Why is West dominator of the world?

It hardly isolated and independent. I won’t consider the Inquisition an isolated incident.

The fear is so widespread that intellectuals like Galileo are afraid to speak or publish their works in fear of being branded as a witch or heretic. Under the Church that time, the fear of free speech is even worst than a Communist country, and the punishments even more grievious (burning alive in the stake after being tortured in the rack vs. the gulag).

yes but that werent the rule in europe when the so called ‘new age’ begun…ofcourse the catholics put resistance in individual cases, but they didnt manage to prevent the whole change of athmosphere…

In China the same three elements, the monarchy (absolute rule of the Emperor), the religion (the massive influence of the Confucianists), and feudal nobilities. Like in Europe, all three work to support and strengthen each other and their power bases.

I must add that feudalism itself is very detrimental to progress. One of the real advantages of the Americas had been that it started with a clean slate, and thus, you don’t have feudalism. The closest thing to feudalism in the US are the cotton plantations owning slaves, but the Civil War took care of that.

Well feudalism prevents to its own point the progress of centralization, but all elements of oppressive power structures and factors bringin stress into sosietys horizontal elements have eventually face its own destruction

In many other countries, breaking up feudalism is done in a much more bloodier way, like the French beheading their nobility during their Revolution with the Guilottine, while Communists in Russia and China executed the land owners. If you are rich, you’re dead. Wars also took their share of the feudal barons.

classstruggle….

Some of the Bible people, Jehovah’s Witnesses for example, believed that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Dinosaur fossils must be the work of the Devil.

I do believe that the future of a nation is determined right in the classroom.

Agree whit that, but the next biggest factor is the entertaiment…In west we are practically numbed whit overdoze of entartaiment that we have lost our ability to collective thinking, thus just believing all the little lies they fed us…and its doesent need to be lies, just impresses and stressing one fact over another, but mostly took almoust all news and happenings out of bigger picture. The basic understanding of world is effectively blurred and people are lead like pigs…
In schools, we should be teached to guestion every auchrority

Its current technological supremacy is for the US to lose. The US has already lost vital leads in automobile technology, in many areas of electronics, and is now only in parity along many areas. Even in commercial aviation this is clearly under assault.

Well the economics can take blows if the governmenr survieves, real sings of fall comes when the govermental or social structures starts to crumble…

For me, the right wing and the Bush administration, particularly right at the very top, is the same reflection of the Ming Emperor (not Zhu Di, the guy who commissioned Zheng He’s voyages; the next guy that replaced him after he died) and his Confucian cronies.

The first similarity is being way out of touch with the rest of the world and living in illusion about their supremacy being forever, while the rot is eating at the foundation. It is amazing to think that the right wing still thinks the US being ahead in areas where they actually are not.

The second is being involved in military campaigns that drained the money away (the Ming fighting the Mongols, fighting in Korea against the Japanese, fighting in Vietnam and so on).

The third similarity is benig surrounded by a certain faction of people who reinforces that isolation and illusions, who promulgates a “we are not accountable to the world” philosophy, while at the same time, trying to put down a faction who promotes diplomatic engagement as a way to deal with problems.

The fourth is the question of religion over science. An important issue is stem cell research, which is fundamental breakthrough in medical science and because of “ethical” issues, facing barriers put up by the Bush government

Intresting accpect, thougth thinking it bit future, is there similar factors that every empires fall? Can we determ as we can genrally determ why empire can rise, how it would fall or is it always too dependaple of the empires individual elements??

:rolleyes:

Well two days ago i thought to myself.

ummm…. I got school in 5 more days and i got five essays to write(i had planned this at the start of the holidays). should i continue this right now or should i finish my VCE homework. logical choice to me since i already have had 2 months off

Well just read the last one i wrote, I sum the things there pretty well

I’ll read it tommorrow. your new type of writing is hard to understand and it takes a while to figure out

Well thats only due the falls of english as language, Not me…it would be lot easyer if i could use my native language…do remember that i have only studied english in schools and I werent exactly a school boy in nature…

Neither am i a school boy. I failed maths for god sake. Asians are suppose to be good at maths.

The problem i am having is your trying to use more complicated words mixed with other complicated words. When we were in the thread in about the russian army you used a easier type of writing. change of heart?

Communism isent/wasent any next step, it’s an ultimate step

That was according to marxism. But there must have been a higher steep than pratically nomad type industries

Yes, so whats your point, I was only refering that Maoism isent true scientical ideology as Marxism-Lenins was, there is no point of continue if you aknowlidge that yourself…

Of course i acknowledge it. I have been stating the difference between the two. My point is(which i have stated many times alread) is Maoism was a completly different form than Marxism-Leninsim. But both principles were communism. Each system had different ways of reaching communism

Commune system works in principle but then again when its taken out of its reach and put on use of much wider scope,

Commusim wassn’t about economic development it was about social development. Marx did not factor that the starting force of communism was in a barren land like russia but the ndustriallized nations like germany and western europe where the conditiosn during his time were extremly bad for the proletariat which would cause revolution since they would seek production and the wealth instead of creating it

What Marxism-Leninsim is was change that theory because some pridictions of Marx did not happen like the overthrow of the bourgeoisie elite, which did not happen owning to the explotation of the imperialist powers. which vis a vis lead to russias rise as a power. Lenin changed that theory and theroized that when the exploited people rose up the imperialist countries would have general overthrow because they had no prosperity

Yes im been doing my holiday homework. 😀

:rolleyes:

I just posted my post that i already wrote. Just give me the point in simple form because im not going to read all your post because i wouldn’t have a clue what your talking about.

Well just read the last one i wrote, I sum the things there pretty well

Seeing as how i put my replies in a simple to read format could you use more normal words because the way you assemble your sentences is difficult to understand

Well thats only due the falls of english as language, Not me…it would be lot easyer if i could use my native language…do remember that i have only studied english in schools and I werent exactly a school boy in nature…

Im generalising the main form of communism. I am not refer to imperislm as country to country oriented aggression but people to people like in chinas case. And i stated that commuisn was the next step in human evolution.

