6. My gun 😀 😉 😀

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???

Thanks SOC, that cleared things out….a bit….

2. Electric avenue -Eddy Grant 😀 😀 😀 :rolleyes: 😎

You dont get it

I never said aboriginals but i said immigrants also. Not all of the european immigrants. Now anyone in australia tell me something cultrally similar between australia and europe. You enter a country your that nationality. You are still ethnic whatever but you are now australian. You have never lived nor been here i dont think you know what it is to be or live in australia while you assume that australian culture is linked to european culture

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.

Are we going to debate or chit chat. Get to your point or you have already lost this. There is no smoking gun in a debate you present you point and we debate the issue.

What is your answer. Spunik already gave us a good article and i think it outlines it perfectly. Consider me out if you dont get to the point since i already posted my issue while you dont answer but divert the question.

Getting to the point would be much easier if you drop out hanging on issues like the Australian heritage. It could be said that you’ve miss the train, i’ve already getting to the point with others. For most of the parts you have ignored the original question completetly, but no need to blaim me on it. It’s your call wether you wan’t to clash on these oftopic things like my political obinions or your inability to see the issue in bigger scale.

You and i have different wiew on the contest of depate in general. You seem to think it’s this kind of arguing that we are having now and i was looking more of in-depth discussion without arrogasm nor getting too personal. In your version of depate you call these unconstructive struggels over peny issues only for the sake of arguing. But what i’m looking for is discussion were the issue is somewhat sacret, meaning that we both try get the deeps of it, staying in the topic and forget our personal likes and dislikes towards each others. In your own description of “depate” you honestly are a true champion, but lets try my version of it. 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?”.

Because you voted for the Finnish Green/enveriomantal party candinate. Whatever. Doesn’t sound like a communist to me.

Well if you would have read everything what i said in the thread were you get that info over me, you would know why i did so…but here’s a recap

In the electionar edition of Tiedonantaja, our famous revolutionar pamflet and main voice of Finnish Communist party, it said that as a lack of proper left-wing candinate, each one chooses for himself…and our green party candinate was least worst of them all…But judging me from my electionar behaivior you should know more of finnish political life and This isent rigth thread for it, but then again Im always ready to enlighten you more… 😉

And is this the communist which claimed that communist thought was from the russians?. now he knows everything about Maosim

Nope. here is fine with me. Since you brought up the cultral revolution who did Maos eariler work affect the cultral revolution?. The whole point on the cultral revolution was trying to reach the final stage communism. All classes were equal and that BS.

Leninism is different from maosim. Wheres Leninism is about social upheaval in the worker society it still leads to the urban proletariat. Wheres Mao is dircting aimed at the peasants, and much later in his writing you will find it more edvident. In lenins book or any of his theories is armed resistance meant to be used but a general strike and then throw back of the Bourgeoisie through economic means not military means. Maosim has a different structure as to how the revolution and differnt way revolution is implemented. It was a never ending cycle of change and re-change. Constant revolution vs change than implement

Peoples war are all complety differnt from Marxism-Leninism

But there is the difference in your own words, 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. Marxism and dialectic-materialism are still potent sosiolocical theoryes and sofar only failure of Soviet system has spoken against it, and as that is too easily explained by multible of other factors, it havent been really tested or displaced. the main idea there is that all human populations follows same horizontal devolpment and sosiety needs to achieve its certain levels before moving into next one. 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.
Thinging of this, most of the ‘crimes’ made in name of communism/marxism can be explained. If you choose to tangle this devolpment simply motivated by your own desire of political power you go wrong. Human races sosial srtucture change is those things of ‘invisiple hand’ and done as consience choice, matter of collective mind, not individual process, again where Maoism goes wrong by giving too much credit to single man.

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… 😉

You asked these questions while you seem to have no knowledge of Asian culture, particularly Confucianism. Maybe you need to learn more about Confucianism, with its emphasis for harmony, structure, elitism, the elderly, and why, while it sounds great on paper in creating an ordered, harmonious society, also discourages innovation, experimentation, and free thought. Usually Confucianists are the nobles, and pushing this philosophy encourages development of their power base.

