If anybody tries to defend Confucius, I will curse him. Communist Party was not short of playing with this sage during the cultural revolution. He is no more a sage, he is just a tool for making money.

周潤發於庭，是可忍也，孰不可忍也?

Hu Mei - "You can find all of this in reliable history texts."

Reliable 個屁. Nothing about the 論語 or 孔子世家 is reliable. Then again, most Chinese middle and high school students continue to learn that 堯, 舜, and 禹 were historical figures. Perhaps the phrase "reliable with Chinese characteristics" would work better here.

Stinky,

Unless you have concrete proof proving that Yao, Shun and Yu didn't exist at all, people have no reason to choose to believe you rather than Sima Qian.

Who are you by the way?

Oh Christ. If Yao, Shun, and Yu existed then Amaterasu descended from heaven and slew the Ainu for the benefit of the Japanese imperial family. And Rome was really founded by Trojan escapees.

I would read Hu Mei's appeal to "reliable historical texts" as being more along the lines of "the same texts on which we base our other ideas about Confucius" - if we've accepted them as a source for our popular image of Confucius, then she's perfectly justified in elaborating on other details that are present.

It has nothing to do with restoring a "real Confucius," or whether the texts themselves are accurate in their information about the Sage Kings.

To call making a film "exploitation" without seeing the final result is naive and shallow.

All films ever made could be considered "exploitative" I suppose, including films about Jesus and the Buddha. Hell, publishers of the bible and religious texts that profit are "exploitative".

Also, Chow is hardly just an "action star". Remember when Chow "raised eyebrows" at being cast in John Woo's movie in the first place ? That's because he was an award-winning serious actor in the first place.

If young kids can learn anything from the mass media these days, more power to this kind of film. Maybe they will be inspired to open the those texts whose wisdom has lasted longer than any of us.

子曰：君子不器

Oh well. 君子而不仁者有矣夫.

Inst,

Since when did Yao, Shun and Yu become fictional figures like Nv Wa and Xi Wang Mu??

Pfeffer - "Unless you have concrete proof proving that Yao, Shun and Yu didn't exist at all, people have no reason to choose to believe you rather than Sima Qian."

If Yao, Shun, and Yu had they lived, Pfeffer, they would have done so between 2350 and 2200 B.C.E. The problem is that there is nothing in the historical record to prove that they ever did exist. That Sima Qian (who died in 86 B.C.E.) wrote of them more than TWO THOUSAND years after they MIGHT have lived is not proof. Far from it. After all, do we regard Achilles as a historical figure simply because Homer told stories about him or because the Trojan War may have actually taken place? There is a difference between historiography and wishful thinking. Too often, the Chinese engage in the latter. In order to write about Yao, Shun, and Yu, Sima Qian relied on oral tradition and a very few documents in the imperial archive, none of which were much older than he. In short, nationalism, not science, explains China's continued willingness to perpetuate the belief that Yao, Shun, and Yu are historical figures.

I am not the first to say these things, Pfeffer. You ever hear of the famous Chinese historian Gu Jiegang 顧頡剛? He belonged to the so-called 疑古派 "Doubting Antiquity School" (founded by Hu Shi 胡適, Gu Jiegang's teacher at PKU). Members of this school spent much of their time casting doubt on the authenticity of ancient Chinese texts. Gu Jiegang was one of the first to aggressively question the veracity of the received narrative of early Chinese history. Later scholars continue to be influenced by him.

John Wills, a professor of Chinese history at the University of Southern California wrote the following about Yu 禹: "Should we expect Chinese archeologists to announce someday the discovery of the tomb of Yu or a duty roster from one of his drainage canal projects? No; it would be truly amazing if any evidence were uncovered of the reality of Yu as a historic individual."

By the way, much of what I've just written also applies to the Xia 夏 (of which Yu 禹 is believed to have been the first ruler), the dynasty that is often said to have predated the Shang 商. That is, there exists not one document (e.g. an inscription on a bronze vessel) from the Xia confirming either its existence or the names of its rulers. This being the case, the Xia is best viewed as legend - a category that exists somewhere between history and myth. It may have existed, but no one can prove it.

Stinky,

Yao, Shun and Yu were tribal leaders, not your "son of God" or "son of heaven" type of fictional and mythical figures like Tangun or Korea who were said to have done magical and unbelievable things. Why would ancient Chinese who certainly didn't know what nationalism is, make up stuff about some mundane tribal leaders? Why didn't they elevate Yao, Shun and Yu to completely mythical gods if they were fabricated out of nowhere?

Pfeffer,

Just because we lack substantial historical evidence is not the same as claiming something was "fabricated out of nowhere." Come on, you know that. Though it does lead to the question, do myths need to be "true" to have truth?

Historical inquiry is not about proving non-existence (as you required of "Stinky"), but of finding evidence and basing our conclusions on that evidence.

Moreover, as Inst noted, there are many events and people in the "historical" record who exist in the liminal state between myth, legend, and evidence.

Pfeffer -

I've noticed a trend in your posts; namely, the further along in a particular thread you go, the less coherent you become.

This is the thing, Pfeffer – there’s not a shred of documentary or archeological evidence to suggest that Yao, Shun, or Yu (or the Yellow Emperor 黃帝, for that matter) ever existed. To suggest otherwise is to thumb your nose at science and the entire Western professional historical establishment.

Your earlier assertion that Sima Qian is somehow more reliable than learned Chinese historians such as Gu Jiegang is rich. Let me be clear - Sima Qian writing about Yu is a bit like me writing about Jesus, the only difference being that there exists sufficient documentary evidence to reasonably confirm that Jesus was a historic figure (though not enough to prove his divinity, I'm afraid). (Actually, the earliest mention of Yu is in the Shang shu 尚書, not the Shi ji 史記. Even so, the relevant chapters were written during the last years of the Zhou 周 - again, nearly 2,000 years after Yu would have died. In fact, Sima Qian almost certainly referred to the Yu gong 禹貢 and Yao dian 堯典 chapters of the Shang shu when writing the first couple of chapters 本記 of the Shi ji.)

