AHC: Better 19th Century for Qing

[RousseauX]

Too little too late. These reforms only were attempted after they lost the Opium Wars. For this to work, the Chinese need to recognize European superior methods PRIOR to even fighting a single war preferably.

This seems to be awfully deterministic though, even if you accept that China will suffer reversals

And even after losing the wars, the Chinese authorities only attempted reforms with centralized institutions, their mindset was still to accept as little European influence as possible. Unlike Japan that had a mindset to admit as much European influence as possible. That goes to cultural mindset and historical factors beyond the change of a PoD later than 1834.

Again, can you show some evidence or prove this? Why do you think Chinese "mindset" rejects technology or modern methods anymore than say, Indian society, or Ottoman society, or Persian society?

Did China do worse in its modernization than say, the indian states, or Persia, or even the Ottomans?

Can you affirm to me that the opposition to modernization was mainly cultural, and not for instance, opposition to the genuinely disruptive process of modernization? Railroads for instance puts porters and teamsters out of work, those upset people might choose to revolt. There seems to be rational, material reason why embracing modernization is deeply destabilizing.

The Qing was in the end overthrown not by a foreign power, but by political and military institution it created to modernize itself.

The first emperor that had an interest in Western "stuff" was Guangxu and I don't think an earlier emperor would have been interested rather than considering them as inferior barbarians.

But the Emperor wasn't that important in late Qing China, literally none of the emperors were strong and were more often than not a figurehead

 

[RousseauX]

This all happened after the Opium Wars and the students were told to learn and specialize in military affairs, the authorities had zero interest for other European ideas. (barbarians) Which brings us back to the cultural and ideological problem with the authorities. Not necessarily the students, or other open-minded Chinese, the authorities that ran things weren't all that interested.

What about factories and banks and elected legislatures? All of which were implemented under the Qing

if the authorizes "weren't interested", than how come China had elected provincial legislatures, a modernized European style army, and facets of industrialization in its richest provinces by the late 19th century?

Which brings us back to the cultural and ideological problem with the authorities.

An assertion which, yes I know gets repeated in pop history everywhere, not you keep falling back on even though you don't know why you think it's correct

 

[oca2073]

So why do you think the self-strengthening movement was doomed to fail?

And if your answer is something to do with Chinese culture or "inward looking", please back this up with evidence, because it seems to me that just like every other society on earth there's reactionary and progressive elements in China when it comes to modernization. The failure doesn't seem to be rooted in Chinese worldview: it seems to be circumstantial.

No it could have succeeded because enough time had passed by then. But a self strengthening movement in the 1830s or 1840s was implausible which is what we need to avoid a century of humiliation.

Chinese culture was inward looking because the reactionary elements in China dominated and were the political authorities. The Qing was not interested in change, which endangered them politically. Plus the "Chinese elites" did have an engrained mindset that they were superior, it was the Century of Humiliation that threw them out of complacency. The whole of Chinese political ideology is premised on universality, and the elites being the political authorities adhered closely to that obviously. It was how they governed and where they derived their legitimacy.

 

[RousseauX]

No it could have succeeded because enough time had passed by then.

Again why? In otl in the 1880s European observers thought Chinese modernization was going about as well as Japanese modernization. It doesn't seem to be pre-determined that one fails and another succeed.

Chinese culture was inward looking because the reactionary elements in China dominated and were the political authorities. The Qing was not interested in change, which endangered them politically. Plus the "Chinese elites" did have an engrained mindset that they were superior, it was the Century of Humiliation that threw them out of complacency. The whole of Chinese political ideology is premised on universality, and the elites being the political authorities adhered closely to that obviously. It was how they governed and where they derived their legitimacy.

But the Chinese elites immediately started modernizing after the Opium Wars, it didn't take a century of humiliation, the 10-15 years in the 1840s-50s was enough.

