If you haven't read it, I'd recommend the somewhat outdated but highly relevant The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies. Professor Kopel does an outstanding job of defending his thesis that effective gun control and/or gun rights are tethered to a nation's culture. Thus, an individualist country like the US (the cowboy) would chafe at gun control while in Japan (where the Samurai protects others) gun control works because it is...
a racially homogenous society (97% ethnic Japanese) with a state religion (Shinto). Police are not handcuffed by civil rights concerns. The criminal confession rate of 95% is attributed to routine police torture of suspects (pages 25 and 26) and even illegally-obtained evidence is admissible in court. Japan is a police state and is an island.
Kopel didn't cover China but I'd be interested in knowing the extent to which China's pre-Mao culture was more akin to individualism or collectivism.
Thank you again.
I think it's traditions more than culture. The Chinese way of war involves giving no quarter, although the losing parties will always ask for it - understandably, given the stakes (i.e. not only their deaths, but the deaths of all their kin and perhaps close acquaintances).Thank you for the extremely thoughtful reply. It is a good query: would the tactics you outlined have a chance of breaking the back of an individualist nation? Against the tactics you outlined, I *could* see many people being like Loyalists in the Revolution and siding with the govt/"Great Britain." However, there is no doubt many of the nation's owners of the estimated 300-600 million firearms would rather die that give up their guns and I could also see gun owners becoming even more brutal in retaliating in the face of the tactics you outline...two can play at that game.
If you haven't read it, I'd recommend the somewhat outdated but highly relevant The Samurai, the Mountie and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies. Professor Kopel does an outstanding job of defending his thesis that effective gun control and/or gun rights are tethered to a nation's culture. Thus, an individualist country like the US (the cowboy) would chafe at gun control while in Japan (where the Samurai protects others) gun control works because it is...
a racially homogenous society (97% ethnic Japanese) with a state religion (Shinto). Police are not handcuffed by civil rights concerns. The criminal confession rate of 95% is attributed to routine police torture of suspects (pages 25 and 26) and even illegally-obtained evidence is admissible in court. Japan is a police state and is an island.
Kopel didn't cover China but I'd be interested in knowing the extent to which China's pre-Mao culture was more akin to individualism or collectivism.
Thank you again.
My impression of the Chinese is that they are extremely individualistic relative to society at large. Whereas the average American hews towards the collective. To get a couple of Chinese to overlook their individual or familial interests to work for the greater good is a difficult thing. Hence the line-cutting and litterbug tendencies we see among Chinese tourists the world over, and the rampant tax evasion and corner-cutting on materials that have become an issue in China itself. In this respect, they are similar to much of the developing world. Whereas Americans volunteer at their kids' schools as a matter of reflex and obey the law, whether it's paying taxes or not running red lights.
The idea of the Chinese being a docile mass of people probably comes from the fact that the average individual is fairly pleasant to deal with. Back in the 18th century, foreign diplomats and merchants who ventured into China found the domestics they employed to be attentive, almost servile. But that's the Chinese tradition. Servants were expected to be docile, at a time when their family land holdings had been subdivided (due to multiple sons) to the point of postage stamp-sized lots, the trades were a constant struggle, with guilds limiting admission, and work with noble or wealthy families being plum assignments because of their relative stability and the potential for advancement. These domestics appeared docile, because that's what Chinese employers expected of the help, and this apparent servility was necessary for them to keep their jobs.
The principal counter to the idea that the Chinese are docile comes from the fact that in the last 2000 years, two peasant rebellions have created fairly well-regarded dynasties (Han and Ming) that lasted a combined total of 700 years, and a half-dozen others came within a whisker of taking power. It's hard to think of another country where commoners not only won power but established ruling houses that held on to power for centuries. And that's not counting the current Red dynasty that is closing on to a century of incumbency, since its ascent to the throne in 1949.
Historically-speaking, short of life-threatening conditions (e.g. famines), the average Chinese possibly made the calculation that he was not interested in getting involved in a movement to make someone else emperor, while risking his own life and the lives of all his relatives and acquaintances if the movement failed to win power. At the same time, the principle of collective punishment meant, whether they liked it or not, all of a rebel's relatives were automatically in the same boat as he was - targeted for execution. So once a rebellion got going, it could snowball really quickly, as relative pulled in relative and acquaintance pulled in acquaintance. If you were going to be executed anyway, why not go for broke, and strike for the emperor's head? Only if he and his entire extended family and retainers and their extended families were safely dead would you and yours be safe. It's informed speculation on my part, but I believe that's the reason why Chinese revolts tended to be bloodbaths.
I don't know if you're a history buff, but there's recent book about a big Chinese revolt (in a sea of unrelated little ones) around the time of the Civil War that I found very readable - Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom by Stephen Platt. It was eye-opening for me, and I consider myself a fairly jaded China watcher. I think you'll find it at your local library, at minimum via its association with a consortium of libraries, because it seems to have sold so well that there are multiple used paperback copies available at a nominal price. Lastly, thanks for the tip about the David Kopel book. I've read a lot of his essays, but haven't actually read any of his books. I'll add it to my reading list for the coming new year.
And, by the way, Happy New Year. May there be many more.