Communism isent/wasent any next step, it’s an ultimate step, and when you try to mix the historical devolpment, you go wrong. Class as collective consience cannot take power by revoluition and same time end the era of capitalism, if it isent awaken to its proletaritan awereness. If you try to movefrom feodal agral culutre straigth into highest level of communism, you go wrong…

Maosim the ideology is different from the economic policy. The commune system is not maoism. What really failed was communism itself. It did not fail in china alone it failed all across the world. Because the conditions of its evolution was completely the opposite direction. Communism was a eventual step alone the lines of human revolution and the eventual goal was communism the “classes society”. No country was ever communist it was a socialist country. The means of production was still in government controlled hands. But Mao was preaching Communes as another step to communism to be self suffiecent in production while the russians wanted to create the wealth and then work on their princles which is what Leninism-marxism was about. But the one step was missing was world revolution. There was meant to be a central government which co-ordinates the first moves then eventually lead to the great classless society

Yes, so whats your point, I was only refering that Maoism isent true scientical ideology as Marxism-Lenins was, there is no point of continue if you aknowlidge that yourself…

The logic of the communes are simple. Self reliance. The koreans are practising their own type of socialism more or less based on Maoism called juche. If china did not have to deal with outside problems more or less her commune system would have worked and would have and still is the closet thing to communism we’ve ever seen.

Commune system works in principle but then again when its taken out of its reach and put on use of much wider scope, it fails, As the huge masses devolpment is rather slow…Communes manages in self suficient into some exteem but using its ideas as simply to apply to whole sosiety, you go, again wrong…

Communism was based on the fall of government and no need to sustain a armed force and life would more or less stayed the same but it was a eventual progess. In reality communism was dead to begin with.

Well I, naturally disagree Communism (or Marxism) is in opposite quite lively ideology wheter capitalism and market-economics are in birth contradictic and impossible ideas. The main idea is take the ‘god’ status out of economies and put the human back to its place as only leader, only creator…

Hi there Chinawhite, havent seen you lately…

Yes im been doing my holiday homework. 😀

Anyway, about the topic, nice that you finally dig into it

I just posted my post that i already wrote. Just give me the point in simple form because im not going to read all your post because i wouldn’t have a clue what your talking about.

Seeing as how i put my replies in a simple to read format could you use more normal words because the way you assemble your sentences is difficult to understand

But the main idea of Marxism was that historical devolpments are nessecity, not just preferable conditions. achieving highest form of capitalism doesent mean that you are victim of imperialism, but that you are conducting it, which china didnt do..

Im generalising the main form of communism. I am not refer to imperislm as country to country oriented aggression but people to people like in chinas case. And i stated that commuisn was the next step in human evolution.

Again, I know what the Maoism states but again I have to tell you that it doesent work that way, thats why all the horrible mistakes made by Mao, thats why the China had to conduct its own Glanost and arent any longer a sosialistic workers state. The key proximate reason of all sosialistic states troples was the acts that first promised sherfs free land of their own and then took it away to form collectives, way too early. It needs generations to install the ideas of ‘sosialistic people’ into the education and pedagocics, not just mere years.

Maosim the ideology is different from the economic policy. The commune system is not maoism. What really failed was communism itself. It did not fail in china alone it failed all across the world. Because the conditions of its evolution was completely the opposite direction. Communism was a eventual step alone the lines of human revolution and the eventual goal was communism the “classes society”. No country was ever communist it was a socialist country. The means of production was still in government controlled hands. But Mao was preaching Communes as another step to communism to be self suffiecent in production while the russians wanted to create the wealth and then work on their princles which is what Leninism-marxism was about. But the one step was missing was world revolution. There was meant to be a central government which co-ordinates the first moves then eventually lead to the great classless society

The logic of the communes are simple. Self reliance. The koreans are practising their own type of socialism more or less based on Maoism called juche. If china did not have to deal with outside problems more or less her commune system would have worked and would have and still is the closet thing to communism we’ve ever seen.

Communism was based on the fall of government and no need to sustain a armed force and life would more or less stayed the same but it was a eventual progess. In reality communism was dead to begin with.

Hi there Chinawhite, havent seen you lately…
Anyway, about the topic, nice that you finally dig into it, but again you gave me proximate factors of european becoming first global power but we tryed to find causal affects of it, what made those qualityes of europeans busrt out in first place. Now as I dont have much time to repeat myself, try to read some of my answers to crobato…

but speaking of this communism issue becomes highly prevailing as the EU parialiment is currently trying to pull out act that would criminate communism in par whit nazism…And unfortuanetly that act has huge change to get trough now as those old eastern block little states have entered the union, thougth the act would have unpredictable events in whole europe…

Even the economic progress was different from european communism. China at the start where using Stalinism as the model of economic porgess but proved ineffective because china lacked the economic power or the resources so china moblized her people and did things by hand. Anyway research it up

But the main idea of Marxism was that historical devolpments are nessecity, not just preferable conditions. achieving highest form of capitalism doesent mean that you are victim of imperialism, but that you are conducting it, which china didnt do… I Have read enough Maos writings, perhaps you should read some of Soviet communist partys letters to chinese during the split. Thougth the stalinism had much cripeled soviet ideological ‘purity’ I have found intresting and honest lecturing of basics of Marxism from these writings (and inevitable national pride as finnish guy practically wrote them and took sings of other members of politbyroo along whit it 😀 )

Marxism was based on european conditions where the proletariat would eventually overpower the bourgeoisie through revolution and strike. While Mao Zedongs maoism was about peoples war where armed struggle would follow revolution. If you read both of these theories the only connection is the communsim part.