Finally, Pfeffer, as you suggest, nationalism likely played no role in Sima Qian's efforts to historicize Yao, Shun, and Yu. Doesn’t matter. That wasn’t my argument, anyway. Again, let me be clear – nationalism plays a primary role in the CCP's willingness to turn its back on scientific historiography and perpetuate the legend of Yao, Shun and Yu. This is one example in which the Chinese have chosen NOT to seek truth from facts 實事求是. Though no one can prove that Yao, Shun, and Yu actually lived, it is possible that they did. Unfortunately, as Prof. John Wills suggests (see my earlier post), we will probably never know.

Stinky: "reliable with Chinese characteristics"
LMAO. Classic.

Pfeffer: "ancient Chinese who certainly didn't know what nationalism is"

As early as humans had a distinguishable culture, they also had a feeling about the relative worth if this cultrue compared to others, and a sense of the need to protect it and/or spread it. Nationalism, or tribalism, or whatever it was called back then, has been around since the first human tried to manipulate his fellow men.

There's plenty of examples of various rulers from 2,000 years or more who wrote and re-wrote the history of their own people for various ends.

Jeremiah (I knew you would be here) and stinky,

Alright, am I misinterpreting you by saying that you are basically saying, as long as one can't find (or hasn't found yet) archeological evidence proving that XXX existed, XXX did not exist as far as you are concerned. Correct? OK, going by your logic, I'd say 90% of all Chinese historical figures (or perhaps historical figures from any country or civilization) didn't exist as we have not found any archeological evidence suggesting they did. Wuwang of Zhou, what have we found on him? How about Qihuangong? Dong Zhuo? The "infamous Han nationalist" Ran Min? Anybody?

"the CCP's willingness to turn its back on scientific historiography and perpetuate the legend of Yao, Shun and Yu"? What "scientific historiography"? What is the CCP gaining by "perpetuating the legend"? You singled out the CCP, why? Was the KMT or the previous dynastic Chinese government less "nationalistic" in terms of potraying Chinese history?

Should the CCP or any Chinese dynasty/government/regime simply say "Those Chinese history books are wortheless. Hey, probably none of those people you heard about actually existed because the western professional historical establishment says they didn't exist because they haven't found any archeological evidence proving they did. We definitely don't want to go against "scientific historiography" and the almighty western professional historical establishment."

Geez, the Chinese need the friggin' west to help them prove and define their history.

Pfeffer,

As usual, in your haste to post a reply you may have missed the point I was trying to make.

You wrote:
----
"Am I misinterpreting you by saying that you are basically saying, as long as one can't find (or hasn't found yet) archeological evidence proving that XXX existed, XXX did not exist as far as you are concerned."
-----

Yes. You have misinterpreted and dramatically oversimplified what I wrote:

-----
"Just because we lack substantial historical evidence is not the same as claiming something was "fabricated out of nowhere." Though it does lead to the question, do myths need to be "true" to have truth?

Historical inquiry is not about proving non-existence, but of finding evidence and basing our conclusions on that evidence."
----

For example, I wouldn't necessarily say Yao or Shun never existed or that stories about them are "untrue." (Once again, see my comment above about myths.) But much of what we know about Yao and Shun, as with say, David and Goliath or the Emperor Jimmu, comes down to us through stories, myths, and legends, many of which were recorded much later in texts that not only attempt to recreate a past but were also influenced by the political/social/cultural/intellectual climate of the eras in which the texts were produced and reproduced.

This doesn't prove "non-existence," but it does mean that when approaching such figures historically we need to unpack the myths and legends carefully, and unfold the many layers of meaning ascribed to these stories, rather than accepting them uncritically as "fact."

An excellent and thought stimulating series of comments. Thank you so much gentlemen and ladies? The sad thing is that we will probably never know, but it is important to keep the mythological aspects of History in proper perspective.

Jeremiah,

Thanks for making yourself clear. I see what you are saying now and I don't disagree.

I do think stinky though has been trying to say that Yao, Shun and Yu were fictional figures that did not exist. I agree that no evidence has been found so far proving that they did, and I was saying there was no incentive for the ancient Chinese (including Sima Qian) to make them up as some mundane tribal leaders.

I've been enjoying the discussion you all are having. Some of you may be familiar with each other from other discussions, but please keep old grudges out of our comments section and try to tone down the gratuitous swipes at each others' debate techniques.

Thanks.

Pfeffer: "Geez, the Chinese need the friggin' west to help them prove and define their history."

Essentially, yes. If Chinese historians (and other social scientists) ever hope to be taken seriously outside of China, then they must begin applying Western methods of scientific inquiry to the study of history. Just as the values of the Enlightenment worked to undermine the oppressive influence of the church in early modern Europe, Chinese historians must rid themselves of the polluting influence of the CCP and nationalism. The great British historian Eric Hobsbawm once wrote that one cannot be both a nationalist and an intellectual - his point being that a nationalist, by definition, believes things which are patently false (e.g., Yao, Shun, and Yu are historic figures, etc.), something a true intellectual must not do. Sadly, the intellectual climate in China is such that the needs of nationalism and political expediency trump those of science and disinterested inquiry.

Pfeffer: "We definitely don't want to go against 'scientific historiography' and the almighty western professional historical establishment."

You're exactly right, Pfeffer. Where modern historiography is concerned, the West is light-years ahead of China. More rigorous scholarship on the subject of Chinese history is produced in just one year in the U.S. than has been produced during the entirety of the last 60 years in the P.R.C. It's a crying shame, really. But it's true.

