Post: #51

My father grew up in Maoist China. His father, and my granddad who I never met, was a civil engineer who specialized in bridge design and traveled to countries like Brazil and Panama as a consultant. He was one of the few men of means to own a phonograph whose very existence mocked and exposed the hypocrisy of communists, probably one of the ten in Shanghai. My dad grew up listening to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony almost every night because it was that powerful and amazing.

Nothing by any other culture comes close to the classical music produced by Europeans, not even the few Americans classical composers like Samuel Barber or Charles Ives. The sheer technological advancement and craftsmanship involved in creating these instruments alone is mind-bendingly incredible, at a time where other civilizations were on a subsistence level. After the death of classical music, the last surviving form of high art in music arose in the United States. Jazz, as invented by African Americans.

What about other areas in culture?

The visual beauty of the Hudson River School paintings surpasses any art produced by thousand year-old civilizations in the East. Nothing compares to it, plain and simple. Is there anyone who can come up with anything from Africa or South America that belongs in the same sentence? Or Asia? Japanese woodcuts of fishermen's wives being raped by tentacles? Are you kidding me? Same with China, save for a few nature paintings like Early Autumn. And yes, they were exclusively white to the last man.

Photography. Cinema.

The literature of Thomas Wolfe and John Updike, plus all those damn poets, men and women like Plath, Lowell, and Lazarus.

This is without even beginning to touch the contributions of the West in technology. The vast majority of that is driven by Silicon Valley or was invented by U.S. military research (ethernet, internet) or Bell labs, to the point that the U.S. has literally singlehandedly the whole world into the modern era. The only reason countries like India and China and Russia and Brazil are catching up is because the U.S. granted them the tools to do so. The medical advances and extinction of entire diseases. The lives saved there and future lives that will never know these ills far outnumber however many thousands or hundreds of thousands of people killed in American wars. We could start dropping nukes tomorrow and it still wouldn't change that fact. Every other week massive Series E funding is pumped into a new pharma company to cure something or other.

Minus an Oxford journal here and there, almost every single paper published on HIV, Alzheimers, or ebola is by an American PhD. Those diseases will be cured by Americans as well. Not India, not China, not any Middle Eastern country. Zero percent chance of that happening, and maybe a 5% chance that the Japanese will as for some reason they are an ultra-modern first-world country as well.

Western culture is not only a great culture, but the greatest one.

Post: #52

(07-29-2015 03:27 AM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  My father grew up in Maoist China. His father, and my granddad who I never met, was a civil engineer who specialized in bridge design and traveled to countries like Brazil and Panama as a consultant. He was one of the few men of means to own a phonograph whose very existence mocked and exposed the hypocrisy of communists, probably one of the ten in Shanghai. My dad grew up listening to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony almost every night because it was that powerful and amazing.

Nothing by any other culture comes close to the classical music produced by Europeans, not even the few Americans classical composers like Samuel Barber or Charles Ives. The sheer technological advancement and craftsmanship involved in creating these instruments alone is mind-bendingly incredible, at a time where other civilizations were on a subsistence level. After the death of classical music, the last surviving form of high art in music arose in the United States. Jazz, as invented by African Americans.

What about other areas in culture?

The visual beauty of the Hudson River School paintings surpasses any art produced by thousand year-old civilizations in the East. Nothing compares to it, plain and simple. Is there anyone who can come up with anything from Africa or South America that belongs in the same sentence? Or Asia? Japanese woodcuts of fishermen's wives being raped by tentacles? Are you kidding me? Same with China, save for a few nature paintings like Early Autumn. And yes, they were exclusively white to the last man.

Photography. Cinema.

The literature of Thomas Wolfe and John Updike, plus all those damn poets, men and women like Plath, Lowell, and Lazarus.

This is without even beginning to touch the contributions of the West in technology. The vast majority of that is driven by Silicon Valley or was invented by U.S. military research (ethernet, internet) or Bell labs, to the point that the U.S. has literally singlehandedly the whole world into the modern era. The only reason countries like India and China and Russia and Brazil are catching up is because the U.S. granted them the tools to do so. The medical advances and extinction of entire diseases. The lives saved there and future lives that will never know these ills far outnumber however many thousands or hundreds of thousands of people killed in American wars. We could start dropping nukes tomorrow and it still wouldn't change that fact. Every other week massive Series E funding is pumped into a new pharma company to cure something or other.

Minus an Oxford journal here and there, almost every single paper published on HIV, Alzheimers, or ebola is by an American PhD. Those diseases will be cured by Americans as well. Not India, not China, not any Middle Eastern country. Zero percent chance of that happening, and maybe a 5% chance that the Japanese will as for some reason they are an ultra-modern first-world country as well.

Western culture is not only a great culture, but the greatest one.

This is a rather shortsighted argument. The story of human and civilization advancement is that of compounded, exponential growth. Rather, it is front heavy, because each technology we obtained catapaulted us further than the ones that came before us, and can compound on the previous technologies. Just look at the recent history of computing and mobile technology - huge leaps in a decade - compared to the history of, say, mechanical engineering. The west's pre-eminence came at the tail end of human history - ofcourse their achievements had a magnified effect. I'm not saying this to take away from the west, only to say that it should be placed into the right context. Ask any NBA coach, and he will tell you luck matters a lot. The same can be said for human advancement and cultural dominance.

