According to my teacher, giving historians specific labels is not as important for China as, say, Russia. This is because the two areas of study span a huge length of time, so the historiographical debates are less clear than Marxist v Western liberal v Revisionist in Russia (and to a certain extent France) and so on. He reccomended we avoid giving labels at all unless they are very clear (for instance an obviously Marxist or official government source), and instead just refer to 'Chinese-American historian Immanuel Hsu' or 'British historian Rana Mitter', or maybe identify historians as Western/Chinese. That said, there's no compulsion to follow this advice since you shouldn't be significantly penalised, but he seemed to think categorising was not very important for China.
Instead, he suggested going through the checklist B.A.T.C.H, where: (sorry if you've already seen this)
B - Bias (ie Maoist/Nationalist)
A - Age (contemporaneous/modern)
T - Access to information (particularly to official records, also primary/secondary sources)
C - Culture (Western/Chinese)
H - Honesty (Similar to bias)
And try to mention some of these points when quoting a historian rather than giving a specific label.
This table I made the other day may also help - it's based on the Sowdon textbook which has a good section on historiography in the Chinese revolution.
Home
Help
Search
Login
