In this assessment, you will apply historical knowledge and reasoning skills that you have developed in the class to a new set of sources.
Once you begin, you will have 120 minutes (2 hours) to read and write an essay based on ONE extract from the following documents:
- Primary sources: texts that were written in the time period you are asked about;
- Secondary sources: texts written by later historians that explain the time period;
- Multimedia sources: typically artworks – cartoons, posters, paintings, videos – from the time period.
When preparing your response, you may consult any external sources, such as your notes and the Internet, including AI tools, provided that you give proper citations.
Primary Source: China and the League of Nations
In the history of modern Chinese statecraft, few figures could rival the scholarly depth and diplomatic prowess of V. K. Wellington Koo, aka Gu Weijun (1888-1985). Born in Shanghai, Koo’s intellectual journey led him to Columbia University, where he earned a Ph.D. in international law and diplomacy. Koo is widely credited with establishing the Republic of China’s contemporary diplomatic service and renegotiating China’s many “unequal treaties”.
In the following speech, Koo, serving as China’s delegate to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, articulated his country’s vision for a new international order. Specifically, he passionately advocated for Chinese support of the nascent League of Nations, the groundbreaking intergovernmental organization established on January 10, 1920, with the ambitious mandate to prevent future wars through diplomacy, disarmament, and collective security.
The Chinese people have from time immemorial been influenced by the elevated principles of Confucian philosophy. It is Confucius who first taught us that we must not be merely content with the orderly government of a single individual nation, but that, besides, we must seek for the establishment of what he termed “Tatungism,” which means literally “great communism,” figuratively “utopianism,” and practically “a league of nations.” He was living in the feudal age, or the so-called Spring and Autumn period, when many principalities, dukedoms and earldoms, great and small, were constantly fighting one against another. Alliances were formed among the more powerful nations to barter about the peoples and territories of the less powerful “as if they were mere chattels and pawns in a game.” If there was a lull of peace now and then, here and there, it was only to be broken again over a quarrel among the princes. The people were forced to take up arms simply to satisfy the selfish ends of their rulers. Various territories were time and again bathed in blood. Misery reigned everywhere. Confucius saw, just as the illustrious author of the present League of Nations has seen, the danger to civilization and humanity involved in the continued existence of such a sad plight, and therefore spared no effort in emphasizing the need of creating and preserving a new order of things which could ensure universal peace. Although his appeals to the princes and the people did not succeed in bringing about many concrete results in his own age, his ideals and principles have survived him from generation to generation, and been deeply inculcated on the minds of the Chinese people.
Among the most characteristic principles prescribed by Confucius is this: “Do not do unto others what you will not others do unto you.” One should act in obedience to the dictates of Reason and Justice, and covet nothing which is not one’s by right. Mencius, a noted disciple of the Confucian School, drew a distinct line of demarcation between what is selfishness and what is one’s proper due. Mozi advocated the principle of altruism and universal love. Nurtured in the philosophy of peace based on Reason and Justice, the spirit of the Chinese people is the spirit of the League of Nations.
The foregoing observations perhaps explain the fact that the sentiment in favor of the League prevails throughout the length and breadth of the Chinese Republic. In China and abroad societies have been formed by Chinese to study the question and support the cause. I have tried to give expression to this unanimous sentiment of the Chinese people at the Plenary Session of the Peace Conference on February 14th, when President Wilson presented to the Conference the draft Covenant unanimously agreed to by the Commission on the League of Nations, just as our Minister for Foreign Affairs did at the Plenary Session of January 25th, when a resolution for the creation of a Commission on the League of Nations was under discussion. As an expression of the attitude of the Chinese people as well as of the Chinese Government toward the League of Nations, it may not be entirely out of place to reproduce these two speeches here.
Mr. Lou’s Speech: “In the name of the Chinese Government I desire to adhere wholeheartedly to the resolution (for the establishment of the League of Nations) put before this Conference. China has always been faithful to her obligations, and is deeply interested in the maintenance of the peace of the world. She associates herself entirely with the lofty ideals embodied in the resolution, which is that of creating an international system of cooperation which will ensure the accomplishment of the obligations and will give safeguards against war. It is my duty to give an assurance to this Conference that the Chinese Republic will always be happy to consult with the other States in the establishment of a League which will give all the nations, either small or great, an effective guarantee of their integrity, of their political sovereignty, and of their economic independence founded upon the noble basis of impartial justice.”
The proceedings of the Plenary Session of the Peace Conference on February 14th contain the following report of my remarks: “’I have listened with keen pleasure and profound satisfaction to the words of my distinguished colleagues in commendation of the report which President Wilson has presented. Just as no people have been more eager to see the formation of a League of Nations than the people of China, so no people are more gratified than we are to note the distinct step of progress made by the Commission of the League of Nations.
