"China is not the only country in the world that was colonized by the West, but they're the only one who was engaged in colonialism of their own at the time it happened, the only one citing the loss of their colonies (whose independence they were forced to recognize in the so-called 'unequal treaties') as part of their 'national humiliation,' the only one trying to appeal to those former colonies of theirs for sympathy against the 'Western colonizers,' the only one trying to reacquire those colonies today under the pretense of 'liberating' them from so-called 'US hegemony,' and the only one failing to see the laughable hypocrisy in all of this. Then they wonder why their former colonies and tributaries are not flocking to their side."
-Anonymous
In my former entry, I shed some light on the fact that China's current national character (a nation of closed-minded plagiarists living in constant sheep-like fear under a ruthlessly totalitarian murderous regime) was nothing new. However, the plain truth is that none of that is the reason why they are so hated. After all, China is not the only country infamous for copying ideas. Rome built an Empire off of copying the Greeks, Ancient Kush (the kingdom roughly sharing its territory with present-day Ethiopia, no relation to the Hindu Kush) went from a backwater to a thriving trade empire by copying their Egyptian neighbors, and most of Western society today copied much of our legal system from the Romans, just as much of Eastern Asia copied at least part of their language from Hanzi characters. Imitation may not be so high a form of flattery as it is often thought to be in the minds of flowery philosophers, but at the end of the day it's never more than a nuisance and not an existential threat, certainly not enough to foster long-term enmity.
China's totalitarian regime, as repugnant as it is to most of the world's sensibilities, is also something the world could dismiss, were all other things laid aside. After all, Western liberal democracies have a history of allying themselves with dictatorial regimes against other dictatorial regimes (for example Chiang Kai-Chek's China was a military junta, but they were US allies against the Japanese Empire). We just ally ourselves with the ones who are not threatening us, and fight their neighbors who are threatening us. Simple enough, right? And of course, as loathsome as it sounds to say it, China's internal Human Rights record is something the world could turn a blind eye to, if they managed to keep it in their own borders. After all, does the world really care how many people are dying in any given country, as long as none of the ones dying are citizens of any other countries? We will say "of course we care" if anyone is listening, but in reality we tend to take any excuse we can find to just change the channel and say it's someone else's problem. Sad, but true. None of this is the reason for so much anti-China action in the world today. The reasons China is earning so many enemies today stem from the fact that China insists on carrying their penchant for tyranny and stupidity to the nations around them, while recoiling from civilized discourse and screaming that any criticisms are "Imperialist efforts to contain China." In this article I will show that this too is nothing new, and that China has built much of their history off of it.
Sealed Off by More than Physical Barriers
When you think of China, you think of walls.
What is their most iconic landmark? The Great Wall.
What is their greatest (and really only) modern technological achievement? The Great Firewall.
For all of history, China has been a nation hidden from (or hiding from) the world behind walls. Some of those walls are natural (the Himalayas and the Gobi Desert), some are manmade (such as the two mentioned above), and still others are in the minds of the Chinese themselves.
Anyone who has dealt with the Chinese knows that they have a... let's say "unique perspective," to put it gently, on nearly every subject from history to geography. When it comes to history, they claim that Mao led the world to victory over the Japanese in WW2 (there is, occasionally, a mention of American "contributions" to this victory; any mention that the Japanese were not, in fact, the leaders of the Tripartite Axis but were subordinate to Hitler's Germany, are rarer still), and was promptly betrayed by "American imperialists seeking to divide China." They claim that their 1951 march into Tibet was a "peaceful liberation." Oh, and they deny that there ever was a Mongolian Empire. They claim Genghis Khan was Chinese (a claim which, in light of their tendency to claim anything that belonged to a former dynasty belongs to them, paves the road for them to try and say most of Asia is an "ancient and inalienable part of China"). And when it comes to geography, they seem to be confused about where their border is. I think everyone reading this is familiar with the Nine Dash Lie (no, I didn't leave out an "n" by mistake). This, like so many of China's other more "charming" traits, is not new.
Their perspective on geography was first observed by the Jesuit scholar Matteo Ricci in the 16th century, when a Chinese "scientist" rebuked him for his allegedly erroneous world map. And what was "erroneous" about this map?
