|
Koramei posted:I know I'm coming off like the internet China defence force (where did proprc go anyway) but the west basically did do those things you know. I think that the argument is that if China was an inherently superior culture and society the West wouldn't have hosed them over as frequently, as hard, and as easily as they did.
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
How well you win wars is a pretty outdated metric to be measuring societal and cultural worth with. edit: I can understand making GBS threads on China if you happen to live in China and have to deal with this nationalist bullshit every day, but for the people that don't, taking that stance is a bit problematic. Koramei fucked around with this message at 21:59 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Koramei posted:How well you win wars is a pretty outdated metric to be measuring societal and cultural worth with. Maybe, although the ability to protect and propagate itself could be considered a still-relevant metric and war is one way to do that. Martial strength is a common thing to appeal to when it comes to nationalism.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I know I'm coming off like the internet China defence force (where did proprc go anyway) but the west basically did do those things you know. It's vastly overstated for modern audiences. Seriously. Contact with the West was a serious driver of the Qing dynasty's economic collapse, but you'd be very hard pressed to make an argument that contact with the West drove its political or military collapse. The Taiping Rebellion was possibly the largest armed conflict of the 19th century (yes, larger than the Napoleonic Wars) and saw the Qing dynasty lose control of fully half its territory, and it tends to get glossed in favor of a Western contact narrative of Qing collapse.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
"The century of humiliation" is absurd for the same reason calling the 20th century a "Century of German Humiliation" or the 19th "The Century of French Humiliation" would be absurd, because its only purpose is to instill an us-vs-them mentality into the citizenry and stoke the fires of xenophobia to keep people rallied around the government. The list of European countries in the last few centuries that have lost territory or had to pay huge war indemnities is a mile long. I realize that xenophobia is a great tool for the government to keep people focused on their supposed "enemies" instead of their lack of legal or political rights but that doesn't make it any more defensible.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It's vastly overstated for modern audiences. Seriously. Contact with the West was a serious driver of the Qing dynasty's economic collapse, but you'd be very hard pressed to make an argument that contact with the West drove its political or military collapse. The Taiping Rebellion was possibly the largest armed conflict of the 19th century (yes, larger than the Napoleonic Wars) and saw the Qing dynasty lose control of fully half its territory, and it tends to get glossed in favor of a Western contact narrative of Qing collapse. Wasn't the Taiping Rebellion caused by a guy who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus? I mean that could count as "Western Contact" in some weird way.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Well sure, but by that logic every death caused by gunpowder could be blamed on the Chinese.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
The British and French provided weapons, money, training, and officers to the Qing government and this aid was instrumental (invaluable really) in defeating the Taipings and saving the Qing Empire, but you don't tend to hear about that in conventional narratives of the fall of the Qing. In the late 19th Germans sold the Chinese a pair of almost-modern battleships that outclassed everything in Japan's arsenal. Indeed, without foreign assistance the Qing government probably would have collapsed some time in the mid-late 19th century. Arguably that would have been a better outcome for the Chinese people, although serious alternatives to the Imperial system wouldn't be ready and waiting in the wings until the early 20th century. This is all however a more complicated story than the modern Chinese government or Western survey courses are interested in telling, as it involves troubling questions about what "China" really is, the Qing Empire's relationship to its successor states, and the role of the Chinese themselves in the collapse of the Chinese state.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Well sure, but by that logic every death caused by gunpowder could be blamed on the Chinese. Doesn't stop nationalist historians from using that argument though! The west propped up the Qing like Argle says, since it was useful for their business. And of course, the nationalist stuff all glosses over the fact that the Qing were not even Chinese. The Manchus kept themselves separate, they never really integrated. A big part of the Xinhai Revolution was Chinese rising up against their Manchu masters.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
And we propped them up out of the goodness of our hearts I'm sure. It's just a bit silly to act like we did nothing at all wrong is my point. I know China is the big bad now but they too were subject to colonialism. Even if they're assholes about it, it doesn't really mean we can pretend it didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Literally no one has said the west did nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Koramei posted:And we propped them up out of the goodness of our hearts I'm sure. I already said why: the Qing were good for business. They had been thoroughly beaten and were cooperating with the west. The Taipings were approached by the colonial powers since they thought that maybe Christians would be more cooperative, but were judged to be loving nuts so all the support went to the Qing. hailthefish posted:Literally no one has said the west did nothing wrong. Yep. What we have said is that it was 150 years ago, things have changed, and that the party using it to keep frothing nationalism alive is insane.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
