4 ms·

Have they ever not been? I think through history China always have been a superpower (with some short exceptions). Edit: this might have been the longest time

by pasta 8y ago

Have they ever not been? I think through history China always have been a superpower (with some short exceptions). Edit: this might have been the longest time China was not a superpower: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation

i_dont_know_ 8y ago
Really good point. The industrial revolution pushed "the west" pretty far in terms of power/economics but there were thousands of years of human history prior to it. In that longer view of history, China has always been a major player, and the last 150-ish years have been a fluke that's being corrected. But western journalism really treats everything prior to the industrial revolution as caveman times, meaning they'll be equally surprized seeing Iran (Persia), India, Turkey and others 'rise' up in the coming decades as well.
- nkozyra 8y ago
  > But western journalism really treats everything prior to the industrial revolution as caveman times, meaning they'll be equally surprized seeing Iran (Persia), India, Turkey and others 'rise' up in the coming decades as well. That's one way to look at it. The other would be to yield to the continuum a bit, to see that growth (technological, military, economic) usually doesn't happen overnight. Even if Iran were on the cusp of again being a world power, it wouldn't happen overnight.
  - konschubert 8y ago
    I think due to climate change it's pretty unlikely that Iran will become a superpower.
    - mercer 8y ago
      Interesting. Could anyone chime in on how various countries/superpowers will be affected by climate change? Or point me to an article that hypothesizes about this?
- ng12 8y ago
  You could also view it as China blowing a 2,000 year head start and now working to catch up.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Well, they didn't discover a whole new continent to exploit for gold and riches and get rid of its inhabitants, or plundered 2/3rds of the world (instead, they were themselves invaded by colonial powers). So, while they lost their head start, at least they have that...
    - OldManAndTheCpp 8y ago
      I’m a believer in China dominance in the coming decades. However, painting the West’s ability to heap “unequal treaties” on China cannot reasonably be described as a function of finding and conquering the new word. Firstly: the major conquest of the new world came through Spain, which had little to no involvement in the humiliation of the Middle Kingdom. Second, colonies in North America did not give the British gunboats capable of demolishing the Chinese fleets. The reasonable conclusion is that the Enlightenment and the scientific advances eminating from that allowed the West to go from isolated, low population minor powers into worldwide empires.
  - kamaal 8y ago
    Anybody who didn't get to ride the knowledge scalability wave that came from Gutenberg's printing press is now way behind. That's basically every body apart from the west.
    - vaughnegut 8y ago
      The movable type printing press in Asia predates Europe's by centuries. Although it's admittedly more practical to use with a 26 character alphabet.
      - kamaal 8y ago
        Not in the same social context. Education was a very elite thing in most societies, even in the west too. But some thing very strange happened around Gutenberg's times and west was able to take advantage of that unique situation. For example, there is no parallel of Renaissance or Industrial revolution in any non-western country. China comes close, but even then, not exactly.
- badpun 8y ago
  > meaning they'll be equally surprized seeing Iran (Persia), India, Turkey and others 'rise' up in the coming decades as well. Not every big country in the world (I'm not talking specifically about your examples) has society that's sufficiently developed and sophisticated to pull off a modern XXI-century information age economy. In other words, it's not obvious that all the laggers will eventually (say within the next 50-100 years) catch up.
mcv 8y ago
Yeah, China has always been a superpower, except after the Opium Wars broke it. And then Mao did a lot of damage. But now they're recovering from those disasters, it makes sense that they take up their original position as a superpower again. What's different, though, is that China is now looking outward. In the past, China was mostly concerned with itself, it has now learned that it can't afford to ignore the rest of the world.
- carlmr 8y ago
  >What's different, though, is that China is now looking outward. In the past, China was mostly concerned with itself, it has now learned that it can't afford to ignore the rest of the world. There was opportunity to learn this lesson before. Why is it different now?
  - isomorph 8y ago
    For what it's worth, the word/concept globalisation is much more mainstream now
    - DrNuke 8y ago
      Globalisation is very much a westerner attitude and a neo-liberalist effect, though; a more neutral term is mondialisation, from French, which is regaining traction as an ideology for a peaceful path towards a single government for planet Earth (http://www.mondialism.com http://www.mondialism.com)
      - klipt 8y ago
        French isn't a Western language?
        DrNuke 8y ago
        Mondialisation / mondialism originates from a different philosophy or perspective.
  - 8y ago
thanosnose 8y ago
> Have they ever not been? The mongol conquest of china? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty > I think through history China always have been a superpower (with some short exceptions). China has never been a superpower. They were always a regional power. There has only been 1 real superpower in human history ( the United States ). The next closest empires to the title of superpower are the mongols, british, soviets, etc, but they never dominated the globe the way the United States has. But as with everything, I guess it all depends on how you define the term. Also, "china" as we know it today is a relatively recent phenomenon stemming from mongol china ( aka yuan dynasty ). Before then, it was series of dynasties constantly shifting borders. The borders that modern china ( and taiwan ) claim goes back to the yuan dynasty. Even the capital of china is beijing because the mongols made it the capital of china.

