Honestly curious

[tanithryudo]

I've been browsing a few history related videos on bilibili lately, and every time there's a video that makes comparisons to western history (eg. Ancient Rome, Greece, etc.) inevitably there will be comments that essentially parrot the western pseudohistory conspiracy theory (西方伪史论).

They claim something to the effect that those "golden eras" didn't exist, those civilizations/empires were made up, those famous people didn't exist or never wrote the great works they're known for...It's all invented out of whole cloth during the Renaissance to justify/glorify Europe's rise to power. Or even more hilarious: that the root of all western science was "stolen" from Ming Dynasty's 永乐大典, which those darn pirates like Newton, Copernicus, Da Vinci and ilk copied from, and then burnt the original in the heart of Beijing.

It all brought back bad memories from when I was reading historical based enovels in the 历史直播 genre I was into a while back. Every time some reference or comparison was made to western history, there would be commenters of the same stripe coming up and claiming Europe is all fake history. These were more egregious on qidian than on jjwtx (though possibly because qidian is more conducive to comments in general and has more history novels and audience than jj, which is more concentrated in the drama genres). It was annoying back then, almost to the same degree as those authors not bothering to research history and just writing around common cliches/inaccuracies.

I used to believe that these kind of people fall into the same category as flat-earthers, creationists, Korea universal origin claimers, and generally idiots that normal people should ignore for fear of dragging down one's own IQ. But, at the same time...amount of noise I see also makes me wonder if the belief is more pervasive in the population than the above-mentioned kooks. Or is it just a consequence of China's larger population resulting in a larger number of kooks just by the statistics?

Surely this isn't a view that normal people who've passed through the mandatory public education would hold. Right? Right?

Comments

[cashew]

A lot of weird shit was taught during the Cold War on both sides of the Iron Curtain. As far as my experience goes (and this is not a representative sample because I live in a university so the average education level is slightly higher), no, Western Pseudohistory is not a dominant opinion most people hold.

Of course, you should also take into account that the PRC mandatory education only goes up to third year of middle school (equivalent of 9th grade in U.S. school system) and history is not actually a subject that's tested on the ascension exams. Western history is also not a focus, like at all. Just try to remember how much Chinese history is taught in during K-12. That's about the level of Western history that's taught in mandatory education, with an emphasis on modern Western history. Greco-Roman history is basically college level courses (if even), because unless one is going specifically into history as their major, they're not taking history classes, ever.

Plus, with a historic low level of trust in government and the inherent skeptical view of any humanities/histories/liberal arts material the populous has towards textbook material released by the Ministry of Education (because Chinese people are way, way too cynical to trust anything their government tells them)...I'd say conspiracy and kook theories get way more traction in general in China compared to the Western countries.

US has definitely more kook theory believers when it comes to science stuff, but China has more kook believers when it comes to history, probably because there's so much more emphasis on STEM in Chinese education, while the relevance of (western) history/political science/social science is...it exists?

[tanithryudo]

So does world history get taught at all in middle school in China?

Here, I recall that we maybe had one class for world history in jr high, and I vaguely recall most of the emphasis was on Ancient Sumer, Egypt, Greece. Rome and the middle ages were glossed over. Then the renaissance and age of sail got a bit of emphasis (but I feel that's mostly as build up to US history). Then in high school IIRC the social science classes were focused on the US, and more modern events in world history like WWI/WWII/Cold War through that lens.

I guess it does make sense that the emphasis on STEM in recent CN history would bias even the learned population against social science topics. Though, I was also under the impression that at least archaeology is a popular degree to pursue, if only due to the large amount of history buried underground everywhere in China. Or, does that degree only require credentials in bio/chem/etc. and not actually history?

Because I have also come across a lot of ignorant comments where it comes to actual Chinese history as well. People who support Qin over Han, Sui over Tang, who feel that 魏晋南北朝 was a romantic era to live in, supporters of 网庙十哲 (2)... And most recently, I have seen people who honestly believe that 李建成 would've made for a better emperor and a better Tang dynasty, and that 李世民 rewrote the history books (and public opinion throughout history) to glorify himself over his brother/dad. Just... reading their arguments made my brain ache.

