ChinaIn the History Research Institute last Wednesday (August 24) published an article on social media related to the "retreat of locking country" in the Ming and Qing Dynasties.
This paper was originally published by the Research Group of the Chinese History Research Institute in the historical research journal published in June this year. After the spread of social media, no one asked the academic article."Top flow" caused a stir on the Internet.
This article of more than 15,000 words is divided into six parts to detail the foreign policies of the central government during the Ming and Qing Dynasties.
The biggest argument that caused the greatest controversy was that the foreign policy during the Ming and Qing dynasties was not a "retreat to lock the country", but the "autonomous limit".This policy not only "did not block the Chinese and foreign economic and trade exchanges and cultural exchanges between the Ming and Qing Dynasties, but also delayed the bloody pace of western colonialists to a certain extent."
The Institute of Congress believes that "limit" is an independent behavior. Its motivation is to maintain land safety and cultural security, the strategy of defensive self -protection, and its historical rationality.
Lixi Research Institute also said that the measures adopted by the Ming and Western exchanges in the Ming and Qing Dynasties were mainly restricted, and did not fully close the door of China. It was not in line with historical reality with the "retreat".
For example, although the Ming Dynasty had a sea ban, "there was no prohibiting normal maritime production activities."At the same time, Chinese and Western cultural exchanges continued to develop during the Ming and Qing dynasties.
But at the same time, the Institute of Research Institute also emphasized in the article that this does not mean that it is completely correct.On the contrary, the limitations are very obvious: on the one hand, negative defense occupies a dominant position; on the other hand, it is indifferent to the Western advanced technology and exacerbate military and technology outdoor.
The CER also pointed out: "The autonomous limit is only in exchange for short -term results and a moment of breathing, and it has not fundamentally changed the fate of the Ming and Qing dynasties and the direction of Chinese society."
The Liberal Research Institute concluded that the rulers of the Ming and Qing dynasties had an unswerving historical responsibility for the backwardness of modern China, but the Ming and Qing society could not be tagged into a "retreat country".Nowadays, people can neither be a feudal system for decaying, the feudal ritual songs, nor can they completely deny the significance of the history of the Ming and Qing dynasties to China and the world with the "retreat of the country".
Academic articles have triggered online public opinion
The Chinese History Research Institute, which was established on January 3, 2019.It mainly undertakes related research in the field of Chinese history.
After publishing the aforementioned article with the official background, it has attracted great attention on the Internet and received more than 10,000 reposts. This number is much higher than other articles under the same account.Essence
However, there are only more than 300 comments in the article. Some netizens broke the news that most comments have been deleted.
Some netizens left a message when forwarding the article, questioning that this is "building momentum for public opinion", and some netizens criticized the History Research Institute as the upper "publicity port".
After fermenting the Internet, there is also a wave of public opinion in the media.
Among them, the WeChat public account "I am Yufeng" Sunday (August 28) published an article with the title of "Cating the History Research Institute 'closed country's lock state -owned interests'".The amount of reading broke 100,000.However, the article has not been opened normally.
The article refers to the retention of the research institute for many years of "retreat locking the country" that has been written in historical textbooks, and describes it as a positive "autonomous limit".But whether it is "retreat" or "limited". Whether its purpose is to maintain national security or to maintain the rule of Aixinjueluo's family, "people with a little common sense can distinguish it."
The article also questioned the research methods of the Research Institute, pointing out that the full text "basically not found any novel, convincing historical materials, and a large number of people are" a certain historian thinks "'' ''Point out the 'argument' ".
The article also specifically mentioned," Considering the current situation, the intention of this article is self -evident.Theory and historical latitude and weft support."I am Yufeng" revealed the next day, the previous article not only received the forwarding and references of two historians, Historians, History, and Xu Zidong."Infringement complaints" in person.
From the content of the screenshot, the History Research Institute accused the previous article "openly fraud, maliciously slander the articles published by our hospital, and used the" Refutation History Research Institute 'as a gimmick in the title, the blogger's eyeballsThe bad means have a very bad impact on our hospital reputation, and it is a serious infringement."
" I am Yufeng "and said, the retreat locking the country's theory is not irreversible. This is academic freedom, but if the research institute can use detailed historical facts and rigorous logic to prove its point of view, public recognition can be recognized by the publicIt will be higher, "but unfortunately this article is not."
However, for the controversy caused by the Internet, the WeChat public account "Silentless" posted on Monday, saying that from historical perspective, calendar, calendar perspectiveThe point of view of the research institute is able to stand, at least there is something that can be used, but the response of most people is to see this as a latest signal.
The article points out that almost these people are pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -pre -preaching thatThere is a common premise, that is: history and reality are still a continuous body. What happened in history, which has a potential subtle effect on the present.
The article also quotes a friend, saying that"Understand, it seems that the" retreat to lock the country 'is not ignorant, and the difficult exploration of the "inner cycle' in the Ming and Qing dynasties has long started!"
Hu Xijin: A sensitive discussion should be performed in the professional circle
In response to the controversy caused by the" retreat country ", Hu Xi, the former editor -in -chief of the Chinese official media.Posted on the public account pointed out that historical research should not be limited to existing conclusions, but advocate hundreds of disputes, but emphasizing that some sensitive discussions should be carried out in the professional circle first, so as not to bring unexpected extensions and associations in the public opinion field./P>
Hu Xi's entry point has the biggest reason for the controversy, that is, the two major concerns of China today: China and the United States are facing "decourse" and epidemic sealing.
But Hu Xijin believes that China ’s determination to continue to open to the outside world is very firm, and said that last week, China reached a difficult agreement with the United States on cross -border audits last week, which is the latest evidence of this determination.Hu Xijin also said that although the crown disease epidemic hindered Chinese and foreign exchanges, this was a short -term issue, and the amount of Chinese foreign trade during the epidemic period has been increasing against the trend.
Hu Xijin believes that once the argument about history is out of the small circle of the academic world and towards the public opinion field, it is easy to film the reality.Some people criticized the articles of the Academy of Research Institute, and the statement of "shaking" the country's opening to the outside world, and believed that the articles of the Academy of Research Institute were to reverse the "new closed -locking country", "this kind of extreme fermentation is harmful."
As Hu Xijin said, some sensitive discussions should not flow into the public opinion field, otherwise they will bring out unexpected extensions and associations.
However, what needs to be considered is why this original unpopular historical and academic papers have become a "sensitive" topic on the Internet and trigger the huge waves of public opinion?Perhaps this is precisely from the side that some Chinese people feel uneasy and anxious about the future situation in the context of the current situation of epidemic control and the intensified competition between China and the United States.