Pfeffer: "I do think stinky though has been trying to say that Yao, Shun and Yu were fictional figures that did not exist."

In fact, I never said any such thing. This is what I wrote: "Though no one can prove that Yao, Shun, and Yu actually lived, it is possible that they did. Unfortunately...we will probably never know." See the difference?

Stinky,

I don't think the Chinese historians of any period should worry about whether they will be taken seriously outside China. Not that I am saying the Chinese historians hold the exclusive right to record, explain and intepret Chinese history, but what they are saying (if there is such a thing as "collective Chinese perspective of Chinese history", I highly doubt) is equally valid, if not more than what you "western blah blah establishment" says about Chinese history. There isn't one universal standard and perspective. The west doesn't hold the final right over the intepretation of Chinese history or anything else. It is OK that you don't agree with me. Just don't tell me that you are right and that I am wrong. To suggest that the western blah blah establishment is always right and that it holds the standard to everything is nothing but obnoxious cultural and intellectual imperialism. To suggest those "China scholars" produced in the US are necessarily better than those produced in China is bloody nonsense. Hell, anyone foreigner these days can claim to be a "China Hand" and write a book about China, without even knowing the Chinese language. Haven't we seen enough of them? And increasingly we see the views of these foreign "China hands" getting very cynical. Why should we trust these people, just because they come from the so-called "free world" and they have the "western blah blah blah establishment" behind them?

Before the west invented nationalism, there was no nationalism, correct? How could Sima Qian and various other Chinese historians be influenced by it?

That said, I agree that historians must rid themselves of influence of nationalism.

We will probably never know? Sure. The same goes for a lot more people (not just some Chinese figures). What have we found on Jesus, by the way?

There's serious and extensive scholarly criticism of the accepted narrative of Jesus (and to some degree his very existence) because the earliest documentary evidence dates to half a century after he lived (by some measurements), an order of magnitude closer than the distance from the Five Emperors to the earliest writings about them.

I've got a question: it's been mentioned several times in this thread that Sima Qian's description of Yao, Shun, and Yu was as "tribal leaders." I had the impression that for several thousand years, they were held to be actual emperors of China. When did this cease to be the standard view, and what led to the change?

The Jesus example is a good one, as Joel mentioned we do have documentation, albeit sometimes contested, for a historical Jesus. But when teaching a class, I would likely treat Jesus the same way I do Yao and Shun, that is: Figures for whom we have little if any historical evidence, but which have important symbolic/cultural value.

I'm not wading too deep into the historical establishment argument. I agree a bit with Pfeffer that Stinky may be coming on a little strong here, BUT...by way of one example, I would point to the large number of Chinese nationals who come to the US for graduate school in Chinese history. In my own department, over half of our Chinese history cohort is made up of students from China.

Pfeffer: "What they are saying...is equally valid, if not more than what you 'western blah blah establishment' says about Chinese history. There isn't one universal standard and perspective. The west doesn't hold the final right over the intepretation of Chinese history or anything else."

You're absolutely correct about there being many different points of view. In fact, perhaps the single most defining characteristic of China studies here in the West – aside from the superior quality of the scholarship produced, that is – is the vigorous nature of the debate. That said, not all ideas are equal, Pfeffer. Some are good, some are better, and some are patently bad. (Your ideas are not as good as mine, for example.) Unfortunately, the political climate in China, though better than it was, is not conducive to the kind of free and unfettered exchange of ideas that is so important to the production of new and innovative ideas here in the U.S. There are good reasons, Pfeffer, that Western academia is so much more productive and conceptually substantial than Chinese academia - and freedom of speech is one of them. China may catch up to us one day. I, for one, sure hope they do - and sooner rather than later.

There was a time when the Chinese produced the most refined historiography. In addition to Sima Qian and the 史記, there were also Ban Gu 班固 (漢書), Chen Shou 陳壽 (三國志), Pei Songzhi 裴松之 (who wrote commentary on the 三國志), and Sima Guang 司馬光 (資治通鑒). Importantly, there was also Liu Zhiji 劉知幾, who in the early 8th century wrote what is perhaps the first substantial treatise on the writing of history - the Shi tong 史通. Unfortunately, in spite of their impressive pedigree, the Chinese no longer rate. To borrow a term from British football, the Chinese history team has been relegated. No more Premier League for them!

Want a clear example of part of the problem, Pfeffer? I ask you to consider the recent fate of Yuan Weishi 袁偉時, a professor of history at 中山大學 in Guangzhou. In early 2006, he wrote an essay for the journal Freezing Point 冰點 entitled "Modernization and History Textbooks" 現代化與歷史教科書 in which he criticized the politicization of Chinese history. In particular, he criticized the received narratives concerning such events as the burning/looting of the Summer Palace and the Boxer Uprising. Would you like to hazard a guess as to results of Prof. Yuan's efforts, Pfeffer? In the end, you might say that he and the editors of Freezing Point were fortunate to live when they do. That is, the same offense committed just a few years ago likely would have resulted in much worse for them. Even so, Prof. Yuan's story does not inspire much confidence in the current state of affairs. Then again, intellectuals have never had it easy in the PRC.

Let me provide a second example, Pfeffer. My wife’s father is a literature professor in the Chinese department of one of China’s most prestigious universities. In the forward to an early book of his, he wrote of his experiences in the countryside during the Cultural Revolution (like many other scholars, he was sent-down to “learn” from the peasants – fine work for a man with a PhD). In the forward, he described how, after accidentally driving a tractor into a ditch, he was publicly criticized for “intentionally destroying the people’s property.” When the book was published, my father-in-law was criticized by neo-left members of his department who refused to acknowledge that such things took place (too ridiculous to believe, they said) and forced to write a self-criticism. (You must recognize the irony here, Pfeffer.) What’s more, several years later, my father-in-law chose NOT to write a book on the cultural history of Chinese acceptance (i.e., 中國人的接受史) because he knew that the book would not be published. How many times has that happened during the last 60 years, Pfeffer? What do such stories say about China, Chinese universities, and the fate of Chinese intellectuals? A lot, I’m afraid. None of it good.

