|
Majorian posted:No, but my point is, I think that we can convince them to turn their policy into something other than a black hole. Peat only makes up around 8% of Russia's energy production, but at this point it's becoming as much of a liability for Russia as it is an asset - peatland fires helped start the wildfires that covered Moscow, Nizhniy Novgorod, Voronezh, and a bunch of other places in smoke. So I think we could make them cut back on the peat growing/burning if we tied that issue to other agreements. quote:With regard to what Russia could do to spoil relations between the US and Iran, I agree with you that Russia probably won't be able to scuttle the nuclear agreement that's on the table (if they even wanted to). But what concerns me is what happens if this agreement fails. Does Iran then turn to Russia once again to help them with their nuclear program? If so, does that cause decision-makers in the US and Israel do really stupid things, like trying to bomb their reactors? That would be really sucky. quote:Well, that's why I think the thing we have to do is let them think that they've beaten us, by formally giving up on Ukrainian accession to NATO. This lets Putin publicly declare victory and claim to his people, "I've stopped the NATO invaders! Worship me!" I guarantee you, the Russian public will eat it up. quote:Well, but what's going to be more unpalatable to German or French voters - backtracking on their promises to Ukraine, or having their electricity bills go up? A lot of people here, yourself and myself included, care about what happens to the Ukrainian public, but I honestly don't think most Europeans (or Americans) give much of a poo poo. No, they're not the only countries in the EU, but this kind of backs up what people like Matlock, Dean, etc., were warning about in that 1995 paper I posted several pages back: a rift is growing between the interests of Old and New Europe on these issues. quote:Eh, Georgia is an issue we're going to have to give up on before long too, though. We honestly have no clout in that region, and there's not much we can do that won't make that situation markedly worse. Transnistria's a stickier issue, but I have a feeling that Russia would at least back away from the hard line if we were to make it clear that Ukraine and Georgia won't be joining NATO anytime soon. Also, keep in mind, there isn't just one type of clash with Russia. It's not an all-or-nothing sort of thing, where if we take the hard line on Transnistria but concede on issues like Ukraine and Georgia, we're guaranteed to have another Cold War. But the less flexible we show ourselves to be on more issues, the more likely it will be that we'll have a longer, nastier standoff. Also, I feel like I should be yielding the floor or something so other people can post.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Well, with regard to the peat burning, I have a feeling that they still need a little push from us to get rid of it altogether and redirect oil/natural gas production to fill in the gap. An agreement would probably be pretty helpful in getting them over the line. With regard to getting rid of hawks in the US and Israel, I couldn't agree more. But if Iran does turn back towards Russia and against us, that's going to be a harder thing to accomplish. You're right that Putin will want to discuss more issues than just Ukraine's status in NATO, but I think we can talk him down on a lot of those issues. It's going to take giving up on Ukrainian and Georgian NATO accession to really bring him to the table, though - that's going to be the make-or-break issue. The status of Crimea is probably something we'll have to demur on, but that's another area where we can't really do much. We don't have to recognize it as legally part of Russia, I'm guessing, but we will have to at least tacitly accept that Russia has it for the foreseeable future. I have a feeling we'll be able to punt on the Ukraine-in-the-EU issue more than is immediately obvious, since right now they're such a basket case that I doubt too many EU countries actually want them to join anytime soon. With regard to Old Europe versus New Europe, I'm a little more skeptical than you are on getting France, Germany, etc., to take a hawkish stance towards Russia. I'd be interested in hearing why you think they could be, though, because I fully admit I could be wrong on that, or might be missing a variable. With regard to Russia being inflexible on all of these issues, I don't think that's an entirely fair characterization. They really did seem to be willing to play nicely with their neighbors in the 90's and early 2000's. As late as 2000, Putin was talking about the possibility of Russia joining NATO. That starting point, and the ending point of Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008, nicely bookends a period of significant change in Russian foreign policy, an amping-up of aggressiveness that correlates with the US' policy of neoconservatism during that decade. They've grown less flexible than they were, but as with all things in international politics, that was in response to something. Remember, as far as the Russians are concerned, we're the ones who upended the Budapest Memorandum before they did, first with the Orange Revolution, and then with the Bucharest Summit's promise that Ukraine and Georgia would be part of NATO in 2008. My point in this isn't to keep flogging the dead horse of NATO's eastward expansion, by the way, but to illustrate that we probably could get Russia to be flexible on these issues again. quote:Also, I feel like I should be yielding the floor or something so other people can post. I know, me too. Sorry everyone - I'll shut up for a few hours in case other people want to get in here!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