"Lately Matteo Ricci utilized some false teachings to fool people, and scholars unanimously believed him...take for example the position of China on the map. He puts it not in the center but slightly to the West and inclined to the north. This is altogether far from the truth, for China should be in the center of the world, which we can prove by the single fact that we can see the North Star resting at the zenith of the heaven at midnight. How can China be treated like a small unimportant country, and placed slightly to the north as in this map?"
-Wei Chün, On Ricci's Fallacies to Deceive the World (Li shuo huang-t'ang huo-shih p'ien), quoted in: George H. C. Wong, “China's Opposition to Western Science during Late Ming and Early Ch'ing,” Isis, Vol. 54, No. 1. (Mar., 1963), pp. 29-49
As you see, the fact that Ricci did not place China at the center of the map was a "fallacy" in the eyes of the Chinese, who considered this centrality of their kingdom to be an unshakable fact of the universe. For the record, if you ever get a chance to see the map in question, both its X axis and Y axis do run right through China. The Chinese, however, did not consider that to be "central enough" for their sensitive egos. Add to this the overdramatized claim of being "treated like a small, unimportant country," as well as the arrogance of viewing such alleged treatment as proof that a statement must be false and you begin to form a picture of the juvenile self-centeredness that underpins China's entire "civilization," if that's really the word you want to use, from the Shang Dynasty until the present day. This ethnocentrism on a scale unmatched anywhere else in the world today would not have been so unique in the 16th century, to be fair. Even so, the level of outrage it spawned was surprising, and I would suspect that this map, science's first "attack" on China's delusional view of their place in the world, was what spawned the long-standing Chinese myth of the "Great Western Anti-China Conspiracy," a myth most of the Chinese still believe, but more on that later. For now I simply want to point out the closed-mindedness that propels an entire nation to not only write off any information they don't like as "fallacy," but also the combination of narcissism and insecurity that leads to the automatic assumption that this "fallacy" was crafted with malicious intent to diminish the nation in question. Also, lest anyone should say "that was the result of 16th century superstition," I will point out two things. First, that the Chinese still hold this mindset today, and secondly that it has been ingrained deep within their psyche for centuries.
China's twisted view of history applies to recent history as well. For the moment, let me skip over their narrative about "Mao's leadership of the world's resistance to fascism" in WW2, though if the reader ever has a chance to get a Zhonghua Nationalist speaking on that subject, hear them out. You're in for a good laugh. For the moment, let me skip over the rhetorical gymnastics they use to claim that the Tributary System (which was still in effect until the Xinhai Revolution in 1911) somehow was not imperialism. For the moment, let me go on to the immediate aftermath of the PRC's founding, with an excerpt from Zhang Qingmin's China's Diplomacy.
Upon the founding of the PRC, the Common Program adopted by the People's Political Consultative Conference clearly states: "The People's Republic of China shall unite with all peace-loving and freedom-loving countries and peoples throughout the world, first of all, with the USSR, all peoples' democracies and all oppressed nations." It shall take its stand in the camp of international peace and democracy." (p. 18)
...Okay. I'm under no delusions of the US being an international saint, but for the love of God, even the bloody Taliban had enough sense to recognize the USSR was evil. Aside from that, the USSR itself was quite open about not being democratic. And yet you just read China asserting that they would stand with the USSR (which, by the way, was led by Josef Stalin at the time this statement was made) because it was a freedom-loving, peace-loving, democratic nation long-oppressed and standing in defiance of tyranny.
China's parallel-universe-version of history doesn't end there though. Barely two pages later, Zhang asserts rather casually that there was a US-Soviet partnership with the intent of global domination in the 1950's, and that Mao stood firm in conscientious resistance to this deleterious plot. The implication is that this was Mao's completely ideologically motivated and morally just reason for breaking his formerly ironclad alliance with the USSR (Zhang, 21). Never mind the minor little detail that the US and USSR were pointing hundreds of nukes at each other at the time. According to the Chinese, the two were actually in cahoots, seeking to conquer the world. Of course, this should come as no surprise, since China insists that the entire world, from the West to countries like Nepal and Bengal, have been huddled together in conspiracy to carve up "the great and mighty China" for centuries (Sun Hongnian, The 14th Dalai Lama, pp. 109, 120 & 124 among others).
This stems, in part, from Chinese philosophical thought that was formed deep in antiquity. Shi Zhongwen elaborates in China's Culture.