A third example, if you will. A few years ago, the historian Timothy Cheek visited my university. At the time, he had recently edited a volume of essays by various scholars on aspects of CCP/PRC history (such is Prof. Cheek’s specialty). Some of the essays were quite provocative – topics included the CCP’s cultivation of opium during the War of Resistance and the brutal infighting that took place among various factions of the CCP in Jiangxi prior to the Long March. I noticed that none of the essays was written by a Chinese scholar. Because I knew that the collection was developed from an academic conference held a year or two earlier, I asked if any Chinese scholars had attended and, if so, why their papers were not included. Prof. Cheek replied that there were two reasons for this: 1) the Chinese scholars’ papers were of poor quality and did not merit inclusion, or 2) the Chinese scholars asked that their papers not be included because they addressed politically sensitive topics.

You may be correct, Pfeffer, in saying that any China-hand can write a book these days. Even so, not every book written by a China hand is interesting or well-informed. Moreover, you must understand that there is a huge difference between a China hand and a China scholar. Likewise, a similar difference often exists between Western China scholars and Chinese China scholars. Let's hope that this gap continues to narrow.

Consider this too, Pfeffer. Visit any large bookstore in the U.S. and you will find shelf after shelf of books on such "sensitive" topics as slavery and the slave trade, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Movement, the westward expansion, the terrible injustices done to native Americans and other minority groups (e.g., Chinese immigrants), the female sufferage movement, various political scandals, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, George W. Bush, etc. Now visit a large bookstore in Beijing or Shanghai - the one at Xidan or Wangfujing, for example. Now ask the salesperson to direct you to the books on the Anti-Rightist Movement of 1957, the Great Leap Forward of 1958-59, the famine years of the early 1960s, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, China's invasion of Vietnam in 1979, the Culture Fever Movement 文化熱 of the 1980s, the Anti-African Riots in Nanjing in 1988-89, or the June Fourth Movement of 1989. While you're at it, ask to see an honest biography of Mao or Premier Zhou Enlai. Without a doubt, you will find no such books in either store. In short, Pfeffer, as a community, unlike the U.S., China lacks the willingness to examine its own past. This being the case, you should not expect much in the way of good history to be produced by Mainland scholars. The system simply mitigates against it.

Finally, I would like to say that I have met a number of dedicated, sophisticated, and intellectually generous scholars in China. The gap that exists between Chinese and Western scholarship in such fields as Chinese history has nothing to with intellect or point-of-view. The problem is systemic. Change the system.

See link for Prof. Yuan’s essay (in Chinese).

I mentioned Jesus to make a point and add a bit of perspective - namely, that the period of time that passed between the year traditionally given for Yu's death and the year of Sima Qian's birth was actually longer than the period of time that passed between the death of Jesus and my birth. In other words, Sima Qian was not writing of recent events when he wrote his chapters on the Yellow Emperor, Yao, Shun, Yu, and the Xia. Given the unreliablity of oral traditions and the sorry state of archival research in Han times, there is sufficient reason to doubt the historicity of Yao, Shun, and Yu. That is, absent good evidence to the contrary, the belief that Yu actually lived is ahistorical.

Herodotus, who wrote about events that occured early in his own lifetime, was referred to as the "Father of History" by the Greeks and Romans. Interestingly, he was also derided as the "Father of Lies." In the Chinese context, much the same might be said about Sima Qian. No disrespect intended.

As to whether Yao, Shun and Yu were "tribal leaders," I have no intelligent opinion to offer, though I would caution against use of the word "China" when referring to early civilizations in the Wei River valley.

The rebuttals - especially by Stinky (an unfortunate moniker) have been wonderfully engaging but, no, rather than derided as "Father of Lies" Sima Qian was castrated for his troubles.

The problem of existing outside of nodules of belief on the political axis is that you'll necessarily end up being isolated. In my case, I have neither the logical capacity or the erudition to argue my case alone.

But I do want to be known for stating that Stinky's statement about the quality of Chinese academics is racist, condescending, and imperialist.

Inst, you'll have to do better than simply throwing out allegations of racist imperialism. Stinky has cited the work of a number of Chinese academics and has linked to the work of one in particular.

Joel: Like I said, I won't amount to much in this conversation. I suppose you could cite the above allegation as spam and delete the both of them.

As far as what Stinky has said, I agree with him pretty much that the Chinese sage-kings do not accord with modern Western historiography. The alternative is to decide to accept classical Chinese historiography at face value, which begs the question, why just the classical Chinese? Pi is 3, the Bible says so. If you accept everything at face value, then why not accept the assertation to not accept everything at face value? That said, I believe one commonly-held hypothesis regarding the Sage-Kings was that they were mythological or pseudo-mythological figures used by Confucius for didactic functions, somewhat akin to Atlantis in Plato.

On the other hand, regarding Stinky's post:

Pfeffer: "Geez, the Chinese need the friggin' west to help them prove and define their history."

Essentially, yes. If Chinese historians (and other social scientists) ever hope to be taken seriously outside of China, then they must begin applying Western methods of scientific inquiry to the study of history. Just as the values of the Enlightenment worked to undermine the oppressive influence of the church in early modern Europe, Chinese historians must rid themselves of the polluting influence of the CCP and nationalism. The great British historian Eric Hobsbawm once wrote that one cannot be both a nationalist and an intellectual - his point being that a nationalist, by definition, believes things which are patently false (e.g., Yao, Shun, and Yu are historic figures, etc.), something a true intellectual must not do. Sadly, the intellectual climate in China is such that the needs of nationalism and political expediency trump those of science and disinterested inquiry.