I can understand why the government enacted censorship against alt-history and historical transmigration for TV dramas, on the ground that kids could actually believe it to be real history...

[cashew]

does world history get taught at all in middle school in China?

Not while I was in school. And history often got kicked to the curb for more math/physics/chem craming.

Though, I was also under the impression that at least archaeology is a popular degree to pursue, if only due to the large amount of history buried underground everywhere in China. Or, does that degree only require credentials in bio/chem/etc. and not actually history?

There's been a push for archeology, but that's in higher education (aka graduate level stuff) because current admin is obsessed with finding evidence of pre-Shang government. Current writing documentation is from Shang dynasty, and there's pottery and evidence of cities existing pre-Shang, but not enough to establish the existence of state institutions (as opposed to tribal governance). Because...politics.

People who support Qin over Han, Sui over Tang

To be completely fair, this might be a backlash towards the Han-Tang glorification agenda from...well, Han dynasty... The documents dug up from Qin era (stuff that survived the Han purge) revealed quite a bit of differing narrative. Like, you can't really ding 秦始皇 for depleting 1/7 of the population fighting nomads when 汉武帝 depleted 1/5 of the total population during his reign. As for the issue of 李世民 and re-writing history books, I haven't looked into it very much but from what I understand that seems to be the academic consensus. But again, not really my area of expertise, but those criticisms aren't coming from kooks.

魏晋南北朝 was a romantic era to live in

Yeah, I've got nothing. Those were shit times for everyone involved. Blame 琅琊榜 for being too popular.

[tanithryudo]

> obsessed with finding evidence of pre-Shang government

Noticed that too, along with how the rhetoric has been to set the archaeological/historical community as us vs them.

Feels like an odd area of competition to me, since the opponents are all dead civs. No one in "The West" claims any kind of direct inheritance from them. Not even Greece and Rome. America only admits that its founders were influenced by Greek philosophy, but that's as far as it goes. Most of the time, it doesn't even want to admit to inheriting culture from England/the Old World! (With the sentiment often returned from England/Europe.) Italy is definitely more closely associated to the Catholic Church than to Ancient Rome.

Also, I used to figure the whole "5000 years" thing was a relatively modern invention (because y'know, back during Ming it would need to be "~4500 years" and Qing would probably censor the whole line of thought), and possibly more metaphor (or rhyme/rhythm requirement) than exact dating. But now it seems to be a point of cultural validation. It can't be to gain the record of oldest civ, because it's still not gonna beat Sumer or Mesopotamia. Is it so as to beat Ancient Egypt for longest lasting civ?

> Like, you can't really ding 秦始皇 for depleting 1/7 of the population fighting nomads when 汉武帝 depleted 1/5 of the total population during his reign.

Sure, which is why I am also not a supporter of 汉武帝 like the hordes of fans he now apparently has. And certainly, the later part of 武帝's reign was close to going the same route as the end of Qin. The main difference there, is that 武帝 had a longer lifespan AND he had the precedent of Qin to learn from, resulting in him essentially pulling a political face-heel-turn to avoid collapse. AND, due to the Han emperors before him, he even had a blueprint on how to recover from the situation. Oh, and also, he had better luck with descendants and 托孤大臣.

But despite 武帝's modern popularity, he's by far not the whole of Han. And not the one I'm thinking when I'm talking about preferring Qin vs Han, etc. Or, another way to put it: Don't expect to be a noble if you ever transmigrate into the past. As a commoner, would you really pick Qin to live under over Han? Or Sui over Tang?

> As for the issue of 李世民 and re-writing history books, I haven't looked into it very much but from what I understand that seems to be the academic consensus.

Eh, I have to be clearer I guess. There is historical record of 李世民 asking to review current records, and record of him being rebuffed once or twice by the court historian, and one record of him saying that the records of 玄武门之变 is too vague - they need to be clearer that he was the one who killed his brothers.

So to be extremely technical, yes, he did influence the historical record of the time, and set the...official political stance I guess, of 玄武门 and his relationship with his family. But...really, all of the above is pretty much normal politics. It's not like he can ignore that big elephant in the room. If that's "altering history" and thus "Tang history can't be trusted", then you could say the same of all other chinese historical texts.

