'Those Ridiculous Monks' The Failed Encounter between Korea and Tibetan Buddhism in Qing Mukden, 2023
Inner Asia 25 (2023) 206-226 brill.com/inas Inner AS IA 'Those Ridiculous Monks' The Failed Encou... more Inner Asia 25 (2023) 206-226 brill.com/inas Inner AS IA 'Those Ridiculous Monks' The Failed Encounter between Korea and Tibetan Buddhism in Qing Mukden
As a social institution, a border simultaneously divides and
connects. When thinking about state ... more As a social institution, a border simultaneously divides and connects. When thinking about state borders, or borderlands, scholars tend to view them as either linear or zonal spaces, distinguishing as well as linking one state with another. My article argues for an alternative interpretation and explores the geopolitical and cultural meanings of a historical border region from both domestic and inter-state perspectives. The border of China and Korea along the Yalu and the Tumen Rivers, is arguably one of the oldest state boundaries that is still effective today. The history of the border river region as a “buffer space” can be traced back to the seventeenth century when Qing China and Chosŏn Korea established the border along their northern frontiers. However, the geopolitical function of this border went beyond considerations of defence or communications. From the mid-seventeenth century to the midnineteenth century, both the Manchu-Qing court and the Chosŏn court implemented strict laws to control domestic population flows to their northeastern and northern frontiers. Such policies, I argue, must be understood in the context of domestic politics in the two courts. Internal anxiety over preserving Manchu and Korean identity, coupled with strategy to control the border against an external power, contributed to the making of this borderland. Hence, the Qing-Chosŏn border region served as a “dual buffer”. Employing historical records and local gazettes in the two countries, my article reveals a subtler layer of “buffer” from a case study in early modern East Asia.
This article records my field experiences with the Tumen River, which forms the boundary between ... more This article records my field experiences with the Tumen River, which forms the boundary between China and Korea. Based on my field notes at three different locations—the river mouth, where territories belonging to China, North Korea, and Russia adjoin; a small town midway along the river where pioneer Korean immigrants risked their lives to cross the border; and the “source” of the contemporary border in a dense mountain forest—my narrative links historical memories of the Tumen border from the seventeenth century to the present. The trips, which were taken over the course of thirteen years, urged me to inquire about and rethink the meaning of state borders from the perspective of local residents, trespassers, and the environment. The article questions the popular notion that boundaries are naturally formed, static, and always clearly defined. On the contrary, they are arbitrarily made, fluid, and often ambiguous. As my physical and intellectual journey along this river revealed the humanistic aspect of boundaries, I myself completed a transformation from journalist to historian.
随着资本主义、殖民主义和民族国家体系的扩张,19、20世纪,全球土地被“领土化”。划分和争夺背后,折射的是全新的地理认知和政治意识形态。民族国家以人为划定的边界来塑造身份认同,传统的地域空间认知... more 随着资本主义、殖民主义和民族国家体系的扩张,19、20世纪,全球土地被“领土化”。划分和争夺背后,折射的是全新的地理认知和政治意识形态。民族国家以人为划定的边界来塑造身份认同,传统的地域空间认知被国际法准则彻底改造。本文对日本殖民官僚兼学者篠田治策的“间岛”(中朝边境图们江以北)论述做“知识考古”,并将此论述放到19世纪的国际法及殖民知识体系中认知。提出的问题包括:为何篠田坚持将图们、鸭绿两江以北地区称为“无人地带”?他依靠哪些史料,并如何利用这些史料?更为重要的是,这些史料本身,又是如何形成的?本文揭示国际法话语与殖民体系之间的关系,反思用起源近代欧洲的国际法观念讨论古代东亚国家关系的倾向。此外,通过考察中朝边境地理认知的起源、传播、流变,本文也希望为探讨全球史框架下的东亚史,提供一个具体的案例。
本文采用长时段视角考察欧亚大陆东北部的历史,将这个边缘地带看作欧亚大陆人类活动的一个中心区域,并探讨其独立于周边国家的内在历史动力。该地区的丰富历史遗产不应被任何一个当代民族国家垄断,相反,我们... more 本文采用长时段视角考察欧亚大陆东北部的历史,将这个边缘地带看作欧亚大陆人类活动的一个中心区域,并探讨其独立于周边国家的内在历史动力。该地区的丰富历史遗产不应被任何一个当代民族国家垄断,相反,我们应该在广阔的地理、政治、经济和社会脉络中,恢复本地区的地方能动性。在数千年的历史过程中,数个王朝及帝国兴起于此地,使其成为早期全球化的主要推动力量之一。更为重要的是,这一边疆地区在19—20世纪直接刺激了周边社会的民族和国家建设进程,成为域内国家走向“现代”的试验场。后冷战时代,日本、中国、朝鲜、韩国及俄罗斯都开始重新认识这个多边边疆的地缘重要性。只有深刻认知东北欧亚的内在历史发展轨迹和结构,才能理解该地区的社会生态结构,也才能认识到单纯以经济为指标、市场为导向的边疆建设,其问题何在。
