NOT NEWS BASED - Small thought on China's history, Confucianism and Treason

[S10]

Primitive gunpowder? That depends. With poor morale, training, and leadership (influenced by traitors), gun soldiers in the 17th century were indeed no match for cavalry. But highly disciplined soldiers of the 17th century have no problems. The economics of gun soldier vs. cavalry rider means that treason and incompetence are the only ways for a much more populous, defending nation to lose with gun soldiers against pure cavalry (which the Manchus were). Of course, once the cavalry was supplemented by gun wielding infantry (Ming traitors) they grew very deadly. Cavalry of that time already couldn't simply charge at mass infantry lines with massed guns, pikes and swords. They had to rely on attacking flanks or waiting for retreats after artillery bombardment. But of course once Wu Sangui agreed to help the Manchus, the Manchus got hold of the artillery and infantry they needed.

Cavalry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, late Ming Dynasty's gunpowder weapons were very much primitive by European standards at the time. Hand-to-hand weaponary, crossbows and composites bows were still the mainstay of the Chinese armies at the time, both Ming and Qing troops included. Qing actually did charge the Ming gunpowder troops head on, and normally would emerge victorious. Both Song and Ming troops were notoriously poorly trained and equipped, with only a handful of elites. Go learn about Ming 军户 system and Song 禁军 system, and you will quickly learn everybody in society at the time despise soldiers as a profession. Low morale, poorly trained troops will be defeated each time, regardless of how good their weapons are.

Also, by the time Wu Sangui led the Manchus in, the Ming dynasty was already long finished. Li Zicheng had destroyed the Ming through a peasant rebellion, and declared himself emperor. He was sending troops to kill Wu Sangui, who obtained the aid of Manchus to save himself. In the case of Jia Sidao, Song had already lost Xiangyang before he even became the prime minister. Without the strategic stronghold of Xiangyang, it was only a matter of time before Mongols were able to encircle Southern Song. Its fate was already sealed, Jia Sidao or not. Learn your history before crying foul. I find your historical knowledge to be especially lacking.

Yes, there were soviet collaborators, but they never changed the outcome of the war as much as Jia Sidao and Wu Sangui did.

Jia Sidao and Wu Sangui were both the products of a crumbling empire. Song was dead meat by then and Ming was already dead in their case. There were Hans that assisted the Xiongnu during Han Wudi's reign, yet that didn't prevent Han dynasty from beating the crap out of Xiongnu. Traitors only have room to operate if the country is already a trainwreck, otherwise they're just storm in a teacup.

Yes, it can't feed empty stomachs, but empty stomachs is not the problem right now. NO ideology can do anything other than act as a guide. However, sometimes the guidance can push a society in a direction, whether right or wrong. As speeder said, the ideology should "fit" the nation. I won't get into the IQ and all, of course.

No, the living condition of the people is always a problem, ALWAYS. Any half competent government should focus on improving the lives of the public first and foremost. Borrowing Samuel John's quote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". While there is nothing wrong with patriotism, only fools should put that above all else. Like I said, people support whoever gives them a better life.

I don't know if you've watched the documentary 《河殇〉 or not. While it has been criticized as a self hating racist movie, I think it has many valid points. The first is Chinese people's defensive mindset. We should always be thinking offense, and how to take the lead, instead of defending. Our foreign policy is a direct result of this defensive mindset. Of course, this documentary does have self hating racist parts and intense US worship, but its criticism of Confucian ideals should at least be considered.

Chinese have no offensive mindset? Heh that's a fresh one. I wonder how we got from a few tribes along the Yellow River to the third largest landmass in the world. Conquest doesn't always have to come through military arms. If the same effect can be achieved through cultural and economic means, all the better. Certainly you can criticise Confucianism, but I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with Confucius's teaching. In fact, it was people that can after that tainted his wisdom. A country needs to be held together through a common ideal, and communism has been tried and failed.

