[quote]Because Europe has always been culturally and politically behind China in development. It’s only recently they’ve come up with the EU.
Issues like common language, common currency, strong central government vs. local government were resolved quite a while ago in Chinese history.
So the real question is what took Europe so long to converge on the “China” solution while taking a divergent path.[/quote]
I think you misunderstand my point, which is fair enough, becuase I didn’t make it clearly. What I meant was, (and I’m talking about these over the whole period of history, not in their present forms) why do we always think of Europe as a region full of competing nations, and of China as a single country or empire?
Both regions have had a wide range of diversioty within them - cultural, linguistic etc. Both have had their dynasties that rose and fell (the European ‘dynasties’ include the Romans, Charlemagne’s Franks, the ‘Holy Roman Empire’, Napoleon etc). Succesive dynasties have ruled quite different territories. The extent of their territory and the degree to which the regions were unified or fragmented ahs also varied a lot through history. Throughout most of history China has been united by Han Confucianism, Europe by ‘white’ Christianity.
Of course there are substantial differences - I’m not arguing that the analogy is perfect. I’m just saying that they are not so different, but we think of them in enormously different ways, and this (false) way of thinking has an incredible impact on the way we write and interpret history.
Brian
The last time Europe was united was under the Roman Empire. When it fell no one took over and the only unifying power was the Roman Catholic Church, a religious cult…thus the Dark Ages.
I think the answers are found in the difference between China dynasties and the Roman Empire, then comparing the mechanics of dynasty changes in China to those in Europe.
Umm, sorry, come again? So having a corrupt bureaucratic system based on gaft that hasn’t changed for eons is more advanced?? I won’t even go into on how one goes about saying one culture is more advanced than another. :loco:
Yup, most of which happened circa last century. You’re right on currency, but please give me an example when a “chinese” dynasty ever had a strong central government which effectively controlled the empire. Gaft and tributes first and foremost, followed by sending in the military, then followed by abandoning territory if the military failed. “Chinese” dynasties never had centralized effective control of their claimed “territory” like other empires such as the Romans.
I just know you’re joking on this, right?
Depending on how you pick your definition of Europe and united, I’ll leave that you, you could go so far as WWII to see a united Europe.
[quote=“Bu Lai En”]
I think you misunderstand my point, which is fair enough, becuase I didn’t make it clearly. What I meant was, (and I’m talking about these over the whole period of history, not in their present forms) why do we always think of Europe as a region full of competing nations, and of China as a single country or empire?
Both regions have had a wide range of diversioty within them - cultural, linguistic etc. Both have had their dynasties that rose and fell (the European ‘dynasties’ include the Romans, Charlemagne’s Franks, the ‘Holy Roman Empire’, Napoleon etc). Succesive dynasties have ruled quite different territories. The extent of their territory and the degree to which the regions were unified or fragmented ahs also varied a lot through history. Throughout most of history China has been united by Han Confucianism, Europe by ‘white’ Christianity. [/quote]
Splendid point and support. I’d really love see some thorough discussion on this from anyone.
The complexity of the question is befitting a thesis for graduate studies. But if you’re serious about it. Then one would need to explore a baseline culture, as the comparision to Chinese and European cultures.
Personally I would choose the Jewish culture. Since they are at the opposite end of the spectrum of being a nationless, stateless group for most of the 5000 years of history.
Once you find the common narrative between the Jewish culture and Chinese culture for the estblishment of an ethnic Nation State. Then you can do a comparision to the European narratives during the period of empire growing and decline to figure out why it is not till recently a call for the establishment of the EU in it current manifestation.
If the premise that the European narrative is “Christianity,” then there were obvious problems which caused the fragmentation; such as Lutherians and Church of England, that caused the Roman Catholics to loose control of Europe.
To my knowledge there have never been a fragmentation to the interpretation of Confusicious or Mencious which lead to seperation of various ethnic nation-states within various China dynasties.
As everyone knows the switching of dynasties in China is always caused by lovers born on different side of the conflict. To demostrate their love they are forced cause the demise of their own side in hopes of being united with their soul mate. Hopeless romantics.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]Then one would need to explore a baseline culture, as the comparision to Chinese and European cultures.
To my knowledge there have never been a fragmentation to the interpretation of Confusicious or Mencious which lead to seperation of various ethnic nation-states within various China dynasties.[/quote]
Besides the always recurring fallacy of this “chinese-ness”, which grows and contracts in definition to fit the argument, the argument is on why when we are comparing two regions which both have widely differing cultures within them and have had vastly different “empires” in said territory, one is always considered a continous history and the other a muddled region. We’re not talking about religous reasons for breakups, although IMO I find it hard to believe not a single dynasty fell/rose because the emperor was a fanatical religious zealot.
The only reasons that come to mind are the sometimes great lengths of time between a European power claiming “most” of europe (but then China had this as well, and even the most successful dynasties often had huge regions of “territory” which were simply on the empire’s map and not under control, and therefore not unified), and that most European empires had varying systems of government, while China always reverted to the tried and tested graft based bureaucracy headed by an emperor. Greed and nepotism! Always the best way to subjugate the peasants!
No, some francophones want their own little country, which is completely different than France claiming Canada.
ac, your lastest post is just nonsense. A baseline culture? What the hell is that supposed to mean? You completely fail to address the argument at all.
Brian
Bu Lai En,
I was just suggesting a paradigm to the solution.
X = [Set of elements in Chinese Culture]
Y = [Set of elements in European Culture]
Z = [Set of elements in Jewish Culture]
You postulated there exist a set of element ~xy, which donated a set of elements in European cultural which caused its interpreation of history to be different than Chinese history. Or more elegantly ~xy are the set of elements in Y that don’t exist in X.
I proposed the that the deduction of ~xy can be achieved by studying xz, the set of elements which exist in both set X and Z.
Since, Z is also a subset of Y, when you consider the case of European Jews.
Thus some of the elements of ~xy must also exist in the set ~zy, the set of elements which exist in Jewist culture but not European culture.
So ~xy exist in the union of xz and ~zy.
XYZ, made you look…orgamsic isn’t it.
Where’s that picture of Patty Hou when you need it. :wanker:
No, some francophones want their own little country, which is completely different than France claiming Canada.[/quote]
But very similar to the Taiwanese on Taiwan, Matzu, and Jinma
What a load of nonsense. I postulated no such thing.
Brian
i don’t think the broad histories are really comparable. In Europe, continuous waves of invasion came from outside, conquering and assimilating, or petering out, but eventually losing all contact with their original homes and creating individual and distinct states. In China, waves of invasion spread out more like waves from the north, blending with existing peoples but maintaining tenuous cultural and political links with the northern homelands, and bringing more and more territory at least under nominal control of the northern states.