Rewriting the History of Civilizations

ABSTRACT

Depending on the viewpoint of the author, discourse is presented in narration, or rather, discourse is first formed in the perception, narration, and interpretation of the history of civilizations. However, Western scholars have dominated the definition of the concept of ”civilization” in addition to the global output of this concept as well as the discourse about writing the history of civilization. As a result of this, there has been a severe Western-centric tendency in the current writing of the history of civilizations (both Western and Chinese). In order to address these problems in a meaningful way, the purpose of this article is to put forward a vital proposal: ”Re-writing the History of Civilizations.” It is a call for a vital path and a major initiative to establish a Chinese discourse from the root of the discourse narration, discourse speaking, and discourse interpretation of the history of civilizations, and is a new issue of the time. They expect Chinese scholars to collaborate with international scholars and unite the entire academic world to rewrite the history of civilizations, re-study the historical facts of mutual learning of civilizations, and further establish a view of civilization with China's knowledge system in various disciplines.

摘要

怎样建立中国话语及自主知识体系？学术界一直在奋力探索，然而效果却不甚明显，根本原因是没有找到恰当的抓手，无法做到“踏石有印，抓铁留痕”。文章认为，话语是在言说中呈现的，或者说，话语最先是对文明史（包括各学科史，例如哲学史、文学史、艺术史、经济史、法律史、科技史、等等）的认知与言说、叙述和阐释中形成的。然而，长期以来，“文明”概念的定义、文明观的全球输出以及文明史的书写话语都牢牢掌握在西方学者手中，致使当下的（包括西方的和中国的）文明史书写存在严重的西方中心倾向。针对这些问题，本文提出“重写文明史”这一重大命题。这是一个号召，是从文明史话语叙述、话语言说、话语阐释这个根子上面，来着手建立中国话语的一条重要路径和一个重大举措，是推进文明互鉴的时代新课题，我们期待中国学者携手国际学者，团结全世界学术界，以实事求是的作风重写文明史，重新研究文明互鉴史实，并在言说与阐释中进一步确立各个学科具有中国自主知识体系的文明观。

KEYWORDS:

• History of civilizations
• discourse narration
• clash of civilizations
• Chinese discourse
• mutual learning of civilizations

关键词:

• 关键词
• 文明史
• 话语言说
• 文明冲突
• 中国话语
• 文明互鉴

1.

For generations, Chinese scholars have endeavored to construct a discourse and an autonomous knowledge system. Within the discourse itinerary of humanities and social sciences, the history of civilization and the establishment of the civilization concept are regarded as the most fundamental and important point. The discourse is constituted through narration and interpretation of the history of civilization, also including the history of philosophy, politics, literature, communication, law, art, science, technology, and other disciplinary histories. Hegel’s Lectures on the History of Philosophy formed his discourse system in narrating and interpreting world philosophy. However, Hegel was disparaging of Eastern philosophy, particularly Chinese and Indian philosophy. He asserted that there was no philosophy in China at all and “We have conversations between Confucius and his followers in which there is nothing definite further than a commonplace moral put in the form of good, sound doctrine, which may be found as well expressed and better, in every place and amongst every people … He is hence only a man who has a certain amount of practical and worldly wisdom—one with whom there is no speculative philosophy. We may conclude from his original works that for their reputation it would have been better had they never been translated (Hegel 121).” This denunciation of Eastern civilization by Hegel serves as the basis for the discourse on the superiority of Western civilization.

Today, there is a widespread phenomenon of “aphasia” in the Chinese academic community, which is closely related to the writing of the history of civilization. The existing “history of civilization” written by our Chinese scholars (including the history of various disciplines) has many limitations, such as the lack of Chinese discourse, distortion of historical facts, and writing blindly following Western scholars. Writing the history of civilization (including the history of various disciplines) involves not only the integration and presentation of different viewpoints of civilization but also the development of “civilizational confidence,” which represents a fundamental and essential problem in the humanities and social sciences. Is there a way to resolve these issues? Throughout this paper, we propose a primary proposition of “rewriting the history of civilization” with the hope that Chinese scholars will follow this path, rewriting civilization’s history on the basis of objective historical facts, constructing a Chinese discourse to rewrite civilization, and setting right the previous Western view of civilization. It is expected that Chinese scholars who rewrite the history of civilization will correct and criticize inaccurate facts about civilization. As well, they are supposed to fully recognize the contributions of Chinese civilization to the world. “Rewriting the History of Civilizations” is a call for a vital path and a major initiative to establish a Chinese discourse from the root of the discourse narration, discourse speaking, and discourse interpretation of the history of civilizations, and is a new issue of the time. We expect Chinese scholars to collaborate with international scholars and unite the entire academic world to rewrite the history of civilizations, reexamine the historical facts of mutual learning of civilizations, and further establish a view of civilization with China’s knowledge system in various disciplines. Also, write a history of civilization in line with the original appearance of human history, further explain the community of human destiny with the historical facts of civilizations, gain insight into the international situation of the ever-changing global governance pattern with the historical facts of civilizations, and reveal the objective laws of the evolution of mutual learning of civilizations through Chinese discourse.

1. Re-evaluation of the views of civilization

Why do we need to reevaluate the concept of civilization? It is primarily due to the fact that the current view of civilization in Chinese academia is essentially a Western view of civilization, in other words, a Western-centric view of civilization but in the name of “the world.” There is no doubt that civilization is at the core of human history and many other academic disciplines. However, the definition of the concept of civilization and the writing of civilization histories have long been dominated by Western scholars’ views.

The term “civilization” emerged in France in the 1830s and was promoted by François Guizot, the French Prime Minister at the time.¹ The influence of Guizot’s view of civilization was notable, as he presented the internal coherence of “European civilization,” but also expressed a strong sense of “French superiority:”

[…] for, without intending to flatter the country to which I am bound by so many ties, I cannot but regard France as the centre, as the focus, of the civilization of Europe.

(Guizot 8)

In his view, the progress of the Greek nation was far greater than that of the peoples of the East: From this cause a remarkable unity characterizes most of the civilizations of antiquity, the results of which, however, were very different … In other states, say, for example, in India and Egypt, where again only one principle of civilization prevailed, the result was different. Society here became stationary; simplicity produced monotony; the country was not destroyed; society continued to exist; but there was no progression; it remained torpid and inactive.

