Andrew Erickson of Harvard University's John King Fairbank
Center for Chinese Studies and the US Naval War College's Chinese Maritime Studies Institute.
"Bernstein, a student of Harvard's John King Fairbank
and a former New York Times reporter, covers China's political context in 1945 like a scholar, but maintains his journalist's eye for human drama.
(2) John King Fairbank
's elaboration of the system, underscoring the restraining power of rituals and the universal preeminence of Chinese emperors, renders it one of the major theoretical frameworks through which to conceptualize China's foreign relations.
In 1948, the Harvard Sinologist John King Fairbank
wrote, "China is a journalist's dream and a statistician's nightmare." It was, he explained, a place "with more human drama and fewer verifiable facts per square mile than anywhere else in the world." Sixty-five years later, much of Fairbank's description rings true, even as we find ourselves drawn even more urgently by the need to make sense of China's metamorphosis, its contradictions, and the growing role that it plays in our lives around the world.
However, I would be more tempted to recommend tried and tested works such as John King Fairbank
's The Great Chinese Revolution, 1800-1985 (1987) and Jonathan D.
China: A New History (2nd edition) by John King Fairbank
and Merle Goldman, 2006.
Suzanne Wilson Barnett and John King Fairbank
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ.
In 1968, as the Vietnam War raged, the eminent Harvard sinologist John King Fairbank
told the annual meeting of the American Historical Association that its next great challenge was to explore American-East Asian relations.
In a sense, it was the logical next step after ransacking Harvard's libraries for information on Chinese medicine and studying under Harvard's John King Fairbank
, known as "the dean of American Chinese scholars.
As John King Fairbank
argued in 1974, despite Mao's revolution, China did not free itself from its hierarchical Confucianist past.
Wang Xi's article sets the stage for the debate by critiquing the "impact-response" approach of John King Fairbank
and the "China centered" approach of Paul Cohen.
While acknowledging key tenets of the new cultural history of China--that Chinese culture has changed and does change and that it has shaped, not determined, individuals' behavior--Smith suggests that, in some cases, critiques of previous scholarship have gone too far, discarding valuable research, such as the work of John King Fairbank
and others on the "tributary system" of foreign relations in imperial China.