by pasta 8y ago

i_dont_know_ 8y ago

Really good point. The industrial revolution pushed "the west" pretty far in terms of power/economics but there were thousands of years of human history prior to it. In that longer view of history, China has always been a major player, and the last 150-ish years have been a fluke that's being corrected. But western journalism really treats everything prior to the industrial revolution as caveman times, meaning they'll be equally surprized seeing Iran (Persia), India, Turkey and others 'rise' up in the coming decades as well.

nkozyra 8y ago
> But western journalism really treats everything prior to the industrial revolution as caveman times, meaning they'll be equally surprized seeing Iran (Persia), India, Turkey and others 'rise' up in the coming decades as well. That's one way to look at it. The other would be to yield to the continuum a bit, to see that growth (technological, military, economic) usually doesn't happen overnight. Even if Iran were on the cusp of again being a world power, it wouldn't happen overnight.
- konschubert 8y ago
  I think due to climate change it's pretty unlikely that Iran will become a superpower.
  - mercer 8y ago
    Interesting. Could anyone chime in on how various countries/superpowers will be affected by climate change? Or point me to an article that hypothesizes about this?
ng12 8y ago
You could also view it as China blowing a 2,000 year head start and now working to catch up.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Well, they didn't discover a whole new continent to exploit for gold and riches and get rid of its inhabitants, or plundered 2/3rds of the world (instead, they were themselves invaded by colonial powers). So, while they lost their head start, at least they have that...
  - OldManAndTheCpp 8y ago
    I’m a believer in China dominance in the coming decades. However, painting the West’s ability to heap “unequal treaties” on China cannot reasonably be described as a function of finding and conquering the new word. Firstly: the major conquest of the new world came through Spain, which had little to no involvement in the humiliation of the Middle Kingdom. Second, colonies in North America did not give the British gunboats capable of demolishing the Chinese fleets. The reasonable conclusion is that the Enlightenment and the scientific advances eminating from that allowed the West to go from isolated, low population minor powers into worldwide empires.
- kamaal 8y ago
  Anybody who didn't get to ride the knowledge scalability wave that came from Gutenberg's printing press is now way behind. That's basically every body apart from the west.
  - vaughnegut 8y ago
    The movable type printing press in Asia predates Europe's by centuries. Although it's admittedly more practical to use with a 26 character alphabet.
    - kamaal 8y ago
      Not in the same social context. Education was a very elite thing in most societies, even in the west too. But some thing very strange happened around Gutenberg's times and west was able to take advantage of that unique situation. For example, there is no parallel of Renaissance or Industrial revolution in any non-western country. China comes close, but even then, not exactly.
badpun 8y ago
> meaning they'll be equally surprized seeing Iran (Persia), India, Turkey and others 'rise' up in the coming decades as well. Not every big country in the world (I'm not talking specifically about your examples) has society that's sufficiently developed and sophisticated to pull off a modern XXI-century information age economy. In other words, it's not obvious that all the laggers will eventually (say within the next 50-100 years) catch up.

mcv 8y ago

Yeah, China has always been a superpower, except after the Opium Wars broke it. And then Mao did a lot of damage. But now they're recovering from those disasters, it makes sense that they take up their original position as a superpower again. What's different, though, is that China is now looking outward. In the past, China was mostly concerned with itself, it has now learned that it can't afford to ignore the rest of the world.

carlmr 8y ago
>What's different, though, is that China is now looking outward. In the past, China was mostly concerned with itself, it has now learned that it can't afford to ignore the rest of the world. There was opportunity to learn this lesson before. Why is it different now?
- isomorph 8y ago
  For what it's worth, the word/concept globalisation is much more mainstream now
  - DrNuke 8y ago
    Globalisation is very much a westerner attitude and a neo-liberalist effect, though; a more neutral term is mondialisation, from French, which is regaining traction as an ideology for a peaceful path towards a single government for planet Earth (http://www.mondialism.com http://www.mondialism.com)
    - klipt 8y ago
      French isn't a Western language?
      - DrNuke 8y ago
        Mondialisation / mondialism originates from a different philosophy or perspective.
- 8y ago

thanosnose 8y ago

> Have they ever not been? The mongol conquest of china? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_conquest_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_dynasty > I think through history China always have been a superpower (with some short exceptions). China has never been a superpower. They were always a regional power. There has only been 1 real superpower in human history ( the United States ). The next closest empires to the title of superpower are the mongols, british, soviets, etc, but they never dominated the globe the way the United States has. But as with everything, I guess it all depends on how you define the term. Also, "china" as we know it today is a relatively recent phenomenon stemming from mongol china ( aka yuan dynasty ). Before then, it was series of dynasties constantly shifting borders. The borders that modern china ( and taiwan ) claim goes back to the yuan dynasty. Even the capital of china is beijing because the mongols made it the capital of china.