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

You cannot compare European cultures then and European cultures now. European cultures then were highly competitive and imperialistic. Today, its liberal and socialistic, which is why I wonder if the future Europe has what it takes to remain a dominant power in the next century.

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 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.

After all the social evolution from all the wars in Europe, it was Europe’s turn being imperialistic. Social evolution works. You remember Greece? Prior to Alexander, Greece was a bunch of city states warring at each other. Social evolution toughened them, created things like the Spartan military, while the chaos created a fertile ground for new ideas and innovations which is where a lot of the classic philosophies were made. That evolutionary toughness defeated the Persian Empire when they tried to invade, and when Alexander came, the Greeks were ripe.

The Romans too were a product of social evolution, themselves fighting the Etruscans and later the Carthagians.

And if you look at China, the same thing. Prior to the unification under the Qin Emperor, China was in the Warring States period, where divided, various kingdoms contend for supremacy fighting each other. It was during this turmoil that China saw some of the greatest social and technological advances—pretty much all the stuff that defined them as “Chinese”. In this period that China transitioned from a Bronze age to an Iron age, where tribal warfare styles was replaced by large regular and well organized armies, when things like crossbows are born. And not the least, this was the era when Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War.

Of all the kingdoms, the Qin was the most powerful and effective, and its military conquered all the other kingdoms and united the entire region as one. This was the defining moment as being “China”. Because he was tyranical, the dynasty of the Qin Emperor was shortlived, and was overthrown. What replaced it was the Han, which became a golden age and conquered territories here and there to become a massive empire.

this is in effect, an example of social evolution affecting culture, society, technologies and philosophies.

Japan itself was a product of social evolution because it too suffered continious civil wars, forcing the creation of classes like the Samurai.

Even the USA was a product of social evolution. In her earlier years fighting the British, who also invaded again during Napoleon’s time. Then later came the Civil War, wars with the Mexicans and the Spanish, and the Indian Wars. One of the qualities of the American soldier then was because they damn knew how to shoot a gun. And they had a lot of practice.

Look at the Mongols before Genghiz Khan united them. A bunch of tribes fighting each other. Their skill in archery and riding the horse came from necessity and survival.

Look at the Arabs before Mohammed united them under a single faith. A bunch of tribes fighting each other.

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

The Ottoman Empire was Asiactic and did Colonize large parts of Europe for a prolonged period of history.

Simiarly Spain was occupied by the Islamic Moors (an Empire of mixed North African and Middle Eastern/Asiatic origin) for centuries.

Japan certainly dispossed the US of its Pacific territories in WWII. It was only the US’s access to nuclear technology that eneded that conflict in favor of the allies.

I forgot the Mongolian Huns who terrorized large parts of Europe for quite some time. Sure they didn’t leave a permanant legacy in the form of buildings etc, but that was simply because they were a nomadic people…

These all are examples of near by conguering, merely next to the conquers borders. It isent example of colonisating totally alien cultures and destructing the coloniased cultures therefore term coloniasation isent best one to descripe Ottoman empires rule in europe as it certainly isent rigth term to descripe Japan brief invasion of US terretories. Mongolians came to eastern europe but slowly mixed up whit local populations rather than installing their own culture. Again the orginal power structure remained as well as the orginal cultures, religions and languages. Sure these all examples left a sings, but they shouldnt be compared to coloniasation made by europeans to Africa, Asia and America.

The Arabs certainly were advance and had alot of scientific innovations.. but the Mongols destroyed all that, lots of books were burnt and knowledge lost. If they didn’t do that, perhaps the Europeans would remain behind the Arabs. I dont think they ever recovered from that. After their loss, you had other groups of nomads, the Turks, that established several empires from East Asia to Europe. The most prominent one being the Ottomans who at their peak, controlled most of the Meditteranean..but they came later and by the time they were at their peak, Europe was already rising and exploring the world for resources. And at this time.. the Ming was isolating themselves and had to deal with Mongols under Altan Khan, and began having a tough time with Manchus. They also wasted alot of their treasury oh Zheng He’s voyages, and expensive upgrades to the Great Wall. So both China and the Arab civilization were stagnating when Europe was rising. When the Manchus did take over China..they spent alot of time consolidating and expanding their control.. but nothing like the expansion and economic revolutions made by the Europeans.. by the time the Qing started “modernizing”, the Russians were already coming in from the north and the Brits and French were coming from the South.

