Comments on: Chinese history sucks

By: J Chan

J Chan — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:47:08 +0000

In reply to 1 & 2 above. Many people were killed in European
societies (including the new World)and by the Church. In these places,
to historians you need to add Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, heathens,
witches, women, Orientals, Negroes, scientists, heretics, and so on and so on.

By: 20th Asian History Carnival, Part II | Jottings from the Granite Studio

20th Asian History Carnival, Part II | Jottings from the Granite Studio — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:30:36 +0000

[...] provocative statement that “Chinese history sucks…as a profession anyway.” Click here to find out [...]

By: Cindy Luk

Cindy Luk — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:58:01 +0000

The White Lotus may not have anything to do with Darfur, but it certainly have similarities with the rise of the CCP. The recent display of Chinese nationalism certainly has it roots on Chinese history of the past 150 years. Important things to know by anyone interested in making a buck in the Middle Kingdom. Carrefour learned it the hard way.

As a lay person, I think there’s nothing wrong to say that history is only important if it’s relevant to contemporary lives. Regrettable, but perfectly understandable. And it is the duty of modern historians to make Chinese history relevant to the average Joe.

By: Sayaka Chatani

Sayaka Chatani — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:03:45 +0000

I think that interests in contemporary society, no matter which one it is, are a reflection of our interests in “what will happen next.” Historians often criticize political scientists for trying to “scientifically predict” future outcomes (I studied poli sci before), but I believe that many people are genuinely curious (or worried) about the future of human society. I came to think that political science is not necessarily the best way to deal with this question (and thus I switched the field).

Even if historians are neither interested in, nor responsible for, predicting the future, we still need to answer the “so what?” question. Explaining contemporary China is one way of answering this question. Emphasizing Socrates or Confucius thoughts also require an explanation of “so what?”. Given that, Chinese history has a great potential to offer answers to the “so what” question in so many creative ways!

By: AWG

AWG — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:16:12 +0000

# R Says:
June 18th, 2008 at 12:02 am

I agree with a lot of your points, especially the one about Confucius and his thought being worth knowing. However perhaps I can balance things a little bit by pointing out that many members of the target audience (people with stock portfolios) probably don’t care too much about Socrates either.

Maybe so, but I suspect some of them, at least, would still tell you that he Matters–because he’s one of the foundations of Western thought, because they studied him in school as teens, because, well, he just is, etc. etc. I don’t think they’d ask quite as many tongue-in-cheek questions about whether Socrates would have approved of modern capitalism, haw haw.

I suppose curiosity about only contemporary China is better than no curiosity at all (which is also pretty common), but I’ve still found those Reith Lecture Q&A sessions pretty frustrating so far.

By: R

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 05:02:17 +0000

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:13:36 +0000

“Chinese history sucks As a profession anyway.” In many other ways too. Historians in China were executed, tortured, imprisoned, etc. for not telling the story the way they should – glorifying the current dictator.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:13:02 +0000