(Guizot 26)

It was Guizot’s so-called “progressive” view of civilizational history that influenced Fukuzawa Yukichi, the “father of the Enlightenment” in Japan, whose theory of “civilizational enlightenment” was derived from Guizot’s theory of civilizational progress, arguing that:

When we are talking about civilization in the world today, the nations of Europe and the United States of America are the most highly civilized, while the Asian countries, such as Turkey, China, and Japan, may be called semi-developed countries, and Africa and Australia are to be counted as still; primitive lands. These designations are common currency all over the world.

(Fukuzawa 17)

During the eastern spread of “civilizational progress,” a “civilizational hierarchy” developed, and the “civilization” and “enlightenment” of the West contrasted with the “barbarism,” “semi-developed” and “still” of the East.

As can be seen, the concept of civilization originated and circulated in Western civilization, which has become the pinnacle and standard of living for humans over the last hundred years, and the magic weapon for the Eastern countries to escape “barbarity” and become enlightened. A famous German scholar, Norbert Elias, has also noted that the concept of “civilization” originated within the West, arguing that what we discuss today is nothing more than a representation of:

[…] this concept expresses the self-consciousness of the West. One could even say: the national consciousness. It sums up everything in which Western society of the last two or three centuries believes itself superior to earlier societies or “more primitive” contemporary ones. By this term Western society seeks to describe what constitutes its special character and what it is proud of: the level of its technology, the nature of its manners, the development of its scientific knowledge or view of the world, and much more.

(Elias 5)

The superiority and elegance associated with Western civilization is deeply ingrained in the standards of civilization. Even those who praised the Eastern civilization on the surface were also filled with a sense of Western superiority, such as Voltaire, who is known as the “father of the history of Western civilization.” It appears that Voltaire was a ‘confidant’ of Eastern civilization, and he strongly praised it:

When you consider the globe as a philosopher, you first direct your attention to the east, the nursery of all arts, and from whence they have been communicated to the west.” (Voltaire 3)

And:

Il est incontestable que les plus anciennes annales du monde sont celles de la Chine. Ces annales se suivent sans interruption. (Arouet 236)

However, he concludes with a “linear-evolutionary” view of history that does not humbly cite how brilliant the two peoples of Greece and Rome, even though:

We on the contrary have made our discoveries very late; but we have been quick in bringing things to perfection.

(Voltaire 19)

Amos Dean’s seven-volume The History of Civilization, published between 1868 and 1869, is another example. The first volume of 15 chapters, first on Asian civilization (it covers the Central Asian Plateau, Turkey, Serbs, Huns, Mongolia, Tartars, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Babylonians, Madai-Persian Empire, Egypt, Arabian Peninsula, Palestine, Phoenicia, Syria, Asia Minor, and others, but only Indian civilization, Chinese civilization, is omitted). Although it may seem that this is the work on the history of civilization that gives the most attention to Asian civilizations, a closer examination reveals that this is not due to the author’s sense of importance about Asian civilizations, but rather because of the general awareness of Eastern civilizations in the 19th century in the West. Despite recognizing Asian civilization as the first great age in human history, Deane sees it as the “infancy” of mankind, and stresses that “the infancy continues there” (Hegel 120–121).

The bias of Western scholars is perhaps inevitable, because civilizations divide and differ, and we can set things right in view of their historical facts. Nevertheless, there is a greater concern that the lack of familiarity of some Chinese scholars with Chinese civilization and their blind admiration for Western civilization has contributed directly to Chinese civilization’s “aphasia.” Qian Liqun pointed out:

Nowadays, scholars have experienced a cultural break, and their connection with traditional Chinese culture is inherently insufficient. Their traditional cultural accomplishments cannot be compared with those of the foreign students back then. Autonomy has become a common pain for a generation or even several generations of scholars.

(Qian 12)

The loss of subject identity in Chinese culture and the subsequent erosion of national cultural confidence are not merely crises of the national cultural spirit, but of civilization itself. This trend has even led to academic stagnation and loss of independence. In China’s current liberal arts landscape, the education system, knowledge production, and academic discourse all reflect the ills of “morbidity” and “aphasia” (Cao). In the field of the humanities, it is common practice to use a combination of Western theories to analyze and interpret Chinese literature. The use of theories such as phenomenology, hermeneutics, deconstruction, postmodernism, feminism, postcolonialism, and new historicism to criticize and interpret Chinese literature is prevalent. In fact, if teachers fail to mention Western theories in their curriculum, they run the risk of being viewed as outdated and not aligned with international standards. In comparison to traditional Confucian classics and Chinese studies, Western theories are perceived as more relevant in terms of psychology, cognition, and emotion. This preference for Western theories has led to a feeling of estrangement from our own cultural theories, resulting in a divide that is difficult to bridge. For example, the Chinese scholar Zhu Guangqian argued that China has no tragedy or philosophy. According to Zhu Guangqian’s work Tragedy Psychology, the Yuan Dynasty produced over 500 plays in less than a hundred years; however, none can be classified as true tragedies. Zhu argues that the absence of tragedy in China is due to the lack of philosophy. Furthermore, he notes that the Chinese are practical and secular, and therefore view philosophy only through the lens of ethics. This mirrors similar sentiments expressed by Hegel. Ye Weilian further pointed out in Comparative Poetics that Western prejudices have directly affected Chinese scholars:

The young Mr. Fu Sinian actually said that Chinese pictographic characters are a barbaric ancient invention with deep-rooted barbarism. Chinese characters should be abolished.

(Ye 28)

It can be said that not only did Fu voice this sentiment, but a group of distinguished Chinese academicians during the May 4th era espoused a similar view by endorsing the cessation of Chinese characters. For example, Qian Xuantong, a linguist, believes that “to abolish Confucianism, we must first abolish the Chinese language; if we want to get rid of the childish, barbaric and stubborn thoughts of ordinary people, we must first abolish the Chinese language […] If you want to keep China alive and make the Chinese nation a civilized nation in the 20th century, you must abolish Confucianism and Taoism as the fundamental solution” (Qian). Qu Qiubai believed that the abandonment of the Roman alphabet in Chinese characters was necessary for writing in the vernacular. He expressed distaste for Chinese characters, considering them the world’s filthiest and most archaic. Some Chinese scholars adopted a pro-Western bias and prioritized it above the preservation of Chinese civilization, leading to the risk of its destruction. Addressing this issue is crucial in the task of rewriting the history of civilization.