In case of Arabs, we propaply have to ask why did the Mongols managed to invade them and ruin their culture. Didnt the same thing happened to Rome in europe, by barbarians? Did it prevent Europes rise to power? I think whit Arabs, the main proplem is geological, not sosial, as you see the answer to the proplem isent going to be onesided. More a sum of many faiforable elements. One key issue to any culture to rise is the conditions to agriculture and harvesting. In middle-east, thougth craddle of neolethic revolution, these conditions had long ago been spoiled and the heritage of that revolution spread to europe and thus uniting Middle east more to european hemisphere than asia. Some scientist are certain that China begun agriculture independently as well as some tripes in American soil. Thougth in only china and Middle-east/Europe, the conditions preferred its revolutionar increasing.
Key elemets to that are the ammount of natural plants aviable to cropping and domesticable animals. And the latter is directly relevant of previous human populations ways to hunt the big mamals to extinsion. Offcourse there were the population of different spieces of big mamals have been largest, the largest ammount of domesticated animals have remained thus giving Eurasian cultures a huge advantage compared to ones in America and Oseania.
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?

Why are drugs being sold and fought in the US? Simple. Because the drugs follow the money.

As for China being a world power and a denominator, she has every right to be one for the same reasons the Roman Empire did. For over a millenia, the Romans dominated their side of the world, the Chinese did on their side—culturally, economically, and militarily. In fact, one can say the Chinese held their dominance longer, although they had their ups and downs too. The Hans and Tangs ruled virtually in much of the same expense modern China is today, from north of Korea to Afghanistan to southwards pushing to South East Asia. She also left an lasting imprint with all the cultures she has come in contact with, which is to say, with every country in the Far East.

But here is the major difference. The Roman empire and civilization is long gone, but the Chinese civiliation and empire is still with us.

well i have never denyed Chinese rigth to become world dominator, nor have i ever wanted to take out the ‘morale’ rigth to powers to be one. Human sosietyes movements are dynamic and predictable matters just like laws of the nature, as we are animals, sosial animals and like any other animal populaiton, Human population can be scientifically examinated.

But you come close the major proplem and maybe an even answer of this proplem. Why, in spite long and almoust continue history of chinise culture it havent rose in par whit west which nominally looks lacking behind in all fields of culutre and civilization? During the middle ages, Arabian and Chinese cultures were well ahead of European ones, but still it ended up that those areas were ripped of by european orgin imperialists, but not the other way around.

Asian philosophies are based in seeking harmony with the universe and harmony with one’s self. You can see simlar themes with Shinto, Taoism, Buddism, and Confucianism.

Simply said, can you tell me from over 5,000 years of history of China and other nations in the Far East, where did they ever involved themselves in a religious war to spread some faith or subdue some heresy. When did any Asian nation killed people “in the name of God.”

So you are saying that blood thirsty hippocracy in religios matter have brougth european orgin domination? I would like to see the issue of european religions bloodynesh in trougth the whole contest of european sosial and civilicaitional situation. Religions are ‘Opium to the people’ and therefore in europe were constant warfare were always present to any prince or king challenging powers, the religion needed to become adjustable to violent politcal culture

Because they do not inspire missionary zeals and crusades. The Spanish and the Portugese explored the world for both greed and to save the souls of the heathen. The religious wars in Europe forced both social and military evolution in a grand technological scale.

Eventually the religious extremes forced secularism in Europe, and with the introduction of secularist philosophies, created secular ideologies and the rise of science. Most importantly was the development of the Scientific Method.

