热门话题: 中美关系·贸易ACG垃圾分类军事电影








This question strikes me as strange. It''''''''s like asking why is the interbellum period such a big deal in Europe? why do Americans make such a big deal of slavery?


"Why is the Trail of Tears such a big sticking point for Native Americans?"“Why do the Jews care so much about the Holocaust?”Well because all these issues are obxtively big deals.

“为什么美国西部开发史上著名的‘血泪之路’(Trail of Tears) 被今天的美洲原住民看得这么重?”“为什么至今犹太人还把纳粹大屠杀看得这么重?”因为所有这些在客观上本来就是重大事件啊。


And historically speaking it''''''''s unfortunate because after the Opium War the Chinese were like yah let''''''''s use barbarian things to beat barbarian things, no big deal but it was the First Sino-Japanese War where the Chinese went oh no this system must change we must have a revolution.

这的确是一段不幸的历史。但如果说鸦片战争之后,中国人大概还只是“好吧,让我们学习野蛮人的方式,去打败野蛮人——没什么大不了”;可中日甲午战争(西方国家称其为第一次中日战争,the First Sino-Japanese War)后,中国人终于意识到“哦,不,这个制度必须改变,我们需要一场革命”。

The modern Chinese national identity is rooted in the result of the First Sino-Japanese War and not the Opium War, but for convenience, the CCP has placed a good chunk of history where it does not belong and ignore many historical achievements by the late Qing court.




The modern Chinese national identity is rooted in the result of the First Sino-Japanese War and not the Opium War, but for convenience of history where it does not belong


This is an interesting sentence. Most national identities are contrived – by intelligentsia if not by government. The Sino-Japanese War might have been seen as a bigger turning point at the time, but I don’t think it’s illegitimate that this has now shifted.


In the history of Rome, Alaric’s sack of the city in 401 was a much bigger deal than the end of the reign of the last western emperor in 476 – yet now we remember the latter much more prominently. Retrospectively some events take on a greater importance.



In hindsight in this case the Century of Humiliation now represents a downward spiral that hadn’t yet become immediately obvious.


National identities are mythologised collective imaginings – not factual accounts of history. Even where they miss an enormous amount of nuance – or even run counter to the facts on the ground – they are still valid.


China’s identity is no more or less contrived than any other. China’s history for the past ~180 years has been increasingly defined by foreign dominance. It’s natural to view the Opium Wars as the beginning of that trend




Century of Humiliation is just a section in Chinese history textbook. There are taught in school as an era of China''''''''s struggle of transitioning into a modern era. I beg to differ many narrative here that say it serve only the purpose of boosting up the nationalism of Chinese people.What they learn about the important history lesson of Century of Humiliation.:


1) Qing dynasty failed to adopt science to modernise China.


2) Ming and Qing dynasty protectionism and border locking policy make China failed to adopt new idea from the west to reform and evolve China. But they create a self sustainable ecological system it just not evolve.


3) When a country is weak it will be succumbed to and bullied by strong countries, in this particular case bullied by imperialism.



4) The seed of China revolution has been planted during that time and many school of thoughts come out so it is important to talk about it.


5) They lost a lot of wars and signed a lot of Unequal Treaties some still affect China until today like Taiwan, Macao. Hong Kong.


6) They face hardship when they try to resist invasion and strengthen their country. They tried a lot of methods through economic reform and technology advancement but also failed a lot of time. So there are a lot of lessons to be learned through their failure.


7) They tried to unite their people to strengthen the countries but there were a lot of political infighting, power grabbing and civil wars.


There are many historical lessons to be learn during that period because China during that period is a period of fail state. So there are a lot of article written about it, it is importan because ''''''''Failure is the mother of Success'''''''' and Chinese are a nation that emphasizes learning from failure and history... Some nation especially former imperial nation don''''''''t have this section in their history textbook so they may think China is using it to ''''''''brainwash'''''''' their children, I think this is a misunderstanding.



There are many historical lessons to be learn during that period because China during that period is a period of fail state......On the contrary, the western imperial and neo-imperial powers have equivalent, "here''''''''s how we screwed up, let''''''''s not do it again" lessons. The difference is, these lessons are typically about the imperialism itself.



For example, as an American, I learned about the american-indian wars and trail of tears in school, where the lesson learned was that we should endeavor not to act in these immoral ways again. But what''''''''s different from the way china does things is that, for the most part, the subtext of history lesson is, "we did moral wrong, but pragmatic good."


That is, that the american-indian wars still let us spread over the continent from east to west. It''''''''s impolitic for teachers to say "the genocide of the natives directly contributed to america''''''''s current wealth and prosperity, at least for the people who aren''''''''t descended from them," but the point becomes obvious when our education system condemns the actions taken, but not the results obtained.


Though funnily enough, that actually supports your main point-- that there''''''''s a mutual misunderstanding between western and eastern cultures. From the perspective of a westerner, the chinese government is instilling an extremely dangerous kind of jingoism that the west deliberately abandoned following the world wars.


From the eastern perspective, the imperial nations of the west are completely unrepentant, as they make all the right noises about having been morally wrong, but yet feel no desire to shift from the position on top of the heap that imperialism bought them.



Perhaps it makes more sense to ask: despite having had an arguably worse time of it, why doesn''''''''t India view the period of colonization as one of humiliation and shame?



People form their view of history mainly based on basic education, and in every country, history, as a subject in high school, is taught to serve specific political goals, and China is nothing special.


So in China, the century of humiliation is emphasized for reasons: Reflect the view of backward relations of production blocking the development of production forces according to historical materialism as a part of Marxism.



I think the shortest way of explaining this requires understanding of key factors。


The Chinese govt and the vast majority of the Chinese people today view themselves as part of an uninterrupted continuation of China as a "civilisation-state" (though that term is not used that often domestically, I think).



This factor is important because it basically means that events that may be perceived as "ancient history" (100-150 years ago) by other nations is perceived as relevant both culturally and materially for China today and into the future.


Imagine that in more than two thousand years, China has been the world's first-class and powerful country, and the huge gap since modern times has made the Chinese people who regard thousands of years of civilization as one have to reflect heavily. They have their own pride and never allow history to reappear!



I think most of Westerners get the idea of century of humiliation wrong.


It motivates the Chinese to self-strengthen, and is by no mean a vengeance motivator. They see themselves as the victim of imperialism but they don’t have a “victim mentality” that only blames the invaders and asks for reparations/vengeance.



The Chinese blame themselves more than anything for being weak, corrupt and incompetent themselves. They are not asking Europeans countries to repay for their crimes, they are not preparing for a war of vengeance. They never said they were entitled to something because of it or that they deserve something. So I don’t get why it keeps getting brought up as an example of Chinese government ramping up nationalism.


It does increase national pride when Chinese people see how far they’ve come in contrast to that time, but it is by no mean a way to stir hatred against foreign countries as a tool of nationalism.