 

[oca2073]

Again, can you show some evidence or prove this? Why do you think Chinese "mindset" rejects technology or modern methods anymore than say, Indian society, or Ottoman society, or Persian society?

Did China do worse in its modernization than say, the indian states, or Persia, or even the Ottomans?

I would say yes, China suffered far less imperialism than India, even Ottomans, Africa. And they started off as more developed and advanced than most of these places.

Can you affirm to me that the opposition to modernization was mainly cultural, and not for instance, opposition to the genuinely disruptive process of modernization? Railroads for instance puts porters and teamsters out of work, those upset people might choose to revolt. There seems to be rational, material reason why embracing modernization is deeply destabilizing.

Well a more legitimate govt may have pushed it through, but the Qing were always fearful of revolts and being perceived as foreign and so they were conservative. But aside from industrialization and tech, China did not want to welcome in western ideas. That was the main problem. They could have invested in mass education and free exchange of ideas. But that would have endangered their political ideology from which the dynastic rule derived their legitimacy.

The Qing was in the end overthrown not by a foreign power, but by political and military institution it created to modernize itself.

True which is why they were so reluctant to reform in the first place and had to go so slowly.

 

[oca2073]

Again why? In otl in the 1880s European observers thought Chinese modernization was going about as well as Japanese modernization. It doesn't seem to be pre-determined that one fails and another succeed.

The Europeans saw only the surface and looked at their hardware, but not other factors like education, institutions, ect. They weren't that self aware themselves of what made them strong.

But the Chinese elites immediately started modernizing after the Opium Wars, it didn't take a century of humiliation, the 10-15 years in the 1840s-50s was enough.

They did not know the meaning of "modernization." They thought modernization largely just meant military reforms and buying as much military hardware as possible and learning to use them. The Chinese basically thought that weapons and industry was what gave the Europeans their power, that they had nothing else going for them that was crucial for their success.

 

[RousseauX]

I would say yes, China suffered far less imperialism than India, even Ottomans, Africa. And they started off as more developed and advanced than these places.

But Ottomans surely suffered less than China did, there was after all, no equivalent of the treaty ports nor unequal treaties, and yet the Ottomans didn't exist by 1921 while a chinese state did

Well a more legitimate govt may have pushed it through, but the Qing were always fearful of revolts and being perceived as foreign and so they were conservative. But aside from industrialization and tech, China did not want to welcome in western ideas. That was the main problem. They could have invested in mass education and free exchange of ideas. But that would have endangered their political ideology from which the dynastic rule derived their legitimacy.

Mass free education don't pop out of nowhere because you want it to, mass education takes funding and decades of development to implement. Even the US didn't have mass public education until the progressive era in the early -20th century-. You are literally blaming the Qing for not having something comtemporary America didn't have and calling them backwards for it.

and the Qing -was- legitimate all the way up until the early 1900s, if it had being seen as illegitimate the ethnic Han gentry, it would have fallen during the Taiping rebellion

True which is why they were so reluctant to reform in the first place and had to go so slowly.

But then you are conceding that this isn't ideological or cultural, it's material and political

China did not want to welcome in western ideas. That was the main problem.

Look, I know you probably watched a you tube documentary or something which told you this, but keep asserting this over and over again, without ever being able to prove it

 

[RousseauX]

They thought modernization largely just meant military reforms and buying as much military hardware as possible and learning to use them. The Chinese basically thought that weapons and industry was what gave the Europeans their power, that they had nothing else going for them that was crucial for their success.

So then why were there military academies taught by Germans in the 1880s?

 

[RousseauX]

Every argument with @oca2073 itt

"China was doomed because it didn't want western ideas, despite welcoming in western advisors, building western-designed factories, fighting with western-style tactics, funded using western based banking institutions, I will respond to every post made by screaming that the Chinese mind can't accept western superiority"

 

[oca2073]

But Ottomans surely suffered less than China did, there was after all, no equivalent of the treaty ports nor

Uh no. Read up on all the wars between Ottomans and European powers of 19th century. The Eastern Question was basically what to do with Ottoman territories newly independent including Greece, Balkans, ect.

