作者：前自由亚洲记者 孙诚

编辑：张致君 责任编辑：李聪玲   校对：熊辩 翻译：戈冰

 

近年来，中国出现了一股争议风潮：一批人开始挑战官方“中国自古强大，都怪1840鸦片战争帝国主义入侵，导致中国近代衰落”这种叙事，称中国古代十分美好，只是因为“满清1644年入主中国，才导致了中国近代衰落”。

目前，这一争论，似正引起中共统战部和中共《解放军报》的互相攻讦，其中前者试图找一些御用文人，维护官方的“1840史观”和所谓“民族团结“叙事。而后者则似乎更钟情于更强硬的皇汉主义叙事，发表文章，提出不能只讲团结。

在笔者看来，无论1644还是1840史观，本质上都是伪概念，两者的争论也是一种伪争论。

事实上，中共所说的“两千年封建社会”历史，本质上就是一部专制王朝史。从民权的角度看，这两千年里百姓从没有机会选择自己的统治者，夺取天下者都是靠杀伐、武断暴力上位，其身份也不外乎流氓（汉、明）、阴谋家（晋）、军头（隋唐、五代、宋）、北族（元清）这几类。事实上，这些人都可称之为“僭主”，与英国光荣革命后的立宪君主相比，毫无半点合法性可言！

当然，其中有些朝代的一些时候或许君权小一些，百姓说话的空间有那么一些。至于民众的结社自由，就算在两千年皇权政治的巅峰时代，也还是有一些的，不至于像如今中共时代那么极度严苛，这些当然都是宝贵的自由传统。但本质上，皇帝和“草民”政治权利悬殊，这一点两千年来不变。

所谓“1644史观”，就是吹捧“汉人皇帝”的时代，怀念能“做稳奴隶”的时代。

所谓“1840史观”，就是吹捧无论什么族裔的古代皇帝的“丰功伟绩”，怀念从秦皇汉武到雍正乾隆这些暴君。

1644史观称“没有满清，中国近代就能赶上西方”，实质上是在为僭主皇权政治唱赞歌。

1840史观称“没有西方，中国近代就能赶上西方”，实质上是在为僭主皇权政治唱赞歌。

更何况，两者实际上都试图推行一种为极端民族主义服务的“国耻教育”，即：树立一个“十恶不赦的外敌”作为靶子，试图唤起皇汉、粉红等各路炮灰的“同仇敌忾”。可以说，两者没什么真正的不同。

此外，两者同样反西方，其中前者（1644史观）加上了“满人”这个“敌人”，试图推行极端皇汉主义，试图把中共针对维吾尔人的暴行推广到更多族群。后者（1840史观）则是长期以来的中共官史，用于维护中共所谓“结束半殖民地半封建社会”的“合法性”，为中共继续奴役民众添砖加瓦。（当然，笔者观察到，也有一些对中共不满的声音，在借助1644史观借古讽今，以清拟共，这种现象要另作讨论，在此不展开讲了。）

那么，我们究竟需要什么史观呢？笔者认为，我们需要的是1911史观。

1911年的辛亥革命，事实上终结的并非简简单单一个清朝，而是一场对两千年僭主皇权的否定，亦是一次跳出朝代循环死局的重大尝试。1911开启的时代，有约法与制宪的努力，有司法独立的伟业，有民众投入宪政选举的热忱，有地方自治及民族自决风潮，如1913年藏人的民族自决就是正常民族自决的典型。中共鼓吹的那种所谓“民族自治”则是一种伪自决，本质上是为其最终颠覆全世界自由服务的一步棋而已……这个时代，固然有种种野心家试图重建帝制、重建专制的企图，更有苏联这一赤色恶魔竭尽全力的颠覆活动，但依然存在着无数人为捍卫民权所作的非凡努力，仍然存在着昂扬向上的时代精神，仍然存在着向良好政治发展的可能路径。那时，人们似乎真的有可能选择自己的政府、政体、生活方式。这种良好路径可能性的存在，是民国史的最大意义。

尽管今日，中共已扼杀了这个昙花一现的时代，且在其统治之下，人们陷入了“1644史观”vs“1840史观”的伪争论。然而，如果我们真正重新审视历史，以民众为思考的本位，就不难得出结论：所谓1644史观和1840史观大同小异，只有1911史观才是我们需要的东西。

 

1644 historical perspective? 1840 historical perspective? What we need is the 1911 historical perspective.

Abstract: The so-called 1644 historical perspective and 1840 historical perspective are essentially variants of autocratic imperial power and nationalism. Only the 1911 historical perspective denies two thousand years of tyrannical politics and affirms the historical possibility of civil rights, constitutional governance, and the people’s choice of government.