That being said, have you read the literary texts of the chinese, indians, and arabs? I don't think anything written by updike holds a candle to these great works. And I'm an Updike fan. And, can any of the west's modern technological dominance have happened without the eastern and arab inventions of mathematics, paper, gunpowder, and navigation?

Also, not a fan of the hudson school. I'm a big fan of Chinese and Japanese art. Visually stunning. I don't think you can really compare apples to oranges here, but if they were to go head to head, I'd be comfortable placing my money in the latter.

My father also grew up in maoist china. I love and appreciate America, and I make no apologies for the current Chinese regime. But what was maoism but an import from a German philosopher? Any cursory glance of Chinese history exposes communism as a mere modern aberration. The inherent story of Chinese communism - of cultural revolution, of blank slate intervention in human life - is an indication that the Chinese ABANDONED their history and tradition for something foreign and alien. No shit modern china is a fucked up place. Look at Taiwan - far better governed, far more civilized, and inherently more traditional (no wonder given all the aristocrats took flight to the island after the civil war).

Post: #53

(07-29-2015 07:30 AM)SHANbangs Wrote:  And, can any of the west's modern technological dominance have happened without the eastern and arab inventions of mathematics, paper, gunpowder, and navigation?

Pray tell, what are these magnificent Arabic contributions to mathematics? Give specific examples such as the Pythagorean theorem, Diophantine equations, or Euclid's theorem.

It has been my understanding that historians claim the major contribution of the Arabic empire to mathematics was through the collection and preservation of Greek texts such as Euclid's Elements and Diophantus's Arithmatica.

The mathematicians of the middle ages had limited access to Persian works such as Al-Jebr and instead stuck mostly to Elements and Arithmatica. The great arabic influence was in Liber Abaci (Fibonacci, 1201), which, in essense, was why to use Arabic numerals instead of Roman numerals. Few remember Fibonacci for this simply because it is only a change in notation.

You are claiming mathematics would never have "happened" if we used roman numerals?

A more accurate historical perspective would be that modern mathematics happened independently of, and exactly without, any of the Arabic contributions.

Post: #54

People who brag about their "superior" culture are people who had nothing to with it except through accident of birth...

The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.
-- Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (1951)

Post: #55

Just to nitpick, 'round these parts, a Yank (or Yankee) refers to a nationally hated baseball team.

Post: #56

(07-31-2015 09:50 PM)buja Wrote:  People who brag about their "superior" culture are people who had nothing to with it except through accident of birth...

The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.
-- Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (1951)

But no culture ever became superior without strong preferences for itself.

Post: #57

(07-31-2015 09:50 PM)buja Wrote:  People who brag about their "superior" culture are people who had nothing to with it except through accident of birth...

The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.
-- Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (1951)

Samseau is 100% right.

Shaming self-advocating Westerners by calling them insecure or inadequate, or by piggybacking on their successes as a civilization (e.g. "Europe and America are only strong because of slave contributions!") is no different than a scorned woman gossiping that her ex has a small penis after he leaves her. It's an inferiority complex driven largely by fear of rejection or in response to it.

The more a man proves his ex wrong, the more she'll gossip and the more she'll blame it on some fictional weakness or underlying psychological illness. The ego prevents her from ever asking the question, "Is it my fault?" White nationalists are angry because they can't get laid. The West is only rich because they oppressed Africa. Open borders because of the Crusades.

What we're seeing today is the ex being proven wrong on practically every issue of importance (immigration, culture, history, biology, statistics) so she lashes out with fabrications and name-calling to protect herself. The more truth the man speaks, the more she resents it.

Post: #58

(08-01-2015 01:34 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 09:50 PM)buja Wrote:  People who brag about their "superior" culture are people who had nothing to with it except through accident of birth...

The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.
-- Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (1951)

Samseau is 100% right.

Shaming self-advocating Westerners by calling them insecure or inadequate, or by piggybacking on their successes as a civilization (e.g. "Europe and America are only strong because of slave contributions!") is no different than a scorned woman gossiping that her ex has a small penis after he leaves her. It's an inferiority complex driven largely by fear of rejection or in response to it.

The more a man proves his ex wrong, the more she'll gossip and the more she'll blame it on some fictional weakness or underlying psychological illness. The ego prevents her from ever asking the question, "Is it my fault?" White nationalists are angry because they can't get laid. The West is only rich because they oppressed Africa. Open borders because of the Crusades.

What we're seeing today is the ex being proven wrong on practically every issue of importance (immigration, culture, history, biology, statistics) so she lashes out with fabrications and name-calling to protect herself. The more truth the man speaks, the more she resents it.

But what facts is Samseau showing outside of just traditional conservative rhetoric? Whenever economists or historians estimate GDPs of ancient civilizations, many non-Western countries come out on top.