Mass free education don't pop out of nowhere because you want it to, mass education takes funding and decades of development to implement. Even the US didn't have mass public education until the progressive era in the early -20th century-. You are literally blaming the Qing for not having something comtemporary America didn't have and calling them backwards for it.

I don't mean universal education obviously. But apart from a few select schools, Qing didn't care one whit about raising literacy. Or promoting independent thinking among their military officers for example.

and the Qing -was- legitimate, if it had being seen as illegitimate the ethnic Han gentry, it would have fallen during the Taiping rebellion

There would have been no Taiping rebellion if they weren't perceived as foreigners.

But then you are conceding that this isn't ideological or cultural, it's material and political

The two aren't unlinked. Ideology and culture produces political and material outcomes.

Look, I know you probably watched a you tube documentary or something which told you this, but keep asserting this over and over again, without ever being able to prove it

I'm Chinese myself and while no expert I am familiar with 19th century Chinese history. The 19th century Chinese authorities cared little about western ideas outside of military and industry and saw no value in them (as well as being politically threatened by them) This is why Japan was able to defeat China and modernize much more quickly. The Chinese did have a superiority complex when it came to outsiders and their ideas, and this took decades of humiliation to slowly chip away. I would argue that even in the 20th century it persisted with Mao and Communists who rejected everything ideological that was not of a narrow Marxist bent.

 

[oca2073]

So then why were there military academies taught by Germans in the 1880s?

1) 1880s was much too late.
2) Military reform is just one aspect of modernization/westernization and long term not even the most important. China neglected all other areas outside of military and a bit of industry. (at least until Hundred Days)

 

[oca2073]

Every argument with @oca2073 itt

"China was doomed because it didn't want western ideas, despite welcoming in western advisors, building western-designed factories, fighting with western-style tactics, funded using western based banking institutions, I will respond to every post made by screaming that the Chinese mind can't accept western superiority"

1. Western "military advisors" only.
2. Western "factories" but no western science or education model. (until much too late, and even then in only a few select easily controllable institutions)
3. western based banking institutions (nevertheless state owned)

The 19th century Chinese mind of the political authorities saw the West as ripe for cherrypicking, they would cherrypick ideas they liked and were biased towards, but reject everything else, especially stuff they didn't really understand.

 

[RousseauX]

1. Western "military advisors" only.

Yes, this is how most developing militaries operate, Japan in the 19th century or the Iraqi army today is no different

2. Western "factories" but no western science or education model. (until much too late, and even then in only a few select easily controllable institutions)

What the fuck is this uppose to mean?

You think when a Chinese person look at a steam engine he thinks it's dragon fire or something?

3. funding using western based banking institutions (nevertheless state owned)

State owned banks are somehow not western now?

4. The 19th century Chinese mind of the political authorities saw the West as ripe for cherrypicking, they would cherrypick ideas they liked and were biased towards, but reject everything else, especially stuff they didn't really understand.

But even in Japan there was never a wholesome westernization of every aspect of life and culture, even today Japan is not a fully westernized country. The same is true countries ranging from India to the PRC today to South Korea, all of which I'm guessing you would call "modern".

Every single country selective embraces parts of western institutions and technology they think is useful.

 

[RousseauX]

Look @oca2073 while this is an intersting discussion, I genuinely don't think you know enough about China nor Japan in the 19th century for this to be productive because you seem to be regurgitating the same set of assertions over and over again:

I strongly recommend Jonathan Spencer's Search for Modern China and Marius Jansen's Making of Modern Japan, I don't have a problem with your opinions, only that you don't seem to know enough to back them up

 

[oca2073]

Yes, this is how most developing militaries operate, Japan in the 19th century or the Iraqi army today is no different

My point referred to there being no advisors outside the military. Qing authorities did not want foreigners telling (advising) them how to run their country, unlike Japan.

