Part III Notes on When China Rules the World
I struggled with Jacques claim that China is a "civilization state" and not a nation station, but I think I'm finally getting a sense of what he is referring to. China is unified not around its status as a "nation" in a world of "nations" but by its status as THE central civilization around which the barbarians circle. Geographically, what this meant was that China had no firmly marked borders. The further you got from the center, the closer you got to the barbarians on the edges. What unifies China is its shared culture and history (even if some of that sharedness is a fabrication or wishful thinking) not its government. All China's power and vision comes from its idea of itself as the center of moral civilization, superior to all others. In the mid 19th century when the British arrived and pushed China to play by the rules of "nation" states, she was humiliated in her capitulation to the greater military power in adopting "nation" practices like defining borders. The nomiker "Han" Chinese arises from this period, referring to the Han dynasty which had lasted 400 years. This was a way to unify all the people in the country under one banner even though such an ethnicity did not really exist. With this label, the Chinese could continue to separate themselves racially and ethnically from those who were inferior to them. This adoption of a name for all those of the Chinese civilization was used over the next 100 years as a way to delineate those who were not of the Han race and thus were inferior. After 1949, this racist nationalism was officially abolished and China recognized 56 different ethnic identities across the country, but the largest self-identification is the Han, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, the other ethnic groups are seen as misguided and uncivilized.
At least, I think this is what Jacques is saying. It sound so grandiose it's hard to believe that such a viewpoint is really the majority one in China. . .
Kissinger in "China" references some of the same claims in suggesting that the way China incorporated surrounding peoples was through a combination of military conquest and cultural conquest, convincing the outsiders that embracing Chinese civilization was a no-brainer, and reinforcing this belief by moving people in order to mix the population with firm believers.
Jacques argues that the discussion of race in China is not simply a description of China but a warning for how China will treat "others" in the future.
China, unlike the US and the IMF, offers almost unfettered deals to African nations, honoring the state's sovereignty above all else. The US and IMF, in contrast, demand political and social concessions in order to provide aid or allow companies to broker deals. Interestingly, this seems like more proof that China's concern is really China--they have no desire to recreate the rest of the world in their image (Angola does not have to adopt communism in order to work with China, but it does need to establish democratic elections to work with the US, for example). The US believes that we should reform countries in our deals with them--that we have a moral imperative. China seems to have no such feelings, and yet it has a much stronger moral imperative with its own people than the US has with its own people. The US combines a blend of freedom and tolerance with "basic human rights" while China simply wants to get resources to improve the lives of the Chinese. Does our desire to "convert" everyone to our version of governmental good arise out of our religious background (and missionaries etc?) or from somewhere else?
At least, I think this is what Jacques is saying. It sound so grandiose it's hard to believe that such a viewpoint is really the majority one in China. . .
Kissinger in "China" references some of the same claims in suggesting that the way China incorporated surrounding peoples was through a combination of military conquest and cultural conquest, convincing the outsiders that embracing Chinese civilization was a no-brainer, and reinforcing this belief by moving people in order to mix the population with firm believers.
Jacques argues that the discussion of race in China is not simply a description of China but a warning for how China will treat "others" in the future.
China, unlike the US and the IMF, offers almost unfettered deals to African nations, honoring the state's sovereignty above all else. The US and IMF, in contrast, demand political and social concessions in order to provide aid or allow companies to broker deals. Interestingly, this seems like more proof that China's concern is really China--they have no desire to recreate the rest of the world in their image (Angola does not have to adopt communism in order to work with China, but it does need to establish democratic elections to work with the US, for example). The US believes that we should reform countries in our deals with them--that we have a moral imperative. China seems to have no such feelings, and yet it has a much stronger moral imperative with its own people than the US has with its own people. The US combines a blend of freedom and tolerance with "basic human rights" while China simply wants to get resources to improve the lives of the Chinese. Does our desire to "convert" everyone to our version of governmental good arise out of our religious background (and missionaries etc?) or from somewhere else?
Comments
Post a Comment