mistake in sec history book went unnoticed for 7 years

[LOLMum]

here is the english report. looking at a page, lots of erasing needed to do by the students when studying.



Glaring error in history textbook goes unnoticed for 7 years

Edvantage | Tue May 1 2012

An error in a history textbook used by secondary schools in Singapore has gone undetected for seven years, until now.

In an explanation of governance in ancient China, the textbook erroneously refers to \"feudal lords\" during the Shang and Western Zhou dynasties as the \"shi\" - a glaring inaccuracy, say history academics and experts.

The \"shi\", they point out, are the nobles and intellectuals who may hold positions in government and sometimes own land, but they ultimately yield to the feudal class, reported Lianhe Wanbao.

The textbook with the conspicuous mistake is \"The Living Past - History of Ancient India, China and Southeast Asia\", which is approved by the Ministry of Education (MOE).

Now in its second edition, the first version was approved by MOE for use back in 2006.

In one of its chapters, \"The Living Past\" deals with the topic of feudalism and the class of people who were rewarded with land for their support of the king.

The textbook refers to them as the feudal \"shi\", a mistake which is repeated 24 times over, according to a tally by Lianhe Wanbao.

In response to a Wanbao query, an MOE spokesperson said the ministry will work with the publisher to inform history teachers of the error, and will issue printed corrections.

MOE will also work with the publisher to print the corrected details in next year's edition.

The head of the Chinese humanities division at Nanyang Technological University, associate professor Cheung Chiu-Yee, said the textbook's author could have thought of the \"shi\" as a collective term for nobility, and hence used it interchangeably with \"feudal lords\".

[email protected]

http://www.edvantage.com.sg/edvantage/news/news/1087174/Error_in_history_textbook_undetected_for_7_years.html

[pinky]

IMO, I don’t really call that a glaring mistake, sometimes difficulty in translation may play a part too.

[Nebbermind]

the history book is in chinese?

[LOLMum]

Nebbermind:

the history book is in chinese?

it is in english.

pinky:

IMO, I don't really call that a glaring mistake, sometimes difficulty in translation may play a part too.

true but in this case, i dont think it is a translation mistake. it is a case of mistaken identity.

[Nebbermind]

Ok...think I got it.


They also used the word 'shi' in the text (The textbook refers to them as the feudal \"shi\").

I guess that instead of translating 'feudal lord', they translated only half the term, ie, 'lord' which is 'shi' and ended up with a mutated 'feudal shi'. Is that right?

[AC_Power]

I only heard of feudal lord used in translation. Feudal shi?

[tutormum]

Oh dear. DS1 and DS2 used it and DS3 is using it this year. :faint: I remembered that my teacher taught \"feudal lord\" during my time. I saw the mistake \"shi\" and was puzzled but didn't think that it was a mistake due to my poor standard of Chinese. :imdrowning: Does the fact that none of the History teachers had spotted the mistake means it is minor issue? Wonder whether this had affected the O level scores for all students for the past 7 years in any way. :scratchhead:

[winchester]

tutormum:

Wonder whether this had affected the O level scores for all students for the past 7 years in any way. :scratchhead:

good question. probably not if everyone followed the history book exactly, and if that question ever came up.

[AC_Power]

This boo boo goes to show that those teachers who are teaching history classes in our secondary schools are as clueless as most of us are in regards to the differences between feudal lords (诸侯) and ‘shi’ (士). Therefore, they just teach whatever is written in the textbook and never question whether the term has been translated correctly.


I believe someone needs to have a certain level of understanding of the ancient Chinese history to be able to spot the difference. I seriously hope that if a Chinese teacher in our secondary school is to read that portion of text, he or she should be able to point out the mistake.

[StillThinking]

I know this is a dead topic, but the difference is pretty big tbh… I wonder what the teachers were doing. Also, the Feudal Lord is the same as the Marquis that we see in the subtitles of Ancient Chinese shows. TBH, my social studies teacher when I was in primary school had no knowledge of Chinese history. Anyways, great, there’s a error in the primary school tb on Chinese history too, it writes that the first dynasty is Shang instead of Xia, though possibly because of the lack of information at the time of writing.