What the fuck is this uppose to mean?

I mean the Chinese saw European industry and its efficiency and jumped out of their seat but they didn't bother to learn the basic science, like the scientific method, ect.

State owned banks are somehow not western now?

Still subject to political interference by the Qing authorities. Little capital from outside investors as Qing wanted to keep full control. Govt bureaucrats is no way to grow commerce or inspire confidence if you are already riddled with corruption.

Every single country selective embraces parts of western institutions and technology they think is useful.

Yes but unfortunately the Chinese authorities of the 19th century could see far too little of what was useful. They didn't take the Japanese route: I don't know what is useful or superficial, but given how much awesome power these foreigners have, I'm going to learn ABSOLUTELY everything and see everything as potentially super useful until I learn better how to distinguish.

 

[oca2073]

Look @oca2073 while this is an intersting discussion, I genuinely don't think you know enough about China nor Japan in the 19th century for this to be productive because you seem to be regurgitating the same set of assertions over and over again:

Only because you haven't modified your responses one whit to anything I've been offering.

I don't have a problem with your opinions, only that you don't seem to know enough to back them up

I think I've offered far more than you have to be perfectly honest. My evidence is mostly circumstantial it must be admitted, but it's a compelling argument as to why China had a far more difficult time with modernization than Japan despite having much more resources.

 

[RousseauX]

Only because you haven't modified your responses one whit to anything I've been offering.



I think I've offered far more than you have to be perfectly honest. My evidence is mostly circumstantial it must be admitted, but it's a compelling argument as to why China had a far more difficult time with modernization than Japan despite having much more resources.

The problem is that you can't cite a single example or year or event to back your arguments, when example contrary to your beliefs are offered, you simply dismiss it without knowing anything about it.

you seem to be vaguely aware of something called the "Meiji restoration" and "the self-strengthening movement" but you don't seem to know what either entailed, when I bring up the Beiyang army, this seem to be the first time you've heard about it. You keep saying "the Qing didn't want this" or "the Qing didn't want that", despite the fact that 1) they had it and 2) you can't actually cite evidence to support why you believe the didn't want X or Y or Z.

My evidence is mostly circumstantial it must be admitted

And you must know that circumstantial evidence is considered inferior to direct evidence in a court of law, for good reasons

 

[oca2073]

The problem is that you can't cite a single example or year or event to back your arguments

you seem to be vaguely aware of something called the "Meiji restoration" and "the self-strengthening movement" but you don't seem to know what either entailed, when I bring up the Beiyang army, this seem to be the first time you've heard about it.

And you must know that circumstantial evidence is considered inferior to direct evidence in a court of law, for good reasons

The Beiyang army was much too late to avoid the Century of Humiliation which is what we are talking about it. And note while Qing developed a (centralized) western elite army, their provincial armies were left untouched and largely unreformed. Having an elite army while not spreading military modernization across the entire military (like Japan) is bound to be less effective. Top down modernization is much inferior to bottom up modernization.

The Self Strengthening movement is exactly what my criticism says: narrow. It had narrow focuses and cherry picked from what the Chinese saw appealing in European technology, industry and weapons.

The Hundred Days was different but it occurred far too late and while possible it's unlikely a forward-looking emperor could have proposed it much earlier. There would have been tremendous pushback by the civil service.

I only have circumstantial evidence, but I'm comfortable so far rebutting direct evidence that might contradict it.

 

[oca2073]

In other words, you are full of shit and proud of it

I don't see why you are so emotional about it. Does the notion that Europe had good ideas in the 19th century that the Chinese failed to see the utility of (a slight superiority complex), and this contributed to their failure in modernization disturb you? Why? Why is it implausible? It neatly explains again why China failed where Japan succeeded.

 

[RousseauX]

It neatly explains again why China failed where Japan succeeded.

Of course it is, just like how Geocentrism neatly explained why the sun rose from the east and set in the west every day