本人写的书Language and State: An Inquiry into the Progress of Civilization, Second Edition于今年5月4日在加拿大出版。网上书店，包括亚马孙网上书店已有出售。本书论述人类社会中语言在建构国家历史过程中发挥的作用。本书共三部分。第一部分论述国家如何形成；第二部分论述国家如何治理；第三部分论述国家如何建构其精神。语言在这三个方面发挥中流砥柱的作用。

以下借用万维网刊登本书第十章论历史。这一章是论述国家如何建构其精神部分的第一章。基本论点是，人类使用语言后，用语言书写历史。历史成为所有人的共同记忆和观察、判断社会进步的一个尺度和标准，推进国家成形和声张社会正义。人类通过历史改善自己的社会，推进社会的进步。喜欢英文和历史哲学的人士，欢迎阅读。

Chapter Ten

History

                      1. The Presentation of History

History is a sort of knowledge about activities performed by people in the past. If people make comments on those activities, they may come up with some ideas. If they hold those ideas for a long time, those ideas may become a spirit of the state. History may become a sort of spirit that guides the building and operation of the state. But people will not share this spirit across the state unless some people disseminate it in the context of the linguistic communication to which all have access. The reason is that people continue to communicate using language and chronicle history orally or in writing. History then generates a spirit that motivates all people sharing this history to form or build their community, as history makes all the people aware that they are destined to build no community other than one based completely on their own history. So forming their state, people are required to learn about the state. As they learn about the state, they learn the history of the state. Learning about the history of the state, they learn the roots of the state and have a sense of belonging, and this strengthens their sense of loyalty. They build the consciousness of the community. Understanding their shared history prompts people to feel that they are all the members of a community, no matter whether it is a nation or a state. As noted earlier, the cultivation of the loyalty of citizens to the state is important for the building of the state. The granting of suffrage to citizens in European states, for example, has bolstered the loyalty of the citizens to their states since the beginning of modern times. Similarly, the building of the consciousness of the state has enhanced citizens’ loyalty to the state. The consciousness of the state also includes the historical consciousness of the state. This piece of history proves a correlation between language and the state in the building of the state. The reason is that one can regard history as a being supported by language through which historians communicate with the masses across the state. Chronicling history, historians disseminate historical knowledge and consciousness to the masses. Then history generates a spirit that guides people in the operation of the state. That is, before people started to communicate using language, they had had almost no way to learn the deeds of their predecessors. Since people started to communicate using language, particularly over long distances, they have been able to build their state. Building their state, they find that they learn their common history in the context of linguistic communication. The result is that people build their historical memory of the state in the process of linguistic communication performed by historians with the masses.

In short, the masses need to learn history, written by historians on the basis of historical facts, so that they can cultivate the historical consciousness in all citizens. People disseminate history in the process of communication that uses language because language is the only medium through which historians communicate with all across the state. That means that since people learned to use language, they have formed their state. Having formed the state, they want to learn about the background of their state. How do people learn about the background of their state? Some people chronicle history to help people learn history. History presupposes a process of linguistic communication between historians, who write history, and the masses who learn history, across the state. People depend on this process of linguistic communication to become familiar with the deeds of their predecessors, to draw on their experiences and lessons, and to solve the problems of current times. Thus, millions of people have no longer depended on kinship to maintain their community since the formation of the state. They need to rely on their own strength and judgment, drawing on historical experiences and lessons left by their predecessors, to build the state. They need to bolster a sense of belonging and loyalty through historical memory. Therefore, providing information about past events or figures through language, historians communicate with millions of people because language, as a medium, enables them to communicate over long distances, almost without any barrier. They create various forms of expression of language, using language as a medium, that are various pieces of the spiritual treasure of the state. They create historical stories, epics, memoirs, biographies, historical works, historical textbooks, historical dramas, historical movies, and so on. They also keep cultural relics with historical significance and use extended forms such as historical museums, historical event videos, and historical pictures, and so on in an attempt to disseminate history to people. All these forms of linguistic presentation or presentation are actually derivative media, allowing historians to communicate with the masses in ways that do not involve face-to-face contact. So if a historian writes a historical book, he normally does not contact the readers of this historical book face-to-face. But he does communicate with people across the state because he is able to use language as a medium to create a form of linguistic presentation as a derivative medium in communication with the masses without face-to-face contact. While people communicate using language, they also extend the process of communication using other media. They extend the time of the related process of linguistic communication. They also extend the reach of that process of linguistic communication. So while people communicate among themselves in the state, they write their history. When all citizens know their history, they share a sort of historical memory. This historical memory bolsters the building and operation of the state. This situation is quite unlike the situation in a tribe.

                Therefore, history, in the evolution of which a state takes shape, is actually a spiritual product of linguistic communication that allows for historians to communicate with all in the state. History depends on the use of language as a medium to communicate with all for its own existence and continuation. People create history not only because of the occurrence of historical events or the emergence of historical figures, but also because of the use of a language as a special medium. My reasoning is that history does not exist unless there is a process of linguistic communication among all people. The “history” we talk about actually consists of two parts. One part is the historical facts, namely, the facts and events of the past, and the other part is the presentation of the historical facts and events. As the historical facts must show themselves by virtue of their presentation, history relies directly on the availability of a language as a medium. Historical facts are known by all within the state because all use the same language as their medium. Historical facts attach themselves to the process of linguistic communication. History does not exist unless there is a form of linguistic expression to support it and this form of linguistic expression is used by someone to communicate with all people—possible because people in the state now interact with one another, in the context of linguistic communication throughout the state. Thus, people form and build the community, namely the state, by relying on linguistic communication in their interactions across the state. That is why people can easily understand that history is the record of past events or the past activities of historical figures or the masses. Since those events and activities have passed, people are unable to witness them with their own eyes again. They need to depend on the descriptions given by those who witnessed or experienced those events and activities first-hand to know those historical facts. Thus, language functions as a basic medium. Thus, people writing history rely on a language to which all of the following generations have access. With history being written and learned, language functions as a medium in the communication between the preceding generations and the following generations. So people, living many years ago, are able to communicate with people living many years later. This is why we do not know exactly what happened in the past in a tribe in the primitive society, but we all know about events that happened in the past, in current civilized states. Unlike the case of a tribe, in which the preceding generations largely stopped communicating with the following generations after they had died, a state is a community in which the preceding generations continue communicating with the following generations, due to the detailed narration of history.

