[Home]History of Chinese history/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 12 . . (edit) December 7, 2001 10:45 am by (logged).191.188.xxx
Revision 11 . . (edit) December 7, 2001 10:43 am by (logged).191.188.xxx
Revision 10 . . November 19, 2001 2:34 pm by Chenyu [*Extensive changes]
Revision 9 . . November 19, 2001 1:29 pm by Chenyu [*add lots of stuff about early China]
Revision 8 . . November 18, 2001 1:49 pm by AxelBoldt ["inhabited for 1 million years" ??]
Revision 7 . . September 19, 2001 1:14 pm by Josh Grosse
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (minor diff, author diff)

Changed: 54c54,75
Let me save everthing and continue
Let me save everything and continue




More changes
* Song Dynasty - The Song didn't lose North China to the Mongols
* The Mongols really didn't get assimilated so I look that statement out
* Not sure I agree with the statement (among the common people)
* I changed the interpretation of stagnation into NPOV
* I removed the statement about the Ming secluding itself. It was popular to believe this about 40 years ago, but it's demonstratably false, and I don't know of any current historian who argues this and will gladly change this to NPOV if anyone else can. For a more updated view look at (The Sextants of Beijing) by Joanne Waley-Cohen or anything by Jonathan Spence. The treasure ship trips to Africa did end in 1430. The Ming did ban maritime commerce in the 15th century, *but* the ban was lifted in 1520 and there proceeded to be large amounts of commerce between China, India and Southeast Asia.
* I changed the view of the Qing to NPOV
* I removed the section about no cultural renovation
* I removed the section about decline, abundant bureaucracy and military weakness. At best they need to be rewritten as NPOV. Abundant bureaucracy cannot be objectively asserted as the Qing bureaucracy was much weaker than the Ming. Military weakness is a matter of the glass being half filled or half empty.
* I removed the section about there being little military resistance. There was a great deal of resistance. It wasn't effective. Also, the reasons for the lack of military effective is far more complex than a general "decline"
* Large areas of China were not ceded to the Europeans. The British got Hong Kong
* Rewrote section on Qing dynasty. A lot of the motivations were wrong
* The view about the 1911 revolution is the one that the Guomindang has traditionally used. Most current historians do not agree with it (See Wakeman's the Fall of Imperial China), and the Guomindang itself really doesn't care that much any more. I've modified it extensively.
* The next paragraph need to be rewritten, will do it when I have the time
* I rewrote the section on Taiwan. The situation there is extremely complicated and worth a paragraph or two.




HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: