shaken the theoretical foundation of Western centralism.“我们的历史是偷窃来的”——西方学界名流自曝家丑

, Jack Goody is a rare man of insight; he dared to expose his family ugliness, and revealed the truth about the theft of Chinese history by the West. Although what it disclosed is only the tip of the iceberg, it has already shaken the theoretical foundation of Western centralism.

        People have seen all kinds of thieves and thieves, thieves include stealing money and goods, stealing chickens and dogs, and thieves include those who steal homes and countries; Zhuangzi sarcastically said: "The one who steals the hook will be punished, and the one who steals the country will be a prince..." It means Because petty thieves will be punished by law, while big thieves will instead become princes to dominate and be admired by the world. However, Zhuangzi didn't know that on top of the thieves who stole the country, there were also those who stole the history of ancient civilizations! You can actually take other people's history and culture as your own!

        Jack Goody states in the introduction to his book: "When I began to explore the subject, the state of global history had changed considerably." He cited several scholars who shared the same view, such as Blaut, Gunder Frank, Pomeranz, Hobson, Fermandez-Armesto, Deborah Howard, Jerry Brotton, etc., cited him as comrades who opposed the West-centrism. If you are not alone, you must have neighbors." This fully shows that the questioning and criticism of Western-centrism and Western pseudo-history is not an isolated phenomenon in mainstream Western academic circles, but represents a historical trend in the post-colonial era.

        Regrettably, in China, although the book "Stealing History" has long been translated into Chinese, it has not attracted the attention of the academic circles. There are even seemingly intentional "mistranslations" in important parts of the book, which are different from the meaning of the original text. The difference is so far that readers will not know what to say after reading it...

        By correcting some major translation errors in the Chinese version and synthesizing the cutting-edge views of Western academic circles, this article sorts out the context of the West’s theft of Chinese history. The academic trend of pseudo-history serves as a reference for us to criticize Western-centrism.

Graphic: Students should be taught the real history of world civilizations

1. Criticism of Western-centrism by European and American mainstream academic circles

        Sixteen years ago, Jack Goody, a celebrity in the British and American academic circles, published an "epoch-making" book - "The Theft of History" (Cambridge University Press, 2006). The author exposed his family ugliness, revealed to the world that the West stole historical records from other countries and forged its own "heritage", and thus constructed a "civilization pedigree" centered on the West, which aroused great repercussions from the international academic community.

        Three years after the book came out, there was a Chinese translation ("Stealing History", translated by Zhang Zhengping, Zhejiang University Press, 2009). However, what is puzzling is that the masterpieces of international academic circles criticizing Western-centrism have not resonated in Chinese academic circles. There are probably two reasons for this. One is that Western-centred theory has permeated Chinese academics and has become a chronic problem. The second is that there are serious problems in translation, which have affected Chinese readers' understanding of the meaning of the book. in other words,

The Chinese translation of "A History of Stealing" is very problematic.

Illustration: Chinese version of Stealing History, translated by Zhang Zhengping, Zhejiang University Press, 2009

        For example, there is a subtitle in the book, "The invention of Antiquity", which is translated into "the creation of the classical age" in the Chinese translation; )of. Creating history is the opposite of fabricating false history. The problem with this kind of translation is not so much a simple misunderstanding and mistranslation as it is a deliberate cover-up and a cover-up of the truth.

        Three historians from the University of Amsterdam (M. Brolsma, Robin Bruin, Matthijs Lok) explain this subtitle in particular:

        According to Jack Goody, the "Ancient" West was "invented" by Europeans by appropriating the East. (by) modern Europeans projecting their own image onto the 'classical world', thus reshaping it into their ideal model. [1]

        The central idea of "The Stealing History" is that the brilliant and extensive "history of civilization" in the West is plagiarized. While the book is similar to George G. M. James: Stolen Legacy... (George G. M. James: Stolen Legacy...),[2] they are on a very different scale: the latter has been criticized as fringe , the former is the mainstream theory.

        Jack Goody (Jack Goody, 1919—2015): Professor of Cambridge University, social anthropologist, fellow of the Royal Academy of Sciences, honorary fellow of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences, was knighted by the Queen of England, and was also awarded the French Commander of Arts and Letters by France Honors.

        Thinking about the Past (Oxford University Press, 2014) states: "Goody questions Occidentalist views of history, 'Western democracy', etc.; ... , determined as 'theft'." [3]

        Hannah Sharp of the University of Potsdam commented on A History of Stealing:

        The West "steals history" from the rest of the world! ... There is a famous saying: "History is written by the victors." ...According to Goody, this has led to a serious misunderstanding of history; for as the "victors" the West has monopolized the hitherto "world history". The way European and American academia has undertaken this task has been to remain Eurocentric and to deny the achievements of the non-Western world. … Goody also says that scholars assume that ideas like democracy, capitalism, individualism, freedom, and even romantic love are Western qualities and heritage; and that they are widely credited with making them up. But in fact, such elements of civilization were probably developed elsewhere. [4]

        The "Gudy Phenomenon" definitely vented the trend of anti-Western-centrism, and it gradually merged into "Revisionists" (Revisionists, which means "correcting Western-centrism"). Ricardo Duchesne, a professor at the University of New Brunswick in Canada, wrote:

       Since the 1990s, there has been a powerful movement in world history studies that has brought about a multicultural turn. Its purpose is to challenge the West-centrism, question the uniqueness and excellence of Europe, deny the rise of the West due to its original vitality and internal motivation, and marginalize the meaning of Western civilization. Furthermore, led by eminent scholars in economics, anthropology, historical sociology, and international relations, the nascent "revisionists" sought to make the ethos of multiculturalism the dominant paradigm of world history. ... The "revisionists" are in the ascendant and unstoppable. A series of highly influential works emphasizing the pluralism of world history (replacing the Western "single-line view of history"). The founder and pioneer of this theory is Frank (André Gunder Frank). … He pointed out that Europe was neither the creator nor the core of the world trading system; the rise of the West was nothing more than a counterpoint to the trough of China's ups and downs. ["China is the main axis of the early modern world system" [5]]. ... Goody despises any "European miracle". He argues that such "revivals" can be found all over Eurasia.... Historical sociologist Jack Goldstone makes a similar argument that the only quality of the West is "lucky chance". …International relations professor John Hobson denies the originality or ingenuity of the West, arguing that the West rose by “appropriating the East.” [6]

        Although Goody's few books are far from completely negating Western pseudo-history, he has opened up a breakthrough in this regard, and it is out of control. The following further introduces "The History of Stealing" and other related works of Goody, as well as the expansion or development of "revisionist" scholars influenced by them in this regard.

Illustration: the late Jack Goody (Jack Goody, 1919-2015) and his book "The History of Stealing", and its history-social science field in the West set off a storm.

2. The current "world history" is stolen by the West

        The "history of theft" that Goody and his colleagues refer to can be divided into five meanings:

        First, copy Chinese history. "Gudy argued in his book that the West stole historical concepts from the East." [7] In this regard, he himself only mentioned it, but did not expand it. Let us look at the relevant insights of other scholars. The West without history[8] imported historiography from China, which is a derivative of Sinology. Canadian scholar Timothy Brook said: "Sinology, which is regarded as a secondary discipline today, actually played a major role in the formation of history, geography, and social theory in Europe in the 17th century." [9]

        Not only that, Western "history" was originally "copying China". Alexander Statman, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, wrote:

        Modern European scholars have relied on non-European texts—that is, ancient Chinese texts—to write their own "world histories." ...Professors of the French Royal Academy of Sciences have translated China's original historical materials to serve the research on the origin of (pan-Western) civilization...   They believed that China and Europe were linked in the past, so that the history of one could reveal the "history" of the other. …By the 1750s, European academia was painting a (Western version) picture of “human history” from ancient Chinese texts…. [10]

        Second, resort to cognitive violence. Vusi Gumede, a professor at the University of Mpumalanga in South Africa, commented: "Gudi's "History of Stealing" said that the West has usurped the 'world history' and turned it into a 'European game'.... Ancient and modern The world is described, ordered, and conceptualized by Occidentocentrism.”[11]

        This is the "epistemic violence" of the West! American historian Prasenjit Duara points out:

        Goody makes a convincing argument: given that Eurasia was closely connected long ago, any major progress - such as the scientific/industrial revolution - has to be viewed holistically, and there is no "single-line progress". Therefore, one should not be obsessed with changes or revolutions in one part of the Eurasian world (Western Europe or China), because accelerated changes in one will soon affect the other. Goody criticized in "The Stealing History" that through a kind of "cognitive violence" based on hegemony, Western academia has taken a large amount of the common heritage of human society for itself. [12]

        Third, reinvent the past. Frank said: "By the second half of the 19th century, not only the entire 'world history' was rewritten, but a 'universal social science' was also born, but they were all fakes of Western centralism...." [13] Further, University of Massachusetts professor João M. Paraskeva writes:

        Greek "civilization," and with it world history, was reimagined. Using scientific means to defend "Ancient Greece" as "the childhood of the Western race, the art of youth, the epic achievement, and the wisdom of maturity." But they are all cultural products of Western hegemony. …As Goody puts it: “Humanism and the Renaissance in modern Europe had to reinvent their past.”. [14]

        Fourth, exaggerate the European narrative. Goody believes: "On the one hand, the West must steal the history of the East to form its modernity; on the other hand, it turns European 'little things' into world 'big things'." The title 'History' refers to the manipulation of history by the West. . . . the local legends of Europe (often Western Europe), conceptualized (patigled) and then imposed on all mankind”[16]; “(19th century) European Following the racist tendency to impose its own story (as a standard history) on the entire world.  …We should take a critical stance on the 'grand narrative' of world history and reality that characterizes Western racism.”[17 ]

        Fifth, misappropriating oriental originals. Turn foreign elements of civilization (such as democracy, freedom, individualism, and capitalism) into the unique endowments of the West. Details below.

Graphic: "History and heritage have been stolen from the East by Europe (History and heritage have been stolen from the East by Europe)." This also includes "Shakespeare" (classic version), which is a group of scholars in England in the 18th century, based on Chinese characters" "Expressing meaning" (elegant words) and "Chinese style" (aesthetics) as well as ancient Chinese books and materials, and carefully crafted.

3. Appropriating Eastern elements to form Western "civilization" and its pseudo-history

        Goody said: "With regard to the overall concept of 'civilization' (urbanization, politeness), this is already very prominent in (ancient) China...; in such a historical situation, Europe has stolen the ideas and forms of the civilization process." [ 18]

        "Goody accuses them (Western scholars) of stealing the credit for making history from Asians..." [19] Hobson said: "The East is crucial to the rise of the West, that is, the spread of Eastern ideas and the appropriation of it.”[20]

        Is there anything original about Western "civilization"? Vittorio Cotesta, a professor at the University of Rome, replied:

        Some scholars believe that the West has basically no originality; its "discoveries" in art, science, politics, and economics have all been obtained from the East (China, etc.). …On the other hand, there is nothing new in the West either. Take capitalism, it existed in China before it was "exported" to the West.... Goody found in China and other East the "excellent features of Western civilization" touted by Max Weber: industrial production, market economy, family structure and romantic love. [twenty one]

        Democracy and capitalism are all bestowed by "learning from the east and spreading from the west". The West, on the other hand, is greedy for its own merits and regards them as its own "tradition"! Commenter said:

        Goody argues that the West unfairly claims that it invented democracy, capitalism, romantic love, universities, and other mechanisms of modernity. The West does not recognize that these elements already exist elsewhere. He criticizes that every aspect of the modern world is viewed through the prism of Occidentocentrism and thus distorted. [22] ... Goody speaks of the Western appropriation of certain values, such as humanism and reason, ... both of which are said to be of purely European origin. He also found that the various mechanisms associated with Western modernity ... actually have a wider geographical distribution in human societies. However, these values have been appropriated by the Europeans as their excellent heritage. [twenty three]

Goody wrote in his book: "It is true that Europe has achieved many great achievements in recent centuries, but this must be explained; that is, they have been largely due to other regions - such as China. ——the urban cultural tradition.”[24]

        Regarding capitalism, N. P. Mellichamp, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, writes:

        World economic integration, hundreds of years earlier than the rise of the West, centered on China and South Asia, while Europe was on the outer ring; expanding from the core area to Persia, West Asia and Ottoman, their urbanization, infrastructure, commercial institutions, Population growth and industrial and agricultural productivity all surpassed those of Europe until the beginning of the 19th century. Thus, both modernity and capitalism are based in the East. ... As a latecomer, Europe imported cultural and material culture from the East. [25]

        With regard to democracy, “Gudy criticizes Occidentalists for depriving other peoples of their originality.  … For example, they arbitrarily attribute democracy to ‘ancient Greece.’”[26]

        European and American democracy comes from China! Former U.S. Vice President Wallace (Henry A. Wallace, 1888-1965) admitted: "American constitutionalism and democracy... are directly derived from Europe and indirectly derived from China." [27] Furthermore, Professor Herrlee G. Creel (1905-1994) at the University of Chicago explained:

        Since the outbreak of the French Revolution (1789), people have almost forgotten China's contribution to the development of Western democracy. …If Europeans do not know that China has influenced Western democracy to a large extent, then most Americans know something about their democratic ideas and institutions from the French Enlightenment in the 18th century; the drafting of the "Declaration of Independence" The author Jefferson is called "the symbol of the North American Enlightenment", but that is the Confucian philosophy from the French Enlightenment! [28]

        Due to the limitation of the topic of this article, let's not ignore the extremely negative nature of Western democracy.

Graphic: True history begets false history. How did the "world history" of the West come about? It is forged based on methods and materials from Chinese history.

4. "Ancient Greece" is the New Tradition of Modern Western Racism

        Goody said: "The modern world created Greece (the modern world created Greece)." [29] In this regard, Hobson confirmed: "Today, we all think that 'Greece is the birthplace of European civilization'...; but In fact, European scholarship did not make this point until the end of the 18th century. Nevertheless, 'Ancient Greece' is a fiction.”[30]

        Egyptologist and French professor Samir Amin (Samir Amin, 1931-2018) criticized: "The myth of the 'Greek ancestry' of European civilization is a product of Western falsified history; it appears as such a 'progressive process', That is, from ancient Greece and ancient Rome, through feudal Christian Europe, to capitalist Europe and America.”[31]

        "Ancient Greece has become an ideal world, which is the invention of the West-centrism!" [32] Mustafa Demirci, a professor at Istanbul University, pointed out:

        "Ancient Greece", as the founding myth of Europe, has an independent city, a free ideological environment, a humanistic spirit and excellent rationality. But in fact, contrary to the above "belief"; in the ancient world, Greek society could not have been ahead of other places at all, but it was more backward. ...Indeed, as Martin Bernal has shown, Europeans concocted an "ancient legend" in order to highlight their glorious history. ...so Occidentocentric "history," as Goody puts it, is the theft of history. [33]

        "Ancient Greece" is the work of modern Western chauvinism and racism. German linguist Harald Haarmann wrote:

        The movement to construct "Greek Civilization" as the origin of the West reflected (nineteenth-century) European nations' investments in their culture and knowledge, but was not a reconstruction of its true antiquity. This "classicization" was so attractive that many writers, poets, and philosophers (at the time) preferred to live in fantasy rather than understand what the "Greek tradition" really was. "They turned ecstatically to the Greek ideal, lest it be 'tainted' by any historical fact. . . . Winkelmann, Schiller, Holderlin, Hegel, and Nietzsche never visited Greece. Bernal condemned those who built "Ancient Greece" as racists. …the image of ancient Greece distorted by European cultural chauvinism. [34]