                Of course, modern technologies facilitate the work of chronicling history. People use photography and video technology to chronicle history. These new technologies enable people to use pictures in the state of rest or in the state of motion to chronicle a past event or a past activity of a historical figure or of the masses. However, because photos and videos are small glimpses of history, and those who chronicle history and those who know the history normally live in different times, these small glimpses need the support of literal or oral interpretations given with the historical knowledge handed down from the previous generations to the following generations through communication. The application of language is still essential under these circumstances, so language that serves as a basic medium cannot be replaced. For example, in a historical museum in which people display historical pictures of a past event, we usually see explanatory written commentaries near them, or narrators or commentators standing nearby. They interpret the contents of the pictures. Likewise, a historical relic we see in a historical museum is a proof of history, but this historical relic needs at least some commentary. Otherwise the following generations will probably be unable to understand the true value and significance of this piece of history left by a previous generation. For example, today people maintain some historical sites in ancient Egypt or ancient Greece without any written materials to explain them. People have lost all the related written materials. Thus, current scholars have no alternative but to engage in the archaeological studies of them. That indicates again that language is the important medium. Nearly all historical relics depend on documentation to be understood. Benedetto Croce, a great philosopher of the last century, writes that:

A history without relation to the document would be an unverifiable history; and since the reality of history lies in this verifiability, and the narrative in which it is given concrete form is historical narrative only in so far as it is a critical exposition of the document (intuition and reflection, consciousness and auto-consciousness, etc.), a history of that sort, being without meaning and without truth, would be inexistent as history.¹

People may further write and learn history by using the presentation of history as a medium. People usually do not directly witness historical facts. They are aware of the existence of historical facts because they use language. History is also a medium through which historians communicate with the masses and the masses look for and get to know historians. Thus, the masses gain historical knowledge, and they even inspect some of the historical comments. As history can be considered to be a sort of medium, historians who write history can also be considered to be media because people gain historical knowledge and search the related comments from these historians. As the population of the state increases, leading to the formation of a state, the relationship of people within the state changes. People no longer unite simply because of kinship. To bolster the unity of the state and citizens’ loyalty to the state, people need to collect and keep information about the origin of the state. Therefore people gain historical knowledge and review historical comments provided by historians—it is impossible for each individual to retain detailed knowledge about history personally, and it may not be possible to fully understand history without assistance from historians. So historians emerge, collecting, keeping, and sorting historical knowledge. They provide historical commentary. When people need historical knowledge or need to inspect historical commentary, they refer to historians. Similarly, historical books written by historians are material media through which people search and obtain historical information. Historians and historical books are major media that provide information about history. Most people do not usually get any information concerning the state through personal visual observation. They search for and obtain related information using language. Language becomes a channel that circulates information about history. Whenever people learn about the history of their state, they enter the channel of linguistic communication.

As people turn to searching information about their state using language, language needs to function as an effective medium for people to communicate over a long span of time. In the very beginning, people communicated with one another face-to-face and they formed the tribe. The linguistic communication used in the tribe happened over a short span of time. Communicating face-to-face, tribal people performed only spoken communication. Face-to-face spoken communication, which was ephemeral, usually happened over a short span of time. If people maintained memories of the past, such memories were presented through legends, folk tales, and myths. As they had no calendar, they could not date past events, and because they could not date past events, people could not make a clear sense of the growth of their community. Later, people began strengthening human-chain linguistic communication, which allowed people to extend the span of time. Extending the span of time in communication prompted people to create various forms of expression. Some talented people who functioned as chains in human-chain linguistic communication created some forms of expression to boost linguistic communication. These forms included poetry, drama, and other forms. These forms extended the distance of linguistic communication and hence extended the time and the reach of linguistic communication. For example, people recited poems or appreciated dramas. Both poetry and drama were created to extend the distance, time, and reach of linguistic communication. Then epics and historical dramas appeared. Thus, for instance, the epic becomes perhaps one of the earliest major literary expression forms created by humans to chronicle their history, so as to maintain and disseminate their historical memory. A case in point is the Homeric Epics created by Greeks in the seventh or eighth century BC.

                This demonstrates that human-chain linguistic communication is important in the narration of history. Without human-chain linguistic communication, a description of an event or figure of the past will never be a piece of history. In some sense, human-chain linguistic communication is the origin of human history, although any history must be based on the existence of an event or figure from the past. That is, a chain that exists at a time in history plays a role in handing down information about an event or a figure. In the beginning, humans acted as such chains in handing down history. Such history was often a brief oral account of an event or a figure. No detailed accounts of these events or figures were given. Usually these accounts were delivered as engaging stories about a hero or an ancestor. This kind of story was often a legend, or even something similar to a myth. Such a story often covered a short period of time and was often a narrative revolving around the prodigious life of a hero or an ancestor. The lifetime of such a figure was short. These stories do not necessarily represent a long process of human history. In these circumstances, history is only a period of time. History cannot extend because such history excludes historical evolution.

                The appearance of history written by humans is an important development. In the beginning, humans used materials they could find directly. They wrote their texts on those materials. These materials functioned as chains in handing down history. They replaced humans. The Chinese wrote their texts on oracle bones in the beginning. Texts on oracle bones appeared first in the period of Shang Dynasty (1600–1046 BC). Yet as oracle bones can only offer a limited space for writing, the description of an event or a figure is simple and even abstruse because people may have to decipher it using archeological knowledge. In the period of Warring States (770–221 BC), Chinese writers used bamboo slips as writing materials. As large quantities of bamboo slips could be supplied, books appeared. However, as history is usually a narrative of a long period of time, the required presentation should also be long. Bamboo slips offered only a limited space for writing, so they could not become the materials for writing a piece of history. The invention of paper in about 105 AD finally made it possible for people to write history.

In the West, writing is also a crucial foundation for the creation of history. In Greece, the Homeric Epics represent the method of creating history, as mentioned earlier. The Homeric Epics record only a short piece of Greek history. They look like myths, in some sense. They are not always detailed descriptions of Greek living in the past. They are often regarded by people as literary works. They were created by multiple people—possibly people who lived in different periods in time, so they may not be exact records of Greek history. For events that are described, some important details may be omitted. An event may be described as happening on one day, rather than on an exact date that can be identified according to the calendar, for example. Some details may also be vague. The description of the course of an event may be incomplete. The description of a historical figure may be full of imagined detail.

After a long period of using oral accounts of history, the ancient Greeks turned to writing history. C. Hignett writes that “In Greece the writing of history did not begin until the fifth century.”² Papyrus was the main material for writing, and in medieval times, Europeans wrote their history on parchment. As the supply of parchment was limited, parchment was expensive. Ordinary people might not be able to see parchment books with their own eyes. Producing and increased supplies of paper popularized its use. From late medieval times onward, Europeans have been writing their history on paper. Historiography has flourished ever since. As Florian Coulmas argues, “Historical knowledge, in other words, is closely linked with written records.”³

So there exists a close correlation between language and history. A course of development from using spoken language only to using written language together with spoken language underlies the birth of human history. As history is a long process of linguistic communication, creating history is also the task of giving accounts of human social practice over a long period of time. As humans continue to create new media for linguistic communication, they extend the distance of linguistic communication, step by step. The extension of the distance of linguistic communication serves as a basis for the development of historiography. In some sense, history is just the presentation of important events happening, or important figures emerging, throughout history, presented using language. After the humans of the preceding period of time pass away, the following generations will recall them, and draw experiences and lessons from them. Humans will write, and they will also give an oral account of history, whenever necessary. They create their history in the whole process of history. All states have their own history.