As someone who is coming in here not knowing anything and admittedly jumping in at the end, how unrealistic is it to think that the US could end up forming some kind of security partnership with China to head of Russia's antics? Would either side even be amenable to the concept?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
site posted:As someone who is coming in here not knowing anything and admittedly jumping in at the end, how unrealistic is it to think that the US could end up forming some kind of security partnership with China to head of Russia's antics? Would either side even be amenable to the concept? Very unrealistic. China just wants to grow and eventually surpass the US as the leading power in the world. Whatever distractions face the US in the meantime are only to China's advantage. Unless Russia poses a true existential threat to China I can't see them wanting to help the US do anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
site posted:As someone who is coming in here not knowing anything and admittedly jumping in at the end, how unrealistic is it to think that the US could end up forming some kind of security partnership with China to head of Russia's antics? Would either side even be amenable to the concept?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
But does the party really want that? Wouldn't that place them on unsteady footing economically and politically? I need to go immerse myself in the China thread...
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:This would sorta be like Britain deciding to ally with Germany The irony of this is that Wilhelm II desperately wanted an alliance between Germany and the UK. He hoped that the Tirpitz Plan would demonstrate to the UK that Germany was such an ascendant power that it was useless to try to stop it and far more in their interest to be friends with them. Of course, that didn't quite work out the way he envisioned it. Willie was never a particularly bright boy. site posted:But does the party really want that? Wouldn't that place them on unsteady footing economically and politically? My personal reading of China is that they really don't have any aggressive plans or strong aspirations of worldwide military hegemony. As has historically been the case with China, their foreign policy is a conservative one - the Middle Kingdom has everything it needs in it, let the rest of the world rot for all they care (but keep buying our poo poo, guys!). As long as American and Russian money keeps flowing into their coffers, they don't have much of a stake in a conflict between us and Moscow. True, they'd probably be happy to wrench some of the Far East away from Russia so that they can tap into its resources, but that's a pretty long-term goal. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Mar 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:My personal reading of China is that they really don't have any aggressive plans or strong aspirations of worldwide military hegemony. As has historically been the case with China, their foreign policy is a conservative one - the Middle Kingdom has everything it needs in it, let the rest of the world rot for all they care (but keep buying our poo poo, guys!). As long as American and Russian money keeps flowing into their coffers, they don't have much of a stake in a conflict between us and Moscow. True, they'd probably be happy to wrench some of the Far East away from Russia so that they can tap into its resources, but that's a pretty long-term goal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
There's a bit of a difference between wanting a few small islands off their coast that have historically been theirs, and seeking lebensraum on the other. There's not much evidence that they (or Putinist Russia, for that matter) have the global aspirations that you suggest. E: That doesn't mean we should agree with their claims, but I do think it's a good idea to keep a little perspective. Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:There's a bit of a difference between wanting a few small islands off their coast that have historically been theirs..." Well, if you consider the Chinese Communist Party a legitimate successor to the Yuan Imperial dynasty, maybe. Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Malaysia have some competing claims, though, that are worth just about as much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
enigma74 posted:Well, if you consider the Chinese Communist Party a legitimate successor to the Yuan Imperial dynasty, maybe. Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Malaysia have some competing claims, though, that are worth just about as much. They're welcome to try to take them for themselves! Who knows, maybe they'll hold onto them until the Chinese get tired and give up. But I kind of doubt it. Nobody's going to war with China over the Spratly Islands, because nobody cares about them enough to pay that price for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:There's a bit of a difference between wanting a few small islands off their coast that have historically been theirs, and seeking lebensraum on the other. There's not much evidence that they (or Putinist Russia, for that matter) have the global aspirations that you suggest.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 14:00
