Popular in History

Arts and Humanities

Titus Quinctius Flamininus’ “Italian triumph”

McGill University Michael Fronda

Arts and Humanities

Lincoln and the Jews

Brandeis University Jonathan Sarna

Arts and Humanities

Early Modern Natural Law Theories

University of Copenhagen Knud Haakonssen

Arts and Humanities

Phoenicians Among Others: Why Migrants Mattered in the Ancient Mediterranean

University of California San Diego Denise Demetriou

Arts and Humanities

The loneliness of leadership

University of Liverpool Elaine Chalus

Arts and Humanities

La Güera Rodríguez

Brandeis University Silvia Arrom

Arts and Humanities

The Myth of Continuity in American Gun Culture

University of California Berkeley Brian DeLay

The reception of the “New Qing History” in China

View more insights in Arts and Humanities - History - Asian History

View more figures from Independent Scholar

View the page of Carl Dery

Read the Study

Carl Dery discusses various tensions related to the diffusion and reception of the New Qing History (NQH) in China, and more specifically, it aims at underlying a recurrent tension within the core of this debate, between a Global and a Nationalist historical narrative.

Image courtesy of interviewee. May 28, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video discusses the emergence and development of a new school of thought in American sinology, commonly referred to as "New Qing History." This video approach began to take shape around the 1980s and gained global prominence in the early 2000s. It marks a significant departure from the long-dominant "third banking model" of historical interpretation in American sinology. Influenced by cultural and regional studies, this new perspective emphasizes a more nuanced and multifaceted understanding of the Qing Dynasty, which ruled China from 1644 to 1911.

New Qing History incorporates comparative viewpoints, addresses the complexities of Manchu identity, and challenges the traditional narrative that portrays Chinese history as a linear assimilation to a singular cultural norm. Central to the debate are questions about the nature of historical synthesis, the role of Manchu identity in governance, and the implications of these interpretations for understanding Qing history in a broader global context.

Key controversies within the New Qing History discourse stem from differing methodologies and interpretations among scholars. Prominent debates have included discussions on whether the Qing should be seen primarily as a Manchu Empire or a Chinese Empire and the historiographical implications of this classification. Significant contributions are often attributed to works by scholars such as Evelyn Rawski, Pamela Crossley, and others, whose analyses help frame the debates about Manchu ethnic identity and its political ramifications.

This video also outlines the reaction from Chinese scholars, who express a wide spectrum of responses, ranging from open-minded acceptance to stark rejection of New Qing History. This video discourse raises essential questions about academic integrity, cultural identity, and the politics of historical writing in contemporary China.

Overall, New Qing History represents not only a transformative moment within the field of sinology but also initiates a critical global dialogue about the history of China, its political ideologies, and the challenges faced in integrating varied historical perspectives into a cohesive understanding of its past.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
It seems you included placeholder video ('..') instead of actual content. If you provide the specific video you would like me to analyze, I can help identify five key points or summarize it for you. Please share the video you'd like me to work with!

Export as PDF
It seems that you're asking for key quotes from a specific video, but you've only ".." instead of the actual title or content of the video you are referring to. Please provide the title or more convideo about the video, and I would be happy to help you find key quotes or summarize it!

Export as PDF
Here are several articles and topics that share similarities with the video you on New Qing History and its implications for American sinology:

1. **"The Manchu Legacy: Understanding Identity and Governance in the Qing Dynasty"** - This article focuses on the complexities of Manchu identity and how it influenced Qing governance, paralleling the discussions found in the New Qing History perspective.

2. **"Debating the Qing: Controversies in Contemporary Sinological Scholarship"** - This piece outlines various scholarly debates about the classification of the Qing Dynasty, addressing the tension between viewing it as a Manchu versus a Chinese empire, similar to the key controversies noted in your video.

3. **"Comparative Perspectives in Chinese History: New Approaches to Qing Studies"** - This article explores the influence of comparative studies on understanding the Qing Dynasty, reflecting the New Qing History's emphasis on nuanced and multifaceted analysis.

4. **"Cultural Identity and Historical Narrative in Modern China"** - This publication discusses the implications of historical writing on contemporary Chinese cultural identity, which resonates with the discourse surrounding the acceptance and rejection of New Qing History among Chinese scholars.

5. **"Evelyn Rawski and the Evolution of Qing Historiography"** - An examination of Evelyn Rawski’s contributions to the field, particularly regarding the re-evaluation of Manchu political identity and its historical impact, which is crucial in framing the New Qing History debates.

6. **"Transnational Perspectives on Qing Dynasty Scholarship: Bridging Global Histories"** - This article addresses how global and regional studies inform contemporary interpretations of the Qing Dynasty, paralleling the global dialogue initiated by New Qing History.

7. **"Rethinking Chinese History: The Influence of New Qing History on Future Scholarship"** - An analysis of how New Qing History is shaping the future of Chinese historiography, exploring both its potential and the challenges it faces.

These articles would provide a broader understanding of the themes and controversies surrounding New Qing History and its place in the larger convideo of historical scholarship in sinology.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.565 --> 00:03.205
Chen story refers to a school of top

00:03.235 --> 00:06.925
that emerged gradually since, let's say the turn

00:06.925 --> 00:10.885
of the 1980s amongst ologists in the United States.

00:11.015 --> 00:15.125
First of all, then it gained a worldwide attention since the

00:15.125 --> 00:16.725
beginning of the new millennia.

00:17.735 --> 00:21.915
And, broadly speaking, if we talk about Chen history,

00:22.095 --> 00:26.195
it represent a major shift in the field of American synology

00:27.065 --> 00:30.475
departing from what can be called the third banking model

00:30.495 --> 00:34.195
of interpretation, which has been dominant for many decades.

00:34.935 --> 00:38.795
The third banking model refers to junkie third bank, father

00:38.975 --> 00:40.195
of American Sonology,

00:41.745 --> 00:44.755
echoing a clear postmodern revisionist tone.

00:45.135 --> 00:48.475
Newing history has been strongly influenced by

00:49.075 --> 00:52.675
cultural studies, by regional studies, as well

00:52.775 --> 00:57.475
as contemporary trends associated with, world history,

00:58.265 --> 01:01.895
especially the trends related to territory identity

01:02.975 --> 01:04.895
exchange networks, and the production

01:04.895 --> 01:06.695
of historical discourses.

01:08.135 --> 01:09.475
Thanks to the publication

01:09.615 --> 01:12.435
of rarely Studied archives in Chinese

01:12.615 --> 01:14.875
and Manchu Mongolian languages,

01:15.775 --> 01:18.995
and encouraged by the opening of China in the context

01:19.215 --> 01:20.275
of Geiger Kai.

01:20.335 --> 01:24.635
Fun at the turn of the 1980s, a new generation

01:24.775 --> 01:27.155
of scholars, they were nourished

01:27.255 --> 01:29.515
by common methodological concerns,

01:30.095 --> 01:34.195
and they gain easier access to the frontier areas

01:34.535 --> 01:37.875
of the Chinese territory, nurturing the study

01:37.895 --> 01:42.035
of the languages and the material culture of those areas,

01:42.935 --> 01:45.995
and thus bringing to the table new perspectives

01:46.055 --> 01:51.035
and new insights about Ching Dynasties is story so

01:51.655 --> 01:54.355
far from being, monolithic

01:54.355 --> 01:56.395
and static intellectual movement

01:57.595 --> 02:01.355
ing history addresses the history of the Qing Dynasty,

02:01.535 --> 02:04.595
the last one of the imperial, dynastic,

02:04.595 --> 02:08.995
Chinese history, which lasted from 1644 to 1911.