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History, 2019
Scholars often regard the Qing-Korean relationship as the most representative instance of the so-... more Scholars often regard the Qing-Korean relationship as the most representative instance of the so-called tributary system, the Sino-centric hierarchical world order in early modern East Asia. It was also the most stable one, established in 1637 and ending as late as 1895 after the Qing’s total defeat in the first Sino-Japanese War. Precisely because this bilateral relationship was so typical and so stable, it was also unique in many ways. Although the Manchu regime largely inherited Ming China’s institutions in dealing with Korea (and, later, with other foreign states), this legacy revealed new meanings in the context of the Manchu conquest of China. As the Qing’s first and last subordinate state in the region, Chosŏn Korea served as both an ideological and a practical model in shaping the Qing’s geopolitical construction.
Beginning and ending with military clashes, the Qing-Chosŏn hierarchical relationship from the early 17th to the late 19th centuries was nourished and solidified by more peaceful interactions. Generally conducted under the Confucian zongfan (宗藩) principles, these interactions included rituals, diplomatic missions, trade, negotiations, cross-border jurisdiction, and cultural exchanges. Far from being imposed unilaterally by the Qing, the bilateral relationship was mutually constructed in a long process in which the Korean government and literati played a proactive role. During this time, the Korean attitude toward the Qing underwent a gradual change, from hostility to nuanced acceptance. In the late 19th century the two countries tried but failed to adjust their relationship in order to survive the geopolitical threat from industrialized, colonial powers. The collapse of the Qing-Chosŏn hierarchy eventually led to the rise of new national identities in both China and the Korean Peninsula in the 20th century.
1968风云激荡,对它的回味思考亦绵延不绝,而本文和仅仅学术性回顾1968的文章不同,作者通过身边的“凯镇九人”,追溯当年发生的事件原委,更重要的是,将具体而微的“凯镇九人”事件放在宏阔的时空脉... more 1968风云激荡,对它的回味思考亦绵延不绝,而本文和仅仅学术性回顾1968的文章不同,作者通过身边的“凯镇九人”,追溯当年发生的事件原委,更重要的是,将具体而微的“凯镇九人”事件放在宏阔的时空脉络中考察,串联起美国公民不服从运动和冷战时代的主题,使公民抗争、反战、亚非拉反帝反殖等透过这一事件得到鲜活的体现。
In the early twentieth century, the sovereignty of a territory north of the China-Korea Tumen Riv... more In the early twentieth century, the sovereignty of a territory north of the China-Korea Tumen River border was under severe dispute between China, Korea, and Japan. Based on a Jesuit memoir and map of Korea published in eighteenth-century Europe, a Japanese colonial bureaucrat and international law expert, Shinoda Jisaku, asserted that a vast region north of the China-Korea border should be regarded as a “no man's land.” Employing Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and European materials, this article traces the origin and evolution of such a definition. It demonstrates that the Jesuit map and description were based on false geographic information, which the Korean court deliberately provided to a Manchu official in 1713 in order to safeguard its interests. During prolonged intercommunication between diverse areas of the globe during the past three centuries, spatial and legal knowledge has been produced, reproduced, and transformed within imperial and colonial contexts.
In this paper I use a trans-border lens to investigate the region encompassed by the Russian Far ... more In this paper I use a trans-border lens to investigate the region encompassed by the Russian Far East, northeast China, eastern Mongolia, northern Korea, and the Sea of Japan. We need to transcend the framework of nation-states and restore the region’s historical agency in a broader geographic, geopolitical, and economic context. We also need to view the socioeconomic development of the area in terms of a protracted process in which various indigenous groups played crucial roles. Recognizing the historical dynamic of this region helps to reconceptualize its present and future development.