Again, I know what the Maoism states but again I have to tell you that it doesent work that way, thats why all the horrible mistakes made by Mao, thats why the China had to conduct its own Glanost and arent any longer a sosialistic workers state. The key proximate reason of all sosialistic states troples was the acts that first promised sherfs free land of their own and then took it away to form collectives, way too early. It needs generations to install the ideas of ‘sosialistic people’ into the education and pedagocics, not just mere years. The fact that Maoism was so depended of unrealistic expactations of peoples adjusment to new ways of thinking makes it wery thin ideology. Revolution is a way to conduct a end of capitalism as it cannot achieve sosialism in any otherway, but it isent continious progress…

But if you are future intressed, PM perhaps?

orginal immigrants and susbequent qonquers of australia came from west not from China

In writings before hand i already sated my writings about this matter. Someone even linked us to a very good informative article. I’ll re-post it. I answered and gave my opinion but i haven’t seen your response like a reason

But to think about it, The west spread out because of religion. Western missionaries converting people to god like the muslims and saladin, Thinking more about this it was god which told them to exploer and convert pagans. While china had buddism which was more pacifistic and taoism which had teaching of buddism. Thinking about when the europeans powers went missionaris came alone also. Africa, Dutch east indies Hong Kong. Most of the colonies which the europeans powers colonized also got religionzed also. Region a major factor in western explainsion. yes

But in the case of china, They were the dominant power. China had the largest ego out of any country ever, China had already defeated many regional powers and had very early on established a massive empire every country in asia paid tribute to the chinese empire and if you didn’t pay tribute you were a vassel state. China didn’t need to have firearms because her armies(manchu Banner system) were overwhelmingly superior to any regional power. Now that being said china forced stagnated herself on many occasions. The Ming closed off all exports and stopped the voyages to other countries. The Chinese fleet in the 15th century was much much more advanced than the boat columbus used to discover america. Some theories even say that china discovered america before columbus

In the chinese mind, We were the centre of the earth while the outside borders where the barbarians. China did not want their land because china already has a enormous empire and didn’t need want nor throught about going to live in barbarian lands. If china wanted to south east asia could have become part of china. The chinese in the 15th and early 16th century were ahead of the west in artillery be it on land and on sea. Its only after the peace of china that development of new weaponary stopped. China had a army of some 6million conscripts in 1800 with no enemy to fight, China became fat and lazy. Also the conditions china was faced with had been detrioted by a large amount. in 200 or so years china population tripled and quadtripled.

Now because of this lack of development and the ego china didn’t developed and fell behind other countries. It took losing to the british the japanese and a lot of other countries to snap her out of her dream land. China did a lot of soul searching during the early 20th century and we are rising fast very fast. for almost the whole of civillation china had been the pinicle of development only the last few centuries has she fallen behind. Not to mention which country in europe can be compared to china in size the amount of people and a few more years wealth as a whole. We manage to stay as a peopel and still have the majority of the land we always had. The Hare will always win the race

“The question is ferociously debated by economic historians: there is no consensus on the factor that played the single most important role. But there is pretty wide agreement that three broad and overlapping things, between them, made the difference: values, politics and economic institutions.The bases of progressEconomic growth is a process of economic change. So an appetite for change, or at least a willingness to live with it, is essential if a society is to get richer (except by conquest). This helps to account for China�s falling behind. Its elite valued stability above all. New ideas, especially foreign ones, were suspect. Until the 15th century, the social order could accommodate technological progress reasonably well. The faster and deeper changes required in the early stages of industrialisation were another matter. China�s rulers often blocked change: in the 15th century they ended long-sea trade ventures, choking off commerce and shipbuilding alike.

A readiness for change is only one of the values required. Acquisitiveness is another�an interest in worldly goods, a regard for the material as well as the spiritual, a will to exploit nature for man�s benefit. Yet naked greed is no use. Growth requires investment�and investment is gratification deferred. The enlightened self-interest praised by Adam Smith combines the desire for wealth with prudence and patience. “
http://people.brandeis.edu/~cerbil/RoadtoRiches.html

“The motives of the Western sea explorers and the Eastern treasure fleets were very different. The Chinese were essentially on a dignified tour of the civilized world, initially perhaps in a search for the deposed emperor, but ultimately for the rich gifts of tribute and for the prestige. The Europeans, on the other hand, were engaged in their bitter war with Islam and working for profit. De Zurara, chronicler of Prince Henry the Navigator, lists these motives for Prince Henry in priority order: (1) Cosmographical knowledge, (2) Profit of traffic, (3) Commerce, (4) War versus Islam, (5) Missionary zeal, and (6) the Prince’s famous horoscope.42 There were great economic considerations for the Europeans. In China, the economic considerations were reserved for the inland activities; overseas activities were wanton expenses without sufficient return demonstrated to warrant continuation. The Europeans were in competition with Islam and with each other; the Chinese acknowledged no competitors. In summary, the precipitous fall of Chinese seapower in the 15th century is not surprising. It was fragile even in its time of greatest glory during the treasure ship expeditions of the early Ming dynasty. As Ming China settled down into the more typical Chinese isolationist philosophy, increased efficiency of inland transport (notably an all weather capable Grand Canal) enabled a turning away from the sea and the coast line, and a reliance on a semi-static coastal militia vice a mobile sea-striking arm. This was to prove painfully inadequate against the 16th century large scale piratical activities of the Wo-k’ou (Chinese and Japanese sea mauraders who occupied large sections of coastal China for years).43 A balanced approach, in the twenty-twenty vision of hindsight, of a smaller but still capable Chinese navy with large seagoing warships, focused to developing and protecting Chinese overseas trade that generated prosperity for the country and generated more than enough tax revenue to pay for itself, would have been more effective and perhaps would have survived. The reasons for the dramatic fall of the 15th century Ming navy were political centralization argument in the country that consistently dominated the region, the struggle in the Imperial court between the Confucian courtiers and the palace eunuchs, the internal policy struggle of ideologies between foreign trade and isolationism. Isolationism won. Also, the navy had become dependent in the 15th century on just a few missions; large scale diplomacy to exact tribute, defense of the coast from sea pirates, and protection of coastal grain transport. The solidification of the new regime, and the completion of the Grand Canal summit water supply, removed two of the three missions by the mid 15th century. Finally, maritime threats were considered secondary in China to continental threats, and thus when Mongol border wars and limited resources pressed the Ming dynasty, the navy lost resources to the army. It was not a lack of nautical technology, but rather a combination of the above political and strategic factors that caused a Chinese rejection of sea trade and seapower in the mid-15th century. Ocean-going technology was subsequently lost in China due to official hostility and neglect.”
The rise and fall of 15th century chinese sea power

Im really certain that Mao didnt have enough philosophical sophistication never the less sosiological expertice to conduct his own thougths of Marxism simply basis of cultural differences between china and europe.

Seriously?. What you basing this on?. Have you ever read Maos work?. If not then there is no point arguing this subject because you seriously underesitmate chinese. Look into the Jiangxi Soviet than his time living in Yunnan and compare both purposes. He established Peoples war during that time because more conventional warfare. He formulted the military theory according to chinese requirment from comparing the situation. here is a famous quote

The enemy advances, we retreat. The enemy camps, we harass. The enemy tires, we attack. The enemy retreats, we pursue

Even the economic progress was different from european communism. China at the start where using Stalinism as the model of economic porgess but proved ineffective because china lacked the economic power or the resources so china moblized her people and did things by hand. Anyway research it up

Most revisionist ideas like Maoism tryes to deny this and make too hars changes eg moving from feodalistic agrar sosiety into industrial sosialism, totally siding capitalism and market economy phase and imperialism. These changes, thougth higly generalizing are natural, but consius change of the opressed class becoming the ruling one by force, if nessesery (aka revolution) comes only in the phase of moving from capitalism to sosialism. And even then the change to capitalism is more of natural, invisible change, rather than concious planned one.

Not actually. Maxism preached that imperialism was the ultimate form of capitalism. China had already estiablished one of the most complex forms of imperialism where the hierarchy had already been the esitablished power for a few milleniums. Comunisum is not about industrial strength. You are getting confused with stalinism. Yes Marx did preach that revolution would happen in the industrial nations but also said that communism will eventually come to the poor. Communism wasn’t about limiting to a country sized state but the replacment of a system. eg captialism >> Communism. It was the next stage in human development.

Marxism was based on european conditions where the proletariat would eventually overpower the bourgeoisie through revolution and strike. While Mao Zedongs maoism was about peoples war where armed struggle would follow revolution. If you read both of these theories the only connection is the communsim part.

So again, talking of these things whit real communist souldnt be taken too ligthly as i can sink you whit never ending chapters of propaganda…but if you are intressed… 😉

Yes im interested

Some of the Bible people, Jehovah’s Witnesses for example, believed that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Dinosaur fossils must be the work of the Devil.

Yup we have a lot of them here!

Man are they scary… when they come to your house every week and demand that you need to donate half your income to the church.

yes, there are examples of christian purity movments to prevent sience, but those are more of independent occasions and usually extreme christian movments have remained minor players…

It hardly isolated and independent. I won’t consider the Inquisition an isolated incident.

The fear is so widespread that intellectuals like Galileo are afraid to speak or publish their works in fear of being branded as a witch or heretic. Under the Church that time, the fear of free speech is even worst than a Communist country, and the punishments even more grievious (burning alive in the stake after being tortured in the rack vs. the gulag).

The religious playfield in europe has constantly changed, as thougth remaining nominally same christian by heritage, the philoshophyes and views towards power have constantly changed in terms of two catholic churches but more oftenly in multible of protestant movments. Those areas of europe, stalling whit puritan catholism like Iberian penisula and eastern slavics (orthodoxs are greeak-catholics so I like to drawn the term little bit out of its contest and use it as term for the orginal christian churches) werent exactly most potent players in field of innovations.

yes, but after 16th century, there begun real religious hurricane in europe as protestant movments rose and died and slowly begun way to the new enlighment-philoshophyes begun to rise and devote sciences evolution, approximately same time as China become stagnate…

I would consider it more like the 17th Century. Even at the 16th Century, the Chinese could still deal with the Europeans, like the way Koxinga took the Dutch out of Taiwan. Rationalism in the 17th century led to revolutionary ideas like the Republic and began to tear down the three main instruments of repressive power in Europe, being first the Monarchies, second the Church, and third, the feudal nobilities.

propaply, but then again, whitout generalization, we would have to determ the same thing to each cultural phase of china, why did it rose and what made others more viable.

In China the same three elements, the monarchy (absolute rule of the Emperor), the religion (the massive influence of the Confucianists), and feudal nobilities. Like in Europe, all three work to support and strengthen each other and their power bases.

I must add that feudalism itself is very detrimental to progress. One of the real advantages of the Americas had been that it started with a clean slate, and thus, you don’t have feudalism. The closest thing to feudalism in the US are the cotton plantations owning slaves, but the Civil War took care of that.

Once you have land reform, that set the next stage of progress which is to lead into industrial revolution. Japan’s early modernization is characterized by breaking the feudal power of the daimyo and the samurai class; Taiwan’s economic miracle was sparked by a dazzling land reform campaign by using US aid money to buy all the lands from the landowners and gave the lands to the farmers. The landowners, having plenty of capital from said deals, began to invest in factories.

In many other countries, breaking up feudalism is done in a much more bloodier way, like the French beheading their nobility during their Revolution with the Guilottine, while Communists in Russia and China executed the land owners. If you are rich, you’re dead. Wars also took their share of the feudal barons.

Yes, but when the authoritanity continues for centuryes and becomes ultimate fundamental and that power holders remain in power for long time…

In China, these dynasties could last for hundreds of years. Such as the Qing which lasted from the 16th Century all the way to the dawn of the 20th Century.

off course dynamic and short lived tyrranies can speed up innovative, as does propaply all changes of powerstructure that benefits those minds whit new and fresh idea to become power. In Hitlers reing and in many other like the idea of Europes devolpment comes into microscope; You need innovatives to gain supermacy from your immediate threads, thus achieving a power enough to colonize foreing and alien cultures…after this is acjhieved, fresh ideas and innovative becomes more of a thread to ones power, not nesseserity…

The point remaining, Hitler was an exception but he did speed up progress. Earlier than that, we could say Napoleon.

In China’s case it was the Qin Shi Huang Di, the first Emperor of the unified China (assuming the Shang and the Chou are no means unified). He was a ruthless tyrant but an innovator, starting grandoise projects like the Great Wall, and his attempt to unify all the different languages and dialects into a common language, and his attempt to rationalize the written language. But then he was pretty extreme in his methods, like burning books and burying scholars alive. His dynasty did not last long after his death; generals rebelled and ended his bloodline forever.