Europe was a shit show from the 5th century until about the 16th century. Ever heard of the middle ages? They didn't really hit their stride until the Renaissance period and the age of colonization (or what you call the age of "Discovery"). Even until then, China and India were still formidable civilizations until the 17th-18th century. In fact, they were probably the richest until then. Europe just went into the age of industrialization quicker than anybody else. Since then -- and there's no denying this, even coming from this Chinaman -- the West has led the world economy since the 1850's until today.

But the Economist graph is pretty much spot on. The stat is showing 1000AD as a start, but even if you pull it in until 1 AD, it would show a lot of non-western countries leading the world. The last great one would be the Western Roman Empire that collapsed before 1AD.

Post: #59

(07-17-2015 08:19 PM)Saga Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 06:01 PM)fifty Wrote:  I think you've spectacularly missed the point being made.

When those civilizations were on top they innovated and pushed the human race forward, when the 'West' ascended to the top they took these contributions and pushed the boundaries forward just as whoever ascends next will continue to push the boundary of what we are capable of.

Before the 19th Century (arguably the late 18th), there was no such thing as being on top in a global sense. The technological superiority of China never approached the heights that Europeans would achieve later. Geopolitically, China never projected her power into other continents, while India's cultural impact on SE Asia is massive yet it remained a primarily cultural force and not a lasting geopolitical one.

Actually, there was a sense of being on top in a global sense. China pushed their boundaries in Asia in a different way. Instead of colonizing countries, China had set up a tributary system throughout their ancient history and every year every single Asian kingdom would send gifts of gold, women and exotic jewelry to them. The Chinese exported Chinese culture, values and Confucianism (family orientation, respecting elders, hard work, et al) to almost all of East Asia and Southeast Asia. You can go anywhere in South Korea, Japan, Mongolia, all the way to Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, and you will see pretty much the entire Asia revolved around China almost throughout history. If you ever visit Japan it would be interesting to see almost all their historical sites are a replicate of the Chinese. The Chinese traded with the west were pretty common too -- see the Silk Road, the Galleon trade. Even Africa and the American expeditions happened.

They influenced everybody pretty much the same way the Roman Empire influenced the West. Except the Roman Empire has been long gone, but China is still here. They collapsed and had a really really terrible 20th century, but the smart money says they'll be back in the 21st.

Post: #60

(08-02-2015 04:01 AM)TheNinja Wrote:  Europe was a shit show from the 5th century until about the 16th century.

That's a common misconception from those who've never properly studied the age. Europe from 1000 to around the Plague was actually a rather well functioning society. Once the Viking raids, wars with the Magyars and attacks from North African pirates were brought to an end, Europe stabilized as an economy and as a society. One of the reasons the Crusades happened in the first place was that internal peace had been established quite strongly and as a result knights had nothing to do.

Quote:Ever heard of the middle ages? They didn't really hit their stride until the Renaissance period and the age of colonization (or what you call the age of "Discovery").

Again you're completely off. The worst period to be alive in Germany was during either the plague (which was out of anyone's control) or the 30 Years War, which took place a few decades after the High Renaissance. The horrifying wars of religions aren't what any sensible person would call "their stride", but what came out of that, the Peace of Westphalia and the indispensable political principle of national sovereignty enshrined therein, is part of what powered European growth and achievement...precisely what the rest of the world has been doing its best to duplicate for the last 100 years.

That aside, European exploration represents a tremendous accomplishment, one borne of mechanical, navigational, commercial and martial expertise. Instead of sneering at it, ask yourself why Europeans excelled at exploration and colonization while others didn't.

Quote:Even until then, China and India were still formidable civilizations until the 17th-18th century.

Then they got left behind by European civilization until they recently caught up by adopting European modes of technology and society.

Quote:In fact, they were probably the richest until then. Europe just went into the age of industrialization quicker than anybody else.

Classic misdirection. Europe didn't "go into" industrialization because it wasn't some passive process, Europe invented it through ingenuity and innovation. Further, the idea that industrialization was inevitable is determinist nonsense that isn't worth taking seriously.

(08-02-2015 04:24 AM)TheNinja Wrote:  Actually, there was a sense of being on top in a global sense. China pushed their boundaries in Asia in a different way. Instead of colonizing countries, China had set up a tributary system throughout their ancient history and every year every single Asian kingdom would send gifts of gold, women and exotic jewelry to them. The Chinese exported Chinese culture, values and Confucianism (family orientation, respecting elders, hard work, et al) to almost all of East Asia and Southeast Asia. You can go anywhere in South Korea, Japan, Mongolia, all the way to Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, and you will see pretty much the entire Asia revolved around China almost throughout history. If you ever visit Japan it would be interesting to see almost all their historical sites are a replicate of the Chinese. The Chinese traded with the west were pretty common too -- see the Silk Road, the Galleon trade.

None of that means being on top in a global sense. China had protectorates in Korea, Vietnam and in Central Asia, but never managed to conquer Japan or Vietnam or Burma despite several attempts to do so. She never managed to project serious geopolitical power very far abroad, either. The fact that Greece impacted the history and culture of India more than China should make you reconsider your assessment.

Quote:They influenced everybody pretty much the same way the Roman Empire influenced the West. Except the Roman Empire has been long gone, but China is still here. They collapsed and had a really really terrible 20th century, but the smart money says they'll be back in the 21st.

They influenced much of the east, but that's influence and not geopolitical domination. Indian influence across Southeast Asia is similarly massive, but it remained influence and not control.

Post: #61

(08-02-2015 01:58 PM)Saga Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 04:01 AM)TheNinja Wrote:  Europe was a shit show from the 5th century until about the 16th century.

That's a common misconception from those who've never properly studied the age. Europe from 1000 to around the Plague was actually a rather well functioning society. Once the Viking raids, wars with the Magyars and attacks from North African pirates were brought to an end, Europe stabilized as an economy and as a society. One of the reasons the Crusades happened in the first place was that internal peace had been established quite strongly and as a result knights had nothing to do.

Quote:Ever heard of the middle ages? They didn't really hit their stride until the Renaissance period and the age of colonization (or what you call the age of "Discovery").

Again you're completely off. The worst period to be alive in Germany was during either the plague (which was out of anyone's control) or the 30 Years War, which took place a few decades after the High Renaissance. The horrifying wars of religions aren't what any sensible person would call "their stride", but what came out of that, the Peace of Westphalia and the indispensable political principle of national sovereignty enshrined therein, is part of what powered European growth and achievement...precisely what the rest of the world has been doing its best to duplicate for the last 100 years.

That aside, European exploration represents a tremendous accomplishment, one borne of mechanical, navigational, commercial and martial expertise. Instead of sneering at it, ask yourself why Europeans excelled at exploration and colonization while others didn't.

Quote:Even until then, China and India were still formidable civilizations until the 17th-18th century.

Then they got left behind by European civilization until they recently caught up by adopting European modes of technology and society.

Quote:In fact, they were probably the richest until then. Europe just went into the age of industrialization quicker than anybody else.

Classic misdirection. Europe didn't "go into" industrialization because it wasn't some passive process, Europe invented it through ingenuity and innovation. Further, the idea that industrialization was inevitable is determinist nonsense that isn't worth taking seriously.

(08-02-2015 04:24 AM)TheNinja Wrote:  Actually, there was a sense of being on top in a global sense. China pushed their boundaries in Asia in a different way. Instead of colonizing countries, China had set up a tributary system throughout their ancient history and every year every single Asian kingdom would send gifts of gold, women and exotic jewelry to them. The Chinese exported Chinese culture, values and Confucianism (family orientation, respecting elders, hard work, et al) to almost all of East Asia and Southeast Asia. You can go anywhere in South Korea, Japan, Mongolia, all the way to Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, and you will see pretty much the entire Asia revolved around China almost throughout history. If you ever visit Japan it would be interesting to see almost all their historical sites are a replicate of the Chinese. The Chinese traded with the west were pretty common too -- see the Silk Road, the Galleon trade.

None of that means being on top in a global sense. China had protectorates in Korea, Vietnam and in Central Asia, but never managed to conquer Japan or Vietnam or Burma despite several attempts to do so. She never managed to project serious geopolitical power very far abroad, either. The fact that Greece impacted the history and culture of India more than China should make you reconsider your assessment.

Quote:They influenced everybody pretty much the same way the Roman Empire influenced the West. Except the Roman Empire has been long gone, but China is still here. They collapsed and had a really really terrible 20th century, but the smart money says they'll be back in the 21st.

They influenced much of the east, but that's influence and not geopolitical domination. Indian influence across Southeast Asia is similarly massive, but it remained influence and not control.

Again, missing the point about exponential technological progress. The entirety of human technological advancement has been about compounding upon technological predecessors - it isn't a direct linear process. If you square or cube the next iteration in line, the effects are far greater than the effects of the previous iteration. For example, the last 20 years of computing probably far outstrips in effect anything invented in the industrial age. So, the closer you hit your period of ascendance to modern times, the more magnified your impact on human advancement is. This means that we need to factor in the role luck, good fortune, and good timing play in the way history unfolded. It's not to give the west less credit, but to place things in a proper context.

My own theory of why the west won the battle for modern pre-eminence is that of eastern hubris. I don't actually think the west won because of it was the first to invent steam or heavy firepower weapons. Indeed, I don't think technolgical first movers are always, or even often, the ones who get the real advantage. As in the world of business, it's often the first one who capitalizes on widespread usage of the technology that truly gains the edge. For China at least, I know of several instances in which the west began to reveal signs of relative advantage to the imperial court through trade. But, as was the case with dynastic hubris, these were shrugged off. China had been culturally and technologically ascendant for so long from 1000 to 1500 A.D., that it had developed a certain tunnel vision regarding its seat of power. It never took the european threat seriously until it was too late. And it wasn't even an issue of capacity - I believe the Chinese had gunpowder, even cannons, guns, and flares, for quite a long time - it just chose not to mechanize its military and produce such weapons en masse. Again, it didn't feel like it needed to. China was like the hot girl who was courted by men through her twenties, only to realize she had lost her edge too late once she hit the wall.