       "Winckelmann's classical ideal promoted racism." U. M. Anyiwo wrote: "For him, the European 'Greek ideal' of the white race had an abstract form of perfection"; "Winckelmann Hermann's theory became the racist discourse of the present and subsequent generations, assuming that the Eurocentric white Greeks were purely primitive human beings and that other races were inferior."[35]

        K. S. Crooks, an associate professor at Boston College, further said:

        Modern Europe reshaped "history", saying that rationality, humanity, secularism, individualism, and progressive concepts all came from "ancient Greece"; it is crucial to our understanding of the cultural structure of Western racism. …It was in the nineteenth century that the main orientation of European racism shifted from biology to linguistics (Indo-European languages), which consolidated the West-centrism. ...Amin criticized the myth of the "Greek ancestors" of Western Europe, saying that it "constitutes the cultural dimension of Western-centered capitalism. That is, the victory of capitalism that promotes Greek rationalism to prove the uniqueness of Europe makes the The "Oriental World" pales in comparison.[36]

        Greek philosophy is a form of cognitive violence imposed on modern humans. Toyin Falola of the University of Texas at Austin points out:

        Philosophical knowledge common in the modern world was fabricated by white Europeans and Americans. The story of Western philosophy begins in "Ancient Greece" and is said to contain democratic values; it (supposedly) evokes rationality and the secular in the Enlightenment, and becomes grand in the pan-world capitalist expansion. To put it bluntly, such a West-centred philosophy is actually derived from (modern) racism...   Western scholarship dominates the cultures of countries all over the world, appealing to the cultural hegemony of Western epistemology; ...that is, it is a cognitive violence that combines modern power, belief, and knowledge. [37]

        "Greek philosophy is a Eurocentric construct (Greek philosophy is a Eurocentric construct)."[38]Professor Paraskeva said: "...a fictional unique and perfect 'ancient' Greek philosophy, a Eurocentric construct The myth of packaging and beautification has become a quasi-belief to be pursued.”[39]

        Further reading of my works: "The "Two Greek Traditions" Rooted in Chinese Classics", "Ancient Greek Philosophy is a Modern Forgery Based on Chinese Documents" and "Racism Obliterates the Chinese Origin of Western Philosophy" (WeChat official account or Love Tradition Network (ict88.com)].

Graphic: As far as literature and art are concerned, "Ancient Greece" is largely a product of the Romantic movement in the 19th century. It is a vision or illusion of Western-centred scholars.

5. The Renaissance is the pseudo-culture of imperialism in the 19th century

        Goody said: Humanism and the Renaissance "reinvented the Western past", "reinvented Aristotle" (reinvent the past/reinvention of Aristotle). [40]

        However, did the Renaissance exist? If so, when and where did it occur, and of what nature? Goody tells us:

        Regarding the Italian Renaissance, Brotton questioned: Wasn't the "Renaissance" invented? Aims to create a convincing myth of European cultural superiority. ... the historian Jules Michelet (1798-1874), in the last volume of his Histories of France (1855), emphasized that this meant "discovering the (non-religious) world and man." In his view, the "Renaissance" was not so much a European event as a French phenomenon. In similar fashion, Burkhardt in Switzerland and Pater in Oxford developed an almost nationalist "Renaissance" - celebrating "limited democracy, ecclesiastical skepticism, the power of literary art, and the The triumph of civilization over the outer world". …However, as the Renaissance or “rebirth” was appropriated and exploited by the West, this underpinned European imperialism to justify European global domination. [41]

        Jeremy Brotton, a professor at Queen Mary University of London, elaborates:

        In the history of Western culture, the "Renaissance" has been seriously misunderstood.... According to common sense, "Renaissance" refers to the artistic and cultural revolution that occurred in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. But in fact, it came out in the 19th century - Michelet first used it to embellish French history in 1855; ... but it was also described by the Swiss historian Burckhardt in his book "The Civilization of the Italian Renaissance". In, refined and established (1860). … Like Michelet, Burckhardt believed that the cultural achievements of the period heralded a "rebirth" of the literature and aesthetics of "ancient" Greece and Rome. ...but the problem is that their "Renaissance" reflected only the events of their own time (the 19th century); it was characterized by European imperialism, industrial expansion, and the decline of the church, as well as the Romantic imagination of the artists. [42] (In other words) ... the Renaissance created by Michelet, Burckhardt, and Pater ... looks more like the European ideal of the nineteenth century. They don't provide any historical records from around the 15th century. ... (essentially) "Renaissance" values in the service of nineteenth-century imperialism. [43]

        Furthermore, in June 2013, Harvard University held a three-day symposium on the theme of “Italian Renaissance in the 19th Century”[44]; after the symposium, a collection of papers (Harvard University Press) was published. The abstract is as follows:

        The Italian Renaissance in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Payne and Bozzoni, ... pointed out that this "reinvented gift of the nineteenth century" is very problematic. The "renaissance" is a product of historical nostalgia and 19th-century trends, sweeping across the humanities, including history, literature, music, art, architecture and collections (museums). It is marked by the works of the following (19th century) important figures, namely: Ingres (painter), EM Forster (literateur), Geymüller (art historian), Hilde Hildebrand (sculptor), Michelet (historian), Burckhardt (historian), HH Richardson (builder), Rilke (poet), Carducci ( Carducci, poet) and De Sanctis (literary critic). Although these people think that the "Italian Renaissance" is the golden age of the West, in fact, it is the crystallization of the 19th century. …Today, the model of (Western civilization) triumphalism has been challenged… (the book) has conducted research and revision on the connection between the “Italian Renaissance” and the modernity of the 19th century. [45]

        All in all, the so-called Italian and European "Renaissance" does not exist; it is a culture designed and built by the European elites in the 19th century according to their own vision, based on the various achievements of the times, to serve the Western Center and imperialism Template.

Graphic: The Italian Renaissance is the "ode" of imperialism in the 19th century - praising "the West makes history". First fictionalized "Classical Greece" (the first half of the 19th century), and then forged a "Renaissance" (the second half of the 19th century) in order to lie.

6. The prosperity and dominance of the West is only a recent temporary phenomenon

        Goody explains: "Fernandez Armesto argues that the West's dominance of the world is not rooted in its 'tradition' and that this dominance could easily shift again to Asia, as it had earlier shifted from Asia. It is the same as in the West.”[46] (Historian at the University of Notre Dame in the United States) Amesto also said, who is the pioneer of modernization? It's China (Song Dynasty), not any European country (including Italy)! [47] As for the "Renaissance," that is bogus and should be dropped from the history books. [48]

        "In his book Goody cites ... Frank's insight ... that the greatness of the West was a blip during the last quarter of the last millennium," writes Riva Berleant, a professor at the University of Connecticut: " Throughout this millennium, Asia, and China in particular, dominated. Goody agrees with Frank that ... the current economic and intellectual gap between the West and the East is not only recent but likely to be Temporary phenomenon.”[49]

        American humanities educator Van Jay Symons (Van Jay Symons) wrote: "In the book "Repositioning: Global Economy in the Age of Asia", Frank clarifies that globalization has ancient roots, and China has long been the main axis of the world economy." ; "Like Frank, . . . Goody found that Western excellence was no longer seen as an inherent and long-term feature of its culture, but rather as a result of a swing of a 'pendulum' that had affected Eurasian societies for millennia" [50].