2. The Memory of History

Unlike the situation in relation to the formation of a tribe, in which there was no history except for some memory of the past, preserved in the form of myth, legend, or folk tale that supported the operation of the tribe, history is part of the resources of spirit in the formation of the state because people found their state in the process of linguistic communication in relation to the history of civilization. That means that people, when writing their history, have a memory of history. This memory of history often generates a humanistic spirit that guides the operation of the state. The state people form is not merely different from a tribe in terms of size. The state relies on support given by a humanistic spirit. The significance of history is that, in some sense, the creation of history marks the beginning of a process in which humans depart from a primitive society, in which the tribe was the main form of community, to march toward a civilized society, in which the state is the main form of community. History is a spiritual resource exploited by humans in the growth of the state because, along with the growth of the state, people always draw on experiences and lessons from the production, or the governance, of the society. Comparing the evolution of a tribe with the evolution of a state, we clearly see that no tribe in the primitive society had any true history, but every state in civilized society has its own history. People normally did not know the past of a tribe, but people usually know the past of a state.

                Thus, keeping their memory of the past, people tell their stories and their following generations learn these stories. Their memory of the past influences the building of the state. The reason is that since people dissolved their tribes and built their state, it has been hopeless for them to rely on kinship to keep the unity of the state. They have to form a state under new circumstances. Forming their state as a new community, people often need to have a common memory of the community. That means that with history being compiled, narrated, and remembered, people gain and retain the same historical memory. They have similar knowledge about their past, passed on by previous generations through articulation or presentation. As such, although the people of the following generations are larger in number, they may be connected by the consciousness of the origin of the community, in which they grow. They may become spiritually close to one another because they can trace their community back to the history in which their common forebears founded their community. People tend to write their history and trace their past to find the common roots of all the members of their community. They strengthen the cohesion of the people or the nation, maintain the unity of the state, and fortify the people’s loyalty to the state. For example, talking about their history, people very often mention the origin of their nation or state. In doing this, they remain aware that their nation or state takes form on the basis of an original small group of people residing at a certain place. They find that they are close to one another. They may even believe that they have common remote ancestors. Although people now do not have any direct blood relationship with each other, in most cases, they may imagine a blood relationship to bolster the unity of the state; narrating the stories of their ancestors through the use of language often helps them learn the origin of people’s families. People may imagine blood relationships in a large human community because people can narrate the deeds of their predecessors living long ago. For example, Vico writes that: “The fathers of the first gentes were the first strong men of history.”⁴ His remark implies that history originates with the fathers of a group of people living long ago. So tracing their community back to a group of people supposed to have been there long ago, people sometimes engage in ancestor worship. Engaging in ancestor worship, people perform spiritual activities on the basis of historical memory. While a human community grows in size, leading to the birth of a state, along with a weakening of the emotional ties between one person and another because kinship or blood relationship attenuates, recollecting the common ancestors may encourage all the members of the community to associate together once again. Thus, with a spirit being built through the cult of ancestors, people tend to learn about their common origin.

Showing respect to the ancestors is sometimes also helpful in recovering the common identity of all and learning about the roots of a nation-state. People tend to unite. In China, the Chinese maintain their memory of Huang Di and Yan Di―the ancestors of the nation―through the legends or books written by the ancients through the narration of the Chinese history of about four thousand years. Because of these legends and books, following generations maintain their national feelings, the common values of the Chinese culture, and the national identity of the Chinese people. A case in point is that, even now that Mainland China and Taiwan are separated from each other in reality, some Chinese social organizations, hoping to see the final unification of the fatherland, are still active in arranging the rite of worship of Huang Di and Yan Di in an attempt to bolster the common national consciousness and show that all Chinese share one culture, one history, and common ancestors. By holding this rite, they also intend to show that all Chinese share one fatherland. As there are two political entities within one China now, recollecting the common remote ancestors means healing the political trauma caused by the civil war in the past. Of course, the consciousness of blood relationship attenuates when a tribe has grown into a nation. But if people recollect the origin of a nation or a state, historical memory may buttress the unity of the state because historical memory may arouse the imagination of that blood relationship. Thus, history becomes a resource of spirit.

                Needless to say, ancestor worship is not the only way to show the spiritual power of history. People’s admiration for the heroes in history is a similar phenomenon. Heroes usually make a great contribution to the growth of the nation or the state. Every citizen of the state benefits from the contribution made by the heroes of the nation or the state. Therefore, acknowledging the contribution made by heroes in history, people strengthen their common historical memory. Heroes in history are often presented positively and mentioned and admired by people. In France, for example, people may feel proud that they have the historical heroine, Joan of Arc, who led the French army in the fight to recover their homeland from the English domination. There are also many other historical heroes and heroines admired by the French people.

                The founding fathers of the nation-state may also be remembered, as they are often considered to be great contributors of the nation-state. In Italy, people remember Giuseppe Garibaldi, Giuseppe Mazzini, and others, who contributed to the formation of a unified Italy in 1861, as the fathers of the country. In the United States, people pay respects to the founding fathers, such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and others, who contributed to the founding of the United States in 1776. Canada presents a similar picture. In this country, contemporary Canadians pay respects to some important politicians such as John A. Macdonald, who played a role in the process leading to Canadian Confederation in 1867.

                The worship of ancestors, the admiration for historical heroes or heroines, and the remembrance of founding fathers involve a process of using language as a medium in support of the operation of the state. If political rivalry leads to a rift between two separate political entities within a state, or if political struggle waged by different political camps affects the unity of the state, the worship of ancestors, the admiration for historical heroes or heroines, and the remembrance of the founding fathers may fortify the unity of the state. This is because in doing so, people narrate history, affirm the process of the growth of the state, and try to reinforce the cohesion of the state. This activity may prevent the disunity of the nation-state. So history is also the genealogy of a nation-state.

As all people are interlinked by history, historical memory may enable people to directly create the narrative of the state, because the state is part of history. With some people writing history and others learning history, people create, share, and keep the same historical memory. Historical memory enables a state to exist for a long period of time. Specifically, the history of a nation belongs to that nation. A nation may exist over a longer span of time than a state. However, if the state is formed by the people who have the historical memory of a nation, that state may extend its life, or at least gain some vitality in its growth. So chronicling history bolsters the growth of the state. This is because people, forming a state, usually show some common and unique characteristics, including the characteristics that take shape because of sharing the common and unique history. Every state needs to stand on a related historical being. For example, Chinese history shows that China has been divided and reunified several times in history. The major reason that this country could be reunified time and again is that people had the same historical memory. As people had the same historical memory, they rebuilt their nation-state time and again. If a state disappears due to the conquest of another state, but the nation keeps historical memory, people may also rebuild that state under certain circumstances. There are quite a few cases in point.

                 The first case in point is that some nations, such as the Bulgarian, Serbian, and Albanian nations in Eastern Europe were conquered by other nations. They were left under the rule of some empires. Some of these nations were under the rule of other nations for hundreds of years. But, as those conquered nations kept their own history or historical memory, they were not assimilated by the nations that ruled them. Thus, when favorable conditions appeared, they demanded self-determination or independence, and they successfully built their own nation-states. The second case in point is that many nations in West Asia experienced wars and conquests throughout history. Many nations, including the Iraqi nation and the Syrian nation, were under the rule of different empires for a period of time in the past. But as those nations kept their historical memory, they retained the wish to build their nation-states. So in the twentieth century, when the international community recognized the independence of those nations, the native peoples built or rebuilt their nation-states. The third case in point is that, after the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, all the republics of the former Soviet Union announced independence. People remembered that Russia and those other republics had been independent at a certain period of time in history, either before they were incorporated into the Russian Empire (1721–1917) or before they joined the former Soviet Union (1922–1991).

