What do you think?
Rate this book
China: An Illustrated History
This concise, illustrated volume aims to offer the reader a panoramic view of this ancient land, from remote antiquity to the 21st century. Amongst other topics, it expores sources of Chinese thought and cornerstones of Chinese political, religious and economic institutions.
142 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 2000
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 15, 2023
The text is straight forward and highly readable. The span of topics over the course of Chinese history is pleasantly balanced. There's little personality about any one particular historical figure, but that is not the focus of this overview of the various political features and formations of the culture we call Chinese today.
The author, Yong Ho, served with distinction in the UN, taking leadership in founding and delivering Chinese language courses to UN officials and officers. He earned his Ph.D from Columbia University in anthropolgy and Chinese linguistics in New York, USA.
This book, published in 2000, was written previous to his tenure at the UN and after his attainment of his Ph.D. In his profiles today, his language books take precedence, and for good reason, as his training and professional focus has been language education.
While I sincerely appreciate historical texts written directly in English by the cultures on which the text is focused, there are some obvious points that this book was not written by a professional historian. There is no bibliography pointing to where the author's information was located. There are errors in the text on occasion, for example, on page 93 it is stated that Puyi became the last emperor of China at the age of three, but on page 94 it is written that Puyi ascended the throne upon the death of his grand aunt at the age of two.
Some historical issues also appeared in my reading. Some of this may be a mistranslation of historical concepts, for example, on page 82, Korea is termed a protectorate of China at the time of the Japanese 1894 invasion, but a better translation might be tributary. From all my reading of Korean history and my time in Korea, I would say that I haven't seen evidence, as hinted in this text, that Korea was ever more that a temporarily conquered nation of various Chinese dynasties which was never truly held, though the two cultures in various political forms did exchange ties, which China's role being that of "gege" or "older brother" a title that in Confucian cultures, implies preeminence and a certain amount of leadership, but necessarily control. This is an area of continued study for me but I distinctly remember going through the National Museum in Seoul and walking away with a different view than found in this text.
Additionally, the text claims on page 71 that the Ming dynasty forced tributary vassalage on Japan at some point in the first half of the 1400's. I consulted my partner who specializes in Japan (his degree) and I myself hold an East Asian degree with a focus on China. Neither of us understand this statement. Again, I believe the author is either misunderstanding a translation of concept between the East Asia and Europe were English gets the term, or pushing the bounds of fact to exalt his primary topic. There was a system, used at the different points, between China and surrounding countries where one royal court acknowledged another as more powerful and sent items of value and sometimes women to Chinese dynastic courts. The practice, however, in function, should not be read as creating vassal status as an English reader would consider it, for example, Norman lords being vassals of their king, which required them to fight under his banner and fund his wars, etc. Of concern in this particular claim, the Ming's are considered successful at something the Mongel dynasty, the Yuan, were not able to achieve. The Mongels did launch two armed invasions of Japan via ship and were rebuffed both time, weather playing a significant role. This conjunction of events implies some sort of move of force and subjugation.
The author shows bias in a few ways, writing of Daoism in a rather dismissive way and leaving out much of the factual matter of the philosophical/religious tradition. The author also neglects to acknowledge that the shipping and explorations he applauds on page 71 by Zheng He were forcefully ended by the emperor of the time. This move by the emperor ended China's initial direct trade with Africa.
One final note. There is no mention of a woman by name in the entire book that ends positively, in any fashion, and practically all references to women in any status is negative, blaming them and eunuchs for court intrigue and destabilizing plots in most cases. The last woman mentioned by name is Mao's widow, Jiang Qing, with a photograph of her on trial after his death as part of the Gang of Four. Out of all descriptions of the Tang empress Wu, the only woman to rule in Chinese dynasty in her own right, this was the least favorable passage I recollect written on her, including those I read when I lived in China.
I would not, for the above reasons, recommend this book as a reliable source for learning Chinese history, although, I find it keeps mostly to the facts. The groupings of the dynasties was neat and orderly, which I did appreciate. It is the selection of facts and tilt in translation, which is certainly in service of the current CCP argument towards greater land claims by Beijing. Additionally, the text's aggrandizement of Han masculinity at the cost of all others that concerns me. The accomplishments of the Han people is truly great and requires no embellishment. The accomplishment of China, in all its diversity, also requires no enlargement, but preferably a more level hand than this text allows.