In the 21st century, the concept of “civilization” is no longer just a matter of academic or theoretical debate, but has become a topic of discussion among international relations experts. In 1989, the renowned scholar Francis Fukuyama published his influential article “The End of History and the Last Man” in The National Interest. In this article, Fukuyama argued that the collapse of the Soviet Union signaled the end of the Cold War and also represented the triumph of Western civilization. He claimed that the Western liberal ideology had reached the pinnacle of human development and that there would be no new civilizations emerging in human society. Fukuyama’s assertion that Western civilization was the ultimate victor of the Cold War was an attempt to impose his viewpoint on human society as a universal and ultimate truth. He believed that the “rationality” and “vitality” of Western civilization had proved its superiority over other civilizations.

Fukuyama’s theory of the “end of history” has paved the way for Samuel Phillips Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” theory. In my view, Huntington’s theory, which is held by the prominent political scientist at Harvard University, should be considered as the most significant and influential viewpoint of the West on civilizations in the 21st century. In 1993, the summer edition of Foreign Affairs released an article titled “The Clash of Civilizations?” written by Huntington. The article argued that global politics would be shaped by the clash of civilizations and that future international relations would be dominated by it. Huntington went on to state that the next world war would be a battle of civilizations. Later in the same year, Huntington wrote another article for the same publication called “If Not Civilization, What?” This article further explained his theory on the “clash of civilizations.” Huntington believed that the causes of world conflicts would primarily be cultural rather than ideological and economic following the conclusion of the Cold War. It is worth noting that Huntington’s book prominently reflected the belief in the superiority of Western civilization:

The West is and will remain for years to come the most powerful civilization (Huntington 29). The world is in some sense two, but the central distinction is between the West as the hitherto dominant civilization and all the others, which, however, have little if anything in common among them. The world, in short, is divided between a Western one and a non-Western many.

(Huntington 36)

During most of human existence, contacts between civilizations were intermittent or nonexistent. (Huntington 21)

False statements in the book such as “Chinese hegemony” and “clash of civilizations” spread around the world along with the worldwide impact of this article. As the German scholar Harald Müller puts it:

It’s really worrying that the concept of “clash of cultures” has become so commonplace in our political and newspaper language […] the more we use certain concepts, the more likely we are suddenly to become their believers. The wider the spread of an idea, the greater its risk of blind obedience.

(Müller 11–12)

The theory of the clash of civilizations, despite being flawed, has served as the theoretical foundation for the cultural expansion of Western civilization.

The “clash of civilizations” and “end of history” theories originate from the contrast between Western and non-Western ideas. While both have influenced thinking in the 21st century, they are constrained by Cold War thinking. They narrow the theoretical perspective and ignore differences, contradictions, and conflicts between civilizations. Although civilizations are distinct, divergence does not necessarily suggest opposition. “Harmonious and different” can coexist. Civilizations can learn from each other, blend together, and harmonize to create a unified prosperity. It is time to rewrite the history of civilization and rediscuss the definition of civilization from the perspective of the history of human civilization, the basis of the facts of civilization development, the academic perspective of mutual learning among civilizations, and the perspective of civilization exchange theory. For several years, Western scholars have influenced the world’s view on civilization. The theory of the superiority of Western civilization and the centrality it holds in the world have become the basis for today’s theory of Western priority. Eastern and Chinese scholars should use basic historical facts about civilization development to correct this belief. They should prove that civilization’s prosperity and the progress of mankind depend on seeking common ground while reserving differences, being open and tolerant, and exchanging cultures. It is crucial to use mutual learning of historical facts among different civilizations to eliminate the arrogance and prejudice toward Western civilization. This will facilitate mutual learning and symbiosis among civilizations, leading to the exploration of development laws of world civilizations.

2. Significant errors in writing the history of civilizations

Western scholars have made significant contributions to the writing of civilization history, often attempting to adopt a “global” perspective. However, despite the pioneering nature of such efforts, there has been a tendency toward a narrow, Western-centric mind-set that perpetuates stereotypes of Western superiority. The result of this approach has been a number of historical gaps, distortions, and dismissals of other civilizations. Additionally, the adoption of Western concepts of civilization by Chinese scholars has also led to problems of mimicry and feelings of inferiority.

2.1. The discrepancy of historical facts in the development of civilizations negates the claim that Greece is the origin of Western civilization

For a considerable duration, Western academia has commonly deemed Greece as the origin of culture. The inception of Western civilization’s history is frequently attributed to ancient Greece. Friedrich Hegel, one of the creators of contemporary Western philosophy, stated:

The name of Greece strikes home to the heart of men of education in Europe, and more particularly is this so with us Germans.

(Hegel 149)

Hegel further added that:

[Greeks） They certainly received the substantial beginnings of their religion, culture, their common bonds of fellowship, more or less from Asia, Syria and Egypt; but they have so greatly obliterated the foreign nature of this origin, and it is so much changed, worked upon, turned round, and altogether made so different, that what they, as we, prize, know, and love in it, is essentially their own. For this reason, in the history of Greek life, when we go further back and seem constrained so to go back, we find we may do without this retrogression and follow within the world and manners of the Greeks.

(Hegel 150)

The belief in the superiority of one civilization over another in terms of development has had a detrimental effect on the academic community, which is unacceptable. It is important to acknowledge that mutual learning between civilizations, both East and West, was integral to the origin of civilization development. Moreover, the exchange and influence between different civilizations continue to exist even today. It is crucial to recognize and embrace the contributions and advancements made by all civilizations, instead of promoting a hierarchy of superiority.

It is widely acknowledged that there exist four ancient civilizations across the globe, each with a rich and illustrious history. The knowledge that human beings possess in various fields such as philosophy, science, writing, literature, and art owes a great debt to the formidable contributions made by these ancient civilizations. The four ancient civilizations share a crucial aspect of their cultural heritage in the form of their unique scripts. Sumer, for instance, developed the cuneiform writing system, which is regarded as the oldest form of writing discovered thus far. The initial cuneiform scripts were primarily images and were crafted around 3400 B.C., while a more refined version of the system came to fruition roughly around 3000 B.C. Similarly, hieroglyphs first appeared in ancient Egypt around 3000 B.C., and the earliest hieroglyphic inscription of the Egyptian script can be traced back to the armor joint plate of the Pharaoh Namer. Furthermore, the Dravidian script of India dates back to roughly 2500 B.C., while the Chinese oracle bone script was produced around 1700 B.C. Overall, each of the four ancient civilizations arose independently, with a distinct lineage of civilization generation, discovery, and continuation.