02:09.815 --> 02:13.755
So the, the simultaneously highlight the specificity

02:13.815 --> 02:16.275
of the Manu Empire with respect

02:16.275 --> 02:20.475
to Chinese imperial tradition, as well as its similarity

02:20.665 --> 02:24.075
with other political entities of the pre-modern world.

02:24.305 --> 02:27.035
Therefore, when we talk about new story,

02:27.505 --> 02:32.155
comparative perspectives are an, an essential component

02:32.735 --> 02:34.395
for these historians.

02:34.965 --> 02:37.635
Their discourse about China,

02:37.745 --> 02:40.595
challenge also the conventional wisdom

02:40.935 --> 02:45.795
of a unidirectional assimilation to a Chinese cultural norm,

02:46.085 --> 02:49.315
which has been the master narrative for,

02:49.585 --> 02:52.195
many years in the field of, synology.

02:52.565 --> 02:55.515
There are a great number of crucial historical

02:55.975 --> 02:58.675
and, cultural role as well as political

02:58.675 --> 03:02.165
Teams in the debate, engendered by the diffusion

03:02.385 --> 03:03.765
of the new Ching story

03:04.425 --> 03:07.365
and the diffusion of the IDs expressed

03:07.365 --> 03:12.085
by these American ologists, especially since the beginning

03:12.085 --> 03:15.685
of the millionaire, when the diffusion reach China,

03:16.135 --> 03:20.045
among the major teams of the debate of the ing story,

03:20.505 --> 03:25.205
one finds first the qualification of the so-called novelty,

03:25.595 --> 03:29.565
that Chinese historians are trying to assess what is

03:29.625 --> 03:31.605
so new about Ing story.

03:31.705 --> 03:33.165
That's among the first question.

03:34.435 --> 03:36.205
Another central component

03:36.465 --> 03:40.125
of the debate over Newing history is related to the question

03:40.125 --> 03:42.165
of methodology of research

03:42.865 --> 03:45.925
and, the purpose of historical narratives.

03:46.785 --> 03:49.205
Why and how do we write history books,

03:49.625 --> 03:52.165
and how do we use these history books?

03:53.625 --> 03:57.645
And, another component of the debate, mostly the mo,

03:57.945 --> 04:02.125
the most important probably theme of the debate is related

04:02.425 --> 04:06.445
to, what we call the synthesization of the man's shoes,

04:06.895 --> 04:09.605
which refers to a process of acculturation

04:09.745 --> 04:13.485
or a transformation to a Chinese norm in order

04:13.625 --> 04:14.645
to govern China.

04:15.925 --> 04:19.905
So the, the core of the debate over New Ching is stories

04:20.615 --> 04:22.625
lays in a very simple question,

04:23.615 --> 04:25.625
were the mans shoes synthesized

04:25.925 --> 04:27.145
or did they kept,

04:27.335 --> 04:29.905
mans shoe identity while they were governing

04:29.965 --> 04:31.185
The Ching Empire?

04:32.435 --> 04:35.645
Does the Ching Empire should be called a Manchu Empire

04:35.865 --> 04:37.285
or a Chinese empire?

04:39.005 --> 04:41.055
This question is perfectly illustrated

04:41.355 --> 04:45.455
by a very important controversy opposing Evelyn Roskey

04:45.515 --> 04:50.095
and OPNT in the Journal of Asian Studies in 1996

04:50.275 --> 04:51.815
and 1998.

04:53.345 --> 04:57.445
As a sign of the importance of this debate, the controversy

04:57.595 --> 04:58.605
between ho

04:58.665 --> 05:02.685
and Roski on the issue of the Synthesization of the Manchu

05:03.345 --> 05:05.845
is perceived by many to be the starting point

05:05.865 --> 05:08.805
of the whole new chain is story ate in China.

05:10.535 --> 05:15.145
Basically, hop PT wrote an article in 1967

05:15.365 --> 05:16.985
called The Significance

05:17.245 --> 05:19.665
of the Ching Period in Chinese Story.

05:20.795 --> 05:23.575
In this article, he stated, among other chings,

05:23.575 --> 05:27.135
that the Ching Menchu emperors were successful in

05:27.895 --> 05:30.975
maintaining their power, thanks to their policy

05:31.115 --> 05:34.395
of systematic ization, to which

05:34.925 --> 05:38.155
Roski answered in a 1996 paper called

05:38.905 --> 05:41.835
Reinventing the Ching, that contrary

05:41.895 --> 05:45.915
to the Synthesization paradigm, Ching sovereigns implemented

05:46.555 --> 05:47.675
flexible cultural

05:47.975 --> 05:51.115
and political policies according to the people

05:51.455 --> 05:54.395
and according to the territories, they conquered

05:55.645 --> 05:56.825
hoping t then

05:57.285 --> 06:02.205
Answered in 1998 with another paper called Al of Evelyn

06:02.735 --> 06:06.445
Ros's Paper, criticizing both her methodology

06:06.785 --> 06:08.085
and her conclusions.

06:09.215 --> 06:12.305
Then these two texts, that were,

06:12.305 --> 06:16.225
they were published in a historical journal in China,

06:16.245 --> 06:20.585
the Journal Research on Ching History,

06:20.585 --> 06:23.505
they were published in 1999 and 2000,

06:24.085 --> 06:27.785
and thus, the debate over New Ching history started

06:27.965 --> 06:32.105
to heaten up very seriously in China, at the beginning

06:32.245 --> 06:34.145
of the 20th century.

06:34.955 --> 06:37.865
There are great number of scholars associated

06:38.095 --> 06:42.985
with the new trends of American sonology during the 1990s.

06:43.885 --> 06:48.625
And, quite frankly, to speak only of New Ching story

06:49.485 --> 06:52.425
is always leading to simplistic arguments.

06:53.575 --> 06:57.105
That being said, if we focus only on New Ching story,

06:57.685 --> 07:01.465
the most commonly referred books are the So-called Four

07:01.475 --> 07:03.305
Books of the New Ching Story.

07:04.005 --> 07:08.065
Uh, these four books are, first of all,

07:08.125 --> 07:09.505
Evelyn Roski.

07:09.725 --> 07:13.425
She wrote The Last Emperors, A Social History

07:13.445 --> 07:15.105
of Ching Imperial Institution.

07:15.565 --> 07:17.265
It was in 1998.

07:18.245 --> 07:20.945
Uh, another one is Pamela Karl Crossley,

07:21.345 --> 07:25.145
A Translucent Mirror History and Id, history

07:25.205 --> 07:28.865
and identity in Ching Imperial Ideology Return

07:28.865 --> 07:30.225
in 1999.

07:30.885 --> 07:34.545
Uh, Edward Rhodes wrote Mans Shoes and an Ethnic Relation

07:34.565 --> 07:36.425
and Political Power in Ing

07:36.525 --> 07:39.825
and Early Republican China written in 2000.