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:China has a history of military adventures in its neighboring states though, and the current size of China is the result of conquest and colonization which has replaced native populations with settlers from the core. The Spratly Islands issue which China is trying to solve by simply building military bases to dominate the area don't really indicate a China content to accept its current boundaries either. Nor China's interest in an Azores base. The whole all "under heaven" concept of sovereignty also fits in perfectly well with China taking over America's position as world leader too. Everyone has a history of military adventures if you're counting the entire history of every nation ever as if it were yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Everyone has a history of military adventures if you're counting the entire history of every nation ever as if it were yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Majorians post was plainly taking a long historical perspective, so bringing up centuries old military adventures is perfectly fine. Plus even limiting yourself to the PRC still leaves you with wars/conflicts on pretty much every border. Zhenghe's voyage and the lack of colonialism during the 16th century is a pretty good supporting argument that China has lacked the West's penchant for systemic exploitative imperialism; my point is that claiming China has such a history is dubious unless you actually study them in context; which adventurism we talking here? The Qing transitioning from the previous Ming informal empire in the Western frontier to formal empire in the 18th century? The brief occupation of northern Vietnam by the Ming? The two invasions of Japan? Or is all of the intrastate warfare during the Spring/Autumn and Warring States period included? And then what do we compare this to, American Manifest Destiny? the purchase of the Hudson Bay company by Ottawa? The French and British colonial acquisitions around the world? The Spanish conquests of the America's? Russian subjugation of the Tartar's and Caucasians? Rome? Belgian Congo? I think its clear that not all Imperialism is equal here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Zhenghe's voyage and the lack of colonialism during the 16th century is a pretty good supporting argument that China has lacked the West's penchant for systemic exploitative imperialism
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Sorry, maybe I should've rephrased a couple things. 1. Not necessarily a "security" partnership, but just a strengthening of the more general one that would show the China isn't tolerating Putin's adventurism in eastern Europe? 2. When I said uneasy footing in my reply i mean specifically in relation to its own citizenry. They cant let the people have too much, after all, or it weakens them, so why would they want to be the world's best?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Hmmm, sounds familiar?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionian_Revolt posted:At the heart of the rebellion was the dissatisfaction of the Greek cities of Asia Minor with the tyrants appointed by Persia to rule them, [...] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionian_Revolt posted:The Ionian Revolt constituted the first major conflict between Greece and the Persian Empire, and as such represents the first phase of the Greco-Persian Wars. Although Asia Minor had been brought back into the Persian fold, Darius vowed to punish Athens and Eretria for their alleged support of the revolt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Persian_invasion_of_Greece posted:The first campaign in 492 BC, led by Mardonius, re-subjugated Thrace and forced Macedon to become a client kingdom of Persia, [...] It's goddamned frustrating to see the European leaders like Merkel giving leeway to Putin, letting history basically repeat itself for their short term economic interests. A new, expanding Russia will not just stop at Eastern Ukraine, we have seen how a power hungry imperialist will go before before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:Hmmm, sounds familiar? We've seen plenty of dictators and authoritarian leaders also stop after a bit when their resources start running out, or when it's simply not worth it for them to keep conquering. This is almost certainly the case with Putin. It's really silly to equate this situation with the expansion of the Persian Empire (say nothing of claiming similarities to Hitler, as other posters have done). A Buttery Pastry posted:And the US was strongly isolationist, right until it wasn't. Well, look - nobody's saying that China won't take on an aggressive foreign policy or try to supplant the US militarily sometime in the future. But it doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon. The US didn't automatically switch from isolationist to not-isolationist at the drop of a hat; there was a lot of stuff that happened to lead from point A to point B. That stuff hasn't happened with China yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, look - nobody's saying that China won't take on an aggressive foreign policy or try to supplant the US militarily sometime in the future. But it doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon. The US didn't automatically switch from isolationist to not-isolationist at the drop of a hat; there was a lot of stuff that happened to lead from point A to point B. That stuff hasn't happened with China yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Okay, we might be talking different time scales then. I'm thinking several decades from now, not anything immediate. For China really throwing its weight around I mean, an increasing rivalry might happen faster. Fair enough; I was mostly focusing on the near-to-medium-term future aspect of site's post: quote:As someone who is coming in here not knowing anything and admittedly jumping in at the end, how unrealistic is it to think that the US could end up forming some kind of security partnership with China to head of Russia's antics?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:No it's not. The only thing that Zheng He's voyage proves is that 16th century China had to be more careful about how it spent its resources in the face of pressure exerted by actors closer to home. The choice was made for exploitative imperialism closer to home. Localizing your oppression to your strategic neighbourhood doesn't make it more moral or defensible. What exploitative imperialism at home? Maintaining a buffer zone of fortified settlements to ward off the nomadic raiders constantly demanding tribute? The point is whatever China was doing at home pales in comparison to what the West has historically did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:No it's not. The only thing that Zheng He's voyage proves is that 16th century China had to be more careful about how it spent its resources in the face of pressure exerted by actors closer to home. The choice was made for exploitative imperialism closer to home. Localizing your oppression to your strategic neighbourhood doesn't make it more moral or defensible. But it kind of does - or least makes it less bad, or more preferable. It would be a little silly to say that someone like Putin or China's post-Mao leaders have been as evil as Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. Russia's and China's rulers may be authoritarian and pretty bad people on the whole, but if I have to choose between someone who is going to kill millions of his own countrymen and help start a war that kills 50 million others on the one hand, and someone who's going to make vague claims to the Spratly Islands, I don't think too many people could judge me harshly for picking the latter option.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But it kind of does - or least makes it less bad, or more preferable. It would be a little silly to say that someone like Putin or China's post-Mao leaders have been as evil as Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. Russia's and China's rulers may be authoritarian and pretty bad people on the whole, but if I have to choose between someone who is going to kill millions of his own countrymen and help start a war that kills 50 million others on the one hand, and someone who's going to make vague claims to the Spratly Islands, I don't think too many people could judge me harshly for picking the latter option. e: And really, using Hitler as the unit of badness seems kinda dishonest to me. Arguing that China has the potential for further imperialism on top of what it's already engaged in is not arguing that it's the next Nazi Germany. Nor does the existence of Hitler mean that Chinese imperialism isn't bad. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Mar 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Zhenghe's voyage and the lack of colonialism during the 16th century is a pretty good supporting argument that China has lacked the West's penchant for systemic exploitative imperialism; my point is that claiming China has such a history is dubious unless you actually study them in context; which adventurism we talking here? The Qing transitioning from the previous Ming informal empire in the Western frontier to formal empire in the 18th century? The brief occupation of northern Vietnam by the Ming? The two invasions of Japan? Or is all of the intrastate warfare during the Spring/Autumn and Warring States period included? Zheng He's voyages ended because they were never profitable, European colonialism of the 16th century were driven by the desire for key trade goods (spice, beaver fur etc) and/or precious metals which made their seaborne journeys highly profitable. Zheng He's journey's OTOH were not profitable and were ruinously expensive so they got stopped the first instance when the treasury came under stress. It doesn't have so much to do with Chinese national character (which is pretty orientalist btw) as much as there was far less incentive to have those than in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Typo posted:Zheng He's voyages ended because they were never profitable, European colonialism of the 16th century were driven by the desire for key trade goods (spice, beaver fur etc) and/or precious metals which made their seaborne journeys highly profitable. Zheng He's journey's OTOH were not profitable and were ruinously expensive so they got stopped the first instance when the treasury came under stress. It doesn't have so much to do with Chinese national character (which