In view of these cases, we believe that people will rebuild all these nation-states as long as they keep their historical memory. Building and keeping their historical memory, people create a condition for the formation of their nation or nation-state. Conversely, without historical memory, a state that has disappeared from history will not be rebuilt. Thus, historical memory is a condition for the growth of a nation. As a nation serves as a basis for the formation of the state in modern times, historical memory is essential for the continued existence of the state. Each state has its own history.

Some scholars may argue that it is the national consciousness that motivates people to unite and hence to build and rebuild their state. But my view is that people also build their national consciousness through historical consciousness. If people have no historical consciousness, they will not build their national consciousness, because if people do not narrate the growth of the nation, they will not be able to grow national consciousness. If people do not narrate the origin of the nation, people will not have national consciousness. That means that the narration of the nation’s history spreads national consciousness, and such narration of the nation underpins the building of the state.

                In some sense, the narration of history underlies the existence of the state. History is a piece of evidence that confirms the long-term existence of the state, and hence the legitimacy of the state. If people challenge the legitimacy of the state, they may first challenge the existence of the history of the state. For example, if someone tries to repudiate the common history shared by two ethnic groups within a state, this may be detrimental to the unity of the state. The reason is that the history of a state often serves as a foundation for the building of the legitimacy of that state. Gong Zizhen (1792–1841), a Chinese thinker of ancient times, said that annihilating the state of others, one must obliterate its history first (yu wang qi guo, xian wang qi shi).⁵ If someone alters the history of the state, the citizens of the state may also alter their knowledge about their state. This may affect their judgment about their own state. For example, if someone points out that one part of a state was illegally annexed by that state from another state in the past, the legitimacy of the rule of the annexed part by that state may be questioned by the external world, posing a threat to the integrity of the state. When two states are involved in a territorial dispute over a piece of land, or when the historians of the two states give different interpretations of the sovereignty of this piece of land, the historical chronicles may become sensitive in politics or in international relations, and the simple paperwork of amassing or sorting historical materials may become a sensitive political issue. In the early twenty-first century, the different descriptions and interpretations of the history of Gaogouli (Koguryo), an ancient kingdom located in an area in northeastern China, sparked a debate between Chinese and Korean historians. The program of studying the history of Gaogouli was then brought to a halt when the government of the Republic of Korea expressed its concern to the Chinese government over a research program called “a series of research programs of the history and status quo of the northeastern frontier” planned by one Chinese social science research institute. That means that the description of a piece of history may affect the construction of the historical memory of a state. At the same time, describing a piece of history may also affect the historical legitimacy of one state or the other. The historical justification of a state is “a piece of software” in its formation. By the phrase “a piece of software,” I mean the spiritual construction of the state in this context.

                The linchpin of understanding this phenomenon is that historical memory consists of historical records of the state. Every state grows with the creation of its own historical records. Every state carefully keeps its historical records. Every state carefully interprets and recognizes its own true history. At the same time, every state carefully maintains its own historical records in its own interest. Normally, a state tries its best to maintain its own true history. It may also repudiate what is falsified as its history. To put it another way, every state keeps its own correct history. At the same time, every state endeavors to keep its own history by keeping the historical records it selects. If a historical record is considered positive, the state will capitalize on it because this positive record enhances the political status of the state and is beneficial to the building of that state. If a historical record is considered negative, the state may try not to mention it, or not to expose it frequently to the public, or the state may even improperly try to deny the existence of this negative historical record because the negative historical record is detrimental to the building of the state. This is mainly because history is a resource for the operation of the state, if people keep and take good care of positive historical records. In terms of Chinese history, the history itself is divided by commentators into the official version of history and the unofficial version. The same history may have different presentations. The same history may be presented by the authorities and the civil society, looking at it from different angles and through different interests. If a piece of history is written under the guidance of the authorities, the presentation of this piece of history is usually not against the interest of the authorities. This is because history is very likely to become a powerful resource for the building of a state.

The same history may be interpreted differently by different nation-states in the international scenario, which may also shed light on this case. For example, following the end of World War Two, the victors of that war such as Russia and China, continue to celebrate each anniversary of the end of that war because the victory they won is a positive historical record for the growth of the nation-state. On the occasion of each anniversary of the end of World War Two, a general meeting may be held by each of those victorious states in celebration of its victory. Sometimes people arrange a spectacular military review on the public square of the capital city to mark that special day. People often build their nation-state with history serving as a spiritual resource. By contrast, if a nation-state possesses any negative historical record, this state may downplay that negative historical record. For example, some nations that ruled the areas inhabited by minorities mistreated or oppressed the ruled ethnic minorities. Later those ethnic minorities grew to be nations and gained independence. Then it follows that a controversial issue arises as different nations interpret their shared history differently. The nation that committed the mistreatment or oppression may downplay or even improperly deny the existence of their past mistreatment or oppression of the minority populations in the past. Likewise, we sometimes see that following the end of a war between two nations, the history of that war may be interpreted differently by the two nations. If one nation invaded the other in the war, the nation that invaded the other may unilaterally interpret that war in its own favor. It may downplay or improperly deny the facts of the invasion. This is mainly because exposing the negative historical record impairs the historical legitimacy of the related state. As a result, some politicians of the invading state are tempted to suppress a historical fact to prevent the issue from affecting the international image of the state. They are deliberately silent about that historical issue. They present the historical fact improperly. They leave the narration of a piece of history uncertain and controversial. Then some people call on others to hold a correct view about that piece of history and insist on finding out historical truth.

That situation indicates that people usually operate a state in view of its history. They build their state on the basis of the construction of history. The state does not exist in a historical vacuum. The related history always affects the growth of the state. If people amend the related history, the state may change the direction of its development. If people write the related history in different ways in different periods of time, people’s attitude toward the related state may also vary with the different periods of time. Even historians from different states may write the history of a certain state differently. And the different presentations of the history of a certain state, given by the historians from different states, may also diversify the historical evaluation of the related state, which affects the construction of the historical memory needed by the state.

For example, Chinese history written by a Chinese historian may differ from the Chinese history written by an American historian. Historians from different states interpret the history of a state differently. They may do so because they hold different academic views. But they may also do so because they have different interests. A Chinese historian undertakes the responsibility to sort out the Chinese history for the building of the state, because that Chinese historian may hold a nationalist view and is obligated to work in the building of the nation-state through the creation of cultural products, but the American historian usually does not have responsibility and obligation to the Chinese state, and he may hold a cosmopolitan view. Thus, different interpretations of Chinese history exercise different influences on the growth of the state, if both Chinese historians and foreign historians influence the Chinese people. To put it another way, different comments made on history exercise different influences on the state. Therefore, people operate the state in the context of history. A state grows on the basis of the construction of correct history written by historians.