 

[huzihaidao12]

Chinese have no offensive mindset? Heh that's a fresh one. I wonder how we got from a few tribes along the Yellow River to the third largest landmass in the world. Conquest doesn't always have to come through military arms. If the same effect can be achieved through cultural and economic means, all the better. Certainly you can criticise Confucianism, but I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with Confucius's teaching. In fact, it was people that can after that tainted his wisdom. A country needs to be held together through a common ideal, and communism has been tried and failed.

只是补充一点,这是"中国"没有进攻心态,作为一个帝国比较其他所有帝国,如果你知道世界历史,将会发现虽然不总是完美,但是中国真的不追求扩张在整体和一般比较其他帝国.至于你说的,那还没有中国, 没有整体的思维和制度、文化.也就是说,中国还没有定型的时期,那不能计算.

Just add that this is "China "have no offensive mindset, as a comparison to all other imperial empire, if you know the history of the world, will find that, while not always perfect, but the Chinese really do not pursue expansion in the overall and general to comparison with other world empires . If as you said, there still is not "China", no overall change in thinking and systems, and culture. In other words, China has not yet finalized, it can not be calculated.

 

[FC-1]

Time will tell

 

[S10]

Just add that this is "China "have no offensive mindset, as a comparison to all other imperial empire, if you know the history of the world, will find that, while not always perfect, but the Chinese really do not pursue expansion in the overall and general to comparison with other world empires . If as you said, there still is not "China", no overall change in thinking and systems, and culture. In other words, China has not yet finalized, it can not be calculated.

I will tell you why China "had no offensive" mindset, because it not militarily capable of doing so since Song Dynasty. Qin, Han, Sui and Tang aggressively conquered new territories, especially Han and Tang. Early Ming had a great opportunity to do so, having ships and weaponary so ahead of its time that it made Europeans at the same time looked like cavemen playing with canoes. However, instead of seizing the chance to expand new colonies, it scrapped the entire fleet and issued order to prevent sea trade. The policy was continued under Qing.

It's not that China had no offensive mindset, but rulers attempting to strengthen their control over the people.

 

[huzihaidao12]

I will tell you why China "had no offensive" mindset, because it not militarily capable of doing so since Song Dynasty. Qin, Han, Sui and Tang aggressively conquered new territories, especially Han and Tang. Early Ming had a great opportunity to do so, having ships and weaponary so ahead of its time that it made Europeans at the same time looked like cavemen playing with canoes. However, instead of seizing the chance to expand new colonies, it scrapped the entire fleet and issued order to prevent sea trade. The policy was continued under Qing.

It's not that China had no offensive mindset, but rulers attempting to strengthen their control over the people.

这个原因是复杂的,一方面是因为统治民众的压力(这里有人口的迅速增加和自身腐败的因素甚至还有天气的因&#32032,另一方面也是从物质到文化,中国王朝的整体优越性对比,比如郑和下西洋,没有追求殖民地,而是贸易.所有都构成中国没有进攻心态,不是单一因素.

事实上,大多时候的扩张趋势发生在新朝代建立后,几代之内,是因为王朝统一武力思维的惯性.其他的都是偶然的因素和例子.

The reasons are complex, partly because the pressure of ruling the people (here the rapid increase of population factors and their own corruption, and even the weather factors), the other is from the material to the culture, the overall superiority of Chinese dynasties comparison such as Zheng He, there is no pursuit of colonies, but the trade. all constitute China did not offensive mentality, not a single factor.

In fact, most of the time trend in the expansion of the new dynasty is established, within several generations, because of inertia (inertia force). Others are accidental factors and examples.

 

[Martian2]

Disappointed in you.
You think the League of 8 Nations ,plus, have truly disbanded?....look at the G8 !
Oba's openly declared his gut-self to the Queen that though he is Irish !!....he is simply more loyal to the thought of them whites as more superior to the coloreds.....and the whites must prevail.
The world is back at those moments on history centuries ago when Might makes Right....when hungry just fo and plunder the next tribe.
And, here you are trying to bare your belly gentlemanly Confucius to them savages!
Go team up with the Harley rider and Johnny brit.Makee and varmuse.....for heavens' sake.