'Those Ridiculous Monks' The Failed Encounter between Korea and Tibetan Buddhism in Qing Mukden, 2023
Inner Asia 25 (2023) 206-226 brill.com/inas Inner AS IA 'Those Ridiculous Monks' The Failed Encou... more Inner Asia 25 (2023) 206-226 brill.com/inas Inner AS IA 'Those Ridiculous Monks' The Failed Encounter between Korea and Tibetan Buddhism in Qing Mukden
As a social institution, a border simultaneously divides and
connects. When thinking about state ... more As a social institution, a border simultaneously divides and connects. When thinking about state borders, or borderlands, scholars tend to view them as either linear or zonal spaces, distinguishing as well as linking one state with another. My article argues for an alternative interpretation and explores the geopolitical and cultural meanings of a historical border region from both domestic and inter-state perspectives. The border of China and Korea along the Yalu and the Tumen Rivers, is arguably one of the oldest state boundaries that is still effective today. The history of the border river region as a “buffer space” can be traced back to the seventeenth century when Qing China and Chosŏn Korea established the border along their northern frontiers. However, the geopolitical function of this border went beyond considerations of defence or communications. From the mid-seventeenth century to the midnineteenth century, both the Manchu-Qing court and the Chosŏn court implemented strict laws to control domestic population flows to their northeastern and northern frontiers. Such policies, I argue, must be understood in the context of domestic politics in the two courts. Internal anxiety over preserving Manchu and Korean identity, coupled with strategy to control the border against an external power, contributed to the making of this borderland. Hence, the Qing-Chosŏn border region served as a “dual buffer”. Employing historical records and local gazettes in the two countries, my article reveals a subtler layer of “buffer” from a case study in early modern East Asia.
This article records my field experiences with the Tumen River, which forms the boundary between ... more This article records my field experiences with the Tumen River, which forms the boundary between China and Korea. Based on my field notes at three different locations—the river mouth, where territories belonging to China, North Korea, and Russia adjoin; a small town midway along the river where pioneer Korean immigrants risked their lives to cross the border; and the “source” of the contemporary border in a dense mountain forest—my narrative links historical memories of the Tumen border from the seventeenth century to the present. The trips, which were taken over the course of thirteen years, urged me to inquire about and rethink the meaning of state borders from the perspective of local residents, trespassers, and the environment. The article questions the popular notion that boundaries are naturally formed, static, and always clearly defined. On the contrary, they are arbitrarily made, fluid, and often ambiguous. As my physical and intellectual journey along this river revealed the humanistic aspect of boundaries, I myself completed a transformation from journalist to historian.
随着资本主义、殖民主义和民族国家体系的扩张,19、20世纪,全球土地被“领土化”。划分和争夺背后,折射的是全新的地理认知和政治意识形态。民族国家以人为划定的边界来塑造身份认同,传统的地域空间认知... more 随着资本主义、殖民主义和民族国家体系的扩张,19、20世纪,全球土地被“领土化”。划分和争夺背后,折射的是全新的地理认知和政治意识形态。民族国家以人为划定的边界来塑造身份认同,传统的地域空间认知被国际法准则彻底改造。本文对日本殖民官僚兼学者篠田治策的“间岛”(中朝边境图们江以北)论述做“知识考古”,并将此论述放到19世纪的国际法及殖民知识体系中认知。提出的问题包括:为何篠田坚持将图们、鸭绿两江以北地区称为“无人地带”?他依靠哪些史料,并如何利用这些史料?更为重要的是,这些史料本身,又是如何形成的?本文揭示国际法话语与殖民体系之间的关系,反思用起源近代欧洲的国际法观念讨论古代东亚国家关系的倾向。此外,通过考察中朝边境地理认知的起源、传播、流变,本文也希望为探讨全球史框架下的东亚史,提供一个具体的案例。
本文采用长时段视角考察欧亚大陆东北部的历史,将这个边缘地带看作欧亚大陆人类活动的一个中心区域,并探讨其独立于周边国家的内在历史动力。该地区的丰富历史遗产不应被任何一个当代民族国家垄断,相反,我们... more 本文采用长时段视角考察欧亚大陆东北部的历史,将这个边缘地带看作欧亚大陆人类活动的一个中心区域,并探讨其独立于周边国家的内在历史动力。该地区的丰富历史遗产不应被任何一个当代民族国家垄断,相反,我们应该在广阔的地理、政治、经济和社会脉络中,恢复本地区的地方能动性。在数千年的历史过程中,数个王朝及帝国兴起于此地,使其成为早期全球化的主要推动力量之一。更为重要的是,这一边疆地区在19—20世纪直接刺激了周边社会的民族和国家建设进程,成为域内国家走向“现代”的试验场。后冷战时代,日本、中国、朝鲜、韩国及俄罗斯都开始重新认识这个多边边疆的地缘重要性。只有深刻认知东北欧亚的内在历史发展轨迹和结构,才能理解该地区的社会生态结构,也才能认识到单纯以经济为指标、市场为导向的边疆建设,其问题何在。
