What is the point of comparing historians (trained or otherwise) with non-historians (whose very difinition is people who take no interest in history) whatever their languages may be?

As for: “I will say, though, that the persistence of myth in historical circles, particularly ones heavily politicized as in China, is pretty strong.” Could you please give examples, with supporting evidence, of you are talking about, or is it just another anti-Sinitic jibe?

I was contrasting trained historians with non-historian “native speakers”; sorry if that was unclear. I will say, though, that the persistence of myth in historical circles, particularly ones heavily politicized as in China, is pretty strong.

This is another example of the incoherent babbling from Dresner. I did not say these people are any better at interpreting primary sources. I said they could hold their own with any Chinese historian IF they wanted to turn their interest to academic studies.

‘Compulsory education & popular myths’? What’s Dresner got against compulsory education? Don’t know about the US, but here in the UK we fought very hard for compulsory and state financed education. If education were not compulsory, most youngsters just would not even bother to learn, or even turn up at school. This of course does not mean everyone finds ‘history’ interesting and worthy of study, but hopefully there will be some who will take up the subject. I think in China, education is ‘compulsory’ depending on whether the student’s family can afford the school fees- that is no money no ‘compulsory’ education. ‘Popular myths’?- I thought we were talking about like-for-like; is Dresner claiming that the knowledge of a historian from China of Chinese history is simply based on compulsory education & popular myths- presumably implying that the knowledge of a US historian of Chinese history is far more vigorous than his Chinese counterpart? (Just in case you don’t know the answer, it is no, the study of Chinese history in China is not based on popular myths.)

Dresner, take a hold of yourself man, think before you write.

“I’m perfectly capable, I think, of reading any of the secondary historical literature in my field, as well as most printed (I’m still struggling with handwritten documents) primary sources from most of the 20th century even if I do so slower than native or fully fluent speakers.”

“If I can read both secondary and primary materials, and apply sufficiently developed skills of interpretation, analysis, and synthesis – then being a “native” speaker is simply not relevant to the issue… ”

May I congratulate K M Lawson on being able to speak, read and compose in Chinese, whether he does this slowly or not is not relevant, the important thing is that he tries hard and is capable. However he should really think whether his views are flawed rather that someone else’s view was flawed. As for getting annoyed, this is because what was put to him was true and he could not offer a qualified defence, and being annoyed shows that he is still a student and not a professional.

“I’m perfectly capable, I think, of reading any of the secondary historical literature in my field, as well as most printed (I’m still struggling with handwritten documents) primary sources from most of the 20th century even if I do so slower than native or fully fluent speakers.”

I did not say Lawson was incapable of reading any secondary literature. It doesn’t mean what he read was correct, and cannot be challenged. By secondary literature, presumably Lawson also meant tertiary, quaternary literature etc.

I did not say a historian of Chinese history has to be a Chinese native. I said that it would be rather unconvincing for a person to claim to a native that he was an expert in their history when not being able to speak, read or write their language fluently. As I said it would be rather unconvincing for a Chinese to claim to a British 16 year old that he (the Chinese)would teach him British history, when he could not even speak fluent English. The Chinese could of course teach other Chinese British history (in Chinese), presumably from a standard text-book of defined level of detail. In the same way, as Lawson says, he has equipped himself to teach Chinese history to presumably English speakers, for he sure cannot teach Chinese history in the Chinese language. I believe it was the inability of Chinese translators to translate into elegant English the Chinese classics that prompted Lawson to start this blogg. Since Lawson seemed to want to make a difference, it was my impression that he wanted to be able to translate the Chinese classics into an English style that he wanted to see. I can’t see how he could do this without learning to be fluent in both Chinese and English. He could of course wait for someone else to come along and do it for him, but that was not stated by him.

As for Lawson’s comment: “If I can read both secondary and primary materials, and apply sufficiently developed skills of interpretation, analysis, and synthesis – then being a “native” speaker is simply not relevant to the issue… “. Lawson must by now understand that such a statement is flawed. It is flawed because he cannot read both secondary and primary materials, as currently he lacked this skill. I do not know whether he already has the skills of interpretation, analysis or synthesis, but it would seem that interpretation of facts would be rather difficult, if not impossible, as he couldn’t actually fully understand what he came across. Lawson has to wait for someone to tell what the facts were before he could carry out an analysis. It is difficult to put a convincing analysis on something that you cannot properly assess and interpret. As for synthesis, people can synthesize anything they want, but I think Lawson meant re-construction of events, which require a proper analysis and interpretation. By secondary literature, presumably you people also mean tertiary, quaternary, etc and grey literature.

