3 ms·

Actually, of the three, China is the only country that has no demonstrable history of imperialism outside of its historically occupied borders. Setting Tibet, X

Actually, of the three, China is the only country that has no demonstrable history of imperialism outside of its historically occupied borders. Setting Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan aside (for at various times throughout history, all three of them have been occupied or fallen under the umbrella of Chinese influence), China as a civilisation has operated on a tribute model. Not one of imperialism. The same can't be said of Russia or the USA. While it's convenient to portray China as just another modern (western) country with the typical aims of a modern western power, the facts don't really fit this view. For thousands of years China has been content to stay within it's nominal boundaries. Even now, most of the forays China makes that the USA or Russia feels threatened by are economic overtures (hospital ships to africa, supporting less desirable governments, etc) designed to secure raw materials and achieve economic (not imperialistic) objectives.

EGreg 13y ago
I agree, it's interesting that the Chinese build their Great Wall and haven't expanded past it since. Is that mostly true?
skybrian 13y ago
I think you're letting China off too easily. Similar reasoning could be used to justify Russia's invasion of Crimea, or even all of eastern Europe. Having ruled a country before doesn't justify attempting to occupy it again after independence. That's imperialist reasoning.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  You can look at specific cases: the 97% "vote" in Crimea is worthy of a banana republic. You can legitimately call that "imperialist" or "expansionist." You can also find deep flaws in the transfer of Hong Kong. It wasn't an open expression of the will of the people. But we also have the track record of how Hong Kong has been run since then. You will find good and bad in that record but it would be hard to call it an indication of imperialism.
  - nemesisj 13y ago
    Heh, Hong Kong and Macau are a perfect of example of China having possessions taken from them (by Portugal and Britain) and then being returned. If anything, despite what people locally may have preferred at the time, we're talking a return after 100 years on territory that had been occupied for thousands of years by Chinese.
tokenadult 13y ago
China is the only country that has no demonstrable history of imperialism outside of its historically occupied borders. I call baloney on that. (Basis of knowledge: study of Chinese history, culture, and language since 1975 and residence overseas in east Asia.) China's territory has expanded ENORMOUSLY from the historic regions that were part of the mainstream development of Chinese history and culture. The Chinese language developed a new word for the chief national ruler (皇帝), conventionally translated "emperor," at the time 2,000 years ago when China went on a long period of sustained imperial conquest and expansion. This is still very much part of Chinese geopolitical thinking today. The current occupation of the historic territory of Tibet and Eastern Turkestan by the People's Republic of China regime actually has very meager historical precedent, as those territories and the territories of China proper have mostly only had common rulers during the conquest dynasties of the Yuan (Mongol) and Qing (Manchu) periods of Chinese history. I live in a town with a very large Tibetan diaspora (I see "Free Tibet" bumper stickers all over town, and the Dalai Lama recently celebrated Tibetan New Year here), and I am well aware that Chinese conquest of Tibet is historically recently, naked imperialism, and extremely disliked by the population of Tibet.
- nemesisj 13y ago
  Hmm, maybe we're simply debating when the Chinese territory solidified? I think it's generally accepted that China's territory has been more or less the same through most of its history (or at least for the last thousand years?). In fact, if anything, today's borders are less than several of the most recent dynasties. Yes, if you go back to several thousand years BC, you'll find the civilisation concentrated quite a bit more, but so was every other people group. Here's a nice illustration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Territories_of_Dynasties_i... Yes, you can make an argument that Tibet and Xinjiang are not part of the mainstream Chinese territories, but I think it's hard to argue that other regions aren't or are recent imperialistic expansions. At what point does it cease to be "imperialistic" and start to become "the way it has been for most of history?" Compare this with almost every other empire: American, Roman, Russian (Soviet), Greek, Persian, etc - all of them expanded in a short time and collapsed (USA maybe not so much, but still lost colonies and concessions in...China! for example) in a short time, and don't today enjoy anywhere near the territory they did after their big imperial outings. Their presence today mirrors their presence before their big imperial thrust. Today, if you visit most places in China (again, Xinjian and Tibet excluded), you're not going to find really anyone who feels the borders are out of place. Wheras China's claims to both of those provinces has always been "to get back to the way things were" (for instance, in the Yuan dynasty), there isn't any other territory other than Mongolia for China to really claim based on history. It is unlikely that China would therefore have ambitions beyond it's current borders.
mpyne 13y ago
Vietnam would want to have a word with you on that one...

