Various Historian Outlooks on Chinese History
“Different strokes for different folks” as some would say. Modern historians who analyze the vast history of Chinese all take different approaches when trying to decipher the true meaning behind aspects of, for example, the teachings of Confucius or the proper translation of the word qi. For the most part, historians strive to be as factual and unbiased as possible; however, there will always be ones who input their own “flavor” when writing their take on Chinese history due to the fact that there will always be a lack of evidence thus leaving room for personal interpretation. This inevitable ambiguity causes many questions to the “word for word” preciseness of the facts. The lack and inconsistencies of evidence provided by history make it difficult for western historians to take a definite approach when analyzing the vast history of China.
It is because western historians do not fully grasp the aspect of Chinese culture is why many historian views differ and portray different views of, for example Buddhism, which introduces question to the how valid the facts said in the articles are. A reader may be studying about Buddhism from a textbook that gives him or her factual information while concurrently reading an article with a historian writing about his thoughts of the influences Buddhism had on the Chinese population making it difficult for the reader to digest the information. There are some parts of Chinese history that just cannot be cited as facts but interpreted “through scattered references [of] religious experts” (Barrett 142). “Many pre-Han and Han literature passed through the hands of men who were influenced” (Barrett 142) one way or another showing that many historians write their version of Chinese history when there is not actual evidence supporting the argument but just assumptions. These assumptions can be solely on the fact that the historians are looking at Chinese history with a western point of view. Without having gone through and knowing the culture of past, many historians equipped with western views find it difficult to analyze and puzzle out what actually happened. That is why many historians use the works of Sima Qian to get obtain their information that the historians use in their works. Sima Qian, the founder of Chinese historiography, being one of the major legitimate sources historians use to write their work because of the fact that he knew the culture and the background of the Chinese people and thus could make justifiable comments on Chinese history. Historians from all parts try to “fit Sima Qian’s history into a general framework…trying to convince their audience not only of their own credibility but also the worth of their subject matter, [that] stressed those elements of the Shiji” (Hardy 28). With that said, historians tend and extensively use works of only credible sources to establish their “general framework” before going off on assumptions they uniquely deduced. With the scarcity of evidence, the usage of works of Chinese historians, such as Sima Qian, and their knowledge the culture can aid western historians to better explain their view of Chinese history to their audience.
Especially with the China’s diverse area, historians face a challenge in trying to decipher the evidence found by archaeologists in that the consistency of languages and dialects make it hard for historians to make a conclusion out of. Chinese scripts were commonly used by historians to interpret the Shang dynasty; however, a significant amount of evidence were found to unable to “verify whether or not [the] marks are in fact part of a script, because none of the marks match any of the characters found in the Shang Oracle bones” (Schirokauer and Brown 7). Again, the lack of consistency results in the scarcity of credible evidence that can be used. Though historians know that the paucity of evidence cannot help them to a conclusion, yet they still end up drawing conclusions and portraying it to the audience using the word “probably”. For example: “ Most scholars now agree that the emergence of Chinese script probably occurred not long before 1200 B.C.E and that it was of indigenous origin” (Schirokauer and Brown 7). This brings forward doubt on whether the reader should or should not believe in the author. Even as factual and correct the textbook can be, the flaws become lucid once the authors Schirokauer and Brown show the slightest lack of confidence by using words like “probably”. The textbook at least admits that the evidence is hard to be found and the facts are only probable.
On the other hand, the texts from outside the textbook draw even more conclusions with a shortage of evidence. In a selection out of “Hawaii Reader in Traditional Chinese Culture”, the author classifies Mo Zi “as a utilitarian and a consequentialist” but then say “the issue is somewhat unclear” (Hawaii Reader 51). Then the author continues by answering his own question on Mo Zi’s view on heaven even though he or she knew the issue of Mo Zi’s background was uncertain. The author says that he takes on “an axiom that heaven desires utility” (Hawaii Reader 51). It is clear that the author put his or her own take on the controversial topic. Though he or she may be correct to an extent, this makes the reader feel a slight uncertainty of the information that the reader is receiving. Compared to the textbook by Schirokauer and Brown, the Hawaii Reader’s text makes more assumptions. Because a significant amount of vital evidence in Chinese history are missing or do not match with other parts of evidence, authors/historians, especially out of the textbooks, use the minimal evidence that are found to make educated theories.
Though most historians make minimal effort to write from a Chinese perspective, some historians like Benjamin Schwartz try to step into the shoes of a Chinese in order to get a better understanding of Chinese history. Stepping into a Confucian perspective changes the “point of view of a modern ‘developmental’ perspective [in which] quite a different picture emerges” (Schwartz 57) When Schwartz switches back and forth between his modern western “developmental” view and the Chinese Confucian view of history, he becomes able to make a more accurate assumption of Chinese history with a better understanding of Chinese culture. For most of his writings, compared to a significant amount of other historians, he explains with the perspective of both sides and seems to have more confidence. Additionally, Schwartz almost rarely asks questions compared to other authors such as Keightley and Loewe. Therefore, showing the “edge” he has over other authors essentially because he takes the attempt to take perspectives of both sides.
Not only are sometimes historians and authors biased, evidence leading to a certain parts of Chinese history can also be biased in that only one half of the truth is told making it difficult for historians to obtain the true story. Especially when collecting evidence to decode the events leading to the conclusion of a war, historians can never hear the story in which the dead or the defeated had to offer. For example, during the battle at Muye, Shang Lord Zhouwang commits suicide by setting his palace on fire when Wuwang of Zhou invaded the Shang Capital, Chaoge. This is story was most likely passed on by the Zhou who went on to eventually taking over China, but historians had trouble agreeing because of the fact that the dead and defeated were not able to let in their side of the story. These are the implicit inevitable flaws historians that historians will always have to deal with. Knowing that half of the underlying truth is still out there and being never able to understand the complete truth can be frustrating to many historians.
The ambiguity and inconsistency of evidence found in Chinese history make drawing a conclusion hard for historians to do. Because of the vagueness of the evidence found can be interpreted in different ways, many facts in the “book” have been often disputed. History can never provide the historians with a definite or “word for word” answer but only give them decent start for them to move from. Nevertheless, it will always be difficult for western historians to analyze Chinese history completely just because Chinese and western culture will always be so different. The day western historians can fully understand the Chinese culture is the day the western historians can take a direct factual approach on Chinese history. But until that day, historians will always be forced to use their modernity and intellectual to explore Chinese history.