And there you got to the point i have wanting you to come up. Thougth it was not only religious wars that waged trough europe but violence in genral that religios was so deeply involved. This lead like you said into rise of innovatives and by language of sosial-darwinism ‘the adjustable ones live longer’. The athmosphere in Europe out ruled any elements of isolation and stagnation and therefore engouraged people into venturing foreing lands and bringing European rule whit the help of innovative inventions and ideologyes that let stagnate and isolated powers to held in back.

Now since most countries got quite annoyed of being run over by foreign troops they hired more soldiers. They constructed better equipment and basically got better in the fine art of killing each other. Problem is that their opponents got just as good.

Cliff, you are also on rigth tracks but these are merely proximate reasons for european dominance. We now need to look why these kind of conditions were present in europe but not in elsewhere, like in china

Umm…if the Church had its way, all the budding scientists and secularists would have been burned at the stake. In fact, what held down Europe from an even faster progress had been the Inquisition and the witch burning.

In China, there has been a tradition of continued hands on experimentation, which led to the developments we saw in the Ming Dynasty, such as the porcelain wares, the Treasure ships and various advancements in metallurgy. Recently, the metal linchpin supporting a massive 52,000kg brass bell built during the Ming Dynasty could only have done its purpose (imagnie a 52000kg something swinging fromi this pin) , if the tensile strength of the metal used on the 3 foot pin would have matched today’s aeronautical standards.

But somehow, China in the later Qnig period, lost the technological ability to build something like the Yongle bell again, or Zheng He’s treasure ships, which was only matched by 19th Century Clipper ships in scale and seaworthiness, and remains today, the largest wooden ships ever built. Why so? Because the stratified Confucian think took over much of Chinese culture, and the Confucians emphasized authority over innovation, the elderly over the young, order over chaos. It is for the same reasons why Chinese medicine and accupuncture which made its greatest advancements under the Sung and the Ming Dynasties, failed to move forward, and even regressed, under the Qing. One can’t blame the Qing for it, they merely inherited the apparatus from the Ming, and the Confucians literally took over by the time of Zheng He himself.

The ordered retirement and scrapping of the five Treasure ships was the pivotal moment of China’s history, the one symbolic act that defines her turn from the scientific and engineering achievements she made for centuries, into a road of gradual decay that only ended in the latter part of the 20th Century.

It remains today, a lesson which every country should heed.

So can we drawn conclusion that China didnt became a powerplayer due its stagnated philoshopheys? Lack of innovative and adventure spirit? Well Im sure there were adventurous spirits but not much political breathing space for them so they would have helped chinese explorations? Idelogyes and philosophyes in China, thougth not much diffenring from theoryes from the ones in the west but in practical conducting raised a political culture that helped single man rule and kleptocratyes whit ultimate powers prevented any prospectous accept of expansions as they would have threathed the power of the rulers?
So what made these differences between European and Chinese power cultures if we can agree that its the route we should enter if we want to find an acceptable answer?

The Americas was never as heavily populated as Asia-Africa-Europe which are all connected. Pandemics tend to arise in the most heavily populated areas, like in China for example, because there is so much fertile material (simply a lot of humans) for viruses to evolve. In the Renaissance era, European ports were extermely dense and crowded—places were really filthy slums—while ships travelled, bringing back all sorts of diseases.

Ask yourself, why is there a Bubonic plague in Europe?

Well You are rigth after the reasons of Black death, the key element to phandemics to spread is advanced communication and transportaition disiase carriers.
European disease base was lot of result (as in every where else) of the ammount of cattle and domesticated animals. The disaeses were tranferred to us from the animals and in regions whit different animalbase had different animals. In cultures of South Ameríca as in example had little if not domesticated animals compared to ones in mediterenian region, so when Europeans entered America their multible arsenal of disiases wiped the
indian polation to extincion. It has been same elsewhere when europeans have entered virgin, isolated human populations whit little of own disiases from little of no domesticated animals…

It has been other way around in Black africa where the local disiases have long prevented European exploition unto near past, compared the explotation of Asia and Americas.