Is history now insignificant?

gzlaser

WHEN high school students in Shanghai crack their history textbooks in the new term, they'll find something different.

The new standard history textbook has reduced the contents when it comes to covering wars, dynasties and Communist revolutions. Instead, there are colourful, short teaching sections on economics, technology, social customs and globalization.

The French and Bolshevik Revolutions, once seen as

turning points in world history, now get far less attention. Chairman Mao, the Long March, the colonial oppression of China and the Nanjing Massacre are found only in a reduced history section in junior high.

Supporters of the change point out that history textbooks changed little over the last quarter-century of market-oriented economic reforms.

The new changes, they say, enliven history courses for junior and senior high school students and better prepare them for life in the real world.

But critics say the textbooks just make history seen

insignificant. This keeps them from teaching students real and complete history in the right way.

So, what's your opinion? In history textbooks, do we need to put less emphasis on dead history and more on new realities instead?