|WikiProject China||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
An angry tangent in "ethnic inclusiveness"
"Therefore, blaming the ethnic inclusiveness theory..." Blaming it for what? This entire section sounds like an angry defense of an unclear idea. Who is blaming the idea of Zhonghua Minzu for what problem? That Vietnam, Mongolia, and Korea are independent nation-states? This is a fact of modern geopolitics, not a problem of Chinese historiography. What should be discussed here is what different viewpoints exist on the issue of, essentially, how to resolve the historiography of all the overlapping nations that exist within modern (and have existed within ancient) China.
If this paragraph isn't neutralized before long, I will do it myself. Amhaun01 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The name of this article is not apropiated: in the translation to spanish we have opted by Interpretaciones de la historia de China. There is two reasons:
- First: there is only two chinese historian cited here, all others are occidental.
- Second: Science is one, and so one historiography (historians can be clasificated by time, nation, class, ethnics, sex... and even object of study)--Ángel Luis Alfaro 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)