Forums → WEPR → Will China take over the world????
| 101 | 20756 |
Hey not to be racist or any thing but does anyone notice the sudden population growth of chinese people??? This sometimes scares me because they are becoming more and more spread across the world and much more powerful. since they are allied with North Korea, they might turn into some asian force. this might mean they could be stronger than the U.S. Please reply in a nice and not racial way!!! this is just supposed to just have another conversation about todays world.
P.S- im not Chinese
- 101 Replies
Squalick's raised some good thoughts but seeing as the post verges on 1000 words (which, if you speed-read, you could cover in one or two minutes), I doubt most of you, if any, read it in its entirety.
Fortunately, some of it reiterates what I've said earlier in the thread except more explicitly. I'll extract some salient points though:
The pre-eminence of the East and the irrelevance of the West might seem like ancient history, but it is a powerful memory that plays a pivotal role in the collective minds of many non-Westerner societies today.
I'm under the impression that one of the reasons that the East 'lost out', so to speak, was due to internal cultural suppression, which, at that point in time (and still now), was akin to shooting yourself in the foot. Assuming we are, as I mentioned earlier, talking about sphere of influences as opposed to control (everybody needs to be clear about which theme is which when posting on this thread), influence is only possible insofar as one is relevant...or one is dependent upon. This is the issue that squalick has pointed out with the US: there's no honey in the honeypot because it's all gone elsewhere. It's effectively becoming a husk- strangely enough this is arguably the opposite of the insularity that I spoke of at the start of this paragraph, but there you go. Out of hegemony, new points of distinction will arise.
More generally, I'd invite people to think of examples where a person or a country "tried to take over the world". So far we've got the Ottoman Empire from about the 5th century AD, and before that the Greek and Roman empires respectively, both of which demonstrate that overextension of territory in the name of 'governing over' is pointless and that overextension of territory via military power is self-sabotaging (more than a millennium later, Napoleon also learnt this the hard and very cold way). Then you have the colonial era, most notably the British Empire (so the sun never sets on the British Empire, eh?) Then you have the megalomaniacs (I consider their motives independent of the Allied/Axis polarisation that dominated thinking of the time)- Hitler and to an extent Stalin.
But what about after that? As you can see, while the world stage changed, so too did the way we frame this 'world domination'. In an unprecedented integrated multicultural world, it seemed silly to think that we could have the same situation as described before. So ask yourself: what are the circumstances that allow us to speak seriously about whether a nation is going to 'take over the world'? Given that the Cold War passed from the young generation's collective consciousness a while back, it seems to me that this rhetoric is a recently rekindled one, and I'm going to be pointing my finger somewhat at the recent events of 9/11 and what followed, with the naming of an Axis of Evil, the rhetoric clearly reminiscent of WWII. The culture of apathetic ignorance in the face of information overload was already well in effect, so while the US merely continued to be central to much of the world conflict as it has been for decades, it took something drastic for the general public to sit up and take notice, and say 'holy crap, that's close to home.'
Speaking of which, I'm going to bring up a point of contention for the fun of it:
Football distracts us from politics in the same manner that politics distract us from reality
I'm going to suggest this is an inelegant analogy for two reasons:
1) Reality in itself is not well defined.
2) Where there are people there is politics, and the process of politics is as central a representative of how we cohabit.
I'd qualify this by saying that it is identity politics that is distracting moreso than politics as a whole. What are humans without their metaphysical queries?
Thanks for the response
one of the reasons that the East 'lost out', so to speak, was due to internal cultural suppression, which, at that point in time (and still now), was akin to shooting yourself in the foot
I agree with the heart of this. I don't know if 'cultural suppression' is the best term, though. I think that cultural suppression is a terrible thing, and that it can limit progress and people in a thousand ways, but I don't think it always contributes to the decline of an empire. Sometimes it helps build one.
In the Ottoman empire they essentially tried to freeze time in terms of religious-legal evolution, have the ulama be standardized and consistent in their behaviour, arguably in order to better regulate the umma... a move that mirrored movements within European kingdoms towards absolutism. That was a top-down move, certainly affecting the culture but probably directed more towards simplifying administration - lazy leaders. This contributed to the empire's inflexibility and unreadiness to adapt to changing and new circumstances. But I think the most significant suppression within the Ottoman empire was done by the culture, not to the culture. The Ottoman empire was always multi-ethnic; different cultures, languages and religion co-existed peacefully. But the upper classes had a culture of their own, so to speak, and they were the ones responsible for scientific and intellectual progress, significant technical innovations, learning from others outside the empire, (the other classes were busy working) and they all got too comfortable to do their jobs properly. The general consensus was that the Ottoman empire was the best and that it would be silly to worry about these pesky ascending European powers with their silly merchant expeditions, silly little colonies and silly gunpowder. Incredible naivety, unparalleled in its extent in modern times, but not incomparable to the attitudes of many elites in the United States today who don't seem to take the rest of the world seriously.