                The linguistic presentation of many historical events and figures is naturally related to the governance of the state; this presentation naturally has political implications in the governance of the state, given that language is used as a medium in handing down historical memory and knowledge. The major historical themes, in relation to the possession of land, war, class struggle, democracy, rulers, national heroes, and so on are closely related to politics and the state. Though people often regard history as a sort of culture or a branch of learning, and an achievement of academic activities, history also strongly influences and sustains the governance of the state. History is a resource for governing the state because historians’ narration of history may change people’s understanding of the state and dictate their attitude toward the state. Therefore the state often takes the initiative to assume the responsibility of compiling and sorting out its history in order to indoctrinate people with the historical consciousness it disseminates. This is precisely because the focus of attention of history is the present. Among the subject areas of the history written by historians, a substantial portion of the subject areas relate to the existing state. The state needs to monitor the writing of its own history in order to find an advantageous position politically. Although the history of the state is the record of its past, people will not try to learn about the state of the past or to write and read the history of the state unless they are interested in the existing state. This is because all events that took place in the past are meaningless unless they are related to the present. No one will try to learn about the state of the past for the sake of the state of the past. All activities of writing and learning history are aimed at the present, and people will not write or learn history unless the relevant history is meaningful to the present. Croce illustrated the correlation between the past and the present when explicating his theory of history. He writes:

History is never constructed from narratives, but always from documents, or from narratives that have been reduced to documents and treated as such. Thus, if contemporary history springs straight from life, so too does that history which is called non-contemporary, for it is evident that only an interest in the life of the present can move one to investigate past fact. Therefore this past fact does not answer to a past interest, but to a present interest, in so far as it is unified with an interest of the present life.⁶

So if people write the history of one state, they are actually interested in the evaluation of the current circumstances of the state. History becomes a mirror of reality. Thus, in ancient times, writing history was often under the surveillance of the ruler of the state. Sometimes the state directly controlled historiography. In ancient China, there was a high-ranking post defined as historiographer within the regime of the Chinese Empire, and this historian compiling the annals of the empire was responsible for chronicling the deeds and speeches of the emperor, the acts of the government, and public events. Compiling this history was very important for the existence of the state. In modern times, each nation-state arranges for its historians to chronicle its own history. This work of chronicling history is very often for the existence and the growth of the state, in the times of nation-state. That means that people operate the state with historical memory when they chronicle the deeds of people, and draw on both experiences and lessons. All the states in the world have their own detailed and rich histories.

Even political parties designate historians to write their histories. The work of writing their histories is to facilitate the following generations to undertake and continue the causes of these political parties. This is because the political activities of political parties are also part of the activities of the state. Political parties operate the state after they come to power. So in the United States, historians write the history of the Democratic Party or the history of the Republican Party. In Canada, some historians write the history of the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party. In China, the party in power, the Communist Party of China, is always concerned about how to write its own history because it is concerned about how the following generations evaluate its deeds. Here we see that writing history is often a political activity or an activity in relation to the governance of the state. History is often written to meet the needs of governing the state. Writing history is part of operating the state. When the political situation changes or a new demand arises in the state, the authorities of the state may also revise the history by re-sorting historical materials, revising the context of the history, reinterpreting history, and re-evaluating historical events or figures, if necessary. That means that operating a state includes writing the history of the state. When the political situation changes in the state, the authorities may request the re-evaluation of certain historical events or figures. The authorities may reinterpret history within the state in view of a change of policy in order to adjust the direction of the development of the state. For example, we sometimes see that in a certain state people re-evaluate some figures and events in history due to a change in the situation of the state. It implies that if the evaluation of those historical figures and events remains unchanged, it may be because the related situation within the state remains unchanged. If the evaluation of those historical figures and events changes, it is often because there is a change in the situation, such as a change of political ideas, a related policy, or the government in the state. For example, in Canada, Louis Riel, a Métis hero, who led the rebellion in the Red River region (Manitoba) in 1870, and the rebellion in Saskatchewan in 1885, was tried and hanged in Regina in 1885. But since about 1940, more Canadian historians have reinterpreted Riel in a kindly light. Politicians invoked his memory usually favorably. In 1999, the Canadian House of Commons even debated and passed a bill asserting the justice of Riel’s cause, although the “Louis Riel Act” never entered the statute books.⁷

It is evident that people often evaluate political figures in history as needed by contemporary politics. In political life, we sometimes see that someone requests the restoration of the presentation of the historical truth about a controversial historical event or figure, or blames others for duping the people by distorting the presentation of history. Controversy about the presentation of history is often in relation to the governance of the state. For example, the Communist Party of China, ruling Mainland China, and the Nationalist Party of China, ruling Taiwan before 2000 or in the following years from time to time by winning an election, write their history of the Anti-Japan War (1937–1945) differently. They hold different views about the roles of the Communist Party of China and the Nationalist Party of China in that war. The different interpretations of the same history may also affect the international relationships, if we suppose that the international relationship is also related to the governance of the related states. For instance, the Chinese people and some Japanese people may have different views about Japan’s invasion into China before and during World War Two. They give different presentations of World War Two.

Why do people give different presentations about the same history? They may differ in the evaluation of historical events and figures because they hold different academic views or study history from different angles. But we also often see that people hold different views about a piece of history because they hold different political views. This is because history is a resource for the governance of a state. In the governance of the state, people are tempted to use this resource. As politicians and political parties are involved in conflicts of interest, or as the states have their own special interests, people from different political parties or different states may hold different views about the same history and may write the same history in different ways. The reason is that politics factors into history, making itself historic. As a result, the politics of the past often relates to present politics, and describing past politics is aimed at evaluating today’s politics. Politicians and political organizations in the present political life are concerned about the description and evaluation of their past political deeds. Describing and evaluating their past deeds actually means describing and evaluating their current causes because all political movements and political organizations have their own history, and all politicians have their own experience. Describing the events happening in the past actually means recording them. These events can be related to current politics. If there is a stain in the historical records of a political actor, such as a political organization, this stain may harm the political cause to which this actor is dedicating himself. If there is a brilliant chapter in the historical records of a political actor such as a political organization, the notes in these historical records will benefit its present political cause. The case for the state is not different. The state always tries to keep positive historical records. That means that the records of history strengthen the legitimacy of the state and enable the state to win support from the citizens and the international community. Writing history is part of the building of a state.

Any state, dedicating itself to its own cause, has its origin, and its past, present, and future. As the lives of the citizens of a state are limited, the state needs to oblige the following generations to undertake the cause of the preceding generations so as to continue the cause of the state. To fulfill this task, following generations are required to know the history of their preceding generations, including the causes they start, the systems they set up, and the ideals they embrace. Without history, a special process of communication between the preceding generations and the following generations through the use of language, it is impossible for any state to exist in the long run or to continue to exist in the original way. This continuation or succession of history often relies on historical records rather than historical facts because, without historical records, it is impossible for people to know historical facts; historical facts without historical records are not true historical facts because they have no realizable historical values. It is important to write history for the existence and the growth of the state.

