Despite the fact that few historians, save for those in pay of or beholden to the Chinese Communist party state and those who sympathize with the official Chinese state nationalist ideology, would take the "century of humiliation" myth seriously, the myth still appears to remain popular amongst non-Historians in the West as an oft-invoked idea when topics such as geopolitics, economy, and military in relation to the Chinese imperium or her subjects were discussed, sometimes even by people who were otherwise experts on geopolitics. Why?
How have historians not been able to dispel such myths and disseminate their knowledge on the historical reality despite all the great works, including those by the school of New Qing historiography revealing the dual nature of the Qing Empire and debunking the "Sinicization" myth that have been written on the subject?
As a 'non-historian in the West' myself, but still half a bookworm, I would like to be sure I understand the question. Given that the Unequal Treaties and Opium Wars definitely happened, and the Qing Dynasty had some pretty feeble candidates near the end, in what sense do you mean that the 'century of humiliation' did not happen?
Empress Cixi and kiddo Puyi were definitely not the Richard the Lionheart or Mandela or Boadicea that was needed at the moment.
Is your point that Chinese progress/commerce/national activity was going on outside the decaying upper echelons or the royal family and not given adequate attention? Was there sufficient economic activity outside of outside control to contradict the label of humiliation? Was their conquest not as unambiguous as the Indian subcontinent and thus not quite 'humiliation'? In what sense is my arm's-length understanding of the term not correct?
Also, I read Fortunate Sons by Liel Leibovitz. It follows 120 youths sent to the US in the 19th C. to be educated and bring back Western useful skills, ideas, etc. The big shots who sent kids from good families out for this purpose must have had some sense of needing to catch up.