Why China Won't Rule the World

[Valmy]

Americans (and most Europeans, for that matter) are extremely aggressive peoples, far more than they themselves admit.

For them, the idea of a "powerful" nation is always, always, that of an expanding power, one that seeks dominance over all others and does not tolerate, if possible, any rival.

That another race can have a different approach to global politics is totally beyond their compreension.

Thus, if China is strong, they reason, surely it *will* try to rule the world.

If China does not attempt to impose itself on the world, then they will surmise that is due to some weakness, and never due to differences of attitude.

Curse that westerner Minxin Pei, he cannot conceive some people might think outside his white male protestant box.

[grumbler]

Americans (and most Europeans, for that matter) are extremely aggressive peoples, far more than they themselves admit.

For them, the idea of a "powerful" nation is always, always, that of an expanding power, one that seeks dominance over all others and does not tolerate, if possible, any rival.

That another race can have a different approach to global politics is totally beyond their compreension.

Thus, if China is strong, they reason, surely it *will* try to rule the world.

If China does not attempt to impose itself on the world, then they will surmise that is due to some weakness, and never due to differences of attitude.

Curse that westerner Minxin Pei, he cannot conceive some people might think outside his white male protestant box.

Oooh, that's better than my response.  I will delete mine.

[Malthus]

Chinese inherently look inwards.  That should not be news to anyone who has studied Chinese history.

The extent to which China has historically been 'inward looking" has a tendency to be exagerated.

The main difference between China and Europe has historically been the distance of the "barbarian" colonial frontiers. China has its frontier close to hand - first within what is now "China" itself, displacing the various non-Han folks who lived in much of it, then in the Tarim basin, Mongolia, Tibet, South-east Asia, Korea; Europeans had to travel further to find theirs; and of course Europe has had the technological edge for the critical last few centuries.

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

[PJL]

Chinese inherently look inwards.  That should not be news to anyone who has studied Chinese history.

The extent to which China has historically been 'inward looking" has a tendency to be exagerated.

The main difference between China and Europe has historically been the distance of the "barbarian" colonial frontiers. China has its frontier close to hand - first within what is now "China" itself, displacing the various non-Han folks who lived in much of it, then in the Tarim basin, Mongolia, Tibet, South-east Asia, Korea; Europeans had to travel further to find theirs; and of course Europe has had the technological edge for the critical last few centuries.

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

Not really, as Europe's first barbarian frontier was Illyria/Macedonia, then the upstart Romans in Italy, then Iberia, then Gaul, then Britain, then Germany, then Scandinavia, then the Baltics and Poland, then Russia and then Sibera. After that it went global with America, Afirca, and everywhere else outside of Europe.

[derspiess]

Chinese inherently look inwards.  That should not be news to anyone who has studied Chinese history.

Dang, even I know that.  You'd think Minxin Pei would know better.

[derspiess]

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

You make a good point, but I would call that "inward colonialism", or a Chinese Manifest Destiny.  Not really what most of us would think of when we hear "colonialism".

[Valmy]

Not really what most of us would think of when we hear "colonialism".

Because today when we hear about "colonialism" it hardly ever has to do with actually colonizing anything.  What it usually means is a business based in a first world country wants to do business inside a third world country.

Pretty funny settling Han Chinese in an area wouldn't be called "colonizing".

[Malthus]

Chinese inherently look inwards.  That should not be news to anyone who has studied Chinese history.

The extent to which China has historically been 'inward looking" has a tendency to be exagerated.

The main difference between China and Europe has historically been the distance of the "barbarian" colonial frontiers. China has its frontier close to hand - first within what is now "China" itself, displacing the various non-Han folks who lived in much of it, then in the Tarim basin, Mongolia, Tibet, South-east Asia, Korea; Europeans had to travel further to find theirs; and of course Europe has had the technological edge for the critical last few centuries.

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

Not really, as Europe's first barbarian frontier was Illyria/Macedonia, then the upstart Romans in Italy, then Iberia, then Gaul, then Britain, then Germany, then Scandinavia, then the Baltics and Poland, then Russia and then Sibera. After that it went global with America, Afirca, and everywhere else outside of Europe.

Europe never ended up "colonized' by any single culture. In spite of many efforts, it always lacked the unity of China, even at the height of the Roman Empire. "Colonization" was always a two-way street in Europe itself, not a steady march of any one people, except on a purely national level (see: France, Spain). When "Europe" (or rather individual European nations) set out to colonize on a grand scale, it did so outside of Europe for the most part - aside from relatively small scale stuff like Germanic colonists in the Baltic, or various Balkan nastiness. Europeans constantly warred against each other and often imposed their rule over other European peoples but only rarely "colonized" them, and never on a continental scale: there simply is no one European "people" that compares with the Han (Hitler's latter-day attempt notwithstanding). 

