|
As someone else said, if China ever became a democracy the first thing to happen would be war with Japan. Japan is 100% a political boogeyman in China but I don't really believe the political elites view it as an existential threat because, realistically, Japan isn't in a position to threaten mainland China. If the Japanese went all out, started a national draft and started testing nukes then maybe I could see China going, "gently caress it, nuke 'em" but really I just don't see Japan taking that step without the US pulling up and going home and China getting radically more aggressive militarily. I guess I just don't believe Japan is going to start acting belligerently because the reverse isn't true, China could be a genuine existential threat to Japan because of the relative military size and nuclear weapons. The scenarios where Japan would take actions that provoke China would all involve US protection clearly drying up and the Japanese panicking and going Israeli style military nation. I'm not saying its impossible but I think it would require a major change in the status quo to result in either nation adopting government policy likely to lead to such an outcome.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Why are we presupposing Japan's going to be the aggressor in any shooting war. If anything, all signs point at China being the itchy-fingered one. "We" in this case is mostly Pro-PRC Laowai, whose username sums up his politics pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:Japan going full on militarization is, honestly, a thing that will sink Japan. They simply do not have the resources for it, nor the economy to support such a venture to be honest. It's also one of those things that signals to the rest of asia "Hey look, China was right all along! Japs don't ever change!" Which results in a massive buildup all over. Meanwhile, China has a trump card to play. If Japan ever acts up, I can guarantee, 100%, China will just nuke it into a parking lot, drat the consequences, rather than deal with the crap it went through before. This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. Not only does the US have a military alliance with Japan, Japan has the technological/industrial base, manpower, and knowledge to build nuclear weapons within months. Care to cite how one of the most industrialized countries on Earth is economically unable to expand the size of its navy and army, especially in the face of an increasingly belligerent China?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Why are we presupposing Japan's going to be the aggressor in any shooting war. If anything, all signs point at China being the itchy-fingered one. Well, judging by the timeline of the current dispute Japan was the one who opened fire (water cannon fire, but fire nonetheless) on Taiwanese fishing boats first, so there you go. It wasn't a military incursion into Japanese waters, and it was Taiwan using civilians to troll the Japanese government and they succeeded. I don't think either side was behaving in good faith, but Japan won the itchy fingers contest on that one. Will Rice posted:Not only does the US have a military alliance with Japan, Japan has the technological/industrial base, manpower, and knowledge to build nuclear weapons within months. Care to cite how one of the most industrialized countries on Earth is economically unable to expand the size of its navy and army, especially in the face of an increasingly belligerent China? I agree with you. Japan has the advantage of distance - barring a nuclear first strike, China would have to invest a lot more into its navy if it wants to pose a threat to Japan, which could counter with a comparatively easier investment by purchasing a few more modern destroyers, American or indigenous. I find the 'belligerent China' narrative a alarmist though. I don't think Japan is worried about the Chinese pouring onto its shores so much as it is about international prestige and its ability to maintain control over distant islands like Okinawa. It's got a well-funded military (7th most expensive in the world) that can defend its core territories. The Diaoyu islands are a dispute over islands that are much, much closer to Taiwan and China than it is to Japan. (Note that a lot of media sources downplays the distance difference by measuring the islands from Okinawa rather than Kyushu, which I found funny since Okinawa is a forward base for leftover Japanese imperialism in the first place) I don't think Japan will be able to hold these claims with force if it doesn't increase its military. What if a Dokdo incident and a Diaoyu incident happens at the same time? The navy will be stretched fairly thin. It will be stretched thin not defending the Japanese home islands, but instead defending claims of chunks of rock left over from its imperialist legacy. It's expected that Japan has the balls to defend its prestige, but prestige is what it's defending, not any measurable sense of homeland security. MrNemo posted:noone in this thread was saying asian college students have the brains of 14 year olds Grand Fromage posted:When I talk to a university student in Korea it's like talking to a fourteen year old. That's what I was referring to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
flatbus posted:Well, judging by the timeline of the current dispute Japan was the one who opened fire (water cannon fire, but fire nonetheless) on Taiwanese fishing boats first, so there you go. It wasn't a military incursion into Japanese waters, and it was Taiwan using civilians to troll the Japanese government and they succeeded. I don't think either side was behaving in good faith, but Japan won the itchy fingers contest on that one. Well, in Pro-PRC Laowai's hypothetical, I imagined that China doesn't go from zero to nukes instantly, hence "belligerent."