Of course, you know him as the guy with the Terra Cotta army.

Education, i think is straighlty relevant from the innovate athmosphere of the domain. In US and in general west, I can see glooming sings of stagnation and decay, thougth not so immediate yet, but still glooming. Wery threathening are the news from US were some masterminds are working effectively against evolution theory and along whit it against all science in order to reinstall their Christian ideas of world creation par whit bible’s writings.

Some of the Bible people, Jehovah’s Witnesses for example, believed that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Dinosaur fossils must be the work of the Devil.

I do believe that the future of a nation is determined right in the classroom.

Or in other words go back hundrres of years in terms of civilication. When any empire beguns to fight against devolpment and progress of human evolution, they are going wrong, Thougth Im not saying that US is condescend yet that level, but there is fear of that. (So Hats of to all Americans fighting against religious-rigthwingers)

But you got point there, thougth I migth look more into the future prospects of capitalism and can Asia become world power whit old clothes or do it need a changes…

Its current technological supremacy is for the US to lose. The US has already lost vital leads in automobile technology, in many areas of electronics, and is now only in parity along many areas. Even in commercial aviation this is clearly under assault.

For me, the right wing and the Bush administration, particularly right at the very top, is the same reflection of the Ming Emperor (not Zhu Di, the guy who commissioned Zheng He’s voyages; the next guy that replaced him after he died) and his Confucian cronies.

The first similarity is being way out of touch with the rest of the world and living in illusion about their supremacy being forever, while the rot is eating at the foundation. It is amazing to think that the right wing still thinks the US being ahead in areas where they actually are not.

The second is being involved in military campaigns that drained the money away (the Ming fighting the Mongols, fighting in Korea against the Japanese, fighting in Vietnam and so on).

The third similarity is benig surrounded by a certain faction of people who reinforces that isolation and illusions, who promulgates a “we are not accountable to the world” philosophy, while at the same time, trying to put down a faction who promotes diplomatic engagement as a way to deal with problems.

The fourth is the question of religion over science. An important issue is stem cell research, which is fundamental breakthrough in medical science and because of “ethical” issues, facing barriers put up by the Bush government

I agree that Australia and the US evolved out of European cultures and are rightly called “Western”, but I think its quite wrong to call them “European”.

Never said that. I agree with that statement though.

You think Christianity helped?

Christians burned down the library of Alexandria, and with it, much of the knowledge…and science…of the Ancient World. That threw back the world by centuries.

Let us not forget how they treated innovators, free thinkers.

—Stretched in the rack
—forced into the Iron Maiden
—Burned at the stake

yes, there are examples of christian purity movments to prevent sience, but those are more of independent occasions and usually extreme christian movments have remained minor players…The religious playfield in europe has constantly changed, as thougth remaining nominally same christian by heritage, the philoshophyes and views towards power have constantly changed in terms of two catholic churches but more oftenly in multible of protestant movments. Those areas of europe, stalling whit puritan catholism like Iberian penisula and eastern slavics (orthodoxs are greeak-catholics so I like to drawn the term little bit out of its contest and use it as term for the orginal christian churches) werent exactly most potent players in field of innovations.

Europe only began to really progress when secularism started to sweep in Europe. Even in the 16th Century, the Europeans didn’t have techs any better than the Chinese.

yes, but after 16th century, there begun real religious hurricane in europe as protestant movments rose and died and slowly begun way to the new enlighment-philoshophyes begun to rise and devote sciences evolution, approximately same time as China become stagnate…

You have to read early Chinese history from the protohistory and the different cultures that originated right to the Warring States period to fully understand what happened.

propaply, but then again, whitout generalization, we would have to determ the same thing to each cultural phase of china, why did it rose and what made others more viable.

Yes.

But always remember, there is a vital exception that authoritarian rule does not create technological progress. In fact, we saw extremely rapid progress in that one exception. That was Adolf Hitler.

Yes, but when the authoritanity continues for centuryes and becomes ultimate fundamental and that power holders remain in power for long time…off course dynamic and short lived tyrranies can speed up innovative, as does propaply all changes of powerstructure that benefits those minds whit new and fresh idea to become power. In Hitlers reing and in many other like the idea of Europes devolpment comes into microscope; You need innovatives to gain supermacy from your immediate threads, thus achieving a power enough to colonize foreing and alien cultures…after this is acjhieved, fresh ideas and innovative becomes more of a thread to ones power, not nesseserity…

I would say that if they were able to dominate there hemisphere, culturally, politically and economically, they are a world power in their right.

then the proplem is on terms…but these local powers have to ultimately face other parts dominators and one winning that contest is the one i tryed to determ…

Conditions are very ripe that the 21st Century would go to Asia, thanks to the interrelated dynamics between China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, which will spread to the other Asian nations. There is the factor of Russia and India too.

But the reason I say so is because of one factor. Education. The Asians are doing better in math and science, followed by Europe and the Americans trailing behind. In fact more and more the innovators in America are in fact, immigrants. If you want to pooh pooh the value of mathematics and science in our quest to develop the next generation of scientists, engineers, and technicians, go right ahead. Right now, China graduates five times more engineers than the US and rules in programming competitions (IBM listed a Shanghai university as tops in programming).

While in the US, we are producing nothing but lawyers, fast food workers, liberal arts graduates, and various other litigants. At the rate we are losing manufacturing ability, someday we won’t even know how to make a sock.

Forget about wars in Iraq, or super expensive military projects. If the US wants to secure its dominance in the next century—put the effort on the schools.