[…]
“Thanks to the able leadership of President Wilson and to the loyal cooperation of the other members, we are now in possession of a draft Constitution for the League of Nations unanimously adopted by the Commission, a document which, when adopted, shall serve as a bulwark against international lawlessness and as a guarantee of universal peace. The rapid and successful completion of the work of the Commission marks, indeed, another milestone along the road on which mankind has been pressing forward from time immemorial in order to attain the goal of a durable peace. It will always be China’s pleasant duty to cooperate with other Powers in the organization and development of the League of Nations, one which, in my mind, will be the greatest institution mankind will have seen.”
It is to be added, in conclusion, that China’s enthusiasm for the League of Nations and readiness to cooperate in its interest will increase in proportion as the League is to be built up and developed as a partnership of democratic nations. Although the Chinese Republic is of recent origin, the Chinese people have been for centuries nurtured in the principles of democracy. “The welfare of the people,” says a noted scholar of Chinese political philosophy, “is throughout laid down as the main aim and purpose of government, and upon the manner in which a ruler can hold the public confidence and find a place in the hearts of the people depends the permanence and usefulness of his rule.” Even Confucius, a confirmed royalist, emphasized the importance of placing the public weal of the State above the interests of the imperial household. It is stated in his writings: “He who gains the hearts of the people secures the throne; and he who loses their hearts loses also the throne.” Mencius gave us this characteristic expression: “Heaven sees according as my people see; Heaven hears according as my people hear.” These maxims are not mere platitudes with the Chinese, but remain a living force. The faith of the Chinese people in democracy is strong and sincere. They believe that just as a democratic form of government is a bulwark of the people’s rights, so will a democratic League of Nations be the best guarantee of the rights of all nations, great and small, weak and strong.
Source: Wang, Cheng-Ting T, and V. K. Wellington Koo. China and the League of Nations. Vol. 125. George Allen & Unwin, 1919.
Secondary Source: 1644 Historiography
The “1644 historical perspective” has been gaining popularity on Chinese social media in recent years. Supporters of this view regard the transition from Ming to Qing Dynasty in 1644 as a major rupture point in Chinese history, and they view the Qing as a barbaric, backward foreign regime. On the May 17, 2025, the WeChat official account “Zhejiang Publicity” of the Zhejiang Provincial Committee of the Communist Party of China published an article titled “Beware of the ‘1644 Historical View’,” which argues that views nostalgic for the Ming dynasty, disparaging the Qing dynasty, and considering the Qing army’s entry into the passes in 1644 as the end of Chinese civilization, are attempts to deny the historical legitimacy of China as a unified multi-ethnic nation.
The “1644 historical view” is not a recent invention. Some scholars point out that its embryonic form can be traced back to the early Republican era. At that time, China faced a profound national crisis, and some intellectuals, while searching for the reasons behind the nation’s poverty and weakness, turned their reflections to the depths of history, attempting to find the distant causes of modern humiliation in the Ming-Qing transition. This historical interpretation, born out of a specific crisis, itself carried strong anxieties of the era and a deep sentiment for national salvation.
Today, this argument has gained attention in the internet context, and beyond cognitive factors, it also has complex and profound psychological roots.
For example, emotional venting in the face of real-world pressure. In contemporary society, characterized by fierce competition and escalating life pressure, some individuals project their real-world feelings of powerlessness and frustration into discussions about history. This is a psychological defense mechanism – achieving temporary emotional release by criticizing or even denigrating long-gone dynasties, through a one-sided negation of history.
For example, the intense expression of patriotic sentiment. Many proponents of the “1644 historical view” strongly resonate with China’s humiliating history of backwardness and defeat in modern times. In feudal history, China once demonstrated significant global influence, with its comprehensive national strength ranking first in the world. However, since modern times, China has fallen into an abyss of suffering, and a series of erroneous perceptions and decisions by the Qing government exacerbated China’s plight. Many netizens are actually expressing their patriotic feelings in a straightforward manner. They are dissatisfied with China’s humiliating modern history and the incompetence of the late Qing government, expressing strong indignation at massacres in the early Qing dynasty, literary inquisitions, and other practices during the Qing era. Recalling these historical events invariably causes deep distress.
Another example is the construction of social identity in the internet era. In online spaces, extreme historical views often attract more attention and foster community identity more easily than complex and balanced discussions. The “1644 historical view,” claiming to have “discovered historical truth” and “broken traditional narratives,” provides some people with unique identity markers and a sense of community belonging. This social psychological need, to some extent, drives the dissemination of such views.
[…]
However, beyond an emotional appreciation of history, we also need a rational understanding of it. The study of history is related to the significant question of where the Chinese nation comes from and where it is going. Loving history is a good thing, and everyone’s passion for Chinese history is commendable. But when it comes to interpreting historical facts and conclusions, one needs to maintain a clear understanding, possess basic historical literacy, and not simply follow what others say. Yet, some self-media accounts harvest traffic by selectively quoting fragmented historical materials, outputting emotional opinions, and creating controversial topics, severely misleading public perception. They are either ignorant of history or deliberately distorting it.
