Taking Chun-chieh Huang’s ruminations on the defining character of Chinese historical thinking as a starting point, this essay discusses the ways in which historical cultures and traditions are compared and contrasted and explores some new ways of thinking. It argues that cultural comparisons often constitute two-way traffic and that attempts to characterize one historical culture, such as that of China, are often made relationally and temporally. When the Chinese tradition of historiography is perceived and presented in the West, it has (...) been regarded more or less as a counterexample against which the “unique” traits of Western historical thinking are thrown into relief. Given the hegemonic influence of Western scholarship in modern times, latter-day Chinese historians also valorize the East–West dichotomy. A closer look at this dichotomy, or the characterization of both cultures, reveals that it is not only relative but also relational and temporal. When the modern Chinese appeared impressed by the rigor of Rankean critical historiography, for example, they were essentially attempting to rediscover their own cultural past, for example, the eighteenth-century tradition of evidential learning, in adapting to the changing world. Our task today, the essay contends, is to historicize the specific context within which cultural comparisons are made and to go beyond readily accepted characterizations in order to reassess certain elements in a given culture, to apply historical wisdom, and to cope with the challenges we now face. (shrink)

ABSTRACTTaking Chun‐chieh Huang's ruminations on the defining character of Chinese historical thinking as a starting point, this essay discusses the ways in which historical cultures and traditions are compared and contrasted and explores some new ways of thinking. It argues that cultural comparisons often constitute two‐way traffic and that attempts to characterize one historical culture, such as that of China, are often made relationally and temporally. When the Chinese tradition of historiography is perceived and presented in the West, it has (...) been regarded more or less as a counterexample against which the “unique” traits of Western historical thinking are thrown into relief. Given the hegemonic influence of Western scholarship in modern times, latter‐day Chinese historians also valorize the East—West dichotomy. A closer look at this dichotomy, or the characterization of both cultures, reveals that it is not only relative but also relational and temporal. When the modern Chinese appeared impressed by the rigor of Rankean critical historiography, for example, they were essentially attempting to rediscover their own cultural past, for example, the eighteenth‐century tradition of evidential learning, in adapting to the changing world. Our task today, the essay contends, is to historicize the specific context within which cultural comparisons are made and to go beyond readily accepted characterizations in order to reassess certain elements in a given culture, to apply historical wisdom, and to cope with the challenges we now face. (shrink)

The paper discusses two different approaches to Nazism and the Holocaust. The first approach is different versions of the Sonderweg thesis arguing that the explanation of the "German catastrophe" should be sought in the particular features of German history. The second approach rests on searching for external, exogenous factors that played a formative role in the emergence of National Socialism. The examples illustrating these two approaches are recently published books by Aleksandar Molnar and Michael Kellogg, reviewed in detail in the (...) paper. Starting from an interpretation of these books, the author argues that the limitations of both approaches result from the complexity of a historical experience that resists rationalization. U radu se razmatraju dva razlicita pristupa objasnjenju nacizma i holokausta. Prvi obuhvata razlicite verzije Sonderweg teze prema kojoj se u posebnosti nemacke istorije trazi objasnjenje "nemacke katastrofe". Drugi pristup pociva na traganju za spoljasnjim, egzogenim faktorima koji su imali formativnu ulogu u nastanku nacionalsocijalizama. Primeri kojima se ilustruju ova dva stanovista su nove knjige Aleksandra Molnara i Majkla Keloga koje se u radu detaljno prikazuju. Na osnovu interpretacije ovih knjiga, autor ukazuje da su ogranicenja oba navedena pristupa posledica kompleksnosti istorijskog iskustva koje se opire racionalizaciji. (shrink)

Polazeci od teorijskog problema tumacenja procesa izgradnje nacija u okviru kontinentalnih imperija, autor u ovom radu istrazuje razlicita znacenja?Sibira? u ru?skoj imperijalnoj i nacionalnoj imaginaciji. Analizom diskurzivnih praksi kojima se stvaraju razlicite predstave geografskog prostora prikazana je promena percepcije Sibira od?tudje zemlje? i?kolonije? do neotudjivog dela ruske nacionalne teritorije. Prateci nastanak?ruskosti? Sibira, autor taj koncept interpretira kao sastavni deo sirih debata o ruskom identitetu, tj. odnosu?evropske? i?azijske? Rusije. Stoga je osnovni cilj ove studije objasnjenje jednog vaznog aspekta procesa promene Rusije (...) od imperijalne do?nacionalizujuce? drzave. PR Projekat Ministarstva nauke Republike Srbije, br. 179014. (shrink)

This article takes up the “Furet/nolte debate” over the meaning of fascism and communism for our time. It does so in order to sketch out the dilemmas that confound the construction of meaningful narratives of the twentieth century, where persistent obstacles attend the enclosure of twentieth‐century events within an integrated and coherent whole. For at least two reasons, I suggest, the correspondence of Ernst Nolte and the late François Furet is instructive in identifying the nature of these obstacles more precisely. (...) First, Furet himself is the author of what is currently construed as being one of the most ambitious attempts to narrate the twentieth century, by taking the “illusions” engendered by faith in the Marxist–Leninist project as its organising principle. Second, the positions adopted by Nolte have been contested in the public sphere as being acutely emblematic of problems latent in the attempt to enclose communism and fascism together in a narrative of mutual complicity. The correspondence between Furet and Nolte therefore provides a fruitful context in which to treat a set of related problems bearing upon the relation between historical truth and reconciliation, between history and memory, and between the contemporary world and the advent of totalitarianism. As I conclude, a key point which has to date been overlooked in discussions of this kind is the coincidence of attempts to establish a historiographic framework for the twentieth century with efforts to undertake a settling of accounts with socialism. (shrink)

This article examines the theoretical and methodological implications of the revisionist debates. It focuses on the political, academic, and moral dimensions of the process of rewriting history and its interrelation with the public sphere. The article examines the recent debate in Greece and compares it with case studies of Germany, Spain, Israel, the Soviet Union, and Ireland. It comments on the common elements of these cases and proposes a basic typology of the revisionist debates in terms of similarities and differences. (...) It categorizes the revisionist endeavors into three types: the successful, the failed, and the bewildered. (shrink)