3. The Time and Space of History

The Time of History

As language functions as a medium in the spread of historical knowledge and consciousness, human history, written using language, involves a process of long-term communication among the people themselves. Thus, language functioning as a medium is an important factor in the formation of the society and the long-term growth of the state. Before the birth of language, the people never knew the deeds of preceding generations. At that time, people lived in herds. After the birth of spoken language, people began to stride over the threshold of their development leading to the creation of civilization. Although at that time people still remained largely tribal, they might have handed down some experiences, ideas, and consciousness of the preceding generations. They began to create history. The Homeric Epics are the works of history created by the Greek people living in the period of development from the tribe to the state, although scholars are unable to ascertain exactly when the Homeric Epics were created. Particularly, the creation of written language enabled people to enter the civilized society. They began to create their history of civilization, mainly with written language. People started to form their state. This situation shows that by performing linguistic communication, particularly written communication, people begin to build their community like a state. This community keeps on growing. 

That means that a state is now part of the continuum of the state in the past because the existing state is usually developing on the basis of the state in the past. A tribe might also be the continuum of a tribe in the past, but this characteristic is not as salient as for a state. In other words, the preceding generations of a tribe influence the following generations to a smaller extent than the preceding generations of a state affect the future state. This is because a state is strongly influenced by its own history, while a tribe might not be. While primitives had memories of the past, they often kept such memories in the form of myth, legend, or folk tale. The figures and events described by a myth, legend, or folk tale might not be true, or might not be verifiable through textual research. This is because history exists with the presentation of history. The presentation of history normally relies on writing. While spoken communication might enable the primitives to keep the memories of the past, written communication is a solid basis for the presentation of history. My view is that, as primitives used spoken language only, their memory of the past was limited. This memory was simple in content. As spoken language served only as a foundation for the formation of a comparatively small community, kinship was still the key factor in the formation of the tribe. Along with the development of written communication, however, the human community grows in size. Kinship ties attenuate. Linguistic communication becomes an essential condition for the growth of the state. Recollecting the process of the growth of the state becomes a method of teaching people to know their past. Historical memory, a kind of retrospective conscious projection, then sustains the formation of the state. Although the tribe existed over a long span of time, and the state has also existed over a long span of time, the state grows under the influence of history of social evolution, while the tribe existed without the influence of such history.

In sum, a state is a community operated under the influence of those who have died. The events happening and figures appearing in the past all influence the operation of the state. For example, lessons given by the past generations may be drawn on by the following generations. A state is operated in the evolution of time. Any event happening or any figure emerging in a preceding tribe was less significant for a following tribe than the event happening or the figure emerging in a preceding state for the following state. Analyzing history, we see that every state grows on the basis of the construction of its own history. A state is a result of the development of a kind of historical civilization. That means that a state is never simply composed of the citizens who are currently alive. All those who are chronicled in its history may still show their presence, influence, and function in the state at any time in the following days. 

At the same time, the historians of the following generations learn history from the historians of the preceding generations. They keep historical presence and memory. They are professional operators in exploiting historical resources for the governance of the state. They supervise the operation of the state as professionals in charge of writing history. They make historical comments, which are used like a yardstick to judge current events and figures according to the spirit handed down from the past. They create a method of shaping the society and the state. Of course, we know that while people make comments on an event or a figure according to the principle of fairness, kindheartedness, benevolence, and so on, they may exercise their moral influence. We also know that when people give a judgment on whether or not a person violates the law, according to the provisions of the law, they highlight the authority of the law. Historians, however, take part in the work of shaping the society or the state in the long run. History, in general, is the development of spirit over time, as noted by Hegel.⁸ As historians write history, they are able to exercise some influence on the operation of the state over a long period of time. Unlike politicians, historians act over a long span of time. If a historian dies, he may still exercise his influence on the operation of the state if he is interested in the operation of the state. Historical books he writes may be read by many following generations. He may be still involved in the operation of the state after his death. A politician may not be able to exercise influence after his death. If he is a leader of the state, he may be able to influence the following generations. However, he still needs some assistance from historians, because without introduction given by historians, he will not be known by the following generations. In this process, historians exercise their influence because history largely rests on a process of long-distance linguistic communication.

In other words, comments made by historians about a politician may be more influential than the deeds of the politician. Thus, we see that historians participate in the operation of the state. Historians make comments on the operation of the state over a long span of time. They may make comments on history or write history from the perspective of following generations that are born many years later. Thus, their participation in the operation of the state changes the nature of the operation of the state, more or less. They exercise their influence in view of the whole process of the growth of the state, rather than the present only. They may disengage themselves from the conflict of interest, and accommodate and serve the interest of many generations living in different periods of time. They tend to hold a broad view about the mission of the state. For example, if a historian looks into the state from the angle of its history, he may hold a view different from the view held by a politician. A politician serves the state that exists over a short period of time, while a historian serves the state that exists over a long period of time. When a historian makes a comment on the state in order to play a role in the operation of the state, he may do so in reference of the history created by people in the past, and he may show a historical view that is much more profound. A politician may not be able to hold that kind of view. To put it another way, historians may show an attitude of being responsible for history. They may call on politicians to fulfill historical responsibility in the process of making a policy or a law. Then they may show the strength of history. When historians call on politicians to show historical responsibility, they actually ask politicians to meet the expectation of their predecessors, consider the broad interest of contemporary people, and take care of the following generations, rather than accommodating only their own narrow interests or those of their political party. Sometimes, politicians may make a policy or decision in their own interest or that of their political party for the current period of time first and ignore the interests of other people and future generations. So the participation of historians in the operation of the state should naturally be in the interest of the whole nation-state over a long period of time. This is a contribution made by history to the realization of justice in the state. This is because historians look at the events or the figures of the past from the angle of history. They are usually not supposed to be participants in the specific historical environment. They are expected to look at a past event or a past figure from the angle of the entire history, as it happened after the completion of the course of that event or the activity of that figure. They compare the events and figures of different times so as to avoid forming biases that may arise from having been a part of the historical environment or being involved in the conflict of interest. This allows them to present comparatively objective, fair, and creditable comments on a particular event or a figure of the past. Thus, a historian may exercise his influence based on more objective judgment. People may enhance justice in the operation of the state as a result. So if politicians keep in mind the historical responsibility, history may work. If politicians intend to leave their names in posterity, or if they care about how the following generations view them, they may come under the influence of history. They may show some sense of historical responsibility. 

