New Sunshine Textbook (2012) -- SCREWED UP STORY!!

[Otaku]

I'm really wanting to inflict damage on the idiots who wrote the Sunshine series English textbooks. Checkout the story some MEXTer put in the 3rd grade textbook. I'm surprised the Japanese don't hate themselves after reading this. Please, Mr. Textbook Writer, go into a corner and 'die quietly'.


"Faithful Elephants" (Not very appropriate title once you read the story)

Many years ago, there were three wonderful elephants at the Ueno Zoo. The elephants were John, Tonky, (yes, they put a comma here) and Wanly. They could do tricks. Visitors at the zoo loved the see their tricks.

Japan was at war then. Little by little the situation was getting worse. Bombs were dropped on Tokyo every day.

If the bombs hit the zoo, dangerous animals will (uuummm, WOULD! Oh yeah, that grammar point isn't taught in JHS, so instead of choosing material that is appropriate, the textbook MEXTers have decided to hack apart the English language for their moral-story-telling pleasure) get away and harm the people of Tokyo. So, the Army ordered the zoo to kill all the dangerous animals such as lions, tigers, (damn that comma!) and bears. Before long, it was time to kill the three elephants. The zookeepers did not want to kill them, but they had to follow the orders (of course you did, you're Japanese!). They started with John.

John loved potatoes, so they gave him poisoned potatoes together with good ones. But John was so clever that he ate only the good potatoes (leave it to an elephant to outsmart a Japanese person). Then they tried to give him an injection. But John's skin was too hard for the needles to go through (Go, John, go! The zookeepers should have used the needles on themselves).

When this did not work, they decided to give him no food. Poor John died in seventeen days. (Yay! More death in the textbooks! We really should keep track how many people/animals die in these morbid things. RIP, John!).

Then the time came for Tonky and Wanly (My question is did these zoofuckers keep feeding Tonky and Wanly while they staved John?) They always looked at people with loving eyes. They were sweet and gentle-hearted.

However, the elephant keepers had to stop giving them anything to eat. When a keeper walked by their cage, they stood up and raised their trunks high in the air. They did their tricks because they were hoping to get food and water.

Everyone at the zoo said with tears, "If they can live a few more days, the war may be over and they will be saved." (Hey, MEXTers! You got the food! Give it to the MEXTin' elephants!!! Don't sit around saying, "poor poor elephants" when YOU'RE THE MEXTers sitting around starving them!!!)

Tonky and Wanly could no longer move. They lay (uuumm, LAID!!!) down on the ground, but their eyes were beautiful. (WTF is that sentence supposed to mean?!?! They were dying so they laid down. But, you want to focus on the beauty of their dying eyes?!?! MORBID MEXTs!!!)

When an elephant keeper came to see them, they looked so weak. He became too sad to go back to see them.

Bombs continued to drop in Tokyo. And a few days later, Tonky and Wanly died. Later, when the bodies of the elephants were examined, nothing was found in their stomachs -- not even one drop of water. (Honestly, why is that sentence included in the story?!?! YOU STARVED THEM!!! Of course, there is nothing in their stomachs!!! I bet you anything this is the animal version of Unit 731. They probably killed the elephants just to disect them like a little child would do. Don't know why the elephants were ripped open and examined in the first place. The killers KNOW what killed them. To open them up and discover their stomachs had nothing in them is pretty morbid in my opinion.)

Today, the three elephants rest in peace with other animals under the monument at the Ueno Zoo. (I don't even want to visit that zoo anymore.)

-----------------------------

I will give this story one point of credit. At least the main focus is on the horrible things Japanese did during the war.

The moral of the story I took from this is: "Don't follow orders blindly or it could end in murdering animals."

I'm trying to decide which story I hate more, this one or the Mother's Lull-MEXTin'-bye...

<chant> We want peace! No more nucs! We want peace! </chant>

Such a hypocritical thing to be harping on hard in these textbooks considering Japan's seedy past. Instead, you should focus on your own actions, Japan!

<Otaku's chant> Japan shutup! Stop writing English textbooks! Japan shutup! </chant> (I'm definitely probably going to get blacklisted from this country...)

[Paul]

Otaku, this is a REALLY shortened version of the story, it was also made into a TV drama here a few years back. It is sad during war that these things happen, and any stories related to the war in my opinion should be left out of English textbooks, yet this story is better in my opinion because it is based upon fact and not just someone's imagination as in dying peacefully under a tree.

[jeisensei]

I always feel a little weird to teach English when the subject is about WWII being American and all...

[azuhlLt.]

I'm dreading reading the red-ribbon story, true or not it's plausible enough to make me upset. I saw a child die in South-Africa, despite my best efforts. I've seen children dying of AIDS in The Gambia. All these stories pertaining to death are irrelevant to these children, who will probably see nothing worse than a suicide (which, I'll admit is quite horrific) or the eventual death of a loved-one.

Everyone does terrible things during war, this should be addressed in History, not English.

[moolooman]

Everyone does terrible things in World Cup year. Like pretend all their players are injured to give them a break.

