7 ms·

> China, like india, under western colonialism went from being the largest economy in the world to an insignificant one. That's getting the causality backwards

by yorwba 7y ago

> China, like india, under western colonialism went from being the largest economy in the world to an insignificant one. That's getting the causality backwards. Western colonialism didn't reduce China and India to insignificant economies; their insignificance is what enabled Western powers to colonize them so easily. The reduction to insignificance already happened earlier, when the West began to industrialize. Of course the Qing emperors realized that they wouldn't be able to resist Western armies without owning similar weaponry. Their biggest mistake was simply buying them. In comparison, Japan suffered similar humiliation, complete with Western battleships forcibly opening ports for trade. The deciding difference was that they decided to not only import Western weapons, but to learn how to make them themselves, industrializing quickly. That was so successful that halfway through China's "century of humiliation", Japan became one of the humiliators. > IP theft is justified because that's the history of business. Agreed, and the humiliation would have lasted a lot shorter than a century if the Qing had realized this. Ironically, if they had done so, foreign Manchu would likely still hold an outsized influence in Chinese politics today. > their historical narratives are true. The facts of the narrative can be true while the evaluation and implied causal relationships can be misleading. For example, the establishment of free-trade zones for foreign merchants is judged to be humiliating because it was the consequence of military defeat. But when the CCP later established special economic zones to boost international trade, that was seen as very much a good thing.

elfexec 7y ago
> That's getting the causality backwards. Western colonialism didn't reduce China and India to insignificant economies; their insignificance is what enabled Western powers to colonize them so easily. This is one of the most outlandishly false things I've read. China and india's economic significance is the reason why western powers wanted to colonize china and india in the first place. Their economic importance is why europe first sought out india and china. It's why columbus "sailed the ocean blue". > The reduction to insignificance already happened earlier, when the West began to industrialize. The colonization of india and china started before western industrialization. And it was colonizers who prevented india and china from industrializing like Japan. Funny how colonization ended and china ( and india though more slowly ) started industrializing huh? > For example, the establishment of free-trade zones for foreign merchants is judged to be humiliating because it was the consequence of military defeat. But when the CCP later established special economic zones to boost international trade, that was seen as very much a good thing. Because the former was for the benefit of foreign merchants to loot a nation and the latter was for the benefit of china. Surely, even you can see the difference of a territory conquered by a foreign power to loot a nation vs a territory a nation sets up itself for trade?
- sudosysgen 7y ago
  No it didn't. The first opium wars, at the start of the century of humiliation, began in 1839. Industrialization began in the 1780s. It was literally heavily armed, iron armored steamships versus middle-ages style sailboats. The Chinese were completely fucked at every single level economically compared to Great Britain, and that's why they lost. They literally didn't stand a chance due to their poor technological level, and that was pretty much their fault. Using GDP to measure economical supremacy when the two economies are as wildly incomparable as industrialized Great Britain and the agrarian Qing Dynasty is misleading at every single level. Yeah, China could grow hundreds of times more rice than Great Britain ever could. But Qing China wasn't able to make machine guns, it wasn't able to make steamships, it wasn't able to make any industrial equipment. And that's how Great Britain with 50 million people militarily crushed Qing China. It's because China failed to keep up with technology and lost it's massive lead during the renaissance. That meant that it got lost in the dust in the industrial wars of the time. It's really, honestly, a massive mistake that the Qing Dynasty made by not following western developments and not trying to industrialize despite its massive resources. It's economy was just a lot worse. Like, GDP per capita per year around 300$ (2019 dollars) bad. And that's what led to the century of humiliation, that plus their failure to adapt and industrialize when they had the chance, believing that they could buy the capabilities to face off with a modern army.
  - elfexec 7y ago
    > The first opium wars, at the start of the century of humiliation, began in 1839. Industrialization began in the 1780s. We can argue about when industrialization began til the cows come home, but the benefits of industrialization weren't materialized until the latter half of the 1800s - after the opium wars when britain used stolen chinese capital and stolen indian resources. Everything you've written are nonsense repeated over and over again. It does get exhausting correcting them, but I'll give it another shot. > It was literally heavily armed, iron armored steamships versus middle-ages style sailboats. That was the case everywhere. Steamships didn't become truly relevant until the latter half of the 1800s because of how much coal was needed for these ships. Think about it. When the british were trying to blockade the US, it wasn't with steamships. It was with sail ships. Hell most of the naval ships decades after the opium war were still powered by sail. "sail was still the only solution for virtually all trade between China and Western Europe or East Coast America. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamship > The Chinese were completely fucked at every single level economically compared to Great Britain, and that's why they lost. Is that why the US beat britain in the american revolution? Because our economy was so much superior to Great Britain? Is that why the mongols were able to conquer china, russia, middle east? Because their economy was so much larger? Is that why the barbarians were able to overrun the roman empire? Because their economy was so much larger? Britain economy had nothing to do with opium wars. Do you know why? Because britain started the opium wars because china produced so much goods britain wanted while britain produced very little that china wanted. So the trade deficit was so skewed in favor of china that capital flowed exclusively from britain to china. The opium wars was britain's attempt to remedy it. Since britain's "amazing economy" produced nothing of value to china, they wanted to peddle drugs to china. I won't bother with the rest. Figure it out yourself. If britain's economy was so great ( as you implied ) there wouldn't have been any opium wars because britain could cost-effectively produce stuff for china. They couldn't. Hence why they needed to peddle drugs. Why do you think the corner drug dealers are dealing drugs? Because they can't produce or do anything else of value. That was britain.

