4 ms·

China's territorial expansion in the South Pacific and support of anti-American political parties in e.g. Cuba and Venezuela is certainly enough to warrant Step

by scythe 9y ago

China's territorial expansion in the South Pacific and support of anti-American political parties in e.g. Cuba and Venezuela is certainly enough to warrant Stephen Colbert's suggested title "frenemy", not to mention their continued international temper tantrums over the status of Taiwan. It should be noted that the US put an end to colonial expeditions in China with the Open Door Policy in 1899. The "Century of Humiliation" article enumerates complaints about the colonial expeditions but does not mention any US actions or the ODP, the latter, I assume, being considered not humiliating. It's hard for me to imagine why the US should be lumped in with Britain/France/Russia/Japan in the period before 1949. After that we were at Cold War, of course.

pishpash 9y ago
The United States considered itself a more enlightened country than the Europeans, that's why it was founded. Still, the Open Door Policy wasn't born out of a desire to end colonialism so much as strategy. The US wanted markets in China where the Europeans already had control. It didn't want to be squeezed out and so played balance of powers.
- bshepard 9y ago
  The United States was founded in order to protect slavery. The "enlightenment" stuff was PR. Check out Gerald Horne's Counterrevolution of 1776.
blackrock 9y ago
The United States was also one of the biggest beneficiaries of The Opium Wars. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's grandfather was a drug smuggler [1], that made his fortune smuggling opium into China. Also, the United States aided Britain in the 2nd Opium War. So yes, the United States must be lumped in with the rest of the Western powers, that helped to weaken and ultimately destroy Qing Dynasty China. This is history. Don't white wash the United States' involvement that lead to the destruction of the late Chinese empire. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/28/opinion/the-opium-war-s-secret-history.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/28/opinion/the-opium-war-s-s...
jonathanyc 9y ago
> China’s ... support of anti-American political parties in e.g. Cuba and Venezuela is certainly enough to warrant Stephen Colbert's suggested title "frenemy", not to mention their continued international temper tantrums over the status of Taiwan. How can you not see the contradiction in this sentence? You say that China supporting anti-US elements is them being aggressive—sure. But then you characterize China’s opposition to Taiwan, which continues to exist arguably solely because of US support, as a “temper tantrum.” How is this supposed to be Chinese aggression, any more than the Civil War was the War of Northern Aggression? The GP’s point is that it has mostly been the US being aggressive towards China, rather than vice versa. It is definitely possible to argue against, and it is definitely possible to argue that China should try to get along with Taiwan. This I would agree with. But your argument is self-defeating and plain inaccurate. (Also, characterizing the Open Door Policy as not an aggressive action is also plain wrong. Would you characterize Commodore Perry’s expedition to Japan as non-aggressive as well?)
- scythe 9y ago
  Whether the US's support of Taiwan is aggressive is immaterial; nowhere did I suggest that the US has taken no aggressive actions against China. I responded to a claim by 'coldtea that China has taken no aggressive actions against the US and I make no claims regarding degrees. US aggression towards China does not reclassify actions by China as nonaggressive. China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements between the US/RoC during WWII. That the PRC would wish for those agreements to be binding is ironic considering their characterization of the RoC as a US puppet state.
  - jonathanyc 9y ago
    > China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements Again, a viewpoint I entirely agree with but one for which you are making an awful argument. What became the US was not colonized before the 17th century, either. We can oppose China’s actions regarding Taiwan because a majority of the Taiwanese people don’t want to be a part of China, not because there is no “historic” claim. If the absurdity lies in the lack of history, then it would be absurd for us in the US to support Taiwanese independence yet not return all our land to the Native Americans. Characterizing China’s position as “absurd” is self-defeating. Also, you write that you’re responding to coldtea’s claim that China has taken no aggressive actions towards the US, but that is not at all what they wrote; rather, they wrote that it has “mostly been western nations doing things to China”.
coldtea 9y ago
>China's territorial expansion in the South Pacific and support of anti-American political parties in e.g. Cuba and Venezuela Given 100+ years of US intervention in Latin America and enmity towards Cuba and Venezuela, they'd had to cherrypick a lot to find "non anti-American" parties to support there. And if they found them, they'd usually not be very popular either. >is certainly enough to warrant Stephen Colbert's suggested title "frenemy", not to mention their continued international temper tantrums over the status of Taiwan. Well, Taiwan had been part of the Chinese state for a millennia before the 20th century (almost the whole US-existance of centuries officially, settling for a millennium or so) -- forgive them if they have "temper tantrums" for it still. It's funny how one nation is OK to go all around the world kicking doors down half around the globe when it's annoyed (or when it has "interests") and another is scolded for having "temper tantrums" for a historical part of its own country.