It is easy to take shots at me and claim that my views are "seditious" or "gentlemanly" weakness. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The United States and the Western alliance (e.g. U.S. allies in Europe and Japan) present a formidable challenge to China. You cannot engage in a knee-jerk reaction of increased belligerency and militarism. That strategy will not work and it invokes memories of Germany.

For China to reach the apex of world power, it requires subtlety, diplomacy, and intelligent application of military threats regarding China's Red Lines. China's international behavior must be clearly understood by the West, Asians, Africans, Arabs, and Latin Americans. China's foreign policies must be rational and comprehensible to the rest of the world to elicit their support.

China cannot embark on a mindless military build-up and become threatening and unpredictable. Germany and the Soviet Union both tried that strategy and it failed miserably.

 

[huzihaidao12]

You think did not seize the opportunity. But why did not seize the opportunity, do you think? because China is far ahead of the material and cultural in the region, even in the visible range, which is a kind of cultural self-confidence based on realistic basis . Of course, on the other hand that it is not good opponent, so Chinese civilization lack of motivation for progress and continuous development.

你认为没抓住机会,但是为什么没抓住机会,你想过没有?因为中国在物质和文化上远远领先在本地区,甚至在可见的范围,这是种文化的自信基于现实的基础上.当然,另一方面也就是说没有好对手,让中华文明缺乏进步的动力.

 

[huzihaidao12]

No, the living condition of the people is always a problem, ALWAYS. Any half competent government should focus on improving the lives of the public first and foremost. Borrowing Samuel John's quote, "Patriotism is the lack refuge of the scoundrel". While there is nothing wrong with patriotism, only fools should put that above all else. Like I said, people support whoever gives them a better life.

Well said, patriotism is only higher than that, it is national sovereignty. This is all based on people's lives, you need to know it. Of course, globalization have become blurred to the sovereignty, it is more accurate to say, is the core Sovereignty. If there is no patriotism, you want to live in Iraq and Afghanistan? with your actions more than your mouth. patriotism can not be an excuse to block the progress of people's lives, the same anti-patriotic also can not become an excuse for selling out the country, you agree?

 

[scuthan]

I will tell you why China "had no offensive" mindset, because it not militarily capable of doing so since Song Dynasty. Qin, Han, Sui and Tang aggressively conquered new territories, especially Han and Tang. Early Ming had a great opportunity to do so, having ships and weaponary so ahead of its time that it made Europeans at the same time looked like cavemen playing with canoes. However, instead of seizing the chance to expand new colonies, it scrapped the entire fleet and issued order to prevent sea trade. The policy was continued under Qing.

It's not that China had no offensive mindset, but rulers attempting to strengthen their control over the people.

the rise of european colonization, particularly the British empire, in the past few centuries was primarily due to the commercialism. they need the raw materials, mines, labor, silver, market demand from their colonies to fuel their industries and accumulate wealth.

chinese civilization was offensive in the early days as they grew from a few small tribes in centrual china plateau to the whole east-asian sub-continent. then they had less incentive to get lands from their neighbors since they had already got most arable lands they could possibly get. before late 19th century, the traditional chinese civilization was agriculturae-oriented. the government attached great attention to the grain output and fiscal revenue, which as well stem from agricultural tax.

Before the industrialization, even some remote chinese provinces are burdens rather than asset to the empire. Liaodong peninsula often had difficult time in being self-relied in food. Provinces in central asia (i.e. xinjing), northeast, mongolia, costed huge amount of money for the central government to sustain them. if other than defense demand, we would had given them up long before. not to mention invading "those neigboring barbarin countries"

 

[S10]

Well said, patriotism is only higher than that, it is national sovereignty. This is all based on people's lives, you need to know it. Of course, globalization have become blurred to the sovereignty, it is more accurate to say, is the core Sovereignty. If there is no patriotism, you want to live in Iraq and Afghanistan? with your actions more than your mouth. patriotism can not be an excuse to block the progress of people's lives, the same anti-patriotic also can not become an excuse for selling out the country, you agree?

