Recently, Gao Xiaosong criticized the Ming Dynasty in the program, calling it the "Three No Dynasty", which caused widespread concern and controversy. However, there are more untold truths about this assertion.
A legacy misunderstanding.
Gao Xiaosong mentioned the various characteristics of the emperors of the Ming Dynasty in the program, and seemed to be finding fault with the personal character of the rulers of the Ming Dynasty, thereby belittling the entire dynasty. However, this view ignores the objectivity of history. Historically, every dynasty has its bright and dark sides, and it is obviously unfair to judge an entire dynasty solely on the basis of the shortcomings of individual rulers.
There are many celebrities and scholars, and the historical records cannot be ignored.
Regarding Gao Xiaosong's view of "anonymous scholars", we have to mention those literati who were admired by later generations during the Ming Dynasty. Many outstanding figures, such as Xu Guangqi and Yang Shen, left a profound impact on the Ming Dynasty with their outstanding talents and contributions. Their achievements in the fields of literature and science are enough to shake the perception of the Ming Dynasty by future generations.
Historical figures are legendary and admirable.
Gao Xiaosong's claim that the Ming Dynasty was an "unknown general" is also quite controversial. In fact, many heroic generals emerged in the history of the Ming Dynasty, and their heroic posture on the battlefield is worthy of being remembered by future generations. The military exploits, wisdom and courage of these generals constituted an important chapter in the history of the Ming Dynasty.
Behind the misunderstanding, there is a deep emotion.
Gao Xiaosong's criticism of the Ming Dynasty may not only be based on an objective evaluation of history, but also may have a deep emotion. Perhaps it was the poverty of Ming Taizu's background, as well as the comparison of his own environment and background, that triggered his opinion. But it is worth pondering whether such personal feelings should become the criterion for judging history.
The history is complex, and deep thinking is imminent.
History is a mirror that reflects the brilliance and darkness of humanity. As for the cognition of history, we need to understand it from an objective and comprehensive perspective. Gao Xiaosong's evaluation of the Ming Dynasty may be just one of the corners, we need to learn more about and understand the truth behind history.
Epilogue. 
Gao's criticism of the Ming dynasty has sparked much discussion, however, history is complex and rich, and judging a dynasty requires more comprehensive consideration. As for the understanding of history, we need to accept and understand it with an open and tolerant attitude.
This commentary on Gao Xiaosong's account of the Ming Dynasty provoked me to think deeply about history and personal perspectives. In this article, a scrutiny of history is given, but at the same time, the complexity and subjectivity of historical evaluation are highlighted.
First, the article responds to and refutes Gao Xiaosong's criticism of the Ming Dynasty. It is clearly pointed out that the view of the "three no dynasties" mentioned by Gao Xiaosong in the program is not completely accurate, ignoring the existence of many outstanding figures in the history of the Ming Dynasty. From literati, generals to scholars, they all left a rich historical legacy for the Ming Dynasty. The article introduces these figures one by one, emphasizing that the Ming Dynasty not only had an outstanding cultural heritage, but also had many brave and fearless generals.
However, I think this review is somewhat biased and one-sided. Although the presentation of the historical figure is comprehensive, in response to Gao Xiaosong's view, it seems to fall into the emphasis of opposites, failing to fully understand his criticism of the Ming Dynasty. The evaluation of history is diverse, and the perception of a dynasty may be based on personal opinions, historical background, and even emotional factors. Therefore, I think a better way is not just to refute, but to promote a deeper historical discussion through thinking and reading his criticism.
In addition, the review raises an important issue: the objectivity of historical evaluation. History is written and interpreted by people, so when judging history, we need to understand it from a more objective and comprehensive perspective. While the achievements and contributions of historical figures are factual, different people may have different views and opinions, and this subjectivity should also be respected.
Overall, this review provoked me to think about the evaluation of history, and also reminded me of the need for more objectivity and comprehensiveness when examining history. The cognition of history requires us to understand it with a more open and inclusive mind, and constantly deepen our thinking and understanding of history.
Disclaimer: The above content information is ** on the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or insinuate any real country, political system, organization, race, or individual. The above content does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising from the above or related issues, and does not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.
If the content of the article involves the content of the work, copyright**, infringement, rumors or other issues, please contact us to delete it. Finally, if you have any different thoughts about this event, please leave a message in the comment area to discuss!