Posted on 01/08/2013 10:18:02 AM PST by Theoria
American leaders bring to mind the last Abbasid Caliph, who made no preparations for the approach of the Mongols in 1258. What, asked al-Musta'sim Billah, could Mongol arrows do to the walls of Baghdad? When the Mongol commander Hulagu Khan arrived on January 29, though, he had with him 1,000 Chinese bombardiers, as well as Persian, Turkish and Georgian auxiliaries. Historians disagree as to whether the Mongols used cannon or counterweighted catapults, but in any case the bombardment breached the city's walls within three weeks, and they proceeded to slaughter between 200,000 and a million of its inhabitants. There are various accounts of how al-Musta'sim died, some quite colorful.
Like the Abbasids, Americans have no idea what is about to hit them. We are a disruptive, bottom-up economy driven by entrepreneurship, and we look with contempt at China's clumsy, top-down model. The trouble is that we haven't done much innovation since the 1980s. A new generation of well-educated and eager Chinese may assimilate our past innovations and pass us by.
As a culture, to be sure, the Mongols had no capacity for technological innovation. They didn't need it. After they conquered Persia, the source of the best available siege technology in the 12th century, the Mongols employed Persian catapults hurling 100-kilogram missiles to reduce the walls of Chinese cities. By the time they turned their attention to Mesopotamia, they commanded Chinese technology as well. China, of course, was the great technological innovator of the age. Between 800 and 1200 CE, it invented gunpowder, firearms, explosive bombs, moveable type, and the magnetic compass.
(Excerpt) Read more at atimes.com ...
If China is so invincible, why are there locations in the US where Chinese “anchor babies” are being born? And what’s with the towns in New Jersey and elsewhere that have mothers and children in upscale homes with the fathers commuting back from China?
Do these smart folks know something about what’s going on in the mainland that Spengler doesn’t?
This is historically inaccurate. The Chinese expelled the Mongols around 1370. Their technological pre-eminence and inventiveness extended at least thru the later Ming, which ended in 1644.
Why it ended when it did is a great mystery, for which I've never seen a particularly logical explanation.
The Chinese will get old before they get rich (enough).
Like the Abbasids, Americans have no idea what is about to hit them.
You die soon, Amellican dog! You die rill soon, Joe! **** you, Joe!
Think we've heard that one before.
'Course, we didn't have a multivectoral Enemy of the People of the United States in the White House back then, either.
That's a very interesting subject, why a broad empire with so many advantages should lose out historically to a rag-bag of smelly, unbathed, crude and predictable Europeans.
The only explanation I've ever encountered was that the Ming Dynasty embodied a value of inward-turning perfection and elaboration of what it was to be Chinese. The state promoted Chinese-ness in everything, and strongly discouraged foreign imports and contacts.
I don't know when they turned to a mercantilistic economic model, under which they imported only cash and bullion, and exported only consumer nondurables like tea, whether that was during the Ming Dynasty or later; but the spirit of the time was, "Everything we Chinese need, we have here in China; anything from somewhere else, we do not need." Well, they needed improving artillery and firelocks.
Chinese culture was in decline for a long time. They lost their inventiveness when they became stifled by an oppressive corrupt bureaucracy that pretty much stole any profit from entrepreneurs. Sloth and graft became more rewarding (in the short term) than hard work and industriousness. In the meantime, the pace of innovation picked up tremendously in Europe, with the advent of the Renaissance, colonialism, and the Enlightenment. All of them were precursors to the industrial revolution, where innovation and production exploded. The Opium Wars of the mid 1850s clearly revealed the new strength of Europe and exposed the bankruptcy of Chinese culture.
By the way, what happened to China is exactly what we are doing to ourselves today. At some point, will the Chinese go to “war” with us to promote the sale of cocaine and heroin to the American public?
Chinese history is much more complex than your picture.
They had two thousand years of bureaucracy and corruption prior to 1500, and yet remained (intermittently) vibrant and inventive, probably more so than the rest of the world combined.
Somewhere between 1500 and 1600 they appear to have lost that, and only regained it in recent decades.
But you can’t blame it on corruption or bureaucracy as such, because they had those during their most inventive periods.
It’s not really that China slipped backward after 1600, they didn’t. It’s that Europe and then the West barreled ahead, leaving all competitors in the dust. That is what is unusual, not a period of Chinese stasis.
China had very different attitudes towards these things than Europe or the rest of the world.
China was never much of a trading nation. Their attitude that they didn't need anything from the rest of the world was historically based in reality. While more gold and silver was always nice, they just didn't want much of anything produced by the rest of the world. China itself was so huge and diverse it produced everything they wanted.
Even the Chinese idea of trade was weird. It generally took the form of official "tribute" brought to the Son of Heaven, with "presents" returned to the foreigners by the Emperor in condenscion. A truly unique feature is that the presents were supposed to outweigh the tribute in value, to show the superiority of China, and usually did. Its root purpose was political, not economic.
