Reddit reviews The Rise of Modern China
We found 3 Reddit comments about The Rise of Modern China. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Item Packaged Quantity: 1 Each
Reddit reviews The Rise of Modern ChinaWe found 3 Reddit comments about The Rise of Modern China. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
I'm going to specifically compare Churchill's notion about Greco-Roman thought to the importance of Chinese classics in East Asia. I'd say it is comparable, but distinct from the Roman/Greek case, especially colored by the very recent history running up to where Churchill was.
In the Chinese case, on-and-off dynasties were run according to the precepts of the "four books and five classics." The four books were a set of texts written (or at least compiled by) Confucius and Mencius. While composed as mostly anecdotes, they established a system of propriety, morality, and "right action" that extended upwards and outwards from the home to the government. The classics were the basis of ancient Chinese religious, poetic, and ritual thought. They established a huge amount of the underlying aesthetic, religious, and cosmological worldviews that you see for millennia. These were seen as seminal to almost all literate Chinese individuals, right up until the reforms and upheavals towards the end of the Qing empire as the 19th century ended.
A specific example of their importance is the "Imperial exam system." Set up in the 600s, it determined participation in government work was based almost exclusively on these texts. Specific forms varied and, as time wore on, some texts and requirements were added or subtracted based on which dynasty was giving the test. The underlying basis, though, was always the four books and five classics.
The thought (and, specifically, the Four Books/Five Classics) was also extremely important to the Imperial forms of government in Korea, Japan, and Vietnam (to varying degrees based on place, time, and who in particular was running things).
Chinese Dynastic succession kept up at a reasonably fast pace and established successive, stable empires, with only a century or two of chaos in between--even foreign invaders like the Mongols or Manchu would acquire Han-educated advisors and set up governments based largely on Confucian tenets (Yuan and Qing were both 'foreign' dynasties). The thought of ancient China wasn't seen as something of a bygone age--it was immediate and current, seen as a lineage. As the Qing declined throughout the 19th and early 20th century, however, many saw it as clear to them that the entire worldview was flawed. Western nations, with their own notions of the world, were militarily superior and bullied the Qing Empire (dealing with its own massive internal issues, including a civil war that left more dead than 20 American Civil Wars). As a result, the ancient thought was discredited and a variety of Western ideologies took root. The one that eventually triumphed, Maoist Communism, explicitly sought to utterly destroy Confucian thought in the Cultural Revolution. The Chinese Communist Party has significantly moderated that stance since then, though, and the classics are once again revered. This is at least partially to set up a credible competing nationalist ideology to "the West,"
and one which isn't based on the now also largely discredited (and also, really, Western) Communist thought.
In Europe, you have the fall of Rome in the 400s and largely, there's chaos thereafter (Things are different in the East with the continuation of Byzantium, but Churchill speaks to a specifically Western European mode of thought). There were various Renaissances (many more than most people give credit for, I don't mean to get any Medievalists on me for downplaying the achievements in the period too much)--Charlamagne, the Ottonians, and others. Still, though, none of them succeeded in achieving anything close to the political hegemony of the Romans, much less in physical, engineering terms. Importantly, also, none of them had the control or longevity to be compared to really any of the dynasties that followed the Roman-comparable Han in our contrasting Chinese example. Rather than the living, functional, developing ideology that informed Empire after Empire, Rome was an ancient wonder. It was present--they could see it around them in the roads and aqueducts they used, the Christian religion they practiced, and the cities they lived in--but they couldn't match it. While pretensions to being "successors" to Rome and many aspects of Roman culture had remained, much of the specific text and practice had long passed by the wayside to be rediscovered during the Renaissance.
In the 'Renaissance that stuck' in the 1400s and onwards, they looked on Roman thought and art as something ancient and wonderful. Statues dug up, texts acquired from the Islamic world (where they had been continuing study of Plato/Aristotle for many of the intervening centuries), and other aspects of greco-roman thought created an idealized past of the "ancients" for the "moderns" to compare their world to. Since there was such distance, I would editorialize, it allowed for way more idolization. As the Renaissance and Enlightenment spread, modern nation-states still based a great deal of thought and practice rooted in this source of cultural legitimacy: A perfect empire that existed an untold amount of time ago.
This is where Churchill is coming from; an agent of a modern empire that, still, desperately wanted to cast itself in the mold of the source of ancient legitimacy. Rather than seeing ancient thought as shackles on modernity, it was (mostly rightly) seen as the seed from which the Enlightenment, Scientific Revolution, and subsequent ability to dominate most of the globe had sprung.
To sum up the difference: In China, you have a constant lineage of social and political thought that was in operation in an Empire torn to shreds and thus discredited, though later redeemed as a source of cultural/nationalist pride. In the UK, you have a strain of thought, the specifics of which were lost, held in reverence as a golden age before centuries of intermittent warfare and chaos. Its rediscovery sets off, in part, a sequence of events that sets the UK up as a truly global empire--reflecting on the idealized past, the British Empire is lionized as a "new Rome," necessarily owing much to the ideas from the "old Rome." Nothing legitimizes your social and political thought (in your mind, anyway) than literally conquering most of the planet with it.