Education, i think is straighlty relevant from the innovate athmosphere of the domain. In US and in general west, I can see glooming sings of stagnation and decay, thougth not so immediate yet, but still glooming. Wery threathening are the news from US were some masterminds are working effectively against evolution theory and along whit it against all science in order to reinstall their Christian ideas of world creation par whit bible’s writings. Or in other words go back hundrres of years in terms of civilication. When any empire beguns to fight against devolpment and progress of human evolution, they are going wrong, Thougth Im not saying that US is condescend yet that level, but there is fear of that. (So Hats of to all Americans fighting against religious-rigthwingers)

But you got point there, thougth I migth look more into the future prospects of capitalism and can Asia become world power whit old clothes or do it need a changes…

The most basic being our system of law and governance; the rules of law, seperation of powers, responsible government, representative government, common law, etc which are strong western concepts.
Obviously someone has an inferiority complex, Australia and the US are very much western countries. Just because people are more likely to have Chinese for dinner or get acupuncture than they were, say 100 years ago doesn’t mean the nation is no longer western, the founding principles of the countries are very western, with the arts, food, sporting, lifestyle and general cultural practices also being very western, though some change has occurred.

I agree that Australia and the US evolved out of European cultures and are rightly called “Western”, but I think its quite wrong to call them “European”. From day one the reality of life here was vastly different to Europe. The different role of government and the different rights and responsibilties of individuals, the way different physical environments shaped the mind set and priorities of the people, and interactions with indiginous cultures all had an impact as did every other fascet of day to day life. Add to that distinctly different “post settlement” histories , and the reality of being blended immigrant societies.

Sure Australia is culturally distinct from Singapore or Thailand, but most (all?) European countries are also pretty foreign to a greater or lesser degree. By way of example, any thoughts of implementing a UK style system of hereditary “Lords” and “Ladies” presiding in a “House of Lords” overseeing the commoners would spark instant social rebellion in Australia. Another example: thoughts of a Swedish or German style social wefare state would send a chill down the spine of most Australians.

yes but its still a sosial-psycholocial phenemmenon. I didnt mean that it wouldnt have deep impact on individual life o its believers, but in the end it can be anylyzed and studyed just like any other religion, and basicly its (in that level) par with all other religions. In west, or europe, one have to remember that the antiqic ethics and philosophyes worked whit pair along the chiristianity and the culture mixed up whit natural believers of northern parts of the continent as the christianity spreaded.

But to the issue, You say it yourself, Confusiaism leads to authorithanity more potentially than lets say average religions. In christianity, the most important thesis is that ‘give the emperator what is his and give god, what is his’ thus provding the ‘material’ reing free hands.

You think Christianity helped?

Christians burned down the library of Alexandria, and with it, much of the knowledge…and science…of the Ancient World. That threw back the world by centuries.

Let us not forget how they treated innovators, free thinkers.

—Stretched in the rack
—forced into the Iron Maiden
—Burned at the stake

Europe only began to really progress when secularism started to sweep in Europe. Even in the 16th Century, the Europeans didn’t have techs any better than the Chinese.

But back to china…. If we consider chinese geography we can quicly drawn conclusion that its rather wide area of easy communication routes, by those big rivers that have also been the craddle of chinese civilisation. Easy access is also akey factore to create united realm more easyer than in Europe, where difficoult mountains cuts most natural trade routes and multible of penisulas and near by islands allows small realms to born and prosper whit natural defenses, thus making it extremely hard and effortfull task to create empires. Small kindoms, usually backed whit totally diferent ethnical back-ground, thanks to migration of peoples, had change to devolp each into similar levels than neighbours and thougth some migth win other, some other migth win you.

You have to read early Chinese history from the protohistory and the different cultures that originated right to the Warring States period to fully understand what happened.

We allready have made it clear that europes dominance over others was first hand, a direct result of europes superior technology, expecially wartechnology. In china otherhand the athmosphere led into opposite direction whit aging empire, whit cultural life favouring authoricracy and singleman rule, whit no immediate thread led onto stagnation as the empire was more vounerable to single mad mans decissions, ones that no european leader had afford to make or face anxision. There are no direct evidence of this, but if thinking general level its quite propaple

Yes.

But always remember, there is a vital exception that authoritarian rule does not create technological progress. In fact, we saw extremely rapid progress in that one exception. That was Adolf Hitler.

yes but twisting the words of some subjective perspective like the habitants of that age had, hardly makes one empire into world power. In This thread im trying to find reason why is the European based world a first true global dominator. There is no reason to twist words to confuse the issue.

I would say that if they were able to dominate there hemisphere, culturally, politically and economically, they are a world power in their right.

So perhaps we can now discuss wheter Asia and/or China has true change to become the next power, and what the future global power hegemony can achieve in terms of human devolpment, whats next, a true period of peace? Sosial revolution lead by asian power, Or has the US led world change to survive as a thousand year emperium???

Conditions are very ripe that the 21st Century would go to Asia, thanks to the interrelated dynamics between China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, which will spread to the other Asian nations. There is the factor of Russia and India too.

But the reason I say so is because of one factor. Education. The Asians are doing better in math and science, followed by Europe and the Americans trailing behind. In fact more and more the innovators in America are in fact, immigrants. If you want to pooh pooh the value of mathematics and science in our quest to develop the next generation of scientists, engineers, and technicians, go right ahead. Right now, China graduates five times more engineers than the US and rules in programming competitions (IBM listed a Shanghai university as tops in programming).

While in the US, we are producing nothing but lawyers, fast food workers, liberal arts graduates, and various other litigants. At the rate we are losing manufacturing ability, someday we won’t even know how to make a sock.

Forget about wars in Iraq, or super expensive military projects. If the US wants to secure its dominance in the next century—put the effort on the schools.

I think the reason that China nor any other far east nation was able to fully develope is because they were dominated by the Huns for the last 2000 years all the way up to the 1600s. The Huns were simply an unbeatable adversary in the pre-gunpowder age. They were a culture that litterally lived on horse back and whos archery skills have never been equaled by anyone at at any time. Although they controled a huge empire, they were never really an empire building culture and allowed their conquered peoples to continue with their culture.

I also want to say that the US’s tech industrys have largely been sourced out overseas or are occupied by foriegners with work visas. So the US may still be a power in bussiness, but are no longer producing enough people with tech skills to support its industry.

The reason western culture was able to spread across the globe, and
dominate it for so long, is complicated, but can be summed up quickly.

The Med.

The Mediterranean Sea enabled anchient societies to trade with
otherwise idolated people. It allowed long distance ship travelling to be
developed.