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
flatbus posted:Well, judging by the timeline of the current dispute Japan was the one who opened fire (water cannon fire, but fire nonetheless) on Taiwanese fishing boats first, so there you go. It wasn't a military incursion into Japanese waters, and it was Taiwan using civilians to troll the Japanese government and they succeeded. I don't think either side was behaving in good faith, but Japan won the itchy fingers contest on that one. Water cannon "fire" on fishing boats aren't a casus belli. You're comparing something that Japanese whalers and anti-whalers do to each other to a military response potentially leading to war? Looking at domestic politics in both countries, China would be the most likely aggressor in any conflict. They have the propensity to stoke the flames of anti-Japanese nationalism whenever they want to distract the locals from domestic issues. One day, they're going to blow it out and the government won't be able to step down the rhetoric without an unacceptable loss of face. In contrast, a Japanese government that actively launches a military action in Asia will likely fall. It's hard to overstate the Japanese population's view on pacifism. If you look at the Iraq war, Koizumi had to go through a lot of poo poo to even send a humanitarian JSDF expedition to Tikrit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
The feeling I get is that the Diaoyu dispute is fading from what passes for a news cycle in China. It's Mid-Autumn Festival so people have other things to think about. I'm confident that when the news media stops hyping this people will go back to not caring about it, because that's generally what people do with issues that don't affect them at all. However I haven't exactly had my finger on the pulse of Chinese society the last week (it's Mid-Autumn Festival!) so I wonder if anyone has been watching the TV news.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:In contrast, a Japanese government that actively launches a military action in Asia will likely fall. It's hard to overstate the Japanese population's view on pacifism. If you look at the Iraq war, Koizumi had to go through a lot of poo poo to even send a humanitarian JSDF expedition to Tikrit. Anyone suggesting that the likelihood of Japan; 1) instituting a draft 2) starting a rapid military build-up 3) launching an aggressive war is not somewhere between  and  , is someone you can safely ignore anything they have to say about geo-politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:the fact that many Chinese are not allowed to have a real social life between 13 and 18 I know everyone hates this derail, but just to get this off my chest- I heard the exact same thing about Korean teens before I came to this country. When I watched how they actually interact with each other and asked them questions about their social life, I found that while they spent a lot more time at school, they had really close friendships with their classmates- much better than any that I had at their age. They could tell really great stories about their friends, too- permitting their English language ability, of course. This isn't a social life in the conventional Western sense, but they're still real emotional connections. Friendship is important- and it tends to be devalued when you get discussions that make sex ed the gold standard for emotional maturity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The feeling I get is that the Diaoyu dispute is fading from what passes for a news cycle in China. It's Mid-Autumn Festival so people have other things to think about. I'm confident that when the news media stops hyping this people will go back to not caring about it, because that's generally what people do with issues that don't affect them at all. However I haven't exactly had my finger on the pulse of Chinese society the last week (it's Mid-Autumn Festival!) so I wonder if anyone has been watching the TV news. As long as Japanese coast guard don't do anything when Chinese surveillance ships come in to circle the islands but yelling over the mike, this thing will cool down and the Asians will go back to hating each other verbally and business as usually and trading money directly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:Anyone suggesting that the likelihood of Japan; As an addendum to this point, if your view of international politics, generally speaking, is repeatedly forcing you to consider thermonuclear war in East Asia as the only possible resolution of conflict between Japan and China and the US, you already have a pretty good illustration of why you should not be allowed anywhere near political power. On that thought, has anybody ever considered the possibility that both the Japanese and Chinese government like playing up international tensions because it gives them an excuse to present the populations they govern as being incapable of reasonable rational thought and therefore in need of rule?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
