China's assertiveness based on fictional theories

BengalTiger

New Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
8
Likes
0
20 Sep 2010 8ak: Gavin Menzies' controversial book '1434' marks a dangerous, emerging trend that China is seeking to revise world history and establish its cultural superiority. Citing evidence, Menzies claims the following:- By early 1400, Europe had gone through a thousand years of stagnation while China had made huge strides in mathematics, engineering, cartography & navigation, astronomy, art, architecture, weaponry, genetics etc. By the year 1420, China had the...

More...
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Nothing unusual.

Mere continuum of the Han superciliousness of the Middle Kingdom uber alles that has been seen throughout history of China.

This type of overdrive converted many of the 'barbarians' (the epithet used for those South of Yangtse Kiang), who are now euphoric that they are Hans, having forgotten that they are not and were with singular individual cultures and so on!
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
There are two ways one can shed light on history.
  • Through history, with archaeological and literary evidence, references to previous work, papers, peer review etc., and then by publishing it at a conference or journal.
  • The other way is to write provocative, outrageous, controversial or sexually explicit literature into a make-believe-world of a book, sell it and make money.

I haven't read the book, hence, I am not quite qualified to judge it; however, seeing the points in the link, it does seems to belong to the latter!
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Why? This fiction was written by Gavin Menzies, not a Chinese!

In order to make a best seller Menzies has to be imaginative.

Why shall Chinese base 'assertiveness' on a novel they never possibly read of ?? :emot15:
 

Minghegy

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
387
Likes
9
Hehe, the author is not Chinese, and most Chinese don't believe his theory.
China's confidence based on something, but I don't want say, because it will hurt you.
 

maomao

Veteran Hunter of Maleecha
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
5,033
Likes
8,354
Country flag
Hehe, the author is not Chinese, and most Chinese don't believe his theory.
China's confidence based on something, but I don't want say, because it will hurt you.
Kindly go on a Hurt us, as you would not get this type of freedom in the country run by ruthless gang of Dictators!:emot0:
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Hehe, the author is not Chinese, and most Chinese don't believe his theory.
China's confidence based on something, but I don't want say, because it will hurt you.
The author is not ethnic Chinese, but since he was raised in China, he obviously is to a large extent a naturalised Chinese.

For example, Rudyard Kipling was not an ethnic Indian, but he indeed was Indian, albeit of European ancestry.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Hehe, the author is not Chinese, and most Chinese don't believe his theory.
China's confidence based on something, but I don't want say, because it will hurt you.
your statement reminds me of this cartoon long back............


China

by Azurelle
uploaded on April 25, 2008
viewed 3400 times
Information
I have never been a friend of much words for the art that I've done in the past since most of it basically contained of practices which had no great meaning anyways.

Knowing that my technique is not perfect, there are certain things I just can't do. I wouldn't be able to paint perfect hands even if my life relied on it, but I also know that this is not aiming to be one of those perfect rendered elves in a forest paintings anways.

It is one of my few paintings which actually delivers a message regarding what is going on right now with China, and I hope that you guys know more about China than just that they use to take popular artists' work to spread them on their sites without asking, because their population seems not to be allowed to browse websites like DeviantART, for instance.

This should make us think.

Try to wonder why this woman so proudly inherits the world, while she also carries the olympian flame in a lantern that would not allow it to be touched by any wind... I really wonder if I will discover this painting on on of my favorite chinese art sites two days after I have published it. I bet they hate me now. :p

Here is a closeup of the head by the way, as it was still in work: http://azurelle.deviantart.com/art/China-Girl-WIP-82073119

Have a nice day!

PS: People's reactions to that painting were pretty different. While anime and manga freaks basically loved it, the few chinese people who commented it hated me for making such a painting...
tags azurelle anne pogoda china girl red star olympia
technique painting
category Media & Culture
http://www.toonpool.com/cartoons/China_11011#
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Hehe, the author is not Chinese, and most Chinese don't believe his theory.
China's confidence based on something, but I don't want say, because it will hurt you.
As someone already pointed out, Chinese resurgence is fueled by the export of cheap Chinese products to the US and other larger economies. Honestly, even Indian companies cannot afford to sell AA type torch batteries for as cheap as the Chinese companies do. Frankly, it is really hard for me to believe that Chinese products are not ridiculously under-priced and at the same time of shoddy quality; and in case the quality goes up, the price automatically goes up as well.

China's confidence, to put in your own words, is based on the vain assumption that being the backyard bulk-manufacturer for US companies will keep China floating. Not quite. The US still leads in innovation, while China keeps taking blueprints and churning out products. The US will keep the lead for a long time to come, proving many who claim the 'US will collapse soon' false and much to the chagrin of many detractors.
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
China's assertiveness is due to an ingrained belief that global hegemony is China's right. In fact, before 1700 China and India together made up over 50% of the world's economy, dwarfing any of the European countries.

The Chinese view their country being in a dominant position as the "status quo", and their decline in the 19th and 20th centuries is only a temporary divergence from the status quo.

In other words, the Chinese view their history in a cyclical sense, full of ups and downs, while many Westerners tend to view history in a linear sense, where progress is expected to occur naturally as time goes on.