The ancient Greek civilization is not considered one of the four primary civilizations. This raises the question as to why they were not included in this category. According to academic research, it is established that the ancient Greek civilization was not an original or primary civilization, but rather a secondary civilization that emerged from the influence of ancient Sumerian-Cuban and ancient Egyptian civilizations. Thus, the Greek civilization absorbed ideas, practices, and technologies from these civilizations and adapted them to create their own culture and society. The Greek script was not originally created by the ancient Greeks themselves. Instead, it was derived from the Phoenician alphabet, which in turn had its roots in the ancient Sumerian cuneiform. The Phoenicians based their alphabet on the Sumerian cuneiform and used it to alphabetize dozens of pictographs. In the 8th century B.C., the Greeks developed their own alphabet by adding vowels, which they learned from the Phoenician alphabet. The Latin alphabet was later formed based on the ancient Greek one. Both the Greek and Latin alphabets became the basis for Western alphabets. Additionally, the bronzes of ancient Greece were influenced by the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, while the megalithic architecture of Greece was learned from ancient Egypt. These facts illustrate the mutual appreciation and exchange of knowledge between Eastern and Western.

Has this problem been acknowledged by scholars in the West? Undoubtedly, it has. One such scholar is Herodotus, an esteemed Greek writer and historian from the 5th century B.C. Known as the “father of history,” he chronicled the events he witnessed and heard during his travels in his book, Ἱστορίαι (History), which became the first complete work of prose in Western literature. In this seminal text, Herodotus provided an objective analysis of the impact of Eastern culture on Greece and went so far as to recognize the East as the birthplace of all culture and wisdom:

His theory that the Greek alphabet, as he knew it, was of Phoenician origin is borne out by comparing the forms, names, and order of the early Greek and Phoenician letters (Roberts, Greek Epigraphy, § 4f). It contrasts favorably with the ascription of the invention to mythical heroes, such as Palamedes (Stesichorus), Prometheus (Aesch.P.V.46of), Musaeus, Orpheus, or Linus. Of course H. knew nothing of the primitive Cretan and Mycenaean scripts (A.J.Evans, J.H.S.xiv, xvii, and Scripta Minoa), which being earlier must probably have contributed to the formation of the Phoenician alphabet. His connexons of the earliest Greek alphabet with Cadmus and Boeotia is simply a part of his theory of Phoenician settlement, as is the hypothesis that it spread first among Ionians. H. has not the learning to distinguish the alphabets of Eastern and of Western Hellas, or to recognize that the Ionic alphabet in its final form is a late development of the former.

(Wybergh 431)

The Greeks’ use of sundials has its origins in Babylonian civilization, while their adoption of names from Greek mythology can be traced to Egypt. During the reign of Amasis, the Greeks were accorded preferential treatment by Egypt, and as a result, they assimilated much of Egypt’s knowledge, including its laws and architecture. The Minoan civilization, regarded as the earliest ancient civilization in Europe and a precursor to the classical Greek civilization, exhibited clear Egyptian socio-cultural influences:

Traces of the cultivation of the olive occur now for the first time, and longhorn cattle are imported. Jewelry and seals in gold, ivory, faience, and steatite, and fine stone vases reflect an influence from Egypt, which strengthens in the third phase of the Early Bronze Age.

(Hammond 25)

During the period spanning from 1600 to 1400 B.C., a significant increase in the artistic exchange between Cretan and Egyptian civilizations took place:

Cretan artists, too, gave their own independent treatment to motifs common in Egyptian art, such as the monkey and the cat in frescoes and the papyrus on pottery.

(Hammond 32)

In the year 1956, a distinguished archeologist of Mesopotamia, Samuel Noah Kramer, published a profound book titled History Begins at Sumer. The book highlights the 27 pivotal contributions of the Sumerian civilization, which ranged from the inception of laws, schools, and philosophies to the establishment of an array of literary genres. Among these genres was the prototype of the Biblical story of “Noah,” which also originated in Sumerian culture. The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh also features a similar narrative of shipbuilding being necessary for salvation, which finds its parallel in the Bible. Furthermore, various sections of the Epic of Gilgamesh have influenced and are inherited in Homer’s epics. C. Leonard Woolley, who conducted the archeological excavation of the ancient Mesopotamian city of Ur, posited that the civilization of Sumer should be evaluated with greater admiration for its profound impact on human history. This culture was one of the earliest known to humanity, and its emergence illuminated a world that was in a primitive and barbaric state. (Woolley 192–194)

From a particular stance, Greece is regarded as the root of Western culture; however, it can be argued that it is actually a tributary of ancient Eastern civilization. Despite this fact, several historical accounts of civilization have deliberately disregarded this aspect, as Hegel famously did. It is essential to acknowledge the nature of cultural exchange and interconnectivity between different regions and peoples in producing civilizations, rather than narrow perspectives that favor certain parts of history over others. The world’s civilizations are ever-evolving, constantly catching up to and surpassing one another. Although ancient Greece once served as a secondary civilization, courtesy of the ancient primary civilizations of Egypt and the two river basins, mutual appreciation of civilizations brought Greek culture to the forefront. Its legendary scholars Heraclitus, Democritus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and others, along with pre-Qin sages Laozi, Confucius, Mozi, Zhuangzi, Mencius from China and Buddha from ancient India, laid the foundation for human civilization’s golden age. The subsequent progress of Western civilization is also inextricably tied to mutual appreciation of this kind.

2.2. The absence of historical facts of mutual learning of civilizations - Arab awakening to the West

The emergence of Greek civilization was largely a result of the mutual exchange and integration of various civilizations. Similarly, the development of the Renaissance in the West was also a product of cross-cultural understanding. Surprisingly, the history of Western civilization does not acknowledge the two-century-long study of Arab civilizations in Western Europe. This omission may be due to the desire to maintain the Western Renaissance as a unique and self-sufficient event, stripped of any outside influence. However, it is important to recognize that the Renaissance would not have arisen without the contributions of Arab civilization from the East. Hitti, an American scholar with a focus on Arabic literature, makes an assertion in his book:

Between the middle of the eighth and the beginning of the thirteenth centuries, as we have noted before, the Arabic-speaking peoples were the main bearers of the torch of culture and civilization throughout the world. Moreover, they were the medium through which ancient science and philosophy were recovered, supplemented and transmitted in such a way as to make possible the renaissance of Western Europe.