EGreg 13y ago

I agree, it's interesting that the Chinese build their Great Wall and haven't expanded past it since. Is that mostly true?

skybrian 13y ago

I think you're letting China off too easily. Similar reasoning could be used to justify Russia's invasion of Crimea, or even all of eastern Europe. Having ruled a country before doesn't justify attempting to occupy it again after independence. That's imperialist reasoning.

Zigurd 13y ago
You can look at specific cases: the 97% "vote" in Crimea is worthy of a banana republic. You can legitimately call that "imperialist" or "expansionist." You can also find deep flaws in the transfer of Hong Kong. It wasn't an open expression of the will of the people. But we also have the track record of how Hong Kong has been run since then. You will find good and bad in that record but it would be hard to call it an indication of imperialism.
- nemesisj 13y ago
  Heh, Hong Kong and Macau are a perfect of example of China having possessions taken from them (by Portugal and Britain) and then being returned. If anything, despite what people locally may have preferred at the time, we're talking a return after 100 years on territory that had been occupied for thousands of years by Chinese.

tokenadult 13y ago

China is the only country that has no demonstrable history of imperialism outside of its historically occupied borders. I call baloney on that. (Basis of knowledge: study of Chinese history, culture, and language since 1975 and residence overseas in east Asia.) China's territory has expanded ENORMOUSLY from the historic regions that were part of the mainstream development of Chinese history and culture. The Chinese language developed a new word for the chief national ruler (皇帝), conventionally translated "emperor," at the time 2,000 years ago when China went on a long period of sustained imperial conquest and expansion. This is still very much part of Chinese geopolitical thinking today. The current occupation of the historic territory of Tibet and Eastern Turkestan by the People's Republic of China regime actually has very meager historical precedent, as those territories and the territories of China proper have mostly only had common rulers during the conquest dynasties of the Yuan (Mongol) and Qing (Manchu) periods of Chinese history. I live in a town with a very large Tibetan diaspora (I see "Free Tibet" bumper stickers all over town, and the Dalai Lama recently celebrated Tibetan New Year here), and I am well aware that Chinese conquest of Tibet is historically recently, naked imperialism, and extremely disliked by the population of Tibet.

nemesisj 13y ago
Hmm, maybe we're simply debating when the Chinese territory solidified? I think it's generally accepted that China's territory has been more or less the same through most of its history (or at least for the last thousand years?). In fact, if anything, today's borders are less than several of the most recent dynasties. Yes, if you go back to several thousand years BC, you'll find the civilisation concentrated quite a bit more, but so was every other people group. Here's a nice illustration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Territories_of_Dynasties_i... Yes, you can make an argument that Tibet and Xinjiang are not part of the mainstream Chinese territories, but I think it's hard to argue that other regions aren't or are recent imperialistic expansions. At what point does it cease to be "imperialistic" and start to become "the way it has been for most of history?" Compare this with almost every other empire: American, Roman, Russian (Soviet), Greek, Persian, etc - all of them expanded in a short time and collapsed (USA maybe not so much, but still lost colonies and concessions in...China! for example) in a short time, and don't today enjoy anywhere near the territory they did after their big imperial outings. Their presence today mirrors their presence before their big imperial thrust. Today, if you visit most places in China (again, Xinjian and Tibet excluded), you're not going to find really anyone who feels the borders are out of place. Wheras China's claims to both of those provinces has always been "to get back to the way things were" (for instance, in the Yuan dynasty), there isn't any other territory other than Mongolia for China to really claim based on history. It is unlikely that China would therefore have ambitions beyond it's current borders.

mpyne 13y ago

Vietnam would want to have a word with you on that one...