Correlatively, historical facts may be either progressive or retrogressive. Ortega y Gasset writes that: “History tells us of innumerable retrogressions.”⁹ For example, what Adolf Hitler did in the last century is retrogressive. Sometimes what a historical figure did is both progressive and retrogressive because the role he plays in history is fraught with ambivalence. For example, people may evaluate the role played by Napoleon Bonaparte both positively and negatively. The narration of history, however, tends to be progressive. This is because while a historical figure such as a ruler acts, he often accommodates his own interest or the interest of the social class he represents first. As he acts in his own interest or the interest of a portion of people first at the expense of the interest of all other people, his deed may be deemed by some observers as unjust and hence retrogressive. Historians may then engage in a critique of it. If a historical figure leaves some experiences to the following generations, historians will help the following generations to draw on such experiences. If a historical figure leaves some lessons to the following generations, historians will also help the following generations draw on such lessons. Historians exalt progressive commitment and criticize retrogressive commitment because history is a long-term linguistic communication, and it goes on between the preceding generations and the following generations. As this linguistic communication serves many people of different times, it does not serve the narrow interest of a small number of people. Such linguistic communication goes on under the surveillance of all citizens. Only the narrative of history, displaying a progressive spirit, will be accepted by all generations. As a result, history enhances justice in the state.

                Of course, a historian needs to compile history independently. If a historian compiles history under the command of the ruler or the conqueror, the narrative of history may represent the view of the ruler or the conqueror. Thus, sometimes observers complain that a historian has distorted the narrative of history. Stanley Diamond lamented that history is always written by the upper classes because they often control written communication, while the majority of people who perform spoken communication are unable to write history, and he writes, “It is the civilized upper classes who, conceiving their positions as determined by God, talent, or technology, create the facts of history.”¹⁰ But my view is that if historians can chronicle history freely, the upper classes will not restrict their writings. If some people distort history, it is not the true history. If history is distorted, it is not the fault of historians. If historians chronicle history without the intervention of any social class, the narration of history will be progressive because historians are supposed to chronicle history according to the expectations of the people. If the state is democratic, the presentation of history will always be progressive. Politicians, representing some social classes, usually communicate over a short period of time while historians communicate over a long period of time. Historians have a natural right to evaluate and judge historical figures and events over the long run. In this aspect, historians prevail. As the whole world has headed into the era of democracy today, historians will surely play a prominent role in the construction of historical justice of the state.

                Here we may come to the conclusion that history may create an invisible authority imaginable by people under certain circumstances. Apart from the authorities established by the politicians in the state at present, history may establish a future authority that we can imagine. History puts the operation of the state under the influence of history. Then people find an authority different from the traditional authority of the government bodies. But this authority, generated by history, does exist. The creation of history results in the establishment of an authority to be exercised in the future. This authority is separate from the authority of the government. This authority exercises its influence on the human consciousness in the subjective world. For example, if a politician is persecuted or wronged by a regime and is then groundlessly announced guilty by the law court, he may say that “history will judge me as innocent of a crime.” If the government is denounced by its political opposition, that political opposition may claim that the government will be placed into the history hall of shame. If an event of injustice occurs, people may argue that justice will be finally done by history. There is an invisible authority to be exercised by history in the future. As a result, if a politician operating the state believes that he must gain a positive comment in the narrative of history, he may come under the influence of history. In this case, a politician will usually act in the interest of the public instead of his own private interest or a certain narrow interest. In other words, viewing the operation of the state from the angle of history, people tend to stand aloof from the conflict of interest. We usually see more controversy in the writing of contemporary or modern history than in the writing of ancient history, especially if the writing of history is clearly influenced by politics within a state. Why are there more controversial issues in the writing of contemporary or modern history? Contemporary or modern history tends to be closely related to the current politics. That means that a historical view differs from a political view. Then a conflict is likely to appear in the writing of contemporary or modern history when the two views sit awkwardly with each other. Accordingly, we see that there is an authority generated by history apart from the authority established by politicians. This authority is not controlled by any politician, political party, or government in the long run. This authority is independent. It is an authority under the control of no single person because no single person is able to hold this authority except the collective being of historians from different periods of time. History that presupposes the longest course of communication within the state places people in an environment in which the conflict of interest is likely to be prevented from arising. Of course, history is sometimes misrepresented by some politicians for the purpose of politics. But with the passage of time, people will remove falsified history, and true history will finally surface because following generations will usually look at the past history from the angle of history and show a perspective different from that of contemporary politicians. History contributes to the enhancement of justice in the state.               

The Space of History

When humans write their history, they use a language. As a language is normally used by a nation or a people who form a state in a civilized society, history written by historians is usually the history of a nation or a state. So every nation or state has its own history. As history provides experiences and lessons to be drawn on by people, history helps build the state because the operation of the state needs to draw on experiences and lessons left by their predecessors. But if historical experiences and lessons left behind by the predecessors of one state can be drawn on by the peoples of other states, the history of one state may be learned by the peoples of other states. Then the related content of the related history of one state may be introduced to other states across the borders of the state. This history may become part of world history. That means that not all narratives of history offered by all the nations throughout the world constitute world history. Only those narratives of history presented by historians to the peoples of more than one nation-state throughout the world constitute world history. Those narratives of history hand down the experiences and lessons of the predecessors to the posterity of all possible nations throughout the world. This is because, although the history of one state is written in a language used by the people of that state, people can translate the presentation of history from one language into another. Through translation, people can introduce the history of one state written in a particular language to another state that uses another language. At the same time, historical experiences and lessons drawn on by many states function as media because the states that draw on those experiences and lessons can also communicate with each other. Then the narratives of those experiences and lessons spread across the borders of the state and hence become world history. Here are some different circumstances in which that can happen.

                First, if a historical fact can offer meaningful experiences and lessons to the peoples of many nation-states, this historical fact is usually transformed into a related historical presentation. This historical presentation is then encompassed by world history. The French Revolution, which broke out in 1789, and the Russian Revolution, which broke out in 1917, are part of world history because both of these revolutions set an example to many other nations, and have a global impact. The French Revolution, in particular, marks the beginning of an epoch in which capitalist times replace the feudalist times throughout the world. By contrast, I argue that the English Revolution, which broke out in 1688, is, comparatively speaking, not part of world history because the English Revolution did not have a global impact. The English Revolution, dubbed the Glorious Revolution, facilitated the transition of an English society dominated by nobility to one dominated by businessmen, but it did not directly hasten the transformation of the society and the state on the Continent, or elsewhere. Likewise, I argue that the Chinese Revolution that broke out in 1911 was not part of world history because the Chinese Revolution had almost no influence on the historical progress of any other nations. The Chinese Revolution is indeed an important part of the Chinese history of modern times, but it is not part of world history because the Chinese Revolution did not have an impact on the whole world. The Industrial Revolution that took place in England in about 1760 is part of world history because it marks the beginning of the building of an industrial society that replaced the agricultural society throughout the world with an explosion of new technological inventions and new scientific ideas. Although the Industrial Revolution took place only in England, its impact is by no means confined to that one nation-state. Humans made industrial progress in Europe and elsewhere due to this event. As some states advance first and other states follow them, the states that follow them often learn and draw on their historical experiences. Therefore, part of history of one state, I argue, may spread across the borders of the state and become part of world history. The history of an advanced state tends to become part of world history, while the history of a state falling behind tends not to be part of world history. The state that falls behind an advanced state can, however, draw on experiences from that advanced state, and catch up with the advanced state in social progress. That means that as the historical experiences of a certain state are often needed by other states, part of the history of one state becomes part of world history. So the spread of history across state borders supports the social advancement of all the states on earth.