China was often conquored in part or in whole by various barbarians, and there was certainly some to-ing and fro-ing on the borders of central asia, but in general what is remarkable about China is the steady continental growth and colonization of the Han as a people, much more unified that the various warring peoples of Europe, constantly expanding at the expense of all of China's neighbours. 

[Malthus]

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

You make a good point, but I would call that "inward colonialism", or a Chinese Manifest Destiny.  Not really what most of us would think of when we hear "colonialism".

Why not?

The good old USA expanding to the pacific at the expense of natives and Mexicans is considered "colonization", what distinguishes that from China's steady expansion in Asia?

[Lettow77]

 Anyone who does not stiffly oppose China's rise to power is a collaborator and traitor to the West.
(Especially Queequeg. 'Western civ isnt totally awesome and cool enough!' Being soft on Russia and China at the same time is brutal. This man is clearly a red mole.)

[Jacob]

The extent to which China has historically been 'inward looking" has a tendency to be exagerated.

The main difference between China and Europe has historically been the distance of the "barbarian" colonial frontiers. China has its frontier close to hand - first within what is now "China" itself, displacing the various non-Han folks who lived in much of it, then in the Tarim basin, Mongolia, Tibet, South-east Asia, Korea; Europeans had to travel further to find theirs; and of course Europe has had the technological edge for the critical last few centuries.

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

The unity of China is an interesting thing.  As I understand it, it's spent as much time fractured (various rival dynasties, Three Kingdoms, Warring States and various periods where significant parts of the country was de facto ruled by various warlords) as a unitary state.

On a related note, many of the people who are now considered Han were not considered that previously.  The significant differences in language groups is another indicator that it's not accurate to think of "Han China" as a monolithic group.

[Queequeg]

Anyone who does not stiffly oppose China's rise to power is a collaborator and traitor to the West.
(Especially Queequeg. 'Western civ isnt totally awesome and cool enough!' Being soft on Russia and China at the same time is brutal. This man is clearly a red mole.)

And you're a shit-eating wannabe traitor of the greatest defender of Western values in the world, retard.
I want the West to do well.  I want China to do well.  I want Russia to do well.  I want the Islamic world to do well.  I want India to do well.  I don't see the contradiction here. 

[Monoriu]

The extent to which China has historically been 'inward looking" has a tendency to be exagerated.

The main difference between China and Europe has historically been the distance of the "barbarian" colonial frontiers. China has its frontier close to hand - first within what is now "China" itself, displacing the various non-Han folks who lived in much of it, then in the Tarim basin, Mongolia, Tibet, South-east Asia, Korea; Europeans had to travel further to find theirs; and of course Europe has had the technological edge for the critical last few centuries.

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

That depends on your definition of inward, isn't it?  "China" means the official boundaries of the country, not "places that Hans live in".  So Hans moving from, say, Beijing to Tibet is just like Americans moving from the continental states to Alaska. 

[jimmy olsen]

The extent to which China has historically been 'inward looking" has a tendency to be exagerated.

The main difference between China and Europe has historically been the distance of the "barbarian" colonial frontiers. China has its frontier close to hand - first within what is now "China" itself, displacing the various non-Han folks who lived in much of it, then in the Tarim basin, Mongolia, Tibet, South-east Asia, Korea; Europeans had to travel further to find theirs; and of course Europe has had the technological edge for the critical last few centuries.

Right now, China is a much more active "colonial" power than Europe, as those Tibetians and central Asians who live under Chinese rule can testify.

That depends on your definition of inward, isn't it?  "China" means the official boundaries of the country, not "places that Hans live in".  So Hans moving from, say, Beijing to Tibet is just like Americans moving from the continental states to Alaska.

That ignores two things. 1, that borders have changed over time. 2, that Americans moving into the west is certainly considered colonialism even though they were within our borders at the time. How is the Han migration different?

[Jaron]

Anyone who does not stiffly oppose China's rise to power is a collaborator and traitor to the West.
(Especially Queequeg. 'Western civ isnt totally awesome and cool enough!' Being soft on Russia and China at the same time is brutal. This man is clearly a red mole.)

And you're a shit-eating wannabe traitor of the greatest defender of Western values in the world, retard.
I want the West to do well.  I want China to do well.  I want Russia to do well.  I want the Islamic world to do well.  I want India to do well.  I don't see the contradiction here.

I do. For the West to do well China, Russia and Islam must falter.