China's foolishness came close to that. They closed themselves off completely, believing they were basically perfect (the rest of the perfecting could be done at a leisurely rate behind closed doors) and there was nothing more of great significance to learn, little more progress to be had. I would talk about China in more detail if I had a deeper understanding but I never studied Chinese history specifically, which is something I regret. Still time, though. It's been a couple years since I studied Middle East history too, having to visit wikipedia to piece things together in my mind.
influence is only possible insofar as one is relevant...or one is dependent upon. This is the issue that squalick has pointed out with the US: there's no honey in the honeypot because it's all gone elsewhere. It's effectively becoming a husk- strangely enough this is arguably the opposite of the insularity that I spoke of at the start of this paragraph, but there you go.
It does seem like the US is on its way to being a husk, doesn't it? In some ways, at least; without its rich people its a pretty poor country, and much of its wealth is mobile or already foreign-owned. If that wealth leaves, though, the husk won't be empty, it will be a husk with a lot of angry people and peoples, a lot of guns, a lot of infrastructure, a lot of land, and a lot of remaining natural resources (believe it or not!). But if the wealth leaves it needs a nicer place to go, and where is that? What other countries provide better conditions under which wealth can thrive? There might be tax havens and tropical islands, but none of those countries have enormous populations (read: markets) and thoroughly westernized cultures. United States is still home for so many super-rich, and the super-rich are quite capable of keeping it that way (read: special interest lobbying, mass advertising: propaganda: democracy suppression) for a long, long time. The economic opportunities may have come to lie outside the United States but not the economic opportunists.
And I have a feeling that if all the wealth started leaving the United States, someone in uniform with their finger on the big red button might want to stop it. (Unless the military becomes privatized completely and left the country along with the money!)
But maybe you weren't talking about the wealth leaving the country so much as you were talking about intellectualism, ingenuity, civility, work ethic... Actually now that I think of all the possibilites I can't say that I know what you mean. What do you mean, husk?
So far we've got the Ottoman Empire from about the 5th century AD
hehe, did you put that up there just to see if anyone would catch it?
I'd invite people to think of examples where a person or a country "tried to take over the world"
I think you named all the ones that I could think of with the exception of the Mongols. About Stalin, though, I don't think he ever really wanted to conquer the world. I think he was incredibly defensive, in fact I think that the Soviet Union's entire campaign in the Cold War wasn't really one of trying to 'take over' but rather just to 'hold on'... that's another debate altogether but I'd be happy to discuss it. (Even the Cuban Missile crisis can be seen as defensive posturing by the USSR, looking for a horse to trade to get nuclear missiles aiming at the Russian heartland out of NATO Turkey) Stalin, as an individual, was not terribly outgoing. One of the big differences between Stalin and Trotsky was that Trotsky wanted to export communism while Stalin wanted to consolidate rule at home first. Both positions had to be argued in terms of the best way to spread the socialist ideology, but Stalin was concerned primarily with what happened in the Soviet Union. He was happy to cut a peace deal with Hitler to the extent that he readily agreed to divide Eastern Europe between their own spheres of influence - a well-established Nazi empire in Europe would've posed a major barrier to Soviet world domination but not to Soviet security (under the wrong assumption that the Nazis would be friendly and not try to pull any Operation Barborossa).
1) Reality in itself is not well defined.
2) Where there are people there is politics, and the process of politics is as central a representative of how we cohabit.
1) I agree, in fact I think that reality is entirely subjective, but I was speaking a bit poetically. Reality, in the context of my post, is our own lives as they are played out in the immediate environment with which we can have meaningful interactions. Politics is an alienated drama, vague abstractions, distant numbers, mixed up together with conceptions of political, economic and national differences that tend to be about as deeply thought out as allegiance to one's football team. Politics is mindless emotionalism that pushes us away from our own realities, football is mindless emotionalism that does the same thing. The big difference is that you can find a lot of Marxists saying that things like spectator sports and religion serve to distract people from the essential class struggle that lies ahead of them (ie, politics) - so to say that politics isn't really real/important either is the ironic heart of my joke.
2) Politics is where people are, I agree with you there for sure. It's good to recognize this, with mindfulness it allows us to navigate the political webs we are always wrapped up in.