[jessen100]

Im not bringing up the way these topics are brought up in the textbook because id be preaching to the choir, but the kids who do learn english as a language and actually do go abroad, are going to need the vocabulary for it at least, and will have needed to had some sort of linguistic introduction to it.

I dont think that the sections included in the JHS textbooks satisfy this necessity in the least bit, but i dont think as a topic it can just be ignored.

We discussed the dropping of the Abomb in my college Japanese class in the states however it was from a far less skewd view than narratives about little children dying.

if you feel like it ask some of your students if they have ever heard of the attack on pearl harbor.
真珠湾攻撃　（しんじゅわんこうげき）

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

Yeah, just another way to show how the war was terrible only for them, and the Americans never should have started it in the first place.

Americans started the war then the war forced the Japanese to kill the elephants so really it's those dirty American's who indirectly killed the elephants. But damn their eyes were beautiful, those elephants had the japanese spirit I am sure of it.

And Otaku I think you are putting too much stress on the comma. Just breathe in and breathe out. Imagine you're on a beach....hear the relaxing waves.

I don't see a problem wanting to pick one system, in this case the Oxford comma which is usually found in academic works. As long as they are consistent.

[Otaku]

Truth be told, I'm in the middle of all the new textbooks so I'm a bit on edge right now. I remember being this way when I went through them before, too. They anger me. This is my therapy.

I think it would be cool if the textbooks would stop with all the J-culture crap in the English textbooks and focus on countries that speak English. I would like to see each chapter not only talk about that country but the spellings and punctuation rules would change too to show how English is different around the world.

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

I think it would be cool if the textbooks would stop with all the J-culture crap in the English textbooks and focus on countries that speak English. I would like to see each chapter not only talk about that country but the spellings and punctuation rules would change too to show how English is different around the world.

You and me both friend. And I think we are all in favor of your rants even if we don't all agree on the point itself. So please continue the thearapy sessions. Many many valid points.

And I am starting to think the cultural pushing in the texts is just good old government reinforcement of nation and culture.

That is to say, while there is a valid point about giving students a jump off point to study English by limiting the unfamiliar topics. This however is not, in my opinion, the main reason for all the strange Japanese themes which have NOTHING to do with the English language.

[jeisensei]

That would be confusing and not help them for their test to get into high school. In other words, that would never happen.

[moolooman]

Is it just me, or do all the politicians here (like in many places) appear to muppets who fell out of reality as soon as elected to office.

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

Is it just me, or do all the politicians here (like in many places) appear to muppets who fell out of reality as soon as elected to office.

Where did this come from? lol!

[moolooman]

Is it just me, or do all the politicians here (like in many places) appear to muppets who fell out of reality as soon as elected to office.

Where did this come from? lol!

And I am starting to think the cultural pushing in the texts is just good old government reinforcement of nation and culture.
(Benoit, 2011)

[Richard_BenoitEnglipedia Drone]

Ah I see, I just don't think you have to be elected to any office to be a Japanese person in favor of Japanese culture in an English text....guess that's why I didn't put it together....

Nice reuters type quoting of me by the way!

[Otaku]

I'm reading this book about Japan's education system. As much as I like ragging on the system, here's an excerpt from the book I'm reading.

----------------------

"Visiting Washington, the Japanese minister of education met with the American seecretary of education, who praised Japanese schooling and exhorted Americans to borrow the key to academic achievement, 'the excellent Japanese [i]juku system.' A shocked silence followed, after which an aide informed the secretary that it is precisely the juku that the ministry wants to ablolish, to relieve exam pressure on Japanese children."[/i]

------------------------

It seems to me that the J-govt is fully aware of the problem of exams and juku and is against the idea. That's pretty cool, IMHO.

However, this book was written decades ago and still no change so it begs the question if maybe the comment was a tongue-n-cheek response?

[Paul]

Just for a bit of levity here, please try to keep in mind that the government has nothing to do with the content in the textbooks, they are done by outside publishing houses and submit them to MEXT for approval. If they meet the requirements set by MEXT they are approved for publishing and then the publishers take them around to schools and try to get them to use them. It's a monopoly no doubt as the number and variety of textbooks is extremely limited as I see it.

[Otaku]

Paul, the way you describe the current textbook system is the exact loophole the gov't has been slipping through since WWII ended when the J-govt was instructed they can't create govt-written textbooks.

The loophole is the 'set of requirements' a textbook has to meet in order for them to be MEXT-approved. I've been looking for the actual list of requirements for years with no avail. I dated a J-bird years ago who actually studied these textbook requirements and she told me some of them. One was about the textbook color. All textbooks need to be green, blue and red. The other requirement was WWII. There needs to be some story about the war.

This list of requirements is soo stringent many companies don't want to abide by them because, and it's my guess, they are anal retentive to the nth degree.