The so-called intuitiveness has the following implications. The Chinese, particularly those who have not been influenced by the modern Western ideologies, are generally not good at abstract logical thinking. Instead, they prefer to express their own thoughts by connecting everyday life in metaphor, analogy, and assumption (p. 23).
Note the listing of "assumption" among the bases for thought. In his essay after attending the 4th Xiangshan Summit, Dr. Christopher Ford, a former US Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and non-proliferation, makes the same observation.
These Chinese assumptions were not depicted as mere perceptions, but instead as matters of inarguable fact that we non-Chinese must accept – and thereafter atone for – in order to make future trust possible.
To the Chinese, what is perceived by the Chinese (or assumed by the Chinese) to be true... is true. Period. There is no room for "no, you misunderstood." In their minds, if there is contention, then it is you who misunderstood, because "everyone can plainly see" that whatever claim China is making must obviously be true (note the sarcasm). It can then be asked "okay, so they're pigheaded and incapable of introspection, with a warped view of history and a stuffed-shirt sense of their own importance. Most divorced women would accuse their ex-husbands of the same thing, while most men would make similar claims about their mothers-in-law. Why is that a geopolitical issue? Why is that worth calling them a threat?"
Dr. Ford offers some clues to this in his essay as well.
It was apparently central to the agenda of most PLA participants that their version of these facts – and their accompanying characterizations about fault and blame – be accepted by all others as a starting point for future-oriented discussions of “mutual trust.”...Rather than being about adjudication between or management of competing claims in a pluralist world, the PLA participants seemed to view preventing international conflict and ensuring future “trust” as aiming principally at keeping competing claims from being conceived or asserted in the first place – specifically, by obtaining others’ validation of and agreement with China’s own claims, and its narrative of itself in the world.
Sun Hongnian shows this tendency over and over, referring to the Chinese government's statements of official position as "clarifying the relevant facts (p. 96)" while referring to any information not approved by the Chinese government as "rumors." And finally, it must be understood that the Chinese population views this as something sacred. Too the Chinese, their government's official word is in a very literal sense "Gospel."
The enthusiasm among Chinese in regards to politics is not less than Western people's enthusiasm towards religion (Shi, 56).
Once this is understood, it becomes apparent why Chinese obtusity is a geopolitical issue, and a grave one. China portrays themselves as (and may even believe themselves to be) great believers in "compromise" and "mutual understanding." However, it becomes apparent at little more than a glance that China's version of "mutual understanding" is "we already understand ourselves, and you should understand us too. After that, let's agree to do it my way." When we are talking about a nation that is engaged in territorial disputes on nearly every front, which are based (like most of the rest of the country's policy-making) upon a version of history more accurately described as mythology (and which owns an estimated 250 nuclear warheads), it is necessary for Heads-of-State to know who and what they are dealing with and not mistakenly think China can be reasoned with as if they were a civilized nation.
Once a Bully, Always a Bully
Having already made mention of China's territorial disputes, wherein they lay claim to chunks of the Philippines, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the entire nation of Taiwan, it must be pointed out that this tendency for China to claim dominion over their neighbors is, like so many of their other barbaric characteristics, nothing new. China's view that they are "huá (華)," the only truly civilized nation of the world, and that all other nations are "Huawaizhidi (化外之地) barbarians" has been a cornerstone of Chinese society since the weapons with which they bullied their neighbors were still sticks and rocks. In my former entry I noted that the ancient Chinese used slaves not only as laborers but as Human sacrifices in religious ceremonies (and one must wonder if the ancient Chinese would truly have considered the term "Human sacrifice," and its inherent admission that the captives were in fact Human, to be accurate or not). Well, where did the Chinese get the captives for these sacrifices? From their neighbors, of course (Cao Dawei & Sun Yanjing, China's history, 22 & 23). In modern times though, they have refined their methods slightly. Now they seek to make foreign laborers come to them as slaves voluntarily (Fan Junmei, China.org).
The Chinese have not been above eugenics to stamp out an ethnic minority they considered troubling, either. This has, of course, been dressed up as "cultural mingling," but China has a history of requiring non-Han living within their borders to either marry a Han or not get married. The half-Han children were then considered Han, which, coupled with having Han culture forced down the throats of their neighbors, has resulted in the Han Chinese erasing the identity (both cultural and genetic) of outlying ethnic minorities in a regular practice since the Song Dynasty (Cao, 124).