3) Identity politics is distracting?!?! How!? The struggle to discover, express and represent our identities as individuals, as groups and as societies... that is one of the most important struggles of all! There are right ways and wrong ways to go about fighting the good fight, it's never good to have arrogance and animosity floating around for example, but it's still a good fight I'd say!
What are humans without their metaphysical queries?
Those hairless apes in front of the television, of course!
Hm, I can't respond to this in its entirety as I have an appointment. But!
I don't know if 'cultural suppression' is the best term, though
Well, first off, I'm no historian...in school, history was one of my weaker subjects and I never had any classes on ancient China. But in this case, by 'cultural suppression' I meant things such as the actual destruction of cultural and knowledge elements which seemed to be for the agenda of exerting control from a single point. Something loosely paralleled by Hitler's attempts of sweeping everything under a quasi-religious Aryan culture that placed him as its deity.
Also something maybe loosely paralleled by China's government in the more recent decades decades? "Cultural suppression" was certainly a popular description then. That said:
China's foolishness came close to that. They closed themselves off completely, believing they were basically perfect (the rest of the perfecting could be done at a leisurely rate behind closed doors) and there was nothing more of great significance to learn, little more progress to be had.
This captures much better what I was trying to say. Along with that kind of unrealistic 'top-down' tyranny, there's also an insularity...at least in anthropological terms, how insular a people are appears to have an inverse relationship with how advanced they become relative to the rest of the world. Come to think of it, this applies on both a population and individual scale- if a person is not open to developing through learning from others, a person becomes backward and eventually obsolete.
In the Ottoman empire they essentially tried to freeze time in terms of religious-legal evolution
I'd suggest that humans are largely preoccupied with the stasis of social institutions as a general rule. To jump a few steps I'd further suggest that it's mainly to do with human significance being overstated by virtue of our consciousness.
...Unless the military becomes privatized completely and left the country along with the money
From what little I know of the US' policies, I'm under the impression that currently even most elements of public infrastructure are privatised, seeing as the US purports to be a true capitalism. I've seen examples where this shoots the people as a whole in the foot in the interests of corporate profit- and that's a serious weakness as I see it: services do not necessarily follow from money.
But the thing about that is services still only exist so long as there is the money. Your economic description of the 'husk' is a large part of what I was referring to, but I have a slightly different take- without the money, everything goes elsewhere and the US will be left floundering. Why? Because of the demographics of the workforce- consider the labor market and consider the complacent state of affluence that much of the nation has been sitting in. Also consider the cultural obsessions and distorted philosophies that have generations becoming progressively irrelevant to the running of their own country.
What you've said about this effectively restates that theme I pointed out earlier- about the stasis of the social institution and its effects. So what I meant by husk was really a holistic term- everything you've mentioned, really.
What other countries provide better conditions under which wealth can thrive?
I foresee an exodus to Dubai :P
On that note, about the 'C5th Ottoman Empire'...oh snap. Yeah, that was like completely a typo c.c
Now, the fun part:
Politics is mindless emotionalism that pushes us away from our own realities
You've said this...but then...
The struggle to discover, express and represent our identities as individuals, as groups and as societies... that is one of the most important struggles of all!
But this isn't at all exempt from your description of mindless emotionalism, in fact I'd suggest that it's the pinnacle of it!
I would rather treat identity as 'just is'- it's something that's there because people tend to making it but...if one were to accept its importance by virtue of its impact on people as a whole, then my original question was why would one say that politics as a whole was distracting?
I can see a vague picture of where you're coming from but I think more words could be hurled into the void first!
Well, no one can deny China as a powerful continent. They have advance technology. Heck, a lot of our supplies comes from China and Japan. If they shut us of, we are in serious trouble. WW2 was bad enough. It's not about 50 years later, they are even more advanced but on the History channel one night when I was flipping through the channels, the show caught my eye. It showed North Korea and how the U.S.A traded an item, I can't remember for having North Korea off the terrorist list. They had a orchestra play their and it really made a difference. We even had their governor talking with them! He was very private too so North Korea wouldn't break a treaty so hastily. It will be a long time till China will even think of attacking the United States of America.
Why's everyone so funny about North Korea? If things went real bad they might be able to throw a few missiles towards Japan, and China would probably still be unhappy at the prospect of UN/NATO/Coalition troops getting too close to its border with North Korea, but North Korea doesn't have any grand imperial ambitions and wouldn't make a powerful ally to China if they did. The significance of North Korea's military strength is threefold:
1) They are a 'rogue state' that refuses to follow the rules of international politics, they are unpredictable and have the potential to throw a few bombs in a few directions causing mass havoc in South Korea and Japan.
