Chinese Colonial History in Comparative Perspective

Isabella Jackson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We are currently riding the wave of a resurgence of interest among historians of China in the nation’s colonial history. For more than two decades from the early 1980s, Western historians shied away from the topic as the field turned to “China-centred history,” spearheaded (though not initiated) by Paul Cohen. This was a necessary corrective to a tendency to see modern Chinese history solely through the lens of its interactions with the West: the “Western impact–Chinese response” model denigrated by Cohen, though his presentation of the argument of his former teacher, John King Fairbank, on “China’s response to the West” was a somewhat crude caricature.1 Cohen’s criticism of the field came of course in the context of broader convulsions in imperial history and area studies, with the emergence of subaltern studies similarly challenging the traditional narrative of South Asian history (the imperialism-nationalism dialectic). Rather than advocating a reassessment of the role of imperialism in Chinese history, however, Cohen demanded that the foreign influence be relegated from the forefront of its interpretation to the background, going far further in this regard than the subaltern school. This period produced a fine body of local and micro-studies and encouraged scholars to examine social, economic and cultural aspects of China’s modern history. But William Kirby’s bold statement in 1997 that “nothing mattered more” than China’s foreign relations in the Republican era of 1911–49 is entirely justified by the ways in which China’s politicians, intellectuals and revolutionaries of the time viewed the problems faced by the young republic.2 The significance of China’s foreign relations is equally true of the late Qing, the last dynasty, which was finally toppled with comparative ease in 1911
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Colonialism and Colonial History
Volume15
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Colonial History
China
History
Imperialism
Chinese History
Historian
Waves
Asia
Revolution
Subaltern Studies
Republican
1980s
Economics
Politicians
Interaction
Dynasty
Nationalism
Foreign Influences
Dialectics
Area Studies

Keywords

  • Colonialism
  • China
  • history

Cite this

Chinese Colonial History in Comparative Perspective. / Jackson, Isabella.

In: Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bf8f188236bc421abcf432eea1541eb5,
title = "Chinese Colonial History in Comparative Perspective",
abstract = "We are currently riding the wave of a resurgence of interest among historians of China in the nation’s colonial history. For more than two decades from the early 1980s, Western historians shied away from the topic as the field turned to “China-centred history,” spearheaded (though not initiated) by Paul Cohen. This was a necessary corrective to a tendency to see modern Chinese history solely through the lens of its interactions with the West: the “Western impact–Chinese response” model denigrated by Cohen, though his presentation of the argument of his former teacher, John King Fairbank, on “China’s response to the West” was a somewhat crude caricature.1 Cohen’s criticism of the field came of course in the context of broader convulsions in imperial history and area studies, with the emergence of subaltern studies similarly challenging the traditional narrative of South Asian history (the imperialism-nationalism dialectic). Rather than advocating a reassessment of the role of imperialism in Chinese history, however, Cohen demanded that the foreign influence be relegated from the forefront of its interpretation to the background, going far further in this regard than the subaltern school. This period produced a fine body of local and micro-studies and encouraged scholars to examine social, economic and cultural aspects of China’s modern history. But William Kirby’s bold statement in 1997 that “nothing mattered more” than China’s foreign relations in the Republican era of 1911–49 is entirely justified by the ways in which China’s politicians, intellectuals and revolutionaries of the time viewed the problems faced by the young republic.2 The significance of China’s foreign relations is equally true of the late Qing, the last dynasty, which was finally toppled with comparative ease in 1911",
keywords = "Colonialism, China, history",
author = "Isabella Jackson",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1353/cch.2014.0042",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
journal = "Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History",
issn = "1532-5768",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Chinese Colonial History in Comparative Perspective

AU - Jackson, Isabella

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - We are currently riding the wave of a resurgence of interest among historians of China in the nation’s colonial history. For more than two decades from the early 1980s, Western historians shied away from the topic as the field turned to “China-centred history,” spearheaded (though not initiated) by Paul Cohen. This was a necessary corrective to a tendency to see modern Chinese history solely through the lens of its interactions with the West: the “Western impact–Chinese response” model denigrated by Cohen, though his presentation of the argument of his former teacher, John King Fairbank, on “China’s response to the West” was a somewhat crude caricature.1 Cohen’s criticism of the field came of course in the context of broader convulsions in imperial history and area studies, with the emergence of subaltern studies similarly challenging the traditional narrative of South Asian history (the imperialism-nationalism dialectic). Rather than advocating a reassessment of the role of imperialism in Chinese history, however, Cohen demanded that the foreign influence be relegated from the forefront of its interpretation to the background, going far further in this regard than the subaltern school. This period produced a fine body of local and micro-studies and encouraged scholars to examine social, economic and cultural aspects of China’s modern history. But William Kirby’s bold statement in 1997 that “nothing mattered more” than China’s foreign relations in the Republican era of 1911–49 is entirely justified by the ways in which China’s politicians, intellectuals and revolutionaries of the time viewed the problems faced by the young republic.2 The significance of China’s foreign relations is equally true of the late Qing, the last dynasty, which was finally toppled with comparative ease in 1911

AB - We are currently riding the wave of a resurgence of interest among historians of China in the nation’s colonial history. For more than two decades from the early 1980s, Western historians shied away from the topic as the field turned to “China-centred history,” spearheaded (though not initiated) by Paul Cohen. This was a necessary corrective to a tendency to see modern Chinese history solely through the lens of its interactions with the West: the “Western impact–Chinese response” model denigrated by Cohen, though his presentation of the argument of his former teacher, John King Fairbank, on “China’s response to the West” was a somewhat crude caricature.1 Cohen’s criticism of the field came of course in the context of broader convulsions in imperial history and area studies, with the emergence of subaltern studies similarly challenging the traditional narrative of South Asian history (the imperialism-nationalism dialectic). Rather than advocating a reassessment of the role of imperialism in Chinese history, however, Cohen demanded that the foreign influence be relegated from the forefront of its interpretation to the background, going far further in this regard than the subaltern school. This period produced a fine body of local and micro-studies and encouraged scholars to examine social, economic and cultural aspects of China’s modern history. But William Kirby’s bold statement in 1997 that “nothing mattered more” than China’s foreign relations in the Republican era of 1911–49 is entirely justified by the ways in which China’s politicians, intellectuals and revolutionaries of the time viewed the problems faced by the young republic.2 The significance of China’s foreign relations is equally true of the late Qing, the last dynasty, which was finally toppled with comparative ease in 1911

KW - Colonialism

KW - China

KW - history

U2 - 10.1353/cch.2014.0042

DO - 10.1353/cch.2014.0042

M3 - Article

VL - 15

JO - Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History

JF - Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History

SN - 1532-5768

IS - 3

ER -