07:40.445 --> 07:41.905
And last, but not least,

07:42.295 --> 07:47.065
Marc CI wrote The Mans Shoe Way in 2001, the eight Banners

07:47.085 --> 07:50.665
and Ethnic Identity in Late Embryo China.

07:52.355 --> 07:56.425
These four books all proposed new insights with regard

07:56.425 --> 07:59.705
to Manchu ethnic identity, in relation

07:59.765 --> 08:02.065
to Qing China's political ideology.

08:02.605 --> 08:05.785
But the importance in the new Ching history

08:06.405 --> 08:08.905
debate has been slightly distorted

08:09.375 --> 08:12.265
because these four books were the core

08:12.645 --> 08:16.145
of two book review published in 2002.

08:17.165 --> 08:19.065
One of the book review was returned by,

08:19.925 --> 08:21.825
the title was Who Were The Man Shoes,

08:22.285 --> 08:25.025
and the other one was returned by Sur Taan,

08:25.485 --> 08:27.705
the New Frontiers of Menchu China

08:27.845 --> 08:30.585
and the Histography of Asian Empires.

08:31.935 --> 08:36.755
So because of those two book reviews, the four books, a

08:36.755 --> 08:39.475
for mentioned, they, they were depicted

08:39.475 --> 08:42.635
as the core books of this new School

08:42.635 --> 08:44.995
of top emerging in the United States.

08:45.935 --> 08:49.955
And even if other books, far more important,

08:49.955 --> 08:53.195
books like Peter Perdue, China Marches West,

08:53.375 --> 08:57.525
was written in 2005, have greater significance

08:57.755 --> 08:59.285
with regard to new perspective.

08:59.945 --> 09:03.165
Uh, these four books were considered the core ideas

09:03.185 --> 09:05.045
of the New Ching is Story Debate,

09:06.435 --> 09:07.535
but in, in fact,

09:08.115 --> 09:12.815
if we consider Solely the expression New Ching story,

09:12.995 --> 09:16.735
the first appearance of this expression is 2004.

09:17.155 --> 09:20.095
Uh, it appears simultaneously in two completely

09:20.095 --> 09:21.375
different publication.

09:22.235 --> 09:25.375
Uh, first there was another book review written

09:25.515 --> 09:27.055
by Joanna Wally Cohen.

09:27.475 --> 09:29.895
Uh, she wrote about nine specific books,

09:30.035 --> 09:33.375
I'm not gonna name it, name there, here,

09:33.635 --> 09:37.775
the nine specific books were all written between 1997

09:37.915 --> 09:39.015
and 2001,

09:39.835 --> 09:43.455
and the other one was a collective book called New Ching

09:43.615 --> 09:47.615
Imperial History, directed by Root W Donald Mark clia,

09:48.035 --> 09:50.695
Philip Re, and James Millward.

09:52.175 --> 09:56.475
So, these publications, they set the tone

09:56.695 --> 09:58.675
and the del limitation of

09:58.945 --> 10:01.035
what is called the New Ching History.

10:02.565 --> 10:06.545
Uh, if we consider my, my personal research work,

10:06.545 --> 10:09.505
with regard to these, scholars,

10:10.005 --> 10:13.425
my research has been considerably nourished by most

10:13.445 --> 10:16.985
of these book since I was also studying the

10:16.985 --> 10:18.385
history of Qing China.

10:19.485 --> 10:23.305
But, contrary to them, my focus has always been

10:23.305 --> 10:26.745
to study the Qing Dynasty from the vantage point

10:26.745 --> 10:28.905
of international relations.

10:29.915 --> 10:33.505
First, I studied the evolution of the diplomatic relation

10:33.505 --> 10:34.665
between Qing, China

10:34.845 --> 10:39.665
and Britain from the McCartney Embassy, in 1793,

10:40.085 --> 10:43.145
to the Opium War of 18 40 42.

10:43.415 --> 10:45.905
Then a proposal comparative assessment

10:46.165 --> 10:49.785
of Q Qing Emperor's attitude and strategies towards Russia

10:49.965 --> 10:53.825
and Britain between 1689 and 1793.

10:54.045 --> 10:56.305
So I developed comparative analysis,

10:56.455 --> 10:59.145
comparative perspectives along the Marium

10:59.285 --> 11:02.305
and the continental frontier, in order

11:02.365 --> 11:06.185
to understand Qing China, in both cases

11:06.565 --> 11:11.105
for my research, the idea the manness

11:11.245 --> 11:14.105
of the Ching Manness of the Ching Dynasty,

11:14.165 --> 11:19.105
or, LA man that, mark Elliot used the,

11:19.105 --> 11:21.985
the French concept to name it the Manchu factor.

11:22.765 --> 11:26.865
It has never been a crucial factor in my analysis.

11:27.125 --> 11:28.705
It was never so important.

11:29.605 --> 11:32.945
So that's an important distinction, between me,

11:33.125 --> 11:35.145
my research, and the scholars.

11:36.085 --> 11:37.785
Uh, moreover, I cannot add

11:37.785 --> 11:40.785
that I never studied personally Manchu language.

11:41.605 --> 11:44.305
Uh, I never studied it sufficiently,

11:44.305 --> 11:46.025
neither Mongolian language

11:46.165 --> 11:49.305
or any other inner Asian language.

11:50.005 --> 11:53.925
Uh, so I'm not able to use those language effectively.

11:54.565 --> 11:57.325
I cannot use Manchu documents in my research.

11:57.755 --> 12:01.365
Therefore, my perspective with regard to this crucial

12:02.005 --> 12:05.445
academic debate is the point of view of an outsider.

12:05.865 --> 12:08.325
I'm an outsider from two different angles

12:08.425 --> 12:10.125
to complimentary angles.

12:10.595 --> 12:13.645
Very important. Uh, first of all,

12:14.165 --> 12:17.045
I do not master any inner Asian language.

12:17.155 --> 12:20.965
Like I said, I never studied Manchu Mongolian Tibetan.

12:21.585 --> 12:24.605
Uh, so I'm not in a position

12:24.745 --> 12:28.405
to correct the interpretation made by scholars with regard

12:28.405 --> 12:31.645
to archival source in Manchu or Mongo.

12:32.265 --> 12:35.885
Uh, Mongolian, I refer only to Chinese document

12:36.065 --> 12:37.845
and a foreign language document.

12:38.305 --> 12:40.085
The other, reason

12:40.785 --> 12:45.405
why I am an outsider from this debate is I specialize in the

12:45.405 --> 12:49.405
international relations of China, especially relation

12:49.405 --> 12:51.845
between China and the Western powers.

12:53.275 --> 12:57.965
Therefore, my scale of interpretation, my scale of

12:58.565 --> 13:01.325
analysis, with regard to this debate,

13:01.905 --> 13:05.845
is situated at a completely different level than the level

13:05.905 --> 13:10.285
of analysis of the authors, who emphasize

13:10.865 --> 13:14.925
the revelation between man shoes and arm in their works.

