Ming Culture By Tanner Van Nest: Historiography

The review will be broken down into three sections with the first being the analysis of the paper based on the criteria specified in the rubric. This will be the review of the author’s analysis and evaluation in the field of historiography. The second section will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Finally, the writing mechanics will be covered in the third section of the review. Six key questions from the rubric will be a guideline of this review. Tanner Van Nest attempts to answer four large questions about the historian’s perspective of Ming culture through the historiography of the historians. The thesis is direct and to the point, though it seems to be overreaching. Even though the four thesis questions are closely linked with the historians take on the Ming culture, it is the question about Chinese military tradition during the Ming dynasty, “What place does Chinese military traditions hold in the Ming dynasty and their decisions in both government and cultural decisions,” that offers no relationship with historians or historiography in the context of the other three questions. In answering his own thesis questions, Tanner Van Nest inserts another element to his thesis, “we will be able to infer the cultural impact of not only a major dynasty but the fall of prominence of a majority cultural group of …show more content…
One area of focus that needs some adjustment is the Mandate of Heaven. The author relates how the Mandate of Heaven “became known as the Great Ming Code” while a few paragraphs down he states, “The Great Ming Code is the result of the Mandate of Heaven…” Another section found to be confusing is the Hanyang and Yanghan. The reader is introduced to Hanyang without understanding what it is or means when the introduction of the term leads the reader to believe the term was introduced