by scythe 9y ago

pishpash 9y ago

The United States considered itself a more enlightened country than the Europeans, that's why it was founded. Still, the Open Door Policy wasn't born out of a desire to end colonialism so much as strategy. The US wanted markets in China where the Europeans already had control. It didn't want to be squeezed out and so played balance of powers.

bshepard 9y ago
The United States was founded in order to protect slavery. The "enlightenment" stuff was PR. Check out Gerald Horne's Counterrevolution of 1776.

blackrock 9y ago

The United States was also one of the biggest beneficiaries of The Opium Wars. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's grandfather was a drug smuggler [1], that made his fortune smuggling opium into China. Also, the United States aided Britain in the 2nd Opium War. So yes, the United States must be lumped in with the rest of the Western powers, that helped to weaken and ultimately destroy Qing Dynasty China. This is history. Don't white wash the United States' involvement that lead to the destruction of the late Chinese empire. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/28/opinion/the-opium-war-s-secret-history.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/28/opinion/the-opium-war-s-s...

jonathanyc 9y ago

> China’s ... support of anti-American political parties in e.g. Cuba and Venezuela is certainly enough to warrant Stephen Colbert's suggested title "frenemy", not to mention their continued international temper tantrums over the status of Taiwan. How can you not see the contradiction in this sentence? You say that China supporting anti-US elements is them being aggressive—sure. But then you characterize China’s opposition to Taiwan, which continues to exist arguably solely because of US support, as a “temper tantrum.” How is this supposed to be Chinese aggression, any more than the Civil War was the War of Northern Aggression? The GP’s point is that it has mostly been the US being aggressive towards China, rather than vice versa. It is definitely possible to argue against, and it is definitely possible to argue that China should try to get along with Taiwan. This I would agree with. But your argument is self-defeating and plain inaccurate. (Also, characterizing the Open Door Policy as not an aggressive action is also plain wrong. Would you characterize Commodore Perry’s expedition to Japan as non-aggressive as well?)

scythe 9y ago
Whether the US's support of Taiwan is aggressive is immaterial; nowhere did I suggest that the US has taken no aggressive actions against China. I responded to a claim by 'coldtea that China has taken no aggressive actions against the US and I make no claims regarding degrees. US aggression towards China does not reclassify actions by China as nonaggressive. China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements between the US/RoC during WWII. That the PRC would wish for those agreements to be binding is ironic considering their characterization of the RoC as a US puppet state.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  > China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements Again, a viewpoint I entirely agree with but one for which you are making an awful argument. What became the US was not colonized before the 17th century, either. We can oppose China’s actions regarding Taiwan because a majority of the Taiwanese people don’t want to be a part of China, not because there is no “historic” claim. If the absurdity lies in the lack of history, then it would be absurd for us in the US to support Taiwanese independence yet not return all our land to the Native Americans. Characterizing China’s position as “absurd” is self-defeating. Also, you write that you’re responding to coldtea’s claim that China has taken no aggressive actions towards the US, but that is not at all what they wrote; rather, they wrote that it has “mostly been western nations doing things to China”.

coldtea 9y ago

>China's territorial expansion in the South Pacific and support of anti-American political parties in e.g. Cuba and Venezuela Given 100+ years of US intervention in Latin America and enmity towards Cuba and Venezuela, they'd had to cherrypick a lot to find "non anti-American" parties to support there. And if they found them, they'd usually not be very popular either. >is certainly enough to warrant Stephen Colbert's suggested title "frenemy", not to mention their continued international temper tantrums over the status of Taiwan. Well, Taiwan had been part of the Chinese state for a millennia before the 20th century (almost the whole US-existance of centuries officially, settling for a millennium or so) -- forgive them if they have "temper tantrums" for it still. It's funny how one nation is OK to go all around the world kicking doors down half around the globe when it's annoyed (or when it has "interests") and another is scolded for having "temper tantrums" for a historical part of its own country.