The bottom line is that patriotism comes from the support of a people for a nation. The ability of a nation and its government to provide for the public is a direct measure of that. If the government cannot perform that task, it will be replaced by a new one, even a foreign one in some cases. Don't expect loyalty out of the hungry and poor.

 

[huzihaidao12]

The bottom line is that patriotism comes from the support of a people for a nation. The ability of a nation and its government to provide for the public is a direct measure of that. If the government cannot perform that task, it will be replaced by a new one, even a foreign one in some cases. Don't expect loyalty out of the hungry and poor.

Yeah, shut up, and I know who you are, the slave is a slave, as an excuse you do not want to become a slave of government, but you want to be slaves of other countries. If the government can not provide, and we do should be to re-establish government. only some agents think of foreign talent, you simply are selling out. Do you think the world has free lunch? others will not be in vain, you for the people's life? to your own life, clown! look at the records of Western , and both are naked plunder and exploitation of their occupied country. you actually advocating the West will help you build a powerful nation? you serious, clown? that is incompatible with Western interests. there is no possible. You really do not care about this country, do not care about people, all are an excuse for your own life.

I can guarantee that you took the money from other countries now. I guess right?

 

[huzihaidao12]

Some people are shameless, they can shamelessly proclaim that he is to other people, well, to "the people" life to selling out. Sir, you are not the first traitor, nor the last one.

 

[Martian2]

The Big Question: Will China always be constrained by the West?

The answer is "no."

As long as Africa, Asia, Australia, Middle East, and Latin America are willing to trade with China, China will have ample raw materials to power her economy. However, this is conditioned on China having a rational foreign policy. If China adopted America's policy of bombing whomever we dislike, China's international approval ratings will sink just as quickly as the Americans.

----------

Why is it so important for China to become the preeminent economic and technological power in the world?

If you are willing to expand the boundaries of your mind and look at China's vision, the answer should be apparent.

Modern science has made space travel a reality. China has announced that it will land a person on the Moon (circa 2025), build a permanent moon base, and land a person on Mars (circa 2050). What's going on?

The 21st century is 1492 all over again.

China's space program is not merely a prestige project. China's space program is laying the framework for Chinese interplanetary colonization. By mid-century, there will most likely be a permanent Chinese moon base and eventually, a permanent Mars base. Chinese permanent outposts on the moons of Saturn and Jupiter may occur in the latter half of this century.

After China becomes an interplanetary power by the end of this century, China should have the economic resources and technology to build a starship to our nearest neighbors. During the 22nd century, China will probably attempt to colonize the nearest habitable star systems.

Any scientist can tell you that there are no laws of physics to prevent interplanetary or interstellar travel. It is a difficult engineering problem and costs lots of money. However, if China becomes sufficiently technologically advanced, grows its economy into the range of $60 trillion by 2050, and possesses the pioneering spirit then the future is endlessly bright for Chinese civilization.

Just like 1492, whichever country that colonizes the New World will reap a huge bonanza. Therefore, it is imperative that China stays on a peaceful path, muster her economic and technological strengths, and push for an unbeatable lead in space technologies. The stars beckon. The galaxy is ours for the taking.

 

[CardSharp]

The bottom line is that patriotism comes from the support of a people for a nation. The ability of a nation and its government to provide for the public is a direct measure of that. If the government cannot perform that task, it will be replaced by a new one, even a foreign one in some cases. Don't expect loyalty out of the hungry and poor.

And democracy is a panacea. We've heard this before and you think democracies like the US doesn't have corruption.

 

[praveen]

And democracy is a panacea. We've heard this before and you think democracies like the US doesn't have corruption.

Why did many nations adopt democracy,Why?Want to know your take on democracy Cardsharp.I think it might be an intresting view