13:16.645 --> 13:20.815
This different scale of interpretation is, crucial,

13:21.595 --> 13:24.255
is of crucial importance for me,

13:24.255 --> 13:28.055
because for, for various psychological, political,

13:28.195 --> 13:31.775
or methodological reasons, the ethnic tension

13:31.885 --> 13:33.255
between the man shoes

13:33.395 --> 13:35.815
and the an identities in China

13:36.525 --> 13:39.975
does not bear the same importance when one studies the

13:39.975 --> 13:43.815
international relation or the domestic history of a country.

13:45.075 --> 13:48.695
So this perspective that I brought from,

13:48.955 --> 13:51.575
the international relation is

13:51.575 --> 13:54.935
among the key contribution I bring to this debate.

13:55.535 --> 13:59.175
I bring the point of view of an outsider in the field,

13:59.755 --> 14:04.135
not specialized in Manchu identity or Manchu language.

14:04.785 --> 14:07.295
There has been a wide range of responses

14:07.635 --> 14:10.055
and, reactions since the publication

14:10.055 --> 14:13.255
of the first text mentioning Newing history in China

14:13.275 --> 14:14.295
in 2006.

14:15.275 --> 14:20.055
And, some of the text I encounter,

14:20.155 --> 14:24.095
the reveal, an interesting open-mindedness with regard

14:24.095 --> 14:27.935
to the new ideas proposed by the American scholars,

14:28.325 --> 14:30.695
that were affiliated to Newing story.

14:31.505 --> 14:35.615
While other scholars are expressing completely opposite

14:35.615 --> 14:39.935
views, some are extremely critical in their

14:40.735 --> 14:42.975
complete rejection of the IDs.

14:43.435 --> 14:47.095
Uh, some are going as far as considering Newing history

14:47.315 --> 14:48.935
as a historical threat

14:49.395 --> 14:52.285
and a kind of, historical nihilism.

14:52.635 --> 14:56.205
Therefore, considering the wide discrepancies

14:56.265 --> 15:00.845
of reaction in front of the Nu story in China,

15:01.125 --> 15:04.845
I proposed a methodology inspired by rhetoric

15:05.025 --> 15:06.645
as a analytical tool.

15:07.425 --> 15:11.765
Uh, the purpose of rhetoric is to emphasize the ways

15:11.865 --> 15:14.845
by which a text conveys a particular message,

15:15.785 --> 15:19.885
and the focus is to try to find the narrative strategies,

15:20.425 --> 15:25.125
and especially to emphasize the arguments employed,

15:25.185 --> 15:26.525
in order to convince.

15:27.645 --> 15:31.585
So for this particular research I made about Newing story,

15:32.485 --> 15:37.025
my focus was on three specific points that are recurrent

15:37.685 --> 15:40.745
in mostly all of the text that I read, the,

15:40.745 --> 15:42.425
the text from Chinese scholars.

15:42.515 --> 15:44.785
First of all, there's the question of novelty.

15:45.805 --> 15:49.145
Uh, second, the methodology of historians

15:49.765 --> 15:54.545
and, say third, the translation of key concepts.

15:55.705 --> 15:58.605
Uh, just to give some examples of,

15:58.945 --> 16:00.405
how it transpose in the text.

16:01.145 --> 16:06.085
Uh, scholars who are in favor of Newing story, for example,

16:06.745 --> 16:08.325
CIA mon,

16:08.875 --> 16:12.525
sees ing story like a refreshing perspective.

16:13.025 --> 16:16.405
That's the word he used, in Chinese.

16:16.515 --> 16:20.005
It's, don,

16:20.165 --> 16:21.645
a refreshing perspective

16:21.835 --> 16:24.965
with their emphasis on the Manchu characteristic,

16:25.765 --> 16:28.805
a refreshing perspective that allows us to challenge

16:29.385 --> 16:32.765
the traditional dynasty history based on the theory of

16:33.605 --> 16:37.945
centrism Han, trying

16:37.945 --> 16:42.705
to answer the question about what is the novelty, lot

16:42.825 --> 16:46.785
of historians are using the summary made by thing, each one.

16:47.285 --> 16:51.425
Uh, who summarize this novelty in three specific 0.3,

16:51.455 --> 16:52.625
very precise point.

16:53.505 --> 16:56.975
First, new ch history proposed the integration

16:56.995 --> 17:00.895
of Qing Dynasty history into a global frame

17:01.035 --> 17:02.215
of world history.

17:03.155 --> 17:05.975
Second, n ching history,

17:07.015 --> 17:10.055
emphasized the distinction between Ching dynasty

17:10.055 --> 17:13.055
and other dynasties of Chinese imperial history.

17:13.795 --> 17:16.775
And then, n ching history, emphasized this,

17:16.915 --> 17:19.695
the importance of the study of Manchu language

17:20.035 --> 17:23.095
or other ethnic minorities of the frontier areas.

17:23.685 --> 17:26.975
With regard to this novelty, the so-called novelty

17:26.975 --> 17:30.535
of ing story, most of the Chinese scholars who want

17:30.535 --> 17:34.295
to discredit the ing story challenge this novelty

17:34.835 --> 17:37.535
by saying basically that Chinese historians,

17:38.015 --> 17:39.135
Japanese historians,

17:39.715 --> 17:42.895
and even western ologists like Owen Lati,

17:43.565 --> 17:46.375
were doing exactly the same thing since the

17:46.615 --> 17:48.855
1970s, the 1950s.

17:49.905 --> 17:53.285
And, some scholars go even farther.

17:53.745 --> 17:58.125
For example, yang Chang in a paper published in 2013,

17:58.905 --> 18:03.725
go as far as Maji Japan to demonstrate the lack of novelty

18:03.865 --> 18:05.605
of the Chen history.

18:06.955 --> 18:10.975
So, for some scholars, it's so evident that it,

18:11.075 --> 18:12.735
the novelty is not so novel.

18:13.355 --> 18:16.975
Uh, there's an expression coined by Wan

18:16.995 --> 18:18.415
who reflects it very well.

18:18.915 --> 18:20.295
Uh, in Chinese, it said,

18:26.005 --> 18:28.695
meaning the new Ching story is not new at all.

18:29.155 --> 18:31.855
In fact, it's an old Ching history.

18:32.795 --> 18:35.935
So this old Ching history, this old pattern

18:35.995 --> 18:37.255
that's been recognized,

18:37.795 --> 18:41.935
and, some scholars like,

18:42.775 --> 18:45.935
for example, continue to

18:47.725 --> 18:49.155
study new Ching story.

18:49.295 --> 18:53.675
And despite this clear affiliation between the new Ching

18:53.735 --> 18:58.235
and Old Ching story, they remind that each generation,

18:58.425 --> 19:01.475
they were referring to different historical perspective,

19:02.055 --> 19:05.795
and they were applying different conceptual framework

19:05.895 --> 19:07.115
to their analysis.

19:07.855 --> 19:12.795
So it keep a, a kind of, part of novelty in the,

19:13.235 --> 19:14.275
Chen History School.

19:14.345 --> 19:17.275
Another example of the text analyzed,

19:17.605 --> 19:22.035
there are some authors like, for example, leeching young Ima

19:22.215 --> 19:25.955
or Han, who are extremely critical with regard

19:25.955 --> 19:27.115
to new Ching story.