India's history, like China's, is cyclical. India in the 6th century and 16th century was far more powerful than the India of today, relatively speaking. Since then, a series of unfortunate events has caused to decline immeasurably. Now, the cycle has started to turn the other way, and it is time for both India and China to reclaim their rightful positions as the two global hegemons. That, after all, has been the historical status quo.
 

mattster

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,171
Likes
870
Country flag
People sometimes get carried away.....especially Indians and Chinese who have seen the dizzying recent GDP growth rates and their lives rapidly transformed.
This gives rise to hubris. There is a lot of that on this forum and in the media both Western and Eastern.

I dont think either China or India is ready to step into the role of a real superpower in this century. I dont think either country with a 1 billion plus population wants to deal with all the external problems facing the world today. Nor do either of these countries have the resources to spend the kind of money that the US spends on the military.

With a 1 billion+ population - there are constantly going to be internal challenges that are going to drain resources.
Plus China population is rapidly aging even before the get to that level.

Think about it - any major military engagement lasting 5 years or more could end up costing $1 Trillion US dollars. The US has spending in Iraq alone is approaching $1 Trillion, and thats not even counting AFPAK. Neither India or China will have that kind of capability soon, and, more importantly neither or them would even want the kind of responsibility that comes with being a "global hegemon".
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Hehe, the author is not Chinese, and most Chinese don't believe his theory.
China's confidence based on something, but I don't want say, because it will hurt you.
Thought Police can do a lot of confidence building and of that there is no doubt.

Here is one example:

Chinese Christians barred from meet
SHARON LAFRANIERE

Beijing, Oct. 16: More than 100 Chinese Christians seeking to attend an international evangelical conference in South Africa have been barred from leaving the country, some in the group said, because their churches are not sanctioned by the state.

Organisers say that more than 4,000 Christians from around the world will discuss faith, poverty, the AIDS epidemic and other issues at the nine-day conference, which begins today in Cape Town. But members of the Chinese delegation said that they could get no farther than the passport control at international airports in China before officials confiscated their documents.

"They said it is illegal to attend this conference, and sent me home," said Liu Guan, 36, a Protestant evangelical leader who tried to fly out of Capital International Airport in Beijing last Sunday. "The explanation was 'for your own good'."

China's policy toward Christians is more relaxed now than a decade ago. Although only government-sanctioned churches are considered legal, millions of Chinese — some say tens of millions — worship in unregistered churches.

While believers often complain of harassment, officials in much of China turn a blind eye to the activities there. But Chinese house churches are one matter; global conferences are another.

The Chinese authorities said that the government intervened to prevent people from attending the conference because Cape Town organisers failed to honour China's policy of domestic control over religious activities.
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
Link
Interesting example of Big Brother - "The explanation was 'for your own good'."

Now, what did Big Brother tell you to tell us which will hurt us?
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
The Chinese false sense of superiority is another Big Brother Thought Control to obfuscate the internal problems, by indoctrinating the populace with a sense of urgent pride to wash away what they call 'China's century of shame'.

The CCP aims to whip up nationalist frenzy by harping on the how the Hans were second class under what they call quaintly the barbarian rule and also under barbarian influence!

Foreigners are also called barbarians in addition to those South of Yangtse and to the East and North East of the original Han China.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
People sometimes get carried away.....especially Indians and Chinese who have seen the dizzying recent GDP growth rates and their lives rapidly transformed.
This gives rise to hubris. There is a lot of that on this forum and in the media both Western and Eastern.

I dont think either China or India is ready to step into the role of a real superpower in this century. I dont think either country with a 1 billion plus population wants to deal with all the external problems facing the world today. Nor do either of these countries have the resources to spend the kind of money that the US spends on the military.

With a 1 billion+ population - there are constantly going to be internal challenges that are going to drain resources.
Plus China population is rapidly aging even before the get to that level.

Think about it - any major military engagement lasting 5 years or more could end up costing $1 Trillion US dollars. The US has spending in Iraq alone is approaching $1 Trillion, and thats not even counting AFPAK. Neither India or China will have that kind of capability soon, and, more importantly neither or them would even want the kind of responsibility that comes with being a "global hegemon".
India wants to be a superpower, and we will become a superpower by mid-century. However, we will not become the same kind of superpower that America is now. India has no intention of policing the world with nuclear carrier fleets like America does. Instead, India's goal should be to become an economic powerhouse that can defeat other nations through sheer economic pressure (we are already seeing the beginnings of that today).

If India and China can return to anywhere near their historical dominance of the global economy, they should be able to win wars without firing a single shot.

The American economy, increasingly losing its competitive edge to Asia, no longer has the command over the world economy as it did in its glory days right after WWII. I predict that by 2050, the U.S. Armed Forces will be the only thing that makes America a superpower; its economy will be pushed into the backseat by India and China. It will face a situation similar to what the USSR faced in the 80s; hopefully it won't meet the same end.
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Neither India or China will have that kind of capability soon, and, more importantly neither or them would even want the kind of responsibility that comes with being a "global hegemon".
Absolutely China is NOT ready to step into the role of a real superpower. Don't see any other country except Russia has the potential or ambition to rise to a super role. The 1+B population is often more a liability than an asset.

