Scholarly Viewpoints
The nation-state paradigm for writing history—which goes back to Leopold von Ranke and the foundation of the modern discipline —was sometimes dismissed in the late 20th century when the state was supposed, amid economic and cultural "globalisation," to be withering away. But it is still...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM Press)
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://eprints.usm.my/40556/1/NicholasTarlingViewpoints.pdf http://eprints.usm.my/40556/ http://ijaps.usm.my/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NicholasTarlingViewpoints.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Universiti Sains Malaysia |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | The nation-state paradigm for writing history—which goes back to Leopold von
Ranke and the foundation of the modern discipline —was sometimes dismissed
in the late 20th century when the state was supposed, amid economic and
cultural "globalisation," to be withering away. But it is still very much alive in
areas where the nation-state is still establishing itself as the pre-eminent
political entity. And that includes much of the "Asia Pacific." ASEAN is built
on the Bandung principles that endorsed sovereignty and non-intervention.
Japan was the first "modern" state in East Asia. China has, perhaps, a more
ambiguous attitude. New Zealand—if not Australia, too—is very much into
navel-gazing.
Indeed it sometimes seems that neighbours are reluctant to write about
neighbours. Language is often a barrier, but sensitivity perhaps even more often.
Those who write about "regions" tend to be "outsiders" especially students of
politics and "security." Historians are more cautious. The archives they need are
often closed and they wonder whether a region has reality |
|---|