19:27.935 --> 19:30.915
And, if we follow the argument used

19:31.015 --> 19:35.635
by leeching in a very famous paper published in

19:35.635 --> 19:39.995
2015, talking about ING story as a kind

19:40.075 --> 19:44.355
of neo imperial specimen of historiography,

19:44.535 --> 19:48.275
the reason why they are critical toward new Ching history,

19:49.065 --> 19:52.635
it's simply because it would tend to provide, if we follow

19:53.145 --> 19:57.395
leech's argument, historical basis for contemporary

19:58.055 --> 20:01.875
ionist force in, various areas of China,

20:02.495 --> 20:06.515
for example, the sensitive areas of Jiang, Sibe,

20:06.675 --> 20:08.115
Mongolia, and even Taiwan.

20:08.845 --> 20:11.275
These scholar, these very critical scholar,

20:11.825 --> 20:14.475
they completely reject the Newing history.

20:14.935 --> 20:18.795
The completely reject the distinction between China proper

20:19.095 --> 20:21.875
and the inner Asian territories of China.

20:22.295 --> 20:26.155
And they also, completely reject the idea that

20:26.765 --> 20:30.955
these territories, for example, TBE

20:30.975 --> 20:35.635
or Mongolia, these territories were conquered by the Manchu,

20:36.295 --> 20:40.115
and they espe, a contemporary rhetoric of

20:40.835 --> 20:44.835
reunification, like if it was a kind of natural process

20:45.215 --> 20:46.675
or a sacred duty.

20:47.135 --> 20:49.445
Among the, the methodological concern

20:49.515 --> 20:53.045
that I raised in my paper, one is related to

20:53.045 --> 20:55.685
what I've labeled the native's point of view.

20:56.345 --> 21:00.045
Uh, it's a term that I borrowed from Clifford Gits in his,

21:00.045 --> 21:01.605
1974 paper.

21:02.185 --> 21:05.125
The idea of the native's point of view. We can see it.

21:05.265 --> 21:09.565
For example, while some authors like Uli song,

21:09.955 --> 21:11.205
they clearly condemn,

21:11.205 --> 21:14.765
condemn the theoretical innovation made by New Ching story,

21:15.345 --> 21:17.245
they attack this innovation

21:17.745 --> 21:21.965
as being extravagant fabulation that the foreigners are

21:22.805 --> 21:26.725
creating in order to compensate for their shortcomings,

21:26.725 --> 21:27.885
because,

21:28.075 --> 21:31.165
they don't understand well enough the Chinese documents.

21:31.225 --> 21:35.285
So that's the argument of, OTs

21:35.285 --> 21:39.325
who are extremely ative, like young ial, they consider

21:39.325 --> 21:43.485
that Chinese historians, they don't need American scholars

21:43.905 --> 21:47.645
to tell them what is important to know about Chinese story.

21:48.185 --> 21:51.205
So they don't need to follow the, the fashion,

21:51.625 --> 21:53.965
the intellectual fashion of American schools.

21:54.785 --> 21:57.685
Uh, even scholars who have very positive

21:57.865 --> 22:02.045
and nuanced views, toward ing story.

22:02.105 --> 22:06.805
For example, in 2016, they reminded the reader

22:07.345 --> 22:09.485
the importance for Chinese scholars

22:09.985 --> 22:12.405
of correcting the Western theories

22:12.545 --> 22:14.845
and adapt them to the Chinese reality.

22:15.545 --> 22:17.285
Uh, the ultimate op is

22:17.285 --> 22:20.965
to creating our own theories about history.

22:22.385 --> 22:25.645
And, we cannot add basically the, some scholars

22:25.995 --> 22:30.845
with very positive views like Yo Mons, who take the time

22:30.865 --> 22:35.285
to express, the fact that even if Chen is,

22:35.445 --> 22:39.165
theories, are good, they're never as good

22:39.425 --> 22:43.125
as the angenous characteristic than toter

22:43.825 --> 22:45.845
in Chinese historical academy.

22:47.395 --> 22:51.935
So, this idea of the native's point of view on the line,

22:52.115 --> 22:55.855
the, the question of the foreign origin of Chen story

22:56.435 --> 22:59.855
as being something problematic for some Chinese scholars,

23:00.185 --> 23:03.895
especially the foreign American, origin of it,

23:04.065 --> 23:07.695
there are great number of very important findings related

23:07.795 --> 23:09.775
to the Newing story debate.

23:10.195 --> 23:12.575
Uh, some of them are pretty much positives,

23:12.575 --> 23:13.775
other not exactly.

23:14.115 --> 23:16.135
So among the findings, first

23:16.195 --> 23:19.975
and foremost, one is to mention the enrichment

23:19.975 --> 23:21.975
of our understanding of the process

23:22.155 --> 23:25.535
of acculturation in Chinese story,

23:25.535 --> 23:27.135
Chinese story in general.

23:27.475 --> 23:29.975
And during Qing dynasty in particular,

23:29.975 --> 23:34.255
when we talk about, acculturation concepts like cynic,

23:35.525 --> 23:38.775
ization, all different kinds of transformation

23:39.035 --> 23:42.175
of cultural identities, cultural transformation,

23:42.675 --> 23:45.485
we have a better understanding of these dynamics.

23:46.065 --> 23:49.045
And, what we see is none of the concept,

23:49.395 --> 23:51.005
whether it's synthesization

23:51.065 --> 23:55.765
or verbalization, should be the sole explanatory factor

23:56.065 --> 23:58.325
of complex historical dynamics.

23:58.385 --> 24:01.805
So thanks to, the debate, thanks to the work of

24:02.405 --> 24:05.485
American scholars and the answers of Chinese scholars,

24:06.425 --> 24:08.605
multiculturalism, gaining importance,

24:09.385 --> 24:12.685
and we have a better understanding of these dynamics.

24:12.685 --> 24:15.325
Another very important finding is related

24:15.585 --> 24:19.605
to the representation of China made by Ching emperors.

24:20.135 --> 24:23.565
While most of the scholars, especially in China,

24:24.025 --> 24:27.965
who participate in the debate, try to situate their ID

24:28.305 --> 24:30.045
and try to determine whether

24:31.065 --> 24:32.965
and,

24:33.185 --> 24:36.485
should be considered like equivalent political concepts.

24:37.025 --> 24:41.925
Uh, Chen Han they all talk about it from different

24:42.105 --> 24:44.885
angles, and we have a better understanding

24:45.065 --> 24:48.685
of the variability of the meaning of China

24:49.715 --> 24:51.325
from historical perspective.

24:51.715 --> 24:53.925
There's also a very important finding.

24:54.155 --> 24:57.125
This one, is quite, negative.

24:57.585 --> 25:02.085
The debate revealed to the world a radical incompatibility

25:02.355 --> 25:06.485
between some theoretical perspectives that are expressed

25:06.505 --> 25:09.085
by ing historians,

25:09.545 --> 25:13.285
and, some contemporary political assumptions

25:13.425 --> 25:17.165
of the Chinese state with regard to territory, with regard

25:17.325 --> 25:20.005
to population, especially in the

25:20.005 --> 25:21.805
various frontiers of the country.