I suppose you can point to this cultural hubris as a flaw of the Chinese. And you can and should. But the entire reason for this kind of hubris was because for so long, China was so coveted by the west. Trade access was used as a weapon and a bargaining chip. The real flaw wasn't hubris itself, but hubris at the wrong time in history. And look, we get that we can't write counterfactuals and rely on what ifs - but the point is, as with many facets of human history, timing, luck, and the intersection and confluence of factors are more important than we often wish to acknowledge.

Post: #62

And I think the west absolutely deserves credit for pioneering exploration. But I don't view this as some kind of racial advantage - it isn't inherent in western racial stock to be more exploratory in nature. Nor would I say it is cultural in the traditional sense - I wouldn't credit it to western christianity or its medieval institutions. What ultimately drove the west to innovate was necessity - the west had been starved of spice, of even basic things like salt, for a long, long time. The entire point of discovering the new world was to find a shorter route to China - to bypass the perilous silk road. Europe was like the boostrapping hustler who had to get rich or die tryin'. It did what it had to do, and paid off handsomely.

Similarly, I see that same kind of poverty/necessity mindset as reasons why Japan was the only asian country to modernize close to the same time as western ascendance. Japan was and is geographically resource deprived. It doesn't lend itself to the agricultural abundance that China has always enjoyed. On top of that, it had to fend off multiple Chinese and Mongol invasions. So that hunker down mentality, coupled with resource necessity, probably lit a fire under their ass.

Post: #63

Quote:That aside, European exploration represents a tremendous accomplishment, one borne of mechanical, navigational, commercial and martial expertise. Instead of sneering at it, ask yourself why Europeans excelled at exploration and colonization while others didn't.

It's true that China never really had any colonies around the world. But I want to explain a total different framework looking into to it.

You should think of China as a continent like Europe, because it many ways it is. The eastern Chinese and the southern Chinese are very different from each other. Much like the difference between Italians and Germans. They speak different languages, eat different food, have different religion, customs, clothes and come from different ethnic tribes. China is the same way, and even ethnically you can spot differences between Northern and Southern people.

What the founding empires of China --the Qin and the Han dynasties -- created was similar to what the western Roman Empire had done in uniting all of Europe. Except when the Roman Empire fell, the entire Western hemisphere went through 1000 years of stagnation and all these little European countries you see today stabilized their cultural holds in those territories. You see the French, the English, etc.

China took a different path. Regional war lords in the country were powerful and fought each other and always wanted control of the entire continent. That's why we had one dynasty after another. In between those times when a dynasty would collapse, we would have period of warring states where the countries becomes fragmented like Europe. But it was never long enough like Europe where regional borders create a national identity among its people.

For an army or a warlord in China to control the country is a hell of a task, and can take a lot of financial toll. This is why the Chinese never went on to colonize other neighboring countries. The tributary system it set up allowed it to rule like an imperialist but not as a direct colonist. A powerful regional warlord from Manchuria can expand its territories to neighboring states, but it was extremely hard for it to expand its territory to southeast asia and westward.

When the Europeans awoke from their long sleep in the Renaissance period, they explored and conquered other countries instead their neighbors. There wasn't really a country powerful enough to take the entire continent. Countries went to war against each other (England and France) but in the end knew it would be easier to just conquer other territories like the Americas and Southeast Asia. They were not powerful enough like the Romans where they could take the entire EU continent. If they could, believe me they would. That's what Hitler tried to do. At that time, the Chinese remained busy creating a maintaining a big empire across all of China.

So what are the implications of those actions today? Here are my pros and cons:

For Europe, the pros are that you had a lot of colonies and have so much cultural influences to the rest of the world. They discovered tons of natural resources in other countries like the Dutch finding spices in Indonesia. They "created" the foundations of the American civilization. Of course, the cons is the colonies are now all gone. Europe is so fragmented, divided and weak that it had to set the European Union. The EU is so weaknow it can't even take on America today, and who knows if it could go against China or Russia in the next 10 years. Europeans aren't able to take a hold of the continent anymore because they are fragmented and the western Roman Empire was never ever replicated.

For the Chinese, obviously we are happy that the foot hold of the Qin and Han dynasties are still here, and we are still one kingdom and one country while Roman Empire has fallen 2000 years ago. Our territories are still vast and we have a ton of natural resources. We have a big population, a big country and we can be the next world power again. The con is that we never had colonies, we don't have any cultural influence that make us harder to get laid around the world (had to bring this up in hahaha). Of course, we are still weak and poor as fuck today. I think this is the biggest con of all.

Now I must add that during the fall of the last dynasty and after all those lost wars against the Brits, Japs and French, China was in total chaos and almost became fragmented countries like Europe in the early 1920's. This was a very critical time because this was when modern international borders were recognized.

The last regional "warlord" or "army" to take control and unite China a country again is the CCP. I know Mao's rule was ridiculous and I have lost immediate family members to it. He may done so many things wrong in this world but the one really good thing he did was to save China once again. At one point, to create a national identity they banned all local languages in China and everybody had to speak Mandarin.

Today the modern borders are set and China is one country again. We actually have a good sense of national identify now, but it still takes a lot of work to control a country as big and diverse as ours. The modern reforms are implemented and the 21st century looks promising to the Chinese empire again.

This is how most of us Chinese see history, and it does make a lot of sense.

EDIT: Want to add again that this is why the "Free Tibet" movement is fucking stupid and a ridiculous agenda that is hated by most Chinese. If you see some bitch trying to promote it, please bitch slap them for me.

Post: #64

(08-02-2015 05:37 PM)TheNinja Wrote:  It's true that China never really had any colonies around the world. But I want to explain a total different framework looking into to it.

I get that the Chinese mentality was different and was based mostly on a tributary system, but that's really the point. The emperors felt that the world would come crawling to them, but eventually the world came knocking down the door with superior firepower and knowledge and they didn't know what to do about it for almost a century.

Don't forget that the Mongols, an impoverished people by comparison, conquered far more in a few generations than the Chinese did in their entire history. Is that to say conquest is the only measure of a nation's worth? Of course not, but it was the subject upon which I made that comment. On the subject of transcontinental geopolitical power, China doesn't hold a candle to Europe and others. On the subjects of cultural innovation and influence, of a long and rich history, of great art and architecture...China is among the most distinguished. Confusing the first category with the others, however, won't do.

Quote:For an army or a warlord in China to control the country is a hell of a task, and can take a lot of financial toll. This is why the Chinese never went on to colonize other neighboring countries.

Except when they took over Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Taiwan and Uighur lands...and then when they tried to take over Vietnam, Japan and Burma and failed each time. China is not unfamiliar with colonial efforts.

Quote:Countries went to war against each other (England and France) but in the end knew it would be easier to just conquer other territories like the Americas and Southeast Asia.

And when they tried, they were able to do so because of superior technology and systems of organization. If China had the same means and inclination, they could've imposed their will upon their neighbors with greater force and regularity...but they didn't, so they weren't able to.

Further, the Chinese naval expeditions (which were quite impressive) were ended because the political elite didn't have any interest in it...this is another example of the insularity and arrogance that led to China falling far behind Europe. Had Chinese ships continued to arrive on the coast of east Africa (as they did for some time), or if they had rounded the Cape of Good Hope (they weren't very far from there), or if they had established a stronger presence in the spice islands...history would have turned out very differently. We can explain the insularity through various things, but it was never inevitable.

Quote:Europe is so fragmented, divided and weak that it had to set the European Union. The EU is so weaknow it can't even take on America today, and who knows if it could go against China or Russia in the next 10 years. Europeans aren't able to take a hold of the continent anymore because they are fragmented and the western Roman Empire was never ever replicated.

Europe is less divided than it's ever been, thanks to the EU robbing most European countries of their sovereignty. However, that's a weakness and I don't think anyone here is arguing that Europe today is in a position of power. The decline of Europe is another topic entirely, though.

More importantly, Russia is a European nation, and certainly part of the west even if only peripherally.

Quote:Of course, we are still weak and poor as fuck today. I think this is the biggest con of all.

China isn't weak by any stretch of the imagination. Chinese claims to islands in the South China Sea have essentially reoriented US geopolitical strategy in a very short time. In fact, China's been quite strong since the 1950's: the PLA turned back the US and forced a retreat in the Korean War, defeated India after that and China has been a serious geopolitical player in Africa for some decades. The canal construction in Nicaragua will be a milestone as well. No doubt about it, China is strong.

Quote:Today the modern borders are set and China is one country again. We actually have a good sense of national identify now, but it still takes a lot of work to control a country as big and diverse as ours. The modern reforms are implemented and the 21st century looks promising to the Chinese empire again.

What won't be recovered are the swathes of culture that Mao and his army of adolescent zealots destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. Fortunately I see some signs of a renaissance of traditional Chinese culture (temples being reestablished, educated people taking interest in the Hanfu garb, etc), but if China is to make itself into a truly seminal global power, the Chinese people will need to ask themselves what they intend to give the world aside from mere economic and martial muscle.

In other words, truly great empires amount to more than an exercise in efficiency: greatness requires the introduction of improvements in all areas of life. China will have to find within herself something that answers this.

Quote:EDIT: Want to add again that this is why the "Free Tibet" movement is fucking stupid and a ridiculous agenda that is hated by most Chinese. If you see some bitch trying to promote it, please bitch slap them for me.

However much one might dislike the "Free Tibet" supporters in the west, China's claim to Tibet boils down to might makes right. It has no weight outside of strength alone...it's essentially a colonial endeavor.

Post: #65

(08-02-2015 04:58 PM)SHANbangs Wrote:  Again, missing the point about exponential technological progress. The entirety of human technological advancement has been about compounding upon technological predecessors - it isn't a direct linear process. If you square or cube the next iteration in line, the effects are far greater than the effects of the previous iteration. For example, the last 20 years of computing probably far outstrips in effect anything invented in the industrial age. So, the closer you hit your period of ascendance to modern times, the more magnified your impact on human advancement is. This means that we need to factor in the role luck, good fortune, and good timing play in the way history unfolded. It's not to give the west less credit, but to place things in a proper context.

I agree that things should be placed in proper context, but concentrating excessively on context can sometimes obfuscate the human dimension of historical events. That's not to say you're doing that, but the weight of context and the decisions of historical actors should be balanced.

Quote:My own theory of why the west won the battle for modern pre-eminence is that of eastern hubris. I don't actually think the west won because of it was the first to invent steam or heavy firepower weapons. Indeed, I don't think technolgical first movers are always, or even often, the ones who get the real advantage. As in the world of business, it's often the first one who capitalizes on widespread usage of the technology that truly gains the edge. For China at least, I know of several instances in which the west began to reveal signs of relative advantage to the imperial court through trade. But, as was the case with dynastic hubris, these were shrugged off. China had been culturally and technologically ascendant for so long from 1000 to 1500 A.D., that it had developed a certain tunnel vision regarding its seat of power. It never took the european threat seriously until it was too late. And it wasn't even an issue of capacity - I believe the Chinese had gunpowder, even cannons, guns, and flares, for quite a long time - it just chose not to mechanize its military and produce such weapons en masse. Again, it didn't feel like it needed to. China was like the hot girl who was courted by men through her twenties, only to realize she had lost her edge too late once she hit the wall.

I suppose you can point to this cultural hubris as a flaw of the Chinese. And you can and should. But the entire reason for this kind of hubris was because for so long, China was so coveted by the west. Trade access was used as a weapon and a bargaining chip. The real flaw wasn't hubris itself, but hubris at the wrong time in history. And look, we get that we can't write counterfactuals and rely on what ifs - but the point is, as with many facets of human history, timing, luck, and the intersection and confluence of factors are more important than we often wish to acknowledge.

Good points.

Quote:Similarly, I see that same kind of poverty/necessity mindset as reasons why Japan was the only asian country to modernize close to the same time as western ascendance. Japan was and is geographically resource deprived. It doesn't lend itself to the agricultural abundance that China has always enjoyed. On top of that, it had to fend off multiple Chinese and Mongol invasions. So that hunker down mentality, coupled with resource necessity, probably lit a fire under their ass.

That's certainly a part of it, but other countries are resource deprived and didn't/don't make the same sorts of strives that Japan did, so there must be other contributing factors. If you look at Japanese production and crafts throughout her history, they're of stunningly high quality and craftsmanship with great consistency. Some of this can be explained by a lack of resources, but it also became a value embedded in the culture and traditions of her people. Wakon-yōsai, meaning "Japanese spirit and western techniques", was a large part of this...the Japanese absorbed the best of other civilizations and then brought about their own versions of them, while remaining distinctly Japanese. Other sought to copy, the Japanese sought to internalize then regenerate.

Post: #66

(08-02-2015 04:01 AM)TheNinja Wrote:  But the Economist graph is pretty much spot on. The stat is showing 1000AD as a start, but even if you pull it in until 1 AD, it would show a lot of non-western countries leading the world. The last great one would be the Western Roman Empire that collapsed before 1AD.

It's kinda ridiculous to try and evaluate Western history when you don't have your facts straight. 1AD? Try 410AD sack of Rome, thanks.

The European Dark Ages was limited to the Western half, and lasted roughly 500 years from 400-900 AD. During this Dark Age, however, the Byzantine Empire was the richest Empire in the world and Constantinople was the First City in the world, easily. China meanwhile was aimlessly moving from one Dynasty to the next, although I believe China was just entering the Song dynasty when Rome was sacked and Song was considered to be one of the richest periods in China's history. Regardless without concrete numbers, it is impossible to compare Constantinople (pop: 400K+) to any Chinese cities. Anyone have hard data on the largest cities of that time period, say, 700 AD?

Another aspect being overlooked was the role of Christianity; it is EXTREMELY doubtful Europe would have survived or kept a complete history of their cultures without the Christianity churches holding shit together during the really rough periods. Conversely, China never had God bail their asses out and yet China has one of the oldest histories in the world, much of it far more complete than European history.

Personally I think the best argument you could make against Europe is that the continent would be nothing without Christ and now that Europe has gone atheist it looks like it's about to dissolve under a tidal wave of African invasion and near-zero birthrates.

Post: #67

I would like to say that the OP is both right and wrong. He's right that in the ancient times, both China and India were far ahead than Western Europe in terms of GDP as a whole. However, to say that China and India were vastly ahead of Western Europe is wrong (unless we are talking about the period after the fall of the Western Roman Empire till the 11th century). If we look at GDP per capita, they were around similar grounds until we reach the time of the Renaissance and that's when the divergence started to build (albeit slowly until the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century). For scientific levels of advancement, they were around the same until the 18th century as well.

The reasons for Western Europe advancing beyond the great civilizations of China, India, and those of West Asia/the Middle East can be attributed to the following reasons (these are my personal opinions but based on deep research that I have done over the years all throughout the web and reading books relating on the subject as I have been curious about this topic ever since I hit puberty):

1. Heavy competition/heavy military warfare in Western Europe after the death of Western Roman Empire:

It's obvious that warfare promotes a sort of innovation that is of necessity because in war, any advantage, big or small, will give you an edge that helps you achieving victory on the battlefield. While the other three civilizations had heavy warfare as well, a big encompassing kingdom usually conquered the whole region/civilization (i.e The Arab Islamic empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Chinese and Indian dynasties) because of reasons leading to #2,

2. Geographic barriers:

To all of us here, we know that Western Europe is littered with natural geographic barriers. Be it the English Channel, the Pyrenees, the Alps, or the many rivers that cover Western Europe; these same geographic barriers are what ensured that not a single power would dominate all of Western Europe after the fall of Rome in Western Europe. Combined with the heavy warfare that plagued Europe from the fall of Western Europe till World War II, these barriers made Western Europe be a real life version of a battle royale, only that it lasts for a millennia and many souls lose their lives.

The other three regions? They didn't have the sort of geographic barriers that ensured that kingdoms, principalities, and later nation states would develop based on those local geographic barriers. South Asia for example, doesn't have a big geographic barrier until you hit the Himalayas or the mountains that border with Afghanistan and Iran. China also doesn't have natural geographic barriers within the main areas where ethnic Han Chinese live. West Asia also doesn't have natural geographic barriers that would stop a big invading army (unless we count the deserts but those didn't stop the Arabs from expanding the Ummah) until you hit the mountains that make up a large part of Iran. The lack of barriers would always allow a single kingdom to dominate those three regions. Be it the Arabs, the Ottomans, and the many dynasties of China and India, they have had a history of a single kingdom dominating the whole regions of those respective regions. Western Europe? None after the fall of Rome.

The other reasons tie in some bits with the first two but also weird theories that I have come up but tie in with research I have done throughout the years.

3. The combined factors of heavy warfare and geographic barriers made Western Europe look elsewhere for plunder, conquest, trade, etc:

Combing the two previous reasons, since not a single Western European kingdom can become the dominant player in the region and with the expansion of trade that occurred after the 11th century (especially with the Crusades, which sparked an interest in Western Europe for luxuries that were present in West Asia that were imported from East Asia), Western European powers were looking for other areas of the world that can be easily conquered, expand trade to East Asia to bypass the powers of West Asia who charged exorbitant fees for the luxuries of East Asia, and for the powers of Western Europe who would trade with the West Asians for the luxuries of East Asians (the Italians were the primary traders with West Asian powers for the luxuries of East Asia and they in turn, charged exorbitant fees to the other Western Europeans to trade for the luxuries of South and East Asia), the other Western European powers were looking for routes to bypass the West Asian powers and their Western European rivals (the Italians) to access the luxuries of East and South Asia. Their expeditions lead to the accidental bumping into the American continent which ensured the powers of England/The UK, France, Spain, Portugal, and Holland unprecedented access to raw materials that other civilizations couldn't even dream of. This leads to reason #4.

4.The discovery of the Americas:

Do you ever wonder why the countries of the Americas mainly have English, Castillian/Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Dutch as the main languages? I did when I was a kid and reading geographic books. Researching as an innocent child, I found that that England/Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, and Holland were the main imperial powers who colonized their own bits of the Americas. The reason why they colonized the Americas was because of the previous reasons I mentioned, and rivalries they had amongst each other, they carved their own spheres in the Americas and creating the modern countries/cultures we see today in the Americas.

The discovery of the Americas gave unprecedented access to those respective Western European countries access to raw materials that other kingdoms/principalities in the other civilizations couldn't even dream of. Could you imagine China even dreaming of the access to a pretty sparsely populated land like modern day Canada and USA that England had that had endless forests waiting to chopped down for extremely valuable wood and lands to send the excess population to? China couldn't but England was living that reality. England had unprecedented access to lands that it could get access to wood that was running out in the British isles, land to grow wheat that would be imported to England to feed its population, and lands to send its excess or undesirable populations to without resorting to warfare. The other Western European powers that I mentioned had access to lands in the Americas that benefited them dramatically (I descend from this unprecedented access to such 'virgin' lands to the eyes of Western Europeans; I am a Mestizo whose parents are from Mexico and I descend from the union that a Spaniard did to an Amerindian and produced my ancestors and created modern day Mexico). I mentioned reason number four and it will mentioned in the next reason.

5. Trade:

In the previous reasons, I mentioned a lot trade. Trade comes up a lot in the reasons I have found of why Western Europe progressed further than West Asia, South Asia, and China. Trade has a lot to do with it. Remember when I mentioned that Western Europeans acquiring an appetite for luxuries of China and South Asia after the Crusades? Well, they began to trade heavily with West Asia to get those luxuries of China and South Asia to matching the levels of trade that existed during the time of the Roman Empire (even bringing the Black plague to Europe, which originated in China). The other three regions? West Asia already had access to the luxuries of China and South Asia, so they had no incentive to look for alternative routes while South Asia wasn't too interested in looking for routes to trade with Western Europe and the same with China (China had expeditions to map regions of the world but then pulled back on those expeditions). Add to this, the more resources the Western Europeans they discovered, the more their appetite grew after finding them after seeing how their respective peoples/kingdoms would enrich after finding them since they knew of the dog eat dog environment of Western Europe.

However, the following reasons don't explain all of the reasons why Western Europe progressed more than West Asia and South Asia, and China. I will explain more in my second post as there are more strange reasons that I have found that will fit in with you guys have guessed but also weird ones.