4 ms·

Historically, China wants what is good for China, and the rest of the world may as well be a sideshow. If being a global leader and running global industries i

Historically, China wants what is good for China, and the rest of the world may as well be a sideshow. If being a global leader and running global industries is what it takes for China to remain stable and controllable by the Comminist Party, then that's how they'll go. China simply does not have the consistent history of far-reaching imperialism that other historic empires like Britain or America have. There is also an absence of an enlightened ideology of imperialism, which the aforementioned British and American empires used to justify mass conquest and genocide. Compared to British/American conquests and subversion in East Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and so on, the far out (from the rich coast/interior) Chinese provinces of Tibet and Xinjiang are practically in China's back yard.

kazagistar 9y ago
This comment is unrelated to both the parent comment and the article. Wtf are you even on about?
- adventured 9y ago
  It was an out-of-left-field effort to redirect the China criticism back on the US (and Britain).
plehoux 9y ago
Imperialism is not rooted in history. Before having imperialist ambitions, Japan was an isolated island, same for Britain. One could also say Britain started from its own backyard. China could as well go from isolated to imperialist.
fweespeech 9y ago
> China simply does not have the consistent history of far-reaching imperialism that other historic empires like Britain or America have. There is also an absence of an enlightened ideology of imperialism, which the aforementioned British and American empires used to justify mass conquest and genocide. China invaded its neighbors on multiple occasions. It was the failure of its imperial ambitions that resulted in it turning inward. Or does the likes of Korea and such simply not count in your mind? China also became "China" after invading neighboring kingdoms. China simply was never in a position to expand substantially beyond its current borders due to technological limitations and the superiority of its neighbors' military. Pretending it is some virtuous position is categorically false and you can see that in the way they look the other way when working with African dictators, etc. and making all the "moral compromises" the American Empire has.
- smilekzs 9y ago
  > China also became "China" after invading neighboring kingdoms. More like what has always been considered "China" got taken over by the Kidan, then the Monguls, then the Manchus, each time forcefully, but then slowly emerging as a "More Unified China", rinse and repeat.
  - fweespeech 9y ago
    > More like what has always been considered "China" got taken over by the Kidan, then the Monguls, then the Manchus, each time forcefully, but then slowly emerging as a "More Unified China", rinse and repeat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_period > The Warring States period (Chinese: 戰國時代; pinyin: Zhànguó shídài) was an era in ancient Chinese history following the Spring and Autumn period and concluding with the Qin wars of conquest that saw the annexation of all other contender states, which ultimately led to the Qin state's victory in 221 BC as the first unified Chinese empire known as the Qin dynasty. What historical event created the first unified Chinese empire in your alternate view of world history?
    - thaumasiotes 9y ago
      The warring states were all part of a more-or-less unified preexisting Chinese culture, sharing sacred objects, rites, language, etc. It's not ridiculous to see the quest to take control of China as a different sort of thing from the quest to take control of foreigners. If you believe the analysis in https://www.amazon.com/Early-Chinese-Empires-History-Imperial/dp/0674057341/ https://www.amazon.com/Early-Chinese-Empires-History-Imperia... , the Qin dynasty immediately flamed out because its institutions just didn't work in peacetime, and the Han dynasty had to develop practices more suited to a stable empire.
      - fweespeech 9y ago