Goody put forward the "pendulum theory" in his book "The East of the West", that is, "... what drives the history of the past few hundred years is a pendulum movement by chance or luck."[51] Furthermore, the British Hobson, a professor at the University of Sheffield, expounded the practice of the "pendulum theory" and regarded it as a proof of the "Oriental origin of Western civilization":

        According to Goody's analysis, between 500 and 1800, the center of gravity (centre) of global economic power shifted between East and West, culminating in the beginning of the Western era as a result of the breakthrough of capitalist modernity. ... (However) before 1800 the East was in the lead in terms of broadly intensive economies until the "pendulum" turned to Europe. …As Goody puts it: the preeminence of the West is no longer seen as an inherent and long-term feature of its culture, but as the result of a “pendulum movement.” ... (i.e.) the story of the rise of the West cannot be linked to the European social structure [because Eurasia is a whole]. The center of gravity of global power was initially in the East... until about 1800. …Looking back to 1100, China was at the forefront of global intensive productivity, reaching its peak in the 15th century. Then, as Europeans engaged in colonial expansion while strengthening ties to the East, the "pendulum" began to swing westward. But it was not until the industrialization stage that the center of global intensive productivity shifted to Britain. …Why did the West “succeed”? The best analogy to understand it is the "400m relay race": ...the British sprint finish would not have been possible were it not for the fact that East had already run the first three quarters of the way. [52]

        Currently, the "pendulum" is returning from the West to the East. David Landes said:

        While Europe was fortunate enough to lead through the Industrial Revolution, now it is Asia's turn, and the age of the Asia-Pacific has indeed arrived. As Goody writes: "It is a pendulum movement that continues today; the East is about to overwhelm the West in economic terms." ... As for people trying to understand the reasons for Europe's success, especially "what exists in Europe and lacks in China" The underlying reasons”; Goody’s answer is simply that all the basic elements already exist in China. [53]

        The "historical pendulum" of China's main axis made a "big swing" westward when the world was connected, and then returned, so there was a short-lived "European and American civilization". Now, the pendulum is leaving the West, and the death knell of hegemony is about to sound. However, the next "swing" will not be the turn of the West, because that will be "world unity".

7. Diagrams: In-depth analysis of the reasons for the rise and fall of the West through the "pendulum theory"

        Further discuss the "pendulum effect" of shifting the center of gravity (center) of the world economy.

        First of all, it needs to be explained: economic and technological development is relatively easy in modern times, but it is extremely difficult—impossible—in ancient times. Why?

        Since the Mongol conquest and Zheng He's voyages began to connect the world, modern people can use the "global ecology" as their balance condition and sacrifice price to support their great achievements and development. In contrast, the ancients were limited by the "local ecology", and any "promise" (enterprising) would face "self-denial" (self-destruction of the homeland) by changing the environment. Only the ancient Chinese solved such a "paradox", that is: for nature and all things, from "fit" to "harmony" (the dynamic balance of the unity of nature and man), and to change "transformation" into "thickness" ( Human beings create things and make things happen). Therefore, the economic and technological development of the entire human society is initiated by the "Book of Changes" (Yidao, Tiandao) ("the first driving force").

        Second, economic and technological development follows the "cycle law" in time. Theoretically, economic and technological development is on the track of "Yi Jing Gua Yao", however, it has many variables and worries in practice. As far as its negative side is concerned, the basic reason for the "cycle law" is such a pair of contradictions, that is, the development itself and the strong momentum of population growth, and the expansion of ecological capacity (space) are very slow. The "cycle law" of the ancient and modern world is divided into "historical cycle" and "capital cycle": the former is limited to the national ecology, so it is relatively deadly; the latter leads to the global ecology, so it is relatively moderate. If we look at the "long wave", the capital cycle is more "deadly": when the expansion of capitalism reaches the global geographical limit, it will be a world war (World War I and World War II); if it reaches the global ecological limit, it will be "the end of both man and the biosphere." Therefore, the Western development model is not sustainable.

        Third, economic and technological development follows the "swing law" in space (see the picture above). This is similar to Goody's "pendulum theory". What is the reason for the "wiggle"? That is, what is the reason for the shift of the center of gravity (center) of economic and technological development? It is to open up a larger "ecological capacity". From two perspectives, one is that the old environment is already highly tense, and the other is that the new environment is unique. For example, the Yellow River Basin used to be the focus of development. However, after more than a thousand years of intense human activities, its ecology and society have been under pressure, manifested in unprecedented serious internal and external troubles (including the chaos of China); fortunately, the comprehensive development of the south of the Yangtze River, and Make civilization (development focus) to a higher level in an expanded and better ecological environment. For the first time in history, the center of gravity of economic and technological development has shifted (like the swing of a pendulum).

        A few hundred years later, due to the Mongol conquest and Zheng He's voyages, the world began to be connected, and Europe became a shortcut connecting the eastern and western hemispheres; thus, Europe became a "new environment", where technology and ideas would flourish. energy. This is the second "big swing". On the other hand, the "old environment" (China), because she cannot bring the "new environment" into its territory, has to endure unprecedented internal and external troubles, especially will become the prey of the risers of the "new environment". Ironically and tragically, China's inherent economic and technological development mechanism had an "explosive effect" in the far west (new environment)[54];

        Contrary to traditional China's efforts to maintain or restore harmony, the development of the West has been accompanied by increasing conflicts between people and between people and nature, leading to the Great Depression, World War and Cold War. The "Old World" (Eurasia, Africa) at that time was extremely unstable and turbulent; in contrast, the United States on the other side of the ocean was not only spared, but also became a gathering place for talents, technology and capital. In this way, the United States has become the "new environment" for global development. Thus, the "pendulum" swings from Western Europe to North America.

        In the 21st century, the "pendulum" swings from the United States to China. Why?

        The means by which the United States maintains its world hegemony and development center is to restrain the "Old Continent" from the two oceans, create turmoil in various places, and prevent the integration of major powers. But the containment strategy of the United States gradually failed due to the loss of several wars. The problem is, if the "Old Continent" is not in chaos, the United States will be in chaos; because the essence of the West is to maintain its internal "rationality" by creating "irrationality" externally. Western "civilization" itself is extremely poisonous, unless it is vented externally, it will implode internally. This is the crisis America is facing. At the same time, China has become the "new environment" for global development. How do you say this? From an objective point of view, at the contact point between the largest land and the largest sea, a stable and developing China can easily take advantage of the combination of land power and sea power, which makes a purely maritime country or hegemony unfavorable geopolitically.

        Historical experience shows that the radiant Chinese civilization has been impacted by the West since the 19th century. Western powers, who were born as pirates and barbarians, not only exterminated Native Americans and traded African black slaves, but also encroached on Asia and swallowed India by virtue of their aggressiveness. Not only that, they even stole the history and culture of civilized China! On the contrary, they all refer to the Asian, African, Latvian, and even Chinese civilizations as ignorant, uncivilized, and semi-civilized barbaric peoples; The fallacy of the so-called "white supremacy" came out. Isn't this what "the thief hates the master" as referred to in "Zuo Zhuan"!

        Fortunately, the Skynet has been fully restored, and the academic rectification will continue to prove that Chinese culture not only has a long and glorious history; The future of all mankind points to a bright road.

        However, the problem is that in the current world where demons are dancing around, West-centrism is like a centipede that is dead but not stiff. Rather, people are still surrounded by the ubiquitous West-centrism in their thinking. The most urgent task is to thoroughly expose the true face of Western pseudo-history. Once people recognize the hypocrisy and absurdity of European and American preaching, and completely eliminate the confusion of people’s thinking and vision obscured by Western-centrism, they can truly demonstrate the value and value of Chinese culture. brilliant.