I've said this before but you have to remember that this isn't just an academic discussion where we can agree that the truth is somewhere in the middle, this is a fundamental myth underpinning the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party. It goes something like this, "China was subject to a century of humiliation at the hands of foreigners because it was weak and poor. The CCP has made China strong and rich, so don't worry about little things like the pollution or corruption or how we flagrantly ignore the constitution. China will be strong under us." All these things that we're pointing out as problematic are taught, unreservedly and without qualification, as the truth to generation after generation of Chinese youth with the naked goal of inculcating nationalism and a sense of grievance with the outside world. Whether these things are true or not really matter, because a fifth of the world's population are taught they are true with cynical political motives. If the century of humiliation narrative doesn't make a whole lot of sense, even if it has truthful elements, it's a problem because it's the basis of political thought for a billion people today. This really isn't about white guilt. It has real ramifications today. Focusing on what "we" should feel bad about is far from the point. The Chinese are also shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to teach this stuff since the Chinese now have a national inferiority complex and look like crazy whiny babies to everyone else any time something international happens. Both in person and institutionally. They have a real problem with understanding other people/countries and predicting how other people/countries will react to or perceive Chinese people/China on the world stage because of this warped version of history they learn in school. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 06:10 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
edit^^ yeah but we're not living in China after being brought up drinking PRC koolaid, this is an English speaking forum with users mostly hailing from places that are relatively antagonistic to the place right now. I don't think talking as though everyone's ignorant of China's ills is really necessary.Grand Fromage posted:I already said why: the Qing were good for business. Yes, but you guys are using "us saving their asses" to excuse colonialism. hailthefish posted:Literally no one has said the west did nothing wrong. hailthefish posted:Well, you see, it WOULD be so much better, China would be the richest and most powerful country, as the product of the superior and sophisticated society that's been around the longest, except those drat western imperialists sabotaged China's future during the century of humiliation, obviously. The Qing are not China, siding with people residing in a country does not mean what we are doing is not harmful to the country etc etc I can explain this more but I think you are all being willfully dense/ blindly hating on the place because living next to it for so long has corrupted your minds. Koramei fucked around with this message at 06:07 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yes, but you guys are using "us saving their asses" to excuse colonialism.  Who is doing that? The west didn't save China from anything and literally no one has said that except you. Colonialism and the CCP's century of humiliation narrative are not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
It works better if you read the whole post hth
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
^^ okay yeah true I'm probably being a bit dumb right now, I'll go to bed and reflect on this tomorrow. Grand Fromage posted:
Arglebargle III posted:The British and French provided weapons, money, training, and officers to the Qing government and this aid was instrumental (invaluable really) in defeating the Taipings and saving the Qing Empire, but you don't tend to hear about that in conventional narratives of the fall of the Qing. In the late 19th Germans sold the Chinese a pair of almost-modern battleships that outclassed everything in Japan's arsenal. Indeed, without foreign assistance the Qing government probably would have collapsed some time in the mid-late 19th century. Arguably that would have been a better outcome for the Chinese people, although serious alternatives to the Imperial system wouldn't be ready and waiting in the wings until the early 20th century.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
That is a list of factual things that happened. Propping up the Qing government and saving China are not the same thing, either.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
The US gave arms to the Mujahideen thereby saving all Afghan people.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
I have literally no idea what you're talking about at this point, you're arguing with yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This line from the Wikipedia page should tell you all you need to know about those endeavors: The Chinese even tried to send ambassadors, but the Persian traders who made a fortune as middlemen lied about the distance and told them the way was full of dragons.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Everybody please check your privilege and stop talking about stuff because you're white.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Some clarification might would be a good thing. The "Century of Humiliation" is not a neutral term for the colonial period, it is a specific narrative created by the CCP about the period roughly from the first Opium War to 1949. It takes the actual history of colonialism in China and builds a specific story about how "the west" (essentially all white people countries whether or not they had anything to do with China) and Japan hosed up China pretty bad, and how the glorious Communist Party under the leadership of Chairman Mao saved China from its enemies. The truth is stretched throughout this, but it's all based in truth which helps it be effective. However, it's not just a historical story. It's filled with loaded language, right from the name down. Humiliation. The narrative is spun to promote Chinese nationalism, a sense of injustice against the rest of the world, a feeling of inferiority, and to reinforce the idea that only the CCP brought China out of this dark period and is restoring it to its rightful place in the world. The history of western and Japanese colonialism in China is not the same thing as the Century of Humiliation. Maybe conflating the two is the issue here. One of them is a history of things that happened, the other is a political tool based on real events and then built into a whole other thing.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