is pretty orientalist btw) as much as there was far less incentive to have those than in Europe. I don't think anybody's talking about national character or trying to be orientalist here though. What Raenir Salazar is arguing, if I'm understanding his post correctly, is that it may not be particularly wise to draw direct comparisons between the U.S.' ascendancy as a military and economic power on the one hand, and China's on the other. Context matters, and I think that's something that both of you are in fact asserting. (and doing so correctly, as far as I'm concerned) A Buttery Pastry posted:The exploitative imperialism closer to home was flooding the lands of other peoples with their own until they were the majority, forcing the local population into more marginal land. Though apparently it becomes less bad the moment the people you're oppressing are within your own borders? What you're describing is Sinicization, and while the way that Beijing treats a lot of their minority groups (particularly Uyghurs and Tibetans) is awful, the majority of the Han Chinese migrations that you allude to happened a long, long time ago. The Han migrated, they took over everything that we know as China nowadays, they ethnically cleansed, and there's not much we, as outsiders, can do about that, beyond encouraging them to not be dicks to their minorities. But it's also hard to draw conclusions about their future foreign policy from this as well. There's not much evidence that they're a particularly revisionist or utopian country at the moment, and I doubt they will be anytime in the near-to-medium term future either. quote:e: And really, using Hitler as the unit of badness seems kinda dishonest to me. Arguing that China has the potential for further imperialism on top of what it's already engaged in is not arguing that it's the next Nazi Germany. Nor does the existence of Hitler mean that Chinese imperialism isn't bad. No, but what it does underline is that China is not, at least for the moment, a particularly revisionist state with regard to the international order. Remember, this isn't a discussion about whether or not the CCP is evil, or if they're as evil as Hitler. It is, however, a discussion about how we can expect them to behave as their military, economic, and political clout increases over the coming decades. At this point, it doesn't seem likely that Chinese imperialism will expand beyond a few fringe zones that have been argued over for centuries, anytime in the near-to-medium-term future. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think anybody's talking about national character or trying to be orientalist here though. What Raenir Salazar is arguing, if I'm understanding his post correctly, is that it may not be particularly wise to draw direct comparisons between the U.S.' ascendancy as a military and economic power on the one hand, and China's on the other. Context matters, and I think that's something that both of you are in fact asserting. (and doing so correctly, as far as I'm concerned) Raenir Salazar posted:Zhenghe's voyage and the lack of colonialism during the 16th century is a pretty good supporting argument that China has lacked the West's penchant for systemic exploitative imperialism quote:What you're describing is Sinicization, and while the way that Beijing treats a lot of their minority groups (particularly Uyghurs and Tibetans) is awful, the majority of the Han Chinese migrations that you allude to happened a long, long time ago. The Han migrated, they took over everything that we know as China nowadays, they ethnically cleansed, and there's not much we, as outsiders, can do about that, beyond encouraging them to not be dicks to their minorities. But it's also hard to draw conclusions about their future foreign policy from this as well. There's not much evidence that they're a particularly revisionist or utopian country at the moment, and I doubt they will be anytime in the near-to-medium term future either. See what I did there? Slapping some polished rhetoric onto imperialism and finding less offensive words to describe what happened doesn't negate the underlying imperialism or make it more moral and to be honest leaves kind of a bad taste in my mouth. This isn't an oppression olympics and for the purposes of discussing either event I find it rather in bad taste that we're assigning value based on what we perceive the suffering of some group or another looks like from the comfort of our mom's basements. This isn't a contest to see which country is the world's biggest rear end in a top hat, and trying to grade events on some sort of sliding atrocity scale contributes very little to the substance of this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:See what I did there? Slapping some polished rhetoric onto imperialism and finding less offensive words to describe what happened doesn't negate the underlying imperialism or make it more moral and to be honest leaves kind of a bad taste in my mouth. This isn't an oppression olympics and for the purposes of discussing either event I find it rather in bad taste that we're assigning value based on what we perceive the suffering of some group or another looks like from the comfort of our mom's basements. This isn't a contest to see which country is the world's biggest rear end in a top hat, and trying to grade events on some sort of sliding atrocity scale contributes very little to the substance of this thread. This thread isn't about discussing the morals of imperalism though, it's about predicting how they will act and/or the history has any influence. Your morals have no weight when the leaders of China plans for the future, the history might though, especially when they're balancing a pretty fine line of nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