“我们的历史是偷窃来的”——西方学界名流自曝家丑

，杰克·古迪是一位难得的有识之士；他敢于自曝家丑，石破天惊地揭示出了西方偷窃中国历史的真相。尽管其披露的内容不过冰山一角，已然动摇了西方中心论的理论基础。

       人们见过各种小偷、大盗，小偷有偷钱偷物、偷鸡摸狗之流，大盗则有窃家、窃国之辈；庄子讽刺道：“彼窃钩者诛，窃国者为诸侯……”其意为，小偷小摸的人会受到法律惩处，而大盗者则反倒成为诸侯称霸一方，受世人景仰。然而，庄子却不知，在窃国大盗之上，还有盗窃文明古国历史者！居然可以将他人的历史文化据为己有！

       杰克·古迪在其书的导论中指出：“当我开始探讨这一主题时，全球史的状况已经大为改观。”他举出若干具相同见解的学者，如布劳特（Blaut）、贡德·弗兰克、彭慕兰、霍布森、阿梅斯托（Fermandez-Armesto）、德博拉·霍华德、杰里·布罗顿等，将其引为反对西方中心论的同志，正所谓“德不孤，必有邻”。这充分说明对西方中心论及西方伪史的质疑与批判，在西方主流学界并非个别现象，而是代表了后殖民主义时代一种历史潮流。

       遗憾的是，在国内，尽管《偷窃历史》一书早有了中译本，却并未引起学术界的重视，甚至在该书的要紧之处出现似乎有意的“误译”，与原文之意相差甚远，读者读后便不知所云……

       本文通过厘正中译本的某些重大翻译错误，综合西方学术界的前沿观点，对西方偷窃中国历史的脉络进行了梳理，有助于帮读者廓清迷雾，使国人更加准确地了解西方学术界质疑西方伪史的学术潮流，作为我们批判西方中心论的借鉴。

图解：应该教给学生真正的世界文明史

一、欧美主流学术界对西方中心论的批判

       十六年前，英美学界名流杰克·古迪出版了一部“划时代”的著作——《偷窃的历史》（The Theft of History，剑桥大学出版社，2006年）。作者自曝家丑，将西方偷窃他国历史记载、伪造自身“遗产”，从而构建出西方中心“文明谱系”揭示出来公诸于世，引起国际学术界的巨大反响。

       该书问世三年之后，就有了中译本（《偷窃历史》，张正萍译，浙江大学出版社，2009年）。然而，令人不解的是，国际学术界批判西方中心论的力作，在中国学界反倒没有引起共鸣。这大概有两个方面的原因，其一是西方中心论浸染中国学术已成痼疾，其次是翻译方面存在严重问题，影响了中文读者对该书意义的理解。换句话说，

《偷窃的历史》的中译本很成问题。

图解：《偷窃历史》中文版，张正萍译，浙江大学出版社，2009年

       例如，书中有个小标题是“The invention of Antiquity”，在中译本中被译成“古典时代的创造”；这就违背了该书的原意——西方的“古代”是被发明（编造）的。创造历史与编造伪史意趣相反，这种翻译的问题，与其说是简单的误解误译，不如说是有意地曲为回护，意在掩盖事实真相。

       阿姆斯特丹大学的三位历史学家（M. Brolsma, Robin Bruin, Matthijs Lok）特别对这个小标题做了解释：

       根据杰克·古迪，西方“古代”是欧洲人挪用东方而“发明”的。（其方法是）近代欧洲人将自己的形象投射到“古典世界”，从而将它重塑成他们心目中的理想模式。[1]

       《偷窃的历史》的中心思想是，西方辉煌而浩博的“文明史”是盗剽来的。虽然该书类似于《偷来的遗产：希腊哲学不是希腊人写的……》（George G. M. James: Stolen Legacy……），[2]但它们的档次则截然不同：后者被批边缘之杂说，前者则为主流之宏论。

       杰克·古迪（Jack Goody, 1919—2015）：剑桥大学教授、社会人类学家，英国皇家科学院院士，美国国家艺术与科学院荣誉院士，被英国女王授予爵士，亦被法国授予法兰西艺术与文学司令勋位。

       《思考过去》（牛津大学出版社，2014） 称：“古迪对西方中心论的历史观以及‘西方民主’等，都提出了质疑；……并将欧洲宣称它的诸多最伟大的人类创新，判定为‘盗窃’。”[3]

       波茨坦大学的汉娜·夏普（Hannah Sharp）评《偷窃的历史》：

       西方从世界其他地方“偷取历史”！……有一句名言：“历史是由胜利者书写的。”……根据古迪，这导致了对历史的严重误解；因为作为“胜利者”，西方垄断了迄今为止的“世界历史”。而欧美学术界承担这项任务的方式则是，一直以欧洲为中心、并否认非西方世界的成就。……古迪还说，学者们假设民主、资本主义、个人主义、自由甚至浪漫爱情等理念，都是西方品质和遗产；并且，他们因大量编造之而广受赞誉。但实际上，如此文明要素大抵都是在其他地方被开发的。[4]

       “古迪现象”决泄反西方中心论的潮流，它逐渐汇合成“修正派”（Revisionists, 其意为“改正西方中心论”）。加拿大新不伦瑞克大学教授里卡多·杜申（Ricardo Duchesne）写道：

      20世纪90年代以来，在世界历史研究中出现一场强大的运动，带来了多元文化之转向。其主旨是，挑战西方中心论，质疑欧洲的独特性与卓越性，否定西方崛起归因于其原创活力和内在动因，而将西方文明的意义边缘化。进而，在经济学、人类学、历史社会学和国际关系等多个学科的知名学者的领导下，新生的“修正派”寻求将多元文化的精神作为世界历史的主导范式。……“修正派”方兴未艾，势不可挡。一系列极具影响力的作品强调世界历史的多元性（取代西方“单线史观”）。该理论的创始人和先锋是弗兰克（AndréGunder Frank）。……他指出，欧洲既不是世界贸易体系的创造者，也不是其核心；而西方崛起则只不过是中国发展起伏的低谷，所衍生出的一个对立面。〔“中国是现代早期世界体系的主轴”[5]〕。……古迪鄙视任何“欧洲奇迹”。他辩称，如此“复兴”在欧亚大陆各地都能被发现……。历史社会学家戈德斯通（Jack Goldstone）提出了类似的论点，即西方唯一的特质就是“幸运的机会”。……国际关系学教授霍布森（John Hobson）否定西方的原创性或独创性，认为西方通过“挪用东方”而崛起。[6]

       尽管古迪的几本书远谈不上彻底否定西方伪史，但他却在这方面打开了突破口，一发而不可收拾。下面进一步介绍《偷窃的历史》和古迪的其他相关著述、以及受其影响的“修正派”学者在这方面的拓展或发挥。

图解：已故的杰克·古迪（Jack Goody, 1919—2015）和他的著作《偷窃的历史》，及其在西方的历史—社科领域掀起了惊涛骇浪。

二、通行于今的“世界历史”是西方偷窃来的

       古迪及其同人所论的“偷窃的历史”，可分为五层意思：

       第一、复制中国历史。“古迪在其书中辩称，西方从东方窃取了历史观念。”[7]在此方面，他本人只是提了一下，并未展开之。让我们来看其他学者的相关见解。没有历史的西方[8]从中国引进了历史学，后者是汉学的衍生物。加拿大学者卜正民（Timothy Brook）说：“在今天被视为次要学科的汉学，竟在17世纪的欧洲，在形成历史学、地理学和社会理论……的过程中，起到了重大作用。”[9]

       不仅如此，西方“历史”最初是“复制中国”。威斯康星大学教授斯蒂曼（Alexander Statman）写道：

       近代欧洲学者依靠非欧洲文本——即中国古代文献——来撰写他们自己的“世界历史”。……法国皇家科学院的教授们通过翻译，将中国的原始史料服务于（泛西方）文明起源的研究……。他们认为，中国和欧洲在过去就有联系，因而一方的历史可以揭示另一方的“历史”。……到1750年代，欧洲学术界从中国古籍中描绘出一幅（西方版）“人类历史”的图景……。[10]

       第二、诉诸认知暴力。南非普马兰加大学教授古梅德（Vusi Gumede）评述：“古迪的《偷窃的历史》说的是，西方篡夺了‘世界历史’，并把它变成一种‘欧洲游戏’。……古今世界是被西方中心论所描述、排列和概念化的。”[11]

