I think one reason I was leaning toward Texas Tim’s is 1) the size of the place 2) the Mexican Food buffet after and 3) the prices.

This is a topic though, that definitely deserves its own thread. Perhaps a post on Barstool Blues?

My ‘dark horse’ nomination (if they’re open; haven’t tried to check yet) would be Kro’s. Other than that, I oscillate between Rickshaw (good crowd) and Sammy’s (CHEAP).

Thanks for the reminder, I look over Hart’s list and I was struck too by the emphasis on religion. I suppose there’s an argument to be made there. I also liked the juxtaposition of Gutenberg and Cai Lun.

Deng versus Mao is a tough call, I suppose it depends how we judge the relative importance of positive and negative effects. On the whole, I’d probably lean toward Mao if only because without Mao there would be no Deng but it’s tough to argue the reverse. Deng’s ideas in the 1980s were first conceived by Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, and Deng in the 1960s. But it’s certainly a subject open for debate.

As for the Super Bowl…I was thinking G&D but a dark horse has emerged in recent days as I’m starting to lean more toward Texas Tim’s…It may be a game time decision, what are your thoughts, oh Master of the Barstool?

Have you taken a look at Hart’s list? I think Marx and Mao should rank much higher than he does.

An interesting question for Chinese students is whether they would place Mao or Deng higher. Almost invariably they will loyally nominate Mao. Founding the nation undoubtedly important, I agree; but freeing it from three decades of turmoil and finally setting it on a path towards modernization and integration into the international community – rather more important, I would suggest.

I think Hart’s list was compiled in the late 70s or early 80s, so he could little guess at the impact of “reform and opening up”.

I would agree that a lot of the call for “World History” stems from calls by some academics to ‘rectify’ the European tendency to write history from the perspective of the victorious.

While European civilization has certainly shaped the world as we know it today, History is not only the study of how the present came to be, but also how it was in the past. Two points: One, Europe’s rise is relatively recent (beginning not with Magellen, but really with the Industrial Revolution). Second, while I don’t like the PC overemphasis on peoples/events in the service of calming battered post-colonial psyches, as a historian I’m always conscious of teleologies: unspoken assumptions that what is was meant to be and that attempts to fit prior history into an unbroken line of progress to a set point in the present, discounting other possible contingencies.

As I said, it’s a fascinating debate, one that certainly fit for a pub…and I think you and I can probably find a pub handy in proximity and suitable in atmosphere to this debate. I propose we make plans to do so at our earliest possible convenience.

Ps. Thanks for the list and the idea.

Most of the points you make relate to the impact of China as a whole, or of its people, its culture, its trade. It’s hard to point to individuals who made their presence felt over such a distance. But keep trying – you may convince me one day!

I appreciate your need to fight your corner in asserting the value of Chinese/Asian history, which I’m sure has been long undervalued and disregarded in academic circles in the West. I’m fascinated by everybody’s history; and it’s a pity that time is too limited for us to study as widely as we might wish. It’s unfortunate, too, that people tend to focus so narrowly on their own country’s history. I always thought it was crazy that, until about 15 years ago anyway, American history was not on the UK high school curriculum at all: we studied Britain and Europe only.

However, I do worry that, while there is a great need for some balancing up to be done, some of these arguments for the ‘importance’ of (e.g.) Chinese history stem from a PC sense of colonial guilt. If you’re taking a global view from our contemporary standpoint, I think it’s entirely appropriate to prioritize European and American history, since these countries have led the way in industrialization and set templates for development that the rest of the world is following. That ‘world shaping’ focus shouldn’t be to the exclusion of other fields of study and other perspectives, of course – but I don’t think we have to feel embarrassed or apologetic about the Anglophone hegemony.

You haven’t really said anything yet to dissuade me about ‘isolationism’ either. China’s influence on Europe seems to be limited to manufactures, plague rats, and displaced marauders? As you point out, Magellan and others were actively seeking to open up sea routes to China. Europe sent merchants, missionaries, and ambassadors to China. Marco Polo was only one amongst hundreds or thousands who made the journey east. Who did China send in the other direction? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the Silk Road traders tended to be Central Asian peoples, rarely or never Han Chinese. It is surely significant that Xuan Zang and Zheng He are seen as such conspicuous exceptions in Chinese history, that the mere idea of a “journey to the west” is so outlandish.

Excellent points, let me respond.

I don’t think the argument against Eurocentric history is about being P.C., it’s about perspective. One of the great legacies bequeathed to the world by Greeks and Romans, is an inquisitive skepticism, that urges us to rethink old ideas and tropes every once in awhile, to see if they still hold as much validity in light of new evidence and interpretative methods. But as a I said, this argument deserves something longer, probably its own post.

As for the extent of China’s reach, I think we are getting hung up on contemporary political boundaries as the defining characterstic of human experience. Leaving aside for the moment that the nation-state is a relatively recent system of human organization, that Europe is divided into separate states and China is not, is more a result of historical contingency than some kind of internal logic demanding that what is, is what should ever be.

One could argue that the diversity found within China, both historically and, to some extent, even today, rivals that of Europe.

We might argue too that China’s influence extended from the Roman Empire in the west to the Straits of Malacca in the east. In terms of Europe, it might be noted that the barbarians forced out of Central Asia by the expanding Chinese state were those who set upon Europe and the diseases borne by travelers, traders, and raiders from the Sinosphere played a huge role in Europe’s history. Finally, I might suggest that the opening acts of Europe’s eventual rise were very much influenced by China/Asia: Columbus and Magellen were not looking for Australia when they set out on their voyages.

That European and especially Anglophonic culture came to dominate in today’s world, well that’s hard to argue against. But I worry about any teleological reading of history that suggests this was somehow ‘inevitable’ nor am I convinced that such domination is not subject to change in the future. Histoy can be funny like that.

As I said, I think this is going to be its own post this week and I really want to thank you for helping me to think about this subject.

Ps. It might be a little early, but I think your choice of Tim Berners-Lee is brilliant. (Though somewhere Al Gore is feeling snubbed.) It may well be that in three hundred years we’ll speak of him the same way we do now about Johannes Gutenberg. Nice selection.

I might ask: Which unification and which system? There have been many unifications in Chinese history, and the system of governance changed quite a bit between the Qin and the Qing.

Lee Kuan Yew is an interesting choice and I studied in Singapore for a year so he’s a figure that has always fascinated me. I suppose including him in our list really forces us to think about the parameters of our discussion–an ethnic Chinese, born in a British colony, who is culturally Peranakan, leader of a tiny island nation, winding up as an influential figure in China’s history, and you know what: you just might be right, we’ll have to see. The world is a funny place.

British and American figures inevitably dominate under my interpretation of the criteria, because of the pervasiveness of the English language and the fact that both countries have enjoyed a global military/economic hegemony.

My view is that ‘important in world history’ requires a trans-border impact. Just nominating people who were important in China’s history and saying “Well, China’s a big part of the world, you know” won’t cut it. I say you need to show the linkage to a wider influence outside of China.

By the by, a contemporary submission (non-Chinese) for the game, who is probably not as widely known as he ought to be in any country and appears to be completely unheard of in China: Tim Berners-Lee, architect of the WorldWide Web.