Group 1 - The formation of modern Chinese history as an independent academic discipline began in the 1930s, with universities like Peking University, Tsinghua University, and Fudan University offering courses on recent historical events [1] - After the 1949 establishment of the People's Republic of China, modern Chinese history became a required course in history departments across universities [1] Group 2 - In 1952, following departmental adjustments, Fudan University aligned its history curriculum with the Soviet model, dividing Chinese history into five segments, with the fifth segment covering the Opium War to the May Fourth Movement [2] - The first course on modern Chinese history was taught by Hu Shengwu in 1953, marking the official inclusion of modern history in the curriculum [2][3] - By 1955, the course was formally titled "Modern Chinese History," taught over two semesters with five class hours each [2] Group 3 - The teaching of modern history faced challenges during the "Great Leap Forward" in 1958, leading to debates on the emphasis of modern versus ancient history [8][9] - The "thick now, thin ancient" approach sparked discussions on the teaching sequence, with some faculty members expressing concerns about the perceived inferiority of modern history [8][9] Group 4 - The political climate during the Cultural Revolution (1966) halted normal teaching activities, with a new curriculum focusing on the needs of the proletariat [17] - In 1970, the first cohort of workers and peasants entered Fudan University, and the curriculum was drastically altered to prioritize party history and modern Chinese history [17] Group 5 - After the Cultural Revolution, the late 1970s saw a revival of modern Chinese history courses, with a renewed focus on comprehensive history education [23][24] - The establishment of specialized elective courses in modern Chinese history reflected the faculty's enthusiasm and research interests, leading to a more systematic curriculum [24][29] Group 6 - The development of modern Chinese history at Fudan University was influenced by political trends, with the curriculum often reflecting the prevailing political ideologies [28] - The establishment of research directions, such as the study of the Xinhai Revolution and the Wang Jingwei regime, was driven by the availability of local historical materials and collaboration with other academic institutions [30]

恩格斯指出，对待马克思主义必须警惕教条主义倾向，以免走向马克思主义的对立面。19世纪八九十年 代，马克思主义在欧美各国广泛传播，但德国社会民主党内的小资产阶级派别"青年派"以其对马克思主 义著作的一知半解，把历史唯物主义标签化、教条化，造成工人队伍思想上和理论上的混乱。面对新的 斗争形势，如何准确阐释马克思主义理论，引导国际工人运动沿着正确方向前进，成为亟待解决的问 题。 恩格斯对"青年派"机会主义思潮进行了严肃批评，他在给德国社会民主党人施米特的信中指出："对德 国的许多青年作家来说，'唯物主义'这个词大体上只是一个套语，他们把这个套语当做标签贴到各种事 物上去，再不作进一步的研究，就是说，他们一把这个标签贴上去，就以为问题已经解决了。"恩格斯 强调，对马克思主义著作里的个别字眼要从总体上去把握，他在给"青年派"学生博尔吉乌斯的信中，阐 明了历史唯物主义的一系列基本原理，同时指出："请您不要过分推敲上面所说的每一句话，而要把握 总的联系。" 为了使无产阶级政党成员真正用科学理论武装头脑、辨明方向，恩格斯通过一封封书信详细阐明对待马 克思主义应有的态度。 在给施米特的信中，恩格斯强调："我们的历史观首先是进行 ...

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding the "Lu Xun smoking" wall at the Shaoxing Lu Xun Memorial Hall highlights the importance of understanding historical figures in their context rather than imposing modern standards on them [1][2][3] Group 1: Historical Context and Education - The complaint about the wall suggests it may negatively influence youth behavior, but it is essential to recognize that Lu Xun's smoking habit should be understood within the context of his time, where awareness of smoking's dangers was limited [1][2] - Education should focus on cultivating children's ability to think critically and independently, rather than overly sanitizing historical figures [2][3] - The significance of Lu Xun lies not in his smoking but in his profound social responsibility, cultural awareness, and self-reflective spirit, which should be the focus of educational efforts [2][3] Group 2: Authenticity of Historical Figures - The pursuit of a "perfect" image of Lu Xun risks obscuring his authentic character and the opportunity to educate young people about the complexities of history [3] - It is crucial to approach historical figures with a materialist perspective, understanding them within their original context while trusting the younger generation to make their own judgments about history [3]