       这是西方的“认知暴力”（epistemic violence）！美国历史学家杜赞奇（Prasenjit Duara）指出：

       古迪提出了一个有说服力的论点：鉴于欧亚大陆在很久以前就紧密相连，任何重大进展——例如科学/工业革命——都要从整体来看，而不存在“单线进步”。故而，不可执着于欧亚世界中某一地区（西欧或中国）的变革或革命，因为一方的加速变化很快就会影响到另一方。古迪在《偷窃的历史》中批评，通过一种基于霸权的“认知暴力”，西方学术界将人类社会的共同遗产，大量据为己有。[12]

       第三、重新发明过去。弗兰克说：“到19世纪下半期，不仅整个‘世界历史’被重写，‘普世性的社会科学’也诞生了，但它们都是西方中心论的伪造物……。”[13]进而，马萨诸塞大学教授帕拉斯凯瓦（João M. Paraskeva）写道：

       希腊“文明”，以及随之而来的世界历史，都是被重新构想的结果。利用科学手段来捍卫“古希腊”，将它作为“西方种族的童年、青春绽放的艺术、史诗般的成就，以及臻于成熟的智慧”。但它们都是西方霸权的文化产品。……正如古迪所说：“近代欧洲的人文主义和文艺复兴必须重新发明其过去。”。[14]

       第四、夸大欧洲叙事。古迪认为：“一方面，西方必须盗取东方历史来形成它的现代性；另一方面，它将欧洲‘小事’变成世界‘大事’。”[15]他进一步说：“‘偷盗的历史’这一标题指的是西方对历史的操控。……将欧洲（通常是西欧）的地方传说，加以概念化（形成范式），然后强加给全人类”[16]；“（19世纪）欧洲遵循种族主义的倾向，将自己的故事（当作标准历史）强加于整个世界。……对于西方种族主义特征的世界历史与现实之‘宏大叙事’，我们应该采取批判性的立场。”[17]

       第五、挪用东方原创。将外来的文明要素（诸如民主、自由、个人主义和资本主义），变成西方的独特禀赋。下文详述。  

图解：“欧洲从东方偷走了历史和遗产（History and heritage have been stolen from the East by Europe）。”这也包括“莎士比亚”（经典版），它是18世纪英国的一群学者，基于汉字“表意”（雅言）和“中国风”（审美）以及中国古籍资料，而精心打造出来的。

三、挪用东方要素形成西方“文明”及其伪历史

       古迪说：“关于‘文明’（城市化、礼貌）的整体概念，这在（古代）中国已十分显著……；在如此的历史情势下，欧洲窃取了文明进程的理念与形式。”[18]

       “古迪指责他们（西方学者）偷走了亚洲人创造历史的功劳……。”[19]霍布森说：“东方对于西方崛起是至关重要的，那就是，东方思想的传播和西方对它的挪用。”[20]

       西方“文明”有任何原创吗？罗马大学教授科特斯塔（Vittorio Cotesta）回答：

       一些学者认为，西方基本上没有原创；它在艺术、科学、政治和经济等方面的“发现”，都是从东方（中国等）取得的。……另一方面，西方也没有任何新东西。就拿资本主义来说，在其“出口”到西方之前，它已经存在于中国……。古迪在中国等东方发现了马克斯·韦伯所吹捧的“西方文明的优异特征”：工业生产、市场经济、家庭结构和浪漫爱情等。[21]

       民主与资本主义等都是拜“东学西渐”之所赐予。而西方则贪天功为己有，将它们算作自己的“传统”！评论者说：

       古迪认为西方不公平地宣称，是它发明了民主、资本主义、浪漫爱情、大学和其他现代性机制。西方不承认这些要素早已存在于其他地区。他批评，现代世界的方方面面都是通过西方中心论的棱镜，来看待，因而被扭曲的。[22]……古迪讲述了西方对某些价值观的侵占，如人文主义和理性，……两者被说成纯属欧洲起源。他还发现，与西方现代性相关的各种机制……实际上在人类社会中有着更广泛的地理分布。然而，这些价值观都被欧洲人盗用了，并作为他们的优秀遗产。[23]

       

       古迪在其书中写道：“诚然，欧洲近几百年来取得了许多重大成就，但必须对此加以说明；那就是，它们在很大程度上都得益于其他地区——例如中国——的城市文化传统。”[24]

       关于资本主义，加州圣巴巴拉大学教授梅利尚（N. P. Mellichamp）写道：

       早于西方崛起几百年的世界经济一体化，乃以中国及南亚为核心，而欧洲则处于外环；由核心区向波斯、西亚和奥斯曼扩张，它们的城市化、基础设施、商业机构、人口增长和工农业生产率等，皆超过欧洲，直到19世纪初为止。因此，现代性和资本主义的基础均在东方。……作为一个迟到者，欧洲从东方进口文化及物质文化。[25]

       关于民主，“古迪批评西方中心论者，剥夺其他民族的原创权……。例如，他们武断地将民主归功于‘古希腊’。”[26]

       欧美民主来自中国！美国前副总统华莱士（Henry A. Wallace, 1888—1965）承认：“美国宪政与民主……直接挹取于欧洲，间接导源于中国”。[27]进而，芝加哥大学教授顾立雅（Herrlee G. Creel, 1905—1994）解释道：

       自从法国革命的爆发（1789年），人们几乎忘记了中国对西方民主发展所做的贡献。……如果说欧洲人不知道中国在很大程度上影响了西方民主，那么，大部分美国人是知道一些关于他们的民主思想与制度皆来自18世纪的法国启蒙运动；《独立宣言》的起草者杰斐逊被称为“北美启蒙运动的象征”，但那是来自法国启蒙运动的孔子哲学！[28]

       限于本文主题，我们姑且不论西方民主极具负面性。

图解：真历史派生出假历史。西方的“世界历史”是怎么来的？它是基于中国历史的方法和材料伪造的。

四、“古希腊”是近代西方种族主义的新传统

       古迪说：“现代世界创造了古希腊（the modern world created Greece）。”[29]对此，霍布森确认：“今天，我们都认为‘希腊是欧洲文明的诞生地’……；但事实上，欧洲学术界直到18世纪末才提出这一观点。然而无论如何，‘古希腊’是虚构的。”[30]

       埃及学者、法国教授萨米尔·阿明（Samir Amin, 1931—2018）批评：“欧洲文明的‘希腊祖谱’这一神话，是西方伪造历史的产物；它表现为如此一个‘进步历程’，即从古希腊、古罗马，经过封建的耶教欧洲，到资本主义的欧美。”[31]

       “古希腊变成了理想之境，此乃西方中心论之发明！”[32]伊斯坦布尔大学教授德米尔奇（Mustafa Demirci）指出：

       “古希腊”作为欧洲的创始神话，具有独立的城市、自由的思想环境、人文精神和卓越的理性。但事实上，与上述“信念”相反；在古代世界，希腊社会根本不可能领先于其他地方，反倒是它更落后。……的确，就像伯纳尔（Martin Bernal）所表明，为了彰显自己灿烂的历史，欧洲人编造了一个“古代传奇”。……如此西方中心论的“历史”，正如古迪所说，是对历史的盗窃。[33]

       “古希腊”是近代西方沙文主义与种族主义的作品。德国语言学家哈曼（Harald Haarmann）写道：

       构建作为西方起源的“希腊文明”这一运动，反映了（19世纪）欧洲民族对其文化与知识的投注，但不是对它的真实古代的重建。这种被“古典化”的东西具有如此吸引力，以至于（那时）许多作家、诗人和哲学家们都宁愿活在幻想中，也不去了解“希腊传统”究竟为何物。“他们欣喜若狂地转向了希腊式的理想，生怕它被任何史实所‘玷污’。……温克尔曼、席勒、霍尔德林、黑格尔和尼采从未到过希腊地区。”伯纳尔谴责这些构建“古希腊”的人，都是种族主义分子。……古代希腊的形象被欧洲的文化沙文主义所扭曲。[34]