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History, 2019
Scholars often regard the Qing-Korean relationship as the most representative instance of the so-... more Scholars often regard the Qing-Korean relationship as the most representative instance of the so-called tributary system, the Sino-centric hierarchical world order in early modern East Asia. It was also the most stable one, established in 1637 and ending as late as 1895 after the Qing’s total defeat in the first Sino-Japanese War. Precisely because this bilateral relationship was so typical and so stable, it was also unique in many ways. Although the Manchu regime largely inherited Ming China’s institutions in dealing with Korea (and, later, with other foreign states), this legacy revealed new meanings in the context of the Manchu conquest of China. As the Qing’s first and last subordinate state in the region, Chosŏn Korea served as both an ideological and a practical model in shaping the Qing’s geopolitical construction.
Beginning and ending with military clashes, the Qing-Chosŏn hierarchical relationship from the early 17th to the late 19th centuries was nourished and solidified by more peaceful interactions. Generally conducted under the Confucian zongfan (宗藩) principles, these interactions included rituals, diplomatic missions, trade, negotiations, cross-border jurisdiction, and cultural exchanges. Far from being imposed unilaterally by the Qing, the bilateral relationship was mutually constructed in a long process in which the Korean government and literati played a proactive role. During this time, the Korean attitude toward the Qing underwent a gradual change, from hostility to nuanced acceptance. In the late 19th century the two countries tried but failed to adjust their relationship in order to survive the geopolitical threat from industrialized, colonial powers. The collapse of the Qing-Chosŏn hierarchy eventually led to the rise of new national identities in both China and the Korean Peninsula in the 20th century.
1968风云激荡,对它的回味思考亦绵延不绝,而本文和仅仅学术性回顾1968的文章不同,作者通过身边的“凯镇九人”,追溯当年发生的事件原委,更重要的是,将具体而微的“凯镇九人”事件放在宏阔的时空脉... more 1968风云激荡,对它的回味思考亦绵延不绝,而本文和仅仅学术性回顾1968的文章不同,作者通过身边的“凯镇九人”,追溯当年发生的事件原委,更重要的是,将具体而微的“凯镇九人”事件放在宏阔的时空脉络中考察,串联起美国公民不服从运动和冷战时代的主题,使公民抗争、反战、亚非拉反帝反殖等透过这一事件得到鲜活的体现。
In the early twentieth century, the sovereignty of a territory north of the China-Korea Tumen Riv... more In the early twentieth century, the sovereignty of a territory north of the China-Korea Tumen River border was under severe dispute between China, Korea, and Japan. Based on a Jesuit memoir and map of Korea published in eighteenth-century Europe, a Japanese colonial bureaucrat and international law expert, Shinoda Jisaku, asserted that a vast region north of the China-Korea border should be regarded as a “no man's land.” Employing Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and European materials, this article traces the origin and evolution of such a definition. It demonstrates that the Jesuit map and description were based on false geographic information, which the Korean court deliberately provided to a Manchu official in 1713 in order to safeguard its interests. During prolonged intercommunication between diverse areas of the globe during the past three centuries, spatial and legal knowledge has been produced, reproduced, and transformed within imperial and colonial contexts.
In this paper I use a trans-border lens to investigate the region encompassed by the Russian Far ... more In this paper I use a trans-border lens to investigate the region encompassed by the Russian Far East, northeast China, eastern Mongolia, northern Korea, and the Sea of Japan. We need to transcend the framework of nation-states and restore the region’s historical agency in a broader geographic, geopolitical, and economic context. We also need to view the socioeconomic development of the area in terms of a protracted process in which various indigenous groups played crucial roles. Recognizing the historical dynamic of this region helps to reconceptualize its present and future development.