(Hitti&Philip 557)

The preservation of numerous invaluable documents of ancient Greece and Rome by the Arab scholars speaks volumes about their meticulous efforts toward safeguarding the works of Classical civilizations. Furthermore, their contribution toward the Renaissance movement, through translations and feedback, cannot be overemphasized. The Arab scholars aimed not only to preserve the knowledge of the past but also to enrich it through their intellectual prowess. Their translations and interpretations of the classics opened new avenues for knowledge exploration, providing a foundation for further intellectual development in Europe and beyond. The impact of Arab translations extended beyond the Renaissance and drove advancements in diverse fields of science, literature, and philosophy.

The European Middle Ages is often referred to as a period of darkness, during which the former splendor of ancient Greco-Roman culture and art faded into near-extinction. However, it was also a time of great prosperity and cultural enlightenment for the Arabian Empire, which spanned three continents: Europe, Asia, and Africa. Arab culture flourished during this era, drawing inspiration from its ancient Greco-Roman predecessors and even their contemporary Chinese Tang counterparts. The historic figure of Muhammad expressed a deep regard for the pursuit of knowledge, stating that “even if knowledge is found in far-off China, one must seek it.” During the Abbasid period from 750–1258, there was a notable “hundred-year translation movement.” It was during this time that the famous “Palace of Wisdom” was established under the rule of Caliph Maimon. Scholars from all over the country congregated in Baghdad to translate significant philosophical works of Plato and Aristotle, the mathematical works of Ptolemy, Euclid and Archimedes, and the medical works of Galen and Hippocrates into Arabic. These scholars were responsible for the translation and preservation of invaluable texts. One such example is the seven books of Greek anatomy by Galen, which were lost until they were translated into Arabic. The 11th century saw the Arab civilization contribute significantly to the revival of Western civilization through the preserving of Greco-Roman literature. These works were translated into Latin in Toledo, Spain, and spread throughout Western Europe. This “second translation” played a crucial role in the emergence of the Renaissance in Europe.

During the Middle Ages, Western Europe viewed philosophy as subordinate to theology. However, in Arab civilization, “Philosophy was fostered and cherished among the Arabians”（Hegel 26）, particularly the works of Aristotle, which were translated and preserved by Arab scholars. The scholars in Toledo not only translated the texts but also the commentaries of Arab scholars, interpreting them according to their own culture in order to thoroughly understand the philosopher’s meaning. This resulted in a new interpretation of Greek philosophy that differed from the original. This process is called the Arabization of Greek philosophy. It is worth pondering how significant this phenomenon is in the history of civilizations. To what extent does Aristotle’s philosophy owe its current esteem to the Arab element in it? Scholars need to pay more attention to this case of mutual appreciation and exchange between civilizations. Furthermore, the history of civilizations needs to be rewritten to highlight such important developments.

Arabia represents not only a repository for the treasures of ancient Greek civilization, but also a bastion of its own rich cultural heritage that has significantly contributed to both the arts and sciences of Europe. Hitti asserted:

Italian poetry, letters and music began to blossom under Provencal and Arabic influence.

(Hitti&Philip 611–612)

Several of the Moslem works on astronomy were translated in course of time into Latin, especially in Spain, and exercised a determining Influence on the development of the science in Christian Europe.

(Hitti&Philip 411)

The Western literary canon boasts several renowned works, including The Divine Comedy, The Decameron, and The Canterbury Tales, all of which bear influence from One Thousand and One Nights. Bertani’s astronomical writings were deemed authoritative after their introduction to Western Europe, further inspiring notable figures such as Copernicus. The latter also cited Bertani’s perspectives and works concerning the movement of the heavens in his own publication. During the Renaissance, the mathematics of the Arabs played a significant role in laying the foundation of mathematics in European universities. One such influential figure was Al-Khwarizmi, who reformed the calculation method by incorporating Indian mathematics. Al-Khwarizmi’s work, “Calculus of Integrals and Equations,” was a valuable resource for major European universities for a considerable period. Interestingly, what are known as “Arabic numbers” today were actually invented by the Indians, although it was the Arabs who introduced them to Europe. Additionally, the four ancient Chinese inventions were also introduced to Europe through the Arab Empire, making a significant contribution to the progress of European civilization. These historical facts of mutual appreciation between different civilizations should be incorporated into future histories of civilizations. It highlights how different civilizations have influenced and learned from one another, which ultimately broadens our understanding of the world and the interdependent relationship between civilizations.

2.3. The absence of historical facts in the mutual learning of civilizations – Chinese elements in Western culture

The immense contribution of Western civilization to human development is undeniable, but this should not imply that it is evolving independently. On the contrary, the exchange and mutual appreciation of civilizations is still vital for human civilization’s development. Despite the popularity of contemporary Western philosophy and literature, like Heidegger, Gadamer, and Derrida in Chinese academic circles, the fact remains that their work is the result of interaction and exchange between civilizations. There have been multiple exemplifications of significant instances, like the Chinese component embedded within Heidegger’s philosophical ideology. As is well-known, Heidegger’s association with Chinese philosophy plays a crucial role in his intellectual undertaking. By delving into the rich cultural and philosophical heritage of the East, Heidegger was able to expand his horizons and arrive at a more nuanced understanding of the meaning of being. His utilization of Chinese philosophy, therefore, has been crucial in shaping his philosophical outlook. Xiao Shiyi, a scholar from China, recounted his interactions with Heidegger and discussed Heidegger’s participation in co-translating the Tao Te Ching:

I learned of Heidegger’s interest in translating the Tao Te Ching of Laotzu in the spring of 1946, on our meeting in the Holzmarktplatz in Freiburg. At that time, he suggested to me that we collaborate in the summer on translating the Tao Te Ching into German in his cabin at Todtnauberg, since only in the summer would he have a break from his work. I agreed gladly, being convinced that Lao-tzu’s ideas would contribute to the reflections of the German people, and indeed of the Western world, after the disastrous World War. Unfortunately, we did not complete the project, but I nevertheless have the impression that the work exerted a significant influence on Heidegger. Heidegger himself once said to a German friend that through this engagement with Lao-tzu along with Confucius and Mencius he had learned more of the East.