      “温克尔曼的古典理想推动了种族主义。”安易沃（U. M. Anyiwo）写道：“对他来说，白色人种的欧洲‘希腊理想’具有一种抽象的完美形式”；“温克尔曼的理论成为当代和后世的种族主义话语，它假设以欧洲为中心的希腊白人是纯粹原初人类，而其他种族则是等而下之。”[35]

       美国波士顿学院副教授克鲁克（K. S. Crooks）进一步说：

       近代欧洲重塑“历史”，将理性、人文、世俗、个人主义和进步观念等都说成是源自“古希腊”；它对我们理解西方种族主义的文化结构，乃至关重要。……正是在19世纪，欧洲种族主义的主要方向从生物学转到了语言学（印欧语系），才巩固了西方中心论。……阿明抨击西欧的“希腊祖先”这一神话，称其“构成了西方中心之资本主义的文化纬度。亦即，宣传希腊理性主义，以证明欧洲独特性的资本主义的胜利，而使“东方世界”相形见绌。[36]

       希腊哲学是一种强加于现代人类的认知暴力。得克萨斯—奥斯汀大学的法洛拉（Toyin Falola）指出：

       现代世界通行的哲学知识是由欧美白人编造出来的。西方哲学的故事开始于“古希腊”，被说成是蕴含民主价值；（据说）它在启蒙运动中唤起了理性和世俗，并在泛世界的资本主义扩张中变得博大。质言之，如此西方中心论的哲学实际上衍生于（近代）种族主义……。西方学术主宰了世界各国的文化，诉诸西方认识论的文化霸权；……亦即，它是一种将现代权力、信仰和知识相结合的认知暴力。[37]

       “希腊哲学乃西方中心论之构建（Greek philosophy is a Eurocentric construct）。”[38]帕拉斯凯瓦教授说：“……虚构的独特而完美的‘古代’希腊哲学，一种被西方中心论包装和美化的神话，成了一种让人追求的准信仰。”[39]

       进一步阅读拙作：《“两希传统”植根于中国典籍考》、《古希腊哲学是基于中国文献的近代伪造》和《种族主义抹杀西方哲学的中国起源》〔西史辨伪微信公众号或爱传统网（ict88.com）〕。

图解：仅就文学艺术而言，“古希腊”在很大程度上是19世纪浪漫主义运动的产物，它是一种西方中心论学者的憧憬或幻觉。

五、文艺复兴是19世纪帝国主义的伪文化

       古迪说：人文主义和文艺复兴“重新发明西方过去”，“重新发明亚里士多德”（reinvent the past/ reinvention of Aristotle）。[40]

       然而，文艺复兴是否存在？如果存在，它发生在何时何地，具有什么性质？古迪告诉我们：

       关于意大利文艺复兴，布罗顿质疑：“文艺复兴”不是被发明的吗？旨在建立一个令人信服的神话——欧洲文化优越性。……历史学家米什莱（Jules Michelet, 1798—1874）在其所著《法国历史》（1855）的最后一卷中，强调这意味着“发现（非宗教）世界与人类”。在他看来，“文艺复兴”与其说是欧洲事件，不如说是法国现象。以类似的方式，瑞士的布克哈特（Burkhardt）和牛津的帕特（Pater）发展了几乎是民族主义的“文艺复兴”——庆祝“有限民主、教会怀疑、文学艺术的力量、以及欧洲文明对外部世界的胜利”。……然而，随着文艺复兴或“重生”被西方侵占和利用，这就支撑了欧洲帝国主义，以证明欧洲宰制全球的正当性。[41]

       伦敦玛丽皇后大学教授布罗顿（Jeremy Brotton）详述：

       在西方文化史上，“文艺复兴”已被严重误解……。按照常识，“文艺复兴”（Renaissance）指发生在15—16世纪欧洲的艺术与文化革命。但事实上，它问世于在19世纪——米什莱于1855年首次用它来点缀法国历史；……却又被瑞士历史学家布克哈特在其所著《意大利文艺复兴的文明》中，所提炼而确立（1860年）。……像米什莱一样，布克哈特认为，该时期的文化成就预示着“古代”希腊和罗马的文学与美学之“重生”。……但问题是，他们的“文艺复兴”所反映的仅为他们自己时代（19世纪）的事件；它以欧洲帝国主义、工业扩张和教会衰落为特征，以及艺术家们的浪漫主义之想象。[42]（换言之）……米什莱、布克哈特和帕特创立的文艺复兴……看起来更像是19世纪的欧洲理想。他们没有提供任何关于15世纪前后的历史记录。……（实质上）“文艺复兴”价值观乃服务于19世纪的帝国主义。[43]

       进而，哈佛大学于2013年6月以“19世纪的意大利文艺复兴”为主题，召开了为期三天的研讨会[44]；会后出版了论文集（哈佛大学出版社），摘要如下：

       佩恩和博佐尼主编的《19世纪的意大利文艺复兴》，……指出这一“19世纪重塑的礼物”很成问题。“复兴”是历史怀旧和19世纪潮流的产物，席卷了整个的人文学科，包括历史、文学、音乐、艺术、建筑和收藏（博物馆）。它以下列（19世纪）重要人物的作品为标志，即：安格尔（Ingres, 画家）、福斯特（EM Forster, 文学家）、吉穆勒（Geymüller, 美术史学家）、希尔德布兰（Hildebrand, 雕塑家）、米什莱（历史学家）、布克哈特（历史学家）、理查森（HH Richardson, 建造师）、里尔克（Rilke, 诗人）、卡尔杜奇 （Carducci, 诗人）和桑克蒂斯（De Sanctis, 文学评论家）。尽管这些人都认为“意大利文艺复兴”是西方的黄金时代，但事实上，它却是19世纪的结晶。……时至今日，（西方文明）凯旋主义的模式遭遇挑战……（该书）对“意大利文艺复兴”与19世纪的现代性两者的关联，进行了考证与修正。[45]

       总而言之，所谓的意大利及欧洲“文艺复兴”并不存在；它是19世纪的欧洲精英按照他们自己的愿景，基于同时代的各种成就，而设计和打造的服务于西方中心与帝国主义的文化样板。

图解：意大利文艺复兴是19世纪帝国主义的“颂歌”——歌颂“西方创造历史”。先虚构“古典希腊”（19世纪上半期），然后为了圆谎，又伪造了“文艺复兴”（19世纪下半期）。

六、西方兴盛与主宰只是最近出现的暂时现象

       古迪介绍：“阿梅斯托（Fernandez Armesto）认为，西方主导世界的地位并不是植根于它的‘传统’，而且这种主导地位很容易再次转移到亚洲，就像它早先从亚洲转移到西方一样。”[46]（美国圣母大学的历史学家）阿梅斯托还说，谁是近代化的开创者？是中国（宋朝），而不是任何一个欧洲国家（包括意大利）！[47]至于“文艺复兴”，那是伪造的，应该在历史书中将其删除。[48]

       “古迪在其书中列举了……弗兰克的见解，……即西方之兴盛，只是上个千年最后四分之一阶段的昙花一现。”康涅狄格大学教授贝尔莱昂（Riva Berleant）写道：“在这整个千年中，亚洲，尤其是中国，占据主导地位。古迪认同弗兰克的如此说法，……即目前西方与东方在经济和知识上的差距，不仅是最近才出现的，而且很可能是暂时现象。”[49]

       美国人文教育家施蒙斯（Van Jay Symons）写道：“在《重新定位：亚洲时代的全球经济》一书中，弗兰克阐明全球化有着古老的根源，中国长期以来一直是世界经济的主轴”；“像弗兰克一样，……古迪发现，西方的卓越成就不再被视为其文化的固有和长期特征，而是由于千年来影响亚欧社会的‘钟摆’的一次摆动”[50]。