25:22.885 --> 25:24.005
Speaking of frontiers,

25:24.435 --> 25:28.645
they have become over the last decade, the central topic of,

25:29.105 --> 25:32.885
of historical discussions related to China

25:33.145 --> 25:35.045
and to the Newing story.

25:35.425 --> 25:39.085
If we, if we try to conclude this, the implication

25:39.225 --> 25:42.765
of this research, Chen, is to re propose a set

25:42.765 --> 25:45.845
of very refreshing ideas with regard to the history

25:45.945 --> 25:47.125
of Qing dynasty.

25:47.905 --> 25:50.805
And this led to vigorous debate in China,

25:51.585 --> 25:55.325
and even if a great number of Chinese scholars didn't dare

25:55.345 --> 25:57.325
to speak directly about it,

25:57.515 --> 26:00.805
because the of the political sensitiveness

26:00.905 --> 26:02.925
of debating frontier issues,

26:03.985 --> 26:06.205
the debate over Newing history is

26:06.205 --> 26:09.405
to be seen like the first real global conversation

26:09.535 --> 26:10.845
about Chinese history.

26:11.905 --> 26:14.845
For the first time in the recent history, even

26:15.105 --> 26:18.685
for the first time in history, we have scholars from all

26:18.685 --> 26:21.965
around the world, from China, from the USA, from Europe,

26:22.155 --> 26:25.765
from Japan, even people from Quebec like myself,

26:26.345 --> 26:29.565
who are debating about the significance of,

26:29.795 --> 26:33.085
Chinese history from global or national perspective.

26:34.435 --> 26:37.845
Therefore, the debate over Newing story

26:38.505 --> 26:42.605
can be seen like a kind of matic EPIs, MA on which

26:43.145 --> 26:44.605
all future discussion

26:44.625 --> 26:46.965
and research about China can be understood.

26:47.595 --> 26:51.045
It's the first global possibility to determine a kind

26:51.045 --> 26:52.325
of global conversation.

26:52.955 --> 26:54.405
There's also the, the clash

26:54.405 --> 26:57.205
between contemporary political ideologies

26:57.425 --> 27:02.365
and the so-called objective scientific principle from which

27:02.585 --> 27:03.885
we, do science.

27:04.705 --> 27:07.445
It raises important questions,

27:07.885 --> 27:09.205
questions about censorship,

27:09.465 --> 27:13.245
but also, questions about, what is the purpose

27:13.505 --> 27:14.965
of historical writing?

27:15.745 --> 27:17.645
Who should be entitled to write the,

27:17.645 --> 27:18.725
his story of the nation?

27:19.465 --> 27:22.525
And, what should be the criterion of validity

27:22.665 --> 27:24.165
for this kind of history?

27:25.025 --> 27:28.845
Uh, how should we believe, who should we believe,

27:29.225 --> 27:32.045
should the criterion be scientific principle

27:32.145 --> 27:33.765
or national goal?

27:34.465 --> 27:38.605
Uh, by raising the question of the chineseness

27:38.825 --> 27:43.485
of the Manu Chen is to raise the question of the heritage

27:43.485 --> 27:45.565
of the Ching and its relation

27:45.835 --> 27:49.925
with contemporary China's territory, contemporary,

27:49.955 --> 27:51.805
China's political ideology.

27:52.075 --> 27:54.325
This question is of vital importance,

27:54.465 --> 27:58.445
and it was, summarized by, Ian Ebola

27:59.045 --> 28:02.165
recently in a 2020 24 paper.

28:02.985 --> 28:06.325
Uh, and I quote the paper of, Radan Bula.

28:06.755 --> 28:10.725
What is at stake is nothing less than the constitutional

28:10.775 --> 28:12.605
basis of modern China.

28:13.025 --> 28:17.085
If we want to avoid the ideological dead end

28:17.305 --> 28:21.565
or, the epistemological sack, like we say in French,

28:22.105 --> 28:24.845
this epistemological sack

28:24.905 --> 28:29.245
of contemporary political influences over the debate on

28:29.265 --> 28:32.725
Newing story scholars from all parts of the world,

28:33.035 --> 28:37.525
including the USA, including China, they should all accept,

28:37.745 --> 28:41.285
to my view that contradictory IDs can

28:41.425 --> 28:44.765
and should exist positively if we are to try

28:44.765 --> 28:46.685
to achieve something like a global

28:46.805 --> 28:49.165
conversation on whatever topic.

28:49.295 --> 28:53.685
Maybe, we say we live in a kind of interconnected world.

28:54.105 --> 28:58.085
And this debate over newing history is a perfect example

28:58.385 --> 28:59.845
of the global debate,

29:00.025 --> 29:02.965
the Doble challenge we are confronted to.

29:03.185 --> 29:06.645
If scholars are assuming what Richard J. Smith called

29:07.265 --> 29:11.805
LT schizophrenia, then the discussion engendered

29:11.865 --> 29:13.685
by the new CHING history debate

29:14.265 --> 29:18.245
can become something extremely fruitful, not only

29:18.305 --> 29:21.925
for future generation of scholars interested by China

29:22.545 --> 29:24.805
or by the history of the Ching Dynasty,

29:25.065 --> 29:29.565
but also for any global challenges we can be confronted.

00:00 - Chen story refers to a school of top that emerged gradually since, let's say the turn of the 1980s amongst ologists in the United States. First of all, then it gained a worldwide attention since the beginning of the new millennia. And, broadly speaking, if we talk about Chen history,

00:22 - it represent a major shift in the field of American synology departing from what can be called the third banking model of interpretation, which has been dominant for many decades. The third banking model refers to junkie third bank, father of American Sonology, echoing a clear postmodern revisionist tone. Newing history has been strongly influenced by cultural studies, by regional studies, as well as contemporary trends associated with, world history, especially the trends related to territory identity

01:02 - exchange networks, and the production of historical discourses. Thanks to the publication of rarely Studied archives in Chinese and Manchu Mongolian languages, and encouraged by the opening of China in the context of Geiger Kai. Fun at the turn of the 1980s, a new generation of scholars, they were nourished by common methodological concerns,

01:30 - and they gain easier access to the frontier areas of the Chinese territory, nurturing the study of the languages and the material culture of those areas, and thus bringing to the table new perspectives and new insights about Ching Dynasties is story so far from being, monolithic and static intellectual movement ing history addresses the history of the Qing Dynasty, the last one of the imperial, dynastic, Chinese history, which lasted from 1644 to 1911.

02:09 - So the, the simultaneously highlight the specificity of the Manu Empire with respect to Chinese imperial tradition, as well as its similarity with other political entities of the pre-modern world. Therefore, when we talk about new story, comparative perspectives are an, an essential component for these historians. Their discourse about China, challenge also the conventional wisdom of a unidirectional assimilation to a Chinese cultural norm,

02:46 - which has been the master narrative for, many years in the field of, synology. There are a great number of crucial historical and, cultural role as well as political Teams in the debate, engendered by the diffusion of the new Ching story and the diffusion of the IDs expressed by these American ologists, especially since the beginning of the millionaire, when the diffusion reach China, among the major teams of the debate of the ing story,

03:20 - one finds first the qualification of the so-called novelty, that Chinese historians are trying to assess what is so new about Ing story. That's among the first question. Another central component of the debate over Newing history is related to the question of methodology of research and, the purpose of historical narratives. Why and how do we write history books, and how do we use these history books?

