September 05, 2005

You are on the invidual archive page of Whitewashing Modern Chinese History. Click Simon World weblog for the main page.
Whitewashing Modern Chinese History

In an article I regard as more in the tradition of Xinhua, the party organ I discussed in my last blog entry offers an article about how "Ancient philosophy guides China's modern diplomacy". It discusses how the Chinese foreign minister said recently that "the Chinese nation has always pursued a life in harmony with other nations despite differences." The article then goes on to quote Confucius and even Bertrand Russell in discussing the pacific leanings of China over the centuries.

That's all well and good, of course, except for the brief aberration known as Maoism that advocated violent revolution all over the world that must be inserted as a significant caveat. We'll ignore the peaceful revolution of Tibet and the saber-rattling at Taiwan as domestic issues for the moment, and even forgive millions of PLA soldiers pouring over the North Korean border once MacArthur crossed the Yalu River, 3 wars with India, or the support of money, arms, and equipment for Ho Chi Minh in the 1950s and part of the 1960s (heck, we'll even forget about China's unsuccessful invasion of Vietnam in 1979). But, please do explain to me the Maoist revolutionaries in places like Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Peru and Colombia, which all received explicit support by China during the Great Helmsman's tenure.

Of course, even before that, the understanding China had with all nations was that it would be gentle and pacific towards them, as long as they acknowledged that China was the greatest nation in the world, and accepted a position of inferiority. But I'd be willing to accept that otherwise, China's been rather good to its neighbors over the millennia.

posted by HK Dave on 09.05.05 at 10:13 AM in the




Trackbacks:

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/112305


Send a manual trackback ping to this post.


Comments:

MacArthur never crossed the Yalu River. Troops under his command -- Korean troops at that -- approached the Yalu River in the fall of 1950.

posted by: Zathras on 09.05.05 at 10:29 AM [permalink]

Modern Chinese history? How about "whitewashing Chinese history" period. Precisely because the Confucian ideal is indeed harmony, so much of Chinese history stands condemned by the very standards appealed to by the FM!

posted by: HUICHIEH LOY on 09.05.05 at 11:21 AM [permalink]

Ah, revisionist histories. Where would we be without them? I seem to recall Chinese armies attacking Korea at several times in the distant past (pre-20th century), not to mention Vietnam, not to mention invasions of Central Asia... Of course, my undergraduate courses in Chinese history are some years ago so my memory is somewhat rusty, but still.

Peaceful and harmonious relations? Someone give me a cut of whatever drugs the FM is taking. I need some escape from the dreary reality of law school assignments, papers, et cetera...

posted by: Nolan Winthrop on 09.05.05 at 11:50 AM [permalink]

Yes quite so, it seems that the selective memory of China in forcing Japan to remember its wartime atrocities but forgetting many events of a more recent nature prove the statement that China has always been a peaceful neighbor as disingenuous. China in fact has attacked, tried to foment revolution or had border shooting incidents with every country bordering it in the last 60 years. Between 1950 and 1980, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but China must have been in more wars with neighbors than any other country on the planet.

But maybe since China at that point was a new country trying to struggle free from its past imperialist influences, it would argue that period of its history was a bit of teenage rebellion. Shame though, that it cost so many lives, particularly Chinese ones.

Yes China has shown aggression in its past also to neighbors, from the Xiongnu in the West to the Koreans in the East. But it is fair to say that Chinese dynasties have been more peaceable than most. It's hard to judge though, when over the last 1000 years, for about 35%-40% of it China was ruled by aggressive invaders (Mongols, Manchus). In the end though, it seems difficult to make a case for China being any more peaceable than any other country.

posted by: HK Dave on 09.05.05 at 04:22 PM [permalink]

And that's true, American troops never crossed the Yalu, the issue was that MacArthur wanted to bomb the bridges there. He also wanted to drop up to 50 nuclear bombs on China, making the Chinese and its Foreign Minister indeed look like peace-lovin' hippies.

posted by: HK Dave on 09.05.05 at 04:24 PM [permalink]

You must admit that China never did anything to its neighbours that it wasn't willing to do to itself twice over. Of course, in this context, The USSR was very peaceful, too, as it was rarely overtly aggressive outside its borders. If you want to be aggressive towards a neighbour, annex it first: now it's an internal problem.

posted by: Bromgrev on 09.05.05 at 05:30 PM [permalink]

The situation in Imperial times is complicated. To begin with, the very concept of a neighbor--as in neighboring people or state that is in some sense equal and deserving of respect is not exactly one that they had. There is only supposed to be one world--tianxia. There is no such thing as independent "sovereign states". The emperor is literally supposed to be the ruler over the world (though his actual power diminishes as the distance to the capital increases). And any tribe or people or locality that is not actually under the imperial order is only one more 'barbarian' tribe that awaits incorporation. Now the Confucians have always advocated that incorporation is to be a peaceful process of civilisation. The emperor and the imperial order in general, if it rules with virtue, cannot but attract those on the periphery towards peaceful and voluntary submission. This is the (quasi-) Confucian ideology anyway. In reality, emperors and their courts readily recognize the soverign power of states powerful enough to resist (as in the case of Russia). They were also not shy of 'helping' the incorporation process with a bit of military force (the 1000-year back and forth with Vietnam is the classic example). In any case, the ideology complicates any evaluation of the FM's claim because there is a sense in which the very notion of a "foreign war" is conceptually out of place within the traditional ideology--there is a sense in which it's all internal (because it's all internal, given that there is only one world political order). The ideology only began to really breakdown--even as ideology--in the 18th and 19th century when powerful Westerners began to burst on the scene. It's much harder to pretend that the British with their gunboats are just another barbarian tribe somewhere out there awaiting the civilizing influence of the Celestial Empire.

posted by: HUICHIEH LOY on 09.06.05 at 01:16 AM [permalink]

Yes, bromgrev, it is a bit of a problem when you are re-classified from 'tributary neighbor' to 'internal problem', isn't it?

Huichieh, I quite agree with everything you say. In my humble opinion, what insulted China even more than previous invaders like the Mongols or the Manchus was that the British (nor any other Europeans) were unwilling to even adopt the trappings of Chinese dynastic power, which at least acknowledged the centrality of China in the universe...

posted by: HK Dave on 09.06.05 at 05:49 PM [permalink]




Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?










Disclaimer