3 ms·
If one substitutes United States for China and fixes geographical references, there still seems to be some truth in those statements, at least as far as I can t
by danbruc 10y ago
If one substitutes United States for China and fixes geographical references, there still seems to be some truth in those statements, at least as far as I can tell from my outside perspective. One could probably also substitute still other countries or sometimes the West in general and still get some true statements.
In Chinese history and contemporary culture, the Chinese are seen to be unique and superior to the rest of the world. Other peoples and groups are seen to be inferior, with a sliding scale of inferiority.
The Chinese commonly believe that they are cleverer than others, and so may shape events in an oblique manner or through shi [势], the strategic manipulation of events. This conceit among the Chinese that they can manipulate others is supremely dangerous for Asian stability.
An overconfident China will continue to make the mistakes it is presently in the South China or East China Sea disputes. That is, making threats, issuing demands, heavy-handed shows of force, are generated by China’s overconfidence.
Analysts do have insight into how China will behave in the future based on its behavior in the past, when it was the hegemon of Asia, the known world as far as China was concerned. China sees itself as the center of the universe, all others are inferior, with varying degrees of inferiority. That is not an attractive model
of winning allies and influence.
In contrast, China portrays itself as an apolitical rising superpower that does business in your country, pays a fair price for your commodities, and builds your infrastructure with no string attached.
There often is considerable resentment toward the Chinese due to their ruthless business practices, which undercut and destroy African businesses.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ucaetano 10y agoMy controversial 2 cents, which might be very wrong: There is a major difference between the two countries: China sees itself as a single "people", in the sense that there is a clear dominating national identity linked to a certain culture and ethnicity, similar to other old world countries in the past century (some of which are still like that). The US in this sense is closer to other "new world" countries, with a national identity not clearly tied to an ethnicity. Sure, there are groups who try to make the US a more homogeneous country (and not by intermixing to oblivion), but the US identity is largely multi-cultural and multi-ethnic. So the Chinese who move to the US eventually become Americans, but Americans who move to China will never become Chinese. For China there's no cultural assimilation, no integration, no coexistence. There's not even "separate but equal", because there's no "equal".
- danbruc 10y agoI was not so much aiming at the racism point, there I would - if the paper correctly characterizes China - side with the author and say that the West is on a much better path to deal with the issue. But you still have American exceptionalism, the desire to spread western values like democracy, individual freedom and capitalism, being the world police, interference with other countries and so. I mean it is somewhat understandable, if you believe in something, then you have to almost by definition assume that it is true and better than the alternatives. On the other hand you can also be more restrained r modest, you can believe in something but still avoid trying to force it onto everyone else.