03:53 - And, another component of the debate, mostly the mo, the most important probably theme of the debate is related to, what we call the synthesization of the man's shoes, which refers to a process of acculturation or a transformation to a Chinese norm in order to govern China. So the, the core of the debate over New Ching is stories lays in a very simple question, were the mans shoes synthesized or did they kept,

04:27 - mans shoe identity while they were governing The Ching Empire? Does the Ching Empire should be called a Manchu Empire or a Chinese empire? This question is perfectly illustrated by a very important controversy opposing Evelyn Roskey and OPNT in the Journal of Asian Studies in 1996 and 1998. As a sign of the importance of this debate, the controversy between ho

04:58 - and Roski on the issue of the Synthesization of the Manchu is perceived by many to be the starting point of the whole new chain is story ate in China. Basically, hop PT wrote an article in 1967 called The Significance of the Ching Period in Chinese Story. In this article, he stated, among other chings, that the Ching Menchu emperors were successful in maintaining their power, thanks to their policy of systematic ization, to which

05:34 - Roski answered in a 1996 paper called Reinventing the Ching, that contrary to the Synthesization paradigm, Ching sovereigns implemented flexible cultural and political policies according to the people and according to the territories, they conquered hoping t then Answered in 1998 with another paper called Al of Evelyn Ros's Paper, criticizing both her methodology and her conclusions.

06:09 - Then these two texts, that were, they were published in a historical journal in China, the Journal Research on Ching History, they were published in 1999 and 2000, and thus, the debate over New Ching history started to heaten up very seriously in China, at the beginning of the 20th century. There are great number of scholars associated with the new trends of American sonology during the 1990s. And, quite frankly, to speak only of New Ching story

06:49 - is always leading to simplistic arguments. That being said, if we focus only on New Ching story, the most commonly referred books are the So-called Four Books of the New Ching Story. these four books are, first of all, Evelyn Roski. She wrote The Last Emperors, A Social History of Ching Imperial Institution. It was in 1998. another one is Pamela Karl Crossley,

07:21 - A Translucent Mirror History and Id, history and identity in Ching Imperial Ideology Return in 1999. Edward Rhodes wrote Mans Shoes and an Ethnic Relation and Political Power in Ing and Early Republican China written in 2000. And last, but not least, Marc CI wrote The Mans Shoe Way in 2001, the eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Embryo China. These four books all proposed new insights with regard

07:56 - to Manchu ethnic identity, in relation to Qing China's political ideology. But the importance in the new Ching history debate has been slightly distorted because these four books were the core of two book review published in 2002. One of the book review was returned by, the title was Who Were The Man Shoes, and the other one was returned by Sur Taan, the New Frontiers of Menchu China

08:27 - and the Histography of Asian Empires. So because of those two book reviews, the four books, a for mentioned, they, they were depicted as the core books of this new School of top emerging in the United States. And even if other books, far more important, books like Peter Perdue, China Marches West, was written in 2005, have greater significance with regard to new perspective. these four books were considered the core ideas

09:03 - of the New Ching is Story Debate, but in, in fact, if we consider Solely the expression New Ching story, the first appearance of this expression is 2004. it appears simultaneously in two completely different publication. first there was another book review written by Joanna Wally Cohen. she wrote about nine specific books, I'm not gonna name it, name there, here,

09:33 - the nine specific books were all written between 1997 and 2001, and the other one was a collective book called New Ching Imperial History, directed by Root W Donald Mark clia, Philip Re, and James Millward. So, these publications, they set the tone and the del limitation of what is called the New Ching History. if we consider my, my personal research work, with regard to these, scholars,

10:10 - my research has been considerably nourished by most of these book since I was also studying the history of Qing China. But, contrary to them, my focus has always been to study the Qing Dynasty from the vantage point of international relations. First, I studied the evolution of the diplomatic relation between Qing, China and Britain from the McCartney Embassy, in 1793, to the Opium War of 18 40 42.

10:43 - Then a proposal comparative assessment of Q Qing Emperor's attitude and strategies towards Russia and Britain between 1689 and 1793. So I developed comparative analysis, comparative perspectives along the Marium and the continental frontier, in order to understand Qing China, in both cases for my research, the idea the manness of the Ching Manness of the Ching Dynasty, or, LA man that, mark Elliot used the,

11:19 - the French concept to name it the Manchu factor. It has never been a crucial factor in my analysis. It was never so important. So that's an important distinction, between me, my research, and the scholars. moreover, I cannot add that I never studied personally Manchu language. I never studied it sufficiently, neither Mongolian language or any other inner Asian language.

11:50 - so I'm not able to use those language effectively. I cannot use Manchu documents in my research. Therefore, my perspective with regard to this crucial academic debate is the point of view of an outsider. I'm an outsider from two different angles to complimentary angles. Very important. first of all, I do not master any inner Asian language. Like I said, I never studied Manchu Mongolian Tibetan. so I'm not in a position

12:24 - to correct the interpretation made by scholars with regard to archival source in Manchu or Mongo. Mongolian, I refer only to Chinese document and a foreign language document. The other, reason why I am an outsider from this debate is I specialize in the international relations of China, especially relation between China and the Western powers. Therefore, my scale of interpretation, my scale of analysis, with regard to this debate,

13:01 - is situated at a completely different level than the level of analysis of the authors, who emphasize the revelation between man shoes and arm in their works. This different scale of interpretation is, crucial, is of crucial importance for me, because for, for various psychological, political, or methodological reasons, the ethnic tension between the man shoes and the an identities in China does not bear the same importance when one studies the

13:39 - international relation or the domestic history of a country. So this perspective that I brought from, the international relation is among the key contribution I bring to this debate. I bring the point of view of an outsider in the field, not specialized in Manchu identity or Manchu language. There has been a wide range of responses and, reactions since the publication of the first text mentioning Newing history in China in 2006.

14:15 - And, some of the text I encounter, the reveal, an interesting open-mindedness with regard to the new ideas proposed by the American scholars, that were affiliated to Newing story. While other scholars are expressing completely opposite views, some are extremely critical in their complete rejection of the IDs. some are going as far as considering Newing history as a historical threat and a kind of, historical nihilism.

14:52 - Therefore, considering the wide discrepancies of reaction in front of the Nu story in China, I proposed a methodology inspired by rhetoric as a analytical tool. the purpose of rhetoric is to emphasize the ways by which a text conveys a particular message, and the focus is to try to find the narrative strategies, and especially to emphasize the arguments employed, in order to convince. So for this particular research I made about Newing story,

15:32 - my focus was on three specific points that are recurrent in mostly all of the text that I read, the, the text from Chinese scholars. First of all, there's the question of novelty. second, the methodology of historians and, say third, the translation of key concepts. just to give some examples of, how it transpose in the text. scholars who are in favor of Newing story, for example, CIA mon,

16:08 - sees ing story like a refreshing perspective. That's the word he used, in Chinese. It's, don, a refreshing perspective with their emphasis on the Manchu characteristic, a refreshing perspective that allows us to challenge the traditional dynasty history based on the theory of centrism Han, trying to answer the question about what is the novelty, lot of historians are using the summary made by thing, each one.