synertia posted:Everybody please check your privilege and stop talking about stuff because you're white. As a proud mixed-race* white man of African descent I am offended by this post. *2% Neanderthal on my greatx103 grandfather's side don't subspecies-shame.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I've said this before but you have to remember that this isn't just an academic discussion where we can agree that the truth is somewhere in the middle, this is a fundamental myth underpinning the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party. It goes something like this, "China was subject to a century of humiliation at the hands of foreigners because it was weak and poor. The CCP has made China strong and rich, so don't worry about little things like the pollution or corruption or how we flagrantly ignore the constitution. China will be strong under us." This, while making claims on land that's supposed to have been territory at some point in history. So what will happen if corruption and environmental problems get worse? Blame it on the rest of the world? Power Khan fucked around with this message at 08:25 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
I am an apologist for colonialism because I think Hong Kong is hella awesome and love living here so
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
I've only lived in former colonies those being the USA and Hong Kong.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Also absurdly huge percentages of Hong Kongers always say they wish they were still under British rule when polled about it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
The Qing Dynasty was killed mostly by itself and was in the state of decline that all Chinese imperial dynasties went into by 1840. Massive corruption, byzantine politics, and the inability to effectively govern its territory were issues afflicting the regime. You could argue that foreign intervention and wars with Western powers hastened their demise but who's to say that the Taiping or some other rebellion like the White Lotus rebellion in Sichuan wouldn't have done the job? The Qing were massively unpopular by the 19th century and their overthrow would have happened eventually.
RocknRollaAyatollah fucked around with this message at 11:34 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
There's also that Chinese civil war so you had a different kind of rhetoric about China as well. If you look at the portrayal of Sun yat sen history was very interesting. Chinese in Hong Kong tend to celebrate his southern heritage and hk connection. But when he had trouble with the local British authorities for antagonizing the qing and status quo, it was kind of overlooked. As far as I know, main stream mainland history don't really talk about the complicated power balance and shifting positions between the different political powers and actors. But on the other hand the kmt is portrayed in a slightly softer light instead of the usual bandits and warlords.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Also absurdly huge percentages of Hong Kongers always say they wish they were still under British rule when polled about it. That's funny , because the current government surplus stays in Hong Kong instead of flowing into the crown coffers.Not that everyone in hk is benefiting because the government rather blow 17billion hkd on a railroad line saving 25 minutes
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 12:08
|
|
|
I wish the anarchists that wanted to adopt Esperanto as the official language had won.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
Koramei posted:And we propped them up out of the goodness of our hearts I'm sure. China is pretty unique in that it was actively being subject to western colonialism and subjecting other peoples to colonialism that was way more brutal than what they were having done to them at exactly the same time. You can look at Qing officials like Lu Kun who was actively involved in subjugating and destroying central Asian peoples like the Dzunghars, upon whose 300,000 bones Urumqi was built, without any kind of thought except happiness at destroying the barbarians, who then went down south to try to deal with the westerners before and during the Opium War and whined about how awful the Westerners were treating the poor Chinese. This is another issue with China's century of humiliation talk, there is absolutely no talk going on about China's own colonial history. Mao used to talk a big game about stopping Han chauvinism, but out in Xinjiang they found out that that just encourages the natives to start criticizing too, and that makes them start getting ideas, so it was quietly phased out. Look at the Taiwan natives, in Chinese they're still called the 'High Mountain People' well, guess why they live in the high mountains?? The Qing dynasty methods to destroy their culture, push them off the best land and assimilate them were copied almost exactly by the Japanese when they took Taiwan, but when those exact same policies were forced on the Chinese there (have to take a name in the new culture, go to school where instruction is in that language, complex tax and trade rules that reward people who assimilate) well... that was an outrage! The victimization complex of the Chinese must look pretty ironic to all the people who have been victimized by the Chinese themselves, I'm surprised that the minorities don't go nuts more often. At least in Americans schools now we're basically told that we were wrong to take the Indian's land, and I can't imagine colonialism of the 18th and 19th century varieties being popular in European or American nations today, even though obviously there are a lot of people who don't really care or would disagree. Our consciousness has advanced to the point where we sympathize with these people. Some human rights philosophers say the advance of human rights isn't really based on anything that 'makes sense' in a philosophical sense (I mean people have always known murder and theft were wrong) but rather it's based on little more than sympathy, the fact that we are seeing other people as fully human in an emotional sense rather than an intellectual sense. We can watch documentaries where people explain how they were raped or their families murdered, and we feel sympathy for them. Think of stuff like the Kony video. The thing is, Joe Chinaman is way too wrapped up in feeling sorry for himself and the humiliations pushed upon him to think about how his nation and culture have affected others. Think of the disbelief most people seem to feel as to why Uighurs are not happy with the govt, or even something like why would HKers prefer the British, or why would Taiwan want to be independent, even from sophisticated people who themselves don't like the government!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
