China’s assertiveness based on fictional theories

Discussion in 'China' started by BengalTiger, Oct 17, 2010.

  1. BengalTiger

    BengalTiger New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    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...
     
  2.  
  3. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    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!
     
  4. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,162
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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!
     
  5. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,524
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    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:
     
  6. Minghegy

    Minghegy Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    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.
     
  7. maomao

    maomao Veteran Hunter of Maleecha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,498
    Likes Received:
    4,145
    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:
     
  8. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,162
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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.
     
  9. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    your statement reminds me of this cartoon long back............
    [​IMG]

    http://www.toonpool.com/cartoons/China_11011#
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2010
  10. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,162
    Location:
    EST, USA
    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: Oct 18, 2010
  11. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    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.
     
  12. mattster

    mattster Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    518
    Location:
    California
    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: Oct 17, 2010
  13. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Thought Police can do a lot of confidence building and of that there is no doubt.

    Here is one example:

    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?
     
  14. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    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.
     
  15. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    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.
     
  16. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,524
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    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: Oct 18, 2010
  17. mattster

    mattster Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,048
    Likes Received:
    518
    Location:
    California
    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: Oct 18, 2010
  18. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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: Oct 18, 2010

Share This Page