You people of course can ‘do’ the history any way you want to, but however you chose to make your views into the public domain, and it is not yourselves that you have to convince, but it is other people in the public domain you have to convince. Some of these other people may have by far much more analytical and interpretational power and knowledge than you, and it is perfectly fair and proper to challenge you to defend your views with the proper data. If you were correct, the public will be convinced, if not then you will have to re-examine your knowledge and reform your views.

As historians you are attempting to re-model events that had taken place, with in many cases limited information. You have a duty to ensure what you recreate is fully supported by documented evidence and quality research, and not simply personal ‘views’ or ‘impressions’ obtained from secondhand, thirdhand, fourthhand sources etc, as some of the bloggers here tend to use.

It is not difficult to fake Oriental history (to the western audience). Edmund Backhouse did it. JRR Tolkien was able to invent an almost self-consistent history of The Middle Earth, along with a few languages.

The moral of the story for students is that, yes by all means repeat what your instructors tell you in class for exams because you need to pass and get good grades for them, but do be wary when it comes to believing whether you were told were indeed true. Afterall there are many people who think that what Dan Brown wrote was true history.

I would say an English degree from China (4 years’ study) would equip the student to the English level of a good 16 year old in a native British Commenwealth country (what we used to call ‘O’-levels). It would be somewhat laughable for a fresh graduate of English from China to go to an English speaking country and to start teaching English to native 16-year olds. It would of course be very acceptable for the same graduate to go to an English speaking country and to teach Chinese to these same 16-year olds.

Now, by the same reasoning, a graduate in Chinese from a non-Chinese country (say after a 4-year degree) probably has at most the same Chinese language skills as a good 16-year old native in China.

This is entirely missing the point: I am happy to admit that I don’t speak Chinese better than any native 16-year old and I probably write something closer to an elementary school child in terms of sophistication and accuracy…..however, I’m perfectly capable, I think, of reading any of the secondary historical literature in my field, as well as most printed (I’m still struggling with handwritten documents) primary sources from most of the 20th century even if I do so slower than native or fully fluent speakers. I honestly don’t think that my non-native speaking/writing abilities in the language are the way to think about this at all…. Unless I am going to be teaching Chinese history in China or other Chinese speaking place, where I will need to publish and lecture in Chinese – this has little or no bearing on my ability to do Chinese history. If I can read both secondary and primary materials, and apply sufficiently developed skills of interpretation, analysis, and synthesis – then being a “native” speaker is simply not relevant to the issue…

And there have been missionaries in China: In Hong Kong, in Singapore, in Taiwan and, yes, on the mainland. There are plenty of “non-Chinese” who grew up with the language as one of their primary languages. That doesn’t mean that they’re any better at interpreting primary sources (it’s not just reading, after all) than the “native” Chinese who have no more historical knowledge than compulsory education and popular myths left them.

Now, by the same reasoning, a graduate in Chinese from a non-Chinese country (say after a 4-year degree) probably has at most the same Chinese language skills as a good 16-year old native in China.

It would be somewhat unconvincing for a fresh Chinese historian working in China to tell the world of an accurate history of England, given its long history. The history of America (since European times) may be different, as its history is so recent. The first challenge encounter by this hypothetical young Chinese historian of English history is that he would not be able to understand the language of the original documents he would come across. If this same young historian merely reported on what other historians say, could he actually say with certainty that what he reported was true, or that he was merely reporting what others were saying, mistakes, inaccuracies and all?

By the same reasoning, it is somewhat unconvincing that a graduate or postgraduate of Chinese or Chinese history from a non-Chinese country with only a few years of experience could report accurate Chinese history from original sources.

As for claiming that non-Chinese, non-Japanese, etc could never understand the history of these countries, such claims have to be untrue. Most people of any country have very little knowledge of their respective country’s history. There were many people of European descent, especially from missionary families, who were born and grew up in China, freely mixed with the natives, and are natives in every way except for their race and their bilingual ability, and who have travelled widely. These people could hold their own with any Chinese historians if they turn their interest to academic studies. Unfortuantely there has been no missionaries in China for over 50 years.

I am still though dissatisfied with both 2 and 5, and I think we’ll have to agree to disagree until we can find some time to debate the point in more detail. Briefly, on reason #2, I think that since there is simply a lot more works on Japanese history published in Japanese, almost anything but the most recent few books we read for orals very frequently is not the most recent or highly developed progress for any given topic.