Wow! We've kicked off quite a discussion. I'm not going to respond to everything right now, but I'm going to try and respond to parts I think are important.
I think it may have been referred to in a Cs session at one point.
It was. I remember it being in the double digits, percentage wise. Exceptionally high. Another session mentioned the historical high was in Dutch traders in Amsterdam, also in double digit percentages.
Or to put it another way, I don't think the leadership of those nations can take an opposing stance without some of the values that must inform that stance being or becoming real for them.
I 100% agree with this. Russia, by virtue of it's stance against America, has hastened its transformation into an actual anti-thesis. There are so many examples of this. I hope this process continues but absent of a powerful outside force, it's hard to tell if it will. I'd love to see the small, good developments in Russia and China explode in scope.
Prior to that, both the Chinese and Islamic worlds were highly developed but cooperative, not antagonistic, while Europe was still climbing out of the post-Roman empire Dark Age. In citing the Mongols, Caliphates and Ottomans, you're conflating regional dominance with what we have today - global hegemony, one center of power. As far as we know, there hasn't been anything like this since Atlantis.
I definitely concur that the Sino/Islamic worlds were developed, but I don't think I'd call them cooperative. Definitely not cooperative.
China in particular was not. Anyone who studies Chinese history sees that it is filled with conflict, internal and external, defensive and offensive.
Nor were the Caliphates. Both the Ummayads and the Ottomans engaged in rapid and aggressive expansions of territory, and not because they needed to. Did the Ummayads need to invade Iberia to secure themselves? Did the Ottomans need to claim Tunisia, or strike Vienna to maintain their position?
These states may not have had access to European exploration technology but they certainly sought as much dominance as they could take.
That's regional politics, incomparable to a situation where an alien culture from the opposite end of the 'world island' (Eurasia), 10,000 miles away on the far Western shores of the European peninsula, comes and says, "Trade with us or we'll burn everyone alive," then proceeds to burn everyone alive anyway and just steal everything instead. This practice was pretty much unheard of until certain Europeans landed on distant shores.
No, that's basically what the Mongols did everywhere. And the Turks. And various other steppe nomads. Except be 'trade' they meant 'tribute'. See Timurid. Also see how the Turks ethnically cleansed the Greeks out of Anatolia, year after year.
If you want a naval example, the Wokou were a pretty destructive bunch, but those were more East Asians invading other East Asians.
WWW, these places were conquered almost 1,000 years ago. Tibet has been part of China (on and off, but mostly on) since before your country even existed! Tibet is still very much a cultural entity. But where is the Native American culture today? Is it reasonable for me to conjecture that neither of the Americas are European at all? It is what it is! Now, what can that tell us?
Niall, your writing makes it seem like you've been offended, or 'triggered' as they say these days. My clue is that you probably didn't know what country I'm from, and it's not relevant. I don't know this for certain, it just seems like fearsome writing, and I think you'd rather us both learn from this than one cow the other into submission.
Now let's talk about this. Tibet has not been part of China for 1000 years. That's a misunderstanding of history.
Just because Kublai Khan formed the Yuan dynasty (a very short lived dynasty, at that) doesn't mean Tibet is Chinese. Tibet was conquered by Mongols. You wouldn't say that Korea is part of China too, or Vladivostock, even though both were also owned at one time by the Mongol Yuan dynasty.
I'll put aside the point about my country, whatever that means.
Let's talk about Native American culture. Lots of it exists, though it doesn't span the land it once did. No one's trying to belittle NA suffering, although the same example could be applied to the Manchus, whose culture is all but lost at this stage.
By the way, which 'China hawks' have you been reading?
I don't read as much as I used too, but I like to read foreign policy from China every now and again, and the occasional financial article.
To get the pulse on the CCP, I prefer the People's Daily and Xinhua because they are exact about what they say and why. These papers double as propaganda outlets, so they often have hawkish sentiments.
We're not pretending; we're going by their track record. Countries invaded, or foreign governments overthrown: nil. If the CCP is the most evil manifestation of Chinese-ness, then they are saintly next to their Western counterparts.