Group 1 - The establishment of the China Historical Research Institute in 2019 aims to promote the integration of historical studies and the dissemination of Chinese culture [2] - Xi Jinping emphasized the importance of understanding history for effective governance, stating that a lack of historical knowledge hinders the ability to set goals and make decisions [2][4] - Historical awareness is essential for political morality and decision-making, enabling leaders to draw lessons from the past to inform future actions [2][6] Group 2 - The Communist Party of China has consistently valued the study of history and the application of historical experience in governance since its founding [3][4] - Xi Jinping's governance reflects a broad historical perspective, emphasizing the need for historical materialism to understand societal development and inform policy [4][5] - The historical context is crucial for understanding the unique path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, which has evolved through decades of practice and exploration [7][8] Group 3 - The role of the people as the main force in historical development is highlighted, with the Communist Party relying on the masses to advance reforms [6] - The relationship between historical evolution and the Chinese path underscores the necessity of a governance model that is rooted in China's historical and cultural context [7] - The importance of learning from both successful and challenging historical experiences is emphasized to guide contemporary governance [8][9] Group 4 - The preservation and promotion of historical and cultural heritage are essential for maintaining national identity and cultural continuity [10][11] - Understanding the contemporary value of historical heritage is crucial for fostering national pride and cohesion among the populace [11][12] - The need for a long-term historical perspective in governance is stressed, advocating for a proactive approach to learning from history to navigate current and future challenges [12]

Group 1 - The article discusses President Trump's measures against Harvard University, including cutting federal funding and intervening in admissions policies, which has sparked widespread attention [1] - There is a notable divide in public opinion on Trump's actions, with some supporting the measures from ideological perspectives, viewing Harvard as a bastion of "leftist" ideology and blaming it for various societal issues [2][6] - The sentiment against elite institutions like Harvard is rooted in a long-standing tradition of anti-intellectualism in American society, as explored in Richard Hofstadter's book "Anti-intellectualism in American Life" [4][5] Group 2 - Hofstadter distinguishes between "intellect" and "intelligence," highlighting how practical intelligence is valued in American culture, while critical and reflective intellect is often marginalized [5] - The book illustrates how anti-intellectualism manifests across various sectors, including religion, politics, business culture, and education, revealing a recurring social sentiment against intellectualism [6] - The backlash against Harvard and similar institutions reflects a deeper cultural current of anti-elitism and skepticism towards higher education, which can undermine public reasoning and critical thinking [6] Group 3 - Michael Sandel's "The Tyranny of Merit" provides a counterpoint to the critique of anti-intellectualism by examining the responsibilities of elites and the ethical dilemmas of meritocracy [8][9] - Sandel argues that the obsession with meritocracy creates divisions and resentment, as it leads to a lack of empathy for those who struggle, framing their failures as personal shortcomings rather than systemic issues [10][11] - The phenomenon of Trump can be seen as a reaction to the arrogance of elites, with Harvard representing a microcosm of broader societal issues related to privilege and inequality [11] Group 4 - The economic context surrounding Trump's actions is explored through the lens of two books that address public misconceptions about economic issues, including immigration and trade [12][13] - "Good Economics for Hard Times" by Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo aims to clarify economic narratives and correct misunderstandings that contribute to societal tensions [13][14] - The book emphasizes the importance of equitable distribution and the pursuit of human welfare, providing a framework for understanding the economic backdrop of political sentiments [15] Group 5 - "Strangers in Their Own Land" by Arlie Russell Hochschild delves into the individual experiences of conservative communities, revealing their feelings of alienation and betrayal in the face of social change [17][18] - Hochschild's research highlights the emotional narratives that shape political views, particularly among those who feel overlooked by the government and societal progress [19] - The parallels between Hochschild's findings and the sentiments of Trump's supporters illustrate a broader trend of discontent among marginalized groups in America [19] Group 6 - Richard Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" provides historical context for understanding the rhetoric and mobilization strategies seen in Trump's political discourse [22][23] - The book traces the "paranoid style" in American politics, characterized by exaggerated fears and conspiratorial thinking, which resonates with contemporary political narratives [24] - This historical perspective helps to analyze the emotional and rhetorical underpinnings of Trump's support, revealing a pattern of distrust and division in American political culture [24] Group 7 - Karl Marx's "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" offers insights into the dynamics of power and class struggle, relevant for understanding Trump's rise and governance style [26][27] - Marx's analysis of political maneuvering amidst class conflict provides a framework for examining how Trump appeals to disaffected groups while potentially serving elite interests [28][29] - The book's exploration of historical patterns of political authority and social division can inform contemporary discussions about populism and elite dynamics in the U.S. [29]