The Chinese inside China were highly mercantile, and the only rival as middlemen to the overseas Chinese are the Jews, but Chinese import/export has always been strange.
Nope. UK forced opium on the Chinese because they wouldn't buy anything else from Europe, leading to a huge imbalance of trade for tea and silk expports.
We seem to have no problem buying lots of stuff from the Chinese.
You and I carry E.Coli all the time, but only when it escapes the limits put on it by the immune system does it cause trouble.
Likewise, corruption and bureaucracy are in all societies, it is when they become too large a part of the economy that trouble happens. The USA has tax evaders, for example, but Greece has made it a national pastime.
The S&L crisis of the 70s involved a lot of corruption, but folks went to jail and it was over. Today's banking has a lot of corruption, but now the corruption extends to the Department of Justice and SEC and nobody goes to jail and the penalties are a small percent of the profits so it will not be over soon.
Now, I'm not enough of a historian to know exactly how much corruption or bureaucracy contributed to China's decay relative to the west, but your logic does not work.
However, it is true that a Chinese Emperor did decree the end of their ocean going fleet in the 15th Century, and you could call him the ultimate bureaucrat.
If you think about it, the innovation in Europe happened in a narrow triangle The places considered as the sources of this industriousness were the Netherlands primarily and secondarily parts of England. YET, the Netherlands region (present day Netherlands + Belgium) were industrious right from the 11th century - BRugges etc. were centres of industry as was Genoa and Pisa and Venice.
in fact in the 1200s the center of innovation was also narrow --Venice to Genoa
And in the ancient world it was in the Middle East
The places in which the industrial revolution really took off in the late 1700s to the 1800s was in the triangle of London-Paris-Amsterdam.
you can see more details in post 523, the second map
|
Country |
Population (millions) |
Position as a nation-state |
|
British Isles |
3 |
Until the end of the 100 years wars, it seemed that England and France would merge under one king. When the English lost and were thrown out of Western France, that led to the consolidation of both England and France as nation-states with language unity. However, Scotland still was independent and the Welsh chaffed under English rule. Ireland is reduced to warring clans. |
|
France & low countries |
12 |
See above. France emerges as the strongest nation-state, but is really an empire with the northern, “French-speaking” population around Paris ruling over the southern l’Oil areas. The French had recently destroyed and conquered the Duchy of Burgundy
The low countries (Belgium, Netherlands) are part of Spain and remain so until 1600. These were once the capitals of the Holy Roman Empire (Bruges was once a center of trade) and hence have a larger population, more trade and commerce. Belgium is part of Holland until 1830 even though it is completely Catholic. In 1830 it fights and gets independence. |
|
Germany & Scandanavia |
7.3 |
No sense of nation-state until Napoleon and even then as nation-states like Hesse, Bavaria, etc. not as Germany (that only happens post WWI and more especially post WWII when Germans from Eastern Europe who have lived in EE for centuries are thrown out to Germany) Scandanavia has a stronger sense of nation-states, but the Swedes are in union with the Geats (Goths) and the Norwegians and Danes are in a union. The strongest nation-state is Denmark. Sweden is close but will not develop it until the 1600s. Norway is still tribal as is Iceland and Finland Switzerland is still part of the Holy Roman Empire and has no sense of a nation-state but is a loose confederation that have nothing in common except that they band together against common enemies. This will remain the state of Switzerland until Napoleon conquers Switzerland and creates the Helvetic Confederation (and then adds it to France!). Post Napoleon, there is consolidation, but Switzerland still has a large civil war and only gets some semblance of a nation state in the late 1800s |
|
Italy |
7.3 |
No sense of nation-state, but strong city-states. This is the most advanced “nation” in Western Europe, with an advanced financial system, manufacturing, strong in agriculture etc. Only it does not have a central government, which puts it in a bad position compared to France and Spain who interfere in the city-states. Italy is not united until Garibaldi in the late 1800s. |
|
Spain/Portugal |
7 |
Strong nation-states formed in opposition to the Moors. Not very advanced economically as this is still very agricultural. However, it is tied to the economically stronger Arab world and with the discovery of gold in the Americas, it will be the most powerful state for the 1500s -1680s until the rise of Louis XIV France |
|
Greece/Balkans |
4.5 |
Under Ottoman rule, strong sense of nation-state, but no self-rule. Highly advanced economies in Greece and Anatolia, arguably most advanced in all of Europe. Romania, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bulgaria arespan> devastated by the Ottomans with many fleeing to the mountains. Agriculture, culture etc. severely decline. They are hit on two sides – by the Turks militarily and, because the Turks have a “millet” system where people of one religion are grouped together and the millet for all of these is Orthodoxy, the Bulgarians, Romanians etc. are kept under Greek Phanariotes. Hence their culture declines while Greek culture thrives. |
|
Russia |
6 |
Still expanding south and east, conquering the Emirates of Kazan etc. This is still a barbaric state and remains so until Peter the Great. It has a sense of purpose, but it’s purpose is Christianity as they believe they are the last Christian state and have a holy duty to push back the Moslems. Economic and scientific development is poor as the focus is on war and agriculture – life is too hard and land too vast to develop like Western Europe. |
|
Poland/Lithuania |
2 |
Consolidating nation-state, however, more based on a confederacy as there are 4 nations here: Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians (Ukrainians, Belarusians) and Jews. This mixed with 4 different religions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Judaism and Islam (Lipka Tartars)) means a very tolerant state – tolerance levels of these are not reached by Western Europe until the late Victorian era. |
|
Hungary |
1.5 |
Strong nation state of the Magyars in Magyaristan (we English speakers give them an exonym of Hungary while they call themselves Magyar). However, the Magyars (descendents of Finno-Ugaric warriors) are mostly ruling class and warriors, they import Saxons as merchants. The native Romanians, Slovaks, etc are kept as serfs. The state is one of war |
|
Bohemia |
1 |
Strong nation-state but at war with the Holy Roman Empire and Poland has given it a sense of insecurity. It will eventually be absorbed by Austria-hungary. |
Righto.