        > The warring states were all part of a more-or-less unified preexisting Chinese culture, sharing sacred objects, rites, language, etc. It's not ridiculous to see the quest to take control of China as a different sort of thing from the quest to take control of foreigners. We share a more-or-less unified culture with Canada. Do you feel the US invading them isn't a quest to take control of foreigners? I'm asking these questions because its genuinely a foreign concept to me that these things are not imperialistic quests of conquest. I understand people have different point of views and so I'm trying to understand what the justification is. Due to rate limiting, I'll edit: > If communications technology broke down and the United States fractured into 5 different states, would you be surprised if most military efforts went into taking over other regions of the former US rather than Canada or Mexico? That isn't the same as the warring states since that was the first proper unification of China as an empire. Up until that point in history, it wasn't unified in the sense the US is. I also would consider attempting to recover those regions an act of imperial aggression. > If they were eventually reunified after hundreds of years of fighting each other while having displayed no urge to invade Mexico, and subsequently spent several more centuries not invading Mexico while denigrating militarism and soldiers generally, why would you start worrying for Mexico? China invaded Korea (China's Mexico). So I'm not sure where you are going with that given that is a historical falsehood when it comes to analogies. Similarly, when you are refusing to acknowledge the territorial claims of your neighbors like China is in the South China Sea to the point you are taking military actions
saiya-jin 9y ago
you are so wrong, mister. maybe you're from china and got fed only by state media and this is the effect? Chinese are not the biggest aggressors of all times, true, but their invasion of sovereign Tibet country and their brutal behavior there is good enough warning. Or invasion & annexation of pars of India in 1962 started by Chinese (because India dared to offer asylum to dalailama, how horrible). Chinese party leaders are same as Russian oligarchs, they just have to be more discrete. Life and well being of common citizens is of no concern for them, only money and power and games associated with those. Thinking otherwise (about any system in fact) is naive on child level.
Nomentatus 9y ago
Everybody was already Han and Han-dominated thousands of years ago? Really? Tibet was never invaded in the fifties? Cool! There never was an attempted invasion of Japan, foiled by disastrous weather? Wow. This is a whole alternative reality. Fact is, China's history is very similar to everyone else's history.
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  There was never an attempted invasion of Japan by the Han. Nor was there an invasion of Tibet. Tibet, and Xinjiang, were invaded by the Manchus (who ruled China as the Qing dynasty at the same time they ruled several other jurisdictions under different names. Everything was later relabeled "China" as essentially an accounting gimmick). Japan was invaded by the Mongols (who, similarly, ruled China as the Yuan dynasty). Han aggression has been pretty much limited to Vietnam (and ineffective there). Blaming China for the invasion of Tibet is slightly less ridiculous than blaming Nazi-occupied France for the invasion of Poland.
  - kgwgk 9y ago
    I don't get the last analogy. Blaming Nazi-occupied France for the invasion of Poland in September 1939 is quite ridiculous, given that France was occupied in June 1940. I don't know much about the China/Nepal case, but a quick google search got me https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chamdo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chamdo
    - thaumasiotes 9y ago
      Yes, the chronology of that analogy is wrong, which is why I said that claim would be slightly more ridiculous. But the agency part of it is correct. The Manchus had no more interest in Chinese opinions of what they should and shouldn't attack than the Germans had in French opinions.
      - kgwgk 9y ago
        Did the Manchus invaded Tibet in 1950?