2) They would be very difficult to invade (for a small country) because of their million man standing army, AA guns hidden everywhere and extensive tunnel system through which a tank can disappear in one part of the country and reappear in another
3) They would be utterly impossible to occupy. The population is thoroughly indoctrinated to love the leader and hate the West, the military is trained in guerrilla warfare while the terrain itself is mountainous and problematic
So the problem with North Korea is that they can't really be brought under control. The nuclear weapons issue is an important one but it doesn't change the essential dynamic.
You're absolutely right about one thing, drakokirby: no one can deny China as a powerful continent.
I can see a vague picture of where you're coming from but I think more words could be hurled into the void first!
Words for the void here we come!
Politics is a word laden with subjective meanings, I could give it a dry and scientific definition but if I sought to hold to that then I would be doing the versatility of language a disservice. This is why I've expressed two somewhat-contradictory understandings of politics. I have plenty of even-more-contradictory understandings to express, if they come up in conversation! The two conceptions you quoted are poetic; one is cynical, one is romantic. I would agree with you that they overlap, politics as mindless emotionalism and politics as a noble struggle, but they are still distinct in that they manifest very different spirits.
Noble struggles tend to be infected with mindless emotionalism, to be sure, but even within mindless-emotionalist circles there is bound to be a worthwhile cause and valuable ideas. The angle from which we look at politics is our choice to make, and I choose every angle I can think of!
Regarding the suppression of culture by Chinese government in recent decades... I don't know as much about the Cultural Revolution as I'd like to but I think I can comment here. The official line of the Communist Party now is that "Mao was two thirds right" meaning that, overall, 66.67% of what he did was right and 33.33% of what he did was wrong - sometimes an entire decision was right or wrong, sometimes a big decision was part right and part wrong. The Cultural Revolution fell in the mixed category, for sure. Did they shoot themselves in the foot? Yes, they wasted valuable intellectual resources on hard labour in the name of equality. But at the same time the Cultural Revolution - including the mistakes made within it - helped to build China up to what it is today, ensuring obedience to the Party, bringing different types of people together, getting rid of counter-revolutionary dissent, etc. Not all of these things are 'good', mind you, but many were effective in securing and solidifying power. If China had another, similar Cultural Revolution now it would be silly, they simply don't need it: it could only hurt the Party ultimately. Cultural suppression serves a purpose, but only in the right time and in the right place.
That being said, cultural suppression, along with economic suppression, political suppression, social suppression, etc, is ongoing in China - but not so much as to stifle the energies needed to compete with other powers in the world. The ongoing suppression within the United States is, however, a different story... America, as advanced and as central as it may be, continues to grow archaic and irrelevant in the eyes of the rest of the West and the rest of the world as public and political rhetoric continues its descent into obscure absurdity.
I'd agree with you that insularity, as you call it, limits individuals as well as groups. Have you ever read a book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" by an anthropologist called Larry Diamond? I read a chapter here and there, it's really insightful into why the world has come to be as it is based on the development of different cultures in different geographical circumstances. I can give you a synopsis if you're interested, but you should check it out if you haven't already.
Back to the US as a husk... I don't think I can bring myself to see it this way. On the one hand I can realistically see America's greatness being drained from it, patriotic flag-wavers slouching on their porches in 50 years talking about how when they were kids their country was the most powerful one on the planet, 'I swear!' but on the other hand there is only so much that can be taken away, and so much that has to remain. People with their cultures and training, infrastructure ready to be activated and deployed, natural resources ready to be exploited - even after some great unforeseeable catastrophe there would be so much left in America that I don't think it would be fair to write it off as a husk. Under the worst (best?) circumstances, I don't think America could be unimportant to the rest of the world in 200 years even if it wanted to be.
If money left the US there would be floundering, for sure. But for how long? And what then?
Privatization of public resources is a fascinating phenomenon anywhere in the world, but especially intriguing in the United States, a developed (the most developed!) country that shouldn't have any reason to let itself be taken advantage of by foreign - oh, never mind, - domestic multinationals. Services go where the money is, alright, but the distribution of the money rarely makes much sense.
On a more serious note, what are the chances of George Carlin taking over the world?
