This article critically examines historical discourses in modern China and their complex relations with the outside world, most notably theWest. It delineates three noticeable changes in the twentieth century and concentrates on the period 1949-1989. Chinese experimentation with modern historiography began shortly after Western powers defeated China in the late nineteenth century. These defeats forced Chinese scholars to forsake the traditional sinocentric conception of the world and accept a new worldview characterized by aWest-China dichotomy. After 1917, however, the triumph of Bolshevism in Russia offered another alternative to Chinese searching for modernization. As a result, China's cultural relationship with the larger world changed from a dichotomous to a triangular relationship. During China's Republican period (1912-1949), liberal historians constructed a historical narrative modeled on the modernWest and regarded Marxist historical theory as an alien Other. After the foundation of the People's Republic of China in 1949, however, when Marxist historiography gained orthodox status, theWest was turned into the alien Other. After the Cultural Revolution and especially in the so-called "culture fever" of the 1980s, a younger generation of historians unsatisfied with the dogmatic application of Marxist theory in historical study turned again to the West for inspiration. In renewing their interest in Western historiography, these historians used the Western Other to challenge the official Marxist historiography authorized by the government. In doing so, they formed a counterdiscourse in historical narrative that (together with the emerging sociocultural history) reshaped historical practice in the People's Republic of China.
Cuius regio, eius historia – Macedonian Historiography and Identity Narratives, 1944–2011Macedonian historians – by calling upon certain past events perceived as traumatic and mobilizing deep-rooted stereotypes and prejudices against the neighboring countries – sought to manipulate public opinion. It seems that also today many representatives of the Macedonian elite still see the fight for position in the historical culture as a primary aim of their existence in the public sphere. They linked the current political and social situation to the so-called historical traditions and saw Macedonian national identity threatened by Albanian, Bulgarian, Greek, and Serbian nationalists. Past and current events are explained in such a way that they became part of mythological narrations.
1. The Chronicle of Bone in Bugis historiography -- 2. The definition of the work -- 3. The manuscript -- 4. The choice of this version of the work -- 5. Principles of transcription -- 6. Principles of translation -- 7. The nature of the work -- 8. The date of the work and the problem of the end -- 9. Early Western-language comment on the events of the chronicle -- 10. Previous editions and published translations of the chronicle -- 11. Commentary on the chronicle -- Appendix 1: Other manuscript versions of the chronicle -- Appendix 2: Absolute reign dates -- Appendix 3: Placenames in the chronicle -- The Bugis Chronicle of Bone: English text -- The Bugis Chronicle of Bone: Bugis text.
Abstract Traditionally, Argentine historiography has considered the many uprisings that took place in Argentina during the second half of the nineteenth century to be disruptive actions that hampered the institutionalization of the political system outlined in the Constitution. Historians understood these forms of political mobilization as a part of minor power struggles between elites who, through their behavior, perpetuated political instability and delayed state consolidation. Recent empirical, local studies offer a different view of political violence in Argentina during state formation. This article reviews those studies and proposes a new global interpretation of the concept and practice of violence for the period between national unification (1862) and the consolidation of the state (1880).
The limitations of the traditional historiography of the ethical regulation of biomedical research are becoming increasingly well recognized. A simplistic history has been used to justify a simplistic policy, in the elaboration of regulatory instruments associated with a bureaucracy of administration and enforcement that has acquired its own material interests in self-perpetuation and jurisdictional expansion. The official history of institutionalized ethical regulation sees a clear and self-evident line of descent from the Nazi experiments of World War II to the various legal and quasi-legal instruments that now govern most scientific and, increasingly, social scientific practice. Without regulatory interventions, it is claimed, researchers will revert to barbarism. Adapted from the source document.
Der Band versammelt insgesamt Diskussionsbeiträge zur Rezeption des Holocaust in Deutschland und in Israel und reflektiert die darauf aufbauende Gedenkkultur. Die Beiträge sind Ergebnis eines Austauschs zwischen deutschen und israelischen Studierenden bzw. Wissenschaftler*innen. Jan Gerber thematisiert Die Holocaust-Rezeption in der DDR. Er erklärt die Defizite der DDR-Geschichtswissenschaft in der Aufarbeitung des Holocaust mit dem begrifflichen Instrumentarium der Gedächtnistheorie von Aleida und Jan Assmann. Politische Interessen, die Abgrenzung gegenüber Israel, überformten den Diskurs in der Historiografie. ; The volume brings together contributions to the discussion on the reception of the Holocaust in Germany and Israel and reflects on the culture of remembrance based on it. The contributions are the result of an exchange between German and Israeli students and scholars. Jan Gerber deals with the reception of the Holocaust in the GDR. He explains the deficits of GDR historiography in coming to terms with the Holocaust using the conceptual instruments of Aleida and Jan Assmann's theory of memory. Political interests, the demarcation from Israel, overhauled the discourse in historiography.
Nowadays, the historical understanding of the problem of the unity of Ukraine is analyzed for obvious reasons and is explained by the wish to provide intellectual (scientific) protection of the territorial integrity, sovereignty, indivisibility and Ukraine borders inviolability. Moreover, the comprehension of the mental and ethnic dimension of the genesis of Ukrainian unity makes it possible to scientifically correctly consider the issues of value, ethnopsychological, and spiritual and cultural unanimity of Ukrainian modern nation. All this significantly actualizes the mental dimension of Ukrainian unity, which, according to modern historiography, is much more civilizationally stronger than the territorial one. Ukrainian unity was forming for a long time, and the postmodern transformations which the country is experiencing today are the verification of the strength of its political, spiritual, cultural, social, legal and other foundations. The Ukrainian national and cultural revival of the second half of the 19th – first third of the 20th century played an exceptional role in unity achieving. The conceptual and theoretical value of Ukrainian unity genesis analysis in that period was determined by its gradual crystallization, from the proclamation of the slogan to the legal and political institutionalization. The latest achievements of modern historical science on the mental dimension of Ukrainian unity in the second half of the 19th – the first third of the 20th century are analyzed in the paper. On the basis of problem-conceptual and comparative-historiographical methodology, it has been found out that in a considerable number of historical materials historical synthesis about the genesis of Ukrainian unity in general, the study of place and role of unity in the development of the ethnic identity of Ukrainians are of rather insufficient representation. It has been exposed that historians consider the Ukrainian national and cultural revival as a period of active formation of the idea and institutional shaping of Ukrainian unity not only in the territorial but also in mental dimensions. It has been found out that historians consider the meaning of «unity» through such components as natural-geographical landscape, human factor and Ukrainian ethnic, social and cultural, ideological, spiritual and cultural and mental factors, financial-economic unity and economic sovereignty, state and political factor, defense of the unity, its military-defense and information segments, geopolitical factor. It is noted that among the stages of the concept of unity at mental level development, historians name the politicization of the national movement in the second half of the 19th century, the meeting of Eastern and Western Ukrainians on the fronts of the Great War, the proclamation of the Act Zluky (Unification Act) of 1919, and the integration of Ukrainian lands in the policy of Ukrainianization in the 1920s. It is concluded that the comprehension of the development of the mental and ethnic dimensions of Ukrainian unity in the second half of the 19th – the first third of the 20th century in historiography has significant prospects. This is due to the fact that the mental and ethnic, value and spiritual issues belong to the methodological mainstream of the civilizational historiographical paradigm, which starts to gain its proper place in the modern Ukrainian historiographical discourse. ; В статье рассмотрено достояние новейшей исторической науки о ментальном измерении украинской соборности во второй половине XIX - первой трети ХХ века. Установлено, что в немалом количестве исторических синтез о генезисе украинской соборности в целом, исследования места и роли соборности в развитии етноментальной идентичности украинцев представлены достаточно скромно. Выявлено, что историки рассматривают Украинское национально-культурное возрождение как период активного формирования идеи и институционального оформления украинской соборности не только в территориальном, но и в ментальном измерениях. Отмечено, что среди этапов развития концепта соборности на ментальном уровне историки называют политизацию национального движения во второй половине XIX в., встречу восточных и западных украинцев на фронтах Великой войны, провозглашение Акта Соединения 1919 года, интеграцию украинских земель в политике украинизации 1920-х годов. ; У статті розглянуто набуток новітньої історичної науки про ментальний вимір української соборності у другій половині ХІХ – першій третині ХХ століття. З'ясовано, що у чималій кількості історичних синтез про ґенезу української соборності загалом, дослідження місця та ролі соборності у розвитку етноментальної ідентичності українців представлені досить скромно. Виявлено, що історики розглядають українське національно-культурне відродження як період активного формування ідеї та інституційного оформлення української соборності не лише у територіальному, але й у ментальному вимірах. Зазначено, що з-поміж етапів розвитку концепту соборності на ментальному рівні історики називають політизацію національного руху у другій половині ХІХст., зустріч східних і західних українців на фронтах Великої війни, проголошення Акта Злуки 1919 року, інтеграцію українських земель у політиці українізації 1920-х років.
