This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article is about the school of what we know as the New Qing History. It is not about how Zhao Gang has responded in his work or even a general discussion of what the scope of the term "China" should be. Now this article contains more stuff regarding how Zhao Gang responded than the materials about the New Qing History itself. Even though Zhao Gang's work may be briefly mentioned in a separate section (considering it IS related to the New Qing History), it certainly should not be in such a length. You need to at least summarize them, thanks. Otherwise they will be deleted. -- Evecurid ( talk) 22:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Evecurid and I started a discussion on his Talk Page which we are transferring here. I raised the possibility of amending Template:New Qing History to perhaps Template:Scholars of the Qing dynasty" and Evecurid replied that it may be better to have an even more general Template:Qing dynasty topics, which Evecurid helpfully pointed out would be similar to Template:Tang dynasty topics.
IMHO, this is a terrifically useful and powerful idea! Would it be ok to post a notice on the Qing dynasty Talk Page? Probably so, especially since one of the reasons to make templates and categories is to get more editors involved and to coordinate articles. ch ( talk) 18:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
New Qing History scholars tried claiming that universal rulership such as patronage of Tibetan Buddhism, hunting, and learning other languages was a unique feature of non-Han dynasties like Qing and the Yuan.
This source clearly takes a swipe at this idea.
Rajmaan ( talk) 04:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
care to synthesize this argument in an understandable way in the actual piece itself? now that would be interesting. Happy monsoon day 14:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
While Robinson's research might be used in a future argument against New Qing History, its author, David M. Robinson, never addresses New Qing History, and so it cannot be included as a *response* to New Qing History. This is an encyclopedia, not a history forum. Lathdrinor ( talk) 19:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Rajmaan and I have been working on many of the same articles for many years, and I have the utmost respect for that work, from which Wikipedia readers benefit and from which I have learned a great deal. When we disagree, we have a discussion and sometimes Rajmaan convinces me, and sometimes I convince Rajmaan.
In regard to New Qing History, my feeling is that we could achieve the goals of both sides of this Talk Page discussion in a reasonably simple way.
That is, in this NQH article we should include material concerning the ideas and scholars involved, then add links or "see also" links to other articles where the substance of the particular issues are discussed. This would ensure that readers have access to such material as Rajmaan continues to find in order to evaluate the positions taken by NQH scholars without filling this article with detailed material on each one (and there are many more issues than have yet been mentioned in this article).
How does this sound? Just an idea... ch ( talk) 21:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Mark Elliot, prominent scholar of the New Qing History school, made a lecture named "A Reflection and Response to the New Qing History" (新清史研究的影響與回應; linked from his website) containing important clarifications about the relationship between Qing dynasty and China:
"What I should emphasize is that a popular view in many places is that New Qing History separates the Qing dynasty from China, but I think this is a misunderstanding. New Qing History raises a question about the relationship between the Qing dynasty and "China" — the word "China" should be put in brackets, because the concept of "China" has been changing, and this Huang Xingtao himself admitted "China" is a variable symbol, not a fixed thing. If we use our current concept of China to think about the concept of China in the Qing dynasty, then we violate a very basic principle of history. We should not think about what "China" was in the Qing dynasty based on what we think "China" is today, because that will never go along with the imagination and conception of their people at that time. Will not. So New Qing History just wants to advocate and understand the concept of "China" in the Qing dynasty, or the concept of the country. We have to look at the archives and materials in a down-to-earth manner, and don't just rely on history books. The history books of the Qing Dynasty were also written (by historians) instead of original materials, so it is better to look at the Qing archives to see how these concepts and vocabulary were used at that time. We will find that sometimes the meaning of the word "China" is not too different from what we use today, but sometimes the meanings can be very different. That's it, it's obvious when we look at it. So how do we deal with the problem of the concept of China? That’s the next question, how to think about it, how to understand it, how people in Qing times, Qing emperors, and Qing officials understood what "China" was at that time, I think this is a question worth studying, and it’s not to say that Qing dynasty is not China. Words are not so simple to say."
In Chinese:
"我应该强调的一点是,确实在很多地方现在流行的一个看法是,新清史是把清朝和中国分得很开,但是我觉得这是一种误解。新清史对于清朝和中国之间的关系,是提出了一个问题,也就是在问,清朝和中国—“中国”这个词要加括号,因为“中国”这个概念一直在变,这个黄兴涛自己也承认“中国”是一个很会变的符号,不是固定的东西,如果我们以我们今天的中国概念去想清朝时的中国概念的话,那我们就违背了历史学的一个很基本的原则。我们不要把我们以为今天的“中国”是什么来想清朝的时候的那个“中国”是什么,因为那个绝对不会附和他们当时的人的那个想象、那个构想。不会的。所以新清史只不过是想要提倡、想要了解清代时候的与“中国”这个概念,或国家这个概念也好,我们要很踏实地去看档案资料,也不要光依赖史书,清朝史书也是编写的,也不是原始的资料,还是看档案好,看这些概念、这些词汇当时是怎么用的。我们会发现,有的时候“中国”这个字眼的意思跟我们今天用它的意思差不太多了,但同时也会发现有的时候用“中国”这个字眼跟我们今天用“中国”这个字眼很不一样。就是这样的,我们看待它的时候就会很明显了。那我们怎么样去处理对中国这个概念的问题呢?那是再来的问题,怎么去想它,怎么去理解它,清代的时候的人、清代皇帝、清代官员他们怎么去理解他们那个时候的作为中国,这个我觉得是值得研究的问题,也不是说清朝不是中国。话也不是这么简单就可以说的。"
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article is about the school of what we know as the New Qing History. It is not about how Zhao Gang has responded in his work or even a general discussion of what the scope of the term "China" should be. Now this article contains more stuff regarding how Zhao Gang responded than the materials about the New Qing History itself. Even though Zhao Gang's work may be briefly mentioned in a separate section (considering it IS related to the New Qing History), it certainly should not be in such a length. You need to at least summarize them, thanks. Otherwise they will be deleted. -- Evecurid ( talk) 22:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Evecurid and I started a discussion on his Talk Page which we are transferring here. I raised the possibility of amending Template:New Qing History to perhaps Template:Scholars of the Qing dynasty" and Evecurid replied that it may be better to have an even more general Template:Qing dynasty topics, which Evecurid helpfully pointed out would be similar to Template:Tang dynasty topics.
