Would Qing China done better as a colony by foreigners?

[Faeelin]

You're quite mistaken. The Taiping Rebellion was very religious in nature and was gaining massive numbers of adherents before it went off track.

I wonder if you could make a case that Maoism was a religion? Certainly he was viewed almost as a god by many peasants.

 

[Smaug]

No Cohesion? At this point China has a century of perceived unified rule going back millenia, and has been under the Qing since the 17th century.




Why would they?

On the other hand, the Chinese were very active in Southeast Asia, which had goods they needed/wanted.

Excellent point.....What I meant was a nationalistic, single language type of unification that had happened in Europe. China was still hampered by regional factions. I didn't mean to imply that they hadn't accomplished great things, as much as I meant to expose the ease by which they were divided and abused.

In my defense, I consider China one of the Great Civilizations. Thier Xenophobia, later on is, IMO, thier great fault.

 

[Faeelin]

Excellent point.....What I meant was a nationalistic, single language type of unification that had happened in Europe. China was still hampered by regional factions. I didn't mean to imply that they hadn't accomplished great things, as much as I meant to expose the ease by which they were divided and abused.

China had different languages, sure. You expect that from a nation with between 300 and 400 million people at this point.

But they were united by a common culture and government.

In contrast, India was a geological construct until the British conquered it, made up of numerous different states.

No offense, but it's a really different situation.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Are you kidding with this? I'm sorry but that is just astonishing in its insensitivity. The "rebels" who wanted their own country back from an invader from halfway across the world who was sucking them dry are as bad as self-same invader who made "rebels" LAP UP HUMAN BLOOD?

I wasn't referring to Iraq at all, I don't know what you mean. I was referring to the Indian Mutiny in the mid 19th c.

Malaysia is just recently not a mess, because they turned out to have oil.

And how on God's Green Earth do you classifty IRELAND as a COLONIZER?!?!?!?!?!? They were conquered and ruled by the British! It's STILL a mess in N. Ireland because of that.

China was totally dominated by the Powers, its unity undermined, it's population deliberately hooked on opium, but because their polity wasn't ever totally destroyed like most other places on earth, they rebounded. Mess? They are the fasting growing economy in the world and expected to take their place as a superpower soon.

You are referring to isolated incidents there like the infamous Iraqi pyramid a year or two back. Also some of the rebels themselves were much, much worse...

But then Ireland was mainly the coloniser not the colonee (I love made up words)



Ugh...That is just...wrong.
Look at Thailand. And then look at Malaysia. Can you see which one is clearly the better?
Its quite difficult to do...I would probally lean towards Malaysia actually since they've had less in the way of coups et all and the numbers are better for them...Also they were starting from a somewhat 'lower rung'.
And you may care to notice that China was never ruled by a European power. Its history has certainly not been pretty and today...Not a great place outside of the cities...And even there you have to watch your tongue.

 

[Smaug]

China had different languages, sure. You expect that from a nation with between 300 and 400 million people at this point.

But they were united by a common culture and government.

In contrast, India was a geological construct until the British conquered it, made up of numerous different states.

No offense, but it's a really different situation.

No offense taken, I've just always thought that India was for some reason, more similar to Europe in many ways, and I've always considered China to be somewhat more of a anachronism to Europeans. Its just an opinion I had, and it certainly doesn't have to be true

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Are there any non mid-powers (Japan, Turkey)? I can only think of Thailand, the most famous of potential colonies that managed to play off all the colonial powers and so remained neutral and free. In Africa there's Ethiopia, and they didn't end up too well.

Turkey, Thailand, and Japan are about it. Ethiopia was conquered by Italy which did irreparable damage to the Imperial system. It HAD been doing pretty well up to then.

There is a "second tier" of states where native institutions were kept at least nominally in place like Tunis and Egypt that did a little better, but even these were problemmatic, as their native rulers were hopelessly tainted by colaboration, but held together due to long histories of organic development as states.

An example of a native polity destroyed by colonialism would be Bornu, which had been a state for 700 years - it was split between France, Britain and Germany. I might also point out that despite all the Western commentary about the failings of Ottoman rule, they did a whole lot better running the Middle East than anyone else has since, including the smug superior Imperial powers.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The only country in the Mid East that wasn't colonized is Turkey. Period.

The rest of what you said is so nonsensical that I really don't want to discuss it anymore. The countries of Africa are the result of arbitrary lines drawn across a map by colonial powers that conquered the continent in frankly genocidal campaigns that ruthlesslty destroyed everything ever built by the natives. While decolonization certainly opened the floodgates to conflict, blaming the problem on DEcolonization is like blaming a rape vicitim for crying after he pulls out of her.

Theres quite a few in the middle east.
It depends what you mean by being part of a empire really.
To Faelin this apparently means being directly conquered so...There's a hell of a lot.


OK then.
Saudi Arabia vs. U.A.E.
Iraq(or Iran if you really must) vs. Kuwait


Whose current problems are not down to its being under British control in the past.
In fact most of the former-colonial places which are having problems (Africa) are doing so because of the enforced rapid process of decolonisation, not the imperial period itself.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I most certainly am NOT a big fan of imperialism, Muslim or otherwise. The Sudan was colonized by Egypt, not a European country, and Egypt proved just as capable of totally f#$%ing the natives as anyone else.

There is a difference between Imperialism and an Empire. I assume you're referring to my positions on the Ottoman Empire - that is completely different. The Ottoman Empire, while created largely through violence, rose in an earlier era. They had absolutely no interest in expanding their territory in the era of imperialism - they refused to take over the Somali coast, the Sudan, or even intervene in Egypt in 1882. And despite the the confusion of the terms Turkish and Ottoman, the empire was not Turkish, and all its elements participated in its government. Arabs served in the highest offices, as did Christians. Hotentots and Indians did not sit in the House of Lords, nor did any of them ever serve as ministers. There were Arab, Kurdish, Albanian, Greek, and Armenian ministers, senators, provincial governors, etc in the Ottoman Empire. Likewise, the Haspburg empire was not colonial, nor was the German Empire (in Europe). The Russian Empire, on the other hand, was, in the case of Central Asia.

I don't see where there is a double standard. Britain's conquests in Africa were brutal, exploitative, pointless, selfish, hypocritical, racist, genocidal, and left a huge mess in its wake, as the empire was held togther purely by force. Native polities, while often not models of political liberalism, could at least have evolved organically instead of having an alien order imposed upon them by force with no thought given to the well-being or development of the ruled.

It amazes me that the actual contemporary example of Iraq does nothing to dampen people's enthusiasm for the "White Man's Burden".

I thought you were a big fan of imperialism. Or is that only when its by Muslims?

To be factual for a moment was it co-operation with imperial rule that proved fatal or the nature of that imperial rule, introducing ideas of democracy and elected power. Since virtually all prior versions were monarchies of some form or another it would be surprising if many had survived. [Other than excepts like the mess that the Mughauls had left India in before 1st the EIC and then Britain took over].

Quit the double standards. There were some very nasty elements in the European colonial period but also a lot that was superior than just about any other period of conquest in human history. Especially when you consider the sheer, almost unparalleled power that they had.

Steve

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

India was better treated because there were 300 million Indians, and Britain didn't have the power to just rule them by force. Also, they were not particularly well treated until the Indian Mutiny, which scared the bejeezus out of them and forced them to restructure their rule. Also, India was an advanced and sophisticated civilization - the immense organizational, technological, and economic advantage that Britain had over Africans didn't exist, so there had to be a degree of negotiation to the relationship.

Just my two cents, but I think India was marginally better treated by the English because in its way, its a somewhat monotheistic country,(from what I understand, its easy to bring up the manifestations of the Hindu gods, and ignore the fact that they do ultimately beleive in one god), with a well developed culture, and a system of laws that had been effective for quite some time.

China however is a vast area with no such cohesion at this time, and a severe case of Xenophobia. And there's no reason they shouldn't feel like that, they've been self-sufficient for a long time, and really don't need anything that Europe has to offer, except for weapons to fight Europeans.

Its not like China sent ships to Europe begging for commercial priveledges. Who really instigated this? Same goes for India. JMO

 

[Smaug]

India was better treated because there were 300 million Indians, and Britain didn't have the power to just rule them by force. Also, they were not particularly well treated until the Indian Mutiny, which scared the bejeezus out of them and forced them to restructure their rule. Also, India was an advanced and sophisticated civilization - the immense organizational, technological, and economic advantage that Britain had over Africans didn't exist, so there had to be a degree of negotiation to the relationship.

You sorta reverse quoted me, but hey, I don't care. My point was that some cultures didn't need to be civilized. Some of them were doing just fine.

 

[Faeelin]

China was totally dominated by the Powers, its unity undermined, it's population deliberately hooked on opium, but because their polity wasn't ever totally destroyed like most other places on earth, they rebounded. Mess? They are the fasting growing economy in the world and expected to take their place as a superpower soon.

You know, some one's going to come along and explain why the Chinese government was really in the wrong in the opium war for denying its citizens narcotics.

