If you ever studied modern Chinese history, you likely met the “century of humiliation” in your first class. In 1840, British gunboats shattered the pride and legitimacy of the Qing empire, and the decades of semi-colonization that followed inaugurated a century of reform and revolution — all aimed at restoring an ancient, creaky civilization to unity and to the top of the world. The Kuomintang and the Communist Party told the same story and drew the same conclusion: the mandate belongs to whoever ends the humiliation.
In China, history has never been merely academic. Where elections do not exist, leaders seek legitimacy in historical title deeds — which is why the Party still teaches the story in every classroom and invokes it in every speech on national rejuvenation. The battle crossed the Pacific, too. John King Fairbank absorbed the nationalist framework in wartime China and canonized it at Harvard, organizing American understanding of modern China around two dates: 1840 and 1949. He built the field of China studies as we know it, and generations of his students inherited the framework with it, until American scholarship was teaching China’s nationalist mythology back to itself — and to Washington, where it still underwrites op-eds casting Xi Jinping as the new emperor. How America tells China’s story shapes how America makes China policy.
Dr. Alice Miller thinks we have the story wrong. From 1974 to 1990, she was a senior CIA analyst of Chinese foreign policy and domestic politics, and later a division chief supervising analysis of China, North Korea, Indochina, and Soviet policy in East Asia. She is now a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where she edited and contributed to the China Leadership Monitor from 2001 to 2018. She published as H. Lyman Miller before her gender transition.
In part two of our conversation — edited for clarity and brevity — we trace her formation at Princeton under Fritz Mote, the ferocious “Who lost China?” debates of the 1950s, the eternal feud between historians and political scientists, and her heterodox verdict on engagement: it didn’t fail — it worked so well that Xi Jinping had to stomp on it. We close with a story of a different kind: her transition in 2006, and the unexpected grace with which the CIA, Hoover, and the Naval Postgraduate School received it. Part one, on her years decoding Beijing for the CIA, is here.
Enjoy!
Leo
Music: Carnaval Op. 9 No. 18 - “Aveu”, Bishara Haroni, Artlist Classics, Robert Schumann
For quick navigation to the specific sections:
* Early sinologist debates about “who lost China?”
* The fallacy of “The Century of Humiliation”
* The battle between historians and political scientists over contemporary China studies
* “How Did We Get China So Wrong?”
* An identity transition from Harold to Alice
Peking Hotel is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
About us
The Peking Hotel podcast and newsletter are digital publications in which Liu He interviews China specialists about their first-hand experiences and observations from decades past. The project grew out of Liu’s research at Hoover Institution collecting oral history of China experts living in the U.S. Their stories are a reminder of what China used to be and what it is capable of becoming.
We also have a Chinese-language Substack. We hope to publish more conversations like this one, so stay tuned!
Get full access to Peking Hotel at pekinghotel.substack.com/subscribe
