Stop the America-bashing!

[satyajedi]

Well said Dry.

(for the record, it is Hizb'allah, and no they are not nice guys).

I would even go so far as to say that the dismantling of the Palestinian authority can only be because Sharon knows that a Palestinian leadership vacuum will be filled by Islamic Jihad and Hamas, and once that happens it will give him the justification to remove the entire Palestinian population. I seriously doubt he's stupid enough to dismantle the PLO without knowing that Jihad will be the result.

-Satya

[Manstein3]

Giovanni August:
Charle Magne was not a French. I could argue he belonged to a German tribe, the Franken, who conquered large parts of Roman Gallia and became the new upper class, but the truth is that his Franconian Empire was neither French nor German. The split between France and Germany was after his death. And France was never called Roman Empire like Germany, but was a kingdom (which was a huge advantage in forming a united nation, which Germany did not acchieve BECAUSE of the supernational role of its Kaiser)

The USA is the leading power. you can verify this
-on the people who get most nobel prizes (before the first World War: Germans, between the Wars: British, now: US-Americans or people working there)
- because of the fact that we write in English (In 1900 a - at least - scientific discussion would have been in German, in 1800 it would have been in French. As time goes by...)
-on the supremacy of the Hollywood-entertainment-industry. This is a strategic device unknown to former ages. Maybe the Roman culture had the same strategic effects to its neighbours: to influence and and adapt them ...
-on the fact that most big companys in the world are part of the Dow Jones. The US-economy and the high-tech-industry even more is predominant in an astounding way...
-on the fact that only military interventing power is the USA. The others don't have the prestige or the guts, or both. And they dont have the money to spend...

[Giovanni August]

Thanks for correcting me about Charle Magne!

Anyway!
I NEVER SAID that the US are NOT the leading power!
I just said that they are not the only super power left according to my opinion and my standards!
Than you said:

- because of the fact that we write in English (In 1900 a - at least - scientific discussion would have been in German, in 1800 it would have been in French. As time goes by...)

That's also because of the English that colonized almost half of the world!!

-on the fact that only military interventing power is the USA. The others don't have the prestige or the guts, or both. And they dont have the money to spend...

Or maybe they don't want to go between other nations business??

-on the people who get most nobel prizes (before the first World War: Germans, between the Wars: British, now: US-Americans or people working there)
-on the supremacy of the Hollywood-entertainment-industry. This is a strategic device unknown to former ages. Maybe the Roman culture had the same strategic effects to its neighbours: to influence and and adapt them ...
-on the fact that most big companys in the world are part of the Dow Jones. The US-economy and the high-tech-industry even more is predominant in an astounding way...

I can agree with that!

Now i would like to sa something!
The US is the most powerfull nation in the world right now! So it's normal that people would criticize it more! Because:
A mistake in international policy by another country (Italy i.e.) has not the same consequences than a mistake of International policy of the US!
If Italy reduce the pollution emission that is not the same impact on the enviroment than if the US do the same thing!
and so on...
Every your mistake is bigger compared to mistake of other nations and that's why the US are more criticized for their errors and mistakes!

[molly bloom]

Re: I realize the fallout that will come from this, however...

Originally posted by siredgar


Well, compare this to the Chinese. They developed gunpowder and ocean-faring junks hundreds of years before the Europeans took full advantage of these technologies. Expeditions by Cheng Ho led to voyages to Southeast Asia, India, the Middle East, and even the coasts of East Africa.

So, did they go ahead and then take over the inhabitants? No, they traded with them. Even with the ones that were considered relatively "primitive" to their civilization.

I believe my Vietnamese neighbours have a rather differing, more sanguine notion of a 'peaceful' China.

For instance: in 1410, after leading five large expeditions in person, the Emperor Yung-le won a victory on the River Onon to the north east of Ulan Bator over the Mongols. Manchuria was occupied up to the mouth of the Amur.

5000 kilometres to the south, a Chinese army numbering some 200, 000 men intervened in 1406 in Dai Viet, in northern Viet Nam, putting an end to the kingdom of the Tran. Military occupation and de facto annexation of the Red River basin followed- leading to the establishment of the new Vietnamese dynasty of the Le, under the legendary Le Loi, in 1427.

Cheng Ho intervened in an affair of the succession to the throne in the Javanese kingdom of Majapahit, and in Palembang in a conflict between the local government and the Chinese colony.

In Calicut, Cochin and Sri Lanka he erected stelae proclaiming that these kingdoms were vassals of the Ming Empire.

Cheng Ho opposed the claims of the Majapahit to Malacca- erecting another stelae there. He also inflicted a defeat on the royal army in Sri Lanka.

1413-1415, Chinese troops under Cheng Ho intervened in the internal affairs of the Sultanate of Samudra-Pasai in north-western Sumatra.

The voyages of Cheng Ho were not simply exploration and mercantilism- they were designed to impress upon lesser kingdoms the power and prestige of the Ming, and in doing so, to extract trading rights and tribute. The use of a Muslim commander being especially judicious, given the nature of the trade routes between China and South East Asia and the east of Africa and Arabia.

You might call it junk diplomacy, as opposed to gunboat diplomacy...

There were further Ming offensives in Mongolia, and under the Manchu, Sinkiang/Chinese Turkestan, the Ili valley, the oases of the Tarim Basin, and Sino-Manchu occupation of Tibet, in 1751.

Indeed, the Ch'ing Empire reached its greatest extent in 1759- controlling territories covering approx. 13 000 000 sq. km. , including Taiwan, Outer Mongolia, other areas since occupied by Russia, and exacted tribute with/without threats, from Nepal, Burma, Siam, Vietnam, Ryukyu, Korea, the Philippines and Bhutan.

Not quite so stay at home as people might think....

[siredgar]

Molly,

You always seem to be able to dig up these obscure facts that are quite fascinating. I applaud you for standing up for the underdogs, as usual.

Anyhow, if you look back at my previous postings, you will see that I never described the Chinese during the 15th century as "peaceful". Instead, my point focused on the fact that the Chinese did not go out and enslave and colonize other peoples considered "inferior" in cultural advancement.

The Chinese did wage many wars against the Vietnamese, but I believe this was primarily because they refused to pay tribute to the emperor. Counter to popular opinion, loyal vassal states like Korea were largely left alone and were not ruled by or were "colonies" of China. In fact, they often received more back than what they gave in tributes to the emperor.

Anyhow, the Chinese wanted to secure their borders with friendly states and often used force to preserve its interests in the immediate areas. They were not "peaceful", but they did not colonize other peoples in the same way Europeans later did.

Perhaps the Chinese were not that aggressive overseas because they did not possess the capability. I do not believe this is true, however, because Cheng Ho often had about 30,000 men travel with him on some of the largest wooden boats constructed in human history. They definitely had the capability to colonize other peoples.

In at least one of the cases of Chinese aggression abroad you brought up, namely the Sri Lankan intervention, I know it was recorded that the local chief was "acting aggressively" and so they were forced to attack. The primary mission of these voyages was repeatedly trade and exploration time after time.

The point is is that the Chinese had developed the technologies to go overseas and use force to subjugate others, but they did not.

Edgar

[Dauphin]

The point is is that the Chinese had developed the technologies to go overseas and use force to subjugate others, but they did not.

Europe is made of many small countries and so competition between states was strong. The need to expand and gain power was necessary. The easiest way of doing this was through global colonisation - and once one nation colonized the others felt compelled to do the same.

I don't know that much about Chinese history, but would it be fair to say that without the inter-states competition the perceived need to colonise to survive was not there?

[jasev]

I've got a question about Chinese...
How do you think they achieved such an empire? It's a really big country. "Assimilating lower life forms", like borgs? They fighted against their neighbours, like everybody. And they builded an empire with fire and sword, not with arts and polite words.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by siredgar
Molly,

You always seem to be able to dig up these obscure facts that are quite fascinating. I applaud you for standing up for the underdogs, as usual.

Anyhow, if you look back at my previous postings, you will see that I never described the Chinese during the 15th century as "peaceful". Instead, my point focused on the fact that the Chinese did not go out and enslave and colonize other peoples considered "inferior" in cultural advancement.

The Chinese did wage many wars against the Vietnamese, but I believe this was primarily because they refused to pay tribute to the emperor.

Let me assure you- from a Vietnamese point of view, Vietnamese history is not obscure- the Le dynasty and Le Loi are still reverenced in modern day Vietnamese history. So the Chinese did not enslave other people- um, so if these 'vassal' states (and how did they get to be vassal states?) decide they want to keep their revenues or goods for themselves, what did the Chinese do? Use harsh words and embargo the sale of ink?

If the Chinese considered these states as equals and not inferiors, why would they demand tribute? And how could they enforce it? When the Ch'ing Empire reaches its greatest extent in 1759, did it do so through peaceful osmosis or cooption, or as a result, as I have pointed out, of aggressive militaristic occupation and subjugation?

If, as you say, the Sri Lankans were 'acting aggressively' (frankly, erecting stelae proclaiming sovereign states to be vassals of a distant empire is aggressive in my book- consider the Spaniards or the English in the Americas) is it such a surprise that Cheng Ho gets an unpleasant welcome?

Here's a relatively unbiased link, which talks about the new Ming Dynasty wishing to assert its authority and influence, and wishing to civilize other nations in the way of Confucian living:

http://members.tripod.com/khleo/chengho.htm

[siredgar]

Molly,

Again, perhaps you should read what I post more carefully. I did not say that the Chinese considered other peoples "equal and not inferiors". In fact, I imply that they did not look upon most of the peoples of Southeast Asia and Africa as very developed at all.

According to the Chinese, the only civilized peoples in Asia were the Koreans and the Vietnamese. Even the Japanese at the time were often called barbaric "dwarf pirates". The difference between the Koreans and the Vietnamese is that the Koreans maintained relatively peaceful relations with their larger, more powerful neighbor for a long time, while the Vietnamese did not.

There were many wars between the Chinese and the Vietnamese that still resonates in animosity today. However, Chinese relations with the Koreans were close and friendly. In fact, Chinese scholars often described Korea as the "scholar-nation" and held high regard for its innovations in science, philosophy, and religion. Likewise, the Koreans maintained deep respect and admiration for the Chinese. They even erected a large monument to memorialize the "tragic" end of the great Ming Dynasty.

Yes, the Chinese were asserting their authority in the region and in some cases, elsewhere, as you've pointed out. But my point remains the same: they did not enslave or colonize peoples they considered "inferior" to the extent the Europeans did.

Edgar

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

The point is is that the Chinese had developed the technologies to go overseas and use force to subjugate others, but they did not.

Europe is made of many small countries and so competition between states was strong. The need to expand and gain power was necessary. The easiest way of doing this was through global colonisation - and once one nation colonized the others felt compelled to do the same.

I don't know that much about Chinese history, but would it be fair to say that without the inter-states competition the perceived need to colonise to survive was not there?

That is a good point and helps explain European colonization, but it does not suffice as an answer to the reasoning behind it.

A European superiority complex, that as you can see from some of these postings still exists today, was also a powerful force in all of this. Melded into the religious zeal of the time, the impact of rising industrialization, and the advent of the pyramid-scheme known as capitalism, it played a strong role in justifying colonization.

[molly bloom]

'By the way, I brought up the example of the Chinese during the 15th century, not to say that Asians are "peaceful" and Europeans are "evil", but to demonstrate that not all civilizations need to resort to violence in interactions with other peoples just because they are more advanced. '

Your words are they not, Edgar?

Okay let's see....1368, foundation of Ming Dynasty. 1387, China reunified. 1388, Chinese expansion begins, at the Battle of Buinor in north-eastern Mongolia, and, ah, the 'persuasion' of the Korean I dynasty, founded in 1392, to 'adhere' to Chinese rule/influence.
Yung-le's reign, 1403-1424 sees more expansion, at the expense of non-Chinese: the Oirats in the north west, the Tatars in the north east. So, we have the battle of Onon River, 1410, in Mongolia, and the invasion of Dai Viet in Viet Nam, in 1406.
The policy of conquest, and the pursuit of trade went hand in hand. What stopped further Ming expansion in the north were defeats inflicted by Mongol/steppe forces.
The land campaigns took place at the same time as Cheng Ho's voyages of trade and 'persuasion', and had much the same purpose- economic domination and political subjugation.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by molly bloom
'By the way, I brought up the example of the Chinese during the 15th century, not to say that Asians are "peaceful" and Europeans are "evil", but to demonstrate that not all civilizations need to resort to violence in interactions with other peoples just because they are more advanced. '

Your words are they not, Edgar?

Okay let's see....1368, foundation of Ming Dynasty. 1387, China reunified. 1388, Chinese expansion begins, at the Battle of Buinor in north-eastern Mongolia, and, ah, the 'persuasion' of the Korean I dynasty, founded in 1392, to 'adhere' to Chinese rule/influence.
Yung-le's reign, 1403-1424 sees more expansion, at the expense of non-Chinese: the Oirats in the north west, the Tatars in the north east. So, we have the battle of Onon River, 1410, in Mongolia, and the invasion of Dai Viet in Viet Nam, in 1406.
The policy of conquest, and the pursuit of trade went hand in hand. What stopped further Ming expansion in the north were defeats inflicted by Mongol/steppe forces.
The land campaigns took place at the same time as Cheng Ho's voyages of trade and 'persuasion', and had much the same purpose- economic domination and political subjugation.

Chinese territorial expansion is characteristically different from European colonialism, don't you think?

[satyajedi]

"Chinese territorial expansion is characteristically different from European colonialism, don't you think?"

I agree. They are completely different.

Imperialism = You live in our empire now.
Colonialism = we're going to set up a puppet state created to facilitate the export of any meaningfull resources in your country.

Big difference between those two. States that are conquored aren't systematically impoverished. Colonialism is worse.

Also, not to state the obvious, but other than China, every single place in the world has been dominated by a European power. That's pretty significant.

-Satya

[Manstein3]

@satyajedi
You forgot Turkey, heart of the former Osmanic Empire, which was an imperialist nation on its own, and Japan!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by siredgar
A European superiority complex, that as you can see from some of these postings still exists today, was also a powerful force in all of this. Melded into the religious zeal of the time, the impact of rising industrialization, and the advent of the pyramid-scheme known as capitalism, it played a strong role in justifying colonization.

Would you not get the feeling of superiority if your nation was the richest, most powerful and technologically advanced in known history?

It is not a great leap from being superior in some fields, to believing you are inherently superior.

It is not restricted to Europeans, all leading nations and empires have the superiority "complex". It is how they act on it that is different.