Edited to add sources of where I formed these views--by no means exhaustive, mainly what I can remember off the top of my head/can pull off a bookshelf:
Chinese history:
European:
Roman period:
Renaissance thought:
Enlightenment-Beyond:
Absolutely. There are a couple of things going on. The first thing I'd like to link about this is the letter sent back to the UK in 1793 when they tried to set up trading relations. My favorite bit is
>Our dynasty's majestic virtue has penetrated unto every country under Heaven, and Kings of all nations have offered their costly tribute by land and sea. As your Ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country's manufactures.
The thing is.. at the time, the Emperor wasn't just being a douche. He was absolutely right. China already had muskets as good as 1790s muskets. China had mass silk production, which was way nicer than the mass linen production that was kicking into gear in Europe. They already had porcelain that was much nicer than European ceramics. So on and so forth.
The only reason the opium trade kicks off is because there is literally nothing the British traders can bring that the Chinese want. Before the British start bringing it, they're literally just paying for all of the things I listed above (that are in very high demand in Europe) with straight silver.
Here's where the trouble starts. The Qing dynasty's taxes and treasury were all based on silver. However, silver was suddenly being pumped into the economy at very high rates. This caused pretty severe inflation--since there were more taels of silver around, each one was worth less as prices of goods and services rose, and the flat tax assessments that had been established centuries ago suddenly generated much less real income for the state. The Qing were too slow to respond to this and when they eventually tried to raise taxes to compensate, it caused widespread unrest. This was happening at the same time as a population explosion. The reasons for it are somewhat undecided, but which may have been in part influenced by the West in the form of the humble sweet potato, which had arrived in the early 1700s and (similar to regular potatoes in Europe) unlocked the farming of tons of semi-arable land and drastically increased available calories.
As a result, the Qing dynasty was already facing huge issues. It was at this point that Europe, for the first time in world history, began to surpass China's sphere of influence in production, population, and practical military power. (This is something I think a lot of people forget.. they just assume western hegemony and technological superiority is an eternal given, when it was a very recent development). The Opium war happens and China just gets clowned. This makes the people even more pissed than they were at the tax increases, the vastly increased number of people competing for static government jobs and only suppressed by a static army.
Now the Qing is in a super precarious position. Remember, the leaders aren't actually ethnic Han Chinese--they're Manchus whose ancestors had claimed the throne 150 years previous, when the Ming government was experiencing its own internal strife and thought they could invite the Manchus in to work for them (this backfired). As a result, nativist sentiment had already been simmering under the surface, especially among the landed, educated gentry that formed the backbone of the Chinese government's administration. Reform efforts by the Qing were seen as foreign meddling, and the educated landowners would often stir up the peasants to resist all foreign ideas as more Qing-invented nonsense created to destroy the greatest culture on earth. Telegraph lines were cut, railway lines would be sabotaged. People echoed what has always been conservative sentiment.. "Why can't it just be like it was before?" Most people in China had no real conception of how or why Westernizing was practical or desirable and merely saw it as an assault on their way of life.
The Qing (specifically, the Dowager Empress; there were factions that wanted to go full-Western, including her son who was technically supposed to be in charge, but she and the Eunuchs shut that down pretty hard) essentially had to play both sides against the middle; the only way to survive themselves was to redirect the nativist anger against the REAL foreigners from the West, rather than the foreigners in the palace. Unfortunately, this makes it a lot harder to implement reforms or spread technology that is visibly from the people you're saying are ruining the country. In the end, the Qing failed to play either side; they were completely dominated by the West and their practical rule of the countryside broke down until it was entirely in the hands of warlords, setting the stage for a period of disunity and unrest that wouldn't be resolved until Mao wins the civil war nearly a century later.
So, uh, yes.
For sources: Hsu; Rise of Modern China
Hucker: China’s Imperial Past: An Introduction to Chinese history and Culture
Clunis: Superfluous things: Material Culture and Social Status in Early Modern China
Chinese history is a vast field of study, and if you want a real understanding of it, not just a rushed and superficial summary of thousands of years of events, you should study a few well chosen historical periods in depth. If you want to understand modern China, you should start at the beginning of the Qing dynasty, and read up on the historical forces that set China on its course through the republican era, like the coastal threats of Zheng Chengong et. al., international trade since the Portuguese entered Macao, the Opium Wars, the MacCartney Mission and Napier fizzle, the Nian rebellion, the Taiping Rebellion, France's entry in Vietnam, Russia's abuse of political clout, the unequal treaties, the war in Korea and Japan's budding nationalism including the extremely politically relevant Treaty of Shimonoseki, ...
The best book I've found that covers the history from early Qing through the Republican era until today is The Rise of Modern China by Immanuel C. Y. Hsu. It is a big tome of 1200+ pages, but does a great job in taking you through essential historical events, connecting the dots and making a coherent historical analysis without being too ideological or political.