(Graham 93)

In 1930, Martin Heidegger delivered a lecture titled “On the Nature of Truth” in Bremen. During the ensuing academic discourse, as participants debated the issue of “intersubjectivity” and whether one can be elevated above others, Heidegger invoked the allusion to “Zhuangzi and Huishi watching the fish on the haole” from Zhuangzi Qiushui to advance his standpoint. He argued that comprehension is an outcome of the contextual setting within which it arises, rendering communication between logical subjects an impossibility (Graham 52). This is why numerous scholars of Heidegger postulate that he underwent a significant ideological shift during the 1930s. In the 75th Volume of The Complete Works of Heidegger, there exists an article written in 1943 titled “The Uniqueness of the Poet,” which delves into the ideological implications found in Holderlin’s poems, specifically regarding “Existence and nonexistence.” This essay delves into the ideological significance of the poetry of Hölderlin, while referencing the entirety of chapter 11 in Laozi. This topic has been further studied by the esteemed German scholar, Günter Wohlfart, who has published an article titled “Heidegger and Laozi: Wu (Nothing) – on chapter 11 of the Daodejing” that discusses this particular phenomenon (Wohlfart&Guenter 39–59). Since then, Heidegger has constantly associated “being,” “use,” and “nothing” which triggered his “thought of uselessness.” For example, in 1945, in a personal letter to his brother, Heidegger quoted the debate between Zhuangzi and Huizi in “Zhuangzi – Miscellaneous Articles – External Objects,” which was named “Zhuangzi, the Necessity of Uselessness.” This represented the first instance in Western philosophy where a connection was made between “uselessness” and “necessity,” specifically the notion of “uselessness for use.” This link between “uselessness” and “use” served as a key factor in his investigation of the essence of “things,” notably in his famed essay “Things.” In his essay, Heidegger claims that:

Doch vo nder Gegenständlich keit des Gegenstandes und des Selbststandes führt kein Weg zum Dinghaften des Dinges.

(Heidegger 169)

Die Leere, dieses Nichts am Krug, ist das, was der Krug als das fassende Gefäß ist.

(Heidegger 170)

Therefore, the question of “Being” is also a search for the meaning of nothingness. But such nothingness is neither absolute emptiness nor meaningless nothingness. Heidegger posits that the Nothing of Being is precisely that – a state of nothingness that is subordinate to Being. The concept of the Nothing of Being forms a vital component of his approach to the question of Being. Heidegger presents an original perspective that contributes to the discourse surrounding this central philosophical inquiry. Through his work, Heidegger strives to reintroduce the question of Being, which he suggests has been overlooked in modern philosophy. By granting significance to the Nothing of Being and its connection to Being, he posits that the ontological investigation can again gain relevance. In conclusion, Heidegger’s proposition is that the Nothing of Being exists in relation to Being, and understanding this codependent relationship is essential to addressing the question of Being. It is worth reflecting on the phenomenon that Western scholars and Chinese scholars writing the history of literary theory have neglected Heidegger’s adoption of Laozi and Zhuangzi’s Chinese philosophies. This neglect in the history of literary theory is a significant matter that deserves attention. Heidegger’s integration of Chinese philosophies is an important aspect of his contributions to the field of literary theory. This lack of recognition by scholars from both Western and Chinese backgrounds could be a result of cultural and linguistic barriers that have inhibited understanding and appreciation of these philosophies. It is necessary to acknowledge and examine this neglect to avoid further perpetuating it. The given text highlights the notion of mutual learning between Eastern and Western civilizations, which has been prevalent for centuries. Many noteworthy Western scholars, including Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida, and Jung, have studied Eastern civilizations such as China, India, Arabia, and Japan to gain knowledge and inspiration. In turn, some Western literary schools like Imagism and Transcendentalism and their representatives have also been influenced by Eastern thoughts and ideas. Contrary to the clash of civilizations, mutual learning has been the dominant approach from ancient times to modern times.

Despite the apparent fact of mutual appreciation of civilizations, it is perplexing that this aspect is not reflected in the writing of history and has been disregarded by scholars. Such a phenomenon is highly irregular and demands attention. The explanation for this phenomenon can be traced back to the core issue of discourse. At present, the international academic discourse of Chinese scholars and even Oriental scholars is in the dilemma of “aphasia..”If we want to break through this dilemma, we must start from the fundamental concept of civilization, start from the interpretation of issues related to mutual learning among civilizations, and reflect the true appearance of civilization development in specific interpretations. I think that Chinese scholars can best interpret and construct their discourse by starting from the specific practice of rewriting the history of civilization and reexamining the development of human civilization in order to understand its connotations. This approach provides a solid foundation for scholarly discussions on various topics, including the history of ideas, literature, communication, philosophy, economics, law, science & technology, and astronomy. By delving into the historical facts of each discipline, we can rewrite the history of civilization and related fields, which can lead to our voices being heard around the world.

2.4. Prejudice and discrimination in the writing of civilization - racist superiority theory

The invention of the term “civilization” by Europeans led to the emergence of civilizational classism. This dichotomy of “civilization-barbarism” created severe biases and discrimination, with the West arrogantly viewing the East as primitive and uncivilized. This cognitive formula of “West-East” has had lasting effects, with even influential thinkers such as Hegel distorting the East, specifically Chinese philosophy and Confucianism. In his “Lectures on the History of Philosophy,” Hegel relegated “Eastern philosophy” to the sidelines and elevated Greek philosophy as the beginning of the history of philosophy:

The first Philosophy in order is the so-called Oriental, which, however, does not enter into the substance or range of our subject as represented here. Its position is preliminary, and we only deal with it at all in order to account for not treating of it at greater length, and to show in what relation it stands to Thought and to true Philosophy.

(Georg 117)

Prejudice and contempt, if limited to mere discussions and written arguments, could be corrected. Unfortunately, this heinous mind-set has extended beyond intellectual discourse, leading to discrimination and animosity toward individuals and entire races, further fueling persecution. Artil de Gobino asserted that civilization is intricately linked to race and not to the environment. He posited that “all civilizations derive from the white race […] none can exist without its help” (Mazlish 60), with the world’s races ranked in the hierarchical order of white-yellow-black. This idea of racial supremacy was embraced by some segregationists and white supremacists. Unfortunately, history has shown that these beliefs have resulted in grave injustices, as can be seen in the tragic massacre of Native Americans in the United States. In an interview with a Chinese scholar, Charles Ettner, an expert on Indian studies at Stanford University’s Department of Anthropology, stated that there were more than 300 indigenous tribes in North America during the time of Columbus’ voyage to the American continent. Unfortunately, due to disease, war, and starvation brought by the white man, approximately half of the Native American tribes have disappeared. Ettner also noted that the vast amount of historical material available today presents a biased perspective as it is mainly dominated by the white man’s side of the story. This one-sided view can distort the true history of Native Americans and their culture. Therefore, it is essential to have a fair and accurate representation of the historical events to understand the cultural significance of Native Americans in American history (Randaju 78).