       古迪在其所著《西方的东方》一书中，提出了“钟摆论”，即“……推动近几百年历史的，是一个偶然或运气的钟摆变动。”[51]进而，英国谢菲尔德大学教授霍布森阐述“钟摆论”的实践，并将它当作“西方文明的东方起源”的一个佐证：

       根据古迪……的分析，在500年至1800年间，全球经济力量的重心（中心）在东西方之间转移，最终由于资本主义现代性之突破，而开始了西方时代。……（然而）在1800年以前，东方在广泛性的密集经济上则处于领先地位，直到“钟摆”转到欧洲为止。……正如古迪所言：西方的卓越成就不再被视为其文化之固有和长期特征，而是“钟摆运动”的结果。……（亦即）西方崛起的故事不能与欧洲社会结构联系在一起〔因为亚欧大陆是个整体〕。全球力量的重心起先是在东方……，持续到1800年左右。……回顾1100年，中国处于全球密集型生产力的前沿，并在15世纪达到巅峰。而后，随着欧洲人从事殖民主义扩张，同时加强了与东方的联系，“钟摆”开始向西摆动。但直到进入工业化阶段，全球密集生产力的重心才转移到了英国。……西方为何“成功”？理解它的最佳类比则是“400米接力赛”：……如果不是因为东方已经跑完了前四分之三，那么，英国的冲刺终点则不可能的。[52]

       目前，“钟摆”正在从西方返回东方。兰德斯（David Landes）说：

       虽然欧洲十分幸运，通过工业革命而处于领先地位；但现在轮到亚洲了，亚太时代确实已经到来。正如古迪所写：“这是一个钟摆运动，今天仍在继续；在经济方面，东方即将压倒西方。”……至于人们试图了解欧洲成功的原因、特别是“欧洲存在、而中国则缺乏的深层原因”；古迪的回答很简单，即所有的基本要素在中国早已存在。[53]

       中国主轴的“历史钟摆”在世界联通之际，向西做了一次“大甩动”，然后返回，于是就有了短暂的“欧美文明”。而今，钟摆正在离开西方，即将敲响霸权的丧钟。不过，下一次“摆动”则轮不到西方了，因为那将是“世界大同”。      

七、图解：通过“钟摆论”深度分析西方兴衰的原因

       进一步讨论世界经济的重心（中心）转移的“钟摆效应”。

       首先需要说明：经济与技术发展在现代乃相对容易，而在古代则绝难——简直是不可能的。为什么？

       由于蒙古征服与郑和远航而开始联通世界，现代人可以利用“全球性生态”作为其平衡条件和牺牲代价，来支持他们的大有为、大发展。相比之下，古人囿于“地方性生态”，任何“有为”（进取）都会因改变环境，而面临“自我否定”（自毁家园）。唯有中国古人解决了如此“悖论”，那就是：对于自然及万物，从“契合”转为“和合”（天人合一之动态平衡），将“化生”变易为“厚生”（人代天工之开物成务）。因此，整个人类社会的经济与技术发展是被《易经》（易道、天道）启动的（“第一推动力”）。

       第二、经济与技术发展在时间上遵循“周期律”。经济与技术发展理论上行进在“易经卦爻”的轨道上，然而，它在实践中则有极多变数与忧患。仅就其负面而言，“周期律”发生的基本原因是如此一对矛盾，即发展本身和人口增长的强劲势头，与生态容量（空间）的拓展乃非常缓慢。古今世界的“周期律”分为“历史周期”与“资本周期”：前者囿于国土生态，故而比较致命；后者通向全球生态，故而相对缓和。如果从“长波”来看，资本周期反倒更“致命”：资本主义的扩张达到全球地理极限，则是世界大战（一战、二战）；达到全球生态极限，则是“人与生物圈同归于尽”。所以，西方的发展模式是不可持续的。

       第三、经济与技术发展在空间上遵循“摆动律”〔参见上图〕。这近似于古迪的“钟摆论”。“摆动”的原因是什么？亦即经济与技术发展的重心（中心）发生转移的原因是什么？是开拓出更大的“生态容量”。这从两个方面来看，一是旧环境已高度紧张，一是新环境乃得天独厚。例如黄河流域曾是发展重心，然而经过千余年强烈的人类活动，其生态及社会皆备受压力，表现为空前严重的内忧外患（包括五胡乱华）；所幸长江以南的全面开发，而使文明（发展重心）在扩大且更好的生态环境中，更上一层楼。这是有史以来的第一次经济与技术发展的重心转移（犹如钟摆的摇动）。

       再过几百年，由于蒙古征服与郑和远航而开始联通世界，它将欧洲变成连接东、西半球的捷径；因而，欧洲成了“新环境”，技术与思想传到那里就会绽放正能量。这算是第二次“大摆动”。另一方面，“旧环境”（中国），由于她无法将“新环境”纳入版图，不得不承受空前无比的内忧外患，尤其是会沦为“新环境”之崛起者的猎物。既讽刺又悲惨的是，中国固有的经济与技术的发展机制，在遥远的西方（新环境）发生了“爆炸性效应”[54]；而中国本身则深受其害，九死一生。

       相反于传统中国尽力维护或恢复和谐，西方的发展伴随着人与人、人与自然之愈益冲突，以至于发生大萧条、世界大战和冷战。那时的“旧大陆”（欧亚非）极不稳定，动乱不止；相比之下，大洋彼岸的美国则不仅幸免于难，而且还成为人才、科技和资金的汇聚地。这样，美国就成了全球发展的“新环境”。于是，“钟摆”就从西欧摆到北美。

       21世纪，“钟摆”从美国摆到中国。为什么？

       美国维持其世界霸权与发展中心的手段是，从两大洋钳制“旧大陆”，制造各地动乱，防止大国整合。但由于输掉几场战争，美国的遏制战略逐渐失灵。问题是，如果“旧大陆”不乱，美国本土将会大乱；因为西方的本质是，以对外制造“非理性”来保持其内部的“理性”。西方“文明”本身极具毒素，除非宣泄于外，否则聚爆于内。这就是美国正在面对的危机。而与此同时，中国则成为全球发展的“新环境”，此话怎讲？仅就客观而言，处于最大陆地与最大海洋的接触部，稳定发展的中国很容易发挥陆权与海权相结合的优势，这就使单纯的海洋国家或霸权在地缘政治上变得不利。

       历史经验表明，光芒四射的中华文明从19世纪开始受到来自西方的冲击。西方列强出身海盗蛮族，凭借其好勇斗狠的作派，不仅灭绝美洲土著、贩卖非洲黑奴，还蚕食亚洲、鲸吞印度；不止于此，居然还偷窃了文明中国的历史与文化！反过来，却将亚、非、拉各族，甚至中华文明，都一律指称为蒙昧、未开化、半开化的野蛮民族；唯独将出身蛮族的自己封为现代文明的代表，高人一等，甚而抛出了所谓“白人至上”之谬论。这不就是如《左传》所指之“盗憎主人”吗！

       所幸天网恢恢疏而不漏，学术上的拨乱反正将继续证明，中国文化不仅具有悠久、光辉的历史过往；大道之行也天下为公，中国文化今后必将克服作为世界乱源的西方中心论，为全人类的未来指出一条光明大道。

       然而问题在于，在当下群魔乱舞的世界里，西方中心论如百足之虫死而不僵，毋宁说在思想上人们仍处于无所不在的西方中心论的包围之中。当务之急是，必须彻底揭露西方伪史的真面目，一旦人们认清欧美说教的虚伪性及荒诞性，彻底祛除了西方中心论对人们思想的迷惑及视野的遮蔽，才能真正彰显出中国文化的价值与光辉。