English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article discusses an important political conflict of historical knowledge between Chinese and Anglophone academia. By exploring divergent perspectives either on long-term and coherent narratives of China or short-term and differentiated narratives of China through the founding issues of  Historical Review  ( Lishi pinglun ) established by the Chinese Academy of History in 2020, this article illustrates a ‘battle’ of narratives derived from different regimes of historical knowledge, either officially institutionalized in contemporary China or unofficially constituted in Anglophone academia. Specifically, by critically evaluating the discursive constructions of identity-driven historical narratives of both sides, this article gives a serious consideration to the  Historical Review ’s mission against the deconstructionist historical narratives. In so doing, I argue that even if it is true that the  Historical Review  contributors are nationalists and thus help radicalize Chinese nationalism, the liberalist deconstructionist historians of China in English academia are not free from the same types of ‘political contaminations’ by lighting the excessive fires of China bashing.

History in politics: a “battle” of identity historical narratives between Chinese and Anglophone academia