Through America’s history, indigenous tribes have suffered from systematic policies that exploited their resources. The government has forcefully relocated tribes west of the Mississippi River using their “reservation” system. Charles Ettner highlights that the locations chosen by the government for the indigenous communities were usually in places that were undesirable to the white population, far from civilization and easily controlled by the military (Randaju 78). The government was aware that these areas were bereft of natural resources, stripping the tribes of their assets. This exploitation has continued through history; for example, the government created the Indian Removal Act of 1830, forcing tribes to move beyond the Mississippi. These actions have resulted in devastating consequences for indigenous people, leading to poverty and dislocation. The Indian population residing in North America experienced a decline from 5 million to 250,000 during the period between the late 15th century and the early 20th century. This was mainly attributed to harsh living conditions, repressive social policies, and ethnic conflicts prevalent during that period. The adverse living conditions were largely caused by forced relocation from their native lands and the destruction of their traditional way of life. Furthermore, the policies implemented by the ruling authorities were repressive, restricting the rights and freedoms of the Indian population. This led to further marginalization and alienation from mainstream society. Additionally, conflicts with other ethnic groups further contributed to the decline of the Indian population in North America. In the history of American civilization, there has been a noticeable absence of discussion and documentation of these issues. It is because the writing of history remains in the hands of whites, and “the number of scholars of Native origin among institutions is miniscule, and the number of white scholars who give weight or consideration to Native perspectives on history is also miniscule” (Randaju 79). The essence of the history of civilization lies in factual historic events, and it should not be treated as a mere tool for embellishment. To truly understand the history of civilization, one must approach it with a genuine desire to learn from it. It is imperative to recognize not only the positive aspects but also the many “barbaric acts” that have occurred during the course of humanity’s rapid development. Historical facts that have been deliberately ignored, distorted, or undermined should be given their due recognition in a new discourse of rewriting the history of civilization. By acknowledging the full scope of our historical past, we can gain a deeper understanding of the human condition and avoid repeating the errors of the past.

3. Key points in rewriting the history of civilization

Human history has transitioned into a new phase characterized by frequent international conflicts. This highlights the importance of developing a more profound, dynamic, and assertive comprehension of the history of civilization. The reconstruction of a discourse precursor through the rewriting of history from the perspective of civilization is essential. To this end, it is necessary to address the questions on why we should write, how to write, and what to write in the context of civilization history research and writing. Notably, specific research paths can be pursued, starting with the following areas:

3.1. Research on the writing of “history of civilization” in different cultures

Over the past two centuries, there has been a proliferation of writings on the history of civilization. However, there has yet to emerge a comprehensive study of the current state of writing the history of civilization. In order to extract the essence and discard the dross, it is essential to sort out and have a comprehensive understanding of the writing of civilization history books in the world today. Currently, there are various writings on civilization history in different languages and cultural contexts. Examples include The History of Civilization,（Amos Dean，1869）The Story of Civilization,（Will Durant, ‎Ariel Durant，1935）Histoire de la civilization,（J. de Crozals，1887）Geschichte der Sintflut : auf den Spuren der frühen Zivilisation,（Harald Haarmann，2003）تاريخ الحضارة,（شارل سانيويوس，1908）国民の文明史,（中西輝政，2003）世界文明史:人類の誕生から産業革命まで, （下田淳，2017）History of Chinese Civilization, (Hebei Education Press, 1989) History of World Civilization, (Ma Keyao, 2003) etc. These works clearly take different civilizational concepts as their stance in describing the development of world or local civilizations, and the final civilizational histories presented are also different in their own ways. There are many questions to be explored: What are the purposes and contexts of each civilization history? What are the modes of writing, frameworks, ideas, and omissions of the civilization histories that have been recognized by the world? What are the characteristics of the editors’ grasp of historical materials and their presentation of historical facts? What conclusions can be drawn from a comparative study of the histories of different civilizations? What is the image of local civilizations in the construction of the Other and what is the significance of the Other in amplifying the historical facts and phenomena that local civilizations have overlooked? A holistic approach to civilization studies will enable us to unravel the hidden shortcomings of previous case studies and reap innovative results. It is imperative to carefully examine and analyze the works about the “History of Civilization.” This will create an avenue for global dialogue in the realm of historical writing about civilizations. Additionally, by expanding the notion of “civilization self-confidence” beyond the writing of civilization history to that of varied disciplines, a Chinese discourse can be developed which promotes mutual learning among civilizations.

3.2. A re-examination of existing research on the concept of “civilization”

It is imperative to comprehend the landscape of the global academic narrative regarding the writing of the “History of Civilization.” Furthermore, it is crucial to investigate the discourse surrounding the concept of civilization as studied by scholars before. This involves exploring the methodologies and perspectives utilized by these scholars in their research on civilization and understanding the academic implications of their findings. Georg Michael Pflaum’s 1961 work, Geschichte des Wortes “Zivilisation” and Bruce Mazlish’s 2004 work, Civilization and Its Contents, trace the roots and evolution of the concept of “civilization” from the eighteenth century and its global impact. Norbert Elias, a famous German sociologist, wrote The Civilizing Process in 1939, which traces the expression of civilization since medieval Europe through the evolution of daily life, making it well-known. However, the writers’ works continue to frame the concept of “civilization” from a Western perspective with a focus only on Western civilizations.

The study of civilization has resulted in various important concepts and theories. It is necessary not only to concentrate on the influential theories put forth by Western scholars but also to consider the contributions made by Chinese and Eastern scholars. Important theories such as Francois Guizot’s theory of civilizational progress, Karl Jaspers’ Axial Age, Arnold Joseph Toynbee’s “View of Civilizational Forms,” Fukuyama’s “End of History,” Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations,” Said’s “Orientalism,” Tang Yijie’s “New Axis Era,” “Theory of Interaction of Civilizations,” and “Theory of Mutual Learning of Civilizations” should all be taken into account while writing and studying the history of civilization. In order to engage with significant theoretical concerns, it is imperative that we undertake a courageous dialogue. This is because every idea is founded on a specific historical and cultural tradition. It is crucial to differentiate the features of each theory and determine which characteristics are objective, subjective, based on human principles or driven by self-interest.