Roadside_Picnic posted:As an addendum to this point, if your view of international politics, generally speaking, is repeatedly forcing you to consider thermonuclear war in East Asia as the only possible resolution of conflict between Japan and China and the US, you already have a pretty good illustration of why you should not be allowed anywhere near political power. I wouldn't be surprised if their was an element of this in the Chinese government's behavior, but I'm pretty sure Ishihara is actually that crazy, and that line of argument is a rather weird one for a democratically elected government to use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Roadside_Picnic posted:As an addendum to this point, if your view of international politics, generally speaking, is repeatedly forcing you to consider thermonuclear war in East Asia as the only possible resolution of conflict between Japan and China and the US, you already have a pretty good illustration of why you should not be allowed anywhere near political power. The Japanese government needs an excuse to present the population of Japan as being incapable of reasonable rational thought and therefore in need of rule? What? I mean I'm sure there are aspects of Japanese political life that you as an outsider find distasteful, but that's true for any democracy. Everyone in democractic countries think exactly the same thing. Everyone in America hates congress, except for their own representatives that they voted for of course, if you ask people in the SF bay area whether West Virginians are capable of rational thought or are in need of iron fisted rule to drag them out of their ignorant backwardness they would say the same poo poo Chinese people do("Chinese people are literally all savages that will burn the country to the ground if Uncle Mao lifted his boot off their necks for one second, except for the special enlightened models of socialist labor like me of course.") that's the nature of democracy and public opinion in a pluralistic country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Roadside_Picnic posted:On that thought, has anybody ever considered the possibility that both the Japanese and Chinese government like playing up international tensions because it gives them an excuse to present the populations they govern as being incapable of reasonable rational thought and therefore in need of rule? On at least one front I don't think this makes sense. Given the level of control that the Chinese government has over the media and the presentation of its national history to its own people, any attempt to justify the curtailment of peoples' rights because of a few anti-Japanese riots is going to sound pretty contrived. The government is certainly very paternalistic and does play up the idea that China is a developing nation with a large population
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The Japanese government needs an excuse to present the population of Japan as being incapable of reasonable rational thought and therefore in need of rule? What? What I'm saying is that perhaps there isn't such an enormous gap between state paternalism in the PRC and state paternalism in Japan and the US where foreign policy is concerned. (obviously, there's a difference in the political systems on the whole.) If anything I think Japanese political life functions better than in the US. But a lot of public discussion on government foreign policy is patronizing, emotionalistic, and totally lacking in transparency and perspective: like the treatment of the North Korea hostage issue, the inflation of North Korea missile tests into huge media events, the chauvanistic magazine pundits claiming China is not a real nation, etc etc. It's a great performance in a country where foreign policy in actual fact is dull and heavily dominated by US policy. And the US plays the same jingoism game, like when we had street parties after the assassination of Bin Laden and then the government went back to secret counterinsurgency campaigns that it doesn't tell the public about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
Hm, I'm really not sure how my post about Japanese naval development prompted speculation on China committing nuclear genocide. Forget the armchair general 'who would win' warporn fantasy; I was just making an observation about how each nations conduct and diplomacy affects international perceptions and the attention paid to their respective military build-up. The PLAN's 2008-12 South China Sea swagger has prompted everybody in the neighborhood (India, Vietnam, Philippines, Australia, etc) to react, either by buying more submarines, partnering up with the USN, or partnering up with each other. At some point, 'China's Peaceful Rise' went out the window in favor of 'Chinese waters end at your country's shore'-- is it any surprise this has been destabilizing? Japan, on the other hand, has started an impressive domestic carrier program and nobody gives a poo poo. On the contrary, India, Vietnam, Australia and even Korea have made overtures for increased military cooperation with Japan. Beijing's encouragement of angry nationalistic fervor gives the PLAN public support to deviate from party lines (assuming Foreign Ministry statements are an accurate representation of such), to the detriment of China's own long term interests. More worryingly, the typically pragmatic Chinese politburo could be forced by nationalism-fueled public outrage to respond to real or perceived injustices in a disproportionate and destabilizing manner. MrNemo posted:As someone else said, if China ever became a democracy the first thing to happen would be war with Japan. It could be argued that without the CCP whipping up nationalism and leaving Japan as the only 'safe/acceptable' outlet for public