 

[Smaug]

You know, some one's going to come along and explain why the Chinese government was really in the wrong in the opuim war for denying its citizens narcotics.

That would be a sad thing......I'm guessing it would be an American?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

You sorta reverse quoted me, but hey, I don't care. My point was that some cultures didn't need to be civilized. Some of them were doing just fine.

But I don't think the British viewed India as a high civilization. I think the immensity of the place had more to do with it than religion and civilization.

Zanzibar was a pretty sophisticated place, but that didn't save it from total destruction, because it had a very small population.

 

[Darkling]

No, because the Japanese extensively promoted agriculture in Taiwan by improving infrastructure, providing rural credit, and new strains of crops, and did the same thing in Korea.

Britain invested massively in opening up new land in India by building irrigation.

South Korea vs. India vs. Vietnam.

How about North Korea Vs Vietnam.

 

[Max Sinister]

Originally Posted by Max Sinister:
China's too big to be controlled completely by any foreign power.

You could say exactly the same about India.

No, you can't.
China's bigger - 9 million sq km vs. the half (incl. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Birma)
India was split for most of its history into many states which you can conquer one after another - China only was split for short episodes in its history.
India's split in many other ways too - religiously, culturally, and so on. Quite useful if you want to play "divide et impera". China's culturally united.

 

[Faeelin]

Britain invested massively in opening up new land in India by building irrigation.

What was India's growth rate in the 19th century, and what efforts did the British take to provide India's farmers with new crops and credit?

How about North Korea Vs Vietnam.

As North Korea was occupied by Soviet armies, this may be a special case.

 

[birdy]

What was India's growth rate in the 19th century, and what efforts did the British take to provide India's farmers with new crops and credit?






quote]

How the bloody hell is someone supposed to find out that.

anway why is Japanese imperalism now better then anyone else- they treated Koreans as second class citizens, segregated them from Japanese, even now third generation Koreans in Japan are seen as foreign citizens.

 

[Faeelin]

How the bloody hell is someone supposed to find out that.

I believe this sort of information is kept in bound packets of paper which are related to particular topics.

Hrmm. That wasn't as witty as I would've liked.

anway why is Japanese imperalism now better then anyone else- they treated Koreans as second class citizens, segregated them from Japanese, even now third generation Koreans in Japan are seen as foreign citizens.

Treating its subjects like 2nd class citizens? Man, it's a good thing the British never did that!

 

[birdy]

Malaysia is just recently not a mess, because they turned out to have oil.

And how on God's Green Earth do you classifty IRELAND as a COLONIZER?!?!?!?!?!? They were conquered and ruled by the British! It's STILL a mess in N. Ireland because of that.

.

Malaysia wasnt a mess til recently. there were the only British Crown Colony that didnt require subsidies from Britain due to their exports. The Communist Insurgency was not nearly as bad as other countries and even before their recent growth in prosperity, i think they were still reasonably well off and stable compared to other countries.

As to Ireland, i suspect Leej is referring to fact that Ireland was part of the UK, not a colony during the age of imperialism- and Irish men formed a huge part of the British Army overseas, also Irish people went to Australia/Canada doing, treating the natives however others treated them, whether good or bad.

I'm Half Irish with immediate family members who are really into it, but i dont belive all this about British oppresing the Irish, there were atrocities commited during the conquest- but its history and everyone did it then to everyone else- also Abdul, you say the Ottomon Empire was formed in a different era and doesnt count- well the British conquest of Ireland was in a completly different era too.

an other thing to consider is being oppresed as become a part of Irish culture to the extent its encourgaed, my own family has a story of a priest hanged by the british for a crime he didnt commit, and a book on the famine i just read has at the end, a canadian Irish critizing historians for saying the Famine wasnt a deliberate attempt at genocide- she didnt say how- just implied 'she knew' it was. same with Cromwell at Drogheda- we were taught at a British school how he forced people into a church and burned them- i belive irish historians dispute that.

as to Norther Ireland, you can either blame the catholics for wanting people to join against their will or the Protestants for keeping Catholics down into the 70's.
or both as i do.

edit- i dont of course mean all Irish Catholics or Protestants.

 

[birdy]

I believe this sort of information is kept in bound packets of paper which are related to particular topics.

Hrmm. That wasn't as witty as I would've liked.



Treating its subjects like 2nd class citizens? Man, it's a good thing the British never did that!

No way am i going to trawl through said packs of bound paper just to see whose country is less deserving of mudslinging.

The british did treat subjects like 2nd class citizens- my question is why is Japan better when it was similar