109
SUN YAT-SEN AND CHINESE HISTORY
STEPHEN UHALLEY, JR.*
Sun Yat-sen as historian has not yet, to my knowledge, been subjected to special scrutiny. There has seemed to be little point in doing so previously, certainly as a topic in itself. Yet, as part of a general study to determine the effects of Asian nationalism on historiography to include a probe of Sun's thought in this area does not seem entirely unwarranted. Sun, after all, is not being selected for attention as an historian, but as a principal historical figure whose use of history would undoubtedly have some influence on the work of at least some Chinese historians, to say nothing of a more profound effect on a more popular appreciation of history among the Chinese people. Thus, since Sun was so important, and because he was so prominent a nationalist in the Chinese revolutionary movement, it is logical to pay him some regard in this respect.
But if it is legitimate to scrutinize Sun's use of history in such a general inquiry, it is vitally important to make a necessary qualification in the context of this particular panel's selection of national representatives. This is to raise the fundamental question of equivalence. Without taking anything away from Sun himself, one might present a persuasive case for other Chinese representatives, and especially for one well-known living leader, as being more suitably comparable with Nehru and Sukarno. This is not only because of the immediately obvious generational difference, for Sun's day was that much earlier than the others on the scale of national revolution. Just as important, Sun did not live to see the achievement of his objective—national unification. This is a crucial comparative point, for whatever references to history Sun made in his writings were made in the course of the struggle toward an unattained major end. Unfortunately, therefore, there can be
*The author is Associate Professor, Department of History, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and was a former editor of this Journal. The article was delivered as a paper at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, March 23, 1968, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
†The panel, termed "Asian Nationalism and Historiography,” also included papers on "Nehru and Indian History" and "Sukarno and Indonesian History."
109
SUN YAT-SEN AND CHINESE HISTORY
STEPHEN UHALLEY, JR.*
Sun Yat-sen as historian has not yet, to my knowledge, been subjected to special scrutiny. There has seemed to be little point in doing so previously, certainly as a topic in itself. Yet, as part of a general study to determine the effects of Asian nationalism on historiography to include a probe of Sun's thought in this area does not seem entirely unwarranted. Sun, after all, is not being selected for attention as an historian, but as a principal historical figure whose use of history would undoubtedly have some influence on the work of at least some Chinese historians, to say nothing of a more profound effect on a more popular appreciation of history among the Chinese people. Thus, since Sun was so important, and because he was so prominent a nationalist in the Chinese revolu- tionary movement, it is logical to pay him some regard in this respect.
But if it is legitimate to scrutinize Sun's use of history in such a general inquiry, it is vitally important to make a necessary quali- fication in the context of this particular panel's selection of na- tional representatives. This is to raise the fundamental question of equivalence. Without taking anything away from Sun himself, one might present a persuasive case for other Chinese representa- tives, and especially for one well-known living leader, as being more suitably comparable with Nehru and Sukarno. This is not only because of the immediately obvious generational difference, for Sun's day was that much earlier than the others on the scale of national revolution. Just as important, Sun did not live to see the achievement of his objective— national unification. This is a crucial comparative point, for whatever references to history Sun made in his writings were made in the course of the struggle toward an unattained major end. Unfortunately, therefore, there can be
*The author is Associate Professor, Department of History, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and was a former editor of this Journal. The article was delivered as a paper at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, March 23, 1968, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
†The panel, termed "Asian Nationalism and Historiography,” also included papers on "Nehru and Indian History" and "Sukarno and Indo- nesian History."
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.