outrage, a healthy and inclusive Chinese democracy would be less likely to pursue military action against an essential economic partner. Democratic peace theory and all that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:It could be argued that without the CCP whipping up nationalism and leaving Japan as the only 'safe/acceptable' outlet for public outrage, a healthy and inclusive Chinese democracy would be less likely to pursue military action against an essential economic partner. Democratic peace theory and all that. On the other hand with the situation as it currently is it could be an easy vote winner. I'd agree either in a political vacuum or with several years of reasonable economic prosperity and a generally calm nation that might be the result, as things stand it's likely someone would seek to ride that particular boogeyman to victory and once something like that becomes a political shibboleth you run the risk of true believers getting into power. I'd also argue that it's just as possible China is playing a game whereby the PLAN can play bad cop to the foreign office's good cop, allowing China to push things to the brink on the one hand without risking things too much as it can reassure it's neighbours and the rest of the international community that it's not actually serious. Of course more likely it's a result of the factional nature of Chinese politics, higher ups in the PLAN benefit from pushing the envelope and getting new toys to play with. The Politburo types meanwhile would also quite like total control over the South China Seas and aren't willing to openly order the military to stand down. Like I said I don't think it's going to result in Global Thermo-Nuclear war. True the effect it's having on politics in the region is interesting though, especially when you're able to run far enough for cover just in case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Suntory BOSS posted:The PLAN's 2008-12 South China Sea swagger has prompted everybody in the neighborhood (India, Vietnam, Philippines, Australia, etc) to react, either by buying more submarines, partnering up with the USN, or partnering up with each other. At some point, 'China's Peaceful Rise' went out the window in favor of 'Chinese waters end at your country's shore'-- is it any surprise this has been destabilizing? Japan, on the other hand, has started an impressive domestic carrier program and nobody gives a poo poo. On the contrary, India, Vietnam, Australia and even Korea have made overtures for increased military cooperation with Japan. no no you don't get it, this is all the fault of the scheming imperialist villains in the US, China basically has nothing to do with it
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
Electro-Boogie Jack posted:no no you don't get it, this is all the fault of the scheming imperialist villains in the US, China basically has nothing to do with it It does kinda have to do with imperialism, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
I see the situation with China and these various island claims as being the same sort of unsolvable emotional issue bandied about by conservatives in the US, like abortion. It's far more useful to keep these issues around to drum up support or distract from your failures than it is to actually resolve them. For example they tried to get the UN to recognize the 9-dotted line, but the 9-dotted line is neither continuous nor defined. They won't say where it is, exactly. Why would they try to get the UN to recognize a boundary that doesn't fit the UN regulations for what constitutes a boundary? What's the point of that? Well, it gives you something to take home that supports the myth of China being the little brother picked on by the rest of the world. It gives credence to the narrative that prevents China from falling into chaos. And I think that's what this is all about. Otherwise they wouldn't allow these organized protests to exist. If a thousand people gathered at Wanda Plaza to protest the Chengguan, they'd be shut down in minutes, but it's ok for them to smash Japanese cars on the street. That's fine. It's allowed. Why? I think it's kind of a steam valve. It is not easy to be a Chinese person. People are frustrated. They feel like they can't really advance in life. Their day-to-day life is surprisingly unfair, but shouting and breaking things is fun. Might as well give them something pointless and ineffective to shout about. Whenever China starts saber rattling you should look for whatever is happening internally that they don't want Chinese people to think about, is my point. If the government actually wanted to resolve these island disputes, they would be taking a different course of action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's hard to overstate the Japanese population's view on pacifism. Ironically, the one thing I could see changing this attitude is an overly aggressive China.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 10:26
|
|
|
Ganguro King posted:Ironically, the one thing I could see changing this attitude is an overly aggressive China. Japan has been in the light recession for so long it seems to me pushing for drastic political reform is one viable solution? Plus nobody outside of Japan in Asia believe in the "Japanese pacifism" they may as well drop the pretense and change the constitution. Having a real conflict between China and Japan the US actually stand to gain the most. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Oct 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 11:20