The best part though is that China has a long, long history of being so arrogant that they believed it was their place to confer (or choose not to confer) titles of royalty and even titles of religious authority upon their neighbors' rulers. Tibet, as a Qing Tributary (not an "inalienable part of China," contrary to the CCP's rhetoric), faced trouble during the ROC era at the beginning of the 20th century when the Central Government refused to acknowledge the 14th Dalai Lama's appointment unless the representatives from the capital were present to formally confer the title upon him (Sun, 18-22). This may not seem such a scandal at first, until one considers that 1) Tibet was a separate country at that time, bound to China in no form other than an annual payment of tribute, and 2) the role of the Dalai Lama is a purely religious affair, decided on a religious basis (namely, the Tibetan buddhist belief that the Dalai Lama, as the reincarnation of his predecessor, is not "chosen" but "found," using divination techniques). Try to imagine the outcry China would raise if an American president tried to tell the College of Cardinals in the Vatican "you cannot appoint Pope Whozits XVI because representatives from Washington have not come to confer the title upon him." Add in the detail that the Central Government in question did not practice (or even formally recognize) the religion the Dalai Lama presides over and the arrogance becomes even more staggering. And mind you, that was before Mao. That was the ROC, and the Qing Dynasty. Though this tradition, which humiliates the nations around China by establishing the perception that their rulers rule only at the behest of China, goes back farther than that. Cao lists more than five different kingdoms (including Vietnam) whose rulers were "honored with kingship" by Chinese emperors during the Song and Tui Dynasties (106 & 107), and the author's phrasing makes it sound as though the kings in question should be grateful for this recognition, as though it was China's place to decide whether or not they held the throne or not. A fine attitude indeed for a nation that repeatedly vows "the internal affairs of a country should be decided by its people (Zhang, 11)" and "no country is entitled to impose its will upon others (ibid)."
A Nuisance with Chinese Characteristics
China is going to be a thorn in the civilized world's side for a long time. The hype of them being on the cusp of taking over the world is grossly overstated and I have presented several different articles right here in this blog showing why (and how) their prominence on the world stage will diminish in the near-future. However, it is plain that their voice will continue to be one of the loudest and most obnoxious. China is quite firm in their belief that the world is being remade in their image, rather than allowing themselves to follow the path of liberalization and free-press reporting (with its subsequent assurances of at least believibility, if not truth, of public narratives). And as Xi continues to fashion China into a Confucian monarchy with himself as its despot, the world is going to have to deal with an increasingly pompous, blustering China that insists the onus is upon the world to "understand" China, by which they mean "acede to Beijing's narrative (Ford)." The ironic thing is he's right, but not in the manner he thinks.
The world does need to understand China.
The world needs to understand that China has never shared the world's values of individual liberty, or even honesty, and never will. The world needs to understand that China's entire society is built upon a patchwork of delusions and myths, myths which they cling to with quite literally religious devotion, about them being the morally superior victim of a jealous and scheming world that has long sought to contain them. The world needs to understand that China has always been this way, and always will.
The world needs to understand that there are two polar opposite forces at work in the world today: civilization, and China.
Works Cited
Books
Cao Dawei & Sun Yanjing. Trans. Xiao Ying, L Li He & He Yunzhao. China's History. Beijing. 2010. China Intercontinental Press.
ISBN 978-7-5085-1302-7
Mao Zedong. Selected Quotations. Beijing: Foreign Language University Press. 1972.
ISBN 0-8351-2388-X
Shi Zhongwen & Chen Qiaosheng. Trans. Wang Guozheng. China's Culture. Beijing. 2010. China Intercontinental Press.
ISBN 978-7-5085-1298-3
Sun Hongnian, Zhang Yongpan & Li Sheng. The 14th Dalai Lama. Beijing. 2013. China Intercontinental Press.
ISBN 978-7-5085-2642-3
Zhang Qingmin. China's Diplomacy. Beijing. 2010. China Intercontinental Press.
ISBN 978-7-5085-1312-6
From the Web
Fan Junmei. "Filipina Maids' Dilemma in China." China.org. 6 Feb. 2016. Web. 1 Apr. 2018.
http://www.china.org.cn/china/2016-02/06/content_37743433.htm
Ford, Christopher. "Sinocentrism for the Information Age." New Paradigms Forum. 13 Jan. 2013. Web. 1 Apr. 2018.
http://www.newparadigmsforum.com/NPFtestsite/?p=1498