Pro-KMT propaganda in high school textbooks... maybe

I’m actually much more pro-KMT than most, but I’m far from a supporter. Things like this make me less so.

This photo is going around Facebook, and it’s supposedly a Civics class textbook published by Chuan Hwa (全華) Publishing. I have my doubts, though, and suspect it may be some clever web users having some fun. Regardless, take a look.

“The Kuomintang of China has been the ruling party of the Republic of China for most of the country’s history. The party is built on sound, democratic, upright, and competent governance, all of which are important to the happiness of the country’s 23 million citizens. [Its focus is on] setting down the burdens and old-fashioned methods of the past to usher in a new economic miracle and expand our nation’s international presence under the pretense of cross-strait peace and prosperity. The party aims to let every single citizen enjoy the benefits of wealth, safety and security, and a high quality of life.”

The Chinese is not very well written and seems to have an incomplete sentence with the whole 如何 thing, plus this is just so over the top I have trouble believing it’s real. What does everyone else think?

I think the translation needs to be slightly adjusted:

“The Kuomintang of China has been the ruling party of the Republic of China for most of the country’s history. Whether the party is well run, democratic, upright, and competent governance, affects the happiness of the country’s 23 million citizens. How to set down the burdens and old-fashioned methods of the past to usher in a new economic miracle and expand our nation’s international presence under the pretense of cross-strait peace and prosperity, allowing every single citizen enjoy the benefits of wealth, safety and security, and a high quality of life…”

it was cut off there, but I assume it goes on to say “… is something that Kuomintang members should work on” or something in that effect. So the sentence in a less arm twisting way would read “KMT members should work on how to set down the burdens and old-fashioned methods of the past to usher…” If I am not mistaken about what the cutoff texts are, then there is no grammatical error. Though the piece is still pandering to the KMT.

Thank you! It was driving me crazy how there was no conclusion to that sentence. Your interpretation makes sense. I thought I had seen a period somewhere in there but clearly I was wrong. :smiley:

That doesn’t seem too out of the ordinary to me. When the KMT symbol is on the national flag and the national anthem is the KMT song, what do you expect? I just wish the abbreviation for the party was 中國黨 instead of 國民黨. It would make more sense, both grammatically and factually.

My cultural advisor informs me that this has been on the television news today and it is from a real textbook, although not a popular one (because of its controversiality). The subject is 公民 or some such? There is also, apparently, an article on the TVBS website criticizing the textbook here, so at least that is something.

Yeah 公民課 = civics class. Haokaiyang, I’m just surprised because they’re usually rather more subtle about it these days, while things like the flag etc. can be chalked up to “it’s always been that way so why change it now” logic. Even some of my (deepish) blue KMT friends are likely to rethink their loyalty after reading this… Can you imagine if a textbook in the US said this about the Democratic party? It would be madness. Lawsuits as far as the eye can see.

Well, yeah, but the thing about that is, American democracy is much more mature, and the parties are much more equal. Here, the KMT has always been in control. Even during the eight years of A-bian’s presidency, the KMT still had an iron grip on the legislature. Yes, there are a few opposition supporters with deep pockets, but by and large the KMT dominates because it has all the money. And at this point the judiciary doesn’t command enough respect and influence to do anything about that, so I doubt we’ll see any lawsuits.

I would argue it’s more than just funding. The DPP still hopes to attract voters by virtue of its existence, meaning a very large number of its supports are there just because they don’t like the KMT. Not exactly a winning platform. Lately they’ve been pulling ahead with some actual initiatives, like the (arguably misguided) drive to scrap nuclear power, so they should continue down that path if they want to convince apathetic or swing voters that they are more than petulant adolescents who are only capable of criticism but not actual governance. I’m not saying I support the KMT – there are plenty of reasons not to vote KMT, but the DPP has offered very few reasons for anyone’s vote should go to them instead.

EDIT: Just came across this op-ed article in Liberty Times which I find pretty insightful: There’s a market for independence, it’s just that the DPP doesn’t know how to make a sale.

http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2013/new/apr/27/today-o1.htm

maybe the American textbooks won’t address directly about the parties, but the textbooks are pretty divided on partisan line, or religious lines (lately somehow that is the party line). Since Texas for some reason controls textbook reviewing process, some of the moves seems pretty boneheaded… The constant arguing about evolution being in the textbooks or t he inclusion of creationist views in textbooks, for crying out loud… can’t people just go to church for that kind of stuff?

nybooks.com/articles/archive … tion=false