kazagistar 9y ago

This comment is unrelated to both the parent comment and the article. Wtf are you even on about?

adventured 9y ago
It was an out-of-left-field effort to redirect the China criticism back on the US (and Britain).

plehoux 9y ago

Imperialism is not rooted in history. Before having imperialist ambitions, Japan was an isolated island, same for Britain. One could also say Britain started from its own backyard. China could as well go from isolated to imperialist.

fweespeech 9y ago

> China simply does not have the consistent history of far-reaching imperialism that other historic empires like Britain or America have. There is also an absence of an enlightened ideology of imperialism, which the aforementioned British and American empires used to justify mass conquest and genocide. China invaded its neighbors on multiple occasions. It was the failure of its imperial ambitions that resulted in it turning inward. Or does the likes of Korea and such simply not count in your mind? China also became "China" after invading neighboring kingdoms. China simply was never in a position to expand substantially beyond its current borders due to technological limitations and the superiority of its neighbors' military. Pretending it is some virtuous position is categorically false and you can see that in the way they look the other way when working with African dictators, etc. and making all the "moral compromises" the American Empire has.

smilekzs 9y ago
> China also became "China" after invading neighboring kingdoms. More like what has always been considered "China" got taken over by the Kidan, then the Monguls, then the Manchus, each time forcefully, but then slowly emerging as a "More Unified China", rinse and repeat.
- fweespeech 9y ago
  > More like what has always been considered "China" got taken over by the Kidan, then the Monguls, then the Manchus, each time forcefully, but then slowly emerging as a "More Unified China", rinse and repeat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_period > The Warring States period (Chinese: 戰國時代; pinyin: Zhànguó shídài) was an era in ancient Chinese history following the Spring and Autumn period and concluding with the Qin wars of conquest that saw the annexation of all other contender states, which ultimately led to the Qin state's victory in 221 BC as the first unified Chinese empire known as the Qin dynasty. What historical event created the first unified Chinese empire in your alternate view of world history?
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    The warring states were all part of a more-or-less unified preexisting Chinese culture, sharing sacred objects, rites, language, etc. It's not ridiculous to see the quest to take control of China as a different sort of thing from the quest to take control of foreigners. If you believe the analysis in https://www.amazon.com/Early-Chinese-Empires-History-Imperial/dp/0674057341/ https://www.amazon.com/Early-Chinese-Empires-History-Imperia... , the Qin dynasty immediately flamed out because its institutions just didn't work in peacetime, and the Han dynasty had to develop practices more suited to a stable empire.
    - fweespeech 9y ago
      > The warring states were all part of a more-or-less unified preexisting Chinese culture, sharing sacred objects, rites, language, etc. It's not ridiculous to see the quest to take control of China as a different sort of thing from the quest to take control of foreigners. We share a more-or-less unified culture with Canada. Do you feel the US invading them isn't a quest to take control of foreigners? I'm asking these questions because its genuinely a foreign concept to me that these things are not imperialistic quests of conquest. I understand people have different point of views and so I'm trying to understand what the justification is. Due to rate limiting, I'll edit: > If communications technology broke down and the United States fractured into 5 different states, would you be surprised if most military efforts went into taking over other regions of the former US rather than Canada or Mexico? That isn't the same as the warring states since that was the first proper unification of China as an empire. Up until that point in history, it wasn't unified in the sense the US is. I also would consider attempting to recover those regions an act of imperial aggression. > If they were eventually reunified after hundreds of years of fighting each other while having displayed no urge to invade Mexico, and subsequently spent several more centuries not invading Mexico while denigrating militarism and soldiers generally, why would you start worrying for Mexico? China invaded Korea (China's Mexico). So I'm not sure where you are going with that given that is a historical falsehood when it comes to analogies. Similarly, when you are refusing to acknowledge the territorial claims of your neighbors like China is in the South China Sea to the point you are taking military actions

saiya-jin 9y ago

you are so wrong, mister. maybe you're from china and got fed only by state media and this is the effect? Chinese are not the biggest aggressors of all times, true, but their invasion of sovereign Tibet country and their brutal behavior there is good enough warning. Or invasion & annexation of pars of India in 1962 started by Chinese (because India dared to offer asylum to dalailama, how horrible). Chinese party leaders are same as Russian oligarchs, they just have to be more discrete. Life and well being of common citizens is of no concern for them, only money and power and games associated with those. Thinking otherwise (about any system in fact) is naive on child level.

Nomentatus 9y ago

Everybody was already Han and Han-dominated thousands of years ago? Really? Tibet was never invaded in the fifties? Cool! There never was an attempted invasion of Japan, foiled by disastrous weather? Wow. This is a whole alternative reality. Fact is, China's history is very similar to everyone else's history.

thaumasiotes 9y ago
There was never an attempted invasion of Japan by the Han. Nor was there an invasion of Tibet. Tibet, and Xinjiang, were invaded by the Manchus (who ruled China as the Qing dynasty at the same time they ruled several other jurisdictions under different names. Everything was later relabeled "China" as essentially an accounting gimmick). Japan was invaded by the Mongols (who, similarly, ruled China as the Yuan dynasty). Han aggression has been pretty much limited to Vietnam (and ineffective there). Blaming China for the invasion of Tibet is slightly less ridiculous than blaming Nazi-occupied France for the invasion of Poland.
- kgwgk 9y ago
  I don't get the last analogy. Blaming Nazi-occupied France for the invasion of Poland in September 1939 is quite ridiculous, given that France was occupied in June 1940. I don't know much about the China/Nepal case, but a quick google search got me https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chamdo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chamdo
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    Yes, the chronology of that analogy is wrong, which is why I said that claim would be slightly more ridiculous. But the agency part of it is correct. The Manchus had no more interest in Chinese opinions of what they should and shouldn't attack than the Germans had in French opinions.
    - kgwgk 9y ago
      Did the Manchus invaded Tibet in 1950?