Yes, its sort of dumpster-diving, but there is a really dumb post on Chinese history up from John Derbyshire. In the process of explaining why he is not quite Islamophobic as some of the other writers on NRO he points out that Islamic civilization is no more stagnant and pointless than that of, say, China. To prove this he cites this from an 1882 history of China.
It might be more instructive to trace the growth of thought among the masses, or to indicate the progress of civil and political freedom; yet not only do the materials not exist for such a task, but those we possess all tend to show that there has been no growth to describe, no progress to be indicated during these comparatively recent centuries. It is the peculiar and distinguishing characteristic of Chinese history that the people and their institutions have remained practically unchanged … from a very early period. Even the introduction of a foreign element has not tended to disturb the established order of things. The supreme ruler preserves the same attributes and discharges the same functions; the governing classes are chosen in the same manner; the people are bound in the same state of servitude, and enjoy the same practical liberty; all is now as it was. Neither under the Tangs nor the Sungs, under the Yuans or the Mings [i.e. from the seventh to the seventeenth centuries — these are the names of Chinese dynasties] was there any change in national character or in political institutions to be noted or chronicled. … This condition of things may be disappointing to those who pride themselves in tracing the origin of constitutions and the growth of civil rights, and who would have a history of China the history of the Chinese people … the fact is undoubted that there is no history of the Chinese people, apart from that of their country, to be recorded. The national institutions and character were formed, and had attained in all essentials to their present state, more than 2,000 years ago.
O.k., its John Derbyshire, who is a nut, but he is not entirely ignorant about China. He has a Chinese wife, and apparently speaks some Chinese, and appeared in a Bruce Lee movie. Is there any way of getting the general public to realize that China has changed in the last 2000 years?
One idea–and this is just off the top–might be to encourage people and pundits to get their Chinese history from books written more recently than, say, the 19th century. Just a thought.
This is a new usage of “not entirely ignorant about China” with which I’m not familiar.
That said, the whole essay is such a wealth of historical ignorance (as well as several other kinds) that I commend you for trying to be nice.
The basic fact is that there’s a huge portion of the population which thinks that China under Communism was basically an agrarian totalitarianism, a fly in amber. Also that the rest of Chinese history was like that, too. As Paul Cohen notes, there’s a long tradition in Chinese historiography of claiming continuity and tradition rather than innovation and adaptation, which a lot of Western historians picked up on in the early years of western historiography on China.
It’s created a zombie error, one of the biggest, meanest, grossest zombies of the bunch.
No, I don’t have any ideas, except to keep teaching Chinese history and emphasizing change….
Unfortunately there’s not much that can be done about ‘nuts’ like John. And in a way it doesn’t matter. People in my experience tend to act according to their level of understanding. To many, they cannot see past their own prejudices…and look up from their well and think they see is the world (I think he’s a toad not a frog).
Now for the math…
John:
Speaks cantonese + Has Chinese Wife + Knowledge of China = No knowledge of Chinese history
Me:
Speaks cantonese + Has Chinese Wife + Knowledge of China + is a Muslim = Knowledge of Chinese history
Too bad Bruce didn’t knock some sense into him…
The general public’s ignorance stems from a large body of shoddy research, which is a result of arrogance felt by the Western nations during China’s decline. People will take a second look when they realize China’s a power to be reckon with. As for the nuts, why would anybody cares what they think?
Johnathan,
I guess the thing I find interesting about this is the zombie-ness of the zombie error. Yes, he is a nut, but I bet he has read books about China. In fact, I bet he is in the top 10% of people world-wide (outside China) in terms of stuff read about China. But the zombie error gets in first and it is just impossible to displace, and no matter what they read they are looking for confirmation of existing ideas. I get this a lot, and I assume you do too. “Dr. Dresner, I liked the book, but I can’t see why Vlastos refuses to explain why Japanese peasants were so docile and obedient”
Yeah, and “why didn’t they just use ninja against the foreigners…”
OK, I’ve never actually been asked that, but you’re right about the docile one.
I was reading something interesting recently about error-correction and how challenging misconceptions can end up reinforcing them, so the best thing to do is often to ignore the misconception, or reject it quickly, and focus on the correct information.
It’s also worth noting what H.L. Mencken said: “The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of the truth — that error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it has been cured of one error, is usually another error, and maybe one worse than the first one.”
In Japan, it’s the replacement of the “docile conformist” with the “ninja/gamer/otaku” images; In China it’s the replacement of the traditionalist with the crooked capitalist (perhaps?).