Discussion

Article by Tian Xinming (田心铭) analyzing historical nihilism as a reactionary tool to overthrow CCP rule through negating the revolution

Posted on

识别历史虚无主义要透过现象看本质

 田心铭

  反对历史虚无主义是当前我国意识形态领域斗争的一个重要课题。近年来,有些宣扬历史虚无主义的人变换手法,在对“历史虚无主义”概念的解释上做文章,企图把水搅混。我们反对历史虚无主义,必须透过现象揭示它的实质,确立正确的评判标准,明确回答“什么是历史虚无主义”的问题。

Read the rest of this entry »

Zhang Haipeng (张海鹏) and Gong Yun (龚云) in Qiushi (求是) defending Marxism against accusations of being a variant of historical nihilism

Posted on

马克思主义岂是历史虚无主义

张海鹏  龚云

2015年05月15日

来源:《求是》2015/10

作者:张海鹏 龚 云

 

    核心要点:

    ■ 历史虚无主义者编造所谓的“历史终结论”,把资本主义宣布为“人类最后的制度”,将其凝固化、神圣化、完美化,否定社会主义建立和发展的历史必然性。这既违背了辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义,也与人类社会的发展史不符。

    ■ 历史虚无主义美化资本主义制度,鼓吹资本主义代表人类社会发展方向,其根本用意就在于把中国改革开放引向资本主义邪路。理论和事实证明,资本主义不是人类社会发展的最高阶段。

    ■ 在基督教神学看来,人类的历史都是“堕落”的历史,都是苦难的历史,需要神来解救。这种历史认识,不是建立在人类社会发展事实的基础上,而是建立在神学想象基础上的。马克思主义关于人类社会由低级走向高级的历史发展规律,决不是任何想象中的“历史图式”。

    ■ 历史虚无主义动辄把世界社会主义运动、中国共产党的历史和新中国的历史描绘成所谓“系列错误的堆积”,是十分错误与有害的。

For the original website see here.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Qing History and Pamela Crossley — message to the readers of this blog

Posted on Updated on

Dear readers,

This blog actually isn’t a blog. It was meant to be one, but then the painful realities of modern academe with its constant maelstream of administration and heavy teaching loads prevented me from doing more than posting texts from the Chinese-speaking world related to the aim of the blog. I actually never got around to do what I originally had in mind, that is commenting on these texts. Hence the aim as it is now is limited to documenting Chinese debates on what history is, how to write it and how to interpret Chinese history in particular. In principle, I am not interested in texts dealing with particular events in the past, however, from time to time even texts of this type are posted, but only if the event discussed is central to competing Chinese master-narratives.

In posting I refrain from commenting on or highlighting specific parts of the texts, at times I structure the texts copied mostly from the internet by adding lines between text and headlines or by other purely formal changes to the layout to make it more readable. The original site (URL) from which the text is copied is always mentioned. The texts posted are not selected because I happen to like or dislike the position expressed in them, but because they throw light on Chinese debates on what history is or should be. When covering whole debates such as the current exchange of opinions on New Qing History I try my best to cover all sides. I can’t guarantee that I do not at times overlook some contributions, but if that happens it is not a deliberate omission. The blog (based on wordpress) is linked to my twitter, google+ and facebook accounts. Here too nothing is commented on or highlighted, because wordpress does nothing else but automatically forwarding the blog postings to these social media to ensure wide coverage.

 

In the context of a recent exchange of opinions on MCLC concerning a book Viren Murthy and I edited, an exchange which was triggered by a review written by Joshua Fogel, Pamela Crossely, one of the Qing historians criticized in this debate on New Qing History, expressed her views on this exchange. Here she makes the following unjustified, unfair and actually insulting claims, inserted into her views on the exchange between Fogel and Murthy/Schneider, but in fact unrelated to the book the discussion originally was about. For the original see here (MCLC) and here (Crossley’s blog), fifth paragraph on MCLC:

 

As for hatchet jobs, I have a little idea what they are, having recently had one slice into me from the hands of Professor Zhong Han under the encouragement of CASS. A very small number of individuals have been busy in the social media making sure that this screed is circulated as widely and as often as possible; let us assume that it never crossed their minds that they were doing the work of the PRC academic commissars for them. One of these people is actually called Axel Schneider; he not only gleefully tweets and retweets, but makes a point of prominently displaying passages he particularly relishes. By a small irony, they relate precisely to questions of incidental errors (an allegation that Axel is unlikely to know is justified or not) of the sort the Axel says don’t matter in his book (and i do agree), but justify repeated amplification when directed against me. I don’t know Axel and he doesn’t know me, but I regret to say that he has given me the sense that ad hominem –or in this case ad feminam– attacks are something he finds very entertaining when perpetrated at the expense of somebody else, even (or especially) when relating to subjects he evidently knows very little about. [note: Tweets can be made to disappear by their author, and I expect these will, but they remain in timelines, out-quotes from Twitter, and searchable Twitter archives.] So being acquainted with actual hatchet jobs and their celebration by colleagues who so far as I know I have never harmed, I will probably betray some skepticism regarding whether a reasoned, evidentiary-based review of a whole book is actually a hatchet job.