Maps are both knowledge and power. They offer viewers an interpretation of a particular space, an... more Maps are both knowledge and power. They offer viewers an interpretation of a particular space, and through the power of interpretation, they distort the reality of that space. Therefore, the creation of maps is not just a scientific or artistic endeavor, but also a political act. This book attempts to show how geographic knowledge about "Asia" has been created, reshaped, mutually influenced, and disseminated by both European and Asian (particularly Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) cartographers.
我们今天习以为常的“中国”和“东亚”概念是很晚近的产物,前者在清代才逐渐定型,后者则只是在近130年来才为人熟知。
亚欧大陆明明是一个地理板块,却硬生生地分成了“欧洲”和“亚洲”,“亚洲(Asi... more 我们今天习以为常的“中国”和“东亚”概念是很晚近的产物,前者在清代才逐渐定型,后者则只是在近130年来才为人熟知。 亚欧大陆明明是一个地理板块,却硬生生地分成了“欧洲”和“亚洲”,“亚洲(Asia)”即亚细亚,意思是东方,本身就带着欧洲的视角。16世纪传教士带来了“亚细亚”这个词,而东亚人逐渐接受这个身份标签,却是从1885年福泽谕吉发表《脱亚论》的时代才开始的。
Until the late nineteenth century, the Chinese-Korean Tumen River border was one of the oldest, a... more Until the late nineteenth century, the Chinese-Korean Tumen River border was one of the oldest, and perhaps most stable, state boundaries in the world. Spurred by severe food scarcity following a succession of natural disasters, from the 1860s, countless Korean refugees crossed the Tumen River border into Qing-China's Manchuria, triggering a decades-long territorial dispute between China, Korea, and Japan. This major new study of a multilateral and multiethnic frontier highlights the competing state- and nation-building projects in the fraught period that witnessed the Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, and the First World War. The power-plays over land and people simultaneously promoted China's frontier-building endeavours, motivated Korea's nationalist imagination, and stimulated Japan's colonialist enterprise, setting East Asia on an intricate trajectory from the late-imperial to a situation that, Song argues, we call modern.
in Jing Huang and Alexander Korolev ed., The Political Economy of Pacific Russia: Regional Develo... more in Jing Huang and Alexander Korolev ed., The Political Economy of Pacific Russia: Regional Developments in East Asia, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016) pp.53-76.
* My academic affiliation is put wrongly: it should be University of Maryland, "Baltimore County," instead of "College Park."
Uploads
Papers by Nianshen Song
connects. When thinking about state borders, or borderlands,
scholars tend to view them as either linear or zonal spaces,
distinguishing as well as linking one state with another. My
article argues for an alternative interpretation and explores the
geopolitical and cultural meanings of a historical border region
from both domestic and inter-state perspectives. The border of
China and Korea along the Yalu and the Tumen Rivers, is arguably one of the oldest state boundaries that is still effective
today. The history of the border river region as a “buffer
space” can be traced back to the seventeenth century when
Qing China and Chosŏn Korea established the border along
their northern frontiers. However, the geopolitical function of
this border went beyond considerations of defence or communications. From the mid-seventeenth century to the midnineteenth century, both the Manchu-Qing court and the
Chosŏn court implemented strict laws to control domestic
population flows to their northeastern and northern frontiers.
Such policies, I argue, must be understood in the context of
domestic politics in the two courts. Internal anxiety over preserving Manchu and Korean identity, coupled with strategy to
control the border against an external power, contributed to
the making of this borderland. Hence, the Qing-Chosŏn border
region served as a “dual buffer”. Employing historical records
and local gazettes in the two countries, my article reveals
a subtler layer of “buffer” from a case study in early modern
East Asia.
Beginning and ending with military clashes, the Qing-Chosŏn hierarchical relationship from the early 17th to the late 19th centuries was nourished and solidified by more peaceful interactions. Generally conducted under the Confucian zongfan (宗藩) principles, these interactions included rituals, diplomatic missions, trade, negotiations, cross-border jurisdiction, and cultural exchanges. Far from being imposed unilaterally by the Qing, the bilateral relationship was mutually constructed in a long process in which the Korean government and literati played a proactive role. During this time, the Korean attitude toward the Qing underwent a gradual change, from hostility to nuanced acceptance. In the late 19th century the two countries tried but failed to adjust their relationship in order to survive the geopolitical threat from industrialized, colonial powers. The collapse of the Qing-Chosŏn hierarchy eventually led to the rise of new national identities in both China and the Korean Peninsula in the 20th century.