This is why I posted what I did. This is a raw disparagement of an entire class of academics, of the majority establishment of an entire people. If we were to say, replace the intellectual establishment under the CCP with that under the Qing, or Ming, what would you think? That they too, must discard the entirity of their traditions and decide to blindly ape the West? I don't mind it if you state that Chinese academics are not internationally persuasive, or that the quality of their scholarship is not internationally viable, but to deride the current situation the way you are doing now, so why doesn't the CCP just declare themselves a monarchy and make Hu Jintao emperor and Wen Jiabao prime minister? Maybe then everything would be acceptable.

The Hobsbawm quote also strikes me as suspect and as something intellectually fashionable. So necessarily, since Christians believe in an unprovable God, would it be impossible to be a Christian intellectual? Does an intellectual then necessarily have to be a particularly narrow brand of Enlightenment fundamentalist?

Inst,

I hardly know where to begin with you. Your accusations of racism are laughable. Suffice to say, if you met me, saw where I grew up, and spoke to me in my native language, you'd find that I'm no racist - much less an anti-Chinese racist. The idea is simply preposterous. (I told my wife that some poor wretch on the internet called me a racist. She laughed too. Then she asked me what kind of idiot I am to waste time responding to said wretch. I responded by saying that I need to practice my written English.) In any case, criticism of contemporary Chinese academia does not constitute racism. In an earlier post I wrote of the great contribution that certain pre-modern Chinese made to historiography. Similarly, I also admitted to knowing many impressive Chinese intellectuals and that the problem with contemporary Chinese academia (particularly in certain of the social sciences) is not one of intellect or point-of-view. The problem, I wrote, is systemic. I dislike the Chinese system, Inst. Does that make me a racist? Please, make an INTELLIGENT argument to the contrary - i.e., explain to me how the present system is conducive to the production of meaningful scholarship.

Where the study of history is concerned, the West is just better. Not perfect. But much, much better. And China would do well to learn from its example. What passes for rigorous scholarship in China is often of poor quality, boring, and unsubstantial (i.e., it is of no help to other scholars). I once heard a professor of Chinese history (who was, himself, Chinese) complain that no seminal work had ever been produced by a Chinese scholar working in China since the founding of the P.R.C. A terrible shame, and a great waste of human capital. But then the CCP has proved itself to be a master of wasting human capital.

I can tell from your post, Inst, that you've neither read Eric Hobsbawm (a Jewish Brit raised in Berlin who later became a famous Marxist historian) nor know who he is. It is not worth my effort to enlighten you. Again, suffice to say that few who are familiar with the man and his work would doubt that he has written/spoken something very similar to what I wrote a great many times during his long career. Of course, what I wrote in my earlier post is a paraphrase, and I do not have a specific citation to offer you. Perhaps I remember it from either "Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality" or "The Invention of Tradition." Who knows. Both are excellent - and seminal. And examples of the kind of scholarship that Chinese scholars do not often produce. Read them and weep, Inst. Hobsbawm's commitment to archival sources is a hallmark of modern, professional historiography. Likewise, though a lifelong Marxist, Hobsbawm was no ideologue (he simply believed that Marx's materialist vision of history provided the best model for understanding the development of world history). To be fair, some scholars have made good arguments that Hobsbawm’s vehement criticisms of nationalist movements were a handicap. Even so, no self-respecting Western intellectual would ever suggest that nationalistic proclivities make one a better scholar.

As to the whether there is such a thing as a Christian intellectual, I seriously doubt it. Sorry, Inst, but I do. The problem isn't with Christianity, per se. Rather, it's a question of ideology. How can one take seriously an intellectual who assigns pride of place to the role of the divine in the course of human history? That’s so Middle Ages (or Christian Coalition, I don’t know which). Where are his documents? The Bible? St. Augustine? Otto, Bishop of Freising? Please. The same argument can be made about scholars whose work is guided by the particular demands of various nationalist ideologies. Now, you might say in return, "Well, Stinky - you stupid, racist, blowhard - isn't the whole emphasis on archives and facts and empiricism and peer review and accountability its own kind of ideology?" Got me there, Inst. Guilty as charged.

Later, dude.

OK Stinkey, I hear you, loud and clear. You are right. I think so far I have what, dozens of Chinese history books written by Chinese "historians" of the PRC in Chinese. Some of them I have read, some of them I have not. I shall bundle them up and take them to a dumpster or a recycle station. My heart aches when I think of all those trees that were cut down in China needlessly for all these worthless BS. What a tragedy.

I shall try my best to unwind my "knowledge" about China's history that I've learned from these BS Chinese "historians". I know there might be a few "good" Chinese "historians" here and there, but they are too few and far between. To be on the safe said, from now on I ONLY trust western scholars. Yao, Shun and Yu probably never existed. I will never, ever take any of those BS Chinese "historians" seriously. 99.9% of them are never real historians anyway.

Too bad millions of Chinese, if not more have been polluted by all the crap preached by these BS Chinese "historians" (not just those of the PRC era) since Liu Zhiji died. If I ever become the president of China I should dismantle the history department within all Chinese universities and various Chinese "academic" and "research" organizations. Heck I will forbid teaching of Chinese history in China by non-western scholars. If you are a Chinese and you want to teach Chinese history in China or if you want to publish a book on Chinese history in China, you have to show proof that you were educated in the west and in addition, a signed certificate certifying that you are deviating from the teachings of western historical establishment and that you not preaching the BS the Chinese "historians" have been preaching.

I shall make my dream becoming the president of China and enforcing these rules.

Pfeffer,

There's no -e in Stinky.