Niall, please don't get caught in the trap of the false dichotomy. Rest assured, the Chinese have more evil manifestations to their name. Or have you forgotten the consequences of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? Tens of millions dying from hubris and the will of a few to make reality their twisted vision.
As for countries invaded, it seems to me that you don't know Chinese history. Countries invaded, by the CCP alone (not including other Chinese parties):
Manchuko/Manchuria (as a result of WW2, I'm aware)
Kuomintang China (That the Kuomintang could have maintained a rump state, like the various Wu dynasties, was never in doubt)
Vietnam (China and Vietnam continue to have a tense relationship. Undoubtedly, had the Vietnamese been weaker opponents, the Chinese could have continued on to Hanoi)
Tibet (Tibet had been de facto independent for decades, as had Turkestan under their own Warlords. The CCP crushed this government and forced into exile)
India (China launched the invasion into Ladakh, not the other way around)
We could even include the USSR (during the tension between the two, the Chinese launched their own attacks on Soviet Units) or the countries of the South China Sea (who consider China's attempts to seize marine territory to be shameless and aggressive, which it is). We could probably include the Korean war too, as the Chinese pushed well into South Korea.
Whether they had Causus Belli for their actions is irrelevant. The modern CCP is no stranger to invading foreign countries, though thankfully they have been much more responsible about their use of force. But perhaps it was also a lack of opportunity? Hard to say.
They are so qualitatively different that you need two different terms or descriptions to define each. There are no, nor have their ever been, Chinese colonies on other continents.
Let's talk colonists. Are you aware of the role and power played by Chinese emigrants as colonists throughout South East Asia? Much like how most of Latin America is run primarily by European descended colonists, the Chinese colonists in many countries have enormous influence. Singapore is the obvious answer, but you can also look at Malaysia, the Phillipines, Thailand, and Indonesia.
I definitely agree that they are qualitatively different, but not to the degree that you do. It's easy to think Asians are so much more peaceful and cooperative, but history shows them to be as if not more violent that Europeans were. It was simply done in a different way, peculiar to their character.
Also on the colonies on other continents, some suggest there used to a Chinese colony on the West coast of North America. Chinese relics have also been found as far as East Africa for certain, although that could also have been the result of Zheng He's voyages.
Certainly all this happened, but can it be simplified to 'historical Chinese policy'? You've listed a multiplicity of ethnicities, spanning several eras, as if one monolithic entity has been in charge throughout! Who or what is 'Chinese' today is not necessarily who or what is 'Chinese' tomorrow.
Yes, it can. It seems to me that you have not studied China in depth.
Are you familiar with the Chinese literary classics, especially those concerning war? Things like Sun Tzu's Art of War, the Spring and Summer Annals, The Six Secret Teachings, and the Wei Laiozi. Historical Chinese policy is, if one thing, sophisticated and consistent in its application.
The same tactics used on the Xiongnu by the Han were used against the Eastern Turks by the Tang, as well as others. The Chinese have had the same historical problems again and again.
Historically, against the Wu people (who were once more like the Miao) and have long been thoroughly assimilated into the Han. This is documented in the Qin's domination of early China, especially their invasion of the Chu state.
The Manchus are a recent example. After running the Qing dynasty for hundreds of years, they were all but outbred and what few remained were violently attacked during the fall of the Qing. Apparently some vestiges of Manchu culture survive, but not a lot.
The biggest example of ongoing genocide would probably be in Xinjiang, or East Turkestan. Again, it's with the classic Chinese method of simply migrating en masse to a place where people would not rather have migrants. That qualifies as an invasion. Uighurs are not Chinese after all.
This isn't the flagrant extermination definition that Euros are used too, but I think it applies. They have a different way of doing things that is, I think, far less gruesome, but the results is still the intentional extermination of a culture.
What books on Chinese history would you recommend?
I would start with translations on the ancient classics so you see the world through their eyes. It is very different. Translations are never perfect though.