3.3. Rediscover the worldwide value of ancient Chinese history writing

China’s historical tradition is considered the earliest and most comprehensive in the world, according to scholars and historians worldwide. Voltaire, a renowned philosopher, highly lauded Chinese chronicles as the oldest in existence. In his words:

Il est incontestable que les plus anciennes annales du monde sont celles de la Chine. Ces annales se suivent sans interruption.

(François-Marie 236)

The Chinese chronicles’ durability, continuity and accuracy have contributed to a better understanding of historical events and have helped develop a comprehensive understanding of the development of civilizations worldwide. To begin with, there exist several criteria for determining “historical morality,” “historical talent,” and “historical learning” among those who engage in historical writing. According to Confucius, a competent historian should possess the “principle of recording historical events […] straightforwardly” (Ruan 1867) while remaining impartial in their praise and criticism. This principle served as a model for later historians, who used Confucius’s book “Spring and Autumn” as a guide. In the South Dynasty, Liu Xie further expounded upon this principle in his work The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons, stating that:

But straightforward writing by a good historian consists [partially] in the censure of the villainous and the wicked, just as a farmer roots out weeds when he sees them. This is a principle which will remain valid for all time […] Indeed, the responsibility of a historian involves the ordering of a dynasty; he is responsible to all the people within the boundaries of the seas, in his shouldering of the burden of pronouncing moral judgments. What other labor can compare to this burden of the writer’s in magnitude? With all the learning of [Ssu-ma] Ch’ien and [Pan] Ku, they have been the subjects of criticism for generation after generation. When one lets his private prejudices lead him astray, that is the graveyard of his writing.

(Hsieh&Liu 118–119)

The historian Jie Serves of the Yuan dynasty also emphasized that the employment of individuals should be based on their moral character. Furthermore, with regards to the paradigm of historical writing, Chinese scholars in modern times have followed Western literary views and the writing mode of Western literary history. However, they fail to recognize that China itself has a discourse on literary history. In The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons, a complete set of historical discourse is summarized, consisting of the following elements:

I have classified them into separate genres and traced each genre back to its source in order to make clear its development, and I have defined a number of literary terms in order to clarify their meaning. I have selected several literary works for treatment under each specific topic, and have advanced arguments to demonstrate their unity. Thus, in the first part of the book a clear general outline is presented.

(Hsieh&Liu 4)

The genre section of The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons is itself a history of divided literature in the modern sense. Another example is Complete Library in Four Sections, which is often renowned for its bibliography of philology, but its significance as a literary history is often overlooked. The world recognizes China’s historical achievements, and its mature culture of historians and history-writing traditions require further exploration and utilization by the academic community. I believe that the integration of Chinese historical views and discourse into the writing of civilization history will yield an elegant and unique appearance to the history of world civilization.

When rewriting the history of civilization, it is of utmost importance to present the diversity of writing throughout its course. It is crucial not only to sort out the development process of civilizations but also to focus on the writing of “history of civilizations.” This includes incorporating parts that were previously missing, such as the “history of mutual learning among civilizations” and the “comparative history of civilizations.” The “history of mutual learning among civilizations” examines the cultural phenomena resulting from exchanges between civilizations in history. The exchange and mutual learning of civilizations are the mainstream of history. Civilizations are not individual growth organisms, as per Toynbee’s theory; rather, they are a complex web of exchanges. The exchanges between civilizations have contributed to the innovation and development of heterogeneous civilizations. Examples of this include Zen Buddhism in China, the Renaissance in Europe, and the printing art in China. The “comparative history of civilizations” can be approached from two angles. Firstly, the history of positive relations, for instance, how Western sonnets may have originated from Chinese Tang poetry, which later transformed into Persian Rubait before evolving into sonnets. This demonstrates a clear, front-to-back time context. Secondly, it is a history of parallel dialogs. Different histories of civilizations have varying presentations on the common theme of human development, supplying the possibility for parallel comparative dialogs. It is also vital to pay attention to the “worldliness” contained within civilizations, avoiding a narrow focus on superiority psychology or standard supremacy. The history of the world, world literature, world philosophy, and world science and technology, all dominated by the West, need to be reorganized under a new concept of civilization and reviewed and rewritten. Furthermore, importance should be given to the “uniqueness” of civilization. Western archeologists measure the origin and development of civilization using the four material standards of “writing, bronzes, cities, and religious ritual buildings.” Characters are at the top of the list, and the spread of Chinese characters is a significant reason for the continuous existence of Chinese civilization. The hieroglyphic script in Egypt, the cuneiform script in Mesopotamia, the seal script in India, and the linear script in Crete all declined with civilization, while only Chinese characters remained. Influenced by Western scholars, some even called for the “abolition of Chinese characters” without realizing their particularity to Chinese and world civilization.

4. Conclusion

The diversity and uniqueness of civilizations complement each other, and the exchange and mutual learning between them is the historical mainstream of civilization. This should be the focus of scholars when rewriting the history of civilization. It is a major topic of concern for human civilization, with countless problems in different civilizational contexts and disciplines waiting to be explored, clarified, and dissected. Chinese civilization has a continuous history of over 5,000 years, creating a broad and profound culture and contributing significantly to the progress of human civilization. Writing about Chinese and Eastern civilizations in the history of world civilization should not be done hastily and used as a mere footnote or “wedding dress” for others. The view of Chinese civilization should not be silenced by the clash of civilizations theory. Instead, it is time for the neglected, distorted, and belittled historical facts to be brought forward, rectified, and clarified. “Rewriting the history of civilizations” presents an opportunity to actively express views on civilization and construct a new discourse of civilization. Chinese scholars should seize this opportunity to write their own history of civilization, extending it to the history of various disciplines. They should offer suggestions on the ever-changing pattern of civilization governance. Ultimately, rewriting the history of civilization will enable us to gain a better understanding of ourselves, our place in history and the world around us, and foster greater mutual understanding and cooperation among civilizations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Cao Shunqing

Shunqing Cao, Member of European Academy of Sciences and Arts, Distinguished Professor of Sichuan University, Professor of Changjiang Scholar Program of Minister of Education, Member of Discipline Review Group of the State Council, and Vice President of Sichuan Federation of Social Science Associations.

Liu Shishi

Shishi Liu, Ph.D. candidate, College of Literature and Journalism, Sichuan University.

Notes

1. From 1828 to 1830, Guizot gave lectures on “European Civilization” and “French Civilization” at Sorbonne University. His masterpieces “History of European Civilization” and “History of French Civilization” were published as a collection of his lectures during this period.