"Marco Polo did not go to China," Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Medieval Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestMedieval
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 26 Jul 2017 9:52 p.m. PST |
"As an Asianist, teaching world history can be very frustrating. Most world history textbooks are written by Western historians, mostly the same Europeanists who write the Western Civ texts, but they usually add an Asianist to the group, usually a China or India person. Sometimes they get it right, but a lot of the time you can tell that the Asia chapters were written by someone who picked up one or two basic textbooks. You can sometimes even tell which textbook (I love Mikiso Hane's work, but it has to be read in context!), and they're often out-of-date (Asia textbooks don't get the kind of semi-annual polishing now current in the trade, and there are some really creaky old classics still being used by thousands of people; that's a subject for another post). So I spend a fair bit of time in class correcting and contextualizing the textbook material. Maybe the experience is the same for Europeanists, or Americanists? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that material is much better served by the distillation process than the Asian material. The worst, the most consistently annoying thing, though, is Marco Polo. Let me say this clearly and plainly: Marco Polo did not go to China, Marco Polo did not work for the Mongol Yuan Dynasty. Yes, it was possible to make the journey, and yes, some non-Chinese did serve the Yuan. But the errors in his Travels cannot be glossed over as"a traveler's tendency to exaggerate (especially in regard to numbers)" and his absence from Yuan records (which were pretty well kept) cannot be slipped by with"may have been employed" and the distinct likelihood that Polo was simply embellishing translations of Chinese gazetteers he picked up in Persia is not clearly expressed by"Scholars have long regarded Marco Polo's book, if used carefully, as an important historical document."…." Main page historynewsnetwork.org/blog/6746 Amicalement Armand
|
Sobieski | 27 Jul 2017 5:20 a.m. PST |
Ho hum. Another stop press. |
rmaker | 27 Jul 2017 9:54 a.m. PST |
Tango, you posted this earlier. And, as was noted at that time, this guy is just parroting the official PRC version. |
Tango01 | 27 Jul 2017 10:28 a.m. PST |
Yes…?… I don't remember it… sorry for that… Amicalement Amrand
|
Cacique Caribe | 27 Jul 2017 12:00 p.m. PST |
LOL. This might be at least the third time you posted this. Here are the other two I found: TMP link TMP link Dan |
Tango01 | 27 Jul 2017 10:30 p.m. PST |
That point me as a fan of Marco Polo?… (smile) Amicalement Armand
|
Cacique Caribe | 29 Jul 2017 7:31 a.m. PST |
Of Marco or his critics? :) Dan |
Tango01 | 29 Jul 2017 10:47 a.m. PST |
Both!!… (smile) Amicalement Armand
|
|