History is about taking imperfect information and constructing a narrative that fits as best as possible. Leopold von Ranke said historians should show “how it actually was” (he literally wrote “wie es eigentlich gewesen ist”). That simply isn’t possible. I think it was David Hackett Fischer who said something along the lines of a historian can only know something about something, which is a far cry from “how it actually was.”
Almost all history is an informed opinion backed up by primary and secondary sources. That’s why we have revisionist history, feminist history, & Marxist history (among others). All these historiographical schools are looking at mostly the same sources and drawing different conclusions. New narratives; new opinions.
I’ve studied this region but I am by no means an expert in it. I’ve actually spent more time on Japanese history than Chinese history but I have studied it. I could be wrong but I firmly believe that Western intervention in China’s past, especially the Boxer protocols, plays a role in how Chinese leaders see their place in the world and colors their relations with Western countries. I think one of the way this manifests itself is China’s willingness to look the other direction as Chinese pharmaceutical companies create and ship the necessary ingredients for fentanyl to Mexican cartels. I do not have a window into China’s politburo and I have not formally studied contemporary Chinese culture. I think I’m right but I freely admit that I could be wrong.