I am under the opinion that they textbooks are in effect written by MEXT simply because they have too many friggin' requirements that need to be met in order to get their blessing. AND, I think the English language is something MEXT hasn't a first clue about so they shouldn't control how it is taught. That is to say, if you can even call it 'English class', more like praise-be-to-the-almighty-and-merciful-Japanese-ultra-nationalistic-textbooks-that-do-nothing-more-than-teach-Japanese-culture-and-morals-and-history-and-socialstudies-in-English-class.

I'm going back into my hole...

[Pitarou]

I have to teach this book from next year, elephants and all. The trick is to play it straight: make the little MEXTers cry.

The elephants were John, Tonky, (yes, they put a comma here) and Wanly.

That's called an Oxford comma. Don't even go there.

[Otaku]

That's called an Oxford comma. Don't even go there.

Call it whatever you want...

I just want to a uniform comma system throughout the books. Using a comma at the end of some lists and then including it in others, creates a cloud of bimyo-ness.

[Pitarou]

That's called an Oxford comma.

Call it whatever you want...

I just want to a uniform comma system throughout the books. Using a comma at the end of some lists and then including it in others, creates a cloud of bimyo-ness.

Well, that's another matter.

By the way, I asked a Japanese person about this story. She told me that this story was in her first year Elementary School textbook. Her class even went to Ueno Zoo to lay flowers at the elephants' memorial.

[azuhlLt.]

The thing here is, they willingly shot EVERY animal that was a potential threat...but "couldn't" shoot the elephants, although they were happy to let them starve to death. They had a duty of care to look after the animals, and chose to neglect that duty.

What this story tells me is, it's ok to torture animals that you promised an entire nation and in effect the rest of the world, that you would protect...if there isn't a crisis. I'm just surprised they didn't eat them once they were dead.

EDIT: Changed "is" to "isn't"

[Otaku]

Her class even went to Ueno Zoo to lay flowers at the elephants' memorial.

...talk about kickin' a dead hor...eeerrr...elephant!

[Paul]

It is a sad but true shortened version of the actual story. We have the benefit of hindsight to view the larger picture but tend not to try to think about it from the perspective of the people and the era that it happened. I tend to try my hardest not to judge.

[yesmikan]

They lay (uuumm, LAID!!!) down on the ground, but their eyes were beautiful. (WTF is that sentence supposed to mean?!?! They were dying so they laid down. But, you want to focus on the beauty of their dying eyes?!?! MORBID MEXTs!!!)

Lay is the past tense of lie, as in to lie down. So the text is correct. Had to look it up myself to be sure.

It's confusing because "lay" as a present tense verb is transitive, but it's also the past tense of the intransitive "lie."
http://web.ku.edu/~edit/lie.html

The principal parts (most-common verb forms) of lie are:

lie (present,) lay (past) and lain (past participle).

The principal parts of lay are:

lay (present), laid (past) and laid (past participle).

As an aid in choosing the correct verb forms, remember that lie means to recline, whereas lay means to place something, to put something on something.

• Lie means that the actor (subject) is doing something to himself or herself. It's what grammarians call a complete verb. When accompanied by subjects, complete verbs tell the whole story.
• Lay, on the other hand, means that the subject is acting on something or someone else; therefore, it requires a complement to make sense. Thus lay always takes a direct object. Lie never does.

If the bombs hit the zoo, dangerous animals will (uuummm, WOULD! Oh yeah, that grammar point isn't taught in JHS, so instead of choosing material that is appropriate, the textbook MEXTers have decided to hack apart the English language for their moral-story-telling pleasure) get away and harm the people of Tokyo.

OK, I'll agree with you on this one. It really ought to be "would" and there's no excuse for "will" except to dumb things down.

[mangakk]

They lay (uuumm, LAID!!!) down on the ground, but their eyes were beautiful. (WTF is that sentence supposed to mean?!?! They were dying so they laid down. But, you want to focus on the beauty of their dying eyes?!?! MORBID MEXTs!!!)

Lay is the past tense of lie, as in to lie down. So the text is correct. Had to look it up myself to be sure.

It's confusing because "lay" as a present tense verb is transitive, but it's also the past tense of the intransitive "lie."
http://web.ku.edu/~edit/lie.html

The principal parts (most-common verb forms) of lie are:

lie (present,) lay (past) and lain (past participle).

The principal parts of lay are:

lay (present), laid (past) and laid (past participle).

As an aid in choosing the correct verb forms, remember that lie means to recline, whereas lay means to place something, to put something on something.

• Lie means that the actor (subject) is doing something to himself or herself. It's what grammarians call a complete verb. When accompanied by subjects, complete verbs tell the whole story.
• Lay, on the other hand, means that the subject is acting on something or someone else; therefore, it requires a complement to make sense. Thus lay always takes a direct object. Lie never does.

Just riding on what yesmikan wrote, I looked it up too and I agree with him.

http://grammartips.homestead.com/lie.html

[mangakk]

Oh! The Teacher's Edition just arrived. I'm glad to see more English in it as compared to the student's copy.

[IamAcat]

I finally found this thread. I had made a new one to talk about a full version of this story that I found online.

http://englipedia.informe.com/forum/teaching-related-f13/the-ueno-zoo-elephant-story-sunshine-3nen-t2883.html