As well, the only piece of evidence these accusations seem to be able to throw out is that《大唐创业起居注》(written during 李渊's reign) has discrepancies with other Tang texts. Specifically it paints a better picture of 李渊 and 李建成, and so therefore it must be the most accurate first hand text and thus all other Tang texts are propaganda! However... this same text is full of "miracles" supporting 李渊's bid to the throne, and lacks any mention of 平阳昭公主 who featured prominently in the early days of campaign and was the only princess to be buried with military honors (with archaeological proof backed by her burial steele). So obviously, from a objective standpoint, this text is obviously not the most accurate. And for that matter, this text was cited in later Tang periods, and by post-Tang authors of 新旧唐书 &《资治通鉴》. So obviously this work was not censored by the Tang government (which is obviously not how "altering history" works). That the Song historians chose not to draw most of their depiction of early Tang from this work is certainly not something that 李世民 had any control over!

Like, does historical depictions of 李世民 consist of embellishment? Sure, that's inevitable for any famous figure, the moreso the more famous they are. But if anything, 李世民 didn't enjoy half the embellishment his court did (李靖 transforming into a god of the Shang dynasty :p, 魏徵 slaying a dragon, 尉迟敬德 & 秦叔宝 becoming door gods). But I don't feel that's necessarily something 李世民 commanded to be put into the historical records to "whitewash" himself. Success simply speaks for itself. How does the saying go? "...自有大儒为我辩经".

Did 李建成 get dissed more than he really deserved? Eh, IMO I feel that he's more ignored by historical scholars than actively dissed, but I also think that's more due to a case of '菜是原罪'. I don't feel that 李世民 ever needed to tell people to strike any positive depiction of his brother from the official record. The mere fact that 李建成 former supporters still enjoyed success in 李世民's reign meant that no one had any motive to support the loser.

And finally, if we really want to talk rewriting history, let's look at 朱棣's attempt to wipe 建文帝 from history. Its failure shows how such a thing is, well, not really possible.

[cashew]

Also, I used to figure the whole "5000 years" thing was a relatively modern invention

Just to give you an idea of how new: my dad's teacher was still teaching "4000 years" back when he was in school. The 5000 years is a bit of exaggeration, although it also comes down to if you're talking about "civilization" vs "culture". Because culturally, there's definitely people living in those regions pre-Shang (we have all the archeological evidence to prove it). But in terms of calling it a "civilization", the political (not anthropological) definition is evidence of existing government.

So, if you're talking about "华夏文化" (culture) existence, 5000 years might even be a conservative estimate. If you're talking about "华夏文明" (civilization), then the current accepted beginning is 1600BCE. (For example, the Chinese New Year and dragon worship both pre-dates Shang, but we have no way of pinning down the exact starting time of the cultural practice because the oldest writing we've dug up dates to ~1200BCE. Oral history is...iffy.)

Is it so as to beat Ancient Egypt for longest lasting civ?

I have no way to even guess at what goes on in the heads of leadership. I do know that there's Western kooks who try to argue Chinese culture isn't indigenous and is actually the result of Western colonization (aka all your culture are belong to us) and that the political entity known as China was the result of outsider coming in and wiping out the indigenous population. All the advancements in China is actually the influence of more advanced civilizations from the West. So uh...yeah, might be a response to that?

As for beating Ancient Egypt...my personal feeling is: We're literally the only surviving ancient civilization. Rather than trying to push back the time of origin, wouldn't it make more sense to keep the current civilization alive and prosper into the future? Like, isn't this obsession with pushing back the origin date a result of a lack of confidence in the future? (On the other hand, given current global ecological destruction, maybe there really isn't much hope for the human species past this millennium...)

Don't expect to be a noble if you ever transmigrate into the past. As a commoner, would you really pick Qin to live under over Han? Or Sui over Tang?

Hm, I think depending on which year of Qin vs which year of Han, peasant life quality is a bit up in the air (especially if you transmigrate into a Qin-born peasant life right after unification vs Han peasant life during, say, the really early parts of Han rule). Like I think people over estimate the general improvement of peasant life when transitioning between the two Dynasties. Same with Sui-Tang divide. Even under 武则天, women's social standing didn't rise very far, at least when compared to the more systemic uplifting of women during the Song dynasty.

