Angry Chinese Blogger
 |
 |
Angry Chinese Blogger:
The news and views about China that the big media can't, or won't, tell you The is no single truth Menu: Home |
|
Entries By Country
   |
Whose History? The Sino-Taiwanese Textbook controversy
posted Wednesday, 25 July 2007
When it comes to the topic of distorted Asian textbooks and the imputes behind them, there are two things that come to mind. Chinese text-books that pretty much deny that anything important happened between 1949 and 1999, except those things which can be blamed on foreigners (read:Japan) and that insignificant group of discredited Japanese nationals who languish in the belief that black is white, white is black, and that a couple of million Chinese randomly raped and murdered themselves for no apparent reason (except maybe out of gratitude) during the 1930s/40s.
However, it looks that a new player may be entering into the runnings; the small, yet heavily disputed, island of Chinese-Taiwan. Which has, this month, announced that it is to heavily revise its school textbooks in a rather controversial way that, depending on which side of the fence you sit, will either remove decades of distortions or, conversely, make several thousand such distortions required reading for the islands students.
A New Textbook controversy?
In an statement made this Sunday, Tapei has announced that it intends to heavily modify the nation's school textbooks. Revising them to clearly differentiate between historic events, individuals and elements that relate Mainland China, and those which relate directly to Chinese-Taiwan.
At present, it remains unclear exactly exactly what form the changes will take, or how deep they will go.
According to Education Ministry official Pan Wen-Cheng, the changes will consist of, in part, the removal of approximately 5,000 "inappropriate" references from textbooks. Reports carried in the Taiwanese media state that the changes will include the addition of the words such as "China" or "Chinese" in phrases referring to shared history that occurred on the Mainland as opposed to the island, as well as the removal or alteration of titles, honorifics and descriptive passages.
Examples cited include renaming the Chinese dynasty to include the caveat "China's" (China's ..... dynasty) in order to illustrate that they originated from the Mainland, and the similar inclusion of caveats on China's national figures, specifically stating that they were from the Mainland rather than the island. Other changes are said to include the the removal of the honorific "Founding Father" from references to Sun Zhongshan (Dr. Sun Yat-Sen), the changing of references "National Opera" to "Chinese Peking Opera", the inclusion of references to the Mainland and the island as being “countries”, and the modification of language to suggest that the two bodies have a separate national existence and the their relationships are state-to-state.
At present, most Taiwanese textbooks make no such different ions. Instead describe Chinese history and culture interchangeably with local history and culture, and vice versa.
The Taipei Perspective?
According to Taipei, the changes are necessary for two reasons. Firstly, they alleviate confusion by creating a level of separation between events/individual that relate directly to the island, and events that relate to the island though its connections to China. Secondly the changes will allow Taiwanese schools to provide a better balance in their teaching; enabling them to removing many of the more obscure or less relevant areas of Mainland China's long history in order to free up curriculum time to cover important events in local history (history scouring on, or in direct relation to Chinese-Taiwan) in more detail.
The Beijing Perspective?
As is predictable, officials in Beijing do not see eye to eye with their Taiwanese counterparts and have denounced Taipei's announcement. Seeing as being a thinly veiled effort to further a separatist agenda, and part of an effort to drive a wedge between the island and the Mainland by encouraging Taiwanese children to think of the Mainland and the island as being two distinct territories with two distinct histories and two distinct identities.
"We've noticed the developments. The political motive behind it is to transform the island's education into an ideological tool for 'Taiwan independence'"
Yang Yi, spokesperson, Taiwan Affairs Office, State Council, Beijing
Other Moves?
Taipei's moves comes soon after a number of state and public interests were renamed so as to remove the word "China" from their title, or to supplant it with the word "Taipei". It also comes soon after Taipei changed the mission statement of the National Palace Muse am from the "collection, study and expatiation of ancient Chinese artifacts" to the "collection, study and expatiation of 'domestic and foreign' antiques and art". Resulting in approximately 500,000 artifacts being relabeled to remove anything that specifically identified them as having originated on the Mainland. The former of which Beijing condemned as being designed to portray Mainland China and Chinese-Taiwan as being separate, and the latter of which is condemned as being an effort to eradicate references to the Mainland from the Taiwanese group consciousness.
The majority of the relabeled museum artifacts originated on the Mainland, but were transported to Chinese-Taiwan by retreating nationalists during the closing phases of the Chinese civil war. Their legal status remains contested, with some voicing that they are akin to looted cultural relic which should be returned to the Mainland.
History?
While Mainland China and Chinese-Taiwan do share a common history, the vast bulk of that history occurred on the Mainland and had little or no impact on the island. Making the connections cultural rather than physical, and any actual links tenuous at best. This operation is further emphasized by the fact that Chinese-Taiwan has spent only a brief period of the last 100 (1945-1949) years under Mainland control, with the rest (1895-1945, 1945-Present day) under either Japanese rule of defacto independent rule.