 

Here is the link to the original posting she is referring to.

(A) From this posting it is obvious that I have not highlighted anything except the headings. The posting appears once on wordpress and once on my twitter, google+ and facebook accounts, here too just in its original form, no comments, no highlighting. It is clear that Crossley’s claim — referring to  me — that “he not only gleefully tweets and retweets, but makes a point of prominently displaying passages he particularly relishes” simply is counterfactual.

(B) Anybody who visits my blog and bothers to search just once for “New Qing History” will find out that I have posted many texts related to this debate representing various positions on this question. I have not singled out anybody or any specific position within this debate. As the blog is about Chinese debates on history, there is no reason to exclude certain publications just because I, or Pamela Crossley for that matter, happen to dislike them. Posting them does not amount to endorsing them nor does it amount to not endorsing them — endorsement just isn’t the issue. Hence Crossley’s remark “let us assume that it never crossed their minds that they were doing the work of the PRC academic commissars for them. One of these people is actually called Axel Schneider” is off the point, in fact it is a flabbergasting insult.

(C) Crossley seems to assume that somebody of Chinese background criticizing her research is doing the work of PRC academic commissars. Whether that’s the case here I do not know and in fact I do not care as far as the decision of whether or not I post a text is concerned, simply because the position of a PRC academic commissar is as much part of the debates in China on history — in fact a powerful part — as the position of anybody else, hence it deserves to be documented and eventually analyzed and discussed. Is Pamela Crossley or anybody else for that matter so sacrosanct that people like me interested in how history in China is being conceptualized can not post these texts (and the replies and counter-replies etc.)?

(D) She concludes this paragraph with the sentence “I regret to say that he [referring to me] has given me the sense that ad hominem –or in this case ad feminam– attacks are something he finds very entertaining when perpetrated at the expense of somebody else, even (or especially) when relating to subjects he evidently knows very little about”.

 

Crossley does not know me, we never met. I do not know how she knows what I know and what not. I also do not know how she comes to the conclusion what kind of person I am. However, let me conclude by expressing my indignation about this remark. Who does Crossley think she is?

 

As academic debates are based on the principles of freedom of expression and of evidence-based and theoretically informed argumentation, I invite all the readers of this blog, all those who are interested in the nature of academe in general and the nature of Chinese concepts of history and historiography in particular to join the discussion, be it by adding comments to this posting, be it by joining the debate on MCLC.

Kind regards,

Axel Schneider

Discussion on what is the best historiography involving historians from mainland China, Taiwan, Korea, and Canada

Posted on Updated on

什么是最好的历史学

古伟瀛  白永瑞  陈红民 邱燕凌 潘光哲

来源:《南国学术》2014年第2期

For the original website see here. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Dou Haijun (窦海军) on the history of ideas of the Republican period

Posted on

民国是春秋战国“百家争鸣”后的思想高峰

窦海军

 

2014年07月25日 14:43

来源:炎黄春秋杂志

作者:窦海军

For the original website see here ff.

Read the rest of this entry »

Historian Guo Shiyou (郭世佑) on the importance of the historian and the diginity of historiography

Posted on Updated on

史家的价值与史学的尊严

发布时间:2013-04-27
作者:郭世佑
来源:《深圳特区报》
For the original website see here.

 

摘要:历史学的使命感与地球村的压力却不难驱使我们重温近代新史学的开拓者梁任公的声音,审视师者的自我价值与史学的尊严,尽量做一个社会主流价值的善意的批评者,而不是谋求分羹的吹鼓手。

Read the rest of this entry »

Historian Chen Pingyuan (陳平原) on the new edition of Zhang Taiyan’s complete works

Posted on Updated on

為何以及如何編“全集”——從《章太炎全集》說起

陳平原

陳平原:為何以及如何編“全集”——從《章太炎全集》說起

 

《章太炎全集》(第一輯,8冊),上海人民出版社2014年4月版

發布:2014-06-27 09:15   責編:linxingzi   來源:中華讀書報

For the original website see here.

Read the rest of this entry »