Author: Former Radio Free Asia reporter Sun Cheng

Editor: Zhang Zhijun Managing Editor: Li Congling

Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator:Ge Bing

In recent years, a wave of controversy has emerged in China: a group of people has begun to challenge the official narrative that “China has been strong since ancient times, and it is all the fault of the 1840 Opium War and imperialist invasion, which led to China’s modern decline,” claiming that ancient China was very beautiful, and that it was only because “the Manchus took over China in 1644 that modern China declined.” Currently, this debate seems to be provoking mutual accusations between the United Front Work Department of the Communist Party of China and the People’s Liberation Army Daily, with the former trying to find some official scholars to uphold the official “1840 historical perspective” and the so-called “narrative of national unity.” The latter, on the other hand, seems to prefer a more hardline Han imperialist narrative, publishing articles that state that unity cannot be the only topic.

In my view, whether it is the 1644 or 1840 historical perspective, they are essentially pseudo-concepts, and the debate between them is also a pseudo-debate. In fact, the “two thousand years of feudal society” history referred to by the Communist Party is essentially a history of autocratic dynasties. From the perspective of civil rights, the people have never had the opportunity to choose their rulers in these two thousand years; those who seized power did so through killing and arbitrary violence, and their identities were nothing more than thugs (Han, Ming), conspirators (Jin), warlords (Sui, Tang, Five Dynasties, Song), or northern ethnic groups (Yuan, Qing). In fact, these people can all be called “tyrants,” and compared to the constitutional monarchs after the English Glorious Revolution, they have no legitimacy whatsoever!

Of course, there were some dynasties at certain times when imperial power was somewhat lessened, allowing the people a bit more space to speak. As for the freedom of association for the populace, even during the peak of two thousand years of imperial politics, there was still some degree of it, not as extremely harsh as in today’s Communist era; these are certainly valuable traditions of freedom. But essentially, the political rights of the emperor and the “common people” have been vastly different, and this has not changed in two thousand years.

The so-called “1644 historical perspective” glorifies the era of “Han emperors,” reminiscing about the time when one could “be a stable slave.” The so-called “1840 historical perspective” glorifies the “great achievements” of ancient emperors of all ethnicities, reminiscing about tyrants from Qin Shi Huang and Han Wu to Yongzheng and Qianlong. The 1644 historical perspective claims that “without the Manchus, modern China could catch up with the West,” which is essentially singing praises for tyrannical imperial politics. The 1840 historical perspective claims that “without the West, modern China could catch up with the West,” which is also essentially singing praises for tyrannical imperial politics.

Moreover, both perspectives actually attempt to promote a “national humiliation education” that serves extreme nationalism, namely: establishing a “mortal enemy” as a target, trying to evoke a sense of “shared hatred” among various factions such as Han imperialists and “pink” supporters. One could say there is no real difference between the two.

Additionally, both are anti-Western; the former (1644 historical perspective) adds the “Manchu” as an “enemy,” attempting to promote extreme Han imperialism and trying to extend the Communist Party’s atrocities against Uyghurs to more ethnic groups. The latter (1840 historical perspective) has long been the official history of the Communist Party, used to maintain the so-called “legitimacy” of the Communist Party’s claim to have “ended the semi-colonial and semi-feudal society,” adding bricks to the Communist Party’s continued enslavement of the people. (Of course, I have observed that there are also some voices dissatisfied with the Communist Party, using the 1644 historical perspective to criticize the present by drawing parallels with the Qing, but this phenomenon requires separate discussion and will not be elaborated on here.)

So, what kind of historical perspective do we really need? I believe what we need is the 1911 historical perspective. The Xinhai Revolution of 1911 did not simply end the Qing Dynasty; it was a denial of two thousand years of tyrannical imperial power and a significant attempt to break out of the cycle of dynastic deadlock. The era opened by 1911 included efforts at constitutional law and constitution-making, achievements in judicial independence, enthusiasm from the people for participating in constitutional elections, and a wave of local autonomy and national self-determination, such as the 1913 Tibetan self-determination being a typical example of normal national self-determination. The so-called “national autonomy” promoted by the Communist Party is a form of pseudo-self-determination, essentially just a strategic move to ultimately subvert freedom worldwide… This era, while there were various ambitious individuals attempting to restore the empire and autocracy, and the Soviet Union, that red demon, exerting its utmost efforts to subvert, still saw countless extraordinary efforts by people to defend civil rights, a vibrant spirit of the times, and the potential paths toward good political development. At that time, it seemed that people really had the possibility to choose their own government, political system, and way of life. The existence of this potential for a good path is the greatest significance of the history of the Republic of China.

Although today, the Communist Party has strangled this fleeting era, and under its rule, people are caught in a pseudo-debate between the “1644 historical perspective” versus “1840 historical perspective.” However, if we truly re-examine history, placing the people at the center of our thinking, it is not difficult to conclude that the so-called 1644 historical perspective and 1840 historical perspective are largely similar, and only the 1911 historical perspective is what we truly need.