Why did the great ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece and Rome decline into irrelevance? Yeah, yeah, yeah, lead in the pipes, decline in morals, military defeat. Those are the causes of death as found in historical autopsies. Those civilizations did not die; autopsies are performed on the dead. Those civilizations live today, they are just irrelevant. They are not competent, is that part of why they became and remain irrelevant? But how does a civilization lose competency? Western civilization is built on what the Greeks bequeathed; why didn't the Greeks build what others built on Greek foundations? Why is Greece today such an embarrassment in a Europe it built? The American Founding Fathers took greater inspiration from Rome. When President Kennedy gave his Berlin speech he said, "Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was 'civis Romanus sum.'" Even the goddamned language is dead now. Rome has gone from Marcus Aurelius to Benito Mussolini, Silvio Berlusconi, and Francesco Schettino.
China has been the most continuously great of the ancient civilizations, but it has been near the bottom too, particularly at the beginning of the twentieth century when eight nations successfully invaded it to put down the Boxer Rebellion and most spectacularly from 1937-1945 when Japan--Japan! An island nation--occupied one-third of its territory.
China has never achieved greatest-nation status either. There is one sense in which China can be viewed as an underachieving student, capable of being class valedictorian but never quite getting there. Napoleon said when China awakes it will shake the world, that kind of thing. Jonathan Spence says that at the height of the period in the West known as the Renaissance--the Renaissance--China was as advanced as any civilization on earth. And Chinese at the time (and long after) believed they were the greatest civilization on earth, they were the Middle Kingdom after all. So let's say China was an "A" student then. We can only assign that grade retrospectively; Spence only knows that retrospectively; Chinese believed that without knowing. No one knew in the Renaissance because China was still so unknown to the world and the world was so unknown to Chinese. China did not explore, it did not compete, it was, if we continue the student-analogy, as if it was the only student in the class. For this reason China, when it was an "A" student in 1600, was as irrelevant as Egypt, Greece, and Rome are today. China was competent but irrelevant. By the time there had been substantial contact between the West and China it was clear to everyone that China was far from the greatest civilization. Western trade had made China relevant but revealed it to be less competent in comparison with the ambitious, curious Western peoples. China's competence was waning in absolute terms also as the Ming Dynasty weakened. By 1824 Emerson would call China "that booby nation" that could only say to the others, "I made the tea."
China has not remained incompetent and irrelevant. That distinguishes it also from Egypt, Greece and Rome. China has shown resiliency. Through 5,000 years of recorded history it has survived as those other civilizations have but it has also been competent. It is competent now as the world's second largest economy. And now, unlike in the Middle Ages, China is relevant also. It is exploring, competing, projecting its power beyond its borders. These are all firsts for China and all these firsts have been achieved only in the last thirty years of their 5,000 year history.
Things I believe: The soul, the "animating principle," of the Han-Chinese people is now and historically has been, survival; the soul is mutable; Han-Chinese obey in order to survive; conformity to a moral code is not obedience; creativity is not obedience; obedience has produced resilience, aiding survival; the present Chinese government has survived and surpassed survival; the present Chinese government is stable; the government is stable because a large portion of the Chinese population obeys the government and because the government ruthlessly suppresses disobedience; obedience and resilience have enabled present China to become more competent and more relevant, that is more powerful, than it ever has been before; Chinese power, based on obedience, not based on morality, not based on creativity, diminishes the soul of mankind; in surpassing survival the present Chinese government threatens the soul of the Han-Chinese people; in becoming more capitalist, in projecting economic and military power beyond its borders and beyond the power needed to survive, the present government threatens its own survival; China will become more competent, more powerful in the future; the Han-Chinese soul can change to accommodate this increased power projection but it will not change; obedient behavior toward the government will change to non-obedience and the Chinese people will overthrow the People's Republic of China government. The successor government will not be democratic, it will be authoritarian, consistent with Chinese history; the Chinese people will obey the successor authoritarian government minus the power projection.
China has been the most continuously great of the ancient civilizations, but it has been near the bottom too, particularly at the beginning of the twentieth century when eight nations successfully invaded it to put down the Boxer Rebellion and most spectacularly from 1937-1945 when Japan--Japan! An island nation--occupied one-third of its territory.
China has never achieved greatest-nation status either. There is one sense in which China can be viewed as an underachieving student, capable of being class valedictorian but never quite getting there. Napoleon said when China awakes it will shake the world, that kind of thing. Jonathan Spence says that at the height of the period in the West known as the Renaissance--the Renaissance--China was as advanced as any civilization on earth. And Chinese at the time (and long after) believed they were the greatest civilization on earth, they were the Middle Kingdom after all. So let's say China was an "A" student then. We can only assign that grade retrospectively; Spence only knows that retrospectively; Chinese believed that without knowing. No one knew in the Renaissance because China was still so unknown to the world and the world was so unknown to Chinese. China did not explore, it did not compete, it was, if we continue the student-analogy, as if it was the only student in the class. For this reason China, when it was an "A" student in 1600, was as irrelevant as Egypt, Greece, and Rome are today. China was competent but irrelevant. By the time there had been substantial contact between the West and China it was clear to everyone that China was far from the greatest civilization. Western trade had made China relevant but revealed it to be less competent in comparison with the ambitious, curious Western peoples. China's competence was waning in absolute terms also as the Ming Dynasty weakened. By 1824 Emerson would call China "that booby nation" that could only say to the others, "I made the tea."
China has not remained incompetent and irrelevant. That distinguishes it also from Egypt, Greece and Rome. China has shown resiliency. Through 5,000 years of recorded history it has survived as those other civilizations have but it has also been competent. It is competent now as the world's second largest economy. And now, unlike in the Middle Ages, China is relevant also. It is exploring, competing, projecting its power beyond its borders. These are all firsts for China and all these firsts have been achieved only in the last thirty years of their 5,000 year history.
Things I believe: The soul, the "animating principle," of the Han-Chinese people is now and historically has been, survival; the soul is mutable; Han-Chinese obey in order to survive; conformity to a moral code is not obedience; creativity is not obedience; obedience has produced resilience, aiding survival; the present Chinese government has survived and surpassed survival; the present Chinese government is stable; the government is stable because a large portion of the Chinese population obeys the government and because the government ruthlessly suppresses disobedience; obedience and resilience have enabled present China to become more competent and more relevant, that is more powerful, than it ever has been before; Chinese power, based on obedience, not based on morality, not based on creativity, diminishes the soul of mankind; in surpassing survival the present Chinese government threatens the soul of the Han-Chinese people; in becoming more capitalist, in projecting economic and military power beyond its borders and beyond the power needed to survive, the present government threatens its own survival; China will become more competent, more powerful in the future; the Han-Chinese soul can change to accommodate this increased power projection but it will not change; obedient behavior toward the government will change to non-obedience and the Chinese people will overthrow the People's Republic of China government. The successor government will not be democratic, it will be authoritarian, consistent with Chinese history; the Chinese people will obey the successor authoritarian government minus the power projection.