In comparison, China lacks most key elements to be super for example -
>>> Her economy is still very export oriented therefore can't afford a disruption in relationship with established powers
>>> China doesn't have a bluewater navy
>>> China's lifeline of oil/gas (esp. sea routes) is very vulnerable

China shall be just 'complacent' to play more of a regional power, like Brazil, to secure her own interest and have a say in some world affairs, and be a counterbalance to the 'hegemon' to a certain degree.

That G2 fantasy actually reflects China's acknowledgement of status quo.
 
Last edited:

mattster

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,171
Likes
870
Country flag
India wants to be a superpower, and we will become a superpower by mid-century. However, we will not become the same kind of superpower that America is now. India has no intention of policing the world with nuclear carrier fleets like America does. Instead, India's goal should be to become an economic powerhouse that can defeat other nations through sheer economic pressure (we are already seeing the beginnings of that today).

If India and China can return to anywhere near their historical dominance of the global economy, they should be able to win wars without firing a single shot.

The American economy, increasingly losing its competitive edge to Asia, no longer has the command over the world economy as it did in its glory days right after WWII. I predict that by 2050, the U.S. Armed Forces will be the only thing that makes America a superpower; its economy will be pushed into the backseat by India and China. It will face a situation similar to what the USSR faced in the 80s; hopefully it won't meet the same end.
You cant be a real superpower with just economic power, you need to be a military and economic powerhouse before you can even aspire to superpower status.
If economic power is all you need; then Japan and Germany both countries with populations of about 50 million with 2nd and 3rd largest economies of the world for most of the last 3 decades would have been considered superpowers. You have to be able project serious power in any corner of the planet within a few days in the event of a major crisis.

Imagine if Pakistan were to fall into utter chaos - who do you think that the world is going is ask to secure the nukes lying around in Pak. The only country that has the capability of doing that would be the US.

This is the kind of responsibility that being a superpower entails. Everybody will criticize you, and burn effigies of your flag - but when the shit really hits the fan, everyone will expect you to save the day.

What I am trying to say is that neither China nor India are going to be close achieving that type of dominance even in 50 years. Nor would they even want to or even be trusted by other nations in such a role. All this talk of India and China becoming superpowers is all hot air. They will be regional powers, nothing more.

Plus both these countries are going to be butting heads against each other sooner or later. That will eventually weaken both sides.
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
You cant be a real superpower with just economic power, you need to be a military and economic powerhouse before you can even aspire to superpower status.
If economic power is all you need; then Japan and Germany both countries with populations of about 50 million with 2nd and 3rd largest economies of the world for most of the last 3 decades would have been considered superpowers. You have to be able project serious power in any corner of the planet within a few days in the event of a major crisis.
First of all, Japan and Germany are bad examples because their postwar consitutions explicitly forbid independent military activity outside their borders. They couldn't project power anywhere even if they wanted to.

Second of all, power projection is not the sole criterion for determining a superpower. If it were, the USSR would not have been considered a superpower, since it had no where near the power projection capability of the USN. The US has placed such emphasis on power projection due to its particular style of geopolitics and force-based diplomacy.

Imagine if Pakistan were to fall into utter chaos - who do you think that the world is going is ask to secure the nukes lying around in Pak. The only country that has the capability of doing that would be the US.
At present, I agree. However, by 2050 I doubt that will be the case. Personally, I doubt Pakistan will even exist in 2050, but that is a different matter.

This is the kind of responsibility that being a superpower entails. Everybody will criticize you, and burn effigies of your flag - but when the shit really hits the fan, everyone will expect you to save the day.

What I am trying to say is that neither China nor India are going to be close achieving that type of dominance even in 50 years. Nor would they even want to or even be trusted by other nations in such a role. All this talk of India and China becoming superpowers is all hot air. They will be regional powers, nothing more.
You are assuming a lot here; in particular, that India and China will try to do what the US currently does. As I have already mentioned, that is not going to be the case. India and China are already regional powers. In the future, we will see both of them carve their own spheres of influence in the Eastern Hemisphere, but they will NOT interfere in the Western Hemisphere, since that is generally considered to be America's sphere of influence. You will never see Indian forces deployed in Guatemala, for example, because it is not in India's interests to do so.

In my opinion, India will have reached military superpower status when the US acknowledged the Indian Ocean region, the AfPak region, and South Asia as India's sole backyard, and the Indian Armed Forces have developed the capability to exert power throughout this region while keeping the other superpowers out. Right now, the US can go anywhere it wants anytime it wants, because no other nation can come close to matching it. The day that changes is when you know a new military superpower has emerged.

Even though I have no doubt that the Indian Armed Forces will have become a highly formidable force by 2050, in the highly globalized future a dominant economy is a far greater asset than a powerful military.

Plus both these countries are going to be butting heads against each other sooner or later. That will eventually weaken both sides.
A future Sino-Indian conflict in the future will damage both Indian and Chinese interests. The only nation that will benefit is the US.

Despite what our hysterical media says, the probability of China and India going to war are extremely low.
 
Last edited:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top