IMHO, this is a terrifically useful and powerful idea! Would it be ok to post a notice on the Qing dynasty Talk Page? Probably so, especially since one of the reasons to make templates and categories is to get more editors involved and to coordinate articles. ch ( talk) 18:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
New Qing History scholars tried claiming that universal rulership such as patronage of Tibetan Buddhism, hunting, and learning other languages was a unique feature of non-Han dynasties like Qing and the Yuan.
This source clearly takes a swipe at this idea.
Rajmaan ( talk) 04:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
care to synthesize this argument in an understandable way in the actual piece itself? now that would be interesting. Happy monsoon day 14:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
While Robinson's research might be used in a future argument against New Qing History, its author, David M. Robinson, never addresses New Qing History, and so it cannot be included as a *response* to New Qing History. This is an encyclopedia, not a history forum. Lathdrinor ( talk) 19:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Rajmaan and I have been working on many of the same articles for many years, and I have the utmost respect for that work, from which Wikipedia readers benefit and from which I have learned a great deal. When we disagree, we have a discussion and sometimes Rajmaan convinces me, and sometimes I convince Rajmaan.
In regard to New Qing History, my feeling is that we could achieve the goals of both sides of this Talk Page discussion in a reasonably simple way.
That is, in this NQH article we should include material concerning the ideas and scholars involved, then add links or "see also" links to other articles where the substance of the particular issues are discussed. This would ensure that readers have access to such material as Rajmaan continues to find in order to evaluate the positions taken by NQH scholars without filling this article with detailed material on each one (and there are many more issues than have yet been mentioned in this article).
How does this sound? Just an idea... ch ( talk) 21:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Mark Elliot, prominent scholar of the New Qing History school, made a lecture named "A Reflection and Response to the New Qing History" (新清史研究的影響與回應; linked from his website) containing important clarifications about the relationship between Qing dynasty and China:
"What I should emphasize is that a popular view in many places is that New Qing History separates the Qing dynasty from China, but I think this is a misunderstanding. New Qing History raises a question about the relationship between the Qing dynasty and "China" — the word "China" should be put in brackets, because the concept of "China" has been changing, and this Huang Xingtao himself admitted "China" is a variable symbol, not a fixed thing. If we use our current concept of China to think about the concept of China in the Qing dynasty, then we violate a very basic principle of history. We should not think about what "China" was in the Qing dynasty based on what we think "China" is today, because that will never go along with the imagination and conception of their people at that time. Will not. So New Qing History just wants to advocate and understand the concept of "China" in the Qing dynasty, or the concept of the country. We have to look at the archives and materials in a down-to-earth manner, and don't just rely on history books. The history books of the Qing Dynasty were also written (by historians) instead of original materials, so it is better to look at the Qing archives to see how these concepts and vocabulary were used at that time. We will find that sometimes the meaning of the word "China" is not too different from what we use today, but sometimes the meanings can be very different. That's it, it's obvious when we look at it. So how do we deal with the problem of the concept of China? That’s the next question, how to think about it, how to understand it, how people in Qing times, Qing emperors, and Qing officials understood what "China" was at that time, I think this is a question worth studying, and it’s not to say that Qing dynasty is not China. Words are not so simple to say."
In Chinese:
"我应该强调的一点是,确实在很多地方现在流行的一个看法是,新清史是把清朝和中国分得很开,但是我觉得这是一种误解。新清史对于清朝和中国之间的关系,是提出了一个问题,也就是在问,清朝和中国—“中国”这个词要加括号,因为“中国”这个概念一直在变,这个黄兴涛自己也承认“中国”是一个很会变的符号,不是固定的东西,如果我们以我们今天的中国概念去想清朝时的中国概念的话,那我们就违背了历史学的一个很基本的原则。我们不要把我们以为今天的“中国”是什么来想清朝的时候的那个“中国”是什么,因为那个绝对不会附和他们当时的人的那个想象、那个构想。不会的。所以新清史只不过是想要提倡、想要了解清代时候的与“中国”这个概念,或国家这个概念也好,我们要很踏实地去看档案资料,也不要光依赖史书,清朝史书也是编写的,也不是原始的资料,还是看档案好,看这些概念、这些词汇当时是怎么用的。我们会发现,有的时候“中国”这个字眼的意思跟我们今天用它的意思差不太多了,但同时也会发现有的时候用“中国”这个字眼跟我们今天用“中国”这个字眼很不一样。就是这样的,我们看待它的时候就会很明显了。那我们怎么样去处理对中国这个概念的问题呢?那是再来的问题,怎么去想它,怎么去理解它,清代的时候的人、清代皇帝、清代官员他们怎么去理解他们那个时候的作为中国,这个我觉得是值得研究的问题,也不是说清朝不是中国。话也不是这么简单就可以说的。"