3 ms·
Furthermore, the embassies that came from tributary states like Vietnam and Korea did not come to impress the throne; they came to seek the emperor’s approval,
by HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
Furthermore, the embassies that came from tributary states like Vietnam and Korea did not come to impress the throne; they came to seek the emperor’s approval, which gave them political power back home. To demonstrate their government’s legitimacy in the eyes of the powerful Qing emperor was (at least in China’s eyes) to argue for their own sovereign’s right to rule in his own country. And to gain this approval, they paid tribute. They readily performed the so-called kowtow before the emperor in the manner of his own ministers—a prescribed ritual of nine kneeling bows to the ground (three sets of three) to humble themselves in his presence. And it made perfect sense to do so, because in their recognizing the supremacy of the emperor of China, the eminent power in Asia, he would recognize their supremacy within their own, smaller countries.
...
“When foreigners who come seeking audience with me are sincere and submissive, then I always treat them with kindness,” Qianlong wrote. “But if they come in arrogance, they get nothing.”
The more I get to know China and the Chinese, the more I realize that these are still the lenses they see the world through.
- ksec 8y ago....The more I get to know China and the Chinese, the more I realize that these are still the lenses they see the world through. yes. things haven't changed one bit,.
- coldtea 8y ago>The more I get to know China and the Chinese, the more I realize that these are still the lenses they see the world through. So, just like major Western powers see other western countries? (Because for non-western countries, major western powers just see them just as areas to colonize, plunder, and steal from).
- HumanDrivenDev 8y agoThis was the laziest attempt at whataboutism I have seen all year. It didn't even make any sense. Step your game up.
- coldtea 8y agoI find accusations of "whataboutism" even lazier. They're just thought-stoppers. "Whatabout" is about putting things in perspective. Accusations of whataboutism is about putting on blinders -- and examining only one thing at a time (the other side instead of yours usually), outside of any context. In other works, avoiding "whataboutism" is the worst way to go about understanding anything. Which makes sense, of course, as "accusations of whataboutism" were invented as a Cold War tactic, to dismiss any attempt of the "commies" to criticize back.
- HumanDrivenDev 8y agoYes I would imagine certain people would have used the exact same tactic in the cold war when millions of people lived under communism and all the hardships it caused. Now those same people are likely China-defenders. Whataboutism is just lazy. For example I could criticise a republican politician without it being an endorsement of a democratic one. Stick to the topic at hand - don't bring up a distraction.
- wangii 8y agocongratulations! you've got your bias confirmed.
- HumanDrivenDev 8y agoWrong. They weren't biases I had going in.