by yorwba 7y ago

elfexec 7y ago

> That's getting the causality backwards. Western colonialism didn't reduce China and India to insignificant economies; their insignificance is what enabled Western powers to colonize them so easily. This is one of the most outlandishly false things I've read. China and india's economic significance is the reason why western powers wanted to colonize china and india in the first place. Their economic importance is why europe first sought out india and china. It's why columbus "sailed the ocean blue". > The reduction to insignificance already happened earlier, when the West began to industrialize. The colonization of india and china started before western industrialization. And it was colonizers who prevented india and china from industrializing like Japan. Funny how colonization ended and china ( and india though more slowly ) started industrializing huh? > For example, the establishment of free-trade zones for foreign merchants is judged to be humiliating because it was the consequence of military defeat. But when the CCP later established special economic zones to boost international trade, that was seen as very much a good thing. Because the former was for the benefit of foreign merchants to loot a nation and the latter was for the benefit of china. Surely, even you can see the difference of a territory conquered by a foreign power to loot a nation vs a territory a nation sets up itself for trade?

sudosysgen 7y ago
No it didn't. The first opium wars, at the start of the century of humiliation, began in 1839. Industrialization began in the 1780s. It was literally heavily armed, iron armored steamships versus middle-ages style sailboats. The Chinese were completely fucked at every single level economically compared to Great Britain, and that's why they lost. They literally didn't stand a chance due to their poor technological level, and that was pretty much their fault. Using GDP to measure economical supremacy when the two economies are as wildly incomparable as industrialized Great Britain and the agrarian Qing Dynasty is misleading at every single level. Yeah, China could grow hundreds of times more rice than Great Britain ever could. But Qing China wasn't able to make machine guns, it wasn't able to make steamships, it wasn't able to make any industrial equipment. And that's how Great Britain with 50 million people militarily crushed Qing China. It's because China failed to keep up with technology and lost it's massive lead during the renaissance. That meant that it got lost in the dust in the industrial wars of the time. It's really, honestly, a massive mistake that the Qing Dynasty made by not following western developments and not trying to industrialize despite its massive resources. It's economy was just a lot worse. Like, GDP per capita per year around 300$ (2019 dollars) bad. And that's what led to the century of humiliation, that plus their failure to adapt and industrialize when they had the chance, believing that they could buy the capabilities to face off with a modern army.
- elfexec 7y ago
  > The first opium wars, at the start of the century of humiliation, began in 1839. Industrialization began in the 1780s. We can argue about when industrialization began til the cows come home, but the benefits of industrialization weren't materialized until the latter half of the 1800s - after the opium wars when britain used stolen chinese capital and stolen indian resources. Everything you've written are nonsense repeated over and over again. It does get exhausting correcting them, but I'll give it another shot. > It was literally heavily armed, iron armored steamships versus middle-ages style sailboats. That was the case everywhere. Steamships didn't become truly relevant until the latter half of the 1800s because of how much coal was needed for these ships. Think about it. When the british were trying to blockade the US, it wasn't with steamships. It was with sail ships. Hell most of the naval ships decades after the opium war were still powered by sail. "sail was still the only solution for virtually all trade between China and Western Europe or East Coast America. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamship > The Chinese were completely fucked at every single level economically compared to Great Britain, and that's why they lost. Is that why the US beat britain in the american revolution? Because our economy was so much superior to Great Britain? Is that why the mongols were able to conquer china, russia, middle east? Because their economy was so much larger? Is that why the barbarians were able to overrun the roman empire? Because their economy was so much larger? Britain economy had nothing to do with opium wars. Do you know why? Because britain started the opium wars because china produced so much goods britain wanted while britain produced very little that china wanted. So the trade deficit was so skewed in favor of china that capital flowed exclusively from britain to china. The opium wars was britain's attempt to remedy it. Since britain's "amazing economy" produced nothing of value to china, they wanted to peddle drugs to china. I won't bother with the rest. Figure it out yourself. If britain's economy was so great ( as you implied ) there wouldn't have been any opium wars because britain could cost-effectively produce stuff for china. They couldn't. Hence why they needed to peddle drugs. Why do you think the corner drug dealers are dealing drugs? Because they can't produce or do anything else of value. That was britain.