X02: Final exam review session

History of China Since 1800

March 3, 2026

About the exam

Date and time

120-minute, take-home, open book

Question type:

Three excerpts (~800 words):
- Primary source
- Secondary source
- Multimedia source
Open-ended: No set prompt
Similar to our class readings

What does this source say? How does it say it?
How does this source connect to broader historical contexts and themes?
Why does this source exist? Who wrote it? For whom was it written? To what extent is it reliable?
How was this source received? What might affect a reader’s understanding?

Registers the meaning of “Two Cannot Denies” and its political significance
Ponders the motivation behind the formulation of “Two Cannot Denies” in 2013, in the wake of Xi Jinping’s ascent to power
Examines the role of history in party ideology and the stakes of periodization

Considers potential reception to the “Two Cannot Denies” thesis in China, especially among different intellectuals (liberals, new left, etc.)
Notes the reference to dialectical materialism and historical materialism, and consider the CCP’s inheritance of – and departure from – Marxist historiography

Discusses continuities and ruptures between the Mao era and the reform era
Notes the politics of periodization in Chinese politics and situates the 1978 divide in significant turning points in 20th-century Chinese history

Remarks on the growing of nationalism (“The Chinese Dream”; “the Chinese spirit”) and considers its significance as new pillar of legitimacy for the CCP
Ponders the influence of party historiography on academic and popular understanding of PRC history

Has little to say about the changes and continuities between the Mao era and the reform era
Fails to grasp the “Two Cannot Denies” and its ideological significance
Imprecise about the legacies of the Mao era – and motivations for reviving them in the pre
Makes little mention of social issues during the reform era – such as growing inequalities – and why they prompted a reassessment of the Mao era

Fails to register the political context of the 2013 directive (Xi Jinping’s rise) and the motivation for ideological control
Makes no mention of the China dream and the use of nationalism as a source of regime legitimacy
Overlooks or dismisses the enduring role of ideology in contemporary Chinese politics

Draws on specific historical events (e.g. First United Front, Xi’an Incident, etc.) to contextualize the relationship between Sino-Japanese War and Chinese civil war
Consider the legacies of the 1911 Revolution and its relationship to the Chinese Civil War

Evaluates existing accounts, individual and collective, of the Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War, and debates if – and if so, why – they have been separated in popular and scholarly accounts
Suggests sources and strategies to reconcile narratives of heroism with accounts of state violence in histories of Chinese Civil War

Examines the legacies of WWII and Civil War on China (e.g., human casualty, international status, political division, collective memory, etc.)
Consider the causes for the failure of Nationalist-Communist collaboration and the outbreak of the Chinese Civil War
Examine similarities and differences – ideological, organizational, personal, etc. – between the CCP and the GMD (e.g., rise of single party-state, planned economy, work unit system, etc.)

Connects the Chinese Civil War to the Communist Revolution and the post-1949 order
Discusses difficulties of narrating world war and civil war in other historical contexts (such as Korea, Japan, the US, etc.)

Has little to say about the relationship between the Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War
Makes little attempt to address Interpretive and methodological difficulties of studying WWII and the Chinese Civil War
Overlooks the context of political division in China and Taiwan after 1949 and its impact on collective memories and academic study of the Chinese Civil War
Fails to contextualize the causes and effects of Sino-Japanese War and their legacies in both China and Taiwan

Makes no argument about continuity and change from Xinhai Revolution to WWII to post-1949 China
Offers no critical engagement with the prompt (e.g. mostly repeating its argument with some factual references)
Has little to say about potentials and pitfalls of using existing sources, primary and secondary, to study the two wars

Connects the film to broader gender history: role of women in Chinese communist revolution
Discusses changes in female representation: Women as victims and heroic martyrs vs.
Situates revolutionary feminism under CCP with broader gender transformations in 20th century (e.g. anarchist tradition, etc.)

Discusses the ambivalences and limits of female emancipation: the Detachment of Women still under male leadership; women’s domestic labor made invisible; etc.
Examines the ambivalent relationship between party and women: female emancipation as , but women cadres
Remarks historical parallels between Hua Mulan and Qionghua, and considers the CCP patronage of Chinese cultural tradition

Overly negative about the value of propaganda for understanding Communist China
Fails to register the tactic of mass mobilization (e.g. struggle session, speaking bitterness) and their influence on
Makes little discussion on the relationship between the medium and the message (i.e., socialist realism in cinema)
Has little to say about CCP gender ideology and policy, and how they worked in practice

Overly descriptive of the segment and makes no connection to broader history of women in Chinese socialism, relationship between art and politics, and so forth
Makes no attempt to disaggregate the experiences of Chinese women (rural vs. urban, rich vs. poor, Han vs. minority)
Overlooks gap between depicted realities and lived experiences: How did Chinese women experience the Communist Revolution?