RajCooper posted:This thread isn't about discussing the morals of imperalism though, it's about predicting how they will act and/or the history has any influence. Your morals have no weight when the leaders of China plans for the future, the history might though, especially when they're balancing a pretty fine line of nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think anybody's talking about national character or trying to be orientalist here though. What Raenir Salazar is arguing, if I'm understanding his post correctly, is that it may not be particularly wise to draw direct comparisons between the U.S.' ascendancy as a military and economic power on the one hand, and China's on the other. Context matters, and I think that's something that both of you are in fact asserting. (and doing so correctly, as far as I'm concerned) Precisely. With the additional point that if you compare the expansionist periods of China to the expansionist periods of the West they are incomparable in terms of "bad stuff happening." Not that China didn't have its own share of "bad stuff happening" its more that if they had done anything remotely comparable its been lost to history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:The point I'm trying to make is that playing the oppression olympics by claiming one variant of imperialism is worse than the other doesn't contribute anything to what *is* being discussed. Alright yeah, we're on the same page there. Hambilderberglar posted:Blanket statements comparing Zheng He to Christopher Columbus or Vasco da Gama and drawing conclusions about countries' predisposition toward exploitative imperialism based on them don't hold much water to me. Probably ecoing what someone else has already said but... I'd say it is relevant to discuss different types of imperialism in the way that the limitations or opportunities of history could very well be the same today. Russia is still influenced by their location and how there is no real barrier between it and western europe. This influences them in a sense that any neighbouring states needs to be on their side to buy time in case of invasion(not that is is likely but for the sake of argument). And China, if it wants to expand overseas has to compete with other naval powers, where America holds its unique place in having access to two oceans makes it less likely to do so, coupled with it's history where it hasn't been a naval power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Precisely. With the additional point that if you compare the expansionist periods of China to the expansionist periods of the West they are incomparable in terms of "bad stuff happening." Not that China didn't have its own share of "bad stuff happening" its more that if they had done anything remotely comparable its been lost to history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
RajCooper posted:I'd say it is relevant to discuss different types of imperialism in the way that the limitations or opportunities of history could very well be the same today. Russia is still influenced by their location and how there is no real barrier between it and western europe. This influences them in a sense that any neighbouring states needs to be on their side to buy time in case of invasion(not that is is likely but for the sake of argument). And China, if it wants to expand overseas has to compete with other naval powers, where America holds its unique place in having access to two oceans makes it less likely to do so, coupled with it's history where it hasn't been a naval power.  China not having taken to sea in the past for its imperialism is a question of priorities, resource allocation and the condition of its strategic neighbourhood and has very little to do with any implied distaste that the Chinese supposedly have with regards to systemic exploitative imperialism. Today we see a China that has differing priorities, resource allocations and a different strategic neighbourhood. The fact that so much of its wealth is gathered and trade conducted not via land based routes like the silk road but on keel over the oceans. At the time of Zheng He there was no trade, meaningful or probably even at all, between the Chinese and North America. Basing any speculations on the reasoning or possible course of action of contemporary China on the decisions of the Ming is specious at best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Uh, if you are giving China pass on imperialism because all their atrocities happened within the borders of a "national China", you might as well wave away British colonial history because it all happened within the British state, and was thus non-imperialistic. The Zheng He episode, mentioned on this page, only demonstrates that even in the 15th century there remained a great differentiation of Chinese regions, in this case of the South-China coastal provinces and the traditional sources of the Imperial culture which lied inland, and that the Imperial periphery had its own political agency, and own political leadership (another demonstration can be seen in the pervasive phenomenon of Chinese coastal piracy and pirate kingdoms, which are often just pejorative terms for political rebellions). Further differences were demonstrable throughout China in the form of local currencies, tax systems, peasant levies, commodity laws, tenancy laws, corporate land ownership traditions... Not to mention the existence of "tribal people" in places like Yunnan, which was never eradicated, and which is completely incompatible with the myth of a national unified China. Effectively China was a collection of historically tied principalities placed under highly fluctuating levels of central control, not too different from European Empires, and at times arguably even less benevolent. