Outline of China's Modern History I should pay attention to the study of China's modern political history. The study of China's modern political history was relatively neglected for a period of time. Since 1980s, the study of modern cultural history in China has risen and become a hot spot. At that time, looking back, the study of China's modern history focused on the revolutionary history and political history, and felt it necessary to broaden the field, so people paid attention to the cultural field. However, in the "cultural craze", there is a phenomenon of belittling political history. Some researchers believe that the study of political history is superficial and superficial, and only the study of culture can enter the deep layer of history and be at the center. Subsequently, the modern social history of China also attracted the interest of scholars, and the research on it was in the ascendant. But similar to the "cultural craze", it belittles the study of political history and even advocates replacing history with social history. Whether these statements are accurate is worth pondering. Although I study the modern cultural history of China, I don't think culture is the center of history. In a conversation with Professor Bai Shouyi, I once talked about what is the center of history. Mr. Bai believes that history mainly focuses on politics, and politics is the backbone of history. Although economy is the foundation, it is restricted by politics, and culture is more restricted by politics. Culture cannot be the center of history. Not many words, but very incisive. Samuel huntington, a famous American scholar, published the article Clash of Civilizations a few years ago, which aroused strong international repercussions. This paper holds that the future international conflict is not a conflict between economy and ideology, but a conflict between western culture, Confucian culture and Islamic culture. Obviously, this takes culture as the center of society and plays a decisive role. No matter in history or in real society, culture undoubtedly has its due role, but it is not in the central position and cannot play a decisive role. As far as the international community is concerned, the first priority is economic and political interests. The United States sells its values and culture to other countries to realize its economic and political interests. The fundamental factor of the Gulf War is not the so-called conflict between Islamic culture and western culture. Huntington wrote the book Clash of Civilizations and Reconstruction of World Order on the basis of the article Clash of Civilizations, which provided a comprehensive, profound and more detailed solution to the problems raised in his article. Although he still tries to explain in his book that the fundamental factor is the conflict between Islamic culture and western culture, he cannot but admit that "the Gulf War was the first resource war between civilizations after the Cold War". He said: "The most crucial question is: Will the world's largest oil reserves be controlled by the Saudi government and the government of the United Arab Emirates, which rely on western military forces to protect their security, or by an independent anti-western regime, which has the ability and possibility to use oil weapons against the West? The west failed to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but won some kind of victory, which made the Gulf countries rely on the west for security. Before the war, Iran, Iraq, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the United States competed for influence in the Gulf region. After the war, the Persian Gulf became the inner lake of the United States. " [1] thinks that the key to this war is to fight for the control of "the world's largest oil reserve". "After the war, the Persian Gulf became the inner lake of the United States", which are the essence. Countries with the same Islamic culture can fight each other for economic and political interests such as oil and strategic position, and they can also support and participate in the war against Iraq organized by the United States. This shows that the fundamental factor of the Gulf War is not the war between Islamic culture and western culture, but the conflict between economic and political interests. One reason for belittling the study of China's modern political history is that some researchers think that the political history written in China's modern history is a history of class struggle, and some even accuse it of "focusing on class struggle". Engels pointed out in the preface written in 1888 for the English version of the Producers' Party Manifesto: "All history (since the disintegration of the original land public ownership) is the history of class struggle", which is "the basic idea that constitutes the core of the Manifesto" [2]. Lenin also said: "Class relations-this is the fundamental and main thing. Without class relations, there would be no Marxism [3]. If we insist on the guidance of Marxism to historical research, we can't do without class analysis and class struggle theory. As for equating class struggle with "taking class struggle as the key link", it is a confusion of different issues. The weakening of the study of China's modern political history is also due to historians' emphasis on the study of major events from the Opium War to the War of Liberation, with many achievements. Therefore, the starting point of further research is higher, the progress is more difficult, and greater efforts are needed. However, these major events are not without further study, and there are still many problems that are not fully understood, and some problems need further study. That is, taking Sun Yat-sen as an example, a number of related materials have been discovered in recent years, but they have not been well used for research; Researchers have different views on his thoughts and other comments. In addition, there is no biography with high academic value and weight. Major events are an important part of China's modern political history, but they are not the same as China's modern political history, and they are not all its contents. The content of China's modern political history is very rich and can't be ignored. The study of China's modern cultural history and social history has expanded the field of China's modern history, which is undoubtedly meaningful. However, it is inappropriate to advocate this and suppress that. Politics, economy, culture, military affairs and diplomacy all need to be studied, which is necessary and valuable. Second, we should pay attention to micro-research and comprehensive research. In recent years, the study of China's modern history tends to be detailed, focusing on specific issues, and has achieved gratifying results. Concrete and microscopic research is necessary, which is the basis of comprehensive research, but if it is too detailed, it will become pure "fragmentation". Modern China has a history of 100 years, with many people and events. It is neither possible nor necessary to study all the details or minor problems one by one. Even if you study it, it doesn't explain anything. Detailed research needs to consider whether the selected topics have research value. The topics with research value should not only be practical, but also be clearly described, and should be investigated in the big background to explain the problems. On the basis of specific microscopic research, we should pay attention to comprehensive research. For a long time, we have done a lot of classified research and special research on the modern history of China, and we are qualified to do comprehensive research. In our research work, disciplines and majors, literature, history, philosophy and so on belong to different disciplines. There are ancient history of China, modern history of China, world history and all kinds of special history. People who study the modern history of China are different from those who specialize in a major historical event. This kind of division of labor is too narrow and specialized, which is not conducive to the development of history discipline, the cultivation of talents, the production of fine products and comprehensive research. Many figures in the history of China are familiar with classics, history, Confucianism, literature and Buddhism. The research on them should be comprehensive, not limited to one aspect. For example, Wei Yuan, in his works on the history of modern and contemporary China, mainly wrote his thoughts on managing the world, with special emphasis on The Atlas of the Sea and his famous saying "Learn from foreigners and learn from them to control them". Undoubtedly, Wei Yuan's thoughts on governing the country and his representative work "The Chart" should be emphatically analyzed. However, Wei Yuan is well-read. When he was young, he studied Yangming's mind and loved reading history books. Later, I followed my father to the capital, asked Hu about Han Confucianism, learned from Yao Xueshu m: ng @ ①, learned from Liu Ram, and practiced Zen in my later years. He has written a lot in his life, including Zhang Sentence, Ancient University Books, Yong Yi, Shuo Ya, Ancient Chinese Classics in Primary School, Textual Research on Ancient Chinese Classics in Han Dynasty, Original Meaning of Laozi, Annotation of Sunzi, Annotation of Dong Zi Chunqiu, etc. A profound study of Wei Yuan should not only focus on one aspect, but also need a comprehensive study. This is related to the knowledge structure of researchers and should meet the requirements of "general knowledge". A subject also has the problems of up-and-down connection and left-and-right connection, and strives to change the state of being too professional and separated from each other.