16:47 - who summarize this novelty in three specific 0.3, very precise point. First, new ch history proposed the integration of Qing Dynasty history into a global frame of world history. Second, n ching history, emphasized the distinction between Ching dynasty and other dynasties of Chinese imperial history. And then, n ching history, emphasized this, the importance of the study of Manchu language

17:20 - or other ethnic minorities of the frontier areas. With regard to this novelty, the so-called novelty of ing story, most of the Chinese scholars who want to discredit the ing story challenge this novelty by saying basically that Chinese historians, Japanese historians, and even western ologists like Owen Lati, were doing exactly the same thing since the 1970s, the 1950s. And, some scholars go even farther.

17:53 - For example, yang Chang in a paper published in 2013, go as far as Maji Japan to demonstrate the lack of novelty of the Chen history. So, for some scholars, it's so evident that it, the novelty is not so novel. there's an expression coined by Wan who reflects it very well. in Chinese, it said, meaning the new Ching story is not new at all. In fact, it's an old Ching history.

18:32 - So this old Ching history, this old pattern that's been recognized, and, some scholars like, for example, continue to study new Ching story. And despite this clear affiliation between the new Ching and Old Ching story, they remind that each generation, they were referring to different historical perspective, and they were applying different conceptual framework to their analysis.

19:07 - So it keep a, a kind of, part of novelty in the, Chen History School. Another example of the text analyzed, there are some authors like, for example, leeching young Ima or Han, who are extremely critical with regard to new Ching story. And, if we follow the argument used by leeching in a very famous paper published in 2015, talking about ING story as a kind of neo imperial specimen of historiography,

19:44 - the reason why they are critical toward new Ching history, it's simply because it would tend to provide, if we follow leech's argument, historical basis for contemporary ionist force in, various areas of China, for example, the sensitive areas of Jiang, Sibe, Mongolia, and even Taiwan. These scholar, these very critical scholar, they completely reject the Newing history. The completely reject the distinction between China proper and the inner Asian territories of China.

20:22 - And they also, completely reject the idea that these territories, for example, TBE or Mongolia, these territories were conquered by the Manchu, and they espe, a contemporary rhetoric of reunification, like if it was a kind of natural process or a sacred duty. Among the, the methodological concern that I raised in my paper, one is related to what I've labeled the native's point of view. it's a term that I borrowed from Clifford Gits in his,

21:00 - 1974 paper. The idea of the native's point of view. We can see it. For example, while some authors like Uli song, they clearly condemn, condemn the theoretical innovation made by New Ching story, they attack this innovation as being extravagant fabulation that the foreigners are creating in order to compensate for their shortcomings, because, they don't understand well enough the Chinese documents.

21:31 - So that's the argument of, OTs who are extremely ative, like young ial, they consider that Chinese historians, they don't need American scholars to tell them what is important to know about Chinese story. So they don't need to follow the, the fashion, the intellectual fashion of American schools. even scholars who have very positive and nuanced views, toward ing story. For example, in 2016, they reminded the reader the importance for Chinese scholars

22:09 - of correcting the Western theories and adapt them to the Chinese reality. the ultimate op is to creating our own theories about history. And, we cannot add basically the, some scholars with very positive views like Yo Mons, who take the time to express, the fact that even if Chen is, theories, are good, they're never as good as the angenous characteristic than toter in Chinese historical academy.

22:47 - So, this idea of the native's point of view on the line, the, the question of the foreign origin of Chen story as being something problematic for some Chinese scholars, especially the foreign American, origin of it, there are great number of very important findings related to the Newing story debate. some of them are pretty much positives, other not exactly. So among the findings, first and foremost, one is to mention the enrichment

23:19 - of our understanding of the process of acculturation in Chinese story, Chinese story in general. And during Qing dynasty in particular, when we talk about, acculturation concepts like cynic, ization, all different kinds of transformation of cultural identities, cultural transformation, we have a better understanding of these dynamics. And, what we see is none of the concept, whether it's synthesization

23:51 - or verbalization, should be the sole explanatory factor of complex historical dynamics. So thanks to, the debate, thanks to the work of American scholars and the answers of Chinese scholars, multiculturalism, gaining importance, and we have a better understanding of these dynamics. Another very important finding is related to the representation of China made by Ching emperors. While most of the scholars, especially in China, who participate in the debate, try to situate their ID

24:28 - and try to determine whether and, should be considered like equivalent political concepts. Chen Han they all talk about it from different angles, and we have a better understanding of the variability of the meaning of China from historical perspective. There's also a very important finding. This one, is quite, negative. The debate revealed to the world a radical incompatibility

25:02 - between some theoretical perspectives that are expressed by ing historians, and, some contemporary political assumptions of the Chinese state with regard to territory, with regard to population, especially in the various frontiers of the country. Speaking of frontiers, they have become over the last decade, the central topic of, of historical discussions related to China and to the Newing story.

25:35 - If we, if we try to conclude this, the implication of this research, Chen, is to re propose a set of very refreshing ideas with regard to the history of Qing dynasty. And this led to vigorous debate in China, and even if a great number of Chinese scholars didn't dare to speak directly about it, because the of the political sensitiveness of debating frontier issues, the debate over Newing history is

26:06 - to be seen like the first real global conversation about Chinese history. For the first time in the recent history, even for the first time in history, we have scholars from all around the world, from China, from the USA, from Europe, from Japan, even people from Quebec like myself, who are debating about the significance of, Chinese history from global or national perspective. Therefore, the debate over Newing story can be seen like a kind of matic EPIs, MA on which

26:43 - all future discussion and research about China can be understood. It's the first global possibility to determine a kind of global conversation. There's also the, the clash between contemporary political ideologies and the so-called objective scientific principle from which we, do science. It raises important questions, questions about censorship,

27:09 - but also, questions about, what is the purpose of historical writing? Who should be entitled to write the, his story of the nation? And, what should be the criterion of validity for this kind of history? how should we believe, who should we believe, should the criterion be scientific principle or national goal? by raising the question of the chineseness

27:38 - of the Manu Chen is to raise the question of the heritage of the Ching and its relation with contemporary China's territory, contemporary, China's political ideology. This question is of vital importance, and it was, summarized by, Ian Ebola recently in a 2020 24 paper. and I quote the paper of, Radan Bula. What is at stake is nothing less than the constitutional basis of modern China.

28:13 - If we want to avoid the ideological dead end or, the epistemological sack, like we say in French, this epistemological sack of contemporary political influences over the debate on Newing story scholars from all parts of the world, including the USA, including China, they should all accept, to my view that contradictory IDs can and should exist positively if we are to try to achieve something like a global conversation on whatever topic.

28:49 - Maybe, we say we live in a kind of interconnected world. And this debate over newing history is a perfect example of the global debate, the Doble challenge we are confronted to. If scholars are assuming what Richard J. Smith called LT schizophrenia, then the discussion engendered by the new CHING history debate can become something extremely fruitful, not only for future generation of scholars interested by China or by the history of the Ching Dynasty,

29:25 - but also for any global challenges we can be confronted.

Faculti AI can make mistakes