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Mar 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What is the "bad stuff" which the West did (as opposed to accidentally caused) which is incomparable to what China did, in your mind? I don't recall the time where China conquered an entire continent an ocean away just for its resources while actively destroying the culture of indigenous peoples do you? steinrokkan posted:Uh, if you are giving China pass on imperialism because all their atrocities happened within the borders of a "national China", you might as well wave away British colonial history because it all happened within the British state, and was thus non-imperialistic. Are you really saying that China acquiring over a thousand years its hinterland of whats Han China today is comparable to the British colonialization of India?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't recall the time where China conquered an entire continent an ocean away just for its resources while actively destroying the culture of indigenous peoples do you? quote:Are you really saying that China acquiring over a thousand years its hinterland of whats Han China today is comparable to the British colonialization of India?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't recall the time where China conquered an entire continent an ocean away just for its resources while actively destroying the culture of indigenous peoples do you? Raenir Salazar posted:Are you really saying that China acquiring over a thousand years its hinterland of whats Han China today is comparable to the British colonialization of India?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Are you really saying that China acquiring over a thousand years its hinterland of whats Han China today is comparable to the British colonialization of India? In this case 'hinterland' is just another word for "place populated by peoples to be ruled". The hinterland of China was never fully integrated, until the 20th century that is. It was an empire in the same sense as any empire of the colonial era.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:That nuance is completely absent with claims that "China has lacked the West's penchant for systemic exploitative imperialism" though. As if systemic exploitative imperialism only happens when invaders arrive via water than land? Agree completely, I only meant that international security is not likely to be at risk from China due to imperialism directed overseas. I'm very much with you that what China is up to is imperialism, but it's in their own neighborhood and thus not really an immediate danger for the current security.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:In this case 'hinterland' is just another word for "place populated by peoples to be ruled". Bullshit.  Something like 80% of the highlighted area was certainly well integrated well before the 20th century. quote:I don't know if he is, but I certainly am. I don't know what to say to you dude but they seem like such completely different situations when you think about them critically. Most of it happened at, before, or otherwise around the birth of Christ; any 'state' expanding its borders overland was doing so a variety of reasons many of which would certainly be understandable even without modern understanding of ethics; for example I would give Rome a pass easily for its early expansion in Italy and while the Hundred Schools of Thought did present ethical philosophies that supposed "Hey guys, going over to someone else's house, stabbing people and taking their stuff might not be virtuous" it took a while before one of those won out and by that point Han China was established and China's imperialism switched to playing reversi with nomads. By the 17th century however the West doesn't have this excuse; you've had several crusades, Aztecs, the Inca, stuff happening in India and a growing trend of rationalization of various racial theories to justify their imperialism overseas, white man's burden and so on. Has any imperial dynasty have had a official government policy of systemically kidnapping children of various ethnic groups to make them more Han? I don't think they ever cared; either they could learn to write Chinese characters to participate or they could stay put while Han settlers swarmed around and boxed them in forever. They didn't have to, they had such a superior economic and social position that you had a reverse melting pot happen over generations. 2500 years of generations, there aren't very many particularly single events you can point to that compare to Spain deciding to repossess an entire continent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2015 17:37
|
|