The main reason Europeans became dominant is because trade thrived.
The Med was the ideal setting , and the roman Empire further joined the
lands with roads.

The landscape helped establish shipping, and the desire for further trade
fueled further exploration.

Had the people in the area been content, with no NEED for trade or
travel, no exploration woudl have been accomplished. the need for
trade fueled the need for exploration.

Nobody doubts the Chinese had the technology to explore and colonize
– but when you’re talking about sailing across the Pacific… they had no
reason TO do it. Asia is a far larger landmass. There weren’t as many
different, isolated cultures stacked on top of each other like they were
surrounding the Med.

Europeans had more reason to expand, and dominate the trade routes,
and colonize. China could have done it, but they had little reason to.

There is no doubt that China will be here in year 3000 pretty much
occupied by the same people and culture as the one that invented the
compass, paper, silk and gunpowder. There is no guarantee that the
UK, US, Germany or Russia will still be around or be inhabited by the
same white race of today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Who cares?

America isn’t nation of a single white culture/race. It doesn’t matter
what people look like, they’ll still be American. Lots of Hispanics are
coming in. Sooooo…. Doesn’t make the country any less American
than it is.

Unlike other nations, America, Canada and Australia do not really have
a distinct genetic component to their people. It sets them apart from
other, older, ethnically distinct nations.

Quite wrong. It does.

Religion is intertwined deeply into culture and it generally affects how one people treat the universe. Confucianism is more than a religion, it is actually a set of ethics and behavior, and more accurately, a philosophical ideology that tends to foster authoritarianism and central control.

yes but its still a sosial-psycholocial phenemmenon. I didnt mean that it wouldnt have deep impact on individual life o its believers, but in the end it can be anylyzed and studyed just like any other religion, and basicly its (in that level) par with all other religions. In west, or europe, one have to remember that the antiqic ethics and philosophyes worked whit pair along the chiristianity and the culture mixed up whit natural believers of northern parts of the continent as the christianity spreaded.

But to the issue, You say it yourself, Confusiaism leads to authorithanity more potentially than lets say average religions. In christianity, the most important thesis is that ‘give the emperator what is his and give god, what is his’ thus provding the ‘material’ reing free hands.

But back to china…. If we consider chinese geography we can quicly drawn conclusion that its rather wide area of easy communication routes, by those big rivers that have also been the craddle of chinese civilisation. Easy access is also akey factore to create united realm more easyer than in Europe, where difficoult mountains cuts most natural trade routes and multible of penisulas and near by islands allows small realms to born and prosper whit natural defenses, thus making it extremely hard and effortfull task to create empires. Small kindoms, usually backed whit totally diferent ethnical back-ground, thanks to migration of peoples, had change to devolp each into similar levels than neighbours and thougth some migth win other, some other migth win you.

Being united and forming an empire also results in staticism, and eventually, decay. Which is what happened when Rome faced the barbarians.

China actually fell into periods of division and civil war. Remember the Romance of the Three Kingdoms? That took place after the Han Dynasty fell. A period of chaos follows, then rebirth, and a new dynasty was born to take the empire once again into new heights. Then the dynasty decays again and the empire falls into revolution and civil war. So what happens in China is a cycle of chaos and rebirth, then decay and chaos and rebirth again. So essentially we are seeing rebirth here.

You have to ask yourself the same question, why Rome, which united the known world of its time, had all the economies, technologies and organization, would eventually fall and not progress.

If both Roman and Chinese technological progress remained uninterrupted, only to see the two cultures meet and share the technology, it is possible that by the 20th Century, we would be more advanced by centuries and already have viable interplanetary travel.

You’re rigth in there.
We allready have made it clear that europes dominance over others was first hand, a direct result of europes superior technology, expecially wartechnology. In china otherhand the athmosphere led into opposite direction whit aging empire, whit cultural life favouring authoricracy and singleman rule, whit no immediate thread led onto stagnation as the empire was more vounerable to single mad mans decissions, ones that no european leader had afford to make or face anxision. There are no direct evidence of this, but if thinking general level its quite propaple

I think you keep missing the point here.

For the ancient Chinese empire, they are the WORLD POWER. Hence the name, Middle Kingdom.

You have to remember that during their time, the concept of the world is much more limited. The Romans ruled and conquered what for them was the ‘known world’, while the Chinese conquered and ruled what for them was the ‘known world’.

All relative to their viewpoints.

yes but twisting the words of some subjective perspective like the habitants of that age had, hardly makes one empire into world power. In This thread im trying to find reason why is the European based world a first true global dominator. There is no reason to twist words to confuse the issue.

But thanks whit the conversation, I think we get close to the reason(s) why is (or was) the europe based world a dominator of the world…faofourable conditions, at the end, most favourable conditions and their supraising effects on human sosieytes.

So perhaps we can now discuss wheter Asia and/or China has true change to become the next power, and what the future global power hegemony can achieve in terms of human devolpment, whats next, a true period of peace? Sosial revolution lead by asian power, Or has the US led world change to survive as a thousand year emperium???

Actually it turns out that the first Americans were actually a French tribe called the Solutreans.

Australia was setteld by a an earlier wave of people than of that currently living in China. They travelled along the Indian ocean rim.

Murderers, conquerors, whatever, life’s a bitch.

What’s the deal with all the angry Chinese, obviously suffering an inferiority complex that the race they happened to have been born into didn’t conquer the world. Comeon guys grow up, nobodys suggesting the Chinese didn’t make it because they weren’t racially capable, It was thousands of years of war, religion, geography, philosophy, arts etc etc That meant that Europeans happened to be the people that gained the capacity to dominate the world. Try looking at things objectively.

the Aboriginals of Australia show no known relations to any other racial groups based on DNA tests. of course, if one was to use “they’re from Africa theory” then so would Europeans and Asians 😉

The same with the Americas. The original people there were from Asia. The murderers came from Europe.

Actually it turns out that the first Americans were actually a French tribe called the Solutreans.

Most places in the world were not first founded by Europeans but by Asians. Australia, Oceana and all of North and South America.