For example, ignoring the full historical picture. One of the fallacies of the “1644 historical view” is simplifying complex historical processes into a single event node. It only sees the Qing army entering Shanhai Pass in 1644, but ignores that the Ming dynasty was already on the verge of collapse due to multiple crises: a political system breakdown, facing fiscal crises and peasant uprisings, and the Ming central government was practically unsustainable. History is never a black-and-white, instantaneous switch, but a complex process where multiple political, economic, and social contradictions accumulate and erupt. From the perspective of conforming to historical laws, the Qing dynasty indeed had many serious drawbacks and governance failures, but its contributions in establishing the territorial map of modern China cannot be overlooked.
For example, violating historical context. The “1644 historical view” dissects history using modern concepts of nation-states. In 17th-century Chinese society, while the distinction between ‘Yi’ (barbarian) and ‘Hua’ (Chinese) existed, the political identity of ordinary people was more regional, cultural, and dynastic. After the Qing rulers entered the Central Plains, they quickly adopted the political identity of ‘Ruler of China,’ and successive emperors clearly positioned themselves as ‘Lord of All Under Heaven,’ respecting the political and cultural traditions of the Central Plains, and did not pursue an exclusionary ‘ethnic regime.’ Overemphasizing the Manchu-Han antagonism blurs the fact that dynastic change is essentially a change of regime, and may evolve into narrow Han-centrism.
For example, denying civilizational resilience. The strong inclusiveness and continuity of Chinese civilization have been proven many times throughout history. From the Northern Wei to the Yuan dynasty, the establishment of regimes in the Central Plains by northern ethnic groups never led to a ‘civilizational rupture,’ but rather continuously promoted new cultural integration and political consolidation. The Qing dynasty continued this historical pattern, quickly adopting the Ming dynasty’s political system after entering the pass, inheriting core elements of Chinese civilization such as Chinese characters, the imperial examination system, and Confucian thought. These all demonstrate continuity at the civilizational and institutional levels.
[…]
Being wary of being led astray by the “1644 historical view” does not mean denying the year 1644 itself. As an important historical node, 1644 has its own special historical significance. To move beyond the delusion of the “1644 historical view,” we need to consider how to establish a correct and rational framework for historical understanding. The author offers a few points for discussion.
Acknowledge historical continuity, reject periodization thinking. History is a process that progresses step by step, with layers interlinking like gears. Chinese history is written jointly by multiple ethnic groups and develops continuously. The Ming-Qing transition, and indeed any dynastic change, is merely one segment in the long river of Chinese history, not a rupture and restart of civilization. Building upon the Ming dynasty’s political system, the Qing dynasty consolidated the territory of a unified multi-ethnic nation-state, promoted exchanges, communication, and integration among various ethnic groups, and laid the legal and factual foundation for modern China as a unified multi-ethnic nation-state. Establishing such a continuous, holistic view of history helps us transcend emotional praise or criticism of a single dynasty, and gain solid historical confidence and national identity from the grand narrative of the formation and development of the Chinese nation as a community.
Transcend binary opposition, construct an inclusive narrative. We need to build an inclusive and integrated historical narrative of the Chinese nation, completely moving beyond the simple binary framework of ‘Sinicization’ versus ‘barbarization,’ or ‘conquest’ versus ‘being conquered.’ The strong vitality of Chinese civilization is precisely reflected in the dynamic process where various ethnic groups historically merged through interaction and learned from each other amidst differences. The historical status of the Qing dynasty should be evaluated within the overall narrative of Chinese history jointly written by multiple ethnic groups. This narrative can both fully acknowledge the historical contributions and cultural characteristics of various ethnic groups, and distinctly highlight the overall nature and unity of Chinese civilization, serving as an indispensable historical cognitive foundation for solidifying the sense of community of the Chinese nation.
Guard against the instrumentalization of history, uphold academic rationality. Historical research can have different perspectives, but it must be based on solid historical materials and rigorous methods, guarding against history being instrumentalized by any form of political agenda or irrational emotion. We must firmly oppose academic politicization tendencies, such as ‘New Qing History,’ that deliberately sever the continuity of Chinese history, and also consciously resist emotional expressions of history in domestic online spaces that claim to ‘restore the truth’ but in reality tear apart consensus. Only by adhering to the rigor of historical materials and logic, allowing history to return to its proper domain of historical studies, can we effectively resist various internal and external attempts to distort the Chinese historical narrative and safeguard the scientific and serious nature of historical research.
Source: “Beware of the ‘1644 Historical View’ (警惕“1644史观”带乱了节奏).” Zhejiang Publicity, May 17, 2025. https://www.guancha.cn/culture/2025_12_17_800694.shtml.
Back to top