                Second, the contents of narrating history may not always be part of world history even though the contents of narrating history may be those of an advanced state. If a historian writes the history of his own nation-state, he may write the history of the social evolution of this state, or the history of the evolution of the cities of this state, or the history of the evolution of the government forms of this state. His narratives may not be part of world history. As history is a spiritual resource for the building of the state, people usually chronicle history for the building of the state. History is usually the history of one state. Yet, as human social practice for the purposes of their own development also often occurs across the borders of the state in civilized society, historians from more than one state often chronicle the activities performed by humans in more than one state. The narratives of history given by such historians often become part of world history because historical experiences and lessons, summarized and recorded by historians, are those of many states. The history of long-distance trade is often part of world history because peoples from different states or regions normally engage in such trade. The history of the Silk Road trade between China on one side, and the Arab and European states on the other, in ancient times, is part of world history. As a result, some commodities often traded by businessmen are often mentioned in the narratives of this history, such as porcelain, silk, silver, grains, tea, spice, and so on. The history of the trade of industrial products among European states such as England, France, Holland, Portugal, and Italy or between European states and Asian states in early modern times is also part of world history. The commodities traded by businessmen are often recorded in world history books. They include wool fabric, wine, coal, locomotives, machines, and so on. The history of ocean navigation is also part of world history because navigation often goes on between states or regions or continents. Columbus and Vasco de Gama, who reformulated world maps, are recorded in the books of world history in relation to navigation. The geographic discoveries they made are surely a great pageant of world history. Military history also often becomes part of world history because military affairs are usually related to wars between different states. The history of great wars in ancient times, such as the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC), is part of world history because such wars broke out between different states. The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) are part of world history for the same reason. So is the history of wars such as World War One (1914–1918) and World War Two (1939–1945). As part of human history is jointly chronicled by peoples of different nation-states as world history, some historical resources are shared by different nations and nation-states. So people also build their historical consciousness on the basis of history jointly chronicled by different nation-states.

                Third, if people write the history of one nation-state under the influence of a nationalist idea, the related narratives of such a history are usually intended for the building of the state. Historians mandated to compile this history are usually expected to bear the responsibility of indoctrinating the masses of the people with that nationalist idea. The history compiled by those historians is usually not used for the building of a global community, but for the nation-state only. The related history is usually not part of world history. By contrast, if historians compile the history of any nation-state of which they are not citizens, those historians are usually not expected to bear the responsibility of building the state. They usually hold no nationalist idea of that state. They may hold a cosmopolitan view in the narrative of the history of that nation-state. For example, as mentioned earlier, an American historian who writes history books about China may hold a cosmopolitan view while a Chinese historian who writes history books about China may hold a nationalist view. They write the same history in different fashions. They may write the same history from different angles. They may also write the same history to reflect their different values. In this case, the history chronicled by the Chinese historian represents a course of linguistic communication only between Chinese historians and the Chinese people. Such history is not part of world history. By contrast, the history chronicled by that American historian represents a course of linguistic communication among the peoples from various nation-states, because the peoples from various nation-states may hold a cosmopolitan view. As that American historian and the peoples of many other states hold the same cosmopolitan view, they are tempted to communicate with each other actively, because that cosmopolitan view can function as a medium in support of communication between that American historian and the peoples of many other states. Thus, the Chinese history chronicled by that American historian may become part of world history. Such Chinese history is not directly used for the building of the state in China, but is directly used for the construction of a global historical view. This view may be used for mutual understanding between the Chinese people and the peoples of many other states and for a study comparing the paths of the growth of different states. Although the views advanced by the narratives given by the American historian may not be accepted by Chinese historians, however, such narratives may help the Chinese historian to review his own opinions. I venture to argue that the same phenomenon will occur if an English historian creates a narrative of French history or a French historian creates a narrative of English history. People build their own history, not only under the influence of their nationalist view, but also sometimes under the influence of a cosmopolitan view.

                If we insist that different nation-states influence each other with their narratives of history, mutual influence between different nation-states is not balanced. As all the states endeavor to move upward in social progress, advanced states offer more experiences and lessons. Therefore, a large part of world history is the history of advanced states. In other words, the narratives of history often record the changes of the society or the state. The changes of the society or the state normally take place first in advanced states. The narratives of these changes become part of world history. If we argue that early modern times are an important period of history in the formation of the modern world, a greater part of world history of early modern times is the history of advanced states. Opening the books of history, we almost invariably see the narratives of the Renaissance, which initially took place in Italy in the fifteenth or sixteenth century, as part of world history. The reason is that Renaissance triggered the cultural revival of Europe. The cultural revival of Europe then paved a way for the rise of capitalism in Europe, which further changed the economy and politics of the whole world. Michelangelo and da Vinci helped spread new ideas. The printing of books and the education of common people created a condition for the enlightenment that took place later. In addition, people also often give the narratives of the Reformation, which took place in the sixteenth century, and these narratives constitute an important part of world history because the Reformation led to the spiritual liberation of Europeans of all affected states. Conservative Europe was forced to adapt to a fundamental change. And people invariably mention the French Revolution or the American Revolution as some of the most important parts of world history, because these revolutions strikingly changed the world politics and ushered in an epoch of democracy throughout the world. In some sense, if we assume that historical experiences and lessons encompass the value that can be used, not only by European nations, but also by other nations outside Europe, world history is a surplus value offered by advanced states to developing states without requesting any compensation. If some states fall behind others in social, economic, and political development, the spread of world history may lighten a path ahead for them. Therefore, the peoples of developing states tend to learn the languages of those advanced states because they want to learn about the world history often compiled by historians in the languages of those advanced states. So the English language or the French language spreads across the world. Conversely speaking, the experiences and lessons offered by advanced states are media in support of the linguistic communication between the historians of advanced states and the peoples of all other nation-states. As people create the narratives of the experiences and lessons in the languages of advanced states, the peoples of all other nation-states learn those languages. As a result, the historical consciousness, built by advanced states, becomes part of the building of the historical consciousness of developing states, to some extent. All nation-states make their progress of civilization in tandem. No state will be left behind others forever, if all the states learn about world history.

Notes

  1.  Benedetto Croce, History, Its Theory and Practice, trans. Douglas Ainslie (New York: Russell & Russell, 1960): 14.

  2.  C. Hignett, A History of the Athenian Constitution: To the End of the Fifth Century B.C. (London: Oxford University Press, 1975): 2.

  3.  F. Coulmas, The Writing Systems of the World (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1990): 4.

  4.  Giambattista Vico, The New Science of Giambattista Vico, trans. Thomas Goddard Bergin and Max Harold Fisch (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1968): 10.

  5.  Gong Zizhen, The Collected Works of Gong Zizhen (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1975): 22.

  6.  Croce, History, Its Theory and Practice, 12.

  7.  Robert Bothwell, The Penguin History of Canada (Toronto: Penguin Canada, 2006): 231.

  8.  G.W.F. Hegel, The Philosophy of Right/The Philosophy of History (Chicago: William Benton, 1952): 186.

  9.   Stanley Diamond, In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1974): 116.

10.  Ibid, 4.