Australia was setteld by a an earlier wave of people than of that currently living in China. They travelled along the Indian ocean rim.

Again, the murderers of the original peoples who populated those places came from Europe.

Murderers, conquerors, whatever, life’s a bitch.

What’s the deal with all the angry Chinese, obviously suffering an inferiority complex that the race they happened to have been born into didn’t conquer the world. Comeon guys grow up, nobodys suggesting the Chinese didn’t make it because they weren’t racially capable, It was thousands of years of war, religion, geography, philosophy, arts etc etc That meant that Europeans happened to be the people that gained the capacity to dominate the world. Try looking at things objectively.

You are rigth in this matter but as I said, the idea is to determ why did the orginal immigrants and susbequent qonquers of australia came from west not from China, why is Queen of Uk the head of the state in Autrailia, not the chairman of CCP. That was what i meant that you didnt get it.

The original conquerors of Australia came from Africa through Asia. They were aborigines. The murderers of the original Australians and the destroyer of their culture came from Europe.

The same with the Americas. The original people there were from Asia. The murderers came from Europe.

Most places in the world were not first founded by Europeans but by Asians. Australia, Oceana and all of North and South America.

Again, the murderers of the original peoples who populated those places came from Europe.

Chairman of the CCP? Communism is a debilitating “western” philosophy. It is not Chinese.

Can you wage some serious discussion which could eventually end up getting to the most deepest of the questions, in this case “why is west dominator of the world?”.

The reason that the West dominate this current phase of world’s history is because of 1) the industrial revolution and 2) the periodic downturn that China goes through every so many centuries.

Europe dominated for the past 500 years. China was the most populous and richest nation on earth for the previous 2000. China endures as powerful state today when its contemporaries, Rome and Egypt, are no longer major powers.

The current state of demographics in the world guarantees an Asia in ascendency with the Western nationalities becoming an increasingly old and smaller part of the world’s population.

There is no doubt that China will be here in year 3000 pretty much occupied by the same people and culture as the one that invented the compass, paper, silk and gunpowder. There is no guarantee that the UK, US, Germany or Russia will still be around or be inhabited by the same white race of today.

In fact, the demographic trends predict a muslim majority in Europe and a black and hispanic dominated US in the future.

Well i have that sort of understanding of asian cultures that in there and elsewhere philoshophies and religions doesent differnce from their place at sosietyes structures. Its irrelevant what they preach, relevant is how the powersrtuctures are constructed. The ideologies of religions havent never been major factor by their silly ideas of idealism in world that is driven by forces of materialism.

Quite wrong. It does.

Religion is intertwined deeply into culture and it generally affects how one people treat the universe. Confucianism is more than a religion, it is actually a set of ethics and behavior, and more accurately, a philosophical ideology that tends to foster authoritarianism and central control.

Imperialism is a phase of market economy and private ownership of production, It has never been part of european cultures in the manner that cultures have charectaristics whatsoever.

But it is, since the time of the Hellenic and the Roman period. It was essentially how the early Europeans managed to survive, by invading and killing each other to make living room for their own tribe.

And that goes all the way to the 20th Century when Hitler invaded Russia for “Lebensraum”.

But then again its irrelevant to dig too deeply into matters that dont consider this question. Wheter yuo want to achieve any solution to the guestion, ‘Why is west dominator instead of others’ you have to acept certain level of generalisation and most of all looking behind different ideologyes and religions that are driving sosietyes to way or another.

But if you claim that China in stance had same evolution in sosial structures acpects as europe, it cannot be the key to answer then? But if we look at china, most important accpect of its history is the relatively stable power heritage. China was united wery early to come close to the ‘state’ -status, dynastyes ruled pretty much same areas and than previous ones heriting not just power vaccuum, but society along whit the power. There werent so much variety in changes of power centres and the nationality of those keepers than there were in europe. We can almoust say that Chinese empires achieved higher levels of societyes horizontal acpects than the ones in europe. The area become united.

Maybe we should then think what made China become united earlyer than europeans and try to find bad acpects of it to the chinese missed opportunity to become global power, If we want to keep social issues key to the proplem

I think you keep missing the point here.

For the ancient Chinese empire, they are the WORLD POWER. Hence the name, Middle Kingdom.

You have to remember that during their time, the concept of the world is much more limited. The Romans ruled and conquered what for them was the ‘known world’, while the Chinese conquered and ruled what for them was the ‘known world’.

All relative to their viewpoints.

Being united and forming an empire also results in staticism, and eventually, decay. Which is what happened when Rome faced the barbarians.

China actually fell into periods of division and civil war. Remember the Romance of the Three Kingdoms? That took place after the Han Dynasty fell. A period of chaos follows, then rebirth, and a new dynasty was born to take the empire once again into new heights. Then the dynasty decays again and the empire falls into revolution and civil war. So what happens in China is a cycle of chaos and rebirth, then decay and chaos and rebirth again. So essentially we are seeing rebirth here.

You have to ask yourself the same question, why Rome, which united the known world of its time, had all the economies, technologies and organization, would eventually fall and not progress.

If both Roman and Chinese technological progress remained uninterrupted, only to see the two cultures meet and share the technology, it is possible that by the 20th Century, we would be more advanced by centuries and already have viable interplanetary travel.

In case of Arabs, we propaply have to ask why did the Mongols managed to invade them and ruin their culture.

The Arabs at the time when the Mongols invaded them was much different from the Arabs at the time of Mohammed. At the time the Mongols invaded them, they were a rich and prosperous nation, with living conditions, luxuries, art and culture far better than the Europeans at that time. But they had gone soft and wasn’t prepared for the kind of warfare the Mongols brought with them.

But whit the effects of unification inside Chinise reing you become to close to the proplem, what differences china from european/middle east region in terms of power struggle. Could it simply be that after 15th century Chinese empire have become too united, too centrally controlled, too big athoritan rule whitout real neighbouring opponents? And when one man rules whitout any realistic ways to displace him from power, a slow degration of mental enthustiastism can crawl into ruling class mind so innovates become threats not prospects to win the rivaling prince like the case in europe.
So again I have to ask why this happen in China, but not in europe?

You already answered your own question.