Why is it called The Great History of China? /kloc-In the past 50 years, the largest revolution in human history has taken place in China, which has changed from a closed medieval country to a modern country, affecting the ideological beliefs, marriage education, food, clothing, housing and transportation of/kloc-0.00 billion people. The situation does not allow us to measure by ordinary standards.
We don't talk about history by morality or textual research, but comb through thousands of years of history. In a few words, we have revealed the advantages and disadvantages of dynasties, and we can see Huang Renyu's unique historian's vision.
Huang Renyu's book, with just over 200,000 words, outlines the whole history of China for thousands of years. However, he did not show the characteristics of his "great history" because of his short space or his failure to describe historical figures and events in detail. The reason why Great History is called "Great History" is that the author changed the writing style of China historians in the past, and did not take the accumulation of historical materials as the writing purpose, nor did he take the description of a single historical event as the main focus of his works, let alone applaud the historical events close to the author's era. In the conception of this book, we first set up a big conception, "compress the existing historical materials by induction to form a concise and coherent program, which has a comparative scope and level with the history of Western Europe and the United States", and then do further research. It can be seen that this way of writing "grand" history focuses on the outline of the macro lines of history and the description of the shaping of history itself (that is, the type of civilization mentioned by Toynbee or the cultural form mentioned by Bingler), which highlights its historical characteristics in the mutual comparison of regional history. Although this kind of historical writing has no academic significance of quoting classics and textual research, nor does it inherit the usage of traditional historiography to assist politics or hide people's eyes and ears, it can exempt us from the burden of studying history. Therefore, we don't have to read history as "history as a mirror", and we don't have to regard history as a tool to carry forward a certain moral concept. Jump out of the value whirlpool of history "should be like this" and satisfy people's curiosity about the causal relationship of history "why is this".