I have the same sentiment, Stinky. When your response popped up and laughed at what you perceived to be my attempt at calling you a racist, I was shocked by what I saw either as an attempt to pull punches or just missing the target altogether. As you've correctly said, I don't know anything about you, except that I assume you're an academic in China, not originally from the Anglosphere, and married to a Chinese wife. It's this among other reasons that I distinctly did not call you a racist. I called your commentary racist, condescending, and imperialist, an attack of pique, to be honest, but otherwise I acted with the intention of having a dispassionate discussion on your commentary. In your closing paragraph, you mock me for regarding you as what might as well be paraphrased as a "poo-poo head", juvenilia intended. But why did I deride your argument, not your character? It was you who decided to make the (justifiable) inference that I was attacking you directly.

As to whether your statement is racist, condescending, and imperialist, well. I think you dodged condescending and imperialist, so if you'd excuse me, I think you're implicitly agreeing to my accusation. Which is why your statement is also racist. While I don't have objections to many of the points and evidence you mentioned, the cohesive argument comes off as an example of colonialism. The Chinese people are apparently structurally incapable of creating historiography up to Western standards. Unless they adopt Western values and institutions, they will continue to be incapable of serious work. I disagree with this assertation, considering the other parts of academia. First, the state of Chinese scientific research is a bit of a sorry mess. My grandfather worked in a Chinese state-run pharmaceutical institute. Despite personality defects and personal problems, he's apparently the most successful researcher in his institution, mainly for his international contacts. He was on some chemotherapy research team stateside, and he brought the research home with him. Besides him, there's been little commercially viable output at his institute. Aside from that, there have been
allegations of prevalent plagiarism at Chinese universities, and arguably the majority of Chinese scientific research institutions have been playing catch-up. So how do you pin that on the CCP and the Chinese nationalist memes that you claim are ruining Chinese research in the social sciences?

As regarding Eric Hobsbawm, the British Marxist historian, first, you claim to be paraphrasing the Professor. This quote is probably the original: "

Finally, I cannot but add that no serious historian of nations and nationalism can be a committed political nationalist, except in the sense in which believers in the literal truth of the Scriptures, while unable to make contributions to evolutionary theory, are not precluded from making contributions to archaeology and Semitic philology. Nationalism requires too much belief in what is patently not so. As Renan said: 'Getting its history wrong is part of being a nation.' Historians are professionally obliged not to get it wrong, or at least to make an effort not to. To be Irish and proudly attached to Ireland - even to be proudly Catholic-Irish or Ulster Protestant Irish - is not in itself incompatible with the serious study of Irish history. To be a Fenian or an Orangeman, I would judge, is not so compatible, any more than being a Zionist is compatible with writing a genuinely serious history of the Jews; unless the historian leaves his or her convictions behind when entering the library or the study. Some nationalist historians have been unable to do so. Fortunately, in setting out to write the present book I have not needed to leave my non-historical convictions behind." (Nations and Nationalism Since 1780)

The distinction seems important enough; an intellectual is not automatically a social scientist and a social scientist is not automatically an intellectual. Further, the limits of a nationalist historian are thus regarding nations and nationalism. He must have elucidated the particular contradictions in his work, because from naive logic you could argue in parallel that Western historians are thus unqualified to assemble studies of Western historiography. Hobsbawm has also been criticized for a rather indiscriminate gloss towards all nationalisms (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/sep/14/biography.history). You know this historian better than I do, would he condemn the spike in nationalist feeling in China during the Second Sino-Japanese War as unbecoming of human beings? Would he condemn the spike in nationalist feeling in post-Liberation/Occupation Tibet as shameful and un-Buddhist?

And regarding being an Enlightenment fundamentalist, well, fine. Since I now know what stripes you profess, I'm not particularly disturbed by your opinion. Whenever I want to look for an intelligent and well-informed viewpoint by an Enlightenment fundamentalist on a China-related blog, all I have to do is to press Ctrl-F, insert Stinky, and click the case-sensitive option box. Since I assume you have better things to do than to comment obsessively on every blog posting in the China-related blogosphere, I'll be frequently disappointed by your absence, but for the five to ten seconds it takes to complete these three tasks the result is worth the effort. Regarding your insistence that for an intellectual to be an intellectual (not to claim to be one myself), he or she must fit your definition, well, you were paraphrasing Hobsbawm. Since the original has significant contextual variation from your paraphrase, I'd rather await your response, if any. As you've said, you're only responding for the purposes of practicing your written English.

One last thing. I don't think that citing Yao, Shun, and Yu as an example of Chinese nationalism distorting Chinese historiography is necessarily accurate. The belief in the historical existence of Yao, Shun, and Yu could simply be an example of zombie errors uncorrected for a long duration. The Cultural Revolution has certainly disrupted formal schooling, and popular and historical knowledge indicates that Yao, Shun, and Yu existed as real persons. For an example of where what you'd consider nationalist belief has been overturned by facts discovered by the Chinese apparatus, remember Yang Liwei? After he was sent into space and had a gander at the Great Wall, shock of all shocks, he found that he couldn't see it with the naked eye! According to the news reports, after he reported this fact to his superiors, they re-edited the latest edition of Chinese school textbooks to remove the statement that the Great Wall is visible from orbit with the naked eye.

But Nationalism was a huge factor in the case of the "facts" overturning the myth about the Great Wall. Scientists, both foreign and domestic, had argued against its visibility from space for decades, and previous astronauts had said they hadn't seen anything. Yet it was only when China's own space program sent up an eyewitness to confirm things for himself that conventional wisdom was officially changed.

Nationalism is only a huge factor if there were nationalists arguing against it, fervently and ferociously. Stateside, I can still find grade school texhbooks in use that replicate this error, and children are still taught that Betsy Ross sewed the first American flag, something that American historians contest strongly.

