide with Mao's so to go into any in-depth analysis would require showing some flaws with the past, at least when compared with the present.

I can see your point, and it may be true that not dealing with a touchy subject is better than dealing with it in a one-sided blindly supportive method.

 

So, you are also claiming China is "taking out unfavorable part of the history"? Oh, that should be assumed. Sorry, my bad.

 

Just shows how much you hate China.

People are overly defensive when the word anti-China comes up. Face it, it is reality.

 

Exactly. It is a step to the right direction. What Japanese are doing is a step to the wrong direction.

Read the posts by NewYorker, there ARE people who think these two textbook revisions are comparable. Your thread is being used by blind anti-china haters.

 

I saw absolutely nothing wrong with the following:

"J. P. Morgan, Bill Gates, the New York Stock Exchange, the space shuttle and Japan’s bullet train are all highlighted. There is a lesson on how neckties became fashionable."

I have no doubt, in a couple of hundred years, Bill Gates will have more impact than Bill Clinton or George Bush.

The J.P. Morgan and the NYSE and the capitalistic system they represent largely benefited (warts and all) human kind.

What is wrong talking about space shuttle and the enduring human nature to explore?

Japan's bullet train seems like a good subject on how the world is getting smaller.

I just don't see anything wrong with any of these subjects. And why ain't we doing this in our high school history.

By the way, I would LOVE to hear the lesson on how neckties became fashionable!

 

Query: Think there is any other pro sports franchise that hosts the Chinese history vs. Japanese history debate??

I'm guessing no.

Thanks, Yao!!!