|
|
|
Since WWII Japan has been exactly as aggressive as Germany, i.e. not at all. There's no legitimate reason to suspect them of aggression. As I said, Europe has moved past those fears, but certain Asian countries have made it government policy to never let anyone move on. But if you only look at modern facts, they are not aggressive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 11:27
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Plus nobody outside of Japan in Asia believe in the "Japanese pacifism" they may as well drop the pretense and change the constitution. Pretense at what? Posters ITT keep on alluding to a Japanese trait to be warmongering/aggressive which is being deliberately kept hidden under a veneer of pacifism. Is there any actual evidence supporting this beyond the hoary old WW2 chestnut. It's difficult to overstate the degree to which post-war Japanese civil society has changed from WW2 Japan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 11:33
|
|
|
^^ Oh yeah? what about the textbook?Arglebargle III posted:Since WWII Japan has been exactly as aggressive as Germany, i.e. not at all. There's no legitimate reason to suspect them of aggression. As I said, Europe has moved past those fears, but certain Asian countries have made it government policy to never let anyone move on. But if you only look at modern facts, they are not aggressive. They (Japan) are not aggressive because they have been kept on a leash and never given a chance. They also don't admit poo poo. Also the argument of "XXX hasn't been doing YYY since WW2" is so lame. Americans has only 200 years of history and think 70 year is a long time. Its not. Although nuclear weapon will ensure there won't be any large scaled war in the foreseeable future so I don't know why we even need to discuss it. How much GDP these countries are willing to spend on the naval arm race is the end game IMO. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Oct 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 11:35
|
|
|
Hey let's bring up racism again. It does seem a bit racist to imply that Japanese people have a national predisposition toward militarism. And very racist to imply they have a predisposition toward being violent rapist war criminals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 12:15
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:They (Japan) are not aggressive because they have been kept on a leash and never given a chance. Do you realize how paranoid and crazy this sounds? They haven't done anything aggressive, proof of how aggressive the Japanese are! Multiple generations have passed. Everyone who was involved with decision making during the days of Imperial Japan is dead. It's over. A 25 year old Japanese person who grew up in a pacifist society with parents who also grew up in a pacifist society whose grandparents were, at best, children during the war is not responsible for what Imperial Japan did. To continue being angry at that 25 year old is ridiculous and stupid. When everyone is dead and the society has been forcibly altered beyond recognition, the difference between 70 and 700 years is not relevant. If I were getting pissed at Italians because Rome murdered and enslaved millions of Gauls you would say I'm nuts, and be entirely right to do so. Now, the general Japanese attitude of trying to forget the war ever happened and the whitewashing that goes on in official media? That is a legitimate criticism and those people are dicks. To somehow connect that to a conspiracy theory where the moment the US (I assume) lets Japan off the leash (I have no idea what this supposed control even is) they're going to start killing everyone in Asia again is insane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 12:29
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Also the argument of "XXX hasn't been doing YYY since WW2" is so lame. Americans has only 200 years of history and think 70 year is a long time. Its not. Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Oct 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 12:34
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:Also the argument of "XXX hasn't been doing YYY since WW2" is so lame. Americans has only 200 years of history and think 70 year is a long time. Its not. Please don't do this stupid 'Americans only have 200 years of history compared to China's 5000' it's so, so stupid. Do Chinese people seriously think America just sprang out of the ground one day without history or culture?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 12:39
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:Anything involving China and Japan will be postured in a way to include Taiwan in on the action. I can almost 100% guarantee it. Creating a fun little situation where the US is forced to break a treaty to favor a side, or to sit back and do nothing. Since that would result in China being glassed by the United States, I can pretty much guarantee the PRC will never do that unless a Mao like lunatic somehow manages to gain control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 12:49
|
|
|
By the way, China only has 63 years of history as of October 1st. I dunno where they keep pulling this 5000 thing from. edit: Or maybe only 36 years since the Cultural Revolution was supposed to sort of reset the history thing even.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 12:55