caberham posted:There's also that Chinese civil war so you had a different kind of rhetoric about China as well. Actually, Sun Yat-Sen has a very interesting portrayal throughout the entire country. He's celebrated by both the Nationalists and the Communists to the extent that there are several roads in mainland China and Taiwan named after him. He reminds me a bit of George Washington with the whole "father of our country, non political*" image that seems to have developed around him. *(Except hating the Qing but no one really objects to that)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
caberham posted:That's funny , because the current government surplus stays in Hong Kong instead of flowing into the crown coffers.Not that everyone in hk is benefiting because the government rather blow 17billion hkd on a railroad line saving 25 minutes Yeah but then you also don't have people from the Mainland making GBS threads everywhere/buying up all the baby formula/pushing people in front of them in crowded areas etc. There's definitely a large group of the population that prefer life pre 1997.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
This does create an interesting concept of governance and future actions of potential with regard to the PRC. Given China's current claims on EEZ waters which -even if there was a snowball's chance in hell of justification that could be submitted for UN approval- still claims waters within the EEZ of neighboring countries like Vietnam and the Philippines. Is this grandstanding supposed to help reinforce the PRC's claims of historical sovereignty to its civilians? And what about the endgame? If and when China burns through its domestic resources and the citizenry start to complain, how will they fuel their obvious yearning for expansion? All-but-Nominal Annexation?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
Kegslayer posted:Yeah but then you also don't have people from the Mainland making GBS threads everywhere/buying up all the baby formula/pushing people in front of them in crowded areas etc. There's definitely a large group of the population that prefer life pre 1997. I'd say among my Hong Kong friends, almost all of them think it was better being British, but all think the best would be if they were Singapore.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:This does create an interesting concept of governance and future actions of potential with regard to the PRC. Given China's current claims on EEZ waters which -even if there was a snowball's chance in hell of justification that could be submitted for UN approval- still claims waters within the EEZ of neighboring countries like Vietnam and the Philippines. Is this grandstanding supposed to help reinforce the PRC's claims of historical sovereignty to its civilians? The resources thing isn't the issue that it used to be in the postwar world. When Japan is the #3 economy in the world behind the US and China, and has been in the top three for 30 years or more, despite having almost no natural resources beyond fish and timber, securing natural resources through territorial expansion isn't so critical. Japan of course has access to all the resources they need, they just import them all. They even import timber because they'd rather not harvest it in Japan despite their huge forests. People like to poo poo on America but the US Navy and nuclear umbrella has enforced free navigation of the seas and thus relatively free international trade for the last 70 years. (The whole globalization thing with the communications technology and innovations in logistics helped too, I'm not saying the American military did it all.) For the foreseeable future commodities will remain fungible (I think I'm using that term right?) and China should be under no particular pressure to secure resources through territorial expansion. Besides, the CPC has shown that in the end it's willing to gun down hundreds of civilians in the streets rather than accept political reforms. So I always wonder why people ask what the citizens can demand from their government. The CPC will bend to public pressure as far as it wants to, and real attempts to extract concessions will be met with lethal force. At least that's the historical precedent. You know I never realized until today that Tiananmen Square happened before the other 1989 revolutions. I wonder if the media coverage about it influenced the GDR military's decision to refuse the orders to shoot. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 15:27 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I'd say among my Hong Kong friends, almost all of them think it was better being British, but all think the best would be if they were Singapore. Mostly the English-speaking mid-to-upper class would prefer British to Chinese rule. My friends explained it thusly: they were never too fond of the Brits and Hong Kong was incredibly corrupt until the 70's and downright racist, and after 1997 they were promised that they'd finally run their own affairs. When that didn't happen, and the government is now run by pro-China cronies, they got pissed off and would prefer the Brits quietly running things for their own self-interest than CY telling them it's for their own good. However, there are enough PRC-flag-flying hovels in the New Territories for me to be aware that the "traditional" villagers are happy to be "reunited with the glorious motherland" again.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
The PRC pays triads very well. That may help.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 15:36
|
|