Some China watchers have likened the teaching Mainland history and Taiwanese history interchangeably as being similar to the situation that would exist if schools in the US taught the history of medieval Europe as if it were domestic American history.
Textbook reforms were first mentioned officially earlier this year, with the latest announcements coming at the end of an education Ministry study into their shape and context.
However, it looks that a new player may be entering into the runnings; the small, yet heavily disputed, island of Chinese-Taiwan. Which has, this month, announced that it is to heavily revise its school textbooks in a rather controversial way that, depending on which side of the fence you sit, will either remove decades of distortions or, conversely, make several thousand such distortions required reading for the islands students.
A New Textbook controversy?
In an statement made this Sunday, Tapei has announced that it intends to heavily modify the nation's school textbooks. Revising them to clearly differentiate between historic events, individuals and elements that relate Mainland China, and those which relate directly to Chinese-Taiwan.
At present, it remains unclear exactly exactly what form the changes will take, or how deep they will go.
According to Education Ministry official Pan Wen-Cheng, the changes will consist of, in part, the removal of approximately 5,000 "inappropriate" references from textbooks. Reports carried in the Taiwanese media state that the changes will include the addition of the words such as "China" or "Chinese" in phrases referring to shared history that occurred on the Mainland as opposed to the island, as well as the removal or alteration of titles, honorifics and descriptive passages.
Examples cited include renaming the Chinese dynasty to include the caveat "China's" (China's ..... dynasty) in order to illustrate that they originated from the Mainland, and the similar inclusion of caveats on China's national figures, specifically stating that they were from the Mainland rather than the island. Other changes are said to include the the removal of the honorific "Founding Father" from references to Sun Zhongshan (Dr. Sun Yat-Sen), the changing of references "National Opera" to "Chinese Peking Opera", the inclusion of references to the Mainland and the island as being “countries”, and the modification of language to suggest that the two bodies have a separate national existence and the their relationships are state-to-state.
At present, most Taiwanese textbooks make no such different ions. Instead describe Chinese history and culture interchangeably with local history and culture, and vice versa.
The Taipei Perspective?
According to Taipei, the changes are necessary for two reasons. Firstly, they alleviate confusion by creating a level of separation between events/individual that relate directly to the island, and events that relate to the island though its connections to China. Secondly the changes will allow Taiwanese schools to provide a better balance in their teaching; enabling them to removing many of the more obscure or less relevant areas of Mainland China's long history in order to free up curriculum time to cover important events in local history (history scouring on, or in direct relation to Chinese-Taiwan) in more detail.
The Beijing Perspective?
As is predictable, officials in Beijing do not see eye to eye with their Taiwanese counterparts and have denounced Taipei's announcement. Seeing as being a thinly veiled effort to further a separatist agenda, and part of an effort to drive a wedge between the island and the Mainland by encouraging Taiwanese children to think of the Mainland and the island as being two distinct territories with two distinct histories and two distinct identities.
"We've noticed the developments. The political motive behind it is to transform the island's education into an ideological tool for 'Taiwan independence'"
Yang Yi, spokesperson, Taiwan Affairs Office, State Council, Beijing
Other Moves?
Taipei's moves comes soon after a number of state and public interests were renamed so as to remove the word "China" from their title, or to supplant it with the word "Taipei". It also comes soon after Taipei changed the mission statement of the National Palace Muse am from the "collection, study and expatiation of ancient Chinese artifacts" to the "collection, study and expatiation of 'domestic and foreign' antiques and art". Resulting in approximately 500,000 artifacts being relabeled to remove anything that specifically identified them as having originated on the Mainland. The former of which Beijing condemned as being designed to portray Mainland China and Chinese-Taiwan as being separate, and the latter of which is condemned as being an effort to eradicate references to the Mainland from the Taiwanese group consciousness.
The majority of the relabeled museum artifacts originated on the Mainland, but were transported to Chinese-Taiwan by retreating nationalists during the closing phases of the Chinese civil war. Their legal status remains contested, with some voicing that they are akin to looted cultural relic which should be returned to the Mainland.
History?
While Mainland China and Chinese-Taiwan do share a common history, the vast bulk of that history occurred on the Mainland and had little or no impact on the island. Making the connections cultural rather than physical, and any actual links tenuous at best. This operation is further emphasized by the fact that Chinese-Taiwan has spent only a brief period of the last 100 (1945-1949) years under Mainland control, with the rest (1895-1945, 1945-Present day) under either Japanese rule of defacto independent rule.
Some China watchers have likened the teaching Mainland history and Taiwanese history interchangeably as being similar to the situation that would exist if schools in the US taught the history of medieval Europe as if it were domestic American history.
Textbook reforms were first mentioned officially earlier this year, with the latest announcements coming at the end of an education Ministry study into their shape and context.
View Comments/Add a Comment