|
|
|
Japan's last 50+ years of non-aggression is relevant if and only if the geopolitical situation in Asia in the next 50 years is similar. Obviously it's not going to be because of the changing military political and economic status of China. I'm sure despite the character and culture of the German people they are not stupid enough to want to ignite two totally destructive and devastating worldwide conflicts. The immediate political/military/economic environment plays a huge part in critical national decisions such as armament and war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 13:06
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:By the way, China only has 63 years of history as of October 1st. I dunno where they keep pulling this 5000 thing from. I am surprised that they haven't claimed Africa as an integral part of their historical territory yet. Aren't Chinese archeologist still claiming that the Chinese people are the descendants of a slightly separate frond of the human bush? I am familiar within the notion of refuges but from what I recall the evidence is sketchy at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
whatever7 posted:
I want to make one thing perfectly clear here, a communication to those outside the borders of the Greatest Country Ever. America has a good amount more than two hundred years of history. Even discounting the indigenous history, my family alone has been here for 300 years, come 2017. Paperwork still exists showing how we got kicked out of Boston pretty much instantly. New York City alone is a bit older than that, having passed it's quadricentennial in '09. Some places go back further than that. Now, I admit, compared to Chinese history, it's not that deep, but it is longer than a mere 200 years. And generally, for example, it's much more exciting than my other grandfather's ancestor who invaded England from France back in 1066, then had his family sit on their bum in a town of 84 people for seven hundred years. Seriously, why do the Chinese think Americans have no idea of the scope of history? We have an utter conviction that _this_ time it'll be different. But that's an entirely different problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:By the way, China only has 63 years of history as of October 1st. I dunno where they keep pulling this 5000 thing from. On a completely irrelevant sidenote, has anyone ever got to the bottom of where the hell the 5000.years figure comes from? Nobody I've ever meet can tell me what exactly happened 5000 years ago to kick start Chinese history, and looking into it it seems the only noticeable event that took place at that time was the domestication of the ox. Basically as far as I can tell it's a bullshit figure pulled out of somebody's rear end. That everyone believes unquestioningly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
It comes from the mythical Three Sovereigns. The first one was supposed to have ruled about 2900 BCE and was a demigod who ruled for two centuries and taught them how to use fire and stuff. So yes, bullshit. Next is the Xia period, which may or may not be mythical. The Shang dynasty is the first that has reasonable documentation, that started around ~1600 BCE. The oracle bones, with the earliest Chinese script, date from 1300ish BCE. You could reasonably date some kind of proto-Chinese culture to either of those. China as we know it doesn't exist until Qin Shi Huang Di creates a united state in 221 BCE. It's still a longass time to have a reasonably continuous cultural history, but it's not 5000 years old.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
Fall Sick and Die posted:Please don't do this stupid 'Americans only have 200 years of history compared to China's 5000' it's so, so stupid. Do Chinese people seriously think America just sprang out of the ground one day without history or culture? I think Americans should just start claiming a 5100 year history based on the idea that you can trace the origins of the West to Ancient Mesopotamia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
Yeah, it's probably more like a 3800 year history, but that sounds kinda silly. You could round up to 4000 year history, but 4 is an unlucky number. Or something. Is there a continuing civilization that is longer, though? Egypt probably..
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:32 |
|
|
It looks like there is a full blown strike going on a the Foxconn plant where iPhone 5s are being made. This story hits close to home since my mother's younger sister literally works in a factory like this one where she has to report to work 7 days a week and her daughter is raised by my mother's parents. The traditional simple narrative in the West where Chinese are just a bunch of overworked ant people is pretty simplistic and ignores historical context. For example, while people might bash Foxconn, under socialism my parents worked 6 days a week, lived on the facilities owned by their danwei (單位), and generally had their life run by whoever they worked for. They are so used to this convention that they still call their employers today the danwei. While conditions might be lovely, people should keep in mind that working conditions were never that great to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 17:18
|
|