But on average, yes, life was usually better in later dynasties because...well, technology. (Until the last three dynasties, swear to god Mongols caused so much social backsliding.)

I have to be clearer I guess. [...]

So yeah, I think this is a case of very specific issues and experts disagreeing on the reliability of primary sources getting way, way over exaggerated by lay people.

In some ways, it's like climate denial...

[tanithryudo]

> my dad's teacher was still teaching "4000 years" back when he was in school.

Interesting...was this around the 70s? 80s?

I did some googling out of curiosity myself, and found some info at least from the western perspective on this. Apparently the 5000 year claim started with Christian missionaries, then got backported to China during the Qing dynasty. Was actively pushed by the ROC, and now by the PRC...

I'm not as adept at searching baidu, so I wonder if CN sites have a different origin of the 5000 year claim.

> I do know that there's Western kooks who try to argue Chinese culture isn't indigenous and is actually the result of Western colonization

Huh, really? I haven't heard anything like that (even as critic response from the CN side). I have heard of kooks that claim that Chinese civ technically ended with Song. Or that Tang isn't considered "chinese" enough because their rulers have 鲜卑 bloodline (and are thereby directly cast out of Han ethnicity), and thus Han rule ended with Han.

Not sure if those come from western kooks or native kooks though, because as we discussed before, the state of historical literacy in the populace is lamentable.

> I think depending on which year of Qin vs which year of Han, peasant life quality is a bit up in the air

The main thing is, if we're just talking about the dynasty and not the Qin Kingdom, then Qin's only got like 14-ish years. So either you're among the statistic that dies young, or you're always going to smack into the war era. At least the length of Han means statistically, you've got a good chance of living out your lifespan during peacetime.

Sui is slightly better due to 隋文帝's reign lasting longer, I guess, though it had its own problems inherited wholesale from the previous dynasty he usurped. But most of 杨广's reign was a shitshow for the peasantry (which is how he drove the empire to ruin). Tang, the main dangers are the 8 years of 安史之乱 and the buildup to 五代十国, and I guess also depending on whether you lived near the borders or near the capital, but still, I think statistically, it's likely the safer pick.

[cashew]

Interesting...was this around the 70s? 80s?

60's.

I'm not as adept at searching baidu, so I wonder if CN sites have a different origin of the 5000 year claim.

According to Baidu (Baijiahao technically, but part of the Baidu wiki), same explanation. So the 5000 year math came from an attempt to map definitely questionable Han-era records onto the Gregorian calendar.

Or that Tang isn't considered "chinese" enough because their rulers have 鲜卑 bloodline

Oh yeah, that one was spread by Japanese media during the Sino-Japanese war. The motivation should be obvious. Kind of a shame modern idiots regurgitate that stuff, but y'know...failed history education is fail.

The main thing is, if we're just talking about the dynasty and not the Qin Kingdom, then Qin's only got like 14-ish years. So either you're among the statistic that dies young, or you're always going to smack into the war era. At least the length of Han means statistically, you've got a good chance of living out your lifespan during peacetime.

I mean yes, if we're going by statistical probability. But going by statistical probability, women are worse at math than men...so y'know, I think when it comes to the specifics of a story, statistical probability is really not what I want to see the author using to create the plot. After all, a huge attraction of fiction is precisely because statistical exceptions makes for much better stories than statistical norms. What is a hero if not a statistical anomaly? (Let's be real, if we use statistics as a guide for storytelling, most stories would be boring AF.)

Presumably we're talking about all this in terms of transmigration stories? Obviously if this is just about the actual history being talked about in a history channel, then the situation is very different. Statistical averages do matter at that point, but I've yet to see serious historical channels try to claim that the Qin/Sui dynasties were better than Han/Tang dynasties. And by serious historical channels, I meant things on "government approved" channels, such as CCTV-9 (documentary channel); not Bilibili/Douyin channels, which are prone to historical misinformation campaigns, much like Youtube/Tiktok.