Dangerous Games 在線電子書 圖書標籤: 曆史  史學理論  話語分析  思辨  思想史   

喜歡 Dangerous Games 在線電子書 的讀者還喜歡

• 
  Remaking the Chinese Empire 在線電子書 pdf 下載 txt下載 epub 下載 mobi 下載
• 
  Qing Travelers to the Far West 在線電子書 pdf 下載 txt下載 epub 下載 mobi 下載
• 
  Uyghur Nation 在線電子書 pdf 下載 txt下載 epub 下載 mobi 下載
• 
  國傢精英 在線電子書 pdf 下載 txt下載 epub 下載 mobi 下載
• 
  譯者與學者 在線電子書 pdf 下載 txt下載 epub 下載 mobi 下載
• 
  民國的“失傳” 在線電子書 pdf 下載 txt下載 epub 下載 mobi 下載
• 
  曆史學十二講（增訂本） 在線電子書 pdf 下載 txt下載 epub 下載 mobi 下載
• 
  “賊”“民”之間 在線電子書 pdf 下載 txt下載 epub 下載 mobi 下載
• 
  史傢、史學與現代學術 在線電子書 pdf 下載 txt下載 epub 下載 mobi 下載
• 
  生活的邏輯 在線電子書 pdf 下載 txt下載 epub 下載 mobi 下載

A lucidly written argument about the dangers of manipulating history for present (mainly political) interests, MacMillan's book is good enough as a public-oriented work. Yet none of her arguments (re-packaging, for instance, decades-old arguments about "imagined communities" and "invented traditions") are very original and her bias for "political history" over social or cultural studies leaves an impression that the abuse of history occurs mostly at the hands of political leaders and parties, nation-states, and interest groups. Furthermore, even some of her rightful condemnations seem rather simplistic. Just one example: the only people who seem to abuse history and take on a stance of victimhood in China, in MacMillan's story, are the CCP (with quips from Zhou and Deng as evidence). But why does reconstructed nationalistic claims resonate with the public? Why do elites and subalterns often buy into the same version of victimhood? Notes here and there about her unfamiliarity with certain historiographies and debates and a more detailed list of suggested readings would help public readers. When the international historian reaches for breadth at the cost of depth, she should readily acknowledge her own use and abuse (however unintentional) of histories.

A lucidly written argument about the dangers of manipulating history for present (mainly political) interests, MacMillan's book is good enough as a public-oriented work. Yet none of her arguments (re-packaging, for instance, decades-old arguments about "imagined communities" and "invented traditions") are very original and her bias for "political history" over social or cultural studies leaves an impression that the abuse of history occurs mostly at the hands of political leaders and parties, nation-states, and interest groups. Furthermore, even some of her rightful condemnations seem rather simplistic. Just one example: the only people who seem to abuse history and take on a stance of victimhood in China, in MacMillan's story, are the CCP (with quips from Zhou and Deng as evidence). But why does reconstructed nationalistic claims resonate with the public? Why do elites and subalterns often buy into the same version of victimhood? Notes here and there about her unfamiliarity with certain historiographies and debates and a more detailed list of suggested readings would help public readers. When the international historian reaches for breadth at the cost of depth, she should readily acknowledge her own use and abuse (however unintentional) of histories.

確實不該給隨便看看的一般讀者上史學理論（即便有良好的文筆與相對為讀者所熟悉的案例作為支撐），作者很容易跳進自以為發覺並成功避開的陷阱

A lucidly written argument about the dangers of manipulating history for present (mainly political) interests, MacMillan's book is good enough as a public-oriented work. Yet none of her arguments (re-packaging, for instance, decades-old arguments about "imagined communities" and "invented traditions") are very original and her bias for "political history" over social or cultural studies leaves an impression that the abuse of history occurs mostly at the hands of political leaders and parties, nation-states, and interest groups. Furthermore, even some of her rightful condemnations seem rather simplistic. Just one example: the only people who seem to abuse history and take on a stance of victimhood in China, in MacMillan's story, are the CCP (with quips from Zhou and Deng as evidence). But why does reconstructed nationalistic claims resonate with the public? Why do elites and subalterns often buy into the same version of victimhood? Notes here and there about her unfamiliarity with certain historiographies and debates and a more detailed list of suggested readings would help public readers. When the international historian reaches for breadth at the cost of depth, she should readily acknowledge her own use and abuse (however unintentional) of histories.

確實不該給隨便看看的一般讀者上史學理論（即便有良好的文筆與相對為讀者所熟悉的案例作為支撐），作者很容易跳進自以為發覺並成功避開的陷阱