I would begin with the Art of War, the Spring and Summer Annals, and of course the Analects. Maybe some related commentaries. After you get a feel for the mindset, I'd dive into "Science and Civilization in China" by Joseph Needham. He was a far leftist and Sinophile, but also a brilliant man. That will show you just how brilliant Chinese culture is, but also how they lack other positive traits.
Then something like "China: A History (Volume 1): From Neolithic Cultures through the Great Qing Empire, (10,000 BCE - 1799 CE)".
I haven't read all these titles, but I've read quite a few of them. I doubt you'll ever finish Needham's volumes, there's a lot, but they're always full of insight. My favorite are, by far, the classics. The ancients made their knowledge as concise and clear as possible.
Europeans more altruistic than other cultures? May I suggest that you're seeing what you want to see!
Have you ever really thought about it?
Consider charity rates, violent crime rates, and general social trust among homogenous European cultures. It's no secret that charities are dominated by contributions from Europeans. Check out the World Giving Index.
There's other metrics we could use to, I'm sure. This can be verified through experimentation.
You should check out this thread, where some more has been thrown out.
Will do, thanks. I hope you actually read my responses as they took a long time to write. :/
The Europeans who began the global hegemonic process in the medieval period were far less developed, in every respect, than their Muslim and Chinese contemporaries. Heck, the first Crusaders didn't even know what was out there until they began their quest to 'take back the Holy Land for Jesus' and 'civilize the infidels' (who were far more civilized than they)!
I think that's a very crude understanding of European culture and history. Take the Islamic cultures; Most of them got their early infusion of knowledge from Roman/Byzantine and Persian Conquests. The great Arabic philosophers and scientists all speak of 'the Great one', Aristotle. Geniuses, like Avicenna, are very open about the immense contributions of the advanced Romans and the continuing theological battles between them and the culturally more sophisticated Byzantine populations.
And that's just one example. There was plenty of sophistication to go around as we saw with Aquinas' lengthy replies to Islamic Theologians in Summa Contra Gentiles and other works aimed at recently conquered muslims in Hispania.
History is a lot more complicated than that. We do no one any favors by disrespecting our history with that kind of simplification.
Which came first; the military tech, or some predisposition to develop and use military tech (and on a whole other level)?
As for this, Europeans seem to be the most creative of populations. Historically they seem to have a disposition to develop and apply technology across all fields. We see this with many Chinese inventions that were developed first in China, often centuries ahead. Yet it's only Europeans who apply them, utilize them effectively, and use them for further innovation.
Gunpowder is the obvious one, but paper is another, as is printing, and the compass.
My suggestion is I think that the predisposition to conquest may be there in humanity in general.
My thoughts exactly.
That some characteristics are passed down and reinforced throughout certain elite dynasties is very possible, as well as the reinforcement of these characteristics within an isolated population generation after generation. If one thinks for example of the witch hunt, what would be the general psychology of the population if certain abilities were not eliminated from the gene pool?
-----
Based on the current balance (or imbalance) of power in the world, it seems reasonable to conclude that the "anglo-saxons" (or British) that colonized the USA carried a significant psychopathic profile in their genetics. The way in which the USA as a nation and government has developed and structured appears to have selected for psychopathy, creating a pathocracy that does not exist elsewhere to the same extent, with the exception perhaps of the 'motherland' i.e. the UK or more specifically England, or even more specifically, London.
The genetic problem is, as you say, mkrnhr, almost impossible to sort out, but I think we can still assign probabilities based on where the power center is and the way that it projects that power.
Yes, I think so too. Dysfunctional elites are typically purged every few hundred years in some kind of mass violence or disturbance. But notably, a few countries have been exempted from this rule.
Such as Britain. The masses seem fine. But what if the corruption in the Anglo world, which is top down, really is springing from certain genetically isolated elite groups that select specifically for high IQ and psychopathic traits?
Of course, America has never had such a purge except from the south. And the founders of the USA, being Freemason elite themselves connected to the British and French lodges in the same, remain the same stock as they were then.
I think there is definitely a genetic component to our corrupt elites.
It seems like a very logical course of action for them to take. Other populations behave in a similar way.