The author, Yong Ho, served with distinction in the UN, taking leadership in founding and delivering Chinese language courses to UN officials and officers. He earned his Ph.D from Columbia University in anthropolgy and Chinese linguistics in New York, USA.
This book, published in 2000, was written previous to his tenure at the UN and after his attainment of his Ph.D. In his profiles today, his language books take precedence, and for good reason, as his training and professional focus has been language education.
While I sincerely appreciate historical texts written directly in English by the cultures on which the text is focused, there are some obvious points that this book was not written by a professional historian. There is no bibliography pointing to where the author's information was located. There are errors in the text on occasion, for example, on page 93 it is stated that Puyi became the last emperor of China at the age of three, but on page 94 it is written that Puyi ascended the throne upon the death of his grand aunt at the age of two.
Some historical issues also appeared in my reading. Some of this may be a mistranslation of historical concepts, for example, on page 82, Korea is termed a protectorate of China at the time of the Japanese 1894 invasion, but a better translation might be tributary. From all my reading of Korean history and my time in Korea, I would say that I haven't seen evidence, as hinted in this text, that Korea was ever more that a temporarily conquered nation of various Chinese dynasties which was never truly held, though the two cultures in various political forms did exchange ties, which China's role being that of "gege" or "older brother" a title that in Confucian cultures, implies preeminence and a certain amount of leadership, but necessarily control. This is an area of continued study for me but I distinctly remember going through the National Museum in Seoul and walking away with a different view than found in this text.
Additionally, the text claims on page 71 that the Ming dynasty forced tributary vassalage on Japan at some point in the first half of the 1400's. I consulted my partner who specializes in Japan (his degree) and I myself hold an East Asian degree with a focus on China. Neither of us understand this statement. Again, I believe the author is either misunderstanding a translation of concept between the East Asia and Europe were English gets the term, or pushing the bounds of fact to exalt his primary topic. There was a system, used at the different points, between China and surrounding countries where one royal court acknowledged another as more powerful and sent items of value and sometimes women to Chinese dynastic courts. The practice, however, in function, should not be read as creating vassal status as an English reader would consider it, for example, Norman lords being vassals of their king, which required them to fight under his banner and fund his wars, etc. Of concern in this particular claim, the Ming's are considered successful at something the Mongel dynasty, the Yuan, were not able to achieve. The Mongels did launch two armed invasions of Japan via ship and were rebuffed both time, weather playing a significant role. This conjunction of events implies some sort of move of force and subjugation.
The author shows bias in a few ways, writing of Daoism in a rather dismissive way and leaving out much of the factual matter of the philosophical/religious tradition. The author also neglects to acknowledge that the shipping and explorations he applauds on page 71 by Zheng He were forcefully ended by the emperor of the time. This move by the emperor ended China's initial direct trade with Africa.
One final note. There is no mention of a woman by name in the entire book that ends positively, in any fashion, and practically all references to women in any status is negative, blaming them and eunuchs for court intrigue and destabilizing plots in most cases. The last woman mentioned by name is Mao's widow, Jiang Qing, with a photograph of her on trial after his death as part of the Gang of Four. Out of all descriptions of the Tang empress Wu, the only woman to rule in Chinese dynasty in her own right, this was the least favorable passage I recollect written on her, including those I read when I lived in China.
I would not, for the above reasons, recommend this book as a reliable source for learning Chinese history, although, I find it keeps mostly to the facts. The groupings of the dynasties was neat and orderly, which I did appreciate. It is the selection of facts and tilt in translation, which is certainly in service of the current CCP argument towards greater land claims by Beijing. Additionally, the text's aggrandizement of Han masculinity at the cost of all others that concerns me. The accomplishments of the Han people is truly great and requires no embellishment. The accomplishment of China, in all its diversity, also requires no enlargement, but preferably a more level hand than this text allows.
August 20, 2018
A broad overview of a massive history. This is a good starting point if you are like me and interested in Chinese history but intimidated by the breadth of it; I now have a few points of entry where this book intrigued me to look for other books.
August 22, 2008
Superficial in a good way. It's an overview that you can easily read during commercial breaks in the Olympics. Think of it as a picture of the Great Wall from space.
January 10, 2009
This is a very small book about a very Large subject. I wanted to get some background since China is such a current event subject.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews