Guns, Germs, and Steel PBS miniseries discussion thread.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Theben
I think I've got the gist of your posting style now-

"You can't read, can you?"

"You obviously do not understand..."

Read the links I just posted, then you can comment on whether the accusation is valid or not. Until then, your style is nothing more then to sort of read the post and then post a snide comment. Not very indicative of advanced thinking skills.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Nah, he was always a figurehead controlled by the leaders of Choshu and Satsuma who launched the Meiji Restoration.

Now you're surprising me. Please tell me more about it. The very idea that Meiji was a mere figurehead is completely alien to me.

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What the hell are you talking about? The Europeans powers didn't colonize China either, outside tiny enclaves like Macau and Hong Kong. They were interested in trade, not land, and forced China to trade on their terms via gunboat diplomacy and unequal treaties. Funnily enough, that's exactly what they did to Japan after Perry and his black ships opened it...

Don't forget Shanghai! They had a teeny tiny enclave there as well.

They never really colonized India, either, or the Middle East. usually all they wanted was to trade. And the right to trade with exclusive agreements- which meant that they traded with one European power only.

That's another problem with GGS, is that he forgets the amount of carnage the Europeans exacted on themselves, fighting for the right to those exclusive trade agreements. My bet is that they killed far more of each other then they did the non-Euros.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor

China could have modernized. But even despite the humiliations of the opium wars, the Chinese rulers didn't make the drastic choice Meiji did. There were quite a few reformers in China, and quite a few reactionaries (the same forces were found in Japan). The Chiinese emperor didn't stand for modernization, while the Japanese one did.

And it made a world of difference, for one century.

Its easy to say. Its different to defend that notion.

The Qing Dynasty faced many large scale rebellions in the 19th century after the Opium wars, whcih sagged its strength.

Also, the Foreign Qing Dynasty was supported by the Chinese landed gentry, a relatively conservative force. So, here are the Chinese, with foreigners in control of mayor ports, large insurrections and rebellions, and the ruling clique is propped up in power by conservative landed gentry, the people who helped the Qing dynasty survive the many rebellions against in in the first place.

Japan on the other had is ruled by a strong central government that had already put the local gentry in its place, and was able to crush them when they opposed reforms.

I fail to see how under those conditions China could have simply "modernized".

[Theben]

Originally posted by Epublius Rex

Read the links I just posted, then you can comment on whether the accusation is valid or not. Until then, your style is nothing more then to sort of read the post and then post a snide comment. Not very indicative of advanced thinking skills.

That would fall under the 2nd category.

How about #1 for the non-readers and #2 for the non-comprehenders?

That way whenever someone posts something you can simply respond "#1" or "#2" and it'll save you lots of time. After all, we're so stupid there's no way we are able to comprehend your great intellect and masterpieces of critical thinking that you put into your posts, why go into detail?

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Now you're surprising me. Please tell me more about it. The very idea that Meiji was a mere figurehead is completely alien to me.

I'm not answering for him. My understanding is that he was ruled from the competing factions of Samurai warlords. The one's who won were those in favor of modernizing and allying with the US. The ones that lost were in favor of isolationism. Those who controlled the Emperor controlled the fate of the nation. He was very young and at the mercy of men his father's age. Those men could have easily assassinated him.

Really, the same thing went on in China as well. The Royal families in both countries locked themselves up in the secure enclaves and never came out, they never interacted with their people. They relied on their advisors for everything. Big mistake.

My grandfather opened an office in Japan in 1925. He brought back some neat stuff from Japan then and later after WW2. The stuff from WW2 is all stamped "occupied Japan" the earlier things, if they have anything other then artists signature have "Nippon" on them. Better grade items pre war then after it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What the hell are you talking about? The Europeans powers didn't colonize China either, outside tiny enclaves like Macau and Hong Kong. They were interested in trade, not land, and forced China to trade on their terms via gunboat diplomacy and unequal treaties. Funnily enough, that's exactly what they did to Japan after Perry and his black ships opened it...

Pressure on Japan was weaker than that of China, and last time I checked, no states forced Japan to sign over chunks of her land to foreign powers, and then to allow foreign militaries to place units on her land (what do you think those "gunboats: were all about?

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by GePap


Its easy to say. Its different to defend that notion.

The Qing Dynasty faced many large scale rebellions in the 19th century after the Opium wars, whcih sagged its strength.

Also, the Foreign Qing Dynasty was supported by the Chinese landed gentry, a relatively conservative force. So, here are the Chinese, with foreigners in control of mayor ports, large insurrections and rebellions, and the ruling clique is propped up in power by conservative landed gentry, the people who helped the Qing dynasty survive the many rebellions against in in the first place.

Japan on the other had is ruled by a strong central government that had already put the local gentry in its place, and was able to crush them when they opposed reforms.

I fail to see how under those conditions China could have simply "modernized".

Ask Mao, he did it.

[GePap]

Lets give a wonderful European example: Poland.

Poland in 1690 was a great European power.

Poland in 1790 was on the verge of completely disappearing.

NOw, was Polish culture less open to advancement than say, Prussian, Austrian, or Russian cultures? (the cultures of the three states that carved Poland up).

Most Poles would throw a fit if you claimed that Polish culture was less "western" than Russian culture. So how come Russia beat out Poland?

Maybe it was because the Czars created a strong centralized state while the Polish kings had to deal with a landed gentry hell-bent on keeping their powers and thus making Sure a strong centralized power did not take over Poland, thus dooming the Polish kingdom to rule from Berlin or Vienna or Moscow?

[Drake Tungsten]

The very idea that Meiji was a mere figurehead is completely alien to me.

It shouldn't be; the vast majority of emperors in Japanese history were mere figureheads. They were technically always the legitimate rulers of Japan, but real power usually rested in the hands of the shoguns or other military leaders. The Meiji period was no different.

The young Emperor Meiji became a useful focal point for the forces who wanted to overthrow the Tokugawa shogunate and expel the barbarian powers. Claiming to act in the name of the Emperor gave them a certain legitimacy (as it had in previous struggles). The initial slogan of the anti-Tokugawa movement (sonno joi - Revere the Emperor, Expel the Barbarians) made this claim to Imperial legitimacy explicit.

There were definitely true believers in the sonno joi movement who would have liked to see a return to direct imperial rule. They didn't have the ability to overthrow the Tokugawa, however, and the leaders of the provinces of Choshu and Satsuma who eventually did defeat the Tokugawa were far too practical to throw away their chance to rule out of devotion to an Imperial family than hadn't held real power for any length of time since the Heian period. They followed the typical Japanese practice instead, nominally serving the Meiji Emperor but really reducing him to a figurehead while keeping the reins of power firmly in their grasp. Japan was really run by an oligarchy of leaders from the victiorious side of the Meiji Restoration. This oligarchy lasted well into the 20th century before giving way to party-based democracy during the reign of the Taisho emperor.

[Epublius Rex]

Don't forget that the Emperors of both countries (Japan, China) were considered to be Gods and may have actually believed it- there is evidence to that effect.

WOuld that color one's perspective? sure it would. Gods are infallible. It must have been quite a shock to have those barbarians show up and start dictating policy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
Maybe it was because the Czars created a strong centralized state while the Polish kings had to deal with a landed gentry hell-bent on keeping their powers and thus making Sure a strong centralized power did not take over Poland, thus dooming the Polish kingdom to rule from Berlin or Vienna or Moscow?

Institutional arrangements play an important role in decisions indeed. However, the question we are adressing here (I think) is not whether culture is the only thing that matters (even Epublius disagrees with the idea), but whether things are geographically determined.

I'd say that the example of Poland goes contrary to your own argument. Previously in the thread, you argued that China was flat, and that allowed a strong centralized government. Yet, Poland is flat, and had a crippled institutional order, subjected to the abomination that is the Liberum Veto. The geographic argument does not compute.

[Spiffor]

Re: Meiji, thanks for the info

[Epublius Rex]

Originally posted by GePap
Lets give a wonderful European example: Poland.

Poland in 1690 was a great European power.

Poland in 1790 was on the verge of completely disappearing.

NOw, was Polish culture less open to advancement than say, Prussian, Austrian, or Russian cultures? (the cultures of the three states that carved Poland up).

Most Poles would throw a fit if you claimed that Polish culture was less "western" than Russian culture. So how come Russia beat out Poland?

Maybe it was because the Czars created a strong centralized state while the Polish kings had to deal with a landed gentry hell-bent on keeping their powers and thus making Sure a strong centralized power did not take over Poland, thus dooming the Polish kingdom to rule from Berlin or Vienna or Moscow?

Not a fair example and not because it's Poland and European. Poland was a land locked nation surrounded on all sides by hostile powers. While Prussia was also surrounded, it was not landlocked and it had long since freed it's serfs and instituted public school education. Prussia also had the tacit backing of the German principalities in it's rear. so while it did have to fend off Russia- who was on the verge of crushing it when the Czar died, it usually did not have to fight everyone it bordered on. Though they were all merciless with it- including Poland. Poland had no dynamic kings such as Frederick, nor a history as of militarism. Lastly, I don't think the Poles liked their nobility very much- they almost always felt sold out by them. Thus, they would not have been too keen to die for them. Most were better off as subjects of Prussia. You have to consider these things.

Prussia also had a strong landed class of gentry, but their kings were able to maintain their loyalty to the state and they were willing to die for that state. They had a greater sense of national community for a variety of reasons. One of the most important was their sense of national history and heritage. Plus, the Hohenzollerns never imported a foreign people to manage them the way the Polish royalty had.

Russia had no one on it's borders once it had dealt with the Mongols. There never was any real pressure on it from the Ottomans or the Caliphate before them- no one wanted Russia. Besides, Russia was founded by the Rus ,a foreign people who ruled the indigenous people with an iron fist- thus they felt no "brotherly" connection to the masses, their loyalty lay to one another first and foremost.

Culture does make a difference.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Re: Meiji, thanks for the info

No problem.