Let me clarify the statement I made to Pfeffer and the statement I just made to Mr. Martinsen. I was reading The Retreat of the Elephants and a lot of the stuff was argued via textual documents, which were translated with fidelity and thus preserved the opaque style with which some of them were written. But Mark Elvin is a respected Australian sino.. (can we assign Sinologist to expert in Chinese history and culture, and assign Sinologue to expert in classical Chinese history and philology? But then the shared term Sinology also needs to be split... so we're stuck with expert in Chinese history or expert in Chinese philosophy and all sorts of clunky terms) and I am, according to Stinky, a wretch. So I can't speak opaquely without looking bad, I don't have the stature and you don't have the time to puzzle for my meaning.

In the post to Pfeffer, my point was that all of these were parahistorical people, gods, and events. They were recorded in ancient histories, and existed for political purposes, the same as did Yao, Shun, and Yu (use by Confucianists). If you accept one, why not accept them all?

In my post to Mr. Martinsen, my point is that unless you can provide textual evidence of Chinese nationalists obscuring historiography in the Great Wall case, I think it's just as likely that a thousand other factors could have come into play regarding the Great Wall's observability from space. For example, bureaucratic inertia, the instruction from the person in charge got lost in the bureaucratic machinery, and as the Great Wall isn't particularly important politically (see that thing that happened in the late 60s and early 70s for comparison) no one bothered to fix the problem. Or scholastic autism, that the specialists in social scientists weren't going to read stuff by specialists in the hard scientists, so they never got the memo that the Great Wall isn't actually visible from space. Or as I mentioned in the original post, popular "wisdom" obscuring the historian-verified truths. For nationalism to be a huge factor, circumstantial evidence is not enough.

link

Pirated off the British magazine Foreign Policy (it's Prospect Magazine in Britain, isn't it?). Not that I support unrestrained nationalism, I was particularly embarrassed by what happened in '05 with the riots and all that.

Inst: "I distinctly did not call you a racist. I called your commentary racist, condescending, and imperialist, an attack of pique, to be honest..."

The difference between calling me a racist and calling my commentary racist is minimal at best. After all, what would be the difference between accusing you of raping a woman and calling you a rapist? Not much. A question of semantics really. That said, I take no offense.

Inst: "Why did I deride your argument, not your character? It was you who decided to make the (justifiable) inference that I was attacking you directly."

I don't understand. Are you admitting that I was justified? If so, why the defensiveness? If, as I suspect, you meant to write "unjustifiable," then please refer to my first response. The same logic applies.

Inst: "I think you dodged condescending and imperialist, so if you'd excuse me, I think you're implicitly agreeing to my accusation. Which is why your statement is also racist."

I'm not dodging anything. Nor am I implicitly agreeing with you. You ought not to assume so much. It makes you look stupid. And enough already with the charges of racism, colonialism, and imperialism. If I expressed similar ideas regarding contemporary North Korean historians, would you have taken offense? The fact that you pursue this line of argument says much more about you than it does about me.

Am I condescending? Perhaps a bit. In making arguments such as these I may sometimes overstate certain things. In my defense, however, this is a blog, not an academic journal or a graduate seminar. I write these comments more to practice my written English and sharpen my rhetoric than to engage in intelligent academic discourse. (Sorry, Joel.) There's a reason I go by the name Stinky here at Danwei and use my real one everywhere else. Don't get me wrong - I believe everything I've written. It's just that I would express such ideas with a bit more finesse if I were speaking as myself. I will not, however, back down from my assertion that professional historiography as it is practiced in the People's Republic of China is often disgraceful. In fact, when applied to the contemporary Chinese context, the phrase "professional historiography" is an oxymoron.

The quote you offer from Eric Hobsbawm will do. You suggest that my paraphrase and this passage from Hobsbawm's book differ significantly. I disagree. I will concede that a well-trained nationalist may learn how to "leave behind" his convictions when he enters the library. But only if he is free to do so. Too often in China, scholars are not free to set aside their partisan robes. And this completely avoids the subject of Chinese academia's lack of accountability and peer review. By way of example, consider a certain professor in the History Department at PKU who has published a number of books on the subject of Sima Qian and the 史记. His work - highly nationalistic in both approach and tone - is an embarrassment to the profession. Even worse, he answers to no one. No scholar worth his salt in the West takes this man's research seriously. Then there is poor Yuan Weishi, whom I mentioned in an earlier post. As you may have read, his efforts to problematize the received narratives regarding such incidents as the burning/looting of the Summer Palace and the Boxer Uprising were not well-received by the authorities or the Chinese public. (To be fair, a few Chinese historians did speak up in his defense, but they were promtly drowned out.)

The problem with Chinese scholarship is much bigger than nationalism. Consider this:

The Beijing First Historical Archives 北京第一历史档案馆 holds the largest collection of Qing documents in the world. Unfortunately, its map collection and all documents related to ethnic minority groups and foreign relations are off limits to foreign and Chinese scholars alike. Of course, we all understand the CCP's reasons for limiting access to these documents - i.e., among other things they provide evidence that contradicts the preferred narrative regarding such topics as Xinjiang and Tibet.

The Beijing First Historical Archives is not the only one to restrict access to documents. The archivists at both the Shanghai and Nanjing municipal archives can be a suspicious bunch of killjoys too. And don't even think of visiting the Central Party archives. It is off-limits to all but a limited few of the most loyal Party historians.

It’s tough to do good history when the documents are off-limits.

Then there’s this:

The Hua-Xia Duandai Project was generously funded by the Chinese government. Among the project’s more important goals was its mission to historicize the Xia Dynasty. Predictably, the project was a success – at least as far as the CCP was concerned. In the West, however, the project has received little but ridicule. In fact, in spite of the project’s unsupportable findings, Chinese scholars working for it did accomplish certain things (e.g., much necessary cataloguing, a few archaeological discoveries, etc.), and Princeton professor Robert Bagley has actually used some of the information derived from the Duandai Project’s efforts to criticize its findings.