Granted, humanity as a whole is adaptive. At least that's the general rule. Such statements as these:
People with their cultures and training, infrastructure ready to be activated and deployed, natural resources ready to be exploited - even after some great unforeseeable catastrophe there would be so much left in America that I don't think it would be fair to write it off as a husk
Are debatable but for the purposes of this discussion, only semantically. I shan't speculate here on if, or how badly affected the US would be but I'll agree that it'd be inappropriately cynical to think that the US is as a whole so incompetent that challenges to its dominant position would result in its people being wiped off the face of the Earth.
To move from the subject matter to a meta-analysis of the discussion, I've observed that the striking thing about your (squalick) posting style is that here you've presented a 'both sides of the coin' approach whereas I've been more singular in my focus as a means of probing, because I'm used to such an approach being demanded on this forum.
Hmmmm... I think I'm pretty dogmatic in many regards, actually, but this topic hasn't really brought it out in me. This topic is interesting from so many angles that I just can't be singular in my focus... I don't know if I've really been taking up diametrically opposed points of view and generating an argument within my posts but I try to contradict myself every once in a while to keep things interesting. When you write contradictions it keeps you humble and humourous, when you read contradictions it keeps you thinking for yourself. I don't participate in heated and stubborn arguments so I try to practice a writing style that isn't conducive to them, I'd much rather have a free and speculative exchange of ideas so that everyone can form and enhance their own opinions.
I'd suggest that humans are largely preoccupied with the stasis of social institutions as a general rule.
I've been more singular in my focus as a means of probing, because I'm used to such an approach being demanded on this forum
I agree that stasis of social institutions is something pursued and desired by large parts of society. Some people want order so that they can rule while other people want order just so that they don't have to be confused about what's right, wrong and how things work.
The simple fact that you wanted to move to a meta-analysis of the discussion shows that you probably don't fall in either category. Of course its practical in a discussion to make coherent statements and represent a point of view, it's pretty hard for anyone to talk to you otherwise, but I don't think that this courtesy excludes flexibility in perspective, and I wouldn't paint you with the single-minded brush for staying somewhat organized.
On forums I've often been pushed, by highly vocal, aggressive and offensive posters who possess (or maybe just purport) views directly opposed to my own, to simplify and cement my views for the sake of waging an effective war of ideas. When the war is over I always find myself criticizing my own posts, saying "no, no, not necessarily...". It's easy to do that in any debate, I guess, which is why I either stay out of debates or jump into them with the mischievous goal of making a mess of any overly rigid doctrine and expanding the boundaries of the discussion.
I don't know well enough what your philosophy is, how it dictates your posting style, and what the general substance of your points of view are just yet, but I have a feeling I won't hate you.
First, this post gets a big OFFTOPIC label slapped on it as I'm no longer talking about China or World Domination (I was actually penning a satirical cartoon about a nefarious plan for world domination but it had nothing to do with China per se...)
If anybody is interested however this is a general overview of how I approach forum discussions:
1) I tend to meta-analysis and meta-criticism because that's what I like. I'll always note trends in discussions and trends in subject matter and prefer to direct discussion before adding my own input.
2) However I'm also exercising more organised communication, so I'll always flag what I'm doing with my posts, whether it's playing Devil's advocate, doing 'on one hand' and 'on the other hand', or stating a single point.
3) Third, I suck at conflict. I prefer to avoid it, but dealing with uneducated opinions is okay. I'll work my way up to dealing with the adult counterparts: arrogant upstarts who think they know everything :P
My philosophy is generally that of finding value in everything as far as I am capable. You'll generally see me reconciling and telling people to chill and stuff, or asking pointed questions.
Yes to put it plain and simply...
China has alredy owns the world ;D
@ serb warrior
No it doesnt. It has a lot of influence but by no means does it own the world. I think atm the US is still the biggest power definitely economically and in terms of its military.
I'll mix my off-topic post with some on-topic questions to generate discussion and move the debate in new, more critical directions...
If China did take over the world, what would the world be like?
I like your philosophy, Strop. Being able to step back and look at things from a more abstracted point of view is the best way to see solutions; buried in the middle of things it's hard to see what's being said and why. Seek first to understand, then to be understood is a motto I forget all too often, but I oughtta take it to heart more of the time because nobody is going to be able to summon the energy or attention to listen if they aren't feeling listened too. I think I'll have a lot to learn from watching your way of doing things. Cheers!
If the world was 'un-taken over' and every human individual and human group was able to rule over their own lives democratically, fairly, and effectively... what would that be like?
if any country would take over the world it would be either
china, russia, or th US.
If the world was 'un-taken over' and every human individual and human group was able to rule over their own lives democratically, fairly, and effectively... what would that be like?
My response: lolwut.
I'm going to sit back on this one and hope other people respond in earnest.
You must be logged in to post a reply!