Book Review: Xin Fan, World History and National Identity in China: The Twentieth Century, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Walter C. Clemens, Jr.
{"title":"Book Review: Xin Fan, World History and National Identity in China: The Twentieth Century, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2021.","authors":"Walter C. Clemens, Jr.","doi":"10.24819/netsol2022.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most Chinese officials and academics close to the government maintain that China is unique—indeed, superior to other civilizations. Therefore, the only history that counts is Chinese history. Yes, there have been recurring patterns in Chinese history, but they too are unique—not related to any global patterns, such as identified by British scholar Arnold Toynbee. Xin Fan, Associate Professor of History at the State University of New York at Fredonia, finds that national, Chinese history has gradually hijacked the dominant mode of thinking in Chinese historiography. This book examines how four generations of Chinese historians have tried to professionalize the practice of history in China. In the late Qing period, amateur historians working within the framework of neo-Confucianism explored Western ideas received mainly through Japan. Second, a generation of better trained historians in the 1920s and 1930s sought to temper Sino-centrism with greater objectivity, but the pressures resulting from the Japanese invasions pushed them away from objectivity.","PeriodicalId":368311,"journal":{"name":"NETSOL: New Trends in Social and Liberal Sciences","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NETSOL: New Trends in Social and Liberal Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24819/netsol2022.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Most Chinese officials and academics close to the government maintain that China is unique—indeed, superior to other civilizations. Therefore, the only history that counts is Chinese history. Yes, there have been recurring patterns in Chinese history, but they too are unique—not related to any global patterns, such as identified by British scholar Arnold Toynbee. Xin Fan, Associate Professor of History at the State University of New York at Fredonia, finds that national, Chinese history has gradually hijacked the dominant mode of thinking in Chinese historiography. This book examines how four generations of Chinese historians have tried to professionalize the practice of history in China. In the late Qing period, amateur historians working within the framework of neo-Confucianism explored Western ideas received mainly through Japan. Second, a generation of better trained historians in the 1920s and 1930s sought to temper Sino-centrism with greater objectivity, but the pressures resulting from the Japanese invasions pushed them away from objectivity.
《中国的世界历史与民族认同:二十世纪》,英国剑桥大学出版社,2021年。
大多数与政府关系密切的中国官员和学者坚持认为,中国是独一无二的——事实上,是优于其他文明的。因此,唯一有价值的历史是中国历史。是的,中国历史上有反复出现的模式,但它们也是独一无二的——与任何全球模式都没有关系,比如英国学者阿诺德·汤因比(Arnold Toynbee)所发现的模式。纽约州立大学弗里多尼亚分校历史学副教授范欣发现,民族史、中国史逐渐劫持了中国史学的主导思维模式。这本书考察了四代中国历史学家如何努力使中国的历史实践专业化。在晚清时期,在新儒学框架内工作的业余历史学家探索了主要通过日本接受的西方思想。第二,上世纪二三十年代受过更好训练的一代历史学家试图以更客观的态度缓和中国中心主义,但日本侵略带来的压力使他们偏离了客观。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信