The study traces the development of historiography surrounding the rulers in France in the 15th and early 16th centuries. In the first two parts, the focus is on the continuation and printing of the "Grandes Chroniques" in the 15th century up to the replacement of this leading text by the new, humanistically influenced works of Robert Gaguin and Paulus Aemilius. Along the way, numerous stages of development are reconstructed. Moreover, many historiographical works that have hardly been studied so far but were influenced heavily by the "Grandes Chroniques" are also discussed. For a long time during that period, the main topic of French historiography was the French Civil War (1407–1435) and the associated conflict with the English kings. The struggle of various parties for interpretative sovereignty over those decades therefore had a decisive influence on the development of French historiography in the 15th and early 16th centuries, which will be examined in the third part. - Die Studie zeichnet die Entwicklung der herrschaftsnahen Historiografie Frankreichs im 15. und frühen 16. Jahrhundert nach. Im Fokus steht dabei in den zwei ersten Teilen die Fortsetzung und Drucklegungen der »Grandes Chroniques« im 15. Jahrhundert bis hin zur Ablösung dieses Leittextes durch die neuen, humanistisch geprägten Werke von Robert Gaguin und Paulus Aemilius. Dazwischen werden zahlreiche Entwicklungsstufen rekonstruiert und auch bislang kaum untersuchte Werke thematisiert. Das Hauptthema der französischen Historiografie war in jener Zeit lange die damals jüngere Vergangenheit, das heißt der französische Bürgerkrieg (1407–1435) und der damit verbundene Konflikt mit den englischen Königen. Das Ringen verschiedener Parteien um die Deutungshoheit über jene Jahrzehnte prägte deshalb die Entwicklung der französischen Historiografie im 15. und frühen 16. Jahrhundert maßgeblich, was im dritten Teil der Arbeit untersucht wird.
Abstract The following is an account of an early Socialist approach to American historiography, including a biographical note on Fedor Kapelusz (1876–1945).
Book reviewed in this article:El Engaño de las Razas. Fernando OrtizTheory and Practice in Historical Study; A Report of the Committee on Historiography.
Радянська система була системою тоталітарною, у якій історіографія мала завдання бути не лише наукою, а й ідеологією. Влада контролювала діяльність учених та використовувала для цього всі доступні їй методи. У роботі представлено процес радянізації Івана Крип'якевича в контексті радянізації української історіографії. Вчений випрацював власну модель взаємнин із системою для забезпечення тяглості української історичної науки. ; The Soviet system was a totalitarian system in which historiography had the task of being not only a science but also an ideology. The government controlled the activities of scientists and used for it all available methods. The work presents the process of sovietization of Ivan Krypyakevych in the context of sovietization of Ukrainian historiography. The scientist developed his own model of interaction with the system to ensure the longevity of Ukrainian historical science.