My unwillingness to assign an important role to the divine in the course of human events notwithstanding, I don’t see myself as an “Enlightenment Fundamentalist.” Though I am not a medievalist, I prefer to think of myself as following in the footsteps of Marc Bloch and Georges Duby of the Annales School.

The PKU history professor that I mentioned in my earlier comment is named Zhang Dake. For more info go to link (Chinese).

For more info on the Duandai Project visit either link (Chinese) or link (English).

Speaking of the Duandai Project, a friend of mine who works on early China pointed me towards Peter Hessler's book *Oracle Bones* for a somewhat less than scholarly (but still useful) treatment of the subject.

Hessler writes:

"In recent years, Li [Xueqin,] has been the director of the Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project. Initiated in 1995, and funded by the central government, the project was designed to establish exact dates for China's early cultures. Previously, the earliest date in Chinese history for which there was ample archaeological and textual evidence was 842 B.C., but the Chronology Project came up with a new timeline. Internationally, the project has been heavily criticized - many foreign scholars believe that the Chinese are attempting to fortify their history in ways that are more nationalistic than academic. Some say that the project was motivated primarily by a sense of competition with the West, which has earlier recorded dates for cultures such as ancient Egypt. DURING THE CHRONOLOGY PROJECT, ACADEMIC DIFFERENCES ABOUT ANCIENT DATES WERE SOMETIMES RESOLVED BY VOTING - CHINESE SCHOLARS GAVE THEIR OPINIONS, AND THE YEAR WITH THE MOST VOTES WON. [caps are mine] Domestic press reports were often bizarre: "China Daily (December 16, 1998) - A PROJECT TO BRIDGE gaps in China's ancient history has made remarkable progress after two years of research. China is world-famous for its 5,000-year history as a civilized nation. Unfortunately, a 2,000-year gap in China's development has concealed the country's true age...The missing 2,000 years include the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties and the time before that dating back to well before 2100 B.C., says Li Xueqin, history researcher with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing." (Oracle Bones, p.387)

This passage is part of Hessler's much longer discussion of Li Xueqin's infamous criticism of Chen Mengjia (Li's own teacher at Tsinghua) during the Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957.

Peter Hessler also writes this about Li Xueqin: "In the fields of archaeology and history, his name is everywhere - he publishes about oracle bones, ancient bronzes, bamboo documents. He is brilliant and prolific; A NUMBER OF SCHOLARS TELL ME THAT HE HAS THE RARE ABILITY TO DO EXCELLENT RESEARCH WHILE ALSO DEFTLY SATISFYING THE COMMUNIST PARTY. [again, caps are mine] One scholar of ancient Chinese tells me bluntly that Li is a "toady"; a number of people mention his criticism of Chen Mengjia." (Oracle Bones, pp.386-7)

It's important, I think, to consider Hessler's comment that, in China, a scholar must endeavor to please the CCP, and that the ability to do so AND produce excellent research is considered "rare." This is my point exactly. I would, however, suggest that the questionable results of the Duandai Project cast doubt on the quality of Director Li Xueqin's scholarship. In the end, it may, in fact, be impossible to please the CCP and do good research.

In all fairness, however, I should say that my early China friend did inform me that good work can still be done in China provided that the subject is not sacred - i.e., while the received narratives concerning such things as the 史記 may not be tampered with, a scholar may write whatever he wants about the 淮南子.

Where does this leave us vis-a-vis Zhou Runfa and the new Confucius film?

Moderation, excuse me, I noticed that comments made to this thread no longer show up in recent comments. Is it possible to change that?

Stinky, thanks for your reply, especially since this thread is no longer being updated on recent comments. I am busy with chores right now, so I probably won't be able to reply in a reasonable amount of time. If that's the end of this conversation, thank you for posting, it was informative to see your perspective on the state of historical scholarship in China.

Inst: It was not deliberate. There's some screwiness with the operation of the "recently_commented_on" property in MovableType, and I've had to tweak it in the past. It seems to be working now.

Is the proof in the pudding?

Stinky: "I mentioned Jesus to make a point and add a bit of perspective - namely... the period of time that passed between the year traditionally given for Yu's death and the year of Sima Qian's birth was actually longer than the period of time that passed between the death of Jesus and my birth... Sima Qian was not writing of recent events when he wrote his chapters on the Yellow Emperor, Yao, Shun, Yu, and the Xia. Given the unreliablity of oral traditions and the sorry state of archival research in Han times... the historicity of Yao, Shun, and Yu... absent good evidence to the contrary..."

I remember reading about people who scorned the authenticity of Chinese history records, including that of Sima Qian's Shiji, as contributor(s) here refutes the veracity of information on Yao, Shun, and Yu. Such was clearly the case just a century ago, when doubters, anti-sinicists (for lack of a better word), and the such, questioned the veracity of Sima Qian's 2000 year old account of the names of 30 kings of the Shang Dynasty (1000 years BEFORE Sima Qian's time) not the least, due to "sorry state of archival research". How could it be that this Chinese guy in such a backwards age compile such real accounts of "history".

Of course it just happened that in the 1930's archaeological digs in Anyang uncovered some Shang Dynasty oracle bones, and information recorded on the 3000 year old records indeed matched to over 20 of the 30 names of the Shang Dynasty kings listed in Sima Qian's Shiji.

I understand there are political and sociological issues to which will make certain users hell-bent on denouncing Chinese anything, including the revered old records of Sima Qian and such. But I think it's healthy to take a less emotional and stressed-out approach on defiling Chinese history with insults and disrespect (with democratic Cold War characteristics), and just point out the known facts and what can or should be considered legendary.

While the proof may be in the pudding... some of us will just have to be content the sweet concoction of the Shiji (which I do find much more convincing than the legend of Jesus), until 4000 year old Xia remains are uncovered, if ever.

Bobby