Mongolia, northern Korea, and the Sea of Japan. We need to transcend
the framework of nation-states and restore the region’s historical agency
in a broader geographic, geopolitical, and economic context. We also need to view the socioeconomic development of the area in terms of a protracted process in which various indigenous groups played crucial roles. Recognizing the historical dynamic of this region helps to reconceptualize its present and future development.
Book Reviews by Nianshen Song
connects. When thinking about state borders, or borderlands,
scholars tend to view them as either linear or zonal spaces,
distinguishing as well as linking one state with another. My
article argues for an alternative interpretation and explores the
geopolitical and cultural meanings of a historical border region
from both domestic and inter-state perspectives. The border of
China and Korea along the Yalu and the Tumen Rivers, is arguably one of the oldest state boundaries that is still effective
today. The history of the border river region as a “buffer
space” can be traced back to the seventeenth century when
Qing China and Chosŏn Korea established the border along
their northern frontiers. However, the geopolitical function of
this border went beyond considerations of defence or communications. From the mid-seventeenth century to the midnineteenth century, both the Manchu-Qing court and the
Chosŏn court implemented strict laws to control domestic
population flows to their northeastern and northern frontiers.
Such policies, I argue, must be understood in the context of
domestic politics in the two courts. Internal anxiety over preserving Manchu and Korean identity, coupled with strategy to
control the border against an external power, contributed to
the making of this borderland. Hence, the Qing-Chosŏn border
region served as a “dual buffer”. Employing historical records
and local gazettes in the two countries, my article reveals
a subtler layer of “buffer” from a case study in early modern
East Asia.
Beginning and ending with military clashes, the Qing-Chosŏn hierarchical relationship from the early 17th to the late 19th centuries was nourished and solidified by more peaceful interactions. Generally conducted under the Confucian zongfan (宗藩) principles, these interactions included rituals, diplomatic missions, trade, negotiations, cross-border jurisdiction, and cultural exchanges. Far from being imposed unilaterally by the Qing, the bilateral relationship was mutually constructed in a long process in which the Korean government and literati played a proactive role. During this time, the Korean attitude toward the Qing underwent a gradual change, from hostility to nuanced acceptance. In the late 19th century the two countries tried but failed to adjust their relationship in order to survive the geopolitical threat from industrialized, colonial powers. The collapse of the Qing-Chosŏn hierarchy eventually led to the rise of new national identities in both China and the Korean Peninsula in the 20th century.
Mongolia, northern Korea, and the Sea of Japan. We need to transcend
the framework of nation-states and restore the region’s historical agency
in a broader geographic, geopolitical, and economic context. We also need to view the socioeconomic development of the area in terms of a protracted process in which various indigenous groups played crucial roles. Recognizing the historical dynamic of this region helps to reconceptualize its present and future development.
亚欧大陆明明是一个地理板块,却硬生生地分成了“欧洲”和“亚洲”,“亚洲(Asia)”即亚细亚,意思是东方,本身就带着欧洲的视角。16世纪传教士带来了“亚细亚”这个词,而东亚人逐渐接受这个身份标签,却是从1885年福泽谕吉发表《脱亚论》的时代才开始的。
本书就是书写16世纪以来东亚变迁、动荡、碰撞、发展、互相塑造的历史。
为什么我们对一水之隔的日韩,总有一种似曾相识,而又触不可及之感?我们身处其中,并自以为熟悉的东亚世界,其实充满了神话与偏见,有待重新发现和认识。本书正是以全球性、连续性的眼光,探讨了从16世纪以来的现代世界史——而不是中日韩某一国别史——是如何在东亚这片土地上展开的。蒙尘已久的过去得以重现。通过本书,我们可以发现,朝鲜半岛七十多年的南北对抗、中日朝韩之间错综复杂的爱恨情仇,其实都是东亚近代化道路上散落的“遗产”。虽然历史不直接为今天提供答案,但本书讲述的东亚遭遇,有助于我们拨开现实的迷雾,重建常识,在国内外的风云变幻中,透过现象看到本质。
* My academic affiliation is put wrongly: it should be University of Maryland, "Baltimore County," instead of "College Park."