A highly relevant, perhaps the most highly relevant, point is that no European monarch ever had such complete power.
Europe was divided and any monarch who oppressed his people in such ways risked losing them as they fled to other countries that would welcome their support. Such as the Wild Geese fleeing Ireland for France, and the Huguenots fleeing France to Prussia, England and America.
The Chinese Emperor didn't have that issue. He decreed an end to overseas exploration and trade and it stopped. Within a decade or so going overseas was a capital crime.
One reason he was able to do this was that Chinese overseas exploration was not a profit-making venture or intended to be. It was just a massively expensive essay in ego boost by the Emperor. Obviously there were other possible things for the Emperor to spend his money on and boost his ego.
So there was no native Chinese import/export merchant class that had its livelihood directly impacted by the decree.
At this time in Europe every country had traditional and/or legal rights of various groups that would have prevented any monarch from exercising such absolute control.
This mental logic is what stopped business from expanding, along with the idea of the Chinese being above the rest of the world, so no need to learn from the rest of the world or to trade with them
Yes, that is part of it, but not perhaps the most important part.
The structure of traditional Chinese society is weird, not like anything else in the world except for Japan, which was heavily influenced by China, of course.
In almost all societies the soldier is the most prestigious role, then merchants, then peasants. To over-simplify a great dea.
In China the highest position was scholar/official, a role that didn't really exist anywhere else, followed by peasant, then soldier, who was at the bottom. In Japan, the warrior was on top, and the scholar/official was absent.
Obviously in reality the soldier in China often had immense power, but the role as such was almost without prestige.
The merchant, however, was more or less outside and below the officially recognized social ranking. The businessman in China, despite often being wealthy, held a social position not terribly dissimilar from the untouchables in India, IOW no recognized position at all.
In effect, business in China was almost by definition organized crime. The businessman had no recognized right to his property, which was viewed as almost having been obtained by crime, and therefore could be legally and morally looted by the scholar/officials or the Emperor whenever convenient.
Therefore, for fairly obvious reasons, there tended to be a great deal of overlap in China between crime and business. Hence the tongs and triads, and to some extent the recent notable lack of ethics in Chinese business dealings.
well, in India this was also true -- the 4 varnas -- Brahmin (scholar), Kshatriya (warrior), Vaishya (merchant) and Shudra (lowest caste) had Brahmins on top
The peasants would normally be Vaishya -- unless you mean farmhands who would be Shudra
but the role as such was almost without prestige. -- I did not know that. In other societies, India as well, this was not the case, with many Brahmin and Vaishya and Shudras taking up weapons to become warrior castes
Very interesting point you make about Chinese merchants, but I don't understand: I don't know that much about China but I know that Chinese businessmen are among the most canny and spread throughout s-e asia and further afield due to business acumen
Thanks for the piece about tongs and triads and the lack of ethics. your statements make a lot of sense
The Brahmins would be more accurately called clergy than scholars, and of course the First Estate in medieval Europewas the clergy. As I said, I was oversimplifying by leaving priests out of the equation.
What I was trying to get across as unique to China, AFAIK, was the uniquely low status of soldiers and merchants/businessmen relative to other societies.
The untouchables of India are outside and below the four-caste system you mention. The actual Indian caste system is orders of magnitude more complicated than that. One of the most interesting aspects of the Indian caste system is that it tends to creep back even into groups specifically set up to get rid of caste, such as Christians, Moslems and Sikhs.
You are quite right about Chinese businessmen, who it is said could live in an empty field and get rich selling each other rocks. Part of this is because Chinese merchants traditionally lived on the knife edge and could be looted at a moment’s notice by the government. This is also why traditional Chinese rich businessmen keep a very low profile, for instance having an exterior of their home that is ragged even when the greatest luxury is found inside.
That’s changed a lot, I believe, but any society over 2000 years old obviously has some staying power!
I agree with you -- Chinese culture is deep. It entranced even their conquerors like the Manchu, Mongols etc and the people they oppressed like the Vietnamese etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.